Releasing inmates, screening staff: U.S. jails and prisons rush to limit virus risks.

Explanation: The coronavirus is invading U.S. jails and prisons, prompting inmate releases, reduced bail requirements and other extraordinary measures as officials rush to avert a potentially disastrous spread of the virus among crowded inmate populations.

In New York City, where at least 29 inmates and 17 staff in the jail system have been infected by the coronavirus, Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Sunday 23 inmates would be released before day’s end and the city would decide within 24 hours  whether to release up to 200 more. He said inmates would be screened to identify those at risk from the virus, which has killed more than 14,000 people across the globe, including 415 in the United States. Officials were still determining how many inmates ultimately should be let out of the city’s 11 jails, who will be eligible and how they will be supervised. “It’s very thorny,” de Blasio told a news conference. City residents need to “have relative comfort” that people who are released are unlikely to commit a “serious crime,” he added. New York City’s Board of Corrections, an independent oversight body, has called on the mayor to release around 2,000 inmates who were severely sick, held on low-level offenses or jailed for parole violations. “It’s the right number to make it work,” board member Dr. Robert Cohen told Reuters. New York City’s jail system is among relatively few that have announced confirmed cases of the coronavirus among inmates or staff. But other jails nationwide are moving to reduce inmate populations before it arrives. In Oklahoma City, the Oklahoma County Jail is working with judges and district attorneys to secure court orders for the release of inmates held on minor misdemeanors and considered minimal security risks. Though the jail has no confirmed coronavirus cases among its 1,500 inmates, the goal is “to get out as many people as possible, keeping in mind the safety of the public,” said spokesman Mark Myers. Jails typically hold people for relatively short periods as they await trial and have more flexibility to reduce populations than state or federal prisons, whose inmates have been convicted and sentenced. While many state prisons have announced steps to limit the spread of the virus such as banning visitors, they generally require a court order to release inmates. Federal prisons face similar restrictions, although President Donald Trump said on Sunday that he would consider an executive order to release “totally nonviolent prisoners” from those facilities. As the virus spreads, both jails and prisons share a fundamental problem: how to safeguard a captive population that includes large numbers of people with underlying medical problems. When infections take hold, “it’s a problem for the public,” said Marc Stern, former medical director for the Washington State Department of Corrections and a faculty member at the University of Washington’s School of Public Health. When inmates get sick, “it can spread outside facilities, through officers and staff, to families and the community,” said Stern, who is advising the National Sheriffs’ Association on how jails should manage the coronavirus outbreak. And because inmates are more likely to have chronic medical conditions, such as diabetes and asthma, those who get sick “have a higher chance of needing hospitalization, which is going to use up hospital beds and other scarce resources for the community.”  California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported on Saturday that at least three employees have COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, but no inmate infections have been confirmed. Like several other state prison systems, the department is medically screening personnel who enter its facilities. It also is requiring 14-day quarantines for all inmates arriving from county jails, it said. The United States has more people behind bars than any other nation, a total incarcerated population of nearly 2.3 million as of 2017, including nearly 1.5 million in state and federal prisons and another 745,000 in local jails, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Many experts see county and municipal jails as the more pressing concern because their populations are more fluid, so they pose more risk of transmitting the virus both in the jail and the community. Reducing their populations not only limits the number of inmates and staff at risk of contracting the illness, it also enhances their ability to separate the remaining inmates, a crucial step for containing any outbreak, said Michele Deitch, a corrections expert at the University of Texas’ Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. In Utah, the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office has worked with local courts, prosecutors and public defenders to release 81 “non-violent prisoners” with a promise to appear in court at a later date, said Sergeant Carrie Fisher, the office’s spokeswoman. Other jurisdictions are trying to reduce inmate populations by stemming the influx of new arrivals. Last week, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva said the county had taken steps since late February to reduce the jail’s population by 617 inmates. This was done by releasing inmates with less than 30 days on their sentences and by changing bail requirement policies used to determine which arrestees would get a citation versus being booked into custody, he said. The challenge is to move quickly, experts say, because most jails haven’t planned for such a fast-moving medical crisis. “You could still get a lot of people out,” said Jacob Kang-Brown, a senior researcher at the Vera Institute of Justice, where he studies ways to reduce incarcerated populations.


Five minutes in the green can boost self esteem.

Explanation: Just five minutes of exercise a day in the great outdoors can improve mental health, according to a study released on Saturday, and policymakers should encourage more people to spend time in parks and gardens.

Researchers from the University of Essex found that as little as five minutes of a “green activity” such as walking, gardening, cycling or farming can boost mood and self esteem. “We believe that there would be a large potential benefit to individuals, society and to the costs of the health service if all groups of people were to self-medicate more with green exercise,” Barton said in a statement about the study, which was published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. Many studies have shown that outdoor exercise can reduce the risk of mental illness and improve a sense of well-being, but Jules Pretty and Jo Barton, who led this study, said that until now no one knew how much time needed to be spent on green exercise for the benefits to show. Barton and Pretty looked at data from 1,252 people of different ages, genders and mental health status taken from 10 existing studies in Britain. They analyzed activities such as walking, gardening, cycling, fishing, boating, horse-riding and farming. They found that the greatest health changes occurred in the young and the mentally ill, although people of all ages and social groups benefited. The largest positive effect on self-esteem came from a five-minute dose of “green exercise.”   All natural environments were beneficial, including parks in towns or cities, they said, but green areas with water appeared to have a more positive effect.


Pediatrics group backs bill to allow minors to seek vaccines.

Explanation: The New York chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics expressed support Tuesday for state legislation that would allow minors to get vaccinated without parental consent.

Albany, Immunizations, American Academy of Pediatrics, New York, Legislation, Health, Liz Krueger

Assemblywoman Patricia Fahy, of Albany, and Sen. Liz Krueger, of Manhattan, recently introduced a bill that would authorize anyone 14 or older to get immunizations even if their parents object. The two Democrats say too many parents believe unsupported online claims that vaccines are unsafe. The three New York chapters of the academy support the bill, saying young people often are better at discerning false information on the internet. “New York has long recognized that for decision making in health care, in terms of reproductive health care, mental health, substance abuse and emergency services, often adolescents and young adults have a clearer grasp of what kinds of health care decisions make the most sense for them,” they said in a statement Tuesday. The chapters, representing about 5,000 pediatricians statewide, also said: “These young people have a right to protect themselves from diseases that can easily be prevented by immunizations.” The New York Times reported the legislation’s introduction comes amid reported measles outbreaks among Orthodox Jewish communities in Brooklyn and Rockland County. In such communities, vaccination rates can typically lag well behind the rates in other places. Fahy told the Times that too many people have become “complacent” regarding vaccinations. “It’s not just the individual who is at risk when they are not immunized,” she said. “You are putting other people at risk.” The New York legislation was introduced three days after an Ohio teen testified before Congress about how he defied his mother’s anti-vaccine beliefs that he believed were fueled by online conspiracy theories. Ethan Lindenberger, who told federal lawmakers that he got his shots when he turned 18, said more must be done to combat fraudulent claims about vaccine safety. Multiple studies have debunked claims that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations increase the risk for autism. Several states, including Oregon and South Carolina, allow minors to ask for vaccinations without parental approval. Some also require minors to be evaluated to determine if they’re mature enough to make that decision. The New York bill wouldn’t require those types of evaluations.


Dutch teen author Noa Pothoven was voluntarily euthanized.

Explanation: If you are experiencing distress, please contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 or visit them online here.

If you are experiencing distress, please contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 or visit online here. In early June 2019, multiple English-language news outlets, from tabloids to ordinarily reliable national news media, reported that Noa Pothoven, a Dutch teenager and author, had ended her life via euthanasia after asking for and acquiring permission to do so from government officials in the Netherlands. The story, while sensational, was not reported accurately. On 5 June 2019, the Levenseindekliniek, or end-of-life clinic, in the Hague had to release a statement to quell such reports: The End-of-Life Clinic is approached from all over the world for a reaction to the death [of] seventeenth-year-old Noa Pothoven. However, due to privacy rules, we cannot make any statements about this. To put an end to incorrect reporting (in foreign media in particular) about the death, we refer to the statement made by friends of Noa this afternoon: Noa Pothoven did not die of euthanasia. To stop her suffering, she has stopped eating and drinking. The Life-End Clinic deals exclusively with euthanasia and does so explicitly within the Dutch legal framework. As the name and statement of the aforementioned clinic imply, the Netherlands does allow euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide under some circumstances, but that did not occur in the case of Pothoven. It is nnclear is why this story was so widely misreported, because the Dutch language newspaper De Gelderlander reported it accurately. De Gelderlander stated on 2 June 2019 that Pothoven’s sister announced the 17-year-old had died. The paper also reported that six months prior, Pothoven had approached the Levenseindekliniek without her parents’ knowledge and asked if she was eligible for assisted suicide or euthanasia. The answer? “No.” Pothoven was too young, she was reportedly told, and her brain was not fully developed. The source of Pothoven’s anguish was sexual assault: she was raped when she was 11 and 14 years of age, and she suffered from severe psychological disorders including depression and anorexia. Her traumatic journey was made public when she authored a book titled (in English) Winning or Learning. Her last days were spent in a hospital bed in her family’s home saying goodbye to loved ones, according to Dutch news reports. After extensive interventions that included involuntary hospitalization and an induced coma to enable tube-feeding, Pothoven announced in a now-deleted Instagram post that she had made the decision to end her life on her own. Reason monthly magazine observed that the erroneous version of the story resulted in a “strange moral panic” and blank slate upon which “everyone wants to paint their culture war all over.” This is hardly the first time a tragedy originally reported in another language resulted in erroneous or exaggerated news stories in English news media. A questionable story circulated for years on anti-abortion websites claiming that a baby born after a failed abortion was left alone screaming to die. In fact, the tale likely originated with a case in which a baby that could not have survived due to terminal defects was given palliative care at a hospital but was not resuscitated when it died of natural causes.


Explanation: Clinton said that "we are seeing kids who are healthier." She said that in the context of First Lady Obama’s work on nutrition and exercise, and her campaign staff drew our attention to obesity trends. The latest numbers show less obesity for kids 11 and under, but a continued rise for young teens 12 to 17. As for diet, the government’s index for healthy eating has gone up. On the flip side, several measures such as depression, asthma and curtailed activity are moving in the wrong direction. At best, in the areas that lie at the heart of the first lady’s work, the picture is mixed.

National, Children, Public Health, Hillary Clinton,

When Hillary Clinton holds a rally, it’s usually someone else who introduces her. But at an event in Winston-Salem, N.C., on Oct. 27, it was Clinton who teed up the keynoter, Michelle Obama. It was the first time the current first lady has stumped side-by-side with Clinton, and Clinton was effusive in her praise. She noted Obama’s work on behalf of veterans and young women around the world, and she highlighted Obama’s signature campaign, "Let’s Move." "She has worked for healthier childhood for our kids here at home," Clinton said. "Better nutrition, more exercise and we are seeing the results. We are seeing kids who are healthier." Are America’s kids healthier? We decided to check that out. The first thing to note is that there is no single agreed-upon measure for children’s health. The Clinton campaign pointed us to material on obesity. That’s one yardstick, and while there are some signs of improvement, so far they are limited. The latest government data show that the country has made headway among kids 11 and under, but not among older children. Obesity researcher Ashleley Cockrell Skinner at the Duke University Medical School assessed the data cautiously. "We aren’t seeing significant reductions, but there are not continued increases, especially among young children," Skinner said. The first lady has pushed for healthier eating habits, and there’s encouraging news on that front. The government has the Healthy Eating Index. It measures what people eat against the federal dietary guidelines, as in, are we eating our fruits and vegetables, the right amount of whole grains, and so on. The higher the index, the better. For children 2-17, the index has gone up from 49.5 in 2005-06 to 55.1 in 2011-12. That’s good, but Skinner said that while better diet is important, she’s "not convinced that improving nutrition alone will improve obesity rates." And in any event, Skinner said it would take a long time to see any effect on obesity nationally. By other measures, especially ones that fall outside of Michelle Obama’s work, the trends are negative. We looked at the work of the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, a body that dates back to the Clinton administration. The forum posts a number of benchmarks. For adolescent depression, the percentage of youth ages 12–17 who had at least one major depressive episode in the past year rose from 9 percent in 2004 to 11.4 percent in 2014. The fraction of kids 5-17 who had their activities limited due to a chronic condition went from 7 percent in 2000 to 9.3 percent in 2014. Asthma for all children 17 and under increased slightly from 12.3 percent in 2000 to 13.5 percent in 2014, although that could be due to better reporting of the disease. On the other hand, because there is no single measure of children’s health, some researchers see longer term gains. Janet Currie is director of the Center for Health and Wellbeing at Princeton University. Currie looks back to how things stood in 1990. "There have been dramatic reductions in mortality rates among all children," Currie said. "The declines are even greater among poor children than among non-poor children, so that inequality in mortality has declined." Currie also noted that drug and alcohol abuse is down, as is the teen pregnancy rate. Our ruling Clinton said that "we are seeing kids who are healthier." She said that in the context of First Lady Obama’s work on nutrition and exercise, and her campaign staff drew our attention to obesity trends. The latest numbers show less obesity for kids 11 and under, but a continued rise for young teens 12 to 17. As for diet, the government’s index for healthy eating has gone up. On the flip side, several measures such as depression, asthma and curtailed activity are moving in the wrong direction.


New Study Published on Cover of Urology Finds that Decipher® Prostate Cancer Classifier Reduces Conflicting Treatment Recommendations between Urologists and Radiation Oncologists

Explanation: In this news release, we’re introduced to a world of confusion among doctors about what to do with a man after they remove his cancerous, walnut-sized prostate gland. And the release offers something that can allegedly reduce that confusion: GenomeDx Biosciences’ Decipher, a test that sniffs out 22 different genetic signals of how a cancer case might play out. Next we’re told about the struggle between urologists and radiation oncologists. The former group is less likely than the latter to prescribe “adjuvant therapy,” typically radiation, after removing a prostate gland. Missing high-risk cancer cases and not treating them is a problem, of course, but so is treating men who probably don’t need it. (Although we’re never really told why that’s an issue.) According to the release, Decipher has the ability to change the minds of both urologists (45%) and radiation oncologists (35%), and get more of them to agree what or what not to do with a patient after removal of his cancerous prostate gland. That’s potentially an important advance, but we aren’t provided with crucial context — notably that it’s unclear if the decisions made because of Decipher were actually better decisions that would lead to a reduction in prostate cancer deaths. We’re also never cautioned about the small size of the study, given cost information about the test, or told about potential harms. Among cancers in men, prostate cancer is the second-most common – about 1 in 5 men in the U.S. will get a diagnosis in their lifetimes. It’s also the second-most deadly: Of the more than 200,000 men diagnosed each year in the U.S., nearly 30,000 die. (At least twice as many more black men succumb to prostate cancer as other ethnic groups.) Testing prostate cancer for how likely it is to grow quickly and migrate (metastasize) might save a lot of men from unnecessary follow-up treatments and unwanted side effects. So, a reliable tool to help clinicians make informed choices – and with a consensus of opinion among the doctors a patient sees – stands to help everyone while reducing costs associated with prostate cancer.

industry/commercial news releases,Prostate cancer

There isn’t a dollar sign in this release, and we could find no reliable figure for how much each Decipher test costs. (A New York Times article suggests similar genomic tests for prostate cancer cost roughly $3,000, if not more.) We’ve reached out to the company’s PR agency for an average per-test cost, but haven’t received a response in time for the publication of this review. The release states that, according to the latest study, Decipher has the ability to change the minds of both urologists (45%) and radiation oncologists (35%), and get more of them to agree what or what not to do with a patient after removal of his cancerous prostate gland. We’ll give the release credit here for quantifying the main findings of the study. But we’d note that there was potential to go deeper. We’re never told how many patients have issues with recurrent cancer or metastasis. (The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services suggests about 40,000 men each year face a high risk.) We also aren’t told how effective radiation or other therapies are after a prostatectomy, nor how effective Decipher might be in saving lives. Most of the clinical trials cited in the article mention only reductions in biochemical progression–a surrogate endpoint. Most of what’s found in the release are rather general statements from doctors who have financial relationships with GenomeDx Biosciences, e.g. “it helped ensure that the ones selected for adjuvant therapy are the ones most likely to benefit from it.” The release doesn’t explain what sorts of risks a patient faces from radiation, hormone, and other “adjuvant” therapies after surgery, and avoiding these seems to be a key point of the Decipher test. We also don’t get any words on how reliable the test actually test is and how often it might return inaccurate results, which is its own kind of risk. The release lacked context on important study limitations, particularly the small sample size of clinicians (only 20 urologists and 26 radiation oncologists) and the small number of patient cases (only 11). We also don’t know how experienced/representative the clinicians are in their specialties, or whether results among academics differed from community practices. The study comments on some of this in its conclusion section, and it would have helped to see something like it in the release: “The sample size of this study is modest, and so additional validation studies are needed to determine the generalizability of the results over a wide range of patient cases and clinicians with varying degrees of expertise.” There’s nothing dramatic or overblown in this release. GenomeDx Biosciences funded the research. The company’s name appears 14 times in the release and its product shows up 29 times. But while the study itself makes detailed and explicit disclosures about funding and potential conflicts of interest (some of the researchers are employees of the company), the news release doesn’t. That’s unfortunate. Prostate cancer is very prevalent, Medicare can cover the cost of a Decipher test, and about half of men who get prostate cancer are covered by Medicare — so GenomeDx Biosciences has a lot to gain from more widespread use of its product. We’re not told if there are any alternatives. Even if Decipher stands alone as a post-operative test, that’s critical information. In the study itself, the authors did provide clinicians with information about risk groups, PSA, and extensive information about the pathology of the cancer. Studies (and guidelines) have used these parameters to guide treatment–it would be useful to know whether the initial decisions followed accepted practice. If not, then clinician education might be a more (cost) effective intervention than providing results from an expensive test. We’re told Decipher is commercially available and that Medicare can pay for the test. A bit of boilerplate text toward the end of the release gets at novelty with this statement: “Decipher generates a risk result that is completely independent and distinct from PSA, Gleason score and other clinical risk factors. Clinical studies from leading cancer centers published in over a dozen medical journals demonstrate that Decipher can accurately predict metastatic disease, which men may benefit from radiation therapy following prostate surgery, and can lead to significant cost-savings for healthcare systems.” That’s good enough for Satisfactory rating, although we caution again that the amount of independent value added from Decipher is unclear. We found no charged or dramatic language. On the contrary, the entire release is pretty staid.


Human virus linked to mountain gorilla deaths.

Explanation: A virus that causes respiratory disease in humans has been linked to the deaths of critically endangered mountain gorillas in east Africa, a U.S. veterinary research group said Wednesday.

Tissue samples from two gorillas that died in the forests of northern Rwanda in 2009 were infected with the human metapneumovirus (HMPV) virus, according to The Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project. The research also found that the frequency and severity of respiratory disease outbreaks among mountain gorillas straddling Uganda, Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo was increasing. “We report conclusive evidence for association of a human virus with death in mountain gorillas. Viral RNA in multiple tissue samples from the adult female indicates that she was infected by an HMPV strain at the time of her death,” it said. With a total known world population of 786, the gorillas are one of the region’s biggest tourist attractions. Visitors pay hundreds of dollars to trek through dense forest and get within meters of the great apes. Their numbers have risen by more than a quarter in the last seven years, a sign conservation efforts are paying off although perhaps at a cost. “Although human proximity to mountain gorillas is essential for their conservation, also crucial is minimizing the risk for human-to-great ape transmission of respiratory pathogens,” the report said. “Because there are fewer than 800 living mountain gorillas, each individual is critically important to the survival of their species,” the project’s executive director Mike Cranfield said.


Policies that legalize recreational marijuana exacerbate America’s opioid addiction epidemic.

Explanation: However, as noted in the the National Academies of Sciences review, the recent adoption of recreational marijuana laws and therefore the dearth of high quality studies make it impossible (at this time) to fully reject a connection between recreational pot and opioid addiction.

Politics, marijuana, opioids, sean spicer

On 23 February 2017, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, in response to a question about the Trump Administration’s policy regarding states that have legalized marijuana in defiance of federal law, suggested that there would likely be greater enforcement of recreational cannabis in coming years. To defend this claim, he cited America’s opioid addiction crisis as a reason the government should not “encourage” people to do drugs: There’s a big difference between [medical] and recreational marijuana. And I think that when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people. There’s still a federal law that we need to abide by when it comes to recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature. Implicit in this statement is the claim that recreational marijuana will lead individuals to other, harder drugs, in this case a class of prescription painkillers called opioids that are closely related to heroin. That the United States is suffering through a serious crisis with opioid addiction and overdose is well accepted by the federal government. From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Drug overdose deaths and opioid-involved deaths continue to increase in the United States. The majority of drug overdose deaths (more than six out of ten) involve an opioid. Since 1999, the number of overdose deaths involving opioids (including prescription opioids and heroin) quadrupled. From 2000 to 2015 more than half a million people died from drug overdoses. 91 Americans die every day from an opioid overdose. We now know that overdoses from prescription opioids are a driving factor in the 15-year increase in opioid overdose deaths. Since 1999, the amount of prescription opioids sold in the U.S. nearly quadrupled, yet there has not been an overall change in the amount of pain that Americans report. Deaths from prescription opioids — drugs like oxycodone, hydrocodone, and methadone — have more than quadrupled since 1999. While these drugs can be both addictive and deadly in their own right, numerous studies have demonstrated an association between non-medical (i.e. recreational) prescription drug use and illicit drug use such as heroin, which has similar chemical properties to opioids: From 2002–2013, past month heroin use, past year heroin use, and heroin addiction have all increased among 18-25 year olds. The number of people who started to use heroin in the past year is also trending up. Among new heroin users, approximately three out of four report abusing prescription opioids prior to using heroin. The cause of this epidemic is not controversial — researchers almost universally attribute it to legal prescriptions from medical doctors that are either used by a patient legally, or illicitly diverted from a doctor to another individual. A 2016 review in the New England Journal of Medicine is unequivocal on this point: Two major facts can no longer be questioned. First, opioid analgesics are widely diverted and improperly used, and the widespread use of the drugs has resulted in a national epidemic of opioid overdose deaths and addictions. More than a third (37%) of the 44,000 drug-overdose deaths that were reported in 2013 (the most recent year for which estimates are available) were attributable to pharmaceutical opioids; heroin accounted for an additional 19%. At the same time, there has been a parallel increase in the rate of opioid addiction, affecting approximately 2.5 million adults in 2014. Second, the major source of diverted opioids is physician prescriptions. The increase in opioid painkillers prescriptions stems, most argue, from an increased demand for better pain medication in the early 1990s, a campaign that misrepresented their danger, and heavy marketing and drug development by pharmaceutical companies. Liberalization of cannabis policy, one will note, is not mentioned as a driving force behind the opioid crisis. Perhaps just as pernicious as the falsehood implicit in Spicer’s press conference regarding the potential link between cannabis and opioids is his omission (or ignorance) of the fact that studies increasingly suggest that cannabis legalization results in a reduction of opioid overdoses. The most exhaustive study on this topic, published in JAMA Internal Medicine in October 2014, analyzed the cause of death data from all states between 1999 and 2010, including states that had legalized medical marijuana during that period. These researchers found that states with medical marijuana programs had fewer opioid related deaths, and that these decreases happened in concert with marijuana reform: States with medical cannabis laws had a 24.8% lower mean annual opioid overdose mortality rate compared with states without medical cannabis laws. Examination of the association between medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality in each year after implementation of the law showed that such laws were associated with a lower rate of overdose mortality that generally strengthened over time. The data predates the legalization of recreational marijuana in any state, and therefore cannot test the relationship to full legalization — a distinction that Spicer did make in the press conference. It is unclear, however, if this distinction holds any relevance to the opioid epidemic. In January 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine released a comprehensive review of academic studies concerning cannabis use published since 1999. Importantly, they found no individual study or credible meta-review linking cannabis use to increased opioid use. While the concept of marijuana as a “gateway drug” remains controversial, there is a near-universal agreement that the opioid crisis was caused by an influx of legal prescription painkillers and is thus unrelated to marijuana use. Spicer A) would be therefore hard-pressed to find evidence to support his implied connection between recreational cannabis and opioid addiction, and B) would have to find a way to get around an increasing number of studies suggesting that less strict marijuana laws result in fewer opioid deaths.


Hilary Rosen Says Chris Christie "vetoed Planned Parenthood funding five times over the course of his governorship.

Abortion, Women, PunditFact, Hilary Rosen,

Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen isn’t buying all the talk about newly re-elected New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie being a moderate Republican. In a roundtable discussion on CNN’s State of the Union, Rosen painted Christie as out of touch when it comes to women’s reproductive issues. "Women consistently bring Democrats over the top in these purple states," Rosen said during the Nov. 10 show. "When you look at Chris Christie and you try and take that forward, you’ve got an anti-choice candidate who has vetoed Planned Parenthood funding five times over the course of his governorship." With four budgets under his belt, did Christie really veto money for Planned Parenthood five times? Rosen tweeted us a story from LifeNews.com, which opposes abortions, and a (Newark) Star-Ledger newspaper editorial that referenced five vetoes. We looked into it ourselves and found Christie has used his executive power several times to deny funding for family planning clinics, including but not exclusively limited to Planned Parenthood. As a result of the cuts at least six clinics have closed, including two affiliated with Planned Parenthood, our colleagues at PolitiFact New Jersey found. The vetoes have been a real sore spot between the governor and the Democrat-led Legislature since Christie took office. So how many were there exactly? It depends on how you count them. We compiled a timeline using clips from the Star-Ledger and interviews with Planned Parenthood representatives. We could not reach a Christie spokesperson by our deadline. In March 2010, Christie proposed his first budget recommendations amid a $10 billion shortfall with across-the-board cuts, including an $820 million cut for schools. This budget, which outlined Christie’s priorities but still needed approval from the Democratic legislators, also included the elimination of $7.5 million for "family planning services." Legislators then responded by passing a bill to add that funding back in the budget. But Christie struck back. On June 23, 2010, Christie vetoed SB 2139, which aimed to restore $7.5 million in grants for the state’s 58 women’s health and family planning centers, including Planned Parenthood. In his veto letter, Christie cited the state’s budget bind and the existence of other clinics that could perform these services. "Reproductive health services will continue to be available in each of New Jersey’s 21 counties, including Planned Parenthood clinics, local health department clinics, free standing clinics and hospital-based clinics," he wrote. "Nearly 95,000 women will still receive care through these family planning sites." The Legislature tried again the next year. Again Christie said no. Christie vetoed $7.5 million for the family planning centers in the 2011-12 state budget. Same story in 2012. The Legislature passed a supplemental bill, AB 788, to restore the money for family planning centers, but Christie vetoed it. Lastly, on June 29, 2013, Christie vetoed a measure, SB 2825, from Democrats that again tried to restore the $7.5 million for family planning services. That's four clear vetoes, plus the original cut. Additionally, in 2011 and again in 2013, Christie vetoed proposals to expand the state's Medicaid program to cover family planning services for people who earn up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Services would have included things such as birth control and cervical exams but not abortion, according to the Star-Ledger. The Medicaid expansion would not have directly provided money for Planned Parenthood, but it "would have provided a new revenue stream to allow Planned Parenthood health centers to see additional patients and offer additional services, said Ed Remsen, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of New Jersey. So that could be two additional vetoes, depending on how you count it. Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life, pointed out that Christie has maintained funding for other health services and that he defeated a female candidate who made this an issue, suggesting that Rosen’s theory about women not liking Christie rings hollow. Our ruling Rosen said Christie "vetoed Planned Parenthood funding five times over the course of his governorship." Rosen is largely correct, though different people might come to a different figure. We rate her claim .


Program Cut Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections

Explanation: HealthDay highlights a national effort to help reduce an uncomfortable and costly problem: hospital-acquired urinary tract infections (UTIs), and specifically those caused by indwelling catheters. These devices are tubes that snake up the urethra into a person’s bladder, are anchored there with an inflatable balloon, and continuously drain a patient’s urine. HealthDay nicely captures the scope of the problem, noting that one in five hospital patients are catheterized, and that, of these, 20% are bound to get a UTI. Looking at a typical year, this adds up to about 250,000 hospital-acquired UTIs and roughly $250 million in healthcare costs. The story included quotes from Dr. Sanjay Saint, the lead author of the new study, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The story breaks down his team’s effort to attack catheter-caused UTIs with a program called “Stop CAUTI,” which is a government-sponsored training toolkit to not only reduce indwelling catheterization rates, but also help caretakers use better technique when they have to insert the devices. The results, as HealthDay explains them? It’s not clear; we’re not given many quantified benefits or study details, and the results that are included happen to conflict with each other. Also missing was a discussion around limitations of the research. Indwelling catheters are very common sights at hospitals, since nurses can insert them once and they rarely slip out (a balloon at the end holds them in place). However, about 75% of UTIs are caused by such catheters, according to the CDC, and more than two-thirds of those infections are thought to be avoidable — both through better caretaker training and by avoiding the use of indwelling catheters. Given the suffering and cost, any program that could decrease the rate of such infections, especially one without any new medical devices — just training sessions and use of alternative, short-term catheterization — would be welcomed by patients, hospitals, insurance companies, and taxpayers alike.

We’re told that, each year, catheters in hospitals cause 250,000 infections and cost $250 million to treat. That’s important to note and we’re glad it was included. However, the story didn’t tell us how much the intervention costs to implement. But, because this is an intervention that doesn’t have direct consumer costs (unlike, say, a new cancer drug or surgery), we’ll rate this is as N/A. The story attempted to quantify the benefits but missed the mark. What was missing: The chief way to quantify the benefits of such an intervention is to explain, in absolute numbers, how much the infection rate dropped. This can be expressed in terms of “1,000 catheter-days.” In this case, the rate was reduced from 2.28 to 1.54 infections per 1,000 catheter-days in the non-ICU patients. This is a 32% reduction. Use of the catheters themselves was also reduced by the program (which was one of the goals), from 20.1% to 18.8% (1.3% total reduction). Harms aren’t discussed in this story, but improved caretaker education on when and when not to use a catheter, and how to insert one while reducing the risk of infection, doesn’t seem to warrant it. Although there may be some harms from this “bundle,” the study itself was not set up to look for them. We’re not convinced the reader gets a clear enough picture of the study’s strengths and weaknesses. For example, the story didn’t let readers know how many people were enrolled in the study, nor did it point out the lack of a control group, an important limitation in research on quality improvement. We didn’t find any frightening language or graphic depictions of UTIs that would unnecessarily alarm a reader. The writer included comments from Dr. Huang, an editorial writer in NEJM, which suffices as an independent source. But, we’re not told that Dr. Saint — the lead author — is a paid advisory board member for the health services companies Doximity and Jvion. This was probably worth mentioning, since Jvion sells a data product to hospitals “that looks at the patient population and predicts the risk of an illness or condition before symptoms occur” so that “providers are better able to stop hospital acquired conditions, prevent patient suffering and deterioration, target population health activities, and save resources.” The alternative is the status quo, which is discussed in terms of its problems. We’re told the procedure is in use at 600 hospitals, though it would have helped to note they’re spread across 32 states, plus Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico. It could have been made clearer that any hospital can use this safety bundle now that the methods are published widely. The “Stop CAUTI” program has been around for years, but it’s implied that hundreds of hospitals have never implemented it before in a systematic way. The scale and duration of the study makes this novel and worth covering. The story included original quotes, presumably from an interview with Dr. Sanjay Saint. While it does extensively quote a NEJM editorial, those views help put the study and its limitations — e.g. no effect on ICUs, where reducing UTIs could do the most to save lives and reduce suffering — into plain view.


New Mexico land boss concerned about border wall work.

Explanation: The head of one of New Mexico’s most powerful statewide offices is raising concerns about the lack of an environmental review as the U.S. government prepares to replace fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border in two counties.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration, Border security, Environment, New Mexico, United States

State Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard delivered her comments to U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Wednesday as Democratic members of New Mexico’s congressional delegation pushed for a public comment period on the plan to be extended. Erecting taller barriers along the border is one of the hot-button issues fueling the contentious debate over how the United States should boost border security and overhaul its troubled immigration system. Congress for years has struggled to pass any comprehensive reform. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security in April issued waivers to environmental laws to clear the way for border wall work in New Mexico and Arizona. The state of California and environmental groups tried to block similar work near San Diego and Calexico but a federal appeals court ruled in February that the Trump administration did not exceed its powers by waiving the environmental rules to speed construction. As part of President Donald Trump’s plan, the government is preparing to replace existing waist-high vehicle barriers with metal bollards along 31 miles (50 kilometers) of the border in Luna County. Another 15 miles (24 kilometers) of taller fencing is planned in Dona Ana County. Garcia Richard, a Democrat, said her agency hasn’t received any inquiries from federal officials regarding rights of way permits or easements that would be required for accessing state trust lands adjacent to proposed construction areas. Saying the Trump administration is obsessed with the idea of a border wall, Garcia Richard suggested that gathering public comment was only symbolic and that little information has been released on how the construction will proceed. “We cannot know the exact impact that this proposal would have on state trust land,” she wrote. “This border project does not come close to meeting even the lowest bar for sustainable land management.” The State Land Office said some of the areas where the work is planned are about 60 feet from state trust land, and extensive digging, trenching and truck traffic is likely. Officials are concerned about air quality as well as damage to surrounding soil and vegetation. The agency also contends that while Customs and Border Protection has agreed to be responsible for environmental planning around the project, there’s no publicly available documentation that federal officials have engaged in environmental planning.


Monarch butterflies are becoming extinct" because of increased use of crops genetically modified to withstand pesticides.

Environment, Agriculture, National, Animals, Food Safety, Public Health, Peter DeFazio,

Monarch butterflies are an unexpected victim of the widespread adoption of genetically modified crops, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said last week. A genetically modified organism has had its DNA altered in a way that does not occur in nature. One purpose is to increase the plants’ tolerance to pesticides and herbicides. Opponents of GMOs, as they are called, believe they pose health risks, though there’s no generally accepted science that says GMO products are harmful to health. Environmental impacts, however, are the focus of DeFazio’s claim. DeFazio is an advocate for policies that would require food labels to indicate if the product was made with genetically modified crops. In an appearance on MSNBC with celebrity chef Tom Colicchio on Feb. 12, DeFazio said GMO crops are harmful to nature. "We certainly know there is going to be secondary harm to the environment," he said. "In fact, monarch butterflies are becoming extinct because of this sort of dumping, (the) huge increase in pesticides’ use because of these modified organisms." We decided to take a closer look at the effect of GMOs on the iconic orange and black butterflies. There’s little doubt that the monarch population is on the decline, but experts say that the adoption of genetically modified crops is not the sole factor. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the monarch population has dropped 90 percent over the past 20 years. Every winter, monarch butterflies migrate from the Midwestern United States corn-belt region to the Oyamel fir forests in Mexico. This chart from Monarch Watch, a conservation group, shows the steep population change, in terms of the total area occupied by monarchs during their winter stay in Mexico:  The evidence suggests that DeFazio exaggerated when he said monarchs are "becoming extinct." The World Wildlife Fund classifies them as "near threatened," which means they are "likely to become endangered in the near future." That classification is several steps away from extinct. And conservation experts told us that they are optimistic that the monarch population can be at least partially restored if the right steps are taken. "Monarchs are not in danger of extinction," said Lincoln Brower, a monarch conservation scientist at Sweet Briar College. "What is endangered is their spectacular migration and overwintering behavior." Still, even if they are not on the verge of extinction, monarchs are certainly on the decline, at least for now. Why? Several reasons are evident, including deforestation in Mexico, recent weather patterns and reduced availability of milkweed, the butterflies’ main food source. The deforestation stems from illegal logging in Mexico. It has reduced the areas where monarchs can migrate, affecting their lifecycle. However, the Mexican government has largely curtailed the problem in the past five years, Brower said. As far as weather, a serious drought in Texas a couple years ago reduced the amount of flowers along the monarchs’ migration route. This is a problem because, in order to survive the migration, the butterflies need to pick up nectar along the way. And in 2014, an extra-long winter prevented monarchs from migrating successfully back to the United States from Mexico, Brower told the Washington Post. By far the biggest threat, though, is the lowered prevalence of milkweed, due to the increasing use of GMO crops that can withstand a heavy dose of herbicides, Brower said. Milkweed grows in and around crops such as corn and soybeans that are heavily concentrated in the U.S. Midwest. This is the monarch’s spring, summer and fall habitat, and milkweed serves as both the species’ primary food source and where its larvae grow. The problem is that, unlike the GMO crops in close proximity, the milkweed cannot withstand the herbicides. (Milkweed, like other weeds, can stifle crop yield, so farmers don’t like it.) Brower cautioned that there is not yet certain proof that the expansion of GMO crops is causing milkweed declines. But there is an "extremely tight correlation" among the increased use of herbicide-tolerant crops, fewer milkweed plants and the declining monarch population, he said. A 2012 study in the journal Insect Conservation and Diversity estimated that between 1990 and 2010, milkweed prevalence declined 58 percent in Midwest agricultural areas. Over the same time frame, the Monarch population declined 81 percent. By 2011, 94 percent of soybean crops were genetically engineered to withstand the widely used herbicide Roundup, and 72 percent of corn crops were herbicide-tolerant. Both genetically modified crops were introduced in the mid 1990s. Additionally, a 2007 congressional ethanol mandate increased the price of corn and soybeans, which encouraged farmers to convert grassland -- where milkweed grows -- into cropland, said Chip Taylor, director of Monarch Watch and a professor of ecology at the University of Kansas. Some argue that conservationists and the media have placed too much blame on GMOs for the loss of monarchs, saying correlation does not necessarily mean causation. Andrew Kniss, a weed expert at the University of Wyoming, wrote in a blog post that the Insect Conservation and Diversity study does not specifically examine if the adoption of GMO crops and herbicides are the reason why milkweed is dying out. There could be another cause, he said. To back up his point, Kniss pointed to a study out of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Pennsylvania State University that showed only limited effects of herbicide-tolerant plants -- and the use of herbicides -- on native plant diversity outside the border of the agricultural field. Our ruling DeFazio said that "monarch butterflies are becoming extinct" because of increased use of crops genetically modified to withstand pesticides. The evidence of a connection is suggestive but not conclusive. Monarch populations have been declining alongside a shrinkage in its primary food source -- milkweed -- and the increased use of crops genetically modified to withstand pesticides and herbicides. However, causation has not been established yet, and other culprits -- deforestation and unexpected weather events -- are likely to have played a role as well. Moreover, DeFazio exaggerated when he said that the butterfly species is "becoming extinct." It faces significant challenges, but monarchs remain several steps away from extinction, and many conservationists think the trend can be mitigated. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details.


Chronic wasting disease found in buck on Winona County farm.

Explanation: Animal health officials say routine testing has discovered chronic wasting disease in a 3-year-old white-tailed buck from a Winona County farm.

Animals, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Health, Deer, Minnesota, Animal health

The Minnesota Board of Animal Health said Wednesday it confirmed the results with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The state board already has quarantined the herd and begun its disease investigation. Board officials say they have 10 years of records on the registered herd, which has a good history of chronic wasting disease surveillance. The farm’s current herd inventory is seven adult white-tailed deer. The board will track movements of deer into and out of the herd within the last five years. Chronic wasting disease is fatal to deer and elk, and there are no known treatments or vaccines. Consuming infected meat is not advised.


A video shows a piece of raw chicken meat "twitching" off of a dinner table.

Explanation: What's true: This video appears genuine and shows a freshly cut piece of raw meat spasming. What's undetermined: While it's not entirely clear what type of meat this video shows, it is likely frog, not chicken.

A video supposedly showing a piece of raw meat twitching its way off of a dinner table went viral in July 2019. This video was shared by several different outlets under a variety of captions, but most referred to it as the “zombie chicken” video:  The video first starting circulating on Chinese social media sites such as Weibo around June 2019. When the video reached English outlets about a week later, it was frequently accompanied by jokes about “zombie chicken.” However, when Hong Kong News covered this video on June 17, reporters identified the animal as a recently skinned frog. An early posting from the 笑一笑没烦恼 (Laugh, no worries) Facebook page also identified this “zombie” meat as frog. These sources don’t appear to have any first-hand knowledge of the incident, however, so we should take their claims with a grain of salt, too. Speaking of salt … This video shows an extremely fresh cut of meat. While this animal is certainly dead, it’s neurons are still active and seem to be reacting to sodium ion, a chemical compound that can be found in salt and soy sauce. When the Scientific American looked into a similar video back in 2011, they explained: When a creature dies, its neurons don’t stop working right away. So long as there is still enough energy around to maintain that membrane potential, the neurons will work. What you might have noticed is that in the case of the dancing dead, the cooks have added one key ingredient: salt (soy sauce is very salty). Salt — or sodium chloride — is chock full of sodium ions. This overwhelming dose of sodium ions is enough to trigger the still-working neurons into firing, signaling the muscles to contract. Scientific American was commenting on the following video from 2009. While the reaction in this footage is not as severe, it does show how salt can cause a raw piece of meat to twitch:  An article from Brain Stuff further explained why these dead animals appear to “dance” when salted: As you can see, the chef is preparing frog legs for dinner. He has skinned the frog legs and they are ready to be cooked. When he salts them, the muscles start twitching. The obvious question: why does that happen? Because these are fresh frog legs, the cells inside them are all still intact. The biochemical machinery still functions. There is still a source of energy for the muscles in the form of unused ATP molecules stored in the cells. All that the muscles need is something to activate them and they can still contract and relax (until they run out of ATP or something else shuts down the biochemical machinery)… In a living frog, it is a nerve signal from the brain that tells the muscle to contract. In this case, it is the sodium in the salt. While we have been unable to track down the exact origins of this video, this footage likely was filmed at a restaurant that practices ikizukuri, which is a method of preparing live seafood. This method of preparation is most commonly used with fish, but octopus, shrimp, lobster, and frogs can also be prepared this way. In 2012, a restaurant in Tokyo found itself in the path of protesters after a video showing the making of a live frog sashimi dish went viral. Here’s how Fox News described that video (which can be seen here): In the video, a large frog is stabbed, skinned, gutted and served up on an iced plate with a lemon slice and soy sauce. Though the frog is killed instantly by the chef’s knife, it takes a few agonizing minutes for the frog to stop moving. In those moments, you see the creature’s eyes blinking back at the camera while maudlin music plays in the background, and at points the frog flails its arms and flops around on the dish, while its heart is still beating. Although we can’t confirm many of the details about this “zombie chicken” “zombie frog” video, it certainly falls within the realm of plausibility.


A Michigan farmer was forced to destroy 40,000 edible cherries to make way for cherries imported from outside the U.S.

Explanation: What's true: Michigan cherry farmer Marc Santucci destroyed 14 percent of his 2016 crop due to cherry industry limits on the supply of marketable cherries. What's false: Cherry farmers requested they be covered by a USDA marketing order (it was not imposed on them), the order was implemented to stabilize the volatile cherry market (not to "protect imports"), and farmers are not required to destroy surplus cherries.

Fauxtography, cherries, misleading, outrage

On 26 July 2016, Michigan cherry farmer Marc Santucci shared a post on Facebook asserting that he was forced to destroy 14 percent of his tart cherry crop in order to protect the market for cherries imported from overseas: These cherries are beautiful! But, we have to dump 14% of our tart cherry crop on the ground to rot. Why? So we can allow the import of 200 million pounds of cherries from overseas! It just doesn’t seem right. What do you think? Please share this on your Facebook page???. Just to let everyone know we are not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries. I have people who would buy them if I could sell them. Also these are tart cherries with a very short shelf life Santucci’s post slowly circulated on the social network, attracting the attention of blogs and health-conscious social media users through September 2016. As presented, Santucci’s tale sounded like an unbelievable level of bureaucratic interference with the farm industry and left readers wondering whether his report about having to destroy 40,000 pounds of edible cherries in order to “make room” for imported cherries (and was “not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries”) was accurate. Online articles pinned blame for the cherry-chucking on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), citing a 29 July 2016 Detroit Free Press article about the social media controversy that referenced the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937. The Detroit Free Press article only briefly mentioned the USDA as a starting point for a very complex cherry charter, noting that cherries were originally not regulated under the Agricultural Agreement Act, but the cherry industry opted into its provisions in 1995. The act in question was introduced in 1937 due to tumultuous agricultural conditions that exacerbated the Great Depression and aimed to facilitate “orderly marketing conditions for agricultural commodities in interstate commerce” for the express purpose of stabilizing farmers’ income. Cherry industry experts stressed that the 1995 extension of the regulation to include the tart cherry market was voluntary and had been desired by many cherry farmers: At issue is a marketing order imposed through the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937. But that law only applies to the tart cherry industry because growers and processors opted into the order in 1995. “It was created at the industry’s behest. It was voted in by growers and processors. It’s not an imposition from outside,” said Perry Hedin, executive director of the DeWitt-based Cherry Industry Administrative Board [CIAB], which oversees the marketing order not only in Michigan but in all states across the country that produce commercial crops of red tart cherries, including New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Tart cherries are one of the most volatile crops grown in the U.S., with yields that can vary dramatically year to year, Hedin said. “This whole concept of the marketing order has two goals: to inject a better stability into our markets and improve grower returns,” he said. “The growers have been paid far better prices under the marketing order over the past 20 years than they were before the order was in place.” A 29 July 2016 editorial published  in the Michigan Farm News also addressed what it framed as multiple misrepresentations in Santucci’s viral post, starting with the reason cherry crops were thusly regulated. A horticulture specialist noted that the cherry farmers themselves (not the USDA) had sought market regulation after experiencing damaging price fluctuations: In a classic example of what happens on social media when people form opinions based on emotion instead of fact, a Northwestern Michigan tart cherry grower’s Facebook posting has gone viral, but with faulty information to back up the posting’s claims … The problem, however, said Kevin Robson, horticulture specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau, is that the information posted shows either shallow understanding of the federal marketing order or a deliberate attempt to change the order because of political disagreement. “It’s also enforced by the growers themselves,” he said. “It is for the betterment of the industry as a whole, and a great number of cherry growers have benefited, even those who voted against it.” Administered by the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (CIAB), the order this year required tart cherry processors to keep 29 percent (the farmer’s posting said he was ordered to dump only 14 percent) of the crop they handle off traditional markets (pies, sweetened desserts, etc.) in an attempt to stabilize both prices and supply, which in cherries has been notoriously volatile. “For example,” Reposing said, “in 1988, when the entity was called the Cherry Administrative Board, growers voted to eliminate the marketing order. Prices began to follow a rollercoaster that led, within 10 years, to tart cherry prices that fell into single figures. Some growers went out of business.” In response to prices that were below costs of production, tart cherry growers in seven states petitioned the USDA to put a new order and administrative board in place, and prices began to stabilize. Still, some growers, such as the one who posted the photo of a small pile of cherries, took exception to the order. Generally, the Agricultural Agreement Act ensures relatively stable income for tart cherry farmers in the face of a volatile market, with one of the drawbacks of that stability being that in boom crop years (as 2016 was), farmers may end up with a good deal of product they are precluded from selling on the open market. However, although some outlets claim CIAB heavies visited farms to ensure every cherry lies unchomped, tart cherry farmers have options beyond leaving their surplus crop to “rot in the sun”:  Processors’ options in times of surplus include holding the restricted cherries in surplus — frozen, dried or concentrated — for a later slow year. Farmers also can attempt to sell the surplus cherries in overseas markets or sell them domestically in a newly created market, either as a new product or by convincing a supermarket chain or other end user currently supplied by imported cherries to switch to U.S.-grown, he said. Hedin said Santucci could have worked with the [Cherry Industry Administrative] board to find a place to donate the surplus cherries, which typically aren’t eaten raw like sweet cherries because of their very short shelf-life, but are instead used in products such as pie filling and jams. Likewise, the Michigan Farm News piece stated that: Another misstatement on the Facebook posting, [horticulture specialist Kevin] Robson said, is that growers are not allowed to donate or use the dumped cherries “in any way.” “That’s just not true,” Robson said. “Farmers can use the cherries for research and development, and they could make thousands of cherry pies and donate them to charity if they want. Remember these are tart cherries. They need to be processed — and quickly — to make a viable product. They aren’t sweets that you just eat by the handful.” The Facebook posting wrongly puts the blame for cherry dumping on the marketing order, Robson said, when it is the processor who makes the decision to ask farmers to dump cherries. Santucci himself told Grand Rapids television station WXMI that the dumping of surplus cherries wasn’t expressly mandatory, but their short shelf life makes it difficult to find alternative uses for them: “I was just notified when we started shaking the trees that 14 percent would have to be kept off the market, so it didn’t give me time to find any alternative action,” he said, adding that tart cherries only have a two-day shelf life. It was true that Santucci’s 2016 crop was (as with that of all other cherry growers) subject to a growers’ agreement barring surplus cherries from the marketplace, and Santucci asserted he had insufficient time to properly divert his surplus cherries to other uses or markets. But the agreement under which the tart cherry market is regulated doesn’t mandate surplus cherries be destroyed, nor does the protocol exist to protect foreign imports. Cherry growers in several states voluntarily opted in to a USDA marketing agreement (rather than being forcibly regulated) following a period of instability in the cherry industry, and agriculture experts widely agree the provision provides more protection than harm to cherry growers.


Christine Blasey Ford committed perjury by identifying herself as a 'research psychologist' in her Senate committee testimony.

Explanation: The notion that Dr. Ford's stating her job title while under oath constituted a "lie" or "perjury" is rather far-fetched.

Politics, brett kavanaugh, christine blasey ford, milo yiannopoulos

Since California college professor Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward with sexual assault allegations against President Donald Trump’s second U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, no shortage of rumors and hoaxes has targeted her. One of the many derogatory claims made against Dr. Ford is that she lied when she identified herself as a “research psychologist” during her Senate Judiciary Committee testimony on 27 September 2018. The claim originated with Dangerous.com, a website operated by right wing media personality Milo Yiannopoulos. In an article dated 28 September 2018, the site’s editor-in-chief, Chadwick Moore, reported that Ford “may have told a lie” and “may have perjured herself” when she said she was “a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine” because she didn’t appear to be licensed to practice in California. Thus, Dangerous.com reported, Dr. Ford was in violation of state laws forbidding the false representation of oneself as a psychologist:  Just one sentence into her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford may have told a lie. After thanking members of the committee on Thursday, and while under oath, Ford opened her testimony saying, “My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.” The issue lies with the word “psychologist,” and Ford potentially misrepresenting herself and her credentials, an infraction that is taken very seriously in the psychology field as well as under California law. We found no evidence that Ford lied, perjured herself, or violated California law when she stated her job title. We also asked Moore whether he followed basic journalistic standards in reaching out the California Board of Psychology, consulting an attorney, or attempting to contact Ford’s attorneys before publishing his report but did not receive a response. Ford holds a doctorate in psychology from the University of Southern California, which she received on 20 August 1996. She also earned two master’s degrees: one in 1991 from Pepperdine University in clinical psychology, and the other in 2009 from Stanford University School of Medicine in epidemiology. Aside from her research role at Stanford, she is a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University. But because Moore was unable to find Ford’s name listed on a public database of licensed psychologists in California, he concluded Ford had violated California Business and Professions Code section 2903 (a), which states that “No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.” The code does provide an exemption that would cover Ford as a university researcher, however. California Board of Psychology assistant executive officer Jeffrey Thomas told us that the title “psychologist” is indeed protected, meaning that it is against the law to falsely represent oneself as a psychologist without proper certification. But the law does allow those who work at research institutions to state their professional role so long as they note that it is specific to the facility at which they are employed. Thomas pointed us to California Business and Professions Code section 2909, which reads as follows: This chapter shall not be construed as restricting or preventing activities of a psychological nature or the use of the official title of the position for which they were employed on the part of the following persons, provided those persons are performing those activities as part of the duties for which they were employed, are performing those activities solely within the confines of or under the jurisdiction of the organization in which they are employed, and do not render or offer to render psychological services, as defined in Section 2903: (a) Persons who hold a valid and current credential as a school psychologist issued by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (b) Persons who are employed in positions as psychologists or psychological assistants by accredited or approved colleges, junior colleges, or universities, or by federal, state, county, or municipal governmental organizations that are not primarily involved in the provision of direct health or mental health services, may conduct research and disseminate their research findings and scientific information. Moore noted that Ford’s job title on the web site for Stanford University School of Medicine appeared to have changed from “research psychologist” to “affiliate” at some point after the Kavanaugh controversy broke, adding to his suspicion that she had misrepresented herself. But it’s unclear whether his assumption was true that Stanford “caught the blunder and edited Ford’s faculty page.” (We reached out multiple times to Stanford media relations staff but received no answer.) However, Dr. Ford has been identified as a research psychologist in university literature as far back as 2003 and up to at least 10 September 2018. We have reached out to Ford’s attorneys, Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich, with questions about Ford’s employment status with Stanford, whether she has any clinical licenses in California under a different name or in any other state, or whether they could comment on allegations she “perjured” herself during her Senate committee testimony but have not yet received a response. However, perjury is defined as knowingly making false statements under oath, so it’s unclear how Ford’s relaying of a job title conferred upon her by her employer could possibly meet that criterion. After publication of this article, Dangerous.com erred yet again in attempting to explain away their previous mistake by claiming that California Business and Professions Code Section 2910 applied to Dr. Ford:  Moore also acknowledged Section 2909 in his original report, and pointed to the fact that the overwhelming majority of academics who do work of a psychological nature are not licensed, and this is perfectly fine and legal. But Moore pointed to the following section of the law, Section 2910 of the same Code, which reads, very explicitly, “This chapter shall not be construed to restrict the practice of psychology on the part of persons who are salaried employees of accredited or approved academic institutions, public schools, or governmental agencies, if those employees are complying with the following: (3) Do not hold themselves out to the public by any title or description of activities incorporating the words “psychology,” “psychological,” or “psychologist.”  Dangerous.com apparently failed to notice (or willfully ignored) that this section of the code specifically refers to, and regulates, the practice of psychology, not the use of the word “psychologist” in a job title. Section 2910 allows persons who are “salaried employees of accredited or approved academic institutions” to gain “the supervised professional experience required for licensure,” as long as that experience is “being accrued consistent with the board’s regulations,” and those persons “have as the primary supervisor a psychologist licensed in the state” and “do not hold themselves out to the public by any title … incorporating the word ‘psychology,’ ‘psychological,’ or ‘psychologist. '” In other words, Section 2910 establishes conditions under which budding psychologists employed by schools and government agencies may obtain practical experience on their way to becoming fully licensed psychologists. As Dr. Ford is a research psychologist who is not seeking a license and does not engage in the practice of psychology as part of her job duties, Section 2910 is not applicable to her situation or job title. We spoke with Antonette Sorrick, Executive Officer for the California Board of Psychology, who concurred with our analysis that Section 2909, not 2910, is the relevant section of code that applies to Dr. Ford’s situation.


A clause in the document annexing Texas to the United States allowed for Texas to be divided into five different states.

Explanation: Another Texas-related legend holds that the Texans negotiated an annexation treaty which reserved to them the right to secede from the Union without the consent of the U.S. Congress, but the terms of Texas’ annexation contain no such provision.

History, pilot, texas, Texas Fact Checks

After several years of contentious debate, in 1845 the United States’ various political factions finally reached enough of a consensus to agree that the benefits of annexing Texas (nominally an independent republic ever since it had been wrested from Mexico after the decisive 1836 battle at San Jacinto, although neither Texas nor Mexico ever accepted the treaties signed a few weeks later) outweighed the pitfalls. As T.R. Fehrenbach noted in his history of Texas, the nascent republic was ill-suited to maintain itself as a sovereign nation, and the presence of such a tenuous political entity in the midst of North America posed a threat to the ambitions and interests of the United States:  Sam Houston’s republic was a struggling frontier community of less than forty thousand people; it was a series of plantations and farms carved out of the Southern forests along the river bottoms extending up from the Gulf, with an utterly colonial economy. Most Texans were subsistence farmers, with a little barter on the side. The planters exported their cotton against imported goods; the balance of trade was yet adverse. The largest towns were frontier outposts with mud streets and at most a few thousand assorted people. There was no money economy, nor any money. There were no banks or improved roads or organized schools. There was no industry — everything from pins to powder had to be imported from the United States. Over this sprawling community the government was only loosely organized . . . real government consisted primarily of sheriffs and justices of the peace. Texas barely approached the basic requirements for statehood. Texas blocked American expansion to the Pacific, and a weak, unstable nation on American borders invited penetration by still-ambitious European powers. The Monroe Doctrine could not by any stretch of the imagination keep British influence out, if Britain chose to fish in Texas waters. The primary stumbling block to Texas’ annexation by the U.S. was that the act was almost certain to provoke war with Mexico, an eventuality which came to pass with the outbreak of the Mexican-American War in 1846. Nonetheless, although the U.S. Senate rejected an annexation treaty with Texas in 1844, it passed an annexation bill on 26 February 1845. Another contentious issue regarding the annexation of Texas by the United States remained, however: slavery. The admission of Texas to the Union posed the potential for upsetting the delicate political balance between free states and slave states. Not only would the annexation of Texas add another slave state to the U.S., but that state would be a vast chunk of territory — nearly four times as large as the then-largest state, Missouri — which would extend the slaveholding portion of the U.S. far beyond its current western boundary. Moreover, the northern portion of Texas intruded beyond the 36°30’N line of latitude which had been established as the demarcation point between free territory and slave territory by the 1820 Missouri Compromise (although the provisions of that compromise technically applied only to “all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana” and therefore did not encompass Texas). For their part, some southerners wanted to be able to carve additional slave states out of the huge Texas territory in order to counter the admission of free states and thereby maintain the balance of power between free and slave states in the Senate. The slavery issue (at the time, 90% of Texans were neither slaves nor slaveholders) was addressed in the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States, approved by Congress on 1 March 1845, which included a provision allowing Texas to be sub-divided into up to four more states with slavery being banned in states carved out of Texas territory north of the Missouri Compromise line and left up to popular sovereignty in states formed south of the line:  New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited. Texas was officially admitted to the Union when President James K. Polk signed the Joint Resolution to Admit Texas as a State on 29 December 1845. The most likely possibility that Texas might be split into more than one state was headed off in 1850. California  (recently acquired by the U.S in the war with Mexico) had approved a free-state constitution and petitioned Congress for statehood; meanwhile, Texans were engaged in a border dispute, claiming that their territory included half of present-day New Mexico and part of Colorado. Had the boundary issue been decided in favor of Texas, southerners might have pushed to create a second state out of the larger Texas territory in order to balance California’s admission as a free state. The series of congressional bills collectively known as the Compromise of 1850 (temporarily) settled these troublesome issues by admitting California as a free state and giving Texas $10 million to relinquish its territorial claims, while the pro-slavery section supported these proposals in exchange for the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act. The issue of the 36°30’N slavery demarcation line soon became moot when the Missouri Compromise was effectively repealed by the 1854 passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and explicitly ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott decision. Any real likelihood that Texas might be carved up into additional states was ended when Texas seceded from the Union in 1861, joined the side of the Confederacy in the Civil War, and was not formally re-admitted to the U.S. until after the 1865 ratification of the 13th amendment which abolished slavery throughout the jurisdiction of the United States. Although the provisions of the Texas Annexation document allowing for the creation of four additional states are popularly regarded as a unique curiosity today, they were largely superfluous. Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution already specifically provided for the formation of new states through the junction or division of existing states:  New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.


In an impoverished Chilean suburb, a recycling drive flourishes.

Explanation: La Pintana, an impoverished Chilean neighborhood plagued by crime, is an unlikely place to find a green revolution. But the area on the outskirts of capital city Santiago is blazing a trail in recycling its waste.

Residents like Marina Ortiz listen out for the regular sound of the community recycling truck. Standing by her door, she rushes out into the street, bringing her food waste to the collectors. “When I cook I separate out the remains of the vegetables. The paper and cardboard I give to the collectors, and the food to the vegetables truck,” the 58-year-old housewife said. “The people from the municipality taught us and I’ve been doing it for years. They tell me that later all the waste is turned into earth.”  The municipality of La Pintana now collects 140 tons of plant waste from homes every week, far higher than comparable neighborhoods. That is despite the area having some of the worst socioeconomic indicators in Chile. There are few medical centers and almost no companies or major employers. The news that comes from the area is almost always related to drug trafficking, delinquency and violence. The poverty rate – at around 42% of the 177,000 inhabitants – is far above the national 17% average, a legacy of the area receiving poor families displaced from other richer parts of the capital during the 1973-1990 military dictatorship. “The people of La Pintana have been treated harshly by the state, with no services, no health facilities, no education. There are children in the street, crimes, a lot of inequality,” La Pintana mayor Claudia Pizarro told Reuters. “But this is one of the good things that exist in the community, and we’re a pioneer in this area. We have made efforts to be recognized as a community that takes care of the environment,” she added. Chile, already an environmental leader in Latin America for its use of renewable energy and creation of national parks, is looking to roll out further initiatives as it gears up to host the major COP25 global conference on climate change in December. These include reducing consumption of single-use plastics, trying to cut emissions and increasing the recycling rate. The environment ministry has recently set targets for the recycling of paper, plastics and glass. La Pintana, however, remains a stand-out case. “There is no one who has done this with the level of penetration and perfection that La Pintana has,” said Gonzalo Muñoz, an environmental ‘champion’ for the COP25 in Chile. “It’s surprising that other municipalities have not copied it.”   The process has an economic as well as an environmental benefit, since it reduces the amount of garbage residents send to the landfill, which charges to receive it. “We started in 2005 looking for a way to generate savings to reduce our spending on waste management,” said Felipe Marchant, head of La Pintana’s environmental management division. “It’s the biggest financial burden of the municipalities.”   Carol Valdebenito, an engineer who has worked as an environmental educator in the area for seven years, said it also  brought the community together. “The neighbors not only talk to us about environmental things, but about social issues, their problems and concerns,” she told Reuters as she walked alongside the green recycling truck through pot-holed streets roamed by groups of stray dogs. The trucks deposit the waste at a composting and vermiculture plant, where the garbage slowly transforms into piles of dark earth with a musty odor, full of long, pink worms that do a lot of the work processing the waste. This becomes fertilizer for the nearby municipal nursery, where trees are grown for the green areas of the community. The nursery also researches which species adapt best to climate change and dry weather. “That is the basic concept of what is called the circular economy,” said Marchant.


Tests of New AIDS Gel Show Promise for Women.

Explanation: A gel that uses a popular HIV drug to protect women from the AIDS virus is safe and acceptable to women, although it is too early to know if it actually prevents infection, researchers reported on Monday.

The gel uses the drug tenofovir, sold under the name Viread by Gilead Sciences Inc. (GILD.O). The study, released at a meeting of AIDS researchers in India, is a welcome piece of good news for the struggling field of microbicides. It involved 200 sexually active HIV-negative women in the United States and India. “The gel is safe to use, and well tolerated by HIV-negative women. That’s a key message in our findings,” said Dr. Craig Hoesley of the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “This sets the stage for larger studies to see if tenofovir can prevent HIV infection.”    Microbicides are products, such as gels or creams, that can be applied vaginally or anally to prevent transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS. Just last week a study showed one candidate, called Carraguard, did not protect women from infection. Two other potential microbicides have made women more likely to become infected — a spermicide called nonoxynol-9 and a product called Ushercell, made by Toronto, Canada-based Polydex Pharmaceuticals. The tenofovir product appears to be safe, said the research team, funded by the National Institutes of Health, found. It is the first potential microbicide to use a licensed AIDS drug. It was a phase II clinical trial designed to show safety, not that it was effective. “It is a critical time for all of us engaged in HIV prevention, and I truly believe we are turning a corner,” said Sharon Hillier of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, who led the study. Women make up 46 percent of the 33.2 million people infected with the AIDS virus, according to the United Nations Agency UNAIDS. Hillier said it is not clear how long tenofovir stays in a woman’s vagina. “Currently, there are very  encouraging studies suggesting that even when tenofovir is gone from the vagina the drug itself is there in the vaginal tissue,” Hillier said in an  e-mail. “The important thing we learned is that covert use, or secret use, is not an important parameter for women, and that in fact we found that 12 percent of the women who used to the gel said it made sex more pleasurable and none of the women said that the gel made sex less pleasurable.”    Eighty percent of the women told to use gel within two hours of having sex said they had done so. “We asked women ‘How acceptable is this as a prevention option, is it too messy, is it a nuisance, and will you use it?’ Our study showed they will use it and they’re not bothered by the gel,” Hoesley said.


Aspirin Linked to Lower Pancreatic Cancer Risk

Explanation: Despite a few attempts at caveats, this story still used misleading language pointing to possible benefits – from a study that can’t establish cause and effect or benefits. Readers also are not given sufficient context on the true scope of the “29% lower risk.” And the story appears to be based solely on a news release, with no input from an independent source. Pancreatic cancer is an ugly problem. Stories about it deserve more context than this.

Not applicable. Readers should know the lost cost of aspirin. The story said that aspirin users were 29% less likely to develop pancreatic cancer than those who used other types of pain relievers or nothing at all. But what was that baseline rate? It’s impossible for readers to judge the scope of the potential benefits when given just the 29% figure. 29% of what? All the story said was that aspirin “carries some side effects.” It never explained what they are nor how often they may occur. Even one additional line in the story could have done this. While the story explained that such a study can’t establish cause and effect, it nonethless still used language suggesting possible beneficial effects: www.healthnewsreview.org/tips-for-understanding-studies.php#tip4 The language used to describe observational studies is important to avoid misleading readers. And it doesn’t take much to make these changes. See our primer. The story also never addressed the limitations of drawing conclusions based on talks at scientific meetings, which have not undergone rigorous peer review. We have a primer on that topic as well. Not applicable only because the story really didn’t give any background on pancreatic cancer, so it couldn’t have disease mongered. No independent source is quoted. We’re really not given any context or background about pancreatic cancer in this short, 320-word story. And we certainly didn’t learn of any other research into ways to prevent pancreatic cancer. Not applicable. The availability of aspirin is not in question. We’re not given any context about whether this is the first and only research that looked at this question. It appears that the story was based solely on a news release, since the researcher quote comes from a news release. And no independent source is cited.


Explanation: This story describes the newly released recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on the utility of routine PSA testing. It highlighted the importance of the new recommendation, namely that the task force indicated that routine testing of men older than 75 resulted in little to no benefit. The story attempted to provide a picture for the reader of reasons for the ambiguity about routine prostate cancer screening and the important trade-off between common side effects and treatment of a disease that often is not problematic. It included quotes from experts who had different opinions about how to consider the risks and benefits of routine testing for, and various treatment of, prostate cancer.

There was no discussion of the costs associated with prostate cancer screening. However, as the cessation of routine prostate cancer screening for men over the age of 75 was the new recommendation by the task force, cost is not really germane to the discussion. It might have been helpful to include some mention of the potential costs to screening older men and/or cost saving with cessation of screening older men. There are those that are going to interpret the recommendation against routine screening as a cost saving effort. The story outlined for readers that the benefits of routine screening for prostate cancer are uncertain. Without quantifying the frequency, the story mentioned the common side effects of treatment for prostate cancer. The story attempted to explain the conundrum of prostate cancer, prostate cancer treatment, and routine prostate cancer screening. It included numbers indicating that the number of men diagnosed with prostate cancer is far in excess of the number who die of prostate cancer. The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. It put the natural history of most prostate cancers into appropriate context. The story included comments from a number of individuals with relevant expertise. The story did not do an adequate job of indicating whether those quoted served on the recommendation task force other than for Ned Calonge, who was mentioned as chair of the US Preventive Services Task Force. The story was about the new recommendation regarding routine screening of men older than 75 years of age with PSA test;  the story presented arguments for and against the use of the test. The story mentioned that it was about routine screening of men for prostate cancer. As the story lead with "The blood test that millions of men undergo each year", it accurately indicated that this test is readily available. The story was reporting on the release of new guidelines from the US Preventive Services task force, and highlighted that these recommendations differ from the previous version in that they specify that the benefit of routine screening of men older than 75 years of age for prostate cancer is little to none while at the same time, the harms are moderate-to-substantial. Does not  rely exclusively on a press release as it includes numerous quotes from a variety of experts with differing view points.