Ask FactCheck Archives - FactCheck.org

Online Claims Misrepresent Washington Bill Aimed at Runaway Transgender Youth

Saranac Hale Spencer — Wed, 03 May 2023 18:39:58 +0000

Q: Does a proposed law in Washington state say that the government can take children away from parents who don’t agree to gender transition surgery?

A: No. Under the bill, licensed youth shelters no longer have to report the location of a runaway child to the child’s parents if the child is seeking gender-affirming or reproductive care. Instead, the shelters must notify the state’s child services department.

FULL QUESTION

Is it true that SB-5599 say[s] that the government can take away minors from parents if they refuse to agree to gender Transition Surgery[?]

FULL ANSWER

A bill in the state of Washington that would allow licensed youth and homeless shelters to notify the state’s child services department in lieu of a parent in cases where a minor has left home in order to pursue gender-affirming or reproductive care is moving toward passage.

Critics say that it would interfere with parental rights, while advocates say it’s a necessary change to keep runaway minors safe and off the streets.

The bill has passed both houses of the legislature and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, has signaled that he is likely to sign the legislation.

“We believe it is better to have a young person in a shelter with some adult supervision than having them out living on the streets — maybe being trafficked, sexually trafficked, maybe being exposed to drugs,” Inslee said at an April 13 press conference.

The proposed law would affect about a dozen minors each year, the office of state Sen. Marko Liias, who sponsored the bill, told us in an email.

“It’s not like kids are coming by the thousands or even by the hundreds,” Jarel Sanders — who is on the board of directors at Equal Rights Washington, which has lobbied for the bill — told FactCheck.org in a phone interview.

As it stands now, licensed shelters in Washington can contact the children’s services department instead of parents if there are “compelling reasons” to do so. The compelling reasons include circumstances in which notifying a parent would subject the minor to abuse or neglect, which is defined as sexual abuse or exploitation, injury, or negligent treatment or maltreatment.

The bill would add the pursuit of “protected health care services” to the list of “compelling reasons.” Protected health care services would include reproductive health care, meaning contraception and abortion, and gender-affirming care, which we’ll explain further below.

The law would still — as it currently does — require the children’s department to make a good faith attempt to notify a parent after a minor is referred for care and it must “offer services designed to resolve the conflict and accomplish a reunification of the family.”

That would be handled through the department’s Family Reconciliation Services, Nancy Gutierrez, a spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Children, Youth & Families, told FactCheck.org in an email.

FRS offers short-term family counseling and referrals for mental health care, among other services, with the aim of keeping families together.

“We would focus on offering services designed to resolve familial conflicts and accomplish reunification as directed by the legislation,” Gutierrez said.

Mike Faulk, a spokesman for Inslee, told us the same thing in an email.

“DCYF’s main role is to offer services designed to resolve family conflicts and accomplish a reunification of the family,” he said.

But online posts have misrepresented the proposed legislation, prompting confusion.

For example, Donald Trump Jr. wrote on Twitter, “Washington passes bill allowing the state to TAKE CHILDREN AWAY FROM PARENTS that do not consent to their child’s gender transition surgeries…”

And the conservative website 100 Percent Fed Up posted a headline claiming: “BREAKING: State of Washington Passes Bill Allowing Government to Take Minor Children Away From Parents If They Refuse To Agree to Gender Transition Surgery.” The site shared that story with its 1.5 million Facebook followers.

Those claims misleadingly exaggerate the bill’s impact.

No Change to Medical Consent Laws

The online claims suggest that the bill would create a new exception allowing minors to undergo major medical procedures without parental consent. But the bill doesn’t change the state’s medical consent laws.

Under state law, those under age 18 don’t generally have the right to make medical decisions without parental consent.

There is, however, an exception that was introduced in 2022 that allows homeless youth — as defined by the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act — to get consent from a school nurse, school counselor or homeless student liaison for “nonemergency, outpatient, primary care services, including physical examinations, vision examinations and eyeglasses, dental examinations, hearing examinations and hearing aids, immunizations, treatments for illnesses and conditions, and routine follow-up care customarily provided by a health care provider in an outpatient setting, excluding elective surgeries.”

Kim Justice, executive director of Washington’s Office of Homeless Youth Prevention & Protection Programs, told FactCheck.org in an email: “SB 5599 does not make any changes to the types of health care available to homeless youth or how they access that care. The bill only pertains to situations in which the Department of Children, Youth, and Families would be notified instead of a parent regarding a youth’s admission to a shelter or host home program.”

A Range of Gender-Affirming Care

A related suggestion from the online posts is the emphasis on “gender transition surgeries,” as if surgery is the primary type of treatment.

But gender-affirming care is much more encompassing than just surgery. The Washington bill uses this definition: “[A] service or product that a health care provider… prescribes to an individual to support and affirm the individual’s gender identity.”

The World Health Organization has explained that “gender-affirmative health care can include any single or combination of a number of social, psychological, behavioural or medical (including hormonal treatment or surgery) interventions designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity.”

In addition, gender–affirming surgery — which includes facial surgery, surgery to either reduce or augment breasts and genital surgery — is generally performed on adults.

“Although current protocols typically reserve surgical interventions for adults,” says the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement on care for transgender children and adolescents, “they are occasionally pursued during adolescence on a case-by-case basis, considering the necessity and benefit to the adolescent’s overall health and often including multidisciplinary input from medical, mental health, and surgical providers as well as from the adolescent and family.”

So surgical procedures are uncommon for minors in general, and that’s expected to be the case for those who would be affected by the Washington bill.

Some medical options for gender-affirming care for minors include puberty blockers and hormone therapy, the effects of which are either reversible or partially reversible.

The most recent standards of care published in 2022 by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health advise that adolescents, their parents and their doctors should understand the evidence for both medical and surgical interventions before starting treatment.

“It seems reasonable that decisions to move forward with medical and surgical treatments should be made carefully,” the association says. “Despite the slowly growing body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of early medical intervention, the number of studies is still low, and there are few outcome studies that follow youth into adulthood.”

The Washington bill would largely provide transgender youth with doctors who offer a safe and understanding environment — calling patients by their preferred pronouns, for example — and connecting them to counselling, Sanders said.

“Surgeries are not the majority,” he said, explaining that the bill is much more about social and therapeutic services. The goal is really to reduce suicide attempts, Sanders said.

Gender-affirming care, which can reduce that risk, is supported by more than two dozen major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Endocrine Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“Evidence has demonstrated that forgoing gender-affirming care can have tragic consequences,” the AMA wrote in a recent letter urging governors to reject bans on gender-affirming care. The letter cited heightened incidences of mental health disorders among transgender people, which, it said, “is widely thought to be a consequence of minority stress, the chronic stress from coping with societal stigma, and discrimination because of one’s gender identity and expression. Because of this stress, transgender minors also face a significantly heightened risk of suicide.”

“Transgender children, like all children, have the best chance to thrive when they are supported and can obtain the health care they need,” the letter said. “Studies suggest that improved body satisfaction and self-esteem following the receipt of gender-affirming care is protective against poorer mental health and supports healthy relationships with parents and peers. Studies also demonstrate dramatic reductions in suicide attempts, as well as decreased rates of depression and anxiety.”

Providing Safe Shelter

Another major claim in the online posts is that the bill would impact laws regarding the removal of children from their homes.

That’s not the case, said Laurie Lippold, director of public policy at Partners for Our Children, housed at the University of Washington, which researches the child welfare system.

Current state law requires Child Protective Services to initiate a process overseen by the courts to remove a child in the case of abuse or neglect.

This bill doesn’t propose changes to those laws.

It wouldn’t change any child abuse reporting laws or justification requirements for removing children from homes, Lippold said.

Rather, the bill is designed to ensure that minors who have left home have access to safe shelter.

So, the claims that Washington has passed a sweeping new bill that will result in teens being taken from their homes to undergo surgery are vastly overstating the reality. The proposed law would likely affect about a dozen vulnerable transgender minors each year by providing them with housing if they have left home in order to pursue certain types of gender-affirming or reproductive care.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Sources

Johns, Michelle M., et al. “Transgender Identity and Experiences of Violence Victimization, Substance Use, Suicide Risk, and Sexual Risk Behaviors Among High School Students — 19 States and Large Urban School Districts, 2017.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 25 Jan 2019.

Herman, Jody L., Taylor N.T. Brown and Ann P. Haas. “Suicide Thoughts and Attempts Among Transgender Adults.” UCLA School of Law Williams Institute. Sep 2019.

Paley, Amit, et al. “2022 National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health.” Trevor Project. Accessed 22 Apr 2023.

Washington State Legislature. Bill Information — SB 5599. Accessed 21 Apr 2023.

Liias, Marko and Joe Nguyen. “What the right has wrong about caring for trans youth.” Seattle Times. Updated 24 Feb 2023.

Inslee, Jay (@GovJayInslee). “WATCH: Governor Inslee Media Availability.” YouTube. 13 Apr 2023.

Sanders, Jarel. Board of directors, Equal Rights Washington. Telephone interview with FactCheck.org. 20 Apr 2023.

Health and Human Services, Office of Population Affairs. Gender-Affirming Care and Young People. Accessed 21 Apr 2023.

Hut Erin. Spokeswoman, Sen. Marko Liias. Email to FactCheck.org. 26 Apr 2013.

Gutierrez, Nancy. Spokeswoman, Washington Department of Children, Youth & Families. Email to FactCheck.org 1 May 2023.

Faulk, Mike. Spokesman, Gov. Jay Inslee. Email to FactCheck.org. 1 May 2023.

Cleveland Clinic. Gender Affirmation (Confirmation) or Sex Reassignment Surgery. Reviewed 3 May 2021.

Liang, Fan. “Gender Affirmation Surgeries.” Johns Hopkins Medicine. Accessed 24 Apr 2023.

Rafferty, Jason, et al. “Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents.” American Academy of Pediatrics. 1 Oct 2018.

Justice, Kim. Executive director, Washington’s Office of Homeless Youth Prevention & Protection Programs. Email to FactCheck.org. 1 May 2023.

Coleman, E., et al. “Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8.” International Journal of Transgender Health. 15 Sep 2022.

Smith, Timothy M. “What to know about gender-affirming care for younger patients.” American Medical Association. 21 Dec 2021.

American Psychiatric Association. “Position Statement on Access to Care for Transgender and Gender Diverse Individuals.” Jul 2018.

Endocrine Society. Transgender Health — An Endocrine Society Position Statement. 16 Dec 2020.

Revised Code of Washington. RCW 26.28.015. Age of majority for enumerated specific purposes. Accessed 25 Apr 2023.

Washington State Legislature. Bill Information — SB 5883. Accessed 25 Apr 2023.

Revised Code of Washington. RCW 7.70.065. Informed consent—Persons authorized to provide for patients who do not have capacity—Priority—Unaccompanied homeless minors. Accessed 25 Apr 2023.

Lippold, Laurie. Director of public policy, Partners for Our Children. Telephone interview with FactCheck.org. 20 Apr 2023.

Washington State Department of Children, Youth & Families. Placement Out-of-Home and Conditions for Return Home. Updated 20 Oct 2022.

The post Online Claims Misrepresent Washington Bill Aimed at Runaway Transgender Youth appeared first on FactCheck.org.

U.S. Selling Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the Highest Bidding Companies

D'Angelo Gore — Thu, 14 Jul 2022 21:20:37 +0000

Q: Is the Biden administration selling crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to other countries?

A: The oil is sold to eligible companies that make the highest offers. Some of the companies are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, and some that purchased oil have then exported a portion to buyers overseas. Exports increase the global supply and still help with U.S. gas prices, experts told us.

FULL QUESTION

Did Biden sell oil from our Strategic Oil Reserve to China and other countries in 2022?

FULL ANSWER

The Biden administration is trying to increase the global supply of crude oil and reduce gasoline prices by tapping the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve – the federally owned stock of emergency crude oil. About 1 million barrels of crude oil from the reserve are being made available each day for sale to the highest bidding company. Some of the companies have then chosen to export some of the oil to countries around the world, including China.

In a July 5 article, Reuters reported: “More than 5 million barrels of oil that were part of a historic U.S. emergency reserves release to lower domestic fuel prices were exported to Europe and Asia last month, according to data and sources, even as U.S. gasoline and diesel prices hit record highs.”

Refiners around the world use crude oil to make gasoline and other fuels.

The article, which also said that the “export of crude and fuel is blunting the impact” of President Joe Biden’s moves “to lower record pump prices,” has prompted several readers to ask FactCheck.org about the sales.

However, because the price of gasoline depends largely on the cost of crude oil, which is mostly based on global supply and demand, experts told us that oil sold from the reserve does not need to stay in the U.S. to bring down gasoline prices.

“Whether it stays in the United States or goes somewhere else is less important than does it succeed in changing the global balance of supply and demand, because that’s what drives the price,” Mark Finley, a fellow in energy and global oil at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, told us in an interview.

And since Congress lifted a nearly 40-year ban on most U.S. crude oil exports in 2015, the Department of Energy, which maintains the stockpile, cannot dictate whether companies can export oil purchased from the petroleum reserve, the department said in an email.

Even before that expansive ban was lifted, the U.S. had been exporting at least some crude oil and petroleum products to China and other nations for years.

SPR Sales

As we’ve written before, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, was established in 1975, after the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo against the U.S. caused domestic energy supply shortages and damaged the national economy.

The reserve is currently authorized to hold more than 700 million barrels of emergency crude oil that can be released under certain conditions. That includes emergency drawdowns due to oil supply disruptions, such as those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February – which are two of the main factors driving up gasoline prices in the U.S. and elsewhere. (See our July 1 story “Gasoline Prices Up Due to Global Supply-Demand Issues, Russian Invasion of Ukraine.”)

In late March, to counteract a decline in the global supply of oil that has contributed to price increases, the White House announced that Biden had authorized the release of about 1 million barrels of crude per day from the reserve for six months. (That came after previous, smaller authorized releases in the fall of 2021 and earlier in 2022.)

For each sale, the Energy Department announces the type and amount of oil from the four SPR sites that will be auctioned in a competitive bidding process. By law, the contracts are awarded to the companies that make the highest bids, and any company that is registered in the SPR’s Crude Oil Sales Offer Program is eligible to make an offer.

In the end, the government can use money from the sales to restock the petroleum reserve, which the Biden administration has said it will start doing in the fall when it expects crude oil prices will be lower. As of the week of July 8, the SPR held around 485 million barrels of crude oil – the lowest amount since the mid-1980s, and down about 15% since the end of March.

“The Administration’s use of the SPR is exactly what it was created to do: to address the significant global supply disruptions,” the Energy Department argued in an email responding to our questions about the sales. “Putin’s war on Ukraine destabilized global supply and the emergency sales are meant to provide supply certainty and act as a bridge until domestic production increases, in turn help to mitigate the cost increases for American families.”

But after the Reuters story was published, some conservative politicians, pundits and media outlets criticized the Biden administration for allowing a portion of the country’s emergency oil supply to go abroad.

A July 7 story from the Washington Free Beacon focused on nearly 1 million barrels of the reserve’s oil that was sold in April to Unipec America, an arm of the Chinese oil and gas company Sinopec, which has, or had, some connection to the president’s son, Hunter Biden. (Hunter Biden once was part of BHR, a Chinese investment fund company that purchased a stake in a Sinopec subsidiary that sells oil products. In March, the Washington Examiner reported that Chinese and American business records still showed Hunter owned a minority stake in BHR, although a lawyer for Hunter told the New York Times in November that he no longer held any financial interest, directly or indirectly, in the company.)

However, the Department of Energy said that U.S. subsidiaries of foreign energy companies have long been eligible to place bids on SPR oil.

Prior to 2015, “it was unlikely any product delivered to the winning bidder was exported outside the US,” the department’s email said. But that changed after the broad export ban on U.S-produced crude oil was lifted that year.

“U.S. companies are permitted to place bids on SPR crude oil; DOE cannot dictate what selected bidders will do with the SPR crude oil after delivery,” the department explained.

For example, U.S. oil refiner Phillips 66 is one of the American companies that has purchased SPR oil made available this year. Reuters reported that, in June, the company shipped about 470,000 barrels of the crude oil it bought to Italy, according to government data. The news agency found that other companies that bought reserve oil also made shipments to the Netherlands, India and China.

Still, it’s “rare” for companies that purchase oil from the reserve to export it, the Energy Department said, adding that it “is only possible to know retroactively where oil is sent after delivery, and not when oil is delivered to the selected bidder.”

The Exports Still Help Gas Prices

But even if some of the crude oil purchased from the SPR does not stay in the States, energy analysts and economists told FactCheck.org that the exports still help with U.S. gasoline prices.

“The markets for crude oil and for gasoline are global,” Lutz Kilian, senior economic policy advisor at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, said in an email. “Selling this crude (whether at home or abroad) will tend to lower the global oil price, which is what determines what refiners pay for crude oil. Hence, lower crude prices allow the price of gasoline in the U.S. (and elsewhere) to decline.”

Finley of the Baker Institute said that American refiners have to determine if they can use the reserve oil that will be released. If not, it may be of use abroad.

“Each individual refinery is optimized for its marketplace and is built to run optimally on a certain type of crude oil and to produce a certain mix of gasoline and diesel fuel,” he told us. “And so it may be that the type of oil being offered from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve doesn’t perfectly match what the U.S. refiners are looking for and it might be a better match for the specific requirements of refiners elsewhere.”

Kilian made a similar point.

“If the oil released is medium sour, for example, a U.S. refiner specializing in light sweet crude would not be interested,” he explained. “There may be spare capacity at a refinery in Europe, however, that specializes in processing medium sour crude, so trade makes sense.” (Light and medium refer to the density of the crude oil, and sweet and sour refer to measures of its sulfur content.)

Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis for the fuel-price tracking service GasBuddy, told us in an interview that so far the SPR releases are having an impact on gasoline prices by “preventing prices from escalating more substantially” – not so much by “actively pushing prices down.”

He said that dynamic would not change if the oil from the SPR was used exclusively by refiners in the U.S. to make gasoline.

“The government’s role is to supply oil to a market that needs it. It’s irrelevant where it goes as long as it’s going into the market,” De Haan said.

Furthermore, the U.S. already exports plenty of oil to other countries, including China, and has done so for years. Annual exports of crude oil have averaged around 3 million barrels per day since 2019.

That’s significantly more oil than the almost 260 million barrels of crude oil that Biden announced would be released from the emergency reserve between October 2021 and October 2022 — only some of which has been exported.

Sources

Kilian, Lutz, senior economic policy advisor at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 11 Jul 2022.

De Haan, Patrick, head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy. Interview with FactCheck.org. 11 Jul 2022.

Finley, Mark, fellow in energy and global oil at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Interview with FactCheck.org. 13 Jul 2022.

U.S. Department of Energy. Email to FactCheck.org. 12 Jul 2022.

Somasekhar, Arathy. “Oil from U.S. reserves sent overseas as gasoline prices stay high.” Reuters. 5 Jul 2022

White House. “FACT SHEET: Biden Administration Responds to Putin’s Price Hike by Awarding First Barrels from Historic Strategic Petroleum Reserve Release & Deploying Affordable Clean Energy.” Whitehouse.gov. 21 Apr 2022

White House. “President Biden Announces Release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve As Part of Ongoing Efforts to Lower Prices and Address Lack of Supply Around the World.” Whitehouse.gov. 23 Nov 2021.

White House. “Memorandum on the Finding that a Drawdown and Sale of Petroleum from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is Required by U.S. Obligations Under the International Energy Program Implemented by the International Energy Agency.” Whitehouse.gov. 1 Mar 2022.

U.S. Department of Energy. “DOE Announces Second Emergency Notice of Sale of Crude Oil From The Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Address Putin’s Energy Price Hike.” Energy.gov. 1 Apr 2022.

U.S. Department of Energy. “DOE Announces Sales From Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Combat Putin’s Price Hike.” Energy.gov. 21 Apr 2022.

U.S. Department of Energy. “DOE Announces Contract Awards and Issues Fourth Emergency Sale of Crude Oil From the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.” Energy.gov. 14 Jun 2022.

U.S. Department of Energy. “DOE Announces Contract Awards for Additional Crude Oil Sales From the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.” 11 Jul 2022.

U.S. Department of Energy. “DOE Announces Long-Term Buyback Plan Ensuring Continued Availability of Strategic Petroleum Reserve.” Energy.gov. 5 May 2022.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. Weekly U.S. Ending Stocks of Crude Oil in SPR. Eia.gov. Accessed 13 Jul 2022.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. U.S. Exports of Crude Oil. Eia.gov. Accessed 13 Jul 2022.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. Exports by Destination: Total Crude Oil and Products. Accessed 13 Jul 2022.

Macaluso, Nora. “U.S. Oil Reserve Created for Supply Disruptions, Not Strictly Military Use.” FactCheck.org. 3 Dec 2021, updated 8 Dec 2021.

Gore, D’Angelo. “Strategic Petroleum Reserve Oil Stocks Declined Under Trump, Contrary to His Claim.” FactCheck.org. 1 Apr 2022.

Gore, D’Angelo. “Gasoline Prices Up Due to Global Supply-Demand Issues, Russian Invasion of Ukraine.” FactCheck.org. 1 Jul 2022.

Government Accountability Office. “Crude Oil Markets: Effects of the Repeal of the Crude Oil Export Ban.” Gao.gov. 20 Nov 2020.

Catenacci, Thomas. “GOP hammers Biden for allowing emergency oil reserves to go to China: ‘compromising our energy security.'” Fox News. 7 Jul 2022.

Carlson, Tucker. “Tucker Carlson: Biden should be impeached for sending our natural assets to our enemy China.” Fox News. 6 Jul 2022.

Justice, Tristan. “Joe Biden Is Sending U.S. Reserve Oil Overseas As Americans Cope With Record Gas Prices.” The Federalist. 6 Jul 2022.

Nolte, John. “Nolte: Joe Biden Ships U.S. Oil Reserves to Foreign Countries.” Breitbart. 6 Jul 2022.

Anderson, Colling. “Biden Sold a Million Barrels From US Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China-Owned Gas Giant.” Washington Free Beacon. 7 Jul 2022.

LaFraniere, Sharon and Michael Forsythe. “What We Know About Hunter Biden’s Business in China.” New York Times. 6 Mar 2020.

Kerr, Andrew and Jerry Dunleavy. “Hunter Biden still listed as part owner of Chinese firm despite divestment claim.” Washington Examiner. 9 Mar 2022.

Forsythe, Michael, Lipton, Eric, and Dionne Searcey. “How Hunter Biden’s Firm Helped Secure Cobalt for the Chinese.” New York Times. 20 Nov 2021, updated 7 Dec 2021.

Brown, Phillip. “Strategic Petroleum Reserve Oil Releases: October 2021 Through October 2022.” Congressional Research Service. 22 Apr 2022.

The post U.S. Selling Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the Highest Bidding Companies appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Border Patrol Required to Provide Formula to Detained Infants

Saranac Hale Spencer — Tue, 24 May 2022 15:34:36 +0000

Q: Has the Biden administration sent “pallets” of infant formula to the border amid a nationwide shortage?

A: Yes. Customs and Border Protection, the agency that first encounters and then processes immigrants, is legally required to provide formula to infants in its care and has been doing so during the recent shortage.

FULL QUESTION

Is it true that the Biden admin is sending pallets & pallets of baby formula to the immigrants at the border but leaving US grocery store shelves bare?

FULL ANSWER

A nationwide shortage of baby formula has been driven by the shutdown of a major plant run by Abbott Nutrition, a recall of Abbott’s formula and pandemic-related supply-chain issues. But the issue became politicized when lawmakers and pundits suggested that the shortage was due to the president’s policies.

After being criticized for being slow to respond, President Joe Biden invoked the Defense Production Act on May 18 to address the shortage, military planes have begun bringing tons of formula from Europe, and the FDA has entered a consent decree with Abbott to re-open the closed facility.

But claims about the shortage persist, and conservatives have now combined them with another politicized issue — immigration.

Rep. Kat Cammack, a Republican from Florida, was one of the first to do so. She posted two pictures on Facebook on May 11 — one showed a shelf holding baby food and Sam’s Club infant formula for immigrants, while the other showed partially empty shelves with Similac, a brand of infant formula made by Abbott. She paired them with a message that said, “The first photo is from this morning at the Ursula Processing Center at the U.S. border. Shelves and pallets packed with baby formula. The second is from a shelf right here at home. Formula is scarce. This is what America last looks like.”

The next day, Cammack added a link seeking political contributions.

Since posting the pictures, she’s been featured on Fox News or Fox Business at least five times making similar claims. Among her appearances was one on Sean Hannity’s show, one of the cable network’s most watched programs.

Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Republican from New York, picked up on the claim, too, tweeting on May 13: “Joe Biden continues to put America LAST by shipping pallets of baby formula to the southern border as American families face empty shelves.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called the administration’s decision to provide formula to detained infants “reckless” in a joint statement with Brandon Judd, president of the border patrol’s union. Judd has advanced “replacement theory” arguments, saying he believes that the Biden administration is encouraging immigration from South and Central America in order to “change the demographics of the electorate.”

The joint statement also said, “While mothers and fathers stare at empty grocery store shelves in a panic, the Biden Administration is happy to provide baby formula to illegal immigrants coming across our southern border.”

But those claims omit information about immigration policy requirements.

The treatment of detained immigrant minors is governed by a framework of U.S. laws and regulations, chief among them a 1997 settlement agreement in a class-action case called Flores v. Reno.

That agreement laid out the legal standards required for minors in U.S. custody, specifying that they be afforded “drinking water and food as appropriate,” access to bathrooms, emergency medical services, and accommodations that are ventilated and temperature-controlled.

The original agreement referred to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which was dissolved after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, an agency within DHS, is the first to detain child migrants who cross or are taken across the border illegally.

In accordance with Flores, CBP issued a set of national standards in 2015 that specified food provided to minors “must be appropriate for at-risk detainees’ age and capabilities (such as formula and baby food).”

A November policy statement from CBP reiterated that requirement, following recommendations for the treatment of infants from the DHS Office of Inspector General’s July 2021 report.

“CBP facilities will have diapers, baby wipes, and infant formula available for infants. Infant formula must be inspected on a regular basis to ensure it has not reached or surpassed its expiration date,” the policy statement says.

The policy statement also establishes that CBP facilities within 100 miles of the southwest border must have at least one “safe and secure sleeper/bassinet in which infants can sleep” and that all centralized processing centers must have at least five.

Data posted to CBP’s website doesn’t show how many infants it has processed and a CBP spokesman declined to answer our request for information about how many infants are currently detained at the border and how much formula is on hand at detention facilities.

But the spokesman did provide us with this statement: “CBP takes seriously its legal responsibility to ensure the safety and security of individuals in our custody. Ensuring migrants, including children and infants, in our custody have their basic needs met is in line with this Administration’s commitment to ensuring safe, orderly, and humane processes at our border. CBP complies with all applicable regulations for the purchase of products used in CBP facilities.”

So, detention facilities are legally required to provide formula to infants in their care.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said as much when she was asked about the claims at a May 13 press conference. Psaki referred to the Flores settlement and said of providing detained infants with formula, “CBP is following the law. … This has been a law in the United States for a quarter-century. It’s been followed by every administration.”

It’s also worth noting that, according to CBP’s own standards, detainees are not supposed to be held for longer than 72 hours and “[e]very effort must be made to hold detainees for the least amount of time required for their processing, transfer, release, or repatriation as appropriate and as operationally feasible.”

That 72-hour limit isn’t always followed. But to the extent that CBP is providing formula to detained infants, it’s likely not for an extended period of time, which suggests that the amount of formula at the facilities wouldn’t have a measurable impact on the national supply.

Sources

Biden, Joe. “Memorandum on the Delegation of Authority Under the Defense Production Act to Ensure an Adequate Supply of Infant Formula.” Presidential actions. 18 May 2022.

Cammack, Kat. “The first photo is from this morning at the Ursula Processing Center at the U.S. border. Shelves and pallets packed with baby formula. The second is from a shelf right here at home. Formula is scarce. This is what America last looks like.” Facebook. 11 May 2022.

Stefanik, Elise (@RepStefanik). “Joe Biden continues to put America LAST by shipping pallets of baby formula to the southern border as American families face empty shelves.” Twitter. 13 May 2022.

Abbott, Greg. Press release. “Governor Abbott, National Border Patrol Council Release Joint Statement On Biden Administration Providing Baby Formula To Illegal Immigrants Amid National Shortage.” 12 May 2022.

Carless, Will. “‘Replacement theory’ fuels extremists and shooters. Now a top Border Patrol agent is spreading it.” USA Today. 6 May 2022.

Congressional Research Service. “Child Migrants at the Border: The Flores Settlement Agreement and Other Legal Developments.” 1 Apr 2021.

Gruwell, Abbie. “Unaccompanied Minors and the Flores Settlement Agreement: What to Know.” National Conference of State Legislatures. Accessed 19 May 2022.

Flores v. Reno. Stipulated settlement agreement. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. 17 Jan 1997.

Congressional Research Service. “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: Authorities and Procedures.” 20 Dec 2021.

Council on Foreign Relations. “U.S. Detention of Child Migrants.” Updated 2 Dec 2021.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search.” Oct 2015.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “Policy Statement and Required Actions Regarding Pregnant, Postpartum, Nursing Individuals, and Infants in Custody.” 29 Nov 2021.

Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General. “Review of the February 16, 2020 Childbirth at the Chula Vista Border Patrol Station.” 20 Jul 2021.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Southwest Land Border Encounters. Accessed 19 May 2022.

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki. The White House. YouTube. 13 May 2022.

U.S. Department of State. “William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.” 1 Jan 2008.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Latest UC Data – FY2021.” 15 Nov 2021.

The post Border Patrol Required to Provide Formula to Detained Infants appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Pope Francis Continues to be Active, Despite Unsupported Report of Declining Health

Brea Jones — Fri, 10 Dec 2021 23:36:51 +0000

Q: Is Pope Francis dying?

A: There is no credible evidence that he is terminally ill. The viral claim is based on a single news story published Dec. 7 by Newsmax, a conservative news outlet, which attributed the information to an unidentified Vatican source. No other publication has reported it.

FULL QUESTION

Is Pope Francis dying? The attached fake article is going around without a link to open and confirm if it’s actually an article. I’m a Newsmax subscriber and I didn’t see it but just wanted to check.

FULL ANSWER

Jorge Mario Bergoglio became Pope Francis in March 2013. He has spent the last eight years being very active in the position, despite recent health issues.

In July, the pope had colon surgery, which led to him being hospitalized for 10 days after the surgery. His hospitalization caused concern since the surgery had not been announced in advance.

After the surgery, the pope revealed that he had a portion of his intestines removed and was taking post-operative medication, according to Euronews. He also reportedly said he had no intention of stepping down and was leading “a totally normal life.”

Pope Francis during the pontiff’s welcome ceremony at the Presidential Palace in the capital Nicosia (Cyprus) on Dec. 2, 2021. Photo by Vatican Media/Pool/Spaziani/Mondadori Portfolio via Getty Images.

Francis, who turns 85 on Dec. 17, continues to perform his regular duties as pope — despite his age and medical history.

He recently concluded a five-day trip to Cyprus and Greece, where he visited several refugee camps to bring attention to the migrant crisis in the area. DW News posted a video of Francis greeting migrants at one of the camps, and he did not appear to be in poor health.

While aboard the papal plane returning home from his travels on Dec. 6, the pope said plans were in the works for him to travel to Moscow for a second meeting with the head of the Russian Orthodox Church.

But as the trip came to an end, unfounded speculation began to spread online that the pope is near death.

A Dec. 7 post on Facebook reads, “The Pope is dying, news outlets reporting.”

That same day, conservative news outlet Newsmax published an article — which is behind a paywall — with the headline, “Vatican Preps for Conclave as ‘Pope Is Dying.'” In a tweet about the story, Newsmax wrote, “BREAKING: A Vatican source tells Newsmax’s John Gizzi that ‘Pope Francis is dying,’ with insiders saying they believe he will not survive past 2022.”

Our readers have asked us about the pope’s health, citing the Newsmax report. But we have not been able to verify what Newsmax reported. We reached out to the Vatican for comment, but we did not receive a response.

On Twitter, Bree A. Dail, a Rome correspondent for the Epoch Times, another conservative news organization, also said she was not able to corroborate the story. “No, I cannot confirm any of the assertions or allegations made in this report, published by @newsmax,” she tweeted, along with the text of the Newsmax article.

Newsmax does not provide any support for the claim that “Pope Francis is Dying,” other than a quote that was attributed to an unnamed “secretary of one of the most powerful Vatican Cardinals.”

Instead, Gizzi, Newsmax’s chief political columnist and White House correspondent, simply wrote, “Vatican insiders, including my source, do not believe he will survive past 2022.” He added that the anonymous source, “tells me Vatican officials are already in ‘pre-Conclave mode’ and preparing the logistics for Francis’ passing.”

Sources

DW News (@dwnews). “Pope Francis offered comfort to migrants during a visit to a refugee camp on the Greek island of Lesbos and blasted Europe’s indifference to their plight, saying ‘please, let us stop this shipwreck of civilization.’ Twitter. 7 Dec 2021.

Dail, Bree A (@breeadail). “No, I cannot confirm any of the assertions or allegations made in this report, published by @newsmax.” Twitter. 7 Dec 2021.

Filippis, Alberto. “‘Resign? Forget about it’: Pope Francis plays down health fears.” Euronews. 02 Sept 2021.

Horowitz, Jason. “P ope Exploring a 2nd Meeting With Russian Orthodox Church.” New York Times. 6 Dec 2021.

Gizzi, John. “Vatican Preps for Conclave as ‘Pope Is Dying.'” Newsmax. 7 Dec 2021.

Giangravé, Claire. “Pope Francis likens European efforts to ‘cancel Christmas’ to dictatorship.” Religion News Service. 06 Dec 2021.

Newsmax (@newsmax). “BREAKING: A Vatican source tells Newsmax’s John Gizzi that “Pope Francis is dying,” with insiders saying they believe the Pontiff will not survive past 2022.” Twitter. 7 Dec 2021.

Samson, James. “REPORT: ‘Pope Francis Is Dying’ – Vatican Preparing For Conclave.” Red Voice Media. 8 Dec 2021.

“Vatican Source: ‘Pope is Dying’, Conclave Prep underway, credible Journalist reports.” Novus Ordo Watch. 7 Dec 2021.

Winfield, Nicole. “EXPLAINER: Who runs the Vatican while pope is hospitalized?” AP News. 6 July 2021.

Winfield, Nicole. “Pope returning home after trip focused on helping migrants” AP News. 6 Dec 2021.

The post Pope Francis Continues to be Active, Despite Unsupported Report of Declining Health appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Answering Questions About #BeagleGate

D'Angelo Gore — Tue, 02 Nov 2021 21:52:22 +0000

Q: Did Dr. Anthony Fauci fund experiments on beagles?

A: Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which has provided grants for medical studies using the dogs as test subjects. But the NIAID denied funding one particular project in which sedated beagles had their heads placed in mesh cages so sand flies could bite them.

FULL QUESTION

What’s the real story on Fauci’s involvement in using beagle puppies for medical experiments?

FULL ANSWER

In the last week, we’ve received dozens of emails from readers asking about Dr. Anthony Fauci’s alleged cruelty to animals, specifically beagles.

The messages were prompted by a series of online reports by the White Coat Waste Project, the details of which have recently been shared on social media, as well as written about and discussed on television by news outlets.

The government watchdog group, which was founded in 2013 by former Republican strategist Anthony Bellotti, opposes federal funding of research relying on animal testing.

The National Institutes of Health says “animals used in federally-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies to ensure the smallest possible number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare.” It adds that research involving animals is evaluated by scientists in a peer-review system and a committee at each institution before the research begins, and then is monitored by that committee and the NIH’s Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare for compliance with federal laws and policies.

If a project violates the federal requirements, the project can be suspended and the NIH can require corrections.

In a July 30 “exposé,” the White Coat Waste Project alleged that Fauci, chief medical adviser to the president and head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spent more than $424,000 on “beagle experiments” in which the dogs were “bitten to death by flies.”

That was followed by an Aug. 31 blog post that carried the headline “Fauci Funded $375K Beagle Torture Overseas, Too.”

Then, in an Oct. 5 report, the group added that “Fauci Wasted $1M+ to Poison Beagle Puppies, Cut Out Vocal Cords.”

Based on those reports, and the subsequent media coverage of what has been dubbed #BeagleGate, 24 House members, led by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, sent a bipartisan letter to Fauci and the NIAID, which is part of NIH, asking for more information about the agency’s funding of experiments using the dogs.

The lawmakers requested a response by Nov. 19.

For now, we’ll go over the claims the group has made, as well what the NIAID has said in response. The agency has admitted to funding some research using beagles, but it denied that it funded one project in Tunisia that went viral on social media because it involved sedated beagles whose heads were stuck in mesh cages filled with diseased sand flies.

What’s not clear is whether Fauci, who has headed the NIAID since 1984, personally approved the other projects that the NIAID has funded, as the White Coat Waste Project’s posts suggest.

Update, Nov. 8: In a follow-up statement emailed to FactCheck.org on Nov. 8, the NIAID said: “Final funding decisions are made on a group of a few thousand grant applications at a time based on the advice of the Advisory Council and NIAID staff and concurrence by Dr. Fauci.” See the full NIAID statement at the end of this article.

Studies in Tunisia

In its August post, the White Coat Waste Project said its investigators had discovered photos and government records showing that the NIAID awarded over $375,000 in funding for a study in Tunisia “to drug beagles and lock their heads in mesh cages filled with hundreds of infected sand flies.” However, both the NIAID and the journal that published a paper on the study have since said the NIH did not fund that research.

“That’s right: these taxpayer-funded white coats intentionally had the insects eat these beagles alive,” the post said, adding that beagles were also locked “in cages in the desert overnight for nine consecutive nights to use them as bait to attract infectious sand flies.”

The photos, which have been shared widely online, were pulled from a paper about a study that investigated whether the flies were more attracted to dogs with or without leishmaniasis, a parasitic disease found in the tropics, subtropics and southern Europe. The paper, published this past summer, originally said the authors received funding for the research from the Wellcome Trust foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

But NIAID said it did not fund the study in question.

“The images of beagles were drawn from a manuscript published in July 2021 in the journal PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. The manuscript mistakenly cited support from NIAID, when in fact NIAID did not support this specific research shown in the images of the beagles being circulated,” the NIAID said in a statement a spokesperson emailed to us.

Indeed, on Oct. 26, the journal issued a correction, saying, “The US National Institutes of Health and the Wellcome Trust did not provide any funding for this research and any such claim was made in error.”

However, the NIAID said it did fund a separate project in Tunisia that studied a vaccine to prevent leishmaniasis.

“In the NIAID-supported study, twelve dogs were immunized with the experimental vaccine at the Pasteur Institute of Tunis, and then let out in an enclosed open space during the day, during high sandfly season in an area of Tunisia considered to be hyper-endemic for canine leishmaniasis. The goal of the research was to determine if the experimental vaccine prevented the dogs from becoming infected in a natural setting,” the NIAID said in its statement.

The NIAID also acknowledged that another leishmaniasis study, which the White Coat Waste Project has written about, was conducted at NIAID laboratories in 2016.

The agency’s statement said, “dogs were the necessary animal model for the research, and the researchers ensured that the dogs experienced no discomfort.”

In the experiment, eight beagles were intentionally infected to study the transmissibility of leishmania infantum, which causes canine leishmaniasis. The dogs developed skin lesions and were later euthanized.

SRI International Study

In its October post, the White Coat Waste Project said documents it obtained via the Freedom of Information Act show that NIAID “ordered cruel and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on dogs and other animals” at a cost to taxpayers of $1.68 million.

“In the tests, 44 beagle puppies who were just 6-8 months old were repeatedly injected with or force-fed an experimental drug for weeks, and then killed and dissected,” the post said. “The documents also show that Fauci’s NIH division paid to have the puppies’ vocal cords cut out so they couldn’t bark in the lab while they were being abused.”

In its statement, the NIAID said it granted a contract for preclinical pharmacology and toxicology services in accordance with the development of a treatment against HIV infection.

“Under this contract, the contractor conducts testing as required in animal models by the FDA, in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines and in a facility accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) or its equivalent,” the statement said.

The NIAID acknowledged that the beagles used in the study underwent a procedure, known as a cordectomy, to prevent them from barking.

“Vocal cordectomies, conducted humanely under anesthesia, may be used in research facilities where numerous dogs are present,” the statement said. “This is to reduce noise, which is not only stressful to the animals but can also reach decibel levels that exceed OSHA allowable limits for people and can lead to hearing loss.”

The FOIA-obtained documents indicate that all 44 dogs used for the study were scheduled to be euthanized so that researchers could examine their organs for toxic effects after receiving the experimental treatment.

SRI International, the nonprofit research institute that received the NIAID contract, did not respond to our request for comment.

University of Georgia Study

Back in late July, the White Coat Waste Project said another set of FOIA documents it obtained revealed that “Fauci just spent $424,000 to commission a study in which healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans.”

“At the end of the ongoing experiment, the dogs will all be killed,” the blog post said.

That’s a reference to an NIAID-supported project at the University of Georgia. Researchers there are testing the efficacy of a potential vaccine against lymphatic filariasis, which is a mosquito-borne parasitic disease that affects some 120 million people worldwide, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The NIAID told us the vaccine candidate potentially could be used to prevent the illness in humans, as well as filarial infections, such as heartworm, in dogs, who are natural hosts for the parasite and respond to infections similarly to humans.

“As such, they represent an appropriate model for testing this investigational vaccine prior to evaluation in humans,” the NIAID said.

In a statement emailed to FactCheck.org, a university spokesperson said that the NIAID determined that the study needed to be conducted using a dog model, and that “beagles are the standard dog model used in this type of research,” according to researchers at the University of Georgia College of Veterinary Medicine.

The FOIA-obtained documents, which were redacted in places to remove proprietary information, say the 28 beagles used in the study would be put to death before the research is completed in January 2022.

“Because this disease currently has no cure, unfortunately the animals that are part of this trial must be euthanized. We do not take lightly the decision to use such animals in some of our research,” the university said.

Beagles are often used in research involving dogs “due to their convenient size and docile nature,” according to the NIH’s Office of Research Integrity. More generally, the NIH says it uses animals in research, in part, because it allows scientists to “identify new ways to treat illnesses, extend life, and improve health and well-being.”

The American Diabetes Association notes that German research on dogs in the late 19th century eventually resulted in the discovery of insulin, for example.

What Did Fauci Know?

We asked the White Coat Waste Project if it had any documentation that Fauci himself signed off on funding for these projects. In a statement, the vice president of advocacy and public policy, Justin Goodman, said the group was still trying to get more information.

“There are still many open FOIA requests filed by WCW, so we are trying to find out all we can in terms of what Fauci knew about these grants,” Goodman said. “But, NIAID has already admitted to doing beagle experiments inside the federal lab run by Fauci, and as the director of the division of the NIH that funded all of these beagle experiments, the buck stops with him.”

Fauci has not publicly commented on the claims made by the White Coat Waste Project, and the statement the NIAID sent us did not address whether he authorized the funding in question.

Update, Nov. 8: In another statement emailed to FactCheck.org on Nov. 8, the NIAID clarified Dr. Fauci’s role in awarding the research grants.

The statement reads: “The decision whether to fund a research grant application to NIAID is made through a multi-step peer-review process. The first level of review is carried out by a Scientific Review Group composed primarily of non-federal scientists who have expertise in relevant scientific disciplines and current research areas. This group makes recommendations concerning the scientific and technical merit of grant applications. The second level of review is conducted by the NIAID National Advisory Allergy and Infectious Diseases Council. This Advisory Council is composed of scientific and public representatives chosen for their expertise, interest, or activity in matters related to health and disease. The Advisory Council evaluates the scientific merit and program priority of all applications for research grants, training grants, and career development awards. Only applications that are recommended for approval by both the Scientific Review Group and the Advisory Council may be recommended for funding. Final funding decisions are made on a group of a few thousand grant applications at a time based on the advice of the Advisory Council and NIAID staff and concurrence by Dr. Fauci. Except in very limited circumstances, Dr. Fauci does not approve funding for grant applications on an individual basis. These limited circumstances did not apply to the research recently highlighted by the White Coat Waste Project.”

Sources

Nieves, Amanda. “#BeagleGate: 4 labs, 1 scandal.” White Coat Waste Project. 26 Oct 2021.

Nieves, Amanda. “WCW Exposé: Fauci Spent $424K on Beagle Experiments, Dogs Bitten to Death by Flies.” White Coat Waste Project. 30 Jul 2021.

Nieves, Amanda. “PHOTOS: Fauci Funded $375K Beagle Torture Overseas, Too.” White Coat Waste Project. 31 Aug 2021.

Nieves, Amanda. “WCW Investigation: Fauci Wasted $1M+ to Poison Beagle Puppies, Cut Out Vocal Cords.” White Coat Waste Project. 5 Oct 2021.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Statement emailed to FactCheck.org. 28 Oct 2021.

Greg, Trevor, University of Georgia spokesperson. Statement emailed to FactCheck.org. 28 Oct 2021.

Justin Goodman, vice president of advocacy and public policy at the White Coat Waste Project. Statement emailed to FactCheck.org. 28 Oct 2021.

Chelbi, Ifhem, et al. “Enhanced attraction of sand fly vectors of Leishmania infantum to dogs infected with zoonotic visceral leishmaniasis.” PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. 27 Jul 2021.

Aslan, Hamide. “New Insights Into the Transmissibility of Leishmania infantum From Dogs to Sand Flies: Experimental Vector-Transmission Reveals Persistent Parasite Depots at Bite Sites.” The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 14 Jan 2016.

Rep. Nancy Mace. Letter sent to Dr. Anthony Fauci. 21 Oct 2021.

National Institutes of Health. “Why are animals used in NIH research?” Grants.nih.gov. Accessed 2 Nov 2021.

American Diabetes Association. “The History of a Wonderful Thing We Call Insulin.” Diabetes.org. 1 Jul 2019.

The post Answering Questions About #BeagleGate appeared first on FactCheck.org.

What We Know About the Claims of Military Dogs Left in Kabul

Angelo Fichera — Wed, 01 Sep 2021 23:02:29 +0000

Q: Did the U.S. abandon its military dogs during its withdrawal from Afghanistan?

A: The Department of Defense maintains that none of its military service dogs were left behind. But animal welfare groups say some contract working dogs — which did not belong to the U.S., though some may have been contracted by the military — were left at the Kabul airport.

FULL QUESTION

Did the U.S. military abandon their service dogs in Afghanistan?

FULL ANSWER

As the U.S.’s 20-year war in Afghanistan came to a chaotic end — with Americans and Afghans attempting to flee the country, some unsuccessfully — viral posts on social media turned their attention to the fate of the dogs that worked with the military.

In an Aug. 30 Instagram post liked more than 259,000 times, Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn shared an image of dog carriers in front of a damaged helicopter, which he indicated was at the Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. “Photo of our American service dogs left behind in the airport,” Cawthorn claimed.

Similarly, on Facebook, another post of the same photo was captioned, “Not a great day for America’s service dogs that are still in the airport.” And Donald Trump Jr. tweeted that the Biden administration “even abandoned hard-working service dogs!!! WTF.”

(DIBYANGSHU SARKAR/AFP via Getty Images)

Some went further. In an Aug. 30 tweet, former Navy SEAL Jonathan Gilliam dubiously claimed that the Department of Defense “ordered ALL military working dogs to be left behind in #Afghanistan.”

But the Department of Defense rejected the claim that the viral images showed U.S. military dogs left behind: A DOD official told us there were no military working dogs left in Afghanistan.

Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby also wrote on Twitter that, to “correct erroneous reports, the U.S. Military did not leave any dogs in cages at Hamid Karzai International Airport, including the reported military working dogs.”

“Photos circulating online were animals under the care of the Kabul Small Animal Rescue, not dogs under our care,” he said.

But animal welfare groups say some contract working dogs — as in those not owned by the U.S. military — were left behind.

On Sept. 1, Cawthorn updated his caption on Instagram to account for this distinction, changing it to say, “Contract service dogs left behind.”

Contract Working Dogs

The group American Humane in an Aug. 30 statement said that the “American government is pulling out of Kabul and leaving behind brave U.S. military contract working dogs to be tortured and killed at the hand of our enemies.”

Laura Sheehan, a spokeswoman for American Humane, told us in an phone interview that the “statement was based on reports we were getting from military personnel over the weekend,” in addition to reports from contractors who owned some of the dogs and were forced to leave them at the airport.

Sheehan recognized that military working dogs had indeed been evacuated, but said many contract working dogs — which she said “do everything that military working dogs do to help keep U.S. troops safe,” such as security and detecting explosive devices — were not. “Contract working dogs should be afforded the same rights and privileges as military working dogs,” she argued.

The reports from military personnel and contractors indicated that “dogs were on site at the airport and that the military was denying them access to cargo storage,” and that private charter planes for evacuating dogs were also denied access to the airport by the military, Sheehan said.

The DOD official disputed the claim that the U.S. military didn’t allow private charter planes to land to rescue the dogs, calling it “untrue,” and said questions on whether contract working dogs were left behind should be posed to the contract companies responsible for them.

Sheehan said American Humane was aware of reports of an estimated 50 contract working dogs at the airport — and said it was her group’s understanding that the “contract working dogs were there in support of the military,” though she did not know the specific contractors. The group was not sure what happened to them after the last U.S. plane departed.

“We know they were left behind,” she said. “I don’t know what’s happened to them since that time.”

Nikki Rohrig, president of a nonprofit group called the Military Working Dog Team Support Association that assists active-duty military working dog teams, told us that the “military is responsible for the transport and care of their military working dogs and every military working dog returns home with their handler after a deployment to a global combat zone.”

Rohrig said in an email that the military working dog teams with which her organization works had been “evacuated from [Hamid Karzai International Airport] last week.”

“Contract working dogs are the responsibility of the contracting company and it is up to that company to transport those CWDs back home,” Rohrig said. “I think this is where the confusion lies: CWDs versus MWDs.”

Kabul Small Animal Rescue

The Kabul Small Animal Rescue — whose dogs the DOD says are shown in the carriers in the viral photos — was started in 2018 by Charlotte Maxwell-Jones, an American. She acknowledged in a recent interview with the outlet Stars and Stripes that evacuating the rescue’s dogs and staff was a daunting mission, noting that among the logistical challenges was getting permission for a private charter plane to land at the airport.

And while the group had raised significant money to fund private flights, Stars and Stripes reported, the “biggest hurdle is finding a third country that will allow a plane carrying animals to land” in order to allow Afghan staffers to be vetted before entering the U.S.

Michelle Smith, executive director of a Texas nonprofit called Puppy Rescue Mission — which fundraises to transport animals from conflict zones for service members — told us in a phone interview that it was her understanding that an estimated 45 working dogs under Maxwell-Jones’ care had been bomb-sniffing dogs for various locations in Afghanistan.

The rest of the estimated 130 dogs that KSAR had taken to the airport were non-working dogs, including personal pets, she said. Smith said she has been in regular contact with Maxwell-Jones and assisted KSAR’s evacuation efforts.

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals International, citing communications with Maxwell-Jones as of Aug. 30, reported that day that Maxwell-Jones had left the airport, staying in Kabul, and “the status of KSAR’s 130 dogs is much less clear, despite our constant efforts to confirm their whereabouts.” It noted that in her care were “46 working dogs” — later clarifying that the working dogs referenced “are not working dogs owned by the U.S. military, they are contract working dogs that are owned and trained by private companies and are contracted for work that can include military and other operations.”

Maxwell-Jones later told Stars and Stripes that military personnel released the dogs from cages in an enclosed area at the airport.

“The fate of the animals, about 50 of which Maxwell-Jones described as working dogs abandoned by contractors who supported the U.S. mission, remains unknown,” Stars and Stripes reported Sept. 1.

Ultimately, Smith said in a follow-up email, “while the DOD evacuated military dogs, i.e. dogs the DOD owns, it left behind the dogs owned by military contractors.”

Smith said that “many service members at the airport went out of the way to help, including giving the dogs food and water.” She asserted that “the DOD would not let the animals on because of the over broad, unnecessary and unwarranted CDC ban on importing dogs from high-risk rabies countries.” (SPCAI also called that CDC policy an “impediment.”)

It’s true that this summer the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a temporary suspension of the importation of dogs from countries with high risk for dog rabies, a list that includes Afghanistan. The agency notes that dogs “from high-risk countries may be imported only with CDC’s advance written approval (CDC Dog Import Permit).”

We asked DOD whether the CDC policy played any role in contract working dogs not being evacuated, but didn’t hear back. We’ll update this story if we do.

Citing health factors during the evacuation, a CDC spokesperson told us that — while the agency considers permit applications for personal pets with proper documentation — the “CDC will not issue permits for shelter or street dogs from Afghanistan to allow these dogs to enter the U.S.”

Sources

“American Humane Condemns Death Sentence Delivered to Contract Working Dogs Left Behind in Kabul, Afghanistan.” Press release, American Humane. 30 Aug 2021.

González, Belsie. Spokesperson, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Email to FactCheck.org. 1 Sep 2021.

“High-Risk Countries for Dog Rabies.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated 14 Jul 2021.

Kirby, John (@PentagonPressSec). “To correct erroneous reports, the U.S. Military did not leave any dogs in cages at Hamid Karzai International Airport, including the reported military working dogs. Photos circulating online were animals under the care of the Kabul Small Animal Rescue, not dogs under our care.” Twitter. 31 Aug 2021.

“Notice of Temporary Suspension of Dogs Entering the United States from Countries Classified as High Risk for Dog Rabies.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 16 Jul 2021.

Rohrig, Nikki. President, Military Working Dog Team Support Association. Email to FactCheck.org. 31 Aug 2021.

Sheehan, Laura. Vice president of communications and legislative affairs, American Humane. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 31 Aug 2021.

Smith, Michelle. Executive director, Puppy Rescue Mission. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 1 Sep 2021.

“URGENT UPDATE AND ACTION PLAN FROM CHARLOTTE & KABUL SMALL ANIMAL RESCUE (KSAR).” SPCA International. 30 Aug 2021.

Walter Wellman, Phillip. “US Woman Under Taliban’s Watch Won’t Leave Kabul Without Her Staff and Hundreds of Rescue Animals.” Stars and Stripes. 25 Aug 2021.

Walter Wellman, Phillip. “American rescue clinic founder stays in Afghanistan to pursue evacuation for staff and animals left behind.” Stars and Stripes. 1 Sep 2021.

The post What We Know About the Claims of Military Dogs Left in Kabul appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Understanding Pennsylvania’s Proposed Bill on Handling Fetal Remains

Angelo Fichera — Fri, 04 Jun 2021 22:23:06 +0000

Q: Did Pennsylvania lawmakers vote to “fine” women who miscarry?

A: No. But a bill proposes to mandate that health care providers bury or cremate fetal remains, regardless of when or how the pregnancy ends. Experts say such requirements could translate to additional costs for women or their insurers.

FULL QUESTION

“PA Legislature fines women for Miscarry”

Is this a true statement?

FULL ANSWER

Legislation in Pennsylvania recently advanced by Republican state lawmakers on a committee would require that miscarriages or abortions handled at health care facilities be treated as fetal deaths and be followed by a burial or cremation — regardless of how long the pregnancy lasted.

The matter is likely moot: Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf said in a statement the same day that he “will veto any anti-choice legislation that lands on my desk.”

But viral social media posts criticizing the bill, HB 118, have prompted some readers to ask whether lawmakers voted to “fine” women who experience a miscarriage.

One reader asked us about a May 25 tweet by a U.S. Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, Democrat Val Arkoosh, that reads: “Members of the PA legislature today voted to fine women who miscarry and force them to fill out this form. This is traumatizing for women experiencing incredible loss. Unbelievable.” The tweet included a copy of the state’s application for a “Fetal Death Certificate” and was shared more than 9,000 times.

A similar message was shared the next day in a Facebook post that has amassed more than 48,000 shares.

It reads: “The Pennsylvania state legislature today voted to advance a bill by Republican state legislator, Frank Ryan, that would essentially fine women who miscarry, force them to apply for a ‘Fetal Death Certificate’ (and pay a filing fee), and then require a formal burial or cremation of the remains (which the woman would also have to pay for) — no matter where in the pregnancy the miscarriage occurs.”

The bill in question does not technically “fine” women for miscarrying. The new requirements — and fines for failing to comply — would be tied to health care facilities, such as clinics or hospitals.

That said, experts say the costs of those requirements, if enacted, would likely trickle down to patients who miscarry or have an abortion, or their insurers.

HB 118

Some background: The bill is similar to laws enacted in some other states. A group called Americans United for Life provides states with model legislation for the “Unborn Infants Dignity Act.” In Indiana, such a law was enacted under then-Gov. Mike Pence in 2016 and survived a challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019.

Pennsylvania’s version was initially passed by the state House of Representatives in 2019 — then known as HB 1890 — but stalled in the state Senate. Reintroduced as HB 118 this year, it passed the House Health Committee on May 25 along party lines and will now advance to the full House for consideration.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Frank Ryan, argues the bill would provide parents “the right to claim their child’s remains for proper cremation or burial at their own expense.”

The bill does indeed codify that option — but it also stipulates that health care facilities must “[c]remate or inter the fetal remains” if the parents do not choose to carry out their own burial.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which opposes the legislation, counters that nothing in existing state law prohibits parents from choosing an optional burial. The group also argues that the bill’s definition of “fetal remains” would result in all medical tissue, from the moment of conception, to be treated as a fetus — and that it adds more of a burden to clinics and women seeking abortions.

The term fetus is defined in the medical community as the stage beginning at the end of the 10th week following the woman’s last menstrual period. Before that, it’s an embryo.

Pennsylvania law currently defines a “fetal death” as “the expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception after sixteen (16) weeks gestation, which shows no evidence of life after such expulsion or extraction.” The vast majority of abortions in Pennsylvania take place before that 16-week mark, according to state data from 2019, and more than half before eight weeks of gestation.

HB 118 proffers another definition of a “fetal death,” removing the 16-week timeframe and defining it simply as the “expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception which shows no evidence of life after the expulsion or extraction.” It defines “fetal remains” as “the fetus expelled or extracted in the case of a fetal death.”

Assessing Costs of the Bill

The bill would require health care providers to arrange for burials or cremation for all fetal remains. It notes that “if a parent of the unborn child selects a location for the final disposition of the fetal remains other than a location that is usual and customary for a health care facility, the parent shall be responsible for the costs relating to the final disposition of the fetal remains.”

It’s worth noting that the proposal does not address miscarriages that occur at home.

Tanya Marsh, a law professor at Wake Forest University who specializes in the law surrounding human remains, told us in an email that the bill would therefore “only apply to fetal deaths where a health care facility is involved.”

And while the bill doesn’t technically say anything about requirements for fetal death certificates, existing state law indicates that such certificates are required to be “filed prior to the issuance of a permit for interment or other disposition of the dead body or fetal remains.” (Currently, death certificates are required for fetal deaths after 16 weeks gestation.)

Therefore, Marsh said, the bill would trigger the requirement for a fetal death certificate.

In a June 3 radio segment, Ryan — the sponsor of the bill — claimed “it does not require a death certificate” and that “my bill doesn’t change anything in that requirement relative to the fetal death certificate. In fact, we’re going to do an amendment on the bill that says no death certificate is required.”

A representative for Ryan, Donna Pinkham, told us in an email that Ryan would amend the bill in coming days to clarify the certificate issue.

A fetal death certificate in Pennsylvania costs $20 and is paid for when applying for the certificate. It is to be completed by “the person in charge of interment or of removal of the dead body or fetal remains from the registration district,” though “[p]ersonal information concerning the deceased or the fetal death shall be supplied by the person best acquainted with the facts.”

Under the legislation, the “additional documentation requirements (i.e. death certificate and transit permit) plus the requirement that fetal remains must be buried or cremated, will be more expensive than current practices,” Marsh said. It is “accurate to say that the bill does not require parents to pay those costs unless they choose to take possession of the remains themselves, but it is probably reasonable to assume that the increased costs will be passed on to the patient (unless insurance picks it up).”

Alina Salganicoff, a senior vice president and director of Women’s Health Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told us in a phone interview that any additional activities that require more staffing, patient time or documentation “will increase the cost and those costs are typically borne by either the patient or the payer,” meaning the insurer.

Such legislation would “inflate the cost of abortion — and those costs are typically borne by people who have abortions and who pay out of pocket,” she said.

It’s hard to know exactly how much costs would be affected by introducing such requirements in Pennsylvania. Costs are affected by a variety of factors, such as the specific business handling the burial or cremation.

In Indiana, Planned Parenthood officials estimated in 2019 that the requirements — including hiring a funeral home or cremation service — could add hundreds of dollars to the expenses, the Associated Press reported. Though Planned Parenthood said it would seek to absorb the costs or fundraise to avoid charging patients more.

We reached out to the Planned Parenthood that represents Indiana to ask if it could provide estimates for any changes in costs as a result of that state’s law, as a reference point, but didn’t hear back.

Editor’s Note: Please consider a donation to FactCheck.org. We do not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.

Sources

“2019 Abortion Statistics.” Pennsylvania Department of Health. December 2020.

“ACLU-PA Opposition to HB 118 PN 86 House Health 2021-05-21.” American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. Accessed 3 Jun 2021.

Davies, Tom. “Indiana fetal remains law could boost costs for abortions.” Associated Press. 29 May 2019.

General Assembly of Pennsylvania. “House Bill No. 1890.” (as introduced 26 Sep 2019)

General Assembly of Pennsylvania. “House Bill No. 118.” (as introduced 11 Jan 2021)

“Gov. Wolf Releases Statement on Proposed Anti-Choice Legislation.” Press release, Pennsylvania Governor’s Office. 25 May 2021.

“Latest Audio.” Office of Pennsylvania State Rep. Frank Ryan. Accessed 4 Jun 2021.

Marsh, Tanya. Law professor, Wake Forest University. Email to FactCheck.org. 2 Jun 2021.

“Ordering a Fetal Death Certificate.” Pennsylvania Department of Health. Accessed 3 Jun 2021.

Pinkham, Donna. Spokeswoman, Pennsylvania House GOP. Email to FactCheck.org. 4 Jun 2021.

Salganicoff, Alina. Senior vice president and director of Women’s Health Policy, Kaiser Family Foundation. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 3 Jun 2021.

Vital Statistics Law of 1953. Pennsylvania Public Law 304, No. 66. 29 Jun 1953.

The post Understanding Pennsylvania’s Proposed Bill on Handling Fetal Remains appeared first on FactCheck.org.

No Evidence Vaccines Impact Fertility

Catalina Jaramillo — Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:51:50 +0000

Q: Do the COVID-19 vaccines cause infertility?

A: There’s no evidence that approved vaccines cause fertility loss. Although clinical trials did not study the issue, loss of fertility has not been reported among thousands of trial participants nor confirmed as an adverse event among millions who have been vaccinated.

FULL QUESTION

A group of woman in their 20’s I know are not getting the vaccine. They are nurses and teachers. They say that the vaccine can cause infertility. Is this true?

FULL ANSWER

On Feb. 5, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine released a statement assuring patients that there’s no evidence that the approved COVID-19 vaccines can impact the capacity to conceive children.

Although there’s limited research on the matter since clinical trials did not specifically study fertility, no related issues have been reported among thousands of trial participants. In fact, some of them got pregnant. Initial studies on animals for the Moderna vaccine showed no impact on female reproduction or fetal development either. And although detecting fertility issues can take time, as of Jan. 20, fertility loss has not been found to be a side effect among millions who have already received the vaccines after authorization, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Loss of fertility is scientifically unlikely,” health reproductive experts concluded in their statement.

The statement was issued to address public anxiety caused by baseless viral claims stating that vaccines can lead to infertility, and even female sterilization. And it reiterates previous recommendations for pregnant patients, as well as those undergoing fertility treatment or planning to conceive.

“Since the vaccine is not a live virus, there is no reason to delay pregnancy attempts because of vaccination administration or to defer treatment until the second dose has been administered,” according to a document prepared by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in December.

As we have explained, both the Pfizer/BioNTech and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines are messenger RNA vaccines, or mRNA, which do not contain a weaker or inactivated version of the virus. The mRNA provides instructions for cells to make their own spike proteins (found on the surface of SARS-CoV-2), prompting the body to generate protective antibodies and activate T cells.

According to the CDC, there is “no risk” of getting COVID-19 from this type of vaccine, and because the mRNA doesn’t enter the nucleus of the cell, it does not affect or interact with a person’s DNA. After making the spike protein, the cells break down the mRNA fairly quickly.

“Given the mechanism of action and the safety profile of the vaccine in non-pregnant individuals, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are not thought to cause an increased risk of infertility,” recommendations posted on the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists website say.

Dr. Eve C. Feinberg, medical director of Northwestern Fertility & Reproductive Medicine and former president of the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, says there are really two questions when trying to find out the impact of vaccines in fertility: What do we know about the vaccine and fertility, and what do we know about COVID-19 and pregnancy?

“And I think that we know a lot more about the negative impact of COVID in pregnancy, on both the mother and potentially the fetus, than about the vaccine on fertility. The mechanism of action of the vaccine is such that there really is no biological possibility as to how the vaccine may negatively impact fertility,” Feinberg, who is also a member of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s Coronavirus/COVID-19 Task Force, told us.

Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician and vaccine expert at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said people shouldn’t be worried about COVID-19 vaccines causing infertility. He said it is very hard for a vaccine to do something that natural infection doesn’t do, and fertility loss has not been reported even after roughly 67 million people in the U.S. have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to antibody surveillance studies.

“If you know that 20% of the population has been infected with this virus, is there any evidence that we’ve had a decrease in fertility associated with this massive worldwide pandemic? And the answer is, no,” he said in a video.

Vaccines Do Not Cause Female Sterilization

Multiple false claims tying mRNA vaccines with infertility have been circulating, in both English and Spanish, for months. But among them, a false rumor saying they could cause “female sterilization” by training the body to attack a protein vital for the formation of the placenta has been particularly pervasive.

The false rumor started with an article titled “Head of Pfizer Research: Covid Vaccine is Female Sterilization” that baselessly stated the “vaccine contains a spike protein… called syncytin-1, vital for the formation of the human placenta” and therefore, the vaccine could form an immune response against that protein, causing infertility.

Syncytin-1 is an envelope protein, derived from a human endogenous retrovirus, critical in the formation of the syncytiotrophoblast, the outermost layer of the human placenta, responsible for nutrient exchange from mother to embryo.

But according to researchers, neither the Pfizer/BioNTech nor the Moderna vaccines contain syncytin-1.

The story, published on Dec. 2, on a blog called Health and Money News, linked to a petition demanding the European Medicines Agency stop clinical trials on the vaccines for safety concerns. The petition was co-filed by Wolfgang Wodarg, a German physician, and Michael Yeadon, a retired British doctor who worked as a respiratory research employee for Pfizer until 2011, according to his LinkedIn profile. Yeadon had previously claimed the pandemic was “effectively over” in the U.K. and no vaccines were needed.

According to Wodarg and Yeadon’s petition, syncytin-1 is “also found in homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses,” including SARS-CoV-2. They acknowledge that “[t]here is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies.” But they maintain if it happens, it would cause women to “essentially becoming infertile” by preventing the formation of placenta.

The false claims were debunked by multiple fact-checkers in December.

In January, a group of independent reproductive health experts published an article in ASRM’s Fertility and Sterility, stating that the vaccine “contains neither syncytin-1 nor the mRNA sequence for syncytin-1.”

To prove that the SARS-CoV-2 surface glycoprotein, or spike protein, is not “homologous,” or similar in structure, to syncytin-1 protein, as Wodarg and Yeadon claimed, the scientists aligned the amino acid sequences of both proteins using a program that compares nucleotide or protein sequences to sequence databases. Little similarities were found – a finding confirmed by Pfizer.

Eduardo Hariton, a clinical fellow in reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the University of California, San Francisco, and one of the co-authors of the article, told FactCheck.org the researchers published their results after having to constantly reassure worried colleagues, friends and family members that there was no basis to these claims.

“What they were claiming is that because the COVID spike protein looks like syncytin-1, by training your immune system against the COVID protein, your body would attack syncytin-1. And that is not correct because when you look at the genetic sequences of the spike protein and syncytin-1 there is not that much overlap. So even if that was the case, you would not expect the COVID vaccine to train your body to attack syncytin-1, because they’re just so different,” he said.

Several scientists have proved the same: The similarities of both proteins are too small for the immune system to be confused by the two. In fact, they are as similar as the spike protein could be to other proteins abundant in the body. Therefore, even if the immune system could be confused, scientists would have already seen related issues in patients who have had COVID-19 or in people who have received the vaccine. That hasn’t happened. Pfizer has said that the spike protein targeted by its vaccine only shared a sequence of four amino acids with syncytin-1, which is made up of 538 amino acids.

“These proteins are extremely divergent and do not look anything like one another,” Alice Lu-Culligan, a medical student and Ph.D. candidate in the department of immunobiology at Yale School of Medicine, told us. Lu-Culligan co-authored an opinion piece in the New York Times with her professor Akiko Iwasaki debunking Wodarg and Yeadon’s claim as “completely false.”

In addition to analyzing the amino acid sequence alignments of the coronavirus protein and the syncytin-1 protein, Lu-Culligan and Iwasaki evaluated serum from women with COVID-19. They found no reaction between antibodies for the coronavirus and the syncytin-1 protein. Lu-Culligan, who has been investigating the impact of maternal antiviral responses on fetal development during pregnancy, said that based on the history of vaccines, the plausibility of the COVID-19 vaccines leading to infertility is “extremely unlikely.”

Other types of vaccines are deemed safe and are recommended to those trying to conceive because they help prevent serious complications during pregnancy. Unvaccinated pregnant individuals who get infected with the flu, for example, are at risk of miscarriage, premature labor, serious lung infection and even death.

With men, experts have observed a short-term impact on sperm count, but Hariton said that’s common for other infections that cause fever.

Should Pregnant or Lactating Women Get The Vaccine?

Update, Aug. 16: Citing more accumulated safety data, including an analysis of outcomes of pregnant people enrolled in v-safe, another vaccine surveillance system, the CDC recommended on Aug. 11 that pregnant people be vaccinated. The new CDC study, not yet peer-reviewed or published, found no increased risk of miscarriage with vaccination. “The increased circulation of the highly contagious Delta variant, the low vaccine uptake among pregnant people, and the increased risk of severe illness and pregnancy complications related to COVID-19 infection among pregnant people make vaccination for this population more urgent than ever,” the CDC said in its statement.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine had already strongly recommended vaccination for all pregnant people on July 30, given evidence “demonstrating the safe use of the COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy from tens of thousands of reporting individuals over the last several months, as well as the current low vaccination rates and concerning increase in cases.”

There’s limited data on vaccine safety for pregnant women because they were excluded from the first clinical trials of both the Pfizer/BioNTech and the Moderna vaccines. So for now, the recommendation for pregnant women is to discuss it with their clinical team and evaluate the risks and benefits of getting vaccinated.

A health worker administers the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to a pregnant woman in Tel Aviv, Israel on Jan. 23. Photo by Jack Guez/AFP via Getty Images.

Pregnant individuals are not more likely to get COVID-19, but they are at increased risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19 than those who are not. According to the CDC, a pregnant COVID-19 patient is more likely to need hospitalization, intensive care unit admission and mechanical ventilation than a COVID-19 patient who’s not pregnant. Pregnant COVID-19 patients also experience preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes more frequently than healthy expecting parents.

Based on that knowledge, and the way mRNA vaccines work, experts in reproductive health from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommend not withholding vaccines from pregnant and breastfeeding individuals who are eligible, and allowing patients to make their own decision. But they don’t unequivocally recommend them, as they would do with other kinds of vaccines that are proved to be safe.

What experts know so far is that because mRNA vaccines do not contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus, there’s no risk for the carrier or the infant to get COVID-19. Because the body eliminates the mRNA quickly, it’s unlikely for those particles to reach the placenta. And side effects, such as fever or allergic reactions, are rare but possible. Whether maternal immune response to infection protects the fetus, remains unknown.

“The risk of getting COVID in pregnancy puts the maternal health and the fetal health at much greater risk than any theoretical risk from vaccination,” said Dr. Feinberg, from ASRM’s Coronavirus/COVID-19 Task Force.

The World Health Organization guidelines for pregnant individuals are less clear. The WHO states that “we don’t have any specific reason to believe there will be risks that would outweigh the benefits of vaccination for pregnant women” based on the little vaccine safety data available. It says those at high risk of exposure or who have comorbidities “may be vaccinated in consultation with their health care provider.”

According to the CDC, there are no data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in lactating women nor on the effects on milk production or the breastfed infant. The recommendation of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine is to therefore balance potential risks with potential benefits, even though it says a vaccine is “unlikely to have any biological effects.”

“During lactation, it is unlikely that the vaccine lipid would enter the bloodstream and reach breast tissue. If it does, it is even less likely that either the intact nanoparticle or mRNA transfer into milk. In the unlikely event that mRNA is present in milk, it would be expected to be digested by the child and would be unlikely to have any biological effects,” a statement on its website reads.

On the other hand, the ABM says “antibodies and T-cells stimulated by the vaccines may passively transfer into milk” and protect the infant from infection.

A recent post viewed by over 88,000 people, baselessly claims that the vaccine is causing miscarriages and premature births. The article posted on Feb. 23 by Children’s Health Defense — an organization founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was banned from Instagram for spreading vaccine misinformation — uses unsubstantiated information attributed to the National Vaccine Information Center, which is not an official government agency, as we have reported before, but an antivaccine organization.

According to the publication, the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System has received 111 reports of adverse reactions to the vaccine in pregnant individuals. But the story cites data published by MedAlerts, an alternative to VAERS search engine run by the National Vaccine Information Center, not the CDC. In any case, as we’ve explained before, VAERS data is unvetted and raw. Anyone can submit a report, but that doesn’t mean the adverse event or illness can be linked to the vaccines as reports could be incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental or unverifiable.

On Feb. 26, Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, with the CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force Vaccine Safety Team, said there had been 154 reports of adverse reactions in pregnant women to VAERS and 55 million vaccine doses administered as of Feb. 16.

Most of those events, 73%, were not specifically related to pregnancy — such as headache, fatigue, chills, pain in extremity, nausea, dizziness or injection site pain. Of the 42 events directly related to pregnancy, 29 were spontaneous abortions or miscarriage. But according to Shimabukuro’s presentation to a panel discussing the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine candidate, that number was in line with pregnancy loss for the general population. Early pregnancy loss for women aged 20-30 years is 9% to17%, with that rate increasing sharply from 20% at age 35, to 40% at age 40, and 80% at age 45. The median maternal age in the VAERS reports was 33.

“The frequency of spontaneous abortion and miscarriage is actually quite common , 10 to 20% based on age,” he said. “The number was not concerning considering the expected background rate.”

On Feb. 10, the National Institutes of Health called for greater inclusion of pregnant and lactating people in COVID-19 vaccine research. Reproductive health experts have also advocated to include pregnant individuals in vaccine trials in order to have more data for people to make informed decisions. On Feb. 18, Pfizer and BioNTech announced they would start evaluating their vaccine in pregnant individuals. The goal is to enroll a total of about 4,000 healthy pregnant people in the U.S., Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mozambique, South Africa, U.K. and Spain. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, the third COVID-19 vaccine to be authorized by the FDA, is also planning to include pregnant women in their trials.

“More research needs to be done, and we are doing that research,” Hariton, who is part of a team at the University of California, San Francisco, conducting a nationwide study on pregnancy and COVID-19, told us. They are trying to recruit 10,000 pregnant individuals.

“That being said, we don’t know about the long-term effects of COVID and we don’t know about the long-term effects of the vaccine, but it is much more likely that the long-term effects of COVID are going to be much worse than the long-term effects of the vaccines,” he said.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ recommends that pregnant women who choose to get vaccinated should get their shots in authorized sites, complete the two-dose series with the same vaccine product, refrain from getting other vaccines 14 days before and after the COVID-19 vaccine, and to treat any fever following vaccination with acetaminophen.

Update, Feb. 26: We added information from the CDC on adverse events reported by pregnant women who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

Update, March 3: We updated this story with some information about the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

Editor’s note: SciCheck’s COVID-19/Vaccination Project is made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over our editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation. The goal of the project is to increase exposure to accurate information about COVID-19 and vaccines, while decreasing the impact of misinformation.

Sources

“Medical Experts Continue to Assert that COVID Vaccines Do Not Impact Fertility.” Press release. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. 5 Feb 2021.

“FDA Briefing Document Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.” Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting. 17 Dec 2020.

Shimabukuro, Tom. “COVID-19 vaccine safety update.” Powerpoint slides for Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting. 27 Jan 2021.

“Patient Management And Clinical Recommendations During The Coronavirus (Covid-19) Pandemic.” American Society For Reproductive Medicine. 16 Dec 2020.

McDonald, Jessica. “A Guide to Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine.” FactCheck.org. Updated 7 Jan 2021.

McDonald, Jessica. “A Guide to Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine.” FactCheck.org. Updated 7 Jan 2021.

“Understanding and Explaining mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines.” CDC. Last updated 24 Nov 2020, accessed 25 Feb 2021.

“Vaccinating Pregnant and Lactating Patients Against COVID-19.” American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Last updated 4 Feb 2021.

Feinberg, Eve C. Medical director of Northwestern Fertility & Reproductive Medicine. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 18 Feb 2021.

Wolfgang, Wodarg, and Michael Yeadon. “Petition/Motion For Administrative/Regulatory Action Regarding Confirmation Of Efficacy End Points And Use Of Data In Connection With The Following Clinical Trial(S).” European Medicines Agency. 1 Dec 2020.

McCarthy, Bill. “Former Pfizer employee wrong that coronavirus pandemic is ‘effectively over’ in UK.’” Politifact. 2 Dec 2020.

Palma, Bethania. “Did ‘Head of Pfizer Research’ Say COVID-19 Vaccine ‘Is Female Sterilization’?” Snopes.com. 4 Dec 2020.

Dupuy, Beatrice. “No evidence that COVID-19 vaccine results in sterilization.” Associated Press. 8 Dec 2020.

“Las vacunas contra el covid no afectan la placenta ni una proteína que ayuda a su formación.” AFP Factual. 23 Dec 2020.

Wu, Katherine J. “No, there isn’t evidence that Pfizer’s vaccine causes infertility.” New York Times. 10 Dec 2020.

Rahman, Grace, and Pippa Allen-Kinross. “There’s no evidence the Pfizer vaccine interferes with the placenta.” Full Fact. 22 Dec 2020.

Evans, M. Blake, et. al. “COVID-19 vaccine and infertility: baseless claims and unfounded social media panic.” Fertility and Sterility. 19 Jan 2021.

Hariton, Eduardo. Clinical fellow in reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the University of California, San Francisco. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 19 Feb 2021.

Thornton, Catherine, and April Rees. “COVID-19 vaccines do not make women infertile.” The Conversation. 29 Jan 2021.

Croxford, Andrew (@andrew_croxford). “NEW THREAD: possible development of anti-Syncytin responses after immunization with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-coding mRNA vaccines, based on a “homologous” region shared between these proteins.(1/n).” Twitter. 3 Dec 2020.

Ryan, Órla. “Debunked: No, Pfizer’s head of research did not say the Covid vaccine is ‘female sterilisation’.” The Journal. 10 Dec 2020.

Reuters Staff. “Fact check: Available mRNA vaccines do not target syncytin-1, a protein vital to successful pregnancies.” Reuters. 4 Feb 2021.

Lu-Culligan, Alice. Medical student and Ph.D. candidate in the department of immunobiology at Yale School of Medicine. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 19 Feb 2021.

“Are Vaccinations a Good Idea If I’m Trying to Get Pregnant?” American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Last updated 2014.

Goldfarb, Ilona T. “Vaccines for women: Before conception, during pregnancy, and after a birth.” Harvard Health Blog. Updated 15 Jan 2020.

LaMotte, Sandee. “Does Covid-19 impact male fertility? Experts urge caution about new evidence.” CNN. 29 Jan 2021.

Offit, Paul. “Do COVID-19 Vaccines Cause Infertility?” Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Last updated 10 Feb 2021.

“Pfizer-biontech Covid-19 Vaccine (Bnt162, Pf-07302048).” Pfizer briefing document for meeting. 10 Dec 2020.

Satin, Andrew, and Jeanne Sheffield. “The COVID-19 Vaccine and Pregnancy: What You Need to Know.” John Hopkins Medicine. Updated 9 Feb 2021, accessed 23 Feb 2021.

“Vaccination Considerations for People who are Pregnant or Breastfeeding.” CDC. Updated 12 Feb 2021 accessed 23 Feb 2021.

Zambrano, Laura D., et. al. “Update: Characteristics of Symptomatic Women of Reproductive Age with Laboratory-Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Pregnancy Status — United States, January 22–October 3, 2020.” CDC. 6 Nov 2020.

Shaffer, Catherine. “COVID-19 Vaccines for Pregnant Moms May Protect Newborns.” The Scientist. 17 Feb 2021.

Atyeo, Caroline, et. al. “Compromised SARS-CoV-2-specific placental antibody transfer.” Cell. Volume 184. Issue 3. Feb 2021.

“Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Vaccines safety.” WHO. 19 Feb 2021.

“Considerations for COVID-19 Vaccination in Lactation.” Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine. 14 Dec 2020.

“Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Announces The Launch of Children’s Health Defense.” Press release. PR Newswire. 12 Sep 2018.

Herrera, Sebastian. “Instagram Bans Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Over Covid-19 Vaccine Misinformation.” The Wall Street Journal. 11 Feb 2021.

Spencer, Saranac Hale. “Fake Coronavirus Cures, Part 3: Vitamin C Isn’t a Shield.” FactCheck.org. 12 Feb 2020.

McDonald, Jessica. “Instagram Post Falsely Links Flu Vaccine to Polio.” FactCheck.org. 18 Oct 2019.

“VAERS Data.” Vaccine Adverse Event Report System. Accessed 24 Feb 2020.

“NIH calls for greater inclusion of pregnant and lactating people in COVID-19 vaccine research.” Press release. National Institutes of Health. 10 Feb 2021.

“SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Pregnancy.” Statement. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. 1 Dec 2020.

Riley, Laura E., and Brenna L. Hughes. “Pregnant and lactating women should not be excluded from Covid-19 drug, vaccine trials.” Stat News. 28 Sep 2020.

“Pfizer and BioNTech Commence Global Clinical Trial to Evaluate COVID-19 Vaccine in Pregnant Women.” Press release. Globe Newswire. 18 Feb 2020.

The post No Evidence Vaccines Impact Fertility appeared first on FactCheck.org.

What Do the New Coronavirus Variants Mean for the Pandemic?

Jessica McDonald — Sat, 16 Jan 2021 00:03:29 +0000

Q: What are the risks of the newly identified coronavirus variants?

A: It’s not yet known whether mutant versions cause more severe disease, but some are likely more contagious. Scientists expect vaccines will work but are monitoring the situation.

FULL QUESTION

Subject: COVID-19 Mutation in Colorado

I know that viruses continuously mutate, but is this new mutation that was just found stateside actually more dangerous than any other mutations of the COVID-19 virus?

FULL ANSWER

On Dec. 29, Colorado officials reported the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the U.S. due to a variant of the coronavirus that emerged in the U.K. in September.

Known as the B.1.1.7 lineage variant, but colloquially called the “U.K. variant,” the strain has spread rapidly in Britain, and scientists believe one or more of its nearly two dozen mutations have made the virus more transmissible.

A mutation is just one change to the genetic sequence. A variant usually has multiple mutations, making it a distinct virus. (To avoid stigma, we are not referring to the variants by their places of original identification.)

Meanwhile, another variant — dubbed the B.1.351 lineage variant and also referred to as 501Y.V2 — independently cropped up in October in South Africa. It shares a key mutation with B.1.1.7 and is also likely more infectious. Among numerous other genetic changes, B.1.351 has another mutation of interest that might allow it to partially evade immune responses in some people already exposed to the virus.

Researchers have also flagged another potentially concerning variant in Brazil, known as the P.1 lineage variant, that shares some of the mutations present in B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 and was observed in travelers to Japan.

There is no firm evidence yet that any of the variants cause more severe disease, although this is an active area of study.

As of Feb. 4, B.1.1.7 has been detected in 73 countries and at least 33 U.S. states, while B.1.351 has been observed in 32 nations and was first reported in the U.S. in two individuals in South Carolina. P.1 has been spotted in 11 countries. The first U.S. case was announced on Jan. 25 in a traveler returning to Minnesota from Brazil.

Before unpacking the implications of these variants for the pandemic, it’s important to emphasize that mutation itself is not surprising, as viruses mutate relatively quickly. These changes come about randomly as the pathogen replicates, making inevitable errors as the genome is copied again and again.

Variants appear all the time. “It’s very normal,” said Emma Hodcroft, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Bern in Switzerland and a co-developer of the virus-tracking site Nextstrain, in an email to SciCheck.

Most mutations or collections of mutations don’t alter the virus’s biology or how human immune systems respond, although genomic scientists can track the alterations to understand how the virus is spreading. But on occasion, those types of mutations can arise and persist in populations, particularly if there is a competitive advantage for the virus.

“What causes us to take notice is when we see changes in how the virus behaves,” Hodcroft said, “like that one variant is expanding faster than others or than we expect.”

Even then, that’s no guarantee that a variant poses any extra threat. Over the summer, for example, Hodcroft said one variant expanded its reach across Europe, but that was mostly due to loosened restrictions and increased travel. When variants do exhibit such behavior, however, it’s worth investigating.

As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explains, the kinds of changes that might matter for the pandemic include those that allow the virus to:

spread more quickly;
increase or decrease the severity of COVID-19;
lead existing diagnostic tests or therapeutics to fail;
enable the virus to evade immunity resulting from natural infection or a vaccine.

With at least two variants that appear to be more contagious, scientists say concern is justified, but that the game plan remains the same: Get vaccinated and double down on public health precautions.

“The most important thing about new variants is that they still need humans in order to spread,” Hodcroft said, “so we can prevent them through the techniques we know work: masks, hand washing, staying home as much as possible, avoiding crowded spaces, & being aware of aerosol transmission risks.”

Nicholas Davies, an epidemiologist and assistant professor of mathematical modeling at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who is studying coronavirus variants, echoed that call.

“It doesn’t spread in a different way, it just spreads more efficiently,” he told us, which means sticking to the standard public health measures will still work to limit transmission.

The other piece is immunization. “That’s really the end game for this pandemic, is getting people vaccinated,” he said. “And the emergence of these new variants I think makes that more important than it’s ever been.”

In a Jan. 15 report, the CDC likewise warned that with the arrival of B.1.1.7 to American shores and its increased transmissibility, the variant “warrants universal and increased compliance with mitigation strategies, including distancing and masking,” and said “[h]igher vaccination coverage might need to be achieved to protect the public.”

Variant Emerged in U.K.

Of all the known SARS-CoV-2 variants, B.1.1.7 has garnered the most attention and study. It has an unusually high number of genetic changes and was first identified in southeastern England when public health officials were investigating a spike in COVID-19 cases in early December, with the earliest instances stemming from patient samples taken in September.

The variant began to quickly dominate in the region and also spread to other parts of the U.K., where it replaced other viral lineages. While it is not always easy to determine whether that type of pattern necessarily means a virus has evolved to become more contagious, Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch told us he believed there was now a consensus that B.1.1.7 is more transmissible, noting that “data from multiple places in the UK are compelling.”

The most direct evidence of an increase in transmissibility comes from contact tracing data, Davies said. Public Health England found that as of Dec. 20, 14.7% of those in contact with people infected with B.1.1.7 contracted COVID-19, compared with 11% for those not infected with the variant.

Researchers also have used modeling or other statistical techniques to estimate how much more infectious B.1.1.7 is. Davies’ group, for instance, pegged B.1.1.7 as 56% more infectious than preexisting versions of the virus in a preliminary, unpublished preprint released at the end of December.

Scientists at Imperial College London also released an unpublished report that estimated the variant increased the reproduction number, or how many people on average each person with COVID-19 infects, by 0.4 to 0.7.

Davies said that while it’s hard to pin down an exact estimate — the numbers vary based on the models — B.1.1.7 is likely somewhere between 30% and 70% more contagious.

Preliminary data from the National Health Service initially suggested that B.1.1.7 does not cause more severe COVID-19 compared with past versions of the virus, as there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of people infected with the variant who were hospitalized or died within 28 days compared with those infected with other strains.

Subsequently, however, British authorities revealed on Jan. 22 that four analyses indicated there was a “realistic possibility” that B.1.1.7 could be more lethal, although they cautioned that this was based on limited data and was still uncertain.

Even if B.1.1.7 doesn’t cause more severe COVID-19 symptoms, experts caution that an increase in transmissibility can still lead to a large number of deaths. In fact, because of the exponential nature of viral spread, an increase in contagiousness can have a bigger effect than the same uptick in a virus’s virulence, or ability to harm a host.

Running the math on a hypothetical virus with similar characteristics to SARS-CoV-2 in a city with 10,000 infections, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine mathematician and infectious disease researcher Adam Kucharski explained on Twitter that a variant that’s 50% more deadly would eventually kill 64 additional people after a month, but a variant that’s 50% more transmissible would claim an extra 849 lives.

Of B.1.1.7’s 23 mutations, 17 change the protein sequence and eight of these occur in the virus’s spike — the protein that sticks out from the surface and is used to enter human cells.

Specifically, B.1.1.7 has a mutation known as N501Y (the name refers to a change in the protein sequence at position 501 from the amino acid asparagine to tyrosine). This is of particular note because it occurs in the receptor binding domain — the spot on the spike that binds to the ACE2 receptor on human cells — and previous experiments suggest it enables the virus to bind to the human receptor more tightly. A study in mice also found that making this change allowed the animals to be more easily infected and to get sick.

Other mutations of interest include a short deletion that is predicted to alter the shape of the spike protein and another change near an enzyme-binding site that could affect how the virus enters cells.

While the mechanism for why B.1.1.7 is more contagious still needs to be studied, tighter binding to human cells — due to the N501Y mutation or perhaps in combination with other mutations — could account for the phenomenon.

“As you breathe in some virus, if the virus is more efficient at latching on to its target surface, you’re more likely to get an infection,” explained Shane Crotty, an infectious disease researcher who studies COVID-19 at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, in an interview with the YouTube channel MedCram.

Crotty also pointed to preliminary work from a governmental lab in the U.K. indicating that people infected with B.1.1.7 had higher viral loads, or levels of the virus, in their noses than people harboring other strains.

“If that’s true, it would say that this U.K. variant has amassed a set of mutations that let it grow a lot better in nasal passages than the previous virus and that there’s literally just a lot more virus in people’s nose,” he said. “If there’s just more virus coming out of you when you’re breathing or sneezing or coughing, then obviously it’s going to be more likely to able to infect people near you.”

So far, B.1.1.7 remains rare in the U.S., and it does not explain the surge of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations that began in the fall.

Duncan MacCannell, the chief science officer with the CDC’s Office of Advanced Molecular Detection, told the Washington Post on Jan. 11 that he estimated that only 0.5% of COVID-19 transmission in the country involves the variant.

But many scientists expect the proportion of COVID-19 cases due to the variant will rise.

Trevor Bedford, a computational biologist studying viral evolution at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and co-developer of Nextstrain, said in a Jan. 7 interview with NPR that based on the timeframe observed in the U.K., he thought B.1.1.7 could become the dominant strain in the U.S. by March.

CDC modeling, shared in a Jan. 15 report from the agency, similarly concluded that B.1.1.7 could become the predominant variant in the month of March.

Variant Identified in South Africa

Compared with its U.K. counterpart, less is known about B.1.351, which was first observed in South Africa. In a preprint posted on Dec. 22, scientists noted that the variant quickly came to be the dominant virus in the country’s two most southern provinces and might be more transmissible.

Few research groups have attempted to quantify the variant’s possible increase in contagiousness, although one tentatively estimated it to be 50% more infectious, with a range between 20% and 113%.

According to the same unpublished report, the case fatality ratio did rise in the region as the variant took over, suggesting a possible effect on disease severity, but there is no firm evidence that B.1.351 is more deadly than ancestral viruses.

Davies, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine epidemiologist who also co-authored the preprint, explained that the proportion of people dying could have gone up for a variety of reasons unrelated to a change in viral virulence.

“When hospitals are under more pressure the standard of care that they’re able to provide tends to go down,” he said. “So it could be, for example, that because [the variant is] more transmissible, they’re seeing more cases, and they’re less able to treat the people coming in.”

B.1.351 harbors multiple mutations in its spike protein, three of which occur in the receptor binding domain. This includes N501Y — the key mutation in B.1.1.7 — and another one nearby, E484K.

E484K is especially noteworthy, as researchers have found that the mutation reduces the ability of antibodies collected from people who recovered from COVID-19 to neutralize the virus. This raises concerns that the variant could pose more of a risk to populations because it could be better at reinfecting people and vaccines might not work as well against the variant.

Most scientists, however, caution against assuming the worst. As Jesse Bloom, a researcher who studies viral evolution at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center whose lab performed the antibody experiments, explained on Twitter, there is no reason to think that all immunity would be lost or that existing vaccines would suddenly fail.

“I’m confident current vaccines will be useful for quite a while,” he said, noting that the E484K mutation only reduced the neutralization activity of the antibodies present in some people’s blood, and didn’t eliminate it for anyone.

“So we need to monitor these mutations, and be prepared to update vaccines eventually if needed,” he added. But, he said, less effective neutralizing antibodies, “while worrying,” are “not the same as complete elimination of all immunity.”

Indeed, Moderna announced on Jan. 25 that the antibodies collected from people immunized with its vaccine were still able to neutralize a virus with the full set of spike mutations present in the B.1.351 variant, but it took around six times more antibody to do so than for previous versions of the virus. The results have not yet been peer reviewed, but were posted in a preprint to bioRxiv in collaboration with researchers at the National Institutes of Health.

Although in theory the N501Y mutation, by virtue of being located where it is on the spike protein, might also be a concern for immune evasion, experiments thus far have not revealed any problems.

Bloom’s lab, for example, did not find that mutations in N501 strongly diminished the ability of any person’s antibodies to bind to the virus. A similar test on antibodies from 20 people vaccinated with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine also found no reduction in the ability of those antibodies to neutralize a virus with the N501Y mutation, according to an unpublished report conducted by scientists at the University of Texas in collaboration with Pfizer.

Public Health England also reported on Jan. 14 that antibodies from people infected with non-B.1.1.7 viruses still neutralized the variant, and vice-versa.

Other experiments from the vaccine makers likewise suggest B.1.1.7 is unlikely to pose a problem for the current shots. As detailed in a report published in the journal Science, Pfizer found that antibodies from people immunized with its vaccine could neutralize a virus with B.1.1.7’s full set of spike mutations almost as well as an unmutated virus. Moderna reported similar findings for its vaccine on Jan. 25.

The good news is that should any variant prove to be evading a vaccinated person’s immune response, the two COVID-19 vaccines with emergency authorization in the U.S. can be quickly modified. Both use messenger RNA to train the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2, which can be revised by swapping in a molecule with a slightly different sequence.

Recent Variant in Brazil

Relatively little is known about the P.1 lineage variant, which a group of scientists first named in a Jan. 12 post on a virology discussion forum. Similar to the situation in the U.K. and South Africa, the variant was identified following a surge of COVID-19 cases, this time in Manaus, Brazil.

Although P.1 arose independently, it shares several genetic changes with the other variants of concern, including N501Y and E484K.

Sources

“Gov. Polis and State Public Health Officials Announce First Case of COVID Variant of COVID-19 in Colorado.” Press release. Colorado governor’s office. 29 Dec 2020.

“COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2): information about the new virus variant.” Public Health England. 20 Dec 2020.

“SARS-CoV-2 Variants.” World Health Organization. 31 Dec 2020.

“Update on new SARS-CoV-2 variant and how COG-UK tracks emerging mutations.” COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium. 14 Dec 2020.

Callaway, Ewen. “‘A bloody mess’: Confusion reigns over naming of new COVID variants.” Nature. 15 Jan 2021.

“New COVID-19 Variants.” CDC. Updated 15 Jan 2021.

Tegally, Houriiyah et al. “Emergence and rapid spread of a new severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) lineage with multiple spike mutations in South Africa.” medRxiv. 22 Dec 2020.

“B.1.1.7 report.” Global Report Investigating Novel Coronavirus Haplotypes. Updated 4 Feb 2021.

“US COVID-19 Cases Caused by Variants.” CDC. Updated 2 Feb 2021.

“B.1.351 report.” Global Report Investigating Novel Coronavirus Haplotypes. Updated 4 Feb 2021.

“South Carolina detects first US cases associated with variant first detected in South Africa.” Press release. CDC. 28 Jan 2021.

“South Carolina Public Health Officials Detect Nation’s First Known Cases of the COVID-19 Variant Originally Detected in South Africa.” Press release. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. 28 Jan 2021.

“P.1 report.” Global Report Investigating Novel Coronavirus Haplotypes. Updated 4 Feb 2021.

“MDH lab testing confirms nation’s first known COVID-19 case associated with Brazil P.1 variant.” Press release. Minnesota Department of Health. 25 Jan 2021.

Faria, Nuno R. et al. “Genomic characterisation of an emergent SARS-CoV-2 lineage in Manaus: preliminary findings.” Virological.org. 12 Jan 2021.

Meredith, Sam. “Japan has found a new Covid variant. Here’s how it compares to virus strains in the UK, South Africa.” CNBC. 11 Jan 2021.

“New mutant strain of new coronavirus detected in returnees from Brazil.” National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan. 10 Jan 2021.

Hodcroft, Emma. Postdoctoral researcher, University of Bern. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 14 Jan 2021.

“Comment on recent spike protein changes.” GISAID. Accessed 15 Jan 2021.

Lauring, Adam S. and Emma B. Hodcroft. “Genetic Variants of SARS-CoV-2—What Do They Mean?” JAMA. 6 Jan 2021.

“Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants.” CDC. Updated 15 Jan 2021.

Davies, Nicholas. Assistant professor of mathematical modelling, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Zoom interview with FactCheck.org. 13 Jan 2021.

Galloway, Summer E. et al. “Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 Lineage — United States, December 29, 2020–January 12, 2021.” MMWR. 15 Jan 2021.

Rambaut, Andrew et al. “Preliminary genomic characterisation of an emergent SARS-CoV-2 lineage in the UK defined by a novel set of spike mutations.” Virological.org. 18 Dec 2020.

“Investigation of novel SARS-CoV-2 variant: Variant of Concern 202012/01.” Public Health England. 21 Dec 2020, updated 15 Jan 2021.

“Quotes: Britain says new COVID-19 variant may carry higher risk of death.” Reuters. 22 Jan 2021.

“NERVTAG paper on COVID-19 variant of concern B.1.1.7.” Gov.UK. 22 Jan 2021.

Lipsitch, Marc. Professor of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 13 Jan 2021.

Davies, Nicholas G. et al. “Estimated transmissibility and severity of novel SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern 202012/01 in England.” medRxiv. 26 Dec 2020.

Volz, Erik et al. “Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Lineage B.1.1.7 in England: Insights from linking epidemiological and genetic data.” medRxiv. 4 Jan 2021.

Kucharski, Adam (@AdamJKucharski). “Why a SARS-CoV-2 variant that’s 50% more transmissible would in general be a much bigger problem than a variant that’s 50% more deadly. A short thread… 1/.” Twitter. 28 Dec 2020.

“Interim: Implications of the Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variant VOC 202012/01.” CDC. Updated 29 Dec 2020.

Starr, Tyler N. et al. “Deep Mutational Scanning of SARS-CoV-2 Receptor Binding Domain Reveals Constraints on Folding and ACE2 Binding.” Cell. 3 Sep 2020.

Gu, Hongjing et al. “Adaptation of SARS-CoV-2 in BALB/c mice for testing vaccine efficacy.” Science. 25 Sep 2020.

“Coronavirus Mutations and COVID 19 Vaccine Implications with Shane Crotty, PhD (SARS CoV 2 Variants).” MedCram, YouTube channel. 6 Jan 2021.

Kidd, Michael et al. “S-variant SARS-CoV-2 is associated with significantly higher viral loads in samples tested by ThermoFisher TaqPath RT-QPCR.” medRxiv. 27 Dec 2020.

Achenbach, Joel et al. “CDC: No sign of homegrown U.S. coronavirus variant, but scientists need to look harder.” Washington Post. 12 Jan 2021.

Doucleff, Michaeleen. “What Happens If U.K. Variant Of The Coronavirus Spreads In The U.S.?” NPR. 7 Jan 2021.

Pearson, Carl A.B. et al. “Estimates of severity and transmissibility of novel South Africa SARS-CoV-2 variant 501Y.V2.” Preprint, Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases Repository. 11 Jan 2021.

Greaney, Allison J. et al. “Comprehensive mapping of mutations to the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain that affect recognition by polyclonal human serum antibodies.” bioRxiv. 4 Jan 2021.

Bloom, Jesse (@jbloom_lab). “In this short thread, I am going to plot some experimental data in a way that provides perspective on concerns that #SARSCoV2 mutation E484K will completely abolish immunity. (Thanks @profshanecrotty @apoorva_nyc for inspiring this post.) (1/n).” Twitter. 12 Jan 2021.

Bloom, Jesse (@jbloom_lab). “But biggest priority is vaccinate! Despite above, I’m confident current vaccines will be useful for quite a while. Reasons: (a) even worst mutations (ie, E484) only erode neut activity of some sera, don’t eliminate it for any, (b) current vaccines elicit strong immunity… (20/n).” Twitter. 5 Jan 2021.

“Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Retains Neutralizing Activity Against Emerging Variants First Identified in the U.K. and the Republic of South Africa.” Press release. Moderna. 25 Jan 2021.

Wu, Kai et al. “mRNA-1273 vaccine induces neutralizing antibodies against spike mutants from global SARS-CoV-2 variants.” bioRxiv. 25 Jan 2021.

Xie, Xuping et al. “Neutralization of N501Y mutant SARS-CoV-2 by BNT162b2 vaccine-elicited sera.” bioRxiv. 7 Jan 2021.

“An In Vitro Study Shows Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Elicits Antibodies that Neutralize SARS-CoV-2 with a Mutation Associated with Rapid Transmission.” Press release. Pfizer. 8 Jan 2021.

McDonald, Jessica. “Q&A on COVID-19 Vaccines.” FactCheck.org. 18 Dec 2020, updated 7 Jan 2021.

Muik, Alexander et al. “Neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 pseudovirus by BNT162b2 vaccine–elicited human sera.” Science. 29 Jan 2021.

“Pfizer and BioNTech Publish Results of Study Showing COVID-19 Vaccine Elicits Antibodies that Neutralize Pseudovirus Bearing the SARS-CoV-2 U.K. Strain Spike Protein in Cell Culture.” Press release. Pfizer. 20 Jan 2021.

The post What Do the New Coronavirus Variants Mean for the Pandemic? appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Danish Study Doesn’t Prove Masks Don’t Work Against the Coronavirus

Jessica McDonald — Wed, 25 Nov 2020 20:12:26 +0000

Q: Did a recent study in Denmark show that face masks are useless for COVID-19?

A: No. The study found that face masks did not have a large protective effect for wearers — not that masks provide no protection at all or don’t offer benefits to others.

FULL QUESTION

Are masks proven to be useless for COVID-19?

FULL ANSWER

News of the results of a recent randomized controlled trial in Denmark testing a face mask intervention has led some to conclude that masks are ineffective against the coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2.

But scientists say that’s the wrong takeaway — and even the authors of the study say the results shouldn’t be interpreted to mean masks shouldn’t be worn.

The trial evaluated whether giving free surgical masks to volunteers and recommending their use safeguarded wearers from infection with the coronavirus, in addition to other public health recommendations. The study didn’t identify a statistically significant protective effect for wearers, but the trial was only designed to detect a large effect of 50% or more. And the study didn’t weigh in on the ability of masks to prevent spread of the virus from wearers to others, or what’s known as source control, which is thought to be the primary way that masks work.

As a result, the most that can be said is that this particular study, under the conditions at the time in Denmark, didn’t find that the face mask intervention had a large protective effect for wearers — not that masks provide no protection at all or don’t offer benefits to others.

Social media posts nevertheless latched onto the study to claim that the trial “proves masks offer NO protection from COVID” or that masks “don’t work,” as several posts claimed. Another post inaccurately described the results as “conclusive,” despite the fact that the authors specifically wrote that their findings were “inconclusive.”

Other articles shared on Facebook failed to provide sufficient context for the study, with one headline from the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity reading, “Your Face Mask Is Not Protecting You.” Yet another from Sharyl Attkisson, who has previously spread misinformation about vaccines, misleadingly states that there was “no statistically significant difference when it comes to wearing a mask or not outside the home to prevent Covid-19 spread.”

Again, the study only assessed the personal protective effect of a mask intervention, not the potential for masks to hamper spread of the virus to others.

The Danish trial, known as the Danish Study to Assess Face Masks for the Protection Against COVID-19 Infection, or DANMASK-19, was published in Annals of Internal Medicine on Nov. 18 along with two editorials to provide more context to the findings.

It’s the first randomized controlled trial involving face masks and COVID-19 to report results. Around 6,000 people who left their homes for at least three hours a day participated, with approximately half being given a box of 50 surgical masks and being told to wear a mask whenever outside of their homes, while the other half was not given masks or such a mask recommendation.

The study was conducted at a time when Danish authorities were not recommending masks to the general public, so most people both groups would encounter were not likely to be masked. Both groups were told to follow national public health guidance, which included physical distancing, avoiding crowds and washing hands.

After a month, 42 people in the mask group, or 1.8%, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2, as measured by at-home finger-prick antibody tests, a positive PCR test result or a COVID-19 diagnosis, compared with 53 people, or 2.1%, in the control group.

While fewer people in the masked group became infected — equivalent to an 18% reduction in risk — the difference was not statistically significant, meaning the result may have come about by chance. Given the observed number of infections in each group, the plausible effect of the mask intervention ranged all the way from a 46% decrease in infection to a 23% increase.

It’s this negative result that some have interpreted to mean that masks are ineffective. But that’s not how the authors frame their findings.

Bundgaard, et al.: Our results suggest that the recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mask wearers in a setting where social distancing and other public health measures were in effect, mask recommendations were not among those measures, and community use of masks was uncommon. Yet, the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting. It is important to emphasize that this trial did not address the effects of masks as source control or as protection in settings where social distancing and other public health measures are not in effect.

Elsewhere, the authors noted that the data were “compatible” with a less than 50% degree of self-protection and emphasized that their results “should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

University of Hong Kong infectious disease epidemiologist and mask researcher Benjamin Cowling told us he was not surprised by the findings and said it was important to distinguish between an absence of evidence and evidence of absence on the utility of masks.

“In the Danish mask study, their results are consistent with maybe 20% protection conferred by face masks, which is in line with my estimates for influenza,” he said in an email.

“While some readers seem to conclude from the Danish study that masks are not effective, I would only conclude from the Danish study that masks are not /highly effective/, which we already suspected,” he continued, adding that it does not mean that masks are ineffective. “Even 20% protection would be very valuable when we are trying very hard to slow down COVID transmission as much as we can with a range of public health measures.”

The paper’s lead author, Dr. Henning Bundgaard of the specialty hospital Rigshospitalet and Copenhagen University Hospital, told Forbes much the same.

“Even a small degree of protection is worth using the face masks,” he said, “because you are protecting yourself against a potentially life-threatening disease.”

An accompanying editorial penned by the editor-in-chief of the journal and colleagues explained that while the study suggests that the personal protective effect of masks is “likely to be small,” the study “does not disprove the effectiveness of widespread mask wearing.”

On the contrary, the editorial argues that together with the other existing data in support of masks, the “results of this trial should motivate widespread mask wearing to protect our communities and thereby ourselves while we await more definitive evidence during this pandemic.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued an updated scientific brief earlier this month that for the first time emphasized the ability of masks to protect wearers, based on lab studies that find masks can block virus particles and some observational and epidemiology studies.

The other editorial — by experts with the public health initiative Resolve to Save Lives, including former CDC director Dr. Thomas Frieden — highlighted several limitations of the study.

For one, the trial was done in April and May when there was relatively little virus circulating in Denmark, which might have made it more difficult to pick up a protective effect of mask wearing.

Not everyone in the mask group followed through on the advice to wear a mask, either, with 46% of people self-reporting that they wore the masks “as recommended”; 47% “predominantly as recommended”; and 7% “not as recommended.”

Most critically, Frieden and colleagues suggested that the antibody tests used to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection could have led to a fair number of false positives, especially given the low prevalence of the coronavirus at the time. Even with those false positives evenly distributed between the two groups, that would have biased the result to be negative.

Other scientists at Stanford University and George Washington University previously expressed concern with the study design, including the fact that the study was not large enough to identify protective effects less than a 50% reduction in risk, and the likelihood that any results would be misinterpreted.

The takeaway about masks, then, is still quite similar to the earlier public health advice, which is that people should wear them, but not assume that they will be protected. That means continuing to follow all public health guidelines, including washing hands and staying physically apart from other people whenever possible.

Sources

Bundgaard, Henning et al. “Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Annals of Internal Medicine. 18 Nov 2020.

CDC. “Scientific Brief: Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2.” Updated 20 Nov 2020.

Laine, Christine et al. “The Role of Masks in Mitigating the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: Another Piece of the Puzzle.” Annals of Internal Medicine. 18 Nov 2020.

Frieden, Thomas R. and Shama Cash-Goldwasser. “Of Masks and Methods.” Annals of Internal Medicine. 18 Nov 2020.

Cowling, Benjamin. Professor and Division Head, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Hong Kong. Email to FactCheck.org. 20 Nov 2020.

Rosenbaum, Leah. “Lead Researcher Behind Controversial Danish Study Says You Should Still Wear A Mask.” Forbes. 18 Nov 2020.

Godoy, Maria. “Wear Masks To Protect Yourself From The Coronavirus, Not Only Others, CDC Stresses.” NPR. 11 Nov 2020.

Haber, Noah et al. PubPeer comment on “Face masks for the prevention of COVID-19 – Rationale and design of the randomised controlled trial DANMASK-19.” 8 Sep 2020.

McDonald, Jessica. “COVID-19 Face Mask Advice, Explained.” FactCheck.org. 6 Apr 2020.

CDC. “Coronavirus Disease 2020 (COVID-19): How to Protect Yourself & Others.” Updated 4 Nov 2020.

The post Danish Study Doesn’t Prove Masks Don’t Work Against the Coronavirus appeared first on FactCheck.org.