View this email in your browser ([link removed])
An update from FactCheck.org
Photo by Sarah Reingewirtz/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News via Getty Images.


** Revisiting Mpox Amid New Concerns
------------------------------------------------------------

Last spring, we published a Q&A on an unusual outbreak of monkeypox across the globe, including in the U.S. The outbreak subsided in December, but it is not over.

This spring, Chicago saw a resurgence of mpox -- as it is now called -- and health officials are concerned that the disease could be on the rise again this summer with warmer weather and the arrival of Pride month.

This week, FactCheck.org Science Editor Jessica McDonald revisited the topic. She wrote a new Q&A on mpox -- a rare disease caused by the monkeypox virus, which is in the same poxvirus family as the more lethal and contagious smallpox virus.

As Jessie wrote, mpox has spread to 112 countries, sickening nearly 88,000 people and killing 147 as of June 19. In the U.S., as of June 21, more than 30,000 cases have been reported, including 43 deaths.

In her Q&A, Jessie explains when and where the outbreak started and how and why it is unusual. She also provides the latest information on prevention, transmission, symptoms, mitigation and treatments.

For example, prior to the 2022 outbreak, Jynneos -- a third-generation smallpox vaccine also approved for mpox -- had only been tested for efficacy in animals and evaluated for effectiveness in people by studying people’s immune responses to the vaccine. So, it wasn’t clear how well it would work in practice against mpox. However, as Jessie reports, studies of the vaccine’s performance last summer have found it works quite well.

And, as Jessie explains, there are no treatments approved specifically for mpox, but there are some treatment options for those who are severely ill or at high-risk for severe disease.

Read her full story, "Q&A on Mpox ([link removed]) ."
HOW WE KNOW
In our stories, you may notice that we frequently use archived links instead of live links to our sources. We do this because live links have a habit of eventually breaking and then the information is not readily available for our readers. There are several archiving tools we use. We told you about the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine last week. That free site not only allows you to find previously archived links ([link removed]) , but it allows you to create archive links ([link removed]) . Another free archiving tool is archive.today ([link removed]) . We also like to use Perma.cc ([link removed]) , which is a paid service. Perma.cc is faster than the free sites, and it preserves a list of all the archived pages that we've created -- making it useful as a storage site, too.
FEATURED FACT
The misguided fear that vaccination will alter a person’s DNA has been around since vaccines were first introduced in 1796. At that time, British caricaturist James Gillray satirized the idea that people were worried the cowpox virus used in the inoculation against smallpox would turn people into cows (see image here ([link removed]) ). There's no scientific basis for such a claim. In an interview with FactCheck.org Staff Writer Saranac Hale Spencer, Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert and pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, called it "ridiculous." He noted, "People ingest foreign DNA all the time. If you eat a steak, you don’t turn into a cow.” Read more ([link removed]) .
WORTHY OF NOTE
We have one last week to raise funds for our fiscal year 2023, which ends on June 30. As of the end of the third quarter, we had raised slightly more than $100,000 in individual contributions from readers like you.

If you would like to donate to FactCheck.org, you can do so on our “Donate ([link removed]) ” page, which is managed on our behalf by the University of Pennsylvania. FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

If you prefer to give by check, please send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104-3806.

The University of Pennsylvania is a 501(c)3 organization and your contribution to FactCheck.org is deductible from U.S. federal income taxes to the full extent allowed by law. The University of Pennsylvania’s tax ID number is 23-1352685.

Thank you for your support.
REPLY ALL

Reader: All you do is crush anyone who dares comment that “pieces of cloth on our face did not stop transmission of any flu or infection” and also that locking down did nothing but depress people, lost their jobs and livelihood ... So, you do not check facts, you follow the Bonnie Henry’s and Fauci and crowd only interested in money…don’t try to deny it. You are not objective, you are paid and forced to follow the WHO and the WEF, all NON ELECTED so called leaders….

FactCheck.org Director Eugene Kiely: The only things we are “forced to follow” are the facts.

We did not take a position on “lockdowns,” but we did review research regarding the effectiveness of “non-pharmaceutical interventions,” or NPIs.

In one such story ([link removed]) , we wrote, in part:

There have been a lot of studies assessing whether and to what extent so-called “lockdowns” and various NPIs have been effective, and plenty of research that has concluded these measures can limit transmission, or reduce cases and deaths. For instance, a study published in Nature in June 2020 found that “major non-pharmaceutical interventions—and lockdowns in particular—have had a large effect on reducing transmission” in 11 European countries. It estimated what would have happened if the transmission of the virus hadn’t been reduced, finding that 3.1 million deaths “have been averted owing to interventions since the beginning of the epidemic.” The estimate doesn’t account for behavior changes or the impact of overwhelmed health systems.

In May 2020, the same journal published a study that estimated the number of cases in mainland China would have been “67-fold higher” by the end of February 2020 without a combination of non-pharmaceutical interventions.

We did not take a position on mask mandates, but we did review research regarding the effectiveness of mask wearing.

In one such story ([link removed]) , we wrote, in part:

One point of confusion for many people is that lab studies show masks, mostly well-fitting and high-filtering N95 respirators, are good at blocking viral particles. This is evidence that masks can in theory be quite effective, both for individuals and for larger populations.

Some scientists have pushed for people to use better masks, especially N95 respirators, if people truly want their masks to work.

But as we’ve explained before, this mechanistic evidence doesn’t necessarily mean that when public health officials recommend masks that this intervention will work to limit spread in the community.

“Showing that N95s stop particles in mannequins only proves that they can plausibly help, but if people hate wearing them, or don’t wear them properly, or only have access to cloth masks, etc, then the actual intervention will not be as effective,” Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong in Australia, said.

Many observational studies have been done to try to understand what masks or mask interventions do, and Chou said they have “generally found masks to be associated with reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2.” But they have “major limitations,” he said, since it’s hard to know if masking is the reason for the differences between groups.

Still, Dr. Roger Chou, a professor of medical informatics and clinical epidemiology at Oregon Health & Science University, said that overall, this other evidence outside of randomized controlled trials “supports some benefits of masks.”

“I think the evidence indicates that masks likely have small benefits for individuals in preventing COVID-19 (~15% reduction), though with only two RCTs more evidence would of course be helpful for clarifying the benefits,” he said.

We present the facts. You do with them what you will.

As for our funding sources, you can find them on our website ([link removed]) .


** Wrapping Up
------------------------------------------------------------

Here's what else we've got for you this week:
* "Posts Make False Claim About Cause of Gender Dysphoria ([link removed]) ": Recent research suggests that gender dysphoria is likely caused by a combination of factors, including hormone exposure before birth. But social media posts make the baseless claim that it could be caused by a vaccine containing DNA from an aborted fetus of the opposite sex. There is no scientific evidence for such a claim, experts said.
* "Republican Claims About Hunter Biden Offenses ([link removed]) ": Several Republican lawmakers have objected to a plea deal between the Department of Justice and Hunter Biden, the president’s son, claiming it was “a slap on the wrist.” We’ll explain the plea and what we know about several other offenses Republicans say Hunter Biden committed, some of which are unsubstantiated.
* "Trump, Iran and the ‘Highly Confidential’ Document ([link removed]) ": In an interview with Fox News, former President Donald Trump denied showing a classified plan of a U.S. attack on Iran when he met in July 2021 with four people who lacked security clearances — contrary to an audio transcript of Trump contained in the 37-count federal indictment against him.
* "Cleveland Clinic Study Did Not Show Vaccines Increase COVID-19 Risk ([link removed]) ": Numerous studies have found that additional COVID-19 shots are generally associated with extra protection against the coronavirus. Many people on social media, however, have shared a preliminary finding from a Cleveland Clinic study and misrepresented it as proving that getting more doses increases a person’s risk of infection.
* "Ad Misleads: Trump Not Charged as Spy ([link removed]) ": The latest ad from the anti-Trump Lincoln Project promotes the same mistaken argument that Donald Trump himself has made — that the former president has been charged with spying or espionage. Trump was charged under a part of the Espionage Act concerning the willful retention of national defense information. That’s different from spying.
* "Video: Q&A on the End of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency ([link removed]) ": In this video, FactCheck.org teamed up with Factchequeado to answer some questions about how the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency might affect you.

Y lo que publicamos en español ([link removed]) (English versions are accessible in each story):
* "Video: Preguntas y respuestas sobre el fin de la emergencia de salud pública por el COVID-19 ([link removed]) ": En este video, colaboramos con Factchequeado para contestar algunas preguntas sobre cómo el fin de la declaración federal de emergencia de salud pública por el COVID-19 podría afectarle.
* "Errores en una base de datos dan lugar a afirmaciones falsas sobre casos de VIH en el ejército ([link removed]) ": La tasa de nuevas infecciones por el VIH en el ejército se ha mantenido relativamente estable desde 2017. Pero publicaciones en redes sociales afirman falsamente que el ejército ha registrado un “aumento del 500% del VIH desde el lanzamiento de las vacunas contra el COVID”. Un portavoz del Departamento de Defensa dijo que unos errores en una base de datos militar originaron la afirmación incorrecta.
* "Publicación en Instagram induce a error sobre la vacuna materna contra el VRS de Pfizer ([link removed]) ": Los datos de los ensayos clínicos de la vacuna materna de Pfizer para proteger a los bebés del VRS respaldan la seguridad y eficacia de la vacuna, según la votación de un comité asesor de la FDA. La FDA podría aprobar pronto la vacuna. Pero una publicación popular en las redes sociales hace afirmaciones engañosas sobre los resultados del ensayo.

Do you like FactCheck.Weekly? Share it with a friend! They can subscribe here ([link removed]) .
Donate to Support Our Work ([link removed])

============================================================
** Twitter ([link removed])
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Instagram ([link removed])
We'll show up in your inbox every Friday with this fact-focused rundown. But you can message us any day of the week with questions or comments: [email protected].
Copyright © 2023 FactCheck.org, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
FactCheck.org
Annenberg Public Policy Center
202 S. 36th St.
Philadelphia, PA 19104-3806

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed][UNIQID]&c=ff9a7620f9&utm_source=FactCheck.org&utm_campaign=432565484b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_06_20_05_48&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-432565484b-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D)
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed][UNIQID]&c=ff9a7620f9&utm_source=FactCheck.org&utm_campaign=432565484b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_06_20_05_48&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-432565484b-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D)
.

This email was sent to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
why did I get this? ([link removed]) unsubscribe from this list ([link removed]) update subscription preferences ([link removed])
FactCheck.org: A Project of The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania . 202 S 36th St. . Philadelphia, Pa 19104 . USA