View this email in your browser ([link removed])
An update from FactCheck.org


** Federally Funded Research Involving Dogs
------------------------------------------------------------

Americans love their pets. So, it was no surprise that Twitter blew up when images started to circulate showing sedated beagles whose heads were stuck in mesh cages filled with diseased sand flies.

Our inbox blew up, too, as our readers asked whether Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was responsible for funding this particular research project.

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

Staff writer D'Angelo Gore answers that complicated question in our most recent Ask FactCheck.

The photos of the beagles with their heads locked in mesh cages were pulled from a paper about a study in Tunisia 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 journal that published that Tunisia study mistakenly said that the research was funded in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. It issued a correction on Oct. 26.

But, as our story explains, the NIAID does fund other research on beagles, including another one in Tunisia. (Yes, it is complicated.)

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.

For more, see "Answering Questions About #BeagleGate ([link removed])."

HOW WE KNOW

When President Biden said electric vehicles “do not expend any pollution into the air,” we went to the Environmental Protection Agency for information on electric vehicles' carbon footprints. The EPA has a tool on its website that estimates total carbon emissions associated with electric vehicles compared with a typical new gasoline vehicle. Read more ([link removed]).

FEATURED FACT

Recent figures for the seven-day rolling average of new deaths from COVID-19 in the U.K. are currently a fraction of what they were at the peak in late January. The average was 1,248 deaths per day on Jan. 23, and it was 135 on Oct. 25, according to U.K. figures compiled by Our World in Data. For more, see "Why It’s Easy to Misinterpret Numbers of Deaths Among the Vaccinated ([link removed]) ."

WORTHY OF NOTE

Kathleen Hall Jamieson -- director of our parent organization, the Annenberg Public Policy Center, and cofounder of FactCheck.org -- writes this week ([link removed]) in the journal Nature Human Behaviour about how conspiracy theorists "have exploited the provisional nature of scientific consensus and the realities of how science is conducted to paint scientists and public health leaders as malign actors."

"The fluid nature of emergent science provides fuel for conspiracy theorists who offer certainty in place of the provisional, sometimes-updated statements of health experts," she writes.

REPLY ALL

Reader: Recent studies (attached) show that so-called 'hybrid immunity' (natural immunity plus one vaccination dose) is far, far stronger protection than an individual who does not have natural immunity but gets two vaccine doses. Yet, the CDC and everybody else continues to ignore natural immunity as a viable factor in protecting individuals and the community against Covid.

Even if we do not want to promote a goal of attaining natural immunity because we fear people will intentionally try to get the virus, shouldn't we include hybrid immunity as counting as being fully vaccinated? If not, what is the scientific reason for not doing so?

FactCheck.org Director Eugene Kiely: We first addressed this issue in a story that we did in April, “Vaccines Benefit Those Who Have Had COVID-19, Contrary to Viral Posts ([link removed]) .”

In summary, we wrote: "There is no evidence that vaccines could cause harm to people who already have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or have become ill with the disease COVID-19. On the contrary, recent studies show the vaccine gives an important immunity boost to those previously infected and suggest that one dose might be enough."

As for why federal health agencies recommend two doses for those who previously had COVID-19, instead of one dose, we quoted an FDA spokesperson who said studies “are currently being conducted to evaluate whether one dose is sufficient” for those with previous infections.

We also quoted National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Francis Collins as saying: “While much more research is needed — and I am definitely not suggesting a change in the current recommendations right now — the results raise the possibility that one dose might be enough for someone who’s been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and already generated antibodies against the virus.”

The thinking may be changing. But it still comes down to having enough data to support such a change.

More recently, the CDC on Oct. 29 released a review ([link removed]) of the current scientific evidence that, among other things, said: “There is clear evidence that neutralizing antibody and memory B cell response elicited by a single dose of mRNA vaccine following previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 results in an increased antibody titer that is approximately equivalent to a two-dose vaccine regimen in individuals who were not previously infected.”

In a story about that study, the Washington Post quoted ([link removed]) Andrew T. Pavia, a professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases at the University of Utah, as saying: “I think with more data, we might consider one infection equivalent to one immunizing event that could count as one of the two or three doses that people need of their vaccine.”

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

Here's what else we've got for you this week:

* "How Many Died as a Result of Capitol Riot? ([link removed]) ": Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol resulted in “almost 10 dead.” Four people died that day, and five others — all law enforcement officers — died days, weeks and even months later. In this story, we lay out what is publicly known about the circumstances surrounding those deaths.

* "Why It’s Easy to Misinterpret Numbers of Deaths Among the Vaccinated ([link removed]) ": Raw numbers of hospitalizations or deaths among those who are vaccinated are not a good indicator of whether vaccines are effective. If the large majority of a population is vaccinated, it’s not surprising if most deaths are among the vaccinated. But social media posts misuse data from the U.K. to suggest the COVID-19 vaccines don’t work.

* "Bogus Campaign Signs in Virginia Were Not Posted by McAuliffe or Democrats ([link removed]) ": The role of parents in deciding school curriculum is a flash point in the Virginia gubernatorial race. Days before the election, bogus signs have appeared on streets and in social media posts reading, “Keep Parents Out of Classrooms,” and imply they were placed by Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe. But McAuliffe and the local Democrats said, “these signs are not ours.”

Y lo que publicamos en español (English versions are accessible in each story):

* "Colin Powell falleció de COVID-19 tras ser diagnosticado y tratado de cáncer ([link removed]) ": El exsecretario de Estado de Estados Unidos Colin Powell murió debido a complicaciones del COVID-19. Aunque estaba completamente vacunado, también tenía 84 años y era paciente de cáncer, habiéndose sometido a un tratamiento de mieloma múltiple; ambos factores aumentaron su riesgo de desarrollar una infección grave a pesar de estar vacunado. Su muerte no significa que las vacunas contra el COVID-19 no funcionen, como sugieren muchas publicaciones en las redes sociales.

* "¿Ya tuvo COVID-19? La vacunas refuerzan la inmunidad, no eliminan anticuerpos ([link removed]) ": Las investigaciones muestran que las vacunas contra el COVID-19 refuerzan los niveles de anticuerpos y mejoran la respuesta inmunitaria en aquellos que ya han tenido COVID-19. Las vacunas no eliminan los anticuerpos que una persona que se ha recuperado de la enfermedad desarrolla, como publicaciones en redes sociales vienen diciendo incorrectamente durante meses.

* "Trump y su hijo distorsionan grado de aceptación de la vacuna antes de Biden ([link removed]) ": El expresidente Donald Trump y su hijo Eric difundieron una versión distorsionada de la historia al afirmar que la reticencia hacia la vacuna aumentó cuando Biden asumió el poder y que “la gente estaba vacunándose en cantidades récord” hasta que Biden impuso los mandatos de vacunación.

Have a question about COVID-19 and the vaccines? Visit our SciCheck page ([link removed]) for answers. It's available in Spanish ([link removed]), too.
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 © 2021 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=450a87a212-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_11_03_05_51&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3294bba774-450a87a212-48392213)
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed][UNIQID]&c=ff9a7620f9&utm_source=FactCheck.org&utm_campaign=450a87a212-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_11_03_05_51&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3294bba774-450a87a212-48392213)
.

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