# data[].attributes.body
Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA vaccines. Using the health feedback organization I found that their bias was to provide people with factual information and they want people to trust them. They fully claim that Malone is the inventor of these vaccines.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, designed by AP News.  A Florida government leader responds to the CDC new guidelines for the use of face masks, vaccinated or not. I find this information useful but biased because of the different opinions of the use of masks. The Republican party is targeted. AP news (associated press) a non- profit agency. Legitimate source. I did some background research on this source finding that it operates as a cooperative, unincorporated association. Its members are U.S. newspapers and broadcasters.

# data[].attributes.body
Is Dr. Robert Malone the inventor of mRNA vaccines?

The answer to this is question is yes. Robert Malone mixed strands of messenger RNA with droplets of fat, to start the creation of the vaccine. On his linked-in website he states that he is "The inventor of the core mRNA vaccine technologies" so the bias towards the question that he has is he is the creator of mRNA vaccine technology.
Jake Perkins

# data[].attributes.body
My article explains hoq D614G mutation of Covid-19, possible that the virus had evolved to resist efforts such as hand-washing and social distancing. Though this strand is not more deadly but it will spread easier among humans... is false. Ive learned through research among the article mentioned has no proof and states unsupported claims. D614G strand has been being tested and it has been confirmed to contain more of the virus but where we are in research we dont truly know if it spreads easier or if social distancing/ hand washing will be useless.

sources used: https://healthfeedback.org/evaluation/new-york-post-article-makes-speculative-unsupported-claim-that-mutation-could-enable-the-virus-causing-covid-19-to-evade-handwashing-and-mask-wearing/
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/covid-19-mutation-may-be-evolving-to-bypass-masks-hand-washing/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Three scientists analysed the article and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be low. more about the credibility rating
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: Clickbait headline, Lack of context, Misleading.

This article published by the New York Post on 24 September 2020 claims that a mutation could enable the virus that causes COVID-19 to evade hand-washing and mask-wearing. The New York Post article's content is based on an earlier article by the Washington Post, published on 23 September 2020, reporting findings from a preprint study by Long et al[1]. The article went viral on Facebook, receiving more than 100,000 interactions and 26,000 shares on the platform to date, according to the social media analytics tool CrowdTangle.

Scientists who reviewed the New York Post article found it contained inaccurate and misleading statements, and was of low scientific credibility overall. Danielle Anderson, a virologist and assistant professor at Duke-NUS Medical School, pointed out that the preprint contained no data that supports the article's claim in the headline. A preprint is a research paper that has not been peer-reviewed by other scientists yet. "There is no evidence or implied evidence in the preprint that the physical properties of a G clade virus (a strain carrying the D614G mutation) would render that strain resistant to detergent used in hand-washing. Nor were there aerosol studies in the preprint which indicate that physical distancing is ineffective against strains with the D614G mutation," she said.

Likewise, Emma Hodcroft, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Basel who is a co-developer of the Nextstrain project that studies the evolution of pathogens including SARS-CoV-2, told Health Feedback, "The preprint that the article focuses on actually says nothing about the most egregious claim made in the article: that the virus is evolving to get around hand-washing and masks."

The goal of the study by Long et al. was to understand how the virus evolved over the course of two COVID-19 disease waves in Houston, Texas, which occurred between March and July 2020. In addition, the researchers sought to infer potential relationships between the virus' evolutionary trajectory and patient characteristics, such as disease severity and demographics. To do this, the researchers sequenced the genomes of more than 5,000 virus samples and studied the clinical outcomes of more than 55,000 patients.

They identified a specific mutation in the spike (S) protein of the virus called D614G, which was predominant among virus samples. The S protein is located on the surface of the virus, and allows the virus to bind to and infect human cells. The D614G mutation specifically leads to a substitution of an amino acid called aspartic acid (D) for another amino acid named glycine (G). This substitution occurs at position 614 in the sequence of amino acids that make up the protein, hence the mutation's name.

D614G was previously described by several other research groups, as this Nature news article reports. Indeed, the mutation was first observed in many virus samples collected in China and Germany in late January 2020 by Korber et al[2], who proposed that the D614G mutation could render the virus more transmissible.

In the case of the preprint by Long et al., the researchers observed that people infected with virus strains with the D614G mutation had a higher amount of virus in the nasopharynx (the upper part of the throat) compared to people infected with a strain that did not have the mutation. This is possibly due to an improved ability to infect cells in the nasopharynx, although whether this is truly the case is still unclear, as it was not investigated in the preprint study.

The claim that the mutation allows the virus to evade hand-washing and mask-wearing, which are recommended as effective preventative measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19, stems from David Morens. Morens, a scientist at the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and senior adviser to NIAID director Anthony Fauci, stated in the Washington Post article, "Wearing masks, washing our hands, all those things are barriers to transmissibility, or contagion, but as the virus becomes more contagious it statistically is better at getting around those barriers."

However, current evidence does not support this speculation. Furthermore, the preprint by Long et al. never investigated whether virus strains with the D614G mutation were better at overcoming mask-wearing and handwashing.

Scientists also took to Twitter to highlight the fact that Morens' statement was unsupported:

I don't even know what to say about this other than the study doesn't show this and it's not good messaging. pic.twitter.com/TXkskfdtjR

- Lauring Lab (@LauringLab) September 23, 2020

Mutation is a normal thing that viruses do but it's limited to changing how the viral genome or proteins function. It can change the way the virus replicates or interacts with its host.

It does not make super viruses that can transcend a mask or be impervious to soap and water. https://t.co/jMHZzq8En4

- Dr. Angela Rasmussen (@angie_rasmussen) September 25, 2020

Muge Cevik, a clinical fellow at the University of St. Andrews who specializes in infectious diseases, highlighted that much of the context provided in the Washington Post article was not included in the New York Post article. For instance, the New York Post omitted quotes from other scientists emphasizing the uncertainty about whether the D614G mutation impacts virus transmissibility or clinical outcomes.

For instance, Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at the Scripps Research Institute, told the Washington Post that the preprint "just confirms what has already been described - G increased in frequency over time," and, "we don't know if any of [the mutations catalogued in the preprint] have any functional relevance."

In the same Washington Post article, Peter Thielen, a molecular biologist at Johns Hopkins University, cautioned that scientists need to conduct more research to determine "if SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility is truly increased as a result of these mutations."

Trevor Bedford, an associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center who studies virus evolution, explained in this Twitter thread that there is still uncertainty over whether the D614G mutation does indeed result in increased transmissibility, as posited by Korber et al:

I wanted to address the hypothesis put forward in Korber et al ( https://t.co/ouM4IUyNrd) that the mutation in spike protein D614G causes an increase in transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 virus. I find this hypothesis to be plausible, but far from proven. 1/16

- Trevor Bedford (@trvrb) May 6, 2020

Although the Washington Post article is more accurate, it received fewer interactions on Facebook to date (51,000 interactions and 14,200 shares according to CrowdTangle) than the inaccurate article by the New York Post.

Cevik emphasized that hand-washing and mask-wearing are still effective methods for reducing the spread of COVID-19. "If the virus becomes more contagious, there'll be more chances of transmission, but that does not mean mask-wearing or hand-washing is not going to be helpful," she said.

In summary, the New York Post article provides readers with an inaccurate and misleading interpretation of a preprint. It promotes a speculation unsupported by data and omits important context that would enable readers to understand the level of uncertainty regarding the implications of the virus' mutation. There is no scientific evidence supporting the claim that the virus is evolving to overcome hand-washing and mask-wearing. Instead, the evidence supports the practice of both measures as effective ways to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

You can read the original New York Post article here.

Danielle E. Anderson, Assistant Professor, Duke-NUS Medical School:
The article on medXriv is essentially an epidemiological study looking into the prevalence of different SARS-CoV-2 strains over two waves of infection. There are multiple reasons for one strain to become predominant over another in a population, such as a particular strain becoming more transmissible, but also geographical limitations imposed by control measures, such as border closures and quarantine, for example.

The comments about the virus evading handwashing and social distancing were made by a reviewer of the manuscript, but these comments do not actually reflect any of the data in the manuscript and so are misleading. There is no evidence or implied evidence in the preprint that the physical properties of a G clade virus would render that strain resistant to detergent (used in hand-washing). Nor were there aerosol studies in the preprint which indicate that physical distancing is ineffective against strains with the D614G mutation.

Emma Hodcroft, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Basel:
The preprint that the article focuses on actually says nothing about the most egregious claim made in the article: that the virus is evolving to get around hand-washing, masks, etc. This comes from a quote from someone who's not an author on the preprint, giving an opinion about the preprint...on a topic not covered by the preprint. However, as the New York Post article covers almost nothing else, I'm evaluating it based on the headline and its repetition of this quote. I do think most of the blame here lies with David Morens of NIAID for giving such a quote-the rest with the New York Post for not seeking any further clarification or a second opinion, and running with a clickbait headline.

Muge Cevik, Clinical Lecturer in Infectious Diseases and Medical Virology, University of St. Andrews:
This article is based on a Washington Post article, however the headline has been changed and also only one small part of that Washington Post article has been included.

The New York Post article's headline is misleading because it is based on a quote by a scientist, but does not actually reflect what the scientist said.

"COVID-19 mutation may be evolving to bypass mask-wearing, hand-washing" is the headline of the article, but the quote of the scientist is "Wearing masks, washing our hands, all those things are barriers to transmissibility, or contagion, but as the virus becomes more contagious it statistically is better at getting around those barriers." Therefore the headline does not really reflect what the scientist has suggested.

A mutation would not necessarily be "bypassing" mask-wearing or hand-washing. If the virus becomes more contagious, there will be more chances of transmission, but that does not mean mask-wearing or hand-washing is not going to be helpful.

Also, there are multiple scientists quoted in the Washington Post article, but only the part mentioned above was included in the New York Post article.

In particular, these two important quotes were omitted from the New York Post article:

" Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at the Scripps Research Institute in California, who was not involved in the new research, downplayed the significance of the new study. He said it 'just confirms what has already been described - G increased in frequency over time.' As for the numerous other mutations the study finds, 'they just catalogue them, but we don't know if any of them have any functional relevance.' "

" Peter Thielen, a molecular biologist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, said scientists will need to continue studying the virus to see whether the new mutations identified by the Houston researchers change the 'fitness' of the virus, 'and if SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility is truly increased as a result of these mutations.' "

After reading the Washington Post article, one gets an accurate understanding that mutations occur over time, and this one may be influencing the transmissibility, but we don't know the significance of this yet. However, the New York Post article leaves the reader with the impression that the virus definitely became more infectious and that mask-wearing is less useful, so I believe the article is misleading.

REFERENCES

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New York Post article makes speculative, unsupported claim that mutation could enable the virus causing COVID-19 to evade handwashing and mask-wearing - Health Feedback

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The preprint that the article focuses on actually says nothing about the most egregious claim made in the article: that the virus is evolving to get around hand-washing, masks, etc. This comes from a quote from someone who's not an author on the preprint, giving an opinion about the preprint...on a topic not covered by the preprint."

# data[].attributes.body
This site is trust worthy because I looked up the lean and it was in the center, however the website AllSides said it leans a little closer to the left. AP News is also a "not-for-profit" new outlet.

# data[].attributes.body
According to multiple websites, Dr.Robert Malone was the inventor of the mRNA vaccines. Specifically, the Nature.com website uses research from many academic disciplines, which proves that this is trustworthy and it is true that Dr. Malone created the vaccine

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA vaccines. According to Nature, the article states "He mixed strands of messenger RNA with droplets of fat, to create a kind of molecular stew. Human cells bathed in this genetic gumbo absorbed the mRNA." The bias in the article wants to inform people that Dr. Robert Malone did produce this vaccine.

# data[].attributes.body
This video was posted by BitChute which shows far-right and conspiracy theorist ideas and has been banned from some platforms and host hate speech and had charities on conspiracies on covid that were trying to prove that it was a hoax and other information. they have had multiple posts including conspiracies that the holocaust was a fabrication.

# data[].attributes.body
Eia.gov and other double-checked sources state that gas prices are constantly changing price every year and following the pattern of crude oil. The evidence is shown in the charts on the website, along with others I used to check. The prices of gasoline can be blamed on crude oil, which, by using more sources, explains that Biden has risen the prices in hopes to support the economy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why do gasoline prices fluctuate?

Retail gasoline prices are mainly affected by crude oil prices and the amount of gasoline available to meet demand. Strong and increasing demand for gasoline and other petroleum products in the United States and the rest of the world can place intense pressure on available supplies.

Gasoline prices tend to increase when the available gasoline supply decreases relative to real or expected gasoline demand or consumption. Gasoline prices can change rapidly if something disrupts crude oil supplies, refinery operations, or gasoline pipeline deliveries. Even when crude oil prices are stable, gasoline prices fluctuate because of seasonal changes in demand and in gasoline specifications.

Crude oil and gasoline prices reached record highs in 2008

The spot price for Brent crude oil (the benchmark for world crude oil prices) reached record highs in 2008 as a result of high worldwide oil demand relative to supply. Significantly higher demand in China, the Middle East, and Latin America, combined with market uncertainty in world supply, contributed to the run-up in oil prices and, in turn, to record-high gasoline prices in the United States.

Seasonal demand and specifications for gasoline also affect prices

Historically, retail gasoline prices tend to gradually rise in the spring and peak in late summer when people drive more frequently. Gasoline prices are generally lower in winter months. Gasoline specifications and formulations also change seasonally. Environmental regulations require that gasoline sold in the summer be less prone to evaporate during warm weather. This requirement means that refiners must replace cheaper but more evaporative gasoline components with less evaporative but more expensive components. In 2000 through 2022, the average monthly price of U.S. retail regular-grade gasoline in August was about 39 cents per gallon higher than the average price in January.

Gasoline inventories can help to moderate price increases

The supply of gasoline is largely driven by crude oil supply and refining, gasoline imports, and gasoline inventories (stocks). Stocks are the cushion between major short-term supply and demand imbalances, and stock levels can have a significant impact on gasoline prices.

If refinery or pipeline problems or low imports cause unexpected declines in supply, gasoline inventories may drop rapidly. This drop in inventories may cause wholesalers to bid higher for available supply over their concern that future supplies may not be adequate.

Imbalances may also occur when a region changes from one gasoline formulation to another, and refiners, distributors, and marketers adjust supply for the new product.
Last updated: April 19, 2023, with data available at the time of update.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gasoline price fluctuations - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How and why gasoline prices fluctuate according to changes in gasoline markets.

# data[].attributes.body
According to media bias fact check, the AP site is a low biased and highly factual. Though in some cases the AP site can lean a bit to the left. In addition, media bias fact check says AP is a high credibility site. Overall, AP news is a low biased source and highly credible.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion AAA website is not one sided because they talk about both the disadvantages and the advantages. They make sure to let you know some reasoning on why the gas prices went up and they stated that the demands were increasing very rapidly and that the high crude prices went up as well.

# data[].attributes.body
The article by New York Post is not credible. It does not prove any of the claims it makes. This is shown by healthfeedback.org which provided links to credible sources, such as the CDC to prove that masks and hand washing are still effective against this new strand of the Covid-19 virus.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Logically.ai, Dr. Robert Malone is not the inventor of the mRNA vaccine. Logically is a website working towards mitigating online misinformation and disinformation by employing a variety of fact checkers to research topics. This means that they are trying to supply correct information. According to Logically.ai, the real inventors of the mRNA vaccine are Katalin Karikó and her collaborator Dr. Drew Weissman. After researching their names I discovered that Columbia University Irving Medical Center says that they won an award for their incredible research that laid the groundwork for the vaccine. This university is a large campus that include the Audubon Biomedical Research Park, making this a credible source.