claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Quotes Kamala Harris as saying 'Take the guns first. Go through due process second, I like taking the guns early. | Contradiction | Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris has taken a strong stance on gun control and she's often misquoted on the subject. Now, another false Harris quote about guns - this one about taking firearms from individuals first and having due process come second - is circulating on Facebook. The post features a photo of Harris and quotes her as saying: 'Take the guns first. Go through due process second, I like taking the guns early.' But she's not the candidate who said those words. It was President Donald Trump. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Weeks after the Feb. 14, 2018, mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., Trump met with lawmakers at the White House to discuss gun control measures. At one point during the meeting, Trump said: 'It takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would've taken a long time ... so you can do exactly what you're saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.' Harris, the former attorney general of California, supports stronger gun legislation, including stricter regulations for manufacturers and closing gun purchasing loopholes, but we've seen no evidence that she has suggested that due process should be bypassed in an effort to confiscate people's guns. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims Harris said 'take the guns first. Go through due process second, I like taking the guns early.' There's no record of Harris ever saying this. In fact, the comments were made by President Trump during a meeting at the White House in 2018. This is Pants on Fire! | []
|
'Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' government-run health care plan... could lead to hospitals being closed, put Medicare coverage at risk, and give benefits to illegal immigrants. | Contradiction | A TV ad by President Donald Trump's campaign portrays Joe Biden's health care plan as a disaster for seniors' access to health care. 'Let's turn off the noise and look at the facts about Joe Biden and Kamala Harrs' government-run health care plan,' states the narrator, a senior citizen, in the ad. 'Their plan could lead to hospitals being closed, put Medicare coverage at risk, and give benefits to illegal immigrants. Their plan is just too dangerous for seniors like us.' Point by point, the ad misleads about Biden's health care plan. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' 'government-run health care plan.' This is misleading. Biden hasn't called for only a government plan-run plan. The ad cited a July 2019 NBC story about Biden's health care agenda. Biden does not support Medicare for All; his plan instead builds upon the Affordable Care Act. He supports allowing Americans to buy into a public option for government-managed health insurance. The public option would be offered alongside other private health insurance plans on the marketplace. The ad also cited an article by the conservative Heritage Foundation which analyzed several plans in Congress and concluded that the public option would lead to a 'single government-controlled health care system.' But that's not in line with what Biden has proposed. 'Their plan could lead to hospitals being closed' This assertion hinges in part on the false premise that Biden is proposing Medicare for All. Again, he isn't. Biden's plan calls for taking steps to keep rural hospitals open, including supporting a bipartisan bill in Congress to save rural hospitals in part by increasing payments to Medicare providers. The ad cites as evidence a New York Times article in April 2019 that states that if Medicare for All abolished private insurance and reduced rates some hospitals, especially in struggling rural centers, 'would close virtually overnight.' The Trump campaign also pointed to an August 2019 study conducted by Navigant, a consulting firm, that predicted rural hospitals are in danger of closing under a public option. The study was commissioned by the Partnership for America's Healthcare Future, a health industry coalition that opposes Medicare for All and a public option. The study modeled what would happen to rural hospitals, which are already at risk of closing, if three separate public option approaches were implemented - but it didn't mention Biden's plan. It found that a public option could lead to 28% to 55% of rural hospitals being at high risk of closure. The study reached these findings by assuming that the hospitals would be paid at Medicare rates. Some health policy experts argue that a public option would actually help rural hospitals by increasing the number of people in rural areas who have health insurance. This would 'benefit rural hospitals, since getting virtually nothing from uninsured patients is worse than getting a reasonably good rate from the public option,' Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, previously told us. Biden's plan puts 'Medicare coverage at risk' It's too early to say how Medicare could be affected by Biden's plan to add a public option. The ad cited the same Heritage Foundation research that argues broadly that the public option would eventually lead to the end of private alternatives and that doctors who don't sign up for the public option could be forbidden from participating in Medicare. It also raises concerns about government-set payment rates. But, again, it doesn't specifically zero in on Biden's proposal. The Trump campaign pointed to a September article by the Partnership for America's Healthcare Future that cites articles - including by PolitiFact - that show a public option could disrupt private insurance offerings. A new public option, the partnership says, would strain government financing when Medicare is already at risk. The Trump campaign also pointed to comments by Sherry Glied, the dean of New York University's Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and a former health official in the Obama administration, in the New York Times. Glied said that it was possible that linking public-option coverage to Medicare could cause some doctors to stop accepting Medicare patients. Parts of Biden's plan suggest he is comparing the public option and Medicare, the Trump campaign said. For example, Biden's plan says both programs will negotiate prices with providers and that a board will recommend a reasonable price for new specialty drugs. But two experts we interviewed said Biden's health care plan lacks enough detail to lend itself to the conclusion that it will put Medicare coverage at risk. 'There's not really enough detail in the Biden plan yet to say one way or another,' said Sabrina Corlette, a professor and expert on health insurance at Georgetown University. 'There's nothing inherent in what Biden has proposed that would put traditional Medicare at risk.' If Biden is elected, he would have to write detailed legislation that would explain how the public option would interact with other health insurance, including Medicare. Practically speaking, candidates running for president know not to propose a harmful Medicare plan, said Joe Antos, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Biden's plan would 'give benefits to illegal immigrants' This goes too far. Biden's plan doesn't automatically 'give benefits' to immigrants in the country illegally. Biden favors allowing immigrants illegally in the country to buy health care plans under the Affordable Care Act marketplace, but without financial help from the government. For evidence, the ad cites the June 27, 2019, Democratic primary debate where all of the candidates were asked to 'raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.' All raised their hands, including Biden. The Democrats were asked whether their health care plans would cover immigrants here illegally. They were not, however, directly asked if that coverage would be free. When moderator Savannah Guthrie asked Biden to elaborate, he said: 'You cannot let people who are sick, no matter where they come from, no matter what their status, go uncovered.' He didn't get into the specifics about paying for the coverage, although he said that immigrants in the U.S. illegally pay the Social Security tax. RELATED: Donald Trump gives false version of Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders 'unity' policy on immigrants | Our ruling Trump's TV ad said, 'Joe Biden and Kamala Harrs' government-run health care plan ... could lead to hospitals being closed, put Medicare coverage at risk, and give benefits to illegal immigrants.' Biden has not called for only a government-run plan. He has called for a voluntary public option alongside private options. The ad leaps to conclusions about how Biden's plan would impact hospitals and Medicare coverage, relying largely on articles by groups that oppose the public option. Experts said Biden's plan doesn't include enough specifics to reach conclusions, but it's a stretch to conclude that he would put Medicare coverage at risk. The study the campaign cited about the public option leading to rural hospital closures cites a huge range and makes some assumptions and also acknowledges that rural hospitals are already closing. The only kernel here is that Biden's plan allows immigrants here illegally to pay for health insurance, but it's misleading to state that he would 'give' them the benefits. We rate this claim Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. | [
"101602-proof-12-6784873a91d7e58d576267ac4721ed78.jpeg"
]
|
'Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' government-run health care plan... could lead to hospitals being closed, put Medicare coverage at risk, and give benefits to illegal immigrants. | Contradiction | A TV ad by President Donald Trump's campaign portrays Joe Biden's health care plan as a disaster for seniors' access to health care. 'Let's turn off the noise and look at the facts about Joe Biden and Kamala Harrs' government-run health care plan,' states the narrator, a senior citizen, in the ad. 'Their plan could lead to hospitals being closed, put Medicare coverage at risk, and give benefits to illegal immigrants. Their plan is just too dangerous for seniors like us.' Point by point, the ad misleads about Biden's health care plan. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' 'government-run health care plan.' This is misleading. Biden hasn't called for only a government plan-run plan. The ad cited a July 2019 NBC story about Biden's health care agenda. Biden does not support Medicare for All; his plan instead builds upon the Affordable Care Act. He supports allowing Americans to buy into a public option for government-managed health insurance. The public option would be offered alongside other private health insurance plans on the marketplace. The ad also cited an article by the conservative Heritage Foundation which analyzed several plans in Congress and concluded that the public option would lead to a 'single government-controlled health care system.' But that's not in line with what Biden has proposed. 'Their plan could lead to hospitals being closed' This assertion hinges in part on the false premise that Biden is proposing Medicare for All. Again, he isn't. Biden's plan calls for taking steps to keep rural hospitals open, including supporting a bipartisan bill in Congress to save rural hospitals in part by increasing payments to Medicare providers. The ad cites as evidence a New York Times article in April 2019 that states that if Medicare for All abolished private insurance and reduced rates some hospitals, especially in struggling rural centers, 'would close virtually overnight.' The Trump campaign also pointed to an August 2019 study conducted by Navigant, a consulting firm, that predicted rural hospitals are in danger of closing under a public option. The study was commissioned by the Partnership for America's Healthcare Future, a health industry coalition that opposes Medicare for All and a public option. The study modeled what would happen to rural hospitals, which are already at risk of closing, if three separate public option approaches were implemented - but it didn't mention Biden's plan. It found that a public option could lead to 28% to 55% of rural hospitals being at high risk of closure. The study reached these findings by assuming that the hospitals would be paid at Medicare rates. Some health policy experts argue that a public option would actually help rural hospitals by increasing the number of people in rural areas who have health insurance. This would 'benefit rural hospitals, since getting virtually nothing from uninsured patients is worse than getting a reasonably good rate from the public option,' Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, previously told us. Biden's plan puts 'Medicare coverage at risk' It's too early to say how Medicare could be affected by Biden's plan to add a public option. The ad cited the same Heritage Foundation research that argues broadly that the public option would eventually lead to the end of private alternatives and that doctors who don't sign up for the public option could be forbidden from participating in Medicare. It also raises concerns about government-set payment rates. But, again, it doesn't specifically zero in on Biden's proposal. The Trump campaign pointed to a September article by the Partnership for America's Healthcare Future that cites articles - including by PolitiFact - that show a public option could disrupt private insurance offerings. A new public option, the partnership says, would strain government financing when Medicare is already at risk. The Trump campaign also pointed to comments by Sherry Glied, the dean of New York University's Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and a former health official in the Obama administration, in the New York Times. Glied said that it was possible that linking public-option coverage to Medicare could cause some doctors to stop accepting Medicare patients. Parts of Biden's plan suggest he is comparing the public option and Medicare, the Trump campaign said. For example, Biden's plan says both programs will negotiate prices with providers and that a board will recommend a reasonable price for new specialty drugs. But two experts we interviewed said Biden's health care plan lacks enough detail to lend itself to the conclusion that it will put Medicare coverage at risk. 'There's not really enough detail in the Biden plan yet to say one way or another,' said Sabrina Corlette, a professor and expert on health insurance at Georgetown University. 'There's nothing inherent in what Biden has proposed that would put traditional Medicare at risk.' If Biden is elected, he would have to write detailed legislation that would explain how the public option would interact with other health insurance, including Medicare. Practically speaking, candidates running for president know not to propose a harmful Medicare plan, said Joe Antos, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Biden's plan would 'give benefits to illegal immigrants' This goes too far. Biden's plan doesn't automatically 'give benefits' to immigrants in the country illegally. Biden favors allowing immigrants illegally in the country to buy health care plans under the Affordable Care Act marketplace, but without financial help from the government. For evidence, the ad cites the June 27, 2019, Democratic primary debate where all of the candidates were asked to 'raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.' All raised their hands, including Biden. The Democrats were asked whether their health care plans would cover immigrants here illegally. They were not, however, directly asked if that coverage would be free. When moderator Savannah Guthrie asked Biden to elaborate, he said: 'You cannot let people who are sick, no matter where they come from, no matter what their status, go uncovered.' He didn't get into the specifics about paying for the coverage, although he said that immigrants in the U.S. illegally pay the Social Security tax. RELATED: Donald Trump gives false version of Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders 'unity' policy on immigrants | Our ruling Trump's TV ad said, 'Joe Biden and Kamala Harrs' government-run health care plan ... could lead to hospitals being closed, put Medicare coverage at risk, and give benefits to illegal immigrants.' Biden has not called for only a government-run plan. He has called for a voluntary public option alongside private options. The ad leaps to conclusions about how Biden's plan would impact hospitals and Medicare coverage, relying largely on articles by groups that oppose the public option. Experts said Biden's plan doesn't include enough specifics to reach conclusions, but it's a stretch to conclude that he would put Medicare coverage at risk. The study the campaign cited about the public option leading to rural hospital closures cites a huge range and makes some assumptions and also acknowledges that rural hospitals are already closing. The only kernel here is that Biden's plan allows immigrants here illegally to pay for health insurance, but it's misleading to state that he would 'give' them the benefits. We rate this claim Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. | [
"101602-proof-12-6784873a91d7e58d576267ac4721ed78.jpeg"
]
|
Says it doesn't make sense for young adults to get the vaccine since they 'really are not under that much of a threat as a result of this virus. | Contradiction | More than 15% of the U.S. population is now fully vaccinated against COVID-19, and as the pace of inoculation picks up and summer nears, it's clear there are brighter days ahead. Wisconsin is among the leaders in the nationwide race to immunize against the virus, with more than 20% of residents having completed the vaccine series. Though we don't yet know exactly how many Americans will have to be vaccinated to achieve 'herd immunity' (the point at which outbreaks cease because the virus has so few new hosts to infect), scientists estimate that it's at least 70% of the population and could be as high as 90%. But U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst, undercut that notion at a town hall meeting in Hudson on March 29, 2021. He told attendees he advised his adult daughters against getting vaccinated because they are 'largely not susceptible to coronavirus,' Wisconsin Public Radio reported. 'Think about this practically,' Tiffany said he told his daughters. 'You really are not under that much of a threat as a result of this virus, and I'm not sure why you would go and take a vaccine as a result of that.' So Tiffany is claiming it doesn't make sense for young adults to get the vaccine since they 'really are not under that much of a threat as a result of this virus.' Implicit in that statement is the idea that getting vaccinated only benefits the individual. That ignores one of the fundamental purposes of immunization: protecting the community at large. Let's break it down. Are younger people 'not under that much of a threat' from COVID-19? When asked for evidence to back up his claim, a Tiffany spokesperson pointed to information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which shows fewer cases of the virus have been reported in children under age 17 when compared with adults, as well as a statement from former CDC director Robert Redfield that children are at more risk from influenza than from COVID-19. He's correct that children have fared better against the virus over the past year. In Wisconsin, residents ages 0-19 have made up about 16% of cases. Only 2% of those cases resulted in hospitalization, and there have only been three deaths in those between 10 and 19, according to data from the state Department of Health Services. We've seen examples in recent weeks: A 14-year-old Milwaukee boy died of COVID-19 April 1, the first pediatric death the city has recorded from the virus, and 35 people (including 16 children) tested positive for a contagious COVID-19 variant at a Dane County child care center. Cases and deaths among people ages 20-29, though - an age range that would include Tiffany's two older daughters, according to WPR - are more common. Nearly 20% of the state's cases were among people ages 20-29, though just 1% required hospitalization and 22 died. Bottom line: Younger Wisconsinites aren't under as much of a threat as those who are older, but serious cases have happened in the population - and they also risk spreading it to someone who is more susceptible to severe consequences from the virus. Should young people skip the vaccine because the threat is lower? Getting any vaccine helps people both protect themselves and their community from disease. Each COVID-19 shot currently authorized in the U.S. was proven in clinical trials to significantly reduce a recipient's chances of illness and death from the virus, which is how it protects the individual. But once enough people are vaccinated against any virus, that virus won't be able to travel as easily from person to person, and the entire community is less likely to get the disease, according to a vaccine fact sheet from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Once that happens, the disease becomes rare. For example, prior to the development of the measles vaccine in 1968, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15. After the vaccine was developed and used widely, disease rates were reduced drastically - by 1981, there were 80% fewer reported measles cases compared to the previous year, according to the CDC. Herd immunity also protects the small number of people who can't get a vaccine for medical or personal reasons, according to the National Institutes of Health. | Our ruling Tiffany said it doesn't make sense for young adults to get the vaccine since they 'really are not under that much of a threat as a result of this virus.' He's correct that younger people generally are less likely than their older counterparts to become severely ill or die from the virus, but still, it has happened, meaning the vaccine would personally protect even young people from severe disease or death, even if the risk is small. Getting enough people vaccinated is also crucial to reach herd immunity, which will protect the entire community. Our definition of Mostly False is a statement that 'contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.' That fits here. | []
|
Says it doesn't make sense for young adults to get the vaccine since they 'really are not under that much of a threat as a result of this virus. | Contradiction | More than 15% of the U.S. population is now fully vaccinated against COVID-19, and as the pace of inoculation picks up and summer nears, it's clear there are brighter days ahead. Wisconsin is among the leaders in the nationwide race to immunize against the virus, with more than 20% of residents having completed the vaccine series. Though we don't yet know exactly how many Americans will have to be vaccinated to achieve 'herd immunity' (the point at which outbreaks cease because the virus has so few new hosts to infect), scientists estimate that it's at least 70% of the population and could be as high as 90%. But U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst, undercut that notion at a town hall meeting in Hudson on March 29, 2021. He told attendees he advised his adult daughters against getting vaccinated because they are 'largely not susceptible to coronavirus,' Wisconsin Public Radio reported. 'Think about this practically,' Tiffany said he told his daughters. 'You really are not under that much of a threat as a result of this virus, and I'm not sure why you would go and take a vaccine as a result of that.' So Tiffany is claiming it doesn't make sense for young adults to get the vaccine since they 'really are not under that much of a threat as a result of this virus.' Implicit in that statement is the idea that getting vaccinated only benefits the individual. That ignores one of the fundamental purposes of immunization: protecting the community at large. Let's break it down. Are younger people 'not under that much of a threat' from COVID-19? When asked for evidence to back up his claim, a Tiffany spokesperson pointed to information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which shows fewer cases of the virus have been reported in children under age 17 when compared with adults, as well as a statement from former CDC director Robert Redfield that children are at more risk from influenza than from COVID-19. He's correct that children have fared better against the virus over the past year. In Wisconsin, residents ages 0-19 have made up about 16% of cases. Only 2% of those cases resulted in hospitalization, and there have only been three deaths in those between 10 and 19, according to data from the state Department of Health Services. We've seen examples in recent weeks: A 14-year-old Milwaukee boy died of COVID-19 April 1, the first pediatric death the city has recorded from the virus, and 35 people (including 16 children) tested positive for a contagious COVID-19 variant at a Dane County child care center. Cases and deaths among people ages 20-29, though - an age range that would include Tiffany's two older daughters, according to WPR - are more common. Nearly 20% of the state's cases were among people ages 20-29, though just 1% required hospitalization and 22 died. Bottom line: Younger Wisconsinites aren't under as much of a threat as those who are older, but serious cases have happened in the population - and they also risk spreading it to someone who is more susceptible to severe consequences from the virus. Should young people skip the vaccine because the threat is lower? Getting any vaccine helps people both protect themselves and their community from disease. Each COVID-19 shot currently authorized in the U.S. was proven in clinical trials to significantly reduce a recipient's chances of illness and death from the virus, which is how it protects the individual. But once enough people are vaccinated against any virus, that virus won't be able to travel as easily from person to person, and the entire community is less likely to get the disease, according to a vaccine fact sheet from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Once that happens, the disease becomes rare. For example, prior to the development of the measles vaccine in 1968, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15. After the vaccine was developed and used widely, disease rates were reduced drastically - by 1981, there were 80% fewer reported measles cases compared to the previous year, according to the CDC. Herd immunity also protects the small number of people who can't get a vaccine for medical or personal reasons, according to the National Institutes of Health. | Our ruling Tiffany said it doesn't make sense for young adults to get the vaccine since they 'really are not under that much of a threat as a result of this virus.' He's correct that younger people generally are less likely than their older counterparts to become severely ill or die from the virus, but still, it has happened, meaning the vaccine would personally protect even young people from severe disease or death, even if the risk is small. Getting enough people vaccinated is also crucial to reach herd immunity, which will protect the entire community. Our definition of Mostly False is a statement that 'contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.' That fits here. | []
|
'There was no violence on the Senate side, in terms of the chamber. | Contradiction | Sen. Ron Johnson has taken every opportunity in recent months to downplay the seriousness of what took place in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and the role of President Donald Trump's supporters in it. On Feb. 7, the Wisconsin Republican pondered whether the impeachment proceedings were a 'diversionary operation ... meant to deflect away from potentially what (U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) knew and when she knew it.' On Feb. 15, he asserted the Jan. 6 incursion 'didn't seem like an armed insurrection.' We rated that claim Pants on Fire. On March 11, he compared the Jan. 6 event and rioters to the social justice movement. 'I knew those were people (on Jan. 6) that love this country, that truly respect law enforcement, would never do anything to break the law, and so I wasn't concerned,' Johnson said in an interview on conservative radio host Joe Pag's show. 'Now, had the tables been turned - Joe, this could get me in trouble - had the tables been turned, and President Trump won the election and those were tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and Antifa protesters, I might have been a little concerned.' As a quick aside, we'll note the rank absurdity of attributing a respect for law enforcement and country to a group of rioters that injured 140 police officers, with one winding up dead, while violently forcing their way into the Capitol in an attempt to halt the Democratic process. But that comparison brings us to Johnson's latest assertion, which came as he sought to defend those remarks March 20, 2021, to a conservative group in West Allis. 'One of the reasons I'm being attacked is because I very honestly said I didn't feel threatened on January 6. I didn't,' Johnson said. 'There was much more violence on the House side. There was no violence on the Senate side, in terms of the chamber. I mean, you've seen the video, guys just strolling in there, and the police just going, kinda saying, do you want to back off?' 'We exited out of there and I walked back to my office. That's it. ... I didn't feel threatened. I never felt threatened. It's a true statement.' We can't fact check descriptions of an emotional state. But Johnson went a significant step beyond how he felt in asserting there was 'no violence on the Senate side.' Let's drill down on that. Johnson's distinction Several of the most tragically memorable moments occurred around the House chamber. That's where we saw pictures of law enforcement wielding guns inside a barricaded chamber as protesters pushed at the door. And a Capitol Police officer shot and killed 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt as she climbed through another barricade just outside the chamber. But Johnson here is drawing a largely meaningless distinction. If armed men break into a home and attack the residents, the attack wouldn't be any more or less violent based on which particular room people were attacked in. The hundreds of people swarming the Capitol in search of lawmakers, intending to halt the machinations of democracy, didn't get in by asking politely. They forced entry to the seat of American democracy by arming themselves with all manner of weapons, forcing their way violently past law enforcement and breaking through windows and doors. What happened in the Senate chamber In any case, we got a more detailed picture of the Senate happenings during the second day of the Senate impeachment trial in February. The Senate had convened to debate challenges to the Arizona electoral vote lodged in a joint session of Congress when the rioters breached the Capitol. 'The threat to the Senate was no less than that to the members of the House,' U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., one of the House Impeachment managers, said during his presentation. Senators sheltered in the chamber for the first 15 minutes after rioters broke through windows on the Senate side and stormed the halls around the chamber, as noted by CNN. During that time Officer Eugene Goodman faced down dozens of rioters on his own, retreating twice up a flight of stairs to lure the mob away from the Senate chambers. He was hailed as a hero by lawmakers. 'You know how close you came to the mob,' Swalwell told the Senate. 'Some of you I understand could hear them.' About 2:30 p.m. local time, the senators were hustled out of the chamber by law enforcement. Security video shows a mass of police officers creating a line at the end of a connecting hallway to block protesters from reaching the senators' escape route. 'As you were moving through that hallway, I paced it off. You were just 58 steps away from where the mob was amassing, and where police were rushing to stop them,' Swalwell said. Rioters breached the Senate chamber about 2:45 p.m., with one man heard on video asking, 'Where the (expletive) are they?' The rioters rifled through desks, stole documents and posed for pictures. Several were wearing helmets and tactical gear, and two were carrying zip cuffs. Jacob Chansley of Arizona, the Qanon adherent who donned a fur hat and carried a six-foot spear, left a note for Vice President Mike Pence that read in part, 'It's only a matter of time, justice is coming.' 'If the doors to this chamber had been breached just minutes earlier, imagine what they could have done with those cuffs,' Swalwell said. Luke Mogelson, a reporter for The New Yorker who videotaped the Senate chamber throughout the incident, described a bizarre scene in which a lone police officer, noting he was outnumbered, inquired, 'Any chance I could get you guys to leave the Senate wing?' When a mass of officers later arrived, the rioters were allowed to simply walk out of the chamber, with one officer thanking them for being peaceful even as he stood with a ripped shirt, a crooked tie and eyes red from pepper spray. | Our ruling Johnson said at a West Allis presentation he didn't feel threatened Jan. 6 because 'there was no violence on the Senate side, in terms of the chamber.' The highest-profile violent acts indeed occurred around the House chamber. But this is an absurd description for any element of an event where hundreds of rioters forced their way past police and into the U.S. Capitol, forcing lawmakers to scurry to safety and leaving more than 100 injured officers in their wake. The fact no one was killed or injured in the chamber does little to lessen the violence inherent to the presence of rioters who acted violently to get in the building. Senators like Johnson had the luxury of being potentially less fearful only because of officers like Goodman and whatever happenstance led more rioters initially to the House chamber, allowing senators to escape before rioters forced their way into the chamber. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"101606-proof-32-72b55a69c40cc06c57775fb4e1dd58e8.jpg"
]
|
'There was no violence on the Senate side, in terms of the chamber. | Contradiction | Sen. Ron Johnson has taken every opportunity in recent months to downplay the seriousness of what took place in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and the role of President Donald Trump's supporters in it. On Feb. 7, the Wisconsin Republican pondered whether the impeachment proceedings were a 'diversionary operation ... meant to deflect away from potentially what (U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) knew and when she knew it.' On Feb. 15, he asserted the Jan. 6 incursion 'didn't seem like an armed insurrection.' We rated that claim Pants on Fire. On March 11, he compared the Jan. 6 event and rioters to the social justice movement. 'I knew those were people (on Jan. 6) that love this country, that truly respect law enforcement, would never do anything to break the law, and so I wasn't concerned,' Johnson said in an interview on conservative radio host Joe Pag's show. 'Now, had the tables been turned - Joe, this could get me in trouble - had the tables been turned, and President Trump won the election and those were tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and Antifa protesters, I might have been a little concerned.' As a quick aside, we'll note the rank absurdity of attributing a respect for law enforcement and country to a group of rioters that injured 140 police officers, with one winding up dead, while violently forcing their way into the Capitol in an attempt to halt the Democratic process. But that comparison brings us to Johnson's latest assertion, which came as he sought to defend those remarks March 20, 2021, to a conservative group in West Allis. 'One of the reasons I'm being attacked is because I very honestly said I didn't feel threatened on January 6. I didn't,' Johnson said. 'There was much more violence on the House side. There was no violence on the Senate side, in terms of the chamber. I mean, you've seen the video, guys just strolling in there, and the police just going, kinda saying, do you want to back off?' 'We exited out of there and I walked back to my office. That's it. ... I didn't feel threatened. I never felt threatened. It's a true statement.' We can't fact check descriptions of an emotional state. But Johnson went a significant step beyond how he felt in asserting there was 'no violence on the Senate side.' Let's drill down on that. Johnson's distinction Several of the most tragically memorable moments occurred around the House chamber. That's where we saw pictures of law enforcement wielding guns inside a barricaded chamber as protesters pushed at the door. And a Capitol Police officer shot and killed 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt as she climbed through another barricade just outside the chamber. But Johnson here is drawing a largely meaningless distinction. If armed men break into a home and attack the residents, the attack wouldn't be any more or less violent based on which particular room people were attacked in. The hundreds of people swarming the Capitol in search of lawmakers, intending to halt the machinations of democracy, didn't get in by asking politely. They forced entry to the seat of American democracy by arming themselves with all manner of weapons, forcing their way violently past law enforcement and breaking through windows and doors. What happened in the Senate chamber In any case, we got a more detailed picture of the Senate happenings during the second day of the Senate impeachment trial in February. The Senate had convened to debate challenges to the Arizona electoral vote lodged in a joint session of Congress when the rioters breached the Capitol. 'The threat to the Senate was no less than that to the members of the House,' U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., one of the House Impeachment managers, said during his presentation. Senators sheltered in the chamber for the first 15 minutes after rioters broke through windows on the Senate side and stormed the halls around the chamber, as noted by CNN. During that time Officer Eugene Goodman faced down dozens of rioters on his own, retreating twice up a flight of stairs to lure the mob away from the Senate chambers. He was hailed as a hero by lawmakers. 'You know how close you came to the mob,' Swalwell told the Senate. 'Some of you I understand could hear them.' About 2:30 p.m. local time, the senators were hustled out of the chamber by law enforcement. Security video shows a mass of police officers creating a line at the end of a connecting hallway to block protesters from reaching the senators' escape route. 'As you were moving through that hallway, I paced it off. You were just 58 steps away from where the mob was amassing, and where police were rushing to stop them,' Swalwell said. Rioters breached the Senate chamber about 2:45 p.m., with one man heard on video asking, 'Where the (expletive) are they?' The rioters rifled through desks, stole documents and posed for pictures. Several were wearing helmets and tactical gear, and two were carrying zip cuffs. Jacob Chansley of Arizona, the Qanon adherent who donned a fur hat and carried a six-foot spear, left a note for Vice President Mike Pence that read in part, 'It's only a matter of time, justice is coming.' 'If the doors to this chamber had been breached just minutes earlier, imagine what they could have done with those cuffs,' Swalwell said. Luke Mogelson, a reporter for The New Yorker who videotaped the Senate chamber throughout the incident, described a bizarre scene in which a lone police officer, noting he was outnumbered, inquired, 'Any chance I could get you guys to leave the Senate wing?' When a mass of officers later arrived, the rioters were allowed to simply walk out of the chamber, with one officer thanking them for being peaceful even as he stood with a ripped shirt, a crooked tie and eyes red from pepper spray. | Our ruling Johnson said at a West Allis presentation he didn't feel threatened Jan. 6 because 'there was no violence on the Senate side, in terms of the chamber.' The highest-profile violent acts indeed occurred around the House chamber. But this is an absurd description for any element of an event where hundreds of rioters forced their way past police and into the U.S. Capitol, forcing lawmakers to scurry to safety and leaving more than 100 injured officers in their wake. The fact no one was killed or injured in the chamber does little to lessen the violence inherent to the presence of rioters who acted violently to get in the building. Senators like Johnson had the luxury of being potentially less fearful only because of officers like Goodman and whatever happenstance led more rioters initially to the House chamber, allowing senators to escape before rioters forced their way into the chamber. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"101606-proof-32-72b55a69c40cc06c57775fb4e1dd58e8.jpg"
]
|
'There was no violence on the Senate side, in terms of the chamber. | Contradiction | Sen. Ron Johnson has taken every opportunity in recent months to downplay the seriousness of what took place in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and the role of President Donald Trump's supporters in it. On Feb. 7, the Wisconsin Republican pondered whether the impeachment proceedings were a 'diversionary operation ... meant to deflect away from potentially what (U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) knew and when she knew it.' On Feb. 15, he asserted the Jan. 6 incursion 'didn't seem like an armed insurrection.' We rated that claim Pants on Fire. On March 11, he compared the Jan. 6 event and rioters to the social justice movement. 'I knew those were people (on Jan. 6) that love this country, that truly respect law enforcement, would never do anything to break the law, and so I wasn't concerned,' Johnson said in an interview on conservative radio host Joe Pag's show. 'Now, had the tables been turned - Joe, this could get me in trouble - had the tables been turned, and President Trump won the election and those were tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and Antifa protesters, I might have been a little concerned.' As a quick aside, we'll note the rank absurdity of attributing a respect for law enforcement and country to a group of rioters that injured 140 police officers, with one winding up dead, while violently forcing their way into the Capitol in an attempt to halt the Democratic process. But that comparison brings us to Johnson's latest assertion, which came as he sought to defend those remarks March 20, 2021, to a conservative group in West Allis. 'One of the reasons I'm being attacked is because I very honestly said I didn't feel threatened on January 6. I didn't,' Johnson said. 'There was much more violence on the House side. There was no violence on the Senate side, in terms of the chamber. I mean, you've seen the video, guys just strolling in there, and the police just going, kinda saying, do you want to back off?' 'We exited out of there and I walked back to my office. That's it. ... I didn't feel threatened. I never felt threatened. It's a true statement.' We can't fact check descriptions of an emotional state. But Johnson went a significant step beyond how he felt in asserting there was 'no violence on the Senate side.' Let's drill down on that. Johnson's distinction Several of the most tragically memorable moments occurred around the House chamber. That's where we saw pictures of law enforcement wielding guns inside a barricaded chamber as protesters pushed at the door. And a Capitol Police officer shot and killed 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt as she climbed through another barricade just outside the chamber. But Johnson here is drawing a largely meaningless distinction. If armed men break into a home and attack the residents, the attack wouldn't be any more or less violent based on which particular room people were attacked in. The hundreds of people swarming the Capitol in search of lawmakers, intending to halt the machinations of democracy, didn't get in by asking politely. They forced entry to the seat of American democracy by arming themselves with all manner of weapons, forcing their way violently past law enforcement and breaking through windows and doors. What happened in the Senate chamber In any case, we got a more detailed picture of the Senate happenings during the second day of the Senate impeachment trial in February. The Senate had convened to debate challenges to the Arizona electoral vote lodged in a joint session of Congress when the rioters breached the Capitol. 'The threat to the Senate was no less than that to the members of the House,' U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., one of the House Impeachment managers, said during his presentation. Senators sheltered in the chamber for the first 15 minutes after rioters broke through windows on the Senate side and stormed the halls around the chamber, as noted by CNN. During that time Officer Eugene Goodman faced down dozens of rioters on his own, retreating twice up a flight of stairs to lure the mob away from the Senate chambers. He was hailed as a hero by lawmakers. 'You know how close you came to the mob,' Swalwell told the Senate. 'Some of you I understand could hear them.' About 2:30 p.m. local time, the senators were hustled out of the chamber by law enforcement. Security video shows a mass of police officers creating a line at the end of a connecting hallway to block protesters from reaching the senators' escape route. 'As you were moving through that hallway, I paced it off. You were just 58 steps away from where the mob was amassing, and where police were rushing to stop them,' Swalwell said. Rioters breached the Senate chamber about 2:45 p.m., with one man heard on video asking, 'Where the (expletive) are they?' The rioters rifled through desks, stole documents and posed for pictures. Several were wearing helmets and tactical gear, and two were carrying zip cuffs. Jacob Chansley of Arizona, the Qanon adherent who donned a fur hat and carried a six-foot spear, left a note for Vice President Mike Pence that read in part, 'It's only a matter of time, justice is coming.' 'If the doors to this chamber had been breached just minutes earlier, imagine what they could have done with those cuffs,' Swalwell said. Luke Mogelson, a reporter for The New Yorker who videotaped the Senate chamber throughout the incident, described a bizarre scene in which a lone police officer, noting he was outnumbered, inquired, 'Any chance I could get you guys to leave the Senate wing?' When a mass of officers later arrived, the rioters were allowed to simply walk out of the chamber, with one officer thanking them for being peaceful even as he stood with a ripped shirt, a crooked tie and eyes red from pepper spray. | Our ruling Johnson said at a West Allis presentation he didn't feel threatened Jan. 6 because 'there was no violence on the Senate side, in terms of the chamber.' The highest-profile violent acts indeed occurred around the House chamber. But this is an absurd description for any element of an event where hundreds of rioters forced their way past police and into the U.S. Capitol, forcing lawmakers to scurry to safety and leaving more than 100 injured officers in their wake. The fact no one was killed or injured in the chamber does little to lessen the violence inherent to the presence of rioters who acted violently to get in the building. Senators like Johnson had the luxury of being potentially less fearful only because of officers like Goodman and whatever happenstance led more rioters initially to the House chamber, allowing senators to escape before rioters forced their way into the chamber. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"101606-proof-32-72b55a69c40cc06c57775fb4e1dd58e8.jpg"
]
|
'There was no violence on the Senate side, in terms of the chamber. | Contradiction | Sen. Ron Johnson has taken every opportunity in recent months to downplay the seriousness of what took place in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and the role of President Donald Trump's supporters in it. On Feb. 7, the Wisconsin Republican pondered whether the impeachment proceedings were a 'diversionary operation ... meant to deflect away from potentially what (U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) knew and when she knew it.' On Feb. 15, he asserted the Jan. 6 incursion 'didn't seem like an armed insurrection.' We rated that claim Pants on Fire. On March 11, he compared the Jan. 6 event and rioters to the social justice movement. 'I knew those were people (on Jan. 6) that love this country, that truly respect law enforcement, would never do anything to break the law, and so I wasn't concerned,' Johnson said in an interview on conservative radio host Joe Pag's show. 'Now, had the tables been turned - Joe, this could get me in trouble - had the tables been turned, and President Trump won the election and those were tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and Antifa protesters, I might have been a little concerned.' As a quick aside, we'll note the rank absurdity of attributing a respect for law enforcement and country to a group of rioters that injured 140 police officers, with one winding up dead, while violently forcing their way into the Capitol in an attempt to halt the Democratic process. But that comparison brings us to Johnson's latest assertion, which came as he sought to defend those remarks March 20, 2021, to a conservative group in West Allis. 'One of the reasons I'm being attacked is because I very honestly said I didn't feel threatened on January 6. I didn't,' Johnson said. 'There was much more violence on the House side. There was no violence on the Senate side, in terms of the chamber. I mean, you've seen the video, guys just strolling in there, and the police just going, kinda saying, do you want to back off?' 'We exited out of there and I walked back to my office. That's it. ... I didn't feel threatened. I never felt threatened. It's a true statement.' We can't fact check descriptions of an emotional state. But Johnson went a significant step beyond how he felt in asserting there was 'no violence on the Senate side.' Let's drill down on that. Johnson's distinction Several of the most tragically memorable moments occurred around the House chamber. That's where we saw pictures of law enforcement wielding guns inside a barricaded chamber as protesters pushed at the door. And a Capitol Police officer shot and killed 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt as she climbed through another barricade just outside the chamber. But Johnson here is drawing a largely meaningless distinction. If armed men break into a home and attack the residents, the attack wouldn't be any more or less violent based on which particular room people were attacked in. The hundreds of people swarming the Capitol in search of lawmakers, intending to halt the machinations of democracy, didn't get in by asking politely. They forced entry to the seat of American democracy by arming themselves with all manner of weapons, forcing their way violently past law enforcement and breaking through windows and doors. What happened in the Senate chamber In any case, we got a more detailed picture of the Senate happenings during the second day of the Senate impeachment trial in February. The Senate had convened to debate challenges to the Arizona electoral vote lodged in a joint session of Congress when the rioters breached the Capitol. 'The threat to the Senate was no less than that to the members of the House,' U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., one of the House Impeachment managers, said during his presentation. Senators sheltered in the chamber for the first 15 minutes after rioters broke through windows on the Senate side and stormed the halls around the chamber, as noted by CNN. During that time Officer Eugene Goodman faced down dozens of rioters on his own, retreating twice up a flight of stairs to lure the mob away from the Senate chambers. He was hailed as a hero by lawmakers. 'You know how close you came to the mob,' Swalwell told the Senate. 'Some of you I understand could hear them.' About 2:30 p.m. local time, the senators were hustled out of the chamber by law enforcement. Security video shows a mass of police officers creating a line at the end of a connecting hallway to block protesters from reaching the senators' escape route. 'As you were moving through that hallway, I paced it off. You were just 58 steps away from where the mob was amassing, and where police were rushing to stop them,' Swalwell said. Rioters breached the Senate chamber about 2:45 p.m., with one man heard on video asking, 'Where the (expletive) are they?' The rioters rifled through desks, stole documents and posed for pictures. Several were wearing helmets and tactical gear, and two were carrying zip cuffs. Jacob Chansley of Arizona, the Qanon adherent who donned a fur hat and carried a six-foot spear, left a note for Vice President Mike Pence that read in part, 'It's only a matter of time, justice is coming.' 'If the doors to this chamber had been breached just minutes earlier, imagine what they could have done with those cuffs,' Swalwell said. Luke Mogelson, a reporter for The New Yorker who videotaped the Senate chamber throughout the incident, described a bizarre scene in which a lone police officer, noting he was outnumbered, inquired, 'Any chance I could get you guys to leave the Senate wing?' When a mass of officers later arrived, the rioters were allowed to simply walk out of the chamber, with one officer thanking them for being peaceful even as he stood with a ripped shirt, a crooked tie and eyes red from pepper spray. | Our ruling Johnson said at a West Allis presentation he didn't feel threatened Jan. 6 because 'there was no violence on the Senate side, in terms of the chamber.' The highest-profile violent acts indeed occurred around the House chamber. But this is an absurd description for any element of an event where hundreds of rioters forced their way past police and into the U.S. Capitol, forcing lawmakers to scurry to safety and leaving more than 100 injured officers in their wake. The fact no one was killed or injured in the chamber does little to lessen the violence inherent to the presence of rioters who acted violently to get in the building. Senators like Johnson had the luxury of being potentially less fearful only because of officers like Goodman and whatever happenstance led more rioters initially to the House chamber, allowing senators to escape before rioters forced their way into the chamber. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"101606-proof-32-72b55a69c40cc06c57775fb4e1dd58e8.jpg"
]
|
'First off, it's in statute already in HIPAA that preexisting conditions are covered. | Contradiction | One of the most popular features of the Affordable Care Act is its guarantee of insurance coverage - at no greater cost - for people with preexisting health conditions. Thus, even as the Trump administration argues before the Supreme Court that the entire Affordable Care Act should be declared invalid, the president and his administration officials maintain that regardless of what happens to the ACA, they will protect people who have had health problems in the past. Speaking to a 'virtual health summit' sponsored by the political newspaper The Hill, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar answered a question about the case, Texas v. Azar, by pointing out 'it's in statute already in HIPAA that preexisting conditions are covered,' implying that if the ACA were declared unconstitutional, those protections would remain in place for everyone. Umm... Not so much. When we checked with HHS for more information about Azar's comment, a spokesperson reiterated the secretary's statement, adding that Azar was 'clear that the story on preexisting conditions doesn't end with HIPAA' and that affordability is a critical component. So we investigated. A little about HIPAA The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, a law we have examined before, was passed by a Republican-led Congress and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996. It is best known for safeguarding medical privacy and patient access to medical records, even though the privacy provisions were added toward the end of congressional deliberations. HIPAA's original purpose was to end what was known as 'job lock,' a situation in which people with preexisting conditions were reluctant to leave jobs with health insurance even for other positions with health insurance for fear their conditions would not be covered or they would be subject to long waiting periods for coverage. Both scenarios were common at the time. HIPAA addressed that problem - as long as people maintained 'continuous' coverage, defined as having health insurance for at least 12 months without a break of more than 63 days. People who met that requirement could not have waiting periods or denials of coverage imposed upon their own or a family member's preexisting condition. HIPAA included protections for people with coverage in the small-group insurance market, which primarily comprises small businesses, by requiring insurers who sold policies in that market to sell to all small groups, regardless of health status, and to cover every eligible member of the groups - again, regardless of health status. But HIPAA was not designed to comprehensively address the problem of people with preexisting conditions getting and keeping affordable health insurance. For starters, the protections were only for people who already had job-based insurance, to make it easier for them to move to other job-based insurance. It did nothing for those in the individual insurance market who needed to purchase their own coverage - such as self-employed people and those working for companies that did not offer health insurance. HIPAA attempted to create a pathway for people transitioning from employer-sponsored to individual coverage. It ensured that, after leaving a job, people who secured insurance through another law, the 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, would be eligible to buy a 'conversion' plan from their insurer once their previous job-based benefits were exhausted. However, two giant problems arose. First, COBRA, which allows individuals to continue their employer-provided coverage for up to 18 months if they pay the entire premium themselves (plus a small administrative fee), is prohibitively expensive for most people. In 2019, the average premium for a single worker was $599 per month. The other problem was that even if a former worker did manage to pay for COBRA coverage until that 18-month period ended, there was no limit on how much insurers could charge for the conversion policies. So, even if they were technically available, they were frequently unaffordable. There were other problems. COBRA coverage was not available to people who worked for small businesses, or for those who became unemployed because the business they worked for failed and no longer offered insurance to anyone. HIPAA also did not stipulate which benefits had to be offered. Next, the ACA The ACA sought to deal with HIPAA's shortcomings. It required most employers to offer coverage, and for those purchasing their own, it required insurers to provide a comprehensive package of benefits at the same price to all purchasers, regardless of health status. However, the ACA rewrote the HIPAA provisions regarding preexisting conditions, so if the ACA is struck down by the Supreme Court, it's not clear whether even HIPAA's lesser provisions would remain. Experts disagree about this, but there is a possibility that HIPAA's protections could be swept away along with the ACA. Later in his answer to the question posed at The Hill's summit, Azar pointed out that there are significant affordability problems with coverage under the ACA, as well. 'So we will work with Congress if the time ever comes, to get real affordable solutions,' he said. That's true... ACA plans, even with subsidies, can be too expensive for some people, and prohibitive for those who earn just slightly too much to qualify for government help. Earlier this month, Democrats in the House passed a bill to make ACA plans more affordable. | Our ruling Azar's statement suggested that if the Supreme Court rules against the ACA and that sweeping law is nullified, Americans with preexisting conditions would continue to have the protections originally offered under HIPAA. Though it contains an element of truth, it leaves out critical pieces of information. For instance, the HIPAA protections are not equivalent to those provided by the ACA. First, they are geared toward people who have work-based insurance coverage - as long as that coverage is continuous for at least 12 months with lapses no longer than 63 days. One expert we consulted pointed out that this window could be especially problematic now, during a time of 'enormous economic dislocation.' Additionally, the ACA rewrote the HIPAA provisions regarding preexisting conditions - bringing into question what might become of them, too. We rate Azar's claim Mostly False. | []
|
'First off, it's in statute already in HIPAA that preexisting conditions are covered. | Contradiction | One of the most popular features of the Affordable Care Act is its guarantee of insurance coverage - at no greater cost - for people with preexisting health conditions. Thus, even as the Trump administration argues before the Supreme Court that the entire Affordable Care Act should be declared invalid, the president and his administration officials maintain that regardless of what happens to the ACA, they will protect people who have had health problems in the past. Speaking to a 'virtual health summit' sponsored by the political newspaper The Hill, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar answered a question about the case, Texas v. Azar, by pointing out 'it's in statute already in HIPAA that preexisting conditions are covered,' implying that if the ACA were declared unconstitutional, those protections would remain in place for everyone. Umm... Not so much. When we checked with HHS for more information about Azar's comment, a spokesperson reiterated the secretary's statement, adding that Azar was 'clear that the story on preexisting conditions doesn't end with HIPAA' and that affordability is a critical component. So we investigated. A little about HIPAA The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, a law we have examined before, was passed by a Republican-led Congress and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996. It is best known for safeguarding medical privacy and patient access to medical records, even though the privacy provisions were added toward the end of congressional deliberations. HIPAA's original purpose was to end what was known as 'job lock,' a situation in which people with preexisting conditions were reluctant to leave jobs with health insurance even for other positions with health insurance for fear their conditions would not be covered or they would be subject to long waiting periods for coverage. Both scenarios were common at the time. HIPAA addressed that problem - as long as people maintained 'continuous' coverage, defined as having health insurance for at least 12 months without a break of more than 63 days. People who met that requirement could not have waiting periods or denials of coverage imposed upon their own or a family member's preexisting condition. HIPAA included protections for people with coverage in the small-group insurance market, which primarily comprises small businesses, by requiring insurers who sold policies in that market to sell to all small groups, regardless of health status, and to cover every eligible member of the groups - again, regardless of health status. But HIPAA was not designed to comprehensively address the problem of people with preexisting conditions getting and keeping affordable health insurance. For starters, the protections were only for people who already had job-based insurance, to make it easier for them to move to other job-based insurance. It did nothing for those in the individual insurance market who needed to purchase their own coverage - such as self-employed people and those working for companies that did not offer health insurance. HIPAA attempted to create a pathway for people transitioning from employer-sponsored to individual coverage. It ensured that, after leaving a job, people who secured insurance through another law, the 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, would be eligible to buy a 'conversion' plan from their insurer once their previous job-based benefits were exhausted. However, two giant problems arose. First, COBRA, which allows individuals to continue their employer-provided coverage for up to 18 months if they pay the entire premium themselves (plus a small administrative fee), is prohibitively expensive for most people. In 2019, the average premium for a single worker was $599 per month. The other problem was that even if a former worker did manage to pay for COBRA coverage until that 18-month period ended, there was no limit on how much insurers could charge for the conversion policies. So, even if they were technically available, they were frequently unaffordable. There were other problems. COBRA coverage was not available to people who worked for small businesses, or for those who became unemployed because the business they worked for failed and no longer offered insurance to anyone. HIPAA also did not stipulate which benefits had to be offered. Next, the ACA The ACA sought to deal with HIPAA's shortcomings. It required most employers to offer coverage, and for those purchasing their own, it required insurers to provide a comprehensive package of benefits at the same price to all purchasers, regardless of health status. However, the ACA rewrote the HIPAA provisions regarding preexisting conditions, so if the ACA is struck down by the Supreme Court, it's not clear whether even HIPAA's lesser provisions would remain. Experts disagree about this, but there is a possibility that HIPAA's protections could be swept away along with the ACA. Later in his answer to the question posed at The Hill's summit, Azar pointed out that there are significant affordability problems with coverage under the ACA, as well. 'So we will work with Congress if the time ever comes, to get real affordable solutions,' he said. That's true... ACA plans, even with subsidies, can be too expensive for some people, and prohibitive for those who earn just slightly too much to qualify for government help. Earlier this month, Democrats in the House passed a bill to make ACA plans more affordable. | Our ruling Azar's statement suggested that if the Supreme Court rules against the ACA and that sweeping law is nullified, Americans with preexisting conditions would continue to have the protections originally offered under HIPAA. Though it contains an element of truth, it leaves out critical pieces of information. For instance, the HIPAA protections are not equivalent to those provided by the ACA. First, they are geared toward people who have work-based insurance coverage - as long as that coverage is continuous for at least 12 months with lapses no longer than 63 days. One expert we consulted pointed out that this window could be especially problematic now, during a time of 'enormous economic dislocation.' Additionally, the ACA rewrote the HIPAA provisions regarding preexisting conditions - bringing into question what might become of them, too. We rate Azar's claim Mostly False. | []
|
'First off, it's in statute already in HIPAA that preexisting conditions are covered. | Contradiction | One of the most popular features of the Affordable Care Act is its guarantee of insurance coverage - at no greater cost - for people with preexisting health conditions. Thus, even as the Trump administration argues before the Supreme Court that the entire Affordable Care Act should be declared invalid, the president and his administration officials maintain that regardless of what happens to the ACA, they will protect people who have had health problems in the past. Speaking to a 'virtual health summit' sponsored by the political newspaper The Hill, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar answered a question about the case, Texas v. Azar, by pointing out 'it's in statute already in HIPAA that preexisting conditions are covered,' implying that if the ACA were declared unconstitutional, those protections would remain in place for everyone. Umm... Not so much. When we checked with HHS for more information about Azar's comment, a spokesperson reiterated the secretary's statement, adding that Azar was 'clear that the story on preexisting conditions doesn't end with HIPAA' and that affordability is a critical component. So we investigated. A little about HIPAA The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, a law we have examined before, was passed by a Republican-led Congress and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996. It is best known for safeguarding medical privacy and patient access to medical records, even though the privacy provisions were added toward the end of congressional deliberations. HIPAA's original purpose was to end what was known as 'job lock,' a situation in which people with preexisting conditions were reluctant to leave jobs with health insurance even for other positions with health insurance for fear their conditions would not be covered or they would be subject to long waiting periods for coverage. Both scenarios were common at the time. HIPAA addressed that problem - as long as people maintained 'continuous' coverage, defined as having health insurance for at least 12 months without a break of more than 63 days. People who met that requirement could not have waiting periods or denials of coverage imposed upon their own or a family member's preexisting condition. HIPAA included protections for people with coverage in the small-group insurance market, which primarily comprises small businesses, by requiring insurers who sold policies in that market to sell to all small groups, regardless of health status, and to cover every eligible member of the groups - again, regardless of health status. But HIPAA was not designed to comprehensively address the problem of people with preexisting conditions getting and keeping affordable health insurance. For starters, the protections were only for people who already had job-based insurance, to make it easier for them to move to other job-based insurance. It did nothing for those in the individual insurance market who needed to purchase their own coverage - such as self-employed people and those working for companies that did not offer health insurance. HIPAA attempted to create a pathway for people transitioning from employer-sponsored to individual coverage. It ensured that, after leaving a job, people who secured insurance through another law, the 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, or COBRA, would be eligible to buy a 'conversion' plan from their insurer once their previous job-based benefits were exhausted. However, two giant problems arose. First, COBRA, which allows individuals to continue their employer-provided coverage for up to 18 months if they pay the entire premium themselves (plus a small administrative fee), is prohibitively expensive for most people. In 2019, the average premium for a single worker was $599 per month. The other problem was that even if a former worker did manage to pay for COBRA coverage until that 18-month period ended, there was no limit on how much insurers could charge for the conversion policies. So, even if they were technically available, they were frequently unaffordable. There were other problems. COBRA coverage was not available to people who worked for small businesses, or for those who became unemployed because the business they worked for failed and no longer offered insurance to anyone. HIPAA also did not stipulate which benefits had to be offered. Next, the ACA The ACA sought to deal with HIPAA's shortcomings. It required most employers to offer coverage, and for those purchasing their own, it required insurers to provide a comprehensive package of benefits at the same price to all purchasers, regardless of health status. However, the ACA rewrote the HIPAA provisions regarding preexisting conditions, so if the ACA is struck down by the Supreme Court, it's not clear whether even HIPAA's lesser provisions would remain. Experts disagree about this, but there is a possibility that HIPAA's protections could be swept away along with the ACA. Later in his answer to the question posed at The Hill's summit, Azar pointed out that there are significant affordability problems with coverage under the ACA, as well. 'So we will work with Congress if the time ever comes, to get real affordable solutions,' he said. That's true... ACA plans, even with subsidies, can be too expensive for some people, and prohibitive for those who earn just slightly too much to qualify for government help. Earlier this month, Democrats in the House passed a bill to make ACA plans more affordable. | Our ruling Azar's statement suggested that if the Supreme Court rules against the ACA and that sweeping law is nullified, Americans with preexisting conditions would continue to have the protections originally offered under HIPAA. Though it contains an element of truth, it leaves out critical pieces of information. For instance, the HIPAA protections are not equivalent to those provided by the ACA. First, they are geared toward people who have work-based insurance coverage - as long as that coverage is continuous for at least 12 months with lapses no longer than 63 days. One expert we consulted pointed out that this window could be especially problematic now, during a time of 'enormous economic dislocation.' Additionally, the ACA rewrote the HIPAA provisions regarding preexisting conditions - bringing into question what might become of them, too. We rate Azar's claim Mostly False. | []
|
Coca-Cola made cans that say 'Try to be less white. | Contradiction | After Coca-Cola pointed its employees to a diversity training course on LinkedIn that encouraged people to 'try to be less white,' misinformation about the company started to spread on social media. We already debunked one claim that Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey said 'a few right winged nuts won't affect our bottom line.' Now people are sharing an image of a Coca-Cola can that says 'Try to be less white.' The company told PolitiFact that Coca-Cola has not created or distributed such a can. Posts sharing images of the can were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) 'The mock Coca-Cola can appearing in some social media feeds was not created, distributed or authorized by the Coca-Cola company,' the company said in a statement sent to PolitiFact. We couldn't find the original image of this can - with or without 'try to be less white' appearing on it - but in February Snopes looked into a different picture of a can that also said 'try to be less white.' That original photo is available on Shutterstock.com, and 'try to be less white' doesn't appear on the can. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
'The blood test for coronavirus costs $3,200. | Contradiction | Fears about the novel coronavirus are starting to dovetail with concerns about costs. 'The blood test for coronavirus costs $3,200,' says a Feb. 27 Facebook post. 'Trump's White House already said I won't be able to afford the vaccine. If I can't afford the test and I can't afford the treatment, am I just supposed to die. This is exactly why I support healthcare as a human right.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post seems to stem from a story about a man who got a steep medical bill after visiting a hospital when he returned from China in January and became ill. One headline about the man's ordeal, from Business Insider, says: 'A US resident racked up a $3,200 hospital bill for suspected coronavirus treatment, and his insurance only covered part of it.' The Miami Herald first reported on the story on Feb. 24, 2020. One version of the headline said: 'Novel coronavirus test for Miami man leads to $3,275 bill,' but the article itself reveals a more complicated story. Osmel Martinez Azcue went to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami after developing flu-like symptoms when he got back from a work trip to China in January, according to the Herald. He was placed in a closed-off room, and nurses wearing protective suits sprayed disinfectant smoke under the door before entering. Hospital staff members said he'd need a CT scan to screen for the virus but Azcue said he asked for a flu test first, because he knew he would have to pay out of pocket, and he wanted to be discharged if he tested positive for the flu. 'Fortunately,' the story says, 'that's exactly what happened. He had the flu, not the deadly virus that has infected tens of thousands of people, mostly in China.' Two weeks later, according to the Herald, Azcue got a notice from an insurance company about a claim for $3,270. Jackson Health officials said at the time that more bills were on the way but the total cost was still unclear. The Herald story said the hospital told the newspaper that Azcue would be responsible for only $1,400 of the $3,270 bill; his insurance would cover the rest. But Azcue said he had learned from his insurer that he would be stuck with the whole bill unless he provided three years of medical records proving that his flu didn't relate to a preexisting condition. 'How can they expect normal citizens to contribute to eliminating the potential risk of person-to-person spread if hospitals are waiting to charge us $3,270 for a simple blood test and a nasal swab?' the story quotes him as saying. Ultimately, according to Business Insider, Azcue's total co-pay was $1,400. After the Miami Herald story ran, the insurer contacted Azcue and said the requirement to provide three years of records was an 'administrative error.' 'We had concerns that your expectations of service were not being met based on some news articles that had come to our attention,' Business Insider quotes an email from the insurer as saying. The publication breaks down the Azcue's medical bill, including the total charge - $3,270 - and what Azcue owed. Two blood tests cost him about $157, virus and flu testing cost about $299 and his co-pay for the emergency room visit cost him $819. Azcue wasn't tested for COVID-19, however, because he tested positive for the flu. And as Business Insider reports, the CDC, which is the only facility that can test for COVID-19 or designate other laboratories to test for the disease, isn't billing for testing. 'This means a patient who goes to the ER or urgent care for coronavirus treatment wouldn't incur a charge for COVID-19 lab testing,' the story says. But as Business Insider reports in another story, free testing doesn't mean free health care. Patients could rack up thousands of dollars in costs associated with the hospital visit or tests for other viruses. In fact, on March 2, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced he was directing the state's health insurers to waive costs 'associated with testing for coronavirus, including emergency room, urgent care and office visits.' 'We can't let cost be a barrier to access to COVID-19 testing for any New Yorker,' he tweeted. | Our ruling The Facebook post says the 'blood test for coronavirus costs $3,200.' Testing for COVID-19 is free. But there could be costs associated with seeking such testing, like a visit to the hospital. In one case, in Florida, a man who worried he was infected initially faced a $3,270 bill even though he never received a coronavirus test. We rate this post Mostly False. | []
|
'The blood test for coronavirus costs $3,200. | Contradiction | Fears about the novel coronavirus are starting to dovetail with concerns about costs. 'The blood test for coronavirus costs $3,200,' says a Feb. 27 Facebook post. 'Trump's White House already said I won't be able to afford the vaccine. If I can't afford the test and I can't afford the treatment, am I just supposed to die. This is exactly why I support healthcare as a human right.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post seems to stem from a story about a man who got a steep medical bill after visiting a hospital when he returned from China in January and became ill. One headline about the man's ordeal, from Business Insider, says: 'A US resident racked up a $3,200 hospital bill for suspected coronavirus treatment, and his insurance only covered part of it.' The Miami Herald first reported on the story on Feb. 24, 2020. One version of the headline said: 'Novel coronavirus test for Miami man leads to $3,275 bill,' but the article itself reveals a more complicated story. Osmel Martinez Azcue went to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami after developing flu-like symptoms when he got back from a work trip to China in January, according to the Herald. He was placed in a closed-off room, and nurses wearing protective suits sprayed disinfectant smoke under the door before entering. Hospital staff members said he'd need a CT scan to screen for the virus but Azcue said he asked for a flu test first, because he knew he would have to pay out of pocket, and he wanted to be discharged if he tested positive for the flu. 'Fortunately,' the story says, 'that's exactly what happened. He had the flu, not the deadly virus that has infected tens of thousands of people, mostly in China.' Two weeks later, according to the Herald, Azcue got a notice from an insurance company about a claim for $3,270. Jackson Health officials said at the time that more bills were on the way but the total cost was still unclear. The Herald story said the hospital told the newspaper that Azcue would be responsible for only $1,400 of the $3,270 bill; his insurance would cover the rest. But Azcue said he had learned from his insurer that he would be stuck with the whole bill unless he provided three years of medical records proving that his flu didn't relate to a preexisting condition. 'How can they expect normal citizens to contribute to eliminating the potential risk of person-to-person spread if hospitals are waiting to charge us $3,270 for a simple blood test and a nasal swab?' the story quotes him as saying. Ultimately, according to Business Insider, Azcue's total co-pay was $1,400. After the Miami Herald story ran, the insurer contacted Azcue and said the requirement to provide three years of records was an 'administrative error.' 'We had concerns that your expectations of service were not being met based on some news articles that had come to our attention,' Business Insider quotes an email from the insurer as saying. The publication breaks down the Azcue's medical bill, including the total charge - $3,270 - and what Azcue owed. Two blood tests cost him about $157, virus and flu testing cost about $299 and his co-pay for the emergency room visit cost him $819. Azcue wasn't tested for COVID-19, however, because he tested positive for the flu. And as Business Insider reports, the CDC, which is the only facility that can test for COVID-19 or designate other laboratories to test for the disease, isn't billing for testing. 'This means a patient who goes to the ER or urgent care for coronavirus treatment wouldn't incur a charge for COVID-19 lab testing,' the story says. But as Business Insider reports in another story, free testing doesn't mean free health care. Patients could rack up thousands of dollars in costs associated with the hospital visit or tests for other viruses. In fact, on March 2, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced he was directing the state's health insurers to waive costs 'associated with testing for coronavirus, including emergency room, urgent care and office visits.' 'We can't let cost be a barrier to access to COVID-19 testing for any New Yorker,' he tweeted. | Our ruling The Facebook post says the 'blood test for coronavirus costs $3,200.' Testing for COVID-19 is free. But there could be costs associated with seeking such testing, like a visit to the hospital. In one case, in Florida, a man who worried he was infected initially faced a $3,270 bill even though he never received a coronavirus test. We rate this post Mostly False. | []
|
'The blood test for coronavirus costs $3,200. | Contradiction | Fears about the novel coronavirus are starting to dovetail with concerns about costs. 'The blood test for coronavirus costs $3,200,' says a Feb. 27 Facebook post. 'Trump's White House already said I won't be able to afford the vaccine. If I can't afford the test and I can't afford the treatment, am I just supposed to die. This is exactly why I support healthcare as a human right.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post seems to stem from a story about a man who got a steep medical bill after visiting a hospital when he returned from China in January and became ill. One headline about the man's ordeal, from Business Insider, says: 'A US resident racked up a $3,200 hospital bill for suspected coronavirus treatment, and his insurance only covered part of it.' The Miami Herald first reported on the story on Feb. 24, 2020. One version of the headline said: 'Novel coronavirus test for Miami man leads to $3,275 bill,' but the article itself reveals a more complicated story. Osmel Martinez Azcue went to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami after developing flu-like symptoms when he got back from a work trip to China in January, according to the Herald. He was placed in a closed-off room, and nurses wearing protective suits sprayed disinfectant smoke under the door before entering. Hospital staff members said he'd need a CT scan to screen for the virus but Azcue said he asked for a flu test first, because he knew he would have to pay out of pocket, and he wanted to be discharged if he tested positive for the flu. 'Fortunately,' the story says, 'that's exactly what happened. He had the flu, not the deadly virus that has infected tens of thousands of people, mostly in China.' Two weeks later, according to the Herald, Azcue got a notice from an insurance company about a claim for $3,270. Jackson Health officials said at the time that more bills were on the way but the total cost was still unclear. The Herald story said the hospital told the newspaper that Azcue would be responsible for only $1,400 of the $3,270 bill; his insurance would cover the rest. But Azcue said he had learned from his insurer that he would be stuck with the whole bill unless he provided three years of medical records proving that his flu didn't relate to a preexisting condition. 'How can they expect normal citizens to contribute to eliminating the potential risk of person-to-person spread if hospitals are waiting to charge us $3,270 for a simple blood test and a nasal swab?' the story quotes him as saying. Ultimately, according to Business Insider, Azcue's total co-pay was $1,400. After the Miami Herald story ran, the insurer contacted Azcue and said the requirement to provide three years of records was an 'administrative error.' 'We had concerns that your expectations of service were not being met based on some news articles that had come to our attention,' Business Insider quotes an email from the insurer as saying. The publication breaks down the Azcue's medical bill, including the total charge - $3,270 - and what Azcue owed. Two blood tests cost him about $157, virus and flu testing cost about $299 and his co-pay for the emergency room visit cost him $819. Azcue wasn't tested for COVID-19, however, because he tested positive for the flu. And as Business Insider reports, the CDC, which is the only facility that can test for COVID-19 or designate other laboratories to test for the disease, isn't billing for testing. 'This means a patient who goes to the ER or urgent care for coronavirus treatment wouldn't incur a charge for COVID-19 lab testing,' the story says. But as Business Insider reports in another story, free testing doesn't mean free health care. Patients could rack up thousands of dollars in costs associated with the hospital visit or tests for other viruses. In fact, on March 2, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced he was directing the state's health insurers to waive costs 'associated with testing for coronavirus, including emergency room, urgent care and office visits.' 'We can't let cost be a barrier to access to COVID-19 testing for any New Yorker,' he tweeted. | Our ruling The Facebook post says the 'blood test for coronavirus costs $3,200.' Testing for COVID-19 is free. But there could be costs associated with seeking such testing, like a visit to the hospital. In one case, in Florida, a man who worried he was infected initially faced a $3,270 bill even though he never received a coronavirus test. We rate this post Mostly False. | []
|
A photograph shows members of the U.S. women's soccer team kneeling during the national anthem at the Tokyo Olympics. | Contradiction | A photo and caption circulating on Facebook would have social media users believe that several members of the U.S. women's soccer team kneeled during the American national anthem before their defeat in the delayed 2020 Olympic opener. A Facebook user on July 21 shared a photo that shows eight of 11 members of the team kneeling. In the photo, the other three team members are shown standing with their left hand behind their back and their right over their heart, which suggests the national anthem is playing. The caption accompanying the photo reads, 'Our U.S. Women's Soccer Team LOST to Sweden.' Similar posts popped up on Twitter, with one tweet sharing the same photo alongside the caption: 'They just lost 3-0 to Sweden. That's what you get for kneeling to George Floyd.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The captions paired with the photo suggest that the image depicts a scene from the Tokyo Olympics, but that is not the case. A Google Image search shows this image is from the 2021 SheBelieves Cup, which was held Feb. 18-24 in Orlando, Fla. Other fact-checking outlets have also debunked the claim that this photo was taken at the Tokyo Olympics - and disproven as false the claim that any teams took a knee during their country's national anthem. They didn't. In its 2020 Olympic debut on July 21, the U.S. women's national team lost 3-0 to Sweden. The loss ended a 44-game winning streak for the U.S. team, which had been knocked out of the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics by Sweden and had hoped to have a better showing against its rival in 2020. The U.S. team - along with four other Olympic teams, including Sweden - participated in a protest against discrimination and racial inequality by taking a knee before its first match. The Associated Press reported that the soccer players who dropped to their knees ahead of their matches on July 21 'were the first athletes to use the Olympic platform for a display of activism' since the International Olympic Committee changed the rules to allow protests within limited parameters. The IOC's rules state that athletes 'have the opportunity to express their views' during the games 'on the field of play prior to the start of the competition (i.e. after leaving the 'call room' (or similar area) or during the introduction of the individual athlete or team).' The IOC also specified that the protests must not directly target countries or individuals and cannot be 'disruptive.' The guidelines still prohibit acts of protest during competition on the field of play, during official ceremonies including victory ceremonies and in the Olympic Village. Neither the U.S. women's national team nor the other four teams that protested racism by kneeling before their matches appear to have been in violation of the new Olympic rules. Members of the teams kneeled when the referee's whistle blew, as pregame music continued to play. When the U.S. and Swedish women's teams took a knee, NPR reported that 'a referee joined the players at midfield in dropping to the turf on one knee' as did an assistant referee. Yahoo! Sports explicitly said, 'All 18 USWNT players stood for the anthem on Wednesday. It's unclear if a protest during the anthem would be acceptable under the new IOC rules.' One photo on Getty Images also depicts members of the U.S. women's soccer team standing during the U.S. national anthem on July 21. | Our ruling Posts on social media suggest that a photograph shows some members of the U.S. women's soccer team kneeling during the national anthem at the Tokyo Olympics. In reality, the photo was taken in February 2021 at the SheBelieves Cup in Florida - not at the 2020 Olympics. Members of the U.S. women's national team took a knee on July 21 ahead of their first Olympic match in Japan. They were standing during the U.S. national anthem. We rate this claim False. | []
|
A photograph shows members of the U.S. women's soccer team kneeling during the national anthem at the Tokyo Olympics. | Contradiction | A photo and caption circulating on Facebook would have social media users believe that several members of the U.S. women's soccer team kneeled during the American national anthem before their defeat in the delayed 2020 Olympic opener. A Facebook user on July 21 shared a photo that shows eight of 11 members of the team kneeling. In the photo, the other three team members are shown standing with their left hand behind their back and their right over their heart, which suggests the national anthem is playing. The caption accompanying the photo reads, 'Our U.S. Women's Soccer Team LOST to Sweden.' Similar posts popped up on Twitter, with one tweet sharing the same photo alongside the caption: 'They just lost 3-0 to Sweden. That's what you get for kneeling to George Floyd.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The captions paired with the photo suggest that the image depicts a scene from the Tokyo Olympics, but that is not the case. A Google Image search shows this image is from the 2021 SheBelieves Cup, which was held Feb. 18-24 in Orlando, Fla. Other fact-checking outlets have also debunked the claim that this photo was taken at the Tokyo Olympics - and disproven as false the claim that any teams took a knee during their country's national anthem. They didn't. In its 2020 Olympic debut on July 21, the U.S. women's national team lost 3-0 to Sweden. The loss ended a 44-game winning streak for the U.S. team, which had been knocked out of the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics by Sweden and had hoped to have a better showing against its rival in 2020. The U.S. team - along with four other Olympic teams, including Sweden - participated in a protest against discrimination and racial inequality by taking a knee before its first match. The Associated Press reported that the soccer players who dropped to their knees ahead of their matches on July 21 'were the first athletes to use the Olympic platform for a display of activism' since the International Olympic Committee changed the rules to allow protests within limited parameters. The IOC's rules state that athletes 'have the opportunity to express their views' during the games 'on the field of play prior to the start of the competition (i.e. after leaving the 'call room' (or similar area) or during the introduction of the individual athlete or team).' The IOC also specified that the protests must not directly target countries or individuals and cannot be 'disruptive.' The guidelines still prohibit acts of protest during competition on the field of play, during official ceremonies including victory ceremonies and in the Olympic Village. Neither the U.S. women's national team nor the other four teams that protested racism by kneeling before their matches appear to have been in violation of the new Olympic rules. Members of the teams kneeled when the referee's whistle blew, as pregame music continued to play. When the U.S. and Swedish women's teams took a knee, NPR reported that 'a referee joined the players at midfield in dropping to the turf on one knee' as did an assistant referee. Yahoo! Sports explicitly said, 'All 18 USWNT players stood for the anthem on Wednesday. It's unclear if a protest during the anthem would be acceptable under the new IOC rules.' One photo on Getty Images also depicts members of the U.S. women's soccer team standing during the U.S. national anthem on July 21. | Our ruling Posts on social media suggest that a photograph shows some members of the U.S. women's soccer team kneeling during the national anthem at the Tokyo Olympics. In reality, the photo was taken in February 2021 at the SheBelieves Cup in Florida - not at the 2020 Olympics. Members of the U.S. women's national team took a knee on July 21 ahead of their first Olympic match in Japan. They were standing during the U.S. national anthem. We rate this claim False. | []
|
A photograph shows members of the U.S. women's soccer team kneeling during the national anthem at the Tokyo Olympics. | Contradiction | A photo and caption circulating on Facebook would have social media users believe that several members of the U.S. women's soccer team kneeled during the American national anthem before their defeat in the delayed 2020 Olympic opener. A Facebook user on July 21 shared a photo that shows eight of 11 members of the team kneeling. In the photo, the other three team members are shown standing with their left hand behind their back and their right over their heart, which suggests the national anthem is playing. The caption accompanying the photo reads, 'Our U.S. Women's Soccer Team LOST to Sweden.' Similar posts popped up on Twitter, with one tweet sharing the same photo alongside the caption: 'They just lost 3-0 to Sweden. That's what you get for kneeling to George Floyd.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The captions paired with the photo suggest that the image depicts a scene from the Tokyo Olympics, but that is not the case. A Google Image search shows this image is from the 2021 SheBelieves Cup, which was held Feb. 18-24 in Orlando, Fla. Other fact-checking outlets have also debunked the claim that this photo was taken at the Tokyo Olympics - and disproven as false the claim that any teams took a knee during their country's national anthem. They didn't. In its 2020 Olympic debut on July 21, the U.S. women's national team lost 3-0 to Sweden. The loss ended a 44-game winning streak for the U.S. team, which had been knocked out of the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics by Sweden and had hoped to have a better showing against its rival in 2020. The U.S. team - along with four other Olympic teams, including Sweden - participated in a protest against discrimination and racial inequality by taking a knee before its first match. The Associated Press reported that the soccer players who dropped to their knees ahead of their matches on July 21 'were the first athletes to use the Olympic platform for a display of activism' since the International Olympic Committee changed the rules to allow protests within limited parameters. The IOC's rules state that athletes 'have the opportunity to express their views' during the games 'on the field of play prior to the start of the competition (i.e. after leaving the 'call room' (or similar area) or during the introduction of the individual athlete or team).' The IOC also specified that the protests must not directly target countries or individuals and cannot be 'disruptive.' The guidelines still prohibit acts of protest during competition on the field of play, during official ceremonies including victory ceremonies and in the Olympic Village. Neither the U.S. women's national team nor the other four teams that protested racism by kneeling before their matches appear to have been in violation of the new Olympic rules. Members of the teams kneeled when the referee's whistle blew, as pregame music continued to play. When the U.S. and Swedish women's teams took a knee, NPR reported that 'a referee joined the players at midfield in dropping to the turf on one knee' as did an assistant referee. Yahoo! Sports explicitly said, 'All 18 USWNT players stood for the anthem on Wednesday. It's unclear if a protest during the anthem would be acceptable under the new IOC rules.' One photo on Getty Images also depicts members of the U.S. women's soccer team standing during the U.S. national anthem on July 21. | Our ruling Posts on social media suggest that a photograph shows some members of the U.S. women's soccer team kneeling during the national anthem at the Tokyo Olympics. In reality, the photo was taken in February 2021 at the SheBelieves Cup in Florida - not at the 2020 Olympics. Members of the U.S. women's national team took a knee on July 21 ahead of their first Olympic match in Japan. They were standing during the U.S. national anthem. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'When large numbers of people in Butler (Pa.) started killing themselves with narcotics, no one in Washington or New York or Los Angeles said a word about it. | Contradiction | Before Election Day, Fox News host Tucker Carlson explained why supporters of President Donald Trump love him so much. Tucker gave the example of thousands of people at a Trump rally in Butler, Pa. They loved Trump, Carlson said, largely because 'because no one else loves them.' 'The country they built, the country their ancestors fought for over hundreds of years, has left them to die in their unfashionable little towns,' Carlson said. 'Mocked and despised by the sneering half wits with finance degrees, but no actual skills, who seem to run everything all of a sudden.' Carlson found proof of this disdain from 'the professional class' in the opioid epidemic that ravaged Butler. 'When large numbers of people in Butler started killing themselves with narcotics, no one in Washington or New York or Los Angeles said a word about it,' Carlson said. 'Whatever Donald Trump's faults, he is better than the rest of the people in charge. At least he doesn't hate them for their weakness.' We can't quantify whether leaders in Washington or large cities on the East and West coasts hate people in smaller cities and towns beset by opioid addiction, but we can assess whether these leaders ignored the epidemic. The pattern that emerges from the record of budgets and reports, and from interviews, is that the response at both the federal and state levels was slow in coming, but the epidemic was not ignored. A snapshot of Butler, Pa. Butler is just north of Pittsburgh in western Pennsylvania. The city has only about 13,000 people, but nearly 188,000 people live in Butler County. The area has lost manufacturing jobs over the decades, but it is no post-industrial wasteland. The AK Steel Corp, maker of rolled steel and other products, is the county's fourth largest employer. There are theaters and museums, and fans of local beer can tour a dozen microbreweries. Amenities aside, like every part of the country, Butler County has struggled with opioid addiction. Compared with other Pennsylvania counties, it has an overdose death rate that is about average - 24 deaths per 100,000 in 2018. That's essentially unchanged from four years ago, but the rate spiked to 50 per 100,000 in 2017, before dropping back down. Emergency room physician Jeanmarie Perrone in Philadelphia said that by about 2008 or so, it was clear that prescribing opioids wasn't making people better. But it took a few more years for doctors and the public health community to see that opioid addiction had spread widely. 'The awareness came that this wasn't an urban problem, the pills were ubiquitous,' Perrone said. 'You didn't need to be in a city to find a doctor to prescribe them.' Perrone said that the federal Drug Enforcement Administration was the first to sound the alarm, followed by the Justice Department and later still, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington and the opioid epidemic Congress and the Obama administration were not silent about prescription opioids such as oxycontin, but it took awhile for them to back up their words with dollars. In 2011, the Obama administration unveiled the government's first plan to tackle prescription drug abuse. 'Prescription drug abuse is the nation's fastest-growing drug problem,' a White House report said. It listed the statistics. A four-fold increase in 10 years in the amount of opioids prescribed. Between 2000 to 2009, the number of prescriptions rose by nearly 50% to reach 257 million. But the report dialed back the urgency. 'These realities demand action, but any policy response must be approached thoughtfully, while acknowledging budgetary constraints at the state and Federal levels,' the report said. 'Any policy in this area must strike a balance between our desire to minimize abuse of prescription drugs and the need to ensure access for their legitimate use.' That lack of urgency allowed the problem to fester. 'The problem was already severe in 2008, and it got worse every year after,' said Andrew Kolodny, medical director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University. 'It wasn't until 2015 that the administration and Congress began to address the problem.' In March 2015, the administration said it wanted an additional $99 million to focus on curtailing opioid prescription trends and reduce opioid deaths. In February 2016, the president's budget called for $1 billion over two years to 'expand access to treatment for prescription drug abuse and heroin use.' The sense that more needed to be done grew, but Johns Hopkins School of Public Health epidemiologist Caleb Alexander said Carlson's dichotomy of coastal elites and inland workers doesn't hold up. 'I don't think that this is a Washington vs. Main Street matter,' Alexander said. 'It is a matter of a broad and multifaceted epidemic that has impacted urban and rural America alike.' In Pennsylvania, Perrone said the sense among frontline workers was less that of abandonment by the government, and more that of uncertainty of how to respond. 'Nobody knew what to do,' Perrone said. 'You couldn't just stop giving opioids. You couldn't take them all off the market. We were teaching doctors to prescribe them more safely, but that's not easy. The horse was out of the barn, and there wasn't an obvious answer as to what would work.' Perrone added that the makers and distributors of prescription opioids formed a potent lobby that successfully argued against any moves that would reduce their sales. Carlson's point that Washington ignored places like Butler County is undercut by a working group of U.S. attorneys. They met in 2014 to tackle the epidemic and presented a plan to change their approach. The head of that group was David Hickton, the U.S. attorney for Western Pennsylvania. Hickton also co-chaired a national Justice Department task force on addiction. We reached out to Fox News and did not hear back. | Our ruling Carlson said that as opioid deaths climbed in rural communities, 'no one in Washington or New York or Los Angeles said a word about it.' Carlson went so far as to say that the elites 'mocked and despised' such communities. Looking at the response at the federal level, literally speaking, Carlson is wrong. By 2011, the administration had put forth a strategy to reduce prescription opioid deaths. The U.S. Attorney for Western Pennsylvania led a Justice Department task force focused on the epidemic. There is room to criticize Washington for failing to put more money into the problem sooner, but by 2015, the White House was calling for a major increase in spending of $1 billion over two years. A frontline clinician at a Philadelphia hospital said if the response was delayed, it was partly because the sense of what would work evolved along with the epidemic. We rate this claim Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"101645-proof-44-de691bdfacc6d049920f6fdfc653a3ce.jpg"
]
|
'When large numbers of people in Butler (Pa.) started killing themselves with narcotics, no one in Washington or New York or Los Angeles said a word about it. | Contradiction | Before Election Day, Fox News host Tucker Carlson explained why supporters of President Donald Trump love him so much. Tucker gave the example of thousands of people at a Trump rally in Butler, Pa. They loved Trump, Carlson said, largely because 'because no one else loves them.' 'The country they built, the country their ancestors fought for over hundreds of years, has left them to die in their unfashionable little towns,' Carlson said. 'Mocked and despised by the sneering half wits with finance degrees, but no actual skills, who seem to run everything all of a sudden.' Carlson found proof of this disdain from 'the professional class' in the opioid epidemic that ravaged Butler. 'When large numbers of people in Butler started killing themselves with narcotics, no one in Washington or New York or Los Angeles said a word about it,' Carlson said. 'Whatever Donald Trump's faults, he is better than the rest of the people in charge. At least he doesn't hate them for their weakness.' We can't quantify whether leaders in Washington or large cities on the East and West coasts hate people in smaller cities and towns beset by opioid addiction, but we can assess whether these leaders ignored the epidemic. The pattern that emerges from the record of budgets and reports, and from interviews, is that the response at both the federal and state levels was slow in coming, but the epidemic was not ignored. A snapshot of Butler, Pa. Butler is just north of Pittsburgh in western Pennsylvania. The city has only about 13,000 people, but nearly 188,000 people live in Butler County. The area has lost manufacturing jobs over the decades, but it is no post-industrial wasteland. The AK Steel Corp, maker of rolled steel and other products, is the county's fourth largest employer. There are theaters and museums, and fans of local beer can tour a dozen microbreweries. Amenities aside, like every part of the country, Butler County has struggled with opioid addiction. Compared with other Pennsylvania counties, it has an overdose death rate that is about average - 24 deaths per 100,000 in 2018. That's essentially unchanged from four years ago, but the rate spiked to 50 per 100,000 in 2017, before dropping back down. Emergency room physician Jeanmarie Perrone in Philadelphia said that by about 2008 or so, it was clear that prescribing opioids wasn't making people better. But it took a few more years for doctors and the public health community to see that opioid addiction had spread widely. 'The awareness came that this wasn't an urban problem, the pills were ubiquitous,' Perrone said. 'You didn't need to be in a city to find a doctor to prescribe them.' Perrone said that the federal Drug Enforcement Administration was the first to sound the alarm, followed by the Justice Department and later still, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington and the opioid epidemic Congress and the Obama administration were not silent about prescription opioids such as oxycontin, but it took awhile for them to back up their words with dollars. In 2011, the Obama administration unveiled the government's first plan to tackle prescription drug abuse. 'Prescription drug abuse is the nation's fastest-growing drug problem,' a White House report said. It listed the statistics. A four-fold increase in 10 years in the amount of opioids prescribed. Between 2000 to 2009, the number of prescriptions rose by nearly 50% to reach 257 million. But the report dialed back the urgency. 'These realities demand action, but any policy response must be approached thoughtfully, while acknowledging budgetary constraints at the state and Federal levels,' the report said. 'Any policy in this area must strike a balance between our desire to minimize abuse of prescription drugs and the need to ensure access for their legitimate use.' That lack of urgency allowed the problem to fester. 'The problem was already severe in 2008, and it got worse every year after,' said Andrew Kolodny, medical director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University. 'It wasn't until 2015 that the administration and Congress began to address the problem.' In March 2015, the administration said it wanted an additional $99 million to focus on curtailing opioid prescription trends and reduce opioid deaths. In February 2016, the president's budget called for $1 billion over two years to 'expand access to treatment for prescription drug abuse and heroin use.' The sense that more needed to be done grew, but Johns Hopkins School of Public Health epidemiologist Caleb Alexander said Carlson's dichotomy of coastal elites and inland workers doesn't hold up. 'I don't think that this is a Washington vs. Main Street matter,' Alexander said. 'It is a matter of a broad and multifaceted epidemic that has impacted urban and rural America alike.' In Pennsylvania, Perrone said the sense among frontline workers was less that of abandonment by the government, and more that of uncertainty of how to respond. 'Nobody knew what to do,' Perrone said. 'You couldn't just stop giving opioids. You couldn't take them all off the market. We were teaching doctors to prescribe them more safely, but that's not easy. The horse was out of the barn, and there wasn't an obvious answer as to what would work.' Perrone added that the makers and distributors of prescription opioids formed a potent lobby that successfully argued against any moves that would reduce their sales. Carlson's point that Washington ignored places like Butler County is undercut by a working group of U.S. attorneys. They met in 2014 to tackle the epidemic and presented a plan to change their approach. The head of that group was David Hickton, the U.S. attorney for Western Pennsylvania. Hickton also co-chaired a national Justice Department task force on addiction. We reached out to Fox News and did not hear back. | Our ruling Carlson said that as opioid deaths climbed in rural communities, 'no one in Washington or New York or Los Angeles said a word about it.' Carlson went so far as to say that the elites 'mocked and despised' such communities. Looking at the response at the federal level, literally speaking, Carlson is wrong. By 2011, the administration had put forth a strategy to reduce prescription opioid deaths. The U.S. Attorney for Western Pennsylvania led a Justice Department task force focused on the epidemic. There is room to criticize Washington for failing to put more money into the problem sooner, but by 2015, the White House was calling for a major increase in spending of $1 billion over two years. A frontline clinician at a Philadelphia hospital said if the response was delayed, it was partly because the sense of what would work evolved along with the epidemic. We rate this claim Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"101645-proof-44-de691bdfacc6d049920f6fdfc653a3ce.jpg"
]
|
'When large numbers of people in Butler (Pa.) started killing themselves with narcotics, no one in Washington or New York or Los Angeles said a word about it. | Contradiction | Before Election Day, Fox News host Tucker Carlson explained why supporters of President Donald Trump love him so much. Tucker gave the example of thousands of people at a Trump rally in Butler, Pa. They loved Trump, Carlson said, largely because 'because no one else loves them.' 'The country they built, the country their ancestors fought for over hundreds of years, has left them to die in their unfashionable little towns,' Carlson said. 'Mocked and despised by the sneering half wits with finance degrees, but no actual skills, who seem to run everything all of a sudden.' Carlson found proof of this disdain from 'the professional class' in the opioid epidemic that ravaged Butler. 'When large numbers of people in Butler started killing themselves with narcotics, no one in Washington or New York or Los Angeles said a word about it,' Carlson said. 'Whatever Donald Trump's faults, he is better than the rest of the people in charge. At least he doesn't hate them for their weakness.' We can't quantify whether leaders in Washington or large cities on the East and West coasts hate people in smaller cities and towns beset by opioid addiction, but we can assess whether these leaders ignored the epidemic. The pattern that emerges from the record of budgets and reports, and from interviews, is that the response at both the federal and state levels was slow in coming, but the epidemic was not ignored. A snapshot of Butler, Pa. Butler is just north of Pittsburgh in western Pennsylvania. The city has only about 13,000 people, but nearly 188,000 people live in Butler County. The area has lost manufacturing jobs over the decades, but it is no post-industrial wasteland. The AK Steel Corp, maker of rolled steel and other products, is the county's fourth largest employer. There are theaters and museums, and fans of local beer can tour a dozen microbreweries. Amenities aside, like every part of the country, Butler County has struggled with opioid addiction. Compared with other Pennsylvania counties, it has an overdose death rate that is about average - 24 deaths per 100,000 in 2018. That's essentially unchanged from four years ago, but the rate spiked to 50 per 100,000 in 2017, before dropping back down. Emergency room physician Jeanmarie Perrone in Philadelphia said that by about 2008 or so, it was clear that prescribing opioids wasn't making people better. But it took a few more years for doctors and the public health community to see that opioid addiction had spread widely. 'The awareness came that this wasn't an urban problem, the pills were ubiquitous,' Perrone said. 'You didn't need to be in a city to find a doctor to prescribe them.' Perrone said that the federal Drug Enforcement Administration was the first to sound the alarm, followed by the Justice Department and later still, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington and the opioid epidemic Congress and the Obama administration were not silent about prescription opioids such as oxycontin, but it took awhile for them to back up their words with dollars. In 2011, the Obama administration unveiled the government's first plan to tackle prescription drug abuse. 'Prescription drug abuse is the nation's fastest-growing drug problem,' a White House report said. It listed the statistics. A four-fold increase in 10 years in the amount of opioids prescribed. Between 2000 to 2009, the number of prescriptions rose by nearly 50% to reach 257 million. But the report dialed back the urgency. 'These realities demand action, but any policy response must be approached thoughtfully, while acknowledging budgetary constraints at the state and Federal levels,' the report said. 'Any policy in this area must strike a balance between our desire to minimize abuse of prescription drugs and the need to ensure access for their legitimate use.' That lack of urgency allowed the problem to fester. 'The problem was already severe in 2008, and it got worse every year after,' said Andrew Kolodny, medical director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University. 'It wasn't until 2015 that the administration and Congress began to address the problem.' In March 2015, the administration said it wanted an additional $99 million to focus on curtailing opioid prescription trends and reduce opioid deaths. In February 2016, the president's budget called for $1 billion over two years to 'expand access to treatment for prescription drug abuse and heroin use.' The sense that more needed to be done grew, but Johns Hopkins School of Public Health epidemiologist Caleb Alexander said Carlson's dichotomy of coastal elites and inland workers doesn't hold up. 'I don't think that this is a Washington vs. Main Street matter,' Alexander said. 'It is a matter of a broad and multifaceted epidemic that has impacted urban and rural America alike.' In Pennsylvania, Perrone said the sense among frontline workers was less that of abandonment by the government, and more that of uncertainty of how to respond. 'Nobody knew what to do,' Perrone said. 'You couldn't just stop giving opioids. You couldn't take them all off the market. We were teaching doctors to prescribe them more safely, but that's not easy. The horse was out of the barn, and there wasn't an obvious answer as to what would work.' Perrone added that the makers and distributors of prescription opioids formed a potent lobby that successfully argued against any moves that would reduce their sales. Carlson's point that Washington ignored places like Butler County is undercut by a working group of U.S. attorneys. They met in 2014 to tackle the epidemic and presented a plan to change their approach. The head of that group was David Hickton, the U.S. attorney for Western Pennsylvania. Hickton also co-chaired a national Justice Department task force on addiction. We reached out to Fox News and did not hear back. | Our ruling Carlson said that as opioid deaths climbed in rural communities, 'no one in Washington or New York or Los Angeles said a word about it.' Carlson went so far as to say that the elites 'mocked and despised' such communities. Looking at the response at the federal level, literally speaking, Carlson is wrong. By 2011, the administration had put forth a strategy to reduce prescription opioid deaths. The U.S. Attorney for Western Pennsylvania led a Justice Department task force focused on the epidemic. There is room to criticize Washington for failing to put more money into the problem sooner, but by 2015, the White House was calling for a major increase in spending of $1 billion over two years. A frontline clinician at a Philadelphia hospital said if the response was delayed, it was partly because the sense of what would work evolved along with the epidemic. We rate this claim Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"101645-proof-44-de691bdfacc6d049920f6fdfc653a3ce.jpg"
]
|
Says Dr. Anthony Fauci's name appears on '4 U.S. patents for a key glycoprotein' used to 'create the current COVID-19 epidemic. | Contradiction | A conservative author who previously promoted the Obama birth certificate conspiracy is now publishing false claims about Dr. Anthony Fauci's connection to the coronavirus pandemic. An April 28 article published on Jerome Corsi's blog alleges that Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, owns some intellectual property tied to the novel coronavirus. It also floats the debunked idea that the virus was 'laboratory-created, possibly as a bioweapon.' 'Why does Dr. Anthony Fauci's name appear on 4 U.S. patents for a key glycoprotein that appears to have been inserted into a SARS virus chassis to create the current COVID-19 epidemic?' Corsi wrote. The article was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Corsi Nation) Corsi is a conservative author and conspiracy theorist. He has made baseless allegations about former President Barack Obama's birth certificate and spread misinformation related to QAnon, a broad right-wing conspiracy theory. As a friend of Roger Stone, a former campaign adviser to President Donald Trump, Corsi was part of former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into 2016 election meddling. Since the pandemic began, we've fact-checked several false claims about Fauci's connection to the coronavirus. Corsi's article is similar to a claim made in 'Plandemic,' a viral documentary that makes a slew of wrong allegations about Fauci, vaccines and COVID-19. So we wanted to look into this article, too. Corsi uses a discredited research article to draw an unwarranted connection between a patent family for a potential HIV treatment and the novel coronavirus. His article feeds into the debunked conspiracy theory that the virus was created in a lab. HHS owns patents for potential HIV treatment Corsi lists four patents in his article. They all have to do with a potential HIV treatment patented by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The patents, three of which are active, all deal with a potential method for preventing HIV infection. That method includes 'a therapeutically effective amount of an agent that interferes with the interaction of gpl20 and α4 integrin ... thereby treating the HIV infection.' In plain English: the potential treatment aims to impede a chemical interaction between HIV and human cells that can lead to transmission of the virus. It was based on a 2008 study conducted by NIAID scientists. Fauci is listed as an inventor on the patents alongside a few other authors of the 2008 study. But the assignee - the entity that owns the patents - is HHS. We reached out to the NIAID for more context, but we haven't heard back. No evidence novel coronavirus was manipulated Corsi is using a withdrawn article and a debunked conspiracy theory to link the HHS patents to the coronavirus pandemic. In his article, Corsi mentions a Jan. 31 piece published by a group of Indian scientists on bioRxiv, a repository of preprint research papers. The article - which was not peer-reviewed and was later withdrawn - found a connection between a protein present in HIV and the novel coronavirus. The authors wrote that 'amino acid residues' in the coronavirus were similar to gpl20, the HIV protein that NIAID scientists studied in 2008. The protein is mentioned in the HHS patents. But the authors withdrew their findings after other scientists criticized them as circumstantial and adding fuel to an unfounded conspiracy theory that the novel coronavirus was created in a lab. RELATED: What we know about the source of the coronavirus pandemic Researchers have concluded that the genetic structure of the novel coronavirus rules out the possibility of laboratory manipulation. A Nature article published March 17 says the genetic makeup of the coronavirus, documented by researchers from several public health organizations, does not indicate it was altered. Instead, scientists have two plausible explanations for the origin of the virus: natural selection in an animal host, or natural selection in humans after the virus jumped from animals. 'Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,' the article reads. We contacted Corsi by email but haven't gotten a response. | Our ruling Corsi's article claims that Fauci's name appears on four patents for a protein that was used to create the novel coronavirus. That's wrong. Three of the patents that Corsi identified are active and owned by the Department of Health and Human Services. But they are unrelated to the coronavirus pandemic. They deal with a potential treatment for HIV that NIAID researchers studied in 2008. Fauci is listed as an author on that study and as one of the inventors on the patents. There is no credible evidence that COVID-19 is related to HIV or was created in a lab. The coronavirus' genetic makeup precludes the possibility that it was man-made. And Fauci is helping lead the U.S. response to the pandemic. The article is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"101648-proof-17-Screen_Shot_2020-05-12_at_2.48.40_PM.jpg",
"101648-proof-33-047aa45a1ee7095ba39541c46c6d2469.jpg"
]
|
Says Dr. Anthony Fauci's name appears on '4 U.S. patents for a key glycoprotein' used to 'create the current COVID-19 epidemic. | Contradiction | A conservative author who previously promoted the Obama birth certificate conspiracy is now publishing false claims about Dr. Anthony Fauci's connection to the coronavirus pandemic. An April 28 article published on Jerome Corsi's blog alleges that Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, owns some intellectual property tied to the novel coronavirus. It also floats the debunked idea that the virus was 'laboratory-created, possibly as a bioweapon.' 'Why does Dr. Anthony Fauci's name appear on 4 U.S. patents for a key glycoprotein that appears to have been inserted into a SARS virus chassis to create the current COVID-19 epidemic?' Corsi wrote. The article was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Corsi Nation) Corsi is a conservative author and conspiracy theorist. He has made baseless allegations about former President Barack Obama's birth certificate and spread misinformation related to QAnon, a broad right-wing conspiracy theory. As a friend of Roger Stone, a former campaign adviser to President Donald Trump, Corsi was part of former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into 2016 election meddling. Since the pandemic began, we've fact-checked several false claims about Fauci's connection to the coronavirus. Corsi's article is similar to a claim made in 'Plandemic,' a viral documentary that makes a slew of wrong allegations about Fauci, vaccines and COVID-19. So we wanted to look into this article, too. Corsi uses a discredited research article to draw an unwarranted connection between a patent family for a potential HIV treatment and the novel coronavirus. His article feeds into the debunked conspiracy theory that the virus was created in a lab. HHS owns patents for potential HIV treatment Corsi lists four patents in his article. They all have to do with a potential HIV treatment patented by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The patents, three of which are active, all deal with a potential method for preventing HIV infection. That method includes 'a therapeutically effective amount of an agent that interferes with the interaction of gpl20 and α4 integrin ... thereby treating the HIV infection.' In plain English: the potential treatment aims to impede a chemical interaction between HIV and human cells that can lead to transmission of the virus. It was based on a 2008 study conducted by NIAID scientists. Fauci is listed as an inventor on the patents alongside a few other authors of the 2008 study. But the assignee - the entity that owns the patents - is HHS. We reached out to the NIAID for more context, but we haven't heard back. No evidence novel coronavirus was manipulated Corsi is using a withdrawn article and a debunked conspiracy theory to link the HHS patents to the coronavirus pandemic. In his article, Corsi mentions a Jan. 31 piece published by a group of Indian scientists on bioRxiv, a repository of preprint research papers. The article - which was not peer-reviewed and was later withdrawn - found a connection between a protein present in HIV and the novel coronavirus. The authors wrote that 'amino acid residues' in the coronavirus were similar to gpl20, the HIV protein that NIAID scientists studied in 2008. The protein is mentioned in the HHS patents. But the authors withdrew their findings after other scientists criticized them as circumstantial and adding fuel to an unfounded conspiracy theory that the novel coronavirus was created in a lab. RELATED: What we know about the source of the coronavirus pandemic Researchers have concluded that the genetic structure of the novel coronavirus rules out the possibility of laboratory manipulation. A Nature article published March 17 says the genetic makeup of the coronavirus, documented by researchers from several public health organizations, does not indicate it was altered. Instead, scientists have two plausible explanations for the origin of the virus: natural selection in an animal host, or natural selection in humans after the virus jumped from animals. 'Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,' the article reads. We contacted Corsi by email but haven't gotten a response. | Our ruling Corsi's article claims that Fauci's name appears on four patents for a protein that was used to create the novel coronavirus. That's wrong. Three of the patents that Corsi identified are active and owned by the Department of Health and Human Services. But they are unrelated to the coronavirus pandemic. They deal with a potential treatment for HIV that NIAID researchers studied in 2008. Fauci is listed as an author on that study and as one of the inventors on the patents. There is no credible evidence that COVID-19 is related to HIV or was created in a lab. The coronavirus' genetic makeup precludes the possibility that it was man-made. And Fauci is helping lead the U.S. response to the pandemic. The article is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"101648-proof-17-Screen_Shot_2020-05-12_at_2.48.40_PM.jpg",
"101648-proof-33-047aa45a1ee7095ba39541c46c6d2469.jpg"
]
|
Says Dr. Anthony Fauci's name appears on '4 U.S. patents for a key glycoprotein' used to 'create the current COVID-19 epidemic. | Contradiction | A conservative author who previously promoted the Obama birth certificate conspiracy is now publishing false claims about Dr. Anthony Fauci's connection to the coronavirus pandemic. An April 28 article published on Jerome Corsi's blog alleges that Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, owns some intellectual property tied to the novel coronavirus. It also floats the debunked idea that the virus was 'laboratory-created, possibly as a bioweapon.' 'Why does Dr. Anthony Fauci's name appear on 4 U.S. patents for a key glycoprotein that appears to have been inserted into a SARS virus chassis to create the current COVID-19 epidemic?' Corsi wrote. The article was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Corsi Nation) Corsi is a conservative author and conspiracy theorist. He has made baseless allegations about former President Barack Obama's birth certificate and spread misinformation related to QAnon, a broad right-wing conspiracy theory. As a friend of Roger Stone, a former campaign adviser to President Donald Trump, Corsi was part of former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into 2016 election meddling. Since the pandemic began, we've fact-checked several false claims about Fauci's connection to the coronavirus. Corsi's article is similar to a claim made in 'Plandemic,' a viral documentary that makes a slew of wrong allegations about Fauci, vaccines and COVID-19. So we wanted to look into this article, too. Corsi uses a discredited research article to draw an unwarranted connection between a patent family for a potential HIV treatment and the novel coronavirus. His article feeds into the debunked conspiracy theory that the virus was created in a lab. HHS owns patents for potential HIV treatment Corsi lists four patents in his article. They all have to do with a potential HIV treatment patented by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The patents, three of which are active, all deal with a potential method for preventing HIV infection. That method includes 'a therapeutically effective amount of an agent that interferes with the interaction of gpl20 and α4 integrin ... thereby treating the HIV infection.' In plain English: the potential treatment aims to impede a chemical interaction between HIV and human cells that can lead to transmission of the virus. It was based on a 2008 study conducted by NIAID scientists. Fauci is listed as an inventor on the patents alongside a few other authors of the 2008 study. But the assignee - the entity that owns the patents - is HHS. We reached out to the NIAID for more context, but we haven't heard back. No evidence novel coronavirus was manipulated Corsi is using a withdrawn article and a debunked conspiracy theory to link the HHS patents to the coronavirus pandemic. In his article, Corsi mentions a Jan. 31 piece published by a group of Indian scientists on bioRxiv, a repository of preprint research papers. The article - which was not peer-reviewed and was later withdrawn - found a connection between a protein present in HIV and the novel coronavirus. The authors wrote that 'amino acid residues' in the coronavirus were similar to gpl20, the HIV protein that NIAID scientists studied in 2008. The protein is mentioned in the HHS patents. But the authors withdrew their findings after other scientists criticized them as circumstantial and adding fuel to an unfounded conspiracy theory that the novel coronavirus was created in a lab. RELATED: What we know about the source of the coronavirus pandemic Researchers have concluded that the genetic structure of the novel coronavirus rules out the possibility of laboratory manipulation. A Nature article published March 17 says the genetic makeup of the coronavirus, documented by researchers from several public health organizations, does not indicate it was altered. Instead, scientists have two plausible explanations for the origin of the virus: natural selection in an animal host, or natural selection in humans after the virus jumped from animals. 'Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,' the article reads. We contacted Corsi by email but haven't gotten a response. | Our ruling Corsi's article claims that Fauci's name appears on four patents for a protein that was used to create the novel coronavirus. That's wrong. Three of the patents that Corsi identified are active and owned by the Department of Health and Human Services. But they are unrelated to the coronavirus pandemic. They deal with a potential treatment for HIV that NIAID researchers studied in 2008. Fauci is listed as an author on that study and as one of the inventors on the patents. There is no credible evidence that COVID-19 is related to HIV or was created in a lab. The coronavirus' genetic makeup precludes the possibility that it was man-made. And Fauci is helping lead the U.S. response to the pandemic. The article is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"101648-proof-17-Screen_Shot_2020-05-12_at_2.48.40_PM.jpg",
"101648-proof-33-047aa45a1ee7095ba39541c46c6d2469.jpg"
]
|
Says Kamala Harris called Joe Biden 'a racist' during a Democratic presidential debate. | Contradiction | During a Democratic primary debate in Miami, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., attacked former Vice President Joe Biden over his record opposing busing as a method to achieve school integration in the 1970s. Their fight about his stance on busing has been revived since Biden named Harris as his running mate. But social media posts and Trump campaign officials have twisted what she said. One Instagram post, which was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news, said: 'During the debate Kamala Harris (called) Joe Biden a racist based on his policies. And (asked) him to apologize and he refused. Now she's VP.' Trump campaign senior adviser Katrina Pierson made a similar claim: 'Not long ago. Kamala Harris called Joe Biden a racist and asked for an apology she never received.' Many reporters, including Fox News' Neil Cavuto, have shown that this statement is wrong. Harris specifically said Biden was not a racist. RELATED: The Democratic debate resurrected controversy over busing. But is it an issue today? Harris prefaced her attack in the June 27, 2019, debate by telling Biden, 'I do not believe you are a racist. I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground.' Then she pivoted to the topic of his record on busing: 'It was actually hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. It was not only that but you also worked with them to oppose busing. There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools. She was bused to school every day. That little girl was me.' RELATED: Was Kamala Harris 'part of second class to integrate' Berkeley's public schools? During their back and forth, Biden offered a misleading defense of his position on busing. About a week later, Biden apologized for his remarks about working with segregationist senators, but he did not walk back his position on busing. When CNN asked Harris about Biden's apology, she said, 'I think that he is right to recognize the impact of his words, and I applaud him for doing that, having the courage to do it.' But they still disagreed about busing. 'He says he's sorry, and I'm going to take him at his word. But again, that doesn't address the issue of busing in America,' she said. The Trump campaign highlighted earlier comments Harris made criticizing Biden's statements about working with segregationists. There is one candidate Harris considers a racist. Harris, whose mother was born in India and father was from Jamaica, called Trump a racist during an interview in February 2019 with The Root.The interviewer asked Harris if Trump was a racist. 'When you talk about him calling African countries s---hole countries, when you talk about him referring to immigrants as rapists and murderers, I don't think you can reach any other conclusion,' Harris said. | Our ruling An Instagram post said Harris called Biden 'a racist' during a Democratic debate. That's not what Harris said about Biden. At a June 2019 debate, she said to Biden: 'I do not believe you are a racist.' Then Harris launched into an attack of Biden's record opposing busing in the 1970s. We rate this statement False. | [
"101649-proof-01-ee6808c4e4e256710bfe02a749890870.jpg"
]
|
Says Kamala Harris called Joe Biden 'a racist' during a Democratic presidential debate. | Contradiction | During a Democratic primary debate in Miami, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., attacked former Vice President Joe Biden over his record opposing busing as a method to achieve school integration in the 1970s. Their fight about his stance on busing has been revived since Biden named Harris as his running mate. But social media posts and Trump campaign officials have twisted what she said. One Instagram post, which was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news, said: 'During the debate Kamala Harris (called) Joe Biden a racist based on his policies. And (asked) him to apologize and he refused. Now she's VP.' Trump campaign senior adviser Katrina Pierson made a similar claim: 'Not long ago. Kamala Harris called Joe Biden a racist and asked for an apology she never received.' Many reporters, including Fox News' Neil Cavuto, have shown that this statement is wrong. Harris specifically said Biden was not a racist. RELATED: The Democratic debate resurrected controversy over busing. But is it an issue today? Harris prefaced her attack in the June 27, 2019, debate by telling Biden, 'I do not believe you are a racist. I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground.' Then she pivoted to the topic of his record on busing: 'It was actually hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. It was not only that but you also worked with them to oppose busing. There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools. She was bused to school every day. That little girl was me.' RELATED: Was Kamala Harris 'part of second class to integrate' Berkeley's public schools? During their back and forth, Biden offered a misleading defense of his position on busing. About a week later, Biden apologized for his remarks about working with segregationist senators, but he did not walk back his position on busing. When CNN asked Harris about Biden's apology, she said, 'I think that he is right to recognize the impact of his words, and I applaud him for doing that, having the courage to do it.' But they still disagreed about busing. 'He says he's sorry, and I'm going to take him at his word. But again, that doesn't address the issue of busing in America,' she said. The Trump campaign highlighted earlier comments Harris made criticizing Biden's statements about working with segregationists. There is one candidate Harris considers a racist. Harris, whose mother was born in India and father was from Jamaica, called Trump a racist during an interview in February 2019 with The Root.The interviewer asked Harris if Trump was a racist. 'When you talk about him calling African countries s---hole countries, when you talk about him referring to immigrants as rapists and murderers, I don't think you can reach any other conclusion,' Harris said. | Our ruling An Instagram post said Harris called Biden 'a racist' during a Democratic debate. That's not what Harris said about Biden. At a June 2019 debate, she said to Biden: 'I do not believe you are a racist.' Then Harris launched into an attack of Biden's record opposing busing in the 1970s. We rate this statement False. | [
"101649-proof-01-ee6808c4e4e256710bfe02a749890870.jpg"
]
|
'Only in the Third World do you see this habitual use of prosecutions of former leaders. | Contradiction | In a short video that appeared on Twitter, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., spoke out against the upcoming Senate impeachment trial for former president Donald Trump, comparing it to what one would see 'only in the Third World.' Trump is facing his second impeachment trial, this time on a charge of incitement of insurrection, after a mob of his supporters rioted at the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6. The Senate trial is scheduled to start the week of Feb. 8. Rubio said that he'd tried everything he could to end the second impeachment trial. 'This is terrible for the country. It sets a terrible precedent,' Rubio said. 'Only in the Third World do you see this habitual use of prosecutions of former leaders. You go through Latin America, virtually every immediate past president is under indictment or in jail.' Rubio's comment met quick pushback on Twitter from people citing prosecutions in the U.S. and other countries. So PolitiFact decided to check his claim that habitual prosecutions of former leaders happen 'only in the Third World.' And we found several examples to prove he's wrong. Prosecutions in South Korea, Israel, France, Italy We asked Rubio's press team for clarity on Rubio's definition of 'Third World,' but didn't get a response. The term, considered by some to be outdated and offensive, has usually been used to describe developing nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America. There is a common theme among some of the former leaders who have been charged or convicted of crimes after leaving office: Generally, they've been accused of corruption. But plenty of these cases have taken place in some of the most economically developed countries, including South Korea, Israel, France and Italy. South Korea's former president Park Geun-hye was impeached and eventually removed from office in 2017. She was convicted in 2018 of bribery and other crimes, and her 20-year prison sentence was upheld this year by the nation's Supreme Court. Lee Myung-bak, Park's predecessor as president, is also in prison. In 2018, he was convicted for corruption crimes that happened when he was a presidential candidate and after he took office in 2008. South Korea's Supreme Court in October upheld a 17-year prison term for Lee. 'Almost all of South Korea's former presidents, as well as many of its business tycoons, have been implicated in recurring corruption scandals. Four former presidents have been arrested on corruption charges since the 1990s, including Ms. Park and Mr. Lee,' the New York Times reported in October 2020. In Israel, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against two prime ministers in recent years. Benjamin Netanyahu, who is both a current and former prime minister, is facing charges of fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes in three corruption cases. Ehud Olmert, who served as Israel's prime minister from 2006 to 2009, was convicted in 2014 of taking bribes while he was mayor of Jerusalem, and convicted in 2012 of breach of trust. In France, Nicolas Sarkozy who was president from 2007 to 2012, just went on trial on charges of corruption and influence-peddling. A verdict is expected in March. Jacques Chirac, president from 1995 to 2007, was convicted in 2011 of embezzling government money when he previously served as mayor of Paris. Chirac's trial started two years after he left the presidency because courts had ruled he was immune from prosecution while president. In 2013 in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi was expelled from the Senate following a 2012 conviction for tax fraud. Berlusconi had served three terms as Italy's prime minister, the last one ending in 2011. Rubio's claim ignores various prosecutions and convictions in the United States of former governors and members of Congress. The Center for Illinois Politics maintains a list of convicted governors from around the country, including Illinois' own former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat who was arrested in 2008 on corruption charges, impeached, removed from office, convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison. He was freed after Trump commuted his sentence in 2020. In criticizing the Trump impeachment trial, Rubio mentioned Latin American leaders being jailed. But even a conviction in the Senate would not send Trump to jail. The Constitution limits the penalties to removal from office and disqualification from holding future office. Apart from the impeachment, Trump and his family are facing investigations in New York state over their real estate dealings. No charges have been filed. | Our ruling Rubio said, 'Only in the Third World do you see this habitual use of prosecutions of former leaders.' This is not true. Developed countries in Europe and Asia have also prosecuted their former leaders in recent years, mainly for corruption. Two former presidents of South Korea, for example, are currently in prison. We rate Rubio's claim False. | [
"101660-proof-07-1238e4f5a40fecd949a87caa484d52a1.jpg"
]
|
'Only in the Third World do you see this habitual use of prosecutions of former leaders. | Contradiction | In a short video that appeared on Twitter, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., spoke out against the upcoming Senate impeachment trial for former president Donald Trump, comparing it to what one would see 'only in the Third World.' Trump is facing his second impeachment trial, this time on a charge of incitement of insurrection, after a mob of his supporters rioted at the U.S. Capitol Jan. 6. The Senate trial is scheduled to start the week of Feb. 8. Rubio said that he'd tried everything he could to end the second impeachment trial. 'This is terrible for the country. It sets a terrible precedent,' Rubio said. 'Only in the Third World do you see this habitual use of prosecutions of former leaders. You go through Latin America, virtually every immediate past president is under indictment or in jail.' Rubio's comment met quick pushback on Twitter from people citing prosecutions in the U.S. and other countries. So PolitiFact decided to check his claim that habitual prosecutions of former leaders happen 'only in the Third World.' And we found several examples to prove he's wrong. Prosecutions in South Korea, Israel, France, Italy We asked Rubio's press team for clarity on Rubio's definition of 'Third World,' but didn't get a response. The term, considered by some to be outdated and offensive, has usually been used to describe developing nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America. There is a common theme among some of the former leaders who have been charged or convicted of crimes after leaving office: Generally, they've been accused of corruption. But plenty of these cases have taken place in some of the most economically developed countries, including South Korea, Israel, France and Italy. South Korea's former president Park Geun-hye was impeached and eventually removed from office in 2017. She was convicted in 2018 of bribery and other crimes, and her 20-year prison sentence was upheld this year by the nation's Supreme Court. Lee Myung-bak, Park's predecessor as president, is also in prison. In 2018, he was convicted for corruption crimes that happened when he was a presidential candidate and after he took office in 2008. South Korea's Supreme Court in October upheld a 17-year prison term for Lee. 'Almost all of South Korea's former presidents, as well as many of its business tycoons, have been implicated in recurring corruption scandals. Four former presidents have been arrested on corruption charges since the 1990s, including Ms. Park and Mr. Lee,' the New York Times reported in October 2020. In Israel, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against two prime ministers in recent years. Benjamin Netanyahu, who is both a current and former prime minister, is facing charges of fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes in three corruption cases. Ehud Olmert, who served as Israel's prime minister from 2006 to 2009, was convicted in 2014 of taking bribes while he was mayor of Jerusalem, and convicted in 2012 of breach of trust. In France, Nicolas Sarkozy who was president from 2007 to 2012, just went on trial on charges of corruption and influence-peddling. A verdict is expected in March. Jacques Chirac, president from 1995 to 2007, was convicted in 2011 of embezzling government money when he previously served as mayor of Paris. Chirac's trial started two years after he left the presidency because courts had ruled he was immune from prosecution while president. In 2013 in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi was expelled from the Senate following a 2012 conviction for tax fraud. Berlusconi had served three terms as Italy's prime minister, the last one ending in 2011. Rubio's claim ignores various prosecutions and convictions in the United States of former governors and members of Congress. The Center for Illinois Politics maintains a list of convicted governors from around the country, including Illinois' own former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat who was arrested in 2008 on corruption charges, impeached, removed from office, convicted and sentenced to 14 years in prison. He was freed after Trump commuted his sentence in 2020. In criticizing the Trump impeachment trial, Rubio mentioned Latin American leaders being jailed. But even a conviction in the Senate would not send Trump to jail. The Constitution limits the penalties to removal from office and disqualification from holding future office. Apart from the impeachment, Trump and his family are facing investigations in New York state over their real estate dealings. No charges have been filed. | Our ruling Rubio said, 'Only in the Third World do you see this habitual use of prosecutions of former leaders.' This is not true. Developed countries in Europe and Asia have also prosecuted their former leaders in recent years, mainly for corruption. Two former presidents of South Korea, for example, are currently in prison. We rate Rubio's claim False. | [
"101660-proof-07-1238e4f5a40fecd949a87caa484d52a1.jpg"
]
|
'The Spanish High Court has announced (COVID-19) is a bio weapon with a patent, not a virus. | Contradiction | An image shared on Facebook makes a disturbing claim about the virus that causes COVID-19: it is actually not a virus but a patented biological weapon, an astonishing fact affirmed by a top court in Europe. 'Spain is now the 9th country to take its health minister to court and win,' the post says. 'The Spanish High Court announced the COVID-19 is a bio weapon with a patent, not a virus.' The post, shared more than 11,200 times, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) None of what the post says is true. The image shared on Facebook is just the last link in a long chain of misinformation. The 'source' from Spain When asked for a source, the author of the post shared a link to an article on the website VicGeorge.net, which also includes content on the Deep State, reptilians, and the 9/11 attacks. But the article is sourced from two BitChute videos by Charlie Ward and David Mahoney, who have promoted the QAnon conspiracy in the past. And their videos reference yet another source, a news clip produced by what appears to be a Spanish TV station. The VicGeorge.net article presents the most structured description of the false claim. It says that Spain's supreme court asked the country's health minister to provide evidence that the virus that causes COVID-19 actually exists. It claims that the minister did not attend the hearing and instead 'sent a letter explaining that NO EVIDENCE for the virus's existence can be found.' The article goes on to say that whatever is causing COVID-19 was actually manufactured in a laboratory and was patented 'years ago.' This is a distortion of events that happened in Spain earlier this year, according to Spanish fact-checking website Newtral. In July 2021, Spain's ministry of health received a request for information about the virus from a citizen. In September 2021, it answered the questions in the request, including one asking if the ministry had samples of the virus for testing. The ministry said it did not have them. Ward and Mahoney claimed in their BitChute videos that this failure to provide the samples means that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist as a virus. That baseless assumption ignores other explanations for why the agency did not provide a sample of the virus. Spain's ministry of science told Newtral that laboratories in Spain have previously isolated SARS-CoV-2, a procedure that has been happening in laboratories around the world for two years now. According to the World Health Organization, China first isolated the virus in January 2020, and SARS-CoV-2 has since been isolated in the US, Canada, Germany, and Australia, proving that it does exist as a virus. No evidence for bioweapon claim The claim that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory is harder to verify, because we still do not know with certainty how the pandemic started. Earlier this year, U.S. intelligence agencies spent three months investigating the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19 and looked into the two most popular theories about how it emerged: that it came from an infected animal and that it appeared after an accident in a laboratory. 'After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information,' the agencies remained divided, the declassified final report said, stating that both hypotheses were 'plausible.' A lack of evidence, in part due to a lack of collaboration from China, made it hard for the agencies to say with complete certainty which theory was right. But in the same report, which was made public on Oct. 29, the agencies said that SARS-CoV-2 was not developed by China as a biological weapon. They are skeptical of these theories 'because they are supported by scientifically invalid claims,' because their proponents do not have access to key sites like China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, and 'because their proponents are suspected of spreading disinformation.' The agencies also said that Chinese officials were unaware of the existence of the virus before the beginning of the pandemic. Virus patents Finally, the claim that the virus was patented derives from a misreading of documents, according to fact-checkers at Reuters. Reuters examined a video that claimed to show two patents for SARS-CoV-2 filed in 2004 and 2015 - proof that the virus had been known well before the pandemic started in 2019, and had somehow been kept hidden in a secret plot. But as reported by Reuters, and as can be seen in the patents here and here, the documents actually refer to SARS-CoV, the older virus that causes SARS and a member of the family of coronaviruses that also includes SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19. Similar patents have been used to spread misinformation before, according to the Office for Science and Society at McGill University in Canada. | Our ruling The Facebook post claimed that Spain's supreme court announced that COVID-19 is a patented biological weapon. This inaccurate claim is based on a distortion of events that took place in Spain. The country's highest court said no such thing. The post lacks evidence for its claim that the Chinese created the virus that causes COVID-19 as a bioweapon, and there was no patent for the virus before the pandemic started. We rate the post False. | []
|
'The Spanish High Court has announced (COVID-19) is a bio weapon with a patent, not a virus. | Contradiction | An image shared on Facebook makes a disturbing claim about the virus that causes COVID-19: it is actually not a virus but a patented biological weapon, an astonishing fact affirmed by a top court in Europe. 'Spain is now the 9th country to take its health minister to court and win,' the post says. 'The Spanish High Court announced the COVID-19 is a bio weapon with a patent, not a virus.' The post, shared more than 11,200 times, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) None of what the post says is true. The image shared on Facebook is just the last link in a long chain of misinformation. The 'source' from Spain When asked for a source, the author of the post shared a link to an article on the website VicGeorge.net, which also includes content on the Deep State, reptilians, and the 9/11 attacks. But the article is sourced from two BitChute videos by Charlie Ward and David Mahoney, who have promoted the QAnon conspiracy in the past. And their videos reference yet another source, a news clip produced by what appears to be a Spanish TV station. The VicGeorge.net article presents the most structured description of the false claim. It says that Spain's supreme court asked the country's health minister to provide evidence that the virus that causes COVID-19 actually exists. It claims that the minister did not attend the hearing and instead 'sent a letter explaining that NO EVIDENCE for the virus's existence can be found.' The article goes on to say that whatever is causing COVID-19 was actually manufactured in a laboratory and was patented 'years ago.' This is a distortion of events that happened in Spain earlier this year, according to Spanish fact-checking website Newtral. In July 2021, Spain's ministry of health received a request for information about the virus from a citizen. In September 2021, it answered the questions in the request, including one asking if the ministry had samples of the virus for testing. The ministry said it did not have them. Ward and Mahoney claimed in their BitChute videos that this failure to provide the samples means that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist as a virus. That baseless assumption ignores other explanations for why the agency did not provide a sample of the virus. Spain's ministry of science told Newtral that laboratories in Spain have previously isolated SARS-CoV-2, a procedure that has been happening in laboratories around the world for two years now. According to the World Health Organization, China first isolated the virus in January 2020, and SARS-CoV-2 has since been isolated in the US, Canada, Germany, and Australia, proving that it does exist as a virus. No evidence for bioweapon claim The claim that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory is harder to verify, because we still do not know with certainty how the pandemic started. Earlier this year, U.S. intelligence agencies spent three months investigating the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19 and looked into the two most popular theories about how it emerged: that it came from an infected animal and that it appeared after an accident in a laboratory. 'After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information,' the agencies remained divided, the declassified final report said, stating that both hypotheses were 'plausible.' A lack of evidence, in part due to a lack of collaboration from China, made it hard for the agencies to say with complete certainty which theory was right. But in the same report, which was made public on Oct. 29, the agencies said that SARS-CoV-2 was not developed by China as a biological weapon. They are skeptical of these theories 'because they are supported by scientifically invalid claims,' because their proponents do not have access to key sites like China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, and 'because their proponents are suspected of spreading disinformation.' The agencies also said that Chinese officials were unaware of the existence of the virus before the beginning of the pandemic. Virus patents Finally, the claim that the virus was patented derives from a misreading of documents, according to fact-checkers at Reuters. Reuters examined a video that claimed to show two patents for SARS-CoV-2 filed in 2004 and 2015 - proof that the virus had been known well before the pandemic started in 2019, and had somehow been kept hidden in a secret plot. But as reported by Reuters, and as can be seen in the patents here and here, the documents actually refer to SARS-CoV, the older virus that causes SARS and a member of the family of coronaviruses that also includes SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19. Similar patents have been used to spread misinformation before, according to the Office for Science and Society at McGill University in Canada. | Our ruling The Facebook post claimed that Spain's supreme court announced that COVID-19 is a patented biological weapon. This inaccurate claim is based on a distortion of events that took place in Spain. The country's highest court said no such thing. The post lacks evidence for its claim that the Chinese created the virus that causes COVID-19 as a bioweapon, and there was no patent for the virus before the pandemic started. We rate the post False. | []
|
'The Spanish High Court has announced (COVID-19) is a bio weapon with a patent, not a virus. | Contradiction | An image shared on Facebook makes a disturbing claim about the virus that causes COVID-19: it is actually not a virus but a patented biological weapon, an astonishing fact affirmed by a top court in Europe. 'Spain is now the 9th country to take its health minister to court and win,' the post says. 'The Spanish High Court announced the COVID-19 is a bio weapon with a patent, not a virus.' The post, shared more than 11,200 times, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) None of what the post says is true. The image shared on Facebook is just the last link in a long chain of misinformation. The 'source' from Spain When asked for a source, the author of the post shared a link to an article on the website VicGeorge.net, which also includes content on the Deep State, reptilians, and the 9/11 attacks. But the article is sourced from two BitChute videos by Charlie Ward and David Mahoney, who have promoted the QAnon conspiracy in the past. And their videos reference yet another source, a news clip produced by what appears to be a Spanish TV station. The VicGeorge.net article presents the most structured description of the false claim. It says that Spain's supreme court asked the country's health minister to provide evidence that the virus that causes COVID-19 actually exists. It claims that the minister did not attend the hearing and instead 'sent a letter explaining that NO EVIDENCE for the virus's existence can be found.' The article goes on to say that whatever is causing COVID-19 was actually manufactured in a laboratory and was patented 'years ago.' This is a distortion of events that happened in Spain earlier this year, according to Spanish fact-checking website Newtral. In July 2021, Spain's ministry of health received a request for information about the virus from a citizen. In September 2021, it answered the questions in the request, including one asking if the ministry had samples of the virus for testing. The ministry said it did not have them. Ward and Mahoney claimed in their BitChute videos that this failure to provide the samples means that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist as a virus. That baseless assumption ignores other explanations for why the agency did not provide a sample of the virus. Spain's ministry of science told Newtral that laboratories in Spain have previously isolated SARS-CoV-2, a procedure that has been happening in laboratories around the world for two years now. According to the World Health Organization, China first isolated the virus in January 2020, and SARS-CoV-2 has since been isolated in the US, Canada, Germany, and Australia, proving that it does exist as a virus. No evidence for bioweapon claim The claim that SARS-CoV-2 was created in a laboratory is harder to verify, because we still do not know with certainty how the pandemic started. Earlier this year, U.S. intelligence agencies spent three months investigating the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19 and looked into the two most popular theories about how it emerged: that it came from an infected animal and that it appeared after an accident in a laboratory. 'After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information,' the agencies remained divided, the declassified final report said, stating that both hypotheses were 'plausible.' A lack of evidence, in part due to a lack of collaboration from China, made it hard for the agencies to say with complete certainty which theory was right. But in the same report, which was made public on Oct. 29, the agencies said that SARS-CoV-2 was not developed by China as a biological weapon. They are skeptical of these theories 'because they are supported by scientifically invalid claims,' because their proponents do not have access to key sites like China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, and 'because their proponents are suspected of spreading disinformation.' The agencies also said that Chinese officials were unaware of the existence of the virus before the beginning of the pandemic. Virus patents Finally, the claim that the virus was patented derives from a misreading of documents, according to fact-checkers at Reuters. Reuters examined a video that claimed to show two patents for SARS-CoV-2 filed in 2004 and 2015 - proof that the virus had been known well before the pandemic started in 2019, and had somehow been kept hidden in a secret plot. But as reported by Reuters, and as can be seen in the patents here and here, the documents actually refer to SARS-CoV, the older virus that causes SARS and a member of the family of coronaviruses that also includes SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19. Similar patents have been used to spread misinformation before, according to the Office for Science and Society at McGill University in Canada. | Our ruling The Facebook post claimed that Spain's supreme court announced that COVID-19 is a patented biological weapon. This inaccurate claim is based on a distortion of events that took place in Spain. The country's highest court said no such thing. The post lacks evidence for its claim that the Chinese created the virus that causes COVID-19 as a bioweapon, and there was no patent for the virus before the pandemic started. We rate the post False. | []
|
Starting in March if you travel outside of the United States you won't be allowed back in the country 'due to high risk of the coronavirus. | Contradiction | Concerns about the novel coronavirus run aplenty on Facebook, leading in some cases to false bulletins on U.S. travel restrictions. One post on Facebook claims that, starting in March 2020, if you travel outside of the United States you won't be allowed back in the country 'due to the high risk' of COVID-19. The post, shared on Feb. 27, says: 'STARTING NEXT WEEK MARCH 3/2020!!!!!! 'IF YOU LEAVE ANYWHERE OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED BACK INTO THE UNITED STATES DUE TO HIGH RISK OF THE Coronavirus so if anyone is planning a big trip or cruise please be aware!!!!!!' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence of a sweeping travel restriction that would bar an American citizen from re-entering the U.S. after traveling internationally. So far the U.S. government has taken much more limited action out of concern for COVID-19. There are new travel advisories, different rules in place for foreign nationals and new screening procedures. As of March 5, 2020, the State Department recommends that people not travel to China or Iran and reconsider travel to South Korea, Italy and Mongolia. Advisories for each location - like this one for Italy - provide additional details on specific areas of the country and health information for that area. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also recommends people avoid all nonessential travel to those same countries and has a coronavirus-related travel page that provides guidance for international travelers. There are new screening procedures for people arriving to the U.S. from 'high-risk countries.' Foreign nationals who have spent the past 14 days in either China or Iran will not be permitted inside the country, according to the CDC. The rules are different for U.S. citizens. They may be subject to health monitoring after leaving either of those countries. Several airlines have suspended or reduced operations to certain locations due to concerns for COVID-19 and reduced demand. American Airlines and Delta Air Lines are both halting flights to and from Milan, Italy, as well as several airports in or around China. Both airlines also announced a reduction in service between the U.S. and South Korea. United Airlines made similar changes, suspending operations to and from several Chinese airports, including Beijing and Shanghai, and Hong Kong. This sweeping claim exaggerates current coronavirus-related travel restrictions and omits critical information. We rate it False. | This sweeping claim exaggerates current coronavirus-related travel restrictions and omits critical information. We rate it False. | []
|
Starting in March if you travel outside of the United States you won't be allowed back in the country 'due to high risk of the coronavirus. | Contradiction | Concerns about the novel coronavirus run aplenty on Facebook, leading in some cases to false bulletins on U.S. travel restrictions. One post on Facebook claims that, starting in March 2020, if you travel outside of the United States you won't be allowed back in the country 'due to the high risk' of COVID-19. The post, shared on Feb. 27, says: 'STARTING NEXT WEEK MARCH 3/2020!!!!!! 'IF YOU LEAVE ANYWHERE OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED BACK INTO THE UNITED STATES DUE TO HIGH RISK OF THE Coronavirus so if anyone is planning a big trip or cruise please be aware!!!!!!' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence of a sweeping travel restriction that would bar an American citizen from re-entering the U.S. after traveling internationally. So far the U.S. government has taken much more limited action out of concern for COVID-19. There are new travel advisories, different rules in place for foreign nationals and new screening procedures. As of March 5, 2020, the State Department recommends that people not travel to China or Iran and reconsider travel to South Korea, Italy and Mongolia. Advisories for each location - like this one for Italy - provide additional details on specific areas of the country and health information for that area. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also recommends people avoid all nonessential travel to those same countries and has a coronavirus-related travel page that provides guidance for international travelers. There are new screening procedures for people arriving to the U.S. from 'high-risk countries.' Foreign nationals who have spent the past 14 days in either China or Iran will not be permitted inside the country, according to the CDC. The rules are different for U.S. citizens. They may be subject to health monitoring after leaving either of those countries. Several airlines have suspended or reduced operations to certain locations due to concerns for COVID-19 and reduced demand. American Airlines and Delta Air Lines are both halting flights to and from Milan, Italy, as well as several airports in or around China. Both airlines also announced a reduction in service between the U.S. and South Korea. United Airlines made similar changes, suspending operations to and from several Chinese airports, including Beijing and Shanghai, and Hong Kong. This sweeping claim exaggerates current coronavirus-related travel restrictions and omits critical information. We rate it False. | This sweeping claim exaggerates current coronavirus-related travel restrictions and omits critical information. We rate it False. | []
|
Say Joe Biden told a crowd in Florida, 'Hello Minnesota!' | Contradiction | Social media posts purported to show Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden saying 'Hello Minnesota!' to a crowd in Tampa, Fla. But the Nov. 1 posts, which sought to portray Biden as mentally unfit to run for president, rest on doctored video. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Posts such as this one shared a brief clip of Biden walking to a podium accompanied by music, in front of a banner that said, 'Battle for the Soul of the Nation.' Biden then tells the crowd, 'Hello Minnesota!' In the clip being shared on social media, the banner includes 'Tampa, Florida' and a sign on the lectern says, 'Text FL to 30330.' However, neither the Tampa label on the banner nor the 'FL' suggestion for texts on the sign were present at the actual event, which was held in St. Paul, Minn., on Oct. 30. The actual banner said 'Text MN to 30330,' as did the sign on the lectern. Here's a screenshot from a Bloomberg news video of the moment captured in the social media posts. (Watch the original on YouTube.) People who know anything about Florida might also have noticed the banner's design, which features mountains receding to the horizon, a geographic feature that doesn't exist in Florida. Oh, and the music is by Twin Cities native Prince. Meanwhile, Biden's Florida sign the day before was different, according to the Associated Press. | Our ruling Social media posts said Biden told a crowd in Florida 'Hello Minnesota!' However, the video used to back up this claim has been manipulated. The event took place in Minnesota, and had Minnesota specific touches that were doctored out of the widely shared clip. We rate the statement Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more. | [
"101692-proof-25-qtV3Wv_L8jbVtaCflz-a0s7NCJ1txQKN2rVnktQZsQjFbAqMLxC3KyKrlRhh2xzoVPv6O5EOIsoBlFWO.jpg",
"101692-proof-29-05ac16f7df369b41080ebd8fea24fb36.jpg"
]
|
A judge has ordered a 'HAND RECOUNT by an INDEPENDENT COMMISSION in the state of Michigan, following hard evidence of voting fraud by Detroit City Election Commission. | Contradiction | While the Georgia secretary of state has ordered a hand recount of the presidential race, the same cannot be said for Michigan - despite what you may have seen on social media. 'BREAKING NEWS: Michigan Judge Kenny orders HAND RECOUNT by an INDEPENDENT COMMISSION in the state of Michigan, following hard evidence of voting fraud by Detroit City Election Commission,' says a Nov. 10 post shared more than 1,600 times. The post, which is a screenshot of a now-deleted tweet from someone named Joel Fischer, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Since Election Day, Michigan has been the subject of numerous false or unproven claims about voter fraud. And this one fits that mold: A hand recount has not been ordered in Michigan. 'That is made up,' said Tracy Wimmer, director of media relations for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. Under Michigan law, a recount is triggered if there is a vote differential of 2,000 or less. As of Nov. 11, unofficial results showed that Biden leads Trump in the state by more than 146,000 votes. While the Trump campaign has said it will call for a recount in neighboring Wisconsin, it has not said the same for Michigan. One complaint filed in Wayne County, home of Detroit - and cited in a Trump campaign lawsuit - alleges voter fraud and calls for a recount. (There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Michigan.) Timothy M. Kenny, chief judge of the Third Judicial Circuit Court, has not ruled on the case - nor has he called for a hand recount. 'Judge Kenny hasn't ruled on anything in the Costantino case - the hearing hasn't even happened yet,' Wimmer said. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"101698-proof-02-ad639da26dc7b012a04a0f4f0ec0768d.jpg"
]
|
'Mitt Romney has been asked to lead Health and Human Services in Biden administration. | Contradiction | President-elect Joe Biden has indicated that he'll move quickly to build his incoming administration, but a recent story that he's tapped Sen. Mitt Romney as his secretary of health and human services is wrong, according to a spokesperson for the Republican. 'There's absolutely no truth to that story,' Arielle Mueller, Romney's press secretary, told us. Still, a Nov. 7 post on the website The Buffalo Chronicle that cited unnamed sources and does not have a byline is spreading widely on social media. 'Mitt Romney has been asked to lead Health and Human Services in Biden administration,' the headline said. The story went on to say Romney is 'discussing the nomination with his family and is expected to accept the appointment.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Biden campaign did not respond to our questions about the Buffalo Chronicle story. But searching online, we found nothing to corroborate the claims in the post except for a headline from a CBS News affiliate in Salt Lake City that said, 'Mitt Romney may be nominated by presumed president-elect Joe Biden to head the HHS.' It appears the story has been deleted; when we clicked on the link, it led to an error page. An archived version of the story shows it relied solely on the Buffalo Chronicle. We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
'Mitt Romney has been asked to lead Health and Human Services in Biden administration. | Contradiction | President-elect Joe Biden has indicated that he'll move quickly to build his incoming administration, but a recent story that he's tapped Sen. Mitt Romney as his secretary of health and human services is wrong, according to a spokesperson for the Republican. 'There's absolutely no truth to that story,' Arielle Mueller, Romney's press secretary, told us. Still, a Nov. 7 post on the website The Buffalo Chronicle that cited unnamed sources and does not have a byline is spreading widely on social media. 'Mitt Romney has been asked to lead Health and Human Services in Biden administration,' the headline said. The story went on to say Romney is 'discussing the nomination with his family and is expected to accept the appointment.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Biden campaign did not respond to our questions about the Buffalo Chronicle story. But searching online, we found nothing to corroborate the claims in the post except for a headline from a CBS News affiliate in Salt Lake City that said, 'Mitt Romney may be nominated by presumed president-elect Joe Biden to head the HHS.' It appears the story has been deleted; when we clicked on the link, it led to an error page. An archived version of the story shows it relied solely on the Buffalo Chronicle. We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Blood 'starts to clot in a minute or two' after a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine injection. | Contradiction | An Instagram post that uses excerpts from an interview on Infowars, a conspiracy oriented website run by Alex Jones, claims that Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine causes blood clotting 'in a minute or two.' In the interview, a doctor says he added the Pfizer vaccine to human blood and that, using a microscope, within 'a minute or two, you see the blood starts to clot.' Excerpts from the interview were shared in an Instagram post that was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence that the Pfizer vaccine causes blood clots. 'I am not aware of any causally related clotting problem with either' the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccines, which are known as mRNA vaccines, said Dr. Walter Orenstein, a professor in the infectious diseases division at Emory University's School of Medicine and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center. 'I am also not aware of any information published in the medical literature about clotting problems with the mRNA vaccines.' We previously reported that a serious syndrome involving blood clots known as TTS is associated with the third COVID-19 vaccine being administered in the United States, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there is a 'plausible causal relationship' between that vaccine and TTS. The phenomenon is exceedingly rare: More than 15 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the U.S., with 47 confirmed reports of people who later developed TTS. No increased risk of TTS has been detected with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, according to the CDC. The messenger RNA, or mRNA, technology used to create the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines use the human body's natural immune response to their advantage. The shots give cells the directions for how to make a harmless spike protein. Such spike proteins are found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19 - and it is these proteins that the virus uses to bind to cells. The immune system of a person who receives the mRNA vaccine then spots the unknown protein and makes antibodies to fight it. Dr. Shruti Gohil, professor of infectious diseases at the University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, noted that 'platelets and other clotting factors are naturally in our blood to help us stop bleeding when we get injured, so blood clots very easily naturally, unless you do something to make it not clot. 'For example, even exposure to air will make your blood clot. In fact, when we draw blood for testing we have to have special tubes with chemicals in them to keep your blood from clotting.' But there is no indication that the Pfizer vaccine triggers any action that results in blood clots. We rate the Instagram post False. | We rate the Instagram post False. | [
"101726-proof-20-ac7ec22fe4f09c652f30819087761720.jpg"
]
|
The Freedom to Vote Act 'automatically registers ineligible voters. | Contradiction | Senate Democrats are trying to rewrite national rules for voting, drawing attacks from conservatives who say state legislatures should be allowed to control the rules for registering voters and casting ballots. One Facebook post suggests two Democrat-backed efforts 'automatically registers ineligible voters.' 'Senate Democrats are continuing their crusade against election integrity this week,' read the Oct. 19 post from Heritage Action, an affiliate of the conservative Heritage Foundation. The Senate voted 49-51 on Oct. 20 to debate the Freedom to Vote Act legislation, falling short of the needed votes to proceed. Republicans opposed the bill and Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer at the last minute changed his vote to 'no,' a move that enables him to move that the legislation be reconsidered at some point in the future. In its post, Heritage Action calls the Freedom to Vote Act the 'Freedom to Cheat Act' and nicknames an earlier version, the For the People Act, as 'The Corrupt Politicians Act.' Both bills, the post says, would 'automatically register ineligible voters.' These characterizations are wrong. While there is a provision in the Freedom to Vote Act that requires states to offer automatic voter registration, the goal is to make it easier for eligible citizens to register at their state motor-vehicle offices, and the wording in the bill repeatedly clarifies that only eligible citizens can vote in federal elections. We previously rated False a claim that the For the People Act would register millions of undocumented immigrants. The Freedom of the Vote Act wouldn't do that either. 'States will not have to enroll ineligible voters,' said Matthew Weil, an elections expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'The text of the bill clearly lays out that this is a process only for eligible individuals, and it's a transfer of info from the DMV to election officials.' Automatic voter registration 'is less automatic than its detractors make it out to be,' he said. Automatic voter registration is used in many states The automatic voter registration provision in the Freedom to Vote Act would expand a practice that is already in place in more than one dozen states, including blue states such as California and red states such as West Virginia. The practice stems from the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which required most states to provide citizens with an opportunity to register to vote when applying for or renewing a driver's license at a DMV or using services at other state agencies. In states that have adopted automatic voter registration, that ensures that the process is electronic and automatic. While the legislation specifically applies to federal elections, as a practical matter states don't use a separate process for registration for state elections, so the provision on automatic voter registration would apply broadly. This part of the legislation was written to take effect in January 2023. Under the Freedom to Vote Act, citizens who access government services at a motor-vehicle agency would have their information automatically transferred for voter registration unless they decline to register. This is referred to as an 'opt out' provision. The proposed legislation repeatedly says that automatic voter registration applies to eligible citizens.: For any agency that does not request that individuals affirm citizenship, the legislation has a separate process. The bottom line is that the legislation doesn't change the federal law that only eligible citizens are allowed to register to vote. Asked about the Facebook post, Noah Weinrich, a spokesperson for Heritage Action, said the bill's opt-out system means it will 'inevitably include some ineligible voters like noncitizens who interact with agencies like the DMV. The bill does not contain adequate safeguards against registering ineligible voters.' As evidence, Weinrich pointed to concerns by immigration advocates. Advocates told NBC in April that they feared noncitizens in the country legally on work visas or green cards could inadvertently face serious consequences including deportation if the law led to them being mistakenly registered. Weinrich cited California as an example of how noncitizens can end up registered to vote through automatic voter registration. ABC News reported that as many as 1,500 noncitizens were registered, which officials traced back to a programming flaw. But the legislation states that noncitizens who end up registered to vote shall not be prosecuted or face immigration consequences if it was due to 'individual or agency error' or did not make an affirmation of citizenship. We have found other examples of noncitizens registering or casting ballots. In 2017, Pennsylvania officials said they found 544 ballots potentially cast by noncitizens in elections dating back to 2000 - out of about 93 million ballots cast. That's about 1 out of every 172,000 ballots. These glitches are rare and easily detectable and fixable, David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, previously told us. 'Those are system glitches, technical problems that absolutely should be fixed. Proving citizenship would not fix them. They were problems in how the systems were designed and they were fixed,' he said. PolitiFact has previously debunked claims that falsely suggested widespread registering to vote or casting of ballots by noncitizens. RELATED VIDEO | 'Our ruling Heritage Action said the Freedom to Vote Act 'automatically registers ineligible voters.' Heritage Action points to the automatic voter registration provision, which would forward individuals' information from the DMV to state election officials unless they opt out of registering to vote. But this provision repeatedly states that only eligible citizens are allowed to register to vote. Noncitizens have wrongly ended up on voter registration rolls in states that have adopted automatic voter registration. But experts say such errors are rare, and could happen even without automatic voter registration. The post ignores the language of the law and goes too far by suggesting that the bill would automatically register ineligible voters. We rate this statement False. RELATED: What's in the Senate Democrats' new voting rights bill? RELATED: Ted Cruz repeats false claim that voting bill 'would register millions of illegal aliens to vote' RELATED: James Clyburn misspeaks in saying 43 states have passed voting restrictions | [
"101727-proof-29-ec92236c8bd847842a25db7b5fa299f4.jpg"
]
|
The Freedom to Vote Act 'automatically registers ineligible voters. | Contradiction | Senate Democrats are trying to rewrite national rules for voting, drawing attacks from conservatives who say state legislatures should be allowed to control the rules for registering voters and casting ballots. One Facebook post suggests two Democrat-backed efforts 'automatically registers ineligible voters.' 'Senate Democrats are continuing their crusade against election integrity this week,' read the Oct. 19 post from Heritage Action, an affiliate of the conservative Heritage Foundation. The Senate voted 49-51 on Oct. 20 to debate the Freedom to Vote Act legislation, falling short of the needed votes to proceed. Republicans opposed the bill and Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer at the last minute changed his vote to 'no,' a move that enables him to move that the legislation be reconsidered at some point in the future. In its post, Heritage Action calls the Freedom to Vote Act the 'Freedom to Cheat Act' and nicknames an earlier version, the For the People Act, as 'The Corrupt Politicians Act.' Both bills, the post says, would 'automatically register ineligible voters.' These characterizations are wrong. While there is a provision in the Freedom to Vote Act that requires states to offer automatic voter registration, the goal is to make it easier for eligible citizens to register at their state motor-vehicle offices, and the wording in the bill repeatedly clarifies that only eligible citizens can vote in federal elections. We previously rated False a claim that the For the People Act would register millions of undocumented immigrants. The Freedom of the Vote Act wouldn't do that either. 'States will not have to enroll ineligible voters,' said Matthew Weil, an elections expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'The text of the bill clearly lays out that this is a process only for eligible individuals, and it's a transfer of info from the DMV to election officials.' Automatic voter registration 'is less automatic than its detractors make it out to be,' he said. Automatic voter registration is used in many states The automatic voter registration provision in the Freedom to Vote Act would expand a practice that is already in place in more than one dozen states, including blue states such as California and red states such as West Virginia. The practice stems from the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which required most states to provide citizens with an opportunity to register to vote when applying for or renewing a driver's license at a DMV or using services at other state agencies. In states that have adopted automatic voter registration, that ensures that the process is electronic and automatic. While the legislation specifically applies to federal elections, as a practical matter states don't use a separate process for registration for state elections, so the provision on automatic voter registration would apply broadly. This part of the legislation was written to take effect in January 2023. Under the Freedom to Vote Act, citizens who access government services at a motor-vehicle agency would have their information automatically transferred for voter registration unless they decline to register. This is referred to as an 'opt out' provision. The proposed legislation repeatedly says that automatic voter registration applies to eligible citizens.: For any agency that does not request that individuals affirm citizenship, the legislation has a separate process. The bottom line is that the legislation doesn't change the federal law that only eligible citizens are allowed to register to vote. Asked about the Facebook post, Noah Weinrich, a spokesperson for Heritage Action, said the bill's opt-out system means it will 'inevitably include some ineligible voters like noncitizens who interact with agencies like the DMV. The bill does not contain adequate safeguards against registering ineligible voters.' As evidence, Weinrich pointed to concerns by immigration advocates. Advocates told NBC in April that they feared noncitizens in the country legally on work visas or green cards could inadvertently face serious consequences including deportation if the law led to them being mistakenly registered. Weinrich cited California as an example of how noncitizens can end up registered to vote through automatic voter registration. ABC News reported that as many as 1,500 noncitizens were registered, which officials traced back to a programming flaw. But the legislation states that noncitizens who end up registered to vote shall not be prosecuted or face immigration consequences if it was due to 'individual or agency error' or did not make an affirmation of citizenship. We have found other examples of noncitizens registering or casting ballots. In 2017, Pennsylvania officials said they found 544 ballots potentially cast by noncitizens in elections dating back to 2000 - out of about 93 million ballots cast. That's about 1 out of every 172,000 ballots. These glitches are rare and easily detectable and fixable, David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, previously told us. 'Those are system glitches, technical problems that absolutely should be fixed. Proving citizenship would not fix them. They were problems in how the systems were designed and they were fixed,' he said. PolitiFact has previously debunked claims that falsely suggested widespread registering to vote or casting of ballots by noncitizens. RELATED VIDEO | 'Our ruling Heritage Action said the Freedom to Vote Act 'automatically registers ineligible voters.' Heritage Action points to the automatic voter registration provision, which would forward individuals' information from the DMV to state election officials unless they opt out of registering to vote. But this provision repeatedly states that only eligible citizens are allowed to register to vote. Noncitizens have wrongly ended up on voter registration rolls in states that have adopted automatic voter registration. But experts say such errors are rare, and could happen even without automatic voter registration. The post ignores the language of the law and goes too far by suggesting that the bill would automatically register ineligible voters. We rate this statement False. RELATED: What's in the Senate Democrats' new voting rights bill? RELATED: Ted Cruz repeats false claim that voting bill 'would register millions of illegal aliens to vote' RELATED: James Clyburn misspeaks in saying 43 states have passed voting restrictions | [
"101727-proof-29-ec92236c8bd847842a25db7b5fa299f4.jpg"
]
|
The Freedom to Vote Act 'automatically registers ineligible voters. | Contradiction | Senate Democrats are trying to rewrite national rules for voting, drawing attacks from conservatives who say state legislatures should be allowed to control the rules for registering voters and casting ballots. One Facebook post suggests two Democrat-backed efforts 'automatically registers ineligible voters.' 'Senate Democrats are continuing their crusade against election integrity this week,' read the Oct. 19 post from Heritage Action, an affiliate of the conservative Heritage Foundation. The Senate voted 49-51 on Oct. 20 to debate the Freedom to Vote Act legislation, falling short of the needed votes to proceed. Republicans opposed the bill and Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer at the last minute changed his vote to 'no,' a move that enables him to move that the legislation be reconsidered at some point in the future. In its post, Heritage Action calls the Freedom to Vote Act the 'Freedom to Cheat Act' and nicknames an earlier version, the For the People Act, as 'The Corrupt Politicians Act.' Both bills, the post says, would 'automatically register ineligible voters.' These characterizations are wrong. While there is a provision in the Freedom to Vote Act that requires states to offer automatic voter registration, the goal is to make it easier for eligible citizens to register at their state motor-vehicle offices, and the wording in the bill repeatedly clarifies that only eligible citizens can vote in federal elections. We previously rated False a claim that the For the People Act would register millions of undocumented immigrants. The Freedom of the Vote Act wouldn't do that either. 'States will not have to enroll ineligible voters,' said Matthew Weil, an elections expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'The text of the bill clearly lays out that this is a process only for eligible individuals, and it's a transfer of info from the DMV to election officials.' Automatic voter registration 'is less automatic than its detractors make it out to be,' he said. Automatic voter registration is used in many states The automatic voter registration provision in the Freedom to Vote Act would expand a practice that is already in place in more than one dozen states, including blue states such as California and red states such as West Virginia. The practice stems from the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which required most states to provide citizens with an opportunity to register to vote when applying for or renewing a driver's license at a DMV or using services at other state agencies. In states that have adopted automatic voter registration, that ensures that the process is electronic and automatic. While the legislation specifically applies to federal elections, as a practical matter states don't use a separate process for registration for state elections, so the provision on automatic voter registration would apply broadly. This part of the legislation was written to take effect in January 2023. Under the Freedom to Vote Act, citizens who access government services at a motor-vehicle agency would have their information automatically transferred for voter registration unless they decline to register. This is referred to as an 'opt out' provision. The proposed legislation repeatedly says that automatic voter registration applies to eligible citizens.: For any agency that does not request that individuals affirm citizenship, the legislation has a separate process. The bottom line is that the legislation doesn't change the federal law that only eligible citizens are allowed to register to vote. Asked about the Facebook post, Noah Weinrich, a spokesperson for Heritage Action, said the bill's opt-out system means it will 'inevitably include some ineligible voters like noncitizens who interact with agencies like the DMV. The bill does not contain adequate safeguards against registering ineligible voters.' As evidence, Weinrich pointed to concerns by immigration advocates. Advocates told NBC in April that they feared noncitizens in the country legally on work visas or green cards could inadvertently face serious consequences including deportation if the law led to them being mistakenly registered. Weinrich cited California as an example of how noncitizens can end up registered to vote through automatic voter registration. ABC News reported that as many as 1,500 noncitizens were registered, which officials traced back to a programming flaw. But the legislation states that noncitizens who end up registered to vote shall not be prosecuted or face immigration consequences if it was due to 'individual or agency error' or did not make an affirmation of citizenship. We have found other examples of noncitizens registering or casting ballots. In 2017, Pennsylvania officials said they found 544 ballots potentially cast by noncitizens in elections dating back to 2000 - out of about 93 million ballots cast. That's about 1 out of every 172,000 ballots. These glitches are rare and easily detectable and fixable, David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, previously told us. 'Those are system glitches, technical problems that absolutely should be fixed. Proving citizenship would not fix them. They were problems in how the systems were designed and they were fixed,' he said. PolitiFact has previously debunked claims that falsely suggested widespread registering to vote or casting of ballots by noncitizens. RELATED VIDEO | 'Our ruling Heritage Action said the Freedom to Vote Act 'automatically registers ineligible voters.' Heritage Action points to the automatic voter registration provision, which would forward individuals' information from the DMV to state election officials unless they opt out of registering to vote. But this provision repeatedly states that only eligible citizens are allowed to register to vote. Noncitizens have wrongly ended up on voter registration rolls in states that have adopted automatic voter registration. But experts say such errors are rare, and could happen even without automatic voter registration. The post ignores the language of the law and goes too far by suggesting that the bill would automatically register ineligible voters. We rate this statement False. RELATED: What's in the Senate Democrats' new voting rights bill? RELATED: Ted Cruz repeats false claim that voting bill 'would register millions of illegal aliens to vote' RELATED: James Clyburn misspeaks in saying 43 states have passed voting restrictions | [
"101727-proof-29-ec92236c8bd847842a25db7b5fa299f4.jpg"
]
|
Says President Barack Obama 'waited six months to call swine flu an emergency after thousands died. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump's response to the coronavirus is being defended with an attack on how President Barack Obama handled the outbreak of H1N1, also known as swine flu, in 2009. The headline of an article shared on Facebook made this claim: 'Flashback: Obama waited six months to call swine flu an emergency after thousands died.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The article was published on Prntly, which describes itself as a conservative news website that defends Trump. The article goes on to say that 'it wasn't until six months after' H1N1 became a global pandemic that 'then-President Obama declared a public health emergency on what was already a pandemic. By that time, the disease had infected millions of Americans and more than 1,000 people had died in the U.S.' Not only is this timeline wrong, but the story and headline eliminate important facts and distort others, imparting a false narrative that social media users are resharing. Let's take a look. Online, fact-based news is going to be very important in the coming weeks. Please consider donating to PolitiFact today. The H1N1 virus The H1N1 influenza virus was discovered in the United States in the spring of 2009 and spread around the world. It was originally referred to as 'swine flu' because many genes in the virus were similar to influenza viruses that normally occur in pigs in North America. It was serious. From April 12, 2009, to April 10, 2010, in the United States, there were 60.8 million cases of swine flu, 274,304 hospitalizations and 12,469 deaths, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated. Obama and his administration issued two emergency declarations, but the article refers only to one. Obama acted before pandemic declared Obama's acting director of health and human services declared H1N1 a public health emergency on April 26, 2009. That was when only 20 cases of H1N1 - and no deaths - around the country had been confirmed. Two days later, the administration made an initial funding request for H1N1 to Congress. Eventually $7.65 billion was allocated for a vaccine and other measures. H1N1 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on June 11, 2009. In other words, the Obama administration's public health emergency declaration came more than six weeks before the pandemic designation. Now to Obama's second action. On Oct. 24, 2009, six months after his administration declared H1N1 a public health emergency, Obama declared it a national emergency. At that point, H1N1 had claimed more than 1,000 American lives, according to the CDC. When Obama made his declaration, the New York Times reported at the time, thousands of people were lining up in cities across the country to receive vaccinations, as federal officials acknowledged that their vaccination program had gotten off to a slow start, with some states having requested 10 times the amount they have been allotted. Millions of people in the United States had had H1N1. The national emergency declaration allowed the federal government to temporarily waive or modify requirements of the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance programs. It also permitted doctors and hospitals to bypass certain requirements as they responded to H1N1. By way of comparison, Trump declared the coronavirus a public health emergency on Jan. 31, 2020, also prior to any deaths in the United States. One effect was that U.S. citizens who had been in China's Hubei Province, the source of the outbreak, in the previous 14 days were subjected to 14 days of mandatory quarantine if they traveled back to the United States. NBC News reported March 3, 2020, that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is planning for the possibility that Trump could make a national emergency declaration to bring in extra funds and personnel to assist the administration's coronavirus response. | Our ruling The headline of an article shared on Facebook claimed: 'Obama waited six months to call swine flu an emergency after thousands died.' In October 2009, after more than 1,000 people in the United States had died of swine flu, also known as H1N1, Obama declared a national emergency. But six months earlier, his administration declared H1N1 a public health emergency. At that point, no deaths in the United States had occurred. We rate the statement False. | [
"101742-proof-05-c00e7f99c19bdd32b6187e7e8672d133.jpg"
]
|
Says President Barack Obama 'waited six months to call swine flu an emergency after thousands died. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump's response to the coronavirus is being defended with an attack on how President Barack Obama handled the outbreak of H1N1, also known as swine flu, in 2009. The headline of an article shared on Facebook made this claim: 'Flashback: Obama waited six months to call swine flu an emergency after thousands died.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The article was published on Prntly, which describes itself as a conservative news website that defends Trump. The article goes on to say that 'it wasn't until six months after' H1N1 became a global pandemic that 'then-President Obama declared a public health emergency on what was already a pandemic. By that time, the disease had infected millions of Americans and more than 1,000 people had died in the U.S.' Not only is this timeline wrong, but the story and headline eliminate important facts and distort others, imparting a false narrative that social media users are resharing. Let's take a look. Online, fact-based news is going to be very important in the coming weeks. Please consider donating to PolitiFact today. The H1N1 virus The H1N1 influenza virus was discovered in the United States in the spring of 2009 and spread around the world. It was originally referred to as 'swine flu' because many genes in the virus were similar to influenza viruses that normally occur in pigs in North America. It was serious. From April 12, 2009, to April 10, 2010, in the United States, there were 60.8 million cases of swine flu, 274,304 hospitalizations and 12,469 deaths, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated. Obama and his administration issued two emergency declarations, but the article refers only to one. Obama acted before pandemic declared Obama's acting director of health and human services declared H1N1 a public health emergency on April 26, 2009. That was when only 20 cases of H1N1 - and no deaths - around the country had been confirmed. Two days later, the administration made an initial funding request for H1N1 to Congress. Eventually $7.65 billion was allocated for a vaccine and other measures. H1N1 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on June 11, 2009. In other words, the Obama administration's public health emergency declaration came more than six weeks before the pandemic designation. Now to Obama's second action. On Oct. 24, 2009, six months after his administration declared H1N1 a public health emergency, Obama declared it a national emergency. At that point, H1N1 had claimed more than 1,000 American lives, according to the CDC. When Obama made his declaration, the New York Times reported at the time, thousands of people were lining up in cities across the country to receive vaccinations, as federal officials acknowledged that their vaccination program had gotten off to a slow start, with some states having requested 10 times the amount they have been allotted. Millions of people in the United States had had H1N1. The national emergency declaration allowed the federal government to temporarily waive or modify requirements of the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance programs. It also permitted doctors and hospitals to bypass certain requirements as they responded to H1N1. By way of comparison, Trump declared the coronavirus a public health emergency on Jan. 31, 2020, also prior to any deaths in the United States. One effect was that U.S. citizens who had been in China's Hubei Province, the source of the outbreak, in the previous 14 days were subjected to 14 days of mandatory quarantine if they traveled back to the United States. NBC News reported March 3, 2020, that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is planning for the possibility that Trump could make a national emergency declaration to bring in extra funds and personnel to assist the administration's coronavirus response. | Our ruling The headline of an article shared on Facebook claimed: 'Obama waited six months to call swine flu an emergency after thousands died.' In October 2009, after more than 1,000 people in the United States had died of swine flu, also known as H1N1, Obama declared a national emergency. But six months earlier, his administration declared H1N1 a public health emergency. At that point, no deaths in the United States had occurred. We rate the statement False. | [
"101742-proof-05-c00e7f99c19bdd32b6187e7e8672d133.jpg"
]
|
Says President Barack Obama 'waited six months to call swine flu an emergency after thousands died. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump's response to the coronavirus is being defended with an attack on how President Barack Obama handled the outbreak of H1N1, also known as swine flu, in 2009. The headline of an article shared on Facebook made this claim: 'Flashback: Obama waited six months to call swine flu an emergency after thousands died.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The article was published on Prntly, which describes itself as a conservative news website that defends Trump. The article goes on to say that 'it wasn't until six months after' H1N1 became a global pandemic that 'then-President Obama declared a public health emergency on what was already a pandemic. By that time, the disease had infected millions of Americans and more than 1,000 people had died in the U.S.' Not only is this timeline wrong, but the story and headline eliminate important facts and distort others, imparting a false narrative that social media users are resharing. Let's take a look. Online, fact-based news is going to be very important in the coming weeks. Please consider donating to PolitiFact today. The H1N1 virus The H1N1 influenza virus was discovered in the United States in the spring of 2009 and spread around the world. It was originally referred to as 'swine flu' because many genes in the virus were similar to influenza viruses that normally occur in pigs in North America. It was serious. From April 12, 2009, to April 10, 2010, in the United States, there were 60.8 million cases of swine flu, 274,304 hospitalizations and 12,469 deaths, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated. Obama and his administration issued two emergency declarations, but the article refers only to one. Obama acted before pandemic declared Obama's acting director of health and human services declared H1N1 a public health emergency on April 26, 2009. That was when only 20 cases of H1N1 - and no deaths - around the country had been confirmed. Two days later, the administration made an initial funding request for H1N1 to Congress. Eventually $7.65 billion was allocated for a vaccine and other measures. H1N1 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on June 11, 2009. In other words, the Obama administration's public health emergency declaration came more than six weeks before the pandemic designation. Now to Obama's second action. On Oct. 24, 2009, six months after his administration declared H1N1 a public health emergency, Obama declared it a national emergency. At that point, H1N1 had claimed more than 1,000 American lives, according to the CDC. When Obama made his declaration, the New York Times reported at the time, thousands of people were lining up in cities across the country to receive vaccinations, as federal officials acknowledged that their vaccination program had gotten off to a slow start, with some states having requested 10 times the amount they have been allotted. Millions of people in the United States had had H1N1. The national emergency declaration allowed the federal government to temporarily waive or modify requirements of the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance programs. It also permitted doctors and hospitals to bypass certain requirements as they responded to H1N1. By way of comparison, Trump declared the coronavirus a public health emergency on Jan. 31, 2020, also prior to any deaths in the United States. One effect was that U.S. citizens who had been in China's Hubei Province, the source of the outbreak, in the previous 14 days were subjected to 14 days of mandatory quarantine if they traveled back to the United States. NBC News reported March 3, 2020, that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is planning for the possibility that Trump could make a national emergency declaration to bring in extra funds and personnel to assist the administration's coronavirus response. | Our ruling The headline of an article shared on Facebook claimed: 'Obama waited six months to call swine flu an emergency after thousands died.' In October 2009, after more than 1,000 people in the United States had died of swine flu, also known as H1N1, Obama declared a national emergency. But six months earlier, his administration declared H1N1 a public health emergency. At that point, no deaths in the United States had occurred. We rate the statement False. | [
"101742-proof-05-c00e7f99c19bdd32b6187e7e8672d133.jpg"
]
|
'Biden's climate requirements' will 'cut 90% of red meat from diet' to a 'max 4 lbs per year' and 'one burger per month. | Contradiction | One day after President Joe Biden pledged to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in half, Fox News and Fox Business Network personalities repeatedly and baselessly claimed that the move would also force Americans to say goodbye to hamburgers and steaks. 'To meet the Biden Green New Deal targets, America has to, get this, America has to stop eating meat,' said Fox Business Network host Larry Kudlow, a former economic adviser to President Donald Trump, on April 23. 'No burger on July 4. No steaks on the barbecue.' Biden's climate plans do not include restrictions on red meat consumption, a White House official confirmed to PolitiFact. Biden never mentioned red meat when he announced his plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50% to 52% below 2005 levels by 2030, a move that would double the U.S.'s commitment under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. But across several Fox News and Fox Business Network programs, the story told was different. Hosts such as Kudlow and Fox News's Jesse Watters wrongly claimed that Americans would have to take steaks off their grills in order for the U.S. to hit Biden's target, while the networks' chyrons and graphics gave the same false claims a visual flair. One Fox News graphic, for example, said 'Biden's climate requirements' would 'cut 90% of red meat from diet' by holding Americans to 'max 4 lbs per year' and 'one burger per month.' A screenshot of an inaccurate Fox News graphic about Joe Biden's climate plans. The graphic aired April 23 on 'America Reports.' The false claims about Biden restricting access to meat originated with a Daily Mail article that linked Biden's goals to an unrelated January 2020 study on meat consumption. The article speculated that 'Americans may have to cut their red meat consumption by a whopping 90%,' citing a University of Michigan study that had no link to Biden's plan. 'The study was published in January 2020, when Trump was still president, so it had nothing to do with Biden or his climate change plan,' said Tulane University professor Diego Rose, one of the study's three co-authors. 'It's all just sensational goo from 'Fox & Friends.'' 'The study shows that if we eat less meat, especially beef, we could substantially reduce our dietary carbon footprint. But that change in behavior is a choice that individuals will make.' In a separate statement, co-authors Martin Heller and Gregory Keoleian of the University of Michigan explained that one hypothetical scenario the study considered was a 90% reduction in beef combined with a 50% reduction in other meats. They found that such a change would reduce 'diet-related greenhouse gas emissions associated with agricultural production' by 50%. 'But this is not a specific recommended policy for achieving a 50% reduction in U.S. carbon emissions,' Heller and Keoleian said. How the claims spread on Fox News The false claims about Biden's climate policies cropped up on social media after the Daily Mail story went live, but they got an assist from Fox News and Fox Business Network, with the first claims on those networks coming during the 'Fox & Friends' morning talk show. 'Here's an example of how it's going to affect your lifestyle,' host Brian Kilmeade said April 23. 'It's going to cut 90% of red meat out of a diet. That's four pounds a year.' 'Part of his climate or green targets are to cut our red meat,' host Ainsley Earhardt repeated minutes later. 'He wants to cut out 90% of the red meat that you all eat.' Other Fox journalists followed suit, including Kudlow, Charles Payne and Jesse Watters. Watters said on 'The Five' that to make Biden's climate plan happen, 'Americans would have to cut red meat consumption by a whopping 90%. That means only one burger a month.' He repeated the same claim the following night on 'Watters' World.' In the primetime hour, Fox News host Sean Hannity said April 23 that Biden's plans 'will impact how you eat, including red meat.' On April 24, Jeanine Pirro asked, 'Do you like red meat? ... Not so fast. The left with their Green New Deal wants to make sure you don't.' The false claims were not limited to the talk show hosts, however. Fox News White House correspondent John Roberts opened his April 23 news segment on 'America Reports,' a daytime news program, by telling viewers, 'Say goodbye to your burgers if you want to sign up for the climate agenda. That's the finding of one study.' Later that night, anchor Shannon Bream asked her viewers, 'Could new climate impact plans limit you to just one burger a month?' Correspondent Kevin Corke told Bream that under Biden's plan, 'all Americans would have to limit their consumption of burgers by about one a month.' Screenshots of Fox News and Fox Business Network graphics and chyrons about Joe Biden's climate plans. After fact-checkers and news outlets pointed out that the claims about Biden limiting meat were inaccurate, Roberts walked back the claims. 'That research from 2020 found that cutting back how much red meat people eat would have a drastic impact on harmful greenhouse gas emissions,' Roberts said of the study. 'The data was accurate, but a graphic and the script incorrectly implied that it was part of Biden's plan for dealing with climate change. That is not the case.' But the false narrative about Biden banning burgers had already taken hold. On social media, Republicans used the claims to attack Biden. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., branded him as the 'Hamburglar,' while Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., told him to 'stay out of my kitchen.' 'Joe Biden's climate plan includes cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030,' Boebert said, falsely, in her tweet. The since-corrected Fox News graphic was also shared widely, including in tweets by Donald Trump Jr. and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas. On Facebook, posts sharing it got tens of thousands of engagements and were flagged as part of the platform's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) | Our ruling In a graphic, Fox News claimed that 'Biden's climate requirements' will 'cut 90% of red meat from diet' to a 'max 4 lbs per year' and 'one burger per month.' The graphic echoed other chyrons and statements made by the network's personalities the day after Biden pledged to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030. But the graphic is wrong, and Roberts issued a correction days later. Biden's climate plans do not include restrictions on red meat consumption, a White House official confirmed. Claims that they do trace back to a Daily Mail article that wrongly linked a 2020 study from the University of Michigan to Biden's plans. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! RELATED: How Fox News, far-right TV blamed green energy for Texas' power outages | [
"101755-proof-07-foxnews_graphic_biden_burgers.jpeg",
"101755-proof-18-e9e139ba82a41860d7162d8e57e8451b.jpg"
]
|
'Biden's climate requirements' will 'cut 90% of red meat from diet' to a 'max 4 lbs per year' and 'one burger per month. | Contradiction | One day after President Joe Biden pledged to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in half, Fox News and Fox Business Network personalities repeatedly and baselessly claimed that the move would also force Americans to say goodbye to hamburgers and steaks. 'To meet the Biden Green New Deal targets, America has to, get this, America has to stop eating meat,' said Fox Business Network host Larry Kudlow, a former economic adviser to President Donald Trump, on April 23. 'No burger on July 4. No steaks on the barbecue.' Biden's climate plans do not include restrictions on red meat consumption, a White House official confirmed to PolitiFact. Biden never mentioned red meat when he announced his plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50% to 52% below 2005 levels by 2030, a move that would double the U.S.'s commitment under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. But across several Fox News and Fox Business Network programs, the story told was different. Hosts such as Kudlow and Fox News's Jesse Watters wrongly claimed that Americans would have to take steaks off their grills in order for the U.S. to hit Biden's target, while the networks' chyrons and graphics gave the same false claims a visual flair. One Fox News graphic, for example, said 'Biden's climate requirements' would 'cut 90% of red meat from diet' by holding Americans to 'max 4 lbs per year' and 'one burger per month.' A screenshot of an inaccurate Fox News graphic about Joe Biden's climate plans. The graphic aired April 23 on 'America Reports.' The false claims about Biden restricting access to meat originated with a Daily Mail article that linked Biden's goals to an unrelated January 2020 study on meat consumption. The article speculated that 'Americans may have to cut their red meat consumption by a whopping 90%,' citing a University of Michigan study that had no link to Biden's plan. 'The study was published in January 2020, when Trump was still president, so it had nothing to do with Biden or his climate change plan,' said Tulane University professor Diego Rose, one of the study's three co-authors. 'It's all just sensational goo from 'Fox & Friends.'' 'The study shows that if we eat less meat, especially beef, we could substantially reduce our dietary carbon footprint. But that change in behavior is a choice that individuals will make.' In a separate statement, co-authors Martin Heller and Gregory Keoleian of the University of Michigan explained that one hypothetical scenario the study considered was a 90% reduction in beef combined with a 50% reduction in other meats. They found that such a change would reduce 'diet-related greenhouse gas emissions associated with agricultural production' by 50%. 'But this is not a specific recommended policy for achieving a 50% reduction in U.S. carbon emissions,' Heller and Keoleian said. How the claims spread on Fox News The false claims about Biden's climate policies cropped up on social media after the Daily Mail story went live, but they got an assist from Fox News and Fox Business Network, with the first claims on those networks coming during the 'Fox & Friends' morning talk show. 'Here's an example of how it's going to affect your lifestyle,' host Brian Kilmeade said April 23. 'It's going to cut 90% of red meat out of a diet. That's four pounds a year.' 'Part of his climate or green targets are to cut our red meat,' host Ainsley Earhardt repeated minutes later. 'He wants to cut out 90% of the red meat that you all eat.' Other Fox journalists followed suit, including Kudlow, Charles Payne and Jesse Watters. Watters said on 'The Five' that to make Biden's climate plan happen, 'Americans would have to cut red meat consumption by a whopping 90%. That means only one burger a month.' He repeated the same claim the following night on 'Watters' World.' In the primetime hour, Fox News host Sean Hannity said April 23 that Biden's plans 'will impact how you eat, including red meat.' On April 24, Jeanine Pirro asked, 'Do you like red meat? ... Not so fast. The left with their Green New Deal wants to make sure you don't.' The false claims were not limited to the talk show hosts, however. Fox News White House correspondent John Roberts opened his April 23 news segment on 'America Reports,' a daytime news program, by telling viewers, 'Say goodbye to your burgers if you want to sign up for the climate agenda. That's the finding of one study.' Later that night, anchor Shannon Bream asked her viewers, 'Could new climate impact plans limit you to just one burger a month?' Correspondent Kevin Corke told Bream that under Biden's plan, 'all Americans would have to limit their consumption of burgers by about one a month.' Screenshots of Fox News and Fox Business Network graphics and chyrons about Joe Biden's climate plans. After fact-checkers and news outlets pointed out that the claims about Biden limiting meat were inaccurate, Roberts walked back the claims. 'That research from 2020 found that cutting back how much red meat people eat would have a drastic impact on harmful greenhouse gas emissions,' Roberts said of the study. 'The data was accurate, but a graphic and the script incorrectly implied that it was part of Biden's plan for dealing with climate change. That is not the case.' But the false narrative about Biden banning burgers had already taken hold. On social media, Republicans used the claims to attack Biden. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., branded him as the 'Hamburglar,' while Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., told him to 'stay out of my kitchen.' 'Joe Biden's climate plan includes cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030,' Boebert said, falsely, in her tweet. The since-corrected Fox News graphic was also shared widely, including in tweets by Donald Trump Jr. and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas. On Facebook, posts sharing it got tens of thousands of engagements and were flagged as part of the platform's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) | Our ruling In a graphic, Fox News claimed that 'Biden's climate requirements' will 'cut 90% of red meat from diet' to a 'max 4 lbs per year' and 'one burger per month.' The graphic echoed other chyrons and statements made by the network's personalities the day after Biden pledged to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030. But the graphic is wrong, and Roberts issued a correction days later. Biden's climate plans do not include restrictions on red meat consumption, a White House official confirmed. Claims that they do trace back to a Daily Mail article that wrongly linked a 2020 study from the University of Michigan to Biden's plans. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! RELATED: How Fox News, far-right TV blamed green energy for Texas' power outages | [
"101755-proof-07-foxnews_graphic_biden_burgers.jpeg",
"101755-proof-18-e9e139ba82a41860d7162d8e57e8451b.jpg"
]
|
'Biden's climate requirements' will 'cut 90% of red meat from diet' to a 'max 4 lbs per year' and 'one burger per month. | Contradiction | One day after President Joe Biden pledged to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in half, Fox News and Fox Business Network personalities repeatedly and baselessly claimed that the move would also force Americans to say goodbye to hamburgers and steaks. 'To meet the Biden Green New Deal targets, America has to, get this, America has to stop eating meat,' said Fox Business Network host Larry Kudlow, a former economic adviser to President Donald Trump, on April 23. 'No burger on July 4. No steaks on the barbecue.' Biden's climate plans do not include restrictions on red meat consumption, a White House official confirmed to PolitiFact. Biden never mentioned red meat when he announced his plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50% to 52% below 2005 levels by 2030, a move that would double the U.S.'s commitment under the 2015 Paris climate agreement. But across several Fox News and Fox Business Network programs, the story told was different. Hosts such as Kudlow and Fox News's Jesse Watters wrongly claimed that Americans would have to take steaks off their grills in order for the U.S. to hit Biden's target, while the networks' chyrons and graphics gave the same false claims a visual flair. One Fox News graphic, for example, said 'Biden's climate requirements' would 'cut 90% of red meat from diet' by holding Americans to 'max 4 lbs per year' and 'one burger per month.' A screenshot of an inaccurate Fox News graphic about Joe Biden's climate plans. The graphic aired April 23 on 'America Reports.' The false claims about Biden restricting access to meat originated with a Daily Mail article that linked Biden's goals to an unrelated January 2020 study on meat consumption. The article speculated that 'Americans may have to cut their red meat consumption by a whopping 90%,' citing a University of Michigan study that had no link to Biden's plan. 'The study was published in January 2020, when Trump was still president, so it had nothing to do with Biden or his climate change plan,' said Tulane University professor Diego Rose, one of the study's three co-authors. 'It's all just sensational goo from 'Fox & Friends.'' 'The study shows that if we eat less meat, especially beef, we could substantially reduce our dietary carbon footprint. But that change in behavior is a choice that individuals will make.' In a separate statement, co-authors Martin Heller and Gregory Keoleian of the University of Michigan explained that one hypothetical scenario the study considered was a 90% reduction in beef combined with a 50% reduction in other meats. They found that such a change would reduce 'diet-related greenhouse gas emissions associated with agricultural production' by 50%. 'But this is not a specific recommended policy for achieving a 50% reduction in U.S. carbon emissions,' Heller and Keoleian said. How the claims spread on Fox News The false claims about Biden's climate policies cropped up on social media after the Daily Mail story went live, but they got an assist from Fox News and Fox Business Network, with the first claims on those networks coming during the 'Fox & Friends' morning talk show. 'Here's an example of how it's going to affect your lifestyle,' host Brian Kilmeade said April 23. 'It's going to cut 90% of red meat out of a diet. That's four pounds a year.' 'Part of his climate or green targets are to cut our red meat,' host Ainsley Earhardt repeated minutes later. 'He wants to cut out 90% of the red meat that you all eat.' Other Fox journalists followed suit, including Kudlow, Charles Payne and Jesse Watters. Watters said on 'The Five' that to make Biden's climate plan happen, 'Americans would have to cut red meat consumption by a whopping 90%. That means only one burger a month.' He repeated the same claim the following night on 'Watters' World.' In the primetime hour, Fox News host Sean Hannity said April 23 that Biden's plans 'will impact how you eat, including red meat.' On April 24, Jeanine Pirro asked, 'Do you like red meat? ... Not so fast. The left with their Green New Deal wants to make sure you don't.' The false claims were not limited to the talk show hosts, however. Fox News White House correspondent John Roberts opened his April 23 news segment on 'America Reports,' a daytime news program, by telling viewers, 'Say goodbye to your burgers if you want to sign up for the climate agenda. That's the finding of one study.' Later that night, anchor Shannon Bream asked her viewers, 'Could new climate impact plans limit you to just one burger a month?' Correspondent Kevin Corke told Bream that under Biden's plan, 'all Americans would have to limit their consumption of burgers by about one a month.' Screenshots of Fox News and Fox Business Network graphics and chyrons about Joe Biden's climate plans. After fact-checkers and news outlets pointed out that the claims about Biden limiting meat were inaccurate, Roberts walked back the claims. 'That research from 2020 found that cutting back how much red meat people eat would have a drastic impact on harmful greenhouse gas emissions,' Roberts said of the study. 'The data was accurate, but a graphic and the script incorrectly implied that it was part of Biden's plan for dealing with climate change. That is not the case.' But the false narrative about Biden banning burgers had already taken hold. On social media, Republicans used the claims to attack Biden. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., branded him as the 'Hamburglar,' while Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., told him to 'stay out of my kitchen.' 'Joe Biden's climate plan includes cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030,' Boebert said, falsely, in her tweet. The since-corrected Fox News graphic was also shared widely, including in tweets by Donald Trump Jr. and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas. On Facebook, posts sharing it got tens of thousands of engagements and were flagged as part of the platform's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) | Our ruling In a graphic, Fox News claimed that 'Biden's climate requirements' will 'cut 90% of red meat from diet' to a 'max 4 lbs per year' and 'one burger per month.' The graphic echoed other chyrons and statements made by the network's personalities the day after Biden pledged to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030. But the graphic is wrong, and Roberts issued a correction days later. Biden's climate plans do not include restrictions on red meat consumption, a White House official confirmed. Claims that they do trace back to a Daily Mail article that wrongly linked a 2020 study from the University of Michigan to Biden's plans. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! RELATED: How Fox News, far-right TV blamed green energy for Texas' power outages | [
"101755-proof-07-foxnews_graphic_biden_burgers.jpeg",
"101755-proof-18-e9e139ba82a41860d7162d8e57e8451b.jpg"
]
|
'56 million defenseless people 'rounded up and exterminated' in the 20th Century because of gun control. | Contradiction | A previously debunked post that attempts to link gun control policies to genocide and extermination campaigns carried out by authoritarian governments has reemerged on social media, this time in the form of a widely shared Instagram post. 'This is why you never, ever let the government take away your guns,' a preface on the post says, alongside an image of a steamroller driving over a sea of firearms. 'Read up, educate yourself. Here's a LITTLE GUN HISTORY.' The post lists select examples of extermination campaigns carried out by authoritarian regimes at various points in the 20th century, including the Soviet Union, Cambodia and Nazi Germany, that it says occurred after they 'established gun control.' It adds: '56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control.' The March 30th post was flagged as part of efforts by Facebook, which owns Instagram, to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Iterations of the Instagram post in question have resurfaced through the years and caught the attention of fact-checkers. Snopes published a Nov. 11, 2017, fact-check based on a similar post and called it mostly false. We found that while the governments cited in these societies did confiscate guns from certain people, there's no evidence to conclude that those confiscations were directly responsible for the millions of deaths that happened afterward, as the post claims. The central claim driving this post - that gun control enabled genocide - is a popular talking point for the National Rifle Association and other opponents of gun control. But the theory has been disputed by historians and researchers as hypothetical, and as exaggerating the role personal gun ownership by civilians could have played in counteracting the power of authoritarian governments and their militaries. The concept 'suggests, for example, that the Holocaust could have been avoided if Germany's minuscule Jewish population had been better armed. It also argues that Ukrainian peasants could have defeated the Stalinist regime, backed by the NKVD and the Red Army, if they had possessed individual firearms,' Mark Nuckols, an instructor with Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, wrote in The Atlantic magazine. Under Nazi Germany's 1938 regulations, Jews living under the Third Reich were forbidden to own or possess any form of weapons, including truncheons, knives, firearms and ammunition. But the Nazis had already been raiding Jewish homes by then, and 'the small number of personal firearms in the hands of the small number of Germany's Jews (about 214,000) remaining in Germany in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state,' the Anti-Defamation League explained in 2013. In the Soviet Union, 'tens of thousands of people were shot by Soviet state police and hundreds of thousands deported,' Yale University history professor wrote a March 2011 New York Review article. 'Those who remained lost their land and often went hungry as the state requisitioned food for export.' However, the greatest casualty figure of the Soviet era had nothing to do with access to firearms. Instead, it stemmed from a government-imposed famine which killed at least 5 million people, Snyder wrote. In Turkey's 1915 offensive against ethnic Armenians, also cited in the post, the Armenians 'were ordered to turn in any weapons that they owned to the authorities,' according to a New York Times article, citing David Fromkin's book 'A Peace to End All Peace,' about World War I, though it was mostly military members, not civilians, who were allowed to own firearms to begin with. 'I don't know of any evidence which shows causality' between gun confiscation and genocide, Philip Alpers, an adjunct associate professor at the University of Sydney who studies gun laws and regulations, told PolitiFact in an email. | Our ruling A post on Instagram claims that '56 million defenseless people' were 'rounded up and exterminated' in the 20th century because of gun control. The claim conflates gun control with confiscation. And it rests on the theory that gun confiscation policies by authoritarian governments left citizens defenseless and enabled genocide. Researchers and historians say there's no evidence to support the theory, and that it exaggerates the role armed civilians could have played in counteracting the power of authoritarian governments and their militaries. We rate this claim False. | []
|
A Dominion representative in Gwinnett County improperly downloaded election data to 'manipulate the data. | Contradiction | A Georgia elections official called on President Donald Trump and the state's two Republican senators to condemn death threats against election workers that are being fueled by misinformation. 'Someone's going to get hurt,' said Gabriel Sterling, the state's voting system implementation manager, during a Dec. 1 press conference. 'Someone's going to get shot. Someone's going to get killed. And it's not right.' One worker who has faced threats is the subject of a Facebook post about a contractor for Dominion Voting Systems, which makes software and hardware used by elections workers in multiple states: The post says that the Dominion representative at a Gwinnett County elections office downloaded data to a USB flash drive from the election management server and plugged it into a laptop to 'manipulate the data.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Neither the video nor the Facebook post provides any proof that the worker manipulated the data. Although it's not possible to tell what the representative is doing as he works on computers, the narrators leap to conclusions and portray his actions as nefarious. 'He just pulled a USB out,' says the male narrator. 'Did he? Where is he going?...,' says the female narrator. 'Oh my god - is he taking it to that laptop?' The narrators then continue to chuckle and speculate about the man's actions, but without any evidence that he is doing anything wrong. Gwinnett County spokesperson Joe Sorenson told us that the video shows 'a Dominion technician producing a data report on the server and saving the report to a Dominion USB thumb drive and then using a laptop to filter requested information. The Dominion servers are not equipped with Excel and counties are not authorized to install any hardware or software on these systems.' A Dominion spokesperson told Fox News' Eric Shawn in a Nov. 22 interview that it wouldn't be possible for a person to stick a thumb drive into a computer and fill it up with thousands of votes for Joe Biden. The interview was related to baseless claims made by pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell and occurred before the viral Facebook video appeared. Dominion election equipment has been a frequent subject of misinformation promoted by Trump's allies and social media users following Trump's narrow loss in Georgia. A Dominion representative didn't respond to our questions about the video but referred us to the public remarks Sterling made debunking the misinformation. 'A 20-something tech in Gwinnett County today has death threats and a noose put out, saying he should be hung for treason because he was transferring a report on batches from an (election management system) to a county computer so we could read it,' Sterling told reporters. Sterling said that the allegation that the worker was manipulating election data from the recount was 'wrong.' He called on Trump and Georgia's Republican senators - Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, who are both campaigning for runoff elections against Democrats on Jan. 5 - to condemn violent rhetoric. 'This has to stop. We need you to step up and if you're going to take a position of leadership, show something,' Sterling said. Both senators' campaigns put out statements saying they condemn violence. A Trump campaign spokesperson made a similar statement. Loeffler and Perdue were among those making baseless claims of malfeasance in the Nov. 3 election, and both called on Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, to resign. | Our ruling A Facebook post says that a Dominion representative in Gwinnett County improperly downloaded election data to 'manipulate the data.' The video and the post include no proof that the representative was manipulating data. A state elections official and a county spokesperson told reporters that the allegation was wrong. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"101764-proof-04-be96088a3efbe5be27653e10ed41256a.jpg"
]
|
A Dominion representative in Gwinnett County improperly downloaded election data to 'manipulate the data. | Contradiction | A Georgia elections official called on President Donald Trump and the state's two Republican senators to condemn death threats against election workers that are being fueled by misinformation. 'Someone's going to get hurt,' said Gabriel Sterling, the state's voting system implementation manager, during a Dec. 1 press conference. 'Someone's going to get shot. Someone's going to get killed. And it's not right.' One worker who has faced threats is the subject of a Facebook post about a contractor for Dominion Voting Systems, which makes software and hardware used by elections workers in multiple states: The post says that the Dominion representative at a Gwinnett County elections office downloaded data to a USB flash drive from the election management server and plugged it into a laptop to 'manipulate the data.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Neither the video nor the Facebook post provides any proof that the worker manipulated the data. Although it's not possible to tell what the representative is doing as he works on computers, the narrators leap to conclusions and portray his actions as nefarious. 'He just pulled a USB out,' says the male narrator. 'Did he? Where is he going?...,' says the female narrator. 'Oh my god - is he taking it to that laptop?' The narrators then continue to chuckle and speculate about the man's actions, but without any evidence that he is doing anything wrong. Gwinnett County spokesperson Joe Sorenson told us that the video shows 'a Dominion technician producing a data report on the server and saving the report to a Dominion USB thumb drive and then using a laptop to filter requested information. The Dominion servers are not equipped with Excel and counties are not authorized to install any hardware or software on these systems.' A Dominion spokesperson told Fox News' Eric Shawn in a Nov. 22 interview that it wouldn't be possible for a person to stick a thumb drive into a computer and fill it up with thousands of votes for Joe Biden. The interview was related to baseless claims made by pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell and occurred before the viral Facebook video appeared. Dominion election equipment has been a frequent subject of misinformation promoted by Trump's allies and social media users following Trump's narrow loss in Georgia. A Dominion representative didn't respond to our questions about the video but referred us to the public remarks Sterling made debunking the misinformation. 'A 20-something tech in Gwinnett County today has death threats and a noose put out, saying he should be hung for treason because he was transferring a report on batches from an (election management system) to a county computer so we could read it,' Sterling told reporters. Sterling said that the allegation that the worker was manipulating election data from the recount was 'wrong.' He called on Trump and Georgia's Republican senators - Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, who are both campaigning for runoff elections against Democrats on Jan. 5 - to condemn violent rhetoric. 'This has to stop. We need you to step up and if you're going to take a position of leadership, show something,' Sterling said. Both senators' campaigns put out statements saying they condemn violence. A Trump campaign spokesperson made a similar statement. Loeffler and Perdue were among those making baseless claims of malfeasance in the Nov. 3 election, and both called on Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, to resign. | Our ruling A Facebook post says that a Dominion representative in Gwinnett County improperly downloaded election data to 'manipulate the data.' The video and the post include no proof that the representative was manipulating data. A state elections official and a county spokesperson told reporters that the allegation was wrong. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"101764-proof-04-be96088a3efbe5be27653e10ed41256a.jpg"
]
|
A new medical diagnosis code has been designated for people who decline vaccines, and it will be used to help determine who will go into 'education camps. | Contradiction | On a Facebook page for healthcare workers fighting COVID-19 vaccine mandates, an unidentified woman shared what sounds like a warning about new industry practices to promote vaccination. In the viral video, the woman says a new medical diagnosis code has been designated for people who decline vaccines, and it will be used to help determine who will go into 'education camps.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Despite the ominous tone of the post, the diagnosis code is not new and has been in use since 2015. There is also no evidence to support the claim that the government plans to send unvaccinated people to education camps. The woman in the video gives the impression she is at her workplace reading aloud from an email. She says the correspondence is from 'DOH and DHS,' and while she does not specify what the initials stand for, they are common abbreviations for Department of Health and Department of Health Services, or Department of Homeland Security. The woman says she will not identify what state sent the information, other than to say it's not Florida. Reading from the purported email, she says the agencies will be using diagnosis code ICD-10 Z28.20 'for vaccine counseling that does not result in vaccination.' She explains that ICD-10 codes are used to track people through various medical data systems, including insurance and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and continues, 'So for those of you who were wondering how they were going to find out who they need to put in those ... education camps and counseling camps, I think we just got our ....' Her answer trails off as she points to the screen with the email. ICD-10 stands for International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. It's a classification system 'designed to promote international comparability in the collection, processing, classification and presentation of mortality statistics,' according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The federal Department of Health and Human Services mandated that the current set of codes, ICD-10, be used by healthcare providers, effective Oct. 1, 2015. The code referenced in the Facebook video, Z28.20, is for 'immunization not carried out because of patient decision for unspecified reason,' according to ICD10Data.com. The website indicates that the Z28.20 code became effective on Oct. 1, 2015. Other healthcare publications mention the code as well. The American Academy of Pediatrics published a 2016 report about 'Codes to Capture Vaccine Refusal,' and noted that the codes begin with category Z28. The claim from the video about education and counseling camps appears to relate to an Oct. 24, 2021, appearance on Fox News by Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC. During an interview, Chris Wallace asked Walensky whether the Biden administration is 'still full speed ahead on mandates for essential workers to get vaccinated.' Walensky's answer included this comment at the 8:05 mark in the exchange: 'There is a plan should these people not want to be vaccinated towards education and counseling to get people the information they need so that they are feeling comfortable in getting vaccinated.' Her comment was misconstrued by websites known for spreading misinformation, such as NaturalNews.com, which published an Oct. 27 story with the headline, 'CDC's Walensky threatens cops who refuse covid shots, says they'll be sent to reeducation camps.' Others, such as conservative commentator Laura Ingraham, also claimed that Walensky's comments meant she wanted to send people to camps for reeducation. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that a new medical diagnosis code has been designated for people who decline vaccines, and it will be used to help determine who will go into 'education camps.' The diagnosis code is not new and has been in use since 2015. There is no evidence to support the claim that the government plans to send unvaccinated people to education camps. The claim misconstrues remarks by CDC Director Walensky, who said that vaccine-hesitant essential workers would be provided with education and counseling. We rate this claim False. | []
|
A new medical diagnosis code has been designated for people who decline vaccines, and it will be used to help determine who will go into 'education camps. | Contradiction | On a Facebook page for healthcare workers fighting COVID-19 vaccine mandates, an unidentified woman shared what sounds like a warning about new industry practices to promote vaccination. In the viral video, the woman says a new medical diagnosis code has been designated for people who decline vaccines, and it will be used to help determine who will go into 'education camps.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Despite the ominous tone of the post, the diagnosis code is not new and has been in use since 2015. There is also no evidence to support the claim that the government plans to send unvaccinated people to education camps. The woman in the video gives the impression she is at her workplace reading aloud from an email. She says the correspondence is from 'DOH and DHS,' and while she does not specify what the initials stand for, they are common abbreviations for Department of Health and Department of Health Services, or Department of Homeland Security. The woman says she will not identify what state sent the information, other than to say it's not Florida. Reading from the purported email, she says the agencies will be using diagnosis code ICD-10 Z28.20 'for vaccine counseling that does not result in vaccination.' She explains that ICD-10 codes are used to track people through various medical data systems, including insurance and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and continues, 'So for those of you who were wondering how they were going to find out who they need to put in those ... education camps and counseling camps, I think we just got our ....' Her answer trails off as she points to the screen with the email. ICD-10 stands for International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. It's a classification system 'designed to promote international comparability in the collection, processing, classification and presentation of mortality statistics,' according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The federal Department of Health and Human Services mandated that the current set of codes, ICD-10, be used by healthcare providers, effective Oct. 1, 2015. The code referenced in the Facebook video, Z28.20, is for 'immunization not carried out because of patient decision for unspecified reason,' according to ICD10Data.com. The website indicates that the Z28.20 code became effective on Oct. 1, 2015. Other healthcare publications mention the code as well. The American Academy of Pediatrics published a 2016 report about 'Codes to Capture Vaccine Refusal,' and noted that the codes begin with category Z28. The claim from the video about education and counseling camps appears to relate to an Oct. 24, 2021, appearance on Fox News by Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC. During an interview, Chris Wallace asked Walensky whether the Biden administration is 'still full speed ahead on mandates for essential workers to get vaccinated.' Walensky's answer included this comment at the 8:05 mark in the exchange: 'There is a plan should these people not want to be vaccinated towards education and counseling to get people the information they need so that they are feeling comfortable in getting vaccinated.' Her comment was misconstrued by websites known for spreading misinformation, such as NaturalNews.com, which published an Oct. 27 story with the headline, 'CDC's Walensky threatens cops who refuse covid shots, says they'll be sent to reeducation camps.' Others, such as conservative commentator Laura Ingraham, also claimed that Walensky's comments meant she wanted to send people to camps for reeducation. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that a new medical diagnosis code has been designated for people who decline vaccines, and it will be used to help determine who will go into 'education camps.' The diagnosis code is not new and has been in use since 2015. There is no evidence to support the claim that the government plans to send unvaccinated people to education camps. The claim misconstrues remarks by CDC Director Walensky, who said that vaccine-hesitant essential workers would be provided with education and counseling. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Says photo of Malia Obama's credit card next to white powder was found on Hunter Biden's laptop. | Contradiction | The story about the contents of Hunter Biden's alleged laptop hard drive continues to dominate on social media days before the election, and now some posts are attempting to drag in the relatives of other powerful Democrats. Social media posts claim, without proof, that a photo of a credit card allegedly belonging to President Barack Obama's oldest daughter, Malia, was also leaked from the hard drive. The image shows a worn JP Morgan Visa card with the name 'Malia A. Obama' on it next to lines of white powder. 'Malia Obama's credit card used to chop and line up cocaine found on Hunter Biden's laptop,' words above the image read. This is false and follows a lengthy pattern of unconfirmed hoaxes related to the Obama children. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image is not new. It first appeared online in late December 2019, 10 months before the New York Post's story about the laptop was published. At the time, various websites said that 'hackers' stole Malia Obama's credit card and posted it online. The origin of the photo is still unknown, and any connection between Malia Obama and the white substance in the image remains unsubstantiated. We haven't been able to review or verify the contents of the laptop hard drive allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden because the data has not been seen, at least not widely. Allies of President Donald Trump who say they have it - particularly Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal lawyer who procured the laptop - have declined to share the data with other outlets for review. The Obama daughters have been popular targets for purveyors of misinformation for years. This is another example of that. We rate it False. | The Obama daughters have been popular targets for purveyors of misinformation for years. This is another example of that. We rate it False. | []
|
Says photo of Malia Obama's credit card next to white powder was found on Hunter Biden's laptop. | Contradiction | The story about the contents of Hunter Biden's alleged laptop hard drive continues to dominate on social media days before the election, and now some posts are attempting to drag in the relatives of other powerful Democrats. Social media posts claim, without proof, that a photo of a credit card allegedly belonging to President Barack Obama's oldest daughter, Malia, was also leaked from the hard drive. The image shows a worn JP Morgan Visa card with the name 'Malia A. Obama' on it next to lines of white powder. 'Malia Obama's credit card used to chop and line up cocaine found on Hunter Biden's laptop,' words above the image read. This is false and follows a lengthy pattern of unconfirmed hoaxes related to the Obama children. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image is not new. It first appeared online in late December 2019, 10 months before the New York Post's story about the laptop was published. At the time, various websites said that 'hackers' stole Malia Obama's credit card and posted it online. The origin of the photo is still unknown, and any connection between Malia Obama and the white substance in the image remains unsubstantiated. We haven't been able to review or verify the contents of the laptop hard drive allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden because the data has not been seen, at least not widely. Allies of President Donald Trump who say they have it - particularly Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal lawyer who procured the laptop - have declined to share the data with other outlets for review. The Obama daughters have been popular targets for purveyors of misinformation for years. This is another example of that. We rate it False. | The Obama daughters have been popular targets for purveyors of misinformation for years. This is another example of that. We rate it False. | []
|
'This whole COVID thing? It's a SIMULATION. | Contradiction | PolitiFact recently named its Lie of the Year, a dishonor that in 2020 was awarded to the downplay and denial of the coronavirus. We've debunked dozens and dozens of inaccurate claims about COVID-19 since the first case was reported in China in December 2019. That misinformation has included social media posts about how the coronavirus was man-made, engineered in a lab, or just a hoax. Another allegation that is also wrong: that the pandemic is a simulation. 'This whole COVID thing?' one Facebook post said. 'It's a SIMULATION. In September 2019 - the WHO put out a paper that all countries AGREED to do. That's how they got the ENTIRE world to lock down at the SAME TIME. We're now in the 2nd testing 'deliberately released airborne AGENT.' You'll notice they didn't say BIOLOGICAL. It's the SECOND SIMULATION all nations agreed to in September 2019 in the WHO report.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post links to two documents: 'A World at Risk: Annual report on global preparedness for health emergencies' by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, which is co-convened by the World Health Organization and the World Bank, and Food and Drug Administration instructions on how to use a 'real-time RT-PCR diagnostic panel' - a COVID-19 test - from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The post highlights pages from both documents. Let's take them one by one. From the 'World at Risk' report: 'The United Nations (including WHO) conducts at least two system-wide training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate release of a lethal respiratory pathogen.' This is not a nefarious secret tucked away deep in a bureaucratic report. The World Health Organization helps organize simulation exercises of public health emergencies to test how prepared communities and systems are to handle such crises. In 2018, for example, WHO's Global Emergency Operations Center and a global network of health emergency operation centers coordinated a simulation for a global pandemic response that involved participants from more than 40 countries. It was the first global pandemic response training exercise and the third in a series of simulations that year, according to WHO. The scenario revolved around an influenza outbreak with the potential to turn into a pandemic in a made-up country called Mizzou off the coast of North America. But there was no actual virus; the simulation exercise took place online and within the offices of WHO emergency operation centers. The point of the exercise was to test plans and procedures, and identify problems that could occur in an actual pandemic - like the one we're experiencing now. WHO has also developed a simulation exercise for COVID-19 'to support countries' preparedness effort' during the outbreak, according to the organization. It's tabletop exercise that includes PowerPoint presentations and guides to help countries 'develop and update their national deployment and vaccination plan' and 'conceptualize and manage ongoing (local) COVID-19 outbreaks in the country.' Now, let's look at the FDA instructions on how to use a COVID-19 test. The post includes an image of a highlighted section from a highly technical portion of the FDA document and concludes that the passage proves the tests were faked. 'On Dec 1st 2020,' the posts says, 'the CDC released a report, and part of it includes how THE VIRUS WAS NOT ISOLATED - meaning the tests were completely faked. They were all spiked with 'positive' virus samples to show a positive - straight from the laboratory samples, in order to produce something tangible for the simulation.' We reached out to the CDC about the claim. Kristen Nordlund, a spokesperson with the agency, told us that the FDA instructions featured in the Facebook post reflect a COVID-19 test that was developed before the CDC had a live virus. The instructions are not evidence that the pandemic is a simulation. CDC developed the test using genomic sequencing information because it didn't yet have a live virus or samples from confirmed COVID-19 patients, Nordlund said. By Jan. 18 it was using this test on samples from people with suspected cases of COVID-19. A few days later, the CDC used a sample from the first confirmed COVID-19 case in the United States to start growing the virus. By Jan. 31, there were six confirmed cases in the United States and the CDC asked the FDA for emergency use authorization to distribute its test to other public health laboratories. The FDA granted that request on Feb. 4. For many, news that COVID-19 vaccines have been approved in the United States and elsewhere in the world came as a relief. As of Dec. 17, more than 74.5 million cases had been confirmed globally, according to Johns Hopkins University. More than 1.6 million people have died. In the United States, where some cities are seeing cases skyrocket, more than 17 million people have gotten sick from the coronavirus and more than 308,000 have died. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire! | We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire! | []
|
'Hoadley called women 'breeders.'... wanted to learn about crystal meth and wrote that his sexual partners were his victims. Hoadley even wrote about a four year-old wearing a thong. | Contradiction | In a new TV ad, the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC dedicated to securing a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, attacks Democratic congressional candidate Jon Hoadley. 'Jon Hoadley's judgment is disturbing,' the ad claims. Hoadley currently represents Michigan's 60th District in the state's House of Representatives and he's trying to unseat incumbent Republican Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, who was first elected to Congress in 1986. CLF's ad inaccurately characterizes blog posts Hoadley wrote in 2004 and 2005, over 15 years ago, when he was a college student at Michigan State University. CLF claims that what Hoadley wrote was 'sexist' and 'creepy.' The ad distorts other posts Hoadley wrote, claiming that Hoadley 'wanted to learn about crystal meth' and 'wrote that his sexual partners were his victims.' Hoadley's blog, which has since been deleted, contained some insensitive comments but doesn't substantiate CLF's characterizations. In a statement to the New York Post which published a piece on the blog, Hoadley's campaign said the posts were 'bad college poetry.' In a Facebook video released Aug. 10, Hoadley issued an apology: 'I said things 16 years ago that I would never say today that aren't reflective of who I am, and so for folks that I hurt with my words, I'm sorry.' Hoadley is 37 years-old and the first openly LGBTQ person to run for Congress in Michigan. The LGBTQ Victory Fund, a national organization dedicated to electing LGBTQ candidates, accused CLF of using harmful tropes about gay men. CLF press secretary Will Reinert defended the ad in an email, reiterating its claim that the blog shows lack of judgment. A closer look at each of the ad's claims in context showed that CLF's ad is inaccurate and misleading. 'Hoadley called women 'breeders.' That's sexist.' In a blog entry dated Jun. 20, 2005, when Hoadley was 21 years-old and had just completed his junior year in college, Hoadley recapped a weekend in D.C., including going out to straight bars with two friends. 'Glad I went...but my straight fix has been satisfied for a while. I'm not going to lie: breeder=weird/bad dancers. Disagree if you want-you're just deluding yourself,' Hoadley wrote. According to Urban Dictionary, a 'breeder' is a derogatory term to describe straight people. The term can refer to either straight men or straight women. The term is contemptuous, but it's not sexist and Hoadley wasn't using it to describe straight women exclusively. 'He wanted to learn about crystal meth' This needs context. In a blog entry dated May 23, 2005 Hoadley wrote, 'Tonight I went to an event at a leather bar. By myself. To learn about crystal meth. Don't do meth.' Hoadley told an LGBTQ news website that the event was an information meeting about meth's impact on the LGBTQ community. He 'wrote that his sexual partners were his victims' This is misleading. Before sharing a poem titled 'Burned By Love' on Jun. 14, 2005, Hoadley told his readers the post was fictional: 'Wrote this awhile ago...looking for some feedback. BTW, sometimes fiction is the best way to tell truth - so don't go getting any ideas about me.' The poem, which appears to be about the search for connection, contains the lines, 'I turn to my little black book that's commonly called a cell phone. My fingers walk as I talk to the latest victim of my sexual conquest.' CLF's claim does not disclose Hoadley's note that this was not about him. 'Hoadley even wrote about a four-year-old wearing a thong' This is inaccurate. In a Aug. 12, 2004 blog post, Hoadley shared what appeared to be a jovial conversation he had with a friend who said that he had a secret desire to be a flower girl. Toward the end of the conversation, Hoadley wrote 'just don't let them make you look too fresh...you know how hoochie they try to make the flower girl,' using a derogatory word to describe a sexually promiscuous woman. Hoadley's friend responded, 'I KNOW! I mean I shudder everytime I see a four year old wearing a thong.' Hoadley did not write about a four-year-old wearing a thong as CLF claims. Nevertheless, CLF called the comment 'creepy' in its ad but both Hoadley and his friend noted their revulsion to sexualizing children. | Our ruling Drawing from posts Hoadley wrote on his college blog, CLF's ad claims, 'Hoadley called women 'breeders.'... wanted to learn about crystal meth and wrote that his sexual partners were his victims. Hoadley even wrote about a four year-old wearing a thong.' Hoadley used the term 'breeders' to refer to straight people, not women specifically. Hoadley attended an event to learn about the impact of crystal meth on the LGBTQ community. CLF's claim implies that Hoadley was interested in experimenting with the illegal substance. Hoadley wrote a poem that contained the line, 'I talk to the latest victim of my sexual conquest,' but his blog post noted his writing was a piece of fiction and that he was not talking about himself. Hoadley relayed a conversation in which his friend said he 'shudders' at the thought of a four year-old being dressed in a thong. Both Hoadley and his friend were expressing their disdain for sexualizing children. CLF's ad contains a small element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this ad Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"101800-proof-21-4a1c58cdde28af05a9b4d1f8d7650f1c.jpg"
]
|
'Hoadley called women 'breeders.'... wanted to learn about crystal meth and wrote that his sexual partners were his victims. Hoadley even wrote about a four year-old wearing a thong. | Contradiction | In a new TV ad, the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC dedicated to securing a Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, attacks Democratic congressional candidate Jon Hoadley. 'Jon Hoadley's judgment is disturbing,' the ad claims. Hoadley currently represents Michigan's 60th District in the state's House of Representatives and he's trying to unseat incumbent Republican Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, who was first elected to Congress in 1986. CLF's ad inaccurately characterizes blog posts Hoadley wrote in 2004 and 2005, over 15 years ago, when he was a college student at Michigan State University. CLF claims that what Hoadley wrote was 'sexist' and 'creepy.' The ad distorts other posts Hoadley wrote, claiming that Hoadley 'wanted to learn about crystal meth' and 'wrote that his sexual partners were his victims.' Hoadley's blog, which has since been deleted, contained some insensitive comments but doesn't substantiate CLF's characterizations. In a statement to the New York Post which published a piece on the blog, Hoadley's campaign said the posts were 'bad college poetry.' In a Facebook video released Aug. 10, Hoadley issued an apology: 'I said things 16 years ago that I would never say today that aren't reflective of who I am, and so for folks that I hurt with my words, I'm sorry.' Hoadley is 37 years-old and the first openly LGBTQ person to run for Congress in Michigan. The LGBTQ Victory Fund, a national organization dedicated to electing LGBTQ candidates, accused CLF of using harmful tropes about gay men. CLF press secretary Will Reinert defended the ad in an email, reiterating its claim that the blog shows lack of judgment. A closer look at each of the ad's claims in context showed that CLF's ad is inaccurate and misleading. 'Hoadley called women 'breeders.' That's sexist.' In a blog entry dated Jun. 20, 2005, when Hoadley was 21 years-old and had just completed his junior year in college, Hoadley recapped a weekend in D.C., including going out to straight bars with two friends. 'Glad I went...but my straight fix has been satisfied for a while. I'm not going to lie: breeder=weird/bad dancers. Disagree if you want-you're just deluding yourself,' Hoadley wrote. According to Urban Dictionary, a 'breeder' is a derogatory term to describe straight people. The term can refer to either straight men or straight women. The term is contemptuous, but it's not sexist and Hoadley wasn't using it to describe straight women exclusively. 'He wanted to learn about crystal meth' This needs context. In a blog entry dated May 23, 2005 Hoadley wrote, 'Tonight I went to an event at a leather bar. By myself. To learn about crystal meth. Don't do meth.' Hoadley told an LGBTQ news website that the event was an information meeting about meth's impact on the LGBTQ community. He 'wrote that his sexual partners were his victims' This is misleading. Before sharing a poem titled 'Burned By Love' on Jun. 14, 2005, Hoadley told his readers the post was fictional: 'Wrote this awhile ago...looking for some feedback. BTW, sometimes fiction is the best way to tell truth - so don't go getting any ideas about me.' The poem, which appears to be about the search for connection, contains the lines, 'I turn to my little black book that's commonly called a cell phone. My fingers walk as I talk to the latest victim of my sexual conquest.' CLF's claim does not disclose Hoadley's note that this was not about him. 'Hoadley even wrote about a four-year-old wearing a thong' This is inaccurate. In a Aug. 12, 2004 blog post, Hoadley shared what appeared to be a jovial conversation he had with a friend who said that he had a secret desire to be a flower girl. Toward the end of the conversation, Hoadley wrote 'just don't let them make you look too fresh...you know how hoochie they try to make the flower girl,' using a derogatory word to describe a sexually promiscuous woman. Hoadley's friend responded, 'I KNOW! I mean I shudder everytime I see a four year old wearing a thong.' Hoadley did not write about a four-year-old wearing a thong as CLF claims. Nevertheless, CLF called the comment 'creepy' in its ad but both Hoadley and his friend noted their revulsion to sexualizing children. | Our ruling Drawing from posts Hoadley wrote on his college blog, CLF's ad claims, 'Hoadley called women 'breeders.'... wanted to learn about crystal meth and wrote that his sexual partners were his victims. Hoadley even wrote about a four year-old wearing a thong.' Hoadley used the term 'breeders' to refer to straight people, not women specifically. Hoadley attended an event to learn about the impact of crystal meth on the LGBTQ community. CLF's claim implies that Hoadley was interested in experimenting with the illegal substance. Hoadley wrote a poem that contained the line, 'I talk to the latest victim of my sexual conquest,' but his blog post noted his writing was a piece of fiction and that he was not talking about himself. Hoadley relayed a conversation in which his friend said he 'shudders' at the thought of a four year-old being dressed in a thong. Both Hoadley and his friend were expressing their disdain for sexualizing children. CLF's ad contains a small element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this ad Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"101800-proof-21-4a1c58cdde28af05a9b4d1f8d7650f1c.jpg"
]
|
'You must apply to get your second stimulus check! I've already filed for mine and will be receiving $2,000 a month for the rest of the year. | Contradiction | The Federal Emergency Management Agency is not giving essential workers $1,000 and, sorry, you can't sign up to cash in on $2,000 from the federal government every month. A message being shared on Facebook claims otherwise, but as anyone who has been duped by it can tell you: it's a hoax. 'You must apply to get your second stimulus check! I've already filed for mine and will be receiving $2,000 a month for the rest of the year!!!' the post says. 'Everybody's will be different so click the link & sign up.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Because if you click on the link it leads to an image of a gorilla with its middle finger extended. (This is the same gorilla from the FEMA hoax.) Many Americans received a check for $1,200 as part of a stimulus package aimed at helping people and an economy hurt by the coronavirus pandemic. A bill authorizing a second round of stimulus payments passed the U.S. House in May, but the legislation has not cleared the Senate. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire! | We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire! | []
|
'The national coin shortage was done intentionally, the Mint is no longer releasing coins into circulation aka this is the beginning of the end of paper money. | Contradiction | Maybe you've seen signs in retail stores about a coin shortage, which led to a widely shared conspiracy theory on Facebook. 'National Coin Shortage Just Beginning. The national coin shortage was done intentionally, the mint is no longer releasing coins into circulation aka this is the beginning of the end of paper money,' the July 2 post says in part, arguing it's part of a decades-old plan toward enabling a 'soon coming one world government' to track every private transaction. 'First it will be coins, then one dollar bills and in a not so distant future cash will not be accepted at any store.' The post includes what appears to be a photograph of a sign inside of a grocery store that says: 'Our country is experiencing a national coin shortage' and asking customers to use exact change or non-cash forms of payment. Some commenters posted images of what appear to be retail store signs with similar messages. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We found there was a coronavirus-induced shortage of coins, but no evidence of a plan to eradicate pocket change. Many news outlets reported in June that across the country, coins were hard to find. 'Coins have become scarce as virus lockdowns keep people from emptying their coin jars in exchange for paper bills,' the New York Times reported. 'The Latest Pandemic Shortage: Coins Are The New Toilet Paper,' said NPR, describing how banks were running low on nickels, dimes and quarters, in turn leading to shortages at retail outlets. 'With the partial closure of the economy, the flow of coins through the economy has gotten all...it's kind of stopped,' Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell told a House subcommittee. The Fed announced June 11 a 'strategic allocation of coin inventories,' saying: 'The COVID‐19 pandemic has significantly disrupted the supply chain and normal circulation patterns for U.S. coin. In the past few months, coin deposits from depository institutions to the Federal Reserve have declined significantly and the U.S. Mint's production of coin also decreased due to measures put in place to protect its employees.' The Fed also said it would work to 'maximize coin production capacity.' U.S. Mint spokesman Todd Martin told PolitiFact that in the early stages of the coronavirus outbreak, the Mint reduced the number of employees per shift in order to enhance social distancing, leading to a reduction in production of 10% in April and 20% in May. At the same time, reduced sales activity meant retailers were ordering more coins from the Mint because they were receiving fewer of them as people stayed home, he said. Coin production began to ramp up in May with mandatory Saturday overtime, the Mint returned to full production by mid-June, and nearly 1.6 billion coins were produced in June, Martin said. In short, the coin shortage was caused by reduced retail activity and a temporary reduction in production, both due to COVID-19. It was not, as this post suggests, done 'intentionally' as part of a plan to eliminate paper money. The statement contains only an element of truth, so we rate it Mostly False. | In short, the coin shortage was caused by reduced retail activity and a temporary reduction in production, both due to COVID-19. It was not, as this post suggests, done 'intentionally' as part of a plan to eliminate paper money. The statement contains only an element of truth, so we rate it Mostly False. | []
|
George Floyd's death and the ensuing protests were planned to introduce martial law and 'purge' the United States. | Contradiction | George Floyd died on May 25 after a Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee into Floyd's neck. He said he couldn't breathe and cried out for his mother. Nothing supports claims social media users are sharing that say his death was staged by unseen hands to 'purge' the United States. A sprawling June 1 Facebook post skips from Freemasonry to sacrificial death to martial law. It warns of 'the first annual purge' prompted by a government that hired people to riot in the wake of Floyd's death. But in the end it's a conspiracy theory that ignores the social realities of our country. 'George Floyd was a freemason and it's pretty clear what to expect when a person is a freemason,' the post begins. 'Most of the time Freemsons have a certain period of time where they can live they life to the fullest and then will come an act in which they must participate in which could be sacrifice or a faked death for publicity and an evil agenda to be fulfill WAKE UP everything you see is not REAL! STOP PROTESTING you are feeding into their agendas Martial Law, The first annual purge, A second Wave and even more DEADLY wave of covid 19 the list goes on WAKE UP Do you really think the elites can't hire people to start riots to initiate the rituals that must take place? WAKE UP Also The government has put hired people to start riots and do these crazy things they had given them the power to basically purge knowing that others will tag along immediately God Bless.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We didn't find anything online corroborating the claim that Floyd was a Freemason. But even if he was, the claim that his death is a false flag is completely unfounded. As we've previously reported, conspiracy theories that claim major news events - Floyd's death and mass shootings among them - were staged are common. Freemasonry is the world's oldest and largest fraternity, according to CBS News, and to join, men can petition a local lodge. It started in medieval Europe as a guild for stonemasons and evolved into a social organization. The 'essential qualification for admission' is 'a belief in a Supreme being,' the Minnesota Freemasons say, and membership is open to all races and religious beliefs. Here's what the group has to say about secrecy: 'The secrets of Freemasonry are concerned with its traditional modes of recognition. It is not a secret society, since all members are free to acknowledge their membership and will do so in response to inquiries for respectable reasons. Its constitutions and rules are available to the public. There is no secret about its aims and principles.' We reached out to the Minnesota Freemasons. Keith Reierson, the group's grand secretary, told us Floyd wasn't a member of any lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota. But Reierson said 'that doesn't mean he wasn't a Freemason.' Floyd could have been a member at a lodge under a different Minnesota jurisdiction, or he could have been a member in another state and never joined a lodge in Minnesota. Floyd was the latest in a long line of black men who have died in police custody and outrage over his death, and racism in America, have fueled protests across the country in recent days. The FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice are investigating Floyd's death as a possible civil rights violation. The officer who knelt on Floyd's neck was charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
George Floyd's death and the ensuing protests were planned to introduce martial law and 'purge' the United States. | Contradiction | George Floyd died on May 25 after a Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee into Floyd's neck. He said he couldn't breathe and cried out for his mother. Nothing supports claims social media users are sharing that say his death was staged by unseen hands to 'purge' the United States. A sprawling June 1 Facebook post skips from Freemasonry to sacrificial death to martial law. It warns of 'the first annual purge' prompted by a government that hired people to riot in the wake of Floyd's death. But in the end it's a conspiracy theory that ignores the social realities of our country. 'George Floyd was a freemason and it's pretty clear what to expect when a person is a freemason,' the post begins. 'Most of the time Freemsons have a certain period of time where they can live they life to the fullest and then will come an act in which they must participate in which could be sacrifice or a faked death for publicity and an evil agenda to be fulfill WAKE UP everything you see is not REAL! STOP PROTESTING you are feeding into their agendas Martial Law, The first annual purge, A second Wave and even more DEADLY wave of covid 19 the list goes on WAKE UP Do you really think the elites can't hire people to start riots to initiate the rituals that must take place? WAKE UP Also The government has put hired people to start riots and do these crazy things they had given them the power to basically purge knowing that others will tag along immediately God Bless.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We didn't find anything online corroborating the claim that Floyd was a Freemason. But even if he was, the claim that his death is a false flag is completely unfounded. As we've previously reported, conspiracy theories that claim major news events - Floyd's death and mass shootings among them - were staged are common. Freemasonry is the world's oldest and largest fraternity, according to CBS News, and to join, men can petition a local lodge. It started in medieval Europe as a guild for stonemasons and evolved into a social organization. The 'essential qualification for admission' is 'a belief in a Supreme being,' the Minnesota Freemasons say, and membership is open to all races and religious beliefs. Here's what the group has to say about secrecy: 'The secrets of Freemasonry are concerned with its traditional modes of recognition. It is not a secret society, since all members are free to acknowledge their membership and will do so in response to inquiries for respectable reasons. Its constitutions and rules are available to the public. There is no secret about its aims and principles.' We reached out to the Minnesota Freemasons. Keith Reierson, the group's grand secretary, told us Floyd wasn't a member of any lodge under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota. But Reierson said 'that doesn't mean he wasn't a Freemason.' Floyd could have been a member at a lodge under a different Minnesota jurisdiction, or he could have been a member in another state and never joined a lodge in Minnesota. Floyd was the latest in a long line of black men who have died in police custody and outrage over his death, and racism in America, have fueled protests across the country in recent days. The FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice are investigating Floyd's death as a possible civil rights violation. The officer who knelt on Floyd's neck was charged with third-degree murder and manslaughter. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
After learning some officers are Jewish, 'Ilhan Omar says police shouldn't exist. | Contradiction | Amid the trial of Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin and fresh allegations of police brutality against people of color, law enforcement in America is again under scrutiny. That perhaps explains why an old Facebook post is gaining traction online. Above a photo of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., the post shows what looks like a headline from March 2019: 'Ilhan Omar says police shouldn't exist after learning some cops are Jewish.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A spokesperson for Omar told PolitiFact that the post is inaccurate. We searched for the headline and found only four related links, including a tweet from an account that has since been suspended. One of the links led us to a blog post detailing a supposed incident involving Omar and a Capitol police officer named J. Bernstein. The post is labeled satire. In June 2020, after the death of George Floyd, Omar called for the Minneapolis Police Department to be disbanded and said it was time to 'reimagine public safety in Minneapolis.' And in early 2019, she faced criticism for what some perceived as anti-Semitic comments. (She apologized for a February tweet.) We couldn't find anything to support the claim made in the Facebook post: that Omar said police shouldn't exist because some officers are Jewish. We rate this post Pants on Fire! CORRECTION AND UPDATE: April 13, 11:50 a.m.: This fact-check was updated to include comment from an Omar representative and to correct the timing of Omar's remarks in 2019. The rating isn't changed. | We rate this post Pants on Fire! CORRECTION AND UPDATE: April 13, 11:50 a.m.: This fact-check was updated to include comment from an Omar representative and to correct the timing of Omar's remarks in 2019. The rating isn't changed. | []
|
In 1986, the founder of the Times Square Church prophesied that he saw 'a plague coming on the world and the bars and church and government will shut down,' with New York City especially hard hit. | Contradiction | A Facebook post from the Jerusalem Prayer Team, an American Christian-Zionist organization says a 1986 prophecy foretold of a plague like COVID-19 hitting New York City. The post says that David Wilkerson, the late founder of the Times Square Church, told Mike Evans, the leading pastor of the Jerusalem Prayer Team, the following: 'I see a plague coming on the world and the bars and church and government will shut down. The plague will hit New York City and shake it like it has never been shaken. The plague is going to force prayerless believers into radical prayer and into their Bibles and repentance will be the cry from the man of God in the pulpit. And out of it will come a third Great Awakening that will sweep America and the world.' There is no evidence that Wilkerson, who died in 2011, actually made this prediction. PolitiFact reached out to the Times Square Church, the non-denominational church that Wilkerson established in 1987, and a spokesperson there said, 'The church is not aware of Pastor David ever writing that in any of his books or sermons.' We did not receive a response to multiple inquiries to the Jerusalem Prayer Team. The Facebook post instructs readers to click on a link, where they can find video, transcript and a prophetic message from Evans as well as the 'entire prophecy from David Wilkerson.' That page then instructs readers to enter their email address to receive a free speech by Evans where he shares Wilkerson's prediction. The speech says Evans met Wilkerson for breakfast in 1986 at an Embassy Suites hotel near the Dallas-Fort Worth airport in Texas. There, according to Evans, Wilkerson predicted a plague so strong that it would shut down restaurants and bars in New York City. Evans writes that Wilkerson pointed him to the Bible's Old Testament Book of Isaiah, where it says that 'every house will be shut up, and no one will be coming or going. The city of confusion is broken down, and every house is shut up that no man may come in.' The book of Isaiah, which Judeo-Christian tradition holds was written by a prophet by the same name, does address a plague that forces people to stay inside and shuts down an economy. But it doesn't explicitly point to the coronavirus hitting New York City. Chapter 24 is believed to describe the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah due to man's inability to follow God's covenant. Evans is promoting his new book, 'A Great Awakening is Coming!' an ad for which appears to have aired on Fox News, and also focuses on this tale of Wilkerson's prophecy. A video posted April 23 on a YouTube account called 'Mike Evans' shows the ad airing during 'Fox and Friends.' As a photograph of Wilkerson appears on screen, a narrator reads the same prophecy that is quoted in the Facebook post. 'Number one New York Times best-selling author Mike Evans has written an astonishing book on it called 'A Great Awakening is Coming!'' it continues. Then it directs viewers to get the book and the full prophecy by going to a website, where they can purchase the book in print, electronic form or in a set with DVDs selling for up to $56.90. Wilkerson's claims have faced scrutiny before. In 2009, Snopes.com debunked the claim that he was sent a message from God warning of the terrorist attacks in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. Wilkerson had claimed to have been awoken from a dream weeks before planes crashed into the Twin Towers and told by God to prepare sandwiches. He claimed that he and other members of the Times Square Church made over 2,000 peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. However, there was no evidence that the sandwiches were actually made prior to the attacks; they were actually made during the day on Sept. 11, after planes had already crashed into the Twin Towers. | Our ruling A Facebook post from the Jerusalem Prayer team says Wilkerson warned Evans of a plague striking New York City, shutting down bars and restaurants and forcing people to shelter in their homes. There is no evidence that Wilkerson said this, and his own church denies any instance of him saying this in a book or sermon. We rate the statement False. | []
|
'So California is requiring signature verification for Gavin Newsom's recall, but didn't require it for the mail in ballots. | Contradiction | After Republicans seeking to recall California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said they had reached the number of signatures necessary to trigger a special election, one conservative influencer falsely claimed that the organizers have faced hurdles that voters in November's election did not. 'So California is requiring signature verification for Gavin Newsom's recall, but didn't require it for the mail in ballots. How strange,' said actor Kevin Sorbo, who starred as 'Hercules' in a TV series about the mythological hero, in a tweet sent to hundreds of thousands of followers. A screenshot of Kevin Sorbo's tweet making false claims about California's election laws. In fact, California did require signature verification for mail-in ballots for the 2020 election, as PolitiFact reported in the months leading up to Election Day. Several election officials, experts, journalists and fact-checkers debunked Sorbo's Feb. 15 tweet soon after it was posted. But the tweet still circulated widely, picking up thousands of retweets and likes. It was further amplified on the platform by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. The claim was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A screenshot of Rudy Giuliani's Instagram post sharing Kevin Sorbo's false claims about California's election laws. In addition, Buzz Patterson, a Republican who ran unsuccessfully last year for Congress in California's 7th Congressional District in the Sacramento area, made a similar false claim that vote-by-mail signatures were not verified during last year's general election. Sorbo has previously pushed false information from his social media accounts, including the baseless claim that antifa was behind the U.S. Capitol riot. Facebook removed his page Feb. 12 for sharing debunked claims about the coronavirus or vaccines, a company spokesperson said. This time, PolitiFact decided to step in with the facts. (Sorbo did not respond to a request for comment submitted through his website.) California has signature verification for mail-in votes and recalls Election officials rejected Sorbo's claim. 'Sorbo's tweet is not true,' Sam Mahood, a spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office wrote in an email, citing the office's own fact check on this topic. 'That tweet was totally inaccurate,' added Amber McReynolds, a national expert on election administration and Denver's former elections director. For a vote-by-mail ballot to count in California, the voter must sign the outside of their ballot's envelope before they return it. California election law then requires officials in all 58 counties to verify the signatures on the envelope using the voter's signature on file, which is the one provided when a person registers to vote. The same law requires officials to cross-check recall petition signatures with the signature on a voter registration record. FACT: CA county elections officials verify the signatures on EVERY ✅vote-by-mail ballot ✅initiative, referendum, or recall petition ✅candidate nomination document. *Source:https://t.co/Laj17g6qk0 pic.twitter.com/RNtbU6FOM8- CA SOS Vote (@CASOSvote) February 15, 2021 The method used to verify signatures for vote-by-mail ballots is different county-by-county. Some use software while others use county staff to examine signatures one at a time, Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, told PolitiFact California last year. Thousands of vote-by-mail ballot signatures are rejected every election when officials determine they don't match with the signature on file. Nearly 50,000 were rejected last November, added Alexander, describing the rejections as 'clear evidence that there is a signature check requirement.' A law signed in 2018 requires election officials to notify voters at least eight days before the certification of the election when they reject a signature and give them a chance to provide a valid one. Signatures collected for petitions, like the effort to recall Newsom,are also verified at the county level. Mahood said the process should 'generally be the same' as the process for verifying signatures on ballots, save for the fact that petitions carry multiple signatures, not one. Supporters of the recall have criticized Newsom for what they describe as draconian stay-at-home orders during the coronavirus pandemic, as well as for the state employment department's failure to quickly issue jobless benefits over the past year as hundreds of thousands of people lost jobs during the shutdowns. In recent weeks, the governor has faced criticism for the state's slow roll-out of COVID-19 vaccinations. | Our ruling Sorbo said, 'So California is requiring signature verification for Gavin Newsom's recall, but didn't require it for the mail in ballots.' On the contrary, California did require signature verification for mail-in ballots during the 2020 election. Officials in all 58 of the state's counties were required by law to check the signature on each voter's ballot envelope against the signature from that person's voter registration. We rate this statement Pants on Fire! | [
"101868-proof-03-3e1f43c470aa642a1c6a118d064a1e83.jpg"
]
|
'So California is requiring signature verification for Gavin Newsom's recall, but didn't require it for the mail in ballots. | Contradiction | After Republicans seeking to recall California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said they had reached the number of signatures necessary to trigger a special election, one conservative influencer falsely claimed that the organizers have faced hurdles that voters in November's election did not. 'So California is requiring signature verification for Gavin Newsom's recall, but didn't require it for the mail in ballots. How strange,' said actor Kevin Sorbo, who starred as 'Hercules' in a TV series about the mythological hero, in a tweet sent to hundreds of thousands of followers. A screenshot of Kevin Sorbo's tweet making false claims about California's election laws. In fact, California did require signature verification for mail-in ballots for the 2020 election, as PolitiFact reported in the months leading up to Election Day. Several election officials, experts, journalists and fact-checkers debunked Sorbo's Feb. 15 tweet soon after it was posted. But the tweet still circulated widely, picking up thousands of retweets and likes. It was further amplified on the platform by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani. The claim was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A screenshot of Rudy Giuliani's Instagram post sharing Kevin Sorbo's false claims about California's election laws. In addition, Buzz Patterson, a Republican who ran unsuccessfully last year for Congress in California's 7th Congressional District in the Sacramento area, made a similar false claim that vote-by-mail signatures were not verified during last year's general election. Sorbo has previously pushed false information from his social media accounts, including the baseless claim that antifa was behind the U.S. Capitol riot. Facebook removed his page Feb. 12 for sharing debunked claims about the coronavirus or vaccines, a company spokesperson said. This time, PolitiFact decided to step in with the facts. (Sorbo did not respond to a request for comment submitted through his website.) California has signature verification for mail-in votes and recalls Election officials rejected Sorbo's claim. 'Sorbo's tweet is not true,' Sam Mahood, a spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office wrote in an email, citing the office's own fact check on this topic. 'That tweet was totally inaccurate,' added Amber McReynolds, a national expert on election administration and Denver's former elections director. For a vote-by-mail ballot to count in California, the voter must sign the outside of their ballot's envelope before they return it. California election law then requires officials in all 58 counties to verify the signatures on the envelope using the voter's signature on file, which is the one provided when a person registers to vote. The same law requires officials to cross-check recall petition signatures with the signature on a voter registration record. FACT: CA county elections officials verify the signatures on EVERY ✅vote-by-mail ballot ✅initiative, referendum, or recall petition ✅candidate nomination document. *Source:https://t.co/Laj17g6qk0 pic.twitter.com/RNtbU6FOM8- CA SOS Vote (@CASOSvote) February 15, 2021 The method used to verify signatures for vote-by-mail ballots is different county-by-county. Some use software while others use county staff to examine signatures one at a time, Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, told PolitiFact California last year. Thousands of vote-by-mail ballot signatures are rejected every election when officials determine they don't match with the signature on file. Nearly 50,000 were rejected last November, added Alexander, describing the rejections as 'clear evidence that there is a signature check requirement.' A law signed in 2018 requires election officials to notify voters at least eight days before the certification of the election when they reject a signature and give them a chance to provide a valid one. Signatures collected for petitions, like the effort to recall Newsom,are also verified at the county level. Mahood said the process should 'generally be the same' as the process for verifying signatures on ballots, save for the fact that petitions carry multiple signatures, not one. Supporters of the recall have criticized Newsom for what they describe as draconian stay-at-home orders during the coronavirus pandemic, as well as for the state employment department's failure to quickly issue jobless benefits over the past year as hundreds of thousands of people lost jobs during the shutdowns. In recent weeks, the governor has faced criticism for the state's slow roll-out of COVID-19 vaccinations. | Our ruling Sorbo said, 'So California is requiring signature verification for Gavin Newsom's recall, but didn't require it for the mail in ballots.' On the contrary, California did require signature verification for mail-in ballots during the 2020 election. Officials in all 58 of the state's counties were required by law to check the signature on each voter's ballot envelope against the signature from that person's voter registration. We rate this statement Pants on Fire! | [
"101868-proof-03-3e1f43c470aa642a1c6a118d064a1e83.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden is on video 'admitting to' election fraud in a 'confession. | Contradiction | As the House weighs a second impeachment of President Donald Trump following the U.S. Capitol mob attack, Newsmax TV host Greg Kelly argued against removing Trump from office and called for the impeachment of someone else: President-elect Joe Biden. Kelly's justification for impeaching Biden, who takes office Jan. 20, involves a video that the Newsmax TV host presented out of context. 'You know, if I were in Congress, I would launch an impeachment effort against Joe Biden for election fraud in 2020, and I would call him as a witness,' Kelly said in the Jan. 11 segment. 'I already found this. It's a very interesting clip that I found in a dark corner of the internet.' Kelly played a short clip of Biden's Oct. 24 interview on 'Pod Save America,'' a liberal podcast. It showed Biden saying: 'We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization.' 'I think that was a confession,' Kelly said, laughing. 'Could you do anything with that? How would you defend about that? There are credible allegations of voter fraud. He's admitting to it. What would you say? 'Oh, well that was a brain lapse.' Or was that a Freudian slip?' The clip that Kelly played on air, however, was not a 'confession' of Biden 'admitting to' voter fraud. It was shown out of context, much like a similar clip that White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany shared on Twitter months earlier. PolitiFact rated McEnany's claim that Biden admitted to voter fraud False. Kelly's claim is similarly inaccurate. Newsmax declined to comment. The full-length interview shows that Biden was responding to a question from host Dan Pfeiffer, a former staffer of President Barack Obama. Pfeiffer asked what Biden would say to people who had not yet voted or did not have a plan to vote. Biden's answer was long and winding. (The full transcript is here.) While Biden used the words 'voter fraud organization,' he was describing a project to help people learn where and how to vote legally. The full context makes it clear that Biden was not encouraging widespread voter fraud or claiming that Democrats were guilty of it. 'It can get complicated,' Biden said of voting. 'Because the Republicans are doing everything they can to make it harder for people to vote, particularly people of color to vote.' 'We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,' he continued, referencing the system Democrats had in place for people that ran into trouble casting their ballot because of long lines or other problems. He described the system, telling listeners a number they could call for help and information 'if, in fact, you have any problem.' 'We have over a thousand lawyers, over a thousand of them answering the phone,' he said. 'If you think there's any challenge to your voting, go to 833-DEM-VOTE. Dial those letters on your phone. That will get you the assistance that we have already put in place.' Biden's campaign clarified his remarks by saying Biden had the 'most robust and sophisticated team in presidential campaign history to confront voter suppression.' Biden had talked about the same voter protection effort during a speech in August and an interview in September. Despite Kelly's mention of 'credible allegations,' there remains no evidence that widespread voter fraud affected the election, which Biden won. Dozens of judges in courtrooms across the country rejected the legal challenges brought by Trump and his allies. | Our ruling Kelly said that Biden is on video 'admitting to' election fraud in a 'confession.' That's wrong. The full-context video shows Biden was describing an effort to prevent voter suppression and help people vote when he misspoke. We rate Kelly's statement False. | [
"101870-proof-26-b5cf8bcdeab2c49e06bf2d4e76d9a00c.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden is on video 'admitting to' election fraud in a 'confession. | Contradiction | As the House weighs a second impeachment of President Donald Trump following the U.S. Capitol mob attack, Newsmax TV host Greg Kelly argued against removing Trump from office and called for the impeachment of someone else: President-elect Joe Biden. Kelly's justification for impeaching Biden, who takes office Jan. 20, involves a video that the Newsmax TV host presented out of context. 'You know, if I were in Congress, I would launch an impeachment effort against Joe Biden for election fraud in 2020, and I would call him as a witness,' Kelly said in the Jan. 11 segment. 'I already found this. It's a very interesting clip that I found in a dark corner of the internet.' Kelly played a short clip of Biden's Oct. 24 interview on 'Pod Save America,'' a liberal podcast. It showed Biden saying: 'We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization.' 'I think that was a confession,' Kelly said, laughing. 'Could you do anything with that? How would you defend about that? There are credible allegations of voter fraud. He's admitting to it. What would you say? 'Oh, well that was a brain lapse.' Or was that a Freudian slip?' The clip that Kelly played on air, however, was not a 'confession' of Biden 'admitting to' voter fraud. It was shown out of context, much like a similar clip that White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany shared on Twitter months earlier. PolitiFact rated McEnany's claim that Biden admitted to voter fraud False. Kelly's claim is similarly inaccurate. Newsmax declined to comment. The full-length interview shows that Biden was responding to a question from host Dan Pfeiffer, a former staffer of President Barack Obama. Pfeiffer asked what Biden would say to people who had not yet voted or did not have a plan to vote. Biden's answer was long and winding. (The full transcript is here.) While Biden used the words 'voter fraud organization,' he was describing a project to help people learn where and how to vote legally. The full context makes it clear that Biden was not encouraging widespread voter fraud or claiming that Democrats were guilty of it. 'It can get complicated,' Biden said of voting. 'Because the Republicans are doing everything they can to make it harder for people to vote, particularly people of color to vote.' 'We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,' he continued, referencing the system Democrats had in place for people that ran into trouble casting their ballot because of long lines or other problems. He described the system, telling listeners a number they could call for help and information 'if, in fact, you have any problem.' 'We have over a thousand lawyers, over a thousand of them answering the phone,' he said. 'If you think there's any challenge to your voting, go to 833-DEM-VOTE. Dial those letters on your phone. That will get you the assistance that we have already put in place.' Biden's campaign clarified his remarks by saying Biden had the 'most robust and sophisticated team in presidential campaign history to confront voter suppression.' Biden had talked about the same voter protection effort during a speech in August and an interview in September. Despite Kelly's mention of 'credible allegations,' there remains no evidence that widespread voter fraud affected the election, which Biden won. Dozens of judges in courtrooms across the country rejected the legal challenges brought by Trump and his allies. | Our ruling Kelly said that Biden is on video 'admitting to' election fraud in a 'confession.' That's wrong. The full-context video shows Biden was describing an effort to prevent voter suppression and help people vote when he misspoke. We rate Kelly's statement False. | [
"101870-proof-26-b5cf8bcdeab2c49e06bf2d4e76d9a00c.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden is on video 'admitting to' election fraud in a 'confession. | Contradiction | As the House weighs a second impeachment of President Donald Trump following the U.S. Capitol mob attack, Newsmax TV host Greg Kelly argued against removing Trump from office and called for the impeachment of someone else: President-elect Joe Biden. Kelly's justification for impeaching Biden, who takes office Jan. 20, involves a video that the Newsmax TV host presented out of context. 'You know, if I were in Congress, I would launch an impeachment effort against Joe Biden for election fraud in 2020, and I would call him as a witness,' Kelly said in the Jan. 11 segment. 'I already found this. It's a very interesting clip that I found in a dark corner of the internet.' Kelly played a short clip of Biden's Oct. 24 interview on 'Pod Save America,'' a liberal podcast. It showed Biden saying: 'We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization.' 'I think that was a confession,' Kelly said, laughing. 'Could you do anything with that? How would you defend about that? There are credible allegations of voter fraud. He's admitting to it. What would you say? 'Oh, well that was a brain lapse.' Or was that a Freudian slip?' The clip that Kelly played on air, however, was not a 'confession' of Biden 'admitting to' voter fraud. It was shown out of context, much like a similar clip that White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany shared on Twitter months earlier. PolitiFact rated McEnany's claim that Biden admitted to voter fraud False. Kelly's claim is similarly inaccurate. Newsmax declined to comment. The full-length interview shows that Biden was responding to a question from host Dan Pfeiffer, a former staffer of President Barack Obama. Pfeiffer asked what Biden would say to people who had not yet voted or did not have a plan to vote. Biden's answer was long and winding. (The full transcript is here.) While Biden used the words 'voter fraud organization,' he was describing a project to help people learn where and how to vote legally. The full context makes it clear that Biden was not encouraging widespread voter fraud or claiming that Democrats were guilty of it. 'It can get complicated,' Biden said of voting. 'Because the Republicans are doing everything they can to make it harder for people to vote, particularly people of color to vote.' 'We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics,' he continued, referencing the system Democrats had in place for people that ran into trouble casting their ballot because of long lines or other problems. He described the system, telling listeners a number they could call for help and information 'if, in fact, you have any problem.' 'We have over a thousand lawyers, over a thousand of them answering the phone,' he said. 'If you think there's any challenge to your voting, go to 833-DEM-VOTE. Dial those letters on your phone. That will get you the assistance that we have already put in place.' Biden's campaign clarified his remarks by saying Biden had the 'most robust and sophisticated team in presidential campaign history to confront voter suppression.' Biden had talked about the same voter protection effort during a speech in August and an interview in September. Despite Kelly's mention of 'credible allegations,' there remains no evidence that widespread voter fraud affected the election, which Biden won. Dozens of judges in courtrooms across the country rejected the legal challenges brought by Trump and his allies. | Our ruling Kelly said that Biden is on video 'admitting to' election fraud in a 'confession.' That's wrong. The full-context video shows Biden was describing an effort to prevent voter suppression and help people vote when he misspoke. We rate Kelly's statement False. | [
"101870-proof-26-b5cf8bcdeab2c49e06bf2d4e76d9a00c.jpg"
]
|
Police say there is a suspected serial killer in Baton Rouge. | Contradiction | A frightening warning is being shared on social media lately: that a serial killer is at large in Baton Rouge, La. 'Police say he bumps women's cars and then when you pull over pulls a gun and tells you to get in his car. Three women have been found in the Mississippi River. ... The police say if someone bumps your car do NOT pull over instead call the police first.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to the Baton Rouge Police Department about the post and spoke to Sgt. L'Jean McKneely, who told us that officers are not investigating suspected serial killings. 'That's the first I've heard of that,' he said. The department also hasn't received reports of a driver bumping into the back of women's cars, he said. In March, police recovered the body of a woman detectives said they believe was shot to death by her boyfriend. The woman's body was found about 40 miles south of Baton Rouge, and her boyfriend was charged with murder. And in April, authorities found the body of a missing Louisiana State University student in the river. Officials have said no foul play or criminal activity is suspected in her death. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
Police say there is a suspected serial killer in Baton Rouge. | Contradiction | A frightening warning is being shared on social media lately: that a serial killer is at large in Baton Rouge, La. 'Police say he bumps women's cars and then when you pull over pulls a gun and tells you to get in his car. Three women have been found in the Mississippi River. ... The police say if someone bumps your car do NOT pull over instead call the police first.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to the Baton Rouge Police Department about the post and spoke to Sgt. L'Jean McKneely, who told us that officers are not investigating suspected serial killings. 'That's the first I've heard of that,' he said. The department also hasn't received reports of a driver bumping into the back of women's cars, he said. In March, police recovered the body of a woman detectives said they believe was shot to death by her boyfriend. The woman's body was found about 40 miles south of Baton Rouge, and her boyfriend was charged with murder. And in April, authorities found the body of a missing Louisiana State University student in the river. Officials have said no foul play or criminal activity is suspected in her death. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
A serial killer is on the loose in Virginia. | Contradiction | Serial killer warnings are spreading on social media. We've looked into claims that someone is hunting women in Hot Springs, Ark., and Baton Rouge, La. Officials in both places told us it's not true. Now a new allegation is gaining traction, this time in Virginia. 'The word around town is we have a serial killer loose in the 757 Hampton Roads area,' one post said. 'He's targeting women, so please be safe. ... They do believe the two bodies of the young ladies found in Norfolk at the outlet and Ocean View are connected to the same person and an incident a couple months back.' Another post said 'they call him the 757 serial killer,' referring to the area code in the region. These posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We called and emailed the Norfolk Police Department but didn't hear back. However, we couldn't find any evidence that authorities are investigating multiple, linked killings in the area. According to news reports, on April 10, Norfolk police found the body of a missing woman in a retention pond near a Premium Outlets shopping mall. But they said no foul play is suspected in the woman's death. Searching for the woman's name online and on social media, we didn't find anything suggesting she was murdered. Two days later, Norfolk police announced they were investigating a possible drowning after a woman's body was recovered from the water at Ocean View beach on April 12. Authorities have not released the woman's name, but a police spokesperson said no foul play is suspected. In November 2020, police recovered a woman's body from the water near the Willoughby Boat Ramp and then said that while the woman's death was being investigated as undetermined, there were no signs of foul play. Online and social media searches turned up nothing indicating she was murdered. We rate claims that a serial killer is preying on women in the Norfolk, Va., area False. | We rate claims that a serial killer is preying on women in the Norfolk, Va., area False. | []
|
President Joe Biden cut '$30 billion to Black colleges and universities. | Contradiction | Amid tense federal budget negotiations among Democrats, social media posts made a false claim that President Joe Biden cut funding for historically Black colleges and universities by $30 billion. 'Biden Breaks Promise, Cuts $30B to Black Colleges & Universities,' read the headline on a video that is shared to an Instagram post. Another Instagram post also made the $30 billion claim about what are known as HBCUs. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It's not clear how the claim arrives at $30 billion, but the suggestion that the HBCUs are receiving funding cuts is wrong. 'It's a lie,' tweeted Walter Kimbrough, president of Dillard University in New Orleans, an HBCU. Biden proposed a $3.5 trillion spending plan, sometimes referred to as the budget reconciliation bill, now being debated by Democrats in Congress. It included $45 billion in new funding for HCBUs and other minority-serving institutions to update their research programs, create incubators to help students innovate and help traditionally underserved populations. The Associated Press reported on Oct. 5 that the latest iteration of the reconciliation bill includes only $2 billion that can go toward educational programs and infrastructure for Black colleges, and even that amount would be reduced to competitive grant funding rather than direct allocations. No final decisions have been made on the bill, but as it stands, HBCUs stand to gain funding, not experience a cut, said Kevin Miller, associate director for higher education at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'It is not a cut. It will be an increase of $2 billion instead of $45 billion,' said Harry Williams, president & CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, which advocates for HBCUs. 'It's not a cut, because you can't cut what we've never had.' He also noted that it remains unclear whether the $2 billion, if that ultimately is what is approved, will be set aside for HBCUs, or shared among HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions. Responsibility for how much HBCUs ultimately get rests with Democrats in the Congress, which must agree on a final bill, although Biden would have to sign it into law. 'President proposes, Congress disposes,' said G. William Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center. We rate the post False. | We rate the post False. | [
"101895-proof-00-ffdcccce5eeaefcadac2d7931ef19ed7.jpg"
]
|
President Joe Biden cut '$30 billion to Black colleges and universities. | Contradiction | Amid tense federal budget negotiations among Democrats, social media posts made a false claim that President Joe Biden cut funding for historically Black colleges and universities by $30 billion. 'Biden Breaks Promise, Cuts $30B to Black Colleges & Universities,' read the headline on a video that is shared to an Instagram post. Another Instagram post also made the $30 billion claim about what are known as HBCUs. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It's not clear how the claim arrives at $30 billion, but the suggestion that the HBCUs are receiving funding cuts is wrong. 'It's a lie,' tweeted Walter Kimbrough, president of Dillard University in New Orleans, an HBCU. Biden proposed a $3.5 trillion spending plan, sometimes referred to as the budget reconciliation bill, now being debated by Democrats in Congress. It included $45 billion in new funding for HCBUs and other minority-serving institutions to update their research programs, create incubators to help students innovate and help traditionally underserved populations. The Associated Press reported on Oct. 5 that the latest iteration of the reconciliation bill includes only $2 billion that can go toward educational programs and infrastructure for Black colleges, and even that amount would be reduced to competitive grant funding rather than direct allocations. No final decisions have been made on the bill, but as it stands, HBCUs stand to gain funding, not experience a cut, said Kevin Miller, associate director for higher education at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'It is not a cut. It will be an increase of $2 billion instead of $45 billion,' said Harry Williams, president & CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, which advocates for HBCUs. 'It's not a cut, because you can't cut what we've never had.' He also noted that it remains unclear whether the $2 billion, if that ultimately is what is approved, will be set aside for HBCUs, or shared among HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions. Responsibility for how much HBCUs ultimately get rests with Democrats in the Congress, which must agree on a final bill, although Biden would have to sign it into law. 'President proposes, Congress disposes,' said G. William Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center. We rate the post False. | We rate the post False. | [
"101895-proof-00-ffdcccce5eeaefcadac2d7931ef19ed7.jpg"
]
|
'Halyna Huchins' next project was documentary on Hollywood pedophile rings. | Contradiction | Conspiracy theories about the death of Halyna Hutchins, the director of photography killed on the set of the movie 'Rust' after actor Alec Baldwin fired a prop gun, are emerging online and raising the specter that she was murdered for political reasons. We've already debunked a claim that she was killed after tweeting that she had information that would lead to the arrest of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Now, what looks like a news headline draws the cinematographer into the QAnon conspiracy theory, which maintains that powerful Democratic politicians and celebrities run a child-sex trafficking cabal. 'Halyna Hutchins' next project was documentary on pedophile rings,' the headline says. Below a date of Oct. 24, the post says: 'The director of photography killed by Alec Baldwin was attached to the controversial upcoming documentary about alleged pedophile rings in the entertainment industry.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Craig Mizrahi, Hutchins' feature and television agent, told us this post is wrong. 'Halyna was not working on, associated with or contacted by any upcoming documentaries,' Mizrahi said. 'Her only proposed projects were traditional narrative films.' We searched the headline in the post and found it originated on a website called worldgreynews.com. There is no more information there than what appears in the post until you click on the site's 'About' page. 'Prank news website,' it says. 'Purpose of this website is fun. It should be used for joking with your friends.' We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"101923-proof-24-a16d50a6abd791a2bb6e525c57d37681.jpeg"
]
|
'Halyna Huchins' next project was documentary on Hollywood pedophile rings. | Contradiction | Conspiracy theories about the death of Halyna Hutchins, the director of photography killed on the set of the movie 'Rust' after actor Alec Baldwin fired a prop gun, are emerging online and raising the specter that she was murdered for political reasons. We've already debunked a claim that she was killed after tweeting that she had information that would lead to the arrest of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Now, what looks like a news headline draws the cinematographer into the QAnon conspiracy theory, which maintains that powerful Democratic politicians and celebrities run a child-sex trafficking cabal. 'Halyna Hutchins' next project was documentary on pedophile rings,' the headline says. Below a date of Oct. 24, the post says: 'The director of photography killed by Alec Baldwin was attached to the controversial upcoming documentary about alleged pedophile rings in the entertainment industry.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Craig Mizrahi, Hutchins' feature and television agent, told us this post is wrong. 'Halyna was not working on, associated with or contacted by any upcoming documentaries,' Mizrahi said. 'Her only proposed projects were traditional narrative films.' We searched the headline in the post and found it originated on a website called worldgreynews.com. There is no more information there than what appears in the post until you click on the site's 'About' page. 'Prank news website,' it says. 'Purpose of this website is fun. It should be used for joking with your friends.' We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"101923-proof-24-a16d50a6abd791a2bb6e525c57d37681.jpeg"
]
|
'Antifa gearing up for false flag violence disguised as Trump-supporters. | Contradiction | Across the country businesses have boarded up to protect against possible Election Day violence but a recent blog post suggesting that antifa activists will dress up like supporters of President Donald Trump and commit violence relies on an old, fake flyer with a debunked claim. 'Antifa gearing up for false flag violence disguised as Trump-supporters,' reads the headline on the Nov. 3 post. The story claims that 'the progressive activists' plan to riot while disguised as Trump supporters 'in order to make the case that Donald Trump truly is a dictator that must be violently overthrown if he wins or arrested and prosecuted if he loses.' It says that 'a source that has always been reliable was able to photograph an Antifa flyer.' And an accompanying image of the supposed flyer reads: 'Election Day nears Comrades!!! Prepare to defend your rights!!' It reminds 'Antifa Comrades' to disguise themselves as 'patriots/Trump supporters' on Nov. 4 by wearing 'MAGA hats, USA flags, 3%er insignias' or 'a convincing police uniform.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) First, antifa stands for 'anti-fascist' and refers to a broad, loose coalition of left-wing activists who protest white supremacy and other far-right causes. Sometimes antifa activists are violent but experts say most of the activity that happens under the antifa banner is nonviolent. The image of the flyer has been online since at least 2017, when online rumors claimed that antifa activists were planning a revolution that would begin on Nov. 4. It started to spread on social media after it appeared in a Facebook group called 'Hickman County Antifa.' The user who originally posted it there, Katy Krasnow, has told fact-checkers that she shared it as a joke. 'Hickman County Antifa was a satire page,' she told Snopes. 'I deleted soon after it got shared because it made a lot of people freak out more than I expected. Nobody in the group was really actually connected. We were just sharing dumb antifa memes.' In 2017, Will Sommer, a Daily Beast politics reporter who covers conservative media, described the flyer in a Medium post as one of several 'fabricated 'planning documents' that urge antifa guerillas to commit violence while posing as police or Trump supporters.' In June, a Twitter account - @ANTIFA_US - appeared to call for violence, rallying 'comrades' to move into residential areas and 'take what's ours.' But the account wasn't actually affiliated with antifa activists; it was created by a known white supremacist group. And on Sept. 4, Law Enforcement Today, which 'unapologetically supports those who hold the Thin Blue Line,' published a story about the flyer being shared on Facebook. 'While I personally loathe the likes of Antifa and their tactics,' the author wrote, 'I can assure you that this is simply a hoax.' We rate this blog post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this blog post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Says CEOs got advance notice of COVID, then resigned to dump stock. | Contradiction | In late March, several senators faced angry questions about stock sales they made in the days following an intelligence briefing on the coronavirus, and before spreading panic over the virus pummeled U.S. markets. Now there are suspicions online that certain powerful people were tipped off to the threat of the coronavirus in time to protect their finances. One Facebook post claims that after being tipped off by government officials, the chief executive officers of more than 14 major companies resigned in order to be able to sell stocks they owned. Here's the post: The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Among those listed, we did find two examples of departing CEOs selling company stock, but that was after the outbreak was publicly known, and both were still with their companies. There's no evidence of any coordinated effort by government officials to give 14 CEOs advance information about the coronavirus that they could use for personal profit. Reasons for resignations unclear CEOs can depart for any number of reasons, including normal succession planning, or moves by the board to shake up leadership. CEOs and companies don't always go public with all the reasons behind such departures. 'Just like politicians leaving to spend more time with their families, CEOs' actual reasons for departure are rarely described accurately,' corporate-governance expert Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, told PolitiFact. A public company is required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to explain a CEO's departure only if the CEO resigned because of a disagreement with the company over operations, policies or practices, or if the CEO was removed for cause, said Douglas Chia, president of Soundboard Governance, a corporate governance consulting firm, and a fellow at Rutgers University's Center for Corporate Law and Governance. Such rules are in place to protect investors' rights. To deter insider trading, CEOs, other senior executives and board members are generally restricted from trading in their own company's stock, except during designated trading windows, Chia said. Those windows usually open in the two weeks immediately after the company's quarterly earnings report is released. The trades must be cleared with a company's legal department and reported within two days to the SEC, Chia said. Overview of the 14 companies cited The COVID-19 disease can be traced back to Dec. 31, when the government in Wuhan, China, confirmed that health authorities were treating dozens of cases of pneumonia from an unknown cause. Eight days later, China identified it as a new type of coronavirus. The first coronavirus case in the United States was confirmed on Jan. 21. We found that of the 14 companies listed in the post, only two had corporate CEOs who resigned their posts - and actually left their companies - after the coronavirus surfaced in China. Another two CEOs sold company stock after the outbreak. At the time of the sales, however, the outbreak was already publicly known, and the CEOs hadn't yet left their companies. We found no evidence the CEOs received advance information about the coronavirus or that they left in order to be freed from regulations that restricted their ability to sell stock. The 2 who left their companies Of the corporate CEOs alluded to in the Facebook post, two resigned between Dec. 31, 2019, and March 29, 2020, the date of the post - and left their companies: Harley-Davidson announced Feb. 28 that Matthew Levatich had stepped down as CEO and a director. The company's shares had fallen 46% since he took charge in May 2015. MGM Resorts announced Feb. 12 that Jim Murren had decided not to serve out his contract, which ran through the end of 2021, but that he would stay on until a successor was named. MGM's announcement, the earlier of the two, came two weeks after the Trump administration suspended entry into the United States by any foreign nationals who had traveled to China in the previous 14 days. On Feb. 19 and 20, Murren sold more than $22 million of the company's common stock, at between $32.15 and $32.17 a share, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. The sales were made public to the SEC. About a month later, MGM closed its Las Vegas casinos because of the coronavirus, and Murren acquired 6,000 shares of MGM restricted stock units. On the day Murren's purchase was disclosed, March 18, the stock price had dropped to $7.14. But Murren was still CEO during both sets of stock transactions. He stepped down as CEO on March 22, the same day it was announced he would lead a state coronavirus task force formed by Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak. 5 out as CEO, but still with company Five CEOs stepped down from their positions, but were staying with their companies as executive chairman, a top leadership post that typically involves some day-to-day duties in addition to a seat on the board. Companies often say they want the former CEO to stay for a limited period of time to ensure a smooth transition to the new CEO, Chia said. CEOs who resigned but stayed on as executive chairman were still under restrictions for trading in their company's stock. Walt Disney's Robert Iger stepped down Feb. 25 after a 15-year tenure as CEO, but remained with Disney as executive chairman, the company said in a statement. Lockheed Martin announced March 16 that Marillyn Hewson would be replaced effective June 15, but that she would remain as executive chairman. She sold $9.5 million in Lockheed stock on Jan. 29. IBM on Jan. 30 announced a new CEO to replace Virginia Rometty. But it said Rometty would continue as executive chairman and serve through the end of 2020, when she would retire after almost 40 years with the company. LinkedIn: announced Feb. 5 that Jeffrey Weiner 'decided to take on a new role as executive chairman.' He won't step down as CEO until June 1. Mastercard announced Feb. 25 that Ajay Banga would transition to the position of executive chairman on Jan. 1, 2021, and remain CEO until then. 3 left before the outbreak Three of the CEOs cited on the list left their posts or announced their departures before the coronavirus outbreak surfaced. eBay's Devin Wenig tweeted that his departure was because 'it became clear that I was not on the same page as my new Board.' That was on Sept. 25, more than three months before the first report out of Wuhan. T-Mobile announced Nov. 18, 2019, that John Legere would depart on April 30. Nissan announced Sept. 9 that Hiroto Saikawa had indicated he was willing to resign and the board asked him to resign, effective Sept. 16. His term was marked by controversy over the arrest of former Nissan Chairman Carlos Ghosn, turmoil with partner Renault SA and a sharp falloff in profits, the Wall Street Journal reported. Several others don't fit the Facebook claim In a few cases, the CEO departures were long-planned, or at a subsidiary level, not at the parent company. And one purported CEO resignation wasn't that at all. Nestle CEO Mark Schneider is still in place. The post might have been referring to Fernando Mercé. He resigned Feb. 21 as president and CEO of Nestlé Waters North America, a subsidiary, 'due to personal reasons,' the company told BevNET. Hulu CEO Randy Freer was stepping down, The Wall Street Journal reported Jan. 31, as new owner Walt Disney Co. integrates the streaming service more closely into its direct-to-consumer business. Freer's departure had been expected since Disney took over control of Hulu last May, The Verge reported. Volkswagen said Luca de Meo, the head of the automaker's Spanish brand, SEAT, resigned Jan. 7. He's becoming the new CEO of Renault. But Herbert Diess, CEO of the parent company, has been in place for two years. Microsoft has had the same CEO, Satya Nadella, since 2014. The company announced March 13 that co-founder Bill Gates stepped down from the board to dedicate more time to his philanthropic activities, but would remain as a technology adviser to Nadella and others in the company. Minow said it's good that executives are required to disclose their personal sales of company stock so that their actions can be scrutinized. But she advocates for rules that would prohibit top executives from selling their company stock until three to five years after they've left the company. 'We want them to be thinking long term up until the day they leave,' she said. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that CEOs of 14 large companies received advance information about the coronavirus and then resigned in order to be freed from restrictions on selling stock. Among the companies listed, only two of the CEOs resigned after the coronavirus outbreak and left their companies. One sold a large amount of his company stock after his resignation was announced - but while he was still with the company, and well after the outbreak had made news. We found no evidence of any effort to give advance information to the 14 CEOs so that they use it to profit personally. We rate the claim False. | [
"101948-proof-22-OEJL_kiWcWbhS7aVrzfDKpWBwF1H-N1MN8stJf1o1j1K1fPBGMOa1wkv-dc60OEYktyioNw-Rcf_J0iF.jpg"
]
|
Says CEOs got advance notice of COVID, then resigned to dump stock. | Contradiction | In late March, several senators faced angry questions about stock sales they made in the days following an intelligence briefing on the coronavirus, and before spreading panic over the virus pummeled U.S. markets. Now there are suspicions online that certain powerful people were tipped off to the threat of the coronavirus in time to protect their finances. One Facebook post claims that after being tipped off by government officials, the chief executive officers of more than 14 major companies resigned in order to be able to sell stocks they owned. Here's the post: The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Among those listed, we did find two examples of departing CEOs selling company stock, but that was after the outbreak was publicly known, and both were still with their companies. There's no evidence of any coordinated effort by government officials to give 14 CEOs advance information about the coronavirus that they could use for personal profit. Reasons for resignations unclear CEOs can depart for any number of reasons, including normal succession planning, or moves by the board to shake up leadership. CEOs and companies don't always go public with all the reasons behind such departures. 'Just like politicians leaving to spend more time with their families, CEOs' actual reasons for departure are rarely described accurately,' corporate-governance expert Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, told PolitiFact. A public company is required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to explain a CEO's departure only if the CEO resigned because of a disagreement with the company over operations, policies or practices, or if the CEO was removed for cause, said Douglas Chia, president of Soundboard Governance, a corporate governance consulting firm, and a fellow at Rutgers University's Center for Corporate Law and Governance. Such rules are in place to protect investors' rights. To deter insider trading, CEOs, other senior executives and board members are generally restricted from trading in their own company's stock, except during designated trading windows, Chia said. Those windows usually open in the two weeks immediately after the company's quarterly earnings report is released. The trades must be cleared with a company's legal department and reported within two days to the SEC, Chia said. Overview of the 14 companies cited The COVID-19 disease can be traced back to Dec. 31, when the government in Wuhan, China, confirmed that health authorities were treating dozens of cases of pneumonia from an unknown cause. Eight days later, China identified it as a new type of coronavirus. The first coronavirus case in the United States was confirmed on Jan. 21. We found that of the 14 companies listed in the post, only two had corporate CEOs who resigned their posts - and actually left their companies - after the coronavirus surfaced in China. Another two CEOs sold company stock after the outbreak. At the time of the sales, however, the outbreak was already publicly known, and the CEOs hadn't yet left their companies. We found no evidence the CEOs received advance information about the coronavirus or that they left in order to be freed from regulations that restricted their ability to sell stock. The 2 who left their companies Of the corporate CEOs alluded to in the Facebook post, two resigned between Dec. 31, 2019, and March 29, 2020, the date of the post - and left their companies: Harley-Davidson announced Feb. 28 that Matthew Levatich had stepped down as CEO and a director. The company's shares had fallen 46% since he took charge in May 2015. MGM Resorts announced Feb. 12 that Jim Murren had decided not to serve out his contract, which ran through the end of 2021, but that he would stay on until a successor was named. MGM's announcement, the earlier of the two, came two weeks after the Trump administration suspended entry into the United States by any foreign nationals who had traveled to China in the previous 14 days. On Feb. 19 and 20, Murren sold more than $22 million of the company's common stock, at between $32.15 and $32.17 a share, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. The sales were made public to the SEC. About a month later, MGM closed its Las Vegas casinos because of the coronavirus, and Murren acquired 6,000 shares of MGM restricted stock units. On the day Murren's purchase was disclosed, March 18, the stock price had dropped to $7.14. But Murren was still CEO during both sets of stock transactions. He stepped down as CEO on March 22, the same day it was announced he would lead a state coronavirus task force formed by Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak. 5 out as CEO, but still with company Five CEOs stepped down from their positions, but were staying with their companies as executive chairman, a top leadership post that typically involves some day-to-day duties in addition to a seat on the board. Companies often say they want the former CEO to stay for a limited period of time to ensure a smooth transition to the new CEO, Chia said. CEOs who resigned but stayed on as executive chairman were still under restrictions for trading in their company's stock. Walt Disney's Robert Iger stepped down Feb. 25 after a 15-year tenure as CEO, but remained with Disney as executive chairman, the company said in a statement. Lockheed Martin announced March 16 that Marillyn Hewson would be replaced effective June 15, but that she would remain as executive chairman. She sold $9.5 million in Lockheed stock on Jan. 29. IBM on Jan. 30 announced a new CEO to replace Virginia Rometty. But it said Rometty would continue as executive chairman and serve through the end of 2020, when she would retire after almost 40 years with the company. LinkedIn: announced Feb. 5 that Jeffrey Weiner 'decided to take on a new role as executive chairman.' He won't step down as CEO until June 1. Mastercard announced Feb. 25 that Ajay Banga would transition to the position of executive chairman on Jan. 1, 2021, and remain CEO until then. 3 left before the outbreak Three of the CEOs cited on the list left their posts or announced their departures before the coronavirus outbreak surfaced. eBay's Devin Wenig tweeted that his departure was because 'it became clear that I was not on the same page as my new Board.' That was on Sept. 25, more than three months before the first report out of Wuhan. T-Mobile announced Nov. 18, 2019, that John Legere would depart on April 30. Nissan announced Sept. 9 that Hiroto Saikawa had indicated he was willing to resign and the board asked him to resign, effective Sept. 16. His term was marked by controversy over the arrest of former Nissan Chairman Carlos Ghosn, turmoil with partner Renault SA and a sharp falloff in profits, the Wall Street Journal reported. Several others don't fit the Facebook claim In a few cases, the CEO departures were long-planned, or at a subsidiary level, not at the parent company. And one purported CEO resignation wasn't that at all. Nestle CEO Mark Schneider is still in place. The post might have been referring to Fernando Mercé. He resigned Feb. 21 as president and CEO of Nestlé Waters North America, a subsidiary, 'due to personal reasons,' the company told BevNET. Hulu CEO Randy Freer was stepping down, The Wall Street Journal reported Jan. 31, as new owner Walt Disney Co. integrates the streaming service more closely into its direct-to-consumer business. Freer's departure had been expected since Disney took over control of Hulu last May, The Verge reported. Volkswagen said Luca de Meo, the head of the automaker's Spanish brand, SEAT, resigned Jan. 7. He's becoming the new CEO of Renault. But Herbert Diess, CEO of the parent company, has been in place for two years. Microsoft has had the same CEO, Satya Nadella, since 2014. The company announced March 13 that co-founder Bill Gates stepped down from the board to dedicate more time to his philanthropic activities, but would remain as a technology adviser to Nadella and others in the company. Minow said it's good that executives are required to disclose their personal sales of company stock so that their actions can be scrutinized. But she advocates for rules that would prohibit top executives from selling their company stock until three to five years after they've left the company. 'We want them to be thinking long term up until the day they leave,' she said. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that CEOs of 14 large companies received advance information about the coronavirus and then resigned in order to be freed from restrictions on selling stock. Among the companies listed, only two of the CEOs resigned after the coronavirus outbreak and left their companies. One sold a large amount of his company stock after his resignation was announced - but while he was still with the company, and well after the outbreak had made news. We found no evidence of any effort to give advance information to the 14 CEOs so that they use it to profit personally. We rate the claim False. | [
"101948-proof-22-OEJL_kiWcWbhS7aVrzfDKpWBwF1H-N1MN8stJf1o1j1K1fPBGMOa1wkv-dc60OEYktyioNw-Rcf_J0iF.jpg"
]
|
Says CEOs got advance notice of COVID, then resigned to dump stock. | Contradiction | In late March, several senators faced angry questions about stock sales they made in the days following an intelligence briefing on the coronavirus, and before spreading panic over the virus pummeled U.S. markets. Now there are suspicions online that certain powerful people were tipped off to the threat of the coronavirus in time to protect their finances. One Facebook post claims that after being tipped off by government officials, the chief executive officers of more than 14 major companies resigned in order to be able to sell stocks they owned. Here's the post: The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Among those listed, we did find two examples of departing CEOs selling company stock, but that was after the outbreak was publicly known, and both were still with their companies. There's no evidence of any coordinated effort by government officials to give 14 CEOs advance information about the coronavirus that they could use for personal profit. Reasons for resignations unclear CEOs can depart for any number of reasons, including normal succession planning, or moves by the board to shake up leadership. CEOs and companies don't always go public with all the reasons behind such departures. 'Just like politicians leaving to spend more time with their families, CEOs' actual reasons for departure are rarely described accurately,' corporate-governance expert Nell Minow, vice chair of ValueEdge Advisors, told PolitiFact. A public company is required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to explain a CEO's departure only if the CEO resigned because of a disagreement with the company over operations, policies or practices, or if the CEO was removed for cause, said Douglas Chia, president of Soundboard Governance, a corporate governance consulting firm, and a fellow at Rutgers University's Center for Corporate Law and Governance. Such rules are in place to protect investors' rights. To deter insider trading, CEOs, other senior executives and board members are generally restricted from trading in their own company's stock, except during designated trading windows, Chia said. Those windows usually open in the two weeks immediately after the company's quarterly earnings report is released. The trades must be cleared with a company's legal department and reported within two days to the SEC, Chia said. Overview of the 14 companies cited The COVID-19 disease can be traced back to Dec. 31, when the government in Wuhan, China, confirmed that health authorities were treating dozens of cases of pneumonia from an unknown cause. Eight days later, China identified it as a new type of coronavirus. The first coronavirus case in the United States was confirmed on Jan. 21. We found that of the 14 companies listed in the post, only two had corporate CEOs who resigned their posts - and actually left their companies - after the coronavirus surfaced in China. Another two CEOs sold company stock after the outbreak. At the time of the sales, however, the outbreak was already publicly known, and the CEOs hadn't yet left their companies. We found no evidence the CEOs received advance information about the coronavirus or that they left in order to be freed from regulations that restricted their ability to sell stock. The 2 who left their companies Of the corporate CEOs alluded to in the Facebook post, two resigned between Dec. 31, 2019, and March 29, 2020, the date of the post - and left their companies: Harley-Davidson announced Feb. 28 that Matthew Levatich had stepped down as CEO and a director. The company's shares had fallen 46% since he took charge in May 2015. MGM Resorts announced Feb. 12 that Jim Murren had decided not to serve out his contract, which ran through the end of 2021, but that he would stay on until a successor was named. MGM's announcement, the earlier of the two, came two weeks after the Trump administration suspended entry into the United States by any foreign nationals who had traveled to China in the previous 14 days. On Feb. 19 and 20, Murren sold more than $22 million of the company's common stock, at between $32.15 and $32.17 a share, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. The sales were made public to the SEC. About a month later, MGM closed its Las Vegas casinos because of the coronavirus, and Murren acquired 6,000 shares of MGM restricted stock units. On the day Murren's purchase was disclosed, March 18, the stock price had dropped to $7.14. But Murren was still CEO during both sets of stock transactions. He stepped down as CEO on March 22, the same day it was announced he would lead a state coronavirus task force formed by Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak. 5 out as CEO, but still with company Five CEOs stepped down from their positions, but were staying with their companies as executive chairman, a top leadership post that typically involves some day-to-day duties in addition to a seat on the board. Companies often say they want the former CEO to stay for a limited period of time to ensure a smooth transition to the new CEO, Chia said. CEOs who resigned but stayed on as executive chairman were still under restrictions for trading in their company's stock. Walt Disney's Robert Iger stepped down Feb. 25 after a 15-year tenure as CEO, but remained with Disney as executive chairman, the company said in a statement. Lockheed Martin announced March 16 that Marillyn Hewson would be replaced effective June 15, but that she would remain as executive chairman. She sold $9.5 million in Lockheed stock on Jan. 29. IBM on Jan. 30 announced a new CEO to replace Virginia Rometty. But it said Rometty would continue as executive chairman and serve through the end of 2020, when she would retire after almost 40 years with the company. LinkedIn: announced Feb. 5 that Jeffrey Weiner 'decided to take on a new role as executive chairman.' He won't step down as CEO until June 1. Mastercard announced Feb. 25 that Ajay Banga would transition to the position of executive chairman on Jan. 1, 2021, and remain CEO until then. 3 left before the outbreak Three of the CEOs cited on the list left their posts or announced their departures before the coronavirus outbreak surfaced. eBay's Devin Wenig tweeted that his departure was because 'it became clear that I was not on the same page as my new Board.' That was on Sept. 25, more than three months before the first report out of Wuhan. T-Mobile announced Nov. 18, 2019, that John Legere would depart on April 30. Nissan announced Sept. 9 that Hiroto Saikawa had indicated he was willing to resign and the board asked him to resign, effective Sept. 16. His term was marked by controversy over the arrest of former Nissan Chairman Carlos Ghosn, turmoil with partner Renault SA and a sharp falloff in profits, the Wall Street Journal reported. Several others don't fit the Facebook claim In a few cases, the CEO departures were long-planned, or at a subsidiary level, not at the parent company. And one purported CEO resignation wasn't that at all. Nestle CEO Mark Schneider is still in place. The post might have been referring to Fernando Mercé. He resigned Feb. 21 as president and CEO of Nestlé Waters North America, a subsidiary, 'due to personal reasons,' the company told BevNET. Hulu CEO Randy Freer was stepping down, The Wall Street Journal reported Jan. 31, as new owner Walt Disney Co. integrates the streaming service more closely into its direct-to-consumer business. Freer's departure had been expected since Disney took over control of Hulu last May, The Verge reported. Volkswagen said Luca de Meo, the head of the automaker's Spanish brand, SEAT, resigned Jan. 7. He's becoming the new CEO of Renault. But Herbert Diess, CEO of the parent company, has been in place for two years. Microsoft has had the same CEO, Satya Nadella, since 2014. The company announced March 13 that co-founder Bill Gates stepped down from the board to dedicate more time to his philanthropic activities, but would remain as a technology adviser to Nadella and others in the company. Minow said it's good that executives are required to disclose their personal sales of company stock so that their actions can be scrutinized. But she advocates for rules that would prohibit top executives from selling their company stock until three to five years after they've left the company. 'We want them to be thinking long term up until the day they leave,' she said. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that CEOs of 14 large companies received advance information about the coronavirus and then resigned in order to be freed from restrictions on selling stock. Among the companies listed, only two of the CEOs resigned after the coronavirus outbreak and left their companies. One sold a large amount of his company stock after his resignation was announced - but while he was still with the company, and well after the outbreak had made news. We found no evidence of any effort to give advance information to the 14 CEOs so that they use it to profit personally. We rate the claim False. | [
"101948-proof-22-OEJL_kiWcWbhS7aVrzfDKpWBwF1H-N1MN8stJf1o1j1K1fPBGMOa1wkv-dc60OEYktyioNw-Rcf_J0iF.jpg"
]
|
Photo shows 'Kamala Harris's parents. | Contradiction | Sen. Kamala Harris is the first Asian American and the first Black woman to be on a major-party ticket. But misinformation questioning the ancestry of the Democratic vice presidential pick has already begun to spread on Facebook. One photo we saw on Facebook shows Harris posing with two people at a gala - a woman in a sari and a man in a suit. A caption above the photo reads: 'These are Kamala Harris's parents. Her dad is Jamaican. Her mom is Indian. So why does she refer to herself as an 'African American?'' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This photo does not show Harris with her parents. The people in the picture are California residents Suneil and Rohini Parulekar, who are unrelated to Harris. The Parulekars confirmed that they were the couple in the photograph in an interview with PolitiFact. Suneil Parulekar laughed when presented with the image. 'We are not Kamala Harris's parents,' he said. 'But unfortunately we live in an era of misinformation.' Parulekar said that the photo was taken four years ago when Harris was California attorney general. She was a guest of honor at a gala held by the nonprofit organization Pratham, of which the Parulekars are board members. The text is correct in stating that Harris's father is Jamaican and her mother is Indian. However, it also wrongly implies that Harris cannot have African ancestry because 'her dad is Jamaican.' According to a 2011 census, 92.1 percent of Jamaicans are Black, with genetic studies showing that the vast majority hail from sub-Saharan Africa. Harris's father Donald J. Harris is a former Stanford economics professor. Her late mother, Shyamala Gopalan, died of cancer in 2009, seven years before the picture at the gala was taken. This post does not show Harris's parents. We rate this Pants on Fire! | This post does not show Harris's parents. We rate this Pants on Fire! | []
|
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said 'defending Trump is more important than the United States. | Contradiction | A popular Facebook post is putting words in the mouth of Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif. The post, which includes a quote about President Donald Trump alongside an image of Nunes, was shared in a popular liberal Facebook page called Go Left. The post claims to be based on leaked audio from July 2019. 'Defending Trump is more important than the United States,' the image reads. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It has been shared more than 1,400 times on several social media platforms. (Screenshot from Facebook) We reached out to Go Left for its evidence for the post, but we haven't heard back. As the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes was one of Trump's staunchest defenders during the president's impeachment. But the Facebook post is inaccurate - the leaked audio it cites was recorded in July 2018, not 2019. And Nunes didn't say anything close to the quote Go Left published. The audio was recorded at a private fundraiser for Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., that Nunes attended in July 2018. MSNBC first obtained and aired the clips during the Rachel Maddow Show on Aug. 8, 2018. Nunes' comments focused on former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of 2016 Russian election interference and the role of the Trump campaign. 'So therein lies, so it's like your classic Catch-22 situation where we were at a - this puts us in such a tough spot. If (then-Attorney General Jeff) Sessions won't unrecuse and Mueller won't clear the president, we're the only ones. Which is really the danger,' Nunes said in one of the clips that MSNBC published. 'That's why I keep, and thank you for saying it by the way, I mean we have to keep all these seats. We have to keep the majority. If we do not keep the majority, all of this goes away.' The audio shows that Nunes was interested in defending Trump from the Mueller investigation to try and keep the Republican majority in Congress ahead of the midterm elections. But none of the four clips that MSNBC published included Nunes saying anything close to 'defending Trump is more important than the United States.' That distortion was added later by several liberal blogs and YouTube videos. We reached out to Nunes' press office for comment, but we haven't heard back. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"101983-proof-35-af4ac06137a22e07b1c221c3e5ec003d.jpg"
]
|
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said 'defending Trump is more important than the United States. | Contradiction | A popular Facebook post is putting words in the mouth of Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif. The post, which includes a quote about President Donald Trump alongside an image of Nunes, was shared in a popular liberal Facebook page called Go Left. The post claims to be based on leaked audio from July 2019. 'Defending Trump is more important than the United States,' the image reads. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It has been shared more than 1,400 times on several social media platforms. (Screenshot from Facebook) We reached out to Go Left for its evidence for the post, but we haven't heard back. As the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes was one of Trump's staunchest defenders during the president's impeachment. But the Facebook post is inaccurate - the leaked audio it cites was recorded in July 2018, not 2019. And Nunes didn't say anything close to the quote Go Left published. The audio was recorded at a private fundraiser for Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., that Nunes attended in July 2018. MSNBC first obtained and aired the clips during the Rachel Maddow Show on Aug. 8, 2018. Nunes' comments focused on former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of 2016 Russian election interference and the role of the Trump campaign. 'So therein lies, so it's like your classic Catch-22 situation where we were at a - this puts us in such a tough spot. If (then-Attorney General Jeff) Sessions won't unrecuse and Mueller won't clear the president, we're the only ones. Which is really the danger,' Nunes said in one of the clips that MSNBC published. 'That's why I keep, and thank you for saying it by the way, I mean we have to keep all these seats. We have to keep the majority. If we do not keep the majority, all of this goes away.' The audio shows that Nunes was interested in defending Trump from the Mueller investigation to try and keep the Republican majority in Congress ahead of the midterm elections. But none of the four clips that MSNBC published included Nunes saying anything close to 'defending Trump is more important than the United States.' That distortion was added later by several liberal blogs and YouTube videos. We reached out to Nunes' press office for comment, but we haven't heard back. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"101983-proof-35-af4ac06137a22e07b1c221c3e5ec003d.jpg"
]
|
California voters who go to the polls to vote in person will be 'TURNED AWAY & CANNOT VOTE' unless they change their voting preference to 'NO to mail in voting. | Contradiction | Widely-shared posts on Instagram on Monday claimed California voters would be 'turned away' from in-person polling places on Election Day unless they change their voting preference to 'No mail-in voting.' Election experts quickly rejected that message. We examined the details in this fact check. Our research The social media posts include an image of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and allege he changed the voting preference for 'EVERY single voter in CA' to 'vote by mail.' It goes on to claim that this move will lead to people being turned away at polling places unless they make a change to their voter preference. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook, which owns Instagram). We found this greatly distorts what Newsom did and makes a false accusation about its consequences. Here are the facts: Back in June, Newsom signed a law that requires counties to send all active registered voters a mail-in ballot this fall. He said the move was necessary due to health concerns over casting a ballot in-person during a pandemic. The law does not eliminate in-person voting options, though there won't be as many polling places. Nor does it require voters to do anything different to vote in-person. 'You do not need to change anything with your voter registration in order to participate in-person in this election,' said Sam Mahood, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office, which oversees the state's election. Mahood described the claim about being 'turned away' at the polls as 'definitely misinformation.' He said his office reported the posts to Instagram and Facebook and noted that some had been taken down. Mahood added that the new law does not alter the voting preference Californians select when they register to vote. If their preference is listed as in-person voting, they will continue to be listed that way in future elections. California's In-Person Voting Options There are several ways California voters can participate in-person. Voters can fill out their ballot at home, place it inside the envelope provided and turn it in at a polling place, their county elections office or a ballot drop box. Voters must sign the outside of the envelope for their ballot to be counted. If voters want to fill out a ballot at a polling place, election officials recommend they bring their vote-by-mail ballot with them to 'surrender' it at the polls, which essentially means they will exchange it for a ballot at the polling location and the vote-by-mail ballot will be canceled. Voters can also fill out their mail-in ballot at a polling place and turn it in onsite, though Mahood said election officials are encouraging people to fill out those ballots in advance to cut down on crowds at the polls. For those who don't bring their vote-by-mail ballots, there are still options. They will receive either a provisional ballot or, if they are in a county that uses the new vote center model, poll workers should be able to print them a new and regular ballot onsite, Mahood said. Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, which advocates for voters, said there are ways the public can slow the spread of election misinformation. She said officials are using the hashtag #TrustedInfo2020 to help voters identify reliable election information online. Meanwhile, the California Voter Foundation is urging voters 'to SIFT information before they share it.' SIFT stands for 'Stop, Investigate, Find reliable info, and Trace sources before sharing anything via social media,' Alexander said. As for the claim at the center of this fact check, Alexander agreed it 'is absolutely false.' 'We have many failsafes in our voting process to ensure no one is turned away,' she said. Our rating Social media posts claimed California voters would be 'turned away' from in-person voting unless they made a change online to their voter preference by selecting 'No mail-in voting.' That is simply not the case. Voters don't need to make any voting preference change to cast their ballot in-person. All active registered voters will receive a mail-in ballot ahead of Election Day, as part of an effort to stay safe amid the pandemic. But there are in-person voting options and none require Californians to make any changes to their voting preferences. The claims in these social media posts are both inaccurate and reckless, deserving of our most severe designation. We rate them Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. CapRadio and PolitiFact California are fact-checking election misinformation and answering your questions about voting through the November 2020 election. Email us your questions and ideas for a fact check at [email protected], or contact us on Twitter or Facebook. Related: PolitiFact California, No, California Is Not Sending Mail-In Ballots 'To Anyone In The State,' As Trump Falsely Claimed, May 26, 2020 PolitiFact California, How Early Should You Send In Your Mail-in Ballot To Make Sure It Gets Counted? It Varies By State, July 29, 2020 PolitiFact California, Answering Questions About Vote-By-Mail In California Amid COVID-19, Attacks By Trump, June 2, 2020 PolitiFact California, Trump Draws False Contrast Between Absentee, Mail-In Voting, Election Experts Say, July 30, 2020 | Our rating Social media posts claimed California voters would be 'turned away' from in-person voting unless they made a change online to their voter preference by selecting 'No mail-in voting.' That is simply not the case. Voters don't need to make any voting preference change to cast their ballot in-person. All active registered voters will receive a mail-in ballot ahead of Election Day, as part of an effort to stay safe amid the pandemic. But there are in-person voting options and none require Californians to make any changes to their voting preferences. The claims in these social media posts are both inaccurate and reckless, deserving of our most severe designation. We rate them Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. CapRadio and PolitiFact California are fact-checking election misinformation and answering your questions about voting through the November 2020 election. Email us your questions and ideas for a fact check at [email protected], or contact us on Twitter or Facebook. Related: PolitiFact California, No, California Is Not Sending Mail-In Ballots 'To Anyone In The State,' As Trump Falsely Claimed, May 26, 2020 PolitiFact California, How Early Should You Send In Your Mail-in Ballot To Make Sure It Gets Counted? It Varies By State, July 29, 2020 PolitiFact California, Answering Questions About Vote-By-Mail In California Amid COVID-19, Attacks By Trump, June 2, 2020 PolitiFact California, Trump Draws False Contrast Between Absentee, Mail-In Voting, Election Experts Say, July 30, 2020 | [
"101999-proof-45-nNTTI_MzFor4WyXaQOqN9FfBaCzeMb9POx7RKK7s1hT2kIHo0s7XLKx0Jdj9dZsJX4cJ7UTmU97ehRS_.jpg",
"101999-proof-52-9108daeedffb4f965ca09484c2b54484.jpg"
]
|
California voters who go to the polls to vote in person will be 'TURNED AWAY & CANNOT VOTE' unless they change their voting preference to 'NO to mail in voting. | Contradiction | Widely-shared posts on Instagram on Monday claimed California voters would be 'turned away' from in-person polling places on Election Day unless they change their voting preference to 'No mail-in voting.' Election experts quickly rejected that message. We examined the details in this fact check. Our research The social media posts include an image of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and allege he changed the voting preference for 'EVERY single voter in CA' to 'vote by mail.' It goes on to claim that this move will lead to people being turned away at polling places unless they make a change to their voter preference. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook, which owns Instagram). We found this greatly distorts what Newsom did and makes a false accusation about its consequences. Here are the facts: Back in June, Newsom signed a law that requires counties to send all active registered voters a mail-in ballot this fall. He said the move was necessary due to health concerns over casting a ballot in-person during a pandemic. The law does not eliminate in-person voting options, though there won't be as many polling places. Nor does it require voters to do anything different to vote in-person. 'You do not need to change anything with your voter registration in order to participate in-person in this election,' said Sam Mahood, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office, which oversees the state's election. Mahood described the claim about being 'turned away' at the polls as 'definitely misinformation.' He said his office reported the posts to Instagram and Facebook and noted that some had been taken down. Mahood added that the new law does not alter the voting preference Californians select when they register to vote. If their preference is listed as in-person voting, they will continue to be listed that way in future elections. California's In-Person Voting Options There are several ways California voters can participate in-person. Voters can fill out their ballot at home, place it inside the envelope provided and turn it in at a polling place, their county elections office or a ballot drop box. Voters must sign the outside of the envelope for their ballot to be counted. If voters want to fill out a ballot at a polling place, election officials recommend they bring their vote-by-mail ballot with them to 'surrender' it at the polls, which essentially means they will exchange it for a ballot at the polling location and the vote-by-mail ballot will be canceled. Voters can also fill out their mail-in ballot at a polling place and turn it in onsite, though Mahood said election officials are encouraging people to fill out those ballots in advance to cut down on crowds at the polls. For those who don't bring their vote-by-mail ballots, there are still options. They will receive either a provisional ballot or, if they are in a county that uses the new vote center model, poll workers should be able to print them a new and regular ballot onsite, Mahood said. Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, which advocates for voters, said there are ways the public can slow the spread of election misinformation. She said officials are using the hashtag #TrustedInfo2020 to help voters identify reliable election information online. Meanwhile, the California Voter Foundation is urging voters 'to SIFT information before they share it.' SIFT stands for 'Stop, Investigate, Find reliable info, and Trace sources before sharing anything via social media,' Alexander said. As for the claim at the center of this fact check, Alexander agreed it 'is absolutely false.' 'We have many failsafes in our voting process to ensure no one is turned away,' she said. Our rating Social media posts claimed California voters would be 'turned away' from in-person voting unless they made a change online to their voter preference by selecting 'No mail-in voting.' That is simply not the case. Voters don't need to make any voting preference change to cast their ballot in-person. All active registered voters will receive a mail-in ballot ahead of Election Day, as part of an effort to stay safe amid the pandemic. But there are in-person voting options and none require Californians to make any changes to their voting preferences. The claims in these social media posts are both inaccurate and reckless, deserving of our most severe designation. We rate them Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. CapRadio and PolitiFact California are fact-checking election misinformation and answering your questions about voting through the November 2020 election. Email us your questions and ideas for a fact check at [email protected], or contact us on Twitter or Facebook. Related: PolitiFact California, No, California Is Not Sending Mail-In Ballots 'To Anyone In The State,' As Trump Falsely Claimed, May 26, 2020 PolitiFact California, How Early Should You Send In Your Mail-in Ballot To Make Sure It Gets Counted? It Varies By State, July 29, 2020 PolitiFact California, Answering Questions About Vote-By-Mail In California Amid COVID-19, Attacks By Trump, June 2, 2020 PolitiFact California, Trump Draws False Contrast Between Absentee, Mail-In Voting, Election Experts Say, July 30, 2020 | Our rating Social media posts claimed California voters would be 'turned away' from in-person voting unless they made a change online to their voter preference by selecting 'No mail-in voting.' That is simply not the case. Voters don't need to make any voting preference change to cast their ballot in-person. All active registered voters will receive a mail-in ballot ahead of Election Day, as part of an effort to stay safe amid the pandemic. But there are in-person voting options and none require Californians to make any changes to their voting preferences. The claims in these social media posts are both inaccurate and reckless, deserving of our most severe designation. We rate them Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. CapRadio and PolitiFact California are fact-checking election misinformation and answering your questions about voting through the November 2020 election. Email us your questions and ideas for a fact check at [email protected], or contact us on Twitter or Facebook. Related: PolitiFact California, No, California Is Not Sending Mail-In Ballots 'To Anyone In The State,' As Trump Falsely Claimed, May 26, 2020 PolitiFact California, How Early Should You Send In Your Mail-in Ballot To Make Sure It Gets Counted? It Varies By State, July 29, 2020 PolitiFact California, Answering Questions About Vote-By-Mail In California Amid COVID-19, Attacks By Trump, June 2, 2020 PolitiFact California, Trump Draws False Contrast Between Absentee, Mail-In Voting, Election Experts Say, July 30, 2020 | [
"101999-proof-45-nNTTI_MzFor4WyXaQOqN9FfBaCzeMb9POx7RKK7s1hT2kIHo0s7XLKx0Jdj9dZsJX4cJ7UTmU97ehRS_.jpg",
"101999-proof-52-9108daeedffb4f965ca09484c2b54484.jpg"
]
|
California voters who go to the polls to vote in person will be 'TURNED AWAY & CANNOT VOTE' unless they change their voting preference to 'NO to mail in voting. | Contradiction | Widely-shared posts on Instagram on Monday claimed California voters would be 'turned away' from in-person polling places on Election Day unless they change their voting preference to 'No mail-in voting.' Election experts quickly rejected that message. We examined the details in this fact check. Our research The social media posts include an image of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and allege he changed the voting preference for 'EVERY single voter in CA' to 'vote by mail.' It goes on to claim that this move will lead to people being turned away at polling places unless they make a change to their voter preference. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook, which owns Instagram). We found this greatly distorts what Newsom did and makes a false accusation about its consequences. Here are the facts: Back in June, Newsom signed a law that requires counties to send all active registered voters a mail-in ballot this fall. He said the move was necessary due to health concerns over casting a ballot in-person during a pandemic. The law does not eliminate in-person voting options, though there won't be as many polling places. Nor does it require voters to do anything different to vote in-person. 'You do not need to change anything with your voter registration in order to participate in-person in this election,' said Sam Mahood, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office, which oversees the state's election. Mahood described the claim about being 'turned away' at the polls as 'definitely misinformation.' He said his office reported the posts to Instagram and Facebook and noted that some had been taken down. Mahood added that the new law does not alter the voting preference Californians select when they register to vote. If their preference is listed as in-person voting, they will continue to be listed that way in future elections. California's In-Person Voting Options There are several ways California voters can participate in-person. Voters can fill out their ballot at home, place it inside the envelope provided and turn it in at a polling place, their county elections office or a ballot drop box. Voters must sign the outside of the envelope for their ballot to be counted. If voters want to fill out a ballot at a polling place, election officials recommend they bring their vote-by-mail ballot with them to 'surrender' it at the polls, which essentially means they will exchange it for a ballot at the polling location and the vote-by-mail ballot will be canceled. Voters can also fill out their mail-in ballot at a polling place and turn it in onsite, though Mahood said election officials are encouraging people to fill out those ballots in advance to cut down on crowds at the polls. For those who don't bring their vote-by-mail ballots, there are still options. They will receive either a provisional ballot or, if they are in a county that uses the new vote center model, poll workers should be able to print them a new and regular ballot onsite, Mahood said. Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, which advocates for voters, said there are ways the public can slow the spread of election misinformation. She said officials are using the hashtag #TrustedInfo2020 to help voters identify reliable election information online. Meanwhile, the California Voter Foundation is urging voters 'to SIFT information before they share it.' SIFT stands for 'Stop, Investigate, Find reliable info, and Trace sources before sharing anything via social media,' Alexander said. As for the claim at the center of this fact check, Alexander agreed it 'is absolutely false.' 'We have many failsafes in our voting process to ensure no one is turned away,' she said. Our rating Social media posts claimed California voters would be 'turned away' from in-person voting unless they made a change online to their voter preference by selecting 'No mail-in voting.' That is simply not the case. Voters don't need to make any voting preference change to cast their ballot in-person. All active registered voters will receive a mail-in ballot ahead of Election Day, as part of an effort to stay safe amid the pandemic. But there are in-person voting options and none require Californians to make any changes to their voting preferences. The claims in these social media posts are both inaccurate and reckless, deserving of our most severe designation. We rate them Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. CapRadio and PolitiFact California are fact-checking election misinformation and answering your questions about voting through the November 2020 election. Email us your questions and ideas for a fact check at [email protected], or contact us on Twitter or Facebook. Related: PolitiFact California, No, California Is Not Sending Mail-In Ballots 'To Anyone In The State,' As Trump Falsely Claimed, May 26, 2020 PolitiFact California, How Early Should You Send In Your Mail-in Ballot To Make Sure It Gets Counted? It Varies By State, July 29, 2020 PolitiFact California, Answering Questions About Vote-By-Mail In California Amid COVID-19, Attacks By Trump, June 2, 2020 PolitiFact California, Trump Draws False Contrast Between Absentee, Mail-In Voting, Election Experts Say, July 30, 2020 | Our rating Social media posts claimed California voters would be 'turned away' from in-person voting unless they made a change online to their voter preference by selecting 'No mail-in voting.' That is simply not the case. Voters don't need to make any voting preference change to cast their ballot in-person. All active registered voters will receive a mail-in ballot ahead of Election Day, as part of an effort to stay safe amid the pandemic. But there are in-person voting options and none require Californians to make any changes to their voting preferences. The claims in these social media posts are both inaccurate and reckless, deserving of our most severe designation. We rate them Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. CapRadio and PolitiFact California are fact-checking election misinformation and answering your questions about voting through the November 2020 election. Email us your questions and ideas for a fact check at [email protected], or contact us on Twitter or Facebook. Related: PolitiFact California, No, California Is Not Sending Mail-In Ballots 'To Anyone In The State,' As Trump Falsely Claimed, May 26, 2020 PolitiFact California, How Early Should You Send In Your Mail-in Ballot To Make Sure It Gets Counted? It Varies By State, July 29, 2020 PolitiFact California, Answering Questions About Vote-By-Mail In California Amid COVID-19, Attacks By Trump, June 2, 2020 PolitiFact California, Trump Draws False Contrast Between Absentee, Mail-In Voting, Election Experts Say, July 30, 2020 | [
"101999-proof-45-nNTTI_MzFor4WyXaQOqN9FfBaCzeMb9POx7RKK7s1hT2kIHo0s7XLKx0Jdj9dZsJX4cJ7UTmU97ehRS_.jpg",
"101999-proof-52-9108daeedffb4f965ca09484c2b54484.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden 'had 308,000 military people dying because you couldn't provide them proper healthcare in the military. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump parried an attack on his COVID-19 track record with an attack of his own on Democratic nominee Joe Biden. 'Joe, you've had 308,000 military people dying because you couldn't provide them proper health care in the military,' Trump said Sept. 29 at the first presidential debate. 'So don't tell me about this.' The claim stems from the 2014 debacle at several VA hospitals, where veterans were found to have died waiting to have their benefits approved to receive care. After news of the scandal broke, lawmakers asked the inspector general to investigate the scale of the VA application backlog and the deaths that resulted. Investigators found a data system in chaos. The problems included: To the point of Trump's claim, the inspector general was able to match Social Security death records with over 307,000 applications listed as pending, but that included people who might never have applied or been eligible for care. In any event, 84% of the total died before 2010, the Obama-Biden administration's second year. Investigators described the VA's enrollment system as 'virtually unreliable.' We reached out to the Trump campaign. While they had directed Factcheck.org to the inspector general's report, they did not respond to our query. | Our ruling Trump said that 308,000 military people died on Biden's watch because he 'couldn't provide them proper health care in the military.' Trump's number is inaccurate. The report behind the figure includes people long dead who might never have applied for VA benefits and who might not have been in the military at all. We rate this claim False. | [
"102007-proof-02-988e19c18bca9b0238072ae90497a8ae.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden 'had 308,000 military people dying because you couldn't provide them proper healthcare in the military. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump parried an attack on his COVID-19 track record with an attack of his own on Democratic nominee Joe Biden. 'Joe, you've had 308,000 military people dying because you couldn't provide them proper health care in the military,' Trump said Sept. 29 at the first presidential debate. 'So don't tell me about this.' The claim stems from the 2014 debacle at several VA hospitals, where veterans were found to have died waiting to have their benefits approved to receive care. After news of the scandal broke, lawmakers asked the inspector general to investigate the scale of the VA application backlog and the deaths that resulted. Investigators found a data system in chaos. The problems included: To the point of Trump's claim, the inspector general was able to match Social Security death records with over 307,000 applications listed as pending, but that included people who might never have applied or been eligible for care. In any event, 84% of the total died before 2010, the Obama-Biden administration's second year. Investigators described the VA's enrollment system as 'virtually unreliable.' We reached out to the Trump campaign. While they had directed Factcheck.org to the inspector general's report, they did not respond to our query. | Our ruling Trump said that 308,000 military people died on Biden's watch because he 'couldn't provide them proper health care in the military.' Trump's number is inaccurate. The report behind the figure includes people long dead who might never have applied for VA benefits and who might not have been in the military at all. We rate this claim False. | [
"102007-proof-02-988e19c18bca9b0238072ae90497a8ae.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden 'had 308,000 military people dying because you couldn't provide them proper healthcare in the military. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump parried an attack on his COVID-19 track record with an attack of his own on Democratic nominee Joe Biden. 'Joe, you've had 308,000 military people dying because you couldn't provide them proper health care in the military,' Trump said Sept. 29 at the first presidential debate. 'So don't tell me about this.' The claim stems from the 2014 debacle at several VA hospitals, where veterans were found to have died waiting to have their benefits approved to receive care. After news of the scandal broke, lawmakers asked the inspector general to investigate the scale of the VA application backlog and the deaths that resulted. Investigators found a data system in chaos. The problems included: To the point of Trump's claim, the inspector general was able to match Social Security death records with over 307,000 applications listed as pending, but that included people who might never have applied or been eligible for care. In any event, 84% of the total died before 2010, the Obama-Biden administration's second year. Investigators described the VA's enrollment system as 'virtually unreliable.' We reached out to the Trump campaign. While they had directed Factcheck.org to the inspector general's report, they did not respond to our query. | Our ruling Trump said that 308,000 military people died on Biden's watch because he 'couldn't provide them proper health care in the military.' Trump's number is inaccurate. The report behind the figure includes people long dead who might never have applied for VA benefits and who might not have been in the military at all. We rate this claim False. | [
"102007-proof-02-988e19c18bca9b0238072ae90497a8ae.jpg"
]
|
A graph shows the number of human trafficking arrests increased dramatically under President Donald Trump. | Contradiction | A viral image on Facebook draws on unofficial data from questionable sources to imply that human trafficking arrests have risen dramatically since President Donald Trump took office. On Aug. 9, the Facebook page Crusader Operator posted a bar graph that purports to show the yearly number of human trafficking arrests from 2010 to 2018. According to the graph, the number of human trafficking arrests per year ranged from 300 to 1,952 during the Obama presidency, and then skyrocketed after Trump became president, to 3,213 in 2017 and then to 5,987 in 2018. The graph is decorated with images of a frowning Obama over the bars representing 2010-16, and a smiling Trump for 2017 and 2018. The implication is that the apparent rise in arrests during the Trump years is due to the president's leadership. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) As posted to Facebook, the graph doesn't specify any sources. Nor does it clarify whether it purports to represent federal arrests, state arrests, or both. However, an uncropped version of the graph, posted to Reddit in June 2018, cites two links showing where the numbers originated. (The Reddit page has since been banned.) That graph says the data for the years 2010-16 are taken from a Washington Examiner article, which accurately cites official arrest figures from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. However, the data for 2017 and 2018 come from a public dashboard that cites bogus numbers gathered by followers of the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory. Researcher Travis View, who hosts a podcast analyzing the QAnon movement and other conspiracy theories, debunked the QAnon numbers when they first appeared in 2018 on various far-right Internet outlets. Over the course of his investigation, View found that the data comes from now-banned subreddits, 8Chan threads, and Google spreadsheets, where QAnon followers compiled news articles and press releases about human trafficking and tallied arrests. 'Their entire methodology for counting human trafficking arrests was fatally flawed,' View told PolitiFact in an interview. 'They didn't discriminate between ICE and other law enforcement agencies. They didn't make distinctions between charges and arrests. They didn't count arrests that weren't reported in the news.' QAnon followers promote or believe an unsubstantiated narrative that Trump and the military are working together to take down a powerful sex trafficking ring, which counts the Obamas and the Clintons among its members. Followers of the conspiracy theory, therefore, have a vested interest in proving that human trafficking arrests have increased under Trump. According to official numbers, this isn't the case. An ICE spokesperson shared with us the official arrest figures for the years 2017 and 2018, and they show that yearly human trafficking arrests have actually decreased since the final years of the Obama presidency. In 2017, ICE made 1,602 human trafficking arrests. In 2018, it made 1,588 arrests. This chart shows the official annual arrest figures over the 2010-18 span: The figures that ICE gave us are consistent with numbers that the Trump White House has previously cited in press releases. | Our ruling A graph shared on Facebook appears to show that the number of human trafficking arrests increased dramatically under President Donald Trump. Official figures from ICE show that the numbers in the graph for 2017 and 2018 are not accurate. According to ICE, arrests went down in 2017 and 2018 compared with 2016. The numbers in the viral graphic combine arrest figures obtained through two wildly different methods of data gathering to make a misleading claim about human trafficking and further an unfounded conspiracy theory. We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"102015-proof-22-trump_obama_human_traffick.jpg"
]
|
A graph shows the number of human trafficking arrests increased dramatically under President Donald Trump. | Contradiction | A viral image on Facebook draws on unofficial data from questionable sources to imply that human trafficking arrests have risen dramatically since President Donald Trump took office. On Aug. 9, the Facebook page Crusader Operator posted a bar graph that purports to show the yearly number of human trafficking arrests from 2010 to 2018. According to the graph, the number of human trafficking arrests per year ranged from 300 to 1,952 during the Obama presidency, and then skyrocketed after Trump became president, to 3,213 in 2017 and then to 5,987 in 2018. The graph is decorated with images of a frowning Obama over the bars representing 2010-16, and a smiling Trump for 2017 and 2018. The implication is that the apparent rise in arrests during the Trump years is due to the president's leadership. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) As posted to Facebook, the graph doesn't specify any sources. Nor does it clarify whether it purports to represent federal arrests, state arrests, or both. However, an uncropped version of the graph, posted to Reddit in June 2018, cites two links showing where the numbers originated. (The Reddit page has since been banned.) That graph says the data for the years 2010-16 are taken from a Washington Examiner article, which accurately cites official arrest figures from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. However, the data for 2017 and 2018 come from a public dashboard that cites bogus numbers gathered by followers of the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory. Researcher Travis View, who hosts a podcast analyzing the QAnon movement and other conspiracy theories, debunked the QAnon numbers when they first appeared in 2018 on various far-right Internet outlets. Over the course of his investigation, View found that the data comes from now-banned subreddits, 8Chan threads, and Google spreadsheets, where QAnon followers compiled news articles and press releases about human trafficking and tallied arrests. 'Their entire methodology for counting human trafficking arrests was fatally flawed,' View told PolitiFact in an interview. 'They didn't discriminate between ICE and other law enforcement agencies. They didn't make distinctions between charges and arrests. They didn't count arrests that weren't reported in the news.' QAnon followers promote or believe an unsubstantiated narrative that Trump and the military are working together to take down a powerful sex trafficking ring, which counts the Obamas and the Clintons among its members. Followers of the conspiracy theory, therefore, have a vested interest in proving that human trafficking arrests have increased under Trump. According to official numbers, this isn't the case. An ICE spokesperson shared with us the official arrest figures for the years 2017 and 2018, and they show that yearly human trafficking arrests have actually decreased since the final years of the Obama presidency. In 2017, ICE made 1,602 human trafficking arrests. In 2018, it made 1,588 arrests. This chart shows the official annual arrest figures over the 2010-18 span: The figures that ICE gave us are consistent with numbers that the Trump White House has previously cited in press releases. | Our ruling A graph shared on Facebook appears to show that the number of human trafficking arrests increased dramatically under President Donald Trump. Official figures from ICE show that the numbers in the graph for 2017 and 2018 are not accurate. According to ICE, arrests went down in 2017 and 2018 compared with 2016. The numbers in the viral graphic combine arrest figures obtained through two wildly different methods of data gathering to make a misleading claim about human trafficking and further an unfounded conspiracy theory. We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"102015-proof-22-trump_obama_human_traffick.jpg"
]
|
Media outlets reported that the same boy died 3 times from the coronavirus, in 3 countries. | Contradiction | Amid a pandemic that is believed to affect elderly people most severely, the deaths of several young people from COVID-19 around the world have drawn special attention - and generated misinformation. A post on Facebook falsely claims that different media outlets misused a boy's image to report that he died from the coronavirus three times in three different countries. The post shares a collage of screenshots of various news reports that appear to include the same image. The text above reads: 'Child dies in 3 countries of corona virus.' It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) | The photo depicts Vitor Rafael Bastos Godinho, a 14-year-old Portuguese boy who died at the end of March after testing positive for the novel coronavirus. The Portuguese newspaper Record wrote about his death. Other news outlets also reported on Godinho's death and correctly identified him, including the United Kingdom's Daily Mail, whose article appears in the center of the collage. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on November 7, 2021 in a Facebook post A banner for COVID-19 vaccines says, 'Don't forget to donate your childrens organs.' By Ciara O'Rourke • November 10, 2021 The Daily Express, another U.K. outlet in the collage, wrote about a 12-year-old girl who died from COVID-19 in Belgium. That story includes Godinho's photo, but not in connection with the girl. It includes his photo in a reference to another young person who died from the virus and correctly identifies him in the caption. Lastly, an article by the U.K.'s Daily Record that appears in the Facebook post didn't use Godinho's photo at all. That March 31 story covered the death of a 13-year-old boy, Ismail Mohaemd Abdulwahab, from the U.K. There is no photo of any child in the article. It's unclear where the screenshot combining Godinho's photo and Abdulwahab's name originated. We couldn't find its source. Godinho's photo does turn up in image searches on the Abdulwahab story headline, but they link to accurate reports about Godinho's death. All the articles referenced in the post correctly identify the boy in the photo and did not misuse his image. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire! | []
|
Media outlets reported that the same boy died 3 times from the coronavirus, in 3 countries. | Contradiction | Amid a pandemic that is believed to affect elderly people most severely, the deaths of several young people from COVID-19 around the world have drawn special attention - and generated misinformation. A post on Facebook falsely claims that different media outlets misused a boy's image to report that he died from the coronavirus three times in three different countries. The post shares a collage of screenshots of various news reports that appear to include the same image. The text above reads: 'Child dies in 3 countries of corona virus.' It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) | The photo depicts Vitor Rafael Bastos Godinho, a 14-year-old Portuguese boy who died at the end of March after testing positive for the novel coronavirus. The Portuguese newspaper Record wrote about his death. Other news outlets also reported on Godinho's death and correctly identified him, including the United Kingdom's Daily Mail, whose article appears in the center of the collage. Featured Fact-check Viral image stated on November 7, 2021 in a Facebook post A banner for COVID-19 vaccines says, 'Don't forget to donate your childrens organs.' By Ciara O'Rourke • November 10, 2021 The Daily Express, another U.K. outlet in the collage, wrote about a 12-year-old girl who died from COVID-19 in Belgium. That story includes Godinho's photo, but not in connection with the girl. It includes his photo in a reference to another young person who died from the virus and correctly identifies him in the caption. Lastly, an article by the U.K.'s Daily Record that appears in the Facebook post didn't use Godinho's photo at all. That March 31 story covered the death of a 13-year-old boy, Ismail Mohaemd Abdulwahab, from the U.K. There is no photo of any child in the article. It's unclear where the screenshot combining Godinho's photo and Abdulwahab's name originated. We couldn't find its source. Godinho's photo does turn up in image searches on the Abdulwahab story headline, but they link to accurate reports about Godinho's death. All the articles referenced in the post correctly identify the boy in the photo and did not misuse his image. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire! | []
|
'Only 6% of the people actually died from COVID.' The others 'died from other reasons. | Contradiction | In the past week, President Donald Trump has repeatedly spread a false claim that COVID-19 is not as deadly as his own public health agencies have reported. He retweeted a now-deleted post that alleged the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 'quietly updated' the number of coronavirus deaths. He shared another tweet from a senior legal adviser for his reelection campaign that linked to an article whose headline said 'only 9,210 Americans died from COVID-19 alone.' And, in a Sept. 1 interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham, Trump said it himself: 'I saw a statistic come out the other day, talking about only 6% of the people actually died from COVID, which is a very interesting - that they died from other reasons.' 'Well, they had comorbidities, which you've gotten criticized for,' Ingraham responded. She's right - the president misconstrued data on coronavirus deaths. As of Sept. 3, CDC data show 185,092 Americans had died due to COVID-19, and some estimates put the death toll higher. Trump's claim traces back to a report from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is part of the CDC. Each Wednesday, the agency releases new provisional death counts for the coronavirus. The data is based on death certificates. In that report, the NCHS notes in a section titled 'Comorbidities' that, 'for 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned.' 'For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,' the report says. Those lines have inspired a rash of claims on social media, including those retweeted by the president, that say the CDC 'adjusted' its coronavirus death counts and the disease is not as deadly as previously thought. Those assertions are false - we rated a related Facebook post Pants on Fire. Several other fact-checkers have also debunked them. Let's recap why they're wrong. Comorbidities are conditions that patients experience in tandem with a primary condition. Think of conditions like cancer or diabetes, which the CDC has said put people more at risk of death if they contract the coronavirus. The NCHS report shows that the vast majority of coronavirus-related deaths occur in patients with comorbidities. But that doesn't mean COVID-19 was a non-factor. 'The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of them had nothing else but just COVID-19,' said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a Sept. 1 interview with 'Good Morning America.' 'That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did.' 'The numbers that you've been hearing, the 180,000-plus deaths, are real deaths from COVID-19. Let there not be any confusion about that.' So why do 94% of death certificates that mention COVID-19 also list other conditions? When a coronavirus patient is admitted to the hospital, the virus is listed on their medical record. Since the coronavirus attacks the lungs, perhaps they develop respiratory failure, which would also be listed on their record. Unfortunately, they die after going into cardiac arrest, so doctors take note of that, too. RELATED: No, the CDC did not 'quietly adjust' US coronavirus deaths All three of those conditions would be listed on the patient's death certificate, but COVID-19 started the process. 'The people dying were not going to die but for the acquisition of COVID,' said Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Jeff Lancashire, acting associate director for communications at the NCHS, told us in an email that 92% of the death certificates that mention the coronavirus state that COVID-19 was the 'underlying cause of death.' 'The underlying cause of death is the condition that began the chain of events that ultimately led to the person's death,' Lancashire said. We reached out to the White House and the Trump campaign for a comment, but we haven't heard back. Trump's claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! | Those assertions are false - we rated a related Facebook post Pants on Fire. Several other fact-checkers have also debunked them. Let's recap why they're wrong. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on November 7, 2021 in a Facebook post The Astroworld concert was a 'test run on the vaxxed' because people who are injected with graphene oxide can be controlled through magnetic frequencies, including music. By Samantha Putterman • November 8, 2021 Comorbidities are conditions that patients experience in tandem with a primary condition. Think of conditions like cancer or diabetes, which the CDC has said put people more at risk of death if they contract the coronavirus. The NCHS report shows that the vast majority of coronavirus-related deaths occur in patients with comorbidities. But that doesn't mean COVID-19 was a non-factor. 'The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of them had nothing else but just COVID-19,' said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a Sept. 1 interview with 'Good Morning America.' 'That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did.' 'The numbers that you've been hearing, the 180,000-plus deaths, are real deaths from COVID-19. Let there not be any confusion about that.' So why do 94% of death certificates that mention COVID-19 also list other conditions? When a coronavirus patient is admitted to the hospital, the virus is listed on their medical record. Since the coronavirus attacks the lungs, perhaps they develop respiratory failure, which would also be listed on their record. Unfortunately, they die after going into cardiac arrest, so doctors take note of that, too. RELATED: No, the CDC did not 'quietly adjust' US coronavirus deaths All three of those conditions would be listed on the patient's death certificate, but COVID-19 started the process. 'The people dying were not going to die but for the acquisition of COVID,' said Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Jeff Lancashire, acting associate director for communications at the NCHS, told us in an email that 92% of the death certificates that mention the coronavirus state that COVID-19 was the 'underlying cause of death.' 'The underlying cause of death is the condition that began the chain of events that ultimately led to the person's death,' Lancashire said. We reached out to the White House and the Trump campaign for a comment, but we haven't heard back. Trump's claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! | [
"102018-proof-07-623ce8f4c9ce40d2bae336395e5a4d4f.jpg"
]
|
'Only 6% of the people actually died from COVID.' The others 'died from other reasons. | Contradiction | In the past week, President Donald Trump has repeatedly spread a false claim that COVID-19 is not as deadly as his own public health agencies have reported. He retweeted a now-deleted post that alleged the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 'quietly updated' the number of coronavirus deaths. He shared another tweet from a senior legal adviser for his reelection campaign that linked to an article whose headline said 'only 9,210 Americans died from COVID-19 alone.' And, in a Sept. 1 interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham, Trump said it himself: 'I saw a statistic come out the other day, talking about only 6% of the people actually died from COVID, which is a very interesting - that they died from other reasons.' 'Well, they had comorbidities, which you've gotten criticized for,' Ingraham responded. She's right - the president misconstrued data on coronavirus deaths. As of Sept. 3, CDC data show 185,092 Americans had died due to COVID-19, and some estimates put the death toll higher. Trump's claim traces back to a report from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is part of the CDC. Each Wednesday, the agency releases new provisional death counts for the coronavirus. The data is based on death certificates. In that report, the NCHS notes in a section titled 'Comorbidities' that, 'for 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned.' 'For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,' the report says. Those lines have inspired a rash of claims on social media, including those retweeted by the president, that say the CDC 'adjusted' its coronavirus death counts and the disease is not as deadly as previously thought. Those assertions are false - we rated a related Facebook post Pants on Fire. Several other fact-checkers have also debunked them. Let's recap why they're wrong. Comorbidities are conditions that patients experience in tandem with a primary condition. Think of conditions like cancer or diabetes, which the CDC has said put people more at risk of death if they contract the coronavirus. The NCHS report shows that the vast majority of coronavirus-related deaths occur in patients with comorbidities. But that doesn't mean COVID-19 was a non-factor. 'The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of them had nothing else but just COVID-19,' said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a Sept. 1 interview with 'Good Morning America.' 'That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did.' 'The numbers that you've been hearing, the 180,000-plus deaths, are real deaths from COVID-19. Let there not be any confusion about that.' So why do 94% of death certificates that mention COVID-19 also list other conditions? When a coronavirus patient is admitted to the hospital, the virus is listed on their medical record. Since the coronavirus attacks the lungs, perhaps they develop respiratory failure, which would also be listed on their record. Unfortunately, they die after going into cardiac arrest, so doctors take note of that, too. RELATED: No, the CDC did not 'quietly adjust' US coronavirus deaths All three of those conditions would be listed on the patient's death certificate, but COVID-19 started the process. 'The people dying were not going to die but for the acquisition of COVID,' said Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Jeff Lancashire, acting associate director for communications at the NCHS, told us in an email that 92% of the death certificates that mention the coronavirus state that COVID-19 was the 'underlying cause of death.' 'The underlying cause of death is the condition that began the chain of events that ultimately led to the person's death,' Lancashire said. We reached out to the White House and the Trump campaign for a comment, but we haven't heard back. Trump's claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! | Those assertions are false - we rated a related Facebook post Pants on Fire. Several other fact-checkers have also debunked them. Let's recap why they're wrong. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on November 7, 2021 in a Facebook post The Astroworld concert was a 'test run on the vaxxed' because people who are injected with graphene oxide can be controlled through magnetic frequencies, including music. By Samantha Putterman • November 8, 2021 Comorbidities are conditions that patients experience in tandem with a primary condition. Think of conditions like cancer or diabetes, which the CDC has said put people more at risk of death if they contract the coronavirus. The NCHS report shows that the vast majority of coronavirus-related deaths occur in patients with comorbidities. But that doesn't mean COVID-19 was a non-factor. 'The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of them had nothing else but just COVID-19,' said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a Sept. 1 interview with 'Good Morning America.' 'That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did.' 'The numbers that you've been hearing, the 180,000-plus deaths, are real deaths from COVID-19. Let there not be any confusion about that.' So why do 94% of death certificates that mention COVID-19 also list other conditions? When a coronavirus patient is admitted to the hospital, the virus is listed on their medical record. Since the coronavirus attacks the lungs, perhaps they develop respiratory failure, which would also be listed on their record. Unfortunately, they die after going into cardiac arrest, so doctors take note of that, too. RELATED: No, the CDC did not 'quietly adjust' US coronavirus deaths All three of those conditions would be listed on the patient's death certificate, but COVID-19 started the process. 'The people dying were not going to die but for the acquisition of COVID,' said Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Jeff Lancashire, acting associate director for communications at the NCHS, told us in an email that 92% of the death certificates that mention the coronavirus state that COVID-19 was the 'underlying cause of death.' 'The underlying cause of death is the condition that began the chain of events that ultimately led to the person's death,' Lancashire said. We reached out to the White House and the Trump campaign for a comment, but we haven't heard back. Trump's claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! | [
"102018-proof-07-623ce8f4c9ce40d2bae336395e5a4d4f.jpg"
]
|
'Only 6% of the people actually died from COVID.' The others 'died from other reasons. | Contradiction | In the past week, President Donald Trump has repeatedly spread a false claim that COVID-19 is not as deadly as his own public health agencies have reported. He retweeted a now-deleted post that alleged the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 'quietly updated' the number of coronavirus deaths. He shared another tweet from a senior legal adviser for his reelection campaign that linked to an article whose headline said 'only 9,210 Americans died from COVID-19 alone.' And, in a Sept. 1 interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham, Trump said it himself: 'I saw a statistic come out the other day, talking about only 6% of the people actually died from COVID, which is a very interesting - that they died from other reasons.' 'Well, they had comorbidities, which you've gotten criticized for,' Ingraham responded. She's right - the president misconstrued data on coronavirus deaths. As of Sept. 3, CDC data show 185,092 Americans had died due to COVID-19, and some estimates put the death toll higher. Trump's claim traces back to a report from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is part of the CDC. Each Wednesday, the agency releases new provisional death counts for the coronavirus. The data is based on death certificates. In that report, the NCHS notes in a section titled 'Comorbidities' that, 'for 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned.' 'For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,' the report says. Those lines have inspired a rash of claims on social media, including those retweeted by the president, that say the CDC 'adjusted' its coronavirus death counts and the disease is not as deadly as previously thought. Those assertions are false - we rated a related Facebook post Pants on Fire. Several other fact-checkers have also debunked them. Let's recap why they're wrong. Comorbidities are conditions that patients experience in tandem with a primary condition. Think of conditions like cancer or diabetes, which the CDC has said put people more at risk of death if they contract the coronavirus. The NCHS report shows that the vast majority of coronavirus-related deaths occur in patients with comorbidities. But that doesn't mean COVID-19 was a non-factor. 'The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of them had nothing else but just COVID-19,' said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a Sept. 1 interview with 'Good Morning America.' 'That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did.' 'The numbers that you've been hearing, the 180,000-plus deaths, are real deaths from COVID-19. Let there not be any confusion about that.' So why do 94% of death certificates that mention COVID-19 also list other conditions? When a coronavirus patient is admitted to the hospital, the virus is listed on their medical record. Since the coronavirus attacks the lungs, perhaps they develop respiratory failure, which would also be listed on their record. Unfortunately, they die after going into cardiac arrest, so doctors take note of that, too. RELATED: No, the CDC did not 'quietly adjust' US coronavirus deaths All three of those conditions would be listed on the patient's death certificate, but COVID-19 started the process. 'The people dying were not going to die but for the acquisition of COVID,' said Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Jeff Lancashire, acting associate director for communications at the NCHS, told us in an email that 92% of the death certificates that mention the coronavirus state that COVID-19 was the 'underlying cause of death.' 'The underlying cause of death is the condition that began the chain of events that ultimately led to the person's death,' Lancashire said. We reached out to the White House and the Trump campaign for a comment, but we haven't heard back. Trump's claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! | Those assertions are false - we rated a related Facebook post Pants on Fire. Several other fact-checkers have also debunked them. Let's recap why they're wrong. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on November 7, 2021 in a Facebook post The Astroworld concert was a 'test run on the vaxxed' because people who are injected with graphene oxide can be controlled through magnetic frequencies, including music. By Samantha Putterman • November 8, 2021 Comorbidities are conditions that patients experience in tandem with a primary condition. Think of conditions like cancer or diabetes, which the CDC has said put people more at risk of death if they contract the coronavirus. The NCHS report shows that the vast majority of coronavirus-related deaths occur in patients with comorbidities. But that doesn't mean COVID-19 was a non-factor. 'The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of them had nothing else but just COVID-19,' said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a Sept. 1 interview with 'Good Morning America.' 'That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did.' 'The numbers that you've been hearing, the 180,000-plus deaths, are real deaths from COVID-19. Let there not be any confusion about that.' So why do 94% of death certificates that mention COVID-19 also list other conditions? When a coronavirus patient is admitted to the hospital, the virus is listed on their medical record. Since the coronavirus attacks the lungs, perhaps they develop respiratory failure, which would also be listed on their record. Unfortunately, they die after going into cardiac arrest, so doctors take note of that, too. RELATED: No, the CDC did not 'quietly adjust' US coronavirus deaths All three of those conditions would be listed on the patient's death certificate, but COVID-19 started the process. 'The people dying were not going to die but for the acquisition of COVID,' said Dr. Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Jeff Lancashire, acting associate director for communications at the NCHS, told us in an email that 92% of the death certificates that mention the coronavirus state that COVID-19 was the 'underlying cause of death.' 'The underlying cause of death is the condition that began the chain of events that ultimately led to the person's death,' Lancashire said. We reached out to the White House and the Trump campaign for a comment, but we haven't heard back. Trump's claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! | [
"102018-proof-07-623ce8f4c9ce40d2bae336395e5a4d4f.jpg"
]
|
'Less than 500 people a year killed by all rifles combined' and '4,000 a year killed by illegals. | Contradiction | The day after the Boulder, Colo., shooting that killed 10 people, President Joe Biden called on Congress to enact legislation to revive a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines. A Facebook post suggests the administration is overreacting to gun killings, while being too lax with its border control policies. 'Less than 500 people a year killed by all rifles combined. Let's ban them,' the post said, above a picture of an assault-style gun. '4000 a year killed by illegals. Let's give them assistance and register them to vote and keep the border WIDE OPEN.' The claim, originally posted in March 2019 but widely reshared after the mass shootings in Boulder and a few days earlier in Atlanta, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post wildly exaggerates Biden administration policy on both guns and immigration. Biden's proposal would ban certain semi-automatic rifles classified as assault weapons - not all rifles. And neither he nor his allies in Congress have proposed keeping the border wide open or allowing immigrants who are in the country illegally to register to vote. But for this fact-check, we're looking at the accuracy of the numbers the Facebook post cites in arguing for stricter border enforcement over stricter gun control. Fewer than 500 people were murdered with a rifle in each of the past three years, according to the latest annual FBI statistics available. No national statistics are kept on the number of people killed by people who are in the country illegally. But the available figures indicate the number is far below the 4,000 per year claimed. One estimate puts it at about 300. It's important to note that this claim compares two different things: killings with a type of weapon vs. killings by a category of people. The FBI's latest annual figures show there were 10,258 murders committed with guns in 2019, including 364 with rifles. The number for rifles was 297 in 2018 and 403 in 2017. That includes various kinds of long guns, including AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles involved in many deadly mass shootings over the past decade. We found no evidence to support the claim about 4,000 killings a year by people in the country illegally. There are no national crime statistics that are broken down by immigration status. For a rough estimate of the numbers, we looked at administrative arrests by the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. These are arrests of people who were either present in the U.S. illegally or had somehow violated the terms of their entry or status in the country. Many such arrests occur after local law enforcement officials do background checks on people they have arrested for crimes, said ICE spokesman Shawn Neudauer. In the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2020, ICE made a total of 103,603 administrative arrests. It said 90% of those arrests were for immigrants with a history of criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. The criminal histories included 1,837 offenses involving homicide - 1,468 convictions and pending 369 charges. In the previous year, the total was 1,923 - 1,549 convictions and 374 pending charges. But the combined offenses noted in those two years didn't necessarily involve homicide cases from those years. They were people who had been charged with or convicted of homicide in the United States at some time in the past - ICE data doesn't indicate when. So the claim of 4,000 homicides a year is not supported by ICE data. Alex Nowrasteh, director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that in Texas, which does track immigration status in crimes, 42 immigrants in the country illegally were convicted of committing a total of 50 homicides in 2019. If those numbers were representative of the country overall, he estimated, about 294 homicides would have been committed by immigrants in the country illegally in 2019. | Our ruling A widely recirculated Facebook post claimed: 'Less than 500 people a year killed by all rifles combined' and '4,000 a year killed by illegals.' The latest FBI figures show there were 364 murders committed with rifles in 2019. No national crime statistics are kept on the number of people killed by people who are in the country illegally. One estimate based on Texas data puts the national number at under 300. In fiscal 2020, ICE arrested people on immigration violations whose criminal histories included 1,837 homicide convictions or charges sometime in the past, but its data doesn't say when the killings or convictions occurred. The post contains only an element of truth. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"102023-proof-21-b721f73920f63dfff4facaa3dc570e1b.jpg"
]
|
'Less than 500 people a year killed by all rifles combined' and '4,000 a year killed by illegals. | Contradiction | The day after the Boulder, Colo., shooting that killed 10 people, President Joe Biden called on Congress to enact legislation to revive a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines. A Facebook post suggests the administration is overreacting to gun killings, while being too lax with its border control policies. 'Less than 500 people a year killed by all rifles combined. Let's ban them,' the post said, above a picture of an assault-style gun. '4000 a year killed by illegals. Let's give them assistance and register them to vote and keep the border WIDE OPEN.' The claim, originally posted in March 2019 but widely reshared after the mass shootings in Boulder and a few days earlier in Atlanta, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post wildly exaggerates Biden administration policy on both guns and immigration. Biden's proposal would ban certain semi-automatic rifles classified as assault weapons - not all rifles. And neither he nor his allies in Congress have proposed keeping the border wide open or allowing immigrants who are in the country illegally to register to vote. But for this fact-check, we're looking at the accuracy of the numbers the Facebook post cites in arguing for stricter border enforcement over stricter gun control. Fewer than 500 people were murdered with a rifle in each of the past three years, according to the latest annual FBI statistics available. No national statistics are kept on the number of people killed by people who are in the country illegally. But the available figures indicate the number is far below the 4,000 per year claimed. One estimate puts it at about 300. It's important to note that this claim compares two different things: killings with a type of weapon vs. killings by a category of people. The FBI's latest annual figures show there were 10,258 murders committed with guns in 2019, including 364 with rifles. The number for rifles was 297 in 2018 and 403 in 2017. That includes various kinds of long guns, including AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles involved in many deadly mass shootings over the past decade. We found no evidence to support the claim about 4,000 killings a year by people in the country illegally. There are no national crime statistics that are broken down by immigration status. For a rough estimate of the numbers, we looked at administrative arrests by the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. These are arrests of people who were either present in the U.S. illegally or had somehow violated the terms of their entry or status in the country. Many such arrests occur after local law enforcement officials do background checks on people they have arrested for crimes, said ICE spokesman Shawn Neudauer. In the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2020, ICE made a total of 103,603 administrative arrests. It said 90% of those arrests were for immigrants with a history of criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. The criminal histories included 1,837 offenses involving homicide - 1,468 convictions and pending 369 charges. In the previous year, the total was 1,923 - 1,549 convictions and 374 pending charges. But the combined offenses noted in those two years didn't necessarily involve homicide cases from those years. They were people who had been charged with or convicted of homicide in the United States at some time in the past - ICE data doesn't indicate when. So the claim of 4,000 homicides a year is not supported by ICE data. Alex Nowrasteh, director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that in Texas, which does track immigration status in crimes, 42 immigrants in the country illegally were convicted of committing a total of 50 homicides in 2019. If those numbers were representative of the country overall, he estimated, about 294 homicides would have been committed by immigrants in the country illegally in 2019. | Our ruling A widely recirculated Facebook post claimed: 'Less than 500 people a year killed by all rifles combined' and '4,000 a year killed by illegals.' The latest FBI figures show there were 364 murders committed with rifles in 2019. No national crime statistics are kept on the number of people killed by people who are in the country illegally. One estimate based on Texas data puts the national number at under 300. In fiscal 2020, ICE arrested people on immigration violations whose criminal histories included 1,837 homicide convictions or charges sometime in the past, but its data doesn't say when the killings or convictions occurred. The post contains only an element of truth. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"102023-proof-21-b721f73920f63dfff4facaa3dc570e1b.jpg"
]
|
'Less than 500 people a year killed by all rifles combined' and '4,000 a year killed by illegals. | Contradiction | The day after the Boulder, Colo., shooting that killed 10 people, President Joe Biden called on Congress to enact legislation to revive a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines. A Facebook post suggests the administration is overreacting to gun killings, while being too lax with its border control policies. 'Less than 500 people a year killed by all rifles combined. Let's ban them,' the post said, above a picture of an assault-style gun. '4000 a year killed by illegals. Let's give them assistance and register them to vote and keep the border WIDE OPEN.' The claim, originally posted in March 2019 but widely reshared after the mass shootings in Boulder and a few days earlier in Atlanta, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post wildly exaggerates Biden administration policy on both guns and immigration. Biden's proposal would ban certain semi-automatic rifles classified as assault weapons - not all rifles. And neither he nor his allies in Congress have proposed keeping the border wide open or allowing immigrants who are in the country illegally to register to vote. But for this fact-check, we're looking at the accuracy of the numbers the Facebook post cites in arguing for stricter border enforcement over stricter gun control. Fewer than 500 people were murdered with a rifle in each of the past three years, according to the latest annual FBI statistics available. No national statistics are kept on the number of people killed by people who are in the country illegally. But the available figures indicate the number is far below the 4,000 per year claimed. One estimate puts it at about 300. It's important to note that this claim compares two different things: killings with a type of weapon vs. killings by a category of people. The FBI's latest annual figures show there were 10,258 murders committed with guns in 2019, including 364 with rifles. The number for rifles was 297 in 2018 and 403 in 2017. That includes various kinds of long guns, including AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles involved in many deadly mass shootings over the past decade. We found no evidence to support the claim about 4,000 killings a year by people in the country illegally. There are no national crime statistics that are broken down by immigration status. For a rough estimate of the numbers, we looked at administrative arrests by the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. These are arrests of people who were either present in the U.S. illegally or had somehow violated the terms of their entry or status in the country. Many such arrests occur after local law enforcement officials do background checks on people they have arrested for crimes, said ICE spokesman Shawn Neudauer. In the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2020, ICE made a total of 103,603 administrative arrests. It said 90% of those arrests were for immigrants with a history of criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. The criminal histories included 1,837 offenses involving homicide - 1,468 convictions and pending 369 charges. In the previous year, the total was 1,923 - 1,549 convictions and 374 pending charges. But the combined offenses noted in those two years didn't necessarily involve homicide cases from those years. They were people who had been charged with or convicted of homicide in the United States at some time in the past - ICE data doesn't indicate when. So the claim of 4,000 homicides a year is not supported by ICE data. Alex Nowrasteh, director of immigration studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that in Texas, which does track immigration status in crimes, 42 immigrants in the country illegally were convicted of committing a total of 50 homicides in 2019. If those numbers were representative of the country overall, he estimated, about 294 homicides would have been committed by immigrants in the country illegally in 2019. | Our ruling A widely recirculated Facebook post claimed: 'Less than 500 people a year killed by all rifles combined' and '4,000 a year killed by illegals.' The latest FBI figures show there were 364 murders committed with rifles in 2019. No national crime statistics are kept on the number of people killed by people who are in the country illegally. One estimate based on Texas data puts the national number at under 300. In fiscal 2020, ICE arrested people on immigration violations whose criminal histories included 1,837 homicide convictions or charges sometime in the past, but its data doesn't say when the killings or convictions occurred. The post contains only an element of truth. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"102023-proof-21-b721f73920f63dfff4facaa3dc570e1b.jpg"
]
|
Like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, Amy Coney Barrett has said her 'end goal is to end the separation of church and state & build a 'Kingdom of God' in the United States. | Contradiction | A sarcastic post traveling around social media warns that Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has the same kind of views on separation of church and state as al-Qaeda or ISIS. 'BREAKING: Al Qaeda & ISIS just issued a statement saying their end goal is to end separation of church and state & build a 'Kingdom of God' in the United States,' the post says. 'Oh, my bad, that was Amy Coney Barrett, the judge at the top of Trump's list to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg,' it concludes. The posts were created by commentator Bryan Dawson when Barrett was on Trump's short list of potential nominees and continued to spread after Trump officially made her his pick on Sept. 26, 2020. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat potential false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) So did Barrett issue a statement saying she wanted to end separation of church and state and build a kingdom of God? No. The posts invent her position on the separation of church and state, misconstrue her comments on a 'Kingdom of God' and make a dubious comparison with Islamic terror groups. Let's review the evidence. We found nothing to suggest that Barrett wants to end the separation of church and state. We found no statements from her saying that. And when she was confirmed in 2017 to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, we found no concerns expressed by senators, either Democratic or Republican, that she sought that. (Most of the questions Democrats directed at her were how she would handle court precedents like Roe vs. Wade.) Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Barrett during the 2017 hearings if it was ever proper for a judge to put her religious views above applying the law. Barrett replied: 'It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else on the law.' Later in the hearing, responding to a question from Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., Barrett said, 'If you're asking whether I take my faith seriously and I'm a faithful Catholic, I am, although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge.' Barrett did use the phrase 'Kingdom of God' twice in a 2006 commencement address at Notre Dame Law School, and many media accounts of Barrett's career and biography have noted the phrase. Barrett is a longtime law professor at Notre Dame, one of the best-known Catholic universities in the country. In the address, a transcript of which is online, Barrett spoke about what made Notre Dame Law School graduates special, noting their training in both academics and ethics. But many other law schools train their students in academics and ethics, she noted. 'I'm just going to identify one way in which I hope that you, as graduates of Notre Dame, will fulfill the promise of being a different kind of lawyer. And that is this: that you will always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as Father Jenkins told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God. You know the same law, are charged with maintaining the same ethical standards, and will be entering the same kinds of legal jobs as your peers across the country. But if you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.' Barrett went on to advise graduates to pray, tithe and stay active in the Catholic faith. On the last point, she used the phrase again: 'Finally, when you arrive at your new jobs in your new cities, seek out friends with whom you can share your faith. For the past three years, you have lived within the Notre Dame Law School community. While we are a community engaged in the enterprise of legal education and scholarship, we are also a community engaged in the enterprise of bringing about the kingdom of God. We are a community characterized by our love and concern for one another. I hope that you have enjoyed living here these last three years. I also hope that living at Notre Dame has given you a thirst for this kind of community. Don't just look back on your time here with nostalgia. When you get where you're going, carry Notre Dame with you. Deliberately choose a parish or church that has an active community life and commit yourself deeply to the relationships you find there. It's only when you're an independent operator that your career takes over. When your life is placed firmly within a web of relationships, it is much easier to keep your career in its proper place.' Overall, Barrett's use of the phrase 'kingdom of God' was placed in a general context of Christian belief and a sentiment of love and concern for others. By contrast, al-Qaeda and ISIS are terrorist groups known for murders, assassinations, ambushes, kidnappings and suicide bombings in the Middle East, as well as parts of Asia, Africa and around the world. | Our ruling Internet posts claim that like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, Amy Barrett has said her 'end goal is to end the separation of church and state & build a 'Kingdom of God' in the United States.' Barrett has not advocated for ending the separation of church and state. During public questioning for confirmation as a circuit court judge in 2017, she said judges' personal views should not affect their official duties. Her comments about the Kingdom of God were made during a commencement address at a Catholic institution where she made general comments about living a Christian life. Overall, we rate this post False. | []
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.