claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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. | []
|
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. | []
|
Says Sean Connery wrote a letter to Steve Jobs refusing to be an Apple spokesman. | Contradiction | Sean Connery, who died on Oct. 31, did not mince words. In 2005, for example, he said that he was done with acting because of the 'idiots now making films in Hollywood.' The Associated Press posted a clip of the actor giving interviews in 2004 at a premiere of his last movie, 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen,' that's titled 'Sean Connery being rude and aggressive.' But he didn't author the rude and aggressive letter to Steve Jobs that's now circulating on Facebook. An image of the supposed December 1998 letter has Connery telling off the late Apple co-founder. 'I will say this one more time,' it begins. 'You do understand English, don't you? I do not sell my soul for Apple or any other company. I have no interest in 'changing the world' as you suggest. You have nothing that I need or want. You are a computer salesman - I am f------ JAMES BOND!' 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 letter is a fake that was first published in 2011 on the satirical news website Scoopertino, which describes itself as 'an imaginary news organization devoted to ferreting out the most relevant stories in the world of Apple, whether or not they actually occurred.' A slogan at the top of the website says: 'All the news that's fit to fabricate.' The story that ran alongside the letter said that Jobs was a lifelong fan of James Bond - who originally wanted to name the iMac computer the 'Double-O-Mac,' and instructed Apple in 1998 to 'begin work on a special celebrity Christmas ad featuring 007 himself, Sean Connery - even though Connery had yet to be signed.' Business Insider among others fell for the fake missive Connery supposedly sent to Jobs. The Washington Post reported at the time that 'wishful thinkers have been delighting' in the actor's pointed refusal to be an Apple spokesman. With the news of Connery's death at age 90, the letter has been spreading online again without the caveat that it's actually fake. It is, and we rate claims suggesting otherwise False. | It is, and we rate claims suggesting otherwise False. | []
|
'In Wisconsin, there are approximately 70,000 absentee ballots that do not have matching ballot applications as required by law. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump continued his evidence-free assault on the validity of the 2020 election during a Dec. 2, 2020, speech, taking aim at Wisconsin several times. One claim zeroed in on a favorite Trump target - absentee voting - to assert the paperwork behind those ballots was lacking. 'In Wisconsin, there are approximately 70,000 absentee ballots that do not have matching ballot applications as required by law,' Trump said. The claim, included in a list of supposed election fraud examples, was made without any further detail or evidence. As with Trump's many lawsuits seeking to overturn the election results in Wisconsin and elsewhere, this claim flies in the face of reality. Here's why. Trump misstates his own (wrong) claim For starters, Trump got the number wrong. Since the claim in this speech doesn't provide much context, we reached out to Trump campaign spokeswoman Courtney Parella to explain the 70,000 figure. She declined to elaborate aside from referring to the campaign's Wisconsin lawsuit. But that lawsuit makes clear Trump was attempting to refer to in-person absentee voting - that's the only element of his Wisconsin claims related to ballot applications. One of the four primary allegations in the complaint was that 'at least 170,140 absentee ballots were improperly counted as they were issued without the elector having first submitted a written application.' That total is the number of in-person absentee votes cast in Milwaukee and Dane counties combined, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Those are the two heavily Democratic counties in which the Trump campaign paid for a recount and is now suing. So Trump meant to say 170,000, not 70,000. But that's the least of his issues with the truth. Yes, absentee voters filled out an application Wisconsinites casting a traditional absentee vote do that by applying for a ballot by mail or through the MyVote.wi.gov website. But in-person absentee ballots simplify this down to a single form - an 'absentee ballot application/certification' located on the envelope that holds the absentee ballot. Trump's lawsuit - in line with verbiage from the speech - claims those in-person absentee ballots were filed without 'written application as expressly required by Wis. Stat. § 6.86(1)(ar).' But that statute doesn't include specific requirements. That reference in state law simply says municipal clerks shouldn't issue an absentee ballot 'unless the clerk receives a written application therefor (sic) from a qualified elector of the municipality.' It details no requirements for what that application should include. Reid Magney, spokesman for the state elections commission, confirmed there are no requirements in state law on the nature of absentee ballot applications, leaving that detail to the commission to decide. And the commission has required an application for every ballot. 'To claim that there is no application on file for these absentee ballots is false,' Magney said. The commission created the combined certificate and application in 2010 after complaints following the 2008 presidential election that in-person absentee voting was inefficient and involved too much paperwork. The Government Accountability Board (predecessor to the elections commission) studied the matter and issued a lengthy report in December 2009. It created the combined form on the envelope of the absentee ballot after holding listening sessions and consulting with clerks around the state. A memo sent to clerks in May 2010 explained the change this way: 'The title of the certificate has changed to indicate that it also serves as an application for in-person absentee voters. A line has been added ('I further certify that I requested this ballot.') to make the document an application. This process - where early voters fill out an envelope application - has been used throughout Wisconsin (though not exclusively) since the 2016 election where Trump narrowly carried the state. We should also note this change was implemented at a time when Republicans controlled all of state government. It was a heavily-used approach in this year's mid-pandemic election. Early in-person votes accounted for 23.7% of all ballots in Milwaukee County and 17.7% in Dane County, according to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel analysis of voting data from the elections commission. Statewide, nearly 700,000 people voted this way in the November election. | Our ruling Trump claims in his speech (and a lawsuit) that '70,000 absentee ballots that do not have matching ballot applications as required by law.' Every part of this is wrong. Trump was actually referring to a group of 170,000 votes, not 70,000. And that group of in-person absentee voters did indeed fill out an application in order to cast their ballot. It was part of the ballot certificate on the envelope, but that doesn't make it any less valid since state statute doesn't specify the nature of that application. It's the same approach that's been used without issue in Wisconsin elections since 2010 - including the 2016 presidential contest that Trump won. We rate Trump's claim Pants on Fire. | [
"102045-proof-13-82b52bcbb98356c373e8cc698faaaa88.jpg"
]
|
'In Wisconsin, there are approximately 70,000 absentee ballots that do not have matching ballot applications as required by law. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump continued his evidence-free assault on the validity of the 2020 election during a Dec. 2, 2020, speech, taking aim at Wisconsin several times. One claim zeroed in on a favorite Trump target - absentee voting - to assert the paperwork behind those ballots was lacking. 'In Wisconsin, there are approximately 70,000 absentee ballots that do not have matching ballot applications as required by law,' Trump said. The claim, included in a list of supposed election fraud examples, was made without any further detail or evidence. As with Trump's many lawsuits seeking to overturn the election results in Wisconsin and elsewhere, this claim flies in the face of reality. Here's why. Trump misstates his own (wrong) claim For starters, Trump got the number wrong. Since the claim in this speech doesn't provide much context, we reached out to Trump campaign spokeswoman Courtney Parella to explain the 70,000 figure. She declined to elaborate aside from referring to the campaign's Wisconsin lawsuit. But that lawsuit makes clear Trump was attempting to refer to in-person absentee voting - that's the only element of his Wisconsin claims related to ballot applications. One of the four primary allegations in the complaint was that 'at least 170,140 absentee ballots were improperly counted as they were issued without the elector having first submitted a written application.' That total is the number of in-person absentee votes cast in Milwaukee and Dane counties combined, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Those are the two heavily Democratic counties in which the Trump campaign paid for a recount and is now suing. So Trump meant to say 170,000, not 70,000. But that's the least of his issues with the truth. Yes, absentee voters filled out an application Wisconsinites casting a traditional absentee vote do that by applying for a ballot by mail or through the MyVote.wi.gov website. But in-person absentee ballots simplify this down to a single form - an 'absentee ballot application/certification' located on the envelope that holds the absentee ballot. Trump's lawsuit - in line with verbiage from the speech - claims those in-person absentee ballots were filed without 'written application as expressly required by Wis. Stat. § 6.86(1)(ar).' But that statute doesn't include specific requirements. That reference in state law simply says municipal clerks shouldn't issue an absentee ballot 'unless the clerk receives a written application therefor (sic) from a qualified elector of the municipality.' It details no requirements for what that application should include. Reid Magney, spokesman for the state elections commission, confirmed there are no requirements in state law on the nature of absentee ballot applications, leaving that detail to the commission to decide. And the commission has required an application for every ballot. 'To claim that there is no application on file for these absentee ballots is false,' Magney said. The commission created the combined certificate and application in 2010 after complaints following the 2008 presidential election that in-person absentee voting was inefficient and involved too much paperwork. The Government Accountability Board (predecessor to the elections commission) studied the matter and issued a lengthy report in December 2009. It created the combined form on the envelope of the absentee ballot after holding listening sessions and consulting with clerks around the state. A memo sent to clerks in May 2010 explained the change this way: 'The title of the certificate has changed to indicate that it also serves as an application for in-person absentee voters. A line has been added ('I further certify that I requested this ballot.') to make the document an application. This process - where early voters fill out an envelope application - has been used throughout Wisconsin (though not exclusively) since the 2016 election where Trump narrowly carried the state. We should also note this change was implemented at a time when Republicans controlled all of state government. It was a heavily-used approach in this year's mid-pandemic election. Early in-person votes accounted for 23.7% of all ballots in Milwaukee County and 17.7% in Dane County, according to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel analysis of voting data from the elections commission. Statewide, nearly 700,000 people voted this way in the November election. | Our ruling Trump claims in his speech (and a lawsuit) that '70,000 absentee ballots that do not have matching ballot applications as required by law.' Every part of this is wrong. Trump was actually referring to a group of 170,000 votes, not 70,000. And that group of in-person absentee voters did indeed fill out an application in order to cast their ballot. It was part of the ballot certificate on the envelope, but that doesn't make it any less valid since state statute doesn't specify the nature of that application. It's the same approach that's been used without issue in Wisconsin elections since 2010 - including the 2016 presidential contest that Trump won. We rate Trump's claim Pants on Fire. | [
"102045-proof-13-82b52bcbb98356c373e8cc698faaaa88.jpg"
]
|
'In Wisconsin, there are approximately 70,000 absentee ballots that do not have matching ballot applications as required by law. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump continued his evidence-free assault on the validity of the 2020 election during a Dec. 2, 2020, speech, taking aim at Wisconsin several times. One claim zeroed in on a favorite Trump target - absentee voting - to assert the paperwork behind those ballots was lacking. 'In Wisconsin, there are approximately 70,000 absentee ballots that do not have matching ballot applications as required by law,' Trump said. The claim, included in a list of supposed election fraud examples, was made without any further detail or evidence. As with Trump's many lawsuits seeking to overturn the election results in Wisconsin and elsewhere, this claim flies in the face of reality. Here's why. Trump misstates his own (wrong) claim For starters, Trump got the number wrong. Since the claim in this speech doesn't provide much context, we reached out to Trump campaign spokeswoman Courtney Parella to explain the 70,000 figure. She declined to elaborate aside from referring to the campaign's Wisconsin lawsuit. But that lawsuit makes clear Trump was attempting to refer to in-person absentee voting - that's the only element of his Wisconsin claims related to ballot applications. One of the four primary allegations in the complaint was that 'at least 170,140 absentee ballots were improperly counted as they were issued without the elector having first submitted a written application.' That total is the number of in-person absentee votes cast in Milwaukee and Dane counties combined, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Those are the two heavily Democratic counties in which the Trump campaign paid for a recount and is now suing. So Trump meant to say 170,000, not 70,000. But that's the least of his issues with the truth. Yes, absentee voters filled out an application Wisconsinites casting a traditional absentee vote do that by applying for a ballot by mail or through the MyVote.wi.gov website. But in-person absentee ballots simplify this down to a single form - an 'absentee ballot application/certification' located on the envelope that holds the absentee ballot. Trump's lawsuit - in line with verbiage from the speech - claims those in-person absentee ballots were filed without 'written application as expressly required by Wis. Stat. § 6.86(1)(ar).' But that statute doesn't include specific requirements. That reference in state law simply says municipal clerks shouldn't issue an absentee ballot 'unless the clerk receives a written application therefor (sic) from a qualified elector of the municipality.' It details no requirements for what that application should include. Reid Magney, spokesman for the state elections commission, confirmed there are no requirements in state law on the nature of absentee ballot applications, leaving that detail to the commission to decide. And the commission has required an application for every ballot. 'To claim that there is no application on file for these absentee ballots is false,' Magney said. The commission created the combined certificate and application in 2010 after complaints following the 2008 presidential election that in-person absentee voting was inefficient and involved too much paperwork. The Government Accountability Board (predecessor to the elections commission) studied the matter and issued a lengthy report in December 2009. It created the combined form on the envelope of the absentee ballot after holding listening sessions and consulting with clerks around the state. A memo sent to clerks in May 2010 explained the change this way: 'The title of the certificate has changed to indicate that it also serves as an application for in-person absentee voters. A line has been added ('I further certify that I requested this ballot.') to make the document an application. This process - where early voters fill out an envelope application - has been used throughout Wisconsin (though not exclusively) since the 2016 election where Trump narrowly carried the state. We should also note this change was implemented at a time when Republicans controlled all of state government. It was a heavily-used approach in this year's mid-pandemic election. Early in-person votes accounted for 23.7% of all ballots in Milwaukee County and 17.7% in Dane County, according to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel analysis of voting data from the elections commission. Statewide, nearly 700,000 people voted this way in the November election. | Our ruling Trump claims in his speech (and a lawsuit) that '70,000 absentee ballots that do not have matching ballot applications as required by law.' Every part of this is wrong. Trump was actually referring to a group of 170,000 votes, not 70,000. And that group of in-person absentee voters did indeed fill out an application in order to cast their ballot. It was part of the ballot certificate on the envelope, but that doesn't make it any less valid since state statute doesn't specify the nature of that application. It's the same approach that's been used without issue in Wisconsin elections since 2010 - including the 2016 presidential contest that Trump won. We rate Trump's claim Pants on Fire. | [
"102045-proof-13-82b52bcbb98356c373e8cc698faaaa88.jpg"
]
|
'In Wisconsin, there are approximately 70,000 absentee ballots that do not have matching ballot applications as required by law. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump continued his evidence-free assault on the validity of the 2020 election during a Dec. 2, 2020, speech, taking aim at Wisconsin several times. One claim zeroed in on a favorite Trump target - absentee voting - to assert the paperwork behind those ballots was lacking. 'In Wisconsin, there are approximately 70,000 absentee ballots that do not have matching ballot applications as required by law,' Trump said. The claim, included in a list of supposed election fraud examples, was made without any further detail or evidence. As with Trump's many lawsuits seeking to overturn the election results in Wisconsin and elsewhere, this claim flies in the face of reality. Here's why. Trump misstates his own (wrong) claim For starters, Trump got the number wrong. Since the claim in this speech doesn't provide much context, we reached out to Trump campaign spokeswoman Courtney Parella to explain the 70,000 figure. She declined to elaborate aside from referring to the campaign's Wisconsin lawsuit. But that lawsuit makes clear Trump was attempting to refer to in-person absentee voting - that's the only element of his Wisconsin claims related to ballot applications. One of the four primary allegations in the complaint was that 'at least 170,140 absentee ballots were improperly counted as they were issued without the elector having first submitted a written application.' That total is the number of in-person absentee votes cast in Milwaukee and Dane counties combined, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. Those are the two heavily Democratic counties in which the Trump campaign paid for a recount and is now suing. So Trump meant to say 170,000, not 70,000. But that's the least of his issues with the truth. Yes, absentee voters filled out an application Wisconsinites casting a traditional absentee vote do that by applying for a ballot by mail or through the MyVote.wi.gov website. But in-person absentee ballots simplify this down to a single form - an 'absentee ballot application/certification' located on the envelope that holds the absentee ballot. Trump's lawsuit - in line with verbiage from the speech - claims those in-person absentee ballots were filed without 'written application as expressly required by Wis. Stat. § 6.86(1)(ar).' But that statute doesn't include specific requirements. That reference in state law simply says municipal clerks shouldn't issue an absentee ballot 'unless the clerk receives a written application therefor (sic) from a qualified elector of the municipality.' It details no requirements for what that application should include. Reid Magney, spokesman for the state elections commission, confirmed there are no requirements in state law on the nature of absentee ballot applications, leaving that detail to the commission to decide. And the commission has required an application for every ballot. 'To claim that there is no application on file for these absentee ballots is false,' Magney said. The commission created the combined certificate and application in 2010 after complaints following the 2008 presidential election that in-person absentee voting was inefficient and involved too much paperwork. The Government Accountability Board (predecessor to the elections commission) studied the matter and issued a lengthy report in December 2009. It created the combined form on the envelope of the absentee ballot after holding listening sessions and consulting with clerks around the state. A memo sent to clerks in May 2010 explained the change this way: 'The title of the certificate has changed to indicate that it also serves as an application for in-person absentee voters. A line has been added ('I further certify that I requested this ballot.') to make the document an application. This process - where early voters fill out an envelope application - has been used throughout Wisconsin (though not exclusively) since the 2016 election where Trump narrowly carried the state. We should also note this change was implemented at a time when Republicans controlled all of state government. It was a heavily-used approach in this year's mid-pandemic election. Early in-person votes accounted for 23.7% of all ballots in Milwaukee County and 17.7% in Dane County, according to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel analysis of voting data from the elections commission. Statewide, nearly 700,000 people voted this way in the November election. | Our ruling Trump claims in his speech (and a lawsuit) that '70,000 absentee ballots that do not have matching ballot applications as required by law.' Every part of this is wrong. Trump was actually referring to a group of 170,000 votes, not 70,000. And that group of in-person absentee voters did indeed fill out an application in order to cast their ballot. It was part of the ballot certificate on the envelope, but that doesn't make it any less valid since state statute doesn't specify the nature of that application. It's the same approach that's been used without issue in Wisconsin elections since 2010 - including the 2016 presidential contest that Trump won. We rate Trump's claim Pants on Fire. | [
"102045-proof-13-82b52bcbb98356c373e8cc698faaaa88.jpg"
]
|
Say Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn support Trump by wearing t-shirt | Contradiction | An old image showing Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn wearing t-shirts with President Donald Trump's name and face on them, with a post claiming that the two Hollywood stars are big Trump supporters, has resurfaced yet again. The July 27, 2016, Facebook post shows a photo of the two walking arm in arm, with Russell wearing a shirt that says 'I've jihad it.' Under the slogan on the shirt is an image of Trump shooting a gun and the word 'ISIS' inside a circle-backslash symbol, referring to the Islamic State militant group. Hawn's shirt says 'Trump 2016.' 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 reverse search of the image shows it to be doctored, and PolitiFact previously reported on this same photo in November 2018, rating it Pants on Fire. The original photo was taken in September 2015, while the two actors were walking in Los Angeles, according to an article from PopSugar. The photo with that article, credited to Getty/Bauer-Griffin, shows Hawn wearing a blank shirt and Russell's shirt with just a small business logo. The altered version previously surfaced on social media during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Around the same time, another Facebook post falsely attributed a tweet praising Trump to Russell, and our reporters rated it Pants on Fire. | Our ruling A photo posted to Facebook shows Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn walking arm in arm wearing Trump t-shirts. A reverse image search found the photo to be doctored. We rate this Pants on Fire. | []
|
Say Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn support Trump by wearing t-shirt | Contradiction | An old image showing Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn wearing t-shirts with President Donald Trump's name and face on them, with a post claiming that the two Hollywood stars are big Trump supporters, has resurfaced yet again. The July 27, 2016, Facebook post shows a photo of the two walking arm in arm, with Russell wearing a shirt that says 'I've jihad it.' Under the slogan on the shirt is an image of Trump shooting a gun and the word 'ISIS' inside a circle-backslash symbol, referring to the Islamic State militant group. Hawn's shirt says 'Trump 2016.' 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 reverse search of the image shows it to be doctored, and PolitiFact previously reported on this same photo in November 2018, rating it Pants on Fire. The original photo was taken in September 2015, while the two actors were walking in Los Angeles, according to an article from PopSugar. The photo with that article, credited to Getty/Bauer-Griffin, shows Hawn wearing a blank shirt and Russell's shirt with just a small business logo. The altered version previously surfaced on social media during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Around the same time, another Facebook post falsely attributed a tweet praising Trump to Russell, and our reporters rated it Pants on Fire. | Our ruling A photo posted to Facebook shows Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn walking arm in arm wearing Trump t-shirts. A reverse image search found the photo to be doctored. We rate this Pants on Fire. | []
|
Says Melania Trump's dress at Mount Rushmore speech was designed from 'drawings of several young victims of sex trafficking. | Contradiction | The dress Melania Trump wore to Mount Rushmore for a controversial speech her husband delivered on the eve of Independence Day drew a bit of criticism of its own. But a Facebook user who defended the first lady's fashion choice in a July 5 post suggested the dress had more meaning than critics knew: 'The media mocked First Lady Melania's dress. They said it looked like childish scribbles. Little did they know, they were the drawings of several young victims of sex trafficking who tried to explain their pain through pictures. They mocked her raising awareness for the victims of sex trafficking. This deserves 100,000 shares!' 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 white and black dress is designed by Alexander McQueen. The designer's website describes it as 'dancing girls asymmetric midi dress,' a sleeveless, round neck ivory linen and listed at $3,840. Asked about the claim that the sketches on the dress were made by survivors of sex trafficking, a spokesperson for the London-based fashion designer said that story is fabricated: 'There is no truth in this statement,' Alistair McCallum told PolitiFact. The design was mocked in some corners of social media by some who said it looked as if it had been doodled by Donald Trump with a Sharpie pen, as reported by several outlets. PaperMag.com, which covers fashion and entertainment, reported on the dress in May, noting that in 2019 Alexander McQueen enlisted the help of design students at Central Saint Martins, an arts and design school in London, to make its Spring 2020 collection. 'Alexander McQueen gave Paper a behind-the-scenes look at the making of this dress,' the article said. 'The students' dancing girl sketches were done on long white sheets during a life-drawing class led by fashion illustrator Julie Verhoeven at the brand's flagship store in London.' The school itself also published an article about its collaboration. There is no evidence the dress was designed by sex trafficking victims. We rate the statement False. | There is no evidence the dress was designed by sex trafficking victims. We rate the statement False. | [
"102051-proof-00-f783908ff0df35efe78a8d5d47efe53a.jpg"
]
|
Says Melania Trump's dress at Mount Rushmore speech was designed from 'drawings of several young victims of sex trafficking. | Contradiction | The dress Melania Trump wore to Mount Rushmore for a controversial speech her husband delivered on the eve of Independence Day drew a bit of criticism of its own. But a Facebook user who defended the first lady's fashion choice in a July 5 post suggested the dress had more meaning than critics knew: 'The media mocked First Lady Melania's dress. They said it looked like childish scribbles. Little did they know, they were the drawings of several young victims of sex trafficking who tried to explain their pain through pictures. They mocked her raising awareness for the victims of sex trafficking. This deserves 100,000 shares!' 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 white and black dress is designed by Alexander McQueen. The designer's website describes it as 'dancing girls asymmetric midi dress,' a sleeveless, round neck ivory linen and listed at $3,840. Asked about the claim that the sketches on the dress were made by survivors of sex trafficking, a spokesperson for the London-based fashion designer said that story is fabricated: 'There is no truth in this statement,' Alistair McCallum told PolitiFact. The design was mocked in some corners of social media by some who said it looked as if it had been doodled by Donald Trump with a Sharpie pen, as reported by several outlets. PaperMag.com, which covers fashion and entertainment, reported on the dress in May, noting that in 2019 Alexander McQueen enlisted the help of design students at Central Saint Martins, an arts and design school in London, to make its Spring 2020 collection. 'Alexander McQueen gave Paper a behind-the-scenes look at the making of this dress,' the article said. 'The students' dancing girl sketches were done on long white sheets during a life-drawing class led by fashion illustrator Julie Verhoeven at the brand's flagship store in London.' The school itself also published an article about its collaboration. There is no evidence the dress was designed by sex trafficking victims. We rate the statement False. | There is no evidence the dress was designed by sex trafficking victims. We rate the statement False. | [
"102051-proof-00-f783908ff0df35efe78a8d5d47efe53a.jpg"
]
|
Says fired inspector general Michael Atkinson brought a 'terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report' to Congress. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump repeated the 2019 Lie of the Year in explaining why he fired the intelligence community inspector general who forwarded the whistleblower report to Congress that triggered impeachment hearings. When reporters asked why he fired Michael Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community, Trump said Atkinson was a 'disgrace to IGs.' 'He took this terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report - right? - and he brought it to Congress,' Trump said at an April 5 press conference. For a long time, Trump has called his chat with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky 'perfect,' and the whistleblower's account of that call 'fake.' But the whistleblower got just about everything right. PolitiFact deemed Trump's insistence that he got the call 'almost completely wrong' the most significant falsehood of 2019. We compared the whistleblower complaint with the White House memorandum of the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, and the House impeachment report. Here are the excerpts from the whistleblower's filing, followed by whether the information is confirmed. Early in the morning of 25 July, the President spoke by telephone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This was confirmed by the memorandum of the call. After an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Setting aside the characterization of the purpose as 'personal interests,' the allocation of the number of words between pleasantries and a request for help with investigations accurately reflects the memorandum. The complaint then describes what Trump wanted Ukraine to do. Initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden Confirmed, according to the memorandum that quotes Trump as saying the following: 'The other thing. There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.' Assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike. Confirmed, according to the memorandum. Trump is quoted as saying: 'I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. 'As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.' Meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem. Confirmed, according to the memorandum: Zelensky is the first to bring up Giuliani's name. As for what Trump said, he did mention both men several times and in tandem. Trump: 'Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.' Trump: 'I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people.' Trump: 'I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.' The President also praised Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelenskyy might want to keep him in his position. This is ambiguous. Trump made no reference to Lutsenko by name. What he said was, 'I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved.' Trump might have been thinking of the previous prosecutor general Viktor Shokin; that would fit more with a prosecutor who had been 'shut down.' The current prosecutor at the time, however, was Lutsenko. From the memorandum, which indicates that certain sections were left out and doesn't name the prosecutor, we can't tell for sure. I was told by White House officials that no other (corruption) 'cases' were discussed. The memorandum shows that only the DNC server and the Bidens came up. I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call. He was told wrong. Brechbuhl wasn't on the call. His boss, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, was. | Our ruling Trump said that the intelligence community inspector general passed along a 'terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report.' In reality, the complaint got nearly every detail correct, as the memorandum released by the White House and the impeachment inquiry showed. It was correct on the request that Ukraine investigate the Bidens and the notion that Ukraine might have the DNC server that was hacked by the Russians in the 2016 election. It was correct that Trump aimed to connect the Ukrainians with Giluiani and Barr, even down to the detail of Trump mentioning the two in conjunction. The complaint described Trump as attempting to pressure Ukraine. In the impeachment inquiry, Democrats concluded that was correct, and most Republicans said it was wrong. But the key details the whistleblower offered to back that up were correct. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"102059-proof-27-eba7fd077804059d7c9c6f45d89aa962.jpg"
]
|
Says fired inspector general Michael Atkinson brought a 'terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report' to Congress. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump repeated the 2019 Lie of the Year in explaining why he fired the intelligence community inspector general who forwarded the whistleblower report to Congress that triggered impeachment hearings. When reporters asked why he fired Michael Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community, Trump said Atkinson was a 'disgrace to IGs.' 'He took this terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report - right? - and he brought it to Congress,' Trump said at an April 5 press conference. For a long time, Trump has called his chat with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky 'perfect,' and the whistleblower's account of that call 'fake.' But the whistleblower got just about everything right. PolitiFact deemed Trump's insistence that he got the call 'almost completely wrong' the most significant falsehood of 2019. We compared the whistleblower complaint with the White House memorandum of the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, and the House impeachment report. Here are the excerpts from the whistleblower's filing, followed by whether the information is confirmed. Early in the morning of 25 July, the President spoke by telephone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This was confirmed by the memorandum of the call. After an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Setting aside the characterization of the purpose as 'personal interests,' the allocation of the number of words between pleasantries and a request for help with investigations accurately reflects the memorandum. The complaint then describes what Trump wanted Ukraine to do. Initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden Confirmed, according to the memorandum that quotes Trump as saying the following: 'The other thing. There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.' Assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike. Confirmed, according to the memorandum. Trump is quoted as saying: 'I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. 'As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.' Meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem. Confirmed, according to the memorandum: Zelensky is the first to bring up Giuliani's name. As for what Trump said, he did mention both men several times and in tandem. Trump: 'Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.' Trump: 'I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people.' Trump: 'I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.' The President also praised Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelenskyy might want to keep him in his position. This is ambiguous. Trump made no reference to Lutsenko by name. What he said was, 'I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved.' Trump might have been thinking of the previous prosecutor general Viktor Shokin; that would fit more with a prosecutor who had been 'shut down.' The current prosecutor at the time, however, was Lutsenko. From the memorandum, which indicates that certain sections were left out and doesn't name the prosecutor, we can't tell for sure. I was told by White House officials that no other (corruption) 'cases' were discussed. The memorandum shows that only the DNC server and the Bidens came up. I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call. He was told wrong. Brechbuhl wasn't on the call. His boss, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, was. | Our ruling Trump said that the intelligence community inspector general passed along a 'terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report.' In reality, the complaint got nearly every detail correct, as the memorandum released by the White House and the impeachment inquiry showed. It was correct on the request that Ukraine investigate the Bidens and the notion that Ukraine might have the DNC server that was hacked by the Russians in the 2016 election. It was correct that Trump aimed to connect the Ukrainians with Giluiani and Barr, even down to the detail of Trump mentioning the two in conjunction. The complaint described Trump as attempting to pressure Ukraine. In the impeachment inquiry, Democrats concluded that was correct, and most Republicans said it was wrong. But the key details the whistleblower offered to back that up were correct. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"102059-proof-27-eba7fd077804059d7c9c6f45d89aa962.jpg"
]
|
Says fired inspector general Michael Atkinson brought a 'terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report' to Congress. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump repeated the 2019 Lie of the Year in explaining why he fired the intelligence community inspector general who forwarded the whistleblower report to Congress that triggered impeachment hearings. When reporters asked why he fired Michael Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community, Trump said Atkinson was a 'disgrace to IGs.' 'He took this terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report - right? - and he brought it to Congress,' Trump said at an April 5 press conference. For a long time, Trump has called his chat with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky 'perfect,' and the whistleblower's account of that call 'fake.' But the whistleblower got just about everything right. PolitiFact deemed Trump's insistence that he got the call 'almost completely wrong' the most significant falsehood of 2019. We compared the whistleblower complaint with the White House memorandum of the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, and the House impeachment report. Here are the excerpts from the whistleblower's filing, followed by whether the information is confirmed. Early in the morning of 25 July, the President spoke by telephone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This was confirmed by the memorandum of the call. After an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Setting aside the characterization of the purpose as 'personal interests,' the allocation of the number of words between pleasantries and a request for help with investigations accurately reflects the memorandum. The complaint then describes what Trump wanted Ukraine to do. Initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden Confirmed, according to the memorandum that quotes Trump as saying the following: 'The other thing. There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.' Assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike. Confirmed, according to the memorandum. Trump is quoted as saying: 'I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. 'As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.' Meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem. Confirmed, according to the memorandum: Zelensky is the first to bring up Giuliani's name. As for what Trump said, he did mention both men several times and in tandem. Trump: 'Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.' Trump: 'I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people.' Trump: 'I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.' The President also praised Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelenskyy might want to keep him in his position. This is ambiguous. Trump made no reference to Lutsenko by name. What he said was, 'I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved.' Trump might have been thinking of the previous prosecutor general Viktor Shokin; that would fit more with a prosecutor who had been 'shut down.' The current prosecutor at the time, however, was Lutsenko. From the memorandum, which indicates that certain sections were left out and doesn't name the prosecutor, we can't tell for sure. I was told by White House officials that no other (corruption) 'cases' were discussed. The memorandum shows that only the DNC server and the Bidens came up. I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call. He was told wrong. Brechbuhl wasn't on the call. His boss, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, was. | Our ruling Trump said that the intelligence community inspector general passed along a 'terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report.' In reality, the complaint got nearly every detail correct, as the memorandum released by the White House and the impeachment inquiry showed. It was correct on the request that Ukraine investigate the Bidens and the notion that Ukraine might have the DNC server that was hacked by the Russians in the 2016 election. It was correct that Trump aimed to connect the Ukrainians with Giluiani and Barr, even down to the detail of Trump mentioning the two in conjunction. The complaint described Trump as attempting to pressure Ukraine. In the impeachment inquiry, Democrats concluded that was correct, and most Republicans said it was wrong. But the key details the whistleblower offered to back that up were correct. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"102059-proof-27-eba7fd077804059d7c9c6f45d89aa962.jpg"
]
|
Says fired inspector general Michael Atkinson brought a 'terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report' to Congress. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump repeated the 2019 Lie of the Year in explaining why he fired the intelligence community inspector general who forwarded the whistleblower report to Congress that triggered impeachment hearings. When reporters asked why he fired Michael Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community, Trump said Atkinson was a 'disgrace to IGs.' 'He took this terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report - right? - and he brought it to Congress,' Trump said at an April 5 press conference. For a long time, Trump has called his chat with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky 'perfect,' and the whistleblower's account of that call 'fake.' But the whistleblower got just about everything right. PolitiFact deemed Trump's insistence that he got the call 'almost completely wrong' the most significant falsehood of 2019. We compared the whistleblower complaint with the White House memorandum of the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky, and the House impeachment report. Here are the excerpts from the whistleblower's filing, followed by whether the information is confirmed. Early in the morning of 25 July, the President spoke by telephone with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This was confirmed by the memorandum of the call. After an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Setting aside the characterization of the purpose as 'personal interests,' the allocation of the number of words between pleasantries and a request for help with investigations accurately reflects the memorandum. The complaint then describes what Trump wanted Ukraine to do. Initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden Confirmed, according to the memorandum that quotes Trump as saying the following: 'The other thing. There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.' Assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike. Confirmed, according to the memorandum. Trump is quoted as saying: 'I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. 'As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.' Meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem. Confirmed, according to the memorandum: Zelensky is the first to bring up Giuliani's name. As for what Trump said, he did mention both men several times and in tandem. Trump: 'Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.' Trump: 'I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people.' Trump: 'I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.' The President also praised Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelenskyy might want to keep him in his position. This is ambiguous. Trump made no reference to Lutsenko by name. What he said was, 'I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved.' Trump might have been thinking of the previous prosecutor general Viktor Shokin; that would fit more with a prosecutor who had been 'shut down.' The current prosecutor at the time, however, was Lutsenko. From the memorandum, which indicates that certain sections were left out and doesn't name the prosecutor, we can't tell for sure. I was told by White House officials that no other (corruption) 'cases' were discussed. The memorandum shows that only the DNC server and the Bidens came up. I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call. He was told wrong. Brechbuhl wasn't on the call. His boss, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, was. | Our ruling Trump said that the intelligence community inspector general passed along a 'terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report.' In reality, the complaint got nearly every detail correct, as the memorandum released by the White House and the impeachment inquiry showed. It was correct on the request that Ukraine investigate the Bidens and the notion that Ukraine might have the DNC server that was hacked by the Russians in the 2016 election. It was correct that Trump aimed to connect the Ukrainians with Giluiani and Barr, even down to the detail of Trump mentioning the two in conjunction. The complaint described Trump as attempting to pressure Ukraine. In the impeachment inquiry, Democrats concluded that was correct, and most Republicans said it was wrong. But the key details the whistleblower offered to back that up were correct. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"102059-proof-27-eba7fd077804059d7c9c6f45d89aa962.jpg"
]
|
Says Anthony Fauci's statement that the coronavirus death rate is 10 times that of the seasonal flu is 'a claim without any scientific basis. | Contradiction | For decades, Anthony Fauci has been held up as one of the federal government's foremost public health experts. Even at age 79, he is one of the top advisers to President Donald Trump on the coronavirus crisis. Yet Ron Paul, a sometimes conspiracy-minded Texas doctor, former GOP congressman and former presidential candidate, seemed to raise a fair question about a coronavirus statement made by Fauci. Calling Fauci 'the chief fearmonger of the Trump Administration,' Paul wrote in a column on his website that Fauci 'testified to Congress that the death rate for the coronavirus is 10 times that of the seasonal flu, a claim without any scientific basis.' We wondered about the scientific basis attack. In some contexts, public health experts have said it's too early in the coronavirus outbreak to know exactly what it's death rate is. Paul's 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.) 'I can't think of a more universally trusted person among virologists than' Fauci, who has served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, said Emily Bruce, an immunobiology faculty scientist at the Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont. Fauci is taking the seasonal influenza death rate to be approximately 0.1% and the coronavirus to be about 1%, said Dr. Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University's Center for Health Security. 'While it is early in the outbreak, there is enough data to say that 1% is likely a fairly reasonable approximation with some scientific basis in data.' While the numbers aren't all precise, there is a basis for what Fauci said. As we've reported: Based solely on the numbers, you're more likely to die if you get the 2019 coronavirus than if you get the flu. (Several factors apply, such as age and health.) A study of 44,672 confirmed cases of the coronavirus in China diagnosed as of Feb. 11, 2020, from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention found a fatality rate of 2.3%. A March 3, 2020, estimate from the World Health Organization put the figure at 3.4%, although that figure is likely inflated given how many cases are mild and not treated in hospitals. Some people who die never report having had coronavirus. The latest daily report on COVID-19 from the World Health Organization, issued March 16, 2020, said there have been 167,515 confirmed cases and 6,606 deaths. That's a death rate of 3.9%. The flu death rate is much lower. In its latest weekly report on the 2019-20 flu, for the week ending March 7, 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there have been 36 million flu illnesses and 22,000 deaths. That's a rate of 0.06%. The case fatality ratio - dividing reported deaths by reported cases - is only a snapshot and the rate can vary considerably during an outbreak, the World Health Organization told us. 'We will not have a clear CFR until the outbreak is over,' WHO said in a statement, adding that the CFR can change if it is discovered that there are many more milder cases than originally thought, and can vary by country based demographic factors, such as age. We didn't hear back from our requests for information from Paul. | Our ruling Paul said that Anthony Fauci's statement that the coronavirus death rate is 10 times that of the seasonal flu is 'a claim without any scientific basis.' We won't know for some time what the actual death rate is for people who contract the current coronavirus, COVID-19. But based on figures that are available, it's indicated to be at least 10 times higher than the death rate from the flu. We rate Paul's statement False. Correction, March 24, 2020: CDC estimates have indicated a COVID-19 death rate of 0.06%, not 0.0006%, as we originally reported. This fact-check has been updated with the correct figure. | [
"102061-proof-25-69b80e715ef31d1947d86567218268e4.jpg"
]
|
Says Anthony Fauci's statement that the coronavirus death rate is 10 times that of the seasonal flu is 'a claim without any scientific basis. | Contradiction | For decades, Anthony Fauci has been held up as one of the federal government's foremost public health experts. Even at age 79, he is one of the top advisers to President Donald Trump on the coronavirus crisis. Yet Ron Paul, a sometimes conspiracy-minded Texas doctor, former GOP congressman and former presidential candidate, seemed to raise a fair question about a coronavirus statement made by Fauci. Calling Fauci 'the chief fearmonger of the Trump Administration,' Paul wrote in a column on his website that Fauci 'testified to Congress that the death rate for the coronavirus is 10 times that of the seasonal flu, a claim without any scientific basis.' We wondered about the scientific basis attack. In some contexts, public health experts have said it's too early in the coronavirus outbreak to know exactly what it's death rate is. Paul's 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.) 'I can't think of a more universally trusted person among virologists than' Fauci, who has served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, said Emily Bruce, an immunobiology faculty scientist at the Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont. Fauci is taking the seasonal influenza death rate to be approximately 0.1% and the coronavirus to be about 1%, said Dr. Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University's Center for Health Security. 'While it is early in the outbreak, there is enough data to say that 1% is likely a fairly reasonable approximation with some scientific basis in data.' While the numbers aren't all precise, there is a basis for what Fauci said. As we've reported: Based solely on the numbers, you're more likely to die if you get the 2019 coronavirus than if you get the flu. (Several factors apply, such as age and health.) A study of 44,672 confirmed cases of the coronavirus in China diagnosed as of Feb. 11, 2020, from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention found a fatality rate of 2.3%. A March 3, 2020, estimate from the World Health Organization put the figure at 3.4%, although that figure is likely inflated given how many cases are mild and not treated in hospitals. Some people who die never report having had coronavirus. The latest daily report on COVID-19 from the World Health Organization, issued March 16, 2020, said there have been 167,515 confirmed cases and 6,606 deaths. That's a death rate of 3.9%. The flu death rate is much lower. In its latest weekly report on the 2019-20 flu, for the week ending March 7, 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there have been 36 million flu illnesses and 22,000 deaths. That's a rate of 0.06%. The case fatality ratio - dividing reported deaths by reported cases - is only a snapshot and the rate can vary considerably during an outbreak, the World Health Organization told us. 'We will not have a clear CFR until the outbreak is over,' WHO said in a statement, adding that the CFR can change if it is discovered that there are many more milder cases than originally thought, and can vary by country based demographic factors, such as age. We didn't hear back from our requests for information from Paul. | Our ruling Paul said that Anthony Fauci's statement that the coronavirus death rate is 10 times that of the seasonal flu is 'a claim without any scientific basis.' We won't know for some time what the actual death rate is for people who contract the current coronavirus, COVID-19. But based on figures that are available, it's indicated to be at least 10 times higher than the death rate from the flu. We rate Paul's statement False. Correction, March 24, 2020: CDC estimates have indicated a COVID-19 death rate of 0.06%, not 0.0006%, as we originally reported. This fact-check has been updated with the correct figure. | [
"102061-proof-25-69b80e715ef31d1947d86567218268e4.jpg"
]
|
'If you look at the one (hydroxychloroquine) survey, the only bad survey, they were giving it to people that were in very bad shape. They were very old. Almost dead. | Contradiction | Count President Donald Trump as hydroxychloroquine's No. 1 fan. At a press conference, Trump told reporters he's putting his health where his mouth is. 'Couple of weeks ago I started taking it,' he said May 18. 'Because I think it's good. I've heard a lot of good stories. And if it's not good, I'll tell you right. I'm not going to get hurt by it.' To be clear, the Food and Drug Administration cautions that hydroxychloroquine can hurt people. It increases the risk of an irregular heartbeat, which can lead to cardiac arrest. Trump didn't mention that. He did, however, dismiss the research that cast doubt on whether the drug does any good against COVID-19. 'If you look at the one survey, the only bad survey, they were giving it to people that were in very bad shape,' Trump said at a May 19 press event. 'They were very old. Almost dead. It was a Trump enemy statement.' Later that day, Trump clarified that he was talking about a study of Veterans Administration patients. Trump spoke as if there were only one negative study. There have been three: the one on VA patients and two larger ones. They all reached the same conclusion that outcomes with hydroxychloroquine were the same as without it. The studies The earliest work on hydroxychloroquine was small studies, sometimes with as few as 30 patients, and for each study that showed promise, another study found no benefit. The mixed results spurred more research. The analysis Trump criticized came in late April, when researchers at the universities of South Carolina and Virginia released their paper on 368 VA patients with COVID-19. They looked at who got hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or both, and they tracked who ended up on a ventilator or died. The paper was released without peer review. They found that hydroxychloroquine, with or without the other drug, had no effect on whether someone had to be put on a ventilator. Worse, hydroxychloroquine increased the chances of dying. The authors cautioned that all of the patients involved in the study, regardless of outcome, were men over 65. And they also factored in a range of underlying conditions, including diabetes, high blood pressure and other health risks. Those issues were found in roughly equal numbers across all groups of patients. Ultimately, about 75% of the patients getting hydroxychloroquine lived. The survival rate was close to 90% for those who didn't get it. Trump ignores larger, newer studies In early May, two studies emerged based on patients treated in the nation's biggest COVID-19 hotspot, New York City. Both investigations were much larger than the study of VA patients. The study that appeared May 7 in the New England Journal of Medicine looked at the medical records of 1,376 people who tested positive for COVID-19 and were admitted to the hospital. Their results echoed the first study on hydroxychloroquine. 'There was no association between administration of the drug and a lower chance of dying or winding up on a respirator,' said co-author Neil Schluger, the head of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Now, it's fair to say that the patients who got the drug were, as a group, a bit worse off than those who didn't. In particular, their blood oxygen levels were lower when they were first admitted. Schluger said that didn't matter. 'The difference in oxygen levels between the two groups we compared were fairly small and not clinically important,' Schluger said. These patients were not close to death, Schluger said. 'Overall, about 83% of the patients in our cohort survived, and that survival had no association with hydroxychloroquine administration,' he said. On May 11, the JAMA Network of the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study of 1,438 randomly selected COVID-19 patients treated at 25 New York area hospitals. That group of researchers tracked whether they died in the hospital. They, too, found no connection between outcomes and use of hydroxychloroquine. They also found no impact from the use of another drug, azithromycin. About 75% of patients getting hydroxychloroquine survived, compared with about 87% who were not given the drug. Like the other study, this one found that patients who got the drug were in worse health at admission than those who didn't. They might have lower oxygen levels, or some other condition such as diabetes or obesity. But by examining patients' full medical records, both teams were able to use stronger analytic tools to filter out the impact of differences in underlying health. Once that was done, they could make apples-to-apples comparisons of the effect of hydroxychloroquine on people who got the drug and those who didn't. The authors of all studies acknowledged that working with patient records after the fact isn't the final answer, and they called for more research. We reached out to the White House and did not hear back. | Our ruling Trump spoke about 'the one survey,' a study of VA patients and hydroxychloroquine, and said it was 'bad' because 'they were giving it to people that were in very bad shape. They were very old. Almost dead.' There have been three studies, not just one. None of them found that the drug reduced the death toll. As a group, the patients getting the drug were not on the verge of death. Across three studies, about 75% to 80% of the patients receiving the drug survived. To say they were in very bad shape is also off the mark. Health issues were found in members of both the treatment and non-treatment groups. That allowed researchers to tease out the impact, and make informed comparisons that took these health differences into account. We rate this claim False. | [
"102078-proof-28-46ef6de170701059a9fc7cbfb5b5319b.jpg"
]
|
'If you look at the one (hydroxychloroquine) survey, the only bad survey, they were giving it to people that were in very bad shape. They were very old. Almost dead. | Contradiction | Count President Donald Trump as hydroxychloroquine's No. 1 fan. At a press conference, Trump told reporters he's putting his health where his mouth is. 'Couple of weeks ago I started taking it,' he said May 18. 'Because I think it's good. I've heard a lot of good stories. And if it's not good, I'll tell you right. I'm not going to get hurt by it.' To be clear, the Food and Drug Administration cautions that hydroxychloroquine can hurt people. It increases the risk of an irregular heartbeat, which can lead to cardiac arrest. Trump didn't mention that. He did, however, dismiss the research that cast doubt on whether the drug does any good against COVID-19. 'If you look at the one survey, the only bad survey, they were giving it to people that were in very bad shape,' Trump said at a May 19 press event. 'They were very old. Almost dead. It was a Trump enemy statement.' Later that day, Trump clarified that he was talking about a study of Veterans Administration patients. Trump spoke as if there were only one negative study. There have been three: the one on VA patients and two larger ones. They all reached the same conclusion that outcomes with hydroxychloroquine were the same as without it. The studies The earliest work on hydroxychloroquine was small studies, sometimes with as few as 30 patients, and for each study that showed promise, another study found no benefit. The mixed results spurred more research. The analysis Trump criticized came in late April, when researchers at the universities of South Carolina and Virginia released their paper on 368 VA patients with COVID-19. They looked at who got hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or both, and they tracked who ended up on a ventilator or died. The paper was released without peer review. They found that hydroxychloroquine, with or without the other drug, had no effect on whether someone had to be put on a ventilator. Worse, hydroxychloroquine increased the chances of dying. The authors cautioned that all of the patients involved in the study, regardless of outcome, were men over 65. And they also factored in a range of underlying conditions, including diabetes, high blood pressure and other health risks. Those issues were found in roughly equal numbers across all groups of patients. Ultimately, about 75% of the patients getting hydroxychloroquine lived. The survival rate was close to 90% for those who didn't get it. Trump ignores larger, newer studies In early May, two studies emerged based on patients treated in the nation's biggest COVID-19 hotspot, New York City. Both investigations were much larger than the study of VA patients. The study that appeared May 7 in the New England Journal of Medicine looked at the medical records of 1,376 people who tested positive for COVID-19 and were admitted to the hospital. Their results echoed the first study on hydroxychloroquine. 'There was no association between administration of the drug and a lower chance of dying or winding up on a respirator,' said co-author Neil Schluger, the head of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Now, it's fair to say that the patients who got the drug were, as a group, a bit worse off than those who didn't. In particular, their blood oxygen levels were lower when they were first admitted. Schluger said that didn't matter. 'The difference in oxygen levels between the two groups we compared were fairly small and not clinically important,' Schluger said. These patients were not close to death, Schluger said. 'Overall, about 83% of the patients in our cohort survived, and that survival had no association with hydroxychloroquine administration,' he said. On May 11, the JAMA Network of the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study of 1,438 randomly selected COVID-19 patients treated at 25 New York area hospitals. That group of researchers tracked whether they died in the hospital. They, too, found no connection between outcomes and use of hydroxychloroquine. They also found no impact from the use of another drug, azithromycin. About 75% of patients getting hydroxychloroquine survived, compared with about 87% who were not given the drug. Like the other study, this one found that patients who got the drug were in worse health at admission than those who didn't. They might have lower oxygen levels, or some other condition such as diabetes or obesity. But by examining patients' full medical records, both teams were able to use stronger analytic tools to filter out the impact of differences in underlying health. Once that was done, they could make apples-to-apples comparisons of the effect of hydroxychloroquine on people who got the drug and those who didn't. The authors of all studies acknowledged that working with patient records after the fact isn't the final answer, and they called for more research. We reached out to the White House and did not hear back. | Our ruling Trump spoke about 'the one survey,' a study of VA patients and hydroxychloroquine, and said it was 'bad' because 'they were giving it to people that were in very bad shape. They were very old. Almost dead.' There have been three studies, not just one. None of them found that the drug reduced the death toll. As a group, the patients getting the drug were not on the verge of death. Across three studies, about 75% to 80% of the patients receiving the drug survived. To say they were in very bad shape is also off the mark. Health issues were found in members of both the treatment and non-treatment groups. That allowed researchers to tease out the impact, and make informed comparisons that took these health differences into account. We rate this claim False. | [
"102078-proof-28-46ef6de170701059a9fc7cbfb5b5319b.jpg"
]
|
'If you look at the one (hydroxychloroquine) survey, the only bad survey, they were giving it to people that were in very bad shape. They were very old. Almost dead. | Contradiction | Count President Donald Trump as hydroxychloroquine's No. 1 fan. At a press conference, Trump told reporters he's putting his health where his mouth is. 'Couple of weeks ago I started taking it,' he said May 18. 'Because I think it's good. I've heard a lot of good stories. And if it's not good, I'll tell you right. I'm not going to get hurt by it.' To be clear, the Food and Drug Administration cautions that hydroxychloroquine can hurt people. It increases the risk of an irregular heartbeat, which can lead to cardiac arrest. Trump didn't mention that. He did, however, dismiss the research that cast doubt on whether the drug does any good against COVID-19. 'If you look at the one survey, the only bad survey, they were giving it to people that were in very bad shape,' Trump said at a May 19 press event. 'They were very old. Almost dead. It was a Trump enemy statement.' Later that day, Trump clarified that he was talking about a study of Veterans Administration patients. Trump spoke as if there were only one negative study. There have been three: the one on VA patients and two larger ones. They all reached the same conclusion that outcomes with hydroxychloroquine were the same as without it. The studies The earliest work on hydroxychloroquine was small studies, sometimes with as few as 30 patients, and for each study that showed promise, another study found no benefit. The mixed results spurred more research. The analysis Trump criticized came in late April, when researchers at the universities of South Carolina and Virginia released their paper on 368 VA patients with COVID-19. They looked at who got hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or both, and they tracked who ended up on a ventilator or died. The paper was released without peer review. They found that hydroxychloroquine, with or without the other drug, had no effect on whether someone had to be put on a ventilator. Worse, hydroxychloroquine increased the chances of dying. The authors cautioned that all of the patients involved in the study, regardless of outcome, were men over 65. And they also factored in a range of underlying conditions, including diabetes, high blood pressure and other health risks. Those issues were found in roughly equal numbers across all groups of patients. Ultimately, about 75% of the patients getting hydroxychloroquine lived. The survival rate was close to 90% for those who didn't get it. Trump ignores larger, newer studies In early May, two studies emerged based on patients treated in the nation's biggest COVID-19 hotspot, New York City. Both investigations were much larger than the study of VA patients. The study that appeared May 7 in the New England Journal of Medicine looked at the medical records of 1,376 people who tested positive for COVID-19 and were admitted to the hospital. Their results echoed the first study on hydroxychloroquine. 'There was no association between administration of the drug and a lower chance of dying or winding up on a respirator,' said co-author Neil Schluger, the head of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Now, it's fair to say that the patients who got the drug were, as a group, a bit worse off than those who didn't. In particular, their blood oxygen levels were lower when they were first admitted. Schluger said that didn't matter. 'The difference in oxygen levels between the two groups we compared were fairly small and not clinically important,' Schluger said. These patients were not close to death, Schluger said. 'Overall, about 83% of the patients in our cohort survived, and that survival had no association with hydroxychloroquine administration,' he said. On May 11, the JAMA Network of the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study of 1,438 randomly selected COVID-19 patients treated at 25 New York area hospitals. That group of researchers tracked whether they died in the hospital. They, too, found no connection between outcomes and use of hydroxychloroquine. They also found no impact from the use of another drug, azithromycin. About 75% of patients getting hydroxychloroquine survived, compared with about 87% who were not given the drug. Like the other study, this one found that patients who got the drug were in worse health at admission than those who didn't. They might have lower oxygen levels, or some other condition such as diabetes or obesity. But by examining patients' full medical records, both teams were able to use stronger analytic tools to filter out the impact of differences in underlying health. Once that was done, they could make apples-to-apples comparisons of the effect of hydroxychloroquine on people who got the drug and those who didn't. The authors of all studies acknowledged that working with patient records after the fact isn't the final answer, and they called for more research. We reached out to the White House and did not hear back. | Our ruling Trump spoke about 'the one survey,' a study of VA patients and hydroxychloroquine, and said it was 'bad' because 'they were giving it to people that were in very bad shape. They were very old. Almost dead.' There have been three studies, not just one. None of them found that the drug reduced the death toll. As a group, the patients getting the drug were not on the verge of death. Across three studies, about 75% to 80% of the patients receiving the drug survived. To say they were in very bad shape is also off the mark. Health issues were found in members of both the treatment and non-treatment groups. That allowed researchers to tease out the impact, and make informed comparisons that took these health differences into account. We rate this claim False. | [
"102078-proof-28-46ef6de170701059a9fc7cbfb5b5319b.jpg"
]
|
'Rivers in Oklahoma are full of catfish carrying the virus. | Contradiction | A tiger in the Bronx Zoo in New York is sick with COVID-19, but a supposed news report about catfish carrying coronavirus in Oklahoma is a hoax. 'After multiple individuals living near Oklahoma waters tested positive for COVID-19, healthcare officials began testing for an aquatic carrier,' reads the text of what looks like a screenshot Facebook post from KWTV - NEWS 9. 'Upon further investigation it was found that rivers in Oklahoma are full of catfish carrying the virus. Any individuals who contact the fish are at high risk of contracting COVID-19. The highest concentration of infected fish is currently in the North Canadian River and Arkansas River systems.' 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 image appeared on Facebook on April 2. That same day, KWTV, an Oklahoma news station, published its own post in response. 'ACTUAL FAKE NEWS,' it began. 'If your friends share a fake graphic about COVID-19 and 'catfish' that looks like it's from News 9, tell 'em it's not from us. It is a fake, 100%.' Searching news coverage online, we found no mention of fish as coronavirus carriers. But KWTV offered a lesson in its Facebook post that we can endorse,: 'If your instinct tells you a piece of news is fake, your instinct is probably right.' We rate this catfish claim False. | We rate this catfish claim False. | []
|
A photo shows Gov. Gretchen Whitmer 'on Mackinaw Island today ignoring mask and social distancing rules. | Contradiction | Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has enraged some residents with the restrictions she has implemented to slow the spread of the coronavirus - rules that a recent Facebook post suggests she isn't even following. 'Gov. Twitmer on Mackinaw Island today ignoring mask and social distancing rules,' reads the caption on an image of Whitmer standing within a couple of feet of two men without a face mask. 'Share before it's taken down!!!' 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.) That's because the photo is more than a year old. It doesn't show Whitmer violating social distancing orders on Mackinac (spelled with a C, but pronounced mack-in-aw). It came from Whitmer's campaign when she was running for governor in 2018. The Oakland Press, which ran the picture alongside a Q&A with Whitmer in October 2018, said in the caption that it shows her 'speaking to Michigan residents while on the campaign trail.' We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
A photo shows Gov. Gretchen Whitmer 'on Mackinaw Island today ignoring mask and social distancing rules. | Contradiction | Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has enraged some residents with the restrictions she has implemented to slow the spread of the coronavirus - rules that a recent Facebook post suggests she isn't even following. 'Gov. Twitmer on Mackinaw Island today ignoring mask and social distancing rules,' reads the caption on an image of Whitmer standing within a couple of feet of two men without a face mask. 'Share before it's taken down!!!' 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.) That's because the photo is more than a year old. It doesn't show Whitmer violating social distancing orders on Mackinac (spelled with a C, but pronounced mack-in-aw). It came from Whitmer's campaign when she was running for governor in 2018. The Oakland Press, which ran the picture alongside a Q&A with Whitmer in October 2018, said in the caption that it shows her 'speaking to Michigan residents while on the campaign trail.' We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
The estate tax 'would punish family farms and small businesses, forcing them to be sold off instead of passed on to the next generation. | Contradiction | In a recent advertisement making rounds in Iowa online and on television, the National Republican Senatorial Committee targets Iowa's Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield's support for an estate tax. Dubbing the tax the Pelosi-Greenfield Death Tax, the advertisement says, 'This unfair tax would punish family farms and small businesses, forcing them to be sold off instead of passed on to the next generation.' The ad references an op-ed by Greenfield in the Valley News in October 2017, when she was running in the Democratic primary for Iowa's 3rd Congressional District. Greenfield's article argues that a proposed tax bill, in which Republicans were trying to eliminate estate taxes entirely, would be a win for wealthy Americans and corporations, not farmers. The National Republican Senatorial Committee's claim gets made frequently by those who see the estate tax as being unfair, and we've dealt with it several times from different perspectives in previous fact-checks. We zero in, here, on the claim made in the presumed competitive U.S. Senate race in Iowa that an estate tax would punish family farms and small businesses. The estate tax - in place in various iterations since 1916 - is a federal tax on property and asset transfers after the death of the owner. Some states impose their own estate taxes on top of the federal tax but Iowa does not. The tax only applies to estates valued above a specified amount, which has risen substantially in the past two decades. In 2000, estates worth more than $675,000 were subject to an estate tax, which would be worth a little more than $1 million in today's dollars. But, the exempt value has risen beyond inflation-adjusted levels - to $5.49 million by 2017, when Greenfield's op-ed was written. In 2018, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the exemption on taxable estates and indexed it for inflation to $11.58 million. Tax cuts in the act will sunset after 2025 unless Congress decides to extend them or pass another tax bill. The exemption doubles if the estate is owned by a couple, so family farms and businesses owned jointly won't pay a tax on an inherited estate unless the estate is valued above $23.16 million. Does the estate tax put a strain on small businesses and family farms, forcing them to sell to pay off the tax? The data says no. Family farms and small businesses are largely exempt from the tax because they usually don't have enough assets to meet the minimum value for a tax. Of the 5,500 taxable estates in 2017, when the taxable value was $5.49 million, 80 were small farms and businesses, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington-based non-partisan think tank. The center defined a small business as one with farm and business assets totaling less than $5 million and making up at least half the estate. Since 2018, the Tax Policy Center estimated 1,900 estates every year have been subject to the tax. None fell under the center's definition of a small business, but about 140 had business and farm assets making up at least half the estate, according to the estimates. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that 0.6 percent of the 38,106 farm estates created nationally in 2018 were required to file an estate tax return when the exemption was $11.18 million, and only 0.35 percent - 133 farms - ended up paying any taxes. Asked for comment, the National Republican Senatorial Committee referred to five sources, including an American Farm Bureau position statement arguing for repealing the tax. The statement says 91 percent of farm assets are tied up in land, equipment and buildings and not liquid, leaving farmers short of cash to pay an estate tax. The statement doesn't provide evidence that this is a common occurrence. But the committee points to Kevin Kester, the former president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, who wrote a 2017 opinion piece in U.S. News, saying his family would have to sell parts of its 22,000-acre California ranch to pay a $2 million tax bill when he inherited his ranch. The Republican Senatorial Committee also pointed to an open letter from 2001 that was penned by economist Milton Friedman arguing for a repeal of the tax. The letter was reissued in 2017 and signed by 727 economists. It's true that there's a cost associated with complying with the tax when it is owed. Wealthy families need to hire estate planners who can navigate the intricate tax code, and there are ways to structure an estate to lower the tax burden. Thomas Gelman, a lawyer at Phelan Tucker Law Firm who has been working in estate planning around Iowa City for 42 years, said multiple strategies exist for people - generally the wealthiest families with large estates - who are subject to the tax. They can transfer ownership of property during their lifetime, for example, or structure a family business to give up total ownership. 'There's just multiple strategies about how you might accomplish that,' Gelman said in an interview. 'And yes, they can become somewhat expensive and complicated to implement, but the federal estate tax is 40 percent. So, on every dollar you save tax on, you're saving 40 cents. And for people with enormous wealth, it usually justifies the effort.' Heirs of small businesses and farms can defer tax payments, excluding interest, for up to five years after filing a return, and can pay what's left in installments over 10 years. Small farms also can be valued at their farm use value rather than fair market value, which assesses land based on how much it produces versus how much it could be sold for on the open market. This allows for additional exemptions of more than $1 million when passed down. Leonard Burman, a Tax Policy Center economist, said in a Daily Iowan interview the likelihood the tax would force family farmers or small-business owners to sell their assets is essentially nonexistent. 'If you have a farm that, by itself, would be subject to the estate tax, it's a giant estate in California, it's not a corn farm in Iowa,' he said. The average size of a farm in Iowa was 351 acres in 2017, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Combine that with the average value of Iowa farmland - $7,432 an acre, according to a 2019 Iowa State University survey - and you get an average farm value of about $2.6 million. Even when accounting for real estate, equipment, and other assets, this is a far cry from the $23 million that would make a couple-owned farm subject to the tax, the data shows. Gelman said that in 42 years of practicing estate planning, he hasn't encountered a situation where a family had to sell a farm or business in order to pay the tax, though he has had clients who were subject to the tax take advantage of the provisions outlined above. 'The current federal estate tax, with the exemptions that are now applicable, do not force small farmers, in my experience, to have to sell off their farm,' he said. | Our ruling The NRSC advertisement said the tax would 'punish family farms and small businesses, forcing them to be sold off instead of passed on to the next generation.' Estate planning to prepare for the tax can be costly, and the few families that are subject to it do have an associated burden. With few liquid assets, very large farms like Kester's could run into trouble paying the tax, but the ad left out the crucial fact that only a tiny fraction of farms and businesses will ever see a tax on their estates. Most family farms in Iowa are below the threshold that triggers an estate tax. There are also several mechanisms, specifically for small businesses and farms, to reduce the amount owed and extend the payment window when a tax is owed. While it's possible that a handful of Iowa family farms and small businesses may be subject to the estate tax, it's hard to find evidence that the tax is forcing average farmers and business owners to sell their estates. We rated this claim Mostly False. | []
|
The estate tax 'would punish family farms and small businesses, forcing them to be sold off instead of passed on to the next generation. | Contradiction | In a recent advertisement making rounds in Iowa online and on television, the National Republican Senatorial Committee targets Iowa's Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield's support for an estate tax. Dubbing the tax the Pelosi-Greenfield Death Tax, the advertisement says, 'This unfair tax would punish family farms and small businesses, forcing them to be sold off instead of passed on to the next generation.' The ad references an op-ed by Greenfield in the Valley News in October 2017, when she was running in the Democratic primary for Iowa's 3rd Congressional District. Greenfield's article argues that a proposed tax bill, in which Republicans were trying to eliminate estate taxes entirely, would be a win for wealthy Americans and corporations, not farmers. The National Republican Senatorial Committee's claim gets made frequently by those who see the estate tax as being unfair, and we've dealt with it several times from different perspectives in previous fact-checks. We zero in, here, on the claim made in the presumed competitive U.S. Senate race in Iowa that an estate tax would punish family farms and small businesses. The estate tax - in place in various iterations since 1916 - is a federal tax on property and asset transfers after the death of the owner. Some states impose their own estate taxes on top of the federal tax but Iowa does not. The tax only applies to estates valued above a specified amount, which has risen substantially in the past two decades. In 2000, estates worth more than $675,000 were subject to an estate tax, which would be worth a little more than $1 million in today's dollars. But, the exempt value has risen beyond inflation-adjusted levels - to $5.49 million by 2017, when Greenfield's op-ed was written. In 2018, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the exemption on taxable estates and indexed it for inflation to $11.58 million. Tax cuts in the act will sunset after 2025 unless Congress decides to extend them or pass another tax bill. The exemption doubles if the estate is owned by a couple, so family farms and businesses owned jointly won't pay a tax on an inherited estate unless the estate is valued above $23.16 million. Does the estate tax put a strain on small businesses and family farms, forcing them to sell to pay off the tax? The data says no. Family farms and small businesses are largely exempt from the tax because they usually don't have enough assets to meet the minimum value for a tax. Of the 5,500 taxable estates in 2017, when the taxable value was $5.49 million, 80 were small farms and businesses, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington-based non-partisan think tank. The center defined a small business as one with farm and business assets totaling less than $5 million and making up at least half the estate. Since 2018, the Tax Policy Center estimated 1,900 estates every year have been subject to the tax. None fell under the center's definition of a small business, but about 140 had business and farm assets making up at least half the estate, according to the estimates. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that 0.6 percent of the 38,106 farm estates created nationally in 2018 were required to file an estate tax return when the exemption was $11.18 million, and only 0.35 percent - 133 farms - ended up paying any taxes. Asked for comment, the National Republican Senatorial Committee referred to five sources, including an American Farm Bureau position statement arguing for repealing the tax. The statement says 91 percent of farm assets are tied up in land, equipment and buildings and not liquid, leaving farmers short of cash to pay an estate tax. The statement doesn't provide evidence that this is a common occurrence. But the committee points to Kevin Kester, the former president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, who wrote a 2017 opinion piece in U.S. News, saying his family would have to sell parts of its 22,000-acre California ranch to pay a $2 million tax bill when he inherited his ranch. The Republican Senatorial Committee also pointed to an open letter from 2001 that was penned by economist Milton Friedman arguing for a repeal of the tax. The letter was reissued in 2017 and signed by 727 economists. It's true that there's a cost associated with complying with the tax when it is owed. Wealthy families need to hire estate planners who can navigate the intricate tax code, and there are ways to structure an estate to lower the tax burden. Thomas Gelman, a lawyer at Phelan Tucker Law Firm who has been working in estate planning around Iowa City for 42 years, said multiple strategies exist for people - generally the wealthiest families with large estates - who are subject to the tax. They can transfer ownership of property during their lifetime, for example, or structure a family business to give up total ownership. 'There's just multiple strategies about how you might accomplish that,' Gelman said in an interview. 'And yes, they can become somewhat expensive and complicated to implement, but the federal estate tax is 40 percent. So, on every dollar you save tax on, you're saving 40 cents. And for people with enormous wealth, it usually justifies the effort.' Heirs of small businesses and farms can defer tax payments, excluding interest, for up to five years after filing a return, and can pay what's left in installments over 10 years. Small farms also can be valued at their farm use value rather than fair market value, which assesses land based on how much it produces versus how much it could be sold for on the open market. This allows for additional exemptions of more than $1 million when passed down. Leonard Burman, a Tax Policy Center economist, said in a Daily Iowan interview the likelihood the tax would force family farmers or small-business owners to sell their assets is essentially nonexistent. 'If you have a farm that, by itself, would be subject to the estate tax, it's a giant estate in California, it's not a corn farm in Iowa,' he said. The average size of a farm in Iowa was 351 acres in 2017, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Combine that with the average value of Iowa farmland - $7,432 an acre, according to a 2019 Iowa State University survey - and you get an average farm value of about $2.6 million. Even when accounting for real estate, equipment, and other assets, this is a far cry from the $23 million that would make a couple-owned farm subject to the tax, the data shows. Gelman said that in 42 years of practicing estate planning, he hasn't encountered a situation where a family had to sell a farm or business in order to pay the tax, though he has had clients who were subject to the tax take advantage of the provisions outlined above. 'The current federal estate tax, with the exemptions that are now applicable, do not force small farmers, in my experience, to have to sell off their farm,' he said. | Our ruling The NRSC advertisement said the tax would 'punish family farms and small businesses, forcing them to be sold off instead of passed on to the next generation.' Estate planning to prepare for the tax can be costly, and the few families that are subject to it do have an associated burden. With few liquid assets, very large farms like Kester's could run into trouble paying the tax, but the ad left out the crucial fact that only a tiny fraction of farms and businesses will ever see a tax on their estates. Most family farms in Iowa are below the threshold that triggers an estate tax. There are also several mechanisms, specifically for small businesses and farms, to reduce the amount owed and extend the payment window when a tax is owed. While it's possible that a handful of Iowa family farms and small businesses may be subject to the estate tax, it's hard to find evidence that the tax is forcing average farmers and business owners to sell their estates. We rated this claim Mostly False. | []
|
The estate tax 'would punish family farms and small businesses, forcing them to be sold off instead of passed on to the next generation. | Contradiction | In a recent advertisement making rounds in Iowa online and on television, the National Republican Senatorial Committee targets Iowa's Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield's support for an estate tax. Dubbing the tax the Pelosi-Greenfield Death Tax, the advertisement says, 'This unfair tax would punish family farms and small businesses, forcing them to be sold off instead of passed on to the next generation.' The ad references an op-ed by Greenfield in the Valley News in October 2017, when she was running in the Democratic primary for Iowa's 3rd Congressional District. Greenfield's article argues that a proposed tax bill, in which Republicans were trying to eliminate estate taxes entirely, would be a win for wealthy Americans and corporations, not farmers. The National Republican Senatorial Committee's claim gets made frequently by those who see the estate tax as being unfair, and we've dealt with it several times from different perspectives in previous fact-checks. We zero in, here, on the claim made in the presumed competitive U.S. Senate race in Iowa that an estate tax would punish family farms and small businesses. The estate tax - in place in various iterations since 1916 - is a federal tax on property and asset transfers after the death of the owner. Some states impose their own estate taxes on top of the federal tax but Iowa does not. The tax only applies to estates valued above a specified amount, which has risen substantially in the past two decades. In 2000, estates worth more than $675,000 were subject to an estate tax, which would be worth a little more than $1 million in today's dollars. But, the exempt value has risen beyond inflation-adjusted levels - to $5.49 million by 2017, when Greenfield's op-ed was written. In 2018, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the exemption on taxable estates and indexed it for inflation to $11.58 million. Tax cuts in the act will sunset after 2025 unless Congress decides to extend them or pass another tax bill. The exemption doubles if the estate is owned by a couple, so family farms and businesses owned jointly won't pay a tax on an inherited estate unless the estate is valued above $23.16 million. Does the estate tax put a strain on small businesses and family farms, forcing them to sell to pay off the tax? The data says no. Family farms and small businesses are largely exempt from the tax because they usually don't have enough assets to meet the minimum value for a tax. Of the 5,500 taxable estates in 2017, when the taxable value was $5.49 million, 80 were small farms and businesses, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington-based non-partisan think tank. The center defined a small business as one with farm and business assets totaling less than $5 million and making up at least half the estate. Since 2018, the Tax Policy Center estimated 1,900 estates every year have been subject to the tax. None fell under the center's definition of a small business, but about 140 had business and farm assets making up at least half the estate, according to the estimates. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that 0.6 percent of the 38,106 farm estates created nationally in 2018 were required to file an estate tax return when the exemption was $11.18 million, and only 0.35 percent - 133 farms - ended up paying any taxes. Asked for comment, the National Republican Senatorial Committee referred to five sources, including an American Farm Bureau position statement arguing for repealing the tax. The statement says 91 percent of farm assets are tied up in land, equipment and buildings and not liquid, leaving farmers short of cash to pay an estate tax. The statement doesn't provide evidence that this is a common occurrence. But the committee points to Kevin Kester, the former president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, who wrote a 2017 opinion piece in U.S. News, saying his family would have to sell parts of its 22,000-acre California ranch to pay a $2 million tax bill when he inherited his ranch. The Republican Senatorial Committee also pointed to an open letter from 2001 that was penned by economist Milton Friedman arguing for a repeal of the tax. The letter was reissued in 2017 and signed by 727 economists. It's true that there's a cost associated with complying with the tax when it is owed. Wealthy families need to hire estate planners who can navigate the intricate tax code, and there are ways to structure an estate to lower the tax burden. Thomas Gelman, a lawyer at Phelan Tucker Law Firm who has been working in estate planning around Iowa City for 42 years, said multiple strategies exist for people - generally the wealthiest families with large estates - who are subject to the tax. They can transfer ownership of property during their lifetime, for example, or structure a family business to give up total ownership. 'There's just multiple strategies about how you might accomplish that,' Gelman said in an interview. 'And yes, they can become somewhat expensive and complicated to implement, but the federal estate tax is 40 percent. So, on every dollar you save tax on, you're saving 40 cents. And for people with enormous wealth, it usually justifies the effort.' Heirs of small businesses and farms can defer tax payments, excluding interest, for up to five years after filing a return, and can pay what's left in installments over 10 years. Small farms also can be valued at their farm use value rather than fair market value, which assesses land based on how much it produces versus how much it could be sold for on the open market. This allows for additional exemptions of more than $1 million when passed down. Leonard Burman, a Tax Policy Center economist, said in a Daily Iowan interview the likelihood the tax would force family farmers or small-business owners to sell their assets is essentially nonexistent. 'If you have a farm that, by itself, would be subject to the estate tax, it's a giant estate in California, it's not a corn farm in Iowa,' he said. The average size of a farm in Iowa was 351 acres in 2017, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Combine that with the average value of Iowa farmland - $7,432 an acre, according to a 2019 Iowa State University survey - and you get an average farm value of about $2.6 million. Even when accounting for real estate, equipment, and other assets, this is a far cry from the $23 million that would make a couple-owned farm subject to the tax, the data shows. Gelman said that in 42 years of practicing estate planning, he hasn't encountered a situation where a family had to sell a farm or business in order to pay the tax, though he has had clients who were subject to the tax take advantage of the provisions outlined above. 'The current federal estate tax, with the exemptions that are now applicable, do not force small farmers, in my experience, to have to sell off their farm,' he said. | Our ruling The NRSC advertisement said the tax would 'punish family farms and small businesses, forcing them to be sold off instead of passed on to the next generation.' Estate planning to prepare for the tax can be costly, and the few families that are subject to it do have an associated burden. With few liquid assets, very large farms like Kester's could run into trouble paying the tax, but the ad left out the crucial fact that only a tiny fraction of farms and businesses will ever see a tax on their estates. Most family farms in Iowa are below the threshold that triggers an estate tax. There are also several mechanisms, specifically for small businesses and farms, to reduce the amount owed and extend the payment window when a tax is owed. While it's possible that a handful of Iowa family farms and small businesses may be subject to the estate tax, it's hard to find evidence that the tax is forcing average farmers and business owners to sell their estates. We rated this claim Mostly False. | []
|
A leaked email from a Liberal Party politician shows the Canadian government's plan to 'reset' the economy and seize private property. | Contradiction | Social media users are resurfacing a chain email alleging that the Canadian government is using the COVID-19 pandemic as a cover to eliminate all debt, impose a police state, 'reset' the economy and seize private property. The email message, which social media users copied and posted to Facebook, purports to be a 'leak' from an anonymous Liberal Party politician. It details a long list of harsh measures to combat the coronavirus, including mandatory vaccines, lockdowns, travel restrictions and the deployment of the military into major cities. According to the email, these measures will culminate with the total seizure of all Canadian private property. As part of the final phase of its COVID-19 response, 'the federal government will offer to eliminate all personal debts (mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc) which all funding will be provided to Canada by the (International Monetary Fund) under what will become known as the World Debt Reset program,' the message claims. 'In exchange for acceptance of this total debt forgiveness the individual would forfeit ownership of any and all property and assets forever.' The message further alleges that individuals who do not agree with the plan will be 'relocated into isolation facilities' and detained there until they agree to have their property seized. The post with the text of the purported email 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's no evidence that the email is genuine, and its claims have no basis in fact. The email purports to come from a member of a 'Strategic Planning Committee' steered by the Prime Minister's Office. However, spokespeople from Canada's ruling Liberal Party and the Prime Minister's Office both told us that there is no Strategic Planning Committee. 'The post that you have referenced and others with the same content are not authentic, and no such committee exists,' said Braeden Caley, senior director of communications for the Liberal Party. The 'leaker' of the email doesn't provide any identification or proof of the claims. In addition, the email's predictions of sweeping lockdown restrictions and business closures implemented simultaneously across all of Canada haven't come to pass. Instead, Canadian provincial and territorial governments have imposed varying restrictions over the course of the pandemic in response to local case rates. Links to the 'Great Reset' theory The email's claims about Canada's COVID-19 response mirror what has come to be referred to as the 'Great Reset' conspiracy theory. The theory essentially holds that a group of 'global elites want to use the coronavirus as a tool to reorganize global societies and economies to their benefit at the expense of ordinary people, with the ultimate goal of a global totalitarian regime,' according to the Anti-Defamation League. There is no evidence to support this widely debunked theory, which has also been linked with the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory. The Great Reset theory gets its name from proposals put forth by two international organizations - the World Economic Forum and the International Monetary Fund - to combat economic inequality In June 2020, the WEF proposed a 'great reset' on capitalism to combat the way the pandemic was contributing to global economic inequality. It encouraged reforms to fiscal policy, industrial development and an economic system where corporations no longer sought to maximize shareholder profits at the expense of their workers and communities. Similarly, the IMF advocated a 'Global Economic Reset,' which aimed to promote an equitable recovery from the pandemic through time-limited debt suspensions for poor countries and public investments in health care. Neither organization has advocated the seizure of private property or the creation of a totalitarian world government. | Our ruling Facebook posts claim that a leaked email from a liberal party politician shows the Canadian government's plan to 'reset' the economy and seize private property. The email claims to come from a member of the 'Strategic Planning Committee' of Canada, but no such committee exists. The claim echoes a widely debunked conspiracy theory known as the 'Great Reset.' We rate these posts Pants on Fire! | []
|
A leaked email from a Liberal Party politician shows the Canadian government's plan to 'reset' the economy and seize private property. | Contradiction | Social media users are resurfacing a chain email alleging that the Canadian government is using the COVID-19 pandemic as a cover to eliminate all debt, impose a police state, 'reset' the economy and seize private property. The email message, which social media users copied and posted to Facebook, purports to be a 'leak' from an anonymous Liberal Party politician. It details a long list of harsh measures to combat the coronavirus, including mandatory vaccines, lockdowns, travel restrictions and the deployment of the military into major cities. According to the email, these measures will culminate with the total seizure of all Canadian private property. As part of the final phase of its COVID-19 response, 'the federal government will offer to eliminate all personal debts (mortgages, loans, credit cards, etc) which all funding will be provided to Canada by the (International Monetary Fund) under what will become known as the World Debt Reset program,' the message claims. 'In exchange for acceptance of this total debt forgiveness the individual would forfeit ownership of any and all property and assets forever.' The message further alleges that individuals who do not agree with the plan will be 'relocated into isolation facilities' and detained there until they agree to have their property seized. The post with the text of the purported email 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's no evidence that the email is genuine, and its claims have no basis in fact. The email purports to come from a member of a 'Strategic Planning Committee' steered by the Prime Minister's Office. However, spokespeople from Canada's ruling Liberal Party and the Prime Minister's Office both told us that there is no Strategic Planning Committee. 'The post that you have referenced and others with the same content are not authentic, and no such committee exists,' said Braeden Caley, senior director of communications for the Liberal Party. The 'leaker' of the email doesn't provide any identification or proof of the claims. In addition, the email's predictions of sweeping lockdown restrictions and business closures implemented simultaneously across all of Canada haven't come to pass. Instead, Canadian provincial and territorial governments have imposed varying restrictions over the course of the pandemic in response to local case rates. Links to the 'Great Reset' theory The email's claims about Canada's COVID-19 response mirror what has come to be referred to as the 'Great Reset' conspiracy theory. The theory essentially holds that a group of 'global elites want to use the coronavirus as a tool to reorganize global societies and economies to their benefit at the expense of ordinary people, with the ultimate goal of a global totalitarian regime,' according to the Anti-Defamation League. There is no evidence to support this widely debunked theory, which has also been linked with the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory. The Great Reset theory gets its name from proposals put forth by two international organizations - the World Economic Forum and the International Monetary Fund - to combat economic inequality In June 2020, the WEF proposed a 'great reset' on capitalism to combat the way the pandemic was contributing to global economic inequality. It encouraged reforms to fiscal policy, industrial development and an economic system where corporations no longer sought to maximize shareholder profits at the expense of their workers and communities. Similarly, the IMF advocated a 'Global Economic Reset,' which aimed to promote an equitable recovery from the pandemic through time-limited debt suspensions for poor countries and public investments in health care. Neither organization has advocated the seizure of private property or the creation of a totalitarian world government. | Our ruling Facebook posts claim that a leaked email from a liberal party politician shows the Canadian government's plan to 'reset' the economy and seize private property. The email claims to come from a member of the 'Strategic Planning Committee' of Canada, but no such committee exists. The claim echoes a widely debunked conspiracy theory known as the 'Great Reset.' We rate these posts Pants on Fire! | []
|
Speaking of his restriction on travel from China, 'I had (Joe) Biden calling me xenophobic. ... He called me a racist, because of the fact that he felt it was a racist thing to stop people from China coming in. | Contradiction | Amid criticism of his administration's response to the coronavirus pandemic, President Donald Trump routinely flags one action as efficient and bold: restricting travel from China into the United States. Trump has said he instituted a travel ban against everyone's wishes and that 'nobody,' not even doctors, wanted him to restrict travel. But 'probably tens of thousands' of people would be dead now if he hadn't done so, he claimed on Fox News March 24. At the same time, he's claimed that former Vice President Joe Biden, a contender for the Democratic nomination for president, called him racist and xenophobic for restricting entry from China. 'I had Biden calling me xenophobic,' Trump said on Sean Hannity's Fox News prime-time show March 26. 'He called me a racist, because of the fact that he felt it was a racist thing to stop people from China coming in.' Trump has said that about Biden at least three other times - on Twitter, at a White House briefing, and during the Fox News town hall. But Biden has not directly said that the travel restriction was xenophobic. He has used that phrase in reference to Trump and his handling of the coronavirus outbreak. Biden's campaign told PolitiFact that Biden's tweets were not specific to the restrictions on people coming from China. Biden's use of the word 'xenophobic' The White House press office said Trump's claim is supported by a tweet Biden posted Feb. 1, the day after the Trump administration announced travel restrictions on people who were in China 14 days prior to their attempted entry into the United States. Biden tweeted: 'We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science - not Donald Trump's record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.' But Biden did not explicitly tie xenophobia to the travel restriction. His tweet reflects coronavirus remarks he made during a campaign stop in Iowa Jan. 31, the day the travel restrictions were announced. Biden said: 'This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysteria xenophobia, hysterical xenophobia, and fear-mongering to lead the way instead of science.' Biden again used the word 'xenophobic' in March - once at a press conference and once in response to a Trump tweet. In the first, Biden was criticizing Trump for labeling coronavirus a 'foreign' virus. In the second, it's not clear whether Biden's use of the word was in direct reference to the travel restriction. During a March 12 press conference Biden said, the United States should not be overly dismissive of the outbreak, 'but neither should we panic or fall back on xenophobia, labeling COVID-19 a foreign virus does not displace accountability for the misjudgments that have been taken thus far by the Trump administration.' Earlier that day, the Trump campaign tweeted that Democrats and news outlets were 'accusing President Trump of racism and xenophobia' for his use of the phrase 'Chinese virus.' On March 18, Trump tweeted: 'I always treated the Chinese Virus very seriously, and have done a very good job from the beginning, including my very early decision to close the 'borders' from China - against the wishes of almost all. Many lives were saved. The Fake News new narrative is disgraceful & false!' Biden replied the same day: 'Stop the xenophobic fear-mongering. Be honest. Take responsibility. Do your job.' Stop the xenophobic fear-mongering. Be honest. Take responsibility. Do your job. https://t.co/nQ5aLVrpyb- Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) March 18, 2020 The tweet that Biden responded to included the phrase 'Chinese virus,' which experts say could foster discrimination toward people of Chinese or Asian origin. Andrew Bates, a Biden campaign spokesman, said Biden 'has decried Trump's xenophobia for years, and was saying that it shouldn't influence the U.S. approach to this outbreak. This was not in reference to coronavirus travel restrictions.' Travel restrictions that are supported by science, advocated by public health officials, and backed by a full strategy can be warranted, Bates said. | Our ruling Speaking of his restriction on travel from China, Trump said, 'I had Biden calling me xenophobic. ... . He called me a racist, because of the fact that he felt it was a racist thing to stop people from China coming in.' Biden has not directly said that the restrictions were xenophobic. Around the time the Trump administration announced the travel restriction, Biden said that Trump had a 'record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering.' Biden used the phrase 'xenophobic' in reply to a Trump tweet about limiting entry to travelers from China and in which he described the coronavirus as the 'Chinese virus.' Biden did not spell out which part of Trump's tweet was xenophobic. Trump's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"102145-proof-16-2419236b2a3bdb503844715a2f5fe632.jpg"
]
|
Speaking of his restriction on travel from China, 'I had (Joe) Biden calling me xenophobic. ... He called me a racist, because of the fact that he felt it was a racist thing to stop people from China coming in. | Contradiction | Amid criticism of his administration's response to the coronavirus pandemic, President Donald Trump routinely flags one action as efficient and bold: restricting travel from China into the United States. Trump has said he instituted a travel ban against everyone's wishes and that 'nobody,' not even doctors, wanted him to restrict travel. But 'probably tens of thousands' of people would be dead now if he hadn't done so, he claimed on Fox News March 24. At the same time, he's claimed that former Vice President Joe Biden, a contender for the Democratic nomination for president, called him racist and xenophobic for restricting entry from China. 'I had Biden calling me xenophobic,' Trump said on Sean Hannity's Fox News prime-time show March 26. 'He called me a racist, because of the fact that he felt it was a racist thing to stop people from China coming in.' Trump has said that about Biden at least three other times - on Twitter, at a White House briefing, and during the Fox News town hall. But Biden has not directly said that the travel restriction was xenophobic. He has used that phrase in reference to Trump and his handling of the coronavirus outbreak. Biden's campaign told PolitiFact that Biden's tweets were not specific to the restrictions on people coming from China. Biden's use of the word 'xenophobic' The White House press office said Trump's claim is supported by a tweet Biden posted Feb. 1, the day after the Trump administration announced travel restrictions on people who were in China 14 days prior to their attempted entry into the United States. Biden tweeted: 'We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science - not Donald Trump's record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.' But Biden did not explicitly tie xenophobia to the travel restriction. His tweet reflects coronavirus remarks he made during a campaign stop in Iowa Jan. 31, the day the travel restrictions were announced. Biden said: 'This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysteria xenophobia, hysterical xenophobia, and fear-mongering to lead the way instead of science.' Biden again used the word 'xenophobic' in March - once at a press conference and once in response to a Trump tweet. In the first, Biden was criticizing Trump for labeling coronavirus a 'foreign' virus. In the second, it's not clear whether Biden's use of the word was in direct reference to the travel restriction. During a March 12 press conference Biden said, the United States should not be overly dismissive of the outbreak, 'but neither should we panic or fall back on xenophobia, labeling COVID-19 a foreign virus does not displace accountability for the misjudgments that have been taken thus far by the Trump administration.' Earlier that day, the Trump campaign tweeted that Democrats and news outlets were 'accusing President Trump of racism and xenophobia' for his use of the phrase 'Chinese virus.' On March 18, Trump tweeted: 'I always treated the Chinese Virus very seriously, and have done a very good job from the beginning, including my very early decision to close the 'borders' from China - against the wishes of almost all. Many lives were saved. The Fake News new narrative is disgraceful & false!' Biden replied the same day: 'Stop the xenophobic fear-mongering. Be honest. Take responsibility. Do your job.' Stop the xenophobic fear-mongering. Be honest. Take responsibility. Do your job. https://t.co/nQ5aLVrpyb- Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) March 18, 2020 The tweet that Biden responded to included the phrase 'Chinese virus,' which experts say could foster discrimination toward people of Chinese or Asian origin. Andrew Bates, a Biden campaign spokesman, said Biden 'has decried Trump's xenophobia for years, and was saying that it shouldn't influence the U.S. approach to this outbreak. This was not in reference to coronavirus travel restrictions.' Travel restrictions that are supported by science, advocated by public health officials, and backed by a full strategy can be warranted, Bates said. | Our ruling Speaking of his restriction on travel from China, Trump said, 'I had Biden calling me xenophobic. ... . He called me a racist, because of the fact that he felt it was a racist thing to stop people from China coming in.' Biden has not directly said that the restrictions were xenophobic. Around the time the Trump administration announced the travel restriction, Biden said that Trump had a 'record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering.' Biden used the phrase 'xenophobic' in reply to a Trump tweet about limiting entry to travelers from China and in which he described the coronavirus as the 'Chinese virus.' Biden did not spell out which part of Trump's tweet was xenophobic. Trump's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"102145-proof-16-2419236b2a3bdb503844715a2f5fe632.jpg"
]
|
Speaking of his restriction on travel from China, 'I had (Joe) Biden calling me xenophobic. ... He called me a racist, because of the fact that he felt it was a racist thing to stop people from China coming in. | Contradiction | Amid criticism of his administration's response to the coronavirus pandemic, President Donald Trump routinely flags one action as efficient and bold: restricting travel from China into the United States. Trump has said he instituted a travel ban against everyone's wishes and that 'nobody,' not even doctors, wanted him to restrict travel. But 'probably tens of thousands' of people would be dead now if he hadn't done so, he claimed on Fox News March 24. At the same time, he's claimed that former Vice President Joe Biden, a contender for the Democratic nomination for president, called him racist and xenophobic for restricting entry from China. 'I had Biden calling me xenophobic,' Trump said on Sean Hannity's Fox News prime-time show March 26. 'He called me a racist, because of the fact that he felt it was a racist thing to stop people from China coming in.' Trump has said that about Biden at least three other times - on Twitter, at a White House briefing, and during the Fox News town hall. But Biden has not directly said that the travel restriction was xenophobic. He has used that phrase in reference to Trump and his handling of the coronavirus outbreak. Biden's campaign told PolitiFact that Biden's tweets were not specific to the restrictions on people coming from China. Biden's use of the word 'xenophobic' The White House press office said Trump's claim is supported by a tweet Biden posted Feb. 1, the day after the Trump administration announced travel restrictions on people who were in China 14 days prior to their attempted entry into the United States. Biden tweeted: 'We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science - not Donald Trump's record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.' But Biden did not explicitly tie xenophobia to the travel restriction. His tweet reflects coronavirus remarks he made during a campaign stop in Iowa Jan. 31, the day the travel restrictions were announced. Biden said: 'This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysteria xenophobia, hysterical xenophobia, and fear-mongering to lead the way instead of science.' Biden again used the word 'xenophobic' in March - once at a press conference and once in response to a Trump tweet. In the first, Biden was criticizing Trump for labeling coronavirus a 'foreign' virus. In the second, it's not clear whether Biden's use of the word was in direct reference to the travel restriction. During a March 12 press conference Biden said, the United States should not be overly dismissive of the outbreak, 'but neither should we panic or fall back on xenophobia, labeling COVID-19 a foreign virus does not displace accountability for the misjudgments that have been taken thus far by the Trump administration.' Earlier that day, the Trump campaign tweeted that Democrats and news outlets were 'accusing President Trump of racism and xenophobia' for his use of the phrase 'Chinese virus.' On March 18, Trump tweeted: 'I always treated the Chinese Virus very seriously, and have done a very good job from the beginning, including my very early decision to close the 'borders' from China - against the wishes of almost all. Many lives were saved. The Fake News new narrative is disgraceful & false!' Biden replied the same day: 'Stop the xenophobic fear-mongering. Be honest. Take responsibility. Do your job.' Stop the xenophobic fear-mongering. Be honest. Take responsibility. Do your job. https://t.co/nQ5aLVrpyb- Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) March 18, 2020 The tweet that Biden responded to included the phrase 'Chinese virus,' which experts say could foster discrimination toward people of Chinese or Asian origin. Andrew Bates, a Biden campaign spokesman, said Biden 'has decried Trump's xenophobia for years, and was saying that it shouldn't influence the U.S. approach to this outbreak. This was not in reference to coronavirus travel restrictions.' Travel restrictions that are supported by science, advocated by public health officials, and backed by a full strategy can be warranted, Bates said. | Our ruling Speaking of his restriction on travel from China, Trump said, 'I had Biden calling me xenophobic. ... . He called me a racist, because of the fact that he felt it was a racist thing to stop people from China coming in.' Biden has not directly said that the restrictions were xenophobic. Around the time the Trump administration announced the travel restriction, Biden said that Trump had a 'record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering.' Biden used the phrase 'xenophobic' in reply to a Trump tweet about limiting entry to travelers from China and in which he described the coronavirus as the 'Chinese virus.' Biden did not spell out which part of Trump's tweet was xenophobic. Trump's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"102145-proof-16-2419236b2a3bdb503844715a2f5fe632.jpg"
]
|
Federal agents are going 'door-to-door coercing people to be injected with experimental drugs. | Contradiction | With U.S. vaccination rates stalling, President Joe Biden announced a new wave of efforts to reach unvaccinated Americans, including sending people door to door to talk about the vaccine. 'Now we need to go to community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, and oftentimes, door to door - literally knocking on doors - to get help to the remaining people protected from the virus,' Biden said during a July 6 speech at the White House. Though the White House said the push for a door-to-door vaccination campaign has been ongoing since April, Biden's remarks sparked criticism from some such as Republican Missouri Gov. Henry McMaster, who characterized the effort as 'enticing, coercing, intimidating, mandating, or pressuring' people to take the vaccine. A similar sentiment appeared on social media: 'The same people that called President Trump a 'fascist' are now sending federal agents door-to-door coercing people to be injected with experimental drugs,' read the text in a July 10 Instagram post that we also found widely shared on Facebook. This is misleading - and 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.) First, there's no evidence that the door-to-door effort involves coercion - the use of force or threats to persuade the unwilling - to get people vaccinated. Second, the White House says the program does not involve federal employees or government members. Third, while COVID-19 vaccines are being used in the U.S. under emergency authorization, calling them 'experimental' ignores the fact that they have been fully tested in clinical trials involving tens of thousands of participants. They have been found to be safe, effective and potentially life-saving, keeping people from getting and spreading the virus that causes COVID-19. We rated a similar claim calling the vaccines 'experimental' Mostly False. Door-knocking campaign is similar to other ongoing outreach efforts Biden's Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in a press briefing that the people knocking on doors aren't federal employees or members of the government. 'They are volunteers. They are clergy. They are trusted voices in communities who are playing this role and door knocking.' The door-to-door campaigns have been organized mostly at the local level and are in the vein of other on-the-ground efforts that have been a staple of public health outreach for years. Cities like Detroit, Washington, Milwaukee and Chicago all run programs that send people door to door to help inform unvaccinated people about the COVID-19 vaccines. There is also no evidence that these efforts involve 'coercion.' In Louisiana, for example, where such an effort has been underway for months, health officials say canvassers are given 'motivational interviewing' training which starts an open dialogue with residents about their thoughts around COVID-19 vaccines. 'The decision to be vaccinated is a personal one, and the canvassers provide educational information,' said Kevin Litten, a spokesperson for Louisiana's Department of Health. If a resident is not interested in receiving vaccine information, 'the canvasser offers materials that the resident can review on their own and then moves on to the next house,' Litten said. In North Carolina's Mecklenburg County, health officials recently started sending out a health department vehicle staffed by medical professionals who can provide on-site vaccinations if people want them. This 'doses to the door' program followed weeks of door knocking to sign people up, especially in neighborhoods with lower vaccination rates that have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. 'It's not confrontational,' said community organizer Robert Dawkins in an interview with WCNC in Charlotte. 'It's not like you've got to get the shot, but it's our job to dispel those rumors.' Dawkins leads Action NC, one of the organizing groups involved in that canvassing effort. He said the complication with door-to-door outreach has been follow-up, so the addition of the mobile unit is helpful. 'We get people that will say 'Yes I'll get the shot,' but the follow-up has always been the issue. Will they go? How can we get people to go out and go?' According to Psaki, the Biden administration has funded door-knocking programs like this since April, and this is just one tactic that's been used to increase vaccination rates in June. She said the results have been measurable. 'Alabama: The adult vaccination rate increased by 3.9%; 149,000 additional adults got their first dose in June,' Psaki said, with the adult vaccination rate increasing by 4.4% in Florida and 3.5% in Georgia. 'In our view, this is a way to engage and empower local activists, trusted members of the community,' Psaki said. Authorized vaccines are not 'experimental' drugs The term 'experimental' is often used by vaccine skeptics. But, as we have reported before, the phrase is subjective and ignores the amount of research that is required before the vaccines are authorized for distribution. Researchers have been studying and working with the mRNA technology that is at work in the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech shots dating back to the 1990s. The viral vector platform used in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was approved for use for other health emergencies such as Ebola. The mRNA vaccines, such as Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines 'are a new type of vaccine, but are not unknown,' a spokesperson with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. The mRNA vaccines work by teaching cells how to make a protein, or just a piece of a protein, which triggers the body to produce antibodies that prevent infection. Viral vector vaccines such as Johnson & Johnson's Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, were created in the 1970s. They use a modified, but harmless version of a different virus, called a vector, to make the body produce antibodies. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization for all three COVID-19 vaccines currently being used in the United States. The vaccines are pending full approval by the FDA, but they have been found safe and effective in preventing COVID-19. Before they were authorized for emergency use, COVID-19 vaccines were subjected to clinical trials conducted with tens of thousands of participants to collect scientific data. After three trial phases with varying levels of complexity, the FDA determined that the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccines. | Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that federal agents were going door-to-door 'coercing people to be injected with experimental drugs.' Door-to-door canvassing efforts to get people vaccinated have been underway at the local level for months, as part of a push to increase vaccination rates. But the people involved are not federal employees or government members, according to the White House. They have been community organizers and volunteers. Some communities have augmented the effort with on-site mobile vaccination clinics for those who want the shot. But there is no indication that the door-to-door tactics involve coercion - the use of force or threats to compel someone to do something they are unwilling to do. What's more, the COVID-19 vaccines approved for emergency use in the U.S. are not 'experimental drugs.' They were subjected to clinical trials involving tens of thousands of people before being given emergency use authorization. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
Federal agents are going 'door-to-door coercing people to be injected with experimental drugs. | Contradiction | With U.S. vaccination rates stalling, President Joe Biden announced a new wave of efforts to reach unvaccinated Americans, including sending people door to door to talk about the vaccine. 'Now we need to go to community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, and oftentimes, door to door - literally knocking on doors - to get help to the remaining people protected from the virus,' Biden said during a July 6 speech at the White House. Though the White House said the push for a door-to-door vaccination campaign has been ongoing since April, Biden's remarks sparked criticism from some such as Republican Missouri Gov. Henry McMaster, who characterized the effort as 'enticing, coercing, intimidating, mandating, or pressuring' people to take the vaccine. A similar sentiment appeared on social media: 'The same people that called President Trump a 'fascist' are now sending federal agents door-to-door coercing people to be injected with experimental drugs,' read the text in a July 10 Instagram post that we also found widely shared on Facebook. This is misleading - and 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.) First, there's no evidence that the door-to-door effort involves coercion - the use of force or threats to persuade the unwilling - to get people vaccinated. Second, the White House says the program does not involve federal employees or government members. Third, while COVID-19 vaccines are being used in the U.S. under emergency authorization, calling them 'experimental' ignores the fact that they have been fully tested in clinical trials involving tens of thousands of participants. They have been found to be safe, effective and potentially life-saving, keeping people from getting and spreading the virus that causes COVID-19. We rated a similar claim calling the vaccines 'experimental' Mostly False. Door-knocking campaign is similar to other ongoing outreach efforts Biden's Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in a press briefing that the people knocking on doors aren't federal employees or members of the government. 'They are volunteers. They are clergy. They are trusted voices in communities who are playing this role and door knocking.' The door-to-door campaigns have been organized mostly at the local level and are in the vein of other on-the-ground efforts that have been a staple of public health outreach for years. Cities like Detroit, Washington, Milwaukee and Chicago all run programs that send people door to door to help inform unvaccinated people about the COVID-19 vaccines. There is also no evidence that these efforts involve 'coercion.' In Louisiana, for example, where such an effort has been underway for months, health officials say canvassers are given 'motivational interviewing' training which starts an open dialogue with residents about their thoughts around COVID-19 vaccines. 'The decision to be vaccinated is a personal one, and the canvassers provide educational information,' said Kevin Litten, a spokesperson for Louisiana's Department of Health. If a resident is not interested in receiving vaccine information, 'the canvasser offers materials that the resident can review on their own and then moves on to the next house,' Litten said. In North Carolina's Mecklenburg County, health officials recently started sending out a health department vehicle staffed by medical professionals who can provide on-site vaccinations if people want them. This 'doses to the door' program followed weeks of door knocking to sign people up, especially in neighborhoods with lower vaccination rates that have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. 'It's not confrontational,' said community organizer Robert Dawkins in an interview with WCNC in Charlotte. 'It's not like you've got to get the shot, but it's our job to dispel those rumors.' Dawkins leads Action NC, one of the organizing groups involved in that canvassing effort. He said the complication with door-to-door outreach has been follow-up, so the addition of the mobile unit is helpful. 'We get people that will say 'Yes I'll get the shot,' but the follow-up has always been the issue. Will they go? How can we get people to go out and go?' According to Psaki, the Biden administration has funded door-knocking programs like this since April, and this is just one tactic that's been used to increase vaccination rates in June. She said the results have been measurable. 'Alabama: The adult vaccination rate increased by 3.9%; 149,000 additional adults got their first dose in June,' Psaki said, with the adult vaccination rate increasing by 4.4% in Florida and 3.5% in Georgia. 'In our view, this is a way to engage and empower local activists, trusted members of the community,' Psaki said. Authorized vaccines are not 'experimental' drugs The term 'experimental' is often used by vaccine skeptics. But, as we have reported before, the phrase is subjective and ignores the amount of research that is required before the vaccines are authorized for distribution. Researchers have been studying and working with the mRNA technology that is at work in the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech shots dating back to the 1990s. The viral vector platform used in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was approved for use for other health emergencies such as Ebola. The mRNA vaccines, such as Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines 'are a new type of vaccine, but are not unknown,' a spokesperson with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. The mRNA vaccines work by teaching cells how to make a protein, or just a piece of a protein, which triggers the body to produce antibodies that prevent infection. Viral vector vaccines such as Johnson & Johnson's Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, were created in the 1970s. They use a modified, but harmless version of a different virus, called a vector, to make the body produce antibodies. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization for all three COVID-19 vaccines currently being used in the United States. The vaccines are pending full approval by the FDA, but they have been found safe and effective in preventing COVID-19. Before they were authorized for emergency use, COVID-19 vaccines were subjected to clinical trials conducted with tens of thousands of participants to collect scientific data. After three trial phases with varying levels of complexity, the FDA determined that the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccines. | Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that federal agents were going door-to-door 'coercing people to be injected with experimental drugs.' Door-to-door canvassing efforts to get people vaccinated have been underway at the local level for months, as part of a push to increase vaccination rates. But the people involved are not federal employees or government members, according to the White House. They have been community organizers and volunteers. Some communities have augmented the effort with on-site mobile vaccination clinics for those who want the shot. But there is no indication that the door-to-door tactics involve coercion - the use of force or threats to compel someone to do something they are unwilling to do. What's more, the COVID-19 vaccines approved for emergency use in the U.S. are not 'experimental drugs.' They were subjected to clinical trials involving tens of thousands of people before being given emergency use authorization. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
Federal agents are going 'door-to-door coercing people to be injected with experimental drugs. | Contradiction | With U.S. vaccination rates stalling, President Joe Biden announced a new wave of efforts to reach unvaccinated Americans, including sending people door to door to talk about the vaccine. 'Now we need to go to community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, and oftentimes, door to door - literally knocking on doors - to get help to the remaining people protected from the virus,' Biden said during a July 6 speech at the White House. Though the White House said the push for a door-to-door vaccination campaign has been ongoing since April, Biden's remarks sparked criticism from some such as Republican Missouri Gov. Henry McMaster, who characterized the effort as 'enticing, coercing, intimidating, mandating, or pressuring' people to take the vaccine. A similar sentiment appeared on social media: 'The same people that called President Trump a 'fascist' are now sending federal agents door-to-door coercing people to be injected with experimental drugs,' read the text in a July 10 Instagram post that we also found widely shared on Facebook. This is misleading - and 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.) First, there's no evidence that the door-to-door effort involves coercion - the use of force or threats to persuade the unwilling - to get people vaccinated. Second, the White House says the program does not involve federal employees or government members. Third, while COVID-19 vaccines are being used in the U.S. under emergency authorization, calling them 'experimental' ignores the fact that they have been fully tested in clinical trials involving tens of thousands of participants. They have been found to be safe, effective and potentially life-saving, keeping people from getting and spreading the virus that causes COVID-19. We rated a similar claim calling the vaccines 'experimental' Mostly False. Door-knocking campaign is similar to other ongoing outreach efforts Biden's Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in a press briefing that the people knocking on doors aren't federal employees or members of the government. 'They are volunteers. They are clergy. They are trusted voices in communities who are playing this role and door knocking.' The door-to-door campaigns have been organized mostly at the local level and are in the vein of other on-the-ground efforts that have been a staple of public health outreach for years. Cities like Detroit, Washington, Milwaukee and Chicago all run programs that send people door to door to help inform unvaccinated people about the COVID-19 vaccines. There is also no evidence that these efforts involve 'coercion.' In Louisiana, for example, where such an effort has been underway for months, health officials say canvassers are given 'motivational interviewing' training which starts an open dialogue with residents about their thoughts around COVID-19 vaccines. 'The decision to be vaccinated is a personal one, and the canvassers provide educational information,' said Kevin Litten, a spokesperson for Louisiana's Department of Health. If a resident is not interested in receiving vaccine information, 'the canvasser offers materials that the resident can review on their own and then moves on to the next house,' Litten said. In North Carolina's Mecklenburg County, health officials recently started sending out a health department vehicle staffed by medical professionals who can provide on-site vaccinations if people want them. This 'doses to the door' program followed weeks of door knocking to sign people up, especially in neighborhoods with lower vaccination rates that have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. 'It's not confrontational,' said community organizer Robert Dawkins in an interview with WCNC in Charlotte. 'It's not like you've got to get the shot, but it's our job to dispel those rumors.' Dawkins leads Action NC, one of the organizing groups involved in that canvassing effort. He said the complication with door-to-door outreach has been follow-up, so the addition of the mobile unit is helpful. 'We get people that will say 'Yes I'll get the shot,' but the follow-up has always been the issue. Will they go? How can we get people to go out and go?' According to Psaki, the Biden administration has funded door-knocking programs like this since April, and this is just one tactic that's been used to increase vaccination rates in June. She said the results have been measurable. 'Alabama: The adult vaccination rate increased by 3.9%; 149,000 additional adults got their first dose in June,' Psaki said, with the adult vaccination rate increasing by 4.4% in Florida and 3.5% in Georgia. 'In our view, this is a way to engage and empower local activists, trusted members of the community,' Psaki said. Authorized vaccines are not 'experimental' drugs The term 'experimental' is often used by vaccine skeptics. But, as we have reported before, the phrase is subjective and ignores the amount of research that is required before the vaccines are authorized for distribution. Researchers have been studying and working with the mRNA technology that is at work in the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech shots dating back to the 1990s. The viral vector platform used in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was approved for use for other health emergencies such as Ebola. The mRNA vaccines, such as Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines 'are a new type of vaccine, but are not unknown,' a spokesperson with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. The mRNA vaccines work by teaching cells how to make a protein, or just a piece of a protein, which triggers the body to produce antibodies that prevent infection. Viral vector vaccines such as Johnson & Johnson's Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, were created in the 1970s. They use a modified, but harmless version of a different virus, called a vector, to make the body produce antibodies. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization for all three COVID-19 vaccines currently being used in the United States. The vaccines are pending full approval by the FDA, but they have been found safe and effective in preventing COVID-19. Before they were authorized for emergency use, COVID-19 vaccines were subjected to clinical trials conducted with tens of thousands of participants to collect scientific data. After three trial phases with varying levels of complexity, the FDA determined that the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccines. | Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that federal agents were going door-to-door 'coercing people to be injected with experimental drugs.' Door-to-door canvassing efforts to get people vaccinated have been underway at the local level for months, as part of a push to increase vaccination rates. But the people involved are not federal employees or government members, according to the White House. They have been community organizers and volunteers. Some communities have augmented the effort with on-site mobile vaccination clinics for those who want the shot. But there is no indication that the door-to-door tactics involve coercion - the use of force or threats to compel someone to do something they are unwilling to do. What's more, the COVID-19 vaccines approved for emergency use in the U.S. are not 'experimental drugs.' They were subjected to clinical trials involving tens of thousands of people before being given emergency use authorization. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
Federal agents are going 'door-to-door coercing people to be injected with experimental drugs. | Contradiction | With U.S. vaccination rates stalling, President Joe Biden announced a new wave of efforts to reach unvaccinated Americans, including sending people door to door to talk about the vaccine. 'Now we need to go to community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, and oftentimes, door to door - literally knocking on doors - to get help to the remaining people protected from the virus,' Biden said during a July 6 speech at the White House. Though the White House said the push for a door-to-door vaccination campaign has been ongoing since April, Biden's remarks sparked criticism from some such as Republican Missouri Gov. Henry McMaster, who characterized the effort as 'enticing, coercing, intimidating, mandating, or pressuring' people to take the vaccine. A similar sentiment appeared on social media: 'The same people that called President Trump a 'fascist' are now sending federal agents door-to-door coercing people to be injected with experimental drugs,' read the text in a July 10 Instagram post that we also found widely shared on Facebook. This is misleading - and 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.) First, there's no evidence that the door-to-door effort involves coercion - the use of force or threats to persuade the unwilling - to get people vaccinated. Second, the White House says the program does not involve federal employees or government members. Third, while COVID-19 vaccines are being used in the U.S. under emergency authorization, calling them 'experimental' ignores the fact that they have been fully tested in clinical trials involving tens of thousands of participants. They have been found to be safe, effective and potentially life-saving, keeping people from getting and spreading the virus that causes COVID-19. We rated a similar claim calling the vaccines 'experimental' Mostly False. Door-knocking campaign is similar to other ongoing outreach efforts Biden's Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in a press briefing that the people knocking on doors aren't federal employees or members of the government. 'They are volunteers. They are clergy. They are trusted voices in communities who are playing this role and door knocking.' The door-to-door campaigns have been organized mostly at the local level and are in the vein of other on-the-ground efforts that have been a staple of public health outreach for years. Cities like Detroit, Washington, Milwaukee and Chicago all run programs that send people door to door to help inform unvaccinated people about the COVID-19 vaccines. There is also no evidence that these efforts involve 'coercion.' In Louisiana, for example, where such an effort has been underway for months, health officials say canvassers are given 'motivational interviewing' training which starts an open dialogue with residents about their thoughts around COVID-19 vaccines. 'The decision to be vaccinated is a personal one, and the canvassers provide educational information,' said Kevin Litten, a spokesperson for Louisiana's Department of Health. If a resident is not interested in receiving vaccine information, 'the canvasser offers materials that the resident can review on their own and then moves on to the next house,' Litten said. In North Carolina's Mecklenburg County, health officials recently started sending out a health department vehicle staffed by medical professionals who can provide on-site vaccinations if people want them. This 'doses to the door' program followed weeks of door knocking to sign people up, especially in neighborhoods with lower vaccination rates that have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. 'It's not confrontational,' said community organizer Robert Dawkins in an interview with WCNC in Charlotte. 'It's not like you've got to get the shot, but it's our job to dispel those rumors.' Dawkins leads Action NC, one of the organizing groups involved in that canvassing effort. He said the complication with door-to-door outreach has been follow-up, so the addition of the mobile unit is helpful. 'We get people that will say 'Yes I'll get the shot,' but the follow-up has always been the issue. Will they go? How can we get people to go out and go?' According to Psaki, the Biden administration has funded door-knocking programs like this since April, and this is just one tactic that's been used to increase vaccination rates in June. She said the results have been measurable. 'Alabama: The adult vaccination rate increased by 3.9%; 149,000 additional adults got their first dose in June,' Psaki said, with the adult vaccination rate increasing by 4.4% in Florida and 3.5% in Georgia. 'In our view, this is a way to engage and empower local activists, trusted members of the community,' Psaki said. Authorized vaccines are not 'experimental' drugs The term 'experimental' is often used by vaccine skeptics. But, as we have reported before, the phrase is subjective and ignores the amount of research that is required before the vaccines are authorized for distribution. Researchers have been studying and working with the mRNA technology that is at work in the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech shots dating back to the 1990s. The viral vector platform used in the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was approved for use for other health emergencies such as Ebola. The mRNA vaccines, such as Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines 'are a new type of vaccine, but are not unknown,' a spokesperson with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. The mRNA vaccines work by teaching cells how to make a protein, or just a piece of a protein, which triggers the body to produce antibodies that prevent infection. Viral vector vaccines such as Johnson & Johnson's Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, were created in the 1970s. They use a modified, but harmless version of a different virus, called a vector, to make the body produce antibodies. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization for all three COVID-19 vaccines currently being used in the United States. The vaccines are pending full approval by the FDA, but they have been found safe and effective in preventing COVID-19. Before they were authorized for emergency use, COVID-19 vaccines were subjected to clinical trials conducted with tens of thousands of participants to collect scientific data. After three trial phases with varying levels of complexity, the FDA determined that the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccines. | Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that federal agents were going door-to-door 'coercing people to be injected with experimental drugs.' Door-to-door canvassing efforts to get people vaccinated have been underway at the local level for months, as part of a push to increase vaccination rates. But the people involved are not federal employees or government members, according to the White House. They have been community organizers and volunteers. Some communities have augmented the effort with on-site mobile vaccination clinics for those who want the shot. But there is no indication that the door-to-door tactics involve coercion - the use of force or threats to compel someone to do something they are unwilling to do. What's more, the COVID-19 vaccines approved for emergency use in the U.S. are not 'experimental drugs.' They were subjected to clinical trials involving tens of thousands of people before being given emergency use authorization. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
Photos show children in cages. | Contradiction | Images being shared on social media show metal cages with what look like people curled up inside under space blankets. 'If you justify these photos you are not human,' a description of the photos says. 'This is literally inhumane.' One user who posted the pictures on Facebook wrote, 'DO all lives matter? Asking for kids in a cage.' 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.) That's because those aren't people in the cages - they're child-sized mannequins, part of a public art installation protesting family separations at the U.S.-Mexico border. The #NoKidsInCages campaign by Raices, a Texas nonprofit aimed at helping refugees and immigrants, arrived in Des Moines, Iowa, in February as people arrived to caucus for their Democratic presidential candidate. Each of the cages included a red sign that said '#DontLookAway,' visible although not legible in the photos on Facebook. CNN reported at the time that the mannequins played recordings of children who have been detained. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | [
"102173-proof-16-741546c61976bf3d47ef55121dad7f5b.jpeg"
]
|
Tenured professors are guaranteed a job. | Contradiction | A bill in the Iowa Legislature, House File 49, banning tenure at Iowa's universities passed a House committee this session, clearing a key legislative March deadline colloquially called 'the funnel.' Proponents of the bill, like Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, say abolishing tenure - a contractual employment status that means faculty members have job security so controversial ideas can be exchanged to further knowledge without fear of punishment - will hold professors accountable for instances of free speech violations on campus. One such accused violation senators have cited involved an Iowa State University English professor, Chloe Clark, who wrote in an English course syllabus that students could not 'choose any topic that takes at its base that one side doesn't deserve the same basic human rights as you do (ie: no arguments against gay marriage, abortion, Black Lives Matter, etc).' She then apologized and updated the syllabus. ISU required each professor to include a statement of commitment to free expression at the start of the winter term. It's worth noting that the professor in question wasn't tenured. Clark graduated with an MFA in creative writing from ISU in 2016. Tenure-eligible professors at ISU undergo a seven-year probationary period before gaining tenure status. In fact, Clark is an assistant teaching professor, which is a term/non-tenure-eligible appointment, ISU spokesperson Angie Hunt wrote in an email to The Daily Iowan. She's continuing to teach this semester. Holt was quoted by The Gazette of Cedar Rapids as saying, 'I wonder if the assault on free speech by some university professors is not related to the belief that they're Teflon-coated and indestructible and, therefore, maybe we need to look at getting rid of tenure.' In an email to the DI, Holt cited 'the growing number of cases in which professors who know better threaten and intimidate students with differing viewpoints.' He referenced the ISU professor and another instance of the dean of the College of Dentistry calling in a student who 'replied all' to an email to expressed his disagreement with the college's stance on a Trump executive order relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion training. Holt previously told the DI, 'The (House) Oversight Committee has had a number of students reach out to us and describe stories of what they've been through and how intimidated they feel.' This isn't a unique view of tenure, which Republicans in other states have criticized and in Iowa have been trying to eliminate since 2017. In a January interview with WHO radio, state Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, said he didn't think 'anyone in our universities should be guaranteed a job.' But are tenured professors at Iowa's public universities - the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, and the University of Northern Iowa - guaranteed a job? Professors with tenure have certain protections in order to preserve academic freedom but, steps exist to remove them. Plus, many faculty members do not have tenure and, thus, have fewer protections against being removed. And, there is this: Tenure grants professors protection for free speech. At ISU, the handbook says that tenured faculty must not be disciplined 'based upon any belief, expression, or conduct protected by law or by the principles of academic freedom.' But tenure's protections are not all-encompassing. 'I want to make it really clear: Tenure is not a lifetime appointment for any given faculty member,' Rachel Boon, chief academic officer for the state Board of Regents told lawmakers in February. 'Tenure is an employment agreement we have with them.' At each state university, tenured faculty members are reviewed annually, with a more extensive peer and department head review every five to seven years, depending on the institution. Professors on the track to become tenured undergo a probationary period that generally lasts six years with reviews by 'expert peers outside the institution,' according to the state Board of Regents' 2020 tenure report, and internally at the college and university levels. The report states: 'Termination occurs when the tenured faculty member does not meet employment obligations, or in cases of program termination or financial exigency for the institution.' Sen. Jim Carlin, R-Sioux City, questioned whether tenured professors are held accountable or undergo reviews on March 8 as the Senate passed a bill that would prohibit certain types of diversity, equity, and inclusion training at public education institutions, while requiring teachers and faculty members to undergo First Amendment training. Carlin said he submitted to the regents a request for the last five years of disciplinary actions brought against tenured faculty members at each of the three public universities, but hadn't yet received an answer as of March 8. 'They wouldn't reveal the disposition of those disciplinary actions because it would show whether or not we have an authentic review process,' he said on the Senate floor March 8. In response to a request from the DI, regents spokesperson Josh Lehman provided the DI with documents returned to Carlin in response to his questions. Lehman said regents staff sent Carlin the same information March 11, the same day Lehman sent it to the DI. In an interview March 12, Carlin said he hadn't yet received the materials, but after reviewing the documents over the weekend, he said the data 'lacked any meaningful specificity with regard to the nature of the disciplinary actions or dispositions except for those which resulted in a discharge or resignation.' He said he'd asked the secretary of the Senate to follow up with another request to the regents for more detailed information. Carlin said he's not opposed to tenure, nor does he have an axe to grind with the regent institutions or professors. Instead, he said he wants to ensure that the regent institutions instill a culture of allowing students to speak their minds and challenge assumptions. 'We don't want them to be places of indoctrination,' Carlin said. 'We want our students at our regents institutions to be able to think critically about how things are.' He said he'd heard of a number of students who decided against expressing their true opinions for fear of a lower grade but hadn't experienced explicit speech suppression. When asked whether changing tenure review policies could elicit a more fearful culture among professors, Carlin said: 'I don't think professors have anything to fear.' Each of the three public universities has had a handful of instances where tenured professors or faculty applying for tenure separated from the universities or were denied tenure status because of performance, according to the information provided. About five tenured faculty over the past 10 years have separated from the UI as the result of the entire procedure to achieve or retain tenure status, but others have resigned at earlier points in the six-to-seven-year process to attain tenure, the documents stated. Once tenured, faculty members at the UI are reviewed annually by their department executive officer with a more extensive peer-review every five years, according to the university's faculty review procedures. For peer review, colleges generally require that senior faculty members evaluate classroom teaching and review written and electronic course materials. Student evaluations also factor into administrator decisions on promotion and tenure, according to the 2020 regents' report. The UI has 1,156 tenured faculty members and 329 tenure-track faculty members. Tenured and tenure-track faculty comprise 43 percent of total faculty members. At ISU, faculty undergo a rigorous review every six years. Tenured faculty members can be dismissed but 'only for adequate cause, elimination of academic programs, or financial exigency,' according to Iowa State's faculty handbook. According to documents provided to the DI by Lehman, after five promotion and tenure cycles, tenure was denied to about 7 percent of faculty who applied for tenure as an associate professor (13 out of 188 applicants), the regents' staff wrote. According to the documents, a similar or larger share of pre-tenure faculty leave the university before the tenure review 'based on feedback or their own assessment of the likelihood of success at the promotion and tenure decision point.' Faculty applying for tenure undergo a seven-year probationary period before they can be approved for tenure status. ISU has 966 tenured faculty. That is 68.5 percent of the faculty. Another 343 are on track for tenure, the university reported. Tenured faculty at ISU also are also reviewed every year using a Position Responsibility Statement, which outlines a faculty member's role and goals. ISU does a more comprehensive peer evaluation either once every seven years, at the request of the faculty, or the year following two unsatisfactory reviews. In the case of an unsatisfactory annual evaluation, the handbook states, the department chair and the faculty member under review must create an action plan for improved performance. At UNI, the 373 tenured and 110 faculty members on track for tenure represent 69 percent of the faculty. UNI has 214 faculty members who do not have tenure. UNI's tenured faculty are reviewed annually by their department head, relying in part on student and faculty assessments, according to the regents' tenure report. For the first time this year, UNI implemented a review of professional performance on a six-year rotation, the report notes. According to documents provided by Lehman, the UNI has terminated a tenured professor 'for teaching performance issues' and others have resigned 'due to issues of cause being determined.' Carlin also asked a regent lobbyist Keith Saunders for disciplinary actions leveled against faculty other than termination in the last five years. At the UI, six tenured faculty faced disciplinary action other than termination during that time period. Iowa State recorded 13 and UNI reported two tenured faculty facing consequences during the last five years. Regents staff also recorded the number of faculty on track for tenure, clinical, research, or instruction, and fixed term faculty that underwent discipline in the last five years. Those tallies were nine at the UI, two at ISU, and none at UNI. | Our ruling Tenure is a contractual agreement that protects professors' abilities to teach, research, and challenge assumptions without fear of termination based on a belief or expression. However, tenured faculty members are reviewed for performance, and undergo a rigorous, years-long process to apply for tenure. Faculty handbooks show that tenured faculty members can be dismissed for performance or financial reasons even if they have tenure and that they must undergo annual performance reviews. Further documents provided by the Board of Regents show that faculty have faced disciplinary action by their respective universities. Holt wrote in an email to The Daily Iowan that he was offering an opinion, based on reports he hears about the conduct some faculty have used to, in his words, silence students. He said he did not state his opinion about faculty feeling protected as fact and that his opinion cannot be proved either way. However, the statement is based on what many who want to curb what they see as faculty abuses as being fact. Moreover, the statement reads as being fact, or at least based on fact. That is why we rate the statement that faculty members are guaranteed a job as Mostly False. | []
|
Tenured professors are guaranteed a job. | Contradiction | A bill in the Iowa Legislature, House File 49, banning tenure at Iowa's universities passed a House committee this session, clearing a key legislative March deadline colloquially called 'the funnel.' Proponents of the bill, like Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, say abolishing tenure - a contractual employment status that means faculty members have job security so controversial ideas can be exchanged to further knowledge without fear of punishment - will hold professors accountable for instances of free speech violations on campus. One such accused violation senators have cited involved an Iowa State University English professor, Chloe Clark, who wrote in an English course syllabus that students could not 'choose any topic that takes at its base that one side doesn't deserve the same basic human rights as you do (ie: no arguments against gay marriage, abortion, Black Lives Matter, etc).' She then apologized and updated the syllabus. ISU required each professor to include a statement of commitment to free expression at the start of the winter term. It's worth noting that the professor in question wasn't tenured. Clark graduated with an MFA in creative writing from ISU in 2016. Tenure-eligible professors at ISU undergo a seven-year probationary period before gaining tenure status. In fact, Clark is an assistant teaching professor, which is a term/non-tenure-eligible appointment, ISU spokesperson Angie Hunt wrote in an email to The Daily Iowan. She's continuing to teach this semester. Holt was quoted by The Gazette of Cedar Rapids as saying, 'I wonder if the assault on free speech by some university professors is not related to the belief that they're Teflon-coated and indestructible and, therefore, maybe we need to look at getting rid of tenure.' In an email to the DI, Holt cited 'the growing number of cases in which professors who know better threaten and intimidate students with differing viewpoints.' He referenced the ISU professor and another instance of the dean of the College of Dentistry calling in a student who 'replied all' to an email to expressed his disagreement with the college's stance on a Trump executive order relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion training. Holt previously told the DI, 'The (House) Oversight Committee has had a number of students reach out to us and describe stories of what they've been through and how intimidated they feel.' This isn't a unique view of tenure, which Republicans in other states have criticized and in Iowa have been trying to eliminate since 2017. In a January interview with WHO radio, state Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, said he didn't think 'anyone in our universities should be guaranteed a job.' But are tenured professors at Iowa's public universities - the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, and the University of Northern Iowa - guaranteed a job? Professors with tenure have certain protections in order to preserve academic freedom but, steps exist to remove them. Plus, many faculty members do not have tenure and, thus, have fewer protections against being removed. And, there is this: Tenure grants professors protection for free speech. At ISU, the handbook says that tenured faculty must not be disciplined 'based upon any belief, expression, or conduct protected by law or by the principles of academic freedom.' But tenure's protections are not all-encompassing. 'I want to make it really clear: Tenure is not a lifetime appointment for any given faculty member,' Rachel Boon, chief academic officer for the state Board of Regents told lawmakers in February. 'Tenure is an employment agreement we have with them.' At each state university, tenured faculty members are reviewed annually, with a more extensive peer and department head review every five to seven years, depending on the institution. Professors on the track to become tenured undergo a probationary period that generally lasts six years with reviews by 'expert peers outside the institution,' according to the state Board of Regents' 2020 tenure report, and internally at the college and university levels. The report states: 'Termination occurs when the tenured faculty member does not meet employment obligations, or in cases of program termination or financial exigency for the institution.' Sen. Jim Carlin, R-Sioux City, questioned whether tenured professors are held accountable or undergo reviews on March 8 as the Senate passed a bill that would prohibit certain types of diversity, equity, and inclusion training at public education institutions, while requiring teachers and faculty members to undergo First Amendment training. Carlin said he submitted to the regents a request for the last five years of disciplinary actions brought against tenured faculty members at each of the three public universities, but hadn't yet received an answer as of March 8. 'They wouldn't reveal the disposition of those disciplinary actions because it would show whether or not we have an authentic review process,' he said on the Senate floor March 8. In response to a request from the DI, regents spokesperson Josh Lehman provided the DI with documents returned to Carlin in response to his questions. Lehman said regents staff sent Carlin the same information March 11, the same day Lehman sent it to the DI. In an interview March 12, Carlin said he hadn't yet received the materials, but after reviewing the documents over the weekend, he said the data 'lacked any meaningful specificity with regard to the nature of the disciplinary actions or dispositions except for those which resulted in a discharge or resignation.' He said he'd asked the secretary of the Senate to follow up with another request to the regents for more detailed information. Carlin said he's not opposed to tenure, nor does he have an axe to grind with the regent institutions or professors. Instead, he said he wants to ensure that the regent institutions instill a culture of allowing students to speak their minds and challenge assumptions. 'We don't want them to be places of indoctrination,' Carlin said. 'We want our students at our regents institutions to be able to think critically about how things are.' He said he'd heard of a number of students who decided against expressing their true opinions for fear of a lower grade but hadn't experienced explicit speech suppression. When asked whether changing tenure review policies could elicit a more fearful culture among professors, Carlin said: 'I don't think professors have anything to fear.' Each of the three public universities has had a handful of instances where tenured professors or faculty applying for tenure separated from the universities or were denied tenure status because of performance, according to the information provided. About five tenured faculty over the past 10 years have separated from the UI as the result of the entire procedure to achieve or retain tenure status, but others have resigned at earlier points in the six-to-seven-year process to attain tenure, the documents stated. Once tenured, faculty members at the UI are reviewed annually by their department executive officer with a more extensive peer-review every five years, according to the university's faculty review procedures. For peer review, colleges generally require that senior faculty members evaluate classroom teaching and review written and electronic course materials. Student evaluations also factor into administrator decisions on promotion and tenure, according to the 2020 regents' report. The UI has 1,156 tenured faculty members and 329 tenure-track faculty members. Tenured and tenure-track faculty comprise 43 percent of total faculty members. At ISU, faculty undergo a rigorous review every six years. Tenured faculty members can be dismissed but 'only for adequate cause, elimination of academic programs, or financial exigency,' according to Iowa State's faculty handbook. According to documents provided to the DI by Lehman, after five promotion and tenure cycles, tenure was denied to about 7 percent of faculty who applied for tenure as an associate professor (13 out of 188 applicants), the regents' staff wrote. According to the documents, a similar or larger share of pre-tenure faculty leave the university before the tenure review 'based on feedback or their own assessment of the likelihood of success at the promotion and tenure decision point.' Faculty applying for tenure undergo a seven-year probationary period before they can be approved for tenure status. ISU has 966 tenured faculty. That is 68.5 percent of the faculty. Another 343 are on track for tenure, the university reported. Tenured faculty at ISU also are also reviewed every year using a Position Responsibility Statement, which outlines a faculty member's role and goals. ISU does a more comprehensive peer evaluation either once every seven years, at the request of the faculty, or the year following two unsatisfactory reviews. In the case of an unsatisfactory annual evaluation, the handbook states, the department chair and the faculty member under review must create an action plan for improved performance. At UNI, the 373 tenured and 110 faculty members on track for tenure represent 69 percent of the faculty. UNI has 214 faculty members who do not have tenure. UNI's tenured faculty are reviewed annually by their department head, relying in part on student and faculty assessments, according to the regents' tenure report. For the first time this year, UNI implemented a review of professional performance on a six-year rotation, the report notes. According to documents provided by Lehman, the UNI has terminated a tenured professor 'for teaching performance issues' and others have resigned 'due to issues of cause being determined.' Carlin also asked a regent lobbyist Keith Saunders for disciplinary actions leveled against faculty other than termination in the last five years. At the UI, six tenured faculty faced disciplinary action other than termination during that time period. Iowa State recorded 13 and UNI reported two tenured faculty facing consequences during the last five years. Regents staff also recorded the number of faculty on track for tenure, clinical, research, or instruction, and fixed term faculty that underwent discipline in the last five years. Those tallies were nine at the UI, two at ISU, and none at UNI. | Our ruling Tenure is a contractual agreement that protects professors' abilities to teach, research, and challenge assumptions without fear of termination based on a belief or expression. However, tenured faculty members are reviewed for performance, and undergo a rigorous, years-long process to apply for tenure. Faculty handbooks show that tenured faculty members can be dismissed for performance or financial reasons even if they have tenure and that they must undergo annual performance reviews. Further documents provided by the Board of Regents show that faculty have faced disciplinary action by their respective universities. Holt wrote in an email to The Daily Iowan that he was offering an opinion, based on reports he hears about the conduct some faculty have used to, in his words, silence students. He said he did not state his opinion about faculty feeling protected as fact and that his opinion cannot be proved either way. However, the statement is based on what many who want to curb what they see as faculty abuses as being fact. Moreover, the statement reads as being fact, or at least based on fact. That is why we rate the statement that faculty members are guaranteed a job as Mostly False. | []
|
Tenured professors are guaranteed a job. | Contradiction | A bill in the Iowa Legislature, House File 49, banning tenure at Iowa's universities passed a House committee this session, clearing a key legislative March deadline colloquially called 'the funnel.' Proponents of the bill, like Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, say abolishing tenure - a contractual employment status that means faculty members have job security so controversial ideas can be exchanged to further knowledge without fear of punishment - will hold professors accountable for instances of free speech violations on campus. One such accused violation senators have cited involved an Iowa State University English professor, Chloe Clark, who wrote in an English course syllabus that students could not 'choose any topic that takes at its base that one side doesn't deserve the same basic human rights as you do (ie: no arguments against gay marriage, abortion, Black Lives Matter, etc).' She then apologized and updated the syllabus. ISU required each professor to include a statement of commitment to free expression at the start of the winter term. It's worth noting that the professor in question wasn't tenured. Clark graduated with an MFA in creative writing from ISU in 2016. Tenure-eligible professors at ISU undergo a seven-year probationary period before gaining tenure status. In fact, Clark is an assistant teaching professor, which is a term/non-tenure-eligible appointment, ISU spokesperson Angie Hunt wrote in an email to The Daily Iowan. She's continuing to teach this semester. Holt was quoted by The Gazette of Cedar Rapids as saying, 'I wonder if the assault on free speech by some university professors is not related to the belief that they're Teflon-coated and indestructible and, therefore, maybe we need to look at getting rid of tenure.' In an email to the DI, Holt cited 'the growing number of cases in which professors who know better threaten and intimidate students with differing viewpoints.' He referenced the ISU professor and another instance of the dean of the College of Dentistry calling in a student who 'replied all' to an email to expressed his disagreement with the college's stance on a Trump executive order relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion training. Holt previously told the DI, 'The (House) Oversight Committee has had a number of students reach out to us and describe stories of what they've been through and how intimidated they feel.' This isn't a unique view of tenure, which Republicans in other states have criticized and in Iowa have been trying to eliminate since 2017. In a January interview with WHO radio, state Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, said he didn't think 'anyone in our universities should be guaranteed a job.' But are tenured professors at Iowa's public universities - the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, and the University of Northern Iowa - guaranteed a job? Professors with tenure have certain protections in order to preserve academic freedom but, steps exist to remove them. Plus, many faculty members do not have tenure and, thus, have fewer protections against being removed. And, there is this: Tenure grants professors protection for free speech. At ISU, the handbook says that tenured faculty must not be disciplined 'based upon any belief, expression, or conduct protected by law or by the principles of academic freedom.' But tenure's protections are not all-encompassing. 'I want to make it really clear: Tenure is not a lifetime appointment for any given faculty member,' Rachel Boon, chief academic officer for the state Board of Regents told lawmakers in February. 'Tenure is an employment agreement we have with them.' At each state university, tenured faculty members are reviewed annually, with a more extensive peer and department head review every five to seven years, depending on the institution. Professors on the track to become tenured undergo a probationary period that generally lasts six years with reviews by 'expert peers outside the institution,' according to the state Board of Regents' 2020 tenure report, and internally at the college and university levels. The report states: 'Termination occurs when the tenured faculty member does not meet employment obligations, or in cases of program termination or financial exigency for the institution.' Sen. Jim Carlin, R-Sioux City, questioned whether tenured professors are held accountable or undergo reviews on March 8 as the Senate passed a bill that would prohibit certain types of diversity, equity, and inclusion training at public education institutions, while requiring teachers and faculty members to undergo First Amendment training. Carlin said he submitted to the regents a request for the last five years of disciplinary actions brought against tenured faculty members at each of the three public universities, but hadn't yet received an answer as of March 8. 'They wouldn't reveal the disposition of those disciplinary actions because it would show whether or not we have an authentic review process,' he said on the Senate floor March 8. In response to a request from the DI, regents spokesperson Josh Lehman provided the DI with documents returned to Carlin in response to his questions. Lehman said regents staff sent Carlin the same information March 11, the same day Lehman sent it to the DI. In an interview March 12, Carlin said he hadn't yet received the materials, but after reviewing the documents over the weekend, he said the data 'lacked any meaningful specificity with regard to the nature of the disciplinary actions or dispositions except for those which resulted in a discharge or resignation.' He said he'd asked the secretary of the Senate to follow up with another request to the regents for more detailed information. Carlin said he's not opposed to tenure, nor does he have an axe to grind with the regent institutions or professors. Instead, he said he wants to ensure that the regent institutions instill a culture of allowing students to speak their minds and challenge assumptions. 'We don't want them to be places of indoctrination,' Carlin said. 'We want our students at our regents institutions to be able to think critically about how things are.' He said he'd heard of a number of students who decided against expressing their true opinions for fear of a lower grade but hadn't experienced explicit speech suppression. When asked whether changing tenure review policies could elicit a more fearful culture among professors, Carlin said: 'I don't think professors have anything to fear.' Each of the three public universities has had a handful of instances where tenured professors or faculty applying for tenure separated from the universities or were denied tenure status because of performance, according to the information provided. About five tenured faculty over the past 10 years have separated from the UI as the result of the entire procedure to achieve or retain tenure status, but others have resigned at earlier points in the six-to-seven-year process to attain tenure, the documents stated. Once tenured, faculty members at the UI are reviewed annually by their department executive officer with a more extensive peer-review every five years, according to the university's faculty review procedures. For peer review, colleges generally require that senior faculty members evaluate classroom teaching and review written and electronic course materials. Student evaluations also factor into administrator decisions on promotion and tenure, according to the 2020 regents' report. The UI has 1,156 tenured faculty members and 329 tenure-track faculty members. Tenured and tenure-track faculty comprise 43 percent of total faculty members. At ISU, faculty undergo a rigorous review every six years. Tenured faculty members can be dismissed but 'only for adequate cause, elimination of academic programs, or financial exigency,' according to Iowa State's faculty handbook. According to documents provided to the DI by Lehman, after five promotion and tenure cycles, tenure was denied to about 7 percent of faculty who applied for tenure as an associate professor (13 out of 188 applicants), the regents' staff wrote. According to the documents, a similar or larger share of pre-tenure faculty leave the university before the tenure review 'based on feedback or their own assessment of the likelihood of success at the promotion and tenure decision point.' Faculty applying for tenure undergo a seven-year probationary period before they can be approved for tenure status. ISU has 966 tenured faculty. That is 68.5 percent of the faculty. Another 343 are on track for tenure, the university reported. Tenured faculty at ISU also are also reviewed every year using a Position Responsibility Statement, which outlines a faculty member's role and goals. ISU does a more comprehensive peer evaluation either once every seven years, at the request of the faculty, or the year following two unsatisfactory reviews. In the case of an unsatisfactory annual evaluation, the handbook states, the department chair and the faculty member under review must create an action plan for improved performance. At UNI, the 373 tenured and 110 faculty members on track for tenure represent 69 percent of the faculty. UNI has 214 faculty members who do not have tenure. UNI's tenured faculty are reviewed annually by their department head, relying in part on student and faculty assessments, according to the regents' tenure report. For the first time this year, UNI implemented a review of professional performance on a six-year rotation, the report notes. According to documents provided by Lehman, the UNI has terminated a tenured professor 'for teaching performance issues' and others have resigned 'due to issues of cause being determined.' Carlin also asked a regent lobbyist Keith Saunders for disciplinary actions leveled against faculty other than termination in the last five years. At the UI, six tenured faculty faced disciplinary action other than termination during that time period. Iowa State recorded 13 and UNI reported two tenured faculty facing consequences during the last five years. Regents staff also recorded the number of faculty on track for tenure, clinical, research, or instruction, and fixed term faculty that underwent discipline in the last five years. Those tallies were nine at the UI, two at ISU, and none at UNI. | Our ruling Tenure is a contractual agreement that protects professors' abilities to teach, research, and challenge assumptions without fear of termination based on a belief or expression. However, tenured faculty members are reviewed for performance, and undergo a rigorous, years-long process to apply for tenure. Faculty handbooks show that tenured faculty members can be dismissed for performance or financial reasons even if they have tenure and that they must undergo annual performance reviews. Further documents provided by the Board of Regents show that faculty have faced disciplinary action by their respective universities. Holt wrote in an email to The Daily Iowan that he was offering an opinion, based on reports he hears about the conduct some faculty have used to, in his words, silence students. He said he did not state his opinion about faculty feeling protected as fact and that his opinion cannot be proved either way. However, the statement is based on what many who want to curb what they see as faculty abuses as being fact. Moreover, the statement reads as being fact, or at least based on fact. That is why we rate the statement that faculty members are guaranteed a job as Mostly False. | []
|
Shows a waitress saying, 'I lost my job. | Contradiction | It didn't take long after the enactment of a $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief bill for critics to blame Democrats for larding it with unnecessary spending. One Facebook post that was shared at least 15,000 times features a photograph of a smiling, young waitress. The text says: 'I lost my job. But I'll sleep better knowing: $25 million of (coronavirus) relief aid went to the Kennedy Center. $350,000,000 went to refugee resettlement. $75 million went to PBS. $25 million went to congressional salaries and expenses. Thanks, Democrats. It couldn't have happened without you.' Some of this text in the post accurately describes elements included in the final version of the bill. However, it also includes some inaccuracies, and the broader depiction of the bill - in which laid-off workers get nothing, at the expense of special interests - is significantly skewed. 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'll take a look at the text, piece by piece. '$25 million of (coronavirus) relief aid went to the Kennedy Center.' This is accurate. The funding would go for such purposes as 'deep cleaning,' maintenance, telework upgrades, employee compensation, rent and utilities for the performing arts center. The Kennedy Center is a federal entity funded by ticket revenue and congressional appropriations, so receiving funding through a congressional bill isn't unusual. In a statement, the Democratic House leadership said that the Kennedy Center has lost more than $20 million in unrecoverable costs from canceled performances and has lost the ability to generate revenue from ticket sales in the interim. 'Without the assistance in the bill, the Kennedy Center would become completely insolvent and potentially unable to reopen,' the statement said. '$350,000,000 went to refugee resettlement.' If 'refugee resettlement' is supposed to mean resettling refugees in the United States, that's not entirely accurate. The bill doesn't say specifically where the $350 million earmarked for 'Department of State migration and refugee assistance' will go, but much of it may end up as humanitarian assistance to other countries as they grapple with internal displacement of individuals and families due to the virus. Indeed, the Trump administration's State Department touted its role in this regard as recently as a March 27 news release. 'The U.S. Government is leading the world's humanitarian and health assistance response to the COVID-19 pandemic,' the release said, citing an initial investment of $274 million for other countries in need, plus the World Health Organization and UNICEF, prior to passage of the relief bill. 'We are mobilizing all necessary resources to respond rapidly, both at home and abroad.' '$75 million went to PBS.' This is broadly accurate. The funding is for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which in turn funds public broadcasters such as PBS. The bill provides 'stabilization support' for stations seeing declines in non-federal revenues. 'Public media stations are the backbone for most communities' emergency alert, public safety, first-responder and homeland-security services,' the Democratic leadership statement said. 'If stations are forced to cut jobs, reduce content and services, or close, the nation's ability to deliver emergency alerts will be significantly diminished.' As with the money for the Kennedy Center, it is standard practice for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to receive its funding from congressional legislation. '$25 million went to congressional salaries and expenses.' Social media users might think this refers to a pay boost for lawmakers, but we've previously rated that assertion Pants on Fire. Hollander said there is $25 million for the House in the stimulus to support the chamber's 'capability to telework,' including equipment purchases and improvements to the computer network. There is also money to reimburse the staff of the House Child Care Center, cover the costs of food service contracts and pay the House sergeant-at-arms. Separately, the Senate is slated to get $10 million from the stimulus; $1 million will go to the sergeant-at-arms' office to remain available for coronavirus response, while $9 million will be reserved for 'miscellaneous items,' including reimbursement for workers at the Senate Employee Child Care Center. None of the money in the bill would go toward paying lawmakers anything more than their current salary level. 'Thanks, Democrats' While some of these provisions mirror elements of a bill offered by House Democrats, that bill never received consideration. Instead, the Senate and the House passed a bill drawn up by leading senators of both parties. The Senate passed the bill 96-0, while the House approved it by a voice vote, a method used for widely supported measures. Because almost all members of both parties approved the bills, Republicans and Democrats alike deserve whatever credit or blame comes from the bill. The implication that laid-off workers get no assistance The biggest misleading element of the post is the notion that the laid-off waitress will get nothing out of the bill. That couldn't be more wrong. First, assuming she earns less than $75,000 a year, she'll get $1,200 tax-free from the government, no strings attached. Second, the bill includes historically generous add-on amounts to state unemployment payments. The bill sets aside $260 billion to increase state unemployment payments by $600 a week, or the equivalent of more than $30,000 a year. If the state gives you $400 a week, a fairly typical amount, then you'll be getting a total of $1,000 a week, or the equivalent of $52,000 a year. (If you made less than this before you lost your job, you'll actually be earning more than you did previously, at least during the four months provided for in the bill.) The bill also incentivizes states to waive waiting periods for receiving benefits, and provides funds for states to lengthen the time limits for receiving their unemployment benefits by 13 weeks. Meanwhile, in a landmark move, the bill recognizes that gig workers - from freelancers to Uber drivers - need economic assistance in times like these. So they will qualify for the enhanced unemployment provisions in the new bill. | Our ruling A Facebook post shows a waitress saying, 'I lost my job. But I'll sleep better knowing' that the coronavirus relief bill included funding for the Kennedy Center, refugee resettlement, PBS, and congressional salaries: 'Thanks, Democrats.' While the post oversimplifies some of those provisions, they are indeed part of the bill. However, the post gives the strong impression that the bill offers nothing to laid-off workers, and that's flat wrong. Every American earning less than the income caps will get a $1,200 check, and anyone who starts drawing unemployment payments will see those topped up by additional federal payments of $600 a month. Also, the bill that was passed received almost blanket support from both Republicans and Democrats. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"102235-proof-15-f3498596e0d4e7efa8c490e466951290.jpg"
]
|
Shows a waitress saying, 'I lost my job. | Contradiction | It didn't take long after the enactment of a $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief bill for critics to blame Democrats for larding it with unnecessary spending. One Facebook post that was shared at least 15,000 times features a photograph of a smiling, young waitress. The text says: 'I lost my job. But I'll sleep better knowing: $25 million of (coronavirus) relief aid went to the Kennedy Center. $350,000,000 went to refugee resettlement. $75 million went to PBS. $25 million went to congressional salaries and expenses. Thanks, Democrats. It couldn't have happened without you.' Some of this text in the post accurately describes elements included in the final version of the bill. However, it also includes some inaccuracies, and the broader depiction of the bill - in which laid-off workers get nothing, at the expense of special interests - is significantly skewed. 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'll take a look at the text, piece by piece. '$25 million of (coronavirus) relief aid went to the Kennedy Center.' This is accurate. The funding would go for such purposes as 'deep cleaning,' maintenance, telework upgrades, employee compensation, rent and utilities for the performing arts center. The Kennedy Center is a federal entity funded by ticket revenue and congressional appropriations, so receiving funding through a congressional bill isn't unusual. In a statement, the Democratic House leadership said that the Kennedy Center has lost more than $20 million in unrecoverable costs from canceled performances and has lost the ability to generate revenue from ticket sales in the interim. 'Without the assistance in the bill, the Kennedy Center would become completely insolvent and potentially unable to reopen,' the statement said. '$350,000,000 went to refugee resettlement.' If 'refugee resettlement' is supposed to mean resettling refugees in the United States, that's not entirely accurate. The bill doesn't say specifically where the $350 million earmarked for 'Department of State migration and refugee assistance' will go, but much of it may end up as humanitarian assistance to other countries as they grapple with internal displacement of individuals and families due to the virus. Indeed, the Trump administration's State Department touted its role in this regard as recently as a March 27 news release. 'The U.S. Government is leading the world's humanitarian and health assistance response to the COVID-19 pandemic,' the release said, citing an initial investment of $274 million for other countries in need, plus the World Health Organization and UNICEF, prior to passage of the relief bill. 'We are mobilizing all necessary resources to respond rapidly, both at home and abroad.' '$75 million went to PBS.' This is broadly accurate. The funding is for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which in turn funds public broadcasters such as PBS. The bill provides 'stabilization support' for stations seeing declines in non-federal revenues. 'Public media stations are the backbone for most communities' emergency alert, public safety, first-responder and homeland-security services,' the Democratic leadership statement said. 'If stations are forced to cut jobs, reduce content and services, or close, the nation's ability to deliver emergency alerts will be significantly diminished.' As with the money for the Kennedy Center, it is standard practice for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to receive its funding from congressional legislation. '$25 million went to congressional salaries and expenses.' Social media users might think this refers to a pay boost for lawmakers, but we've previously rated that assertion Pants on Fire. Hollander said there is $25 million for the House in the stimulus to support the chamber's 'capability to telework,' including equipment purchases and improvements to the computer network. There is also money to reimburse the staff of the House Child Care Center, cover the costs of food service contracts and pay the House sergeant-at-arms. Separately, the Senate is slated to get $10 million from the stimulus; $1 million will go to the sergeant-at-arms' office to remain available for coronavirus response, while $9 million will be reserved for 'miscellaneous items,' including reimbursement for workers at the Senate Employee Child Care Center. None of the money in the bill would go toward paying lawmakers anything more than their current salary level. 'Thanks, Democrats' While some of these provisions mirror elements of a bill offered by House Democrats, that bill never received consideration. Instead, the Senate and the House passed a bill drawn up by leading senators of both parties. The Senate passed the bill 96-0, while the House approved it by a voice vote, a method used for widely supported measures. Because almost all members of both parties approved the bills, Republicans and Democrats alike deserve whatever credit or blame comes from the bill. The implication that laid-off workers get no assistance The biggest misleading element of the post is the notion that the laid-off waitress will get nothing out of the bill. That couldn't be more wrong. First, assuming she earns less than $75,000 a year, she'll get $1,200 tax-free from the government, no strings attached. Second, the bill includes historically generous add-on amounts to state unemployment payments. The bill sets aside $260 billion to increase state unemployment payments by $600 a week, or the equivalent of more than $30,000 a year. If the state gives you $400 a week, a fairly typical amount, then you'll be getting a total of $1,000 a week, or the equivalent of $52,000 a year. (If you made less than this before you lost your job, you'll actually be earning more than you did previously, at least during the four months provided for in the bill.) The bill also incentivizes states to waive waiting periods for receiving benefits, and provides funds for states to lengthen the time limits for receiving their unemployment benefits by 13 weeks. Meanwhile, in a landmark move, the bill recognizes that gig workers - from freelancers to Uber drivers - need economic assistance in times like these. So they will qualify for the enhanced unemployment provisions in the new bill. | Our ruling A Facebook post shows a waitress saying, 'I lost my job. But I'll sleep better knowing' that the coronavirus relief bill included funding for the Kennedy Center, refugee resettlement, PBS, and congressional salaries: 'Thanks, Democrats.' While the post oversimplifies some of those provisions, they are indeed part of the bill. However, the post gives the strong impression that the bill offers nothing to laid-off workers, and that's flat wrong. Every American earning less than the income caps will get a $1,200 check, and anyone who starts drawing unemployment payments will see those topped up by additional federal payments of $600 a month. Also, the bill that was passed received almost blanket support from both Republicans and Democrats. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"102235-proof-15-f3498596e0d4e7efa8c490e466951290.jpg"
]
|
Shows a waitress saying, 'I lost my job. | Contradiction | It didn't take long after the enactment of a $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief bill for critics to blame Democrats for larding it with unnecessary spending. One Facebook post that was shared at least 15,000 times features a photograph of a smiling, young waitress. The text says: 'I lost my job. But I'll sleep better knowing: $25 million of (coronavirus) relief aid went to the Kennedy Center. $350,000,000 went to refugee resettlement. $75 million went to PBS. $25 million went to congressional salaries and expenses. Thanks, Democrats. It couldn't have happened without you.' Some of this text in the post accurately describes elements included in the final version of the bill. However, it also includes some inaccuracies, and the broader depiction of the bill - in which laid-off workers get nothing, at the expense of special interests - is significantly skewed. 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'll take a look at the text, piece by piece. '$25 million of (coronavirus) relief aid went to the Kennedy Center.' This is accurate. The funding would go for such purposes as 'deep cleaning,' maintenance, telework upgrades, employee compensation, rent and utilities for the performing arts center. The Kennedy Center is a federal entity funded by ticket revenue and congressional appropriations, so receiving funding through a congressional bill isn't unusual. In a statement, the Democratic House leadership said that the Kennedy Center has lost more than $20 million in unrecoverable costs from canceled performances and has lost the ability to generate revenue from ticket sales in the interim. 'Without the assistance in the bill, the Kennedy Center would become completely insolvent and potentially unable to reopen,' the statement said. '$350,000,000 went to refugee resettlement.' If 'refugee resettlement' is supposed to mean resettling refugees in the United States, that's not entirely accurate. The bill doesn't say specifically where the $350 million earmarked for 'Department of State migration and refugee assistance' will go, but much of it may end up as humanitarian assistance to other countries as they grapple with internal displacement of individuals and families due to the virus. Indeed, the Trump administration's State Department touted its role in this regard as recently as a March 27 news release. 'The U.S. Government is leading the world's humanitarian and health assistance response to the COVID-19 pandemic,' the release said, citing an initial investment of $274 million for other countries in need, plus the World Health Organization and UNICEF, prior to passage of the relief bill. 'We are mobilizing all necessary resources to respond rapidly, both at home and abroad.' '$75 million went to PBS.' This is broadly accurate. The funding is for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which in turn funds public broadcasters such as PBS. The bill provides 'stabilization support' for stations seeing declines in non-federal revenues. 'Public media stations are the backbone for most communities' emergency alert, public safety, first-responder and homeland-security services,' the Democratic leadership statement said. 'If stations are forced to cut jobs, reduce content and services, or close, the nation's ability to deliver emergency alerts will be significantly diminished.' As with the money for the Kennedy Center, it is standard practice for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to receive its funding from congressional legislation. '$25 million went to congressional salaries and expenses.' Social media users might think this refers to a pay boost for lawmakers, but we've previously rated that assertion Pants on Fire. Hollander said there is $25 million for the House in the stimulus to support the chamber's 'capability to telework,' including equipment purchases and improvements to the computer network. There is also money to reimburse the staff of the House Child Care Center, cover the costs of food service contracts and pay the House sergeant-at-arms. Separately, the Senate is slated to get $10 million from the stimulus; $1 million will go to the sergeant-at-arms' office to remain available for coronavirus response, while $9 million will be reserved for 'miscellaneous items,' including reimbursement for workers at the Senate Employee Child Care Center. None of the money in the bill would go toward paying lawmakers anything more than their current salary level. 'Thanks, Democrats' While some of these provisions mirror elements of a bill offered by House Democrats, that bill never received consideration. Instead, the Senate and the House passed a bill drawn up by leading senators of both parties. The Senate passed the bill 96-0, while the House approved it by a voice vote, a method used for widely supported measures. Because almost all members of both parties approved the bills, Republicans and Democrats alike deserve whatever credit or blame comes from the bill. The implication that laid-off workers get no assistance The biggest misleading element of the post is the notion that the laid-off waitress will get nothing out of the bill. That couldn't be more wrong. First, assuming she earns less than $75,000 a year, she'll get $1,200 tax-free from the government, no strings attached. Second, the bill includes historically generous add-on amounts to state unemployment payments. The bill sets aside $260 billion to increase state unemployment payments by $600 a week, or the equivalent of more than $30,000 a year. If the state gives you $400 a week, a fairly typical amount, then you'll be getting a total of $1,000 a week, or the equivalent of $52,000 a year. (If you made less than this before you lost your job, you'll actually be earning more than you did previously, at least during the four months provided for in the bill.) The bill also incentivizes states to waive waiting periods for receiving benefits, and provides funds for states to lengthen the time limits for receiving their unemployment benefits by 13 weeks. Meanwhile, in a landmark move, the bill recognizes that gig workers - from freelancers to Uber drivers - need economic assistance in times like these. So they will qualify for the enhanced unemployment provisions in the new bill. | Our ruling A Facebook post shows a waitress saying, 'I lost my job. But I'll sleep better knowing' that the coronavirus relief bill included funding for the Kennedy Center, refugee resettlement, PBS, and congressional salaries: 'Thanks, Democrats.' While the post oversimplifies some of those provisions, they are indeed part of the bill. However, the post gives the strong impression that the bill offers nothing to laid-off workers, and that's flat wrong. Every American earning less than the income caps will get a $1,200 check, and anyone who starts drawing unemployment payments will see those topped up by additional federal payments of $600 a month. Also, the bill that was passed received almost blanket support from both Republicans and Democrats. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"102235-proof-15-f3498596e0d4e7efa8c490e466951290.jpg"
]
|
'More people have died of an opioid overdose in North Carolina in recent years than have died of COVID. | Contradiction | North Carolina's top prosecutor wants his colleagues to remember that people are still struggling with drug addiction and that the pandemic has exacerbated the opioid crisis. However, his recent comparison of COVID-19 deaths and opioid-related deaths caught our attention. Attorney General Josh Stein was addressing North Carolina's Council of State - which includes the governor, lieutenant governor, state treasurer and other department heads - when he made this statement: 'The opioid epidemic has become a greater crisis since the pandemic. The media doesn't cover it as much because obviously the pandemic is paramount. But more people have died of an opioid overdose in North Carolina in recent years than have died of COVID. The number of people who have died of an opioid overdose has dramatically increased over the last year,' Stein said. Opioids are drugs naturally found in the opium poppy plant. Examples include heroin, morphine, the synthetic opioid known as fentanyl, and prescriptions such as OxyContin and Vicodin. Is it true that more people have died of an opioid overdose in North Carolina in recent years than have died from the coronavirus? Only if we apply the word 'recent' very liberally. What records show On Aug. 3, the day of Stein's statement, the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) had recorded 13,679 total COVID-19 deaths in North Carolina since the start of the pandemic in 2020. When we asked Stein's office about his comparison, spokesperson Nazneen Ahmed cited a DHHS estimate that 16,500 North Carolinians unintentionally overdosed and died over 19 years - between 2000 and 2019. However, it's difficult to determine exactly how many deaths there have been in 'recent' years. The state's health department doesn't have confirmed opioid deaths for 2020, only provisional data. Here are the year-by-year unintentional opioid overdose deaths documented by DHHS: 2020: 2,322 2019: 1,808 2018: 1,718 2017: 1,884 2016: 1,407 2015: 1,057 2014: 853 2013: 721 2012: 731 2011: 713 2010: 648 In total, opioid deaths hit 13,862 over that 11-year span. To put that in perspective, North Carolina recorded 6,748 COVID-19 deaths just in 2020 - nearly three times as many deaths as from opioid overdoses in the same one-year period. DHHS records do show the number of opioid overdoses - fatal and nonfatal - have increased during the pandemic. DHHS spokeswoman Kelly Haight said the state records show emergency department visits for overdoses have increased 20% since the early months of the pandemic in 2020. 'While we likely will not have complete death data until later this fall, the provisional data that we do share for 2020 and 2021 show this increase as well,' she said. For the sake of this fact-check, though, it's important to point out that it's unlikely that opioid deaths exceed COVID-19 deaths in North Carolina unless you combine more than 10 years of confirmed death figures. A chart on the CDC's website shows slightly higher overdose death figures for North Carolina. However, as Haight pointed out, the CDC tracks deaths caused by opioids as well as other substances. | Our ruling Stein said 'More people have died of an opioid overdose in North Carolina in recent years than have died of COVID.' Excluding 2021, it appears as if we'd need to combine more than 10 years of opioid fatality data to reach the same number of coronavirus deaths North Carolina has counted since the start of the pandemic. Preliminary opioid death numbers from 2021 aren't available and officials haven't finished confirming the total for 2020, so it's possible that they'll push the recent totals higher than expected. But we feel like it's a stretch for Stein to compare North Carolina's opioid deaths over the last 11 years to COVID deaths in North Carolina, which total more than 13,700 over 18 months. We rate his statement Mostly False. | [
"102242-proof-14-2bf56bc106dd6674d2b99cc114ca39d9.jfif"
]
|
'More people have died of an opioid overdose in North Carolina in recent years than have died of COVID. | Contradiction | North Carolina's top prosecutor wants his colleagues to remember that people are still struggling with drug addiction and that the pandemic has exacerbated the opioid crisis. However, his recent comparison of COVID-19 deaths and opioid-related deaths caught our attention. Attorney General Josh Stein was addressing North Carolina's Council of State - which includes the governor, lieutenant governor, state treasurer and other department heads - when he made this statement: 'The opioid epidemic has become a greater crisis since the pandemic. The media doesn't cover it as much because obviously the pandemic is paramount. But more people have died of an opioid overdose in North Carolina in recent years than have died of COVID. The number of people who have died of an opioid overdose has dramatically increased over the last year,' Stein said. Opioids are drugs naturally found in the opium poppy plant. Examples include heroin, morphine, the synthetic opioid known as fentanyl, and prescriptions such as OxyContin and Vicodin. Is it true that more people have died of an opioid overdose in North Carolina in recent years than have died from the coronavirus? Only if we apply the word 'recent' very liberally. What records show On Aug. 3, the day of Stein's statement, the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) had recorded 13,679 total COVID-19 deaths in North Carolina since the start of the pandemic in 2020. When we asked Stein's office about his comparison, spokesperson Nazneen Ahmed cited a DHHS estimate that 16,500 North Carolinians unintentionally overdosed and died over 19 years - between 2000 and 2019. However, it's difficult to determine exactly how many deaths there have been in 'recent' years. The state's health department doesn't have confirmed opioid deaths for 2020, only provisional data. Here are the year-by-year unintentional opioid overdose deaths documented by DHHS: 2020: 2,322 2019: 1,808 2018: 1,718 2017: 1,884 2016: 1,407 2015: 1,057 2014: 853 2013: 721 2012: 731 2011: 713 2010: 648 In total, opioid deaths hit 13,862 over that 11-year span. To put that in perspective, North Carolina recorded 6,748 COVID-19 deaths just in 2020 - nearly three times as many deaths as from opioid overdoses in the same one-year period. DHHS records do show the number of opioid overdoses - fatal and nonfatal - have increased during the pandemic. DHHS spokeswoman Kelly Haight said the state records show emergency department visits for overdoses have increased 20% since the early months of the pandemic in 2020. 'While we likely will not have complete death data until later this fall, the provisional data that we do share for 2020 and 2021 show this increase as well,' she said. For the sake of this fact-check, though, it's important to point out that it's unlikely that opioid deaths exceed COVID-19 deaths in North Carolina unless you combine more than 10 years of confirmed death figures. A chart on the CDC's website shows slightly higher overdose death figures for North Carolina. However, as Haight pointed out, the CDC tracks deaths caused by opioids as well as other substances. | Our ruling Stein said 'More people have died of an opioid overdose in North Carolina in recent years than have died of COVID.' Excluding 2021, it appears as if we'd need to combine more than 10 years of opioid fatality data to reach the same number of coronavirus deaths North Carolina has counted since the start of the pandemic. Preliminary opioid death numbers from 2021 aren't available and officials haven't finished confirming the total for 2020, so it's possible that they'll push the recent totals higher than expected. But we feel like it's a stretch for Stein to compare North Carolina's opioid deaths over the last 11 years to COVID deaths in North Carolina, which total more than 13,700 over 18 months. We rate his statement Mostly False. | [
"102242-proof-14-2bf56bc106dd6674d2b99cc114ca39d9.jfif"
]
|
'More people have died of an opioid overdose in North Carolina in recent years than have died of COVID. | Contradiction | North Carolina's top prosecutor wants his colleagues to remember that people are still struggling with drug addiction and that the pandemic has exacerbated the opioid crisis. However, his recent comparison of COVID-19 deaths and opioid-related deaths caught our attention. Attorney General Josh Stein was addressing North Carolina's Council of State - which includes the governor, lieutenant governor, state treasurer and other department heads - when he made this statement: 'The opioid epidemic has become a greater crisis since the pandemic. The media doesn't cover it as much because obviously the pandemic is paramount. But more people have died of an opioid overdose in North Carolina in recent years than have died of COVID. The number of people who have died of an opioid overdose has dramatically increased over the last year,' Stein said. Opioids are drugs naturally found in the opium poppy plant. Examples include heroin, morphine, the synthetic opioid known as fentanyl, and prescriptions such as OxyContin and Vicodin. Is it true that more people have died of an opioid overdose in North Carolina in recent years than have died from the coronavirus? Only if we apply the word 'recent' very liberally. What records show On Aug. 3, the day of Stein's statement, the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) had recorded 13,679 total COVID-19 deaths in North Carolina since the start of the pandemic in 2020. When we asked Stein's office about his comparison, spokesperson Nazneen Ahmed cited a DHHS estimate that 16,500 North Carolinians unintentionally overdosed and died over 19 years - between 2000 and 2019. However, it's difficult to determine exactly how many deaths there have been in 'recent' years. The state's health department doesn't have confirmed opioid deaths for 2020, only provisional data. Here are the year-by-year unintentional opioid overdose deaths documented by DHHS: 2020: 2,322 2019: 1,808 2018: 1,718 2017: 1,884 2016: 1,407 2015: 1,057 2014: 853 2013: 721 2012: 731 2011: 713 2010: 648 In total, opioid deaths hit 13,862 over that 11-year span. To put that in perspective, North Carolina recorded 6,748 COVID-19 deaths just in 2020 - nearly three times as many deaths as from opioid overdoses in the same one-year period. DHHS records do show the number of opioid overdoses - fatal and nonfatal - have increased during the pandemic. DHHS spokeswoman Kelly Haight said the state records show emergency department visits for overdoses have increased 20% since the early months of the pandemic in 2020. 'While we likely will not have complete death data until later this fall, the provisional data that we do share for 2020 and 2021 show this increase as well,' she said. For the sake of this fact-check, though, it's important to point out that it's unlikely that opioid deaths exceed COVID-19 deaths in North Carolina unless you combine more than 10 years of confirmed death figures. A chart on the CDC's website shows slightly higher overdose death figures for North Carolina. However, as Haight pointed out, the CDC tracks deaths caused by opioids as well as other substances. | Our ruling Stein said 'More people have died of an opioid overdose in North Carolina in recent years than have died of COVID.' Excluding 2021, it appears as if we'd need to combine more than 10 years of opioid fatality data to reach the same number of coronavirus deaths North Carolina has counted since the start of the pandemic. Preliminary opioid death numbers from 2021 aren't available and officials haven't finished confirming the total for 2020, so it's possible that they'll push the recent totals higher than expected. But we feel like it's a stretch for Stein to compare North Carolina's opioid deaths over the last 11 years to COVID deaths in North Carolina, which total more than 13,700 over 18 months. We rate his statement Mostly False. | [
"102242-proof-14-2bf56bc106dd6674d2b99cc114ca39d9.jfif"
]
|
More than 500,000 mail in ballots in Virginia and 200,000 in Nevada were sent to dead people or pets | Contradiction | A false Facebook post states that two battleground states sent huge numbers of ballots to dead people and pets. 'Why isn't anyone mentioning over 500,000 mail in ballots found in Virginia and 200,000 in Nevada in dead peoples names and pets,' stated an Aug. 10 Facebook post shared thousands of times. 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 twists two news stories. One was a story out of Virginia about mail ballot applications for the Nov. 3 election. And the second was a story out of Nevada about mail ballots sent during the June 9 Nevada primary. Neither state has sent ballots to voters for the Nov. 3 general election and in neither case was there evidence of thousands of ballots being sent to dead people and pets. Group sent ballot applications with wrong return address in Virginia The claim about Virginia stems from mailings from the Center for Voter Information, a national voter registration group that describes itself as nonpartisan but was started by a Democratic strategist. In August, the group sent absentee ballot request applications to 2.2 million voters in Virginia, including about 500,000 that had return envelopes addressed to the wrong elections offices. The group, which is a partner of the Voter Participation Center, apologized for providing wrong information, and its printer took responsibility. The group said that the error stemmed from confusing some cities and counties with similar names. Election officials around the country have said that the center's mailings have created confusion, but the group defended its work saying it encouraged voting. Virginia elections officials said they had nothing to do with the center's mailing and encouraged voters who want to receive ballots to apply on the state's website. So, how did the inaccurate mailings lead to false posts that claim the 500,000 were sent to 'dead people's names and pets'? Deb Wake, president of the League of Women Voters of Virginia, told DC-area news radio station WTOP-FM 103.5: 'One person stated that a dead person received one and a pet received one.' Wake told PolitiFact that she regrets sharing that anecdote. She said she based her comments on something she'd heard from a league member who said she had a friend who received one ballot application for a pet and dead relative. President Donald Trump chimed in as well: 'Half a million incorrect absentee ballot applications were sent all across the state of Virginia, including to many dead people...,' Trump said during a briefing with reporters Aug. 10. 'They had some sent to pets - dogs.' RELATED: Will 458,000 Vote-By-Mail Ballots Go To Californians Who Have Died Or Moved? Experts Are Skeptical One Nevada county had many ballots returned, but not proof all were dead people Due to the pandemic, Nevada passed a law to send mail ballots to all active voters. In advance of the June 9 primary, Clark County sent out about 1.3 million ballots. The county, which includes Las Vegas and is the largest in the state, mailed the ballots to addresses provided by voters when they registered. About 226,000 ballots were returned to elections officials because the voters no longer lived there, said Dan Kulin, a spokesperson for the Clark County Election Department. 'This is a common way for us to discover someone has moved,' Kulin said. But the fact that they were returned is not evidence that all of the people had died - nor is it evidence of fraud. In fact, it is a sign that the system worked as designed. Postal workers are not allowed to forward ballots if they have a forwarding address - they are required to return them, said Wayne Thorley, deputy secretary of state for elections. The state elections office receives daily death data from the state's vital statistics office. It also gets death data every other month from the Social Security Administration. The state then passes along the data to the counties so that they can remove dead voters from their registration lists. There can be a time lag in updating the rolls. 'If we print the ballot today and a voter dies tomorrow that's going to get mailed to them,' Thorley said. 'The voter roll is constantly in flux. You take a snapshot right now, and in 5 minutes it is out of date because somebody moved or passed away.' It's possible that anecdotal reports fueled misinformation. A long time postal worker, Jenny Trobiani, told the Las Vegas Review Journal in May that she had never seen such an influx of undeliverable ballots. '(The recipients) had all moved or died,' Trobiani said. Dead people on registration lists does not automatically mean fraud The fact that dead people remain on voter rolls nationwide does not itself equal fraud - it's only a crime if someone then fills out a ballot in the name of a dead voter and sends it in. The likelihood that voter fraud can happen because of dead people on the rolls is very low, said Thessalia Merivaki, an expert on voter administration and political science professor at Mississippi State University. 'Election administrators verify a lot of information prior to processing a ballot, be it by mail or in person ...,' Merivaki said. 'The same applies for voter registration. All information is verified, so it is highly unlikely that dead people can register to vote.' States have significantly improved keeping their registration records up to date by joining the national Electronic Registration Information Center, which sends reports to member states showing when voters have moved within their state or out of state, when they have died and flagging when they may have duplicate registrations. | Our ruling Facebook posts said more than 500,000 mail in ballots in Virginia and 200,000 in Nevada were sent to dead people or pets. In Virginia, about 500,000 voters received an application for a ballot - not an actual ballot - that included the wrong return address for elections offices. In Nevada, around 226,000 ballots for the primary were returned to Clark County because the voters didn't live at the address. In neither case, does that add up to evidence that hundreds of thousands of dead people and pets received ballots. We rate this claim False. | [
"102257-proof-04-152010c0b59fc641b964a188b4c11a70.jpg"
]
|
More than 500,000 mail in ballots in Virginia and 200,000 in Nevada were sent to dead people or pets | Contradiction | A false Facebook post states that two battleground states sent huge numbers of ballots to dead people and pets. 'Why isn't anyone mentioning over 500,000 mail in ballots found in Virginia and 200,000 in Nevada in dead peoples names and pets,' stated an Aug. 10 Facebook post shared thousands of times. 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 twists two news stories. One was a story out of Virginia about mail ballot applications for the Nov. 3 election. And the second was a story out of Nevada about mail ballots sent during the June 9 Nevada primary. Neither state has sent ballots to voters for the Nov. 3 general election and in neither case was there evidence of thousands of ballots being sent to dead people and pets. Group sent ballot applications with wrong return address in Virginia The claim about Virginia stems from mailings from the Center for Voter Information, a national voter registration group that describes itself as nonpartisan but was started by a Democratic strategist. In August, the group sent absentee ballot request applications to 2.2 million voters in Virginia, including about 500,000 that had return envelopes addressed to the wrong elections offices. The group, which is a partner of the Voter Participation Center, apologized for providing wrong information, and its printer took responsibility. The group said that the error stemmed from confusing some cities and counties with similar names. Election officials around the country have said that the center's mailings have created confusion, but the group defended its work saying it encouraged voting. Virginia elections officials said they had nothing to do with the center's mailing and encouraged voters who want to receive ballots to apply on the state's website. So, how did the inaccurate mailings lead to false posts that claim the 500,000 were sent to 'dead people's names and pets'? Deb Wake, president of the League of Women Voters of Virginia, told DC-area news radio station WTOP-FM 103.5: 'One person stated that a dead person received one and a pet received one.' Wake told PolitiFact that she regrets sharing that anecdote. She said she based her comments on something she'd heard from a league member who said she had a friend who received one ballot application for a pet and dead relative. President Donald Trump chimed in as well: 'Half a million incorrect absentee ballot applications were sent all across the state of Virginia, including to many dead people...,' Trump said during a briefing with reporters Aug. 10. 'They had some sent to pets - dogs.' RELATED: Will 458,000 Vote-By-Mail Ballots Go To Californians Who Have Died Or Moved? Experts Are Skeptical One Nevada county had many ballots returned, but not proof all were dead people Due to the pandemic, Nevada passed a law to send mail ballots to all active voters. In advance of the June 9 primary, Clark County sent out about 1.3 million ballots. The county, which includes Las Vegas and is the largest in the state, mailed the ballots to addresses provided by voters when they registered. About 226,000 ballots were returned to elections officials because the voters no longer lived there, said Dan Kulin, a spokesperson for the Clark County Election Department. 'This is a common way for us to discover someone has moved,' Kulin said. But the fact that they were returned is not evidence that all of the people had died - nor is it evidence of fraud. In fact, it is a sign that the system worked as designed. Postal workers are not allowed to forward ballots if they have a forwarding address - they are required to return them, said Wayne Thorley, deputy secretary of state for elections. The state elections office receives daily death data from the state's vital statistics office. It also gets death data every other month from the Social Security Administration. The state then passes along the data to the counties so that they can remove dead voters from their registration lists. There can be a time lag in updating the rolls. 'If we print the ballot today and a voter dies tomorrow that's going to get mailed to them,' Thorley said. 'The voter roll is constantly in flux. You take a snapshot right now, and in 5 minutes it is out of date because somebody moved or passed away.' It's possible that anecdotal reports fueled misinformation. A long time postal worker, Jenny Trobiani, told the Las Vegas Review Journal in May that she had never seen such an influx of undeliverable ballots. '(The recipients) had all moved or died,' Trobiani said. Dead people on registration lists does not automatically mean fraud The fact that dead people remain on voter rolls nationwide does not itself equal fraud - it's only a crime if someone then fills out a ballot in the name of a dead voter and sends it in. The likelihood that voter fraud can happen because of dead people on the rolls is very low, said Thessalia Merivaki, an expert on voter administration and political science professor at Mississippi State University. 'Election administrators verify a lot of information prior to processing a ballot, be it by mail or in person ...,' Merivaki said. 'The same applies for voter registration. All information is verified, so it is highly unlikely that dead people can register to vote.' States have significantly improved keeping their registration records up to date by joining the national Electronic Registration Information Center, which sends reports to member states showing when voters have moved within their state or out of state, when they have died and flagging when they may have duplicate registrations. | Our ruling Facebook posts said more than 500,000 mail in ballots in Virginia and 200,000 in Nevada were sent to dead people or pets. In Virginia, about 500,000 voters received an application for a ballot - not an actual ballot - that included the wrong return address for elections offices. In Nevada, around 226,000 ballots for the primary were returned to Clark County because the voters didn't live at the address. In neither case, does that add up to evidence that hundreds of thousands of dead people and pets received ballots. We rate this claim False. | [
"102257-proof-04-152010c0b59fc641b964a188b4c11a70.jpg"
]
|
More than 500,000 mail in ballots in Virginia and 200,000 in Nevada were sent to dead people or pets | Contradiction | A false Facebook post states that two battleground states sent huge numbers of ballots to dead people and pets. 'Why isn't anyone mentioning over 500,000 mail in ballots found in Virginia and 200,000 in Nevada in dead peoples names and pets,' stated an Aug. 10 Facebook post shared thousands of times. 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 twists two news stories. One was a story out of Virginia about mail ballot applications for the Nov. 3 election. And the second was a story out of Nevada about mail ballots sent during the June 9 Nevada primary. Neither state has sent ballots to voters for the Nov. 3 general election and in neither case was there evidence of thousands of ballots being sent to dead people and pets. Group sent ballot applications with wrong return address in Virginia The claim about Virginia stems from mailings from the Center for Voter Information, a national voter registration group that describes itself as nonpartisan but was started by a Democratic strategist. In August, the group sent absentee ballot request applications to 2.2 million voters in Virginia, including about 500,000 that had return envelopes addressed to the wrong elections offices. The group, which is a partner of the Voter Participation Center, apologized for providing wrong information, and its printer took responsibility. The group said that the error stemmed from confusing some cities and counties with similar names. Election officials around the country have said that the center's mailings have created confusion, but the group defended its work saying it encouraged voting. Virginia elections officials said they had nothing to do with the center's mailing and encouraged voters who want to receive ballots to apply on the state's website. So, how did the inaccurate mailings lead to false posts that claim the 500,000 were sent to 'dead people's names and pets'? Deb Wake, president of the League of Women Voters of Virginia, told DC-area news radio station WTOP-FM 103.5: 'One person stated that a dead person received one and a pet received one.' Wake told PolitiFact that she regrets sharing that anecdote. She said she based her comments on something she'd heard from a league member who said she had a friend who received one ballot application for a pet and dead relative. President Donald Trump chimed in as well: 'Half a million incorrect absentee ballot applications were sent all across the state of Virginia, including to many dead people...,' Trump said during a briefing with reporters Aug. 10. 'They had some sent to pets - dogs.' RELATED: Will 458,000 Vote-By-Mail Ballots Go To Californians Who Have Died Or Moved? Experts Are Skeptical One Nevada county had many ballots returned, but not proof all were dead people Due to the pandemic, Nevada passed a law to send mail ballots to all active voters. In advance of the June 9 primary, Clark County sent out about 1.3 million ballots. The county, which includes Las Vegas and is the largest in the state, mailed the ballots to addresses provided by voters when they registered. About 226,000 ballots were returned to elections officials because the voters no longer lived there, said Dan Kulin, a spokesperson for the Clark County Election Department. 'This is a common way for us to discover someone has moved,' Kulin said. But the fact that they were returned is not evidence that all of the people had died - nor is it evidence of fraud. In fact, it is a sign that the system worked as designed. Postal workers are not allowed to forward ballots if they have a forwarding address - they are required to return them, said Wayne Thorley, deputy secretary of state for elections. The state elections office receives daily death data from the state's vital statistics office. It also gets death data every other month from the Social Security Administration. The state then passes along the data to the counties so that they can remove dead voters from their registration lists. There can be a time lag in updating the rolls. 'If we print the ballot today and a voter dies tomorrow that's going to get mailed to them,' Thorley said. 'The voter roll is constantly in flux. You take a snapshot right now, and in 5 minutes it is out of date because somebody moved or passed away.' It's possible that anecdotal reports fueled misinformation. A long time postal worker, Jenny Trobiani, told the Las Vegas Review Journal in May that she had never seen such an influx of undeliverable ballots. '(The recipients) had all moved or died,' Trobiani said. Dead people on registration lists does not automatically mean fraud The fact that dead people remain on voter rolls nationwide does not itself equal fraud - it's only a crime if someone then fills out a ballot in the name of a dead voter and sends it in. The likelihood that voter fraud can happen because of dead people on the rolls is very low, said Thessalia Merivaki, an expert on voter administration and political science professor at Mississippi State University. 'Election administrators verify a lot of information prior to processing a ballot, be it by mail or in person ...,' Merivaki said. 'The same applies for voter registration. All information is verified, so it is highly unlikely that dead people can register to vote.' States have significantly improved keeping their registration records up to date by joining the national Electronic Registration Information Center, which sends reports to member states showing when voters have moved within their state or out of state, when they have died and flagging when they may have duplicate registrations. | Our ruling Facebook posts said more than 500,000 mail in ballots in Virginia and 200,000 in Nevada were sent to dead people or pets. In Virginia, about 500,000 voters received an application for a ballot - not an actual ballot - that included the wrong return address for elections offices. In Nevada, around 226,000 ballots for the primary were returned to Clark County because the voters didn't live at the address. In neither case, does that add up to evidence that hundreds of thousands of dead people and pets received ballots. We rate this claim False. | [
"102257-proof-04-152010c0b59fc641b964a188b4c11a70.jpg"
]
|
A photo shows Donald Trump embracing Jeffrey Epstein in the back of a limousine. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump once called Jeffrey Epstein a 'terrific guy,' but this photo that appears to show him with his arm around the financier, who was accused of running a sex-trafficking ring before killing himself in custody, is fake. In the image that's being shared on Facebook, 'Epstein' has his hand on Trump's leg and the president is kissing the back of his head. 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.) That's because it's a poorly doctored photo - you can see Ivanka Trump's hair spilling out from behind Epstein's face. The original image is from 1995 and shows the future president with his then-13-year-old daughter. This isn't the first photo of Donald and Ivanka Trump that has been manipulated in connection with Epstein. In July, we fact-checked another photo that was edited to make it look like Epstein was with the father-daughter pair. We rate this image Pants on Fire. Correction: The original photo is from 1995. This story previously said it was from 1990. | We rate this image Pants on Fire. Correction: The original photo is from 1995. This story previously said it was from 1990. | []
|
'Sending your child to school' on a day when vaccines are being administered 'is implied consent' for getting the COVID-19 vaccine. | Contradiction | Now that the U.S. has authorized Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for kids ages 5-11, children across the country are getting vaccinated. But some people are claiming that schools can vaccinate kids without their parents' consent. In a video by Infowars, a far-right conspiracy oriented website, host Harrison Smith said that by sending their kids to school, parents are giving schools 'implied consent' to vaccinate their kids for COVID-19. 'They might send out a consent form and try to get you to sign it for your child,' he said in the video. 'But even if you don't sign it, you should know that sending your child to school that day is implied consent.' TikTok identified videos with similar claims as part of its efforts to counter inauthentic, misleading or false content. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with TikTok.) Smith cited a World Health Organization document that discussed implied consent for vaccinating kids. That's a real document that describes three types of informed consent - written, verbal and implied - for kids to get vaccinated. For implied consent, the document says that parents are notified of upcoming vaccinations for their kids and that the presence of their kids at a vaccination session 'is considered to imply consent.' It says parents are expected to take steps - like not allowing their kids to go to school on a vaccination day - if they don't want their kids to be vaccinated. But the Infowars video takes that WHO document out of context. For starters, the document is from 2014, long before the COVID-19 pandemic. It also isn't meant to serve as binding rules for the world as the Infowars video suggests. Instead, it gives countries and states guidelines to consider when developing their own parental consent requirements. So WHO isn't making the rules. Countries and states are. In the U.S., there's no federal requirement for informed consent relating to vaccination, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But all of the states and Washington, D.C., have rules for parental consent for kids to get vaccinated. States do not use implied consent for vaccinations, said Stacey Lee, a public health professor at Johns Hopkins University. 'Implied consent is usually used for emergency-type situations, well-grounded in the U.S. value that we respect life, and that if you're unconscious, you would want to live,' said Lee. For vaccinations, states typically require that parents actively consent before their minor children can be immunized. Such consent requirements usually take the form of the parent providing verbal or written permission, though there are exceptions - for children who have been emancipated or who don't live with a parent or guardian, for example. The age of consent for vaccinations varies by state, though most states put it at 18, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In Wyoming, 'written parental consent is always required,' a spokesperson for the Wyoming Department of Health told PolitiFact in an email. 'There is nothing like 'implied consent' here.' Kids under 18 in Wyoming need consent from at least one parent to get vaccinated, with some exceptions. In New York, parental consent for kids 16 and 17 can be given in person, over the phone and sometimes in a written statement. For kids 5-15, an adult caregiver also should be present for the vaccination. Implied consent is not an option. 'Parents in New York State are not giving schools implied consent to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 by sending their children to school,' a spokesperson for the New York Department of Health told PolitiFact in an email. While most states - including Wyoming and New York - require parental consent for kids under 18 to get the COVID-19 vaccine, a handful of states plus Washington, D.C., have variations on that requirement. A few states, such as Washington, adopted what is known as 'the mature minor doctrine,' which allows providers to waive parental consent for minors deemed sufficiently mature. Others, like Oregon, have lower consent ages, from 14 to 16, while Nebraska puts it at 19. In Washington, D.C., the age of consent for vaccines is 11. There have been rare occasions when states haven't adhered to their own parental consent requirements for vaccines. Louisiana requires parental consent for kids under 18 and has a COVID-19 vaccination consent form for parents to sign. But in late October, a Louisiana parent said her 16-year-old son was vaccinated without her consent at his school, where there was a mobile vaccination clinic. The clinic operator, Ochsner Health System, apologized and told the son's school system that it was investigating the incident. | Our ruling The Infowars video cites a WHO document about parental consent to argue that U.S. schools are using implied parental consent to give kids COVID-19 vaccines. The 2014 WHO document is guidance, not binding law. Countries, states and cities make the rules. And in the U.S., no states use implied consent for vaccinating kids. We rate the video's claim False. | [
"102259-proof-19-1fbe794103557e7a1a2ecca78928c438.jpeg"
]
|
'Sending your child to school' on a day when vaccines are being administered 'is implied consent' for getting the COVID-19 vaccine. | Contradiction | Now that the U.S. has authorized Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for kids ages 5-11, children across the country are getting vaccinated. But some people are claiming that schools can vaccinate kids without their parents' consent. In a video by Infowars, a far-right conspiracy oriented website, host Harrison Smith said that by sending their kids to school, parents are giving schools 'implied consent' to vaccinate their kids for COVID-19. 'They might send out a consent form and try to get you to sign it for your child,' he said in the video. 'But even if you don't sign it, you should know that sending your child to school that day is implied consent.' TikTok identified videos with similar claims as part of its efforts to counter inauthentic, misleading or false content. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with TikTok.) Smith cited a World Health Organization document that discussed implied consent for vaccinating kids. That's a real document that describes three types of informed consent - written, verbal and implied - for kids to get vaccinated. For implied consent, the document says that parents are notified of upcoming vaccinations for their kids and that the presence of their kids at a vaccination session 'is considered to imply consent.' It says parents are expected to take steps - like not allowing their kids to go to school on a vaccination day - if they don't want their kids to be vaccinated. But the Infowars video takes that WHO document out of context. For starters, the document is from 2014, long before the COVID-19 pandemic. It also isn't meant to serve as binding rules for the world as the Infowars video suggests. Instead, it gives countries and states guidelines to consider when developing their own parental consent requirements. So WHO isn't making the rules. Countries and states are. In the U.S., there's no federal requirement for informed consent relating to vaccination, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But all of the states and Washington, D.C., have rules for parental consent for kids to get vaccinated. States do not use implied consent for vaccinations, said Stacey Lee, a public health professor at Johns Hopkins University. 'Implied consent is usually used for emergency-type situations, well-grounded in the U.S. value that we respect life, and that if you're unconscious, you would want to live,' said Lee. For vaccinations, states typically require that parents actively consent before their minor children can be immunized. Such consent requirements usually take the form of the parent providing verbal or written permission, though there are exceptions - for children who have been emancipated or who don't live with a parent or guardian, for example. The age of consent for vaccinations varies by state, though most states put it at 18, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In Wyoming, 'written parental consent is always required,' a spokesperson for the Wyoming Department of Health told PolitiFact in an email. 'There is nothing like 'implied consent' here.' Kids under 18 in Wyoming need consent from at least one parent to get vaccinated, with some exceptions. In New York, parental consent for kids 16 and 17 can be given in person, over the phone and sometimes in a written statement. For kids 5-15, an adult caregiver also should be present for the vaccination. Implied consent is not an option. 'Parents in New York State are not giving schools implied consent to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 by sending their children to school,' a spokesperson for the New York Department of Health told PolitiFact in an email. While most states - including Wyoming and New York - require parental consent for kids under 18 to get the COVID-19 vaccine, a handful of states plus Washington, D.C., have variations on that requirement. A few states, such as Washington, adopted what is known as 'the mature minor doctrine,' which allows providers to waive parental consent for minors deemed sufficiently mature. Others, like Oregon, have lower consent ages, from 14 to 16, while Nebraska puts it at 19. In Washington, D.C., the age of consent for vaccines is 11. There have been rare occasions when states haven't adhered to their own parental consent requirements for vaccines. Louisiana requires parental consent for kids under 18 and has a COVID-19 vaccination consent form for parents to sign. But in late October, a Louisiana parent said her 16-year-old son was vaccinated without her consent at his school, where there was a mobile vaccination clinic. The clinic operator, Ochsner Health System, apologized and told the son's school system that it was investigating the incident. | Our ruling The Infowars video cites a WHO document about parental consent to argue that U.S. schools are using implied parental consent to give kids COVID-19 vaccines. The 2014 WHO document is guidance, not binding law. Countries, states and cities make the rules. And in the U.S., no states use implied consent for vaccinating kids. We rate the video's claim False. | [
"102259-proof-19-1fbe794103557e7a1a2ecca78928c438.jpeg"
]
|
The Biden-backed infrastructure bill contains a provision establishing a per-mile driving tax. | Contradiction | A viral image popular on Facebook claims that the $1 trillion infrastructure bill moving through Washington would establish a per-mile 'driving tax.' The image takes the form of a screenshot of a TV graphic from Newsmax purportedly detailing 'Biden tax increases.' 'Per-mile user fee. Estimated to be 8 cents per mile,' reads text on the slide. 'This will be in addition to the already in place fuel tax,' one user wrote in the caption of their post. The image 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.) One provision buried in the 2,700-page infrastructure bill supported by President Joe Biden does create a pilot program to study the effects of a per-mile tax. However, it's misleading to equate the pilot program with an actual fee. 'The claim is a ridiculous distortion,' said Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank. The purpose of the pilot program would be to test whether a mileage fee would be a viable way to support the Highway Trust Fund in lieu of the current gasoline tax. The fee has long been discussed as a means of replacing the gas tax as the auto industry moves toward electric cars, Michele Nellenbach, vice president of strategic initiatives at the Bipartisan Policy Center, previously told PolitiFact. Some states have tried their own pilot programs. Participants would record the miles they drive in passenger and commercial vehicles and pay fees based on those miles. Enrollment would be voluntary, and all participants would be fully reimbursed for any charges they pay. 'It is difficult to know how many people will participate, but I would expect in the tens or hundreds of thousands,' said Mariya Frost, the director of the Coles Center for Transportation at the Washington Policy Center, a center-right think tank. If passed, the program would last from fiscal year 2022 to 2026. Each year, a report would be submitted to House and Senate committees concerning the program's success at generating revenue and keeping user information private, among other subjects. Enacting any federal per-mile driving fee would require separate legislative action, said Susan Howard, program director for transportation finance and director at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 'Implementation of any per-mile tax is likely still years away,' she said. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that the Biden infrastructure bill contains a provision establishing a per-mile driving tax. This is inaccurate. The infrastructure bill would create a pilot program that would study the effect and viability of a per-mile driving tax among a group of volunteers. Enrollment in the pilot program would be voluntary, and participants would be fully reimbursed for any fees they pay. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Nobody's health is at risk right now' from PFAS contamination, as long as they are receiving bottled drinking water | Contradiction | For years, Wisconsin has been grappling with 'forever chemical' contaminations in some of its towns and cities, making it so residents can't drink the water from their own wells. Those chemicals, known as PFAS -- per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances -- have been linked to all kinds of health risks, including types of kidney and testicular cancers, lower birth weights and harm to immune and reproductive systems. PFAS, a large family of man-made chemicals, were once prized for their non-stick characteristics and were used to make non-stick pans, waterproof clothing and other items. They're also commonly used in fast food wrappers, to keep the grease from leaking out. The chemicals accumulate in the body over time, meaning the more consumed via food or water, the more is stored in the body. In Wisconsin, the chemicals have ended up in the soil in many places -- including Marinettte, Peshtigo, Milwaukee and Madison -- due to the use and testing of fire fighting foam used to put out blazes involving gas. In the communities dealing with those contaminations, many residents can no longer drink or cook with the water from their kitchen sink, forcing them to rely on weekly shipments of bottled water, paid for by the polluting party or, in some cases, the state Department of Natural Resources. Scott Manley, executive vice president for government relations for Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state's largest business lobbying group, during a Jan. 31, 2020, interview about the chemicals on WKOW's 'Capital City Sunday' said that residents aren't put at risk by the contamination if they're getting the bottled water. 'People who have wells that test for elevated levels of PFAS are currently being provided clean drinking water at the expense of the responsible party, so nobody's health is at risk right now,' he said. That stopped us. Is it true that there is no risk to people within polluted areas if they're receiving bottled water shipments for drinking and cooking? PFAS contamination extends beyond ground water, wells Let's start with some background. One of the most well-known areas where bottled water has to be provided to residents is in Marinette and Peshtigo in northeastern Wisconsin. The PFAS in that area originated at the Tyco Fire Products firefighting foam testing facility, which saw outdoor testing of foam up until 2017. The foam was washed into sanitary sewers after testing, allowing PFAS to leach into the ground. The PFAS in the soil at the testing plant later leached out of the boundaries of the testing facility, carried by groundwater, and have been found in private wells across the area. Tyco, a subsidiary of Johnson Controls, is paying to provide bottled water or water treatment systems to residents with PFAS in their wells above a certain level and has set aside money to work towards providing the residents with a water system for all affected in the future, in cooperation with the city of Marinette. When asked for backup to support Manley's claim, Nick Novak, vice president of communications and marketing for WMC, essentially repeated what Manley said: 'Parties responsible for elevated levels of specific PFAS substances have supplied affected communities with bottled water or water filtration systems in the near term while working closely with regulators and community members on long-term potable water solutions to ensure no one's health or safety is put at risk.' But environmental groups disagree with the assertion that no one's health is at risk. And various studies also cite known concerns. Carly Michiels, government relations director for Clean Wisconsin, noted that water is not the only thing affected by PFAS contamination. 'There are also considerations like the contaminated biosolids that have been spread on farm fields, or waterways that have contaminated the fish, which would all impact a person's public health,' she said. 'Drinking water out of a tap is only one source of exposure in a large PFAS hotspot.' Biosolids, or the sludge taken out of waste water treatment systems, is typically spread on farm fields, and PFAS can be found in soil in contaminated areas. Though not yet conclusive, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is studying how crops can absorb PFAS, which could then be consumed and added to the accumulation of the chemicals in a person's body. Studies in Wisconsin have shown that PFAS also accumulate in fish, which has resulted in the DNR issuing warnings about consuming fish from certain areas more than once or twice a month. Fish in ponds in Marinette have shown elevated levels of PFAS, according to an October 2020 report from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, as well as fish in Madison lakes and even Lake Superior. Elevated levels of PFAS have also been found in the livers of deer in the Marinette area, prompting the DNR to issue consumption advisories for the organs, according to a September 2020 report in the Journal Sentinel. So even though residents may have access to clean water via deliveries of bottled water, there is still a risk of consuming contaminated produce, fish or meat from the area, which could contribute to a buildup of PFAS in the body. Our rating Manley claimed that no one's health is at risk if they're receiving bottled drinking water due to contamination in their home's water supply. While precautions put in place to provide safe drinking water have helped mitigate the problem in the short term, residents can still ingest PFAS through other means, such as meat or fish hunted from nearby land, or possibly even produce harvested from areas where PFAS are present in the soil. We rate the claim False. | Our rating Manley claimed that no one's health is at risk if they're receiving bottled drinking water due to contamination in their home's water supply. While precautions put in place to provide safe drinking water have helped mitigate the problem in the short term, residents can still ingest PFAS through other means, such as meat or fish hunted from nearby land, or possibly even produce harvested from areas where PFAS are present in the soil. We rate the claim False. | [
"102311-proof-34-708e1c1a1cbd37dcad8e37ec2055ae1e.jpg"
]
|
'Nobody's health is at risk right now' from PFAS contamination, as long as they are receiving bottled drinking water | Contradiction | For years, Wisconsin has been grappling with 'forever chemical' contaminations in some of its towns and cities, making it so residents can't drink the water from their own wells. Those chemicals, known as PFAS -- per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances -- have been linked to all kinds of health risks, including types of kidney and testicular cancers, lower birth weights and harm to immune and reproductive systems. PFAS, a large family of man-made chemicals, were once prized for their non-stick characteristics and were used to make non-stick pans, waterproof clothing and other items. They're also commonly used in fast food wrappers, to keep the grease from leaking out. The chemicals accumulate in the body over time, meaning the more consumed via food or water, the more is stored in the body. In Wisconsin, the chemicals have ended up in the soil in many places -- including Marinettte, Peshtigo, Milwaukee and Madison -- due to the use and testing of fire fighting foam used to put out blazes involving gas. In the communities dealing with those contaminations, many residents can no longer drink or cook with the water from their kitchen sink, forcing them to rely on weekly shipments of bottled water, paid for by the polluting party or, in some cases, the state Department of Natural Resources. Scott Manley, executive vice president for government relations for Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state's largest business lobbying group, during a Jan. 31, 2020, interview about the chemicals on WKOW's 'Capital City Sunday' said that residents aren't put at risk by the contamination if they're getting the bottled water. 'People who have wells that test for elevated levels of PFAS are currently being provided clean drinking water at the expense of the responsible party, so nobody's health is at risk right now,' he said. That stopped us. Is it true that there is no risk to people within polluted areas if they're receiving bottled water shipments for drinking and cooking? PFAS contamination extends beyond ground water, wells Let's start with some background. One of the most well-known areas where bottled water has to be provided to residents is in Marinette and Peshtigo in northeastern Wisconsin. The PFAS in that area originated at the Tyco Fire Products firefighting foam testing facility, which saw outdoor testing of foam up until 2017. The foam was washed into sanitary sewers after testing, allowing PFAS to leach into the ground. The PFAS in the soil at the testing plant later leached out of the boundaries of the testing facility, carried by groundwater, and have been found in private wells across the area. Tyco, a subsidiary of Johnson Controls, is paying to provide bottled water or water treatment systems to residents with PFAS in their wells above a certain level and has set aside money to work towards providing the residents with a water system for all affected in the future, in cooperation with the city of Marinette. When asked for backup to support Manley's claim, Nick Novak, vice president of communications and marketing for WMC, essentially repeated what Manley said: 'Parties responsible for elevated levels of specific PFAS substances have supplied affected communities with bottled water or water filtration systems in the near term while working closely with regulators and community members on long-term potable water solutions to ensure no one's health or safety is put at risk.' But environmental groups disagree with the assertion that no one's health is at risk. And various studies also cite known concerns. Carly Michiels, government relations director for Clean Wisconsin, noted that water is not the only thing affected by PFAS contamination. 'There are also considerations like the contaminated biosolids that have been spread on farm fields, or waterways that have contaminated the fish, which would all impact a person's public health,' she said. 'Drinking water out of a tap is only one source of exposure in a large PFAS hotspot.' Biosolids, or the sludge taken out of waste water treatment systems, is typically spread on farm fields, and PFAS can be found in soil in contaminated areas. Though not yet conclusive, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is studying how crops can absorb PFAS, which could then be consumed and added to the accumulation of the chemicals in a person's body. Studies in Wisconsin have shown that PFAS also accumulate in fish, which has resulted in the DNR issuing warnings about consuming fish from certain areas more than once or twice a month. Fish in ponds in Marinette have shown elevated levels of PFAS, according to an October 2020 report from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, as well as fish in Madison lakes and even Lake Superior. Elevated levels of PFAS have also been found in the livers of deer in the Marinette area, prompting the DNR to issue consumption advisories for the organs, according to a September 2020 report in the Journal Sentinel. So even though residents may have access to clean water via deliveries of bottled water, there is still a risk of consuming contaminated produce, fish or meat from the area, which could contribute to a buildup of PFAS in the body. Our rating Manley claimed that no one's health is at risk if they're receiving bottled drinking water due to contamination in their home's water supply. While precautions put in place to provide safe drinking water have helped mitigate the problem in the short term, residents can still ingest PFAS through other means, such as meat or fish hunted from nearby land, or possibly even produce harvested from areas where PFAS are present in the soil. We rate the claim False. | Our rating Manley claimed that no one's health is at risk if they're receiving bottled drinking water due to contamination in their home's water supply. While precautions put in place to provide safe drinking water have helped mitigate the problem in the short term, residents can still ingest PFAS through other means, such as meat or fish hunted from nearby land, or possibly even produce harvested from areas where PFAS are present in the soil. We rate the claim False. | [
"102311-proof-34-708e1c1a1cbd37dcad8e37ec2055ae1e.jpg"
]
|
'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce [COVID-19] cases or stop spikes. | Contradiction | In early December, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a regional stay-at-home order to curb the state's record spread of COVID-19, which has skyrocketed 117% to 1.6 million cases over the past two weeks. The new business and travel restrictions were tied to intensive care unit capacity and kicked in within days across most of the state, shutting down bars, wineries, movie theaters, salons, barber shops, all restaurant dining and limiting retailers to operating at no more than 20% capacity. 'The bottom line is if we don't act now, our hospital system will be overwhelmed,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said at a news conference on Dec. 3 when he introduced the order. Shortly after, the state's GOP lawmakers criticized the move, saying it would harm business and claiming there's no evidence government 'lockdowns' work. 'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce cases or stop spikes,' California state Asm. James Gallagher claimed on Twitter. 'Neither science or reality justify the Governor's announcement today - just look at how California's case count compares to less restrictive states.' Gallagher represents much of the northern Sacramento Valley, including Butte, Tehama, Sutter, Yuba, Colusa and Glenn counties. 'By now, it should be obvious that the lockdowns have failed to contain this virus,' added Rep. Tom McClintock, whose district includes Sacramento's eastern suburbs and Sierra Nevada communities, speaking on the U.S. House floor on Dec. 9. For months, there's been robust debate about whether government shutdowns go too far and unnecessarily harm society and the economy. That's a debate that will continue and not something we can fact-check. But Gallagher's claim that government shutdowns don't reduce COVID-19 cases or stop spikes is more clear cut. We sifted through the research and asked public health experts to weigh in. Do Government Shutdowns Work? Experts and several studies show government-imposed shutdowns do work to slow COVID-19 when combined with mask mandates, social distancing and hand hygiene requirements. They also depend on the public's willingness to comply with the orders. Here's one recent example: A state-mandated stay-at-home order in Delaware this spring, combined with public mask mandates and contact tracing, led to an 82% reduction in COVID-19 cases, an 88% drop in hospitalizations and a 100% decline in deaths, according to a November study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 'These strategies are effective in limiting potential exposure to [COVID-19] and reducing community transmission when implemented as part of a multicomponent strategy,' the study concluded. 'No single mitigation strategy is likely to be effective alone,' it added. Newsom's new regional stay-at-home order takes a similar approach. It calls for shutting down several business sectors. But it also requires '100% masking and physical distancing,' in sectors that remain open. Nowhere in the order does it say the government shutdowns by themselves are sufficient to slow the virus. Success Depends On Public Cooperation Another study, conducted by economics professors at the University of Kentucky and published in May in Health Affairs medical journal, found that social distancing mandates by state and local governments in the U.S. on average reduced the daily growth rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases by 5.4% after one to five days, 6.8% after six to 10 days, 8.2% after 11 to 15 days, and 9.1% after 16 to 20 days. Notably, it concluded the 'effectiveness' of these orders 'depends critically on the cooperation of the public.' 'For example,' the study continued, 'although California's first-in-the-nation shelter-in-place order [from March] carries threats of fines and incarceration, its effectiveness fundamentally relies on social pressure.' Lee Riley is professor and chair of infectious disease and vaccinology at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health. He said the confusion over whether shutdowns work is understandable, considering states with some of the toughest mandates are also experiencing the biggest spikes. 'The problem is when these restrictions are eased or lifted, that's when we see the resurgence,' Riley explained. 'This is what people are looking at and saying the restrictions don't work. And that's absolutely incorrect. Restrictions do work.' Riley said places such as China, Singapore and Taiwan all imposed rigorous restrictions and contained the coronavirus spread. 'Yes, the restrictions do work and if they're maintained for a long enough period, then they can eventually mitigate the transmissions completely.' Previous Fact Check Last month, PolitiFact examined a similar claim by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott who said shutdowns are 'ineffective,' before adding that workplace gatherings are not a common way for COVID-19 to spread. For that fact check, experts told PolitiFact that if measuring strictly transmission rates and case numbers, shutdowns have proven to be effective in managing spread. They also noted that Abbott's statement ignores workplaces where proper precautions are difficult to achieve from meatpacking plants to the construction industry. PolitiFact rated Abbot's claim as False. 'Correlation Is Not Causation' In an interview, Gallagher, the California state lawmaker, said he stood by his claim that shutdowns don't reduce cases or stop spikes, describing the evidence as inconclusive. He suggested that the decline in coronavirus cases this spring could have resulted from people's voluntary actions to distance and use good hygiene upon hearing about the virus, and not because of lockdowns. 'Correlation is not causation,' Gallagher said. 'Just because something happens to happen at the same time that you're doing X, doesn't mean that there wasn't some other variable that was leading to that.' Riley said Gallagher's theory doesn't hold up. 'If good hygiene and voluntary social distancing are what contributed to the decrease in cases, why are we seeing another surge all over the country?' the professor asked. 'The point of the lockdowns is to decrease chances of social gathering and social interaction, which is the most effective way to assure social distancing,' Riley added. 'This lawmaker is correct that social distancing works, but lockdowns help to increase the social distancing.' Gallagher provided links to several opinion pieces and letters that he said demonstrate lockdowns don't work. One was a link to the Great Barrington Declaration, a letter three scientists authored that endorses herd immunity and supports a completely reopened society for those with no underlying health conditions amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Since its publication in early October, however, PolitiFact found the document has been widely criticized by scientists and denounced by top health officials and thousands of doctors around the world. The paper was signed by scientists and health experts across the world. But a British broadcast station found that some of those who signed the letter online used fake names, including 'Dr. Person Fakename' and 'Dr. Johnny Bananas.' The signatures were later made private. Gallagher also cited an opinion piece by a chief investments officer for an analytics firm; a free-market think tank's magazine column that cites the Great Barrington Declaration; an article in the journal Nature that says a combination of 'non-pharmaceutical interventions,' such as business closures, social distancing or mask-wearing, 'is necessary to curb the spread of the virus,' but that less disruptive restrictions can be as effective as more drastic ones. Additionally, Gallagher cited a study published in Safety Science that concluded Germany's decline in COVID-19 infections in the spring was due to the cancellation of mass events and voluntary behavior changes, but not the government restrictions that followed. Germany announced it will start a lockdown this week until at least Jan. 10 to curb the spread of the pandemic. The Science Is 'Pretty Clear' Erin Mordecai is an assistant professor in biology at Stanford University whose research focuses on the ecology of infectious disease. She has conducted research on the relationship between virus transmission and mobility data in California and Georgia. She said mobility, measured based on mobile device movements, generally declines immediately following stay-at-home orders. That reduction in mobility corresponds with a decline in transmission and ultimately the number of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths, she said. 'The science shows pretty clearly that non-pharmaceutical interventions---business closures, social distancing, mask-wearing---including so-called 'government lockdowns' do work to slow the spread of COVID-19,' Mordecai wrote in an email. Right now, she added, there's a strong argument for shutting down in- person contact as much as possible. 'If our ICUs are nearing their maximum capacity, as we're seeing here in California now,' she wrote, 'one of our best tools for avoiding a total public health disaster---people dying in hospital hallways, makeshift COVID wards thrown together in gymnasiums, or at home because they're too afraid to go to the hospital---is to rapidly hit the brakes on transmission, which means avoiding contact with others outside our household, especially indoors, where transmission is more likely.' Our Ruling California state Asm. James Gallagher claimed 'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce [COVID-19] cases or stop spikes.' Infectious disease experts, however, say government shutdowns do work by reducing social interaction which, when maintained, cuts down on the spread of COVID-19. Several studies, including from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, show government-imposed closures, when combined with mask-wearing, social distancing and hand hygiene, are effective. The studies and experts also point out there's no single strategy that works on its own. California officials have imposed business restrictions while promoting additional strategies to combat COVID-19. We rated Gallagher's claim as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | Our Ruling California state Asm. James Gallagher claimed 'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce [COVID-19] cases or stop spikes.' Infectious disease experts, however, say government shutdowns do work by reducing social interaction which, when maintained, cuts down on the spread of COVID-19. Several studies, including from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, show government-imposed closures, when combined with mask-wearing, social distancing and hand hygiene, are effective. The studies and experts also point out there's no single strategy that works on its own. California officials have imposed business restrictions while promoting additional strategies to combat COVID-19. We rated Gallagher's claim as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"102321-proof-30-8a1637db9f19e4d837a7cd287cd5f306.jpg"
]
|
'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce [COVID-19] cases or stop spikes. | Contradiction | In early December, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a regional stay-at-home order to curb the state's record spread of COVID-19, which has skyrocketed 117% to 1.6 million cases over the past two weeks. The new business and travel restrictions were tied to intensive care unit capacity and kicked in within days across most of the state, shutting down bars, wineries, movie theaters, salons, barber shops, all restaurant dining and limiting retailers to operating at no more than 20% capacity. 'The bottom line is if we don't act now, our hospital system will be overwhelmed,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said at a news conference on Dec. 3 when he introduced the order. Shortly after, the state's GOP lawmakers criticized the move, saying it would harm business and claiming there's no evidence government 'lockdowns' work. 'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce cases or stop spikes,' California state Asm. James Gallagher claimed on Twitter. 'Neither science or reality justify the Governor's announcement today - just look at how California's case count compares to less restrictive states.' Gallagher represents much of the northern Sacramento Valley, including Butte, Tehama, Sutter, Yuba, Colusa and Glenn counties. 'By now, it should be obvious that the lockdowns have failed to contain this virus,' added Rep. Tom McClintock, whose district includes Sacramento's eastern suburbs and Sierra Nevada communities, speaking on the U.S. House floor on Dec. 9. For months, there's been robust debate about whether government shutdowns go too far and unnecessarily harm society and the economy. That's a debate that will continue and not something we can fact-check. But Gallagher's claim that government shutdowns don't reduce COVID-19 cases or stop spikes is more clear cut. We sifted through the research and asked public health experts to weigh in. Do Government Shutdowns Work? Experts and several studies show government-imposed shutdowns do work to slow COVID-19 when combined with mask mandates, social distancing and hand hygiene requirements. They also depend on the public's willingness to comply with the orders. Here's one recent example: A state-mandated stay-at-home order in Delaware this spring, combined with public mask mandates and contact tracing, led to an 82% reduction in COVID-19 cases, an 88% drop in hospitalizations and a 100% decline in deaths, according to a November study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 'These strategies are effective in limiting potential exposure to [COVID-19] and reducing community transmission when implemented as part of a multicomponent strategy,' the study concluded. 'No single mitigation strategy is likely to be effective alone,' it added. Newsom's new regional stay-at-home order takes a similar approach. It calls for shutting down several business sectors. But it also requires '100% masking and physical distancing,' in sectors that remain open. Nowhere in the order does it say the government shutdowns by themselves are sufficient to slow the virus. Success Depends On Public Cooperation Another study, conducted by economics professors at the University of Kentucky and published in May in Health Affairs medical journal, found that social distancing mandates by state and local governments in the U.S. on average reduced the daily growth rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases by 5.4% after one to five days, 6.8% after six to 10 days, 8.2% after 11 to 15 days, and 9.1% after 16 to 20 days. Notably, it concluded the 'effectiveness' of these orders 'depends critically on the cooperation of the public.' 'For example,' the study continued, 'although California's first-in-the-nation shelter-in-place order [from March] carries threats of fines and incarceration, its effectiveness fundamentally relies on social pressure.' Lee Riley is professor and chair of infectious disease and vaccinology at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health. He said the confusion over whether shutdowns work is understandable, considering states with some of the toughest mandates are also experiencing the biggest spikes. 'The problem is when these restrictions are eased or lifted, that's when we see the resurgence,' Riley explained. 'This is what people are looking at and saying the restrictions don't work. And that's absolutely incorrect. Restrictions do work.' Riley said places such as China, Singapore and Taiwan all imposed rigorous restrictions and contained the coronavirus spread. 'Yes, the restrictions do work and if they're maintained for a long enough period, then they can eventually mitigate the transmissions completely.' Previous Fact Check Last month, PolitiFact examined a similar claim by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott who said shutdowns are 'ineffective,' before adding that workplace gatherings are not a common way for COVID-19 to spread. For that fact check, experts told PolitiFact that if measuring strictly transmission rates and case numbers, shutdowns have proven to be effective in managing spread. They also noted that Abbott's statement ignores workplaces where proper precautions are difficult to achieve from meatpacking plants to the construction industry. PolitiFact rated Abbot's claim as False. 'Correlation Is Not Causation' In an interview, Gallagher, the California state lawmaker, said he stood by his claim that shutdowns don't reduce cases or stop spikes, describing the evidence as inconclusive. He suggested that the decline in coronavirus cases this spring could have resulted from people's voluntary actions to distance and use good hygiene upon hearing about the virus, and not because of lockdowns. 'Correlation is not causation,' Gallagher said. 'Just because something happens to happen at the same time that you're doing X, doesn't mean that there wasn't some other variable that was leading to that.' Riley said Gallagher's theory doesn't hold up. 'If good hygiene and voluntary social distancing are what contributed to the decrease in cases, why are we seeing another surge all over the country?' the professor asked. 'The point of the lockdowns is to decrease chances of social gathering and social interaction, which is the most effective way to assure social distancing,' Riley added. 'This lawmaker is correct that social distancing works, but lockdowns help to increase the social distancing.' Gallagher provided links to several opinion pieces and letters that he said demonstrate lockdowns don't work. One was a link to the Great Barrington Declaration, a letter three scientists authored that endorses herd immunity and supports a completely reopened society for those with no underlying health conditions amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Since its publication in early October, however, PolitiFact found the document has been widely criticized by scientists and denounced by top health officials and thousands of doctors around the world. The paper was signed by scientists and health experts across the world. But a British broadcast station found that some of those who signed the letter online used fake names, including 'Dr. Person Fakename' and 'Dr. Johnny Bananas.' The signatures were later made private. Gallagher also cited an opinion piece by a chief investments officer for an analytics firm; a free-market think tank's magazine column that cites the Great Barrington Declaration; an article in the journal Nature that says a combination of 'non-pharmaceutical interventions,' such as business closures, social distancing or mask-wearing, 'is necessary to curb the spread of the virus,' but that less disruptive restrictions can be as effective as more drastic ones. Additionally, Gallagher cited a study published in Safety Science that concluded Germany's decline in COVID-19 infections in the spring was due to the cancellation of mass events and voluntary behavior changes, but not the government restrictions that followed. Germany announced it will start a lockdown this week until at least Jan. 10 to curb the spread of the pandemic. The Science Is 'Pretty Clear' Erin Mordecai is an assistant professor in biology at Stanford University whose research focuses on the ecology of infectious disease. She has conducted research on the relationship between virus transmission and mobility data in California and Georgia. She said mobility, measured based on mobile device movements, generally declines immediately following stay-at-home orders. That reduction in mobility corresponds with a decline in transmission and ultimately the number of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths, she said. 'The science shows pretty clearly that non-pharmaceutical interventions---business closures, social distancing, mask-wearing---including so-called 'government lockdowns' do work to slow the spread of COVID-19,' Mordecai wrote in an email. Right now, she added, there's a strong argument for shutting down in- person contact as much as possible. 'If our ICUs are nearing their maximum capacity, as we're seeing here in California now,' she wrote, 'one of our best tools for avoiding a total public health disaster---people dying in hospital hallways, makeshift COVID wards thrown together in gymnasiums, or at home because they're too afraid to go to the hospital---is to rapidly hit the brakes on transmission, which means avoiding contact with others outside our household, especially indoors, where transmission is more likely.' Our Ruling California state Asm. James Gallagher claimed 'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce [COVID-19] cases or stop spikes.' Infectious disease experts, however, say government shutdowns do work by reducing social interaction which, when maintained, cuts down on the spread of COVID-19. Several studies, including from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, show government-imposed closures, when combined with mask-wearing, social distancing and hand hygiene, are effective. The studies and experts also point out there's no single strategy that works on its own. California officials have imposed business restrictions while promoting additional strategies to combat COVID-19. We rated Gallagher's claim as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | Our Ruling California state Asm. James Gallagher claimed 'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce [COVID-19] cases or stop spikes.' Infectious disease experts, however, say government shutdowns do work by reducing social interaction which, when maintained, cuts down on the spread of COVID-19. Several studies, including from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, show government-imposed closures, when combined with mask-wearing, social distancing and hand hygiene, are effective. The studies and experts also point out there's no single strategy that works on its own. California officials have imposed business restrictions while promoting additional strategies to combat COVID-19. We rated Gallagher's claim as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"102321-proof-30-8a1637db9f19e4d837a7cd287cd5f306.jpg"
]
|
'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce [COVID-19] cases or stop spikes. | Contradiction | In early December, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a regional stay-at-home order to curb the state's record spread of COVID-19, which has skyrocketed 117% to 1.6 million cases over the past two weeks. The new business and travel restrictions were tied to intensive care unit capacity and kicked in within days across most of the state, shutting down bars, wineries, movie theaters, salons, barber shops, all restaurant dining and limiting retailers to operating at no more than 20% capacity. 'The bottom line is if we don't act now, our hospital system will be overwhelmed,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said at a news conference on Dec. 3 when he introduced the order. Shortly after, the state's GOP lawmakers criticized the move, saying it would harm business and claiming there's no evidence government 'lockdowns' work. 'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce cases or stop spikes,' California state Asm. James Gallagher claimed on Twitter. 'Neither science or reality justify the Governor's announcement today - just look at how California's case count compares to less restrictive states.' Gallagher represents much of the northern Sacramento Valley, including Butte, Tehama, Sutter, Yuba, Colusa and Glenn counties. 'By now, it should be obvious that the lockdowns have failed to contain this virus,' added Rep. Tom McClintock, whose district includes Sacramento's eastern suburbs and Sierra Nevada communities, speaking on the U.S. House floor on Dec. 9. For months, there's been robust debate about whether government shutdowns go too far and unnecessarily harm society and the economy. That's a debate that will continue and not something we can fact-check. But Gallagher's claim that government shutdowns don't reduce COVID-19 cases or stop spikes is more clear cut. We sifted through the research and asked public health experts to weigh in. Do Government Shutdowns Work? Experts and several studies show government-imposed shutdowns do work to slow COVID-19 when combined with mask mandates, social distancing and hand hygiene requirements. They also depend on the public's willingness to comply with the orders. Here's one recent example: A state-mandated stay-at-home order in Delaware this spring, combined with public mask mandates and contact tracing, led to an 82% reduction in COVID-19 cases, an 88% drop in hospitalizations and a 100% decline in deaths, according to a November study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 'These strategies are effective in limiting potential exposure to [COVID-19] and reducing community transmission when implemented as part of a multicomponent strategy,' the study concluded. 'No single mitigation strategy is likely to be effective alone,' it added. Newsom's new regional stay-at-home order takes a similar approach. It calls for shutting down several business sectors. But it also requires '100% masking and physical distancing,' in sectors that remain open. Nowhere in the order does it say the government shutdowns by themselves are sufficient to slow the virus. Success Depends On Public Cooperation Another study, conducted by economics professors at the University of Kentucky and published in May in Health Affairs medical journal, found that social distancing mandates by state and local governments in the U.S. on average reduced the daily growth rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases by 5.4% after one to five days, 6.8% after six to 10 days, 8.2% after 11 to 15 days, and 9.1% after 16 to 20 days. Notably, it concluded the 'effectiveness' of these orders 'depends critically on the cooperation of the public.' 'For example,' the study continued, 'although California's first-in-the-nation shelter-in-place order [from March] carries threats of fines and incarceration, its effectiveness fundamentally relies on social pressure.' Lee Riley is professor and chair of infectious disease and vaccinology at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health. He said the confusion over whether shutdowns work is understandable, considering states with some of the toughest mandates are also experiencing the biggest spikes. 'The problem is when these restrictions are eased or lifted, that's when we see the resurgence,' Riley explained. 'This is what people are looking at and saying the restrictions don't work. And that's absolutely incorrect. Restrictions do work.' Riley said places such as China, Singapore and Taiwan all imposed rigorous restrictions and contained the coronavirus spread. 'Yes, the restrictions do work and if they're maintained for a long enough period, then they can eventually mitigate the transmissions completely.' Previous Fact Check Last month, PolitiFact examined a similar claim by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott who said shutdowns are 'ineffective,' before adding that workplace gatherings are not a common way for COVID-19 to spread. For that fact check, experts told PolitiFact that if measuring strictly transmission rates and case numbers, shutdowns have proven to be effective in managing spread. They also noted that Abbott's statement ignores workplaces where proper precautions are difficult to achieve from meatpacking plants to the construction industry. PolitiFact rated Abbot's claim as False. 'Correlation Is Not Causation' In an interview, Gallagher, the California state lawmaker, said he stood by his claim that shutdowns don't reduce cases or stop spikes, describing the evidence as inconclusive. He suggested that the decline in coronavirus cases this spring could have resulted from people's voluntary actions to distance and use good hygiene upon hearing about the virus, and not because of lockdowns. 'Correlation is not causation,' Gallagher said. 'Just because something happens to happen at the same time that you're doing X, doesn't mean that there wasn't some other variable that was leading to that.' Riley said Gallagher's theory doesn't hold up. 'If good hygiene and voluntary social distancing are what contributed to the decrease in cases, why are we seeing another surge all over the country?' the professor asked. 'The point of the lockdowns is to decrease chances of social gathering and social interaction, which is the most effective way to assure social distancing,' Riley added. 'This lawmaker is correct that social distancing works, but lockdowns help to increase the social distancing.' Gallagher provided links to several opinion pieces and letters that he said demonstrate lockdowns don't work. One was a link to the Great Barrington Declaration, a letter three scientists authored that endorses herd immunity and supports a completely reopened society for those with no underlying health conditions amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Since its publication in early October, however, PolitiFact found the document has been widely criticized by scientists and denounced by top health officials and thousands of doctors around the world. The paper was signed by scientists and health experts across the world. But a British broadcast station found that some of those who signed the letter online used fake names, including 'Dr. Person Fakename' and 'Dr. Johnny Bananas.' The signatures were later made private. Gallagher also cited an opinion piece by a chief investments officer for an analytics firm; a free-market think tank's magazine column that cites the Great Barrington Declaration; an article in the journal Nature that says a combination of 'non-pharmaceutical interventions,' such as business closures, social distancing or mask-wearing, 'is necessary to curb the spread of the virus,' but that less disruptive restrictions can be as effective as more drastic ones. Additionally, Gallagher cited a study published in Safety Science that concluded Germany's decline in COVID-19 infections in the spring was due to the cancellation of mass events and voluntary behavior changes, but not the government restrictions that followed. Germany announced it will start a lockdown this week until at least Jan. 10 to curb the spread of the pandemic. The Science Is 'Pretty Clear' Erin Mordecai is an assistant professor in biology at Stanford University whose research focuses on the ecology of infectious disease. She has conducted research on the relationship between virus transmission and mobility data in California and Georgia. She said mobility, measured based on mobile device movements, generally declines immediately following stay-at-home orders. That reduction in mobility corresponds with a decline in transmission and ultimately the number of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths, she said. 'The science shows pretty clearly that non-pharmaceutical interventions---business closures, social distancing, mask-wearing---including so-called 'government lockdowns' do work to slow the spread of COVID-19,' Mordecai wrote in an email. Right now, she added, there's a strong argument for shutting down in- person contact as much as possible. 'If our ICUs are nearing their maximum capacity, as we're seeing here in California now,' she wrote, 'one of our best tools for avoiding a total public health disaster---people dying in hospital hallways, makeshift COVID wards thrown together in gymnasiums, or at home because they're too afraid to go to the hospital---is to rapidly hit the brakes on transmission, which means avoiding contact with others outside our household, especially indoors, where transmission is more likely.' Our Ruling California state Asm. James Gallagher claimed 'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce [COVID-19] cases or stop spikes.' Infectious disease experts, however, say government shutdowns do work by reducing social interaction which, when maintained, cuts down on the spread of COVID-19. Several studies, including from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, show government-imposed closures, when combined with mask-wearing, social distancing and hand hygiene, are effective. The studies and experts also point out there's no single strategy that works on its own. California officials have imposed business restrictions while promoting additional strategies to combat COVID-19. We rated Gallagher's claim as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | Our Ruling California state Asm. James Gallagher claimed 'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce [COVID-19] cases or stop spikes.' Infectious disease experts, however, say government shutdowns do work by reducing social interaction which, when maintained, cuts down on the spread of COVID-19. Several studies, including from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, show government-imposed closures, when combined with mask-wearing, social distancing and hand hygiene, are effective. The studies and experts also point out there's no single strategy that works on its own. California officials have imposed business restrictions while promoting additional strategies to combat COVID-19. We rated Gallagher's claim as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"102321-proof-30-8a1637db9f19e4d837a7cd287cd5f306.jpg"
]
|
'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce [COVID-19] cases or stop spikes. | Contradiction | In early December, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a regional stay-at-home order to curb the state's record spread of COVID-19, which has skyrocketed 117% to 1.6 million cases over the past two weeks. The new business and travel restrictions were tied to intensive care unit capacity and kicked in within days across most of the state, shutting down bars, wineries, movie theaters, salons, barber shops, all restaurant dining and limiting retailers to operating at no more than 20% capacity. 'The bottom line is if we don't act now, our hospital system will be overwhelmed,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said at a news conference on Dec. 3 when he introduced the order. Shortly after, the state's GOP lawmakers criticized the move, saying it would harm business and claiming there's no evidence government 'lockdowns' work. 'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce cases or stop spikes,' California state Asm. James Gallagher claimed on Twitter. 'Neither science or reality justify the Governor's announcement today - just look at how California's case count compares to less restrictive states.' Gallagher represents much of the northern Sacramento Valley, including Butte, Tehama, Sutter, Yuba, Colusa and Glenn counties. 'By now, it should be obvious that the lockdowns have failed to contain this virus,' added Rep. Tom McClintock, whose district includes Sacramento's eastern suburbs and Sierra Nevada communities, speaking on the U.S. House floor on Dec. 9. For months, there's been robust debate about whether government shutdowns go too far and unnecessarily harm society and the economy. That's a debate that will continue and not something we can fact-check. But Gallagher's claim that government shutdowns don't reduce COVID-19 cases or stop spikes is more clear cut. We sifted through the research and asked public health experts to weigh in. Do Government Shutdowns Work? Experts and several studies show government-imposed shutdowns do work to slow COVID-19 when combined with mask mandates, social distancing and hand hygiene requirements. They also depend on the public's willingness to comply with the orders. Here's one recent example: A state-mandated stay-at-home order in Delaware this spring, combined with public mask mandates and contact tracing, led to an 82% reduction in COVID-19 cases, an 88% drop in hospitalizations and a 100% decline in deaths, according to a November study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 'These strategies are effective in limiting potential exposure to [COVID-19] and reducing community transmission when implemented as part of a multicomponent strategy,' the study concluded. 'No single mitigation strategy is likely to be effective alone,' it added. Newsom's new regional stay-at-home order takes a similar approach. It calls for shutting down several business sectors. But it also requires '100% masking and physical distancing,' in sectors that remain open. Nowhere in the order does it say the government shutdowns by themselves are sufficient to slow the virus. Success Depends On Public Cooperation Another study, conducted by economics professors at the University of Kentucky and published in May in Health Affairs medical journal, found that social distancing mandates by state and local governments in the U.S. on average reduced the daily growth rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases by 5.4% after one to five days, 6.8% after six to 10 days, 8.2% after 11 to 15 days, and 9.1% after 16 to 20 days. Notably, it concluded the 'effectiveness' of these orders 'depends critically on the cooperation of the public.' 'For example,' the study continued, 'although California's first-in-the-nation shelter-in-place order [from March] carries threats of fines and incarceration, its effectiveness fundamentally relies on social pressure.' Lee Riley is professor and chair of infectious disease and vaccinology at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health. He said the confusion over whether shutdowns work is understandable, considering states with some of the toughest mandates are also experiencing the biggest spikes. 'The problem is when these restrictions are eased or lifted, that's when we see the resurgence,' Riley explained. 'This is what people are looking at and saying the restrictions don't work. And that's absolutely incorrect. Restrictions do work.' Riley said places such as China, Singapore and Taiwan all imposed rigorous restrictions and contained the coronavirus spread. 'Yes, the restrictions do work and if they're maintained for a long enough period, then they can eventually mitigate the transmissions completely.' Previous Fact Check Last month, PolitiFact examined a similar claim by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott who said shutdowns are 'ineffective,' before adding that workplace gatherings are not a common way for COVID-19 to spread. For that fact check, experts told PolitiFact that if measuring strictly transmission rates and case numbers, shutdowns have proven to be effective in managing spread. They also noted that Abbott's statement ignores workplaces where proper precautions are difficult to achieve from meatpacking plants to the construction industry. PolitiFact rated Abbot's claim as False. 'Correlation Is Not Causation' In an interview, Gallagher, the California state lawmaker, said he stood by his claim that shutdowns don't reduce cases or stop spikes, describing the evidence as inconclusive. He suggested that the decline in coronavirus cases this spring could have resulted from people's voluntary actions to distance and use good hygiene upon hearing about the virus, and not because of lockdowns. 'Correlation is not causation,' Gallagher said. 'Just because something happens to happen at the same time that you're doing X, doesn't mean that there wasn't some other variable that was leading to that.' Riley said Gallagher's theory doesn't hold up. 'If good hygiene and voluntary social distancing are what contributed to the decrease in cases, why are we seeing another surge all over the country?' the professor asked. 'The point of the lockdowns is to decrease chances of social gathering and social interaction, which is the most effective way to assure social distancing,' Riley added. 'This lawmaker is correct that social distancing works, but lockdowns help to increase the social distancing.' Gallagher provided links to several opinion pieces and letters that he said demonstrate lockdowns don't work. One was a link to the Great Barrington Declaration, a letter three scientists authored that endorses herd immunity and supports a completely reopened society for those with no underlying health conditions amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Since its publication in early October, however, PolitiFact found the document has been widely criticized by scientists and denounced by top health officials and thousands of doctors around the world. The paper was signed by scientists and health experts across the world. But a British broadcast station found that some of those who signed the letter online used fake names, including 'Dr. Person Fakename' and 'Dr. Johnny Bananas.' The signatures were later made private. Gallagher also cited an opinion piece by a chief investments officer for an analytics firm; a free-market think tank's magazine column that cites the Great Barrington Declaration; an article in the journal Nature that says a combination of 'non-pharmaceutical interventions,' such as business closures, social distancing or mask-wearing, 'is necessary to curb the spread of the virus,' but that less disruptive restrictions can be as effective as more drastic ones. Additionally, Gallagher cited a study published in Safety Science that concluded Germany's decline in COVID-19 infections in the spring was due to the cancellation of mass events and voluntary behavior changes, but not the government restrictions that followed. Germany announced it will start a lockdown this week until at least Jan. 10 to curb the spread of the pandemic. The Science Is 'Pretty Clear' Erin Mordecai is an assistant professor in biology at Stanford University whose research focuses on the ecology of infectious disease. She has conducted research on the relationship between virus transmission and mobility data in California and Georgia. She said mobility, measured based on mobile device movements, generally declines immediately following stay-at-home orders. That reduction in mobility corresponds with a decline in transmission and ultimately the number of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths, she said. 'The science shows pretty clearly that non-pharmaceutical interventions---business closures, social distancing, mask-wearing---including so-called 'government lockdowns' do work to slow the spread of COVID-19,' Mordecai wrote in an email. Right now, she added, there's a strong argument for shutting down in- person contact as much as possible. 'If our ICUs are nearing their maximum capacity, as we're seeing here in California now,' she wrote, 'one of our best tools for avoiding a total public health disaster---people dying in hospital hallways, makeshift COVID wards thrown together in gymnasiums, or at home because they're too afraid to go to the hospital---is to rapidly hit the brakes on transmission, which means avoiding contact with others outside our household, especially indoors, where transmission is more likely.' Our Ruling California state Asm. James Gallagher claimed 'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce [COVID-19] cases or stop spikes.' Infectious disease experts, however, say government shutdowns do work by reducing social interaction which, when maintained, cuts down on the spread of COVID-19. Several studies, including from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, show government-imposed closures, when combined with mask-wearing, social distancing and hand hygiene, are effective. The studies and experts also point out there's no single strategy that works on its own. California officials have imposed business restrictions while promoting additional strategies to combat COVID-19. We rated Gallagher's claim as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | Our Ruling California state Asm. James Gallagher claimed 'Government imposed lockdowns do NOT reduce [COVID-19] cases or stop spikes.' Infectious disease experts, however, say government shutdowns do work by reducing social interaction which, when maintained, cuts down on the spread of COVID-19. Several studies, including from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, show government-imposed closures, when combined with mask-wearing, social distancing and hand hygiene, are effective. The studies and experts also point out there's no single strategy that works on its own. California officials have imposed business restrictions while promoting additional strategies to combat COVID-19. We rated Gallagher's claim as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"102321-proof-30-8a1637db9f19e4d837a7cd287cd5f306.jpg"
]
|
Says Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted, 'It's 'odd' that the ANTIFA insurgency happened just as COVID-19 loses steam It's 'odd' that COVID-19 happened the moment impeachment failed. It's 'odd' that impeachment happened the moment Russian hoax failed. | Contradiction | Former White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has a couple verified Twitter accounts. There's @SHSanders45, where she last tweeted in 2019. There's @SarahHuckabee, where she actively tweets today. And, of course, she once tweeted from the handle @PressSec. In an image being shared on Facebook, it looks like she tweeted a conspiracy theory from yet another account. 'It's 'odd' that the ANTIFA insurgency happened just as COVID-19 loses steam,' the tweet reads. 'It's 'odd' that COVID-19 happened the moment impeachment failed. It's 'odd' that impeachment happened the moment Russian hoax failed. The Russian hoax happened because Hillary lost? Notice the pattern?' 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.) Sanders' photo is used as the account's avatar. But the name is not hers, though it's easy to see why someone might be confused by it: Sarah Hucklebee. 'I'm not who you think I am,' the bio for the @hucklebee_sarah account says. 'But I am still #MAGA #KAG #WWG1WGA' -a reference to QAnon. The account tweeted the message that appears in the Facebook post on June 10, 2020. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Countries were exporting COVID-19 'diagnostic test instruments' in 2018. | Contradiction | A popular Facebook post erroneously cites a list of medical exports as evidence that coronavirus tests existed prior to the pandemic. A Sept. 8 post shows a screenshot of a database from an online portal maintained by the World Bank. It shows a list of products described as 'COVID-19 diagnostic test instruments and apparatus' next to the countries that export them. But the year of those exports, 2018, predates the coronavirus. 'Hello!! Is anyone paying attention?' reads red text over the screenshot. 'People wonder why we question s---,' the poster wrote in a caption. 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.) (Screenshot from Facebook) Similar posts have been shared thousands of times, including by Ben Swann, a former television news reporter with a history of making false claims. The rumor appears to have originated on 4chan, a fringe internet platform. We've previously fact-checked misinformation that suggests the coronavirus was planned or manipulated, but we wanted to look into this list of exports. We reached out to the original poster for their evidence, but we haven't heard back. The table cited in the post is real, but it does not show exports of COVID-19 tests in 2018. The table has been updated to clarify that the page refers to medical devices that weren't specifically designed for the coronavirus. Several other fact-checkers have debunked Facebook posts that misconstrue the data. First, let's take a closer look at the portal, which is called World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS). The World Bank maintains the portal in partnership with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. The website offers a compilation of trade and tariff data from different UN divisions and other international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization. It allows users to search for things like the top products exported by certain countries. The table shown in the Facebook post lists the top exporters of 'instruments used in clinical laboratories for in vitro diagnosis' and 'colorimetric end tidal CO2 detectors,' which is the scientific name for a carbon dioxide detector. CO2 detectors help doctors monitor intubated patients. Both of those things existed prior to the coronavirus pandemic. So why was the table previously billed as a list of 'COVID-19 Diagnostic Test' exporters? It has to do with guidance from the World Health Organization and a related database. In April, the WHO and the World Customs Organization classified CO2 detectors and diagnostic testing equipment, along with hand sanitizer and surgical masks, as critical to fighting COVID-19. Both received the same WCO code - '902780' in the Facebook post. COVID-19 test kits were assigned two different codes. The WHO gave some products less technical, coronavirus-related descriptions to make them easier to track. But the broad classification, which was applied to some testing equipment that predated COVID-19, carried over to a WITS database of products related to the virus. RELATED: No, the CDC did not 'quietly adjust' US coronavirus deaths 'The WITS team created a special database using the WCO list (along with the new WHO/WCO labels/descriptions),' the World Bank said in a Sept. 8 statement. 'The goal was to put information about key COVID-related medical supplies in one easy-to-find place.' That resulted in what many Facebook users are confused about: a list of export data about diagnostic testing instruments that appear to predate the coronavirus. The World Bank has since revised the title of the table to read: 'Medical Diagnostic Test instruments and apparatus.' 'In light of misinterpretations that have occurred in recent days, the labeling in the WITS site has been updated to reflect the reality: COVID-19 tests did not exist before 2020,' the organization said in its statement. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"102338-proof-09-Screen_Shot_2020-09-09_at_11_55_29.jpg",
"102338-proof-27-7f162427ef519a527b1f328c74671b5f.jpg"
]
|
Countries were exporting COVID-19 'diagnostic test instruments' in 2018. | Contradiction | A popular Facebook post erroneously cites a list of medical exports as evidence that coronavirus tests existed prior to the pandemic. A Sept. 8 post shows a screenshot of a database from an online portal maintained by the World Bank. It shows a list of products described as 'COVID-19 diagnostic test instruments and apparatus' next to the countries that export them. But the year of those exports, 2018, predates the coronavirus. 'Hello!! Is anyone paying attention?' reads red text over the screenshot. 'People wonder why we question s---,' the poster wrote in a caption. 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.) (Screenshot from Facebook) Similar posts have been shared thousands of times, including by Ben Swann, a former television news reporter with a history of making false claims. The rumor appears to have originated on 4chan, a fringe internet platform. We've previously fact-checked misinformation that suggests the coronavirus was planned or manipulated, but we wanted to look into this list of exports. We reached out to the original poster for their evidence, but we haven't heard back. The table cited in the post is real, but it does not show exports of COVID-19 tests in 2018. The table has been updated to clarify that the page refers to medical devices that weren't specifically designed for the coronavirus. Several other fact-checkers have debunked Facebook posts that misconstrue the data. First, let's take a closer look at the portal, which is called World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS). The World Bank maintains the portal in partnership with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. The website offers a compilation of trade and tariff data from different UN divisions and other international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization. It allows users to search for things like the top products exported by certain countries. The table shown in the Facebook post lists the top exporters of 'instruments used in clinical laboratories for in vitro diagnosis' and 'colorimetric end tidal CO2 detectors,' which is the scientific name for a carbon dioxide detector. CO2 detectors help doctors monitor intubated patients. Both of those things existed prior to the coronavirus pandemic. So why was the table previously billed as a list of 'COVID-19 Diagnostic Test' exporters? It has to do with guidance from the World Health Organization and a related database. In April, the WHO and the World Customs Organization classified CO2 detectors and diagnostic testing equipment, along with hand sanitizer and surgical masks, as critical to fighting COVID-19. Both received the same WCO code - '902780' in the Facebook post. COVID-19 test kits were assigned two different codes. The WHO gave some products less technical, coronavirus-related descriptions to make them easier to track. But the broad classification, which was applied to some testing equipment that predated COVID-19, carried over to a WITS database of products related to the virus. RELATED: No, the CDC did not 'quietly adjust' US coronavirus deaths 'The WITS team created a special database using the WCO list (along with the new WHO/WCO labels/descriptions),' the World Bank said in a Sept. 8 statement. 'The goal was to put information about key COVID-related medical supplies in one easy-to-find place.' That resulted in what many Facebook users are confused about: a list of export data about diagnostic testing instruments that appear to predate the coronavirus. The World Bank has since revised the title of the table to read: 'Medical Diagnostic Test instruments and apparatus.' 'In light of misinterpretations that have occurred in recent days, the labeling in the WITS site has been updated to reflect the reality: COVID-19 tests did not exist before 2020,' the organization said in its statement. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"102338-proof-09-Screen_Shot_2020-09-09_at_11_55_29.jpg",
"102338-proof-27-7f162427ef519a527b1f328c74671b5f.jpg"
]
|
A video shows 'your packages were rerouted and have arrived in the port of Miami' as a result of Gov. Ron DeSantis. | Contradiction | An Instagram post shared that thanks to 'DeSantis Clause,' or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Christmas is saved. The Oct. 27 Instagram post shared a video taken from a flying helicopter, overlooking a cargo ship while it enters PortMiami in Florida. 'Your packages were rerouted and have arrived in the port of Miami,' reads text on the video. The caption adds, 'Not all, but some of the backed up cargo ships have been rerouted to Florida, the state that actually gets it done.' The original video was posted on TikTok on Oct. 27 by South Beach Helicopters, a helicopter tour company in Miami. Their post doesn't mention where the vessel came from, and the name of the ship isn't shown. There's no mention of DeSantis or backed-up ports in the original TikTok video. But comments on this post, as well as another Instagram post that shared the video, claim that it came from California, where cargo ships have been backed up for weeks. Other ports across the country have experienced the same problem, including in Savannah, Ga. We can't confirm whether the ship came from California; nothing in the original video suggests that it did. Marine Traffic spokesperson Gergios Hatzimanolis said according to their data, it doesn't appear that any cargo ships have been diverted from L.A. to Miami within the last 15 days. PolitiFact reached out to Port Miami to get clarification regarding the claim, but did not get a response. We've explained the backlog in previous fact checks: it's due to a cascade of issues including a spike in consumer demand for the holidays, shortages of workers unable to unload the larger ships, and COVID-19 outbreaks. It's true that DeSantis has invited backed-up cargo ships to reroute to ports in Florida. But people who used the video as proof of this may have jumped the gun - ship experts say there's not enough data, and it's too soon to tell whether the backlogged ships have pulled anchor and come to the Sunshine State. DeSantis' press secretary Christina Pushaw told PolitiFact that Florida ports are offering incentives to shipping companies to bring their business to them. Edie Ousley, spokesperson for the Florida Ports Council, said that the state has partnered with shipping companies that want to avoid the congested ports altogether. Hapag-Lloyd in the United Kingdom has temporarily rerouted their vessels to come to JAXPORT. | Our ruling An Instagram post re-shared a video showing a cargo vessel entering PortMiami, claiming that backed-up cargo ships had been rerouted to Florida. The original video, posted to TikTok, doesn't say where the cargo ship came from or its name. Marine Traffic's data doesn't show that any backlogged ship diverted to Florida within the last 15 days. At least one shipping company has partnered with a port in Jacksonville, Fla., to avoid the west coast altogether. But that doesn't mean that ships that were already en route to backed up ports have changed their course. Unless more evidence about the ship in the video appears, we see no evidence that shows the ship rerouted from California to Florida. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"102343-proof-25-b36e0d411fb2931d7f098273b1171c4c.jpg"
]
|
A video shows 'your packages were rerouted and have arrived in the port of Miami' as a result of Gov. Ron DeSantis. | Contradiction | An Instagram post shared that thanks to 'DeSantis Clause,' or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Christmas is saved. The Oct. 27 Instagram post shared a video taken from a flying helicopter, overlooking a cargo ship while it enters PortMiami in Florida. 'Your packages were rerouted and have arrived in the port of Miami,' reads text on the video. The caption adds, 'Not all, but some of the backed up cargo ships have been rerouted to Florida, the state that actually gets it done.' The original video was posted on TikTok on Oct. 27 by South Beach Helicopters, a helicopter tour company in Miami. Their post doesn't mention where the vessel came from, and the name of the ship isn't shown. There's no mention of DeSantis or backed-up ports in the original TikTok video. But comments on this post, as well as another Instagram post that shared the video, claim that it came from California, where cargo ships have been backed up for weeks. Other ports across the country have experienced the same problem, including in Savannah, Ga. We can't confirm whether the ship came from California; nothing in the original video suggests that it did. Marine Traffic spokesperson Gergios Hatzimanolis said according to their data, it doesn't appear that any cargo ships have been diverted from L.A. to Miami within the last 15 days. PolitiFact reached out to Port Miami to get clarification regarding the claim, but did not get a response. We've explained the backlog in previous fact checks: it's due to a cascade of issues including a spike in consumer demand for the holidays, shortages of workers unable to unload the larger ships, and COVID-19 outbreaks. It's true that DeSantis has invited backed-up cargo ships to reroute to ports in Florida. But people who used the video as proof of this may have jumped the gun - ship experts say there's not enough data, and it's too soon to tell whether the backlogged ships have pulled anchor and come to the Sunshine State. DeSantis' press secretary Christina Pushaw told PolitiFact that Florida ports are offering incentives to shipping companies to bring their business to them. Edie Ousley, spokesperson for the Florida Ports Council, said that the state has partnered with shipping companies that want to avoid the congested ports altogether. Hapag-Lloyd in the United Kingdom has temporarily rerouted their vessels to come to JAXPORT. | Our ruling An Instagram post re-shared a video showing a cargo vessel entering PortMiami, claiming that backed-up cargo ships had been rerouted to Florida. The original video, posted to TikTok, doesn't say where the cargo ship came from or its name. Marine Traffic's data doesn't show that any backlogged ship diverted to Florida within the last 15 days. At least one shipping company has partnered with a port in Jacksonville, Fla., to avoid the west coast altogether. But that doesn't mean that ships that were already en route to backed up ports have changed their course. Unless more evidence about the ship in the video appears, we see no evidence that shows the ship rerouted from California to Florida. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"102343-proof-25-b36e0d411fb2931d7f098273b1171c4c.jpg"
]
|
'Biden's Treasury Department declares IRS will monitor' all accounts over $600. | Contradiction | If a Biden administration proposal now being considered is adopted, financial institutions would be required to report more information on the accounts of everyday Americans to the IRS. The stated goal is to collect taxes from rich individuals and businesses on income that is earned but not reported. The proposal, however, would affect more than just rich people, with disclosure requirements that cover the vast majority of bank, loan and investment accounts. Even so, a headline widely shared on Instagram from InfoWars, the conspiracy-oriented website run by Alex Jones, contains only an element of truth. The headline states: 'Biden's Treasury Dept. Declares IRS Will Monitor Transactions of ALL U.S. Accounts Over $600.' The Infowars article under that headline goes on to make a more far-reaching claim: that the IRS will 'audit virtually all financial transactions of Americans with bank accounts holding at least $600.'Similar claims have been made on other social media. The Instagram 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 Treasury Department has made no such declaration. For now, the proposal to tighten bank disclosure requirements is just that - a proposal. And while it would feed more financial data to the IRS, it does not call for IRS audits of virtually all financial transactions. The proposal The Treasury Department made the proposal in May 2021. The Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees could adopt it as part of budget reconciliation legislation they are considering. Under the measure, financial institutions would be required to annually report gross inflows and outflows from all business and personal accounts - including bank, loan and investment accounts - if the inflows and outflows of an account total at least $600 in a year, or if the account has a fair market value of at least $600. So, for example, if you had at least $600 in your bank account, the bank would be required to report the amounts of any debits or credits to that account to the IRS. If the debits and credits that flow through the account add up to at least $600 - including deposited paychecks or electronic payments through smartphone apps tied to the account - those totals would have to be reported, too. Under the measure, the banks would report only the total inflows and outflows, but no details on individual transactions. In making the proposal, the Treasury Department said the IRS estimates that for business income outside of large corporations, the 'tax gap' - the difference between taxes that are owed and collected - is $166 billion a year. The Treasury says the focus of the proposal would be on 'higher earners who do not fully report their tax liabilities.' The proposal's possible implications The American Bankers Association opposes the measure. 'The proposal would create a significant burden on small businesses and community banks and add no discernible value to tax enforcement,' the group said in a Sept. 7 letter to the House and Senate committee leaders, adding that 'it is far from clear that requiring banks to report on every single customer financial account with gross inflows and outflows above $600 - creating a mountain of new data - will lead to better tax compliance.' Chuck Marr, senior director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the proposal would help identify business and partnership owners who report relatively low income to the IRS but have millions of dollars flowing through their accounts. 'It just helps the IRS get better at finding noncompliance, finding people who are cheating,' he said. Marr said setting a low threshold of $600 would make it harder for tax dodgers to set up multiple accounts and avoid having the activity in those accounts reported to the IRS. | Our ruling An Infowars headline widely shared on Instagram stated that 'Biden's Treasury Department declares IRS will monitor' all accounts over $600. The Treasury has made no such declaration. The department has made a proposal that Congress is considering. Under the proposal, financial institutions would be required to annually report the total inflows and outflows from bank, loan and investment accounts, if the total is at least $600 in a year, or if the account's value is at least $600. The headline contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. __ | []
|
'Biden's Treasury Department declares IRS will monitor' all accounts over $600. | Contradiction | If a Biden administration proposal now being considered is adopted, financial institutions would be required to report more information on the accounts of everyday Americans to the IRS. The stated goal is to collect taxes from rich individuals and businesses on income that is earned but not reported. The proposal, however, would affect more than just rich people, with disclosure requirements that cover the vast majority of bank, loan and investment accounts. Even so, a headline widely shared on Instagram from InfoWars, the conspiracy-oriented website run by Alex Jones, contains only an element of truth. The headline states: 'Biden's Treasury Dept. Declares IRS Will Monitor Transactions of ALL U.S. Accounts Over $600.' The Infowars article under that headline goes on to make a more far-reaching claim: that the IRS will 'audit virtually all financial transactions of Americans with bank accounts holding at least $600.'Similar claims have been made on other social media. The Instagram 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 Treasury Department has made no such declaration. For now, the proposal to tighten bank disclosure requirements is just that - a proposal. And while it would feed more financial data to the IRS, it does not call for IRS audits of virtually all financial transactions. The proposal The Treasury Department made the proposal in May 2021. The Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees could adopt it as part of budget reconciliation legislation they are considering. Under the measure, financial institutions would be required to annually report gross inflows and outflows from all business and personal accounts - including bank, loan and investment accounts - if the inflows and outflows of an account total at least $600 in a year, or if the account has a fair market value of at least $600. So, for example, if you had at least $600 in your bank account, the bank would be required to report the amounts of any debits or credits to that account to the IRS. If the debits and credits that flow through the account add up to at least $600 - including deposited paychecks or electronic payments through smartphone apps tied to the account - those totals would have to be reported, too. Under the measure, the banks would report only the total inflows and outflows, but no details on individual transactions. In making the proposal, the Treasury Department said the IRS estimates that for business income outside of large corporations, the 'tax gap' - the difference between taxes that are owed and collected - is $166 billion a year. The Treasury says the focus of the proposal would be on 'higher earners who do not fully report their tax liabilities.' The proposal's possible implications The American Bankers Association opposes the measure. 'The proposal would create a significant burden on small businesses and community banks and add no discernible value to tax enforcement,' the group said in a Sept. 7 letter to the House and Senate committee leaders, adding that 'it is far from clear that requiring banks to report on every single customer financial account with gross inflows and outflows above $600 - creating a mountain of new data - will lead to better tax compliance.' Chuck Marr, senior director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the proposal would help identify business and partnership owners who report relatively low income to the IRS but have millions of dollars flowing through their accounts. 'It just helps the IRS get better at finding noncompliance, finding people who are cheating,' he said. Marr said setting a low threshold of $600 would make it harder for tax dodgers to set up multiple accounts and avoid having the activity in those accounts reported to the IRS. | Our ruling An Infowars headline widely shared on Instagram stated that 'Biden's Treasury Department declares IRS will monitor' all accounts over $600. The Treasury has made no such declaration. The department has made a proposal that Congress is considering. Under the proposal, financial institutions would be required to annually report the total inflows and outflows from bank, loan and investment accounts, if the total is at least $600 in a year, or if the account's value is at least $600. The headline contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. __ | []
|
'The Parole Board operates with Mark Herring's advice and consent. | Contradiction | Jason Miyares, the Republican nominee for attorney general, is blaming Democratic incumbent Attorney General Mark Herring for the 2020 parole of seven people who had been convicted for different murders. The most notable parolee was Vincent Martin, who was sentenced to life in prison for murdering Officer Michael Connors in 1979, during a Richmond traffic stop. The Office of the State Inspector General issued reports in the summer of 2020 finding the Virginia Parole Board skipped procedures in freeing the 64-year-old Martin and the others. Republicans have made the parolees central in their efforts to paint Democrats as soft on crime. Glenn Youngkin, the GOP gubernatorial nominee, has stressed in TV ads that the five members of the Parole Board were appointed by Democratic governors including Terry McAuliffe, his opponent this fall. Miyares tweeted on Sept. 2 that Herring is complicit in the Parole Board's actions. 'The Parole Board operates with Mark Herring's advice and consent,' Miyares wrote. 'Mark Herring and Terry McAuliffe oversaw this Parole Board and as a result, we now have some of the most violent criminals back on our streets.' McAuliffe, who was governor from 2014 to 2018, was not in office when the inmates were released, although he appointed four of the Parole Board members who made the decisions. But what about the attorney general? We fact checked Miyares claim that the board runs with Herring's advice and consent and found it far-fetched. Legal arguments 'Advice and consent' is a term describing shared power between two different branches of government for certain decisions. It usually applies to judicial appointments made by the executive branch that must be approved by legislators; for example, the president nominates Supreme Court candidates but the U.S. Senate must approve them. Virginia's Constitution does not mention advice and consent among the responsibilities of the attorney general. It simply says, 'He shall perform such duties and receive such compensation as may be prescribed by law...' The state law setting out the powers and duties of the Parole Board does not mention the attorney general. Why does Miyares say the agency operates with Herring's advice and consent? His campaign points to a Virginia law that establishes the attorney general as the lawyer for the state and its agencies in all civil matters. In listing those agencies, the law mentions the Parole Board. But the law Miyares cites does not refer to advice and consent which, again, means a shared power in making decisions. It sets out the attorney general's responsibilities to give advice if agencies seek it and to represent them in legal issues that arise. The attorney general's website describes the office's responsibilities this way: 'Provide legal advice and representation to the Governor and executive agencies, state boards and commissions, and institutions of higher education. The advice commonly includes help with personnel issues, contracts, purchasing, regulatory and real estate matters and the review of proposed legislation. The Office also represents those agencies in court.' Miyares' other arguments The inmates were released on several days in April 2020 as Adrianne Bennett was ending her tenure as Parole Board chairperson to become a judge in Virginia Beach. Miyares says Herring was likely looped into the decision making because a lawyer from the attorney general office attends Parole Board meetings in person or virtually. Herring says the board did not seek advice from his office before the April parole decisions and Miyares offers no contrary evidence. Most of the information Miyares' campaign sent us took issue with Herrings' actions after the releases began. The campaign accurately notes that Herring did not speak out against the releases. Investigations by The Office of the State Inspector General in 2020 found that the Parole Board, spurred by Bennett, violated procedures for notifying the families of victims and prosecutors before paroling the inmates. Top officials in Gov. Ralph Northam's administration said the investigation was biased and the Democratic majority in the General Assembly appropriated $250,000 for a probe into the inspector general's report. At this point, Miares and other Republicans say Herring had conflicts of interest; the attorney general hired the law firm that conducted the probe, and his office was simultaneously representing the Parole Board and the inspector general. Herring said different, independent divisions in his office were representing the two state clients. | Our ruling Miyares says, 'The Parole Board operates with Mark Herring's advice and consent.' But he falls short in his effort to tie the attorney general to the board's decision to parole six men and one woman convicted for different murders. 'Advice and consent' means shared power for decisions. In Virginia, the attorney general represents the parole board but has no authority over its decisions. Herring says his office was not involved in the parole decisions, and Miyares offers no evidence to the contrary. He mostly defends his statement by questioning Herring's actions - and lack of actions - after parole was granted. We rate Miyares' statement False. | []
|
'The Parole Board operates with Mark Herring's advice and consent. | Contradiction | Jason Miyares, the Republican nominee for attorney general, is blaming Democratic incumbent Attorney General Mark Herring for the 2020 parole of seven people who had been convicted for different murders. The most notable parolee was Vincent Martin, who was sentenced to life in prison for murdering Officer Michael Connors in 1979, during a Richmond traffic stop. The Office of the State Inspector General issued reports in the summer of 2020 finding the Virginia Parole Board skipped procedures in freeing the 64-year-old Martin and the others. Republicans have made the parolees central in their efforts to paint Democrats as soft on crime. Glenn Youngkin, the GOP gubernatorial nominee, has stressed in TV ads that the five members of the Parole Board were appointed by Democratic governors including Terry McAuliffe, his opponent this fall. Miyares tweeted on Sept. 2 that Herring is complicit in the Parole Board's actions. 'The Parole Board operates with Mark Herring's advice and consent,' Miyares wrote. 'Mark Herring and Terry McAuliffe oversaw this Parole Board and as a result, we now have some of the most violent criminals back on our streets.' McAuliffe, who was governor from 2014 to 2018, was not in office when the inmates were released, although he appointed four of the Parole Board members who made the decisions. But what about the attorney general? We fact checked Miyares claim that the board runs with Herring's advice and consent and found it far-fetched. Legal arguments 'Advice and consent' is a term describing shared power between two different branches of government for certain decisions. It usually applies to judicial appointments made by the executive branch that must be approved by legislators; for example, the president nominates Supreme Court candidates but the U.S. Senate must approve them. Virginia's Constitution does not mention advice and consent among the responsibilities of the attorney general. It simply says, 'He shall perform such duties and receive such compensation as may be prescribed by law...' The state law setting out the powers and duties of the Parole Board does not mention the attorney general. Why does Miyares say the agency operates with Herring's advice and consent? His campaign points to a Virginia law that establishes the attorney general as the lawyer for the state and its agencies in all civil matters. In listing those agencies, the law mentions the Parole Board. But the law Miyares cites does not refer to advice and consent which, again, means a shared power in making decisions. It sets out the attorney general's responsibilities to give advice if agencies seek it and to represent them in legal issues that arise. The attorney general's website describes the office's responsibilities this way: 'Provide legal advice and representation to the Governor and executive agencies, state boards and commissions, and institutions of higher education. The advice commonly includes help with personnel issues, contracts, purchasing, regulatory and real estate matters and the review of proposed legislation. The Office also represents those agencies in court.' Miyares' other arguments The inmates were released on several days in April 2020 as Adrianne Bennett was ending her tenure as Parole Board chairperson to become a judge in Virginia Beach. Miyares says Herring was likely looped into the decision making because a lawyer from the attorney general office attends Parole Board meetings in person or virtually. Herring says the board did not seek advice from his office before the April parole decisions and Miyares offers no contrary evidence. Most of the information Miyares' campaign sent us took issue with Herrings' actions after the releases began. The campaign accurately notes that Herring did not speak out against the releases. Investigations by The Office of the State Inspector General in 2020 found that the Parole Board, spurred by Bennett, violated procedures for notifying the families of victims and prosecutors before paroling the inmates. Top officials in Gov. Ralph Northam's administration said the investigation was biased and the Democratic majority in the General Assembly appropriated $250,000 for a probe into the inspector general's report. At this point, Miares and other Republicans say Herring had conflicts of interest; the attorney general hired the law firm that conducted the probe, and his office was simultaneously representing the Parole Board and the inspector general. Herring said different, independent divisions in his office were representing the two state clients. | Our ruling Miyares says, 'The Parole Board operates with Mark Herring's advice and consent.' But he falls short in his effort to tie the attorney general to the board's decision to parole six men and one woman convicted for different murders. 'Advice and consent' means shared power for decisions. In Virginia, the attorney general represents the parole board but has no authority over its decisions. Herring says his office was not involved in the parole decisions, and Miyares offers no evidence to the contrary. He mostly defends his statement by questioning Herring's actions - and lack of actions - after parole was granted. We rate Miyares' statement False. | []
|
A common cold can cause a positive COVID-19 test. | Contradiction | Sometimes social media posts blatantly share misinformation about the coronavirus. Other times, it's implied. An image currently circulating on Facebook falls in the latter category. It's a screenshot from the website of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a stateside clearinghouse for information about the virus. 'A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold.' 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's comments make clear that some people are seeing this image and believing that a common cold can cause a false positive on a COVID-19 test. But if you visit the CDC's website, specifically the page where this screenshot was taken, you can see that the agency is discussing an antibody test, not a viral test. There are two kinds of tests available for COVID-19: viral tests and antibody tests. A viral test tells you if you have a current infection by testing a sample from your respiratory system. A sample could be taken using a swab to swipe inside your nose. An antibody test is meant to tell you if you had a past infection by testing a sample of your blood for antibodies. The CDC notes that antibody tests 'should not be used to diagnose a current COVID-19 infection.' If you test positive, you could have antibodies from the new coronavirus that causes COVID-19, or you could have antibodies from another coronavirus, like a cold. As Johns Hopkins Medicine notes, coronaviruses are a family of viruses and there are many different kinds of coronaviruses. Some cause disease and some don't. A spokesperson for the CDC told AFP that the traces of other coronaviruses - like the common cold - won't produce a positive result from COVID-19 viral test. This post, which is a screenshot of part of a CDC webpage about COVID-19 antibody tests, is cropped in a way that may suggest the warning pertains to the viral test. It doesn't. We rate the claim that a common cold can cause a positive COVID-19 test False. | We rate the claim that a common cold can cause a positive COVID-19 test False. | []
|
A common cold can cause a positive COVID-19 test. | Contradiction | Sometimes social media posts blatantly share misinformation about the coronavirus. Other times, it's implied. An image currently circulating on Facebook falls in the latter category. It's a screenshot from the website of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a stateside clearinghouse for information about the virus. 'A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold.' 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's comments make clear that some people are seeing this image and believing that a common cold can cause a false positive on a COVID-19 test. But if you visit the CDC's website, specifically the page where this screenshot was taken, you can see that the agency is discussing an antibody test, not a viral test. There are two kinds of tests available for COVID-19: viral tests and antibody tests. A viral test tells you if you have a current infection by testing a sample from your respiratory system. A sample could be taken using a swab to swipe inside your nose. An antibody test is meant to tell you if you had a past infection by testing a sample of your blood for antibodies. The CDC notes that antibody tests 'should not be used to diagnose a current COVID-19 infection.' If you test positive, you could have antibodies from the new coronavirus that causes COVID-19, or you could have antibodies from another coronavirus, like a cold. As Johns Hopkins Medicine notes, coronaviruses are a family of viruses and there are many different kinds of coronaviruses. Some cause disease and some don't. A spokesperson for the CDC told AFP that the traces of other coronaviruses - like the common cold - won't produce a positive result from COVID-19 viral test. This post, which is a screenshot of part of a CDC webpage about COVID-19 antibody tests, is cropped in a way that may suggest the warning pertains to the viral test. It doesn't. We rate the claim that a common cold can cause a positive COVID-19 test False. | We rate the claim that a common cold can cause a positive COVID-19 test False. | []
|
A common cold can cause a positive COVID-19 test. | Contradiction | Sometimes social media posts blatantly share misinformation about the coronavirus. Other times, it's implied. An image currently circulating on Facebook falls in the latter category. It's a screenshot from the website of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a stateside clearinghouse for information about the virus. 'A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold.' 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's comments make clear that some people are seeing this image and believing that a common cold can cause a false positive on a COVID-19 test. But if you visit the CDC's website, specifically the page where this screenshot was taken, you can see that the agency is discussing an antibody test, not a viral test. There are two kinds of tests available for COVID-19: viral tests and antibody tests. A viral test tells you if you have a current infection by testing a sample from your respiratory system. A sample could be taken using a swab to swipe inside your nose. An antibody test is meant to tell you if you had a past infection by testing a sample of your blood for antibodies. The CDC notes that antibody tests 'should not be used to diagnose a current COVID-19 infection.' If you test positive, you could have antibodies from the new coronavirus that causes COVID-19, or you could have antibodies from another coronavirus, like a cold. As Johns Hopkins Medicine notes, coronaviruses are a family of viruses and there are many different kinds of coronaviruses. Some cause disease and some don't. A spokesperson for the CDC told AFP that the traces of other coronaviruses - like the common cold - won't produce a positive result from COVID-19 viral test. This post, which is a screenshot of part of a CDC webpage about COVID-19 antibody tests, is cropped in a way that may suggest the warning pertains to the viral test. It doesn't. We rate the claim that a common cold can cause a positive COVID-19 test False. | We rate the claim that a common cold can cause a positive COVID-19 test False. | []
|
'We passed one of the first (COVID-19) bills in the entire country, empowering Gov. Evers to act. | Contradiction | Gov. Tony Evers and Republican legislative leaders are back at the drawing table after months without speaking to each other in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic. Evers met with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and incoming Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu on Nov. 20, 2020, to discuss the governor's proposed COVID-19 relief package. The meeting came days after Vos held a news conference to discuss 'new legislative initiatives.' The talking and jockeying comes as the state's case counts continue to rise, with daily deaths topping 100 for the first time on Nov. 24, 2020. In a Nov. 22, 2020, interview with WKOW, Vos expressed a desire to find common ground with the governor and put politics behind them. But his comments took a partisan tone as he shifted the blame for months of inaction away from Republicans. 'We passed one of the first (COVID-19) bills in the entire country, empowering Gov. Evers to act,' he said. Is Vos' recounting of history correct? One of the first? Evers signed a COVID-19 relief package on April 15, 2020, the day it reached his desk and 14 days after Republicans first began drafting legislation and weeks after the governor offered his own proposal to legislative leaders. By then, many other states had already begun tackling the pandemic. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states and territories had adopted or enacted 174 COVID-19-related measures by April 14. Nearly 60 were resolutions that didn't carry the weight of law but handled legislative housekeeping and, in Alabama, urged residents to bump fists instead of shaking hands. The remainder were bills that governed the pandemic response in the respective states. Alaska and Massachusetts changed rules around unemployment benefits. New Jersey banned evictions during public health emergencies. Minnesota and Vermont enacted comprehensive response packages. Several legislatures moved money around to manage the pandemic, while others addressed specific issues such as student meals, price gouging and coverage for telehealth services. Vos spokeswoman Kit Beyer pointed to the database as evidence for the speaker's claim, but in reality, it undermines his position. Empowering Evers The rest of Vos' claim suggests the COVID-19 relief package empowered Evers to act. 'The legislation gave the governor broad authority to respond to the coronavirus and ensured that Wisconsin received more federal dollars, especially in the areas of unemployment insurance and health care (Medicaid) funding,' Beyer said. But this too is off base. The relief package did facilitate the transfer of CARES Act funds, allowing the state to capture additional federal Medicaid dollars. But $25 million in federal funding for unemployment went out the window because lawmakers didn't pass a piece of legislation quickly enough. What's more, state statute already granted Evers the authority to declare public health emergencies, issue orders and distribute $2 billion in federal dollars without the legislature's approval. The relief bill didn't do any of that. | Our ruling In a recent interview, Vos claimed 'we passed one of the first (COVID-19) bills in the entire country, empowering Gov. Evers to act.' This is wrong on both fronts. Wisconsin lagged behind many other states in passing COVID-19 legislation, to the point where lawmakers lost out on federal aid for unemployment. And Evers' ability to manage health emergencies came from state law already in place when the pandemic hit. We rate Vos' claim False. | [
"102379-proof-15-486ceda973ca5af62fd5ba9b09216961.jpg"
]
|
'We passed one of the first (COVID-19) bills in the entire country, empowering Gov. Evers to act. | Contradiction | Gov. Tony Evers and Republican legislative leaders are back at the drawing table after months without speaking to each other in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic. Evers met with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and incoming Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu on Nov. 20, 2020, to discuss the governor's proposed COVID-19 relief package. The meeting came days after Vos held a news conference to discuss 'new legislative initiatives.' The talking and jockeying comes as the state's case counts continue to rise, with daily deaths topping 100 for the first time on Nov. 24, 2020. In a Nov. 22, 2020, interview with WKOW, Vos expressed a desire to find common ground with the governor and put politics behind them. But his comments took a partisan tone as he shifted the blame for months of inaction away from Republicans. 'We passed one of the first (COVID-19) bills in the entire country, empowering Gov. Evers to act,' he said. Is Vos' recounting of history correct? One of the first? Evers signed a COVID-19 relief package on April 15, 2020, the day it reached his desk and 14 days after Republicans first began drafting legislation and weeks after the governor offered his own proposal to legislative leaders. By then, many other states had already begun tackling the pandemic. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states and territories had adopted or enacted 174 COVID-19-related measures by April 14. Nearly 60 were resolutions that didn't carry the weight of law but handled legislative housekeeping and, in Alabama, urged residents to bump fists instead of shaking hands. The remainder were bills that governed the pandemic response in the respective states. Alaska and Massachusetts changed rules around unemployment benefits. New Jersey banned evictions during public health emergencies. Minnesota and Vermont enacted comprehensive response packages. Several legislatures moved money around to manage the pandemic, while others addressed specific issues such as student meals, price gouging and coverage for telehealth services. Vos spokeswoman Kit Beyer pointed to the database as evidence for the speaker's claim, but in reality, it undermines his position. Empowering Evers The rest of Vos' claim suggests the COVID-19 relief package empowered Evers to act. 'The legislation gave the governor broad authority to respond to the coronavirus and ensured that Wisconsin received more federal dollars, especially in the areas of unemployment insurance and health care (Medicaid) funding,' Beyer said. But this too is off base. The relief package did facilitate the transfer of CARES Act funds, allowing the state to capture additional federal Medicaid dollars. But $25 million in federal funding for unemployment went out the window because lawmakers didn't pass a piece of legislation quickly enough. What's more, state statute already granted Evers the authority to declare public health emergencies, issue orders and distribute $2 billion in federal dollars without the legislature's approval. The relief bill didn't do any of that. | Our ruling In a recent interview, Vos claimed 'we passed one of the first (COVID-19) bills in the entire country, empowering Gov. Evers to act.' This is wrong on both fronts. Wisconsin lagged behind many other states in passing COVID-19 legislation, to the point where lawmakers lost out on federal aid for unemployment. And Evers' ability to manage health emergencies came from state law already in place when the pandemic hit. We rate Vos' claim False. | [
"102379-proof-15-486ceda973ca5af62fd5ba9b09216961.jpg"
]
|
An 'audit report' found that a voting system used in Michigan in the 2020 presidential election was designed to 'create systemic fraud. | Contradiction | Weeks after Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump to win the 2020 presidential election, meritless allegations of voter fraud persisted. One widely shared on Facebook came from on a website that has published false claims before. Dated Dec. 15, it features the headline 'Judge Releases Dominion Audit Report: System 'Designed' to 'Create Systemic Fraud',' and goes on to say that the report 'covers the forensic audit of Dominion's machines in Michigan's Antrim County.' 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.) The report cited by the article was from a firm that provided analyses and affidavits for lawsuits brought by Trump allies, falsely alleging voter fraud and election irregularities. It was discredited by Michigan election officials and the former head of certification at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the federal agency that certified the voting system used in Antrim County. An official hand audit performed by a bipartisan group of election officials confirmed what Antrim County had already certified, that Trump had won the county, even as he lost Michigan to Biden. Article from website identified as sharing fake news The Dec. 15 article about Antrim County, located northeast of Traverse City in northern Michigan, was posted on Neon Nettle, which has been identified as a fake news website by Columbia Journalism Review and the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University. Scrutiny of Antrim County's ballots arose from an error in the reporting of unofficial results on election night, which initially showed voters in the heavily Republican county casting more votes for Biden than for Trump. State and county officials say the reporting error, which was corrected soon after the election, was the result of human error by the Republican county clerk, before the election. But Trump allies seized on the error, and other alleged irregularities, in their fruitless quest for evidence of election rigging through equipment made by Dominion Voting Systems. Report discredited The article we're checking refers to a 'bombshell report' on the Dominion machines used in Antrim County. The Dec. 13 document was signed by cybersecurity analyst Russell James Ramsland Jr. of Allied Security Operations Group. 'We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results,' reads the report, which was filed as part of a lawsuit challenging the election. In a declaration made under oath in response to the lawsuit, Michigan Bureau of Elections Director Jonathan Brater said the report 'makes a series of unsupported conclusions, ascribes motives of fraud and obfuscation to processes that are easily explained as routine election procedures or error corrections, and suggests without explanation that elements of election software not used in Michigan are somehow responsible for tabulation or reporting.' Ryan Macias, the former head of voting system testing and certification at the Election Assistance Commission, said, 'The majority of the findings are false and misleading due to the fact that the entities reviewing the system lack knowledge and expertise in election technology. A Dec. 17 hand audit of the Antrim County results done by a bipartisan group of election officials confirmed the previously certified outcome. In the hand count, Trump had 9,759, up 11 from the certified results; and Biden had 5,959, down one vote. The audit 'proved again that the disinformation campaign surrounding Antrim's presidential election and its use of Dominion vote-tabulation machines was completely meritless,' Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said in a statement. 'Today's full audit in Antrim County confirmed the truth and affirmed the facts: Dominion's voting machines accurately tabulated the votes cast for president in Antrim County,' Benson said. | Our ruling An article widely shared on Facebook said an 'audit report' found that a voting system used in Michigan in the 2020 presidential election was designed to 'create systemic fraud.' The firm that made the fraud allegation, about voting in one Michigan county, provided this and other analyses and affidavits for lawsuits brought by Trump allies, falsely alleging voter fraud and election irregularities. Michigan's election director stated under oath that the report 'ascribes motives of fraud and obfuscation to processes that are easily explained as routine election procedures or error corrections.' And an official hand audit of the county's votes confirmed that Trump won the county, with only slight changes in the vote totals that had already been certified. We rate the statement False. | []
|
An 'audit report' found that a voting system used in Michigan in the 2020 presidential election was designed to 'create systemic fraud. | Contradiction | Weeks after Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump to win the 2020 presidential election, meritless allegations of voter fraud persisted. One widely shared on Facebook came from on a website that has published false claims before. Dated Dec. 15, it features the headline 'Judge Releases Dominion Audit Report: System 'Designed' to 'Create Systemic Fraud',' and goes on to say that the report 'covers the forensic audit of Dominion's machines in Michigan's Antrim County.' 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.) The report cited by the article was from a firm that provided analyses and affidavits for lawsuits brought by Trump allies, falsely alleging voter fraud and election irregularities. It was discredited by Michigan election officials and the former head of certification at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the federal agency that certified the voting system used in Antrim County. An official hand audit performed by a bipartisan group of election officials confirmed what Antrim County had already certified, that Trump had won the county, even as he lost Michigan to Biden. Article from website identified as sharing fake news The Dec. 15 article about Antrim County, located northeast of Traverse City in northern Michigan, was posted on Neon Nettle, which has been identified as a fake news website by Columbia Journalism Review and the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University. Scrutiny of Antrim County's ballots arose from an error in the reporting of unofficial results on election night, which initially showed voters in the heavily Republican county casting more votes for Biden than for Trump. State and county officials say the reporting error, which was corrected soon after the election, was the result of human error by the Republican county clerk, before the election. But Trump allies seized on the error, and other alleged irregularities, in their fruitless quest for evidence of election rigging through equipment made by Dominion Voting Systems. Report discredited The article we're checking refers to a 'bombshell report' on the Dominion machines used in Antrim County. The Dec. 13 document was signed by cybersecurity analyst Russell James Ramsland Jr. of Allied Security Operations Group. 'We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results,' reads the report, which was filed as part of a lawsuit challenging the election. In a declaration made under oath in response to the lawsuit, Michigan Bureau of Elections Director Jonathan Brater said the report 'makes a series of unsupported conclusions, ascribes motives of fraud and obfuscation to processes that are easily explained as routine election procedures or error corrections, and suggests without explanation that elements of election software not used in Michigan are somehow responsible for tabulation or reporting.' Ryan Macias, the former head of voting system testing and certification at the Election Assistance Commission, said, 'The majority of the findings are false and misleading due to the fact that the entities reviewing the system lack knowledge and expertise in election technology. A Dec. 17 hand audit of the Antrim County results done by a bipartisan group of election officials confirmed the previously certified outcome. In the hand count, Trump had 9,759, up 11 from the certified results; and Biden had 5,959, down one vote. The audit 'proved again that the disinformation campaign surrounding Antrim's presidential election and its use of Dominion vote-tabulation machines was completely meritless,' Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said in a statement. 'Today's full audit in Antrim County confirmed the truth and affirmed the facts: Dominion's voting machines accurately tabulated the votes cast for president in Antrim County,' Benson said. | Our ruling An article widely shared on Facebook said an 'audit report' found that a voting system used in Michigan in the 2020 presidential election was designed to 'create systemic fraud.' The firm that made the fraud allegation, about voting in one Michigan county, provided this and other analyses and affidavits for lawsuits brought by Trump allies, falsely alleging voter fraud and election irregularities. Michigan's election director stated under oath that the report 'ascribes motives of fraud and obfuscation to processes that are easily explained as routine election procedures or error corrections.' And an official hand audit of the county's votes confirmed that Trump won the county, with only slight changes in the vote totals that had already been certified. We rate the statement False. | []
|
An 'audit report' found that a voting system used in Michigan in the 2020 presidential election was designed to 'create systemic fraud. | Contradiction | Weeks after Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump to win the 2020 presidential election, meritless allegations of voter fraud persisted. One widely shared on Facebook came from on a website that has published false claims before. Dated Dec. 15, it features the headline 'Judge Releases Dominion Audit Report: System 'Designed' to 'Create Systemic Fraud',' and goes on to say that the report 'covers the forensic audit of Dominion's machines in Michigan's Antrim County.' 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.) The report cited by the article was from a firm that provided analyses and affidavits for lawsuits brought by Trump allies, falsely alleging voter fraud and election irregularities. It was discredited by Michigan election officials and the former head of certification at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the federal agency that certified the voting system used in Antrim County. An official hand audit performed by a bipartisan group of election officials confirmed what Antrim County had already certified, that Trump had won the county, even as he lost Michigan to Biden. Article from website identified as sharing fake news The Dec. 15 article about Antrim County, located northeast of Traverse City in northern Michigan, was posted on Neon Nettle, which has been identified as a fake news website by Columbia Journalism Review and the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University. Scrutiny of Antrim County's ballots arose from an error in the reporting of unofficial results on election night, which initially showed voters in the heavily Republican county casting more votes for Biden than for Trump. State and county officials say the reporting error, which was corrected soon after the election, was the result of human error by the Republican county clerk, before the election. But Trump allies seized on the error, and other alleged irregularities, in their fruitless quest for evidence of election rigging through equipment made by Dominion Voting Systems. Report discredited The article we're checking refers to a 'bombshell report' on the Dominion machines used in Antrim County. The Dec. 13 document was signed by cybersecurity analyst Russell James Ramsland Jr. of Allied Security Operations Group. 'We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results,' reads the report, which was filed as part of a lawsuit challenging the election. In a declaration made under oath in response to the lawsuit, Michigan Bureau of Elections Director Jonathan Brater said the report 'makes a series of unsupported conclusions, ascribes motives of fraud and obfuscation to processes that are easily explained as routine election procedures or error corrections, and suggests without explanation that elements of election software not used in Michigan are somehow responsible for tabulation or reporting.' Ryan Macias, the former head of voting system testing and certification at the Election Assistance Commission, said, 'The majority of the findings are false and misleading due to the fact that the entities reviewing the system lack knowledge and expertise in election technology. A Dec. 17 hand audit of the Antrim County results done by a bipartisan group of election officials confirmed the previously certified outcome. In the hand count, Trump had 9,759, up 11 from the certified results; and Biden had 5,959, down one vote. The audit 'proved again that the disinformation campaign surrounding Antrim's presidential election and its use of Dominion vote-tabulation machines was completely meritless,' Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said in a statement. 'Today's full audit in Antrim County confirmed the truth and affirmed the facts: Dominion's voting machines accurately tabulated the votes cast for president in Antrim County,' Benson said. | Our ruling An article widely shared on Facebook said an 'audit report' found that a voting system used in Michigan in the 2020 presidential election was designed to 'create systemic fraud.' The firm that made the fraud allegation, about voting in one Michigan county, provided this and other analyses and affidavits for lawsuits brought by Trump allies, falsely alleging voter fraud and election irregularities. Michigan's election director stated under oath that the report 'ascribes motives of fraud and obfuscation to processes that are easily explained as routine election procedures or error corrections.' And an official hand audit of the county's votes confirmed that Trump won the county, with only slight changes in the vote totals that had already been certified. We rate the statement False. | []
|
'Oil is now $61.30 a barrel and rising drastically! On Jan. 5, it was about $25 a barrel. | Contradiction | A widely shared Facebook post would have you believe the price of oil more than doubled in six weeks since early January. That would be a remarkable spike, if it were true. But it isn't. The price did rise in those six weeks - but by about 18%. The Feb. 19 post claimed: 'Oil is now $61.30 a barrel & rising drastically! On Jan 5th, it was about $25.00 a barrel Are you awake yet? Gas & milk going up too.' 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 latest daily prices for two benchmark products is roughly in the $61 range on the spot market. But neither benchmark has been in the $25 range since May 2020, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. At that time, oil prices were hammered by plummeting demand due to world-wide shutdowns to deal with the pandemic. The daily spot price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil, the U.S. benchmark, trended upward from $49.78 per barrel on Jan. 5 to $59.12 on Feb. 19. That's an increase of 18.8%. West Texas Intermediate hasn't been in the $25 range since the price was $25.37 on May 13, 2020. The daily price of Europe Brent crude, the global benchmark, also trended upward, from $53.16 on Jan. 5 to $62.84 on Feb. 19. That's an increase of 18.2%. Brent Europe was last in the $25 range on May 11, 2020, when it was $25.53. The price increases are generally attributed to optimism regarding a world economic recovery, and expected demand rising faster than had been previously expected, among other factors, said economics professor Robert Godby, deputy director of the University of Wyoming's Center for Energy Regulation and Policy. Matt Smith, director of commodity research at ClipperData, said prices increased because of optimism about post-COVID-19 demand recovery and because of OPEC production cuts. Stacey Morris, director of research at Alerian, which tracks energy and other investment markets, said a number of factors have contributed to the gain in oil prices, 'but a near-term tightening in supply has been a key driver.' Morris said that on Jan. 5, Saudi Arabia announced that it would make additional production cuts of 1 million barrels per day for February and March. And she said severe winter weather during the week of Feb. 15, particularly in Texas, temporarily reduced oil production by more than 1 barrels per day. Richard Swann, global director of clean refined products at S&P Global Platts, an energy analytics firm, also cited the OPEC cuts and the severe U.S. weather as among the key factors. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed: 'Oil is now $61.30 a barrel and rising drastically! On Jan. 5, it was about $25 a barrel.' The latest prices for two major benchmarks as of the date of the post were roughly in the range of $61. But that was up from about $50, not $25, on Jan. 5. We rate the post False. | []
|
'Oil is now $61.30 a barrel and rising drastically! On Jan. 5, it was about $25 a barrel. | Contradiction | A widely shared Facebook post would have you believe the price of oil more than doubled in six weeks since early January. That would be a remarkable spike, if it were true. But it isn't. The price did rise in those six weeks - but by about 18%. The Feb. 19 post claimed: 'Oil is now $61.30 a barrel & rising drastically! On Jan 5th, it was about $25.00 a barrel Are you awake yet? Gas & milk going up too.' 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 latest daily prices for two benchmark products is roughly in the $61 range on the spot market. But neither benchmark has been in the $25 range since May 2020, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. At that time, oil prices were hammered by plummeting demand due to world-wide shutdowns to deal with the pandemic. The daily spot price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil, the U.S. benchmark, trended upward from $49.78 per barrel on Jan. 5 to $59.12 on Feb. 19. That's an increase of 18.8%. West Texas Intermediate hasn't been in the $25 range since the price was $25.37 on May 13, 2020. The daily price of Europe Brent crude, the global benchmark, also trended upward, from $53.16 on Jan. 5 to $62.84 on Feb. 19. That's an increase of 18.2%. Brent Europe was last in the $25 range on May 11, 2020, when it was $25.53. The price increases are generally attributed to optimism regarding a world economic recovery, and expected demand rising faster than had been previously expected, among other factors, said economics professor Robert Godby, deputy director of the University of Wyoming's Center for Energy Regulation and Policy. Matt Smith, director of commodity research at ClipperData, said prices increased because of optimism about post-COVID-19 demand recovery and because of OPEC production cuts. Stacey Morris, director of research at Alerian, which tracks energy and other investment markets, said a number of factors have contributed to the gain in oil prices, 'but a near-term tightening in supply has been a key driver.' Morris said that on Jan. 5, Saudi Arabia announced that it would make additional production cuts of 1 million barrels per day for February and March. And she said severe winter weather during the week of Feb. 15, particularly in Texas, temporarily reduced oil production by more than 1 barrels per day. Richard Swann, global director of clean refined products at S&P Global Platts, an energy analytics firm, also cited the OPEC cuts and the severe U.S. weather as among the key factors. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed: 'Oil is now $61.30 a barrel and rising drastically! On Jan. 5, it was about $25 a barrel.' The latest prices for two major benchmarks as of the date of the post were roughly in the range of $61. But that was up from about $50, not $25, on Jan. 5. We rate the post False. | []
|
Says Gen. David H. Berger said, 'No mandatory vaccinations for my Marines. | Contradiction | The Biden administration announced on Aug. 9 that the Pentagon will require active-duty troops to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. But some people are sharing what looks like a news story reporting that there's some pushback among military leaders. 'There will be no mandatory vaccines for my Marines,' reads a quote in the story posted on Facebook that's attributed to Gen. David H. Berger, commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. The story refers to Berger 'rebuking' Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, calling him 'a coward and a traitor, manipulated by people pushing bad policy on the men and women who provide security to our nation. Neither you nor your puppet president has authority to enforce such a policy.' This story originated on a website that has previously published false claims that PolitiFact has fact-checked, and that now features a disclaimer saying 'this website contains humor, parody and satire.' 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.) There is nothing to support the claims in the post. And Berger has endorsed having Marines get vaccinated. In December, he posted a photo of himself receiving a vaccine. 'It was great to see many frontline medical workers getting their shot as well,' he tweeted. As the vaccine becomes available, I encourage all Marines and their families to get the shot to slow the spread of the virus.' We rate this post Pants on Fire! | We rate this post Pants on Fire! | []
|
The science says 'open the schools, stop wearing masks outside, and everyone at low risk should start living normal lives. | Contradiction | A popular Facebook and blog post by conservative radio host Buck Sexton claims scientific research indicates life should return to normal now despite the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic. 'Here's what the science tells anyone who is being honest about it: open the schools, stop wearing masks outside, and everyone at low risk should start living normal lives. Not next fall, or next year - now,' reads the blog post, posted to Facebook on Feb. 8. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) KHN-PolitiFact messaged Sexton via his Facebook page to ask if he could provide evidence to back up the statement but got no response. So we reviewed the scientific evidence and talked to public health experts about Sexton's argument. Overall, they disagreed, noting the ways in which it runs counter to current public health strategies. Let's take it point by point. 'Open the schools' In March, when government and public health leaders realized the novel coronavirus was spreading throughout the U.S., many public institutions - including schools - were ordered to shut down to prevent further spread. Many students finished the 2020 spring semester remotely. Some jurisdictions did choose to reopen schools in fall 2020 and spring 2021, though others have remained remote. Throughout the pandemic, researchers have studied whether in-person learning at schools contributes significantly to the spread of COVID-19. The findings have shown that if K-12 schools adhere to mitigation measures - masking, physical distancing and frequent hand-washing - then there is a relatively low risk of transmission. And getting kids back into the classroom is a high priority for the Biden administration. In a Feb. 3 White House press briefing, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said data suggests 'schools can safely reopen.' The CDC on Feb. 12 released guidance on how schools should approach reopening. It recommends the standard risk-mitigation measures, as well as universal masking, contact tracing, creating student learning cohorts or pods, conducting testing and monitoring community transmission of the virus. Susan Hassig, associate professor of epidemiology at Tulane University, said science shows that schools can open safely if 'mitigation measures are implemented and maintained in the school space.' Here's some of the latest research that tracks with these positions: Only seven COVID-19 cases out of 191 were traced to in-school spread in 17 rural K-12 Wisconsin schools that had high mask-wearing compliance and were monitored over the 2020 fall semester. Mississippi researchers found most cases in children and teenagers were associated with gatherings outside of households and a lack of consistent mask use in schools, but not associated with merely attending school or child care. Thirty-two cases were associated with attending school out of 100,000 students and staff members in 11 North Carolina schools, where students were required to wear masks, practice physical distancing and wash hands frequently. Of course, there are some limitations to these studies, which often rely on contact tracing, a process that can't always pinpoint where cases originate. Some of the studies also rely on self-reporting of mask-wearing by individuals, which could be inaccurate. Additionally, Hassig pointed out that not all school districts have the resources, such as physical space, personnel or high-quality masks, to open safely. Sexton's assertion that schools can reopen leaves out a key piece of information: that safe reopening is highly dependent upon use of mitigation measures that have been shown to tamp down virus spread. 'Stop wearing masks outside' Because the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is relatively new, the research on outdoor mask use is limited. But so far science has shown that masks prevent virus transmission.A CDC study published Feb. 10 reported that a medical procedure mask (commonly known as a surgical mask) blocked 56.1% of simulated cough particles. A cloth mask blocked 51.4% of cough particles. And the effectiveness went up to 85.4% if a cloth mask was worn over a surgical mask. Another experiment from the study showed that a person in a mask emits fewer aerosol particles that can be passed on to an unmasked person. And if both are masked, then aerosol exposure to both is reduced by more than 95%. A multitude of reports also show more generally that mask-wearing is effective at reducing the risk of spreading or catching other respiratory diseases. Sexton's post, however, advised that people should stop wearing masks outside. To be sure, public health experts agree the risk of transmitting COVID-19 is lower outdoors than indoors. But the experts also said that doesn't mean people should stop wearing masks. 'The wind might help you a bit outside, but you are still at risk of breathing in this virus from people around you,' said Dr. Rachel Vreeman, director of the Arnhold Institute for Global Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Being outside is 'not a guarantee of safety,' reiterated Stephen Morse, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University Medical Center. 'Especially when those people without masks are close together.' The CDC addressed the issue of whether masks are needed outside in the agency's mask guidelines: 'Masks may not be necessary when you are outside by yourself away from others, or with other people who live in your household. However, some areas may have mask mandates while out in public, so please check for the rules in your local area.' Overall, the prevailing scientific opinion is that, while it may be OK to go maskless outside if you are physically distant from others, mask-wearing is still recommended if you are around others. 'Everyone at low risk should start living normal lives'All the public health experts we consulted agreed this part of the claim is absolutely false. It flies in the face of what scientists recommend should be done to get through the pandemic. While it's unclear what exactly the post means by 'low-risk' people, let's assume it's referring to younger people or those without health conditions that make them more vulnerable to COVID-19. And that 'living normal lives' refers to no longer wearing masks, physical distancing or washing hands with increased frequency. News reports and scientific evidence show that bars, parties and other large gatherings can quickly become spreader events. Moreover, even young people and those without preexisting health conditions have gotten severely ill with COVID-19 or died of it. Even if a low-risk person doesn't get severely sick, they could still infect others in higher-risk groups. The sentiment of this post is similar to calls early in the pandemic to let life return to normal in an attempt to achieve herd immunity. But, on the way to achieving that goal, many would die, said Josh Michaud, associate director for global health policy at KFF. 'Everyone going back to 'normal' right now, especially in the presence of more transmissible and more deadly variants, would be a recipe for further public health disasters on top of what we've already experienced,' he added. Already, almost half a million Americans have died of COVID-19. The push to 'return to normal' is precisely what let the new variants form and multiply, said Vreeman. 'If we can ramp up getting people vaccinated and keep wearing masks in the meantime, only then will we have a chance at getting back to 'normal.'' Indeed, because of the new variants circulating in the U.S., Walensky and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have urged Americans not to relax their efforts to control the virus's spread. | Our ruling A blog post by conservative talk show host Buck Sexton claims scientific evidence shows that right now we should 'open the schools, stop wearing masks outside, and everyone at low risk should start living normal lives.' Scientific research shows that in order for schools to reopen safely, risk mitigation measures must be put in place, such as requiring masks, rigorous hand-washing and limiting the number of students in classrooms. These changes, though, would not represent a return to normal, but a new normal for students and teachers. The remainder of Sexton's statement strays further from current science. Research indicates that you're safer outdoors than indoors, but public health experts still recommend wearing masks in public, even outside. Science does not support the idea that the time is right for some people to resume life as normal. That would allow the virus to continue to spread and have a large human cost in hospitalizations and deaths, said the experts. Sexton's post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | []
|
The science says 'open the schools, stop wearing masks outside, and everyone at low risk should start living normal lives. | Contradiction | A popular Facebook and blog post by conservative radio host Buck Sexton claims scientific research indicates life should return to normal now despite the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic. 'Here's what the science tells anyone who is being honest about it: open the schools, stop wearing masks outside, and everyone at low risk should start living normal lives. Not next fall, or next year - now,' reads the blog post, posted to Facebook on Feb. 8. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) KHN-PolitiFact messaged Sexton via his Facebook page to ask if he could provide evidence to back up the statement but got no response. So we reviewed the scientific evidence and talked to public health experts about Sexton's argument. Overall, they disagreed, noting the ways in which it runs counter to current public health strategies. Let's take it point by point. 'Open the schools' In March, when government and public health leaders realized the novel coronavirus was spreading throughout the U.S., many public institutions - including schools - were ordered to shut down to prevent further spread. Many students finished the 2020 spring semester remotely. Some jurisdictions did choose to reopen schools in fall 2020 and spring 2021, though others have remained remote. Throughout the pandemic, researchers have studied whether in-person learning at schools contributes significantly to the spread of COVID-19. The findings have shown that if K-12 schools adhere to mitigation measures - masking, physical distancing and frequent hand-washing - then there is a relatively low risk of transmission. And getting kids back into the classroom is a high priority for the Biden administration. In a Feb. 3 White House press briefing, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said data suggests 'schools can safely reopen.' The CDC on Feb. 12 released guidance on how schools should approach reopening. It recommends the standard risk-mitigation measures, as well as universal masking, contact tracing, creating student learning cohorts or pods, conducting testing and monitoring community transmission of the virus. Susan Hassig, associate professor of epidemiology at Tulane University, said science shows that schools can open safely if 'mitigation measures are implemented and maintained in the school space.' Here's some of the latest research that tracks with these positions: Only seven COVID-19 cases out of 191 were traced to in-school spread in 17 rural K-12 Wisconsin schools that had high mask-wearing compliance and were monitored over the 2020 fall semester. Mississippi researchers found most cases in children and teenagers were associated with gatherings outside of households and a lack of consistent mask use in schools, but not associated with merely attending school or child care. Thirty-two cases were associated with attending school out of 100,000 students and staff members in 11 North Carolina schools, where students were required to wear masks, practice physical distancing and wash hands frequently. Of course, there are some limitations to these studies, which often rely on contact tracing, a process that can't always pinpoint where cases originate. Some of the studies also rely on self-reporting of mask-wearing by individuals, which could be inaccurate. Additionally, Hassig pointed out that not all school districts have the resources, such as physical space, personnel or high-quality masks, to open safely. Sexton's assertion that schools can reopen leaves out a key piece of information: that safe reopening is highly dependent upon use of mitigation measures that have been shown to tamp down virus spread. 'Stop wearing masks outside' Because the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is relatively new, the research on outdoor mask use is limited. But so far science has shown that masks prevent virus transmission.A CDC study published Feb. 10 reported that a medical procedure mask (commonly known as a surgical mask) blocked 56.1% of simulated cough particles. A cloth mask blocked 51.4% of cough particles. And the effectiveness went up to 85.4% if a cloth mask was worn over a surgical mask. Another experiment from the study showed that a person in a mask emits fewer aerosol particles that can be passed on to an unmasked person. And if both are masked, then aerosol exposure to both is reduced by more than 95%. A multitude of reports also show more generally that mask-wearing is effective at reducing the risk of spreading or catching other respiratory diseases. Sexton's post, however, advised that people should stop wearing masks outside. To be sure, public health experts agree the risk of transmitting COVID-19 is lower outdoors than indoors. But the experts also said that doesn't mean people should stop wearing masks. 'The wind might help you a bit outside, but you are still at risk of breathing in this virus from people around you,' said Dr. Rachel Vreeman, director of the Arnhold Institute for Global Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Being outside is 'not a guarantee of safety,' reiterated Stephen Morse, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University Medical Center. 'Especially when those people without masks are close together.' The CDC addressed the issue of whether masks are needed outside in the agency's mask guidelines: 'Masks may not be necessary when you are outside by yourself away from others, or with other people who live in your household. However, some areas may have mask mandates while out in public, so please check for the rules in your local area.' Overall, the prevailing scientific opinion is that, while it may be OK to go maskless outside if you are physically distant from others, mask-wearing is still recommended if you are around others. 'Everyone at low risk should start living normal lives'All the public health experts we consulted agreed this part of the claim is absolutely false. It flies in the face of what scientists recommend should be done to get through the pandemic. While it's unclear what exactly the post means by 'low-risk' people, let's assume it's referring to younger people or those without health conditions that make them more vulnerable to COVID-19. And that 'living normal lives' refers to no longer wearing masks, physical distancing or washing hands with increased frequency. News reports and scientific evidence show that bars, parties and other large gatherings can quickly become spreader events. Moreover, even young people and those without preexisting health conditions have gotten severely ill with COVID-19 or died of it. Even if a low-risk person doesn't get severely sick, they could still infect others in higher-risk groups. The sentiment of this post is similar to calls early in the pandemic to let life return to normal in an attempt to achieve herd immunity. But, on the way to achieving that goal, many would die, said Josh Michaud, associate director for global health policy at KFF. 'Everyone going back to 'normal' right now, especially in the presence of more transmissible and more deadly variants, would be a recipe for further public health disasters on top of what we've already experienced,' he added. Already, almost half a million Americans have died of COVID-19. The push to 'return to normal' is precisely what let the new variants form and multiply, said Vreeman. 'If we can ramp up getting people vaccinated and keep wearing masks in the meantime, only then will we have a chance at getting back to 'normal.'' Indeed, because of the new variants circulating in the U.S., Walensky and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have urged Americans not to relax their efforts to control the virus's spread. | Our ruling A blog post by conservative talk show host Buck Sexton claims scientific evidence shows that right now we should 'open the schools, stop wearing masks outside, and everyone at low risk should start living normal lives.' Scientific research shows that in order for schools to reopen safely, risk mitigation measures must be put in place, such as requiring masks, rigorous hand-washing and limiting the number of students in classrooms. These changes, though, would not represent a return to normal, but a new normal for students and teachers. The remainder of Sexton's statement strays further from current science. Research indicates that you're safer outdoors than indoors, but public health experts still recommend wearing masks in public, even outside. Science does not support the idea that the time is right for some people to resume life as normal. That would allow the virus to continue to spread and have a large human cost in hospitalizations and deaths, said the experts. Sexton's post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | []
|
The science says 'open the schools, stop wearing masks outside, and everyone at low risk should start living normal lives. | Contradiction | A popular Facebook and blog post by conservative radio host Buck Sexton claims scientific research indicates life should return to normal now despite the persistence of the COVID-19 pandemic. 'Here's what the science tells anyone who is being honest about it: open the schools, stop wearing masks outside, and everyone at low risk should start living normal lives. Not next fall, or next year - now,' reads the blog post, posted to Facebook on Feb. 8. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) KHN-PolitiFact messaged Sexton via his Facebook page to ask if he could provide evidence to back up the statement but got no response. So we reviewed the scientific evidence and talked to public health experts about Sexton's argument. Overall, they disagreed, noting the ways in which it runs counter to current public health strategies. Let's take it point by point. 'Open the schools' In March, when government and public health leaders realized the novel coronavirus was spreading throughout the U.S., many public institutions - including schools - were ordered to shut down to prevent further spread. Many students finished the 2020 spring semester remotely. Some jurisdictions did choose to reopen schools in fall 2020 and spring 2021, though others have remained remote. Throughout the pandemic, researchers have studied whether in-person learning at schools contributes significantly to the spread of COVID-19. The findings have shown that if K-12 schools adhere to mitigation measures - masking, physical distancing and frequent hand-washing - then there is a relatively low risk of transmission. And getting kids back into the classroom is a high priority for the Biden administration. In a Feb. 3 White House press briefing, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said data suggests 'schools can safely reopen.' The CDC on Feb. 12 released guidance on how schools should approach reopening. It recommends the standard risk-mitigation measures, as well as universal masking, contact tracing, creating student learning cohorts or pods, conducting testing and monitoring community transmission of the virus. Susan Hassig, associate professor of epidemiology at Tulane University, said science shows that schools can open safely if 'mitigation measures are implemented and maintained in the school space.' Here's some of the latest research that tracks with these positions: Only seven COVID-19 cases out of 191 were traced to in-school spread in 17 rural K-12 Wisconsin schools that had high mask-wearing compliance and were monitored over the 2020 fall semester. Mississippi researchers found most cases in children and teenagers were associated with gatherings outside of households and a lack of consistent mask use in schools, but not associated with merely attending school or child care. Thirty-two cases were associated with attending school out of 100,000 students and staff members in 11 North Carolina schools, where students were required to wear masks, practice physical distancing and wash hands frequently. Of course, there are some limitations to these studies, which often rely on contact tracing, a process that can't always pinpoint where cases originate. Some of the studies also rely on self-reporting of mask-wearing by individuals, which could be inaccurate. Additionally, Hassig pointed out that not all school districts have the resources, such as physical space, personnel or high-quality masks, to open safely. Sexton's assertion that schools can reopen leaves out a key piece of information: that safe reopening is highly dependent upon use of mitigation measures that have been shown to tamp down virus spread. 'Stop wearing masks outside' Because the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 is relatively new, the research on outdoor mask use is limited. But so far science has shown that masks prevent virus transmission.A CDC study published Feb. 10 reported that a medical procedure mask (commonly known as a surgical mask) blocked 56.1% of simulated cough particles. A cloth mask blocked 51.4% of cough particles. And the effectiveness went up to 85.4% if a cloth mask was worn over a surgical mask. Another experiment from the study showed that a person in a mask emits fewer aerosol particles that can be passed on to an unmasked person. And if both are masked, then aerosol exposure to both is reduced by more than 95%. A multitude of reports also show more generally that mask-wearing is effective at reducing the risk of spreading or catching other respiratory diseases. Sexton's post, however, advised that people should stop wearing masks outside. To be sure, public health experts agree the risk of transmitting COVID-19 is lower outdoors than indoors. But the experts also said that doesn't mean people should stop wearing masks. 'The wind might help you a bit outside, but you are still at risk of breathing in this virus from people around you,' said Dr. Rachel Vreeman, director of the Arnhold Institute for Global Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Being outside is 'not a guarantee of safety,' reiterated Stephen Morse, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University Medical Center. 'Especially when those people without masks are close together.' The CDC addressed the issue of whether masks are needed outside in the agency's mask guidelines: 'Masks may not be necessary when you are outside by yourself away from others, or with other people who live in your household. However, some areas may have mask mandates while out in public, so please check for the rules in your local area.' Overall, the prevailing scientific opinion is that, while it may be OK to go maskless outside if you are physically distant from others, mask-wearing is still recommended if you are around others. 'Everyone at low risk should start living normal lives'All the public health experts we consulted agreed this part of the claim is absolutely false. It flies in the face of what scientists recommend should be done to get through the pandemic. While it's unclear what exactly the post means by 'low-risk' people, let's assume it's referring to younger people or those without health conditions that make them more vulnerable to COVID-19. And that 'living normal lives' refers to no longer wearing masks, physical distancing or washing hands with increased frequency. News reports and scientific evidence show that bars, parties and other large gatherings can quickly become spreader events. Moreover, even young people and those without preexisting health conditions have gotten severely ill with COVID-19 or died of it. Even if a low-risk person doesn't get severely sick, they could still infect others in higher-risk groups. The sentiment of this post is similar to calls early in the pandemic to let life return to normal in an attempt to achieve herd immunity. But, on the way to achieving that goal, many would die, said Josh Michaud, associate director for global health policy at KFF. 'Everyone going back to 'normal' right now, especially in the presence of more transmissible and more deadly variants, would be a recipe for further public health disasters on top of what we've already experienced,' he added. Already, almost half a million Americans have died of COVID-19. The push to 'return to normal' is precisely what let the new variants form and multiply, said Vreeman. 'If we can ramp up getting people vaccinated and keep wearing masks in the meantime, only then will we have a chance at getting back to 'normal.'' Indeed, because of the new variants circulating in the U.S., Walensky and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have urged Americans not to relax their efforts to control the virus's spread. | Our ruling A blog post by conservative talk show host Buck Sexton claims scientific evidence shows that right now we should 'open the schools, stop wearing masks outside, and everyone at low risk should start living normal lives.' Scientific research shows that in order for schools to reopen safely, risk mitigation measures must be put in place, such as requiring masks, rigorous hand-washing and limiting the number of students in classrooms. These changes, though, would not represent a return to normal, but a new normal for students and teachers. The remainder of Sexton's statement strays further from current science. Research indicates that you're safer outdoors than indoors, but public health experts still recommend wearing masks in public, even outside. Science does not support the idea that the time is right for some people to resume life as normal. That would allow the virus to continue to spread and have a large human cost in hospitalizations and deaths, said the experts. Sexton's post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | []
|
Says Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., is 'known for doing nothing. ... (Peters) skipped 84% of small business hearings (and) skipped 89% of hearings on China. | Contradiction | In the race for one of the few vulnerable Senate seats held by a Democrat this year, Republican John James is targeting Michigan Sen. Gary Peters as an ineffective, 'invisible' incumbent. A recent campaign ad, distilled this argument, which James has echoed elsewhere. 'They call him the invisible man, the politician known for doing nothing, Gary Peters. Nothing to prepare us for covid. His responsibility. Nothing for our economy. Peters doesn't show up for work. Skipped 84% of small business hearings. Nothing to protect workers. Skipped 89% of hearings on China. But Peters has done one thing: Got rich in public office. Doubled his wealth. Gary Peters: Invisible for Michigan' Poor committee attendance is a time-worn argument by challengers, one we have seen many times before. Here, we'll look at James' assertion that Peters is 'known for doing nothing' and that he 'skipped 84% of small business hearings (and) skipped 89% of hearings on China.' Where the numbers come from Peters served three terms in the House, then was elected to the Senate in 2014. He is seeking a second term this year, against James, a West Point graduate and Army combat veteran. James ran for the Senate in 2018 but lost to Democratic incumbent Debbie Stabenow. James' campaign staff said the numbers refer to Peters' service on the House Small Business Committee and the Congressional Executive Commission on China, which he joined as a senator in 2015. Committee attendance statistics are not easily accessible; determining them requires scrutinizing transcripts of dozens of committee hearings, some of them made public months after the hearing, to see whether a lawmaker participated. The James campaign said they found that Peters missed 43 of the 51 Small Business Committee hearings in 2011 and 2012, when he was serving in the House and before he was elected to the Senate. As for the China commission, the James campaign said it used the same method and found that Peters missed 16 of 18 meetings since Peters joined the committee. (Here are all the hearings with links, courtesy of the James campaign.) How illuminating are these numbers? When we contacted Peters' campaign, they didn't dispute the James campaign's numbers. But they said the figures amount to cherry-picked metrics of Peters' level of engagement in Washington. For starters, they said the Small Business Committee attendance rate references activities nearly a decade ago. During his three terms in the House, Peters was also a member of the House Financial Services Committee, a more powerful panel. 'A lot of committees will schedule hearings at the same time, making it virtually impossible to attend, in a meaningful sense, all of them,' said Joshua Huder, a Georgetown University political scientist. Roll Call, a Washington publication that covers Congress, wrote in 2014 that unless the senator wields the gavel, he or she may only show up for five minutes, or when it is their turn to ask questions. The focus on committee attendance also overlooks that Peters co-sponsored the Small Business Jobs Act, which eased access to credit by small businesses and was signed into law by President Barack Obama. A closer look at the China panel Currently, in the Senate, Peters serves on the Armed Services Committee, the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. Each of those committees is considered influential, yet it's notable that the ad focuses on the China panel, which is not a traditional congressional committee and does not generate or approve legislation. The panel was created in 2000 to monitor China's compliance with international human rights standards, to encourage the development of the rule of law in China, and to maintain a list of victims of human rights abuses in China. It is charged with submitting an annual report to the president. Fox News reported that 'many of the members of the commission ... had spotty attendance at the commission's hearings.' Steven S. Smith, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, said the China panel is 'a different kind of creature.' 'It exists to monitor activity in China, which is largely done by staff,' Smith said. He added that the Trump administration has not filled the five seats that are reserved for presidential appointees. Peters missed zero floor votes in 2019 There's also another metric to gauge how active Peters has been in the Senate: The percentage of floor votes missed. In 2019, the most recent full year available, Peters missed exactly zero floor votes, which put him in a 16-way tie for the best vote attendance in the chamber. Peters' 100% voting rate was equal to that of the chambers' two leaders, Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Chuck Schumber, D-N.Y. That record 'indicates that Sen. Peters was on the job,' Smith said. Finally, Peters has received high marks for effectiveness from the Center for Effective Lawmaking, an independent institution run by Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia. During the 2017-18 congressional year, the center ranked Peters as the fourth-most effective Democrat out of 48 in the chamber. The measurement is based on the bills lawmakers sponsor, how far those bills move through the legislative process, and how significant their policy proposals are. Intra-party comparisons are the most reliable, since there's a major difference in clout between a majority senator and a minority senator. 'Despite his minority-party status, he was very active in navigating a number of legislative items through the Republican-controlled Senate,' Alan Wiseman, the center's co-director, told the Michigan Advance. 'His success in advancing his legislative agenda in the 115th Congress is greater than one would expect, given his relatively low seniority in the Senate.' Meanwhile, the Lugar Center and Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy rated Peters third among Democratic senators, and 12th overall, in bipartisanship in 2019. | Our ruling James said that Peters is 'known for doing nothing. ... (Peters) skipped 84% of small business hearings (and) skipped 89% of hearings on China.' The percentages are accurate, but they are cherry-picked because they ignore multiple other measurements that indicate a high level of engagement by Peters in Washington, including recent influential committee assignments, a perfect record on floor votes, and high scores on effectiveness from independent academic analyses. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"102435-proof-06-b50b6aa3b5a7236e943e2642034cd07b.jpg"
]
|
Says Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., is 'known for doing nothing. ... (Peters) skipped 84% of small business hearings (and) skipped 89% of hearings on China. | Contradiction | In the race for one of the few vulnerable Senate seats held by a Democrat this year, Republican John James is targeting Michigan Sen. Gary Peters as an ineffective, 'invisible' incumbent. A recent campaign ad, distilled this argument, which James has echoed elsewhere. 'They call him the invisible man, the politician known for doing nothing, Gary Peters. Nothing to prepare us for covid. His responsibility. Nothing for our economy. Peters doesn't show up for work. Skipped 84% of small business hearings. Nothing to protect workers. Skipped 89% of hearings on China. But Peters has done one thing: Got rich in public office. Doubled his wealth. Gary Peters: Invisible for Michigan' Poor committee attendance is a time-worn argument by challengers, one we have seen many times before. Here, we'll look at James' assertion that Peters is 'known for doing nothing' and that he 'skipped 84% of small business hearings (and) skipped 89% of hearings on China.' Where the numbers come from Peters served three terms in the House, then was elected to the Senate in 2014. He is seeking a second term this year, against James, a West Point graduate and Army combat veteran. James ran for the Senate in 2018 but lost to Democratic incumbent Debbie Stabenow. James' campaign staff said the numbers refer to Peters' service on the House Small Business Committee and the Congressional Executive Commission on China, which he joined as a senator in 2015. Committee attendance statistics are not easily accessible; determining them requires scrutinizing transcripts of dozens of committee hearings, some of them made public months after the hearing, to see whether a lawmaker participated. The James campaign said they found that Peters missed 43 of the 51 Small Business Committee hearings in 2011 and 2012, when he was serving in the House and before he was elected to the Senate. As for the China commission, the James campaign said it used the same method and found that Peters missed 16 of 18 meetings since Peters joined the committee. (Here are all the hearings with links, courtesy of the James campaign.) How illuminating are these numbers? When we contacted Peters' campaign, they didn't dispute the James campaign's numbers. But they said the figures amount to cherry-picked metrics of Peters' level of engagement in Washington. For starters, they said the Small Business Committee attendance rate references activities nearly a decade ago. During his three terms in the House, Peters was also a member of the House Financial Services Committee, a more powerful panel. 'A lot of committees will schedule hearings at the same time, making it virtually impossible to attend, in a meaningful sense, all of them,' said Joshua Huder, a Georgetown University political scientist. Roll Call, a Washington publication that covers Congress, wrote in 2014 that unless the senator wields the gavel, he or she may only show up for five minutes, or when it is their turn to ask questions. The focus on committee attendance also overlooks that Peters co-sponsored the Small Business Jobs Act, which eased access to credit by small businesses and was signed into law by President Barack Obama. A closer look at the China panel Currently, in the Senate, Peters serves on the Armed Services Committee, the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. Each of those committees is considered influential, yet it's notable that the ad focuses on the China panel, which is not a traditional congressional committee and does not generate or approve legislation. The panel was created in 2000 to monitor China's compliance with international human rights standards, to encourage the development of the rule of law in China, and to maintain a list of victims of human rights abuses in China. It is charged with submitting an annual report to the president. Fox News reported that 'many of the members of the commission ... had spotty attendance at the commission's hearings.' Steven S. Smith, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, said the China panel is 'a different kind of creature.' 'It exists to monitor activity in China, which is largely done by staff,' Smith said. He added that the Trump administration has not filled the five seats that are reserved for presidential appointees. Peters missed zero floor votes in 2019 There's also another metric to gauge how active Peters has been in the Senate: The percentage of floor votes missed. In 2019, the most recent full year available, Peters missed exactly zero floor votes, which put him in a 16-way tie for the best vote attendance in the chamber. Peters' 100% voting rate was equal to that of the chambers' two leaders, Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Chuck Schumber, D-N.Y. That record 'indicates that Sen. Peters was on the job,' Smith said. Finally, Peters has received high marks for effectiveness from the Center for Effective Lawmaking, an independent institution run by Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia. During the 2017-18 congressional year, the center ranked Peters as the fourth-most effective Democrat out of 48 in the chamber. The measurement is based on the bills lawmakers sponsor, how far those bills move through the legislative process, and how significant their policy proposals are. Intra-party comparisons are the most reliable, since there's a major difference in clout between a majority senator and a minority senator. 'Despite his minority-party status, he was very active in navigating a number of legislative items through the Republican-controlled Senate,' Alan Wiseman, the center's co-director, told the Michigan Advance. 'His success in advancing his legislative agenda in the 115th Congress is greater than one would expect, given his relatively low seniority in the Senate.' Meanwhile, the Lugar Center and Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy rated Peters third among Democratic senators, and 12th overall, in bipartisanship in 2019. | Our ruling James said that Peters is 'known for doing nothing. ... (Peters) skipped 84% of small business hearings (and) skipped 89% of hearings on China.' The percentages are accurate, but they are cherry-picked because they ignore multiple other measurements that indicate a high level of engagement by Peters in Washington, including recent influential committee assignments, a perfect record on floor votes, and high scores on effectiveness from independent academic analyses. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"102435-proof-06-b50b6aa3b5a7236e943e2642034cd07b.jpg"
]
|
Says a powder has been developed that, when mixed with water, 'is being used in Germany as a mist. Health care workers go through a misting tent going into the hospital and it kills the coronavirus completely dead not only right then, but any time in the next 14 days that the virus touches anything that's been sprayed, it is killed. | Contradiction | During a live interview on a local television station in East Texas, U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert discussed the coronavirus and measures he says some health care workers around the world are taking to stay safe while treating patients who have tested positive for the virus. Gohmert, a Republican from Tyler, said he recently spoke with an Arizona-based company that is producing a powder that, when mixed with water, can kill the coronavirus on contact. He said the same product, or one like it, is already in use in Germany, and he is trying to get the Arizona-based product 'fast-tracked' in the United States. 'It is being used in Germany as a mist,' he said. 'Health care workers go through a misting tent going into the hospital and it kills the coronavirus completely dead not only right then, but any time in the next 14 days that the virus touches anything that's been sprayed it is killed.' The problem with Gohmert's statement? No such product exists and nothing similar is in use in Germany. 'What your congressman said is absolute nonsense,' said Dr. Jörn Wegner, a spokesman for Deutsche Krankenhausgesellschaft, or the German Hospital Association. 'There are no such tents and there's no powder or magical cure.' Gohmert's office did not return a request for more information about his statement, including what substance constitutes this powder and the name of the company in Arizona that he says is working on such a product. It is possible Gohmert was thinking of recent news reports of sterilization stations in use in China - images show individuals being sprayed with mist as they walk through a tunnel - but experts said the bleach-type sprays being used at these stations are likely not effective against the coronavirus. Protective measures in Germany A search of top news publications in Germany and the United States revealed no recent articles published about a powder or disinfectant being used on hospital employees that kills the virus on contact and for 14 days after the fact. While Germany has been hit hard by the coronavirus, it is also among the countries with the lowest fatality rate. News outlets have explored why Germany has reported such a low fatality rate, including analyzing how its hospitals are handling the outbreak. But those reports have not mentioned a substance like the one Gohmert described. In Germany, health authorities at the state level are responsible for hospital planning and operation while the Federal Ministry of Health drafts overarching policies and regulations. Sebastian Gülde, spokesman for the Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, or Federal Ministry of Health, said he is aware of some hospitals that are using tents for screening for symptoms of the virus, but he did not have knowledge of a product like the one Gohmert described. 'I did not hear of a disinfecting agent that keeps pathogens away for two weeks,' Gülde said. Gülde directed PolitiFact's inquiry to the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Krankenhaushygiene, the German Society of Hospital Hygiene, which issues recommendations on best practices for hospital hygiene and health. Thomas Ruttkowski, the organization's spokesman, said there is no product like the one Gohmert described. 'I'm sorry, but we did not heard about that magic powder,' he said in an email. 'Thank you for your mail. ... Finally, something to laugh about.' Protecting against the virus During the interview, Gohmert mentioned that a company in Arizona was developing a similar product, but his team did not return a request for more information about the company or its product. A thorough web search did not return results for news stories or company websites for a business that may be working on producing this kind of powder-like product that can kill the coronavirus on contact. Currently, no disinfectant of this nature has been highlighted by the Environmental Protective Agency as being effective for use against SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19). None of these products registered with the EPA are approved for use on people. They are strictly surface disinfectants. Amy Cross, project coordinator at the National Pesticide Information Center, said she is not aware of a product on the list of EPA-regulated surface disinfectants that meets the description Gohmert offered. There are some products that are powder-based and can be combined with water and used in a liquid form, Cross said. But like all of the disinfectants on the list, the product is a liquid and has a set contact time - the amount of time a surface needs to stay wet with a product for it to be effective. Cross said this time varies by product, ranging from 15 seconds to 15 minutes. 'The idea that it would have residual activity after the surface is no longer wet to kill that virus is incredibly surprising to me, because I haven't found any other products that have those similar claims,' she said of the powder Gohmert described. When reached for comment, a World Health Organization spokesperson pointed to the group's guidelines for 'infection prevention and control' geared towards health care workers treating individuals who are likely infected with the coronavirus. The guidelines do not make mention of a disinfectant like the one Gohmert mentioned. They emphasize the need for workers to use personal protective equipment when necessary and practice rigorous hand hygiene. The WHO guidelines also emphasize the importance of 'environmental cleaning and disinfection procedures' and state that washing surfaces with 'water and detergent and applying commonly used hospital-level disinfectants (such as sodium hypochlorite) are effective and sufficient procedures.' Wegner of the German Hospital Association echoed these recommendations. 'The only protection against the virus are personal protection equipment - masks, disposable coats and gloves - and proper hygiene,' he said. | Our ruling Gohmert said that there is a powder substance that, when mixed with water, is being used as a disinfecting mist in Germany. 'Health care workers go through a misting tent going into the hospital and it kills the coronavirus completely dead not only right then, but any time in the next 14 days that the virus touches anything that's been sprayed it is killed,' he said. But no such product seems to exist and no similar product is in use in Germany. There are no products currently in use as disinfecting agents in the United States that come close to meeting the description Gohmert offered. Gohmert did not return a request seeking more information about his statement. His statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim; we rate it Pants on Fire. | [
"102461-proof-01-3d9d8927fb32c9064df9d40e6ed3fabe.jpg"
]
|
Says a powder has been developed that, when mixed with water, 'is being used in Germany as a mist. Health care workers go through a misting tent going into the hospital and it kills the coronavirus completely dead not only right then, but any time in the next 14 days that the virus touches anything that's been sprayed, it is killed. | Contradiction | During a live interview on a local television station in East Texas, U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert discussed the coronavirus and measures he says some health care workers around the world are taking to stay safe while treating patients who have tested positive for the virus. Gohmert, a Republican from Tyler, said he recently spoke with an Arizona-based company that is producing a powder that, when mixed with water, can kill the coronavirus on contact. He said the same product, or one like it, is already in use in Germany, and he is trying to get the Arizona-based product 'fast-tracked' in the United States. 'It is being used in Germany as a mist,' he said. 'Health care workers go through a misting tent going into the hospital and it kills the coronavirus completely dead not only right then, but any time in the next 14 days that the virus touches anything that's been sprayed it is killed.' The problem with Gohmert's statement? No such product exists and nothing similar is in use in Germany. 'What your congressman said is absolute nonsense,' said Dr. Jörn Wegner, a spokesman for Deutsche Krankenhausgesellschaft, or the German Hospital Association. 'There are no such tents and there's no powder or magical cure.' Gohmert's office did not return a request for more information about his statement, including what substance constitutes this powder and the name of the company in Arizona that he says is working on such a product. It is possible Gohmert was thinking of recent news reports of sterilization stations in use in China - images show individuals being sprayed with mist as they walk through a tunnel - but experts said the bleach-type sprays being used at these stations are likely not effective against the coronavirus. Protective measures in Germany A search of top news publications in Germany and the United States revealed no recent articles published about a powder or disinfectant being used on hospital employees that kills the virus on contact and for 14 days after the fact. While Germany has been hit hard by the coronavirus, it is also among the countries with the lowest fatality rate. News outlets have explored why Germany has reported such a low fatality rate, including analyzing how its hospitals are handling the outbreak. But those reports have not mentioned a substance like the one Gohmert described. In Germany, health authorities at the state level are responsible for hospital planning and operation while the Federal Ministry of Health drafts overarching policies and regulations. Sebastian Gülde, spokesman for the Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, or Federal Ministry of Health, said he is aware of some hospitals that are using tents for screening for symptoms of the virus, but he did not have knowledge of a product like the one Gohmert described. 'I did not hear of a disinfecting agent that keeps pathogens away for two weeks,' Gülde said. Gülde directed PolitiFact's inquiry to the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Krankenhaushygiene, the German Society of Hospital Hygiene, which issues recommendations on best practices for hospital hygiene and health. Thomas Ruttkowski, the organization's spokesman, said there is no product like the one Gohmert described. 'I'm sorry, but we did not heard about that magic powder,' he said in an email. 'Thank you for your mail. ... Finally, something to laugh about.' Protecting against the virus During the interview, Gohmert mentioned that a company in Arizona was developing a similar product, but his team did not return a request for more information about the company or its product. A thorough web search did not return results for news stories or company websites for a business that may be working on producing this kind of powder-like product that can kill the coronavirus on contact. Currently, no disinfectant of this nature has been highlighted by the Environmental Protective Agency as being effective for use against SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19). None of these products registered with the EPA are approved for use on people. They are strictly surface disinfectants. Amy Cross, project coordinator at the National Pesticide Information Center, said she is not aware of a product on the list of EPA-regulated surface disinfectants that meets the description Gohmert offered. There are some products that are powder-based and can be combined with water and used in a liquid form, Cross said. But like all of the disinfectants on the list, the product is a liquid and has a set contact time - the amount of time a surface needs to stay wet with a product for it to be effective. Cross said this time varies by product, ranging from 15 seconds to 15 minutes. 'The idea that it would have residual activity after the surface is no longer wet to kill that virus is incredibly surprising to me, because I haven't found any other products that have those similar claims,' she said of the powder Gohmert described. When reached for comment, a World Health Organization spokesperson pointed to the group's guidelines for 'infection prevention and control' geared towards health care workers treating individuals who are likely infected with the coronavirus. The guidelines do not make mention of a disinfectant like the one Gohmert mentioned. They emphasize the need for workers to use personal protective equipment when necessary and practice rigorous hand hygiene. The WHO guidelines also emphasize the importance of 'environmental cleaning and disinfection procedures' and state that washing surfaces with 'water and detergent and applying commonly used hospital-level disinfectants (such as sodium hypochlorite) are effective and sufficient procedures.' Wegner of the German Hospital Association echoed these recommendations. 'The only protection against the virus are personal protection equipment - masks, disposable coats and gloves - and proper hygiene,' he said. | Our ruling Gohmert said that there is a powder substance that, when mixed with water, is being used as a disinfecting mist in Germany. 'Health care workers go through a misting tent going into the hospital and it kills the coronavirus completely dead not only right then, but any time in the next 14 days that the virus touches anything that's been sprayed it is killed,' he said. But no such product seems to exist and no similar product is in use in Germany. There are no products currently in use as disinfecting agents in the United States that come close to meeting the description Gohmert offered. Gohmert did not return a request seeking more information about his statement. His statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim; we rate it Pants on Fire. | [
"102461-proof-01-3d9d8927fb32c9064df9d40e6ed3fabe.jpg"
]
|
Says Kamala Harris said only vaccinated people are hospitalized and dying from COVID-19. | Contradiction | A video clip of Vice President Kamala Harris that is being shared on social media shows her making a surprising statement considering the Biden administration's effort to get as many Americans as possible vaccinated against COVID-19. But the reason it's surprising is because she never said it. This video has been altered. 'Virtually every person who is in the hospital, sick with COVID-19 right now, is vaccinated,' she appears to say in the video. 'I'm going to repeat that. Virtually - it's a fact - virtually every person who is in the hospital right now sick with COVID-19 is vaccinated. And even more regrettably, virtually every person who has recently died from COVID-19 was vaccinated. ... Literally every person who has died from COVID-19 that we have recently been seeing is vaccinated.' 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 original video of this speech shows Harris talking about 'unvaccinated' people in the hospital and dying, not vaccinated people. You can see her remarks starting around the 1:27:30 mark of this video the White House posted on YouTube. A White House transcript of the speech, which happened in July at a vaccine mobilization event in Detroit also reflects this. Harris can also be heard saying 'unvaccinated' - not 'vaccinated' - in C-SPAN's video of the speech. Harris also made similar statements in an interview with the Detroit Free Press the same day as her speech in the city. RELATED VIDEO 'The bottom line is that the vaccine will save your life,' she said. 'I just go back to the same point and I will repeat it over and over again because it's such an important fact: The people who are currently hospitalized from COVID-19, the vast majority are not vaccinated. Same for those who have died.' We rate claims that Harris said only vaccinated people are hospitalized and dying Pants on Fire! | We rate claims that Harris said only vaccinated people are hospitalized and dying Pants on Fire! | []
|
'Trump and McConnell are blocking stimulus checks for Americans married to immigrants. | Contradiction | A Facebook post claims that despite being married to immigrants, President Donald Trump and Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked Americans married to immigrants from receiving stimulus checks. 'Trump and McConnell are blocking stimulus checks for Americans married to immigrants. While they are both married to immigrants,' said the April 23 Facebook post. 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 lady Melania Trump was born in Slovenia. Elaine Chao, who serves as U.S. Secretary of Transportation and is married to McConnell, was born in Taiwan. So the part of the claim about Trump and McConnell being married to immigrants is correct. What about the claim that they are 'blocking' stimulus checks for Americans married to immigrants? The $2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was signed into law by Trump on March 27. But it did not become law against Democratic wishes. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and only three House Democrats opposed it. Under the CARES Act, eligible people who filed tax returns for 2018 or 2019 and earned up to $75,000 are set to receive $1,200; married couples who jointly earned up to $150,000 are expected to get $2,400. Eligible tax filers with dependent children under 17 years old are expected to get $500 per qualifying child. Individuals and couples who earned more than the $75,000 and $150,000 thresholds - but not more than $99,000 or $198,000 - will get some aid, but not as much as those who earned less. What about Americans married to immigrants? The Facebook post gives the misleading impression that all Americans married to immigrants won't get a check. That's not the case. U.S. citizens are ineligible for a stimulus check if they filed a joint tax return with a spouse who used an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. There is an exception to that rule: If either spouse is a member of the U.S. military at any time during the taxable year, then only one spouse needs to have a valid Social Security number. Americans and immigrant spouses who filed a tax return both using a Social Security number are eligible for the stimulus check (if they meet the income criteria). Being married to someone who has an ITIN instead of a Social Security number is not a disqualifying element by itself, either. If the couple filed their taxes separately, then whoever filed using a Social Security number is eligible for the check. ITINs are issued by the IRS for tax purposes, so that foreign nationals and other individuals who don't have a Social Security number can use it to pay income taxes. Some immigrants in the country illegally pay taxes using an ITIN. About 1.8 million spouses who are either U.S. citizens or green-card holders will be excluded from the stimulus payments, according to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute. | Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'Trump and McConnell are blocking stimulus checks for Americans married to immigrants.' The post wrongly makes it seem as if the law providing the stimulus payment was a doing only of Republicans. The CARES Act passed with bipartisan support. Not all Americans married to immigrants are barred from getting a stimulus check. That applies to couples that filed a joint tax return, one using a Social Security number and the other using an ITIN. That exempts military families. If a couple files tax returns separately, the spouse who filed with a Social Security number is eligible for the payment. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"102498-proof-13-701237e404cb17aff546c7cf8285ddd3.jpg"
]
|
'Trump and McConnell are blocking stimulus checks for Americans married to immigrants. | Contradiction | A Facebook post claims that despite being married to immigrants, President Donald Trump and Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked Americans married to immigrants from receiving stimulus checks. 'Trump and McConnell are blocking stimulus checks for Americans married to immigrants. While they are both married to immigrants,' said the April 23 Facebook post. 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 lady Melania Trump was born in Slovenia. Elaine Chao, who serves as U.S. Secretary of Transportation and is married to McConnell, was born in Taiwan. So the part of the claim about Trump and McConnell being married to immigrants is correct. What about the claim that they are 'blocking' stimulus checks for Americans married to immigrants? The $2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was signed into law by Trump on March 27. But it did not become law against Democratic wishes. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and only three House Democrats opposed it. Under the CARES Act, eligible people who filed tax returns for 2018 or 2019 and earned up to $75,000 are set to receive $1,200; married couples who jointly earned up to $150,000 are expected to get $2,400. Eligible tax filers with dependent children under 17 years old are expected to get $500 per qualifying child. Individuals and couples who earned more than the $75,000 and $150,000 thresholds - but not more than $99,000 or $198,000 - will get some aid, but not as much as those who earned less. What about Americans married to immigrants? The Facebook post gives the misleading impression that all Americans married to immigrants won't get a check. That's not the case. U.S. citizens are ineligible for a stimulus check if they filed a joint tax return with a spouse who used an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. There is an exception to that rule: If either spouse is a member of the U.S. military at any time during the taxable year, then only one spouse needs to have a valid Social Security number. Americans and immigrant spouses who filed a tax return both using a Social Security number are eligible for the stimulus check (if they meet the income criteria). Being married to someone who has an ITIN instead of a Social Security number is not a disqualifying element by itself, either. If the couple filed their taxes separately, then whoever filed using a Social Security number is eligible for the check. ITINs are issued by the IRS for tax purposes, so that foreign nationals and other individuals who don't have a Social Security number can use it to pay income taxes. Some immigrants in the country illegally pay taxes using an ITIN. About 1.8 million spouses who are either U.S. citizens or green-card holders will be excluded from the stimulus payments, according to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute. | Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'Trump and McConnell are blocking stimulus checks for Americans married to immigrants.' The post wrongly makes it seem as if the law providing the stimulus payment was a doing only of Republicans. The CARES Act passed with bipartisan support. Not all Americans married to immigrants are barred from getting a stimulus check. That applies to couples that filed a joint tax return, one using a Social Security number and the other using an ITIN. That exempts military families. If a couple files tax returns separately, the spouse who filed with a Social Security number is eligible for the payment. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"102498-proof-13-701237e404cb17aff546c7cf8285ddd3.jpg"
]
|
'Trump and McConnell are blocking stimulus checks for Americans married to immigrants. | Contradiction | A Facebook post claims that despite being married to immigrants, President Donald Trump and Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked Americans married to immigrants from receiving stimulus checks. 'Trump and McConnell are blocking stimulus checks for Americans married to immigrants. While they are both married to immigrants,' said the April 23 Facebook post. 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 lady Melania Trump was born in Slovenia. Elaine Chao, who serves as U.S. Secretary of Transportation and is married to McConnell, was born in Taiwan. So the part of the claim about Trump and McConnell being married to immigrants is correct. What about the claim that they are 'blocking' stimulus checks for Americans married to immigrants? The $2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was signed into law by Trump on March 27. But it did not become law against Democratic wishes. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and only three House Democrats opposed it. Under the CARES Act, eligible people who filed tax returns for 2018 or 2019 and earned up to $75,000 are set to receive $1,200; married couples who jointly earned up to $150,000 are expected to get $2,400. Eligible tax filers with dependent children under 17 years old are expected to get $500 per qualifying child. Individuals and couples who earned more than the $75,000 and $150,000 thresholds - but not more than $99,000 or $198,000 - will get some aid, but not as much as those who earned less. What about Americans married to immigrants? The Facebook post gives the misleading impression that all Americans married to immigrants won't get a check. That's not the case. U.S. citizens are ineligible for a stimulus check if they filed a joint tax return with a spouse who used an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. There is an exception to that rule: If either spouse is a member of the U.S. military at any time during the taxable year, then only one spouse needs to have a valid Social Security number. Americans and immigrant spouses who filed a tax return both using a Social Security number are eligible for the stimulus check (if they meet the income criteria). Being married to someone who has an ITIN instead of a Social Security number is not a disqualifying element by itself, either. If the couple filed their taxes separately, then whoever filed using a Social Security number is eligible for the check. ITINs are issued by the IRS for tax purposes, so that foreign nationals and other individuals who don't have a Social Security number can use it to pay income taxes. Some immigrants in the country illegally pay taxes using an ITIN. About 1.8 million spouses who are either U.S. citizens or green-card holders will be excluded from the stimulus payments, according to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute. | Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'Trump and McConnell are blocking stimulus checks for Americans married to immigrants.' The post wrongly makes it seem as if the law providing the stimulus payment was a doing only of Republicans. The CARES Act passed with bipartisan support. Not all Americans married to immigrants are barred from getting a stimulus check. That applies to couples that filed a joint tax return, one using a Social Security number and the other using an ITIN. That exempts military families. If a couple files tax returns separately, the spouse who filed with a Social Security number is eligible for the payment. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"102498-proof-13-701237e404cb17aff546c7cf8285ddd3.jpg"
]
|
Aluminum 'is in the vaccine' and will hurt the brain. | Contradiction | As millions of Americans continue to wait for their turn to be vaccinated against the coronavirus, misinformation about the vaccines' safety continues to circulate online. A year-old video shared on Instagram makes false claims about the vaccines' ingredients. The caption of the post describes the featured video as a 'Sunday school church lesson,' claiming aluminum is 'in the vaccine' and 'will kill' the brain. Many users interpreted that to mean harmful amounts of aluminum are in the COVID-19 vaccines. That isn't true. The three-minute video involves Lawrence Palevsky, a pediatrician from Northport, N.Y., speaking about the dangers of vaccinations during a public health hearing held by the Connecticut General Assembly on Feb. 19, 2020. Palevsky, who is involved in the anti-vaccination movement, claims that aluminum nanoparticles in vaccines are able to enter the brain and cause neurodevelopmental problems, asthma, autism and Alzheimer's disease. He also says the safety of aluminum nanoparticles in vaccines and its effects on the human body has not been evaluated or studied. This is inaccurate. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports small amounts of aluminum, specifically aluminum salts, have been used in vaccines since the 1930s. The aluminum acts as an adjuvant, which helps elicit a stronger immune response from the body. The CDC says vaccines containing adjuvants like aluminum are 'tested for safety and effectiveness in clinical trials before they are licensed for use in the United States, and they are continuously monitored by CDC and FDA once they are approved.' Aluminum is commonly found in nature, with trace amounts present in air, food and water, according to the agency. Adults on average ingest 7 to 9 milligrams of aluminum per day, and the amount found in a vaccine is equivalent to that found in a liter of baby formula, according to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Research has also shown the levels of aluminum found in vaccines are so low that they can't easily be absorbed by the body, let alone the brain. There has been no evidence of vaccines being the cause of illness of developmental disorders. Palevsky's comments came in February 2020, long before we had COVID-19 vaccines. But it's worth noting that none of the three COVID-19 vaccines currently being used in the United States contain any amount of aluminum. All three manufacturers, Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, have shared the ingredients list to their vaccines and none have an aluminum adjuvant. The Sputnik V and AstraZeneca vaccines, which are currently being used in Europe, also do not contain aluminum. | Our ruling A year-old video being reshared on Instagram claims that aluminum nanoparticles in vaccines cause a variety of illnesses and developmental disorders. The caption implies the COVID-19 vaccines also contain aluminum and contribute to health issues. Although several vaccines do contain a miniscule amount of aluminum, research has found it's not enough to be absorbed by the body. Humans already ingest amounts of aluminum just by living their everyday lives as it can be found in food, water and the air. There is no evidence that any vaccine can cause people to experience illnesses or developmental disorders. None of the COVID-19 vaccines currently in use throughout the United States and Europe contain aluminum. The claim is False. | []
|
Aluminum 'is in the vaccine' and will hurt the brain. | Contradiction | As millions of Americans continue to wait for their turn to be vaccinated against the coronavirus, misinformation about the vaccines' safety continues to circulate online. A year-old video shared on Instagram makes false claims about the vaccines' ingredients. The caption of the post describes the featured video as a 'Sunday school church lesson,' claiming aluminum is 'in the vaccine' and 'will kill' the brain. Many users interpreted that to mean harmful amounts of aluminum are in the COVID-19 vaccines. That isn't true. The three-minute video involves Lawrence Palevsky, a pediatrician from Northport, N.Y., speaking about the dangers of vaccinations during a public health hearing held by the Connecticut General Assembly on Feb. 19, 2020. Palevsky, who is involved in the anti-vaccination movement, claims that aluminum nanoparticles in vaccines are able to enter the brain and cause neurodevelopmental problems, asthma, autism and Alzheimer's disease. He also says the safety of aluminum nanoparticles in vaccines and its effects on the human body has not been evaluated or studied. This is inaccurate. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports small amounts of aluminum, specifically aluminum salts, have been used in vaccines since the 1930s. The aluminum acts as an adjuvant, which helps elicit a stronger immune response from the body. The CDC says vaccines containing adjuvants like aluminum are 'tested for safety and effectiveness in clinical trials before they are licensed for use in the United States, and they are continuously monitored by CDC and FDA once they are approved.' Aluminum is commonly found in nature, with trace amounts present in air, food and water, according to the agency. Adults on average ingest 7 to 9 milligrams of aluminum per day, and the amount found in a vaccine is equivalent to that found in a liter of baby formula, according to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Research has also shown the levels of aluminum found in vaccines are so low that they can't easily be absorbed by the body, let alone the brain. There has been no evidence of vaccines being the cause of illness of developmental disorders. Palevsky's comments came in February 2020, long before we had COVID-19 vaccines. But it's worth noting that none of the three COVID-19 vaccines currently being used in the United States contain any amount of aluminum. All three manufacturers, Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, have shared the ingredients list to their vaccines and none have an aluminum adjuvant. The Sputnik V and AstraZeneca vaccines, which are currently being used in Europe, also do not contain aluminum. | Our ruling A year-old video being reshared on Instagram claims that aluminum nanoparticles in vaccines cause a variety of illnesses and developmental disorders. The caption implies the COVID-19 vaccines also contain aluminum and contribute to health issues. Although several vaccines do contain a miniscule amount of aluminum, research has found it's not enough to be absorbed by the body. Humans already ingest amounts of aluminum just by living their everyday lives as it can be found in food, water and the air. There is no evidence that any vaccine can cause people to experience illnesses or developmental disorders. None of the COVID-19 vaccines currently in use throughout the United States and Europe contain aluminum. The claim is False. | []
|
Aluminum 'is in the vaccine' and will hurt the brain. | Contradiction | As millions of Americans continue to wait for their turn to be vaccinated against the coronavirus, misinformation about the vaccines' safety continues to circulate online. A year-old video shared on Instagram makes false claims about the vaccines' ingredients. The caption of the post describes the featured video as a 'Sunday school church lesson,' claiming aluminum is 'in the vaccine' and 'will kill' the brain. Many users interpreted that to mean harmful amounts of aluminum are in the COVID-19 vaccines. That isn't true. The three-minute video involves Lawrence Palevsky, a pediatrician from Northport, N.Y., speaking about the dangers of vaccinations during a public health hearing held by the Connecticut General Assembly on Feb. 19, 2020. Palevsky, who is involved in the anti-vaccination movement, claims that aluminum nanoparticles in vaccines are able to enter the brain and cause neurodevelopmental problems, asthma, autism and Alzheimer's disease. He also says the safety of aluminum nanoparticles in vaccines and its effects on the human body has not been evaluated or studied. This is inaccurate. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports small amounts of aluminum, specifically aluminum salts, have been used in vaccines since the 1930s. The aluminum acts as an adjuvant, which helps elicit a stronger immune response from the body. The CDC says vaccines containing adjuvants like aluminum are 'tested for safety and effectiveness in clinical trials before they are licensed for use in the United States, and they are continuously monitored by CDC and FDA once they are approved.' Aluminum is commonly found in nature, with trace amounts present in air, food and water, according to the agency. Adults on average ingest 7 to 9 milligrams of aluminum per day, and the amount found in a vaccine is equivalent to that found in a liter of baby formula, according to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Research has also shown the levels of aluminum found in vaccines are so low that they can't easily be absorbed by the body, let alone the brain. There has been no evidence of vaccines being the cause of illness of developmental disorders. Palevsky's comments came in February 2020, long before we had COVID-19 vaccines. But it's worth noting that none of the three COVID-19 vaccines currently being used in the United States contain any amount of aluminum. All three manufacturers, Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson, have shared the ingredients list to their vaccines and none have an aluminum adjuvant. The Sputnik V and AstraZeneca vaccines, which are currently being used in Europe, also do not contain aluminum. | Our ruling A year-old video being reshared on Instagram claims that aluminum nanoparticles in vaccines cause a variety of illnesses and developmental disorders. The caption implies the COVID-19 vaccines also contain aluminum and contribute to health issues. Although several vaccines do contain a miniscule amount of aluminum, research has found it's not enough to be absorbed by the body. Humans already ingest amounts of aluminum just by living their everyday lives as it can be found in food, water and the air. There is no evidence that any vaccine can cause people to experience illnesses or developmental disorders. None of the COVID-19 vaccines currently in use throughout the United States and Europe contain aluminum. The claim is False. | []
|
Ivermectin caused a substantial decrease in the excess mortality rate in Mexico. | Contradiction | A graphic on social media claiming to illustrate the effects of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin and its role in decreasing COVID-19 deaths in Mexico lacks verifiable evidence. The graphic in the post is a modified version of a chart that appears on a Mexican government website tracking excess mortality. The modified graphic includes superimposed text and shading to suggest that the decline in excess deaths coincided with and resulted from the introduction of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. 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 no evidence that supports the claim in the Facebook graphic. Excess mortality rates in Mexico We emailed a Mexican federal health agency for information related to the Facebook claim but did not hear back. Our research found that the Mexican federal government remains divided on the issue and has not established a unified stance on using ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19. Despite non-binding guidance from the country's health ministry advising that more research and data is necessary, Mexico's Institute of Social Security, a public health agency, allows the drug to be used in some cases. COVID-19 has killed at least 4 million people worldwide, including almost 242,000 in Mexico, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. The number of COVID-19 deaths in Mexico is widely believed to be an undercount. Excess mortality, as defined by the World Health Organization, is the difference between the observed numbers of deaths and the expected number of deaths for a specific time period. In Mexico, excess deaths began tapering off in late winter and early spring with the first arrival of vaccines for medical workers in late December 2020. Vaccine access remains a barrier in the country and locally produced vaccines weren't a reality until May. The graphic circulating on Facebook was authored by Juan J. Chamie, a self-described analyst associated with an advocacy group that pushes for the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. In an email to PolitiFact, Chamie pointed to data from the Mexican government showing that the excess mortality rate dropped exponentially from week to week from February through July. The most recent excess mortality rate data - for the week beginning July 5 - shows that fatalities were about 7% less than projected. When looking at the excess mortality data compiled by the Mexican federal government, this year's rate is calculated by comparing to pre-pandemic average mortality rates from 2015 to 2019, accounting for year-to-year variations. But we found no data or evidence showing a causal relationship between that decline and ivermectin specifically. 'The evidence on the use of ivermectin to reduce COVID-19 hospitalizations is based on a retrospective study using COVID-19 registry data sponsored by the Mexico City Health Ministry,' said Dr. Omar Yaxmehen Bello-Chavolla, an associate professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico's medical school in Mexico City. 'No experimental studies have been conducted to support this claim,' Bello-Chavolla said in a statement to PolitiFact. 'A causal link between ivermectin and any related COVID-19 outcome cannot be ascertained with the available evidence.' Use of ivermectin in Mexico In May, Mexico City health officials released results from a non-clinical study - a study that did not directly involve humans - that claimed ivermectin helped reduce COVID-19 hospitalizations by 76%. Results of the study were not published in any scientific or medical journals, and it did not directly address Mexico's excess mortality rates. The city government in December 2020 started distributing 83,000 medical kits to people at home (not hospitalized) with mild-to-moderate cases, according to the study. The kits contained three different drugs, including ivermectin. But ivermectin was the only drug trumpeted in the study released by Mexico City. The study was widely characterized as misleading, according to the Brazilian fact-checking site Estadão Verifica, since it heavily emphasized ivermectin. Mexico's Institute of Social Security has defended the use of the drug to treat COVID-19 and pointed to the Mexico City non-clinical study as proof of the drug's treatment potential. However, there is still no firm consensus among Mexican federal government officials on the use of ivermectin against COVID-19. Ministry of Health Undersecretary Hugo López Gatell said more data was needed to paint a clearer picture of ivermectin's efficacy (or lack thereof) as a COVID-19 treatment, the Mexico City-based news organization Animal Político reported in March. PolitiFact has fact-checked several claims concerning ivermectin and its efficacy against COVID-19. We've found that some studies suggest the drug can help treat COVID-19, while other studies show no tangible effect. Many of the studies had small sample sizes and other methodological limitations. Pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co., which developed ivermectin and makes the drug, said in February that based on available and emerging studies of the drug to treat COVID-19, company scientists found 'no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect.' The company also said it found 'a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.' A March statement from the World Health Organization also said that data from known trials using ivermectin were inconclusive and that more information was needed. It also recommended against the use of the drug for treating COVID-19 except in clinical settings. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration has not approved ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. | Our ruling A social media post claims that the use of ivermectin to treat individuals with COVID-19 caused a substantial decrease of excess mortality rates in Mexico. We found no credible published data showing a causal relationship between ivermectin and decreased COVID-19 mortality in Mexico. A maker of ivermectin has also said it does not believe that available data support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. In the absence of evidence proving the claim, we rate this post False. | []
|
Ivermectin caused a substantial decrease in the excess mortality rate in Mexico. | Contradiction | A graphic on social media claiming to illustrate the effects of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin and its role in decreasing COVID-19 deaths in Mexico lacks verifiable evidence. The graphic in the post is a modified version of a chart that appears on a Mexican government website tracking excess mortality. The modified graphic includes superimposed text and shading to suggest that the decline in excess deaths coincided with and resulted from the introduction of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. 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 no evidence that supports the claim in the Facebook graphic. Excess mortality rates in Mexico We emailed a Mexican federal health agency for information related to the Facebook claim but did not hear back. Our research found that the Mexican federal government remains divided on the issue and has not established a unified stance on using ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19. Despite non-binding guidance from the country's health ministry advising that more research and data is necessary, Mexico's Institute of Social Security, a public health agency, allows the drug to be used in some cases. COVID-19 has killed at least 4 million people worldwide, including almost 242,000 in Mexico, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. The number of COVID-19 deaths in Mexico is widely believed to be an undercount. Excess mortality, as defined by the World Health Organization, is the difference between the observed numbers of deaths and the expected number of deaths for a specific time period. In Mexico, excess deaths began tapering off in late winter and early spring with the first arrival of vaccines for medical workers in late December 2020. Vaccine access remains a barrier in the country and locally produced vaccines weren't a reality until May. The graphic circulating on Facebook was authored by Juan J. Chamie, a self-described analyst associated with an advocacy group that pushes for the use of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. In an email to PolitiFact, Chamie pointed to data from the Mexican government showing that the excess mortality rate dropped exponentially from week to week from February through July. The most recent excess mortality rate data - for the week beginning July 5 - shows that fatalities were about 7% less than projected. When looking at the excess mortality data compiled by the Mexican federal government, this year's rate is calculated by comparing to pre-pandemic average mortality rates from 2015 to 2019, accounting for year-to-year variations. But we found no data or evidence showing a causal relationship between that decline and ivermectin specifically. 'The evidence on the use of ivermectin to reduce COVID-19 hospitalizations is based on a retrospective study using COVID-19 registry data sponsored by the Mexico City Health Ministry,' said Dr. Omar Yaxmehen Bello-Chavolla, an associate professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico's medical school in Mexico City. 'No experimental studies have been conducted to support this claim,' Bello-Chavolla said in a statement to PolitiFact. 'A causal link between ivermectin and any related COVID-19 outcome cannot be ascertained with the available evidence.' Use of ivermectin in Mexico In May, Mexico City health officials released results from a non-clinical study - a study that did not directly involve humans - that claimed ivermectin helped reduce COVID-19 hospitalizations by 76%. Results of the study were not published in any scientific or medical journals, and it did not directly address Mexico's excess mortality rates. The city government in December 2020 started distributing 83,000 medical kits to people at home (not hospitalized) with mild-to-moderate cases, according to the study. The kits contained three different drugs, including ivermectin. But ivermectin was the only drug trumpeted in the study released by Mexico City. The study was widely characterized as misleading, according to the Brazilian fact-checking site Estadão Verifica, since it heavily emphasized ivermectin. Mexico's Institute of Social Security has defended the use of the drug to treat COVID-19 and pointed to the Mexico City non-clinical study as proof of the drug's treatment potential. However, there is still no firm consensus among Mexican federal government officials on the use of ivermectin against COVID-19. Ministry of Health Undersecretary Hugo López Gatell said more data was needed to paint a clearer picture of ivermectin's efficacy (or lack thereof) as a COVID-19 treatment, the Mexico City-based news organization Animal Político reported in March. PolitiFact has fact-checked several claims concerning ivermectin and its efficacy against COVID-19. We've found that some studies suggest the drug can help treat COVID-19, while other studies show no tangible effect. Many of the studies had small sample sizes and other methodological limitations. Pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co., which developed ivermectin and makes the drug, said in February that based on available and emerging studies of the drug to treat COVID-19, company scientists found 'no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect.' The company also said it found 'a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.' A March statement from the World Health Organization also said that data from known trials using ivermectin were inconclusive and that more information was needed. It also recommended against the use of the drug for treating COVID-19 except in clinical settings. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration has not approved ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. | Our ruling A social media post claims that the use of ivermectin to treat individuals with COVID-19 caused a substantial decrease of excess mortality rates in Mexico. We found no credible published data showing a causal relationship between ivermectin and decreased COVID-19 mortality in Mexico. A maker of ivermectin has also said it does not believe that available data support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. In the absence of evidence proving the claim, we rate this post False. | []
|
Terry McAuliffe has a campaign sign that says, 'Keep parents out of classrooms. | Contradiction | Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe is running for his old job, but not using the slogan some people recently saw on a photo of a sign being shared on social media. 'Keep parents out of classrooms,' the sign says. 'Vote McAuliffe. Keep Virginia blue.' Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin's campaign tweeted out the image with a gritted-teeth emoji, while Texas Sen. Ted Cruz opted for a face palm. We're not sure who made it. Neither does McAuliffe, said Christina Freundlich, a spokesperson for his campaign. 'This is not a sign distributed by us,' Freundlich said. 'It's not our sign.' 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 role of parents in the classroom has driven the gubernatorial contest's narrative in recent days as 'Youngking has increasingly built his campaign's momentum on issues of parental grievance,' the Washington Post reported. RELATED During the second and final gubernatorial debate, Youngkin raised a bill McAuliffe vetoed as governor in 2016 that would have given parents the right to opt their children out of some reading assignments. 'I don't think parents should be telling schools what they should teach,' McAuliffe said. Youngkin seized on the quote, and it's drawn both critical and supportive coverage in the days since. But that sign is not from McAuliffe's campaign. We rate claims that it is False. | We rate claims that it is False. | []
|
'All' Americans in Afghanistan who 'have wanted to come out have come out. | Contradiction | Critics of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., pounced on a remark by the senator that suggested that every American who wanted to leave Afghanistan has already done so. Schumer made his comments on Sept. 3, during an interview with WSYR-TV, the ABC affiliate in Syracuse, N.Y. Schumer was discussing the rushed evacuations from Afghanistan after the U.S.-backed Afghan government and military fell to the Taliban. 'There'll be a job for congressional oversight - there always is,' Schumer said. 'But at the moment, actually, I'm still focused on trying to get some of those brave Afghans out. The Americans - all of whom have wanted to come out have come out, praise God. But there are a lot of Afghans who risked their lives for our soldiers and others. Many got out, some didn't. And I'm still working on trying to get some of them out. The comment by Schumer that prompted criticism was that all Americans in Afghanistan who 'have wanted to come out have come out.' Schumer was wrong. On Sept. 7, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that there are still 'somewhere around 100' American citizens who want to leave Afghanistan. Blinken was speaking from a news conference in Doha, Qatar, and he said the U.S. was working on additional flights to evacuate people from Afghanistan. On Sept. 6, U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, said four U.S. citizens from his district 'were part of the first successful ground evacuation since the U.S. left Kabul.' Meanwhile, the current count of Afghans who want to leave but haven't been able to evacuate yet is uncertain. However, as of late August, there were an estimated 250,000, according to estimates by nonprofits cited by the New York Times. Schumer's office acknowledged his mistake. 'He misspoke and he regrets the confusion his comments have caused,' Schumer's office said in a statement to PolitiFact. 'He intended to say, as he has been saying, that the U.S. will get everyone out that wants to get out. And he will keep working with the Biden administration to help everyone who wants to get out.' | Our ruling Schumer said that among Americans in Afghanistan, 'all' who 'have wanted to come out have come out.' That's incorrect; the State Department has acknowledged that there are still 'somewhere around 100' American citizens who want to leave Afghanistan. Schumer's office later said that he had misspoken. We rate the statement False. | [
"102531-proof-15-2c39a5de5346be7b7031fa16c4eaa09e.jpg"
]
|
'All' Americans in Afghanistan who 'have wanted to come out have come out. | Contradiction | Critics of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., pounced on a remark by the senator that suggested that every American who wanted to leave Afghanistan has already done so. Schumer made his comments on Sept. 3, during an interview with WSYR-TV, the ABC affiliate in Syracuse, N.Y. Schumer was discussing the rushed evacuations from Afghanistan after the U.S.-backed Afghan government and military fell to the Taliban. 'There'll be a job for congressional oversight - there always is,' Schumer said. 'But at the moment, actually, I'm still focused on trying to get some of those brave Afghans out. The Americans - all of whom have wanted to come out have come out, praise God. But there are a lot of Afghans who risked their lives for our soldiers and others. Many got out, some didn't. And I'm still working on trying to get some of them out. The comment by Schumer that prompted criticism was that all Americans in Afghanistan who 'have wanted to come out have come out.' Schumer was wrong. On Sept. 7, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that there are still 'somewhere around 100' American citizens who want to leave Afghanistan. Blinken was speaking from a news conference in Doha, Qatar, and he said the U.S. was working on additional flights to evacuate people from Afghanistan. On Sept. 6, U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, said four U.S. citizens from his district 'were part of the first successful ground evacuation since the U.S. left Kabul.' Meanwhile, the current count of Afghans who want to leave but haven't been able to evacuate yet is uncertain. However, as of late August, there were an estimated 250,000, according to estimates by nonprofits cited by the New York Times. Schumer's office acknowledged his mistake. 'He misspoke and he regrets the confusion his comments have caused,' Schumer's office said in a statement to PolitiFact. 'He intended to say, as he has been saying, that the U.S. will get everyone out that wants to get out. And he will keep working with the Biden administration to help everyone who wants to get out.' | Our ruling Schumer said that among Americans in Afghanistan, 'all' who 'have wanted to come out have come out.' That's incorrect; the State Department has acknowledged that there are still 'somewhere around 100' American citizens who want to leave Afghanistan. Schumer's office later said that he had misspoken. We rate the statement False. | [
"102531-proof-15-2c39a5de5346be7b7031fa16c4eaa09e.jpg"
]
|
In 1962, Joe Biden 'worked with segregationists,' Elizabeth Warren 'debated as a pro-Vietnam conservative' while Bernie Sanders 'organized against segregation and Vietnam war' | Contradiction | A pro-Bernie Sanders Facebook post says that the Vermont senator was a longtime opponent of segregation and the Vietnam war while portraying two of his rivals - former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren - as holding views more in line with the right. The post makes a series of claims about the three candidates about their views or statements in 1962. It states that Biden 'worked with segregationists,' while Warren called the Democratic Party 'subversive' and 'debated as a pro-Vietnam conservative.' The post said that Sanders 'organized against segregation and Vietnam war.' 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 will leave it up to voters to consider the importance of the candidates' actions in 1962, when Biden and Sanders were college students and Warren was in her early teens. But here we will explain what the post got right and wrong about these Democrats running for president. Biden 'worked with segregationists' We found no evidence that Biden worked with segregationists in 1962, when he was a college student at the University of Delaware. We have previously fact-checked statements related to Biden's record on busing for school desegregation in 1975. While Biden opposed mandatory busing, he supported other measures designed to combat inequities in voting and housing. In June 2019, Biden faced a backlash after he used the term 'civility' in describing his work in 1970s with senators James Eastland, D-Miss., and Herman Talmadge D-Ga., who were both segregationists. Biden said they 'didn't agree on much' but they 'got things done.' He later apologized for his comments and defended his civil rights record. Warren called the Democrats 'subversive' and 'debated as a pro-Vietnam conservative' This attack on Warren says these were her positions about the Democratic Party and the Vietnam War in 1962. She was around 13 years old at the time. U.S. involvement in Vietnam was minimal in 1962 - it wasn't until 1965 that the U.S. deployed combat troops. Warren is now a progressive Democrat, but when she was a teenager she was a conservative. The New York Times found that when Warren was in high school in the 1960s, the dominant culture in her state of Oklahoma was conservative. Warren's high school friend Katrina Cochran told the New York Times that Warren was 'extremely conservative at the time.' 'She would ask me what other subversive organizations I was a member of besides the Democratic Party,' Cochran said. Warren's older brother Don Reed flew combat missions in the Vietnam War. Warren has said that growing up, her family didn't discuss politics at the dinner table. Subhead: Sanders 'organized against segregation and Vietnam war.' There is photographic evidence showing Sanders was involved in protesting segregation in the early 1960s. Snopes found in 2016 that a 1962 photo by Danny Lyon showed Sanders speaking to a group of students at a sit-in at the University of Chicago. And a 1963 photo shows Sanders getting arrested while protesting school segregation. Sanders was anti-war in the 1960s, and as a college student he was a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Student Peace Union. | Our ruling A Facebook post said in 1962, Biden 'worked with segregationists,' Warren called the Democratic Party 'subversive' and 'debated as a pro-Vietnam conservative' while Sanders 'organized against segregation and Vietnam war.' In 1962, Biden was a college student and we found no evidence that he worked with segregationists then. In the 1970s, Biden worked with fellow Democratic lawmakers who were segregationists and opposed federally mandated busing for school desegregation, but the post doesn't fully reflect his civil rights record. Warren's high school friend told the New York Times that she referred to the Democratic Party as subversive. Warren was a conservative as a teenager in the 1960s, but in 1962, she was only 13 years old, and full U.S. troop deployment to Vietnam wouldn't start for a few more years. Overall, the attack is misleading about Biden and Warren, although it correctly notes that Sanders opposed segregation and the Vietnam War. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"102534-proof-35-ed70d9310386d5c5e554244f9b92e005.jpg"
]
|
In 1962, Joe Biden 'worked with segregationists,' Elizabeth Warren 'debated as a pro-Vietnam conservative' while Bernie Sanders 'organized against segregation and Vietnam war' | Contradiction | A pro-Bernie Sanders Facebook post says that the Vermont senator was a longtime opponent of segregation and the Vietnam war while portraying two of his rivals - former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren - as holding views more in line with the right. The post makes a series of claims about the three candidates about their views or statements in 1962. It states that Biden 'worked with segregationists,' while Warren called the Democratic Party 'subversive' and 'debated as a pro-Vietnam conservative.' The post said that Sanders 'organized against segregation and Vietnam war.' 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 will leave it up to voters to consider the importance of the candidates' actions in 1962, when Biden and Sanders were college students and Warren was in her early teens. But here we will explain what the post got right and wrong about these Democrats running for president. Biden 'worked with segregationists' We found no evidence that Biden worked with segregationists in 1962, when he was a college student at the University of Delaware. We have previously fact-checked statements related to Biden's record on busing for school desegregation in 1975. While Biden opposed mandatory busing, he supported other measures designed to combat inequities in voting and housing. In June 2019, Biden faced a backlash after he used the term 'civility' in describing his work in 1970s with senators James Eastland, D-Miss., and Herman Talmadge D-Ga., who were both segregationists. Biden said they 'didn't agree on much' but they 'got things done.' He later apologized for his comments and defended his civil rights record. Warren called the Democrats 'subversive' and 'debated as a pro-Vietnam conservative' This attack on Warren says these were her positions about the Democratic Party and the Vietnam War in 1962. She was around 13 years old at the time. U.S. involvement in Vietnam was minimal in 1962 - it wasn't until 1965 that the U.S. deployed combat troops. Warren is now a progressive Democrat, but when she was a teenager she was a conservative. The New York Times found that when Warren was in high school in the 1960s, the dominant culture in her state of Oklahoma was conservative. Warren's high school friend Katrina Cochran told the New York Times that Warren was 'extremely conservative at the time.' 'She would ask me what other subversive organizations I was a member of besides the Democratic Party,' Cochran said. Warren's older brother Don Reed flew combat missions in the Vietnam War. Warren has said that growing up, her family didn't discuss politics at the dinner table. Subhead: Sanders 'organized against segregation and Vietnam war.' There is photographic evidence showing Sanders was involved in protesting segregation in the early 1960s. Snopes found in 2016 that a 1962 photo by Danny Lyon showed Sanders speaking to a group of students at a sit-in at the University of Chicago. And a 1963 photo shows Sanders getting arrested while protesting school segregation. Sanders was anti-war in the 1960s, and as a college student he was a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Student Peace Union. | Our ruling A Facebook post said in 1962, Biden 'worked with segregationists,' Warren called the Democratic Party 'subversive' and 'debated as a pro-Vietnam conservative' while Sanders 'organized against segregation and Vietnam war.' In 1962, Biden was a college student and we found no evidence that he worked with segregationists then. In the 1970s, Biden worked with fellow Democratic lawmakers who were segregationists and opposed federally mandated busing for school desegregation, but the post doesn't fully reflect his civil rights record. Warren's high school friend told the New York Times that she referred to the Democratic Party as subversive. Warren was a conservative as a teenager in the 1960s, but in 1962, she was only 13 years old, and full U.S. troop deployment to Vietnam wouldn't start for a few more years. Overall, the attack is misleading about Biden and Warren, although it correctly notes that Sanders opposed segregation and the Vietnam War. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"102534-proof-35-ed70d9310386d5c5e554244f9b92e005.jpg"
]
|
In 1962, Joe Biden 'worked with segregationists,' Elizabeth Warren 'debated as a pro-Vietnam conservative' while Bernie Sanders 'organized against segregation and Vietnam war' | Contradiction | A pro-Bernie Sanders Facebook post says that the Vermont senator was a longtime opponent of segregation and the Vietnam war while portraying two of his rivals - former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren - as holding views more in line with the right. The post makes a series of claims about the three candidates about their views or statements in 1962. It states that Biden 'worked with segregationists,' while Warren called the Democratic Party 'subversive' and 'debated as a pro-Vietnam conservative.' The post said that Sanders 'organized against segregation and Vietnam war.' 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 will leave it up to voters to consider the importance of the candidates' actions in 1962, when Biden and Sanders were college students and Warren was in her early teens. But here we will explain what the post got right and wrong about these Democrats running for president. Biden 'worked with segregationists' We found no evidence that Biden worked with segregationists in 1962, when he was a college student at the University of Delaware. We have previously fact-checked statements related to Biden's record on busing for school desegregation in 1975. While Biden opposed mandatory busing, he supported other measures designed to combat inequities in voting and housing. In June 2019, Biden faced a backlash after he used the term 'civility' in describing his work in 1970s with senators James Eastland, D-Miss., and Herman Talmadge D-Ga., who were both segregationists. Biden said they 'didn't agree on much' but they 'got things done.' He later apologized for his comments and defended his civil rights record. Warren called the Democrats 'subversive' and 'debated as a pro-Vietnam conservative' This attack on Warren says these were her positions about the Democratic Party and the Vietnam War in 1962. She was around 13 years old at the time. U.S. involvement in Vietnam was minimal in 1962 - it wasn't until 1965 that the U.S. deployed combat troops. Warren is now a progressive Democrat, but when she was a teenager she was a conservative. The New York Times found that when Warren was in high school in the 1960s, the dominant culture in her state of Oklahoma was conservative. Warren's high school friend Katrina Cochran told the New York Times that Warren was 'extremely conservative at the time.' 'She would ask me what other subversive organizations I was a member of besides the Democratic Party,' Cochran said. Warren's older brother Don Reed flew combat missions in the Vietnam War. Warren has said that growing up, her family didn't discuss politics at the dinner table. Subhead: Sanders 'organized against segregation and Vietnam war.' There is photographic evidence showing Sanders was involved in protesting segregation in the early 1960s. Snopes found in 2016 that a 1962 photo by Danny Lyon showed Sanders speaking to a group of students at a sit-in at the University of Chicago. And a 1963 photo shows Sanders getting arrested while protesting school segregation. Sanders was anti-war in the 1960s, and as a college student he was a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Student Peace Union. | Our ruling A Facebook post said in 1962, Biden 'worked with segregationists,' Warren called the Democratic Party 'subversive' and 'debated as a pro-Vietnam conservative' while Sanders 'organized against segregation and Vietnam war.' In 1962, Biden was a college student and we found no evidence that he worked with segregationists then. In the 1970s, Biden worked with fellow Democratic lawmakers who were segregationists and opposed federally mandated busing for school desegregation, but the post doesn't fully reflect his civil rights record. Warren's high school friend told the New York Times that she referred to the Democratic Party as subversive. Warren was a conservative as a teenager in the 1960s, but in 1962, she was only 13 years old, and full U.S. troop deployment to Vietnam wouldn't start for a few more years. Overall, the attack is misleading about Biden and Warren, although it correctly notes that Sanders opposed segregation and the Vietnam War. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"102534-proof-35-ed70d9310386d5c5e554244f9b92e005.jpg"
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.