claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Says Joe Biden 'was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump went on Twitter to applaud his administration's response to the coronavirus and shift attention to another pandemic that happened when Joe Biden was vice president. The first U.S. case of a new H1N1 influenza virus (also called swine flu) was detected in April 2009, three months after the Obama administration began. The pandemic took a toll on Americans, with an estimated 60.8 million H1N1 cases and 12,469 deaths from April 2009 to April 2010. Worldwide, it's estimated the virus killed between 151,700 to 575,400 people during its first year. (By August 2010, the World Health Organization said the virus had largely run its course.) Trump said Biden, a top Democratic presidential candidate, led an ineffective effort to combat the outbreak. 'Sleepy Joe Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest!' Trump tweeted March 12. Sleepy Joe Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest!- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2020 Trump previously falsely claimed the Obama administration 'didn't do anything about' swine flu. How does his recent tweet line up with the facts? He's wrong about Biden's role and omitted important context about his polling. 'Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people.' Biden was the vice president, but he was not in charge of the Obama administration's handling of the H1N1 pandemic. That responsibility mainly fell on the leaders of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Trump enlisted Vice President Mike Pence to helm the country's response to COVID-19.) Health policy experts told PolitiFact they did not recall Biden having a prominent leadership role. PolitiFact also reviewed archives of Obama's public statements on H1N1 and found that Obama generally mentioned the leadership of department heads and of his homeland security adviser, not Biden. RELATED FACT-CHECK: Trump wrongly blames Obama for limits on coronavirus testing At the same time, Biden's website mentions the Obama administration's record to make the argument to voters that he could manage the current response better. Biden's coronavirus response plan says he 'helped lead' the Obama administration's response to H1N1 in 2009 and the Ebola virus in 2014. It does not offer further detail. The H1N1 response 'was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest!' Neither the White House nor Trump's campaign responded to our requests for information backing Trump's claim. If Trump was talking about public confidence in the federal government's ability to handle outbreaks, he might have been referring to a Gallup poll taken Feb. 3-16. But he isn't correct about its findings and ignores key context. A lot has happened since Gallup asked a random sample of 1,028 adults how confident they were that the federal government would be able to handle a coronavirus outbreak. Trump's '78% approval rating' could be alluding to the combined 77% who were very confident (31%) or somewhat confident (46%). The poll had a margin of error of 4 percentage points. Gallup in February said that the 77% figure showed a higher level of confidence than Gallup had found for previous health scares during other administrations. But confidence in the 2009 H1N1 response was the second highest, not 'one of the worst on record.' The averages of two polls in 2009 showed that 67% of respondents were very confident or somewhat confident in the federal government's ability to handle the H1N1 outbreak. Those two polls were released in May and August of that year, about a month and four months into the outbreak. Public confidence in the federal government's handling of the Zika virus, Ebola virus, and bird flu were lower than for H1N1. Gallup's February poll began days after the Trump administration announced restrictions on travelers who had been in China in the prior two weeks, and at that time, no one had died within the United States from the disease caused by the new coronavirus. 'This high level of confidence may be related to the fact that all deaths from COVID-19 have occurred abroad, rather than on U.S. soil,' Gallup said in February. By the time of Trump's March 12 tweet, there were more than 1,600 coronavirus cases in the United States and at least 41 deaths. Polling done after Gallup's shows a drop in confidence in the Trump administration's handling of the coronavirus. A Feb. 28-March 1 Morning Consult survey showed that 49% of voters approved of Trump's response to the outbreak, down from 56% in a Feb. 24-26 survey - a decline fueled by drops among independents and Democrats. The poll surveyed 1,997 registered voters and had a margin of error of 2 percentage points. | Our ruling Trump said, 'Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest! Biden was not in charge of the Obama administration's H1N1 response. A Gallup poll in February - before any coronavirus deaths in the United States - showed that 77% of respondents had confidence in the administration's handling of the outbreak. It ranked higher than averages of two 2009 polls on confidence in the Obama administration's handling of H1N1. Public confidence in H1N1 was the second highest, not 'one of the worst' or the 'lowest.' Polling done after the Gallup poll showed a decline in approval of Trump's response to the coronavirus outbreak. Trump's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"103694-proof-22-d9f97fbb575bc5ac79675088779c6d4f.jpg"
]
|
'Melania dug up the WH Rose Garden, removing roses from every First Lady since 1913. | Contradiction | First lady Melania Trump is expected to deliver her Republican National Convention speech from the White House Rose Garden on Aug. 25, just days after the renovations she directed in the historic garden were revealed. Not everyone was thrilled with the results of the month-long project. 'Melania dug up the WH Rose Garden, removing roses from every First Lady since 1913,' one Facebook post said. 'She is as clueless and classless as her husband.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to the White House about the post and did not receive a reply. But a landscape historian we consulted about its claim laughed and said, 'People say the most outrageous things.' Here's what we know about the Rose Garden. First lady Ellen Wilson planted a rose garden in 1913, but its official name at the time is unclear, according to the White House Rose Garden Landscape Report published this year by the Committee for the Preservation of the White House. In the second half of the century, 'Rose Garden' started to appear more frequently, but it was used interchangeably with 'West Garden.' The Rose Garden that Americans are familiar with today reflects the 1962 design of Rachel Lambert Mellon, who was approached by President John F. Kennedy to help renew the space after he was inspired by the gardens he saw at official residences on a state visit to Europe. 'The garden had a simple plan,' Mellon wrote in a 1983 essay posted on the White House Historical Association's website. Saucer magnolia trees were planted in the garden's four corners. A 50-by-100-foot lawn that could accommodate 1,000 people for ceremonies and receptions would be the garden's center. Flanking the lawn: smaller trees, roses and other flowers. 'The one flower that unites all occupants through the history of the White House is the rose,' the essay says. 'Thus, for most of the 20th century, the Rose Garden has been a rose garden. Now, in 1961, President Kennedy wanted it restored in spirit but revised to become more than just a private garden.' The Trump administration's overhaul was done in the spirit of the garden's 1962 design, according to USA Today. The flowers in the garden are mostly pastels and include taller white roses in honor of the first papal visit to the White House in 1979. Boxwoods were added, crabapple trees were removed to be replanted elsewhere, and a limestone walking path now borders the central lawn. Speaking at the official reopening of the Rose Garden on Aug. 22, Melania Trump said improvements to the garden's infrastructure and utilities would make it fully accessible to Americans with disabilities. She also said that changes to the garden resulted from 'a thoughtful and collaborative process carefully crafted with the help of scholars and experts in architecture, horticulture, design, and historic preservation.' Drawing from sources like newspaper articles and contemporaneous accounts, the Rose Garden Landscape Report lists 58 different roses that have been grown at the White House over the years, from the Cleveland administration to the Obama administration. The first documented, large scale plan of roses planted in the garden dates back to the Truman administration in 1952. There isn't even a definitive rose planting plan for the Kennedy Rose Garden, according to the report, and 'records are scarce' for plantings in the years after until the Carter administration. That was when the National Park Service started producing reports listing changes to the White House Grounds and Gardens, including the roses grown and their location in the garden. 'These reports, along with the scattered knowledge of roses grown previously at the White House, offer a glimpse into changing fashions and tastes in American gardens for roses,' the Rose Garden Landscape Report says. As the Washington Post reported in July, Melania Trump's plans for the Rose Garden included the removal and replacement of most of the existing plants and lawn. But Adrian Higgins, the Post's gardening columnist, writes that 'the renovation is long overdue.' 'Among the problems to be addressed,' he wrote, 'a poorly drained lawn that had to be replaced annually, constant disturbance of roots of trees and shrubs by the seasonal planting of annuals, the die-off of rose bushes to the point where only a dozen or so remained.' Roses are 'fussy,' said Marta McDowell, a landscape historian who wrote 'All the Presidents' Gardens,' a 2016 book about White House gardens. 'They don't last forever - plants are living things - and so sometimes they do need to be replaced.' When Kennedy and Mellon redesigned the garden in 1962, for example, the roses from previous first ladies were largely gone because they died off or had been replaced, McDowell told us. 'Most of these were long gone by the time the Trumps moved in,' McDowell said. | Our ruling The Facebook post claims Melania Trump removed the roses planted by her predecessors going back to 1913. That's wrong. Over the years, roses have both died and been replaced as different administrations have left their mark on the White House Rose Garden. Only about a dozen rose bushes remained before this most recent renovation. We rate this Facebook post False. | [
"103700-proof-09-4166c5c8eccb645143503f806cad832f.jpg"
]
|
'Melania dug up the WH Rose Garden, removing roses from every First Lady since 1913. | Contradiction | First lady Melania Trump is expected to deliver her Republican National Convention speech from the White House Rose Garden on Aug. 25, just days after the renovations she directed in the historic garden were revealed. Not everyone was thrilled with the results of the month-long project. 'Melania dug up the WH Rose Garden, removing roses from every First Lady since 1913,' one Facebook post said. 'She is as clueless and classless as her husband.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to the White House about the post and did not receive a reply. But a landscape historian we consulted about its claim laughed and said, 'People say the most outrageous things.' Here's what we know about the Rose Garden. First lady Ellen Wilson planted a rose garden in 1913, but its official name at the time is unclear, according to the White House Rose Garden Landscape Report published this year by the Committee for the Preservation of the White House. In the second half of the century, 'Rose Garden' started to appear more frequently, but it was used interchangeably with 'West Garden.' The Rose Garden that Americans are familiar with today reflects the 1962 design of Rachel Lambert Mellon, who was approached by President John F. Kennedy to help renew the space after he was inspired by the gardens he saw at official residences on a state visit to Europe. 'The garden had a simple plan,' Mellon wrote in a 1983 essay posted on the White House Historical Association's website. Saucer magnolia trees were planted in the garden's four corners. A 50-by-100-foot lawn that could accommodate 1,000 people for ceremonies and receptions would be the garden's center. Flanking the lawn: smaller trees, roses and other flowers. 'The one flower that unites all occupants through the history of the White House is the rose,' the essay says. 'Thus, for most of the 20th century, the Rose Garden has been a rose garden. Now, in 1961, President Kennedy wanted it restored in spirit but revised to become more than just a private garden.' The Trump administration's overhaul was done in the spirit of the garden's 1962 design, according to USA Today. The flowers in the garden are mostly pastels and include taller white roses in honor of the first papal visit to the White House in 1979. Boxwoods were added, crabapple trees were removed to be replanted elsewhere, and a limestone walking path now borders the central lawn. Speaking at the official reopening of the Rose Garden on Aug. 22, Melania Trump said improvements to the garden's infrastructure and utilities would make it fully accessible to Americans with disabilities. She also said that changes to the garden resulted from 'a thoughtful and collaborative process carefully crafted with the help of scholars and experts in architecture, horticulture, design, and historic preservation.' Drawing from sources like newspaper articles and contemporaneous accounts, the Rose Garden Landscape Report lists 58 different roses that have been grown at the White House over the years, from the Cleveland administration to the Obama administration. The first documented, large scale plan of roses planted in the garden dates back to the Truman administration in 1952. There isn't even a definitive rose planting plan for the Kennedy Rose Garden, according to the report, and 'records are scarce' for plantings in the years after until the Carter administration. That was when the National Park Service started producing reports listing changes to the White House Grounds and Gardens, including the roses grown and their location in the garden. 'These reports, along with the scattered knowledge of roses grown previously at the White House, offer a glimpse into changing fashions and tastes in American gardens for roses,' the Rose Garden Landscape Report says. As the Washington Post reported in July, Melania Trump's plans for the Rose Garden included the removal and replacement of most of the existing plants and lawn. But Adrian Higgins, the Post's gardening columnist, writes that 'the renovation is long overdue.' 'Among the problems to be addressed,' he wrote, 'a poorly drained lawn that had to be replaced annually, constant disturbance of roots of trees and shrubs by the seasonal planting of annuals, the die-off of rose bushes to the point where only a dozen or so remained.' Roses are 'fussy,' said Marta McDowell, a landscape historian who wrote 'All the Presidents' Gardens,' a 2016 book about White House gardens. 'They don't last forever - plants are living things - and so sometimes they do need to be replaced.' When Kennedy and Mellon redesigned the garden in 1962, for example, the roses from previous first ladies were largely gone because they died off or had been replaced, McDowell told us. 'Most of these were long gone by the time the Trumps moved in,' McDowell said. | Our ruling The Facebook post claims Melania Trump removed the roses planted by her predecessors going back to 1913. That's wrong. Over the years, roses have both died and been replaced as different administrations have left their mark on the White House Rose Garden. Only about a dozen rose bushes remained before this most recent renovation. We rate this Facebook post False. | [
"103700-proof-09-4166c5c8eccb645143503f806cad832f.jpg"
]
|
Says Kamala Harris wants to eliminate beef. | Contradiction | Hundreds of Facebook users have shared a post that says that Kamala Harris, presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden's running mate, wants to put an end to beef production. The post shows a picture of meat and claims that the California senator worked with Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey to go after animal agriculture. 'Kamala Harris wants to eliminate this right here. If you raise beef or eat beef, you can't vote (for) the Democratic Party this election. She has worked with Cory Booker on eliminating animal agriculture and is on record starting that meat is killing the planet. That shows her ignorance,' the post says. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Despite what this post alleges, Harris hasn't said she wants to eliminate beef. In July, Booker, who is a vegan, introduced legislation to protect workers at meatpacking plants, which became deadly hot spots amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill would suspend waivers and rules that permit companies to ramp up production, and Harris was one of its cosponsors. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated in July that 16,233 COVID-19 cases in 239 meat and poultry processing facilities were reported in 23 states across the country. It's not just Facebook users who are weighing in on Harris' policy recommendations for meat consumption and production. President Donald Trump's YouTube account recently shared a video clip from Harris at a CNN climate change town hall during the Democratic primaries in September 2019. At an August 2020 speech in Iowa, Vice President Mike Pence criticized her town hall remarks and said, 'We're not going to let Joe Biden and Kamala Harris cut America's meat.' But Pence's statements were misleading. Here's what Harris said at the town hall. 'As a nation, we actually have to have a real priority at the highest level of government around what we eat and in terms of healthy eating,' Harris said in response to a question at the CNN town hall. The agriculture sector contributed 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Cattle produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas, as part of their digestive process, and the management of manure can also add to emissions. Harris added that the government should create incentives and change dietary guidelines to reduce the consumption of red meat, as opposed to banning it altogether. 'I love cheeseburgers from time to time,' Harris said. | Our ruling A viral Facebook post says that Kamala Harris wants to eliminate beef. Harris didn't say that. She and Cory Booker support legislation that would prevent meatpacking companies from ramping up production, but they didn't propose eliminating beef. Harris even said that she enjoys a cheeseburger every now and then. We rate this post False. | [
"103706-proof-07-f277000397b3d663c907b882fe1268f1.jpg"
]
|
Says Kamala Harris wants to eliminate beef. | Contradiction | Hundreds of Facebook users have shared a post that says that Kamala Harris, presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden's running mate, wants to put an end to beef production. The post shows a picture of meat and claims that the California senator worked with Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey to go after animal agriculture. 'Kamala Harris wants to eliminate this right here. If you raise beef or eat beef, you can't vote (for) the Democratic Party this election. She has worked with Cory Booker on eliminating animal agriculture and is on record starting that meat is killing the planet. That shows her ignorance,' the post says. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Despite what this post alleges, Harris hasn't said she wants to eliminate beef. In July, Booker, who is a vegan, introduced legislation to protect workers at meatpacking plants, which became deadly hot spots amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill would suspend waivers and rules that permit companies to ramp up production, and Harris was one of its cosponsors. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated in July that 16,233 COVID-19 cases in 239 meat and poultry processing facilities were reported in 23 states across the country. It's not just Facebook users who are weighing in on Harris' policy recommendations for meat consumption and production. President Donald Trump's YouTube account recently shared a video clip from Harris at a CNN climate change town hall during the Democratic primaries in September 2019. At an August 2020 speech in Iowa, Vice President Mike Pence criticized her town hall remarks and said, 'We're not going to let Joe Biden and Kamala Harris cut America's meat.' But Pence's statements were misleading. Here's what Harris said at the town hall. 'As a nation, we actually have to have a real priority at the highest level of government around what we eat and in terms of healthy eating,' Harris said in response to a question at the CNN town hall. The agriculture sector contributed 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2018, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Cattle produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas, as part of their digestive process, and the management of manure can also add to emissions. Harris added that the government should create incentives and change dietary guidelines to reduce the consumption of red meat, as opposed to banning it altogether. 'I love cheeseburgers from time to time,' Harris said. | Our ruling A viral Facebook post says that Kamala Harris wants to eliminate beef. Harris didn't say that. She and Cory Booker support legislation that would prevent meatpacking companies from ramping up production, but they didn't propose eliminating beef. Harris even said that she enjoys a cheeseburger every now and then. We rate this post False. | [
"103706-proof-07-f277000397b3d663c907b882fe1268f1.jpg"
]
|
Navy SEALs found over 1,000 trafficked children and dead bodies on the Evergreen ship that blocked the Suez Canal. | Contradiction | The giant Ever Given container ship that clogged up the Suez Canal for six days isn't out of the news just yet. After it was freed, Egyptian authorities towed the 1,300-foot ship to Great Bitter Lake, a wider expanse of the canal where authorities would be able to inspect the vessel for damage. Within days, dubious websites posted stories that claimed that the U.S. Navy SEALs took part in the inspection and found dead bodies and over 1,000 trafficked children on board. 'Navy Seals rescue over a thousand trafficked children and dead bodies out of shipping containers in the Suez Canal,' reads the all-caps headline of an April 3 post by a blog called the Marshall Report. One person who shared the story on their Facebook page wrote, 'YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!!' But it is made up. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The blog post repeats claims made in another article headlined, 'Trafficked Children, Bodies, Weapons Found on Evergreen Ship Blocking Suez Canal,' published by a website called Before It's News - a site that has published bogus news stories before. It says unnamed 'sources say' children were still being rescued and bodies discovered in the Ever Given's 18,000-plus containers. Capt. Bill Urban, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, told PolitiFact there is 'no truth' to the rumor. The ship was not raided by the SEALs and there's no evidence any children or bodies were found on board. Ever Given was reported to be carrying an array of consumer goods, including Ikea furniture. The blog also contained unfounded claims about the Clintons and Wayfair, which we have debunked before. We rate this post Pants on Fire! | We rate this post Pants on Fire! | []
|
'McDonald's and Coke have both announced no whites will be hired in top positions. | Contradiction | A bold allegation being shared on social media claims that two big companies - McDonald's and Coca-Cola - have sworn off white executives. 'McDonald's and Coke have both announced no whites will be hired in top positions,' one Facebook post says. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We found no evidence to support this statement, and McDonald's Corp. confirmed to PolitiFact that it's false. The Coca-Cola Co. did not immediately respond to a request for comment but Check Your Fact reported in March that a spokesperson for the company said 'the claim is fabricated.' In February, McDonald's announced efforts to diversify its workforce with a goal of increasing the 'representation of historically underrepresented groups in leadership roles' in the United States to 35%. At the time, Black people made up 10% of McDonald's senior level management, Reuters reported. There is no mention in the article or in the company's statement of not hiring white people to leadership roles, nor is there anything to suggest that would happen. Coca-Cola, meanwhile, recently announced a goal of hiring a representative workforce so that its employee population across all job levels is aligned with U.S. Census data by race and ethnicity. But there's no evidence of the claim in this Facebook post - not in McDonald's or Coca-Cola's press releases, not in their Twitter accounts, and not in any news coverage. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
The FBI raided a 'Cleveland office linked to Ukraine. Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Romney all had sons getting tens of millions of dollars from no-show jobs in Ukraine. | Contradiction | A recent FBI raid in Ohio inspired a rash of social media posts repromoting a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukraine and several prominent politicians. One post was published by a Facebook page called Q Pin on Aug. 5. 'Q' is a reference to QAnon, a baseless conspiracy theory that claims the Trump administration is investigating members of the 'deep state' for their involvement in pedophile rings. The post includes a screenshot of a tweeted video that shows FBI agents going through boxes in an office. 'The FBI raiding a Cleveland office linked to Ukraine,' reads a caption on the video. '(Joe) Biden, (Nancy) Pelosi, (John) Kerry and (Mitt) Romney all had sons getting tens of millions of dollars from no-show jobs in Ukraine.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It has been shared more than 17,000 times, and we found similar versions shared by other QAnon-related accounts. (Screenshot from Facebook) The footage in the video comes from news coverage of a recent FBI raid in downtown Cleveland. But what does that have to do with Ukraine? And how are American politicians involved? In short: They aren't. Let's break it down. First: the raid. On Aug. 4, agents with the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service raided offices in Miami and Cleveland that belong to Optima Management Group LLC. Optima is a Miami investment company that has properties across the country. The raid was part of a money laundering investigation that's been going on for more than a year. 'The affidavit is under seal so I cannot provide any specifics regarding the investigation,' FBI Special Agent Vicki Anderson said in an email. 'I can say no one was taken into custody. This continues to be an ongoing investigation.' Next: the Ukraine connection. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that Optima is partially owned by principals of the Privat Group, a large business group based in Ukraine. One of those principals is Ukrainian oligarch Igor Kolomoisky In the early 1990s, Kolomoisky founded PrivatBank. It became a key banking institution in the country, serving about half of Ukraine's population. In 2016, the government nationalized the company, claiming that it did not have enough capital to support its loan portfolio. The Financial Times reported that PrivatBank lent billions of dollars to Kolomoisky associates. In April 2019, the Daily Beast reported that the FBI was investigating Kolomoisky - who no longer owns PrivatBank and reportedly lives in Israel - for potential financial crimes, including money laundering. The U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Ohio was also part of the investigation since Kolomoisky has investments there. In early August, the Justice Department accused Kolomoisky of stealing billions of dollars from PrivatBank and using an array of companies around the world, including some in the United States, to launder the money. Kolomoisky's lawyer has denied the allegations. But how is all that related to Ukraine more broadly? President Volodymyr Zelensky is a former comic, and Kolomoisky owns the TV station that used to air his show. Kolomoisky is considered to be a Zelensky ally. Which brings us to the third part of the Facebook post: the connection - or lack thereof - to American politicians. In 2019, a phone call with Zelensky was the subject of President Donald Trump's impeachment. The investigation was prompted by a whistleblower's complaint about the July 2019 call, during which Trump asked Zelensky to investigate the Biden family's dealings in Ukraine. Hunter Biden served as a board member for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, from 2014 until the spring of 2019. He did so when his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, was representing U.S. policy on the country. There's no evidence to suggest that the sons of Kerry and Romney ever held similar positions. We rated a similar claim False in October 2019. RELATED: Pelosi, Romney and Kerry don't have sons working for companies linked to Ukraine Pelosi's son, Paul, once served on the board of an American energy company, Viscoil, that dissolved and re-formed in Singapore under a different name. It's unclear to what extent the company has done business in Ukraine, but Paul Pelosi had no part in the new entity. Back to the Facebook post. It's correct to say that a company linked to Ukraine was recently raided by the FBI. But there is no evidence that the sons of Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Romney got 'tens of millions of dollars from no-show jobs in Ukraine.' They are all unrelated to the ongoing investigation of Kolomoisky's alleged money laundering. The post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | There's no evidence to suggest that the sons of Kerry and Romney ever held similar positions. We rated a similar claim False in October 2019. RELATED: Pelosi, Romney and Kerry don't have sons working for companies linked to Ukraine Pelosi's son, Paul, once served on the board of an American energy company, Viscoil, that dissolved and re-formed in Singapore under a different name. It's unclear to what extent the company has done business in Ukraine, but Paul Pelosi had no part in the new entity. Back to the Facebook post. It's correct to say that a company linked to Ukraine was recently raided by the FBI. But there is no evidence that the sons of Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Romney got 'tens of millions of dollars from no-show jobs in Ukraine.' They are all unrelated to the ongoing investigation of Kolomoisky's alleged money laundering. The post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"103718-proof-32-1a67117d8cb134ec9c542ed31c1ebb57.jpg"
]
|
The FBI raided a 'Cleveland office linked to Ukraine. Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Romney all had sons getting tens of millions of dollars from no-show jobs in Ukraine. | Contradiction | A recent FBI raid in Ohio inspired a rash of social media posts repromoting a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukraine and several prominent politicians. One post was published by a Facebook page called Q Pin on Aug. 5. 'Q' is a reference to QAnon, a baseless conspiracy theory that claims the Trump administration is investigating members of the 'deep state' for their involvement in pedophile rings. The post includes a screenshot of a tweeted video that shows FBI agents going through boxes in an office. 'The FBI raiding a Cleveland office linked to Ukraine,' reads a caption on the video. '(Joe) Biden, (Nancy) Pelosi, (John) Kerry and (Mitt) Romney all had sons getting tens of millions of dollars from no-show jobs in Ukraine.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It has been shared more than 17,000 times, and we found similar versions shared by other QAnon-related accounts. (Screenshot from Facebook) The footage in the video comes from news coverage of a recent FBI raid in downtown Cleveland. But what does that have to do with Ukraine? And how are American politicians involved? In short: They aren't. Let's break it down. First: the raid. On Aug. 4, agents with the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service raided offices in Miami and Cleveland that belong to Optima Management Group LLC. Optima is a Miami investment company that has properties across the country. The raid was part of a money laundering investigation that's been going on for more than a year. 'The affidavit is under seal so I cannot provide any specifics regarding the investigation,' FBI Special Agent Vicki Anderson said in an email. 'I can say no one was taken into custody. This continues to be an ongoing investigation.' Next: the Ukraine connection. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that Optima is partially owned by principals of the Privat Group, a large business group based in Ukraine. One of those principals is Ukrainian oligarch Igor Kolomoisky In the early 1990s, Kolomoisky founded PrivatBank. It became a key banking institution in the country, serving about half of Ukraine's population. In 2016, the government nationalized the company, claiming that it did not have enough capital to support its loan portfolio. The Financial Times reported that PrivatBank lent billions of dollars to Kolomoisky associates. In April 2019, the Daily Beast reported that the FBI was investigating Kolomoisky - who no longer owns PrivatBank and reportedly lives in Israel - for potential financial crimes, including money laundering. The U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Ohio was also part of the investigation since Kolomoisky has investments there. In early August, the Justice Department accused Kolomoisky of stealing billions of dollars from PrivatBank and using an array of companies around the world, including some in the United States, to launder the money. Kolomoisky's lawyer has denied the allegations. But how is all that related to Ukraine more broadly? President Volodymyr Zelensky is a former comic, and Kolomoisky owns the TV station that used to air his show. Kolomoisky is considered to be a Zelensky ally. Which brings us to the third part of the Facebook post: the connection - or lack thereof - to American politicians. In 2019, a phone call with Zelensky was the subject of President Donald Trump's impeachment. The investigation was prompted by a whistleblower's complaint about the July 2019 call, during which Trump asked Zelensky to investigate the Biden family's dealings in Ukraine. Hunter Biden served as a board member for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, from 2014 until the spring of 2019. He did so when his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, was representing U.S. policy on the country. There's no evidence to suggest that the sons of Kerry and Romney ever held similar positions. We rated a similar claim False in October 2019. RELATED: Pelosi, Romney and Kerry don't have sons working for companies linked to Ukraine Pelosi's son, Paul, once served on the board of an American energy company, Viscoil, that dissolved and re-formed in Singapore under a different name. It's unclear to what extent the company has done business in Ukraine, but Paul Pelosi had no part in the new entity. Back to the Facebook post. It's correct to say that a company linked to Ukraine was recently raided by the FBI. But there is no evidence that the sons of Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Romney got 'tens of millions of dollars from no-show jobs in Ukraine.' They are all unrelated to the ongoing investigation of Kolomoisky's alleged money laundering. The post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | There's no evidence to suggest that the sons of Kerry and Romney ever held similar positions. We rated a similar claim False in October 2019. RELATED: Pelosi, Romney and Kerry don't have sons working for companies linked to Ukraine Pelosi's son, Paul, once served on the board of an American energy company, Viscoil, that dissolved and re-formed in Singapore under a different name. It's unclear to what extent the company has done business in Ukraine, but Paul Pelosi had no part in the new entity. Back to the Facebook post. It's correct to say that a company linked to Ukraine was recently raided by the FBI. But there is no evidence that the sons of Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Romney got 'tens of millions of dollars from no-show jobs in Ukraine.' They are all unrelated to the ongoing investigation of Kolomoisky's alleged money laundering. The post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"103718-proof-32-1a67117d8cb134ec9c542ed31c1ebb57.jpg"
]
|
The FBI raided a 'Cleveland office linked to Ukraine. Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Romney all had sons getting tens of millions of dollars from no-show jobs in Ukraine. | Contradiction | A recent FBI raid in Ohio inspired a rash of social media posts repromoting a debunked conspiracy theory about Ukraine and several prominent politicians. One post was published by a Facebook page called Q Pin on Aug. 5. 'Q' is a reference to QAnon, a baseless conspiracy theory that claims the Trump administration is investigating members of the 'deep state' for their involvement in pedophile rings. The post includes a screenshot of a tweeted video that shows FBI agents going through boxes in an office. 'The FBI raiding a Cleveland office linked to Ukraine,' reads a caption on the video. '(Joe) Biden, (Nancy) Pelosi, (John) Kerry and (Mitt) Romney all had sons getting tens of millions of dollars from no-show jobs in Ukraine.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It has been shared more than 17,000 times, and we found similar versions shared by other QAnon-related accounts. (Screenshot from Facebook) The footage in the video comes from news coverage of a recent FBI raid in downtown Cleveland. But what does that have to do with Ukraine? And how are American politicians involved? In short: They aren't. Let's break it down. First: the raid. On Aug. 4, agents with the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service raided offices in Miami and Cleveland that belong to Optima Management Group LLC. Optima is a Miami investment company that has properties across the country. The raid was part of a money laundering investigation that's been going on for more than a year. 'The affidavit is under seal so I cannot provide any specifics regarding the investigation,' FBI Special Agent Vicki Anderson said in an email. 'I can say no one was taken into custody. This continues to be an ongoing investigation.' Next: the Ukraine connection. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that Optima is partially owned by principals of the Privat Group, a large business group based in Ukraine. One of those principals is Ukrainian oligarch Igor Kolomoisky In the early 1990s, Kolomoisky founded PrivatBank. It became a key banking institution in the country, serving about half of Ukraine's population. In 2016, the government nationalized the company, claiming that it did not have enough capital to support its loan portfolio. The Financial Times reported that PrivatBank lent billions of dollars to Kolomoisky associates. In April 2019, the Daily Beast reported that the FBI was investigating Kolomoisky - who no longer owns PrivatBank and reportedly lives in Israel - for potential financial crimes, including money laundering. The U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Ohio was also part of the investigation since Kolomoisky has investments there. In early August, the Justice Department accused Kolomoisky of stealing billions of dollars from PrivatBank and using an array of companies around the world, including some in the United States, to launder the money. Kolomoisky's lawyer has denied the allegations. But how is all that related to Ukraine more broadly? President Volodymyr Zelensky is a former comic, and Kolomoisky owns the TV station that used to air his show. Kolomoisky is considered to be a Zelensky ally. Which brings us to the third part of the Facebook post: the connection - or lack thereof - to American politicians. In 2019, a phone call with Zelensky was the subject of President Donald Trump's impeachment. The investigation was prompted by a whistleblower's complaint about the July 2019 call, during which Trump asked Zelensky to investigate the Biden family's dealings in Ukraine. Hunter Biden served as a board member for Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, from 2014 until the spring of 2019. He did so when his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, was representing U.S. policy on the country. There's no evidence to suggest that the sons of Kerry and Romney ever held similar positions. We rated a similar claim False in October 2019. RELATED: Pelosi, Romney and Kerry don't have sons working for companies linked to Ukraine Pelosi's son, Paul, once served on the board of an American energy company, Viscoil, that dissolved and re-formed in Singapore under a different name. It's unclear to what extent the company has done business in Ukraine, but Paul Pelosi had no part in the new entity. Back to the Facebook post. It's correct to say that a company linked to Ukraine was recently raided by the FBI. But there is no evidence that the sons of Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Romney got 'tens of millions of dollars from no-show jobs in Ukraine.' They are all unrelated to the ongoing investigation of Kolomoisky's alleged money laundering. The post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | There's no evidence to suggest that the sons of Kerry and Romney ever held similar positions. We rated a similar claim False in October 2019. RELATED: Pelosi, Romney and Kerry don't have sons working for companies linked to Ukraine Pelosi's son, Paul, once served on the board of an American energy company, Viscoil, that dissolved and re-formed in Singapore under a different name. It's unclear to what extent the company has done business in Ukraine, but Paul Pelosi had no part in the new entity. Back to the Facebook post. It's correct to say that a company linked to Ukraine was recently raided by the FBI. But there is no evidence that the sons of Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Romney got 'tens of millions of dollars from no-show jobs in Ukraine.' They are all unrelated to the ongoing investigation of Kolomoisky's alleged money laundering. The post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"103718-proof-32-1a67117d8cb134ec9c542ed31c1ebb57.jpg"
]
|
Says Republican leaders 'are working hard to cover up election corruption in Wisconsin. | Contradiction | President Joe Biden won Wisconsin nearly eight months ago, but the 2020 election in the state -- or at least the questioning of it -- seems to be never ending. Shortly after Biden won the state by more than 20,000 votes, thanks largely to Dane and Milwaukee counties, which both had large numbers of absentee ballots, President Donald Trump' campaign pursued a recount in those two counties. But that effort only shifted the margin by 87 votes toward Biden. Additionally seven lawsuits challenging aspects of the election have all failed, including at the conservative-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court and no evidence of widespread fraud has surfaced. Trump, of course, continues to claim he won the state. On the eve of the state GOP convention, Trump lashed out against three Republican state lawmakers -- Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, state Sen. Chris Kapenga and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu -- alleging that the trio was 'are working hard to cover up election corruption in Wisconsin.' The June 25, 2021 statement from Trump's Save America PAC went on to say: 'They are actively trying to prevent a Forensic Audit of the election results, especially those which took place in Milwaukee, one of the most corrupt election locales in the country. Don't fall for their lies! These REPUBLICAN 'leaders' need to step up and support the people who elected them by providing them a full forensic investigation.' So is Trump right? Are Vos, Kapenga and LeMahieu trying to prevent further audits and examinations, and to 'cover up election corruption'? In a word: No. Quite the opposite, actually. Republicans have called for several investigations into election results. Despite the failed recount, the many lawsuits, agreement that the Wisconsin election was free and fair and no evidence of enough fraud to overturn the result, Republicans are -- contrary to Trump's claim -- continuing to investigate. Vos, of Rochester, hired retired police officers to look into aspects of the election, according to a May 26, 2021 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article. As a part of the effort, Vos said the former officers will review all tips received about election fraud and look into the credible ones, and will be paid with taxpayer funds. The team will also spend time looking into claims of double voting, as well as review how some clerks, following State Election Commission guidance, filled out some missing elements of absentee ballot applications. Also underway is an audit of the election by the nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau, which began in February, according to a Feb. 11, 2021 report from the Journal Sentinel. Requested by Republican lawmakers, the audit will look at issues that have faced scrutiny from courts and election observers, such as how the state maintains its voter rolls and when it allows voters to get absentee ballots without showing an ID. Meanwhile, in June, a group of Republican lawmakers, including state Rep. Janel Brandtjen of Menomonee Falls, head of the Assembly's elections committee, visited Arizona to tour the coliseum where a months-long review of Maricopa County's ballots is underway by order of Republicans in the Arizona Senate, according to a June 18, 2021 Journal Sentinel article. The Republican leaders targeted by Trump have dismissed the former president's claim as 'misinformed,' according to a June 26, 2021 Journal Sentinel report. 'When I saw the president's statement, it surprised me because many on the left have been going after us harder than I have ever seen, because in Wisconsin, we have hired investigators, we have passed legislation and we are doing a forensic audit already,' Vos said. 'So I think this is one of those cases where the president was just misinformed by his staff or he didn't see the media reports.' At the convention, Vos also announced that former conservative Supreme Court Justice Mike Gableman would oversee the former officers during their investigation. Gabelman will be paid at taxpayer expense. But what of Trump's assertion that Wisconsin legislators are refusing a 'forensic' audit? Communications staff for Trump did not respond to a request for more information on what he meant by a forensic audit, but a June 1, 2021 report by AZ Central said such an audit is one that investigates to find instances of fraud. That is, findings from the investigation can then be used as evidence in court later on. It wouldn't be off base to think the GOP-backed effort in Wisconsin -- involving retired police officers and a former Supreme Court justice -- would take such an approach. That said, the investigation method here may look different from what is happening as a part of Arizona's 'forensic' audit, where ballots and machines are being looked at. | Our ruling Trump claimed that Wisconsin Republican leaders 'are working hard to cover up election corruption in Wisconsin.' That's wrong. If anything, Republican leaders have taken great criticism for the continued efforts to dig into the results of an election that has already seen a recount and numerous legal challenges. Republicans have gone so far as to say they will use taxpayer money to pay a former state Supreme Court justice to oversee an effort led by retired police officers, also to be paid by taxpayers. Critics may say that effort is a ridiculous exercise. But our focus here is on Trump, and his claim Republican leaders have failed him and are doing nothing to examine the election results. That's plainly ridiculous. Pants on Fire. | [
"103722-proof-15-aacfa90c40770516aa0d6ddeadcbf42e.JPG.jpg"
]
|
Says Republican leaders 'are working hard to cover up election corruption in Wisconsin. | Contradiction | President Joe Biden won Wisconsin nearly eight months ago, but the 2020 election in the state -- or at least the questioning of it -- seems to be never ending. Shortly after Biden won the state by more than 20,000 votes, thanks largely to Dane and Milwaukee counties, which both had large numbers of absentee ballots, President Donald Trump' campaign pursued a recount in those two counties. But that effort only shifted the margin by 87 votes toward Biden. Additionally seven lawsuits challenging aspects of the election have all failed, including at the conservative-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court and no evidence of widespread fraud has surfaced. Trump, of course, continues to claim he won the state. On the eve of the state GOP convention, Trump lashed out against three Republican state lawmakers -- Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, state Sen. Chris Kapenga and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu -- alleging that the trio was 'are working hard to cover up election corruption in Wisconsin.' The June 25, 2021 statement from Trump's Save America PAC went on to say: 'They are actively trying to prevent a Forensic Audit of the election results, especially those which took place in Milwaukee, one of the most corrupt election locales in the country. Don't fall for their lies! These REPUBLICAN 'leaders' need to step up and support the people who elected them by providing them a full forensic investigation.' So is Trump right? Are Vos, Kapenga and LeMahieu trying to prevent further audits and examinations, and to 'cover up election corruption'? In a word: No. Quite the opposite, actually. Republicans have called for several investigations into election results. Despite the failed recount, the many lawsuits, agreement that the Wisconsin election was free and fair and no evidence of enough fraud to overturn the result, Republicans are -- contrary to Trump's claim -- continuing to investigate. Vos, of Rochester, hired retired police officers to look into aspects of the election, according to a May 26, 2021 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article. As a part of the effort, Vos said the former officers will review all tips received about election fraud and look into the credible ones, and will be paid with taxpayer funds. The team will also spend time looking into claims of double voting, as well as review how some clerks, following State Election Commission guidance, filled out some missing elements of absentee ballot applications. Also underway is an audit of the election by the nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau, which began in February, according to a Feb. 11, 2021 report from the Journal Sentinel. Requested by Republican lawmakers, the audit will look at issues that have faced scrutiny from courts and election observers, such as how the state maintains its voter rolls and when it allows voters to get absentee ballots without showing an ID. Meanwhile, in June, a group of Republican lawmakers, including state Rep. Janel Brandtjen of Menomonee Falls, head of the Assembly's elections committee, visited Arizona to tour the coliseum where a months-long review of Maricopa County's ballots is underway by order of Republicans in the Arizona Senate, according to a June 18, 2021 Journal Sentinel article. The Republican leaders targeted by Trump have dismissed the former president's claim as 'misinformed,' according to a June 26, 2021 Journal Sentinel report. 'When I saw the president's statement, it surprised me because many on the left have been going after us harder than I have ever seen, because in Wisconsin, we have hired investigators, we have passed legislation and we are doing a forensic audit already,' Vos said. 'So I think this is one of those cases where the president was just misinformed by his staff or he didn't see the media reports.' At the convention, Vos also announced that former conservative Supreme Court Justice Mike Gableman would oversee the former officers during their investigation. Gabelman will be paid at taxpayer expense. But what of Trump's assertion that Wisconsin legislators are refusing a 'forensic' audit? Communications staff for Trump did not respond to a request for more information on what he meant by a forensic audit, but a June 1, 2021 report by AZ Central said such an audit is one that investigates to find instances of fraud. That is, findings from the investigation can then be used as evidence in court later on. It wouldn't be off base to think the GOP-backed effort in Wisconsin -- involving retired police officers and a former Supreme Court justice -- would take such an approach. That said, the investigation method here may look different from what is happening as a part of Arizona's 'forensic' audit, where ballots and machines are being looked at. | Our ruling Trump claimed that Wisconsin Republican leaders 'are working hard to cover up election corruption in Wisconsin.' That's wrong. If anything, Republican leaders have taken great criticism for the continued efforts to dig into the results of an election that has already seen a recount and numerous legal challenges. Republicans have gone so far as to say they will use taxpayer money to pay a former state Supreme Court justice to oversee an effort led by retired police officers, also to be paid by taxpayers. Critics may say that effort is a ridiculous exercise. But our focus here is on Trump, and his claim Republican leaders have failed him and are doing nothing to examine the election results. That's plainly ridiculous. Pants on Fire. | [
"103722-proof-15-aacfa90c40770516aa0d6ddeadcbf42e.JPG.jpg"
]
|
Says 'we will know which candidate you voted for. | Contradiction | Update, Oct. 22: In an evening press briefing on Oct. 21, U.S. intelligence officials announced they believed Iran was behind the email threats that were spoofed to appear from a Proud Boys account. Read more about their announcement and what questions remain in this story. Threatening emails sent to multiple Florida Democrats falsely says that the sender will find out if the voters don't cast ballots for President Donald Trump. Law enforcement officials in Alachua County, a Democratic-leaning county and home to the University of Florida, say the email is 'purported to be from the Proud Boys,' a far-right male-only group with a history of violent confrontations. However, who actually sent the email is under investigation by local and federal law enforcement. While it's not yet clear who sent the emails, what is clear is that it contains false information. The email message states that the writer is in possession of the voter's information including email and address and telephone number. Then it states: 'You are currently registered as a Democrat and we know this because we have gained access to the entire voting infrastructure. You will vote for Trump on election day or we will come after you. Change your party affiliation to Republican to let us know you received our message and will comply. We will know which candidate you voted for. I would take this seriously if I were you.' Your vote is protected A voter's registration information, including their name and address, are typically a public record, said David J. Becker, executive director for the Center for Election Innovation & Research. However, the actual ballot itself showing if the voter chose Trump or Joe Biden or someone else is private, Becker and election officials say. 'Nobody can know who somebody else voted for,' said Gerri Kramer, a spokesperson for the elections office in Tampa's Hillsborough County. 'In no state is the record of how an individual voted on their ballot public,' Becker said. 'In fact, ballots are stored in such a way and separated from all identifying information, that (it) would be impossible to identify how someone voted.' The email further claims that the recipients should change their voter registration. But a voter's party affiliation doesn't matter for the Nov. 3 general election. Whether a voter is a registered Democrat, Republican or with another party or no affiliation at all, each voter can decide whether to cast a ballot for any presidential candidate. The elections office in Alachua County received dozens of complaints starting on Oct. 20 from Democrats who said they received the email, said elections spokesperson TJ Pyche. Steve Orlando, a spokesperson for the University of Florida, said 183 students, staff or alumni also received the emails. A scam with shadowy origins The Alachua County sheriff's office said on Facebook that the email appears to be a scam. Sgt. Frank Kinsey, a spokesperson for the sheriff, told PolitiFact that the email was sent from [email protected] address. Nothing else in the email mentioned the Proud Boys. Kinsey said that law enforcement will investigate the origin of the email. He pointed to a digital forensics investigation by CBS as an example of what law enforcement will do. CBS wrote that a review of the source code shows the message originated from IP addresses linked to servers located in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Estonia. CBS interviewed Dmitri Alperovitch, the co-founder and former chief technology officer of cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. He told CBS that the IP addresses don't establish that the senders are based in those countries, since the messages could have been routed through the servers from nearly anywhere. The officialproudboys.com internet address was offline Tuesday. CBS reported that domain records show the site's owner initiated a domain transfer to a new web host on Monday. News reports and interviews by PolitiFact show that voters in at least a few other counties in Florida received the email. On Florida's east coast, Brevard County Supervisor of Elections Lori Scott told PolitiFact that a small number of Democratic voters in her county have received emails. 'Although Florida's very open public record laws have prompted the personal information of these voters to be used in this fashion, no one can find out how they voted,' Scott said. 'There isn't anything on a ballot that identifies or links it back to the voter.' A spokesperson for the Collier County Supervisor of Elections, a Republican-leaning county in southwest Florida, told PolitiFact that the office is aware of multiple instances of voter intimidation via email. The Charlotte County Supervisor of Elections, Paul A. Stamoulis, told PolitiFact that the matter was reported to local and federal law enforcement. Fresh Take Florida, a news service operated by the University of Florida, reported that Democrats in nearby Clay County also reported receiving the emails. Fresh Take Florida reported that Enrique Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys, said his group didn't send the emails. 'We don't do mass emails,' Tarrio said. 'This is definitely, definitely not us.' Tarrio told the Washington Post that his group was moving away from the domain name used in the emails. Tarrio told the Post that he had already spoken to the FBI about it. We asked the FBI if the emails had been sent to other states as well and didn't get a response. However, Alaska Public Media reported that the same emails were sent to voters in their state. Alaska is typically not considered competitive in the presidential race, though it is more so this year and the state has a competitive race for U.S. Senate. Gail Fenumiai, elections director for Alaska, told PolitiFact that it was aware of the emails. | Our ruling An email says 'we will know which candidate you voted for.' While information on a Floridian's voter registration, such as their party affiliation and name, is a public record, their actual ballot is private. That means that the authors of the email will not know whether the voters cast ballots for Trump or Biden. We can't say for certain who wrote the emails, which are under investigation. But the statement that the author can find out who the voter cast a ballot for is wrong. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Says 'we will know which candidate you voted for. | Contradiction | Update, Oct. 22: In an evening press briefing on Oct. 21, U.S. intelligence officials announced they believed Iran was behind the email threats that were spoofed to appear from a Proud Boys account. Read more about their announcement and what questions remain in this story. Threatening emails sent to multiple Florida Democrats falsely says that the sender will find out if the voters don't cast ballots for President Donald Trump. Law enforcement officials in Alachua County, a Democratic-leaning county and home to the University of Florida, say the email is 'purported to be from the Proud Boys,' a far-right male-only group with a history of violent confrontations. However, who actually sent the email is under investigation by local and federal law enforcement. While it's not yet clear who sent the emails, what is clear is that it contains false information. The email message states that the writer is in possession of the voter's information including email and address and telephone number. Then it states: 'You are currently registered as a Democrat and we know this because we have gained access to the entire voting infrastructure. You will vote for Trump on election day or we will come after you. Change your party affiliation to Republican to let us know you received our message and will comply. We will know which candidate you voted for. I would take this seriously if I were you.' Your vote is protected A voter's registration information, including their name and address, are typically a public record, said David J. Becker, executive director for the Center for Election Innovation & Research. However, the actual ballot itself showing if the voter chose Trump or Joe Biden or someone else is private, Becker and election officials say. 'Nobody can know who somebody else voted for,' said Gerri Kramer, a spokesperson for the elections office in Tampa's Hillsborough County. 'In no state is the record of how an individual voted on their ballot public,' Becker said. 'In fact, ballots are stored in such a way and separated from all identifying information, that (it) would be impossible to identify how someone voted.' The email further claims that the recipients should change their voter registration. But a voter's party affiliation doesn't matter for the Nov. 3 general election. Whether a voter is a registered Democrat, Republican or with another party or no affiliation at all, each voter can decide whether to cast a ballot for any presidential candidate. The elections office in Alachua County received dozens of complaints starting on Oct. 20 from Democrats who said they received the email, said elections spokesperson TJ Pyche. Steve Orlando, a spokesperson for the University of Florida, said 183 students, staff or alumni also received the emails. A scam with shadowy origins The Alachua County sheriff's office said on Facebook that the email appears to be a scam. Sgt. Frank Kinsey, a spokesperson for the sheriff, told PolitiFact that the email was sent from [email protected] address. Nothing else in the email mentioned the Proud Boys. Kinsey said that law enforcement will investigate the origin of the email. He pointed to a digital forensics investigation by CBS as an example of what law enforcement will do. CBS wrote that a review of the source code shows the message originated from IP addresses linked to servers located in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Estonia. CBS interviewed Dmitri Alperovitch, the co-founder and former chief technology officer of cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. He told CBS that the IP addresses don't establish that the senders are based in those countries, since the messages could have been routed through the servers from nearly anywhere. The officialproudboys.com internet address was offline Tuesday. CBS reported that domain records show the site's owner initiated a domain transfer to a new web host on Monday. News reports and interviews by PolitiFact show that voters in at least a few other counties in Florida received the email. On Florida's east coast, Brevard County Supervisor of Elections Lori Scott told PolitiFact that a small number of Democratic voters in her county have received emails. 'Although Florida's very open public record laws have prompted the personal information of these voters to be used in this fashion, no one can find out how they voted,' Scott said. 'There isn't anything on a ballot that identifies or links it back to the voter.' A spokesperson for the Collier County Supervisor of Elections, a Republican-leaning county in southwest Florida, told PolitiFact that the office is aware of multiple instances of voter intimidation via email. The Charlotte County Supervisor of Elections, Paul A. Stamoulis, told PolitiFact that the matter was reported to local and federal law enforcement. Fresh Take Florida, a news service operated by the University of Florida, reported that Democrats in nearby Clay County also reported receiving the emails. Fresh Take Florida reported that Enrique Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys, said his group didn't send the emails. 'We don't do mass emails,' Tarrio said. 'This is definitely, definitely not us.' Tarrio told the Washington Post that his group was moving away from the domain name used in the emails. Tarrio told the Post that he had already spoken to the FBI about it. We asked the FBI if the emails had been sent to other states as well and didn't get a response. However, Alaska Public Media reported that the same emails were sent to voters in their state. Alaska is typically not considered competitive in the presidential race, though it is more so this year and the state has a competitive race for U.S. Senate. Gail Fenumiai, elections director for Alaska, told PolitiFact that it was aware of the emails. | Our ruling An email says 'we will know which candidate you voted for.' While information on a Floridian's voter registration, such as their party affiliation and name, is a public record, their actual ballot is private. That means that the authors of the email will not know whether the voters cast ballots for Trump or Biden. We can't say for certain who wrote the emails, which are under investigation. But the statement that the author can find out who the voter cast a ballot for is wrong. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Says 'we will know which candidate you voted for. | Contradiction | Update, Oct. 22: In an evening press briefing on Oct. 21, U.S. intelligence officials announced they believed Iran was behind the email threats that were spoofed to appear from a Proud Boys account. Read more about their announcement and what questions remain in this story. Threatening emails sent to multiple Florida Democrats falsely says that the sender will find out if the voters don't cast ballots for President Donald Trump. Law enforcement officials in Alachua County, a Democratic-leaning county and home to the University of Florida, say the email is 'purported to be from the Proud Boys,' a far-right male-only group with a history of violent confrontations. However, who actually sent the email is under investigation by local and federal law enforcement. While it's not yet clear who sent the emails, what is clear is that it contains false information. The email message states that the writer is in possession of the voter's information including email and address and telephone number. Then it states: 'You are currently registered as a Democrat and we know this because we have gained access to the entire voting infrastructure. You will vote for Trump on election day or we will come after you. Change your party affiliation to Republican to let us know you received our message and will comply. We will know which candidate you voted for. I would take this seriously if I were you.' Your vote is protected A voter's registration information, including their name and address, are typically a public record, said David J. Becker, executive director for the Center for Election Innovation & Research. However, the actual ballot itself showing if the voter chose Trump or Joe Biden or someone else is private, Becker and election officials say. 'Nobody can know who somebody else voted for,' said Gerri Kramer, a spokesperson for the elections office in Tampa's Hillsborough County. 'In no state is the record of how an individual voted on their ballot public,' Becker said. 'In fact, ballots are stored in such a way and separated from all identifying information, that (it) would be impossible to identify how someone voted.' The email further claims that the recipients should change their voter registration. But a voter's party affiliation doesn't matter for the Nov. 3 general election. Whether a voter is a registered Democrat, Republican or with another party or no affiliation at all, each voter can decide whether to cast a ballot for any presidential candidate. The elections office in Alachua County received dozens of complaints starting on Oct. 20 from Democrats who said they received the email, said elections spokesperson TJ Pyche. Steve Orlando, a spokesperson for the University of Florida, said 183 students, staff or alumni also received the emails. A scam with shadowy origins The Alachua County sheriff's office said on Facebook that the email appears to be a scam. Sgt. Frank Kinsey, a spokesperson for the sheriff, told PolitiFact that the email was sent from [email protected] address. Nothing else in the email mentioned the Proud Boys. Kinsey said that law enforcement will investigate the origin of the email. He pointed to a digital forensics investigation by CBS as an example of what law enforcement will do. CBS wrote that a review of the source code shows the message originated from IP addresses linked to servers located in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Estonia. CBS interviewed Dmitri Alperovitch, the co-founder and former chief technology officer of cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. He told CBS that the IP addresses don't establish that the senders are based in those countries, since the messages could have been routed through the servers from nearly anywhere. The officialproudboys.com internet address was offline Tuesday. CBS reported that domain records show the site's owner initiated a domain transfer to a new web host on Monday. News reports and interviews by PolitiFact show that voters in at least a few other counties in Florida received the email. On Florida's east coast, Brevard County Supervisor of Elections Lori Scott told PolitiFact that a small number of Democratic voters in her county have received emails. 'Although Florida's very open public record laws have prompted the personal information of these voters to be used in this fashion, no one can find out how they voted,' Scott said. 'There isn't anything on a ballot that identifies or links it back to the voter.' A spokesperson for the Collier County Supervisor of Elections, a Republican-leaning county in southwest Florida, told PolitiFact that the office is aware of multiple instances of voter intimidation via email. The Charlotte County Supervisor of Elections, Paul A. Stamoulis, told PolitiFact that the matter was reported to local and federal law enforcement. Fresh Take Florida, a news service operated by the University of Florida, reported that Democrats in nearby Clay County also reported receiving the emails. Fresh Take Florida reported that Enrique Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys, said his group didn't send the emails. 'We don't do mass emails,' Tarrio said. 'This is definitely, definitely not us.' Tarrio told the Washington Post that his group was moving away from the domain name used in the emails. Tarrio told the Post that he had already spoken to the FBI about it. We asked the FBI if the emails had been sent to other states as well and didn't get a response. However, Alaska Public Media reported that the same emails were sent to voters in their state. Alaska is typically not considered competitive in the presidential race, though it is more so this year and the state has a competitive race for U.S. Senate. Gail Fenumiai, elections director for Alaska, told PolitiFact that it was aware of the emails. | Our ruling An email says 'we will know which candidate you voted for.' While information on a Floridian's voter registration, such as their party affiliation and name, is a public record, their actual ballot is private. That means that the authors of the email will not know whether the voters cast ballots for Trump or Biden. We can't say for certain who wrote the emails, which are under investigation. But the statement that the author can find out who the voter cast a ballot for is wrong. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
The premier of Australia's Victoria state 'is freezing people's bank accts' if they are not vaccinated. 'They can't buy or sell until forced into submission. | Contradiction | The leader of Victoria, a small state in southern Australia, has been criticized for imposing strict COVID-19 regulations, including mask mandates and vaccination requirements for indoor weddings, funerals, hair salons and restaurants. But a claim about Premier Daniel Andrews applying financial penalties to pressure people to get vaccinated isn't true. 'Australia PM of Victoria is freezing people's bank accts who haven't had the V, they can't buy or sell until forced into submission,' an Oct. 31 Facebook post reads. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We found no evidence to support the claim that Andrews is freezing the bank accounts of unvaccinated people to pressure them to get vaccinated. A search for news clips turned up only similar unsubstantiated claims shared on sites like Reddit and Twitter. Government websites don't mention any such action or proposal. Andrews' office did not respond to PolitiFact's request for comment. Andrews has been described as responsible for imposing 'some of the most stringent pandemic-control measures on Earth.' When COVID cases surged in Victoria in July 2020, Andrews sent the capital, Melbourne, into one of the world's longest lockdowns. Although there were a range of restrictions in a four-stage system, some of the restrictions in Victoria included: The state has said it would relax the rules as more people got vaccinated. On Oct. 29, Victoria reached a vaccination milestone: 80% of its residents aged 16 and older were fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The achievement meant some restrictions were relaxed, and businesses such as gyms, retailers and entertainment venues could reopen to fully vaccinated customers. The state is still working to achieve a 90% vaccination rate for anyone ages 12 or older. Misinformation about Andrews' plans for unvaccinated Victorians has been fact-checked in the past. For example, ABC Fact Check debunked the claim that Andrews planned to 'strip Medicare coverage' from the unvaccinated. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that the premier of Victoria, Australia, is freezing the bank accounts of unvaccinated people to pressure them to get vaccinated against COVID-19. We found no evidence to support this claim. We rate this post False. | []
|
The premier of Australia's Victoria state 'is freezing people's bank accts' if they are not vaccinated. 'They can't buy or sell until forced into submission. | Contradiction | The leader of Victoria, a small state in southern Australia, has been criticized for imposing strict COVID-19 regulations, including mask mandates and vaccination requirements for indoor weddings, funerals, hair salons and restaurants. But a claim about Premier Daniel Andrews applying financial penalties to pressure people to get vaccinated isn't true. 'Australia PM of Victoria is freezing people's bank accts who haven't had the V, they can't buy or sell until forced into submission,' an Oct. 31 Facebook post reads. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We found no evidence to support the claim that Andrews is freezing the bank accounts of unvaccinated people to pressure them to get vaccinated. A search for news clips turned up only similar unsubstantiated claims shared on sites like Reddit and Twitter. Government websites don't mention any such action or proposal. Andrews' office did not respond to PolitiFact's request for comment. Andrews has been described as responsible for imposing 'some of the most stringent pandemic-control measures on Earth.' When COVID cases surged in Victoria in July 2020, Andrews sent the capital, Melbourne, into one of the world's longest lockdowns. Although there were a range of restrictions in a four-stage system, some of the restrictions in Victoria included: The state has said it would relax the rules as more people got vaccinated. On Oct. 29, Victoria reached a vaccination milestone: 80% of its residents aged 16 and older were fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The achievement meant some restrictions were relaxed, and businesses such as gyms, retailers and entertainment venues could reopen to fully vaccinated customers. The state is still working to achieve a 90% vaccination rate for anyone ages 12 or older. Misinformation about Andrews' plans for unvaccinated Victorians has been fact-checked in the past. For example, ABC Fact Check debunked the claim that Andrews planned to 'strip Medicare coverage' from the unvaccinated. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that the premier of Victoria, Australia, is freezing the bank accounts of unvaccinated people to pressure them to get vaccinated against COVID-19. We found no evidence to support this claim. We rate this post False. | []
|
Funeral directors say 'no one is dying from COVID' and 'the only ones dying are from the vaccine. | Contradiction | A recent Instagram post claims, without evidence, that funeral directors have spoken out and said that the only people they see dying are those who got the COVID-19 vaccine. 'Funeral Homes are saying the only ones dying are those taking the vaccine,' reads the image shared by an account that embraces conspiracy theories. 'They did not see a rise in deaths or funerals until January through March of this year when the shot was rolled out.' The Instagram post claims to be informed by 10 funeral directors, who also said 'hospitals are virtually empty' and 'no one is dying of covid.' The post includes the text of an article published by Beforeitsnews.com, a website where anyone can post an article. 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, which owns Instagram.) In an email to PolitiFact, a spokesperson from the National Funeral Directors Association said she was unaware of any funeral directors making this claim. The Instagram post is misleading in many ways. People die for many reasons, even if they have been vaccinated against COVID-19. But it's rare for people who have been vaccinated to die of COVID-19. 'Considering that more than 85% of the population aged 65+ have received at least one dose of the vaccine, it is no surprise that most of the people that funeral directors are seeing have been vaccinated,' said CDC spokesperson Jeff Lancashire in an email to PolitiFact. 'The vaccine only protects against COVID-19 and does not prevent people from dying of other causes.' CDC data shows that COVID-19 deaths have fallen substantially since large-scale vaccination efforts began at the start of this year. Infection after vaccination, called breakthrough infection, does occur. But these cases are infrequent, and rarely result in death. The Associated Press reported that unvaccinated people account for nearly all U.S. COVID-19 deaths. Using data it obtained from the CDC, the AP found that people who were fully vaccinated accounted for 150 out of 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May, or 0.8%. (A few states aren't gathering or reporting breakthrough infection data to the CDC.) Publicly available CDC data, which runs through April 30, shows that out of the 101 million people fully vaccinated, roughly 10,262 became infected, putting the breakthrough infection rate at 0.01%; 160 of the patients died, accounting for about 2% of the breakthrough cases, or 0.00016% of the vaccinated population. So the post's claim that COVID-19 deaths are occurring largely among vaccinated people is false. The claim that deaths rose between January and March because of vaccination efforts is also untrue. According to the CDC, deaths from COVID-19 peaked at 25,737 during the week of Jan. 9, and they have been decreasing ever since. We've fact-checked several claims about the vaccines themselves causing deaths and found them to be unsupported. These claims typically cite numbers from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, a federal database that collects reports of adverse events, including deaths, that occur after vaccination. But the government agencies that run the database caution that the reports are unverified and can't be used on their own to determine whether a vaccine caused an adverse event. Through June 21, with more than 318 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered, VAERS had received 5,479 reports of deaths, the CDC said. 'A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines,' the CDC said. 'However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event - blood clots with low platelets - which has caused deaths.' As of June 21, the CDC said, 12 million doses of the single-shot J&J vaccine had been administered, and the CDC and FDA had identified 36 confirmed reports of people who developed TTS after receiving the shot. COVID-19 has killed more than 601,000 people in the U.S., according to the CDC. Survey results show that for the most part, funeral directors support vaccination. Jessica Koth, spokesperson for the National Funeral Directors Association, shared a portion of a member survey conducted by the association that showed 83% of almost 500 funeral directors were willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine. | Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that funeral directors have said 'the only ones dying are from the vaccine.' An official from the National Funeral Directors Association had not heard anyone make this claim. The claim emerged from a website where anyone can post articles. CDC data shows that deaths from COVID-19 are occurring predominantly among unvaccinated people, and have fallen dramatically since mass vaccination efforts began earlier this year. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Funeral directors say 'no one is dying from COVID' and 'the only ones dying are from the vaccine. | Contradiction | A recent Instagram post claims, without evidence, that funeral directors have spoken out and said that the only people they see dying are those who got the COVID-19 vaccine. 'Funeral Homes are saying the only ones dying are those taking the vaccine,' reads the image shared by an account that embraces conspiracy theories. 'They did not see a rise in deaths or funerals until January through March of this year when the shot was rolled out.' The Instagram post claims to be informed by 10 funeral directors, who also said 'hospitals are virtually empty' and 'no one is dying of covid.' The post includes the text of an article published by Beforeitsnews.com, a website where anyone can post an article. 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, which owns Instagram.) In an email to PolitiFact, a spokesperson from the National Funeral Directors Association said she was unaware of any funeral directors making this claim. The Instagram post is misleading in many ways. People die for many reasons, even if they have been vaccinated against COVID-19. But it's rare for people who have been vaccinated to die of COVID-19. 'Considering that more than 85% of the population aged 65+ have received at least one dose of the vaccine, it is no surprise that most of the people that funeral directors are seeing have been vaccinated,' said CDC spokesperson Jeff Lancashire in an email to PolitiFact. 'The vaccine only protects against COVID-19 and does not prevent people from dying of other causes.' CDC data shows that COVID-19 deaths have fallen substantially since large-scale vaccination efforts began at the start of this year. Infection after vaccination, called breakthrough infection, does occur. But these cases are infrequent, and rarely result in death. The Associated Press reported that unvaccinated people account for nearly all U.S. COVID-19 deaths. Using data it obtained from the CDC, the AP found that people who were fully vaccinated accounted for 150 out of 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May, or 0.8%. (A few states aren't gathering or reporting breakthrough infection data to the CDC.) Publicly available CDC data, which runs through April 30, shows that out of the 101 million people fully vaccinated, roughly 10,262 became infected, putting the breakthrough infection rate at 0.01%; 160 of the patients died, accounting for about 2% of the breakthrough cases, or 0.00016% of the vaccinated population. So the post's claim that COVID-19 deaths are occurring largely among vaccinated people is false. The claim that deaths rose between January and March because of vaccination efforts is also untrue. According to the CDC, deaths from COVID-19 peaked at 25,737 during the week of Jan. 9, and they have been decreasing ever since. We've fact-checked several claims about the vaccines themselves causing deaths and found them to be unsupported. These claims typically cite numbers from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, a federal database that collects reports of adverse events, including deaths, that occur after vaccination. But the government agencies that run the database caution that the reports are unverified and can't be used on their own to determine whether a vaccine caused an adverse event. Through June 21, with more than 318 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered, VAERS had received 5,479 reports of deaths, the CDC said. 'A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines,' the CDC said. 'However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event - blood clots with low platelets - which has caused deaths.' As of June 21, the CDC said, 12 million doses of the single-shot J&J vaccine had been administered, and the CDC and FDA had identified 36 confirmed reports of people who developed TTS after receiving the shot. COVID-19 has killed more than 601,000 people in the U.S., according to the CDC. Survey results show that for the most part, funeral directors support vaccination. Jessica Koth, spokesperson for the National Funeral Directors Association, shared a portion of a member survey conducted by the association that showed 83% of almost 500 funeral directors were willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine. | Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that funeral directors have said 'the only ones dying are from the vaccine.' An official from the National Funeral Directors Association had not heard anyone make this claim. The claim emerged from a website where anyone can post articles. CDC data shows that deaths from COVID-19 are occurring predominantly among unvaccinated people, and have fallen dramatically since mass vaccination efforts began earlier this year. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Says the new coronavirus vaccines contain toxic ingredients and are more dangerous than getting COVID-19. | Contradiction | A lengthy and popular Facebook post attributed to an alternative medical doctor makes several misleading claims about the new coronavirus vaccines. Among them: that the new mRNA vaccines can alter human DNA (that's Pants on Fire); that we don't need a vaccine because we've reached significant herd immunity (we haven't); and that anyone who has had COVID-19 would not benefit from the vaccine (not true). The post also erroneously claims that the vaccine contains toxic ingredients like aluminum, mercury 'and possibly formaldehyde,' and then concludes that, ultimately, receiving the shot is more harmful than contracting the disease itself. 'Here's my bottom line: I would much rather get a COVID infection than get a COVID vaccine,' reads the post, which accompanies an image of a man wearing a white physician's coat. 'That would be safer and more effective.' Two problems: The list of ingredients cited in the post appears to be pulled from thin air. And a mountain of evidence shows that getting infected with the virus is far more dangerous than the vaccines. The vaccines have been studied for months and have been proven to be safe and effective in tens of thousands of people. COVID-19, by contrast, has killed over 1.6 million people around the world. 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.) When the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine received emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 11, its ingredient list was published online in a fact sheet for recipients and caregivers. The list includes mRNA, lipids, salts, sugar and saline solution. None of the supposedly toxic ingredients listed in the Facebook post appears in the list. The mRNA used in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines represent a new vaccine technology, but the research behind it has been underway for some time. 'It's not a novel strategy,' said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 'This particular notion of using messenger RNA in a vaccine has been around for 20 years. This is just the first product to get above the water to become a commercial project.' Traditional vaccines introduce an inactivated or weakened version of a virus for the body to fight against. By contrast, Pfizer and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines use messenger RNA, which is a fragment of the virus' genetic material. It works by giving the body instructions to produce copies of the protein present on the surface of the coronavirus, without causing sickness from the disease. The immune system then learns to recognize the protein and produce antibodies against it. Other ingredients of the vaccines As for the rest of the ingredients, the lipids are nanoparticles used to encase the RNA, the salts help keep the pH, or acidity, of the vaccine close to that of a person's body; and the sugar safeguards the nanoparticles when they're frozen and stops them from sticking together, according to MIT's Technology Review, which spoke with experts to help decode the contents. Before injection, the vaccine is mixed with the saline solution, just as many intravenously delivered medicines are, the report said. Moderna also released a similar list of ingredients through the FDA, with a slight difference that may explain the different storage needs for each. The Pfizer vaccine needs to be kept at minus 70 degrees Celsius, while the Moderna vaccine can be shipped at minus 20 degrees Celsius and can be stored in a refrigerator for up to 30 days after that. K. 'Vish' Viswanath, a professor of health communication at Harvard's School of Public Health, told PolitiFact that the post uses common anti-vaccine tactics, such as using what he calls 'scientistic' language, as he calls it, and claiming it comes from someone credible. 'This kind of tactic to list ingredients that may or may not be there is not new. Anti-vaccine groups have always used a list of ingredients even after ingredients have been eliminated from vaccines,' Viswanath said. 'They misinterpret and distort scientific data to advance their agenda.' Some people who get vaccinated may develop mild or moderate symptoms as their immune system responds, including headache, soreness or fever, but these side effects are short-lived and not considered serious or life-threatening. Some skeptics of the vaccine have pointed to the high survival rates for some groups of people who contract COVID-19. But the vaccine isn't intended just to prevent deaths, health experts note. It's also about preventing the spread of the virus and infections that could lead to significant long-term health issues. Rigorous safety review While the vaccines were developed in record time, they went through rigorous review processes before they were deemed suitable for public use. For example, the vaccine developed by Pfizer-BioNTech has been studied in clinical trials involving about 44,000 people, with half receiving the vaccine, and the other half receiving a placebo. To receive emergency use authorization from the FDA, the manufacturers had to follow at least half of the participants for at least two months after their vaccinations, and the vaccine had to be proven safe and effective in that population. An FDA analysis of that vaccine's data found 'no specific safety concerns' that would rule out using it for people aged 16 and older. For Moderna, 30,000 participants have been studied in its trial, with half receiving the vaccine and half receiving a placebo. An interim review of the data found that the vaccine was safe and well-tolerated, with an efficacy rate of 94.5%. Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University, called the post irresponsible. 'Where is the data? How can they claim that the vaccines are contaminated with these agents?' Iwasaki wrote in an email. 'Getting the vaccine is absolutely not more dangerous than contracting the disease. 'The safety of both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines have been rigorously tested with no serious concerns. COVID-19 has (a) case fatality rate of 2.3%. Vaccine, zero.' Addressing some of the post's other claims The U.S. has not reached herd immunity that would significantly hinder the spread of the disease, as the post suggests. In a recent interview with NPR, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, predicted the country could begin to achieve early stages of herd immunity by late spring or summer if people get vaccinated. 'I would say 50% would have to get vaccinated before you start to see an impact,' Fauci told the outlet. 'But I would say 75% to 85% would have to get vaccinated if you want to have that blanket of herd immunity.' People not needing to get vaccinated because they already had COVID-19, also doesn't wash. There isn't enough information yet to say if or for how long someone is protected after they recover from the disease. Some early evidence suggests that natural immunity may not last very long, but more studies are still needed. The vaccine is expected to provide stronger and likely longer-lasting immunity. In its recently released vaccine recommendations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that vaccination should be offered regardless of whether a person has had a prior infection. | Our ruling A Facebook post that makes several unsubstantiated claims about the new coronavirus vaccines says the shots contain toxic ingredients and are more dangerous than getting COVID-19. This is bogus. The ingredient lists for the vaccines do not include any of the 'toxic' contents listed in the post, and the leading vaccines - which have been tested for several months in thousands of people - are not more dangerous than the virus, which has killed over 300,000 Americans and more than 1.6 million people worldwide. Pants on Fire. | []
|
Says the new coronavirus vaccines contain toxic ingredients and are more dangerous than getting COVID-19. | Contradiction | A lengthy and popular Facebook post attributed to an alternative medical doctor makes several misleading claims about the new coronavirus vaccines. Among them: that the new mRNA vaccines can alter human DNA (that's Pants on Fire); that we don't need a vaccine because we've reached significant herd immunity (we haven't); and that anyone who has had COVID-19 would not benefit from the vaccine (not true). The post also erroneously claims that the vaccine contains toxic ingredients like aluminum, mercury 'and possibly formaldehyde,' and then concludes that, ultimately, receiving the shot is more harmful than contracting the disease itself. 'Here's my bottom line: I would much rather get a COVID infection than get a COVID vaccine,' reads the post, which accompanies an image of a man wearing a white physician's coat. 'That would be safer and more effective.' Two problems: The list of ingredients cited in the post appears to be pulled from thin air. And a mountain of evidence shows that getting infected with the virus is far more dangerous than the vaccines. The vaccines have been studied for months and have been proven to be safe and effective in tens of thousands of people. COVID-19, by contrast, has killed over 1.6 million people around the world. 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.) When the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine received emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 11, its ingredient list was published online in a fact sheet for recipients and caregivers. The list includes mRNA, lipids, salts, sugar and saline solution. None of the supposedly toxic ingredients listed in the Facebook post appears in the list. The mRNA used in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines represent a new vaccine technology, but the research behind it has been underway for some time. 'It's not a novel strategy,' said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 'This particular notion of using messenger RNA in a vaccine has been around for 20 years. This is just the first product to get above the water to become a commercial project.' Traditional vaccines introduce an inactivated or weakened version of a virus for the body to fight against. By contrast, Pfizer and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines use messenger RNA, which is a fragment of the virus' genetic material. It works by giving the body instructions to produce copies of the protein present on the surface of the coronavirus, without causing sickness from the disease. The immune system then learns to recognize the protein and produce antibodies against it. Other ingredients of the vaccines As for the rest of the ingredients, the lipids are nanoparticles used to encase the RNA, the salts help keep the pH, or acidity, of the vaccine close to that of a person's body; and the sugar safeguards the nanoparticles when they're frozen and stops them from sticking together, according to MIT's Technology Review, which spoke with experts to help decode the contents. Before injection, the vaccine is mixed with the saline solution, just as many intravenously delivered medicines are, the report said. Moderna also released a similar list of ingredients through the FDA, with a slight difference that may explain the different storage needs for each. The Pfizer vaccine needs to be kept at minus 70 degrees Celsius, while the Moderna vaccine can be shipped at minus 20 degrees Celsius and can be stored in a refrigerator for up to 30 days after that. K. 'Vish' Viswanath, a professor of health communication at Harvard's School of Public Health, told PolitiFact that the post uses common anti-vaccine tactics, such as using what he calls 'scientistic' language, as he calls it, and claiming it comes from someone credible. 'This kind of tactic to list ingredients that may or may not be there is not new. Anti-vaccine groups have always used a list of ingredients even after ingredients have been eliminated from vaccines,' Viswanath said. 'They misinterpret and distort scientific data to advance their agenda.' Some people who get vaccinated may develop mild or moderate symptoms as their immune system responds, including headache, soreness or fever, but these side effects are short-lived and not considered serious or life-threatening. Some skeptics of the vaccine have pointed to the high survival rates for some groups of people who contract COVID-19. But the vaccine isn't intended just to prevent deaths, health experts note. It's also about preventing the spread of the virus and infections that could lead to significant long-term health issues. Rigorous safety review While the vaccines were developed in record time, they went through rigorous review processes before they were deemed suitable for public use. For example, the vaccine developed by Pfizer-BioNTech has been studied in clinical trials involving about 44,000 people, with half receiving the vaccine, and the other half receiving a placebo. To receive emergency use authorization from the FDA, the manufacturers had to follow at least half of the participants for at least two months after their vaccinations, and the vaccine had to be proven safe and effective in that population. An FDA analysis of that vaccine's data found 'no specific safety concerns' that would rule out using it for people aged 16 and older. For Moderna, 30,000 participants have been studied in its trial, with half receiving the vaccine and half receiving a placebo. An interim review of the data found that the vaccine was safe and well-tolerated, with an efficacy rate of 94.5%. Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University, called the post irresponsible. 'Where is the data? How can they claim that the vaccines are contaminated with these agents?' Iwasaki wrote in an email. 'Getting the vaccine is absolutely not more dangerous than contracting the disease. 'The safety of both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines have been rigorously tested with no serious concerns. COVID-19 has (a) case fatality rate of 2.3%. Vaccine, zero.' Addressing some of the post's other claims The U.S. has not reached herd immunity that would significantly hinder the spread of the disease, as the post suggests. In a recent interview with NPR, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, predicted the country could begin to achieve early stages of herd immunity by late spring or summer if people get vaccinated. 'I would say 50% would have to get vaccinated before you start to see an impact,' Fauci told the outlet. 'But I would say 75% to 85% would have to get vaccinated if you want to have that blanket of herd immunity.' People not needing to get vaccinated because they already had COVID-19, also doesn't wash. There isn't enough information yet to say if or for how long someone is protected after they recover from the disease. Some early evidence suggests that natural immunity may not last very long, but more studies are still needed. The vaccine is expected to provide stronger and likely longer-lasting immunity. In its recently released vaccine recommendations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that vaccination should be offered regardless of whether a person has had a prior infection. | Our ruling A Facebook post that makes several unsubstantiated claims about the new coronavirus vaccines says the shots contain toxic ingredients and are more dangerous than getting COVID-19. This is bogus. The ingredient lists for the vaccines do not include any of the 'toxic' contents listed in the post, and the leading vaccines - which have been tested for several months in thousands of people - are not more dangerous than the virus, which has killed over 300,000 Americans and more than 1.6 million people worldwide. Pants on Fire. | []
|
The Biden Department of Justice 'would use the FBI to target parents who speak out against critical race theory. | Contradiction | School boards have increasingly found themselves at the center of controversy as national debates on pandemic protocols and teaching about the harms of systemic racism trickle down to the local level. In particular, critical race theory - a decades-old academic concept that argues racism is embedded into American systems and institutions, creating disadvantages for people of color - is in the spotlight. It's a topic typically addressed at the college level, since it focuses on how laws are interpreted. Educational experts say the phrase is being used much more broadly in the current debate as a catch-all for any teaching about race, equity, diversity and history. But is the FBI targeting conservative parents who speak out against CRT? That was the claim from Rebecca Kleefisch, the former lieutenant governor aiming to be Wisconsin's Republican gubernatorial nominee in 2022, in an Oct. 23 , 2021 campaign email: 'It's truly despicable that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' Department of 'Justice' would use the FBI to target parents who speak out against critical race theory,' she wrote. But parents who are simply speaking out aren't who the bureau seeks to hold accountable. Let's take a closer look. The background The debates over CRT and masking have caught fire as much in Wisconsin as anywhere else. The state has logged more recall attempts of school board members than any state in the nation besides California. But in some places, protests have morphed into more dangerous situations. The National School Boards Association said in a Sept. 29 letter to President Joe Biden that school board members and school officials needed protection against threats and acts of violence that have cropped up amid arguments about critical race theory and mask mandates. They cited a variety of incidents, including a northern Virginia school board meeting where board members received death threats and a person was injured during the meeting's chaotic public comment section. Meanwhile, an Illinois man who was arrested after striking a school official during a school board meeting there. Soon after the letter was sent, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the FBI to help tamp down criminal conduct directed at school district personnel. An Oct. 4 memo from the Department of Justice states that the department will form a task force to examine how federal enforcement tools could be used to prosecute such crimes and how to assist local law enforcement if violent threats didn't constitute federal crimes. The department also plans to create specialized training for school district administrators to recognize threats and report them, the memo says. Conservative politicians and commentators, including Kleefisch, seized on the directive as what they viewed as an infringement of parents' free speech at school board meetings. FBI will look for criminal conduct, not overall parent protests When asked about Kleefisch's claim, campaign manager Charles Nichols sent the letter from the school boards association and the Justice Department's memo. 'When they talk of prosecuting individuals, they are referring to the parents who are protesting school boards - protests that, according to the NASB's letter, were occurring because of anger over critical race theory,' Nichols wrote. 'Obviously real criminal conduct and violence is never OK, but referring to parent protests at board meetings as 'criminal conduct' is more than just over the top, it's insulting and wrong.' But the directive doesn't say to specifically look for parents who are talking about critical race theory, nor was that the only root of the threats mentioned in the association's letter. And nowhere has Garland or the FBI equated general protests with individuals who have made violent threats. In his original memo to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, Garland wrote that 'spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution,' but 'that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.' The actions of parents who show up to simply speak out against critical race theory, then, as Kleefisch mentioned, would seem to fall into the area of spirited debate, which is of course protected by the First Amendment. Parents who make threats of violence at meetings or elsewhere, however, would not be protected. In October, PolitiFact National rated False a claim by U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., after he similarly argued that Garland wanted the FBI to target parents who speak out 'to protect kids from radical curriculum like critical race theory.' One law professor interviewed for the story did say there was a risk Garland's effort to weed out harassment and intimidation could be applied too broadly. Three others noted Garland specifically mentioned that spirited debate is protected and found nothing in the memo that signals he'll seek overly broad enforcement. 'If the Justice Department tried to stretch intimidation to cover any hostile speech, they should lose, and almost certainly would lose' in a court of law, law professor Douglas Laycock at the University of Virginia School of Law told PolitiFact National. Laycock voiced no opinion on Garland's memo itself. In response to our request, Nichols also sent a second letter from the school boards association to its members, apologizing for its initial letter and voicing regret for 'some of the language' included in that letter - though it did not say to which language it was referring. That apology reignited the issue among national Republican lawmakers, who viewed it as a retraction and questioned Garland about it Oct. 27, 2021. But the association did not retract its request for federal assistance in the face of threats, and the apology letter doesn't affect the scope of what Garland told the FBI to look for. | Our ruling In a campaign email, Kleefisch claimed the Justice Department told the FBI to target parents who speak out against critical race theory. But the memo outlining what would take place indicated the bureau will aim to curb violent threats and criminal conduct, not anyone who publicly criticizes critical race theory. What's more, the initial letter from the school boards association didn't seek federal help only to protect against threats from critical race theory critics. The group sought protection for any threats, no matter what prompted them. We rate this claim False. | [
"103780-proof-11-66ecc351074dbe416e0ec75be37c71d7.jpg"
]
|
The Biden Department of Justice 'would use the FBI to target parents who speak out against critical race theory. | Contradiction | School boards have increasingly found themselves at the center of controversy as national debates on pandemic protocols and teaching about the harms of systemic racism trickle down to the local level. In particular, critical race theory - a decades-old academic concept that argues racism is embedded into American systems and institutions, creating disadvantages for people of color - is in the spotlight. It's a topic typically addressed at the college level, since it focuses on how laws are interpreted. Educational experts say the phrase is being used much more broadly in the current debate as a catch-all for any teaching about race, equity, diversity and history. But is the FBI targeting conservative parents who speak out against CRT? That was the claim from Rebecca Kleefisch, the former lieutenant governor aiming to be Wisconsin's Republican gubernatorial nominee in 2022, in an Oct. 23 , 2021 campaign email: 'It's truly despicable that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' Department of 'Justice' would use the FBI to target parents who speak out against critical race theory,' she wrote. But parents who are simply speaking out aren't who the bureau seeks to hold accountable. Let's take a closer look. The background The debates over CRT and masking have caught fire as much in Wisconsin as anywhere else. The state has logged more recall attempts of school board members than any state in the nation besides California. But in some places, protests have morphed into more dangerous situations. The National School Boards Association said in a Sept. 29 letter to President Joe Biden that school board members and school officials needed protection against threats and acts of violence that have cropped up amid arguments about critical race theory and mask mandates. They cited a variety of incidents, including a northern Virginia school board meeting where board members received death threats and a person was injured during the meeting's chaotic public comment section. Meanwhile, an Illinois man who was arrested after striking a school official during a school board meeting there. Soon after the letter was sent, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the FBI to help tamp down criminal conduct directed at school district personnel. An Oct. 4 memo from the Department of Justice states that the department will form a task force to examine how federal enforcement tools could be used to prosecute such crimes and how to assist local law enforcement if violent threats didn't constitute federal crimes. The department also plans to create specialized training for school district administrators to recognize threats and report them, the memo says. Conservative politicians and commentators, including Kleefisch, seized on the directive as what they viewed as an infringement of parents' free speech at school board meetings. FBI will look for criminal conduct, not overall parent protests When asked about Kleefisch's claim, campaign manager Charles Nichols sent the letter from the school boards association and the Justice Department's memo. 'When they talk of prosecuting individuals, they are referring to the parents who are protesting school boards - protests that, according to the NASB's letter, were occurring because of anger over critical race theory,' Nichols wrote. 'Obviously real criminal conduct and violence is never OK, but referring to parent protests at board meetings as 'criminal conduct' is more than just over the top, it's insulting and wrong.' But the directive doesn't say to specifically look for parents who are talking about critical race theory, nor was that the only root of the threats mentioned in the association's letter. And nowhere has Garland or the FBI equated general protests with individuals who have made violent threats. In his original memo to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, Garland wrote that 'spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution,' but 'that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.' The actions of parents who show up to simply speak out against critical race theory, then, as Kleefisch mentioned, would seem to fall into the area of spirited debate, which is of course protected by the First Amendment. Parents who make threats of violence at meetings or elsewhere, however, would not be protected. In October, PolitiFact National rated False a claim by U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., after he similarly argued that Garland wanted the FBI to target parents who speak out 'to protect kids from radical curriculum like critical race theory.' One law professor interviewed for the story did say there was a risk Garland's effort to weed out harassment and intimidation could be applied too broadly. Three others noted Garland specifically mentioned that spirited debate is protected and found nothing in the memo that signals he'll seek overly broad enforcement. 'If the Justice Department tried to stretch intimidation to cover any hostile speech, they should lose, and almost certainly would lose' in a court of law, law professor Douglas Laycock at the University of Virginia School of Law told PolitiFact National. Laycock voiced no opinion on Garland's memo itself. In response to our request, Nichols also sent a second letter from the school boards association to its members, apologizing for its initial letter and voicing regret for 'some of the language' included in that letter - though it did not say to which language it was referring. That apology reignited the issue among national Republican lawmakers, who viewed it as a retraction and questioned Garland about it Oct. 27, 2021. But the association did not retract its request for federal assistance in the face of threats, and the apology letter doesn't affect the scope of what Garland told the FBI to look for. | Our ruling In a campaign email, Kleefisch claimed the Justice Department told the FBI to target parents who speak out against critical race theory. But the memo outlining what would take place indicated the bureau will aim to curb violent threats and criminal conduct, not anyone who publicly criticizes critical race theory. What's more, the initial letter from the school boards association didn't seek federal help only to protect against threats from critical race theory critics. The group sought protection for any threats, no matter what prompted them. We rate this claim False. | [
"103780-proof-11-66ecc351074dbe416e0ec75be37c71d7.jpg"
]
|
The Biden Department of Justice 'would use the FBI to target parents who speak out against critical race theory. | Contradiction | School boards have increasingly found themselves at the center of controversy as national debates on pandemic protocols and teaching about the harms of systemic racism trickle down to the local level. In particular, critical race theory - a decades-old academic concept that argues racism is embedded into American systems and institutions, creating disadvantages for people of color - is in the spotlight. It's a topic typically addressed at the college level, since it focuses on how laws are interpreted. Educational experts say the phrase is being used much more broadly in the current debate as a catch-all for any teaching about race, equity, diversity and history. But is the FBI targeting conservative parents who speak out against CRT? That was the claim from Rebecca Kleefisch, the former lieutenant governor aiming to be Wisconsin's Republican gubernatorial nominee in 2022, in an Oct. 23 , 2021 campaign email: 'It's truly despicable that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' Department of 'Justice' would use the FBI to target parents who speak out against critical race theory,' she wrote. But parents who are simply speaking out aren't who the bureau seeks to hold accountable. Let's take a closer look. The background The debates over CRT and masking have caught fire as much in Wisconsin as anywhere else. The state has logged more recall attempts of school board members than any state in the nation besides California. But in some places, protests have morphed into more dangerous situations. The National School Boards Association said in a Sept. 29 letter to President Joe Biden that school board members and school officials needed protection against threats and acts of violence that have cropped up amid arguments about critical race theory and mask mandates. They cited a variety of incidents, including a northern Virginia school board meeting where board members received death threats and a person was injured during the meeting's chaotic public comment section. Meanwhile, an Illinois man who was arrested after striking a school official during a school board meeting there. Soon after the letter was sent, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the FBI to help tamp down criminal conduct directed at school district personnel. An Oct. 4 memo from the Department of Justice states that the department will form a task force to examine how federal enforcement tools could be used to prosecute such crimes and how to assist local law enforcement if violent threats didn't constitute federal crimes. The department also plans to create specialized training for school district administrators to recognize threats and report them, the memo says. Conservative politicians and commentators, including Kleefisch, seized on the directive as what they viewed as an infringement of parents' free speech at school board meetings. FBI will look for criminal conduct, not overall parent protests When asked about Kleefisch's claim, campaign manager Charles Nichols sent the letter from the school boards association and the Justice Department's memo. 'When they talk of prosecuting individuals, they are referring to the parents who are protesting school boards - protests that, according to the NASB's letter, were occurring because of anger over critical race theory,' Nichols wrote. 'Obviously real criminal conduct and violence is never OK, but referring to parent protests at board meetings as 'criminal conduct' is more than just over the top, it's insulting and wrong.' But the directive doesn't say to specifically look for parents who are talking about critical race theory, nor was that the only root of the threats mentioned in the association's letter. And nowhere has Garland or the FBI equated general protests with individuals who have made violent threats. In his original memo to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, Garland wrote that 'spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution,' but 'that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.' The actions of parents who show up to simply speak out against critical race theory, then, as Kleefisch mentioned, would seem to fall into the area of spirited debate, which is of course protected by the First Amendment. Parents who make threats of violence at meetings or elsewhere, however, would not be protected. In October, PolitiFact National rated False a claim by U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., after he similarly argued that Garland wanted the FBI to target parents who speak out 'to protect kids from radical curriculum like critical race theory.' One law professor interviewed for the story did say there was a risk Garland's effort to weed out harassment and intimidation could be applied too broadly. Three others noted Garland specifically mentioned that spirited debate is protected and found nothing in the memo that signals he'll seek overly broad enforcement. 'If the Justice Department tried to stretch intimidation to cover any hostile speech, they should lose, and almost certainly would lose' in a court of law, law professor Douglas Laycock at the University of Virginia School of Law told PolitiFact National. Laycock voiced no opinion on Garland's memo itself. In response to our request, Nichols also sent a second letter from the school boards association to its members, apologizing for its initial letter and voicing regret for 'some of the language' included in that letter - though it did not say to which language it was referring. That apology reignited the issue among national Republican lawmakers, who viewed it as a retraction and questioned Garland about it Oct. 27, 2021. But the association did not retract its request for federal assistance in the face of threats, and the apology letter doesn't affect the scope of what Garland told the FBI to look for. | Our ruling In a campaign email, Kleefisch claimed the Justice Department told the FBI to target parents who speak out against critical race theory. But the memo outlining what would take place indicated the bureau will aim to curb violent threats and criminal conduct, not anyone who publicly criticizes critical race theory. What's more, the initial letter from the school boards association didn't seek federal help only to protect against threats from critical race theory critics. The group sought protection for any threats, no matter what prompted them. We rate this claim False. | [
"103780-proof-11-66ecc351074dbe416e0ec75be37c71d7.jpg"
]
|
The Biden Department of Justice 'would use the FBI to target parents who speak out against critical race theory. | Contradiction | School boards have increasingly found themselves at the center of controversy as national debates on pandemic protocols and teaching about the harms of systemic racism trickle down to the local level. In particular, critical race theory - a decades-old academic concept that argues racism is embedded into American systems and institutions, creating disadvantages for people of color - is in the spotlight. It's a topic typically addressed at the college level, since it focuses on how laws are interpreted. Educational experts say the phrase is being used much more broadly in the current debate as a catch-all for any teaching about race, equity, diversity and history. But is the FBI targeting conservative parents who speak out against CRT? That was the claim from Rebecca Kleefisch, the former lieutenant governor aiming to be Wisconsin's Republican gubernatorial nominee in 2022, in an Oct. 23 , 2021 campaign email: 'It's truly despicable that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris' Department of 'Justice' would use the FBI to target parents who speak out against critical race theory,' she wrote. But parents who are simply speaking out aren't who the bureau seeks to hold accountable. Let's take a closer look. The background The debates over CRT and masking have caught fire as much in Wisconsin as anywhere else. The state has logged more recall attempts of school board members than any state in the nation besides California. But in some places, protests have morphed into more dangerous situations. The National School Boards Association said in a Sept. 29 letter to President Joe Biden that school board members and school officials needed protection against threats and acts of violence that have cropped up amid arguments about critical race theory and mask mandates. They cited a variety of incidents, including a northern Virginia school board meeting where board members received death threats and a person was injured during the meeting's chaotic public comment section. Meanwhile, an Illinois man who was arrested after striking a school official during a school board meeting there. Soon after the letter was sent, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the FBI to help tamp down criminal conduct directed at school district personnel. An Oct. 4 memo from the Department of Justice states that the department will form a task force to examine how federal enforcement tools could be used to prosecute such crimes and how to assist local law enforcement if violent threats didn't constitute federal crimes. The department also plans to create specialized training for school district administrators to recognize threats and report them, the memo says. Conservative politicians and commentators, including Kleefisch, seized on the directive as what they viewed as an infringement of parents' free speech at school board meetings. FBI will look for criminal conduct, not overall parent protests When asked about Kleefisch's claim, campaign manager Charles Nichols sent the letter from the school boards association and the Justice Department's memo. 'When they talk of prosecuting individuals, they are referring to the parents who are protesting school boards - protests that, according to the NASB's letter, were occurring because of anger over critical race theory,' Nichols wrote. 'Obviously real criminal conduct and violence is never OK, but referring to parent protests at board meetings as 'criminal conduct' is more than just over the top, it's insulting and wrong.' But the directive doesn't say to specifically look for parents who are talking about critical race theory, nor was that the only root of the threats mentioned in the association's letter. And nowhere has Garland or the FBI equated general protests with individuals who have made violent threats. In his original memo to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, Garland wrote that 'spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution,' but 'that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views.' The actions of parents who show up to simply speak out against critical race theory, then, as Kleefisch mentioned, would seem to fall into the area of spirited debate, which is of course protected by the First Amendment. Parents who make threats of violence at meetings or elsewhere, however, would not be protected. In October, PolitiFact National rated False a claim by U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., after he similarly argued that Garland wanted the FBI to target parents who speak out 'to protect kids from radical curriculum like critical race theory.' One law professor interviewed for the story did say there was a risk Garland's effort to weed out harassment and intimidation could be applied too broadly. Three others noted Garland specifically mentioned that spirited debate is protected and found nothing in the memo that signals he'll seek overly broad enforcement. 'If the Justice Department tried to stretch intimidation to cover any hostile speech, they should lose, and almost certainly would lose' in a court of law, law professor Douglas Laycock at the University of Virginia School of Law told PolitiFact National. Laycock voiced no opinion on Garland's memo itself. In response to our request, Nichols also sent a second letter from the school boards association to its members, apologizing for its initial letter and voicing regret for 'some of the language' included in that letter - though it did not say to which language it was referring. That apology reignited the issue among national Republican lawmakers, who viewed it as a retraction and questioned Garland about it Oct. 27, 2021. But the association did not retract its request for federal assistance in the face of threats, and the apology letter doesn't affect the scope of what Garland told the FBI to look for. | Our ruling In a campaign email, Kleefisch claimed the Justice Department told the FBI to target parents who speak out against critical race theory. But the memo outlining what would take place indicated the bureau will aim to curb violent threats and criminal conduct, not anyone who publicly criticizes critical race theory. What's more, the initial letter from the school boards association didn't seek federal help only to protect against threats from critical race theory critics. The group sought protection for any threats, no matter what prompted them. We rate this claim False. | [
"103780-proof-11-66ecc351074dbe416e0ec75be37c71d7.jpg"
]
|
California's registered independent voters 'will not be able to vote republican come 2020. | Contradiction | A Facebook post that gained traction ahead of California's presidential primary in March has new life, but spouts some of the same misleading information. The post - reposted to Facebook June 6 - claims California's registered independents must re-register with the GOP 'to vote republican come 2020.' It also alleges, without evidence, that the state came up with this requirement 'hoping no one figures it out in time.' It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook). We fact-checked similar misinformation ahead of the primary. But with this post re-circulating, we decided to set the record straight, again. Differences Between California's Primary and General Elections According to the California Secretary of State's Office, political parties - not state officials - decide whether and how the state's independent voters, also known as No Party Preference voters, can participate in each party's presidential primary election. The restrictions make it more difficult but not impossible to vote for your favorite candidate. For example, the Democratic party required California's more than 5 million registered independents to request a 'crossover ballot' in March to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. But it did not force them to re-register. By contrast, the Republican party required independent voters to register with the GOP to participate in its primary. So, the warning in the first part of the Facebook post was correct - for the March primary. These requirements, however, do not apply to California's November general election. 'The assertion in that Facebook post is absolutely not true,' Sam Mahood, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office, wrote in an email this week. 'In a General Election you can vote for any candidate, regardless of the voter's party.' Mahood cited California Elections Code section 13206.5, which covers statewide general elections and states: 'All voters, regardless of the party preference they disclosed upon registration, or refusal to disclose a party preference, may vote for any candidate for a voter-nominated or nonpartisan office.' | Our ruling A resurfaced Facebook post claims California's registered independents must re-register as Republicans to vote for GOP candidates 'come 2020.' It also alleges that California came up with this rule 'hoping no one figures it out in time.' The first part was correct for the March primary. But it doesn't apply to California's November general election, when voters can select the candidate of their choice, no matter their party affiliation. The second part is false. The political parties, not the state, set the rules for participating in presidential primaries. This post was partially-wrong the first time. Now, the whole thing is wrong. We rated it False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"103791-proof-12-EbTSn9-mSnTkZzl2frktz-bs6zZpkUtulGKekVUZq0zFoUwldQNS75uebMnnvL4TwbrtU_XMzzmWHsRb.jpg",
"103791-proof-46-68166adab656ce2b59d85ef013195259.jpg"
]
|
California's registered independent voters 'will not be able to vote republican come 2020. | Contradiction | A Facebook post that gained traction ahead of California's presidential primary in March has new life, but spouts some of the same misleading information. The post - reposted to Facebook June 6 - claims California's registered independents must re-register with the GOP 'to vote republican come 2020.' It also alleges, without evidence, that the state came up with this requirement 'hoping no one figures it out in time.' It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook). We fact-checked similar misinformation ahead of the primary. But with this post re-circulating, we decided to set the record straight, again. Differences Between California's Primary and General Elections According to the California Secretary of State's Office, political parties - not state officials - decide whether and how the state's independent voters, also known as No Party Preference voters, can participate in each party's presidential primary election. The restrictions make it more difficult but not impossible to vote for your favorite candidate. For example, the Democratic party required California's more than 5 million registered independents to request a 'crossover ballot' in March to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. But it did not force them to re-register. By contrast, the Republican party required independent voters to register with the GOP to participate in its primary. So, the warning in the first part of the Facebook post was correct - for the March primary. These requirements, however, do not apply to California's November general election. 'The assertion in that Facebook post is absolutely not true,' Sam Mahood, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office, wrote in an email this week. 'In a General Election you can vote for any candidate, regardless of the voter's party.' Mahood cited California Elections Code section 13206.5, which covers statewide general elections and states: 'All voters, regardless of the party preference they disclosed upon registration, or refusal to disclose a party preference, may vote for any candidate for a voter-nominated or nonpartisan office.' | Our ruling A resurfaced Facebook post claims California's registered independents must re-register as Republicans to vote for GOP candidates 'come 2020.' It also alleges that California came up with this rule 'hoping no one figures it out in time.' The first part was correct for the March primary. But it doesn't apply to California's November general election, when voters can select the candidate of their choice, no matter their party affiliation. The second part is false. The political parties, not the state, set the rules for participating in presidential primaries. This post was partially-wrong the first time. Now, the whole thing is wrong. We rated it False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"103791-proof-12-EbTSn9-mSnTkZzl2frktz-bs6zZpkUtulGKekVUZq0zFoUwldQNS75uebMnnvL4TwbrtU_XMzzmWHsRb.jpg",
"103791-proof-46-68166adab656ce2b59d85ef013195259.jpg"
]
|
California's registered independent voters 'will not be able to vote republican come 2020. | Contradiction | A Facebook post that gained traction ahead of California's presidential primary in March has new life, but spouts some of the same misleading information. The post - reposted to Facebook June 6 - claims California's registered independents must re-register with the GOP 'to vote republican come 2020.' It also alleges, without evidence, that the state came up with this requirement 'hoping no one figures it out in time.' It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook). We fact-checked similar misinformation ahead of the primary. But with this post re-circulating, we decided to set the record straight, again. Differences Between California's Primary and General Elections According to the California Secretary of State's Office, political parties - not state officials - decide whether and how the state's independent voters, also known as No Party Preference voters, can participate in each party's presidential primary election. The restrictions make it more difficult but not impossible to vote for your favorite candidate. For example, the Democratic party required California's more than 5 million registered independents to request a 'crossover ballot' in March to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. But it did not force them to re-register. By contrast, the Republican party required independent voters to register with the GOP to participate in its primary. So, the warning in the first part of the Facebook post was correct - for the March primary. These requirements, however, do not apply to California's November general election. 'The assertion in that Facebook post is absolutely not true,' Sam Mahood, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office, wrote in an email this week. 'In a General Election you can vote for any candidate, regardless of the voter's party.' Mahood cited California Elections Code section 13206.5, which covers statewide general elections and states: 'All voters, regardless of the party preference they disclosed upon registration, or refusal to disclose a party preference, may vote for any candidate for a voter-nominated or nonpartisan office.' | Our ruling A resurfaced Facebook post claims California's registered independents must re-register as Republicans to vote for GOP candidates 'come 2020.' It also alleges that California came up with this rule 'hoping no one figures it out in time.' The first part was correct for the March primary. But it doesn't apply to California's November general election, when voters can select the candidate of their choice, no matter their party affiliation. The second part is false. The political parties, not the state, set the rules for participating in presidential primaries. This post was partially-wrong the first time. Now, the whole thing is wrong. We rated it False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"103791-proof-12-EbTSn9-mSnTkZzl2frktz-bs6zZpkUtulGKekVUZq0zFoUwldQNS75uebMnnvL4TwbrtU_XMzzmWHsRb.jpg",
"103791-proof-46-68166adab656ce2b59d85ef013195259.jpg"
]
|
California's registered independent voters 'will not be able to vote republican come 2020. | Contradiction | A Facebook post that gained traction ahead of California's presidential primary in March has new life, but spouts some of the same misleading information. The post - reposted to Facebook June 6 - claims California's registered independents must re-register with the GOP 'to vote republican come 2020.' It also alleges, without evidence, that the state came up with this requirement 'hoping no one figures it out in time.' It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook). We fact-checked similar misinformation ahead of the primary. But with this post re-circulating, we decided to set the record straight, again. Differences Between California's Primary and General Elections According to the California Secretary of State's Office, political parties - not state officials - decide whether and how the state's independent voters, also known as No Party Preference voters, can participate in each party's presidential primary election. The restrictions make it more difficult but not impossible to vote for your favorite candidate. For example, the Democratic party required California's more than 5 million registered independents to request a 'crossover ballot' in March to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. But it did not force them to re-register. By contrast, the Republican party required independent voters to register with the GOP to participate in its primary. So, the warning in the first part of the Facebook post was correct - for the March primary. These requirements, however, do not apply to California's November general election. 'The assertion in that Facebook post is absolutely not true,' Sam Mahood, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State's Office, wrote in an email this week. 'In a General Election you can vote for any candidate, regardless of the voter's party.' Mahood cited California Elections Code section 13206.5, which covers statewide general elections and states: 'All voters, regardless of the party preference they disclosed upon registration, or refusal to disclose a party preference, may vote for any candidate for a voter-nominated or nonpartisan office.' | Our ruling A resurfaced Facebook post claims California's registered independents must re-register as Republicans to vote for GOP candidates 'come 2020.' It also alleges that California came up with this rule 'hoping no one figures it out in time.' The first part was correct for the March primary. But it doesn't apply to California's November general election, when voters can select the candidate of their choice, no matter their party affiliation. The second part is false. The political parties, not the state, set the rules for participating in presidential primaries. This post was partially-wrong the first time. Now, the whole thing is wrong. We rated it False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"103791-proof-12-EbTSn9-mSnTkZzl2frktz-bs6zZpkUtulGKekVUZq0zFoUwldQNS75uebMnnvL4TwbrtU_XMzzmWHsRb.jpg",
"103791-proof-46-68166adab656ce2b59d85ef013195259.jpg"
]
|
'Records suggest more than 100 batches of absentee ballots in Fulton County could be missing. | Contradiction | A three-week-old article widely shared on social media on July 8 falsely states that an audit of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia found that more than 100 batches of absentee ballots were missing. 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 article, published by Just the News, referred to the audit in its headline. The subheadline says: 'Records suggest more than 100 batches of absentee ballots in Fulton County could be missing.' Just the News said that it reviewed documents and found that 'more than 100 batches of absentee ballots - each containing approximately 100 or more ballots - were assigned tracking numbers before being sent to one of the five absentee vote-counting machines in Fulton County but are not subsequently recorded in the handwritten logs showing which batches were scanned and counted, raising concerns the ballots may be missing.' It's speculation lacking evidence. On the day the June 17 article was published, Georgia Public Broadcasting posted an article debunking it. GPB reported: 'Just the News used selectively edited notes from a state-appointed monitor and a misunderstanding of elections and the risk-limiting audit process to claim that ballots 'may be missing.'' There were data entry errors, but no evidence of large batches of missing ballots, GPB reported. A risk-limiting audit on a sampling of ballots typically is done to confirm that the declared outcome of an election is accurate. But because Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump in Georgia by some 12,000 votes, a full hand-recount was done. During the risk-limiting audit, 'some counties discovered ballots that were not included in the original tally, but the results of the RLA did not change the results of the election,' GPB reported. Fulton County spokesperson Jessica Corbitt-Dominguez told PolitiFact that no absentee ballots from the county are missing. The absentee ballots were reviewed twice and 'all paperwork has been reconciled in coordination with the Secretary of State,' she said. The Secretary of State's monitor notes referenced by Just the News 'are in response to activity in 'real time' during the election process. All documentation was filed in compliance with state law and Secretary of State guidelines,' Corbitt-Dominguez said. The Secretary of State's office declined to comment. We rate the post False. | We rate the post False. | [
"103814-proof-18-7f5c3273d23658071f5e81f45c30abaf.jpg"
]
|
'Hurricane 'Hanna' hitting Texas has blown over part of a border wall. | Contradiction | The wind's blowing hard in a video on Facebook that shows sections of a barrier falling in front of groups of people in safety vests, but it's not Hurricane Hanna, which made landfall in South Texas on July 25. A recent Facebook post claims otherwise. '$11 Billion Dollar Wall Built By Lowest Bidder!' it says. 'Hurricane 'Hanna' hitting Texas has blown over part of a Border Wall on the border with US-Mexico.' 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.) U.S. Customs and Border Protection has said it's not aware of any part of the border barriers falling over in the hurricane, according to a statement posted on its website. Rather, the agency said, the video shows high winds that knocked over 'several border wall panels that were pending additional anchoring' at a construction site near Deming, New Mexico, in June. A spokesperson for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is overseeing the construction, told the Associated Press that the incident happened on June 5 when a 'unexpected high wind gust' knocked over barrier panels. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
Says TikTok found Cassie Compton, who has been missing from Arkansas since 2014. | Contradiction | About eight months ago, what seemed like a potential break in a missing-person case started to spread on social media. People were claiming that a TikTok video showed Cassie Compton, who went missing in 2014 when she was 15 years old. The police chief in Stuttgart, Ark., said in January that investigators had received dozens of calls about the video and were working on it. The Arkansas State Police were also involved, he said. But the next day, local news media reported that the woman in the video was not Compton. The FBI had interviewed the woman and confirmed her identity as someone else. Still, some old social media posts about supposed discovery are again getting attention online. One post that has been shared more than 51,000 times says 'TikTok just found a girl that's been missing for 6 years. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Compton has not been found. The anniversary of her disappearance is in a few days: She was last heard from on Sept. 14, 2014, the Stuttgart Daily Leader reported. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
A photo taken by a journalist showing a beach in Jacksonville, Fla., isn't from after the government reopened the beach as news reports have claimed. | Contradiction | On April 17, with the blessing of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the mayor of Jacksonville announced that beaches would reopen in Duval County, where Jacksonville is the county seat. As Floridians returned to the coastline, and local and national reporters published photos of people on the sandy shore, an unflattering hashtag started to trend on Twitter: #FloridaMorons. Elsewhere on social media, some took offense and claimed outlets were using an old photo that made it look like more people were descending on Jacksonville Beach than there actually were. 'I live in Florida & just to clarify,' began one Facebook post showing two beach photos. 'The first picture is what was circulated as the 'hundreds of people crowding the beach' when Jacksonville Beach reopened from 5 pm to 8 pm on Friday. However, the picture shows the pier that no longer exists, as shown after the last couple of hurricane seasons. Half of the pier is now gone. The second picture is what the beach actually looked like Friday evening.' 'Once again the media is giving the public fake news,' said another post making the same case with the same photos. 'They are lying again.' 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.) The photo in question was taken on April 17. The caption of the photo, which we found on the Getty Images website, says: 'People crowded the beaches in its first open hour on April 17, 2020 in Jacksonville Beach, Fl.' Vic Micolucci, a reporter for WJXT, a local TV station in Jacksonville, tried to explain on Facebook on April 19 how that photo could look so different from some of the other images from the beach in which people look like they are, in fact, practicing social distancing. He posted eight photos: The one from Getty, a still from a WJXT video on the beach and a still from a WJXT video from a helicopter, photos from the Panasonic video camera that was used for WJXT's live coverage - including an image of Micolucci standing on the beach with the pier in the background - and iPhone photos. The Jacksonville Beach pier was damaged by Hurricane Matthew in 2016. According to the Florida Times-Union, the last 300 feet of the 1,300-foot structure were destroyed. The pier closed to visitors last year and is being rebuilt to withstand future storms, according to Weather.com. 'The moral of the story is different cameras, different lenses and different angles make the beach look differently,' Micolucci said. 'If you take the miles of beaches up and down Duval County, there were indeed thousands of people. However, most kept their distance. And there was a lot of sand. ... A helicopter shot looks different from a drone shot which looks different from a telephoto shot which looks different from a smartphone shot. The optics are different. The angles are different. As your car mirrors say, objects may appear further than they are. Use your best judgment.' On April 20, Micolucci posted on Twitter a few photos he took that evening from the spot on Jacksonville Beach where the Getty Images photo was taken. 'I took first 2 photos with my iPhone: one zoomed in, one wide,' Micolucci wrote on Twitter. The third shot is from our ENG camera. Same location for all. Different perspectives.' David Rosenblum, the photographer that shot the image in question, told us he was surprised people were claiming the pier in his photo looked the same as it did before it was battered by the hurricane. 'Biggest giveaway would be the original had three bench/huts and a 'T' on the end,' he said. 'Both are gone. Only 2 benches/huts remain.' We rate claims that the crowded Jacksonville Beach photos aren't from during the pandemic False. | We rate claims that the crowded Jacksonville Beach photos aren't from during the pandemic False. | []
|
A photo taken by a journalist showing a beach in Jacksonville, Fla., isn't from after the government reopened the beach as news reports have claimed. | Contradiction | On April 17, with the blessing of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the mayor of Jacksonville announced that beaches would reopen in Duval County, where Jacksonville is the county seat. As Floridians returned to the coastline, and local and national reporters published photos of people on the sandy shore, an unflattering hashtag started to trend on Twitter: #FloridaMorons. Elsewhere on social media, some took offense and claimed outlets were using an old photo that made it look like more people were descending on Jacksonville Beach than there actually were. 'I live in Florida & just to clarify,' began one Facebook post showing two beach photos. 'The first picture is what was circulated as the 'hundreds of people crowding the beach' when Jacksonville Beach reopened from 5 pm to 8 pm on Friday. However, the picture shows the pier that no longer exists, as shown after the last couple of hurricane seasons. Half of the pier is now gone. The second picture is what the beach actually looked like Friday evening.' 'Once again the media is giving the public fake news,' said another post making the same case with the same photos. 'They are lying again.' 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.) The photo in question was taken on April 17. The caption of the photo, which we found on the Getty Images website, says: 'People crowded the beaches in its first open hour on April 17, 2020 in Jacksonville Beach, Fl.' Vic Micolucci, a reporter for WJXT, a local TV station in Jacksonville, tried to explain on Facebook on April 19 how that photo could look so different from some of the other images from the beach in which people look like they are, in fact, practicing social distancing. He posted eight photos: The one from Getty, a still from a WJXT video on the beach and a still from a WJXT video from a helicopter, photos from the Panasonic video camera that was used for WJXT's live coverage - including an image of Micolucci standing on the beach with the pier in the background - and iPhone photos. The Jacksonville Beach pier was damaged by Hurricane Matthew in 2016. According to the Florida Times-Union, the last 300 feet of the 1,300-foot structure were destroyed. The pier closed to visitors last year and is being rebuilt to withstand future storms, according to Weather.com. 'The moral of the story is different cameras, different lenses and different angles make the beach look differently,' Micolucci said. 'If you take the miles of beaches up and down Duval County, there were indeed thousands of people. However, most kept their distance. And there was a lot of sand. ... A helicopter shot looks different from a drone shot which looks different from a telephoto shot which looks different from a smartphone shot. The optics are different. The angles are different. As your car mirrors say, objects may appear further than they are. Use your best judgment.' On April 20, Micolucci posted on Twitter a few photos he took that evening from the spot on Jacksonville Beach where the Getty Images photo was taken. 'I took first 2 photos with my iPhone: one zoomed in, one wide,' Micolucci wrote on Twitter. The third shot is from our ENG camera. Same location for all. Different perspectives.' David Rosenblum, the photographer that shot the image in question, told us he was surprised people were claiming the pier in his photo looked the same as it did before it was battered by the hurricane. 'Biggest giveaway would be the original had three bench/huts and a 'T' on the end,' he said. 'Both are gone. Only 2 benches/huts remain.' We rate claims that the crowded Jacksonville Beach photos aren't from during the pandemic False. | We rate claims that the crowded Jacksonville Beach photos aren't from during the pandemic False. | []
|
'Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the vaccine, die from the flu ... we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump's fight with COVID-19 has left him striking a defiant tone. When he headed back to the White House from the hospital, he advised people on Twitter, 'Don't be afraid of Covid. Don't let it dominate your life.' He followed that up with another tweet the next morning. 'Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the Vaccine, die from the Flu,' he wrote Oct. 6. 'Are we going to close down our Country? No, we have learned to live with it, just like we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal!!!' Twitter has now flagged that tweet for 'sharing misleading and potentially harmful information' about COVID-19. For the same reason, a similar post from Trump on Facebook was taken down completely. In the U.S. so far this year, about 210,000 people have died from COVID-19. Trump's figure for the number of people who have died from seasonal flu is wrong on its face, and distorts the government's actual estimates. For the worst season this decade - 2017-18 - the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the death toll at 61,000. Taking into account uncertainties in reporting flu deaths, the CDC offered a range of 46,000 to 95,000 deaths. But the more typical range is significantly lower. The average number of deaths per year over the past decade has been 35,900. And even taking the high-end of the range for each year, the average is 51,800. That's half Trump's number. Infectious disease researcher Marm Kilpatrick at University of California Santa Cruz said one has to go back to 1968 to find a seasonal death toll of 100,000 - and that was when a brand new strain emerged. Trump also said that for 'most populations,' COVID-19 is less deadly than the flu. That's also wrong, but it reflects that the patterns for the two diseases are different. The CDC reports that flu is most deadly for children and the elderly. The CDC said that 'the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19.' Broadly, for people of all ages who show flu symptoms, the CDC data shows a death rate of about 0.1%. Given that the CDC says only about half of all flu infections lead to symptoms, the actual infection fatality rate could be in the range of 0.05%. Data on COVID-19 remains a moving target, and current estimates should be seen in that light. Using the CDC's age-specific data on COVID-19, and the U.S. age distribution, Kilpatrick estimated the infection death rate for COVID-19 is about 0.7%. That's in the ballpark of other estimates, and would make the coronavirus more than 10 times more deadly than the flu. Drilling into the details for different age groups, Kilpatrick cautioned that the data is still emerging. But he said the best comparison he's found of the death rates among age groups for COVID-19 and the seasonal flu comes from independent researcher Marc Bevand. Bevand drew on 13 studies of COVID-19 and the CDC's influenza data. In every age group over the age of 30, COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu. For people in their 30s, COVID-19 was 2.9 times more deadly. For those in their 70s, it was 14.4 times deadlier. The CDC doesn't provide an apples-to-apples comparison of flu and COVID-19 deaths by age. It currently estimates that the COVID-19 death rate ranges from .003% for children and teens to 5.4% for people 70 and up. We reached out to the White House and the Trump campaign and did not hear back. | Our ruling Trump said that more than 100,000 people die from the flu and 'in most populations, COVID-19 is far less lethal.' In the past decade, the average yearly death toll from the flu has been 35,900. About 50 years ago, 100,000 people died one year, but that was an anomaly. Overall, the data show that COVID-19 is more deadly than the flu. By one estimate, it is 10 times more deadly. Comparing death rates for age groups is more challenging, but the data shows that for everyone over 30, COVID-19 is deadlier than the flu. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"103841-proof-18-05b4d363de9648ad13ca09c99b7d64f1.jpg"
]
|
'Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the vaccine, die from the flu ... we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump's fight with COVID-19 has left him striking a defiant tone. When he headed back to the White House from the hospital, he advised people on Twitter, 'Don't be afraid of Covid. Don't let it dominate your life.' He followed that up with another tweet the next morning. 'Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the Vaccine, die from the Flu,' he wrote Oct. 6. 'Are we going to close down our Country? No, we have learned to live with it, just like we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal!!!' Twitter has now flagged that tweet for 'sharing misleading and potentially harmful information' about COVID-19. For the same reason, a similar post from Trump on Facebook was taken down completely. In the U.S. so far this year, about 210,000 people have died from COVID-19. Trump's figure for the number of people who have died from seasonal flu is wrong on its face, and distorts the government's actual estimates. For the worst season this decade - 2017-18 - the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the death toll at 61,000. Taking into account uncertainties in reporting flu deaths, the CDC offered a range of 46,000 to 95,000 deaths. But the more typical range is significantly lower. The average number of deaths per year over the past decade has been 35,900. And even taking the high-end of the range for each year, the average is 51,800. That's half Trump's number. Infectious disease researcher Marm Kilpatrick at University of California Santa Cruz said one has to go back to 1968 to find a seasonal death toll of 100,000 - and that was when a brand new strain emerged. Trump also said that for 'most populations,' COVID-19 is less deadly than the flu. That's also wrong, but it reflects that the patterns for the two diseases are different. The CDC reports that flu is most deadly for children and the elderly. The CDC said that 'the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19.' Broadly, for people of all ages who show flu symptoms, the CDC data shows a death rate of about 0.1%. Given that the CDC says only about half of all flu infections lead to symptoms, the actual infection fatality rate could be in the range of 0.05%. Data on COVID-19 remains a moving target, and current estimates should be seen in that light. Using the CDC's age-specific data on COVID-19, and the U.S. age distribution, Kilpatrick estimated the infection death rate for COVID-19 is about 0.7%. That's in the ballpark of other estimates, and would make the coronavirus more than 10 times more deadly than the flu. Drilling into the details for different age groups, Kilpatrick cautioned that the data is still emerging. But he said the best comparison he's found of the death rates among age groups for COVID-19 and the seasonal flu comes from independent researcher Marc Bevand. Bevand drew on 13 studies of COVID-19 and the CDC's influenza data. In every age group over the age of 30, COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu. For people in their 30s, COVID-19 was 2.9 times more deadly. For those in their 70s, it was 14.4 times deadlier. The CDC doesn't provide an apples-to-apples comparison of flu and COVID-19 deaths by age. It currently estimates that the COVID-19 death rate ranges from .003% for children and teens to 5.4% for people 70 and up. We reached out to the White House and the Trump campaign and did not hear back. | Our ruling Trump said that more than 100,000 people die from the flu and 'in most populations, COVID-19 is far less lethal.' In the past decade, the average yearly death toll from the flu has been 35,900. About 50 years ago, 100,000 people died one year, but that was an anomaly. Overall, the data show that COVID-19 is more deadly than the flu. By one estimate, it is 10 times more deadly. Comparing death rates for age groups is more challenging, but the data shows that for everyone over 30, COVID-19 is deadlier than the flu. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"103841-proof-18-05b4d363de9648ad13ca09c99b7d64f1.jpg"
]
|
'Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the vaccine, die from the flu ... we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump's fight with COVID-19 has left him striking a defiant tone. When he headed back to the White House from the hospital, he advised people on Twitter, 'Don't be afraid of Covid. Don't let it dominate your life.' He followed that up with another tweet the next morning. 'Many people every year, sometimes over 100,000, and despite the Vaccine, die from the Flu,' he wrote Oct. 6. 'Are we going to close down our Country? No, we have learned to live with it, just like we are learning to live with Covid, in most populations far less lethal!!!' Twitter has now flagged that tweet for 'sharing misleading and potentially harmful information' about COVID-19. For the same reason, a similar post from Trump on Facebook was taken down completely. In the U.S. so far this year, about 210,000 people have died from COVID-19. Trump's figure for the number of people who have died from seasonal flu is wrong on its face, and distorts the government's actual estimates. For the worst season this decade - 2017-18 - the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the death toll at 61,000. Taking into account uncertainties in reporting flu deaths, the CDC offered a range of 46,000 to 95,000 deaths. But the more typical range is significantly lower. The average number of deaths per year over the past decade has been 35,900. And even taking the high-end of the range for each year, the average is 51,800. That's half Trump's number. Infectious disease researcher Marm Kilpatrick at University of California Santa Cruz said one has to go back to 1968 to find a seasonal death toll of 100,000 - and that was when a brand new strain emerged. Trump also said that for 'most populations,' COVID-19 is less deadly than the flu. That's also wrong, but it reflects that the patterns for the two diseases are different. The CDC reports that flu is most deadly for children and the elderly. The CDC said that 'the risk of complications for healthy children is higher for flu compared to COVID-19.' Broadly, for people of all ages who show flu symptoms, the CDC data shows a death rate of about 0.1%. Given that the CDC says only about half of all flu infections lead to symptoms, the actual infection fatality rate could be in the range of 0.05%. Data on COVID-19 remains a moving target, and current estimates should be seen in that light. Using the CDC's age-specific data on COVID-19, and the U.S. age distribution, Kilpatrick estimated the infection death rate for COVID-19 is about 0.7%. That's in the ballpark of other estimates, and would make the coronavirus more than 10 times more deadly than the flu. Drilling into the details for different age groups, Kilpatrick cautioned that the data is still emerging. But he said the best comparison he's found of the death rates among age groups for COVID-19 and the seasonal flu comes from independent researcher Marc Bevand. Bevand drew on 13 studies of COVID-19 and the CDC's influenza data. In every age group over the age of 30, COVID-19 was more deadly than the flu. For people in their 30s, COVID-19 was 2.9 times more deadly. For those in their 70s, it was 14.4 times deadlier. The CDC doesn't provide an apples-to-apples comparison of flu and COVID-19 deaths by age. It currently estimates that the COVID-19 death rate ranges from .003% for children and teens to 5.4% for people 70 and up. We reached out to the White House and the Trump campaign and did not hear back. | Our ruling Trump said that more than 100,000 people die from the flu and 'in most populations, COVID-19 is far less lethal.' In the past decade, the average yearly death toll from the flu has been 35,900. About 50 years ago, 100,000 people died one year, but that was an anomaly. Overall, the data show that COVID-19 is more deadly than the flu. By one estimate, it is 10 times more deadly. Comparing death rates for age groups is more challenging, but the data shows that for everyone over 30, COVID-19 is deadlier than the flu. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"103841-proof-18-05b4d363de9648ad13ca09c99b7d64f1.jpg"
]
|
Says President Barack Obama 'spied on my campaign, and got caught!' | Contradiction | On night three of the Democratic National Convention, former President Barack Obama charged that President Donald Trump has shown 'no interest' in taking his job seriously. 'Donald Trump hasn't grown into the job because he can't,' Obama said. As Obama spoke, Trump tweeted. 'He spied on my campaign, and got caught!' Trump wrote Aug. 19. HE SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN, AND GOT CAUGHT!- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 20, 2020 Trump has often said that Obama had a hand in the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The FBI operation, called Crossfire Hurricane, targeted four men within the Trump campaign orbit, including campaign manager Paul Manafort and national security adviser Michael Flynn. That FBI investigation itself has been the subject of investigations by the Justice Department and Congress. Not one found that Obama initiated or meddled in the FBI's work. Not one concluded that the FBI lacked good reason to launch the investigation. 'There is not a shred of evidence that it was directed by the White House,' said Robert Litt, former general counsel for the Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration. Highlights from the investigations of the 2016 election A recent Senate Intelligence Committee report, approved by both Republicans and Democrats, said bluntly that the Russian government interfered with the goal of seeing Trump win. One key Russian tactic was the hack into the Democratic National Committee email server and the release through WikiLeaks of material to embarrass the Hillary Clinton campaign. 'Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process,' the report said. The Senate report said that Manafort 'sought to secretly share internal campaign information with (Konstantin) Kilimnik.' It called Kilimnik 'a Russian intelligence officer.' The report also concluded that Trump spoke with political operative Roger Stone about Stone's access to WikiLeaks, something Trump denies ever took place. (Trump commuted Stone's sentence.) 'Trump and the campaign believed that Roger Stone had known of the release and had inside access to WikiLeaks, and repeatedly communicated with Stone about WikiLeaks throughout the summer and fall of 2016,' the report said. The FBI's conduct The Senate did not directly assess the origins of the FBI's investigation. The Justice Department Inspector General did. The inspector general looked at whether the FBI followed department rules for opening investigations and whether politics had played a role. 'We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced (the) decision to open Crossfire Hurricane,' the Inspector General's 2019 report said. The report criticized the FBI and Justice Department for having a low threshold of evidence to trigger a counterintelligence investigation, but given the rules at the time, the facts were sufficient. 'The FBI had an authorized purpose when it opened Crossfire Hurricane to obtain information about, or to protect against, a national security threat or federal crime,' the report said. It cites former FBI director James Comey as saying that he did not brief Obama about the investigation in detail, although Comey did say that the agency was looking at whether any Americans were helping the Russians, and he might have said there were people with 'some association or connection to the Trump campaign.' According to the report, the White House did not follow up after that briefing. The investigation was marred - an FBI lawyer recently pleaded guilty to falsifying the paperwork to justify electronic surveillance. But American University law professor Jennifer Daskal said any missteps were the FBI's alone. 'By all accounts, President Obama did not - and would not, per at the time well-established protocol - dictate the nuances of the FBI investigation,' Daskal said. The Trump White House pointed to an article on the conservative Federalist website that said during the transition in early 2017, Obama intervened in the FBI's investigation of national security adviser Flynn's contacts with a Russian diplomat. According to secondhand notes from someone who wasn't in the room, in a meeting with Comey, Obama indicated that the FBI 'should look at things and have the right people on it.' Spying? There is no legal definition of spying. The FBI investigated four people with greater or lesser roles in the Trump campaign. One of them, Carter Page, was the subject of electronic surveillance, which rates as highly intrusive in the FBI rule book. That didn't happen until October 2016, after Page's name was already in the news and the Trump campaign said publicly it had no connection with him. And the FBI had tracked Page before Trump announced his White House run. Litt said the closest the FBI came to spying was in August 2016 when it briefed the Trump campaign on its investigation into Russian interference. Among the briefing team was an FBI agent who went, as the Inspector General's report noted, because he knew national security adviser Flynn would be there. And Flynn was targeted. For the rest of it, Litt said there is 'no indication that this was anything other than an adequately predicated counterintelligence investigation.' There is one more review in the works. Attorney General William Barr tasked Connecticut's U.S. Attorney John Durham to dig into the origins of the FBI's investigation. That report is expected before the election. | Our ruling Trump said Obama 'spied on my campaign, and got caught!' Multiple independent investigations, including a series of bipartisan Senate reports, found no political influence over the FBI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The FBI targeted four people with greater or lesser roles in the Trump campaign, but conducted that independently of the White House. We rate this claim False. CORRECTION: Donald Trump commuted Roger Stone's sentence. A previous version of this story wrongly said that Trump pardoned Stone. | [
"103846-proof-03-d09c8e620ba2ba77007b73ef97c956f5.jpg"
]
|
Says President Barack Obama 'spied on my campaign, and got caught!' | Contradiction | On night three of the Democratic National Convention, former President Barack Obama charged that President Donald Trump has shown 'no interest' in taking his job seriously. 'Donald Trump hasn't grown into the job because he can't,' Obama said. As Obama spoke, Trump tweeted. 'He spied on my campaign, and got caught!' Trump wrote Aug. 19. HE SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN, AND GOT CAUGHT!- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 20, 2020 Trump has often said that Obama had a hand in the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The FBI operation, called Crossfire Hurricane, targeted four men within the Trump campaign orbit, including campaign manager Paul Manafort and national security adviser Michael Flynn. That FBI investigation itself has been the subject of investigations by the Justice Department and Congress. Not one found that Obama initiated or meddled in the FBI's work. Not one concluded that the FBI lacked good reason to launch the investigation. 'There is not a shred of evidence that it was directed by the White House,' said Robert Litt, former general counsel for the Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration. Highlights from the investigations of the 2016 election A recent Senate Intelligence Committee report, approved by both Republicans and Democrats, said bluntly that the Russian government interfered with the goal of seeing Trump win. One key Russian tactic was the hack into the Democratic National Committee email server and the release through WikiLeaks of material to embarrass the Hillary Clinton campaign. 'Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process,' the report said. The Senate report said that Manafort 'sought to secretly share internal campaign information with (Konstantin) Kilimnik.' It called Kilimnik 'a Russian intelligence officer.' The report also concluded that Trump spoke with political operative Roger Stone about Stone's access to WikiLeaks, something Trump denies ever took place. (Trump commuted Stone's sentence.) 'Trump and the campaign believed that Roger Stone had known of the release and had inside access to WikiLeaks, and repeatedly communicated with Stone about WikiLeaks throughout the summer and fall of 2016,' the report said. The FBI's conduct The Senate did not directly assess the origins of the FBI's investigation. The Justice Department Inspector General did. The inspector general looked at whether the FBI followed department rules for opening investigations and whether politics had played a role. 'We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced (the) decision to open Crossfire Hurricane,' the Inspector General's 2019 report said. The report criticized the FBI and Justice Department for having a low threshold of evidence to trigger a counterintelligence investigation, but given the rules at the time, the facts were sufficient. 'The FBI had an authorized purpose when it opened Crossfire Hurricane to obtain information about, or to protect against, a national security threat or federal crime,' the report said. It cites former FBI director James Comey as saying that he did not brief Obama about the investigation in detail, although Comey did say that the agency was looking at whether any Americans were helping the Russians, and he might have said there were people with 'some association or connection to the Trump campaign.' According to the report, the White House did not follow up after that briefing. The investigation was marred - an FBI lawyer recently pleaded guilty to falsifying the paperwork to justify electronic surveillance. But American University law professor Jennifer Daskal said any missteps were the FBI's alone. 'By all accounts, President Obama did not - and would not, per at the time well-established protocol - dictate the nuances of the FBI investigation,' Daskal said. The Trump White House pointed to an article on the conservative Federalist website that said during the transition in early 2017, Obama intervened in the FBI's investigation of national security adviser Flynn's contacts with a Russian diplomat. According to secondhand notes from someone who wasn't in the room, in a meeting with Comey, Obama indicated that the FBI 'should look at things and have the right people on it.' Spying? There is no legal definition of spying. The FBI investigated four people with greater or lesser roles in the Trump campaign. One of them, Carter Page, was the subject of electronic surveillance, which rates as highly intrusive in the FBI rule book. That didn't happen until October 2016, after Page's name was already in the news and the Trump campaign said publicly it had no connection with him. And the FBI had tracked Page before Trump announced his White House run. Litt said the closest the FBI came to spying was in August 2016 when it briefed the Trump campaign on its investigation into Russian interference. Among the briefing team was an FBI agent who went, as the Inspector General's report noted, because he knew national security adviser Flynn would be there. And Flynn was targeted. For the rest of it, Litt said there is 'no indication that this was anything other than an adequately predicated counterintelligence investigation.' There is one more review in the works. Attorney General William Barr tasked Connecticut's U.S. Attorney John Durham to dig into the origins of the FBI's investigation. That report is expected before the election. | Our ruling Trump said Obama 'spied on my campaign, and got caught!' Multiple independent investigations, including a series of bipartisan Senate reports, found no political influence over the FBI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The FBI targeted four people with greater or lesser roles in the Trump campaign, but conducted that independently of the White House. We rate this claim False. CORRECTION: Donald Trump commuted Roger Stone's sentence. A previous version of this story wrongly said that Trump pardoned Stone. | [
"103846-proof-03-d09c8e620ba2ba77007b73ef97c956f5.jpg"
]
|
Says President Barack Obama 'spied on my campaign, and got caught!' | Contradiction | On night three of the Democratic National Convention, former President Barack Obama charged that President Donald Trump has shown 'no interest' in taking his job seriously. 'Donald Trump hasn't grown into the job because he can't,' Obama said. As Obama spoke, Trump tweeted. 'He spied on my campaign, and got caught!' Trump wrote Aug. 19. HE SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN, AND GOT CAUGHT!- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 20, 2020 Trump has often said that Obama had a hand in the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The FBI operation, called Crossfire Hurricane, targeted four men within the Trump campaign orbit, including campaign manager Paul Manafort and national security adviser Michael Flynn. That FBI investigation itself has been the subject of investigations by the Justice Department and Congress. Not one found that Obama initiated or meddled in the FBI's work. Not one concluded that the FBI lacked good reason to launch the investigation. 'There is not a shred of evidence that it was directed by the White House,' said Robert Litt, former general counsel for the Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration. Highlights from the investigations of the 2016 election A recent Senate Intelligence Committee report, approved by both Republicans and Democrats, said bluntly that the Russian government interfered with the goal of seeing Trump win. One key Russian tactic was the hack into the Democratic National Committee email server and the release through WikiLeaks of material to embarrass the Hillary Clinton campaign. 'Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process,' the report said. The Senate report said that Manafort 'sought to secretly share internal campaign information with (Konstantin) Kilimnik.' It called Kilimnik 'a Russian intelligence officer.' The report also concluded that Trump spoke with political operative Roger Stone about Stone's access to WikiLeaks, something Trump denies ever took place. (Trump commuted Stone's sentence.) 'Trump and the campaign believed that Roger Stone had known of the release and had inside access to WikiLeaks, and repeatedly communicated with Stone about WikiLeaks throughout the summer and fall of 2016,' the report said. The FBI's conduct The Senate did not directly assess the origins of the FBI's investigation. The Justice Department Inspector General did. The inspector general looked at whether the FBI followed department rules for opening investigations and whether politics had played a role. 'We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced (the) decision to open Crossfire Hurricane,' the Inspector General's 2019 report said. The report criticized the FBI and Justice Department for having a low threshold of evidence to trigger a counterintelligence investigation, but given the rules at the time, the facts were sufficient. 'The FBI had an authorized purpose when it opened Crossfire Hurricane to obtain information about, or to protect against, a national security threat or federal crime,' the report said. It cites former FBI director James Comey as saying that he did not brief Obama about the investigation in detail, although Comey did say that the agency was looking at whether any Americans were helping the Russians, and he might have said there were people with 'some association or connection to the Trump campaign.' According to the report, the White House did not follow up after that briefing. The investigation was marred - an FBI lawyer recently pleaded guilty to falsifying the paperwork to justify electronic surveillance. But American University law professor Jennifer Daskal said any missteps were the FBI's alone. 'By all accounts, President Obama did not - and would not, per at the time well-established protocol - dictate the nuances of the FBI investigation,' Daskal said. The Trump White House pointed to an article on the conservative Federalist website that said during the transition in early 2017, Obama intervened in the FBI's investigation of national security adviser Flynn's contacts with a Russian diplomat. According to secondhand notes from someone who wasn't in the room, in a meeting with Comey, Obama indicated that the FBI 'should look at things and have the right people on it.' Spying? There is no legal definition of spying. The FBI investigated four people with greater or lesser roles in the Trump campaign. One of them, Carter Page, was the subject of electronic surveillance, which rates as highly intrusive in the FBI rule book. That didn't happen until October 2016, after Page's name was already in the news and the Trump campaign said publicly it had no connection with him. And the FBI had tracked Page before Trump announced his White House run. Litt said the closest the FBI came to spying was in August 2016 when it briefed the Trump campaign on its investigation into Russian interference. Among the briefing team was an FBI agent who went, as the Inspector General's report noted, because he knew national security adviser Flynn would be there. And Flynn was targeted. For the rest of it, Litt said there is 'no indication that this was anything other than an adequately predicated counterintelligence investigation.' There is one more review in the works. Attorney General William Barr tasked Connecticut's U.S. Attorney John Durham to dig into the origins of the FBI's investigation. That report is expected before the election. | Our ruling Trump said Obama 'spied on my campaign, and got caught!' Multiple independent investigations, including a series of bipartisan Senate reports, found no political influence over the FBI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The FBI targeted four people with greater or lesser roles in the Trump campaign, but conducted that independently of the White House. We rate this claim False. CORRECTION: Donald Trump commuted Roger Stone's sentence. A previous version of this story wrongly said that Trump pardoned Stone. | [
"103846-proof-03-d09c8e620ba2ba77007b73ef97c956f5.jpg"
]
|
Says President Barack Obama 'spied on my campaign, and got caught!' | Contradiction | On night three of the Democratic National Convention, former President Barack Obama charged that President Donald Trump has shown 'no interest' in taking his job seriously. 'Donald Trump hasn't grown into the job because he can't,' Obama said. As Obama spoke, Trump tweeted. 'He spied on my campaign, and got caught!' Trump wrote Aug. 19. HE SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN, AND GOT CAUGHT!- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 20, 2020 Trump has often said that Obama had a hand in the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The FBI operation, called Crossfire Hurricane, targeted four men within the Trump campaign orbit, including campaign manager Paul Manafort and national security adviser Michael Flynn. That FBI investigation itself has been the subject of investigations by the Justice Department and Congress. Not one found that Obama initiated or meddled in the FBI's work. Not one concluded that the FBI lacked good reason to launch the investigation. 'There is not a shred of evidence that it was directed by the White House,' said Robert Litt, former general counsel for the Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration. Highlights from the investigations of the 2016 election A recent Senate Intelligence Committee report, approved by both Republicans and Democrats, said bluntly that the Russian government interfered with the goal of seeing Trump win. One key Russian tactic was the hack into the Democratic National Committee email server and the release through WikiLeaks of material to embarrass the Hillary Clinton campaign. 'Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process,' the report said. The Senate report said that Manafort 'sought to secretly share internal campaign information with (Konstantin) Kilimnik.' It called Kilimnik 'a Russian intelligence officer.' The report also concluded that Trump spoke with political operative Roger Stone about Stone's access to WikiLeaks, something Trump denies ever took place. (Trump commuted Stone's sentence.) 'Trump and the campaign believed that Roger Stone had known of the release and had inside access to WikiLeaks, and repeatedly communicated with Stone about WikiLeaks throughout the summer and fall of 2016,' the report said. The FBI's conduct The Senate did not directly assess the origins of the FBI's investigation. The Justice Department Inspector General did. The inspector general looked at whether the FBI followed department rules for opening investigations and whether politics had played a role. 'We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced (the) decision to open Crossfire Hurricane,' the Inspector General's 2019 report said. The report criticized the FBI and Justice Department for having a low threshold of evidence to trigger a counterintelligence investigation, but given the rules at the time, the facts were sufficient. 'The FBI had an authorized purpose when it opened Crossfire Hurricane to obtain information about, or to protect against, a national security threat or federal crime,' the report said. It cites former FBI director James Comey as saying that he did not brief Obama about the investigation in detail, although Comey did say that the agency was looking at whether any Americans were helping the Russians, and he might have said there were people with 'some association or connection to the Trump campaign.' According to the report, the White House did not follow up after that briefing. The investigation was marred - an FBI lawyer recently pleaded guilty to falsifying the paperwork to justify electronic surveillance. But American University law professor Jennifer Daskal said any missteps were the FBI's alone. 'By all accounts, President Obama did not - and would not, per at the time well-established protocol - dictate the nuances of the FBI investigation,' Daskal said. The Trump White House pointed to an article on the conservative Federalist website that said during the transition in early 2017, Obama intervened in the FBI's investigation of national security adviser Flynn's contacts with a Russian diplomat. According to secondhand notes from someone who wasn't in the room, in a meeting with Comey, Obama indicated that the FBI 'should look at things and have the right people on it.' Spying? There is no legal definition of spying. The FBI investigated four people with greater or lesser roles in the Trump campaign. One of them, Carter Page, was the subject of electronic surveillance, which rates as highly intrusive in the FBI rule book. That didn't happen until October 2016, after Page's name was already in the news and the Trump campaign said publicly it had no connection with him. And the FBI had tracked Page before Trump announced his White House run. Litt said the closest the FBI came to spying was in August 2016 when it briefed the Trump campaign on its investigation into Russian interference. Among the briefing team was an FBI agent who went, as the Inspector General's report noted, because he knew national security adviser Flynn would be there. And Flynn was targeted. For the rest of it, Litt said there is 'no indication that this was anything other than an adequately predicated counterintelligence investigation.' There is one more review in the works. Attorney General William Barr tasked Connecticut's U.S. Attorney John Durham to dig into the origins of the FBI's investigation. That report is expected before the election. | Our ruling Trump said Obama 'spied on my campaign, and got caught!' Multiple independent investigations, including a series of bipartisan Senate reports, found no political influence over the FBI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. The FBI targeted four people with greater or lesser roles in the Trump campaign, but conducted that independently of the White House. We rate this claim False. CORRECTION: Donald Trump commuted Roger Stone's sentence. A previous version of this story wrongly said that Trump pardoned Stone. | [
"103846-proof-03-d09c8e620ba2ba77007b73ef97c956f5.jpg"
]
|
Says a demonstration with an air quality monitor shows that cloth masks are dangerous for children. | Contradiction | A viral video uses a demonstration with a child to claim that the cloth masks used to fight the spread of COVID-19 are unsafe for children. It's a new version of a claim that's been debunked. 'People make the same mistakes each time, and the results don't measure what they would like to measure,' said biology professor Benjamin Neuman, chief virologist at Texas A&M University's Global Health Research Complex, said about demonstrations that use air quality monitors. 'This demonstration uses the wrong equipment to test the wrong parameter, so it's not surprising that the result is nonsense.' The video was shared on TikTok and in a Facebook post. The Facebook 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.) Texas school board meeting The video is labeled as being from a meeting of the school board in Lago Vista, Texas, about 35 miles northwest of Austin. The board held a special meeting on Aug. 23 on its 'safe return to in-person instruction' plan. In the video, a man who said he was doing the demonstration with his daughter, an elementary school student, instructs the girl to put on a simple cloth face mask and then he holds a device next to her for a few seconds. The video is taken from a distance, so it's not clear exactly what the device is, but the man describes it as an air quality monitor like one he would use to measure air quality in confined spaces when working in construction. He said that when applying it to measure the air quality inside his daughter's mask, the monitor showed the air had an oxygen level of '19.5 parts per million,' which he said was dangerous. He asked that children not be forced to wear masks in school. A similar demonstration, but said to be measuring carbon dioxide parts per million, was shown in a video posted on Facebook from a school board meeting Aug. 9 in Conway, N.H. Flawed demonstration The air we breathe is made up of about 78% nitrogen by volume, 21% oxygen and much smaller amounts of argon, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and other gases. In the video, the man apparently alludes to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which regulates workplaces. OSHA defines an atmosphere that is less than 19.5% oxygen as oxygen-deficient, and potentially unsafe. So the reference to '19.5 parts per million' in the video misstates the safety threshold. That unit of measurement is typically used to describe the concentration of chemical contaminants in water or soil, or trace amounts of a gas; 19.5 ppm is not a plausible reading of oxygen concentration in the atmosphere at a school board meeting. The other flaw in the demonstration, Neuman explained, is in how the meter is used to generate a reading for oxygen intake. 'This test does not tell the difference between exhaled air, which is high in carbon dioxide, from inhaled air, which is low in carbon dioxide, because the monitor is under the mask where the child is both inhaling and exhaling,' Neuman said. 'Holding a meter up to exhaled air would give the result shown. But the mask is porous, and most of the air for each new breath comes in through the mask.' Kirsten Koehler, an environmental health and engineering professor at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, said exhaled breath is only about 16% oxygen, because the body is taking in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide. 'When you breathe through the mask, some small volume of air will be left in the mask with this lower concentration at the end of an exhalation. As you inhale, that air is rapidly replaced with fresh air from the room filling your lungs with air at normal oxygen conditions,' she said. The sensors on the air quality meter 'cannot respond instantaneously to changes in concentration.' A more accurate way to assess the effect of a mask on oxygen flow is to analyze a blood sample, Neuman said. Or, 'a reasonable do-it-yourself test would be to wear a pulse oximeter while wearing a mask or not wearing a mask for longer periods of time, perhaps half an hour each, and then compare oxygen saturation levels.' The test would have to be repeated several times to get an accurate reading. 'Fortunately, this work has already been done quite carefully in several papers, which demonstrated no significant drop in oxygen content or rise in carbon dioxide content when wearing a mask,' Neuman said. Worries about masks for children Some experts have argued against mask mandates for children in schools. In a Wall Street Journal opinion article, Dr. Marty Makary, professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and Dr. H. Cody Meissner, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Tufts Children's Hospital, said masks make it more difficult for some children to learn, and may have negative physical and developmental effects. 'Any child who wants to wear a mask should be free to do so. But forcing them to make personal, health and developmental sacrifices for the sake of adults who refuse to get immunized is abusive,' the doctors wrote. 'Before we order the masking of 56 million Americans who are too young to vote and don't have a lobby, let's see data showing the benefits and weigh them against the long-term harm.' Research suggests it's possible that masks could spur social isolation and impede communication, especially for people who are deaf or have trouble hearing. But scientists have found little evidence that the cloth masks worn by most students negatively affect oxygen or carbon dioxide levels. We have previously found concerns about masks and oxygen or carbon dioxide levels to be oversold, as have other fact-checkers. Studies specific to children have been rare, so most of the scientific literature has involved research on adults. Two studies on children used N95 masks, but even these found no significant impacts on breathing. Other peer-reviewed studies of adults have produced similar results. N95 respirators are hospital-quality masks with a tighter seal and better filtration than ordinary cloth masks and they provide more protection from COVID-19. One paper published in February 2021 looked at 10 previous studies of adults or children that addressed questions of breathing while wearing a mask. The authors expressed disappointment at how few studies looked specifically at the impacts on children, but the paper found little reason for worry. 'The eight adult studies, including four prompted by the pandemic and one on surgeons, reported that face masks commonly used during the pandemic did not impair gas exchange during rest or mild exercise,' the authors wrote. | Our ruling A viral video claimed that a demonstration with an air quality monitor showed that cloth masks reduce oxygen levels and are unsafe for children. It's a new version of a claim that has been repeatedly debunked. The demonstration does not measure what it claims to measure, and studies have repeatedly found that cloth masks do not unsafely reduce oxygen levels. We rate the claim False. | [
"103850-proof-18-257fa1c25e1fd5421623910d49a88a13.jpg"
]
|
Says a demonstration with an air quality monitor shows that cloth masks are dangerous for children. | Contradiction | A viral video uses a demonstration with a child to claim that the cloth masks used to fight the spread of COVID-19 are unsafe for children. It's a new version of a claim that's been debunked. 'People make the same mistakes each time, and the results don't measure what they would like to measure,' said biology professor Benjamin Neuman, chief virologist at Texas A&M University's Global Health Research Complex, said about demonstrations that use air quality monitors. 'This demonstration uses the wrong equipment to test the wrong parameter, so it's not surprising that the result is nonsense.' The video was shared on TikTok and in a Facebook post. The Facebook 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.) Texas school board meeting The video is labeled as being from a meeting of the school board in Lago Vista, Texas, about 35 miles northwest of Austin. The board held a special meeting on Aug. 23 on its 'safe return to in-person instruction' plan. In the video, a man who said he was doing the demonstration with his daughter, an elementary school student, instructs the girl to put on a simple cloth face mask and then he holds a device next to her for a few seconds. The video is taken from a distance, so it's not clear exactly what the device is, but the man describes it as an air quality monitor like one he would use to measure air quality in confined spaces when working in construction. He said that when applying it to measure the air quality inside his daughter's mask, the monitor showed the air had an oxygen level of '19.5 parts per million,' which he said was dangerous. He asked that children not be forced to wear masks in school. A similar demonstration, but said to be measuring carbon dioxide parts per million, was shown in a video posted on Facebook from a school board meeting Aug. 9 in Conway, N.H. Flawed demonstration The air we breathe is made up of about 78% nitrogen by volume, 21% oxygen and much smaller amounts of argon, carbon dioxide, hydrogen and other gases. In the video, the man apparently alludes to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which regulates workplaces. OSHA defines an atmosphere that is less than 19.5% oxygen as oxygen-deficient, and potentially unsafe. So the reference to '19.5 parts per million' in the video misstates the safety threshold. That unit of measurement is typically used to describe the concentration of chemical contaminants in water or soil, or trace amounts of a gas; 19.5 ppm is not a plausible reading of oxygen concentration in the atmosphere at a school board meeting. The other flaw in the demonstration, Neuman explained, is in how the meter is used to generate a reading for oxygen intake. 'This test does not tell the difference between exhaled air, which is high in carbon dioxide, from inhaled air, which is low in carbon dioxide, because the monitor is under the mask where the child is both inhaling and exhaling,' Neuman said. 'Holding a meter up to exhaled air would give the result shown. But the mask is porous, and most of the air for each new breath comes in through the mask.' Kirsten Koehler, an environmental health and engineering professor at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, said exhaled breath is only about 16% oxygen, because the body is taking in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide. 'When you breathe through the mask, some small volume of air will be left in the mask with this lower concentration at the end of an exhalation. As you inhale, that air is rapidly replaced with fresh air from the room filling your lungs with air at normal oxygen conditions,' she said. The sensors on the air quality meter 'cannot respond instantaneously to changes in concentration.' A more accurate way to assess the effect of a mask on oxygen flow is to analyze a blood sample, Neuman said. Or, 'a reasonable do-it-yourself test would be to wear a pulse oximeter while wearing a mask or not wearing a mask for longer periods of time, perhaps half an hour each, and then compare oxygen saturation levels.' The test would have to be repeated several times to get an accurate reading. 'Fortunately, this work has already been done quite carefully in several papers, which demonstrated no significant drop in oxygen content or rise in carbon dioxide content when wearing a mask,' Neuman said. Worries about masks for children Some experts have argued against mask mandates for children in schools. In a Wall Street Journal opinion article, Dr. Marty Makary, professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, and Dr. H. Cody Meissner, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Tufts Children's Hospital, said masks make it more difficult for some children to learn, and may have negative physical and developmental effects. 'Any child who wants to wear a mask should be free to do so. But forcing them to make personal, health and developmental sacrifices for the sake of adults who refuse to get immunized is abusive,' the doctors wrote. 'Before we order the masking of 56 million Americans who are too young to vote and don't have a lobby, let's see data showing the benefits and weigh them against the long-term harm.' Research suggests it's possible that masks could spur social isolation and impede communication, especially for people who are deaf or have trouble hearing. But scientists have found little evidence that the cloth masks worn by most students negatively affect oxygen or carbon dioxide levels. We have previously found concerns about masks and oxygen or carbon dioxide levels to be oversold, as have other fact-checkers. Studies specific to children have been rare, so most of the scientific literature has involved research on adults. Two studies on children used N95 masks, but even these found no significant impacts on breathing. Other peer-reviewed studies of adults have produced similar results. N95 respirators are hospital-quality masks with a tighter seal and better filtration than ordinary cloth masks and they provide more protection from COVID-19. One paper published in February 2021 looked at 10 previous studies of adults or children that addressed questions of breathing while wearing a mask. The authors expressed disappointment at how few studies looked specifically at the impacts on children, but the paper found little reason for worry. 'The eight adult studies, including four prompted by the pandemic and one on surgeons, reported that face masks commonly used during the pandemic did not impair gas exchange during rest or mild exercise,' the authors wrote. | Our ruling A viral video claimed that a demonstration with an air quality monitor showed that cloth masks reduce oxygen levels and are unsafe for children. It's a new version of a claim that has been repeatedly debunked. The demonstration does not measure what it claims to measure, and studies have repeatedly found that cloth masks do not unsafely reduce oxygen levels. We rate the claim False. | [
"103850-proof-18-257fa1c25e1fd5421623910d49a88a13.jpg"
]
|
Photos show Joe Biden with a 'Chinese handler. | Contradiction | Several photos from inauguration day show President Joe Biden with Secret Service agent David Cho, a Korean American tapped to lead the president's security detail. Some social media posts sharing these photos have wrongly described Cho as 'Biden's Chinese handler.' 'This Chinese 'handler' has been following Biden around all day,' one post said. 'Literally right next to him everywhere he goes.' 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.) Cho is identified as a Secret Service agent in the caption of this Associated Press photo showing him Biden and first lady Jill Biden walking to the White House. He's known as a 'perfectionist supervisor,' according to the Washington Post, and he was second-in-command of the presidential detail during the Trump administration. In 2019, the homeland security secretary awarded Cho a gold medal for exceptional service for his role arranging the security for then-President Donald Trump's historic visit to North Korea. Cho was recognized for 'tireless and direct participation in high-level negotiations with the leaders of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,' including planning all security details for Trump's trip to that country, according to the Department of Homeland Security. We rate claims that Cho is a 'Chinese handler' Pants on Fire. | We rate claims that Cho is a 'Chinese handler' Pants on Fire. | []
|
Photos show Joe Biden with a 'Chinese handler. | Contradiction | Several photos from inauguration day show President Joe Biden with Secret Service agent David Cho, a Korean American tapped to lead the president's security detail. Some social media posts sharing these photos have wrongly described Cho as 'Biden's Chinese handler.' 'This Chinese 'handler' has been following Biden around all day,' one post said. 'Literally right next to him everywhere he goes.' 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.) Cho is identified as a Secret Service agent in the caption of this Associated Press photo showing him Biden and first lady Jill Biden walking to the White House. He's known as a 'perfectionist supervisor,' according to the Washington Post, and he was second-in-command of the presidential detail during the Trump administration. In 2019, the homeland security secretary awarded Cho a gold medal for exceptional service for his role arranging the security for then-President Donald Trump's historic visit to North Korea. Cho was recognized for 'tireless and direct participation in high-level negotiations with the leaders of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,' including planning all security details for Trump's trip to that country, according to the Department of Homeland Security. We rate claims that Cho is a 'Chinese handler' Pants on Fire. | We rate claims that Cho is a 'Chinese handler' Pants on Fire. | []
|
'Joe Biden and Kamala Harris forced our troops to sleep on the floor of a garage, yet has authorized $89 million for hotel rooms for illegal immigrants. | Contradiction | Shortly after National Guard members were summoned to Washington to secure President Joe Biden's inauguration, viral images emerged showing some troops sleeping in parking garages near the U.S. Capitol. As the photos circulated on social media, they sparked wide outrage from lawmakers and the general public. Since the Jan. 21 incident, social media users have spread unsubstantiated rumors alleging that specific politicians were responsible for pushing the National Guard troops out of the Capitol. A March 21 Facebook post takes that false claim and adds a new twist: 'Joe Biden and Kamala Harris forced our troops to sleep on the floor of a garage, yet has authorized $89 million for hotel rooms for illegal immigrants, who broke the law to get into this country,' it says. 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 troops were stationed in the Capitol amid fears that new violence would occur after the attack on the building on Jan. 6, 2021. However, there is no evidence that Biden, Vice President Harris or members of the Biden administration ordered the National Guard down to the garages. The exact reasons for the National Guard's relocation are murky. Separate organizations have reported conflicting statements about who requested the move. But National Guard spokesperson Wayne Hall told PolitiFact that the order to relocate did not come from the new president or vice president. Asked Monday about the incident, Hall said the Guard now believes it came as a request from a Capitol Police officer, who was not acting at the behest of anybody in authority. Politico and other outlets, including the Associated Press and the Washington Post, also reported Jan. 21 that the National Guard said the instruction to relocate came from a Capitol Police officer. But in a statement released the morning of Jan. 22, Acting Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman denied responsibility for the order, saying that with the exception of specific times on Inauguration Day, Capitol Police 'did not instruct the National Guard to vacate the Capitol Building facilities.' 'The Department is also working with the Guard to reduce the need for sleeping accommodations by establishing shorter shifts,' Pittman said, 'and will ensure they have access to the comfortable accommodations they absolutely deserve when the need arises.' According to the New York Times, Biden called Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson, the chief of the National Guard Bureau, on Jan. 21 to express his dismay about the incident and ask what he could do to help. The second part of the claim, that the White House has authorized $89 million for hotel rooms for people who enter the country illegally is missing context. Axios has reported that the Biden administration awarded an $86 million contract to use hotel rooms to provide shelter and processing services to around 1,200 migrant family members, citing unnamed officials from the Department of Homeland Security. The president of Endeavors, the Texas nonprofit that got the contract, confirmed the news to Fox. However, the use of hotels near the border to house migrants is not a new development. Previous administrations, including the Trump administration, have used hotel rooms to house children and families who enter the country illegally. | Our ruling A Facebook post says, 'Joe Biden and Kamala Harris forced our troops to sleep on the floor of a garage, yet has authorized $89 million for hotel rooms for illegal immigrants, who broke the law to get into this country.' There is no evidence that Biden and Harris ordered the National Guard to relocate from the Capitol to parking garages. The Guard told PolitiFact that the request to move the troops is believed to have come from a Capitol Police officer. Axios and Fox have reported that the Biden administration awarded a contract to use hotel rooms to provide shelter and processing services for migrant families. The contract was for a little less, $86 million, and the Biden administration is not the first administration to use hotels near the border to house children and families who enter the country illegally. This claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Mostly False. | []
|
'Joe Biden and Kamala Harris forced our troops to sleep on the floor of a garage, yet has authorized $89 million for hotel rooms for illegal immigrants. | Contradiction | Shortly after National Guard members were summoned to Washington to secure President Joe Biden's inauguration, viral images emerged showing some troops sleeping in parking garages near the U.S. Capitol. As the photos circulated on social media, they sparked wide outrage from lawmakers and the general public. Since the Jan. 21 incident, social media users have spread unsubstantiated rumors alleging that specific politicians were responsible for pushing the National Guard troops out of the Capitol. A March 21 Facebook post takes that false claim and adds a new twist: 'Joe Biden and Kamala Harris forced our troops to sleep on the floor of a garage, yet has authorized $89 million for hotel rooms for illegal immigrants, who broke the law to get into this country,' it says. 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 troops were stationed in the Capitol amid fears that new violence would occur after the attack on the building on Jan. 6, 2021. However, there is no evidence that Biden, Vice President Harris or members of the Biden administration ordered the National Guard down to the garages. The exact reasons for the National Guard's relocation are murky. Separate organizations have reported conflicting statements about who requested the move. But National Guard spokesperson Wayne Hall told PolitiFact that the order to relocate did not come from the new president or vice president. Asked Monday about the incident, Hall said the Guard now believes it came as a request from a Capitol Police officer, who was not acting at the behest of anybody in authority. Politico and other outlets, including the Associated Press and the Washington Post, also reported Jan. 21 that the National Guard said the instruction to relocate came from a Capitol Police officer. But in a statement released the morning of Jan. 22, Acting Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman denied responsibility for the order, saying that with the exception of specific times on Inauguration Day, Capitol Police 'did not instruct the National Guard to vacate the Capitol Building facilities.' 'The Department is also working with the Guard to reduce the need for sleeping accommodations by establishing shorter shifts,' Pittman said, 'and will ensure they have access to the comfortable accommodations they absolutely deserve when the need arises.' According to the New York Times, Biden called Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson, the chief of the National Guard Bureau, on Jan. 21 to express his dismay about the incident and ask what he could do to help. The second part of the claim, that the White House has authorized $89 million for hotel rooms for people who enter the country illegally is missing context. Axios has reported that the Biden administration awarded an $86 million contract to use hotel rooms to provide shelter and processing services to around 1,200 migrant family members, citing unnamed officials from the Department of Homeland Security. The president of Endeavors, the Texas nonprofit that got the contract, confirmed the news to Fox. However, the use of hotels near the border to house migrants is not a new development. Previous administrations, including the Trump administration, have used hotel rooms to house children and families who enter the country illegally. | Our ruling A Facebook post says, 'Joe Biden and Kamala Harris forced our troops to sleep on the floor of a garage, yet has authorized $89 million for hotel rooms for illegal immigrants, who broke the law to get into this country.' There is no evidence that Biden and Harris ordered the National Guard to relocate from the Capitol to parking garages. The Guard told PolitiFact that the request to move the troops is believed to have come from a Capitol Police officer. Axios and Fox have reported that the Biden administration awarded a contract to use hotel rooms to provide shelter and processing services for migrant families. The contract was for a little less, $86 million, and the Biden administration is not the first administration to use hotels near the border to house children and families who enter the country illegally. This claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Mostly False. | []
|
Wisconsin has 'no tracing program going on that we can speak of. | Contradiction | Facing a growing push to re-open Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers has laid out a series of key benchmarks for easing social distancing restrictions, dubbed the 'Badger Bounce Back' plan. The state is tracking data on cases, symptoms and hospital usage, but Evers has also pointed to three other logistical elements: access to personal protective gear, expanded testing and expanded contact tracing. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald homed in on the last of those while criticizing Evers in an April 26, 2020, interview with WISN-TV's 'UpFront' program. 'We need better information. More explanations,' said Fitzgerald, R-Juneau. 'They have no tracing program going on that we can speak of.' Contact tracing, done by public health officials, is the process of supporting patients with suspected or confirmed infections. Steps include identifying who else they had contact with, warning those other individuals and educating everyone exposed on how to protect themselves and others through isolation and other steps. It's a fundamental element of the pandemic response, helping to identify clusters of cases early on to minimize the spread. Does Wisconsin really have no such program 'to speak of'? Tracing ramp up hasn't always been smooth Asked for evidence of the claim, Fitzgerald spokesman Alec Zimmerman said this: 'The point he was trying to make is the same that (Wisconsin Department of Health Services) makes daily in the briefings -- tracing as it is now isn't enough.' Zimmerman noted the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has reported on shortcomings in the system. For instance, the newspaper contacted 10 people who had the disease or lost loved ones within the first few weeks of the outbreak, and seven said they were never contacted by health officials as of April 23 when the story published. A story published May 1, 2020, detailed how Milwaukee has added staffing and made other changes to improve the tracing program. State and local officials have been tracing Health officials across the nation are scrambling to add contact tracers. The number of tracers needed for the pandemic is about double the usual need, according to the National Association of County and City Health Officials. 'Public health nurses do this regularly, for example, for sexually transmitted diseases or tuberculosis,' DHS spokeswoman Elizabeth Goodsitt said in an email. 'What is new in this space is mainly the large scale of cases and the speed at which the virus is able to spread - which means we need additional contact tracers to do this work so that we are able to reach each identified exposed person really quickly.' DHS doesn't know how many tracers are working in Wisconsin or how many tracing investigations have been done since those efforts are lead by local health departments. DHS Deputy Secretary Julie Willems Van Dijk said at the April 28 COVID-19 media briefing that the goal is to have 1,000 contact tracers 'between the DHS surge capacity and the capacity of local health departments.' The state had trained 400 contact tracers as of April 30 to provide 'surge capacity' for local health departments, Goodsitt said. The number trained was closer to 250 when Fitzgerald made his claim. 'The state surge team has been part of more than 1,100 interviews (as of April 30), which is just a fraction of calls our local public health tracers have made,' Goodsitt said. The number of tracers varies widely among some of the state's larger health departments. As of April 25, the Journal Sentinel reported the Milwaukee Health Department had dedicated 19 people to tracing, about 8% of its staff (though that was up to 54 by May 1, 2020). The Washington Ozaukee Health Department had dedicated 15 people, or about 38% of its 40-person staff. CBS 58 reported April 23 that Waukesha County had 30 contact tracers. Milwaukee officials told the Journal Sentinel the initial tracing interview had been conducted within a week for 92% of all positive cases in the city, but it's an extensive process. They make about 10 contacts for every positive case. | Our ruling Fitzgerald said Wisconsin has 'no tracing program going on that we can speak of.' Wisconsin - like every other state - is still ramping up the capacity for tracing. And there have clearly been gaps in the work so far. But it's a significant exaggeration to summarize that as having no program when hundreds of people are doing this work around the state. Tracing was being done around the state when Fitzgerald said this, and those efforts have continued to ramp up since. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"103872-proof-34-fce7964ba7383ec2deebcd50313478c2.JPG.jpg"
]
|
Wisconsin has 'no tracing program going on that we can speak of. | Contradiction | Facing a growing push to re-open Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers has laid out a series of key benchmarks for easing social distancing restrictions, dubbed the 'Badger Bounce Back' plan. The state is tracking data on cases, symptoms and hospital usage, but Evers has also pointed to three other logistical elements: access to personal protective gear, expanded testing and expanded contact tracing. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald homed in on the last of those while criticizing Evers in an April 26, 2020, interview with WISN-TV's 'UpFront' program. 'We need better information. More explanations,' said Fitzgerald, R-Juneau. 'They have no tracing program going on that we can speak of.' Contact tracing, done by public health officials, is the process of supporting patients with suspected or confirmed infections. Steps include identifying who else they had contact with, warning those other individuals and educating everyone exposed on how to protect themselves and others through isolation and other steps. It's a fundamental element of the pandemic response, helping to identify clusters of cases early on to minimize the spread. Does Wisconsin really have no such program 'to speak of'? Tracing ramp up hasn't always been smooth Asked for evidence of the claim, Fitzgerald spokesman Alec Zimmerman said this: 'The point he was trying to make is the same that (Wisconsin Department of Health Services) makes daily in the briefings -- tracing as it is now isn't enough.' Zimmerman noted the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has reported on shortcomings in the system. For instance, the newspaper contacted 10 people who had the disease or lost loved ones within the first few weeks of the outbreak, and seven said they were never contacted by health officials as of April 23 when the story published. A story published May 1, 2020, detailed how Milwaukee has added staffing and made other changes to improve the tracing program. State and local officials have been tracing Health officials across the nation are scrambling to add contact tracers. The number of tracers needed for the pandemic is about double the usual need, according to the National Association of County and City Health Officials. 'Public health nurses do this regularly, for example, for sexually transmitted diseases or tuberculosis,' DHS spokeswoman Elizabeth Goodsitt said in an email. 'What is new in this space is mainly the large scale of cases and the speed at which the virus is able to spread - which means we need additional contact tracers to do this work so that we are able to reach each identified exposed person really quickly.' DHS doesn't know how many tracers are working in Wisconsin or how many tracing investigations have been done since those efforts are lead by local health departments. DHS Deputy Secretary Julie Willems Van Dijk said at the April 28 COVID-19 media briefing that the goal is to have 1,000 contact tracers 'between the DHS surge capacity and the capacity of local health departments.' The state had trained 400 contact tracers as of April 30 to provide 'surge capacity' for local health departments, Goodsitt said. The number trained was closer to 250 when Fitzgerald made his claim. 'The state surge team has been part of more than 1,100 interviews (as of April 30), which is just a fraction of calls our local public health tracers have made,' Goodsitt said. The number of tracers varies widely among some of the state's larger health departments. As of April 25, the Journal Sentinel reported the Milwaukee Health Department had dedicated 19 people to tracing, about 8% of its staff (though that was up to 54 by May 1, 2020). The Washington Ozaukee Health Department had dedicated 15 people, or about 38% of its 40-person staff. CBS 58 reported April 23 that Waukesha County had 30 contact tracers. Milwaukee officials told the Journal Sentinel the initial tracing interview had been conducted within a week for 92% of all positive cases in the city, but it's an extensive process. They make about 10 contacts for every positive case. | Our ruling Fitzgerald said Wisconsin has 'no tracing program going on that we can speak of.' Wisconsin - like every other state - is still ramping up the capacity for tracing. And there have clearly been gaps in the work so far. But it's a significant exaggeration to summarize that as having no program when hundreds of people are doing this work around the state. Tracing was being done around the state when Fitzgerald said this, and those efforts have continued to ramp up since. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"103872-proof-34-fce7964ba7383ec2deebcd50313478c2.JPG.jpg"
]
|
Says the suspected Boulder mass shooter is a Muslim 'who entered illegally from Mexico and purchased the firearm from a guy that sells stolen guns. | Contradiction | A Facebook user made several claims about Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, the man charged with the Boulder, Colo. mass shooting. The claims said he is a Muslim who entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico and 'purchased the firearm' from a man who sells stolen guns. 'Just found this about the Colorado shooting share it before it disappears' reads text above a photo of bloodied and nearly naked Alissa being taken into custody by two officers. 'Shooting suspect Ahmad Al Aliwi is Muslim entered illegally from Mexico and purchased the firearm from a guy that sells stolen guns. You cant make this (expletive) up why we need a freaking wall.' 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.) Alissa appears to be Muslim. However, there is no evidence that he entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico or that he bought a gun illegally. Alissa's religious background On March 22, a gunman walked into a King Soopers grocery store in Boulder, a college town northwest of Denver, and opened fire. Ten people were killed in the shooting, including one police officer. Police arrested Alissa, 21, in connection with the attack, during which he was shot through his right leg. Alissa's brother, Ali Aliwi Alissa, told CNN that their family emigrated from Syria to the U.S. in 2002, and court records and Alissa's Facebook page said that he was born in 1999 in Syria, a majority-Muslim country. Ali Aliwi Alissa, told CNN that in high school bullies made fun of Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa's name and for being Muslim. The Washington Post reported that Alissa complained about hostility toward refugees and Muslims, writing in sharing a link about the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy: 'Why refugees and immigrants are good for America.' A classmate of Alissa's in high school in Arvada, about 20 miles southeast of Boulder, told the Denver Post that in high school, Alissa was often concerned about being targeted because of his Muslim faith. Alissa often spoke about his Muslim faith on social media and said he believed he was targeted over Islamophobia and racism, Heavy.com reported. No evidence of immigration from Mexico We don't yet know the full details of how Alissa's family immigrated to the U.S. But there is no evidence they entered illegally through Mexico. We rated Mostly False a claim by conservative activist Jack Posobiec that Alissa 'was a Syrian refugee who arrived via Obama-era asylum programs.' The best available information shows he arrived about seven years before Obama took office. At least one of two guns purchased legally In their arrest warrant for Alissa, police said Alissa had removed all of his clothing and was dressed only in shorts when he was taken into custody in the store. A rifle, described as a 'possible AR-15,' and a semiautomatic handgun were found with Alissa's clothes and a tactical vest in the store, the warrant said. 'Using law enforcement databases, investigators determined that Alissa had purchased a Ruger AR-556 pistol on March 16, 2021,' the warrant said. The owner of the Arvada gun store that sold him the Ruger, a pistol that looks like a rifle, has said Alissa passed a background check in purchasing the gun. The charges filed against Alissa do not include any gun charges. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed the suspected Boulder mass shooter is a Muslim 'who entered illegally from Mexico and purchased the firearm from a guy that sells stolen guns.' Alissa apparently is Muslim, but there is no evidence that he entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico or that he had illegally purchased a gun he allegedly used in the shooting. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"103884-proof-18-dabe361d7e083de5643734d5315f5936.jpg"
]
|
Says the suspected Boulder mass shooter is a Muslim 'who entered illegally from Mexico and purchased the firearm from a guy that sells stolen guns. | Contradiction | A Facebook user made several claims about Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, the man charged with the Boulder, Colo. mass shooting. The claims said he is a Muslim who entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico and 'purchased the firearm' from a man who sells stolen guns. 'Just found this about the Colorado shooting share it before it disappears' reads text above a photo of bloodied and nearly naked Alissa being taken into custody by two officers. 'Shooting suspect Ahmad Al Aliwi is Muslim entered illegally from Mexico and purchased the firearm from a guy that sells stolen guns. You cant make this (expletive) up why we need a freaking wall.' 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.) Alissa appears to be Muslim. However, there is no evidence that he entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico or that he bought a gun illegally. Alissa's religious background On March 22, a gunman walked into a King Soopers grocery store in Boulder, a college town northwest of Denver, and opened fire. Ten people were killed in the shooting, including one police officer. Police arrested Alissa, 21, in connection with the attack, during which he was shot through his right leg. Alissa's brother, Ali Aliwi Alissa, told CNN that their family emigrated from Syria to the U.S. in 2002, and court records and Alissa's Facebook page said that he was born in 1999 in Syria, a majority-Muslim country. Ali Aliwi Alissa, told CNN that in high school bullies made fun of Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa's name and for being Muslim. The Washington Post reported that Alissa complained about hostility toward refugees and Muslims, writing in sharing a link about the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy: 'Why refugees and immigrants are good for America.' A classmate of Alissa's in high school in Arvada, about 20 miles southeast of Boulder, told the Denver Post that in high school, Alissa was often concerned about being targeted because of his Muslim faith. Alissa often spoke about his Muslim faith on social media and said he believed he was targeted over Islamophobia and racism, Heavy.com reported. No evidence of immigration from Mexico We don't yet know the full details of how Alissa's family immigrated to the U.S. But there is no evidence they entered illegally through Mexico. We rated Mostly False a claim by conservative activist Jack Posobiec that Alissa 'was a Syrian refugee who arrived via Obama-era asylum programs.' The best available information shows he arrived about seven years before Obama took office. At least one of two guns purchased legally In their arrest warrant for Alissa, police said Alissa had removed all of his clothing and was dressed only in shorts when he was taken into custody in the store. A rifle, described as a 'possible AR-15,' and a semiautomatic handgun were found with Alissa's clothes and a tactical vest in the store, the warrant said. 'Using law enforcement databases, investigators determined that Alissa had purchased a Ruger AR-556 pistol on March 16, 2021,' the warrant said. The owner of the Arvada gun store that sold him the Ruger, a pistol that looks like a rifle, has said Alissa passed a background check in purchasing the gun. The charges filed against Alissa do not include any gun charges. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed the suspected Boulder mass shooter is a Muslim 'who entered illegally from Mexico and purchased the firearm from a guy that sells stolen guns.' Alissa apparently is Muslim, but there is no evidence that he entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico or that he had illegally purchased a gun he allegedly used in the shooting. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"103884-proof-18-dabe361d7e083de5643734d5315f5936.jpg"
]
|
Says the suspected Boulder mass shooter is a Muslim 'who entered illegally from Mexico and purchased the firearm from a guy that sells stolen guns. | Contradiction | A Facebook user made several claims about Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, the man charged with the Boulder, Colo. mass shooting. The claims said he is a Muslim who entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico and 'purchased the firearm' from a man who sells stolen guns. 'Just found this about the Colorado shooting share it before it disappears' reads text above a photo of bloodied and nearly naked Alissa being taken into custody by two officers. 'Shooting suspect Ahmad Al Aliwi is Muslim entered illegally from Mexico and purchased the firearm from a guy that sells stolen guns. You cant make this (expletive) up why we need a freaking wall.' 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.) Alissa appears to be Muslim. However, there is no evidence that he entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico or that he bought a gun illegally. Alissa's religious background On March 22, a gunman walked into a King Soopers grocery store in Boulder, a college town northwest of Denver, and opened fire. Ten people were killed in the shooting, including one police officer. Police arrested Alissa, 21, in connection with the attack, during which he was shot through his right leg. Alissa's brother, Ali Aliwi Alissa, told CNN that their family emigrated from Syria to the U.S. in 2002, and court records and Alissa's Facebook page said that he was born in 1999 in Syria, a majority-Muslim country. Ali Aliwi Alissa, told CNN that in high school bullies made fun of Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa's name and for being Muslim. The Washington Post reported that Alissa complained about hostility toward refugees and Muslims, writing in sharing a link about the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy: 'Why refugees and immigrants are good for America.' A classmate of Alissa's in high school in Arvada, about 20 miles southeast of Boulder, told the Denver Post that in high school, Alissa was often concerned about being targeted because of his Muslim faith. Alissa often spoke about his Muslim faith on social media and said he believed he was targeted over Islamophobia and racism, Heavy.com reported. No evidence of immigration from Mexico We don't yet know the full details of how Alissa's family immigrated to the U.S. But there is no evidence they entered illegally through Mexico. We rated Mostly False a claim by conservative activist Jack Posobiec that Alissa 'was a Syrian refugee who arrived via Obama-era asylum programs.' The best available information shows he arrived about seven years before Obama took office. At least one of two guns purchased legally In their arrest warrant for Alissa, police said Alissa had removed all of his clothing and was dressed only in shorts when he was taken into custody in the store. A rifle, described as a 'possible AR-15,' and a semiautomatic handgun were found with Alissa's clothes and a tactical vest in the store, the warrant said. 'Using law enforcement databases, investigators determined that Alissa had purchased a Ruger AR-556 pistol on March 16, 2021,' the warrant said. The owner of the Arvada gun store that sold him the Ruger, a pistol that looks like a rifle, has said Alissa passed a background check in purchasing the gun. The charges filed against Alissa do not include any gun charges. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed the suspected Boulder mass shooter is a Muslim 'who entered illegally from Mexico and purchased the firearm from a guy that sells stolen guns.' Alissa apparently is Muslim, but there is no evidence that he entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico or that he had illegally purchased a gun he allegedly used in the shooting. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"103884-proof-18-dabe361d7e083de5643734d5315f5936.jpg"
]
|
North Carolina's Democratic primary is open to 'all registered voters, regardless of registration. | Contradiction | Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg is trying to boost election participation in North Carolina. But a recent piece of campaign mail offers misleading information about who can vote in North Carolina's primaries. Bloomberg, who entered the presidential race late, has spent millions of dollars on television ads in an attempt to compete with other Democratic candidates such as Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others. In the letter obtained by WRAL, Bloomberg criticizes President Donald Trump for creating 'chaos' while in office -- and asks the recipient for her support. Bloomberg then closes the letter with this line: 'P.S. North Carolina election law allows all registered voters, regardless of registration, to vote in the Democratic Primary.' The letter was first reported by The Richmond Observer. So is it true that any registered voter can vote in any party's primary? No. Semi-closed primary North Carolina has what's known as a 'semi-closed' primary, according to the NC board of elections. This means that anybody who is registered with a specific party can only vote in that party's primary. Unaffiliated voters can also participate in one party's primary election -- but only if that party opens its doors to those voters. In North Carolina, political parties aren't required to open their primaries. Each of North Carolina's recognized parties has until the first day of December to inform the NC elections board whether it wants to open its primary. This year, the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties will have open primaries, according to the elections board. In other words: if you are registered as an unaffiliated voter in North Carolina, you can participate in one of their primaries. Meanwhile, the Constitution and Green parties are closed -- meaning you have to be registered with those parties to participate. A follow-up letter It's unclear how many letters the Bloomberg campaign sent in North Carolina. LaToya Evans, a spokeswoman for Bloomberg, told us that the campaign is working to rectify the situation. 'Last week, the campaign sent a letter introducing Mike Bloomberg and his record targeted at Democrats and unaffiliated voters in North Carolina,' Evans said in a Feb. 4 email. 'These voters can show up on election day and vote in the Democratic primary. We are sending a follow up mailer to those who received the letter to clarify how they can participate in the upcoming primary. We regret any confusion this may have caused.' In the meantime, the NC elections board is hoping voters will rely only on official government communications for information. 'We always encourage people to rely on county and state elections boards and their materials for reliable information about elections,' board spokesman Pat Gannon told PolitiFact. | Our ruling Bloomberg's letter said 'North Carolina election law allows all registered voters, regardless of registration, to vote in the Democratic Primary.' That's not true. North Carolina has a semi-closed primary. If you're an unaffiliated voter, you can vote in one of the major party's primaries. If you're registered with a certain party, you cannot participate in another party's primary like Bloomberg's letter implies. We rate this statement False. | [
"103888-proof-33-bc456aa6e98995590bfcfbe54bdc9ec3.jpg"
]
|
North Carolina's Democratic primary is open to 'all registered voters, regardless of registration. | Contradiction | Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg is trying to boost election participation in North Carolina. But a recent piece of campaign mail offers misleading information about who can vote in North Carolina's primaries. Bloomberg, who entered the presidential race late, has spent millions of dollars on television ads in an attempt to compete with other Democratic candidates such as Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others. In the letter obtained by WRAL, Bloomberg criticizes President Donald Trump for creating 'chaos' while in office -- and asks the recipient for her support. Bloomberg then closes the letter with this line: 'P.S. North Carolina election law allows all registered voters, regardless of registration, to vote in the Democratic Primary.' The letter was first reported by The Richmond Observer. So is it true that any registered voter can vote in any party's primary? No. Semi-closed primary North Carolina has what's known as a 'semi-closed' primary, according to the NC board of elections. This means that anybody who is registered with a specific party can only vote in that party's primary. Unaffiliated voters can also participate in one party's primary election -- but only if that party opens its doors to those voters. In North Carolina, political parties aren't required to open their primaries. Each of North Carolina's recognized parties has until the first day of December to inform the NC elections board whether it wants to open its primary. This year, the Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties will have open primaries, according to the elections board. In other words: if you are registered as an unaffiliated voter in North Carolina, you can participate in one of their primaries. Meanwhile, the Constitution and Green parties are closed -- meaning you have to be registered with those parties to participate. A follow-up letter It's unclear how many letters the Bloomberg campaign sent in North Carolina. LaToya Evans, a spokeswoman for Bloomberg, told us that the campaign is working to rectify the situation. 'Last week, the campaign sent a letter introducing Mike Bloomberg and his record targeted at Democrats and unaffiliated voters in North Carolina,' Evans said in a Feb. 4 email. 'These voters can show up on election day and vote in the Democratic primary. We are sending a follow up mailer to those who received the letter to clarify how they can participate in the upcoming primary. We regret any confusion this may have caused.' In the meantime, the NC elections board is hoping voters will rely only on official government communications for information. 'We always encourage people to rely on county and state elections boards and their materials for reliable information about elections,' board spokesman Pat Gannon told PolitiFact. | Our ruling Bloomberg's letter said 'North Carolina election law allows all registered voters, regardless of registration, to vote in the Democratic Primary.' That's not true. North Carolina has a semi-closed primary. If you're an unaffiliated voter, you can vote in one of the major party's primaries. If you're registered with a certain party, you cannot participate in another party's primary like Bloomberg's letter implies. We rate this statement False. | [
"103888-proof-33-bc456aa6e98995590bfcfbe54bdc9ec3.jpg"
]
|
Joe Biden 'really did wipe away' student loan debt. | Contradiction | Facebook has some good news for anyone with student loans: President Joe Biden has already canceled them. Or did he? In a Feb. 2 post, one user wrote that her student loan debt had mysteriously vanished. 'Wow, just checked my Credit Karma and Biden really did wipe away my student loans $20k worth of debt,' the user wrote. 'God is good!' 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 few other Facebook users shared in the celebration, so we wanted to check this post out. (Screenshot from Facebook) During his presidential campaign, Biden promised to make federal student loan payments more affordable for Americans - particularly people with low incomes and public servants. But those plans have not yet come to fruition, and Biden hasn't said he'd cancel student loans for everyone. Here's what Biden promised: Biden has extended a pause on federal student loan payments, but none of the executive orders he has signed so far follow through on his campaign promises. In December, he said it's 'pretty questionable' whether he'd have the power to forgive up to $50,000 of debt via executive order. Congress has not passed legislation canceling student loan debt, either. On Jan. 20, the day of Biden's inauguration, the president introduced a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package. Among its provisions are $1,400 stimulus checks for most Americans, an unemployment insurance supplement of $400 per week and an increase in the federal minimum wage. Student loan debt forgiveness is not mentioned in the plan. Neither loan forgiveness nor a payment pause were included in the December relief package. We can't speak to what may have happened to the Facebook user's student loan debt, but the post that credits Biden for wiping it away is inaccurate. We rate it False. | We can't speak to what may have happened to the Facebook user's student loan debt, but the post that credits Biden for wiping it away is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"103890-proof-16-Screen_Shot_2021-02-04_at_10_23_59.jpg",
"103890-proof-29-46d4fe44285ef1e3cb6435fc8cedd3b8.jpg"
]
|
Joe Biden 'really did wipe away' student loan debt. | Contradiction | Facebook has some good news for anyone with student loans: President Joe Biden has already canceled them. Or did he? In a Feb. 2 post, one user wrote that her student loan debt had mysteriously vanished. 'Wow, just checked my Credit Karma and Biden really did wipe away my student loans $20k worth of debt,' the user wrote. 'God is good!' 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 few other Facebook users shared in the celebration, so we wanted to check this post out. (Screenshot from Facebook) During his presidential campaign, Biden promised to make federal student loan payments more affordable for Americans - particularly people with low incomes and public servants. But those plans have not yet come to fruition, and Biden hasn't said he'd cancel student loans for everyone. Here's what Biden promised: Biden has extended a pause on federal student loan payments, but none of the executive orders he has signed so far follow through on his campaign promises. In December, he said it's 'pretty questionable' whether he'd have the power to forgive up to $50,000 of debt via executive order. Congress has not passed legislation canceling student loan debt, either. On Jan. 20, the day of Biden's inauguration, the president introduced a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package. Among its provisions are $1,400 stimulus checks for most Americans, an unemployment insurance supplement of $400 per week and an increase in the federal minimum wage. Student loan debt forgiveness is not mentioned in the plan. Neither loan forgiveness nor a payment pause were included in the December relief package. We can't speak to what may have happened to the Facebook user's student loan debt, but the post that credits Biden for wiping it away is inaccurate. We rate it False. | We can't speak to what may have happened to the Facebook user's student loan debt, but the post that credits Biden for wiping it away is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"103890-proof-16-Screen_Shot_2021-02-04_at_10_23_59.jpg",
"103890-proof-29-46d4fe44285ef1e3cb6435fc8cedd3b8.jpg"
]
|
Olive Garden employees are allowed to wear Black Lives Matter masks 'but NOT the American flag. | Contradiction | We've previously debunked claims about businesses banning the American flag, and a new one about Olive Garden, home of unlimited soup, salad and breadsticks, is also wrong. 'I find it odd that Olive Garden employees are allowed to wear BLM mask but NOT the American flag. I'm done spending my money there!!!' 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.) One skeptical Facebook user brought the claim to the company's verified Facebook page. 'I saw this post on someone's FB page, is it true?' the person asked. 'That is not true,' Olive Garden replied on Sept. 10. 'Team members may wear either if they choose to do so.' We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
Says a U.S. Air Force-insignia plane evacuating people from Afghanistan is fake. | Contradiction | A widely shared Facebook post claims that a plane with the U.S. Air Force insignia, shown in a photograph evacuating people from Afghanistan, is fake. 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 plane evacuated hundreds of Afghan citizens fearing the Taliban. There is no evidence that it is fake. The photo shows a plane with the words 'U.S. Air Force' emblazoned on the side. In the foreground is a mass of people, including a man closest to the camera with both arms in the air. The photo appears to capture an image from a news video that the Washington Post says was taken by Afghan journalist Bilal Sarwari Aug. 16. It showed a U.S. Air Force cargo plane that was taxiing at the Kabul airport. Some 640 Afghanistan civilians reportedly made it onto the plane, while others desperately attempted to grab onto the plane's exterior as the plane began to depart. The plane had been surrounded by hundreds of Afghan civilians, the Air Force said in a statement, so 'faced with a rapidly deteriorating security situation around the aircraft,' the crew 'decided to depart the airfield as quickly as possible.' In one of the largest airlifts in U.S. history, the U.S. flew 82,300 people out of Kabul between Aug. 14 and the afternoon of Aug. 25, according to official figures. These included a mix of U.S. citizens, green card holders, recipients of a special immigrant visa for helping the U.S. military or diplomats, refugees, and people seeking temporary humanitarian parole. Afghans who are cleared to fly to the U.S. are brought to military bases, where vetting continues. We rate the post False. | We rate the post False. | [
"103918-proof-07-8a1852ad99db6d9b05b1f4181cb1c0ce.jpeg"
]
|
Says a U.S. Air Force-insignia plane evacuating people from Afghanistan is fake. | Contradiction | A widely shared Facebook post claims that a plane with the U.S. Air Force insignia, shown in a photograph evacuating people from Afghanistan, is fake. 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 plane evacuated hundreds of Afghan citizens fearing the Taliban. There is no evidence that it is fake. The photo shows a plane with the words 'U.S. Air Force' emblazoned on the side. In the foreground is a mass of people, including a man closest to the camera with both arms in the air. The photo appears to capture an image from a news video that the Washington Post says was taken by Afghan journalist Bilal Sarwari Aug. 16. It showed a U.S. Air Force cargo plane that was taxiing at the Kabul airport. Some 640 Afghanistan civilians reportedly made it onto the plane, while others desperately attempted to grab onto the plane's exterior as the plane began to depart. The plane had been surrounded by hundreds of Afghan civilians, the Air Force said in a statement, so 'faced with a rapidly deteriorating security situation around the aircraft,' the crew 'decided to depart the airfield as quickly as possible.' In one of the largest airlifts in U.S. history, the U.S. flew 82,300 people out of Kabul between Aug. 14 and the afternoon of Aug. 25, according to official figures. These included a mix of U.S. citizens, green card holders, recipients of a special immigrant visa for helping the U.S. military or diplomats, refugees, and people seeking temporary humanitarian parole. Afghans who are cleared to fly to the U.S. are brought to military bases, where vetting continues. We rate the post False. | We rate the post False. | [
"103918-proof-07-8a1852ad99db6d9b05b1f4181cb1c0ce.jpeg"
]
|
Says image shows Pete Buttigieg in a leather suit posing with two other men. | Contradiction | A photo shared on Facebook falsely shows Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg dressed in a black leather suit and standing on the street posing for a picture alongside two other men. 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.) PolitiFact ran reverse image searches and found the original photo, which does not include Buttigieg. The picture found on Pinterest does not identify who's in it; it only says it's from a Folsom Street Fair. The Facebook photo was edited to replace the face of the person originally in the photo with an image of Buttigieg's face. We rate the doctored Facebook photo Pants on Fire! | We rate the doctored Facebook photo Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says image shows Pete Buttigieg in a leather suit posing with two other men. | Contradiction | A photo shared on Facebook falsely shows Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg dressed in a black leather suit and standing on the street posing for a picture alongside two other men. 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.) PolitiFact ran reverse image searches and found the original photo, which does not include Buttigieg. The picture found on Pinterest does not identify who's in it; it only says it's from a Folsom Street Fair. The Facebook photo was edited to replace the face of the person originally in the photo with an image of Buttigieg's face. We rate the doctored Facebook photo Pants on Fire! | We rate the doctored Facebook photo Pants on Fire! | []
|
The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine contains a Bluetooth microchip. | Contradiction | A debunked claim from the early days of the pandemic - that the COVID-19 vaccines contain microchips - is spreading anew online, courtesy of a TikTok video circulating across platforms. 'AstraZeneca Bluetooth side effect,' says the text on the two-part TikTok video, which shows a man who claims that his body has been connecting to Bluetooth-enabled devices ever since he got the AstraZeneca shot. One hashtag on the video: '#chipped.' The ingredients for the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine are publicly available online, including on government websites where the vaccine is approved for use, such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. (The vaccine has not been authorized for emergency use in the U.S.) It does not contain anything related to Bluetooth technology or microchips. PolitiFact has fact-checked several claims alleging that the vaccines contain microchips, all inaccurate. Yet, the viral TikTok video has been reposted to Instagram, YouTube and other platforms. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The video doesn't prove what it claims to Conspiracy theories about microchips in the COVID-19 vaccines have been so persistent that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention addressed them in a vaccine safety FAQ. 'There may be trackers on the vaccine shipment boxes to protect them from theft, but there are no trackers in the vaccines themselves,' the agency wrote. This two-part TikTok video adds a new wrinkle to the false narrative, with the man in the video claiming his body is connecting to Bluetooth-enabled devices as a result of the vaccine. In the first part of the video, the man sits at a counter and talks about the side effects he felt after getting his vaccine. The camera focuses on his smartphone, which then shows a notification for a 'Bluetooth pairing request' from a device titled 'AstraZeneca_ChAdOx1-S.' 'The only problem is that everywhere I go, everywhere I go, everything is trying to connect to me now, like Bluetooth connectivity,' the man says before showing his phone. 'I got Bluetooth connectivity. I get in the car, my car is trying to connect to me. I go home, my computer is trying to connect. My phone is trying to connect. Like everything, all the time.' In the second part of the video, the man is sitting at the same counter but wearing a different outfit. He approaches a TV, and the TV says, 'Connecting to AstraZeneca_ChAdOx1-S.' But the TikTok video doesn't prove what it claims to. First, Bluetooth-enabled devices can typically be renamed as the user sees fit, and any other device could be triggering the notifications in the video. Second, microchips are too big to fit into the COVID-19 shots. 'A microchip is about 0.5 inches long,' said Dr. Paul Offit, chair of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine. 'That wouldn't fit through the end of a needle.' The video resembles other recent postings by social media users who claimed, falsely, that they were able to stick magnets to their arms because of microchips in the vaccines. As PolitiFact and other fact-checkers reported, there's nothing magnetic or metallic in the vaccines. 'It's protein and lipids, salts, water and chemicals that maintain the pH,' Thomas Hope, a vaccine researcher at Northwestern University, told AFP. 'That's basically it. AstraZeneca did not respond to requests for comment. | Our ruling A TikTok video claims the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine contains a Bluetooth microchip. There's no support for that claim. The ingredients for the AstraZeneca vaccine do not include Bluetooth technology. Claims that the vaccines contain microchips have been widely debunked. What's more, Bluetooth enabled devices can be renamed as users see fit - and there's no evidence the man's body is responsible for the notifications shown in the video. We rate this video False. | [
"103933-proof-26-6d970722878e78f5bdb2d76ec4219a10.jpg"
]
|
AstraZeneca means 'weapon that kills. | Contradiction | Working with the University of Oxford, AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company, developed a vaccine against COVID-19 that is being used in parts of the world to inoculate people against the disease. But an image being shared on social media suggests that the company harms rather than helps. Pulling together three different languages - Sanskrit, Polish and Latin - the image claims that AstraZeneca means 'weapon that kills.' The image includes a screenshot of a Wikipedia article about an astra, which, according to the article, 'was a supernatural weapon' in Hinduism. It also has screenshots of two translations provided by Google. In Polish, according to Google Translate, 'ze' means 'that' and 'necare' means 'killing' in Latin. But the company says this isn't the meaning of its name. 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.) In October 2019, someone asked AstraZeneca on Twitter about the origin of the brand name. 'AstraAB was founded in 1913 in Sodertalje, Sweden,' the company wrote from its verified Twitter account. ''Astra' has its roots in the Greek astron, meaning 'a star'. Zeneca was formed in June 1993 by the demerger of the pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals businesses of Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) into a separate company.' 'Zeneca' is an invented name, the company said - 'created by an agency instructed to find a name which began with a letter from either the top or the bottom of the alphabet and was phonetically memorable, of no more than three syllables and did not have an offensive meaning in any language.' In 1999, Astra AB, the Swedish pharmaceutical company, merged with Zeneca Group, which was based in the United Kingdom. Wikipedia has many articles about the word 'Astra,' ranging from a Marvel Comics character to a 2012 Bengali movie to a beer. We rate the claim that the company's name means 'weapon that kills' False. | We rate the claim that the company's name means 'weapon that kills' False. | []
|
Says Rachel Levine supports 'government-funded sex reassignment surgery without parental notification or authorization' for all children. | Contradiction | Since being nominated for the post of assistant health secretary, Dr. Rachel Levine has faced repeated attacks focusing on her identity as a transgender woman. One of these attacks circulated on social media platforms in the form of a viral image, which features a picture of Levine photoshopped next to a group of prepubescent children. 'Dr. Rachel Levine, US Assistant Secretary for Health, believes that all children should be allowed to select their gender and have access to government-funded sex reassignment surgery without parental notification or authorization,' reads the text beside the image. 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.) In support of their claims, Levine's critics have surfaced a 2017 lecture she gave at Franklin & Marshall College, where she described professional standards of care for transgender youth. They have also referenced a tweet in which Levine cited a study that found that access to puberty blockers decreases the likelihood of suicide and mental health problems for adolecents with gender dysphoria. However, we could not find any instance where Levine advocated for children to receive government-funded gender confirmation surgery without parental consent. Performing genital surgery on prepubescent minors violates professional standards of transgender medicine. Levine lays out professional standards of care During her lecture at Franklin & Marshall, Levine described the standards of care for transgender patients laid out by professional organizations such as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Current U.S. health guidelines do not recommend surgical treatment for minors. At one point of the lecture, Levine explicitly notes that the guidelines do not recommend any form of medical treatment for children prior to puberty. 'For prepubertal children (with gender dysphoria) there is no medical treatment,' she says. 'The idea would be to see a counselor or therapist who is supportive and has knowledge about these issues, to work with the parents.' At another point of the lecture, Levine discusses standards of care for transgender youth, laying out a three-tiered protocol drawn up by professionals in transgender medicine. Before doctors prescribe any physical interventions, the guidelines require patients to undergo counseling and psychological evaluation by a team of health professionals, including psychologists, pediatricians and endocrinologists. This process also allows kids to begin the process of socially transitioning to another gender by using different names and wearing different clothing. If a patient has begun to go through puberty and is determined to have experienced 'persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria' for a long period of time, the youth becomes eligible to receive puberty blockers. These drugs suppress the release of testosterone and estrogen during puberty. The goal of this phase of treatment is to allow transgender youth more time to reflect on their decision. Different youth experience the onset of puberty at different ages, so the guidelines don't provide a strict age threshold at which patients become eligible for the first stage of treatment. However, most studies of transgender youth have featured subjects at least 12 years old. If the youth completes this phase of treatment, doctors can slowly start off with interventions such as hormone therapy to masculinize or feminize the body. Some of these changes (such as the deepening of the voice caused by testosterone) are irreversible. Others may require reconstructive surgery to be reversed. Many hospitals, such as the Duke Health Center for Gender Care for Children and Adolescents, will only offer hormone replacement therapies for adolescents 16 or older. Genital surgery, the last phase of the process, is generally restricted to adults. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines state that genital surgery shouldn't be performed until the patient reaches the age of majority, which is at least 18 across the U.S. - and there are many other factors besides age that should also be considered. 'Genital surgery should not be carried out until (i) patients reach the legal age of majority to give consent for medical procedures in a given country, and (ii) patients have lived continuously for at least 12 months in the gender role that is congruent with their gender identity. The age threshold should be seen as a minimum criterion and not an indication in and of itself for active intervention,' the guidelines read. During her lecture, Levine noted that homeless youth could be eligible for an accelerated transition process. Since these youth lack parental support and are more likely to purchase dangerous black market hormones, she suggested that it might be necessary to skip the puberty-blocker phase of treatment and go straight to hormone therapy. However, at no point in the lecture did Levine state that homeless youth could be eligible for genital surgery before reaching the age of majority. | Our ruling Facebook posts said that Rachel Levine supports 'government-funded sex reassignment surgery without parental notification or authorization' for all children. There is no record of Levine supporting genital surgery for young children. In a lecture, Levine stated that 'there is no medical treatment' for prepubescent children with gender dysphoria. Performing genital surgery on prepubescent children violates the standards of care laid out by professionals in transgender medicine. This claim is False. | []
|
Says Rachel Levine supports 'government-funded sex reassignment surgery without parental notification or authorization' for all children. | Contradiction | Since being nominated for the post of assistant health secretary, Dr. Rachel Levine has faced repeated attacks focusing on her identity as a transgender woman. One of these attacks circulated on social media platforms in the form of a viral image, which features a picture of Levine photoshopped next to a group of prepubescent children. 'Dr. Rachel Levine, US Assistant Secretary for Health, believes that all children should be allowed to select their gender and have access to government-funded sex reassignment surgery without parental notification or authorization,' reads the text beside the image. 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.) In support of their claims, Levine's critics have surfaced a 2017 lecture she gave at Franklin & Marshall College, where she described professional standards of care for transgender youth. They have also referenced a tweet in which Levine cited a study that found that access to puberty blockers decreases the likelihood of suicide and mental health problems for adolecents with gender dysphoria. However, we could not find any instance where Levine advocated for children to receive government-funded gender confirmation surgery without parental consent. Performing genital surgery on prepubescent minors violates professional standards of transgender medicine. Levine lays out professional standards of care During her lecture at Franklin & Marshall, Levine described the standards of care for transgender patients laid out by professional organizations such as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Current U.S. health guidelines do not recommend surgical treatment for minors. At one point of the lecture, Levine explicitly notes that the guidelines do not recommend any form of medical treatment for children prior to puberty. 'For prepubertal children (with gender dysphoria) there is no medical treatment,' she says. 'The idea would be to see a counselor or therapist who is supportive and has knowledge about these issues, to work with the parents.' At another point of the lecture, Levine discusses standards of care for transgender youth, laying out a three-tiered protocol drawn up by professionals in transgender medicine. Before doctors prescribe any physical interventions, the guidelines require patients to undergo counseling and psychological evaluation by a team of health professionals, including psychologists, pediatricians and endocrinologists. This process also allows kids to begin the process of socially transitioning to another gender by using different names and wearing different clothing. If a patient has begun to go through puberty and is determined to have experienced 'persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria' for a long period of time, the youth becomes eligible to receive puberty blockers. These drugs suppress the release of testosterone and estrogen during puberty. The goal of this phase of treatment is to allow transgender youth more time to reflect on their decision. Different youth experience the onset of puberty at different ages, so the guidelines don't provide a strict age threshold at which patients become eligible for the first stage of treatment. However, most studies of transgender youth have featured subjects at least 12 years old. If the youth completes this phase of treatment, doctors can slowly start off with interventions such as hormone therapy to masculinize or feminize the body. Some of these changes (such as the deepening of the voice caused by testosterone) are irreversible. Others may require reconstructive surgery to be reversed. Many hospitals, such as the Duke Health Center for Gender Care for Children and Adolescents, will only offer hormone replacement therapies for adolescents 16 or older. Genital surgery, the last phase of the process, is generally restricted to adults. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines state that genital surgery shouldn't be performed until the patient reaches the age of majority, which is at least 18 across the U.S. - and there are many other factors besides age that should also be considered. 'Genital surgery should not be carried out until (i) patients reach the legal age of majority to give consent for medical procedures in a given country, and (ii) patients have lived continuously for at least 12 months in the gender role that is congruent with their gender identity. The age threshold should be seen as a minimum criterion and not an indication in and of itself for active intervention,' the guidelines read. During her lecture, Levine noted that homeless youth could be eligible for an accelerated transition process. Since these youth lack parental support and are more likely to purchase dangerous black market hormones, she suggested that it might be necessary to skip the puberty-blocker phase of treatment and go straight to hormone therapy. However, at no point in the lecture did Levine state that homeless youth could be eligible for genital surgery before reaching the age of majority. | Our ruling Facebook posts said that Rachel Levine supports 'government-funded sex reassignment surgery without parental notification or authorization' for all children. There is no record of Levine supporting genital surgery for young children. In a lecture, Levine stated that 'there is no medical treatment' for prepubescent children with gender dysphoria. Performing genital surgery on prepubescent children violates the standards of care laid out by professionals in transgender medicine. This claim is False. | []
|
Says Rachel Levine supports 'government-funded sex reassignment surgery without parental notification or authorization' for all children. | Contradiction | Since being nominated for the post of assistant health secretary, Dr. Rachel Levine has faced repeated attacks focusing on her identity as a transgender woman. One of these attacks circulated on social media platforms in the form of a viral image, which features a picture of Levine photoshopped next to a group of prepubescent children. 'Dr. Rachel Levine, US Assistant Secretary for Health, believes that all children should be allowed to select their gender and have access to government-funded sex reassignment surgery without parental notification or authorization,' reads the text beside the image. 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.) In support of their claims, Levine's critics have surfaced a 2017 lecture she gave at Franklin & Marshall College, where she described professional standards of care for transgender youth. They have also referenced a tweet in which Levine cited a study that found that access to puberty blockers decreases the likelihood of suicide and mental health problems for adolecents with gender dysphoria. However, we could not find any instance where Levine advocated for children to receive government-funded gender confirmation surgery without parental consent. Performing genital surgery on prepubescent minors violates professional standards of transgender medicine. Levine lays out professional standards of care During her lecture at Franklin & Marshall, Levine described the standards of care for transgender patients laid out by professional organizations such as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Current U.S. health guidelines do not recommend surgical treatment for minors. At one point of the lecture, Levine explicitly notes that the guidelines do not recommend any form of medical treatment for children prior to puberty. 'For prepubertal children (with gender dysphoria) there is no medical treatment,' she says. 'The idea would be to see a counselor or therapist who is supportive and has knowledge about these issues, to work with the parents.' At another point of the lecture, Levine discusses standards of care for transgender youth, laying out a three-tiered protocol drawn up by professionals in transgender medicine. Before doctors prescribe any physical interventions, the guidelines require patients to undergo counseling and psychological evaluation by a team of health professionals, including psychologists, pediatricians and endocrinologists. This process also allows kids to begin the process of socially transitioning to another gender by using different names and wearing different clothing. If a patient has begun to go through puberty and is determined to have experienced 'persistent, well-documented gender dysphoria' for a long period of time, the youth becomes eligible to receive puberty blockers. These drugs suppress the release of testosterone and estrogen during puberty. The goal of this phase of treatment is to allow transgender youth more time to reflect on their decision. Different youth experience the onset of puberty at different ages, so the guidelines don't provide a strict age threshold at which patients become eligible for the first stage of treatment. However, most studies of transgender youth have featured subjects at least 12 years old. If the youth completes this phase of treatment, doctors can slowly start off with interventions such as hormone therapy to masculinize or feminize the body. Some of these changes (such as the deepening of the voice caused by testosterone) are irreversible. Others may require reconstructive surgery to be reversed. Many hospitals, such as the Duke Health Center for Gender Care for Children and Adolescents, will only offer hormone replacement therapies for adolescents 16 or older. Genital surgery, the last phase of the process, is generally restricted to adults. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines state that genital surgery shouldn't be performed until the patient reaches the age of majority, which is at least 18 across the U.S. - and there are many other factors besides age that should also be considered. 'Genital surgery should not be carried out until (i) patients reach the legal age of majority to give consent for medical procedures in a given country, and (ii) patients have lived continuously for at least 12 months in the gender role that is congruent with their gender identity. The age threshold should be seen as a minimum criterion and not an indication in and of itself for active intervention,' the guidelines read. During her lecture, Levine noted that homeless youth could be eligible for an accelerated transition process. Since these youth lack parental support and are more likely to purchase dangerous black market hormones, she suggested that it might be necessary to skip the puberty-blocker phase of treatment and go straight to hormone therapy. However, at no point in the lecture did Levine state that homeless youth could be eligible for genital surgery before reaching the age of majority. | Our ruling Facebook posts said that Rachel Levine supports 'government-funded sex reassignment surgery without parental notification or authorization' for all children. There is no record of Levine supporting genital surgery for young children. In a lecture, Levine stated that 'there is no medical treatment' for prepubescent children with gender dysphoria. Performing genital surgery on prepubescent children violates the standards of care laid out by professionals in transgender medicine. This claim is False. | []
|
'BLM Activist kills three people in a Louisville bar wearing a Breonna Taylor tee shirt last Friday. | Contradiction | A former U.S. senatorial candidate said in a Sept. 21 Facebook post that a man accused of shooting and killing three people at a Louisville, Ky., bar is a Black Lives Matter activist who was wearing a Breonna Taylor T-shirt. 'BLM Activist kills three people in a Louisville bar wearing a Breonna Taylor tee shirt last Friday. Why isn't this National News?' said Peggy Hubbard, who ran for U.S. Senate and lost Illinois' Republican primary election in March. Hubbard'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.) Hubbard's claim is based on a triple homicide that happened Sept. 18 on the patio of Bungalow Joe's bar and restaurant in Louisville. Michael E. Rhynes Jr. was charged with three counts of murder and has pleaded not guilty. A photo shows and police confirmed that Rhynes was wearing a different shirt, not a Breonna Taylor shirt. Taylor was a 25-year-old Black woman who was shot and killed by Louisville police in March as officers executed a search warrant at her home. Since her death, activists, athletes and celebrities have called attention to the case, and her name has become a rallying cry in nationwide calls for police reform. But her name was not on the shirt Rhynes was wearing at the time of the bar shooting. In a still photo taken from a TikTok video showing his arrest shortly after the shooting, Rhynes' shirt is visible. It features images of Muhammad Ali and Colin Kaepernick and the hashtag #freedom, according to Snopes.com. The shirt Rhynes wore was custom made by a company Rhynes co-owns, according to Louisville police. Rhynes' LinkedIn profile says he is the chief executive officer for Serve N Slay Images in Louisville, and the Kentucky Secretary of State lists him as the registered agent for the company. Serve N Slay's apparel line is 'geared towards showing a positive image and message for the black community with a bit of attitude and flavor,' according to its website. The clothing offered for sale includes a Black Lives Matter t-shirt. There is no online evidence to indicate that Rhynes is an activist within the Black Lives Matter movement. Facebook, Instagram and Twitter accounts for his business have been disabled or removed. Rhynes also does not appear to have any currently active personal social media accounts. Louisville Metro Police Department Lt. Donny Burbrink, who leads the department's homicide unit, said the shooting seemed to be 'a completely random act.' Police said they do not have any proof that the crime was racially motivated, WAVE 3 News in Louisville reported, and one of the men killed was a Black man. Other social media posts similar to Hubbard's falsely claimed that the bar where the triple shooting took place is owned by a retired police officer. The owner of Bungalow Joe's, Joe Bishop, has debunked that rumor himself in media interviews. Bishop also told Fox News that his review of security footage revealed Rhynes was not wearing a Breonna Taylor shirt | Our ruling Hubbard said, 'BLM Activist kills three people in a Louisville bar wearing a Breonna Taylor tee shirt last Friday. Why isn't this National News?' Hubbard's Facebook post contains an element of truth because a triple homicide did take place in Louisville and the alleged shooter owns a business that promotes positive messages for the Black community, including on clothing it sells. However, the post ignores critical facts: The shooter is not known to be an activist in the Black Lives Matter movement and was not wearing a shirt featuring Breonna Taylor. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
'Canada prohibits all vaxxed pilots from flying. | Contradiction | On July 19, Canada announced that fully vaccinated Americans could resume visiting the country beginning Aug. 9. So it seems odd that the government would prohibit vaccinated pilots from flying, but that's what a recent blog post claims. 'Canada prohibits all vaxxed pilots from flying,' reads a July 11 headline of a post on a website called 'Alt News.' 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 includes a screenshot of a page about COVID-19 vaccines on the website of Transport Canada, the country's transportation department. The page said in part: 'Transport Canada Civil Aviation Medicine does not restrict or limit aviators from taking vaccines that have been approved by Health Canada. Transport Canada (TC) Civil Aviation Medicine (CAM) does not impose grounding periods for aviators who wish to take vaccines approved by Health Canada.' It also said: 'While TC CAM places no restrictions or limitations on vaccines approved by Health Canada, it remains the general position of TC CAM that participation in medical trials is not considered compatible with aviation medical certification.' The blog post claims that because 'the corona vax is a 'medical trial,'' COVID-19 vaccinations 'are ruled to ground all pilots.' But that misstates facts. Transport Canada said pilots wouldn't be restricted if they took vaccines approved by Health Canada, the country's health department. According to Health Canada's website, it has received 21 applications for drug and vaccine authorizations related to COVID-19. Several vaccines have been authorized for use in Canada, including the AstraZeneca, Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. Others, such as one from a company called Novavax, are still under review. Transport Canada did not immediately respond to PolitiFact's questions about the post, but as of July 21, its website no longer included the language about medical trials that was highlighted in the post. The site now says, 'COVID-19 vaccines that have been approved by Health Canada (Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson)) are considered compatible with Transport Canada Aviation Medical Certification.' The site still says the department doesn't ground pilots who wish to take those vaccines. The earlier wording on the site about medical trials was in response to pilots asking if they could take part in vaccine trials Health Canada had organized before some vaccines were approved for general use in the country, a spokesperson for Transport Canada told AFP. 'Now that Health Canada has approved the vaccines, the comment regarding medical trials is less relevant and we have elected to remove that statement,' the spokesperson said to AFP. We rate claims that pilots who are vaccinated against COVID-19 can't fly False. | We rate claims that pilots who are vaccinated against COVID-19 can't fly False. | []
|
Video shows man trying to 'fill entire pickup bed with fuel amidst last month's fuel shortage. | Contradiction | As the Colonial Pipeline disruption led to fears of fuel shortages on the East Coast, some misinformation about people hoarding gas started to spread online. On May 28, a video was shared on the Facebook page of Julius Dein, a street magician and performer who makes social media content. It's titled 'He filled his truck bed with gasoline' and shows a man at a gas station who appears to be filling his tarp-lined truck bed with fuel. But the post also says: 'Thank you for watching! Please be aware that this page features Magic Effects/Illusions as well as scripted dramas and parodies. These short films are for entertainment purposes only!' As the video has been shared on social media without that caveat, it's not always clear that the video is staged. 'Dude tries to fill entire pickup bed with fuel amidst last month's fuel shortage,' reads the headline of one June 7 blog post. The post shares the video on YouTube with the title 'Insane man fills his truck bed with gasoline!' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We rate claims that the video is authentic False. | We rate claims that the video is authentic False. | []
|
Says Kamala Harris said 'once Trump's gone' from the White House, 'we'll be coming for you next. You will feel the vengeance of a nation. | Contradiction | An image shared widely on Facebook claims that U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris issued a bold threat to supporters of President Donald Trump. Harris is said to be on Joe Biden's short list of potential running mates in his bid for the presidency. 'Who the hell does she think she is?' the post's headline reads. Below that is a photo of Harris alongside this text, which purports to quote her: 'And once Trump's gone and we have regained our rightful place in the White House, look out if you supported him and endorsed his actions, because we'll be coming for you next. You will feel the vengeance of a nation. No stone will be left unturned as we seek you out in every corner of this great nation. For it is you who have betrayed us.' The rest of the image claims Harris uttered the quote on June 18, 2020, and ends with: 'Yes, she really said this.' No, she really didn't. The June 20 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.) Harris was plenty critical of Trump during her run for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination before she and other hopefuls dropped out, leaving Biden as the presumptive nominee. But the quote attributed to her was fabricated on the Bustatroll satire website in an August 2019 article that carries the byline: 'Fired Writer.' The article is clearly labeled satire. But the viral image being shared has no such label. An alert Facebook user commenting on the post we're checking pointed out that in November 2019, we rated the same claim as Pants on Fire when it surfaced in a similar viral image. We're giving the same rating here: Pants on Fire. | An alert Facebook user commenting on the post we're checking pointed out that in November 2019, we rated the same claim as Pants on Fire when it surfaced in a similar viral image. We're giving the same rating here: Pants on Fire. | []
|
Says a photo shows South Carolina after stay-at-home orders were announced. | Contradiction | Communities around the country have responded differently to social distancing recommendations, with some cities and states directing residents to shelter in place while others have resisted shutting down. A recent Facebook post seems to pointedly illustrate these differences with three photos. 'After they announce to everyone to 'stay at home,'' the text above three different images says. The first two show empty cityscapes and are labeled 'Chicago' and 'New York.' The third shows a highway clogged with cars. This photo is labeled 'South Carolina.' 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 supposed photo of South Carolina? It's Houston. The Houston Chronicle ran it with a 2017 story about traffic congestion. According to the caption, it shows traffic on Interstate 45 around downtown Houston during the afternoon rush hour. The image labeled Chicago appears to be a photo of Michigan Avenue in downtown Chicago - based on the architectural landmarks - but it's not of the city under a stay-at-home order. We found it posted to a website called desktopbackground.org three years ago. The photo is reversed. Only the photo labeled New York actually shows Times Square in New York City during the pandemic. It's true that South Carolina was behind New York and Chicago in issuing statewide orders limiting the movements of its residents. Charleston and Columbia, S.C., told people to stay at home before the state issued its statewide mandate. Gov. Henry McMaster didn't direct all South Carolinians to follow suit until this month. The order was effective on April 7. But this Facebook post misrepresents what that looked like in South Carolina, using an old photo of Houston to claim that South Carolinians are flouting the law. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | [
"103999-proof-13-phonto_19.jpg"
]
|
Caitlyn Jenner 'literally killed someone 6 years ago in the streets and was released by a District Attorney. | Contradiction | On the night of this year's Academy Awards, Olympic gold medalist and former reality TV show star Caitlyn Jenner got into a social media tussle with Democratic Congress member Ted Lieu of California. The argument started on Twitter: As a way to win support for her candidacy in the likely recall election against Gov. Gavin Newsom, Jenner criticised the governor for allowing district attorneys to release 'dangerous criminals back on to our streets.' The Twitter war stole some of the spotlight from the Oscars and went viral. Alex Mohajer, a political commentator, retweeted Jenner's criticism with the comment, 'This is your reminder that Caitlyn Jenner literally killed someone in the streets 6 years ago and was released by a District Attorney.' Mohajer also posted the claim to their Facebook, where it was shared more than a thousand times. Facebook flagged the post as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook and a previous PolitiFact fact-check of Caitlyn Jenner from 2017.) Facebook also flagged a similar post just days before. We decided to look into it. What happened: In 2015, Jenner was driving an SUV, which was towing an ATV, on the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. She rear-ended a Lexus, pushing it into oncoming traffic. Kim Howe, the driver of the Lexus, was then hit by a Hummer traveling in the opposite direction. Jenner proceeded forward and hit another vehicle, a Prius, whose driver suffered mild injuries. But Howe was killed on impact. Jenner was apologetic for the event and called it a terrible accident. She settled with Howe's family and Jessica Steindorff, the driver of the Prius, for an undisclosed amount, as well as the family in the Hummer for $800,000. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office issued an investigation into the accident and looked into the possibility of vehicular manslaughter. The investigation triggered controversy for Jenner at the time, because the misdemeanor charges would have potentially put her behind bars for at least a year, at which point she had just announced her gender transition. At the end of the investigation, the DA's office did not proceed with charges due to a lack of evidence. In order to prove vehicular manslaughter, a person must have some level of ordinary negligence. In Jenner's case, they came up empty. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department recommended that she be charged, however it wasn't their final decision. In addition to a lack of evidence, the DA's report said Jenner let go of the gas pedal and engaged her brakes a couple of seconds too late before hitting Howe. The report says she did not break any traffic laws, except for driving below the speed limit. Therefore, they declined to charge her with vehicular manslaughter. Experts say charging someone for the crime isn't easy. The burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution. California law says the prosecution must prove that the person who caused the death was driving with negligence and violating traffic laws. 'The negligence goes sort of hand-in-hand with the traffic offense,' said John McCurley, criminal defense attorney and appellate law specialist. Anything that can impair your driving safely - like texting, putting on makeup, or staring out the window - is considered ordinary negligence. McCurley said these cases usually only involve single riders. 'The only person who really has the story is them and they don't have to testify,' McCurley said. 'I think that's a big issue with proving these cases.' And if the prosecutor can't come up with evidence, then they can't press charges. 'I can't say that it was her fault. So again, we have an absence of facts,' McCurley said. When prosecutors do an investigation, they leave no shortage of expertise. 'They don't skimp on resources,' said Nabiel Ahmed, a criminal defense attorney in the Oakland Bay Area. Ahmed represented a vehicular manslaughter case in which his client was intoxicated and driving over the speed limit. The driver did not engage their brakes and as a result smashed into a parked car. They were convicted. 'Caitlyn's case differed [from] mine in that she did apply the brakes and she was driving below the speed limit, so these were two critical distinguishing factors,' Ahmed said. The investigation also found Jenner was sober at the time of the accident. Our Ruling Did California recall election candidate Caitlyn Jenner kill someone in the streets and get released by a district attorney? It's correct that the district attorney did not pursue charges against Jenner. The decision came about after an investigation, in which the DA's office said there was a lack of evidence to charge her with vehicular manslaughter and of driving recklessly. The DA did not release Jenner. The posts on social media suggest that Jenner was released by a district attorney for killing someone. However, Jenner was never charged or convicted in the case. We rate this claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | Our Ruling Did California recall election candidate Caitlyn Jenner kill someone in the streets and get released by a district attorney? It's correct that the district attorney did not pursue charges against Jenner. The decision came about after an investigation, in which the DA's office said there was a lack of evidence to charge her with vehicular manslaughter and of driving recklessly. The DA did not release Jenner. The posts on social media suggest that Jenner was released by a district attorney for killing someone. However, Jenner was never charged or convicted in the case. We rate this claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | [
"104001-proof-16-nV2FWFAIeufCAUPdb4FqV7ZoFzME1r-CHpLuwF0VveHs00fHuiMzkWiE228CkGnjCHarR4luip5EtTfq.jpg",
"104001-proof-19-lExJ8CCKbQjVH5AbjrCiB_CeRtHqifhqEzv7VQPtmxO6wqt_zvsFGk5fmb6B-XgEGwJDQzWViislfufg.jpg"
]
|
Caitlyn Jenner 'literally killed someone 6 years ago in the streets and was released by a District Attorney. | Contradiction | On the night of this year's Academy Awards, Olympic gold medalist and former reality TV show star Caitlyn Jenner got into a social media tussle with Democratic Congress member Ted Lieu of California. The argument started on Twitter: As a way to win support for her candidacy in the likely recall election against Gov. Gavin Newsom, Jenner criticised the governor for allowing district attorneys to release 'dangerous criminals back on to our streets.' The Twitter war stole some of the spotlight from the Oscars and went viral. Alex Mohajer, a political commentator, retweeted Jenner's criticism with the comment, 'This is your reminder that Caitlyn Jenner literally killed someone in the streets 6 years ago and was released by a District Attorney.' Mohajer also posted the claim to their Facebook, where it was shared more than a thousand times. Facebook flagged the post as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook and a previous PolitiFact fact-check of Caitlyn Jenner from 2017.) Facebook also flagged a similar post just days before. We decided to look into it. What happened: In 2015, Jenner was driving an SUV, which was towing an ATV, on the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. She rear-ended a Lexus, pushing it into oncoming traffic. Kim Howe, the driver of the Lexus, was then hit by a Hummer traveling in the opposite direction. Jenner proceeded forward and hit another vehicle, a Prius, whose driver suffered mild injuries. But Howe was killed on impact. Jenner was apologetic for the event and called it a terrible accident. She settled with Howe's family and Jessica Steindorff, the driver of the Prius, for an undisclosed amount, as well as the family in the Hummer for $800,000. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office issued an investigation into the accident and looked into the possibility of vehicular manslaughter. The investigation triggered controversy for Jenner at the time, because the misdemeanor charges would have potentially put her behind bars for at least a year, at which point she had just announced her gender transition. At the end of the investigation, the DA's office did not proceed with charges due to a lack of evidence. In order to prove vehicular manslaughter, a person must have some level of ordinary negligence. In Jenner's case, they came up empty. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department recommended that she be charged, however it wasn't their final decision. In addition to a lack of evidence, the DA's report said Jenner let go of the gas pedal and engaged her brakes a couple of seconds too late before hitting Howe. The report says she did not break any traffic laws, except for driving below the speed limit. Therefore, they declined to charge her with vehicular manslaughter. Experts say charging someone for the crime isn't easy. The burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution. California law says the prosecution must prove that the person who caused the death was driving with negligence and violating traffic laws. 'The negligence goes sort of hand-in-hand with the traffic offense,' said John McCurley, criminal defense attorney and appellate law specialist. Anything that can impair your driving safely - like texting, putting on makeup, or staring out the window - is considered ordinary negligence. McCurley said these cases usually only involve single riders. 'The only person who really has the story is them and they don't have to testify,' McCurley said. 'I think that's a big issue with proving these cases.' And if the prosecutor can't come up with evidence, then they can't press charges. 'I can't say that it was her fault. So again, we have an absence of facts,' McCurley said. When prosecutors do an investigation, they leave no shortage of expertise. 'They don't skimp on resources,' said Nabiel Ahmed, a criminal defense attorney in the Oakland Bay Area. Ahmed represented a vehicular manslaughter case in which his client was intoxicated and driving over the speed limit. The driver did not engage their brakes and as a result smashed into a parked car. They were convicted. 'Caitlyn's case differed [from] mine in that she did apply the brakes and she was driving below the speed limit, so these were two critical distinguishing factors,' Ahmed said. The investigation also found Jenner was sober at the time of the accident. Our Ruling Did California recall election candidate Caitlyn Jenner kill someone in the streets and get released by a district attorney? It's correct that the district attorney did not pursue charges against Jenner. The decision came about after an investigation, in which the DA's office said there was a lack of evidence to charge her with vehicular manslaughter and of driving recklessly. The DA did not release Jenner. The posts on social media suggest that Jenner was released by a district attorney for killing someone. However, Jenner was never charged or convicted in the case. We rate this claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | Our Ruling Did California recall election candidate Caitlyn Jenner kill someone in the streets and get released by a district attorney? It's correct that the district attorney did not pursue charges against Jenner. The decision came about after an investigation, in which the DA's office said there was a lack of evidence to charge her with vehicular manslaughter and of driving recklessly. The DA did not release Jenner. The posts on social media suggest that Jenner was released by a district attorney for killing someone. However, Jenner was never charged or convicted in the case. We rate this claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | [
"104001-proof-16-nV2FWFAIeufCAUPdb4FqV7ZoFzME1r-CHpLuwF0VveHs00fHuiMzkWiE228CkGnjCHarR4luip5EtTfq.jpg",
"104001-proof-19-lExJ8CCKbQjVH5AbjrCiB_CeRtHqifhqEzv7VQPtmxO6wqt_zvsFGk5fmb6B-XgEGwJDQzWViislfufg.jpg"
]
|
Caitlyn Jenner 'literally killed someone 6 years ago in the streets and was released by a District Attorney. | Contradiction | On the night of this year's Academy Awards, Olympic gold medalist and former reality TV show star Caitlyn Jenner got into a social media tussle with Democratic Congress member Ted Lieu of California. The argument started on Twitter: As a way to win support for her candidacy in the likely recall election against Gov. Gavin Newsom, Jenner criticised the governor for allowing district attorneys to release 'dangerous criminals back on to our streets.' The Twitter war stole some of the spotlight from the Oscars and went viral. Alex Mohajer, a political commentator, retweeted Jenner's criticism with the comment, 'This is your reminder that Caitlyn Jenner literally killed someone in the streets 6 years ago and was released by a District Attorney.' Mohajer also posted the claim to their Facebook, where it was shared more than a thousand times. Facebook flagged the post as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook and a previous PolitiFact fact-check of Caitlyn Jenner from 2017.) Facebook also flagged a similar post just days before. We decided to look into it. What happened: In 2015, Jenner was driving an SUV, which was towing an ATV, on the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. She rear-ended a Lexus, pushing it into oncoming traffic. Kim Howe, the driver of the Lexus, was then hit by a Hummer traveling in the opposite direction. Jenner proceeded forward and hit another vehicle, a Prius, whose driver suffered mild injuries. But Howe was killed on impact. Jenner was apologetic for the event and called it a terrible accident. She settled with Howe's family and Jessica Steindorff, the driver of the Prius, for an undisclosed amount, as well as the family in the Hummer for $800,000. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office issued an investigation into the accident and looked into the possibility of vehicular manslaughter. The investigation triggered controversy for Jenner at the time, because the misdemeanor charges would have potentially put her behind bars for at least a year, at which point she had just announced her gender transition. At the end of the investigation, the DA's office did not proceed with charges due to a lack of evidence. In order to prove vehicular manslaughter, a person must have some level of ordinary negligence. In Jenner's case, they came up empty. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department recommended that she be charged, however it wasn't their final decision. In addition to a lack of evidence, the DA's report said Jenner let go of the gas pedal and engaged her brakes a couple of seconds too late before hitting Howe. The report says she did not break any traffic laws, except for driving below the speed limit. Therefore, they declined to charge her with vehicular manslaughter. Experts say charging someone for the crime isn't easy. The burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution. California law says the prosecution must prove that the person who caused the death was driving with negligence and violating traffic laws. 'The negligence goes sort of hand-in-hand with the traffic offense,' said John McCurley, criminal defense attorney and appellate law specialist. Anything that can impair your driving safely - like texting, putting on makeup, or staring out the window - is considered ordinary negligence. McCurley said these cases usually only involve single riders. 'The only person who really has the story is them and they don't have to testify,' McCurley said. 'I think that's a big issue with proving these cases.' And if the prosecutor can't come up with evidence, then they can't press charges. 'I can't say that it was her fault. So again, we have an absence of facts,' McCurley said. When prosecutors do an investigation, they leave no shortage of expertise. 'They don't skimp on resources,' said Nabiel Ahmed, a criminal defense attorney in the Oakland Bay Area. Ahmed represented a vehicular manslaughter case in which his client was intoxicated and driving over the speed limit. The driver did not engage their brakes and as a result smashed into a parked car. They were convicted. 'Caitlyn's case differed [from] mine in that she did apply the brakes and she was driving below the speed limit, so these were two critical distinguishing factors,' Ahmed said. The investigation also found Jenner was sober at the time of the accident. Our Ruling Did California recall election candidate Caitlyn Jenner kill someone in the streets and get released by a district attorney? It's correct that the district attorney did not pursue charges against Jenner. The decision came about after an investigation, in which the DA's office said there was a lack of evidence to charge her with vehicular manslaughter and of driving recklessly. The DA did not release Jenner. The posts on social media suggest that Jenner was released by a district attorney for killing someone. However, Jenner was never charged or convicted in the case. We rate this claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | Our Ruling Did California recall election candidate Caitlyn Jenner kill someone in the streets and get released by a district attorney? It's correct that the district attorney did not pursue charges against Jenner. The decision came about after an investigation, in which the DA's office said there was a lack of evidence to charge her with vehicular manslaughter and of driving recklessly. The DA did not release Jenner. The posts on social media suggest that Jenner was released by a district attorney for killing someone. However, Jenner was never charged or convicted in the case. We rate this claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | [
"104001-proof-16-nV2FWFAIeufCAUPdb4FqV7ZoFzME1r-CHpLuwF0VveHs00fHuiMzkWiE228CkGnjCHarR4luip5EtTfq.jpg",
"104001-proof-19-lExJ8CCKbQjVH5AbjrCiB_CeRtHqifhqEzv7VQPtmxO6wqt_zvsFGk5fmb6B-XgEGwJDQzWViislfufg.jpg"
]
|
A photo shows Rob Cantrall at a recent Michigan protest. | Contradiction | In a widely shared photo from Michigan's state Capitol, a bearded man yells while facing two masked police officers. Though the protester wasn't identified in the caption that went out with the AFP image by photographer Jeff Kowalsky on April 30, a May 5 story in the Detroit Free Press identified him as Brian Cash, a 52-year-old flooring installer from New Hudson, Mich. That means he isn't right-wing activist Rob Cantrall, as recent social media posts claim. 'This guy is Rob Cantrell (sic), longtime white supremacist and member of The Proud Boys' reads the text above an image of the photo cropped around Cash's face. 'Trump says these are good people. Rob lives in Los Angeles, but he and many others will travel if paid to take part in protests such as the one in Michigan. This is the face of MAGA. Spread their shame.' 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.) Cantrall headed an Oregon chapter of the Proud Boys, a men's organization of self-described 'western chauvinists' that the Southern Poverty Law Center has called a 'hate group.' The Free Press describes him as 'a controversial right-wing activist.' Cash told the newspaper that he didn't at first know who Cantrall was. But after researching it, Cash said he was upset to be associated with someone he considered a 'racist.' We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Zoo animals were released during protests in Chicago. | Contradiction | A giraffe walking the wrong way down a one-way street. A wallaby hopping on a bridge. A hippo trundling by a median. These are among the pictures being on shared Facebook along with claims that amid the protests over George Floyd's death, people have released zoo animals in Chicago. 'Yooo they really did let the animals free!!!' reads the June 1 post. Text over a photo of a Lion at a crosswalk says: 'Ayo they really set all the animals free out of the dam (sic) zoo.' There's another photo of a man holding a monkey with the words 'he then stole Curious George' stamped over the image. A third photo shows a man holding a monkey and the text: 'It's up in Chicago G.' 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.) Lincoln Park Zoo confirmed that instinct, announcing on June 1 that all animals were 'accounted for and safe,' according to the Chicago Tribune. 'There were no break-ins, thefts, or incidents last night,' the zoo said. 'Images circulating, claiming to be of Lincoln Park Zoo animals out of their habitats, are false.' If the photo of the lion is familiar, it's because in March we debunked it as part of fact-check of what looked like a screenshot of a news broadcast reporting that Russia 'unleashed more than 500 lions on its streets to ensure that people are staying indoors during this pandemic outbreak.' The photo of the lion is from an April 2016 movie shoot in Johannesburg. The photo of the giraffe appeared online as early as five years ago, when social media users spread misinformation about a giraffe set loose in Louisville. The hippo? From 2016, when a Spanish publication reported the animal escaped from a circus. And in 2018, the Sydney Morning Herald documented the wallaby that disrupted traffic as it crossed the city's Harbour Bridge. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. | We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. | []
|
Zoo animals were released during protests in Chicago. | Contradiction | A giraffe walking the wrong way down a one-way street. A wallaby hopping on a bridge. A hippo trundling by a median. These are among the pictures being on shared Facebook along with claims that amid the protests over George Floyd's death, people have released zoo animals in Chicago. 'Yooo they really did let the animals free!!!' reads the June 1 post. Text over a photo of a Lion at a crosswalk says: 'Ayo they really set all the animals free out of the dam (sic) zoo.' There's another photo of a man holding a monkey with the words 'he then stole Curious George' stamped over the image. A third photo shows a man holding a monkey and the text: 'It's up in Chicago G.' 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.) Lincoln Park Zoo confirmed that instinct, announcing on June 1 that all animals were 'accounted for and safe,' according to the Chicago Tribune. 'There were no break-ins, thefts, or incidents last night,' the zoo said. 'Images circulating, claiming to be of Lincoln Park Zoo animals out of their habitats, are false.' If the photo of the lion is familiar, it's because in March we debunked it as part of fact-check of what looked like a screenshot of a news broadcast reporting that Russia 'unleashed more than 500 lions on its streets to ensure that people are staying indoors during this pandemic outbreak.' The photo of the lion is from an April 2016 movie shoot in Johannesburg. The photo of the giraffe appeared online as early as five years ago, when social media users spread misinformation about a giraffe set loose in Louisville. The hippo? From 2016, when a Spanish publication reported the animal escaped from a circus. And in 2018, the Sydney Morning Herald documented the wallaby that disrupted traffic as it crossed the city's Harbour Bridge. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. | We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. | []
|
Photo shows Joe Biden next to a man seen in a sex sting video. | Contradiction | A two-part Facebook post wrongly attempts to connect Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden with a man captured in a video purportedly trying to solicit sex from a minor. The post shared thousands of times includes both a photo and a video. The photo depicts Biden facing a young girl with his hands on her lower arms. A red arrow points to a man in the background and identifies him as Matt Trowbridge, a former Democratic candidate for the Massachusetts State House of Representatives. The video shows what appears to be an amateur 'sting' operation of a man trying to solicit sex from a young boy. The post implies the man in the video is the same man in the photo with Biden. 'So Joe Biden, why's this guy on your team?' the caption reads. 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 it's wrong. The man in the photo near Biden isn't Matt Trowbridge, but a man named Jared Maher, whose then 11-year-old daughter sang at a 2018 event in Grand Forks, N.D., where Biden was a keynote speaker. Reached by phone, Maher confirmed he was the man in the photo and directed us to a written statement he sent to the Duluth News Tribune about the distress the image's use on social media has caused his family: 'We are processing it as a family, attorneys are involved and the fact that the picture involved our then-11-year-old daughter has us very upset,' it reads. The photo was taken after the 2018 North Dakota Democratic-NPL convention, where Maher's daughter sang a mash-up of 'Danny Boy' and 'America the Beautiful,' according to the Duluth News Tribune. After the event, Biden met Maher and thanked his daughter for the performance. The video in the Facebook post was uploaded to YouTube on Oct. 2 by a vigilante group called Predator Poachers Massachusetts, which runs sting operations on sexual predators. The group claims the footage shows a man attempting to solicit sex from a minor. In the video, the group identifies the man as Matt Trowbridge. Despite the video, we found no evidence that a Matt Trowbridge in Massachusetts has been charged. We could not reach him to talk about the claim. But we searched news archives and local news and found no coverage of such an event. Police in Charlton, Mass., where public records indicate Trowbridge has lived, told us that they don't have a file on anybody by that name. An official with Dudley District Court, which services Charlton, told us that they don't have records of a criminal or civil case involving anyone by that name. Because a commenter on the YouTube video suggested Trowbridge lives in Norton, Mass., we contacted police there, who told us they have no record of a charge or arrest. An analysis from Storyful, a social media research firm, found that the Predator Poachers video was picked up by right-wing websites, some of which have spread disinformation in the past. One of these sites references a 2009 article in the Sun Chronicle, a daily newspaper in Attleboro, Mass., about Trowbridge, who said he planned to run against state Rep. Betty Poirier in 2010. But he dropped out in April 2010 citing personal issues, according to the Sun Chronicle, and we found no record of him running for office since. State elections information shows Poirier ran uncontested in the general election that year. Given that more than a decade has passed since the photograph in the Sun Chronicle was taken, Storyful couldn't confirm whether Trowbridge and the man in the video are the same person. There is also no evidence that Trowbridge is affiliated with the Biden campaign. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims to show Biden standing next to a man who it says is shown in a video attempting to solicit sex from a minor. That's wrong. The man in the photo is the father of a young girl who sang at a political event in 2018. The video in the post was uploaded by a YouTube account that claims to catch people as they try to solicit underage sex. While the video identifies the man as a former candidate for state office in Massachusetts, we find no conclusive evidence to support that claim. We rate this Pants on Fire! PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report. | []
|
'German News Agency Tracks 75 Prominent Athletes Suddenly Dead Of Heart Attacks After COVID Vax' | Contradiction | A news article makes the case that dozens of prominent athletes had heart attacks and died following vaccination against COVID-19, and it cites a German news story as proof - even though the story did not say any such thing. The article appeared with the headline, 'German News Agency Tracks 75 Prominent Athletes Suddenly Dead Of Heart Attacks After COVID Vax.' It was shared on Facebook in a post that was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The headline and article in the post misrepresent the text of the German article that they claim to be based on. The German story did not report that all of the athletes had died, did not say they all had heart attacks and included the disclaimer that not all of the people included on the list became ill because of vaccination. Some of the athletes listed in the German news story are alive, and some were not vaccinated against COVID-19. And some who died had a history of heart problems or a family history of death by heart attack. COVID-19 vaccines have been associated with inflammation of the heart muscle, called myocarditis, with teenage boys and young men most likely to be affected. But the risk is very low, and most cases are mild with a quick recovery. Doctors say the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risk of myocarditis. The article in the Facebook post, from a site called Mic Drop Politics, gave a brief introduction mentioning 75 deaths, then presents a partial list of the people included in the German news story. The first person named, Italian soccer player Giuseppe Perrino, died of a heart attack June 2 while playing in a soccer game honoring his brother who had died of a heart attack while cycling in 2018. A headline on a news story about Perrino's death reads, 'Heart attack kills Giuseppe Perrino like brother Rocco.' Stories about his death do not mention COVID-19 vaccination. The second person on the list, Danish soccer player Christian Eriksen, is alive. Eriksen collapsed June 12 during a soccer game after a cardiac arrest. Misinformation quickly circulated that Eriksen had received the COVID-19 vaccine a few weeks before his collapse, but the director of his professional team debunked the rumor. Eriksen had not been vaccinated against COVID-19, PolitiFact and other outlets reported. Speed skater Kjeld Nuis is listed third, and he is also alive. He experienced inflammation of the sac surrounding his heart in July following COVID-19 vaccination, but he 'recovered well' and joined a training camp two weeks later, Netherland News Live reported. Farther down the list is French former soccer player Franck Berrier, who died of a heart attack in August while playing tennis - two years after retiring from soccer because of heart problems. Stories about his death do not mention any link to COVID-19 vaccination. Despite the headline identifying the athletes as 'prominent,' the list includes a Belgian handball player and a 17-year-old high school student. A translation of the German news story says the list includes not only those who died after cardiac events, but also people who survived. The Mic Drop Politics article, however, does not make that distinction. The German news story also says it is 'not claiming that all of these people fell ill and died because of the vaccination.' | Our ruling A Facebook post included an article with the headline, 'German News Agency Tracks 75 Prominent Athletes Suddenly Dead Of Heart Attacks After COVID Vax.' The article cites a German news story that did not report that information. The athletes listed in the German news story did not all die, nor did they all have heart attacks. Some of the people listed were not vaccinated against COVID-19, and some who died had a history of heart problems or a family history of death by heart attack. We rate this claim False. | [
"104055-proof-20-6e28e69bbb07d67ad54d0e2bcccda2f7.jpg"
]
|
'German News Agency Tracks 75 Prominent Athletes Suddenly Dead Of Heart Attacks After COVID Vax' | Contradiction | A news article makes the case that dozens of prominent athletes had heart attacks and died following vaccination against COVID-19, and it cites a German news story as proof - even though the story did not say any such thing. The article appeared with the headline, 'German News Agency Tracks 75 Prominent Athletes Suddenly Dead Of Heart Attacks After COVID Vax.' It was shared on Facebook in a post that was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The headline and article in the post misrepresent the text of the German article that they claim to be based on. The German story did not report that all of the athletes had died, did not say they all had heart attacks and included the disclaimer that not all of the people included on the list became ill because of vaccination. Some of the athletes listed in the German news story are alive, and some were not vaccinated against COVID-19. And some who died had a history of heart problems or a family history of death by heart attack. COVID-19 vaccines have been associated with inflammation of the heart muscle, called myocarditis, with teenage boys and young men most likely to be affected. But the risk is very low, and most cases are mild with a quick recovery. Doctors say the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risk of myocarditis. The article in the Facebook post, from a site called Mic Drop Politics, gave a brief introduction mentioning 75 deaths, then presents a partial list of the people included in the German news story. The first person named, Italian soccer player Giuseppe Perrino, died of a heart attack June 2 while playing in a soccer game honoring his brother who had died of a heart attack while cycling in 2018. A headline on a news story about Perrino's death reads, 'Heart attack kills Giuseppe Perrino like brother Rocco.' Stories about his death do not mention COVID-19 vaccination. The second person on the list, Danish soccer player Christian Eriksen, is alive. Eriksen collapsed June 12 during a soccer game after a cardiac arrest. Misinformation quickly circulated that Eriksen had received the COVID-19 vaccine a few weeks before his collapse, but the director of his professional team debunked the rumor. Eriksen had not been vaccinated against COVID-19, PolitiFact and other outlets reported. Speed skater Kjeld Nuis is listed third, and he is also alive. He experienced inflammation of the sac surrounding his heart in July following COVID-19 vaccination, but he 'recovered well' and joined a training camp two weeks later, Netherland News Live reported. Farther down the list is French former soccer player Franck Berrier, who died of a heart attack in August while playing tennis - two years after retiring from soccer because of heart problems. Stories about his death do not mention any link to COVID-19 vaccination. Despite the headline identifying the athletes as 'prominent,' the list includes a Belgian handball player and a 17-year-old high school student. A translation of the German news story says the list includes not only those who died after cardiac events, but also people who survived. The Mic Drop Politics article, however, does not make that distinction. The German news story also says it is 'not claiming that all of these people fell ill and died because of the vaccination.' | Our ruling A Facebook post included an article with the headline, 'German News Agency Tracks 75 Prominent Athletes Suddenly Dead Of Heart Attacks After COVID Vax.' The article cites a German news story that did not report that information. The athletes listed in the German news story did not all die, nor did they all have heart attacks. Some of the people listed were not vaccinated against COVID-19, and some who died had a history of heart problems or a family history of death by heart attack. We rate this claim False. | [
"104055-proof-20-6e28e69bbb07d67ad54d0e2bcccda2f7.jpg"
]
|
'German News Agency Tracks 75 Prominent Athletes Suddenly Dead Of Heart Attacks After COVID Vax' | Contradiction | A news article makes the case that dozens of prominent athletes had heart attacks and died following vaccination against COVID-19, and it cites a German news story as proof - even though the story did not say any such thing. The article appeared with the headline, 'German News Agency Tracks 75 Prominent Athletes Suddenly Dead Of Heart Attacks After COVID Vax.' It was shared on Facebook in a post that was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The headline and article in the post misrepresent the text of the German article that they claim to be based on. The German story did not report that all of the athletes had died, did not say they all had heart attacks and included the disclaimer that not all of the people included on the list became ill because of vaccination. Some of the athletes listed in the German news story are alive, and some were not vaccinated against COVID-19. And some who died had a history of heart problems or a family history of death by heart attack. COVID-19 vaccines have been associated with inflammation of the heart muscle, called myocarditis, with teenage boys and young men most likely to be affected. But the risk is very low, and most cases are mild with a quick recovery. Doctors say the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risk of myocarditis. The article in the Facebook post, from a site called Mic Drop Politics, gave a brief introduction mentioning 75 deaths, then presents a partial list of the people included in the German news story. The first person named, Italian soccer player Giuseppe Perrino, died of a heart attack June 2 while playing in a soccer game honoring his brother who had died of a heart attack while cycling in 2018. A headline on a news story about Perrino's death reads, 'Heart attack kills Giuseppe Perrino like brother Rocco.' Stories about his death do not mention COVID-19 vaccination. The second person on the list, Danish soccer player Christian Eriksen, is alive. Eriksen collapsed June 12 during a soccer game after a cardiac arrest. Misinformation quickly circulated that Eriksen had received the COVID-19 vaccine a few weeks before his collapse, but the director of his professional team debunked the rumor. Eriksen had not been vaccinated against COVID-19, PolitiFact and other outlets reported. Speed skater Kjeld Nuis is listed third, and he is also alive. He experienced inflammation of the sac surrounding his heart in July following COVID-19 vaccination, but he 'recovered well' and joined a training camp two weeks later, Netherland News Live reported. Farther down the list is French former soccer player Franck Berrier, who died of a heart attack in August while playing tennis - two years after retiring from soccer because of heart problems. Stories about his death do not mention any link to COVID-19 vaccination. Despite the headline identifying the athletes as 'prominent,' the list includes a Belgian handball player and a 17-year-old high school student. A translation of the German news story says the list includes not only those who died after cardiac events, but also people who survived. The Mic Drop Politics article, however, does not make that distinction. The German news story also says it is 'not claiming that all of these people fell ill and died because of the vaccination.' | Our ruling A Facebook post included an article with the headline, 'German News Agency Tracks 75 Prominent Athletes Suddenly Dead Of Heart Attacks After COVID Vax.' The article cites a German news story that did not report that information. The athletes listed in the German news story did not all die, nor did they all have heart attacks. Some of the people listed were not vaccinated against COVID-19, and some who died had a history of heart problems or a family history of death by heart attack. We rate this claim False. | [
"104055-proof-20-6e28e69bbb07d67ad54d0e2bcccda2f7.jpg"
]
|
The percentage of Americans with natural immunity from getting COVID-19 is 'a very powerful vaccine in itself. | Contradiction | During a Dec. 8 press conference about Operation Warp Speed, President Donald Trump likened the spread of coronavirus throughout the population - which experts agree bestows some immunity on the people who became ill - to having a COVID-19 vaccine. 'You develop immunity over a period of time, and I hear we're close to 15%. I'm hearing that, and that is terrific. That's a very powerful vaccine in itself,' said Trump, who was responding to a reporter's question about what his message to the American people was as the holidays approach and levels of COVID cases in the U.S. continue to rise. It wasn't the first time Trump had given credence to the idea that if enough people in a population gain immunity to a disease by being exposed to it, the illness won't be able to spread through the remainder of the population - a concept known as 'herd immunity.' However, experts have warned that attempting to achieve herd immunity naturally, by allowing people to get sick with COVID-19, could result in more than a million deaths and potentially long-term health problems for many. A better way to achieve protection across the population, experts say, is through widespread vaccination. So, we thought it was important to check whether 15% is anywhere close to the herd immunity threshold, and whether this level of natural immunity could be considered 'as powerful as a vaccine.' 15% is nowhere close The White House did not respond to our request for more information about the comment or about Trump's 15% figure. It may be derived from a Nov. 25 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report using mathematical models to estimate that 53 million Americans - about 16% of the population - have likely been infected with COVID-19. Those models took into consideration the nation's number of confirmed cases, and then used existing data to calculate estimates of the number of people who had COVID-19 but didn't seek medical attention, weren't able to access a COVID-19 test, received a false-negative test result or were asymptomatic and unaware they had COVID-19. It's important to note this estimate is based on data from February through September - and we're now in mid-December, so the share of Americans who have been infected with the coronavirus would likely be much higher. For instance, an independent data scientist, Youyang Gu, estimated that 17.5% of Americans have had COVID-19 as of Nov. 30. His estimate is published on his website, COVID Projections. Experts have said that a 15% infection rate among Americans is nowhere close to the threshold needed to reach herd immunity against COVID. 'To get to herd immunity, an estimated 60-80% of people need to have immunity (either through natural infection or through the vaccine),' Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency physician and visiting professor at George Washington University, wrote in an email. 'We are a very long way off from that.' Also, Wen said, scientists still don't know enough about how effective natural immunity is in defending against COVID-19. It appears that once someone has had COVID-19 and recovered, the antibodies their body produced can protect them for at least several months. But, there have also been reports of COVID-19 re-infection. That's why medical experts urge everyone to get vaccinated, whether they have had COVID-19 or not. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently set the saturation level for herd immunity even higher - between 75% and 80% - in an interview with Axios. At that point, he said, 'you create an umbrella of herd immunity - that even though there is virus around, it is really almost inconsequential because it has no place to go, because almost all of the people are protected.' Both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines have shown 95% effectiveness at protecting people from developing COVID-19 in clinical trials. The Food and Drug Administration on Friday authorized Pfizer's vaccine for emergency use. This Thursday, an independent panel will consider whether to recommend that the FDA authorize the emergency use of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine. So, that leads to the next question: Is 15% natural immunity among the American population anywhere close to a 'powerful vaccine,' as Trump alleges? No, said the experts. And there's nothing 'terrific' about that level of infection within the community. 'Fifteen percent 'natural immunity' is nowhere close to as powerful as a vaccine,' Dr. Rachel Vreeman, director of the Arnhold Institute for Global Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, wrote in an email. Assuming that natural immunity is effective, reaching a level of 15% of the population would prevent only those individuals who have had COVID from getting sick again, said Stephen Morse, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University. 'But [it] won't do much to prevent virus spread in the community, because there are still so many susceptible people,' Morse wrote in an email. Plus, 15% of the American population having had COVID-19 'has come at a high cost,' Morse wrote. To achieve 15% natural immunity, more than 300,000 people in the U.S. have been sacrificed. | Our ruling Though Trump was in the ballpark when he referenced the share of Americans who have been infected with the coronavirus, his overall point -- that the natural immunity these people acquired is a powerful vaccine -- does not hold up. Experts repeatedly have warned that not enough is known about the immunity people appear to gain after recovering from a COVID-19 infection to know how effective or lasting it is. And there have been reported cases of COVID re-infections. Also, experts agree more than 70% of the U.S. population needs to be vaccinated in order to reach herd immunity. Fifteen percent is nowhere close to that threshold and should not be considered as effective as a COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, that 15% statistic brought with it hundreds of thousands of deaths. We rate this claim False. | [
"104056-proof-07-0fd86797f3e6db97d4a2be08a379adf8.jpg"
]
|
The percentage of Americans with natural immunity from getting COVID-19 is 'a very powerful vaccine in itself. | Contradiction | During a Dec. 8 press conference about Operation Warp Speed, President Donald Trump likened the spread of coronavirus throughout the population - which experts agree bestows some immunity on the people who became ill - to having a COVID-19 vaccine. 'You develop immunity over a period of time, and I hear we're close to 15%. I'm hearing that, and that is terrific. That's a very powerful vaccine in itself,' said Trump, who was responding to a reporter's question about what his message to the American people was as the holidays approach and levels of COVID cases in the U.S. continue to rise. It wasn't the first time Trump had given credence to the idea that if enough people in a population gain immunity to a disease by being exposed to it, the illness won't be able to spread through the remainder of the population - a concept known as 'herd immunity.' However, experts have warned that attempting to achieve herd immunity naturally, by allowing people to get sick with COVID-19, could result in more than a million deaths and potentially long-term health problems for many. A better way to achieve protection across the population, experts say, is through widespread vaccination. So, we thought it was important to check whether 15% is anywhere close to the herd immunity threshold, and whether this level of natural immunity could be considered 'as powerful as a vaccine.' 15% is nowhere close The White House did not respond to our request for more information about the comment or about Trump's 15% figure. It may be derived from a Nov. 25 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report using mathematical models to estimate that 53 million Americans - about 16% of the population - have likely been infected with COVID-19. Those models took into consideration the nation's number of confirmed cases, and then used existing data to calculate estimates of the number of people who had COVID-19 but didn't seek medical attention, weren't able to access a COVID-19 test, received a false-negative test result or were asymptomatic and unaware they had COVID-19. It's important to note this estimate is based on data from February through September - and we're now in mid-December, so the share of Americans who have been infected with the coronavirus would likely be much higher. For instance, an independent data scientist, Youyang Gu, estimated that 17.5% of Americans have had COVID-19 as of Nov. 30. His estimate is published on his website, COVID Projections. Experts have said that a 15% infection rate among Americans is nowhere close to the threshold needed to reach herd immunity against COVID. 'To get to herd immunity, an estimated 60-80% of people need to have immunity (either through natural infection or through the vaccine),' Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency physician and visiting professor at George Washington University, wrote in an email. 'We are a very long way off from that.' Also, Wen said, scientists still don't know enough about how effective natural immunity is in defending against COVID-19. It appears that once someone has had COVID-19 and recovered, the antibodies their body produced can protect them for at least several months. But, there have also been reports of COVID-19 re-infection. That's why medical experts urge everyone to get vaccinated, whether they have had COVID-19 or not. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently set the saturation level for herd immunity even higher - between 75% and 80% - in an interview with Axios. At that point, he said, 'you create an umbrella of herd immunity - that even though there is virus around, it is really almost inconsequential because it has no place to go, because almost all of the people are protected.' Both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines have shown 95% effectiveness at protecting people from developing COVID-19 in clinical trials. The Food and Drug Administration on Friday authorized Pfizer's vaccine for emergency use. This Thursday, an independent panel will consider whether to recommend that the FDA authorize the emergency use of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine. So, that leads to the next question: Is 15% natural immunity among the American population anywhere close to a 'powerful vaccine,' as Trump alleges? No, said the experts. And there's nothing 'terrific' about that level of infection within the community. 'Fifteen percent 'natural immunity' is nowhere close to as powerful as a vaccine,' Dr. Rachel Vreeman, director of the Arnhold Institute for Global Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, wrote in an email. Assuming that natural immunity is effective, reaching a level of 15% of the population would prevent only those individuals who have had COVID from getting sick again, said Stephen Morse, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University. 'But [it] won't do much to prevent virus spread in the community, because there are still so many susceptible people,' Morse wrote in an email. Plus, 15% of the American population having had COVID-19 'has come at a high cost,' Morse wrote. To achieve 15% natural immunity, more than 300,000 people in the U.S. have been sacrificed. | Our ruling Though Trump was in the ballpark when he referenced the share of Americans who have been infected with the coronavirus, his overall point -- that the natural immunity these people acquired is a powerful vaccine -- does not hold up. Experts repeatedly have warned that not enough is known about the immunity people appear to gain after recovering from a COVID-19 infection to know how effective or lasting it is. And there have been reported cases of COVID re-infections. Also, experts agree more than 70% of the U.S. population needs to be vaccinated in order to reach herd immunity. Fifteen percent is nowhere close to that threshold and should not be considered as effective as a COVID-19 vaccine. Moreover, that 15% statistic brought with it hundreds of thousands of deaths. We rate this claim False. | [
"104056-proof-07-0fd86797f3e6db97d4a2be08a379adf8.jpg"
]
|
Says his supporters were 'protecting' Joe Biden's campaign bus in Texas. | Contradiction | Videos posted on Twitter show a Joe Biden campaign bus traveling on a highway, surrounded by trucks and other vehicles flying Trump flags. The Biden campaign has said that the vehicles tried to slow down the bus and run it off the road, and that staffers called 911, concerned for their safety. President Donald Trump had a different take on the incident. 'You see the way our people, they, you know, they were protecting his bus yesterday,' Trump said Nov. 1 during a rally in Michigan. 'Because they are nice. They had hundreds of cars.' The FBI's San Antonio office said Nov. 1 that it is 'aware of the incident and investigating.' Trump's benevolent explanation lacks evidence. The incident in question happened Friday, not Saturday. Neither Biden nor Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris were on the bus. Aboard were campaign staffers and Wendy Davis, a Texas Democratic congressional candidate, Biden's campaign said. Trump's campaign did not respond to our request for information. Biden bus surrounded by Trump supporters on I-35 in Texas Biden's campaign said that on Oct. 30, a Biden campaign bus was traveling on I-35 in Texas from San Antonio to Austin 'when multiple vehicles with Trump signs and flags surrounded the bus and attempted to slow the bus down and run it off the road. They pulled in front of the bus and slowed down to try to stop the bus in the middle of the highway.' Staff on the bus called the police, which assisted the bus in reaching its destination, the campaign said. The campaign said it canceled its events that day at the Texas AFL-CIO parking lot in Austin and that law enforcement came to help staff, surrogates and volunteers get off of the bus. 'Rather than engage in productive conversation about the drastically different visions that Joe Biden and Donald Trump have for our country, Trump supporters in Texas instead decided to put our staff, surrogates, supporters, and others in harm's way,' said in a statement Tariq Thowfeek, the Texas communications director for the Biden campaign. Katie Naranjo, chair of the Travis County Democratic Party, tweeted Oct. 30 that Trump supporters 'followed the Biden bus throughout central Texas to intimidate Biden supporters. They ran into a person's car, yelling curse words and threats.' John Hinojosa captured a video of the incident that was verified by the social media intelligence agency Storyful. (It was later deleted.) Hinojosa told Storyful that he was on the way to pick up his grandchild between 2:30 p.m. and 3 p.m. when he saw the scene on the highway. 'I thought it was bad traffic for a Friday,' Hinojosa told Storyful, but then he started recording from his phone when he realized what was going on. A separate video, posted by someone else on Twitter, shows a side-by-side collision between a white SUV, which does not appear to have any flags, and a black truck with flags trailing the Biden bus. The Texas Tribune reported that a local police department said it had not spoken to either of the drivers in the collision and had not determined who was at fault. The Texas Tribune story included a tweet from one person who wrote, 'Trolling is FUN.' The user called on people to join in San Antonio 'to escort' the Biden bus, and said 'we are on the bridges & will intercept at Walters/I35!!' ‼️ Trolling is FUN ‼️#FollowTheBus @WeAre_TheElite @DanScavino Join us in #SanAntonio to escort the Biden 🚌 coming through San Antonio. We are on the bridges & will intercept at Walters/I35!! #TrumpTrainTexas #WeAreTheRally #BidenBus #Trump2020 #NewBraunfelsTrumpTrain pic.twitter.com/7YquFOlbql- TRUTHSERUM4ALL ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ #GODISREAL (@truthserum4all) October 30, 2020 Naomi Narvaiz, a Texas Republican Party official in San Marcos, Texas, told the Texas Tribune: 'We decided we would jump on 35 to show support for our president' and that she didn't see anyone 'being overly aggressive.' Narvaiz tweeted Oct. 30 that the caravan had sent the Biden bus 'out of Hays! Your kind aren't welcome here!' We sent the @JoeBiden @KamalaHarris bus out of Hays! Your kind aren't welcome here! This is #TrumpCountry #smtx #sanmarcos #MAGA #LatinosForTrump #Trump2020Landslide #LeadRight #AmericaFirst @realDonaldTrump @DonaldJTrumpJr @LaraLeaTrump @EricTrump @TrumpStudents @RidgeReaper68 pic.twitter.com/q2v2FRmNPr- Naomi Narvaiz (@nytxnn) October 30, 2020 | Our ruling Trump said his supporters were 'protecting' Biden's campaign bus in Texas. There's no evidence to show that's what happened, and the FBI is investigating. Biden's campaign said that vehicles with Trump supporters tried to 'slow the bus down and run it off the road' as it was traveling on a highway to campaign events. Trump supporters on social media indicated that the intended message was that Biden's team was not wanted in Texas, and a collision happened in the process. We rate Trump's claim Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. UPDATE, 5:20 p.m.: We removed references to this story about a now-deleted YouTube video showing trucks and other vehicles surrounding a Biden campaign bus. | []
|
Says his supporters were 'protecting' Joe Biden's campaign bus in Texas. | Contradiction | Videos posted on Twitter show a Joe Biden campaign bus traveling on a highway, surrounded by trucks and other vehicles flying Trump flags. The Biden campaign has said that the vehicles tried to slow down the bus and run it off the road, and that staffers called 911, concerned for their safety. President Donald Trump had a different take on the incident. 'You see the way our people, they, you know, they were protecting his bus yesterday,' Trump said Nov. 1 during a rally in Michigan. 'Because they are nice. They had hundreds of cars.' The FBI's San Antonio office said Nov. 1 that it is 'aware of the incident and investigating.' Trump's benevolent explanation lacks evidence. The incident in question happened Friday, not Saturday. Neither Biden nor Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris were on the bus. Aboard were campaign staffers and Wendy Davis, a Texas Democratic congressional candidate, Biden's campaign said. Trump's campaign did not respond to our request for information. Biden bus surrounded by Trump supporters on I-35 in Texas Biden's campaign said that on Oct. 30, a Biden campaign bus was traveling on I-35 in Texas from San Antonio to Austin 'when multiple vehicles with Trump signs and flags surrounded the bus and attempted to slow the bus down and run it off the road. They pulled in front of the bus and slowed down to try to stop the bus in the middle of the highway.' Staff on the bus called the police, which assisted the bus in reaching its destination, the campaign said. The campaign said it canceled its events that day at the Texas AFL-CIO parking lot in Austin and that law enforcement came to help staff, surrogates and volunteers get off of the bus. 'Rather than engage in productive conversation about the drastically different visions that Joe Biden and Donald Trump have for our country, Trump supporters in Texas instead decided to put our staff, surrogates, supporters, and others in harm's way,' said in a statement Tariq Thowfeek, the Texas communications director for the Biden campaign. Katie Naranjo, chair of the Travis County Democratic Party, tweeted Oct. 30 that Trump supporters 'followed the Biden bus throughout central Texas to intimidate Biden supporters. They ran into a person's car, yelling curse words and threats.' John Hinojosa captured a video of the incident that was verified by the social media intelligence agency Storyful. (It was later deleted.) Hinojosa told Storyful that he was on the way to pick up his grandchild between 2:30 p.m. and 3 p.m. when he saw the scene on the highway. 'I thought it was bad traffic for a Friday,' Hinojosa told Storyful, but then he started recording from his phone when he realized what was going on. A separate video, posted by someone else on Twitter, shows a side-by-side collision between a white SUV, which does not appear to have any flags, and a black truck with flags trailing the Biden bus. The Texas Tribune reported that a local police department said it had not spoken to either of the drivers in the collision and had not determined who was at fault. The Texas Tribune story included a tweet from one person who wrote, 'Trolling is FUN.' The user called on people to join in San Antonio 'to escort' the Biden bus, and said 'we are on the bridges & will intercept at Walters/I35!!' ‼️ Trolling is FUN ‼️#FollowTheBus @WeAre_TheElite @DanScavino Join us in #SanAntonio to escort the Biden 🚌 coming through San Antonio. We are on the bridges & will intercept at Walters/I35!! #TrumpTrainTexas #WeAreTheRally #BidenBus #Trump2020 #NewBraunfelsTrumpTrain pic.twitter.com/7YquFOlbql- TRUTHSERUM4ALL ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ #GODISREAL (@truthserum4all) October 30, 2020 Naomi Narvaiz, a Texas Republican Party official in San Marcos, Texas, told the Texas Tribune: 'We decided we would jump on 35 to show support for our president' and that she didn't see anyone 'being overly aggressive.' Narvaiz tweeted Oct. 30 that the caravan had sent the Biden bus 'out of Hays! Your kind aren't welcome here!' We sent the @JoeBiden @KamalaHarris bus out of Hays! Your kind aren't welcome here! This is #TrumpCountry #smtx #sanmarcos #MAGA #LatinosForTrump #Trump2020Landslide #LeadRight #AmericaFirst @realDonaldTrump @DonaldJTrumpJr @LaraLeaTrump @EricTrump @TrumpStudents @RidgeReaper68 pic.twitter.com/q2v2FRmNPr- Naomi Narvaiz (@nytxnn) October 30, 2020 | Our ruling Trump said his supporters were 'protecting' Biden's campaign bus in Texas. There's no evidence to show that's what happened, and the FBI is investigating. Biden's campaign said that vehicles with Trump supporters tried to 'slow the bus down and run it off the road' as it was traveling on a highway to campaign events. Trump supporters on social media indicated that the intended message was that Biden's team was not wanted in Texas, and a collision happened in the process. We rate Trump's claim Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. UPDATE, 5:20 p.m.: We removed references to this story about a now-deleted YouTube video showing trucks and other vehicles surrounding a Biden campaign bus. | []
|
'Poll Finds 38% of Americans Say They Will Not Drink Corona Beer Because of Virus. | Contradiction | If coronavirus hadn't yet caught your attention, maybe disturbing news about the widening health threat and beer did. CNN, Esquire and other American mainstream news media reported incorrectly on a survey examining consumers' feelings about the coronavirus and Corona beer. Some of those news stories, shared on Facebook, were topped by this errant headline: 'Poll Finds 38% of Americans Say They Will Not Drink Corona Beer Because of Virus.' 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 survey was done by a New York City firm, 5W Public Relations. The firm announced the results on Feb. 27, 2020, as public health concerns rose in the United States. The next day President Donald Trump held a news conference about the nation's response to coronavirus. The survey 'via phone' of 737 American beer drinkers over age 21 on Feb. 25 and 26 was done 'regarding their opinions about the popular Mexican beer brand, Corona, as a result of the deadly coronavirus that's spreading around the world,' the PR firm's news release said. So, this was a survey of beer drinkers, not of Americans overall. The first result reported in the release: '38% of beer-drinking Americans would not buy Corona under any circumstances now.' The release also does not say whether the survey was representative of American beer drinkers. The firm did not provide us the results of other questions, but told us these were the questions used in the survey: Are you a beer drinker? Are you a Corona drinker? Is Corona related to the coronavirus? In light of the coronavirus, do you plan to stop drinking Corona? Would you buy Corona in a store? Would you order a Corona in a restaurant/bar/public venue? Would you buy Corona under any circumstances now? The questions asked by the firm underscore the problems with the reliability of this poll. And because the PR firm won't release more details, it's ultimately untrustworthy. Respondents, for instance, were asked if Corona is related to the coronavirus but were never told it isn't. They were then asked a leading question, 'In light of the coronavirus, do you plan to stop drinking Corona?' that suggests some correlation between the beer and the virus even though there is none. And some respondents may have said they don't drink Corona and would continue not to drink Corona. Nevertheless, the news release to the media was clear that the 38% figure applied to beer drinkers, not Americans overall. At PolitiFact, we're used to seeing a fair number of either misleading polls, or misleading reports about polls. In this case, the lack of transparency by the polling firm (a PR company) means you should be skeptical, too. Some news organizations, however, were not. You can read PolitiFact's guide to polling to better understand what to look for and what types of polls to stay away from. | Our ruling A statement shared on Facebook said: 'Poll Finds 38% of Americans Say They Will Not Drink Corona Beer Because of Virus.' The poll was of American beer drinkers, not Americans overall. Other details of this 'poll' - including the specific question asked - are unknown, so it's difficult to say beer drinkers wouldn't drink Corona beer because of the virus, or some other reason. We rate the statement False. | []
|
'Poll Finds 38% of Americans Say They Will Not Drink Corona Beer Because of Virus. | Contradiction | If coronavirus hadn't yet caught your attention, maybe disturbing news about the widening health threat and beer did. CNN, Esquire and other American mainstream news media reported incorrectly on a survey examining consumers' feelings about the coronavirus and Corona beer. Some of those news stories, shared on Facebook, were topped by this errant headline: 'Poll Finds 38% of Americans Say They Will Not Drink Corona Beer Because of Virus.' 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 survey was done by a New York City firm, 5W Public Relations. The firm announced the results on Feb. 27, 2020, as public health concerns rose in the United States. The next day President Donald Trump held a news conference about the nation's response to coronavirus. The survey 'via phone' of 737 American beer drinkers over age 21 on Feb. 25 and 26 was done 'regarding their opinions about the popular Mexican beer brand, Corona, as a result of the deadly coronavirus that's spreading around the world,' the PR firm's news release said. So, this was a survey of beer drinkers, not of Americans overall. The first result reported in the release: '38% of beer-drinking Americans would not buy Corona under any circumstances now.' The release also does not say whether the survey was representative of American beer drinkers. The firm did not provide us the results of other questions, but told us these were the questions used in the survey: Are you a beer drinker? Are you a Corona drinker? Is Corona related to the coronavirus? In light of the coronavirus, do you plan to stop drinking Corona? Would you buy Corona in a store? Would you order a Corona in a restaurant/bar/public venue? Would you buy Corona under any circumstances now? The questions asked by the firm underscore the problems with the reliability of this poll. And because the PR firm won't release more details, it's ultimately untrustworthy. Respondents, for instance, were asked if Corona is related to the coronavirus but were never told it isn't. They were then asked a leading question, 'In light of the coronavirus, do you plan to stop drinking Corona?' that suggests some correlation between the beer and the virus even though there is none. And some respondents may have said they don't drink Corona and would continue not to drink Corona. Nevertheless, the news release to the media was clear that the 38% figure applied to beer drinkers, not Americans overall. At PolitiFact, we're used to seeing a fair number of either misleading polls, or misleading reports about polls. In this case, the lack of transparency by the polling firm (a PR company) means you should be skeptical, too. Some news organizations, however, were not. You can read PolitiFact's guide to polling to better understand what to look for and what types of polls to stay away from. | Our ruling A statement shared on Facebook said: 'Poll Finds 38% of Americans Say They Will Not Drink Corona Beer Because of Virus.' The poll was of American beer drinkers, not Americans overall. Other details of this 'poll' - including the specific question asked - are unknown, so it's difficult to say beer drinkers wouldn't drink Corona beer because of the virus, or some other reason. We rate the statement False. | []
|
Says Nancy Pelosi's '4th husband' filed for divorce. | Contradiction | An article making the rounds on Facebook claims Nancy Pelosi's fourth husband is filing for divorce. It's as fake today as it was a year ago when it was first published on a website that describes its content as satire. 'Nancy Pelosi's 4th Husband Files for Divorce: 'I Just Can't Take It Anymore,'' reads the headline on an April 14, 2020, story on a site called Maga20 News. 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 entire article was lifted from a satirical story published in 2019. Satirical site The same headline, and the same article, were previously posted on tatersgonnatate.com with this tag: 'Pelosi's Satirical Bout with Alcoholism.' The article includes clues that it is satirical, such as its claim that one of the House speaker's former husbands is Marsellus Wallace. He was the gang boss character played by Ving Rhames in the movie 'Pulp Fiction.' The About Us tab on the taters website says the site 'is a subsidiary of the America's Last Line of Defense network of parody, satire and tomfoolery.' PolitiFact has written about that website and its faux-news creator, Christopher Blair. Though the tatersgonnahate.com story does not have a date of publication attached to it, Lead Stories fact-checked the original article, reporting that it was satire, on March 31, 2019, saying the article had been posted 10 days earlier. That's more than a year before the article we're checking was posted. Pelosi and her husband, Paul Pelosi, a businessman in real estate and venture capital, have been married since 1963. The California Democrat has never divorced. And there is no indication she is divorcing now. A Pelosi spokesman called it 'fiction.' | Our ruling An April article claiming that Pelosi's fourth husband is filing for divorce is a reprint of an article from more than a year earlier from a website that publishes satire. Pelosi has been married to the same man since 1963 and has never divorced. We rate the claim False. | [
"104076-proof-10-22037f08b6ddfb6ca9e44fc627f8e2fb.jpg"
]
|
Says Nancy Pelosi's '4th husband' filed for divorce. | Contradiction | An article making the rounds on Facebook claims Nancy Pelosi's fourth husband is filing for divorce. It's as fake today as it was a year ago when it was first published on a website that describes its content as satire. 'Nancy Pelosi's 4th Husband Files for Divorce: 'I Just Can't Take It Anymore,'' reads the headline on an April 14, 2020, story on a site called Maga20 News. 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 entire article was lifted from a satirical story published in 2019. Satirical site The same headline, and the same article, were previously posted on tatersgonnatate.com with this tag: 'Pelosi's Satirical Bout with Alcoholism.' The article includes clues that it is satirical, such as its claim that one of the House speaker's former husbands is Marsellus Wallace. He was the gang boss character played by Ving Rhames in the movie 'Pulp Fiction.' The About Us tab on the taters website says the site 'is a subsidiary of the America's Last Line of Defense network of parody, satire and tomfoolery.' PolitiFact has written about that website and its faux-news creator, Christopher Blair. Though the tatersgonnahate.com story does not have a date of publication attached to it, Lead Stories fact-checked the original article, reporting that it was satire, on March 31, 2019, saying the article had been posted 10 days earlier. That's more than a year before the article we're checking was posted. Pelosi and her husband, Paul Pelosi, a businessman in real estate and venture capital, have been married since 1963. The California Democrat has never divorced. And there is no indication she is divorcing now. A Pelosi spokesman called it 'fiction.' | Our ruling An April article claiming that Pelosi's fourth husband is filing for divorce is a reprint of an article from more than a year earlier from a website that publishes satire. Pelosi has been married to the same man since 1963 and has never divorced. We rate the claim False. | [
"104076-proof-10-22037f08b6ddfb6ca9e44fc627f8e2fb.jpg"
]
|
'Mass media destroyed! Blackout for mass arrests event!' | Contradiction | 'Shocking news!' says the title of a nearly 13-minute video on Facebook. 'Mass media destroyed! Blackout for mass arrests event!' But the video offers no evidence of the aforementioned shocking news. A woman can be heard reading what she calls a 'report' as photos of cities and people are shown. She discusses shipping disruptions and the rising costs of goods, but also satanists and 'the cabal,' which feature prominently in the QAnon conspiracy theory. 'Between now and Thursday, Nov. 11,' she says at one point, 'expect a market crash, blackouts, revelations, a military takeover, lockdowns, and mass arrests.' About 10 minutes into the video, she says: 'Monday, Oct. 4, mass media satellites destroyed, world switched over to the Starlink satellite system that would eventually support a new internet. I'm wondering if that means the mass media is now completely controlled by the White House.' Later she claims that Oct. 15 saw 'Canada's mainstream media arrested' with 'the mass media across the globe to soon follow.' 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 quick visit to the websites of news organizations like CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press show that they are all up and running with current, new articles and broadcasts. We found nothing to support the claim in the video title or the speculation in the actual video. There's also no evidence that there were media arrests in Canada. We rate this post Pants on Fire! | We rate this post Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says Mike Pence changed 'his Twitter banner photo to Biden and Harris. | Contradiction | Before Congress finished counting the electoral votes and Vice President Mike Pence declared Joe Biden the winner of the presidential election, a rumor started to spread on social media that seemed to suggest Pence had abandoned his party. 'Things get even more bananas as VP Mike Pence unfollows Trump and changes his Twitter banner photo to Biden and Harris,' reads a screenshot of a tweet posted on Facebook. The tweet featured a picture of the header photo on Pence's Twitter account. It shows a man with white hair and a woman with brown hair photographed from behind as they hold hands and wave at a crowd. 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.) Twitter has banned President Donald Trump from Twitter but before that happened, Snopes among others found that Pence still followed the president on the social media platform. As for the header photo, the white-haired man is Pence, and he's holding the hand of his wife, Karen. Archived pages of Pence's Twitter account show that in May 2020 his header photo was an image of him standing at a podium flanked by Trump and Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. On Nov. 3, he changed it to the image that appears in the tweet. Which means that he didn't change it on Jan. 6, as the post alleges. He also changed it the day after a Trump rally in Grand Rapids, Mich. on Nov. 2. In the early hours of Nov. 3, he tweeted four other photos that are similar to the scene in his header photo. Bright spotlights shine on the stage and the crowd, which has gathered in the dark. Red, white and blue bunting adorns the adorns the podium. Red hats - such as those that Trump supporters wear - are visible. And of the four photos shows Pence holding his wife's hand as they both wave. Like in the header photo, they are wearing gloves, long dark jackets and Karen Pence is wearing a hat. We rate the claim that Pence changed his header photo to one of Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate the claim that Pence changed his header photo to one of Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Says only certain face masks are effective and others, such as cloth masks, are not. | Contradiction | Face masks have become a controversial symbol of the fight against COVID-19. Varying state rules and shifting guidance from leading health officials has caused confusion over who should be wearing masks and whether some types are effective at slowing disease transmission. Take this Facebook post, for example. It displays an image of four different masks: An N95, a surgical mask, a sponge and a cloth mask. It claims that N95 and surgical masks both provide 95% protection, while sponge and cloth masks offer none. Let's just get to the point: This isn't true. 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.) Medical masks, like the N95, offer the most protection, but experts widely agree that several types of facial coverings, including ones made of fabric, are effective at slowing virus spread. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initially deterred people from wearing face masks unless they had COVID-19 and were showing symptoms. But that guidance changed on April 3, after studies found that the virus can be spread by asymptomatic individuals, or before symptoms start to show. Now, the CDC recommends that nearly everyone wear a facial covering in public and in areas where social distancing isn't possible. Officials say the most effective homemade masks should fit snugly and be made of thick cloth. RELATED: To fight COVID-19, CDC now says wear masks in public A comparison between masks is flawed for a couple of reasons. First, the N95, and other medical masks, are in high demand and officials say they should be reserved for health care workers who are in direct contact with infected patients. Second, multiple studies that look at the efficacy of lower-grade fabric masks have shown that they, too, help block particles. 'The protection from cloth masks isn't 0, and it's definitely not 100, but the way to think about any of the masks and our overall approach is how do you put together all the pieces of the puzzle to give you a complete picture of minimizing the risk of transmission of COVID-19?' said Dr. Thomas Tsai, a surgeon and health policy researcher at Harvard's school of public health. 'Hand washing, wearing masks, and social distancing is part of it, but none of them alone. It's how you put together these different tools to meet the task at hand. Wearing any mask is a very, very small price to pay to be safe and return to society.' Linsey Marr, an expert in airborne disease transmission at Virginia Tech, told PolitiFact that masks provide some protection but the amount can vary widely depending on the type and how it's worn. Masks reduce the amount of virus spread and also the amount one might inhale, she said. It's not true, she said, that cloth masks provide 0% protection. 'There have been measurements showing that homemade mask materials offer up to 80% protection,' Marr said, 'which is much better than 0%, although not as good as an N95. Still, reducing the amount of virus that we inhale by 80% is better than nothing.' A smattering of studies have looked at the efficacy of different masks in different ways. One experiment from researchers at the National Institutes of Health used lasers to illuminate and measure how many droplets of saliva were released into the air by a person talking with and without a cloth facial covering. As can be seen in a video of the experiment, a cluster of droplets appear in the air when the researcher speaks without a mask, but nearly all the particles are blocked when he does the same with a mask. The study didn't capture micro-droplets, and more research needs to be done on how many viral particles these smaller droplets can contain, but it demonstrated that a cloth mask is better than no mask. Scientists from the University of Hong Kong's School of Public Health conducted a study in patients with seasonal coronaviruses. The report found that surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of viral RNA in aerosols and shows a trend in reducing viral RNA in respiratory droplets. Arizona State University mathematicians recently developed a model for assessing the community impact of mask use by the general, asymptomatic public. That study found that a broad adoption of even relatively ineffective face masks 'may meaningfully reduce community transmission of COVID-19 and decrease peak hospitalizations and deaths,' and said masks are useful to both prevent illness in healthy persons and prevent asymptomatic transmission. 'Typical protection (of fabric masks) is probably at least 50%, high quality masks could be 80-95% protective, and even low quality masks made of very thin materials could still be 10-20% protective,' said Steffen Eikenberry, a postdoctoral scholar in the school of mathematical and statistical sciences and one of the main authors of the study. 'While evidence is still very limited, several laboratory studies indicate that the majority of homemade mask materials, including cotton fabric, cotton T-shirts, tea cloth, flannel, silk, linen, scarves, and chiffon offer at least 50% protection. Higher quality, more tightly woven fabrics are better, and multiple layers improves protection.' Jeremy Howard, a data scientist at the University of San Francisco, wrote an article in the Conversation in favor of universal mask wearing. Howard says that researchers were looking at the wrong question at first - how well a mask protects the wearer from infection - and not how well a mask prevents an infected person from spreading the virus. He said masks function very differently as personal protective equipment versus 'source control.' 'Masks are very good at blocking larger droplets and not nearly as good at blocking tiny particles,' he wrote. 'When a person expels droplets into the air, they quickly evaporate and shrink to become tiny airborne particles called droplet nuclei. These are extremely hard to remove from the air. However, in the moist atmosphere between a person's mouth and their mask, it takes nearly a hundred times as long for a droplet to evaporate and shrink into a droplet nuclei.' He continued: 'This means that nearly any kind of simple cloth mask is great for source control. The mask creates humidity, this humidity prevents virus-containing droplets from turning into droplet nuclei, and this allows the fabric of the mask to block the droplets.' | Our ruling Social media posts claim that certain face masks are ineffective and provide '0% protection.' More research needs to be done but we found that medical experts widely refute the claim. Higher medical-grade masks offer the most protection, but homemade masks are also effective, particularly when they fit snuggly and are made of multiple layers. No mask is 100% effective, but health care officials stress that face masks increase their effectiveness when combined with other measures, such as social distancing and regular hand washing. We rate this False. | [
"104093-proof-11-60568a04ea75ada8ae866aa95537fa62.jpg"
]
|
Says only certain face masks are effective and others, such as cloth masks, are not. | Contradiction | Face masks have become a controversial symbol of the fight against COVID-19. Varying state rules and shifting guidance from leading health officials has caused confusion over who should be wearing masks and whether some types are effective at slowing disease transmission. Take this Facebook post, for example. It displays an image of four different masks: An N95, a surgical mask, a sponge and a cloth mask. It claims that N95 and surgical masks both provide 95% protection, while sponge and cloth masks offer none. Let's just get to the point: This isn't true. 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.) Medical masks, like the N95, offer the most protection, but experts widely agree that several types of facial coverings, including ones made of fabric, are effective at slowing virus spread. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initially deterred people from wearing face masks unless they had COVID-19 and were showing symptoms. But that guidance changed on April 3, after studies found that the virus can be spread by asymptomatic individuals, or before symptoms start to show. Now, the CDC recommends that nearly everyone wear a facial covering in public and in areas where social distancing isn't possible. Officials say the most effective homemade masks should fit snugly and be made of thick cloth. RELATED: To fight COVID-19, CDC now says wear masks in public A comparison between masks is flawed for a couple of reasons. First, the N95, and other medical masks, are in high demand and officials say they should be reserved for health care workers who are in direct contact with infected patients. Second, multiple studies that look at the efficacy of lower-grade fabric masks have shown that they, too, help block particles. 'The protection from cloth masks isn't 0, and it's definitely not 100, but the way to think about any of the masks and our overall approach is how do you put together all the pieces of the puzzle to give you a complete picture of minimizing the risk of transmission of COVID-19?' said Dr. Thomas Tsai, a surgeon and health policy researcher at Harvard's school of public health. 'Hand washing, wearing masks, and social distancing is part of it, but none of them alone. It's how you put together these different tools to meet the task at hand. Wearing any mask is a very, very small price to pay to be safe and return to society.' Linsey Marr, an expert in airborne disease transmission at Virginia Tech, told PolitiFact that masks provide some protection but the amount can vary widely depending on the type and how it's worn. Masks reduce the amount of virus spread and also the amount one might inhale, she said. It's not true, she said, that cloth masks provide 0% protection. 'There have been measurements showing that homemade mask materials offer up to 80% protection,' Marr said, 'which is much better than 0%, although not as good as an N95. Still, reducing the amount of virus that we inhale by 80% is better than nothing.' A smattering of studies have looked at the efficacy of different masks in different ways. One experiment from researchers at the National Institutes of Health used lasers to illuminate and measure how many droplets of saliva were released into the air by a person talking with and without a cloth facial covering. As can be seen in a video of the experiment, a cluster of droplets appear in the air when the researcher speaks without a mask, but nearly all the particles are blocked when he does the same with a mask. The study didn't capture micro-droplets, and more research needs to be done on how many viral particles these smaller droplets can contain, but it demonstrated that a cloth mask is better than no mask. Scientists from the University of Hong Kong's School of Public Health conducted a study in patients with seasonal coronaviruses. The report found that surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of viral RNA in aerosols and shows a trend in reducing viral RNA in respiratory droplets. Arizona State University mathematicians recently developed a model for assessing the community impact of mask use by the general, asymptomatic public. That study found that a broad adoption of even relatively ineffective face masks 'may meaningfully reduce community transmission of COVID-19 and decrease peak hospitalizations and deaths,' and said masks are useful to both prevent illness in healthy persons and prevent asymptomatic transmission. 'Typical protection (of fabric masks) is probably at least 50%, high quality masks could be 80-95% protective, and even low quality masks made of very thin materials could still be 10-20% protective,' said Steffen Eikenberry, a postdoctoral scholar in the school of mathematical and statistical sciences and one of the main authors of the study. 'While evidence is still very limited, several laboratory studies indicate that the majority of homemade mask materials, including cotton fabric, cotton T-shirts, tea cloth, flannel, silk, linen, scarves, and chiffon offer at least 50% protection. Higher quality, more tightly woven fabrics are better, and multiple layers improves protection.' Jeremy Howard, a data scientist at the University of San Francisco, wrote an article in the Conversation in favor of universal mask wearing. Howard says that researchers were looking at the wrong question at first - how well a mask protects the wearer from infection - and not how well a mask prevents an infected person from spreading the virus. He said masks function very differently as personal protective equipment versus 'source control.' 'Masks are very good at blocking larger droplets and not nearly as good at blocking tiny particles,' he wrote. 'When a person expels droplets into the air, they quickly evaporate and shrink to become tiny airborne particles called droplet nuclei. These are extremely hard to remove from the air. However, in the moist atmosphere between a person's mouth and their mask, it takes nearly a hundred times as long for a droplet to evaporate and shrink into a droplet nuclei.' He continued: 'This means that nearly any kind of simple cloth mask is great for source control. The mask creates humidity, this humidity prevents virus-containing droplets from turning into droplet nuclei, and this allows the fabric of the mask to block the droplets.' | Our ruling Social media posts claim that certain face masks are ineffective and provide '0% protection.' More research needs to be done but we found that medical experts widely refute the claim. Higher medical-grade masks offer the most protection, but homemade masks are also effective, particularly when they fit snuggly and are made of multiple layers. No mask is 100% effective, but health care officials stress that face masks increase their effectiveness when combined with other measures, such as social distancing and regular hand washing. We rate this False. | [
"104093-proof-11-60568a04ea75ada8ae866aa95537fa62.jpg"
]
|
Says only certain face masks are effective and others, such as cloth masks, are not. | Contradiction | Face masks have become a controversial symbol of the fight against COVID-19. Varying state rules and shifting guidance from leading health officials has caused confusion over who should be wearing masks and whether some types are effective at slowing disease transmission. Take this Facebook post, for example. It displays an image of four different masks: An N95, a surgical mask, a sponge and a cloth mask. It claims that N95 and surgical masks both provide 95% protection, while sponge and cloth masks offer none. Let's just get to the point: This isn't true. 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.) Medical masks, like the N95, offer the most protection, but experts widely agree that several types of facial coverings, including ones made of fabric, are effective at slowing virus spread. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initially deterred people from wearing face masks unless they had COVID-19 and were showing symptoms. But that guidance changed on April 3, after studies found that the virus can be spread by asymptomatic individuals, or before symptoms start to show. Now, the CDC recommends that nearly everyone wear a facial covering in public and in areas where social distancing isn't possible. Officials say the most effective homemade masks should fit snugly and be made of thick cloth. RELATED: To fight COVID-19, CDC now says wear masks in public A comparison between masks is flawed for a couple of reasons. First, the N95, and other medical masks, are in high demand and officials say they should be reserved for health care workers who are in direct contact with infected patients. Second, multiple studies that look at the efficacy of lower-grade fabric masks have shown that they, too, help block particles. 'The protection from cloth masks isn't 0, and it's definitely not 100, but the way to think about any of the masks and our overall approach is how do you put together all the pieces of the puzzle to give you a complete picture of minimizing the risk of transmission of COVID-19?' said Dr. Thomas Tsai, a surgeon and health policy researcher at Harvard's school of public health. 'Hand washing, wearing masks, and social distancing is part of it, but none of them alone. It's how you put together these different tools to meet the task at hand. Wearing any mask is a very, very small price to pay to be safe and return to society.' Linsey Marr, an expert in airborne disease transmission at Virginia Tech, told PolitiFact that masks provide some protection but the amount can vary widely depending on the type and how it's worn. Masks reduce the amount of virus spread and also the amount one might inhale, she said. It's not true, she said, that cloth masks provide 0% protection. 'There have been measurements showing that homemade mask materials offer up to 80% protection,' Marr said, 'which is much better than 0%, although not as good as an N95. Still, reducing the amount of virus that we inhale by 80% is better than nothing.' A smattering of studies have looked at the efficacy of different masks in different ways. One experiment from researchers at the National Institutes of Health used lasers to illuminate and measure how many droplets of saliva were released into the air by a person talking with and without a cloth facial covering. As can be seen in a video of the experiment, a cluster of droplets appear in the air when the researcher speaks without a mask, but nearly all the particles are blocked when he does the same with a mask. The study didn't capture micro-droplets, and more research needs to be done on how many viral particles these smaller droplets can contain, but it demonstrated that a cloth mask is better than no mask. Scientists from the University of Hong Kong's School of Public Health conducted a study in patients with seasonal coronaviruses. The report found that surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of viral RNA in aerosols and shows a trend in reducing viral RNA in respiratory droplets. Arizona State University mathematicians recently developed a model for assessing the community impact of mask use by the general, asymptomatic public. That study found that a broad adoption of even relatively ineffective face masks 'may meaningfully reduce community transmission of COVID-19 and decrease peak hospitalizations and deaths,' and said masks are useful to both prevent illness in healthy persons and prevent asymptomatic transmission. 'Typical protection (of fabric masks) is probably at least 50%, high quality masks could be 80-95% protective, and even low quality masks made of very thin materials could still be 10-20% protective,' said Steffen Eikenberry, a postdoctoral scholar in the school of mathematical and statistical sciences and one of the main authors of the study. 'While evidence is still very limited, several laboratory studies indicate that the majority of homemade mask materials, including cotton fabric, cotton T-shirts, tea cloth, flannel, silk, linen, scarves, and chiffon offer at least 50% protection. Higher quality, more tightly woven fabrics are better, and multiple layers improves protection.' Jeremy Howard, a data scientist at the University of San Francisco, wrote an article in the Conversation in favor of universal mask wearing. Howard says that researchers were looking at the wrong question at first - how well a mask protects the wearer from infection - and not how well a mask prevents an infected person from spreading the virus. He said masks function very differently as personal protective equipment versus 'source control.' 'Masks are very good at blocking larger droplets and not nearly as good at blocking tiny particles,' he wrote. 'When a person expels droplets into the air, they quickly evaporate and shrink to become tiny airborne particles called droplet nuclei. These are extremely hard to remove from the air. However, in the moist atmosphere between a person's mouth and their mask, it takes nearly a hundred times as long for a droplet to evaporate and shrink into a droplet nuclei.' He continued: 'This means that nearly any kind of simple cloth mask is great for source control. The mask creates humidity, this humidity prevents virus-containing droplets from turning into droplet nuclei, and this allows the fabric of the mask to block the droplets.' | Our ruling Social media posts claim that certain face masks are ineffective and provide '0% protection.' More research needs to be done but we found that medical experts widely refute the claim. Higher medical-grade masks offer the most protection, but homemade masks are also effective, particularly when they fit snuggly and are made of multiple layers. No mask is 100% effective, but health care officials stress that face masks increase their effectiveness when combined with other measures, such as social distancing and regular hand washing. We rate this False. | [
"104093-proof-11-60568a04ea75ada8ae866aa95537fa62.jpg"
]
|
Says only certain face masks are effective and others, such as cloth masks, are not. | Contradiction | Face masks have become a controversial symbol of the fight against COVID-19. Varying state rules and shifting guidance from leading health officials has caused confusion over who should be wearing masks and whether some types are effective at slowing disease transmission. Take this Facebook post, for example. It displays an image of four different masks: An N95, a surgical mask, a sponge and a cloth mask. It claims that N95 and surgical masks both provide 95% protection, while sponge and cloth masks offer none. Let's just get to the point: This isn't true. 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.) Medical masks, like the N95, offer the most protection, but experts widely agree that several types of facial coverings, including ones made of fabric, are effective at slowing virus spread. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initially deterred people from wearing face masks unless they had COVID-19 and were showing symptoms. But that guidance changed on April 3, after studies found that the virus can be spread by asymptomatic individuals, or before symptoms start to show. Now, the CDC recommends that nearly everyone wear a facial covering in public and in areas where social distancing isn't possible. Officials say the most effective homemade masks should fit snugly and be made of thick cloth. RELATED: To fight COVID-19, CDC now says wear masks in public A comparison between masks is flawed for a couple of reasons. First, the N95, and other medical masks, are in high demand and officials say they should be reserved for health care workers who are in direct contact with infected patients. Second, multiple studies that look at the efficacy of lower-grade fabric masks have shown that they, too, help block particles. 'The protection from cloth masks isn't 0, and it's definitely not 100, but the way to think about any of the masks and our overall approach is how do you put together all the pieces of the puzzle to give you a complete picture of minimizing the risk of transmission of COVID-19?' said Dr. Thomas Tsai, a surgeon and health policy researcher at Harvard's school of public health. 'Hand washing, wearing masks, and social distancing is part of it, but none of them alone. It's how you put together these different tools to meet the task at hand. Wearing any mask is a very, very small price to pay to be safe and return to society.' Linsey Marr, an expert in airborne disease transmission at Virginia Tech, told PolitiFact that masks provide some protection but the amount can vary widely depending on the type and how it's worn. Masks reduce the amount of virus spread and also the amount one might inhale, she said. It's not true, she said, that cloth masks provide 0% protection. 'There have been measurements showing that homemade mask materials offer up to 80% protection,' Marr said, 'which is much better than 0%, although not as good as an N95. Still, reducing the amount of virus that we inhale by 80% is better than nothing.' A smattering of studies have looked at the efficacy of different masks in different ways. One experiment from researchers at the National Institutes of Health used lasers to illuminate and measure how many droplets of saliva were released into the air by a person talking with and without a cloth facial covering. As can be seen in a video of the experiment, a cluster of droplets appear in the air when the researcher speaks without a mask, but nearly all the particles are blocked when he does the same with a mask. The study didn't capture micro-droplets, and more research needs to be done on how many viral particles these smaller droplets can contain, but it demonstrated that a cloth mask is better than no mask. Scientists from the University of Hong Kong's School of Public Health conducted a study in patients with seasonal coronaviruses. The report found that surgical face masks significantly reduced detection of viral RNA in aerosols and shows a trend in reducing viral RNA in respiratory droplets. Arizona State University mathematicians recently developed a model for assessing the community impact of mask use by the general, asymptomatic public. That study found that a broad adoption of even relatively ineffective face masks 'may meaningfully reduce community transmission of COVID-19 and decrease peak hospitalizations and deaths,' and said masks are useful to both prevent illness in healthy persons and prevent asymptomatic transmission. 'Typical protection (of fabric masks) is probably at least 50%, high quality masks could be 80-95% protective, and even low quality masks made of very thin materials could still be 10-20% protective,' said Steffen Eikenberry, a postdoctoral scholar in the school of mathematical and statistical sciences and one of the main authors of the study. 'While evidence is still very limited, several laboratory studies indicate that the majority of homemade mask materials, including cotton fabric, cotton T-shirts, tea cloth, flannel, silk, linen, scarves, and chiffon offer at least 50% protection. Higher quality, more tightly woven fabrics are better, and multiple layers improves protection.' Jeremy Howard, a data scientist at the University of San Francisco, wrote an article in the Conversation in favor of universal mask wearing. Howard says that researchers were looking at the wrong question at first - how well a mask protects the wearer from infection - and not how well a mask prevents an infected person from spreading the virus. He said masks function very differently as personal protective equipment versus 'source control.' 'Masks are very good at blocking larger droplets and not nearly as good at blocking tiny particles,' he wrote. 'When a person expels droplets into the air, they quickly evaporate and shrink to become tiny airborne particles called droplet nuclei. These are extremely hard to remove from the air. However, in the moist atmosphere between a person's mouth and their mask, it takes nearly a hundred times as long for a droplet to evaporate and shrink into a droplet nuclei.' He continued: 'This means that nearly any kind of simple cloth mask is great for source control. The mask creates humidity, this humidity prevents virus-containing droplets from turning into droplet nuclei, and this allows the fabric of the mask to block the droplets.' | Our ruling Social media posts claim that certain face masks are ineffective and provide '0% protection.' More research needs to be done but we found that medical experts widely refute the claim. Higher medical-grade masks offer the most protection, but homemade masks are also effective, particularly when they fit snuggly and are made of multiple layers. No mask is 100% effective, but health care officials stress that face masks increase their effectiveness when combined with other measures, such as social distancing and regular hand washing. We rate this False. | [
"104093-proof-11-60568a04ea75ada8ae866aa95537fa62.jpg"
]
|
'Cori Bush is a career criminal and a con artist. | Contradiction | On Sept. 15, Anthony Rogers made a hefty claim on Facebook against his opponent, Democrat Cori Bush. 'Cori Bush is a career criminal and a con artist. Think twice before you fall for the bulls---, St. Louis,' said Rogers, the Republican candidate for Missouri's 1st District. He included a picture of Bush's cases on a page in Casenet, a database for court cases. The picture shows eight court cases his opponent was involved in. Bush has 11 cases in all - but all of them are civil, not criminal. A criminal is someone who commits an offense against the state - a crime - as opposed to a civil case, where one person or institution sues another, according to the American Bar Association. A con artist, according to Merriam-Webster, is 'a person who tricks other people in order to get their money.' Bush's 11 cases happened between 1999 and 2018. The types of cases are listed in Casenet as tax actions, landlord actions and contract actions. For instance, Convergence Receivables LC received a default judgment against Bush and had her wages garnished. The company is one of a group of businesses known as debt buyers that purchase past-due accounts from businesses and then try to collect from individuals. Bush's cases show that she's been in debt on multiple occasions - for rent, credit cards and tax issues. 'They look like a variety of collection actions,' University of Missouri law professor Frank Bowman III said. 'I mean, it looks like she certainly had some trouble paying her bills from time to time.' Bush's website attributes the delinquencies to her financial issues as a single mother. 'Cori Bush's tax burden was more than she could afford as a working class, single mother who was also paying off student loans for her nursing degree,' the website reads. The site acknowledges that Bush has dealt with lawsuits for not paying taxes and says Bush has also experienced homelessness. Bowman says these cases probably deal with delinquent or late payments, such as for local tax bills. He also says Rogers should be careful about calling people criminals. 'When you accuse someone of a crime, actually committing a crime, and they have not committed a crime, I mean, normally that's libelous,' Bowman said. Rogers' response When shown that all of Bush's cases are civil and not criminal, Rogers said he still supports what he said in his Facebook post: that she is literally a criminal. In an email and an interview with Rogers, the candidate gave a number of claims about why Bush is still a con artist and criminal. Here's what Rogers said. Bush has not sent in her personal financial disclosure to the House of Representatives. She pays herself with campaign contributions. She says she's a pastor, but doesn't work for a church. She says she is a nurse but was 'disbarred.' We looked into each of his claims. According to the House of Representatives Office of the Clerk, Bush sent in her personal financial disclosure on Aug. 15. She was three months late. There is a $200 fine for every 30 days the disclosure is overdue, though House rules allow for extensions, according to the House of Representatives Committee on Ethics. It is unclear if Bush got an extension, as her team would not comment. Candidates are only prosecuted if they do not submit their disclosure at all, or if they falsify their disclosure documents. According to the FEC, it is legal to use campaign contributions as a salary. So far, Bush has reported wage expenses of $25,285 from her 2020 campaign. According to Bush's website, she is an ordained pastor, and pastored at Kingdom Church International in St. Louis, which she founded, from 2013-2015. Now she 'has since taken her faith-based work directly into the streets, where she serves as a spiritual support for the unhoused community.' According to Bush's website, she did lose her certification as a nurse. After paying her outstanding tax debts, her nursing license was reinstated. | Our ruling Rogers called Bush a 'career criminal and a con artist' on Facebook, but there is no evidence to suggest that Bush is either. The court cases Rogers provided as evidence were all civil cases. None of the purported evidence provided by Rogers to back his claim held up to the facts, either. When told of our findings, Rogers insisted he was still right. Due to his denial of the facts and baseless claims, we rate Rogers' claim False. | []
|
'Cori Bush is a career criminal and a con artist. | Contradiction | On Sept. 15, Anthony Rogers made a hefty claim on Facebook against his opponent, Democrat Cori Bush. 'Cori Bush is a career criminal and a con artist. Think twice before you fall for the bulls---, St. Louis,' said Rogers, the Republican candidate for Missouri's 1st District. He included a picture of Bush's cases on a page in Casenet, a database for court cases. The picture shows eight court cases his opponent was involved in. Bush has 11 cases in all - but all of them are civil, not criminal. A criminal is someone who commits an offense against the state - a crime - as opposed to a civil case, where one person or institution sues another, according to the American Bar Association. A con artist, according to Merriam-Webster, is 'a person who tricks other people in order to get their money.' Bush's 11 cases happened between 1999 and 2018. The types of cases are listed in Casenet as tax actions, landlord actions and contract actions. For instance, Convergence Receivables LC received a default judgment against Bush and had her wages garnished. The company is one of a group of businesses known as debt buyers that purchase past-due accounts from businesses and then try to collect from individuals. Bush's cases show that she's been in debt on multiple occasions - for rent, credit cards and tax issues. 'They look like a variety of collection actions,' University of Missouri law professor Frank Bowman III said. 'I mean, it looks like she certainly had some trouble paying her bills from time to time.' Bush's website attributes the delinquencies to her financial issues as a single mother. 'Cori Bush's tax burden was more than she could afford as a working class, single mother who was also paying off student loans for her nursing degree,' the website reads. The site acknowledges that Bush has dealt with lawsuits for not paying taxes and says Bush has also experienced homelessness. Bowman says these cases probably deal with delinquent or late payments, such as for local tax bills. He also says Rogers should be careful about calling people criminals. 'When you accuse someone of a crime, actually committing a crime, and they have not committed a crime, I mean, normally that's libelous,' Bowman said. Rogers' response When shown that all of Bush's cases are civil and not criminal, Rogers said he still supports what he said in his Facebook post: that she is literally a criminal. In an email and an interview with Rogers, the candidate gave a number of claims about why Bush is still a con artist and criminal. Here's what Rogers said. Bush has not sent in her personal financial disclosure to the House of Representatives. She pays herself with campaign contributions. She says she's a pastor, but doesn't work for a church. She says she is a nurse but was 'disbarred.' We looked into each of his claims. According to the House of Representatives Office of the Clerk, Bush sent in her personal financial disclosure on Aug. 15. She was three months late. There is a $200 fine for every 30 days the disclosure is overdue, though House rules allow for extensions, according to the House of Representatives Committee on Ethics. It is unclear if Bush got an extension, as her team would not comment. Candidates are only prosecuted if they do not submit their disclosure at all, or if they falsify their disclosure documents. According to the FEC, it is legal to use campaign contributions as a salary. So far, Bush has reported wage expenses of $25,285 from her 2020 campaign. According to Bush's website, she is an ordained pastor, and pastored at Kingdom Church International in St. Louis, which she founded, from 2013-2015. Now she 'has since taken her faith-based work directly into the streets, where she serves as a spiritual support for the unhoused community.' According to Bush's website, she did lose her certification as a nurse. After paying her outstanding tax debts, her nursing license was reinstated. | Our ruling Rogers called Bush a 'career criminal and a con artist' on Facebook, but there is no evidence to suggest that Bush is either. The court cases Rogers provided as evidence were all civil cases. None of the purported evidence provided by Rogers to back his claim held up to the facts, either. When told of our findings, Rogers insisted he was still right. Due to his denial of the facts and baseless claims, we rate Rogers' claim False. | []
|
'If you like your private plan, you can keep it. | Contradiction | As the Democratic presidential campaign moves to the battleground of South Carolina this weekend, candidate Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is highlighting his health plan as he seeks to slow the momentum of the front-runner, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. In a video ad airing across the state, Buttigieg argues that his health plan - called 'Medicare for All Who Want It' - offers Americans their choice of insurance plans, in a way he says Sanders' more sweeping 'Medicare for All' plan does not. The Sanders plan would eliminate private insurance and move everyone into a government-run program. Under Buttigieg's proposal, the ad says, 'Everyone gets access to Medicare, if they choose.' Specifically, according to campaign documents, people or employers could buy into a government-provided health plan, which the campaign says would provide an 'affordable, comprehensive alternative' to what is sold on the private market. But, the voiceover adds, 'if you like your private plan, you can keep it.' This isn't the first time a politician has made such a promise. Arguing in favor of the Affordable Care Act, then-President Barack Obama repeatedly said the health law would let people keep their private health plans, if they liked them. That didn't pan out: Millions of Americans' plans were canceled, spawning months of controversy. In 2013, PolitiFact rated Obama's statement the 'Lie of the Year.' With that context, we decided to look deeper at Buttigieg's remark. We reached out to his campaign but never heard back. An uncertain market Experts we talked to said the former mayor's remark is remarkably similar to Obama's - right down to the pitfalls it encounters. Those policy analysts said Buttigieg is trying to differentiate his plan from Sanders' sweeping proposal, arguing his offering is more moderate than Sanders' and preserves choice. He suggests many Americans would be able to pick between buying private insurance or opting into the government plan. But does that mean that if you like your plan, you can keep it? As the Obama White House learned, not necessarily. 'It's like déjà vu all over again,' said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms. The problem is that private insurance availability isn't up to the government. To be sure, state and federal regulators have the power to dictate, for example, the inclusion of certain benefits and to set basic consumer protections. But the government cannot specifically require insurance companies to offer plans, and any carrier has the option to stop providing coverage. Already, market forces dictate what health insurance is available from year to year. For example, negotiations between an insurer and physicians could mean that an insurer drops doctors from its network. Changing profit margins could drive a private carrier to exit a certain market. An employer looking to trim expenses might decide to change health insurers, changing coverage offerings for employees. Buttigieg's health plan - which would more generously subsidize people buying private insurance than the ACA does and create a public health insurance option that individuals and employers could buy - wouldn't change any of those economic scenarios. 'When you have private plans offered and sold by private companies, those private companies are going to make business decisions that might affect your coverage,' Corlette said. 'They can opt to get out of the business.' That's been especially clear in the ACA individual marketplace. In many counties, only one private insurer sells coverage on the marketplace. It's impossible to predict, but a competing public option might change the financial incentives for those plans and push some of those carriers to abandon the exchange. If that happened, people using that plan would lose the insurance they have, regardless of how they feel about it. Put more forcefully, 'There's no way the government can guarantee a private plan will continue, without mandating it will,' said Cynthia Cox, a vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. So, she added, suggesting that people who like their private plans will have the option to keep them under Buttigieg's proposal is 'probably not true.' (KHN is an editorially independent program of the foundation.) The employer question This is especially the case when it comes to the nearly 160 million people who get their insurance from an employer. Already, that group experiences volatility when it comes to their health insurance. In 2019, 53% of employers providing coverage considered changing the plan or the carrier they offered, according to a KFF survey. Of that group, almost a fifth - 18% - ultimately did change insurance carriers. That flux would likely increase under a plan like Buttigieg's. Already, many employers (particularly smaller ones) indicate frustration with providing a health benefit that is increasingly complex and expensive. If a public option were cheaper, more might shift employees into that pool, dropping private insurance. 'Even if you don't want the public option, your employer might decide that they do,' Cox said. How big the change would be is difficult to gauge. It depends, for instance, on how generous the public option is, how much it costs employers and whether current private insurance trends continue. Still, 'any change you make to the health care environment would cause changes to reverberate throughout the system,' said Sherry Glied, a health economist and dean of New York University's Wagner School of Public Service. 'Any government action will cause change to happen more than they would otherwise.' It's worth noting that many people may not be affected. Under the ACA, for instance, 4 million lost their plans, or fewer than 2% of all people who had coverage. Most people who move from private insurance to the public option would likely have better benefits, said Benjamin Sommers, a health economist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. But, some would be unhappy to lose the existing, private coverage that they know. 'The more accurate soundbite would be most people with private insurance would be able to keep it,' he added. 'That would beg the question of who isn't included there - and the answer is, we don't know.' And, in contrast with Sanders' Medicare for All single-payer proposal, Buttigieg's plan would preserve much of the current private insurance. But Buttigieg suggests that Medicare for All Who Want It - if administered well - could function as a 'glide path' to a Medicare for All world, eventually bringing everyone into the public system. 'There's good reason to think some of the private insurance competition won't fare well against 'Medicare for All Who Want It,' ' Sommers said. 'You might see some of the private plans dropping out. And that may be a sign the policy is working.' | Our ruling In a new campaign ad, Buttigieg claims that under his proposal to overhaul the health care system, 'if you like your private plan, you can keep it.' This may be true for some Americans who have private coverage, but it is not true for all. It ignores the inherent instability of the private insurance markets - in which plans are canceled or changed all the time, people often don't get to pick which private plan is even available to them, and government intervention would likely exacerbate that volatility. Introducing a public option, as Buttigieg intends to do, could create more incentives for employers to drop private coverage and switch to the public Medicare plan - and, in some cases, for private carriers to exit the individual marketplace. The fact that it would be less disruptive than Medicare for All doesn't change this. Buttigieg's claim has some truth to it, but leaves out key facts and context. We rate it Mostly False. | []
|
'If you like your private plan, you can keep it. | Contradiction | As the Democratic presidential campaign moves to the battleground of South Carolina this weekend, candidate Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is highlighting his health plan as he seeks to slow the momentum of the front-runner, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. In a video ad airing across the state, Buttigieg argues that his health plan - called 'Medicare for All Who Want It' - offers Americans their choice of insurance plans, in a way he says Sanders' more sweeping 'Medicare for All' plan does not. The Sanders plan would eliminate private insurance and move everyone into a government-run program. Under Buttigieg's proposal, the ad says, 'Everyone gets access to Medicare, if they choose.' Specifically, according to campaign documents, people or employers could buy into a government-provided health plan, which the campaign says would provide an 'affordable, comprehensive alternative' to what is sold on the private market. But, the voiceover adds, 'if you like your private plan, you can keep it.' This isn't the first time a politician has made such a promise. Arguing in favor of the Affordable Care Act, then-President Barack Obama repeatedly said the health law would let people keep their private health plans, if they liked them. That didn't pan out: Millions of Americans' plans were canceled, spawning months of controversy. In 2013, PolitiFact rated Obama's statement the 'Lie of the Year.' With that context, we decided to look deeper at Buttigieg's remark. We reached out to his campaign but never heard back. An uncertain market Experts we talked to said the former mayor's remark is remarkably similar to Obama's - right down to the pitfalls it encounters. Those policy analysts said Buttigieg is trying to differentiate his plan from Sanders' sweeping proposal, arguing his offering is more moderate than Sanders' and preserves choice. He suggests many Americans would be able to pick between buying private insurance or opting into the government plan. But does that mean that if you like your plan, you can keep it? As the Obama White House learned, not necessarily. 'It's like déjà vu all over again,' said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms. The problem is that private insurance availability isn't up to the government. To be sure, state and federal regulators have the power to dictate, for example, the inclusion of certain benefits and to set basic consumer protections. But the government cannot specifically require insurance companies to offer plans, and any carrier has the option to stop providing coverage. Already, market forces dictate what health insurance is available from year to year. For example, negotiations between an insurer and physicians could mean that an insurer drops doctors from its network. Changing profit margins could drive a private carrier to exit a certain market. An employer looking to trim expenses might decide to change health insurers, changing coverage offerings for employees. Buttigieg's health plan - which would more generously subsidize people buying private insurance than the ACA does and create a public health insurance option that individuals and employers could buy - wouldn't change any of those economic scenarios. 'When you have private plans offered and sold by private companies, those private companies are going to make business decisions that might affect your coverage,' Corlette said. 'They can opt to get out of the business.' That's been especially clear in the ACA individual marketplace. In many counties, only one private insurer sells coverage on the marketplace. It's impossible to predict, but a competing public option might change the financial incentives for those plans and push some of those carriers to abandon the exchange. If that happened, people using that plan would lose the insurance they have, regardless of how they feel about it. Put more forcefully, 'There's no way the government can guarantee a private plan will continue, without mandating it will,' said Cynthia Cox, a vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. So, she added, suggesting that people who like their private plans will have the option to keep them under Buttigieg's proposal is 'probably not true.' (KHN is an editorially independent program of the foundation.) The employer question This is especially the case when it comes to the nearly 160 million people who get their insurance from an employer. Already, that group experiences volatility when it comes to their health insurance. In 2019, 53% of employers providing coverage considered changing the plan or the carrier they offered, according to a KFF survey. Of that group, almost a fifth - 18% - ultimately did change insurance carriers. That flux would likely increase under a plan like Buttigieg's. Already, many employers (particularly smaller ones) indicate frustration with providing a health benefit that is increasingly complex and expensive. If a public option were cheaper, more might shift employees into that pool, dropping private insurance. 'Even if you don't want the public option, your employer might decide that they do,' Cox said. How big the change would be is difficult to gauge. It depends, for instance, on how generous the public option is, how much it costs employers and whether current private insurance trends continue. Still, 'any change you make to the health care environment would cause changes to reverberate throughout the system,' said Sherry Glied, a health economist and dean of New York University's Wagner School of Public Service. 'Any government action will cause change to happen more than they would otherwise.' It's worth noting that many people may not be affected. Under the ACA, for instance, 4 million lost their plans, or fewer than 2% of all people who had coverage. Most people who move from private insurance to the public option would likely have better benefits, said Benjamin Sommers, a health economist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. But, some would be unhappy to lose the existing, private coverage that they know. 'The more accurate soundbite would be most people with private insurance would be able to keep it,' he added. 'That would beg the question of who isn't included there - and the answer is, we don't know.' And, in contrast with Sanders' Medicare for All single-payer proposal, Buttigieg's plan would preserve much of the current private insurance. But Buttigieg suggests that Medicare for All Who Want It - if administered well - could function as a 'glide path' to a Medicare for All world, eventually bringing everyone into the public system. 'There's good reason to think some of the private insurance competition won't fare well against 'Medicare for All Who Want It,' ' Sommers said. 'You might see some of the private plans dropping out. And that may be a sign the policy is working.' | Our ruling In a new campaign ad, Buttigieg claims that under his proposal to overhaul the health care system, 'if you like your private plan, you can keep it.' This may be true for some Americans who have private coverage, but it is not true for all. It ignores the inherent instability of the private insurance markets - in which plans are canceled or changed all the time, people often don't get to pick which private plan is even available to them, and government intervention would likely exacerbate that volatility. Introducing a public option, as Buttigieg intends to do, could create more incentives for employers to drop private coverage and switch to the public Medicare plan - and, in some cases, for private carriers to exit the individual marketplace. The fact that it would be less disruptive than Medicare for All doesn't change this. Buttigieg's claim has some truth to it, but leaves out key facts and context. We rate it Mostly False. | []
|
'If you like your private plan, you can keep it. | Contradiction | As the Democratic presidential campaign moves to the battleground of South Carolina this weekend, candidate Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is highlighting his health plan as he seeks to slow the momentum of the front-runner, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. In a video ad airing across the state, Buttigieg argues that his health plan - called 'Medicare for All Who Want It' - offers Americans their choice of insurance plans, in a way he says Sanders' more sweeping 'Medicare for All' plan does not. The Sanders plan would eliminate private insurance and move everyone into a government-run program. Under Buttigieg's proposal, the ad says, 'Everyone gets access to Medicare, if they choose.' Specifically, according to campaign documents, people or employers could buy into a government-provided health plan, which the campaign says would provide an 'affordable, comprehensive alternative' to what is sold on the private market. But, the voiceover adds, 'if you like your private plan, you can keep it.' This isn't the first time a politician has made such a promise. Arguing in favor of the Affordable Care Act, then-President Barack Obama repeatedly said the health law would let people keep their private health plans, if they liked them. That didn't pan out: Millions of Americans' plans were canceled, spawning months of controversy. In 2013, PolitiFact rated Obama's statement the 'Lie of the Year.' With that context, we decided to look deeper at Buttigieg's remark. We reached out to his campaign but never heard back. An uncertain market Experts we talked to said the former mayor's remark is remarkably similar to Obama's - right down to the pitfalls it encounters. Those policy analysts said Buttigieg is trying to differentiate his plan from Sanders' sweeping proposal, arguing his offering is more moderate than Sanders' and preserves choice. He suggests many Americans would be able to pick between buying private insurance or opting into the government plan. But does that mean that if you like your plan, you can keep it? As the Obama White House learned, not necessarily. 'It's like déjà vu all over again,' said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms. The problem is that private insurance availability isn't up to the government. To be sure, state and federal regulators have the power to dictate, for example, the inclusion of certain benefits and to set basic consumer protections. But the government cannot specifically require insurance companies to offer plans, and any carrier has the option to stop providing coverage. Already, market forces dictate what health insurance is available from year to year. For example, negotiations between an insurer and physicians could mean that an insurer drops doctors from its network. Changing profit margins could drive a private carrier to exit a certain market. An employer looking to trim expenses might decide to change health insurers, changing coverage offerings for employees. Buttigieg's health plan - which would more generously subsidize people buying private insurance than the ACA does and create a public health insurance option that individuals and employers could buy - wouldn't change any of those economic scenarios. 'When you have private plans offered and sold by private companies, those private companies are going to make business decisions that might affect your coverage,' Corlette said. 'They can opt to get out of the business.' That's been especially clear in the ACA individual marketplace. In many counties, only one private insurer sells coverage on the marketplace. It's impossible to predict, but a competing public option might change the financial incentives for those plans and push some of those carriers to abandon the exchange. If that happened, people using that plan would lose the insurance they have, regardless of how they feel about it. Put more forcefully, 'There's no way the government can guarantee a private plan will continue, without mandating it will,' said Cynthia Cox, a vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. So, she added, suggesting that people who like their private plans will have the option to keep them under Buttigieg's proposal is 'probably not true.' (KHN is an editorially independent program of the foundation.) The employer question This is especially the case when it comes to the nearly 160 million people who get their insurance from an employer. Already, that group experiences volatility when it comes to their health insurance. In 2019, 53% of employers providing coverage considered changing the plan or the carrier they offered, according to a KFF survey. Of that group, almost a fifth - 18% - ultimately did change insurance carriers. That flux would likely increase under a plan like Buttigieg's. Already, many employers (particularly smaller ones) indicate frustration with providing a health benefit that is increasingly complex and expensive. If a public option were cheaper, more might shift employees into that pool, dropping private insurance. 'Even if you don't want the public option, your employer might decide that they do,' Cox said. How big the change would be is difficult to gauge. It depends, for instance, on how generous the public option is, how much it costs employers and whether current private insurance trends continue. Still, 'any change you make to the health care environment would cause changes to reverberate throughout the system,' said Sherry Glied, a health economist and dean of New York University's Wagner School of Public Service. 'Any government action will cause change to happen more than they would otherwise.' It's worth noting that many people may not be affected. Under the ACA, for instance, 4 million lost their plans, or fewer than 2% of all people who had coverage. Most people who move from private insurance to the public option would likely have better benefits, said Benjamin Sommers, a health economist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. But, some would be unhappy to lose the existing, private coverage that they know. 'The more accurate soundbite would be most people with private insurance would be able to keep it,' he added. 'That would beg the question of who isn't included there - and the answer is, we don't know.' And, in contrast with Sanders' Medicare for All single-payer proposal, Buttigieg's plan would preserve much of the current private insurance. But Buttigieg suggests that Medicare for All Who Want It - if administered well - could function as a 'glide path' to a Medicare for All world, eventually bringing everyone into the public system. 'There's good reason to think some of the private insurance competition won't fare well against 'Medicare for All Who Want It,' ' Sommers said. 'You might see some of the private plans dropping out. And that may be a sign the policy is working.' | Our ruling In a new campaign ad, Buttigieg claims that under his proposal to overhaul the health care system, 'if you like your private plan, you can keep it.' This may be true for some Americans who have private coverage, but it is not true for all. It ignores the inherent instability of the private insurance markets - in which plans are canceled or changed all the time, people often don't get to pick which private plan is even available to them, and government intervention would likely exacerbate that volatility. Introducing a public option, as Buttigieg intends to do, could create more incentives for employers to drop private coverage and switch to the public Medicare plan - and, in some cases, for private carriers to exit the individual marketplace. The fact that it would be less disruptive than Medicare for All doesn't change this. Buttigieg's claim has some truth to it, but leaves out key facts and context. We rate it Mostly False. | []
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.