claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
'The flu killed 80,000 people in the U.S. | Contradiction | With a climbing death toll from COVID-19 grabbing daily headlines, some social media users have noted that the seasonal flu kills tens of thousands per year, too. But an April 18 Facebook post exaggerates seasonal flu fatalities: 'Flu killed 80k people in the U.S. last year. None of you were afraid because the media didn't tell you to be!' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post appears to rely on a number used as a preliminary estimate for the 2017-18 flu season. The final figure for that year was lower than 80,000. And while the number of people who died from flu during the 2018-19 season is still preliminary, it is estimated to be less than half of what the Facebook post claims as well. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses a mathematical model to retroactively estimate the numbers of influenza illnesses, medical visits, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States each year. The CDC first looks at in-hospital deaths and then uses death certificate data since not all flu deaths are in the hospital. That 80,000 figure stems from a preliminary estimate provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in September 2018. At that time, the CDC said early estimates indicated that 'more than 80,000 people died from flu last season' - a reference to the 2017-18 flu season. The CDC later updated its estimate for 2017-18 to about 61,000 (though the CDC notes that the true range could be as low as 46,404 and as high as 94,987). The estimate for flu deaths for the following year, 2018-19, is 34,157 deaths, but that number is preliminary and will be updated at a later date when data on contemporary testing practices become available, a CDC spokesman told PolitiFact. The Atlantic explained that seasonal flu deaths are hard to tally. 'Flu deaths are estimated through a model that looks at hospitalizations and death certificates, and accounts for the possibility that many deaths are due to flu but aren't coded as such,' The Atlantic wrote. 'If flu deaths were counted like COVID-19 deaths, the number would be substantially lower. This doesn't mean we're overestimating the flu. It does mean we are probably underestimating COVID-19.' RELATED: Too soon to compare number of COVID deaths to past outbreaks | Our ruling A Facebook post said that 'flu killed 80k people in the U.S. last year.' Flu deaths are hard to tally. But we know that in September 2018, the CDC announced a preliminary estimate that flu deaths totaled 80,000. Later, the CDC updated its estimate to a lower number: 61,099 deaths. The Facebook post said 'last year' which we think would refer to the 2018-19 season. The CDC's preliminary estimate is about 34,157 deaths. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"107757-proof-35-14ba8a049581afc962e2736e40bdcebf.jpg"
]
|
'The CDC actually put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to 'shield' low risk people from them. | Contradiction | Conservative media commentator Candace Owens blasted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a tweet, saying that the agency published a document to discuss putting people in camps to stop the spread of COVID-19. Owens drew attention to the document by tweeting, 'the CDC actually put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to 'shield' low risk people from them.' She continued, 'No - this is not a joke, and yes, every single person who has made a reference to 1930s Germany is vindicated.' But Owens' statement mischaracterized the purpose and findings of a CDC document that explored the merits and flaws in one method suggested as a means of stemming COVID-19 transmission in refugee camps and other humanitarian settings. By referencing 1930s Germany, Owens' tweet gives the impression that the CDC proposed putting people into camps to mitigate the virus. It didn't. CDC spokesperson Kristen Nordlund put it straight - no, there are no camps being put into place to shield high risk people from low risk people, she said. In a document titled 'Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings,' which was last updated July 26, 2020 - a few months into the pandemic and months before vaccines became available - the CDC sought to examine one idea for curbing COVID-19 transmission in places such as refugee camps. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's Health in Humanitarian Crises Centre in March of 2020 had published a paper about what it called the 'shielding approach' as a means of reducing COVID-19 transmission and deaths in 'forcibly displaced populations residing in camps or camp-like settings' such as refugee camps. The existing guidance at that point for reducing transmission among the general population involved 'mass 'stay-at-home' orders, social distancing, self-isolation and quarantine' - measures that the paper's authors noted could be unfeasible or inappropriate in settings where already vulnerable populations are being cared for in group settings. In its own paper, the CDC sought to interpret and analyze scientific COVID-19 concepts and data, Norlund said. 'The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC's perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data,' the document said. Under a shielding approach concept, high-risk individuals would have minimal contact with low-risk family members or residents. They would be moved to what was described as 'green zones.' In a household, that might constitute a separate room or area. In a neighborhood setting, it might be a designated shelter or house. And in a camp setting, it might be a group of shelters like schools or community buildings. The document highlighted several potential challenges with the approach, including that it could lead to stigmatization, isolation and separation from family members. 'While the premise is based on mitigation strategies used in the United Kingdom, there is no empirical evidence whether this approach will increase, decrease or have no effect on morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 epidemic in various humanitarian settings,' the document said. 'This document highlights: a) risks and challenges of implementing this approach, b) need for additional resources in areas with limited or reduced capacity, c) indefinite timeline, and d) possible short-term and long-term adverse consequences.' It continued: 'Public health not only focuses on the eradication of disease but addresses the entire spectrum of health and wellbeing. Populations displaced, due to natural disasters or war and conflict are already fragile and have experienced increased mental, physical and/or emotional trauma. While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.' | Our ruling Owens tweeted that the CDC 'put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to 'shield' low risk people from them,' and she likened it to '1930s Germany.' The CDC did not recommend putting people who are at high-risk for COVID-19 into 'camps.' It published a document that explored a concept called 'shielding' that researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's Health in Humanitarian Crises Centre explored as a means to contain COVID-19 spread among people who already live in settings such as refugee camps. The CDC's analysis of the research highlighted several challenges with the concept and noted that there was 'no empirical evidence' regarding whether it would even be effective at curbing COVID-19 deaths. We rate this claim False. | [
"107767-proof-13-b0dc3a85268f07ae993a2c881ee04ad2.jpg"
]
|
'The CDC actually put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to 'shield' low risk people from them. | Contradiction | Conservative media commentator Candace Owens blasted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a tweet, saying that the agency published a document to discuss putting people in camps to stop the spread of COVID-19. Owens drew attention to the document by tweeting, 'the CDC actually put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to 'shield' low risk people from them.' She continued, 'No - this is not a joke, and yes, every single person who has made a reference to 1930s Germany is vindicated.' But Owens' statement mischaracterized the purpose and findings of a CDC document that explored the merits and flaws in one method suggested as a means of stemming COVID-19 transmission in refugee camps and other humanitarian settings. By referencing 1930s Germany, Owens' tweet gives the impression that the CDC proposed putting people into camps to mitigate the virus. It didn't. CDC spokesperson Kristen Nordlund put it straight - no, there are no camps being put into place to shield high risk people from low risk people, she said. In a document titled 'Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings,' which was last updated July 26, 2020 - a few months into the pandemic and months before vaccines became available - the CDC sought to examine one idea for curbing COVID-19 transmission in places such as refugee camps. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's Health in Humanitarian Crises Centre in March of 2020 had published a paper about what it called the 'shielding approach' as a means of reducing COVID-19 transmission and deaths in 'forcibly displaced populations residing in camps or camp-like settings' such as refugee camps. The existing guidance at that point for reducing transmission among the general population involved 'mass 'stay-at-home' orders, social distancing, self-isolation and quarantine' - measures that the paper's authors noted could be unfeasible or inappropriate in settings where already vulnerable populations are being cared for in group settings. In its own paper, the CDC sought to interpret and analyze scientific COVID-19 concepts and data, Norlund said. 'The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC's perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data,' the document said. Under a shielding approach concept, high-risk individuals would have minimal contact with low-risk family members or residents. They would be moved to what was described as 'green zones.' In a household, that might constitute a separate room or area. In a neighborhood setting, it might be a designated shelter or house. And in a camp setting, it might be a group of shelters like schools or community buildings. The document highlighted several potential challenges with the approach, including that it could lead to stigmatization, isolation and separation from family members. 'While the premise is based on mitigation strategies used in the United Kingdom, there is no empirical evidence whether this approach will increase, decrease or have no effect on morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 epidemic in various humanitarian settings,' the document said. 'This document highlights: a) risks and challenges of implementing this approach, b) need for additional resources in areas with limited or reduced capacity, c) indefinite timeline, and d) possible short-term and long-term adverse consequences.' It continued: 'Public health not only focuses on the eradication of disease but addresses the entire spectrum of health and wellbeing. Populations displaced, due to natural disasters or war and conflict are already fragile and have experienced increased mental, physical and/or emotional trauma. While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.' | Our ruling Owens tweeted that the CDC 'put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to 'shield' low risk people from them,' and she likened it to '1930s Germany.' The CDC did not recommend putting people who are at high-risk for COVID-19 into 'camps.' It published a document that explored a concept called 'shielding' that researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's Health in Humanitarian Crises Centre explored as a means to contain COVID-19 spread among people who already live in settings such as refugee camps. The CDC's analysis of the research highlighted several challenges with the concept and noted that there was 'no empirical evidence' regarding whether it would even be effective at curbing COVID-19 deaths. We rate this claim False. | [
"107767-proof-13-b0dc3a85268f07ae993a2c881ee04ad2.jpg"
]
|
'The CDC actually put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to 'shield' low risk people from them. | Contradiction | Conservative media commentator Candace Owens blasted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a tweet, saying that the agency published a document to discuss putting people in camps to stop the spread of COVID-19. Owens drew attention to the document by tweeting, 'the CDC actually put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to 'shield' low risk people from them.' She continued, 'No - this is not a joke, and yes, every single person who has made a reference to 1930s Germany is vindicated.' But Owens' statement mischaracterized the purpose and findings of a CDC document that explored the merits and flaws in one method suggested as a means of stemming COVID-19 transmission in refugee camps and other humanitarian settings. By referencing 1930s Germany, Owens' tweet gives the impression that the CDC proposed putting people into camps to mitigate the virus. It didn't. CDC spokesperson Kristen Nordlund put it straight - no, there are no camps being put into place to shield high risk people from low risk people, she said. In a document titled 'Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings,' which was last updated July 26, 2020 - a few months into the pandemic and months before vaccines became available - the CDC sought to examine one idea for curbing COVID-19 transmission in places such as refugee camps. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's Health in Humanitarian Crises Centre in March of 2020 had published a paper about what it called the 'shielding approach' as a means of reducing COVID-19 transmission and deaths in 'forcibly displaced populations residing in camps or camp-like settings' such as refugee camps. The existing guidance at that point for reducing transmission among the general population involved 'mass 'stay-at-home' orders, social distancing, self-isolation and quarantine' - measures that the paper's authors noted could be unfeasible or inappropriate in settings where already vulnerable populations are being cared for in group settings. In its own paper, the CDC sought to interpret and analyze scientific COVID-19 concepts and data, Norlund said. 'The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC's perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data,' the document said. Under a shielding approach concept, high-risk individuals would have minimal contact with low-risk family members or residents. They would be moved to what was described as 'green zones.' In a household, that might constitute a separate room or area. In a neighborhood setting, it might be a designated shelter or house. And in a camp setting, it might be a group of shelters like schools or community buildings. The document highlighted several potential challenges with the approach, including that it could lead to stigmatization, isolation and separation from family members. 'While the premise is based on mitigation strategies used in the United Kingdom, there is no empirical evidence whether this approach will increase, decrease or have no effect on morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 epidemic in various humanitarian settings,' the document said. 'This document highlights: a) risks and challenges of implementing this approach, b) need for additional resources in areas with limited or reduced capacity, c) indefinite timeline, and d) possible short-term and long-term adverse consequences.' It continued: 'Public health not only focuses on the eradication of disease but addresses the entire spectrum of health and wellbeing. Populations displaced, due to natural disasters or war and conflict are already fragile and have experienced increased mental, physical and/or emotional trauma. While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.' | Our ruling Owens tweeted that the CDC 'put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to 'shield' low risk people from them,' and she likened it to '1930s Germany.' The CDC did not recommend putting people who are at high-risk for COVID-19 into 'camps.' It published a document that explored a concept called 'shielding' that researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's Health in Humanitarian Crises Centre explored as a means to contain COVID-19 spread among people who already live in settings such as refugee camps. The CDC's analysis of the research highlighted several challenges with the concept and noted that there was 'no empirical evidence' regarding whether it would even be effective at curbing COVID-19 deaths. We rate this claim False. | [
"107767-proof-13-b0dc3a85268f07ae993a2c881ee04ad2.jpg"
]
|
'The CDC actually put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to 'shield' low risk people from them. | Contradiction | Conservative media commentator Candace Owens blasted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a tweet, saying that the agency published a document to discuss putting people in camps to stop the spread of COVID-19. Owens drew attention to the document by tweeting, 'the CDC actually put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to 'shield' low risk people from them.' She continued, 'No - this is not a joke, and yes, every single person who has made a reference to 1930s Germany is vindicated.' But Owens' statement mischaracterized the purpose and findings of a CDC document that explored the merits and flaws in one method suggested as a means of stemming COVID-19 transmission in refugee camps and other humanitarian settings. By referencing 1930s Germany, Owens' tweet gives the impression that the CDC proposed putting people into camps to mitigate the virus. It didn't. CDC spokesperson Kristen Nordlund put it straight - no, there are no camps being put into place to shield high risk people from low risk people, she said. In a document titled 'Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings,' which was last updated July 26, 2020 - a few months into the pandemic and months before vaccines became available - the CDC sought to examine one idea for curbing COVID-19 transmission in places such as refugee camps. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's Health in Humanitarian Crises Centre in March of 2020 had published a paper about what it called the 'shielding approach' as a means of reducing COVID-19 transmission and deaths in 'forcibly displaced populations residing in camps or camp-like settings' such as refugee camps. The existing guidance at that point for reducing transmission among the general population involved 'mass 'stay-at-home' orders, social distancing, self-isolation and quarantine' - measures that the paper's authors noted could be unfeasible or inappropriate in settings where already vulnerable populations are being cared for in group settings. In its own paper, the CDC sought to interpret and analyze scientific COVID-19 concepts and data, Norlund said. 'The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC's perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data,' the document said. Under a shielding approach concept, high-risk individuals would have minimal contact with low-risk family members or residents. They would be moved to what was described as 'green zones.' In a household, that might constitute a separate room or area. In a neighborhood setting, it might be a designated shelter or house. And in a camp setting, it might be a group of shelters like schools or community buildings. The document highlighted several potential challenges with the approach, including that it could lead to stigmatization, isolation and separation from family members. 'While the premise is based on mitigation strategies used in the United Kingdom, there is no empirical evidence whether this approach will increase, decrease or have no effect on morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 epidemic in various humanitarian settings,' the document said. 'This document highlights: a) risks and challenges of implementing this approach, b) need for additional resources in areas with limited or reduced capacity, c) indefinite timeline, and d) possible short-term and long-term adverse consequences.' It continued: 'Public health not only focuses on the eradication of disease but addresses the entire spectrum of health and wellbeing. Populations displaced, due to natural disasters or war and conflict are already fragile and have experienced increased mental, physical and/or emotional trauma. While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.' | Our ruling Owens tweeted that the CDC 'put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to 'shield' low risk people from them,' and she likened it to '1930s Germany.' The CDC did not recommend putting people who are at high-risk for COVID-19 into 'camps.' It published a document that explored a concept called 'shielding' that researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's Health in Humanitarian Crises Centre explored as a means to contain COVID-19 spread among people who already live in settings such as refugee camps. The CDC's analysis of the research highlighted several challenges with the concept and noted that there was 'no empirical evidence' regarding whether it would even be effective at curbing COVID-19 deaths. We rate this claim False. | [
"107767-proof-13-b0dc3a85268f07ae993a2c881ee04ad2.jpg"
]
|
Says Rachel Levine 'is telling us that Dr. Seuss books and Mr. Potato Head are bad for the children. | Contradiction | Misinformation about Dr. Seuss, Mr. Potato Head and Rachel Levine, President Joe Biden's nominee for assistant secretary of health, has been prominent on social media lately. One image that's been shared widely combines all three. According to text in the image, which misspells Dr. Seuss, Levine 'is telling us that Dr. Suess books and Mr. Potato head are bad for the children.' 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.) Dr. Seuss Enterprises recently announced it would no longer publish and license six books by the children's author that have been criticized for how they depict Black and Asian people. And Hasbro, the company behind the toy Mr. Potato Head, said it was dropping the 'Mr.' from the product name. But we couldn't find any evidence that Levine said Dr. Seuss books and Mr. Potato Head are bad for children. We looked online, we searched the Nexis news archive, we searched her Twitter account, and we reviewed her Senate confirmation hearing and her testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. We did find news coverage that mentioned Seuss, Mr. Potato Head and Levine, who is a transgender woman. The Washington Post, for example, reported on the 'intensifying battle over transgender rights' and how conservatives are outraged that Hasbro is making the name of the Potato Head line of toys gender neutral. Considering that 'intensifying battle,' it would make sense that any comments Levine made about Seuss or the toy would draw widespread media attention. But there's none. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
'Miami-Dade reporting 23% of early ballots being rejected for missing signatures. | Contradiction | Democrats and Republicans are scrutinizing voter turnout in Miami-Dade County, the county with the largest number of registered voters in Florida, for clues about which way the swing state will land in the presidential contest. A Facebook post misleads about the proportion of mail ballots rejected so far. 'Miami-Dade reporting 23% of early ballots being rejected for missing signatures,' states an Oct. 29 Facebook post which is a screengrab of a tweet. The author of the tweet later deleted the tweet. This 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.) The text in the post says 'early ballots' but it appears to be a reference to mail-in ballots, as evidenced by the fact that it included a link to a Miami-Dade Democrats page about how voters can 'cure' or fix their mail in ballot if a voter forgot to sign the envelope or their signature didn't match. As of the morning Oct. 30, the county had received 449,645 vote by mail ballots, including 3,308 that were rejected, said Suzy Trutie, spokesperson for Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections. That comes to slightly less than 1%. About 2,313 of those rejected ballots were missing a signature on the ballot envelope. The signature did not match on 569 ballots. Smaller numbers of ballots were rejected for other reasons including that some voters had moved out of the county. When mail ballots are rejected for missing a signature or a signature mismatch, the county contacts the voters to give them the opportunity to submit an affidavit to 'cure' or fix their ballot. So far, about 2,016 of those ballots have been cured. The 23% statistic could have come from a misinterpretation of an Oct. 16 op-ed in the Tampa Bay Times by University of Florida professor Daniel A. Smith and Dartmouth College professor Michael C. Herron. 'Although Miami-Dade County accounts for only 7.2% of mail ballots cast by Florida voters, it accounts for nearly 23% of the state's mail ballots received without signatures,' they wrote. The purpose of that part of the op-ed was to point out the variability in ballots being received without signatures - as of earlier this month. The op-ed didn't state that 23% of ballots in Miami-Dade had been rejected. RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: Is it too late to mail in your ballot? | Our ruling A Facebook post said 'Miami-Dade reporting 23% of early ballots being rejected for missing signatures.' A spokesperson for the county elections office said that less than 1% of mail ballots have been rejected, including many that were missing signatures. Voters still have time to fix their ballot if they omitted their signature, and many have. We rate this claim False. | [
"107774-proof-24-5f02fe691ba240095fe3d648ab566883.jpeg"
]
|
'Miami-Dade reporting 23% of early ballots being rejected for missing signatures. | Contradiction | Democrats and Republicans are scrutinizing voter turnout in Miami-Dade County, the county with the largest number of registered voters in Florida, for clues about which way the swing state will land in the presidential contest. A Facebook post misleads about the proportion of mail ballots rejected so far. 'Miami-Dade reporting 23% of early ballots being rejected for missing signatures,' states an Oct. 29 Facebook post which is a screengrab of a tweet. The author of the tweet later deleted the tweet. This 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.) The text in the post says 'early ballots' but it appears to be a reference to mail-in ballots, as evidenced by the fact that it included a link to a Miami-Dade Democrats page about how voters can 'cure' or fix their mail in ballot if a voter forgot to sign the envelope or their signature didn't match. As of the morning Oct. 30, the county had received 449,645 vote by mail ballots, including 3,308 that were rejected, said Suzy Trutie, spokesperson for Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections. That comes to slightly less than 1%. About 2,313 of those rejected ballots were missing a signature on the ballot envelope. The signature did not match on 569 ballots. Smaller numbers of ballots were rejected for other reasons including that some voters had moved out of the county. When mail ballots are rejected for missing a signature or a signature mismatch, the county contacts the voters to give them the opportunity to submit an affidavit to 'cure' or fix their ballot. So far, about 2,016 of those ballots have been cured. The 23% statistic could have come from a misinterpretation of an Oct. 16 op-ed in the Tampa Bay Times by University of Florida professor Daniel A. Smith and Dartmouth College professor Michael C. Herron. 'Although Miami-Dade County accounts for only 7.2% of mail ballots cast by Florida voters, it accounts for nearly 23% of the state's mail ballots received without signatures,' they wrote. The purpose of that part of the op-ed was to point out the variability in ballots being received without signatures - as of earlier this month. The op-ed didn't state that 23% of ballots in Miami-Dade had been rejected. RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: Is it too late to mail in your ballot? | Our ruling A Facebook post said 'Miami-Dade reporting 23% of early ballots being rejected for missing signatures.' A spokesperson for the county elections office said that less than 1% of mail ballots have been rejected, including many that were missing signatures. Voters still have time to fix their ballot if they omitted their signature, and many have. We rate this claim False. | [
"107774-proof-24-5f02fe691ba240095fe3d648ab566883.jpeg"
]
|
'Miami-Dade reporting 23% of early ballots being rejected for missing signatures. | Contradiction | Democrats and Republicans are scrutinizing voter turnout in Miami-Dade County, the county with the largest number of registered voters in Florida, for clues about which way the swing state will land in the presidential contest. A Facebook post misleads about the proportion of mail ballots rejected so far. 'Miami-Dade reporting 23% of early ballots being rejected for missing signatures,' states an Oct. 29 Facebook post which is a screengrab of a tweet. The author of the tweet later deleted the tweet. This 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.) The text in the post says 'early ballots' but it appears to be a reference to mail-in ballots, as evidenced by the fact that it included a link to a Miami-Dade Democrats page about how voters can 'cure' or fix their mail in ballot if a voter forgot to sign the envelope or their signature didn't match. As of the morning Oct. 30, the county had received 449,645 vote by mail ballots, including 3,308 that were rejected, said Suzy Trutie, spokesperson for Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections. That comes to slightly less than 1%. About 2,313 of those rejected ballots were missing a signature on the ballot envelope. The signature did not match on 569 ballots. Smaller numbers of ballots were rejected for other reasons including that some voters had moved out of the county. When mail ballots are rejected for missing a signature or a signature mismatch, the county contacts the voters to give them the opportunity to submit an affidavit to 'cure' or fix their ballot. So far, about 2,016 of those ballots have been cured. The 23% statistic could have come from a misinterpretation of an Oct. 16 op-ed in the Tampa Bay Times by University of Florida professor Daniel A. Smith and Dartmouth College professor Michael C. Herron. 'Although Miami-Dade County accounts for only 7.2% of mail ballots cast by Florida voters, it accounts for nearly 23% of the state's mail ballots received without signatures,' they wrote. The purpose of that part of the op-ed was to point out the variability in ballots being received without signatures - as of earlier this month. The op-ed didn't state that 23% of ballots in Miami-Dade had been rejected. RELATED: Ask PolitiFact: Is it too late to mail in your ballot? | Our ruling A Facebook post said 'Miami-Dade reporting 23% of early ballots being rejected for missing signatures.' A spokesperson for the county elections office said that less than 1% of mail ballots have been rejected, including many that were missing signatures. Voters still have time to fix their ballot if they omitted their signature, and many have. We rate this claim False. | [
"107774-proof-24-5f02fe691ba240095fe3d648ab566883.jpeg"
]
|
'Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won' the presidential election. | Contradiction | Three weeks after President Joe Biden's inauguration, some Facebook users are still pushing bogus claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election. In a Feb. 7 post, one user wrote: 'Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won.' 'Not one,' the post says. 'Biden did not win legally.' 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 more than 6,000 shares. Since Nov. 3, we've fact-checked scores of claims that falsely say widespread voter fraud swung the election in favor of Biden and that Donald Trump is the rightful president. This Facebook post is similarly wrong. (Screenshot from Facebook) One key point: It's not up to courts to determine whether a presidential candidate won an election. Judges can hear legal challenges to the way elections are administered or votes are counted, and their decisions may affect the outcome of an election, but they don't declare the winner. Under the Constitution, states have the power to administer elections and count votes. The states certified their results, some following audits and recounts, almost two months ago. On Jan. 7, Congress finalized those results, which showed that Biden won with 306 electoral votes, to Trump's 232. Biden won the popular vote by about 7 million. Biden was duly sworn into office Jan. 20. There is no evidence that voter fraud affected that outcome. Election officials in every state said there was no sign of significant voter fraud during the voting process. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency called the 2020 election 'the most secure in American history.' Former Attorney General William Barr said the Justice Department had uncovered no evidence of widespread fraud. Trump and his allies filed dozens of lawsuits in state and federal courts to challenge the election results. Not one of them proved that voter fraud affected the election outcome. The Trump campaign won one lawsuit related to reducing the amount of time Pennsylvania voters had to fix errors on their mail-in ballots. The matter involved a small number of ballots that didn't change the outcome. Some cases were rejected because plaintiffs failed to present any evidence of widespread voter fraud, while others were dismissed because they contained errors or faced jurisdictional problems. Cases were dismissed by Democratic-appointed and Republican-appointed judges. In his dismissal of a case seeking to have Wisconsin's Republican-led Legislature allocate the state's electoral votes instead of going by the result of the popular vote, U.S. District Judge Brett H. Ludwig - a Trump appointee - said Trump's claims failed 'as a matter of law and fact.' 'A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred,' he wrote. 'This court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits.' The post is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! RELATED: A note to our readers who think President Trump won | The post is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! RELATED: A note to our readers who think President Trump won | [
"107801-proof-11-882bc2cffe1f4f094b78fd55662d73cf.jpg"
]
|
'Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won' the presidential election. | Contradiction | Three weeks after President Joe Biden's inauguration, some Facebook users are still pushing bogus claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election. In a Feb. 7 post, one user wrote: 'Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won.' 'Not one,' the post says. 'Biden did not win legally.' 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 more than 6,000 shares. Since Nov. 3, we've fact-checked scores of claims that falsely say widespread voter fraud swung the election in favor of Biden and that Donald Trump is the rightful president. This Facebook post is similarly wrong. (Screenshot from Facebook) One key point: It's not up to courts to determine whether a presidential candidate won an election. Judges can hear legal challenges to the way elections are administered or votes are counted, and their decisions may affect the outcome of an election, but they don't declare the winner. Under the Constitution, states have the power to administer elections and count votes. The states certified their results, some following audits and recounts, almost two months ago. On Jan. 7, Congress finalized those results, which showed that Biden won with 306 electoral votes, to Trump's 232. Biden won the popular vote by about 7 million. Biden was duly sworn into office Jan. 20. There is no evidence that voter fraud affected that outcome. Election officials in every state said there was no sign of significant voter fraud during the voting process. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency called the 2020 election 'the most secure in American history.' Former Attorney General William Barr said the Justice Department had uncovered no evidence of widespread fraud. Trump and his allies filed dozens of lawsuits in state and federal courts to challenge the election results. Not one of them proved that voter fraud affected the election outcome. The Trump campaign won one lawsuit related to reducing the amount of time Pennsylvania voters had to fix errors on their mail-in ballots. The matter involved a small number of ballots that didn't change the outcome. Some cases were rejected because plaintiffs failed to present any evidence of widespread voter fraud, while others were dismissed because they contained errors or faced jurisdictional problems. Cases were dismissed by Democratic-appointed and Republican-appointed judges. In his dismissal of a case seeking to have Wisconsin's Republican-led Legislature allocate the state's electoral votes instead of going by the result of the popular vote, U.S. District Judge Brett H. Ludwig - a Trump appointee - said Trump's claims failed 'as a matter of law and fact.' 'A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred,' he wrote. 'This court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits.' The post is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! RELATED: A note to our readers who think President Trump won | The post is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! RELATED: A note to our readers who think President Trump won | [
"107801-proof-11-882bc2cffe1f4f094b78fd55662d73cf.jpg"
]
|
'1776 flag flying over White House!' in January 2021. 'Revolution Signal. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump has promoted a 'big protest' in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, when Congress is scheduled to certify President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. But an image being spread online is not a sign that the president is calling for a revolution. '1776 flag flying over White House!' reads the headline on a Jan. 4 blog post on the Hal Turner Radio Show website. 'REVOLUTION SIGNAL.' The post goes on to say that 'the 1776 flag is presently flying atop the White House in Washington, DC. It is the signal of REVOLUTION from our President! The time is here. The storm is upon us. Rise-up, America. Rise up against the fraudulent election.' 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 flag in the photo is washed out, but the blog post seems to be referring to the 13-star flag, the first official U.S. flag to fly after the country's founding in 1776. However, the photo isn't recent. Dan Scavino, the White House deputy chief of staff, posted it on Instagram on June 1, 2019. We didn't find any media coverage about the White House flying the 13-star flag around that time, and it was in the news. Nike pulled Fourth of July sneakers featuring the flag over concerns that it was a symbol for racism. We also found no evidence that such a flag is currently flying over the White House. But in any case, the image that purportedly shows an older flag that Trump raised to rally an uprising is more than a year old. We rate this blog post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this blog post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
'Biden did not win legally.' | Contradiction | As members of the Electoral College gathered in state capitals Dec. 14 to formally elect Joe Biden as the country's next president, misinformation about the legitimacy of his victory continued to spread on social media. 'Biden did not win legally,' read a Dec. 11 Facebook post that was shared widely. 'Everyone post and drive Facebook censors crazy!' Thousands of people heeded that advice. Some of their 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.) Though President Donald Trump has refused to concede the election, he lost. Lawsuits that the president and his allies have filed to overturn the election results have failed in part because they've been unable to prove there was widespread voter fraud. Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California-Irvine, told us that to overturn an election in court, plaintiffs would need 'either an extremely close election, where there could be a fight over the inclusion of particular problematic ballots, or show some kind of massive irregularity in how the election was run.' 'This election was not particularly close between Biden and Trump in any state,' Hasen said. 'The lawsuits either made unsubstantiated claims of fraud, alleged other irregularities that could not be backed up with evidence, or advanced wild legal theories that have never been used to overturn an election before.' Since before Election Day, PolitiFact has examined dozens of claims about the election and we've found no evidence of widespread voter fraud or anything that substantiates the many unfounded claims that the presidential election was stolen, rigged or otherwise undermined to favor Biden. Joe Biden won 306 electoral votes to Trump's 232. Biden also won the popular vote by more than 7 million. We rate this post Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this post Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
'Biden did not win legally.' | Contradiction | As members of the Electoral College gathered in state capitals Dec. 14 to formally elect Joe Biden as the country's next president, misinformation about the legitimacy of his victory continued to spread on social media. 'Biden did not win legally,' read a Dec. 11 Facebook post that was shared widely. 'Everyone post and drive Facebook censors crazy!' Thousands of people heeded that advice. Some of their 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.) Though President Donald Trump has refused to concede the election, he lost. Lawsuits that the president and his allies have filed to overturn the election results have failed in part because they've been unable to prove there was widespread voter fraud. Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California-Irvine, told us that to overturn an election in court, plaintiffs would need 'either an extremely close election, where there could be a fight over the inclusion of particular problematic ballots, or show some kind of massive irregularity in how the election was run.' 'This election was not particularly close between Biden and Trump in any state,' Hasen said. 'The lawsuits either made unsubstantiated claims of fraud, alleged other irregularities that could not be backed up with evidence, or advanced wild legal theories that have never been used to overturn an election before.' Since before Election Day, PolitiFact has examined dozens of claims about the election and we've found no evidence of widespread voter fraud or anything that substantiates the many unfounded claims that the presidential election was stolen, rigged or otherwise undermined to favor Biden. Joe Biden won 306 electoral votes to Trump's 232. Biden also won the popular vote by more than 7 million. We rate this post Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this post Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
'Biden did not win legally.' | Contradiction | As members of the Electoral College gathered in state capitals Dec. 14 to formally elect Joe Biden as the country's next president, misinformation about the legitimacy of his victory continued to spread on social media. 'Biden did not win legally,' read a Dec. 11 Facebook post that was shared widely. 'Everyone post and drive Facebook censors crazy!' Thousands of people heeded that advice. Some of their 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.) Though President Donald Trump has refused to concede the election, he lost. Lawsuits that the president and his allies have filed to overturn the election results have failed in part because they've been unable to prove there was widespread voter fraud. Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California-Irvine, told us that to overturn an election in court, plaintiffs would need 'either an extremely close election, where there could be a fight over the inclusion of particular problematic ballots, or show some kind of massive irregularity in how the election was run.' 'This election was not particularly close between Biden and Trump in any state,' Hasen said. 'The lawsuits either made unsubstantiated claims of fraud, alleged other irregularities that could not be backed up with evidence, or advanced wild legal theories that have never been used to overturn an election before.' Since before Election Day, PolitiFact has examined dozens of claims about the election and we've found no evidence of widespread voter fraud or anything that substantiates the many unfounded claims that the presidential election was stolen, rigged or otherwise undermined to favor Biden. Joe Biden won 306 electoral votes to Trump's 232. Biden also won the popular vote by more than 7 million. We rate this post Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this post Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
'The vaccination campaign' increased COVID-19 deaths by 175% in one year. | Contradiction | A viral image that alleges that vaccines have caused a 175% increase in COVID-19 deaths ignores the outsize impact of the virus on the unvaccinated, as well as the large and growing body of evidence that vaccines substantially reduce the likelihood of death. The image, titled 'U.S. pandemic outcomes,' cites figures indicating that the seven-day average of COVID-19 deaths was more than twice as high on Sept. 28, 2021, as it was on the same date in 2020, when there weren't yet any vaccines. 'The v campaign,' the image concludes, referring to vaccinations, 'increased C-19 deaths' by 175%. The image, shared on Instagram, 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.) Some social media users avoid spelling out words like 'vaccine,' 'shot' or 'COVID-19' to evade detection by fact-checkers. The post makes several errors: First, it cherry-picks two data points without examining the trends in between. Second, it fails to account for the overall number of confirmed COVID-19 cases for each period, which affects the case fatality rate. Third, it attributes the difference in the death totals to the vaccine campaign, without providing any evidence to support that conclusion. Fourth, it fails to account for the vaccination status of the people who died in 2021. Fifth, it ignores scientific evidence that vaccination reduces the risks of hospitalization and death from COVID-19. The death figures Figures from credible sources differ from what's in the Instagram post, but they show that the seven-day average of COVID-19 deaths on Sept. 28, 2021, was just over double the number a year earlier. The seven-day rolling average of confirmed COVID-19 deaths was 767 on Sept. 28, 2020; and 1,993 on Sept. 28, 2021, according to Our World in Data. According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the figures were 652 in the 2020 period and 1,425 in 2021. But those year-over-year comparisons are skewed: September 2020 was during a trough in overall COVID-19 cases, before a huge spike in cases and deaths that peaked in January 2021. September 2021, on the other hand, coincided with another spike in COVID-19 cases and deaths due to the emergence of the delta variant. In between those spikes, the rolling average fell as low as 192 deaths, as the vaccines became more widely available. Unvaccinated 11 times more likely to die COVID-19 has killed nearly 700,000 people in the U.S. and about 4.8 million worldwide. The vaccines authorized in the U.S. have been shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of severe illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19. As of Sept. 20, 2021, more than 181 million people in the United States had been fully vaccinated and there were 4,493 breakthrough infections in which the person died, according to the CDC. That comes out to 0.002%. Of those, 86% were people above age 65, and 19% were people who didn't have COVID-19 symptoms or whose death was not COVID-related. The CDC reported on Sept. 10 that, based on a study of more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases in 13 states from April through mid-July, unvaccinated people were 11 times more likely to die than vaccinated people. No evidence vaccines have caused death There is no clear evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have caused any deaths in the U.S. Researchers are still evaluating whether there is a connection between the Johnson and Johnson vaccine and rare types of blood clots that have led to deaths, but such cases are few. Here's what the CDC says about deaths occurring after vaccination: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires health care providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, jointly run by the CDC and the FDA, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. More than 390 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from Dec. 14, 2020, through Sept. 27, 2021. In that period, VAERS received 8,164 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. 'A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.' | Our ruling A viral image claimed that 'the vaccination campaign' increased COVID-19 deaths by 175% in one year. It reaches that conclusion by comparing death figures for Sept. 28, 2021, and the same day a year earlier, before vaccines were available. The claim uses a flawed comparison to reach a conclusion for which it provides no evidence. According to the CDC, unvaccinated people are 11 times more likely to die from COVID-19, and no evidence has established that the COVID-19 vaccines have caused any deaths. We rate the post False. | [
"107830-proof-09-fe253eafcfbdd695e214928c7c8aca62.jpg"
]
|
'The vaccination campaign' increased COVID-19 deaths by 175% in one year. | Contradiction | A viral image that alleges that vaccines have caused a 175% increase in COVID-19 deaths ignores the outsize impact of the virus on the unvaccinated, as well as the large and growing body of evidence that vaccines substantially reduce the likelihood of death. The image, titled 'U.S. pandemic outcomes,' cites figures indicating that the seven-day average of COVID-19 deaths was more than twice as high on Sept. 28, 2021, as it was on the same date in 2020, when there weren't yet any vaccines. 'The v campaign,' the image concludes, referring to vaccinations, 'increased C-19 deaths' by 175%. The image, shared on Instagram, 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.) Some social media users avoid spelling out words like 'vaccine,' 'shot' or 'COVID-19' to evade detection by fact-checkers. The post makes several errors: First, it cherry-picks two data points without examining the trends in between. Second, it fails to account for the overall number of confirmed COVID-19 cases for each period, which affects the case fatality rate. Third, it attributes the difference in the death totals to the vaccine campaign, without providing any evidence to support that conclusion. Fourth, it fails to account for the vaccination status of the people who died in 2021. Fifth, it ignores scientific evidence that vaccination reduces the risks of hospitalization and death from COVID-19. The death figures Figures from credible sources differ from what's in the Instagram post, but they show that the seven-day average of COVID-19 deaths on Sept. 28, 2021, was just over double the number a year earlier. The seven-day rolling average of confirmed COVID-19 deaths was 767 on Sept. 28, 2020; and 1,993 on Sept. 28, 2021, according to Our World in Data. According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the figures were 652 in the 2020 period and 1,425 in 2021. But those year-over-year comparisons are skewed: September 2020 was during a trough in overall COVID-19 cases, before a huge spike in cases and deaths that peaked in January 2021. September 2021, on the other hand, coincided with another spike in COVID-19 cases and deaths due to the emergence of the delta variant. In between those spikes, the rolling average fell as low as 192 deaths, as the vaccines became more widely available. Unvaccinated 11 times more likely to die COVID-19 has killed nearly 700,000 people in the U.S. and about 4.8 million worldwide. The vaccines authorized in the U.S. have been shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of severe illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19. As of Sept. 20, 2021, more than 181 million people in the United States had been fully vaccinated and there were 4,493 breakthrough infections in which the person died, according to the CDC. That comes out to 0.002%. Of those, 86% were people above age 65, and 19% were people who didn't have COVID-19 symptoms or whose death was not COVID-related. The CDC reported on Sept. 10 that, based on a study of more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases in 13 states from April through mid-July, unvaccinated people were 11 times more likely to die than vaccinated people. No evidence vaccines have caused death There is no clear evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have caused any deaths in the U.S. Researchers are still evaluating whether there is a connection between the Johnson and Johnson vaccine and rare types of blood clots that have led to deaths, but such cases are few. Here's what the CDC says about deaths occurring after vaccination: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires health care providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, jointly run by the CDC and the FDA, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. More than 390 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from Dec. 14, 2020, through Sept. 27, 2021. In that period, VAERS received 8,164 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. 'A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.' | Our ruling A viral image claimed that 'the vaccination campaign' increased COVID-19 deaths by 175% in one year. It reaches that conclusion by comparing death figures for Sept. 28, 2021, and the same day a year earlier, before vaccines were available. The claim uses a flawed comparison to reach a conclusion for which it provides no evidence. According to the CDC, unvaccinated people are 11 times more likely to die from COVID-19, and no evidence has established that the COVID-19 vaccines have caused any deaths. We rate the post False. | [
"107830-proof-09-fe253eafcfbdd695e214928c7c8aca62.jpg"
]
|
'No other country' is having a 'second wave' of COVID-19 'because they are not trying to unseat a President in November. | Contradiction | A proud supporter of President Donald Trump sees a political conspiracy behind the recent resurgence in coronavirus cases in the United States. She claimed on Facebook: 'The reason no other Country on Earth is having a 'second wave' is because they are not trying to unseat a President in November.' The woman includes a photo of Trump in her Facebook profile, along with this message: 'MAGA all day, every day! 🇺🇸♥️💯👍🏻Best President Ever.' The post, which has been shared tens of thousands of times, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There isn't a precise definition of second wave. But the United States is not alone in experiencing an increase in COVID-19 cases. What is a second wave? As we've reported, the United States is arguably still in the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic. In comments published June 16, Vice President Mike Pence argued there isn't a second wave, while Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top federal infectious-disease expert, insisted: 'We're still in a first wave.' There's no official definition of when a 'wave' begins or ends, but generally speaking, it requires a peak in infections followed by a substantial reduction. A new rise and peak would signal the start of another wave. The United States had a peak of infections in April, a small reduction, and then a new higher peak recently. On July 9, the date of the Facebook post, the COVID Tracking Project reported that for the third week in a row, the country set an all-time record for new COVID-19 cases, confirming more than 367,000 new infections. The project also reported that for the week ending July 9, the number of people hospitalized with COVID-19 grew 18% and, for the first time since April, the number of deaths rose week-over-week. Surges in other countries Here are examples showing the United States isn't alone: Cases in 22 countries in Africa more than doubled over the last month, the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota reported July 8. Worldwide, of the 45 countries to have recorded more than 25,000 coronavirus cases to date, 21 currently have relaxed responses to the pandemic and, of these, 10 are reporting a rising number of cases, The Guardian newspaper reported June 25. The 10 included the United States, Germany and Switzerland. 'We all want to avoid whole countries going back into total lockdown, that is not a desire that anybody has. But there may be situations in which that is the only option,' Dr. Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization's Health Emergencies Program, said at a July 10 press conference. | Our ruling 'No other country' is having a 'second wave' of COVID-19 'because they are not trying to unseat a President in November,' a Facebook post claimed. There is debate about whether the United States is in the first or the second wave of the coronavirus outbreak, although many experts say the first wave has not ended. Surges in new coronavirus cases have occurred in the United States, but in many other countries, as well. We rate the statement False. | []
|
'No other country' is having a 'second wave' of COVID-19 'because they are not trying to unseat a President in November. | Contradiction | A proud supporter of President Donald Trump sees a political conspiracy behind the recent resurgence in coronavirus cases in the United States. She claimed on Facebook: 'The reason no other Country on Earth is having a 'second wave' is because they are not trying to unseat a President in November.' The woman includes a photo of Trump in her Facebook profile, along with this message: 'MAGA all day, every day! 🇺🇸♥️💯👍🏻Best President Ever.' The post, which has been shared tens of thousands of times, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There isn't a precise definition of second wave. But the United States is not alone in experiencing an increase in COVID-19 cases. What is a second wave? As we've reported, the United States is arguably still in the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic. In comments published June 16, Vice President Mike Pence argued there isn't a second wave, while Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top federal infectious-disease expert, insisted: 'We're still in a first wave.' There's no official definition of when a 'wave' begins or ends, but generally speaking, it requires a peak in infections followed by a substantial reduction. A new rise and peak would signal the start of another wave. The United States had a peak of infections in April, a small reduction, and then a new higher peak recently. On July 9, the date of the Facebook post, the COVID Tracking Project reported that for the third week in a row, the country set an all-time record for new COVID-19 cases, confirming more than 367,000 new infections. The project also reported that for the week ending July 9, the number of people hospitalized with COVID-19 grew 18% and, for the first time since April, the number of deaths rose week-over-week. Surges in other countries Here are examples showing the United States isn't alone: Cases in 22 countries in Africa more than doubled over the last month, the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota reported July 8. Worldwide, of the 45 countries to have recorded more than 25,000 coronavirus cases to date, 21 currently have relaxed responses to the pandemic and, of these, 10 are reporting a rising number of cases, The Guardian newspaper reported June 25. The 10 included the United States, Germany and Switzerland. 'We all want to avoid whole countries going back into total lockdown, that is not a desire that anybody has. But there may be situations in which that is the only option,' Dr. Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization's Health Emergencies Program, said at a July 10 press conference. | Our ruling 'No other country' is having a 'second wave' of COVID-19 'because they are not trying to unseat a President in November,' a Facebook post claimed. There is debate about whether the United States is in the first or the second wave of the coronavirus outbreak, although many experts say the first wave has not ended. Surges in new coronavirus cases have occurred in the United States, but in many other countries, as well. We rate the statement False. | []
|
Says Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's family spent May 20 at her second home, breaking her own stay-at-home orders. | Contradiction | Some Facebook users say they have proof that Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer isn't following her own stay-at-home order. On May 20, conservative radio host Randy Bishop posted an image that shows two cars outside a blue house and a garage. In the caption, he claimed it was taken that afternoon at Whitmer's ''UpNorth Cottage' in Antrim County.' 'Evidently Gov. Whitmer's 'Stay Home, Stay Safe' executive orders DON'T apply to HER family!!!' Bishop wrote. 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.) (Screenshot from Facebook) Since Whitmer, a Democrat, has been the target of several hoaxes about her handling of the coronavirus pandemic, we wanted to check out this Facebook post, too. We did not find definitive proof that the photo was taken on May 20, but the photo did not appear online prior to that date. The governor's office says Whitmer was not at her second home on May 20. We reached out to Bishop for his evidence, but we haven't heard back. An executive order signed by Whitmer that went into effect mid-April prohibited people from traveling between two residences. Although she has extended her stay-at-home order through June 12, the provision banning travel to second homes within the state has been dropped. 'Michiganders may travel between their residences, but I still strongly discourage people from doing so unless it is absolutely necessary,' Whitmer said in late April. 'We ask that you consider not doing that.' Whitmer lives in the governor's mansion in Lansing, but her primary residence is in East Lansing, according to her 2018 financial disclosure. The document also lists a 'family lake house' in Elk Rapids, a town in northern Michigan. A May 20 article from the Gateway Pundit appears to back up Bishop's claim that Whitmer's family spent the afternoon at their lake house. The conservative website researched the license plate on the black Chevrolet Tahoe in the photo and found that it belongs to Marc Mallory, Whitmer's husband. 'Gretchen and Marc were at their summer home today,' the Gateway Pundit wrote. That's inaccurate, according to the Michigan governor's office. 'The governor was in Midland to tour the devastating flood damage and meet with first responders as they evacuated thousands of people to safety,' a spokeswoman told PolitiFact in an email. 'She then returned to her home in Lansing.' Media reports confirm that Whitmer spent May 20 in Midland. The next day, she held a press conference in Lansing about the state's coronavirus response. There is some evidence that Mallory could have been at the couple's home in Elk Rapids. Using public records searches and Google Earth, we confirmed that the car in the Facebook photo belongs to Mallory and the house is the family's property on Birch Lake. The Detroit News reported that the owner of NorthShore Dock LLC, a company near Birch Lake, said in Facebook posts that Mallory had called to try to get his boat in the water before Memorial Day weekend. The posts, which have since been deleted, attracted the ire of Republican state lawmakers, who say Whitmer's family may not be following her own stay-at-home guidance. We asked the governor's office about the veracity of the Facebook posts, but we haven't heard back. Whitmer said Tuesday that Mallory's call to the dock company, during which he asked if his status as the governor's husband would help get his boat in the water, was a joke. 'He thought it might get a laugh,' Whitmer said. 'It didn't, and to be honest I wasn't laughing either when it was relayed to me because I knew how it would be perceived.' Regardless, there is no evidence that Whitmer spent the afternoon of May 20 at her house in Elk Rapids. And even if she did, it would not have violated her current stay-at-home order. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"107836-proof-07-Screen_Shot_2020-05-26_at_1.40.52_PM.jpg",
"107836-proof-35-60ede6ff45d49940a23b3974b8a2eace.jpg"
]
|
Says Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's family spent May 20 at her second home, breaking her own stay-at-home orders. | Contradiction | Some Facebook users say they have proof that Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer isn't following her own stay-at-home order. On May 20, conservative radio host Randy Bishop posted an image that shows two cars outside a blue house and a garage. In the caption, he claimed it was taken that afternoon at Whitmer's ''UpNorth Cottage' in Antrim County.' 'Evidently Gov. Whitmer's 'Stay Home, Stay Safe' executive orders DON'T apply to HER family!!!' Bishop wrote. 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.) (Screenshot from Facebook) Since Whitmer, a Democrat, has been the target of several hoaxes about her handling of the coronavirus pandemic, we wanted to check out this Facebook post, too. We did not find definitive proof that the photo was taken on May 20, but the photo did not appear online prior to that date. The governor's office says Whitmer was not at her second home on May 20. We reached out to Bishop for his evidence, but we haven't heard back. An executive order signed by Whitmer that went into effect mid-April prohibited people from traveling between two residences. Although she has extended her stay-at-home order through June 12, the provision banning travel to second homes within the state has been dropped. 'Michiganders may travel between their residences, but I still strongly discourage people from doing so unless it is absolutely necessary,' Whitmer said in late April. 'We ask that you consider not doing that.' Whitmer lives in the governor's mansion in Lansing, but her primary residence is in East Lansing, according to her 2018 financial disclosure. The document also lists a 'family lake house' in Elk Rapids, a town in northern Michigan. A May 20 article from the Gateway Pundit appears to back up Bishop's claim that Whitmer's family spent the afternoon at their lake house. The conservative website researched the license plate on the black Chevrolet Tahoe in the photo and found that it belongs to Marc Mallory, Whitmer's husband. 'Gretchen and Marc were at their summer home today,' the Gateway Pundit wrote. That's inaccurate, according to the Michigan governor's office. 'The governor was in Midland to tour the devastating flood damage and meet with first responders as they evacuated thousands of people to safety,' a spokeswoman told PolitiFact in an email. 'She then returned to her home in Lansing.' Media reports confirm that Whitmer spent May 20 in Midland. The next day, she held a press conference in Lansing about the state's coronavirus response. There is some evidence that Mallory could have been at the couple's home in Elk Rapids. Using public records searches and Google Earth, we confirmed that the car in the Facebook photo belongs to Mallory and the house is the family's property on Birch Lake. The Detroit News reported that the owner of NorthShore Dock LLC, a company near Birch Lake, said in Facebook posts that Mallory had called to try to get his boat in the water before Memorial Day weekend. The posts, which have since been deleted, attracted the ire of Republican state lawmakers, who say Whitmer's family may not be following her own stay-at-home guidance. We asked the governor's office about the veracity of the Facebook posts, but we haven't heard back. Whitmer said Tuesday that Mallory's call to the dock company, during which he asked if his status as the governor's husband would help get his boat in the water, was a joke. 'He thought it might get a laugh,' Whitmer said. 'It didn't, and to be honest I wasn't laughing either when it was relayed to me because I knew how it would be perceived.' Regardless, there is no evidence that Whitmer spent the afternoon of May 20 at her house in Elk Rapids. And even if she did, it would not have violated her current stay-at-home order. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"107836-proof-07-Screen_Shot_2020-05-26_at_1.40.52_PM.jpg",
"107836-proof-35-60ede6ff45d49940a23b3974b8a2eace.jpg"
]
|
Says Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's family spent May 20 at her second home, breaking her own stay-at-home orders. | Contradiction | Some Facebook users say they have proof that Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer isn't following her own stay-at-home order. On May 20, conservative radio host Randy Bishop posted an image that shows two cars outside a blue house and a garage. In the caption, he claimed it was taken that afternoon at Whitmer's ''UpNorth Cottage' in Antrim County.' 'Evidently Gov. Whitmer's 'Stay Home, Stay Safe' executive orders DON'T apply to HER family!!!' Bishop wrote. 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.) (Screenshot from Facebook) Since Whitmer, a Democrat, has been the target of several hoaxes about her handling of the coronavirus pandemic, we wanted to check out this Facebook post, too. We did not find definitive proof that the photo was taken on May 20, but the photo did not appear online prior to that date. The governor's office says Whitmer was not at her second home on May 20. We reached out to Bishop for his evidence, but we haven't heard back. An executive order signed by Whitmer that went into effect mid-April prohibited people from traveling between two residences. Although she has extended her stay-at-home order through June 12, the provision banning travel to second homes within the state has been dropped. 'Michiganders may travel between their residences, but I still strongly discourage people from doing so unless it is absolutely necessary,' Whitmer said in late April. 'We ask that you consider not doing that.' Whitmer lives in the governor's mansion in Lansing, but her primary residence is in East Lansing, according to her 2018 financial disclosure. The document also lists a 'family lake house' in Elk Rapids, a town in northern Michigan. A May 20 article from the Gateway Pundit appears to back up Bishop's claim that Whitmer's family spent the afternoon at their lake house. The conservative website researched the license plate on the black Chevrolet Tahoe in the photo and found that it belongs to Marc Mallory, Whitmer's husband. 'Gretchen and Marc were at their summer home today,' the Gateway Pundit wrote. That's inaccurate, according to the Michigan governor's office. 'The governor was in Midland to tour the devastating flood damage and meet with first responders as they evacuated thousands of people to safety,' a spokeswoman told PolitiFact in an email. 'She then returned to her home in Lansing.' Media reports confirm that Whitmer spent May 20 in Midland. The next day, she held a press conference in Lansing about the state's coronavirus response. There is some evidence that Mallory could have been at the couple's home in Elk Rapids. Using public records searches and Google Earth, we confirmed that the car in the Facebook photo belongs to Mallory and the house is the family's property on Birch Lake. The Detroit News reported that the owner of NorthShore Dock LLC, a company near Birch Lake, said in Facebook posts that Mallory had called to try to get his boat in the water before Memorial Day weekend. The posts, which have since been deleted, attracted the ire of Republican state lawmakers, who say Whitmer's family may not be following her own stay-at-home guidance. We asked the governor's office about the veracity of the Facebook posts, but we haven't heard back. Whitmer said Tuesday that Mallory's call to the dock company, during which he asked if his status as the governor's husband would help get his boat in the water, was a joke. 'He thought it might get a laugh,' Whitmer said. 'It didn't, and to be honest I wasn't laughing either when it was relayed to me because I knew how it would be perceived.' Regardless, there is no evidence that Whitmer spent the afternoon of May 20 at her house in Elk Rapids. And even if she did, it would not have violated her current stay-at-home order. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"107836-proof-07-Screen_Shot_2020-05-26_at_1.40.52_PM.jpg",
"107836-proof-35-60ede6ff45d49940a23b3974b8a2eace.jpg"
]
|
'More than 40 military tribunals testified. | Contradiction | In the wake of the Jan. 6 riot, we fact-checked a claim that military tribunals started at the Capitol on the day President Joe Biden was inaugurated. That's wrong, and a similar claim that's now being shared on social media about dozens of ongoing military tribunals also lacks evidence. In an audio recording that plays over more than 13 minutes, the claims range from the possibility that 18 American governors have been arrested or executed to testimony from a Chinese Communist Party defector at 'over 40 tribunals.' There are multiple references to a 'cabal' and other language used in the QAnon conspiracy theory. A post sharing this recording was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Since Donald Trump lost the presidential election, unfounded allegations about people cast as his enemies have appeared online. Among the statements we've fact-checked and found false: that the U.S .military was at the White House arresting Congress, that former Ambassador Susan Rice was the subject of a military tribunal and California Gov. Gavin Newsom had been indicted, and that the military had arrested Deborah Birx, the coronavirus response coordinator under Trump. All of these are unfounded, as is the claim that there are more than 40 military tribunals now underway. We couldn't find any evidence to support this. We rate it False. | We rate it False. | []
|
Selene Delgado Lopez is 'everyone's friend in Facebook. | Contradiction | Joining Myspace in the early 2000s meant befriending Tom Anderson, the co-founder of the social networking site. He was automatically users' first friend when they joined. But Facebook users don't have such a default friend, despite what recent Facebook posts say. 'No one knows her and she is everyone's friend in Facebook,' reads a recent post above a user photo for the account of Selene Delgado Lopez. 'Don't believe me look her up first profile of her is on your friends I just blocked her.' 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 Facebook about the post but did not immediately receive a response. However, this reporter did as the Facebook post directed, and Selene Delgado Lopez was not among the listed friends. But searching for the name on the social networking site, several results come up with the same woman's picture. Unlike many other profiles, there isn't an option to 'Add Friend,' perhaps making it seem like she already is a friend - but she's not. 'It's simple,' Mashable reported in a Sept. 4 story titled, 'Say hello to the latest weird viral Facebook hoax: 'Selene Delgado Lopez.'' 'One of the Selene accounts - the one that has now gone viral - has the friend request button disabled in their Facebook privacy settings.' The origins of the hoax are unknown, according to Mashable. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Selene Delgado Lopez is 'everyone's friend in Facebook. | Contradiction | Joining Myspace in the early 2000s meant befriending Tom Anderson, the co-founder of the social networking site. He was automatically users' first friend when they joined. But Facebook users don't have such a default friend, despite what recent Facebook posts say. 'No one knows her and she is everyone's friend in Facebook,' reads a recent post above a user photo for the account of Selene Delgado Lopez. 'Don't believe me look her up first profile of her is on your friends I just blocked her.' 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 Facebook about the post but did not immediately receive a response. However, this reporter did as the Facebook post directed, and Selene Delgado Lopez was not among the listed friends. But searching for the name on the social networking site, several results come up with the same woman's picture. Unlike many other profiles, there isn't an option to 'Add Friend,' perhaps making it seem like she already is a friend - but she's not. 'It's simple,' Mashable reported in a Sept. 4 story titled, 'Say hello to the latest weird viral Facebook hoax: 'Selene Delgado Lopez.'' 'One of the Selene accounts - the one that has now gone viral - has the friend request button disabled in their Facebook privacy settings.' The origins of the hoax are unknown, according to Mashable. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Selene Delgado Lopez is 'everyone's friend in Facebook. | Contradiction | Joining Myspace in the early 2000s meant befriending Tom Anderson, the co-founder of the social networking site. He was automatically users' first friend when they joined. But Facebook users don't have such a default friend, despite what recent Facebook posts say. 'No one knows her and she is everyone's friend in Facebook,' reads a recent post above a user photo for the account of Selene Delgado Lopez. 'Don't believe me look her up first profile of her is on your friends I just blocked her.' 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 Facebook about the post but did not immediately receive a response. However, this reporter did as the Facebook post directed, and Selene Delgado Lopez was not among the listed friends. But searching for the name on the social networking site, several results come up with the same woman's picture. Unlike many other profiles, there isn't an option to 'Add Friend,' perhaps making it seem like she already is a friend - but she's not. 'It's simple,' Mashable reported in a Sept. 4 story titled, 'Say hello to the latest weird viral Facebook hoax: 'Selene Delgado Lopez.'' 'One of the Selene accounts - the one that has now gone viral - has the friend request button disabled in their Facebook privacy settings.' The origins of the hoax are unknown, according to Mashable. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'The CDC has recommended mail in voting. | Contradiction | The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has encouraged voting by mail, but that doesn't mean it ruled out in-person voting. 'The CDC has recommended mail in voting. That's what this whole pandemic is about: the election!' stated a May 7 Facebook post. In March, the CDC posted recommendations for elections. At the time, many states were slated to have presidential primaries. Some were delayed amid concerns they could hasten transmission of the novel coronavirus, which spreads primarily from person to person through respiratory droplets expelled while breathing, speaking, coughing and sneezing. The CDC's recommendations listed voting by mail as one of multiple options. The CDC recommended that election officials 'encourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations.' Those specific recommendations included encouraging 'mail-in methods of voting if allowed in the jurisdiction.' It also encouraged early voting, drive-up voting and voting at off-peak times. The CDC also recommended moving polling sites away from homes for senior citizens, sanitizing election equipment and encouraging social distancing at polling sites. We contacted the CDC to see if there had been additional guidance since March and did not get a response. It's important to note that the CDC's recommendations are intended as public health guidance; they aren't equivalent to law. Generally, states set laws that outline their rules for voting by mail, early voting and Election Day voting. Local officials administer elections, which means the CDC can't ban in-person voting. Just a handful of states hold only mail-in voting by law. In the other states, elections officials expect a massive increase in requests for absentee ballots, but they are still planning to provide in-person voting options. California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered that all eligible voters receive absentee ballots, however there will be in-person voting sites as well. RELATED: Donald Trump's dubious claim that 'thousands' are conspiring on mail-ballot fraud The Facebook post plays into a conspiracy that Democrats are overhyping the pandemic to expand mail-in voting and help their chances in November. But the pandemic's origin is in no way tied to the American election. The COVID-19 infection outbreak was first detected in China in late December and quickly spread internationally. The World Health Organization declared it a pandemic on March 11. Research shows that the genetic makeup of the virus precludes it from being man-made. | Our ruling A Facebook post said 'The CDC has recommended mail in voting. That's what this whole pandemic is about: the election!' In March, the CDC issued multiple recommendations to reduce the chance that voters would interact with each other, including voting by mail. But the CDC also recommended other ways voters could cast ballots, including at early voting sites or at off-peak times on election day. It also recommended precinct-level strategies for in-person voting such as encouraging social distancing and sanitizing election equipment. What's more, there is no indication that the pandemic's origin is tied to American elections. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"107863-proof-31-5c7b3753561e72d4daed26bf908aa51f.jpg"
]
|
'The CDC has recommended mail in voting. | Contradiction | The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has encouraged voting by mail, but that doesn't mean it ruled out in-person voting. 'The CDC has recommended mail in voting. That's what this whole pandemic is about: the election!' stated a May 7 Facebook post. In March, the CDC posted recommendations for elections. At the time, many states were slated to have presidential primaries. Some were delayed amid concerns they could hasten transmission of the novel coronavirus, which spreads primarily from person to person through respiratory droplets expelled while breathing, speaking, coughing and sneezing. The CDC's recommendations listed voting by mail as one of multiple options. The CDC recommended that election officials 'encourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations.' Those specific recommendations included encouraging 'mail-in methods of voting if allowed in the jurisdiction.' It also encouraged early voting, drive-up voting and voting at off-peak times. The CDC also recommended moving polling sites away from homes for senior citizens, sanitizing election equipment and encouraging social distancing at polling sites. We contacted the CDC to see if there had been additional guidance since March and did not get a response. It's important to note that the CDC's recommendations are intended as public health guidance; they aren't equivalent to law. Generally, states set laws that outline their rules for voting by mail, early voting and Election Day voting. Local officials administer elections, which means the CDC can't ban in-person voting. Just a handful of states hold only mail-in voting by law. In the other states, elections officials expect a massive increase in requests for absentee ballots, but they are still planning to provide in-person voting options. California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered that all eligible voters receive absentee ballots, however there will be in-person voting sites as well. RELATED: Donald Trump's dubious claim that 'thousands' are conspiring on mail-ballot fraud The Facebook post plays into a conspiracy that Democrats are overhyping the pandemic to expand mail-in voting and help their chances in November. But the pandemic's origin is in no way tied to the American election. The COVID-19 infection outbreak was first detected in China in late December and quickly spread internationally. The World Health Organization declared it a pandemic on March 11. Research shows that the genetic makeup of the virus precludes it from being man-made. | Our ruling A Facebook post said 'The CDC has recommended mail in voting. That's what this whole pandemic is about: the election!' In March, the CDC issued multiple recommendations to reduce the chance that voters would interact with each other, including voting by mail. But the CDC also recommended other ways voters could cast ballots, including at early voting sites or at off-peak times on election day. It also recommended precinct-level strategies for in-person voting such as encouraging social distancing and sanitizing election equipment. What's more, there is no indication that the pandemic's origin is tied to American elections. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"107863-proof-31-5c7b3753561e72d4daed26bf908aa51f.jpg"
]
|
'The CDC has recommended mail in voting. | Contradiction | The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has encouraged voting by mail, but that doesn't mean it ruled out in-person voting. 'The CDC has recommended mail in voting. That's what this whole pandemic is about: the election!' stated a May 7 Facebook post. In March, the CDC posted recommendations for elections. At the time, many states were slated to have presidential primaries. Some were delayed amid concerns they could hasten transmission of the novel coronavirus, which spreads primarily from person to person through respiratory droplets expelled while breathing, speaking, coughing and sneezing. The CDC's recommendations listed voting by mail as one of multiple options. The CDC recommended that election officials 'encourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations.' Those specific recommendations included encouraging 'mail-in methods of voting if allowed in the jurisdiction.' It also encouraged early voting, drive-up voting and voting at off-peak times. The CDC also recommended moving polling sites away from homes for senior citizens, sanitizing election equipment and encouraging social distancing at polling sites. We contacted the CDC to see if there had been additional guidance since March and did not get a response. It's important to note that the CDC's recommendations are intended as public health guidance; they aren't equivalent to law. Generally, states set laws that outline their rules for voting by mail, early voting and Election Day voting. Local officials administer elections, which means the CDC can't ban in-person voting. Just a handful of states hold only mail-in voting by law. In the other states, elections officials expect a massive increase in requests for absentee ballots, but they are still planning to provide in-person voting options. California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered that all eligible voters receive absentee ballots, however there will be in-person voting sites as well. RELATED: Donald Trump's dubious claim that 'thousands' are conspiring on mail-ballot fraud The Facebook post plays into a conspiracy that Democrats are overhyping the pandemic to expand mail-in voting and help their chances in November. But the pandemic's origin is in no way tied to the American election. The COVID-19 infection outbreak was first detected in China in late December and quickly spread internationally. The World Health Organization declared it a pandemic on March 11. Research shows that the genetic makeup of the virus precludes it from being man-made. | Our ruling A Facebook post said 'The CDC has recommended mail in voting. That's what this whole pandemic is about: the election!' In March, the CDC issued multiple recommendations to reduce the chance that voters would interact with each other, including voting by mail. But the CDC also recommended other ways voters could cast ballots, including at early voting sites or at off-peak times on election day. It also recommended precinct-level strategies for in-person voting such as encouraging social distancing and sanitizing election equipment. What's more, there is no indication that the pandemic's origin is tied to American elections. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"107863-proof-31-5c7b3753561e72d4daed26bf908aa51f.jpg"
]
|
'Friendly reminder: Cigarettes are FDA approved. | Contradiction | It didn't take long after the Food and Drug Administration's full approval of the PfizerCOVID-19 vaccine for skeptics to spread false claims about the agency's track record. One post claimed that the FDA approved thalidomide, a dangerous, faulty drug once used to treat pregnancy morning sickness. That never happened, because an FDA medical officer raised concerns about the drug maker's claims. Another post claimed that the Pfizer vaccine's approval 'means nothing' because the agency also approves pesticides in our food - which it does not do. Now, the experts on the internet have added cigarettes to the list of harmful things the FDA has purportedly approved (but, in reality, hasn't). 'Friendly reminder: Cigarettes are FDA approved,' one Facebook post said. 'Just so everyone is clear .. FDA also approved cigarettes $$$,' said another. But the FDA has not approved any tobacco product, cigarettes included. The agency does not have the authority to approve the products, or to ban them. 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 FDA is responsible for protecting public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy and security of food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices and other products. The agency regulates the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, but it doesn't approve them the way it does with drugs and vaccines. 'FDA doesn't approve tobacco products,' its website says. 'There's no such thing as a safe tobacco product, so FDA's safe and effective standard for evaluating medical products is not appropriate for tobacco products. Instead, FDA regulates tobacco products based on a public health standard that considers the product's risks to the population as a whole.' To legally sell or distribute a new tobacco product in the U.S., manufacturers must receive a written marketing order from the FDA. The agency says it doesn't have the authority to ban any class of tobacco products, including cigarettes, but does have the charge to reduce their harm. Vaccine regulation is different. Pfizer's vaccine was tested in multiple clinical trials that included tens of thousands of people before it was given full FDA approval on Aug. 24. The FDA granted emergency use authorization for the vaccine in December 2020 for people 16 and older. In May, the authorization was extended for people between 12 and 15. The COVID-19 vaccines were already deemed safe and effective with the emergency use authorization. Full approval means that businesses and schools may have more leeway to require COVID-19 vaccination, and the Pfizer shot can stay on the market beyond the public health emergency. Pfizer submitted its 340,000-page application for full FDA approval in May 2021, and it was the fastest FDA approval of a vaccine ever. It required data from clinical and non-clinical trials, technical information, labeling information and more. In Pfizer's case, the application built upon the extensive data submitted to support its application for emergency use authorization. | Our ruling Posts on Facebook suggest people shouldn't trust the FDA's approval of the Pfizer vaccine because it also approved cigarettes. That's wrong. The agency regulates the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of tobacco products, including cigarettes, but it doesn't approve them the way it does with drugs and vaccines. It doesn't have the authority to ban them, either. We rate this comparison False. | []
|
'Friendly reminder: Cigarettes are FDA approved. | Contradiction | It didn't take long after the Food and Drug Administration's full approval of the PfizerCOVID-19 vaccine for skeptics to spread false claims about the agency's track record. One post claimed that the FDA approved thalidomide, a dangerous, faulty drug once used to treat pregnancy morning sickness. That never happened, because an FDA medical officer raised concerns about the drug maker's claims. Another post claimed that the Pfizer vaccine's approval 'means nothing' because the agency also approves pesticides in our food - which it does not do. Now, the experts on the internet have added cigarettes to the list of harmful things the FDA has purportedly approved (but, in reality, hasn't). 'Friendly reminder: Cigarettes are FDA approved,' one Facebook post said. 'Just so everyone is clear .. FDA also approved cigarettes $$$,' said another. But the FDA has not approved any tobacco product, cigarettes included. The agency does not have the authority to approve the products, or to ban them. 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 FDA is responsible for protecting public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy and security of food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices and other products. The agency regulates the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, but it doesn't approve them the way it does with drugs and vaccines. 'FDA doesn't approve tobacco products,' its website says. 'There's no such thing as a safe tobacco product, so FDA's safe and effective standard for evaluating medical products is not appropriate for tobacco products. Instead, FDA regulates tobacco products based on a public health standard that considers the product's risks to the population as a whole.' To legally sell or distribute a new tobacco product in the U.S., manufacturers must receive a written marketing order from the FDA. The agency says it doesn't have the authority to ban any class of tobacco products, including cigarettes, but does have the charge to reduce their harm. Vaccine regulation is different. Pfizer's vaccine was tested in multiple clinical trials that included tens of thousands of people before it was given full FDA approval on Aug. 24. The FDA granted emergency use authorization for the vaccine in December 2020 for people 16 and older. In May, the authorization was extended for people between 12 and 15. The COVID-19 vaccines were already deemed safe and effective with the emergency use authorization. Full approval means that businesses and schools may have more leeway to require COVID-19 vaccination, and the Pfizer shot can stay on the market beyond the public health emergency. Pfizer submitted its 340,000-page application for full FDA approval in May 2021, and it was the fastest FDA approval of a vaccine ever. It required data from clinical and non-clinical trials, technical information, labeling information and more. In Pfizer's case, the application built upon the extensive data submitted to support its application for emergency use authorization. | Our ruling Posts on Facebook suggest people shouldn't trust the FDA's approval of the Pfizer vaccine because it also approved cigarettes. That's wrong. The agency regulates the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of tobacco products, including cigarettes, but it doesn't approve them the way it does with drugs and vaccines. It doesn't have the authority to ban them, either. We rate this comparison False. | []
|
'Joe Exotic tests positive for coronavirus in prison. It's been confirmed. | Contradiction | New routines have emerged for Americans living under quarantine. Some have started making their own sourdough. Many others have settled into their couches and binge-watched 'Tiger King,' the Netflix documentary about a former big cat breeder, Joseph Maldonado-Passage, aka Joe Exotic. In January, Maldonado-Passage was sentenced to 22 years in prison after he was found guilty in a murder-for-hire scheme. Now, some people are saying he's contracted COVID-19 in custody. 'Joe Exotic tests positive for coronavirus in prison,' reads the headline of an April 3 blog post on studentproblems.com. 'It's been confirmed.' The story goes on to say that 'the Tiger King has been moved to a prison hospital for treatment.' 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.) Maldonado-Passage is in self-isolation, according to his husband, Dillon Passage. But that's because other inmates at a jail where he was held tested positive for COVID-19, according to an April 1 NBC News story. Vanity Fair reported on April 3 that Maldonado-Passage was placed under quarantine after moving to a new detention facility. The New York Post reported on April 2 that Maldonado-Passage was transferred from coronavirus isolation to a prison medical center in Fort Worth, Texas. The medical center told the Post that Maldonado-Passage's condition 'is not public.' 'We speak, like, three to five times every day, but since he's been moved to this new facility, they are putting him on COVID-19 isolation because of the previous jail he was at, there were cases,' Passage told Andy Cohen on a SiriusXM show. Initial reports from British tabloids said that Maldonado-Passage had contracted COVID-19 in prison, according to Vanity Fair, but the publication says 'that rumor has not yet been proven.' An Oklahoma City Fox News affiliate reported on April 2 that a post on Maldonado-Passage's Facebook page claims he does not have the disease. 'Joe DOES NOT have the COVID-19 virus,' the Facebook post says. 'He's in a 14-day quarantine because he was transferred from another facility.' We rate this blog post False. | We rate this blog post False. | [
"107886-proof-21-939e20af3cd48cae5ee0824893eec265.jpg"
]
|
'Joe Exotic tests positive for coronavirus in prison. It's been confirmed. | Contradiction | New routines have emerged for Americans living under quarantine. Some have started making their own sourdough. Many others have settled into their couches and binge-watched 'Tiger King,' the Netflix documentary about a former big cat breeder, Joseph Maldonado-Passage, aka Joe Exotic. In January, Maldonado-Passage was sentenced to 22 years in prison after he was found guilty in a murder-for-hire scheme. Now, some people are saying he's contracted COVID-19 in custody. 'Joe Exotic tests positive for coronavirus in prison,' reads the headline of an April 3 blog post on studentproblems.com. 'It's been confirmed.' The story goes on to say that 'the Tiger King has been moved to a prison hospital for treatment.' 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.) Maldonado-Passage is in self-isolation, according to his husband, Dillon Passage. But that's because other inmates at a jail where he was held tested positive for COVID-19, according to an April 1 NBC News story. Vanity Fair reported on April 3 that Maldonado-Passage was placed under quarantine after moving to a new detention facility. The New York Post reported on April 2 that Maldonado-Passage was transferred from coronavirus isolation to a prison medical center in Fort Worth, Texas. The medical center told the Post that Maldonado-Passage's condition 'is not public.' 'We speak, like, three to five times every day, but since he's been moved to this new facility, they are putting him on COVID-19 isolation because of the previous jail he was at, there were cases,' Passage told Andy Cohen on a SiriusXM show. Initial reports from British tabloids said that Maldonado-Passage had contracted COVID-19 in prison, according to Vanity Fair, but the publication says 'that rumor has not yet been proven.' An Oklahoma City Fox News affiliate reported on April 2 that a post on Maldonado-Passage's Facebook page claims he does not have the disease. 'Joe DOES NOT have the COVID-19 virus,' the Facebook post says. 'He's in a 14-day quarantine because he was transferred from another facility.' We rate this blog post False. | We rate this blog post False. | [
"107886-proof-21-939e20af3cd48cae5ee0824893eec265.jpg"
]
|
'Joe Exotic tests positive for coronavirus in prison. It's been confirmed. | Contradiction | New routines have emerged for Americans living under quarantine. Some have started making their own sourdough. Many others have settled into their couches and binge-watched 'Tiger King,' the Netflix documentary about a former big cat breeder, Joseph Maldonado-Passage, aka Joe Exotic. In January, Maldonado-Passage was sentenced to 22 years in prison after he was found guilty in a murder-for-hire scheme. Now, some people are saying he's contracted COVID-19 in custody. 'Joe Exotic tests positive for coronavirus in prison,' reads the headline of an April 3 blog post on studentproblems.com. 'It's been confirmed.' The story goes on to say that 'the Tiger King has been moved to a prison hospital for treatment.' 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.) Maldonado-Passage is in self-isolation, according to his husband, Dillon Passage. But that's because other inmates at a jail where he was held tested positive for COVID-19, according to an April 1 NBC News story. Vanity Fair reported on April 3 that Maldonado-Passage was placed under quarantine after moving to a new detention facility. The New York Post reported on April 2 that Maldonado-Passage was transferred from coronavirus isolation to a prison medical center in Fort Worth, Texas. The medical center told the Post that Maldonado-Passage's condition 'is not public.' 'We speak, like, three to five times every day, but since he's been moved to this new facility, they are putting him on COVID-19 isolation because of the previous jail he was at, there were cases,' Passage told Andy Cohen on a SiriusXM show. Initial reports from British tabloids said that Maldonado-Passage had contracted COVID-19 in prison, according to Vanity Fair, but the publication says 'that rumor has not yet been proven.' An Oklahoma City Fox News affiliate reported on April 2 that a post on Maldonado-Passage's Facebook page claims he does not have the disease. 'Joe DOES NOT have the COVID-19 virus,' the Facebook post says. 'He's in a 14-day quarantine because he was transferred from another facility.' We rate this blog post False. | We rate this blog post False. | [
"107886-proof-21-939e20af3cd48cae5ee0824893eec265.jpg"
]
|
Haitian migrants took an implausible route to Texas-Mexico border area. | Contradiction | Thousands of Haitian migrants fleeing poverty have arrived in the border town of Del Rio, Texas, as they try to cross illegally into the United States. The images and news reports of migrants gathered under a border bridge are the latest immigration challenge facing the Biden administration. The reports have also prompted some social media users to raise questions about how Haitians ended up crossing into Texas, rather than Florida, which is much closer to Haiti. 'Am I the only one that wonders how 14,000 Haitians traveled 2,000 miles to end up under a bridge in Del Rio, Texas?' stated one Facebook post showing a straight red line from Haiti, across the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico to Texas. 'I doubt that they walked.' 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 short answer is that the Haitians did not come directly from Haiti to Texas. These migrants were traveling from South America, where they had lived in recent years. 'That's why they have ended up in Texas, not Florida. They are coming from South American countries, through Central America and Mexico, and ultimately to the U.S.-Mexico border,' said Jessica Bolter, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. 'They walk this route, as well as take buses and sometimes other forms of land transportation.' The 2010 earthquake in Haiti fueled migration Haiti has endured a series of tumultuous events in just the past few months, including a presidential assassination, tropical storms and an earthquake. But the current migrations seen in Texas trace back to 2010, when a 7.0-magnitude earthquake struck the nation and destroyed large parts of the capital, Port-au-Prince. Estimates vary, but the earthquake is reported to have killed more than 200,000 people and displaced more than 1.3 million. Many Haitians then traveled to South American countries, particularly Chile and Brazil, in search of jobs and a better life. The Brazilian government made humanitarian visas available to Haitians, and there was significant demand for construction workers leading up to the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. Once those jobs started to dry up, many Haitians moved on to Chile, Bolter said. The Associated Press reported that about 150,000 Haitians went to Chile from 2014 to 2018 and found work as street vendors, janitors and construction workers. However, since 2018, the Chilean government has made it more difficult for Haitians to get work visas. 'The cost of living in Chile is high, so it can be particularly difficult to get by with a poorly paying job,' Bolter said. 'Many Haitians experience racial discrimination in jobs and housing in Chile as well. Haitians who stayed in Brazil have continued to struggle economically, and have also faced racial discrimination, as well as crime and insecurity.' The COVID-19 pandemic made conditions worse for Haitian migrants. When President Joe Biden took office, Bolter said, many migrants believed that it would be easier to get into the U.S. than under Trump, and were emboldened to travel north. 'A lot of them came to Mexico with the hope of being able to live in Mexico,' Jacqueline Charles, the Miami Herald's Caribbean correspondent, told NPR's 'All Things Considered.' 'But they've had a very difficult time getting work permits, finding jobs, even finding a place to live. And so this is a community that, you know, operates through word of mouth. So people started saying, hey, Ciudad Acuña is open. This port is open.' Ciudad Acuña is the Mexican city across the Rio Grande from Del Rio, Texas. But it wasn't true that the port of entry was open to Haitians. Biden renewed Temporary Protected Status for Haitians in the U.S. earlier this year. That status - which the Trump administration had revoked for Haitians in 2017 - allows migrants to stay in the U.S. when conditions in their home country prevent them from returning safely. But the Biden policy applies only to Haitians who were living in the U.S. as of July 29, not to those crossing the border now. Biden administration continues Trump-era use of Title 42 expulsions Illegal border crossings by Haitian migrants are at a historic high, Bolter said. From October 2020 through August 2021, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered Haitian migrants crossing the border illegally almost 28,000 times along the southwest border; 24,000 of those encounters took place in Texas. While the federal government has not yet released data for September, news reports cited as many as 15,000 migrants waiting in Del Rio. The Department of Homeland Security told PolitiFact that from Sept. 19 to 21, officials sent 1,083 Haitians from Del Rio to Port-au-Prince. Most are being expelled under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Title 42 authority - a Trump policy designed to curb COVID-19 spread - the agency said Sept. 18 'The Biden administration has reiterated that our borders are not open, and people should not make the dangerous journey,' DHS said. 'Individuals and families are subject to border restrictions, including expulsion.' Biden has faced criticism from lawmakers in both parties for his administration's actions on Haitians crossing the border illegally. Republicans say Biden has failed to secure the border while some Democrats have criticized the administration for continuing to use Title 42 to expel Haitians and the tactics used by some Border Patrol agents. Homeland Security chief Alejandro Mayorkas said he directed an immediate investigation of the actions by Border Patrol agents on horseback who were captured in photographs and on video blocking migrants from crossing the river. | Our ruling A Facebook post suggests that Haitian migrants took an implausible route across the Gulf of Mexico to arrive at the Texas-Mexico border. The Haitians who are arriving in Texas did not take a direct route from Haiti. They are people who left their country following the 2010 earthquake and went to South America to find jobs in Brazil and Chile. When opportunities dried up in those countries and conditions worsened, they began traveling north through Latin America toward Mexico. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"107912-proof-27-f4e6f071a0ae220a97b3d6ebdf3247bc.jpg"
]
|
Haitian migrants took an implausible route to Texas-Mexico border area. | Contradiction | Thousands of Haitian migrants fleeing poverty have arrived in the border town of Del Rio, Texas, as they try to cross illegally into the United States. The images and news reports of migrants gathered under a border bridge are the latest immigration challenge facing the Biden administration. The reports have also prompted some social media users to raise questions about how Haitians ended up crossing into Texas, rather than Florida, which is much closer to Haiti. 'Am I the only one that wonders how 14,000 Haitians traveled 2,000 miles to end up under a bridge in Del Rio, Texas?' stated one Facebook post showing a straight red line from Haiti, across the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico to Texas. 'I doubt that they walked.' 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 short answer is that the Haitians did not come directly from Haiti to Texas. These migrants were traveling from South America, where they had lived in recent years. 'That's why they have ended up in Texas, not Florida. They are coming from South American countries, through Central America and Mexico, and ultimately to the U.S.-Mexico border,' said Jessica Bolter, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. 'They walk this route, as well as take buses and sometimes other forms of land transportation.' The 2010 earthquake in Haiti fueled migration Haiti has endured a series of tumultuous events in just the past few months, including a presidential assassination, tropical storms and an earthquake. But the current migrations seen in Texas trace back to 2010, when a 7.0-magnitude earthquake struck the nation and destroyed large parts of the capital, Port-au-Prince. Estimates vary, but the earthquake is reported to have killed more than 200,000 people and displaced more than 1.3 million. Many Haitians then traveled to South American countries, particularly Chile and Brazil, in search of jobs and a better life. The Brazilian government made humanitarian visas available to Haitians, and there was significant demand for construction workers leading up to the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. Once those jobs started to dry up, many Haitians moved on to Chile, Bolter said. The Associated Press reported that about 150,000 Haitians went to Chile from 2014 to 2018 and found work as street vendors, janitors and construction workers. However, since 2018, the Chilean government has made it more difficult for Haitians to get work visas. 'The cost of living in Chile is high, so it can be particularly difficult to get by with a poorly paying job,' Bolter said. 'Many Haitians experience racial discrimination in jobs and housing in Chile as well. Haitians who stayed in Brazil have continued to struggle economically, and have also faced racial discrimination, as well as crime and insecurity.' The COVID-19 pandemic made conditions worse for Haitian migrants. When President Joe Biden took office, Bolter said, many migrants believed that it would be easier to get into the U.S. than under Trump, and were emboldened to travel north. 'A lot of them came to Mexico with the hope of being able to live in Mexico,' Jacqueline Charles, the Miami Herald's Caribbean correspondent, told NPR's 'All Things Considered.' 'But they've had a very difficult time getting work permits, finding jobs, even finding a place to live. And so this is a community that, you know, operates through word of mouth. So people started saying, hey, Ciudad Acuña is open. This port is open.' Ciudad Acuña is the Mexican city across the Rio Grande from Del Rio, Texas. But it wasn't true that the port of entry was open to Haitians. Biden renewed Temporary Protected Status for Haitians in the U.S. earlier this year. That status - which the Trump administration had revoked for Haitians in 2017 - allows migrants to stay in the U.S. when conditions in their home country prevent them from returning safely. But the Biden policy applies only to Haitians who were living in the U.S. as of July 29, not to those crossing the border now. Biden administration continues Trump-era use of Title 42 expulsions Illegal border crossings by Haitian migrants are at a historic high, Bolter said. From October 2020 through August 2021, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered Haitian migrants crossing the border illegally almost 28,000 times along the southwest border; 24,000 of those encounters took place in Texas. While the federal government has not yet released data for September, news reports cited as many as 15,000 migrants waiting in Del Rio. The Department of Homeland Security told PolitiFact that from Sept. 19 to 21, officials sent 1,083 Haitians from Del Rio to Port-au-Prince. Most are being expelled under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Title 42 authority - a Trump policy designed to curb COVID-19 spread - the agency said Sept. 18 'The Biden administration has reiterated that our borders are not open, and people should not make the dangerous journey,' DHS said. 'Individuals and families are subject to border restrictions, including expulsion.' Biden has faced criticism from lawmakers in both parties for his administration's actions on Haitians crossing the border illegally. Republicans say Biden has failed to secure the border while some Democrats have criticized the administration for continuing to use Title 42 to expel Haitians and the tactics used by some Border Patrol agents. Homeland Security chief Alejandro Mayorkas said he directed an immediate investigation of the actions by Border Patrol agents on horseback who were captured in photographs and on video blocking migrants from crossing the river. | Our ruling A Facebook post suggests that Haitian migrants took an implausible route across the Gulf of Mexico to arrive at the Texas-Mexico border. The Haitians who are arriving in Texas did not take a direct route from Haiti. They are people who left their country following the 2010 earthquake and went to South America to find jobs in Brazil and Chile. When opportunities dried up in those countries and conditions worsened, they began traveling north through Latin America toward Mexico. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"107912-proof-27-f4e6f071a0ae220a97b3d6ebdf3247bc.jpg"
]
|
Haitian migrants took an implausible route to Texas-Mexico border area. | Contradiction | Thousands of Haitian migrants fleeing poverty have arrived in the border town of Del Rio, Texas, as they try to cross illegally into the United States. The images and news reports of migrants gathered under a border bridge are the latest immigration challenge facing the Biden administration. The reports have also prompted some social media users to raise questions about how Haitians ended up crossing into Texas, rather than Florida, which is much closer to Haiti. 'Am I the only one that wonders how 14,000 Haitians traveled 2,000 miles to end up under a bridge in Del Rio, Texas?' stated one Facebook post showing a straight red line from Haiti, across the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico to Texas. 'I doubt that they walked.' 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 short answer is that the Haitians did not come directly from Haiti to Texas. These migrants were traveling from South America, where they had lived in recent years. 'That's why they have ended up in Texas, not Florida. They are coming from South American countries, through Central America and Mexico, and ultimately to the U.S.-Mexico border,' said Jessica Bolter, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. 'They walk this route, as well as take buses and sometimes other forms of land transportation.' The 2010 earthquake in Haiti fueled migration Haiti has endured a series of tumultuous events in just the past few months, including a presidential assassination, tropical storms and an earthquake. But the current migrations seen in Texas trace back to 2010, when a 7.0-magnitude earthquake struck the nation and destroyed large parts of the capital, Port-au-Prince. Estimates vary, but the earthquake is reported to have killed more than 200,000 people and displaced more than 1.3 million. Many Haitians then traveled to South American countries, particularly Chile and Brazil, in search of jobs and a better life. The Brazilian government made humanitarian visas available to Haitians, and there was significant demand for construction workers leading up to the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. Once those jobs started to dry up, many Haitians moved on to Chile, Bolter said. The Associated Press reported that about 150,000 Haitians went to Chile from 2014 to 2018 and found work as street vendors, janitors and construction workers. However, since 2018, the Chilean government has made it more difficult for Haitians to get work visas. 'The cost of living in Chile is high, so it can be particularly difficult to get by with a poorly paying job,' Bolter said. 'Many Haitians experience racial discrimination in jobs and housing in Chile as well. Haitians who stayed in Brazil have continued to struggle economically, and have also faced racial discrimination, as well as crime and insecurity.' The COVID-19 pandemic made conditions worse for Haitian migrants. When President Joe Biden took office, Bolter said, many migrants believed that it would be easier to get into the U.S. than under Trump, and were emboldened to travel north. 'A lot of them came to Mexico with the hope of being able to live in Mexico,' Jacqueline Charles, the Miami Herald's Caribbean correspondent, told NPR's 'All Things Considered.' 'But they've had a very difficult time getting work permits, finding jobs, even finding a place to live. And so this is a community that, you know, operates through word of mouth. So people started saying, hey, Ciudad Acuña is open. This port is open.' Ciudad Acuña is the Mexican city across the Rio Grande from Del Rio, Texas. But it wasn't true that the port of entry was open to Haitians. Biden renewed Temporary Protected Status for Haitians in the U.S. earlier this year. That status - which the Trump administration had revoked for Haitians in 2017 - allows migrants to stay in the U.S. when conditions in their home country prevent them from returning safely. But the Biden policy applies only to Haitians who were living in the U.S. as of July 29, not to those crossing the border now. Biden administration continues Trump-era use of Title 42 expulsions Illegal border crossings by Haitian migrants are at a historic high, Bolter said. From October 2020 through August 2021, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered Haitian migrants crossing the border illegally almost 28,000 times along the southwest border; 24,000 of those encounters took place in Texas. While the federal government has not yet released data for September, news reports cited as many as 15,000 migrants waiting in Del Rio. The Department of Homeland Security told PolitiFact that from Sept. 19 to 21, officials sent 1,083 Haitians from Del Rio to Port-au-Prince. Most are being expelled under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Title 42 authority - a Trump policy designed to curb COVID-19 spread - the agency said Sept. 18 'The Biden administration has reiterated that our borders are not open, and people should not make the dangerous journey,' DHS said. 'Individuals and families are subject to border restrictions, including expulsion.' Biden has faced criticism from lawmakers in both parties for his administration's actions on Haitians crossing the border illegally. Republicans say Biden has failed to secure the border while some Democrats have criticized the administration for continuing to use Title 42 to expel Haitians and the tactics used by some Border Patrol agents. Homeland Security chief Alejandro Mayorkas said he directed an immediate investigation of the actions by Border Patrol agents on horseback who were captured in photographs and on video blocking migrants from crossing the river. | Our ruling A Facebook post suggests that Haitian migrants took an implausible route across the Gulf of Mexico to arrive at the Texas-Mexico border. The Haitians who are arriving in Texas did not take a direct route from Haiti. They are people who left their country following the 2010 earthquake and went to South America to find jobs in Brazil and Chile. When opportunities dried up in those countries and conditions worsened, they began traveling north through Latin America toward Mexico. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"107912-proof-27-f4e6f071a0ae220a97b3d6ebdf3247bc.jpg"
]
|
Says Pope Francis 'was arrested Saturday in connection with an 80-count indictment of charges including possession of child pornography, human trafficking, incest, possession of drug paraphernalia and felony fraud. | Contradiction | Social media users are circulating a false claim that Pope Francis has been arrested by Italian authorities and charged with child trafficking and fraud. The claim appears to have gone viral through an article for the website Conservative Beaver. 'Pope Francis aka Jorge Mario Bergoglio was arrested Saturday in connection with an 80-count indictment of charges including possession of child pornography, human trafficking, incest, possession of drug paraphernalia and felony fraud,' it reads. The article further claims that the Italian National Prosecutor's Office ordered the arrest, and that Italian police, the International Criminal Police Organization and the FBI will interrogate the Pope at an undisclosed location. There is no evidence to support any of these claims. This 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.) 'I can categorically deny those outlandish accusations. There is no truth whatsoever to them,' said Rev. Fr. Roger Landry, attaché for the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations. No credible news organization has reported anything along these lines about the pope. The Conservative Beaver article was published Jan. 10, and said the pope had been arrested the night before. But on Jan. 10, Pope Francis live-streamed an address from the library of the Apostolic Palace. The Conservative Beaver cites several Tweets claiming that a blackout had occurred in Vatican City during the purported arrest. However, multiple people living in Vatican City told the Catholic News Agency that there was no blackout on Jan. 9. The article also quotes Giuseppe Governale, an Italian prosecutor, as saying: 'These individuals are truly the worst of the worst in society. I can promise you, we will not stop targeting human trafficking until we put a stop to this despicable trade in the Vatican and Italy, as well as surrounding countries around Europe. While I am a lead prosecutor in Italy, my department will strive to protect our citizens, especially those that need us most, our children.' The quote is not from Governale. It's a doctored version of a public statement issued by a different official, Madison County, Ala., Sheriff Kevin Turner, relating to a human trafficking arrest in Alabama. The Conservative Beaver article swaps out the words 'Madison County' with 'the Vatican and Italy,' the words 'counties around our state' with 'countries around Europe,' and the words 'the sheriff' with 'a lead prosecutor in Italy.' I can promise you, we will not stop targeting human trafficking until we put a stop to this despicable trade in Madison County as well as surrounding counties around our state.- Madison Sheriff AL (@mcsosheriffAL) January 8, 2021 The Conservative Beaver has published misinformation in the past, falsely claiming at various points that George Soros, Barack Obama and Hunter Biden had been arrested. An investigation by Lead Stories found that a photo purporting to show Zayden Thornton, the owner and operator of the site according to the 'About' page, appears to contain a fake computer-generated face. | Our ruling A website claims that Pope Francis was arrested Jan. 9 'in connection with an 80-count indictment of charges including possession of child pornography, human trafficking, incest, possession of drug paraphernalia and felony fraud.' A representative for the Roman Catholic Church said there's no truth to the claims. Pope Francis live-streamed an address Jan. 10 from the Apostolic Palace. This claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says Pope Francis 'was arrested Saturday in connection with an 80-count indictment of charges including possession of child pornography, human trafficking, incest, possession of drug paraphernalia and felony fraud. | Contradiction | Social media users are circulating a false claim that Pope Francis has been arrested by Italian authorities and charged with child trafficking and fraud. The claim appears to have gone viral through an article for the website Conservative Beaver. 'Pope Francis aka Jorge Mario Bergoglio was arrested Saturday in connection with an 80-count indictment of charges including possession of child pornography, human trafficking, incest, possession of drug paraphernalia and felony fraud,' it reads. The article further claims that the Italian National Prosecutor's Office ordered the arrest, and that Italian police, the International Criminal Police Organization and the FBI will interrogate the Pope at an undisclosed location. There is no evidence to support any of these claims. This 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.) 'I can categorically deny those outlandish accusations. There is no truth whatsoever to them,' said Rev. Fr. Roger Landry, attaché for the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations. No credible news organization has reported anything along these lines about the pope. The Conservative Beaver article was published Jan. 10, and said the pope had been arrested the night before. But on Jan. 10, Pope Francis live-streamed an address from the library of the Apostolic Palace. The Conservative Beaver cites several Tweets claiming that a blackout had occurred in Vatican City during the purported arrest. However, multiple people living in Vatican City told the Catholic News Agency that there was no blackout on Jan. 9. The article also quotes Giuseppe Governale, an Italian prosecutor, as saying: 'These individuals are truly the worst of the worst in society. I can promise you, we will not stop targeting human trafficking until we put a stop to this despicable trade in the Vatican and Italy, as well as surrounding countries around Europe. While I am a lead prosecutor in Italy, my department will strive to protect our citizens, especially those that need us most, our children.' The quote is not from Governale. It's a doctored version of a public statement issued by a different official, Madison County, Ala., Sheriff Kevin Turner, relating to a human trafficking arrest in Alabama. The Conservative Beaver article swaps out the words 'Madison County' with 'the Vatican and Italy,' the words 'counties around our state' with 'countries around Europe,' and the words 'the sheriff' with 'a lead prosecutor in Italy.' I can promise you, we will not stop targeting human trafficking until we put a stop to this despicable trade in Madison County as well as surrounding counties around our state.- Madison Sheriff AL (@mcsosheriffAL) January 8, 2021 The Conservative Beaver has published misinformation in the past, falsely claiming at various points that George Soros, Barack Obama and Hunter Biden had been arrested. An investigation by Lead Stories found that a photo purporting to show Zayden Thornton, the owner and operator of the site according to the 'About' page, appears to contain a fake computer-generated face. | Our ruling A website claims that Pope Francis was arrested Jan. 9 'in connection with an 80-count indictment of charges including possession of child pornography, human trafficking, incest, possession of drug paraphernalia and felony fraud.' A representative for the Roman Catholic Church said there's no truth to the claims. Pope Francis live-streamed an address Jan. 10 from the Apostolic Palace. This claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says Pope Francis 'was arrested Saturday in connection with an 80-count indictment of charges including possession of child pornography, human trafficking, incest, possession of drug paraphernalia and felony fraud. | Contradiction | Social media users are circulating a false claim that Pope Francis has been arrested by Italian authorities and charged with child trafficking and fraud. The claim appears to have gone viral through an article for the website Conservative Beaver. 'Pope Francis aka Jorge Mario Bergoglio was arrested Saturday in connection with an 80-count indictment of charges including possession of child pornography, human trafficking, incest, possession of drug paraphernalia and felony fraud,' it reads. The article further claims that the Italian National Prosecutor's Office ordered the arrest, and that Italian police, the International Criminal Police Organization and the FBI will interrogate the Pope at an undisclosed location. There is no evidence to support any of these claims. This 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.) 'I can categorically deny those outlandish accusations. There is no truth whatsoever to them,' said Rev. Fr. Roger Landry, attaché for the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations. No credible news organization has reported anything along these lines about the pope. The Conservative Beaver article was published Jan. 10, and said the pope had been arrested the night before. But on Jan. 10, Pope Francis live-streamed an address from the library of the Apostolic Palace. The Conservative Beaver cites several Tweets claiming that a blackout had occurred in Vatican City during the purported arrest. However, multiple people living in Vatican City told the Catholic News Agency that there was no blackout on Jan. 9. The article also quotes Giuseppe Governale, an Italian prosecutor, as saying: 'These individuals are truly the worst of the worst in society. I can promise you, we will not stop targeting human trafficking until we put a stop to this despicable trade in the Vatican and Italy, as well as surrounding countries around Europe. While I am a lead prosecutor in Italy, my department will strive to protect our citizens, especially those that need us most, our children.' The quote is not from Governale. It's a doctored version of a public statement issued by a different official, Madison County, Ala., Sheriff Kevin Turner, relating to a human trafficking arrest in Alabama. The Conservative Beaver article swaps out the words 'Madison County' with 'the Vatican and Italy,' the words 'counties around our state' with 'countries around Europe,' and the words 'the sheriff' with 'a lead prosecutor in Italy.' I can promise you, we will not stop targeting human trafficking until we put a stop to this despicable trade in Madison County as well as surrounding counties around our state.- Madison Sheriff AL (@mcsosheriffAL) January 8, 2021 The Conservative Beaver has published misinformation in the past, falsely claiming at various points that George Soros, Barack Obama and Hunter Biden had been arrested. An investigation by Lead Stories found that a photo purporting to show Zayden Thornton, the owner and operator of the site according to the 'About' page, appears to contain a fake computer-generated face. | Our ruling A website claims that Pope Francis was arrested Jan. 9 'in connection with an 80-count indictment of charges including possession of child pornography, human trafficking, incest, possession of drug paraphernalia and felony fraud.' A representative for the Roman Catholic Church said there's no truth to the claims. Pope Francis live-streamed an address Jan. 10 from the Apostolic Palace. This claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says Dr. Anthony Fauci in an email 'advises a family member to use (hydroxychloroquine) and antibiotic therapy, the same evening in which in a press conference he attacked (President Donald Trump) on the usefulness of (hydroxychloroquine) to fight the virus. | Contradiction | Some social media users are seeking to tar Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as a hypocrite for how he handled his high-profile role as a scientific expert during the coronavirus pandemic. A June 21 post claimed to have found a smoking gun in a batch of emails that Fauci sent early in the pandemic that were obtained by BuzzFeed and the Washington Post through a Freedom of Information Act request and published June 1. According to the text of the Facebook post, 'One of Fauci's most incredible emails is the one in which he advises a family member to use hydroxychlorichin (sic) and antibiotic therapy, the same evening in which in a press conference he attacked (President Donald Trump) on the usefulness of hydroxychlorichin (sic) to fight the 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.) We looked through the searchable database of Fauci's publicly released emails and found some references to hydroxychloroquine, but nothing that matched the duplicity alleged in the Facebook post. All told, we found no indication that Fauci's private comments were inconsistent with his public views of the drug, including what he said at White House press briefings. Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 The post was referring to hydroxychloroquine, a drug that's well-established in the treatment of lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and malaria and which attracted attention early in the pandemic as a possible treatment of COVID-19. In early 2020, two small trials, including one that used hydroxychloroquine along with the antibiotic azithromycin, reported that the virus was essentially gone in five days. But the research society that published that article later renounced it, saying it didn't meet its standards. Then-President Donald Trump championed the drug, despite skepticism from many medical experts, including Fauci, who cautioned that the evidence of the drug's efficacy was anecdotal and needed to be confirmed by high-quality studies, especially since the drug carries a particular risk for people with heart problems, as well as other possible side effects. A clinical trial was conducted by the National Institutes of Health to see whether the drug could be used as a treatment for COVID-19. The study was halted in June 2020 after it found hydroxychloroquine was 'very unlikely to be beneficial to hospitalized patients with COVID-19.' Soon after, the Food and Drug Administration revoked a three-month-old emergency use authorization for the drug for the treatment of COVID-19. The FDA said taking the drug could potentially lead to serious side effects including 'serious cardiac adverse events' and that any potential benefits 'no longer outweigh the known and potential risks.' Mentions of hydroxychloroquine in Fauci's emails Hydroxychloroquine was specifically mentioned almost three-dozen times in Fauci's emails, usually due to someone asking Fauci for his thoughts on the drug. At no point in any of the publicly available emails sent by Fauci did he conclude that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment, much less urge a close relative to start using it. On Feb. 24, 2020, a pharmacologist at the federal Food and Drug Administration asked Fauci whether there was any proof to back up a claim from China about hydroxychloroquine being able to 'decrease COVID-19 infections and lung disease.' 'There are no data in this brief report and so I have no way of evaluating their claim. There are a lot of these types of claims going around. I would love to see their data,' Fauci responded. In several subsequent emails asking about the drug, Fauci acknowledged the existence of anecdotal accounts about hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness but said he was waiting on high-quality studies, like the one NIH was conducting. On April 23, 2020, NIH press staff sent Fauci an email seeking to finalize language for a press release that said in his name, 'Although there is anecdotal evidence that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin may benefit people with COVID-19, we need solid data from a large randomized, controlled clinical trial to determine whether this experimental treatment is safe and can improve clinical outcomes.' In his response to the email, Fauci wrote that the draft language 'looks fine.' Fauci's public statements Fauci's emails echoed statements he made publicly about the drug, which were to withhold any official position until a controlled clinical trial was complete. His most extensive comments on hydroxychloroquine from the White House briefing room were in March 2020. At the time, a reporter asked Fauci about whether there was evidence that hydroxychloroquine might be effective against the coronavirus. 'The answer is no,' Fauci responded, adding that the reporter was talking about anecdotal evidence that 'was not done in a controlled clinical trial, so you really can't make any definitive statement about it.' Fauci's remarks the following day, March 21, took the same approach: 'The president is talking about hope for people. And it's not an unreasonable thing: to hope for people. So when you have approved drugs that physicians have the option and a decision between the physician and the patient, are you going to use a drug that someone says, from an anecdotal standpoint, not completely proven, but might have some effect? There are those who lean to the point of giving hope and saying, 'Give that person the option of having access to that drug.' 'And then you have the other group - which is my job, as a scientist - to say my job is to ultimately prove, without a doubt, that a drug is not only safe, but that it actually works. Those two things are really not incompatible, when you think about that, particularly when you're in an arena where you don't have anything that's proven.' | Our ruling A Facebook post said that one of Fauci's 'most incredible emails is the one in which he advises a family member to use (hydroxychloroquine) and antibiotic therapy, the same evening in which in a press conference he attacked (Trump) on the usefulness of (hydroxychloroquine) to fight the virus.' We found nothing in Fauci's publicly disclosed emails that supports the claim that he urged a close relative to use hydroxychloroquine. To the contrary, Fauci in his emails was consistent in arguing, both publicly and privately, that anecdotal evidence supporting hydroxychloroquine's efficacy in the pandemic would need to be demonstrated in a controlled clinical trial before its use could be recommended. We rate the statement False. Andy Nguyen contributed to this article. | [
"107939-proof-26-3fcfa06b94b8104bfa032b0f848d5c7c.jpg"
]
|
Says Dr. Anthony Fauci in an email 'advises a family member to use (hydroxychloroquine) and antibiotic therapy, the same evening in which in a press conference he attacked (President Donald Trump) on the usefulness of (hydroxychloroquine) to fight the virus. | Contradiction | Some social media users are seeking to tar Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as a hypocrite for how he handled his high-profile role as a scientific expert during the coronavirus pandemic. A June 21 post claimed to have found a smoking gun in a batch of emails that Fauci sent early in the pandemic that were obtained by BuzzFeed and the Washington Post through a Freedom of Information Act request and published June 1. According to the text of the Facebook post, 'One of Fauci's most incredible emails is the one in which he advises a family member to use hydroxychlorichin (sic) and antibiotic therapy, the same evening in which in a press conference he attacked (President Donald Trump) on the usefulness of hydroxychlorichin (sic) to fight the 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.) We looked through the searchable database of Fauci's publicly released emails and found some references to hydroxychloroquine, but nothing that matched the duplicity alleged in the Facebook post. All told, we found no indication that Fauci's private comments were inconsistent with his public views of the drug, including what he said at White House press briefings. Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 The post was referring to hydroxychloroquine, a drug that's well-established in the treatment of lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and malaria and which attracted attention early in the pandemic as a possible treatment of COVID-19. In early 2020, two small trials, including one that used hydroxychloroquine along with the antibiotic azithromycin, reported that the virus was essentially gone in five days. But the research society that published that article later renounced it, saying it didn't meet its standards. Then-President Donald Trump championed the drug, despite skepticism from many medical experts, including Fauci, who cautioned that the evidence of the drug's efficacy was anecdotal and needed to be confirmed by high-quality studies, especially since the drug carries a particular risk for people with heart problems, as well as other possible side effects. A clinical trial was conducted by the National Institutes of Health to see whether the drug could be used as a treatment for COVID-19. The study was halted in June 2020 after it found hydroxychloroquine was 'very unlikely to be beneficial to hospitalized patients with COVID-19.' Soon after, the Food and Drug Administration revoked a three-month-old emergency use authorization for the drug for the treatment of COVID-19. The FDA said taking the drug could potentially lead to serious side effects including 'serious cardiac adverse events' and that any potential benefits 'no longer outweigh the known and potential risks.' Mentions of hydroxychloroquine in Fauci's emails Hydroxychloroquine was specifically mentioned almost three-dozen times in Fauci's emails, usually due to someone asking Fauci for his thoughts on the drug. At no point in any of the publicly available emails sent by Fauci did he conclude that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment, much less urge a close relative to start using it. On Feb. 24, 2020, a pharmacologist at the federal Food and Drug Administration asked Fauci whether there was any proof to back up a claim from China about hydroxychloroquine being able to 'decrease COVID-19 infections and lung disease.' 'There are no data in this brief report and so I have no way of evaluating their claim. There are a lot of these types of claims going around. I would love to see their data,' Fauci responded. In several subsequent emails asking about the drug, Fauci acknowledged the existence of anecdotal accounts about hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness but said he was waiting on high-quality studies, like the one NIH was conducting. On April 23, 2020, NIH press staff sent Fauci an email seeking to finalize language for a press release that said in his name, 'Although there is anecdotal evidence that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin may benefit people with COVID-19, we need solid data from a large randomized, controlled clinical trial to determine whether this experimental treatment is safe and can improve clinical outcomes.' In his response to the email, Fauci wrote that the draft language 'looks fine.' Fauci's public statements Fauci's emails echoed statements he made publicly about the drug, which were to withhold any official position until a controlled clinical trial was complete. His most extensive comments on hydroxychloroquine from the White House briefing room were in March 2020. At the time, a reporter asked Fauci about whether there was evidence that hydroxychloroquine might be effective against the coronavirus. 'The answer is no,' Fauci responded, adding that the reporter was talking about anecdotal evidence that 'was not done in a controlled clinical trial, so you really can't make any definitive statement about it.' Fauci's remarks the following day, March 21, took the same approach: 'The president is talking about hope for people. And it's not an unreasonable thing: to hope for people. So when you have approved drugs that physicians have the option and a decision between the physician and the patient, are you going to use a drug that someone says, from an anecdotal standpoint, not completely proven, but might have some effect? There are those who lean to the point of giving hope and saying, 'Give that person the option of having access to that drug.' 'And then you have the other group - which is my job, as a scientist - to say my job is to ultimately prove, without a doubt, that a drug is not only safe, but that it actually works. Those two things are really not incompatible, when you think about that, particularly when you're in an arena where you don't have anything that's proven.' | Our ruling A Facebook post said that one of Fauci's 'most incredible emails is the one in which he advises a family member to use (hydroxychloroquine) and antibiotic therapy, the same evening in which in a press conference he attacked (Trump) on the usefulness of (hydroxychloroquine) to fight the virus.' We found nothing in Fauci's publicly disclosed emails that supports the claim that he urged a close relative to use hydroxychloroquine. To the contrary, Fauci in his emails was consistent in arguing, both publicly and privately, that anecdotal evidence supporting hydroxychloroquine's efficacy in the pandemic would need to be demonstrated in a controlled clinical trial before its use could be recommended. We rate the statement False. Andy Nguyen contributed to this article. | [
"107939-proof-26-3fcfa06b94b8104bfa032b0f848d5c7c.jpg"
]
|
Says Dr. Anthony Fauci in an email 'advises a family member to use (hydroxychloroquine) and antibiotic therapy, the same evening in which in a press conference he attacked (President Donald Trump) on the usefulness of (hydroxychloroquine) to fight the virus. | Contradiction | Some social media users are seeking to tar Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as a hypocrite for how he handled his high-profile role as a scientific expert during the coronavirus pandemic. A June 21 post claimed to have found a smoking gun in a batch of emails that Fauci sent early in the pandemic that were obtained by BuzzFeed and the Washington Post through a Freedom of Information Act request and published June 1. According to the text of the Facebook post, 'One of Fauci's most incredible emails is the one in which he advises a family member to use hydroxychlorichin (sic) and antibiotic therapy, the same evening in which in a press conference he attacked (President Donald Trump) on the usefulness of hydroxychlorichin (sic) to fight the 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.) We looked through the searchable database of Fauci's publicly released emails and found some references to hydroxychloroquine, but nothing that matched the duplicity alleged in the Facebook post. All told, we found no indication that Fauci's private comments were inconsistent with his public views of the drug, including what he said at White House press briefings. Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 The post was referring to hydroxychloroquine, a drug that's well-established in the treatment of lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and malaria and which attracted attention early in the pandemic as a possible treatment of COVID-19. In early 2020, two small trials, including one that used hydroxychloroquine along with the antibiotic azithromycin, reported that the virus was essentially gone in five days. But the research society that published that article later renounced it, saying it didn't meet its standards. Then-President Donald Trump championed the drug, despite skepticism from many medical experts, including Fauci, who cautioned that the evidence of the drug's efficacy was anecdotal and needed to be confirmed by high-quality studies, especially since the drug carries a particular risk for people with heart problems, as well as other possible side effects. A clinical trial was conducted by the National Institutes of Health to see whether the drug could be used as a treatment for COVID-19. The study was halted in June 2020 after it found hydroxychloroquine was 'very unlikely to be beneficial to hospitalized patients with COVID-19.' Soon after, the Food and Drug Administration revoked a three-month-old emergency use authorization for the drug for the treatment of COVID-19. The FDA said taking the drug could potentially lead to serious side effects including 'serious cardiac adverse events' and that any potential benefits 'no longer outweigh the known and potential risks.' Mentions of hydroxychloroquine in Fauci's emails Hydroxychloroquine was specifically mentioned almost three-dozen times in Fauci's emails, usually due to someone asking Fauci for his thoughts on the drug. At no point in any of the publicly available emails sent by Fauci did he conclude that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment, much less urge a close relative to start using it. On Feb. 24, 2020, a pharmacologist at the federal Food and Drug Administration asked Fauci whether there was any proof to back up a claim from China about hydroxychloroquine being able to 'decrease COVID-19 infections and lung disease.' 'There are no data in this brief report and so I have no way of evaluating their claim. There are a lot of these types of claims going around. I would love to see their data,' Fauci responded. In several subsequent emails asking about the drug, Fauci acknowledged the existence of anecdotal accounts about hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness but said he was waiting on high-quality studies, like the one NIH was conducting. On April 23, 2020, NIH press staff sent Fauci an email seeking to finalize language for a press release that said in his name, 'Although there is anecdotal evidence that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin may benefit people with COVID-19, we need solid data from a large randomized, controlled clinical trial to determine whether this experimental treatment is safe and can improve clinical outcomes.' In his response to the email, Fauci wrote that the draft language 'looks fine.' Fauci's public statements Fauci's emails echoed statements he made publicly about the drug, which were to withhold any official position until a controlled clinical trial was complete. His most extensive comments on hydroxychloroquine from the White House briefing room were in March 2020. At the time, a reporter asked Fauci about whether there was evidence that hydroxychloroquine might be effective against the coronavirus. 'The answer is no,' Fauci responded, adding that the reporter was talking about anecdotal evidence that 'was not done in a controlled clinical trial, so you really can't make any definitive statement about it.' Fauci's remarks the following day, March 21, took the same approach: 'The president is talking about hope for people. And it's not an unreasonable thing: to hope for people. So when you have approved drugs that physicians have the option and a decision between the physician and the patient, are you going to use a drug that someone says, from an anecdotal standpoint, not completely proven, but might have some effect? There are those who lean to the point of giving hope and saying, 'Give that person the option of having access to that drug.' 'And then you have the other group - which is my job, as a scientist - to say my job is to ultimately prove, without a doubt, that a drug is not only safe, but that it actually works. Those two things are really not incompatible, when you think about that, particularly when you're in an arena where you don't have anything that's proven.' | Our ruling A Facebook post said that one of Fauci's 'most incredible emails is the one in which he advises a family member to use (hydroxychloroquine) and antibiotic therapy, the same evening in which in a press conference he attacked (Trump) on the usefulness of (hydroxychloroquine) to fight the virus.' We found nothing in Fauci's publicly disclosed emails that supports the claim that he urged a close relative to use hydroxychloroquine. To the contrary, Fauci in his emails was consistent in arguing, both publicly and privately, that anecdotal evidence supporting hydroxychloroquine's efficacy in the pandemic would need to be demonstrated in a controlled clinical trial before its use could be recommended. We rate the statement False. Andy Nguyen contributed to this article. | [
"107939-proof-26-3fcfa06b94b8104bfa032b0f848d5c7c.jpg"
]
|
'New York's 1,200+ homeless veterans are ineligible for these $15,600 payments. | Contradiction | In April, New York state's Democratic-led Legislature passed - and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed - a budget that included $2.1 billion for a new Excluded Worker Fund. The fund would make one-time payments of as much as $15,600 to immigrants in the country illegally who lost work during the coronavirus pandemic. The idea was to provide aid to New Yorkers whose immigration status prevented them from receiving other forms of aid during the pandemic. Critics of the program expressed outrage that the state was preparing to hand over thousands of dollars to immigrants who were in the United States illegally. Some national figures weighed in, such as Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who is considered a possible 2024 presidential candidate. Citing a New York Times article explaining the provision, Cotton wrote in the tweet: 'New York's 1,200+ homeless veterans are ineligible for these $15,600 payments.' New York's 1,200+ homeless veterans are ineligible for these $15,600 payments. https://t.co/0BMLbxVQMm- Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) April 8, 2021 Is Cotton correct that New York homeless veterans do not qualify for this aid? We reached out to Cotton's office and were referred to a website that did not address our question. Our research suggests that Cotton's argument is both inaccurate - homeless veterans are not expressly barred under the program - and a misleading restatement of the fund's intent: It's meant to help the people who wouldn't be eligible for the kind of aid most veterans already qualify for. Qualifications for payments Excluded Worker Fund benefits are available to New York state residents who have been excluded from unemployment insurance, pandemic-related federal support, and other programs because of their immigration status, said Freeman Klopott, a spokesman for the New York State Division of Budget. They must have earned no more than $26,208 in the prior year and suffered a loss of work-related earnings or household income due the coronavirus pandemic, Klopott said. The fund doesn't explicitly bar homeless veterans, as Cotton suggests. If any homeless veterans happen to meet those requirements, they would qualify for these benefits, Klopott said. As a practical matter, this is probably a small group, even if the number of homeless veterans in New York state is higher than the 1,200 cited by Cotton, since few veterans are likely to be excluded from other aid programs because of their immigration status. While the U.S. military routinely accepts noncitizen immigrants who are in the country legally - often granting them citizenship after several years of service - it generally does not accept immigrants who are in the country illegally. An exception is a program called Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest, or MAVNI. The program, created under President George W. Bush and left largely in limbo during the Obama and Trump administrations, allows immigrants in the country illegally who possess certain in-demand skills such as foreign languages or medical training to join the military. This program is not only dormant but was capped at a few thousand individuals in its early years, making its members a tiny fraction of the overall veteran population. What is the program for? A broader issue is that Cotton's tweet garbles the purpose of the program. Any homeless veterans who are already U.S. citizens or legal residents would have been eligible for the original assistance programs that the Excluded Worker Fund is supposed to be backstopping. In his tweet, Cotton singled out one sympathetic group - homeless veterans - as being uniquely blocked by this program. But by Cotton's logic, homeless veterans would also be 'ineligible' for corporate tax breaks and countless other provisions of the budget that were not directed at the homeless or veterans in New York. And by the same token, farmers, math teachers and poets who are U.S. citizens would be 'ineligible' for the program, because it's not meant for them. 'The veteran community has been hit hard during COVID-19 and continues to need help,' said James Fitzgerald, deputy director at the NYC Veterans Alliance, told PolitiFact. 'Other communities are in need of help as well, including our immigrant community. Our government should focus on helping as many individuals as possible so we can recover from this terrible pandemic.' | Our ruling Cotton said, 'New York's 1,200+ homeless veterans are ineligible for these $15,600 payments.' The post mischaracterizes a program that would provide aid to people who were excluded from other aid programs because of their immigration status. The vast majority of homeless veterans are already U.S. citizens or legal residents, and thus are not the population the Excluded Worker Fund was designed to help. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"107947-proof-30-5d95661dce0707d3e41defaf02aec993.jpg"
]
|
'New York's 1,200+ homeless veterans are ineligible for these $15,600 payments. | Contradiction | In April, New York state's Democratic-led Legislature passed - and Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed - a budget that included $2.1 billion for a new Excluded Worker Fund. The fund would make one-time payments of as much as $15,600 to immigrants in the country illegally who lost work during the coronavirus pandemic. The idea was to provide aid to New Yorkers whose immigration status prevented them from receiving other forms of aid during the pandemic. Critics of the program expressed outrage that the state was preparing to hand over thousands of dollars to immigrants who were in the United States illegally. Some national figures weighed in, such as Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who is considered a possible 2024 presidential candidate. Citing a New York Times article explaining the provision, Cotton wrote in the tweet: 'New York's 1,200+ homeless veterans are ineligible for these $15,600 payments.' New York's 1,200+ homeless veterans are ineligible for these $15,600 payments. https://t.co/0BMLbxVQMm- Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) April 8, 2021 Is Cotton correct that New York homeless veterans do not qualify for this aid? We reached out to Cotton's office and were referred to a website that did not address our question. Our research suggests that Cotton's argument is both inaccurate - homeless veterans are not expressly barred under the program - and a misleading restatement of the fund's intent: It's meant to help the people who wouldn't be eligible for the kind of aid most veterans already qualify for. Qualifications for payments Excluded Worker Fund benefits are available to New York state residents who have been excluded from unemployment insurance, pandemic-related federal support, and other programs because of their immigration status, said Freeman Klopott, a spokesman for the New York State Division of Budget. They must have earned no more than $26,208 in the prior year and suffered a loss of work-related earnings or household income due the coronavirus pandemic, Klopott said. The fund doesn't explicitly bar homeless veterans, as Cotton suggests. If any homeless veterans happen to meet those requirements, they would qualify for these benefits, Klopott said. As a practical matter, this is probably a small group, even if the number of homeless veterans in New York state is higher than the 1,200 cited by Cotton, since few veterans are likely to be excluded from other aid programs because of their immigration status. While the U.S. military routinely accepts noncitizen immigrants who are in the country legally - often granting them citizenship after several years of service - it generally does not accept immigrants who are in the country illegally. An exception is a program called Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest, or MAVNI. The program, created under President George W. Bush and left largely in limbo during the Obama and Trump administrations, allows immigrants in the country illegally who possess certain in-demand skills such as foreign languages or medical training to join the military. This program is not only dormant but was capped at a few thousand individuals in its early years, making its members a tiny fraction of the overall veteran population. What is the program for? A broader issue is that Cotton's tweet garbles the purpose of the program. Any homeless veterans who are already U.S. citizens or legal residents would have been eligible for the original assistance programs that the Excluded Worker Fund is supposed to be backstopping. In his tweet, Cotton singled out one sympathetic group - homeless veterans - as being uniquely blocked by this program. But by Cotton's logic, homeless veterans would also be 'ineligible' for corporate tax breaks and countless other provisions of the budget that were not directed at the homeless or veterans in New York. And by the same token, farmers, math teachers and poets who are U.S. citizens would be 'ineligible' for the program, because it's not meant for them. 'The veteran community has been hit hard during COVID-19 and continues to need help,' said James Fitzgerald, deputy director at the NYC Veterans Alliance, told PolitiFact. 'Other communities are in need of help as well, including our immigrant community. Our government should focus on helping as many individuals as possible so we can recover from this terrible pandemic.' | Our ruling Cotton said, 'New York's 1,200+ homeless veterans are ineligible for these $15,600 payments.' The post mischaracterizes a program that would provide aid to people who were excluded from other aid programs because of their immigration status. The vast majority of homeless veterans are already U.S. citizens or legal residents, and thus are not the population the Excluded Worker Fund was designed to help. We rate the statement Mostly False. | [
"107947-proof-30-5d95661dce0707d3e41defaf02aec993.jpg"
]
|
'Ted Cruz says owning a gun should be as hassle free as owning a car, which as I recall requires a license and registration. | Contradiction | Days after a Colorado gunman opened fire in a grocery store, social media users accused Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, of saying gun ownership should be 'hassle free.' 'Ted Cruz says owning a gun should be as hassle free as owning a car which as I recall requires a license and registration,' said one Facebook post shared thousands of times. 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 did not find any evidence that the Texas senator said 'owning a gun should be as hassle free as owning a car,' as the Facebook post claimed he did. A spokesperson for Cruz's office said the senator never made such a statement. PolitiFact searched Google, the Nexis news database and TVEyes, a media monitoring service. We also queried Cruz's official Twitter accounts and Politwoops, a project from ProPublica that tracks deleted tweets from Cruz and other politicians. The unsubstantiated quote appears to have taken off after a Twitter user shared it to their more than 11,000 followers, according to Hoaxy, a social media analysis tool. We reached out to that Twitter user, as well as the person who posted the claim to Facebook, but we did not hear back. One Twitter user who shared the same claim pointed PolitiFact to a 2013 Senate hearing. But Cruz did not make the claim about cars and guns during that hearing, either. Cruz did make news during a March 23, 2021, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, when he accused Democrats pushing for gun control of 'ridiculous theater.' One tweet from that day referenced Cruz's comments and called for regulating gun ownership more like car ownership. Cruz did not draw an analogy between owning a gun and owning a car when he spoke at the hearing. But other lawmakers did. After the Texas senator finished his statement, Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., brought up drunk drivers in a comment that also generated headlines. 'I'm not trying to perfectly equate these two, but we have a lot of drunk drivers in America that kill a lot of people,' Kennedy said. 'We ought to try to combat that too. But I think what many folks on my side of the aisle are saying is that the answer is not to get rid of all sober drivers.' The Facebook post purporting to quote Cruz is unsubstantiated. So we rate it False. | The Facebook post purporting to quote Cruz is unsubstantiated. So we rate it False. | [
"107955-proof-28-a92d11c130d4fa09af1a324b758393de.jpg"
]
|
Says a photo shows a 'lithium mine for hybrid cars. | Contradiction | A self-proclaimed 'public service announcement' widely shared on Facebook tries to portray the manufacturing of hybrid vehicles as bad for the environment - but the key photo it uses is of a gold mine. One photo appears to show a pipeline cutting a clean and narrow path through a forest; the other shows an expansive pit that looks like it's been stripped by a machine. 'Keystone Pipeline vs. Lithium Mine for Hybrid Cars. But it's all about the environment right?' 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 traced the top photo to a Flickr page that identifies the image as a section of the Alaska Pipeline. The Trump administration approved construction of an 875-mile extension of the Keystone line - Keystone XL - but President Joe Biden reversed the approval in January with an executive order, on the grounds that it is harmful to the environment. The bottom photo does not show a mine to extract lithium, an element used to make batteries. It's a gold mine. A Google search and a TinEye reverse-image search shows the image is widely available as a Getty Images stock photo, depicting a gold mine in Kalgoorlie, Australia. This isn't the first time we've seen attempts on Facebook to compare the environmental effects of a pipeline against hybrid or electric vehicles. In March, we rated a similar post False because the 'lithium mine' it alleged to be showing was actually a copper and cobalt mine. Lithium-ion batteries are used for most plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and all-electric vehicles, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Most of their components can be recycled, 'but the cost of material recovery remains a challenge for the industry,' the department says. The world's lithium is either mined in Australia or from salt flats in the Andean regions of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. The operations use large amounts of groundwater. The water required means that manufacturing electric vehicles is about 50% more water intensive than traditional internal combustion engines, the New York Times reported. Most lithium is extracted from salty liquid brines that are far beneath the Earth's surface, according to the Minerals Education Coalition - not open-pit mines like the copper one shown in the photos. That's not to say lithium isn't ever extracted from open-pit mines, it's just less common and often involves smaller pits. | Our ruling The key photo in this comparison is of a gold mine, not a lithium mine, so we rate the post False. | []
|
'Australian military being trained to **force vaccinate** in door-to-door attacks. | Contradiction | A recent blog post made an audacious claim about the Australian military vaccinating people at gunpoint is being shared on social media, but it's untrue. 'Australian military being trained to **force vaccinate** in door-to-door attacks,' the Nov. 1 headline says. The post goes on to claim that 'members of the armed forces are being trained to go door-to-door and forcibly vaccinate every person in the country at gunpoint' and 'chase anyone trying to escape into nearby woods or other areas, to grab them too - at gunpoint.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Neither the post nor a video embedded in the post cites a source. We reached out to the Australian Defence Force about the claim. 'This claim is misinformation and completely untrue,' the agency said in a statement. The Defence Force isn't administering vaccines, but it is participating in something called Operation COVID-19 Assist, which it established in April 2020 'to provide customized support to state and territory authorities, to reinforce and expand their capacity to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.' RELATED VIDEO Early in the pandemic, members of the Defence Force provided support for contact tracing, and helped police with mandatory quarantine arrangements for people arriving to the country from abroad. But we found no evidence to corroborate the claims made in the blog post. We did find an August fact-check by AAP, which looked into an allegation that Sky News had reported something similar. The news organization found that it had 'no basis in fact.' We agree. We rate this claim False. | We agree. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Photos show Portland, Ore., after protests. | Contradiction | Five photos being shared on Facebook show wreckage. Two of the images show what look like rows of burned out cars. A third shows several people standing in front of a ruined building. Two more reveal debris, orange cones and smoke at an intersection. 'All of downtown Portland looks like this!' reads a July 29 Facebook post about recent protests in Portland, Ore. 'Ask yourself why you haven't seen this.' The answer, it seems, is because these photos are not recent pictures of Portland. 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 of the photos of cars is from August 2019, when a fire in Portland destroyed a townhouse, a gym and dozens of vehicles. The second car photo, taken by AP photographer Julio Cortez, is from May 30 and shows a parking lot filled with scorched vehicles in Minneapolis 'after a night of fires and looting' after the death of George Floyd, according to the caption. The third photo shows the aftermath of a natural gas explosion near a construction site in Portland in October 2016. The fourth and fifth photos are also from after that explosion. We rate this post Pants on Fire. | We rate this post Pants on Fire. | []
|
Photos show Portland, Ore., after protests. | Contradiction | Five photos being shared on Facebook show wreckage. Two of the images show what look like rows of burned out cars. A third shows several people standing in front of a ruined building. Two more reveal debris, orange cones and smoke at an intersection. 'All of downtown Portland looks like this!' reads a July 29 Facebook post about recent protests in Portland, Ore. 'Ask yourself why you haven't seen this.' The answer, it seems, is because these photos are not recent pictures of Portland. 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 of the photos of cars is from August 2019, when a fire in Portland destroyed a townhouse, a gym and dozens of vehicles. The second car photo, taken by AP photographer Julio Cortez, is from May 30 and shows a parking lot filled with scorched vehicles in Minneapolis 'after a night of fires and looting' after the death of George Floyd, according to the caption. The third photo shows the aftermath of a natural gas explosion near a construction site in Portland in October 2016. The fourth and fifth photos are also from after that explosion. We rate this post Pants on Fire. | We rate this post Pants on Fire. | []
|
Photos show Portland, Ore., after protests. | Contradiction | Five photos being shared on Facebook show wreckage. Two of the images show what look like rows of burned out cars. A third shows several people standing in front of a ruined building. Two more reveal debris, orange cones and smoke at an intersection. 'All of downtown Portland looks like this!' reads a July 29 Facebook post about recent protests in Portland, Ore. 'Ask yourself why you haven't seen this.' The answer, it seems, is because these photos are not recent pictures of Portland. 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 of the photos of cars is from August 2019, when a fire in Portland destroyed a townhouse, a gym and dozens of vehicles. The second car photo, taken by AP photographer Julio Cortez, is from May 30 and shows a parking lot filled with scorched vehicles in Minneapolis 'after a night of fires and looting' after the death of George Floyd, according to the caption. The third photo shows the aftermath of a natural gas explosion near a construction site in Portland in October 2016. The fourth and fifth photos are also from after that explosion. We rate this post Pants on Fire. | We rate this post Pants on Fire. | []
|
Photos show Portland, Ore., after protests. | Contradiction | Five photos being shared on Facebook show wreckage. Two of the images show what look like rows of burned out cars. A third shows several people standing in front of a ruined building. Two more reveal debris, orange cones and smoke at an intersection. 'All of downtown Portland looks like this!' reads a July 29 Facebook post about recent protests in Portland, Ore. 'Ask yourself why you haven't seen this.' The answer, it seems, is because these photos are not recent pictures of Portland. 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 of the photos of cars is from August 2019, when a fire in Portland destroyed a townhouse, a gym and dozens of vehicles. The second car photo, taken by AP photographer Julio Cortez, is from May 30 and shows a parking lot filled with scorched vehicles in Minneapolis 'after a night of fires and looting' after the death of George Floyd, according to the caption. The third photo shows the aftermath of a natural gas explosion near a construction site in Portland in October 2016. The fourth and fifth photos are also from after that explosion. We rate this post Pants on Fire. | We rate this post Pants on Fire. | []
|
The COVID-19 vaccine is dangerous because 23 people died in Norway 'within hours' of receiving it. | Contradiction | As countries around the world begin COVID-19 inoculations, vaccine critics are promoting the notion that the shots can easily cause injury or death - even though the evidence does not support their claims. That's what happened after Norway reported the deaths of elderly people who had received the COVID-19 vaccine. Social media posts, like this one from Fox News commentator Jan Morgan, point to the Norway deaths as evidence that the vaccine causes harm: '23 die within hours of taking COVID vaccine. ... I've never taken a flu shot and I'm certainly NOT letting anyone inject this garbage in to my body.' Morgan's 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.) Initial Norwegian reports on Jan. 15 indicated that 23 people had died after receiving COVID-19 vaccines. By Jan. 18, the number of deaths had increased to 33, out of about 48,000 vaccinated. Though the Facebook post says people died 'within hours' of receiving the vaccine, Norwegian authorities said only that 23 deaths occurred within six days of vaccination, and published reports do not indicate the time frame for the remaining 10 deaths. The Norwegian government said the country's vaccination program is initially targeting the most vulnerable - the elderly and those in nursing homes - and 'a high proportion' of the latter were very frail or terminally ill and already very near the end of their lives. As a result, health authorities said, 'It is expected that deaths close to the time of vaccination may occur.' Norway's 'reporting culture' There's no proof that the COVID-19 vaccines caused the deaths, the Norwegian Medicines Agency said. Norway's strong 'reporting culture' for vaccine adverse reactions means that 'health care professionals have a low threshold for reporting possible adverse reactions, even when the causal relationships appear very unclear,' a government report said. An average of 45 people die each day in Norwegian nursing homes and similar institutions, according to the Norwegian Medicines Agency. Therefore, 'it is not a given that this represents any excess mortality or that there is a causal connection,' Camilla Stoltenberg, head of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, said at a press conference on Jan. 18. The COVID-19 vaccines were developed quickly but rely on scientific research that is decades old, and they underwent a rigorous review process, PolitiFact has reported. That hasn't prevented a barrage of misinformation about them, including claims that they can cause death and infertility and that they are part of a plan to implant people with microchips - claims that have all been debunked by PolitiFact. U.S. health experts were aware of the possibility that deaths following vaccination would be perceived as being caused by the vaccine. Dr. Helen Keipp Talbot, a member of the U.S. federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in December that the likelihood of nursing home patients dying from other causes shortly after vaccination could erode public confidence in the safety of the vaccines. She said that's why she voted against prioritizing residents of long-term care facilities for vaccines. However, residents and staff of long-term care facilities in the U.S. are among the most vulnerable when it comes to COVID-19. They represent 40% of COVID-19 deaths nationwide, though they make up less than 1% of the U.S. population. Other members of the advisory committee voted to include nursing home residents in the earliest phase. Side effects may have contributed to deaths Of the 33 Norwegians who died after receiving the vaccine, 13 of their cases have been completely assessed by health authorities. The 13 people were all older than 80, with some older than 90, and were considered severely frail, which was defined as having serious heart failure, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and similar conditions. As of Jan. 18, Norway had vaccinated more than 48,000 people, the majority of whom were nursing home residents. The 33 fatalities represent fewer than 1 out of 1,000 of those who were vaccinated, Steinar Madsen, the medical director of Norwegian Medicines Agency, told Bloomberg. For some of the frailest patients, though, 'the possibility that relatively mild side effects of the vaccine could have serious consequences cannot be ruled out,' health officials said. Common vaccine reactions - including fever, nausea and diarrhea - could have contributed to some of the deaths in the 13 cases for which investigations have been completed. 'There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly,' Madsen told the medical journal BMJ. 'We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease.' The risks of the COVID-19 vaccine for much older people are not as well understood, because a limited number of people 85 and older participated in the large clinical trials. Madsen said Norwegian officials are now recommending careful medical evaluation of the very frail before deciding whether vaccination is appropriate. | Our ruling A Facebook post says, '23 people die within hours of taking the COVID vaccine. ... I've never taken a flu shot and I'm certainly NOT letting anyone inject this garbage in to my body.' The claim implies the deaths were caused by the vaccine. Norway health officials said 33 elderly people died after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. (The initial figure of 23 was later updated.) But the vaccine has not been proved to be the cause of death, and those who died were very frail nursing home residents with serious underlying illnesses. The Facebook post says people died 'within hours' of getting the vaccine, but authorities said only that 23 deaths occurred within six days of vaccination, and published reports do not indicate when the other 10 deaths occurred. An average of 45 people die each day in Norwegian nursing homes and similar institutions, so it is not clear that the deaths represent any excess mortality or a connection to the vaccine. Because it lacks important context and misrepresents when the deaths occured, we rate this post Mostly False. | [
"107993-proof-24-22cd97d6dec052990ad4b28884011ac8.jpg"
]
|
The COVID-19 vaccine is dangerous because 23 people died in Norway 'within hours' of receiving it. | Contradiction | As countries around the world begin COVID-19 inoculations, vaccine critics are promoting the notion that the shots can easily cause injury or death - even though the evidence does not support their claims. That's what happened after Norway reported the deaths of elderly people who had received the COVID-19 vaccine. Social media posts, like this one from Fox News commentator Jan Morgan, point to the Norway deaths as evidence that the vaccine causes harm: '23 die within hours of taking COVID vaccine. ... I've never taken a flu shot and I'm certainly NOT letting anyone inject this garbage in to my body.' Morgan's 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.) Initial Norwegian reports on Jan. 15 indicated that 23 people had died after receiving COVID-19 vaccines. By Jan. 18, the number of deaths had increased to 33, out of about 48,000 vaccinated. Though the Facebook post says people died 'within hours' of receiving the vaccine, Norwegian authorities said only that 23 deaths occurred within six days of vaccination, and published reports do not indicate the time frame for the remaining 10 deaths. The Norwegian government said the country's vaccination program is initially targeting the most vulnerable - the elderly and those in nursing homes - and 'a high proportion' of the latter were very frail or terminally ill and already very near the end of their lives. As a result, health authorities said, 'It is expected that deaths close to the time of vaccination may occur.' Norway's 'reporting culture' There's no proof that the COVID-19 vaccines caused the deaths, the Norwegian Medicines Agency said. Norway's strong 'reporting culture' for vaccine adverse reactions means that 'health care professionals have a low threshold for reporting possible adverse reactions, even when the causal relationships appear very unclear,' a government report said. An average of 45 people die each day in Norwegian nursing homes and similar institutions, according to the Norwegian Medicines Agency. Therefore, 'it is not a given that this represents any excess mortality or that there is a causal connection,' Camilla Stoltenberg, head of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, said at a press conference on Jan. 18. The COVID-19 vaccines were developed quickly but rely on scientific research that is decades old, and they underwent a rigorous review process, PolitiFact has reported. That hasn't prevented a barrage of misinformation about them, including claims that they can cause death and infertility and that they are part of a plan to implant people with microchips - claims that have all been debunked by PolitiFact. U.S. health experts were aware of the possibility that deaths following vaccination would be perceived as being caused by the vaccine. Dr. Helen Keipp Talbot, a member of the U.S. federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in December that the likelihood of nursing home patients dying from other causes shortly after vaccination could erode public confidence in the safety of the vaccines. She said that's why she voted against prioritizing residents of long-term care facilities for vaccines. However, residents and staff of long-term care facilities in the U.S. are among the most vulnerable when it comes to COVID-19. They represent 40% of COVID-19 deaths nationwide, though they make up less than 1% of the U.S. population. Other members of the advisory committee voted to include nursing home residents in the earliest phase. Side effects may have contributed to deaths Of the 33 Norwegians who died after receiving the vaccine, 13 of their cases have been completely assessed by health authorities. The 13 people were all older than 80, with some older than 90, and were considered severely frail, which was defined as having serious heart failure, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and similar conditions. As of Jan. 18, Norway had vaccinated more than 48,000 people, the majority of whom were nursing home residents. The 33 fatalities represent fewer than 1 out of 1,000 of those who were vaccinated, Steinar Madsen, the medical director of Norwegian Medicines Agency, told Bloomberg. For some of the frailest patients, though, 'the possibility that relatively mild side effects of the vaccine could have serious consequences cannot be ruled out,' health officials said. Common vaccine reactions - including fever, nausea and diarrhea - could have contributed to some of the deaths in the 13 cases for which investigations have been completed. 'There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly,' Madsen told the medical journal BMJ. 'We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease.' The risks of the COVID-19 vaccine for much older people are not as well understood, because a limited number of people 85 and older participated in the large clinical trials. Madsen said Norwegian officials are now recommending careful medical evaluation of the very frail before deciding whether vaccination is appropriate. | Our ruling A Facebook post says, '23 people die within hours of taking the COVID vaccine. ... I've never taken a flu shot and I'm certainly NOT letting anyone inject this garbage in to my body.' The claim implies the deaths were caused by the vaccine. Norway health officials said 33 elderly people died after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. (The initial figure of 23 was later updated.) But the vaccine has not been proved to be the cause of death, and those who died were very frail nursing home residents with serious underlying illnesses. The Facebook post says people died 'within hours' of getting the vaccine, but authorities said only that 23 deaths occurred within six days of vaccination, and published reports do not indicate when the other 10 deaths occurred. An average of 45 people die each day in Norwegian nursing homes and similar institutions, so it is not clear that the deaths represent any excess mortality or a connection to the vaccine. Because it lacks important context and misrepresents when the deaths occured, we rate this post Mostly False. | [
"107993-proof-24-22cd97d6dec052990ad4b28884011ac8.jpg"
]
|
The COVID-19 vaccine is dangerous because 23 people died in Norway 'within hours' of receiving it. | Contradiction | As countries around the world begin COVID-19 inoculations, vaccine critics are promoting the notion that the shots can easily cause injury or death - even though the evidence does not support their claims. That's what happened after Norway reported the deaths of elderly people who had received the COVID-19 vaccine. Social media posts, like this one from Fox News commentator Jan Morgan, point to the Norway deaths as evidence that the vaccine causes harm: '23 die within hours of taking COVID vaccine. ... I've never taken a flu shot and I'm certainly NOT letting anyone inject this garbage in to my body.' Morgan's 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.) Initial Norwegian reports on Jan. 15 indicated that 23 people had died after receiving COVID-19 vaccines. By Jan. 18, the number of deaths had increased to 33, out of about 48,000 vaccinated. Though the Facebook post says people died 'within hours' of receiving the vaccine, Norwegian authorities said only that 23 deaths occurred within six days of vaccination, and published reports do not indicate the time frame for the remaining 10 deaths. The Norwegian government said the country's vaccination program is initially targeting the most vulnerable - the elderly and those in nursing homes - and 'a high proportion' of the latter were very frail or terminally ill and already very near the end of their lives. As a result, health authorities said, 'It is expected that deaths close to the time of vaccination may occur.' Norway's 'reporting culture' There's no proof that the COVID-19 vaccines caused the deaths, the Norwegian Medicines Agency said. Norway's strong 'reporting culture' for vaccine adverse reactions means that 'health care professionals have a low threshold for reporting possible adverse reactions, even when the causal relationships appear very unclear,' a government report said. An average of 45 people die each day in Norwegian nursing homes and similar institutions, according to the Norwegian Medicines Agency. Therefore, 'it is not a given that this represents any excess mortality or that there is a causal connection,' Camilla Stoltenberg, head of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, said at a press conference on Jan. 18. The COVID-19 vaccines were developed quickly but rely on scientific research that is decades old, and they underwent a rigorous review process, PolitiFact has reported. That hasn't prevented a barrage of misinformation about them, including claims that they can cause death and infertility and that they are part of a plan to implant people with microchips - claims that have all been debunked by PolitiFact. U.S. health experts were aware of the possibility that deaths following vaccination would be perceived as being caused by the vaccine. Dr. Helen Keipp Talbot, a member of the U.S. federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, said in December that the likelihood of nursing home patients dying from other causes shortly after vaccination could erode public confidence in the safety of the vaccines. She said that's why she voted against prioritizing residents of long-term care facilities for vaccines. However, residents and staff of long-term care facilities in the U.S. are among the most vulnerable when it comes to COVID-19. They represent 40% of COVID-19 deaths nationwide, though they make up less than 1% of the U.S. population. Other members of the advisory committee voted to include nursing home residents in the earliest phase. Side effects may have contributed to deaths Of the 33 Norwegians who died after receiving the vaccine, 13 of their cases have been completely assessed by health authorities. The 13 people were all older than 80, with some older than 90, and were considered severely frail, which was defined as having serious heart failure, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and similar conditions. As of Jan. 18, Norway had vaccinated more than 48,000 people, the majority of whom were nursing home residents. The 33 fatalities represent fewer than 1 out of 1,000 of those who were vaccinated, Steinar Madsen, the medical director of Norwegian Medicines Agency, told Bloomberg. For some of the frailest patients, though, 'the possibility that relatively mild side effects of the vaccine could have serious consequences cannot be ruled out,' health officials said. Common vaccine reactions - including fever, nausea and diarrhea - could have contributed to some of the deaths in the 13 cases for which investigations have been completed. 'There is a possibility that these common adverse reactions, that are not dangerous in fitter, younger patients and are not unusual with vaccines, may aggravate underlying disease in the elderly,' Madsen told the medical journal BMJ. 'We are not alarmed or worried about this, because these are very rare occurrences and they occurred in very frail patients with very serious disease.' The risks of the COVID-19 vaccine for much older people are not as well understood, because a limited number of people 85 and older participated in the large clinical trials. Madsen said Norwegian officials are now recommending careful medical evaluation of the very frail before deciding whether vaccination is appropriate. | Our ruling A Facebook post says, '23 people die within hours of taking the COVID vaccine. ... I've never taken a flu shot and I'm certainly NOT letting anyone inject this garbage in to my body.' The claim implies the deaths were caused by the vaccine. Norway health officials said 33 elderly people died after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. (The initial figure of 23 was later updated.) But the vaccine has not been proved to be the cause of death, and those who died were very frail nursing home residents with serious underlying illnesses. The Facebook post says people died 'within hours' of getting the vaccine, but authorities said only that 23 deaths occurred within six days of vaccination, and published reports do not indicate when the other 10 deaths occurred. An average of 45 people die each day in Norwegian nursing homes and similar institutions, so it is not clear that the deaths represent any excess mortality or a connection to the vaccine. Because it lacks important context and misrepresents when the deaths occured, we rate this post Mostly False. | [
"107993-proof-24-22cd97d6dec052990ad4b28884011ac8.jpg"
]
|
Says it's 'OK to kill babies once born' in Virginia. | Contradiction | Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam worked as a doctor before he was elected to helm the Commonwealth, and it's not hard to find photos of him online wearing a stethoscope around his neck. One such picture shared on social media features text on top criticizing the state. 'Thanks Virginia,' it says. 'OK to kill babies once born.' 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 account that posted the image also links to a Jan. 30, 2019, National Review article with this headline: 'Virginia governor defends letting infants die.' It is not legal to kill babies once born in Virginia. That is a felony. But here's what you need to know about the late-term abortion debate in the state. That story cites a radio interview Northam did with the station WTOP, after a Jan. 29, 2019, committee hearing on proposed legislation that would loosen restrictions on late-term abortions. The bill was introduced by Kathy Tran, a Democatic delegate to the state House, and during the hearing she fielded questions from Todd Gilbert, a Republican delegate. 'How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?' Gilbert asked. 'Through the third trimester,' Tran said. 'The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.' 'Where it's obvious that the woman is about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified? She's dilating,' he said. 'My bill would allow that,' Tran said. The next day, Northam appeared on the radio show. Reporter Julie Carey asked him this question: 'There was a very contentious committee hearing yesterday, when Fairfax County delegate Kathy Tran made her case for lifting restrictions on third-trimester abortions as well as other restrictions now in place, and she was pressed by a Republican delegate about whether her bill would permit an abortion even as a woman is essentially dilating, ready to give birth, and she answered that it would permit an abortion at that stage of labor. Do you support her measure? And explain her answer.' Northam said he couldn't speak for Tran but that the situation illustrates why such decisions should be made by physicians and parents. 'When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physician - more than one physician, by the way - and it's done in cases where there are severe deformities, there may be a fetus that is nonviable,' he said. 'So in this particular example, if a mother's in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,' he said. 'So I think this was really blown out of proportion but again, we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decisions to be made by the mothers and the providers, and this is why legislators ... most of whom are men, shouldn't be telling a woman what she should and shouldn't be doing with her body.' Virginia law already allowed abortions after the second trimester but required three doctors to certify that the mother would die or her mental and physical health would be 'substantially and irremediably' impaired without the procedure. Tran's bill, which died in committee, would have eliminated the requirement that two other physicians certify that a late-term abortion is necessary to prevent the mother's death or harm or mental or physical health. It also eliminated the words 'substantially and irremediably' from the law, among other changes. In the interview, Northam said he supported keeping the state's requirement that multiple physicians certify the abortion is necessary because 'these decisions shouldn't be taken lightly.' The Democratic governor's comments drew criticism from conservatives, including U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. 'I never thought I would see the day America had government officials who openly support legal infanticide,' he tweeted on Jan. 30. U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., called Northam's comments 'morally repugnant.' 'In just a few years pro-abortion zealots went from 'safe, legal, and rare' to 'keep newborns comfortable while the doctor debates infanticide,'' Sasse said. 'I don't care what party you're from - if you can't say that it's wrong to leave babies to die after birth, get the hell out of public office.' Tran later said she misspoke when she was asked whether her bill would let an abortion happen when the mother was in labor and about to give birth. 'I should have said, 'Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.'' In Virginia, killing a newborn is a felony punishable by death. A Northam spokesperson told Vox that his comments were 'absolutely not' a reference to infanticide. Rather, they 'focused on the tragic and extremely rare case in which a woman with a nonviable pregnancy or severe fetal abnormalities went into labor.' He called the idea that he approved of killing infants 'disgusting,' according to the Washington Post. | Our ruling The Facebook post says it's 'OK to kill babies once born' in Virginia. Late-term abortions are allowed under the state's laws through the third trimester if doctors certify the procedure is necessary for the mother's health - the proposed law discussed by Northam would not have changed the time period during which an abortion is allowed. As we've previously reported, Northam's comments were confusing and he didn't clarify what he meant by saying 'resuscitated.' But he was speaking in the context of pregnancies in which the fetus has severe deformities or is nonviable. The Facebook post overreaches by claiming it's OK to kill newborns. In Virginia, that's a felony. We rate this post False. | []
|
Says Donald Trump tweeted, 'Corona vaccine from Israel! Stock market up! Economy even stronger now! Besides US, Israel best at inventions: Judaism, olives. Wonderful vaccine, will stop Corona DEAD around world. | Contradiction | Between attacks on former Vice President Joe Biden and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, President Donald Trump has lately been tweeting about the coronavirus. But he didn't tweet this: 'Corona vaccine from Israel! Stock market up! Economy even stronger now! Besides US, Israel best at inventions: Judaism, olives. Wonderful vaccine, will stop Corona DEAD around world. Can't make vaccines when being bombed, not have been possible without peace I created in Israel!' A screenshot posted on Facebook on March 5 gives the impression that he did, at 8:41 a.m. on March 1, to be exact. 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.) Searching Twitter, we found no such tweet from Trump. Nor did he delete the tweet. Trump has tweeted about vaccines, though. On March 2, for example, he wrote: 'I am meeting with major pharmaceutical companies today at the White House about progress on a vaccine and cure. Progress being made!' Trump's tweets draw media coverage, but searching online for the language that appears in the Facebook post we found no mention of anyone saying it. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'Violent crime rates increased in all but two Wisconsin cities between 2008 and 2017. | Contradiction | One Assembly Republican making the case for a series of tough-on-crime bills says a statewide rise in violent crime shows why the bills are needed. The bills would return more people to prison for probation violations, put more juveniles behind bars and limit early release for inmates. They illuminate a key ideological divide between Republicans seeking more time behind bars for certain offenders and a Democratic governor who has called for cutting the state's prison population in half in the coming years. In the GOP Weekly Radio Address on Feb. 13, 2020, state Rep. Joe Sanfelippo, R-New Berlin, used a series of numbers to support bills he said would 'help keep Wisconsin communities safe.' 'FBI data shows violent crime rates increased in all but two Wisconsin cities between 2008 and 2017,' said Sanfelippo. 'In fact, when combining Wisconsin's 10 largest cities, the violent crime rate increased by 24% during that time, while decreasing by 14% on a national average.' It's certainly an eye-catching claim. Is violent crime up in all but two of the hundreds of cities across Wisconsin? We checked it out - and found a case study in how not to use data. Sanfelippo misquoted the stat he was trying to use while constructing an argument riddled with other data-related problems. Let's see what the data actually tells us. Newer data available Asked for evidence supporting his discussion of violent crime, Sanfelippo's office pointed us to a policy brief the nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum published in December 2019. Amid a discussion of police spending and staffing, the paper used FBI data to say violent crime had risen in Wisconsin from 2008 to 2017. The FBI gathers crime stats from departments around the country, and reports a 'violent crime' tally based on the number of homicides, sexual assaults, robberies and aggravated assaults. (We should point out the Wisconsin Department of Justice also gathers crime data that in some cases varies slightly from the FBI, but we'll limit our analysis here to the FBI data since that is what is cited by both Sanfelippo and the report he relied on.) Sanfelippo and the paper point to 2017 data. But the 2018 data, which was available at the time, shows a noteworthy reversal, with the violent crime rate dropping after several years of steady increases. The number of violent crimes Wisconsin law enforcement reported to the FBI fell from 15,931 in 2017 to 15,263 in 2018. But that's not necessarily a reliable number. Here's why. Not all data comparable The FBI crime data is difficult to compare year-to-year because it's not comprehensive. Not every police department reports their data every year. And state and local officials regularly change their reporting practices, changing definitions or other factors in generating counts. To address this, the FBI data notes which agencies have changed reporting practices each year and warns the crime figures are now 'not comparable to previous years' data.' This was not taken into account in Sanfelippo's claim or the memo his office cited as backup. In the 2008 to 2017 period Sanfelippo referenced, the FBI flagged data from 46 Wisconsin municipalities as no longer being comparable to past years. That included three of the 10 largest cities - which you'll remember Sanfelippo cited specifically as having a 24% increase in violent crime. We'll also note that while Sanfelippo referred to cities, the FBI data includes cities, towns and villages, so we'll refer to the group as municipalities here. Key outlier ignored Sanfelippo - like many other Republicans - is using the FBI data to say violent crime is on the rise across Wisconsin. But that's not really what the data shows. More than two-thirds of the violent crimes in Wisconsin take place in Milwaukee, so in large part the statewide trend is just a reflection of what's happening in the state's largest city. Violent crime in Milwaukee has edged up and down in recent years, but 2018 was the city's lowest mark since 2013. Addressing these three data issues (age, comparability and the Milwaukee outlier) lets us bring the state's actual violent crime trend into clearer focus. And we find there essentially is no trend. Using FBI crime data from 2008 and 2018 and removing the places that changed reporting practices in that span leaves us with 206 municipalities - still a solid sample size. Based on that group, the statewide violent crime rate rose from 4.3 to 4.7 per 1,000 residents from 2008 to 2018. But Milwaukee accounted for all of that change. Remove Milwaukee and the crime rate across the other 205 municipalities went from 1.77 per 1,000 to 1.74 per 1,000 - virtually unchanged. Claim drastically overstated But all of these data mistakes pale in comparison to Sanfelippo's dramatic misuse of the memo's description. The memo said - again, based in part on data the FBI warned against comparing - that violent crime rates increased in all but two of the state's 10 largest cities. Sanfelippo instead claimed the crime rate increased in 'all but two Wisconsin cities.' That's not even close to true. Using the 206 municipalities referenced above - those that have data for both 2008 and 2018 and haven't changed reporting practices - we find the crime rate rose in 98 municipalities, fell in 88 and was unchanged in 20. Sanfelippo acknowledged using the stat incorrectly when questioned by PolitiFact Wisconsin. The reference, which was wrong in both the recorded and written versions of the radio address, came from a script that Sanfelippo said wasn't written by him or his office. 'It wasn't intentionally done, it was just a mistake,' he said. 'I should have picked up on that for as much as I have been talking about crime these last few months.' | Our ruling Arguing for a series of tough-on-crime bills, Sanfelippo said in a statewide radio address that violent crime 'increased in all but two Wisconsin cities between 2008 and 2017.' Almost every word of that is wrong. Any comparison should have factored in the 2018 data, which was available at the time. The comparisons shouldn't include the many places where reporting practices changed. And even the use of the word cities is wrong since the dataset includes towns and villages. Most importantly, Sanfelippo misstated the claim he was trying to repeat. In actuality, there are more than 100 Wisconsin municipalities where the crime rate did not rise - more than half the communities included in the best available FBI data. That makes Sanfelippo's claim not only false, but ridiculous. We rate this Pants on Fire. | [
"108032-proof-14-097210a0a3f6671f53974801cbcf2fed.jpg"
]
|
'Violent crime rates increased in all but two Wisconsin cities between 2008 and 2017. | Contradiction | One Assembly Republican making the case for a series of tough-on-crime bills says a statewide rise in violent crime shows why the bills are needed. The bills would return more people to prison for probation violations, put more juveniles behind bars and limit early release for inmates. They illuminate a key ideological divide between Republicans seeking more time behind bars for certain offenders and a Democratic governor who has called for cutting the state's prison population in half in the coming years. In the GOP Weekly Radio Address on Feb. 13, 2020, state Rep. Joe Sanfelippo, R-New Berlin, used a series of numbers to support bills he said would 'help keep Wisconsin communities safe.' 'FBI data shows violent crime rates increased in all but two Wisconsin cities between 2008 and 2017,' said Sanfelippo. 'In fact, when combining Wisconsin's 10 largest cities, the violent crime rate increased by 24% during that time, while decreasing by 14% on a national average.' It's certainly an eye-catching claim. Is violent crime up in all but two of the hundreds of cities across Wisconsin? We checked it out - and found a case study in how not to use data. Sanfelippo misquoted the stat he was trying to use while constructing an argument riddled with other data-related problems. Let's see what the data actually tells us. Newer data available Asked for evidence supporting his discussion of violent crime, Sanfelippo's office pointed us to a policy brief the nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum published in December 2019. Amid a discussion of police spending and staffing, the paper used FBI data to say violent crime had risen in Wisconsin from 2008 to 2017. The FBI gathers crime stats from departments around the country, and reports a 'violent crime' tally based on the number of homicides, sexual assaults, robberies and aggravated assaults. (We should point out the Wisconsin Department of Justice also gathers crime data that in some cases varies slightly from the FBI, but we'll limit our analysis here to the FBI data since that is what is cited by both Sanfelippo and the report he relied on.) Sanfelippo and the paper point to 2017 data. But the 2018 data, which was available at the time, shows a noteworthy reversal, with the violent crime rate dropping after several years of steady increases. The number of violent crimes Wisconsin law enforcement reported to the FBI fell from 15,931 in 2017 to 15,263 in 2018. But that's not necessarily a reliable number. Here's why. Not all data comparable The FBI crime data is difficult to compare year-to-year because it's not comprehensive. Not every police department reports their data every year. And state and local officials regularly change their reporting practices, changing definitions or other factors in generating counts. To address this, the FBI data notes which agencies have changed reporting practices each year and warns the crime figures are now 'not comparable to previous years' data.' This was not taken into account in Sanfelippo's claim or the memo his office cited as backup. In the 2008 to 2017 period Sanfelippo referenced, the FBI flagged data from 46 Wisconsin municipalities as no longer being comparable to past years. That included three of the 10 largest cities - which you'll remember Sanfelippo cited specifically as having a 24% increase in violent crime. We'll also note that while Sanfelippo referred to cities, the FBI data includes cities, towns and villages, so we'll refer to the group as municipalities here. Key outlier ignored Sanfelippo - like many other Republicans - is using the FBI data to say violent crime is on the rise across Wisconsin. But that's not really what the data shows. More than two-thirds of the violent crimes in Wisconsin take place in Milwaukee, so in large part the statewide trend is just a reflection of what's happening in the state's largest city. Violent crime in Milwaukee has edged up and down in recent years, but 2018 was the city's lowest mark since 2013. Addressing these three data issues (age, comparability and the Milwaukee outlier) lets us bring the state's actual violent crime trend into clearer focus. And we find there essentially is no trend. Using FBI crime data from 2008 and 2018 and removing the places that changed reporting practices in that span leaves us with 206 municipalities - still a solid sample size. Based on that group, the statewide violent crime rate rose from 4.3 to 4.7 per 1,000 residents from 2008 to 2018. But Milwaukee accounted for all of that change. Remove Milwaukee and the crime rate across the other 205 municipalities went from 1.77 per 1,000 to 1.74 per 1,000 - virtually unchanged. Claim drastically overstated But all of these data mistakes pale in comparison to Sanfelippo's dramatic misuse of the memo's description. The memo said - again, based in part on data the FBI warned against comparing - that violent crime rates increased in all but two of the state's 10 largest cities. Sanfelippo instead claimed the crime rate increased in 'all but two Wisconsin cities.' That's not even close to true. Using the 206 municipalities referenced above - those that have data for both 2008 and 2018 and haven't changed reporting practices - we find the crime rate rose in 98 municipalities, fell in 88 and was unchanged in 20. Sanfelippo acknowledged using the stat incorrectly when questioned by PolitiFact Wisconsin. The reference, which was wrong in both the recorded and written versions of the radio address, came from a script that Sanfelippo said wasn't written by him or his office. 'It wasn't intentionally done, it was just a mistake,' he said. 'I should have picked up on that for as much as I have been talking about crime these last few months.' | Our ruling Arguing for a series of tough-on-crime bills, Sanfelippo said in a statewide radio address that violent crime 'increased in all but two Wisconsin cities between 2008 and 2017.' Almost every word of that is wrong. Any comparison should have factored in the 2018 data, which was available at the time. The comparisons shouldn't include the many places where reporting practices changed. And even the use of the word cities is wrong since the dataset includes towns and villages. Most importantly, Sanfelippo misstated the claim he was trying to repeat. In actuality, there are more than 100 Wisconsin municipalities where the crime rate did not rise - more than half the communities included in the best available FBI data. That makes Sanfelippo's claim not only false, but ridiculous. We rate this Pants on Fire. | [
"108032-proof-14-097210a0a3f6671f53974801cbcf2fed.jpg"
]
|
'Violent crime rates increased in all but two Wisconsin cities between 2008 and 2017. | Contradiction | One Assembly Republican making the case for a series of tough-on-crime bills says a statewide rise in violent crime shows why the bills are needed. The bills would return more people to prison for probation violations, put more juveniles behind bars and limit early release for inmates. They illuminate a key ideological divide between Republicans seeking more time behind bars for certain offenders and a Democratic governor who has called for cutting the state's prison population in half in the coming years. In the GOP Weekly Radio Address on Feb. 13, 2020, state Rep. Joe Sanfelippo, R-New Berlin, used a series of numbers to support bills he said would 'help keep Wisconsin communities safe.' 'FBI data shows violent crime rates increased in all but two Wisconsin cities between 2008 and 2017,' said Sanfelippo. 'In fact, when combining Wisconsin's 10 largest cities, the violent crime rate increased by 24% during that time, while decreasing by 14% on a national average.' It's certainly an eye-catching claim. Is violent crime up in all but two of the hundreds of cities across Wisconsin? We checked it out - and found a case study in how not to use data. Sanfelippo misquoted the stat he was trying to use while constructing an argument riddled with other data-related problems. Let's see what the data actually tells us. Newer data available Asked for evidence supporting his discussion of violent crime, Sanfelippo's office pointed us to a policy brief the nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum published in December 2019. Amid a discussion of police spending and staffing, the paper used FBI data to say violent crime had risen in Wisconsin from 2008 to 2017. The FBI gathers crime stats from departments around the country, and reports a 'violent crime' tally based on the number of homicides, sexual assaults, robberies and aggravated assaults. (We should point out the Wisconsin Department of Justice also gathers crime data that in some cases varies slightly from the FBI, but we'll limit our analysis here to the FBI data since that is what is cited by both Sanfelippo and the report he relied on.) Sanfelippo and the paper point to 2017 data. But the 2018 data, which was available at the time, shows a noteworthy reversal, with the violent crime rate dropping after several years of steady increases. The number of violent crimes Wisconsin law enforcement reported to the FBI fell from 15,931 in 2017 to 15,263 in 2018. But that's not necessarily a reliable number. Here's why. Not all data comparable The FBI crime data is difficult to compare year-to-year because it's not comprehensive. Not every police department reports their data every year. And state and local officials regularly change their reporting practices, changing definitions or other factors in generating counts. To address this, the FBI data notes which agencies have changed reporting practices each year and warns the crime figures are now 'not comparable to previous years' data.' This was not taken into account in Sanfelippo's claim or the memo his office cited as backup. In the 2008 to 2017 period Sanfelippo referenced, the FBI flagged data from 46 Wisconsin municipalities as no longer being comparable to past years. That included three of the 10 largest cities - which you'll remember Sanfelippo cited specifically as having a 24% increase in violent crime. We'll also note that while Sanfelippo referred to cities, the FBI data includes cities, towns and villages, so we'll refer to the group as municipalities here. Key outlier ignored Sanfelippo - like many other Republicans - is using the FBI data to say violent crime is on the rise across Wisconsin. But that's not really what the data shows. More than two-thirds of the violent crimes in Wisconsin take place in Milwaukee, so in large part the statewide trend is just a reflection of what's happening in the state's largest city. Violent crime in Milwaukee has edged up and down in recent years, but 2018 was the city's lowest mark since 2013. Addressing these three data issues (age, comparability and the Milwaukee outlier) lets us bring the state's actual violent crime trend into clearer focus. And we find there essentially is no trend. Using FBI crime data from 2008 and 2018 and removing the places that changed reporting practices in that span leaves us with 206 municipalities - still a solid sample size. Based on that group, the statewide violent crime rate rose from 4.3 to 4.7 per 1,000 residents from 2008 to 2018. But Milwaukee accounted for all of that change. Remove Milwaukee and the crime rate across the other 205 municipalities went from 1.77 per 1,000 to 1.74 per 1,000 - virtually unchanged. Claim drastically overstated But all of these data mistakes pale in comparison to Sanfelippo's dramatic misuse of the memo's description. The memo said - again, based in part on data the FBI warned against comparing - that violent crime rates increased in all but two of the state's 10 largest cities. Sanfelippo instead claimed the crime rate increased in 'all but two Wisconsin cities.' That's not even close to true. Using the 206 municipalities referenced above - those that have data for both 2008 and 2018 and haven't changed reporting practices - we find the crime rate rose in 98 municipalities, fell in 88 and was unchanged in 20. Sanfelippo acknowledged using the stat incorrectly when questioned by PolitiFact Wisconsin. The reference, which was wrong in both the recorded and written versions of the radio address, came from a script that Sanfelippo said wasn't written by him or his office. 'It wasn't intentionally done, it was just a mistake,' he said. 'I should have picked up on that for as much as I have been talking about crime these last few months.' | Our ruling Arguing for a series of tough-on-crime bills, Sanfelippo said in a statewide radio address that violent crime 'increased in all but two Wisconsin cities between 2008 and 2017.' Almost every word of that is wrong. Any comparison should have factored in the 2018 data, which was available at the time. The comparisons shouldn't include the many places where reporting practices changed. And even the use of the word cities is wrong since the dataset includes towns and villages. Most importantly, Sanfelippo misstated the claim he was trying to repeat. In actuality, there are more than 100 Wisconsin municipalities where the crime rate did not rise - more than half the communities included in the best available FBI data. That makes Sanfelippo's claim not only false, but ridiculous. We rate this Pants on Fire. | [
"108032-proof-14-097210a0a3f6671f53974801cbcf2fed.jpg"
]
|
The 'Back the Blue' Act that Gov. Kim Reynolds signs means you can't wear the American flag. 'So throw out those towels and swimsuits ... | Contradiction | After Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill on June 17 that creates harsher penalties for protestors into law, Greg Hauenstein - a political and commercial photographer - took to Twitter to critique a part of the law outlining punishment for showing disrespect to the United States flag. 'Under the 'Back the Blue' Act that @KimReynoldsIA signed today you cannot 'intentionally cut up or alter' or 'intentionally make physically unclean' an American flag,' Hauenstein tweeted. 'So throw out those towels and swimsuits, ladies and germs or you're a criminal!' Were the people sporting the American flag on articles of clothing this Fourth of July weekend committing a simple misdemeanor under Iowa's law? We decided to look into it. In Senate File 342, also known as the 'Back the Blue Act,' Section 46 amends Iowa Code 2021 with a list of actions defined as a simple misdemeanor. The sixth item on the list states that someone commits a simple misdemeanor if they 'knowingly and publicly use the flag of the United States in such a manner as to show disrespect for the flag as a symbol of the United States, with the intent or reasonable expectation that such use will provoke or encourage another to commit trespass or assault.' The subsection defines showing disrespect as defacing, defiling, mutilating, or trampling the flag, which Hauenstein's tweet implied would include the process of making and wearing the image of the flag. However, the subsection defines flag as 'a piece of woven cloth or other material designed to be flown from a pole or mast.' A previous fact check found that the thin blue line flag does not violate the U.S. Flag Code because it does not fit the definition of a U.S. flag. The image of the American flag on clothing does not meet SF 342's definition of a flag, and therefore the defacing, defiling, mutilating, or trampling of that clothing does not qualify as a simple misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of a fine ranging from $105 to $855. The court also may order a maximum of 30 days in jail, according to Iowa Code. Craig Robinson, the founder and editor-in-chief of The Iowa Republican, responded to Hauenstein's tweet, pointing out that towels and swimsuits aren't made of actual American flags, to which Hauenstein responded he was being facetious. 'I was being facetious, that's just my style,' he confirmed in a conversation with PolitiFact Iowa. Whether the Iowa law withstands constitutional challenges is another question. Gene Policinski, chief operating officer and senior fellow for the First Amendment of the Freedom Forum Institute, said acts that would be considered a simple misdemeanor under SF 342 are protected by the First Amendment. In the 1989 Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson, justices ruled 5-4 that flag burning constitutes symbolic speech protected under the First Amendment. 'I think the fundamental philosophy of these laws isn't there,' Policinski said. 'They're certainly at odds with court decisions; they are impractical to enforce.' | Our ruling The 'Back the Blue Act' creates punishment for showing disrespect for the U.S. flag, but the image of the flag on clothing or other fabric that is not used to make the flag does not qualify as a flag under Iowa law. Additionally, desecration of the flag is protected under the First Amendment, according to the 1989 Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson. Hauenstein said that he was being facetious in his critique of the new Iowa law. We rate the claim in the tweet to be False. | []
|
The 'Back the Blue' Act that Gov. Kim Reynolds signs means you can't wear the American flag. 'So throw out those towels and swimsuits ... | Contradiction | After Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill on June 17 that creates harsher penalties for protestors into law, Greg Hauenstein - a political and commercial photographer - took to Twitter to critique a part of the law outlining punishment for showing disrespect to the United States flag. 'Under the 'Back the Blue' Act that @KimReynoldsIA signed today you cannot 'intentionally cut up or alter' or 'intentionally make physically unclean' an American flag,' Hauenstein tweeted. 'So throw out those towels and swimsuits, ladies and germs or you're a criminal!' Were the people sporting the American flag on articles of clothing this Fourth of July weekend committing a simple misdemeanor under Iowa's law? We decided to look into it. In Senate File 342, also known as the 'Back the Blue Act,' Section 46 amends Iowa Code 2021 with a list of actions defined as a simple misdemeanor. The sixth item on the list states that someone commits a simple misdemeanor if they 'knowingly and publicly use the flag of the United States in such a manner as to show disrespect for the flag as a symbol of the United States, with the intent or reasonable expectation that such use will provoke or encourage another to commit trespass or assault.' The subsection defines showing disrespect as defacing, defiling, mutilating, or trampling the flag, which Hauenstein's tweet implied would include the process of making and wearing the image of the flag. However, the subsection defines flag as 'a piece of woven cloth or other material designed to be flown from a pole or mast.' A previous fact check found that the thin blue line flag does not violate the U.S. Flag Code because it does not fit the definition of a U.S. flag. The image of the American flag on clothing does not meet SF 342's definition of a flag, and therefore the defacing, defiling, mutilating, or trampling of that clothing does not qualify as a simple misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of a fine ranging from $105 to $855. The court also may order a maximum of 30 days in jail, according to Iowa Code. Craig Robinson, the founder and editor-in-chief of The Iowa Republican, responded to Hauenstein's tweet, pointing out that towels and swimsuits aren't made of actual American flags, to which Hauenstein responded he was being facetious. 'I was being facetious, that's just my style,' he confirmed in a conversation with PolitiFact Iowa. Whether the Iowa law withstands constitutional challenges is another question. Gene Policinski, chief operating officer and senior fellow for the First Amendment of the Freedom Forum Institute, said acts that would be considered a simple misdemeanor under SF 342 are protected by the First Amendment. In the 1989 Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson, justices ruled 5-4 that flag burning constitutes symbolic speech protected under the First Amendment. 'I think the fundamental philosophy of these laws isn't there,' Policinski said. 'They're certainly at odds with court decisions; they are impractical to enforce.' | Our ruling The 'Back the Blue Act' creates punishment for showing disrespect for the U.S. flag, but the image of the flag on clothing or other fabric that is not used to make the flag does not qualify as a flag under Iowa law. Additionally, desecration of the flag is protected under the First Amendment, according to the 1989 Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson. Hauenstein said that he was being facetious in his critique of the new Iowa law. We rate the claim in the tweet to be False. | []
|
'Republicans recently passed a bill to eliminate early voting on Sunday' in Georgia | Contradiction | Sen. Charles Schumer said Republican state legislatures have 'seized on the former president's big lie that the election was stolen' and introduced bills that aim to limit the right of citizens to vote. Schumer, the Democratic majority leader from New York, said the most 'reprehensible effort' might be found in Georgia. 'Republicans recently passed a bill to eliminate early voting on Sunday - a day when many churchgoing African Americans participate in voter drives known as Souls to the Polls,' Schumer said during a March 24 Senate committee hearing on S1, a federal voting rights bill. 'What an astonishing coincidence: outlaw voting on a day when African American churches sponsor get-out-the-vote efforts.' Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said that Schumer was wrong about the status of legislation in Georgia. 'They are not eliminating voting on Sunday,' he said. 'It did not pass the Legislature.' Schumer's spokesperson said he was referring to two Georgia bills, HB 531 and SB 202. Neither one had made it into law at the time of Schumer's remarks. By the time Schumer made his comments, lawmakers were on track to allow the option of Sunday voting. In 2020, Georgia voted for Democrat Joe Biden and, in January, Democrats won the two Senate runoffs, putting the state in battleground territory for future elections. State Republican lawmakers then proposed bills that they said would protect the integrity of the vote, despite the fact that state GOP election officials said the election was secure. Georgia bills would provide option of Sunday voting Under Georgia law for the 2020 election, counties had to offer one Saturday of early voting. Counties had the option to provide an additional Saturday and two Sundays. Generally larger, diverse Democratic-leaning counties held Sunday early voting. HB 531, a sweeping elections bill introduced by state Republicans in February, initially got rid of Sunday early voting. Civil rights advocates said the legislation was a racist attempt to suppress the Black vote. Republicans rewrote the bill to provide the option of one Sunday of early voting, and the House voted in favor of the bill March 1 along party lines. But after Schumer spoke, a separate elections bill ultimately moved forward. SB 202 passed both chambers along party lines with GOP support. And on March 25, the day after Schumer's comments, Gov. Brian Kemp signed it into law. The new law requires two Saturdays of early voting and provides for the option of two Sundays of early voting, Keith Williams, general counsel to Republican House Speaker David Ralston, told PolitiFact. The law specifies that the early voting Sundays fall two or three weeks before Election Day, which means no Sunday voting is allowed two days before Election Day. The early voting period under Georgia law previously ended the Friday before Election Day; so, unlike in some states, Georgia already disallowed early voting on the last Sunday before Election Day. The bill also shrinks the voting period in a runoff election, which happens when no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote. Williams told PolitiFact that the new law will allow for Sunday early voting during a runoff if election officials meet certification deadlines and there is time left to hold weekend voting. That means practically speaking, we don't yet know if Sunday voting will occur in future runoffs. The shorter voting period for runoffs was among the objections raised by voting rights groups who immediately sued to challenge the new law. The lawsuit stated that 'the change eliminates the guarantee of early voting on weekends, which racial minorities disproportionately rely on to cast their ballots.' | Our ruling Schumer said that 'Republicans recently passed a bill to eliminate early voting on Sunday' in Georgia. Schumer's statement provides a misleading impression that Georgia Republicans completely got rid of Sunday voting. Republicans initially proposed getting rid of Sunday early voting, but by the time of Schumer's remarks, the state House had passed a bill that allowed for one Sunday of voting. A day after Schumer spoke, a bill was signed into law that allowed the option of two Sundays of voting. Schumer misstated the effect of the bill that Republicans advanced and ultimately passed.. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"108060-proof-04-72d464362222de3f143799cce3b3321e.jpg"
]
|
'Republicans recently passed a bill to eliminate early voting on Sunday' in Georgia | Contradiction | Sen. Charles Schumer said Republican state legislatures have 'seized on the former president's big lie that the election was stolen' and introduced bills that aim to limit the right of citizens to vote. Schumer, the Democratic majority leader from New York, said the most 'reprehensible effort' might be found in Georgia. 'Republicans recently passed a bill to eliminate early voting on Sunday - a day when many churchgoing African Americans participate in voter drives known as Souls to the Polls,' Schumer said during a March 24 Senate committee hearing on S1, a federal voting rights bill. 'What an astonishing coincidence: outlaw voting on a day when African American churches sponsor get-out-the-vote efforts.' Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said that Schumer was wrong about the status of legislation in Georgia. 'They are not eliminating voting on Sunday,' he said. 'It did not pass the Legislature.' Schumer's spokesperson said he was referring to two Georgia bills, HB 531 and SB 202. Neither one had made it into law at the time of Schumer's remarks. By the time Schumer made his comments, lawmakers were on track to allow the option of Sunday voting. In 2020, Georgia voted for Democrat Joe Biden and, in January, Democrats won the two Senate runoffs, putting the state in battleground territory for future elections. State Republican lawmakers then proposed bills that they said would protect the integrity of the vote, despite the fact that state GOP election officials said the election was secure. Georgia bills would provide option of Sunday voting Under Georgia law for the 2020 election, counties had to offer one Saturday of early voting. Counties had the option to provide an additional Saturday and two Sundays. Generally larger, diverse Democratic-leaning counties held Sunday early voting. HB 531, a sweeping elections bill introduced by state Republicans in February, initially got rid of Sunday early voting. Civil rights advocates said the legislation was a racist attempt to suppress the Black vote. Republicans rewrote the bill to provide the option of one Sunday of early voting, and the House voted in favor of the bill March 1 along party lines. But after Schumer spoke, a separate elections bill ultimately moved forward. SB 202 passed both chambers along party lines with GOP support. And on March 25, the day after Schumer's comments, Gov. Brian Kemp signed it into law. The new law requires two Saturdays of early voting and provides for the option of two Sundays of early voting, Keith Williams, general counsel to Republican House Speaker David Ralston, told PolitiFact. The law specifies that the early voting Sundays fall two or three weeks before Election Day, which means no Sunday voting is allowed two days before Election Day. The early voting period under Georgia law previously ended the Friday before Election Day; so, unlike in some states, Georgia already disallowed early voting on the last Sunday before Election Day. The bill also shrinks the voting period in a runoff election, which happens when no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote. Williams told PolitiFact that the new law will allow for Sunday early voting during a runoff if election officials meet certification deadlines and there is time left to hold weekend voting. That means practically speaking, we don't yet know if Sunday voting will occur in future runoffs. The shorter voting period for runoffs was among the objections raised by voting rights groups who immediately sued to challenge the new law. The lawsuit stated that 'the change eliminates the guarantee of early voting on weekends, which racial minorities disproportionately rely on to cast their ballots.' | Our ruling Schumer said that 'Republicans recently passed a bill to eliminate early voting on Sunday' in Georgia. Schumer's statement provides a misleading impression that Georgia Republicans completely got rid of Sunday voting. Republicans initially proposed getting rid of Sunday early voting, but by the time of Schumer's remarks, the state House had passed a bill that allowed for one Sunday of voting. A day after Schumer spoke, a bill was signed into law that allowed the option of two Sundays of voting. Schumer misstated the effect of the bill that Republicans advanced and ultimately passed.. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"108060-proof-04-72d464362222de3f143799cce3b3321e.jpg"
]
|
'Republicans recently passed a bill to eliminate early voting on Sunday' in Georgia | Contradiction | Sen. Charles Schumer said Republican state legislatures have 'seized on the former president's big lie that the election was stolen' and introduced bills that aim to limit the right of citizens to vote. Schumer, the Democratic majority leader from New York, said the most 'reprehensible effort' might be found in Georgia. 'Republicans recently passed a bill to eliminate early voting on Sunday - a day when many churchgoing African Americans participate in voter drives known as Souls to the Polls,' Schumer said during a March 24 Senate committee hearing on S1, a federal voting rights bill. 'What an astonishing coincidence: outlaw voting on a day when African American churches sponsor get-out-the-vote efforts.' Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said that Schumer was wrong about the status of legislation in Georgia. 'They are not eliminating voting on Sunday,' he said. 'It did not pass the Legislature.' Schumer's spokesperson said he was referring to two Georgia bills, HB 531 and SB 202. Neither one had made it into law at the time of Schumer's remarks. By the time Schumer made his comments, lawmakers were on track to allow the option of Sunday voting. In 2020, Georgia voted for Democrat Joe Biden and, in January, Democrats won the two Senate runoffs, putting the state in battleground territory for future elections. State Republican lawmakers then proposed bills that they said would protect the integrity of the vote, despite the fact that state GOP election officials said the election was secure. Georgia bills would provide option of Sunday voting Under Georgia law for the 2020 election, counties had to offer one Saturday of early voting. Counties had the option to provide an additional Saturday and two Sundays. Generally larger, diverse Democratic-leaning counties held Sunday early voting. HB 531, a sweeping elections bill introduced by state Republicans in February, initially got rid of Sunday early voting. Civil rights advocates said the legislation was a racist attempt to suppress the Black vote. Republicans rewrote the bill to provide the option of one Sunday of early voting, and the House voted in favor of the bill March 1 along party lines. But after Schumer spoke, a separate elections bill ultimately moved forward. SB 202 passed both chambers along party lines with GOP support. And on March 25, the day after Schumer's comments, Gov. Brian Kemp signed it into law. The new law requires two Saturdays of early voting and provides for the option of two Sundays of early voting, Keith Williams, general counsel to Republican House Speaker David Ralston, told PolitiFact. The law specifies that the early voting Sundays fall two or three weeks before Election Day, which means no Sunday voting is allowed two days before Election Day. The early voting period under Georgia law previously ended the Friday before Election Day; so, unlike in some states, Georgia already disallowed early voting on the last Sunday before Election Day. The bill also shrinks the voting period in a runoff election, which happens when no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote. Williams told PolitiFact that the new law will allow for Sunday early voting during a runoff if election officials meet certification deadlines and there is time left to hold weekend voting. That means practically speaking, we don't yet know if Sunday voting will occur in future runoffs. The shorter voting period for runoffs was among the objections raised by voting rights groups who immediately sued to challenge the new law. The lawsuit stated that 'the change eliminates the guarantee of early voting on weekends, which racial minorities disproportionately rely on to cast their ballots.' | Our ruling Schumer said that 'Republicans recently passed a bill to eliminate early voting on Sunday' in Georgia. Schumer's statement provides a misleading impression that Georgia Republicans completely got rid of Sunday voting. Republicans initially proposed getting rid of Sunday early voting, but by the time of Schumer's remarks, the state House had passed a bill that allowed for one Sunday of voting. A day after Schumer spoke, a bill was signed into law that allowed the option of two Sundays of voting. Schumer misstated the effect of the bill that Republicans advanced and ultimately passed.. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"108060-proof-04-72d464362222de3f143799cce3b3321e.jpg"
]
|
'James Comey has 50 counts of TREASON. And John Brennan has 48 counts of TREASON. | Contradiction | Are the former head of the CIA and former FBI director both charged with treason? That's what a recent Facebook post alleges without any evidence: 'I'm hearing that James Comey has 50 counts of TREASON,' the post says. 'And John Brennan has 48 counts of TREASON.' 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.) This isn't the first time we've heard something like this - President Donald Trump has set his sights on the former agency heads, and so have his advisers. In June 2019, Roger Stone, one of Trump's longtime confidants, called for former CIA director John Brennan to be 'hung for treason.' Stone was later found guilty of witness tampering and lying to Congress in connection with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. But he's not the only Republican who has criticized both Brennan and former FBI director James Comey for the inquiry. But neither Comey nor Brennan have been charged with treason. Here's what we know. In December, the New York Times reported that federal prosecutor John Durham was investigating the role Brennan played in the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. Durham had requested Brennan's emails, call logs and other documents because he wanted to learn what Brennan told other officials, including Comey, about his and the CIA's views on a dossier of claims about Trump associates and Russia, according to the New York Times. Neither Brennan nor Comey have been indicted. News that the men were facing multiple counts of treason charges would draw wide media coverage, but there are no news stories to corroborate the Facebook post's claims. In August, Durham questioned Brennan for eight hours. Afterward, an aide for Brennan said Durham told Brennan during that interview that Brennan isn't the target of any criminal inquiry as part of the justice department's examination of the Russia investigation, according to the Times. Finally, there is a high bar for charging someone with treason. The Constitution - which mentions very few crimes specifically - defines treason very narrowly. It says that treason can only consist in 'levying war' against the country or giving 'aid and comfort' to enemies. 'No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court,' according to the Constitution. On the most basic level, treason has to occur in wartime, or during an armed rebellion against the government. We rate this Facebook post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this Facebook post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Says Rep. Rashida Tlaib 'wears the symbolic scarf patterned after the Islamic terrorist state. | Contradiction | Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., is the first female Palestinian-American member of Congress, and at times, wears the scarf - called a keffiyeh - associated with Palestinian resistance to Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A viral Facebook post, however, wrongly says the scarf represents terrorism: 'A U.S. Congresswoman wears the symbolic scarf patterned after the Islamic terrorist state,' reads the post next to two images of people wearing the keffiyeh. One picture shows Tlaib on the House floor with the scarf around her neck and the other of an armed militant with the scarf over his face. There's no quibble that the scarf Tlaib wore stands for the Palestinian people. She's a Palestinian-American and her grandmother lives in the West Bank. Among Palestinians, it's an object of pride with a history that stretches back thousands of years. Tlaib wore it when she spoke against a House resolution that she said would treat her grandmother as a second-class citizen. But the tie that the Facebook post makes between the scarf and Islamic State terrorism is unfounded. Islamic State fighters wore a variety of scarves, but not in a single style that marked their cause. The scarf in the post is associated with Palestinians, not the Islamic State. Though we could not find the origin of the picture of the fighter wearing the scarf, it shows up in posts dating back to 2008, long before the rise of the Islamic State. This post plays off of a similar claim circulated in December 2019 that accused Tlaib of wearing the scarf of Hamas terrorists. Armed Palestinian groups have worn the keffiyeh. The red and white version is often associated with Hamas, while black and white is tied more to Fatah, which has renounced armed resistance. But in practice, the scarf is worn by many people worldwide, often as a matter of fashion, not politics. We rate this False. | We rate this False. | []
|
Says Rep. Rashida Tlaib 'wears the symbolic scarf patterned after the Islamic terrorist state. | Contradiction | Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., is the first female Palestinian-American member of Congress, and at times, wears the scarf - called a keffiyeh - associated with Palestinian resistance to Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A viral Facebook post, however, wrongly says the scarf represents terrorism: 'A U.S. Congresswoman wears the symbolic scarf patterned after the Islamic terrorist state,' reads the post next to two images of people wearing the keffiyeh. One picture shows Tlaib on the House floor with the scarf around her neck and the other of an armed militant with the scarf over his face. There's no quibble that the scarf Tlaib wore stands for the Palestinian people. She's a Palestinian-American and her grandmother lives in the West Bank. Among Palestinians, it's an object of pride with a history that stretches back thousands of years. Tlaib wore it when she spoke against a House resolution that she said would treat her grandmother as a second-class citizen. But the tie that the Facebook post makes between the scarf and Islamic State terrorism is unfounded. Islamic State fighters wore a variety of scarves, but not in a single style that marked their cause. The scarf in the post is associated with Palestinians, not the Islamic State. Though we could not find the origin of the picture of the fighter wearing the scarf, it shows up in posts dating back to 2008, long before the rise of the Islamic State. This post plays off of a similar claim circulated in December 2019 that accused Tlaib of wearing the scarf of Hamas terrorists. Armed Palestinian groups have worn the keffiyeh. The red and white version is often associated with Hamas, while black and white is tied more to Fatah, which has renounced armed resistance. But in practice, the scarf is worn by many people worldwide, often as a matter of fashion, not politics. We rate this False. | We rate this False. | []
|
Says Rep. Rashida Tlaib 'wears the symbolic scarf patterned after the Islamic terrorist state. | Contradiction | Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., is the first female Palestinian-American member of Congress, and at times, wears the scarf - called a keffiyeh - associated with Palestinian resistance to Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A viral Facebook post, however, wrongly says the scarf represents terrorism: 'A U.S. Congresswoman wears the symbolic scarf patterned after the Islamic terrorist state,' reads the post next to two images of people wearing the keffiyeh. One picture shows Tlaib on the House floor with the scarf around her neck and the other of an armed militant with the scarf over his face. There's no quibble that the scarf Tlaib wore stands for the Palestinian people. She's a Palestinian-American and her grandmother lives in the West Bank. Among Palestinians, it's an object of pride with a history that stretches back thousands of years. Tlaib wore it when she spoke against a House resolution that she said would treat her grandmother as a second-class citizen. But the tie that the Facebook post makes between the scarf and Islamic State terrorism is unfounded. Islamic State fighters wore a variety of scarves, but not in a single style that marked their cause. The scarf in the post is associated with Palestinians, not the Islamic State. Though we could not find the origin of the picture of the fighter wearing the scarf, it shows up in posts dating back to 2008, long before the rise of the Islamic State. This post plays off of a similar claim circulated in December 2019 that accused Tlaib of wearing the scarf of Hamas terrorists. Armed Palestinian groups have worn the keffiyeh. The red and white version is often associated with Hamas, while black and white is tied more to Fatah, which has renounced armed resistance. But in practice, the scarf is worn by many people worldwide, often as a matter of fashion, not politics. We rate this False. | We rate this False. | []
|
'Mountains of data' show drug ivermectin 'basically obliterates' COVID-19 transmission. | Contradiction | An Instagram post claims that the coronavirus pandemic was planned and that 'they gave you the virus on purpose' to initiate a new world order. The post needs some fact-checking. 'They don't have to poison you, they can cure you but they choose not to,' says part of the caption on the April 22 Instagram post. The caption accompanies a nearly 9-minute video featuring Dr. Pierre Kory, a critical care specialist and co-founder of Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group of doctors who advocate for the use of the drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The video in the Instagram post is from Kory's Dec. 8 testimony before a U.S. Senate committee. He argues that while the National Institutes of Health in August 2020 said ivermectin should not be used outside of control trials, new evidence showed that the drug is effective against the coronavirus. 'We are now in December, this is three to four months later,' Kory says in the video. 'Mountains of data have emerged from many centers and countries around the world showing the miraculous effectiveness of ivermectin, it basically obliterates transmission of this virus. If you take it, you will not get sick.' About a week after Kory's testimony, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said that people should not take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19. A recent study had examined the use of the drug in a laboratory setting, the FDA said, but additional testing was necessary to determine whether it was appropriate to use against COVID-19. The FDA still has not approved ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19. Ivermectin is not a drug used to treat viral infections, and taking large doses of it can be dangerous, the FDA said. The FDA has approved ivermectin tablets to treat people with certain conditions caused by parasitic worms. Topical forms of ivermectin have been approved to treat head lice and certain skin conditions. Separately, some forms of ivermectin are used in animals to prevent heartworm disease and parasites. Ivermectin products for animals are different from the ivermectin products for humans. The FDA says people should not use medication intended for animals. Studies have examined whether ivermectin can be an effective tool in the fight against COVID-19. But, according to federal health and drug agencies, more research is needed. The NIH in February said that some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use; other studies suggested using ivermectin had some benefits. 'However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias,' the NIH said. Overall, the NIH said that insufficient data prevented a federal panel from recommending either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. 'Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19,' the NIH said. In March, the FDA published a post titled, 'Why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.' It said that 'some initial research is underway,' but the agency still had not approved ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 in humans. 'There's a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it's okay to take large doses of ivermectin. That is wrong,' the FDA said. People can overdose on ivermectin, and the drug can also interact with other medications, like blood thinners, according to the FDA. The Infectious Diseases Society of America, representing physicians, scientists and public health experts who specialize in infectious diseases, reviewed several studies regarding ivermectin and COVID-19. According to information last updated in February, the panel recommended against treatment of COVID-19 with ivermectin outside of the context of a clinical trial. One of the concerns raised by the panel was that some trials did not adequately randomize people into treatment and control groups. 'The panel determined the certainty of evidence of treatment of ivermectin for hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients to be very low due to concerns with risk of bias and imprecision,' the Infectious Diseases Society of America said. | Our ruling An Instagram post featured a video claiming that 'mountains of data' show that ivermectin 'basically obliterates' COVID-19 transmission. Some studies suggest that ivermectin can help treat COVID-19; others show no significant impact. Many of the studies had small sample sizes and other limitations. U.S. health and drug agencies say that more research is needed before making a definitive conclusion about ivermectin's efficacy against COVID-19. The FDA has not approved ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Groups that have analyzed studies about ivermectin and COVID-19 caution about bias and limitations in the trials. Subsequent studies may show positive outcomes from ivermectin. Currently, there are no 'mountains of data' to show its benefit. The existing evidence is limited and documents mixed results. We rate the statement False. Join PolitiFact LIVE on May 10-13 for a festival of fact-checking with Dr. Anthony Fauci! Register today >> | []
|
'Mountains of data' show drug ivermectin 'basically obliterates' COVID-19 transmission. | Contradiction | An Instagram post claims that the coronavirus pandemic was planned and that 'they gave you the virus on purpose' to initiate a new world order. The post needs some fact-checking. 'They don't have to poison you, they can cure you but they choose not to,' says part of the caption on the April 22 Instagram post. The caption accompanies a nearly 9-minute video featuring Dr. Pierre Kory, a critical care specialist and co-founder of Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group of doctors who advocate for the use of the drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The video in the Instagram post is from Kory's Dec. 8 testimony before a U.S. Senate committee. He argues that while the National Institutes of Health in August 2020 said ivermectin should not be used outside of control trials, new evidence showed that the drug is effective against the coronavirus. 'We are now in December, this is three to four months later,' Kory says in the video. 'Mountains of data have emerged from many centers and countries around the world showing the miraculous effectiveness of ivermectin, it basically obliterates transmission of this virus. If you take it, you will not get sick.' About a week after Kory's testimony, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said that people should not take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19. A recent study had examined the use of the drug in a laboratory setting, the FDA said, but additional testing was necessary to determine whether it was appropriate to use against COVID-19. The FDA still has not approved ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19. Ivermectin is not a drug used to treat viral infections, and taking large doses of it can be dangerous, the FDA said. The FDA has approved ivermectin tablets to treat people with certain conditions caused by parasitic worms. Topical forms of ivermectin have been approved to treat head lice and certain skin conditions. Separately, some forms of ivermectin are used in animals to prevent heartworm disease and parasites. Ivermectin products for animals are different from the ivermectin products for humans. The FDA says people should not use medication intended for animals. Studies have examined whether ivermectin can be an effective tool in the fight against COVID-19. But, according to federal health and drug agencies, more research is needed. The NIH in February said that some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use; other studies suggested using ivermectin had some benefits. 'However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias,' the NIH said. Overall, the NIH said that insufficient data prevented a federal panel from recommending either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. 'Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19,' the NIH said. In March, the FDA published a post titled, 'Why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.' It said that 'some initial research is underway,' but the agency still had not approved ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 in humans. 'There's a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it's okay to take large doses of ivermectin. That is wrong,' the FDA said. People can overdose on ivermectin, and the drug can also interact with other medications, like blood thinners, according to the FDA. The Infectious Diseases Society of America, representing physicians, scientists and public health experts who specialize in infectious diseases, reviewed several studies regarding ivermectin and COVID-19. According to information last updated in February, the panel recommended against treatment of COVID-19 with ivermectin outside of the context of a clinical trial. One of the concerns raised by the panel was that some trials did not adequately randomize people into treatment and control groups. 'The panel determined the certainty of evidence of treatment of ivermectin for hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients to be very low due to concerns with risk of bias and imprecision,' the Infectious Diseases Society of America said. | Our ruling An Instagram post featured a video claiming that 'mountains of data' show that ivermectin 'basically obliterates' COVID-19 transmission. Some studies suggest that ivermectin can help treat COVID-19; others show no significant impact. Many of the studies had small sample sizes and other limitations. U.S. health and drug agencies say that more research is needed before making a definitive conclusion about ivermectin's efficacy against COVID-19. The FDA has not approved ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Groups that have analyzed studies about ivermectin and COVID-19 caution about bias and limitations in the trials. Subsequent studies may show positive outcomes from ivermectin. Currently, there are no 'mountains of data' to show its benefit. The existing evidence is limited and documents mixed results. We rate the statement False. Join PolitiFact LIVE on May 10-13 for a festival of fact-checking with Dr. Anthony Fauci! Register today >> | []
|
'Mountains of data' show drug ivermectin 'basically obliterates' COVID-19 transmission. | Contradiction | An Instagram post claims that the coronavirus pandemic was planned and that 'they gave you the virus on purpose' to initiate a new world order. The post needs some fact-checking. 'They don't have to poison you, they can cure you but they choose not to,' says part of the caption on the April 22 Instagram post. The caption accompanies a nearly 9-minute video featuring Dr. Pierre Kory, a critical care specialist and co-founder of Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a group of doctors who advocate for the use of the drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19. The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The video in the Instagram post is from Kory's Dec. 8 testimony before a U.S. Senate committee. He argues that while the National Institutes of Health in August 2020 said ivermectin should not be used outside of control trials, new evidence showed that the drug is effective against the coronavirus. 'We are now in December, this is three to four months later,' Kory says in the video. 'Mountains of data have emerged from many centers and countries around the world showing the miraculous effectiveness of ivermectin, it basically obliterates transmission of this virus. If you take it, you will not get sick.' About a week after Kory's testimony, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said that people should not take ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19. A recent study had examined the use of the drug in a laboratory setting, the FDA said, but additional testing was necessary to determine whether it was appropriate to use against COVID-19. The FDA still has not approved ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19. Ivermectin is not a drug used to treat viral infections, and taking large doses of it can be dangerous, the FDA said. The FDA has approved ivermectin tablets to treat people with certain conditions caused by parasitic worms. Topical forms of ivermectin have been approved to treat head lice and certain skin conditions. Separately, some forms of ivermectin are used in animals to prevent heartworm disease and parasites. Ivermectin products for animals are different from the ivermectin products for humans. The FDA says people should not use medication intended for animals. Studies have examined whether ivermectin can be an effective tool in the fight against COVID-19. But, according to federal health and drug agencies, more research is needed. The NIH in February said that some clinical studies showed no benefits or worsening of disease after ivermectin use; other studies suggested using ivermectin had some benefits. 'However, most of these studies had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias,' the NIH said. Overall, the NIH said that insufficient data prevented a federal panel from recommending either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. 'Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19,' the NIH said. In March, the FDA published a post titled, 'Why you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.' It said that 'some initial research is underway,' but the agency still had not approved ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19 in humans. 'There's a lot of misinformation around, and you may have heard that it's okay to take large doses of ivermectin. That is wrong,' the FDA said. People can overdose on ivermectin, and the drug can also interact with other medications, like blood thinners, according to the FDA. The Infectious Diseases Society of America, representing physicians, scientists and public health experts who specialize in infectious diseases, reviewed several studies regarding ivermectin and COVID-19. According to information last updated in February, the panel recommended against treatment of COVID-19 with ivermectin outside of the context of a clinical trial. One of the concerns raised by the panel was that some trials did not adequately randomize people into treatment and control groups. 'The panel determined the certainty of evidence of treatment of ivermectin for hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients to be very low due to concerns with risk of bias and imprecision,' the Infectious Diseases Society of America said. | Our ruling An Instagram post featured a video claiming that 'mountains of data' show that ivermectin 'basically obliterates' COVID-19 transmission. Some studies suggest that ivermectin can help treat COVID-19; others show no significant impact. Many of the studies had small sample sizes and other limitations. U.S. health and drug agencies say that more research is needed before making a definitive conclusion about ivermectin's efficacy against COVID-19. The FDA has not approved ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Groups that have analyzed studies about ivermectin and COVID-19 caution about bias and limitations in the trials. Subsequent studies may show positive outcomes from ivermectin. Currently, there are no 'mountains of data' to show its benefit. The existing evidence is limited and documents mixed results. We rate the statement False. Join PolitiFact LIVE on May 10-13 for a festival of fact-checking with Dr. Anthony Fauci! Register today >> | []
|
California Gov. Gavin Newsom 'is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one' and the election is 'Rigged. | Contradiction | President Trump claimed on Twitter Tuesday, without evidence, that California Gov. Gavin Newsom is sending millions of ballots to 'anyone living in the state, no matter who they are,' while adding 'This will be a Rigged Election. No way!' In the same Twitter thread, Trump repeated his allegation that voting by mail 'is substantially fraudulent,' a claim election experts have said is overblown. Here's Trump's full statement: 'There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone..... ....living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!' Trump repeated his claim during a news conference Tuesday afternoon, saying 'anybody that walks in California is going to get a ballot.' Trump's attacks come two days after the California Republican Party, along with national GOP groups, filed a federal lawsuit against Newsom, a Democrat, to halt his plan to send mail-in ballots to Californians ahead of the November election. Newsom earlier this month ordered all counties to send out mail-in ballots, citing health concerns amid COVID-19. Contrary to Trump's claim, no ballots have yet been sent out. We zeroed in on Trump's claim that 'anyone living in the state, no matter who they are' would receive these ballots. We set out on a fact check. Our research A review of Newsom's executive order shows only registered voters would receive vote-by-mail ballots, not 'anyone living in the state,' as Trump claimed. 'Each county elections officials shall transmit vote-by-mail ballots for the November 3, 2020 General Election to all voters who are, as of the last day on which vote-by-mail ballots may be transmitted to voters in connection with that election, registered to vote in that election. As set forth in this paragraph, every Californian who is eligible to vote in the November 3, 2020 General Election shall receive a vote-by-mail ballot.' The Secretary of State's website outlines criteria for registering to vote in California. You must be: This criteria reinforces the fact that not just 'anyone' would receive a ballot. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for evidence supporting Trump's statement. Newsom rejected the president's assertion that voting by mail leads to fraud when asked about it during a press conference on Tuesday. The governor also cited several studies that have examined the practice and found an extremely low rate of fraud, including a 5-year effort by the Bush administration that turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections. 'I don't think it deserves to be politicized. This is a health issue,' Newsom added. A spokesperson for Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who is also a Democrat, also disputed the president's assertion. 'Only active registered voters will be mailed a ballot ahead of the November 3, 2020 General Election. The President's tweet is completely false,' the spokesperson wrote in an email. Voters are considered 'inactive' if they do not vote in two consecutive federal general elections or if their county receives a returned residency confirmation without a forwarding address within the same county, according to the Secretary of State's website. Trump's claim led Twitter, for the first time on Tuesday, to place a fact-checking warning on the president's tweet. A spokesperson for Twitter told NPR the tweet contains 'misleading information about the voting process, specifically mail-in ballots.' Padilla has pushed back against Trump's past claims about vote-by-mail. On Twitter on Sunday, Padilla responded to the GOP lawsuit this way: 'Expanding vote-by-mail during a pandemic is not a partisan issue - it's a moral imperative to protect voting rights and public safety. Vote-by-mail has been used safely and effectively in red, blue, and purple states for years. This lawsuit is just another part of Trump's political smear campaign against voting by mail. We will not let this virus be exploited for voter suppression.' Some Republicans have cited issues of voter roll maintenance as evidence of fraud. President Trump, for example, has falsely cited a January 2019 settlement California reached with the conservative group Judicial Watch as evidence. On 'Meet the Press' last year, Trump alleged the settlement shows California 'admitted' there were 'a million' illegal votes in the 2016 presidential election. We rated that claim Pants On Fire. In reality, the agreement Trump cited required Los Angeles County election officials to remove inactive registrations from voter rolls to comply with federal law. The 20-page settlement document, however, notes all parties agreed there was no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the state or county. It makes no mention of voter fraud or illegal voting. During the 2016 campaign, Trump distorted the findings in a 2012 Pew study to allege widespread voter fraud was taking place. The national study found 24 million voter registrations were 'no longer valid or significantly inaccurate.' More than 1.8 million dead people were listed as voters, the report said, and 2.75 million people were registered to vote in more than one state. Trump has used that study to allege 'dead people' are voting. But an analysis of the study by FactCheck.org shows 'The report did not allege the 1.8 million deceased people actually voted. Rather, Pew said that it is evidence of the need to upgrade voter registration systems.' Our rating President Trump claimed California Gov. Gavin Newsom 'is sending millions of ballots to anyone living in the state, no matter who they are,' while adding 'This will be a Rigged Election. No way!' In reality, Newsom ordered counties to send mail-in ballots only to registered voters in California, hardly to 'anyone living in the state.' To register to vote in California, residents must be 18, U.S. citizens, not in state or federal prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and not declared mentally incompetent to vote by a court. When combined with the misleading allegation that mail-in voting leads to fraud (something election experts say is exceedingly rare), and Trump's assertion that California's election will be 'Rigged,' the president's overall claim is reckless, unsubstantiated and wrong. We rate it Pants On Fire! | Some Republicans have cited issues of voter roll maintenance as evidence of fraud. President Trump, for example, has falsely cited a January 2019 settlement California reached with the conservative group Judicial Watch as evidence. On 'Meet the Press' last year, Trump alleged the settlement shows California 'admitted' there were 'a million' illegal votes in the 2016 presidential election. We rated that claim Pants On Fire. In reality, the agreement Trump cited required Los Angeles County election officials to remove inactive registrations from voter rolls to comply with federal law. The 20-page settlement document, however, notes all parties agreed there was no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the state or county. It makes no mention of voter fraud or illegal voting. During the 2016 campaign, Trump distorted the findings in a 2012 Pew study to allege widespread voter fraud was taking place. The national study found 24 million voter registrations were 'no longer valid or significantly inaccurate.' More than 1.8 million dead people were listed as voters, the report said, and 2.75 million people were registered to vote in more than one state. Trump has used that study to allege 'dead people' are voting. But an analysis of the study by FactCheck.org shows 'The report did not allege the 1.8 million deceased people actually voted. Rather, Pew said that it is evidence of the need to upgrade voter registration systems.' Our rating President Trump claimed California Gov. Gavin Newsom 'is sending millions of ballots to anyone living in the state, no matter who they are,' while adding 'This will be a Rigged Election. No way!' In reality, Newsom ordered counties to send mail-in ballots only to registered voters in California, hardly to 'anyone living in the state.' To register to vote in California, residents must be 18, U.S. citizens, not in state or federal prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and not declared mentally incompetent to vote by a court. When combined with the misleading allegation that mail-in voting leads to fraud (something election experts say is exceedingly rare), and Trump's assertion that California's election will be 'Rigged,' the president's overall claim is reckless, unsubstantiated and wrong. We rate it Pants On Fire! | [
"108093-proof-30-46ef6de170701059a9fc7cbfb5b5319b.jpg"
]
|
California Gov. Gavin Newsom 'is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one' and the election is 'Rigged. | Contradiction | President Trump claimed on Twitter Tuesday, without evidence, that California Gov. Gavin Newsom is sending millions of ballots to 'anyone living in the state, no matter who they are,' while adding 'This will be a Rigged Election. No way!' In the same Twitter thread, Trump repeated his allegation that voting by mail 'is substantially fraudulent,' a claim election experts have said is overblown. Here's Trump's full statement: 'There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone..... ....living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!' Trump repeated his claim during a news conference Tuesday afternoon, saying 'anybody that walks in California is going to get a ballot.' Trump's attacks come two days after the California Republican Party, along with national GOP groups, filed a federal lawsuit against Newsom, a Democrat, to halt his plan to send mail-in ballots to Californians ahead of the November election. Newsom earlier this month ordered all counties to send out mail-in ballots, citing health concerns amid COVID-19. Contrary to Trump's claim, no ballots have yet been sent out. We zeroed in on Trump's claim that 'anyone living in the state, no matter who they are' would receive these ballots. We set out on a fact check. Our research A review of Newsom's executive order shows only registered voters would receive vote-by-mail ballots, not 'anyone living in the state,' as Trump claimed. 'Each county elections officials shall transmit vote-by-mail ballots for the November 3, 2020 General Election to all voters who are, as of the last day on which vote-by-mail ballots may be transmitted to voters in connection with that election, registered to vote in that election. As set forth in this paragraph, every Californian who is eligible to vote in the November 3, 2020 General Election shall receive a vote-by-mail ballot.' The Secretary of State's website outlines criteria for registering to vote in California. You must be: This criteria reinforces the fact that not just 'anyone' would receive a ballot. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for evidence supporting Trump's statement. Newsom rejected the president's assertion that voting by mail leads to fraud when asked about it during a press conference on Tuesday. The governor also cited several studies that have examined the practice and found an extremely low rate of fraud, including a 5-year effort by the Bush administration that turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections. 'I don't think it deserves to be politicized. This is a health issue,' Newsom added. A spokesperson for Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who is also a Democrat, also disputed the president's assertion. 'Only active registered voters will be mailed a ballot ahead of the November 3, 2020 General Election. The President's tweet is completely false,' the spokesperson wrote in an email. Voters are considered 'inactive' if they do not vote in two consecutive federal general elections or if their county receives a returned residency confirmation without a forwarding address within the same county, according to the Secretary of State's website. Trump's claim led Twitter, for the first time on Tuesday, to place a fact-checking warning on the president's tweet. A spokesperson for Twitter told NPR the tweet contains 'misleading information about the voting process, specifically mail-in ballots.' Padilla has pushed back against Trump's past claims about vote-by-mail. On Twitter on Sunday, Padilla responded to the GOP lawsuit this way: 'Expanding vote-by-mail during a pandemic is not a partisan issue - it's a moral imperative to protect voting rights and public safety. Vote-by-mail has been used safely and effectively in red, blue, and purple states for years. This lawsuit is just another part of Trump's political smear campaign against voting by mail. We will not let this virus be exploited for voter suppression.' Some Republicans have cited issues of voter roll maintenance as evidence of fraud. President Trump, for example, has falsely cited a January 2019 settlement California reached with the conservative group Judicial Watch as evidence. On 'Meet the Press' last year, Trump alleged the settlement shows California 'admitted' there were 'a million' illegal votes in the 2016 presidential election. We rated that claim Pants On Fire. In reality, the agreement Trump cited required Los Angeles County election officials to remove inactive registrations from voter rolls to comply with federal law. The 20-page settlement document, however, notes all parties agreed there was no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the state or county. It makes no mention of voter fraud or illegal voting. During the 2016 campaign, Trump distorted the findings in a 2012 Pew study to allege widespread voter fraud was taking place. The national study found 24 million voter registrations were 'no longer valid or significantly inaccurate.' More than 1.8 million dead people were listed as voters, the report said, and 2.75 million people were registered to vote in more than one state. Trump has used that study to allege 'dead people' are voting. But an analysis of the study by FactCheck.org shows 'The report did not allege the 1.8 million deceased people actually voted. Rather, Pew said that it is evidence of the need to upgrade voter registration systems.' Our rating President Trump claimed California Gov. Gavin Newsom 'is sending millions of ballots to anyone living in the state, no matter who they are,' while adding 'This will be a Rigged Election. No way!' In reality, Newsom ordered counties to send mail-in ballots only to registered voters in California, hardly to 'anyone living in the state.' To register to vote in California, residents must be 18, U.S. citizens, not in state or federal prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and not declared mentally incompetent to vote by a court. When combined with the misleading allegation that mail-in voting leads to fraud (something election experts say is exceedingly rare), and Trump's assertion that California's election will be 'Rigged,' the president's overall claim is reckless, unsubstantiated and wrong. We rate it Pants On Fire! | Some Republicans have cited issues of voter roll maintenance as evidence of fraud. President Trump, for example, has falsely cited a January 2019 settlement California reached with the conservative group Judicial Watch as evidence. On 'Meet the Press' last year, Trump alleged the settlement shows California 'admitted' there were 'a million' illegal votes in the 2016 presidential election. We rated that claim Pants On Fire. In reality, the agreement Trump cited required Los Angeles County election officials to remove inactive registrations from voter rolls to comply with federal law. The 20-page settlement document, however, notes all parties agreed there was no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the state or county. It makes no mention of voter fraud or illegal voting. During the 2016 campaign, Trump distorted the findings in a 2012 Pew study to allege widespread voter fraud was taking place. The national study found 24 million voter registrations were 'no longer valid or significantly inaccurate.' More than 1.8 million dead people were listed as voters, the report said, and 2.75 million people were registered to vote in more than one state. Trump has used that study to allege 'dead people' are voting. But an analysis of the study by FactCheck.org shows 'The report did not allege the 1.8 million deceased people actually voted. Rather, Pew said that it is evidence of the need to upgrade voter registration systems.' Our rating President Trump claimed California Gov. Gavin Newsom 'is sending millions of ballots to anyone living in the state, no matter who they are,' while adding 'This will be a Rigged Election. No way!' In reality, Newsom ordered counties to send mail-in ballots only to registered voters in California, hardly to 'anyone living in the state.' To register to vote in California, residents must be 18, U.S. citizens, not in state or federal prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and not declared mentally incompetent to vote by a court. When combined with the misleading allegation that mail-in voting leads to fraud (something election experts say is exceedingly rare), and Trump's assertion that California's election will be 'Rigged,' the president's overall claim is reckless, unsubstantiated and wrong. We rate it Pants On Fire! | [
"108093-proof-30-46ef6de170701059a9fc7cbfb5b5319b.jpg"
]
|
California Gov. Gavin Newsom 'is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one' and the election is 'Rigged. | Contradiction | President Trump claimed on Twitter Tuesday, without evidence, that California Gov. Gavin Newsom is sending millions of ballots to 'anyone living in the state, no matter who they are,' while adding 'This will be a Rigged Election. No way!' In the same Twitter thread, Trump repeated his allegation that voting by mail 'is substantially fraudulent,' a claim election experts have said is overblown. Here's Trump's full statement: 'There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone..... ....living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!' Trump repeated his claim during a news conference Tuesday afternoon, saying 'anybody that walks in California is going to get a ballot.' Trump's attacks come two days after the California Republican Party, along with national GOP groups, filed a federal lawsuit against Newsom, a Democrat, to halt his plan to send mail-in ballots to Californians ahead of the November election. Newsom earlier this month ordered all counties to send out mail-in ballots, citing health concerns amid COVID-19. Contrary to Trump's claim, no ballots have yet been sent out. We zeroed in on Trump's claim that 'anyone living in the state, no matter who they are' would receive these ballots. We set out on a fact check. Our research A review of Newsom's executive order shows only registered voters would receive vote-by-mail ballots, not 'anyone living in the state,' as Trump claimed. 'Each county elections officials shall transmit vote-by-mail ballots for the November 3, 2020 General Election to all voters who are, as of the last day on which vote-by-mail ballots may be transmitted to voters in connection with that election, registered to vote in that election. As set forth in this paragraph, every Californian who is eligible to vote in the November 3, 2020 General Election shall receive a vote-by-mail ballot.' The Secretary of State's website outlines criteria for registering to vote in California. You must be: This criteria reinforces the fact that not just 'anyone' would receive a ballot. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for evidence supporting Trump's statement. Newsom rejected the president's assertion that voting by mail leads to fraud when asked about it during a press conference on Tuesday. The governor also cited several studies that have examined the practice and found an extremely low rate of fraud, including a 5-year effort by the Bush administration that turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections. 'I don't think it deserves to be politicized. This is a health issue,' Newsom added. A spokesperson for Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who is also a Democrat, also disputed the president's assertion. 'Only active registered voters will be mailed a ballot ahead of the November 3, 2020 General Election. The President's tweet is completely false,' the spokesperson wrote in an email. Voters are considered 'inactive' if they do not vote in two consecutive federal general elections or if their county receives a returned residency confirmation without a forwarding address within the same county, according to the Secretary of State's website. Trump's claim led Twitter, for the first time on Tuesday, to place a fact-checking warning on the president's tweet. A spokesperson for Twitter told NPR the tweet contains 'misleading information about the voting process, specifically mail-in ballots.' Padilla has pushed back against Trump's past claims about vote-by-mail. On Twitter on Sunday, Padilla responded to the GOP lawsuit this way: 'Expanding vote-by-mail during a pandemic is not a partisan issue - it's a moral imperative to protect voting rights and public safety. Vote-by-mail has been used safely and effectively in red, blue, and purple states for years. This lawsuit is just another part of Trump's political smear campaign against voting by mail. We will not let this virus be exploited for voter suppression.' Some Republicans have cited issues of voter roll maintenance as evidence of fraud. President Trump, for example, has falsely cited a January 2019 settlement California reached with the conservative group Judicial Watch as evidence. On 'Meet the Press' last year, Trump alleged the settlement shows California 'admitted' there were 'a million' illegal votes in the 2016 presidential election. We rated that claim Pants On Fire. In reality, the agreement Trump cited required Los Angeles County election officials to remove inactive registrations from voter rolls to comply with federal law. The 20-page settlement document, however, notes all parties agreed there was no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the state or county. It makes no mention of voter fraud or illegal voting. During the 2016 campaign, Trump distorted the findings in a 2012 Pew study to allege widespread voter fraud was taking place. The national study found 24 million voter registrations were 'no longer valid or significantly inaccurate.' More than 1.8 million dead people were listed as voters, the report said, and 2.75 million people were registered to vote in more than one state. Trump has used that study to allege 'dead people' are voting. But an analysis of the study by FactCheck.org shows 'The report did not allege the 1.8 million deceased people actually voted. Rather, Pew said that it is evidence of the need to upgrade voter registration systems.' Our rating President Trump claimed California Gov. Gavin Newsom 'is sending millions of ballots to anyone living in the state, no matter who they are,' while adding 'This will be a Rigged Election. No way!' In reality, Newsom ordered counties to send mail-in ballots only to registered voters in California, hardly to 'anyone living in the state.' To register to vote in California, residents must be 18, U.S. citizens, not in state or federal prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and not declared mentally incompetent to vote by a court. When combined with the misleading allegation that mail-in voting leads to fraud (something election experts say is exceedingly rare), and Trump's assertion that California's election will be 'Rigged,' the president's overall claim is reckless, unsubstantiated and wrong. We rate it Pants On Fire! | Some Republicans have cited issues of voter roll maintenance as evidence of fraud. President Trump, for example, has falsely cited a January 2019 settlement California reached with the conservative group Judicial Watch as evidence. On 'Meet the Press' last year, Trump alleged the settlement shows California 'admitted' there were 'a million' illegal votes in the 2016 presidential election. We rated that claim Pants On Fire. In reality, the agreement Trump cited required Los Angeles County election officials to remove inactive registrations from voter rolls to comply with federal law. The 20-page settlement document, however, notes all parties agreed there was no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the state or county. It makes no mention of voter fraud or illegal voting. During the 2016 campaign, Trump distorted the findings in a 2012 Pew study to allege widespread voter fraud was taking place. The national study found 24 million voter registrations were 'no longer valid or significantly inaccurate.' More than 1.8 million dead people were listed as voters, the report said, and 2.75 million people were registered to vote in more than one state. Trump has used that study to allege 'dead people' are voting. But an analysis of the study by FactCheck.org shows 'The report did not allege the 1.8 million deceased people actually voted. Rather, Pew said that it is evidence of the need to upgrade voter registration systems.' Our rating President Trump claimed California Gov. Gavin Newsom 'is sending millions of ballots to anyone living in the state, no matter who they are,' while adding 'This will be a Rigged Election. No way!' In reality, Newsom ordered counties to send mail-in ballots only to registered voters in California, hardly to 'anyone living in the state.' To register to vote in California, residents must be 18, U.S. citizens, not in state or federal prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and not declared mentally incompetent to vote by a court. When combined with the misleading allegation that mail-in voting leads to fraud (something election experts say is exceedingly rare), and Trump's assertion that California's election will be 'Rigged,' the president's overall claim is reckless, unsubstantiated and wrong. We rate it Pants On Fire! | [
"108093-proof-30-46ef6de170701059a9fc7cbfb5b5319b.jpg"
]
|
'Man visited Albany, N.Y. days before dying from coronavirus. | Contradiction | Online disinformation about the coronavirus continues to spread, sometimes more quickly than the disease itself, but the rumors aren't based in fact. There is no evidence linking a deadly case of coronavirus to a Chinese restaurant in Albany, N.Y. At first glance, an image on Facebook appears to be a screenshot of a post by ABC News sharing a story about the coronavirus. Anchored by an image of a Chinese restaurant, the headline of the supposed news storysays, 'Man visited Albany, N.Y. days before dying from coronavirus.' 'Upstate New York City Chinese restaurant possibly linked to man's death days before returning home from Washington state,' reads text above the story. There is no evidence for these claims. The image is not a real ABC News post. 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.) All nine U.S. deaths linked to the illness happened in Washington state, as of March 3, but there is no evidence that any of the individuals who died in Washington had recently traveled to New York. On Feb. 28, news reports declared a King County, Wash., man the first person in the U.S. to die from the disease, but it was later discovered some deaths linked to the coronavirus occurred as early as Feb. 26. By March 2, Washington health officials had confirmed six coronavirus deaths in the state, and three more individuals had died by March 3. Seven of the Washington deaths were linked to a nursing home facility, Life Care Center of Kirkland. New York has confirmed two cases of coronavirus as of March 3. The first case was a woman in her 30s who had recently traveled to Iran, one of the places the virus has hit hardest. The second case was a 50-year-old man who had recently traveled to Miami, Fla., but not any countries considered central to the outbreak. No news reports mention any ties to an Albany Chinese restaurant. There is also no evidence this image is actually a screenshot of an ABC News post. The news organization has not posted this story on its Facebook feed, and no ABC News stories make the same claims as the post. When comparing this post to actual ABC News Facebook posts, there are a number of differences. The most obvious difference is that the 'ABC News' title at the top of a Facebook post typically appears in blue, given that it links to the organization's main Facebook feed. The post does not match ABC News' usual font and there are also no other recent Facebook posts from ABC News with an estimated reading time for their articles. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'Man visited Albany, N.Y. days before dying from coronavirus. | Contradiction | Online disinformation about the coronavirus continues to spread, sometimes more quickly than the disease itself, but the rumors aren't based in fact. There is no evidence linking a deadly case of coronavirus to a Chinese restaurant in Albany, N.Y. At first glance, an image on Facebook appears to be a screenshot of a post by ABC News sharing a story about the coronavirus. Anchored by an image of a Chinese restaurant, the headline of the supposed news storysays, 'Man visited Albany, N.Y. days before dying from coronavirus.' 'Upstate New York City Chinese restaurant possibly linked to man's death days before returning home from Washington state,' reads text above the story. There is no evidence for these claims. The image is not a real ABC News post. 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.) All nine U.S. deaths linked to the illness happened in Washington state, as of March 3, but there is no evidence that any of the individuals who died in Washington had recently traveled to New York. On Feb. 28, news reports declared a King County, Wash., man the first person in the U.S. to die from the disease, but it was later discovered some deaths linked to the coronavirus occurred as early as Feb. 26. By March 2, Washington health officials had confirmed six coronavirus deaths in the state, and three more individuals had died by March 3. Seven of the Washington deaths were linked to a nursing home facility, Life Care Center of Kirkland. New York has confirmed two cases of coronavirus as of March 3. The first case was a woman in her 30s who had recently traveled to Iran, one of the places the virus has hit hardest. The second case was a 50-year-old man who had recently traveled to Miami, Fla., but not any countries considered central to the outbreak. No news reports mention any ties to an Albany Chinese restaurant. There is also no evidence this image is actually a screenshot of an ABC News post. The news organization has not posted this story on its Facebook feed, and no ABC News stories make the same claims as the post. When comparing this post to actual ABC News Facebook posts, there are a number of differences. The most obvious difference is that the 'ABC News' title at the top of a Facebook post typically appears in blue, given that it links to the organization's main Facebook feed. The post does not match ABC News' usual font and there are also no other recent Facebook posts from ABC News with an estimated reading time for their articles. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Says video shows 'the Chinese are destroying the 5G poles as they are aware that it is the thing triggering the corona symptoms. | Contradiction | Unfounded conspiracy theories about 5G and the coronavirus are infesting social media and leading some people to attack cellphone towers. In the United Kingdom, according to USA Today, several cell towers were set on fire. But a recent Facebook post claiming to show footage of people in China destroying towers in connection with the coronavirus is wrong. 'The Chinese are destroying the 5G poles as they are aware that it is the thing triggering the corona symptoms,' the April 2 post says. 'But international news not showing this.' 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 news actually did show this footage - back in August 2019 when it reported on anti-government demonstrations in Hong Kong. As Reuters then reported, the video shows protesters tearing down 'smart' lampposts 'over fears they could be used to collect personal data from citizens.' The lampposts, which have sensors and closed-circuit TV cameras, were installed as part of a smart-city initiative to monitor illegal waste dumping sites and traffic. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'The federal government spent over $500k trying to force fish to exercise on treadmills, an additional $150k to see if gingerbread houses are earthquake proof. | Contradiction | Josh Mandel, an Ohio politician who describes himself as the first statewide Ohio official to support former President Donald Trump, voiced concern over government waste. 'The federal government spent over $500k trying to force fish to exercise on treadmills, an additional $150k to see if gingerbread houses are earthquake proof, and that's just the tip of the iceberg,' Mandel tweeted May 21. 'Wasteful spending is robbing America's future, it must be exposed and stopped!' The federal government spent over $500k trying to force fish to exercise on treadmills, an additional $150k to see if gingerbread houses are earthquake proof, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Wasteful spending is robbing America's future, it must be exposed and stopped!- Josh Mandel (@JoshMandelOhio) May 21, 2021 Mandel's warnings come a bit late. Former Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake listed them in his 2017 Wastebook. The fish project, funded with $560,536 from the National Science Foundation, took place at the University of California-San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Mudskipper fish, a sort that can live and walk out of water, were put in a chamber and placed on a well-moistened treadmill. Researchers found that the fish could exercise longer when oxygen levels were higher. They took this to suggest that rising oxygen levels sped the emergence of animals on land hundreds of millions of years ago. The project lasted from 2009 to 2013. What Mandel took to be a test of earthquake readiness was actually a twist on the traditional gingerbread house at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. In 2016, for a price of $25 per house, adults spent an evening hearing architects describe how buildings are designed to withstand earthquakes. Then, participants had a chance to design, build and test their own quake-proof gingerbread house. They put their creations on a shaking platform and watched if it held up or crumbled. 'We have long considered a holiday-themed program for OMSI and this was the perfect fit, marrying food science with a beloved holiday tradition,' said Andrea Edgecombe, the museum's event director, in 2016. Mandel made too much of the federal contribution to the party, however. According to museum president Erin Graham, the gingerbread workshops were part of a larger effort to make use of the museum's café outside of typical lunchtime hours. 'The project funds spent on the workshops was only $3,432,' Graham said. On average, the federal government sends the Oregon museum a grant in the neighborhood of $150,000 per year. The purpose is to 'strengthen the ability of an individual museum to serve the public more effectively.' The money is matched with local and state dollars. In the 2017-18 period for example, Washington's $149,820 was matched with $164,893 from other sources. The gingerbread earthquake class proved to be popular, so the museum continued to offer it through at least 2018. We tweeted to Mandel to ask him about the lateness of his heads-up on Washington profligacy. We did not hear back, but if we do, we will add his comments to this piece. | Our ruling Mandel warned about wasteful spending, and cited the examples of $500,000 on a treadmill for fish and $150,000 to see if gingerbread houses are earthquake-proof. Waste is in the eye of the beholder, but Mandel failed to notice that the fish experiment was part of research into the evolution of life on land. It ended in 2013. He blamed the federal government for funding a museum class that injected a bit of fun into learning about resilient building design. But he greatly exaggerated the federal impact; Washington covered about $3,400 of the workshop, not the $150,000 he said. Mandel recycled old complaints, and mischaracterized what was funded. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"108111-proof-40-e3773112e6f4c7887d164f4a0f9362e5.jpg"
]
|
'The federal government spent over $500k trying to force fish to exercise on treadmills, an additional $150k to see if gingerbread houses are earthquake proof. | Contradiction | Josh Mandel, an Ohio politician who describes himself as the first statewide Ohio official to support former President Donald Trump, voiced concern over government waste. 'The federal government spent over $500k trying to force fish to exercise on treadmills, an additional $150k to see if gingerbread houses are earthquake proof, and that's just the tip of the iceberg,' Mandel tweeted May 21. 'Wasteful spending is robbing America's future, it must be exposed and stopped!' The federal government spent over $500k trying to force fish to exercise on treadmills, an additional $150k to see if gingerbread houses are earthquake proof, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Wasteful spending is robbing America's future, it must be exposed and stopped!- Josh Mandel (@JoshMandelOhio) May 21, 2021 Mandel's warnings come a bit late. Former Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake listed them in his 2017 Wastebook. The fish project, funded with $560,536 from the National Science Foundation, took place at the University of California-San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Mudskipper fish, a sort that can live and walk out of water, were put in a chamber and placed on a well-moistened treadmill. Researchers found that the fish could exercise longer when oxygen levels were higher. They took this to suggest that rising oxygen levels sped the emergence of animals on land hundreds of millions of years ago. The project lasted from 2009 to 2013. What Mandel took to be a test of earthquake readiness was actually a twist on the traditional gingerbread house at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. In 2016, for a price of $25 per house, adults spent an evening hearing architects describe how buildings are designed to withstand earthquakes. Then, participants had a chance to design, build and test their own quake-proof gingerbread house. They put their creations on a shaking platform and watched if it held up or crumbled. 'We have long considered a holiday-themed program for OMSI and this was the perfect fit, marrying food science with a beloved holiday tradition,' said Andrea Edgecombe, the museum's event director, in 2016. Mandel made too much of the federal contribution to the party, however. According to museum president Erin Graham, the gingerbread workshops were part of a larger effort to make use of the museum's café outside of typical lunchtime hours. 'The project funds spent on the workshops was only $3,432,' Graham said. On average, the federal government sends the Oregon museum a grant in the neighborhood of $150,000 per year. The purpose is to 'strengthen the ability of an individual museum to serve the public more effectively.' The money is matched with local and state dollars. In the 2017-18 period for example, Washington's $149,820 was matched with $164,893 from other sources. The gingerbread earthquake class proved to be popular, so the museum continued to offer it through at least 2018. We tweeted to Mandel to ask him about the lateness of his heads-up on Washington profligacy. We did not hear back, but if we do, we will add his comments to this piece. | Our ruling Mandel warned about wasteful spending, and cited the examples of $500,000 on a treadmill for fish and $150,000 to see if gingerbread houses are earthquake-proof. Waste is in the eye of the beholder, but Mandel failed to notice that the fish experiment was part of research into the evolution of life on land. It ended in 2013. He blamed the federal government for funding a museum class that injected a bit of fun into learning about resilient building design. But he greatly exaggerated the federal impact; Washington covered about $3,400 of the workshop, not the $150,000 he said. Mandel recycled old complaints, and mischaracterized what was funded. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"108111-proof-40-e3773112e6f4c7887d164f4a0f9362e5.jpg"
]
|
'Thanks to the insane tax-and-spending spree of President Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington, we are seeing six straight months of raging inflation. | Contradiction | With a vote on raising the federal debt limit looming, Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott is pressing the case that spending has to come down. In Scott's view, there's clear proof that Democratic fiscal policies have already made it harder for average families to pay their bills. 'Thanks to the insane tax-and-spending spree of President Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington, we are seeing six straight months of raging inflation,' Scott said in a July 26 press release. Senate Republicans, led by Scott, followed that up with a press conference on inflation. Scott pointed to a chart showing rising prices for household essentials, like gasoline, milk and eggs. Prices have gone up, in some cases, sharply. Gasoline costs 45% more than a year ago. (Energy prices can jump up and down rapidly.) Used cars and trucks are also up 45%. Compared with a year ago, the consumer price index was up 5.4% in June, the fastest pace since August 2008. There's no question that high levels of government spending can fuel inflation. But the spending that has occurred since Biden took office, primarily through the American Rescue Plan, accounts for just a part of new government spending over the past 18 months. Other potential factors are also at play in raising prices: short-term supply interruptions, labor shortages, tariffs on imported goods, or simply the cyclical growth in consumer demand when the economy is recovering from a downturn. Economists looking at today's inflation caution that the precise cause is hard to pin down, and they vary on how much impact the most recent spending is having. But all of them underscore that heavy spending isn't just a Biden administration phenomenon. It started over a year ago, as the government tried to protect Americans and the economy from the ravages of COVID-19. Government spending In reviewing Washington's actions, we look at actual spending, rather than the maximum amount allowed under any measure. That's because where inflation is concerned, what matters is when the money gets into people's pockets. There have been several major coronavirus relief packages. The largest was the CARES Act, passed in March 2020 and signed by President Donald Trump. According to the Covid Money Tracker from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, that bill has put $1.97 trillion into the economy to date. The CARES Act provided such pillars of federal aid as the Paycheck Protection Program for companies and their workers, and expanded unemployment benefits for the millions of people who lost their jobs. Congress refilled the Paycheck Protection Program in April 2020, along with other aid, at a cost of about $500 billion. In December 2020, Congress passed additional relief, including $600 checks for most Americans. About $770 billion has been spent so far. The most recent bill was the American Rescue Plan Act championed by Biden and congressional Democrats and signed in March 2021. So far, spending from that has reached $1.05 trillion. The U.S. Treasury Department's COVID-19 page shows that overall, as of the end of May 2021, federal agencies had spent or committed about $3.5 trillion since the pandemic began. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, using different methods, puts the latest tally at about $4.45 trillion. There are other amounts that can be folded into the totals, but it's safe to say about two-thirds of the spending took place before Biden took office. 'I wouldn't ascribe the government spending necessarily to Biden, as the increase in government spending to help curb the effects of COVID was already occurring during the Trump administration,' said Columbia University economist Jennifer La'O. Inflation trends Scott spoke of 'six straight months of raging inflation.' That's an exaggeration. The consumer price index has been rising this year, but on a month-to-month basis, inflation didn't start accelerating significantly until March. (We look at month-to-month changes, rather than year-over-year, because 2020 was such an unusual year.) In January, prices went up 0.3%. February's increase was 0.4%. That's lower than in June and July the year before. But between March and June this year, the Consumer Price Index had an average monthly increase of 0.7%. The prices of some goods, such as gasoline and used cars, have gone up dramatically. Other increases are more modest, but they're still important for household budgets. Grocery prices are up 0.9%. Clothing is nearly 5% more expensive. Across the board, the cost of living rose 0.9%. Economy watchers look less at that topline number, and more at what is driving it. It turns out the used cars and trucks accounted for a third of the overall increase in the CPI. Federal Reserve Bank chairman Jerome Powell said that's unlikely to last. 'Used car prices are going up because of sort of a perfect storm of very strong demand and limited supply,' Powell said at a June 16 news conference. A global shortage of semiconductor chips has curtailed vehicle production and thinned new-car inventories, so more buyers have turned to used car and trucks, pushing up prices in that market. Eventually, Powell said, supply chains will get back on track and the surge will ease. That's what happened with an earlier spike in lumber prices. There is a risk of more deeply embedded inflation, but there are few signs of that so far. Biden, spending and inflation Economics 101 holds that when you add hundreds of billions of dollars to an economy, at least some people will go out and buy things. If supply doesn't ramp up at a commensurate pace, increased demand will lead to higher prices. Macroeconomist John Leahy at the University of Michigan thinks Washington's spending since last spring is fueling that type of cycle. 'The root cause of inflation is most likely the increase in aggregate demand for goods, and this increase in demand has been caused in part by the increase in government spending,' Leahy said. 'Supply bottlenecks help to explain why supply has not kept pace with demand, but they are not prime mover.' Stanford University economist Peter Klenow has no quibble with that basic idea, but he says he's skeptical that much of this tracks back to Biden. Klenow points to studies like one from the New York Federal Reserve that found that only about 30% of stimulus money was spent on goods. About 70% of the money went into savings or paid down debt. That money wouldn't spur demand or lead to higher prices. Klenow also doubts that a relief package passed in March 2021 would drive up inflation just three months later. 'Estimates of the effects of government spending in earlier years typically find a lag of a year or two between the spending and any noticeable effect on inflation,' Klenow said. One final point on inflation and tax policy: Scott talked about Democrats' 'tax and spending spree.' While Biden has said he would like to raise taxes on corporations and on people making over $400,000 a year, that has yet to happen. That aside, Leahy said that in the short run, taxes tend to trim demand, and reduce inflationary pressures. 'Tax hikes on consumers reduce disposable income and thereby reduce consumer spending,' Leahy said. 'Tax hikes on business tend to reduce profits and thereby reduce investment. ' We reached out to Scott's office to ask about the role of taxes and Biden's spending and did not hear back. | Our ruling Scott said, 'Thanks to the insane tax-and-spending spree of President Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington, we are seeing six straight months of raging inflation.' Inflation is up, and there's broad agreement that government spending has been a factor. However, most of the big spending coursing through the economy took place before Biden and the Democrats were in charge in Washington. In the past, there's been a lag of one to two years between higher government spending and higher inflation. The massive relief package in March has had little time to spur inflation. As for taxes, they haven't gone up. And if they had, that would tend to put the brakes on inflation. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"108115-proof-30-411cb41929e4b2b12112ade07333c621.jpg"
]
|
'Thanks to the insane tax-and-spending spree of President Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington, we are seeing six straight months of raging inflation. | Contradiction | With a vote on raising the federal debt limit looming, Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott is pressing the case that spending has to come down. In Scott's view, there's clear proof that Democratic fiscal policies have already made it harder for average families to pay their bills. 'Thanks to the insane tax-and-spending spree of President Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington, we are seeing six straight months of raging inflation,' Scott said in a July 26 press release. Senate Republicans, led by Scott, followed that up with a press conference on inflation. Scott pointed to a chart showing rising prices for household essentials, like gasoline, milk and eggs. Prices have gone up, in some cases, sharply. Gasoline costs 45% more than a year ago. (Energy prices can jump up and down rapidly.) Used cars and trucks are also up 45%. Compared with a year ago, the consumer price index was up 5.4% in June, the fastest pace since August 2008. There's no question that high levels of government spending can fuel inflation. But the spending that has occurred since Biden took office, primarily through the American Rescue Plan, accounts for just a part of new government spending over the past 18 months. Other potential factors are also at play in raising prices: short-term supply interruptions, labor shortages, tariffs on imported goods, or simply the cyclical growth in consumer demand when the economy is recovering from a downturn. Economists looking at today's inflation caution that the precise cause is hard to pin down, and they vary on how much impact the most recent spending is having. But all of them underscore that heavy spending isn't just a Biden administration phenomenon. It started over a year ago, as the government tried to protect Americans and the economy from the ravages of COVID-19. Government spending In reviewing Washington's actions, we look at actual spending, rather than the maximum amount allowed under any measure. That's because where inflation is concerned, what matters is when the money gets into people's pockets. There have been several major coronavirus relief packages. The largest was the CARES Act, passed in March 2020 and signed by President Donald Trump. According to the Covid Money Tracker from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, that bill has put $1.97 trillion into the economy to date. The CARES Act provided such pillars of federal aid as the Paycheck Protection Program for companies and their workers, and expanded unemployment benefits for the millions of people who lost their jobs. Congress refilled the Paycheck Protection Program in April 2020, along with other aid, at a cost of about $500 billion. In December 2020, Congress passed additional relief, including $600 checks for most Americans. About $770 billion has been spent so far. The most recent bill was the American Rescue Plan Act championed by Biden and congressional Democrats and signed in March 2021. So far, spending from that has reached $1.05 trillion. The U.S. Treasury Department's COVID-19 page shows that overall, as of the end of May 2021, federal agencies had spent or committed about $3.5 trillion since the pandemic began. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, using different methods, puts the latest tally at about $4.45 trillion. There are other amounts that can be folded into the totals, but it's safe to say about two-thirds of the spending took place before Biden took office. 'I wouldn't ascribe the government spending necessarily to Biden, as the increase in government spending to help curb the effects of COVID was already occurring during the Trump administration,' said Columbia University economist Jennifer La'O. Inflation trends Scott spoke of 'six straight months of raging inflation.' That's an exaggeration. The consumer price index has been rising this year, but on a month-to-month basis, inflation didn't start accelerating significantly until March. (We look at month-to-month changes, rather than year-over-year, because 2020 was such an unusual year.) In January, prices went up 0.3%. February's increase was 0.4%. That's lower than in June and July the year before. But between March and June this year, the Consumer Price Index had an average monthly increase of 0.7%. The prices of some goods, such as gasoline and used cars, have gone up dramatically. Other increases are more modest, but they're still important for household budgets. Grocery prices are up 0.9%. Clothing is nearly 5% more expensive. Across the board, the cost of living rose 0.9%. Economy watchers look less at that topline number, and more at what is driving it. It turns out the used cars and trucks accounted for a third of the overall increase in the CPI. Federal Reserve Bank chairman Jerome Powell said that's unlikely to last. 'Used car prices are going up because of sort of a perfect storm of very strong demand and limited supply,' Powell said at a June 16 news conference. A global shortage of semiconductor chips has curtailed vehicle production and thinned new-car inventories, so more buyers have turned to used car and trucks, pushing up prices in that market. Eventually, Powell said, supply chains will get back on track and the surge will ease. That's what happened with an earlier spike in lumber prices. There is a risk of more deeply embedded inflation, but there are few signs of that so far. Biden, spending and inflation Economics 101 holds that when you add hundreds of billions of dollars to an economy, at least some people will go out and buy things. If supply doesn't ramp up at a commensurate pace, increased demand will lead to higher prices. Macroeconomist John Leahy at the University of Michigan thinks Washington's spending since last spring is fueling that type of cycle. 'The root cause of inflation is most likely the increase in aggregate demand for goods, and this increase in demand has been caused in part by the increase in government spending,' Leahy said. 'Supply bottlenecks help to explain why supply has not kept pace with demand, but they are not prime mover.' Stanford University economist Peter Klenow has no quibble with that basic idea, but he says he's skeptical that much of this tracks back to Biden. Klenow points to studies like one from the New York Federal Reserve that found that only about 30% of stimulus money was spent on goods. About 70% of the money went into savings or paid down debt. That money wouldn't spur demand or lead to higher prices. Klenow also doubts that a relief package passed in March 2021 would drive up inflation just three months later. 'Estimates of the effects of government spending in earlier years typically find a lag of a year or two between the spending and any noticeable effect on inflation,' Klenow said. One final point on inflation and tax policy: Scott talked about Democrats' 'tax and spending spree.' While Biden has said he would like to raise taxes on corporations and on people making over $400,000 a year, that has yet to happen. That aside, Leahy said that in the short run, taxes tend to trim demand, and reduce inflationary pressures. 'Tax hikes on consumers reduce disposable income and thereby reduce consumer spending,' Leahy said. 'Tax hikes on business tend to reduce profits and thereby reduce investment. ' We reached out to Scott's office to ask about the role of taxes and Biden's spending and did not hear back. | Our ruling Scott said, 'Thanks to the insane tax-and-spending spree of President Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington, we are seeing six straight months of raging inflation.' Inflation is up, and there's broad agreement that government spending has been a factor. However, most of the big spending coursing through the economy took place before Biden and the Democrats were in charge in Washington. In the past, there's been a lag of one to two years between higher government spending and higher inflation. The massive relief package in March has had little time to spur inflation. As for taxes, they haven't gone up. And if they had, that would tend to put the brakes on inflation. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"108115-proof-30-411cb41929e4b2b12112ade07333c621.jpg"
]
|
'Thanks to the insane tax-and-spending spree of President Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington, we are seeing six straight months of raging inflation. | Contradiction | With a vote on raising the federal debt limit looming, Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott is pressing the case that spending has to come down. In Scott's view, there's clear proof that Democratic fiscal policies have already made it harder for average families to pay their bills. 'Thanks to the insane tax-and-spending spree of President Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington, we are seeing six straight months of raging inflation,' Scott said in a July 26 press release. Senate Republicans, led by Scott, followed that up with a press conference on inflation. Scott pointed to a chart showing rising prices for household essentials, like gasoline, milk and eggs. Prices have gone up, in some cases, sharply. Gasoline costs 45% more than a year ago. (Energy prices can jump up and down rapidly.) Used cars and trucks are also up 45%. Compared with a year ago, the consumer price index was up 5.4% in June, the fastest pace since August 2008. There's no question that high levels of government spending can fuel inflation. But the spending that has occurred since Biden took office, primarily through the American Rescue Plan, accounts for just a part of new government spending over the past 18 months. Other potential factors are also at play in raising prices: short-term supply interruptions, labor shortages, tariffs on imported goods, or simply the cyclical growth in consumer demand when the economy is recovering from a downturn. Economists looking at today's inflation caution that the precise cause is hard to pin down, and they vary on how much impact the most recent spending is having. But all of them underscore that heavy spending isn't just a Biden administration phenomenon. It started over a year ago, as the government tried to protect Americans and the economy from the ravages of COVID-19. Government spending In reviewing Washington's actions, we look at actual spending, rather than the maximum amount allowed under any measure. That's because where inflation is concerned, what matters is when the money gets into people's pockets. There have been several major coronavirus relief packages. The largest was the CARES Act, passed in March 2020 and signed by President Donald Trump. According to the Covid Money Tracker from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, that bill has put $1.97 trillion into the economy to date. The CARES Act provided such pillars of federal aid as the Paycheck Protection Program for companies and their workers, and expanded unemployment benefits for the millions of people who lost their jobs. Congress refilled the Paycheck Protection Program in April 2020, along with other aid, at a cost of about $500 billion. In December 2020, Congress passed additional relief, including $600 checks for most Americans. About $770 billion has been spent so far. The most recent bill was the American Rescue Plan Act championed by Biden and congressional Democrats and signed in March 2021. So far, spending from that has reached $1.05 trillion. The U.S. Treasury Department's COVID-19 page shows that overall, as of the end of May 2021, federal agencies had spent or committed about $3.5 trillion since the pandemic began. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, using different methods, puts the latest tally at about $4.45 trillion. There are other amounts that can be folded into the totals, but it's safe to say about two-thirds of the spending took place before Biden took office. 'I wouldn't ascribe the government spending necessarily to Biden, as the increase in government spending to help curb the effects of COVID was already occurring during the Trump administration,' said Columbia University economist Jennifer La'O. Inflation trends Scott spoke of 'six straight months of raging inflation.' That's an exaggeration. The consumer price index has been rising this year, but on a month-to-month basis, inflation didn't start accelerating significantly until March. (We look at month-to-month changes, rather than year-over-year, because 2020 was such an unusual year.) In January, prices went up 0.3%. February's increase was 0.4%. That's lower than in June and July the year before. But between March and June this year, the Consumer Price Index had an average monthly increase of 0.7%. The prices of some goods, such as gasoline and used cars, have gone up dramatically. Other increases are more modest, but they're still important for household budgets. Grocery prices are up 0.9%. Clothing is nearly 5% more expensive. Across the board, the cost of living rose 0.9%. Economy watchers look less at that topline number, and more at what is driving it. It turns out the used cars and trucks accounted for a third of the overall increase in the CPI. Federal Reserve Bank chairman Jerome Powell said that's unlikely to last. 'Used car prices are going up because of sort of a perfect storm of very strong demand and limited supply,' Powell said at a June 16 news conference. A global shortage of semiconductor chips has curtailed vehicle production and thinned new-car inventories, so more buyers have turned to used car and trucks, pushing up prices in that market. Eventually, Powell said, supply chains will get back on track and the surge will ease. That's what happened with an earlier spike in lumber prices. There is a risk of more deeply embedded inflation, but there are few signs of that so far. Biden, spending and inflation Economics 101 holds that when you add hundreds of billions of dollars to an economy, at least some people will go out and buy things. If supply doesn't ramp up at a commensurate pace, increased demand will lead to higher prices. Macroeconomist John Leahy at the University of Michigan thinks Washington's spending since last spring is fueling that type of cycle. 'The root cause of inflation is most likely the increase in aggregate demand for goods, and this increase in demand has been caused in part by the increase in government spending,' Leahy said. 'Supply bottlenecks help to explain why supply has not kept pace with demand, but they are not prime mover.' Stanford University economist Peter Klenow has no quibble with that basic idea, but he says he's skeptical that much of this tracks back to Biden. Klenow points to studies like one from the New York Federal Reserve that found that only about 30% of stimulus money was spent on goods. About 70% of the money went into savings or paid down debt. That money wouldn't spur demand or lead to higher prices. Klenow also doubts that a relief package passed in March 2021 would drive up inflation just three months later. 'Estimates of the effects of government spending in earlier years typically find a lag of a year or two between the spending and any noticeable effect on inflation,' Klenow said. One final point on inflation and tax policy: Scott talked about Democrats' 'tax and spending spree.' While Biden has said he would like to raise taxes on corporations and on people making over $400,000 a year, that has yet to happen. That aside, Leahy said that in the short run, taxes tend to trim demand, and reduce inflationary pressures. 'Tax hikes on consumers reduce disposable income and thereby reduce consumer spending,' Leahy said. 'Tax hikes on business tend to reduce profits and thereby reduce investment. ' We reached out to Scott's office to ask about the role of taxes and Biden's spending and did not hear back. | Our ruling Scott said, 'Thanks to the insane tax-and-spending spree of President Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington, we are seeing six straight months of raging inflation.' Inflation is up, and there's broad agreement that government spending has been a factor. However, most of the big spending coursing through the economy took place before Biden and the Democrats were in charge in Washington. In the past, there's been a lag of one to two years between higher government spending and higher inflation. The massive relief package in March has had little time to spur inflation. As for taxes, they haven't gone up. And if they had, that would tend to put the brakes on inflation. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"108115-proof-30-411cb41929e4b2b12112ade07333c621.jpg"
]
|
'Drivers with no DUIs are getting up to $610 back in savings. | Contradiction | A social media post said that people with no DUIs can receive money back by entering their zip code to a website. 'I'm so grateful for my neighbor (who works for the DMV) who told me about this!' read the text with a since-deleted July 22 Facebook post. 'Drivers with no DUIs are getting up to $610 back in savings. I simply entered my zip and got $610 back just for having a good record.' The post showed two pictures of people holding checks for $610 along with a link to a website that proclaimed, 'All 50 States Approve $610 in Savings for US Drivers with No DUIs.' The post told people to 'check eligibility' at a link on the site. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) (Screengrab from Facebook) It's not clear what the headline is referencing, but we found no evidence 'all 50 states' have approved sending money to drivers who don't have DUIs. Experts and state DMV leaders told us they hadn't heard of anything like that either. When you click on the link from the post, it takes you to a website for The Brainy Penny and prompts you to enter a zip code. It then asks you to answer a series of questions, including the year, make, and model of your vehicle; whether your car is financed, owned, or leased; the name of your insurance provider; your gender, education, occupation and credit score; and any traffic violations. PolitiFact contacted the website's publishing company to ask about the post but did not get a response. Robert Passmore, vice president of auto and claims policy at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said he was unaware of any programs offering people checks for not having any DUIs. 'There are, however, programs that have 'vanishing deductibles' or 'accident-free' bonuses,' Passmore said, 'but they aren't tied to not having a DUI.' Alex Hageli, director of personal auto, electronic issues, specialty lines and counsel at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said DUIs do usually increase a person's premium. 'However, having a DUI does not necessarily guarantee you will pay more than someone who does not have one, depending on your overall profile and another driver's overall profile,' he said. 'Auto rating factors all play off of one another to produce a premium, and one factor can negate another depending on its weight compared to another.' PolitiFact contacted several states to find out if they were aware of any such program to send checks to people who don't have DUIs. A spokesperson for the Washington, D.C., Department of Motor Vehicles said that they maintain driver records that include details related to drivers licenses (class, issue date, expiration date, etc.) and a summaries of all traffic violations, but the office does not have funding for a program like the post described. Similarly, a spokesperson with California Department of Motor Vehicles said that the department handles driving records but 'it does not have a program that gives people money for not having a DUI.' The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, which oversees driver's licenses in the state, and the Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security also said that they do not have programs that reward licensees for not getting DUIs. This isn't the first time a post like this has been flagged. Houston television news station KHOU 11 flagged a similar post in June and determined the post was a potential scam. There is no evidence states are sending money to people who don't have DUIs. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Drivers with no DUIs are getting up to $610 back in savings. | Contradiction | A social media post said that people with no DUIs can receive money back by entering their zip code to a website. 'I'm so grateful for my neighbor (who works for the DMV) who told me about this!' read the text with a since-deleted July 22 Facebook post. 'Drivers with no DUIs are getting up to $610 back in savings. I simply entered my zip and got $610 back just for having a good record.' The post showed two pictures of people holding checks for $610 along with a link to a website that proclaimed, 'All 50 States Approve $610 in Savings for US Drivers with No DUIs.' The post told people to 'check eligibility' at a link on the site. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) (Screengrab from Facebook) It's not clear what the headline is referencing, but we found no evidence 'all 50 states' have approved sending money to drivers who don't have DUIs. Experts and state DMV leaders told us they hadn't heard of anything like that either. When you click on the link from the post, it takes you to a website for The Brainy Penny and prompts you to enter a zip code. It then asks you to answer a series of questions, including the year, make, and model of your vehicle; whether your car is financed, owned, or leased; the name of your insurance provider; your gender, education, occupation and credit score; and any traffic violations. PolitiFact contacted the website's publishing company to ask about the post but did not get a response. Robert Passmore, vice president of auto and claims policy at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said he was unaware of any programs offering people checks for not having any DUIs. 'There are, however, programs that have 'vanishing deductibles' or 'accident-free' bonuses,' Passmore said, 'but they aren't tied to not having a DUI.' Alex Hageli, director of personal auto, electronic issues, specialty lines and counsel at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said DUIs do usually increase a person's premium. 'However, having a DUI does not necessarily guarantee you will pay more than someone who does not have one, depending on your overall profile and another driver's overall profile,' he said. 'Auto rating factors all play off of one another to produce a premium, and one factor can negate another depending on its weight compared to another.' PolitiFact contacted several states to find out if they were aware of any such program to send checks to people who don't have DUIs. A spokesperson for the Washington, D.C., Department of Motor Vehicles said that they maintain driver records that include details related to drivers licenses (class, issue date, expiration date, etc.) and a summaries of all traffic violations, but the office does not have funding for a program like the post described. Similarly, a spokesperson with California Department of Motor Vehicles said that the department handles driving records but 'it does not have a program that gives people money for not having a DUI.' The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, which oversees driver's licenses in the state, and the Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security also said that they do not have programs that reward licensees for not getting DUIs. This isn't the first time a post like this has been flagged. Houston television news station KHOU 11 flagged a similar post in June and determined the post was a potential scam. There is no evidence states are sending money to people who don't have DUIs. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Drivers with no DUIs are getting up to $610 back in savings. | Contradiction | A social media post said that people with no DUIs can receive money back by entering their zip code to a website. 'I'm so grateful for my neighbor (who works for the DMV) who told me about this!' read the text with a since-deleted July 22 Facebook post. 'Drivers with no DUIs are getting up to $610 back in savings. I simply entered my zip and got $610 back just for having a good record.' The post showed two pictures of people holding checks for $610 along with a link to a website that proclaimed, 'All 50 States Approve $610 in Savings for US Drivers with No DUIs.' The post told people to 'check eligibility' at a link on the site. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) (Screengrab from Facebook) It's not clear what the headline is referencing, but we found no evidence 'all 50 states' have approved sending money to drivers who don't have DUIs. Experts and state DMV leaders told us they hadn't heard of anything like that either. When you click on the link from the post, it takes you to a website for The Brainy Penny and prompts you to enter a zip code. It then asks you to answer a series of questions, including the year, make, and model of your vehicle; whether your car is financed, owned, or leased; the name of your insurance provider; your gender, education, occupation and credit score; and any traffic violations. PolitiFact contacted the website's publishing company to ask about the post but did not get a response. Robert Passmore, vice president of auto and claims policy at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said he was unaware of any programs offering people checks for not having any DUIs. 'There are, however, programs that have 'vanishing deductibles' or 'accident-free' bonuses,' Passmore said, 'but they aren't tied to not having a DUI.' Alex Hageli, director of personal auto, electronic issues, specialty lines and counsel at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, said DUIs do usually increase a person's premium. 'However, having a DUI does not necessarily guarantee you will pay more than someone who does not have one, depending on your overall profile and another driver's overall profile,' he said. 'Auto rating factors all play off of one another to produce a premium, and one factor can negate another depending on its weight compared to another.' PolitiFact contacted several states to find out if they were aware of any such program to send checks to people who don't have DUIs. A spokesperson for the Washington, D.C., Department of Motor Vehicles said that they maintain driver records that include details related to drivers licenses (class, issue date, expiration date, etc.) and a summaries of all traffic violations, but the office does not have funding for a program like the post described. Similarly, a spokesperson with California Department of Motor Vehicles said that the department handles driving records but 'it does not have a program that gives people money for not having a DUI.' The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, which oversees driver's licenses in the state, and the Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security also said that they do not have programs that reward licensees for not getting DUIs. This isn't the first time a post like this has been flagged. Houston television news station KHOU 11 flagged a similar post in June and determined the post was a potential scam. There is no evidence states are sending money to people who don't have DUIs. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
'In a vegan world there would be no pandemics. 100% of pandemics are zoonotic in origin. | Contradiction | It's been just over a year since the COVID-19 pandemic spawned mass shutdowns and exploded into the public consciousness, and scientists still don't fully understand the origins of the disease that has killed millions around the world. Electronica easy-listening pop artist Richard Melville Hall - known professionally as Moby - suggested in a Facebook post that all of this could have been avoided if humans did not consume animals: 'In a vegan world there would be no pandemics. 100% of pandemics are zoonotic in origin,' his March 23 post read. 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.) Is he right? In short, no - and for some of the same reasons we found a similar claim specific to COVID-19 Mostly False. We reached out to Moby's representatives through email but did hear back. While scientists have found that most human infectious diseases originate with animals - and, yes, all pandemics in the last 100 years fall into this category - it's not accurate to say that they would be eliminated if humans did not eat other animals. There are other means by which a disease can move from animal to human. Likewise, there are other ways a disease could emerge and become a pandemic. With COVID-19, scientists largely agree that the novel coronavirus likely originated in a bat, but by the same token they also agree that an intermediary host would have been necessary for the virus to be transmitted to a human - and we still don't know what that intermediary source is. Therefore, 'patient zero' almost certainly did not contract COVID-19 by consuming a bat. Moby's broader claim suggests that any pandemic would not exist if the world's population practiced veganism, the practice of not eating or using animal products. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a disease is 'zoonotic' if it can be spread from animals to humans. 'Zoonotic diseases are caused by harmful germs like viruses, bacterial, parasites, and fungi,' CDC's guidance reads. 'These germs can cause many different types of illnesses in people and animals, ranging from mild to serious illness and even death.' Zoonotic diseases, or 'zoonoses,' are extremely common considering they comprise at least 60% of known infectious diseases. Additionally, the CDC notes, roughly 75% of new or emerging infectious diseases are known to come from animals. But a pandemic can also evolve from sources beyond wildlife. 'Most human infectious diseases find their origin in another animal species,' said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. 'However, there are environmentally acquired infectious diseases such as anthrax, tetanus, and botulism. However, these tend to be non-communicable between person to person and therefore not able to cause a pandemic.' 'It is within the realm of possibility that an environmental fungus, for example, could infect a large amount of humans,' Adalja said. 'In amphibian species, for instance, environmental fungal disease (e.g. chytrid disease) are pandemics. One could also envision a stable human pathogen, by chance, acquiring some new trait allowing it to spread in a new manner. ' In a recent interview with the online news magazine Inverse published March 24, Adalja also pushed back directly on Moby's claim. Adalja told the publication that a determining factor in which a zoonotic illness becomes a pandemic has less to do with animal consumption and more to do with how humans generally interact with animals since there are other ways beyond consumption an animal-borne pathogen can be transmitted. 'You can get bitten by a raccoon and get rabies,' Adalja said in the interview, 'not because you were going to eat it, but just because you happened to encounter it in the wild.' | Our ruling Moby said, 'In a vegan world there would be no pandemics. 100% of pandemics are zoonotic in origin.' Scientists have found that the pandemics of the last 100 years have been zoonotic. And they say that most infectious disease in humans originates with animals. But that does not mean that worldwide adherence to veganism would eradicate pandemics. There are other sources by which disease can emerge - and consuming animals is not the only path by which disease can make the jump from animals to humans. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this Mostly False. | []
|
'We know most of our forefathers, all of our main Founding Fathers were against slavery, recognized the evils of it. | Contradiction | Fox News host and former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany accused others of 'getting the facts wrong' about the Founding Fathers and slavery - all while getting some facts wrong herself. 'The haters never take a day off from hating. That is clear. And they never take a day off from getting the facts wrong,' McEnany said on 'Outnumbered' July 6. 'We know most of our forefathers, all of our main Founding Fathers were against slavery, recognized the evils of it.' Five historians who spoke with PolitiFact agreed that McEnany's claim was an inaccurate oversimplification. 'I think the most charitable thing you could say about her statement is that it reflects an utter ignorance of American history,' said Paul Finkelman, the president of Gratz College in greater Philadelphia, who has written several books on American slavery. Some of the most celebrated Founders were more tolerant of slavery than McEnany claimed, and the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence owned enslaved people. 'The Father of the country, the Father of the Declaration, and the Father of the Constitution all remained lifelong enslavers,' said Lorri Glover, a professor of history at Saint Louis University, in reference to Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Fox News did not respond to requests for comment. Who counts as a Founding Father? This undated engraving shows the scene on July 4, 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was approved. (AP) The term 'Founding Fathers' is typically used to refer to the revolutionary leaders who united the colonies, led the American effort for independence and structured the U.S. government. Most discussions include Washington, Jefferson, Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin. 'After these big six, the list gets complicated,' Glover said. There were leaders who supported the revolution and fought in the war, those who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and those who backed the Constitution in 1787. The historians PolitiFact consulted listed dozens of figures who could qualify as Founders. 'It's an ever-shifting group,' said Todd Estes, professor of history at Oakland University. Key Founding Fathers included 'lifelong enslavers' A list of enslaved people at Mount Vernon written by George Washington around 1799 is seen on May 19, 2016. (AP) McEnany did not specify who she saw as the 'main Founding Fathers,' but in the Fox News segment, she cited an article from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. The article said the Founders 'unambiguously saw slavery as evil.' It specifically named John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Gouverneur Morris, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. Among those, Adams was the most opposed to slavery. He never owned people and was 'staunchly antislavery,' said Sean Wilentz, a Princeton University historian. Franklin owned a few enslaved people but freed them later and became president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. Morris referred to slavery at the Constitutional Convention as the 'curse of heaven' and pushed for emancipation in New York. And Jay, who helped write the Federalist Papers and became the first chief justice, signed a law to gradually end slavery in New York. But there was a struggle over slavery at the nation's founding, Wilentz said. Other Founders had more complicated records - to the point that a British essayist wrote in 1775, 'How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?' Hamilton, for example, was a founder of the New York Manumission Society, an anti-slavery group. But he married into a slave-owning family and may have owned at least two people himself. He also supported several Federalist Party slaveholders as presidential candidates. Three other prominent Founders - Washington, Madison and Jefferson - all wrote at some point of their lament for the institution of slavery, Glover said. But they also enslaved people. The article McEnany cited 'cherry-pick(ed) quotations ripped out of context' and distorted the Founding Fathers' complex lives and writings, Glover said. Washington, the nation's first president, owned hundreds of enslaved people, though he ultimately freed them in his will. Thanks in large part to his friend the Marquis de Lafayette, Washington came to oppose slavery. He once said that he wished to see a plan for the abolition of the institution. Madison, the principal author of the Constitution and fourth president, owned more than 100 people, and he also proposed to amend the Northwest Ordinance to allow slavery in the Indiana Territory, Finkelman said. A statue of former President James Madison is shown in front of a mural of the Constitution in the education center at Montpelier, Madison's home, in Orange, Va., on Aug. 13, 2008. (AP) The Constitution protected the institution of slavery, Finkelman argued. It allowed slaveholders to capture runaways. It also required that a constitutional amendment be ratified by three-fourths of states to end slavery - a tall task for a nation with several slave states, and one that was achieved only after many of those states seceded. Then, there was Jefferson. The nation's third president 'said more antislavery things publicly than any of the other founders by 1787,' but he also 'did more to spread and defend slavery than any other during the ensuing decades,' said David Waldstreicher, a historian at the City University of New York. As the chief architect of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that 'all men are created equal,' and he condemned slavery and blamed the king for the slave trade in a separate passage that was eventually cut from the document. He backed some legislation that chipped away at the institution of slavery and likened it to forcing tyranny on both the slaveholder and the enslaved. At the same time, Jefferson enslaved over 600 people. He described Black people as racially inferior. He often sold people to punish them, Finkelman said, and when asked to speak against allowing Missouri to become a slave state, Jefferson refused. He and many other southern Founders were 'committed to the institution of slavery,' Finkelman said. Thomas Jefferson's home Monticello is seen in Charlottesville, Va., on April 22, 2009. (AP) Overall, McEnany's claim about the Founding Fathers is 'contradicted by the lack of substantive action on the part of the Founders to end slavery,' said Estes, from Oakland University. 'Many slaveholders claimed to hate the institution of slavery and the slave trade and decried their dependence on slave labor,' Estes said. 'Yet, (they) did little or nothing to abolish the institution or even to reduce their and others' dependence on slavery.' 'In other words,' Waldstreicher added, 'they tried to have it both ways.' Other men who could be considered Founders were more adamantly pro-slavery, including southerners from Georgia or the Carolinas like Charles Pinckney, who signed and contributed clauses to the Constitution and later became South Carolina's governor. During the Constitutional Convention, Pinckney said slavery was 'justified by the example of all the world.' Finkelman said, 'If the Founding Fathers thought slavery was wrong and was evil, why didn't they end it?' | Our ruling McEnany said, 'We know most of our forefathers, all of our main Founding Fathers were against slavery, recognized the evils of it.' Historians said that's an oversimplification that ignores the lack of action among the Founders to get rid of slavery. Of the most eminent Founding Fathers, a few were against slavery. Others were lifelong slaveholders who showed some distaste for the practice in their lives and writings. Of the broader group of people who could be considered Founders, there were also southerners who were vehemently pro-slavery. The majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence owned enslaved people. We rate McEnany's statement Mostly False. UPDATE, July 9, 2021: This fact-check was updated to clarify that Thomas Jefferson was not in Congress when asked to speak against Missouri becoming a slave state. | [
"108153-proof-10-AP_080813069590.jpg",
"108153-proof-21-AP_16140717274459.jpg",
"108153-proof-28-AP_090428044060.jpg",
"108153-proof-39-3929d7b26580ffe9d92bb5b5a24b4eb3.jpg"
]
|
'We know most of our forefathers, all of our main Founding Fathers were against slavery, recognized the evils of it. | Contradiction | Fox News host and former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany accused others of 'getting the facts wrong' about the Founding Fathers and slavery - all while getting some facts wrong herself. 'The haters never take a day off from hating. That is clear. And they never take a day off from getting the facts wrong,' McEnany said on 'Outnumbered' July 6. 'We know most of our forefathers, all of our main Founding Fathers were against slavery, recognized the evils of it.' Five historians who spoke with PolitiFact agreed that McEnany's claim was an inaccurate oversimplification. 'I think the most charitable thing you could say about her statement is that it reflects an utter ignorance of American history,' said Paul Finkelman, the president of Gratz College in greater Philadelphia, who has written several books on American slavery. Some of the most celebrated Founders were more tolerant of slavery than McEnany claimed, and the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence owned enslaved people. 'The Father of the country, the Father of the Declaration, and the Father of the Constitution all remained lifelong enslavers,' said Lorri Glover, a professor of history at Saint Louis University, in reference to Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Fox News did not respond to requests for comment. Who counts as a Founding Father? This undated engraving shows the scene on July 4, 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was approved. (AP) The term 'Founding Fathers' is typically used to refer to the revolutionary leaders who united the colonies, led the American effort for independence and structured the U.S. government. Most discussions include Washington, Jefferson, Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin. 'After these big six, the list gets complicated,' Glover said. There were leaders who supported the revolution and fought in the war, those who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and those who backed the Constitution in 1787. The historians PolitiFact consulted listed dozens of figures who could qualify as Founders. 'It's an ever-shifting group,' said Todd Estes, professor of history at Oakland University. Key Founding Fathers included 'lifelong enslavers' A list of enslaved people at Mount Vernon written by George Washington around 1799 is seen on May 19, 2016. (AP) McEnany did not specify who she saw as the 'main Founding Fathers,' but in the Fox News segment, she cited an article from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. The article said the Founders 'unambiguously saw slavery as evil.' It specifically named John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Gouverneur Morris, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. Among those, Adams was the most opposed to slavery. He never owned people and was 'staunchly antislavery,' said Sean Wilentz, a Princeton University historian. Franklin owned a few enslaved people but freed them later and became president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. Morris referred to slavery at the Constitutional Convention as the 'curse of heaven' and pushed for emancipation in New York. And Jay, who helped write the Federalist Papers and became the first chief justice, signed a law to gradually end slavery in New York. But there was a struggle over slavery at the nation's founding, Wilentz said. Other Founders had more complicated records - to the point that a British essayist wrote in 1775, 'How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?' Hamilton, for example, was a founder of the New York Manumission Society, an anti-slavery group. But he married into a slave-owning family and may have owned at least two people himself. He also supported several Federalist Party slaveholders as presidential candidates. Three other prominent Founders - Washington, Madison and Jefferson - all wrote at some point of their lament for the institution of slavery, Glover said. But they also enslaved people. The article McEnany cited 'cherry-pick(ed) quotations ripped out of context' and distorted the Founding Fathers' complex lives and writings, Glover said. Washington, the nation's first president, owned hundreds of enslaved people, though he ultimately freed them in his will. Thanks in large part to his friend the Marquis de Lafayette, Washington came to oppose slavery. He once said that he wished to see a plan for the abolition of the institution. Madison, the principal author of the Constitution and fourth president, owned more than 100 people, and he also proposed to amend the Northwest Ordinance to allow slavery in the Indiana Territory, Finkelman said. A statue of former President James Madison is shown in front of a mural of the Constitution in the education center at Montpelier, Madison's home, in Orange, Va., on Aug. 13, 2008. (AP) The Constitution protected the institution of slavery, Finkelman argued. It allowed slaveholders to capture runaways. It also required that a constitutional amendment be ratified by three-fourths of states to end slavery - a tall task for a nation with several slave states, and one that was achieved only after many of those states seceded. Then, there was Jefferson. The nation's third president 'said more antislavery things publicly than any of the other founders by 1787,' but he also 'did more to spread and defend slavery than any other during the ensuing decades,' said David Waldstreicher, a historian at the City University of New York. As the chief architect of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that 'all men are created equal,' and he condemned slavery and blamed the king for the slave trade in a separate passage that was eventually cut from the document. He backed some legislation that chipped away at the institution of slavery and likened it to forcing tyranny on both the slaveholder and the enslaved. At the same time, Jefferson enslaved over 600 people. He described Black people as racially inferior. He often sold people to punish them, Finkelman said, and when asked to speak against allowing Missouri to become a slave state, Jefferson refused. He and many other southern Founders were 'committed to the institution of slavery,' Finkelman said. Thomas Jefferson's home Monticello is seen in Charlottesville, Va., on April 22, 2009. (AP) Overall, McEnany's claim about the Founding Fathers is 'contradicted by the lack of substantive action on the part of the Founders to end slavery,' said Estes, from Oakland University. 'Many slaveholders claimed to hate the institution of slavery and the slave trade and decried their dependence on slave labor,' Estes said. 'Yet, (they) did little or nothing to abolish the institution or even to reduce their and others' dependence on slavery.' 'In other words,' Waldstreicher added, 'they tried to have it both ways.' Other men who could be considered Founders were more adamantly pro-slavery, including southerners from Georgia or the Carolinas like Charles Pinckney, who signed and contributed clauses to the Constitution and later became South Carolina's governor. During the Constitutional Convention, Pinckney said slavery was 'justified by the example of all the world.' Finkelman said, 'If the Founding Fathers thought slavery was wrong and was evil, why didn't they end it?' | Our ruling McEnany said, 'We know most of our forefathers, all of our main Founding Fathers were against slavery, recognized the evils of it.' Historians said that's an oversimplification that ignores the lack of action among the Founders to get rid of slavery. Of the most eminent Founding Fathers, a few were against slavery. Others were lifelong slaveholders who showed some distaste for the practice in their lives and writings. Of the broader group of people who could be considered Founders, there were also southerners who were vehemently pro-slavery. The majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence owned enslaved people. We rate McEnany's statement Mostly False. UPDATE, July 9, 2021: This fact-check was updated to clarify that Thomas Jefferson was not in Congress when asked to speak against Missouri becoming a slave state. | [
"108153-proof-10-AP_080813069590.jpg",
"108153-proof-21-AP_16140717274459.jpg",
"108153-proof-28-AP_090428044060.jpg",
"108153-proof-39-3929d7b26580ffe9d92bb5b5a24b4eb3.jpg"
]
|
'We know most of our forefathers, all of our main Founding Fathers were against slavery, recognized the evils of it. | Contradiction | Fox News host and former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany accused others of 'getting the facts wrong' about the Founding Fathers and slavery - all while getting some facts wrong herself. 'The haters never take a day off from hating. That is clear. And they never take a day off from getting the facts wrong,' McEnany said on 'Outnumbered' July 6. 'We know most of our forefathers, all of our main Founding Fathers were against slavery, recognized the evils of it.' Five historians who spoke with PolitiFact agreed that McEnany's claim was an inaccurate oversimplification. 'I think the most charitable thing you could say about her statement is that it reflects an utter ignorance of American history,' said Paul Finkelman, the president of Gratz College in greater Philadelphia, who has written several books on American slavery. Some of the most celebrated Founders were more tolerant of slavery than McEnany claimed, and the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence owned enslaved people. 'The Father of the country, the Father of the Declaration, and the Father of the Constitution all remained lifelong enslavers,' said Lorri Glover, a professor of history at Saint Louis University, in reference to Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Fox News did not respond to requests for comment. Who counts as a Founding Father? This undated engraving shows the scene on July 4, 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was approved. (AP) The term 'Founding Fathers' is typically used to refer to the revolutionary leaders who united the colonies, led the American effort for independence and structured the U.S. government. Most discussions include Washington, Jefferson, Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin. 'After these big six, the list gets complicated,' Glover said. There were leaders who supported the revolution and fought in the war, those who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and those who backed the Constitution in 1787. The historians PolitiFact consulted listed dozens of figures who could qualify as Founders. 'It's an ever-shifting group,' said Todd Estes, professor of history at Oakland University. Key Founding Fathers included 'lifelong enslavers' A list of enslaved people at Mount Vernon written by George Washington around 1799 is seen on May 19, 2016. (AP) McEnany did not specify who she saw as the 'main Founding Fathers,' but in the Fox News segment, she cited an article from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. The article said the Founders 'unambiguously saw slavery as evil.' It specifically named John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Gouverneur Morris, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson. Among those, Adams was the most opposed to slavery. He never owned people and was 'staunchly antislavery,' said Sean Wilentz, a Princeton University historian. Franklin owned a few enslaved people but freed them later and became president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. Morris referred to slavery at the Constitutional Convention as the 'curse of heaven' and pushed for emancipation in New York. And Jay, who helped write the Federalist Papers and became the first chief justice, signed a law to gradually end slavery in New York. But there was a struggle over slavery at the nation's founding, Wilentz said. Other Founders had more complicated records - to the point that a British essayist wrote in 1775, 'How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?' Hamilton, for example, was a founder of the New York Manumission Society, an anti-slavery group. But he married into a slave-owning family and may have owned at least two people himself. He also supported several Federalist Party slaveholders as presidential candidates. Three other prominent Founders - Washington, Madison and Jefferson - all wrote at some point of their lament for the institution of slavery, Glover said. But they also enslaved people. The article McEnany cited 'cherry-pick(ed) quotations ripped out of context' and distorted the Founding Fathers' complex lives and writings, Glover said. Washington, the nation's first president, owned hundreds of enslaved people, though he ultimately freed them in his will. Thanks in large part to his friend the Marquis de Lafayette, Washington came to oppose slavery. He once said that he wished to see a plan for the abolition of the institution. Madison, the principal author of the Constitution and fourth president, owned more than 100 people, and he also proposed to amend the Northwest Ordinance to allow slavery in the Indiana Territory, Finkelman said. A statue of former President James Madison is shown in front of a mural of the Constitution in the education center at Montpelier, Madison's home, in Orange, Va., on Aug. 13, 2008. (AP) The Constitution protected the institution of slavery, Finkelman argued. It allowed slaveholders to capture runaways. It also required that a constitutional amendment be ratified by three-fourths of states to end slavery - a tall task for a nation with several slave states, and one that was achieved only after many of those states seceded. Then, there was Jefferson. The nation's third president 'said more antislavery things publicly than any of the other founders by 1787,' but he also 'did more to spread and defend slavery than any other during the ensuing decades,' said David Waldstreicher, a historian at the City University of New York. As the chief architect of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that 'all men are created equal,' and he condemned slavery and blamed the king for the slave trade in a separate passage that was eventually cut from the document. He backed some legislation that chipped away at the institution of slavery and likened it to forcing tyranny on both the slaveholder and the enslaved. At the same time, Jefferson enslaved over 600 people. He described Black people as racially inferior. He often sold people to punish them, Finkelman said, and when asked to speak against allowing Missouri to become a slave state, Jefferson refused. He and many other southern Founders were 'committed to the institution of slavery,' Finkelman said. Thomas Jefferson's home Monticello is seen in Charlottesville, Va., on April 22, 2009. (AP) Overall, McEnany's claim about the Founding Fathers is 'contradicted by the lack of substantive action on the part of the Founders to end slavery,' said Estes, from Oakland University. 'Many slaveholders claimed to hate the institution of slavery and the slave trade and decried their dependence on slave labor,' Estes said. 'Yet, (they) did little or nothing to abolish the institution or even to reduce their and others' dependence on slavery.' 'In other words,' Waldstreicher added, 'they tried to have it both ways.' Other men who could be considered Founders were more adamantly pro-slavery, including southerners from Georgia or the Carolinas like Charles Pinckney, who signed and contributed clauses to the Constitution and later became South Carolina's governor. During the Constitutional Convention, Pinckney said slavery was 'justified by the example of all the world.' Finkelman said, 'If the Founding Fathers thought slavery was wrong and was evil, why didn't they end it?' | Our ruling McEnany said, 'We know most of our forefathers, all of our main Founding Fathers were against slavery, recognized the evils of it.' Historians said that's an oversimplification that ignores the lack of action among the Founders to get rid of slavery. Of the most eminent Founding Fathers, a few were against slavery. Others were lifelong slaveholders who showed some distaste for the practice in their lives and writings. Of the broader group of people who could be considered Founders, there were also southerners who were vehemently pro-slavery. The majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence owned enslaved people. We rate McEnany's statement Mostly False. UPDATE, July 9, 2021: This fact-check was updated to clarify that Thomas Jefferson was not in Congress when asked to speak against Missouri becoming a slave state. | [
"108153-proof-10-AP_080813069590.jpg",
"108153-proof-21-AP_16140717274459.jpg",
"108153-proof-28-AP_090428044060.jpg",
"108153-proof-39-3929d7b26580ffe9d92bb5b5a24b4eb3.jpg"
]
|
The coronavirus has seen a 'big surge in New Zealand. It's terrible. We don't want that. | Contradiction | Speaking in Minnesota ahead of the Democratic National Convention, President Donald Trump compared the ongoing surge of coronavirus cases in the U.S. to the situation in New Zealand, where the virus returned recently after more than 100 days of no community spread. 'When you look at the rest of the world ... now all the sudden, a lot of the places that they were using to hold up, they're having a big surge,' Trump said Aug. 17 in a speech at an airport in Mankato, Minn. 'They were holding up names of countries, and now they're saying, 'Whoops.'' 'In fact, even New Zealand. You see what's going on in New Zealand?' the president continued. 'They beat it. They beat it. It was like front page, they beat it, because they wanted to show me something. The problem is, big surge in New Zealand. It's terrible. We don't want that.' New Zealand, an island nation of about 5 million people, saw the return of the virus' community spread on Aug. 11 after months with no locally transmitted cases. But on Aug. 17, the day of Trump's remark, New Zealand had reported just nine new COVID-19 cases. The previous day, it reported 13 new cases, up from seven new cases on Aug. 15. On Aug. 18, following Trump's comment, New Zealand reported another 13 new cases. The new cases in recent days have caused alarm in New Zealand, where strict lockdown policies and travel restrictions aim to put a lid on the virus. The leadership has responded by postponing the country's election and locking down Auckland, its largest city. Andrew Noymer, an associate professor of public health at the University of California, Irvine, said it's a stretch for Trump to say New Zealand had ever 'beat' the virus, since the pandemic was raging elsewhere and New Zealand has needed mitigation efforts to keep cases low. But New Zealand's new cases are a far cry from the outbreak in the U.S., which has reported more than 50,000 new cases per day for most of August and July, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The seven-day average of new cases in the U.S. was 50,927 on Aug. 17. 'That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in quite a while,' Brooke Nichols, an assistant professor of global health at Boston University, said of Trump's claim comparing the two nations. As of Aug. 18, New Zealand's health ministry had recorded 1,643 confirmed and probable cases in total, along with 22 deaths. There are currently 90 active cases in the country. The U.S. leads the world in cumulative cases and deaths, by contrast. It has seen nearly 5.5 million cases and more than 171,000 deaths as of Aug. 18. That's a quarter of the world's known cases in a country that, with around 330 million people, represents about 4% of the global population. The disparity is wide even when you adjust for the size of both countries. According to the World Health Organization, the United States has 16,175 confirmed cases for every 1 million people. New Zealand has 268 confirmed cases per million people. RELATED: Donald Trump says US is at the top globally in COVID-19 fight. It isn't. New Zealand's leaders were quick to dismiss Trump's suggestion that the 'big surge' in their country was something the U.S. would not 'want.' Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said Trump's comparison between the two nations was 'patently wrong,' according to local reports. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern gestures during the opening ceremony for Redcliffs School in Christchurch, New Zealand, on June 25, 2020. (AP) 'I don't think there's any comparison between New Zealand's current cluster and the tens of thousands of cases that are being seen daily in the United States,' Ardern added Aug. 18. Nichols, the Boston University professor, agreed. 'New Zealand has had a few dozen cases in the last week, the United States has had a few dozen new cases in the last couple of minutes,' Nichols said. 'I wish we were 'surging' like New Zealand is.' The White House and Trump campaign did not respond to our inquiries by deadline. | Our ruling Trump said: 'The problem is, big surge in New Zealand. It's terrible. We don't want that.' New Zealand reported nine new cases on Aug. 17, the day of Trump's remark. The U.S., by contrast, has frequently reported more than 50,000 cases per day since July. We rate this statement False. | [
"108164-proof-18-7416b9bf3e7aa91335179b84102a1f2f.jpg"
]
|
The coronavirus has seen a 'big surge in New Zealand. It's terrible. We don't want that. | Contradiction | Speaking in Minnesota ahead of the Democratic National Convention, President Donald Trump compared the ongoing surge of coronavirus cases in the U.S. to the situation in New Zealand, where the virus returned recently after more than 100 days of no community spread. 'When you look at the rest of the world ... now all the sudden, a lot of the places that they were using to hold up, they're having a big surge,' Trump said Aug. 17 in a speech at an airport in Mankato, Minn. 'They were holding up names of countries, and now they're saying, 'Whoops.'' 'In fact, even New Zealand. You see what's going on in New Zealand?' the president continued. 'They beat it. They beat it. It was like front page, they beat it, because they wanted to show me something. The problem is, big surge in New Zealand. It's terrible. We don't want that.' New Zealand, an island nation of about 5 million people, saw the return of the virus' community spread on Aug. 11 after months with no locally transmitted cases. But on Aug. 17, the day of Trump's remark, New Zealand had reported just nine new COVID-19 cases. The previous day, it reported 13 new cases, up from seven new cases on Aug. 15. On Aug. 18, following Trump's comment, New Zealand reported another 13 new cases. The new cases in recent days have caused alarm in New Zealand, where strict lockdown policies and travel restrictions aim to put a lid on the virus. The leadership has responded by postponing the country's election and locking down Auckland, its largest city. Andrew Noymer, an associate professor of public health at the University of California, Irvine, said it's a stretch for Trump to say New Zealand had ever 'beat' the virus, since the pandemic was raging elsewhere and New Zealand has needed mitigation efforts to keep cases low. But New Zealand's new cases are a far cry from the outbreak in the U.S., which has reported more than 50,000 new cases per day for most of August and July, according to the COVID Tracking Project. The seven-day average of new cases in the U.S. was 50,927 on Aug. 17. 'That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in quite a while,' Brooke Nichols, an assistant professor of global health at Boston University, said of Trump's claim comparing the two nations. As of Aug. 18, New Zealand's health ministry had recorded 1,643 confirmed and probable cases in total, along with 22 deaths. There are currently 90 active cases in the country. The U.S. leads the world in cumulative cases and deaths, by contrast. It has seen nearly 5.5 million cases and more than 171,000 deaths as of Aug. 18. That's a quarter of the world's known cases in a country that, with around 330 million people, represents about 4% of the global population. The disparity is wide even when you adjust for the size of both countries. According to the World Health Organization, the United States has 16,175 confirmed cases for every 1 million people. New Zealand has 268 confirmed cases per million people. RELATED: Donald Trump says US is at the top globally in COVID-19 fight. It isn't. New Zealand's leaders were quick to dismiss Trump's suggestion that the 'big surge' in their country was something the U.S. would not 'want.' Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said Trump's comparison between the two nations was 'patently wrong,' according to local reports. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern gestures during the opening ceremony for Redcliffs School in Christchurch, New Zealand, on June 25, 2020. (AP) 'I don't think there's any comparison between New Zealand's current cluster and the tens of thousands of cases that are being seen daily in the United States,' Ardern added Aug. 18. Nichols, the Boston University professor, agreed. 'New Zealand has had a few dozen cases in the last week, the United States has had a few dozen new cases in the last couple of minutes,' Nichols said. 'I wish we were 'surging' like New Zealand is.' The White House and Trump campaign did not respond to our inquiries by deadline. | Our ruling Trump said: 'The problem is, big surge in New Zealand. It's terrible. We don't want that.' New Zealand reported nine new cases on Aug. 17, the day of Trump's remark. The U.S., by contrast, has frequently reported more than 50,000 cases per day since July. We rate this statement False. | [
"108164-proof-18-7416b9bf3e7aa91335179b84102a1f2f.jpg"
]
|
Donald Trump is recruiting 'excited and enthusiastic MINORITY actors and actresses' to appear at his campaign rally in Tulsa, Okla. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump boasted on Twitter that nearly 1 million people had requested tickets for his campaign rally in Tulsa, Okla., on June 20. You'd never guess that from the tone of an ad posted to Craigslist in Tulsa with the title: 'Actors needed June 20.' 'Excited and enthusiastic MINORITY actors and actresses needed to hold signs at event in Tulsa,' reads the ad that was shared on Facebook. 'Send headshot/resume for early consideration. *This may be applied towards community service if necessary (in lieu of payment).' The ad doesn't mention Trump, but it includes a map marking the BOK Center in Tulsa, where the rally will be held. 'Trump is beneath contempt,' the 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.) The ad is no longer on Craigslist, though the original is archived here. 'This posting has been flagged for removal,' an alert said when we clicked on the link. Tim Murtaugh, communications director for Trump's campaign, said on Twitter that the ad didn't come from Trump. 'This, obviously, is fake, and a recurring lie the trolls roll out a lot,' he wrote. In November, we debunked a similar Craigslist ad seeking actors for an event at the Phoenix Convention Center in Arizona. 'Duties include protest activity and holding signs that are Pro Trump,' it said. 'Minorities welcome and needed!' There was another ad seeking actors for a Trump rally in 2017 in Phoenix. Like the ad for the Tulsa rally, this one was deleted. The New York Daily News reported the phone number connected to the listing belonged to a recent high school graduate who told a local TV station that he wasn't behind the ad. In 2018, yet another ad sought paid attendees for a Trump rally in Pennsylvania. Snopes then reported that the ad wasn't affiliated with Trump but with 'a man who appeared to have connections to left-leaning activist groups.' The latest Craigslist ad seems to follow the blueprint of its forefathers: unaffiliated with the Trump campaign and designed to make it seem like he's soliciting people of color to publicly support him in exchange for a paycheck. We rate this post False. | The latest Craigslist ad seems to follow the blueprint of its forefathers: unaffiliated with the Trump campaign and designed to make it seem like he's soliciting people of color to publicly support him in exchange for a paycheck. We rate this post False. | []
|
Donald Trump is recruiting 'excited and enthusiastic MINORITY actors and actresses' to appear at his campaign rally in Tulsa, Okla. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump boasted on Twitter that nearly 1 million people had requested tickets for his campaign rally in Tulsa, Okla., on June 20. You'd never guess that from the tone of an ad posted to Craigslist in Tulsa with the title: 'Actors needed June 20.' 'Excited and enthusiastic MINORITY actors and actresses needed to hold signs at event in Tulsa,' reads the ad that was shared on Facebook. 'Send headshot/resume for early consideration. *This may be applied towards community service if necessary (in lieu of payment).' The ad doesn't mention Trump, but it includes a map marking the BOK Center in Tulsa, where the rally will be held. 'Trump is beneath contempt,' the 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.) The ad is no longer on Craigslist, though the original is archived here. 'This posting has been flagged for removal,' an alert said when we clicked on the link. Tim Murtaugh, communications director for Trump's campaign, said on Twitter that the ad didn't come from Trump. 'This, obviously, is fake, and a recurring lie the trolls roll out a lot,' he wrote. In November, we debunked a similar Craigslist ad seeking actors for an event at the Phoenix Convention Center in Arizona. 'Duties include protest activity and holding signs that are Pro Trump,' it said. 'Minorities welcome and needed!' There was another ad seeking actors for a Trump rally in 2017 in Phoenix. Like the ad for the Tulsa rally, this one was deleted. The New York Daily News reported the phone number connected to the listing belonged to a recent high school graduate who told a local TV station that he wasn't behind the ad. In 2018, yet another ad sought paid attendees for a Trump rally in Pennsylvania. Snopes then reported that the ad wasn't affiliated with Trump but with 'a man who appeared to have connections to left-leaning activist groups.' The latest Craigslist ad seems to follow the blueprint of its forefathers: unaffiliated with the Trump campaign and designed to make it seem like he's soliciting people of color to publicly support him in exchange for a paycheck. We rate this post False. | The latest Craigslist ad seems to follow the blueprint of its forefathers: unaffiliated with the Trump campaign and designed to make it seem like he's soliciting people of color to publicly support him in exchange for a paycheck. We rate this post False. | []
|
'Last year, there were nine unarmed black people killed (by law enforcement). Nineteen unarmed white people. | Contradiction | As the U.S. entered a second week of protests after the death of George Floyd, conservative radio host Larry Elder argued that 'cops rarely kill anybody, let alone an unarmed black person.' 'Last year, there were nine unarmed black people killed. Nineteen unarmed white people,' Elder said June 2 on Fox News host Sean Hannity's TV show. A reader asked us about Elder's numbers, which he repeated on Twitter, so we decided to put them to the Truth-O-Meter. How many unarmed blacks were killed by cops last year? 9. How many unarmed whites were killed by cops last year? 19. More officers are killed every year than are unarmed blacks. When do the #BlueLivesMatter protests begin?#GeorgeFloyd- Larry Elder (@larryelder) June 3, 2020 We found that Elder was speaking broadly about police killings but pulling his numbers from the Washington Post's more narrow tally of fatal shootings by police officers in the line of duty. The Washington Post's tally doesn't account for off-duty police or the use by on-duty officers of other force that can be lethal, such as tasers or physical restraint. That means the number of unarmed people killed in encounters with law enforcement in 2019 is higher for both races than Elder claimed. How much higher is not clear. What is clear, experts told us, is that despite what Elder's absolute numbers may suggest, black people in the U.S. have died from fatal encounters with police at a disproportionate rate. RELATED: TikTok video misleads on police shooting data The numbers The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FBI keep tabs on deaths resulting from interactions with police, but both sources provide incomplete data that takes years to record. More reliable data comes from the Washington Post and projects such as Mapping Police Violence and Fatal Encounters. In emails to PolitiFact, Elder cited a tweet and a Wall Street Journal op-ed that pulled numbers from the Washington Post's database. According to the Washington Post data through June 3, police in the line of duty fatally shot 10 unarmed black people and 20 unarmed white people in 2019. (The data is updated as new facts emerge, and by June 5 the numbers jumped to 15 unarmed blacks and 25 unarmed whites.) But Elder incorrectly claimed that his statistics represented the numbers of all black and white Americans who were killed by police, not the number of 'shootings in which a police officer, in the line of duty, shoots and kills a civilian,' as the Washington Post describes its data. The Washington Post doesn't account for deaths like Floyd's, for example. Floyd died in police custody May 25 after an officer in Minneapolis kneeled on his neck. When we asked about this incongruity, Elder told us that the majority of police killings involve firearms, 'so the number is not likely much bigger.' It's hard to say how much bigger it is. As of June 3, Mapping Police Violence had counted 28 unarmed blacks and 51 unarmed whites who died at the hands of police in 2019. Those numbers are higher than the Washington Post's in part because Mapping Police Violence tracks police killings more broadly and includes officers who are off duty. In 2019, among those who were unarmed when they encountered police, there were five black people and 12 white people who died from tasers, beatings or other uses of force by police, according to Mapping Police Violence's data. Off-duty officers killed four unarmed blacks and five unarmed whites. Those deaths won't show up in the Washington Post data. What's considered armed? Another reason Mapping Police Violence counted more unarmed people killed by police is that it considered victims in possession of toy guns, BB guns, airsoft guns or rocks to be unarmed. The Washington Post's database doesn't include those people in its unarmed tallies. In 2019, at least eight black people and 16 white people were killed by police while in possession of a toy weapon or something similar, according to Mapping Police Violence. There are also numerous 2019 cases, in both data sets, where the victim's armed status remains unknown or the victim was considered armed with a vehicle. Overall, the data on whether police-killing victims were armed or unarmed is 'messy,' said Frank Edwards, an assistant professor at Rutgers University's School of Criminal Justice who co-authored a study on police killings. Because groups that track the data often cite news reports that rely only on the word of police to establish whether a person was armed or unarmed, 'the data likely over-report the armed status of victims and the danger faced by police,' Edwards said. 'Police have been known to misrepresent the danger presented by suspects,' he said. The data we have is also limited to deaths, said Lorie Fridell, professor of criminology at the University of South Florida. Ideally, she said, we would be able track police use of force more broadly, including force that could be deadly but doesn't turn out to be fatal. Missing context Elder's claim also ignores the fact that the same Washington Post data shows black people are disproportionately shot and killed by police, experts said. 'There may be more unarmed whites than unarmed blacks killed each year, but the rate of shooting unarmed blacks is much larger,' Fridell said, citing a report from the Washington Post that summarized years of findings from its database. Black Americans represent 13% of the U.S. population, the report said, but they accounted for about a quarter of police shooting victims over four and a half years of data collection. 'They're over-represented in the data,' said Brian Burghart, the founder of Fatal Encounters. | Our ruling Elder said: 'Last year, there were nine unarmed black people killed (by law enforcement). Nineteen unarmed white people.' Those numbers matched the Washington Post's tally of fatal shootings by police in the line of duty, although the Washington Post's figures have increased since Elder made his claim. But not all police killings happen when officers are on duty, and not all involve a gunshot. The Washington Post's data doesn't include deaths like Floyd's, for example. Elder's claim also omitted important context: that black people in the U.S. are disproportionately killed by police relative to their share of the population. Overall, Elder's statement contained elements of truth, but it left out important context that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"108173-proof-16-22ef2de766d0497ac8a9ec5dc3579a34.jpg"
]
|
'Last year, there were nine unarmed black people killed (by law enforcement). Nineteen unarmed white people. | Contradiction | As the U.S. entered a second week of protests after the death of George Floyd, conservative radio host Larry Elder argued that 'cops rarely kill anybody, let alone an unarmed black person.' 'Last year, there were nine unarmed black people killed. Nineteen unarmed white people,' Elder said June 2 on Fox News host Sean Hannity's TV show. A reader asked us about Elder's numbers, which he repeated on Twitter, so we decided to put them to the Truth-O-Meter. How many unarmed blacks were killed by cops last year? 9. How many unarmed whites were killed by cops last year? 19. More officers are killed every year than are unarmed blacks. When do the #BlueLivesMatter protests begin?#GeorgeFloyd- Larry Elder (@larryelder) June 3, 2020 We found that Elder was speaking broadly about police killings but pulling his numbers from the Washington Post's more narrow tally of fatal shootings by police officers in the line of duty. The Washington Post's tally doesn't account for off-duty police or the use by on-duty officers of other force that can be lethal, such as tasers or physical restraint. That means the number of unarmed people killed in encounters with law enforcement in 2019 is higher for both races than Elder claimed. How much higher is not clear. What is clear, experts told us, is that despite what Elder's absolute numbers may suggest, black people in the U.S. have died from fatal encounters with police at a disproportionate rate. RELATED: TikTok video misleads on police shooting data The numbers The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FBI keep tabs on deaths resulting from interactions with police, but both sources provide incomplete data that takes years to record. More reliable data comes from the Washington Post and projects such as Mapping Police Violence and Fatal Encounters. In emails to PolitiFact, Elder cited a tweet and a Wall Street Journal op-ed that pulled numbers from the Washington Post's database. According to the Washington Post data through June 3, police in the line of duty fatally shot 10 unarmed black people and 20 unarmed white people in 2019. (The data is updated as new facts emerge, and by June 5 the numbers jumped to 15 unarmed blacks and 25 unarmed whites.) But Elder incorrectly claimed that his statistics represented the numbers of all black and white Americans who were killed by police, not the number of 'shootings in which a police officer, in the line of duty, shoots and kills a civilian,' as the Washington Post describes its data. The Washington Post doesn't account for deaths like Floyd's, for example. Floyd died in police custody May 25 after an officer in Minneapolis kneeled on his neck. When we asked about this incongruity, Elder told us that the majority of police killings involve firearms, 'so the number is not likely much bigger.' It's hard to say how much bigger it is. As of June 3, Mapping Police Violence had counted 28 unarmed blacks and 51 unarmed whites who died at the hands of police in 2019. Those numbers are higher than the Washington Post's in part because Mapping Police Violence tracks police killings more broadly and includes officers who are off duty. In 2019, among those who were unarmed when they encountered police, there were five black people and 12 white people who died from tasers, beatings or other uses of force by police, according to Mapping Police Violence's data. Off-duty officers killed four unarmed blacks and five unarmed whites. Those deaths won't show up in the Washington Post data. What's considered armed? Another reason Mapping Police Violence counted more unarmed people killed by police is that it considered victims in possession of toy guns, BB guns, airsoft guns or rocks to be unarmed. The Washington Post's database doesn't include those people in its unarmed tallies. In 2019, at least eight black people and 16 white people were killed by police while in possession of a toy weapon or something similar, according to Mapping Police Violence. There are also numerous 2019 cases, in both data sets, where the victim's armed status remains unknown or the victim was considered armed with a vehicle. Overall, the data on whether police-killing victims were armed or unarmed is 'messy,' said Frank Edwards, an assistant professor at Rutgers University's School of Criminal Justice who co-authored a study on police killings. Because groups that track the data often cite news reports that rely only on the word of police to establish whether a person was armed or unarmed, 'the data likely over-report the armed status of victims and the danger faced by police,' Edwards said. 'Police have been known to misrepresent the danger presented by suspects,' he said. The data we have is also limited to deaths, said Lorie Fridell, professor of criminology at the University of South Florida. Ideally, she said, we would be able track police use of force more broadly, including force that could be deadly but doesn't turn out to be fatal. Missing context Elder's claim also ignores the fact that the same Washington Post data shows black people are disproportionately shot and killed by police, experts said. 'There may be more unarmed whites than unarmed blacks killed each year, but the rate of shooting unarmed blacks is much larger,' Fridell said, citing a report from the Washington Post that summarized years of findings from its database. Black Americans represent 13% of the U.S. population, the report said, but they accounted for about a quarter of police shooting victims over four and a half years of data collection. 'They're over-represented in the data,' said Brian Burghart, the founder of Fatal Encounters. | Our ruling Elder said: 'Last year, there were nine unarmed black people killed (by law enforcement). Nineteen unarmed white people.' Those numbers matched the Washington Post's tally of fatal shootings by police in the line of duty, although the Washington Post's figures have increased since Elder made his claim. But not all police killings happen when officers are on duty, and not all involve a gunshot. The Washington Post's data doesn't include deaths like Floyd's, for example. Elder's claim also omitted important context: that black people in the U.S. are disproportionately killed by police relative to their share of the population. Overall, Elder's statement contained elements of truth, but it left out important context that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"108173-proof-16-22ef2de766d0497ac8a9ec5dc3579a34.jpg"
]
|
'Last year, there were nine unarmed black people killed (by law enforcement). Nineteen unarmed white people. | Contradiction | As the U.S. entered a second week of protests after the death of George Floyd, conservative radio host Larry Elder argued that 'cops rarely kill anybody, let alone an unarmed black person.' 'Last year, there were nine unarmed black people killed. Nineteen unarmed white people,' Elder said June 2 on Fox News host Sean Hannity's TV show. A reader asked us about Elder's numbers, which he repeated on Twitter, so we decided to put them to the Truth-O-Meter. How many unarmed blacks were killed by cops last year? 9. How many unarmed whites were killed by cops last year? 19. More officers are killed every year than are unarmed blacks. When do the #BlueLivesMatter protests begin?#GeorgeFloyd- Larry Elder (@larryelder) June 3, 2020 We found that Elder was speaking broadly about police killings but pulling his numbers from the Washington Post's more narrow tally of fatal shootings by police officers in the line of duty. The Washington Post's tally doesn't account for off-duty police or the use by on-duty officers of other force that can be lethal, such as tasers or physical restraint. That means the number of unarmed people killed in encounters with law enforcement in 2019 is higher for both races than Elder claimed. How much higher is not clear. What is clear, experts told us, is that despite what Elder's absolute numbers may suggest, black people in the U.S. have died from fatal encounters with police at a disproportionate rate. RELATED: TikTok video misleads on police shooting data The numbers The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and FBI keep tabs on deaths resulting from interactions with police, but both sources provide incomplete data that takes years to record. More reliable data comes from the Washington Post and projects such as Mapping Police Violence and Fatal Encounters. In emails to PolitiFact, Elder cited a tweet and a Wall Street Journal op-ed that pulled numbers from the Washington Post's database. According to the Washington Post data through June 3, police in the line of duty fatally shot 10 unarmed black people and 20 unarmed white people in 2019. (The data is updated as new facts emerge, and by June 5 the numbers jumped to 15 unarmed blacks and 25 unarmed whites.) But Elder incorrectly claimed that his statistics represented the numbers of all black and white Americans who were killed by police, not the number of 'shootings in which a police officer, in the line of duty, shoots and kills a civilian,' as the Washington Post describes its data. The Washington Post doesn't account for deaths like Floyd's, for example. Floyd died in police custody May 25 after an officer in Minneapolis kneeled on his neck. When we asked about this incongruity, Elder told us that the majority of police killings involve firearms, 'so the number is not likely much bigger.' It's hard to say how much bigger it is. As of June 3, Mapping Police Violence had counted 28 unarmed blacks and 51 unarmed whites who died at the hands of police in 2019. Those numbers are higher than the Washington Post's in part because Mapping Police Violence tracks police killings more broadly and includes officers who are off duty. In 2019, among those who were unarmed when they encountered police, there were five black people and 12 white people who died from tasers, beatings or other uses of force by police, according to Mapping Police Violence's data. Off-duty officers killed four unarmed blacks and five unarmed whites. Those deaths won't show up in the Washington Post data. What's considered armed? Another reason Mapping Police Violence counted more unarmed people killed by police is that it considered victims in possession of toy guns, BB guns, airsoft guns or rocks to be unarmed. The Washington Post's database doesn't include those people in its unarmed tallies. In 2019, at least eight black people and 16 white people were killed by police while in possession of a toy weapon or something similar, according to Mapping Police Violence. There are also numerous 2019 cases, in both data sets, where the victim's armed status remains unknown or the victim was considered armed with a vehicle. Overall, the data on whether police-killing victims were armed or unarmed is 'messy,' said Frank Edwards, an assistant professor at Rutgers University's School of Criminal Justice who co-authored a study on police killings. Because groups that track the data often cite news reports that rely only on the word of police to establish whether a person was armed or unarmed, 'the data likely over-report the armed status of victims and the danger faced by police,' Edwards said. 'Police have been known to misrepresent the danger presented by suspects,' he said. The data we have is also limited to deaths, said Lorie Fridell, professor of criminology at the University of South Florida. Ideally, she said, we would be able track police use of force more broadly, including force that could be deadly but doesn't turn out to be fatal. Missing context Elder's claim also ignores the fact that the same Washington Post data shows black people are disproportionately shot and killed by police, experts said. 'There may be more unarmed whites than unarmed blacks killed each year, but the rate of shooting unarmed blacks is much larger,' Fridell said, citing a report from the Washington Post that summarized years of findings from its database. Black Americans represent 13% of the U.S. population, the report said, but they accounted for about a quarter of police shooting victims over four and a half years of data collection. 'They're over-represented in the data,' said Brian Burghart, the founder of Fatal Encounters. | Our ruling Elder said: 'Last year, there were nine unarmed black people killed (by law enforcement). Nineteen unarmed white people.' Those numbers matched the Washington Post's tally of fatal shootings by police in the line of duty, although the Washington Post's figures have increased since Elder made his claim. But not all police killings happen when officers are on duty, and not all involve a gunshot. The Washington Post's data doesn't include deaths like Floyd's, for example. Elder's claim also omitted important context: that black people in the U.S. are disproportionately killed by police relative to their share of the population. Overall, Elder's statement contained elements of truth, but it left out important context that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"108173-proof-16-22ef2de766d0497ac8a9ec5dc3579a34.jpg"
]
|
'To children and the vast majority of young and middle-aged adults and the vast majority of teachers, (the coronavirus) poses virtually zero threat. | Contradiction | Fox News host Tucker Carlson downplayed the risk of the coronavirus recently, arguing on his TV show that schools should reopen because, he said, the virus 'poses virtually zero threat' to children and most working adults. 'For children, the risks of staying locked at home are high,' Carlson said in the July 7 segment. 'The risks from the coronavirus, by contrast, are not high.' 'The virus is deadly to the very old and to those who are already sick. We know that,' he continued. 'But to children and the vast majority of young and middle-aged adults and the vast majority of teachers, it poses virtually zero threat.' The risk of death from COVID-19 does increase with age and for people with underlying medical conditions, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. The CDC's demographic data shows that older adults account for the majority of COVID-19 deaths. But 'poses virtually zero threat' is a loaded phrase, experts said. Carlson's language paints a black-and-white picture between death and full recovery. A lot can happen in between those two outcomes. 'COVID is definitely not 'zero threat' in any of these age groups,' said Cindy Prins, a clinical associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida. RELATED: Donald Trump's false claim that 99% of COVID-19 cases are harmless Death is not the only bad outcome Fox News pointed to a handful of studies, articles, state statistics and CDC model estimates that identified children and young adults as less likely to fall severely ill or die from the coronavirus. Case fatality rates do rise with age, a recent CDC report on U.S. cases through May 30 shows. Death is the worst - but least likely - outcome for COVID-19 patients. Counting deaths and calculating fatality rates can be tricky, since deaths due to COVID-19 may be undercounted and epidemiologists still don't know the exact number of people who were infected. The CDC provides age-related data as part of its provisional death counts, which lag by a few weeks because they are based on death certificates. The data through July 4 showed the breakdown of cumulative, confirmed COVID-19 deaths to look like this: 'Among adults, the risk for severe illness from COVID-19 increases with age, with older adults at highest risk,' the CDC says on its website. That doesn't mean there's zero threat facing children and the other age groups. Healthy children can still get and spread the virus, although the CDC says children account for a relatively small share of cases. Working-age adults are susceptible to it, too. RELATED: Some COVID-19 deaths have been children In fact, people between the ages of 18 and 64 represented roughly 75% of all U.S. COVID-19 cases as of July 12, according to CDC data. The average age of teachers in 2017-18, the latest year for which data is available, was about 43 years old, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Across all schools, 15.1% of teachers were under age 30; 55.7% were ages 30 to 49; 11.6% were 50 to 54; and 17.6% were 55 or older. Andrew Noymer, an associate professor of public health at the University of California, Irvine, is on a task force advising a local school district in Orange County, where roughly 24% of COVID-19 deaths as of July 9 were patients between 25 and 64 years old. 'I'm thinking of teachers, teachers aides, school nurses, lunchroom staff, administrators, custodial staff and so on,' Noymer wrote in an email. 'Twenty-four percent of county-wide mortality in this age group is hard to dismiss!' And it's not just a matter of death versus no consequences. By most standards, for example, anything that results in a hospitalization has done significant damage. The likelihood of hospitalization rises with age, according to the CDC, but patients of all ages are at risk. Using data from the recent CDC report on U.S. cases through May 30, we calculated that roughly 7.8% of U.S. COVID-19 patients under the age of 60 were hospitalized in that time, including about 5.3% of patients under 60 who reported no underlying medical conditions. There's also plenty left to learn about the long-term effects of infection, experts said. Donald Thea, professor of global health at Boston University, told us that 'mild disease is oftentimes far from mild and can entail profound and prolonged disability.' Scientists suspect there could be links between mild cases and blood clots, chronic fatigue, strokes and other ailments in young people, according to reports. Doctors have also found some cases in which children previously infected with COVID-19 have developed a rare condition called multisystem inflammatory syndrome. 'The more and more we learn, we're seeing things about what this virus can do that we didn't see from the studies in China or in Europe,' said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, during a May 12 Senate hearing. 'I think we better be careful (that) we are not cavalier in thinking that children are completely immune to the deleterious effects.' We also don't know how schools could change the spread and impact of the coronavirus, said Prins, the University of Florida epidemiologist. 'If you're opening up and sending kids back to school, you're under a whole different set of circumstances.' | Our ruling Carlson said, 'To children and the vast majority of young and middle-aged adults and the vast majority of teachers, (the coronavirus) poses virtually zero threat.' The risk of dying from COVID-19 does increase with age. But Carlson's claim that the virus 'poses virtually zero threat' to the groups he identified ignores the possibility that people from those groups could still wind up sick, hospitalized or facing long-term health conditions. Many teachers are in the particularly vulnerable age groups. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"108174-proof-26-00424b4ca22e2f1e63ff034edbabeb05.jpg"
]
|
'To children and the vast majority of young and middle-aged adults and the vast majority of teachers, (the coronavirus) poses virtually zero threat. | Contradiction | Fox News host Tucker Carlson downplayed the risk of the coronavirus recently, arguing on his TV show that schools should reopen because, he said, the virus 'poses virtually zero threat' to children and most working adults. 'For children, the risks of staying locked at home are high,' Carlson said in the July 7 segment. 'The risks from the coronavirus, by contrast, are not high.' 'The virus is deadly to the very old and to those who are already sick. We know that,' he continued. 'But to children and the vast majority of young and middle-aged adults and the vast majority of teachers, it poses virtually zero threat.' The risk of death from COVID-19 does increase with age and for people with underlying medical conditions, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. The CDC's demographic data shows that older adults account for the majority of COVID-19 deaths. But 'poses virtually zero threat' is a loaded phrase, experts said. Carlson's language paints a black-and-white picture between death and full recovery. A lot can happen in between those two outcomes. 'COVID is definitely not 'zero threat' in any of these age groups,' said Cindy Prins, a clinical associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida. RELATED: Donald Trump's false claim that 99% of COVID-19 cases are harmless Death is not the only bad outcome Fox News pointed to a handful of studies, articles, state statistics and CDC model estimates that identified children and young adults as less likely to fall severely ill or die from the coronavirus. Case fatality rates do rise with age, a recent CDC report on U.S. cases through May 30 shows. Death is the worst - but least likely - outcome for COVID-19 patients. Counting deaths and calculating fatality rates can be tricky, since deaths due to COVID-19 may be undercounted and epidemiologists still don't know the exact number of people who were infected. The CDC provides age-related data as part of its provisional death counts, which lag by a few weeks because they are based on death certificates. The data through July 4 showed the breakdown of cumulative, confirmed COVID-19 deaths to look like this: 'Among adults, the risk for severe illness from COVID-19 increases with age, with older adults at highest risk,' the CDC says on its website. That doesn't mean there's zero threat facing children and the other age groups. Healthy children can still get and spread the virus, although the CDC says children account for a relatively small share of cases. Working-age adults are susceptible to it, too. RELATED: Some COVID-19 deaths have been children In fact, people between the ages of 18 and 64 represented roughly 75% of all U.S. COVID-19 cases as of July 12, according to CDC data. The average age of teachers in 2017-18, the latest year for which data is available, was about 43 years old, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Across all schools, 15.1% of teachers were under age 30; 55.7% were ages 30 to 49; 11.6% were 50 to 54; and 17.6% were 55 or older. Andrew Noymer, an associate professor of public health at the University of California, Irvine, is on a task force advising a local school district in Orange County, where roughly 24% of COVID-19 deaths as of July 9 were patients between 25 and 64 years old. 'I'm thinking of teachers, teachers aides, school nurses, lunchroom staff, administrators, custodial staff and so on,' Noymer wrote in an email. 'Twenty-four percent of county-wide mortality in this age group is hard to dismiss!' And it's not just a matter of death versus no consequences. By most standards, for example, anything that results in a hospitalization has done significant damage. The likelihood of hospitalization rises with age, according to the CDC, but patients of all ages are at risk. Using data from the recent CDC report on U.S. cases through May 30, we calculated that roughly 7.8% of U.S. COVID-19 patients under the age of 60 were hospitalized in that time, including about 5.3% of patients under 60 who reported no underlying medical conditions. There's also plenty left to learn about the long-term effects of infection, experts said. Donald Thea, professor of global health at Boston University, told us that 'mild disease is oftentimes far from mild and can entail profound and prolonged disability.' Scientists suspect there could be links between mild cases and blood clots, chronic fatigue, strokes and other ailments in young people, according to reports. Doctors have also found some cases in which children previously infected with COVID-19 have developed a rare condition called multisystem inflammatory syndrome. 'The more and more we learn, we're seeing things about what this virus can do that we didn't see from the studies in China or in Europe,' said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, during a May 12 Senate hearing. 'I think we better be careful (that) we are not cavalier in thinking that children are completely immune to the deleterious effects.' We also don't know how schools could change the spread and impact of the coronavirus, said Prins, the University of Florida epidemiologist. 'If you're opening up and sending kids back to school, you're under a whole different set of circumstances.' | Our ruling Carlson said, 'To children and the vast majority of young and middle-aged adults and the vast majority of teachers, (the coronavirus) poses virtually zero threat.' The risk of dying from COVID-19 does increase with age. But Carlson's claim that the virus 'poses virtually zero threat' to the groups he identified ignores the possibility that people from those groups could still wind up sick, hospitalized or facing long-term health conditions. Many teachers are in the particularly vulnerable age groups. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"108174-proof-26-00424b4ca22e2f1e63ff034edbabeb05.jpg"
]
|
'To children and the vast majority of young and middle-aged adults and the vast majority of teachers, (the coronavirus) poses virtually zero threat. | Contradiction | Fox News host Tucker Carlson downplayed the risk of the coronavirus recently, arguing on his TV show that schools should reopen because, he said, the virus 'poses virtually zero threat' to children and most working adults. 'For children, the risks of staying locked at home are high,' Carlson said in the July 7 segment. 'The risks from the coronavirus, by contrast, are not high.' 'The virus is deadly to the very old and to those who are already sick. We know that,' he continued. 'But to children and the vast majority of young and middle-aged adults and the vast majority of teachers, it poses virtually zero threat.' The risk of death from COVID-19 does increase with age and for people with underlying medical conditions, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says. The CDC's demographic data shows that older adults account for the majority of COVID-19 deaths. But 'poses virtually zero threat' is a loaded phrase, experts said. Carlson's language paints a black-and-white picture between death and full recovery. A lot can happen in between those two outcomes. 'COVID is definitely not 'zero threat' in any of these age groups,' said Cindy Prins, a clinical associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida. RELATED: Donald Trump's false claim that 99% of COVID-19 cases are harmless Death is not the only bad outcome Fox News pointed to a handful of studies, articles, state statistics and CDC model estimates that identified children and young adults as less likely to fall severely ill or die from the coronavirus. Case fatality rates do rise with age, a recent CDC report on U.S. cases through May 30 shows. Death is the worst - but least likely - outcome for COVID-19 patients. Counting deaths and calculating fatality rates can be tricky, since deaths due to COVID-19 may be undercounted and epidemiologists still don't know the exact number of people who were infected. The CDC provides age-related data as part of its provisional death counts, which lag by a few weeks because they are based on death certificates. The data through July 4 showed the breakdown of cumulative, confirmed COVID-19 deaths to look like this: 'Among adults, the risk for severe illness from COVID-19 increases with age, with older adults at highest risk,' the CDC says on its website. That doesn't mean there's zero threat facing children and the other age groups. Healthy children can still get and spread the virus, although the CDC says children account for a relatively small share of cases. Working-age adults are susceptible to it, too. RELATED: Some COVID-19 deaths have been children In fact, people between the ages of 18 and 64 represented roughly 75% of all U.S. COVID-19 cases as of July 12, according to CDC data. The average age of teachers in 2017-18, the latest year for which data is available, was about 43 years old, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Across all schools, 15.1% of teachers were under age 30; 55.7% were ages 30 to 49; 11.6% were 50 to 54; and 17.6% were 55 or older. Andrew Noymer, an associate professor of public health at the University of California, Irvine, is on a task force advising a local school district in Orange County, where roughly 24% of COVID-19 deaths as of July 9 were patients between 25 and 64 years old. 'I'm thinking of teachers, teachers aides, school nurses, lunchroom staff, administrators, custodial staff and so on,' Noymer wrote in an email. 'Twenty-four percent of county-wide mortality in this age group is hard to dismiss!' And it's not just a matter of death versus no consequences. By most standards, for example, anything that results in a hospitalization has done significant damage. The likelihood of hospitalization rises with age, according to the CDC, but patients of all ages are at risk. Using data from the recent CDC report on U.S. cases through May 30, we calculated that roughly 7.8% of U.S. COVID-19 patients under the age of 60 were hospitalized in that time, including about 5.3% of patients under 60 who reported no underlying medical conditions. There's also plenty left to learn about the long-term effects of infection, experts said. Donald Thea, professor of global health at Boston University, told us that 'mild disease is oftentimes far from mild and can entail profound and prolonged disability.' Scientists suspect there could be links between mild cases and blood clots, chronic fatigue, strokes and other ailments in young people, according to reports. Doctors have also found some cases in which children previously infected with COVID-19 have developed a rare condition called multisystem inflammatory syndrome. 'The more and more we learn, we're seeing things about what this virus can do that we didn't see from the studies in China or in Europe,' said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, during a May 12 Senate hearing. 'I think we better be careful (that) we are not cavalier in thinking that children are completely immune to the deleterious effects.' We also don't know how schools could change the spread and impact of the coronavirus, said Prins, the University of Florida epidemiologist. 'If you're opening up and sending kids back to school, you're under a whole different set of circumstances.' | Our ruling Carlson said, 'To children and the vast majority of young and middle-aged adults and the vast majority of teachers, (the coronavirus) poses virtually zero threat.' The risk of dying from COVID-19 does increase with age. But Carlson's claim that the virus 'poses virtually zero threat' to the groups he identified ignores the possibility that people from those groups could still wind up sick, hospitalized or facing long-term health conditions. Many teachers are in the particularly vulnerable age groups. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"108174-proof-26-00424b4ca22e2f1e63ff034edbabeb05.jpg"
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.