Datasets:
tingchih
/
EM

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
claim
stringlengths
4
479
label
stringclasses
3 values
origin
stringlengths
3
44.1k
evidence
stringlengths
3
19.1k
images
list
'Herd immunity has been reached.
Contradiction
Sharing a graph of COVID-19 testing trends in the United States, a recent Facebook post claims that 'HERD IMMUNITY HAS BEEN REACHED.' 'In fact,' the post says, 'it was probably reached in May.' The post points to two 'bumps' in the data. The first bump, it says, reflects when at-risk patients were tested for COVID-19 in hospitals. The second bump reflects when testing became more available to more people, according to the post. 'We're looking at the downward trend of that second bump,' the post says. 'Ask any biostatistician what it means when you test hundreds of thousands of people a day for an infectious disease and return a consistently lowering positivity rate. I'll give you a clue: it means heard immunity has been reached and the virus is dying out.' (The misspelling of 'herd' is in the original post.) This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We'll cut to the chase before drilling down into the details: No, we have not reached herd immunity, a subject we've written about before. Scientists generally say herd immunity could play a role in curbing the spread of the coronavirus before a vaccine becomes available. The idea is that once a disease infects enough people in a community, if the infection confers immunity, then there are fewer people left who can still transmit the disease, so the spread slows. For the coronavirus, scientists estimate herd immunity will probably be reached when 60% to 70% of the population has been infected. The graph featured in the Facebook post shows daily changes in COVID-19 tests performed in the United States and test positivity rates over the months. It's available on Johns Hopkins University's website. But Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins, said it 'cannot in any way be used to assess whether or not we've achieved herd immunity.' The Facebook post, she said, is a 'completely inappropriate interpretation of what it's showing.' Rather, she said, test positivity is a measure specialists use to gauge whether a community is conducting enough testing. Because the rate of people testing positive for COVID-19 can change depending on the number of tests administered, it doesn't necessarily reflect how many people are becoming infected. Low positivity rates, for example, could result from simply testing a large number of uninfected people, she said. Plus, asymptomatic people who are infected and possibly spreading the disease may never get tested. Scientists use serological surveys of a representative sample of the population to estimate what fraction of a community has likely been infected with COVID-19, Nuzzo said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has done this, and according to its most recent findings, 'no one is near herd immunity, even in the hardest-hit places in the United States.' 'Other countries, including places like Sweden that have not implemented the same level of shutdowns like the United States - their surveys say the same thing: that the vast majority of us remain susceptible to this virus,' she said. We contacted several other specialists for help parsing the claims in the Facebook post. We even asked a biostatistician, as the post suggested. 'This post is not accurate,' said Natalie Dean, a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida. Because test positivity is low in some areas, like New York, and high in others, like Florida, it's 'not particularly meaningful to look at the entire United States as one unit,' she said. 'While numbers in some of the hotspot states appear to be stabilizing, it is hard to know for sure, because testing capacity is strained and there are significant backlogs.' That makes daily positivity numbers less reliable. Still, she said, decreasing 911 calls for respiratory distress in some cities and indicate that the spread of COVID-19 is slowing down. That's likely due to policy and behavioral changes in different communities. But broadly in the United States, COVID-19 is 'spreading like wildfire,' said Andrew Noymer, a population health and disease prevention professor at the University of California-Irvine. When testing increases, the percentage of positive tests can decrease simply because more people are being tested, he said. 'So percent positive testing going down doesn't mean anything.' The Facebook post, he said, 'is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo.' Jaquelin Dudley, a professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin, said it's possible there are areas where herd immunity has been established, 'but there are still many unknowns, including lack of testing for asymptomatic individuals or missing the right point during infection for testing.' At this point, though, we can't accurately predict a timeline for when there will be herd immunity throughout the United States, she said. We rate this Facebook post False.
We rate this Facebook post False.
[]
'Herd immunity has been reached.
Contradiction
Sharing a graph of COVID-19 testing trends in the United States, a recent Facebook post claims that 'HERD IMMUNITY HAS BEEN REACHED.' 'In fact,' the post says, 'it was probably reached in May.' The post points to two 'bumps' in the data. The first bump, it says, reflects when at-risk patients were tested for COVID-19 in hospitals. The second bump reflects when testing became more available to more people, according to the post. 'We're looking at the downward trend of that second bump,' the post says. 'Ask any biostatistician what it means when you test hundreds of thousands of people a day for an infectious disease and return a consistently lowering positivity rate. I'll give you a clue: it means heard immunity has been reached and the virus is dying out.' (The misspelling of 'herd' is in the original post.) This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We'll cut to the chase before drilling down into the details: No, we have not reached herd immunity, a subject we've written about before. Scientists generally say herd immunity could play a role in curbing the spread of the coronavirus before a vaccine becomes available. The idea is that once a disease infects enough people in a community, if the infection confers immunity, then there are fewer people left who can still transmit the disease, so the spread slows. For the coronavirus, scientists estimate herd immunity will probably be reached when 60% to 70% of the population has been infected. The graph featured in the Facebook post shows daily changes in COVID-19 tests performed in the United States and test positivity rates over the months. It's available on Johns Hopkins University's website. But Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins, said it 'cannot in any way be used to assess whether or not we've achieved herd immunity.' The Facebook post, she said, is a 'completely inappropriate interpretation of what it's showing.' Rather, she said, test positivity is a measure specialists use to gauge whether a community is conducting enough testing. Because the rate of people testing positive for COVID-19 can change depending on the number of tests administered, it doesn't necessarily reflect how many people are becoming infected. Low positivity rates, for example, could result from simply testing a large number of uninfected people, she said. Plus, asymptomatic people who are infected and possibly spreading the disease may never get tested. Scientists use serological surveys of a representative sample of the population to estimate what fraction of a community has likely been infected with COVID-19, Nuzzo said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has done this, and according to its most recent findings, 'no one is near herd immunity, even in the hardest-hit places in the United States.' 'Other countries, including places like Sweden that have not implemented the same level of shutdowns like the United States - their surveys say the same thing: that the vast majority of us remain susceptible to this virus,' she said. We contacted several other specialists for help parsing the claims in the Facebook post. We even asked a biostatistician, as the post suggested. 'This post is not accurate,' said Natalie Dean, a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida. Because test positivity is low in some areas, like New York, and high in others, like Florida, it's 'not particularly meaningful to look at the entire United States as one unit,' she said. 'While numbers in some of the hotspot states appear to be stabilizing, it is hard to know for sure, because testing capacity is strained and there are significant backlogs.' That makes daily positivity numbers less reliable. Still, she said, decreasing 911 calls for respiratory distress in some cities and indicate that the spread of COVID-19 is slowing down. That's likely due to policy and behavioral changes in different communities. But broadly in the United States, COVID-19 is 'spreading like wildfire,' said Andrew Noymer, a population health and disease prevention professor at the University of California-Irvine. When testing increases, the percentage of positive tests can decrease simply because more people are being tested, he said. 'So percent positive testing going down doesn't mean anything.' The Facebook post, he said, 'is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo.' Jaquelin Dudley, a professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin, said it's possible there are areas where herd immunity has been established, 'but there are still many unknowns, including lack of testing for asymptomatic individuals or missing the right point during infection for testing.' At this point, though, we can't accurately predict a timeline for when there will be herd immunity throughout the United States, she said. We rate this Facebook post False.
We rate this Facebook post False.
[]
Bernie Sanders has 'never taken corporate lobbyist money in his *entire political career.
Contradiction
Bernie Sanders is fond of calling his presidential campaign a grass-roots movement that rejects money from big-business interests. But one of the Vermont senator's top supporters, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., went a step further than the candidate himself in describing his disdain for corporate cash. 'One major reason I support Bernie is his consistency when things are hard. Not only does Bernie reject corporate money in 2020, he's also never taken corporate lobbyist money in his *entire political career*,' Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, using asterisks for emphasis. 'He is a real one. And in politics, that is nearly impossible to find.' Sanders never once took corporate lobbyist money? That's not the case. During the 2016 presidential campaign, when Sanders finished as runner-up to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, it was reported that Sanders had received money from nearly two dozen registered federal lobbyists, including one from the National Mining Association. And figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan nonprofit that tracks federal campaign contributions, show Sanders has received $3.35 million from 'lawyers and lobbyists' since 1989. 'Corporate lobbyist' isn't a precise term. But we can check Ocasio-Cortez's claim based on whether Sanders has ever taken contributions from lobbyists who represent corporations, even if they amount to only a tiny percentage of all his campaign money. In fact, there have been a number of such instances, dating back more than a decade. In his current campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sanders has received contributions from at least two federally registered lobbyists. They include $100 from EY lobbyist Dave Koshgarian, whose clients include Boeing Co., MetLife Inc. and New York Life Insurance; and $27 from Netflix lobbyist Josh Korn. The center told us it has not done a more complete analysis of lobbyist contributions to Sanders. But we found that some larger donations were made in previous campaigns. Among those listed in Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign filings with the Federal Election Commission: Oscar Ramirez, then a lobbyist with the Podesta Group: $650. Ramirez's 2016 clients included Google holding company Alphabet, Oracle Corp. and the American Health Care Association, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Michael Correia, lobbyist for the National Cannabis Industry Association, whose members include corporations: $500. Amanda Aspatore, lobbyist for the National Mining Association, which represents corporations involved in mining: $250. Sanders campaign spokeswoman Sarah Ford told the Washington Post in September 2019: 'In 2016, we held zero closed-door fundraisers with high-dollar donors and accepted no donations from corporate PACs, corporate lobbyists or super PACs.' There are also a number of corporate lobbyists who gave to Sanders in his campaigns for the Senate. Some examples: Jeffrey Forbes, whose 2006 clients included AT&T, Northwest Airlines and Amgen Inc.; 2006 contributions: $2,000. Martin Paone, whose 2009 clients included the American Council of Life Insurers, the American Petroleum Institute and Anheuser-Busch InBev; contributions in 2009 ($500) and 2011 ($1,000). William Frymoyer, whose 2006 clients included the U.S. Business & Industry Council, the Florida Trade Council and Gates Corp.; contributions in 2006: $250. Representatives for Ocasio-Cortez and for Sanders' campaign did not reply to our requests for information.
Our ruling Ocasio-Cortez said Sanders has 'never taken corporate lobbyist money in his entire political career.' In at least a few cases during his campaigns for Senate and president, Sanders did accept contributions in the hundreds of dollars, or thousands, from registered lobbyists who represent corporations. We rate the statement False.
[ "108807-proof-22-3bdf4c70e4fa35459314030ffe222ed1.jpg" ]
Bernie Sanders has 'never taken corporate lobbyist money in his *entire political career.
Contradiction
Bernie Sanders is fond of calling his presidential campaign a grass-roots movement that rejects money from big-business interests. But one of the Vermont senator's top supporters, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., went a step further than the candidate himself in describing his disdain for corporate cash. 'One major reason I support Bernie is his consistency when things are hard. Not only does Bernie reject corporate money in 2020, he's also never taken corporate lobbyist money in his *entire political career*,' Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, using asterisks for emphasis. 'He is a real one. And in politics, that is nearly impossible to find.' Sanders never once took corporate lobbyist money? That's not the case. During the 2016 presidential campaign, when Sanders finished as runner-up to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, it was reported that Sanders had received money from nearly two dozen registered federal lobbyists, including one from the National Mining Association. And figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan nonprofit that tracks federal campaign contributions, show Sanders has received $3.35 million from 'lawyers and lobbyists' since 1989. 'Corporate lobbyist' isn't a precise term. But we can check Ocasio-Cortez's claim based on whether Sanders has ever taken contributions from lobbyists who represent corporations, even if they amount to only a tiny percentage of all his campaign money. In fact, there have been a number of such instances, dating back more than a decade. In his current campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sanders has received contributions from at least two federally registered lobbyists. They include $100 from EY lobbyist Dave Koshgarian, whose clients include Boeing Co., MetLife Inc. and New York Life Insurance; and $27 from Netflix lobbyist Josh Korn. The center told us it has not done a more complete analysis of lobbyist contributions to Sanders. But we found that some larger donations were made in previous campaigns. Among those listed in Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign filings with the Federal Election Commission: Oscar Ramirez, then a lobbyist with the Podesta Group: $650. Ramirez's 2016 clients included Google holding company Alphabet, Oracle Corp. and the American Health Care Association, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Michael Correia, lobbyist for the National Cannabis Industry Association, whose members include corporations: $500. Amanda Aspatore, lobbyist for the National Mining Association, which represents corporations involved in mining: $250. Sanders campaign spokeswoman Sarah Ford told the Washington Post in September 2019: 'In 2016, we held zero closed-door fundraisers with high-dollar donors and accepted no donations from corporate PACs, corporate lobbyists or super PACs.' There are also a number of corporate lobbyists who gave to Sanders in his campaigns for the Senate. Some examples: Jeffrey Forbes, whose 2006 clients included AT&T, Northwest Airlines and Amgen Inc.; 2006 contributions: $2,000. Martin Paone, whose 2009 clients included the American Council of Life Insurers, the American Petroleum Institute and Anheuser-Busch InBev; contributions in 2009 ($500) and 2011 ($1,000). William Frymoyer, whose 2006 clients included the U.S. Business & Industry Council, the Florida Trade Council and Gates Corp.; contributions in 2006: $250. Representatives for Ocasio-Cortez and for Sanders' campaign did not reply to our requests for information.
Our ruling Ocasio-Cortez said Sanders has 'never taken corporate lobbyist money in his entire political career.' In at least a few cases during his campaigns for Senate and president, Sanders did accept contributions in the hundreds of dollars, or thousands, from registered lobbyists who represent corporations. We rate the statement False.
[ "108807-proof-22-3bdf4c70e4fa35459314030ffe222ed1.jpg" ]
Says the photo ID law passed by North Carolina lawmakers is 'one of the nation's most lenient voter ID laws.
Contradiction
When it comes to voter identification, North Carolina's efforts have stopped and stalled over the course of the decade. In 2013, the state enacted a law requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls. But in 2016, the law was struck down by a federal appeals court. In 2018, state lawmakers put the idea of photo ID on the November ballot. Voters supported the measure, so the GOP-controlled legislature approved a new law that December. Fast forward to the present day. A federal court blocked the state's new law in order to hear arguments that the law would deter black and Latino residents. Republicans responded with outrage, arguing that their law provides ample opportunity for voters to acquire proper identification. In a press release, House Speaker Tim Moore described the law as 'one of the nation's most lenient voter ID laws - which 34 states already have.' Is it true that North Carolina has one of the 'most lenient voter ID laws' in the country? Not quite. Photo vs. non-photo ID In the context of requiring identification at the polls, specific words are extremely important. The term 'voter ID' is an all-encompassing description that could refer to any form of identification, photo or not. For this fact check, we relied heavily on information from the National Conference of State Legislatures, a nonpartisan group that tracks state laws. The NCSL says there are 36 states that have voter ID laws, but only about half of those states require voters to display a form of photo ID. (In Ohio, for instance, voters can show a utility bill or bank statement, among other things.) The NCSL separates photo ID laws from other voter ID laws, then describes each law as 'strict' or 'non-strict.' The NCSL considers states to have 'non-strict' photo ID laws if they offer voters more than one way to cast their ballot without showing photo ID. We found that North Carolina's photo ID law is lenient compared to other photo ID laws -- but not compared to the 18 states with ID laws that don't require a photo ID. A special provision When it comes to photo ID states, seven have strict laws and 11 states have non-strict laws. Even though its not currently being implemented, North Carolina's photo ID law falls into the 'non-strict' category, said Wendy Underhill, a spokeswoman for the NCSL. The Tar Heel state's law would require voters to show a photo ID at the polls, but it gives voters several options for compliance. For instance, if the photo ID law were in place and a North Carolinian showed up to vote without a photo ID, he or she would be allowed to fill out a 'Reasonable Impediment Declaration Form.' The voter would be exempt from the law if the county elections board found that the voter had: If none of these scenarios were the case, the voter could write an explanation that would be reviewed by the local elections board. Comparing photo ID laws North Carolina's photo ID law also offers options that several other 'non-strict' states don't. PolitiFact reviewed the following laws with Underhill. Unlike NC, South Dakota doesn't accept military and veteran cards. Unlike NC, Michigan doesn't accept passports. Unlike NC, South Carolina doesn't accept student ID cards. Michigan and Florida specifically require the ID to be 'current.' Rhode Island only allows IDs expired for six months while North Carolina allows one year. Among states that require photo ID at the polls, North Carolina may indeed have one of the most lenient laws. But remember: that's not what Moore claimed. Moore said North Carolina's voter ID law is 'one of the nation's most lenient voter ID laws - which 34 states already have.' That indicates he's comparing NC's law to non-photo ID states. And in that sense, Moore's claim is inaccurate. The photo ID 'burden' For some people, having to acquire a photo ID is a burden, said Ted Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the UNC Center for Civil Rights. Shaw is also the former Director-Counsel and President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. And the requirement alone -- even with the reasonable impediment provision -- might be enough to keep some people from voting, he said. Shaw noted that 25 percent of black voters lack government-issued photo IDs -- a claim PolitiFact has found to be Mostly True. Even if North Carolina offers photo ID cards for free, Shaw said some people don't have the documents that might be needed to secure those cards. 'Take birth certificates. My grandmother searched for years for her birth certificate. The courthouse burned down when she was young,' Shaw said. Compared to other photo IDs, North Carolina's law might look lenient on paper. But it's hard to tell just how well it might work without seeing it put to the test, said Max Feldman, counsel for the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Citing a Caltech/MIT study, the ACLU says photo ID laws are sometimes enforced in a discriminatory manner. The study 'found that minority voters are more frequently questioned about ID than are white voters,' the ACLU says. 'I think the reasonable impediment declaration is a distinguishing characteristic,' Feldman said of North Carolina's law. 'The inclusion of student IDs is also good,' he said. 'But it depends on how the law will be implemented.'
Our ruling Moore described the law as 'one of the nation's most lenient voter ID laws - which 34 states already have.' This is misleading because it gives the impression that 34 other states have photo ID laws like North Carolina's. But that's not true. North Carolina's law is lenient compared to other states that require photo IDs. But not compared to the 18 states that don't require photo IDs. Moore's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
[ "108811-proof-07-832edb5e4811a4bfe90d9d061db7057d.jpg" ]
Says the photo ID law passed by North Carolina lawmakers is 'one of the nation's most lenient voter ID laws.
Contradiction
When it comes to voter identification, North Carolina's efforts have stopped and stalled over the course of the decade. In 2013, the state enacted a law requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls. But in 2016, the law was struck down by a federal appeals court. In 2018, state lawmakers put the idea of photo ID on the November ballot. Voters supported the measure, so the GOP-controlled legislature approved a new law that December. Fast forward to the present day. A federal court blocked the state's new law in order to hear arguments that the law would deter black and Latino residents. Republicans responded with outrage, arguing that their law provides ample opportunity for voters to acquire proper identification. In a press release, House Speaker Tim Moore described the law as 'one of the nation's most lenient voter ID laws - which 34 states already have.' Is it true that North Carolina has one of the 'most lenient voter ID laws' in the country? Not quite. Photo vs. non-photo ID In the context of requiring identification at the polls, specific words are extremely important. The term 'voter ID' is an all-encompassing description that could refer to any form of identification, photo or not. For this fact check, we relied heavily on information from the National Conference of State Legislatures, a nonpartisan group that tracks state laws. The NCSL says there are 36 states that have voter ID laws, but only about half of those states require voters to display a form of photo ID. (In Ohio, for instance, voters can show a utility bill or bank statement, among other things.) The NCSL separates photo ID laws from other voter ID laws, then describes each law as 'strict' or 'non-strict.' The NCSL considers states to have 'non-strict' photo ID laws if they offer voters more than one way to cast their ballot without showing photo ID. We found that North Carolina's photo ID law is lenient compared to other photo ID laws -- but not compared to the 18 states with ID laws that don't require a photo ID. A special provision When it comes to photo ID states, seven have strict laws and 11 states have non-strict laws. Even though its not currently being implemented, North Carolina's photo ID law falls into the 'non-strict' category, said Wendy Underhill, a spokeswoman for the NCSL. The Tar Heel state's law would require voters to show a photo ID at the polls, but it gives voters several options for compliance. For instance, if the photo ID law were in place and a North Carolinian showed up to vote without a photo ID, he or she would be allowed to fill out a 'Reasonable Impediment Declaration Form.' The voter would be exempt from the law if the county elections board found that the voter had: If none of these scenarios were the case, the voter could write an explanation that would be reviewed by the local elections board. Comparing photo ID laws North Carolina's photo ID law also offers options that several other 'non-strict' states don't. PolitiFact reviewed the following laws with Underhill. Unlike NC, South Dakota doesn't accept military and veteran cards. Unlike NC, Michigan doesn't accept passports. Unlike NC, South Carolina doesn't accept student ID cards. Michigan and Florida specifically require the ID to be 'current.' Rhode Island only allows IDs expired for six months while North Carolina allows one year. Among states that require photo ID at the polls, North Carolina may indeed have one of the most lenient laws. But remember: that's not what Moore claimed. Moore said North Carolina's voter ID law is 'one of the nation's most lenient voter ID laws - which 34 states already have.' That indicates he's comparing NC's law to non-photo ID states. And in that sense, Moore's claim is inaccurate. The photo ID 'burden' For some people, having to acquire a photo ID is a burden, said Ted Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the UNC Center for Civil Rights. Shaw is also the former Director-Counsel and President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. And the requirement alone -- even with the reasonable impediment provision -- might be enough to keep some people from voting, he said. Shaw noted that 25 percent of black voters lack government-issued photo IDs -- a claim PolitiFact has found to be Mostly True. Even if North Carolina offers photo ID cards for free, Shaw said some people don't have the documents that might be needed to secure those cards. 'Take birth certificates. My grandmother searched for years for her birth certificate. The courthouse burned down when she was young,' Shaw said. Compared to other photo IDs, North Carolina's law might look lenient on paper. But it's hard to tell just how well it might work without seeing it put to the test, said Max Feldman, counsel for the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Citing a Caltech/MIT study, the ACLU says photo ID laws are sometimes enforced in a discriminatory manner. The study 'found that minority voters are more frequently questioned about ID than are white voters,' the ACLU says. 'I think the reasonable impediment declaration is a distinguishing characteristic,' Feldman said of North Carolina's law. 'The inclusion of student IDs is also good,' he said. 'But it depends on how the law will be implemented.'
Our ruling Moore described the law as 'one of the nation's most lenient voter ID laws - which 34 states already have.' This is misleading because it gives the impression that 34 other states have photo ID laws like North Carolina's. But that's not true. North Carolina's law is lenient compared to other states that require photo IDs. But not compared to the 18 states that don't require photo IDs. Moore's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
[ "108811-proof-07-832edb5e4811a4bfe90d9d061db7057d.jpg" ]
Says the photo ID law passed by North Carolina lawmakers is 'one of the nation's most lenient voter ID laws.
Contradiction
When it comes to voter identification, North Carolina's efforts have stopped and stalled over the course of the decade. In 2013, the state enacted a law requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls. But in 2016, the law was struck down by a federal appeals court. In 2018, state lawmakers put the idea of photo ID on the November ballot. Voters supported the measure, so the GOP-controlled legislature approved a new law that December. Fast forward to the present day. A federal court blocked the state's new law in order to hear arguments that the law would deter black and Latino residents. Republicans responded with outrage, arguing that their law provides ample opportunity for voters to acquire proper identification. In a press release, House Speaker Tim Moore described the law as 'one of the nation's most lenient voter ID laws - which 34 states already have.' Is it true that North Carolina has one of the 'most lenient voter ID laws' in the country? Not quite. Photo vs. non-photo ID In the context of requiring identification at the polls, specific words are extremely important. The term 'voter ID' is an all-encompassing description that could refer to any form of identification, photo or not. For this fact check, we relied heavily on information from the National Conference of State Legislatures, a nonpartisan group that tracks state laws. The NCSL says there are 36 states that have voter ID laws, but only about half of those states require voters to display a form of photo ID. (In Ohio, for instance, voters can show a utility bill or bank statement, among other things.) The NCSL separates photo ID laws from other voter ID laws, then describes each law as 'strict' or 'non-strict.' The NCSL considers states to have 'non-strict' photo ID laws if they offer voters more than one way to cast their ballot without showing photo ID. We found that North Carolina's photo ID law is lenient compared to other photo ID laws -- but not compared to the 18 states with ID laws that don't require a photo ID. A special provision When it comes to photo ID states, seven have strict laws and 11 states have non-strict laws. Even though its not currently being implemented, North Carolina's photo ID law falls into the 'non-strict' category, said Wendy Underhill, a spokeswoman for the NCSL. The Tar Heel state's law would require voters to show a photo ID at the polls, but it gives voters several options for compliance. For instance, if the photo ID law were in place and a North Carolinian showed up to vote without a photo ID, he or she would be allowed to fill out a 'Reasonable Impediment Declaration Form.' The voter would be exempt from the law if the county elections board found that the voter had: If none of these scenarios were the case, the voter could write an explanation that would be reviewed by the local elections board. Comparing photo ID laws North Carolina's photo ID law also offers options that several other 'non-strict' states don't. PolitiFact reviewed the following laws with Underhill. Unlike NC, South Dakota doesn't accept military and veteran cards. Unlike NC, Michigan doesn't accept passports. Unlike NC, South Carolina doesn't accept student ID cards. Michigan and Florida specifically require the ID to be 'current.' Rhode Island only allows IDs expired for six months while North Carolina allows one year. Among states that require photo ID at the polls, North Carolina may indeed have one of the most lenient laws. But remember: that's not what Moore claimed. Moore said North Carolina's voter ID law is 'one of the nation's most lenient voter ID laws - which 34 states already have.' That indicates he's comparing NC's law to non-photo ID states. And in that sense, Moore's claim is inaccurate. The photo ID 'burden' For some people, having to acquire a photo ID is a burden, said Ted Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the UNC Center for Civil Rights. Shaw is also the former Director-Counsel and President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. And the requirement alone -- even with the reasonable impediment provision -- might be enough to keep some people from voting, he said. Shaw noted that 25 percent of black voters lack government-issued photo IDs -- a claim PolitiFact has found to be Mostly True. Even if North Carolina offers photo ID cards for free, Shaw said some people don't have the documents that might be needed to secure those cards. 'Take birth certificates. My grandmother searched for years for her birth certificate. The courthouse burned down when she was young,' Shaw said. Compared to other photo IDs, North Carolina's law might look lenient on paper. But it's hard to tell just how well it might work without seeing it put to the test, said Max Feldman, counsel for the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Citing a Caltech/MIT study, the ACLU says photo ID laws are sometimes enforced in a discriminatory manner. The study 'found that minority voters are more frequently questioned about ID than are white voters,' the ACLU says. 'I think the reasonable impediment declaration is a distinguishing characteristic,' Feldman said of North Carolina's law. 'The inclusion of student IDs is also good,' he said. 'But it depends on how the law will be implemented.'
Our ruling Moore described the law as 'one of the nation's most lenient voter ID laws - which 34 states already have.' This is misleading because it gives the impression that 34 other states have photo ID laws like North Carolina's. But that's not true. North Carolina's law is lenient compared to other states that require photo IDs. But not compared to the 18 states that don't require photo IDs. Moore's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
[ "108811-proof-07-832edb5e4811a4bfe90d9d061db7057d.jpg" ]
NC liquor stores were deemed essential 'because we have a lot of people who are chemically dependent on alcohol and if we suddenly cut off their access they would go into withdrawal and flood the emergency rooms.
Contradiction
To limit the spread of coronavirus, authorities are asking some businesses to close and allowing some to stay open. That's the case in North Carolina, where Gov. Roy Cooper has issued a stay-at-home order and deemed some businesses 'essential.' Gas stations, grocery stores and home supply stores like Home Depot are among the businesses considered essential and allowed to stay open. North Carolina's state-run liquor stores are also considered essential. Why? NC state Sen. Jeff Jackson, a Democrat from Mecklenburg County, recently addressed that question on Twitter. 'Why are liquor stores still open?' Jackson asked rhetorically in an April 6 tweet. 'It's because we have a lot of people who are chemically dependent on alcohol and if we suddenly cut off their access they would go into withdrawal and flood the emergency rooms, which we can't have right now,' he said. Is that true? What state officials say The governor's office is in charge of designating which businesses are 'essential' and allowed to stay open. But Cooper's executive order didn't offer a reason why liquor stores or any other businesses are considered essential. Kelly Haight Connor, spokeswoman for North Carolina's Department of Health and Human Services, told PolitiFact in an email that the reasoning was simple. 'People need to stay home as much as possible. And while restaurants, bars and other areas of communal gathering must be closed, people should be able to buy items used in their day to day lives,' she said. PolitiFact could find no proof that Cooper's decision to designate liquor stores as essential businesses was made to accommodate people who might be dependent on alcohol. Further, if liquor stores were hypothetically asked to close, North Carolinians could still access alcohol in the form of wine and beer at grocery stores. When we reached out to Jackson about this claim, his office noted that individual ABC boards across the state have the flexibility to decide whether or not they want to remain open. Jeff Strickland, a spokesman for the ABC Commission, confirmed each of the state's 170 boards does, indeed, have that freedom. 'If a board wants to close down, they have that authority,' Strickland said. The commission doesn't have an official stance on why its stores should or shouldn't remain open, he added. What some ABC owners say To that end, Jackson's office pointed out that some ABC store operators have cited alcohol dependency as a reason for staying open. Jackson's office emailed us an article by WLOS in Asheville, where local ABC manager Jason Thacker told WLOS that he's heard concerns about overwhelming hospitals. 'Studies show that abruptly limiting access to alcohol could lead to an increase in withdrawal for people with severe alcohol use disorder and add to the burden of the health care system, which is the last thing that needs to happen right now,' Thacker told WLOS. Jackson's office also provided links to stories about why liquor stores are being kept open in other states such as Connecticut, New Jersey and Texas. In Connecticut, for example, Gov. Ned Lamont said there's a medical reason behind the exemption for liquor stores. 'I think the thought process by the (Connecticut) governor is that if we do close the liquor stores this could create an unnecessary problem and really cut off a needed resource,' Dr. Andrew Lim, the medical director of Bristol Hospital's Emergency Department, told NBC News in Connecticut. However, addiction specialists aren't unified in their belief that liquor store access will prevent emergency room admissions. John Watkins, who owns Johnston Counseling Services, told WRAL that people who are physically dependent on alcohol could suffer withdrawal symptoms in less than a day if they can't access it. But Ward Blanchard, president of The Blanchard Institute addiction recovery center in Charlotte, told Spectrum News that leaving ABC stores open could also lead to ER admissions. He said some who are dependent on alcohol could, if left alone with high volumes of it, go overboard. 'When you are in a situation where people are isolated and there is already stress and anxiety, and then you throw liquor on top of that, I think that would overthrow a healthcare system more so than closing it would,' Blanchard said.
Our ruling Jackson said liquor stores are still open because 'we have a lot of people who are chemically dependent on alcohol and if we suddenly cut off their access they would go into withdrawal and flood the emergency rooms, which we can't have right now.' Gov. Cooper is responsible for determining which businesses are considered essential, and his administration hasn't mentioned alcohol dependency as a reason for the designation. The only evidence Jackson cited was an ABC operations manager in Asheville who said some store owners are concerned about closures potentially affecting the hospital system. But it's not clear that that concern is shared among all 170 ABC store owners. Jackson's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression about North Carolina's Executive Order. We rate it Mostly False.
[ "108829-proof-09-88a9b28d392f8e9bdaf7e70ea6e1861f.jpg" ]
NC liquor stores were deemed essential 'because we have a lot of people who are chemically dependent on alcohol and if we suddenly cut off their access they would go into withdrawal and flood the emergency rooms.
Contradiction
To limit the spread of coronavirus, authorities are asking some businesses to close and allowing some to stay open. That's the case in North Carolina, where Gov. Roy Cooper has issued a stay-at-home order and deemed some businesses 'essential.' Gas stations, grocery stores and home supply stores like Home Depot are among the businesses considered essential and allowed to stay open. North Carolina's state-run liquor stores are also considered essential. Why? NC state Sen. Jeff Jackson, a Democrat from Mecklenburg County, recently addressed that question on Twitter. 'Why are liquor stores still open?' Jackson asked rhetorically in an April 6 tweet. 'It's because we have a lot of people who are chemically dependent on alcohol and if we suddenly cut off their access they would go into withdrawal and flood the emergency rooms, which we can't have right now,' he said. Is that true? What state officials say The governor's office is in charge of designating which businesses are 'essential' and allowed to stay open. But Cooper's executive order didn't offer a reason why liquor stores or any other businesses are considered essential. Kelly Haight Connor, spokeswoman for North Carolina's Department of Health and Human Services, told PolitiFact in an email that the reasoning was simple. 'People need to stay home as much as possible. And while restaurants, bars and other areas of communal gathering must be closed, people should be able to buy items used in their day to day lives,' she said. PolitiFact could find no proof that Cooper's decision to designate liquor stores as essential businesses was made to accommodate people who might be dependent on alcohol. Further, if liquor stores were hypothetically asked to close, North Carolinians could still access alcohol in the form of wine and beer at grocery stores. When we reached out to Jackson about this claim, his office noted that individual ABC boards across the state have the flexibility to decide whether or not they want to remain open. Jeff Strickland, a spokesman for the ABC Commission, confirmed each of the state's 170 boards does, indeed, have that freedom. 'If a board wants to close down, they have that authority,' Strickland said. The commission doesn't have an official stance on why its stores should or shouldn't remain open, he added. What some ABC owners say To that end, Jackson's office pointed out that some ABC store operators have cited alcohol dependency as a reason for staying open. Jackson's office emailed us an article by WLOS in Asheville, where local ABC manager Jason Thacker told WLOS that he's heard concerns about overwhelming hospitals. 'Studies show that abruptly limiting access to alcohol could lead to an increase in withdrawal for people with severe alcohol use disorder and add to the burden of the health care system, which is the last thing that needs to happen right now,' Thacker told WLOS. Jackson's office also provided links to stories about why liquor stores are being kept open in other states such as Connecticut, New Jersey and Texas. In Connecticut, for example, Gov. Ned Lamont said there's a medical reason behind the exemption for liquor stores. 'I think the thought process by the (Connecticut) governor is that if we do close the liquor stores this could create an unnecessary problem and really cut off a needed resource,' Dr. Andrew Lim, the medical director of Bristol Hospital's Emergency Department, told NBC News in Connecticut. However, addiction specialists aren't unified in their belief that liquor store access will prevent emergency room admissions. John Watkins, who owns Johnston Counseling Services, told WRAL that people who are physically dependent on alcohol could suffer withdrawal symptoms in less than a day if they can't access it. But Ward Blanchard, president of The Blanchard Institute addiction recovery center in Charlotte, told Spectrum News that leaving ABC stores open could also lead to ER admissions. He said some who are dependent on alcohol could, if left alone with high volumes of it, go overboard. 'When you are in a situation where people are isolated and there is already stress and anxiety, and then you throw liquor on top of that, I think that would overthrow a healthcare system more so than closing it would,' Blanchard said.
Our ruling Jackson said liquor stores are still open because 'we have a lot of people who are chemically dependent on alcohol and if we suddenly cut off their access they would go into withdrawal and flood the emergency rooms, which we can't have right now.' Gov. Cooper is responsible for determining which businesses are considered essential, and his administration hasn't mentioned alcohol dependency as a reason for the designation. The only evidence Jackson cited was an ABC operations manager in Asheville who said some store owners are concerned about closures potentially affecting the hospital system. But it's not clear that that concern is shared among all 170 ABC store owners. Jackson's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression about North Carolina's Executive Order. We rate it Mostly False.
[ "108829-proof-09-88a9b28d392f8e9bdaf7e70ea6e1861f.jpg" ]
NC liquor stores were deemed essential 'because we have a lot of people who are chemically dependent on alcohol and if we suddenly cut off their access they would go into withdrawal and flood the emergency rooms.
Contradiction
To limit the spread of coronavirus, authorities are asking some businesses to close and allowing some to stay open. That's the case in North Carolina, where Gov. Roy Cooper has issued a stay-at-home order and deemed some businesses 'essential.' Gas stations, grocery stores and home supply stores like Home Depot are among the businesses considered essential and allowed to stay open. North Carolina's state-run liquor stores are also considered essential. Why? NC state Sen. Jeff Jackson, a Democrat from Mecklenburg County, recently addressed that question on Twitter. 'Why are liquor stores still open?' Jackson asked rhetorically in an April 6 tweet. 'It's because we have a lot of people who are chemically dependent on alcohol and if we suddenly cut off their access they would go into withdrawal and flood the emergency rooms, which we can't have right now,' he said. Is that true? What state officials say The governor's office is in charge of designating which businesses are 'essential' and allowed to stay open. But Cooper's executive order didn't offer a reason why liquor stores or any other businesses are considered essential. Kelly Haight Connor, spokeswoman for North Carolina's Department of Health and Human Services, told PolitiFact in an email that the reasoning was simple. 'People need to stay home as much as possible. And while restaurants, bars and other areas of communal gathering must be closed, people should be able to buy items used in their day to day lives,' she said. PolitiFact could find no proof that Cooper's decision to designate liquor stores as essential businesses was made to accommodate people who might be dependent on alcohol. Further, if liquor stores were hypothetically asked to close, North Carolinians could still access alcohol in the form of wine and beer at grocery stores. When we reached out to Jackson about this claim, his office noted that individual ABC boards across the state have the flexibility to decide whether or not they want to remain open. Jeff Strickland, a spokesman for the ABC Commission, confirmed each of the state's 170 boards does, indeed, have that freedom. 'If a board wants to close down, they have that authority,' Strickland said. The commission doesn't have an official stance on why its stores should or shouldn't remain open, he added. What some ABC owners say To that end, Jackson's office pointed out that some ABC store operators have cited alcohol dependency as a reason for staying open. Jackson's office emailed us an article by WLOS in Asheville, where local ABC manager Jason Thacker told WLOS that he's heard concerns about overwhelming hospitals. 'Studies show that abruptly limiting access to alcohol could lead to an increase in withdrawal for people with severe alcohol use disorder and add to the burden of the health care system, which is the last thing that needs to happen right now,' Thacker told WLOS. Jackson's office also provided links to stories about why liquor stores are being kept open in other states such as Connecticut, New Jersey and Texas. In Connecticut, for example, Gov. Ned Lamont said there's a medical reason behind the exemption for liquor stores. 'I think the thought process by the (Connecticut) governor is that if we do close the liquor stores this could create an unnecessary problem and really cut off a needed resource,' Dr. Andrew Lim, the medical director of Bristol Hospital's Emergency Department, told NBC News in Connecticut. However, addiction specialists aren't unified in their belief that liquor store access will prevent emergency room admissions. John Watkins, who owns Johnston Counseling Services, told WRAL that people who are physically dependent on alcohol could suffer withdrawal symptoms in less than a day if they can't access it. But Ward Blanchard, president of The Blanchard Institute addiction recovery center in Charlotte, told Spectrum News that leaving ABC stores open could also lead to ER admissions. He said some who are dependent on alcohol could, if left alone with high volumes of it, go overboard. 'When you are in a situation where people are isolated and there is already stress and anxiety, and then you throw liquor on top of that, I think that would overthrow a healthcare system more so than closing it would,' Blanchard said.
Our ruling Jackson said liquor stores are still open because 'we have a lot of people who are chemically dependent on alcohol and if we suddenly cut off their access they would go into withdrawal and flood the emergency rooms, which we can't have right now.' Gov. Cooper is responsible for determining which businesses are considered essential, and his administration hasn't mentioned alcohol dependency as a reason for the designation. The only evidence Jackson cited was an ABC operations manager in Asheville who said some store owners are concerned about closures potentially affecting the hospital system. But it's not clear that that concern is shared among all 170 ABC store owners. Jackson's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression about North Carolina's Executive Order. We rate it Mostly False.
[ "108829-proof-09-88a9b28d392f8e9bdaf7e70ea6e1861f.jpg" ]
A facial recognition firm 'confirmed antifa infiltrated the Trump rally in D.C.
Contradiction
Violence roiled the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 as supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the building, some waving Trump flags and wearing Trump attire while Capitol Police ushered lawmakers, press and staffers to safe shelter. But claims wrongly blaming antifa activists for the demonstration are proliferating on social media - and some say they have proof. 'BOOM!' one user posted on Facebook. 'IT HAS NOW BEEN CONFIRMED ANTIFA INFILTRATED THE TRUMP RALLY IN DC TODAY!!' The post shares a screenshot of a headline from a Jan. 6 Washington Times story: 'Facial recognition firm claims Antifa infiltrated Trump protesters who stormed Capitol.' 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 Washington Times story says that a 'retired military officer' told the publication 'that the firm XRVision used its software to do facial recognition of protesters and matched two Philadelphia antifa members to two men inside the Senate.' The story doesn't include any images of protesters but the Times reported that 'the source provided the photo match to The Times' and described them. 'One has a tattoo that indicates he is a Stalinist sympathizer,' the story says. 'XRVision also identified another man who, while not known to have antifa links, is someone who shows up at climate and Black Lives Matter protests in the West.' We emailed XRVision to ask about the claims and an attorney for the company responded with a statement from XRVision. The company denied generating 'any composites or detection imagery' for the Times or a 'retired military officer.' XRVision did analyze footage from yesterday and identified several people, whose identities the company shared with law enforcement, according to the statement. It concluded that two of the men 'were affiliated with the Maryland Skinheads and the National Socialist Movements.' 'These are two known Nazi organizations, they are not Antifa,' the statement said. Pictures of these men were posted on the blog Philly Antifa, which describes itself as a site 'for all things Antifascist' centered around Philadelphia. But the blog does not identify them as Philadelphia antifa members. Rather, it connects them to the Maryland Skinheads and the National Socialist Movement. (We've written more about one of the men here.) The third person XRVision identified was 'an actor with some QAnon promotion history,' XRVision said. 'Again, no Antifa identification was made for him either.' We've already debunked a claim that this person was an 'Antifa thug.' You can read that fact-check here. XRVision said in its statement that its lawyer had told the publication to retract the claims in its story and publish an apology. We reached out to the Washington Times about the statement and did not immediately receive a reply. But soon after, the story link redirected to the Washington Times homepage and appeared to have been pulled from the publication's website. The publication later responded that it added a correction to the story, which was live again. The correction said: 'An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that XRVision facial recognition software identified Antifa members among rioters who stormed the Capitol Wednesday. XRVision did not identify any Antifa members. The Washington Times apologizes to XRVision for the error.' We rate the claim that XRVision's facial recognition 'confirmed antifa infiltrated the Trump rally' False. UPDATE (Jan. 8, 2021): Following initial publication of this fact-check, the Washington Times responded to PolitiFact to say that it had corrected its story. We have updated this fact-check to reflect that change. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
We rate the claim that XRVision's facial recognition 'confirmed antifa infiltrated the Trump rally' False. UPDATE (Jan. 8, 2021): Following initial publication of this fact-check, the Washington Times responded to PolitiFact to say that it had corrected its story. We have updated this fact-check to reflect that change. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
[]
A facial recognition firm 'confirmed antifa infiltrated the Trump rally in D.C.
Contradiction
Violence roiled the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 as supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the building, some waving Trump flags and wearing Trump attire while Capitol Police ushered lawmakers, press and staffers to safe shelter. But claims wrongly blaming antifa activists for the demonstration are proliferating on social media - and some say they have proof. 'BOOM!' one user posted on Facebook. 'IT HAS NOW BEEN CONFIRMED ANTIFA INFILTRATED THE TRUMP RALLY IN DC TODAY!!' The post shares a screenshot of a headline from a Jan. 6 Washington Times story: 'Facial recognition firm claims Antifa infiltrated Trump protesters who stormed Capitol.' 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 Washington Times story says that a 'retired military officer' told the publication 'that the firm XRVision used its software to do facial recognition of protesters and matched two Philadelphia antifa members to two men inside the Senate.' The story doesn't include any images of protesters but the Times reported that 'the source provided the photo match to The Times' and described them. 'One has a tattoo that indicates he is a Stalinist sympathizer,' the story says. 'XRVision also identified another man who, while not known to have antifa links, is someone who shows up at climate and Black Lives Matter protests in the West.' We emailed XRVision to ask about the claims and an attorney for the company responded with a statement from XRVision. The company denied generating 'any composites or detection imagery' for the Times or a 'retired military officer.' XRVision did analyze footage from yesterday and identified several people, whose identities the company shared with law enforcement, according to the statement. It concluded that two of the men 'were affiliated with the Maryland Skinheads and the National Socialist Movements.' 'These are two known Nazi organizations, they are not Antifa,' the statement said. Pictures of these men were posted on the blog Philly Antifa, which describes itself as a site 'for all things Antifascist' centered around Philadelphia. But the blog does not identify them as Philadelphia antifa members. Rather, it connects them to the Maryland Skinheads and the National Socialist Movement. (We've written more about one of the men here.) The third person XRVision identified was 'an actor with some QAnon promotion history,' XRVision said. 'Again, no Antifa identification was made for him either.' We've already debunked a claim that this person was an 'Antifa thug.' You can read that fact-check here. XRVision said in its statement that its lawyer had told the publication to retract the claims in its story and publish an apology. We reached out to the Washington Times about the statement and did not immediately receive a reply. But soon after, the story link redirected to the Washington Times homepage and appeared to have been pulled from the publication's website. The publication later responded that it added a correction to the story, which was live again. The correction said: 'An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that XRVision facial recognition software identified Antifa members among rioters who stormed the Capitol Wednesday. XRVision did not identify any Antifa members. The Washington Times apologizes to XRVision for the error.' We rate the claim that XRVision's facial recognition 'confirmed antifa infiltrated the Trump rally' False. UPDATE (Jan. 8, 2021): Following initial publication of this fact-check, the Washington Times responded to PolitiFact to say that it had corrected its story. We have updated this fact-check to reflect that change. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
We rate the claim that XRVision's facial recognition 'confirmed antifa infiltrated the Trump rally' False. UPDATE (Jan. 8, 2021): Following initial publication of this fact-check, the Washington Times responded to PolitiFact to say that it had corrected its story. We have updated this fact-check to reflect that change. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
[]
A facial recognition firm 'confirmed antifa infiltrated the Trump rally in D.C.
Contradiction
Violence roiled the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 as supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the building, some waving Trump flags and wearing Trump attire while Capitol Police ushered lawmakers, press and staffers to safe shelter. But claims wrongly blaming antifa activists for the demonstration are proliferating on social media - and some say they have proof. 'BOOM!' one user posted on Facebook. 'IT HAS NOW BEEN CONFIRMED ANTIFA INFILTRATED THE TRUMP RALLY IN DC TODAY!!' The post shares a screenshot of a headline from a Jan. 6 Washington Times story: 'Facial recognition firm claims Antifa infiltrated Trump protesters who stormed Capitol.' 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 Washington Times story says that a 'retired military officer' told the publication 'that the firm XRVision used its software to do facial recognition of protesters and matched two Philadelphia antifa members to two men inside the Senate.' The story doesn't include any images of protesters but the Times reported that 'the source provided the photo match to The Times' and described them. 'One has a tattoo that indicates he is a Stalinist sympathizer,' the story says. 'XRVision also identified another man who, while not known to have antifa links, is someone who shows up at climate and Black Lives Matter protests in the West.' We emailed XRVision to ask about the claims and an attorney for the company responded with a statement from XRVision. The company denied generating 'any composites or detection imagery' for the Times or a 'retired military officer.' XRVision did analyze footage from yesterday and identified several people, whose identities the company shared with law enforcement, according to the statement. It concluded that two of the men 'were affiliated with the Maryland Skinheads and the National Socialist Movements.' 'These are two known Nazi organizations, they are not Antifa,' the statement said. Pictures of these men were posted on the blog Philly Antifa, which describes itself as a site 'for all things Antifascist' centered around Philadelphia. But the blog does not identify them as Philadelphia antifa members. Rather, it connects them to the Maryland Skinheads and the National Socialist Movement. (We've written more about one of the men here.) The third person XRVision identified was 'an actor with some QAnon promotion history,' XRVision said. 'Again, no Antifa identification was made for him either.' We've already debunked a claim that this person was an 'Antifa thug.' You can read that fact-check here. XRVision said in its statement that its lawyer had told the publication to retract the claims in its story and publish an apology. We reached out to the Washington Times about the statement and did not immediately receive a reply. But soon after, the story link redirected to the Washington Times homepage and appeared to have been pulled from the publication's website. The publication later responded that it added a correction to the story, which was live again. The correction said: 'An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that XRVision facial recognition software identified Antifa members among rioters who stormed the Capitol Wednesday. XRVision did not identify any Antifa members. The Washington Times apologizes to XRVision for the error.' We rate the claim that XRVision's facial recognition 'confirmed antifa infiltrated the Trump rally' False. UPDATE (Jan. 8, 2021): Following initial publication of this fact-check, the Washington Times responded to PolitiFact to say that it had corrected its story. We have updated this fact-check to reflect that change. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
We rate the claim that XRVision's facial recognition 'confirmed antifa infiltrated the Trump rally' False. UPDATE (Jan. 8, 2021): Following initial publication of this fact-check, the Washington Times responded to PolitiFact to say that it had corrected its story. We have updated this fact-check to reflect that change. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
[]
A facial recognition firm 'confirmed antifa infiltrated the Trump rally in D.C.
Contradiction
Violence roiled the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 as supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the building, some waving Trump flags and wearing Trump attire while Capitol Police ushered lawmakers, press and staffers to safe shelter. But claims wrongly blaming antifa activists for the demonstration are proliferating on social media - and some say they have proof. 'BOOM!' one user posted on Facebook. 'IT HAS NOW BEEN CONFIRMED ANTIFA INFILTRATED THE TRUMP RALLY IN DC TODAY!!' The post shares a screenshot of a headline from a Jan. 6 Washington Times story: 'Facial recognition firm claims Antifa infiltrated Trump protesters who stormed Capitol.' 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 Washington Times story says that a 'retired military officer' told the publication 'that the firm XRVision used its software to do facial recognition of protesters and matched two Philadelphia antifa members to two men inside the Senate.' The story doesn't include any images of protesters but the Times reported that 'the source provided the photo match to The Times' and described them. 'One has a tattoo that indicates he is a Stalinist sympathizer,' the story says. 'XRVision also identified another man who, while not known to have antifa links, is someone who shows up at climate and Black Lives Matter protests in the West.' We emailed XRVision to ask about the claims and an attorney for the company responded with a statement from XRVision. The company denied generating 'any composites or detection imagery' for the Times or a 'retired military officer.' XRVision did analyze footage from yesterday and identified several people, whose identities the company shared with law enforcement, according to the statement. It concluded that two of the men 'were affiliated with the Maryland Skinheads and the National Socialist Movements.' 'These are two known Nazi organizations, they are not Antifa,' the statement said. Pictures of these men were posted on the blog Philly Antifa, which describes itself as a site 'for all things Antifascist' centered around Philadelphia. But the blog does not identify them as Philadelphia antifa members. Rather, it connects them to the Maryland Skinheads and the National Socialist Movement. (We've written more about one of the men here.) The third person XRVision identified was 'an actor with some QAnon promotion history,' XRVision said. 'Again, no Antifa identification was made for him either.' We've already debunked a claim that this person was an 'Antifa thug.' You can read that fact-check here. XRVision said in its statement that its lawyer had told the publication to retract the claims in its story and publish an apology. We reached out to the Washington Times about the statement and did not immediately receive a reply. But soon after, the story link redirected to the Washington Times homepage and appeared to have been pulled from the publication's website. The publication later responded that it added a correction to the story, which was live again. The correction said: 'An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that XRVision facial recognition software identified Antifa members among rioters who stormed the Capitol Wednesday. XRVision did not identify any Antifa members. The Washington Times apologizes to XRVision for the error.' We rate the claim that XRVision's facial recognition 'confirmed antifa infiltrated the Trump rally' False. UPDATE (Jan. 8, 2021): Following initial publication of this fact-check, the Washington Times responded to PolitiFact to say that it had corrected its story. We have updated this fact-check to reflect that change. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
We rate the claim that XRVision's facial recognition 'confirmed antifa infiltrated the Trump rally' False. UPDATE (Jan. 8, 2021): Following initial publication of this fact-check, the Washington Times responded to PolitiFact to say that it had corrected its story. We have updated this fact-check to reflect that change. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
[]
'Moderna chief medical officer admits: mRNA alters DNA.
Contradiction
'Moderna chief medical officer admits: mRNA alters DNA,' reads the description of a video in a Facebook post that's being shared widely. The footage in the video is from a 2017 TED Talk featuring Tal Zaks, chief medical officer of Moderna, which has created an mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 that's being used across the country. But the Facebook post misrepresents the actual title of the talk and what Zaks said during the event. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines do not affect our DNA. 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.) At the start of the approximately 10-minute presentation, titled 'The disease-eradicating potential of gene editing,' Zaks said 'we're actually hacking the software of life' in how we prevent and treat disease. He then briefly explains how mRNA works. 'Our body is made out of organs, our organs are made out of cells, and in every cell there's this thing called messenger RNA or mRNA for short that transmits the critical information from the DNA - our genes - to the protein, which is really the stuff we're all made out of. This is the critical information that determines what a cell would actually do.' He compares the whole thing to an operating system, and then says, 'and if you could actually introduce a line of code, or change a line of code, it turns out that has profound implications for everything from the flu to cancer.' But he's not talking about altering DNA. He uses the flu vaccine as an example. A vaccine is an injection where we get 'bits and pieces of the virus, the proteins, and that teaches our immune system to recognize the virus,' he said. 'Now imagine if instead of giving the protein, we would give the instructions on how to make the protein - how the body can make its own vaccine. That's an mRNA vaccine.' He then shows two images. One represents a traditional vaccine, where the virus proteins are floating around the cell. The second shows what looks like an mRNA vaccine triggering the cells to create those proteins. But mRNA vaccines never enter the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA is kept, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes on a page on its site dedicated to understanding mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. After the mRNA triggers the cells to create the virus proteins, the cell then breaks down and gets rid of the mRNA, according to the CDC. We've previously debunked claims that these vaccines will alter the DNA of those injected. But that's wrong, and so is the claim that Moderna's chief medical officer said as much. We rate this post False.
We rate this post False.
[]
'Moderna chief medical officer admits: mRNA alters DNA.
Contradiction
'Moderna chief medical officer admits: mRNA alters DNA,' reads the description of a video in a Facebook post that's being shared widely. The footage in the video is from a 2017 TED Talk featuring Tal Zaks, chief medical officer of Moderna, which has created an mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 that's being used across the country. But the Facebook post misrepresents the actual title of the talk and what Zaks said during the event. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines do not affect our DNA. 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.) At the start of the approximately 10-minute presentation, titled 'The disease-eradicating potential of gene editing,' Zaks said 'we're actually hacking the software of life' in how we prevent and treat disease. He then briefly explains how mRNA works. 'Our body is made out of organs, our organs are made out of cells, and in every cell there's this thing called messenger RNA or mRNA for short that transmits the critical information from the DNA - our genes - to the protein, which is really the stuff we're all made out of. This is the critical information that determines what a cell would actually do.' He compares the whole thing to an operating system, and then says, 'and if you could actually introduce a line of code, or change a line of code, it turns out that has profound implications for everything from the flu to cancer.' But he's not talking about altering DNA. He uses the flu vaccine as an example. A vaccine is an injection where we get 'bits and pieces of the virus, the proteins, and that teaches our immune system to recognize the virus,' he said. 'Now imagine if instead of giving the protein, we would give the instructions on how to make the protein - how the body can make its own vaccine. That's an mRNA vaccine.' He then shows two images. One represents a traditional vaccine, where the virus proteins are floating around the cell. The second shows what looks like an mRNA vaccine triggering the cells to create those proteins. But mRNA vaccines never enter the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA is kept, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes on a page on its site dedicated to understanding mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. After the mRNA triggers the cells to create the virus proteins, the cell then breaks down and gets rid of the mRNA, according to the CDC. We've previously debunked claims that these vaccines will alter the DNA of those injected. But that's wrong, and so is the claim that Moderna's chief medical officer said as much. We rate this post False.
We rate this post False.
[]
Says wearing face masks is more harmful to your health than going without one.
Contradiction
To mask or not to mask? That's a question many people are asking themselves - and arguing about - these days. Federal health officials initially discouraged masks for the general public, only to revise their guidance later. To make matters more complicated, social media posts are claiming that wearing a mask can be more dangerous than going without one. One post, in part, reads: 'It is the perfect breeding ground for bacteria that can end up in your mouth & down into your lungs. I have learned that there are many harmful effects of rebreathing Carbon Dioxide (CO2).' Another says: 'Mask wearing reduces oxygen up to 60%. Increases risks of CO2 poisoning. Causes increased face touching. Viruses and bacteria saturate the outside. Touching mask and surfaces spread germs. Contaminants sit within mask fibers, get reinhaled. Fresh air is vital for immune health!' 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.) There's no evidence that wearing masks is harmful for the general public, except for people with certain medical conditions. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the body and part of the air, and people breathe it in and out all the time. Too much CO2 can certainly be life-threatening, but only at significantly high concentrations, experts say. Hypercapnia, a condition that arises when there is too much carbon dioxide in the blood, can cause headaches, drowsiness, vertigo, double vision, disorientation, tinnitus, seizures, or suffocation due to displacement of air. CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the air we breathe, and is considered life-threatening when its concentration is greater than about 10%. The posts don't specify the kinds of masks or how long someone would need to wear one to generate unhealthy CO2 levels, but medical experts say the risk is quite low for the general public who wear a typical cloth or surgical mask. Linsey Marr, a professor in airborne disease transmission at Virginia Tech, said it's possible that loose fibers in the masks can be inhaled, as one post claims, but 'contaminants in these fibers would have off-gassed into the air already, unless the mask is fresh off the assembly line.' Prolonged use of certain face masks, particularly tight-fitting medical-grade ones like the N95 respirator, can cause problems for people with respiratory illnesses. 'I don't think that the general public wearing homemade face masks really poses a CO2 poisoning issue,' Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease expert and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, told PolitiFact. 'There is data, however, that prolonged use of an N95 mask can increase blood CO2 levels, and therefore we do not recommend people wear N95 masks for a prolonged period of time. We also do not recommend the general public wear N95 masks.' The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that the general public wear cloth face masks in areas where social distancing isn't possible, and says certain medical-grade masks, like the N95, should be reserved for health care workers who are in direct contact with infected patients. The CDC also says that facial coverings should not be placed on 'young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.' The agency told Reuters that while CO2 that slowly builds up in masks over time, the level is mostly tolerable for people exposed to it. 'You might get a headache but you most likely (would) not suffer the symptoms observed at much higher levels of CO2,' Reuters quotes the CDC as saying. 'The mask can become uncomfortable for a variety of reasons including a sensitivity to CO2, and the person will be motivated to remove the mask. It is unlikely that wearing a mask will cause hypercapnia.'​ Dr. Thomas Tsai, a surgeon and health policy researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health also said he hasn't seen any credible data to support the posts. 'I wear masks every day for hours and hours at a time and I've never once suffocated and passed out from CO2,' Tsai said. 'On the margins we could probably find extreme cases where someone, somewhere with some condition has had an issue with a mask but that's not the average. There is absolutely no data to suggest that wearing a standard surgical or cloth mask under normal situations is deleterious to your health.'
Our ruling Facebook posts say that wearing a mask causes health problems, particularly from breathing in too much exhaled carbon dioxide. There is no credible data to back that up. Experts say prolonged use of N95 respirator masks can increase blood CO2 levels for people with breathing problems, but those masks are not recommended for the general public, and using ordinary cloth or surgical masks poses little or no risk from CO2. We rate this False.
[]
Says wearing face masks is more harmful to your health than going without one.
Contradiction
To mask or not to mask? That's a question many people are asking themselves - and arguing about - these days. Federal health officials initially discouraged masks for the general public, only to revise their guidance later. To make matters more complicated, social media posts are claiming that wearing a mask can be more dangerous than going without one. One post, in part, reads: 'It is the perfect breeding ground for bacteria that can end up in your mouth & down into your lungs. I have learned that there are many harmful effects of rebreathing Carbon Dioxide (CO2).' Another says: 'Mask wearing reduces oxygen up to 60%. Increases risks of CO2 poisoning. Causes increased face touching. Viruses and bacteria saturate the outside. Touching mask and surfaces spread germs. Contaminants sit within mask fibers, get reinhaled. Fresh air is vital for immune health!' 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.) There's no evidence that wearing masks is harmful for the general public, except for people with certain medical conditions. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the body and part of the air, and people breathe it in and out all the time. Too much CO2 can certainly be life-threatening, but only at significantly high concentrations, experts say. Hypercapnia, a condition that arises when there is too much carbon dioxide in the blood, can cause headaches, drowsiness, vertigo, double vision, disorientation, tinnitus, seizures, or suffocation due to displacement of air. CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the air we breathe, and is considered life-threatening when its concentration is greater than about 10%. The posts don't specify the kinds of masks or how long someone would need to wear one to generate unhealthy CO2 levels, but medical experts say the risk is quite low for the general public who wear a typical cloth or surgical mask. Linsey Marr, a professor in airborne disease transmission at Virginia Tech, said it's possible that loose fibers in the masks can be inhaled, as one post claims, but 'contaminants in these fibers would have off-gassed into the air already, unless the mask is fresh off the assembly line.' Prolonged use of certain face masks, particularly tight-fitting medical-grade ones like the N95 respirator, can cause problems for people with respiratory illnesses. 'I don't think that the general public wearing homemade face masks really poses a CO2 poisoning issue,' Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease expert and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, told PolitiFact. 'There is data, however, that prolonged use of an N95 mask can increase blood CO2 levels, and therefore we do not recommend people wear N95 masks for a prolonged period of time. We also do not recommend the general public wear N95 masks.' The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that the general public wear cloth face masks in areas where social distancing isn't possible, and says certain medical-grade masks, like the N95, should be reserved for health care workers who are in direct contact with infected patients. The CDC also says that facial coverings should not be placed on 'young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.' The agency told Reuters that while CO2 that slowly builds up in masks over time, the level is mostly tolerable for people exposed to it. 'You might get a headache but you most likely (would) not suffer the symptoms observed at much higher levels of CO2,' Reuters quotes the CDC as saying. 'The mask can become uncomfortable for a variety of reasons including a sensitivity to CO2, and the person will be motivated to remove the mask. It is unlikely that wearing a mask will cause hypercapnia.'​ Dr. Thomas Tsai, a surgeon and health policy researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health also said he hasn't seen any credible data to support the posts. 'I wear masks every day for hours and hours at a time and I've never once suffocated and passed out from CO2,' Tsai said. 'On the margins we could probably find extreme cases where someone, somewhere with some condition has had an issue with a mask but that's not the average. There is absolutely no data to suggest that wearing a standard surgical or cloth mask under normal situations is deleterious to your health.'
Our ruling Facebook posts say that wearing a mask causes health problems, particularly from breathing in too much exhaled carbon dioxide. There is no credible data to back that up. Experts say prolonged use of N95 respirator masks can increase blood CO2 levels for people with breathing problems, but those masks are not recommended for the general public, and using ordinary cloth or surgical masks poses little or no risk from CO2. We rate this False.
[]
Says wearing face masks is more harmful to your health than going without one.
Contradiction
To mask or not to mask? That's a question many people are asking themselves - and arguing about - these days. Federal health officials initially discouraged masks for the general public, only to revise their guidance later. To make matters more complicated, social media posts are claiming that wearing a mask can be more dangerous than going without one. One post, in part, reads: 'It is the perfect breeding ground for bacteria that can end up in your mouth & down into your lungs. I have learned that there are many harmful effects of rebreathing Carbon Dioxide (CO2).' Another says: 'Mask wearing reduces oxygen up to 60%. Increases risks of CO2 poisoning. Causes increased face touching. Viruses and bacteria saturate the outside. Touching mask and surfaces spread germs. Contaminants sit within mask fibers, get reinhaled. Fresh air is vital for immune health!' 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.) There's no evidence that wearing masks is harmful for the general public, except for people with certain medical conditions. Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of the body and part of the air, and people breathe it in and out all the time. Too much CO2 can certainly be life-threatening, but only at significantly high concentrations, experts say. Hypercapnia, a condition that arises when there is too much carbon dioxide in the blood, can cause headaches, drowsiness, vertigo, double vision, disorientation, tinnitus, seizures, or suffocation due to displacement of air. CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the air we breathe, and is considered life-threatening when its concentration is greater than about 10%. The posts don't specify the kinds of masks or how long someone would need to wear one to generate unhealthy CO2 levels, but medical experts say the risk is quite low for the general public who wear a typical cloth or surgical mask. Linsey Marr, a professor in airborne disease transmission at Virginia Tech, said it's possible that loose fibers in the masks can be inhaled, as one post claims, but 'contaminants in these fibers would have off-gassed into the air already, unless the mask is fresh off the assembly line.' Prolonged use of certain face masks, particularly tight-fitting medical-grade ones like the N95 respirator, can cause problems for people with respiratory illnesses. 'I don't think that the general public wearing homemade face masks really poses a CO2 poisoning issue,' Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease expert and senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, told PolitiFact. 'There is data, however, that prolonged use of an N95 mask can increase blood CO2 levels, and therefore we do not recommend people wear N95 masks for a prolonged period of time. We also do not recommend the general public wear N95 masks.' The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that the general public wear cloth face masks in areas where social distancing isn't possible, and says certain medical-grade masks, like the N95, should be reserved for health care workers who are in direct contact with infected patients. The CDC also says that facial coverings should not be placed on 'young children under age 2, anyone who has trouble breathing, or is unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.' The agency told Reuters that while CO2 that slowly builds up in masks over time, the level is mostly tolerable for people exposed to it. 'You might get a headache but you most likely (would) not suffer the symptoms observed at much higher levels of CO2,' Reuters quotes the CDC as saying. 'The mask can become uncomfortable for a variety of reasons including a sensitivity to CO2, and the person will be motivated to remove the mask. It is unlikely that wearing a mask will cause hypercapnia.'​ Dr. Thomas Tsai, a surgeon and health policy researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health also said he hasn't seen any credible data to support the posts. 'I wear masks every day for hours and hours at a time and I've never once suffocated and passed out from CO2,' Tsai said. 'On the margins we could probably find extreme cases where someone, somewhere with some condition has had an issue with a mask but that's not the average. There is absolutely no data to suggest that wearing a standard surgical or cloth mask under normal situations is deleterious to your health.'
Our ruling Facebook posts say that wearing a mask causes health problems, particularly from breathing in too much exhaled carbon dioxide. There is no credible data to back that up. Experts say prolonged use of N95 respirator masks can increase blood CO2 levels for people with breathing problems, but those masks are not recommended for the general public, and using ordinary cloth or surgical masks poses little or no risk from CO2. We rate this False.
[]
Say North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper was arrested for driving while intoxicated in Stanly County.
Contradiction
A social media rumor claims North Carolina's governor has gotten himself into legal trouble while driving. Multiple Facebook users have claimed that Gov. Roy Cooper was caught drinking and driving in Stanly County, just east of Charlotte. On Dec. 6, one woman's Facebook post was shared more than 200 times: 'Why is the news NOT reporting on North Carolina's Governor Roy A. Cooper's arrest, incarceration, and charges of aggravated DUI on Friday night in Stanly County, NC?' When another Facebook user said he hadn't seen any news about the alleged arrest, the woman posted a video of herself talking to her Amazon Echo Dot. An Echo Dot is a voice-controlled speaker that can play music, control smart home devices, make calls and even search the internet for answers to questions. In the video, which she also posted on Dec. 4, the woman asks: 'Alexa, is North Carolina Governor Roy A. Cooper in jail?' The device responds: 'Here's something I found on the web, according to (indecipherable), he's being held in the Stanly County jail.' So is it true? No. PolitiFact found no evidence that Cooper was recently pulled over, caught drunk, or even charged with a crime -- much less in Stanly County. What the sheriff said WRAL's data reporter checked court dockets for records and found nothing. Stanly County Sheriff Jeffrey Crisco, a Republican, told PolitiFact NC he's 'received numerous calls, texts, emails, and phone calls' about the rumor. Here's his full email: 'Over the past week to week and a half I have received numerous calls, texts, emails, and phone calls regarding 'A Law Enforcement Agency,' not specific to the Stanly County Sheriff's Office, regarding Governor Cooper. I can tell you that Governor Cooper wasn't booked into our Detention Center. I have also contacted our Communications Center, which is its own agency, and had them check all radio traffic on date and times that were given to myself. The director told me that there isn't any radio traffic with any of our agencies in Stanly County stopping Governor Cooper. We have also contacted the Line Sergeant, with the Highway Patrol and he stated that none of his Troopers stopped the Governor. Mr. Specht, I feel that we have exhausted all means trying to locate any truth to the rumor. At this point it is in fact just a rumor unless someone can come forward and provide some real evidence. I would greatly ask for your help in putting this matter to rest and if there is anything else I can help you with please let me know.' An Amazon spokesperson told us that the company is looking into why the device responded the way it did in the woman's video. The woman who posted the video didn't respond to a Facebook message seeking comment. As for Cooper, spokesman Ford Porter said the Facebook claims are just 'internet fantasy.'
Our ruling Multiple Facebook users claim that Cooper got caught driving while impaired in Stanly County. Court dockets show no record of Cooper being charged with a crime. The Stanly County Sheriff says his deputies can find no record of Cooper being detained. And PolitiFact can find no evidence the rumor is accurate. We rate this claim False.
[ "108867-proof-22-682681f78033bc279f17f03cba3f4731.jpg" ]
Say North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper was arrested for driving while intoxicated in Stanly County.
Contradiction
A social media rumor claims North Carolina's governor has gotten himself into legal trouble while driving. Multiple Facebook users have claimed that Gov. Roy Cooper was caught drinking and driving in Stanly County, just east of Charlotte. On Dec. 6, one woman's Facebook post was shared more than 200 times: 'Why is the news NOT reporting on North Carolina's Governor Roy A. Cooper's arrest, incarceration, and charges of aggravated DUI on Friday night in Stanly County, NC?' When another Facebook user said he hadn't seen any news about the alleged arrest, the woman posted a video of herself talking to her Amazon Echo Dot. An Echo Dot is a voice-controlled speaker that can play music, control smart home devices, make calls and even search the internet for answers to questions. In the video, which she also posted on Dec. 4, the woman asks: 'Alexa, is North Carolina Governor Roy A. Cooper in jail?' The device responds: 'Here's something I found on the web, according to (indecipherable), he's being held in the Stanly County jail.' So is it true? No. PolitiFact found no evidence that Cooper was recently pulled over, caught drunk, or even charged with a crime -- much less in Stanly County. What the sheriff said WRAL's data reporter checked court dockets for records and found nothing. Stanly County Sheriff Jeffrey Crisco, a Republican, told PolitiFact NC he's 'received numerous calls, texts, emails, and phone calls' about the rumor. Here's his full email: 'Over the past week to week and a half I have received numerous calls, texts, emails, and phone calls regarding 'A Law Enforcement Agency,' not specific to the Stanly County Sheriff's Office, regarding Governor Cooper. I can tell you that Governor Cooper wasn't booked into our Detention Center. I have also contacted our Communications Center, which is its own agency, and had them check all radio traffic on date and times that were given to myself. The director told me that there isn't any radio traffic with any of our agencies in Stanly County stopping Governor Cooper. We have also contacted the Line Sergeant, with the Highway Patrol and he stated that none of his Troopers stopped the Governor. Mr. Specht, I feel that we have exhausted all means trying to locate any truth to the rumor. At this point it is in fact just a rumor unless someone can come forward and provide some real evidence. I would greatly ask for your help in putting this matter to rest and if there is anything else I can help you with please let me know.' An Amazon spokesperson told us that the company is looking into why the device responded the way it did in the woman's video. The woman who posted the video didn't respond to a Facebook message seeking comment. As for Cooper, spokesman Ford Porter said the Facebook claims are just 'internet fantasy.'
Our ruling Multiple Facebook users claim that Cooper got caught driving while impaired in Stanly County. Court dockets show no record of Cooper being charged with a crime. The Stanly County Sheriff says his deputies can find no record of Cooper being detained. And PolitiFact can find no evidence the rumor is accurate. We rate this claim False.
[ "108867-proof-22-682681f78033bc279f17f03cba3f4731.jpg" ]
Say North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper was arrested for driving while intoxicated in Stanly County.
Contradiction
A social media rumor claims North Carolina's governor has gotten himself into legal trouble while driving. Multiple Facebook users have claimed that Gov. Roy Cooper was caught drinking and driving in Stanly County, just east of Charlotte. On Dec. 6, one woman's Facebook post was shared more than 200 times: 'Why is the news NOT reporting on North Carolina's Governor Roy A. Cooper's arrest, incarceration, and charges of aggravated DUI on Friday night in Stanly County, NC?' When another Facebook user said he hadn't seen any news about the alleged arrest, the woman posted a video of herself talking to her Amazon Echo Dot. An Echo Dot is a voice-controlled speaker that can play music, control smart home devices, make calls and even search the internet for answers to questions. In the video, which she also posted on Dec. 4, the woman asks: 'Alexa, is North Carolina Governor Roy A. Cooper in jail?' The device responds: 'Here's something I found on the web, according to (indecipherable), he's being held in the Stanly County jail.' So is it true? No. PolitiFact found no evidence that Cooper was recently pulled over, caught drunk, or even charged with a crime -- much less in Stanly County. What the sheriff said WRAL's data reporter checked court dockets for records and found nothing. Stanly County Sheriff Jeffrey Crisco, a Republican, told PolitiFact NC he's 'received numerous calls, texts, emails, and phone calls' about the rumor. Here's his full email: 'Over the past week to week and a half I have received numerous calls, texts, emails, and phone calls regarding 'A Law Enforcement Agency,' not specific to the Stanly County Sheriff's Office, regarding Governor Cooper. I can tell you that Governor Cooper wasn't booked into our Detention Center. I have also contacted our Communications Center, which is its own agency, and had them check all radio traffic on date and times that were given to myself. The director told me that there isn't any radio traffic with any of our agencies in Stanly County stopping Governor Cooper. We have also contacted the Line Sergeant, with the Highway Patrol and he stated that none of his Troopers stopped the Governor. Mr. Specht, I feel that we have exhausted all means trying to locate any truth to the rumor. At this point it is in fact just a rumor unless someone can come forward and provide some real evidence. I would greatly ask for your help in putting this matter to rest and if there is anything else I can help you with please let me know.' An Amazon spokesperson told us that the company is looking into why the device responded the way it did in the woman's video. The woman who posted the video didn't respond to a Facebook message seeking comment. As for Cooper, spokesman Ford Porter said the Facebook claims are just 'internet fantasy.'
Our ruling Multiple Facebook users claim that Cooper got caught driving while impaired in Stanly County. Court dockets show no record of Cooper being charged with a crime. The Stanly County Sheriff says his deputies can find no record of Cooper being detained. And PolitiFact can find no evidence the rumor is accurate. We rate this claim False.
[ "108867-proof-22-682681f78033bc279f17f03cba3f4731.jpg" ]
Says Gov. Ron DeSantis 'just signed legislation requiring students, faculty and staff at Florida's public universities and colleges to register their political views with the state.
Contradiction
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill on June 23 requiring an annual assessment of 'intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity' at public colleges and universities. Among the buzz that followed was a claim warning that students and employees of these schools would have to report their political leanings to the government. 'Dictator alert,' begins a screenshot of a tweet being shared on social media. 'Ron DeathSantis just signed legislation requiring students, faculty and staff at Florida's public universities and colleges to register their political views with the state.' 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 Twitter account making the claim echoed a June 23 article on Raw Story, which it also shared in a Twitter thread that followed the claim. The headline says: 'Florida students required to register political views with the state to promote 'intellectual diversity'.' That story is about HB 233, specifically the requirement in the bill that the State Board of Education and the Board of Governors must 'select or create an objective, nonpartisan, and statistically valid survey to be used by each institution which considers the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented and members of the college community, including students, faculty, and staff, feel free to express their beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom.' Education authorities must require the annual assessment from state colleges and universities, according to the bill. Spokespeople for the Board of Governors and the Florida Department of Education told PolitiFact that the survey has not yet been developed. The bill does not address what questions will be asked, whether student and faculty participation in the survey is mandatory, or if the responses will be anonymous. Cheryl Etters, interim communications director for the education department, said the surveys will be voluntary and won't ask about individuals' political beliefs. 'It's merely going to ask whether they feel they can express their political viewpoints and opinions in their college classrooms,' Etters said. 'The idea is to get at 'Do they feel safe expressing their own viewpoint in college?'' No one will be required to register their political views with the state, she said. Jason Mahon, deputy communications director for Gov. Ron DeSantis, told us that the survey would 'need a valid sample, but there is not an expectation that every Florida student or professor would even need to participate.' The legislation also does not require 'knowing the identity of the respondent,' he said. Sen. Ray Rodrigues, the Republican who sponsored the bill, pointed PolitiFact to similar surveys at the University of Colorado and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that he said inspired the Florida legislation. The Colorado survey asked respondents about their political affiliation and political philosophy, and the North Carolina survey asked respondents about their political leanings. Both universities said the results were anonymous. North Carolina also encouraged students to take the survey with a $10 gift card. Critics of Florida's new law, which goes into effect on July 1, continue to voice fears about how it will be implemented, including the concern that it would have a chilling effect on free speech. A researcher for the Florida Education Association told the Miami Herald in April that she worried it would 'force a fearful self-consciousness that is not as much about learning and debate as about appearances and playing into an outside audience.' The Tampa Bay Times reported that, speaking about the survey, DeSantis and Rodrigues 'suggested that budget cuts could be looming if universities and colleges are found to be 'indoctrinating' students.'
Our ruling DeSantis recently signed legislation requiring public colleges and universities to survey 'intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity' to gauge in part how comfortable students, faculty and staff feel sharing their beliefs in classrooms. The survey hasn't been created yet, so we don't know what it will ask students, faculty and staff at these institutions. But a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Education told us it will be voluntary and won't ask about individuals' political beliefs, though surveys in other states that lawmakers have cited as inspiration for the bill do. But, as written, the law doesn't require public college and university students, faculty and staff to register their political views with the state. We rate the post False.
[]
Says Gov. Ron DeSantis 'just signed legislation requiring students, faculty and staff at Florida's public universities and colleges to register their political views with the state.
Contradiction
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill on June 23 requiring an annual assessment of 'intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity' at public colleges and universities. Among the buzz that followed was a claim warning that students and employees of these schools would have to report their political leanings to the government. 'Dictator alert,' begins a screenshot of a tweet being shared on social media. 'Ron DeathSantis just signed legislation requiring students, faculty and staff at Florida's public universities and colleges to register their political views with the state.' 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 Twitter account making the claim echoed a June 23 article on Raw Story, which it also shared in a Twitter thread that followed the claim. The headline says: 'Florida students required to register political views with the state to promote 'intellectual diversity'.' That story is about HB 233, specifically the requirement in the bill that the State Board of Education and the Board of Governors must 'select or create an objective, nonpartisan, and statistically valid survey to be used by each institution which considers the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented and members of the college community, including students, faculty, and staff, feel free to express their beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom.' Education authorities must require the annual assessment from state colleges and universities, according to the bill. Spokespeople for the Board of Governors and the Florida Department of Education told PolitiFact that the survey has not yet been developed. The bill does not address what questions will be asked, whether student and faculty participation in the survey is mandatory, or if the responses will be anonymous. Cheryl Etters, interim communications director for the education department, said the surveys will be voluntary and won't ask about individuals' political beliefs. 'It's merely going to ask whether they feel they can express their political viewpoints and opinions in their college classrooms,' Etters said. 'The idea is to get at 'Do they feel safe expressing their own viewpoint in college?'' No one will be required to register their political views with the state, she said. Jason Mahon, deputy communications director for Gov. Ron DeSantis, told us that the survey would 'need a valid sample, but there is not an expectation that every Florida student or professor would even need to participate.' The legislation also does not require 'knowing the identity of the respondent,' he said. Sen. Ray Rodrigues, the Republican who sponsored the bill, pointed PolitiFact to similar surveys at the University of Colorado and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that he said inspired the Florida legislation. The Colorado survey asked respondents about their political affiliation and political philosophy, and the North Carolina survey asked respondents about their political leanings. Both universities said the results were anonymous. North Carolina also encouraged students to take the survey with a $10 gift card. Critics of Florida's new law, which goes into effect on July 1, continue to voice fears about how it will be implemented, including the concern that it would have a chilling effect on free speech. A researcher for the Florida Education Association told the Miami Herald in April that she worried it would 'force a fearful self-consciousness that is not as much about learning and debate as about appearances and playing into an outside audience.' The Tampa Bay Times reported that, speaking about the survey, DeSantis and Rodrigues 'suggested that budget cuts could be looming if universities and colleges are found to be 'indoctrinating' students.'
Our ruling DeSantis recently signed legislation requiring public colleges and universities to survey 'intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity' to gauge in part how comfortable students, faculty and staff feel sharing their beliefs in classrooms. The survey hasn't been created yet, so we don't know what it will ask students, faculty and staff at these institutions. But a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Education told us it will be voluntary and won't ask about individuals' political beliefs, though surveys in other states that lawmakers have cited as inspiration for the bill do. But, as written, the law doesn't require public college and university students, faculty and staff to register their political views with the state. We rate the post False.
[]
Says Gov. Ron DeSantis 'just signed legislation requiring students, faculty and staff at Florida's public universities and colleges to register their political views with the state.
Contradiction
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill on June 23 requiring an annual assessment of 'intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity' at public colleges and universities. Among the buzz that followed was a claim warning that students and employees of these schools would have to report their political leanings to the government. 'Dictator alert,' begins a screenshot of a tweet being shared on social media. 'Ron DeathSantis just signed legislation requiring students, faculty and staff at Florida's public universities and colleges to register their political views with the state.' 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 Twitter account making the claim echoed a June 23 article on Raw Story, which it also shared in a Twitter thread that followed the claim. The headline says: 'Florida students required to register political views with the state to promote 'intellectual diversity'.' That story is about HB 233, specifically the requirement in the bill that the State Board of Education and the Board of Governors must 'select or create an objective, nonpartisan, and statistically valid survey to be used by each institution which considers the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented and members of the college community, including students, faculty, and staff, feel free to express their beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom.' Education authorities must require the annual assessment from state colleges and universities, according to the bill. Spokespeople for the Board of Governors and the Florida Department of Education told PolitiFact that the survey has not yet been developed. The bill does not address what questions will be asked, whether student and faculty participation in the survey is mandatory, or if the responses will be anonymous. Cheryl Etters, interim communications director for the education department, said the surveys will be voluntary and won't ask about individuals' political beliefs. 'It's merely going to ask whether they feel they can express their political viewpoints and opinions in their college classrooms,' Etters said. 'The idea is to get at 'Do they feel safe expressing their own viewpoint in college?'' No one will be required to register their political views with the state, she said. Jason Mahon, deputy communications director for Gov. Ron DeSantis, told us that the survey would 'need a valid sample, but there is not an expectation that every Florida student or professor would even need to participate.' The legislation also does not require 'knowing the identity of the respondent,' he said. Sen. Ray Rodrigues, the Republican who sponsored the bill, pointed PolitiFact to similar surveys at the University of Colorado and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill that he said inspired the Florida legislation. The Colorado survey asked respondents about their political affiliation and political philosophy, and the North Carolina survey asked respondents about their political leanings. Both universities said the results were anonymous. North Carolina also encouraged students to take the survey with a $10 gift card. Critics of Florida's new law, which goes into effect on July 1, continue to voice fears about how it will be implemented, including the concern that it would have a chilling effect on free speech. A researcher for the Florida Education Association told the Miami Herald in April that she worried it would 'force a fearful self-consciousness that is not as much about learning and debate as about appearances and playing into an outside audience.' The Tampa Bay Times reported that, speaking about the survey, DeSantis and Rodrigues 'suggested that budget cuts could be looming if universities and colleges are found to be 'indoctrinating' students.'
Our ruling DeSantis recently signed legislation requiring public colleges and universities to survey 'intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity' to gauge in part how comfortable students, faculty and staff feel sharing their beliefs in classrooms. The survey hasn't been created yet, so we don't know what it will ask students, faculty and staff at these institutions. But a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Education told us it will be voluntary and won't ask about individuals' political beliefs, though surveys in other states that lawmakers have cited as inspiration for the bill do. But, as written, the law doesn't require public college and university students, faculty and staff to register their political views with the state. We rate the post False.
[]
No one under 20 has died of COVID-19, and 'it has not actually been determined yet' that anyone under 20 can spread it to an older person
Contradiction
As a surge in COVID-19 cases threatens to overwhelm Wisconsin hospitals, Republican lawmakers are still pushing to overturn measures put in place by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers to address it, including the statewide mask mandate. That includes state Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine, who told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he would not back a mask mandate even if the outbreak in Wisconsin became 10 times worse. (The mandate survived an initial court challenge Oct. 12, 2020.) Wanggaard also sought to downplay the seriousness of the virus in young people as he argued that young people should not have to wear masks. He told the Journal Sentinel in an Oct. 7, 2020 video interview that no one under the age of 20 has died of COVID-19, and that 'it has not actually been determined yet' that anyone under 20 can spread it to an older person. This is off-base. Let's break it down. Wanggaard makes broad generalizations that stray from fact Wanggaard's first claim is that no one under 20 has died of complications from the virus. When pressed, Wanggaard backtracked and said that 'less than a third of a percent' of those in that age group who have contracted COVID-19 have died. This is more accurate. Of the nearly 500,000 cases confirmed among Americans ages 0-17, 96 have died, as of Oct. 12, 2020. But it's not zero. (To be sure, as of Oct. 12, 2020, there were zero deaths in that category in Wisconsin, but Wangaard did not specify the state and was speaking broadly in the interview.) Even if the risk of serious illness is lower among young, healthy people, experts have long raised concerns that they could spread it to older adults who are more susceptible to serious illness and death. Wanggaard disputed that, claiming that it has not been determined whether a young person could spread the disease to an older person. When asked for evidence to back up Wanggaard's statement, a spokesman for the senator said he had Googled and found links to four studies conducted throughout the world that found children were rarely transmitting the virus and did not appear to be 'superspreaders' -- that is, able to infect a disproportionate number of people. But showing that young people rarely transmit the virus does not mean, as Wanggaard said, that we do not know whether they ever can. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report on transmission dynamics by age group in hotspot areas of the U.S., released Oct. 9, 2020, found that the percentage of people testing positive among older age groups began to increase after it increased among people ages 0-17 and 18-24. That suggests that at least some younger people were passing the virus to older people. It would have been fair for Wanggaard to say that the jury may still be out on how much young people drive transmission, especially young children. But to say that it is not known whether someone under 20 can infect an older person is misleading at best. What's more, there is no scientific reason to believe that the virus would behave differently once the person infected turned 20 or older. Indeed, there have been numerous outbreaks on college campuses and in elementary and high schools around the country.
Our ruling Wanggaard told a reporter that COVID-19 had caused zero deaths in people under 20, later backtracking to say that it had caused very few, and claimed that it is unknown whether a person under 20 can pass the disease to an older adult. While it's correct that deaths among that age group are few, and some studies have found that young children did not account for a disproportionate amount of transmission of the virus, the senator's statement is too absolute to account for the nuance. Our definition of Mostly False is a claim that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That fits here.
[ "108882-proof-24-6ce2c7e920782a75afa85d2bab5f703d.jpg" ]
No one under 20 has died of COVID-19, and 'it has not actually been determined yet' that anyone under 20 can spread it to an older person
Contradiction
As a surge in COVID-19 cases threatens to overwhelm Wisconsin hospitals, Republican lawmakers are still pushing to overturn measures put in place by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers to address it, including the statewide mask mandate. That includes state Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine, who told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he would not back a mask mandate even if the outbreak in Wisconsin became 10 times worse. (The mandate survived an initial court challenge Oct. 12, 2020.) Wanggaard also sought to downplay the seriousness of the virus in young people as he argued that young people should not have to wear masks. He told the Journal Sentinel in an Oct. 7, 2020 video interview that no one under the age of 20 has died of COVID-19, and that 'it has not actually been determined yet' that anyone under 20 can spread it to an older person. This is off-base. Let's break it down. Wanggaard makes broad generalizations that stray from fact Wanggaard's first claim is that no one under 20 has died of complications from the virus. When pressed, Wanggaard backtracked and said that 'less than a third of a percent' of those in that age group who have contracted COVID-19 have died. This is more accurate. Of the nearly 500,000 cases confirmed among Americans ages 0-17, 96 have died, as of Oct. 12, 2020. But it's not zero. (To be sure, as of Oct. 12, 2020, there were zero deaths in that category in Wisconsin, but Wangaard did not specify the state and was speaking broadly in the interview.) Even if the risk of serious illness is lower among young, healthy people, experts have long raised concerns that they could spread it to older adults who are more susceptible to serious illness and death. Wanggaard disputed that, claiming that it has not been determined whether a young person could spread the disease to an older person. When asked for evidence to back up Wanggaard's statement, a spokesman for the senator said he had Googled and found links to four studies conducted throughout the world that found children were rarely transmitting the virus and did not appear to be 'superspreaders' -- that is, able to infect a disproportionate number of people. But showing that young people rarely transmit the virus does not mean, as Wanggaard said, that we do not know whether they ever can. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report on transmission dynamics by age group in hotspot areas of the U.S., released Oct. 9, 2020, found that the percentage of people testing positive among older age groups began to increase after it increased among people ages 0-17 and 18-24. That suggests that at least some younger people were passing the virus to older people. It would have been fair for Wanggaard to say that the jury may still be out on how much young people drive transmission, especially young children. But to say that it is not known whether someone under 20 can infect an older person is misleading at best. What's more, there is no scientific reason to believe that the virus would behave differently once the person infected turned 20 or older. Indeed, there have been numerous outbreaks on college campuses and in elementary and high schools around the country.
Our ruling Wanggaard told a reporter that COVID-19 had caused zero deaths in people under 20, later backtracking to say that it had caused very few, and claimed that it is unknown whether a person under 20 can pass the disease to an older adult. While it's correct that deaths among that age group are few, and some studies have found that young children did not account for a disproportionate amount of transmission of the virus, the senator's statement is too absolute to account for the nuance. Our definition of Mostly False is a claim that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That fits here.
[ "108882-proof-24-6ce2c7e920782a75afa85d2bab5f703d.jpg" ]
University of Miami researchers have found that the COVID-19 vaccine affects sperm production.
Contradiction
A recent Instagram post points to research out of the University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine as evidence that COVID-19 vaccines will affect sperm production. 'The Miller School researchers have confirmed that the COVID19 virus can affect sperm production inside the testes,' the post says. 'What's in the experimental 'vaccine?' They can't deny it won't affect the male sperm production either by injection or transmission.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In November, the University of Miami announced that a new study by Miller School of Medicine researchers found that COVID-19 can invade the testicles in some men who are infected with the virus. The study was published in the World Journal of Men's Health. Dr. Ranjith Ramasamy, the lead author and the director of reproductive urology at the Miller School, said at the time that 'the findings could be the first step in discovering COVID-19's potential impact on male fertility and whether the virus can be sexually transmitted,' according to the university. By analyzing testis tissue from six men who died of COVID-19, the researchers found impaired sperm function in the tissue of three of the men, and evidence of COVID-19 in the tissue of a fourth man. Other viruses, such as the mumps, are known to affect sperm production and fertility. However, according to the university, 'more studies are needed to evaluate exactly how testis tissue responds to the virus and what that might mean to male fertility and sexual transmission.' The study says that it is 'limited by the small sample size and inability to assess the long-term consequences' of COVID-19 on sperm production. In its conclusions, the researchers wrote: 'The findings of this study could be the first step in discovering impacts to fertility or the possibility of sexual transmission of the virus. On the basis of these preliminary findings, we believe that COVID-19 can penetrate the blood-testis barrier and enter the testis in some men.' The study does not mention vaccines. We reached out to Ramasamy to find out if the Instagram post accurately characterized their work. Dr. Daniel Nassau, one of Ramasamy's fellows and an investigator on the study, responded. 'I am not sure where they are getting vaccine from this article, but that statement is not true,' he said. The school's researchers are separately evaluating how mRNA vaccines may affect fertility, he said, and they're waiting for the results to be published. But, he said, 'we do not think the vaccine will affect male fertility.' A fever can temporarily suppress male fertility, Dr. Parviz Kavoussi, a reproductive urologist at St. David's South Austin Medical Center, told the Austin American-Statesman. And a percentage of people who receive any vaccine, including a COVID-19 vaccine, could experience a fever after getting the shot. But the effects are short-term. 'At three months, it's going to bounce back,' he said. We rate claims that studies show the COVID-19 vaccine will affect sperm production False.
We rate claims that studies show the COVID-19 vaccine will affect sperm production False.
[]
University of Miami researchers have found that the COVID-19 vaccine affects sperm production.
Contradiction
A recent Instagram post points to research out of the University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine as evidence that COVID-19 vaccines will affect sperm production. 'The Miller School researchers have confirmed that the COVID19 virus can affect sperm production inside the testes,' the post says. 'What's in the experimental 'vaccine?' They can't deny it won't affect the male sperm production either by injection or transmission.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In November, the University of Miami announced that a new study by Miller School of Medicine researchers found that COVID-19 can invade the testicles in some men who are infected with the virus. The study was published in the World Journal of Men's Health. Dr. Ranjith Ramasamy, the lead author and the director of reproductive urology at the Miller School, said at the time that 'the findings could be the first step in discovering COVID-19's potential impact on male fertility and whether the virus can be sexually transmitted,' according to the university. By analyzing testis tissue from six men who died of COVID-19, the researchers found impaired sperm function in the tissue of three of the men, and evidence of COVID-19 in the tissue of a fourth man. Other viruses, such as the mumps, are known to affect sperm production and fertility. However, according to the university, 'more studies are needed to evaluate exactly how testis tissue responds to the virus and what that might mean to male fertility and sexual transmission.' The study says that it is 'limited by the small sample size and inability to assess the long-term consequences' of COVID-19 on sperm production. In its conclusions, the researchers wrote: 'The findings of this study could be the first step in discovering impacts to fertility or the possibility of sexual transmission of the virus. On the basis of these preliminary findings, we believe that COVID-19 can penetrate the blood-testis barrier and enter the testis in some men.' The study does not mention vaccines. We reached out to Ramasamy to find out if the Instagram post accurately characterized their work. Dr. Daniel Nassau, one of Ramasamy's fellows and an investigator on the study, responded. 'I am not sure where they are getting vaccine from this article, but that statement is not true,' he said. The school's researchers are separately evaluating how mRNA vaccines may affect fertility, he said, and they're waiting for the results to be published. But, he said, 'we do not think the vaccine will affect male fertility.' A fever can temporarily suppress male fertility, Dr. Parviz Kavoussi, a reproductive urologist at St. David's South Austin Medical Center, told the Austin American-Statesman. And a percentage of people who receive any vaccine, including a COVID-19 vaccine, could experience a fever after getting the shot. But the effects are short-term. 'At three months, it's going to bounce back,' he said. We rate claims that studies show the COVID-19 vaccine will affect sperm production False.
We rate claims that studies show the COVID-19 vaccine will affect sperm production False.
[]
Photos show former President Barack Obama acting inappropriately with a child.
Contradiction
A collage of three images being shared on Facebook suggest that former President Barack Obama was caught acting inappropriately with a child. But that's not the case, and such claims feed into a bigger, unfounded conspiracy pushed by QAnon that he and other powerful people are part of a global child sex-trafficking ring. One of the photos shows a child who appears to be bound and gagged with tape. Obama is not in this picture. Another shows a grid of smaller shots of Obama and the actor George Clooney on a boat with a child. The words, 'exposing herself' and an arrow have been scribbled in red on top of one of the images.. The third shows Obama with his arms wrapped around a young child who is smiling while seated on his lap. 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 don't know the origins of the first image, though as early as 2017 it appeared online in connection with a hoax about dead Malaysian children found without organs. We've already fact-checked claims about the photo of Obama and Clooney, which was taken on Lake Como in 2019. Though the angle of the photo only shows the two men and a girl, other photos from that day reveal there were many people aboard, including Michelle Obama, Amal Clooney, the president's daughter, Malia, and other guests. Several media outlets covered the boat ride and nothing nefarious was reported. The third image was taken in 2015 by Pete Souza, the White House photographer during the Obama administration. The caption: 'The President snuggles with his niece Savita Ng, after his sister Maya Soetoro-Ng, and her family dropped by the Oval Office.' The Baltimore Sun among other news organizations published the image, and Souza posted it on Medium. By posting these images of Obama in connection with a photo that's hard to look at - of a child seemingly in distress - innocuous photos of the former president take on a new, insidious meaning. But claims connecting him to sexual misconduct with children are completely baseless. This post is consistent with a wide-ranging QAnon conspiracy theory that falsely claims that a cabal of prominent Democrats and movie stars are Satan-worshipping pedophiles. We rate this post Pants on Fire.
We rate this post Pants on Fire.
[]
'These 'peaceful' protesters burned these horses to death.
Contradiction
As demonstrations over George Floyd's death in police custody consumed much of the nation's attention, a Facebook post alleged that protesters at one demonstration committed an atrocity against animals with fire. The post included a photo of someone throwing an object that is smoking at what appears to be a horse trailer being pulled by a pickup truck. 'Facebook keeps deleting this,' the post claimed. 'These 'peaceful' protestors burned these horses to death. Don't let yourselves be censored by the media ... I will probably get thrown (in) Facebook jail for this but I don't really care.' The June 1 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 incident in question occurred May 31 when a protest through closed streets in Tulsa, Okla., moved onto Interstate 244. The Tulsa World reported: 'Protesters reportedly let a black woman drive through on the interstate, but when a white man in a pickup towing a horse trailer tried to follow, they blocked his path. A Tulsa World photographer captured a still image of the truck's driver placing a handgun on his dashboard for demonstrators to see.' At least two protesters suffered minor injuries as the truck drove through the crowd, the World reported. The Oklahoma Highway Patrol is still investigating the incident and is not releasing any details, spokeswoman Sarah Stewart told PolitiFact on June 6. Video from the incident shows protesters throwing items at the truck and trailer, pounding their fists on the vehicles and jumping onto the trailer as it moved through the crowd. It's not possible to see into the trailer. The person with the smoking object threw it over the trailer, not into it. The side of the trailer that the person was on did not appear to have any open windows. There is no sign of any fire in that video or in a longer video that is posted with a Tulsa World news story. Video from a live report from KTUL-TV shows that after passing through the crowd, the truck pulled over briefly where highway troopers were stationed.
Our ruling A Facebook post says protesters burned horses to death in a vehicle that drove through a crowd of protesters. Without any evidence of fire, we rate the Facebook post False.
[]
'These 'peaceful' protesters burned these horses to death.
Contradiction
As demonstrations over George Floyd's death in police custody consumed much of the nation's attention, a Facebook post alleged that protesters at one demonstration committed an atrocity against animals with fire. The post included a photo of someone throwing an object that is smoking at what appears to be a horse trailer being pulled by a pickup truck. 'Facebook keeps deleting this,' the post claimed. 'These 'peaceful' protestors burned these horses to death. Don't let yourselves be censored by the media ... I will probably get thrown (in) Facebook jail for this but I don't really care.' The June 1 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 incident in question occurred May 31 when a protest through closed streets in Tulsa, Okla., moved onto Interstate 244. The Tulsa World reported: 'Protesters reportedly let a black woman drive through on the interstate, but when a white man in a pickup towing a horse trailer tried to follow, they blocked his path. A Tulsa World photographer captured a still image of the truck's driver placing a handgun on his dashboard for demonstrators to see.' At least two protesters suffered minor injuries as the truck drove through the crowd, the World reported. The Oklahoma Highway Patrol is still investigating the incident and is not releasing any details, spokeswoman Sarah Stewart told PolitiFact on June 6. Video from the incident shows protesters throwing items at the truck and trailer, pounding their fists on the vehicles and jumping onto the trailer as it moved through the crowd. It's not possible to see into the trailer. The person with the smoking object threw it over the trailer, not into it. The side of the trailer that the person was on did not appear to have any open windows. There is no sign of any fire in that video or in a longer video that is posted with a Tulsa World news story. Video from a live report from KTUL-TV shows that after passing through the crowd, the truck pulled over briefly where highway troopers were stationed.
Our ruling A Facebook post says protesters burned horses to death in a vehicle that drove through a crowd of protesters. Without any evidence of fire, we rate the Facebook post False.
[]
Says Donald Trump offered his hotel 'to our troops to sleep in after they were put in a car garage.
Contradiction
In the wake of the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 26,000 National Guard members were sent to Washington to secure President Joe Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20. The next day, hundreds of Guard members were ordered to vacate the Capitol for several hours and to take rest in nearby parking garages and outdoor areas before being allowed back inside the complex. The confusing move sparked outrage among lawmakers and members of the public. A PolitiFact reader reached out to us with a related question: Did former President Donald Trump offer to come to the Guard members' rescue, as one Facebook post claims? We didn't find evidence of that. The post's claim, and an old photo 'Thank you, President Trump, for offering your beautiful hotel to our troops to sleep in after they were put in a car garage,' reads the Jan. 22 post. The post included a photo of Trump, flashing both thumbs up, surrounded by more than 30 men and women wearing fatigues. Sebastian Gorka, a former deputy assistant to Trump in the White House, shared the photo in a Jan. 22 tweet. Alluding to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gorka wrote: 'Reports coming in that Donald Trump is allowing the National Guard troops forced by Pelosi to sleep in a carpark, to use his DC hotel, Trump International.' We rated False a claim that Democrats forced 'troops' to sleep on the ground in a parking garage. There were conflicting statements about who requested the relocation, but no indication that Democratic lawmakers or the Biden administration played a role. A Google search of the image shows it is an official White House photo of Trump visiting Ramstein Air Base, a U.S. Air Force installation in Germany, on Dec. 26, 2018. No sign Trump hotel offered A One America News Network report credited 'an advisor' that it didn't name with telling the conservative cable service that Trump 'stepped in by informing the troops they could stay' at his hotel. The report didn't offer further details. The Trump International Hotel in Washington, a one-mile walk from the Capitol, did not reply to our email and call. But National Guard spokesperson Nahaku McFadden told PolitiFact that the Guard is 'unaware if this offer was made.' No Guard members stayed at the Trump hotel, and all had other accommodations for when they were off duty, McFadden said.
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed Trump offered his hotel in Washington 'to our troops to sleep in after they were put in a car garage.' The National Guard said it is aware of no such offer and we found no credible evidence to support the claim. We rate it False.
[]
Says Donald Trump offered his hotel 'to our troops to sleep in after they were put in a car garage.
Contradiction
In the wake of the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 26,000 National Guard members were sent to Washington to secure President Joe Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20. The next day, hundreds of Guard members were ordered to vacate the Capitol for several hours and to take rest in nearby parking garages and outdoor areas before being allowed back inside the complex. The confusing move sparked outrage among lawmakers and members of the public. A PolitiFact reader reached out to us with a related question: Did former President Donald Trump offer to come to the Guard members' rescue, as one Facebook post claims? We didn't find evidence of that. The post's claim, and an old photo 'Thank you, President Trump, for offering your beautiful hotel to our troops to sleep in after they were put in a car garage,' reads the Jan. 22 post. The post included a photo of Trump, flashing both thumbs up, surrounded by more than 30 men and women wearing fatigues. Sebastian Gorka, a former deputy assistant to Trump in the White House, shared the photo in a Jan. 22 tweet. Alluding to Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gorka wrote: 'Reports coming in that Donald Trump is allowing the National Guard troops forced by Pelosi to sleep in a carpark, to use his DC hotel, Trump International.' We rated False a claim that Democrats forced 'troops' to sleep on the ground in a parking garage. There were conflicting statements about who requested the relocation, but no indication that Democratic lawmakers or the Biden administration played a role. A Google search of the image shows it is an official White House photo of Trump visiting Ramstein Air Base, a U.S. Air Force installation in Germany, on Dec. 26, 2018. No sign Trump hotel offered A One America News Network report credited 'an advisor' that it didn't name with telling the conservative cable service that Trump 'stepped in by informing the troops they could stay' at his hotel. The report didn't offer further details. The Trump International Hotel in Washington, a one-mile walk from the Capitol, did not reply to our email and call. But National Guard spokesperson Nahaku McFadden told PolitiFact that the Guard is 'unaware if this offer was made.' No Guard members stayed at the Trump hotel, and all had other accommodations for when they were off duty, McFadden said.
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed Trump offered his hotel in Washington 'to our troops to sleep in after they were put in a car garage.' The National Guard said it is aware of no such offer and we found no credible evidence to support the claim. We rate it False.
[]
Gates Foundation stands to make nearly £31.5 billion on a coronavirus vaccine in U.K.
Contradiction
False claims about the Gates Foundation's connection to the novel coronavirus know no borders. In a May 6 Facebook post, an alternative-health page and website called Revive Yourself claimed the philanthropic foundation of billionaires Bill and Melinda Gates stands to profit from the development of a COVID-19 vaccine in the United Kingdom. 'At £477 per vaccine, multiplied by 65 million people in the UK, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are on course to make just under £31,500,000,000 from Great Britain alone. Let that sink in,' the page wrote. 'And people still ask who benefits from this virus & lock down?' That's $38.4 billion in American dollars, by the way. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image in the post is a screenshot of a May 6 tweet from Ryan Martin, who runs Revive Yourself. The website publishes misleading claims about vaccines alongside recommendations for essential oils and supplements. (Screenshot from Facebook) We've fact-checked several false and misleading claims about the Gates Foundation's connection to the coronavirus pandemic - Martin even included one of the false claims in his Facebook post. So we wanted to take a closer look at the post, which he also published on his site. The Gates Foundation has pledged millions of dollars to companies developing potential novel coronavirus vaccines. There is no evidence that the Gates Foundation stands to profit from these efforts. The false claim has been widely shared in conspiratorial groups on Facebook. False claim comes from conspiracy site The assertion that the Gates Foundation stands to make money from a potential coronavirus vaccine originated on a website with a track record of publishing misinformation. We reached out to Martin for evidence to back up his Facebook post and blog entry. He sent us a YouTube video from Zed Phoenix, who describes himself as an 'investigative journalist, author and broadcaster.' In the video, which has more than 75,000 views, Phoenix makes the same claim about the Gates Foundation making money off a coronavirus vaccine. As evidence, Phoenix points to an article on BeforeItsNews.com, a website that has published false stories in the past. The story has been shared hundreds of times in Facebook groups for believers in conspiracies like QAnon, a broad right-wing conspiracy. The article claims without evidence that Gates 'reaps profits through Microsoft and his other companies' from his philanthropic giving. The story makes several other false or misleading claims about the Gates Foundation, vaccines and the coronavirus pandemic - as does Martin's Facebook post. 'The Facebook post contains a number of false claims about the Gates Foundation,' the charity told us in an email. 'The foundation is not involved in the sale of vaccines in the United Kingdom, or anywhere else.' Source of the financial estimate The basis for the £31.5 billion figure in the Facebook post comes from a March 17 Daily Mail story. The article includes an estimated cost of £477 per injection of a coronavirus vaccine that's being developed by Moderna Inc., a U.S. biotechnology company. The newspaper attributes the estimate simply to 'analysts.' The Before It's News story got the £31.5 billion figure by multiplying £477 times the population of the U.K., which was estimated to be around 66.4 million in June 2019. We could not find the cost estimate reported in other publications, or on Moderna's website. So we reached out to the company for more information about the estimated cost of its vaccine, which entered a clinical trial in mid-March. We haven't heard back, but the company told Business Insider in March that it would not 'price this higher than other respiratory-virus vaccines.' Other pharmaceutical companies have offered similar statements. The Gates Foundation's commitment The Gates Foundation said in a Feb. 5 statement that it is investing up to $100 million for 'the global response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.' That includes up to $60 million to 'accelerate the discovery, development and testing of vaccines, treatments and diagnostics for 2019-nCoV,' the scientific name for the novel coronavirus. There are 108 potential vaccines in development, according to the World Health Organization - at last eight of which are in clinical trials. The Gates Foundation is funding some of those efforts, but that doesn't mean the philanthropy would share in future profits from a successful vaccine. RELATED: How close is a coronavirus vaccine? The Gates Foundation is a private nonprofit foundation that gets most of its money from contributions, specifically from the Gateses themselves through their family trust, according to the charity's tax return. The trust's most recent holdings report shows that it does not currently own stock in any of the companies that are working on coronavirus vaccines. Additionally, the Gates Foundation does not hold any patents related to the novel coronavirus.
Our ruling A Facebook post and several blog articles claim that the Gates Foundation could make more than £30 billion from a coronavirus vaccine. That number is based on multiplying a reported estimate of the cost of a potential COVID-19 vaccine times the population of the U.K. But the company developing the vaccine has not publicly released an estimate. And while the Gates Foundation has pledged millions of dollars to companies developing potential coronavirus vaccines, there is no evidence that it stands to profit from them. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
[ "108898-proof-07-Screen_Shot_2020-05-14_at_3.01.26_PM.jpg", "108898-proof-28-b41d5c3486f19f6eceb0ad8f27af11f9.jpg" ]
Gates Foundation stands to make nearly £31.5 billion on a coronavirus vaccine in U.K.
Contradiction
False claims about the Gates Foundation's connection to the novel coronavirus know no borders. In a May 6 Facebook post, an alternative-health page and website called Revive Yourself claimed the philanthropic foundation of billionaires Bill and Melinda Gates stands to profit from the development of a COVID-19 vaccine in the United Kingdom. 'At £477 per vaccine, multiplied by 65 million people in the UK, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are on course to make just under £31,500,000,000 from Great Britain alone. Let that sink in,' the page wrote. 'And people still ask who benefits from this virus & lock down?' That's $38.4 billion in American dollars, by the way. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image in the post is a screenshot of a May 6 tweet from Ryan Martin, who runs Revive Yourself. The website publishes misleading claims about vaccines alongside recommendations for essential oils and supplements. (Screenshot from Facebook) We've fact-checked several false and misleading claims about the Gates Foundation's connection to the coronavirus pandemic - Martin even included one of the false claims in his Facebook post. So we wanted to take a closer look at the post, which he also published on his site. The Gates Foundation has pledged millions of dollars to companies developing potential novel coronavirus vaccines. There is no evidence that the Gates Foundation stands to profit from these efforts. The false claim has been widely shared in conspiratorial groups on Facebook. False claim comes from conspiracy site The assertion that the Gates Foundation stands to make money from a potential coronavirus vaccine originated on a website with a track record of publishing misinformation. We reached out to Martin for evidence to back up his Facebook post and blog entry. He sent us a YouTube video from Zed Phoenix, who describes himself as an 'investigative journalist, author and broadcaster.' In the video, which has more than 75,000 views, Phoenix makes the same claim about the Gates Foundation making money off a coronavirus vaccine. As evidence, Phoenix points to an article on BeforeItsNews.com, a website that has published false stories in the past. The story has been shared hundreds of times in Facebook groups for believers in conspiracies like QAnon, a broad right-wing conspiracy. The article claims without evidence that Gates 'reaps profits through Microsoft and his other companies' from his philanthropic giving. The story makes several other false or misleading claims about the Gates Foundation, vaccines and the coronavirus pandemic - as does Martin's Facebook post. 'The Facebook post contains a number of false claims about the Gates Foundation,' the charity told us in an email. 'The foundation is not involved in the sale of vaccines in the United Kingdom, or anywhere else.' Source of the financial estimate The basis for the £31.5 billion figure in the Facebook post comes from a March 17 Daily Mail story. The article includes an estimated cost of £477 per injection of a coronavirus vaccine that's being developed by Moderna Inc., a U.S. biotechnology company. The newspaper attributes the estimate simply to 'analysts.' The Before It's News story got the £31.5 billion figure by multiplying £477 times the population of the U.K., which was estimated to be around 66.4 million in June 2019. We could not find the cost estimate reported in other publications, or on Moderna's website. So we reached out to the company for more information about the estimated cost of its vaccine, which entered a clinical trial in mid-March. We haven't heard back, but the company told Business Insider in March that it would not 'price this higher than other respiratory-virus vaccines.' Other pharmaceutical companies have offered similar statements. The Gates Foundation's commitment The Gates Foundation said in a Feb. 5 statement that it is investing up to $100 million for 'the global response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.' That includes up to $60 million to 'accelerate the discovery, development and testing of vaccines, treatments and diagnostics for 2019-nCoV,' the scientific name for the novel coronavirus. There are 108 potential vaccines in development, according to the World Health Organization - at last eight of which are in clinical trials. The Gates Foundation is funding some of those efforts, but that doesn't mean the philanthropy would share in future profits from a successful vaccine. RELATED: How close is a coronavirus vaccine? The Gates Foundation is a private nonprofit foundation that gets most of its money from contributions, specifically from the Gateses themselves through their family trust, according to the charity's tax return. The trust's most recent holdings report shows that it does not currently own stock in any of the companies that are working on coronavirus vaccines. Additionally, the Gates Foundation does not hold any patents related to the novel coronavirus.
Our ruling A Facebook post and several blog articles claim that the Gates Foundation could make more than £30 billion from a coronavirus vaccine. That number is based on multiplying a reported estimate of the cost of a potential COVID-19 vaccine times the population of the U.K. But the company developing the vaccine has not publicly released an estimate. And while the Gates Foundation has pledged millions of dollars to companies developing potential coronavirus vaccines, there is no evidence that it stands to profit from them. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
[ "108898-proof-07-Screen_Shot_2020-05-14_at_3.01.26_PM.jpg", "108898-proof-28-b41d5c3486f19f6eceb0ad8f27af11f9.jpg" ]
Gates Foundation stands to make nearly £31.5 billion on a coronavirus vaccine in U.K.
Contradiction
False claims about the Gates Foundation's connection to the novel coronavirus know no borders. In a May 6 Facebook post, an alternative-health page and website called Revive Yourself claimed the philanthropic foundation of billionaires Bill and Melinda Gates stands to profit from the development of a COVID-19 vaccine in the United Kingdom. 'At £477 per vaccine, multiplied by 65 million people in the UK, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are on course to make just under £31,500,000,000 from Great Britain alone. Let that sink in,' the page wrote. 'And people still ask who benefits from this virus & lock down?' That's $38.4 billion in American dollars, by the way. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image in the post is a screenshot of a May 6 tweet from Ryan Martin, who runs Revive Yourself. The website publishes misleading claims about vaccines alongside recommendations for essential oils and supplements. (Screenshot from Facebook) We've fact-checked several false and misleading claims about the Gates Foundation's connection to the coronavirus pandemic - Martin even included one of the false claims in his Facebook post. So we wanted to take a closer look at the post, which he also published on his site. The Gates Foundation has pledged millions of dollars to companies developing potential novel coronavirus vaccines. There is no evidence that the Gates Foundation stands to profit from these efforts. The false claim has been widely shared in conspiratorial groups on Facebook. False claim comes from conspiracy site The assertion that the Gates Foundation stands to make money from a potential coronavirus vaccine originated on a website with a track record of publishing misinformation. We reached out to Martin for evidence to back up his Facebook post and blog entry. He sent us a YouTube video from Zed Phoenix, who describes himself as an 'investigative journalist, author and broadcaster.' In the video, which has more than 75,000 views, Phoenix makes the same claim about the Gates Foundation making money off a coronavirus vaccine. As evidence, Phoenix points to an article on BeforeItsNews.com, a website that has published false stories in the past. The story has been shared hundreds of times in Facebook groups for believers in conspiracies like QAnon, a broad right-wing conspiracy. The article claims without evidence that Gates 'reaps profits through Microsoft and his other companies' from his philanthropic giving. The story makes several other false or misleading claims about the Gates Foundation, vaccines and the coronavirus pandemic - as does Martin's Facebook post. 'The Facebook post contains a number of false claims about the Gates Foundation,' the charity told us in an email. 'The foundation is not involved in the sale of vaccines in the United Kingdom, or anywhere else.' Source of the financial estimate The basis for the £31.5 billion figure in the Facebook post comes from a March 17 Daily Mail story. The article includes an estimated cost of £477 per injection of a coronavirus vaccine that's being developed by Moderna Inc., a U.S. biotechnology company. The newspaper attributes the estimate simply to 'analysts.' The Before It's News story got the £31.5 billion figure by multiplying £477 times the population of the U.K., which was estimated to be around 66.4 million in June 2019. We could not find the cost estimate reported in other publications, or on Moderna's website. So we reached out to the company for more information about the estimated cost of its vaccine, which entered a clinical trial in mid-March. We haven't heard back, but the company told Business Insider in March that it would not 'price this higher than other respiratory-virus vaccines.' Other pharmaceutical companies have offered similar statements. The Gates Foundation's commitment The Gates Foundation said in a Feb. 5 statement that it is investing up to $100 million for 'the global response to the 2019 novel coronavirus.' That includes up to $60 million to 'accelerate the discovery, development and testing of vaccines, treatments and diagnostics for 2019-nCoV,' the scientific name for the novel coronavirus. There are 108 potential vaccines in development, according to the World Health Organization - at last eight of which are in clinical trials. The Gates Foundation is funding some of those efforts, but that doesn't mean the philanthropy would share in future profits from a successful vaccine. RELATED: How close is a coronavirus vaccine? The Gates Foundation is a private nonprofit foundation that gets most of its money from contributions, specifically from the Gateses themselves through their family trust, according to the charity's tax return. The trust's most recent holdings report shows that it does not currently own stock in any of the companies that are working on coronavirus vaccines. Additionally, the Gates Foundation does not hold any patents related to the novel coronavirus.
Our ruling A Facebook post and several blog articles claim that the Gates Foundation could make more than £30 billion from a coronavirus vaccine. That number is based on multiplying a reported estimate of the cost of a potential COVID-19 vaccine times the population of the U.K. But the company developing the vaccine has not publicly released an estimate. And while the Gates Foundation has pledged millions of dollars to companies developing potential coronavirus vaccines, there is no evidence that it stands to profit from them. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
[ "108898-proof-07-Screen_Shot_2020-05-14_at_3.01.26_PM.jpg", "108898-proof-28-b41d5c3486f19f6eceb0ad8f27af11f9.jpg" ]
'The entire city (of Portland) is ablaze all the time.
Contradiction
The whole city of Portland, Ore., is not on fire, despite President Donald Trump's claim that 'the entire city is ablaze all the time.' The remark came during a White House press conference, when Trump criticized Portland's mayor for his handling of ongoing protests in the city. Later that night, Trump told Fox News, 'Portland's been burning for many years, for decades it's been burning.' Local authorities and journalists disputed both claims. 'We are not on fire. We have not been on fire,' said Lt. Rich Chatman, a spokesperson for Portland Fire & Rescue, adding that there has been 'a steady and remarkable decline in the number of fires for the last few years and certainly decades.' Portland, Oregon's largest city, drew national attention when federal agents swooped in against the wishes of local leaders to protect federal property that they said was at risk because of the protests, which have occurred every night since May. Some have included incidents of vandalism and violence, leading businesses near the affected areas to close or board up their windows. But the problems have been mainly confined to small parts of the city, including the area near the federal Hatfield Courthouse. 'There's a lot of damage around the federal courthouse,' Chatman said. 'But the fact of the matter is this is a very small area of even downtown. We are not under siege.' 'For the average resident of Portland, they probably never lay eyes on some of these fires,' Chatman added. 'This is a very concentrated area.' The Portland Police Bureau provided PolitiFact with a map and timeline of the protests from May 29 to Aug. 31. It details where each has taken place, whether a riot was declared, whether arrests were made, and whether the protesters used projectiles, fireworks, vandalism or fires. By our count, there were 54 fires set across 95 nights of demonstrations, which have largely taken place at one of 10 discrete locations, according to the map and timeline. A Department of Homeland Security officer emerges from the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse after demonstrators lit a fire on Aug. 2, 2020, in Portland, Ore. (AP) Chatman said that in five or six incidents, fires were set to buildings that had people in them. But in many cases, the fires have been set in trash cans, dumpsters or on the street. 'None of these fires have grown to a size that requires more than one of our fire engines,' Chatman said. The individual fires don't amount to a city on fire. 'Portland is not ablaze,' said Charles Boyle, a spokesperson for Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, who pointed to a television news station webpage that shows live camera footage of different areas in the state, including parts of Portland. Trump has warned that Portland's protests are an example of the type of unrest that he claims would go unchecked under former Vice President Joe Biden, his challenger in 2020 - even as the protests continue on his watch. The city, Trump has said, is 'under siege.' But the president's description of a city gripped by violence and engulfed in flames has been challenged by journalists working in the area. In July, for example, the editorial board for the Oregonian wrote an opinion piece titled, 'Not under siege, but a city in need.' Two people sit in Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland, Ore., on Aug. 27, 2020. (AP) The Oregonian's news department reported on the disconnect between how Portland is known to its residents and how it has been portrayed by Trump and conservative media. Buzzfeed News and CNN have described the same discrepancy. RELATED: No, these aren't photos of Portland, Ore., after the protests We asked journalists from the Oregonian and other local news outlets about Trump's claim. They described an on-the-ground reality in which most protesters have been peaceful, while a subset of people have clashed with police, graffitied buildings and ignited fires. The fires that have ensued have been quickly extinguished and confined to a few small parts of the city. 'Portland is not ablaze, though we do love the Trail Blazers,' said Anna Griffin, the news director at Oregon Public Broadcasting, in a reference to the city's NBA team. Street-level activism has been a feature of Portland's culture for years, Griffin said. 'We're a small city reckoning with centuries of racism - both within our law enforcement and laws themselves - and that reckoning isn't tidy,' added Alex Zielinski, the news editor at the Portland Mercury, an alternative newspaper. 'But no, we're not on fire.'
Our ruling Trump said of Portland: 'The entire city is ablaze all the time.' While months of protests in Portland have seen many fires set to streets, trash cans, and buildings, those incidents have been confined to a few small sections of the city and relatively easy for the city's fire department to extinguish. Most of the city has been unaffected. The whole city is not in flames. We rate Trump's claim False.
[ "108902-proof-16-a4174823d35c863c6772ba0f47d7c0c6.jpg" ]
'The entire city (of Portland) is ablaze all the time.
Contradiction
The whole city of Portland, Ore., is not on fire, despite President Donald Trump's claim that 'the entire city is ablaze all the time.' The remark came during a White House press conference, when Trump criticized Portland's mayor for his handling of ongoing protests in the city. Later that night, Trump told Fox News, 'Portland's been burning for many years, for decades it's been burning.' Local authorities and journalists disputed both claims. 'We are not on fire. We have not been on fire,' said Lt. Rich Chatman, a spokesperson for Portland Fire & Rescue, adding that there has been 'a steady and remarkable decline in the number of fires for the last few years and certainly decades.' Portland, Oregon's largest city, drew national attention when federal agents swooped in against the wishes of local leaders to protect federal property that they said was at risk because of the protests, which have occurred every night since May. Some have included incidents of vandalism and violence, leading businesses near the affected areas to close or board up their windows. But the problems have been mainly confined to small parts of the city, including the area near the federal Hatfield Courthouse. 'There's a lot of damage around the federal courthouse,' Chatman said. 'But the fact of the matter is this is a very small area of even downtown. We are not under siege.' 'For the average resident of Portland, they probably never lay eyes on some of these fires,' Chatman added. 'This is a very concentrated area.' The Portland Police Bureau provided PolitiFact with a map and timeline of the protests from May 29 to Aug. 31. It details where each has taken place, whether a riot was declared, whether arrests were made, and whether the protesters used projectiles, fireworks, vandalism or fires. By our count, there were 54 fires set across 95 nights of demonstrations, which have largely taken place at one of 10 discrete locations, according to the map and timeline. A Department of Homeland Security officer emerges from the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse after demonstrators lit a fire on Aug. 2, 2020, in Portland, Ore. (AP) Chatman said that in five or six incidents, fires were set to buildings that had people in them. But in many cases, the fires have been set in trash cans, dumpsters or on the street. 'None of these fires have grown to a size that requires more than one of our fire engines,' Chatman said. The individual fires don't amount to a city on fire. 'Portland is not ablaze,' said Charles Boyle, a spokesperson for Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, who pointed to a television news station webpage that shows live camera footage of different areas in the state, including parts of Portland. Trump has warned that Portland's protests are an example of the type of unrest that he claims would go unchecked under former Vice President Joe Biden, his challenger in 2020 - even as the protests continue on his watch. The city, Trump has said, is 'under siege.' But the president's description of a city gripped by violence and engulfed in flames has been challenged by journalists working in the area. In July, for example, the editorial board for the Oregonian wrote an opinion piece titled, 'Not under siege, but a city in need.' Two people sit in Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland, Ore., on Aug. 27, 2020. (AP) The Oregonian's news department reported on the disconnect between how Portland is known to its residents and how it has been portrayed by Trump and conservative media. Buzzfeed News and CNN have described the same discrepancy. RELATED: No, these aren't photos of Portland, Ore., after the protests We asked journalists from the Oregonian and other local news outlets about Trump's claim. They described an on-the-ground reality in which most protesters have been peaceful, while a subset of people have clashed with police, graffitied buildings and ignited fires. The fires that have ensued have been quickly extinguished and confined to a few small parts of the city. 'Portland is not ablaze, though we do love the Trail Blazers,' said Anna Griffin, the news director at Oregon Public Broadcasting, in a reference to the city's NBA team. Street-level activism has been a feature of Portland's culture for years, Griffin said. 'We're a small city reckoning with centuries of racism - both within our law enforcement and laws themselves - and that reckoning isn't tidy,' added Alex Zielinski, the news editor at the Portland Mercury, an alternative newspaper. 'But no, we're not on fire.'
Our ruling Trump said of Portland: 'The entire city is ablaze all the time.' While months of protests in Portland have seen many fires set to streets, trash cans, and buildings, those incidents have been confined to a few small sections of the city and relatively easy for the city's fire department to extinguish. Most of the city has been unaffected. The whole city is not in flames. We rate Trump's claim False.
[ "108902-proof-16-a4174823d35c863c6772ba0f47d7c0c6.jpg" ]
'The entire city (of Portland) is ablaze all the time.
Contradiction
The whole city of Portland, Ore., is not on fire, despite President Donald Trump's claim that 'the entire city is ablaze all the time.' The remark came during a White House press conference, when Trump criticized Portland's mayor for his handling of ongoing protests in the city. Later that night, Trump told Fox News, 'Portland's been burning for many years, for decades it's been burning.' Local authorities and journalists disputed both claims. 'We are not on fire. We have not been on fire,' said Lt. Rich Chatman, a spokesperson for Portland Fire & Rescue, adding that there has been 'a steady and remarkable decline in the number of fires for the last few years and certainly decades.' Portland, Oregon's largest city, drew national attention when federal agents swooped in against the wishes of local leaders to protect federal property that they said was at risk because of the protests, which have occurred every night since May. Some have included incidents of vandalism and violence, leading businesses near the affected areas to close or board up their windows. But the problems have been mainly confined to small parts of the city, including the area near the federal Hatfield Courthouse. 'There's a lot of damage around the federal courthouse,' Chatman said. 'But the fact of the matter is this is a very small area of even downtown. We are not under siege.' 'For the average resident of Portland, they probably never lay eyes on some of these fires,' Chatman added. 'This is a very concentrated area.' The Portland Police Bureau provided PolitiFact with a map and timeline of the protests from May 29 to Aug. 31. It details where each has taken place, whether a riot was declared, whether arrests were made, and whether the protesters used projectiles, fireworks, vandalism or fires. By our count, there were 54 fires set across 95 nights of demonstrations, which have largely taken place at one of 10 discrete locations, according to the map and timeline. A Department of Homeland Security officer emerges from the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse after demonstrators lit a fire on Aug. 2, 2020, in Portland, Ore. (AP) Chatman said that in five or six incidents, fires were set to buildings that had people in them. But in many cases, the fires have been set in trash cans, dumpsters or on the street. 'None of these fires have grown to a size that requires more than one of our fire engines,' Chatman said. The individual fires don't amount to a city on fire. 'Portland is not ablaze,' said Charles Boyle, a spokesperson for Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, who pointed to a television news station webpage that shows live camera footage of different areas in the state, including parts of Portland. Trump has warned that Portland's protests are an example of the type of unrest that he claims would go unchecked under former Vice President Joe Biden, his challenger in 2020 - even as the protests continue on his watch. The city, Trump has said, is 'under siege.' But the president's description of a city gripped by violence and engulfed in flames has been challenged by journalists working in the area. In July, for example, the editorial board for the Oregonian wrote an opinion piece titled, 'Not under siege, but a city in need.' Two people sit in Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland, Ore., on Aug. 27, 2020. (AP) The Oregonian's news department reported on the disconnect between how Portland is known to its residents and how it has been portrayed by Trump and conservative media. Buzzfeed News and CNN have described the same discrepancy. RELATED: No, these aren't photos of Portland, Ore., after the protests We asked journalists from the Oregonian and other local news outlets about Trump's claim. They described an on-the-ground reality in which most protesters have been peaceful, while a subset of people have clashed with police, graffitied buildings and ignited fires. The fires that have ensued have been quickly extinguished and confined to a few small parts of the city. 'Portland is not ablaze, though we do love the Trail Blazers,' said Anna Griffin, the news director at Oregon Public Broadcasting, in a reference to the city's NBA team. Street-level activism has been a feature of Portland's culture for years, Griffin said. 'We're a small city reckoning with centuries of racism - both within our law enforcement and laws themselves - and that reckoning isn't tidy,' added Alex Zielinski, the news editor at the Portland Mercury, an alternative newspaper. 'But no, we're not on fire.'
Our ruling Trump said of Portland: 'The entire city is ablaze all the time.' While months of protests in Portland have seen many fires set to streets, trash cans, and buildings, those incidents have been confined to a few small sections of the city and relatively easy for the city's fire department to extinguish. Most of the city has been unaffected. The whole city is not in flames. We rate Trump's claim False.
[ "108902-proof-16-a4174823d35c863c6772ba0f47d7c0c6.jpg" ]
An episode of 'The Simpsons' showed Donald Trump in a coffin.
Contradiction
Shortly after President Donald Trump tweeted that he had tested positive for the coronavirus, Facebook posts started popping up claiming that the long-running TV show 'The Simpsons' had featured Trump in a coffin. That image of Trump purportedly in a coffin in an episode of 'The Simpsons' has been circulating for years and has been debunked. Snopes in February 2017 reported that the image did not appear in 'The Simpsons,' and while its origins are unclear, it appears to have been promoted on the fringe forum website 4chan. The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Earlier this year, social media posts also claimed that 'The Simpsons' predicted Trump would die Aug. 27, 2020, and used that same image of Trump in a coffin. 'The Simpsons' has featured Trump before, but we found no indication that the show aired an episode of him in a coffin. Bill Oakley, a former writer for 'The Simpsons,' told the Hollywood Reporter in a story published March 2020 that the show gets too much credit for predicting the future and also didn't like past episodes being used for nefarious purposes. Facebook posts have falsely claimed that 'The Simpsons' predicted the coronavirus. We rated that Pants on Fire. 'There are very few cases where 'The Simpsons' predicted something,' Oakley told the Hollywood Reporter. 'It's mainly just coincidence because the episodes are so old that history repeats itself. Most of these episodes are based on things that happened in the '60s, '70s or '80s that we knew about.' In his Oct. 2 tweet, Trump said that his wife, Melania Trump, also tested positive for COVID-19. 'We will begin our quarantine and recovery process immediately. We will get through this TOGETHER!,' Trump said. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
Bill Oakley, a former writer for 'The Simpsons,' told the Hollywood Reporter in a story published March 2020 that the show gets too much credit for predicting the future and also didn't like past episodes being used for nefarious purposes. Facebook posts have falsely claimed that 'The Simpsons' predicted the coronavirus. We rated that Pants on Fire. 'There are very few cases where 'The Simpsons' predicted something,' Oakley told the Hollywood Reporter. 'It's mainly just coincidence because the episodes are so old that history repeats itself. Most of these episodes are based on things that happened in the '60s, '70s or '80s that we knew about.' In his Oct. 2 tweet, Trump said that his wife, Melania Trump, also tested positive for COVID-19. 'We will begin our quarantine and recovery process immediately. We will get through this TOGETHER!,' Trump said. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
[]
An episode of 'The Simpsons' showed Donald Trump in a coffin.
Contradiction
Shortly after President Donald Trump tweeted that he had tested positive for the coronavirus, Facebook posts started popping up claiming that the long-running TV show 'The Simpsons' had featured Trump in a coffin. That image of Trump purportedly in a coffin in an episode of 'The Simpsons' has been circulating for years and has been debunked. Snopes in February 2017 reported that the image did not appear in 'The Simpsons,' and while its origins are unclear, it appears to have been promoted on the fringe forum website 4chan. The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Earlier this year, social media posts also claimed that 'The Simpsons' predicted Trump would die Aug. 27, 2020, and used that same image of Trump in a coffin. 'The Simpsons' has featured Trump before, but we found no indication that the show aired an episode of him in a coffin. Bill Oakley, a former writer for 'The Simpsons,' told the Hollywood Reporter in a story published March 2020 that the show gets too much credit for predicting the future and also didn't like past episodes being used for nefarious purposes. Facebook posts have falsely claimed that 'The Simpsons' predicted the coronavirus. We rated that Pants on Fire. 'There are very few cases where 'The Simpsons' predicted something,' Oakley told the Hollywood Reporter. 'It's mainly just coincidence because the episodes are so old that history repeats itself. Most of these episodes are based on things that happened in the '60s, '70s or '80s that we knew about.' In his Oct. 2 tweet, Trump said that his wife, Melania Trump, also tested positive for COVID-19. 'We will begin our quarantine and recovery process immediately. We will get through this TOGETHER!,' Trump said. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
Bill Oakley, a former writer for 'The Simpsons,' told the Hollywood Reporter in a story published March 2020 that the show gets too much credit for predicting the future and also didn't like past episodes being used for nefarious purposes. Facebook posts have falsely claimed that 'The Simpsons' predicted the coronavirus. We rated that Pants on Fire. 'There are very few cases where 'The Simpsons' predicted something,' Oakley told the Hollywood Reporter. 'It's mainly just coincidence because the episodes are so old that history repeats itself. Most of these episodes are based on things that happened in the '60s, '70s or '80s that we knew about.' In his Oct. 2 tweet, Trump said that his wife, Melania Trump, also tested positive for COVID-19. 'We will begin our quarantine and recovery process immediately. We will get through this TOGETHER!,' Trump said. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
[]
Says Sarah Jeong said, 'We need a castration lottery for white men. Every month we pull a birthday, sort the excess and snip some sacks, preferably in a big public gathering.
Contradiction
Brian Kolfage, founder of the 'We Build the Wall' organization, has repeatedly attacked federal prosecutors who have indicted him for allegedly defrauding investors of hundreds of thousands of donors. In one of these instances on Sep. 20, Kolfage posted on Facebook an image of a fake quote attributed to former New York Times editorial board member Sarah Jeong. 'We need a castration lottery for white men. Every month we pull a birthday, sort the excess and snip some sacks, preferably in a big public gathering,' reads the quote next to a picture of Jeong. Kolfage'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.) In a caption accompanying the post, Kolfage drew a parallel between Jeong and the U.S. attorneys for the Southern District of New York who indicted him and three others on charges they defrauded donors to We Build the Wall, a nonprofit created to help fund construction of a wall along the Mexican border. 'She must be the script writer for SDNY investigations,' Kolfage wrote. 'That indictment read like a NYT piece that was fully scripted.' To be clear: There is no evidence Jeong ever said this. Nowhere on social media has Jeong advocated for a 'castration lottery' for white men. Nor has she written anything along those lines in her extensive body of work. Early iterations of the fabricated quote shared by Kolfage appeared on 4chan in August 2018 along with a series of other posts falsely attributed to Jeong. On one of the threads in which it appeared, other 4chan users called the quote's veracity into question. When Jeong joined the New York Times editorial board in August 2018, detractors surfaced a series of tweets dating back to 2013, which they claimed showed anti-white bias. Jeong said that the tweets were meant to be sarcastic responses to racist and sexist harassment she had received, but people inundated her with death threats. Contacted by PolitiFact, Jeong confirmed that the quote was false.
Our ruling Kolfage falsely attributed a quote to Jeong. 'She has never called for a 'castration lottery' of white men. The fake quote first appeared on 4chan when Jeong was the subject of an internet controversy. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
[ "108917-proof-22-6345f4a23ef5cc94591f642de5872837.jpg" ]
Says Sarah Jeong said, 'We need a castration lottery for white men. Every month we pull a birthday, sort the excess and snip some sacks, preferably in a big public gathering.
Contradiction
Brian Kolfage, founder of the 'We Build the Wall' organization, has repeatedly attacked federal prosecutors who have indicted him for allegedly defrauding investors of hundreds of thousands of donors. In one of these instances on Sep. 20, Kolfage posted on Facebook an image of a fake quote attributed to former New York Times editorial board member Sarah Jeong. 'We need a castration lottery for white men. Every month we pull a birthday, sort the excess and snip some sacks, preferably in a big public gathering,' reads the quote next to a picture of Jeong. Kolfage'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.) In a caption accompanying the post, Kolfage drew a parallel between Jeong and the U.S. attorneys for the Southern District of New York who indicted him and three others on charges they defrauded donors to We Build the Wall, a nonprofit created to help fund construction of a wall along the Mexican border. 'She must be the script writer for SDNY investigations,' Kolfage wrote. 'That indictment read like a NYT piece that was fully scripted.' To be clear: There is no evidence Jeong ever said this. Nowhere on social media has Jeong advocated for a 'castration lottery' for white men. Nor has she written anything along those lines in her extensive body of work. Early iterations of the fabricated quote shared by Kolfage appeared on 4chan in August 2018 along with a series of other posts falsely attributed to Jeong. On one of the threads in which it appeared, other 4chan users called the quote's veracity into question. When Jeong joined the New York Times editorial board in August 2018, detractors surfaced a series of tweets dating back to 2013, which they claimed showed anti-white bias. Jeong said that the tweets were meant to be sarcastic responses to racist and sexist harassment she had received, but people inundated her with death threats. Contacted by PolitiFact, Jeong confirmed that the quote was false.
Our ruling Kolfage falsely attributed a quote to Jeong. 'She has never called for a 'castration lottery' of white men. The fake quote first appeared on 4chan when Jeong was the subject of an internet controversy. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
[ "108917-proof-22-6345f4a23ef5cc94591f642de5872837.jpg" ]
People charged in the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol are 'political prisoners' and 'non-violent trespassers' who have been held in solitary confinement for the past six months.
Contradiction
Some of the people charged with crimes in the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol have been held in solitary confinement while they await trial. An Instagram post mischaracterizes why they were charged and what they are accused of doing. 'FREE JAN 6 POLITICAL PRISONERS,' the claim begins. 'NON-VIOLENT TRESPASSERS HAVE BEEN IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT FOR THE PAST 6 MONTHS.' 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.) Versions of the claim have been made on Twitter. The defendants were charged with crimes not because of their political views, but because they allegedly committed violent acts or other crimes during the riot. Most are not in custody while awaiting trial, but some are in jail and some have been held in solitary confinement. The violent acts Let's start by dispelling the notion that the armed insurrection was merely a political protest by trespassers. We rated as Pants on Fire a claim that the riot resembled a 'normal tourist visit,' and we gave a Pants on Fire rating to the claim that it was a 'completely peaceful protest.' The protesters supporting then-President Donald Trump forced their way through barricades and past law enforcement to breach the building. They smashed windows and broke doors. They ransacked offices. They chanted about the vice president, 'Hang Mike Pence!' They attacked police officers. They caused the House and Senate to shut down for several hours on the day lawmakers were certifying that Joe Biden won the presidential election. The Justice Department has charged 551 people - 481 men and 70 women - in connection with the siege, according to a database run by the George Washington University Center on Extremism. Charges include obstruction of law enforcement; violence with a deadly weapon; assault; disorderly conduct; and unlawful possession of firearms. The latest arrest, of a 32-year-old Houston man on charges including assaulting an officer, was made July 23. In reviewing court filings, news reports and other information for approximately 430 defendants who had been arrested through June 1, PolitiFact found the key driver behind what happened on Jan. 6 was acceptance of the false narrative that Democrats stole the election with widespread voter fraud. Solitary confinement News reports have detailed some of the cases in which suspects have been held in solitary confinement. Politico reported in April that most of the defendants had been released from custody while they await trial, but dozens deemed to be dangerous, flight risks or at high risk of obstructing justice were ordered held without bond. Washington jail officials later decided for safety reasons that all of those defendants would be placed in so-called restrictive housing, which meant 23 hours a day of isolation. In May, The Guardian reported that of the 398 defendants charged as of May 10, at least 330 were listed on the Justice Department website or in federal court records as having been released from custody. New York State resident Edward Jacob Lang, whose charges include assaulting, resisting or impeding officers using a dangerous weapon, was arrested on Jan. 16, largely based on social media posts he made of the Jan. 6 riot. According to reporting from the Middletown, N.Y., Times Herald-Record, the 26-year-old Lang interrupted a federal judge during a July 16 status hearing on his case, saying that he has been held in solitary confinement for six months, that his treatment is 'inhumane' and that 'I have been stripped of all human dignity.' The judge did not respond. The newspaper also said that another area defendant, Thomas Webster, was kept alone in his cell for 23 hours a day until being released June 30 to home detention. He was prevented from getting court papers and a computer thumb drive his lawyers mailed him, according to a court filing by his lawyer. Webster, whose charges also include assaulting, resisting or impeding officers using a dangerous weapon, was arrested Feb. 22. Democratic and Republican senators have expressed concerns about the solitary confinement of Jan. 6 defendants. The District of Columbia Department of Corrections would not answer our questions about how many of the defendants have been held in solitary confinement. The department sent a statement that said: 'The safety and security of DOC's facilities remain our highest priority. It is our mission to protect and treat every resident humanely and respectfully while they are in our care awaiting due process. DOC carries out its mission for every individual regardless of their background and political affiliations.'
Our ruling An Instagram post says people charged in the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol are 'political prisoners' and 'non-violent trespassers' who have been held in solitary confinement for the past six months. The vast majority of defendants have been released from custody while awaiting trial, but some held in jail have been kept in solitary confinement. The defendants face numerous charges that include violent acts and attacks on officers. While many defendants may have been inspired to participate based on their political beliefs, there is no evidence they are being prosecuted for those beliefs; the charges and court documents show they are being prosecuted for actions that law enforcement officials say violated the law. The post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression - our definition of Mostly False.
[ "108952-proof-18-f2d9166092450e5e4608637752559521.jpg" ]
People charged in the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol are 'political prisoners' and 'non-violent trespassers' who have been held in solitary confinement for the past six months.
Contradiction
Some of the people charged with crimes in the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol have been held in solitary confinement while they await trial. An Instagram post mischaracterizes why they were charged and what they are accused of doing. 'FREE JAN 6 POLITICAL PRISONERS,' the claim begins. 'NON-VIOLENT TRESPASSERS HAVE BEEN IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT FOR THE PAST 6 MONTHS.' 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.) Versions of the claim have been made on Twitter. The defendants were charged with crimes not because of their political views, but because they allegedly committed violent acts or other crimes during the riot. Most are not in custody while awaiting trial, but some are in jail and some have been held in solitary confinement. The violent acts Let's start by dispelling the notion that the armed insurrection was merely a political protest by trespassers. We rated as Pants on Fire a claim that the riot resembled a 'normal tourist visit,' and we gave a Pants on Fire rating to the claim that it was a 'completely peaceful protest.' The protesters supporting then-President Donald Trump forced their way through barricades and past law enforcement to breach the building. They smashed windows and broke doors. They ransacked offices. They chanted about the vice president, 'Hang Mike Pence!' They attacked police officers. They caused the House and Senate to shut down for several hours on the day lawmakers were certifying that Joe Biden won the presidential election. The Justice Department has charged 551 people - 481 men and 70 women - in connection with the siege, according to a database run by the George Washington University Center on Extremism. Charges include obstruction of law enforcement; violence with a deadly weapon; assault; disorderly conduct; and unlawful possession of firearms. The latest arrest, of a 32-year-old Houston man on charges including assaulting an officer, was made July 23. In reviewing court filings, news reports and other information for approximately 430 defendants who had been arrested through June 1, PolitiFact found the key driver behind what happened on Jan. 6 was acceptance of the false narrative that Democrats stole the election with widespread voter fraud. Solitary confinement News reports have detailed some of the cases in which suspects have been held in solitary confinement. Politico reported in April that most of the defendants had been released from custody while they await trial, but dozens deemed to be dangerous, flight risks or at high risk of obstructing justice were ordered held without bond. Washington jail officials later decided for safety reasons that all of those defendants would be placed in so-called restrictive housing, which meant 23 hours a day of isolation. In May, The Guardian reported that of the 398 defendants charged as of May 10, at least 330 were listed on the Justice Department website or in federal court records as having been released from custody. New York State resident Edward Jacob Lang, whose charges include assaulting, resisting or impeding officers using a dangerous weapon, was arrested on Jan. 16, largely based on social media posts he made of the Jan. 6 riot. According to reporting from the Middletown, N.Y., Times Herald-Record, the 26-year-old Lang interrupted a federal judge during a July 16 status hearing on his case, saying that he has been held in solitary confinement for six months, that his treatment is 'inhumane' and that 'I have been stripped of all human dignity.' The judge did not respond. The newspaper also said that another area defendant, Thomas Webster, was kept alone in his cell for 23 hours a day until being released June 30 to home detention. He was prevented from getting court papers and a computer thumb drive his lawyers mailed him, according to a court filing by his lawyer. Webster, whose charges also include assaulting, resisting or impeding officers using a dangerous weapon, was arrested Feb. 22. Democratic and Republican senators have expressed concerns about the solitary confinement of Jan. 6 defendants. The District of Columbia Department of Corrections would not answer our questions about how many of the defendants have been held in solitary confinement. The department sent a statement that said: 'The safety and security of DOC's facilities remain our highest priority. It is our mission to protect and treat every resident humanely and respectfully while they are in our care awaiting due process. DOC carries out its mission for every individual regardless of their background and political affiliations.'
Our ruling An Instagram post says people charged in the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol are 'political prisoners' and 'non-violent trespassers' who have been held in solitary confinement for the past six months. The vast majority of defendants have been released from custody while awaiting trial, but some held in jail have been kept in solitary confinement. The defendants face numerous charges that include violent acts and attacks on officers. While many defendants may have been inspired to participate based on their political beliefs, there is no evidence they are being prosecuted for those beliefs; the charges and court documents show they are being prosecuted for actions that law enforcement officials say violated the law. The post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression - our definition of Mostly False.
[ "108952-proof-18-f2d9166092450e5e4608637752559521.jpg" ]
People charged in the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol are 'political prisoners' and 'non-violent trespassers' who have been held in solitary confinement for the past six months.
Contradiction
Some of the people charged with crimes in the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol have been held in solitary confinement while they await trial. An Instagram post mischaracterizes why they were charged and what they are accused of doing. 'FREE JAN 6 POLITICAL PRISONERS,' the claim begins. 'NON-VIOLENT TRESPASSERS HAVE BEEN IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT FOR THE PAST 6 MONTHS.' 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.) Versions of the claim have been made on Twitter. The defendants were charged with crimes not because of their political views, but because they allegedly committed violent acts or other crimes during the riot. Most are not in custody while awaiting trial, but some are in jail and some have been held in solitary confinement. The violent acts Let's start by dispelling the notion that the armed insurrection was merely a political protest by trespassers. We rated as Pants on Fire a claim that the riot resembled a 'normal tourist visit,' and we gave a Pants on Fire rating to the claim that it was a 'completely peaceful protest.' The protesters supporting then-President Donald Trump forced their way through barricades and past law enforcement to breach the building. They smashed windows and broke doors. They ransacked offices. They chanted about the vice president, 'Hang Mike Pence!' They attacked police officers. They caused the House and Senate to shut down for several hours on the day lawmakers were certifying that Joe Biden won the presidential election. The Justice Department has charged 551 people - 481 men and 70 women - in connection with the siege, according to a database run by the George Washington University Center on Extremism. Charges include obstruction of law enforcement; violence with a deadly weapon; assault; disorderly conduct; and unlawful possession of firearms. The latest arrest, of a 32-year-old Houston man on charges including assaulting an officer, was made July 23. In reviewing court filings, news reports and other information for approximately 430 defendants who had been arrested through June 1, PolitiFact found the key driver behind what happened on Jan. 6 was acceptance of the false narrative that Democrats stole the election with widespread voter fraud. Solitary confinement News reports have detailed some of the cases in which suspects have been held in solitary confinement. Politico reported in April that most of the defendants had been released from custody while they await trial, but dozens deemed to be dangerous, flight risks or at high risk of obstructing justice were ordered held without bond. Washington jail officials later decided for safety reasons that all of those defendants would be placed in so-called restrictive housing, which meant 23 hours a day of isolation. In May, The Guardian reported that of the 398 defendants charged as of May 10, at least 330 were listed on the Justice Department website or in federal court records as having been released from custody. New York State resident Edward Jacob Lang, whose charges include assaulting, resisting or impeding officers using a dangerous weapon, was arrested on Jan. 16, largely based on social media posts he made of the Jan. 6 riot. According to reporting from the Middletown, N.Y., Times Herald-Record, the 26-year-old Lang interrupted a federal judge during a July 16 status hearing on his case, saying that he has been held in solitary confinement for six months, that his treatment is 'inhumane' and that 'I have been stripped of all human dignity.' The judge did not respond. The newspaper also said that another area defendant, Thomas Webster, was kept alone in his cell for 23 hours a day until being released June 30 to home detention. He was prevented from getting court papers and a computer thumb drive his lawyers mailed him, according to a court filing by his lawyer. Webster, whose charges also include assaulting, resisting or impeding officers using a dangerous weapon, was arrested Feb. 22. Democratic and Republican senators have expressed concerns about the solitary confinement of Jan. 6 defendants. The District of Columbia Department of Corrections would not answer our questions about how many of the defendants have been held in solitary confinement. The department sent a statement that said: 'The safety and security of DOC's facilities remain our highest priority. It is our mission to protect and treat every resident humanely and respectfully while they are in our care awaiting due process. DOC carries out its mission for every individual regardless of their background and political affiliations.'
Our ruling An Instagram post says people charged in the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol are 'political prisoners' and 'non-violent trespassers' who have been held in solitary confinement for the past six months. The vast majority of defendants have been released from custody while awaiting trial, but some held in jail have been kept in solitary confinement. The defendants face numerous charges that include violent acts and attacks on officers. While many defendants may have been inspired to participate based on their political beliefs, there is no evidence they are being prosecuted for those beliefs; the charges and court documents show they are being prosecuted for actions that law enforcement officials say violated the law. The post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression - our definition of Mostly False.
[ "108952-proof-18-f2d9166092450e5e4608637752559521.jpg" ]
'Ambassador Susan Rice Tribunal, Gavin Newsom indicted.
Contradiction
Since Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump and was inaugurated as president, fantastical claims have been made that the American military has arrested, put on trial or even executed various political figures. Were any of them true, they would have generated massive news coverage. As it is, they aren't. Such is the case with a Facebook post that makes a cryptic claim about two prominent Democrats: Susan Rice, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is head of President Joe Biden's Domestic Policy Council, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It says: 'Ambassador Susan Rice Tribunal, Gavin Newsom indicted.' The July 22 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 was shared from an account called Breaking from US, but it is not a credible page. News of either alleged action would be widely covered by the media. No such reports exist, nor credible evidence to support either part of the claim, which is completely baseless. The post includes a 35-minute video that starts with a promotion of bug repellent. About 19 minutes in, the woman hosting the video shares screenshots of and reads two articles posted July 20 by Real Raw News. The website has a history of publishing false claims, including that Hillary Clinton was hanged at Guantanamo Bay, which we rated Pants on Fire. One article shared in the video claims the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps used powers under the Insurrection Act to indict Newsom after finding he 'betrayed his oath of office' by imposing mask mandates and taking 'bribes and kickbacks.' The other article claims the same office convicted Rice on charges 'of high treason and sentenced her to death for her participation in a 2017 scheme to defame' Trump 'by falsely and knowingly linking his campaign to baseless allegations of Russian collusion.' There is no evidence for either part of the claim. Like many of the other claims we have rated from this site, this post, too, gets a Pants on Fire!
The post includes a 35-minute video that starts with a promotion of bug repellent. About 19 minutes in, the woman hosting the video shares screenshots of and reads two articles posted July 20 by Real Raw News. The website has a history of publishing false claims, including that Hillary Clinton was hanged at Guantanamo Bay, which we rated Pants on Fire. One article shared in the video claims the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps used powers under the Insurrection Act to indict Newsom after finding he 'betrayed his oath of office' by imposing mask mandates and taking 'bribes and kickbacks.' The other article claims the same office convicted Rice on charges 'of high treason and sentenced her to death for her participation in a 2017 scheme to defame' Trump 'by falsely and knowingly linking his campaign to baseless allegations of Russian collusion.' There is no evidence for either part of the claim. Like many of the other claims we have rated from this site, this post, too, gets a Pants on Fire!
[ "108979-proof-08-a0f3297592db6576604c6962473c85a8.jpg" ]
Says Judge Amy Coney Barrett said that 'gays have a right to be discriminated against because they are against God's wishes' and that 'white people are God's chosen ones.
Contradiction
A few days before Judge Amy Coney Barrett met with President Trump at the White House, posts on Facebook mischaracterized her religious convictions and claimed she has made racist and homophobic statements. Barrett, a Catholic conservative judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal in Chicago, is on the shortlist of names that Trump could nominate for the Supreme Court. The seat opened when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Sept. 18. Some claims on Facebook offered false takes on her record. 'Amy Barret said gays have a right to be discriminated against because they are against Gods wishes and won't be allowed. Heaven,' one Facebook user wrote, misspelling her last name and omitting punctuation. 'Amy Barret says white people are Gods chosen ones. Minorities must submit to them and that's Gods plan. Obedience,' reads another post from the same user. To be clear: Barrett never said either of these things. These Facebook 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.) A review of her judicial opinions, public statements and academic writing hasn't produced any quotes along these lines. Barrett clerked for late Justice Antonin Scalia before joining the faculty of Notre Dame Law School, where she taught for 15 years. Trump nominated her to the appellate court in 2017. Barrett has a limited judicial record compared with other Supreme Court nominees that Trump is reportedly considering. Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science and law at the University of Minnesota, told PolitiFact that Barrett's relatively sparse paper trail makes it difficult to predict how she'll rule if nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court. Religious background Barrett has described herself as a devout Catholic. A liberal group on Instagram warning against her potential nomination pointed out her involvement in a Christian group called People of Praise. The New York Times reported that the group supports gender roles where husbands have authority over their wives. Democratic senators have pointed to an article she co-wrote early in her career as reason for concern that she would not work with impartiality. The article argued that Catholic judges should have the right to recuse themselves from cases that conflict with their personal beliefs, such as those involving the death penalty. During her confirmation hearing for the appeals court, Barrett pushed back, saying that she 'would never impose my own personal convictions upon the law.' Barrett's supporters have said the controversy over her religious beliefs is a form of anti-Catholic bias, pointing out that other members of the court are Catholics. What LGBTQ and abortion rights organizations say Barrett never said that 'gays have a right to be discriminated against.' But LGBTQ rights and abortion rights organizations have criticized her past appointment. In 2017, the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a civil rights organization that focuses on LGBTQ communities, penned an open letter to U.S. senators opposing Barrett's appointment to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Lambda Legal took issue with a letter that Barrett had signed that defined marriage as the 'indissoluble commitment between a man and a woman,' and a talk that she gave at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal organization that opposes LGBTQ rights. Supporters of abortion rights are concerned about Barrett's abortion views. In a 2013 interview, Barrett said that she believes that life begins at conception. In an article, she wrote that the Catholic Church's views on prohibiting abortion are 'absolute' because they 'take away innocent life.' She has ruled against abortion rights in the two abortion cases that she has heard on the bench. Finally, the post claims Barrett has white supremacist views. We found no evidence of that in a review of Barret's record.
Our ruling Facebook posts claim that Barrett said that 'gays have a right to be discriminated against because they are against Gods wishes' and that 'white people are Gods chosen ones.' Barrett has never said anything along these lines. We rate these posts False. ​
[ "108983-proof-09-e865cc153320df3d71fa165c5f60a765.jpg" ]
'The first Statue of Liberty given to the U.S. by France was a Black woman which the U.S. rejected.
Contradiction
An image shared on Facebook falsely claims that the iconic sculpture overlooking New York Harbor is not the original Statue of Liberty. The post asserts that the original statue, which depicts a Black woman, was rejected by the U.S. and can currently be found on the island of St. Martin. The image features a photo of what is purported to be the original Statue of Liberty: a sculpture of a Black woman raising a lantern. Text above the photo says: 'The first Statue of Liberty given to the US by France was a Black woman which the US rejected... France replaced it with the version currently in New York harbor. This Black Lady Liberty, also created by France, sits on the island of St. Martin...' The statue in the photo is Lady Liberty on the island of St. Martin. While the text correctly identifies the statue's location, this statue was actually installed in 2007 by sculptor Theodore Bonev, more than 120 years after President Grover Cleveland unveiled the U.S. Statue of Liberty. When Africa Check vetted a similar image, it found an article from a St. Martin newspaper that reported on the statue's 2007 installation. Lady Liberty was built to mark the 159th anniversary of emancipation on the French side of the Caribbean island, and locals frequently celebrate the end of slavery at its base. Edward Berenson, a professor of history at New York University and author of the book 'The Statue of Liberty: A Transatlantic Story,' told PolitiFact in an email that he had seen the image many times and that it is erroneous. 'It circulates regularly on the internet and social media. It's completely false,' he wrote. Berenson noted that rumors about a Black Statue of Liberty could have originated from plans that Frédéric-Auguste Bartholdi, the Statue of Liberty's designer, made for an earlier project. In the late 1860s, Bartholdi sketched a statue of an Egyptian woman that he was hoping to build at the southern end of the Suez Canal. When funding for the project fell through, Bartholdi abandoned his plans, but he later used the drawings as a jumping-off point for the Statue of Liberty, reworking the Egyptian woman into a classical Greco-Roman goddess of liberty. Nothing in the historical record indicates that Bartholdi built a Black Statue of Liberty, only to have the U.S. reject it. But versions of the rumor date back at least as far as the late 1990s, before Lady Liberty was erected on St. Martin. In 1998, after receiving several inquiries about the claim, the National Park Service launched an exhaustive, two-year investigation into the Statue of Liberty's history. Anthropologist Rebecca M. Joseph, who authored the report, wrote that 'there is no evidence that Bartholdi's 'original' design was perceived by white American supporters or the United States government as representing a black woman, or was changed on those grounds.' In other words, the U.S. government gratefully accepted the only Statue of Liberty it was ever offered. We rate this post False.
We rate this post False.
[]
'The first Statue of Liberty given to the U.S. by France was a Black woman which the U.S. rejected.
Contradiction
An image shared on Facebook falsely claims that the iconic sculpture overlooking New York Harbor is not the original Statue of Liberty. The post asserts that the original statue, which depicts a Black woman, was rejected by the U.S. and can currently be found on the island of St. Martin. The image features a photo of what is purported to be the original Statue of Liberty: a sculpture of a Black woman raising a lantern. Text above the photo says: 'The first Statue of Liberty given to the US by France was a Black woman which the US rejected... France replaced it with the version currently in New York harbor. This Black Lady Liberty, also created by France, sits on the island of St. Martin...' The statue in the photo is Lady Liberty on the island of St. Martin. While the text correctly identifies the statue's location, this statue was actually installed in 2007 by sculptor Theodore Bonev, more than 120 years after President Grover Cleveland unveiled the U.S. Statue of Liberty. When Africa Check vetted a similar image, it found an article from a St. Martin newspaper that reported on the statue's 2007 installation. Lady Liberty was built to mark the 159th anniversary of emancipation on the French side of the Caribbean island, and locals frequently celebrate the end of slavery at its base. Edward Berenson, a professor of history at New York University and author of the book 'The Statue of Liberty: A Transatlantic Story,' told PolitiFact in an email that he had seen the image many times and that it is erroneous. 'It circulates regularly on the internet and social media. It's completely false,' he wrote. Berenson noted that rumors about a Black Statue of Liberty could have originated from plans that Frédéric-Auguste Bartholdi, the Statue of Liberty's designer, made for an earlier project. In the late 1860s, Bartholdi sketched a statue of an Egyptian woman that he was hoping to build at the southern end of the Suez Canal. When funding for the project fell through, Bartholdi abandoned his plans, but he later used the drawings as a jumping-off point for the Statue of Liberty, reworking the Egyptian woman into a classical Greco-Roman goddess of liberty. Nothing in the historical record indicates that Bartholdi built a Black Statue of Liberty, only to have the U.S. reject it. But versions of the rumor date back at least as far as the late 1990s, before Lady Liberty was erected on St. Martin. In 1998, after receiving several inquiries about the claim, the National Park Service launched an exhaustive, two-year investigation into the Statue of Liberty's history. Anthropologist Rebecca M. Joseph, who authored the report, wrote that 'there is no evidence that Bartholdi's 'original' design was perceived by white American supporters or the United States government as representing a black woman, or was changed on those grounds.' In other words, the U.S. government gratefully accepted the only Statue of Liberty it was ever offered. We rate this post False.
We rate this post False.
[]
'Major decision protecting voting rights in Pa. Ballots received after Election Day will not be counted.
Contradiction
President Donald Trump's campaign declared on Wednesday that it had won a big election-integrity victory in Pennsylvania, one of several key battleground states that will likely determine the outcome of the election. 'Major decision protecting voting rights in Pennsylvania,' deputy campaign manager and senior counsel Justin Clark tweeted. 'Ballots received after Election Day will not be counted. More to come, but big win for the rule of law.' He's talking about guidance the Pennsylvania Department of State issued to county election officials on Wednesday instructing them to segregate ballots that arrive after 8 p.m. on Election Day. According to the guidance, these ballots will be processed separately. Nowhere in the guidance does it say the ballots won't be counted at all. Pennsylvania law requires all ballots to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day. But citing United States Postal Service delays, the state Supreme Court last month extended the deadline for this election so ballots can be received by mail until 5 p.m. on Friday, Nov. 6, if they are either postmarked by Election Day or have missing or illegible postmarks. Last month, Pennsylvania Republicans asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block that decision, saying it violates the state legislature's constitutional right to set election rules. The justices split, 4-4, keeping the deadline extension intact. Perhaps hoping that Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the high court might yield a different outcome, the Pennsylvania Republican Party last Friday again asked the court to take up the issue and strike down the deadline extension. At the same time, a Republican congressional candidate sued in federal court to toss the extension. The Supreme Court denied Republicans' request to expedite consideration of their second request for relief, but the case remains open. That means the justices could still take up the case and ultimately reverse the deadline extension, even after Election Day. The guidance the Pennsylvania Department of State issued is designed to help counties prepare for that possibility. 'The secretary continues to defend the extension to ensure that every timely and validly cast mail-in and absentee ballot is counted,' the guidance states. 'Because this issue is still pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, however, county boards of elections are directed to take the following action to securely segregate mail-in and civilian absentee ballots.' The guidance directs counties to keep ballots that arrive after 8 p.m. on Nov. 3 and before 5 p.m. on Nov. 6 in separate, sealed, secure bins, and says these ballots should not be processed or counted until the state offers additional guidance. Counties were also instructed to keep a log of these ballots that includes the name and address of the voters who sent them, the date USPS delivered them, and details about any postmarks on the ballot envelopes. Barrett didn't participate in the decision not to expedite consideration of Republicans' latest request. Republicans argue the state Supreme Court's deadline extension will allow mail ballots to be cast and counted after Election Day, a judicial overreach that steps on the state legislature's constitutional right to decide how elections are run. Several of the court's conservative justices appear willing to back that argument, with Justice Samuel Alito writing Wednesday that 'there is a strong likelihood that the state Supreme Court decision violates the federal constitution.' Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined in that opinion.
Our ruling Trump deputy campaign manager Justin Clark tweeted that Pennsylvania 'ballots received after Election Day will not be counted,' citing guidance released on Wednesday by the Pennsylvania Department of State in a subsequent campaign email. The guidance instructs counties to segregate ballots that arrive after 8 p.m. on Election Day but does not say those ballots won't be counted. The extended deadline for counting Pennsylvania ballots is under threat, but unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court takes action, ballots received by Nov. 6 at 5 p.m. will count. We rate the statement Mostly False.
[ "108993-proof-11-8a7ac4b223e24b5bb0f8f73561f976df.jpg" ]
'Major decision protecting voting rights in Pa. Ballots received after Election Day will not be counted.
Contradiction
President Donald Trump's campaign declared on Wednesday that it had won a big election-integrity victory in Pennsylvania, one of several key battleground states that will likely determine the outcome of the election. 'Major decision protecting voting rights in Pennsylvania,' deputy campaign manager and senior counsel Justin Clark tweeted. 'Ballots received after Election Day will not be counted. More to come, but big win for the rule of law.' He's talking about guidance the Pennsylvania Department of State issued to county election officials on Wednesday instructing them to segregate ballots that arrive after 8 p.m. on Election Day. According to the guidance, these ballots will be processed separately. Nowhere in the guidance does it say the ballots won't be counted at all. Pennsylvania law requires all ballots to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day. But citing United States Postal Service delays, the state Supreme Court last month extended the deadline for this election so ballots can be received by mail until 5 p.m. on Friday, Nov. 6, if they are either postmarked by Election Day or have missing or illegible postmarks. Last month, Pennsylvania Republicans asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block that decision, saying it violates the state legislature's constitutional right to set election rules. The justices split, 4-4, keeping the deadline extension intact. Perhaps hoping that Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the high court might yield a different outcome, the Pennsylvania Republican Party last Friday again asked the court to take up the issue and strike down the deadline extension. At the same time, a Republican congressional candidate sued in federal court to toss the extension. The Supreme Court denied Republicans' request to expedite consideration of their second request for relief, but the case remains open. That means the justices could still take up the case and ultimately reverse the deadline extension, even after Election Day. The guidance the Pennsylvania Department of State issued is designed to help counties prepare for that possibility. 'The secretary continues to defend the extension to ensure that every timely and validly cast mail-in and absentee ballot is counted,' the guidance states. 'Because this issue is still pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, however, county boards of elections are directed to take the following action to securely segregate mail-in and civilian absentee ballots.' The guidance directs counties to keep ballots that arrive after 8 p.m. on Nov. 3 and before 5 p.m. on Nov. 6 in separate, sealed, secure bins, and says these ballots should not be processed or counted until the state offers additional guidance. Counties were also instructed to keep a log of these ballots that includes the name and address of the voters who sent them, the date USPS delivered them, and details about any postmarks on the ballot envelopes. Barrett didn't participate in the decision not to expedite consideration of Republicans' latest request. Republicans argue the state Supreme Court's deadline extension will allow mail ballots to be cast and counted after Election Day, a judicial overreach that steps on the state legislature's constitutional right to decide how elections are run. Several of the court's conservative justices appear willing to back that argument, with Justice Samuel Alito writing Wednesday that 'there is a strong likelihood that the state Supreme Court decision violates the federal constitution.' Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined in that opinion.
Our ruling Trump deputy campaign manager Justin Clark tweeted that Pennsylvania 'ballots received after Election Day will not be counted,' citing guidance released on Wednesday by the Pennsylvania Department of State in a subsequent campaign email. The guidance instructs counties to segregate ballots that arrive after 8 p.m. on Election Day but does not say those ballots won't be counted. The extended deadline for counting Pennsylvania ballots is under threat, but unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court takes action, ballots received by Nov. 6 at 5 p.m. will count. We rate the statement Mostly False.
[ "108993-proof-11-8a7ac4b223e24b5bb0f8f73561f976df.jpg" ]
'Major decision protecting voting rights in Pa. Ballots received after Election Day will not be counted.
Contradiction
President Donald Trump's campaign declared on Wednesday that it had won a big election-integrity victory in Pennsylvania, one of several key battleground states that will likely determine the outcome of the election. 'Major decision protecting voting rights in Pennsylvania,' deputy campaign manager and senior counsel Justin Clark tweeted. 'Ballots received after Election Day will not be counted. More to come, but big win for the rule of law.' He's talking about guidance the Pennsylvania Department of State issued to county election officials on Wednesday instructing them to segregate ballots that arrive after 8 p.m. on Election Day. According to the guidance, these ballots will be processed separately. Nowhere in the guidance does it say the ballots won't be counted at all. Pennsylvania law requires all ballots to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day. But citing United States Postal Service delays, the state Supreme Court last month extended the deadline for this election so ballots can be received by mail until 5 p.m. on Friday, Nov. 6, if they are either postmarked by Election Day or have missing or illegible postmarks. Last month, Pennsylvania Republicans asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block that decision, saying it violates the state legislature's constitutional right to set election rules. The justices split, 4-4, keeping the deadline extension intact. Perhaps hoping that Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation to the high court might yield a different outcome, the Pennsylvania Republican Party last Friday again asked the court to take up the issue and strike down the deadline extension. At the same time, a Republican congressional candidate sued in federal court to toss the extension. The Supreme Court denied Republicans' request to expedite consideration of their second request for relief, but the case remains open. That means the justices could still take up the case and ultimately reverse the deadline extension, even after Election Day. The guidance the Pennsylvania Department of State issued is designed to help counties prepare for that possibility. 'The secretary continues to defend the extension to ensure that every timely and validly cast mail-in and absentee ballot is counted,' the guidance states. 'Because this issue is still pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, however, county boards of elections are directed to take the following action to securely segregate mail-in and civilian absentee ballots.' The guidance directs counties to keep ballots that arrive after 8 p.m. on Nov. 3 and before 5 p.m. on Nov. 6 in separate, sealed, secure bins, and says these ballots should not be processed or counted until the state offers additional guidance. Counties were also instructed to keep a log of these ballots that includes the name and address of the voters who sent them, the date USPS delivered them, and details about any postmarks on the ballot envelopes. Barrett didn't participate in the decision not to expedite consideration of Republicans' latest request. Republicans argue the state Supreme Court's deadline extension will allow mail ballots to be cast and counted after Election Day, a judicial overreach that steps on the state legislature's constitutional right to decide how elections are run. Several of the court's conservative justices appear willing to back that argument, with Justice Samuel Alito writing Wednesday that 'there is a strong likelihood that the state Supreme Court decision violates the federal constitution.' Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined in that opinion.
Our ruling Trump deputy campaign manager Justin Clark tweeted that Pennsylvania 'ballots received after Election Day will not be counted,' citing guidance released on Wednesday by the Pennsylvania Department of State in a subsequent campaign email. The guidance instructs counties to segregate ballots that arrive after 8 p.m. on Election Day but does not say those ballots won't be counted. The extended deadline for counting Pennsylvania ballots is under threat, but unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court takes action, ballots received by Nov. 6 at 5 p.m. will count. We rate the statement Mostly False.
[ "108993-proof-11-8a7ac4b223e24b5bb0f8f73561f976df.jpg" ]
'Bad math (is) driving Wisconsin's exploding positive test rate.
Contradiction
A surge in coronavirus cases in September pushed Wisconsin near the top of a dubious national ranking - most new COVID-19 cases per capita. Predictably, that spurred a related jump in the percentage of COVID-19 tests yielding positive results in the state. The rise has prompted renewed scrutiny of the state's COVID-19 response. Some claim this is proof Gov. Tony Evers' mask mandate isn't working, while others say it means we aren't taking the threat - or the mask mandate - seriously enough. But the conservative MacIver Institute took another tack, zeroing in on the formula used to establish the positivity rate to claim that errors by the state Department of Health are what is actually causing the increase in that key measure. 'Bad Math Driving Wisconsin's Exploding Positive Test Rate,' declared a Sept. 23, 2020, headline that was shared widely on social media. The MacIver story went on to make a series of claims building on that thesis: 'A fundamental flaw in how the Evers' Administration calculates Wisconsin's daily COVID-19 positive test rate has excluded hundreds of thousands of test results and led to a wildly distorted picture of the state's progress in confronting the virus,' said the story's first paragraph. It later quoted Ryan Westergaard, DHS chief medical officer, as explaining the positivity rate is calculated by dividing the number of positive cases by the number of people tested - not the total number of tests. The MacIver piece calls this a 'shocking admission.' But it's only shocking if you haven't been paying close attention. This is how DHS has consistently calculated test positivity, and since mid-August the department has even explicitly laid this out in the COVID-19 dashboard. What's more, it's an acceptable way - even the preferred way, by some - to do the calculation, since it weeds out multiple tests of the same person. Here's why this 'bad math' claim is ridiculous. Rate calculation hasn't changed amid spike The most obvious error in this claim is blaming math for the 'exploding positive test rate.' The seven-day average of tests with positive results - a more reliable marker than daily totals since it smooths out daily jumps caused by changes in testing volume - rose slowly through August, from about 6% to 8%. It then spiked starting in September, pushing the seven-day average close to 20% by the end of the month. The MacIver piece posits this is due to errant calculations. But this rate has been calculated the same way throughout this entire stretch. So whatever one's objections to the methodology, if the same formula is used at the beginning and the end of a given time period, and the rate increases dramatically in that span, the increase is real. The MacIver piece notes in its critique that test positivity is important because it's one of six so-called 'gating' criteria Evers is using to shape state policy on the pandemic. If test positivity is being used incorrectly, that would make it harder to achieve the thresholds set by Evers, and for the state to reopen fully. Test positivity is, indeed, one of the criteria. But the MacIver implication that it lacks legitimacy falls flat. The criteria doesn't call for a specific percentage level to be met. Rather it calls for a downward trajectory for 14 days. And, as we noted, the same measuring stick - the formula - has been used throughout. State approach to test positivity is widely used, even preferred That brings us to the heart of this claim, that DHS is using 'bad math' in calculating the percentage of positive tests. The MacIver piece itself elaborates on this, asserting, 'If the goal is to calculate the daily positive test rate, then DHS is using the wrong numerator and denominator.' DHS calculates percent positivity by dividing the number of people with positive test results by the number of people tested in a given span. (Their dashboard includes daily counts as well as a seven-day and 14-day average.) The MacIver piece asserts this is incorrect, saying the state should instead be basing the calculation off the raw number of tests, which would deliver a lower percentage. But the state's approach is actually both widely used and preferred because it prevents people who are tested often from skewing the data. These aren't people who feel sick or exhibit symptoms and seek a test - the typical sort of person tested. Rather, these are people who are tested regularly based on their position (such as a front-line health care worker) or situation (such as living in a nursing home where an outbreak has occurred). Counting each of those negative test results would give an unrealistic picture of how frequently positive tests are occurring in the population - the core question all testing is trying to answer. 'Our data report individuals tested,' Westergaard said in a June 11, 2020, media briefing. 'So, if an individual was tested more than once because they were being followed to see if they cleared the infection or if they were tested a couple times weeks apart, they would be considered a single case and not multiple cases in our data.' Johns Hopkins University, which operates a COVID dashboard has become a go-to national resource in the pandemic, endorses this approach. Officials there said some places aren't using it only because their data doesn't allow them to break it down this way. 'We feel that the ideal way to calculate positivity would be number of people who test positive divided by number of people who are tested,' says an explainer posted on the Johns Hopkins dashboard. 'We feel this is currently the best way to track positivity because some states include in their testing totals duplicative tests obtained in succession on the same individual, as well as unrelated antibody tests. However, many states are unable to track number of people tested, so they only track number of tests.' The CDC also notes this is a standard way of approaching test positivity calculations. Their website lists it as one of three formulas used by various agencies. The CDC calculates positivity by dividing the number of positive tests by the total number of tests taken. It notes it only uses this approach because it doesn't have access to the data state and local health departments have to identify - and separate out - repeat tests from the same individual. Some states divide the number of people with positive tests by the total number of tests taken. Some states use Wisconsin's approach, dividing the number of people with positive tests by the number of people tested. The New York Times - which also runs a COVID dashboard - notes at least 18 states report tests like Wisconsin, based on the number of people tested, rather than the number of tests. None of this national context was included in the MacIver piece. DHS spokeswoman Elizabeth Goodsitt said Sept. 29, 2020, the agency was in the process of launching an updated dashboard that shows test positivity calculated using both approaches - number of people and number of tests. She said both measures 'are informative to the response effort in Wisconsin.' One more quick note for some general context on this metric. The COVID Tracking Project, another dashboard operator, said in a Sept. 22, 2020, blog post that test positivity is useful but also 'one of the most commonly misunderstood metrics for monitoring the COVID-19 pandemic.' It notes percent positivity rates can vary greatly based on who officials decide to test. 'The choice of who gets tested is based on state- or county-specific criteria, but is often made based on how sick people appear to be, which in turn influences test positivity,' the blog post said. 'If a state only tests people who have clear symptoms of the virus, it will likely have a higher test positivity than one that is also testing asymptomatic people.'
Our ruling A MacIver article widely shared on Facebook says 'bad math' is to blame for Wisconsin's 'exploding positive test rate.' This is wrong on multiple fronts.They're asserting manipulated math is behind the increase in test positivity, but it's actually because the number of people testing positive has risen based on human behavior. There is no 'bad math.' The state DHS uses a methodology (tallying people tested rather than raw tests) that is widely used by health agencies around the country. It is considered a more accurate approach because it assures people who are tested on a regular, even daily, basis - such as health care workers - don't skew the data. And whatever the quibbles with the methodology, this wouldn't cause the increase in the test positivity rate because the formula DHS used to calculate the rate was the same throughout the time period. That makes this claim both false and ridiculous, or as we call it, Pants on Fire. Note: DHS updated their COVID-19 dashboard Sept. 30, the day after this story published, to include test positivity in terms of both tests and people. That does not affect the rating for this item since the per-person method remains on the DHS website and remains an acceptable and even preferred approach.
[]
'Bad math (is) driving Wisconsin's exploding positive test rate.
Contradiction
A surge in coronavirus cases in September pushed Wisconsin near the top of a dubious national ranking - most new COVID-19 cases per capita. Predictably, that spurred a related jump in the percentage of COVID-19 tests yielding positive results in the state. The rise has prompted renewed scrutiny of the state's COVID-19 response. Some claim this is proof Gov. Tony Evers' mask mandate isn't working, while others say it means we aren't taking the threat - or the mask mandate - seriously enough. But the conservative MacIver Institute took another tack, zeroing in on the formula used to establish the positivity rate to claim that errors by the state Department of Health are what is actually causing the increase in that key measure. 'Bad Math Driving Wisconsin's Exploding Positive Test Rate,' declared a Sept. 23, 2020, headline that was shared widely on social media. The MacIver story went on to make a series of claims building on that thesis: 'A fundamental flaw in how the Evers' Administration calculates Wisconsin's daily COVID-19 positive test rate has excluded hundreds of thousands of test results and led to a wildly distorted picture of the state's progress in confronting the virus,' said the story's first paragraph. It later quoted Ryan Westergaard, DHS chief medical officer, as explaining the positivity rate is calculated by dividing the number of positive cases by the number of people tested - not the total number of tests. The MacIver piece calls this a 'shocking admission.' But it's only shocking if you haven't been paying close attention. This is how DHS has consistently calculated test positivity, and since mid-August the department has even explicitly laid this out in the COVID-19 dashboard. What's more, it's an acceptable way - even the preferred way, by some - to do the calculation, since it weeds out multiple tests of the same person. Here's why this 'bad math' claim is ridiculous. Rate calculation hasn't changed amid spike The most obvious error in this claim is blaming math for the 'exploding positive test rate.' The seven-day average of tests with positive results - a more reliable marker than daily totals since it smooths out daily jumps caused by changes in testing volume - rose slowly through August, from about 6% to 8%. It then spiked starting in September, pushing the seven-day average close to 20% by the end of the month. The MacIver piece posits this is due to errant calculations. But this rate has been calculated the same way throughout this entire stretch. So whatever one's objections to the methodology, if the same formula is used at the beginning and the end of a given time period, and the rate increases dramatically in that span, the increase is real. The MacIver piece notes in its critique that test positivity is important because it's one of six so-called 'gating' criteria Evers is using to shape state policy on the pandemic. If test positivity is being used incorrectly, that would make it harder to achieve the thresholds set by Evers, and for the state to reopen fully. Test positivity is, indeed, one of the criteria. But the MacIver implication that it lacks legitimacy falls flat. The criteria doesn't call for a specific percentage level to be met. Rather it calls for a downward trajectory for 14 days. And, as we noted, the same measuring stick - the formula - has been used throughout. State approach to test positivity is widely used, even preferred That brings us to the heart of this claim, that DHS is using 'bad math' in calculating the percentage of positive tests. The MacIver piece itself elaborates on this, asserting, 'If the goal is to calculate the daily positive test rate, then DHS is using the wrong numerator and denominator.' DHS calculates percent positivity by dividing the number of people with positive test results by the number of people tested in a given span. (Their dashboard includes daily counts as well as a seven-day and 14-day average.) The MacIver piece asserts this is incorrect, saying the state should instead be basing the calculation off the raw number of tests, which would deliver a lower percentage. But the state's approach is actually both widely used and preferred because it prevents people who are tested often from skewing the data. These aren't people who feel sick or exhibit symptoms and seek a test - the typical sort of person tested. Rather, these are people who are tested regularly based on their position (such as a front-line health care worker) or situation (such as living in a nursing home where an outbreak has occurred). Counting each of those negative test results would give an unrealistic picture of how frequently positive tests are occurring in the population - the core question all testing is trying to answer. 'Our data report individuals tested,' Westergaard said in a June 11, 2020, media briefing. 'So, if an individual was tested more than once because they were being followed to see if they cleared the infection or if they were tested a couple times weeks apart, they would be considered a single case and not multiple cases in our data.' Johns Hopkins University, which operates a COVID dashboard has become a go-to national resource in the pandemic, endorses this approach. Officials there said some places aren't using it only because their data doesn't allow them to break it down this way. 'We feel that the ideal way to calculate positivity would be number of people who test positive divided by number of people who are tested,' says an explainer posted on the Johns Hopkins dashboard. 'We feel this is currently the best way to track positivity because some states include in their testing totals duplicative tests obtained in succession on the same individual, as well as unrelated antibody tests. However, many states are unable to track number of people tested, so they only track number of tests.' The CDC also notes this is a standard way of approaching test positivity calculations. Their website lists it as one of three formulas used by various agencies. The CDC calculates positivity by dividing the number of positive tests by the total number of tests taken. It notes it only uses this approach because it doesn't have access to the data state and local health departments have to identify - and separate out - repeat tests from the same individual. Some states divide the number of people with positive tests by the total number of tests taken. Some states use Wisconsin's approach, dividing the number of people with positive tests by the number of people tested. The New York Times - which also runs a COVID dashboard - notes at least 18 states report tests like Wisconsin, based on the number of people tested, rather than the number of tests. None of this national context was included in the MacIver piece. DHS spokeswoman Elizabeth Goodsitt said Sept. 29, 2020, the agency was in the process of launching an updated dashboard that shows test positivity calculated using both approaches - number of people and number of tests. She said both measures 'are informative to the response effort in Wisconsin.' One more quick note for some general context on this metric. The COVID Tracking Project, another dashboard operator, said in a Sept. 22, 2020, blog post that test positivity is useful but also 'one of the most commonly misunderstood metrics for monitoring the COVID-19 pandemic.' It notes percent positivity rates can vary greatly based on who officials decide to test. 'The choice of who gets tested is based on state- or county-specific criteria, but is often made based on how sick people appear to be, which in turn influences test positivity,' the blog post said. 'If a state only tests people who have clear symptoms of the virus, it will likely have a higher test positivity than one that is also testing asymptomatic people.'
Our ruling A MacIver article widely shared on Facebook says 'bad math' is to blame for Wisconsin's 'exploding positive test rate.' This is wrong on multiple fronts.They're asserting manipulated math is behind the increase in test positivity, but it's actually because the number of people testing positive has risen based on human behavior. There is no 'bad math.' The state DHS uses a methodology (tallying people tested rather than raw tests) that is widely used by health agencies around the country. It is considered a more accurate approach because it assures people who are tested on a regular, even daily, basis - such as health care workers - don't skew the data. And whatever the quibbles with the methodology, this wouldn't cause the increase in the test positivity rate because the formula DHS used to calculate the rate was the same throughout the time period. That makes this claim both false and ridiculous, or as we call it, Pants on Fire. Note: DHS updated their COVID-19 dashboard Sept. 30, the day after this story published, to include test positivity in terms of both tests and people. That does not affect the rating for this item since the per-person method remains on the DHS website and remains an acceptable and even preferred approach.
[]
'Bad math (is) driving Wisconsin's exploding positive test rate.
Contradiction
A surge in coronavirus cases in September pushed Wisconsin near the top of a dubious national ranking - most new COVID-19 cases per capita. Predictably, that spurred a related jump in the percentage of COVID-19 tests yielding positive results in the state. The rise has prompted renewed scrutiny of the state's COVID-19 response. Some claim this is proof Gov. Tony Evers' mask mandate isn't working, while others say it means we aren't taking the threat - or the mask mandate - seriously enough. But the conservative MacIver Institute took another tack, zeroing in on the formula used to establish the positivity rate to claim that errors by the state Department of Health are what is actually causing the increase in that key measure. 'Bad Math Driving Wisconsin's Exploding Positive Test Rate,' declared a Sept. 23, 2020, headline that was shared widely on social media. The MacIver story went on to make a series of claims building on that thesis: 'A fundamental flaw in how the Evers' Administration calculates Wisconsin's daily COVID-19 positive test rate has excluded hundreds of thousands of test results and led to a wildly distorted picture of the state's progress in confronting the virus,' said the story's first paragraph. It later quoted Ryan Westergaard, DHS chief medical officer, as explaining the positivity rate is calculated by dividing the number of positive cases by the number of people tested - not the total number of tests. The MacIver piece calls this a 'shocking admission.' But it's only shocking if you haven't been paying close attention. This is how DHS has consistently calculated test positivity, and since mid-August the department has even explicitly laid this out in the COVID-19 dashboard. What's more, it's an acceptable way - even the preferred way, by some - to do the calculation, since it weeds out multiple tests of the same person. Here's why this 'bad math' claim is ridiculous. Rate calculation hasn't changed amid spike The most obvious error in this claim is blaming math for the 'exploding positive test rate.' The seven-day average of tests with positive results - a more reliable marker than daily totals since it smooths out daily jumps caused by changes in testing volume - rose slowly through August, from about 6% to 8%. It then spiked starting in September, pushing the seven-day average close to 20% by the end of the month. The MacIver piece posits this is due to errant calculations. But this rate has been calculated the same way throughout this entire stretch. So whatever one's objections to the methodology, if the same formula is used at the beginning and the end of a given time period, and the rate increases dramatically in that span, the increase is real. The MacIver piece notes in its critique that test positivity is important because it's one of six so-called 'gating' criteria Evers is using to shape state policy on the pandemic. If test positivity is being used incorrectly, that would make it harder to achieve the thresholds set by Evers, and for the state to reopen fully. Test positivity is, indeed, one of the criteria. But the MacIver implication that it lacks legitimacy falls flat. The criteria doesn't call for a specific percentage level to be met. Rather it calls for a downward trajectory for 14 days. And, as we noted, the same measuring stick - the formula - has been used throughout. State approach to test positivity is widely used, even preferred That brings us to the heart of this claim, that DHS is using 'bad math' in calculating the percentage of positive tests. The MacIver piece itself elaborates on this, asserting, 'If the goal is to calculate the daily positive test rate, then DHS is using the wrong numerator and denominator.' DHS calculates percent positivity by dividing the number of people with positive test results by the number of people tested in a given span. (Their dashboard includes daily counts as well as a seven-day and 14-day average.) The MacIver piece asserts this is incorrect, saying the state should instead be basing the calculation off the raw number of tests, which would deliver a lower percentage. But the state's approach is actually both widely used and preferred because it prevents people who are tested often from skewing the data. These aren't people who feel sick or exhibit symptoms and seek a test - the typical sort of person tested. Rather, these are people who are tested regularly based on their position (such as a front-line health care worker) or situation (such as living in a nursing home where an outbreak has occurred). Counting each of those negative test results would give an unrealistic picture of how frequently positive tests are occurring in the population - the core question all testing is trying to answer. 'Our data report individuals tested,' Westergaard said in a June 11, 2020, media briefing. 'So, if an individual was tested more than once because they were being followed to see if they cleared the infection or if they were tested a couple times weeks apart, they would be considered a single case and not multiple cases in our data.' Johns Hopkins University, which operates a COVID dashboard has become a go-to national resource in the pandemic, endorses this approach. Officials there said some places aren't using it only because their data doesn't allow them to break it down this way. 'We feel that the ideal way to calculate positivity would be number of people who test positive divided by number of people who are tested,' says an explainer posted on the Johns Hopkins dashboard. 'We feel this is currently the best way to track positivity because some states include in their testing totals duplicative tests obtained in succession on the same individual, as well as unrelated antibody tests. However, many states are unable to track number of people tested, so they only track number of tests.' The CDC also notes this is a standard way of approaching test positivity calculations. Their website lists it as one of three formulas used by various agencies. The CDC calculates positivity by dividing the number of positive tests by the total number of tests taken. It notes it only uses this approach because it doesn't have access to the data state and local health departments have to identify - and separate out - repeat tests from the same individual. Some states divide the number of people with positive tests by the total number of tests taken. Some states use Wisconsin's approach, dividing the number of people with positive tests by the number of people tested. The New York Times - which also runs a COVID dashboard - notes at least 18 states report tests like Wisconsin, based on the number of people tested, rather than the number of tests. None of this national context was included in the MacIver piece. DHS spokeswoman Elizabeth Goodsitt said Sept. 29, 2020, the agency was in the process of launching an updated dashboard that shows test positivity calculated using both approaches - number of people and number of tests. She said both measures 'are informative to the response effort in Wisconsin.' One more quick note for some general context on this metric. The COVID Tracking Project, another dashboard operator, said in a Sept. 22, 2020, blog post that test positivity is useful but also 'one of the most commonly misunderstood metrics for monitoring the COVID-19 pandemic.' It notes percent positivity rates can vary greatly based on who officials decide to test. 'The choice of who gets tested is based on state- or county-specific criteria, but is often made based on how sick people appear to be, which in turn influences test positivity,' the blog post said. 'If a state only tests people who have clear symptoms of the virus, it will likely have a higher test positivity than one that is also testing asymptomatic people.'
Our ruling A MacIver article widely shared on Facebook says 'bad math' is to blame for Wisconsin's 'exploding positive test rate.' This is wrong on multiple fronts.They're asserting manipulated math is behind the increase in test positivity, but it's actually because the number of people testing positive has risen based on human behavior. There is no 'bad math.' The state DHS uses a methodology (tallying people tested rather than raw tests) that is widely used by health agencies around the country. It is considered a more accurate approach because it assures people who are tested on a regular, even daily, basis - such as health care workers - don't skew the data. And whatever the quibbles with the methodology, this wouldn't cause the increase in the test positivity rate because the formula DHS used to calculate the rate was the same throughout the time period. That makes this claim both false and ridiculous, or as we call it, Pants on Fire. Note: DHS updated their COVID-19 dashboard Sept. 30, the day after this story published, to include test positivity in terms of both tests and people. That does not affect the rating for this item since the per-person method remains on the DHS website and remains an acceptable and even preferred approach.
[]
'Bad math (is) driving Wisconsin's exploding positive test rate.
Contradiction
A surge in coronavirus cases in September pushed Wisconsin near the top of a dubious national ranking - most new COVID-19 cases per capita. Predictably, that spurred a related jump in the percentage of COVID-19 tests yielding positive results in the state. The rise has prompted renewed scrutiny of the state's COVID-19 response. Some claim this is proof Gov. Tony Evers' mask mandate isn't working, while others say it means we aren't taking the threat - or the mask mandate - seriously enough. But the conservative MacIver Institute took another tack, zeroing in on the formula used to establish the positivity rate to claim that errors by the state Department of Health are what is actually causing the increase in that key measure. 'Bad Math Driving Wisconsin's Exploding Positive Test Rate,' declared a Sept. 23, 2020, headline that was shared widely on social media. The MacIver story went on to make a series of claims building on that thesis: 'A fundamental flaw in how the Evers' Administration calculates Wisconsin's daily COVID-19 positive test rate has excluded hundreds of thousands of test results and led to a wildly distorted picture of the state's progress in confronting the virus,' said the story's first paragraph. It later quoted Ryan Westergaard, DHS chief medical officer, as explaining the positivity rate is calculated by dividing the number of positive cases by the number of people tested - not the total number of tests. The MacIver piece calls this a 'shocking admission.' But it's only shocking if you haven't been paying close attention. This is how DHS has consistently calculated test positivity, and since mid-August the department has even explicitly laid this out in the COVID-19 dashboard. What's more, it's an acceptable way - even the preferred way, by some - to do the calculation, since it weeds out multiple tests of the same person. Here's why this 'bad math' claim is ridiculous. Rate calculation hasn't changed amid spike The most obvious error in this claim is blaming math for the 'exploding positive test rate.' The seven-day average of tests with positive results - a more reliable marker than daily totals since it smooths out daily jumps caused by changes in testing volume - rose slowly through August, from about 6% to 8%. It then spiked starting in September, pushing the seven-day average close to 20% by the end of the month. The MacIver piece posits this is due to errant calculations. But this rate has been calculated the same way throughout this entire stretch. So whatever one's objections to the methodology, if the same formula is used at the beginning and the end of a given time period, and the rate increases dramatically in that span, the increase is real. The MacIver piece notes in its critique that test positivity is important because it's one of six so-called 'gating' criteria Evers is using to shape state policy on the pandemic. If test positivity is being used incorrectly, that would make it harder to achieve the thresholds set by Evers, and for the state to reopen fully. Test positivity is, indeed, one of the criteria. But the MacIver implication that it lacks legitimacy falls flat. The criteria doesn't call for a specific percentage level to be met. Rather it calls for a downward trajectory for 14 days. And, as we noted, the same measuring stick - the formula - has been used throughout. State approach to test positivity is widely used, even preferred That brings us to the heart of this claim, that DHS is using 'bad math' in calculating the percentage of positive tests. The MacIver piece itself elaborates on this, asserting, 'If the goal is to calculate the daily positive test rate, then DHS is using the wrong numerator and denominator.' DHS calculates percent positivity by dividing the number of people with positive test results by the number of people tested in a given span. (Their dashboard includes daily counts as well as a seven-day and 14-day average.) The MacIver piece asserts this is incorrect, saying the state should instead be basing the calculation off the raw number of tests, which would deliver a lower percentage. But the state's approach is actually both widely used and preferred because it prevents people who are tested often from skewing the data. These aren't people who feel sick or exhibit symptoms and seek a test - the typical sort of person tested. Rather, these are people who are tested regularly based on their position (such as a front-line health care worker) or situation (such as living in a nursing home where an outbreak has occurred). Counting each of those negative test results would give an unrealistic picture of how frequently positive tests are occurring in the population - the core question all testing is trying to answer. 'Our data report individuals tested,' Westergaard said in a June 11, 2020, media briefing. 'So, if an individual was tested more than once because they were being followed to see if they cleared the infection or if they were tested a couple times weeks apart, they would be considered a single case and not multiple cases in our data.' Johns Hopkins University, which operates a COVID dashboard has become a go-to national resource in the pandemic, endorses this approach. Officials there said some places aren't using it only because their data doesn't allow them to break it down this way. 'We feel that the ideal way to calculate positivity would be number of people who test positive divided by number of people who are tested,' says an explainer posted on the Johns Hopkins dashboard. 'We feel this is currently the best way to track positivity because some states include in their testing totals duplicative tests obtained in succession on the same individual, as well as unrelated antibody tests. However, many states are unable to track number of people tested, so they only track number of tests.' The CDC also notes this is a standard way of approaching test positivity calculations. Their website lists it as one of three formulas used by various agencies. The CDC calculates positivity by dividing the number of positive tests by the total number of tests taken. It notes it only uses this approach because it doesn't have access to the data state and local health departments have to identify - and separate out - repeat tests from the same individual. Some states divide the number of people with positive tests by the total number of tests taken. Some states use Wisconsin's approach, dividing the number of people with positive tests by the number of people tested. The New York Times - which also runs a COVID dashboard - notes at least 18 states report tests like Wisconsin, based on the number of people tested, rather than the number of tests. None of this national context was included in the MacIver piece. DHS spokeswoman Elizabeth Goodsitt said Sept. 29, 2020, the agency was in the process of launching an updated dashboard that shows test positivity calculated using both approaches - number of people and number of tests. She said both measures 'are informative to the response effort in Wisconsin.' One more quick note for some general context on this metric. The COVID Tracking Project, another dashboard operator, said in a Sept. 22, 2020, blog post that test positivity is useful but also 'one of the most commonly misunderstood metrics for monitoring the COVID-19 pandemic.' It notes percent positivity rates can vary greatly based on who officials decide to test. 'The choice of who gets tested is based on state- or county-specific criteria, but is often made based on how sick people appear to be, which in turn influences test positivity,' the blog post said. 'If a state only tests people who have clear symptoms of the virus, it will likely have a higher test positivity than one that is also testing asymptomatic people.'
Our ruling A MacIver article widely shared on Facebook says 'bad math' is to blame for Wisconsin's 'exploding positive test rate.' This is wrong on multiple fronts.They're asserting manipulated math is behind the increase in test positivity, but it's actually because the number of people testing positive has risen based on human behavior. There is no 'bad math.' The state DHS uses a methodology (tallying people tested rather than raw tests) that is widely used by health agencies around the country. It is considered a more accurate approach because it assures people who are tested on a regular, even daily, basis - such as health care workers - don't skew the data. And whatever the quibbles with the methodology, this wouldn't cause the increase in the test positivity rate because the formula DHS used to calculate the rate was the same throughout the time period. That makes this claim both false and ridiculous, or as we call it, Pants on Fire. Note: DHS updated their COVID-19 dashboard Sept. 30, the day after this story published, to include test positivity in terms of both tests and people. That does not affect the rating for this item since the per-person method remains on the DHS website and remains an acceptable and even preferred approach.
[]
'WHO now saying you do not need to wear a mask.
Contradiction
As some experts have advised Americans to wear higher-quality or multiple face masks to protect against the coronavirus, a recent blog post that's spreading widely on social media claims the World Health Organization says no masks are necessary. 'WHO now saying you do not need to wear a mask,' reads the headline on a Jan. 25 post on a blog titled 'Did You Know.' The post further claims that the WHO said on Jan. 22 that 'there is no scientific medical reason for any healthy person to wear a mask outside of a hospital.' It links to what it says is 'the video of the press announcement' on the WHO's website. 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.) After reviewing a transcript of the press conference cited, we didn't find evidence to support the claim that the WHO said people don't need to wear masks. Rather, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, an infectious-disease epidemiologist and COVID-19 technical lead for the WHO, said that 'masks are one aspect of control, one aspect of reducing the spread of this virus, and they can't be used alone.' 'We need to emphasize that, because not one solution is enough,' she said. 'Not masks alone, not physical distancing, not hand hygiene.' Later, she said, 'within our guidance itself it is also worth noting that the use of fabric masks, we recommend a three-layer mask and in our guidance materials we have recommendations on the specifications for filtration, for example - what the type of fabric should be for the inner layer, the middle layer and the outer layer. Not all fabric masks are the same and so they need to be produced and made so that they provide the right type of protection and source control.' A page on the WHO's website that was last updated on Dec. 1 offers guidance on when, where and why people should wear masks, which the site describes as 'a key measure to suppress transmission and save lives.' The WHO recommends medical masks for health workers in clinical settings, anyone feeling unwell, people waiting for COVID-19 test results, people caring for someone with a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19, people 60 and older, and people with underlying health conditions. For everyone else in the general public, non-medical fabric face coverings are OK, according to the WHO. We rate this blog post False.
We rate this blog post False.
[]
'Autopsies prove that COVID-19 is' a blood clot, not pneumonia, 'and ought to be fought with antibiotics' and the whole world has been wrong in treating the 'so-called' pandemic.
Contradiction
When it comes to treating COVID-19, the world has it all wrong, a Facebook post claims. 'Autopsies prove that COVID-19 is a disseminated intravascular coagulation - pulmonary thrombosis. It is now clear that the whole world has been attacking the so-called coronavirus pandemic wrongly due to a serious pathophysiological diagnosis error,' the lengthy post begins. Autopsies performed by Italian pathologists, the post continues, show that COVID-19 'is not pneumonia, but it is disseminated intravascular coagulation, or thrombosis, which ought to be fought with antibiotics, antivirals, anti-inflammatories and anticoagulants. If this is true for all cases, that means the whole world is about to resolve this novel pandemic earlier than expected.' 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.) Antibiotics don't work on viruses We've seen the terms so many times, but it doesn't hurt to review. COVID-19 is an abbreviation for coronavirus disease 2019 - a name given by the World Health Organization three months after the disease was discovered in Wuhan, China, in December. As the various names suggest, the novel (as in new) coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19 is a virus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Antibiotics do not work against viruses; they only work on bacterial infections. 'Disseminated intravascular coagulation' As Texas A&M University-Texarkana virologist Ben Neuman describes it, 'COVID-19 starts out in the lungs like the common-cold coronaviruses, but then causes havoc with the immune system that can lead to long-term lung damage or death.' The technical term cited in the Facebook post - 'disseminated intravascular coagulation' - is 'a rare but serious condition that causes abnormal blood clotting throughout the body's blood vessels,' according to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, a U.S. government agency. 'It is caused by another disease or condition, such as an infection or injury, that makes the body's normal blood clotting process become overactive.' As the post indicates, Italian pathologists did perform autopsies on people with COVID-19. But their study didn't contradict what COVID-19 is; it merely reported on how the disease can damage lungs. The COVID-19 autopsies The pathologists examined the lung tissues of 38 COVID-19 patients who died in hospitals in northern Italy. They concluded that 'the virus remains in lung tissue for many days, even if in small quantities, possibly being the trigger of the mechanism that leads to and feeds lung damage.' Their findings were posted in a preliminary study April 19. That study has not been peer reviewed, meaning it has not yet been evaluated by experts for formal publication in a medical journal. One of the pathologists on the study, Dr. Aurelio Sonzogni of Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital in Bergamo, confirmed to PolitiFact that the study does not contradict the fact that COVID-19 is a virus that cannot be treated with antibiotics. Rather, his study found that lung damage caused by blood clots is one possible effect of COVID-19. The study has been accepted for publication in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, a London-based medical journal, he said.
Our ruling 'Autopsies prove that COVID-19 is' a blood clot, not pneumonia, 'and ought to be fought with antibiotics,' a Facebook post claimed,' and the whole world has been wrong in treating the 'so-called' pandemic. The novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19 is a virus. Viruses do not respond to antibiotic treatment; antibiotics only work on bacterial infections. COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory illness that in some cases causes pneumonia. Another effect, according to the autopsies in Italy, is lung damage caused by blood clotting. The post is false and ridiculous - Pants on Fire.
[]
'Autopsies prove that COVID-19 is' a blood clot, not pneumonia, 'and ought to be fought with antibiotics' and the whole world has been wrong in treating the 'so-called' pandemic.
Contradiction
When it comes to treating COVID-19, the world has it all wrong, a Facebook post claims. 'Autopsies prove that COVID-19 is a disseminated intravascular coagulation - pulmonary thrombosis. It is now clear that the whole world has been attacking the so-called coronavirus pandemic wrongly due to a serious pathophysiological diagnosis error,' the lengthy post begins. Autopsies performed by Italian pathologists, the post continues, show that COVID-19 'is not pneumonia, but it is disseminated intravascular coagulation, or thrombosis, which ought to be fought with antibiotics, antivirals, anti-inflammatories and anticoagulants. If this is true for all cases, that means the whole world is about to resolve this novel pandemic earlier than expected.' 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.) Antibiotics don't work on viruses We've seen the terms so many times, but it doesn't hurt to review. COVID-19 is an abbreviation for coronavirus disease 2019 - a name given by the World Health Organization three months after the disease was discovered in Wuhan, China, in December. As the various names suggest, the novel (as in new) coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19 is a virus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Antibiotics do not work against viruses; they only work on bacterial infections. 'Disseminated intravascular coagulation' As Texas A&M University-Texarkana virologist Ben Neuman describes it, 'COVID-19 starts out in the lungs like the common-cold coronaviruses, but then causes havoc with the immune system that can lead to long-term lung damage or death.' The technical term cited in the Facebook post - 'disseminated intravascular coagulation' - is 'a rare but serious condition that causes abnormal blood clotting throughout the body's blood vessels,' according to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, a U.S. government agency. 'It is caused by another disease or condition, such as an infection or injury, that makes the body's normal blood clotting process become overactive.' As the post indicates, Italian pathologists did perform autopsies on people with COVID-19. But their study didn't contradict what COVID-19 is; it merely reported on how the disease can damage lungs. The COVID-19 autopsies The pathologists examined the lung tissues of 38 COVID-19 patients who died in hospitals in northern Italy. They concluded that 'the virus remains in lung tissue for many days, even if in small quantities, possibly being the trigger of the mechanism that leads to and feeds lung damage.' Their findings were posted in a preliminary study April 19. That study has not been peer reviewed, meaning it has not yet been evaluated by experts for formal publication in a medical journal. One of the pathologists on the study, Dr. Aurelio Sonzogni of Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital in Bergamo, confirmed to PolitiFact that the study does not contradict the fact that COVID-19 is a virus that cannot be treated with antibiotics. Rather, his study found that lung damage caused by blood clots is one possible effect of COVID-19. The study has been accepted for publication in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, a London-based medical journal, he said.
Our ruling 'Autopsies prove that COVID-19 is' a blood clot, not pneumonia, 'and ought to be fought with antibiotics,' a Facebook post claimed,' and the whole world has been wrong in treating the 'so-called' pandemic. The novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19 is a virus. Viruses do not respond to antibiotic treatment; antibiotics only work on bacterial infections. COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory illness that in some cases causes pneumonia. Another effect, according to the autopsies in Italy, is lung damage caused by blood clotting. The post is false and ridiculous - Pants on Fire.
[]
'Autopsies prove that COVID-19 is' a blood clot, not pneumonia, 'and ought to be fought with antibiotics' and the whole world has been wrong in treating the 'so-called' pandemic.
Contradiction
When it comes to treating COVID-19, the world has it all wrong, a Facebook post claims. 'Autopsies prove that COVID-19 is a disseminated intravascular coagulation - pulmonary thrombosis. It is now clear that the whole world has been attacking the so-called coronavirus pandemic wrongly due to a serious pathophysiological diagnosis error,' the lengthy post begins. Autopsies performed by Italian pathologists, the post continues, show that COVID-19 'is not pneumonia, but it is disseminated intravascular coagulation, or thrombosis, which ought to be fought with antibiotics, antivirals, anti-inflammatories and anticoagulants. If this is true for all cases, that means the whole world is about to resolve this novel pandemic earlier than expected.' 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.) Antibiotics don't work on viruses We've seen the terms so many times, but it doesn't hurt to review. COVID-19 is an abbreviation for coronavirus disease 2019 - a name given by the World Health Organization three months after the disease was discovered in Wuhan, China, in December. As the various names suggest, the novel (as in new) coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19 is a virus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Antibiotics do not work against viruses; they only work on bacterial infections. 'Disseminated intravascular coagulation' As Texas A&M University-Texarkana virologist Ben Neuman describes it, 'COVID-19 starts out in the lungs like the common-cold coronaviruses, but then causes havoc with the immune system that can lead to long-term lung damage or death.' The technical term cited in the Facebook post - 'disseminated intravascular coagulation' - is 'a rare but serious condition that causes abnormal blood clotting throughout the body's blood vessels,' according to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, a U.S. government agency. 'It is caused by another disease or condition, such as an infection or injury, that makes the body's normal blood clotting process become overactive.' As the post indicates, Italian pathologists did perform autopsies on people with COVID-19. But their study didn't contradict what COVID-19 is; it merely reported on how the disease can damage lungs. The COVID-19 autopsies The pathologists examined the lung tissues of 38 COVID-19 patients who died in hospitals in northern Italy. They concluded that 'the virus remains in lung tissue for many days, even if in small quantities, possibly being the trigger of the mechanism that leads to and feeds lung damage.' Their findings were posted in a preliminary study April 19. That study has not been peer reviewed, meaning it has not yet been evaluated by experts for formal publication in a medical journal. One of the pathologists on the study, Dr. Aurelio Sonzogni of Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital in Bergamo, confirmed to PolitiFact that the study does not contradict the fact that COVID-19 is a virus that cannot be treated with antibiotics. Rather, his study found that lung damage caused by blood clots is one possible effect of COVID-19. The study has been accepted for publication in The Lancet Infectious Diseases, a London-based medical journal, he said.
Our ruling 'Autopsies prove that COVID-19 is' a blood clot, not pneumonia, 'and ought to be fought with antibiotics,' a Facebook post claimed,' and the whole world has been wrong in treating the 'so-called' pandemic. The novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19 is a virus. Viruses do not respond to antibiotic treatment; antibiotics only work on bacterial infections. COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory illness that in some cases causes pneumonia. Another effect, according to the autopsies in Italy, is lung damage caused by blood clotting. The post is false and ridiculous - Pants on Fire.
[]
Says Kanye West got 40,000 votes in the presidential election in Kentucky.
Contradiction
Kanye West is on the Kentucky ballot as an independent candidate for president but election results showing him leading Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden by more than 10,000 votes are not real. But a video of the rapper that's being shared on social media gives a different impression. '19%, 40,000 votes,' West says in the video. 'Kentucky. Get the West Wing ready! Let's go! Let's go!' The post also shows an image of what's described as 'President Kentucky results' with '100% of precincts reporting.' It shows West with 40,781 votes, or 19%, and Biden with only 14%. 'Kanye reacts to getting 40k votes,' the 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.) West tweeted the image showing him with 19% of the Kentucky vote on Oct. 13. It was a screenshot of an NBC News affiliate's website - lex18.com. But the Kentucky station said that the results showed mock numbers used as part of the Associated Press' preparation to post election results. 'Someone discovered a cached web link that we used during June's primary election to post Associated Press election results,' LEX 18 News tweeted on Oct. 13. 'The old link was still populating current AP data and showed test results, which is part of the preparation the AP does in advance of elections.' The results aren't valid, LEX 18 News said. 'They were simply part of a test. We regret the discovery of the cached web link and have removed the data from that page. We apologize for any confusion.' Early voting is underway in Kentucky but the State Board of Elections has not yet posted any results. We rate this claim False.
We rate this claim False.
[]
'I can send every qualified person to a four-year college in their state for $150 billion.
Contradiction
In an interview on CBS' '60 Minutes,' Joe Biden slipped up while describing his plan to make public colleges free for all families with incomes below $125,000. 'I can send every qualified person to a four-year college in their state for $150 billion,' he told interviewer Norah O'Donnell. In voiceover, O'Donnell said that Biden's staff had later reached out to CBS to tell them that Biden had misspoke. 'The cost of free public college could be twice as much as he said,' O'Donnell said. Biden's initial statement was wrong, but we were interested in how his campaign had calculated the price of the free public college plan. When we reached out and asked about their methodology, Biden's campaign walked us through the variables it considered to arrive at its estimate. It also pointed us to an independent Georgetown study that analyzed the financial effects of the proposal. The Biden calculation Biden's free public college plan is based on Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Pramila Jayapal's College for All Act of 2017, which stalled in committee. The proposal would make public colleges and universities tuition-free for families with incomes below $125,000. Students receiving other forms of financial aid, such as Pell Grants, could use that aid to cover attendance costs beyond tuition, like room and board and transportation. The idea is that by increasing the number of people who go to college, the U.S. would produce more college graduates. And more college graduates would in turn benefit from higher earnings in the labor market, thereby generating substantial tax revenue. To determine the overall price of the program, the Biden campaign calculated the total cost of the plan and subtracted the projected gains in tax revenue to arrive at a net cost of $300 billion over 10 years, according to a campaign spokesperson. The gross cost of Biden's proposal - the total price of the plan not accounting for an increase of tax revenue - would be several times higher than its net cost. An analysis by the Penn-Wharton Budget Model estimated that the gross cost of the plan would come to $1.38 trillion over 10 years. The plan's price tag would also depend on how public college enrollment numbers change after its enactment. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model assumed a 5% growth in four-year public college enrollment, while the Biden campaign assumed that enrollment rates would remain relatively constant. It suggested that there would not be a four-year college surge because Biden plans to make other forms of higher education more affordable as well, including community colleges, historically Black colleges and universities, and workforce training programs. Finally, the campaign's estimate accounts for phasing in the free public college plan over a number of years. It also assumes that states would share a third of the financial burden. So, that $300 billion figure is a measure of net federal costs. States would pay an additional $150 billion to fund the plan by the Biden campaign's calculations. The Georgetown study The Biden campaign said that it didn't have enough resources to run detailed models on the costs of the free-college plan, making $300 billion an educated estimate rather than a hard price tag. But independent researchers have calculated the net cost of Biden's public college plan and come to similar conclusions about its price. A report written by Anthony Carnevale, director of the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, and Jenna Sablan, a former assistant research professor at the center, found that the gross cost of Biden's plan would reach $683.1 billion over an 11-year period. But the plan could generate an additional $371.4 billion in federal and state income taxes after 11 years, if graduation rates remain at current levels, the researchers found. By the 11th year, the yearly tax revenue generated by the plan would begin to offset its annual cost, and the net cost of the plan would continue to shrink in the years going forward. This would bring the total price of the plan to roughly $311.7 billion over an 11-year period, the study found. Since states would be paying about a third of this amount, net federal costs would be around $205.7 billion. How Biden plans to pay for public college In the '60 Minutes' interview, Biden said that he would be able to pay for the free college plan by raising the corporate minimum tax rate to 15%. According to the campaign, the corporate minimum tax rate would raise $400 billion over ten years, more than enough to offset the estimated $300 billion necessary to enact the public college plan. However, Factcheck.org compiled estimates from three independent tax analysis centers, all of which found that the campaign is overstating the amount of revenue that would be generated by a corporate minimum tax. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model, which represents the high-end of these estimates, found that raising the corporate tax rate to 15% would only generate $227 billion.
Our ruling On '60 Minutes,' Joe Biden said, 'I can send every qualified person to a four-year college in their state for $150 billion.' The Biden campaign later told CBS that Biden had misspoke and that the free public college plan would actually cost double that amount. A campaign spokesperson told PolitiFact the estimated cost would add up to about $300 billion over 10 years. That seems to square with a report by the Georgetown Center on Education, which calculated the cost of Biden's public college plan and arrived at a similar estimate: $683.1 billion over an 11-year period, generating an additional $371.4 in tax revenue. However, that's not what Biden said on 60 Minutes. We rate his claim that it would cost $150 billion False.
[ "109063-proof-19-6c2e3b3e5f62a929fe782e974fa5fb4e.jpg" ]
'I can send every qualified person to a four-year college in their state for $150 billion.
Contradiction
In an interview on CBS' '60 Minutes,' Joe Biden slipped up while describing his plan to make public colleges free for all families with incomes below $125,000. 'I can send every qualified person to a four-year college in their state for $150 billion,' he told interviewer Norah O'Donnell. In voiceover, O'Donnell said that Biden's staff had later reached out to CBS to tell them that Biden had misspoke. 'The cost of free public college could be twice as much as he said,' O'Donnell said. Biden's initial statement was wrong, but we were interested in how his campaign had calculated the price of the free public college plan. When we reached out and asked about their methodology, Biden's campaign walked us through the variables it considered to arrive at its estimate. It also pointed us to an independent Georgetown study that analyzed the financial effects of the proposal. The Biden calculation Biden's free public college plan is based on Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Pramila Jayapal's College for All Act of 2017, which stalled in committee. The proposal would make public colleges and universities tuition-free for families with incomes below $125,000. Students receiving other forms of financial aid, such as Pell Grants, could use that aid to cover attendance costs beyond tuition, like room and board and transportation. The idea is that by increasing the number of people who go to college, the U.S. would produce more college graduates. And more college graduates would in turn benefit from higher earnings in the labor market, thereby generating substantial tax revenue. To determine the overall price of the program, the Biden campaign calculated the total cost of the plan and subtracted the projected gains in tax revenue to arrive at a net cost of $300 billion over 10 years, according to a campaign spokesperson. The gross cost of Biden's proposal - the total price of the plan not accounting for an increase of tax revenue - would be several times higher than its net cost. An analysis by the Penn-Wharton Budget Model estimated that the gross cost of the plan would come to $1.38 trillion over 10 years. The plan's price tag would also depend on how public college enrollment numbers change after its enactment. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model assumed a 5% growth in four-year public college enrollment, while the Biden campaign assumed that enrollment rates would remain relatively constant. It suggested that there would not be a four-year college surge because Biden plans to make other forms of higher education more affordable as well, including community colleges, historically Black colleges and universities, and workforce training programs. Finally, the campaign's estimate accounts for phasing in the free public college plan over a number of years. It also assumes that states would share a third of the financial burden. So, that $300 billion figure is a measure of net federal costs. States would pay an additional $150 billion to fund the plan by the Biden campaign's calculations. The Georgetown study The Biden campaign said that it didn't have enough resources to run detailed models on the costs of the free-college plan, making $300 billion an educated estimate rather than a hard price tag. But independent researchers have calculated the net cost of Biden's public college plan and come to similar conclusions about its price. A report written by Anthony Carnevale, director of the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, and Jenna Sablan, a former assistant research professor at the center, found that the gross cost of Biden's plan would reach $683.1 billion over an 11-year period. But the plan could generate an additional $371.4 billion in federal and state income taxes after 11 years, if graduation rates remain at current levels, the researchers found. By the 11th year, the yearly tax revenue generated by the plan would begin to offset its annual cost, and the net cost of the plan would continue to shrink in the years going forward. This would bring the total price of the plan to roughly $311.7 billion over an 11-year period, the study found. Since states would be paying about a third of this amount, net federal costs would be around $205.7 billion. How Biden plans to pay for public college In the '60 Minutes' interview, Biden said that he would be able to pay for the free college plan by raising the corporate minimum tax rate to 15%. According to the campaign, the corporate minimum tax rate would raise $400 billion over ten years, more than enough to offset the estimated $300 billion necessary to enact the public college plan. However, Factcheck.org compiled estimates from three independent tax analysis centers, all of which found that the campaign is overstating the amount of revenue that would be generated by a corporate minimum tax. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model, which represents the high-end of these estimates, found that raising the corporate tax rate to 15% would only generate $227 billion.
Our ruling On '60 Minutes,' Joe Biden said, 'I can send every qualified person to a four-year college in their state for $150 billion.' The Biden campaign later told CBS that Biden had misspoke and that the free public college plan would actually cost double that amount. A campaign spokesperson told PolitiFact the estimated cost would add up to about $300 billion over 10 years. That seems to square with a report by the Georgetown Center on Education, which calculated the cost of Biden's public college plan and arrived at a similar estimate: $683.1 billion over an 11-year period, generating an additional $371.4 in tax revenue. However, that's not what Biden said on 60 Minutes. We rate his claim that it would cost $150 billion False.
[ "109063-proof-19-6c2e3b3e5f62a929fe782e974fa5fb4e.jpg" ]
'I can send every qualified person to a four-year college in their state for $150 billion.
Contradiction
In an interview on CBS' '60 Minutes,' Joe Biden slipped up while describing his plan to make public colleges free for all families with incomes below $125,000. 'I can send every qualified person to a four-year college in their state for $150 billion,' he told interviewer Norah O'Donnell. In voiceover, O'Donnell said that Biden's staff had later reached out to CBS to tell them that Biden had misspoke. 'The cost of free public college could be twice as much as he said,' O'Donnell said. Biden's initial statement was wrong, but we were interested in how his campaign had calculated the price of the free public college plan. When we reached out and asked about their methodology, Biden's campaign walked us through the variables it considered to arrive at its estimate. It also pointed us to an independent Georgetown study that analyzed the financial effects of the proposal. The Biden calculation Biden's free public college plan is based on Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Pramila Jayapal's College for All Act of 2017, which stalled in committee. The proposal would make public colleges and universities tuition-free for families with incomes below $125,000. Students receiving other forms of financial aid, such as Pell Grants, could use that aid to cover attendance costs beyond tuition, like room and board and transportation. The idea is that by increasing the number of people who go to college, the U.S. would produce more college graduates. And more college graduates would in turn benefit from higher earnings in the labor market, thereby generating substantial tax revenue. To determine the overall price of the program, the Biden campaign calculated the total cost of the plan and subtracted the projected gains in tax revenue to arrive at a net cost of $300 billion over 10 years, according to a campaign spokesperson. The gross cost of Biden's proposal - the total price of the plan not accounting for an increase of tax revenue - would be several times higher than its net cost. An analysis by the Penn-Wharton Budget Model estimated that the gross cost of the plan would come to $1.38 trillion over 10 years. The plan's price tag would also depend on how public college enrollment numbers change after its enactment. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model assumed a 5% growth in four-year public college enrollment, while the Biden campaign assumed that enrollment rates would remain relatively constant. It suggested that there would not be a four-year college surge because Biden plans to make other forms of higher education more affordable as well, including community colleges, historically Black colleges and universities, and workforce training programs. Finally, the campaign's estimate accounts for phasing in the free public college plan over a number of years. It also assumes that states would share a third of the financial burden. So, that $300 billion figure is a measure of net federal costs. States would pay an additional $150 billion to fund the plan by the Biden campaign's calculations. The Georgetown study The Biden campaign said that it didn't have enough resources to run detailed models on the costs of the free-college plan, making $300 billion an educated estimate rather than a hard price tag. But independent researchers have calculated the net cost of Biden's public college plan and come to similar conclusions about its price. A report written by Anthony Carnevale, director of the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, and Jenna Sablan, a former assistant research professor at the center, found that the gross cost of Biden's plan would reach $683.1 billion over an 11-year period. But the plan could generate an additional $371.4 billion in federal and state income taxes after 11 years, if graduation rates remain at current levels, the researchers found. By the 11th year, the yearly tax revenue generated by the plan would begin to offset its annual cost, and the net cost of the plan would continue to shrink in the years going forward. This would bring the total price of the plan to roughly $311.7 billion over an 11-year period, the study found. Since states would be paying about a third of this amount, net federal costs would be around $205.7 billion. How Biden plans to pay for public college In the '60 Minutes' interview, Biden said that he would be able to pay for the free college plan by raising the corporate minimum tax rate to 15%. According to the campaign, the corporate minimum tax rate would raise $400 billion over ten years, more than enough to offset the estimated $300 billion necessary to enact the public college plan. However, Factcheck.org compiled estimates from three independent tax analysis centers, all of which found that the campaign is overstating the amount of revenue that would be generated by a corporate minimum tax. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model, which represents the high-end of these estimates, found that raising the corporate tax rate to 15% would only generate $227 billion.
Our ruling On '60 Minutes,' Joe Biden said, 'I can send every qualified person to a four-year college in their state for $150 billion.' The Biden campaign later told CBS that Biden had misspoke and that the free public college plan would actually cost double that amount. A campaign spokesperson told PolitiFact the estimated cost would add up to about $300 billion over 10 years. That seems to square with a report by the Georgetown Center on Education, which calculated the cost of Biden's public college plan and arrived at a similar estimate: $683.1 billion over an 11-year period, generating an additional $371.4 in tax revenue. However, that's not what Biden said on 60 Minutes. We rate his claim that it would cost $150 billion False.
[ "109063-proof-19-6c2e3b3e5f62a929fe782e974fa5fb4e.jpg" ]
'The (corona)virus just isn't nearly as deadly as we thought it was.
Contradiction
Fox News host Tucker Carlson railed against continued statewide shutdowns meant to slow the spread of the coronavirus, claiming in a recent TV segment that they did little to flatten the curve and that 'the virus just isn't nearly as deadly as we thought it was.' Citing recent studies from hotspots such as New York, Carlson said the virus is 'a full order of magnitude less deadly' than public health officials warned. 'The virus just isn't nearly as deadly as we thought it was, all of us, including on this show,' he said. 'Everybody thought it was, but it turned out not to be.' More than 65,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's in spite of widespread mitigation efforts to reduce the spread. So how deadly is it? Estimating the lethality of COVID-19 has been a key question for epidemiologists. In the middle of a pandemic, moving targets make the death rate difficult to pin down. But experts told us Carlson's statement is off-track. Many early mortality estimates were based on official counts of confirmed cases, but epidemiologists were consistent in saying those raw numbers didn't reflect the virus's deadliness with complete precision. The numbers can be confusing Ideally, epidemiologists could divide the number of deaths by the number of infections to calculate what's known as the 'infection fatality rate.' But there's no way to get a complete count of the number of infected individuals, largely because so many mild cases go unreported. Jeffrey Shaman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University, said there could be as many as 12.5 COVID-19 infections for every confirmed case in the U.S. Still, scientists work with the data they have, even if it's evolving and varies with patient demographics and location. Some of the first widely reported death rates were what are called 'case fatality rates,' which are calculated by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of reported cases. On March 3, for example, the World Health Organization announced that 3.4% of confirmed coronavirus patients around the world had died - a case fatality rate. Experts told us at the time that the 3.4% was only a snapshot, and one that likely undercounted people with mild symptoms. A WHO spokesperson said it would 'change over time.' The global case fatality rate has actually risen since then. As of May 3, the WHO had tallied 3,349,786 confirmed cases worldwide and 238,628 deaths, for a case fatality rate of about 7%. Now, tests for antibodies in the blood of people exposed to the coronavirus are offering the first glimpses at what the infection fatality rate could be in states such as New York and California. The tests haven't all been as accurate as many experts would like, and the studies of them haven't all been peer-reviewed. 'It remains very clear that we do not know the precise mortality of COVID-19 infection,' said the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Myron Cohen. But their preliminary results suggested the infection fatality rate may be below 1%, handing fodder to some who say the COVID-19 threat is overblown. Carlson said the new information shows COVID-19 is less deadly than expected. On his show, he cited widely disputed findings from two California doctors. A Fox News spokesperson also pointed to a White House press conference, a JP Morgan chart, and recent antibody studies in California and New York to support it. But Shaman, the epidemiologist, said Carlson was 'cherry-picking evidence.' Many early figures were case fatality rates, while the estimates reported as a result of recent antibody studies are infection fatality rates. They shouldn't be conflated, Shaman said. Seemingly small infection fatality rates can also cause mounting deaths. The New York study showed the state's infection fatality rate to be around 0.5%, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said. That matches estimates from a model Shaman constructed, which he said put the U.S. infection fatality rate at 0.56%. But in a worst-case scenario where 70% of Americans are infected, a 0.5% rate could amount to 1.2 million U.S. deaths, Shaman said. And as we've reported, the death toll may be higher than we know. The infection fatality rate for the flu, which kills thousands of Americans annually, hovers under 0.1% and is calculated annually using a mathematical model that estimates the disease burden. Carlson's sources aren't foolproof There are other problems with Carlson's sources, including the clip he played of one of two California physicians who gained national attention for calling to end the shutdowns. The doctors, who own an urgent care clinic, used the infection rate among patients tested at their clinic to extrapolate to the entire state and put the death rate at a tiny 0.03%. The University of Washington's Carl Bergstrom wrote on Twitter that this amounts to 'sampling bias' because patients at an urgent care clinic likely think they're sick. The doctors' calculations are like 'estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court,' he said. The problem with this approach is that during a pandemic, the people who come into an urgent care clinic are not a random sample of the population. A large fraction of them are coming in precisely because they suspect that they have the disease. This generates sampling bias.- Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) April 26, 2020 The video was 'emphatically condemn(ed)' by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine; it was also removed from YouTube. Another report cited by the Fox News spokesperson, from the University of Southern California, followed a controversial study from Stanford University. A number of experts have since warned that both studies used antibody tests known to yield false positive results. (A USC spokesperson said results were adjusted to account for that.) Many epidemiologists said the infection fatality rate would be lower Carlson's claim that COVID-19 was projected to be deadlier for infected patients also discounts what many experts said months ago. 'No one knowledgeable thought it was as deadly as known deaths divided by known cases,' said Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 'Every responsible epidemiologist has been saying that the number of cases is certainly more than those we know about, especially in the U.S., where testing has been inadequate.' Many experts, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, said preliminary case fatality rates could be inflated. The WHO said early on, including in mid- February, that the infection fatality rate would be lower than the initial case fatality rates. The Imperial College of London, which projected in March that the U.S. could see 2.2 million deaths if it had no response, estimated that 0.9% of infected COVID-19 patients would die. 'It is surprisingly mild only to those who were not listening to competent epidemiologists, and it is in fact considerably worse than seasonal flu,' Lipsitch said.
Our ruling Carlson said the coronavirus 'just isn't nearly as deadly as we thought it was.' Scientists warned early in the outbreak that the raw number of confirmed cases didn't give a fully accurate picture of mortality. It's misleading for Carlson to compare early case fatality rates - which divide the number of known deaths by the number of confirmed cases - with newer estimates of the infection fatality rate. The infection fatality rate should be lower, as experts have said for months. It's premature to say as a matter of fact that a far rosier picture has emerged. We rate this statement Mostly False.
[ "109088-proof-01-ddf09ca816095edf2915d10845e75fe9.jpg" ]
'The (corona)virus just isn't nearly as deadly as we thought it was.
Contradiction
Fox News host Tucker Carlson railed against continued statewide shutdowns meant to slow the spread of the coronavirus, claiming in a recent TV segment that they did little to flatten the curve and that 'the virus just isn't nearly as deadly as we thought it was.' Citing recent studies from hotspots such as New York, Carlson said the virus is 'a full order of magnitude less deadly' than public health officials warned. 'The virus just isn't nearly as deadly as we thought it was, all of us, including on this show,' he said. 'Everybody thought it was, but it turned out not to be.' More than 65,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's in spite of widespread mitigation efforts to reduce the spread. So how deadly is it? Estimating the lethality of COVID-19 has been a key question for epidemiologists. In the middle of a pandemic, moving targets make the death rate difficult to pin down. But experts told us Carlson's statement is off-track. Many early mortality estimates were based on official counts of confirmed cases, but epidemiologists were consistent in saying those raw numbers didn't reflect the virus's deadliness with complete precision. The numbers can be confusing Ideally, epidemiologists could divide the number of deaths by the number of infections to calculate what's known as the 'infection fatality rate.' But there's no way to get a complete count of the number of infected individuals, largely because so many mild cases go unreported. Jeffrey Shaman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University, said there could be as many as 12.5 COVID-19 infections for every confirmed case in the U.S. Still, scientists work with the data they have, even if it's evolving and varies with patient demographics and location. Some of the first widely reported death rates were what are called 'case fatality rates,' which are calculated by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of reported cases. On March 3, for example, the World Health Organization announced that 3.4% of confirmed coronavirus patients around the world had died - a case fatality rate. Experts told us at the time that the 3.4% was only a snapshot, and one that likely undercounted people with mild symptoms. A WHO spokesperson said it would 'change over time.' The global case fatality rate has actually risen since then. As of May 3, the WHO had tallied 3,349,786 confirmed cases worldwide and 238,628 deaths, for a case fatality rate of about 7%. Now, tests for antibodies in the blood of people exposed to the coronavirus are offering the first glimpses at what the infection fatality rate could be in states such as New York and California. The tests haven't all been as accurate as many experts would like, and the studies of them haven't all been peer-reviewed. 'It remains very clear that we do not know the precise mortality of COVID-19 infection,' said the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Myron Cohen. But their preliminary results suggested the infection fatality rate may be below 1%, handing fodder to some who say the COVID-19 threat is overblown. Carlson said the new information shows COVID-19 is less deadly than expected. On his show, he cited widely disputed findings from two California doctors. A Fox News spokesperson also pointed to a White House press conference, a JP Morgan chart, and recent antibody studies in California and New York to support it. But Shaman, the epidemiologist, said Carlson was 'cherry-picking evidence.' Many early figures were case fatality rates, while the estimates reported as a result of recent antibody studies are infection fatality rates. They shouldn't be conflated, Shaman said. Seemingly small infection fatality rates can also cause mounting deaths. The New York study showed the state's infection fatality rate to be around 0.5%, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said. That matches estimates from a model Shaman constructed, which he said put the U.S. infection fatality rate at 0.56%. But in a worst-case scenario where 70% of Americans are infected, a 0.5% rate could amount to 1.2 million U.S. deaths, Shaman said. And as we've reported, the death toll may be higher than we know. The infection fatality rate for the flu, which kills thousands of Americans annually, hovers under 0.1% and is calculated annually using a mathematical model that estimates the disease burden. Carlson's sources aren't foolproof There are other problems with Carlson's sources, including the clip he played of one of two California physicians who gained national attention for calling to end the shutdowns. The doctors, who own an urgent care clinic, used the infection rate among patients tested at their clinic to extrapolate to the entire state and put the death rate at a tiny 0.03%. The University of Washington's Carl Bergstrom wrote on Twitter that this amounts to 'sampling bias' because patients at an urgent care clinic likely think they're sick. The doctors' calculations are like 'estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court,' he said. The problem with this approach is that during a pandemic, the people who come into an urgent care clinic are not a random sample of the population. A large fraction of them are coming in precisely because they suspect that they have the disease. This generates sampling bias.- Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) April 26, 2020 The video was 'emphatically condemn(ed)' by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine; it was also removed from YouTube. Another report cited by the Fox News spokesperson, from the University of Southern California, followed a controversial study from Stanford University. A number of experts have since warned that both studies used antibody tests known to yield false positive results. (A USC spokesperson said results were adjusted to account for that.) Many epidemiologists said the infection fatality rate would be lower Carlson's claim that COVID-19 was projected to be deadlier for infected patients also discounts what many experts said months ago. 'No one knowledgeable thought it was as deadly as known deaths divided by known cases,' said Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 'Every responsible epidemiologist has been saying that the number of cases is certainly more than those we know about, especially in the U.S., where testing has been inadequate.' Many experts, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, said preliminary case fatality rates could be inflated. The WHO said early on, including in mid- February, that the infection fatality rate would be lower than the initial case fatality rates. The Imperial College of London, which projected in March that the U.S. could see 2.2 million deaths if it had no response, estimated that 0.9% of infected COVID-19 patients would die. 'It is surprisingly mild only to those who were not listening to competent epidemiologists, and it is in fact considerably worse than seasonal flu,' Lipsitch said.
Our ruling Carlson said the coronavirus 'just isn't nearly as deadly as we thought it was.' Scientists warned early in the outbreak that the raw number of confirmed cases didn't give a fully accurate picture of mortality. It's misleading for Carlson to compare early case fatality rates - which divide the number of known deaths by the number of confirmed cases - with newer estimates of the infection fatality rate. The infection fatality rate should be lower, as experts have said for months. It's premature to say as a matter of fact that a far rosier picture has emerged. We rate this statement Mostly False.
[ "109088-proof-01-ddf09ca816095edf2915d10845e75fe9.jpg" ]
'The (corona)virus just isn't nearly as deadly as we thought it was.
Contradiction
Fox News host Tucker Carlson railed against continued statewide shutdowns meant to slow the spread of the coronavirus, claiming in a recent TV segment that they did little to flatten the curve and that 'the virus just isn't nearly as deadly as we thought it was.' Citing recent studies from hotspots such as New York, Carlson said the virus is 'a full order of magnitude less deadly' than public health officials warned. 'The virus just isn't nearly as deadly as we thought it was, all of us, including on this show,' he said. 'Everybody thought it was, but it turned out not to be.' More than 65,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's in spite of widespread mitigation efforts to reduce the spread. So how deadly is it? Estimating the lethality of COVID-19 has been a key question for epidemiologists. In the middle of a pandemic, moving targets make the death rate difficult to pin down. But experts told us Carlson's statement is off-track. Many early mortality estimates were based on official counts of confirmed cases, but epidemiologists were consistent in saying those raw numbers didn't reflect the virus's deadliness with complete precision. The numbers can be confusing Ideally, epidemiologists could divide the number of deaths by the number of infections to calculate what's known as the 'infection fatality rate.' But there's no way to get a complete count of the number of infected individuals, largely because so many mild cases go unreported. Jeffrey Shaman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University, said there could be as many as 12.5 COVID-19 infections for every confirmed case in the U.S. Still, scientists work with the data they have, even if it's evolving and varies with patient demographics and location. Some of the first widely reported death rates were what are called 'case fatality rates,' which are calculated by dividing the number of known deaths by the number of reported cases. On March 3, for example, the World Health Organization announced that 3.4% of confirmed coronavirus patients around the world had died - a case fatality rate. Experts told us at the time that the 3.4% was only a snapshot, and one that likely undercounted people with mild symptoms. A WHO spokesperson said it would 'change over time.' The global case fatality rate has actually risen since then. As of May 3, the WHO had tallied 3,349,786 confirmed cases worldwide and 238,628 deaths, for a case fatality rate of about 7%. Now, tests for antibodies in the blood of people exposed to the coronavirus are offering the first glimpses at what the infection fatality rate could be in states such as New York and California. The tests haven't all been as accurate as many experts would like, and the studies of them haven't all been peer-reviewed. 'It remains very clear that we do not know the precise mortality of COVID-19 infection,' said the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Myron Cohen. But their preliminary results suggested the infection fatality rate may be below 1%, handing fodder to some who say the COVID-19 threat is overblown. Carlson said the new information shows COVID-19 is less deadly than expected. On his show, he cited widely disputed findings from two California doctors. A Fox News spokesperson also pointed to a White House press conference, a JP Morgan chart, and recent antibody studies in California and New York to support it. But Shaman, the epidemiologist, said Carlson was 'cherry-picking evidence.' Many early figures were case fatality rates, while the estimates reported as a result of recent antibody studies are infection fatality rates. They shouldn't be conflated, Shaman said. Seemingly small infection fatality rates can also cause mounting deaths. The New York study showed the state's infection fatality rate to be around 0.5%, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said. That matches estimates from a model Shaman constructed, which he said put the U.S. infection fatality rate at 0.56%. But in a worst-case scenario where 70% of Americans are infected, a 0.5% rate could amount to 1.2 million U.S. deaths, Shaman said. And as we've reported, the death toll may be higher than we know. The infection fatality rate for the flu, which kills thousands of Americans annually, hovers under 0.1% and is calculated annually using a mathematical model that estimates the disease burden. Carlson's sources aren't foolproof There are other problems with Carlson's sources, including the clip he played of one of two California physicians who gained national attention for calling to end the shutdowns. The doctors, who own an urgent care clinic, used the infection rate among patients tested at their clinic to extrapolate to the entire state and put the death rate at a tiny 0.03%. The University of Washington's Carl Bergstrom wrote on Twitter that this amounts to 'sampling bias' because patients at an urgent care clinic likely think they're sick. The doctors' calculations are like 'estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court,' he said. The problem with this approach is that during a pandemic, the people who come into an urgent care clinic are not a random sample of the population. A large fraction of them are coming in precisely because they suspect that they have the disease. This generates sampling bias.- Carl T. Bergstrom (@CT_Bergstrom) April 26, 2020 The video was 'emphatically condemn(ed)' by the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine; it was also removed from YouTube. Another report cited by the Fox News spokesperson, from the University of Southern California, followed a controversial study from Stanford University. A number of experts have since warned that both studies used antibody tests known to yield false positive results. (A USC spokesperson said results were adjusted to account for that.) Many epidemiologists said the infection fatality rate would be lower Carlson's claim that COVID-19 was projected to be deadlier for infected patients also discounts what many experts said months ago. 'No one knowledgeable thought it was as deadly as known deaths divided by known cases,' said Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 'Every responsible epidemiologist has been saying that the number of cases is certainly more than those we know about, especially in the U.S., where testing has been inadequate.' Many experts, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, said preliminary case fatality rates could be inflated. The WHO said early on, including in mid- February, that the infection fatality rate would be lower than the initial case fatality rates. The Imperial College of London, which projected in March that the U.S. could see 2.2 million deaths if it had no response, estimated that 0.9% of infected COVID-19 patients would die. 'It is surprisingly mild only to those who were not listening to competent epidemiologists, and it is in fact considerably worse than seasonal flu,' Lipsitch said.
Our ruling Carlson said the coronavirus 'just isn't nearly as deadly as we thought it was.' Scientists warned early in the outbreak that the raw number of confirmed cases didn't give a fully accurate picture of mortality. It's misleading for Carlson to compare early case fatality rates - which divide the number of known deaths by the number of confirmed cases - with newer estimates of the infection fatality rate. The infection fatality rate should be lower, as experts have said for months. It's premature to say as a matter of fact that a far rosier picture has emerged. We rate this statement Mostly False.
[ "109088-proof-01-ddf09ca816095edf2915d10845e75fe9.jpg" ]
Democrats and Joe Biden 'want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family home zoning.
Contradiction
A Republican National Convention speaker falsely claimed that the Democratic Party under Joe Biden would 'abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family zoning.' That's not true. The claim came from Patricia McCloskey, a St. Louis lawyer who, along with her husband, Mark, is facing felony charges for pointing guns at protesters marching outside their home. Addressing the convention from inside their house by video, the couple warned about 'radical Democrats' America.' 'They are not satisfied with spreading the chaos and violence into our communities, they want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family home zoning,' Patricia McCloskey said Aug. 24 during the convention's opening night. 'This forced rezoning would bring crime, lawlessness and low-quality apartments into now-thriving suburban neighborhoods.' 'President Trump smartly ended this government overreach, but Joe Biden wants to bring it back,' she continued. 'These are the policies that are coming to a neighborhood near you.' McCloskey's claim is inaccurate. It echoes statements President Donald Trump has made about an Obama administration regulation related to discrimination in housing, the requirements of which Trump's administration initially suspended in 2018. Trump recently repealed the rule. Biden, the former vice president and Democratic presidential nominee, has proposed reinstating President Barack Obama's policy, which required that certain jurisdictions work with the federal government to proactively examine housing patterns and make plans to deal with any discriminatory effects. But it's an extreme interpretation to say doing so would amount to 'abolishing the suburbs' or 'forced rezoning.' Fact-checkers at CNN, NBC News, the New York Times and FactCheck.org reached the same conclusion. 'This is a red herring, pure and simple,' said Robert Silverman, a professor or urban and regional planning at the University of Buffalo. 'Zoning is a local function in the United States, and the suggestions made in the McCloskeys' speech are patently false.' 'The McCloskeys' claim is wrong on pretty much every count,' added Jenny Schuetz, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program. The Affirmatively Furthering Housing Act We contacted the Trump campaign and the McCloskeys' attorney about Patricia McCloskey's claim. We received a brief emailed reply from Mark McCloskey: 'Google it.' The subject line in McCloskey's reply: 'Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.' The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule is a clause in the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, family status or national origin. The clause required the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other federal agencies to 'affirmatively further' fair housing in their programs and activities. Prior to 2015, HUD required local jurisdictions receiving funding from the department to identify barriers to fair housing, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. One example of a barrier would be an exclusionary zoning law that allowed only detached, single-family homes to be built on large lots, said Schuetz, the Brookings Institution's fellow. But while HUD encouraged those jurisdictions to report their findings publicly and to federal government officials, it did not require them to do so. A 2010 report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that some localities were not preparing their reports at all, or not updating them regularly, as was recommended under HUD guidance. The Obama administration's changes, and what Biden wants In 2015, the Obama administration reinforced the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing clause by making the reporting process more rigorous. His administration's changes to the rule asked jurisdictions receiving HUD funding to use data and tools provided by HUD in identifying barriers; set goals and strategies for overcoming those barriers; and submit publicly accessible reports to the department for approval. Biden has pledged on his campaign website to bring those changes back and 'ensure effective and rigorous enforcement of the Fair Housing Act.' But doing so would not force suburban areas to rezone or replace single-family homes with affordable apartments, as Patricia McCloskey claimed. As FactCheck.org first noted, HUD explicitly said that would not happen when it published its final rule in 2015. 'This rule does not impose any land use decisions or zoning laws on any local government,' the rule said. 'Rather, the rule requires HUD program participants to perform an assessment of land use decisions and zoning to evaluate their possible impact on fair housing choice.' 'There is no mechanism in the AFFH rule to force rezoning,' said Silverman, the University of Buffalo professor, adding that the rule has no 'top-down mandates for zoning changes.' If Biden restores the Obama-era changes, localities will again have to periodically assess their fair housing barriers and make recommendations to fix them, Silverman said. 'Those recommendations would be generated locally, and any implementation of them would go through existing policy making processes used by local governments,' he said. Schuetz agreed: 'AFFH doesn't 'end' single-family-exclusive zoning, or 'force' communities to build apartments. It just requires them to identify whether those barriers exist, and develop a plan to address them as part of a larger housing plan for the community.' Not all suburbs would feel the impact, Schuetz said. And they certainly wouldn't be abolished. In sum, McCloskey's claim was 'highly misleading,' Schuetz said, and it 'reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule works.'
Our ruling Patricia McCloskey said Democrats and Joe Biden 'want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family home zoning.' That's an extreme interpretation of Biden's proposal to reinstate an Obama administration requirement related to addressing discrimination in housing. Under the Obama administration's 2015 change to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, localities receiving HUD funding were required to work with the federal government to identify barriers to fair housing and come up with strategies for dealing with them. Experts said restoring that regulation would not force those jurisdictions to rezone or build low-income housing. It certainly wouldn't spell the end for the suburbs. We rate this statement False.
[ "109091-proof-33-798e6b4fcb3d0fda814ca4ffae80fa4a.jpg" ]
Democrats and Joe Biden 'want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family home zoning.
Contradiction
A Republican National Convention speaker falsely claimed that the Democratic Party under Joe Biden would 'abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family zoning.' That's not true. The claim came from Patricia McCloskey, a St. Louis lawyer who, along with her husband, Mark, is facing felony charges for pointing guns at protesters marching outside their home. Addressing the convention from inside their house by video, the couple warned about 'radical Democrats' America.' 'They are not satisfied with spreading the chaos and violence into our communities, they want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family home zoning,' Patricia McCloskey said Aug. 24 during the convention's opening night. 'This forced rezoning would bring crime, lawlessness and low-quality apartments into now-thriving suburban neighborhoods.' 'President Trump smartly ended this government overreach, but Joe Biden wants to bring it back,' she continued. 'These are the policies that are coming to a neighborhood near you.' McCloskey's claim is inaccurate. It echoes statements President Donald Trump has made about an Obama administration regulation related to discrimination in housing, the requirements of which Trump's administration initially suspended in 2018. Trump recently repealed the rule. Biden, the former vice president and Democratic presidential nominee, has proposed reinstating President Barack Obama's policy, which required that certain jurisdictions work with the federal government to proactively examine housing patterns and make plans to deal with any discriminatory effects. But it's an extreme interpretation to say doing so would amount to 'abolishing the suburbs' or 'forced rezoning.' Fact-checkers at CNN, NBC News, the New York Times and FactCheck.org reached the same conclusion. 'This is a red herring, pure and simple,' said Robert Silverman, a professor or urban and regional planning at the University of Buffalo. 'Zoning is a local function in the United States, and the suggestions made in the McCloskeys' speech are patently false.' 'The McCloskeys' claim is wrong on pretty much every count,' added Jenny Schuetz, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program. The Affirmatively Furthering Housing Act We contacted the Trump campaign and the McCloskeys' attorney about Patricia McCloskey's claim. We received a brief emailed reply from Mark McCloskey: 'Google it.' The subject line in McCloskey's reply: 'Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.' The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule is a clause in the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, family status or national origin. The clause required the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other federal agencies to 'affirmatively further' fair housing in their programs and activities. Prior to 2015, HUD required local jurisdictions receiving funding from the department to identify barriers to fair housing, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. One example of a barrier would be an exclusionary zoning law that allowed only detached, single-family homes to be built on large lots, said Schuetz, the Brookings Institution's fellow. But while HUD encouraged those jurisdictions to report their findings publicly and to federal government officials, it did not require them to do so. A 2010 report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that some localities were not preparing their reports at all, or not updating them regularly, as was recommended under HUD guidance. The Obama administration's changes, and what Biden wants In 2015, the Obama administration reinforced the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing clause by making the reporting process more rigorous. His administration's changes to the rule asked jurisdictions receiving HUD funding to use data and tools provided by HUD in identifying barriers; set goals and strategies for overcoming those barriers; and submit publicly accessible reports to the department for approval. Biden has pledged on his campaign website to bring those changes back and 'ensure effective and rigorous enforcement of the Fair Housing Act.' But doing so would not force suburban areas to rezone or replace single-family homes with affordable apartments, as Patricia McCloskey claimed. As FactCheck.org first noted, HUD explicitly said that would not happen when it published its final rule in 2015. 'This rule does not impose any land use decisions or zoning laws on any local government,' the rule said. 'Rather, the rule requires HUD program participants to perform an assessment of land use decisions and zoning to evaluate their possible impact on fair housing choice.' 'There is no mechanism in the AFFH rule to force rezoning,' said Silverman, the University of Buffalo professor, adding that the rule has no 'top-down mandates for zoning changes.' If Biden restores the Obama-era changes, localities will again have to periodically assess their fair housing barriers and make recommendations to fix them, Silverman said. 'Those recommendations would be generated locally, and any implementation of them would go through existing policy making processes used by local governments,' he said. Schuetz agreed: 'AFFH doesn't 'end' single-family-exclusive zoning, or 'force' communities to build apartments. It just requires them to identify whether those barriers exist, and develop a plan to address them as part of a larger housing plan for the community.' Not all suburbs would feel the impact, Schuetz said. And they certainly wouldn't be abolished. In sum, McCloskey's claim was 'highly misleading,' Schuetz said, and it 'reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule works.'
Our ruling Patricia McCloskey said Democrats and Joe Biden 'want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family home zoning.' That's an extreme interpretation of Biden's proposal to reinstate an Obama administration requirement related to addressing discrimination in housing. Under the Obama administration's 2015 change to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, localities receiving HUD funding were required to work with the federal government to identify barriers to fair housing and come up with strategies for dealing with them. Experts said restoring that regulation would not force those jurisdictions to rezone or build low-income housing. It certainly wouldn't spell the end for the suburbs. We rate this statement False.
[ "109091-proof-33-798e6b4fcb3d0fda814ca4ffae80fa4a.jpg" ]
Democrats and Joe Biden 'want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family home zoning.
Contradiction
A Republican National Convention speaker falsely claimed that the Democratic Party under Joe Biden would 'abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family zoning.' That's not true. The claim came from Patricia McCloskey, a St. Louis lawyer who, along with her husband, Mark, is facing felony charges for pointing guns at protesters marching outside their home. Addressing the convention from inside their house by video, the couple warned about 'radical Democrats' America.' 'They are not satisfied with spreading the chaos and violence into our communities, they want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family home zoning,' Patricia McCloskey said Aug. 24 during the convention's opening night. 'This forced rezoning would bring crime, lawlessness and low-quality apartments into now-thriving suburban neighborhoods.' 'President Trump smartly ended this government overreach, but Joe Biden wants to bring it back,' she continued. 'These are the policies that are coming to a neighborhood near you.' McCloskey's claim is inaccurate. It echoes statements President Donald Trump has made about an Obama administration regulation related to discrimination in housing, the requirements of which Trump's administration initially suspended in 2018. Trump recently repealed the rule. Biden, the former vice president and Democratic presidential nominee, has proposed reinstating President Barack Obama's policy, which required that certain jurisdictions work with the federal government to proactively examine housing patterns and make plans to deal with any discriminatory effects. But it's an extreme interpretation to say doing so would amount to 'abolishing the suburbs' or 'forced rezoning.' Fact-checkers at CNN, NBC News, the New York Times and FactCheck.org reached the same conclusion. 'This is a red herring, pure and simple,' said Robert Silverman, a professor or urban and regional planning at the University of Buffalo. 'Zoning is a local function in the United States, and the suggestions made in the McCloskeys' speech are patently false.' 'The McCloskeys' claim is wrong on pretty much every count,' added Jenny Schuetz, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program. The Affirmatively Furthering Housing Act We contacted the Trump campaign and the McCloskeys' attorney about Patricia McCloskey's claim. We received a brief emailed reply from Mark McCloskey: 'Google it.' The subject line in McCloskey's reply: 'Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.' The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule is a clause in the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, family status or national origin. The clause required the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other federal agencies to 'affirmatively further' fair housing in their programs and activities. Prior to 2015, HUD required local jurisdictions receiving funding from the department to identify barriers to fair housing, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. One example of a barrier would be an exclusionary zoning law that allowed only detached, single-family homes to be built on large lots, said Schuetz, the Brookings Institution's fellow. But while HUD encouraged those jurisdictions to report their findings publicly and to federal government officials, it did not require them to do so. A 2010 report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that some localities were not preparing their reports at all, or not updating them regularly, as was recommended under HUD guidance. The Obama administration's changes, and what Biden wants In 2015, the Obama administration reinforced the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing clause by making the reporting process more rigorous. His administration's changes to the rule asked jurisdictions receiving HUD funding to use data and tools provided by HUD in identifying barriers; set goals and strategies for overcoming those barriers; and submit publicly accessible reports to the department for approval. Biden has pledged on his campaign website to bring those changes back and 'ensure effective and rigorous enforcement of the Fair Housing Act.' But doing so would not force suburban areas to rezone or replace single-family homes with affordable apartments, as Patricia McCloskey claimed. As FactCheck.org first noted, HUD explicitly said that would not happen when it published its final rule in 2015. 'This rule does not impose any land use decisions or zoning laws on any local government,' the rule said. 'Rather, the rule requires HUD program participants to perform an assessment of land use decisions and zoning to evaluate their possible impact on fair housing choice.' 'There is no mechanism in the AFFH rule to force rezoning,' said Silverman, the University of Buffalo professor, adding that the rule has no 'top-down mandates for zoning changes.' If Biden restores the Obama-era changes, localities will again have to periodically assess their fair housing barriers and make recommendations to fix them, Silverman said. 'Those recommendations would be generated locally, and any implementation of them would go through existing policy making processes used by local governments,' he said. Schuetz agreed: 'AFFH doesn't 'end' single-family-exclusive zoning, or 'force' communities to build apartments. It just requires them to identify whether those barriers exist, and develop a plan to address them as part of a larger housing plan for the community.' Not all suburbs would feel the impact, Schuetz said. And they certainly wouldn't be abolished. In sum, McCloskey's claim was 'highly misleading,' Schuetz said, and it 'reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule works.'
Our ruling Patricia McCloskey said Democrats and Joe Biden 'want to abolish the suburbs altogether by ending single-family home zoning.' That's an extreme interpretation of Biden's proposal to reinstate an Obama administration requirement related to addressing discrimination in housing. Under the Obama administration's 2015 change to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, localities receiving HUD funding were required to work with the federal government to identify barriers to fair housing and come up with strategies for dealing with them. Experts said restoring that regulation would not force those jurisdictions to rezone or build low-income housing. It certainly wouldn't spell the end for the suburbs. We rate this statement False.
[ "109091-proof-33-798e6b4fcb3d0fda814ca4ffae80fa4a.jpg" ]
'The average cost of child care in this country is more than what it costs to send a child to college for one year.
Contradiction
In a July 29 press conference, Rep. Linda Sánchez of California joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats to show support for child care legislation to help businesses and families during the COVID-19 pandemic. 'The average cost of child care in this country is more than what it costs to send a child to college for one year,' Sánchez said at the press conference. Later that day, the House passed two bills to provide funding to child care providers. Sánchez did not specify what timespan she was referring to for child care spending, and her spokesperson did not respond for comment. We found that child care certainly isn't cheap, and depending on how you count it, it can cost nearly as much as a year of college. But, in most cases, in a year-to-year comparison, a year of college costs more. Child care industry jolted by pandemic Like many things during the pandemic, the already complicated landscape of child care has become even more difficult for families amid shutdowns. At some point during the pandemic, half of child care programs closed, and, according to a July National Association for the Education of Young Children survey, about 40% of child care providers say they will close permanently if they don't receive additional assistance from the government. Half of infants and toddlers and 63% of 3- to 5-year-olds were in nonparental child care in 2012, according to a 2016 survey by the Health and Human Services Department and the University of Chicago. The Cares Act, a congressional COVID-19 relief package passed in March, provided the child care industry with $3.5 billion. The Child Care Is Essential Act, which Sánchez co-sponsored, would allocate $50 billion in grants to child care providers. Comparing price of child care to college A 2019 report by Child Care Aware of America, an advocacy group that provides families with child care resources, found the average price of center-based infant, toddler and 4-year-old care in each state and D.C. PolitiFact's analysis of the group's numbers found that the nationwide median price of infant care is $11,107 annually. That figure falls to $10,267 for toddlers and $8,834 for 4-year-olds. By comparison, in 2017-18, the average price of tuition, fees, room and board for all four-year colleges - including public and private institutions - was $27,357, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Clearly, that's more than what families nationwide average for one year of child care for an infant, toddler or a 4-year-old. If you look only at four-year public colleges, the total cost drops to $20,050 for a year on average, according to Education Department figures. That's still more than the median price of one year of center-based infant, toddler or 4-year-old child care. We should note that these college and child care figures don't take financial assistance into account. In addition, many families depend on child care outside of centers, including through a family member or trusted friend. To be sure, there are instances when a year of child care can cost more than a year of college tuition, particularly in-state tuition for public universities. But Sánchez wasn't that precise in her claim.
Our ruling 'The average cost of child care in this country is more than what it costs to send a child to college for one year,' Sánchez said. The nationwide median annual price of infant, toddler and 4-year-old care is much less expensive than the nationwide average of a year at a four-year college. However, a year of center-based child care is more expensive than a year of in-state public college tuition in many states. Sánchez did not specify a timeframe for her comparison. If she meant to compare the annual price of a four-year college to the amount families pay for a year of infant, toddler or 4-year-old center-based care, then her statement is incorrect. However, comparing the price of college to the price of child care over the course of a child's lifetime would show a different picture. We rate Sánchez's statement Mostly False.
[]
'The average cost of child care in this country is more than what it costs to send a child to college for one year.
Contradiction
In a July 29 press conference, Rep. Linda Sánchez of California joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats to show support for child care legislation to help businesses and families during the COVID-19 pandemic. 'The average cost of child care in this country is more than what it costs to send a child to college for one year,' Sánchez said at the press conference. Later that day, the House passed two bills to provide funding to child care providers. Sánchez did not specify what timespan she was referring to for child care spending, and her spokesperson did not respond for comment. We found that child care certainly isn't cheap, and depending on how you count it, it can cost nearly as much as a year of college. But, in most cases, in a year-to-year comparison, a year of college costs more. Child care industry jolted by pandemic Like many things during the pandemic, the already complicated landscape of child care has become even more difficult for families amid shutdowns. At some point during the pandemic, half of child care programs closed, and, according to a July National Association for the Education of Young Children survey, about 40% of child care providers say they will close permanently if they don't receive additional assistance from the government. Half of infants and toddlers and 63% of 3- to 5-year-olds were in nonparental child care in 2012, according to a 2016 survey by the Health and Human Services Department and the University of Chicago. The Cares Act, a congressional COVID-19 relief package passed in March, provided the child care industry with $3.5 billion. The Child Care Is Essential Act, which Sánchez co-sponsored, would allocate $50 billion in grants to child care providers. Comparing price of child care to college A 2019 report by Child Care Aware of America, an advocacy group that provides families with child care resources, found the average price of center-based infant, toddler and 4-year-old care in each state and D.C. PolitiFact's analysis of the group's numbers found that the nationwide median price of infant care is $11,107 annually. That figure falls to $10,267 for toddlers and $8,834 for 4-year-olds. By comparison, in 2017-18, the average price of tuition, fees, room and board for all four-year colleges - including public and private institutions - was $27,357, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Clearly, that's more than what families nationwide average for one year of child care for an infant, toddler or a 4-year-old. If you look only at four-year public colleges, the total cost drops to $20,050 for a year on average, according to Education Department figures. That's still more than the median price of one year of center-based infant, toddler or 4-year-old child care. We should note that these college and child care figures don't take financial assistance into account. In addition, many families depend on child care outside of centers, including through a family member or trusted friend. To be sure, there are instances when a year of child care can cost more than a year of college tuition, particularly in-state tuition for public universities. But Sánchez wasn't that precise in her claim.
Our ruling 'The average cost of child care in this country is more than what it costs to send a child to college for one year,' Sánchez said. The nationwide median annual price of infant, toddler and 4-year-old care is much less expensive than the nationwide average of a year at a four-year college. However, a year of center-based child care is more expensive than a year of in-state public college tuition in many states. Sánchez did not specify a timeframe for her comparison. If she meant to compare the annual price of a four-year college to the amount families pay for a year of infant, toddler or 4-year-old center-based care, then her statement is incorrect. However, comparing the price of college to the price of child care over the course of a child's lifetime would show a different picture. We rate Sánchez's statement Mostly False.
[]
Says Joe Biden's inauguration was fake and he is not the legitimate president.
Contradiction
A new conspiracy theory has blossomed among some people who believed that former President Donald Trump had an elaborate scheme to remain in office: that Biden's inauguration was fake, and he isn't the real president. The theory started to gain traction online when the Jan. 20 'storm' disrupting Biden's inauguration didn't happen. It points to a myriad of ill-perceived discrepancies for what a real inauguration and presidency should look like. These claims fall short. Biden is the real president and his inauguration was legit. The day's events were broadcast and live-streamed by several outlets including ABC, CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News, NBC and PBS. The event was much smaller this year due to COVID-19 restrictions. But we know it happened because it was witnessed and documented by elected officials, former presidents, military members, reporters, photographers and performers. Social media posts and videos spreading the theory were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We debunked a variety of claims that argue the inauguration didn't happen and that Biden isn't the legitimate president. 'The White House's inauguration video was unlisted' Some people on Facebook claimed that the White House's official inauguration video was unlisted on YouTube because it had more dislikes than likes. Indeed, the 34-minute video has many more dislikes than likes - currently 76,000 to 14,000 - but it is still up on the White House YouTube channel. Web archives show no record that the video was ever taken down. 'Biden's executive orders aren't available online' According to one viral video, Trump's executive orders were available on the Office of the Federal Register website 'immediately,' while there are still no sign of Biden's. That's false. Biden's executive orders may not have been uploaded at the time the video was made, but the documents are published on the site now. The online register shows that it also took a few days for Trump's orders to be published after they were signed. 'Biden's granddaughters disappeared and reappeared in between frames of inauguration coverage' Some claim that the inauguration was staged because Biden's granddaughters, who were standing behind him when he took the oath of office, suddenly disappeared in certain shots. They didn't. Biden's granddaughters may not have been visible at certain points due to different camera angles, but they were present throughout the oath and did not move. They can also be seen standing behind Biden in photographs taken by Reuters and the Associated Press. 'Biden took a private plane to D.C.' Biden's form of travel has nothing to do with the legitimacy of his presidency. Biden originally planned to travel to Washington by train from Delaware, but that plan changed when it was deemed too great a security risk. So he took a private jet, which was also a break from tradition. Usually the outgoing administration provides a government plane to bring the president-elect to Washington for the inauguration. Trump, who refused to acknowledge Biden's victory until early January, opted to not attend the inauguration, becoming the first outgoing president in more than a century to skip the event. We previously reached out to the White House, but couldn't confirm whether the Trump administration offered to provide transportation to the Bidens. CNN reported that 'a source familiar with the matter' said the government didn't offer the Bidens a plane, but did not provide further details. 'Biden's Oval Office is a movie set' Some social media users have shared photos of Biden in the Oval Office and say they provide proof that it's not the real presidential office but a movie set owned by Castle Rock Entertainment. Film sets of the famous room exist, but there is no credible evidence that supports this. Biden made a public entrance into the White House on Jan. 20 and was photographed in the Oval Office shortly after. He has been seen in the White House several times in the days that have followed. Some point to a vehicle visible outside the window behind the Resolute Desk as Biden sits there, saying there is no parking lot in that location. But the Oval Office overlooks the South Lawn and has a private road and circular driveway, both places where the car could have been parked.
Our ruling A conspiracy theory circulating on social media says that Biden's inauguration was fake and that he isn't the real president. The evidence is paltry. Biden was legally inaugurated as the 46th U.S. president on Jan. 20. We rate the claims Pants on Fire! RELATED: Pro-Trump lawyer falsely claims Biden is an 'illegal president'
[]
Says Joe Biden's inauguration was fake and he is not the legitimate president.
Contradiction
A new conspiracy theory has blossomed among some people who believed that former President Donald Trump had an elaborate scheme to remain in office: that Biden's inauguration was fake, and he isn't the real president. The theory started to gain traction online when the Jan. 20 'storm' disrupting Biden's inauguration didn't happen. It points to a myriad of ill-perceived discrepancies for what a real inauguration and presidency should look like. These claims fall short. Biden is the real president and his inauguration was legit. The day's events were broadcast and live-streamed by several outlets including ABC, CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News, NBC and PBS. The event was much smaller this year due to COVID-19 restrictions. But we know it happened because it was witnessed and documented by elected officials, former presidents, military members, reporters, photographers and performers. Social media posts and videos spreading the theory were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We debunked a variety of claims that argue the inauguration didn't happen and that Biden isn't the legitimate president. 'The White House's inauguration video was unlisted' Some people on Facebook claimed that the White House's official inauguration video was unlisted on YouTube because it had more dislikes than likes. Indeed, the 34-minute video has many more dislikes than likes - currently 76,000 to 14,000 - but it is still up on the White House YouTube channel. Web archives show no record that the video was ever taken down. 'Biden's executive orders aren't available online' According to one viral video, Trump's executive orders were available on the Office of the Federal Register website 'immediately,' while there are still no sign of Biden's. That's false. Biden's executive orders may not have been uploaded at the time the video was made, but the documents are published on the site now. The online register shows that it also took a few days for Trump's orders to be published after they were signed. 'Biden's granddaughters disappeared and reappeared in between frames of inauguration coverage' Some claim that the inauguration was staged because Biden's granddaughters, who were standing behind him when he took the oath of office, suddenly disappeared in certain shots. They didn't. Biden's granddaughters may not have been visible at certain points due to different camera angles, but they were present throughout the oath and did not move. They can also be seen standing behind Biden in photographs taken by Reuters and the Associated Press. 'Biden took a private plane to D.C.' Biden's form of travel has nothing to do with the legitimacy of his presidency. Biden originally planned to travel to Washington by train from Delaware, but that plan changed when it was deemed too great a security risk. So he took a private jet, which was also a break from tradition. Usually the outgoing administration provides a government plane to bring the president-elect to Washington for the inauguration. Trump, who refused to acknowledge Biden's victory until early January, opted to not attend the inauguration, becoming the first outgoing president in more than a century to skip the event. We previously reached out to the White House, but couldn't confirm whether the Trump administration offered to provide transportation to the Bidens. CNN reported that 'a source familiar with the matter' said the government didn't offer the Bidens a plane, but did not provide further details. 'Biden's Oval Office is a movie set' Some social media users have shared photos of Biden in the Oval Office and say they provide proof that it's not the real presidential office but a movie set owned by Castle Rock Entertainment. Film sets of the famous room exist, but there is no credible evidence that supports this. Biden made a public entrance into the White House on Jan. 20 and was photographed in the Oval Office shortly after. He has been seen in the White House several times in the days that have followed. Some point to a vehicle visible outside the window behind the Resolute Desk as Biden sits there, saying there is no parking lot in that location. But the Oval Office overlooks the South Lawn and has a private road and circular driveway, both places where the car could have been parked.
Our ruling A conspiracy theory circulating on social media says that Biden's inauguration was fake and that he isn't the real president. The evidence is paltry. Biden was legally inaugurated as the 46th U.S. president on Jan. 20. We rate the claims Pants on Fire! RELATED: Pro-Trump lawyer falsely claims Biden is an 'illegal president'
[]
'CDC quietly deletes 6,000 COVID vaccine deaths from its CDC website total in one day.
Contradiction
With typical alarm, a website known for false claims about the coronavirus pandemic declared that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reduced its count of deaths from COVID-19 vaccines by more than half, from more than 12,000 to more than 6,000. The headline on a July 22 Gateway Pundit article read: 'CDC Quietly Deletes 6,000 COVID Vaccine Deaths From Its CDC Website Total in One Day - Caught by Internet Sleuths.' 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.) First, there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have caused any deaths. Second, while the CDC did experience a clerical error that was quickly corrected, the error did not amount to a 'quiet deletion of vaccine deaths.' The claim Gateway Pundit claims that on July 21, the CDC posted 12,313 reported deaths from COVID-19 vaccines on its website but hours later changed the figure to 6,079. The article alludes to figures from Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), which is run by the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Anyone can report 'adverse events' to a vaccine to VAERS - and they do. The reports submitted to the database range from minor side-effects to death. However, these reports do not indicate whether an adverse event is linked to or caused by a vaccine; rather, the reports, which are not verified, are intended as an early warning system to detect possible safety problems. Nearly 341 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the U.S. from Dec. 14, 2020, through July 19, according to the CDC. During that period, VAERS received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. 'FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause,' the CDC says. 'Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. 'A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.' As for the change in numbers, CDC spokesperson Martha Sharan told PolitiFact that while data was being updated to a page on the CDC website, reports of foreign deaths were accidentally added to the total. The page was later corrected to show the 6,207 reports of death in the U.S.
Our ruling The Gateway Pundit headline said, 'CDC Quietly Deletes 6,000 COVID Vaccine Deaths From Its CDC Website Total in One Day - Caught by Internet Sleuths.' What the website deems a sneaky revelation of twice the amount of vaccine-related deaths in the U.S. was actually a clerical error, the CDC told us. Further, there is no proof that a COVID-19 vaccine played a role in the deaths reported to VAERS following an injection. We rate the post Mostly False. CORRECTION, Aug. 12, 2021: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the U.S. from Dec. 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. The rating is not changed.
[ "109140-proof-09-453f8b35b0cade85cdd07df85e46b892.jpg" ]
'CDC quietly deletes 6,000 COVID vaccine deaths from its CDC website total in one day.
Contradiction
With typical alarm, a website known for false claims about the coronavirus pandemic declared that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reduced its count of deaths from COVID-19 vaccines by more than half, from more than 12,000 to more than 6,000. The headline on a July 22 Gateway Pundit article read: 'CDC Quietly Deletes 6,000 COVID Vaccine Deaths From Its CDC Website Total in One Day - Caught by Internet Sleuths.' 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.) First, there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have caused any deaths. Second, while the CDC did experience a clerical error that was quickly corrected, the error did not amount to a 'quiet deletion of vaccine deaths.' The claim Gateway Pundit claims that on July 21, the CDC posted 12,313 reported deaths from COVID-19 vaccines on its website but hours later changed the figure to 6,079. The article alludes to figures from Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), which is run by the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Anyone can report 'adverse events' to a vaccine to VAERS - and they do. The reports submitted to the database range from minor side-effects to death. However, these reports do not indicate whether an adverse event is linked to or caused by a vaccine; rather, the reports, which are not verified, are intended as an early warning system to detect possible safety problems. Nearly 341 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the U.S. from Dec. 14, 2020, through July 19, according to the CDC. During that period, VAERS received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. 'FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause,' the CDC says. 'Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. 'A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.' As for the change in numbers, CDC spokesperson Martha Sharan told PolitiFact that while data was being updated to a page on the CDC website, reports of foreign deaths were accidentally added to the total. The page was later corrected to show the 6,207 reports of death in the U.S.
Our ruling The Gateway Pundit headline said, 'CDC Quietly Deletes 6,000 COVID Vaccine Deaths From Its CDC Website Total in One Day - Caught by Internet Sleuths.' What the website deems a sneaky revelation of twice the amount of vaccine-related deaths in the U.S. was actually a clerical error, the CDC told us. Further, there is no proof that a COVID-19 vaccine played a role in the deaths reported to VAERS following an injection. We rate the post Mostly False. CORRECTION, Aug. 12, 2021: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the U.S. from Dec. 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. The rating is not changed.
[ "109140-proof-09-453f8b35b0cade85cdd07df85e46b892.jpg" ]
'CDC quietly deletes 6,000 COVID vaccine deaths from its CDC website total in one day.
Contradiction
With typical alarm, a website known for false claims about the coronavirus pandemic declared that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reduced its count of deaths from COVID-19 vaccines by more than half, from more than 12,000 to more than 6,000. The headline on a July 22 Gateway Pundit article read: 'CDC Quietly Deletes 6,000 COVID Vaccine Deaths From Its CDC Website Total in One Day - Caught by Internet Sleuths.' 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.) First, there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have caused any deaths. Second, while the CDC did experience a clerical error that was quickly corrected, the error did not amount to a 'quiet deletion of vaccine deaths.' The claim Gateway Pundit claims that on July 21, the CDC posted 12,313 reported deaths from COVID-19 vaccines on its website but hours later changed the figure to 6,079. The article alludes to figures from Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), which is run by the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Anyone can report 'adverse events' to a vaccine to VAERS - and they do. The reports submitted to the database range from minor side-effects to death. However, these reports do not indicate whether an adverse event is linked to or caused by a vaccine; rather, the reports, which are not verified, are intended as an early warning system to detect possible safety problems. Nearly 341 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the U.S. from Dec. 14, 2020, through July 19, according to the CDC. During that period, VAERS received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. 'FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause,' the CDC says. 'Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. 'A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.' As for the change in numbers, CDC spokesperson Martha Sharan told PolitiFact that while data was being updated to a page on the CDC website, reports of foreign deaths were accidentally added to the total. The page was later corrected to show the 6,207 reports of death in the U.S.
Our ruling The Gateway Pundit headline said, 'CDC Quietly Deletes 6,000 COVID Vaccine Deaths From Its CDC Website Total in One Day - Caught by Internet Sleuths.' What the website deems a sneaky revelation of twice the amount of vaccine-related deaths in the U.S. was actually a clerical error, the CDC told us. Further, there is no proof that a COVID-19 vaccine played a role in the deaths reported to VAERS following an injection. We rate the post Mostly False. CORRECTION, Aug. 12, 2021: An earlier version of this article misstated the number of doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the U.S. from Dec. 14, 2020, through July 19, 2021. The rating is not changed.
[ "109140-proof-09-453f8b35b0cade85cdd07df85e46b892.jpg" ]
A crime was committed when a New Jersey election worker allowed someone who said he was not a citizen to fill out a ballot.
Contradiction
New Jersey's gubernatorial election, already a hotbed of misinformation, has one more false claim to add to the list. A viral Instagram post claims a crime was committed when a New Jersey election worker allowed someone who said he was not a U.S. citizen to fill out a ballot. The claim came from Project Veritas, known for its history of undercover reporting using hidden cameras and selectively edited recordings. The Instagram post was a screenshot of a tweet by Donald Trump Jr., who was sharing the Project Veritas video. 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.) It is not illegal for an election worker to provide a ballot when there are questions about voting eligibility. The New Jersey state Division of Elections notes that provisional ballots are intended for voters 'whose eligibility to vote cannot be confirmed at the polls on Election Day.' The original 59-second Project Veritas video shows a man having a discussion with an election worker. The man says he is not registered to vote and is an Irish citizen, and a text overlay notes that non-citizens cannot vote or register to vote. But when the poll worker asks, 'Do you have some citizenship here?' he answers, 'With the work visa, yeah.' The poll worker says she'll let him complete a ballot, and says, 'They'll figure that out.' The video then shows a text overlay that says, 'NJS 19:34-20, Poll workers may not provide a ballot to someone not entitled to vote.' That section of the law addresses the actions of people who cast a vote or aid someone with voting, knowing that the person is not eligible to vote. The poll worker in the video says she is unsure of the man's eligibility but will provide a ballot so that his eligibility can be assessed later, as the law allows. At one point in the exchange, she tells the man, 'Whether or not it's going to be - they're going to count it, I don't know.' That's in keeping with how provisional ballots work in New Jersey. The Division of Elections reports, 'If, after the election, it is determined that the voter who cast the provisional ballot was eligible to vote, the ballot will be counted.' A county clerk in a different New Jersey county told a local radio station that the situation was handled exactly as it should have been.
Our ruling A viral Instagram post claims a crime was committed when a New Jersey election worker allowed someone who said he was not a U.S. citizen to fill out a ballot. The poll worker was following New Jersey state law, which allows for provisional ballots when voting eligibility cannot be confirmed at the polls on Election Day. We rate this claim False.
[]
A crime was committed when a New Jersey election worker allowed someone who said he was not a citizen to fill out a ballot.
Contradiction
New Jersey's gubernatorial election, already a hotbed of misinformation, has one more false claim to add to the list. A viral Instagram post claims a crime was committed when a New Jersey election worker allowed someone who said he was not a U.S. citizen to fill out a ballot. The claim came from Project Veritas, known for its history of undercover reporting using hidden cameras and selectively edited recordings. The Instagram post was a screenshot of a tweet by Donald Trump Jr., who was sharing the Project Veritas video. 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.) It is not illegal for an election worker to provide a ballot when there are questions about voting eligibility. The New Jersey state Division of Elections notes that provisional ballots are intended for voters 'whose eligibility to vote cannot be confirmed at the polls on Election Day.' The original 59-second Project Veritas video shows a man having a discussion with an election worker. The man says he is not registered to vote and is an Irish citizen, and a text overlay notes that non-citizens cannot vote or register to vote. But when the poll worker asks, 'Do you have some citizenship here?' he answers, 'With the work visa, yeah.' The poll worker says she'll let him complete a ballot, and says, 'They'll figure that out.' The video then shows a text overlay that says, 'NJS 19:34-20, Poll workers may not provide a ballot to someone not entitled to vote.' That section of the law addresses the actions of people who cast a vote or aid someone with voting, knowing that the person is not eligible to vote. The poll worker in the video says she is unsure of the man's eligibility but will provide a ballot so that his eligibility can be assessed later, as the law allows. At one point in the exchange, she tells the man, 'Whether or not it's going to be - they're going to count it, I don't know.' That's in keeping with how provisional ballots work in New Jersey. The Division of Elections reports, 'If, after the election, it is determined that the voter who cast the provisional ballot was eligible to vote, the ballot will be counted.' A county clerk in a different New Jersey county told a local radio station that the situation was handled exactly as it should have been.
Our ruling A viral Instagram post claims a crime was committed when a New Jersey election worker allowed someone who said he was not a U.S. citizen to fill out a ballot. The poll worker was following New Jersey state law, which allows for provisional ballots when voting eligibility cannot be confirmed at the polls on Election Day. We rate this claim False.
[]
A serial killer is targeting women in Hot Springs, Ark.
Contradiction
A rumor has been spreading on social media about a serial killer targeting women in the Hot Springs area of Arkansas. One Facebook post said that five dismembered bodies had been discovered. '5 BODIES CHOPPED UP!!!' another post said. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to the Hot Springs Police Department to ask about the post. Cpl. Patrick Langley referred us to the National Park Service but said 'there is not a serial killer.' We called Alexandra Picavet, a spokesperson for the National Park Service, who pointed us to an April 13 press release from the agency about a homicide investigation in Hot Springs National Park. The remains of a 32-year-old woman named Paige Autumn White were found off of a road in the park on March 27, 2021, according to the park service. The agency is working with the FBI, Hot Springs Police Department, Arkansas State Police and Garland County Sheriff's Department to investigate. But authorities do not believe this is the work of a serial killer, as the Facebook posts have warned. 'This case is an isolated incident involving only one victim,' Picavet said. In its own statement released on April 13, the FBI said 'there is a strong possibility the person who did this continues to work and/or live in our community.' Searching online for evidence to support the claim that there are more homicide victims we found only vague, unsubstantiated claims. In June 2020, a man was found dead in the park after a shooting, but a suspect was arrested and charged. We rate these posts False.
We rate these posts False.
[]
A serial killer is targeting women in Hot Springs, Ark.
Contradiction
A rumor has been spreading on social media about a serial killer targeting women in the Hot Springs area of Arkansas. One Facebook post said that five dismembered bodies had been discovered. '5 BODIES CHOPPED UP!!!' another post said. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to the Hot Springs Police Department to ask about the post. Cpl. Patrick Langley referred us to the National Park Service but said 'there is not a serial killer.' We called Alexandra Picavet, a spokesperson for the National Park Service, who pointed us to an April 13 press release from the agency about a homicide investigation in Hot Springs National Park. The remains of a 32-year-old woman named Paige Autumn White were found off of a road in the park on March 27, 2021, according to the park service. The agency is working with the FBI, Hot Springs Police Department, Arkansas State Police and Garland County Sheriff's Department to investigate. But authorities do not believe this is the work of a serial killer, as the Facebook posts have warned. 'This case is an isolated incident involving only one victim,' Picavet said. In its own statement released on April 13, the FBI said 'there is a strong possibility the person who did this continues to work and/or live in our community.' Searching online for evidence to support the claim that there are more homicide victims we found only vague, unsubstantiated claims. In June 2020, a man was found dead in the park after a shooting, but a suspect was arrested and charged. We rate these posts False.
We rate these posts False.
[]
A photo shows a massive crowd at a recent Florida rally for Donald Trump.
Contradiction
An image of a massive crowd on the streets is recirculating on social media. Only this time, it's claimed as a photo of a recent Florida rally for President Donald Trump. 'FLORIDA RALLY today....and the polls say Biden is winning,' reads an Oct. 16 post by Rosa L Moreno-Hilburn. 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.) Trump did hold a rally in Sanford, Fla., on Oct. 16. But the photo circulating on Facebook is not an image of Florida at all. It's an image of Zurich, Switzerland, during an annual music festival before the coronavirus pandemic. Street Parade Zurich is a music event hosted every year in August and brings a crowd of hundreds of thousands on the city's streets and over the Quaibrücke bridge, captured in the photo. This year's parade was canceled due to the coronavirus. Street Parade Zurich President Joel Meier told PolitiFact the photo was taken on Aug. 11, 2018. A higher-resolution version of the image shared on Facebook can be found in Street Parade Zurich's gallery from its 2018 event. Similar photos of the 2019 parade can also be found online. Just a couple months ago, in August, Facebook users falsely claimed that the photo captured protests in Berlin against coronavirus restrictions. That viral rumor was widely debunked by PolitiFact, Agence France-Presse, Reuters and WUSA9, a CBS affiliate.
Our ruling The Facebook post claimed that a photo showed massive crowds for a Trump rally in Florida on Oct. 16. The post used a dated photo of Street Parade Zurich, a music festival, over the city's Quaibrucke bridge. The photo has existed since 2018. We rate this claim False.
[]
A photo shows a massive crowd at a recent Florida rally for Donald Trump.
Contradiction
An image of a massive crowd on the streets is recirculating on social media. Only this time, it's claimed as a photo of a recent Florida rally for President Donald Trump. 'FLORIDA RALLY today....and the polls say Biden is winning,' reads an Oct. 16 post by Rosa L Moreno-Hilburn. 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.) Trump did hold a rally in Sanford, Fla., on Oct. 16. But the photo circulating on Facebook is not an image of Florida at all. It's an image of Zurich, Switzerland, during an annual music festival before the coronavirus pandemic. Street Parade Zurich is a music event hosted every year in August and brings a crowd of hundreds of thousands on the city's streets and over the Quaibrücke bridge, captured in the photo. This year's parade was canceled due to the coronavirus. Street Parade Zurich President Joel Meier told PolitiFact the photo was taken on Aug. 11, 2018. A higher-resolution version of the image shared on Facebook can be found in Street Parade Zurich's gallery from its 2018 event. Similar photos of the 2019 parade can also be found online. Just a couple months ago, in August, Facebook users falsely claimed that the photo captured protests in Berlin against coronavirus restrictions. That viral rumor was widely debunked by PolitiFact, Agence France-Presse, Reuters and WUSA9, a CBS affiliate.
Our ruling The Facebook post claimed that a photo showed massive crowds for a Trump rally in Florida on Oct. 16. The post used a dated photo of Street Parade Zurich, a music festival, over the city's Quaibrucke bridge. The photo has existed since 2018. We rate this claim False.
[]
'We're sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming.
Contradiction
President Joe Biden in his first press conference as president sought to relieve concerns about the numbers of people arriving at the southern border, claiming that the vast majority are 'being sent back,' including families. 'Thousands, tens of thousands of people who are over 18 years of age and single people, one at a time coming, have been sent back, sent home,' Biden said March 25. 'We're sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming. We are trying to work out now with Mexico their willingness to take more of those families back.' Data reported by Customs and Border Protection shows that he's right about adults coming alone - most encountered by Border Patrol agents are being expelled under a public health law invoked by the Trump administration and still in effect under Biden. But Biden's claim about families facing the same outcome is wrong, according to the latest monthly data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. February's numbers are all we have so far on enforcement actions during Biden's tenure. (Most of January's data came during the Trump administration.) The numbers cover how many people were apprehended and placed into deportation proceedings as well as the number of people who were turned away under a public health law invoked last year. Border Patrol in February encountered close to 19,000 'family unit aliens' (this can include a child and at least one parent), and around 7,900 were expelled. So more than 11,000 - the majority - were let in and placed in immigration proceedings. The White House did not provide data that supports his claim. (March data is expected in early April.) 'Given that migration flows and Mexican capacity fluctuates, one month of statistics doesn't reflect the full picture,' said Vedant Patel, a White House spokesperson. The administration's policy remains that families are expelled, and when expulsion is not possible due to Mexico's inability to receive the families they are placed into U.S. immigration proceedings, Patel said. He also said that many families placed in immigration proceedings are ultimately deported when it's determined that their case for asylum doesn't have grounds. Even if the families let in eventually leave, 'it likely won't occur for years given the extreme backlogs in immigration court that have long predated the Biden presidency,' said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a policy counsel at the American Immigration Council. The situation at the border has been 'complicated and rapidly-changing,' Reichlin-Melnick said. In January, more than half of families were expelled, but in February that stopped being the case, he said.
Our ruling Biden said, 'We're sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming.' Border Patrol data shows that in February the majority of families were not expelled, they were let in and placed in immigration proceedings. So far, February is the only full month of the Biden administration for which data is available. In January, more than half of families were expelled, but most of that period covered the Trump administration. Biden's claim is inaccurate. We rate it False.
[ "109176-proof-04-1c3f841b964f6bbd033e00d0c1191e8f.jpg" ]
'We're sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming.
Contradiction
President Joe Biden in his first press conference as president sought to relieve concerns about the numbers of people arriving at the southern border, claiming that the vast majority are 'being sent back,' including families. 'Thousands, tens of thousands of people who are over 18 years of age and single people, one at a time coming, have been sent back, sent home,' Biden said March 25. 'We're sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming. We are trying to work out now with Mexico their willingness to take more of those families back.' Data reported by Customs and Border Protection shows that he's right about adults coming alone - most encountered by Border Patrol agents are being expelled under a public health law invoked by the Trump administration and still in effect under Biden. But Biden's claim about families facing the same outcome is wrong, according to the latest monthly data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. February's numbers are all we have so far on enforcement actions during Biden's tenure. (Most of January's data came during the Trump administration.) The numbers cover how many people were apprehended and placed into deportation proceedings as well as the number of people who were turned away under a public health law invoked last year. Border Patrol in February encountered close to 19,000 'family unit aliens' (this can include a child and at least one parent), and around 7,900 were expelled. So more than 11,000 - the majority - were let in and placed in immigration proceedings. The White House did not provide data that supports his claim. (March data is expected in early April.) 'Given that migration flows and Mexican capacity fluctuates, one month of statistics doesn't reflect the full picture,' said Vedant Patel, a White House spokesperson. The administration's policy remains that families are expelled, and when expulsion is not possible due to Mexico's inability to receive the families they are placed into U.S. immigration proceedings, Patel said. He also said that many families placed in immigration proceedings are ultimately deported when it's determined that their case for asylum doesn't have grounds. Even if the families let in eventually leave, 'it likely won't occur for years given the extreme backlogs in immigration court that have long predated the Biden presidency,' said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a policy counsel at the American Immigration Council. The situation at the border has been 'complicated and rapidly-changing,' Reichlin-Melnick said. In January, more than half of families were expelled, but in February that stopped being the case, he said.
Our ruling Biden said, 'We're sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming.' Border Patrol data shows that in February the majority of families were not expelled, they were let in and placed in immigration proceedings. So far, February is the only full month of the Biden administration for which data is available. In January, more than half of families were expelled, but most of that period covered the Trump administration. Biden's claim is inaccurate. We rate it False.
[ "109176-proof-04-1c3f841b964f6bbd033e00d0c1191e8f.jpg" ]
'We're sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming.
Contradiction
President Joe Biden in his first press conference as president sought to relieve concerns about the numbers of people arriving at the southern border, claiming that the vast majority are 'being sent back,' including families. 'Thousands, tens of thousands of people who are over 18 years of age and single people, one at a time coming, have been sent back, sent home,' Biden said March 25. 'We're sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming. We are trying to work out now with Mexico their willingness to take more of those families back.' Data reported by Customs and Border Protection shows that he's right about adults coming alone - most encountered by Border Patrol agents are being expelled under a public health law invoked by the Trump administration and still in effect under Biden. But Biden's claim about families facing the same outcome is wrong, according to the latest monthly data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. February's numbers are all we have so far on enforcement actions during Biden's tenure. (Most of January's data came during the Trump administration.) The numbers cover how many people were apprehended and placed into deportation proceedings as well as the number of people who were turned away under a public health law invoked last year. Border Patrol in February encountered close to 19,000 'family unit aliens' (this can include a child and at least one parent), and around 7,900 were expelled. So more than 11,000 - the majority - were let in and placed in immigration proceedings. The White House did not provide data that supports his claim. (March data is expected in early April.) 'Given that migration flows and Mexican capacity fluctuates, one month of statistics doesn't reflect the full picture,' said Vedant Patel, a White House spokesperson. The administration's policy remains that families are expelled, and when expulsion is not possible due to Mexico's inability to receive the families they are placed into U.S. immigration proceedings, Patel said. He also said that many families placed in immigration proceedings are ultimately deported when it's determined that their case for asylum doesn't have grounds. Even if the families let in eventually leave, 'it likely won't occur for years given the extreme backlogs in immigration court that have long predated the Biden presidency,' said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a policy counsel at the American Immigration Council. The situation at the border has been 'complicated and rapidly-changing,' Reichlin-Melnick said. In January, more than half of families were expelled, but in February that stopped being the case, he said.
Our ruling Biden said, 'We're sending back the vast majority of the families that are coming.' Border Patrol data shows that in February the majority of families were not expelled, they were let in and placed in immigration proceedings. So far, February is the only full month of the Biden administration for which data is available. In January, more than half of families were expelled, but most of that period covered the Trump administration. Biden's claim is inaccurate. We rate it False.
[ "109176-proof-04-1c3f841b964f6bbd033e00d0c1191e8f.jpg" ]
Photo shows 'Wayfair president of operations Bill Hutcherson with Ghislaine Maxwell.
Contradiction
A baseless conspiracy theory about Wayfair, an online home goods retailer, is spreading widely on social media, claiming the company has been trafficking children through its website. An image being shared on Facebook seems to try to support that theory by connecting Wayfair to Ghislaine Maxwell, who was recently arrested on grounds she helped financier Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse minors. 'Wayfair president of operations Bill Hutcherson with Ghislaine Maxwell a known sex trafficker who was involved with Epstein,' reads a description of the photo, which shows Maxwell and a man. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The photo was taken by Getty Images photographer Mark Mainz in December 2003 in New York City. The caption says: 'Socialite Ghislaine Maxwell with an unidentified male companion attends the opening of the Asprey Flagship store on 5th Avenue.' (See other photos from that night here.) Tatler identifies the man as George Bamford, founder of Bamford Watch Department. Wayfair doesn't list a president of operations on its website though there is a 'vice president of operations product innovation' named Doran Robinson, a different person than the man who appears in the photo with Maxwell. It also lists a chief operating officer named Thomas Netzer. No one named 'Bill Hutcherson' is listed among Wayfair's executive leadership team. We rate this post Pants on Fire.
We rate this post Pants on Fire.
[]
Photo shows 'Wayfair president of operations Bill Hutcherson with Ghislaine Maxwell.
Contradiction
A baseless conspiracy theory about Wayfair, an online home goods retailer, is spreading widely on social media, claiming the company has been trafficking children through its website. An image being shared on Facebook seems to try to support that theory by connecting Wayfair to Ghislaine Maxwell, who was recently arrested on grounds she helped financier Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse minors. 'Wayfair president of operations Bill Hutcherson with Ghislaine Maxwell a known sex trafficker who was involved with Epstein,' reads a description of the photo, which shows Maxwell and a man. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The photo was taken by Getty Images photographer Mark Mainz in December 2003 in New York City. The caption says: 'Socialite Ghislaine Maxwell with an unidentified male companion attends the opening of the Asprey Flagship store on 5th Avenue.' (See other photos from that night here.) Tatler identifies the man as George Bamford, founder of Bamford Watch Department. Wayfair doesn't list a president of operations on its website though there is a 'vice president of operations product innovation' named Doran Robinson, a different person than the man who appears in the photo with Maxwell. It also lists a chief operating officer named Thomas Netzer. No one named 'Bill Hutcherson' is listed among Wayfair's executive leadership team. We rate this post Pants on Fire.
We rate this post Pants on Fire.
[]
Photo shows 'Wayfair president of operations Bill Hutcherson with Ghislaine Maxwell.
Contradiction
A baseless conspiracy theory about Wayfair, an online home goods retailer, is spreading widely on social media, claiming the company has been trafficking children through its website. An image being shared on Facebook seems to try to support that theory by connecting Wayfair to Ghislaine Maxwell, who was recently arrested on grounds she helped financier Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse minors. 'Wayfair president of operations Bill Hutcherson with Ghislaine Maxwell a known sex trafficker who was involved with Epstein,' reads a description of the photo, which shows Maxwell and a man. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The photo was taken by Getty Images photographer Mark Mainz in December 2003 in New York City. The caption says: 'Socialite Ghislaine Maxwell with an unidentified male companion attends the opening of the Asprey Flagship store on 5th Avenue.' (See other photos from that night here.) Tatler identifies the man as George Bamford, founder of Bamford Watch Department. Wayfair doesn't list a president of operations on its website though there is a 'vice president of operations product innovation' named Doran Robinson, a different person than the man who appears in the photo with Maxwell. It also lists a chief operating officer named Thomas Netzer. No one named 'Bill Hutcherson' is listed among Wayfair's executive leadership team. We rate this post Pants on Fire.
We rate this post Pants on Fire.
[]
Says you can monitor yourself for COVID-19 with a breath test.
Contradiction
Coronavirus test kits may be in short supply, but advice being shared on social media - including by actress Debra Messing - wrongly claims we can check ourselves for COVID-19. 'How can one know if a person is infected?' an image with the advice asks. 'By the time he has a fever and/or a cough and goes to the lung hospital, the patient may have 50% fibrosis, and then it's too late! Taiwanese experts provide simple self-monitoring that we can do every morning: Take a deep breath and hold your breath for more than 10 seconds. If you can do this successfully without coughing and without difficulty, without anxiety or chest tightness, it shows that you do not have fibrosis and generally indicate no infection.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) 'This has been circulating widely, but sadly is not true,' Richard Watanabe, a professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California, told PolitiFact in an email. 'The only way to test for COVID-19 right now is via laboratory testing.' Loren Rauch, an ER doctor in Los Angeles, told Mother Jones that a breath test can check 'if you are anxious or have respiratory compromise,' but not COVID-19. Robert Legar Atmar, an infectious disease specialist at Baylor College of Medicine, told the Associated Press that such a breath test could be helpful in identifying whether someone has a 'more serious lung disease.' But, he said, it won't identify people who are infected and have mild to no symptoms. We rate this Facebook post False.
We rate this Facebook post False.
[]
States are seeing increases in revenue, with an average decline of just 0.12% compared with 2019. Over half of states report positive growth, including California, New York, and Illinois.
Contradiction
A fundamental disagreement over the latest COVID-19 relief plan centers on aid to states, cities and counties. Democrats plan to include about $350 billion in aid, and Republicans argue that not only is the money unnecessary, it's just a way to reward to liberal states. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said Democrats are lying about the need. 'States across the country are seeing increases in revenue - in some cases, well above projections,' Scott said in a Feb. 1 statement. 'Now, we are learning that 47 states show an average decline of just 0.12% compared to 2019, and 21 of the 47 states show positive year over year growth of tax receipts. Over half of states reported positive growth, including California, New York, and Illinois.' Is the revenue picture as rosy as Scott makes it out to be? One study partially backs up Scott's numbers, but he made some errors. Other compilations of state financial reports show the situation is worse than he presents. And if it weren't for one state - California - the numbers would look even more dire. Scott's own state, Florida, was among the biggest revenue losers. A bank's view Scott's staff pointed to a J.P. Morgan weekly market report. The investment bank's analysts aimed to give bond investors a sense of the ability of states to repay bonds. Scott drew on that work virtually word for word. He accurately reflected the findings that 47 states show an average decline of just 0.12% compared with 2019, and 21 of 47 states show positive year-over-year growth in tax receipts. (The study had a full-year of data on 37 states, and 11 months for another 10.) But Scott proceeded to muddle the numbers. After noting that revenues rose in 21 states, he then said 'over half of states reported positive growth, including California, New York and Illinois.' Clearly, 21 is fewer than half of the 50 states. The first statistic he cited in his claim - 21 - relates to total tax revenues. The second - half of states - relates to personal income taxes alone. Scott failed to note the difference. The J.P. Morgan report said personal income tax revenues rose in over half of the states where it had data, including the three states Scott named. But in terms of total revenues, only California saw its numbers go up. New York was down 1.5% and Illinois was down 0.9%. Half a dozen states suffered far deeper revenue drops. The worst hit include Nevada (-13%), North Dakota (-9.7%), Florida (-7.9%), Texas (-6.8%), West Virginia (-6.8%) and Oklahoma (-6.7%). The J.P. Morgan report's time frame bears a mention. It includes two full months in 2020 before the coronavirus cratered the economy. Other research gives a window into the virus' fiscal impact in the pandemic months between March and December. The COVID-19 impact, and the California effect Based on budget reports from 46 states, researcher Lucy Dadayan at the Urban Institute, an academic center in Washington, D.C., told us that from March through December, revenues from personal and corporate income taxes and sales taxes fell by 1.6% from the same period a year earlier. That decline might seem small, but it is more than 10 times larger than the 0.12% Scott referred to. In raw dollars, it represents $12.6 billion in lost revenue. Aggregate numbers conceal as much as they reveal, and California was an outlier with a hefty effect on the overall numbers. Thanks to a variety of factors, including large year-end bonuses and massive tax withholding tied to initial stock offerings of companies like Airbnb, California's revenues shot up 26.5% in December alone. That was enough to make the national picture look considerably better. When Dadayan pulled the Golden State out of the equation, total revenues across the remaining states were down 2%. That's 25% worse than when California was included. There are other ways to measure the fiscal impact of COVID-19. The National Association of State Budget Officers gets information from all 50 states, but those numbers are for fiscal, not calendar, years. In most cases, that runs from July through June. The time frame is different, but the numbers are similar to Dadayan's figures. In their fiscal years that ended in 2020, states collected $14 billion less than the year before. And in their budgets for fiscal year 2021, states factored in an additional decline of $39 billion, for a total reduction of $53 billion over the two years. Dadayan said that before the coronavirus, accounting for population and economic growth, states had planned on a rise of about 5% in revenues each year. The National Association of State Budget Officers said that compared with those pre-COVID-19 budget forecasts, revenues will be down by $135 billion. To help close part of the gap, states drew down their emergency funds by $12.2 billion. Looking beyond state revenues Scott's focus on how much money states are collecting leaves out half the fiscal picture - the spending side. In the face of falling revenues, states cut spending on schools, roads and many other areas. The National Association of State Budget Officers reported that education spending fell by $7.4 billion. Another $5.6 billion came from a range of programs, including public safety, the judiciary, environmental protection and aid to local governments. Modest declines in state revenue can have more pronounced effects on county and city budgets that rely on state aid. The Democratic plan that Scott criticized would also send aid to cities and counties. A survey of county officials during the summer found most counties were seeing budget shortfalls, and nearly three-quarters of them were holding back on capital spending and county services. The National League of Cities reported that overall city revenues have fallen 21% since the start of the pandemic, while expenses have risen 17%. Chicago alone reported a nearly $800 million general fund deficit at the end of August. Dadayan said the focus on state revenues 'misses the fiscal stress on local governments, which is a lot bigger compared to state revenue shortfalls.' She added that cities are looking at budget gaps estimated at more than $90 billion.
Our ruling Scott said states across the country are seeing increases in revenue with an average decline of just 0.12% compared with 2019. He also said that over half of states reported positive growth, including California, New York, and Illinois. Scott faithfully reflects a report from J.P. Morgan in terms of the 0.12% overall decline, but he went astray when talking about states with higher revenues, particularly the three states he named. The J.P. Morgan report said revenues grew only in California. They fell in New York and Illinois. Scott's numbers included two months before the pandemic began. Focusing on the pandemic months of March through December, revenues fell about 10 times more than Scott said. He also limited his view of fiscal health to state revenues. Factoring in spending cuts, and impacts on city and county finances, the picture is much worse. Scott used a report that gave a limited view of a broader fiscal landscape, and misread an element in the report itself. The information he left out would leave a reader with a different impression. That matches our definition of Mostly False.
[ "109229-proof-33-c5b683b3dd4f57b3fc45e87f34fc1fd5.JPG.jpg" ]
States are seeing increases in revenue, with an average decline of just 0.12% compared with 2019. Over half of states report positive growth, including California, New York, and Illinois.
Contradiction
A fundamental disagreement over the latest COVID-19 relief plan centers on aid to states, cities and counties. Democrats plan to include about $350 billion in aid, and Republicans argue that not only is the money unnecessary, it's just a way to reward to liberal states. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said Democrats are lying about the need. 'States across the country are seeing increases in revenue - in some cases, well above projections,' Scott said in a Feb. 1 statement. 'Now, we are learning that 47 states show an average decline of just 0.12% compared to 2019, and 21 of the 47 states show positive year over year growth of tax receipts. Over half of states reported positive growth, including California, New York, and Illinois.' Is the revenue picture as rosy as Scott makes it out to be? One study partially backs up Scott's numbers, but he made some errors. Other compilations of state financial reports show the situation is worse than he presents. And if it weren't for one state - California - the numbers would look even more dire. Scott's own state, Florida, was among the biggest revenue losers. A bank's view Scott's staff pointed to a J.P. Morgan weekly market report. The investment bank's analysts aimed to give bond investors a sense of the ability of states to repay bonds. Scott drew on that work virtually word for word. He accurately reflected the findings that 47 states show an average decline of just 0.12% compared with 2019, and 21 of 47 states show positive year-over-year growth in tax receipts. (The study had a full-year of data on 37 states, and 11 months for another 10.) But Scott proceeded to muddle the numbers. After noting that revenues rose in 21 states, he then said 'over half of states reported positive growth, including California, New York and Illinois.' Clearly, 21 is fewer than half of the 50 states. The first statistic he cited in his claim - 21 - relates to total tax revenues. The second - half of states - relates to personal income taxes alone. Scott failed to note the difference. The J.P. Morgan report said personal income tax revenues rose in over half of the states where it had data, including the three states Scott named. But in terms of total revenues, only California saw its numbers go up. New York was down 1.5% and Illinois was down 0.9%. Half a dozen states suffered far deeper revenue drops. The worst hit include Nevada (-13%), North Dakota (-9.7%), Florida (-7.9%), Texas (-6.8%), West Virginia (-6.8%) and Oklahoma (-6.7%). The J.P. Morgan report's time frame bears a mention. It includes two full months in 2020 before the coronavirus cratered the economy. Other research gives a window into the virus' fiscal impact in the pandemic months between March and December. The COVID-19 impact, and the California effect Based on budget reports from 46 states, researcher Lucy Dadayan at the Urban Institute, an academic center in Washington, D.C., told us that from March through December, revenues from personal and corporate income taxes and sales taxes fell by 1.6% from the same period a year earlier. That decline might seem small, but it is more than 10 times larger than the 0.12% Scott referred to. In raw dollars, it represents $12.6 billion in lost revenue. Aggregate numbers conceal as much as they reveal, and California was an outlier with a hefty effect on the overall numbers. Thanks to a variety of factors, including large year-end bonuses and massive tax withholding tied to initial stock offerings of companies like Airbnb, California's revenues shot up 26.5% in December alone. That was enough to make the national picture look considerably better. When Dadayan pulled the Golden State out of the equation, total revenues across the remaining states were down 2%. That's 25% worse than when California was included. There are other ways to measure the fiscal impact of COVID-19. The National Association of State Budget Officers gets information from all 50 states, but those numbers are for fiscal, not calendar, years. In most cases, that runs from July through June. The time frame is different, but the numbers are similar to Dadayan's figures. In their fiscal years that ended in 2020, states collected $14 billion less than the year before. And in their budgets for fiscal year 2021, states factored in an additional decline of $39 billion, for a total reduction of $53 billion over the two years. Dadayan said that before the coronavirus, accounting for population and economic growth, states had planned on a rise of about 5% in revenues each year. The National Association of State Budget Officers said that compared with those pre-COVID-19 budget forecasts, revenues will be down by $135 billion. To help close part of the gap, states drew down their emergency funds by $12.2 billion. Looking beyond state revenues Scott's focus on how much money states are collecting leaves out half the fiscal picture - the spending side. In the face of falling revenues, states cut spending on schools, roads and many other areas. The National Association of State Budget Officers reported that education spending fell by $7.4 billion. Another $5.6 billion came from a range of programs, including public safety, the judiciary, environmental protection and aid to local governments. Modest declines in state revenue can have more pronounced effects on county and city budgets that rely on state aid. The Democratic plan that Scott criticized would also send aid to cities and counties. A survey of county officials during the summer found most counties were seeing budget shortfalls, and nearly three-quarters of them were holding back on capital spending and county services. The National League of Cities reported that overall city revenues have fallen 21% since the start of the pandemic, while expenses have risen 17%. Chicago alone reported a nearly $800 million general fund deficit at the end of August. Dadayan said the focus on state revenues 'misses the fiscal stress on local governments, which is a lot bigger compared to state revenue shortfalls.' She added that cities are looking at budget gaps estimated at more than $90 billion.
Our ruling Scott said states across the country are seeing increases in revenue with an average decline of just 0.12% compared with 2019. He also said that over half of states reported positive growth, including California, New York, and Illinois. Scott faithfully reflects a report from J.P. Morgan in terms of the 0.12% overall decline, but he went astray when talking about states with higher revenues, particularly the three states he named. The J.P. Morgan report said revenues grew only in California. They fell in New York and Illinois. Scott's numbers included two months before the pandemic began. Focusing on the pandemic months of March through December, revenues fell about 10 times more than Scott said. He also limited his view of fiscal health to state revenues. Factoring in spending cuts, and impacts on city and county finances, the picture is much worse. Scott used a report that gave a limited view of a broader fiscal landscape, and misread an element in the report itself. The information he left out would leave a reader with a different impression. That matches our definition of Mostly False.
[ "109229-proof-33-c5b683b3dd4f57b3fc45e87f34fc1fd5.JPG.jpg" ]
States are seeing increases in revenue, with an average decline of just 0.12% compared with 2019. Over half of states report positive growth, including California, New York, and Illinois.
Contradiction
A fundamental disagreement over the latest COVID-19 relief plan centers on aid to states, cities and counties. Democrats plan to include about $350 billion in aid, and Republicans argue that not only is the money unnecessary, it's just a way to reward to liberal states. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said Democrats are lying about the need. 'States across the country are seeing increases in revenue - in some cases, well above projections,' Scott said in a Feb. 1 statement. 'Now, we are learning that 47 states show an average decline of just 0.12% compared to 2019, and 21 of the 47 states show positive year over year growth of tax receipts. Over half of states reported positive growth, including California, New York, and Illinois.' Is the revenue picture as rosy as Scott makes it out to be? One study partially backs up Scott's numbers, but he made some errors. Other compilations of state financial reports show the situation is worse than he presents. And if it weren't for one state - California - the numbers would look even more dire. Scott's own state, Florida, was among the biggest revenue losers. A bank's view Scott's staff pointed to a J.P. Morgan weekly market report. The investment bank's analysts aimed to give bond investors a sense of the ability of states to repay bonds. Scott drew on that work virtually word for word. He accurately reflected the findings that 47 states show an average decline of just 0.12% compared with 2019, and 21 of 47 states show positive year-over-year growth in tax receipts. (The study had a full-year of data on 37 states, and 11 months for another 10.) But Scott proceeded to muddle the numbers. After noting that revenues rose in 21 states, he then said 'over half of states reported positive growth, including California, New York and Illinois.' Clearly, 21 is fewer than half of the 50 states. The first statistic he cited in his claim - 21 - relates to total tax revenues. The second - half of states - relates to personal income taxes alone. Scott failed to note the difference. The J.P. Morgan report said personal income tax revenues rose in over half of the states where it had data, including the three states Scott named. But in terms of total revenues, only California saw its numbers go up. New York was down 1.5% and Illinois was down 0.9%. Half a dozen states suffered far deeper revenue drops. The worst hit include Nevada (-13%), North Dakota (-9.7%), Florida (-7.9%), Texas (-6.8%), West Virginia (-6.8%) and Oklahoma (-6.7%). The J.P. Morgan report's time frame bears a mention. It includes two full months in 2020 before the coronavirus cratered the economy. Other research gives a window into the virus' fiscal impact in the pandemic months between March and December. The COVID-19 impact, and the California effect Based on budget reports from 46 states, researcher Lucy Dadayan at the Urban Institute, an academic center in Washington, D.C., told us that from March through December, revenues from personal and corporate income taxes and sales taxes fell by 1.6% from the same period a year earlier. That decline might seem small, but it is more than 10 times larger than the 0.12% Scott referred to. In raw dollars, it represents $12.6 billion in lost revenue. Aggregate numbers conceal as much as they reveal, and California was an outlier with a hefty effect on the overall numbers. Thanks to a variety of factors, including large year-end bonuses and massive tax withholding tied to initial stock offerings of companies like Airbnb, California's revenues shot up 26.5% in December alone. That was enough to make the national picture look considerably better. When Dadayan pulled the Golden State out of the equation, total revenues across the remaining states were down 2%. That's 25% worse than when California was included. There are other ways to measure the fiscal impact of COVID-19. The National Association of State Budget Officers gets information from all 50 states, but those numbers are for fiscal, not calendar, years. In most cases, that runs from July through June. The time frame is different, but the numbers are similar to Dadayan's figures. In their fiscal years that ended in 2020, states collected $14 billion less than the year before. And in their budgets for fiscal year 2021, states factored in an additional decline of $39 billion, for a total reduction of $53 billion over the two years. Dadayan said that before the coronavirus, accounting for population and economic growth, states had planned on a rise of about 5% in revenues each year. The National Association of State Budget Officers said that compared with those pre-COVID-19 budget forecasts, revenues will be down by $135 billion. To help close part of the gap, states drew down their emergency funds by $12.2 billion. Looking beyond state revenues Scott's focus on how much money states are collecting leaves out half the fiscal picture - the spending side. In the face of falling revenues, states cut spending on schools, roads and many other areas. The National Association of State Budget Officers reported that education spending fell by $7.4 billion. Another $5.6 billion came from a range of programs, including public safety, the judiciary, environmental protection and aid to local governments. Modest declines in state revenue can have more pronounced effects on county and city budgets that rely on state aid. The Democratic plan that Scott criticized would also send aid to cities and counties. A survey of county officials during the summer found most counties were seeing budget shortfalls, and nearly three-quarters of them were holding back on capital spending and county services. The National League of Cities reported that overall city revenues have fallen 21% since the start of the pandemic, while expenses have risen 17%. Chicago alone reported a nearly $800 million general fund deficit at the end of August. Dadayan said the focus on state revenues 'misses the fiscal stress on local governments, which is a lot bigger compared to state revenue shortfalls.' She added that cities are looking at budget gaps estimated at more than $90 billion.
Our ruling Scott said states across the country are seeing increases in revenue with an average decline of just 0.12% compared with 2019. He also said that over half of states reported positive growth, including California, New York, and Illinois. Scott faithfully reflects a report from J.P. Morgan in terms of the 0.12% overall decline, but he went astray when talking about states with higher revenues, particularly the three states he named. The J.P. Morgan report said revenues grew only in California. They fell in New York and Illinois. Scott's numbers included two months before the pandemic began. Focusing on the pandemic months of March through December, revenues fell about 10 times more than Scott said. He also limited his view of fiscal health to state revenues. Factoring in spending cuts, and impacts on city and county finances, the picture is much worse. Scott used a report that gave a limited view of a broader fiscal landscape, and misread an element in the report itself. The information he left out would leave a reader with a different impression. That matches our definition of Mostly False.
[ "109229-proof-33-c5b683b3dd4f57b3fc45e87f34fc1fd5.JPG.jpg" ]
States are seeing increases in revenue, with an average decline of just 0.12% compared with 2019. Over half of states report positive growth, including California, New York, and Illinois.
Contradiction
A fundamental disagreement over the latest COVID-19 relief plan centers on aid to states, cities and counties. Democrats plan to include about $350 billion in aid, and Republicans argue that not only is the money unnecessary, it's just a way to reward to liberal states. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said Democrats are lying about the need. 'States across the country are seeing increases in revenue - in some cases, well above projections,' Scott said in a Feb. 1 statement. 'Now, we are learning that 47 states show an average decline of just 0.12% compared to 2019, and 21 of the 47 states show positive year over year growth of tax receipts. Over half of states reported positive growth, including California, New York, and Illinois.' Is the revenue picture as rosy as Scott makes it out to be? One study partially backs up Scott's numbers, but he made some errors. Other compilations of state financial reports show the situation is worse than he presents. And if it weren't for one state - California - the numbers would look even more dire. Scott's own state, Florida, was among the biggest revenue losers. A bank's view Scott's staff pointed to a J.P. Morgan weekly market report. The investment bank's analysts aimed to give bond investors a sense of the ability of states to repay bonds. Scott drew on that work virtually word for word. He accurately reflected the findings that 47 states show an average decline of just 0.12% compared with 2019, and 21 of 47 states show positive year-over-year growth in tax receipts. (The study had a full-year of data on 37 states, and 11 months for another 10.) But Scott proceeded to muddle the numbers. After noting that revenues rose in 21 states, he then said 'over half of states reported positive growth, including California, New York and Illinois.' Clearly, 21 is fewer than half of the 50 states. The first statistic he cited in his claim - 21 - relates to total tax revenues. The second - half of states - relates to personal income taxes alone. Scott failed to note the difference. The J.P. Morgan report said personal income tax revenues rose in over half of the states where it had data, including the three states Scott named. But in terms of total revenues, only California saw its numbers go up. New York was down 1.5% and Illinois was down 0.9%. Half a dozen states suffered far deeper revenue drops. The worst hit include Nevada (-13%), North Dakota (-9.7%), Florida (-7.9%), Texas (-6.8%), West Virginia (-6.8%) and Oklahoma (-6.7%). The J.P. Morgan report's time frame bears a mention. It includes two full months in 2020 before the coronavirus cratered the economy. Other research gives a window into the virus' fiscal impact in the pandemic months between March and December. The COVID-19 impact, and the California effect Based on budget reports from 46 states, researcher Lucy Dadayan at the Urban Institute, an academic center in Washington, D.C., told us that from March through December, revenues from personal and corporate income taxes and sales taxes fell by 1.6% from the same period a year earlier. That decline might seem small, but it is more than 10 times larger than the 0.12% Scott referred to. In raw dollars, it represents $12.6 billion in lost revenue. Aggregate numbers conceal as much as they reveal, and California was an outlier with a hefty effect on the overall numbers. Thanks to a variety of factors, including large year-end bonuses and massive tax withholding tied to initial stock offerings of companies like Airbnb, California's revenues shot up 26.5% in December alone. That was enough to make the national picture look considerably better. When Dadayan pulled the Golden State out of the equation, total revenues across the remaining states were down 2%. That's 25% worse than when California was included. There are other ways to measure the fiscal impact of COVID-19. The National Association of State Budget Officers gets information from all 50 states, but those numbers are for fiscal, not calendar, years. In most cases, that runs from July through June. The time frame is different, but the numbers are similar to Dadayan's figures. In their fiscal years that ended in 2020, states collected $14 billion less than the year before. And in their budgets for fiscal year 2021, states factored in an additional decline of $39 billion, for a total reduction of $53 billion over the two years. Dadayan said that before the coronavirus, accounting for population and economic growth, states had planned on a rise of about 5% in revenues each year. The National Association of State Budget Officers said that compared with those pre-COVID-19 budget forecasts, revenues will be down by $135 billion. To help close part of the gap, states drew down their emergency funds by $12.2 billion. Looking beyond state revenues Scott's focus on how much money states are collecting leaves out half the fiscal picture - the spending side. In the face of falling revenues, states cut spending on schools, roads and many other areas. The National Association of State Budget Officers reported that education spending fell by $7.4 billion. Another $5.6 billion came from a range of programs, including public safety, the judiciary, environmental protection and aid to local governments. Modest declines in state revenue can have more pronounced effects on county and city budgets that rely on state aid. The Democratic plan that Scott criticized would also send aid to cities and counties. A survey of county officials during the summer found most counties were seeing budget shortfalls, and nearly three-quarters of them were holding back on capital spending and county services. The National League of Cities reported that overall city revenues have fallen 21% since the start of the pandemic, while expenses have risen 17%. Chicago alone reported a nearly $800 million general fund deficit at the end of August. Dadayan said the focus on state revenues 'misses the fiscal stress on local governments, which is a lot bigger compared to state revenue shortfalls.' She added that cities are looking at budget gaps estimated at more than $90 billion.
Our ruling Scott said states across the country are seeing increases in revenue with an average decline of just 0.12% compared with 2019. He also said that over half of states reported positive growth, including California, New York, and Illinois. Scott faithfully reflects a report from J.P. Morgan in terms of the 0.12% overall decline, but he went astray when talking about states with higher revenues, particularly the three states he named. The J.P. Morgan report said revenues grew only in California. They fell in New York and Illinois. Scott's numbers included two months before the pandemic began. Focusing on the pandemic months of March through December, revenues fell about 10 times more than Scott said. He also limited his view of fiscal health to state revenues. Factoring in spending cuts, and impacts on city and county finances, the picture is much worse. Scott used a report that gave a limited view of a broader fiscal landscape, and misread an element in the report itself. The information he left out would leave a reader with a different impression. That matches our definition of Mostly False.
[ "109229-proof-33-c5b683b3dd4f57b3fc45e87f34fc1fd5.JPG.jpg" ]
A photo shows paleontologists in Greece discovering the skeleton of a giant.
Contradiction
Social media users are recirculating a pair of Facebook posts from 2012 that purport to show paleontologists in Greece uncovering the skeletal remains of a giant, including a massive skull. Although they have been shared thousands of times, the images are manipulated. The original photo does not show a giant human skull at the excavation site. The Facebook posts were flagged as part of the company's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Reverse image searches revealed that the images are manipulated versions of a photograph from University of Chicago paleontologist Paul Sereno's discovery of a plant-eating dinosaur species, Jobaria, during a dig in the Sahara of central Niger, an African country, in the 1990s. The original photograph, published in several places by the University of Chicago and also in a 1999 news report from BBC News, does not include the giant skull seen in the Facebook posts. 'It is my photograph of my team that I took in Niger in 1993 during the excavation of a dinosaur skeleton that I would later name Jobaria,' Sereno said in an email to PolitiFact. An illustration shows Sereno's original photo beside the edited version, which recirculated on Facebook in October 2021. The results from Sereno's excavation were published in 1999 in the journal Science, and the discovery was covered at the time by the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, National Geographic and other outlets. The long-necked dinosaur weighed an estimated 20 tons and lived approximately 135 million years ago, according to those reports. 'With 95 percent of its skeleton preserved, the new species stands as the most complete long-necked dinosaur ever discovered from the Cretaceous Period,' Sereno said in a 1999 news release documenting his team's findings. In 2019, Snopes fact-checked the same two manipulated images purporting to show a giant skull among the bones Sereno's team dug out in Niger. The outlet reported that the altered images have been circulating online since as early as 2004. Fact-checkers have also debunked several other similarly altered photos claiming to show the remains of giants. We rate these Facebook posts Pants on Fire!
We rate these Facebook posts Pants on Fire!
[ "109234-proof-09-Giant_skull_edited_photo.001.jpeg" ]
A photo shows paleontologists in Greece discovering the skeleton of a giant.
Contradiction
Social media users are recirculating a pair of Facebook posts from 2012 that purport to show paleontologists in Greece uncovering the skeletal remains of a giant, including a massive skull. Although they have been shared thousands of times, the images are manipulated. The original photo does not show a giant human skull at the excavation site. The Facebook posts were flagged as part of the company's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Reverse image searches revealed that the images are manipulated versions of a photograph from University of Chicago paleontologist Paul Sereno's discovery of a plant-eating dinosaur species, Jobaria, during a dig in the Sahara of central Niger, an African country, in the 1990s. The original photograph, published in several places by the University of Chicago and also in a 1999 news report from BBC News, does not include the giant skull seen in the Facebook posts. 'It is my photograph of my team that I took in Niger in 1993 during the excavation of a dinosaur skeleton that I would later name Jobaria,' Sereno said in an email to PolitiFact. An illustration shows Sereno's original photo beside the edited version, which recirculated on Facebook in October 2021. The results from Sereno's excavation were published in 1999 in the journal Science, and the discovery was covered at the time by the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, National Geographic and other outlets. The long-necked dinosaur weighed an estimated 20 tons and lived approximately 135 million years ago, according to those reports. 'With 95 percent of its skeleton preserved, the new species stands as the most complete long-necked dinosaur ever discovered from the Cretaceous Period,' Sereno said in a 1999 news release documenting his team's findings. In 2019, Snopes fact-checked the same two manipulated images purporting to show a giant skull among the bones Sereno's team dug out in Niger. The outlet reported that the altered images have been circulating online since as early as 2004. Fact-checkers have also debunked several other similarly altered photos claiming to show the remains of giants. We rate these Facebook posts Pants on Fire!
We rate these Facebook posts Pants on Fire!
[ "109234-proof-09-Giant_skull_edited_photo.001.jpeg" ]
'The Green New Deal would require that 99% of homes in the country be torn down and rebuilt more 'energy efficient' over a ten year period.
Contradiction
When introduced in early 2019, the Green New Deal resolution immediately sparked conversation and intense criticism, some of it stemming from mistakes made by its sponsor during the rollout. An FAQ distributed to the media by staff for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., one of the Green New Deal sponsors, included language and policies not found in the resolution. The original version of the FAQ, which was quickly retracted, included a goal that continues to attract attention: 'Upgrade or replace every building in U.S. for state-of-art energy efficiency' over a 10-year-period. Close to two years later, social media users continue to refer to that now-retracted sentence about replacing buildings. One Instagram post says, 'The Green New Deal would require that 99% of homes in the country be torn down and rebuilt more 'energy efficient' over a ten year period.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The original FAQ distributed by Ocasio-Cortez's staff included references to 'farting cows' contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and the need to guarantee economic security for those 'unwilling to work,' which were not included in the resolution. According to the Washington Post, more than a dozen media outlets reported on policies that were listed in the retracted FAQ but not included in the legislation.. Just this month, President Trump falsely claimed that as part of the Green New Deal, 'They literally want to take buildings down and rebuild them with tiny little windows,' according to The Hill. The final version of Ocasio-Cortez's FAQ removed the language about 'upgrading or replacing every building' and instead said one of the goals is, 'upgrading virtually every home and building for energy efficiency.' That could be accomplished by replacing items such as windows, doors and insulation, as well as electricity and plumbing systems, according to Curbed. The plan would be for the federal government to provide incentives for homeowners to make those improvements. The think tank that is helping to develop the Green New Deal acknowledges that making those types of changes to some homes, particularly older ones, could expose bigger structural or safety problems, according to Fast Company. The think tank says it is studying those issues and policies that could address them. The Green New Deal is a nonbinding resolution that cannot become law in its current form.
Our ruling An Instagram post says, 'The Green New Deal would require that 99% of homes in the country be torn down and rebuilt more 'energy efficient' over a ten year period.' An FAQ about the Green New Deal that was later retracted included a goal of upgrading or replacing every building in the U.S. for energy efficiency within 10 years. It did not mention tearing down 99% of buildings. The updated version of the FAQ mentions only upgrading buildings for efficiency, which can include replacing elements of the home, such as windows and electrical systems. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
[ "109249-proof-24-25127730be127a6e0b0093515f7d42a3.jpg" ]
'The Green New Deal would require that 99% of homes in the country be torn down and rebuilt more 'energy efficient' over a ten year period.
Contradiction
When introduced in early 2019, the Green New Deal resolution immediately sparked conversation and intense criticism, some of it stemming from mistakes made by its sponsor during the rollout. An FAQ distributed to the media by staff for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., one of the Green New Deal sponsors, included language and policies not found in the resolution. The original version of the FAQ, which was quickly retracted, included a goal that continues to attract attention: 'Upgrade or replace every building in U.S. for state-of-art energy efficiency' over a 10-year-period. Close to two years later, social media users continue to refer to that now-retracted sentence about replacing buildings. One Instagram post says, 'The Green New Deal would require that 99% of homes in the country be torn down and rebuilt more 'energy efficient' over a ten year period.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The original FAQ distributed by Ocasio-Cortez's staff included references to 'farting cows' contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and the need to guarantee economic security for those 'unwilling to work,' which were not included in the resolution. According to the Washington Post, more than a dozen media outlets reported on policies that were listed in the retracted FAQ but not included in the legislation.. Just this month, President Trump falsely claimed that as part of the Green New Deal, 'They literally want to take buildings down and rebuild them with tiny little windows,' according to The Hill. The final version of Ocasio-Cortez's FAQ removed the language about 'upgrading or replacing every building' and instead said one of the goals is, 'upgrading virtually every home and building for energy efficiency.' That could be accomplished by replacing items such as windows, doors and insulation, as well as electricity and plumbing systems, according to Curbed. The plan would be for the federal government to provide incentives for homeowners to make those improvements. The think tank that is helping to develop the Green New Deal acknowledges that making those types of changes to some homes, particularly older ones, could expose bigger structural or safety problems, according to Fast Company. The think tank says it is studying those issues and policies that could address them. The Green New Deal is a nonbinding resolution that cannot become law in its current form.
Our ruling An Instagram post says, 'The Green New Deal would require that 99% of homes in the country be torn down and rebuilt more 'energy efficient' over a ten year period.' An FAQ about the Green New Deal that was later retracted included a goal of upgrading or replacing every building in the U.S. for energy efficiency within 10 years. It did not mention tearing down 99% of buildings. The updated version of the FAQ mentions only upgrading buildings for efficiency, which can include replacing elements of the home, such as windows and electrical systems. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
[ "109249-proof-24-25127730be127a6e0b0093515f7d42a3.jpg" ]