claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
'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"
] |
'I don't even know what (QAnon) is.
|
Contradiction
|
House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has been dealing with a fight in Congress over how to handle freshman Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who has made comments supporting violence against Democrats and promoted the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory. The FBI has called the QAnon movement a domestic terrorism threat, and its adherents were among those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, driving McCarthy and other lawmakers out of their chambers as they counted electoral votes. But in a press briefing Feb. 3, McCarthy professed ignorance about QAnon, and mispronounced its name. Defending Greene, he said: 'I think it would be helpful if you could hear exactly what she told all of us - denouncing 'Q-on.' I don't know if I say it right. I don't even know what it is.' pic.twitter.com/J2XfuRYVG7- Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) February 4, 2021 QAnon's involvement in the Capitol riot drove a surge in awareness of the movement, whose followers believe former President Donald Trump was on a secret mission to fight a cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles that includes top-ranking Democrats and Hollywood celebrities. So can McCarthy fairly claim, less than a month after the riot, that he doesn't know what QAnon is - or even how to say its name? No, he can't. McCarthy has spoken about QAnon publicly at least three times, and appeared to know enough about it to speak out against it. He's also pronounced the name correctly before. In an Aug. 21 press briefing, McCarthy got a question about Greene, who had just won her primary in Georgia. In his answer, he explicitly denounced QAnon, which he called 'the Q organization.' 'She recently came out and denounced the Q organization, whatever beliefs, I do not agree with their beliefs at all,' he said. At the time, Greene hadn't denounced QAnon, although she had told Fox News that she had since chosen 'another path.' In an interview with Fox News that same day, McCarthy denounced QAnon a second time and pronounced it correctly. 'Let me be very clear: There is no place for QAnon in the Republican Party. I do not support it,' he said. During a November news conference, a reporter asked McCarthy if he was concerned about new members of Congress like Greene and Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., who have expressed support for QAnon. 'Our party is very diverse. You mentioned two people who are going to join our party, and both of them have denounced Q-on,' he replied, mispronouncing it again. This was also misleading. While Boebert had attempted to distance herself from the conspiracy theory, Greene still had not. A McCarthy spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
|
Our ruling McCarthy said, 'I don't even know what (QAnon) is.' McCarthy has spoken about QAnon in at least three public appearances. He has also explicitly denounced the extremist ideology before. We rate his claim False.
|
[
"109253-proof-21-2721c3fa9107e0fdac822e56ba97fe20.jpg"
] |
'States run elections, not the federal government.
|
Contradiction
|
A year after the 2020 election, the presidential results in Wisconsin are still being argued about, despite a recount and court rulings confirming that Democrat Joe Biden won the state by about 20,000 votes -- a key win that helped him oust Donald Trump as president. The latest wrinkle in the debate: Just who runs elections. Consider this recent exchange on Twitter: In a series of tweets on Oct. 26, 2021, Dane County Clerk Scott McDonnell expressed frustration over one of the ongoing GOP-led reviews, in which investigators wanted to handle ballots, despite not being election officials. McDonell detailed the chain of custody of ballots, and how local officials are the only ones who are supposed to handle them, so an uncompromised record remains. In response, the Senate Republicans tweeted: 'Dear Scott McDonell. States run elections, not the federal government.' So who does run elections? Elections are a 'marble layer cake' of administration It turns out, elections aren't really 'run' by either. Barry Burden, director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said the administration of elections is more like a 'marble layer cake' of different entities that do and require different things. The federal government does have some degree of control over elections. There are parameters laid out in federal laws and documents like the U.S. Constitution, Burden said. For example, the presidential election is always held on the same day of the same month -- the first Tuesday in November -- for every state. States, meanwhile, can set their own laws governing how elections are run, within the parameters of federal laws. States do things like set the time, date and manner of their own elections. They also can institute rules about when voters can register, how and when absentee ballots can be submitted and what sorts of identification is required for voters. But local government is where the primary functions of an election take place: County and municipal clerks are the ones registering voters, dealing with absentee ballot requests, mailing out ballots, setting up polling places, testing voting equipment, hiring poll workers and then actually tabulating votes on election night. 'That's running elections, in a way, but I would call it administering to keep clear what's going on,' Burden said, in reference to the role of local governments. 'That's actually the physical handling of the election itself. But in terms of the rules of the election, or the parameters of it, there are a bunch of different levels of government involved.' So when it comes down to it, saying that either the federal government or the state government 'runs' elections isn't exactly right, though they both play a role. 'It's just not the right way to conceive of it,' said Burden. 'It's everybody. All those levels of government have a role to play.' Indeed, some of the primary complaints Republicans have cited over the November 2020 election relate to how local officials ran their election operations last year. So, that in itself is at odds with the claim that it's the states that solely run an election.
|
Our ruling In a Twitter retort, Wisconsin Senate Republicans claimed that the state runs elections, not the federal government. The tweet had no mention of local levels of government, where the bulk of the work on and before Election Day plays out -- and where the critical task of counting and certifying local totals takes place. Elections are actually governed and managed at the federal, state and local levels, which means they aren't really 'run' by any one part of the government. That said, the state clearly does play an important role in setting the rules for elections. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"109254-proof-12-1b338bbfb64b48ff86df6f200a2a6472.jpg"
] |
'States run elections, not the federal government.
|
Contradiction
|
A year after the 2020 election, the presidential results in Wisconsin are still being argued about, despite a recount and court rulings confirming that Democrat Joe Biden won the state by about 20,000 votes -- a key win that helped him oust Donald Trump as president. The latest wrinkle in the debate: Just who runs elections. Consider this recent exchange on Twitter: In a series of tweets on Oct. 26, 2021, Dane County Clerk Scott McDonnell expressed frustration over one of the ongoing GOP-led reviews, in which investigators wanted to handle ballots, despite not being election officials. McDonell detailed the chain of custody of ballots, and how local officials are the only ones who are supposed to handle them, so an uncompromised record remains. In response, the Senate Republicans tweeted: 'Dear Scott McDonell. States run elections, not the federal government.' So who does run elections? Elections are a 'marble layer cake' of administration It turns out, elections aren't really 'run' by either. Barry Burden, director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said the administration of elections is more like a 'marble layer cake' of different entities that do and require different things. The federal government does have some degree of control over elections. There are parameters laid out in federal laws and documents like the U.S. Constitution, Burden said. For example, the presidential election is always held on the same day of the same month -- the first Tuesday in November -- for every state. States, meanwhile, can set their own laws governing how elections are run, within the parameters of federal laws. States do things like set the time, date and manner of their own elections. They also can institute rules about when voters can register, how and when absentee ballots can be submitted and what sorts of identification is required for voters. But local government is where the primary functions of an election take place: County and municipal clerks are the ones registering voters, dealing with absentee ballot requests, mailing out ballots, setting up polling places, testing voting equipment, hiring poll workers and then actually tabulating votes on election night. 'That's running elections, in a way, but I would call it administering to keep clear what's going on,' Burden said, in reference to the role of local governments. 'That's actually the physical handling of the election itself. But in terms of the rules of the election, or the parameters of it, there are a bunch of different levels of government involved.' So when it comes down to it, saying that either the federal government or the state government 'runs' elections isn't exactly right, though they both play a role. 'It's just not the right way to conceive of it,' said Burden. 'It's everybody. All those levels of government have a role to play.' Indeed, some of the primary complaints Republicans have cited over the November 2020 election relate to how local officials ran their election operations last year. So, that in itself is at odds with the claim that it's the states that solely run an election.
|
Our ruling In a Twitter retort, Wisconsin Senate Republicans claimed that the state runs elections, not the federal government. The tweet had no mention of local levels of government, where the bulk of the work on and before Election Day plays out -- and where the critical task of counting and certifying local totals takes place. Elections are actually governed and managed at the federal, state and local levels, which means they aren't really 'run' by any one part of the government. That said, the state clearly does play an important role in setting the rules for elections. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"109254-proof-12-1b338bbfb64b48ff86df6f200a2a6472.jpg"
] |
'States run elections, not the federal government.
|
Contradiction
|
A year after the 2020 election, the presidential results in Wisconsin are still being argued about, despite a recount and court rulings confirming that Democrat Joe Biden won the state by about 20,000 votes -- a key win that helped him oust Donald Trump as president. The latest wrinkle in the debate: Just who runs elections. Consider this recent exchange on Twitter: In a series of tweets on Oct. 26, 2021, Dane County Clerk Scott McDonnell expressed frustration over one of the ongoing GOP-led reviews, in which investigators wanted to handle ballots, despite not being election officials. McDonell detailed the chain of custody of ballots, and how local officials are the only ones who are supposed to handle them, so an uncompromised record remains. In response, the Senate Republicans tweeted: 'Dear Scott McDonell. States run elections, not the federal government.' So who does run elections? Elections are a 'marble layer cake' of administration It turns out, elections aren't really 'run' by either. Barry Burden, director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said the administration of elections is more like a 'marble layer cake' of different entities that do and require different things. The federal government does have some degree of control over elections. There are parameters laid out in federal laws and documents like the U.S. Constitution, Burden said. For example, the presidential election is always held on the same day of the same month -- the first Tuesday in November -- for every state. States, meanwhile, can set their own laws governing how elections are run, within the parameters of federal laws. States do things like set the time, date and manner of their own elections. They also can institute rules about when voters can register, how and when absentee ballots can be submitted and what sorts of identification is required for voters. But local government is where the primary functions of an election take place: County and municipal clerks are the ones registering voters, dealing with absentee ballot requests, mailing out ballots, setting up polling places, testing voting equipment, hiring poll workers and then actually tabulating votes on election night. 'That's running elections, in a way, but I would call it administering to keep clear what's going on,' Burden said, in reference to the role of local governments. 'That's actually the physical handling of the election itself. But in terms of the rules of the election, or the parameters of it, there are a bunch of different levels of government involved.' So when it comes down to it, saying that either the federal government or the state government 'runs' elections isn't exactly right, though they both play a role. 'It's just not the right way to conceive of it,' said Burden. 'It's everybody. All those levels of government have a role to play.' Indeed, some of the primary complaints Republicans have cited over the November 2020 election relate to how local officials ran their election operations last year. So, that in itself is at odds with the claim that it's the states that solely run an election.
|
Our ruling In a Twitter retort, Wisconsin Senate Republicans claimed that the state runs elections, not the federal government. The tweet had no mention of local levels of government, where the bulk of the work on and before Election Day plays out -- and where the critical task of counting and certifying local totals takes place. Elections are actually governed and managed at the federal, state and local levels, which means they aren't really 'run' by any one part of the government. That said, the state clearly does play an important role in setting the rules for elections. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"109254-proof-12-1b338bbfb64b48ff86df6f200a2a6472.jpg"
] |
Kamala Harris 'has not formally taken questions from the press a single time' since she was announced as Joe Biden's vice presidential pick.
|
Contradiction
|
Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza took aim at Sen. Kamala Harris in an Instagram post for allegedly dodging the press since former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president, tagged her as his running mate in mid August. 'Kamala Harris was picked to be Joe Biden's VP 42 days ago,' said the Sept. 23 post. 'There are 41 days until the election. She has not formally taken questions from the press a single time.' 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 claim appears to have originated with NBC News reporter Deepa Shivaram, who tweeted a day earlier that 'the senator has not once formally taken questions from the press.' The tweet racked up thousands of likes and retweets and was shared by a number of news reporters. Eric Trump and other allies of President Donald Trump also picked it up. And it made the jump to Instagram when D'Souza shared it to his more than 900,000 followers. But Harris hasn't shunned the media, as D'Souza's Instagram post suggests. The California senator sat down for her first interview as a vice presidential candidate with the 19th News on Aug. 14, three days after Biden announced her as his running mate. Since then, Harris has done interviews with national organizations such as People, ABC News, NBC, Univision, BET and CNN. She also interviewed with the Grio, a site targeting African American readers, and she appeared on Showtime's late-night talk show, 'Desus and Mero.' On Sept. 21, two days before D'Souza's post, Harris spoke with Urban Radio Networks reporter and CNN political analyst April Ryan and joined radio host Russ Parr for his show. She is slated to appear Sept. 28 on MSNBC's 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell.' Harris has also interviewed with a number of local news outlets. The outlets PolitiFact identified include: three TV stations and two radio stations serving south Florida; a TV station in Charlotte, N.C.; two TV stations in Milwaukee; a TV station in the San Francisco Bay Area; two TV stations in Phoenix; a TV station in Las Vegas; two TV stations in Philadelphia; a TV station in Detroit; and a TV station serving the Flint and Tri-Cities region of Michigan. When a reporter asked Biden why they hadn't 'seen her out very much' during a Sept. 4 press conference, Biden said Harris has been busy campaigning on his behalf. 'She's been on the road,' Biden said. 'She's out herself. The role is that, just like when Barack and I campaigned, we try to cover as much territory as we could, and both of us out campaigning.' Shivaram, the NBC News reporter, clarified her original point in a second tweet, which was posted in response to a question and received significantly fewer shares. She said Harris has, in fact, done interviews with both national networks and local outlets in states she's visited. What Harris hasn't had, Shivaram wrote, is an informal briefing where reporters covering her campaign stops can ask questions, aside from a 'few shouted questions.' 'Just to be clear, she's taken questions,' Shivaram tweeted in response to another reporter's retweet. 'But it's us shouting them out as we're moving in and out of rooms, or as she's walking in and out of events. Nothing more established than that.' D'Souza did not respond to a request for comment.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post says Harris 'has not formally taken questions from the press a single time' since Biden named her as his vice presidential pick. That's inaccurate. Harris has made numerous media appearances and interviews since the Aug. 11 announcement. We rate this Instagram post False.
|
[
"109261-proof-00-1f8705c07d1753e5ccd02c779b4bb194.jpg"
] |
Kamala Harris 'has not formally taken questions from the press a single time' since she was announced as Joe Biden's vice presidential pick.
|
Contradiction
|
Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza took aim at Sen. Kamala Harris in an Instagram post for allegedly dodging the press since former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president, tagged her as his running mate in mid August. 'Kamala Harris was picked to be Joe Biden's VP 42 days ago,' said the Sept. 23 post. 'There are 41 days until the election. She has not formally taken questions from the press a single time.' 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 claim appears to have originated with NBC News reporter Deepa Shivaram, who tweeted a day earlier that 'the senator has not once formally taken questions from the press.' The tweet racked up thousands of likes and retweets and was shared by a number of news reporters. Eric Trump and other allies of President Donald Trump also picked it up. And it made the jump to Instagram when D'Souza shared it to his more than 900,000 followers. But Harris hasn't shunned the media, as D'Souza's Instagram post suggests. The California senator sat down for her first interview as a vice presidential candidate with the 19th News on Aug. 14, three days after Biden announced her as his running mate. Since then, Harris has done interviews with national organizations such as People, ABC News, NBC, Univision, BET and CNN. She also interviewed with the Grio, a site targeting African American readers, and she appeared on Showtime's late-night talk show, 'Desus and Mero.' On Sept. 21, two days before D'Souza's post, Harris spoke with Urban Radio Networks reporter and CNN political analyst April Ryan and joined radio host Russ Parr for his show. She is slated to appear Sept. 28 on MSNBC's 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell.' Harris has also interviewed with a number of local news outlets. The outlets PolitiFact identified include: three TV stations and two radio stations serving south Florida; a TV station in Charlotte, N.C.; two TV stations in Milwaukee; a TV station in the San Francisco Bay Area; two TV stations in Phoenix; a TV station in Las Vegas; two TV stations in Philadelphia; a TV station in Detroit; and a TV station serving the Flint and Tri-Cities region of Michigan. When a reporter asked Biden why they hadn't 'seen her out very much' during a Sept. 4 press conference, Biden said Harris has been busy campaigning on his behalf. 'She's been on the road,' Biden said. 'She's out herself. The role is that, just like when Barack and I campaigned, we try to cover as much territory as we could, and both of us out campaigning.' Shivaram, the NBC News reporter, clarified her original point in a second tweet, which was posted in response to a question and received significantly fewer shares. She said Harris has, in fact, done interviews with both national networks and local outlets in states she's visited. What Harris hasn't had, Shivaram wrote, is an informal briefing where reporters covering her campaign stops can ask questions, aside from a 'few shouted questions.' 'Just to be clear, she's taken questions,' Shivaram tweeted in response to another reporter's retweet. 'But it's us shouting them out as we're moving in and out of rooms, or as she's walking in and out of events. Nothing more established than that.' D'Souza did not respond to a request for comment.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post says Harris 'has not formally taken questions from the press a single time' since Biden named her as his vice presidential pick. That's inaccurate. Harris has made numerous media appearances and interviews since the Aug. 11 announcement. We rate this Instagram post False.
|
[
"109261-proof-00-1f8705c07d1753e5ccd02c779b4bb194.jpg"
] |
Kamala Harris 'has not formally taken questions from the press a single time' since she was announced as Joe Biden's vice presidential pick.
|
Contradiction
|
Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza took aim at Sen. Kamala Harris in an Instagram post for allegedly dodging the press since former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president, tagged her as his running mate in mid August. 'Kamala Harris was picked to be Joe Biden's VP 42 days ago,' said the Sept. 23 post. 'There are 41 days until the election. She has not formally taken questions from the press a single time.' 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 claim appears to have originated with NBC News reporter Deepa Shivaram, who tweeted a day earlier that 'the senator has not once formally taken questions from the press.' The tweet racked up thousands of likes and retweets and was shared by a number of news reporters. Eric Trump and other allies of President Donald Trump also picked it up. And it made the jump to Instagram when D'Souza shared it to his more than 900,000 followers. But Harris hasn't shunned the media, as D'Souza's Instagram post suggests. The California senator sat down for her first interview as a vice presidential candidate with the 19th News on Aug. 14, three days after Biden announced her as his running mate. Since then, Harris has done interviews with national organizations such as People, ABC News, NBC, Univision, BET and CNN. She also interviewed with the Grio, a site targeting African American readers, and she appeared on Showtime's late-night talk show, 'Desus and Mero.' On Sept. 21, two days before D'Souza's post, Harris spoke with Urban Radio Networks reporter and CNN political analyst April Ryan and joined radio host Russ Parr for his show. She is slated to appear Sept. 28 on MSNBC's 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell.' Harris has also interviewed with a number of local news outlets. The outlets PolitiFact identified include: three TV stations and two radio stations serving south Florida; a TV station in Charlotte, N.C.; two TV stations in Milwaukee; a TV station in the San Francisco Bay Area; two TV stations in Phoenix; a TV station in Las Vegas; two TV stations in Philadelphia; a TV station in Detroit; and a TV station serving the Flint and Tri-Cities region of Michigan. When a reporter asked Biden why they hadn't 'seen her out very much' during a Sept. 4 press conference, Biden said Harris has been busy campaigning on his behalf. 'She's been on the road,' Biden said. 'She's out herself. The role is that, just like when Barack and I campaigned, we try to cover as much territory as we could, and both of us out campaigning.' Shivaram, the NBC News reporter, clarified her original point in a second tweet, which was posted in response to a question and received significantly fewer shares. She said Harris has, in fact, done interviews with both national networks and local outlets in states she's visited. What Harris hasn't had, Shivaram wrote, is an informal briefing where reporters covering her campaign stops can ask questions, aside from a 'few shouted questions.' 'Just to be clear, she's taken questions,' Shivaram tweeted in response to another reporter's retweet. 'But it's us shouting them out as we're moving in and out of rooms, or as she's walking in and out of events. Nothing more established than that.' D'Souza did not respond to a request for comment.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post says Harris 'has not formally taken questions from the press a single time' since Biden named her as his vice presidential pick. That's inaccurate. Harris has made numerous media appearances and interviews since the Aug. 11 announcement. We rate this Instagram post False.
|
[
"109261-proof-00-1f8705c07d1753e5ccd02c779b4bb194.jpg"
] |
'Hillsboro school district has already placed Antifa, BLM in their curriculum as Justice Fighters. Fourth grade.
|
Contradiction
|
Like many school districts, the one in Hillsboro, Oregon, has had to adapt to the pandemic and teach students remotely until they return to their classrooms. But a recent Facebook post suggests that the district is also updating its curriculum in response to another major news event: racial justice protests that have happened across the country over the deaths of Black people killed by law enforcement. 'Hillsboro school district has already placed Antifa, BLM in their curriculum as Justice Fighters,' the post says. 'Fourth grade. Did you know that?' 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.) Beth Graser, a spokesperson for the Hillsboro School District, told us that the claim isn't true - the district hasn't added Antifa or Black Lives Matter to its curriculum as 'Justice Fighters.' In fourth grade, Hillsboro students are taught about civic engagement and there's a series of lessons called Justice Fighters that teach the kids about leaders who fight for justice, Graser said. 'It includes many races and genders of leaders, including Black leaders like Martin Luther King, but does not call out groups or movements like Antifa or BLM.' We looked online for any news coverage or other evidence that supports the claim in the Facebook post but found none. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
'Hillsboro school district has already placed Antifa, BLM in their curriculum as Justice Fighters. Fourth grade.
|
Contradiction
|
Like many school districts, the one in Hillsboro, Oregon, has had to adapt to the pandemic and teach students remotely until they return to their classrooms. But a recent Facebook post suggests that the district is also updating its curriculum in response to another major news event: racial justice protests that have happened across the country over the deaths of Black people killed by law enforcement. 'Hillsboro school district has already placed Antifa, BLM in their curriculum as Justice Fighters,' the post says. 'Fourth grade. Did you know that?' 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.) Beth Graser, a spokesperson for the Hillsboro School District, told us that the claim isn't true - the district hasn't added Antifa or Black Lives Matter to its curriculum as 'Justice Fighters.' In fourth grade, Hillsboro students are taught about civic engagement and there's a series of lessons called Justice Fighters that teach the kids about leaders who fight for justice, Graser said. 'It includes many races and genders of leaders, including Black leaders like Martin Luther King, but does not call out groups or movements like Antifa or BLM.' We looked online for any news coverage or other evidence that supports the claim in the Facebook post but found none. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
'The global cost of corruption is as much as 5% of the world's GDP.
|
Contradiction
|
For more than a decade, an interesting statistic about the cost of corruption has been bouncing around the global-economics community, showing up in statements and reports from organizations like the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Most recently, it came out of the mouth of Vice President Kamala Harris. 'Around the world, we know that corruption inhibits shared prosperity,' Harris said May 4, at a conference on the Americas, where she touted the Biden administration's plans to address the root causes of immigration. 'In fact, the global cost of corruption is as much as 5% of the world's GDP.' 'Five percent,' she repeated for emphasis. How accurate is that number? When we went to check it, we couldn't really tell. It turns out that while it's an often-cited statistic, no one could tell us where the estimate ultimately comes from, or what data or research was used to come up with it. The long trail of the 5% figure The White House told PolitiFact that Harris was citing data previously shared by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres. In December 2018, to commemorate International Anti-Corruption Day, Guterres issued a statement that said, in part: 'The World Economic Forum estimates that the cost of corruption is at least $2.6 trillion - or 5% of global gross domestic product.' Guterres also mentioned the 5% in September 2018 during a meeting with the U.N. Security Council, according to U.N. meeting notes. Neither the statement nor the meeting notes link to a report on that 5% estimate or include footnotes about it. We reached out to the U.N. and to the World Economic Forum for details. The U.N. did not respond, and the World Economic Forum told us to contact the U.N. We also reached out to organizations that published a 2008 report titled, 'Clean Business is Good Business: The Business Case against Corruption.' That report had a 'Facts & Figures' section that also included the 5% estimate. Gary Kalman, director of the U.S. office of Transparency International, an organization that co-authored the 2008 report, told us that his office has backed away from using the figure in recent years, because they are not exactly sure of its provenance or what methodology was used for the estimate. 'I don't know that it's wrong,' Kalman said. 'I just can't prove that it's right.' Anecdotal evidence would suggest that the 5% estimate is not that far off the mark, Kalman said, 'but we don't have solid research to confirm that.' 'I think people have used that figure over the last 10 to 15 years because it came from credible sources,' Kalman said. 'But the more people look into it, the more they back away from that figure.' The 2008 report cited the World Bank as the source of the facts and figures. Jim Anderson, a lead governance specialist at the World Bank, told PolitiFact that the statistic 'has been circulating for some time, but we are unaware of the specific source.' Anderson provided methodology details for another statistic in the report, which said that over $1 trillion is paid in bribes each year. The bribery figure was in a paper prepared by researchers at the World Bank Institute in 2005, he said. 'Time to abandon' the 5% stat? Matthew C. Stephenson, a professor at Harvard Law School, wrote a blog post in 2016 arguing that 'it's time to abandon' the popular line that corruption costs about $2.6 trillion, or about 5% of the global GDP. (Harris' statement didn't include the dollar figure.) Stephenson, whose expertise includes anti-corruption law, wrote that he had not been able to find a definitive source for the corruption-cost estimate but offered his best guess as to where it came from. He believed that someone had misread studies, including the 2005 World Bank paper, about the volume of money laundering, and then did their own calculations related to the global GDP cost. (Here's Stephenson's detailed explanation.) 'If something like that is indeed what happened, then the $2.6 trillion/5% of GDP figure is completely, totally, and utterly bogus - a made-up number based on a misreading, and possibly a mistranscription, of an estimate of something entirely different: the amount, not the cost, of worldwide money laundering, not worldwide corruption,' Stephenson wrote. A paper published last month, co-authored by Stephenson, reviewed 10 of the most widely cited statements about corruption and included among them the claim: 'Corruption costs the global economy approximately US$2.6 trillion, or 5% of global GDP, each year.' The paper said that the claim's source is 'obscure' and its validity 'unfounded.' This statistic - cited by the U.N. and other reputable organizations - 'appears to have no basis whatsoever,' the paper said. 'No organisation or advocate should cite this statistic under any circumstances.' Why does the 5% keep making its way to speeches? 'People want to include specific numbers in their speeches and publications,' Stephenson told PolitiFact. 'Once a statistic is cited in a prominent source, it's easy for others to find it and copy it, with the result that the statistic seems more credible because it's cited so often - an echo chamber effect.' We informed the White House about the dubious origin of the figure Harris cited and were told by a spokesperson that we should reach out to the U.N. directly if we were 'taking issue with how they characterize something.' Estimating the cost of corruption is complicated Although corruption is a very serious problem, coming up with cost estimates is very difficult, in great part because it's a hidden activity, experts said. 'If bribes, even small ones, lead to evasion of building or environmental inspections, the costs could be catastrophic,' Anderson said. 'What would be the cost of bribes associated with faulty equipment or medicines in a pandemic? A road of poor quality due to corruption is not only expensive, it can cause loss of life, property damage, and loss of goods in transit. For these reasons, the costs of corruption are much more than simple volumes of bribery.' A 2019 report from the International Monetary Fund said its research suggests that revenues are higher in countries that are perceived to be less corrupt. 'The least corrupt governments collect 4% of GDP more in taxes than those at the same level of economic development with the highest levels of corruption,' the report said. The IMF said that in the past two decades, some countries had been able to tackle corruption, and if all countries were to reduce corruption in a similar way, they could gain $1 trillion in lost tax revenues, or 1.25% of global GDP. The precise number on the global cost of corruption is probably not that important, experts said. If the global cost of corruption was 3% or 7% of global GDP, instead of 5%, 'it would not have made much difference to the point that Vice President Harris, or others who use this figure, are trying to make,' Stephenson said. 'It's more like a decorative statistic,' he said, 'which may be why nobody checks it.'
|
Our ruling Harris said, 'The global cost of corruption is as much as 5% of the world's GDP.' Harris cited a figure that's been popularly used by reputable organizations for more than a decade. But the methodology for that assessment is unclear. Organizations that have used that figure did not provide details supporting the estimate. One expert said that the 5% estimate is plausible, but had no data to confirm it. Without substantial evidence for the data, we rate Harris' claim False.
|
[
"109301-proof-07-9456e864ad1f064b5615408e46285124.jpg"
] |
'The global cost of corruption is as much as 5% of the world's GDP.
|
Contradiction
|
For more than a decade, an interesting statistic about the cost of corruption has been bouncing around the global-economics community, showing up in statements and reports from organizations like the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Most recently, it came out of the mouth of Vice President Kamala Harris. 'Around the world, we know that corruption inhibits shared prosperity,' Harris said May 4, at a conference on the Americas, where she touted the Biden administration's plans to address the root causes of immigration. 'In fact, the global cost of corruption is as much as 5% of the world's GDP.' 'Five percent,' she repeated for emphasis. How accurate is that number? When we went to check it, we couldn't really tell. It turns out that while it's an often-cited statistic, no one could tell us where the estimate ultimately comes from, or what data or research was used to come up with it. The long trail of the 5% figure The White House told PolitiFact that Harris was citing data previously shared by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres. In December 2018, to commemorate International Anti-Corruption Day, Guterres issued a statement that said, in part: 'The World Economic Forum estimates that the cost of corruption is at least $2.6 trillion - or 5% of global gross domestic product.' Guterres also mentioned the 5% in September 2018 during a meeting with the U.N. Security Council, according to U.N. meeting notes. Neither the statement nor the meeting notes link to a report on that 5% estimate or include footnotes about it. We reached out to the U.N. and to the World Economic Forum for details. The U.N. did not respond, and the World Economic Forum told us to contact the U.N. We also reached out to organizations that published a 2008 report titled, 'Clean Business is Good Business: The Business Case against Corruption.' That report had a 'Facts & Figures' section that also included the 5% estimate. Gary Kalman, director of the U.S. office of Transparency International, an organization that co-authored the 2008 report, told us that his office has backed away from using the figure in recent years, because they are not exactly sure of its provenance or what methodology was used for the estimate. 'I don't know that it's wrong,' Kalman said. 'I just can't prove that it's right.' Anecdotal evidence would suggest that the 5% estimate is not that far off the mark, Kalman said, 'but we don't have solid research to confirm that.' 'I think people have used that figure over the last 10 to 15 years because it came from credible sources,' Kalman said. 'But the more people look into it, the more they back away from that figure.' The 2008 report cited the World Bank as the source of the facts and figures. Jim Anderson, a lead governance specialist at the World Bank, told PolitiFact that the statistic 'has been circulating for some time, but we are unaware of the specific source.' Anderson provided methodology details for another statistic in the report, which said that over $1 trillion is paid in bribes each year. The bribery figure was in a paper prepared by researchers at the World Bank Institute in 2005, he said. 'Time to abandon' the 5% stat? Matthew C. Stephenson, a professor at Harvard Law School, wrote a blog post in 2016 arguing that 'it's time to abandon' the popular line that corruption costs about $2.6 trillion, or about 5% of the global GDP. (Harris' statement didn't include the dollar figure.) Stephenson, whose expertise includes anti-corruption law, wrote that he had not been able to find a definitive source for the corruption-cost estimate but offered his best guess as to where it came from. He believed that someone had misread studies, including the 2005 World Bank paper, about the volume of money laundering, and then did their own calculations related to the global GDP cost. (Here's Stephenson's detailed explanation.) 'If something like that is indeed what happened, then the $2.6 trillion/5% of GDP figure is completely, totally, and utterly bogus - a made-up number based on a misreading, and possibly a mistranscription, of an estimate of something entirely different: the amount, not the cost, of worldwide money laundering, not worldwide corruption,' Stephenson wrote. A paper published last month, co-authored by Stephenson, reviewed 10 of the most widely cited statements about corruption and included among them the claim: 'Corruption costs the global economy approximately US$2.6 trillion, or 5% of global GDP, each year.' The paper said that the claim's source is 'obscure' and its validity 'unfounded.' This statistic - cited by the U.N. and other reputable organizations - 'appears to have no basis whatsoever,' the paper said. 'No organisation or advocate should cite this statistic under any circumstances.' Why does the 5% keep making its way to speeches? 'People want to include specific numbers in their speeches and publications,' Stephenson told PolitiFact. 'Once a statistic is cited in a prominent source, it's easy for others to find it and copy it, with the result that the statistic seems more credible because it's cited so often - an echo chamber effect.' We informed the White House about the dubious origin of the figure Harris cited and were told by a spokesperson that we should reach out to the U.N. directly if we were 'taking issue with how they characterize something.' Estimating the cost of corruption is complicated Although corruption is a very serious problem, coming up with cost estimates is very difficult, in great part because it's a hidden activity, experts said. 'If bribes, even small ones, lead to evasion of building or environmental inspections, the costs could be catastrophic,' Anderson said. 'What would be the cost of bribes associated with faulty equipment or medicines in a pandemic? A road of poor quality due to corruption is not only expensive, it can cause loss of life, property damage, and loss of goods in transit. For these reasons, the costs of corruption are much more than simple volumes of bribery.' A 2019 report from the International Monetary Fund said its research suggests that revenues are higher in countries that are perceived to be less corrupt. 'The least corrupt governments collect 4% of GDP more in taxes than those at the same level of economic development with the highest levels of corruption,' the report said. The IMF said that in the past two decades, some countries had been able to tackle corruption, and if all countries were to reduce corruption in a similar way, they could gain $1 trillion in lost tax revenues, or 1.25% of global GDP. The precise number on the global cost of corruption is probably not that important, experts said. If the global cost of corruption was 3% or 7% of global GDP, instead of 5%, 'it would not have made much difference to the point that Vice President Harris, or others who use this figure, are trying to make,' Stephenson said. 'It's more like a decorative statistic,' he said, 'which may be why nobody checks it.'
|
Our ruling Harris said, 'The global cost of corruption is as much as 5% of the world's GDP.' Harris cited a figure that's been popularly used by reputable organizations for more than a decade. But the methodology for that assessment is unclear. Organizations that have used that figure did not provide details supporting the estimate. One expert said that the 5% estimate is plausible, but had no data to confirm it. Without substantial evidence for the data, we rate Harris' claim False.
|
[
"109301-proof-07-9456e864ad1f064b5615408e46285124.jpg"
] |
'George Soros owns the WuXi PHARMA LAB located in Wuhan, China where COVID-19 was developed and conveniently Broke Out.
|
Contradiction
|
George Soros has been accused of many outrageous things. Now, misinformation on Facebook is blaming the billionaire philanthropist for the 2019 coronavirus pandemic. 'George Soros owns the WuXi PHARMA LAB located in Wuhan, China where COVID-19 was developed and conveniently Broke Out,' reads a March 15 text post. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It had more than 3,700 shares as of March 18. (Screenshot from Facebook) More than 191,000 people worldwide had been infected with COVID-19 as of March 18. Like other conspiracy theories about Soros, this Facebook post is bogus. In January, the conspiracy theory was shared in a Reddit thread that cited a now-defunct fake news website. The WuXi AppTec Group is a pharmaceutical and biotechnology company based in China. It works primarily on manufacturing and developing medical devices. The seed of the Facebook conspiracy is the fact that the company has a location in Wuhan, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak. And documents from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission show that Soros was a WuXi shareholder in May 2011. (Subsequent SEC filings do not list the company among Soros' investments, perhaps because he changed the legal status of his hedge fund that summer to avoid more government regulation.) But none of that amounts to what the Facebook posts claims: that Soros 'owns' the company and its Wuhan location. WuXi's CEO and chairman is Ge Li, according to its website. And scientists have found that COVID-19's origin is likely natural - not man-made, as the Facebook post and several other conspiracy theories allege. RELATED: 7 ways to avoid misinformation during the coronavirus pandemic An article published March 17 says that, while the exact origin of the coronavirus is still unclear, its genetic makeup of the coronavirus precludes it from being created in a lab. 'If genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used,' the analysis reads. 'However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.' The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"109315-proof-00-wuhansoros.jpg",
"109315-proof-35-754242431550ca62f708faec0f34ed3f.jpg"
] |
'George Soros owns the WuXi PHARMA LAB located in Wuhan, China where COVID-19 was developed and conveniently Broke Out.
|
Contradiction
|
George Soros has been accused of many outrageous things. Now, misinformation on Facebook is blaming the billionaire philanthropist for the 2019 coronavirus pandemic. 'George Soros owns the WuXi PHARMA LAB located in Wuhan, China where COVID-19 was developed and conveniently Broke Out,' reads a March 15 text post. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It had more than 3,700 shares as of March 18. (Screenshot from Facebook) More than 191,000 people worldwide had been infected with COVID-19 as of March 18. Like other conspiracy theories about Soros, this Facebook post is bogus. In January, the conspiracy theory was shared in a Reddit thread that cited a now-defunct fake news website. The WuXi AppTec Group is a pharmaceutical and biotechnology company based in China. It works primarily on manufacturing and developing medical devices. The seed of the Facebook conspiracy is the fact that the company has a location in Wuhan, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak. And documents from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission show that Soros was a WuXi shareholder in May 2011. (Subsequent SEC filings do not list the company among Soros' investments, perhaps because he changed the legal status of his hedge fund that summer to avoid more government regulation.) But none of that amounts to what the Facebook posts claims: that Soros 'owns' the company and its Wuhan location. WuXi's CEO and chairman is Ge Li, according to its website. And scientists have found that COVID-19's origin is likely natural - not man-made, as the Facebook post and several other conspiracy theories allege. RELATED: 7 ways to avoid misinformation during the coronavirus pandemic An article published March 17 says that, while the exact origin of the coronavirus is still unclear, its genetic makeup of the coronavirus precludes it from being created in a lab. 'If genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used,' the analysis reads. 'However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.' The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"109315-proof-00-wuhansoros.jpg",
"109315-proof-35-754242431550ca62f708faec0f34ed3f.jpg"
] |
'George Soros owns the WuXi PHARMA LAB located in Wuhan, China where COVID-19 was developed and conveniently Broke Out.
|
Contradiction
|
George Soros has been accused of many outrageous things. Now, misinformation on Facebook is blaming the billionaire philanthropist for the 2019 coronavirus pandemic. 'George Soros owns the WuXi PHARMA LAB located in Wuhan, China where COVID-19 was developed and conveniently Broke Out,' reads a March 15 text post. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It had more than 3,700 shares as of March 18. (Screenshot from Facebook) More than 191,000 people worldwide had been infected with COVID-19 as of March 18. Like other conspiracy theories about Soros, this Facebook post is bogus. In January, the conspiracy theory was shared in a Reddit thread that cited a now-defunct fake news website. The WuXi AppTec Group is a pharmaceutical and biotechnology company based in China. It works primarily on manufacturing and developing medical devices. The seed of the Facebook conspiracy is the fact that the company has a location in Wuhan, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak. And documents from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission show that Soros was a WuXi shareholder in May 2011. (Subsequent SEC filings do not list the company among Soros' investments, perhaps because he changed the legal status of his hedge fund that summer to avoid more government regulation.) But none of that amounts to what the Facebook posts claims: that Soros 'owns' the company and its Wuhan location. WuXi's CEO and chairman is Ge Li, according to its website. And scientists have found that COVID-19's origin is likely natural - not man-made, as the Facebook post and several other conspiracy theories allege. RELATED: 7 ways to avoid misinformation during the coronavirus pandemic An article published March 17 says that, while the exact origin of the coronavirus is still unclear, its genetic makeup of the coronavirus precludes it from being created in a lab. 'If genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse-genetic systems available for betacoronaviruses would probably have been used,' the analysis reads. 'However, the genetic data irrefutably show that SARS-CoV-2 is not derived from any previously used virus backbone.' The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"109315-proof-00-wuhansoros.jpg",
"109315-proof-35-754242431550ca62f708faec0f34ed3f.jpg"
] |
Due to differing lockdown orders, New York has more COVID-19 cases, deaths, hospitalizations and job losses than Florida, and New York also lags on vaccinations.
|
Contradiction
|
Who would have thought a global pandemic would only heighten a longstanding rivalry between Florida and New York? Tensions flared early in the COVID-19 outbreak when Florida issued restrictions on travelers from New York, then a raging hot spot for the virus. New York returned the favor in the summer, putting Florida travelers on its own quarantine list. Now, social media users are comparing the two states' handling of the virus, sharing a pro-Florida Instagram post from an account called 'Unwoke Narrative' that points to the states' politically opposed governors as reasons for differences in state COVID-19 data. Invoking the names of Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and New York's Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a graphic titled 'Cuomo vs. DeSantis: How NY & FL Handled the Virus' lists several COVID-19 figures for each state. 'Cuomo maintained strict lockdowns, crushing jobs and freedom,' it says. 'DeSantis took the opposite route and rejected tyranny. Who was right?' Spoiler alert: The graphic determines Florida is the winner 'even though Florida has a larger population,' 'is disproportionately elderly' and 'is visited by more potentially infected tourists.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It cites as sources the Washington Examiner, New York Post, NBC, Washington Post and Statista. The accompanying text points readers to a website with more information. Some of the numbers check out. The graphic is close, for example, on the spread between the states' hospitalizations and vaccinations administered. But when we reviewed the overall claim, we found the broader comparison misleads by oversimplifying the relationship between the data and lockdown rules in each state. Let's take a look. New York's early battle The post's most glaring omission, experts told us, was its lack of context about the pandemic's timing and impact in the two states. 'New York was the epicenter of the pandemic last spring, long before Florida had significant numbers of cases,' said Richard Mollot, executive director at the Long Term Care Community Coalition, a nonprofit focused on improving quality of care for people in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The virus hit New York early and hard, before there was enough access to personal protective equipment and before health officials or emergency room doctors and nurses knew much about the virus, including the best ways to treat and stabilize it. The result was mass devastation and death. During that early stage, the state was averaging over 900 deaths a day. Dr. Marissa Levine, a professor of public health at the University of South Florida, said not only was New York's experience unlike any other in the nation, but it also informed how the rest of the country would manage the pandemic. 'There's no question that Florida hospitals were able to learn from what New York went through and benefited as a result,' she said. Nursing home deaths needs context Cuomo's administration has faced intense scrutiny over its undercounting of COVID-19 nursing home deaths. New York's attorney general released a Jan. 28 report that found the state had failed to report thousands of deaths. Hours later, the state's health department added more than 3,800 deaths to the tally, each a resident whose hospital death had not been previously counted. Yes, New York is reporting higher numbers of COVID-19 deaths of nursing home and assisted living facility residents than Florida, but we couldn't find data that puts it as high as the graphic reports - 15,000+ in New York compared with 9,000+ in Florida. The latest state numbers from Feb. 4, which includes the hospitalization data, show about 13,300 have died in New York. Florida's total is around 9,700. Priya Chidambaram, a senior policy analyst at Kaiser Family Foundation who has tracked the pandemic's impact on long-term care facility residents, said the post is problematic because states collect and report data differently. 'They're not necessarily comparable,' she said. 'Non-nursing home settings are defined differently in each state. The best way to compare is to look at recent trends in federal data.' As of Feb. 7, such federal data showed New York had 10.1 positive COVID-19 cases per 1,000 nursing home residents, while Florida was at 6.3. When it came to deaths per 1,000 residents, New York was at 2.99 residents and Florida at 1.85. It's important to note that the states don't have comparable nursing home population numbers, at least as of 2019. New York was reporting about 19,000 more residents in certified nursing facilities than Florida, according to Kaiser Family Foundation data. Deaths in each state The post is right that New York has had more deaths than Florida, even when accounting for population. The numbers it says it relies on are not far from what we saw recorded on Feb. 25, when New York was reporting about 247 deaths per 100,000 people compared with Florida's 143. But the metric again ignores New York's unprecedented early peak and the ebb and flow of death rates across states over time. Daily deaths have surged in Florida at times when they remained low in New York, and vice versa. 'There's a time factor here,' Levine said. 'These pandemics are really epidemics that happen in different places at different times, and you have to really consider that when you're doing comparisons.' On April 14, for example, when the first wave peaked in New York, the state had a seven-day average of 39.3 deaths per 1 million residents while Florida was at 2.1, according to the COVID Tracking Project. On Aug. 16, Florida recorded a seven-day average 8.5 deaths per million people while New York was at 0.2. 'The implication is that the political decisions in Florida versus New York has led to those numbers, but I think that would be a very shallow interpretation of the data,' said Dr. Thomas Tsai, an assistant professor in health policy and management at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 'Lockdown measures do work.' PolitiFact previously found that some of the more strictly regulated states performed better than Florida, as of early December 2020. And a study that Tsai participated in that has been preliminarily accepted for publication found that first-wave lockdowns did result in a downtick in COVID-19 cases two weeks later. Daily COVID-19 cases by state Daily case numbers provide a snapshot of how one state compares with another on any given day. And the post's figures showing Florida had 7,400 daily cases as of Feb. 8 while New York was at 9,000 is in the ballpark with what we see in COVID Tracker data for that period. But the metric does not reflect additional data points that place New York in a better position than Florida: the number of people tested and each state's rolling positivity average. It again ignores that there were times when daily cases were high in Florida when they were not in New York. On Feb. 8, New York reported a 5.1% positivity rate, according to state data and Florida saw a 7% positivity rate. The seven-day average of positive cases for the week ending Feb. 8 show New York in a better position, too, with a 5.2% average compared with 8.3% in Florida. Job losses Job losses in New York over the course of the pandemic have outpaced Florida's, but experts caution against making such comparisons. The graphic shows over 1 million jobs lost in New York versus more than 400,000 in Florida, and that lines up with data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Florida's economy, fueled by out-of-state tourism and service industries, was hit hard by the pandemic. But the impact on jobs may have been mitigated by its warm weather, which allowed for dining and other types of public gatherings and businesses to continue operating outdoors. Jed Kolko, chief economist at Indeed, said places that have faced longer-term economic challenges, like much of upstate New York, have lost more jobs in the pandemic. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the right-of-center American Action Forum, urged caution when comparing state economies, including adjusting for time periods when the states were having similar impacts from the virus and state policies. 'I'm not morally opposed to compare across states, but you do have to be careful to do the comparison in a fair way,' he said. While Florida was able to keep its economy more open, it came at a cost. To better understand the balance between economic recovery and public health, MoneyGeek analyzed the rate of case growth and deaths versus the rate of jobs recovered using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Johns Hopkins. Looking at job losses from February 2020 and measuring job gains in each state from the point of highest job loss to the point of highest recovery, the report found that red states like Florida 'recovered 35% more jobs than blue states - 65% compared to 48%. However, red-state recovery rates came at a higher price, with 99% more COVID-19 cases and 78% more deaths per recovered job than blue states.' Florida recorded 50 cases per 100 jobs recovered, according to the analysis, while New York recorded 19.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post says New York's lockdown measures led to more death and economic destruction while Florida's more open approach led to less. The post overstates the correlation between the numbers and lockdown rules. It leaves out important factors, including environment and public health initiatives, and ignores that the two states collect and report data differently. Most significantly, it ignores that New York City was the epicenter of the nation's first wave, before doctors had the equipment, therapeutics and experience needed to fight the new disease. States like Florida were able to learn and benefit from New York's experience. We rate this Mostly False. Correction, March 5, 2021: A subhead in this story has been updated to more precisely describe New York's position as one of the nation's earliest and hardest hit states in the COVID-19 pandemic.
|
[
"109343-proof-10-1dace6be0b768f4acff559872452b674.jpg"
] |
Due to differing lockdown orders, New York has more COVID-19 cases, deaths, hospitalizations and job losses than Florida, and New York also lags on vaccinations.
|
Contradiction
|
Who would have thought a global pandemic would only heighten a longstanding rivalry between Florida and New York? Tensions flared early in the COVID-19 outbreak when Florida issued restrictions on travelers from New York, then a raging hot spot for the virus. New York returned the favor in the summer, putting Florida travelers on its own quarantine list. Now, social media users are comparing the two states' handling of the virus, sharing a pro-Florida Instagram post from an account called 'Unwoke Narrative' that points to the states' politically opposed governors as reasons for differences in state COVID-19 data. Invoking the names of Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and New York's Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a graphic titled 'Cuomo vs. DeSantis: How NY & FL Handled the Virus' lists several COVID-19 figures for each state. 'Cuomo maintained strict lockdowns, crushing jobs and freedom,' it says. 'DeSantis took the opposite route and rejected tyranny. Who was right?' Spoiler alert: The graphic determines Florida is the winner 'even though Florida has a larger population,' 'is disproportionately elderly' and 'is visited by more potentially infected tourists.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It cites as sources the Washington Examiner, New York Post, NBC, Washington Post and Statista. The accompanying text points readers to a website with more information. Some of the numbers check out. The graphic is close, for example, on the spread between the states' hospitalizations and vaccinations administered. But when we reviewed the overall claim, we found the broader comparison misleads by oversimplifying the relationship between the data and lockdown rules in each state. Let's take a look. New York's early battle The post's most glaring omission, experts told us, was its lack of context about the pandemic's timing and impact in the two states. 'New York was the epicenter of the pandemic last spring, long before Florida had significant numbers of cases,' said Richard Mollot, executive director at the Long Term Care Community Coalition, a nonprofit focused on improving quality of care for people in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The virus hit New York early and hard, before there was enough access to personal protective equipment and before health officials or emergency room doctors and nurses knew much about the virus, including the best ways to treat and stabilize it. The result was mass devastation and death. During that early stage, the state was averaging over 900 deaths a day. Dr. Marissa Levine, a professor of public health at the University of South Florida, said not only was New York's experience unlike any other in the nation, but it also informed how the rest of the country would manage the pandemic. 'There's no question that Florida hospitals were able to learn from what New York went through and benefited as a result,' she said. Nursing home deaths needs context Cuomo's administration has faced intense scrutiny over its undercounting of COVID-19 nursing home deaths. New York's attorney general released a Jan. 28 report that found the state had failed to report thousands of deaths. Hours later, the state's health department added more than 3,800 deaths to the tally, each a resident whose hospital death had not been previously counted. Yes, New York is reporting higher numbers of COVID-19 deaths of nursing home and assisted living facility residents than Florida, but we couldn't find data that puts it as high as the graphic reports - 15,000+ in New York compared with 9,000+ in Florida. The latest state numbers from Feb. 4, which includes the hospitalization data, show about 13,300 have died in New York. Florida's total is around 9,700. Priya Chidambaram, a senior policy analyst at Kaiser Family Foundation who has tracked the pandemic's impact on long-term care facility residents, said the post is problematic because states collect and report data differently. 'They're not necessarily comparable,' she said. 'Non-nursing home settings are defined differently in each state. The best way to compare is to look at recent trends in federal data.' As of Feb. 7, such federal data showed New York had 10.1 positive COVID-19 cases per 1,000 nursing home residents, while Florida was at 6.3. When it came to deaths per 1,000 residents, New York was at 2.99 residents and Florida at 1.85. It's important to note that the states don't have comparable nursing home population numbers, at least as of 2019. New York was reporting about 19,000 more residents in certified nursing facilities than Florida, according to Kaiser Family Foundation data. Deaths in each state The post is right that New York has had more deaths than Florida, even when accounting for population. The numbers it says it relies on are not far from what we saw recorded on Feb. 25, when New York was reporting about 247 deaths per 100,000 people compared with Florida's 143. But the metric again ignores New York's unprecedented early peak and the ebb and flow of death rates across states over time. Daily deaths have surged in Florida at times when they remained low in New York, and vice versa. 'There's a time factor here,' Levine said. 'These pandemics are really epidemics that happen in different places at different times, and you have to really consider that when you're doing comparisons.' On April 14, for example, when the first wave peaked in New York, the state had a seven-day average of 39.3 deaths per 1 million residents while Florida was at 2.1, according to the COVID Tracking Project. On Aug. 16, Florida recorded a seven-day average 8.5 deaths per million people while New York was at 0.2. 'The implication is that the political decisions in Florida versus New York has led to those numbers, but I think that would be a very shallow interpretation of the data,' said Dr. Thomas Tsai, an assistant professor in health policy and management at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 'Lockdown measures do work.' PolitiFact previously found that some of the more strictly regulated states performed better than Florida, as of early December 2020. And a study that Tsai participated in that has been preliminarily accepted for publication found that first-wave lockdowns did result in a downtick in COVID-19 cases two weeks later. Daily COVID-19 cases by state Daily case numbers provide a snapshot of how one state compares with another on any given day. And the post's figures showing Florida had 7,400 daily cases as of Feb. 8 while New York was at 9,000 is in the ballpark with what we see in COVID Tracker data for that period. But the metric does not reflect additional data points that place New York in a better position than Florida: the number of people tested and each state's rolling positivity average. It again ignores that there were times when daily cases were high in Florida when they were not in New York. On Feb. 8, New York reported a 5.1% positivity rate, according to state data and Florida saw a 7% positivity rate. The seven-day average of positive cases for the week ending Feb. 8 show New York in a better position, too, with a 5.2% average compared with 8.3% in Florida. Job losses Job losses in New York over the course of the pandemic have outpaced Florida's, but experts caution against making such comparisons. The graphic shows over 1 million jobs lost in New York versus more than 400,000 in Florida, and that lines up with data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Florida's economy, fueled by out-of-state tourism and service industries, was hit hard by the pandemic. But the impact on jobs may have been mitigated by its warm weather, which allowed for dining and other types of public gatherings and businesses to continue operating outdoors. Jed Kolko, chief economist at Indeed, said places that have faced longer-term economic challenges, like much of upstate New York, have lost more jobs in the pandemic. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the right-of-center American Action Forum, urged caution when comparing state economies, including adjusting for time periods when the states were having similar impacts from the virus and state policies. 'I'm not morally opposed to compare across states, but you do have to be careful to do the comparison in a fair way,' he said. While Florida was able to keep its economy more open, it came at a cost. To better understand the balance between economic recovery and public health, MoneyGeek analyzed the rate of case growth and deaths versus the rate of jobs recovered using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Johns Hopkins. Looking at job losses from February 2020 and measuring job gains in each state from the point of highest job loss to the point of highest recovery, the report found that red states like Florida 'recovered 35% more jobs than blue states - 65% compared to 48%. However, red-state recovery rates came at a higher price, with 99% more COVID-19 cases and 78% more deaths per recovered job than blue states.' Florida recorded 50 cases per 100 jobs recovered, according to the analysis, while New York recorded 19.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post says New York's lockdown measures led to more death and economic destruction while Florida's more open approach led to less. The post overstates the correlation between the numbers and lockdown rules. It leaves out important factors, including environment and public health initiatives, and ignores that the two states collect and report data differently. Most significantly, it ignores that New York City was the epicenter of the nation's first wave, before doctors had the equipment, therapeutics and experience needed to fight the new disease. States like Florida were able to learn and benefit from New York's experience. We rate this Mostly False. Correction, March 5, 2021: A subhead in this story has been updated to more precisely describe New York's position as one of the nation's earliest and hardest hit states in the COVID-19 pandemic.
|
[
"109343-proof-10-1dace6be0b768f4acff559872452b674.jpg"
] |
Due to differing lockdown orders, New York has more COVID-19 cases, deaths, hospitalizations and job losses than Florida, and New York also lags on vaccinations.
|
Contradiction
|
Who would have thought a global pandemic would only heighten a longstanding rivalry between Florida and New York? Tensions flared early in the COVID-19 outbreak when Florida issued restrictions on travelers from New York, then a raging hot spot for the virus. New York returned the favor in the summer, putting Florida travelers on its own quarantine list. Now, social media users are comparing the two states' handling of the virus, sharing a pro-Florida Instagram post from an account called 'Unwoke Narrative' that points to the states' politically opposed governors as reasons for differences in state COVID-19 data. Invoking the names of Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and New York's Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a graphic titled 'Cuomo vs. DeSantis: How NY & FL Handled the Virus' lists several COVID-19 figures for each state. 'Cuomo maintained strict lockdowns, crushing jobs and freedom,' it says. 'DeSantis took the opposite route and rejected tyranny. Who was right?' Spoiler alert: The graphic determines Florida is the winner 'even though Florida has a larger population,' 'is disproportionately elderly' and 'is visited by more potentially infected tourists.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It cites as sources the Washington Examiner, New York Post, NBC, Washington Post and Statista. The accompanying text points readers to a website with more information. Some of the numbers check out. The graphic is close, for example, on the spread between the states' hospitalizations and vaccinations administered. But when we reviewed the overall claim, we found the broader comparison misleads by oversimplifying the relationship between the data and lockdown rules in each state. Let's take a look. New York's early battle The post's most glaring omission, experts told us, was its lack of context about the pandemic's timing and impact in the two states. 'New York was the epicenter of the pandemic last spring, long before Florida had significant numbers of cases,' said Richard Mollot, executive director at the Long Term Care Community Coalition, a nonprofit focused on improving quality of care for people in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. The virus hit New York early and hard, before there was enough access to personal protective equipment and before health officials or emergency room doctors and nurses knew much about the virus, including the best ways to treat and stabilize it. The result was mass devastation and death. During that early stage, the state was averaging over 900 deaths a day. Dr. Marissa Levine, a professor of public health at the University of South Florida, said not only was New York's experience unlike any other in the nation, but it also informed how the rest of the country would manage the pandemic. 'There's no question that Florida hospitals were able to learn from what New York went through and benefited as a result,' she said. Nursing home deaths needs context Cuomo's administration has faced intense scrutiny over its undercounting of COVID-19 nursing home deaths. New York's attorney general released a Jan. 28 report that found the state had failed to report thousands of deaths. Hours later, the state's health department added more than 3,800 deaths to the tally, each a resident whose hospital death had not been previously counted. Yes, New York is reporting higher numbers of COVID-19 deaths of nursing home and assisted living facility residents than Florida, but we couldn't find data that puts it as high as the graphic reports - 15,000+ in New York compared with 9,000+ in Florida. The latest state numbers from Feb. 4, which includes the hospitalization data, show about 13,300 have died in New York. Florida's total is around 9,700. Priya Chidambaram, a senior policy analyst at Kaiser Family Foundation who has tracked the pandemic's impact on long-term care facility residents, said the post is problematic because states collect and report data differently. 'They're not necessarily comparable,' she said. 'Non-nursing home settings are defined differently in each state. The best way to compare is to look at recent trends in federal data.' As of Feb. 7, such federal data showed New York had 10.1 positive COVID-19 cases per 1,000 nursing home residents, while Florida was at 6.3. When it came to deaths per 1,000 residents, New York was at 2.99 residents and Florida at 1.85. It's important to note that the states don't have comparable nursing home population numbers, at least as of 2019. New York was reporting about 19,000 more residents in certified nursing facilities than Florida, according to Kaiser Family Foundation data. Deaths in each state The post is right that New York has had more deaths than Florida, even when accounting for population. The numbers it says it relies on are not far from what we saw recorded on Feb. 25, when New York was reporting about 247 deaths per 100,000 people compared with Florida's 143. But the metric again ignores New York's unprecedented early peak and the ebb and flow of death rates across states over time. Daily deaths have surged in Florida at times when they remained low in New York, and vice versa. 'There's a time factor here,' Levine said. 'These pandemics are really epidemics that happen in different places at different times, and you have to really consider that when you're doing comparisons.' On April 14, for example, when the first wave peaked in New York, the state had a seven-day average of 39.3 deaths per 1 million residents while Florida was at 2.1, according to the COVID Tracking Project. On Aug. 16, Florida recorded a seven-day average 8.5 deaths per million people while New York was at 0.2. 'The implication is that the political decisions in Florida versus New York has led to those numbers, but I think that would be a very shallow interpretation of the data,' said Dr. Thomas Tsai, an assistant professor in health policy and management at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 'Lockdown measures do work.' PolitiFact previously found that some of the more strictly regulated states performed better than Florida, as of early December 2020. And a study that Tsai participated in that has been preliminarily accepted for publication found that first-wave lockdowns did result in a downtick in COVID-19 cases two weeks later. Daily COVID-19 cases by state Daily case numbers provide a snapshot of how one state compares with another on any given day. And the post's figures showing Florida had 7,400 daily cases as of Feb. 8 while New York was at 9,000 is in the ballpark with what we see in COVID Tracker data for that period. But the metric does not reflect additional data points that place New York in a better position than Florida: the number of people tested and each state's rolling positivity average. It again ignores that there were times when daily cases were high in Florida when they were not in New York. On Feb. 8, New York reported a 5.1% positivity rate, according to state data and Florida saw a 7% positivity rate. The seven-day average of positive cases for the week ending Feb. 8 show New York in a better position, too, with a 5.2% average compared with 8.3% in Florida. Job losses Job losses in New York over the course of the pandemic have outpaced Florida's, but experts caution against making such comparisons. The graphic shows over 1 million jobs lost in New York versus more than 400,000 in Florida, and that lines up with data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Florida's economy, fueled by out-of-state tourism and service industries, was hit hard by the pandemic. But the impact on jobs may have been mitigated by its warm weather, which allowed for dining and other types of public gatherings and businesses to continue operating outdoors. Jed Kolko, chief economist at Indeed, said places that have faced longer-term economic challenges, like much of upstate New York, have lost more jobs in the pandemic. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the right-of-center American Action Forum, urged caution when comparing state economies, including adjusting for time periods when the states were having similar impacts from the virus and state policies. 'I'm not morally opposed to compare across states, but you do have to be careful to do the comparison in a fair way,' he said. While Florida was able to keep its economy more open, it came at a cost. To better understand the balance between economic recovery and public health, MoneyGeek analyzed the rate of case growth and deaths versus the rate of jobs recovered using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Johns Hopkins. Looking at job losses from February 2020 and measuring job gains in each state from the point of highest job loss to the point of highest recovery, the report found that red states like Florida 'recovered 35% more jobs than blue states - 65% compared to 48%. However, red-state recovery rates came at a higher price, with 99% more COVID-19 cases and 78% more deaths per recovered job than blue states.' Florida recorded 50 cases per 100 jobs recovered, according to the analysis, while New York recorded 19.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post says New York's lockdown measures led to more death and economic destruction while Florida's more open approach led to less. The post overstates the correlation between the numbers and lockdown rules. It leaves out important factors, including environment and public health initiatives, and ignores that the two states collect and report data differently. Most significantly, it ignores that New York City was the epicenter of the nation's first wave, before doctors had the equipment, therapeutics and experience needed to fight the new disease. States like Florida were able to learn and benefit from New York's experience. We rate this Mostly False. Correction, March 5, 2021: A subhead in this story has been updated to more precisely describe New York's position as one of the nation's earliest and hardest hit states in the COVID-19 pandemic.
|
[
"109343-proof-10-1dace6be0b768f4acff559872452b674.jpg"
] |
'Barack Obama signals That Democrats Intend to Cheat in the Virginia Governor's Election.
|
Contradiction
|
In the final days of the Virginia governor's race between Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican newcomer Glenn Youngkin, a deceptive headline asserts that former U.S. President Barack Obama indicated that Democrats are planning to cheat in the election. 'Barack Obama Signals That Democrats Intend to Cheat in the Virginia Governor's Election,' the headline on conservative website Trending Politics reads. But that's not what Obama said or even 'signaled' during a speech to support McAuliffe in the Nov. 2 election. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In a Oct. 23 speech at Virginia Commonwealth University, Obama endorsed McAuliffe as governor and urged Virginians to get out and cast their votes early, either by mail or in person. He told the crowd to get to polling locations early or to return their ballots by mail or at a drop-off location. Here are his exact words (starting around 1:34:30): 'Before we start anything else, I want to remind you and everybody who's watching, you don't have to wait until November 2nd to cast your ballot. You can vote early, right now. Either by mail or in person. 'Don't be lollygalling. Don't be sitting on the couch saying, 'I'll get to it later.' You can vote early right now. If you get a ballot at home, you can return it by mail. Or you can hand it in at your local registrar's office. Or you can take it to a drop-off location today. Don't leave it on your desk. If you're like me, your desk is cluttered, you end up spilling stuff, you're like 'Oh man, I've got to start all over again and get another ballot' - do it now. You'll feel good. You'll feel good about exercising the franchise. Or you can vote early in person today. Millions of Virginians voted early last year. Let's do it again this year. Don't wait.' The Trending Politics article itself quoted Obama but then went on to claim that absentee ballots raise serious questions about election integrity and the validity of election results. However, experts have repeatedly found that mail ballot fraud is incredibly statistically rare.
|
Our ruling A headline says that Obama signaled that 'Democrats intend to cheat in the Virginia governor's election.' In a speech endorsing McAuliffe for governor of Virginia, Obama urged the crowd to get out and vote early by mail or in person. He did not encourage or hint at any illegal voting tactics. We rate this headline False.
|
[
"109352-proof-11-caf5d79447423a8a71e8bd4242a22205.jpeg"
] |
'Barack Obama signals That Democrats Intend to Cheat in the Virginia Governor's Election.
|
Contradiction
|
In the final days of the Virginia governor's race between Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican newcomer Glenn Youngkin, a deceptive headline asserts that former U.S. President Barack Obama indicated that Democrats are planning to cheat in the election. 'Barack Obama Signals That Democrats Intend to Cheat in the Virginia Governor's Election,' the headline on conservative website Trending Politics reads. But that's not what Obama said or even 'signaled' during a speech to support McAuliffe in the Nov. 2 election. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In a Oct. 23 speech at Virginia Commonwealth University, Obama endorsed McAuliffe as governor and urged Virginians to get out and cast their votes early, either by mail or in person. He told the crowd to get to polling locations early or to return their ballots by mail or at a drop-off location. Here are his exact words (starting around 1:34:30): 'Before we start anything else, I want to remind you and everybody who's watching, you don't have to wait until November 2nd to cast your ballot. You can vote early, right now. Either by mail or in person. 'Don't be lollygalling. Don't be sitting on the couch saying, 'I'll get to it later.' You can vote early right now. If you get a ballot at home, you can return it by mail. Or you can hand it in at your local registrar's office. Or you can take it to a drop-off location today. Don't leave it on your desk. If you're like me, your desk is cluttered, you end up spilling stuff, you're like 'Oh man, I've got to start all over again and get another ballot' - do it now. You'll feel good. You'll feel good about exercising the franchise. Or you can vote early in person today. Millions of Virginians voted early last year. Let's do it again this year. Don't wait.' The Trending Politics article itself quoted Obama but then went on to claim that absentee ballots raise serious questions about election integrity and the validity of election results. However, experts have repeatedly found that mail ballot fraud is incredibly statistically rare.
|
Our ruling A headline says that Obama signaled that 'Democrats intend to cheat in the Virginia governor's election.' In a speech endorsing McAuliffe for governor of Virginia, Obama urged the crowd to get out and vote early by mail or in person. He did not encourage or hint at any illegal voting tactics. We rate this headline False.
|
[
"109352-proof-11-caf5d79447423a8a71e8bd4242a22205.jpeg"
] |
Wisconsin Legislature 'Will Likely Decertify State and Award to President Trump.
|
Contradiction
|
The disinformation onslaught of 2020 isn't exactly reversing course in the new year. The runup to the Jan. 6 finalizing of the Electoral College vote brings us one particularly absurd example from Gateway Pundit, a far-right online publication that routinely publishes stories unburdened by facts or common sense. The headline published late Jan. 4, 2021, said this: 'BREAKING: Wisconsin Legislature Announces Resolution To Be Introduced on Thursday Which Will Likely Decertify State and Award to President Trump.' This article was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook). The claim isn't remotely true, and the ill-conceived story itself provides evidence of that. The nonsensical claim The story begins with a paragraph largely restating the headline, then embeds a tweet making the same outlandish claim. The story then links to and quotes the resolution in question, 2021 Assembly Resolution 3, proposed by state Rep. Scott Allen, R-Waukesha. The Republican-controlled Assembly passed the bill Jan. 4 by a voice vote near the end of inauguration ceremonies, which most Democrats skipped over concerns that COVID-19 precautions were inadequate. But the story ignores that the bill says nothing about decertifying. Here's the actual closing of the bill, where the 'Resolved' sections indicate the action it is seeking: Resolved by the assembly, That: the Wisconsin State Assembly recognizes that the most important function for a government is to conduct fair and honest elections that follow the duly enacted law; and, be it further Resolved, That when there are significant portions of the population that question the integrity of the elections due to the failure of election officials to follow the letter of the law, it is incumbent upon the legislature to address the issues that are in question; and, be it further Resolved, That the members of the Wisconsin State Assembly place the redress to these and other election law violations and failed administrative procedures as its highest priority and shall take up legislation crafted to ensure civil officers follow the laws as written. It doesn't take a degree in English literature to discern this doesn't award anything to President Donald Trump. Trump lost Wisconsin to former Vice President Joe Biden by 20,000 votes, as confirmed by a canvas and recount. The bill simply says the Legislature should make it a priority to take up legislation ensuring election officials follow laws as written. The timeline in the Gateway Pundit story is also divorced from reality. The 'Thursday' cited here would be a day after Congress meets to finalize the election results. And the deadline for action to alter Wisconsin's slate of electors has long-since passed. The state's 10 Biden electors cast their votes on Dec. 14. As expected based on election returns confirmed as fair and legitimate by election and government officials from both parties nationwide, that gave Biden a 306 to 232 victory over Trump, handing him the White House. Gateway Pundit Editor Jim Hoft did not immediately reply to an email seeking evidence of this article's claim. Allen declined to comment on how the story characterized his resolution, saying the text speaks for itself.
|
Our ruling Gateway Pundit, a regular purveyor of disinformation, says Wisconsin is introducing a resolution to decertify the state's election results and award its Electoral College votes to Trump. The article conveniently includes the text of the bill, allowing readers to see for themselves this claim is 100% fabricated. The bill simply says the Legislature would prioritize legislation addressing election laws. It says nothing remotely related to decertification or awarding the state to Trump. And in any case, the state's electoral votes were already cast for Biden weeks ago. This is disinformation in its most transparent form. We rate this Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Wisconsin Legislature 'Will Likely Decertify State and Award to President Trump.
|
Contradiction
|
The disinformation onslaught of 2020 isn't exactly reversing course in the new year. The runup to the Jan. 6 finalizing of the Electoral College vote brings us one particularly absurd example from Gateway Pundit, a far-right online publication that routinely publishes stories unburdened by facts or common sense. The headline published late Jan. 4, 2021, said this: 'BREAKING: Wisconsin Legislature Announces Resolution To Be Introduced on Thursday Which Will Likely Decertify State and Award to President Trump.' This article was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook). The claim isn't remotely true, and the ill-conceived story itself provides evidence of that. The nonsensical claim The story begins with a paragraph largely restating the headline, then embeds a tweet making the same outlandish claim. The story then links to and quotes the resolution in question, 2021 Assembly Resolution 3, proposed by state Rep. Scott Allen, R-Waukesha. The Republican-controlled Assembly passed the bill Jan. 4 by a voice vote near the end of inauguration ceremonies, which most Democrats skipped over concerns that COVID-19 precautions were inadequate. But the story ignores that the bill says nothing about decertifying. Here's the actual closing of the bill, where the 'Resolved' sections indicate the action it is seeking: Resolved by the assembly, That: the Wisconsin State Assembly recognizes that the most important function for a government is to conduct fair and honest elections that follow the duly enacted law; and, be it further Resolved, That when there are significant portions of the population that question the integrity of the elections due to the failure of election officials to follow the letter of the law, it is incumbent upon the legislature to address the issues that are in question; and, be it further Resolved, That the members of the Wisconsin State Assembly place the redress to these and other election law violations and failed administrative procedures as its highest priority and shall take up legislation crafted to ensure civil officers follow the laws as written. It doesn't take a degree in English literature to discern this doesn't award anything to President Donald Trump. Trump lost Wisconsin to former Vice President Joe Biden by 20,000 votes, as confirmed by a canvas and recount. The bill simply says the Legislature should make it a priority to take up legislation ensuring election officials follow laws as written. The timeline in the Gateway Pundit story is also divorced from reality. The 'Thursday' cited here would be a day after Congress meets to finalize the election results. And the deadline for action to alter Wisconsin's slate of electors has long-since passed. The state's 10 Biden electors cast their votes on Dec. 14. As expected based on election returns confirmed as fair and legitimate by election and government officials from both parties nationwide, that gave Biden a 306 to 232 victory over Trump, handing him the White House. Gateway Pundit Editor Jim Hoft did not immediately reply to an email seeking evidence of this article's claim. Allen declined to comment on how the story characterized his resolution, saying the text speaks for itself.
|
Our ruling Gateway Pundit, a regular purveyor of disinformation, says Wisconsin is introducing a resolution to decertify the state's election results and award its Electoral College votes to Trump. The article conveniently includes the text of the bill, allowing readers to see for themselves this claim is 100% fabricated. The bill simply says the Legislature would prioritize legislation addressing election laws. It says nothing remotely related to decertification or awarding the state to Trump. And in any case, the state's electoral votes were already cast for Biden weeks ago. This is disinformation in its most transparent form. We rate this Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Wisconsin Legislature 'Will Likely Decertify State and Award to President Trump.
|
Contradiction
|
The disinformation onslaught of 2020 isn't exactly reversing course in the new year. The runup to the Jan. 6 finalizing of the Electoral College vote brings us one particularly absurd example from Gateway Pundit, a far-right online publication that routinely publishes stories unburdened by facts or common sense. The headline published late Jan. 4, 2021, said this: 'BREAKING: Wisconsin Legislature Announces Resolution To Be Introduced on Thursday Which Will Likely Decertify State and Award to President Trump.' This article was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook). The claim isn't remotely true, and the ill-conceived story itself provides evidence of that. The nonsensical claim The story begins with a paragraph largely restating the headline, then embeds a tweet making the same outlandish claim. The story then links to and quotes the resolution in question, 2021 Assembly Resolution 3, proposed by state Rep. Scott Allen, R-Waukesha. The Republican-controlled Assembly passed the bill Jan. 4 by a voice vote near the end of inauguration ceremonies, which most Democrats skipped over concerns that COVID-19 precautions were inadequate. But the story ignores that the bill says nothing about decertifying. Here's the actual closing of the bill, where the 'Resolved' sections indicate the action it is seeking: Resolved by the assembly, That: the Wisconsin State Assembly recognizes that the most important function for a government is to conduct fair and honest elections that follow the duly enacted law; and, be it further Resolved, That when there are significant portions of the population that question the integrity of the elections due to the failure of election officials to follow the letter of the law, it is incumbent upon the legislature to address the issues that are in question; and, be it further Resolved, That the members of the Wisconsin State Assembly place the redress to these and other election law violations and failed administrative procedures as its highest priority and shall take up legislation crafted to ensure civil officers follow the laws as written. It doesn't take a degree in English literature to discern this doesn't award anything to President Donald Trump. Trump lost Wisconsin to former Vice President Joe Biden by 20,000 votes, as confirmed by a canvas and recount. The bill simply says the Legislature should make it a priority to take up legislation ensuring election officials follow laws as written. The timeline in the Gateway Pundit story is also divorced from reality. The 'Thursday' cited here would be a day after Congress meets to finalize the election results. And the deadline for action to alter Wisconsin's slate of electors has long-since passed. The state's 10 Biden electors cast their votes on Dec. 14. As expected based on election returns confirmed as fair and legitimate by election and government officials from both parties nationwide, that gave Biden a 306 to 232 victory over Trump, handing him the White House. Gateway Pundit Editor Jim Hoft did not immediately reply to an email seeking evidence of this article's claim. Allen declined to comment on how the story characterized his resolution, saying the text speaks for itself.
|
Our ruling Gateway Pundit, a regular purveyor of disinformation, says Wisconsin is introducing a resolution to decertify the state's election results and award its Electoral College votes to Trump. The article conveniently includes the text of the bill, allowing readers to see for themselves this claim is 100% fabricated. The bill simply says the Legislature would prioritize legislation addressing election laws. It says nothing remotely related to decertification or awarding the state to Trump. And in any case, the state's electoral votes were already cast for Biden weeks ago. This is disinformation in its most transparent form. We rate this Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Federal officials confirmed that the CDC 'sent states tainted lab test kits in early February that were themselves seeded with the virus.
|
Contradiction
|
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention didn't send out COVID-19 testing kits that were 'seeded' with the live virus, as one Facebook post claims. The post shows an illustration of a nasal swab being used to test for the virus. Text on the graphic reads: 'COVID-19 test HAS the virus ... 'the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent states tainted lab test kits in early February that were themselves seeded with the virus, federal officials confirmed.'' This is wrong. The CDC initially sent out a batch of defective COVID-19 testing kits to a limited number of laboratories in early February that had to be recalled - but the tests weren't contaminated with the live virus and didn't have the capability to infect people being tested. In fact, the tests were early in their development at the time and never made it to the stage of being used for patient testing. 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 CDC first dispersed diagnostic COVID-19 testing kits to a network of public labs in February, but the agency had to recall the tests after a component turned out to be contaminated. The defective tests came out of the public health agency's central laboratory complex in Atlanta. Media outlets first reported about the faulty tests in March. The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General released a special report about what happened on June 19. A summary of the report said that the batch of tests relied on a reagent that was likely contaminated. Reagents are chemical substances that are used in tests to produce reactions. The defective tests were in the second of two sets of kits developed by the CDC in late January, the report says. The first set was sent to a limited number of public health labs and had no reported issues. The problem came with the second batch, which the CDC intended to manufacture for the first wave of testing - at least until commercial labs and diagnostic companies were able to mass-produce their own. 'One of the three reagents in this initial batch of manufactured test kits was likely contaminated. These tests are so sensitive that this contamination could have been caused by a single person walking through an area with positive control material and then later entering an area where tests reagents were being manipulated,' the report stated. The public health labs attempted to validate the test kits before using them on swabs from people, but a negative control gave a positive result, and the kits were scrapped. Scientists eventually redesigned the test to be run without the reagent and in February began to distribute the approved kits. The CDC also confirmed that there was no live virus in the test. And Dr. Benjamin Pinsky, medical director of the Clinical Virology Lab at Stanford Medicine, told PolitiFact that infectious live viruses are not used to produce tests. 'The HHS investigation indicates that there was likely contamination of the N3 reagents with the positive control material,' Pinsky wrote in an email. 'No infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus is part of the kit, nor is it used in any step of its manufacture.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that the CDC 'sent states tainted lab test kits' in February that 'were themselves seeded with the virus.' This is inaccurate. The CDC sent out early COVID-19 tests to a limited number of public health labs that turned out to be defective due to a contaminated reagent. But these tests didn't and couldn't contain the live virus, as live virus isn't used in test production in the first place. Meanwhile, the tests were early in their development and never made it to the stage of being used for patient testing. We rate this False.
|
[] |
Federal officials confirmed that the CDC 'sent states tainted lab test kits in early February that were themselves seeded with the virus.
|
Contradiction
|
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention didn't send out COVID-19 testing kits that were 'seeded' with the live virus, as one Facebook post claims. The post shows an illustration of a nasal swab being used to test for the virus. Text on the graphic reads: 'COVID-19 test HAS the virus ... 'the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent states tainted lab test kits in early February that were themselves seeded with the virus, federal officials confirmed.'' This is wrong. The CDC initially sent out a batch of defective COVID-19 testing kits to a limited number of laboratories in early February that had to be recalled - but the tests weren't contaminated with the live virus and didn't have the capability to infect people being tested. In fact, the tests were early in their development at the time and never made it to the stage of being used for patient testing. 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 CDC first dispersed diagnostic COVID-19 testing kits to a network of public labs in February, but the agency had to recall the tests after a component turned out to be contaminated. The defective tests came out of the public health agency's central laboratory complex in Atlanta. Media outlets first reported about the faulty tests in March. The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General released a special report about what happened on June 19. A summary of the report said that the batch of tests relied on a reagent that was likely contaminated. Reagents are chemical substances that are used in tests to produce reactions. The defective tests were in the second of two sets of kits developed by the CDC in late January, the report says. The first set was sent to a limited number of public health labs and had no reported issues. The problem came with the second batch, which the CDC intended to manufacture for the first wave of testing - at least until commercial labs and diagnostic companies were able to mass-produce their own. 'One of the three reagents in this initial batch of manufactured test kits was likely contaminated. These tests are so sensitive that this contamination could have been caused by a single person walking through an area with positive control material and then later entering an area where tests reagents were being manipulated,' the report stated. The public health labs attempted to validate the test kits before using them on swabs from people, but a negative control gave a positive result, and the kits were scrapped. Scientists eventually redesigned the test to be run without the reagent and in February began to distribute the approved kits. The CDC also confirmed that there was no live virus in the test. And Dr. Benjamin Pinsky, medical director of the Clinical Virology Lab at Stanford Medicine, told PolitiFact that infectious live viruses are not used to produce tests. 'The HHS investigation indicates that there was likely contamination of the N3 reagents with the positive control material,' Pinsky wrote in an email. 'No infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus is part of the kit, nor is it used in any step of its manufacture.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that the CDC 'sent states tainted lab test kits' in February that 'were themselves seeded with the virus.' This is inaccurate. The CDC sent out early COVID-19 tests to a limited number of public health labs that turned out to be defective due to a contaminated reagent. But these tests didn't and couldn't contain the live virus, as live virus isn't used in test production in the first place. Meanwhile, the tests were early in their development and never made it to the stage of being used for patient testing. We rate this False.
|
[] |
Federal officials confirmed that the CDC 'sent states tainted lab test kits in early February that were themselves seeded with the virus.
|
Contradiction
|
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention didn't send out COVID-19 testing kits that were 'seeded' with the live virus, as one Facebook post claims. The post shows an illustration of a nasal swab being used to test for the virus. Text on the graphic reads: 'COVID-19 test HAS the virus ... 'the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent states tainted lab test kits in early February that were themselves seeded with the virus, federal officials confirmed.'' This is wrong. The CDC initially sent out a batch of defective COVID-19 testing kits to a limited number of laboratories in early February that had to be recalled - but the tests weren't contaminated with the live virus and didn't have the capability to infect people being tested. In fact, the tests were early in their development at the time and never made it to the stage of being used for patient testing. 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 CDC first dispersed diagnostic COVID-19 testing kits to a network of public labs in February, but the agency had to recall the tests after a component turned out to be contaminated. The defective tests came out of the public health agency's central laboratory complex in Atlanta. Media outlets first reported about the faulty tests in March. The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General released a special report about what happened on June 19. A summary of the report said that the batch of tests relied on a reagent that was likely contaminated. Reagents are chemical substances that are used in tests to produce reactions. The defective tests were in the second of two sets of kits developed by the CDC in late January, the report says. The first set was sent to a limited number of public health labs and had no reported issues. The problem came with the second batch, which the CDC intended to manufacture for the first wave of testing - at least until commercial labs and diagnostic companies were able to mass-produce their own. 'One of the three reagents in this initial batch of manufactured test kits was likely contaminated. These tests are so sensitive that this contamination could have been caused by a single person walking through an area with positive control material and then later entering an area where tests reagents were being manipulated,' the report stated. The public health labs attempted to validate the test kits before using them on swabs from people, but a negative control gave a positive result, and the kits were scrapped. Scientists eventually redesigned the test to be run without the reagent and in February began to distribute the approved kits. The CDC also confirmed that there was no live virus in the test. And Dr. Benjamin Pinsky, medical director of the Clinical Virology Lab at Stanford Medicine, told PolitiFact that infectious live viruses are not used to produce tests. 'The HHS investigation indicates that there was likely contamination of the N3 reagents with the positive control material,' Pinsky wrote in an email. 'No infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus is part of the kit, nor is it used in any step of its manufacture.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that the CDC 'sent states tainted lab test kits' in February that 'were themselves seeded with the virus.' This is inaccurate. The CDC sent out early COVID-19 tests to a limited number of public health labs that turned out to be defective due to a contaminated reagent. But these tests didn't and couldn't contain the live virus, as live virus isn't used in test production in the first place. Meanwhile, the tests were early in their development and never made it to the stage of being used for patient testing. We rate this False.
|
[] |
Says Nancy Pelosi 'wants to remove votes from soldiers overseas' and said, 'They don't even live here.
|
Contradiction
|
A headline about voting rights and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is spreading across social media without a crucial caveat: It comes from a website that calls its content satire. The headline says: 'Pelosi wants to remove votes from soldiers overseas: 'They don't even live here.'' One account that shared an image of the story headline wrote: 'Nancy Pelosi wants to remove voting from soldiers overseas.' 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 headline comes from a post on the website 'America's Last Line of Defense,' which describes itself as 'satire for your confirmation bias.' The story about Pelosi trying to block members of the military from voting is not real. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 protects the voting rights of service members, as well as any U.S. citizens who live outside the United States. Under the law, states and territories must allow such voters to register and vote in elections for federal office using absentee voting procedures. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
'For the first time, the Honor Guard soldiers that march at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington Cemetery have been issued live ammunition.
|
Contradiction
|
With monuments and statues across the nation being toppled or vandalized amid protests over racial injustice - and rumors flying about such destruction that never occurred - this claim appeared on Facebook: 'For the first time, the Honor Guard soldiers that march at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington Cemetery have been issued live ammunition! Lock and load, citizens.' 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.) According to Arlington National Cemetery, the tomb is a white marble sarcophagus inscribed with the words: 'Here rests in honored glory an American soldier known but to God.' A select group of soldiers from the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment, known as The Old Guard, stand watch over it 24 hours a day. They carry weapons but no live ammunition, said Army Staff Sgt. Maryam Treece, who handles public affairs for The Old Guard. She told PolitiFact she did not know why the statement would have been made. Barbara Lewandrowski, a spokeswoman for Arlington National Cemetery, told PolitiFact in an email that uniformed security personnel provide 'around-the-clock protection of all of the cemetery's 639 acres' but wouldn't comment on how they were armed, citing 'operational security.' We rate the statement False.
|
We rate the statement False.
|
[
"109419-proof-09-c6d6ec313dbf61371cb6f14f9525eb95.jpg"
] |
mRNA technology in COVID-19 vaccines was never tested in humans.
|
Contradiction
|
A widely shared social media post claims that the technology used in two of the three COVID-19 vaccines used in the U.S. had not been tested in humans - and asserts that assurances it is safe and effective are wrong. The post on Instagram, which also appeared on Twitter, states: 'mRNA technology has been around for decades. It had never gone past animal trials due to catastrophic side effects, including death. This technology was never 'fixed'. Now mankind is being pressured to take it, with assurances that it is safe and effective. That is bulls---.' 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 two vaccines that use mRNA technology, one made by Moderna and the other by Pfizer-BioNTech, were tested in tens of thousands of humans. They have been administered to more than 177 million people in the U.S. and have been shown to be safe and effective. How the technology works The messenger RNA, or mRNA, technology used to create the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech shots dates to the 1990s, though this is the first time it has been used in widely disseminated vaccines. These two mRNA vaccines use the human body's natural immune response to their advantage. The shots give cells the directions for how to make a harmless spike protein. Such spike proteins are found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19 - and it is these proteins that the virus uses to bind to cells. The immune system of a person who receives the mRNA vaccine then spots the unknown protein and makes antibodies to fight it. The third vaccine used in the U.S., by Johnson & Johnson, is different. Instead of RNA, it uses a disabled adenovirus to deliver instructions to produce the coronavirus' spike proteins and activate the immune system. The testing The mRNA technology previously was tested against other viruses like influenza; Moderna began its testing in 2015. In 2018, Pfizer and BioNTech announced a partnership to start developing an mRNA vaccine to prevent influenza. The various development efforts shifted to creating an mRNA vaccine for the coronavirus when the pandemic hit. The testing of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines was done on tens of thousands of people. Pfizer and Moderna got approval to test their shots on animals while simultaneously running Phase I trials on humans, prior to the vaccines getting emergency use authorization from the FDA in December 2020 for distribution to the general public. Safety and effectiveness More than 177 million people have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine in the United States, with minimal complications reported despite the massive sample size. Among people who are fully vaccinated, the mRNA vaccines reduce the risk of COVID-19, including severe illness, by 90% or more, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While a number of claims have been made suggesting that the vaccine is unsafe or has resulted in dangerous side-effects, PolitiFact has found that most of them stem from incomplete use of data contained in a federal database known as Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. The database is a critical tool for researchers, but a breeding ground for misinformation about vaccine after-effects. Anyone can submit a report, and the reports are widely accessible. But the reports are not verified. 'Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem,' the CDC says. 'A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.'. Serious adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination are rare but can occur. For example, CDC and FDA have confirmed 393 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis - inflammation of the heart - in people after mRNA vaccination.
|
Our ruling A widely circulated social media post claimed that the mRNA technology in COVID-19 vaccines was never tested in humans, 'now mankind is being pressured to take it, with assurances that it is safe and effective.' The two predominant COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S., Moderna and Pfizer, use mRNA technology and were tested in tens of thousands of humans before they were authorized. The clinical trials and the real-world results have shown both vaccines to be safe and effective. We rate the post False.
|
[
"109421-proof-00-95f83858f622b2fdb1eddae6e71daf54.jpg"
] |
'Pelosi's $1.9 trillion bailout gives EVERY federal employee a $21,000 bonus check... they never lost their job!'
|
Contradiction
|
The American Rescue Plan, the government's newly passed $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package, continues to be a target of misinformation about what exactly is included in the law. A recent Facebook post claims it includes a hefty bonus check for all federal employees. 'Pelosi's $1.9 trillion bailout gives EVERY federal employee a $21,000 bonus check... they never lost their job!' the post reads. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no bonus check. This appears to be a distortion of a limited-term provision in the package that provides additional paid family leave to some federal employees, covering leave that would otherwise be unpaid. The $21,000 figure represents the maximum amount an eligible worker could receive in lieu of their pay if they took an emergency leave under certain circumstances. The extra money and who can get it The bill established a $570 million pool called the Emergency Federal Employee Leave Fund to provide federal employees with up to 15 weeks of additional paid leave for COVID-19-related situations through Sept. 30. The Office of Personnel Management will oversee the program. The provision grants up to 600 hours in paid leave, capped at $1,400 per week (or a proportional amount for part-timers), for federal employees who cannot work because of the following reasons: If an employee took all 15 weeks at the maximum $1,400 allotment, it would come out to the $21,000 that the Facebook post references. 'In most cases it wouldn't make sense to do this unless you've exhausted your other options, including telecommuting, which many federal employees can do,' Steve Ellis, president of the nonpartisan budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, told PolitiFact. Federal workers can currently take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and a 2019 law allows most federal employees (about 2.1 million) to get 12 weeks of paid parental leave following the birth, adoption or fostering of a child.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims that the new COVID-19 relief package provides every federal employee with a $21,000 bonus check. There is no bonus check. The law provides money to cover paid leave for federal workers who say they can't work due to certain COVID-19-related situations. The most an employee could claim under the provision is $21,000. We rate this False. RELATED: The COVID-19 relief package: Where the money goes
|
[] |
'Pelosi's $1.9 trillion bailout gives EVERY federal employee a $21,000 bonus check... they never lost their job!'
|
Contradiction
|
The American Rescue Plan, the government's newly passed $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package, continues to be a target of misinformation about what exactly is included in the law. A recent Facebook post claims it includes a hefty bonus check for all federal employees. 'Pelosi's $1.9 trillion bailout gives EVERY federal employee a $21,000 bonus check... they never lost their job!' the post reads. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no bonus check. This appears to be a distortion of a limited-term provision in the package that provides additional paid family leave to some federal employees, covering leave that would otherwise be unpaid. The $21,000 figure represents the maximum amount an eligible worker could receive in lieu of their pay if they took an emergency leave under certain circumstances. The extra money and who can get it The bill established a $570 million pool called the Emergency Federal Employee Leave Fund to provide federal employees with up to 15 weeks of additional paid leave for COVID-19-related situations through Sept. 30. The Office of Personnel Management will oversee the program. The provision grants up to 600 hours in paid leave, capped at $1,400 per week (or a proportional amount for part-timers), for federal employees who cannot work because of the following reasons: If an employee took all 15 weeks at the maximum $1,400 allotment, it would come out to the $21,000 that the Facebook post references. 'In most cases it wouldn't make sense to do this unless you've exhausted your other options, including telecommuting, which many federal employees can do,' Steve Ellis, president of the nonpartisan budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, told PolitiFact. Federal workers can currently take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and a 2019 law allows most federal employees (about 2.1 million) to get 12 weeks of paid parental leave following the birth, adoption or fostering of a child.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims that the new COVID-19 relief package provides every federal employee with a $21,000 bonus check. There is no bonus check. The law provides money to cover paid leave for federal workers who say they can't work due to certain COVID-19-related situations. The most an employee could claim under the provision is $21,000. We rate this False. RELATED: The COVID-19 relief package: Where the money goes
|
[] |
'Hair weave and lace fronts manufactured in China may contain the coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
A contributor for a popular morning radio show says bad hair days could be a side effect of the 2019 coronavirus. An article published on a site called Toine360 claims that 'hair weave and lace fronts manufactured in China may contain the coronavirus.' The site is run by radio personality Toine the Don, a contributor to the Rickey Smiley Morning Show. 'It may be time to show us what your scalp and edges really look like, ladies!' the article reads. The article was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Since emerging in Wuhan, China, in December, the 2019 coronavirus - officially known as COVID-19 - has infected more than 82,000 people in 46 countries, and 2,804 have died. China is a major source of hair extensions. But there is no evidence that synthetic or human hair is being shipped with the coronavirus. On Feb. 24, CNN reported that the human hair market has been affected by the coronavirus outbreak. Some hair extension factories in China have temporarily closed amid fears that they could be breeding grounds for the coronavirus. Other manufacturing sectors have been similarly affected. RELATED: PolitiFact's coronavirus coverage in one place U.S. Customs and Border Protection is tasked with screening imports for hazardous substances. It works with agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to prevent the importation of diseases. The FDA announced alternative steps to screen products imported from China. The agency said there's no evidence that the coronavirus can spread through imports. 'Fortunately, currently, we are not seeing the impacts of this outbreak resulting in an increased public health risk for American consumers from imported products,' the FDA wrote. 'There is no evidence to support transmission of COVID-19 associated with imported goods and there have not been any cases of COVID-19 in the United States associated with imported goods.' The Toine360 article is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
The Toine360 article is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[] |
'Hair weave and lace fronts manufactured in China may contain the coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
A contributor for a popular morning radio show says bad hair days could be a side effect of the 2019 coronavirus. An article published on a site called Toine360 claims that 'hair weave and lace fronts manufactured in China may contain the coronavirus.' The site is run by radio personality Toine the Don, a contributor to the Rickey Smiley Morning Show. 'It may be time to show us what your scalp and edges really look like, ladies!' the article reads. The article was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Since emerging in Wuhan, China, in December, the 2019 coronavirus - officially known as COVID-19 - has infected more than 82,000 people in 46 countries, and 2,804 have died. China is a major source of hair extensions. But there is no evidence that synthetic or human hair is being shipped with the coronavirus. On Feb. 24, CNN reported that the human hair market has been affected by the coronavirus outbreak. Some hair extension factories in China have temporarily closed amid fears that they could be breeding grounds for the coronavirus. Other manufacturing sectors have been similarly affected. RELATED: PolitiFact's coronavirus coverage in one place U.S. Customs and Border Protection is tasked with screening imports for hazardous substances. It works with agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to prevent the importation of diseases. The FDA announced alternative steps to screen products imported from China. The agency said there's no evidence that the coronavirus can spread through imports. 'Fortunately, currently, we are not seeing the impacts of this outbreak resulting in an increased public health risk for American consumers from imported products,' the FDA wrote. 'There is no evidence to support transmission of COVID-19 associated with imported goods and there have not been any cases of COVID-19 in the United States associated with imported goods.' The Toine360 article is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
The Toine360 article is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[] |
'Jeffrey Epstein found living in New Mexico!'
|
Contradiction
|
The title of a recent Facebook video makes a big claim - 'Jeffrey Epstein found living in New Mexico!' - but doesn't offer evidence to back it up. 'In August of 2019 convicted child sex predator and American billionare Jeffrey Epstein allegedly killed himself in a New York jail,' a narrator says in the video. 'Rumors have long circulated he is actually still alive.' The video was posted by ABQ RAW, which describes itself as 'guerilla filmmaking/news.' As the narrator says they visited Epstein's ranch in Stanley, N.M., the video shows clips of an aerial view of a property and of protesters holding signs that say 'Epstein didn't kill himself' and 'Investigate Zorro Ranch now!' 'While we were on scene a red truck approached the fence line and a gentleman rolled the window down. He observed the protest and raised his phone to snap some photos of the group. ABQ Raw filmed the video in beautiful 4K. The driver of the red truck had a striking resemblance to the recently deceased Jeffrey Epstein. Did Jeffrey Epstein kill himself? It may be completely possible that he has ridden off in the New Mexico sunset.' The video ends with a clip of the truck driving away. 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 late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein did have a big ranch outside Santa Fe, N.M., called Zorro Ranch and it appears to be the same property that's shown in the Facebook video. On multiple occasions, according to the New York Times, Epstein talked to scientists and businessmen about his hopes to use the ranch as a base where women would be inseminated with his sperm and give birth to his babies. Epstein - a multimillionaire, not billionaire, as the Facebook video says - died in jail, where he was being held on charges of child sex trafficking. The New York City medical examiner and U.S. Attorney General William Barr have both said Epstein died of suicide but conspiracy theories about his death persist. President Donald Trump, among others, have suggested that Epstein was killed in custody. But we found nothing to corroborate the claim in this Facebook video. In August 2019, we fact-checked and rated Pants on Fire a claim that Epstein isn't dead. Back then, the medical examiner had yet to release his final ruling on how Epstein died, but numerous people in official positions confirmed that he was, in fact, dead. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons announced his death. One of Epstein's lawyers blamed prosecutors and the Manhattan Correctional Center, where Epstein was held, for his client's death. And federal prosecutors then said that their investigation of those suspected of helping Epstein would continue despite his death. We rate this Facebook video Pants on Fire!
|
We rate this Facebook video Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
'Jeffrey Epstein found living in New Mexico!'
|
Contradiction
|
The title of a recent Facebook video makes a big claim - 'Jeffrey Epstein found living in New Mexico!' - but doesn't offer evidence to back it up. 'In August of 2019 convicted child sex predator and American billionare Jeffrey Epstein allegedly killed himself in a New York jail,' a narrator says in the video. 'Rumors have long circulated he is actually still alive.' The video was posted by ABQ RAW, which describes itself as 'guerilla filmmaking/news.' As the narrator says they visited Epstein's ranch in Stanley, N.M., the video shows clips of an aerial view of a property and of protesters holding signs that say 'Epstein didn't kill himself' and 'Investigate Zorro Ranch now!' 'While we were on scene a red truck approached the fence line and a gentleman rolled the window down. He observed the protest and raised his phone to snap some photos of the group. ABQ Raw filmed the video in beautiful 4K. The driver of the red truck had a striking resemblance to the recently deceased Jeffrey Epstein. Did Jeffrey Epstein kill himself? It may be completely possible that he has ridden off in the New Mexico sunset.' The video ends with a clip of the truck driving away. 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 late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein did have a big ranch outside Santa Fe, N.M., called Zorro Ranch and it appears to be the same property that's shown in the Facebook video. On multiple occasions, according to the New York Times, Epstein talked to scientists and businessmen about his hopes to use the ranch as a base where women would be inseminated with his sperm and give birth to his babies. Epstein - a multimillionaire, not billionaire, as the Facebook video says - died in jail, where he was being held on charges of child sex trafficking. The New York City medical examiner and U.S. Attorney General William Barr have both said Epstein died of suicide but conspiracy theories about his death persist. President Donald Trump, among others, have suggested that Epstein was killed in custody. But we found nothing to corroborate the claim in this Facebook video. In August 2019, we fact-checked and rated Pants on Fire a claim that Epstein isn't dead. Back then, the medical examiner had yet to release his final ruling on how Epstein died, but numerous people in official positions confirmed that he was, in fact, dead. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons announced his death. One of Epstein's lawyers blamed prosecutors and the Manhattan Correctional Center, where Epstein was held, for his client's death. And federal prosecutors then said that their investigation of those suspected of helping Epstein would continue despite his death. We rate this Facebook video Pants on Fire!
|
We rate this Facebook video Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
'In South Dakota, I'm putting prayer back in our schools.
|
Contradiction
|
At a Des Moines, Iowa, summit hosted July 16 by Christian lobbyist group The FAMiLY Leader, religious leaders and Republican politicians spoke on embedding Christianity into the government leadership and policy. The general admission crowd paid as much as $75 to see speakers, including the first-in-the-nation presidential precinct caucuses state notable, and potential 2024 Republican presidential candidates such as former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem. When Noem told the crowd, 'In South Dakota, I'm putting prayer back in our schools,' she was met with applause from attendants. But when PolitiFact emailed Ian Fury, Noem's communication's director, to inquire what legislation or policy she was referring to that would bring prayer into public schools, he did not provide a clear example. 'Stay tuned for the Governor's plans,' Fury wrote in an email. Fury provided a similar response to a request for comment from KOTA, a television station in Rapid City, South Dakota. No plan has been produced, though. In a phone call with PolitiFact, Fury said he didn't have an approximate date of when more information about the governor's plans would come out. 'I don't have anything more to share with you on those plans at this time,' he said, when asked if those plans would be in the form of an executive order or a request to the South Dakota Legislature. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 1962 case, Engel v. Vitale, that schools and their representatives could not organize or lead organized prayers in public schools. However, the ruling does not prohibit silent, private praying in a public school. South Dakota allows students a moment of silence, when they can feel free to pray or reflect, but officials in public schools are not allowed to impose prayer. Some Christian groups advocate for prayer spaces in schools, where students voluntarily can visit or teachers can hold lessons, but the specifics of how Noem would plan to put prayer in the schools are not clear.
|
Our ruling Though Noem's statement could be interpreted as sharing her agenda in the next legislative session, telling a crowd of Christians that 'I'm putting prayer back in our schools' is misleading. No specific policy exists, nor does any specific proposal or a timeline for producing one. That could change if Noem produces a proposal, the Legislature approves it, and it passes muster in court. Until then, however, we rate this claim to be False.
|
[] |
'In South Dakota, I'm putting prayer back in our schools.
|
Contradiction
|
At a Des Moines, Iowa, summit hosted July 16 by Christian lobbyist group The FAMiLY Leader, religious leaders and Republican politicians spoke on embedding Christianity into the government leadership and policy. The general admission crowd paid as much as $75 to see speakers, including the first-in-the-nation presidential precinct caucuses state notable, and potential 2024 Republican presidential candidates such as former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem. When Noem told the crowd, 'In South Dakota, I'm putting prayer back in our schools,' she was met with applause from attendants. But when PolitiFact emailed Ian Fury, Noem's communication's director, to inquire what legislation or policy she was referring to that would bring prayer into public schools, he did not provide a clear example. 'Stay tuned for the Governor's plans,' Fury wrote in an email. Fury provided a similar response to a request for comment from KOTA, a television station in Rapid City, South Dakota. No plan has been produced, though. In a phone call with PolitiFact, Fury said he didn't have an approximate date of when more information about the governor's plans would come out. 'I don't have anything more to share with you on those plans at this time,' he said, when asked if those plans would be in the form of an executive order or a request to the South Dakota Legislature. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 1962 case, Engel v. Vitale, that schools and their representatives could not organize or lead organized prayers in public schools. However, the ruling does not prohibit silent, private praying in a public school. South Dakota allows students a moment of silence, when they can feel free to pray or reflect, but officials in public schools are not allowed to impose prayer. Some Christian groups advocate for prayer spaces in schools, where students voluntarily can visit or teachers can hold lessons, but the specifics of how Noem would plan to put prayer in the schools are not clear.
|
Our ruling Though Noem's statement could be interpreted as sharing her agenda in the next legislative session, telling a crowd of Christians that 'I'm putting prayer back in our schools' is misleading. No specific policy exists, nor does any specific proposal or a timeline for producing one. That could change if Noem produces a proposal, the Legislature approves it, and it passes muster in court. Until then, however, we rate this claim to be False.
|
[] |
'In South Dakota, I'm putting prayer back in our schools.
|
Contradiction
|
At a Des Moines, Iowa, summit hosted July 16 by Christian lobbyist group The FAMiLY Leader, religious leaders and Republican politicians spoke on embedding Christianity into the government leadership and policy. The general admission crowd paid as much as $75 to see speakers, including the first-in-the-nation presidential precinct caucuses state notable, and potential 2024 Republican presidential candidates such as former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem. When Noem told the crowd, 'In South Dakota, I'm putting prayer back in our schools,' she was met with applause from attendants. But when PolitiFact emailed Ian Fury, Noem's communication's director, to inquire what legislation or policy she was referring to that would bring prayer into public schools, he did not provide a clear example. 'Stay tuned for the Governor's plans,' Fury wrote in an email. Fury provided a similar response to a request for comment from KOTA, a television station in Rapid City, South Dakota. No plan has been produced, though. In a phone call with PolitiFact, Fury said he didn't have an approximate date of when more information about the governor's plans would come out. 'I don't have anything more to share with you on those plans at this time,' he said, when asked if those plans would be in the form of an executive order or a request to the South Dakota Legislature. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 1962 case, Engel v. Vitale, that schools and their representatives could not organize or lead organized prayers in public schools. However, the ruling does not prohibit silent, private praying in a public school. South Dakota allows students a moment of silence, when they can feel free to pray or reflect, but officials in public schools are not allowed to impose prayer. Some Christian groups advocate for prayer spaces in schools, where students voluntarily can visit or teachers can hold lessons, but the specifics of how Noem would plan to put prayer in the schools are not clear.
|
Our ruling Though Noem's statement could be interpreted as sharing her agenda in the next legislative session, telling a crowd of Christians that 'I'm putting prayer back in our schools' is misleading. No specific policy exists, nor does any specific proposal or a timeline for producing one. That could change if Noem produces a proposal, the Legislature approves it, and it passes muster in court. Until then, however, we rate this claim to be False.
|
[] |
'This Is Real: Biden Waves To An Empty Field.
|
Contradiction
|
On Sept. 15, Joe Biden arrived in Tampa, Fla., for a campaign event, and as he descended the stairs of the airplane, he waved. One video capturing the moment spread quickly on social media as Facebook users shared it with derisive captions suggesting Biden was waving to an empty field. However, the video truly took off when Fox News host Sean Hannity posted it to his account with the title, 'This Is Real: Biden Waves To An Empty Field.' Yes, the video is real - but the field wasn't empty. This Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) According to an Associated Press reporter who was there with Biden as he left the plane, the Democratic nominee was waving to a group of firefighters and personnel who were out of the frame due to the camera angle. Another video of Biden descending the stairs clearly shows him waving in the direction of a firetruck at the other end of the field. And in yet another video shared by Bloomberg News reporter Tyler Pager, four people are seen standing near the fire truck facing him. We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"109449-proof-00-30efbf8a7520762e3b9a73498eb5dd9f.jpeg"
] |
'This Is Real: Biden Waves To An Empty Field.
|
Contradiction
|
On Sept. 15, Joe Biden arrived in Tampa, Fla., for a campaign event, and as he descended the stairs of the airplane, he waved. One video capturing the moment spread quickly on social media as Facebook users shared it with derisive captions suggesting Biden was waving to an empty field. However, the video truly took off when Fox News host Sean Hannity posted it to his account with the title, 'This Is Real: Biden Waves To An Empty Field.' Yes, the video is real - but the field wasn't empty. This Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) According to an Associated Press reporter who was there with Biden as he left the plane, the Democratic nominee was waving to a group of firefighters and personnel who were out of the frame due to the camera angle. Another video of Biden descending the stairs clearly shows him waving in the direction of a firetruck at the other end of the field. And in yet another video shared by Bloomberg News reporter Tyler Pager, four people are seen standing near the fire truck facing him. We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"109449-proof-00-30efbf8a7520762e3b9a73498eb5dd9f.jpeg"
] |
The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine contains an 'undisclosed ingredient.
|
Contradiction
|
An Instagram post claimed the COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer contains an undisclosed mystery ingredient, even though the full ingredient list has been available online since December 2020. The Sept. 20 post shows a table from the federal Food and Drug Administration titled 'composition of COMIRNATY Multiple Dose Vial.' Comirnaty is Pfizer's brand name for its COVID-19 vaccine. The table shows the different ingredients that make up the vaccine, according to the Instagram post. However, one of the listed ingredients, described as an excipient, is redacted. The caption on the post claimed the excipient, a type of inert substance that acts as a vehicle for a drug, makes up 20% of the vaccine and could potentially make up 20% of each dose. 'The undisclosed ingredient is also not disclosed in the vaccine package insert,' the post said. 'If the American people don't know the identity of an ingredient in an FDA-approved vaccine, how is informed consent possible?' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. Instagram is owned by Facebook. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Although not all the ingredients of the vaccine were shown in that FDA document, the ingredients of the vaccine are not undisclosed. They have been public since the vaccines came out. Early version of report The table featured in the post comes from the FDA as part of a summary report explaining its decision to give final approval to the vaccine. The report includes the studies conducted on the vaccine and an ingredient list. Although an earlier version of the report had one ingredient redacted, as shown in the Instagram post, the FDA updated the report since the post, removing the redaction. The formerly redacted ingredient is listed as 'water for injection.' (A Sept. 30 update to the Instagram post acknowledged the change.) Pfizer's vaccine is distributed in vials of a frozen suspension that must be thawed and diluted with a sterile saline solution of a certain concentration to produce several injectable doses. The table on the FDA report lists the ingredients and their amounts 'after dilution.' The package insert for the vaccine lists the ingredients of the suspension and includes the dilution instructions: 'Dilute the vial contents using 1.8 mL of sterile 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP to form COMIRNATY. Do not add more than 1.8 mL of diluent.' The insert also details the clinical trials on the vaccine and their findings. Redactions in FDA reports Redactions do occur in FDA reports, and are usually for information that's considered a confidential or trade secret, said Alison Hunt, a press officer for the FDA. The FDA report on Pfizer's vaccine still has some redacted information, but Pfizer says it involves 'proprietary pieces of the lipid nanoparticle that makes it unique' to the company. Lipid nanoparticles are a type of fatty material that helps transport the vaccine's active ingredient into a person's cells. Claims that the COVID-19 vaccines contain mysterious or harmful ingredients are not new. They have been checked several times by PolitiFact, and rated False. The ingredients list for the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been available online from the FDA, without redactions, since the vaccines became publicly available.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post claimed the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine contains an undisclosed ingredient. The post cited an FDA report in which one of the ingredients listed was redacted. The agency has since updated the file and revealed that the ingredient was water. Long before the FDA report, the ingredients of the Pfizer vaccine, as well as ones for the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, were made public online, without any redactions. We rate this vaccine claim False. CORRECTION (Oct. 11, 2021): An earlier version of this fact-check included an incorrect date for when this Instagram post was made. It was correct in the body of the fact-check but wrong in the header and has been corrected.
|
[] |
The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine contains an 'undisclosed ingredient.
|
Contradiction
|
An Instagram post claimed the COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer contains an undisclosed mystery ingredient, even though the full ingredient list has been available online since December 2020. The Sept. 20 post shows a table from the federal Food and Drug Administration titled 'composition of COMIRNATY Multiple Dose Vial.' Comirnaty is Pfizer's brand name for its COVID-19 vaccine. The table shows the different ingredients that make up the vaccine, according to the Instagram post. However, one of the listed ingredients, described as an excipient, is redacted. The caption on the post claimed the excipient, a type of inert substance that acts as a vehicle for a drug, makes up 20% of the vaccine and could potentially make up 20% of each dose. 'The undisclosed ingredient is also not disclosed in the vaccine package insert,' the post said. 'If the American people don't know the identity of an ingredient in an FDA-approved vaccine, how is informed consent possible?' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. Instagram is owned by Facebook. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Although not all the ingredients of the vaccine were shown in that FDA document, the ingredients of the vaccine are not undisclosed. They have been public since the vaccines came out. Early version of report The table featured in the post comes from the FDA as part of a summary report explaining its decision to give final approval to the vaccine. The report includes the studies conducted on the vaccine and an ingredient list. Although an earlier version of the report had one ingredient redacted, as shown in the Instagram post, the FDA updated the report since the post, removing the redaction. The formerly redacted ingredient is listed as 'water for injection.' (A Sept. 30 update to the Instagram post acknowledged the change.) Pfizer's vaccine is distributed in vials of a frozen suspension that must be thawed and diluted with a sterile saline solution of a certain concentration to produce several injectable doses. The table on the FDA report lists the ingredients and their amounts 'after dilution.' The package insert for the vaccine lists the ingredients of the suspension and includes the dilution instructions: 'Dilute the vial contents using 1.8 mL of sterile 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP to form COMIRNATY. Do not add more than 1.8 mL of diluent.' The insert also details the clinical trials on the vaccine and their findings. Redactions in FDA reports Redactions do occur in FDA reports, and are usually for information that's considered a confidential or trade secret, said Alison Hunt, a press officer for the FDA. The FDA report on Pfizer's vaccine still has some redacted information, but Pfizer says it involves 'proprietary pieces of the lipid nanoparticle that makes it unique' to the company. Lipid nanoparticles are a type of fatty material that helps transport the vaccine's active ingredient into a person's cells. Claims that the COVID-19 vaccines contain mysterious or harmful ingredients are not new. They have been checked several times by PolitiFact, and rated False. The ingredients list for the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been available online from the FDA, without redactions, since the vaccines became publicly available.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post claimed the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine contains an undisclosed ingredient. The post cited an FDA report in which one of the ingredients listed was redacted. The agency has since updated the file and revealed that the ingredient was water. Long before the FDA report, the ingredients of the Pfizer vaccine, as well as ones for the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, were made public online, without any redactions. We rate this vaccine claim False. CORRECTION (Oct. 11, 2021): An earlier version of this fact-check included an incorrect date for when this Instagram post was made. It was correct in the body of the fact-check but wrong in the header and has been corrected.
|
[] |
'Shredded Pennsylvania Mail in ballot Applications were discovered in a trailer. The applications were for @realDonaldTrump.
|
Contradiction
|
Clips of a video inside the back of a tractor-trailer are being falsely used on social media to stoke a fear that people are trying to rig the election against President Donald Trump. We've seen multiple versions of the same basic video online. A person is walking around the back of a tractor-trailer that has some trash at the bottom of it. He picks up some of the paper and sees an image of Trump pointing next to the phrase 'President Trump wants you to return this form.' The person flips the paper over and shows what looks like an application for a mail-in ballot in Pennsylvania. 'They do have people's addresses on them that were never mailed out,' the person says. 'Somebody sabotaged all (of) these,' the person says in another clip. That was enough information for some people to say the video is evidence of voter fraud. One post on Twitter has nearly 22,000 retweets and the video has been viewed more than 400,000 times. 'Shredded Pennsylvania Mail in ballot Applications were discovered in a trailer. The applications were for @realDonaldTrump,' says the caption. But that's not what the video shows. 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 mailer itself Let's start with the mailers in the video. Here's an image: (Screenshot via YouTube) The mailers include a return address of the Federal Republican Committee of Pennsylvania. That's the official name for the Pennsylvania state Republican Party. The mailers are part of a nationwide effort by Republicans - despite the words of Trump - to encourage mail-in voting in 2020. A North Carolina voter posted on Twitter a version of the same mailer, but mailed by the North Carolina GOP. That poster, a Republican who says he's a 'Never Trumper,' did not request the mailer. Similar mailers were sent in Texas and Ohio. The mailers include forms that can be used by someone to request a mail-in ballot from a local election authority, and other groups are doing the same thing. It's legal, so long as the groups sending the mailer comply with state and local laws. In Pennsylvania, you can also request a ballot through the state. But it's also confusing. In September, NPR zeroed in on Lehigh County in Northeast Pennsylvania, where elections officials said some people had mailed in two or three ballot requests forms because they were confused. The mailers are not being requested by voters and are part of a bulk mail campaign to encourage mail-in voting. 'Part of the challenge here is that not only more people are sending out applications to voters, in order to make sure voters have an opportunity to vote by mail, but when voters do fill out multiple ones, because maybe they fill it out one day and then a week later because ... they haven't gotten the ballot,' Tammy Patrick, the senior adviser of elections at Democracy Fund, told ABC News. (Democracy Fund provides some financial support to PolitiFact.) Applications for Donald Trump The video doesn't show any completed applications, so there's no evidence the applications are for Trump. In the case of the North Carolina voter who got a similar application request, he said he's not voting for Trump. And regardless, you can't apply to vote for someone. You can only apply for a ballot. R.R. Donnelly The most important clue to debunk the video comes in a frame near the end that shows a sign for a business, 'R.R. Donnelley.' R.R. Donnelley is a company that, among other things, does direct mail services. (Screenshot via YouTube) We reached out R.R. Donnelley about the video. A spokeswoman for the company said the video shows printing waste. 'What you see in the Twitter video is residual print production waste in a trailer that was returned from a recycling facility,' the company told us. 'The full extent of the client's mailing request, applications for mail-in ballots, was produced and processed in accordance with our print and mail verification procedures. Recycling of print production waste is a normal practice associated with a direct mail project of this extent.'
|
Our ruling Posters took some cell phone video to claim that 'Shredded Pennsylvania Mail in ballot Applications were discovered in a trailer. The applications were for @realDonaldTrump.' A person in the video claimed this was part of sabotage. In reality, you're looking at printing waste. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[] |
'Shredded Pennsylvania Mail in ballot Applications were discovered in a trailer. The applications were for @realDonaldTrump.
|
Contradiction
|
Clips of a video inside the back of a tractor-trailer are being falsely used on social media to stoke a fear that people are trying to rig the election against President Donald Trump. We've seen multiple versions of the same basic video online. A person is walking around the back of a tractor-trailer that has some trash at the bottom of it. He picks up some of the paper and sees an image of Trump pointing next to the phrase 'President Trump wants you to return this form.' The person flips the paper over and shows what looks like an application for a mail-in ballot in Pennsylvania. 'They do have people's addresses on them that were never mailed out,' the person says. 'Somebody sabotaged all (of) these,' the person says in another clip. That was enough information for some people to say the video is evidence of voter fraud. One post on Twitter has nearly 22,000 retweets and the video has been viewed more than 400,000 times. 'Shredded Pennsylvania Mail in ballot Applications were discovered in a trailer. The applications were for @realDonaldTrump,' says the caption. But that's not what the video shows. 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 mailer itself Let's start with the mailers in the video. Here's an image: (Screenshot via YouTube) The mailers include a return address of the Federal Republican Committee of Pennsylvania. That's the official name for the Pennsylvania state Republican Party. The mailers are part of a nationwide effort by Republicans - despite the words of Trump - to encourage mail-in voting in 2020. A North Carolina voter posted on Twitter a version of the same mailer, but mailed by the North Carolina GOP. That poster, a Republican who says he's a 'Never Trumper,' did not request the mailer. Similar mailers were sent in Texas and Ohio. The mailers include forms that can be used by someone to request a mail-in ballot from a local election authority, and other groups are doing the same thing. It's legal, so long as the groups sending the mailer comply with state and local laws. In Pennsylvania, you can also request a ballot through the state. But it's also confusing. In September, NPR zeroed in on Lehigh County in Northeast Pennsylvania, where elections officials said some people had mailed in two or three ballot requests forms because they were confused. The mailers are not being requested by voters and are part of a bulk mail campaign to encourage mail-in voting. 'Part of the challenge here is that not only more people are sending out applications to voters, in order to make sure voters have an opportunity to vote by mail, but when voters do fill out multiple ones, because maybe they fill it out one day and then a week later because ... they haven't gotten the ballot,' Tammy Patrick, the senior adviser of elections at Democracy Fund, told ABC News. (Democracy Fund provides some financial support to PolitiFact.) Applications for Donald Trump The video doesn't show any completed applications, so there's no evidence the applications are for Trump. In the case of the North Carolina voter who got a similar application request, he said he's not voting for Trump. And regardless, you can't apply to vote for someone. You can only apply for a ballot. R.R. Donnelly The most important clue to debunk the video comes in a frame near the end that shows a sign for a business, 'R.R. Donnelley.' R.R. Donnelley is a company that, among other things, does direct mail services. (Screenshot via YouTube) We reached out R.R. Donnelley about the video. A spokeswoman for the company said the video shows printing waste. 'What you see in the Twitter video is residual print production waste in a trailer that was returned from a recycling facility,' the company told us. 'The full extent of the client's mailing request, applications for mail-in ballots, was produced and processed in accordance with our print and mail verification procedures. Recycling of print production waste is a normal practice associated with a direct mail project of this extent.'
|
Our ruling Posters took some cell phone video to claim that 'Shredded Pennsylvania Mail in ballot Applications were discovered in a trailer. The applications were for @realDonaldTrump.' A person in the video claimed this was part of sabotage. In reality, you're looking at printing waste. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[] |
'Shredded Pennsylvania Mail in ballot Applications were discovered in a trailer. The applications were for @realDonaldTrump.
|
Contradiction
|
Clips of a video inside the back of a tractor-trailer are being falsely used on social media to stoke a fear that people are trying to rig the election against President Donald Trump. We've seen multiple versions of the same basic video online. A person is walking around the back of a tractor-trailer that has some trash at the bottom of it. He picks up some of the paper and sees an image of Trump pointing next to the phrase 'President Trump wants you to return this form.' The person flips the paper over and shows what looks like an application for a mail-in ballot in Pennsylvania. 'They do have people's addresses on them that were never mailed out,' the person says. 'Somebody sabotaged all (of) these,' the person says in another clip. That was enough information for some people to say the video is evidence of voter fraud. One post on Twitter has nearly 22,000 retweets and the video has been viewed more than 400,000 times. 'Shredded Pennsylvania Mail in ballot Applications were discovered in a trailer. The applications were for @realDonaldTrump,' says the caption. But that's not what the video shows. 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 mailer itself Let's start with the mailers in the video. Here's an image: (Screenshot via YouTube) The mailers include a return address of the Federal Republican Committee of Pennsylvania. That's the official name for the Pennsylvania state Republican Party. The mailers are part of a nationwide effort by Republicans - despite the words of Trump - to encourage mail-in voting in 2020. A North Carolina voter posted on Twitter a version of the same mailer, but mailed by the North Carolina GOP. That poster, a Republican who says he's a 'Never Trumper,' did not request the mailer. Similar mailers were sent in Texas and Ohio. The mailers include forms that can be used by someone to request a mail-in ballot from a local election authority, and other groups are doing the same thing. It's legal, so long as the groups sending the mailer comply with state and local laws. In Pennsylvania, you can also request a ballot through the state. But it's also confusing. In September, NPR zeroed in on Lehigh County in Northeast Pennsylvania, where elections officials said some people had mailed in two or three ballot requests forms because they were confused. The mailers are not being requested by voters and are part of a bulk mail campaign to encourage mail-in voting. 'Part of the challenge here is that not only more people are sending out applications to voters, in order to make sure voters have an opportunity to vote by mail, but when voters do fill out multiple ones, because maybe they fill it out one day and then a week later because ... they haven't gotten the ballot,' Tammy Patrick, the senior adviser of elections at Democracy Fund, told ABC News. (Democracy Fund provides some financial support to PolitiFact.) Applications for Donald Trump The video doesn't show any completed applications, so there's no evidence the applications are for Trump. In the case of the North Carolina voter who got a similar application request, he said he's not voting for Trump. And regardless, you can't apply to vote for someone. You can only apply for a ballot. R.R. Donnelly The most important clue to debunk the video comes in a frame near the end that shows a sign for a business, 'R.R. Donnelley.' R.R. Donnelley is a company that, among other things, does direct mail services. (Screenshot via YouTube) We reached out R.R. Donnelley about the video. A spokeswoman for the company said the video shows printing waste. 'What you see in the Twitter video is residual print production waste in a trailer that was returned from a recycling facility,' the company told us. 'The full extent of the client's mailing request, applications for mail-in ballots, was produced and processed in accordance with our print and mail verification procedures. Recycling of print production waste is a normal practice associated with a direct mail project of this extent.'
|
Our ruling Posters took some cell phone video to claim that 'Shredded Pennsylvania Mail in ballot Applications were discovered in a trailer. The applications were for @realDonaldTrump.' A person in the video claimed this was part of sabotage. In reality, you're looking at printing waste. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[] |
In Massachusetts, 'anybody can go vote for anybody so long as they have their information. ... They're not even checking IDs at the polling stations.
|
Contradiction
|
A video posted on TikTok seeks to cast doubt in the integrity of elections in Massachusetts by claiming that people can vote for other voters as long as they have their information. A woman in the video said she went to vote in a primary election (she doesn't specify when), that she's a registered independent from Boston. 'Not once,' she says, did people at the polling station ask her for identification. She says she was told she didn't need an ID because she was already registered to vote. 'Now here's my deal. I have two sisters that look a little like me, what's stopping me right now from throwing on a mask, changing my clothes and going back out there to vote two more times in my favor?' said the woman in the video. 'So basically, anybody can go vote for anybody so long as they have their information. We are worried about voter mail-in fraud. They're not even checking IDs at the polling stations.' PolitiFact reached out to the Massachusetts state office that oversees elections for data on instances of voter fraud as described in the TikTok. Debra O'Malley, a spokesperson for Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin, told PolitiFact she was not aware of any in-person voter impersonation cases in Massachusetts. O'Malley said there are certain circumstances in which voters may be asked for identification, but it is not required to be a photo ID. Acceptable types of ID include a recent utility bill or any other printed identification which contains the voter's name and address. The secretary of state's website says people may be asked to show identification when they check in at a polling station for any of the following reasons: There is a police officer in every polling place to help enforce the election laws, O'Malley said. While Massachusetts doesn't have a photo ID requirement for voting, 'there's no evidence of widespread impersonation fraud in jurisdictions that lack photo ID requirements,' said Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos, a professor at Harvard Law School whose expertise includes election law. A person would also be committing a crime if they assert someone else's identity to vote, Stephanopoulos said. An attempt to impersonate a voter could also be detected if that other person has already voted, or the crime could be caught once the actual voter goes to the polls, he said. Massachusetts law says that 'whoever votes or attempts to vote in any name other than his own, or knowingly casts or attempts to cast more than one ballot at one time of balloting; or whoever votes or attempts to vote otherwise illegally, shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.' News21, a student reporting project based at Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, in 2012 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000. The study found that in-person voter impersonation was 'virtually nonexistent.' The National Conference of State Legislatures says there are 36 states that have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, 35 of which are in force in 2020.
|
Our ruling A video posted on TikTok claimed that in Massachusetts, 'anybody can go vote for anybody so long as they have their information. ... They're not even checking IDs at the polling stations.' Massachusetts does not require that everyone show an ID in order to vote, but there are some instances when people will be asked to show an ID before voting. The video ignores that voting or attempting to vote under someone else's name is not permissible, it is illegal. The video also implies that the absence of an ID requirement at polls is conducive to voter fraud. An election law expert said there's no evidence of widespread impersonation fraud in places that lack photo ID requirements. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"109489-proof-27-fafb6c0c63abf0e3428942cd6b3c9a97.jpg"
] |
In Massachusetts, 'anybody can go vote for anybody so long as they have their information. ... They're not even checking IDs at the polling stations.
|
Contradiction
|
A video posted on TikTok seeks to cast doubt in the integrity of elections in Massachusetts by claiming that people can vote for other voters as long as they have their information. A woman in the video said she went to vote in a primary election (she doesn't specify when), that she's a registered independent from Boston. 'Not once,' she says, did people at the polling station ask her for identification. She says she was told she didn't need an ID because she was already registered to vote. 'Now here's my deal. I have two sisters that look a little like me, what's stopping me right now from throwing on a mask, changing my clothes and going back out there to vote two more times in my favor?' said the woman in the video. 'So basically, anybody can go vote for anybody so long as they have their information. We are worried about voter mail-in fraud. They're not even checking IDs at the polling stations.' PolitiFact reached out to the Massachusetts state office that oversees elections for data on instances of voter fraud as described in the TikTok. Debra O'Malley, a spokesperson for Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin, told PolitiFact she was not aware of any in-person voter impersonation cases in Massachusetts. O'Malley said there are certain circumstances in which voters may be asked for identification, but it is not required to be a photo ID. Acceptable types of ID include a recent utility bill or any other printed identification which contains the voter's name and address. The secretary of state's website says people may be asked to show identification when they check in at a polling station for any of the following reasons: There is a police officer in every polling place to help enforce the election laws, O'Malley said. While Massachusetts doesn't have a photo ID requirement for voting, 'there's no evidence of widespread impersonation fraud in jurisdictions that lack photo ID requirements,' said Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos, a professor at Harvard Law School whose expertise includes election law. A person would also be committing a crime if they assert someone else's identity to vote, Stephanopoulos said. An attempt to impersonate a voter could also be detected if that other person has already voted, or the crime could be caught once the actual voter goes to the polls, he said. Massachusetts law says that 'whoever votes or attempts to vote in any name other than his own, or knowingly casts or attempts to cast more than one ballot at one time of balloting; or whoever votes or attempts to vote otherwise illegally, shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.' News21, a student reporting project based at Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, in 2012 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000. The study found that in-person voter impersonation was 'virtually nonexistent.' The National Conference of State Legislatures says there are 36 states that have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, 35 of which are in force in 2020.
|
Our ruling A video posted on TikTok claimed that in Massachusetts, 'anybody can go vote for anybody so long as they have their information. ... They're not even checking IDs at the polling stations.' Massachusetts does not require that everyone show an ID in order to vote, but there are some instances when people will be asked to show an ID before voting. The video ignores that voting or attempting to vote under someone else's name is not permissible, it is illegal. The video also implies that the absence of an ID requirement at polls is conducive to voter fraud. An election law expert said there's no evidence of widespread impersonation fraud in places that lack photo ID requirements. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"109489-proof-27-fafb6c0c63abf0e3428942cd6b3c9a97.jpg"
] |
In Massachusetts, 'anybody can go vote for anybody so long as they have their information. ... They're not even checking IDs at the polling stations.
|
Contradiction
|
A video posted on TikTok seeks to cast doubt in the integrity of elections in Massachusetts by claiming that people can vote for other voters as long as they have their information. A woman in the video said she went to vote in a primary election (she doesn't specify when), that she's a registered independent from Boston. 'Not once,' she says, did people at the polling station ask her for identification. She says she was told she didn't need an ID because she was already registered to vote. 'Now here's my deal. I have two sisters that look a little like me, what's stopping me right now from throwing on a mask, changing my clothes and going back out there to vote two more times in my favor?' said the woman in the video. 'So basically, anybody can go vote for anybody so long as they have their information. We are worried about voter mail-in fraud. They're not even checking IDs at the polling stations.' PolitiFact reached out to the Massachusetts state office that oversees elections for data on instances of voter fraud as described in the TikTok. Debra O'Malley, a spokesperson for Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin, told PolitiFact she was not aware of any in-person voter impersonation cases in Massachusetts. O'Malley said there are certain circumstances in which voters may be asked for identification, but it is not required to be a photo ID. Acceptable types of ID include a recent utility bill or any other printed identification which contains the voter's name and address. The secretary of state's website says people may be asked to show identification when they check in at a polling station for any of the following reasons: There is a police officer in every polling place to help enforce the election laws, O'Malley said. While Massachusetts doesn't have a photo ID requirement for voting, 'there's no evidence of widespread impersonation fraud in jurisdictions that lack photo ID requirements,' said Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos, a professor at Harvard Law School whose expertise includes election law. A person would also be committing a crime if they assert someone else's identity to vote, Stephanopoulos said. An attempt to impersonate a voter could also be detected if that other person has already voted, or the crime could be caught once the actual voter goes to the polls, he said. Massachusetts law says that 'whoever votes or attempts to vote in any name other than his own, or knowingly casts or attempts to cast more than one ballot at one time of balloting; or whoever votes or attempts to vote otherwise illegally, shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.' News21, a student reporting project based at Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, in 2012 analyzed 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases since 2000. The study found that in-person voter impersonation was 'virtually nonexistent.' The National Conference of State Legislatures says there are 36 states that have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls, 35 of which are in force in 2020.
|
Our ruling A video posted on TikTok claimed that in Massachusetts, 'anybody can go vote for anybody so long as they have their information. ... They're not even checking IDs at the polling stations.' Massachusetts does not require that everyone show an ID in order to vote, but there are some instances when people will be asked to show an ID before voting. The video ignores that voting or attempting to vote under someone else's name is not permissible, it is illegal. The video also implies that the absence of an ID requirement at polls is conducive to voter fraud. An election law expert said there's no evidence of widespread impersonation fraud in places that lack photo ID requirements. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"109489-proof-27-fafb6c0c63abf0e3428942cd6b3c9a97.jpg"
] |
Says if you donate blood, 'they HAVE to test you' for coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
'CORONAVIRUS LOOPHOLE!!!!' screams a screenshot of a tweet being shared on social media. 'If you don't have insurance and can't afford to take the $3,200 test for the virus ($1,000 with insurance), DONATE BLOOD. They HAVE to test you for the virus in order to donate blood. Tell your friends! Tell your family!!!!!' 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've already looked into claims that coronavirus testing costs $3,200. You can read more about it here but we rated them Mostly False. This claim, that blood donation centers have to test donors for coronavirus, won't fare as well. The American Red Cross, which runs blood drives around the country, told PolitiFact that this isn't true. 'There is no test to screen blood donations for the coronavirus and other respiratory viruses,' the organization said in an email. 'It's important to emphasize that there are no data or evidence that this coronavirus can be transmitted by blood transfusions and there have been no reported cases of transfusion transmission for any respiratory virus including this coronavirus.' But the Red Cross is urging healthy, eligible Americans to donate blood to help avoid potential shortages caused by the coronavirus. It's also asking people who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 or come into contact with a person who has or is suspected to have the disease to postpone making a donation for 28 days. Kate Fry, chief executive officer of America's Blood Centers, told the Associated Press that the network of nonprofit blood centers 'do a whole range of testing on blood donations as required by the FDA, but screening or testing is not happening.' The account that tweeted the information in the Facebook post has since deleted it, writing: 'I don't want to contribute to hysteria or medical misinformation.' But the screenshot lives on. So tell your friends! Tell your family!!!!! We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We've already looked into claims that coronavirus testing costs $3,200. You can read more about it here but we rated them Mostly False. This claim, that blood donation centers have to test donors for coronavirus, won't fare as well. The American Red Cross, which runs blood drives around the country, told PolitiFact that this isn't true. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on November 7, 2021 in a Facebook post The Astroworld concert was a 'test run on the vaxxed' because people who are injected with graphene oxide can be controlled through magnetic frequencies, including music. By Samantha Putterman • November 8, 2021 'There is no test to screen blood donations for the coronavirus and other respiratory viruses,' the organization said in an email. 'It's important to emphasize that there are no data or evidence that this coronavirus can be transmitted by blood transfusions and there have been no reported cases of transfusion transmission for any respiratory virus including this coronavirus.' But the Red Cross is urging healthy, eligible Americans to donate blood to help avoid potential shortages caused by the coronavirus. It's also asking people who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 or come into contact with a person who has or is suspected to have the disease to postpone making a donation for 28 days. Kate Fry, chief executive officer of America's Blood Centers, told the Associated Press that the network of nonprofit blood centers 'do a whole range of testing on blood donations as required by the FDA, but screening or testing is not happening.' The account that tweeted the information in the Facebook post has since deleted it, writing: 'I don't want to contribute to hysteria or medical misinformation.' But the screenshot lives on. So tell your friends! Tell your family!!!!! We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Says if you donate blood, 'they HAVE to test you' for coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
'CORONAVIRUS LOOPHOLE!!!!' screams a screenshot of a tweet being shared on social media. 'If you don't have insurance and can't afford to take the $3,200 test for the virus ($1,000 with insurance), DONATE BLOOD. They HAVE to test you for the virus in order to donate blood. Tell your friends! Tell your family!!!!!' 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've already looked into claims that coronavirus testing costs $3,200. You can read more about it here but we rated them Mostly False. This claim, that blood donation centers have to test donors for coronavirus, won't fare as well. The American Red Cross, which runs blood drives around the country, told PolitiFact that this isn't true. 'There is no test to screen blood donations for the coronavirus and other respiratory viruses,' the organization said in an email. 'It's important to emphasize that there are no data or evidence that this coronavirus can be transmitted by blood transfusions and there have been no reported cases of transfusion transmission for any respiratory virus including this coronavirus.' But the Red Cross is urging healthy, eligible Americans to donate blood to help avoid potential shortages caused by the coronavirus. It's also asking people who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 or come into contact with a person who has or is suspected to have the disease to postpone making a donation for 28 days. Kate Fry, chief executive officer of America's Blood Centers, told the Associated Press that the network of nonprofit blood centers 'do a whole range of testing on blood donations as required by the FDA, but screening or testing is not happening.' The account that tweeted the information in the Facebook post has since deleted it, writing: 'I don't want to contribute to hysteria or medical misinformation.' But the screenshot lives on. So tell your friends! Tell your family!!!!! We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We've already looked into claims that coronavirus testing costs $3,200. You can read more about it here but we rated them Mostly False. This claim, that blood donation centers have to test donors for coronavirus, won't fare as well. The American Red Cross, which runs blood drives around the country, told PolitiFact that this isn't true. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on November 7, 2021 in a Facebook post The Astroworld concert was a 'test run on the vaxxed' because people who are injected with graphene oxide can be controlled through magnetic frequencies, including music. By Samantha Putterman • November 8, 2021 'There is no test to screen blood donations for the coronavirus and other respiratory viruses,' the organization said in an email. 'It's important to emphasize that there are no data or evidence that this coronavirus can be transmitted by blood transfusions and there have been no reported cases of transfusion transmission for any respiratory virus including this coronavirus.' But the Red Cross is urging healthy, eligible Americans to donate blood to help avoid potential shortages caused by the coronavirus. It's also asking people who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 or come into contact with a person who has or is suspected to have the disease to postpone making a donation for 28 days. Kate Fry, chief executive officer of America's Blood Centers, told the Associated Press that the network of nonprofit blood centers 'do a whole range of testing on blood donations as required by the FDA, but screening or testing is not happening.' The account that tweeted the information in the Facebook post has since deleted it, writing: 'I don't want to contribute to hysteria or medical misinformation.' But the screenshot lives on. So tell your friends! Tell your family!!!!! We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
'Joe Biden and the Democrats want to remove any term that denotes gender.
|
Contradiction
|
President Joe Biden and other Democrats might be doing more than most Americans realize to offer alternatives when it comes to gender identification. But there's scant evidence for a meme, widely circulated on Facebook, that claims they want to eliminate all terms denoting gender. The meme shows a photo of Biden and first lady Jill Biden embracing and smiling. The text above the photo says: 'Joe Biden and the Democrats want to remove any term that denotes gender. Henceforth the term 'Mr President and First Lady' will be replaced with 'Those two idiots in the White House.'' A search shows the photo is from a Valentine's Day article on the Bidens in People magazine. 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.) Biden has taken steps to offer people gender-neutral alternatives, not to eliminate the use of terms that identify gender. The Democratic-led House of Representatives went further in a narrow way, replacing in its rules document gender-specific terms with gender-neutral ones. Biden makes one change, weighs another News organizations reported that on Jan. 20, Biden's first day in office, WhiteHouse.gov was changed so that people who use the Contact Form for messaging the White House can choose not to be identified by gender. The choices in the prefix dropdown menu are: Mr., Ms., Mrs., Dr. and the gender-neutral Mx. The choices for pronoun are: she/her, he/him, they/them, other and prefer not to share. In February, The 19th, a news website that covers gender, politics and policy, reported that the Biden administration is considering whether to add 'X' gender markers to federal documents such as passports. Biden promised on his campaign website to work to 'ensure all transgender individuals have access to identification documents that accurately reflect their gender identity. Biden believes every transgender or non-binary person should have the option of changing their gender marker to M, F or X on government identifications, passports and other documentation. He will support state and federal efforts to allow for this accurate representation.' House rules add gender-inclusive language The House adopts rules for each of its two-year terms, typically amending the rules from the previous session to govern the new session. The rules spell out everything from directing the Speaker of the House to preserve order in the House, to organizing committees, to the management of legislation. On Jan. 4, the House voted 217-206 to adopt the Rules of the House for the 117th Congress. It was a strict party-line vote, with all yes votes coming from Democrats. Newly passed amendments to the previous rules included a 'Gender-Inclusive Language' section, where words such as father and mother were changed to parent; brother and sister to sibling; and himself or herself to themself. The move only changed the text of the House rules for the 2021-2023 session; the changes were not applied more broadly and do not apply, for instance, to floor debate. The changes were made to promote 'inclusion and diversity' and to 'honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender neutral,' Democrats Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, and Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, the House Rules Committee chair, said in a news release announcing the proposed rule changes. The changes led Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., to say 'a majority of Americans have voted for a party' that 'wants a world in which you cannot call your parents mom and dad.' We rated that claim False.
|
Our ruling A meme widely shared on Facebook claimed, 'Biden and the Democrats want to remove any term that denotes gender.' The contact form on WhiteHouse.gov now allows people to choose pronouns that don't identify gender, and Biden is considering adding a gender-neutral choice for documents such as passports. But it doesn't eliminate gender-specific options. The Democratic-led House went further by changing all gender-specific references in its rules document to gender-neutral references. While the Biden administration has advocated for more inclusive language that allows people to self-identify using gender pronouns that they feel are better suited to them, and the Congressional Democrats changed the language in their rules to be more inclusive, this claim goes too far. They have not removed all terms that denote gender; they have added another option to the existing ones. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[] |
'Joe Biden and the Democrats want to remove any term that denotes gender.
|
Contradiction
|
President Joe Biden and other Democrats might be doing more than most Americans realize to offer alternatives when it comes to gender identification. But there's scant evidence for a meme, widely circulated on Facebook, that claims they want to eliminate all terms denoting gender. The meme shows a photo of Biden and first lady Jill Biden embracing and smiling. The text above the photo says: 'Joe Biden and the Democrats want to remove any term that denotes gender. Henceforth the term 'Mr President and First Lady' will be replaced with 'Those two idiots in the White House.'' A search shows the photo is from a Valentine's Day article on the Bidens in People magazine. 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.) Biden has taken steps to offer people gender-neutral alternatives, not to eliminate the use of terms that identify gender. The Democratic-led House of Representatives went further in a narrow way, replacing in its rules document gender-specific terms with gender-neutral ones. Biden makes one change, weighs another News organizations reported that on Jan. 20, Biden's first day in office, WhiteHouse.gov was changed so that people who use the Contact Form for messaging the White House can choose not to be identified by gender. The choices in the prefix dropdown menu are: Mr., Ms., Mrs., Dr. and the gender-neutral Mx. The choices for pronoun are: she/her, he/him, they/them, other and prefer not to share. In February, The 19th, a news website that covers gender, politics and policy, reported that the Biden administration is considering whether to add 'X' gender markers to federal documents such as passports. Biden promised on his campaign website to work to 'ensure all transgender individuals have access to identification documents that accurately reflect their gender identity. Biden believes every transgender or non-binary person should have the option of changing their gender marker to M, F or X on government identifications, passports and other documentation. He will support state and federal efforts to allow for this accurate representation.' House rules add gender-inclusive language The House adopts rules for each of its two-year terms, typically amending the rules from the previous session to govern the new session. The rules spell out everything from directing the Speaker of the House to preserve order in the House, to organizing committees, to the management of legislation. On Jan. 4, the House voted 217-206 to adopt the Rules of the House for the 117th Congress. It was a strict party-line vote, with all yes votes coming from Democrats. Newly passed amendments to the previous rules included a 'Gender-Inclusive Language' section, where words such as father and mother were changed to parent; brother and sister to sibling; and himself or herself to themself. The move only changed the text of the House rules for the 2021-2023 session; the changes were not applied more broadly and do not apply, for instance, to floor debate. The changes were made to promote 'inclusion and diversity' and to 'honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender neutral,' Democrats Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, and Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, the House Rules Committee chair, said in a news release announcing the proposed rule changes. The changes led Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., to say 'a majority of Americans have voted for a party' that 'wants a world in which you cannot call your parents mom and dad.' We rated that claim False.
|
Our ruling A meme widely shared on Facebook claimed, 'Biden and the Democrats want to remove any term that denotes gender.' The contact form on WhiteHouse.gov now allows people to choose pronouns that don't identify gender, and Biden is considering adding a gender-neutral choice for documents such as passports. But it doesn't eliminate gender-specific options. The Democratic-led House went further by changing all gender-specific references in its rules document to gender-neutral references. While the Biden administration has advocated for more inclusive language that allows people to self-identify using gender pronouns that they feel are better suited to them, and the Congressional Democrats changed the language in their rules to be more inclusive, this claim goes too far. They have not removed all terms that denote gender; they have added another option to the existing ones. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[] |
'Joe Biden and the Democrats want to remove any term that denotes gender.
|
Contradiction
|
President Joe Biden and other Democrats might be doing more than most Americans realize to offer alternatives when it comes to gender identification. But there's scant evidence for a meme, widely circulated on Facebook, that claims they want to eliminate all terms denoting gender. The meme shows a photo of Biden and first lady Jill Biden embracing and smiling. The text above the photo says: 'Joe Biden and the Democrats want to remove any term that denotes gender. Henceforth the term 'Mr President and First Lady' will be replaced with 'Those two idiots in the White House.'' A search shows the photo is from a Valentine's Day article on the Bidens in People magazine. 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.) Biden has taken steps to offer people gender-neutral alternatives, not to eliminate the use of terms that identify gender. The Democratic-led House of Representatives went further in a narrow way, replacing in its rules document gender-specific terms with gender-neutral ones. Biden makes one change, weighs another News organizations reported that on Jan. 20, Biden's first day in office, WhiteHouse.gov was changed so that people who use the Contact Form for messaging the White House can choose not to be identified by gender. The choices in the prefix dropdown menu are: Mr., Ms., Mrs., Dr. and the gender-neutral Mx. The choices for pronoun are: she/her, he/him, they/them, other and prefer not to share. In February, The 19th, a news website that covers gender, politics and policy, reported that the Biden administration is considering whether to add 'X' gender markers to federal documents such as passports. Biden promised on his campaign website to work to 'ensure all transgender individuals have access to identification documents that accurately reflect their gender identity. Biden believes every transgender or non-binary person should have the option of changing their gender marker to M, F or X on government identifications, passports and other documentation. He will support state and federal efforts to allow for this accurate representation.' House rules add gender-inclusive language The House adopts rules for each of its two-year terms, typically amending the rules from the previous session to govern the new session. The rules spell out everything from directing the Speaker of the House to preserve order in the House, to organizing committees, to the management of legislation. On Jan. 4, the House voted 217-206 to adopt the Rules of the House for the 117th Congress. It was a strict party-line vote, with all yes votes coming from Democrats. Newly passed amendments to the previous rules included a 'Gender-Inclusive Language' section, where words such as father and mother were changed to parent; brother and sister to sibling; and himself or herself to themself. The move only changed the text of the House rules for the 2021-2023 session; the changes were not applied more broadly and do not apply, for instance, to floor debate. The changes were made to promote 'inclusion and diversity' and to 'honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender neutral,' Democrats Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, and Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, the House Rules Committee chair, said in a news release announcing the proposed rule changes. The changes led Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., to say 'a majority of Americans have voted for a party' that 'wants a world in which you cannot call your parents mom and dad.' We rated that claim False.
|
Our ruling A meme widely shared on Facebook claimed, 'Biden and the Democrats want to remove any term that denotes gender.' The contact form on WhiteHouse.gov now allows people to choose pronouns that don't identify gender, and Biden is considering adding a gender-neutral choice for documents such as passports. But it doesn't eliminate gender-specific options. The Democratic-led House went further by changing all gender-specific references in its rules document to gender-neutral references. While the Biden administration has advocated for more inclusive language that allows people to self-identify using gender pronouns that they feel are better suited to them, and the Congressional Democrats changed the language in their rules to be more inclusive, this claim goes too far. They have not removed all terms that denote gender; they have added another option to the existing ones. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[] |
Says Nancy Pelosi 'won't let Capitol police testify about what happened Jan. 6.
|
Contradiction
|
The U.S. House of Representatives voted largely along party lines on June 30 to create a select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Members of the U.S. Capitol Police watched the proceedings from the gallery. But a few days later, a claim started circulating on social media that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was preventing officers from telling lawmakers about what happened that day. 'Pelosi won't let Capitol police testify about what happened on Jan. 6,' one Facebook post said. 'That tells you everything you need to know.' 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.) Some Republicans have criticized the committee as partisan (Republicans blocked an earlier effort to create an independent bipartisan commission); Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Wash., said it 'will not be viewed credibly by at least half of Americans, nor will it honestly look at (Pelosi's) own failures in securing the U.S. Capitol on that day.' But it's not accurate that Pelosi is blocking police from testifying. 'This is completely false,' said Drew Hammill, deputy chief of staff for Pelosi. He told PolitiFact that the chairman of the committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., announced on July 1 that the first hearing would be to hear from Capitol police officers. The Hill reported July 1 that after a meeting in Pelosi's office, Thompson announced the committee will start its probe with witness testimony from Capitol police officers who were on duty during the Jan. 6 riot. Thompson didn't specify which officers the committee would call to appear, according to the Hill, but said 'many of us hope to begin the process with a hearing in which the Capitol Police officers themselves could be able to testify about their experiences.' We rate this post False.
|
We rate this post False.
|
[] |
A banner for COVID-19 vaccines says, 'Don't forget to donate your childrens organs.
|
Contradiction
|
The words that appear in a photo of a banner advertising COVID-19 vaccines at Mass General Brigham hospital in Boston might seem unnerving, and mispunctuated: 'Don't forget to donate your childrens organs.' But this image has been doctored, and posts sharing it have been 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 image, which the New England Patriots published on its website on July 31, shows that what the banner actually says is a Spanish translation of the English words that appear on it. 'COVID Vaccines Here, NO Appointment Needed,' it says. 'Vacunas de COVID Aquí, SIN Cita Previa.' RELATED VIDEO As Reuters reported, the banner also appears in this video tweeted by Boston reporter Nick Giovanni on July 29. 'Mobile #COVID19 vaccination clinic getting set up at #Patriots Training Camp right now,' he wrote. We rate this post False.
|
We rate this post False.
|
[] |
Says North Carolina's proposed abortion bill would not 'govern the conversation between the doctor and patient.
|
Contradiction
|
A proposed North Carolina abortion law has critics concerned about how it might affect the doctor-patient relationship. House Bill 453 aims to stop people from having abortions because they're unhappy with the child's sex, race, or Down Syndrome diagnosis. Bill supporters say it would help prevent discrimination. Meanwhile, critics worry that it could discourage patients from seeking abortions if they feel their motives will be subject to scrutiny. Sex selection is already banned in North Carolina. This bill would not only ban abortions sought for race selection or for Down Syndrome, but would go a step further than the current law by requiring practitioners to 'confirm' that the patient's motives aren't discriminatory. In a June 2 Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, state Sen. Natasha Marcus (D-Mecklenburg) asked bill sponsor Dean Arp (R-Union) a series of questions about how the bill might affect a doctor's interactions with her patient. Arp suggested the bill isn't designed to be intrusive, saying at different times: 'We're not requiring the doctors to say or do anything here. ... We're not controlling the speech of the doctor. ... Quite simply, this bill doesn't compel doctor's speech at all. ... We don't govern the conversation between the doctor and the patient.' Arp later corrected his statement about doctors not being required to 'say or do anything,' since the bill would require practitioners to submit a report to the state's health department. However, given the concerns of advocates, we wondered about his other statements. Would the bill 'control' or 'compel' a doctor's speech, or 'govern the conversation between the doctor and the patient?' Put simply, the bill does not tell doctors specifically what to say. However, experts believe it puts doctors in the position of asking patients about their motives for seeking abortions, or else risk puttting their own professional careers on the line by making a judgement call about the patient's motives without having asked. Part of a trend North Carolina's bill is similar to others that have been introduced and even enacted that attempt to stop women from having abortions if they're unhappy with their baby's sex, race or medical diagnosis. PolitiFact partner WRAL has covered North Carolina's bill as it moved through the legislature to Gov. Roy Cooper's desk, where it currently sits unsigned. North Carolina's bill falls in the middle of the abortion law strictness spectrum, with Arkansas on the stricter end and Ohio having more lenient language. The Arkansas law, which the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down, specifically required a practitioner to 'ask the pregnant woman if she is aware of any test results, prenatal diagnosis, or any other evidence that the unborn child may have Down Syndrome.' Ohio's law, which is also working its way through the courts, blocks practitioners from performing abortions 'if the (practitioner) has knowledge' that the patient is seeking an abortion for discriminatory reasons. It doesn't instruct practitioners to question their patients or use the word 'confirm.' North Carolina's bill is similar to an abortion law in Mississippi, which requires doctors to 'confirm' a patient's motives but doesn't instruct them what to ask. We wanted to know how the bill affects Mississippi practitioners. So we called and emailed the Jackson Women's Health Organization, which is the only remaining abortion clinic left in Mississippi. Nora Franco, a spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Mississippi's bill has definitely prompted new conversations between practitioners and patients. 'The law has forced the Mississippi clinic to confirm with their patients they are not seeking abortions for prohibited reasons and to turn away some patients - which they would not have had to do absent this law, which, again, does nothing to address the discrimination politicians claims it addresses,' she said. What is 'compelled speech?' In a 25-minute telephone interview with PolitiFact, Arp said bill authors tried 'desperately' not to dictate how medical practices should operate. He contrasted the bill to a previous North Carolina law known as the Woman's Right to Know Act. That law, passed in 2011, required practitioners to show their patient an ultrasound and describe the images in detail before performing an abortion. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2014 struck down the law on grounds that it 'compelled speech' and violated the First Amendment. That ultrasound law 'forces physicians to say things they otherwise would not say,' a judge wrote. The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to take up the case. Arp told PolitiFact that he doesn't view North Carolina's latest bill as compelled speech because it doesn't specifically tell doctors to say anything. The bill instructs practitioners to find out the answer to the question: Did the patient seek an abortion for discriminatory reasons? But it doesn't tell them how to answer the question. Where some see the bill's vague directive as a negative, Arp sees it as a positive. 'How they determine (the answer) totally lies within themselves and I imagine each doctor would be different in their comfort level in addressing that question,' Arp said. 'Nothing in here stops a doctor from saying what a doctor wants and nothing in here compels the doctor to tell a patient anything.' 'I don't doubt that the doctor could ask (about a patient's motives) if the doctor felt that that's what they needed to do to be accurate and conform to the reporting mechanism,' he said. Alternatively, he suggested a doctor could get around having the conversation with the patient if they presented the patient with, say, a paper questionnaire. 'It could be a form that they give on (patient) intake, where people go down through and they just say check, check, check, check, check,' he said. Even if the patient were presented with such a form, that does not mean that the patient would answer it, which would leave the ball in the physician's court to inquire through conversation. And a judge may not share Arp's view that the bill doesn't qualify as compelled speech, said Laurie Sobel, an attorney and associate director of women's health policy for the Kaiser Family Foundation. The foundation studies health and healthcare policies. 'The word 'confirm' could reasonably be interpreted to compel speech to ask,' Sobel said. Unless a doctor asks about a patient's motives, or the patient divulges them voluntarily, she said practitioners are left to make a judgement on their own. 'I don't think the medical record does anything to show intent,' Sobel said. Confirming motives Multiple experts told us they don't see how a North Carolina practitioner would 'confirm' a patient's motives without asking them. Not only does the bill require practitioners to confirm that their patient doesn't have discriminatory motives, it also requires practitioners record 'a statement' saying that they have 'reason to believe that the woman did not seek the abortion' for those specified reasons. Experts said the fact that a patient's motives would be recorded by the state puts extra pressure on practitioners to accurately document them, and more likely to directly ask about them. 'If the outcome (of noncompliance with the law) is a penalty, and then there's other pieces of documentation that have to happen, you're saying, 'You have to talk to the patient about this,'' said Elizabeth Nash, principal policy associate for the Guttmacher Institute. Dr. Jonas Swartz, an obstetrician who practices at Duke Health, pointed out that the bill changes the state's expectations of doctors under the current law prohibiting certain abortions. The current law says, 'Nothing in this section shall be construed as placing an affirmative duty on a physician to inquire as to whether the sex of the unborn child is a significant factor in the pregnant woman seeking the abortion.' The proposed law crosses out that part. 'As a clinician, my understanding of what (the bill) says is that I would have to ask the patient if she were having an abortion for any of these reasons and then document their response,' Swartz said in a phone interview, speaking on his personal behalf and not of the hospital. A practitioner may feel even more pressure to record a patient's exact reason for an abortion if the unborn child has multiple health issues in addition to Down Syndrome, said Mary Ziegler, a reproductive rights expert at Florida State University. 'Most physicians in that situation might feel like they have to ask to avoid potential legal liability,' Ziegler said in a phone interview. Overall, the bill 'is not straightforward. It's clearly not a situation where you can say firmly that it doesn't require anyone to do anything and it isn't compelled speech. It's ambiguous,' Ziegler said. 'Whether a bill like this compels speech is something lawyers would disagree about and courts will probably have to resolve.'
|
Our ruling Arp said North Carolina's abortion bill would not 'control' or 'compel' the speech of the doctor and that the bill does not 'don't govern the conversation between the doctor and the patient.' Arp has a point that the bill doesn't tell abortion practitioners specifically what to say to patients about this law. However, it's misleading to say the bill doesn't govern a conversation between a doctor and patient. By ordering doctors to 'confirm' that their patients aren't seeking abortions for discriminatory reasons, the bill requires a practitioner to make an inquiry of some kind. Multiple experts told us doctors will either interpret the bill to mean they must ask patients about their motives. And, even if they don't interpret the bill that way, they'll feel obligated to ask in order to protect themselves from legal liability. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the claim Mostly False.
|
[
"109526-proof-31-e0860f55cebd7b60d662d938460561d4.jpg"
] |
Says North Carolina's proposed abortion bill would not 'govern the conversation between the doctor and patient.
|
Contradiction
|
A proposed North Carolina abortion law has critics concerned about how it might affect the doctor-patient relationship. House Bill 453 aims to stop people from having abortions because they're unhappy with the child's sex, race, or Down Syndrome diagnosis. Bill supporters say it would help prevent discrimination. Meanwhile, critics worry that it could discourage patients from seeking abortions if they feel their motives will be subject to scrutiny. Sex selection is already banned in North Carolina. This bill would not only ban abortions sought for race selection or for Down Syndrome, but would go a step further than the current law by requiring practitioners to 'confirm' that the patient's motives aren't discriminatory. In a June 2 Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, state Sen. Natasha Marcus (D-Mecklenburg) asked bill sponsor Dean Arp (R-Union) a series of questions about how the bill might affect a doctor's interactions with her patient. Arp suggested the bill isn't designed to be intrusive, saying at different times: 'We're not requiring the doctors to say or do anything here. ... We're not controlling the speech of the doctor. ... Quite simply, this bill doesn't compel doctor's speech at all. ... We don't govern the conversation between the doctor and the patient.' Arp later corrected his statement about doctors not being required to 'say or do anything,' since the bill would require practitioners to submit a report to the state's health department. However, given the concerns of advocates, we wondered about his other statements. Would the bill 'control' or 'compel' a doctor's speech, or 'govern the conversation between the doctor and the patient?' Put simply, the bill does not tell doctors specifically what to say. However, experts believe it puts doctors in the position of asking patients about their motives for seeking abortions, or else risk puttting their own professional careers on the line by making a judgement call about the patient's motives without having asked. Part of a trend North Carolina's bill is similar to others that have been introduced and even enacted that attempt to stop women from having abortions if they're unhappy with their baby's sex, race or medical diagnosis. PolitiFact partner WRAL has covered North Carolina's bill as it moved through the legislature to Gov. Roy Cooper's desk, where it currently sits unsigned. North Carolina's bill falls in the middle of the abortion law strictness spectrum, with Arkansas on the stricter end and Ohio having more lenient language. The Arkansas law, which the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down, specifically required a practitioner to 'ask the pregnant woman if she is aware of any test results, prenatal diagnosis, or any other evidence that the unborn child may have Down Syndrome.' Ohio's law, which is also working its way through the courts, blocks practitioners from performing abortions 'if the (practitioner) has knowledge' that the patient is seeking an abortion for discriminatory reasons. It doesn't instruct practitioners to question their patients or use the word 'confirm.' North Carolina's bill is similar to an abortion law in Mississippi, which requires doctors to 'confirm' a patient's motives but doesn't instruct them what to ask. We wanted to know how the bill affects Mississippi practitioners. So we called and emailed the Jackson Women's Health Organization, which is the only remaining abortion clinic left in Mississippi. Nora Franco, a spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Mississippi's bill has definitely prompted new conversations between practitioners and patients. 'The law has forced the Mississippi clinic to confirm with their patients they are not seeking abortions for prohibited reasons and to turn away some patients - which they would not have had to do absent this law, which, again, does nothing to address the discrimination politicians claims it addresses,' she said. What is 'compelled speech?' In a 25-minute telephone interview with PolitiFact, Arp said bill authors tried 'desperately' not to dictate how medical practices should operate. He contrasted the bill to a previous North Carolina law known as the Woman's Right to Know Act. That law, passed in 2011, required practitioners to show their patient an ultrasound and describe the images in detail before performing an abortion. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2014 struck down the law on grounds that it 'compelled speech' and violated the First Amendment. That ultrasound law 'forces physicians to say things they otherwise would not say,' a judge wrote. The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to take up the case. Arp told PolitiFact that he doesn't view North Carolina's latest bill as compelled speech because it doesn't specifically tell doctors to say anything. The bill instructs practitioners to find out the answer to the question: Did the patient seek an abortion for discriminatory reasons? But it doesn't tell them how to answer the question. Where some see the bill's vague directive as a negative, Arp sees it as a positive. 'How they determine (the answer) totally lies within themselves and I imagine each doctor would be different in their comfort level in addressing that question,' Arp said. 'Nothing in here stops a doctor from saying what a doctor wants and nothing in here compels the doctor to tell a patient anything.' 'I don't doubt that the doctor could ask (about a patient's motives) if the doctor felt that that's what they needed to do to be accurate and conform to the reporting mechanism,' he said. Alternatively, he suggested a doctor could get around having the conversation with the patient if they presented the patient with, say, a paper questionnaire. 'It could be a form that they give on (patient) intake, where people go down through and they just say check, check, check, check, check,' he said. Even if the patient were presented with such a form, that does not mean that the patient would answer it, which would leave the ball in the physician's court to inquire through conversation. And a judge may not share Arp's view that the bill doesn't qualify as compelled speech, said Laurie Sobel, an attorney and associate director of women's health policy for the Kaiser Family Foundation. The foundation studies health and healthcare policies. 'The word 'confirm' could reasonably be interpreted to compel speech to ask,' Sobel said. Unless a doctor asks about a patient's motives, or the patient divulges them voluntarily, she said practitioners are left to make a judgement on their own. 'I don't think the medical record does anything to show intent,' Sobel said. Confirming motives Multiple experts told us they don't see how a North Carolina practitioner would 'confirm' a patient's motives without asking them. Not only does the bill require practitioners to confirm that their patient doesn't have discriminatory motives, it also requires practitioners record 'a statement' saying that they have 'reason to believe that the woman did not seek the abortion' for those specified reasons. Experts said the fact that a patient's motives would be recorded by the state puts extra pressure on practitioners to accurately document them, and more likely to directly ask about them. 'If the outcome (of noncompliance with the law) is a penalty, and then there's other pieces of documentation that have to happen, you're saying, 'You have to talk to the patient about this,'' said Elizabeth Nash, principal policy associate for the Guttmacher Institute. Dr. Jonas Swartz, an obstetrician who practices at Duke Health, pointed out that the bill changes the state's expectations of doctors under the current law prohibiting certain abortions. The current law says, 'Nothing in this section shall be construed as placing an affirmative duty on a physician to inquire as to whether the sex of the unborn child is a significant factor in the pregnant woman seeking the abortion.' The proposed law crosses out that part. 'As a clinician, my understanding of what (the bill) says is that I would have to ask the patient if she were having an abortion for any of these reasons and then document their response,' Swartz said in a phone interview, speaking on his personal behalf and not of the hospital. A practitioner may feel even more pressure to record a patient's exact reason for an abortion if the unborn child has multiple health issues in addition to Down Syndrome, said Mary Ziegler, a reproductive rights expert at Florida State University. 'Most physicians in that situation might feel like they have to ask to avoid potential legal liability,' Ziegler said in a phone interview. Overall, the bill 'is not straightforward. It's clearly not a situation where you can say firmly that it doesn't require anyone to do anything and it isn't compelled speech. It's ambiguous,' Ziegler said. 'Whether a bill like this compels speech is something lawyers would disagree about and courts will probably have to resolve.'
|
Our ruling Arp said North Carolina's abortion bill would not 'control' or 'compel' the speech of the doctor and that the bill does not 'don't govern the conversation between the doctor and the patient.' Arp has a point that the bill doesn't tell abortion practitioners specifically what to say to patients about this law. However, it's misleading to say the bill doesn't govern a conversation between a doctor and patient. By ordering doctors to 'confirm' that their patients aren't seeking abortions for discriminatory reasons, the bill requires a practitioner to make an inquiry of some kind. Multiple experts told us doctors will either interpret the bill to mean they must ask patients about their motives. And, even if they don't interpret the bill that way, they'll feel obligated to ask in order to protect themselves from legal liability. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the claim Mostly False.
|
[
"109526-proof-31-e0860f55cebd7b60d662d938460561d4.jpg"
] |
Says North Carolina's proposed abortion bill would not 'govern the conversation between the doctor and patient.
|
Contradiction
|
A proposed North Carolina abortion law has critics concerned about how it might affect the doctor-patient relationship. House Bill 453 aims to stop people from having abortions because they're unhappy with the child's sex, race, or Down Syndrome diagnosis. Bill supporters say it would help prevent discrimination. Meanwhile, critics worry that it could discourage patients from seeking abortions if they feel their motives will be subject to scrutiny. Sex selection is already banned in North Carolina. This bill would not only ban abortions sought for race selection or for Down Syndrome, but would go a step further than the current law by requiring practitioners to 'confirm' that the patient's motives aren't discriminatory. In a June 2 Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, state Sen. Natasha Marcus (D-Mecklenburg) asked bill sponsor Dean Arp (R-Union) a series of questions about how the bill might affect a doctor's interactions with her patient. Arp suggested the bill isn't designed to be intrusive, saying at different times: 'We're not requiring the doctors to say or do anything here. ... We're not controlling the speech of the doctor. ... Quite simply, this bill doesn't compel doctor's speech at all. ... We don't govern the conversation between the doctor and the patient.' Arp later corrected his statement about doctors not being required to 'say or do anything,' since the bill would require practitioners to submit a report to the state's health department. However, given the concerns of advocates, we wondered about his other statements. Would the bill 'control' or 'compel' a doctor's speech, or 'govern the conversation between the doctor and the patient?' Put simply, the bill does not tell doctors specifically what to say. However, experts believe it puts doctors in the position of asking patients about their motives for seeking abortions, or else risk puttting their own professional careers on the line by making a judgement call about the patient's motives without having asked. Part of a trend North Carolina's bill is similar to others that have been introduced and even enacted that attempt to stop women from having abortions if they're unhappy with their baby's sex, race or medical diagnosis. PolitiFact partner WRAL has covered North Carolina's bill as it moved through the legislature to Gov. Roy Cooper's desk, where it currently sits unsigned. North Carolina's bill falls in the middle of the abortion law strictness spectrum, with Arkansas on the stricter end and Ohio having more lenient language. The Arkansas law, which the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down, specifically required a practitioner to 'ask the pregnant woman if she is aware of any test results, prenatal diagnosis, or any other evidence that the unborn child may have Down Syndrome.' Ohio's law, which is also working its way through the courts, blocks practitioners from performing abortions 'if the (practitioner) has knowledge' that the patient is seeking an abortion for discriminatory reasons. It doesn't instruct practitioners to question their patients or use the word 'confirm.' North Carolina's bill is similar to an abortion law in Mississippi, which requires doctors to 'confirm' a patient's motives but doesn't instruct them what to ask. We wanted to know how the bill affects Mississippi practitioners. So we called and emailed the Jackson Women's Health Organization, which is the only remaining abortion clinic left in Mississippi. Nora Franco, a spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Mississippi's bill has definitely prompted new conversations between practitioners and patients. 'The law has forced the Mississippi clinic to confirm with their patients they are not seeking abortions for prohibited reasons and to turn away some patients - which they would not have had to do absent this law, which, again, does nothing to address the discrimination politicians claims it addresses,' she said. What is 'compelled speech?' In a 25-minute telephone interview with PolitiFact, Arp said bill authors tried 'desperately' not to dictate how medical practices should operate. He contrasted the bill to a previous North Carolina law known as the Woman's Right to Know Act. That law, passed in 2011, required practitioners to show their patient an ultrasound and describe the images in detail before performing an abortion. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2014 struck down the law on grounds that it 'compelled speech' and violated the First Amendment. That ultrasound law 'forces physicians to say things they otherwise would not say,' a judge wrote. The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to take up the case. Arp told PolitiFact that he doesn't view North Carolina's latest bill as compelled speech because it doesn't specifically tell doctors to say anything. The bill instructs practitioners to find out the answer to the question: Did the patient seek an abortion for discriminatory reasons? But it doesn't tell them how to answer the question. Where some see the bill's vague directive as a negative, Arp sees it as a positive. 'How they determine (the answer) totally lies within themselves and I imagine each doctor would be different in their comfort level in addressing that question,' Arp said. 'Nothing in here stops a doctor from saying what a doctor wants and nothing in here compels the doctor to tell a patient anything.' 'I don't doubt that the doctor could ask (about a patient's motives) if the doctor felt that that's what they needed to do to be accurate and conform to the reporting mechanism,' he said. Alternatively, he suggested a doctor could get around having the conversation with the patient if they presented the patient with, say, a paper questionnaire. 'It could be a form that they give on (patient) intake, where people go down through and they just say check, check, check, check, check,' he said. Even if the patient were presented with such a form, that does not mean that the patient would answer it, which would leave the ball in the physician's court to inquire through conversation. And a judge may not share Arp's view that the bill doesn't qualify as compelled speech, said Laurie Sobel, an attorney and associate director of women's health policy for the Kaiser Family Foundation. The foundation studies health and healthcare policies. 'The word 'confirm' could reasonably be interpreted to compel speech to ask,' Sobel said. Unless a doctor asks about a patient's motives, or the patient divulges them voluntarily, she said practitioners are left to make a judgement on their own. 'I don't think the medical record does anything to show intent,' Sobel said. Confirming motives Multiple experts told us they don't see how a North Carolina practitioner would 'confirm' a patient's motives without asking them. Not only does the bill require practitioners to confirm that their patient doesn't have discriminatory motives, it also requires practitioners record 'a statement' saying that they have 'reason to believe that the woman did not seek the abortion' for those specified reasons. Experts said the fact that a patient's motives would be recorded by the state puts extra pressure on practitioners to accurately document them, and more likely to directly ask about them. 'If the outcome (of noncompliance with the law) is a penalty, and then there's other pieces of documentation that have to happen, you're saying, 'You have to talk to the patient about this,'' said Elizabeth Nash, principal policy associate for the Guttmacher Institute. Dr. Jonas Swartz, an obstetrician who practices at Duke Health, pointed out that the bill changes the state's expectations of doctors under the current law prohibiting certain abortions. The current law says, 'Nothing in this section shall be construed as placing an affirmative duty on a physician to inquire as to whether the sex of the unborn child is a significant factor in the pregnant woman seeking the abortion.' The proposed law crosses out that part. 'As a clinician, my understanding of what (the bill) says is that I would have to ask the patient if she were having an abortion for any of these reasons and then document their response,' Swartz said in a phone interview, speaking on his personal behalf and not of the hospital. A practitioner may feel even more pressure to record a patient's exact reason for an abortion if the unborn child has multiple health issues in addition to Down Syndrome, said Mary Ziegler, a reproductive rights expert at Florida State University. 'Most physicians in that situation might feel like they have to ask to avoid potential legal liability,' Ziegler said in a phone interview. Overall, the bill 'is not straightforward. It's clearly not a situation where you can say firmly that it doesn't require anyone to do anything and it isn't compelled speech. It's ambiguous,' Ziegler said. 'Whether a bill like this compels speech is something lawyers would disagree about and courts will probably have to resolve.'
|
Our ruling Arp said North Carolina's abortion bill would not 'control' or 'compel' the speech of the doctor and that the bill does not 'don't govern the conversation between the doctor and the patient.' Arp has a point that the bill doesn't tell abortion practitioners specifically what to say to patients about this law. However, it's misleading to say the bill doesn't govern a conversation between a doctor and patient. By ordering doctors to 'confirm' that their patients aren't seeking abortions for discriminatory reasons, the bill requires a practitioner to make an inquiry of some kind. Multiple experts told us doctors will either interpret the bill to mean they must ask patients about their motives. And, even if they don't interpret the bill that way, they'll feel obligated to ask in order to protect themselves from legal liability. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the claim Mostly False.
|
[
"109526-proof-31-e0860f55cebd7b60d662d938460561d4.jpg"
] |
The voting bill known as H.R. 1 would mean 'that millions of illegal immigrants are quickly registered to vote.
|
Contradiction
|
Former Vice President Mike Pence attacked the Democrats' bill to expand voting rights in a recent op-ed, saying H.R. 1 would open the door to more votes cast by people who live in the U.S. without permission. Pence wrote that he shared concerns about the 'integrity of the 2020 election' - although dozens of courts have upheld the results for President Joe Biden, without finding evidence of voter fraud. He lamented that Democrats in Congress were seeking to brazenly 'nationalize' elections with H.R. 1, which passed the House March 3. 'The bill would force states to adopt universal mail-in ballots, early voting, same-day voter registration, online voter registration, and automatic voter registration for any individual listed in state and federal government databases, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles and welfare offices, ensuring duplicate registrations and that millions of illegal immigrants are quickly registered to vote,' he wrote in The Daily Signal, a publication of the conservative Heritage Foundation where Pence is a fellow. In this fact-check, we wanted to review Pence's statement that H.R. 1 would result in registering millions of immigrants who are in the country illegally or other ineligible noncitizens. (We rated his claim about 'universal mail-in ballots' False.) Our reporting found that Pence used flawed logic to make his claim, and he ignored steps offered in H.R. 1 to ensure legal registrations by eligible citizens. Voters would continue to attest to their eligibility, including citizenship, when they register to vote. The penalties for a noncitizen who votes or registers to vote can include deportation, incarceration or fines. 'This is the law in the United States and in every state, and H.R. 1 does nothing to alter that,' said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research executive director and founder. 'These laws have been very successful in minimizing noncitizens on the lists, and ensuring that only eligible citizens are registered and voting.' H.R. 1 doesn't change the legal requirement that only citizens register H.R. 1 does not change federal law, which states that only eligible citizens can vote in federal elections. The goal of the legislation is to make it easier for eligible citizens to register. While some noncitizens have ended up on voter registration lists, often in error, voting by noncitizens is statistically rare. For example, Pennsylvania officials a few years ago said they found potentially 544 ballots cast by noncitizens in elections dating back to 2000 - out of 93 million ballots cast. That worked out to about 1 out of every 172,000 ballots. When we contacted the Heritage Foundation to ask for Pence's evidence, a spokesperson pointed to provisions about automatic voter registration in the bill. They said that under H.R. 1, government agencies would forward information about people who wanted to register to election officials without knowing their citizenship status. But experts on election law dismissed Pence's warning that 'millions' of ineligible immigrants would be immediately added to the voter rolls. 'Nothing in H.R. 1's provisions results in undocumented immigrants being 'quickly registered to vote,'' said Matthew Weil, an election expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Under the bill, a person interacting with a government office - such as the motor-vehicles department or public-assistance agency - would have their information forwarded to election officials for registration purposes unless they 'opt out.' Some states already offer the opt-out process for voter registration, and others require applicants to opt in. This section of H.R. 1 explicitly states that the purpose is to enable governments 'to register all eligible citizens to vote.' It goes on to say that government offices are to share voter-registration information only with eligible citizens. If the agency doesn't know a person's citizenship status, it would would direct them to a registration form where they would attest to their citizenship, as required by the National Voter Registration Act. It's still up to a local election agency to determine whether the applicant is eligible to register to vote. Many of the government agencies that would be involved in the process already verify citizenship and would be able to filter out noncitizens, said Danielle Lang, a voting expert at the Campaign Legal Center. 'All of these voter registration options are already available in many states - both red and blue - and there is no evidence that they lead to significant numbers of noncitizens becoming registered to vote,' Lang said. The Heritage Foundation spokesperson pointed to another provision in H.R. 1, which states that ineligible immigrants who are registered in error can't be prosecuted or face adverse consequences related to their immigration status. But a person could still face prosecution if they lied during registration about their citizenship status, Lang said.
|
Our ruling Pence said H.R. 1 would mean 'that millions of illegal immigrants are quickly registered to vote.' The bill does not permit voting by noncitizens in U.S. elections, whether they're in the country legally or not. Pence was referring to a provision that would require automatic voter registration for people using services at government agencies. But that section says government agencies would pass along a person's information for voter registration only if they are citizens. People would still be attesting that they are eligible to vote, with penalties for lying, and it would still be up to election officials to verify eligibility. The goal of the bill is to register eligible citizens. Pence's warning that 'millions' of ineligible noncitizens would be quickly added to the rolls is unsupported. We rate this statement False. PolitiFact senior correspondent Louis Jacobson contributed to this report. RELATED: Mike Pence is wrong that HR 1 forces states to shift to universal mail balloting RELATED: Trump misleads about HR 1 and voter registration for welfare recipients RELATED: Do states verify citizenship of voters in federal elections? RELATED: No, House Democrats did not vote to allow noncitizens to vote as part of HR 1
|
[
"109529-proof-27-9bf10628406731b426493a571579dde4.jpg"
] |
The voting bill known as H.R. 1 would mean 'that millions of illegal immigrants are quickly registered to vote.
|
Contradiction
|
Former Vice President Mike Pence attacked the Democrats' bill to expand voting rights in a recent op-ed, saying H.R. 1 would open the door to more votes cast by people who live in the U.S. without permission. Pence wrote that he shared concerns about the 'integrity of the 2020 election' - although dozens of courts have upheld the results for President Joe Biden, without finding evidence of voter fraud. He lamented that Democrats in Congress were seeking to brazenly 'nationalize' elections with H.R. 1, which passed the House March 3. 'The bill would force states to adopt universal mail-in ballots, early voting, same-day voter registration, online voter registration, and automatic voter registration for any individual listed in state and federal government databases, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles and welfare offices, ensuring duplicate registrations and that millions of illegal immigrants are quickly registered to vote,' he wrote in The Daily Signal, a publication of the conservative Heritage Foundation where Pence is a fellow. In this fact-check, we wanted to review Pence's statement that H.R. 1 would result in registering millions of immigrants who are in the country illegally or other ineligible noncitizens. (We rated his claim about 'universal mail-in ballots' False.) Our reporting found that Pence used flawed logic to make his claim, and he ignored steps offered in H.R. 1 to ensure legal registrations by eligible citizens. Voters would continue to attest to their eligibility, including citizenship, when they register to vote. The penalties for a noncitizen who votes or registers to vote can include deportation, incarceration or fines. 'This is the law in the United States and in every state, and H.R. 1 does nothing to alter that,' said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research executive director and founder. 'These laws have been very successful in minimizing noncitizens on the lists, and ensuring that only eligible citizens are registered and voting.' H.R. 1 doesn't change the legal requirement that only citizens register H.R. 1 does not change federal law, which states that only eligible citizens can vote in federal elections. The goal of the legislation is to make it easier for eligible citizens to register. While some noncitizens have ended up on voter registration lists, often in error, voting by noncitizens is statistically rare. For example, Pennsylvania officials a few years ago said they found potentially 544 ballots cast by noncitizens in elections dating back to 2000 - out of 93 million ballots cast. That worked out to about 1 out of every 172,000 ballots. When we contacted the Heritage Foundation to ask for Pence's evidence, a spokesperson pointed to provisions about automatic voter registration in the bill. They said that under H.R. 1, government agencies would forward information about people who wanted to register to election officials without knowing their citizenship status. But experts on election law dismissed Pence's warning that 'millions' of ineligible immigrants would be immediately added to the voter rolls. 'Nothing in H.R. 1's provisions results in undocumented immigrants being 'quickly registered to vote,'' said Matthew Weil, an election expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Under the bill, a person interacting with a government office - such as the motor-vehicles department or public-assistance agency - would have their information forwarded to election officials for registration purposes unless they 'opt out.' Some states already offer the opt-out process for voter registration, and others require applicants to opt in. This section of H.R. 1 explicitly states that the purpose is to enable governments 'to register all eligible citizens to vote.' It goes on to say that government offices are to share voter-registration information only with eligible citizens. If the agency doesn't know a person's citizenship status, it would would direct them to a registration form where they would attest to their citizenship, as required by the National Voter Registration Act. It's still up to a local election agency to determine whether the applicant is eligible to register to vote. Many of the government agencies that would be involved in the process already verify citizenship and would be able to filter out noncitizens, said Danielle Lang, a voting expert at the Campaign Legal Center. 'All of these voter registration options are already available in many states - both red and blue - and there is no evidence that they lead to significant numbers of noncitizens becoming registered to vote,' Lang said. The Heritage Foundation spokesperson pointed to another provision in H.R. 1, which states that ineligible immigrants who are registered in error can't be prosecuted or face adverse consequences related to their immigration status. But a person could still face prosecution if they lied during registration about their citizenship status, Lang said.
|
Our ruling Pence said H.R. 1 would mean 'that millions of illegal immigrants are quickly registered to vote.' The bill does not permit voting by noncitizens in U.S. elections, whether they're in the country legally or not. Pence was referring to a provision that would require automatic voter registration for people using services at government agencies. But that section says government agencies would pass along a person's information for voter registration only if they are citizens. People would still be attesting that they are eligible to vote, with penalties for lying, and it would still be up to election officials to verify eligibility. The goal of the bill is to register eligible citizens. Pence's warning that 'millions' of ineligible noncitizens would be quickly added to the rolls is unsupported. We rate this statement False. PolitiFact senior correspondent Louis Jacobson contributed to this report. RELATED: Mike Pence is wrong that HR 1 forces states to shift to universal mail balloting RELATED: Trump misleads about HR 1 and voter registration for welfare recipients RELATED: Do states verify citizenship of voters in federal elections? RELATED: No, House Democrats did not vote to allow noncitizens to vote as part of HR 1
|
[
"109529-proof-27-9bf10628406731b426493a571579dde4.jpg"
] |
The voting bill known as H.R. 1 would mean 'that millions of illegal immigrants are quickly registered to vote.
|
Contradiction
|
Former Vice President Mike Pence attacked the Democrats' bill to expand voting rights in a recent op-ed, saying H.R. 1 would open the door to more votes cast by people who live in the U.S. without permission. Pence wrote that he shared concerns about the 'integrity of the 2020 election' - although dozens of courts have upheld the results for President Joe Biden, without finding evidence of voter fraud. He lamented that Democrats in Congress were seeking to brazenly 'nationalize' elections with H.R. 1, which passed the House March 3. 'The bill would force states to adopt universal mail-in ballots, early voting, same-day voter registration, online voter registration, and automatic voter registration for any individual listed in state and federal government databases, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles and welfare offices, ensuring duplicate registrations and that millions of illegal immigrants are quickly registered to vote,' he wrote in The Daily Signal, a publication of the conservative Heritage Foundation where Pence is a fellow. In this fact-check, we wanted to review Pence's statement that H.R. 1 would result in registering millions of immigrants who are in the country illegally or other ineligible noncitizens. (We rated his claim about 'universal mail-in ballots' False.) Our reporting found that Pence used flawed logic to make his claim, and he ignored steps offered in H.R. 1 to ensure legal registrations by eligible citizens. Voters would continue to attest to their eligibility, including citizenship, when they register to vote. The penalties for a noncitizen who votes or registers to vote can include deportation, incarceration or fines. 'This is the law in the United States and in every state, and H.R. 1 does nothing to alter that,' said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research executive director and founder. 'These laws have been very successful in minimizing noncitizens on the lists, and ensuring that only eligible citizens are registered and voting.' H.R. 1 doesn't change the legal requirement that only citizens register H.R. 1 does not change federal law, which states that only eligible citizens can vote in federal elections. The goal of the legislation is to make it easier for eligible citizens to register. While some noncitizens have ended up on voter registration lists, often in error, voting by noncitizens is statistically rare. For example, Pennsylvania officials a few years ago said they found potentially 544 ballots cast by noncitizens in elections dating back to 2000 - out of 93 million ballots cast. That worked out to about 1 out of every 172,000 ballots. When we contacted the Heritage Foundation to ask for Pence's evidence, a spokesperson pointed to provisions about automatic voter registration in the bill. They said that under H.R. 1, government agencies would forward information about people who wanted to register to election officials without knowing their citizenship status. But experts on election law dismissed Pence's warning that 'millions' of ineligible immigrants would be immediately added to the voter rolls. 'Nothing in H.R. 1's provisions results in undocumented immigrants being 'quickly registered to vote,'' said Matthew Weil, an election expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Under the bill, a person interacting with a government office - such as the motor-vehicles department or public-assistance agency - would have their information forwarded to election officials for registration purposes unless they 'opt out.' Some states already offer the opt-out process for voter registration, and others require applicants to opt in. This section of H.R. 1 explicitly states that the purpose is to enable governments 'to register all eligible citizens to vote.' It goes on to say that government offices are to share voter-registration information only with eligible citizens. If the agency doesn't know a person's citizenship status, it would would direct them to a registration form where they would attest to their citizenship, as required by the National Voter Registration Act. It's still up to a local election agency to determine whether the applicant is eligible to register to vote. Many of the government agencies that would be involved in the process already verify citizenship and would be able to filter out noncitizens, said Danielle Lang, a voting expert at the Campaign Legal Center. 'All of these voter registration options are already available in many states - both red and blue - and there is no evidence that they lead to significant numbers of noncitizens becoming registered to vote,' Lang said. The Heritage Foundation spokesperson pointed to another provision in H.R. 1, which states that ineligible immigrants who are registered in error can't be prosecuted or face adverse consequences related to their immigration status. But a person could still face prosecution if they lied during registration about their citizenship status, Lang said.
|
Our ruling Pence said H.R. 1 would mean 'that millions of illegal immigrants are quickly registered to vote.' The bill does not permit voting by noncitizens in U.S. elections, whether they're in the country legally or not. Pence was referring to a provision that would require automatic voter registration for people using services at government agencies. But that section says government agencies would pass along a person's information for voter registration only if they are citizens. People would still be attesting that they are eligible to vote, with penalties for lying, and it would still be up to election officials to verify eligibility. The goal of the bill is to register eligible citizens. Pence's warning that 'millions' of ineligible noncitizens would be quickly added to the rolls is unsupported. We rate this statement False. PolitiFact senior correspondent Louis Jacobson contributed to this report. RELATED: Mike Pence is wrong that HR 1 forces states to shift to universal mail balloting RELATED: Trump misleads about HR 1 and voter registration for welfare recipients RELATED: Do states verify citizenship of voters in federal elections? RELATED: No, House Democrats did not vote to allow noncitizens to vote as part of HR 1
|
[
"109529-proof-27-9bf10628406731b426493a571579dde4.jpg"
] |
'You must give EVERY PENNY' of the advance child tax credit payments back when you file your 2021 taxes.
|
Contradiction
|
Many American households with children saw their bank account balances increase on July 15 as the IRS began distributing the first in a series of advance child tax credit payments. The early payments of the child tax credit - which was increased as part of the American Rescue Plan Act - will continue through December 2021 to families of children ages 17 and under. Ultimately, the advance payments will distribute half of a family's expected total child tax credit for 2021. Families will receive the other half of the credit when they file their taxes. Although many view the payments as a positive step, others took to social media to express their concerns. 'I see a lot of people celebrating #BidenBucks like its free money,' reads one since-deleted tweet. 'This is a dollar-for-dollar advance on your taxes. You must give EVERY PENNY of it back when you file next year. It's different from the stimulus money you may have received in 2020 (didn't require repayment).' We found similar tweets elsewhere, including one that called the credit a 'bait & switch' and another that described it as a 'scam.' Will people have to pay back the money they receive from the advance payments? It's possible, but there are mechanisms in place to prevent that from happening - particularly for the most vulnerable families. In many cases, taxpayers will not have to pay back the money received via the advance child tax credit payments. On its website, the IRS explains that the payments are 'early payments from the IRS of 50% of the estimated amount of the Child Tax Credit that you may properly claim on your 2021 tax return during the 2022 tax filing season.' A family with a child age 17 or younger that has an adjusted gross income of less than $240,000 per year for a single filer or less than $440,000 per year for a couple filing jointly should be eligible to receive at least some portion of the 2021 child tax credit. To determine eligibility for the advance payments and to estimate the child tax credit a family will earn, the IRS used 2020 tax returns (or 2019 tax returns if a family's 2020 return has not yet been processed.) Because the advanced child tax credit payments are based on an estimate of the 2021 tax credit a family will be eligible for, it is possible some families might have to pay back some of the money. 'If the total (amount of advance Child Tax Credit payments) is greater than the Child Tax Credit amount that you are allowed to claim on your 2021 tax return, you may have to repay the excess amount on your 2021 tax return during the 2022 tax filing season,' the IRS explained. If a child turns 18 in 2021, for example, that could result in the IRS overestimating a family's expected child tax credit. It is worth noting that the IRS routinely gets information from the Social Security Administration on valid Social Security numbers, which can be used to determine age. But if, for some reason, a family receives advance payments for a child who is no longer eligible in 2021, the money will likely have to be paid back. Divorced parents who alternate the years they claim their children as dependents might also encounter a situation where the IRS might send child tax credit payments that would need to be paid back. But there are protections in place to prevent families from encountering a situation where they would have to pay money back, according to Elaine Maag, a tax policy expert and principal research associate at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. She said research shows that very low-income families are the most likely to have changing child custody situations or to have experienced a marriage or divorce. To protect those families from having to pay back money, there is a 'hold harmless' provision in the law. 'It essentially says if you're single and have income of under about $40,000, you're at no risk of paying back erroneous payments,' Maag said. Married couples making up to $60,000 are also protected from having to pay back overpayments of up to $2,000 per child because of the hold harmless provision. If a family's income drastically increased in 2021 compared to the income indicated on the 2020 (or 2019) tax return the IRS used to estimate the family's tax credit, the outdated information could result in overpayments of the credit that might have to be paid back. 'It would reduce your refund or increase your tax payment next April,' April Walker, lead manager of tax practice and ethics at the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, told CNBC. 'That's how it would be paid back.' Maag said she believes that drastic increases in income resulting in overpayments of the tax credit 'will be rare' because families will receive the maximum amount of the child tax credit if they earn anywhere between $0 and $75,000 as a single filer (or $112,500 for head of household) or $150,000 for joint filers. 'Most people won't go from $0 to a $300,000 per year earnings,' she said. 'I don't think that situation will be extremely common.' She noted that even if a family's income went from $20,000 a year to $300,000 a year, the family's child tax credit would only decrease from $3,000 to $2,000 per child. 'Only half of that is being advanced, so it's not a huge liability,' Maag said. 'And that's a really high-income family. They can probably absorb that change in their taxes.' The payments are not taxable income. They are tax credits that reduce a family's tax bill. Families can choose to opt out of the monthly payments in favor of receiving their child tax credit as a lump sum after filing their taxes using the IRS's Child Tax Credit Update Portal. The deadline to opt out is about two weeks before a payment is made. The only way a family will have to pay back the money received in the advanced payments is if the household actually qualifies for a smaller 2021 child tax credit than what the IRS estimated when distributing the payments. Ultimately, Maag said 'we don't know the exact answer' to how many families this might impact.
|
Our ruling A tweet said that 'you must give EVERY PENNY' of the advance child tax credit payments back when you file your 2021 taxes. Because the IRS calculated eligibility for the payments based on a family's 2020 tax return, it is possible that some families, such as those whose incomes dramatically increased in 2021 or parents who alternate claiming children as dependents, could have to pay some money back. However, 'must' communicates a sense of certainty that is at odds with the reality of the situation. And even families that end up having to pay back some of the child credit will not necessarily have to pay back 'EVERY PENNY.' Finally, the law includes protections in place to ensure the lowest-income families will not have to pay back erroneous payments. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[] |
'You must give EVERY PENNY' of the advance child tax credit payments back when you file your 2021 taxes.
|
Contradiction
|
Many American households with children saw their bank account balances increase on July 15 as the IRS began distributing the first in a series of advance child tax credit payments. The early payments of the child tax credit - which was increased as part of the American Rescue Plan Act - will continue through December 2021 to families of children ages 17 and under. Ultimately, the advance payments will distribute half of a family's expected total child tax credit for 2021. Families will receive the other half of the credit when they file their taxes. Although many view the payments as a positive step, others took to social media to express their concerns. 'I see a lot of people celebrating #BidenBucks like its free money,' reads one since-deleted tweet. 'This is a dollar-for-dollar advance on your taxes. You must give EVERY PENNY of it back when you file next year. It's different from the stimulus money you may have received in 2020 (didn't require repayment).' We found similar tweets elsewhere, including one that called the credit a 'bait & switch' and another that described it as a 'scam.' Will people have to pay back the money they receive from the advance payments? It's possible, but there are mechanisms in place to prevent that from happening - particularly for the most vulnerable families. In many cases, taxpayers will not have to pay back the money received via the advance child tax credit payments. On its website, the IRS explains that the payments are 'early payments from the IRS of 50% of the estimated amount of the Child Tax Credit that you may properly claim on your 2021 tax return during the 2022 tax filing season.' A family with a child age 17 or younger that has an adjusted gross income of less than $240,000 per year for a single filer or less than $440,000 per year for a couple filing jointly should be eligible to receive at least some portion of the 2021 child tax credit. To determine eligibility for the advance payments and to estimate the child tax credit a family will earn, the IRS used 2020 tax returns (or 2019 tax returns if a family's 2020 return has not yet been processed.) Because the advanced child tax credit payments are based on an estimate of the 2021 tax credit a family will be eligible for, it is possible some families might have to pay back some of the money. 'If the total (amount of advance Child Tax Credit payments) is greater than the Child Tax Credit amount that you are allowed to claim on your 2021 tax return, you may have to repay the excess amount on your 2021 tax return during the 2022 tax filing season,' the IRS explained. If a child turns 18 in 2021, for example, that could result in the IRS overestimating a family's expected child tax credit. It is worth noting that the IRS routinely gets information from the Social Security Administration on valid Social Security numbers, which can be used to determine age. But if, for some reason, a family receives advance payments for a child who is no longer eligible in 2021, the money will likely have to be paid back. Divorced parents who alternate the years they claim their children as dependents might also encounter a situation where the IRS might send child tax credit payments that would need to be paid back. But there are protections in place to prevent families from encountering a situation where they would have to pay money back, according to Elaine Maag, a tax policy expert and principal research associate at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. She said research shows that very low-income families are the most likely to have changing child custody situations or to have experienced a marriage or divorce. To protect those families from having to pay back money, there is a 'hold harmless' provision in the law. 'It essentially says if you're single and have income of under about $40,000, you're at no risk of paying back erroneous payments,' Maag said. Married couples making up to $60,000 are also protected from having to pay back overpayments of up to $2,000 per child because of the hold harmless provision. If a family's income drastically increased in 2021 compared to the income indicated on the 2020 (or 2019) tax return the IRS used to estimate the family's tax credit, the outdated information could result in overpayments of the credit that might have to be paid back. 'It would reduce your refund or increase your tax payment next April,' April Walker, lead manager of tax practice and ethics at the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, told CNBC. 'That's how it would be paid back.' Maag said she believes that drastic increases in income resulting in overpayments of the tax credit 'will be rare' because families will receive the maximum amount of the child tax credit if they earn anywhere between $0 and $75,000 as a single filer (or $112,500 for head of household) or $150,000 for joint filers. 'Most people won't go from $0 to a $300,000 per year earnings,' she said. 'I don't think that situation will be extremely common.' She noted that even if a family's income went from $20,000 a year to $300,000 a year, the family's child tax credit would only decrease from $3,000 to $2,000 per child. 'Only half of that is being advanced, so it's not a huge liability,' Maag said. 'And that's a really high-income family. They can probably absorb that change in their taxes.' The payments are not taxable income. They are tax credits that reduce a family's tax bill. Families can choose to opt out of the monthly payments in favor of receiving their child tax credit as a lump sum after filing their taxes using the IRS's Child Tax Credit Update Portal. The deadline to opt out is about two weeks before a payment is made. The only way a family will have to pay back the money received in the advanced payments is if the household actually qualifies for a smaller 2021 child tax credit than what the IRS estimated when distributing the payments. Ultimately, Maag said 'we don't know the exact answer' to how many families this might impact.
|
Our ruling A tweet said that 'you must give EVERY PENNY' of the advance child tax credit payments back when you file your 2021 taxes. Because the IRS calculated eligibility for the payments based on a family's 2020 tax return, it is possible that some families, such as those whose incomes dramatically increased in 2021 or parents who alternate claiming children as dependents, could have to pay some money back. However, 'must' communicates a sense of certainty that is at odds with the reality of the situation. And even families that end up having to pay back some of the child credit will not necessarily have to pay back 'EVERY PENNY.' Finally, the law includes protections in place to ensure the lowest-income families will not have to pay back erroneous payments. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[] |
'You must give EVERY PENNY' of the advance child tax credit payments back when you file your 2021 taxes.
|
Contradiction
|
Many American households with children saw their bank account balances increase on July 15 as the IRS began distributing the first in a series of advance child tax credit payments. The early payments of the child tax credit - which was increased as part of the American Rescue Plan Act - will continue through December 2021 to families of children ages 17 and under. Ultimately, the advance payments will distribute half of a family's expected total child tax credit for 2021. Families will receive the other half of the credit when they file their taxes. Although many view the payments as a positive step, others took to social media to express their concerns. 'I see a lot of people celebrating #BidenBucks like its free money,' reads one since-deleted tweet. 'This is a dollar-for-dollar advance on your taxes. You must give EVERY PENNY of it back when you file next year. It's different from the stimulus money you may have received in 2020 (didn't require repayment).' We found similar tweets elsewhere, including one that called the credit a 'bait & switch' and another that described it as a 'scam.' Will people have to pay back the money they receive from the advance payments? It's possible, but there are mechanisms in place to prevent that from happening - particularly for the most vulnerable families. In many cases, taxpayers will not have to pay back the money received via the advance child tax credit payments. On its website, the IRS explains that the payments are 'early payments from the IRS of 50% of the estimated amount of the Child Tax Credit that you may properly claim on your 2021 tax return during the 2022 tax filing season.' A family with a child age 17 or younger that has an adjusted gross income of less than $240,000 per year for a single filer or less than $440,000 per year for a couple filing jointly should be eligible to receive at least some portion of the 2021 child tax credit. To determine eligibility for the advance payments and to estimate the child tax credit a family will earn, the IRS used 2020 tax returns (or 2019 tax returns if a family's 2020 return has not yet been processed.) Because the advanced child tax credit payments are based on an estimate of the 2021 tax credit a family will be eligible for, it is possible some families might have to pay back some of the money. 'If the total (amount of advance Child Tax Credit payments) is greater than the Child Tax Credit amount that you are allowed to claim on your 2021 tax return, you may have to repay the excess amount on your 2021 tax return during the 2022 tax filing season,' the IRS explained. If a child turns 18 in 2021, for example, that could result in the IRS overestimating a family's expected child tax credit. It is worth noting that the IRS routinely gets information from the Social Security Administration on valid Social Security numbers, which can be used to determine age. But if, for some reason, a family receives advance payments for a child who is no longer eligible in 2021, the money will likely have to be paid back. Divorced parents who alternate the years they claim their children as dependents might also encounter a situation where the IRS might send child tax credit payments that would need to be paid back. But there are protections in place to prevent families from encountering a situation where they would have to pay money back, according to Elaine Maag, a tax policy expert and principal research associate at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. She said research shows that very low-income families are the most likely to have changing child custody situations or to have experienced a marriage or divorce. To protect those families from having to pay back money, there is a 'hold harmless' provision in the law. 'It essentially says if you're single and have income of under about $40,000, you're at no risk of paying back erroneous payments,' Maag said. Married couples making up to $60,000 are also protected from having to pay back overpayments of up to $2,000 per child because of the hold harmless provision. If a family's income drastically increased in 2021 compared to the income indicated on the 2020 (or 2019) tax return the IRS used to estimate the family's tax credit, the outdated information could result in overpayments of the credit that might have to be paid back. 'It would reduce your refund or increase your tax payment next April,' April Walker, lead manager of tax practice and ethics at the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, told CNBC. 'That's how it would be paid back.' Maag said she believes that drastic increases in income resulting in overpayments of the tax credit 'will be rare' because families will receive the maximum amount of the child tax credit if they earn anywhere between $0 and $75,000 as a single filer (or $112,500 for head of household) or $150,000 for joint filers. 'Most people won't go from $0 to a $300,000 per year earnings,' she said. 'I don't think that situation will be extremely common.' She noted that even if a family's income went from $20,000 a year to $300,000 a year, the family's child tax credit would only decrease from $3,000 to $2,000 per child. 'Only half of that is being advanced, so it's not a huge liability,' Maag said. 'And that's a really high-income family. They can probably absorb that change in their taxes.' The payments are not taxable income. They are tax credits that reduce a family's tax bill. Families can choose to opt out of the monthly payments in favor of receiving their child tax credit as a lump sum after filing their taxes using the IRS's Child Tax Credit Update Portal. The deadline to opt out is about two weeks before a payment is made. The only way a family will have to pay back the money received in the advanced payments is if the household actually qualifies for a smaller 2021 child tax credit than what the IRS estimated when distributing the payments. Ultimately, Maag said 'we don't know the exact answer' to how many families this might impact.
|
Our ruling A tweet said that 'you must give EVERY PENNY' of the advance child tax credit payments back when you file your 2021 taxes. Because the IRS calculated eligibility for the payments based on a family's 2020 tax return, it is possible that some families, such as those whose incomes dramatically increased in 2021 or parents who alternate claiming children as dependents, could have to pay some money back. However, 'must' communicates a sense of certainty that is at odds with the reality of the situation. And even families that end up having to pay back some of the child credit will not necessarily have to pay back 'EVERY PENNY.' Finally, the law includes protections in place to ensure the lowest-income families will not have to pay back erroneous payments. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[] |
'You must give EVERY PENNY' of the advance child tax credit payments back when you file your 2021 taxes.
|
Contradiction
|
Many American households with children saw their bank account balances increase on July 15 as the IRS began distributing the first in a series of advance child tax credit payments. The early payments of the child tax credit - which was increased as part of the American Rescue Plan Act - will continue through December 2021 to families of children ages 17 and under. Ultimately, the advance payments will distribute half of a family's expected total child tax credit for 2021. Families will receive the other half of the credit when they file their taxes. Although many view the payments as a positive step, others took to social media to express their concerns. 'I see a lot of people celebrating #BidenBucks like its free money,' reads one since-deleted tweet. 'This is a dollar-for-dollar advance on your taxes. You must give EVERY PENNY of it back when you file next year. It's different from the stimulus money you may have received in 2020 (didn't require repayment).' We found similar tweets elsewhere, including one that called the credit a 'bait & switch' and another that described it as a 'scam.' Will people have to pay back the money they receive from the advance payments? It's possible, but there are mechanisms in place to prevent that from happening - particularly for the most vulnerable families. In many cases, taxpayers will not have to pay back the money received via the advance child tax credit payments. On its website, the IRS explains that the payments are 'early payments from the IRS of 50% of the estimated amount of the Child Tax Credit that you may properly claim on your 2021 tax return during the 2022 tax filing season.' A family with a child age 17 or younger that has an adjusted gross income of less than $240,000 per year for a single filer or less than $440,000 per year for a couple filing jointly should be eligible to receive at least some portion of the 2021 child tax credit. To determine eligibility for the advance payments and to estimate the child tax credit a family will earn, the IRS used 2020 tax returns (or 2019 tax returns if a family's 2020 return has not yet been processed.) Because the advanced child tax credit payments are based on an estimate of the 2021 tax credit a family will be eligible for, it is possible some families might have to pay back some of the money. 'If the total (amount of advance Child Tax Credit payments) is greater than the Child Tax Credit amount that you are allowed to claim on your 2021 tax return, you may have to repay the excess amount on your 2021 tax return during the 2022 tax filing season,' the IRS explained. If a child turns 18 in 2021, for example, that could result in the IRS overestimating a family's expected child tax credit. It is worth noting that the IRS routinely gets information from the Social Security Administration on valid Social Security numbers, which can be used to determine age. But if, for some reason, a family receives advance payments for a child who is no longer eligible in 2021, the money will likely have to be paid back. Divorced parents who alternate the years they claim their children as dependents might also encounter a situation where the IRS might send child tax credit payments that would need to be paid back. But there are protections in place to prevent families from encountering a situation where they would have to pay money back, according to Elaine Maag, a tax policy expert and principal research associate at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. She said research shows that very low-income families are the most likely to have changing child custody situations or to have experienced a marriage or divorce. To protect those families from having to pay back money, there is a 'hold harmless' provision in the law. 'It essentially says if you're single and have income of under about $40,000, you're at no risk of paying back erroneous payments,' Maag said. Married couples making up to $60,000 are also protected from having to pay back overpayments of up to $2,000 per child because of the hold harmless provision. If a family's income drastically increased in 2021 compared to the income indicated on the 2020 (or 2019) tax return the IRS used to estimate the family's tax credit, the outdated information could result in overpayments of the credit that might have to be paid back. 'It would reduce your refund or increase your tax payment next April,' April Walker, lead manager of tax practice and ethics at the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, told CNBC. 'That's how it would be paid back.' Maag said she believes that drastic increases in income resulting in overpayments of the tax credit 'will be rare' because families will receive the maximum amount of the child tax credit if they earn anywhere between $0 and $75,000 as a single filer (or $112,500 for head of household) or $150,000 for joint filers. 'Most people won't go from $0 to a $300,000 per year earnings,' she said. 'I don't think that situation will be extremely common.' She noted that even if a family's income went from $20,000 a year to $300,000 a year, the family's child tax credit would only decrease from $3,000 to $2,000 per child. 'Only half of that is being advanced, so it's not a huge liability,' Maag said. 'And that's a really high-income family. They can probably absorb that change in their taxes.' The payments are not taxable income. They are tax credits that reduce a family's tax bill. Families can choose to opt out of the monthly payments in favor of receiving their child tax credit as a lump sum after filing their taxes using the IRS's Child Tax Credit Update Portal. The deadline to opt out is about two weeks before a payment is made. The only way a family will have to pay back the money received in the advanced payments is if the household actually qualifies for a smaller 2021 child tax credit than what the IRS estimated when distributing the payments. Ultimately, Maag said 'we don't know the exact answer' to how many families this might impact.
|
Our ruling A tweet said that 'you must give EVERY PENNY' of the advance child tax credit payments back when you file your 2021 taxes. Because the IRS calculated eligibility for the payments based on a family's 2020 tax return, it is possible that some families, such as those whose incomes dramatically increased in 2021 or parents who alternate claiming children as dependents, could have to pay some money back. However, 'must' communicates a sense of certainty that is at odds with the reality of the situation. And even families that end up having to pay back some of the child credit will not necessarily have to pay back 'EVERY PENNY.' Finally, the law includes protections in place to ensure the lowest-income families will not have to pay back erroneous payments. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[] |
Says the U.S. government caused the coronavirus pandemic because it sent mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to university researchers weeks before the COVID-19 outbreak.
|
Contradiction
|
Alarmist articles are circulating online claiming that newly revealed 'secret documents' show that the U.S. government had coronavirus vaccine candidates from Moderna in development weeks before the COVID-19 outbreak, and thus proves that the pandemic was planned. 'DOCUMENTS: U.S. Gov't Sent 'mRNA Coronavirus Vaccine Candidates' to University Researchers WEEKS BEFORE 'COVID' Outbreak in China! How did they know . . . Unless they caused it?' reads the headline of an article on HalTurnerRadioShow.com. Another article on a website called GreatGameIndia.com claimed: 'Secret Docs Reveal Moderna Sent Coronavirus Vaccine To North Carolina University Weeks Before Pandemic.' The articles were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The documents show a researcher transfer agreement for Moderna vaccine candidates for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus, known as MERS-CoV, according to the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases. The agreement was executed on Dec. 16, 2019 - roughly two weeks before the first SARS-CoV-2 case was detected in Wuhan, China. SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19. These 'secret documents' have been publicly available since at least June 2020. They do not indicate the U.S. government caused or created the ongoing pandemic. Coronaviruses and vaccine agreement Human coronaviruses were first identified in the mid-1960s and researchers have identified seven that can infect people. For years, well before the identification of SARS-CoV-2, researchers have been studying ways to develop vaccines against coronaviruses, particularly because coronaviruses are known to have a high probability of causing pandemics. As part of a larger confidentiality agreement between the U.S. National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Moderna 'mRNA coronavirus vaccines candidates' were transferred for animal testing to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Multiple researchers signed the agreement between Dec. 12-16, 2019. The confidentiality agreement stipulated that mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates would be developed and jointly owned by the two parties. The contract was not specific to the SARS-CoV-2, as it was signed before the new virus had been sequenced. The agreement was amended in February 2020 to add mRNA vaccine candidates for other emerging viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. 'NIAID scientists selected MERS-CoV as a 'prototype pathogen' to study for vaccine development with the intention that the approach could be generalized for vaccines against viruses within the same virus family,' an NIAID spokesperson told PolitiFact. Scientists and collaborators had already created stabilized coronavirus spike proteins (which the viruses use to enter cells and mRNA vaccines use to create antibody responses) before SARS-CoV-2 was identified. Once the virus' sequence was publicly shared in early 2020, the same approach was then applied to developing vaccine candidates for COVID-19. NIAID's Vaccine Research Center and Moderna have collaborated on pandemic preparedness and vaccine research since 2017, the NIAID said, and entered into a formal research collaboration agreement in May 2019 for vaccine candidates for MERS-CoV and Nipah virus.
|
Our ruling Articles suggest the U.S. government created the pandemic because its scientists sent mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to other researchers before the COVID-19 outbreak. This is a misrepresentation of the facts and is not evidence that the government is responsible for the cause of the pandemic. The vaccine candidates were for a coronavirus that causes Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, not for the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. NIAID researchers have been working on developing vaccines for coronaviruses, which consist of hundreds of viruses, for several years. We rate this False.
|
[] |
Says the U.S. government caused the coronavirus pandemic because it sent mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to university researchers weeks before the COVID-19 outbreak.
|
Contradiction
|
Alarmist articles are circulating online claiming that newly revealed 'secret documents' show that the U.S. government had coronavirus vaccine candidates from Moderna in development weeks before the COVID-19 outbreak, and thus proves that the pandemic was planned. 'DOCUMENTS: U.S. Gov't Sent 'mRNA Coronavirus Vaccine Candidates' to University Researchers WEEKS BEFORE 'COVID' Outbreak in China! How did they know . . . Unless they caused it?' reads the headline of an article on HalTurnerRadioShow.com. Another article on a website called GreatGameIndia.com claimed: 'Secret Docs Reveal Moderna Sent Coronavirus Vaccine To North Carolina University Weeks Before Pandemic.' The articles were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The documents show a researcher transfer agreement for Moderna vaccine candidates for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus, known as MERS-CoV, according to the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases. The agreement was executed on Dec. 16, 2019 - roughly two weeks before the first SARS-CoV-2 case was detected in Wuhan, China. SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19. These 'secret documents' have been publicly available since at least June 2020. They do not indicate the U.S. government caused or created the ongoing pandemic. Coronaviruses and vaccine agreement Human coronaviruses were first identified in the mid-1960s and researchers have identified seven that can infect people. For years, well before the identification of SARS-CoV-2, researchers have been studying ways to develop vaccines against coronaviruses, particularly because coronaviruses are known to have a high probability of causing pandemics. As part of a larger confidentiality agreement between the U.S. National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Moderna 'mRNA coronavirus vaccines candidates' were transferred for animal testing to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Multiple researchers signed the agreement between Dec. 12-16, 2019. The confidentiality agreement stipulated that mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates would be developed and jointly owned by the two parties. The contract was not specific to the SARS-CoV-2, as it was signed before the new virus had been sequenced. The agreement was amended in February 2020 to add mRNA vaccine candidates for other emerging viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. 'NIAID scientists selected MERS-CoV as a 'prototype pathogen' to study for vaccine development with the intention that the approach could be generalized for vaccines against viruses within the same virus family,' an NIAID spokesperson told PolitiFact. Scientists and collaborators had already created stabilized coronavirus spike proteins (which the viruses use to enter cells and mRNA vaccines use to create antibody responses) before SARS-CoV-2 was identified. Once the virus' sequence was publicly shared in early 2020, the same approach was then applied to developing vaccine candidates for COVID-19. NIAID's Vaccine Research Center and Moderna have collaborated on pandemic preparedness and vaccine research since 2017, the NIAID said, and entered into a formal research collaboration agreement in May 2019 for vaccine candidates for MERS-CoV and Nipah virus.
|
Our ruling Articles suggest the U.S. government created the pandemic because its scientists sent mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to other researchers before the COVID-19 outbreak. This is a misrepresentation of the facts and is not evidence that the government is responsible for the cause of the pandemic. The vaccine candidates were for a coronavirus that causes Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, not for the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. NIAID researchers have been working on developing vaccines for coronaviruses, which consist of hundreds of viruses, for several years. We rate this False.
|
[] |
Says the U.S. government caused the coronavirus pandemic because it sent mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to university researchers weeks before the COVID-19 outbreak.
|
Contradiction
|
Alarmist articles are circulating online claiming that newly revealed 'secret documents' show that the U.S. government had coronavirus vaccine candidates from Moderna in development weeks before the COVID-19 outbreak, and thus proves that the pandemic was planned. 'DOCUMENTS: U.S. Gov't Sent 'mRNA Coronavirus Vaccine Candidates' to University Researchers WEEKS BEFORE 'COVID' Outbreak in China! How did they know . . . Unless they caused it?' reads the headline of an article on HalTurnerRadioShow.com. Another article on a website called GreatGameIndia.com claimed: 'Secret Docs Reveal Moderna Sent Coronavirus Vaccine To North Carolina University Weeks Before Pandemic.' The articles were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The documents show a researcher transfer agreement for Moderna vaccine candidates for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus, known as MERS-CoV, according to the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases. The agreement was executed on Dec. 16, 2019 - roughly two weeks before the first SARS-CoV-2 case was detected in Wuhan, China. SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19. These 'secret documents' have been publicly available since at least June 2020. They do not indicate the U.S. government caused or created the ongoing pandemic. Coronaviruses and vaccine agreement Human coronaviruses were first identified in the mid-1960s and researchers have identified seven that can infect people. For years, well before the identification of SARS-CoV-2, researchers have been studying ways to develop vaccines against coronaviruses, particularly because coronaviruses are known to have a high probability of causing pandemics. As part of a larger confidentiality agreement between the U.S. National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Moderna 'mRNA coronavirus vaccines candidates' were transferred for animal testing to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Multiple researchers signed the agreement between Dec. 12-16, 2019. The confidentiality agreement stipulated that mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates would be developed and jointly owned by the two parties. The contract was not specific to the SARS-CoV-2, as it was signed before the new virus had been sequenced. The agreement was amended in February 2020 to add mRNA vaccine candidates for other emerging viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. 'NIAID scientists selected MERS-CoV as a 'prototype pathogen' to study for vaccine development with the intention that the approach could be generalized for vaccines against viruses within the same virus family,' an NIAID spokesperson told PolitiFact. Scientists and collaborators had already created stabilized coronavirus spike proteins (which the viruses use to enter cells and mRNA vaccines use to create antibody responses) before SARS-CoV-2 was identified. Once the virus' sequence was publicly shared in early 2020, the same approach was then applied to developing vaccine candidates for COVID-19. NIAID's Vaccine Research Center and Moderna have collaborated on pandemic preparedness and vaccine research since 2017, the NIAID said, and entered into a formal research collaboration agreement in May 2019 for vaccine candidates for MERS-CoV and Nipah virus.
|
Our ruling Articles suggest the U.S. government created the pandemic because its scientists sent mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates to other researchers before the COVID-19 outbreak. This is a misrepresentation of the facts and is not evidence that the government is responsible for the cause of the pandemic. The vaccine candidates were for a coronavirus that causes Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, not for the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. NIAID researchers have been working on developing vaccines for coronaviruses, which consist of hundreds of viruses, for several years. We rate this False.
|
[] |
A person is on film 'burning 80 Trump ballots.
|
Contradiction
|
As votes legally cast before Election Day continue to be counted, Eric Trump shared a video that purported to show someone burning a stack of ballots earmarked for his father, President Donald Trump. 'Burning 80 Trump ballots,' Eric Trump wrote Nov. 4 in a retweet of a post from a suspended Twitter account. The video, which shows a man claiming to be burning 'around 80' ballots for Trump, has also spread on Facebook. It was flagged as part of the platform's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The video is misinformation, according to election officials in Virginia Beach, where the ballots in the video appeared to be from. In a Nov. 3 statement, the city said it had looked into the video. 'A concerned citizen shared a video with us that ostensibly shows someone burning ballots,' the statement read. 'They are NOT official ballots, they are sample ballots.' The city's statement included a freeze-frame photo of a ballot from the video, which showed that the ballot was for a voter from the city. It also included an image showing an official ballot. 'Note the absence of the bar code markings that are on all official ballots,' the statement said. The ballots in the video show the names of the candidates running for mayor and open city council and school board seats in Virginia Beach, in addition to federal offices. Fire investigators are looking into the incident, the city's statement said. Local news outlets, including TV stations WTKR and WAVY-TV, covered the city's statement on Election Day. A New York Times reporter also tweeted about it. The city of Virginia Beach responded to Trump's tweet sharing the video to his more than 4.4 million Twitter followers, writing, 'Those were sample ballots. Addressed this yesterday.' Those were sample ballots. Addressed this yesterday. https://t.co/yprxQ7Icqn.- Virginia Beach (@CityofVaBeach) November 4, 2020 The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to an inquiry. We rate this statement False.
|
We rate this statement False.
|
[
"109550-proof-19-b8076051b57fb38a695b02f84225f3b6.jpg"
] |
'Face masks being manufactured in China, for example, went to domestic consumption and their own fight against the virus' while the U.S. was 'largely unable to import supplies from China.
|
Contradiction
|
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., casts some blame on China for the U.S. struggle to obtain crucial medical supplies amid COVID-19. Writing in the New York Times, Rubio accused China of using the world's supply chain of medical gear to benefit itself during the coronavirus outbreak: 'Having monopolized those critical supply chains, the Chinese Communist Party pointed them inward. It ensured that face masks being manufactured in China, for example, went to domestic consumption and their own fight against the virus. Largely unable to import supplies from China, America has been left scrambling because we by and large lack the ability to make things, as well as the state capacity needed for reorienting production to do so. As a result, doctors are forced to ration supplies and, in some cases, cease using necessary protective equipment.' There are clear problems in the U.S. medical supply chain. A mad dash for masks and other supplies has created logistical hurdles and frenzied dealmaking in the global market, including in China. And Rubio's concerns about the U.S. relying on China for supplies are not new. He raised them more than a year ago. 'Although American pharmaceutical firms face short-term commercial opportunities in China, the U.S. runs the risk of losing important components of its medical supply chain to China's government-backed industry,' Rubio wrote in a report in February 2019. But in his op-ed, Rubio overstates the problem with Chinese imports and ignores some key factors - including that imports were declining before COVID-19 as a result of President Donald Trump's tariffs. 'Sen. Rubio's comment is typical of 'bash China' remarks, but inaccurate,' said Gary Hufbauer, a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'China is exporting millions of masks.' We reached out to spokespersons for Rubio and did not receive a response. Imports from China dropped in January and February There were fears that China would not export critical medical supplies to the U.S. as COVID-19 cases ramped up. China produces much of the world's protective medical equipment. There was a dip, but the exports did continue. China's exports of protective medical equipment to the U.S. declined by 19% in January and February, compared with the same period last year. All other products fell by a far greater amount: 28%, according to an analysis by Chad Bown at the Peterson Institute. 'We imported less from them for these products than we did last year, but some of that is economics: They have more demand for these things internally, so they had less of an ability to export them to the world,' Bown told PolitiFact. New export restrictions by China also created logjams. Officials in China said the restrictions were imposed to ensure quality, but U.S. companies said they were facing bottlenecks, the Wall Street Journal reported. In February, the United States was focused on exporting supplies to China to fight the crisis. Trump administration tariffs impacted imports The drop in imports of masks from China is not related only to COVID-19. Rubio's op-ed did not mention the Trump administration's increase on tariffs for various goods from China in 2018-19. That also affects imports of medical supplies. In 2018, Matt Rowan, president of the Health Industry Distributors Association, warned that proposed tariffs would drive up health care costs. The products 'are used widely throughout health care settings and are a critical component of our nation's response to public health emergencies, such as Ebola,' he said at a federal government hearing. The tariff hikes for personal protective equipment and other supplies went through in September 2019 despite such warnings. U.S. imports of masks, respirators and gloves from China fell following the tariff increases. In March 2020, the federal government established a temporary exclusion for masks. 'In other words, the fall in imports from China is largely a self-imposed wound,' said Mary Lovely, a Syracuse University economist and trade expert who is also a Peterson fellow. The decrease in imports followed the shutdown of manufacturing regions in China in the country, she said. The U.S. government has tried to increase the flow of supplies from China, including authorizing the use of a Chinese version of N95 masks. Feds, states have imported supplies from China One more point: The U.S. has imported masks and other supplies from China in recent weeks. On March 29, Trump announced an operation called Project Air Bridge to bring medical supplies from overseas. The project's first flight came from China on March 29 and brought millions of supplies, including 130,000 N95 masks. Project Air Bridge has delivered more than 760,000 N95 masks, 600 million gloves, 52 million surgical masks in addition to other supplies including surgical gowns, thermometers and face shields, a Federal Emergency Management Agency spokesperson said. Those supplies came from China, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, India, Honduras and Mexico. From China alone, there have been over 133 million units of imported N95 masks, gloves, surgical masks, surgical gowns, thermometers and face shields, FEMA said. Some states have arranged their own imported masks or other supplies from China.
|
Our ruling Rubio said 'face masks being manufactured in China, for example, went to domestic consumption and their own fight against the virus' while the U.S. was 'largely unable to import supplies from China.' China did have a greater need for its domestically manufactured masks in February as the virus ravaged the country, but Rubio greatly overstates the situation. Imports of masks from China to the U.S. did drop in January and February, but imports of other products dropped even more. Imports to the U.S. did occur in April through the federal government's Project Air Bridge, and a few states arranged their own imports with the help of other entities. We rate this statement Mostly False.
|
[
"109552-proof-13-145272e87b8a3dc19202a23df03d1954.jpg"
] |
'Face masks being manufactured in China, for example, went to domestic consumption and their own fight against the virus' while the U.S. was 'largely unable to import supplies from China.
|
Contradiction
|
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., casts some blame on China for the U.S. struggle to obtain crucial medical supplies amid COVID-19. Writing in the New York Times, Rubio accused China of using the world's supply chain of medical gear to benefit itself during the coronavirus outbreak: 'Having monopolized those critical supply chains, the Chinese Communist Party pointed them inward. It ensured that face masks being manufactured in China, for example, went to domestic consumption and their own fight against the virus. Largely unable to import supplies from China, America has been left scrambling because we by and large lack the ability to make things, as well as the state capacity needed for reorienting production to do so. As a result, doctors are forced to ration supplies and, in some cases, cease using necessary protective equipment.' There are clear problems in the U.S. medical supply chain. A mad dash for masks and other supplies has created logistical hurdles and frenzied dealmaking in the global market, including in China. And Rubio's concerns about the U.S. relying on China for supplies are not new. He raised them more than a year ago. 'Although American pharmaceutical firms face short-term commercial opportunities in China, the U.S. runs the risk of losing important components of its medical supply chain to China's government-backed industry,' Rubio wrote in a report in February 2019. But in his op-ed, Rubio overstates the problem with Chinese imports and ignores some key factors - including that imports were declining before COVID-19 as a result of President Donald Trump's tariffs. 'Sen. Rubio's comment is typical of 'bash China' remarks, but inaccurate,' said Gary Hufbauer, a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'China is exporting millions of masks.' We reached out to spokespersons for Rubio and did not receive a response. Imports from China dropped in January and February There were fears that China would not export critical medical supplies to the U.S. as COVID-19 cases ramped up. China produces much of the world's protective medical equipment. There was a dip, but the exports did continue. China's exports of protective medical equipment to the U.S. declined by 19% in January and February, compared with the same period last year. All other products fell by a far greater amount: 28%, according to an analysis by Chad Bown at the Peterson Institute. 'We imported less from them for these products than we did last year, but some of that is economics: They have more demand for these things internally, so they had less of an ability to export them to the world,' Bown told PolitiFact. New export restrictions by China also created logjams. Officials in China said the restrictions were imposed to ensure quality, but U.S. companies said they were facing bottlenecks, the Wall Street Journal reported. In February, the United States was focused on exporting supplies to China to fight the crisis. Trump administration tariffs impacted imports The drop in imports of masks from China is not related only to COVID-19. Rubio's op-ed did not mention the Trump administration's increase on tariffs for various goods from China in 2018-19. That also affects imports of medical supplies. In 2018, Matt Rowan, president of the Health Industry Distributors Association, warned that proposed tariffs would drive up health care costs. The products 'are used widely throughout health care settings and are a critical component of our nation's response to public health emergencies, such as Ebola,' he said at a federal government hearing. The tariff hikes for personal protective equipment and other supplies went through in September 2019 despite such warnings. U.S. imports of masks, respirators and gloves from China fell following the tariff increases. In March 2020, the federal government established a temporary exclusion for masks. 'In other words, the fall in imports from China is largely a self-imposed wound,' said Mary Lovely, a Syracuse University economist and trade expert who is also a Peterson fellow. The decrease in imports followed the shutdown of manufacturing regions in China in the country, she said. The U.S. government has tried to increase the flow of supplies from China, including authorizing the use of a Chinese version of N95 masks. Feds, states have imported supplies from China One more point: The U.S. has imported masks and other supplies from China in recent weeks. On March 29, Trump announced an operation called Project Air Bridge to bring medical supplies from overseas. The project's first flight came from China on March 29 and brought millions of supplies, including 130,000 N95 masks. Project Air Bridge has delivered more than 760,000 N95 masks, 600 million gloves, 52 million surgical masks in addition to other supplies including surgical gowns, thermometers and face shields, a Federal Emergency Management Agency spokesperson said. Those supplies came from China, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, India, Honduras and Mexico. From China alone, there have been over 133 million units of imported N95 masks, gloves, surgical masks, surgical gowns, thermometers and face shields, FEMA said. Some states have arranged their own imported masks or other supplies from China.
|
Our ruling Rubio said 'face masks being manufactured in China, for example, went to domestic consumption and their own fight against the virus' while the U.S. was 'largely unable to import supplies from China.' China did have a greater need for its domestically manufactured masks in February as the virus ravaged the country, but Rubio greatly overstates the situation. Imports of masks from China to the U.S. did drop in January and February, but imports of other products dropped even more. Imports to the U.S. did occur in April through the federal government's Project Air Bridge, and a few states arranged their own imports with the help of other entities. We rate this statement Mostly False.
|
[
"109552-proof-13-145272e87b8a3dc19202a23df03d1954.jpg"
] |
'Face masks being manufactured in China, for example, went to domestic consumption and their own fight against the virus' while the U.S. was 'largely unable to import supplies from China.
|
Contradiction
|
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., casts some blame on China for the U.S. struggle to obtain crucial medical supplies amid COVID-19. Writing in the New York Times, Rubio accused China of using the world's supply chain of medical gear to benefit itself during the coronavirus outbreak: 'Having monopolized those critical supply chains, the Chinese Communist Party pointed them inward. It ensured that face masks being manufactured in China, for example, went to domestic consumption and their own fight against the virus. Largely unable to import supplies from China, America has been left scrambling because we by and large lack the ability to make things, as well as the state capacity needed for reorienting production to do so. As a result, doctors are forced to ration supplies and, in some cases, cease using necessary protective equipment.' There are clear problems in the U.S. medical supply chain. A mad dash for masks and other supplies has created logistical hurdles and frenzied dealmaking in the global market, including in China. And Rubio's concerns about the U.S. relying on China for supplies are not new. He raised them more than a year ago. 'Although American pharmaceutical firms face short-term commercial opportunities in China, the U.S. runs the risk of losing important components of its medical supply chain to China's government-backed industry,' Rubio wrote in a report in February 2019. But in his op-ed, Rubio overstates the problem with Chinese imports and ignores some key factors - including that imports were declining before COVID-19 as a result of President Donald Trump's tariffs. 'Sen. Rubio's comment is typical of 'bash China' remarks, but inaccurate,' said Gary Hufbauer, a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'China is exporting millions of masks.' We reached out to spokespersons for Rubio and did not receive a response. Imports from China dropped in January and February There were fears that China would not export critical medical supplies to the U.S. as COVID-19 cases ramped up. China produces much of the world's protective medical equipment. There was a dip, but the exports did continue. China's exports of protective medical equipment to the U.S. declined by 19% in January and February, compared with the same period last year. All other products fell by a far greater amount: 28%, according to an analysis by Chad Bown at the Peterson Institute. 'We imported less from them for these products than we did last year, but some of that is economics: They have more demand for these things internally, so they had less of an ability to export them to the world,' Bown told PolitiFact. New export restrictions by China also created logjams. Officials in China said the restrictions were imposed to ensure quality, but U.S. companies said they were facing bottlenecks, the Wall Street Journal reported. In February, the United States was focused on exporting supplies to China to fight the crisis. Trump administration tariffs impacted imports The drop in imports of masks from China is not related only to COVID-19. Rubio's op-ed did not mention the Trump administration's increase on tariffs for various goods from China in 2018-19. That also affects imports of medical supplies. In 2018, Matt Rowan, president of the Health Industry Distributors Association, warned that proposed tariffs would drive up health care costs. The products 'are used widely throughout health care settings and are a critical component of our nation's response to public health emergencies, such as Ebola,' he said at a federal government hearing. The tariff hikes for personal protective equipment and other supplies went through in September 2019 despite such warnings. U.S. imports of masks, respirators and gloves from China fell following the tariff increases. In March 2020, the federal government established a temporary exclusion for masks. 'In other words, the fall in imports from China is largely a self-imposed wound,' said Mary Lovely, a Syracuse University economist and trade expert who is also a Peterson fellow. The decrease in imports followed the shutdown of manufacturing regions in China in the country, she said. The U.S. government has tried to increase the flow of supplies from China, including authorizing the use of a Chinese version of N95 masks. Feds, states have imported supplies from China One more point: The U.S. has imported masks and other supplies from China in recent weeks. On March 29, Trump announced an operation called Project Air Bridge to bring medical supplies from overseas. The project's first flight came from China on March 29 and brought millions of supplies, including 130,000 N95 masks. Project Air Bridge has delivered more than 760,000 N95 masks, 600 million gloves, 52 million surgical masks in addition to other supplies including surgical gowns, thermometers and face shields, a Federal Emergency Management Agency spokesperson said. Those supplies came from China, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Taiwan, India, Honduras and Mexico. From China alone, there have been over 133 million units of imported N95 masks, gloves, surgical masks, surgical gowns, thermometers and face shields, FEMA said. Some states have arranged their own imported masks or other supplies from China.
|
Our ruling Rubio said 'face masks being manufactured in China, for example, went to domestic consumption and their own fight against the virus' while the U.S. was 'largely unable to import supplies from China.' China did have a greater need for its domestically manufactured masks in February as the virus ravaged the country, but Rubio greatly overstates the situation. Imports of masks from China to the U.S. did drop in January and February, but imports of other products dropped even more. Imports to the U.S. did occur in April through the federal government's Project Air Bridge, and a few states arranged their own imports with the help of other entities. We rate this statement Mostly False.
|
[
"109552-proof-13-145272e87b8a3dc19202a23df03d1954.jpg"
] |
Says Kamala Harris inaccurately 'claimed to be bussed in the 60's due to segregation type issues.
|
Contradiction
|
Back when Kamala Harris and Joe Biden were opponents in the presidential campaign, and not running mates, she drew attention during a debate in 2019 for attacking the former vice president for his record on busing to integrate segregated schools. 'There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day,' Harris said at the time. 'And that little girl was me.' Now that Biden is the Democratic nominee and Harris is on his ticket, her comments are again under scrutiny on social media. 'Kamala Harris claimed to be bussed in the 60's due to segregation type issues,' one post says. She was born in 1964, thus 6 years old in 1970. Wth?' The three-letter question at the end of the post signals a note of incredulity. And the post's comments are full of claims that Harris lied. 'She's a phony,' one person 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.) Harris didn't say that she was 'bussed in the 60's,' as the Facebook post claims. In fact, she said, 'I was part of the second class to integrate Berkeley, California, public schools almost two decades after Brown v. Board of Education,' the 1954 Supreme Court decision barring racial segregation in schools. So that would mean she was referring to the late 1960s or early 1970s. We've previously looked at that claim and what we found supports Harris' recollection. The Facebook post is correct that Harris was born in Oakland in 1964. She grew up in a predominantly Black middle-class neighborhood in west Berkeley, and she was 3 years old when the city's school board voted in January 1968 to desegregate the district's elementary schools by busing starting that fall. Children in western neighborhoods, like where Harris lived, were bused to elementary schools in eastern Berkeley, which was more affluent and had more white residents. Children from the east were bused to the western neighborhoods, which were more racially and socio-economically diverse. Natasha Beery, a spokesperson for the Berkeley Unified School District, told PolitiFact California that Harris was 'absolutely' accurate in her remarks on the debate stage. 'She would be part of that second class that integrated our schools through our two-way busing program,' Beery said. 'It began in 1968. And she joined a group that had started kindergarten the following year in 1969, and so her description is correct.' Following the debate, the school district posted a history of its integration efforts on its website in response to media inquiries about Harris' experience. When Harris joined first grade in 1970, 'she joined a cohort that had entered kindergarten in the second year of the busing program, in 1969,' the history says. Harris attended a private school for kindergarten in 1969 and enrolled the following year in the public Thousand Oaks Elementary school, on the city's northeast side. The city's junior high schools had started integrating earlier, in 1964, though not using busing, and Berkeley has only one high school, so it was already desegregated. With its 'wth?' tag, the Facebook post implies that Harris was inaccurate in saying she was bused to desegregate public schools. That's wrong. The timeline of Berkeley desegregation efforts and the school district corroborate her statement. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[
"109556-proof-19-35ce4d930765d41ebf9815a3ff6dca55.jpeg"
] |
'The CDC lowered the PCR threshold while no longer recording asymptomatic cases...but only for the vaccinated.
|
Contradiction
|
Widely shared social media posts wrongly claim that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changed its testing parameters for vaccinated individuals so that fewer cases of COVID-19 infections would be recorded. One such post on Twitter, which was also shared across Facebook, questioned why the CDC would 'deliberately lower the PCR test threshold while no longer recording asymptomatic cases' for those who are vaccinated. But that's not what happened. 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, PCR stands for polymerase chain reaction and is one method available to test for active COVID-19, by screening nasal and throat samples for the presence of viral RNA. The National Human Genome Research Institute described PCR as ''molecular photocopying,'... a fast and inexpensive technique used to 'amplify' - copy - small segments of DNA.' The PCR method is widely hailed in the medical community as the gold standard when it comes to reliable and accurate COVID-19 testing. Using this method, samples are replicated again and again so that any viral genetic material can be more easily detected. The Twitter claim appears to stem from the CDC's announcement that, starting May 14, it changed the way it monitors and reports 'breakthrough' COVID-19 cases. Breakthrough cases are infections diagnosed in people who have been fully vaccinated. The agency said it would focus its monitoring of reported vaccine breakthrough cases only on those cases that involved patients who were hospitalized or died. At the time, the change spawned a similarly False social media claim that the government's action was intended to obscure data and paint a rosier picture of the outbreak. Rather, the CDC said the move was intended to provide a better means of zeroing in on more complete data on the most concerning cases, since not all people with breakthrough infections can be identified - particularly those with asymptomatic or mild illness who do not get tested. The new approach also is part of an effort to collect more data on variant strains of the virus. The agency set a benchmark to determine which positive breakthrough samples are further analyzed for evidence of a variant. That benchmark is described as a 'cycle threshold value' - that's the number of cycles necessary to spot the virus and is commonly abbreviated as 'Ct.' For a breakthrough case to be further analyzed, the test must have a Ct value of 28 or lower. The measure indicates a high level of virus. But the move did not signify a 'lower threshold' for what is considered a positive COVID case, as the Twitter claim suggests. CDC spokeswoman Jade Fulce said in a statement that, when it comes to determining which positive samples are assessed for presence of a variant strain, any Ct value higher than 28 is pretty much moot since it indicates the viral load is too small. 'The criteria for determining if a sample is positive is defined by the data submitted to FDA for the Emergency Use Authorization. This criteria has not changed nor does it change whether the case is a breakthrough case or not,' Fulce said. 'The Ct value ≤28 is not used to define whether a specimen is positive or negative for COVID. It is only used for determining whether a specimen that tests positive could be submitted for SARS-CoV-2 sequencing. It is not specific to vaccine breakthrough cases.'
|
Our ruling The post claims that the CDC lowered the benchmark cycle threshold used to determine what's considered a positive COVID case, which is not true. The criteria for identifying COVID cases - breakthrough infections or otherwise - have not changed. We rate this claim False. RELATED: WHO did not say PCR tests grossly inflate positive test numbers
|
[] |
'Trump margin of 'defeat' in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM.
|
Contradiction
|
Republican Sen. Rand Paul suggested on Twitter that something suspicious - 'statistical anomaly?' Fraud?' - happened in four states that President Donald Trump lost to his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden. 'Interesting . . . Trump margin of 'defeat' in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM. Statistical anomaly? Fraud? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself. (That is, if Big Tech allows u to read this),' the senator from Kentucky tweeted Nov. 29. His tweet included a link to a Nov. 24 analysis titled 'Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020.' Interesting . . . Trump margin of 'defeat' in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM. Statistical anomaly? Fraud? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself.(That is, if Big Tech allows u to read this) Anomalies in Vote Counts; https://t.co/DgBlYj9zUP- Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) November 29, 2020 It's unclear who wrote that analysis Paul relied on; it is posted under the name 'Vote Integrity' on a website called Substack. A separate Nov. 24 post under that same name says, 'Welcome to vote_pattern_analysis by me, Vote P. Analysis.' State election officials have defended their electoral process and rejected claims about voter or election fraud. We dug into the evidence Paul cited, and also looked at how states count and report votes. Paul said there was something 'interesting' about the results reporting that suggested fraud; we found it easily explained by known vote-counting procedures. Laws allow mail-in ballots to be counted past Election Day Paul's tweet misstated an element of the analysis he promoted. His tweet said there were four 'data dumps' in four states (he did not name the states). However, the analysis centered on four updates in three states: Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia. (Two of the updates were in Michigan.) The post and Paul overlook the fact that in Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia, absentee or mail-in ballots received by the time polls closed on Nov. 3 were legally allowed to be counted. The fact that workers were still counting ballots past midnight on Election Day is not indicative of fraud. States' specific rules and varying election procedures influenced the timing of results. Wisconsin law, for example, bans clerks from tallying absentee ballots before Election Day. Several municipalities in Wisconsin could not finish processing their absentee ballots by the time the polls closed at 8 p.m. on Election Day, so there was a delay in reporting those results to county clerks. 'This was especially true in major cities including Milwaukee, Green Bay and Kenosha, where final unofficial results were reported after 3 a.m.' on Nov. 4, said a post on the Wisconsin Elections Commission website. (Milwaukee is Wisconsin's most populous city and tends to vote heavily for Democrats.) Delayed reporting 'does not mean something went wrong - it means election officials did their jobs and made sure every valid ballot was counted,' said Meagan Wolfe, Wisconsin's chief election official. The report Paul shared 'shows no awareness of the political geography of the states being analyzed,' said Barry C. Burden, a political science professor and director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'It is hardly surprising that large urban areas would take longer to count ballots and those ballots would favor Biden,' Burden said. 'Instead, the report treats the arrival of ballots in the early morning after the election as a mystery with no clear basis in the politics of the states being investigated.' RELATED: Fact-checking the avalanche of Wisconsin election misinformation Trump denigrated voting by mail, Biden supported it Paul's tweet also ignores that many Americans were expected to vote by mail this election to avoid crowded places during the pandemic. And election officials had warned for months that mail-in ballots would take longer to count. Biden encouraged Americans to vote by mail. Trump disparaged the practice, baselessly saying it caused widespread voter fraud. Different states and even counties within a state have different rules for which ballots are tabulated first. So, whether a particular release of results favored Biden or Trump had a lot to do with how those ballots were cast - in person or by mail. 'Election officials and media outlets repeatedly explained how collections of tabulated absentee ballots would be released later than other ballots in some states and would tend to favor Biden rather than Trump,' Burden said. The post Paul shared said that the vote updates were colloquially known as 'dumps' or 'batches.' But election experts said that the term 'dumps' is not a common technical description of these large-volume updates, although some media outlets have used that word, along with the less loaded term 'batches.' 'I doubt election administrators refer to the process of counting and posting running tallies as 'dumps,'' said Lorraine Minnite, an associate professor of public policy at Rutgers University-Camden in New Jersey. Experts also raised concerns about the unnamed author of the post Paul shared. 'A credible analyst would proudly attach their name to such an analysis and would contextualize the results with background on the political geography of each state rather than treating the large batches of votes as untethered from the rest of the election administration system,' Burden said. PolitiFact asked Paul's press office for the author's identity but did not get an answer. His office sent PolitiFact a statement, attributed to Paul, which did not fully address our query. The statement said: 'Asking people to think for themselves, and asking that our elections be verified free of fraud, would seem to be basic, easy concepts. They are apparently too much for the media and big tech to handle, though, so they have to attack and censor.' It's not censorship, though, to ask for proof. 'The suspicion of fraud, whether genuine or not, is not the same thing as evidence consistent with fraud,' said Vincent L. Hutchings, a political science professor at the University of Michigan. 'If one wants to raise this claim, and thereby potentially invalidate the votes of millions of Americans, then the bar should be considerably higher than mere suspicion,' Hutchings said. The Justice Department to date has 'not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,' U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr told the Associated Press Dec. 1. Barr's comment aligns with a Nov. 12 statement from federal and state officials, who said the Nov. 3 election 'was the most secure in American history.'
|
Our ruling Paul tweeted, 'Trump margin of 'defeat' in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM. Statistical anomaly? Fraud?' His suggestion that 'data dumps' could reflect fraud in the presidential election is not supported by evidence. First, officials who oversee elections have said there is no evidence of widespread fraud. Second, states that reported votes after Election Day did so legally and as expected. Because of a high number of absentee ballots and the time it takes to process them, election officials warned before Election Day that complete, unofficial results from all jurisdictions would not be available on Election Night. There is no credible basis to Paul's claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! RELATED: Fact-checking false claims about the 2020 election This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"109572-proof-14-1b338bbfb64b48ff86df6f200a2a6472.jpg"
] |
'Trump margin of 'defeat' in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM.
|
Contradiction
|
Republican Sen. Rand Paul suggested on Twitter that something suspicious - 'statistical anomaly?' Fraud?' - happened in four states that President Donald Trump lost to his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden. 'Interesting . . . Trump margin of 'defeat' in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM. Statistical anomaly? Fraud? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself. (That is, if Big Tech allows u to read this),' the senator from Kentucky tweeted Nov. 29. His tweet included a link to a Nov. 24 analysis titled 'Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020.' Interesting . . . Trump margin of 'defeat' in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM. Statistical anomaly? Fraud? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself.(That is, if Big Tech allows u to read this) Anomalies in Vote Counts; https://t.co/DgBlYj9zUP- Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) November 29, 2020 It's unclear who wrote that analysis Paul relied on; it is posted under the name 'Vote Integrity' on a website called Substack. A separate Nov. 24 post under that same name says, 'Welcome to vote_pattern_analysis by me, Vote P. Analysis.' State election officials have defended their electoral process and rejected claims about voter or election fraud. We dug into the evidence Paul cited, and also looked at how states count and report votes. Paul said there was something 'interesting' about the results reporting that suggested fraud; we found it easily explained by known vote-counting procedures. Laws allow mail-in ballots to be counted past Election Day Paul's tweet misstated an element of the analysis he promoted. His tweet said there were four 'data dumps' in four states (he did not name the states). However, the analysis centered on four updates in three states: Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia. (Two of the updates were in Michigan.) The post and Paul overlook the fact that in Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia, absentee or mail-in ballots received by the time polls closed on Nov. 3 were legally allowed to be counted. The fact that workers were still counting ballots past midnight on Election Day is not indicative of fraud. States' specific rules and varying election procedures influenced the timing of results. Wisconsin law, for example, bans clerks from tallying absentee ballots before Election Day. Several municipalities in Wisconsin could not finish processing their absentee ballots by the time the polls closed at 8 p.m. on Election Day, so there was a delay in reporting those results to county clerks. 'This was especially true in major cities including Milwaukee, Green Bay and Kenosha, where final unofficial results were reported after 3 a.m.' on Nov. 4, said a post on the Wisconsin Elections Commission website. (Milwaukee is Wisconsin's most populous city and tends to vote heavily for Democrats.) Delayed reporting 'does not mean something went wrong - it means election officials did their jobs and made sure every valid ballot was counted,' said Meagan Wolfe, Wisconsin's chief election official. The report Paul shared 'shows no awareness of the political geography of the states being analyzed,' said Barry C. Burden, a political science professor and director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'It is hardly surprising that large urban areas would take longer to count ballots and those ballots would favor Biden,' Burden said. 'Instead, the report treats the arrival of ballots in the early morning after the election as a mystery with no clear basis in the politics of the states being investigated.' RELATED: Fact-checking the avalanche of Wisconsin election misinformation Trump denigrated voting by mail, Biden supported it Paul's tweet also ignores that many Americans were expected to vote by mail this election to avoid crowded places during the pandemic. And election officials had warned for months that mail-in ballots would take longer to count. Biden encouraged Americans to vote by mail. Trump disparaged the practice, baselessly saying it caused widespread voter fraud. Different states and even counties within a state have different rules for which ballots are tabulated first. So, whether a particular release of results favored Biden or Trump had a lot to do with how those ballots were cast - in person or by mail. 'Election officials and media outlets repeatedly explained how collections of tabulated absentee ballots would be released later than other ballots in some states and would tend to favor Biden rather than Trump,' Burden said. The post Paul shared said that the vote updates were colloquially known as 'dumps' or 'batches.' But election experts said that the term 'dumps' is not a common technical description of these large-volume updates, although some media outlets have used that word, along with the less loaded term 'batches.' 'I doubt election administrators refer to the process of counting and posting running tallies as 'dumps,'' said Lorraine Minnite, an associate professor of public policy at Rutgers University-Camden in New Jersey. Experts also raised concerns about the unnamed author of the post Paul shared. 'A credible analyst would proudly attach their name to such an analysis and would contextualize the results with background on the political geography of each state rather than treating the large batches of votes as untethered from the rest of the election administration system,' Burden said. PolitiFact asked Paul's press office for the author's identity but did not get an answer. His office sent PolitiFact a statement, attributed to Paul, which did not fully address our query. The statement said: 'Asking people to think for themselves, and asking that our elections be verified free of fraud, would seem to be basic, easy concepts. They are apparently too much for the media and big tech to handle, though, so they have to attack and censor.' It's not censorship, though, to ask for proof. 'The suspicion of fraud, whether genuine or not, is not the same thing as evidence consistent with fraud,' said Vincent L. Hutchings, a political science professor at the University of Michigan. 'If one wants to raise this claim, and thereby potentially invalidate the votes of millions of Americans, then the bar should be considerably higher than mere suspicion,' Hutchings said. The Justice Department to date has 'not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,' U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr told the Associated Press Dec. 1. Barr's comment aligns with a Nov. 12 statement from federal and state officials, who said the Nov. 3 election 'was the most secure in American history.'
|
Our ruling Paul tweeted, 'Trump margin of 'defeat' in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM. Statistical anomaly? Fraud?' His suggestion that 'data dumps' could reflect fraud in the presidential election is not supported by evidence. First, officials who oversee elections have said there is no evidence of widespread fraud. Second, states that reported votes after Election Day did so legally and as expected. Because of a high number of absentee ballots and the time it takes to process them, election officials warned before Election Day that complete, unofficial results from all jurisdictions would not be available on Election Night. There is no credible basis to Paul's claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! RELATED: Fact-checking false claims about the 2020 election This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"109572-proof-14-1b338bbfb64b48ff86df6f200a2a6472.jpg"
] |
'Trump margin of 'defeat' in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM.
|
Contradiction
|
Republican Sen. Rand Paul suggested on Twitter that something suspicious - 'statistical anomaly?' Fraud?' - happened in four states that President Donald Trump lost to his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden. 'Interesting . . . Trump margin of 'defeat' in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM. Statistical anomaly? Fraud? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself. (That is, if Big Tech allows u to read this),' the senator from Kentucky tweeted Nov. 29. His tweet included a link to a Nov. 24 analysis titled 'Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020.' Interesting . . . Trump margin of 'defeat' in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM. Statistical anomaly? Fraud? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself.(That is, if Big Tech allows u to read this) Anomalies in Vote Counts; https://t.co/DgBlYj9zUP- Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) November 29, 2020 It's unclear who wrote that analysis Paul relied on; it is posted under the name 'Vote Integrity' on a website called Substack. A separate Nov. 24 post under that same name says, 'Welcome to vote_pattern_analysis by me, Vote P. Analysis.' State election officials have defended their electoral process and rejected claims about voter or election fraud. We dug into the evidence Paul cited, and also looked at how states count and report votes. Paul said there was something 'interesting' about the results reporting that suggested fraud; we found it easily explained by known vote-counting procedures. Laws allow mail-in ballots to be counted past Election Day Paul's tweet misstated an element of the analysis he promoted. His tweet said there were four 'data dumps' in four states (he did not name the states). However, the analysis centered on four updates in three states: Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia. (Two of the updates were in Michigan.) The post and Paul overlook the fact that in Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia, absentee or mail-in ballots received by the time polls closed on Nov. 3 were legally allowed to be counted. The fact that workers were still counting ballots past midnight on Election Day is not indicative of fraud. States' specific rules and varying election procedures influenced the timing of results. Wisconsin law, for example, bans clerks from tallying absentee ballots before Election Day. Several municipalities in Wisconsin could not finish processing their absentee ballots by the time the polls closed at 8 p.m. on Election Day, so there was a delay in reporting those results to county clerks. 'This was especially true in major cities including Milwaukee, Green Bay and Kenosha, where final unofficial results were reported after 3 a.m.' on Nov. 4, said a post on the Wisconsin Elections Commission website. (Milwaukee is Wisconsin's most populous city and tends to vote heavily for Democrats.) Delayed reporting 'does not mean something went wrong - it means election officials did their jobs and made sure every valid ballot was counted,' said Meagan Wolfe, Wisconsin's chief election official. The report Paul shared 'shows no awareness of the political geography of the states being analyzed,' said Barry C. Burden, a political science professor and director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'It is hardly surprising that large urban areas would take longer to count ballots and those ballots would favor Biden,' Burden said. 'Instead, the report treats the arrival of ballots in the early morning after the election as a mystery with no clear basis in the politics of the states being investigated.' RELATED: Fact-checking the avalanche of Wisconsin election misinformation Trump denigrated voting by mail, Biden supported it Paul's tweet also ignores that many Americans were expected to vote by mail this election to avoid crowded places during the pandemic. And election officials had warned for months that mail-in ballots would take longer to count. Biden encouraged Americans to vote by mail. Trump disparaged the practice, baselessly saying it caused widespread voter fraud. Different states and even counties within a state have different rules for which ballots are tabulated first. So, whether a particular release of results favored Biden or Trump had a lot to do with how those ballots were cast - in person or by mail. 'Election officials and media outlets repeatedly explained how collections of tabulated absentee ballots would be released later than other ballots in some states and would tend to favor Biden rather than Trump,' Burden said. The post Paul shared said that the vote updates were colloquially known as 'dumps' or 'batches.' But election experts said that the term 'dumps' is not a common technical description of these large-volume updates, although some media outlets have used that word, along with the less loaded term 'batches.' 'I doubt election administrators refer to the process of counting and posting running tallies as 'dumps,'' said Lorraine Minnite, an associate professor of public policy at Rutgers University-Camden in New Jersey. Experts also raised concerns about the unnamed author of the post Paul shared. 'A credible analyst would proudly attach their name to such an analysis and would contextualize the results with background on the political geography of each state rather than treating the large batches of votes as untethered from the rest of the election administration system,' Burden said. PolitiFact asked Paul's press office for the author's identity but did not get an answer. His office sent PolitiFact a statement, attributed to Paul, which did not fully address our query. The statement said: 'Asking people to think for themselves, and asking that our elections be verified free of fraud, would seem to be basic, easy concepts. They are apparently too much for the media and big tech to handle, though, so they have to attack and censor.' It's not censorship, though, to ask for proof. 'The suspicion of fraud, whether genuine or not, is not the same thing as evidence consistent with fraud,' said Vincent L. Hutchings, a political science professor at the University of Michigan. 'If one wants to raise this claim, and thereby potentially invalidate the votes of millions of Americans, then the bar should be considerably higher than mere suspicion,' Hutchings said. The Justice Department to date has 'not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,' U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr told the Associated Press Dec. 1. Barr's comment aligns with a Nov. 12 statement from federal and state officials, who said the Nov. 3 election 'was the most secure in American history.'
|
Our ruling Paul tweeted, 'Trump margin of 'defeat' in 4 states occurred in 4 data dumps between 1:34-6:31 AM. Statistical anomaly? Fraud?' His suggestion that 'data dumps' could reflect fraud in the presidential election is not supported by evidence. First, officials who oversee elections have said there is no evidence of widespread fraud. Second, states that reported votes after Election Day did so legally and as expected. Because of a high number of absentee ballots and the time it takes to process them, election officials warned before Election Day that complete, unofficial results from all jurisdictions would not be available on Election Night. There is no credible basis to Paul's claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! RELATED: Fact-checking false claims about the 2020 election This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"109572-proof-14-1b338bbfb64b48ff86df6f200a2a6472.jpg"
] |
A flag expressing support for police officers violates the U.S. Flag Code.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post showing a side-by-side comparison of the American flag and a flag used to express support for police officers refers to the latter as a 'gang symbol,' and implies it violates the U.S. Flag Code. The non-U.S. flag resembles the American flag, except it bears black and white stripes with the stars affixed to a black background. A blue stripe runs through the center. The post incorrectly cites section 176 (located in Title 36) as the portion of the code that it claims the black and white flag violates. 'The flag should never have placed on it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture or drawing of any nature (including discoloration),' the post continued. The June 14 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.) Peter Ansoff is president of the North American Vexillological Association, an organization that bills itself as the 'world's largest organization of flag enthusiasts and scholars.' Vexillology is the study of flags. Ansoff told PolitiFact in a phone interview that there are two key discrepancies with the post. The first, he said, was that the post notes the incorrect administrative citation for the actual flag code. It should be Section 8 (in Title 4). While the Flag Code used to be under Title 36, it was re-codified in 1998, according to the Congressional Research Service. The Facebook post fails to observe this change. The second discrepancy Ansoff pointed out is that the Facebook post tacks on the words 'including discoloration.' Discoloration is not prohibited by the flag code, as the Facebook post claims. So as far as the code is concerned, the black and white flag with the blue stripe in the middle is not in violation. Additionally, Ansoff told PolitiFact that the blue, white and black flag in the post is not technically an American flag. Ansoff pointed to the first section of the code which stipulated that the 'the flag of the United States shall be 13 horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.' (New states have been added since then, bringing the number of stars to 50.) 'So one could argue that the so-called 'gang symbol' isn't really an American flag in the meaning of the code itself,' he said. 'It looks a little bit like it, but it's not an American flag as far as the flag code is concerned.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims that the flag expressing support for police officers violates the U.S. Flag Code. According to the U.S. Flag Code, the black and white flag with the blue stripe in the center is not an official version of the American flag. The post suggests that the police support flag includes discoloration. 'Discoloration' is not listed in the flag code as a violation. To make its point about a purported code violation, the post also uses an incorrect administrative citation. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
A flag expressing support for police officers violates the U.S. Flag Code.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post showing a side-by-side comparison of the American flag and a flag used to express support for police officers refers to the latter as a 'gang symbol,' and implies it violates the U.S. Flag Code. The non-U.S. flag resembles the American flag, except it bears black and white stripes with the stars affixed to a black background. A blue stripe runs through the center. The post incorrectly cites section 176 (located in Title 36) as the portion of the code that it claims the black and white flag violates. 'The flag should never have placed on it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture or drawing of any nature (including discoloration),' the post continued. The June 14 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.) Peter Ansoff is president of the North American Vexillological Association, an organization that bills itself as the 'world's largest organization of flag enthusiasts and scholars.' Vexillology is the study of flags. Ansoff told PolitiFact in a phone interview that there are two key discrepancies with the post. The first, he said, was that the post notes the incorrect administrative citation for the actual flag code. It should be Section 8 (in Title 4). While the Flag Code used to be under Title 36, it was re-codified in 1998, according to the Congressional Research Service. The Facebook post fails to observe this change. The second discrepancy Ansoff pointed out is that the Facebook post tacks on the words 'including discoloration.' Discoloration is not prohibited by the flag code, as the Facebook post claims. So as far as the code is concerned, the black and white flag with the blue stripe in the middle is not in violation. Additionally, Ansoff told PolitiFact that the blue, white and black flag in the post is not technically an American flag. Ansoff pointed to the first section of the code which stipulated that the 'the flag of the United States shall be 13 horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field.' (New states have been added since then, bringing the number of stars to 50.) 'So one could argue that the so-called 'gang symbol' isn't really an American flag in the meaning of the code itself,' he said. 'It looks a little bit like it, but it's not an American flag as far as the flag code is concerned.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims that the flag expressing support for police officers violates the U.S. Flag Code. According to the U.S. Flag Code, the black and white flag with the blue stripe in the center is not an official version of the American flag. The post suggests that the police support flag includes discoloration. 'Discoloration' is not listed in the flag code as a violation. To make its point about a purported code violation, the post also uses an incorrect administrative citation. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'One of the first nurses to receive the vaccine in AL is now dead.
|
Contradiction
|
As COVID-19 cases and deaths surge across the country, some Facebook users say frontline health care workers are in trouble. But not because of the virus. A Dec. 15 text post said 'one of the first nurses to receive the vaccine in AL is now dead.' Similar posts said a 42-year-old nurse who got the vaccine died at least 8 hours later. 'Not an internet rumor, my FB friend's friend's aunt,' one of the posts says. 'If you want to play Russian roulette with your life for a flu with a 99.997% survival rate, that's your choice. Just don't force it on others or shame those who don't.' 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.) (Screenshot from Facebook) On Dec. 11, the Food and Drug Administration approved a coronavirus vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech for emergency use. The first shots were given to frontline health care workers on Dec. 14. Contrary to what the Facebook posts say, Pfizer's vaccine has not been shown to cause death. Other fact-checkers have debunked rumors of nurses dying after taking the vaccine. We reached out to the users who published the Facebook posts for their evidence. They didn't provide any. Two health care workers in Alaska developed allergic reactions soon after receiving the vaccine, and were treated at the hospital where they worked, the New York Times reported. But we could find no evidence that the Pfizer vaccine has been linked to deaths anywhere since it was first distributed to health care workers. On Dec. 16, the Alabama Department of Public Health published a statement on Facebook debunking a rumor that claimed a 42-year-old nurse in Alabama died '8-10 hours after getting the vaccine.' The post's source: anonymous family members. The state health agency 'has reached out to all hospitals in the state which administered the COVID-19 vaccine and confirmed there have been no deaths of vaccine recipients,' the statement says. 'The posts are untrue.' The FDA has not found any reason to believe that the Pfizer vaccine could cause death. In a briefing document published prior to the Pfizer vaccine's emergency approval, the agency said it had assessed the vaccine and found 'no specific safety concerns identified that would preclude issuance' of an emergency-use authorization. The vaccine was not found to cause death in any of the 43,448 participants in clinical trials ranging from April to December. RELATED: Why you shouldn't worry about getting Bell's Palsy from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine The FDA's emergency-use authorization stipulates that Pfizer must report COVID-19 cases that result in death and 'serious adverse events' to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which is co-managed by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 'I can confirm that as of 4 p.m. ET today that VAERS has received no reports of death after COVID-19 vaccines,' CDC spokesperson Kristen Nordlund said in a Dec. 16 email. The Facebook posts are inaccurate. We rate them False.
|
The Facebook posts are inaccurate. We rate them False.
|
[
"109581-proof-03-cf33d03492a3600c7a7194040cbb781f.jpg"
] |
'The Columbia school buildings in my district have the lowest test scores in all of Boone County.
|
Contradiction
|
On Oct. 6, Cheri Toalson Reisch joined community members for a protest in support of returning children to in-person classes. Toalson Reisch is the Republican incumbent running for Missouri House District 44. In a Facebook post supporting students re-entering classrooms, she spoke about how Columbia Public Schools in her district are affected by the pandemic. 'All schools are open in Boone County except Columbia. Their kids are suffering,' Toalson Reisch wrote. Toalson Reisch then made this claim: 'The Columbia school buildings in my district have the lowest test scores in all of Boone County.' She linked the scores to the fact that CPS schools are online, while other school districts in Boone County are teaching in person, such as the Hallsville R-IV school district. Toalson Reisch's district includes Hallsville and parts of Columbia. Words like 'most' or 'lowest' are warning bells at PolitiFact. So we decided to look deeper into this claim. The 'floor' on performance reports In an email, Toalson Reisch said she was referring to Annual Performance Reports, or 'APR' scores, specifically for Blue Ridge Elementary, Alpha Hart Lewis Elementary, and Eliot Battle Elementary in the Columbia schools district. We used other elementary and intermediate schools in the county as a comparison. Missouri APR scores rate schools on their performance using these terms: floor, approaching, on track or exceeding. Floor is the worst rating, while exceeding is the best. A floor rating means the school improved by less than 1% on Missouri Assessment Program tests. An exceeding rating means the school improved by 5% or greater. According to Mallory McGowin, a spokesperson for the Missouri Department of Education, the APR is calculated based on three principles: status, progress and growth. Each school gets a rating in one of these principles, as well as a category. For example: growth in math, status in language arts, etc. Here's how McGowin explained each principle: Status: Student achievement levels. Progress: A school district's improvement from prior years. Growth: The gains students are making over time. Columbia Public Schools spokesperson Michelle Baumstark says state assessments weren't given this year due to the pandemic, and she said APR scores weren't calculated at the school building level for the 2017-18 or 2018-19 school years. The data that Toalson Reisch is referencing wasn't calculated since the 2016-17 school year. Any data she is referencing is over three years old. However, McGowin was able to provide building level data for Boone County. The school data showed how each school performed in different categories like language arts and math scores. We looked at each school based on the number of 'floor' ratings it received. Floor ratings ranged from 2 to 21. High schools in Boone County had the most floor ratings on average, between 12 and 21. The range for middle and elementary schools was from two to 12. According to the data provided by the Missouri Department of Education, here's how the Columbia schools Toalson Reisch spoke about performed in the past two school years. Blue Ridge Elementary: 10 floor ratings Alpha Hart Lewis Elementary: 12 floor ratings Eliot Battle Elementary: Seven floor ratings But some other schools in Toalson Reisch's district performed as bad or worse during the past two school years. These schools are in her district but are not in Columbia: Centralia Intermediate: 12 floor ratings Cedar Ridge Elementary: 12 floor ratings Harrisburg Elementary: 12 floor ratings While Alpha Hart Lewis had as many floor ratings as these schools, the other schools Toalson Reisch provided are actually doing better.
|
Our ruling Toalson Reisch said, 'The Columbia school buildings in my district have the lowest test scores in all of Boone County.' Elementary schools such as Alpha Hart Lewis Elementary and Blue Ridge Elementary have some of the lowest APR scores in Boone County. However, there are other schools in Boone County that are just as low or lower. We rate her claim Mostly False.
|
[] |
Says Gov Tony Evers' administration deemed dentists non-essential
|
Contradiction
|
Amid the political upheaval over when and how and how fast to reopen Wisconsin, there was a point on May 11, 2020, when Gov Tony Evers relaxed his stay-at-home order to allow small retail establishments to reopen, so long as they limited shoppers to five or fewer. The state Supreme Court later voted 4-3 to toss out Evers' order entirely, saying his administration had to work with the GOP-controlled Legislature on any continued restrictions. In the wake of Evers' May 11 action, state Rep. Janel Brandtjen, R-Menomonee Falls, offered this tweet targeted at Evers: @Gov Evers liquor stores are open, strip malls can have 5 customers, but dentists are non-essential?! Is she right? Were dentists considered non-essential under the safer-at-home order? The short answer: No. The Governor's executive order Let's start with the order itself: Executive Order #28. Under Section 13, essential businesses include healthcare and public health operations. And, elsewhere within the order, dental offices are classified under healthcare and as public health operations. So, that order did not block dentists from seeing patients. Meanwhile, an online map from the American Dental Association that tracks the extent to which dentists nationwide have been able to offer services shows the vast majority of states, including Wisconsin, allowing elective and emergency procedures. Of those, as of May 14, 2020, the map showed seven states allowing only emergency procedures. (No state had dentist offices closed entirely.) Beyond that, Wisconsin is listed among only four states - including California, Rhode Island, and Delaware - that explicitly designated dentists as essential. That said, the American Dental Association has recommended dentists remain open only for emergency procedures and postpone elective procedures. And the Wisconsin Dental Association follows ADA recommendations. Similarly, the state Department of Health Services recommends dentists follow guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which include postponing elective procedures and non-emergency visits. So, on a practical level, many dentist offices held off on doing routine visits, such as cleanings and checkups. But that was due to their own choice, and consistent with guidelines from dental groups and health agencies. It was not forbidden under Evers' order. When asked for backup for the claim that dentists were deemed nonessential, Brandtjen didn't cite the order itself. Rather, in an email, she said Wisconsin dentists planned to start opening their offices in early May, but claimed the state Department of Health Services notified the Dentistry Examining Board that those who did could put their licenses in jeopardy. Jennifer Garrett, communications director for the Department of Safety and Professional Services, said examining board members were advised by legal counsel May 6, 2020, that dentists should follow DHS guidelines, and could face penalties if they did not. But, as evidence, that is off point, particularly with such a narrow claim. As noted, the Evers order declared dentists essential - the opposite of what Brandtjen claimed. Our rating Brandtjen tweeted that under orders from Evers, dentists were classified as non-essential, and therefore had to remain closed. But Evers' order - unlike those from many other governors - explicitly declared dentists, like other health care workers, were essential. Thus, they were allowed to stay open, even if many chose to limit their offerings to emergency work. We rate Brandtjen's claim False.
|
Our rating Brandtjen tweeted that under orders from Evers, dentists were classified as non-essential, and therefore had to remain closed. But Evers' order - unlike those from many other governors - explicitly declared dentists, like other health care workers, were essential. Thus, they were allowed to stay open, even if many chose to limit their offerings to emergency work. We rate Brandtjen's claim False.
|
[
"109602-proof-09-757402081427b96c0e8436fd2a74f69b.jpg"
] |
Says Gov Tony Evers' administration deemed dentists non-essential
|
Contradiction
|
Amid the political upheaval over when and how and how fast to reopen Wisconsin, there was a point on May 11, 2020, when Gov Tony Evers relaxed his stay-at-home order to allow small retail establishments to reopen, so long as they limited shoppers to five or fewer. The state Supreme Court later voted 4-3 to toss out Evers' order entirely, saying his administration had to work with the GOP-controlled Legislature on any continued restrictions. In the wake of Evers' May 11 action, state Rep. Janel Brandtjen, R-Menomonee Falls, offered this tweet targeted at Evers: @Gov Evers liquor stores are open, strip malls can have 5 customers, but dentists are non-essential?! Is she right? Were dentists considered non-essential under the safer-at-home order? The short answer: No. The Governor's executive order Let's start with the order itself: Executive Order #28. Under Section 13, essential businesses include healthcare and public health operations. And, elsewhere within the order, dental offices are classified under healthcare and as public health operations. So, that order did not block dentists from seeing patients. Meanwhile, an online map from the American Dental Association that tracks the extent to which dentists nationwide have been able to offer services shows the vast majority of states, including Wisconsin, allowing elective and emergency procedures. Of those, as of May 14, 2020, the map showed seven states allowing only emergency procedures. (No state had dentist offices closed entirely.) Beyond that, Wisconsin is listed among only four states - including California, Rhode Island, and Delaware - that explicitly designated dentists as essential. That said, the American Dental Association has recommended dentists remain open only for emergency procedures and postpone elective procedures. And the Wisconsin Dental Association follows ADA recommendations. Similarly, the state Department of Health Services recommends dentists follow guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which include postponing elective procedures and non-emergency visits. So, on a practical level, many dentist offices held off on doing routine visits, such as cleanings and checkups. But that was due to their own choice, and consistent with guidelines from dental groups and health agencies. It was not forbidden under Evers' order. When asked for backup for the claim that dentists were deemed nonessential, Brandtjen didn't cite the order itself. Rather, in an email, she said Wisconsin dentists planned to start opening their offices in early May, but claimed the state Department of Health Services notified the Dentistry Examining Board that those who did could put their licenses in jeopardy. Jennifer Garrett, communications director for the Department of Safety and Professional Services, said examining board members were advised by legal counsel May 6, 2020, that dentists should follow DHS guidelines, and could face penalties if they did not. But, as evidence, that is off point, particularly with such a narrow claim. As noted, the Evers order declared dentists essential - the opposite of what Brandtjen claimed. Our rating Brandtjen tweeted that under orders from Evers, dentists were classified as non-essential, and therefore had to remain closed. But Evers' order - unlike those from many other governors - explicitly declared dentists, like other health care workers, were essential. Thus, they were allowed to stay open, even if many chose to limit their offerings to emergency work. We rate Brandtjen's claim False.
|
Our rating Brandtjen tweeted that under orders from Evers, dentists were classified as non-essential, and therefore had to remain closed. But Evers' order - unlike those from many other governors - explicitly declared dentists, like other health care workers, were essential. Thus, they were allowed to stay open, even if many chose to limit their offerings to emergency work. We rate Brandtjen's claim False.
|
[
"109602-proof-09-757402081427b96c0e8436fd2a74f69b.jpg"
] |
'Pfizer CEO's Israel visit canceled because he is not fully vaccinated.
|
Contradiction
|
Some social media users have recently been posting that the CEO of Pfizer couldn't make a planned trip to Israel because he wasn't fully vaccinated. The unspoken allegation: That the man in charge of a company that created one of the COVID-19 vaccines wants you to inoculate yourself against the disease but he won't inject himself. 'The CEO of Pfizer had to cancel a planned trip to Israel because he was not fully vaccinated,' Newsmax writer Emerald Robinson tweeted on Aug. 5. 'Let me repeat: BECAUSE HE WAS NOT VACCINATED.' Robinson tweeted a link to a Jerusalem Post article with a similar headline: 'Pfizer CEO's Israel visit canceled because he is not fully vaccinated' A screenshot of that headline is also now spreading online. 'Wait... what,' one Aug. 6 Instagram post said. 'So he don't even believe in his own product.' The headline is authentic. It's also from March. 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.) Several hours after tweeting about the article, Robinson posted an update: 'The CEO of Pfizer announced on social media that he got his second vaccination shot on March 10,' she said. Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chairman and CEO, did tweet on that day that he was 'excited' to receive his second dose of the vaccine. 'There's nothing I want more than for my loved ones and people around the world to have the same opportunity,' he said, sharing a photo of himself receiving the vaccine. 'Although the journey is far from over, we are working tirelessly to beat the virus.' The Jerusalem Post story about Bourla canceling his trip was published online a few days earlier. The newspaper reported that 'Bourla said in December that he has not yet received the vaccine yet because he does not want to 'cut in line,' and would wait until his age group is next in line for getting vaccinated. As such, he has received the first dose but not the second one yet.' This is old news that is being recirculated in a way that's misleading, suggesting that Bourla today has not received a COVID-19 vaccine that is now widely available in the United States. That's wrong, and even when this Jerusalem Post story was written back in March, he had already had his first dose. We rate claims that Bourla recently canceled an Israel trip because he isn't vaccinated Mostly False.
|
We rate claims that Bourla recently canceled an Israel trip because he isn't vaccinated Mostly False.
|
[] |
'Pfizer CEO's Israel visit canceled because he is not fully vaccinated.
|
Contradiction
|
Some social media users have recently been posting that the CEO of Pfizer couldn't make a planned trip to Israel because he wasn't fully vaccinated. The unspoken allegation: That the man in charge of a company that created one of the COVID-19 vaccines wants you to inoculate yourself against the disease but he won't inject himself. 'The CEO of Pfizer had to cancel a planned trip to Israel because he was not fully vaccinated,' Newsmax writer Emerald Robinson tweeted on Aug. 5. 'Let me repeat: BECAUSE HE WAS NOT VACCINATED.' Robinson tweeted a link to a Jerusalem Post article with a similar headline: 'Pfizer CEO's Israel visit canceled because he is not fully vaccinated' A screenshot of that headline is also now spreading online. 'Wait... what,' one Aug. 6 Instagram post said. 'So he don't even believe in his own product.' The headline is authentic. It's also from March. 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.) Several hours after tweeting about the article, Robinson posted an update: 'The CEO of Pfizer announced on social media that he got his second vaccination shot on March 10,' she said. Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chairman and CEO, did tweet on that day that he was 'excited' to receive his second dose of the vaccine. 'There's nothing I want more than for my loved ones and people around the world to have the same opportunity,' he said, sharing a photo of himself receiving the vaccine. 'Although the journey is far from over, we are working tirelessly to beat the virus.' The Jerusalem Post story about Bourla canceling his trip was published online a few days earlier. The newspaper reported that 'Bourla said in December that he has not yet received the vaccine yet because he does not want to 'cut in line,' and would wait until his age group is next in line for getting vaccinated. As such, he has received the first dose but not the second one yet.' This is old news that is being recirculated in a way that's misleading, suggesting that Bourla today has not received a COVID-19 vaccine that is now widely available in the United States. That's wrong, and even when this Jerusalem Post story was written back in March, he had already had his first dose. We rate claims that Bourla recently canceled an Israel trip because he isn't vaccinated Mostly False.
|
We rate claims that Bourla recently canceled an Israel trip because he isn't vaccinated Mostly False.
|
[] |
'You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.
|
Contradiction
|
Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, recently sat for a video with Wired, part of the magazine's series of interviews in which celebrities answer the most searched-for questions about themselves on the internet. One of the questions Biden addressed was, 'What is Joe Biden's stance on gun control?' He proceeded to answer that he favors outlawing assault weapons. 'They have no rationale for being owned by individuals on the street,' Biden said. 'They should be outlawed. ... From the very beginning you weren't allowed to have certain weapons. You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.' Screenshot from Biden's video A reader suggested we look at Biden's assertion on Revolutionary War cannons. The historians we reached out to were dubious. To confirm Biden's point, 'you would need to point to something - a law, or a tradition, or a case where someone was not allowed to possess a cannon,' said University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt. But the Biden campaign was unable to point to a specific law. 'The vice president's point is that to help end the tragic epidemic of mass shootings that is taking so many American lives, we need to ban weapons of war from our streets,' the campaign told PolitiFact. Historians say they are doubtful that there were laws to bar individual ownership of cannons during the Revolutionary War period. 'It seems highly unlikely that there were restrictions on the private ownership' of cannons, said Julie Anne Sweet, a historian and director of military studies at Baylor University. David Kopel, the research director and Second Amendment project director at the free-market Independence Institute, agreed. 'I am not aware of a ban on any arm in colonial America,' he said. 'There were controls on people or locations, but not bans on types of arms.' The legal framework in the colonies was haphazard during the Revolutionary War period. 'At that time, there was no United States, just a bunch of very confused former colonies trying to cooperate, and often failing, to defeat the British military,' Sweet said. 'Any sort of gun regulations would have been at the local level, and therefore incredibly difficult and tedious to chase down. The new states were still writing new constitutions and probably did not take this matter into consideration.' There is at least one group of private citizens that owned cannons during the period: privateers. Privateers were privately owned and operated ships that in wartime captured enemy ships for profit. While privateers received a license from the government that allowed them to avoid being prosecuted for piracy, they were not a part of the official navy. So any cannons they set sail with (or that they seized from the enemy) would be private property, not the property of the government or the regular military. The 1899 book 'A History of American Privateers' by Edgar Stanton Maclay notes several cases in which privateers during the Revolutionary War set sail using cannons.
|
Our ruling Biden said, 'You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.' The campaign was unable to come up with an example of a law banning private ownership of cannons, and historians of the period doubt that any existed. To the contrary, there are documented instances of privateers, or privately owned vessels, setting sail with cannons during the period. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"109623-proof-23-56e6bf5ec0d710416fbfb52ba0e468ea.jpg",
"109623-proof-34-Biden_cannon.jpg"
] |
'You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.
|
Contradiction
|
Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, recently sat for a video with Wired, part of the magazine's series of interviews in which celebrities answer the most searched-for questions about themselves on the internet. One of the questions Biden addressed was, 'What is Joe Biden's stance on gun control?' He proceeded to answer that he favors outlawing assault weapons. 'They have no rationale for being owned by individuals on the street,' Biden said. 'They should be outlawed. ... From the very beginning you weren't allowed to have certain weapons. You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.' Screenshot from Biden's video A reader suggested we look at Biden's assertion on Revolutionary War cannons. The historians we reached out to were dubious. To confirm Biden's point, 'you would need to point to something - a law, or a tradition, or a case where someone was not allowed to possess a cannon,' said University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt. But the Biden campaign was unable to point to a specific law. 'The vice president's point is that to help end the tragic epidemic of mass shootings that is taking so many American lives, we need to ban weapons of war from our streets,' the campaign told PolitiFact. Historians say they are doubtful that there were laws to bar individual ownership of cannons during the Revolutionary War period. 'It seems highly unlikely that there were restrictions on the private ownership' of cannons, said Julie Anne Sweet, a historian and director of military studies at Baylor University. David Kopel, the research director and Second Amendment project director at the free-market Independence Institute, agreed. 'I am not aware of a ban on any arm in colonial America,' he said. 'There were controls on people or locations, but not bans on types of arms.' The legal framework in the colonies was haphazard during the Revolutionary War period. 'At that time, there was no United States, just a bunch of very confused former colonies trying to cooperate, and often failing, to defeat the British military,' Sweet said. 'Any sort of gun regulations would have been at the local level, and therefore incredibly difficult and tedious to chase down. The new states were still writing new constitutions and probably did not take this matter into consideration.' There is at least one group of private citizens that owned cannons during the period: privateers. Privateers were privately owned and operated ships that in wartime captured enemy ships for profit. While privateers received a license from the government that allowed them to avoid being prosecuted for piracy, they were not a part of the official navy. So any cannons they set sail with (or that they seized from the enemy) would be private property, not the property of the government or the regular military. The 1899 book 'A History of American Privateers' by Edgar Stanton Maclay notes several cases in which privateers during the Revolutionary War set sail using cannons.
|
Our ruling Biden said, 'You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.' The campaign was unable to come up with an example of a law banning private ownership of cannons, and historians of the period doubt that any existed. To the contrary, there are documented instances of privateers, or privately owned vessels, setting sail with cannons during the period. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"109623-proof-23-56e6bf5ec0d710416fbfb52ba0e468ea.jpg",
"109623-proof-34-Biden_cannon.jpg"
] |
'There is a consensus among economists left, right, and center... that we can't spend too much' on COVID-19 relief.
|
Contradiction
|
President Joe Biden has made beating the coronavirus and repairing the economic damage it unleashed his defining priorities. The central pillar of his strategy is a $1.9 trillion recovery plan. At a CNN town hall in Milwaukee, host Anderson Cooper asked Biden if he was committed to passing a $1.9 trillion bill, or if the number was up for negotiation. Biden responded as though there was no need for discussion. He said support for his package came from 'economists left, right and center.' 'The overwhelming consensus is: In order to grow the economy a year or two, three, and four down the line, we can't spend too much,' Biden said Feb. 16. 'Now is the time we should be spending. Now is the time to go big.' Economists across the political spectrum have indeed embraced delivering substantial relief, but when it comes to the total price tag, there's more debate than he describes. Including among Democrats. In early February, former Obama administration Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers voiced concerns. In a Washington Post op-ed, Summers warned that while the bill had to be big, there was a risk of overshoot. Spending too much on COVID-19, Summers said, would squeeze out money for other big plans, from infrastructure to renewable energy to preschool. 'After resolving the coronavirus crisis, how will political and economic space be found for the public investments that should be the nation's highest priority?' Summers wrote. Summers was not alone. The former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, said $1.9 trillion was 'too much.' Blanchard agreed with the plan's main goals - spending on vaccines and health care, protecting the people who lost jobs and boosting demand. But Blanchard didn't reach Biden's total. 'When you make the sum of all these needs, which are real and have to be satisfied, you don't get to $1.9 trillion. You get to a smaller number,' Blanchard said Feb. 8. Blanchard's ballpark number was $1 trillion. Desmond Lachman, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a market-oriented think tank, agreed that there is consensus across the ideological spectrum in favor of additional economic stimulus. The supporters include Lachman's onetime colleague at the institute Kevin Hassett, who joined the Trump administration as the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Hassett told CNN that he broadly supports Biden's $1.9 trillion package. But Lachman said there's uneven support for that level of spending. 'There are many economists who think that a package as large as a $1.9 trillion package is inviting trouble,' Lachman said. Lachman, like the other more cautious economists, worries about overheating the economy with too much cash. The resulting inflation would lead to higher interest rates, which, Lachman argues, would send world financial markets into a tailspin. Ever eager to foster stability, the U.S. Federal Reserve offered calming words on that front. Chairman Jerome Powell said Feb. 10 that if a burst of spending drives prices up, he doesn't think it would last, nor would it automatically trigger a rate increase. A recent survey puts some numbers to the range of opinions among economists. In January, the Wall Street Journal asked over 60 economists how much stimulus is needed. A bit more than half said less than $1 trillion would do. Just under half preferred an amount between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. Now, this was strictly a question about economic stimulus. Biden's plan includes about $160 billion for coronavirus programs, and other pieces might come under the same umbrella. But at some top-line level, economists disagree over the size of the proposal. Jason Furman, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration, suggested making the Biden plan more flexible. If economic growth remained weak after some initial stimulus, Furman would extend the aid for a longer time. If not, the government could dial back its spending. 'These provisions could also phase out aid more quickly than Mr. Biden proposes if the economy rebounds faster than expected,' Furman wrote Jan. 25, 2021. Samuel Hammond with the Niskanen Center, a group named after an economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan, joined over 120 economists in a letter that called for 'substantial' relief. But Hammond said he agrees with the concerns raised by Summers, and has reservations about a major part of the Biden plan: $350 billion for state and local governments. 'I think Larry (Summers) has been making some decent points about COVID relief, and the longer-term benefits of prioritizing public investments rather than a ton of state and local fiscal aid,' Hammond said. The White House press office staff noted that support has come from top Democratic and Republican economists, and they pointed to statements from leading business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. But while those statements push for strong action, they are not specific about a dollar figure. 'We look forward to working with the new administration and Congress on the details and in ensuring that any additional economic assistance is timely, targeted, and temporary, ' the Chamber of Commerce said Jan. 14. That leaves plenty of room for discussion about the scale of the relief package.
|
Our ruling Biden said that economists across the political spectrum supported his COVID-19 relief proposal. There is broad agreement that Washington should spend hundreds of billions of dollars to corral the coronavirus, help small businesses and give assistance to the millions of people who lost their jobs. But Biden treated that support as an endorsement of his entire $1.9 trillion plan. Many prominent economists have concerns about the price tag, which was the exact focus of the question Biden was answering. He glossed over that debate. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"109626-proof-44-5c8136a7df81c24a173a935ece34b09e.jpg"
] |
'There is a consensus among economists left, right, and center... that we can't spend too much' on COVID-19 relief.
|
Contradiction
|
President Joe Biden has made beating the coronavirus and repairing the economic damage it unleashed his defining priorities. The central pillar of his strategy is a $1.9 trillion recovery plan. At a CNN town hall in Milwaukee, host Anderson Cooper asked Biden if he was committed to passing a $1.9 trillion bill, or if the number was up for negotiation. Biden responded as though there was no need for discussion. He said support for his package came from 'economists left, right and center.' 'The overwhelming consensus is: In order to grow the economy a year or two, three, and four down the line, we can't spend too much,' Biden said Feb. 16. 'Now is the time we should be spending. Now is the time to go big.' Economists across the political spectrum have indeed embraced delivering substantial relief, but when it comes to the total price tag, there's more debate than he describes. Including among Democrats. In early February, former Obama administration Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers voiced concerns. In a Washington Post op-ed, Summers warned that while the bill had to be big, there was a risk of overshoot. Spending too much on COVID-19, Summers said, would squeeze out money for other big plans, from infrastructure to renewable energy to preschool. 'After resolving the coronavirus crisis, how will political and economic space be found for the public investments that should be the nation's highest priority?' Summers wrote. Summers was not alone. The former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, said $1.9 trillion was 'too much.' Blanchard agreed with the plan's main goals - spending on vaccines and health care, protecting the people who lost jobs and boosting demand. But Blanchard didn't reach Biden's total. 'When you make the sum of all these needs, which are real and have to be satisfied, you don't get to $1.9 trillion. You get to a smaller number,' Blanchard said Feb. 8. Blanchard's ballpark number was $1 trillion. Desmond Lachman, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a market-oriented think tank, agreed that there is consensus across the ideological spectrum in favor of additional economic stimulus. The supporters include Lachman's onetime colleague at the institute Kevin Hassett, who joined the Trump administration as the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Hassett told CNN that he broadly supports Biden's $1.9 trillion package. But Lachman said there's uneven support for that level of spending. 'There are many economists who think that a package as large as a $1.9 trillion package is inviting trouble,' Lachman said. Lachman, like the other more cautious economists, worries about overheating the economy with too much cash. The resulting inflation would lead to higher interest rates, which, Lachman argues, would send world financial markets into a tailspin. Ever eager to foster stability, the U.S. Federal Reserve offered calming words on that front. Chairman Jerome Powell said Feb. 10 that if a burst of spending drives prices up, he doesn't think it would last, nor would it automatically trigger a rate increase. A recent survey puts some numbers to the range of opinions among economists. In January, the Wall Street Journal asked over 60 economists how much stimulus is needed. A bit more than half said less than $1 trillion would do. Just under half preferred an amount between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. Now, this was strictly a question about economic stimulus. Biden's plan includes about $160 billion for coronavirus programs, and other pieces might come under the same umbrella. But at some top-line level, economists disagree over the size of the proposal. Jason Furman, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration, suggested making the Biden plan more flexible. If economic growth remained weak after some initial stimulus, Furman would extend the aid for a longer time. If not, the government could dial back its spending. 'These provisions could also phase out aid more quickly than Mr. Biden proposes if the economy rebounds faster than expected,' Furman wrote Jan. 25, 2021. Samuel Hammond with the Niskanen Center, a group named after an economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan, joined over 120 economists in a letter that called for 'substantial' relief. But Hammond said he agrees with the concerns raised by Summers, and has reservations about a major part of the Biden plan: $350 billion for state and local governments. 'I think Larry (Summers) has been making some decent points about COVID relief, and the longer-term benefits of prioritizing public investments rather than a ton of state and local fiscal aid,' Hammond said. The White House press office staff noted that support has come from top Democratic and Republican economists, and they pointed to statements from leading business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. But while those statements push for strong action, they are not specific about a dollar figure. 'We look forward to working with the new administration and Congress on the details and in ensuring that any additional economic assistance is timely, targeted, and temporary, ' the Chamber of Commerce said Jan. 14. That leaves plenty of room for discussion about the scale of the relief package.
|
Our ruling Biden said that economists across the political spectrum supported his COVID-19 relief proposal. There is broad agreement that Washington should spend hundreds of billions of dollars to corral the coronavirus, help small businesses and give assistance to the millions of people who lost their jobs. But Biden treated that support as an endorsement of his entire $1.9 trillion plan. Many prominent economists have concerns about the price tag, which was the exact focus of the question Biden was answering. He glossed over that debate. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"109626-proof-44-5c8136a7df81c24a173a935ece34b09e.jpg"
] |
Says the Atlanta mayor is 'shutting the city down for' the NBA All-Star Game weekend.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post falsely claimed that Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is shutting down the city in connection with the NBA All-Star Game being played there on March 7. In capital letters, the post said: 'SO THE MAYOR OF ATLANTA SHUTTING THE CITY DOWN FOR ALLSTAR WEEKEND.' 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.) Even before the NBA officially announced that the game would be held in Atlanta, Bottoms asked that people not travel to her city for the game, and asked that businesses not hold events in connection with it. She didn't order any shutdowns. It all relates to the coronavirus. Game on, game off, game on The COVID-19 pandemic led the NBA to relocate the All-Star Game from Indianapolis in 2021. The league said 'public health conditions prevented' it 'from appropriately planning and executing fan-focused All-Star activities in Indianapolis.' At the time, the league said revised plans for the 2021 game would be announced later but that it did plan for the game to come to Indianapolis in 2024. Debate ensued among players and others about whether the game should be played in 2021. But the NBA announced Feb. 18 that the 2021 game would be held March 7 in Atlanta - it would be limited, however, to one evening inside the arena hosting the game, rather than a weekend of events at various venues. 'For the well-being and safety of the greater Atlanta community, there will be no fan activities, ticketed events or hospitality functions,' the league said. Bottoms issued orders after the pandemic emerged in March 2020 that temporarily shut down bars and nightclubs that do not serve food, gyms and fitness centers, movie theaters, live performance venues, bowling alleys, arcades and private social clubs, and that ordered residents to stay in their homes. Bottoms issued her statement about the All-Star Game on Feb. 16, two days before the NBA made its announcement. She made it clear she didn't want any public gatherings associated with the game, but didn't order any shutdowns. She said: 'Under normal circumstances, we would be extremely grateful for the opportunity to host the NBA All-Star game, but this is not a typical year. I have shared my concerns related to public health and safety with the NBA and Atlanta Hawks. We are in agreement that this is a made-for-TV event only, and people should not travel to Atlanta to party. There will be no NBA-sanctioned events open to the public and we strongly encourage promoters, clubs, bars, etc. not to host events in the city related to this game.' We rate the Facebook post False.
|
We rate the Facebook post False.
|
[
"109652-proof-33-6d838d3dafd9360afb92134f3ad2ea95.jpg"
] |
Says the Atlanta mayor is 'shutting the city down for' the NBA All-Star Game weekend.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post falsely claimed that Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is shutting down the city in connection with the NBA All-Star Game being played there on March 7. In capital letters, the post said: 'SO THE MAYOR OF ATLANTA SHUTTING THE CITY DOWN FOR ALLSTAR WEEKEND.' 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.) Even before the NBA officially announced that the game would be held in Atlanta, Bottoms asked that people not travel to her city for the game, and asked that businesses not hold events in connection with it. She didn't order any shutdowns. It all relates to the coronavirus. Game on, game off, game on The COVID-19 pandemic led the NBA to relocate the All-Star Game from Indianapolis in 2021. The league said 'public health conditions prevented' it 'from appropriately planning and executing fan-focused All-Star activities in Indianapolis.' At the time, the league said revised plans for the 2021 game would be announced later but that it did plan for the game to come to Indianapolis in 2024. Debate ensued among players and others about whether the game should be played in 2021. But the NBA announced Feb. 18 that the 2021 game would be held March 7 in Atlanta - it would be limited, however, to one evening inside the arena hosting the game, rather than a weekend of events at various venues. 'For the well-being and safety of the greater Atlanta community, there will be no fan activities, ticketed events or hospitality functions,' the league said. Bottoms issued orders after the pandemic emerged in March 2020 that temporarily shut down bars and nightclubs that do not serve food, gyms and fitness centers, movie theaters, live performance venues, bowling alleys, arcades and private social clubs, and that ordered residents to stay in their homes. Bottoms issued her statement about the All-Star Game on Feb. 16, two days before the NBA made its announcement. She made it clear she didn't want any public gatherings associated with the game, but didn't order any shutdowns. She said: 'Under normal circumstances, we would be extremely grateful for the opportunity to host the NBA All-Star game, but this is not a typical year. I have shared my concerns related to public health and safety with the NBA and Atlanta Hawks. We are in agreement that this is a made-for-TV event only, and people should not travel to Atlanta to party. There will be no NBA-sanctioned events open to the public and we strongly encourage promoters, clubs, bars, etc. not to host events in the city related to this game.' We rate the Facebook post False.
|
We rate the Facebook post False.
|
[
"109652-proof-33-6d838d3dafd9360afb92134f3ad2ea95.jpg"
] |
'Weis Food stores will no longer sell anything with the American flag and their employees can no longer wear anything with the flag.
|
Contradiction
|
When the first grocery store in the Weis Markets chain opened in Pennsylvania in 1912, it was known as Weis Pure Foods. Now the company employs workers at stores in six other states including New York, New Jersey and West Virginia. Misinformation being shared on social media wrongly claims those employees are banned from wearing anything with the American flag. 'Weis Food stores will no longer sell anything with the American flag and their employees can no longer wear anything with the flag. Other than for the July 4th holiday,' one post says. 'Called the store and manager verified this because 'Weis is staying neutral. They serve different groups of people in this country' thought we were all Americans. So therefore I will no longer shop there!' Please spread the word! This is America we have a flag of red white and blue. Don't like it get the f out.' 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 Standard Speaker, a newspaper in Hazleton, Pa., reported on July 3, that a longtime Weis Markets dress code prohibits employees from displaying pins, logos and other designs, including the American flag, on their uniforms. 'The policy has been in effect for years, but came to attention during the COVID-19 pandemic when employees were told not to wear masks with the flag or other symbols,' the story says. 'Weis denies a ban of the flag.' Dennis Curtin, a spokesman for the company, told fact-checkers at Snopes and the Daily Caller's Check Your Fact that the store hasn't stopped selling products with the American flag on them. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
'Weis Food stores will no longer sell anything with the American flag and their employees can no longer wear anything with the flag.
|
Contradiction
|
When the first grocery store in the Weis Markets chain opened in Pennsylvania in 1912, it was known as Weis Pure Foods. Now the company employs workers at stores in six other states including New York, New Jersey and West Virginia. Misinformation being shared on social media wrongly claims those employees are banned from wearing anything with the American flag. 'Weis Food stores will no longer sell anything with the American flag and their employees can no longer wear anything with the flag. Other than for the July 4th holiday,' one post says. 'Called the store and manager verified this because 'Weis is staying neutral. They serve different groups of people in this country' thought we were all Americans. So therefore I will no longer shop there!' Please spread the word! This is America we have a flag of red white and blue. Don't like it get the f out.' 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 Standard Speaker, a newspaper in Hazleton, Pa., reported on July 3, that a longtime Weis Markets dress code prohibits employees from displaying pins, logos and other designs, including the American flag, on their uniforms. 'The policy has been in effect for years, but came to attention during the COVID-19 pandemic when employees were told not to wear masks with the flag or other symbols,' the story says. 'Weis denies a ban of the flag.' Dennis Curtin, a spokesman for the company, told fact-checkers at Snopes and the Daily Caller's Check Your Fact that the store hasn't stopped selling products with the American flag on them. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
'Weis Food stores will no longer sell anything with the American flag and their employees can no longer wear anything with the flag.
|
Contradiction
|
When the first grocery store in the Weis Markets chain opened in Pennsylvania in 1912, it was known as Weis Pure Foods. Now the company employs workers at stores in six other states including New York, New Jersey and West Virginia. Misinformation being shared on social media wrongly claims those employees are banned from wearing anything with the American flag. 'Weis Food stores will no longer sell anything with the American flag and their employees can no longer wear anything with the flag. Other than for the July 4th holiday,' one post says. 'Called the store and manager verified this because 'Weis is staying neutral. They serve different groups of people in this country' thought we were all Americans. So therefore I will no longer shop there!' Please spread the word! This is America we have a flag of red white and blue. Don't like it get the f out.' 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 Standard Speaker, a newspaper in Hazleton, Pa., reported on July 3, that a longtime Weis Markets dress code prohibits employees from displaying pins, logos and other designs, including the American flag, on their uniforms. 'The policy has been in effect for years, but came to attention during the COVID-19 pandemic when employees were told not to wear masks with the flag or other symbols,' the story says. 'Weis denies a ban of the flag.' Dennis Curtin, a spokesman for the company, told fact-checkers at Snopes and the Daily Caller's Check Your Fact that the store hasn't stopped selling products with the American flag on them. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
'OSHA says masks don't work' to reduce COVID-19 transmission 'and violate OSHA oxygen levels.
|
Contradiction
|
When it comes to fighting the spread of COVID-19, the consensus among health authorities is that masks provide some measure of protection for people around the wearers. So, has the federal agency charged with ensuring healthy conditions in the workplace declared that face coverings don't work, and actually pose a health risk? That's the claim of an article (archived here) widely shared on Facebook that carries this headline: 'OSHA says masks don't work - and violate OSHA oxygen levels.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In fact, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, part of the Department of Labor, recommends the use of masks. Change in advice Initially, the lead federal agency on the coronavirus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, did not recommend face coverings. That changed in April: 'We now know from recent studies that a significant portion of individuals with coronavirus lack symptoms ('asymptomatic') and that even those who eventually develop symptoms ('pre-symptomatic') can transmit the virus to others before showing symptoms. This means that the virus can spread between people interacting in close proximity-for example, speaking, coughing, or sneezing-even if those people are not exhibiting symptoms. In light of this new evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.' OSHA recommends masks The article we're checking is on a website called GreenMedInfo. The article doesn't have text per se, but rather two videos and links to OSHA web pages. But we found that on its website, OSHA repeatedly recommends the use of face coverings: From OSHA's 'COVID-19 Frequently Asked Questions': Cloth face coverings are worn in public over the nose and mouth 'to contain the wearer's potentially infectious respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks and to limit the spread' of the coronavirus. From OSHA's 'Guidance on Returning to Work': Employers must determine PPE (personal protective equipment) such as gloves, surgical masks and face shields) are necessary for employees. From OSHA's 'Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19': 'Provide a face mask, if feasible and available, and ask the person to wear it, if tolerated. ...Most workers at high or very high exposure risk likely need to wear gloves, a gown, a face shield or goggles, and either a face mask or a respirator, depending on their job tasks and exposure risks.' OSHA's response to the post A Department of Labor spokeswoman told PolitiFact that OSHA 'generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work. Face coverings are intended to prevent wearers who have COVID-19 without knowing it from spreading potentially infectious respiratory droplets to others. 'OSHA has not suggested they are ineffective for that purpose.' The spokeswoman also said OSHA has not made any determination on whether masks have any impact on oxygen levels.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims 'OSHA says masks don't work' to reduce COVID-19 transmission 'and violate OSHA oxygen levels.' OSHA actively recommends masks, when appropriate, in the workplace, and has made no determination on whether they affect a person's oxygen levels. We rate the post False.
|
[
"109660-proof-30-c3139798b9f462890be05d854b5265a1.jpg"
] |
'OSHA says masks don't work' to reduce COVID-19 transmission 'and violate OSHA oxygen levels.
|
Contradiction
|
When it comes to fighting the spread of COVID-19, the consensus among health authorities is that masks provide some measure of protection for people around the wearers. So, has the federal agency charged with ensuring healthy conditions in the workplace declared that face coverings don't work, and actually pose a health risk? That's the claim of an article (archived here) widely shared on Facebook that carries this headline: 'OSHA says masks don't work - and violate OSHA oxygen levels.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In fact, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, part of the Department of Labor, recommends the use of masks. Change in advice Initially, the lead federal agency on the coronavirus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, did not recommend face coverings. That changed in April: 'We now know from recent studies that a significant portion of individuals with coronavirus lack symptoms ('asymptomatic') and that even those who eventually develop symptoms ('pre-symptomatic') can transmit the virus to others before showing symptoms. This means that the virus can spread between people interacting in close proximity-for example, speaking, coughing, or sneezing-even if those people are not exhibiting symptoms. In light of this new evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) especially in areas of significant community-based transmission.' OSHA recommends masks The article we're checking is on a website called GreenMedInfo. The article doesn't have text per se, but rather two videos and links to OSHA web pages. But we found that on its website, OSHA repeatedly recommends the use of face coverings: From OSHA's 'COVID-19 Frequently Asked Questions': Cloth face coverings are worn in public over the nose and mouth 'to contain the wearer's potentially infectious respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks and to limit the spread' of the coronavirus. From OSHA's 'Guidance on Returning to Work': Employers must determine PPE (personal protective equipment) such as gloves, surgical masks and face shields) are necessary for employees. From OSHA's 'Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19': 'Provide a face mask, if feasible and available, and ask the person to wear it, if tolerated. ...Most workers at high or very high exposure risk likely need to wear gloves, a gown, a face shield or goggles, and either a face mask or a respirator, depending on their job tasks and exposure risks.' OSHA's response to the post A Department of Labor spokeswoman told PolitiFact that OSHA 'generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work. Face coverings are intended to prevent wearers who have COVID-19 without knowing it from spreading potentially infectious respiratory droplets to others. 'OSHA has not suggested they are ineffective for that purpose.' The spokeswoman also said OSHA has not made any determination on whether masks have any impact on oxygen levels.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims 'OSHA says masks don't work' to reduce COVID-19 transmission 'and violate OSHA oxygen levels.' OSHA actively recommends masks, when appropriate, in the workplace, and has made no determination on whether they affect a person's oxygen levels. We rate the post False.
|
[
"109660-proof-30-c3139798b9f462890be05d854b5265a1.jpg"
] |
Says Kobe Bryant's wife 'recorded her suicide after depression attack this morning.
|
Contradiction
|
We've debunked a lot of hoaxes about NBA star Kobe Bryant since he and one of his daughters were killed in a helicopter crash on Jan. 26. Now a gruesome blog post being shared online falsely claims that Bryant's wife, Vanessa Bryant, ended her life. 'BREAKING NEWS,' reads what looks like a BBC News headline, 'Vanessa Bryant recorded her suicide after depression attack this morning.' The words 'ACTUAL footage' appear above a video embedded in the blog post. The video still shows a picture of Vanessa Bryant and says 'R.I.P. Vanessa Bryant 1982-2020.' The BBC News logo is in the corner. But searching the BBC's website, we found no coverage of Vanessa Bryant's supposed suicide. Other news organizations likewise didn't report on her death. This blog 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.) If you click on the video, a clip of Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto begins. He says he has some 'very sad news.' Then the video stops and this message appears: 'Warning: This video may show graphic content (18+). Share to continue watching.' Clicking on video opens a window to share the blog post on Facebook. And many people have followed through, spreading this hoax. More astute news consumers, however, have followed credible news stories about Koby Bryant's death. And more than 10 million liked this photo that Vanessa Bryant posted of her family on Instagram last week when she thanked the 'millions of people who've shown support and love during this horrific time.' 'I'm not sure what our lives hold beyond today, and it's impossible to imagine life without them,' she said. 'But we wake up each day, trying to keep pushing because Kobe, and our baby girl, Gigi, are shining on us to light the way.' We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'San Francisco Allowing Children to 'Consent' to Covid Vaccine Without Parents Approval.
|
Contradiction
|
Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine for emergency use for minors ages 12 and above, more people have begun to get their first dose. In California, more than half of the population has received their first dose of the vaccine against COVID-19. In San Francisco, it's 82%. But with the news of more people eligible to get vaccinated comes more misinformation about the shots. Two weeks after the FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine for emergency use for the new age group, a Facebook post claimed minors in San Francisco could get vaccinated against COVID-19 without their parents consent. That post went viral, garnering over 10,000 shares, comments and reactions combined on Facebook. A post from The Hodgetwins, a conservative commentary duo, was flagged on May 27 as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In bold letters, the post reads 'San Francisco Allowing Children to 'Consent' to Covid Vaccine Without Parents Approval.' At the bottom of the post is a snippet from a San Francisco County health order that attempts to justify the claim that minors are receiving vaccines without parental consent. However, the Facebook post and others on Twitter fail to point out the health order was intended for emancipated California minors or those who can prove they are self-sufficiently independent. As a way to make COVID-19 vaccines more accessible, San Francisco's Department of Public Health said the health order was issued in anticipation of the FDA's decision to administer Pfizer vaccines to the newly eligible group. A few weeks later, SFDPH issued further guidance for city and county healthcare providers administering vaccines to minors at mass vaccination spots. The guidance said because emancipated and self-sufficient minors 'are not the norm and thus relatively uncommon,' they can consent to medical care without a parent or legal guardian's approval. The guidance also says, San Francisco-affiliated vaccination providers should 'reasonably attempt to ascertain a minor's claim of self-sufficient or emancipated status' such as signed documentation. A minor is considered 'self-sufficient' if they are at least 15 years old, manage their finances, and live separately from their parents. If a minor is not emancipated or considered self-sufficient 'healthcare providers must reasonably attempt to notify a parent or guardian to consent to medical care for that minor and allow that person the opportunity to object to administration of that [vaccine],' according to the guidance. Even with the health order, it's not as easy for minors to consent to the vaccine on their own behalf. In an email, SFDPH said 'generally, parent or legal guardian consent is required for COVID-19 vaccinations of minors.' California's Department of Public Health said the same and lists acceptable forms of consent for 'persons younger than 18-years' such as being accompanied by a parent or legal guardian, a signed consent form prior to the appointment, or some kind of verbal consent via telephone. Medical experts agree that vaccinating minors was always part of the vaccine rollout plan, but knowing a person's medical history is also just as important. Specifically for emancipated minors consenting on their own behalf. 'There's some gray zones here where it's not easy to make these decisions,' said Lee Riley, a Professor of infectious disease at UC Berkeley. One of those gray zones is myocarditis. In April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported an increased number of myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, in adolescents after their second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. However, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices concluded that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine to individual persons outweigh the risks of myocarditis. Because of this, Riley agrees that healthcare providers administering the vaccine to minors should do everything they can to understand the minor's medical history. In regards to vaccine side effects, 'the story is not completely done with children and safety and we have to watch this and do no harm,' said Monica Gandhi, an American physician and Professor of Medicine at University of California in San Francisco. Gandhi says because of a lack of CDC data on vaccine side effects in children, healthcare providers administering vaccines should be extra careful. Our Ruling: Social media posts claimed that minors can get vaccinated without their parent's consent in San Francisco. The county's department of public health issued a health order in anticipation of the FDA's approval of the Pfizer vaccine for emergency use for emancipated or 'self-sufficient' minors who are 12 years old and above. Weeks after the health order, SFDPH said the exemption for minors to consent without their parent's approval 'are not the norm and thus relatively uncommon.' Medical experts agree with the city and county of San Francisco that healthcare providers must do everything possible to get consent from a parent or legal guardian prior to administering a vaccine to a minor. We rate this claim as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
|
Our Ruling: Social media posts claimed that minors can get vaccinated without their parent's consent in San Francisco. The county's department of public health issued a health order in anticipation of the FDA's approval of the Pfizer vaccine for emergency use for emancipated or 'self-sufficient' minors who are 12 years old and above. Weeks after the health order, SFDPH said the exemption for minors to consent without their parent's approval 'are not the norm and thus relatively uncommon.' Medical experts agree with the city and county of San Francisco that healthcare providers must do everything possible to get consent from a parent or legal guardian prior to administering a vaccine to a minor. We rate this claim as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
|
[
"109665-proof-01-ah9RmVIXSryW3HXfQT1A2Jbc0uBCMD-GxfV0wCIciovGgXoVDFF_P_ZQ7DTaaFRjz0gCvkxcdG8EtUSK.jpg"
] |
'San Francisco Allowing Children to 'Consent' to Covid Vaccine Without Parents Approval.
|
Contradiction
|
Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine for emergency use for minors ages 12 and above, more people have begun to get their first dose. In California, more than half of the population has received their first dose of the vaccine against COVID-19. In San Francisco, it's 82%. But with the news of more people eligible to get vaccinated comes more misinformation about the shots. Two weeks after the FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine for emergency use for the new age group, a Facebook post claimed minors in San Francisco could get vaccinated against COVID-19 without their parents consent. That post went viral, garnering over 10,000 shares, comments and reactions combined on Facebook. A post from The Hodgetwins, a conservative commentary duo, was flagged on May 27 as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In bold letters, the post reads 'San Francisco Allowing Children to 'Consent' to Covid Vaccine Without Parents Approval.' At the bottom of the post is a snippet from a San Francisco County health order that attempts to justify the claim that minors are receiving vaccines without parental consent. However, the Facebook post and others on Twitter fail to point out the health order was intended for emancipated California minors or those who can prove they are self-sufficiently independent. As a way to make COVID-19 vaccines more accessible, San Francisco's Department of Public Health said the health order was issued in anticipation of the FDA's decision to administer Pfizer vaccines to the newly eligible group. A few weeks later, SFDPH issued further guidance for city and county healthcare providers administering vaccines to minors at mass vaccination spots. The guidance said because emancipated and self-sufficient minors 'are not the norm and thus relatively uncommon,' they can consent to medical care without a parent or legal guardian's approval. The guidance also says, San Francisco-affiliated vaccination providers should 'reasonably attempt to ascertain a minor's claim of self-sufficient or emancipated status' such as signed documentation. A minor is considered 'self-sufficient' if they are at least 15 years old, manage their finances, and live separately from their parents. If a minor is not emancipated or considered self-sufficient 'healthcare providers must reasonably attempt to notify a parent or guardian to consent to medical care for that minor and allow that person the opportunity to object to administration of that [vaccine],' according to the guidance. Even with the health order, it's not as easy for minors to consent to the vaccine on their own behalf. In an email, SFDPH said 'generally, parent or legal guardian consent is required for COVID-19 vaccinations of minors.' California's Department of Public Health said the same and lists acceptable forms of consent for 'persons younger than 18-years' such as being accompanied by a parent or legal guardian, a signed consent form prior to the appointment, or some kind of verbal consent via telephone. Medical experts agree that vaccinating minors was always part of the vaccine rollout plan, but knowing a person's medical history is also just as important. Specifically for emancipated minors consenting on their own behalf. 'There's some gray zones here where it's not easy to make these decisions,' said Lee Riley, a Professor of infectious disease at UC Berkeley. One of those gray zones is myocarditis. In April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported an increased number of myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, in adolescents after their second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. However, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices concluded that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine to individual persons outweigh the risks of myocarditis. Because of this, Riley agrees that healthcare providers administering the vaccine to minors should do everything they can to understand the minor's medical history. In regards to vaccine side effects, 'the story is not completely done with children and safety and we have to watch this and do no harm,' said Monica Gandhi, an American physician and Professor of Medicine at University of California in San Francisco. Gandhi says because of a lack of CDC data on vaccine side effects in children, healthcare providers administering vaccines should be extra careful. Our Ruling: Social media posts claimed that minors can get vaccinated without their parent's consent in San Francisco. The county's department of public health issued a health order in anticipation of the FDA's approval of the Pfizer vaccine for emergency use for emancipated or 'self-sufficient' minors who are 12 years old and above. Weeks after the health order, SFDPH said the exemption for minors to consent without their parent's approval 'are not the norm and thus relatively uncommon.' Medical experts agree with the city and county of San Francisco that healthcare providers must do everything possible to get consent from a parent or legal guardian prior to administering a vaccine to a minor. We rate this claim as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
|
Our Ruling: Social media posts claimed that minors can get vaccinated without their parent's consent in San Francisco. The county's department of public health issued a health order in anticipation of the FDA's approval of the Pfizer vaccine for emergency use for emancipated or 'self-sufficient' minors who are 12 years old and above. Weeks after the health order, SFDPH said the exemption for minors to consent without their parent's approval 'are not the norm and thus relatively uncommon.' Medical experts agree with the city and county of San Francisco that healthcare providers must do everything possible to get consent from a parent or legal guardian prior to administering a vaccine to a minor. We rate this claim as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
|
[
"109665-proof-01-ah9RmVIXSryW3HXfQT1A2Jbc0uBCMD-GxfV0wCIciovGgXoVDFF_P_ZQ7DTaaFRjz0gCvkxcdG8EtUSK.jpg"
] |
'North Carolina & Virginia State line is closed. Nothing in or out.
|
Contradiction
|
Amid the coronavirus outbreak, North Carolina officials have asked residents to limit their movement. Gov. Roy Cooper issued a 'stay-at-home' order that lasts until the end of the month. And one Facebook post that's circulating on the social media site suggests there's a blockade along North Carolina's northern border. 'North Carolina & Virginia State line is closed. Nothing in or out,' the post reads. As of Wednesday, it had been shared more than 800 times. Is it true that the North Carolina-Virginia border is closed? No. This is a gross exaggeration of the situation that could add to the anxiety North Carolinians already face. No statewide order We reached out to authorities in both states. 'The Virginia State Police has not closed any borders or roads as a result of COVID-19,' Corinne Geller, public relations director for Virginia State Police, told us in an email. 'No action has been taken by the state of North Carolina to close our border with Virginia,' said Kelly Haight Connor, communications manager for the NC Department of Health and Human Services. In fact, there has been no sweeping order to close state borders either, said Steve Abbott, spokesman for NC's Department of Transportation. Local governments act However, some local NC governments have gone a step further than Cooper's order and enacted movement restrictions within their jurisdictions. The bottom image of the Facebook post was used in a story from WATE about authorities blocking a highway between Robbinsville and Tellico Plains, Tennessee. That decision to block that road was made by the Graham County Emergency Planning Committee, WATE reported. Elsewhere, Fayetteville issued a curfew. And Dare County has banned entry to visitors and non-resident property owners. A list of municipal movement restrictions can be found by clicking 'COVID-19 related information' on DriveNC.gov.
|
Our ruling A viral Facebook post says 'North Carolina & Virginia State line is closed. Nothing in or out.' The NC-Virginia border isn't closed, according to officials from both states. Nor is there a statewide ban on movement in or out of the state. The post broadcasted serious misinformation at a time when people are nervous about how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting their work and their access to essential goods. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"109675-proof-39-29b2b5f214a00a8e5b9c84d35dbabb57.jpg"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.