claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Says H.R. 1 gives immigrants illegally in the country 'the right to vote.
|
Contradiction
|
Some social media users are spreading a misleading claim about a Democratic proposal to expand voting rights. They claim that the bill, H.R. 1, gives immigrants illegally in the country the right to vote. 'For all of you who can't think for yourself on the left ... you cry endlessly about 'foreign interference' yet you're totally ok with allowing ILLEGALS the right to vote by backing H.R. 1,' reads an Instagram 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.) The bill's goal is to make it easier for eligible American citizens to register to vote. It doesn't change federal law that bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections. 'Nothing in the proposed statute would make it legal for noncitizens to register and/or vote,' said Rebecca Green, professor and co-director of the Election Law Program at William & Mary Law School. 'There are federal and state criminal sanctions prohibiting noncitizens from registering and voting, which H.R. 1 does nothing to disturb.' No change to citizenship requirement to vote The Instagram post doesn't include any evidence for its assertions. But claims that the legislation would allow noncitizens to vote have often revolved around its provisions about automatic voter registration. Under the bill, people interacting with government offices - such as a motor-vehicle or public-assistance agency - will have their information forwarded to election officials for registration purposes, unless they opt out. But nothing about this automatic registration allows noncitizens to vote or register to vote. The bill specifically says that only 'eligible citizens' will be registered under this provision. If a person's citizenship status isn't on file at the government office, that person will have to fill out a registration form attesting to their citizenship. Noncitizens who falsify their citizenship status on one of these applications would be risking criminal sanction, Green said. Those who violate the law by voting or registering to vote can face incarceration, deportation or fines. Nearly 20 states and the District of Columbia have already either passed or implemented automatic voter registration, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. There is no evidence that these options have led to significant numbers of noncitizens becoming registered to vote, Danielle Lang, a voting expert at the Campaign Legal Center, previously told PolitiFact. Opponents of H.R. 1 have pointed to a glitch in California's automatic voter registration program in 2018, which erroneously registered thousands of people to vote, including at least one noncitizen. Officials said that the error resulted from a programming flaw, and that they canceled the registrations and fixed the system. Any mail-in ballots sent to people who were mistakenly registered weren't counted on Election Day. H.R. 1 also contains a provision stating that ineligible immigrants registered in error like the noncitizen in California can't be prosecuted for their immigration status. But anybody who lies during registration or intentionally misleads officials could still face prosecution.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post says that H.R. 1 would give immigrants illegally in the country the right to vote. The bill doesn't do that. H.R. 1 keeps in place federal and state criminal laws that prohibit noncitizens from voting or registering to vote. This claim is False.
|
[] |
Says these 'elite' figures are on house arrest with ankle monitors 'due to child trafficking crimes.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post shares a bogus conspiracy theory that claims certain 'elite' or Hollywood figures, like former President Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey, are involved in child trafficking rings. The post shares a collage of photos that include Obama and Winfrey, as well as Hillary Clinton and Ellen DeGeneres. Text above the photo says, 'Elite/Hollywood figures on house arrest with ankle monitors, due to child trafficking crimes.' The post attempts to prove this by revealing that all are wearing ankle bracelets in the images. But some of the photos are obscured, while others were digitally altered. One image accurately shows ankle wear on Obama, but it's not a house arrest monitor. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) First, there is no evidence that Obama, Winfrey, DeGeneres or Clinton are involved in child trafficking and none have been arrested, or placed on house arrest, for any crime. The photos of DeGeneres and Winfrey are both obscured and show bulges underneath their pants, near their ankles. This is far from proving these are house arrest monitors, and we couldn't track down the original images. Winfrey also addressed false rumors in March that she had been arrested. The photo of Hillary Clinton was taken in 2014 in the Hamptons. The Facebook post's version was digitally altered to include a device on her right leg. Clinton is not wearing any kind of bracelet or monitor, on either leg, in the original photo or in other photos from that day. The photo of Obama shows him paddle boarding in January 2020 in Hawaii. The bracelet on his ankle is real, but it's not a house arrest monitor. The device is called a 'SharkBanz,' which uses technology to deter a shark attack. (Note: It's difficult to be on house arrest and also paddleboard in Hawaii). We rate this Pants on Fire!
|
We rate this Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Says these 'elite' figures are on house arrest with ankle monitors 'due to child trafficking crimes.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post shares a bogus conspiracy theory that claims certain 'elite' or Hollywood figures, like former President Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey, are involved in child trafficking rings. The post shares a collage of photos that include Obama and Winfrey, as well as Hillary Clinton and Ellen DeGeneres. Text above the photo says, 'Elite/Hollywood figures on house arrest with ankle monitors, due to child trafficking crimes.' The post attempts to prove this by revealing that all are wearing ankle bracelets in the images. But some of the photos are obscured, while others were digitally altered. One image accurately shows ankle wear on Obama, but it's not a house arrest monitor. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) First, there is no evidence that Obama, Winfrey, DeGeneres or Clinton are involved in child trafficking and none have been arrested, or placed on house arrest, for any crime. The photos of DeGeneres and Winfrey are both obscured and show bulges underneath their pants, near their ankles. This is far from proving these are house arrest monitors, and we couldn't track down the original images. Winfrey also addressed false rumors in March that she had been arrested. The photo of Hillary Clinton was taken in 2014 in the Hamptons. The Facebook post's version was digitally altered to include a device on her right leg. Clinton is not wearing any kind of bracelet or monitor, on either leg, in the original photo or in other photos from that day. The photo of Obama shows him paddle boarding in January 2020 in Hawaii. The bracelet on his ankle is real, but it's not a house arrest monitor. The device is called a 'SharkBanz,' which uses technology to deter a shark attack. (Note: It's difficult to be on house arrest and also paddleboard in Hawaii). We rate this Pants on Fire!
|
We rate this Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Says Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden backs a fracking ban that would cost 100,000 Wisconsin jobs
|
Contradiction
|
In a tight race for president, both Republicans and Democrats are pursuing every angle -- and every issue -- in their quest to win. Fracking is one of the issues that has been picked up by Donald Trump's reelection campaign and used against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California. In an Aug. 12, 2020 email, Wisconsin Trump Victory claimed that by choosing Harris as his running mate, Biden is 'putting Wisconsin's energy workers on notice.' Trump Victory is a political group led jointly by the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee. The email claims that Biden's selection of Harris is 'a shot across the bow to 100,000 Wisconsinites facing unemployment due to their proposal to eliminate fracking.' Fracking is a common -- but highly controversial -- technique used to access hard-to-reach oil and gas in rock formations. Does Biden really support eliminating fracking entirely? And would the elimination of fracking impact 100,000 Wisconsin jobs? What is fracking, and how is Wisconsin involved? Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing, a type of drilling that's used to access oil and natural gas trapped inside rock formations. Using drills, several wells can be created a mile or more beneath the surface of the earth, and then a mixture of water, sand and other additives are pumped in at high pressure, creating fissures that are held open by the sand. Those small fissures are what allows the trapped gas or oil to flow out of the rock they were trapped in. The practice, which is used to access resources in the eastern, western and southwestern areas of the country, is the reason that America is able to tap into oil reserves beneath the soil, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Although Wisconsin isn't home to the oil or natural gas that is accessed by fracking, it is home to several sand mines, which produce the specific type of sand needed during the fracking process. Those mines generate jobs of all types, from the industrial workers to truck drivers to even those running the grocery stores in the towns near the mines. Does Joe Biden want to ban fracking? In its email, Trump Victory points multiple times to the March 15, 2020 Democratic debate, in which Biden faced off against U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, then the lone remaining challenger. While talking about climate change, Sanders said that he wants to completely eliminate fracking in America to help with the climate change crisis, to which Biden responded that he does, too. 'Well, I'm not sure your proposal does that,' Sanders said. 'No more, no new fracking,' Biden said. That statement was a deviation from Biden's official position, in which he stated he did not want to outright ban the practice. Following the debate, a Biden campaign representative clarified the position, saying Biden wants a ban only on new fracking activities on federal lands and waters, according to a PolitiFact item from June 2020, and another from July 2020. For that reason, PolitiFact has rated claims that Biden wants to halt fracking Mostly False. Thus, the Trump Victory email gets off to a bad start. So what about those jobs? The number of actual jobs related to the sand mining industry is actually much smaller than the 100,000 figure listed in the email. According to the Job Center of Wisconsin, part of the state Department of Workforce Development, the number of all jobs in the mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction industry was 3,480 in 2019. Even that is a broader figure than just those tied to fracking specifically. But that number doesn't include related jobs, like those in transportation, manufacturing, finance, healthcare and various other local businesses that are tied to mining. To support that claim, the Trump Victory email links to a 2011 study by the American Petroleum Institute, which cites 103,300 as the number of direct, indirect and induced jobs provided by the oil and gas industry in Wisconsin. But a more recent study -- from 2017 -- was available, showing an estimated 98,200 total jobs fueled by the gas and oil industry in the state. The study breaks down the number this way: 35,000 in natural gas and oil 29,700 in services 10,000 in manufacturing 7,900 in wholesale and retail 3,300 in transportation and warehousing 900 in construction 11,400 in other jobs Still, those figures are for all oil and gas-related jobs in the state. The number tied to fracking would be smaller, though it's hard to pinpoint how much smaller. In any case, it's a vast overstatement to say some 100,000 would face unemployment. So, on this point, Trump Victory uses an outdated report that is offpoint and overshoots the mark.
|
Our ruling Trump Victory said that by backing a ban on fracking, Biden would cost 100,000 Wisconsinites their jobs. Biden does not support an outright fracking ban, though he did speak inaccurately about his stance on the issue in a March 2020 debate. As far as the 100,000 jobs, that figure includes a far larger range of jobs than just those related to the fracking industry, taking into account other oil and gas figures. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111793-proof-37-8f5ce78a77498ed6de8aa23b380f81b5.jpg"
] |
Says Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden backs a fracking ban that would cost 100,000 Wisconsin jobs
|
Contradiction
|
In a tight race for president, both Republicans and Democrats are pursuing every angle -- and every issue -- in their quest to win. Fracking is one of the issues that has been picked up by Donald Trump's reelection campaign and used against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California. In an Aug. 12, 2020 email, Wisconsin Trump Victory claimed that by choosing Harris as his running mate, Biden is 'putting Wisconsin's energy workers on notice.' Trump Victory is a political group led jointly by the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee. The email claims that Biden's selection of Harris is 'a shot across the bow to 100,000 Wisconsinites facing unemployment due to their proposal to eliminate fracking.' Fracking is a common -- but highly controversial -- technique used to access hard-to-reach oil and gas in rock formations. Does Biden really support eliminating fracking entirely? And would the elimination of fracking impact 100,000 Wisconsin jobs? What is fracking, and how is Wisconsin involved? Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing, a type of drilling that's used to access oil and natural gas trapped inside rock formations. Using drills, several wells can be created a mile or more beneath the surface of the earth, and then a mixture of water, sand and other additives are pumped in at high pressure, creating fissures that are held open by the sand. Those small fissures are what allows the trapped gas or oil to flow out of the rock they were trapped in. The practice, which is used to access resources in the eastern, western and southwestern areas of the country, is the reason that America is able to tap into oil reserves beneath the soil, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Although Wisconsin isn't home to the oil or natural gas that is accessed by fracking, it is home to several sand mines, which produce the specific type of sand needed during the fracking process. Those mines generate jobs of all types, from the industrial workers to truck drivers to even those running the grocery stores in the towns near the mines. Does Joe Biden want to ban fracking? In its email, Trump Victory points multiple times to the March 15, 2020 Democratic debate, in which Biden faced off against U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, then the lone remaining challenger. While talking about climate change, Sanders said that he wants to completely eliminate fracking in America to help with the climate change crisis, to which Biden responded that he does, too. 'Well, I'm not sure your proposal does that,' Sanders said. 'No more, no new fracking,' Biden said. That statement was a deviation from Biden's official position, in which he stated he did not want to outright ban the practice. Following the debate, a Biden campaign representative clarified the position, saying Biden wants a ban only on new fracking activities on federal lands and waters, according to a PolitiFact item from June 2020, and another from July 2020. For that reason, PolitiFact has rated claims that Biden wants to halt fracking Mostly False. Thus, the Trump Victory email gets off to a bad start. So what about those jobs? The number of actual jobs related to the sand mining industry is actually much smaller than the 100,000 figure listed in the email. According to the Job Center of Wisconsin, part of the state Department of Workforce Development, the number of all jobs in the mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction industry was 3,480 in 2019. Even that is a broader figure than just those tied to fracking specifically. But that number doesn't include related jobs, like those in transportation, manufacturing, finance, healthcare and various other local businesses that are tied to mining. To support that claim, the Trump Victory email links to a 2011 study by the American Petroleum Institute, which cites 103,300 as the number of direct, indirect and induced jobs provided by the oil and gas industry in Wisconsin. But a more recent study -- from 2017 -- was available, showing an estimated 98,200 total jobs fueled by the gas and oil industry in the state. The study breaks down the number this way: 35,000 in natural gas and oil 29,700 in services 10,000 in manufacturing 7,900 in wholesale and retail 3,300 in transportation and warehousing 900 in construction 11,400 in other jobs Still, those figures are for all oil and gas-related jobs in the state. The number tied to fracking would be smaller, though it's hard to pinpoint how much smaller. In any case, it's a vast overstatement to say some 100,000 would face unemployment. So, on this point, Trump Victory uses an outdated report that is offpoint and overshoots the mark.
|
Our ruling Trump Victory said that by backing a ban on fracking, Biden would cost 100,000 Wisconsinites their jobs. Biden does not support an outright fracking ban, though he did speak inaccurately about his stance on the issue in a March 2020 debate. As far as the 100,000 jobs, that figure includes a far larger range of jobs than just those related to the fracking industry, taking into account other oil and gas figures. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111793-proof-37-8f5ce78a77498ed6de8aa23b380f81b5.jpg"
] |
Says Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden backs a fracking ban that would cost 100,000 Wisconsin jobs
|
Contradiction
|
In a tight race for president, both Republicans and Democrats are pursuing every angle -- and every issue -- in their quest to win. Fracking is one of the issues that has been picked up by Donald Trump's reelection campaign and used against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California. In an Aug. 12, 2020 email, Wisconsin Trump Victory claimed that by choosing Harris as his running mate, Biden is 'putting Wisconsin's energy workers on notice.' Trump Victory is a political group led jointly by the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee. The email claims that Biden's selection of Harris is 'a shot across the bow to 100,000 Wisconsinites facing unemployment due to their proposal to eliminate fracking.' Fracking is a common -- but highly controversial -- technique used to access hard-to-reach oil and gas in rock formations. Does Biden really support eliminating fracking entirely? And would the elimination of fracking impact 100,000 Wisconsin jobs? What is fracking, and how is Wisconsin involved? Fracking is short for hydraulic fracturing, a type of drilling that's used to access oil and natural gas trapped inside rock formations. Using drills, several wells can be created a mile or more beneath the surface of the earth, and then a mixture of water, sand and other additives are pumped in at high pressure, creating fissures that are held open by the sand. Those small fissures are what allows the trapped gas or oil to flow out of the rock they were trapped in. The practice, which is used to access resources in the eastern, western and southwestern areas of the country, is the reason that America is able to tap into oil reserves beneath the soil, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Although Wisconsin isn't home to the oil or natural gas that is accessed by fracking, it is home to several sand mines, which produce the specific type of sand needed during the fracking process. Those mines generate jobs of all types, from the industrial workers to truck drivers to even those running the grocery stores in the towns near the mines. Does Joe Biden want to ban fracking? In its email, Trump Victory points multiple times to the March 15, 2020 Democratic debate, in which Biden faced off against U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, then the lone remaining challenger. While talking about climate change, Sanders said that he wants to completely eliminate fracking in America to help with the climate change crisis, to which Biden responded that he does, too. 'Well, I'm not sure your proposal does that,' Sanders said. 'No more, no new fracking,' Biden said. That statement was a deviation from Biden's official position, in which he stated he did not want to outright ban the practice. Following the debate, a Biden campaign representative clarified the position, saying Biden wants a ban only on new fracking activities on federal lands and waters, according to a PolitiFact item from June 2020, and another from July 2020. For that reason, PolitiFact has rated claims that Biden wants to halt fracking Mostly False. Thus, the Trump Victory email gets off to a bad start. So what about those jobs? The number of actual jobs related to the sand mining industry is actually much smaller than the 100,000 figure listed in the email. According to the Job Center of Wisconsin, part of the state Department of Workforce Development, the number of all jobs in the mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction industry was 3,480 in 2019. Even that is a broader figure than just those tied to fracking specifically. But that number doesn't include related jobs, like those in transportation, manufacturing, finance, healthcare and various other local businesses that are tied to mining. To support that claim, the Trump Victory email links to a 2011 study by the American Petroleum Institute, which cites 103,300 as the number of direct, indirect and induced jobs provided by the oil and gas industry in Wisconsin. But a more recent study -- from 2017 -- was available, showing an estimated 98,200 total jobs fueled by the gas and oil industry in the state. The study breaks down the number this way: 35,000 in natural gas and oil 29,700 in services 10,000 in manufacturing 7,900 in wholesale and retail 3,300 in transportation and warehousing 900 in construction 11,400 in other jobs Still, those figures are for all oil and gas-related jobs in the state. The number tied to fracking would be smaller, though it's hard to pinpoint how much smaller. In any case, it's a vast overstatement to say some 100,000 would face unemployment. So, on this point, Trump Victory uses an outdated report that is offpoint and overshoots the mark.
|
Our ruling Trump Victory said that by backing a ban on fracking, Biden would cost 100,000 Wisconsinites their jobs. Biden does not support an outright fracking ban, though he did speak inaccurately about his stance on the issue in a March 2020 debate. As far as the 100,000 jobs, that figure includes a far larger range of jobs than just those related to the fracking industry, taking into account other oil and gas figures. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111793-proof-37-8f5ce78a77498ed6de8aa23b380f81b5.jpg"
] |
'The Biden administration wants to create an international oversight committee' to alter or cancel Second Amendment rights.
|
Contradiction
|
A TikTok post announced 'urgent news' about the Second Amendment, using colorful GIFs and graphics to make the case that President Joe Biden is planning to give foreign officials a say in the Second Amendment rights of Americans. 'In short, the Biden administration wants to create an international oversight committee to watch America and decide whether or not our Second Amendment rights need to be altered or even cancelled,' the TikTok user narrates. 'Since when did foreign officials have a say over the American people?' TikTok identified this video as part of its efforts to counter inauthentic, misleading or false content. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with TikTok.) @johnnygtexas_actor ##patriot ##freedom ##nwo ##gun ##2ndadmendment ##hunter ##conspiracy ♬ The Rifleman - The ABC Orchestra The video shows a letter addressed to Biden by a group of Republican senators. One thing to note: The letter did not make the same claim as the video. The group wrote in asking for clarification about a statement from William Malzahn, the deputy director for the Office of Conventional Arms Threat Reduction, which is part of the State Department. Malzahn spoke at the Seventh Conference of State Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty in early September. The senators said that during his statement, Malzahn indicated the Biden administration's intention to rejoin the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty. The treaty regulates international trade of small arms like rifles and pistols, battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. The Arms Control Association wrote that it 'requires all states-parties to adopt basic regulations and approval processes for the flow of weapons across international borders,' among other requirements. In 2013 under the Obama administration, the United States signed the Arms Trade Treaty, but the Senate never ratified it. In 2019, former President Donald Trump 'unsigned' the treaty in front of a crowd at an annual National Rifle Association convention, an organization that has been against the treaty for years based on their stance that it could affect American gun owners. The Republican senators pointed out a particular sentence in Malzahn's statement. Malzahn said, 'The United States has long supported strong and effective national controls on the international transfer of conventional arms, and the Arms Trade Treaty is an important tool for promoting those controls internationally.' 'We find this statement to be most concerning and contrary to the current and historical position of the United States,' the senators wrote. While the TikTok claim that the Biden administration wants to create an international oversight committee is based on this letter, that doesn't mean it's accurate. PolitiFact reached out to the office of Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., who along with other senators signed the letter. A spokesperson for Marshall's office said the letter does not accuse the Biden administration of trying to create an international committee to oversee Second Amendment rights, but simply asked for clarification if Biden intends to join the treaty. The White House also told PolitiFact that the TikTok claim is wrong. A State Department spokesperson said the Arms Trade Treaty regulates the international trade of conventional arms - not domestic trade or possession. In his remarks, Malzahn said that the Biden administration is going to finalize the U.S. Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, which was revised during both the Obama and Trump administrations. 'President Biden has made clear that diplomacy and human rights are at the center of U.S. foreign policy,' Malzahn said in his remarks. 'We believe it's important to publicly reflect these changes in a new CAT Policy, so we have been working to revise the policy to reflect the new administration's priorities.' Malzahn then said when the policy is finalized and released, the U.S. will then address other arms transfer issues, like determining its relationship with the Arms Trade Treaty. But those remarks don't mean that a decision has already been made to join the treaty - simply that a review of that relationship is going to happen, said the State Department spokesperson.
|
Our ruling A TikTok post claimed that the Biden administration wants to create an international oversight committee to oversee U.S. Second Amendment rights and decide if they need to be altered or cancelled. The claim stems from a letter that Republican senators addressed to Biden asking for clarification of comments during a United Nations conference from a State Department official. The senators said these comments indicated that the Biden administration would rejoin the Arms Trade Treaty, which they were concerned could impede American gun owners' rights. But the letter was not accusing the Biden administration of creating an international oversight committee to regulate U.S. gun rights. The White House affirmed that the creation of such a committee is not in the works. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111810-proof-27-b7b5ffd0dc466024ebee1047b7750522.jpg"
] |
'The Biden administration wants to create an international oversight committee' to alter or cancel Second Amendment rights.
|
Contradiction
|
A TikTok post announced 'urgent news' about the Second Amendment, using colorful GIFs and graphics to make the case that President Joe Biden is planning to give foreign officials a say in the Second Amendment rights of Americans. 'In short, the Biden administration wants to create an international oversight committee to watch America and decide whether or not our Second Amendment rights need to be altered or even cancelled,' the TikTok user narrates. 'Since when did foreign officials have a say over the American people?' TikTok identified this video as part of its efforts to counter inauthentic, misleading or false content. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with TikTok.) @johnnygtexas_actor ##patriot ##freedom ##nwo ##gun ##2ndadmendment ##hunter ##conspiracy ♬ The Rifleman - The ABC Orchestra The video shows a letter addressed to Biden by a group of Republican senators. One thing to note: The letter did not make the same claim as the video. The group wrote in asking for clarification about a statement from William Malzahn, the deputy director for the Office of Conventional Arms Threat Reduction, which is part of the State Department. Malzahn spoke at the Seventh Conference of State Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty in early September. The senators said that during his statement, Malzahn indicated the Biden administration's intention to rejoin the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty. The treaty regulates international trade of small arms like rifles and pistols, battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. The Arms Control Association wrote that it 'requires all states-parties to adopt basic regulations and approval processes for the flow of weapons across international borders,' among other requirements. In 2013 under the Obama administration, the United States signed the Arms Trade Treaty, but the Senate never ratified it. In 2019, former President Donald Trump 'unsigned' the treaty in front of a crowd at an annual National Rifle Association convention, an organization that has been against the treaty for years based on their stance that it could affect American gun owners. The Republican senators pointed out a particular sentence in Malzahn's statement. Malzahn said, 'The United States has long supported strong and effective national controls on the international transfer of conventional arms, and the Arms Trade Treaty is an important tool for promoting those controls internationally.' 'We find this statement to be most concerning and contrary to the current and historical position of the United States,' the senators wrote. While the TikTok claim that the Biden administration wants to create an international oversight committee is based on this letter, that doesn't mean it's accurate. PolitiFact reached out to the office of Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., who along with other senators signed the letter. A spokesperson for Marshall's office said the letter does not accuse the Biden administration of trying to create an international committee to oversee Second Amendment rights, but simply asked for clarification if Biden intends to join the treaty. The White House also told PolitiFact that the TikTok claim is wrong. A State Department spokesperson said the Arms Trade Treaty regulates the international trade of conventional arms - not domestic trade or possession. In his remarks, Malzahn said that the Biden administration is going to finalize the U.S. Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, which was revised during both the Obama and Trump administrations. 'President Biden has made clear that diplomacy and human rights are at the center of U.S. foreign policy,' Malzahn said in his remarks. 'We believe it's important to publicly reflect these changes in a new CAT Policy, so we have been working to revise the policy to reflect the new administration's priorities.' Malzahn then said when the policy is finalized and released, the U.S. will then address other arms transfer issues, like determining its relationship with the Arms Trade Treaty. But those remarks don't mean that a decision has already been made to join the treaty - simply that a review of that relationship is going to happen, said the State Department spokesperson.
|
Our ruling A TikTok post claimed that the Biden administration wants to create an international oversight committee to oversee U.S. Second Amendment rights and decide if they need to be altered or cancelled. The claim stems from a letter that Republican senators addressed to Biden asking for clarification of comments during a United Nations conference from a State Department official. The senators said these comments indicated that the Biden administration would rejoin the Arms Trade Treaty, which they were concerned could impede American gun owners' rights. But the letter was not accusing the Biden administration of creating an international oversight committee to regulate U.S. gun rights. The White House affirmed that the creation of such a committee is not in the works. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111810-proof-27-b7b5ffd0dc466024ebee1047b7750522.jpg"
] |
'The Biden administration wants to create an international oversight committee' to alter or cancel Second Amendment rights.
|
Contradiction
|
A TikTok post announced 'urgent news' about the Second Amendment, using colorful GIFs and graphics to make the case that President Joe Biden is planning to give foreign officials a say in the Second Amendment rights of Americans. 'In short, the Biden administration wants to create an international oversight committee to watch America and decide whether or not our Second Amendment rights need to be altered or even cancelled,' the TikTok user narrates. 'Since when did foreign officials have a say over the American people?' TikTok identified this video as part of its efforts to counter inauthentic, misleading or false content. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with TikTok.) @johnnygtexas_actor ##patriot ##freedom ##nwo ##gun ##2ndadmendment ##hunter ##conspiracy ♬ The Rifleman - The ABC Orchestra The video shows a letter addressed to Biden by a group of Republican senators. One thing to note: The letter did not make the same claim as the video. The group wrote in asking for clarification about a statement from William Malzahn, the deputy director for the Office of Conventional Arms Threat Reduction, which is part of the State Department. Malzahn spoke at the Seventh Conference of State Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty in early September. The senators said that during his statement, Malzahn indicated the Biden administration's intention to rejoin the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty. The treaty regulates international trade of small arms like rifles and pistols, battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships. The Arms Control Association wrote that it 'requires all states-parties to adopt basic regulations and approval processes for the flow of weapons across international borders,' among other requirements. In 2013 under the Obama administration, the United States signed the Arms Trade Treaty, but the Senate never ratified it. In 2019, former President Donald Trump 'unsigned' the treaty in front of a crowd at an annual National Rifle Association convention, an organization that has been against the treaty for years based on their stance that it could affect American gun owners. The Republican senators pointed out a particular sentence in Malzahn's statement. Malzahn said, 'The United States has long supported strong and effective national controls on the international transfer of conventional arms, and the Arms Trade Treaty is an important tool for promoting those controls internationally.' 'We find this statement to be most concerning and contrary to the current and historical position of the United States,' the senators wrote. While the TikTok claim that the Biden administration wants to create an international oversight committee is based on this letter, that doesn't mean it's accurate. PolitiFact reached out to the office of Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., who along with other senators signed the letter. A spokesperson for Marshall's office said the letter does not accuse the Biden administration of trying to create an international committee to oversee Second Amendment rights, but simply asked for clarification if Biden intends to join the treaty. The White House also told PolitiFact that the TikTok claim is wrong. A State Department spokesperson said the Arms Trade Treaty regulates the international trade of conventional arms - not domestic trade or possession. In his remarks, Malzahn said that the Biden administration is going to finalize the U.S. Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, which was revised during both the Obama and Trump administrations. 'President Biden has made clear that diplomacy and human rights are at the center of U.S. foreign policy,' Malzahn said in his remarks. 'We believe it's important to publicly reflect these changes in a new CAT Policy, so we have been working to revise the policy to reflect the new administration's priorities.' Malzahn then said when the policy is finalized and released, the U.S. will then address other arms transfer issues, like determining its relationship with the Arms Trade Treaty. But those remarks don't mean that a decision has already been made to join the treaty - simply that a review of that relationship is going to happen, said the State Department spokesperson.
|
Our ruling A TikTok post claimed that the Biden administration wants to create an international oversight committee to oversee U.S. Second Amendment rights and decide if they need to be altered or cancelled. The claim stems from a letter that Republican senators addressed to Biden asking for clarification of comments during a United Nations conference from a State Department official. The senators said these comments indicated that the Biden administration would rejoin the Arms Trade Treaty, which they were concerned could impede American gun owners' rights. But the letter was not accusing the Biden administration of creating an international oversight committee to regulate U.S. gun rights. The White House affirmed that the creation of such a committee is not in the works. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111810-proof-27-b7b5ffd0dc466024ebee1047b7750522.jpg"
] |
BLM Fresno riots will begin at 4 p.m.
|
Contradiction
|
As protests against police brutality intensify across the country, activists and officials trying to keep the peace are having to contend with social media misinformation. A recent post implies that a Black Lives Matter group in Fresno, Calif., is planning a riot Tuesday afternoon. The post features a screenshot of an iPhone note with instructions for what appears to be a pre-planned riot. 'BLM FRESNO RIOTS,' the post reads. 'Riots will begin @ 4 pm in River Park on 06/02/20.' The post goes on to outline the purported objectives of the riots: 'Tear up Caucasian infrastructure,' 'Send a message to the PD,' and 'Fight back the oppressors.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post is not tied to Black Lives Matter in any way. Black activists in Fresno have categorically denied that they have made plans to riot in Fresno on the afternoon of June 2. Chris Milton, a businessman who spoke at a peaceful protest of George Floyd's death on Sunday in Fresno, said during a Facebook Live video that the post was not affiliated with Black Lives Matter. 'There's some stuff going around right now where there's supposed to be this planned riot,' Milton said. 'It's fake. That has absolutely nothing to do with Black Lives Matter. That is not a Black Lives Matter movement.' He added that the peaceful protest that occurred in downtown Fresno on Sunday was 'the movement from the black population here in Fresno.' He emphasized that black activists in Fresno are prioritizing keeping the peace. 'It's not about tearing up businesses, it's not about disabling infrastructure,' Milton said. 'Don't fall for the hype.' He attributed the post to white nationalist groups that have been angered by seeing black and white Americans unite for a common cause. The Fresno State University NAACP chapter also took to social media to discourage people from participating in the riots described in the Facebook post. 'The Fresno State NAACP does NOT condone this event,' the tweet reads. 'We are encouraging people DO NOT ATTEND this event for the safety of all.' D'Aungillique Jackson, president of the Fresno State NAACP chapter, also addressed the post in an Instagram video, encouraging people not to participate in the riots. 'That flyer is bogus. Do not go out there and tear up this city,' Jackson said. She said the post was made by people who were 'impostering the Black Lives Matter movement.' Jackson's Instagram post also notes that Fresno doesn't have a Black Lives Matter chapter. The only California-based official chapters of the Black Lives Matter organization can be found in Los Angeles and Long Beach. Police response By Monday afternoon the Fresno Police Department said it was aware of the post about the planned riot. The department posted a statement on Facebook. 'We have dedicated several resources to tracking the validity of this threat and we are working towards a peaceful solution to any group that may want to be heard in our community,' read the Facebook post. A few hours later, Fresno Police Chief Andrew Hall posted a news release on Facebook addressing the post about the riots. 'I will be adjusting the mission of several units and there will be increased patrols and tactical units addressing the City's commercial businesses,' Hall said in the news release. Air support, undercover units and tactical units would be prepared and acting as 'a watchful eye on those who would victimize' the city, Hall said. He declined to recommend a curfew, saying his community 'just successfully had one of the largest peaceful demonstrations in this country.' Our Rating A post suggests that a Black Lives Matter Group in Fresno has planned a riot for Tuesday afternoon with the goal of destroying infrastructure and sending a message to police. Black activists in Fresno have denounced the riot post, discouraged people from attending and said it was not organized by a Black Lives Matter group. Fresno police are investigating the threat, but do not see fit to issue a curfew for the city at this time. We rate this post False.
|
Our Rating A post suggests that a Black Lives Matter Group in Fresno has planned a riot for Tuesday afternoon with the goal of destroying infrastructure and sending a message to police. Black activists in Fresno have denounced the riot post, discouraged people from attending and said it was not organized by a Black Lives Matter group. Fresno police are investigating the threat, but do not see fit to issue a curfew for the city at this time. We rate this post False.
|
[] |
BLM Fresno riots will begin at 4 p.m.
|
Contradiction
|
As protests against police brutality intensify across the country, activists and officials trying to keep the peace are having to contend with social media misinformation. A recent post implies that a Black Lives Matter group in Fresno, Calif., is planning a riot Tuesday afternoon. The post features a screenshot of an iPhone note with instructions for what appears to be a pre-planned riot. 'BLM FRESNO RIOTS,' the post reads. 'Riots will begin @ 4 pm in River Park on 06/02/20.' The post goes on to outline the purported objectives of the riots: 'Tear up Caucasian infrastructure,' 'Send a message to the PD,' and 'Fight back the oppressors.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post is not tied to Black Lives Matter in any way. Black activists in Fresno have categorically denied that they have made plans to riot in Fresno on the afternoon of June 2. Chris Milton, a businessman who spoke at a peaceful protest of George Floyd's death on Sunday in Fresno, said during a Facebook Live video that the post was not affiliated with Black Lives Matter. 'There's some stuff going around right now where there's supposed to be this planned riot,' Milton said. 'It's fake. That has absolutely nothing to do with Black Lives Matter. That is not a Black Lives Matter movement.' He added that the peaceful protest that occurred in downtown Fresno on Sunday was 'the movement from the black population here in Fresno.' He emphasized that black activists in Fresno are prioritizing keeping the peace. 'It's not about tearing up businesses, it's not about disabling infrastructure,' Milton said. 'Don't fall for the hype.' He attributed the post to white nationalist groups that have been angered by seeing black and white Americans unite for a common cause. The Fresno State University NAACP chapter also took to social media to discourage people from participating in the riots described in the Facebook post. 'The Fresno State NAACP does NOT condone this event,' the tweet reads. 'We are encouraging people DO NOT ATTEND this event for the safety of all.' D'Aungillique Jackson, president of the Fresno State NAACP chapter, also addressed the post in an Instagram video, encouraging people not to participate in the riots. 'That flyer is bogus. Do not go out there and tear up this city,' Jackson said. She said the post was made by people who were 'impostering the Black Lives Matter movement.' Jackson's Instagram post also notes that Fresno doesn't have a Black Lives Matter chapter. The only California-based official chapters of the Black Lives Matter organization can be found in Los Angeles and Long Beach. Police response By Monday afternoon the Fresno Police Department said it was aware of the post about the planned riot. The department posted a statement on Facebook. 'We have dedicated several resources to tracking the validity of this threat and we are working towards a peaceful solution to any group that may want to be heard in our community,' read the Facebook post. A few hours later, Fresno Police Chief Andrew Hall posted a news release on Facebook addressing the post about the riots. 'I will be adjusting the mission of several units and there will be increased patrols and tactical units addressing the City's commercial businesses,' Hall said in the news release. Air support, undercover units and tactical units would be prepared and acting as 'a watchful eye on those who would victimize' the city, Hall said. He declined to recommend a curfew, saying his community 'just successfully had one of the largest peaceful demonstrations in this country.' Our Rating A post suggests that a Black Lives Matter Group in Fresno has planned a riot for Tuesday afternoon with the goal of destroying infrastructure and sending a message to police. Black activists in Fresno have denounced the riot post, discouraged people from attending and said it was not organized by a Black Lives Matter group. Fresno police are investigating the threat, but do not see fit to issue a curfew for the city at this time. We rate this post False.
|
Our Rating A post suggests that a Black Lives Matter Group in Fresno has planned a riot for Tuesday afternoon with the goal of destroying infrastructure and sending a message to police. Black activists in Fresno have denounced the riot post, discouraged people from attending and said it was not organized by a Black Lives Matter group. Fresno police are investigating the threat, but do not see fit to issue a curfew for the city at this time. We rate this post False.
|
[] |
Antifa 'are killing our police. Looting our businesses. Assaulting the elderly and burning our churches.
|
Contradiction
|
A Republican running in a Florida congressional primary blames antifa for recent acts of violence and destruction in the United States, according to an ad running on social media. State House Majority Leader Dane Eagle's ad opens with a montage of images showing looting, assault, arson and a reference to the shooting death of a retired police captain. 'Antifa terrorists have declared war on our country,' Eagle says as the ad begins. 'They are killing our police. Looting our businesses. Assaulting the elderly and burning our churches.' The ad portrays multiple national Democrats as being antifa sympathizers and includes a claim that former Vice President Joe Biden was 'bailing the terrorists out of jail.' We found that some Biden campaign members - not the campaign itself - donated individually to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, a nonprofit that pays bail for low-income people. But there is no suggestion that the individuals who received these funds are accused of terrorism, according to Greg Lewin, interim executive director for the fund. RELATED: No, George Soros and his foundations do not pay people to protest Eagle is one of many Republicans running in an August primary to replace U.S. Rep. Francis Rooney, who is retiring from the safe GOP seat in coastal southwest Florida. We wanted to take a closer look at the ad's claim connecting antifa to these violent acts. Antifa refers to a collection of far-left, anti-fascist groups that rally against white supremacy and other causes, at times using violence. The antifa movement goes back decades, but regained attention after groups counterprotested white nationalists in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017. President Donald Trump and his allies have said that far-left groups, including antifa, are responsible for recent looting. But antifa, which is short for anti-fascist, is not an organization with an official membership, leader or base of operations. Some individuals self-identify with antifa. Campaign points to Trump administration We asked Eagle's campaign for evidence that antifa was behind the violence and looting shown in the ad. Campaign manager Terry Miller responded with general statements but did not provide specific evidence. Miller said that U.S. Attorney General William Barr identified antifa as sowing unrest and violence during peaceful demonstrations. Barr in a May 31 statement said, 'The violence instigated and carried out by antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.' Thousands of people have been arrested amid the nationwide protests following Floyd's death, not all for acts of violence. The number has included curfew violators, working press and others. It isn't possible to know how many were motivated by any particular political belief or association, but government intelligence reports, media reports and interviews with experts show no evidence that antifa played any significant role. Dissecting the images Let's take a look at each image that flashes as Eagle makes each part of his claim: (Screenshot from Twitter) 'Killing our police': The ad shows a picture of a tweet by Trump about David Dorn, a retired St. Louis police captain who was working security at a pawn shop June 2 when he was fatally shot. The killing happened on a night of violence about a week after Floyd's death. Two men were charged with murder, but court documents explaining charges against them make no mention of antifa. 'There is absolutely no evidence to support the allegation of antifa's involvement of the killing of former Capt. David Dorn,' Allison Hawk, a spokesperson for Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner told PolitiFact in an email. (Screenshot from Twitter) 'Looting our businesses': The video that rolls resembles video of looting that was uploaded by a Russian magazine. We traced the video to an instance of looting at a store in Santa Monica, Calif., in late May. News reports we read did not mention evidence that antifa was behind the looting there. A police captain told us that the investigation is ongoing, but there is currently no evidence to support that the suspects identified with antifa. (Screenshot from Twitter) 'Assaulting the elderly': Another clip in the ad resembles news footage of an attack on a woman in Rochester, N.Y., outside the Rochester Fire Equipment Co.. A woman in the video pleaded with people smashing the building to stop. A city spokesperson told us there was no evidence that antifa was involved and the victim was in her 20s. (Screenshot from Twitter) 'Burning our churches': Eagle's campaign told us that the video clip of the fire in the ad was St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., where riots on May 31 followed peaceful protests. No arrests have been made in that incident, but a police spokesperson told us that there is no evidence to suggest members of antifa are responsible. We found one image in Eagle's ad did show antifa supporters in Portland, Ore., but the ad omits any context. The photo, which shows masked people lock-armed in a row wearing black, was taken Aug. 17, 2019, when antifa followers faced off against right-wing protesters at an event organized by a former InfoWars staffer. Experts: No proven ties to antifa Three experts in extremism or antifa told us that they found no evidence that antifa was the instigator behind any of the violence that erupted amid otherwise peaceful protests following Floyd's death. Mark Bray, a Rutgers University lecturer and author of a book about antifa, called claims about antifa's involvement 'an attempt by Trump and like-minded people to create a bogeyman.' Bray pointed to a report by The Nation based on a leaked internal report by the FBI's Washington field office. It found 'no intelligence indicating antifa involvement/presence' in the violence that occurred on May 31 during the D.C.-area protests. Most of the looting was done by people with no affiliation or political objectives, said Seth Jones, an expert on counterrorism at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'I have seen no credible evidence that organized groups - whether antifa, anarchists, white supremacists, or anti-government militia - have been behind most of the looting,' said Jones, who has interviewed individuals from FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces as well as local law enforcement agencies. We asked the FBI if it had evidence that antifa is behind any looting or property destruction in recent weeks in the United States. A spokesperson replied 'no comment.' The U.S. Justice Department media office did not respond to our emails asking about antifa. However, a spokesperson told the Washington Post's Fact Checker that 'we do not collect statistics based on potential inspiration but on unlawful acts according to statute.' The Post found that police had arrested more than 14,000 people across 49 cities, thousands for low-level crimes. Of roughly 80 federal charges the Post found, none cited an antifa plot. Many were arrested for minor, nonviolent offenses such as violating curfew or carrying an open container. The New York Times review of dozens of arrests on federal charges showed no coordinated effort by antifa.
|
Our ruling Eagle said in a social media ad that antifa 'are killing our police, looting our businesses, assaulting the elderly and burning our churches.' Eagle's campaign broadly blames antifa for violence and property destruction, echoing a statement by U.S. Attorney General William Barr. But the campaign didn't point to proof that antifa was behind any specific act of violence or criminal behavior. We found no evidence that antifa has played any significant role in any of the violence that broke out amid recent peaceful protests against police brutality. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111827-proof-01-f0cdca7fa599487e6b199d32bf8aaac1.jpg"
] |
Antifa 'are killing our police. Looting our businesses. Assaulting the elderly and burning our churches.
|
Contradiction
|
A Republican running in a Florida congressional primary blames antifa for recent acts of violence and destruction in the United States, according to an ad running on social media. State House Majority Leader Dane Eagle's ad opens with a montage of images showing looting, assault, arson and a reference to the shooting death of a retired police captain. 'Antifa terrorists have declared war on our country,' Eagle says as the ad begins. 'They are killing our police. Looting our businesses. Assaulting the elderly and burning our churches.' The ad portrays multiple national Democrats as being antifa sympathizers and includes a claim that former Vice President Joe Biden was 'bailing the terrorists out of jail.' We found that some Biden campaign members - not the campaign itself - donated individually to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, a nonprofit that pays bail for low-income people. But there is no suggestion that the individuals who received these funds are accused of terrorism, according to Greg Lewin, interim executive director for the fund. RELATED: No, George Soros and his foundations do not pay people to protest Eagle is one of many Republicans running in an August primary to replace U.S. Rep. Francis Rooney, who is retiring from the safe GOP seat in coastal southwest Florida. We wanted to take a closer look at the ad's claim connecting antifa to these violent acts. Antifa refers to a collection of far-left, anti-fascist groups that rally against white supremacy and other causes, at times using violence. The antifa movement goes back decades, but regained attention after groups counterprotested white nationalists in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017. President Donald Trump and his allies have said that far-left groups, including antifa, are responsible for recent looting. But antifa, which is short for anti-fascist, is not an organization with an official membership, leader or base of operations. Some individuals self-identify with antifa. Campaign points to Trump administration We asked Eagle's campaign for evidence that antifa was behind the violence and looting shown in the ad. Campaign manager Terry Miller responded with general statements but did not provide specific evidence. Miller said that U.S. Attorney General William Barr identified antifa as sowing unrest and violence during peaceful demonstrations. Barr in a May 31 statement said, 'The violence instigated and carried out by antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.' Thousands of people have been arrested amid the nationwide protests following Floyd's death, not all for acts of violence. The number has included curfew violators, working press and others. It isn't possible to know how many were motivated by any particular political belief or association, but government intelligence reports, media reports and interviews with experts show no evidence that antifa played any significant role. Dissecting the images Let's take a look at each image that flashes as Eagle makes each part of his claim: (Screenshot from Twitter) 'Killing our police': The ad shows a picture of a tweet by Trump about David Dorn, a retired St. Louis police captain who was working security at a pawn shop June 2 when he was fatally shot. The killing happened on a night of violence about a week after Floyd's death. Two men were charged with murder, but court documents explaining charges against them make no mention of antifa. 'There is absolutely no evidence to support the allegation of antifa's involvement of the killing of former Capt. David Dorn,' Allison Hawk, a spokesperson for Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner told PolitiFact in an email. (Screenshot from Twitter) 'Looting our businesses': The video that rolls resembles video of looting that was uploaded by a Russian magazine. We traced the video to an instance of looting at a store in Santa Monica, Calif., in late May. News reports we read did not mention evidence that antifa was behind the looting there. A police captain told us that the investigation is ongoing, but there is currently no evidence to support that the suspects identified with antifa. (Screenshot from Twitter) 'Assaulting the elderly': Another clip in the ad resembles news footage of an attack on a woman in Rochester, N.Y., outside the Rochester Fire Equipment Co.. A woman in the video pleaded with people smashing the building to stop. A city spokesperson told us there was no evidence that antifa was involved and the victim was in her 20s. (Screenshot from Twitter) 'Burning our churches': Eagle's campaign told us that the video clip of the fire in the ad was St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., where riots on May 31 followed peaceful protests. No arrests have been made in that incident, but a police spokesperson told us that there is no evidence to suggest members of antifa are responsible. We found one image in Eagle's ad did show antifa supporters in Portland, Ore., but the ad omits any context. The photo, which shows masked people lock-armed in a row wearing black, was taken Aug. 17, 2019, when antifa followers faced off against right-wing protesters at an event organized by a former InfoWars staffer. Experts: No proven ties to antifa Three experts in extremism or antifa told us that they found no evidence that antifa was the instigator behind any of the violence that erupted amid otherwise peaceful protests following Floyd's death. Mark Bray, a Rutgers University lecturer and author of a book about antifa, called claims about antifa's involvement 'an attempt by Trump and like-minded people to create a bogeyman.' Bray pointed to a report by The Nation based on a leaked internal report by the FBI's Washington field office. It found 'no intelligence indicating antifa involvement/presence' in the violence that occurred on May 31 during the D.C.-area protests. Most of the looting was done by people with no affiliation or political objectives, said Seth Jones, an expert on counterrorism at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'I have seen no credible evidence that organized groups - whether antifa, anarchists, white supremacists, or anti-government militia - have been behind most of the looting,' said Jones, who has interviewed individuals from FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces as well as local law enforcement agencies. We asked the FBI if it had evidence that antifa is behind any looting or property destruction in recent weeks in the United States. A spokesperson replied 'no comment.' The U.S. Justice Department media office did not respond to our emails asking about antifa. However, a spokesperson told the Washington Post's Fact Checker that 'we do not collect statistics based on potential inspiration but on unlawful acts according to statute.' The Post found that police had arrested more than 14,000 people across 49 cities, thousands for low-level crimes. Of roughly 80 federal charges the Post found, none cited an antifa plot. Many were arrested for minor, nonviolent offenses such as violating curfew or carrying an open container. The New York Times review of dozens of arrests on federal charges showed no coordinated effort by antifa.
|
Our ruling Eagle said in a social media ad that antifa 'are killing our police, looting our businesses, assaulting the elderly and burning our churches.' Eagle's campaign broadly blames antifa for violence and property destruction, echoing a statement by U.S. Attorney General William Barr. But the campaign didn't point to proof that antifa was behind any specific act of violence or criminal behavior. We found no evidence that antifa has played any significant role in any of the violence that broke out amid recent peaceful protests against police brutality. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111827-proof-01-f0cdca7fa599487e6b199d32bf8aaac1.jpg"
] |
'Only sign outside Bucks County voting place. Democrats shown, republicans blurred out.
|
Contradiction
|
A tweet from a Republican activist claims to show Democratic shenanigans at a polling center in Bucks County, Pa. 'Only sign outside Bucks County voting place,' Mike Coudrey tweeted Nov. 3. 'Democrats shown, republicans blurred out. Meyer Way Park, Bucks County. Warwick township. More scamming in Pennsylvania!' Only sign outside Bucks County voting place. Democrats shown, republicans blurred out. Meyer Way Park, Bucks County. Warwick township. More scamming in Pennsylvania! pic.twitter.com/qn2BlzZELt- Mike Coudrey (@MichaelCoudrey) November 3, 2020 This isn't a scam; it's a run-of-the-mill piece of electioneering material. It would not be permitted if it were within 10 feet of a polling site. There's no evidence this sign was too close, and journalists on the ground said they saw the same sign at another poll and it was appropriately far enough away. A photographer with the Bucks County Courier Times went to a poll in the same community and sent PolitiFact this photo. A Democratic sign outside a poll in Warwick, Pa. (Anthony DiMattia/Bucks County Courier Times) The sign bears the headline, 'Bucks County Democratic Official Sample Ballot.' Sample ballots are a staple of Election Day materials. Typically, they are printed as flyers for voters to take with them as they vote. And both Democrats and Republicans use them. These handouts always highlight the candidates from whichever party printed them. In this instance, the party's sample ballot is a sign, and it blurs out the Republican candidates, because Democrats don't want voters to vote for Republicans. Investigative reporter Crissa Shoemaker DeBree with the Courier Times told us Republicans are handing out their version of sample ballots as flyers. Democrats decided not to do that this year, she said, out of concern for COVID-19. So, by itself, the sign in the photo is not unusual. The sign would be illegal if it were too close to the entrance to the poll. Coudrey's tweet does not prove that it is. The rule in Pennsylvania is that signs must be at least 10 feet from the polling place. A Courier Times reporter said the signs he saw were 30 feet from the entrance. We asked Coudrey if he had been to the poll and had taken the picture. He declined to answer. His website says he moved to Los Angeles when he was 20, and his current business address is there.
|
Our ruling A tweet said that there was scamming taking place at a Pennsylvania poll. The evidence was a sign of a sample Democratic ballot. Such sample ballots are commonplace at polls, and Republicans were handing their versions as flyers. Democrats chose to use signs out of concern for COVID-19. The sign followed the election rules and there is no evidence it was within 10 feet of the polls. We rate this claim False. CORRECTION, Nov. 4, 10:40 a.m.: The signs photographed by a local reporter were at a different precinct in the same community in Bucks County. The sign contents were identical. We corrected this piece to clarify the polling location. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"111853-proof-19-6TYXn423McgqARHvty6oQDLFkK2JY-4RnV9U8xejWys7IcEuaMDxuvgC2sFSFnaU7oWPQKIgD3t3i7Ox.jpg",
"111853-proof-46-57c9a657457e1d4fa195ffce1c1e2fc2.jpg"
] |
'Only sign outside Bucks County voting place. Democrats shown, republicans blurred out.
|
Contradiction
|
A tweet from a Republican activist claims to show Democratic shenanigans at a polling center in Bucks County, Pa. 'Only sign outside Bucks County voting place,' Mike Coudrey tweeted Nov. 3. 'Democrats shown, republicans blurred out. Meyer Way Park, Bucks County. Warwick township. More scamming in Pennsylvania!' Only sign outside Bucks County voting place. Democrats shown, republicans blurred out. Meyer Way Park, Bucks County. Warwick township. More scamming in Pennsylvania! pic.twitter.com/qn2BlzZELt- Mike Coudrey (@MichaelCoudrey) November 3, 2020 This isn't a scam; it's a run-of-the-mill piece of electioneering material. It would not be permitted if it were within 10 feet of a polling site. There's no evidence this sign was too close, and journalists on the ground said they saw the same sign at another poll and it was appropriately far enough away. A photographer with the Bucks County Courier Times went to a poll in the same community and sent PolitiFact this photo. A Democratic sign outside a poll in Warwick, Pa. (Anthony DiMattia/Bucks County Courier Times) The sign bears the headline, 'Bucks County Democratic Official Sample Ballot.' Sample ballots are a staple of Election Day materials. Typically, they are printed as flyers for voters to take with them as they vote. And both Democrats and Republicans use them. These handouts always highlight the candidates from whichever party printed them. In this instance, the party's sample ballot is a sign, and it blurs out the Republican candidates, because Democrats don't want voters to vote for Republicans. Investigative reporter Crissa Shoemaker DeBree with the Courier Times told us Republicans are handing out their version of sample ballots as flyers. Democrats decided not to do that this year, she said, out of concern for COVID-19. So, by itself, the sign in the photo is not unusual. The sign would be illegal if it were too close to the entrance to the poll. Coudrey's tweet does not prove that it is. The rule in Pennsylvania is that signs must be at least 10 feet from the polling place. A Courier Times reporter said the signs he saw were 30 feet from the entrance. We asked Coudrey if he had been to the poll and had taken the picture. He declined to answer. His website says he moved to Los Angeles when he was 20, and his current business address is there.
|
Our ruling A tweet said that there was scamming taking place at a Pennsylvania poll. The evidence was a sign of a sample Democratic ballot. Such sample ballots are commonplace at polls, and Republicans were handing their versions as flyers. Democrats chose to use signs out of concern for COVID-19. The sign followed the election rules and there is no evidence it was within 10 feet of the polls. We rate this claim False. CORRECTION, Nov. 4, 10:40 a.m.: The signs photographed by a local reporter were at a different precinct in the same community in Bucks County. The sign contents were identical. We corrected this piece to clarify the polling location. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"111853-proof-19-6TYXn423McgqARHvty6oQDLFkK2JY-4RnV9U8xejWys7IcEuaMDxuvgC2sFSFnaU7oWPQKIgD3t3i7Ox.jpg",
"111853-proof-46-57c9a657457e1d4fa195ffce1c1e2fc2.jpg"
] |
'Only sign outside Bucks County voting place. Democrats shown, republicans blurred out.
|
Contradiction
|
A tweet from a Republican activist claims to show Democratic shenanigans at a polling center in Bucks County, Pa. 'Only sign outside Bucks County voting place,' Mike Coudrey tweeted Nov. 3. 'Democrats shown, republicans blurred out. Meyer Way Park, Bucks County. Warwick township. More scamming in Pennsylvania!' Only sign outside Bucks County voting place. Democrats shown, republicans blurred out. Meyer Way Park, Bucks County. Warwick township. More scamming in Pennsylvania! pic.twitter.com/qn2BlzZELt- Mike Coudrey (@MichaelCoudrey) November 3, 2020 This isn't a scam; it's a run-of-the-mill piece of electioneering material. It would not be permitted if it were within 10 feet of a polling site. There's no evidence this sign was too close, and journalists on the ground said they saw the same sign at another poll and it was appropriately far enough away. A photographer with the Bucks County Courier Times went to a poll in the same community and sent PolitiFact this photo. A Democratic sign outside a poll in Warwick, Pa. (Anthony DiMattia/Bucks County Courier Times) The sign bears the headline, 'Bucks County Democratic Official Sample Ballot.' Sample ballots are a staple of Election Day materials. Typically, they are printed as flyers for voters to take with them as they vote. And both Democrats and Republicans use them. These handouts always highlight the candidates from whichever party printed them. In this instance, the party's sample ballot is a sign, and it blurs out the Republican candidates, because Democrats don't want voters to vote for Republicans. Investigative reporter Crissa Shoemaker DeBree with the Courier Times told us Republicans are handing out their version of sample ballots as flyers. Democrats decided not to do that this year, she said, out of concern for COVID-19. So, by itself, the sign in the photo is not unusual. The sign would be illegal if it were too close to the entrance to the poll. Coudrey's tweet does not prove that it is. The rule in Pennsylvania is that signs must be at least 10 feet from the polling place. A Courier Times reporter said the signs he saw were 30 feet from the entrance. We asked Coudrey if he had been to the poll and had taken the picture. He declined to answer. His website says he moved to Los Angeles when he was 20, and his current business address is there.
|
Our ruling A tweet said that there was scamming taking place at a Pennsylvania poll. The evidence was a sign of a sample Democratic ballot. Such sample ballots are commonplace at polls, and Republicans were handing their versions as flyers. Democrats chose to use signs out of concern for COVID-19. The sign followed the election rules and there is no evidence it was within 10 feet of the polls. We rate this claim False. CORRECTION, Nov. 4, 10:40 a.m.: The signs photographed by a local reporter were at a different precinct in the same community in Bucks County. The sign contents were identical. We corrected this piece to clarify the polling location. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"111853-proof-19-6TYXn423McgqARHvty6oQDLFkK2JY-4RnV9U8xejWys7IcEuaMDxuvgC2sFSFnaU7oWPQKIgD3t3i7Ox.jpg",
"111853-proof-46-57c9a657457e1d4fa195ffce1c1e2fc2.jpg"
] |
New Jersey 'will be out of gas for a week.
|
Contradiction
|
The cyberattack on the Colonial Pipeline has caused one of the country's major conduits for refined gasoline to shut down, and rumors about gas shortages have followed. Among them: that the state of New Jersey 'will be out of gas for a week.' 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.) As of May 10, the day that claim was posted on Facebook, New Jersey still had plenty of gas, said Eric DeGesero, executive president of the Fuel Merchants Association of New Jersey. And, he said, the idea that the state would be out of gas for a week 'is very far-fetched.' Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy didn't have that kind of impact, and New Jersey is not solely reliant on gasoline from the Colonial Pipeline, DeGesero said. So while some residents could see prices rise, the possibility is New Jersey running out of fuel is as likely 'as me getting voted People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive,' he said. 'Infinitesimal.' We rate this post False.
|
We rate this post False.
|
[] |
Gov. Andrew Cuomo 'was simply saying if we can share 20 percent of your excess, your non-used ventilators, to help people in other parts of the state on a voluntary basis, that would be great. Of course, there was a reaction to that, which was not positive.
|
Contradiction
|
Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul has been talking to news outlets across New York State about the Covid-19 crisis. In a recent appearance on WIVB-TV in Buffalo, she talked about the availability of ventilators. Anchor Luke Moretti asked Hochul: 'What's the situation with the ventilators? I know there was that bit of a back and forth between upstate, downstate a little while ago? Where do we stand right now? Are we in good shape with ventilators?' 'Well, we always have been in good shape with ventilators,' Hochul replied. Gov. Andrew Cuomo 'was simply trying to get an inventory to see if there are communities where there is a surplus of ventilators and he was simply saying if we can share 20 percent of your excess, your non-used ventilators, to help people in other parts of the state on a voluntary basis, that would be great. And, of course, there was a reaction to that, which was not positive, and that's unfortunate, because I think that we always respond in a way that we look out for each other.' She further described how first responders pitch in during snowstorms in other parts of the state, adding 'we were never going to leave anyone in Western New York without the support they need.' She also said the urgent need for ventilators has subsided somewhat because of shipments of the breathing equipment from other states and China. We were struck that she said Cuomo was 'simply saying' that hospitals could share their ventilators on a 'voluntary' basis. Cuomo's original plan Cuomo made clear during his daily briefing on April 3 that he intended to sign an executive order that would allow the state to move unused ventilators from one part of the state to another. The headline the Cuomo administration wrote on the day of the announcement indicated as much: 'Amid Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, Governor Cuomo Announces Executive Order Allowing State to Redistribute Ventilators & Personal Protective Equipment to Hospitals with Highest Need.' During a press briefing, Cuomo said that more ventilators were necessary to meet the state's needs, and that he has been working with suppliers in China. 'But we are going to have to redeploy ventilators from across the system,' he said. 'In other words, there are hospitals that have ventilators. There are hospitals that have (personal protective) equipment. There are private-sector companies that have PPE equipment that they are not using that we are going to need to redeploy to the places in the hospitals where we need them,' he said. Cuomo also acknowledged during the briefing that hospital administrators who would lose ventilators under his plan are upset. 'I had a conversation with a hospital administrator yesterday,' he said. 'I understand they don't want to give up their ventilators. Ventilators are expensive pieces of equipment. I understand that, even if they're not using them, they are reluctant to see them go out the door. The theory is if the government gets them, they will never get them back. I understand that. But I don't have an option.' He added later: 'I'm going to sign an executive order that says the state can take ventilators and (personal protective equipment) from institutions that don't need them now and redeploy them to other parts of the state and other hospitals that do need them. Those institutions will either get their ventilator back or they will be reimbursed and paid for their ventilator so they can buy a new ventilator.' He was asked later in that briefing about how many the state would need to redeploy, and he said the state hadn't done that calculation, but he added several hundred ventilators could be available. 'So am I willing to deploy the National Guard and inconvenience people for several hundred lives? You're damn right I am,' Cuomo said. Reaction to the plan was swift, with upstate hospital executives and elected officials expressing their concerns. Jody Lomeo, chief executive officer of Kaleida Health and chair-elect of the Greater New York Hospital Association, said that he was opposed to the executive order and would 'welcome and encourage us all to develop a more collaborative plan.' Thomas Quatroche Jr., Erie County Medical Center's chief executive officer and chair of the Healthcare Association of New York State, said Cuomo's executive order, as announced, would 'place our patients and community at risk.' The following day, April 4, Cuomo talked about taking 20 percent of a hospital's unused ventilators. Cuomo's revised plan The executive order that Cuomo described on April 3 was never signed. On April 6, HANYS, the hospital group, said that it understood that any redeployment of equipment would be on a voluntary basis. On April 7, Cuomo signed an executive order leaving the movement of medical supplies and equipment up to the state Department of Health. It does not mention the National Guard nor 20 percent of available inventory. It states: 'DOH may shift any such items not currently needed, or needed in the short term future by a health care facility, to be transferred to a facility in urgent need of such inventory, for purposes of ensuring New York hospitals, facilities and health care workers have the resources necessary to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, and distribute them where there is an immediate need.' In reaction to the order that Cuomo did sign, hospital executives, such as Lomeo, and elected officials, such as Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-Schuylerville, said they were pleased by the change. Quatroche Jr., of ECMC and HANYS, said: 'We are pleased the governor's executive order gives the commissioner of health the ability to work collaboratively with hospitals to identify needs across New York State and provide resources in 'real time.'' What Hochul said Hochul's answer to Moretti, the news broadcaster, came on April 8, one day after Cuomo signed an executive order that hospital executives found to be more cooperative than how the governor initially described it. We reached out to Hochul's office, and her spokesperson, Bryan Lesswing, said: 'The lieutenant governor was giving a status update on New York State's close coordination with hospitals to combat the Covid-19 pandemic, calling for state unity not division, and reinforcing Western New York's preparedness. Any other characterization is simply untrue and an unfair attack while New York State government officials have been consistently transparent in keeping New Yorkers updated with the latest facts.' Hochul's office also said that there was nothing contradictory in what Hochul said because the state was indeed working with hospitals to share equipment on a voluntary basis, and that she was speaking broadly about the current status with ventilators and then talked about the dialogue between upstate and downstate in Moretti's question.
|
Our ruling Hochul said Cuomo was simply saying that hospitals could share 20 percent of their unused ventilators on a voluntary basis. That's not how hospital executives and other elected officials heard Cuomo describe his initial plan, thus explaining the immediate backlash. And those who listened to the governor's televised briefing heard him say this: 'So am I willing to deploy the National Guard and inconvenience people for several hundred lives? You're damn right I am.' Parsing that quote to find any semblance of 'voluntary' is beyond challenging. Cuomo said the state would move hospital equipment from one part of the state to harder-hit areas that desperately needed them because of the Covid-19 outbreak. When the plan changed, after significant backlash, hospitals and others praised the administration for acting collaboratively. Hochul misled viewers about what happened. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Gov. Andrew Cuomo 'was simply saying if we can share 20 percent of your excess, your non-used ventilators, to help people in other parts of the state on a voluntary basis, that would be great. Of course, there was a reaction to that, which was not positive.
|
Contradiction
|
Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul has been talking to news outlets across New York State about the Covid-19 crisis. In a recent appearance on WIVB-TV in Buffalo, she talked about the availability of ventilators. Anchor Luke Moretti asked Hochul: 'What's the situation with the ventilators? I know there was that bit of a back and forth between upstate, downstate a little while ago? Where do we stand right now? Are we in good shape with ventilators?' 'Well, we always have been in good shape with ventilators,' Hochul replied. Gov. Andrew Cuomo 'was simply trying to get an inventory to see if there are communities where there is a surplus of ventilators and he was simply saying if we can share 20 percent of your excess, your non-used ventilators, to help people in other parts of the state on a voluntary basis, that would be great. And, of course, there was a reaction to that, which was not positive, and that's unfortunate, because I think that we always respond in a way that we look out for each other.' She further described how first responders pitch in during snowstorms in other parts of the state, adding 'we were never going to leave anyone in Western New York without the support they need.' She also said the urgent need for ventilators has subsided somewhat because of shipments of the breathing equipment from other states and China. We were struck that she said Cuomo was 'simply saying' that hospitals could share their ventilators on a 'voluntary' basis. Cuomo's original plan Cuomo made clear during his daily briefing on April 3 that he intended to sign an executive order that would allow the state to move unused ventilators from one part of the state to another. The headline the Cuomo administration wrote on the day of the announcement indicated as much: 'Amid Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, Governor Cuomo Announces Executive Order Allowing State to Redistribute Ventilators & Personal Protective Equipment to Hospitals with Highest Need.' During a press briefing, Cuomo said that more ventilators were necessary to meet the state's needs, and that he has been working with suppliers in China. 'But we are going to have to redeploy ventilators from across the system,' he said. 'In other words, there are hospitals that have ventilators. There are hospitals that have (personal protective) equipment. There are private-sector companies that have PPE equipment that they are not using that we are going to need to redeploy to the places in the hospitals where we need them,' he said. Cuomo also acknowledged during the briefing that hospital administrators who would lose ventilators under his plan are upset. 'I had a conversation with a hospital administrator yesterday,' he said. 'I understand they don't want to give up their ventilators. Ventilators are expensive pieces of equipment. I understand that, even if they're not using them, they are reluctant to see them go out the door. The theory is if the government gets them, they will never get them back. I understand that. But I don't have an option.' He added later: 'I'm going to sign an executive order that says the state can take ventilators and (personal protective equipment) from institutions that don't need them now and redeploy them to other parts of the state and other hospitals that do need them. Those institutions will either get their ventilator back or they will be reimbursed and paid for their ventilator so they can buy a new ventilator.' He was asked later in that briefing about how many the state would need to redeploy, and he said the state hadn't done that calculation, but he added several hundred ventilators could be available. 'So am I willing to deploy the National Guard and inconvenience people for several hundred lives? You're damn right I am,' Cuomo said. Reaction to the plan was swift, with upstate hospital executives and elected officials expressing their concerns. Jody Lomeo, chief executive officer of Kaleida Health and chair-elect of the Greater New York Hospital Association, said that he was opposed to the executive order and would 'welcome and encourage us all to develop a more collaborative plan.' Thomas Quatroche Jr., Erie County Medical Center's chief executive officer and chair of the Healthcare Association of New York State, said Cuomo's executive order, as announced, would 'place our patients and community at risk.' The following day, April 4, Cuomo talked about taking 20 percent of a hospital's unused ventilators. Cuomo's revised plan The executive order that Cuomo described on April 3 was never signed. On April 6, HANYS, the hospital group, said that it understood that any redeployment of equipment would be on a voluntary basis. On April 7, Cuomo signed an executive order leaving the movement of medical supplies and equipment up to the state Department of Health. It does not mention the National Guard nor 20 percent of available inventory. It states: 'DOH may shift any such items not currently needed, or needed in the short term future by a health care facility, to be transferred to a facility in urgent need of such inventory, for purposes of ensuring New York hospitals, facilities and health care workers have the resources necessary to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, and distribute them where there is an immediate need.' In reaction to the order that Cuomo did sign, hospital executives, such as Lomeo, and elected officials, such as Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-Schuylerville, said they were pleased by the change. Quatroche Jr., of ECMC and HANYS, said: 'We are pleased the governor's executive order gives the commissioner of health the ability to work collaboratively with hospitals to identify needs across New York State and provide resources in 'real time.'' What Hochul said Hochul's answer to Moretti, the news broadcaster, came on April 8, one day after Cuomo signed an executive order that hospital executives found to be more cooperative than how the governor initially described it. We reached out to Hochul's office, and her spokesperson, Bryan Lesswing, said: 'The lieutenant governor was giving a status update on New York State's close coordination with hospitals to combat the Covid-19 pandemic, calling for state unity not division, and reinforcing Western New York's preparedness. Any other characterization is simply untrue and an unfair attack while New York State government officials have been consistently transparent in keeping New Yorkers updated with the latest facts.' Hochul's office also said that there was nothing contradictory in what Hochul said because the state was indeed working with hospitals to share equipment on a voluntary basis, and that she was speaking broadly about the current status with ventilators and then talked about the dialogue between upstate and downstate in Moretti's question.
|
Our ruling Hochul said Cuomo was simply saying that hospitals could share 20 percent of their unused ventilators on a voluntary basis. That's not how hospital executives and other elected officials heard Cuomo describe his initial plan, thus explaining the immediate backlash. And those who listened to the governor's televised briefing heard him say this: 'So am I willing to deploy the National Guard and inconvenience people for several hundred lives? You're damn right I am.' Parsing that quote to find any semblance of 'voluntary' is beyond challenging. Cuomo said the state would move hospital equipment from one part of the state to harder-hit areas that desperately needed them because of the Covid-19 outbreak. When the plan changed, after significant backlash, hospitals and others praised the administration for acting collaboratively. Hochul misled viewers about what happened. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Gov. Andrew Cuomo 'was simply saying if we can share 20 percent of your excess, your non-used ventilators, to help people in other parts of the state on a voluntary basis, that would be great. Of course, there was a reaction to that, which was not positive.
|
Contradiction
|
Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul has been talking to news outlets across New York State about the Covid-19 crisis. In a recent appearance on WIVB-TV in Buffalo, she talked about the availability of ventilators. Anchor Luke Moretti asked Hochul: 'What's the situation with the ventilators? I know there was that bit of a back and forth between upstate, downstate a little while ago? Where do we stand right now? Are we in good shape with ventilators?' 'Well, we always have been in good shape with ventilators,' Hochul replied. Gov. Andrew Cuomo 'was simply trying to get an inventory to see if there are communities where there is a surplus of ventilators and he was simply saying if we can share 20 percent of your excess, your non-used ventilators, to help people in other parts of the state on a voluntary basis, that would be great. And, of course, there was a reaction to that, which was not positive, and that's unfortunate, because I think that we always respond in a way that we look out for each other.' She further described how first responders pitch in during snowstorms in other parts of the state, adding 'we were never going to leave anyone in Western New York without the support they need.' She also said the urgent need for ventilators has subsided somewhat because of shipments of the breathing equipment from other states and China. We were struck that she said Cuomo was 'simply saying' that hospitals could share their ventilators on a 'voluntary' basis. Cuomo's original plan Cuomo made clear during his daily briefing on April 3 that he intended to sign an executive order that would allow the state to move unused ventilators from one part of the state to another. The headline the Cuomo administration wrote on the day of the announcement indicated as much: 'Amid Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, Governor Cuomo Announces Executive Order Allowing State to Redistribute Ventilators & Personal Protective Equipment to Hospitals with Highest Need.' During a press briefing, Cuomo said that more ventilators were necessary to meet the state's needs, and that he has been working with suppliers in China. 'But we are going to have to redeploy ventilators from across the system,' he said. 'In other words, there are hospitals that have ventilators. There are hospitals that have (personal protective) equipment. There are private-sector companies that have PPE equipment that they are not using that we are going to need to redeploy to the places in the hospitals where we need them,' he said. Cuomo also acknowledged during the briefing that hospital administrators who would lose ventilators under his plan are upset. 'I had a conversation with a hospital administrator yesterday,' he said. 'I understand they don't want to give up their ventilators. Ventilators are expensive pieces of equipment. I understand that, even if they're not using them, they are reluctant to see them go out the door. The theory is if the government gets them, they will never get them back. I understand that. But I don't have an option.' He added later: 'I'm going to sign an executive order that says the state can take ventilators and (personal protective equipment) from institutions that don't need them now and redeploy them to other parts of the state and other hospitals that do need them. Those institutions will either get their ventilator back or they will be reimbursed and paid for their ventilator so they can buy a new ventilator.' He was asked later in that briefing about how many the state would need to redeploy, and he said the state hadn't done that calculation, but he added several hundred ventilators could be available. 'So am I willing to deploy the National Guard and inconvenience people for several hundred lives? You're damn right I am,' Cuomo said. Reaction to the plan was swift, with upstate hospital executives and elected officials expressing their concerns. Jody Lomeo, chief executive officer of Kaleida Health and chair-elect of the Greater New York Hospital Association, said that he was opposed to the executive order and would 'welcome and encourage us all to develop a more collaborative plan.' Thomas Quatroche Jr., Erie County Medical Center's chief executive officer and chair of the Healthcare Association of New York State, said Cuomo's executive order, as announced, would 'place our patients and community at risk.' The following day, April 4, Cuomo talked about taking 20 percent of a hospital's unused ventilators. Cuomo's revised plan The executive order that Cuomo described on April 3 was never signed. On April 6, HANYS, the hospital group, said that it understood that any redeployment of equipment would be on a voluntary basis. On April 7, Cuomo signed an executive order leaving the movement of medical supplies and equipment up to the state Department of Health. It does not mention the National Guard nor 20 percent of available inventory. It states: 'DOH may shift any such items not currently needed, or needed in the short term future by a health care facility, to be transferred to a facility in urgent need of such inventory, for purposes of ensuring New York hospitals, facilities and health care workers have the resources necessary to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, and distribute them where there is an immediate need.' In reaction to the order that Cuomo did sign, hospital executives, such as Lomeo, and elected officials, such as Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-Schuylerville, said they were pleased by the change. Quatroche Jr., of ECMC and HANYS, said: 'We are pleased the governor's executive order gives the commissioner of health the ability to work collaboratively with hospitals to identify needs across New York State and provide resources in 'real time.'' What Hochul said Hochul's answer to Moretti, the news broadcaster, came on April 8, one day after Cuomo signed an executive order that hospital executives found to be more cooperative than how the governor initially described it. We reached out to Hochul's office, and her spokesperson, Bryan Lesswing, said: 'The lieutenant governor was giving a status update on New York State's close coordination with hospitals to combat the Covid-19 pandemic, calling for state unity not division, and reinforcing Western New York's preparedness. Any other characterization is simply untrue and an unfair attack while New York State government officials have been consistently transparent in keeping New Yorkers updated with the latest facts.' Hochul's office also said that there was nothing contradictory in what Hochul said because the state was indeed working with hospitals to share equipment on a voluntary basis, and that she was speaking broadly about the current status with ventilators and then talked about the dialogue between upstate and downstate in Moretti's question.
|
Our ruling Hochul said Cuomo was simply saying that hospitals could share 20 percent of their unused ventilators on a voluntary basis. That's not how hospital executives and other elected officials heard Cuomo describe his initial plan, thus explaining the immediate backlash. And those who listened to the governor's televised briefing heard him say this: 'So am I willing to deploy the National Guard and inconvenience people for several hundred lives? You're damn right I am.' Parsing that quote to find any semblance of 'voluntary' is beyond challenging. Cuomo said the state would move hospital equipment from one part of the state to harder-hit areas that desperately needed them because of the Covid-19 outbreak. When the plan changed, after significant backlash, hospitals and others praised the administration for acting collaboratively. Hochul misled viewers about what happened. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'George Floyd's younger brother, Dejywan Floyd, has been arrested in North Carolina for a 'road rage' shooting of a white couple, killing the mother of six sitting in the passenger seat.
|
Contradiction
|
On April 12, George Floyd's younger brother testified in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Philonise Floyd said his big brother took care of him and his siblings and 'was so much of a leader in the household.' A post spreading on social media claims that one of his siblings was recently charged with murder. 'George Floyd's younger brother, Dejywan Floyd, has been arrested in North Carolina for a 'road rage' shooting of a white couple, killing the mother of six sitting in the passenger,' reads the text above two images: one of a Black man and one of what looks like a white woman. A North Carolina man named Dejywan Floyd was recently charged with murder in the death of a a woman who was killed after being shot while riding in the car her husband was driving. But we found nothing to support a claim spreading on social media that this person was a sibling of George Floyd. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to civil rights lawyer Ben Crump, who is representing Floyd's family, and did not immediately receive a response. But the George Floyd Memorial Foundation told PolitiFact that this post is false. Searching for Dejywan Floyd's name and George Floyd's name didn't turn up any credible news reports or documents connecting the two men. George Floyd's obituary also didn't mention Dejywan Floyd. Rather, it said he was survived by three sisters (Zsa-Zsa Floyd, LaTonya Floyd and Bridgett Floyd), two stepsisters (Camisha Carter and Constance Carter), three brothers (Terrance Floyd, Philonise Floyd and Rodney Floyd), and two stepbrothers (Deldrick Carter and Adrian Carter). The Robeson County sheriff's office, which is investigating the shooting in North Carolina, has 'no information at all to confirm this is true,' Sheriff Burnis Wilkins told PolitiFact. 'The last name Floyd is very common in our county and surrounding area,' Wilkins said. We rate this Facebook post False. UPDATE, April 13, 10:15 a.m.: We updated this story after publication with comment from the George Floyd Memorial Foundation.
|
We rate this Facebook post False. UPDATE, April 13, 10:15 a.m.: We updated this story after publication with comment from the George Floyd Memorial Foundation.
|
[] |
'George Floyd's younger brother, Dejywan Floyd, has been arrested in North Carolina for a 'road rage' shooting of a white couple, killing the mother of six sitting in the passenger seat.
|
Contradiction
|
On April 12, George Floyd's younger brother testified in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Philonise Floyd said his big brother took care of him and his siblings and 'was so much of a leader in the household.' A post spreading on social media claims that one of his siblings was recently charged with murder. 'George Floyd's younger brother, Dejywan Floyd, has been arrested in North Carolina for a 'road rage' shooting of a white couple, killing the mother of six sitting in the passenger,' reads the text above two images: one of a Black man and one of what looks like a white woman. A North Carolina man named Dejywan Floyd was recently charged with murder in the death of a a woman who was killed after being shot while riding in the car her husband was driving. But we found nothing to support a claim spreading on social media that this person was a sibling of George Floyd. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to civil rights lawyer Ben Crump, who is representing Floyd's family, and did not immediately receive a response. But the George Floyd Memorial Foundation told PolitiFact that this post is false. Searching for Dejywan Floyd's name and George Floyd's name didn't turn up any credible news reports or documents connecting the two men. George Floyd's obituary also didn't mention Dejywan Floyd. Rather, it said he was survived by three sisters (Zsa-Zsa Floyd, LaTonya Floyd and Bridgett Floyd), two stepsisters (Camisha Carter and Constance Carter), three brothers (Terrance Floyd, Philonise Floyd and Rodney Floyd), and two stepbrothers (Deldrick Carter and Adrian Carter). The Robeson County sheriff's office, which is investigating the shooting in North Carolina, has 'no information at all to confirm this is true,' Sheriff Burnis Wilkins told PolitiFact. 'The last name Floyd is very common in our county and surrounding area,' Wilkins said. We rate this Facebook post False. UPDATE, April 13, 10:15 a.m.: We updated this story after publication with comment from the George Floyd Memorial Foundation.
|
We rate this Facebook post False. UPDATE, April 13, 10:15 a.m.: We updated this story after publication with comment from the George Floyd Memorial Foundation.
|
[] |
'George Floyd's younger brother, Dejywan Floyd, has been arrested in North Carolina for a 'road rage' shooting of a white couple, killing the mother of six sitting in the passenger seat.
|
Contradiction
|
On April 12, George Floyd's younger brother testified in the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Philonise Floyd said his big brother took care of him and his siblings and 'was so much of a leader in the household.' A post spreading on social media claims that one of his siblings was recently charged with murder. 'George Floyd's younger brother, Dejywan Floyd, has been arrested in North Carolina for a 'road rage' shooting of a white couple, killing the mother of six sitting in the passenger,' reads the text above two images: one of a Black man and one of what looks like a white woman. A North Carolina man named Dejywan Floyd was recently charged with murder in the death of a a woman who was killed after being shot while riding in the car her husband was driving. But we found nothing to support a claim spreading on social media that this person was a sibling of George Floyd. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to civil rights lawyer Ben Crump, who is representing Floyd's family, and did not immediately receive a response. But the George Floyd Memorial Foundation told PolitiFact that this post is false. Searching for Dejywan Floyd's name and George Floyd's name didn't turn up any credible news reports or documents connecting the two men. George Floyd's obituary also didn't mention Dejywan Floyd. Rather, it said he was survived by three sisters (Zsa-Zsa Floyd, LaTonya Floyd and Bridgett Floyd), two stepsisters (Camisha Carter and Constance Carter), three brothers (Terrance Floyd, Philonise Floyd and Rodney Floyd), and two stepbrothers (Deldrick Carter and Adrian Carter). The Robeson County sheriff's office, which is investigating the shooting in North Carolina, has 'no information at all to confirm this is true,' Sheriff Burnis Wilkins told PolitiFact. 'The last name Floyd is very common in our county and surrounding area,' Wilkins said. We rate this Facebook post False. UPDATE, April 13, 10:15 a.m.: We updated this story after publication with comment from the George Floyd Memorial Foundation.
|
We rate this Facebook post False. UPDATE, April 13, 10:15 a.m.: We updated this story after publication with comment from the George Floyd Memorial Foundation.
|
[] |
Says the nation is locked down and there's 'a wide open border.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post appears to criticize policies on immigration and the coronavirus pandemic. But the post misses key facts. 'A locked down nation with a wide open border defies all logic,' said the April 7 Facebook 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.) Some states continue to have restrictions on public gatherings to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, but there is no nationwide lockdown. A few states have a stay-at-home advisory, but no state is mandating it, according to a New York Times tracker. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in February also issued guidance for the reopening of schools. And while thousands of people are arriving at the southern border on a monthly basis, most are being turned away under a public health law. 'The border is not open, and the vast majority of people are being returned under Title 42,' the U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently told PolitiFact. Title 42 refers to a section of a public health law invoked by the Trump administration in March 2020 to reduce the number of people entering the country during the pandemic. The Biden administration is still enforcing that law, although it's exempting children who arrive alone, as well as some families. In March, Border Patrol agents recorded about 168,200 encounters with migrants at the southern border and about 102,000 expulsions.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that the nation is locked down yet there's 'a wide open border.' The post is wrong on both counts. There is no nationwide lockdown. Many schools and businesses are open and no state is mandating a stay-at-home order. Thousands of people are arriving at the southern border, but most are being expelled. We rate this post False.
|
[] |
Says the nation is locked down and there's 'a wide open border.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post appears to criticize policies on immigration and the coronavirus pandemic. But the post misses key facts. 'A locked down nation with a wide open border defies all logic,' said the April 7 Facebook 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.) Some states continue to have restrictions on public gatherings to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, but there is no nationwide lockdown. A few states have a stay-at-home advisory, but no state is mandating it, according to a New York Times tracker. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in February also issued guidance for the reopening of schools. And while thousands of people are arriving at the southern border on a monthly basis, most are being turned away under a public health law. 'The border is not open, and the vast majority of people are being returned under Title 42,' the U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently told PolitiFact. Title 42 refers to a section of a public health law invoked by the Trump administration in March 2020 to reduce the number of people entering the country during the pandemic. The Biden administration is still enforcing that law, although it's exempting children who arrive alone, as well as some families. In March, Border Patrol agents recorded about 168,200 encounters with migrants at the southern border and about 102,000 expulsions.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that the nation is locked down yet there's 'a wide open border.' The post is wrong on both counts. There is no nationwide lockdown. Many schools and businesses are open and no state is mandating a stay-at-home order. Thousands of people are arriving at the southern border, but most are being expelled. We rate this post False.
|
[] |
Says the nation is locked down and there's 'a wide open border.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post appears to criticize policies on immigration and the coronavirus pandemic. But the post misses key facts. 'A locked down nation with a wide open border defies all logic,' said the April 7 Facebook 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.) Some states continue to have restrictions on public gatherings to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, but there is no nationwide lockdown. A few states have a stay-at-home advisory, but no state is mandating it, according to a New York Times tracker. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in February also issued guidance for the reopening of schools. And while thousands of people are arriving at the southern border on a monthly basis, most are being turned away under a public health law. 'The border is not open, and the vast majority of people are being returned under Title 42,' the U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently told PolitiFact. Title 42 refers to a section of a public health law invoked by the Trump administration in March 2020 to reduce the number of people entering the country during the pandemic. The Biden administration is still enforcing that law, although it's exempting children who arrive alone, as well as some families. In March, Border Patrol agents recorded about 168,200 encounters with migrants at the southern border and about 102,000 expulsions.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that the nation is locked down yet there's 'a wide open border.' The post is wrong on both counts. There is no nationwide lockdown. Many schools and businesses are open and no state is mandating a stay-at-home order. Thousands of people are arriving at the southern border, but most are being expelled. We rate this post False.
|
[] |
'We saved 2 million people' from dying of COVID-19.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed to have saved 2 million lives from COVID-19 through his actions to combat the disease. He made the assertion again during the NBC News town hall on Oct. 15 that replaced the second presidential debate. 'But we were expected to lose, if you look at the original charts from original doctors who are respected by everybody, 2,200,000 people,' Trump said. 'We saved 2 million people,' he added. He mentioned the same ballpark figure during a Sept. 15 ABC News town hall and posted a tweet about it on Oct. 13. Others in the Trump administration have also pointed to the 2.2 million figure. Vice President Mike Pence referenced it during the vice presidential debate on Oct. 7. So did Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar during a Sept. 20 'Meet the Press' television interview. Where did this number come from? And is there any truth to the idea that Trump is responsible for saving 2 million lives from COVID-19? Since Trump continues to use it to claim success, we decided to look into it. What we know about the '2 million' The White House and the Trump presidential campaign did not respond to our request for evidence supporting the idea that roughly 2 million lives were spared because of the administration's actions. The figure appears to have been mentioned by the president first during a March 29 White House coronavirus task force press briefing, when Trump and Dr. Deborah Birx, task force coordinator, explained they were asking Americans to stay home from mid-March through the end of April, because mathematical models showed 1.6 million to 2.2 million people could die from COVID-19. The warning stemmed from a paper authored by Neil Ferguson, an epidemiology professor at Imperial College London. He modeled how COVID-19 can spread through a population in different scenarios, including what would happen if no interventions were put in place and people continued to live their daily lives as normal. In the paper, Ferguson wrote, 'In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in [Great Britain] and 2.2 million in the US.' Ferguson did not respond to our request to talk through the study with him. But in a July email interview with HuffPost, he said Trump's boast of having saved 2 million lives isn't true, because the pandemic isn't over. Andrea Bertozzi, a mathematics professor at UCLA, said it was important to remember the 2.2 million figure was derived from a modeling scenario that would almost certainly never happen - which is that neither the government nor individuals would change their behavior at all in light of COVID-19. The study didn't mean to say 2.2 million people were absolutely going to die, but rather to say, 'Hold on, if we let this thing run its course, bad things could happen,' said Bertozzi. Indeed, the results from the study did cause government leaders in both the U.S. and the United Kingdom to implement social distancing measures. Experts also pointed out that the U.S. has the highest COVID-19 death toll of any country in the world - more than 220,000 people - and among the highest death rates, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. 'I don't think we can say we've prevented 2 million deaths, because people are still dying,' said Justin Lessler, an associate professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In some instances when using the 2 million estimate, Trump and others in his administration cited the China travel restrictions for saving lives, while other times they've credited locking down the economy. We'll explore whether either statement holds water. Did travel restrictions do anything? Trump implemented travel restrictions for some people traveling from China beginning Feb. 2 and from Europe on March 11. But experts say and reports show the restrictions don't appear to have had much effect because they were put in place too late and had too many holes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the first cases of coronavirus in the U.S. arrived in mid-January. So, since the travel bans were put in place after COVID-19 was already spreading in the U.S., they weren't effective, said Josh Michaud, associate director for global health policy at the KFF. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) A May study supports that assessment. The researchers found the risk of transmission from domestic air travel exceeded that of international travel in mid-March. Many individuals also still traveled into the U.S. after the bans, according to separate investigations by The New York Times and the Associated Press. Based on all this, experts said there isn't evidence to support the idea that the travel restrictions were the principal intervention to reduce the transmission of COVID-19. What about lockdowns? On the other hand, the public health experts we talked to said multiple global and U.S.-focused studies show that lockdowns and implementing social distancing measures helped to contain the spread of the coronavirus and thus can be said to have prevented deaths. However, Trump can't take full credit for these so-called lockdown measures, which ranged from closing down all but essential businesses to implementing citywide curfews and statewide stay-at-home orders. On March 16, after being presented with the possibility of the national death tally rising to 2.2. million, the White House issued federal recommendations to limit activities that could transmit the COVID-19 virus. But these were just guidelines and were recommended to be in effect only through April 30. Most credit for putting in place robust social distancing measures belongs to state and local government and public health officials, many of whom enacted stronger policies than those recommended by the White House, our experts said. 'I don't think you can directly credit the federal government or the Trump administration with the shutdown orders,' said Lessler. 'The way our system works is that the power for public health policy lies with the state. And each state was making its own individual decision.' Some studies also explore the potential human costs of missed opportunities. If lockdowns had been implemented one or two weeks earlier than mid-March, for instance, which is when most of the U.S. started shutting down, researchers estimated that tens of thousands of American lives could have been saved. A model also shows that if almost everyone wore a mask in the U.S., tens of thousands of deaths from COVID-19 could have been prevented. Despite these scientific findings, Trump started encouraging states - even those with high transmission rates - to open back up in May, after the White House's recommendations to slow the spread of COVID-19 expired. He has also questioned the efficacy of masks, said he wouldn't issue a national mask mandate and instead left mask mandate decisions up to states and local jurisdictions.
|
Our ruling President Trump is claiming that if not for his efforts, there would have been 2 million more deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19. But that 2 million number is taken from a model that shows what would happen without any mitigation measures - that is, if citizens had continued their daily lives as usual, and governments did nothing. Experts said that wouldn't have happened in real life. And while lockdowns and social distancing have indeed been proven to prevent COVID-19 illness and deaths, credit for that doesn't go solely to Trump. The White House issued federal recommendations asking Americans to stay home, but much stronger social distancing measures were enforced by states. Travel restrictions implemented by Trump perhaps helped hold down transmission in the context of broader efforts, but on their own, they don't seem to have significantly reduced the transmission rate of the coronavirus. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"111898-proof-11-b72054e9aaae5bd90089487799ffe005.jpg"
] |
'We saved 2 million people' from dying of COVID-19.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed to have saved 2 million lives from COVID-19 through his actions to combat the disease. He made the assertion again during the NBC News town hall on Oct. 15 that replaced the second presidential debate. 'But we were expected to lose, if you look at the original charts from original doctors who are respected by everybody, 2,200,000 people,' Trump said. 'We saved 2 million people,' he added. He mentioned the same ballpark figure during a Sept. 15 ABC News town hall and posted a tweet about it on Oct. 13. Others in the Trump administration have also pointed to the 2.2 million figure. Vice President Mike Pence referenced it during the vice presidential debate on Oct. 7. So did Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar during a Sept. 20 'Meet the Press' television interview. Where did this number come from? And is there any truth to the idea that Trump is responsible for saving 2 million lives from COVID-19? Since Trump continues to use it to claim success, we decided to look into it. What we know about the '2 million' The White House and the Trump presidential campaign did not respond to our request for evidence supporting the idea that roughly 2 million lives were spared because of the administration's actions. The figure appears to have been mentioned by the president first during a March 29 White House coronavirus task force press briefing, when Trump and Dr. Deborah Birx, task force coordinator, explained they were asking Americans to stay home from mid-March through the end of April, because mathematical models showed 1.6 million to 2.2 million people could die from COVID-19. The warning stemmed from a paper authored by Neil Ferguson, an epidemiology professor at Imperial College London. He modeled how COVID-19 can spread through a population in different scenarios, including what would happen if no interventions were put in place and people continued to live their daily lives as normal. In the paper, Ferguson wrote, 'In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in [Great Britain] and 2.2 million in the US.' Ferguson did not respond to our request to talk through the study with him. But in a July email interview with HuffPost, he said Trump's boast of having saved 2 million lives isn't true, because the pandemic isn't over. Andrea Bertozzi, a mathematics professor at UCLA, said it was important to remember the 2.2 million figure was derived from a modeling scenario that would almost certainly never happen - which is that neither the government nor individuals would change their behavior at all in light of COVID-19. The study didn't mean to say 2.2 million people were absolutely going to die, but rather to say, 'Hold on, if we let this thing run its course, bad things could happen,' said Bertozzi. Indeed, the results from the study did cause government leaders in both the U.S. and the United Kingdom to implement social distancing measures. Experts also pointed out that the U.S. has the highest COVID-19 death toll of any country in the world - more than 220,000 people - and among the highest death rates, according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. 'I don't think we can say we've prevented 2 million deaths, because people are still dying,' said Justin Lessler, an associate professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In some instances when using the 2 million estimate, Trump and others in his administration cited the China travel restrictions for saving lives, while other times they've credited locking down the economy. We'll explore whether either statement holds water. Did travel restrictions do anything? Trump implemented travel restrictions for some people traveling from China beginning Feb. 2 and from Europe on March 11. But experts say and reports show the restrictions don't appear to have had much effect because they were put in place too late and had too many holes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the first cases of coronavirus in the U.S. arrived in mid-January. So, since the travel bans were put in place after COVID-19 was already spreading in the U.S., they weren't effective, said Josh Michaud, associate director for global health policy at the KFF. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) A May study supports that assessment. The researchers found the risk of transmission from domestic air travel exceeded that of international travel in mid-March. Many individuals also still traveled into the U.S. after the bans, according to separate investigations by The New York Times and the Associated Press. Based on all this, experts said there isn't evidence to support the idea that the travel restrictions were the principal intervention to reduce the transmission of COVID-19. What about lockdowns? On the other hand, the public health experts we talked to said multiple global and U.S.-focused studies show that lockdowns and implementing social distancing measures helped to contain the spread of the coronavirus and thus can be said to have prevented deaths. However, Trump can't take full credit for these so-called lockdown measures, which ranged from closing down all but essential businesses to implementing citywide curfews and statewide stay-at-home orders. On March 16, after being presented with the possibility of the national death tally rising to 2.2. million, the White House issued federal recommendations to limit activities that could transmit the COVID-19 virus. But these were just guidelines and were recommended to be in effect only through April 30. Most credit for putting in place robust social distancing measures belongs to state and local government and public health officials, many of whom enacted stronger policies than those recommended by the White House, our experts said. 'I don't think you can directly credit the federal government or the Trump administration with the shutdown orders,' said Lessler. 'The way our system works is that the power for public health policy lies with the state. And each state was making its own individual decision.' Some studies also explore the potential human costs of missed opportunities. If lockdowns had been implemented one or two weeks earlier than mid-March, for instance, which is when most of the U.S. started shutting down, researchers estimated that tens of thousands of American lives could have been saved. A model also shows that if almost everyone wore a mask in the U.S., tens of thousands of deaths from COVID-19 could have been prevented. Despite these scientific findings, Trump started encouraging states - even those with high transmission rates - to open back up in May, after the White House's recommendations to slow the spread of COVID-19 expired. He has also questioned the efficacy of masks, said he wouldn't issue a national mask mandate and instead left mask mandate decisions up to states and local jurisdictions.
|
Our ruling President Trump is claiming that if not for his efforts, there would have been 2 million more deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19. But that 2 million number is taken from a model that shows what would happen without any mitigation measures - that is, if citizens had continued their daily lives as usual, and governments did nothing. Experts said that wouldn't have happened in real life. And while lockdowns and social distancing have indeed been proven to prevent COVID-19 illness and deaths, credit for that doesn't go solely to Trump. The White House issued federal recommendations asking Americans to stay home, but much stronger social distancing measures were enforced by states. Travel restrictions implemented by Trump perhaps helped hold down transmission in the context of broader efforts, but on their own, they don't seem to have significantly reduced the transmission rate of the coronavirus. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"111898-proof-11-b72054e9aaae5bd90089487799ffe005.jpg"
] |
A photo shows Brian Kemp posing with Gregory McMichael.
|
Contradiction
|
After video footage of the fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old black man who was jogging in February in Brunswick, Ga., drew outrage across the country, two men - Gregory McMichael and his son Travis McMichael - were charged with murder and aggravated assault in the killing. But recent Facebook claims purporting to link Gregory McMichael with Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp have the wrong guy. 'This is Gregory McMichael with the governor of Georgia,' the post says. 'Notice his hat? He is a former police officer and the father of Travis McMichael. Travis McMichael murdered Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed black man, out for a jog. Notice the hat?' The photo shows Kemp with a thumb up and his other arm around a man wearing a hat supporting President Donald Trump, a Kemp sticker and a T-shirt that says 'Allah is not God.' 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.) Gregory McMichael is a former police officer, and he worked as an investigator in the local district attorney's office. A police report said that after Arbery ran past him on a residential street, he and Travis McMichael grabbed two guns and followed Arbery in a truck, according to a story in the New York Times. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has said that Travis McMichael shot and killed Arbery. But the man who appears in the photo with Kemp is James Stachowiak, a man the Council on American-Islamic Relations called 'a violent anti-Muslim extremist' when the group posted the image on Facebook in October 2018. At the time of the photo, Kemp, a Republican, was in a close race for governor against Democrat Stacey Abrams. A campaign spokesman responded to critics who wanted Kemp to apologize for the photo by saying Kemp 'takes hundreds of photos a day while traveling the state. It's ridiculous to think he should be held responsible for the beliefs of every person who wants to snap a picture with him.' The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Stachowiak is well-known to law enforcement and civil rights groups. In 2016, for example, Georgia Capitol police put out a notice warning he was planning an unauthorized, anti-Islam rally to shred the Koran, according to the newspaper. We rate this Facebook post claiming Stachowiak is Gregory McMichael False.
|
We rate this Facebook post claiming Stachowiak is Gregory McMichael False.
|
[] |
Says North Carolina just landed an auto plant.
|
Contradiction
|
To hear President Trump tell it, North Carolina just landed a major automaker. In a speech at the White House on Labor Day, Trump said North Carolina is getting one of 'many auto plants' being built. He suggested it again during a speech in Michigan on Sept. 10. And then Oct. 15, Trump declared it again before a television audience of more than 10 million people. 'The reason we're coming back so strong is because we built a very strong foundation. Companies are moving in. Car companies are moving into Michigan and to Ohio and to South Carolina and North Carolina - just today,' Trump said during an NBC Town Hall. So what is Trump talking about? Is a major auto plant or an auto manufacturer coming to North Carolina? Not that we could find. Searching for evidence The Washington Post looked into Trump's claims from Labor Day. The Center for Automotive Research couldn't substantiate Trump's statement for the Post, which gave his claim Four Pinocchios. Inside the state, North Carolina is known for pursuing automakers - and losing out to South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. As recently as Sept. 15, the Triangle Business Journal reported that North Carolina is still chasing its first full fledged car assembly plant. By TBJ's count, North Carolina missed out on ElectraMeccanica in September, as well as Toyota-Mazda, Peugeot, Volvo and Mercedes-Benz - all since 2015. WRAL TechWire reported that North Carolina's industrial leaders also recruited Tesla, which picked Texas earlier this year. The trend has not gone unnoticed. 'We've wondered about why North Carolina gets onto finalist lists, only to come up short,' Miami University professor James Rubenstein, a leading auto industry researcher, told PolitiFact for a separate story. TBJ reports that North Carolina is under consideration for an Indian SUV maker. However, that project is on hold amid the pandemic. What NC said PolitiFact North Carolina reached out to the state's Department of Commerce about Trump's claim. 'We have not recruited an assembly plant since 2017, although North Carolina offers several attractive sites for such a plant and we're actively in the hunt,' David Rhoades, the department's communications director, said in an email. Rhoades noted that truck maker Freightliner and school bus maker Thomas Built Buses, both part of Germany's Daimler AG, have locations in North Carolina that are considered automotive assembly operations. However, they predate Trump's administration. And while North Carolina has not landed a major car company of late, Rhoades said the state has successfully recruited manufacturers of auto components. He provided a spreadsheet showing a total of 44 auto-related manufacturers that have expanded operations in North Carolina since 2019. In 2017, Tristone Flowtech announced 300 jobs in Iredell County and Triangle Tyre announced an 800-job expansion in Edgecombe County. Sonic Automotive announced 500 jobs in Gaston County in 2018, and Bharat Forge Aluminum announced 300 jobs in Lee County last year. Still, none of those projects live up to the size of Trump's claim. And neither the White House nor the Trump campaign responded to our requests for clarification.
|
Our ruling President Trump recently said an auto 'company' or an auto 'plant' has opened or would be opening in North Carolina. This claim stands out in a state that has aggressively pursued automakers, but has so far fallen short. That's because it's not true. Trump's teams haven't backed up his claims. Fact checkers can't find evidence for them. And North Carolina's Department of Commerce isn't aware of any new, major automaker opening a plant in the state. We rate this claim false.
|
[
"111902-proof-32-7f4f7865c6934e6b5b3303148c146033.jpg"
] |
Says North Carolina just landed an auto plant.
|
Contradiction
|
To hear President Trump tell it, North Carolina just landed a major automaker. In a speech at the White House on Labor Day, Trump said North Carolina is getting one of 'many auto plants' being built. He suggested it again during a speech in Michigan on Sept. 10. And then Oct. 15, Trump declared it again before a television audience of more than 10 million people. 'The reason we're coming back so strong is because we built a very strong foundation. Companies are moving in. Car companies are moving into Michigan and to Ohio and to South Carolina and North Carolina - just today,' Trump said during an NBC Town Hall. So what is Trump talking about? Is a major auto plant or an auto manufacturer coming to North Carolina? Not that we could find. Searching for evidence The Washington Post looked into Trump's claims from Labor Day. The Center for Automotive Research couldn't substantiate Trump's statement for the Post, which gave his claim Four Pinocchios. Inside the state, North Carolina is known for pursuing automakers - and losing out to South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. As recently as Sept. 15, the Triangle Business Journal reported that North Carolina is still chasing its first full fledged car assembly plant. By TBJ's count, North Carolina missed out on ElectraMeccanica in September, as well as Toyota-Mazda, Peugeot, Volvo and Mercedes-Benz - all since 2015. WRAL TechWire reported that North Carolina's industrial leaders also recruited Tesla, which picked Texas earlier this year. The trend has not gone unnoticed. 'We've wondered about why North Carolina gets onto finalist lists, only to come up short,' Miami University professor James Rubenstein, a leading auto industry researcher, told PolitiFact for a separate story. TBJ reports that North Carolina is under consideration for an Indian SUV maker. However, that project is on hold amid the pandemic. What NC said PolitiFact North Carolina reached out to the state's Department of Commerce about Trump's claim. 'We have not recruited an assembly plant since 2017, although North Carolina offers several attractive sites for such a plant and we're actively in the hunt,' David Rhoades, the department's communications director, said in an email. Rhoades noted that truck maker Freightliner and school bus maker Thomas Built Buses, both part of Germany's Daimler AG, have locations in North Carolina that are considered automotive assembly operations. However, they predate Trump's administration. And while North Carolina has not landed a major car company of late, Rhoades said the state has successfully recruited manufacturers of auto components. He provided a spreadsheet showing a total of 44 auto-related manufacturers that have expanded operations in North Carolina since 2019. In 2017, Tristone Flowtech announced 300 jobs in Iredell County and Triangle Tyre announced an 800-job expansion in Edgecombe County. Sonic Automotive announced 500 jobs in Gaston County in 2018, and Bharat Forge Aluminum announced 300 jobs in Lee County last year. Still, none of those projects live up to the size of Trump's claim. And neither the White House nor the Trump campaign responded to our requests for clarification.
|
Our ruling President Trump recently said an auto 'company' or an auto 'plant' has opened or would be opening in North Carolina. This claim stands out in a state that has aggressively pursued automakers, but has so far fallen short. That's because it's not true. Trump's teams haven't backed up his claims. Fact checkers can't find evidence for them. And North Carolina's Department of Commerce isn't aware of any new, major automaker opening a plant in the state. We rate this claim false.
|
[
"111902-proof-32-7f4f7865c6934e6b5b3303148c146033.jpg"
] |
Says North Carolina just landed an auto plant.
|
Contradiction
|
To hear President Trump tell it, North Carolina just landed a major automaker. In a speech at the White House on Labor Day, Trump said North Carolina is getting one of 'many auto plants' being built. He suggested it again during a speech in Michigan on Sept. 10. And then Oct. 15, Trump declared it again before a television audience of more than 10 million people. 'The reason we're coming back so strong is because we built a very strong foundation. Companies are moving in. Car companies are moving into Michigan and to Ohio and to South Carolina and North Carolina - just today,' Trump said during an NBC Town Hall. So what is Trump talking about? Is a major auto plant or an auto manufacturer coming to North Carolina? Not that we could find. Searching for evidence The Washington Post looked into Trump's claims from Labor Day. The Center for Automotive Research couldn't substantiate Trump's statement for the Post, which gave his claim Four Pinocchios. Inside the state, North Carolina is known for pursuing automakers - and losing out to South Carolina, Georgia and Alabama. As recently as Sept. 15, the Triangle Business Journal reported that North Carolina is still chasing its first full fledged car assembly plant. By TBJ's count, North Carolina missed out on ElectraMeccanica in September, as well as Toyota-Mazda, Peugeot, Volvo and Mercedes-Benz - all since 2015. WRAL TechWire reported that North Carolina's industrial leaders also recruited Tesla, which picked Texas earlier this year. The trend has not gone unnoticed. 'We've wondered about why North Carolina gets onto finalist lists, only to come up short,' Miami University professor James Rubenstein, a leading auto industry researcher, told PolitiFact for a separate story. TBJ reports that North Carolina is under consideration for an Indian SUV maker. However, that project is on hold amid the pandemic. What NC said PolitiFact North Carolina reached out to the state's Department of Commerce about Trump's claim. 'We have not recruited an assembly plant since 2017, although North Carolina offers several attractive sites for such a plant and we're actively in the hunt,' David Rhoades, the department's communications director, said in an email. Rhoades noted that truck maker Freightliner and school bus maker Thomas Built Buses, both part of Germany's Daimler AG, have locations in North Carolina that are considered automotive assembly operations. However, they predate Trump's administration. And while North Carolina has not landed a major car company of late, Rhoades said the state has successfully recruited manufacturers of auto components. He provided a spreadsheet showing a total of 44 auto-related manufacturers that have expanded operations in North Carolina since 2019. In 2017, Tristone Flowtech announced 300 jobs in Iredell County and Triangle Tyre announced an 800-job expansion in Edgecombe County. Sonic Automotive announced 500 jobs in Gaston County in 2018, and Bharat Forge Aluminum announced 300 jobs in Lee County last year. Still, none of those projects live up to the size of Trump's claim. And neither the White House nor the Trump campaign responded to our requests for clarification.
|
Our ruling President Trump recently said an auto 'company' or an auto 'plant' has opened or would be opening in North Carolina. This claim stands out in a state that has aggressively pursued automakers, but has so far fallen short. That's because it's not true. Trump's teams haven't backed up his claims. Fact checkers can't find evidence for them. And North Carolina's Department of Commerce isn't aware of any new, major automaker opening a plant in the state. We rate this claim false.
|
[
"111902-proof-32-7f4f7865c6934e6b5b3303148c146033.jpg"
] |
A forensics examination of a Ware County, Ga., Dominion Voting Systems machine found votes were switched from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.
|
Contradiction
|
Dominion Voting Systems, which makes election software and hardware, has been at the center of baseless claims of voter fraud in the aftermath of the 2020 election. U.S. Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., amplified one of these claims in a Dec. 4 tweet. 'Yesterday we learned a forensics examination of a Ware County, GA #DominionVotingSystems machine found votes were switched from @realDonaldTrump to @JoeBiden,' he tweeted. 'This is one machine in one county in one state. Did this happen elsewhere? We need to know! EXAMINE ALL THE MACHINES!' Yesterday we learned a forensics examination of a Ware County, GA #DominionVotingSystems machine found votes were switched from @realDonaldTrump to @JoeBiden. This is one machine in one county in one state. Did this happen elsewhere? We need to know! EXAMINE ALL THE MACHINES!- Rep. Jody Hice (@CongressmanHice) December 4, 2020 Hice's claim misleads on several fronts. He seems to be referring to the results of a hand recount in Ware County, which changed by 37 votes from the initial vote total. State election officials told us that the small difference between the initial count and the recount resulted from human error, not a failure of Dominion software. A spokesperson for Hice's office didn't respond to a request for comment. Ware County Supervisor of Elections Carlos Nelson explained that the error occurred while a worker tabulated ballots. Absentee ballots are digitally scanned in batches of 100. If a scanning machine detects a ballot with a rip or a tear, the machine stops, forcing election workers to reject the batch, fix the torn ballot, and then resubmit the 100-vote batch for tabulation. In this case, the worker accidentally submitted the same batch twice after a flawed ballot stopped the machine, once before the ballot was fixed and once after it was fixed. According to Nelson, Ware County election officials caught the error in an internal audit and quickly updated the result. The corrected numbers were affirmed during an electronic recount that the Trump campaign requested in Georgia. 'The system worked as it was intended to work,' said Nelson. 'We reported the error right after the election, updated all the numbers, and there was no issue for three weeks until the narrative changed.' Gabriel Sterling, a top Georgia election official, mirrored Nelson's claims, calling Hice's tweet 'flat-out misinformation' in a tweet. Hice's claim appears to have originated in a Dec. 3 press release put out by the advocacy group Voter GA, which claims, without evidence, that the 37-vote-difference resulted from a Dominion Voting Machine, which 'flipped' votes from Trump to Biden. The press release compares the discrepancy in the Ware County vote totals to Antrim County, Mich., where a clerk incorrectly tallied votes a day after the election. The mistake was quickly corrected, and there is no evidence that Antrim County's inaccurate vote count was caused by Dominion technology. It's unclear what forensic examination Hice was referencing. The Georgia Secretary of State's office did conduct a forensic audit on a random sampling of Dominion voting machines, but that audit found 'no signs of cyber attacks or election hacking' and 'no evidence of the machines being tampered.' Nelson said that he and his office had no trouble with Dominion technology and that numbers tabulated by those machines were 'spot on.' Trump won about 70% of the votes in Ware County.
|
Our ruling Hice said 'a forensics examination' of a Ware County, Ga., Dominion Voting Systems machine found switched from Trump to Biden. The 37-vote difference that election officials caught resulted from human error, not a flaw in Dominion software. A forensic audit conducted by the Georgia Secretary of State's office on a random sampling of Dominion voting machines found 'no signs of cyber attacks or election hacking' and 'no evidence of the machines being tampered.' We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
A forensics examination of a Ware County, Ga., Dominion Voting Systems machine found votes were switched from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.
|
Contradiction
|
Dominion Voting Systems, which makes election software and hardware, has been at the center of baseless claims of voter fraud in the aftermath of the 2020 election. U.S. Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., amplified one of these claims in a Dec. 4 tweet. 'Yesterday we learned a forensics examination of a Ware County, GA #DominionVotingSystems machine found votes were switched from @realDonaldTrump to @JoeBiden,' he tweeted. 'This is one machine in one county in one state. Did this happen elsewhere? We need to know! EXAMINE ALL THE MACHINES!' Yesterday we learned a forensics examination of a Ware County, GA #DominionVotingSystems machine found votes were switched from @realDonaldTrump to @JoeBiden. This is one machine in one county in one state. Did this happen elsewhere? We need to know! EXAMINE ALL THE MACHINES!- Rep. Jody Hice (@CongressmanHice) December 4, 2020 Hice's claim misleads on several fronts. He seems to be referring to the results of a hand recount in Ware County, which changed by 37 votes from the initial vote total. State election officials told us that the small difference between the initial count and the recount resulted from human error, not a failure of Dominion software. A spokesperson for Hice's office didn't respond to a request for comment. Ware County Supervisor of Elections Carlos Nelson explained that the error occurred while a worker tabulated ballots. Absentee ballots are digitally scanned in batches of 100. If a scanning machine detects a ballot with a rip or a tear, the machine stops, forcing election workers to reject the batch, fix the torn ballot, and then resubmit the 100-vote batch for tabulation. In this case, the worker accidentally submitted the same batch twice after a flawed ballot stopped the machine, once before the ballot was fixed and once after it was fixed. According to Nelson, Ware County election officials caught the error in an internal audit and quickly updated the result. The corrected numbers were affirmed during an electronic recount that the Trump campaign requested in Georgia. 'The system worked as it was intended to work,' said Nelson. 'We reported the error right after the election, updated all the numbers, and there was no issue for three weeks until the narrative changed.' Gabriel Sterling, a top Georgia election official, mirrored Nelson's claims, calling Hice's tweet 'flat-out misinformation' in a tweet. Hice's claim appears to have originated in a Dec. 3 press release put out by the advocacy group Voter GA, which claims, without evidence, that the 37-vote-difference resulted from a Dominion Voting Machine, which 'flipped' votes from Trump to Biden. The press release compares the discrepancy in the Ware County vote totals to Antrim County, Mich., where a clerk incorrectly tallied votes a day after the election. The mistake was quickly corrected, and there is no evidence that Antrim County's inaccurate vote count was caused by Dominion technology. It's unclear what forensic examination Hice was referencing. The Georgia Secretary of State's office did conduct a forensic audit on a random sampling of Dominion voting machines, but that audit found 'no signs of cyber attacks or election hacking' and 'no evidence of the machines being tampered.' Nelson said that he and his office had no trouble with Dominion technology and that numbers tabulated by those machines were 'spot on.' Trump won about 70% of the votes in Ware County.
|
Our ruling Hice said 'a forensics examination' of a Ware County, Ga., Dominion Voting Systems machine found switched from Trump to Biden. The 37-vote difference that election officials caught resulted from human error, not a flaw in Dominion software. A forensic audit conducted by the Georgia Secretary of State's office on a random sampling of Dominion voting machines found 'no signs of cyber attacks or election hacking' and 'no evidence of the machines being tampered.' We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Says photos show a 'boneyard' of electric cars abandoned in France because the cars' batteries were too expensive to replace.
|
Contradiction
|
A viral Facebook post that questions whether 'we need to go green' shows rows of electric cars in a field in France, and claims the runty two-doors were abandoned simply because their batteries had worn out and were too expensive to replace. The post, which features photographs of what appear to be dozens of identical vehicles, says: 'This is a boneyard near Paris, France with hundreds of electric powered cars. Mind you these are only cars used by the City of Paris and not personal vehicles. All of these have the same issue .... the battery storage cells have given out and need (to be) replaced. Why not just replace them you ask? Well two reasons. First the battery storage cells cost almost double what the vehicle cost new, and second no landfill or disposals will allow the batteries to be disposed of there. So these green fairy tale electric cars are all sitting in vacant lots while their batteries drain toxins into the ground. Still think we need to go green??? Very interesting.' Screengrab from Facebook 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.) News reports from France say the cars are part of a fleet from a failed car-sharing service, and the vehicles shown in the field are being resold or sold for parts. A French television news report in April, with photos like those appearing with the Facebook post, said more than 1,000 vehicles used in the Autolib program are being stored on a lot in Romorantin-Lanthenay, an area about 130 miles southwest of Paris. The Bolloré company had a contract with local authorities in and around Paris to provide the vehicles, which people could borrow for a fee. That ended in 2018 when the service was in debt and failing. Some 4,000 of the vehicles were sold, mainly to two companies that have been reselling them, according to the report. That includes the ones shown in the Facebook post. The TV stories and a French newspaper article noted the claims on social media. 'Unlike what buzzes on social media, this is not a cemetery,' the newspaper report said. We rate the post False.
|
We rate the post False.
|
[] |
For vaccine rates among Americans 65 and older, 'there's virtually no difference between white, Black, Hispanic, Asian American.
|
Contradiction
|
During May 3 remarks on the American Families Plan, President Joe Biden boasted that there was not much disparity in the Covid-19 vaccination rates for white Americans and Americans of color who are at least 65. 'And what's happening now is all the talk about how people were not going to get shots, they were not going to be involved - look at what that was - we were told that was most likely to be among people over 65 years of age,' said Biden. 'But now people over 65 years of age, over 80%, have now been vaccinated, and 66% fully vaccinated. And there's virtually no difference between white, Black, Hispanic, Asian American.' This isn't the only time that Biden has made the claim. He went even further on April 27 during remarks on the Covid-19 response: 'And, by the way, based on reported data, the proportion - the proportion of seniors who have been vaccinated is essentially equal between white and seniors of color. ... As a matter of a fact, if I'm not mistaken, there are more Latinos and African American seniors that have been vaccinated, as a percentage, than white seniors.' However, the national data that Biden keeps touting - vaccination statistics regarding both race and age - is not public. We asked the White House for the information underlying this claim, but officials did not provide specifics. So, we moved on to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Spokesperson Chandra Zeikel told KHN-PolitiFact on May 6 that 'unfortunately, we don't have available a data breakdown of both racial demographics and age together.' Zeikel didn't respond to a follow-up question asking when or if the CDC would be publishing this data, but current CDC vaccination data is broken down only by race/ethnicity and shows significant differences, with white Americans far outpacing the percentage of other groups getting a shot. It also shows that the rate of vaccinations among some groups, including Black and Latino Americans, does not match their share of the population, though new CDC data shows there has been some progress on this front in the last two weeks. Meanwhile, the CDC published a report May 11 based on the first 3.5 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program that described limited race/ethnicity data for those older than 65 who have received at least one vaccine dose. Although the data reflects some gains in vaccination equity, those rates do not hold across different ethnic and racial categories. In addition, about 40% of vaccine records were missing race and ethnicity data. That made us wonder about the premise of Biden's statement. We turned to experts for their take. 'As far as I know, there is no comprehensive publicly available data on vaccination rates by race/ethnicity and age,' Samantha Artiga, vice president and director of the racial equity and health policy program at KFF, wrote in an email. 'As such, we are not able to assess whether there are racial disparities in vaccinations among people over 65 years of age.' What about other state-level data or anecdotes that might support Biden's claim? Let's dive in and see. A small number of states report both age and race together At least seven states track vaccination based on a combination of age and race, according to Artiga: Michigan, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Minnesota, Washington and Vermont (Vermont tracks only two racial categories: non-Hispanic white and a combination of Black, Indigenous and people of color.) The results from some of these states show that racial disparities do exist in the older age groups. In Michigan, for instance, over 50% of non-Hispanic white people ages 65 to 74 had completed their vaccinations as of May 11. Other racial groups - non-Hispanic Black people; Asian American and Pacific Islanders; and Hispanics - all trailed by about 10 percentage points. The exception was the Native American and Alaska Natives category, which was within 4 percentage points of white people. And as of May 11 in Kansas, the rate at which white people in that same age group were vaccinated was higher than the rates of Black people and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders. In Vermont, for those 65 and up, about 79% of people of color had received at least one dose of the vaccine, compared with 85% of white people as of that date. 'With the exception of Vermont, which has the distinction of being the only state to target BIPOC [Black, Indigenous and people of color] populations by race explicitly, these are examples of states in which the numbers are not doing well in their equity efforts,' Dayna Bowen Matthew, dean of the George Washington University Law School and an expert in racial disparities in health care, wrote in an email. Minnesota is one of the few states in which people of color are actually being vaccinated at higher rates than white people - with 93% of Asian/Pacific Islanders and 87.5% of Black/African Americans age 65 and over having received at least one shot, compared with 81.5% of white people as of May 11. Some states are vaccinating similar percentages of their population of Black or Hispanic people, Matthew said, however that data does not distinguish by age group. According to Bloomberg's Covid-19 Vaccination Racial Gap tracker, New Mexico, Idaho, Oregon and Utah have vaccinated approximately the same percentage of Black Americans as are represented in each state's population. Maine, Ohio, Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri have achieved similar population-based rates for the Hispanic population. KFF provides weekly updates on national and state race/ethnicity data of those who have received vaccinations, which have consistently shown that Black and Hispanic people are receiving smaller shares of vaccinations compared with their shares of the total population, while white people are receiving a higher share. The May 5 weekly update, for instance, found that based on the 42 states that share race/ethnicity data, the percentage of white people who have received at least one Covid vaccine dose (39%) was roughly 1.5 times higher than the rates for Black (25%) and Hispanic people (27%). (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) It's also important to note that data on race and ethnicity information has not been gathered for many people who have been vaccinated. As of May 3, the CDC reported that race and ethnicity were known for only 55% of all people who had received at least one vaccine dose. And three states, Montana, New Hampshire and Wyoming, don't report race/ethnicity data at all. How to approach vaccine equity, experts say Nneka Sederstrom, chief health equity officer at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, said that her state has done an 'excellent job' vaccinating the 65-and-older population but that there's still a lot of work to be done to reach communities of color. We 'will need more direct tactics to reach' those who haven't yet been vaccinated, 'and help address any issues of hesitancy due to lack of knowledge or systemic barriers,' Sederstrom wrote in an email. Ensuring that vaccines are available at primary care providers is also important, said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. 'The truth of the matter is, the more vaccinators that we can get that are placed where people are every day, where it becomes a routine part of your life, such as going ... into your doctor's office for a regular visit, that's a winner,' said Benjamin. But, Dr. Uché Blackstock, founder of Advancing Health Equity, an organization that advocates to end bias and racism in health care, said she would set the bar for vaccine equity success higher than just an equally proportionate share of a certain racial/ethnic population receiving their vaccine doses. 'What success in vaccine equity would look like would be if Black people or Hispanic people were overrepresented in terms of vaccine received since they have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic,' said Blackstock. So even though Biden quotes these statistics that lack data behind them, if the evidence did support them, it would still not be enough, she said. In fact, the CDC does describe vaccine equity in those terms: 'preferential access and administration to those who have been most affected by Covid-19.'
|
Our ruling Biden has repeatedly claimed that vaccination rates among white people and people of color age 65 and older are virtually the same - or even higher among people of color. No public national data from the CDC or another database has been released to support this assertion. For the few states that do report data on age and race/ethnicity combined, the numbers suggest that, for the most part, obvious disparities persist in the vaccination rates for white seniors and seniors of color. In several states, vaccine administration rates are more proportional to the percentage of the Black and Hispanic populations, but the data covers all age groups. National data for all age groups also shows that rates of vaccinations for Black and Hispanic people lag behind that of white people. Existing data paints one story on vaccine equity, while Biden's words paint another. Without data to back it up, we rate Biden's statement False. Update: This report was updated to include a May 11 CDC report with additional data on race, ethnicity and age. The rating is unchanged.
|
[
"111934-proof-39-5714ec6cf6c0de76c69ac5f675792f98.jpg"
] |
For vaccine rates among Americans 65 and older, 'there's virtually no difference between white, Black, Hispanic, Asian American.
|
Contradiction
|
During May 3 remarks on the American Families Plan, President Joe Biden boasted that there was not much disparity in the Covid-19 vaccination rates for white Americans and Americans of color who are at least 65. 'And what's happening now is all the talk about how people were not going to get shots, they were not going to be involved - look at what that was - we were told that was most likely to be among people over 65 years of age,' said Biden. 'But now people over 65 years of age, over 80%, have now been vaccinated, and 66% fully vaccinated. And there's virtually no difference between white, Black, Hispanic, Asian American.' This isn't the only time that Biden has made the claim. He went even further on April 27 during remarks on the Covid-19 response: 'And, by the way, based on reported data, the proportion - the proportion of seniors who have been vaccinated is essentially equal between white and seniors of color. ... As a matter of a fact, if I'm not mistaken, there are more Latinos and African American seniors that have been vaccinated, as a percentage, than white seniors.' However, the national data that Biden keeps touting - vaccination statistics regarding both race and age - is not public. We asked the White House for the information underlying this claim, but officials did not provide specifics. So, we moved on to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Spokesperson Chandra Zeikel told KHN-PolitiFact on May 6 that 'unfortunately, we don't have available a data breakdown of both racial demographics and age together.' Zeikel didn't respond to a follow-up question asking when or if the CDC would be publishing this data, but current CDC vaccination data is broken down only by race/ethnicity and shows significant differences, with white Americans far outpacing the percentage of other groups getting a shot. It also shows that the rate of vaccinations among some groups, including Black and Latino Americans, does not match their share of the population, though new CDC data shows there has been some progress on this front in the last two weeks. Meanwhile, the CDC published a report May 11 based on the first 3.5 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program that described limited race/ethnicity data for those older than 65 who have received at least one vaccine dose. Although the data reflects some gains in vaccination equity, those rates do not hold across different ethnic and racial categories. In addition, about 40% of vaccine records were missing race and ethnicity data. That made us wonder about the premise of Biden's statement. We turned to experts for their take. 'As far as I know, there is no comprehensive publicly available data on vaccination rates by race/ethnicity and age,' Samantha Artiga, vice president and director of the racial equity and health policy program at KFF, wrote in an email. 'As such, we are not able to assess whether there are racial disparities in vaccinations among people over 65 years of age.' What about other state-level data or anecdotes that might support Biden's claim? Let's dive in and see. A small number of states report both age and race together At least seven states track vaccination based on a combination of age and race, according to Artiga: Michigan, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Minnesota, Washington and Vermont (Vermont tracks only two racial categories: non-Hispanic white and a combination of Black, Indigenous and people of color.) The results from some of these states show that racial disparities do exist in the older age groups. In Michigan, for instance, over 50% of non-Hispanic white people ages 65 to 74 had completed their vaccinations as of May 11. Other racial groups - non-Hispanic Black people; Asian American and Pacific Islanders; and Hispanics - all trailed by about 10 percentage points. The exception was the Native American and Alaska Natives category, which was within 4 percentage points of white people. And as of May 11 in Kansas, the rate at which white people in that same age group were vaccinated was higher than the rates of Black people and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders. In Vermont, for those 65 and up, about 79% of people of color had received at least one dose of the vaccine, compared with 85% of white people as of that date. 'With the exception of Vermont, which has the distinction of being the only state to target BIPOC [Black, Indigenous and people of color] populations by race explicitly, these are examples of states in which the numbers are not doing well in their equity efforts,' Dayna Bowen Matthew, dean of the George Washington University Law School and an expert in racial disparities in health care, wrote in an email. Minnesota is one of the few states in which people of color are actually being vaccinated at higher rates than white people - with 93% of Asian/Pacific Islanders and 87.5% of Black/African Americans age 65 and over having received at least one shot, compared with 81.5% of white people as of May 11. Some states are vaccinating similar percentages of their population of Black or Hispanic people, Matthew said, however that data does not distinguish by age group. According to Bloomberg's Covid-19 Vaccination Racial Gap tracker, New Mexico, Idaho, Oregon and Utah have vaccinated approximately the same percentage of Black Americans as are represented in each state's population. Maine, Ohio, Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri have achieved similar population-based rates for the Hispanic population. KFF provides weekly updates on national and state race/ethnicity data of those who have received vaccinations, which have consistently shown that Black and Hispanic people are receiving smaller shares of vaccinations compared with their shares of the total population, while white people are receiving a higher share. The May 5 weekly update, for instance, found that based on the 42 states that share race/ethnicity data, the percentage of white people who have received at least one Covid vaccine dose (39%) was roughly 1.5 times higher than the rates for Black (25%) and Hispanic people (27%). (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) It's also important to note that data on race and ethnicity information has not been gathered for many people who have been vaccinated. As of May 3, the CDC reported that race and ethnicity were known for only 55% of all people who had received at least one vaccine dose. And three states, Montana, New Hampshire and Wyoming, don't report race/ethnicity data at all. How to approach vaccine equity, experts say Nneka Sederstrom, chief health equity officer at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, said that her state has done an 'excellent job' vaccinating the 65-and-older population but that there's still a lot of work to be done to reach communities of color. We 'will need more direct tactics to reach' those who haven't yet been vaccinated, 'and help address any issues of hesitancy due to lack of knowledge or systemic barriers,' Sederstrom wrote in an email. Ensuring that vaccines are available at primary care providers is also important, said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. 'The truth of the matter is, the more vaccinators that we can get that are placed where people are every day, where it becomes a routine part of your life, such as going ... into your doctor's office for a regular visit, that's a winner,' said Benjamin. But, Dr. Uché Blackstock, founder of Advancing Health Equity, an organization that advocates to end bias and racism in health care, said she would set the bar for vaccine equity success higher than just an equally proportionate share of a certain racial/ethnic population receiving their vaccine doses. 'What success in vaccine equity would look like would be if Black people or Hispanic people were overrepresented in terms of vaccine received since they have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic,' said Blackstock. So even though Biden quotes these statistics that lack data behind them, if the evidence did support them, it would still not be enough, she said. In fact, the CDC does describe vaccine equity in those terms: 'preferential access and administration to those who have been most affected by Covid-19.'
|
Our ruling Biden has repeatedly claimed that vaccination rates among white people and people of color age 65 and older are virtually the same - or even higher among people of color. No public national data from the CDC or another database has been released to support this assertion. For the few states that do report data on age and race/ethnicity combined, the numbers suggest that, for the most part, obvious disparities persist in the vaccination rates for white seniors and seniors of color. In several states, vaccine administration rates are more proportional to the percentage of the Black and Hispanic populations, but the data covers all age groups. National data for all age groups also shows that rates of vaccinations for Black and Hispanic people lag behind that of white people. Existing data paints one story on vaccine equity, while Biden's words paint another. Without data to back it up, we rate Biden's statement False. Update: This report was updated to include a May 11 CDC report with additional data on race, ethnicity and age. The rating is unchanged.
|
[
"111934-proof-39-5714ec6cf6c0de76c69ac5f675792f98.jpg"
] |
For vaccine rates among Americans 65 and older, 'there's virtually no difference between white, Black, Hispanic, Asian American.
|
Contradiction
|
During May 3 remarks on the American Families Plan, President Joe Biden boasted that there was not much disparity in the Covid-19 vaccination rates for white Americans and Americans of color who are at least 65. 'And what's happening now is all the talk about how people were not going to get shots, they were not going to be involved - look at what that was - we were told that was most likely to be among people over 65 years of age,' said Biden. 'But now people over 65 years of age, over 80%, have now been vaccinated, and 66% fully vaccinated. And there's virtually no difference between white, Black, Hispanic, Asian American.' This isn't the only time that Biden has made the claim. He went even further on April 27 during remarks on the Covid-19 response: 'And, by the way, based on reported data, the proportion - the proportion of seniors who have been vaccinated is essentially equal between white and seniors of color. ... As a matter of a fact, if I'm not mistaken, there are more Latinos and African American seniors that have been vaccinated, as a percentage, than white seniors.' However, the national data that Biden keeps touting - vaccination statistics regarding both race and age - is not public. We asked the White House for the information underlying this claim, but officials did not provide specifics. So, we moved on to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Spokesperson Chandra Zeikel told KHN-PolitiFact on May 6 that 'unfortunately, we don't have available a data breakdown of both racial demographics and age together.' Zeikel didn't respond to a follow-up question asking when or if the CDC would be publishing this data, but current CDC vaccination data is broken down only by race/ethnicity and shows significant differences, with white Americans far outpacing the percentage of other groups getting a shot. It also shows that the rate of vaccinations among some groups, including Black and Latino Americans, does not match their share of the population, though new CDC data shows there has been some progress on this front in the last two weeks. Meanwhile, the CDC published a report May 11 based on the first 3.5 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program that described limited race/ethnicity data for those older than 65 who have received at least one vaccine dose. Although the data reflects some gains in vaccination equity, those rates do not hold across different ethnic and racial categories. In addition, about 40% of vaccine records were missing race and ethnicity data. That made us wonder about the premise of Biden's statement. We turned to experts for their take. 'As far as I know, there is no comprehensive publicly available data on vaccination rates by race/ethnicity and age,' Samantha Artiga, vice president and director of the racial equity and health policy program at KFF, wrote in an email. 'As such, we are not able to assess whether there are racial disparities in vaccinations among people over 65 years of age.' What about other state-level data or anecdotes that might support Biden's claim? Let's dive in and see. A small number of states report both age and race together At least seven states track vaccination based on a combination of age and race, according to Artiga: Michigan, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Minnesota, Washington and Vermont (Vermont tracks only two racial categories: non-Hispanic white and a combination of Black, Indigenous and people of color.) The results from some of these states show that racial disparities do exist in the older age groups. In Michigan, for instance, over 50% of non-Hispanic white people ages 65 to 74 had completed their vaccinations as of May 11. Other racial groups - non-Hispanic Black people; Asian American and Pacific Islanders; and Hispanics - all trailed by about 10 percentage points. The exception was the Native American and Alaska Natives category, which was within 4 percentage points of white people. And as of May 11 in Kansas, the rate at which white people in that same age group were vaccinated was higher than the rates of Black people and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders. In Vermont, for those 65 and up, about 79% of people of color had received at least one dose of the vaccine, compared with 85% of white people as of that date. 'With the exception of Vermont, which has the distinction of being the only state to target BIPOC [Black, Indigenous and people of color] populations by race explicitly, these are examples of states in which the numbers are not doing well in their equity efforts,' Dayna Bowen Matthew, dean of the George Washington University Law School and an expert in racial disparities in health care, wrote in an email. Minnesota is one of the few states in which people of color are actually being vaccinated at higher rates than white people - with 93% of Asian/Pacific Islanders and 87.5% of Black/African Americans age 65 and over having received at least one shot, compared with 81.5% of white people as of May 11. Some states are vaccinating similar percentages of their population of Black or Hispanic people, Matthew said, however that data does not distinguish by age group. According to Bloomberg's Covid-19 Vaccination Racial Gap tracker, New Mexico, Idaho, Oregon and Utah have vaccinated approximately the same percentage of Black Americans as are represented in each state's population. Maine, Ohio, Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri have achieved similar population-based rates for the Hispanic population. KFF provides weekly updates on national and state race/ethnicity data of those who have received vaccinations, which have consistently shown that Black and Hispanic people are receiving smaller shares of vaccinations compared with their shares of the total population, while white people are receiving a higher share. The May 5 weekly update, for instance, found that based on the 42 states that share race/ethnicity data, the percentage of white people who have received at least one Covid vaccine dose (39%) was roughly 1.5 times higher than the rates for Black (25%) and Hispanic people (27%). (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) It's also important to note that data on race and ethnicity information has not been gathered for many people who have been vaccinated. As of May 3, the CDC reported that race and ethnicity were known for only 55% of all people who had received at least one vaccine dose. And three states, Montana, New Hampshire and Wyoming, don't report race/ethnicity data at all. How to approach vaccine equity, experts say Nneka Sederstrom, chief health equity officer at Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, said that her state has done an 'excellent job' vaccinating the 65-and-older population but that there's still a lot of work to be done to reach communities of color. We 'will need more direct tactics to reach' those who haven't yet been vaccinated, 'and help address any issues of hesitancy due to lack of knowledge or systemic barriers,' Sederstrom wrote in an email. Ensuring that vaccines are available at primary care providers is also important, said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. 'The truth of the matter is, the more vaccinators that we can get that are placed where people are every day, where it becomes a routine part of your life, such as going ... into your doctor's office for a regular visit, that's a winner,' said Benjamin. But, Dr. Uché Blackstock, founder of Advancing Health Equity, an organization that advocates to end bias and racism in health care, said she would set the bar for vaccine equity success higher than just an equally proportionate share of a certain racial/ethnic population receiving their vaccine doses. 'What success in vaccine equity would look like would be if Black people or Hispanic people were overrepresented in terms of vaccine received since they have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic,' said Blackstock. So even though Biden quotes these statistics that lack data behind them, if the evidence did support them, it would still not be enough, she said. In fact, the CDC does describe vaccine equity in those terms: 'preferential access and administration to those who have been most affected by Covid-19.'
|
Our ruling Biden has repeatedly claimed that vaccination rates among white people and people of color age 65 and older are virtually the same - or even higher among people of color. No public national data from the CDC or another database has been released to support this assertion. For the few states that do report data on age and race/ethnicity combined, the numbers suggest that, for the most part, obvious disparities persist in the vaccination rates for white seniors and seniors of color. In several states, vaccine administration rates are more proportional to the percentage of the Black and Hispanic populations, but the data covers all age groups. National data for all age groups also shows that rates of vaccinations for Black and Hispanic people lag behind that of white people. Existing data paints one story on vaccine equity, while Biden's words paint another. Without data to back it up, we rate Biden's statement False. Update: This report was updated to include a May 11 CDC report with additional data on race, ethnicity and age. The rating is unchanged.
|
[
"111934-proof-39-5714ec6cf6c0de76c69ac5f675792f98.jpg"
] |
This video shows Trump looking 'lost and disoriented.
|
Contradiction
|
An edited video of President Trump appearing disoriented on the White House lawn has been shared widely on social media with users falsely claiming that it shows him experiencing dementia. One description of the video, which was re-shared on Instagram, says, 'Trump is lost and disoriented here. His mind goes blank and he doesn't remember what he's supposed to do next. He's deep into his degenerative neurological disease - Frontotemporal dementia - mindlessly lumbering and zigzagging in the grass toward the puddle.' But the 12-second clip, which is from 2019, was deceptively edited to make it look like Trump is wandering aimlessly for no reason. He wasn't. 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 clip is from a longer video that was captured on Aug. 7, 2019, when Trump spoke to reporters before departing on Marine One for Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, to meet with the victims and first responders of two deadly shootings that had occurred at both locations. RELATED: Fact-checking misinformation after the El Paso, Dayton shootings The unedited version of the video provides more context, starting around the 11:40-mark, and shows the president walking away from reporters to wait for first lady Melania Trump. Trump stands by the puddle and points at it for a moment, apparently to warn Melania not to step in the water. The couple then walk together to board the helicopter. The clip was labeled as manipulated media on Twitter shortly after it surfaced. We rate it False.
|
We rate it False.
|
[] |
'The flu killed 80,000 Americans last year according to the CDC.
|
Contradiction
|
Republican Congressman Tom McClintock has expressed a lot of skepticism over the threat of COVID-19. He's also described stay-at-home orders intended to slow the novel coronavirus as 'profoundly un-American.' 'The more data we receive, the more questions come up over this policy, including how severe is this disease actually?' McClintock, who represents a large swath of rural California east of Sacramento, said on CapRadio's Insight program on April 29. 'Does it justify destroying the jobs of millions of Californians? How many poverty-related deaths have we set into motion by plunging Californians into unemployment?' McClintock then claimed: 'The flu killed 80,000 Americans last year according to the CDC.' Similar statements about the flu are circulating on social media, in apparent efforts to downplay or question the threat of COVID-19. There's a lot that's still unknown about the coronavirus, and plenty of time to judge whether California's actions helped or not. But the data on how many Americans died from the flu is pretty clear. We decided to take a look and fact check McClintock's claim. Our research A spokesperson for McClintock initially pointed to a September 2018 Associated Press article headlined 'CDC: 80,000 people died of flu last winter in U.S., highest death toll in 40 years.' The article cited Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as the source of the information. It described the disease's death toll as the highest in at least four decades. That total referred to the 2017-18 influenza season, which was two years ago. Notably, the CDC revised it down to 61,000 deaths, though many news articles still have the now out-dated 80,000 figure in their headlines. The CDC explained on its website the lower number is 'based on more recently available information,' and said there's 'a trade-off between timeliness and accuracy,' when it publishes its initial estimates. Last year, the CDC tallied 34,000 deaths during the 2018-19 influenza season, nowhere near McClintock's figure. McClintock's spokesperson said the congressman, at the time he made his statement, had not noticed the date of the news article. She said 'it has since been brought to his attention that the CDC later revised its number to 61,000.' In early March, PolitiFact National spoke with infectious disease experts who cautioned against comparing the flu and COVID-19. McClintock's claim about flu deaths suggests he believes the coronavirus threat is overblown. 'The prevalence of flu is higher at this moment in time,' said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University's Center for Health Security, in the March 10 article. '[But] pound for pound, if you had both viruses, the one that's more likely to make you die is the coronavirus.' Experts told PolitiFact in early May that COVID-19 still appears more lethal than the seasonal flu, noting that infection fatality rates that may seem small can lead to mounting death tolls. As of May 5, COVID-19 had killed 70,847 Americans, according to the Johns Hopkins University coronavirus tracker. Our rating Rep. Tom McClintock claimed 'the flu killed 80,000 Americans last year, according to the CDC.' In reality, 34,000 Americans died of the flu during the 2018-19 influenza season, according to the federal agency. McClintock said he relied on a 2018 news article, which cited the CDC's initial estimate of 80,000 deaths for the 2017-18 influenza season, a figure the agency later revised down to 61,000 deaths. The outdated figure remains in many 2018 news headlines. In the end, the congressman cited the wrong year and failed to note that a significant downward revision had been made, making his claim misleading at best. We rate McClintock's claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
|
Our rating Rep. Tom McClintock claimed 'the flu killed 80,000 Americans last year, according to the CDC.' In reality, 34,000 Americans died of the flu during the 2018-19 influenza season, according to the federal agency. McClintock said he relied on a 2018 news article, which cited the CDC's initial estimate of 80,000 deaths for the 2017-18 influenza season, a figure the agency later revised down to 61,000 deaths. The outdated figure remains in many 2018 news headlines. In the end, the congressman cited the wrong year and failed to note that a significant downward revision had been made, making his claim misleading at best. We rate McClintock's claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
|
[
"111987-proof-02-de988330b8cff304f9a228e212d80b6d.jpeg"
] |
'The flu killed 80,000 Americans last year according to the CDC.
|
Contradiction
|
Republican Congressman Tom McClintock has expressed a lot of skepticism over the threat of COVID-19. He's also described stay-at-home orders intended to slow the novel coronavirus as 'profoundly un-American.' 'The more data we receive, the more questions come up over this policy, including how severe is this disease actually?' McClintock, who represents a large swath of rural California east of Sacramento, said on CapRadio's Insight program on April 29. 'Does it justify destroying the jobs of millions of Californians? How many poverty-related deaths have we set into motion by plunging Californians into unemployment?' McClintock then claimed: 'The flu killed 80,000 Americans last year according to the CDC.' Similar statements about the flu are circulating on social media, in apparent efforts to downplay or question the threat of COVID-19. There's a lot that's still unknown about the coronavirus, and plenty of time to judge whether California's actions helped or not. But the data on how many Americans died from the flu is pretty clear. We decided to take a look and fact check McClintock's claim. Our research A spokesperson for McClintock initially pointed to a September 2018 Associated Press article headlined 'CDC: 80,000 people died of flu last winter in U.S., highest death toll in 40 years.' The article cited Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as the source of the information. It described the disease's death toll as the highest in at least four decades. That total referred to the 2017-18 influenza season, which was two years ago. Notably, the CDC revised it down to 61,000 deaths, though many news articles still have the now out-dated 80,000 figure in their headlines. The CDC explained on its website the lower number is 'based on more recently available information,' and said there's 'a trade-off between timeliness and accuracy,' when it publishes its initial estimates. Last year, the CDC tallied 34,000 deaths during the 2018-19 influenza season, nowhere near McClintock's figure. McClintock's spokesperson said the congressman, at the time he made his statement, had not noticed the date of the news article. She said 'it has since been brought to his attention that the CDC later revised its number to 61,000.' In early March, PolitiFact National spoke with infectious disease experts who cautioned against comparing the flu and COVID-19. McClintock's claim about flu deaths suggests he believes the coronavirus threat is overblown. 'The prevalence of flu is higher at this moment in time,' said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University's Center for Health Security, in the March 10 article. '[But] pound for pound, if you had both viruses, the one that's more likely to make you die is the coronavirus.' Experts told PolitiFact in early May that COVID-19 still appears more lethal than the seasonal flu, noting that infection fatality rates that may seem small can lead to mounting death tolls. As of May 5, COVID-19 had killed 70,847 Americans, according to the Johns Hopkins University coronavirus tracker. Our rating Rep. Tom McClintock claimed 'the flu killed 80,000 Americans last year, according to the CDC.' In reality, 34,000 Americans died of the flu during the 2018-19 influenza season, according to the federal agency. McClintock said he relied on a 2018 news article, which cited the CDC's initial estimate of 80,000 deaths for the 2017-18 influenza season, a figure the agency later revised down to 61,000 deaths. The outdated figure remains in many 2018 news headlines. In the end, the congressman cited the wrong year and failed to note that a significant downward revision had been made, making his claim misleading at best. We rate McClintock's claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
|
Our rating Rep. Tom McClintock claimed 'the flu killed 80,000 Americans last year, according to the CDC.' In reality, 34,000 Americans died of the flu during the 2018-19 influenza season, according to the federal agency. McClintock said he relied on a 2018 news article, which cited the CDC's initial estimate of 80,000 deaths for the 2017-18 influenza season, a figure the agency later revised down to 61,000 deaths. The outdated figure remains in many 2018 news headlines. In the end, the congressman cited the wrong year and failed to note that a significant downward revision had been made, making his claim misleading at best. We rate McClintock's claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
|
[
"111987-proof-02-de988330b8cff304f9a228e212d80b6d.jpeg"
] |
'The flu killed 80,000 Americans last year according to the CDC.
|
Contradiction
|
Republican Congressman Tom McClintock has expressed a lot of skepticism over the threat of COVID-19. He's also described stay-at-home orders intended to slow the novel coronavirus as 'profoundly un-American.' 'The more data we receive, the more questions come up over this policy, including how severe is this disease actually?' McClintock, who represents a large swath of rural California east of Sacramento, said on CapRadio's Insight program on April 29. 'Does it justify destroying the jobs of millions of Californians? How many poverty-related deaths have we set into motion by plunging Californians into unemployment?' McClintock then claimed: 'The flu killed 80,000 Americans last year according to the CDC.' Similar statements about the flu are circulating on social media, in apparent efforts to downplay or question the threat of COVID-19. There's a lot that's still unknown about the coronavirus, and plenty of time to judge whether California's actions helped or not. But the data on how many Americans died from the flu is pretty clear. We decided to take a look and fact check McClintock's claim. Our research A spokesperson for McClintock initially pointed to a September 2018 Associated Press article headlined 'CDC: 80,000 people died of flu last winter in U.S., highest death toll in 40 years.' The article cited Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as the source of the information. It described the disease's death toll as the highest in at least four decades. That total referred to the 2017-18 influenza season, which was two years ago. Notably, the CDC revised it down to 61,000 deaths, though many news articles still have the now out-dated 80,000 figure in their headlines. The CDC explained on its website the lower number is 'based on more recently available information,' and said there's 'a trade-off between timeliness and accuracy,' when it publishes its initial estimates. Last year, the CDC tallied 34,000 deaths during the 2018-19 influenza season, nowhere near McClintock's figure. McClintock's spokesperson said the congressman, at the time he made his statement, had not noticed the date of the news article. She said 'it has since been brought to his attention that the CDC later revised its number to 61,000.' In early March, PolitiFact National spoke with infectious disease experts who cautioned against comparing the flu and COVID-19. McClintock's claim about flu deaths suggests he believes the coronavirus threat is overblown. 'The prevalence of flu is higher at this moment in time,' said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University's Center for Health Security, in the March 10 article. '[But] pound for pound, if you had both viruses, the one that's more likely to make you die is the coronavirus.' Experts told PolitiFact in early May that COVID-19 still appears more lethal than the seasonal flu, noting that infection fatality rates that may seem small can lead to mounting death tolls. As of May 5, COVID-19 had killed 70,847 Americans, according to the Johns Hopkins University coronavirus tracker. Our rating Rep. Tom McClintock claimed 'the flu killed 80,000 Americans last year, according to the CDC.' In reality, 34,000 Americans died of the flu during the 2018-19 influenza season, according to the federal agency. McClintock said he relied on a 2018 news article, which cited the CDC's initial estimate of 80,000 deaths for the 2017-18 influenza season, a figure the agency later revised down to 61,000 deaths. The outdated figure remains in many 2018 news headlines. In the end, the congressman cited the wrong year and failed to note that a significant downward revision had been made, making his claim misleading at best. We rate McClintock's claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
|
Our rating Rep. Tom McClintock claimed 'the flu killed 80,000 Americans last year, according to the CDC.' In reality, 34,000 Americans died of the flu during the 2018-19 influenza season, according to the federal agency. McClintock said he relied on a 2018 news article, which cited the CDC's initial estimate of 80,000 deaths for the 2017-18 influenza season, a figure the agency later revised down to 61,000 deaths. The outdated figure remains in many 2018 news headlines. In the end, the congressman cited the wrong year and failed to note that a significant downward revision had been made, making his claim misleading at best. We rate McClintock's claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
|
[
"111987-proof-02-de988330b8cff304f9a228e212d80b6d.jpeg"
] |
'The point of defunding the Police in Minneapolis is that Minnesota is where Obama settled 1 Million Islamics. They want Sharia Law.
|
Contradiction
|
Amid nationwide demonstrations against police brutality, some protesters are demanding the defunding of police departments. A Facebook post claims the reason why protesters in Minneapolis are calling for defunding police is that they want to establish Islamic law there. The claim ignores the fact that the city is where George Floyd died May 25 after a police officer kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes, sparking weeks of local and national protests. 'The point of defunding the Police in Minneapolis is that Minnesota is where Obama settled 1 Million Islamics. They want Sharia Law,' the June 8 post stated. 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.) Let's unpack this. Defunding the police The talk of defending the police doesn't necessarily mean defunding them entirely. As we've reported, while some protesters want to eliminate police departments, others want to revisit the functions of the police and redirect some of that funding toward other services. In Minneapolis, the City Council voted June 12 to begin efforts toward getting a charter amendment referendum on the November ballot. The proposal would eliminate the Minneapolis Police Department as a charter department and create a new public safety organization. A majority of council members have said they favor dismantling the Police Department. Settling 'Islamics' Refugee resettlement typically is reported based on the countries where refugees arrive from, not the religion they might practice. Minnesota, which has about 5.6 million people, has the nation's largest number of people from Somalia, where more than 99% of the population is Muslim. Islam's followers are Muslims, not 'Islamics.' About 1% of Minnesota's population is Muslim. We rated as Pants on Fire a claim that President Barack Obama settled 43,000 Somalian refugees in Minnesota as part of plans to elect Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Muslim and Minnesota Democrat, in 2018. About 6,320 refugees from Somalia were resettled in Minnesota between 2009 and 2017, when Obama served as president, but the pattern of Somali settlement in Minnesota long predated Obama's tenure in the White House. What Sharia means As we've reported, Sharia is a form of Islamic law, although Muslims differ on its interpretation. It is a wide-ranging set of rules that govern aspects of Islamic life, including religious practice, daily living and financial dealings. Muslims living in the United States can put marital disputes and other personal matters in front of a tribunal made up of leaders of their faith. That's allowed and has been used by Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Baptists and other religions for decades. It falls under the umbrella of mediation, when people agree to work out their differences through a process outside of the courts. For any other situation, the government's legal system prevails. . As Cyra Akila Choudhury, a law professor at Florida International University, told us for another fact-check: 'If Muslims choose to abide by Sharia as a private matter with regard to the practice of their religion, it is protected by the Constitution insofar as the practice does not contravene the laws of the land. So, for example, Sharia principles of criminal law would not be given accommodation.' We didn't find evidence of any effort to establish Sharia in Minneapolis. Micaela Schuneman, refugee services director for the International Institute of Minnesota, a nonprofit that does refugee resettlement in the Twin Cities, told PolitiFact that claiming that Muslims want to install Sharia 'is a fear tactic often cited by people opposed to refugee resettlement. But I am unaware of plans in any Minnesota communities to pass new laws or ordinances' based on Sharia. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which describes itself as the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, on June 10 called for dialogue with St. Charles, Mo., Mayor Dan Borgmeyer after Borgmeyer 'falsely' claimed that Muslims in Minneapolis are seeking to enact Islamic principles into law.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed: 'The point of defunding the Police in Minneapolis is that Minnesota is where Obama settled 1 Million Islamics. They want Sharia Law.' The number of refugees from Somalia, which is nearly 100% Muslim, resettled in Minnesota under Obama is 6,320. Minneapolis is where the death of George Floyd occurred, touching off protests against police racism brutality. There is no evidence that efforts to defund the police in Minneapolis are at all related to Sharia. We rate the post False.
|
[] |
'The point of defunding the Police in Minneapolis is that Minnesota is where Obama settled 1 Million Islamics. They want Sharia Law.
|
Contradiction
|
Amid nationwide demonstrations against police brutality, some protesters are demanding the defunding of police departments. A Facebook post claims the reason why protesters in Minneapolis are calling for defunding police is that they want to establish Islamic law there. The claim ignores the fact that the city is where George Floyd died May 25 after a police officer kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes, sparking weeks of local and national protests. 'The point of defunding the Police in Minneapolis is that Minnesota is where Obama settled 1 Million Islamics. They want Sharia Law,' the June 8 post stated. 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.) Let's unpack this. Defunding the police The talk of defending the police doesn't necessarily mean defunding them entirely. As we've reported, while some protesters want to eliminate police departments, others want to revisit the functions of the police and redirect some of that funding toward other services. In Minneapolis, the City Council voted June 12 to begin efforts toward getting a charter amendment referendum on the November ballot. The proposal would eliminate the Minneapolis Police Department as a charter department and create a new public safety organization. A majority of council members have said they favor dismantling the Police Department. Settling 'Islamics' Refugee resettlement typically is reported based on the countries where refugees arrive from, not the religion they might practice. Minnesota, which has about 5.6 million people, has the nation's largest number of people from Somalia, where more than 99% of the population is Muslim. Islam's followers are Muslims, not 'Islamics.' About 1% of Minnesota's population is Muslim. We rated as Pants on Fire a claim that President Barack Obama settled 43,000 Somalian refugees in Minnesota as part of plans to elect Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Muslim and Minnesota Democrat, in 2018. About 6,320 refugees from Somalia were resettled in Minnesota between 2009 and 2017, when Obama served as president, but the pattern of Somali settlement in Minnesota long predated Obama's tenure in the White House. What Sharia means As we've reported, Sharia is a form of Islamic law, although Muslims differ on its interpretation. It is a wide-ranging set of rules that govern aspects of Islamic life, including religious practice, daily living and financial dealings. Muslims living in the United States can put marital disputes and other personal matters in front of a tribunal made up of leaders of their faith. That's allowed and has been used by Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Baptists and other religions for decades. It falls under the umbrella of mediation, when people agree to work out their differences through a process outside of the courts. For any other situation, the government's legal system prevails. . As Cyra Akila Choudhury, a law professor at Florida International University, told us for another fact-check: 'If Muslims choose to abide by Sharia as a private matter with regard to the practice of their religion, it is protected by the Constitution insofar as the practice does not contravene the laws of the land. So, for example, Sharia principles of criminal law would not be given accommodation.' We didn't find evidence of any effort to establish Sharia in Minneapolis. Micaela Schuneman, refugee services director for the International Institute of Minnesota, a nonprofit that does refugee resettlement in the Twin Cities, told PolitiFact that claiming that Muslims want to install Sharia 'is a fear tactic often cited by people opposed to refugee resettlement. But I am unaware of plans in any Minnesota communities to pass new laws or ordinances' based on Sharia. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which describes itself as the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, on June 10 called for dialogue with St. Charles, Mo., Mayor Dan Borgmeyer after Borgmeyer 'falsely' claimed that Muslims in Minneapolis are seeking to enact Islamic principles into law.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed: 'The point of defunding the Police in Minneapolis is that Minnesota is where Obama settled 1 Million Islamics. They want Sharia Law.' The number of refugees from Somalia, which is nearly 100% Muslim, resettled in Minnesota under Obama is 6,320. Minneapolis is where the death of George Floyd occurred, touching off protests against police racism brutality. There is no evidence that efforts to defund the police in Minneapolis are at all related to Sharia. We rate the post False.
|
[] |
'The point of defunding the Police in Minneapolis is that Minnesota is where Obama settled 1 Million Islamics. They want Sharia Law.
|
Contradiction
|
Amid nationwide demonstrations against police brutality, some protesters are demanding the defunding of police departments. A Facebook post claims the reason why protesters in Minneapolis are calling for defunding police is that they want to establish Islamic law there. The claim ignores the fact that the city is where George Floyd died May 25 after a police officer kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes, sparking weeks of local and national protests. 'The point of defunding the Police in Minneapolis is that Minnesota is where Obama settled 1 Million Islamics. They want Sharia Law,' the June 8 post stated. 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.) Let's unpack this. Defunding the police The talk of defending the police doesn't necessarily mean defunding them entirely. As we've reported, while some protesters want to eliminate police departments, others want to revisit the functions of the police and redirect some of that funding toward other services. In Minneapolis, the City Council voted June 12 to begin efforts toward getting a charter amendment referendum on the November ballot. The proposal would eliminate the Minneapolis Police Department as a charter department and create a new public safety organization. A majority of council members have said they favor dismantling the Police Department. Settling 'Islamics' Refugee resettlement typically is reported based on the countries where refugees arrive from, not the religion they might practice. Minnesota, which has about 5.6 million people, has the nation's largest number of people from Somalia, where more than 99% of the population is Muslim. Islam's followers are Muslims, not 'Islamics.' About 1% of Minnesota's population is Muslim. We rated as Pants on Fire a claim that President Barack Obama settled 43,000 Somalian refugees in Minnesota as part of plans to elect Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Muslim and Minnesota Democrat, in 2018. About 6,320 refugees from Somalia were resettled in Minnesota between 2009 and 2017, when Obama served as president, but the pattern of Somali settlement in Minnesota long predated Obama's tenure in the White House. What Sharia means As we've reported, Sharia is a form of Islamic law, although Muslims differ on its interpretation. It is a wide-ranging set of rules that govern aspects of Islamic life, including religious practice, daily living and financial dealings. Muslims living in the United States can put marital disputes and other personal matters in front of a tribunal made up of leaders of their faith. That's allowed and has been used by Catholics, Jews, Lutherans, Baptists and other religions for decades. It falls under the umbrella of mediation, when people agree to work out their differences through a process outside of the courts. For any other situation, the government's legal system prevails. . As Cyra Akila Choudhury, a law professor at Florida International University, told us for another fact-check: 'If Muslims choose to abide by Sharia as a private matter with regard to the practice of their religion, it is protected by the Constitution insofar as the practice does not contravene the laws of the land. So, for example, Sharia principles of criminal law would not be given accommodation.' We didn't find evidence of any effort to establish Sharia in Minneapolis. Micaela Schuneman, refugee services director for the International Institute of Minnesota, a nonprofit that does refugee resettlement in the Twin Cities, told PolitiFact that claiming that Muslims want to install Sharia 'is a fear tactic often cited by people opposed to refugee resettlement. But I am unaware of plans in any Minnesota communities to pass new laws or ordinances' based on Sharia. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which describes itself as the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, on June 10 called for dialogue with St. Charles, Mo., Mayor Dan Borgmeyer after Borgmeyer 'falsely' claimed that Muslims in Minneapolis are seeking to enact Islamic principles into law.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed: 'The point of defunding the Police in Minneapolis is that Minnesota is where Obama settled 1 Million Islamics. They want Sharia Law.' The number of refugees from Somalia, which is nearly 100% Muslim, resettled in Minnesota under Obama is 6,320. Minneapolis is where the death of George Floyd occurred, touching off protests against police racism brutality. There is no evidence that efforts to defund the police in Minneapolis are at all related to Sharia. We rate the post False.
|
[] |
Says Bill Gates is linked to the discovery of vials labeled 'smallpox' at Pennsylvania lab.
|
Contradiction
|
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates participated in an interview earlier this month with former British health secretary Jeremy Hunt for the think tank Policy Exchange, where Gates urged more funding for a global research effort to prevent and prepare for the next pandemic. During the wide-ranging interview, Gates spoke of the need for a World Health Organization task force that could run what he called 'germ games,' where countries could prepare for bioterror attacks, citing as an example: 'What if a bioterrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports.' That interview, coupled with the recent news that vials labeled 'smallpox' were found in a Pennsylvania lab several days later, has sparked numerous social media claims suggesting the two are linked. One Facebook user wrote, 'Today ... and a week ago... ... Smell that?' with a side-by-side image showing headlines about the vial discovery and about Gates' warning. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence of a connection. The vials labeled 'smallpox' were found at a Merck lab in Montgomery County, outside Philadelphia, according to NBC Philadelphia. The CDC said the government was notified Nov. 15 that several frozen vials labeled 'smallpox' were found by a lab worker while cleaning out a freezer in a vaccine research lab in Pennsylvania. No one was exposed to the contents of the vials. Laboratory testing at the CDC later showed the vials contained vaccinia, the virus used in the smallpox vaccine, not variola virus, the cause of smallpox. 'CDC is in close contact with state and local health officials, law enforcement, and the World Health Organization about these findings,' the agency said. The CDC says on its website that there have been no cases of smallpox in the United States since 1949 and that it was declared eradicated by the World Health Assembly in 1980. However, it says research continues in the U.S. on the variola virus to prepare for a potential bioterror attack. The research is overseen by the WHO, and the only two sites where the variola virus can be stored and used for research are the CDC's site in Atlanta and a site in Russia. There is no indication that the Gates interview and the finding of the vials a week later are linked, and the post offers no evidence. The Facebook post uses a headline from an article in the The Independent that reads 'Bill Gates warns of smallpox terror attacks as he seeks research funds.' The headline doesn't capture the context of Gates' comments. Gates did not warn specifically of a smallpox attack in the interview, a long clip of which can be seen on YouTube (the portion discussing pandemic preparations begins at the 26:50 mark). He did suggest that governments fund more research in a worldwide effort to prepare for the next pandemic, which he said could come from bioterror attacks, citing a smallpox attack at airports as a possible example. Gates and his philanthropic foundation have been leaders in promoting vaccine research and distribution programs worldwide. They have also been frequent targets of misinformation since the pandemic began. PolitiFact has fact-checked numerous false claims about Gates and vaccines. Last month, we debunked a claim that Gates said he wanted to use vaccines to control the population. In August, we rated False another claim that Gates called for the 'withdrawal of all COVID-19 vaccines.' In March, we debunked a claim that the COVID-19 vaccine was merely an operating device used by Gates to program humans.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post suggests there's a link between a Bill Gates interview where he mentions possible smallpox attacks and the discovery of vials labeled 'smallpox' in a lab freezer in Pennsylvania a week later. There is no evidence linking the two, and the Gates interview was taken out of context in the headline used in the post. Gates did not warn of a smallpox attack. He simply said there was a need to prepare for the next pandemic, which could happen from a bioterror attack, using a smallpox attack at airports as one example. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Says Bill Gates is linked to the discovery of vials labeled 'smallpox' at Pennsylvania lab.
|
Contradiction
|
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates participated in an interview earlier this month with former British health secretary Jeremy Hunt for the think tank Policy Exchange, where Gates urged more funding for a global research effort to prevent and prepare for the next pandemic. During the wide-ranging interview, Gates spoke of the need for a World Health Organization task force that could run what he called 'germ games,' where countries could prepare for bioterror attacks, citing as an example: 'What if a bioterrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports.' That interview, coupled with the recent news that vials labeled 'smallpox' were found in a Pennsylvania lab several days later, has sparked numerous social media claims suggesting the two are linked. One Facebook user wrote, 'Today ... and a week ago... ... Smell that?' with a side-by-side image showing headlines about the vial discovery and about Gates' warning. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence of a connection. The vials labeled 'smallpox' were found at a Merck lab in Montgomery County, outside Philadelphia, according to NBC Philadelphia. The CDC said the government was notified Nov. 15 that several frozen vials labeled 'smallpox' were found by a lab worker while cleaning out a freezer in a vaccine research lab in Pennsylvania. No one was exposed to the contents of the vials. Laboratory testing at the CDC later showed the vials contained vaccinia, the virus used in the smallpox vaccine, not variola virus, the cause of smallpox. 'CDC is in close contact with state and local health officials, law enforcement, and the World Health Organization about these findings,' the agency said. The CDC says on its website that there have been no cases of smallpox in the United States since 1949 and that it was declared eradicated by the World Health Assembly in 1980. However, it says research continues in the U.S. on the variola virus to prepare for a potential bioterror attack. The research is overseen by the WHO, and the only two sites where the variola virus can be stored and used for research are the CDC's site in Atlanta and a site in Russia. There is no indication that the Gates interview and the finding of the vials a week later are linked, and the post offers no evidence. The Facebook post uses a headline from an article in the The Independent that reads 'Bill Gates warns of smallpox terror attacks as he seeks research funds.' The headline doesn't capture the context of Gates' comments. Gates did not warn specifically of a smallpox attack in the interview, a long clip of which can be seen on YouTube (the portion discussing pandemic preparations begins at the 26:50 mark). He did suggest that governments fund more research in a worldwide effort to prepare for the next pandemic, which he said could come from bioterror attacks, citing a smallpox attack at airports as a possible example. Gates and his philanthropic foundation have been leaders in promoting vaccine research and distribution programs worldwide. They have also been frequent targets of misinformation since the pandemic began. PolitiFact has fact-checked numerous false claims about Gates and vaccines. Last month, we debunked a claim that Gates said he wanted to use vaccines to control the population. In August, we rated False another claim that Gates called for the 'withdrawal of all COVID-19 vaccines.' In March, we debunked a claim that the COVID-19 vaccine was merely an operating device used by Gates to program humans.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post suggests there's a link between a Bill Gates interview where he mentions possible smallpox attacks and the discovery of vials labeled 'smallpox' in a lab freezer in Pennsylvania a week later. There is no evidence linking the two, and the Gates interview was taken out of context in the headline used in the post. Gates did not warn of a smallpox attack. He simply said there was a need to prepare for the next pandemic, which could happen from a bioterror attack, using a smallpox attack at airports as one example. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Says Bill Gates is linked to the discovery of vials labeled 'smallpox' at Pennsylvania lab.
|
Contradiction
|
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates participated in an interview earlier this month with former British health secretary Jeremy Hunt for the think tank Policy Exchange, where Gates urged more funding for a global research effort to prevent and prepare for the next pandemic. During the wide-ranging interview, Gates spoke of the need for a World Health Organization task force that could run what he called 'germ games,' where countries could prepare for bioterror attacks, citing as an example: 'What if a bioterrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports.' That interview, coupled with the recent news that vials labeled 'smallpox' were found in a Pennsylvania lab several days later, has sparked numerous social media claims suggesting the two are linked. One Facebook user wrote, 'Today ... and a week ago... ... Smell that?' with a side-by-side image showing headlines about the vial discovery and about Gates' warning. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence of a connection. The vials labeled 'smallpox' were found at a Merck lab in Montgomery County, outside Philadelphia, according to NBC Philadelphia. The CDC said the government was notified Nov. 15 that several frozen vials labeled 'smallpox' were found by a lab worker while cleaning out a freezer in a vaccine research lab in Pennsylvania. No one was exposed to the contents of the vials. Laboratory testing at the CDC later showed the vials contained vaccinia, the virus used in the smallpox vaccine, not variola virus, the cause of smallpox. 'CDC is in close contact with state and local health officials, law enforcement, and the World Health Organization about these findings,' the agency said. The CDC says on its website that there have been no cases of smallpox in the United States since 1949 and that it was declared eradicated by the World Health Assembly in 1980. However, it says research continues in the U.S. on the variola virus to prepare for a potential bioterror attack. The research is overseen by the WHO, and the only two sites where the variola virus can be stored and used for research are the CDC's site in Atlanta and a site in Russia. There is no indication that the Gates interview and the finding of the vials a week later are linked, and the post offers no evidence. The Facebook post uses a headline from an article in the The Independent that reads 'Bill Gates warns of smallpox terror attacks as he seeks research funds.' The headline doesn't capture the context of Gates' comments. Gates did not warn specifically of a smallpox attack in the interview, a long clip of which can be seen on YouTube (the portion discussing pandemic preparations begins at the 26:50 mark). He did suggest that governments fund more research in a worldwide effort to prepare for the next pandemic, which he said could come from bioterror attacks, citing a smallpox attack at airports as a possible example. Gates and his philanthropic foundation have been leaders in promoting vaccine research and distribution programs worldwide. They have also been frequent targets of misinformation since the pandemic began. PolitiFact has fact-checked numerous false claims about Gates and vaccines. Last month, we debunked a claim that Gates said he wanted to use vaccines to control the population. In August, we rated False another claim that Gates called for the 'withdrawal of all COVID-19 vaccines.' In March, we debunked a claim that the COVID-19 vaccine was merely an operating device used by Gates to program humans.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post suggests there's a link between a Bill Gates interview where he mentions possible smallpox attacks and the discovery of vials labeled 'smallpox' in a lab freezer in Pennsylvania a week later. There is no evidence linking the two, and the Gates interview was taken out of context in the headline used in the post. Gates did not warn of a smallpox attack. He simply said there was a need to prepare for the next pandemic, which could happen from a bioterror attack, using a smallpox attack at airports as one example. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Officials 'recommend that women who get one of these (COVID-19) shots should absolutely not get pregnant for at least the first two months after they've been injected.
|
Contradiction
|
New research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows no evidence that the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines pose serious risks during pregnancy. But that hasn't stopped online spreaders of misinformation from making unfounded claims about the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines being linked to things like pregnancy complications or infertility. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, an osteopathic physician and anti-vaccine activist, is among the people making these claims. She is the author of an anti-vaccine book and has previously said vaccines cause autism, a claim widely debunked by public health officials. A Facebook page Tenpenny ran was removed in December for spreading misinformation In a nearly 10-minute long video being circulated on Instagram, Tenpenny made a variety of claims about the vaccines, which she says were 'designed to kill human fertility.' Tenpenny claimed that officials 'recommend that women who get one of these shots should absolutely not get pregnant for at least the first two months after they've been injected. Why? Because the spike protein can bind to the ovary and we have no idea what the spike protein and the antibody to the spike protein could possibly do to the reproductive tract.' She also claimed that this 'spike protein' could bind to sperm causing myriad unknown effects if that sperm fertilized an egg. 'We have no idea what sort of genetic or birth defect problems that could actually happen,' Tenpenny said. 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.) These claims are false. There is no evidence the mRNA vaccines cause infertility or pose serious risks to those who are vaccinated while trying to get pregnant. There is also no evidence that public health officials or the companies that produce the mRNA vaccines have advised people to pause efforts to conceive a child or to avoid unprotected sex for a period of time after they are vaccinated. The CDC is clear on its guidance for people who are trying to conceive or would like to get pregnant someday. 'If you are trying to become pregnant now or want to get pregnant in the future, you may receive a COVID-19 vaccine when one is available to you,' the website reads. 'There is currently no evidence that any vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, cause fertility problems. ... If you are trying to become pregnant, you do not need to avoid pregnancy after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.' In a statement, a spokesperson for Pfizer - the vaccine Tenpenny singled out by name in the video - said there 'are no data to suggest that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine causes infertility.' The statement continued: 'It has been incorrectly suggested that COVID-19 vaccines will cause infertility because of a very short amino acid sequence in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 that is partly shared with the placental protein, syncytin-1. The sequence, however, is so short, not even 4 amino acids in a row, but rather 4 shared amino acids in a sequence of 5, that it is very unlikely that it could lead to the body generating an immune response that would result in the body attacking itself or the placenta.' In addition, experts cited by Johns Hopkins Medicine, UChicago Medicine and Columbia University Irving Medical Center reached similar conclusions: There is no evidence getting the COVID-19 vaccine will affect a person's fertility or increase the chances of harm to the placenta or fetus. Other fact-checking organizations have also debunked several of Tenpenny's other claims in the video.
|
Our ruling Tenpenny claimed that it is recommended 'women who get one of these shots should absolutely not get pregnant for at least the first two months after they've been injected' because an ingredient in the coronavirus vaccines might cause unknown problems during pregnancy. This is false. The CDC and medical experts recommend people get vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as the vaccine becomes available to them - even if they are actively trying to conceive. Experts also agree that there is no evidence the mRNA vaccines cause fertility problems. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Officials 'recommend that women who get one of these (COVID-19) shots should absolutely not get pregnant for at least the first two months after they've been injected.
|
Contradiction
|
New research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows no evidence that the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines pose serious risks during pregnancy. But that hasn't stopped online spreaders of misinformation from making unfounded claims about the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines being linked to things like pregnancy complications or infertility. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, an osteopathic physician and anti-vaccine activist, is among the people making these claims. She is the author of an anti-vaccine book and has previously said vaccines cause autism, a claim widely debunked by public health officials. A Facebook page Tenpenny ran was removed in December for spreading misinformation In a nearly 10-minute long video being circulated on Instagram, Tenpenny made a variety of claims about the vaccines, which she says were 'designed to kill human fertility.' Tenpenny claimed that officials 'recommend that women who get one of these shots should absolutely not get pregnant for at least the first two months after they've been injected. Why? Because the spike protein can bind to the ovary and we have no idea what the spike protein and the antibody to the spike protein could possibly do to the reproductive tract.' She also claimed that this 'spike protein' could bind to sperm causing myriad unknown effects if that sperm fertilized an egg. 'We have no idea what sort of genetic or birth defect problems that could actually happen,' Tenpenny said. 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.) These claims are false. There is no evidence the mRNA vaccines cause infertility or pose serious risks to those who are vaccinated while trying to get pregnant. There is also no evidence that public health officials or the companies that produce the mRNA vaccines have advised people to pause efforts to conceive a child or to avoid unprotected sex for a period of time after they are vaccinated. The CDC is clear on its guidance for people who are trying to conceive or would like to get pregnant someday. 'If you are trying to become pregnant now or want to get pregnant in the future, you may receive a COVID-19 vaccine when one is available to you,' the website reads. 'There is currently no evidence that any vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, cause fertility problems. ... If you are trying to become pregnant, you do not need to avoid pregnancy after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.' In a statement, a spokesperson for Pfizer - the vaccine Tenpenny singled out by name in the video - said there 'are no data to suggest that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine causes infertility.' The statement continued: 'It has been incorrectly suggested that COVID-19 vaccines will cause infertility because of a very short amino acid sequence in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 that is partly shared with the placental protein, syncytin-1. The sequence, however, is so short, not even 4 amino acids in a row, but rather 4 shared amino acids in a sequence of 5, that it is very unlikely that it could lead to the body generating an immune response that would result in the body attacking itself or the placenta.' In addition, experts cited by Johns Hopkins Medicine, UChicago Medicine and Columbia University Irving Medical Center reached similar conclusions: There is no evidence getting the COVID-19 vaccine will affect a person's fertility or increase the chances of harm to the placenta or fetus. Other fact-checking organizations have also debunked several of Tenpenny's other claims in the video.
|
Our ruling Tenpenny claimed that it is recommended 'women who get one of these shots should absolutely not get pregnant for at least the first two months after they've been injected' because an ingredient in the coronavirus vaccines might cause unknown problems during pregnancy. This is false. The CDC and medical experts recommend people get vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as the vaccine becomes available to them - even if they are actively trying to conceive. Experts also agree that there is no evidence the mRNA vaccines cause fertility problems. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Black Lives Matter protest at Iowa Capitol was an 'insurrection' like that on Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol.
|
Contradiction
|
Social media posts and a number of conservative blogs shared claims that likened a Black Lives Matter-related protest at the Iowa State Capitol that resulted in one arrest to the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol that left five people dead, including a U.S. Capitol Police officer. We found this claim in a Gateway Pundit story headlined 'INSURRECTION? Black Lives Matter Goons Take Over Iowa Capitol,' a DJHJ Media blog and post, and a number of widely shared Instagram posts with the words 'Insurrection at the Iowa State Capitol' underneath video from the protest. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The event in Iowa, where speakers included Cortez Rice of Minneapolis, nephew of George Floyd, was held as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was on trial for murder in Floyd's death. According to news reports, it was much different from the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol in at least two significant ways. Protesting bills vs insurrection In Iowa a 'Kill the Racist Bills' demonstration, billed in social media posts promoting the event as a Black Lives Matter protest, was organized by Advocates for Social Justice, which says its mission 'is to create social, political and environmental change within the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) community, prioritizing the objectives of the #BLM movement.' The group protested four bills introduced in the Iowa Legislature that it said would 'go against the Black Lives Matter movement's progress and will negatively affect lower-income communities and communities of color.' Rally organizers showed reporters a copy of a state permit they obtained to hold the rally outside the Capitol and in the building's Rotunda, the Des Moines Register reported. The few dozen protesters waited in line to go through a metal detector and get a temperature check from security guards before entering the Capitol, according to Iowa Public Radio. They did not disrupt any legislative proceedings. The Washington attack came after President Donald Trump repeatedly said he wanted his supporters to fight Congress on accepting the Electoral College results that showed Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. On Jan. 6, thousands of Trump supporters attended a Trump speech near the White House, in which he invited the crowd to walk to the Capitol, before protesters charged into the Capitol, causing Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress to flee to safety. Many in the crowd, some of whom scaled walls and broke through windows, said their intent was to stop the vote confirmation and keep Trump in office despite the election results. That's an insurrection. One arrest vs hundreds In Iowa, a state trooper told the Register that as the group protested inside the Iowa Capitol, an 18-year-old protester asked him and another trooper for their badge numbers. The trooper said the teen was arrested after grabbing his arm, though other protesters told the newspaper said she did not grab him. The protest, witnessed by Register staff, was peaceful before the woman was arrested. Some protesters started scuffling with troopers, but that ended quickly, and protesters left the building, Iowa Public Radio reported. Participants had just finished lying on the ground for what is called a 'die-in' to honor Floyd, who was killed after Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck for a little over 9 minutes. For the Washington riot, at least 368 people have been arrested or charged, USA Today reported April 9. The list includes individuals arrested on charges filed by federal prosecutors and those arrested by Capitol Police and D.C. Metro Police for entering the Capitol or for crimes related to weapons or violence. In its latest announcement, the Justice Department said April 5 that a member of the far-right group Proud Boys and his brother were ordered to be held without bond on charges including conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding of law enforcement and destruction of government property. The FBI has a Most Wanted List of people suspected of entering the Capitol unlawfully, assaulting officers or destroying property.
|
Our ruling Social media posts likened a BLM protest at the Iowa Capitol to the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol. The Iowa demonstrators, protesting four bills, obtained a permit for their rally and entered the state Capitol peacefully and were screened by security; they did not storm the building or disrupt legislative proceedings. One protester was arrested. The U.S. Capitol insurrection was largely aimed at overturning the results of the presidential election by disrupting the counting of electoral votes. It left five people dead and has resulted in at least 368 people being arrested or charged. Statements that liken the two events ignore evidence showing the Iowa protest was not an insurrection, did not involve breaking into a government building and no damage or injuries were reported. We rate these claims False.
|
[
"112029-proof-11-6ad58567fbf57ab072b6953031497929.jpg"
] |
Black Lives Matter protest at Iowa Capitol was an 'insurrection' like that on Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol.
|
Contradiction
|
Social media posts and a number of conservative blogs shared claims that likened a Black Lives Matter-related protest at the Iowa State Capitol that resulted in one arrest to the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol that left five people dead, including a U.S. Capitol Police officer. We found this claim in a Gateway Pundit story headlined 'INSURRECTION? Black Lives Matter Goons Take Over Iowa Capitol,' a DJHJ Media blog and post, and a number of widely shared Instagram posts with the words 'Insurrection at the Iowa State Capitol' underneath video from the protest. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The event in Iowa, where speakers included Cortez Rice of Minneapolis, nephew of George Floyd, was held as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was on trial for murder in Floyd's death. According to news reports, it was much different from the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol in at least two significant ways. Protesting bills vs insurrection In Iowa a 'Kill the Racist Bills' demonstration, billed in social media posts promoting the event as a Black Lives Matter protest, was organized by Advocates for Social Justice, which says its mission 'is to create social, political and environmental change within the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) community, prioritizing the objectives of the #BLM movement.' The group protested four bills introduced in the Iowa Legislature that it said would 'go against the Black Lives Matter movement's progress and will negatively affect lower-income communities and communities of color.' Rally organizers showed reporters a copy of a state permit they obtained to hold the rally outside the Capitol and in the building's Rotunda, the Des Moines Register reported. The few dozen protesters waited in line to go through a metal detector and get a temperature check from security guards before entering the Capitol, according to Iowa Public Radio. They did not disrupt any legislative proceedings. The Washington attack came after President Donald Trump repeatedly said he wanted his supporters to fight Congress on accepting the Electoral College results that showed Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. On Jan. 6, thousands of Trump supporters attended a Trump speech near the White House, in which he invited the crowd to walk to the Capitol, before protesters charged into the Capitol, causing Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress to flee to safety. Many in the crowd, some of whom scaled walls and broke through windows, said their intent was to stop the vote confirmation and keep Trump in office despite the election results. That's an insurrection. One arrest vs hundreds In Iowa, a state trooper told the Register that as the group protested inside the Iowa Capitol, an 18-year-old protester asked him and another trooper for their badge numbers. The trooper said the teen was arrested after grabbing his arm, though other protesters told the newspaper said she did not grab him. The protest, witnessed by Register staff, was peaceful before the woman was arrested. Some protesters started scuffling with troopers, but that ended quickly, and protesters left the building, Iowa Public Radio reported. Participants had just finished lying on the ground for what is called a 'die-in' to honor Floyd, who was killed after Chauvin had his knee on Floyd's neck for a little over 9 minutes. For the Washington riot, at least 368 people have been arrested or charged, USA Today reported April 9. The list includes individuals arrested on charges filed by federal prosecutors and those arrested by Capitol Police and D.C. Metro Police for entering the Capitol or for crimes related to weapons or violence. In its latest announcement, the Justice Department said April 5 that a member of the far-right group Proud Boys and his brother were ordered to be held without bond on charges including conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding of law enforcement and destruction of government property. The FBI has a Most Wanted List of people suspected of entering the Capitol unlawfully, assaulting officers or destroying property.
|
Our ruling Social media posts likened a BLM protest at the Iowa Capitol to the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol. The Iowa demonstrators, protesting four bills, obtained a permit for their rally and entered the state Capitol peacefully and were screened by security; they did not storm the building or disrupt legislative proceedings. One protester was arrested. The U.S. Capitol insurrection was largely aimed at overturning the results of the presidential election by disrupting the counting of electoral votes. It left five people dead and has resulted in at least 368 people being arrested or charged. Statements that liken the two events ignore evidence showing the Iowa protest was not an insurrection, did not involve breaking into a government building and no damage or injuries were reported. We rate these claims False.
|
[
"112029-proof-11-6ad58567fbf57ab072b6953031497929.jpg"
] |
'40 years of research, and no vaccine for HIV. At least 100 years of research and no vaccine for cancer. Ongoing research and no vaccine for the common cold.
|
Contradiction
|
It typically takes years to develop and approve vaccines, yet for COVID-19, first reported in late 2019, federal regulators are already reviewing vaccines that researchers say are more than 94% effective. The speed of the vaccines' development has some people on social media questioning their safety. 'So let me get this straight,' says a Dec. 6 Facebook post. '40 years of research, and no vaccine for HIV. At least 100 years of research and no vaccine for cancer. Ongoing research, and no vaccine for the common cold. Now in less than a year, there's a vaccine for COVID-19??? Nah I think I'll pass on that shot!!!' 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 facts show that what accounts for the disparity is not undue haste with the COVID-19 vaccine, but rather important differences between the illnesses highlighted in the post, and a new approach to vaccine development. For example, there are many types of cancers, and only a few are known to be caused by viruses. 'So a universal vaccine to prevent 'cancer' is not something that is possible or pursued,' said Jan Carette, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine. 'For specific viruses that cause specific forms of cancer, vaccines have been developed.' The post also ignores unique medical challenges in creating vaccines against HIV and the common cold. COVID-19 vaccines The COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer that are up for review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are a type called 'mRNA.' Researchers have been studying this type of vaccine technology for decades. Most vaccines trigger an immune response by introducing weakened or inactivated versions of the disease-causing pathogen (such as a virus or bacterium) into the body. The mRNA vaccines, by contrast, use a genetic messenger to teach cells in the body how to make a protein - or even just a piece of a protein - to trigger an immune response. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more information on how COVID-19 mRNA vaccines work.) An mRNA vaccine has shorter manufacturing times and can be developed in labs using readily available materials. 'This means the process can be standardized and scaled up, making vaccine development faster than traditional methods,' according to the CDC. Health officials have said that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are being held to the same rigorous safety and effectiveness standards as all other types of vaccines allowed in the United States. The Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed, an initiative to help speed up the development, manufacturing and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and other therapeutics, has also played a significant role in getting the vaccines to market. The federal government has made vaccine deals totaling more than $9 billion with multiple private companies. The deals vary in scope; some are only for the purchase of vaccines, other agreements provide funding for the research and manufacturing of vaccines. Flawed comparison to HIV, cancer, common cold The CDC says there are seven types of coronaviruses that can infect people. One of them is the new virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2. A study published in November by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said that vaccines may be more effective on a current and common strain of SARS-CoV-2, compared with a previous strain of the virus. Common cold: Around 80% of common cold cases are caused by rhinoviruses - of which there are over 100 different types, many circulating at the same time, said Carette, the Stanford researcher. The common cold can also be caused by many different respiratory viruses, making it difficult for a single vaccine to target all varieties of the cold. The possibility of a vaccine composed of 50, 100 or more distinct human rhinovirus antigens 'has been viewed as formidable or impossible and has discouraged many vaccine makers,' Carette said. HIV: A vaccine against the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS, has proved especially challenging because the immune system responds to HIV differently from other viruses. While all viruses change, HIV mutates rapidly and has unique ways of evading the immune system. 'There are no documented cases of a person living with HIV developing an immune response that cleared the infection,' says the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. In clinical trials, inactivated HIV has not been effective at eliciting immune responses and, a live form of HIV is too dangerous to use, according to the institute. Research on an HIV vaccine has been going on since the 1980s. Cancer: There are vaccines available to help prevent human papillomavirus infections, and some strains of HPV have been linked to some cancers. Most cervical cancers are caused by infection with HPV, according to the American Cancer Society. The American Cancer Society also says that people who have long-term infections with the hepatitis B virus are at higher risk for liver cancer, and getting a hepatitis B vaccine may lower some people's risk of getting liver cancer. There are also vaccines to treat certain types of cancers; these vaccines are intended to work against cancer cells, not against something that causes cancer. 'Sometimes a patient's own immune cells are removed and exposed to these substances in the lab to create the vaccine,' the cancer society says. 'Once the vaccine is ready, it's injected into the body to increase the immune response against cancer cells.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed, '40 years of research, and no vaccine for HIV. At least 100 years of research and no vaccine for cancer. Ongoing research and no vaccine for the common cold. Now in less than a year, there's a vaccine for COVID-19?' The post questions the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines on that basis. Vaccines for COVID-19 were poised to be evaluated by regulators about a year after the virus was discovered. But the post goes too far in drawing conclusions about the vaccines' safety based on how quickly they were developed compared with efforts to fight other illnesses. It ignores important differences in the development process, and characteristics of the illnesses that make them not directly comparable to COVID-19. Health officials have said that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are being held to the same rigorous safety and effectiveness standards as all other types of vaccines allowed in the United States. The post contains elements of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the post Mostly False.
|
[
"112032-proof-07-55cf3ec643c4b405788218f7258f970e.jpg"
] |
'40 years of research, and no vaccine for HIV. At least 100 years of research and no vaccine for cancer. Ongoing research and no vaccine for the common cold.
|
Contradiction
|
It typically takes years to develop and approve vaccines, yet for COVID-19, first reported in late 2019, federal regulators are already reviewing vaccines that researchers say are more than 94% effective. The speed of the vaccines' development has some people on social media questioning their safety. 'So let me get this straight,' says a Dec. 6 Facebook post. '40 years of research, and no vaccine for HIV. At least 100 years of research and no vaccine for cancer. Ongoing research, and no vaccine for the common cold. Now in less than a year, there's a vaccine for COVID-19??? Nah I think I'll pass on that shot!!!' 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 facts show that what accounts for the disparity is not undue haste with the COVID-19 vaccine, but rather important differences between the illnesses highlighted in the post, and a new approach to vaccine development. For example, there are many types of cancers, and only a few are known to be caused by viruses. 'So a universal vaccine to prevent 'cancer' is not something that is possible or pursued,' said Jan Carette, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine. 'For specific viruses that cause specific forms of cancer, vaccines have been developed.' The post also ignores unique medical challenges in creating vaccines against HIV and the common cold. COVID-19 vaccines The COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer that are up for review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are a type called 'mRNA.' Researchers have been studying this type of vaccine technology for decades. Most vaccines trigger an immune response by introducing weakened or inactivated versions of the disease-causing pathogen (such as a virus or bacterium) into the body. The mRNA vaccines, by contrast, use a genetic messenger to teach cells in the body how to make a protein - or even just a piece of a protein - to trigger an immune response. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more information on how COVID-19 mRNA vaccines work.) An mRNA vaccine has shorter manufacturing times and can be developed in labs using readily available materials. 'This means the process can be standardized and scaled up, making vaccine development faster than traditional methods,' according to the CDC. Health officials have said that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are being held to the same rigorous safety and effectiveness standards as all other types of vaccines allowed in the United States. The Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed, an initiative to help speed up the development, manufacturing and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and other therapeutics, has also played a significant role in getting the vaccines to market. The federal government has made vaccine deals totaling more than $9 billion with multiple private companies. The deals vary in scope; some are only for the purchase of vaccines, other agreements provide funding for the research and manufacturing of vaccines. Flawed comparison to HIV, cancer, common cold The CDC says there are seven types of coronaviruses that can infect people. One of them is the new virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2. A study published in November by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said that vaccines may be more effective on a current and common strain of SARS-CoV-2, compared with a previous strain of the virus. Common cold: Around 80% of common cold cases are caused by rhinoviruses - of which there are over 100 different types, many circulating at the same time, said Carette, the Stanford researcher. The common cold can also be caused by many different respiratory viruses, making it difficult for a single vaccine to target all varieties of the cold. The possibility of a vaccine composed of 50, 100 or more distinct human rhinovirus antigens 'has been viewed as formidable or impossible and has discouraged many vaccine makers,' Carette said. HIV: A vaccine against the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS, has proved especially challenging because the immune system responds to HIV differently from other viruses. While all viruses change, HIV mutates rapidly and has unique ways of evading the immune system. 'There are no documented cases of a person living with HIV developing an immune response that cleared the infection,' says the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. In clinical trials, inactivated HIV has not been effective at eliciting immune responses and, a live form of HIV is too dangerous to use, according to the institute. Research on an HIV vaccine has been going on since the 1980s. Cancer: There are vaccines available to help prevent human papillomavirus infections, and some strains of HPV have been linked to some cancers. Most cervical cancers are caused by infection with HPV, according to the American Cancer Society. The American Cancer Society also says that people who have long-term infections with the hepatitis B virus are at higher risk for liver cancer, and getting a hepatitis B vaccine may lower some people's risk of getting liver cancer. There are also vaccines to treat certain types of cancers; these vaccines are intended to work against cancer cells, not against something that causes cancer. 'Sometimes a patient's own immune cells are removed and exposed to these substances in the lab to create the vaccine,' the cancer society says. 'Once the vaccine is ready, it's injected into the body to increase the immune response against cancer cells.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed, '40 years of research, and no vaccine for HIV. At least 100 years of research and no vaccine for cancer. Ongoing research and no vaccine for the common cold. Now in less than a year, there's a vaccine for COVID-19?' The post questions the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines on that basis. Vaccines for COVID-19 were poised to be evaluated by regulators about a year after the virus was discovered. But the post goes too far in drawing conclusions about the vaccines' safety based on how quickly they were developed compared with efforts to fight other illnesses. It ignores important differences in the development process, and characteristics of the illnesses that make them not directly comparable to COVID-19. Health officials have said that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are being held to the same rigorous safety and effectiveness standards as all other types of vaccines allowed in the United States. The post contains elements of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the post Mostly False.
|
[
"112032-proof-07-55cf3ec643c4b405788218f7258f970e.jpg"
] |
'40 years of research, and no vaccine for HIV. At least 100 years of research and no vaccine for cancer. Ongoing research and no vaccine for the common cold.
|
Contradiction
|
It typically takes years to develop and approve vaccines, yet for COVID-19, first reported in late 2019, federal regulators are already reviewing vaccines that researchers say are more than 94% effective. The speed of the vaccines' development has some people on social media questioning their safety. 'So let me get this straight,' says a Dec. 6 Facebook post. '40 years of research, and no vaccine for HIV. At least 100 years of research and no vaccine for cancer. Ongoing research, and no vaccine for the common cold. Now in less than a year, there's a vaccine for COVID-19??? Nah I think I'll pass on that shot!!!' 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 facts show that what accounts for the disparity is not undue haste with the COVID-19 vaccine, but rather important differences between the illnesses highlighted in the post, and a new approach to vaccine development. For example, there are many types of cancers, and only a few are known to be caused by viruses. 'So a universal vaccine to prevent 'cancer' is not something that is possible or pursued,' said Jan Carette, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine. 'For specific viruses that cause specific forms of cancer, vaccines have been developed.' The post also ignores unique medical challenges in creating vaccines against HIV and the common cold. COVID-19 vaccines The COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer that are up for review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are a type called 'mRNA.' Researchers have been studying this type of vaccine technology for decades. Most vaccines trigger an immune response by introducing weakened or inactivated versions of the disease-causing pathogen (such as a virus or bacterium) into the body. The mRNA vaccines, by contrast, use a genetic messenger to teach cells in the body how to make a protein - or even just a piece of a protein - to trigger an immune response. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more information on how COVID-19 mRNA vaccines work.) An mRNA vaccine has shorter manufacturing times and can be developed in labs using readily available materials. 'This means the process can be standardized and scaled up, making vaccine development faster than traditional methods,' according to the CDC. Health officials have said that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are being held to the same rigorous safety and effectiveness standards as all other types of vaccines allowed in the United States. The Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed, an initiative to help speed up the development, manufacturing and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and other therapeutics, has also played a significant role in getting the vaccines to market. The federal government has made vaccine deals totaling more than $9 billion with multiple private companies. The deals vary in scope; some are only for the purchase of vaccines, other agreements provide funding for the research and manufacturing of vaccines. Flawed comparison to HIV, cancer, common cold The CDC says there are seven types of coronaviruses that can infect people. One of them is the new virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2. A study published in November by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said that vaccines may be more effective on a current and common strain of SARS-CoV-2, compared with a previous strain of the virus. Common cold: Around 80% of common cold cases are caused by rhinoviruses - of which there are over 100 different types, many circulating at the same time, said Carette, the Stanford researcher. The common cold can also be caused by many different respiratory viruses, making it difficult for a single vaccine to target all varieties of the cold. The possibility of a vaccine composed of 50, 100 or more distinct human rhinovirus antigens 'has been viewed as formidable or impossible and has discouraged many vaccine makers,' Carette said. HIV: A vaccine against the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS, has proved especially challenging because the immune system responds to HIV differently from other viruses. While all viruses change, HIV mutates rapidly and has unique ways of evading the immune system. 'There are no documented cases of a person living with HIV developing an immune response that cleared the infection,' says the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. In clinical trials, inactivated HIV has not been effective at eliciting immune responses and, a live form of HIV is too dangerous to use, according to the institute. Research on an HIV vaccine has been going on since the 1980s. Cancer: There are vaccines available to help prevent human papillomavirus infections, and some strains of HPV have been linked to some cancers. Most cervical cancers are caused by infection with HPV, according to the American Cancer Society. The American Cancer Society also says that people who have long-term infections with the hepatitis B virus are at higher risk for liver cancer, and getting a hepatitis B vaccine may lower some people's risk of getting liver cancer. There are also vaccines to treat certain types of cancers; these vaccines are intended to work against cancer cells, not against something that causes cancer. 'Sometimes a patient's own immune cells are removed and exposed to these substances in the lab to create the vaccine,' the cancer society says. 'Once the vaccine is ready, it's injected into the body to increase the immune response against cancer cells.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed, '40 years of research, and no vaccine for HIV. At least 100 years of research and no vaccine for cancer. Ongoing research and no vaccine for the common cold. Now in less than a year, there's a vaccine for COVID-19?' The post questions the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines on that basis. Vaccines for COVID-19 were poised to be evaluated by regulators about a year after the virus was discovered. But the post goes too far in drawing conclusions about the vaccines' safety based on how quickly they were developed compared with efforts to fight other illnesses. It ignores important differences in the development process, and characteristics of the illnesses that make them not directly comparable to COVID-19. Health officials have said that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are being held to the same rigorous safety and effectiveness standards as all other types of vaccines allowed in the United States. The post contains elements of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the post Mostly False.
|
[
"112032-proof-07-55cf3ec643c4b405788218f7258f970e.jpg"
] |
'40 years of research, and no vaccine for HIV. At least 100 years of research and no vaccine for cancer. Ongoing research and no vaccine for the common cold.
|
Contradiction
|
It typically takes years to develop and approve vaccines, yet for COVID-19, first reported in late 2019, federal regulators are already reviewing vaccines that researchers say are more than 94% effective. The speed of the vaccines' development has some people on social media questioning their safety. 'So let me get this straight,' says a Dec. 6 Facebook post. '40 years of research, and no vaccine for HIV. At least 100 years of research and no vaccine for cancer. Ongoing research, and no vaccine for the common cold. Now in less than a year, there's a vaccine for COVID-19??? Nah I think I'll pass on that shot!!!' 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 facts show that what accounts for the disparity is not undue haste with the COVID-19 vaccine, but rather important differences between the illnesses highlighted in the post, and a new approach to vaccine development. For example, there are many types of cancers, and only a few are known to be caused by viruses. 'So a universal vaccine to prevent 'cancer' is not something that is possible or pursued,' said Jan Carette, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine. 'For specific viruses that cause specific forms of cancer, vaccines have been developed.' The post also ignores unique medical challenges in creating vaccines against HIV and the common cold. COVID-19 vaccines The COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer that are up for review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are a type called 'mRNA.' Researchers have been studying this type of vaccine technology for decades. Most vaccines trigger an immune response by introducing weakened or inactivated versions of the disease-causing pathogen (such as a virus or bacterium) into the body. The mRNA vaccines, by contrast, use a genetic messenger to teach cells in the body how to make a protein - or even just a piece of a protein - to trigger an immune response. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more information on how COVID-19 mRNA vaccines work.) An mRNA vaccine has shorter manufacturing times and can be developed in labs using readily available materials. 'This means the process can be standardized and scaled up, making vaccine development faster than traditional methods,' according to the CDC. Health officials have said that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are being held to the same rigorous safety and effectiveness standards as all other types of vaccines allowed in the United States. The Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed, an initiative to help speed up the development, manufacturing and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and other therapeutics, has also played a significant role in getting the vaccines to market. The federal government has made vaccine deals totaling more than $9 billion with multiple private companies. The deals vary in scope; some are only for the purchase of vaccines, other agreements provide funding for the research and manufacturing of vaccines. Flawed comparison to HIV, cancer, common cold The CDC says there are seven types of coronaviruses that can infect people. One of them is the new virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2. A study published in November by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said that vaccines may be more effective on a current and common strain of SARS-CoV-2, compared with a previous strain of the virus. Common cold: Around 80% of common cold cases are caused by rhinoviruses - of which there are over 100 different types, many circulating at the same time, said Carette, the Stanford researcher. The common cold can also be caused by many different respiratory viruses, making it difficult for a single vaccine to target all varieties of the cold. The possibility of a vaccine composed of 50, 100 or more distinct human rhinovirus antigens 'has been viewed as formidable or impossible and has discouraged many vaccine makers,' Carette said. HIV: A vaccine against the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS, has proved especially challenging because the immune system responds to HIV differently from other viruses. While all viruses change, HIV mutates rapidly and has unique ways of evading the immune system. 'There are no documented cases of a person living with HIV developing an immune response that cleared the infection,' says the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. In clinical trials, inactivated HIV has not been effective at eliciting immune responses and, a live form of HIV is too dangerous to use, according to the institute. Research on an HIV vaccine has been going on since the 1980s. Cancer: There are vaccines available to help prevent human papillomavirus infections, and some strains of HPV have been linked to some cancers. Most cervical cancers are caused by infection with HPV, according to the American Cancer Society. The American Cancer Society also says that people who have long-term infections with the hepatitis B virus are at higher risk for liver cancer, and getting a hepatitis B vaccine may lower some people's risk of getting liver cancer. There are also vaccines to treat certain types of cancers; these vaccines are intended to work against cancer cells, not against something that causes cancer. 'Sometimes a patient's own immune cells are removed and exposed to these substances in the lab to create the vaccine,' the cancer society says. 'Once the vaccine is ready, it's injected into the body to increase the immune response against cancer cells.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claimed, '40 years of research, and no vaccine for HIV. At least 100 years of research and no vaccine for cancer. Ongoing research and no vaccine for the common cold. Now in less than a year, there's a vaccine for COVID-19?' The post questions the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines on that basis. Vaccines for COVID-19 were poised to be evaluated by regulators about a year after the virus was discovered. But the post goes too far in drawing conclusions about the vaccines' safety based on how quickly they were developed compared with efforts to fight other illnesses. It ignores important differences in the development process, and characteristics of the illnesses that make them not directly comparable to COVID-19. Health officials have said that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are being held to the same rigorous safety and effectiveness standards as all other types of vaccines allowed in the United States. The post contains elements of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the post Mostly False.
|
[
"112032-proof-07-55cf3ec643c4b405788218f7258f970e.jpg"
] |
'Germany halts all Covid-19 vaccines, says they are unsafe and no longer recommended!!'
|
Contradiction
|
The headline of a recent blog post would be big news - and bruising to efforts to vaccinate people against COVID-19 - if it were true. But it's not. 'Germany halts all Covid-19 vaccines, says they are unsafe and no longer recommended!!' reads the headline of an Aug. 27 post. The post shows a man identified as Stephan Kohn, director of 'RKI,' which in Germany is an acronym for the Robert Koch Institute, the country's public health institute. He appears in front of a screen that says 'basiscamp.live' and 'a global pandemic exit exercise.' 'We have been receiving reports on side effects of the corona vaccinations which have triggered the federal government to pass a moratorium and that means the vaccinations are not recommended any longer,' he says in the video. 'Second, the license of the vaccinations has been put on hold for the next two weeks.' 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.) Basecamp.live, according to its website, was a 20-hour, live-streamed pandemic exit exercise that happened between May and August. 'The crisis team of a fictitious German government met' and discussed vaccines and more. Kohn is not actually the director of the Robert Kohn Institute. Dr. Lothar Wieler has been president and head of the institute since March 2015. And Wieler has not said anything like Kohn says in the video. Rather, Kohn said the vaccination rate needs to increase to avoid another wave, the Associated Press reported on Sept. 8. According to a page on the German Federal Ministry of Health's website, more than 61% of the country's population were fully vaccinated as of Sept. 7. The site shows daily vaccine doses administered; tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of shots were given each day since this post was published. Four COVID-19 vaccines have been approved for use in Germany: Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca. In March, the country halted use of the AstraZeneca vaccine for people younger than 60 because of concerns it would cause fatal blood clots. In July, Reuters reported Germany would donate all of its remaining AstraZeneca vaccines to less developed countries. But Germany has not stopped its vaccination effort against COVID-19, as this post claims. That allegation originated in a role-playing exercise, but it wasn't real. We rate it False.
|
We rate it False.
|
[] |
Photo shows Joe Biden groping Jen Psaki.
|
Contradiction
|
An old, doctored photo that appears to show President Joe Biden inappropriately touching a woman is back with a new twist. Now the image features White House press secretary Jen Psaki, who wasn't in the original photo. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The original photo was taken at a 2013 holiday party when Biden was vice president. It shows him with his hands on the waist of The Hill reporter Amie Parnes. The picture drew attention back then because Biden was criticized for how high his hands were. 'Photo of famously friendly Biden goes viral,' read a Today headline. 'Vice President Joe Biden gropes White House reporter,' the Daily Caller said. Parnes had published the photo on her Facebook page, according to Today. She and Biden were joined by an NBC producer and then-second lady Jill Biden. But later that month, a blog posted a fake news story with a doctored photo that showed Biden's hands much higher, on her chest. A bottle of Wild Turkey bourbon also appears to be sticking out of his pocket. We rated claims that the photo was authentic False. Now that Psaki's been edited into the image, we're upping the ante. Pants on Fire!
|
We rated claims that the photo was authentic False. Now that Psaki's been edited into the image, we're upping the ante. Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
'We have a mayor in D.C. who formed a commission with recommendations. Her recommendation is: Take down the Washington Monument, close up the Lincoln Monument.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump attacked Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser, wrongly accusing her during a campaign rally of recommending that the city get rid of two storied landmarks. 'We have a mayor in D.C. who formed a commission with recommendations,' Trump said Oct. 24 in Circleville, Ohio. 'Her recommendation is: Take down the Washington Monument, close up the Lincoln Monument. No, no. These are serious. You read about it.' 'I said, 'No, thank you. No, thank you. No, thank you, madam mayor. We're going to keep the Washington Monument just the way it is.' These people. These people are crazy.' Trump's comment mischaracterized the recommendations of a city commission that spent the summer reviewing the namesakes of more than 1,300 schools, buildings, parks, streets, public spaces and monuments throughout the nation's capital. The working group suggested that the city rename a number of its properties, often because of the namesakes' connections to slavery, systemic racism or other forms of social injustice. It also called on Bowser to urge the federal government to 'remove, relocate or contextualize'' eight federal statues and memorials, including the Washington Monument. But Bowser never recommended that the city 'take down' the Washington Monument or 'close up' the Lincoln Memorial. The Lincoln Memorial was never mentioned in the commission's report, which has since been edited to remove the recommendations for federal properties. Situated on the National Mall, both the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial are on federal land, putting them outside of the control of Bowser or the city government. Renaming them would require action from Congress, according to DCist. The mayor's office and Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment. Bowser didn't call for removing the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial Bowser convened the working group in July following unrest in Washington and elsewhere over the May police killing of George Floyd, a Black man from Minneapolis. The purpose of the commission, Bowser said on Twitter, was to ensure that the legacies of people honored with their names on buildings or other public spaces were consistent with the city's values. In a 24-page report published in September, the commission laid out whether certain city-owned facilities should be 'removed, renamed or contextualized.' The group looked primarily at whether the namesakes had 'key disqualifying histories,' such as participation in slavery, systemic racism or the mistreatment of minority groups. It suggested that the city rename 21 of its public schools; nine of its residential buildings and campuses; 12 of its parks, fields and playgrounds; and seven of its government buildings. Relevant to Trump's claim, the commission also recommended that Bowser use her position on the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission to lobby the federal government to 'remove, relocate or contextualize' eight federal properties. The report did not specify what it was recommending for each of the properties listed, which included iconic landmarks such as the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument, both named for former presidents who enslaved people. But the rollout of the report was met with criticism from the White House and the president's allies, some of whom misrepresented the report's intentions as calling for the removal of the Washington Monument, according to the Washington Post. To address the confusion, Bowser had the report shortened by a page, removing the page related to federal properties. LaToya Foster, a spokesperson for Bowser's office, told the Washington Post the commission's proposal for the federal properties was 'contextualizing, not removing.' 'Mayor Bowser has asked the (committee) to clarify and refine their recommendations to focus on local D.C.,' Foster said, according to the Washington Post. Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser speaks during a news conference on Sept. 4, 2020, in Washington. (AP/Brandon) 'My expectation of the report was that it would not include any recommendations on federal buildings,' Bowser said in a Sept. 3 press conference. 'When I saw the final report, and I could see immediately how its recommendations could be easily misconstrued or purposely misconstrued, so we removed it.' FactCheck.org, the Associated Press and USA Today previously debunked social media posts that, like Trump, wrongly accused Bowser of calling for the Washington Monument's removal.
|
Our ruling Trump said, 'We have a mayor in D.C. who formed a commission with recommendations. Her recommendation is: Take down the Washington Monument, close up the Lincoln Monument. No, no. These are serious.' Bowser has not petitioned for tearing down the Washington Monument or Lincoln Memorial. A report from a working group she established in July did urge her to encourage the federal government to 'remove, relocate or contextualize' the Washington Monument, not the Lincoln Memorial. But the mayor had the references to federal monuments deleted from the report, and her office quickly clarified that the commission's call was for 'contextualizing, not removing.' We rate Trump's statement Mostly False.
|
[
"112059-proof-25-7cfd802538daf04016faabdaf8e2769c.jpg"
] |
'We have a mayor in D.C. who formed a commission with recommendations. Her recommendation is: Take down the Washington Monument, close up the Lincoln Monument.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump attacked Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser, wrongly accusing her during a campaign rally of recommending that the city get rid of two storied landmarks. 'We have a mayor in D.C. who formed a commission with recommendations,' Trump said Oct. 24 in Circleville, Ohio. 'Her recommendation is: Take down the Washington Monument, close up the Lincoln Monument. No, no. These are serious. You read about it.' 'I said, 'No, thank you. No, thank you. No, thank you, madam mayor. We're going to keep the Washington Monument just the way it is.' These people. These people are crazy.' Trump's comment mischaracterized the recommendations of a city commission that spent the summer reviewing the namesakes of more than 1,300 schools, buildings, parks, streets, public spaces and monuments throughout the nation's capital. The working group suggested that the city rename a number of its properties, often because of the namesakes' connections to slavery, systemic racism or other forms of social injustice. It also called on Bowser to urge the federal government to 'remove, relocate or contextualize'' eight federal statues and memorials, including the Washington Monument. But Bowser never recommended that the city 'take down' the Washington Monument or 'close up' the Lincoln Memorial. The Lincoln Memorial was never mentioned in the commission's report, which has since been edited to remove the recommendations for federal properties. Situated on the National Mall, both the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial are on federal land, putting them outside of the control of Bowser or the city government. Renaming them would require action from Congress, according to DCist. The mayor's office and Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment. Bowser didn't call for removing the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial Bowser convened the working group in July following unrest in Washington and elsewhere over the May police killing of George Floyd, a Black man from Minneapolis. The purpose of the commission, Bowser said on Twitter, was to ensure that the legacies of people honored with their names on buildings or other public spaces were consistent with the city's values. In a 24-page report published in September, the commission laid out whether certain city-owned facilities should be 'removed, renamed or contextualized.' The group looked primarily at whether the namesakes had 'key disqualifying histories,' such as participation in slavery, systemic racism or the mistreatment of minority groups. It suggested that the city rename 21 of its public schools; nine of its residential buildings and campuses; 12 of its parks, fields and playgrounds; and seven of its government buildings. Relevant to Trump's claim, the commission also recommended that Bowser use her position on the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission to lobby the federal government to 'remove, relocate or contextualize' eight federal properties. The report did not specify what it was recommending for each of the properties listed, which included iconic landmarks such as the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument, both named for former presidents who enslaved people. But the rollout of the report was met with criticism from the White House and the president's allies, some of whom misrepresented the report's intentions as calling for the removal of the Washington Monument, according to the Washington Post. To address the confusion, Bowser had the report shortened by a page, removing the page related to federal properties. LaToya Foster, a spokesperson for Bowser's office, told the Washington Post the commission's proposal for the federal properties was 'contextualizing, not removing.' 'Mayor Bowser has asked the (committee) to clarify and refine their recommendations to focus on local D.C.,' Foster said, according to the Washington Post. Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser speaks during a news conference on Sept. 4, 2020, in Washington. (AP/Brandon) 'My expectation of the report was that it would not include any recommendations on federal buildings,' Bowser said in a Sept. 3 press conference. 'When I saw the final report, and I could see immediately how its recommendations could be easily misconstrued or purposely misconstrued, so we removed it.' FactCheck.org, the Associated Press and USA Today previously debunked social media posts that, like Trump, wrongly accused Bowser of calling for the Washington Monument's removal.
|
Our ruling Trump said, 'We have a mayor in D.C. who formed a commission with recommendations. Her recommendation is: Take down the Washington Monument, close up the Lincoln Monument. No, no. These are serious.' Bowser has not petitioned for tearing down the Washington Monument or Lincoln Memorial. A report from a working group she established in July did urge her to encourage the federal government to 'remove, relocate or contextualize' the Washington Monument, not the Lincoln Memorial. But the mayor had the references to federal monuments deleted from the report, and her office quickly clarified that the commission's call was for 'contextualizing, not removing.' We rate Trump's statement Mostly False.
|
[
"112059-proof-25-7cfd802538daf04016faabdaf8e2769c.jpg"
] |
'We have a mayor in D.C. who formed a commission with recommendations. Her recommendation is: Take down the Washington Monument, close up the Lincoln Monument.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump attacked Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser, wrongly accusing her during a campaign rally of recommending that the city get rid of two storied landmarks. 'We have a mayor in D.C. who formed a commission with recommendations,' Trump said Oct. 24 in Circleville, Ohio. 'Her recommendation is: Take down the Washington Monument, close up the Lincoln Monument. No, no. These are serious. You read about it.' 'I said, 'No, thank you. No, thank you. No, thank you, madam mayor. We're going to keep the Washington Monument just the way it is.' These people. These people are crazy.' Trump's comment mischaracterized the recommendations of a city commission that spent the summer reviewing the namesakes of more than 1,300 schools, buildings, parks, streets, public spaces and monuments throughout the nation's capital. The working group suggested that the city rename a number of its properties, often because of the namesakes' connections to slavery, systemic racism or other forms of social injustice. It also called on Bowser to urge the federal government to 'remove, relocate or contextualize'' eight federal statues and memorials, including the Washington Monument. But Bowser never recommended that the city 'take down' the Washington Monument or 'close up' the Lincoln Memorial. The Lincoln Memorial was never mentioned in the commission's report, which has since been edited to remove the recommendations for federal properties. Situated on the National Mall, both the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial are on federal land, putting them outside of the control of Bowser or the city government. Renaming them would require action from Congress, according to DCist. The mayor's office and Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment. Bowser didn't call for removing the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial Bowser convened the working group in July following unrest in Washington and elsewhere over the May police killing of George Floyd, a Black man from Minneapolis. The purpose of the commission, Bowser said on Twitter, was to ensure that the legacies of people honored with their names on buildings or other public spaces were consistent with the city's values. In a 24-page report published in September, the commission laid out whether certain city-owned facilities should be 'removed, renamed or contextualized.' The group looked primarily at whether the namesakes had 'key disqualifying histories,' such as participation in slavery, systemic racism or the mistreatment of minority groups. It suggested that the city rename 21 of its public schools; nine of its residential buildings and campuses; 12 of its parks, fields and playgrounds; and seven of its government buildings. Relevant to Trump's claim, the commission also recommended that Bowser use her position on the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission to lobby the federal government to 'remove, relocate or contextualize' eight federal properties. The report did not specify what it was recommending for each of the properties listed, which included iconic landmarks such as the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument, both named for former presidents who enslaved people. But the rollout of the report was met with criticism from the White House and the president's allies, some of whom misrepresented the report's intentions as calling for the removal of the Washington Monument, according to the Washington Post. To address the confusion, Bowser had the report shortened by a page, removing the page related to federal properties. LaToya Foster, a spokesperson for Bowser's office, told the Washington Post the commission's proposal for the federal properties was 'contextualizing, not removing.' 'Mayor Bowser has asked the (committee) to clarify and refine their recommendations to focus on local D.C.,' Foster said, according to the Washington Post. Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser speaks during a news conference on Sept. 4, 2020, in Washington. (AP/Brandon) 'My expectation of the report was that it would not include any recommendations on federal buildings,' Bowser said in a Sept. 3 press conference. 'When I saw the final report, and I could see immediately how its recommendations could be easily misconstrued or purposely misconstrued, so we removed it.' FactCheck.org, the Associated Press and USA Today previously debunked social media posts that, like Trump, wrongly accused Bowser of calling for the Washington Monument's removal.
|
Our ruling Trump said, 'We have a mayor in D.C. who formed a commission with recommendations. Her recommendation is: Take down the Washington Monument, close up the Lincoln Monument. No, no. These are serious.' Bowser has not petitioned for tearing down the Washington Monument or Lincoln Memorial. A report from a working group she established in July did urge her to encourage the federal government to 'remove, relocate or contextualize' the Washington Monument, not the Lincoln Memorial. But the mayor had the references to federal monuments deleted from the report, and her office quickly clarified that the commission's call was for 'contextualizing, not removing.' We rate Trump's statement Mostly False.
|
[
"112059-proof-25-7cfd802538daf04016faabdaf8e2769c.jpg"
] |
Thalidomide was FDA-approved for pregnant women in the 1960s.
|
Contradiction
|
CORRECTION, Aug. 31, 1 p.m.: This fact-check has been corrected to reflect that the FDA approved thalidomide in the late 1990s, under strict conditions, as a treatment for people with multiple myeloma and lesions from leprosy, and required an extensive warning that it not be used by pregnant women. We've clarified the ruling statement to capture the context of the claim more precisely. The rating is not changed. The original fact-check has been archived here. Since the Food and Drug Administration granted full approval to Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for adults Aug. 23, many skeptics of the vaccine have gone on social media to challenge the agency's safety record and credibility. 'Thalidomide was also FDA approved,' says one Facebook post, referring to a drug first used more than six decades ago to treat morning sickness. The post includes a black-and-white picture of four children at a pool who have missing or malformed limbs, leaving the impression that these children were harmed by an FDA-approved drug. This Aug. 23 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.) Thalidomide was widely prescribed to pregnant mothers around the world before it was shown to cause thousands of cases of babies born with disabilities, such as missing and malformed limbs. But the post gets a key fact wrong: The FDA didn't approve thalidomide for pregnant women. In 1960, FDA medical officer Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, reviewing an approval application for thalidomide from drug maker Richardson-Merrell, found problems with the company's claims about its effectiveness. 'The claims were just not supported by the type of clinical studies that had been submitted in the application,' Kelsey said in an autobiographical interview. A transcript of her interviews was provided by the FDA. Many of the doctors' reports submitted with the application were 'more testimonials than scientific studies,' Kelsey said. She also looked into reports that thalidomide's side effects for adults included painful tingling in the hands and feet. Thousands of babies whose mothers took the drug while pregnant were born with severe defects to their limbs, internal organs, eyesight and hearing. Richardson-Merrell withdrew the application in 1962. By then, the company and another drug maker, Smith, Kline & French, had already given about 20,000 Americans thalidomide as part of clinical trials - and at least 17 babies were born with disabilities from the drug. The thalidomide case is often held up as a turning point in the FDA's evaluation of drugs and medical devices. FDA standards are today considered among the world's strictest, said Dr. Henry Miller, senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, former FDA medical reviewer and founding director of the agency's Office of Biotechnology. It was the thalidomide case that led the Kennedy administration in 1962 to enact the Kefauver-Harris Amendments, which tightened regulations for drug reviews, including a requirement that evidence of a drug's effectiveness be 'based on adequate and well-controlled clinical studies conducted by qualified experts.' A 1997 law simplified the process for drug reviews but the FDA still generally requires results from two well-controlled clinical studies for a drug approval. The approved Pfizer vaccine and the other vaccines authorized for emergency use were evaluated based on the FDA's evidence standards. Even with the stricter standards, the FDA has approved products that were later shown to cause harm, such as breast implants, which were linked to anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, and Vioxx, an anti-inflammatory pain medicine that was pulled from the market in 2004 after a study showed it raised the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Thalidomide did get FDA approval in 1998, under tight restrictions, as a medicine to treat people newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma or leprosy flare ups. The FDA approval required the drug to carry new warning labels, including an extensive warning that it should not be used by women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant, because of the risk of 'severe and life-threatening human birth defects (deformed babies) or death of an unborn baby.'
|
Our ruling A post implicitly questioning the FDA's approval of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine showed a picture of disabled children and said, 'Thalidomide was also FDA approved.' The post gave the impression that the children in the image were harmed by an FDA-approved drug. The FDA reviewed an application for a thalidomide drug in the 1960s to treat morning sickness, but withheld approval amid concerns about the evidence of effectiveness and reports that it caused children of the mothers who took it to be born with disabilities. The application was withdrawn in 1962. The FDA approved thalidomide in 1998 for other conditions, but not for use by pregnant women. We rate the claim False.
|
[
"112067-proof-21-c7322719daab7b9793c7b968ef44a614.jpg"
] |
Thalidomide was FDA-approved for pregnant women in the 1960s.
|
Contradiction
|
CORRECTION, Aug. 31, 1 p.m.: This fact-check has been corrected to reflect that the FDA approved thalidomide in the late 1990s, under strict conditions, as a treatment for people with multiple myeloma and lesions from leprosy, and required an extensive warning that it not be used by pregnant women. We've clarified the ruling statement to capture the context of the claim more precisely. The rating is not changed. The original fact-check has been archived here. Since the Food and Drug Administration granted full approval to Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for adults Aug. 23, many skeptics of the vaccine have gone on social media to challenge the agency's safety record and credibility. 'Thalidomide was also FDA approved,' says one Facebook post, referring to a drug first used more than six decades ago to treat morning sickness. The post includes a black-and-white picture of four children at a pool who have missing or malformed limbs, leaving the impression that these children were harmed by an FDA-approved drug. This Aug. 23 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.) Thalidomide was widely prescribed to pregnant mothers around the world before it was shown to cause thousands of cases of babies born with disabilities, such as missing and malformed limbs. But the post gets a key fact wrong: The FDA didn't approve thalidomide for pregnant women. In 1960, FDA medical officer Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, reviewing an approval application for thalidomide from drug maker Richardson-Merrell, found problems with the company's claims about its effectiveness. 'The claims were just not supported by the type of clinical studies that had been submitted in the application,' Kelsey said in an autobiographical interview. A transcript of her interviews was provided by the FDA. Many of the doctors' reports submitted with the application were 'more testimonials than scientific studies,' Kelsey said. She also looked into reports that thalidomide's side effects for adults included painful tingling in the hands and feet. Thousands of babies whose mothers took the drug while pregnant were born with severe defects to their limbs, internal organs, eyesight and hearing. Richardson-Merrell withdrew the application in 1962. By then, the company and another drug maker, Smith, Kline & French, had already given about 20,000 Americans thalidomide as part of clinical trials - and at least 17 babies were born with disabilities from the drug. The thalidomide case is often held up as a turning point in the FDA's evaluation of drugs and medical devices. FDA standards are today considered among the world's strictest, said Dr. Henry Miller, senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, former FDA medical reviewer and founding director of the agency's Office of Biotechnology. It was the thalidomide case that led the Kennedy administration in 1962 to enact the Kefauver-Harris Amendments, which tightened regulations for drug reviews, including a requirement that evidence of a drug's effectiveness be 'based on adequate and well-controlled clinical studies conducted by qualified experts.' A 1997 law simplified the process for drug reviews but the FDA still generally requires results from two well-controlled clinical studies for a drug approval. The approved Pfizer vaccine and the other vaccines authorized for emergency use were evaluated based on the FDA's evidence standards. Even with the stricter standards, the FDA has approved products that were later shown to cause harm, such as breast implants, which were linked to anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, and Vioxx, an anti-inflammatory pain medicine that was pulled from the market in 2004 after a study showed it raised the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Thalidomide did get FDA approval in 1998, under tight restrictions, as a medicine to treat people newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma or leprosy flare ups. The FDA approval required the drug to carry new warning labels, including an extensive warning that it should not be used by women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant, because of the risk of 'severe and life-threatening human birth defects (deformed babies) or death of an unborn baby.'
|
Our ruling A post implicitly questioning the FDA's approval of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine showed a picture of disabled children and said, 'Thalidomide was also FDA approved.' The post gave the impression that the children in the image were harmed by an FDA-approved drug. The FDA reviewed an application for a thalidomide drug in the 1960s to treat morning sickness, but withheld approval amid concerns about the evidence of effectiveness and reports that it caused children of the mothers who took it to be born with disabilities. The application was withdrawn in 1962. The FDA approved thalidomide in 1998 for other conditions, but not for use by pregnant women. We rate the claim False.
|
[
"112067-proof-21-c7322719daab7b9793c7b968ef44a614.jpg"
] |
Thalidomide was FDA-approved for pregnant women in the 1960s.
|
Contradiction
|
CORRECTION, Aug. 31, 1 p.m.: This fact-check has been corrected to reflect that the FDA approved thalidomide in the late 1990s, under strict conditions, as a treatment for people with multiple myeloma and lesions from leprosy, and required an extensive warning that it not be used by pregnant women. We've clarified the ruling statement to capture the context of the claim more precisely. The rating is not changed. The original fact-check has been archived here. Since the Food and Drug Administration granted full approval to Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for adults Aug. 23, many skeptics of the vaccine have gone on social media to challenge the agency's safety record and credibility. 'Thalidomide was also FDA approved,' says one Facebook post, referring to a drug first used more than six decades ago to treat morning sickness. The post includes a black-and-white picture of four children at a pool who have missing or malformed limbs, leaving the impression that these children were harmed by an FDA-approved drug. This Aug. 23 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.) Thalidomide was widely prescribed to pregnant mothers around the world before it was shown to cause thousands of cases of babies born with disabilities, such as missing and malformed limbs. But the post gets a key fact wrong: The FDA didn't approve thalidomide for pregnant women. In 1960, FDA medical officer Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, reviewing an approval application for thalidomide from drug maker Richardson-Merrell, found problems with the company's claims about its effectiveness. 'The claims were just not supported by the type of clinical studies that had been submitted in the application,' Kelsey said in an autobiographical interview. A transcript of her interviews was provided by the FDA. Many of the doctors' reports submitted with the application were 'more testimonials than scientific studies,' Kelsey said. She also looked into reports that thalidomide's side effects for adults included painful tingling in the hands and feet. Thousands of babies whose mothers took the drug while pregnant were born with severe defects to their limbs, internal organs, eyesight and hearing. Richardson-Merrell withdrew the application in 1962. By then, the company and another drug maker, Smith, Kline & French, had already given about 20,000 Americans thalidomide as part of clinical trials - and at least 17 babies were born with disabilities from the drug. The thalidomide case is often held up as a turning point in the FDA's evaluation of drugs and medical devices. FDA standards are today considered among the world's strictest, said Dr. Henry Miller, senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, former FDA medical reviewer and founding director of the agency's Office of Biotechnology. It was the thalidomide case that led the Kennedy administration in 1962 to enact the Kefauver-Harris Amendments, which tightened regulations for drug reviews, including a requirement that evidence of a drug's effectiveness be 'based on adequate and well-controlled clinical studies conducted by qualified experts.' A 1997 law simplified the process for drug reviews but the FDA still generally requires results from two well-controlled clinical studies for a drug approval. The approved Pfizer vaccine and the other vaccines authorized for emergency use were evaluated based on the FDA's evidence standards. Even with the stricter standards, the FDA has approved products that were later shown to cause harm, such as breast implants, which were linked to anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, and Vioxx, an anti-inflammatory pain medicine that was pulled from the market in 2004 after a study showed it raised the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Thalidomide did get FDA approval in 1998, under tight restrictions, as a medicine to treat people newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma or leprosy flare ups. The FDA approval required the drug to carry new warning labels, including an extensive warning that it should not be used by women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant, because of the risk of 'severe and life-threatening human birth defects (deformed babies) or death of an unborn baby.'
|
Our ruling A post implicitly questioning the FDA's approval of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine showed a picture of disabled children and said, 'Thalidomide was also FDA approved.' The post gave the impression that the children in the image were harmed by an FDA-approved drug. The FDA reviewed an application for a thalidomide drug in the 1960s to treat morning sickness, but withheld approval amid concerns about the evidence of effectiveness and reports that it caused children of the mothers who took it to be born with disabilities. The application was withdrawn in 1962. The FDA approved thalidomide in 1998 for other conditions, but not for use by pregnant women. We rate the claim False.
|
[
"112067-proof-21-c7322719daab7b9793c7b968ef44a614.jpg"
] |
Says Nancy Pelosi passed a bill awarding a $9 billion contract to her husband's company.
|
Contradiction
|
Did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi abuse her position by passing a bill that gave a $9 billion dollar contract to her husband's company? That's the claim of a viral Facebook post, which makes a series of baseless allegations next to a photo of Nancy Pelosi and her husband. It reads: 'This is Paul Pelosi AKA Nancy Pelosis husband. He owns Financial leasing services L.L.C. a San Francisco Real estate venture capitalist firm. His net worth is a 120 million. Why is this important his wife Nancy Sits on the House Appropriations Committee. This committee appropriates funds to the United States Postal Service and others. (Why is this important.) Easy. Because she passed a bill to off 9 Billion dollars that's right 9 Billion worth of Federally Owned Post Office property and awarded the contract to none other than Financial Leasing Services LLC. Her husband's firm. Why is this important? The commission's rate was set at 9%. That is almost a billion dollar contract.' Let's tackle the claims one by one. Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul does own and operate Financial Leasing Services, a San Francisco-based investment firm. But that's where the truth in this post appears to begin and end. First, Nancy Pelosi hasn't been an active member of the House Appropriations Committee for 18 years, Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill told us. As speaker, Pelosi doesn't serve on any committees. 'This is all completely false,' Hamill told PolitiFact. Next, there is no evidence to support the assertion that Pelosi passed a bill to give her husband's company a $9 billion contract to sell postal service property. The bill referenced by the post seems to have been made up. No such bill exists. The post could be conflating Nancy Pelosi with Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., whose husband's company received a contract to broker the sale of USPS facilities in 2011. The contract was scrutinized closely by news outlets, and people still occasionally post about it on Facebook. However, Snopes found that there was 'no proof [Feinstein's husband or his company] had obtained or kept their contract with the USPS due to the influence of Sen. Feinstein.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post asserted that Nancy Pelosi used her position on the House Appropriations Committee to pass a bill giving her husband a $9 billion contract to sell Postal Service properties. However, Pelosi hasn't held a seat on the House Appropriations Committee for 18 years and no such bill exists. We rate this post Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Says Nancy Pelosi passed a bill awarding a $9 billion contract to her husband's company.
|
Contradiction
|
Did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi abuse her position by passing a bill that gave a $9 billion dollar contract to her husband's company? That's the claim of a viral Facebook post, which makes a series of baseless allegations next to a photo of Nancy Pelosi and her husband. It reads: 'This is Paul Pelosi AKA Nancy Pelosis husband. He owns Financial leasing services L.L.C. a San Francisco Real estate venture capitalist firm. His net worth is a 120 million. Why is this important his wife Nancy Sits on the House Appropriations Committee. This committee appropriates funds to the United States Postal Service and others. (Why is this important.) Easy. Because she passed a bill to off 9 Billion dollars that's right 9 Billion worth of Federally Owned Post Office property and awarded the contract to none other than Financial Leasing Services LLC. Her husband's firm. Why is this important? The commission's rate was set at 9%. That is almost a billion dollar contract.' Let's tackle the claims one by one. Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul does own and operate Financial Leasing Services, a San Francisco-based investment firm. But that's where the truth in this post appears to begin and end. First, Nancy Pelosi hasn't been an active member of the House Appropriations Committee for 18 years, Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill told us. As speaker, Pelosi doesn't serve on any committees. 'This is all completely false,' Hamill told PolitiFact. Next, there is no evidence to support the assertion that Pelosi passed a bill to give her husband's company a $9 billion contract to sell postal service property. The bill referenced by the post seems to have been made up. No such bill exists. The post could be conflating Nancy Pelosi with Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., whose husband's company received a contract to broker the sale of USPS facilities in 2011. The contract was scrutinized closely by news outlets, and people still occasionally post about it on Facebook. However, Snopes found that there was 'no proof [Feinstein's husband or his company] had obtained or kept their contract with the USPS due to the influence of Sen. Feinstein.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post asserted that Nancy Pelosi used her position on the House Appropriations Committee to pass a bill giving her husband a $9 billion contract to sell Postal Service properties. However, Pelosi hasn't held a seat on the House Appropriations Committee for 18 years and no such bill exists. We rate this post Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
'Because our family couldn't afford health insurance, Obama/Biden penalized us about $10,000, then took that $10,000 and used it to pay for others' free Obamacare. Trump ended that theft.
|
Contradiction
|
A viral Facebook post claims that former President Barack Obama's health insurance law penalized a family a large amount of money for not buying health insurance and that President Donald Trump was responsible for stopping the practice. The post features writing on the back of a car windshield that says, 'Because our family couldn't afford health insurance, Obama/Biden penalized us about $10,000, then took that $10,000 and used it to pay for others' free Obamacare. Trump ended that theft.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) We found a similar post on Instagram. The post appears to refer to the individual mandate penalty, a tax under the Affordable Care Act placed on those who chose not to get health insurance. At the end of 2017, Republican-backed tax legislation, also supported by Trump, zeroed out the fine. Beginning in 2019, people could no longer be penalized for not having health insurance. Thus, the mandate hasn't been in effect for about two years. But $10,000 - the hefty amount this family was supposedly penalized for not having health insurance - raised questions for us. And was that money really used to pay for other people's health insurance? We decided to look into it. The history of the individual mandate The ACA was implemented in 2010 during the Obama administration. The aim of the health care law - often referred to as Obamacare - was to ensure everyone had health insurance. To that end, the law used what health policy experts call a 'carrot-and-stick' approach. For low-income and middle-income individuals who had difficulty affording health insurance, the government would provide tax subsidies to reduce the cost of insurance - that was the carrot. And to make sure everyone enrolled in a health insurance plan, those who didn't sign up were fined, under what was known as the individual mandate provision. That was the stick. The individual mandate, which didn't kick in until 2014, was unpopular with the American public, according to polling at the time. A 2017 KFF poll showed that 55% of Americans supported the idea of eliminating the requirement that everyone must have health insurance or pay a fine. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) Although one of Trump's key campaign promises was to repeal and replace the ACA, efforts to do so failed in 2017 when the Republican-held Senate failed to get the votes it needed. Instead, in their 2017 tax bill, Republicans set the penalty for the individual mandate to $0. Starting in 2019, Americans no longer had to pay a fine for not having health insurance. Trump signed the 2017 tax bill into law. So, it is true that Trump and congressional Republicans were responsible for neutralizing the penalty. However, experts pointed out that the individual mandate is still in place, it's just that the penalty is set to $0. In fact, the end of the penalty is behind the justification for a court case attempting to overturn the ACA, brought by Republican attorneys general and supported by the Trump administration. The plaintiffs argue that the health care law is no longer constitutional because the penalty no longer 'produces at least some revenue' for the federal government. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the case Nov. 10. The math The viral social media posts claim that the family 'couldn't afford health insurance' and was penalized $10,000. Health policy experts told us that while the social media post doesn't give all the specifics needed to know if this was absolutely true, it seems unlikely a penalty would be this high. One issue is the post doesn't specify whether the $10,000 penalty was incurred in one year or over multiple years. It also doesn't say how many individuals were part of the family. Assuming the $10,000 penalty was incurred in one year, multiple experts told us that the family would have had an annual income above $400,000 and at least one person would have had to be uninsured for the entire year. That math is based on the penalty structure in place in 2018, the last year the mandate was enforced. In 2018, the penalty was calculated one of two ways. The fine was the greater of the two results: $695 for an adult and $347.50 for a child, up to a max of $2,085 per family annually, or 2.5% of family income above a certain tax filing threshold (KFF estimated the tax filing threshold was $10,650 for a single individual or $21,300 for joint filers in 2018). The first way to calculate the penalty obviously doesn't apply since the max was $2,085 per year. So, the second would be the only way to get a $10,000-a-year penalty. To arrive at such a number, you would have to take 2.5% of the family's income. In this case, 2.5% of a $400,000 income gets you close to $10,000. And experts said it is highly unlikely that a family with a $400,000 income would have had difficulty affording health insurance. 'So I would highly doubt the veracity of what is written on that car windshield,' Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow in health reform and private insurance at KFF wrote in an email. 'People with that much income almost always have job-based health benefits and, if not, generally are inclined to insure themselves very well in order to protect assets - otherwise, if hospitalized and uninsured, they could owe many multiples of the penalty amount in medical bills.' Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, also pointed out that a $10,000 penalty would have been rare. 'Very few American families would have paid anything close to that amount in penalty for not having insurance - the average penalty per person in 2017 was around $700,' Oberlander wrote in an email. 'Moreover, only a small percentage of Americans ever paid the penalty for not having health insurance - in 2017, 4.6 million persons,' or about 1% of the population. (In 2017, 325 million people lived in the U.S., according to the Census Bureau.) It's also unclear whether it would have just been cheaper for the family to pay for health insurance rather than incur a $10,000 penalty, said Matthew Fiedler, a health policy scholar at the Brookings Institution. 'It depends on the ages of the members of the family, where they live, what year (or years) we are talking about, and the family's income,' Fiedler wrote in an email. 'There are conceivable scenarios where the family could have found a bronze plan for $10k or less. But there are also plenty of plausible scenarios where they could not have. Without knowing more about the family's circumstances, it's just hard to say with any confidence.' Where did the penalty money go? Experts also told us that the post's assertion that the penalties paid for not having health insurance were directly applied to fund other people's health insurance was off the mark. The individual mandate penalties were assessed during each annual tax filing, and then payments were made the year after there was a lapse in insurance coverage. Those penalties were collected just like any other tax payment. 'As a strict accounting, keep in mind, everything gets dumped into the Treasury regardless of the source, and then it is appropriated out of the Treasury by Congress,' said Edmund Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health care policy at the Heritage Foundation. 'It's not like money goes into one account and then another.' So, while it's certainly possible that the penalty money could have been used to help pay for some of the ACA subsidies for other people, the money also could have gone to any other number of things the government pays for, like the military, disaster relief or education. 'You don't know exactly where your taxes or penalties go,' said Evan Saltzman, an assistant professor in economics at Emory University. 'Maybe a small share went to Obamacare, but that's a stretch. You can't track where every dollar you spent on your taxes is going.' It's also misleading to say that other individuals received 'free Obamacare' from the penalty payment. The experts said that while Medicaid expansion, which was a part of the ACA, does provide health care coverage for low-income people who are eligible, those who bought insurance on the marketplace would still likely have paid for some part of their coverage after subsidies were applied.
|
Our ruling A viral social media post claims that a family was penalized $10,000 for not being able to afford health insurance. It also claimed the penalty money was taken to pay for others' 'free ObamaCare' and Trump stopped that practice. It is true that Trump and Congress did zero out the individual mandate requirement, so people could no longer be penalized for not having health insurance. But after that, skepticism abounds. For instance, it's very unlikely that a family would face a $10,000 penalty in one year. Moreover, if such a family did face this penalty for not having health insurance, they would likely be in a high-income bracket for which health insurance tends to come from an employer or be affordable. And the charge that the penalty was used to provide 'free coverage' for others doesn't fit with federal accounting processes. Experts said, though, that the lack of specifics about this family's situation makes it difficult to be completely definitive. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"112095-proof-32-b11568fa34b5e23549bfb1f43264aa7c.jpg"
] |
'Because our family couldn't afford health insurance, Obama/Biden penalized us about $10,000, then took that $10,000 and used it to pay for others' free Obamacare. Trump ended that theft.
|
Contradiction
|
A viral Facebook post claims that former President Barack Obama's health insurance law penalized a family a large amount of money for not buying health insurance and that President Donald Trump was responsible for stopping the practice. The post features writing on the back of a car windshield that says, 'Because our family couldn't afford health insurance, Obama/Biden penalized us about $10,000, then took that $10,000 and used it to pay for others' free Obamacare. Trump ended that theft.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) We found a similar post on Instagram. The post appears to refer to the individual mandate penalty, a tax under the Affordable Care Act placed on those who chose not to get health insurance. At the end of 2017, Republican-backed tax legislation, also supported by Trump, zeroed out the fine. Beginning in 2019, people could no longer be penalized for not having health insurance. Thus, the mandate hasn't been in effect for about two years. But $10,000 - the hefty amount this family was supposedly penalized for not having health insurance - raised questions for us. And was that money really used to pay for other people's health insurance? We decided to look into it. The history of the individual mandate The ACA was implemented in 2010 during the Obama administration. The aim of the health care law - often referred to as Obamacare - was to ensure everyone had health insurance. To that end, the law used what health policy experts call a 'carrot-and-stick' approach. For low-income and middle-income individuals who had difficulty affording health insurance, the government would provide tax subsidies to reduce the cost of insurance - that was the carrot. And to make sure everyone enrolled in a health insurance plan, those who didn't sign up were fined, under what was known as the individual mandate provision. That was the stick. The individual mandate, which didn't kick in until 2014, was unpopular with the American public, according to polling at the time. A 2017 KFF poll showed that 55% of Americans supported the idea of eliminating the requirement that everyone must have health insurance or pay a fine. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) Although one of Trump's key campaign promises was to repeal and replace the ACA, efforts to do so failed in 2017 when the Republican-held Senate failed to get the votes it needed. Instead, in their 2017 tax bill, Republicans set the penalty for the individual mandate to $0. Starting in 2019, Americans no longer had to pay a fine for not having health insurance. Trump signed the 2017 tax bill into law. So, it is true that Trump and congressional Republicans were responsible for neutralizing the penalty. However, experts pointed out that the individual mandate is still in place, it's just that the penalty is set to $0. In fact, the end of the penalty is behind the justification for a court case attempting to overturn the ACA, brought by Republican attorneys general and supported by the Trump administration. The plaintiffs argue that the health care law is no longer constitutional because the penalty no longer 'produces at least some revenue' for the federal government. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the case Nov. 10. The math The viral social media posts claim that the family 'couldn't afford health insurance' and was penalized $10,000. Health policy experts told us that while the social media post doesn't give all the specifics needed to know if this was absolutely true, it seems unlikely a penalty would be this high. One issue is the post doesn't specify whether the $10,000 penalty was incurred in one year or over multiple years. It also doesn't say how many individuals were part of the family. Assuming the $10,000 penalty was incurred in one year, multiple experts told us that the family would have had an annual income above $400,000 and at least one person would have had to be uninsured for the entire year. That math is based on the penalty structure in place in 2018, the last year the mandate was enforced. In 2018, the penalty was calculated one of two ways. The fine was the greater of the two results: $695 for an adult and $347.50 for a child, up to a max of $2,085 per family annually, or 2.5% of family income above a certain tax filing threshold (KFF estimated the tax filing threshold was $10,650 for a single individual or $21,300 for joint filers in 2018). The first way to calculate the penalty obviously doesn't apply since the max was $2,085 per year. So, the second would be the only way to get a $10,000-a-year penalty. To arrive at such a number, you would have to take 2.5% of the family's income. In this case, 2.5% of a $400,000 income gets you close to $10,000. And experts said it is highly unlikely that a family with a $400,000 income would have had difficulty affording health insurance. 'So I would highly doubt the veracity of what is written on that car windshield,' Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow in health reform and private insurance at KFF wrote in an email. 'People with that much income almost always have job-based health benefits and, if not, generally are inclined to insure themselves very well in order to protect assets - otherwise, if hospitalized and uninsured, they could owe many multiples of the penalty amount in medical bills.' Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, also pointed out that a $10,000 penalty would have been rare. 'Very few American families would have paid anything close to that amount in penalty for not having insurance - the average penalty per person in 2017 was around $700,' Oberlander wrote in an email. 'Moreover, only a small percentage of Americans ever paid the penalty for not having health insurance - in 2017, 4.6 million persons,' or about 1% of the population. (In 2017, 325 million people lived in the U.S., according to the Census Bureau.) It's also unclear whether it would have just been cheaper for the family to pay for health insurance rather than incur a $10,000 penalty, said Matthew Fiedler, a health policy scholar at the Brookings Institution. 'It depends on the ages of the members of the family, where they live, what year (or years) we are talking about, and the family's income,' Fiedler wrote in an email. 'There are conceivable scenarios where the family could have found a bronze plan for $10k or less. But there are also plenty of plausible scenarios where they could not have. Without knowing more about the family's circumstances, it's just hard to say with any confidence.' Where did the penalty money go? Experts also told us that the post's assertion that the penalties paid for not having health insurance were directly applied to fund other people's health insurance was off the mark. The individual mandate penalties were assessed during each annual tax filing, and then payments were made the year after there was a lapse in insurance coverage. Those penalties were collected just like any other tax payment. 'As a strict accounting, keep in mind, everything gets dumped into the Treasury regardless of the source, and then it is appropriated out of the Treasury by Congress,' said Edmund Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health care policy at the Heritage Foundation. 'It's not like money goes into one account and then another.' So, while it's certainly possible that the penalty money could have been used to help pay for some of the ACA subsidies for other people, the money also could have gone to any other number of things the government pays for, like the military, disaster relief or education. 'You don't know exactly where your taxes or penalties go,' said Evan Saltzman, an assistant professor in economics at Emory University. 'Maybe a small share went to Obamacare, but that's a stretch. You can't track where every dollar you spent on your taxes is going.' It's also misleading to say that other individuals received 'free Obamacare' from the penalty payment. The experts said that while Medicaid expansion, which was a part of the ACA, does provide health care coverage for low-income people who are eligible, those who bought insurance on the marketplace would still likely have paid for some part of their coverage after subsidies were applied.
|
Our ruling A viral social media post claims that a family was penalized $10,000 for not being able to afford health insurance. It also claimed the penalty money was taken to pay for others' 'free ObamaCare' and Trump stopped that practice. It is true that Trump and Congress did zero out the individual mandate requirement, so people could no longer be penalized for not having health insurance. But after that, skepticism abounds. For instance, it's very unlikely that a family would face a $10,000 penalty in one year. Moreover, if such a family did face this penalty for not having health insurance, they would likely be in a high-income bracket for which health insurance tends to come from an employer or be affordable. And the charge that the penalty was used to provide 'free coverage' for others doesn't fit with federal accounting processes. Experts said, though, that the lack of specifics about this family's situation makes it difficult to be completely definitive. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"112095-proof-32-b11568fa34b5e23549bfb1f43264aa7c.jpg"
] |
'Because our family couldn't afford health insurance, Obama/Biden penalized us about $10,000, then took that $10,000 and used it to pay for others' free Obamacare. Trump ended that theft.
|
Contradiction
|
A viral Facebook post claims that former President Barack Obama's health insurance law penalized a family a large amount of money for not buying health insurance and that President Donald Trump was responsible for stopping the practice. The post features writing on the back of a car windshield that says, 'Because our family couldn't afford health insurance, Obama/Biden penalized us about $10,000, then took that $10,000 and used it to pay for others' free Obamacare. Trump ended that theft.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) We found a similar post on Instagram. The post appears to refer to the individual mandate penalty, a tax under the Affordable Care Act placed on those who chose not to get health insurance. At the end of 2017, Republican-backed tax legislation, also supported by Trump, zeroed out the fine. Beginning in 2019, people could no longer be penalized for not having health insurance. Thus, the mandate hasn't been in effect for about two years. But $10,000 - the hefty amount this family was supposedly penalized for not having health insurance - raised questions for us. And was that money really used to pay for other people's health insurance? We decided to look into it. The history of the individual mandate The ACA was implemented in 2010 during the Obama administration. The aim of the health care law - often referred to as Obamacare - was to ensure everyone had health insurance. To that end, the law used what health policy experts call a 'carrot-and-stick' approach. For low-income and middle-income individuals who had difficulty affording health insurance, the government would provide tax subsidies to reduce the cost of insurance - that was the carrot. And to make sure everyone enrolled in a health insurance plan, those who didn't sign up were fined, under what was known as the individual mandate provision. That was the stick. The individual mandate, which didn't kick in until 2014, was unpopular with the American public, according to polling at the time. A 2017 KFF poll showed that 55% of Americans supported the idea of eliminating the requirement that everyone must have health insurance or pay a fine. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.) Although one of Trump's key campaign promises was to repeal and replace the ACA, efforts to do so failed in 2017 when the Republican-held Senate failed to get the votes it needed. Instead, in their 2017 tax bill, Republicans set the penalty for the individual mandate to $0. Starting in 2019, Americans no longer had to pay a fine for not having health insurance. Trump signed the 2017 tax bill into law. So, it is true that Trump and congressional Republicans were responsible for neutralizing the penalty. However, experts pointed out that the individual mandate is still in place, it's just that the penalty is set to $0. In fact, the end of the penalty is behind the justification for a court case attempting to overturn the ACA, brought by Republican attorneys general and supported by the Trump administration. The plaintiffs argue that the health care law is no longer constitutional because the penalty no longer 'produces at least some revenue' for the federal government. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the case Nov. 10. The math The viral social media posts claim that the family 'couldn't afford health insurance' and was penalized $10,000. Health policy experts told us that while the social media post doesn't give all the specifics needed to know if this was absolutely true, it seems unlikely a penalty would be this high. One issue is the post doesn't specify whether the $10,000 penalty was incurred in one year or over multiple years. It also doesn't say how many individuals were part of the family. Assuming the $10,000 penalty was incurred in one year, multiple experts told us that the family would have had an annual income above $400,000 and at least one person would have had to be uninsured for the entire year. That math is based on the penalty structure in place in 2018, the last year the mandate was enforced. In 2018, the penalty was calculated one of two ways. The fine was the greater of the two results: $695 for an adult and $347.50 for a child, up to a max of $2,085 per family annually, or 2.5% of family income above a certain tax filing threshold (KFF estimated the tax filing threshold was $10,650 for a single individual or $21,300 for joint filers in 2018). The first way to calculate the penalty obviously doesn't apply since the max was $2,085 per year. So, the second would be the only way to get a $10,000-a-year penalty. To arrive at such a number, you would have to take 2.5% of the family's income. In this case, 2.5% of a $400,000 income gets you close to $10,000. And experts said it is highly unlikely that a family with a $400,000 income would have had difficulty affording health insurance. 'So I would highly doubt the veracity of what is written on that car windshield,' Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow in health reform and private insurance at KFF wrote in an email. 'People with that much income almost always have job-based health benefits and, if not, generally are inclined to insure themselves very well in order to protect assets - otherwise, if hospitalized and uninsured, they could owe many multiples of the penalty amount in medical bills.' Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, also pointed out that a $10,000 penalty would have been rare. 'Very few American families would have paid anything close to that amount in penalty for not having insurance - the average penalty per person in 2017 was around $700,' Oberlander wrote in an email. 'Moreover, only a small percentage of Americans ever paid the penalty for not having health insurance - in 2017, 4.6 million persons,' or about 1% of the population. (In 2017, 325 million people lived in the U.S., according to the Census Bureau.) It's also unclear whether it would have just been cheaper for the family to pay for health insurance rather than incur a $10,000 penalty, said Matthew Fiedler, a health policy scholar at the Brookings Institution. 'It depends on the ages of the members of the family, where they live, what year (or years) we are talking about, and the family's income,' Fiedler wrote in an email. 'There are conceivable scenarios where the family could have found a bronze plan for $10k or less. But there are also plenty of plausible scenarios where they could not have. Without knowing more about the family's circumstances, it's just hard to say with any confidence.' Where did the penalty money go? Experts also told us that the post's assertion that the penalties paid for not having health insurance were directly applied to fund other people's health insurance was off the mark. The individual mandate penalties were assessed during each annual tax filing, and then payments were made the year after there was a lapse in insurance coverage. Those penalties were collected just like any other tax payment. 'As a strict accounting, keep in mind, everything gets dumped into the Treasury regardless of the source, and then it is appropriated out of the Treasury by Congress,' said Edmund Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health care policy at the Heritage Foundation. 'It's not like money goes into one account and then another.' So, while it's certainly possible that the penalty money could have been used to help pay for some of the ACA subsidies for other people, the money also could have gone to any other number of things the government pays for, like the military, disaster relief or education. 'You don't know exactly where your taxes or penalties go,' said Evan Saltzman, an assistant professor in economics at Emory University. 'Maybe a small share went to Obamacare, but that's a stretch. You can't track where every dollar you spent on your taxes is going.' It's also misleading to say that other individuals received 'free Obamacare' from the penalty payment. The experts said that while Medicaid expansion, which was a part of the ACA, does provide health care coverage for low-income people who are eligible, those who bought insurance on the marketplace would still likely have paid for some part of their coverage after subsidies were applied.
|
Our ruling A viral social media post claims that a family was penalized $10,000 for not being able to afford health insurance. It also claimed the penalty money was taken to pay for others' 'free ObamaCare' and Trump stopped that practice. It is true that Trump and Congress did zero out the individual mandate requirement, so people could no longer be penalized for not having health insurance. But after that, skepticism abounds. For instance, it's very unlikely that a family would face a $10,000 penalty in one year. Moreover, if such a family did face this penalty for not having health insurance, they would likely be in a high-income bracket for which health insurance tends to come from an employer or be affordable. And the charge that the penalty was used to provide 'free coverage' for others doesn't fit with federal accounting processes. Experts said, though, that the lack of specifics about this family's situation makes it difficult to be completely definitive. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"112095-proof-32-b11568fa34b5e23549bfb1f43264aa7c.jpg"
] |
Says John F. Kennedy said, 'If a Supreme Court Justice died one day before the election, it would be more Constitutional to indefinitely postpone the election than postpone the confirmation a single day.
|
Contradiction
|
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death has renewed a political fight over whether a justice should be appointed during a presidential election year. According to social media posts, President John F. Kennedy weighed in on exactly this topic back in his day. 'If a Supreme Court Justice died one day before the election, it would be more Constitutional to indefinitely postpone the election than postpone the confirmation a single day,' reads a quote that appears over a photo of Kennedy speaking. 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.) Kennedy, who served as president from his inauguration in January 1961 until his assassination in November 1963, appointed two Supreme Court justices. Byron White, who took his judicial oath on April 16, 1962, and Arthur Goldberg, who took his oath on Oct. 1, 1962. Searching for the quote online, we didn't find any results. There were no matches for the statement in the Nexis news archive, either. There are no quotes about the Supreme Court in a selected list of quotations curated by the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. An archivist at the library told us that they're not familiar with the quote that appears in the Instagram post, and couldn't find anything to corroborate the statement after checking several sources, including the library's digitized archival holdings related to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary; the American Presidency Project, which is a database of transcriptions of every public presidential statement; historical newspaper databases; and scholarly secondary sources. We rate this Instagram post False.
|
We rate this Instagram post False.
|
[
"112097-proof-10-750eff941ac2629f0c35871dd74ed377.jpg"
] |
'Some of you are being injected with saline because it would look too suspicious if everybody died at the same time.
|
Contradiction
|
A meme being shared on social media suggests there's a nefarious plot to kill vaccine recipients because of reports of some people receiving shots of just saline. 'Some of you are being injected with saline because it would look too suspicious if everybody died at the same time,' the post says. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In April, news outlets reported that some people mistakenly got saline shots instead of a COVID-19 vaccine at a Walgreens in North Carolina. Walgreens said a 'limited number' of people at a store received saline injections, according to the Charlotte Observer. Walgreens notified the customers and they were given the COVID-19 vaccine when they returned to the pharmacy. One woman told a local TV station that Walgreens called them hours after they received their vaccines asking them to come back in because she said 'the pharmacists evidently forgot to mix the vaccine into the saline solution.' A couple months later, in June, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control said that a 'very limited' number of COVID-19 vaccines reportedly contained only saline, according to WIS-TV, a local NBC News affiliate. A woman said that she was called back to the pharmacy she had visited to receive her second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine because it was 'not activated.' A health department spokesperson said that there were some similar cases and that in each instance, the recipient was contacted to return for the proper vaccine dose. And back in March, several patients in Ontario, Canada, were accidentally injected with saline instead of the vaccine, according to Newsweek. Saline is used to dilute the COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer before it's injected. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that the preparation instructions for the vaccine direct medical providers to mix it with sterile 0.9% sodium chloride, which is saline. The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines don't require mixing with saline. This detailed graphic by the Chicago Tribune shows how all three COVID-19 vaccines that have been authorized for use in the United States make their way from manufacturing sites to arms. Receiving a saline injection isn't harmful, and millions of COVID-19 vaccine doses have been safely administered in the United States. A rigorous regulatory process and real-world evidence shows that they effectively protect against COVID-19, and the vaccines continue to undergo safety monitoring. While the CDC has said that three deaths from a rare blood clotting issue could be linked to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, more than 160 million Americans are now fully vaccinated with minimal complications. The suggestion that people are being injected with saline as part of a bigger, deadly plot against humanity is unfounded and defies evidence. We rate this claim False.
|
We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'Some of you are being injected with saline because it would look too suspicious if everybody died at the same time.
|
Contradiction
|
A meme being shared on social media suggests there's a nefarious plot to kill vaccine recipients because of reports of some people receiving shots of just saline. 'Some of you are being injected with saline because it would look too suspicious if everybody died at the same time,' the post says. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In April, news outlets reported that some people mistakenly got saline shots instead of a COVID-19 vaccine at a Walgreens in North Carolina. Walgreens said a 'limited number' of people at a store received saline injections, according to the Charlotte Observer. Walgreens notified the customers and they were given the COVID-19 vaccine when they returned to the pharmacy. One woman told a local TV station that Walgreens called them hours after they received their vaccines asking them to come back in because she said 'the pharmacists evidently forgot to mix the vaccine into the saline solution.' A couple months later, in June, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control said that a 'very limited' number of COVID-19 vaccines reportedly contained only saline, according to WIS-TV, a local NBC News affiliate. A woman said that she was called back to the pharmacy she had visited to receive her second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine because it was 'not activated.' A health department spokesperson said that there were some similar cases and that in each instance, the recipient was contacted to return for the proper vaccine dose. And back in March, several patients in Ontario, Canada, were accidentally injected with saline instead of the vaccine, according to Newsweek. Saline is used to dilute the COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer before it's injected. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that the preparation instructions for the vaccine direct medical providers to mix it with sterile 0.9% sodium chloride, which is saline. The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines don't require mixing with saline. This detailed graphic by the Chicago Tribune shows how all three COVID-19 vaccines that have been authorized for use in the United States make their way from manufacturing sites to arms. Receiving a saline injection isn't harmful, and millions of COVID-19 vaccine doses have been safely administered in the United States. A rigorous regulatory process and real-world evidence shows that they effectively protect against COVID-19, and the vaccines continue to undergo safety monitoring. While the CDC has said that three deaths from a rare blood clotting issue could be linked to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, more than 160 million Americans are now fully vaccinated with minimal complications. The suggestion that people are being injected with saline as part of a bigger, deadly plot against humanity is unfounded and defies evidence. We rate this claim False.
|
We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
With voting by mail, 'you get thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room, signing ballots all over the place.
|
Contradiction
|
The daily White House briefings about coronavirus sometimes veer into adjacent topics, and since Wisconsin voted on April 7, one of those topics has been voting by mail. Despite late pleas by Wisconsin's Democratic Gov. Tony Evers to make the election mail balloting only, the state's Republican Legislature, backed by a Republican-majority state Supreme Court, opposed Evers' plan. In person voting was held amid social distancing, though with significantly fewer polling places. At briefings on April 7 and 8, President Donald Trump was asked about an expanded role for mail balloting at a time of a global pandemic. He responded by criticizing mail balloting as illegitimate and subject to widespread fraud (even though he had recently voted by mail for a Florida election). On April 7, Trump said, 'Now, mail ballots - they cheat. Okay? People cheat. Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country, because they're cheaters. They go and collect them. They're fraudulent in many cases.' When pressed, Trump went on to call mail-in voting 'horrible' and 'corrupt' and alleged that 'you get thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room, signing ballots all over the place.' At the following day's briefing, a reporter asked Trump for evidence to support the 'thousands and thousands' characterization. Trump responded, 'I think there's a lot of evidence, but we'll provide you with some, okay?' (The White House did not provide PolitiFact with additional evidence.) Trump did cite a lawsuit by the conservative group Judicial Watch against the state of California, saying that 'a million people should not have been voting' in the state. However, PolitiFact California previously rated a similar assertion by the president Pants on Fire, because the legal settlement in question required Los Angeles County to begin removing inactive voter registrations; it said nothing about voter fraud or people illegally voting. In recent years, Trump has repeatedly claimed the existence of massive voter fraud and election rigging, which we've debunked again and again and again and again and again and again and again. In his most recent comments, we found no support for the notion that 'you get thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room, signing ballots all over the place.' We did find that mail balloting does pose a potentially higher risk for fraud than in-person voting does. However, experts said the reality is much more nuanced than Trump let on. 'I can't imagine any living room with thousands of people in it,' said Rick Hasen, a University of California-Irvine law professor who specializes in election law. But even to the extent he's saying that vote-by-mail efforts are rife with fraud, 'that is false,' Hasen said. 'There are more cases of absentee ballot fraud than other kinds of election crimes,' he said. 'But the risk is relatively low, and the benefits, especially during the time of a pandemic, are quite great.' A lack of evidence of voter fraud Voting and election specialists said there's no evidence that 'thousands and thousands' of Americans are collaborating on mail-ballot fraud, whether they're sitting in one living room or not. 'There is no evidence that any candidate or group has executed a mail ballot fraud scheme of this magnitude in modern elections,' said Michael P. McDonald, a University of Florida political scientist. 'In this day of social media, it is nearly impossible to keep anything secret, much less a scheme involving thousands of people.' If this was happening, McDonald said, voters would wonder where their ballots were. 'They would show up to vote and be told by election officials that they had already voted,' he said. 'Election officials would see patterns in where mail ballots were being sent, the addresses they were being returned from, and the signatures on the ballot return envelope. If a mail ballot fraud scheme happened on the alleged scale, someone, somewhere, would notice.' More broadly, repeated efforts to uncover widespread voter fraud have produced little. • Trump's Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, a panel to investigate voter fraud, was shuttered before it found significant patterns of fraud. • News21, a national investigative reporting project funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, found just 56 cases of noncitizens voting between 2000 and 2011. • In 2012, Florida Gov. Rick Scott's administration tried to crack down on noncitizens voting by comparing driver's license data against voter rolls. The Florida Department of State created a list of 182,000 potential noncitizens that had voted. That number was whittled down to 2,700, then to about 200 before the purge was stopped amid criticism that the data was flawed given the number of false positives - including a Brooklyn-born World War II vet. Ultimately, only 85 people were removed from the voter rolls. • The five states that hold all-mail elections (Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) have reported little fraud. 'There's just very little evidence that there is more than a handful of fraudulent (vote-by-mail) cases across the country in a given election cycle,' Judd Choate, the director of elections in the Colorado Department of State, told the New York Times. Richard Winger, the editor of Ballot Access News and a frequent election volunteer in San Francisco, said ballot security measures in his state offer protections. 'We have a list of all the registered voters in our precinct,' Winger said. 'The list indicates which voters have received a ballot in the postal mail. In every election, voters wander in and want to vote there, but we say, 'It says here you already got a mail ballot.' And they say, 'Oh, yes, it's at home' or, 'I never received a ballot' or, 'Oh, I lost it.' And we explain that every ballot must be accounted for. They can vote provisionally at the polls, but the vote will only be counted once it is clear their original ballot didn't get submitted for counting.' Steve Schale, a longtime Democratic consultant in Florida, said his state has improved its mail-ballot procedures in recent years. 'I think the controls that are in place today really limit the opportunities for fraud,' Schale said. 'Back in the day, there was more ability for operatives to actually put their hands on ballots, such as collecting them and turning them in. Operatives on both sides will always push up to the legal line when it comes to all aspects of campaigns, but again, the laws now are so clear that one has to go out of their way to break the law.' President Donald Trump speaks at a coronavirus briefing on April 7, 2020. (AP) Verified examples of mail-ballot fraud Rare doesn't mean nonexistent. And experts agree that mail balloting does provide a greater potential for ballot fraud than in-person voting does. 'It's definitely easier to have fraud with absentee voting than in-person voting, and some cases of it have had a big impact,' said Rob Richie, president of FairVote, a voting-access advocacy group. A congressional election was overturned in North Carolina in 2018 after evidence surfaced that the Republican candidate benefited from an effort to collect absentee ballots from voters. In South Florida alone, the Miami Herald cited examples of ballot fraud in Hialeah (1994, 2011, and 2012), Homestead (2014), and Miami and Miami-Dade County (1998, 2008, 2013). 'All this must be kept in perspective, and there are ways states seek to counter it, but it's not outlandish to say fraud is more likely with absentee voting than in-person voting,' Richie said. Lonna Atkeson, University of New Mexico political scientist, told NPR that 'where there is fraud in the system, it really seems to be in mail balloting. There's some, there's not a lot. I think there's a little bit.' Other drawbacks with voting by mail While voting by mail might be necessary in an extended battle with coronavirus, voting experts acknowledge that it's not a perfect solution. • There could be an increase in voter errors made at home, since election officials won't be standing nearby to help. This means more ballots could be rejected and not counted. • Voter education will be needed for people who are unaccustomed to absentee voting. Voters will need reminders to sign their ballots, and elections officials will need to increase public outreach to dispel myths about absentee ballots, such as the one that those ballots aren't counted unless an election is close. • Some groups have less convenient access to mail than others do, such as residents of Native American reservations. Mail voting also poses challenges for voters who move frequently, or who have language or literacy issues. And some disabled voters, including those who are blind, cannot effectively cast mail ballots without assistance. • Voting at home could lead to coercion by abusive spouses or other relatives.
|
Our ruling Trump said that with voting by mail, 'you get thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room, signing ballots all over the place.' Voting fraud in general is considered to be rare, although voting experts agree that the risks are greater for mail balloting than for in-person voting. Still, Trump didn't produce any evidence for the 'thousands and thousands' claim, and voting experts said his assertion doesn't square with what is known about the actual cases of voting fraud in the recent past. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"112112-proof-36-23fa6f3548963956d3d53dab88a2dc4f.jpg"
] |
With voting by mail, 'you get thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room, signing ballots all over the place.
|
Contradiction
|
The daily White House briefings about coronavirus sometimes veer into adjacent topics, and since Wisconsin voted on April 7, one of those topics has been voting by mail. Despite late pleas by Wisconsin's Democratic Gov. Tony Evers to make the election mail balloting only, the state's Republican Legislature, backed by a Republican-majority state Supreme Court, opposed Evers' plan. In person voting was held amid social distancing, though with significantly fewer polling places. At briefings on April 7 and 8, President Donald Trump was asked about an expanded role for mail balloting at a time of a global pandemic. He responded by criticizing mail balloting as illegitimate and subject to widespread fraud (even though he had recently voted by mail for a Florida election). On April 7, Trump said, 'Now, mail ballots - they cheat. Okay? People cheat. Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country, because they're cheaters. They go and collect them. They're fraudulent in many cases.' When pressed, Trump went on to call mail-in voting 'horrible' and 'corrupt' and alleged that 'you get thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room, signing ballots all over the place.' At the following day's briefing, a reporter asked Trump for evidence to support the 'thousands and thousands' characterization. Trump responded, 'I think there's a lot of evidence, but we'll provide you with some, okay?' (The White House did not provide PolitiFact with additional evidence.) Trump did cite a lawsuit by the conservative group Judicial Watch against the state of California, saying that 'a million people should not have been voting' in the state. However, PolitiFact California previously rated a similar assertion by the president Pants on Fire, because the legal settlement in question required Los Angeles County to begin removing inactive voter registrations; it said nothing about voter fraud or people illegally voting. In recent years, Trump has repeatedly claimed the existence of massive voter fraud and election rigging, which we've debunked again and again and again and again and again and again and again. In his most recent comments, we found no support for the notion that 'you get thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room, signing ballots all over the place.' We did find that mail balloting does pose a potentially higher risk for fraud than in-person voting does. However, experts said the reality is much more nuanced than Trump let on. 'I can't imagine any living room with thousands of people in it,' said Rick Hasen, a University of California-Irvine law professor who specializes in election law. But even to the extent he's saying that vote-by-mail efforts are rife with fraud, 'that is false,' Hasen said. 'There are more cases of absentee ballot fraud than other kinds of election crimes,' he said. 'But the risk is relatively low, and the benefits, especially during the time of a pandemic, are quite great.' A lack of evidence of voter fraud Voting and election specialists said there's no evidence that 'thousands and thousands' of Americans are collaborating on mail-ballot fraud, whether they're sitting in one living room or not. 'There is no evidence that any candidate or group has executed a mail ballot fraud scheme of this magnitude in modern elections,' said Michael P. McDonald, a University of Florida political scientist. 'In this day of social media, it is nearly impossible to keep anything secret, much less a scheme involving thousands of people.' If this was happening, McDonald said, voters would wonder where their ballots were. 'They would show up to vote and be told by election officials that they had already voted,' he said. 'Election officials would see patterns in where mail ballots were being sent, the addresses they were being returned from, and the signatures on the ballot return envelope. If a mail ballot fraud scheme happened on the alleged scale, someone, somewhere, would notice.' More broadly, repeated efforts to uncover widespread voter fraud have produced little. • Trump's Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, a panel to investigate voter fraud, was shuttered before it found significant patterns of fraud. • News21, a national investigative reporting project funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, found just 56 cases of noncitizens voting between 2000 and 2011. • In 2012, Florida Gov. Rick Scott's administration tried to crack down on noncitizens voting by comparing driver's license data against voter rolls. The Florida Department of State created a list of 182,000 potential noncitizens that had voted. That number was whittled down to 2,700, then to about 200 before the purge was stopped amid criticism that the data was flawed given the number of false positives - including a Brooklyn-born World War II vet. Ultimately, only 85 people were removed from the voter rolls. • The five states that hold all-mail elections (Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) have reported little fraud. 'There's just very little evidence that there is more than a handful of fraudulent (vote-by-mail) cases across the country in a given election cycle,' Judd Choate, the director of elections in the Colorado Department of State, told the New York Times. Richard Winger, the editor of Ballot Access News and a frequent election volunteer in San Francisco, said ballot security measures in his state offer protections. 'We have a list of all the registered voters in our precinct,' Winger said. 'The list indicates which voters have received a ballot in the postal mail. In every election, voters wander in and want to vote there, but we say, 'It says here you already got a mail ballot.' And they say, 'Oh, yes, it's at home' or, 'I never received a ballot' or, 'Oh, I lost it.' And we explain that every ballot must be accounted for. They can vote provisionally at the polls, but the vote will only be counted once it is clear their original ballot didn't get submitted for counting.' Steve Schale, a longtime Democratic consultant in Florida, said his state has improved its mail-ballot procedures in recent years. 'I think the controls that are in place today really limit the opportunities for fraud,' Schale said. 'Back in the day, there was more ability for operatives to actually put their hands on ballots, such as collecting them and turning them in. Operatives on both sides will always push up to the legal line when it comes to all aspects of campaigns, but again, the laws now are so clear that one has to go out of their way to break the law.' President Donald Trump speaks at a coronavirus briefing on April 7, 2020. (AP) Verified examples of mail-ballot fraud Rare doesn't mean nonexistent. And experts agree that mail balloting does provide a greater potential for ballot fraud than in-person voting does. 'It's definitely easier to have fraud with absentee voting than in-person voting, and some cases of it have had a big impact,' said Rob Richie, president of FairVote, a voting-access advocacy group. A congressional election was overturned in North Carolina in 2018 after evidence surfaced that the Republican candidate benefited from an effort to collect absentee ballots from voters. In South Florida alone, the Miami Herald cited examples of ballot fraud in Hialeah (1994, 2011, and 2012), Homestead (2014), and Miami and Miami-Dade County (1998, 2008, 2013). 'All this must be kept in perspective, and there are ways states seek to counter it, but it's not outlandish to say fraud is more likely with absentee voting than in-person voting,' Richie said. Lonna Atkeson, University of New Mexico political scientist, told NPR that 'where there is fraud in the system, it really seems to be in mail balloting. There's some, there's not a lot. I think there's a little bit.' Other drawbacks with voting by mail While voting by mail might be necessary in an extended battle with coronavirus, voting experts acknowledge that it's not a perfect solution. • There could be an increase in voter errors made at home, since election officials won't be standing nearby to help. This means more ballots could be rejected and not counted. • Voter education will be needed for people who are unaccustomed to absentee voting. Voters will need reminders to sign their ballots, and elections officials will need to increase public outreach to dispel myths about absentee ballots, such as the one that those ballots aren't counted unless an election is close. • Some groups have less convenient access to mail than others do, such as residents of Native American reservations. Mail voting also poses challenges for voters who move frequently, or who have language or literacy issues. And some disabled voters, including those who are blind, cannot effectively cast mail ballots without assistance. • Voting at home could lead to coercion by abusive spouses or other relatives.
|
Our ruling Trump said that with voting by mail, 'you get thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room, signing ballots all over the place.' Voting fraud in general is considered to be rare, although voting experts agree that the risks are greater for mail balloting than for in-person voting. Still, Trump didn't produce any evidence for the 'thousands and thousands' claim, and voting experts said his assertion doesn't square with what is known about the actual cases of voting fraud in the recent past. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"112112-proof-36-23fa6f3548963956d3d53dab88a2dc4f.jpg"
] |
With voting by mail, 'you get thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room, signing ballots all over the place.
|
Contradiction
|
The daily White House briefings about coronavirus sometimes veer into adjacent topics, and since Wisconsin voted on April 7, one of those topics has been voting by mail. Despite late pleas by Wisconsin's Democratic Gov. Tony Evers to make the election mail balloting only, the state's Republican Legislature, backed by a Republican-majority state Supreme Court, opposed Evers' plan. In person voting was held amid social distancing, though with significantly fewer polling places. At briefings on April 7 and 8, President Donald Trump was asked about an expanded role for mail balloting at a time of a global pandemic. He responded by criticizing mail balloting as illegitimate and subject to widespread fraud (even though he had recently voted by mail for a Florida election). On April 7, Trump said, 'Now, mail ballots - they cheat. Okay? People cheat. Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country, because they're cheaters. They go and collect them. They're fraudulent in many cases.' When pressed, Trump went on to call mail-in voting 'horrible' and 'corrupt' and alleged that 'you get thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room, signing ballots all over the place.' At the following day's briefing, a reporter asked Trump for evidence to support the 'thousands and thousands' characterization. Trump responded, 'I think there's a lot of evidence, but we'll provide you with some, okay?' (The White House did not provide PolitiFact with additional evidence.) Trump did cite a lawsuit by the conservative group Judicial Watch against the state of California, saying that 'a million people should not have been voting' in the state. However, PolitiFact California previously rated a similar assertion by the president Pants on Fire, because the legal settlement in question required Los Angeles County to begin removing inactive voter registrations; it said nothing about voter fraud or people illegally voting. In recent years, Trump has repeatedly claimed the existence of massive voter fraud and election rigging, which we've debunked again and again and again and again and again and again and again. In his most recent comments, we found no support for the notion that 'you get thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room, signing ballots all over the place.' We did find that mail balloting does pose a potentially higher risk for fraud than in-person voting does. However, experts said the reality is much more nuanced than Trump let on. 'I can't imagine any living room with thousands of people in it,' said Rick Hasen, a University of California-Irvine law professor who specializes in election law. But even to the extent he's saying that vote-by-mail efforts are rife with fraud, 'that is false,' Hasen said. 'There are more cases of absentee ballot fraud than other kinds of election crimes,' he said. 'But the risk is relatively low, and the benefits, especially during the time of a pandemic, are quite great.' A lack of evidence of voter fraud Voting and election specialists said there's no evidence that 'thousands and thousands' of Americans are collaborating on mail-ballot fraud, whether they're sitting in one living room or not. 'There is no evidence that any candidate or group has executed a mail ballot fraud scheme of this magnitude in modern elections,' said Michael P. McDonald, a University of Florida political scientist. 'In this day of social media, it is nearly impossible to keep anything secret, much less a scheme involving thousands of people.' If this was happening, McDonald said, voters would wonder where their ballots were. 'They would show up to vote and be told by election officials that they had already voted,' he said. 'Election officials would see patterns in where mail ballots were being sent, the addresses they were being returned from, and the signatures on the ballot return envelope. If a mail ballot fraud scheme happened on the alleged scale, someone, somewhere, would notice.' More broadly, repeated efforts to uncover widespread voter fraud have produced little. • Trump's Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, a panel to investigate voter fraud, was shuttered before it found significant patterns of fraud. • News21, a national investigative reporting project funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, found just 56 cases of noncitizens voting between 2000 and 2011. • In 2012, Florida Gov. Rick Scott's administration tried to crack down on noncitizens voting by comparing driver's license data against voter rolls. The Florida Department of State created a list of 182,000 potential noncitizens that had voted. That number was whittled down to 2,700, then to about 200 before the purge was stopped amid criticism that the data was flawed given the number of false positives - including a Brooklyn-born World War II vet. Ultimately, only 85 people were removed from the voter rolls. • The five states that hold all-mail elections (Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) have reported little fraud. 'There's just very little evidence that there is more than a handful of fraudulent (vote-by-mail) cases across the country in a given election cycle,' Judd Choate, the director of elections in the Colorado Department of State, told the New York Times. Richard Winger, the editor of Ballot Access News and a frequent election volunteer in San Francisco, said ballot security measures in his state offer protections. 'We have a list of all the registered voters in our precinct,' Winger said. 'The list indicates which voters have received a ballot in the postal mail. In every election, voters wander in and want to vote there, but we say, 'It says here you already got a mail ballot.' And they say, 'Oh, yes, it's at home' or, 'I never received a ballot' or, 'Oh, I lost it.' And we explain that every ballot must be accounted for. They can vote provisionally at the polls, but the vote will only be counted once it is clear their original ballot didn't get submitted for counting.' Steve Schale, a longtime Democratic consultant in Florida, said his state has improved its mail-ballot procedures in recent years. 'I think the controls that are in place today really limit the opportunities for fraud,' Schale said. 'Back in the day, there was more ability for operatives to actually put their hands on ballots, such as collecting them and turning them in. Operatives on both sides will always push up to the legal line when it comes to all aspects of campaigns, but again, the laws now are so clear that one has to go out of their way to break the law.' President Donald Trump speaks at a coronavirus briefing on April 7, 2020. (AP) Verified examples of mail-ballot fraud Rare doesn't mean nonexistent. And experts agree that mail balloting does provide a greater potential for ballot fraud than in-person voting does. 'It's definitely easier to have fraud with absentee voting than in-person voting, and some cases of it have had a big impact,' said Rob Richie, president of FairVote, a voting-access advocacy group. A congressional election was overturned in North Carolina in 2018 after evidence surfaced that the Republican candidate benefited from an effort to collect absentee ballots from voters. In South Florida alone, the Miami Herald cited examples of ballot fraud in Hialeah (1994, 2011, and 2012), Homestead (2014), and Miami and Miami-Dade County (1998, 2008, 2013). 'All this must be kept in perspective, and there are ways states seek to counter it, but it's not outlandish to say fraud is more likely with absentee voting than in-person voting,' Richie said. Lonna Atkeson, University of New Mexico political scientist, told NPR that 'where there is fraud in the system, it really seems to be in mail balloting. There's some, there's not a lot. I think there's a little bit.' Other drawbacks with voting by mail While voting by mail might be necessary in an extended battle with coronavirus, voting experts acknowledge that it's not a perfect solution. • There could be an increase in voter errors made at home, since election officials won't be standing nearby to help. This means more ballots could be rejected and not counted. • Voter education will be needed for people who are unaccustomed to absentee voting. Voters will need reminders to sign their ballots, and elections officials will need to increase public outreach to dispel myths about absentee ballots, such as the one that those ballots aren't counted unless an election is close. • Some groups have less convenient access to mail than others do, such as residents of Native American reservations. Mail voting also poses challenges for voters who move frequently, or who have language or literacy issues. And some disabled voters, including those who are blind, cannot effectively cast mail ballots without assistance. • Voting at home could lead to coercion by abusive spouses or other relatives.
|
Our ruling Trump said that with voting by mail, 'you get thousands and thousands of people sitting in somebody's living room, signing ballots all over the place.' Voting fraud in general is considered to be rare, although voting experts agree that the risks are greater for mail balloting than for in-person voting. Still, Trump didn't produce any evidence for the 'thousands and thousands' claim, and voting experts said his assertion doesn't square with what is known about the actual cases of voting fraud in the recent past. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"112112-proof-36-23fa6f3548963956d3d53dab88a2dc4f.jpg"
] |
'The Democrats don't want to do anything having to do with protecting people from eviction.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump criticized Democrats at a press briefing at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., where he signed four executive actions on evictions, payroll taxes, unemployment benefits and student loans. Trump's executive order on evictions tells federal agencies to consider ways to try to assist renters and homeowners faced with the threat of eviction amid the COVID-19 pandemic. 'The Democrats don't want to do anything having to do with protecting people from eviction,' Trump said at the briefing. He doubled down on that claim at an Aug. 11 press conference, but it's false. Congressional Democrats have proposed and supported legislation to temporarily ban evictions and help residents pay rent. The CARES Act, a bipartisan coronavirus relief law passed in March, banned evictions for certain renters, including those in federal housing assistance programs. In May, the House passed the HEROES Act, a $3.4 trillion coronavirus relief package introduced by Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, which would extend the ban on evictions for renters and provide people with rent assistance. White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Matthews told PolitiFact in an email that the bill was 'unserious,' in part because it includes a portion that would provide cannabis businesses with banking access. 'If Democrats were serious about providing relief for the American people, then they shouldn't have rejected the multiple clean bills put forward by Republicans,' Matthews said. Meanwhile, Democrats are critical of the HEALS Act, a $1.1 trillion Republican-backed coronavirus relief package that doesn't include an eviction moratorium. CARES Act In addition to protecting renters in federal housing assistance programs from evictions, the over $2 trillion CARES Act also protects those in properties with federally backed mortgages. The economic stimulus law was introduced by Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., in January and passed in the House and Senate with widespread bipartisan support. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta estimates that the CARES Act's eviction provisions covered between 28% and 46% of rental units in the country. That's up to 20 million units, but the law's four-month eviction ban expired in late July, and Trump's executive order did not extend it. HEROES Act Over 200 congressional Democrats voted to support the HEROES Act, which would extend the eviction moratorium for up to a year and expand it to protect homeowners. The bill would also allocate $100 billion to provide residents with emergency rental assistance. 'Being able to give money to people to pay their rent then also helps landlords be able to afford the mortgage on the property, the utilities, taxes, all of the things that it takes to maintain a property,' said Peggy Bailey, vice president for housing policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. The HEROES Act, which has not been voted on in the Senate, passed in the House along party lines, with 184 Republicans opposing the bill.
|
Our ruling Trump said, 'The Democrats don't want to do anything having to do with protecting people from eviction.' Congressional Democrats passed and supported bills that set out to protect people from evictions, including through an eviction moratorium and rental assistance. We rate Trump's claim False.
|
[
"112113-proof-15-aeee3f08b13426332fa967c5e9821eca.jpg"
] |
A photo shows Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson on Epstein Island.
|
Contradiction
|
On Sept. 27, an image of Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson appeared on Facebook. He looks relaxed in a chair on a beach, smiling with a book by Sen. Elizabeth Warren in hand. A domed building looms on a hill behind him. 'Epstein Island,' wrote an account that shared the image, referring to the private Carribean island owned by the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But the photo in the post is doctored and it was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The original image comes from the season five premiere of 'Ballers,' the HBO show in which Johnson plays a former athlete turned manager. But the building that appears in the image on Facebook - which looks like the blue-striped building on Little St. James, the island owned by Epstein - is not in the original. That building also doesn't appear in similar shots from 'Ballers' that Warren's campaign tweeted the night the show premiered. (She's a big fan of the show.) 'You love to see it: @TheRock reading 'This Fight is Our Fight: The Battle to Save America's Middle Class' by @ewarren,' her campaign's Twitter account wrote in August 2019. Johnson isn't the first celebrity to be tangled in a social media hoax wrongly connecting some actors to Epstein. This particular allegation came only a few hours after Johnson, a retired professional wrestler who described himself as 'a political independent and centrist for many years,' publicly endorsed Biden for president. But this picture of him on the beach is doctored. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
But this picture of him on the beach is doctored. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Says the white man who wanted Rosa Parks' seat on the bus was suffering from ADHD and anxiety.
|
Contradiction
|
The story of Rosa Parks is a milestone in American civil rights history. On Dec. 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Ala., during the era of legalized racial segregation across the South, Parks, a Black woman, was arrested and fined for refusing a bus driver's order to give up her seat to a white male passenger. Her arrest led to the Montgomery Bus boycott, a turning point in the civil rights movement that led the Supreme Court to order the desegregation of Montgomery's buses. But a Facebook post added an eyebrow-raising plot twist: 'The Rosa Parks story gets more complicated when we acknowledge that the white man who wanted her seat was suffering from ADHD and anxiety.' 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.) It originated from a tweet that appeared to confuse many people who were unsure whether it was for real. 'I have ADHD and anxiety,' one person replied. 'I have never in my life even felt remotely compelled to tell someone to get up from their seat at any public place because 'I deserve it more.'' 'Maybe I need tone tags, cause this fooled me,' wrote another Twitter user, referring to symbols or codes that help to convey the tone of a message. The author of the Twitter post, Charles Austin, cleared things up: It was meant as satire. 'I think a good rule of thumb when people see a post like that is just to check what that person's other recent tweets are like,' Austin told PolitiFact. 'If all my other tweets from that time are stuff like 'cigarettes are vegetarian,' it should be clear it's satire.' Austin said he wrote the tweet to mock social media users who post these types of statements for real. 'The joke is ultimately about the tortured logic people use on social media to justify abhorrent opinions using language that is ostensibly inclusive and empathetic: we must 'acknowledge' the 'suffering' of the guy who's clearly in the wrong,' Austin said. Lopez D. Matthews, digital librarian at Howard University who specializes in Black history, said that kind of logic has been invoked against civil rights throughout history. 'Those who were anti-civil rights would claim that by granting civil rights protections, you were taking away the rights of people who wanted to discriminate,' Matthews said. Historical records, including accounts from both Parks and Blake, don't identify the passenger whom Parks was ordered to move for. Donna Beisel, assistant director of the Rosa Parks Museum in Montgomery, said the only public information available about the man is that he and the others who boarded at the same time had come from the Empire and Paramount theaters. In any case, ADHD and anxiety weren't officially recognized as diagnoses by the American Psychiatry Association until the 1980s and early 1990s, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Records in the National Archives say Parks was seated in the row just behind the section reserved for white people. When the bus became full, Blake ordered Parks and three other Black passengers to give their seats up for the white passengers. Parks refused, and Blake called to have her arrested. Blake said in an interview years later that Parks was in violation of city codes. 'What was I supposed to do?' Blake said. 'That damn bus was full and she wouldn't move back. I had my orders. I had police powers - any driver for the city did. So the bus filled up and a white man got on, and she had his seat and I told her to move back, and she wouldn't do it.' Parks recounted the story in an interview on 'The Merv Griffin Show,' which was posted in a clip to YouTube. Parks said Blake told her and the other Black passengers to 'make it light' on themselves and give up their seats so the man could sit. Parks refused. 'Living under that type of oppression, I didn't feel like it was making it light on us or anyone else for me to stand up,' Parks said. 'So I didn't.'
|
Our ruling A social media post said that the white man who wanted Rosa Parks' seat on the bus was suffering from ADHD and anxiety. The author of the post said it was satire. Historical records have limited information about who the passenger was on the bus. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"112139-proof-12-3d090296110050bcf97540b8d23983ac.jpg"
] |
Says the white man who wanted Rosa Parks' seat on the bus was suffering from ADHD and anxiety.
|
Contradiction
|
The story of Rosa Parks is a milestone in American civil rights history. On Dec. 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Ala., during the era of legalized racial segregation across the South, Parks, a Black woman, was arrested and fined for refusing a bus driver's order to give up her seat to a white male passenger. Her arrest led to the Montgomery Bus boycott, a turning point in the civil rights movement that led the Supreme Court to order the desegregation of Montgomery's buses. But a Facebook post added an eyebrow-raising plot twist: 'The Rosa Parks story gets more complicated when we acknowledge that the white man who wanted her seat was suffering from ADHD and anxiety.' 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.) It originated from a tweet that appeared to confuse many people who were unsure whether it was for real. 'I have ADHD and anxiety,' one person replied. 'I have never in my life even felt remotely compelled to tell someone to get up from their seat at any public place because 'I deserve it more.'' 'Maybe I need tone tags, cause this fooled me,' wrote another Twitter user, referring to symbols or codes that help to convey the tone of a message. The author of the Twitter post, Charles Austin, cleared things up: It was meant as satire. 'I think a good rule of thumb when people see a post like that is just to check what that person's other recent tweets are like,' Austin told PolitiFact. 'If all my other tweets from that time are stuff like 'cigarettes are vegetarian,' it should be clear it's satire.' Austin said he wrote the tweet to mock social media users who post these types of statements for real. 'The joke is ultimately about the tortured logic people use on social media to justify abhorrent opinions using language that is ostensibly inclusive and empathetic: we must 'acknowledge' the 'suffering' of the guy who's clearly in the wrong,' Austin said. Lopez D. Matthews, digital librarian at Howard University who specializes in Black history, said that kind of logic has been invoked against civil rights throughout history. 'Those who were anti-civil rights would claim that by granting civil rights protections, you were taking away the rights of people who wanted to discriminate,' Matthews said. Historical records, including accounts from both Parks and Blake, don't identify the passenger whom Parks was ordered to move for. Donna Beisel, assistant director of the Rosa Parks Museum in Montgomery, said the only public information available about the man is that he and the others who boarded at the same time had come from the Empire and Paramount theaters. In any case, ADHD and anxiety weren't officially recognized as diagnoses by the American Psychiatry Association until the 1980s and early 1990s, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Records in the National Archives say Parks was seated in the row just behind the section reserved for white people. When the bus became full, Blake ordered Parks and three other Black passengers to give their seats up for the white passengers. Parks refused, and Blake called to have her arrested. Blake said in an interview years later that Parks was in violation of city codes. 'What was I supposed to do?' Blake said. 'That damn bus was full and she wouldn't move back. I had my orders. I had police powers - any driver for the city did. So the bus filled up and a white man got on, and she had his seat and I told her to move back, and she wouldn't do it.' Parks recounted the story in an interview on 'The Merv Griffin Show,' which was posted in a clip to YouTube. Parks said Blake told her and the other Black passengers to 'make it light' on themselves and give up their seats so the man could sit. Parks refused. 'Living under that type of oppression, I didn't feel like it was making it light on us or anyone else for me to stand up,' Parks said. 'So I didn't.'
|
Our ruling A social media post said that the white man who wanted Rosa Parks' seat on the bus was suffering from ADHD and anxiety. The author of the post said it was satire. Historical records have limited information about who the passenger was on the bus. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"112139-proof-12-3d090296110050bcf97540b8d23983ac.jpg"
] |
Says the white man who wanted Rosa Parks' seat on the bus was suffering from ADHD and anxiety.
|
Contradiction
|
The story of Rosa Parks is a milestone in American civil rights history. On Dec. 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Ala., during the era of legalized racial segregation across the South, Parks, a Black woman, was arrested and fined for refusing a bus driver's order to give up her seat to a white male passenger. Her arrest led to the Montgomery Bus boycott, a turning point in the civil rights movement that led the Supreme Court to order the desegregation of Montgomery's buses. But a Facebook post added an eyebrow-raising plot twist: 'The Rosa Parks story gets more complicated when we acknowledge that the white man who wanted her seat was suffering from ADHD and anxiety.' 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.) It originated from a tweet that appeared to confuse many people who were unsure whether it was for real. 'I have ADHD and anxiety,' one person replied. 'I have never in my life even felt remotely compelled to tell someone to get up from their seat at any public place because 'I deserve it more.'' 'Maybe I need tone tags, cause this fooled me,' wrote another Twitter user, referring to symbols or codes that help to convey the tone of a message. The author of the Twitter post, Charles Austin, cleared things up: It was meant as satire. 'I think a good rule of thumb when people see a post like that is just to check what that person's other recent tweets are like,' Austin told PolitiFact. 'If all my other tweets from that time are stuff like 'cigarettes are vegetarian,' it should be clear it's satire.' Austin said he wrote the tweet to mock social media users who post these types of statements for real. 'The joke is ultimately about the tortured logic people use on social media to justify abhorrent opinions using language that is ostensibly inclusive and empathetic: we must 'acknowledge' the 'suffering' of the guy who's clearly in the wrong,' Austin said. Lopez D. Matthews, digital librarian at Howard University who specializes in Black history, said that kind of logic has been invoked against civil rights throughout history. 'Those who were anti-civil rights would claim that by granting civil rights protections, you were taking away the rights of people who wanted to discriminate,' Matthews said. Historical records, including accounts from both Parks and Blake, don't identify the passenger whom Parks was ordered to move for. Donna Beisel, assistant director of the Rosa Parks Museum in Montgomery, said the only public information available about the man is that he and the others who boarded at the same time had come from the Empire and Paramount theaters. In any case, ADHD and anxiety weren't officially recognized as diagnoses by the American Psychiatry Association until the 1980s and early 1990s, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Records in the National Archives say Parks was seated in the row just behind the section reserved for white people. When the bus became full, Blake ordered Parks and three other Black passengers to give their seats up for the white passengers. Parks refused, and Blake called to have her arrested. Blake said in an interview years later that Parks was in violation of city codes. 'What was I supposed to do?' Blake said. 'That damn bus was full and she wouldn't move back. I had my orders. I had police powers - any driver for the city did. So the bus filled up and a white man got on, and she had his seat and I told her to move back, and she wouldn't do it.' Parks recounted the story in an interview on 'The Merv Griffin Show,' which was posted in a clip to YouTube. Parks said Blake told her and the other Black passengers to 'make it light' on themselves and give up their seats so the man could sit. Parks refused. 'Living under that type of oppression, I didn't feel like it was making it light on us or anyone else for me to stand up,' Parks said. 'So I didn't.'
|
Our ruling A social media post said that the white man who wanted Rosa Parks' seat on the bus was suffering from ADHD and anxiety. The author of the post said it was satire. Historical records have limited information about who the passenger was on the bus. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"112139-proof-12-3d090296110050bcf97540b8d23983ac.jpg"
] |
'Boil some orange peels wit cayenne pepper in it stand over the pot breathe in the steam so all that mucus can release from yo nasal... MUCUS is the problem its where THE VIRUS LIVES!!!'
|
Contradiction
|
While boiling water can be used to disinfect medical equipment during a pandemic, using boiling water and seasoning to clear your nose is not proven to protect you from COVID-19. One post on Facebook claimed that if you 'boil some orange peels wit cayenne pepper in it' and 'stand over the pot breathe in the steam so all that mucus can release from yo nasal' you can get rid of all the mucus because that is 'where THE VIRUS LIVES.' The spelling errors may have tipped you off that this isn't sound advice. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've also seen plenty posts suggesting that boiling orange peels or lemon peels with sea salt and inhaling that steam is a treatment. The World Health Organization has a page on false COVID-19 'cures,' which lists lemon and turmeric as unproven cures for COVID-19. In that same vein, there is no evidence that oranges, another citrus, or cayenne, another spice, can cure COVID-19. Mucus is actually the body's first defense against virus microbes that could enter airways, and blowing it out may not be the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19. A study published in the journal Cell Host & Microbe found that the 'mucus layer... can prevent pathogen invasion and subsequent infection.' Currently, there is no specific treatment for people with COVID-19. Cough medicine, pain relievers, rest and fluids are all recommended because they alleviate the typical symptoms of COVID-19: cough, shortness of breath and fever. So clearing out your sinuses will definitely not make you less likely to catch COVID-19 or cure you if you are sick, and there's no evidence that orange peels, lemon peels or cayenne contain any healing properties, either. We rate this Pants on Fire.
|
So clearing out your sinuses will definitely not make you less likely to catch COVID-19 or cure you if you are sick, and there's no evidence that orange peels, lemon peels or cayenne contain any healing properties, either. We rate this Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'Boil some orange peels wit cayenne pepper in it stand over the pot breathe in the steam so all that mucus can release from yo nasal... MUCUS is the problem its where THE VIRUS LIVES!!!'
|
Contradiction
|
While boiling water can be used to disinfect medical equipment during a pandemic, using boiling water and seasoning to clear your nose is not proven to protect you from COVID-19. One post on Facebook claimed that if you 'boil some orange peels wit cayenne pepper in it' and 'stand over the pot breathe in the steam so all that mucus can release from yo nasal' you can get rid of all the mucus because that is 'where THE VIRUS LIVES.' The spelling errors may have tipped you off that this isn't sound advice. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've also seen plenty posts suggesting that boiling orange peels or lemon peels with sea salt and inhaling that steam is a treatment. The World Health Organization has a page on false COVID-19 'cures,' which lists lemon and turmeric as unproven cures for COVID-19. In that same vein, there is no evidence that oranges, another citrus, or cayenne, another spice, can cure COVID-19. Mucus is actually the body's first defense against virus microbes that could enter airways, and blowing it out may not be the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19. A study published in the journal Cell Host & Microbe found that the 'mucus layer... can prevent pathogen invasion and subsequent infection.' Currently, there is no specific treatment for people with COVID-19. Cough medicine, pain relievers, rest and fluids are all recommended because they alleviate the typical symptoms of COVID-19: cough, shortness of breath and fever. So clearing out your sinuses will definitely not make you less likely to catch COVID-19 or cure you if you are sick, and there's no evidence that orange peels, lemon peels or cayenne contain any healing properties, either. We rate this Pants on Fire.
|
So clearing out your sinuses will definitely not make you less likely to catch COVID-19 or cure you if you are sick, and there's no evidence that orange peels, lemon peels or cayenne contain any healing properties, either. We rate this Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Says there were '600,000 plus unlawful votes in Philly and Pitt.
|
Contradiction
|
In Pennsylvania, Democrat Joe Biden got about 54,000 more votes than President Donald Trump. Some Trump supporters reject that tally, claiming without evidence that tens or even hundreds of thousands of ballots were counted illegitimately. 'It's more like 600,000 plus unlawful votes in Philly and Pitt,' Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani tweeted Nov. 11. Tom, it's more like 600,000 plus unlawful votes In Philly and Pitt. https://t.co/5pdNiDXqKt- Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) November 12, 2020 We reached out to Giuliani's communications director to ask where he got his number and did not hear back. The Pennsylvania Department of State, which oversees elections, says the former New York mayor's claim is unfounded. We found no rationale or explanation for how so many votes could have been fraudulently cast. 'There is no factual basis for this claim,' said agency communications director Wanda Murren. 'Allegations of fraud and illegal activity have been repeatedly debunked and dismissed by the courts.' A U.S. District Court judge rebuffed a GOP suit that claimed Republican observers had been unfairly barred from certain areas of the Philadelphia Convention Center where mailed ballots were counted. Pressed by the judge, Republicans acknowledged that they did have representatives on the scene. Democrats and Republicans then established more detailed ground rules for how many party representatives would observe the count. A combined total of 1,409,483 votes were cast in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, the state's two largest cities. Guiliani's statement suggests that over 40% of them were illegal. His 600,000 figure is roughly equal to the entire number of mail-in ballots that were cast for Biden in the two cities. The state Republican Party is challenging a state Supreme Court ruling that allowed for counting mailed ballots that arrive within three days after polls closed on Election Day. State election officials said about 10,000 mail ballots were received during those three days. The state has kept those ballots separate, pending a resolution of the GOP challenge. The state did not include them in tallies that led the state to be called for Biden. Some have suggested that many ballots were counted without legally required oversight. We recently rated False a claim along those lines from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and debunked a claim from Trump that Republican observers were barred. We found no evidence that ballots were inappropriately cast or that observers were barred from watching. The Pennsylvania law that established mail-in voting and allows observers to be present when mail ballots are opened and recorded was passed by a Republican Legislature. 'Any laws around poll watchers apply equally to both major parties and any third parties,' said Suzanne Almeida, interim executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania. 'I have seen no evidence that one party's poll watchers have been treated any differently than the other.'
|
Our ruling Giuliani said over 600,000 votes were unlawful in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. There is no evidence to back that up. Pennsylvania law allows representatives from both parties to observe the count, and Republicans in the state told a judge that they did have monitors in the room. Pennsylvania's Department of State denied that any votes were improperly counted. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"112168-proof-25-7a3fe4acd530850dfd1048e4f0f94cc4.jpg"
] |
Says there were '600,000 plus unlawful votes in Philly and Pitt.
|
Contradiction
|
In Pennsylvania, Democrat Joe Biden got about 54,000 more votes than President Donald Trump. Some Trump supporters reject that tally, claiming without evidence that tens or even hundreds of thousands of ballots were counted illegitimately. 'It's more like 600,000 plus unlawful votes in Philly and Pitt,' Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani tweeted Nov. 11. Tom, it's more like 600,000 plus unlawful votes In Philly and Pitt. https://t.co/5pdNiDXqKt- Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) November 12, 2020 We reached out to Giuliani's communications director to ask where he got his number and did not hear back. The Pennsylvania Department of State, which oversees elections, says the former New York mayor's claim is unfounded. We found no rationale or explanation for how so many votes could have been fraudulently cast. 'There is no factual basis for this claim,' said agency communications director Wanda Murren. 'Allegations of fraud and illegal activity have been repeatedly debunked and dismissed by the courts.' A U.S. District Court judge rebuffed a GOP suit that claimed Republican observers had been unfairly barred from certain areas of the Philadelphia Convention Center where mailed ballots were counted. Pressed by the judge, Republicans acknowledged that they did have representatives on the scene. Democrats and Republicans then established more detailed ground rules for how many party representatives would observe the count. A combined total of 1,409,483 votes were cast in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, the state's two largest cities. Guiliani's statement suggests that over 40% of them were illegal. His 600,000 figure is roughly equal to the entire number of mail-in ballots that were cast for Biden in the two cities. The state Republican Party is challenging a state Supreme Court ruling that allowed for counting mailed ballots that arrive within three days after polls closed on Election Day. State election officials said about 10,000 mail ballots were received during those three days. The state has kept those ballots separate, pending a resolution of the GOP challenge. The state did not include them in tallies that led the state to be called for Biden. Some have suggested that many ballots were counted without legally required oversight. We recently rated False a claim along those lines from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and debunked a claim from Trump that Republican observers were barred. We found no evidence that ballots were inappropriately cast or that observers were barred from watching. The Pennsylvania law that established mail-in voting and allows observers to be present when mail ballots are opened and recorded was passed by a Republican Legislature. 'Any laws around poll watchers apply equally to both major parties and any third parties,' said Suzanne Almeida, interim executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania. 'I have seen no evidence that one party's poll watchers have been treated any differently than the other.'
|
Our ruling Giuliani said over 600,000 votes were unlawful in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. There is no evidence to back that up. Pennsylvania law allows representatives from both parties to observe the count, and Republicans in the state told a judge that they did have monitors in the room. Pennsylvania's Department of State denied that any votes were improperly counted. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"112168-proof-25-7a3fe4acd530850dfd1048e4f0f94cc4.jpg"
] |
Says there were '600,000 plus unlawful votes in Philly and Pitt.
|
Contradiction
|
In Pennsylvania, Democrat Joe Biden got about 54,000 more votes than President Donald Trump. Some Trump supporters reject that tally, claiming without evidence that tens or even hundreds of thousands of ballots were counted illegitimately. 'It's more like 600,000 plus unlawful votes in Philly and Pitt,' Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani tweeted Nov. 11. Tom, it's more like 600,000 plus unlawful votes In Philly and Pitt. https://t.co/5pdNiDXqKt- Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) November 12, 2020 We reached out to Giuliani's communications director to ask where he got his number and did not hear back. The Pennsylvania Department of State, which oversees elections, says the former New York mayor's claim is unfounded. We found no rationale or explanation for how so many votes could have been fraudulently cast. 'There is no factual basis for this claim,' said agency communications director Wanda Murren. 'Allegations of fraud and illegal activity have been repeatedly debunked and dismissed by the courts.' A U.S. District Court judge rebuffed a GOP suit that claimed Republican observers had been unfairly barred from certain areas of the Philadelphia Convention Center where mailed ballots were counted. Pressed by the judge, Republicans acknowledged that they did have representatives on the scene. Democrats and Republicans then established more detailed ground rules for how many party representatives would observe the count. A combined total of 1,409,483 votes were cast in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, the state's two largest cities. Guiliani's statement suggests that over 40% of them were illegal. His 600,000 figure is roughly equal to the entire number of mail-in ballots that were cast for Biden in the two cities. The state Republican Party is challenging a state Supreme Court ruling that allowed for counting mailed ballots that arrive within three days after polls closed on Election Day. State election officials said about 10,000 mail ballots were received during those three days. The state has kept those ballots separate, pending a resolution of the GOP challenge. The state did not include them in tallies that led the state to be called for Biden. Some have suggested that many ballots were counted without legally required oversight. We recently rated False a claim along those lines from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and debunked a claim from Trump that Republican observers were barred. We found no evidence that ballots were inappropriately cast or that observers were barred from watching. The Pennsylvania law that established mail-in voting and allows observers to be present when mail ballots are opened and recorded was passed by a Republican Legislature. 'Any laws around poll watchers apply equally to both major parties and any third parties,' said Suzanne Almeida, interim executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania. 'I have seen no evidence that one party's poll watchers have been treated any differently than the other.'
|
Our ruling Giuliani said over 600,000 votes were unlawful in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. There is no evidence to back that up. Pennsylvania law allows representatives from both parties to observe the count, and Republicans in the state told a judge that they did have monitors in the room. Pennsylvania's Department of State denied that any votes were improperly counted. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"112168-proof-25-7a3fe4acd530850dfd1048e4f0f94cc4.jpg"
] |
Says 'Kamala Harris is not able to be VP. Because she's a felon. She lied on her application to buy a gun here in CA.
|
Contradiction
|
Misinformation about Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris has flourished online since Joe Biden selected her as running mate. One popular theme is the false claim that Harris does not meet eligibility requirements. Here's a new variation on that theme: 'Kamala Harris is not able to be VP. Because she's a felon. She lied on her application to buy a gun here in CA,' reads a Sept. 1 post that was shared thousands of times. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) 'Is this true?' one Facebook user wrote in the post's comments. No, reader, it is not true. There is no evidence Harris has ever been convicted of a felony. We searched news archives and court records and found nothing of that sort. PolitiFact reached out to the Facebook user for evidence to support the claim, but he did not respond. The post was made private or deleted soon after. Harris, a former California attorney general who has a reputation for having been a tough-on-crime prosecutor, has been a member of the State Bar of California since June 1990, and her law license is still active. The State Bar of California website displays Harris' license history, including 'all changes of license status due to both non-disciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary actions.' If she had been charged with a crime or convicted, the state bar would have been notified. If she had been convicted of a felony, she would have been 'placed on interim suspension pending a disciplinary hearing on the merits in State Bar Court,' according to the state bar website. Harris has no disciplinary record and her license has not been suspended. In 2019, a spokesperson for Harris' presidential campaign confirmed that Harris owned a handgun that she had purchased years earlier. Since at least 2012, people seeking to buy a gun in California have faced a 10-day waiting period and background check to ensure the buyer is eligible to own one under California law. A person convicted of a felony cannot buy one. While Harris was attorney general, her office released the 2013 California Firearms Laws Summary, which explained that gun buyers are required to provide personal information to the seller and wait 10 days while a background check is completed. We find no evidence Harris violated these requirements, but we also were unable to verify where her gun was purchased. The Harris campaign declined to comment for this fact-check. All that said, even if Harris had been convicted of a felony at some point, this would not prevent her from becoming vice president or assuming the presidency. The requirements are the same for people seeking to become vice president or president, according to experts: A person must be a natural-born citizen, be at least 35 years old and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years. Harris meets these requirements and is eligible to be president or vice president. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
|
We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Says 'Kamala Harris is not able to be VP. Because she's a felon. She lied on her application to buy a gun here in CA.
|
Contradiction
|
Misinformation about Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris has flourished online since Joe Biden selected her as running mate. One popular theme is the false claim that Harris does not meet eligibility requirements. Here's a new variation on that theme: 'Kamala Harris is not able to be VP. Because she's a felon. She lied on her application to buy a gun here in CA,' reads a Sept. 1 post that was shared thousands of times. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) 'Is this true?' one Facebook user wrote in the post's comments. No, reader, it is not true. There is no evidence Harris has ever been convicted of a felony. We searched news archives and court records and found nothing of that sort. PolitiFact reached out to the Facebook user for evidence to support the claim, but he did not respond. The post was made private or deleted soon after. Harris, a former California attorney general who has a reputation for having been a tough-on-crime prosecutor, has been a member of the State Bar of California since June 1990, and her law license is still active. The State Bar of California website displays Harris' license history, including 'all changes of license status due to both non-disciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary actions.' If she had been charged with a crime or convicted, the state bar would have been notified. If she had been convicted of a felony, she would have been 'placed on interim suspension pending a disciplinary hearing on the merits in State Bar Court,' according to the state bar website. Harris has no disciplinary record and her license has not been suspended. In 2019, a spokesperson for Harris' presidential campaign confirmed that Harris owned a handgun that she had purchased years earlier. Since at least 2012, people seeking to buy a gun in California have faced a 10-day waiting period and background check to ensure the buyer is eligible to own one under California law. A person convicted of a felony cannot buy one. While Harris was attorney general, her office released the 2013 California Firearms Laws Summary, which explained that gun buyers are required to provide personal information to the seller and wait 10 days while a background check is completed. We find no evidence Harris violated these requirements, but we also were unable to verify where her gun was purchased. The Harris campaign declined to comment for this fact-check. All that said, even if Harris had been convicted of a felony at some point, this would not prevent her from becoming vice president or assuming the presidency. The requirements are the same for people seeking to become vice president or president, according to experts: A person must be a natural-born citizen, be at least 35 years old and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years. Harris meets these requirements and is eligible to be president or vice president. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
|
We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Wearing face masks may cause 'pulmonary fibrosis' and other health risks in children.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook group called Informed Parents for California held a public rally on Monday in Orange County, protesting the use of face masks in California public schools. The group of more than 52,000 Facebook users created fliers for students to 'sit out and zoom out.' Parents were encouraged to make fliers for other school districts from Orange County up to Yuba County. 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 flier was riddled with false information about the health risks of wearing a mask. One of those false risks is wearing a face mask could cause pulmonary fibrosis, a disease in which scar tissue develops in the lungs. As reported previously by PolitiFact, there is no evidence that wearing face masks causes lung infections or reduces blood oxygen levels. Only people with pre-existing respiratory conditions may be at risk to prolonged use of tight-fitting masks, like N95 respirators. 'There is no evidence that mask wearing leads to pulmonary fibrosis in either children or adults,' said David Cornfield, Chief Pulmonary, Asthma, and Sleep Medicine at Stanford Children's Health. 'Masks are safe and effective tools to mitigate the spread of viral illnesses spread in the air.' The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention peer reviewed two separate studies - one with children and one with adults - on possible adverse effects associated with mask use. According to the studies, the agency found no indication of decreased oxygen or increased carbon dioxide blood level, nor clinical signs of respiratory distress among participants. Other false health claims on the flier included induced exhaustion syndrome and respiratory impairment. PolitiFact debunked these claims back in the summer of 2020 after talking to health experts who said face masks don't cause lung infections. The CDC also updated its guidelines on face masks to include research on why face masks don't cause harm. According to a recent PolitiFact story, the misinformation stems from a theoretical paper written in Medical Hypothesis, a journal for 'radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas,' that is not peer-reviewed. The paper first went viral after Gateway Pundit, a conservative website, published a story with the headline, 'Stanford Study Results: Face masks are Ineffective to Block Transmission of COVID-19 and Actually Can Cause Health Deterioration and Premature Death.' The paper was purported to be in association with Stanford University. The author of the theoretical paper, an exercise physiologist, was last affiliated with Stanford in 2016. Stanford asked for Medical Hypothesis to retract any affiliation with the university. The CDC recently announced that fully vaccinated people don't need to wear face masks or practice social distancing indoors unless under certain circumstances. California intends to align with the CDC's new guidelines on June 15. Until then, school districts are working with the California Department of Public Health to determine what activities are safe to do for vaccinated and unvaccinated persons. Our Ruling A Facebook group called Informed Parents for California continues to spread false information on the health risks of wearing face masks. The group, which has tens of thousands of followers, shared a flier that had multiple claims, including one that said children who wear masks are at risk of the lung disease pulmonary fibrosis. We found that health claim - as well as the others on the flier - to be incorrect. These same claims have been debunked repeatedly by experts over the past year. Two CDC peer-reviewed studies this year showed face masks don't decrease oxygen or increase carbon dioxide blood level. Nor do they cause respiratory distress. Medical experts we spoke with also disagreed with the claims, and added that 'masks are safe and effective tools to mitigate the spread of viral illnesses spread in the air.' The debunked information came from a journal entry in Medical Hypothesis, a non-peer reviewed theoretical journal, and the author was falsely affiliated with Stanford University. We rate this claim as Pants on Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
|
Our Ruling A Facebook group called Informed Parents for California continues to spread false information on the health risks of wearing face masks. The group, which has tens of thousands of followers, shared a flier that had multiple claims, including one that said children who wear masks are at risk of the lung disease pulmonary fibrosis. We found that health claim - as well as the others on the flier - to be incorrect. These same claims have been debunked repeatedly by experts over the past year. Two CDC peer-reviewed studies this year showed face masks don't decrease oxygen or increase carbon dioxide blood level. Nor do they cause respiratory distress. Medical experts we spoke with also disagreed with the claims, and added that 'masks are safe and effective tools to mitigate the spread of viral illnesses spread in the air.' The debunked information came from a journal entry in Medical Hypothesis, a non-peer reviewed theoretical journal, and the author was falsely affiliated with Stanford University. We rate this claim as Pants on Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
|
[
"112189-proof-25-p7ilAQKQH-11I_1jO7Rz8Pn1KTcFf_q3ovdfd2xGm1T-YyN_5gUKze_GlDhRUg_b9ah85C7G5NFlZpc7.jpg"
] |
Wearing face masks may cause 'pulmonary fibrosis' and other health risks in children.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook group called Informed Parents for California held a public rally on Monday in Orange County, protesting the use of face masks in California public schools. The group of more than 52,000 Facebook users created fliers for students to 'sit out and zoom out.' Parents were encouraged to make fliers for other school districts from Orange County up to Yuba County. 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 flier was riddled with false information about the health risks of wearing a mask. One of those false risks is wearing a face mask could cause pulmonary fibrosis, a disease in which scar tissue develops in the lungs. As reported previously by PolitiFact, there is no evidence that wearing face masks causes lung infections or reduces blood oxygen levels. Only people with pre-existing respiratory conditions may be at risk to prolonged use of tight-fitting masks, like N95 respirators. 'There is no evidence that mask wearing leads to pulmonary fibrosis in either children or adults,' said David Cornfield, Chief Pulmonary, Asthma, and Sleep Medicine at Stanford Children's Health. 'Masks are safe and effective tools to mitigate the spread of viral illnesses spread in the air.' The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention peer reviewed two separate studies - one with children and one with adults - on possible adverse effects associated with mask use. According to the studies, the agency found no indication of decreased oxygen or increased carbon dioxide blood level, nor clinical signs of respiratory distress among participants. Other false health claims on the flier included induced exhaustion syndrome and respiratory impairment. PolitiFact debunked these claims back in the summer of 2020 after talking to health experts who said face masks don't cause lung infections. The CDC also updated its guidelines on face masks to include research on why face masks don't cause harm. According to a recent PolitiFact story, the misinformation stems from a theoretical paper written in Medical Hypothesis, a journal for 'radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas,' that is not peer-reviewed. The paper first went viral after Gateway Pundit, a conservative website, published a story with the headline, 'Stanford Study Results: Face masks are Ineffective to Block Transmission of COVID-19 and Actually Can Cause Health Deterioration and Premature Death.' The paper was purported to be in association with Stanford University. The author of the theoretical paper, an exercise physiologist, was last affiliated with Stanford in 2016. Stanford asked for Medical Hypothesis to retract any affiliation with the university. The CDC recently announced that fully vaccinated people don't need to wear face masks or practice social distancing indoors unless under certain circumstances. California intends to align with the CDC's new guidelines on June 15. Until then, school districts are working with the California Department of Public Health to determine what activities are safe to do for vaccinated and unvaccinated persons. Our Ruling A Facebook group called Informed Parents for California continues to spread false information on the health risks of wearing face masks. The group, which has tens of thousands of followers, shared a flier that had multiple claims, including one that said children who wear masks are at risk of the lung disease pulmonary fibrosis. We found that health claim - as well as the others on the flier - to be incorrect. These same claims have been debunked repeatedly by experts over the past year. Two CDC peer-reviewed studies this year showed face masks don't decrease oxygen or increase carbon dioxide blood level. Nor do they cause respiratory distress. Medical experts we spoke with also disagreed with the claims, and added that 'masks are safe and effective tools to mitigate the spread of viral illnesses spread in the air.' The debunked information came from a journal entry in Medical Hypothesis, a non-peer reviewed theoretical journal, and the author was falsely affiliated with Stanford University. We rate this claim as Pants on Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
|
Our Ruling A Facebook group called Informed Parents for California continues to spread false information on the health risks of wearing face masks. The group, which has tens of thousands of followers, shared a flier that had multiple claims, including one that said children who wear masks are at risk of the lung disease pulmonary fibrosis. We found that health claim - as well as the others on the flier - to be incorrect. These same claims have been debunked repeatedly by experts over the past year. Two CDC peer-reviewed studies this year showed face masks don't decrease oxygen or increase carbon dioxide blood level. Nor do they cause respiratory distress. Medical experts we spoke with also disagreed with the claims, and added that 'masks are safe and effective tools to mitigate the spread of viral illnesses spread in the air.' The debunked information came from a journal entry in Medical Hypothesis, a non-peer reviewed theoretical journal, and the author was falsely affiliated with Stanford University. We rate this claim as Pants on Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
|
[
"112189-proof-25-p7ilAQKQH-11I_1jO7Rz8Pn1KTcFf_q3ovdfd2xGm1T-YyN_5gUKze_GlDhRUg_b9ah85C7G5NFlZpc7.jpg"
] |
'CDC Director Robert Redfield says healthy people should NOT wear masks.
|
Contradiction
|
Testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Sept. 16, Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that face masks are the 'best defense' against COVID-19. 'This face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because the immunogenicity may be 70%, and if I don't get an immune response, the vaccine's not going to protect me,' he said, holding a mask. 'This face mask will.' But an Instagram post published on the social media platform the same day shared an old video of the CDC director with this message: 'CDC Director Robert Redfield says healthy people should NOT wear masks.' In the video, U.S. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., asks during a hearing of a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee, 'Should you wear a mask if you're healthy?' Redfield pushes the microphone toward his face and says, 'No.' 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 clip of the video in the Instagram post is authentic, but it says 'Today' in the corner. In reality, this exchange happened in February 2020. You can hear it about 56 minutes and 30 seconds into the hearing on the country's coronavirus response. This was before President Donald Trump declared COVID-19 a national emergency, and before the CDC changed its recommendations to encourage nearly everyone to wear a face covering when out in public and when social distancing is difficult. Early in the coronavirus outbreak, the CDC did discourage people from wearing face masks unless they had COVID-19 and were showing symptoms. But that changed on April 3, when the CDC said it was revising its guidance based on continuing studies that found the virus could be transmitted by people who were asymptomatic. The CDC's website now says that everyone 2 years of age and older should wear a mask in public and when around people who don't live in your household, especially when it's hard to physically distance. On July 14, the CDC released a news release calling on 'Americans to wear masks to prevent COVID-19 spread.' 'All Americans have a responsibility to protect themselves, their families, and their communities,' the release said. Redfield was the co-author of an editorial that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It was titled, 'Universal masking to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission-the time is now,' and made the case that 'broad adoption of cloth face coverings is a civic duty, a small sacrifice reliant on highly effective low-tech solutions that can help turn the tide favorably in national and global efforts against COVID-19.'
|
Our ruling While Redfield did say in February that healthy people should not wear masks, the CDC reversed course months ago and since early April has recommended that healthy people wear face coverings. This Instagram post wrongly frames his comments from February as if he currently believes that healthy people shouldn't wear masks. This was published online the same day that Redfield said masks are the most effective tool Americans have in the fight against COVID-19 - muddying the waters for people seeking clear, current information. Redfield says that healthy people should wear face coverings. We rate this Instagram post False.
|
[] |
'CDC Director Robert Redfield says healthy people should NOT wear masks.
|
Contradiction
|
Testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Sept. 16, Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that face masks are the 'best defense' against COVID-19. 'This face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because the immunogenicity may be 70%, and if I don't get an immune response, the vaccine's not going to protect me,' he said, holding a mask. 'This face mask will.' But an Instagram post published on the social media platform the same day shared an old video of the CDC director with this message: 'CDC Director Robert Redfield says healthy people should NOT wear masks.' In the video, U.S. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., asks during a hearing of a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee, 'Should you wear a mask if you're healthy?' Redfield pushes the microphone toward his face and says, 'No.' 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 clip of the video in the Instagram post is authentic, but it says 'Today' in the corner. In reality, this exchange happened in February 2020. You can hear it about 56 minutes and 30 seconds into the hearing on the country's coronavirus response. This was before President Donald Trump declared COVID-19 a national emergency, and before the CDC changed its recommendations to encourage nearly everyone to wear a face covering when out in public and when social distancing is difficult. Early in the coronavirus outbreak, the CDC did discourage people from wearing face masks unless they had COVID-19 and were showing symptoms. But that changed on April 3, when the CDC said it was revising its guidance based on continuing studies that found the virus could be transmitted by people who were asymptomatic. The CDC's website now says that everyone 2 years of age and older should wear a mask in public and when around people who don't live in your household, especially when it's hard to physically distance. On July 14, the CDC released a news release calling on 'Americans to wear masks to prevent COVID-19 spread.' 'All Americans have a responsibility to protect themselves, their families, and their communities,' the release said. Redfield was the co-author of an editorial that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It was titled, 'Universal masking to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission-the time is now,' and made the case that 'broad adoption of cloth face coverings is a civic duty, a small sacrifice reliant on highly effective low-tech solutions that can help turn the tide favorably in national and global efforts against COVID-19.'
|
Our ruling While Redfield did say in February that healthy people should not wear masks, the CDC reversed course months ago and since early April has recommended that healthy people wear face coverings. This Instagram post wrongly frames his comments from February as if he currently believes that healthy people shouldn't wear masks. This was published online the same day that Redfield said masks are the most effective tool Americans have in the fight against COVID-19 - muddying the waters for people seeking clear, current information. Redfield says that healthy people should wear face coverings. We rate this Instagram post False.
|
[] |
'CDC Director Robert Redfield says healthy people should NOT wear masks.
|
Contradiction
|
Testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Sept. 16, Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that face masks are the 'best defense' against COVID-19. 'This face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine, because the immunogenicity may be 70%, and if I don't get an immune response, the vaccine's not going to protect me,' he said, holding a mask. 'This face mask will.' But an Instagram post published on the social media platform the same day shared an old video of the CDC director with this message: 'CDC Director Robert Redfield says healthy people should NOT wear masks.' In the video, U.S. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., asks during a hearing of a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee, 'Should you wear a mask if you're healthy?' Redfield pushes the microphone toward his face and says, 'No.' 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 clip of the video in the Instagram post is authentic, but it says 'Today' in the corner. In reality, this exchange happened in February 2020. You can hear it about 56 minutes and 30 seconds into the hearing on the country's coronavirus response. This was before President Donald Trump declared COVID-19 a national emergency, and before the CDC changed its recommendations to encourage nearly everyone to wear a face covering when out in public and when social distancing is difficult. Early in the coronavirus outbreak, the CDC did discourage people from wearing face masks unless they had COVID-19 and were showing symptoms. But that changed on April 3, when the CDC said it was revising its guidance based on continuing studies that found the virus could be transmitted by people who were asymptomatic. The CDC's website now says that everyone 2 years of age and older should wear a mask in public and when around people who don't live in your household, especially when it's hard to physically distance. On July 14, the CDC released a news release calling on 'Americans to wear masks to prevent COVID-19 spread.' 'All Americans have a responsibility to protect themselves, their families, and their communities,' the release said. Redfield was the co-author of an editorial that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It was titled, 'Universal masking to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission-the time is now,' and made the case that 'broad adoption of cloth face coverings is a civic duty, a small sacrifice reliant on highly effective low-tech solutions that can help turn the tide favorably in national and global efforts against COVID-19.'
|
Our ruling While Redfield did say in February that healthy people should not wear masks, the CDC reversed course months ago and since early April has recommended that healthy people wear face coverings. This Instagram post wrongly frames his comments from February as if he currently believes that healthy people shouldn't wear masks. This was published online the same day that Redfield said masks are the most effective tool Americans have in the fight against COVID-19 - muddying the waters for people seeking clear, current information. Redfield says that healthy people should wear face coverings. We rate this Instagram post False.
|
[] |
'This man funds #ANTIFA. He is a real #NAZI. His name is George Soros.
|
Contradiction
|
A subset of misinformation about demonstrations that erupted across the United States in the wake of George Floyd's death involve billionaire Democratic donor George Soros. We've debunked claims that Soros is leaving rocks for activists to cause damage in Los Angeles, among other cities. He isn't providing 'Soros Riot Dance Squad' buses to ferry people to protests. He's not using Open Society Foundations, the philanthropic organization he founded, to fund 'the chaos' in Minneapolis, where a police officer pressed his knee against Floyd's neck. An image being shared on Facebook now makes another claim about Soros in connection with the protests. It appears to show a tweet from actor James Woods, who uses the social media platform to comment on current events. 'This man funds #ANTIFA,' the text says above two photos - one of Soros and one of a younger man in an SS uniform. 'He is a real #NAZI. His name is George Soros.' 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.) As we've reported antifa - which stands for 'anti-fascist' - is a broad, loosely affiliated coalition of left-wing activists. The Trump administration has blamed antifa for recent protests but government intelligence reports, media reports and experts haven't produced any evidence that supports that claim. We couldn't find the tweet searching Woods' account, but we're fact-checking the claims that appear in the Facebook post. First, as we've previously reported, Soros was not a Nazi. The person in the photo in the Facebook post is Oskar Groning, one of 300 Auschwitz staff members. Groning was a corporal in Adolf Hitler's Waffen SS and he became known as the bookkeeper of Auschwitz. He was one of the last Germans to face war-crime charges connected to the Holocaust. Soros fled fascism. When the Nazis invaded Hungary, his father obtained false identities for Soros and his brother and Soros was sent to live with an agricultural official who passed him off as his Christian godson. 'This is how Mr. Soros was able to survive the Nazi occupation,' Open Society said in the statement. 'Mr. Soros was hiding from the Nazis in order to survive. To construe this in any other way is malicious, completely misleading, and, in fact, anti-Semitic.' Next, there is no evidence Soros 'funds antifa.' Open Society Foundations refuted the claim and said that neither Soros or Open Society fund antifa. In a statement, a spokesperson for the organization said the false claims 'touch on longstanding, often anti-Semtiic conspiracy theories.' When Fox Business published a story in June about antifa and 'who funds it,' the story noted that it's a difficult question to answer. 'Little is known about who funds antifa activists, or how the groups get their resources,' the story said. 'Antifa is not a single organization, and therefore, financial details, if any exist, are murky.' Mark Bray, a historian at Rutgers University who wrote 'Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,' told PolitiFact that the Facebook post reflects 'an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that the right has launched at all kinds of radical organizing over the years.' 'Antifa groups do not have much in the way of funds,' he said. 'The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund exists to provide funds for medical or legal expenses of antifascists and those funds come from donations from allies but beyond that I'd imagine that whatever little money these groups have come from members themselves.' We couldn't find any evidence that Soros has contributed to this fund. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'This man funds #ANTIFA. He is a real #NAZI. His name is George Soros.
|
Contradiction
|
A subset of misinformation about demonstrations that erupted across the United States in the wake of George Floyd's death involve billionaire Democratic donor George Soros. We've debunked claims that Soros is leaving rocks for activists to cause damage in Los Angeles, among other cities. He isn't providing 'Soros Riot Dance Squad' buses to ferry people to protests. He's not using Open Society Foundations, the philanthropic organization he founded, to fund 'the chaos' in Minneapolis, where a police officer pressed his knee against Floyd's neck. An image being shared on Facebook now makes another claim about Soros in connection with the protests. It appears to show a tweet from actor James Woods, who uses the social media platform to comment on current events. 'This man funds #ANTIFA,' the text says above two photos - one of Soros and one of a younger man in an SS uniform. 'He is a real #NAZI. His name is George Soros.' 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.) As we've reported antifa - which stands for 'anti-fascist' - is a broad, loosely affiliated coalition of left-wing activists. The Trump administration has blamed antifa for recent protests but government intelligence reports, media reports and experts haven't produced any evidence that supports that claim. We couldn't find the tweet searching Woods' account, but we're fact-checking the claims that appear in the Facebook post. First, as we've previously reported, Soros was not a Nazi. The person in the photo in the Facebook post is Oskar Groning, one of 300 Auschwitz staff members. Groning was a corporal in Adolf Hitler's Waffen SS and he became known as the bookkeeper of Auschwitz. He was one of the last Germans to face war-crime charges connected to the Holocaust. Soros fled fascism. When the Nazis invaded Hungary, his father obtained false identities for Soros and his brother and Soros was sent to live with an agricultural official who passed him off as his Christian godson. 'This is how Mr. Soros was able to survive the Nazi occupation,' Open Society said in the statement. 'Mr. Soros was hiding from the Nazis in order to survive. To construe this in any other way is malicious, completely misleading, and, in fact, anti-Semitic.' Next, there is no evidence Soros 'funds antifa.' Open Society Foundations refuted the claim and said that neither Soros or Open Society fund antifa. In a statement, a spokesperson for the organization said the false claims 'touch on longstanding, often anti-Semtiic conspiracy theories.' When Fox Business published a story in June about antifa and 'who funds it,' the story noted that it's a difficult question to answer. 'Little is known about who funds antifa activists, or how the groups get their resources,' the story said. 'Antifa is not a single organization, and therefore, financial details, if any exist, are murky.' Mark Bray, a historian at Rutgers University who wrote 'Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,' told PolitiFact that the Facebook post reflects 'an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that the right has launched at all kinds of radical organizing over the years.' 'Antifa groups do not have much in the way of funds,' he said. 'The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund exists to provide funds for medical or legal expenses of antifascists and those funds come from donations from allies but beyond that I'd imagine that whatever little money these groups have come from members themselves.' We couldn't find any evidence that Soros has contributed to this fund. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
A new federal program 'is giving homeowners up to $3,708 every year.
|
Contradiction
|
A promotion dangling up to nearly $4,000 to American homeowners is spreading online, but it's not real, so please don't get your hopes up. 'New GSE stimulus program is giving homeowners up to $3,708 every year,' says the headline of a blog post on the website ouramericanliving.com. 'Homeowners can start using this $3,708 however they want, thanks to a new stimulus package brought to us by the current administration,' the post goes on to say. 'You can substantially reduce your home mortgage payments, improve your home, or use it for any other expense.' To tap into this cash, the post tells people to complete a 'mortgage stimulus survey.' Clicking on the link directs you to a website called enhancedrefinow.com and a series of questions about your home. In the end, there's no money waiting. Just several requests for your personal information - name, address, phone number, and more - until you land on a page of advertisements to refinance your home loan. 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.) RELATED VIDEO If you search for evidence to corroborate the stimulus claim online, you'll find none. But there are some fact-checks debunking it. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Photo shows 'Myrtle Beach 30 minutes ago.
|
Contradiction
|
Hurricane Isaias made landfall north of Myrtle Beach in South Carolina around 8 p.m. on Aug. 3, bringing high winds, high tides and flooding to the coastal region. But an image of foreboding clouds above a ferris wheel and lighting striking in the line of the setting sun is not a lucky shot in the eye of the storm, as a Facebook post claims. 'Myrtle beach 30 minutes ago,' the description says. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image was posted on Instagram on May 20 by Brent Shavnore, who creates digital storm art. The photo also appears in the artwork section of his website. In an Instagram story about his background, Shavnore explains that he 'started getting bored with regular photography and took it to the next level.' You can watch a tutorial of how he created a similar image as the one in the Facebook post using two photos from Miami and a storm in Colorado here. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Photo shows 'Myrtle Beach 30 minutes ago.
|
Contradiction
|
Hurricane Isaias made landfall north of Myrtle Beach in South Carolina around 8 p.m. on Aug. 3, bringing high winds, high tides and flooding to the coastal region. But an image of foreboding clouds above a ferris wheel and lighting striking in the line of the setting sun is not a lucky shot in the eye of the storm, as a Facebook post claims. 'Myrtle beach 30 minutes ago,' the description says. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image was posted on Instagram on May 20 by Brent Shavnore, who creates digital storm art. The photo also appears in the artwork section of his website. In an Instagram story about his background, Shavnore explains that he 'started getting bored with regular photography and took it to the next level.' You can watch a tutorial of how he created a similar image as the one in the Facebook post using two photos from Miami and a storm in Colorado here. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
'More than 20 police officers are dead now because of the riots.
|
Contradiction
|
An Oakland, Calif., security officer was fatally shot while working security at a federal courthouse while protests passed a few blocks away. Three days later, a retired officer in St. Louis was fatally shot while responding to a break-in at his friend's pawn shop amid protests. The FBI is still investigating whether 53-year-old Dave Patrick Underwood's May 29 death in Oakland was in any way connected to the nearby protests over police brutality. In St. Louis, meanwhile, police have arrested a man they say shot 77-year-old retired officer David Dorn on June 2 when looting and violence followed peaceful protests. While these two incidents have generated news coverage in the wake of George Floyd's May 25 death in police custody, we find no evidence of a June 3 claim shared by the thousands on Facebook: 'More than 20 police officers are dead now because of the riots. Where is their justice?' The Officer Down Memorial Page, a nonprofit dedicated to honoring local active duty law enforcement officers, lists nine law enforcement officers who have died nationwide since protests began. According to the website and news reports, none were related to the Floyd protests. One officer was shot and killed while delivering an eviction notice. Two were killed while responding to separate domestic disturbance incidents. Two died after contracting COVID-19. One was accidentally shot by another law enforcement officer while responding to a suspicious person call. One was shot and killed while responding to a call for service at a hotel. One died following a vehicle collision. One died while responding to a call about a suspicious vehicle. We did find news reports indicating that several active law enforcement officers have sustained injuries in the course of the hundreds of protests staged in communities across the country since Floyd died. But we found no other information to suggest that more have lost their lives. We rate this claim False.
|
We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'More than 20 police officers are dead now because of the riots.
|
Contradiction
|
An Oakland, Calif., security officer was fatally shot while working security at a federal courthouse while protests passed a few blocks away. Three days later, a retired officer in St. Louis was fatally shot while responding to a break-in at his friend's pawn shop amid protests. The FBI is still investigating whether 53-year-old Dave Patrick Underwood's May 29 death in Oakland was in any way connected to the nearby protests over police brutality. In St. Louis, meanwhile, police have arrested a man they say shot 77-year-old retired officer David Dorn on June 2 when looting and violence followed peaceful protests. While these two incidents have generated news coverage in the wake of George Floyd's May 25 death in police custody, we find no evidence of a June 3 claim shared by the thousands on Facebook: 'More than 20 police officers are dead now because of the riots. Where is their justice?' The Officer Down Memorial Page, a nonprofit dedicated to honoring local active duty law enforcement officers, lists nine law enforcement officers who have died nationwide since protests began. According to the website and news reports, none were related to the Floyd protests. One officer was shot and killed while delivering an eviction notice. Two were killed while responding to separate domestic disturbance incidents. Two died after contracting COVID-19. One was accidentally shot by another law enforcement officer while responding to a suspicious person call. One was shot and killed while responding to a call for service at a hotel. One died following a vehicle collision. One died while responding to a call about a suspicious vehicle. We did find news reports indicating that several active law enforcement officers have sustained injuries in the course of the hundreds of protests staged in communities across the country since Floyd died. But we found no other information to suggest that more have lost their lives. We rate this claim False.
|
We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'More than 20 police officers are dead now because of the riots.
|
Contradiction
|
An Oakland, Calif., security officer was fatally shot while working security at a federal courthouse while protests passed a few blocks away. Three days later, a retired officer in St. Louis was fatally shot while responding to a break-in at his friend's pawn shop amid protests. The FBI is still investigating whether 53-year-old Dave Patrick Underwood's May 29 death in Oakland was in any way connected to the nearby protests over police brutality. In St. Louis, meanwhile, police have arrested a man they say shot 77-year-old retired officer David Dorn on June 2 when looting and violence followed peaceful protests. While these two incidents have generated news coverage in the wake of George Floyd's May 25 death in police custody, we find no evidence of a June 3 claim shared by the thousands on Facebook: 'More than 20 police officers are dead now because of the riots. Where is their justice?' The Officer Down Memorial Page, a nonprofit dedicated to honoring local active duty law enforcement officers, lists nine law enforcement officers who have died nationwide since protests began. According to the website and news reports, none were related to the Floyd protests. One officer was shot and killed while delivering an eviction notice. Two were killed while responding to separate domestic disturbance incidents. Two died after contracting COVID-19. One was accidentally shot by another law enforcement officer while responding to a suspicious person call. One was shot and killed while responding to a call for service at a hotel. One died following a vehicle collision. One died while responding to a call about a suspicious vehicle. We did find news reports indicating that several active law enforcement officers have sustained injuries in the course of the hundreds of protests staged in communities across the country since Floyd died. But we found no other information to suggest that more have lost their lives. We rate this claim False.
|
We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.