claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Says Rudy Giuliani 'bought $2M in shares of Novartis, a primary supplier of hydroxychloroquine' in early February.
|
Contradiction
|
Rudy Giuliani's promotion of a lupus and arthritis drug to treat COVID-19 patients is raising eyebrows about his motivation. In an interview with Fox News on April 5, Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, said hydroxychloroquine could potentially be used to alleviate symptoms associated with the coronavirus. 'I think we should let doctors decide whether we should use hydroxychloroquine, not the national bureaucracy,' he said. 'Everything shows that it works.' Giuliani's comments echo what Trump has said over the past few weeks, despite the fact that medical experts still don't know much about the drug's efficacy against COVID-19. (Not every study shows that it works, for instance.) But a tweet published the same day as the Fox interview claims Giuliani has ulterior motives for promoting the drug. 'Here @whpresscorps Ask Trump about THIS!!' @Wiseronenow said in the tweet. ''Giuliani, in early February, bought $2M in shares of Novartis, a primary supplier of hydroxychloroquine. How many shares did Sean Hannity & the Trump family buy?'' (Screenshot from Twitter) The tweet was referred to us by VineSight, a startup that uses artificial intelligence to surface potential misinformation. We found the same claim circulating on Facebook, where some posts also implicated President Donald Trump. 'Novartis also paid Michael Cohen $1M in payments in 2016,' one post reads, referring to Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney. 'Also Trump had a 1 on 1 meeting with Novartis CEO in January 2020.' We've seen a lot of misinformation about chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, so we wanted to take a closer look at Giuliani and Trump's financial interests in the drugs and their manufacturers. We could find no evidence that Giuliani purchased stock in Novartis in early February. The company paid Cohen more than $1 million in consulting fees in 2017, not 2016. And while Trump did attend a dinner with a Novartis leader in January, it was not a one-on-one meeting with the CEO. How Novartis is related to hydroxychloroquine Novartis is a Swiss pharmaceutical company. It has donated hydroxychloroquine to the U.S. National Strategic Stockpile for use in treating COVID-19 patients. On March 29, the Department of Health and Human Services published a statement saying that it had accepted 30 million doses of hydroxychloroquine sulfate donated by Sandoz, the generics division of Novartis. The company said in an earlier press release that it plans to give out 130 million doses by the end of May. The donation came after Trump said during a March 19 press briefing that chloroquine could potentially be used to treat COVID-19. But the research is far from settled. RELATED: Hydroxychloroquine and coronavirus: what you need to know Two studies, one from France and one from China, found that hydroxychloroquine helped people clear the virus quickly and alleviate symptoms. But two other studies found that the drug had no discernible effect on the coronavirus. With more than 50 studies still in the works, the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 is still unproven. Novartis has said criticism that the drug is unproven and the company is profiting from it is 'without merit.' Now let's take a closer look at any ties to Trump and his lawyers. Company has ties to former Trump associate While Novartis has paid Giuliani in the past, we could find no evidence that the former New York mayor has a current financial connection to the company. A search of the Securities and Exchange Commission's database, which contains information about publicly traded companies, turned up no documents linking Giuliani to Novartis. We also found no mention of Giuliani on the company's website. A 2007 financial disclosure form from Giuliani, who campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, shows that Novartis paid him a $60,000 gross speaker fee on Feb. 6, 2006. The company is not listed anywhere else on the form. The New York Times reported that Giuliani's interest in hydroxychloroquine stems in part from his contact with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a New York physician who has been giving the drug to people with coronavirus-like symptoms. Giuliani told the Times he does not have any financial interests in hydroxychloroquine. We reached out to him for a comment, but we haven't heard back. Novartis has had connections with another Trump associate. In May 2018, the company disclosed that it had paid Cohen, the former Trump personal attorney, for health care policy consulting. A Senate report published in July 2018 outlined how Cohen had received $1.2 million over a 12-month period ending in February 2018. A month after the deal was signed, Novartis 'determined he would not be able to provide the anticipated services,' according to the report. However, Cohen was still paid for a year under the terms of the contract. In December 2018, Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for campaign finance violations and lying to Congress. What about Trump's own interests? The connection between Cohen and Novartis has led some to speculate that Trump has financial motives for promoting hydroxychloroquine. Some Facebook users have claimed Trump met with the company 'one on one' in January, making his recent promotion of the drug suspicious. There's little evidence to back either claim up. Trump's financial disclosure forms indicate that he has not held stock in Novartis since taking office. The last form filed was in May 2019. The New York Times reported that the president does have a stake in Sanofi, a French company that makes hydroxychloroquine, through a mutual fund. But the stake is rather small; the Washington Post reported that it's 'between about $100 and $1,500 in total.' RELATED: Why experts worry about President Trump touting chloroquine As for the purported 'meeting' between Trump and Novartis, there was a dinner the president attended with the company's chairman - not its CEO - in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21. The event included a slew of executives from other companies around the world. Even if Trump or his associates did have some stake in Novartis, it's uncertain whether they'd reap financial benefits from the increase in demand for hydroxychloroquine. The company is donating, not selling, nearly its entire supply of the drug. 'Any rumors that Novartis stands to benefit financially or otherwise from the donation of hydroxychloroquine is without merit,' a company spokesman told PolitiFact in an email. Novartis shares spiked briefly after Trump began touting chloroquine on March 19, but since then they have performed about as well as the broader stock market.
|
Our ruling A tweet claimed that Rudy Giuliani bought $2 million in shares of Novartis in February. We could find no evidence that Giuliani has a current financial connection to Novartis, which has donated 30 million doses of hydroxychloroquine to the U.S. The company did pay consulting fees to a former Trump associate, but documents don't show any financial connection between the president himself and Novartis. The meeting that Trump had with the company's chairman in January was not one on one - it included many other business executives. Bottom line: Available evidence does not show any financial link between Giuliani or Trump and Novartis. Barring additional evidence, the tweet is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"112246-proof-01-d5a9609b3cb56b868dfbc8335103db1b.jpg",
"112246-proof-27-Screen_Shot_2020-04-09_at_12.13.47_PM.jpg"
] |
Says Rudy Giuliani 'bought $2M in shares of Novartis, a primary supplier of hydroxychloroquine' in early February.
|
Contradiction
|
Rudy Giuliani's promotion of a lupus and arthritis drug to treat COVID-19 patients is raising eyebrows about his motivation. In an interview with Fox News on April 5, Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, said hydroxychloroquine could potentially be used to alleviate symptoms associated with the coronavirus. 'I think we should let doctors decide whether we should use hydroxychloroquine, not the national bureaucracy,' he said. 'Everything shows that it works.' Giuliani's comments echo what Trump has said over the past few weeks, despite the fact that medical experts still don't know much about the drug's efficacy against COVID-19. (Not every study shows that it works, for instance.) But a tweet published the same day as the Fox interview claims Giuliani has ulterior motives for promoting the drug. 'Here @whpresscorps Ask Trump about THIS!!' @Wiseronenow said in the tweet. ''Giuliani, in early February, bought $2M in shares of Novartis, a primary supplier of hydroxychloroquine. How many shares did Sean Hannity & the Trump family buy?'' (Screenshot from Twitter) The tweet was referred to us by VineSight, a startup that uses artificial intelligence to surface potential misinformation. We found the same claim circulating on Facebook, where some posts also implicated President Donald Trump. 'Novartis also paid Michael Cohen $1M in payments in 2016,' one post reads, referring to Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney. 'Also Trump had a 1 on 1 meeting with Novartis CEO in January 2020.' We've seen a lot of misinformation about chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, so we wanted to take a closer look at Giuliani and Trump's financial interests in the drugs and their manufacturers. We could find no evidence that Giuliani purchased stock in Novartis in early February. The company paid Cohen more than $1 million in consulting fees in 2017, not 2016. And while Trump did attend a dinner with a Novartis leader in January, it was not a one-on-one meeting with the CEO. How Novartis is related to hydroxychloroquine Novartis is a Swiss pharmaceutical company. It has donated hydroxychloroquine to the U.S. National Strategic Stockpile for use in treating COVID-19 patients. On March 29, the Department of Health and Human Services published a statement saying that it had accepted 30 million doses of hydroxychloroquine sulfate donated by Sandoz, the generics division of Novartis. The company said in an earlier press release that it plans to give out 130 million doses by the end of May. The donation came after Trump said during a March 19 press briefing that chloroquine could potentially be used to treat COVID-19. But the research is far from settled. RELATED: Hydroxychloroquine and coronavirus: what you need to know Two studies, one from France and one from China, found that hydroxychloroquine helped people clear the virus quickly and alleviate symptoms. But two other studies found that the drug had no discernible effect on the coronavirus. With more than 50 studies still in the works, the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 is still unproven. Novartis has said criticism that the drug is unproven and the company is profiting from it is 'without merit.' Now let's take a closer look at any ties to Trump and his lawyers. Company has ties to former Trump associate While Novartis has paid Giuliani in the past, we could find no evidence that the former New York mayor has a current financial connection to the company. A search of the Securities and Exchange Commission's database, which contains information about publicly traded companies, turned up no documents linking Giuliani to Novartis. We also found no mention of Giuliani on the company's website. A 2007 financial disclosure form from Giuliani, who campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, shows that Novartis paid him a $60,000 gross speaker fee on Feb. 6, 2006. The company is not listed anywhere else on the form. The New York Times reported that Giuliani's interest in hydroxychloroquine stems in part from his contact with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a New York physician who has been giving the drug to people with coronavirus-like symptoms. Giuliani told the Times he does not have any financial interests in hydroxychloroquine. We reached out to him for a comment, but we haven't heard back. Novartis has had connections with another Trump associate. In May 2018, the company disclosed that it had paid Cohen, the former Trump personal attorney, for health care policy consulting. A Senate report published in July 2018 outlined how Cohen had received $1.2 million over a 12-month period ending in February 2018. A month after the deal was signed, Novartis 'determined he would not be able to provide the anticipated services,' according to the report. However, Cohen was still paid for a year under the terms of the contract. In December 2018, Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for campaign finance violations and lying to Congress. What about Trump's own interests? The connection between Cohen and Novartis has led some to speculate that Trump has financial motives for promoting hydroxychloroquine. Some Facebook users have claimed Trump met with the company 'one on one' in January, making his recent promotion of the drug suspicious. There's little evidence to back either claim up. Trump's financial disclosure forms indicate that he has not held stock in Novartis since taking office. The last form filed was in May 2019. The New York Times reported that the president does have a stake in Sanofi, a French company that makes hydroxychloroquine, through a mutual fund. But the stake is rather small; the Washington Post reported that it's 'between about $100 and $1,500 in total.' RELATED: Why experts worry about President Trump touting chloroquine As for the purported 'meeting' between Trump and Novartis, there was a dinner the president attended with the company's chairman - not its CEO - in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21. The event included a slew of executives from other companies around the world. Even if Trump or his associates did have some stake in Novartis, it's uncertain whether they'd reap financial benefits from the increase in demand for hydroxychloroquine. The company is donating, not selling, nearly its entire supply of the drug. 'Any rumors that Novartis stands to benefit financially or otherwise from the donation of hydroxychloroquine is without merit,' a company spokesman told PolitiFact in an email. Novartis shares spiked briefly after Trump began touting chloroquine on March 19, but since then they have performed about as well as the broader stock market.
|
Our ruling A tweet claimed that Rudy Giuliani bought $2 million in shares of Novartis in February. We could find no evidence that Giuliani has a current financial connection to Novartis, which has donated 30 million doses of hydroxychloroquine to the U.S. The company did pay consulting fees to a former Trump associate, but documents don't show any financial connection between the president himself and Novartis. The meeting that Trump had with the company's chairman in January was not one on one - it included many other business executives. Bottom line: Available evidence does not show any financial link between Giuliani or Trump and Novartis. Barring additional evidence, the tweet is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"112246-proof-01-d5a9609b3cb56b868dfbc8335103db1b.jpg",
"112246-proof-27-Screen_Shot_2020-04-09_at_12.13.47_PM.jpg"
] |
Says Rudy Giuliani 'bought $2M in shares of Novartis, a primary supplier of hydroxychloroquine' in early February.
|
Contradiction
|
Rudy Giuliani's promotion of a lupus and arthritis drug to treat COVID-19 patients is raising eyebrows about his motivation. In an interview with Fox News on April 5, Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, said hydroxychloroquine could potentially be used to alleviate symptoms associated with the coronavirus. 'I think we should let doctors decide whether we should use hydroxychloroquine, not the national bureaucracy,' he said. 'Everything shows that it works.' Giuliani's comments echo what Trump has said over the past few weeks, despite the fact that medical experts still don't know much about the drug's efficacy against COVID-19. (Not every study shows that it works, for instance.) But a tweet published the same day as the Fox interview claims Giuliani has ulterior motives for promoting the drug. 'Here @whpresscorps Ask Trump about THIS!!' @Wiseronenow said in the tweet. ''Giuliani, in early February, bought $2M in shares of Novartis, a primary supplier of hydroxychloroquine. How many shares did Sean Hannity & the Trump family buy?'' (Screenshot from Twitter) The tweet was referred to us by VineSight, a startup that uses artificial intelligence to surface potential misinformation. We found the same claim circulating on Facebook, where some posts also implicated President Donald Trump. 'Novartis also paid Michael Cohen $1M in payments in 2016,' one post reads, referring to Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney. 'Also Trump had a 1 on 1 meeting with Novartis CEO in January 2020.' We've seen a lot of misinformation about chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, so we wanted to take a closer look at Giuliani and Trump's financial interests in the drugs and their manufacturers. We could find no evidence that Giuliani purchased stock in Novartis in early February. The company paid Cohen more than $1 million in consulting fees in 2017, not 2016. And while Trump did attend a dinner with a Novartis leader in January, it was not a one-on-one meeting with the CEO. How Novartis is related to hydroxychloroquine Novartis is a Swiss pharmaceutical company. It has donated hydroxychloroquine to the U.S. National Strategic Stockpile for use in treating COVID-19 patients. On March 29, the Department of Health and Human Services published a statement saying that it had accepted 30 million doses of hydroxychloroquine sulfate donated by Sandoz, the generics division of Novartis. The company said in an earlier press release that it plans to give out 130 million doses by the end of May. The donation came after Trump said during a March 19 press briefing that chloroquine could potentially be used to treat COVID-19. But the research is far from settled. RELATED: Hydroxychloroquine and coronavirus: what you need to know Two studies, one from France and one from China, found that hydroxychloroquine helped people clear the virus quickly and alleviate symptoms. But two other studies found that the drug had no discernible effect on the coronavirus. With more than 50 studies still in the works, the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 is still unproven. Novartis has said criticism that the drug is unproven and the company is profiting from it is 'without merit.' Now let's take a closer look at any ties to Trump and his lawyers. Company has ties to former Trump associate While Novartis has paid Giuliani in the past, we could find no evidence that the former New York mayor has a current financial connection to the company. A search of the Securities and Exchange Commission's database, which contains information about publicly traded companies, turned up no documents linking Giuliani to Novartis. We also found no mention of Giuliani on the company's website. A 2007 financial disclosure form from Giuliani, who campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, shows that Novartis paid him a $60,000 gross speaker fee on Feb. 6, 2006. The company is not listed anywhere else on the form. The New York Times reported that Giuliani's interest in hydroxychloroquine stems in part from his contact with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a New York physician who has been giving the drug to people with coronavirus-like symptoms. Giuliani told the Times he does not have any financial interests in hydroxychloroquine. We reached out to him for a comment, but we haven't heard back. Novartis has had connections with another Trump associate. In May 2018, the company disclosed that it had paid Cohen, the former Trump personal attorney, for health care policy consulting. A Senate report published in July 2018 outlined how Cohen had received $1.2 million over a 12-month period ending in February 2018. A month after the deal was signed, Novartis 'determined he would not be able to provide the anticipated services,' according to the report. However, Cohen was still paid for a year under the terms of the contract. In December 2018, Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison for campaign finance violations and lying to Congress. What about Trump's own interests? The connection between Cohen and Novartis has led some to speculate that Trump has financial motives for promoting hydroxychloroquine. Some Facebook users have claimed Trump met with the company 'one on one' in January, making his recent promotion of the drug suspicious. There's little evidence to back either claim up. Trump's financial disclosure forms indicate that he has not held stock in Novartis since taking office. The last form filed was in May 2019. The New York Times reported that the president does have a stake in Sanofi, a French company that makes hydroxychloroquine, through a mutual fund. But the stake is rather small; the Washington Post reported that it's 'between about $100 and $1,500 in total.' RELATED: Why experts worry about President Trump touting chloroquine As for the purported 'meeting' between Trump and Novartis, there was a dinner the president attended with the company's chairman - not its CEO - in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21. The event included a slew of executives from other companies around the world. Even if Trump or his associates did have some stake in Novartis, it's uncertain whether they'd reap financial benefits from the increase in demand for hydroxychloroquine. The company is donating, not selling, nearly its entire supply of the drug. 'Any rumors that Novartis stands to benefit financially or otherwise from the donation of hydroxychloroquine is without merit,' a company spokesman told PolitiFact in an email. Novartis shares spiked briefly after Trump began touting chloroquine on March 19, but since then they have performed about as well as the broader stock market.
|
Our ruling A tweet claimed that Rudy Giuliani bought $2 million in shares of Novartis in February. We could find no evidence that Giuliani has a current financial connection to Novartis, which has donated 30 million doses of hydroxychloroquine to the U.S. The company did pay consulting fees to a former Trump associate, but documents don't show any financial connection between the president himself and Novartis. The meeting that Trump had with the company's chairman in January was not one on one - it included many other business executives. Bottom line: Available evidence does not show any financial link between Giuliani or Trump and Novartis. Barring additional evidence, the tweet is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"112246-proof-01-d5a9609b3cb56b868dfbc8335103db1b.jpg",
"112246-proof-27-Screen_Shot_2020-04-09_at_12.13.47_PM.jpg"
] |
'From Europe: 3,964 people have died from adverse drug reactions for COVID-19 'vaccines' - 162,610 injuries.
|
Contradiction
|
As states across the U.S. expand the eligibility for getting a COVID-19 shot, a conservative website blasted out a warning from Europe. The Gateway Pundit claimed two of the vaccines being used in the United States are behind thousands of deaths and injuries in Europe. 'From Europe: 3,964 people have died from adverse drug reactions for COVID-19 'vaccines' - 162,610 injuries,' said the headline of the March 28 story, which was shared on Facebook. The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Gateway Pundit cites information from Global Research, a Canadian website run by the Centre for Research on Globalization, which was accused by NATO of posting conspiracy theories, spreading Russian disinformation and undermining Western media. The post specifically looks at vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca, offering a breakdown of the different injuries and deaths purportedly associated with each vaccine using numbers from a European Union-maintained database called EudraVigilance. The implication is the COVID-19 vaccines are harmful and could result in injury or death. However, the numbers are taken out of context to exaggerate the risk of vaccines. The EudraVigilance database itself cautions the information it collects is for 'suspected side effects ... but which are not necessarily related to our caused by the medicine.' 'Information on suspected side effects should not be interpreted as meaning that the medicine or the active substance causes the observed effect or is unsafe to use,' EudraVigilance's website says. 'Only a detailed evaluation and scientific assessment of all available data allows for robust conclusions to be drawn on the benefits and risks of a medicine.' Taking the raw data of possible COVID-19 vaccination reactions at face value and using them without context is an oft-used tactic by people attempting to undermine public confidence in the vaccines, according to the New York Times. They frequently interpret the numbers from EudraVigilance or from its United States counterpart, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, as evidence of the vaccines' dangers. Since VAERS doesn't show whether an adverse event was caused by the vaccine or occurred coincidentally, it's generally not useful on its own for assessing whether a vaccine poses a risk to human health, Dr. Walter Orenstein, associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center in Atlanta, previously told PolitiFact. The numbers shared by both the European and American databases have also not been thoroughly vetted independently by scientists. In some cases, the reactions are self-reported. A doctor once successfully reported to VAERS the flu vaccine had turned him into The Hulk, a Marvel Comics character, in an effort to show the possible dangers of blindly relying on the data. It's too early to tell if the reactions that are being reported are merely coincidental. Regardless, health agencies in the United States and abroad continue to monitor the vaccines' safety. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been able to confirm extremely rare cases of people developing a severe allergic reaction to their vaccinations. Those reactions occur in about two to five people per 1 million who are vaccinated and can be treated quickly. There hasn't been any definitive proof that a COVID-19 vaccination led to someone's death. So far, U.S. regulators have granted emergency use authorization to three vaccines - they come from Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. The CDC says the vaccines in use in the U.S. are safe and effective. AstraZeneca has not yet asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine. A possible blood clotting issue, reported in Germany in relation to the AstraZeneca vaccine is currently under study and is said to be extremely rare. While several countries suspended the vaccine's use for certain groups, a definitive link has not yet been found.
|
Our ruling A post claimed that in Europe '3,964 people have died from adverse drug reactions for COVID-19 'vaccines' - 162,610 injuries.' That's a misrepresentation of information in an European database that tracks suspected reactions to medicines, including COVID-19 vaccines. The agency behind the database cautions that the information is only of suspected side effects, and that it should not be interpreted as meaning that the medicine caused the effects or that it's unsafe. A detailed evaluation and scientific assessment of all available data is needed before drawing conclusions, the agency said. The COVID-19 vaccines have been administered to millions of people across Europe and the United States, and health agencies have vouched for their safety and effectiveness. We found no definitive proof that a COVID-19 vaccine caused someone's death. We rate this claim False. RELATED: Why you shouldn't worry about getting Bell's Palsy from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine RELATED: The 'shaking' COVID-19 vaccine side-effect videos and what we know about them
|
[] |
'From Europe: 3,964 people have died from adverse drug reactions for COVID-19 'vaccines' - 162,610 injuries.
|
Contradiction
|
As states across the U.S. expand the eligibility for getting a COVID-19 shot, a conservative website blasted out a warning from Europe. The Gateway Pundit claimed two of the vaccines being used in the United States are behind thousands of deaths and injuries in Europe. 'From Europe: 3,964 people have died from adverse drug reactions for COVID-19 'vaccines' - 162,610 injuries,' said the headline of the March 28 story, which was shared on Facebook. The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Gateway Pundit cites information from Global Research, a Canadian website run by the Centre for Research on Globalization, which was accused by NATO of posting conspiracy theories, spreading Russian disinformation and undermining Western media. The post specifically looks at vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca, offering a breakdown of the different injuries and deaths purportedly associated with each vaccine using numbers from a European Union-maintained database called EudraVigilance. The implication is the COVID-19 vaccines are harmful and could result in injury or death. However, the numbers are taken out of context to exaggerate the risk of vaccines. The EudraVigilance database itself cautions the information it collects is for 'suspected side effects ... but which are not necessarily related to our caused by the medicine.' 'Information on suspected side effects should not be interpreted as meaning that the medicine or the active substance causes the observed effect or is unsafe to use,' EudraVigilance's website says. 'Only a detailed evaluation and scientific assessment of all available data allows for robust conclusions to be drawn on the benefits and risks of a medicine.' Taking the raw data of possible COVID-19 vaccination reactions at face value and using them without context is an oft-used tactic by people attempting to undermine public confidence in the vaccines, according to the New York Times. They frequently interpret the numbers from EudraVigilance or from its United States counterpart, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, as evidence of the vaccines' dangers. Since VAERS doesn't show whether an adverse event was caused by the vaccine or occurred coincidentally, it's generally not useful on its own for assessing whether a vaccine poses a risk to human health, Dr. Walter Orenstein, associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center in Atlanta, previously told PolitiFact. The numbers shared by both the European and American databases have also not been thoroughly vetted independently by scientists. In some cases, the reactions are self-reported. A doctor once successfully reported to VAERS the flu vaccine had turned him into The Hulk, a Marvel Comics character, in an effort to show the possible dangers of blindly relying on the data. It's too early to tell if the reactions that are being reported are merely coincidental. Regardless, health agencies in the United States and abroad continue to monitor the vaccines' safety. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been able to confirm extremely rare cases of people developing a severe allergic reaction to their vaccinations. Those reactions occur in about two to five people per 1 million who are vaccinated and can be treated quickly. There hasn't been any definitive proof that a COVID-19 vaccination led to someone's death. So far, U.S. regulators have granted emergency use authorization to three vaccines - they come from Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. The CDC says the vaccines in use in the U.S. are safe and effective. AstraZeneca has not yet asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for emergency use authorization for its COVID-19 vaccine. A possible blood clotting issue, reported in Germany in relation to the AstraZeneca vaccine is currently under study and is said to be extremely rare. While several countries suspended the vaccine's use for certain groups, a definitive link has not yet been found.
|
Our ruling A post claimed that in Europe '3,964 people have died from adverse drug reactions for COVID-19 'vaccines' - 162,610 injuries.' That's a misrepresentation of information in an European database that tracks suspected reactions to medicines, including COVID-19 vaccines. The agency behind the database cautions that the information is only of suspected side effects, and that it should not be interpreted as meaning that the medicine caused the effects or that it's unsafe. A detailed evaluation and scientific assessment of all available data is needed before drawing conclusions, the agency said. The COVID-19 vaccines have been administered to millions of people across Europe and the United States, and health agencies have vouched for their safety and effectiveness. We found no definitive proof that a COVID-19 vaccine caused someone's death. We rate this claim False. RELATED: Why you shouldn't worry about getting Bell's Palsy from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine RELATED: The 'shaking' COVID-19 vaccine side-effect videos and what we know about them
|
[] |
Says Democrats 'blocked the Iowa poll' and 'blocked the Iowa caucus.
|
Contradiction
|
Just after the clock struck midnight - and there were still no official results from the Democratic caucuses in Iowa - a group supporting Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination accused the Democratic Party of a conspiracy. Organizers for Bernie 2020, which has 15,000 followers on Twitter, made the two-fold attack in this tweet, with a widely used and misspelled hashtag: 'They blocked the Iowa poll. They blocked the Iowa caucus. We are winning so hard the Democrats are shutting down the damn entire primary process. #PresidentSanders #IowaCaucas' They blocked the Iowa poll. They blocked the Iowa caucus. We are winning so hard the Democrats are shutting down the damn entire primary process. #PresidentSanders #IowaCaucas pic.twitter.com/fWZItLIBMe - Organizers for Bernie 2020 (@OFB2020) February 4, 2020 Problems surfaced in Iowa both with a widely anticipated pre-caucus poll and reporting the results of the Democratic caucuses. But no evidence has surfaced to suggest the problems were the result of Democrats 'blocking' efforts to poll or caucus - and certainly not within the first few chaos-filled hours after the caucusing ended. Possible polling error Results of the final CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll were scheduled to be released Feb. 2, two days before the caucuses. The New York Times reported that the decision not to release the results was made after the campaign for Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said that an Iowa supporter received a poll phone call from an operator working for the Register's polling operation, but that the name of the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., was not listed on the menu of options. One operator had apparently enlarged the font size on their computer screen, perhaps cutting off Buttigieg's name from the list of options, according to two people interviewed by the Times. Other news media, including Politico, also reported that Buttigieg's campaign had raised the issue and that the font change apparently was the problem. The Register's executive editor, Carol Hunter, explained the decision in a Feb. 1 article, saying 'it appears (Buttigieg's) name was omitted in at least one interview in which the respondent was asked to name their preferred candidate,' and that the omission 'could have compromised the results of the poll.' Cause of caucus count problems unclear The second part of the statement undoubtedly refers to the unprecedented delay in the reporting of the results of Democratic caucuses. By midday the following day (Feb. 4), the Iowa Democratic Party was saying it expected to release some results by 5 p.m. that day. At that point, news organizations were reporting that the delays were caused by technical problems - both with an app and with a telephone system that had been set up as a backup for the electronic reporting of caucus tallies. People who called experienced long delays or couldn't get through at all. No evidence had surfaced that the delay was due to Democrats 'blocking' the poll or caucus. We messaged Organizers for Bernie 2020, but didn't get a reply. A Sanders campaign spokeswoman told us the group has no relationship with the campaign. She had no comment on the claim we're checking.
|
Our ruling A social media post said Democrats 'blocked the Iowa poll' and 'blocked the Iowa caucus.' Results of the final Des Moines Register poll before the caucuses were not released because of a possible error by one operator who did the telephone polling. Technical problems with an app and a phone system were blamed for the unprecedented delay in reporting the Democratic caucus results. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"112269-proof-00-f0397b162ecad425379c10d0c47f81c4.jpg"
] |
Says Democrats 'blocked the Iowa poll' and 'blocked the Iowa caucus.
|
Contradiction
|
Just after the clock struck midnight - and there were still no official results from the Democratic caucuses in Iowa - a group supporting Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination accused the Democratic Party of a conspiracy. Organizers for Bernie 2020, which has 15,000 followers on Twitter, made the two-fold attack in this tweet, with a widely used and misspelled hashtag: 'They blocked the Iowa poll. They blocked the Iowa caucus. We are winning so hard the Democrats are shutting down the damn entire primary process. #PresidentSanders #IowaCaucas' They blocked the Iowa poll. They blocked the Iowa caucus. We are winning so hard the Democrats are shutting down the damn entire primary process. #PresidentSanders #IowaCaucas pic.twitter.com/fWZItLIBMe - Organizers for Bernie 2020 (@OFB2020) February 4, 2020 Problems surfaced in Iowa both with a widely anticipated pre-caucus poll and reporting the results of the Democratic caucuses. But no evidence has surfaced to suggest the problems were the result of Democrats 'blocking' efforts to poll or caucus - and certainly not within the first few chaos-filled hours after the caucusing ended. Possible polling error Results of the final CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll were scheduled to be released Feb. 2, two days before the caucuses. The New York Times reported that the decision not to release the results was made after the campaign for Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said that an Iowa supporter received a poll phone call from an operator working for the Register's polling operation, but that the name of the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., was not listed on the menu of options. One operator had apparently enlarged the font size on their computer screen, perhaps cutting off Buttigieg's name from the list of options, according to two people interviewed by the Times. Other news media, including Politico, also reported that Buttigieg's campaign had raised the issue and that the font change apparently was the problem. The Register's executive editor, Carol Hunter, explained the decision in a Feb. 1 article, saying 'it appears (Buttigieg's) name was omitted in at least one interview in which the respondent was asked to name their preferred candidate,' and that the omission 'could have compromised the results of the poll.' Cause of caucus count problems unclear The second part of the statement undoubtedly refers to the unprecedented delay in the reporting of the results of Democratic caucuses. By midday the following day (Feb. 4), the Iowa Democratic Party was saying it expected to release some results by 5 p.m. that day. At that point, news organizations were reporting that the delays were caused by technical problems - both with an app and with a telephone system that had been set up as a backup for the electronic reporting of caucus tallies. People who called experienced long delays or couldn't get through at all. No evidence had surfaced that the delay was due to Democrats 'blocking' the poll or caucus. We messaged Organizers for Bernie 2020, but didn't get a reply. A Sanders campaign spokeswoman told us the group has no relationship with the campaign. She had no comment on the claim we're checking.
|
Our ruling A social media post said Democrats 'blocked the Iowa poll' and 'blocked the Iowa caucus.' Results of the final Des Moines Register poll before the caucuses were not released because of a possible error by one operator who did the telephone polling. Technical problems with an app and a phone system were blamed for the unprecedented delay in reporting the Democratic caucus results. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"112269-proof-00-f0397b162ecad425379c10d0c47f81c4.jpg"
] |
Says Democrats 'blocked the Iowa poll' and 'blocked the Iowa caucus.
|
Contradiction
|
Just after the clock struck midnight - and there were still no official results from the Democratic caucuses in Iowa - a group supporting Bernie Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination accused the Democratic Party of a conspiracy. Organizers for Bernie 2020, which has 15,000 followers on Twitter, made the two-fold attack in this tweet, with a widely used and misspelled hashtag: 'They blocked the Iowa poll. They blocked the Iowa caucus. We are winning so hard the Democrats are shutting down the damn entire primary process. #PresidentSanders #IowaCaucas' They blocked the Iowa poll. They blocked the Iowa caucus. We are winning so hard the Democrats are shutting down the damn entire primary process. #PresidentSanders #IowaCaucas pic.twitter.com/fWZItLIBMe - Organizers for Bernie 2020 (@OFB2020) February 4, 2020 Problems surfaced in Iowa both with a widely anticipated pre-caucus poll and reporting the results of the Democratic caucuses. But no evidence has surfaced to suggest the problems were the result of Democrats 'blocking' efforts to poll or caucus - and certainly not within the first few chaos-filled hours after the caucusing ended. Possible polling error Results of the final CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll were scheduled to be released Feb. 2, two days before the caucuses. The New York Times reported that the decision not to release the results was made after the campaign for Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said that an Iowa supporter received a poll phone call from an operator working for the Register's polling operation, but that the name of the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., was not listed on the menu of options. One operator had apparently enlarged the font size on their computer screen, perhaps cutting off Buttigieg's name from the list of options, according to two people interviewed by the Times. Other news media, including Politico, also reported that Buttigieg's campaign had raised the issue and that the font change apparently was the problem. The Register's executive editor, Carol Hunter, explained the decision in a Feb. 1 article, saying 'it appears (Buttigieg's) name was omitted in at least one interview in which the respondent was asked to name their preferred candidate,' and that the omission 'could have compromised the results of the poll.' Cause of caucus count problems unclear The second part of the statement undoubtedly refers to the unprecedented delay in the reporting of the results of Democratic caucuses. By midday the following day (Feb. 4), the Iowa Democratic Party was saying it expected to release some results by 5 p.m. that day. At that point, news organizations were reporting that the delays were caused by technical problems - both with an app and with a telephone system that had been set up as a backup for the electronic reporting of caucus tallies. People who called experienced long delays or couldn't get through at all. No evidence had surfaced that the delay was due to Democrats 'blocking' the poll or caucus. We messaged Organizers for Bernie 2020, but didn't get a reply. A Sanders campaign spokeswoman told us the group has no relationship with the campaign. She had no comment on the claim we're checking.
|
Our ruling A social media post said Democrats 'blocked the Iowa poll' and 'blocked the Iowa caucus.' Results of the final Des Moines Register poll before the caucuses were not released because of a possible error by one operator who did the telephone polling. Technical problems with an app and a phone system were blamed for the unprecedented delay in reporting the Democratic caucus results. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"112269-proof-00-f0397b162ecad425379c10d0c47f81c4.jpg"
] |
'Mark Kelly criticized the (Paycheck Protection Program), then turned around and took money for his own multi-million dollar company.
|
Contradiction
|
In the competitive Arizona Senate race, Republican Sen. Martha McSally is taking aim at Democratic opponent Mark Kelly, claiming that he's a hypocrite who attacked a loan program to help businesses during the pandemic and then took money from the program for his own company. 'Small businesses were hit hard by the pandemic, which is why I fought' for the Paycheck Protection Program, McSally tweeted July 31. 'Mark Kelly criticized the program, then turned around and took money for his own multi-million dollar company.' Is McSally right about Kelly? Not really. An Arizona company that Kelly co-founded and in which he has investments did receive a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program. But Kelly's campaign said he left the company more than a year ago and had no role in the company's application for the coronavirus pandemic relief. Moreover, Kelly's criticism of the program centered on Congress and the red tape that he said was preventing deserving small businesses in Arizona from getting aid. His public statements show that he wasn't against the program itself. McSally, a former U.S. House member and retired Air Force pilot, is vying to hold on to a Senate seat she was appointed to after the resignation of Sen. John Kyl. Kelly is a retired U.S. Navy pilot and astronaut. Both easily won primary elections on Aug. 4. Background on Paycheck Protection Program Congress created the Paycheck Protection Program to help small businesses affected by the pandemic. The program was established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, signed into law in March by President Donald Trump. The law allows businesses to get loans to pay their employees and to cover certain other expenses, such as rent and utilities. The loans are forgiven if businesses meet specified terms. While the federal government created and administers the program, banks, credit unions and other lending institutions handle the loan applications and disbursement of funds. 'Mark Kelly criticized the program' McSally's campaign said Kelly criticized the program in an April 10 statement and a June 9 tweet. In his messages, Kelly directed his criticism at Congress - saying it should hold banks accountable for ensuring that small businesses can get aid. His criticism centered on how the program was being administered. 'I've heard over and over from small businesses across Arizona that the clock is ticking for them, and now it's clear many of them are running into a wall of red tape blocking them from the aid they desperately need,' Kelly's statement said. 'Congress created this program and put much of the application process in the hands of big banks, and they have to provide accountability and make sure this money is getting to those small business owners and their employees who need it.' In an April 16 statement, not flagged by McSally's campaign, Kelly said the program was running out of money, that only 10% of Arizona small businesses were approved for relief and that the Senate was adjourning without addressing the issue. 'Washington needs to get out of its own way, immediately put more resources into this program, and fix some of the issues that have made it harder for Arizona small businesses to get this relief,' Kelly said. Big banks, Kelly said, had the power to choose which applications got priority 'and that's not how this should work. This money should go where it's needed most. Congress needs to get this done.' McSally on April 21 tweeted a similar grievance. 'Dear big banks: PPP is NOT your money. It is the taxpayers' money intended to be a lifeline for small businesses & to keep them from going under due to coronavirus. We expected everyone in America, including you, to act with grace & speed to rescue those most hurt by this crisis.' In a follow-up tweet, McSally said she was troubled by reports of publicly traded companies with 'capital & bank relationships' getting funds, 'while many ma & pa shops can't even get a call back or $1.' The next round of funds had to focus on small businesses, with better oversight and transparency, she said. 'Then turned around and took money for his own multi-million dollar company.' McSally's attack on Kelly refers to a loan received by a company Kelly co-founded. World View Enterprises, of Tucson, says it provides aerial data and analytics from sensors deployed to the stratosphere. Kelly's stake in the company is valued at between $115,000 and $300,000, Kelly's campaign told PolitiFact. But he left his role as strategic adviser in February 2019 and has never been a member of the company's board of directors, said Jacob Peters, a spokesperson for Kelly. World View also told PolitiFact in a statement that Kelly was an investor but had no day-to-day involvement with the company. In late April, World View was approved for a loan to retain 38 employees. The loan was for an amount between $1 million and $2 million, according to Small Business Administration data. Kelly was not informed about World View's loan application, 'nor was he involved in the decision process to decide to pursue a PPP loan,' the company said. McSally's campaign did not provide information to dispute the Kelly campaign's explanation. PolitiFact did not find information showing Kelly was involved in the application process.
|
Our ruling McSally said Kelly, 'criticized the (Paycheck Protection Program), then turned around and took money for his own multi-million dollar company.' Kelly has criticized the way the program has been administered, but not the existence of the program itself. He's argued that red tape is preventing small businesses from getting funds and that Congress needs to do more to help businesses get the funds and to hold banks accountable. A company that Kelly co-founded and in which he has investments received up to $2 million in a loan from the program. But Kelly's campaign and the company say he was not involved in the application process. McSally's campaign did not provide information disputing that statement and we didn't find any either. McSally's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"112277-proof-25-f21eee2ee36e9767c10fef26f2e36db2.jpg"
] |
'Mark Kelly criticized the (Paycheck Protection Program), then turned around and took money for his own multi-million dollar company.
|
Contradiction
|
In the competitive Arizona Senate race, Republican Sen. Martha McSally is taking aim at Democratic opponent Mark Kelly, claiming that he's a hypocrite who attacked a loan program to help businesses during the pandemic and then took money from the program for his own company. 'Small businesses were hit hard by the pandemic, which is why I fought' for the Paycheck Protection Program, McSally tweeted July 31. 'Mark Kelly criticized the program, then turned around and took money for his own multi-million dollar company.' Is McSally right about Kelly? Not really. An Arizona company that Kelly co-founded and in which he has investments did receive a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program. But Kelly's campaign said he left the company more than a year ago and had no role in the company's application for the coronavirus pandemic relief. Moreover, Kelly's criticism of the program centered on Congress and the red tape that he said was preventing deserving small businesses in Arizona from getting aid. His public statements show that he wasn't against the program itself. McSally, a former U.S. House member and retired Air Force pilot, is vying to hold on to a Senate seat she was appointed to after the resignation of Sen. John Kyl. Kelly is a retired U.S. Navy pilot and astronaut. Both easily won primary elections on Aug. 4. Background on Paycheck Protection Program Congress created the Paycheck Protection Program to help small businesses affected by the pandemic. The program was established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, signed into law in March by President Donald Trump. The law allows businesses to get loans to pay their employees and to cover certain other expenses, such as rent and utilities. The loans are forgiven if businesses meet specified terms. While the federal government created and administers the program, banks, credit unions and other lending institutions handle the loan applications and disbursement of funds. 'Mark Kelly criticized the program' McSally's campaign said Kelly criticized the program in an April 10 statement and a June 9 tweet. In his messages, Kelly directed his criticism at Congress - saying it should hold banks accountable for ensuring that small businesses can get aid. His criticism centered on how the program was being administered. 'I've heard over and over from small businesses across Arizona that the clock is ticking for them, and now it's clear many of them are running into a wall of red tape blocking them from the aid they desperately need,' Kelly's statement said. 'Congress created this program and put much of the application process in the hands of big banks, and they have to provide accountability and make sure this money is getting to those small business owners and their employees who need it.' In an April 16 statement, not flagged by McSally's campaign, Kelly said the program was running out of money, that only 10% of Arizona small businesses were approved for relief and that the Senate was adjourning without addressing the issue. 'Washington needs to get out of its own way, immediately put more resources into this program, and fix some of the issues that have made it harder for Arizona small businesses to get this relief,' Kelly said. Big banks, Kelly said, had the power to choose which applications got priority 'and that's not how this should work. This money should go where it's needed most. Congress needs to get this done.' McSally on April 21 tweeted a similar grievance. 'Dear big banks: PPP is NOT your money. It is the taxpayers' money intended to be a lifeline for small businesses & to keep them from going under due to coronavirus. We expected everyone in America, including you, to act with grace & speed to rescue those most hurt by this crisis.' In a follow-up tweet, McSally said she was troubled by reports of publicly traded companies with 'capital & bank relationships' getting funds, 'while many ma & pa shops can't even get a call back or $1.' The next round of funds had to focus on small businesses, with better oversight and transparency, she said. 'Then turned around and took money for his own multi-million dollar company.' McSally's attack on Kelly refers to a loan received by a company Kelly co-founded. World View Enterprises, of Tucson, says it provides aerial data and analytics from sensors deployed to the stratosphere. Kelly's stake in the company is valued at between $115,000 and $300,000, Kelly's campaign told PolitiFact. But he left his role as strategic adviser in February 2019 and has never been a member of the company's board of directors, said Jacob Peters, a spokesperson for Kelly. World View also told PolitiFact in a statement that Kelly was an investor but had no day-to-day involvement with the company. In late April, World View was approved for a loan to retain 38 employees. The loan was for an amount between $1 million and $2 million, according to Small Business Administration data. Kelly was not informed about World View's loan application, 'nor was he involved in the decision process to decide to pursue a PPP loan,' the company said. McSally's campaign did not provide information to dispute the Kelly campaign's explanation. PolitiFact did not find information showing Kelly was involved in the application process.
|
Our ruling McSally said Kelly, 'criticized the (Paycheck Protection Program), then turned around and took money for his own multi-million dollar company.' Kelly has criticized the way the program has been administered, but not the existence of the program itself. He's argued that red tape is preventing small businesses from getting funds and that Congress needs to do more to help businesses get the funds and to hold banks accountable. A company that Kelly co-founded and in which he has investments received up to $2 million in a loan from the program. But Kelly's campaign and the company say he was not involved in the application process. McSally's campaign did not provide information disputing that statement and we didn't find any either. McSally's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"112277-proof-25-f21eee2ee36e9767c10fef26f2e36db2.jpg"
] |
'Mark Kelly criticized the (Paycheck Protection Program), then turned around and took money for his own multi-million dollar company.
|
Contradiction
|
In the competitive Arizona Senate race, Republican Sen. Martha McSally is taking aim at Democratic opponent Mark Kelly, claiming that he's a hypocrite who attacked a loan program to help businesses during the pandemic and then took money from the program for his own company. 'Small businesses were hit hard by the pandemic, which is why I fought' for the Paycheck Protection Program, McSally tweeted July 31. 'Mark Kelly criticized the program, then turned around and took money for his own multi-million dollar company.' Is McSally right about Kelly? Not really. An Arizona company that Kelly co-founded and in which he has investments did receive a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program. But Kelly's campaign said he left the company more than a year ago and had no role in the company's application for the coronavirus pandemic relief. Moreover, Kelly's criticism of the program centered on Congress and the red tape that he said was preventing deserving small businesses in Arizona from getting aid. His public statements show that he wasn't against the program itself. McSally, a former U.S. House member and retired Air Force pilot, is vying to hold on to a Senate seat she was appointed to after the resignation of Sen. John Kyl. Kelly is a retired U.S. Navy pilot and astronaut. Both easily won primary elections on Aug. 4. Background on Paycheck Protection Program Congress created the Paycheck Protection Program to help small businesses affected by the pandemic. The program was established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, signed into law in March by President Donald Trump. The law allows businesses to get loans to pay their employees and to cover certain other expenses, such as rent and utilities. The loans are forgiven if businesses meet specified terms. While the federal government created and administers the program, banks, credit unions and other lending institutions handle the loan applications and disbursement of funds. 'Mark Kelly criticized the program' McSally's campaign said Kelly criticized the program in an April 10 statement and a June 9 tweet. In his messages, Kelly directed his criticism at Congress - saying it should hold banks accountable for ensuring that small businesses can get aid. His criticism centered on how the program was being administered. 'I've heard over and over from small businesses across Arizona that the clock is ticking for them, and now it's clear many of them are running into a wall of red tape blocking them from the aid they desperately need,' Kelly's statement said. 'Congress created this program and put much of the application process in the hands of big banks, and they have to provide accountability and make sure this money is getting to those small business owners and their employees who need it.' In an April 16 statement, not flagged by McSally's campaign, Kelly said the program was running out of money, that only 10% of Arizona small businesses were approved for relief and that the Senate was adjourning without addressing the issue. 'Washington needs to get out of its own way, immediately put more resources into this program, and fix some of the issues that have made it harder for Arizona small businesses to get this relief,' Kelly said. Big banks, Kelly said, had the power to choose which applications got priority 'and that's not how this should work. This money should go where it's needed most. Congress needs to get this done.' McSally on April 21 tweeted a similar grievance. 'Dear big banks: PPP is NOT your money. It is the taxpayers' money intended to be a lifeline for small businesses & to keep them from going under due to coronavirus. We expected everyone in America, including you, to act with grace & speed to rescue those most hurt by this crisis.' In a follow-up tweet, McSally said she was troubled by reports of publicly traded companies with 'capital & bank relationships' getting funds, 'while many ma & pa shops can't even get a call back or $1.' The next round of funds had to focus on small businesses, with better oversight and transparency, she said. 'Then turned around and took money for his own multi-million dollar company.' McSally's attack on Kelly refers to a loan received by a company Kelly co-founded. World View Enterprises, of Tucson, says it provides aerial data and analytics from sensors deployed to the stratosphere. Kelly's stake in the company is valued at between $115,000 and $300,000, Kelly's campaign told PolitiFact. But he left his role as strategic adviser in February 2019 and has never been a member of the company's board of directors, said Jacob Peters, a spokesperson for Kelly. World View also told PolitiFact in a statement that Kelly was an investor but had no day-to-day involvement with the company. In late April, World View was approved for a loan to retain 38 employees. The loan was for an amount between $1 million and $2 million, according to Small Business Administration data. Kelly was not informed about World View's loan application, 'nor was he involved in the decision process to decide to pursue a PPP loan,' the company said. McSally's campaign did not provide information to dispute the Kelly campaign's explanation. PolitiFact did not find information showing Kelly was involved in the application process.
|
Our ruling McSally said Kelly, 'criticized the (Paycheck Protection Program), then turned around and took money for his own multi-million dollar company.' Kelly has criticized the way the program has been administered, but not the existence of the program itself. He's argued that red tape is preventing small businesses from getting funds and that Congress needs to do more to help businesses get the funds and to hold banks accountable. A company that Kelly co-founded and in which he has investments received up to $2 million in a loan from the program. But Kelly's campaign and the company say he was not involved in the application process. McSally's campaign did not provide information disputing that statement and we didn't find any either. McSally's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"112277-proof-25-f21eee2ee36e9767c10fef26f2e36db2.jpg"
] |
Photo shows the BOK Center full with people during Donald Trump's Tulsa rally.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump's campaign rally in Tulsa, Okla., the first since the coronavirus hit the U.S., drew 6,200 people, the Tulsa fire department said. That's a far cry from the 19,000 people the city's BOK Center can fit, and an even farther cry from the 1 million people who the Trump campaign said registered to attend. The campaign hyped the rally as a major event with an expected overflow crowd big enough to cheer on a second speech outside the arena, but organizers canceled the second address when that crowd didn't materialize. Reporters on site shared photos and videos of empty blue seats and a comparatively sparse crowd, while critics jeered Trump on social media and joked about TikTok users who registered for tickets with no intention of showing. Now, supporters of the president are defending him by flooding social media with photos that they say show a nearly sold-out arena in Tulsa. One Facebook post shows a packed arena from the vantage point of two people sitting in the venue's upper deck. A man in the photo is wearing a Trump campaign shirt. 'Stadium in Tulsa Trump rally yesterday,' the caption on the June 21 post says. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because this photo was taken at a different Trump rally. As some social media users pointed out in the comments, the arena and stage in the photo are set up differently than the BOK Center in Tulsa, where Trump's June 20 rally took place. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the BOK Center on June 20, 2020, in Tulsa, Okla. (AP/Ogrocki) The stadium in the Facebook photo, for example, shows three levels of seats and two electronic advertising banners telling attendees to 'TEXT TRUMP.' Photos from Trump's event at the BOK Center show just two levels of seats and one electronic advertising banner. The jumbotron in the Facebook photo is a different shape than the jumbotron at the BOK Center. The ramp from the tunnel to the stage is set up to the left of the stage in the Facebook photo, but photos from the BOK Center show the ramp at that venue was set up to the right. There are other visible differences, too. President Donald Trump arrives on the ramp to the stage at a campaign rally at the BOK Center on June 20, 2020, in Tulsa, Okla. (AP/Vucci) It's hard to say which rally the Facebook photo is from. We turned up no results when we ran the photo through reverse image searches on Google, TinEye and Yandex. The account that posted the image did not respond to a request for comment sent via Facebook Messenger. The stage setup in the photo resembles the setup from Trump's June 2019 rally at the Amway Center in Orlando, Fla. The Facebook user who uploaded the photo also shared posts about the Orlando rally after it happened, including a post from conservative political commentator Glenn Beck that showed what appears to be the same stadium, and from a similar vantage point. Regardless, it's clear that the Facebook post doesn't show Trump's crowd at the BOK Center. We rate this post False.
|
We rate this post False.
|
[
"112295-proof-19-4d0004f320034344ced5e10f8ad59f8c.jpg"
] |
Photo shows the BOK Center full with people during Donald Trump's Tulsa rally.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump's campaign rally in Tulsa, Okla., the first since the coronavirus hit the U.S., drew 6,200 people, the Tulsa fire department said. That's a far cry from the 19,000 people the city's BOK Center can fit, and an even farther cry from the 1 million people who the Trump campaign said registered to attend. The campaign hyped the rally as a major event with an expected overflow crowd big enough to cheer on a second speech outside the arena, but organizers canceled the second address when that crowd didn't materialize. Reporters on site shared photos and videos of empty blue seats and a comparatively sparse crowd, while critics jeered Trump on social media and joked about TikTok users who registered for tickets with no intention of showing. Now, supporters of the president are defending him by flooding social media with photos that they say show a nearly sold-out arena in Tulsa. One Facebook post shows a packed arena from the vantage point of two people sitting in the venue's upper deck. A man in the photo is wearing a Trump campaign shirt. 'Stadium in Tulsa Trump rally yesterday,' the caption on the June 21 post says. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because this photo was taken at a different Trump rally. As some social media users pointed out in the comments, the arena and stage in the photo are set up differently than the BOK Center in Tulsa, where Trump's June 20 rally took place. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the BOK Center on June 20, 2020, in Tulsa, Okla. (AP/Ogrocki) The stadium in the Facebook photo, for example, shows three levels of seats and two electronic advertising banners telling attendees to 'TEXT TRUMP.' Photos from Trump's event at the BOK Center show just two levels of seats and one electronic advertising banner. The jumbotron in the Facebook photo is a different shape than the jumbotron at the BOK Center. The ramp from the tunnel to the stage is set up to the left of the stage in the Facebook photo, but photos from the BOK Center show the ramp at that venue was set up to the right. There are other visible differences, too. President Donald Trump arrives on the ramp to the stage at a campaign rally at the BOK Center on June 20, 2020, in Tulsa, Okla. (AP/Vucci) It's hard to say which rally the Facebook photo is from. We turned up no results when we ran the photo through reverse image searches on Google, TinEye and Yandex. The account that posted the image did not respond to a request for comment sent via Facebook Messenger. The stage setup in the photo resembles the setup from Trump's June 2019 rally at the Amway Center in Orlando, Fla. The Facebook user who uploaded the photo also shared posts about the Orlando rally after it happened, including a post from conservative political commentator Glenn Beck that showed what appears to be the same stadium, and from a similar vantage point. Regardless, it's clear that the Facebook post doesn't show Trump's crowd at the BOK Center. We rate this post False.
|
We rate this post False.
|
[
"112295-proof-19-4d0004f320034344ced5e10f8ad59f8c.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden 'is restricting travel for Americans into Mexico, but is keeping the border wide open for illegal aliens to walk right into our country.
|
Contradiction
|
A social media attack on President Joe Biden alleges a gaping contradiction at the Mexico border. 'The COVID delta variant is so deadly Biden is restricting travel for Americans into Mexico but is keeping the border wide open for illegal aliens to walk right into our country,' the widely shared tweet claims. 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 Biden administration is limiting Americans' travel to Mexico, as well as to Canada, in an attempt to curb the spread of the coronavirus. It's a continuation of a policy established by President Donald Trump. But the Mexico border is not wide open for illegal immigration into the United States. The vast majority of encounters result in U.S. immigration officials turning people away at the border. Travel restrictions started with Trump The element of truth in this claim is that Biden has extended a Trump administration policy, with Mexico, on travel. As the coronavirus outbreak began to take hold, the United States and Mexico announced on March 20, 2020, that they would prohibit for 30 days all 'non-essential' travel, including travel 'that is considered tourism or recreational in nature,' across the border. The U.S. and Canada announced the same agreement the same day. Both agreements have been extended monthly under Trump and Biden. In the most recent extension, announced July 21, Homeland Security cited the delta variant, which public health officials believe could be twice as contagious as the original strain of the virus. Illegal immigration The idea that the Mexico border is wide open for illegal immigration into the U.S. is wrong. In March, we rated False a claim that the border 'is now open to anyone from anywhere in the world who wishes to enter our country.' And in April, we rated False a claim that the U.S. is locked down and there's 'a wide open border.' Thousands of people are arriving at the southern border on a monthly basis. What are known as enforcement encounters at the southern border have risen each month since Biden took office - from 78,442 in January to 188,829 in June, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Encounters data includes people who are placed in immigration proceedings and people who are quickly expelled. Border apprehensions have gone up because people are attempting to cross multiple times and failing, said Nicole Hallett, a professor and director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. 'Apprehensions have increased because of the strict COVID restrictions, not because restrictions have eased.' Most people trying to cross at the border are being turned away, under a March 2020 order by the Trump administration to curb the spread of COVID-19. The Biden administration is still enforcing that policy, although it's exempting children who arrive alone, as well as some families. Biden is also moving to limit border crossings in another way. Homeland Security announced July 26 that it would quickly turn back migrant families that immigration officials determine do not qualify for asylum during a fast-tracked screening process. 'It is simply not true that the border is 'wide open' for 'illegal aliens' to cross,' Hallett said. 'Customs and Border Protection apprehend individuals attempting to cross between border checkpoints. The border is more secure than ever before. Fewer people are able to cross illegally without being apprehended than at any time in the past.'
|
Our ruling Social media posts claimed that Biden 'is restricting travel for Americans into Mexico, but is keeping the border wide open for illegal aliens to walk right into our country.' The tweet contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[] |
Says Joe Biden 'is restricting travel for Americans into Mexico, but is keeping the border wide open for illegal aliens to walk right into our country.
|
Contradiction
|
A social media attack on President Joe Biden alleges a gaping contradiction at the Mexico border. 'The COVID delta variant is so deadly Biden is restricting travel for Americans into Mexico but is keeping the border wide open for illegal aliens to walk right into our country,' the widely shared tweet claims. 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 Biden administration is limiting Americans' travel to Mexico, as well as to Canada, in an attempt to curb the spread of the coronavirus. It's a continuation of a policy established by President Donald Trump. But the Mexico border is not wide open for illegal immigration into the United States. The vast majority of encounters result in U.S. immigration officials turning people away at the border. Travel restrictions started with Trump The element of truth in this claim is that Biden has extended a Trump administration policy, with Mexico, on travel. As the coronavirus outbreak began to take hold, the United States and Mexico announced on March 20, 2020, that they would prohibit for 30 days all 'non-essential' travel, including travel 'that is considered tourism or recreational in nature,' across the border. The U.S. and Canada announced the same agreement the same day. Both agreements have been extended monthly under Trump and Biden. In the most recent extension, announced July 21, Homeland Security cited the delta variant, which public health officials believe could be twice as contagious as the original strain of the virus. Illegal immigration The idea that the Mexico border is wide open for illegal immigration into the U.S. is wrong. In March, we rated False a claim that the border 'is now open to anyone from anywhere in the world who wishes to enter our country.' And in April, we rated False a claim that the U.S. is locked down and there's 'a wide open border.' Thousands of people are arriving at the southern border on a monthly basis. What are known as enforcement encounters at the southern border have risen each month since Biden took office - from 78,442 in January to 188,829 in June, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Encounters data includes people who are placed in immigration proceedings and people who are quickly expelled. Border apprehensions have gone up because people are attempting to cross multiple times and failing, said Nicole Hallett, a professor and director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. 'Apprehensions have increased because of the strict COVID restrictions, not because restrictions have eased.' Most people trying to cross at the border are being turned away, under a March 2020 order by the Trump administration to curb the spread of COVID-19. The Biden administration is still enforcing that policy, although it's exempting children who arrive alone, as well as some families. Biden is also moving to limit border crossings in another way. Homeland Security announced July 26 that it would quickly turn back migrant families that immigration officials determine do not qualify for asylum during a fast-tracked screening process. 'It is simply not true that the border is 'wide open' for 'illegal aliens' to cross,' Hallett said. 'Customs and Border Protection apprehend individuals attempting to cross between border checkpoints. The border is more secure than ever before. Fewer people are able to cross illegally without being apprehended than at any time in the past.'
|
Our ruling Social media posts claimed that Biden 'is restricting travel for Americans into Mexico, but is keeping the border wide open for illegal aliens to walk right into our country.' The tweet contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[] |
'You know what's in this bill? No medical malpractice suits until 2024, even if they're not COVID related.
|
Contradiction
|
Sen. Chuck Schumer rejected a coronavirus relief bill proposed by Republicans in the Senate, calling it extreme and 'a giveaway to corporate interests.' Schumer said the proposal focused on protecting businesses, schools and hospitals from liability. 'You know what's in this bill? No medical malpractice suits until 2024, even if they're not COVID-related,' said Schumer in a July 28 interview with MSNBC's Chris Hayes. 'What it says is, if a employer-' 'Wait a second, wait a second, wait a second, really?' Hayes asked. 'That's in the bill, yes,' Schumer said. 'It's in the bill. It's amazing.' Is that true? PolitiFact examined the bill and asked law professors for their review of it to determine if any aspect of the bill did what Schumer claimed. What Schumer said was 'in the bill' is not actually in the bill. The bill does not explicitly ban the filing of lawsuits until 2024. Language does, however, make cases more difficult to succeed, experts said. Does the bill extend to non-COVID-19 related cases? 'It doesn't seem that it's intended to apply to medical malpractice suits that don't relate to non-COVID-19 related care,' said via email Michelle M. Mello, a law professor at Stanford Law School. But certain definitions and wording in the bill support Schumer's interpretation, she said. Specifics of the bill Schumer's claim is based on a bill introduced by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that's part of a package promoted by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. McConnell has argued that the bill does not provide immunity from lawsuits and that it still allows for accountability for gross negligence and intentional misconduct. The bill would extend to health care services provided from December 2019 to October 2024, or the date when the national emergency over the coronavirus ends. A spokesperson for Schumer said that while the bill cites 'coronavirus-related medical liability action,' it also gives a broad definition of what constitutes as 'coronavirus-related health care services.' Here's how the bill defines coronavirus-related health care services: The 'for any purpose' phrase in that definition 'would enable the preemption' of medical malpractice lawsuits even if the health care services are not directly related to COVID-19, said Justin Goodman, a spokesperson for Schumer. 'Because the provider can be expected to say that the pandemic impacted their decisions and activities for all services they provided,' he said. Mello, of Stanford Law School, offered this scenario: 'Suppose I come to a hospital clinic for chemotherapy, and the hospital is so overwhelmed and distracted with its COVID care and surge preparations that they don't staff the chemo service at normal levels and something important gets missed in my care - the hospital could argue that my injury fits the definition.' The hospital could say that care was suboptimal because it had diverted resources and attention to COVID-19, Mello added. Drew Brandewie, a spokesperson for Cornyn, argued that the 'for any purpose' wording in the bill is irrelevant to Schumer's claim. 'Nothing in the bill, including that provision, preempts or bars a lawsuit from being filed - which is what Sen. Schumer said,' Brandewie said. Law experts said there were provisions in the bill that could reduce the number of suits filed, including a standard for negligence that's higher than what state laws commonly require. 'The bill only permits liability for the most egregious misconduct,' said David C. Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown Law. Plaintiffs would have to prove that a health care provider intended to hurt them, he said. In the evidence-gathering process, people seeking to sue must also show that information requested from a health care provider 'equals or exceeds the burden or cost' placed on the health care provider. That provision and the one-year limit for filing claims, can also challenge a plaintiff's ability to file claims, experts said. When Cornyn introduced his bill, he said that as states reopen, health care workers, businesses, and schools faced 'a second pandemic of frivolous lawsuits threatening to bankrupt them.' What might be the effect of his bill if it becomes law? There would be extremely few COVID-19-based medical malpractice lawsuits and nearly zero frivolous ones, said Charles M. Silver, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, who has studied medical malpractice litigation in Texas. 'The impact of the bill will be to prevent the few plaintiffs with very strong negligence claims from collecting compensation,' Silver said. Silver disagreed with Cornyn's premise that health care providers were getting lots of frivolous lawsuits. Medical malpractice lawsuits are expensive and hard to win, even when clients have strong claims, Silver said. 'The single most validated finding about medical malpractice litigation is that the system routinely sends victims with valid claims home empty-handed or, at least, under-compensated,' Silver said.
|
Our ruling Schumer said of a Republican coronavirus relief bill, 'You know what's in this bill? No medical malpractice suits until 2024, even if they're not COVID related.' Schumer was imprecise and inaccurate describing a provision in the bill. Despite what Schumer said, the bill does not prohibit the filing of medical malpractice lawsuits. It does set strict standards that must be met for a case to succeed. The standards also could restrict the number of cases filed, experts said. Regarding the bill's impact on lawsuits not related to COVID-19 care, some experts say the language is broad enough to have a chilling effect on all types of medical malpractice lawsuits. Schumer's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"112326-proof-29-2f4d2e9526e2f537e521c8a1b44dc0c3.jpg"
] |
'You know what's in this bill? No medical malpractice suits until 2024, even if they're not COVID related.
|
Contradiction
|
Sen. Chuck Schumer rejected a coronavirus relief bill proposed by Republicans in the Senate, calling it extreme and 'a giveaway to corporate interests.' Schumer said the proposal focused on protecting businesses, schools and hospitals from liability. 'You know what's in this bill? No medical malpractice suits until 2024, even if they're not COVID-related,' said Schumer in a July 28 interview with MSNBC's Chris Hayes. 'What it says is, if a employer-' 'Wait a second, wait a second, wait a second, really?' Hayes asked. 'That's in the bill, yes,' Schumer said. 'It's in the bill. It's amazing.' Is that true? PolitiFact examined the bill and asked law professors for their review of it to determine if any aspect of the bill did what Schumer claimed. What Schumer said was 'in the bill' is not actually in the bill. The bill does not explicitly ban the filing of lawsuits until 2024. Language does, however, make cases more difficult to succeed, experts said. Does the bill extend to non-COVID-19 related cases? 'It doesn't seem that it's intended to apply to medical malpractice suits that don't relate to non-COVID-19 related care,' said via email Michelle M. Mello, a law professor at Stanford Law School. But certain definitions and wording in the bill support Schumer's interpretation, she said. Specifics of the bill Schumer's claim is based on a bill introduced by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that's part of a package promoted by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. McConnell has argued that the bill does not provide immunity from lawsuits and that it still allows for accountability for gross negligence and intentional misconduct. The bill would extend to health care services provided from December 2019 to October 2024, or the date when the national emergency over the coronavirus ends. A spokesperson for Schumer said that while the bill cites 'coronavirus-related medical liability action,' it also gives a broad definition of what constitutes as 'coronavirus-related health care services.' Here's how the bill defines coronavirus-related health care services: The 'for any purpose' phrase in that definition 'would enable the preemption' of medical malpractice lawsuits even if the health care services are not directly related to COVID-19, said Justin Goodman, a spokesperson for Schumer. 'Because the provider can be expected to say that the pandemic impacted their decisions and activities for all services they provided,' he said. Mello, of Stanford Law School, offered this scenario: 'Suppose I come to a hospital clinic for chemotherapy, and the hospital is so overwhelmed and distracted with its COVID care and surge preparations that they don't staff the chemo service at normal levels and something important gets missed in my care - the hospital could argue that my injury fits the definition.' The hospital could say that care was suboptimal because it had diverted resources and attention to COVID-19, Mello added. Drew Brandewie, a spokesperson for Cornyn, argued that the 'for any purpose' wording in the bill is irrelevant to Schumer's claim. 'Nothing in the bill, including that provision, preempts or bars a lawsuit from being filed - which is what Sen. Schumer said,' Brandewie said. Law experts said there were provisions in the bill that could reduce the number of suits filed, including a standard for negligence that's higher than what state laws commonly require. 'The bill only permits liability for the most egregious misconduct,' said David C. Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown Law. Plaintiffs would have to prove that a health care provider intended to hurt them, he said. In the evidence-gathering process, people seeking to sue must also show that information requested from a health care provider 'equals or exceeds the burden or cost' placed on the health care provider. That provision and the one-year limit for filing claims, can also challenge a plaintiff's ability to file claims, experts said. When Cornyn introduced his bill, he said that as states reopen, health care workers, businesses, and schools faced 'a second pandemic of frivolous lawsuits threatening to bankrupt them.' What might be the effect of his bill if it becomes law? There would be extremely few COVID-19-based medical malpractice lawsuits and nearly zero frivolous ones, said Charles M. Silver, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, who has studied medical malpractice litigation in Texas. 'The impact of the bill will be to prevent the few plaintiffs with very strong negligence claims from collecting compensation,' Silver said. Silver disagreed with Cornyn's premise that health care providers were getting lots of frivolous lawsuits. Medical malpractice lawsuits are expensive and hard to win, even when clients have strong claims, Silver said. 'The single most validated finding about medical malpractice litigation is that the system routinely sends victims with valid claims home empty-handed or, at least, under-compensated,' Silver said.
|
Our ruling Schumer said of a Republican coronavirus relief bill, 'You know what's in this bill? No medical malpractice suits until 2024, even if they're not COVID related.' Schumer was imprecise and inaccurate describing a provision in the bill. Despite what Schumer said, the bill does not prohibit the filing of medical malpractice lawsuits. It does set strict standards that must be met for a case to succeed. The standards also could restrict the number of cases filed, experts said. Regarding the bill's impact on lawsuits not related to COVID-19 care, some experts say the language is broad enough to have a chilling effect on all types of medical malpractice lawsuits. Schumer's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"112326-proof-29-2f4d2e9526e2f537e521c8a1b44dc0c3.jpg"
] |
Headlines show CNN published contradictory reports about hydroxychloroquine in 2020.
|
Contradiction
|
In the spring of 2020, when COVID-19 was coursing through the United States and the world, hydroxychloroquine became a household word as President Donald Trump touted the antimalaria drug for coronavirus patients and experts debated its efficacy. By summer, the Food and Drug Administration had revoked its authorization for hydroxychloroquine to treat hospitalized COVID-19 patients and warned of serious health and safety issues. But interest in hydroxychloroquine persists. A study published in May - on a 'preprint' website that publishes studies that have not been fully vetted - said hydroxychloroquine boosts survival in coronavirus patients. Trump has since claimed he was right all along about the drug, a claim we found questionable. In a viral Facebook post, social media users claimed that two headlines on stories by the same author show CNN published contradictory reports about hydroxychloroquine in April and June 2020. The post, which juxtaposes images of the two headlines, was 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 April headline said President Trump was 'wrong in so many ways' about hydroxychloroquine, while the July headline said a study found that the drug 'helped coronavirus patients survive better.' The conflicting tone, the post author argues in the accompanying caption, represents a 'lie' by the media meant to impugn Trump. The stories, though, did not contain conflicting information. The April story addressed four specific claims Trump had made about hydroxychloroquine: when information would be available about whether the drug works against coronavirus; whether a French study of the drug was reputable; whether some people had tried to delay the trials of hydroxychloroquine; and whether the drug was safe for coronavirus patients. The July story was about a different issue: the findings of a study by the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan about the survival rate for hospitalized patients who had been given hydroxychloroquine. The only overlap between the two stories was the question of whether the drug is safe for coronavirus patients. The April story said that Trump called it safe, but that doctors said 'the drug can have serious side effects.' The July story said the Henry Ford study showed that hydroxychloroquine improved survival in hospitalized coronavirus patients, but it also detailed other researchers' skepticism about how the study was conducted. For the July story, early versions of the headline matched the image in the Facebook post and said, 'Study finds hydroxychloroquine helped coronavirus patients survive better,' according to our analysis of the CNN webpage through the Wayback Machine, an internet archive service. But later versions of the story had a longer headline that more clearly described the limitations of the study findings: 'Study finds hydroxychloroquine may have boosted survival, but other researchers have doubts.' A year after the two CNN stories were published, hydroxychloroquine remains unproven as a treatment for coronavirus. A National Institutes of Health study published in November 2020, based on a randomized controlled trial - the highest standard of evidence - concluded that compared with a placebo, hydroxychloroquine provides no benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
|
Our ruling Social media users claimed in a Facebook post that the headlines on two stories by the same author show CNN published contradictory reports about hydroxychloroquine in 2020. The April headline said President Trump was 'wrong in so many ways' about hydroxychloroquine, while the July headline said a study found that the drug 'helped coronavirus patients survive better.' But the stories did not contain conflicting information. The April story covered four specific claims by President Trump about hydroxychloroquine, and the July story was a report on study findings about the drug. We rate the claim False.
|
[] |
Headlines show CNN published contradictory reports about hydroxychloroquine in 2020.
|
Contradiction
|
In the spring of 2020, when COVID-19 was coursing through the United States and the world, hydroxychloroquine became a household word as President Donald Trump touted the antimalaria drug for coronavirus patients and experts debated its efficacy. By summer, the Food and Drug Administration had revoked its authorization for hydroxychloroquine to treat hospitalized COVID-19 patients and warned of serious health and safety issues. But interest in hydroxychloroquine persists. A study published in May - on a 'preprint' website that publishes studies that have not been fully vetted - said hydroxychloroquine boosts survival in coronavirus patients. Trump has since claimed he was right all along about the drug, a claim we found questionable. In a viral Facebook post, social media users claimed that two headlines on stories by the same author show CNN published contradictory reports about hydroxychloroquine in April and June 2020. The post, which juxtaposes images of the two headlines, was 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 April headline said President Trump was 'wrong in so many ways' about hydroxychloroquine, while the July headline said a study found that the drug 'helped coronavirus patients survive better.' The conflicting tone, the post author argues in the accompanying caption, represents a 'lie' by the media meant to impugn Trump. The stories, though, did not contain conflicting information. The April story addressed four specific claims Trump had made about hydroxychloroquine: when information would be available about whether the drug works against coronavirus; whether a French study of the drug was reputable; whether some people had tried to delay the trials of hydroxychloroquine; and whether the drug was safe for coronavirus patients. The July story was about a different issue: the findings of a study by the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan about the survival rate for hospitalized patients who had been given hydroxychloroquine. The only overlap between the two stories was the question of whether the drug is safe for coronavirus patients. The April story said that Trump called it safe, but that doctors said 'the drug can have serious side effects.' The July story said the Henry Ford study showed that hydroxychloroquine improved survival in hospitalized coronavirus patients, but it also detailed other researchers' skepticism about how the study was conducted. For the July story, early versions of the headline matched the image in the Facebook post and said, 'Study finds hydroxychloroquine helped coronavirus patients survive better,' according to our analysis of the CNN webpage through the Wayback Machine, an internet archive service. But later versions of the story had a longer headline that more clearly described the limitations of the study findings: 'Study finds hydroxychloroquine may have boosted survival, but other researchers have doubts.' A year after the two CNN stories were published, hydroxychloroquine remains unproven as a treatment for coronavirus. A National Institutes of Health study published in November 2020, based on a randomized controlled trial - the highest standard of evidence - concluded that compared with a placebo, hydroxychloroquine provides no benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
|
Our ruling Social media users claimed in a Facebook post that the headlines on two stories by the same author show CNN published contradictory reports about hydroxychloroquine in 2020. The April headline said President Trump was 'wrong in so many ways' about hydroxychloroquine, while the July headline said a study found that the drug 'helped coronavirus patients survive better.' But the stories did not contain conflicting information. The April story covered four specific claims by President Trump about hydroxychloroquine, and the July story was a report on study findings about the drug. We rate the claim False.
|
[] |
Headlines show CNN published contradictory reports about hydroxychloroquine in 2020.
|
Contradiction
|
In the spring of 2020, when COVID-19 was coursing through the United States and the world, hydroxychloroquine became a household word as President Donald Trump touted the antimalaria drug for coronavirus patients and experts debated its efficacy. By summer, the Food and Drug Administration had revoked its authorization for hydroxychloroquine to treat hospitalized COVID-19 patients and warned of serious health and safety issues. But interest in hydroxychloroquine persists. A study published in May - on a 'preprint' website that publishes studies that have not been fully vetted - said hydroxychloroquine boosts survival in coronavirus patients. Trump has since claimed he was right all along about the drug, a claim we found questionable. In a viral Facebook post, social media users claimed that two headlines on stories by the same author show CNN published contradictory reports about hydroxychloroquine in April and June 2020. The post, which juxtaposes images of the two headlines, was 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 April headline said President Trump was 'wrong in so many ways' about hydroxychloroquine, while the July headline said a study found that the drug 'helped coronavirus patients survive better.' The conflicting tone, the post author argues in the accompanying caption, represents a 'lie' by the media meant to impugn Trump. The stories, though, did not contain conflicting information. The April story addressed four specific claims Trump had made about hydroxychloroquine: when information would be available about whether the drug works against coronavirus; whether a French study of the drug was reputable; whether some people had tried to delay the trials of hydroxychloroquine; and whether the drug was safe for coronavirus patients. The July story was about a different issue: the findings of a study by the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan about the survival rate for hospitalized patients who had been given hydroxychloroquine. The only overlap between the two stories was the question of whether the drug is safe for coronavirus patients. The April story said that Trump called it safe, but that doctors said 'the drug can have serious side effects.' The July story said the Henry Ford study showed that hydroxychloroquine improved survival in hospitalized coronavirus patients, but it also detailed other researchers' skepticism about how the study was conducted. For the July story, early versions of the headline matched the image in the Facebook post and said, 'Study finds hydroxychloroquine helped coronavirus patients survive better,' according to our analysis of the CNN webpage through the Wayback Machine, an internet archive service. But later versions of the story had a longer headline that more clearly described the limitations of the study findings: 'Study finds hydroxychloroquine may have boosted survival, but other researchers have doubts.' A year after the two CNN stories were published, hydroxychloroquine remains unproven as a treatment for coronavirus. A National Institutes of Health study published in November 2020, based on a randomized controlled trial - the highest standard of evidence - concluded that compared with a placebo, hydroxychloroquine provides no benefit to hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
|
Our ruling Social media users claimed in a Facebook post that the headlines on two stories by the same author show CNN published contradictory reports about hydroxychloroquine in 2020. The April headline said President Trump was 'wrong in so many ways' about hydroxychloroquine, while the July headline said a study found that the drug 'helped coronavirus patients survive better.' But the stories did not contain conflicting information. The April story covered four specific claims by President Trump about hydroxychloroquine, and the July story was a report on study findings about the drug. We rate the claim False.
|
[] |
Says white vans with external locks are 'utilized for sex trafficking.
|
Contradiction
|
Since late 2019, social media users have been sharing posts urging people to call 911 at the sight of a white van with external locks on its doors and hatches. 'If you see any vans like this call 911,' says a Nov. 22 Facebook post, which shows an image of a white van with external locks on its side door and hatch. 'This is utilized for sex trafficking.' 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.) Human trafficking is a legitimate threat that affects millions of people. But while it's possible that some human traffickers have used white vans to kidnap their victims, there's generally no way to predict what type of vehicle a trafficker or other criminal would drive. More to the point, there's no evidence that white vans with external locks are an especially common getaway ride for kidnappers. Like a pair of similar hoaxes we debunked related to zip ties and sex trafficking, this post seems alarmist. A screenshot of a viral Facebook post warning that white vans with external locks are used by sex traffickers. When we searched news archives, we didn't find a swarm of reports about human traffickers who used external locks to trap people inside their white vans and drive away. Instead, we found a number of reports - from fact-checkers as well as local and national news outlets - that debunked viral Facebook posts that were fooling people into believing most white vans belonged to sex traffickers. Some outlets, like Lead Stories, knocked down posts claiming white vans with external locks are the vehicle of choice for sex traffickers, noting that such locks are widely available for sale online and commonly used by workers who use expensive tools on the job. Others dealt with similar posts that warned about white vans more generally. These posts reportedly took off after Baltimore Mayor Jack Young issued a warning about white vans that he claimed, without evidence, were 'trying to snatch up young girls for human trafficking.' Young said he got word of such incidents from Facebook rather than from the Baltimore Police Department, which later told reporters it had no reports of actual incidents that involved sex traffickers driving white vans with external locks. A number of white-van owners have reported being harassed since posts associating their vehicles with sex trafficking have cropped up, according to Business Insider. The FBI declined to comment when we asked if incidents involving white vans were frequent or if white vans with external locks presented any particular reason for concern. But Robert Lowery, vice president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, told Yahoo News that 'of the 420,000 missing children last year, there were around 30 or 40 physical abductions that involved, for example, grabbing them in public.' 'Although that's too many and it does happen, these scenarios are rare,' he said. In a statement to PolitiFact, the Polaris Project, a nonprofit organization that works to combat human trafficking, said it hasn't identified white vans with external locks as a trend. Human trafficking often occurs between people that know each other, rather than complete strangers, and people being trafficked aren't always physically restrained, locked away or held against their will, the group said. 'By far the most pervasive myth about human trafficking is that it always - or often - involves kidnapping or otherwise physically forcing someone into a situation,' the Polaris Project said in its statement. 'In reality, most human traffickers use psychological means such as tricking, defrauding, manipulating or threatening victims.' Shared Hope International, a nonprofit Christian organization with a similar mission, told us that 'trafficking victims are generally not kidnapped or taken away from their families abruptly.' 'Many people don't realize sex trafficking exists in their community, but it impacts people everywhere,' the organization said. 'Those who are concerned about sex trafficking and want to prevent people from being exploited should start by educating themselves and getting the facts.' It's important to stay aware of your surroundings, and should you want to report or seek services related to a case of human trafficking, you can contact the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-888-373-7888 or email [email protected]antraffickinghotline.org. But the Facebook post about white vans with external locks seems like an example of an alarmist and unsubstantiated warning. So we rate it False.
|
But the Facebook post about white vans with external locks seems like an example of an alarmist and unsubstantiated warning. So we rate it False.
|
[
"112357-proof-19-78115974_10216338115991266_6903605396502478848_o.jpg"
] |
Says white vans with external locks are 'utilized for sex trafficking.
|
Contradiction
|
Since late 2019, social media users have been sharing posts urging people to call 911 at the sight of a white van with external locks on its doors and hatches. 'If you see any vans like this call 911,' says a Nov. 22 Facebook post, which shows an image of a white van with external locks on its side door and hatch. 'This is utilized for sex trafficking.' 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.) Human trafficking is a legitimate threat that affects millions of people. But while it's possible that some human traffickers have used white vans to kidnap their victims, there's generally no way to predict what type of vehicle a trafficker or other criminal would drive. More to the point, there's no evidence that white vans with external locks are an especially common getaway ride for kidnappers. Like a pair of similar hoaxes we debunked related to zip ties and sex trafficking, this post seems alarmist. A screenshot of a viral Facebook post warning that white vans with external locks are used by sex traffickers. When we searched news archives, we didn't find a swarm of reports about human traffickers who used external locks to trap people inside their white vans and drive away. Instead, we found a number of reports - from fact-checkers as well as local and national news outlets - that debunked viral Facebook posts that were fooling people into believing most white vans belonged to sex traffickers. Some outlets, like Lead Stories, knocked down posts claiming white vans with external locks are the vehicle of choice for sex traffickers, noting that such locks are widely available for sale online and commonly used by workers who use expensive tools on the job. Others dealt with similar posts that warned about white vans more generally. These posts reportedly took off after Baltimore Mayor Jack Young issued a warning about white vans that he claimed, without evidence, were 'trying to snatch up young girls for human trafficking.' Young said he got word of such incidents from Facebook rather than from the Baltimore Police Department, which later told reporters it had no reports of actual incidents that involved sex traffickers driving white vans with external locks. A number of white-van owners have reported being harassed since posts associating their vehicles with sex trafficking have cropped up, according to Business Insider. The FBI declined to comment when we asked if incidents involving white vans were frequent or if white vans with external locks presented any particular reason for concern. But Robert Lowery, vice president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, told Yahoo News that 'of the 420,000 missing children last year, there were around 30 or 40 physical abductions that involved, for example, grabbing them in public.' 'Although that's too many and it does happen, these scenarios are rare,' he said. In a statement to PolitiFact, the Polaris Project, a nonprofit organization that works to combat human trafficking, said it hasn't identified white vans with external locks as a trend. Human trafficking often occurs between people that know each other, rather than complete strangers, and people being trafficked aren't always physically restrained, locked away or held against their will, the group said. 'By far the most pervasive myth about human trafficking is that it always - or often - involves kidnapping or otherwise physically forcing someone into a situation,' the Polaris Project said in its statement. 'In reality, most human traffickers use psychological means such as tricking, defrauding, manipulating or threatening victims.' Shared Hope International, a nonprofit Christian organization with a similar mission, told us that 'trafficking victims are generally not kidnapped or taken away from their families abruptly.' 'Many people don't realize sex trafficking exists in their community, but it impacts people everywhere,' the organization said. 'Those who are concerned about sex trafficking and want to prevent people from being exploited should start by educating themselves and getting the facts.' It's important to stay aware of your surroundings, and should you want to report or seek services related to a case of human trafficking, you can contact the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-888-373-7888 or email [email protected]antraffickinghotline.org. But the Facebook post about white vans with external locks seems like an example of an alarmist and unsubstantiated warning. So we rate it False.
|
But the Facebook post about white vans with external locks seems like an example of an alarmist and unsubstantiated warning. So we rate it False.
|
[
"112357-proof-19-78115974_10216338115991266_6903605396502478848_o.jpg"
] |
Says white vans with external locks are 'utilized for sex trafficking.
|
Contradiction
|
Since late 2019, social media users have been sharing posts urging people to call 911 at the sight of a white van with external locks on its doors and hatches. 'If you see any vans like this call 911,' says a Nov. 22 Facebook post, which shows an image of a white van with external locks on its side door and hatch. 'This is utilized for sex trafficking.' 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.) Human trafficking is a legitimate threat that affects millions of people. But while it's possible that some human traffickers have used white vans to kidnap their victims, there's generally no way to predict what type of vehicle a trafficker or other criminal would drive. More to the point, there's no evidence that white vans with external locks are an especially common getaway ride for kidnappers. Like a pair of similar hoaxes we debunked related to zip ties and sex trafficking, this post seems alarmist. A screenshot of a viral Facebook post warning that white vans with external locks are used by sex traffickers. When we searched news archives, we didn't find a swarm of reports about human traffickers who used external locks to trap people inside their white vans and drive away. Instead, we found a number of reports - from fact-checkers as well as local and national news outlets - that debunked viral Facebook posts that were fooling people into believing most white vans belonged to sex traffickers. Some outlets, like Lead Stories, knocked down posts claiming white vans with external locks are the vehicle of choice for sex traffickers, noting that such locks are widely available for sale online and commonly used by workers who use expensive tools on the job. Others dealt with similar posts that warned about white vans more generally. These posts reportedly took off after Baltimore Mayor Jack Young issued a warning about white vans that he claimed, without evidence, were 'trying to snatch up young girls for human trafficking.' Young said he got word of such incidents from Facebook rather than from the Baltimore Police Department, which later told reporters it had no reports of actual incidents that involved sex traffickers driving white vans with external locks. A number of white-van owners have reported being harassed since posts associating their vehicles with sex trafficking have cropped up, according to Business Insider. The FBI declined to comment when we asked if incidents involving white vans were frequent or if white vans with external locks presented any particular reason for concern. But Robert Lowery, vice president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, told Yahoo News that 'of the 420,000 missing children last year, there were around 30 or 40 physical abductions that involved, for example, grabbing them in public.' 'Although that's too many and it does happen, these scenarios are rare,' he said. In a statement to PolitiFact, the Polaris Project, a nonprofit organization that works to combat human trafficking, said it hasn't identified white vans with external locks as a trend. Human trafficking often occurs between people that know each other, rather than complete strangers, and people being trafficked aren't always physically restrained, locked away or held against their will, the group said. 'By far the most pervasive myth about human trafficking is that it always - or often - involves kidnapping or otherwise physically forcing someone into a situation,' the Polaris Project said in its statement. 'In reality, most human traffickers use psychological means such as tricking, defrauding, manipulating or threatening victims.' Shared Hope International, a nonprofit Christian organization with a similar mission, told us that 'trafficking victims are generally not kidnapped or taken away from their families abruptly.' 'Many people don't realize sex trafficking exists in their community, but it impacts people everywhere,' the organization said. 'Those who are concerned about sex trafficking and want to prevent people from being exploited should start by educating themselves and getting the facts.' It's important to stay aware of your surroundings, and should you want to report or seek services related to a case of human trafficking, you can contact the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-888-373-7888 or email [email protected]antraffickinghotline.org. But the Facebook post about white vans with external locks seems like an example of an alarmist and unsubstantiated warning. So we rate it False.
|
But the Facebook post about white vans with external locks seems like an example of an alarmist and unsubstantiated warning. So we rate it False.
|
[
"112357-proof-19-78115974_10216338115991266_6903605396502478848_o.jpg"
] |
'Since Trump labeled ANTIFA a terrorist organization their rights were stripped by the Patriot Act which states if someone is labeled a terrorist they are not afforded due process.
|
Contradiction
|
You may have heard that federal officers in unmarked vehicles have detained people protesting against police brutality in Portland. According to some reports, officers have given no explanation for the arrests. Why? One Instagram post has a theory. 'Here is what is going on since Trump labeled ANTIFA a terrorist organization their rights were stripped by the Patriot Act which states if someone is labeled a terrorist they are not afforded due process,' reads the July 18 post. 'PS: Obama suspended habeas corpus too!' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook, which owns Instagram.) The Instagram post is a screenshot of a Facebook post from a comedian named Sam Tripoli. We reached out to him for a comment, but we haven't heard back. (Screenshot from Instagram) Antifa stands for 'anti-fascist.' It's a broad, loosely affiliated coalition of left-wing activists that's been around for decades, but has had a resurgence since the election of President Donald Trump. The Trump administration has repeatedly blamed antifa activists for the violent protests that erupted after the death of George Floyd in late May. There's no evidence that antifa played any significant role, but Trump said May 31 that the United States would designate the movement as a terrorist organization. The post is inaccurate. Antifa is not a designated terrorist organization, and even if it were, American activists would still have due process rights. Antifa isn't a terrorist organization Despite Trump's tweet, antifa has not been designated as a terrorist organization. It is not listed on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. National security experts told PolitiFact there is no legal process for designating domestic groups as terrorist organizations. If the Trump administration did try to designate antifa as a terrorist organization, it would likely be challenged in court. Also, antifa is not a structured organization - it has no leaders and is organized into autonomous local groups. 'It's a little bit like feminism,' Mark Bray, a historian and part-time lecturer at Rutgers University, told PolitiFact. 'There are feminist groups just like there are antifa groups, but neither feminism nor antifa is a group.' Second: If antifa groups were designated terrorists, American activists would still have due process rights thanks to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Patriot Act, which passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, does not give federal officers the right to detain suspected terrorists who are U.S. citizens without probable cause. The legislation mainly expanded law enforcement's ability to use wiretaps in counter-terrorism investigations. It was re-authorized and revised in 2015 to place limits on how much telecommunication data intelligence agencies can collect from Americans. What's going on in Portland? If antifa isn't a terrorist organization, then why are law enforcement officials detaining protesters in Portland? It has to do with the federal government's response to ongoing protests over police brutality. Demonstrators in Portland have been protesting against police brutality and racism against Black Americans since the death of George Floyd in late May. On July 14, reports surfaced that federal law enforcement agents were using unmarked cars to detain protesters in Portland. Over the next few days, videos shared on social media showed the detentions. Federal agents in Portland include members of the U.S. Marshals Special Operations Group and a unit from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. U.S. Border Patrol told CNBC that agents were deployed to Portland in support of a June 26 executive order from Trump and a new Homeland Security task force for protecting American communities. The Trump administration says the officers are needed to restore peace in Portland, where protests devolved into rioting July 18. But Oregon officials and Democrats have criticized the federal government's crackdown. The Oregon attorney general filed a lawsuit July 17 that alleges the federal government violated citizens' rights by detaining them without probable cause. On July 19, House Democrats called for an investigation into allegations that federal officials were unlawfully arresting protesters. Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley - all Democrats - have criticized the Trump administration's use of force against protesters. It's unclear to what extent antifa activists are among the protesters detained in Portland. The city is home to the oldest antifa cell in the country, and activists associated with the movement have been involved in recent protests there. One purported antifa activist faces charges for alleged crimes that took place during the demonstrations.
|
Our ruling The Instagram post claims that, since antifa is a terrorist organization, its members' due process rights are stripped by the Patriot Act. That's wrong. Antifa is not an organized group and has not been designated as a terrorist organization. Even if it were, American antifa activists would still have due process rights afforded to them by the Constitution. The Patriot Act does not give federal law enforcement officials the right to detain suspected terrorists who are U.S. citizens without probable cause. The Instagram post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"112363-proof-00-Screen_Shot_2020-07-21_at_16_08_40.jpg",
"112363-proof-28-c6e7f38929c5f579800b2fa791796637.jpg"
] |
'Since Trump labeled ANTIFA a terrorist organization their rights were stripped by the Patriot Act which states if someone is labeled a terrorist they are not afforded due process.
|
Contradiction
|
You may have heard that federal officers in unmarked vehicles have detained people protesting against police brutality in Portland. According to some reports, officers have given no explanation for the arrests. Why? One Instagram post has a theory. 'Here is what is going on since Trump labeled ANTIFA a terrorist organization their rights were stripped by the Patriot Act which states if someone is labeled a terrorist they are not afforded due process,' reads the July 18 post. 'PS: Obama suspended habeas corpus too!' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook, which owns Instagram.) The Instagram post is a screenshot of a Facebook post from a comedian named Sam Tripoli. We reached out to him for a comment, but we haven't heard back. (Screenshot from Instagram) Antifa stands for 'anti-fascist.' It's a broad, loosely affiliated coalition of left-wing activists that's been around for decades, but has had a resurgence since the election of President Donald Trump. The Trump administration has repeatedly blamed antifa activists for the violent protests that erupted after the death of George Floyd in late May. There's no evidence that antifa played any significant role, but Trump said May 31 that the United States would designate the movement as a terrorist organization. The post is inaccurate. Antifa is not a designated terrorist organization, and even if it were, American activists would still have due process rights. Antifa isn't a terrorist organization Despite Trump's tweet, antifa has not been designated as a terrorist organization. It is not listed on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. National security experts told PolitiFact there is no legal process for designating domestic groups as terrorist organizations. If the Trump administration did try to designate antifa as a terrorist organization, it would likely be challenged in court. Also, antifa is not a structured organization - it has no leaders and is organized into autonomous local groups. 'It's a little bit like feminism,' Mark Bray, a historian and part-time lecturer at Rutgers University, told PolitiFact. 'There are feminist groups just like there are antifa groups, but neither feminism nor antifa is a group.' Second: If antifa groups were designated terrorists, American activists would still have due process rights thanks to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Patriot Act, which passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, does not give federal officers the right to detain suspected terrorists who are U.S. citizens without probable cause. The legislation mainly expanded law enforcement's ability to use wiretaps in counter-terrorism investigations. It was re-authorized and revised in 2015 to place limits on how much telecommunication data intelligence agencies can collect from Americans. What's going on in Portland? If antifa isn't a terrorist organization, then why are law enforcement officials detaining protesters in Portland? It has to do with the federal government's response to ongoing protests over police brutality. Demonstrators in Portland have been protesting against police brutality and racism against Black Americans since the death of George Floyd in late May. On July 14, reports surfaced that federal law enforcement agents were using unmarked cars to detain protesters in Portland. Over the next few days, videos shared on social media showed the detentions. Federal agents in Portland include members of the U.S. Marshals Special Operations Group and a unit from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. U.S. Border Patrol told CNBC that agents were deployed to Portland in support of a June 26 executive order from Trump and a new Homeland Security task force for protecting American communities. The Trump administration says the officers are needed to restore peace in Portland, where protests devolved into rioting July 18. But Oregon officials and Democrats have criticized the federal government's crackdown. The Oregon attorney general filed a lawsuit July 17 that alleges the federal government violated citizens' rights by detaining them without probable cause. On July 19, House Democrats called for an investigation into allegations that federal officials were unlawfully arresting protesters. Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley - all Democrats - have criticized the Trump administration's use of force against protesters. It's unclear to what extent antifa activists are among the protesters detained in Portland. The city is home to the oldest antifa cell in the country, and activists associated with the movement have been involved in recent protests there. One purported antifa activist faces charges for alleged crimes that took place during the demonstrations.
|
Our ruling The Instagram post claims that, since antifa is a terrorist organization, its members' due process rights are stripped by the Patriot Act. That's wrong. Antifa is not an organized group and has not been designated as a terrorist organization. Even if it were, American antifa activists would still have due process rights afforded to them by the Constitution. The Patriot Act does not give federal law enforcement officials the right to detain suspected terrorists who are U.S. citizens without probable cause. The Instagram post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"112363-proof-00-Screen_Shot_2020-07-21_at_16_08_40.jpg",
"112363-proof-28-c6e7f38929c5f579800b2fa791796637.jpg"
] |
'Since Trump labeled ANTIFA a terrorist organization their rights were stripped by the Patriot Act which states if someone is labeled a terrorist they are not afforded due process.
|
Contradiction
|
You may have heard that federal officers in unmarked vehicles have detained people protesting against police brutality in Portland. According to some reports, officers have given no explanation for the arrests. Why? One Instagram post has a theory. 'Here is what is going on since Trump labeled ANTIFA a terrorist organization their rights were stripped by the Patriot Act which states if someone is labeled a terrorist they are not afforded due process,' reads the July 18 post. 'PS: Obama suspended habeas corpus too!' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook, which owns Instagram.) The Instagram post is a screenshot of a Facebook post from a comedian named Sam Tripoli. We reached out to him for a comment, but we haven't heard back. (Screenshot from Instagram) Antifa stands for 'anti-fascist.' It's a broad, loosely affiliated coalition of left-wing activists that's been around for decades, but has had a resurgence since the election of President Donald Trump. The Trump administration has repeatedly blamed antifa activists for the violent protests that erupted after the death of George Floyd in late May. There's no evidence that antifa played any significant role, but Trump said May 31 that the United States would designate the movement as a terrorist organization. The post is inaccurate. Antifa is not a designated terrorist organization, and even if it were, American activists would still have due process rights. Antifa isn't a terrorist organization Despite Trump's tweet, antifa has not been designated as a terrorist organization. It is not listed on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. National security experts told PolitiFact there is no legal process for designating domestic groups as terrorist organizations. If the Trump administration did try to designate antifa as a terrorist organization, it would likely be challenged in court. Also, antifa is not a structured organization - it has no leaders and is organized into autonomous local groups. 'It's a little bit like feminism,' Mark Bray, a historian and part-time lecturer at Rutgers University, told PolitiFact. 'There are feminist groups just like there are antifa groups, but neither feminism nor antifa is a group.' Second: If antifa groups were designated terrorists, American activists would still have due process rights thanks to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Patriot Act, which passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, does not give federal officers the right to detain suspected terrorists who are U.S. citizens without probable cause. The legislation mainly expanded law enforcement's ability to use wiretaps in counter-terrorism investigations. It was re-authorized and revised in 2015 to place limits on how much telecommunication data intelligence agencies can collect from Americans. What's going on in Portland? If antifa isn't a terrorist organization, then why are law enforcement officials detaining protesters in Portland? It has to do with the federal government's response to ongoing protests over police brutality. Demonstrators in Portland have been protesting against police brutality and racism against Black Americans since the death of George Floyd in late May. On July 14, reports surfaced that federal law enforcement agents were using unmarked cars to detain protesters in Portland. Over the next few days, videos shared on social media showed the detentions. Federal agents in Portland include members of the U.S. Marshals Special Operations Group and a unit from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. U.S. Border Patrol told CNBC that agents were deployed to Portland in support of a June 26 executive order from Trump and a new Homeland Security task force for protecting American communities. The Trump administration says the officers are needed to restore peace in Portland, where protests devolved into rioting July 18. But Oregon officials and Democrats have criticized the federal government's crackdown. The Oregon attorney general filed a lawsuit July 17 that alleges the federal government violated citizens' rights by detaining them without probable cause. On July 19, House Democrats called for an investigation into allegations that federal officials were unlawfully arresting protesters. Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley - all Democrats - have criticized the Trump administration's use of force against protesters. It's unclear to what extent antifa activists are among the protesters detained in Portland. The city is home to the oldest antifa cell in the country, and activists associated with the movement have been involved in recent protests there. One purported antifa activist faces charges for alleged crimes that took place during the demonstrations.
|
Our ruling The Instagram post claims that, since antifa is a terrorist organization, its members' due process rights are stripped by the Patriot Act. That's wrong. Antifa is not an organized group and has not been designated as a terrorist organization. Even if it were, American antifa activists would still have due process rights afforded to them by the Constitution. The Patriot Act does not give federal law enforcement officials the right to detain suspected terrorists who are U.S. citizens without probable cause. The Instagram post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"112363-proof-00-Screen_Shot_2020-07-21_at_16_08_40.jpg",
"112363-proof-28-c6e7f38929c5f579800b2fa791796637.jpg"
] |
'David Perdue says he'll do everything in his power to make sure Joe Biden fails.
|
Contradiction
|
Jon Ossoff, the Democrat challenging Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., went extreme in describing Perdue's opposition to President-elect Joe Biden. The documentary filmmaker faces the first-term senator in one of the two Jan. 5 runoff elections in Georgia that will decide which party controls the Senate. Ossoff made his attack in a TV ad released Nov. 17 that raises the COVID-19 pandemic. 'Look, the only way to beat this virus is to give our new president the chance to succeed. I'll work with Joe Biden to empower the medical experts to rush economic relief for families and small businesses and invest in infrastructure to jump start our economy,' he said, looking into the camera. 'But David Perdue says he'll do everything in his power to make sure Joe Biden fails, just like he tried to do with President Obama.' Perdue and Georgia's other senator, Republican Kelly Loeffler, who faces Democratic pastor Raphael Warnock, are portraying themselves as a 'last line of defense' against Democrats. We did not find evidence that Perdue has gone as far in his public statements as Ossoff claims, although Perdue clearly is campaigning as a candidate who can block the Democratic agenda. RELATED: PolitiFact fact-checks and articles about the Georgia runoffs An Ossoff news release announcing the ad, referring to the attack on Perdue, links to an Atlanta Journal Constitution news story. The story is about a Nov. 13 campaign appearance by Perdue and Loeffler, which the newspaper said was Perdue's first of the runoff campaign. The story's headline, quoting Loeffler, said: ''We are the firewall.' Senate Republicans prepare to make a stand in Georgia.' But the story does not quote Perdue making any comment about Biden. When we contacted Ossoff's campaign, spokeswoman Miryam Lipper said, 'Perdue says and implies on a regular basis that he needs to be a block on the Democratic agenda.' She cited three recent statements by Perdue: None of the statements mentions Biden. 'To our knowledge, Senator Perdue has not made any comments about a potential Biden presidency, or how he would react to it in any context,' Perdue campaign spokesman John Burke told us. Perdue has focused his criticism on other Democratic leaders, including Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of New York. 'Their plan?' a Perdue video says. 'Increase taxes. Defund the police. Pass the Green New Deal. Open the borders. .... Eliminate private health insurance..... And pack the Supreme Court.' Biden does not support defunding the police, open borders, or eliminating private insurance. He's also expressed reservations about the Green New Deal and packing the Supreme Court,. He's said he would increase taxes only on the wealthy. At the same time, it's clear Perdue would be part of Republican efforts to thwart Biden's agenda. If Ossoff or Warnock loses, Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell would continue as Senate majority leader and 'likely would prevent many of Biden's legislative priorities from enactment and block his judicial nominees from confirmation,' said Zachary Peskowitz, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. But if Ossoff and Warnock win, creating a 50-50 split, he said, the prospects for Biden's priorities 'would improve dramatically' because Kamala Harris, as vice president, could break tie votes in the Senate.
|
Our ruling Ossoff claimed that Perdue 'says he'll do everything in his power to make sure Joe Biden fails.' We found no record of Perdue making such remarks about Biden. Perdue is campaigning as a final block against the Democrats' agenda, but Perdue has focused on others in the Democratic Party such as Schumer and Ocasio-Cortez. We rate Ossoff's claim Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"112370-proof-12-34fd76bce609b1d98b4c5a14b1f3c76d.jpg"
] |
'David Perdue says he'll do everything in his power to make sure Joe Biden fails.
|
Contradiction
|
Jon Ossoff, the Democrat challenging Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., went extreme in describing Perdue's opposition to President-elect Joe Biden. The documentary filmmaker faces the first-term senator in one of the two Jan. 5 runoff elections in Georgia that will decide which party controls the Senate. Ossoff made his attack in a TV ad released Nov. 17 that raises the COVID-19 pandemic. 'Look, the only way to beat this virus is to give our new president the chance to succeed. I'll work with Joe Biden to empower the medical experts to rush economic relief for families and small businesses and invest in infrastructure to jump start our economy,' he said, looking into the camera. 'But David Perdue says he'll do everything in his power to make sure Joe Biden fails, just like he tried to do with President Obama.' Perdue and Georgia's other senator, Republican Kelly Loeffler, who faces Democratic pastor Raphael Warnock, are portraying themselves as a 'last line of defense' against Democrats. We did not find evidence that Perdue has gone as far in his public statements as Ossoff claims, although Perdue clearly is campaigning as a candidate who can block the Democratic agenda. RELATED: PolitiFact fact-checks and articles about the Georgia runoffs An Ossoff news release announcing the ad, referring to the attack on Perdue, links to an Atlanta Journal Constitution news story. The story is about a Nov. 13 campaign appearance by Perdue and Loeffler, which the newspaper said was Perdue's first of the runoff campaign. The story's headline, quoting Loeffler, said: ''We are the firewall.' Senate Republicans prepare to make a stand in Georgia.' But the story does not quote Perdue making any comment about Biden. When we contacted Ossoff's campaign, spokeswoman Miryam Lipper said, 'Perdue says and implies on a regular basis that he needs to be a block on the Democratic agenda.' She cited three recent statements by Perdue: None of the statements mentions Biden. 'To our knowledge, Senator Perdue has not made any comments about a potential Biden presidency, or how he would react to it in any context,' Perdue campaign spokesman John Burke told us. Perdue has focused his criticism on other Democratic leaders, including Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of New York. 'Their plan?' a Perdue video says. 'Increase taxes. Defund the police. Pass the Green New Deal. Open the borders. .... Eliminate private health insurance..... And pack the Supreme Court.' Biden does not support defunding the police, open borders, or eliminating private insurance. He's also expressed reservations about the Green New Deal and packing the Supreme Court,. He's said he would increase taxes only on the wealthy. At the same time, it's clear Perdue would be part of Republican efforts to thwart Biden's agenda. If Ossoff or Warnock loses, Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell would continue as Senate majority leader and 'likely would prevent many of Biden's legislative priorities from enactment and block his judicial nominees from confirmation,' said Zachary Peskowitz, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. But if Ossoff and Warnock win, creating a 50-50 split, he said, the prospects for Biden's priorities 'would improve dramatically' because Kamala Harris, as vice president, could break tie votes in the Senate.
|
Our ruling Ossoff claimed that Perdue 'says he'll do everything in his power to make sure Joe Biden fails.' We found no record of Perdue making such remarks about Biden. Perdue is campaigning as a final block against the Democrats' agenda, but Perdue has focused on others in the Democratic Party such as Schumer and Ocasio-Cortez. We rate Ossoff's claim Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"112370-proof-12-34fd76bce609b1d98b4c5a14b1f3c76d.jpg"
] |
'David Perdue says he'll do everything in his power to make sure Joe Biden fails.
|
Contradiction
|
Jon Ossoff, the Democrat challenging Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., went extreme in describing Perdue's opposition to President-elect Joe Biden. The documentary filmmaker faces the first-term senator in one of the two Jan. 5 runoff elections in Georgia that will decide which party controls the Senate. Ossoff made his attack in a TV ad released Nov. 17 that raises the COVID-19 pandemic. 'Look, the only way to beat this virus is to give our new president the chance to succeed. I'll work with Joe Biden to empower the medical experts to rush economic relief for families and small businesses and invest in infrastructure to jump start our economy,' he said, looking into the camera. 'But David Perdue says he'll do everything in his power to make sure Joe Biden fails, just like he tried to do with President Obama.' Perdue and Georgia's other senator, Republican Kelly Loeffler, who faces Democratic pastor Raphael Warnock, are portraying themselves as a 'last line of defense' against Democrats. We did not find evidence that Perdue has gone as far in his public statements as Ossoff claims, although Perdue clearly is campaigning as a candidate who can block the Democratic agenda. RELATED: PolitiFact fact-checks and articles about the Georgia runoffs An Ossoff news release announcing the ad, referring to the attack on Perdue, links to an Atlanta Journal Constitution news story. The story is about a Nov. 13 campaign appearance by Perdue and Loeffler, which the newspaper said was Perdue's first of the runoff campaign. The story's headline, quoting Loeffler, said: ''We are the firewall.' Senate Republicans prepare to make a stand in Georgia.' But the story does not quote Perdue making any comment about Biden. When we contacted Ossoff's campaign, spokeswoman Miryam Lipper said, 'Perdue says and implies on a regular basis that he needs to be a block on the Democratic agenda.' She cited three recent statements by Perdue: None of the statements mentions Biden. 'To our knowledge, Senator Perdue has not made any comments about a potential Biden presidency, or how he would react to it in any context,' Perdue campaign spokesman John Burke told us. Perdue has focused his criticism on other Democratic leaders, including Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of New York. 'Their plan?' a Perdue video says. 'Increase taxes. Defund the police. Pass the Green New Deal. Open the borders. .... Eliminate private health insurance..... And pack the Supreme Court.' Biden does not support defunding the police, open borders, or eliminating private insurance. He's also expressed reservations about the Green New Deal and packing the Supreme Court,. He's said he would increase taxes only on the wealthy. At the same time, it's clear Perdue would be part of Republican efforts to thwart Biden's agenda. If Ossoff or Warnock loses, Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell would continue as Senate majority leader and 'likely would prevent many of Biden's legislative priorities from enactment and block his judicial nominees from confirmation,' said Zachary Peskowitz, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. But if Ossoff and Warnock win, creating a 50-50 split, he said, the prospects for Biden's priorities 'would improve dramatically' because Kamala Harris, as vice president, could break tie votes in the Senate.
|
Our ruling Ossoff claimed that Perdue 'says he'll do everything in his power to make sure Joe Biden fails.' We found no record of Perdue making such remarks about Biden. Perdue is campaigning as a final block against the Democrats' agenda, but Perdue has focused on others in the Democratic Party such as Schumer and Ocasio-Cortez. We rate Ossoff's claim Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"112370-proof-12-34fd76bce609b1d98b4c5a14b1f3c76d.jpg"
] |
A photo of Pete Buttigieg in a military uniform without visible patches shows that 'he is a fraud.
|
Contradiction
|
After Pete Buttigieg's strong showing in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, some social media users went after his military record. One Facebook image published Feb. 12 shows the former South Bend, Ind., mayor in a military uniform surrounded by rugs. His arms and chest are highlighted in certain places by red squares. 'No Unit Patch. No Name Tape. No 'U.S. Army' Patch. No Deployment/Combat Patch. No American Flag Patch On Right Sleeve. Uniform Clean As a Whistle,' the post reads. 'This guy is a fraud.' Like other false posts about Buttigieg, this one is similarly fabricated. (Screenshot 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.) It has been shared hundreds of times and copied by several different users. Buttigieg's military background is part of his argument for becoming commander in chief. He was a Navy intelligence officer in Afghanistan for six months, according to military records sent to PolitiFact by his campaign. Several news outlets have spoken to his commanding officers and fellow soldiers. Buttigieg joined the Navy Reserve in September 2009. He was a lead analyst tracking the flow of money to terrorist cells. Buttigieg did not see any combat, but he did take more than 90 trips outside secured military installations in Afghanistan. Buttigieg was honorably discharged in November 2017. The conspiracy that Buttigieg faked his military experience appears to have originated on 4chan, a fringe forum where users post anonymously. From there, the falsehood spread to Twitter, where conservatives like former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka amplified it. The origin of the photo of Buttigieg in a uniform without military insignia appears to be a 2014 blog post about a column Buttigieg wrote for the South Bend Tribune. The former mayor's patches are covered up, but there are a variety of photos of Buttigieg serving in Afghanistan that do show patches on his uniform - including one for the International Security Assistance Force, a NATO-led mission. RELATED: The Stump Speech Analyzer: Pete Buttigieg A U.S. Navy official told PolitiFact that Buttigieg could have been working in an environment in which patches were not authorized for some reason. So we asked the Buttigieg campaign for more information. 'When they went into bazaars on Fridays they had to remove all forms of identification, such as patches,' said Chris Meagher, national press secretary for Buttigieg's campaign. The Facebook posts are inaccurate and make a ridiculous claim. We rate them Pants on Fire!
|
The Facebook posts are inaccurate and make a ridiculous claim. We rate them Pants on Fire!
|
[
"112388-proof-27-278779bc4f708ce98f43716797b310b7.jpg",
"112388-proof-35-Screen_Shot_2020-02-19_at_2.44.53_PM.jpg"
] |
A photo of Pete Buttigieg in a military uniform without visible patches shows that 'he is a fraud.
|
Contradiction
|
After Pete Buttigieg's strong showing in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, some social media users went after his military record. One Facebook image published Feb. 12 shows the former South Bend, Ind., mayor in a military uniform surrounded by rugs. His arms and chest are highlighted in certain places by red squares. 'No Unit Patch. No Name Tape. No 'U.S. Army' Patch. No Deployment/Combat Patch. No American Flag Patch On Right Sleeve. Uniform Clean As a Whistle,' the post reads. 'This guy is a fraud.' Like other false posts about Buttigieg, this one is similarly fabricated. (Screenshot 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.) It has been shared hundreds of times and copied by several different users. Buttigieg's military background is part of his argument for becoming commander in chief. He was a Navy intelligence officer in Afghanistan for six months, according to military records sent to PolitiFact by his campaign. Several news outlets have spoken to his commanding officers and fellow soldiers. Buttigieg joined the Navy Reserve in September 2009. He was a lead analyst tracking the flow of money to terrorist cells. Buttigieg did not see any combat, but he did take more than 90 trips outside secured military installations in Afghanistan. Buttigieg was honorably discharged in November 2017. The conspiracy that Buttigieg faked his military experience appears to have originated on 4chan, a fringe forum where users post anonymously. From there, the falsehood spread to Twitter, where conservatives like former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka amplified it. The origin of the photo of Buttigieg in a uniform without military insignia appears to be a 2014 blog post about a column Buttigieg wrote for the South Bend Tribune. The former mayor's patches are covered up, but there are a variety of photos of Buttigieg serving in Afghanistan that do show patches on his uniform - including one for the International Security Assistance Force, a NATO-led mission. RELATED: The Stump Speech Analyzer: Pete Buttigieg A U.S. Navy official told PolitiFact that Buttigieg could have been working in an environment in which patches were not authorized for some reason. So we asked the Buttigieg campaign for more information. 'When they went into bazaars on Fridays they had to remove all forms of identification, such as patches,' said Chris Meagher, national press secretary for Buttigieg's campaign. The Facebook posts are inaccurate and make a ridiculous claim. We rate them Pants on Fire!
|
The Facebook posts are inaccurate and make a ridiculous claim. We rate them Pants on Fire!
|
[
"112388-proof-27-278779bc4f708ce98f43716797b310b7.jpg",
"112388-proof-35-Screen_Shot_2020-02-19_at_2.44.53_PM.jpg"
] |
Says news stories referencing 322 and COVID-19 are proof cases are being 'synchronized'
|
Contradiction
|
Some people can't resist a good conspiracy. Turns out, many also can't resist one that's exceptionally easy to disprove. An array of Facebook posts recently surfaced singling out the number 322 and a purported connection to COVID-19. In a social media landscape rife with claims about manufactured COVID case and death tallies, and conspiracies related to vaccines, 5G cell towers and whatever else, the clear implication is there's something nefarious going on. 'Nothing to see here except synchronized cases all over the world,' said one post from June 15, 2020. 'Google 322 Covid! Why is 322 a magic number!?!' screamed another post from the same day. 'How is it that an additional 322 cases of Covid have been reported in Massachusetts, South Korea, Philippines, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Equador, Thailand, Oklahoma, China, Colorado, Armenia, Oman (Middle East), Onondaga (NY), Kerala (India), Simerset (NJ), Kentucky, Wyoming, Borders (UK), Amritsar (India), Thane (India), Camden County (NJ), Iraq, Khaleej (Dubai), and Dakota County (Nebraska)!' That post was accompanied by 17 different photos noting the number 322 in headlines dating back to March. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook). We found at least 15 different versions of this claim scattered across Facebook, together shared thousands of times. The comments on the various posts offer a smorgasbord of explanations. Some noted the 'Skull and Bones' secret society at Yale University is also called 'Order 322.' Others noted the numbers add up to seven, or that terrorist attacks in London and Brussels occurred on March 22 (3/22). Sigh. Allow us to point out the obvious. You can find this supposed connection to COVID-19 with just about any number in the low three-digit range. 'Connection' only due to volume of media coverage We're in the midst of a global pandemic that is unprecedented in this age of media saturation. All manner of local and regional publications have been reporting on COVID-19 case and death numbers for months. There is no time in history where this many media outlets have been so focused for this long on one singular topic - particularly one in which counting stats are so critical and readily available through online searches. In other words, there are a lot of media outlets posting a lot of numbers. And America really loves units of government. Across the nation you'll find more than 3,000 counties. Beyond that, there are nearly 20,000 incorporated places (primarily cities, towns, villages, boroughs), about 3,000 of which have at least 10,000 people. Add that to the 50 states and, well, the entire rest of the world, and you've got a lot of places tallying COVID data that could potentially add up to 322. But in case you're somehow not convinced yet, we'll follow the advice of one poster and Google this. We ran a Google News search using the terms '322 cases' AND COVID, to find online references to where '322 cases' appeared as a unit on a page that also referenced COVID. Then we did the same with the numbers around 322. Here's what we found as of about noon on June 16, 2020. '320 cases' AND COVID - 8,660 results (larger, since many reports round off the numbers) '321 cases' AND COVID - 1,170 results '322 cases' AND COVID - 1,960 results '323 cases' AND COVID - 2,240 results '324 cases' AND COVID - 1,600 results '325 cases' AND COVID - 2,530 results We'll spare you another set of bullets, but searches with the word 'deaths' in place of 'cases' yields the same type of results. In other words, you can find COVID-19 media reports citing any number in that range.
|
Our ruling An array of Facebook posts claim a link between the number 322 and COVID-19 in media reports. The implication is that there is something shady or manufactured in the way these tallies are reported. But even in the context of social media in 2020, this is ridiculous. The volume of media reports on COVID-19, the number of cases and the number of local and regional units of government means there is ample opportunity for tallies to add up to just about any number, particularly in the low triple digits. Google searches prove out that 322 isn't even a particularly common number. We rate this Pants on Fire.
|
[
"112413-proof-38-322.jpg"
] |
Says news stories referencing 322 and COVID-19 are proof cases are being 'synchronized'
|
Contradiction
|
Some people can't resist a good conspiracy. Turns out, many also can't resist one that's exceptionally easy to disprove. An array of Facebook posts recently surfaced singling out the number 322 and a purported connection to COVID-19. In a social media landscape rife with claims about manufactured COVID case and death tallies, and conspiracies related to vaccines, 5G cell towers and whatever else, the clear implication is there's something nefarious going on. 'Nothing to see here except synchronized cases all over the world,' said one post from June 15, 2020. 'Google 322 Covid! Why is 322 a magic number!?!' screamed another post from the same day. 'How is it that an additional 322 cases of Covid have been reported in Massachusetts, South Korea, Philippines, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Equador, Thailand, Oklahoma, China, Colorado, Armenia, Oman (Middle East), Onondaga (NY), Kerala (India), Simerset (NJ), Kentucky, Wyoming, Borders (UK), Amritsar (India), Thane (India), Camden County (NJ), Iraq, Khaleej (Dubai), and Dakota County (Nebraska)!' That post was accompanied by 17 different photos noting the number 322 in headlines dating back to March. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook). We found at least 15 different versions of this claim scattered across Facebook, together shared thousands of times. The comments on the various posts offer a smorgasbord of explanations. Some noted the 'Skull and Bones' secret society at Yale University is also called 'Order 322.' Others noted the numbers add up to seven, or that terrorist attacks in London and Brussels occurred on March 22 (3/22). Sigh. Allow us to point out the obvious. You can find this supposed connection to COVID-19 with just about any number in the low three-digit range. 'Connection' only due to volume of media coverage We're in the midst of a global pandemic that is unprecedented in this age of media saturation. All manner of local and regional publications have been reporting on COVID-19 case and death numbers for months. There is no time in history where this many media outlets have been so focused for this long on one singular topic - particularly one in which counting stats are so critical and readily available through online searches. In other words, there are a lot of media outlets posting a lot of numbers. And America really loves units of government. Across the nation you'll find more than 3,000 counties. Beyond that, there are nearly 20,000 incorporated places (primarily cities, towns, villages, boroughs), about 3,000 of which have at least 10,000 people. Add that to the 50 states and, well, the entire rest of the world, and you've got a lot of places tallying COVID data that could potentially add up to 322. But in case you're somehow not convinced yet, we'll follow the advice of one poster and Google this. We ran a Google News search using the terms '322 cases' AND COVID, to find online references to where '322 cases' appeared as a unit on a page that also referenced COVID. Then we did the same with the numbers around 322. Here's what we found as of about noon on June 16, 2020. '320 cases' AND COVID - 8,660 results (larger, since many reports round off the numbers) '321 cases' AND COVID - 1,170 results '322 cases' AND COVID - 1,960 results '323 cases' AND COVID - 2,240 results '324 cases' AND COVID - 1,600 results '325 cases' AND COVID - 2,530 results We'll spare you another set of bullets, but searches with the word 'deaths' in place of 'cases' yields the same type of results. In other words, you can find COVID-19 media reports citing any number in that range.
|
Our ruling An array of Facebook posts claim a link between the number 322 and COVID-19 in media reports. The implication is that there is something shady or manufactured in the way these tallies are reported. But even in the context of social media in 2020, this is ridiculous. The volume of media reports on COVID-19, the number of cases and the number of local and regional units of government means there is ample opportunity for tallies to add up to just about any number, particularly in the low triple digits. Google searches prove out that 322 isn't even a particularly common number. We rate this Pants on Fire.
|
[
"112413-proof-38-322.jpg"
] |
Says news stories referencing 322 and COVID-19 are proof cases are being 'synchronized'
|
Contradiction
|
Some people can't resist a good conspiracy. Turns out, many also can't resist one that's exceptionally easy to disprove. An array of Facebook posts recently surfaced singling out the number 322 and a purported connection to COVID-19. In a social media landscape rife with claims about manufactured COVID case and death tallies, and conspiracies related to vaccines, 5G cell towers and whatever else, the clear implication is there's something nefarious going on. 'Nothing to see here except synchronized cases all over the world,' said one post from June 15, 2020. 'Google 322 Covid! Why is 322 a magic number!?!' screamed another post from the same day. 'How is it that an additional 322 cases of Covid have been reported in Massachusetts, South Korea, Philippines, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Equador, Thailand, Oklahoma, China, Colorado, Armenia, Oman (Middle East), Onondaga (NY), Kerala (India), Simerset (NJ), Kentucky, Wyoming, Borders (UK), Amritsar (India), Thane (India), Camden County (NJ), Iraq, Khaleej (Dubai), and Dakota County (Nebraska)!' That post was accompanied by 17 different photos noting the number 322 in headlines dating back to March. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook). We found at least 15 different versions of this claim scattered across Facebook, together shared thousands of times. The comments on the various posts offer a smorgasbord of explanations. Some noted the 'Skull and Bones' secret society at Yale University is also called 'Order 322.' Others noted the numbers add up to seven, or that terrorist attacks in London and Brussels occurred on March 22 (3/22). Sigh. Allow us to point out the obvious. You can find this supposed connection to COVID-19 with just about any number in the low three-digit range. 'Connection' only due to volume of media coverage We're in the midst of a global pandemic that is unprecedented in this age of media saturation. All manner of local and regional publications have been reporting on COVID-19 case and death numbers for months. There is no time in history where this many media outlets have been so focused for this long on one singular topic - particularly one in which counting stats are so critical and readily available through online searches. In other words, there are a lot of media outlets posting a lot of numbers. And America really loves units of government. Across the nation you'll find more than 3,000 counties. Beyond that, there are nearly 20,000 incorporated places (primarily cities, towns, villages, boroughs), about 3,000 of which have at least 10,000 people. Add that to the 50 states and, well, the entire rest of the world, and you've got a lot of places tallying COVID data that could potentially add up to 322. But in case you're somehow not convinced yet, we'll follow the advice of one poster and Google this. We ran a Google News search using the terms '322 cases' AND COVID, to find online references to where '322 cases' appeared as a unit on a page that also referenced COVID. Then we did the same with the numbers around 322. Here's what we found as of about noon on June 16, 2020. '320 cases' AND COVID - 8,660 results (larger, since many reports round off the numbers) '321 cases' AND COVID - 1,170 results '322 cases' AND COVID - 1,960 results '323 cases' AND COVID - 2,240 results '324 cases' AND COVID - 1,600 results '325 cases' AND COVID - 2,530 results We'll spare you another set of bullets, but searches with the word 'deaths' in place of 'cases' yields the same type of results. In other words, you can find COVID-19 media reports citing any number in that range.
|
Our ruling An array of Facebook posts claim a link between the number 322 and COVID-19 in media reports. The implication is that there is something shady or manufactured in the way these tallies are reported. But even in the context of social media in 2020, this is ridiculous. The volume of media reports on COVID-19, the number of cases and the number of local and regional units of government means there is ample opportunity for tallies to add up to just about any number, particularly in the low triple digits. Google searches prove out that 322 isn't even a particularly common number. We rate this Pants on Fire.
|
[
"112413-proof-38-322.jpg"
] |
Video footage from Georgia shows suitcases filled with ballots pulled from under a table and illegally counted after election observers were told to leave.
|
Contradiction
|
Georgia election officials disputed a video promoted by President Donald Trump's campaign as evidence of election fraud, saying the footage shows nothing but 'normal ballot processing.' The surveillance video was introduced as proof of illegal activity by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his team during a Dec. 3 hearing with Georgia state legislators. The Trump campaign then circulated One America News Network's live coverage of the event online. Social media posts sharing the video 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 posts claim the video footage shows election workers at Atlanta's State Farm Arena telling election observers to leave, pulling suitcases filled with ballots from under a table, and illegally counting them with no observers present. 'Smoking gun,' one Facebook post said. That interpretation is wrong, however. The footage doesn't show any wrongdoing, said Gabriel Sterling, a Republican and Georgia's voting system implementation manager, in a Dec. 4 tweet. 'The 90 second video of election workers at State Farm arena, purporting to show fraud was watched in its entirety (hours) by @GaSecofState investigators,' Sterling wrote, linking to a fact-check from Lead Stories. 'Shows normal ballot processing.' The 90 second video of election workers at State Farm arena, purporting to show fraud was watched in its entirety (hours) by @GaSecofState investigators. Shows normal ballot processing. Here is the fact check on it. https://t.co/HVJsvDjDvi- Gabriel Sterling (@GabrielSterling) December 4, 2020 Reporters for Lead Stories spoke with Sterling about the surveillance video. They also talked to Frances Watson, the Georgia secretary of state's chief investigator, and an unidentified state election board monitor who was present in the room late on election night. The ballots seen in the video were not in suitcases, the officials told Lead Stories. They were in standard ballot containers. And there was nothing illegal about the way they were processed. In reality, the ballots had been removed from their envelopes and processed while news media personnel and observers were still in the room. Nobody was ever told to leave, Watson told Lead Stories. But some observers exited after the election workers responsible for opening the envelopes and verifying the ballots had finished their job and started taking off for the night. The observers were allowed to return at any time, Watson told Lead Stories. Lead Stories and Georgia Public Broadcasting reported that while the state's law allows partisan observers to watch, it does not actually require that they be present for ballots to be counted. That lines up with the sequence of events Sterling described in response to a Facebook post about the video. Here's what he said: 'When the workers began packing up to go, there were two groups, the cutters and the counters. Cutters opened, stacked and prepared ballots for scanning. Scanners ... well, they scanned. All of them heard a supervisor say we are finishing for the night, because the cutters had completed their work. The scanners heard they were 'done' and started packing up to leave. During that time the elections director called the absentee supervisor at State Farm to tell him the scanners needed to continue their work. So people had already started to leave or had left ... cutters, media, monitors. But the video shows no new boxes of ballots brought out from a table, they were all there when the media and monitors were in the room. The video shows them getting back to work scanning. When the (state elections board) monitor arrives they continue to do the same thing they had been doing all night. When the (secretary of state) investigator got there they continued doing the same thing.' Sterling also addressed claims about the video in an interview on Newsmax and walked through the surveillance tape with a WSB-TV reporter. Richard Barron, the elections director in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, also addressed the issue with the county's elections officials. In a video published online by 11Alive, the NBC affiliate TV station in Atlanta, he described sending instructions for the scanners to keep going. 'No announcement was ever made to leave, for anyone to leave,' Barron said. 'Certain staff that were on the cutting stations, that were on the flattening stations, that were extracting from the inner envelopes, those staff left as work completed. I found out sometime, I think a little after 10:30, that they were going to cease operations, and I told them not to do that.' 'It was normal processing that occurred there,' said Barron, who added that the plastic bins shown in the video were 'bins that they keep under their desks near the scanners.' Other reporters also disputed claims that the video showed illegal counting by election workers. Fulton County tweeted Dec. 4 that it was 'aware of no credible reports of voter fraud.' A spokesperson for OAN said the video shared by Trump's campaign and supporters was taken from the network's live coverage of Giuliani's presentation at the hearing in Georgia. The source and presentation of the video was not originally from OAN, the spokesperson said. The Georgia secretary of state's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
|
Our ruling Social media posts claim that video from Georgia shows suitcases filled with ballots pulled from under a table and illegally counted after election observers were told to leave. That's wrong. State officials have said there was no suitcase, no instruction to leave, and no illegal counting of ballots. The video does not prove that the bins shown contained fraudulent ballots, either. We rate these Facebook posts False. RELATED: Georgia election worker falsely accused of discarding ballot is in hiding, official says
|
[
"112419-proof-36-66403e335a869cba0c4790520a8082c3.jpg"
] |
Video footage from Georgia shows suitcases filled with ballots pulled from under a table and illegally counted after election observers were told to leave.
|
Contradiction
|
Georgia election officials disputed a video promoted by President Donald Trump's campaign as evidence of election fraud, saying the footage shows nothing but 'normal ballot processing.' The surveillance video was introduced as proof of illegal activity by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his team during a Dec. 3 hearing with Georgia state legislators. The Trump campaign then circulated One America News Network's live coverage of the event online. Social media posts sharing the video 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 posts claim the video footage shows election workers at Atlanta's State Farm Arena telling election observers to leave, pulling suitcases filled with ballots from under a table, and illegally counting them with no observers present. 'Smoking gun,' one Facebook post said. That interpretation is wrong, however. The footage doesn't show any wrongdoing, said Gabriel Sterling, a Republican and Georgia's voting system implementation manager, in a Dec. 4 tweet. 'The 90 second video of election workers at State Farm arena, purporting to show fraud was watched in its entirety (hours) by @GaSecofState investigators,' Sterling wrote, linking to a fact-check from Lead Stories. 'Shows normal ballot processing.' The 90 second video of election workers at State Farm arena, purporting to show fraud was watched in its entirety (hours) by @GaSecofState investigators. Shows normal ballot processing. Here is the fact check on it. https://t.co/HVJsvDjDvi- Gabriel Sterling (@GabrielSterling) December 4, 2020 Reporters for Lead Stories spoke with Sterling about the surveillance video. They also talked to Frances Watson, the Georgia secretary of state's chief investigator, and an unidentified state election board monitor who was present in the room late on election night. The ballots seen in the video were not in suitcases, the officials told Lead Stories. They were in standard ballot containers. And there was nothing illegal about the way they were processed. In reality, the ballots had been removed from their envelopes and processed while news media personnel and observers were still in the room. Nobody was ever told to leave, Watson told Lead Stories. But some observers exited after the election workers responsible for opening the envelopes and verifying the ballots had finished their job and started taking off for the night. The observers were allowed to return at any time, Watson told Lead Stories. Lead Stories and Georgia Public Broadcasting reported that while the state's law allows partisan observers to watch, it does not actually require that they be present for ballots to be counted. That lines up with the sequence of events Sterling described in response to a Facebook post about the video. Here's what he said: 'When the workers began packing up to go, there were two groups, the cutters and the counters. Cutters opened, stacked and prepared ballots for scanning. Scanners ... well, they scanned. All of them heard a supervisor say we are finishing for the night, because the cutters had completed their work. The scanners heard they were 'done' and started packing up to leave. During that time the elections director called the absentee supervisor at State Farm to tell him the scanners needed to continue their work. So people had already started to leave or had left ... cutters, media, monitors. But the video shows no new boxes of ballots brought out from a table, they were all there when the media and monitors were in the room. The video shows them getting back to work scanning. When the (state elections board) monitor arrives they continue to do the same thing they had been doing all night. When the (secretary of state) investigator got there they continued doing the same thing.' Sterling also addressed claims about the video in an interview on Newsmax and walked through the surveillance tape with a WSB-TV reporter. Richard Barron, the elections director in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, also addressed the issue with the county's elections officials. In a video published online by 11Alive, the NBC affiliate TV station in Atlanta, he described sending instructions for the scanners to keep going. 'No announcement was ever made to leave, for anyone to leave,' Barron said. 'Certain staff that were on the cutting stations, that were on the flattening stations, that were extracting from the inner envelopes, those staff left as work completed. I found out sometime, I think a little after 10:30, that they were going to cease operations, and I told them not to do that.' 'It was normal processing that occurred there,' said Barron, who added that the plastic bins shown in the video were 'bins that they keep under their desks near the scanners.' Other reporters also disputed claims that the video showed illegal counting by election workers. Fulton County tweeted Dec. 4 that it was 'aware of no credible reports of voter fraud.' A spokesperson for OAN said the video shared by Trump's campaign and supporters was taken from the network's live coverage of Giuliani's presentation at the hearing in Georgia. The source and presentation of the video was not originally from OAN, the spokesperson said. The Georgia secretary of state's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
|
Our ruling Social media posts claim that video from Georgia shows suitcases filled with ballots pulled from under a table and illegally counted after election observers were told to leave. That's wrong. State officials have said there was no suitcase, no instruction to leave, and no illegal counting of ballots. The video does not prove that the bins shown contained fraudulent ballots, either. We rate these Facebook posts False. RELATED: Georgia election worker falsely accused of discarding ballot is in hiding, official says
|
[
"112419-proof-36-66403e335a869cba0c4790520a8082c3.jpg"
] |
Video footage from Georgia shows suitcases filled with ballots pulled from under a table and illegally counted after election observers were told to leave.
|
Contradiction
|
Georgia election officials disputed a video promoted by President Donald Trump's campaign as evidence of election fraud, saying the footage shows nothing but 'normal ballot processing.' The surveillance video was introduced as proof of illegal activity by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and his team during a Dec. 3 hearing with Georgia state legislators. The Trump campaign then circulated One America News Network's live coverage of the event online. Social media posts sharing the video 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 posts claim the video footage shows election workers at Atlanta's State Farm Arena telling election observers to leave, pulling suitcases filled with ballots from under a table, and illegally counting them with no observers present. 'Smoking gun,' one Facebook post said. That interpretation is wrong, however. The footage doesn't show any wrongdoing, said Gabriel Sterling, a Republican and Georgia's voting system implementation manager, in a Dec. 4 tweet. 'The 90 second video of election workers at State Farm arena, purporting to show fraud was watched in its entirety (hours) by @GaSecofState investigators,' Sterling wrote, linking to a fact-check from Lead Stories. 'Shows normal ballot processing.' The 90 second video of election workers at State Farm arena, purporting to show fraud was watched in its entirety (hours) by @GaSecofState investigators. Shows normal ballot processing. Here is the fact check on it. https://t.co/HVJsvDjDvi- Gabriel Sterling (@GabrielSterling) December 4, 2020 Reporters for Lead Stories spoke with Sterling about the surveillance video. They also talked to Frances Watson, the Georgia secretary of state's chief investigator, and an unidentified state election board monitor who was present in the room late on election night. The ballots seen in the video were not in suitcases, the officials told Lead Stories. They were in standard ballot containers. And there was nothing illegal about the way they were processed. In reality, the ballots had been removed from their envelopes and processed while news media personnel and observers were still in the room. Nobody was ever told to leave, Watson told Lead Stories. But some observers exited after the election workers responsible for opening the envelopes and verifying the ballots had finished their job and started taking off for the night. The observers were allowed to return at any time, Watson told Lead Stories. Lead Stories and Georgia Public Broadcasting reported that while the state's law allows partisan observers to watch, it does not actually require that they be present for ballots to be counted. That lines up with the sequence of events Sterling described in response to a Facebook post about the video. Here's what he said: 'When the workers began packing up to go, there were two groups, the cutters and the counters. Cutters opened, stacked and prepared ballots for scanning. Scanners ... well, they scanned. All of them heard a supervisor say we are finishing for the night, because the cutters had completed their work. The scanners heard they were 'done' and started packing up to leave. During that time the elections director called the absentee supervisor at State Farm to tell him the scanners needed to continue their work. So people had already started to leave or had left ... cutters, media, monitors. But the video shows no new boxes of ballots brought out from a table, they were all there when the media and monitors were in the room. The video shows them getting back to work scanning. When the (state elections board) monitor arrives they continue to do the same thing they had been doing all night. When the (secretary of state) investigator got there they continued doing the same thing.' Sterling also addressed claims about the video in an interview on Newsmax and walked through the surveillance tape with a WSB-TV reporter. Richard Barron, the elections director in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, also addressed the issue with the county's elections officials. In a video published online by 11Alive, the NBC affiliate TV station in Atlanta, he described sending instructions for the scanners to keep going. 'No announcement was ever made to leave, for anyone to leave,' Barron said. 'Certain staff that were on the cutting stations, that were on the flattening stations, that were extracting from the inner envelopes, those staff left as work completed. I found out sometime, I think a little after 10:30, that they were going to cease operations, and I told them not to do that.' 'It was normal processing that occurred there,' said Barron, who added that the plastic bins shown in the video were 'bins that they keep under their desks near the scanners.' Other reporters also disputed claims that the video showed illegal counting by election workers. Fulton County tweeted Dec. 4 that it was 'aware of no credible reports of voter fraud.' A spokesperson for OAN said the video shared by Trump's campaign and supporters was taken from the network's live coverage of Giuliani's presentation at the hearing in Georgia. The source and presentation of the video was not originally from OAN, the spokesperson said. The Georgia secretary of state's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
|
Our ruling Social media posts claim that video from Georgia shows suitcases filled with ballots pulled from under a table and illegally counted after election observers were told to leave. That's wrong. State officials have said there was no suitcase, no instruction to leave, and no illegal counting of ballots. The video does not prove that the bins shown contained fraudulent ballots, either. We rate these Facebook posts False. RELATED: Georgia election worker falsely accused of discarding ballot is in hiding, official says
|
[
"112419-proof-36-66403e335a869cba0c4790520a8082c3.jpg"
] |
'The woman in this photograph is Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, meeting with the Ku Klux Klan in 1926, Silver Lake, New Jersey.
|
Contradiction
|
A black and white photograph shows a crowd of people in the white hooded robes of the Ku Klux Klan, arms raised in the direction of a woman standing on a platform and gesticulating. In the foreground is a sign that is cropped but appears to read: 'Women Knights of the Ku Klux Klan Silver Lake, New Jersey, welcomes Margaret Sanger.' Below the image, which has been shared widely on Facebook, is this caption: 'The woman in this photograph is Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, meeting with the Ku Klux Klan in 1926, Silver Lake, New Jersey. A strong advocate of eugenics, Sanger preached mass extinction of 'inferior races' by 'mass abortions.'' 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.) Sanger, who founded the organization that became Planned Parenthood, has been the subject of many claims we've found untrue: that she believed black people 'should be eliminated,' that she called some immigrants 'human weeds,' and that she was 'an active participants in the Ku Klux Klan,' But Sanger did support eugenics and did once speak to a female group associated with the KKK, though this photo doesn't show that. In her 1938 autobiography, she wrote that she was willing to talk to virtually anyone as she advocated for birth control across the United States: 'Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.' The Women of the Ku Klux Klan was not the KKK itself but a parallel organization that supported the goals of the men's group. Attending the meeting in New Jersey involved a complicated process that included driving to a secret location, according to her autobiography. We didn't find any photos showing Sanger at that meeting. And there's no evidence that the KKK image shared in the Facebook post had anything to do with Sanger. It was taken during a Ku Klux Klan ritual in Georgia on Jan. 1, 1930, according to Getty Images. In the Facebook post, the photo has been altered to make it look like Sanger is in the frame along with a sign welcoming her to the meeting. However, the original photo shows a white cross where this doctored image makes it look like Sanger is standing. There is no sign referencing Sanger in the original photo either. Gizmodo reported in 2015 that the altered image was created in 2006 as part of a contest from an anti-Sanger blog. 'The blog contest, unsurprisingly, was pretty specific,' Gizmodo says in the story. 'Since there are no photos of Sanger addressing the KKK, people were supposed to create art commemorating the event.' We rate this image False.
|
We rate this image False.
|
[] |
'The Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System shows that 5,946 people have died because of the' COVID-19 vaccine.
|
Contradiction
|
A TikTok video liked more than 936,000 times claims that COVID-19 vaccines have killed some 6,000 people in the United States. 'The Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System shows that 5,946 people have died because of the vaccine,' the user states, referring to a government database called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. The TikTok post was shared on Facebook and flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's not what VAERS shows. In fact, there have been no established or proven cases of a COVID-19 vaccine causing death in the U.S. VAERS is run by two federal agencies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. It is designed so that any person can report an adverse event that occurs after a vaccination, and anyone can scour the reports. The system helps researchers collect data on vaccine after-effects and to detect patterns that may warrant a closer look. But VAERS accepts reports without verifying whether a vaccine actually caused that incident. That makes VAERS a breeding ground for misinformation that spreads quickly on social media and elsewhere. For more than 30 years, VAERS data has been misused to justify broad conclusions that vaccines are harmful. As for COVID-19, more than 346 million doses of vaccines were administered in the U.S. from Dec. 14, 2020, through Aug. 2, 2021, according to the CDC. During that period, VAERS received 6,490 reports of death (0.0019%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. But VAERS reports alone do not indicate whether a vaccine causes a particular adverse effect. They indicate only that a particular event occurred after a vaccination. Researchers can use that data as a starting point to study whether the event is linked to the vaccine. 'A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines,' the CDC says. The claim is inaccurate and unsubstantiated. We rate it False.
|
The claim is inaccurate and unsubstantiated. We rate it False.
|
[
"112460-proof-25-f8604ab8f719290a1d319d2e99d8b4d2.jpg"
] |
'The Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System shows that 5,946 people have died because of the' COVID-19 vaccine.
|
Contradiction
|
A TikTok video liked more than 936,000 times claims that COVID-19 vaccines have killed some 6,000 people in the United States. 'The Vaccine Adverse Event Recording System shows that 5,946 people have died because of the vaccine,' the user states, referring to a government database called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS. The TikTok post was shared on Facebook and flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's not what VAERS shows. In fact, there have been no established or proven cases of a COVID-19 vaccine causing death in the U.S. VAERS is run by two federal agencies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. It is designed so that any person can report an adverse event that occurs after a vaccination, and anyone can scour the reports. The system helps researchers collect data on vaccine after-effects and to detect patterns that may warrant a closer look. But VAERS accepts reports without verifying whether a vaccine actually caused that incident. That makes VAERS a breeding ground for misinformation that spreads quickly on social media and elsewhere. For more than 30 years, VAERS data has been misused to justify broad conclusions that vaccines are harmful. As for COVID-19, more than 346 million doses of vaccines were administered in the U.S. from Dec. 14, 2020, through Aug. 2, 2021, according to the CDC. During that period, VAERS received 6,490 reports of death (0.0019%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. But VAERS reports alone do not indicate whether a vaccine causes a particular adverse effect. They indicate only that a particular event occurred after a vaccination. Researchers can use that data as a starting point to study whether the event is linked to the vaccine. 'A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines,' the CDC says. The claim is inaccurate and unsubstantiated. We rate it False.
|
The claim is inaccurate and unsubstantiated. We rate it False.
|
[
"112460-proof-25-f8604ab8f719290a1d319d2e99d8b4d2.jpg"
] |
Says Mike Pence 'said he won't debate Kamala Harris.
|
Contradiction
|
A vice presidential debate is scheduled for Oct. 8 in Salt Lake City. But a recent Facebook post that's being shared widely claims the current veep, Mike Pence, refuses to debate Sen. Kamala Harris, whom Joe Biden recently named as his running mate. 'Pence said he won't debate Kamala!' 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.) We couldn't find any evidence that Pence said he wouldn't debate Harris. Rather, on Aug. 11, Fox News reported that Pence indicated at a rally in Arizona that day that he was eager to debate the California senator. 'My message to the Democratic nominee for vice president: Congratulations,' he said. 'I'll see you in Salt Lake City.' A couple days later, Pence doubled down on this sentiment during an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity. 'I think she is a skilled debater,' Pence said, 'but I can't wait to get to Salt Lake and be on the stage with her.' In 2002, Pence told the Hill that he 'never eats alone with a woman other than his wife,' leading Harris in 2019 to criticize him for limiting one-on-one meetings with women. After Biden tapped Harris as his running mate, a satirical story was shared on social media that said Pence demanded an 'on-stage chaperone' for the vice presidential debate. But this story is fiction. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Says Mike Pence 'said he won't debate Kamala Harris.
|
Contradiction
|
A vice presidential debate is scheduled for Oct. 8 in Salt Lake City. But a recent Facebook post that's being shared widely claims the current veep, Mike Pence, refuses to debate Sen. Kamala Harris, whom Joe Biden recently named as his running mate. 'Pence said he won't debate Kamala!' 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.) We couldn't find any evidence that Pence said he wouldn't debate Harris. Rather, on Aug. 11, Fox News reported that Pence indicated at a rally in Arizona that day that he was eager to debate the California senator. 'My message to the Democratic nominee for vice president: Congratulations,' he said. 'I'll see you in Salt Lake City.' A couple days later, Pence doubled down on this sentiment during an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity. 'I think she is a skilled debater,' Pence said, 'but I can't wait to get to Salt Lake and be on the stage with her.' In 2002, Pence told the Hill that he 'never eats alone with a woman other than his wife,' leading Harris in 2019 to criticize him for limiting one-on-one meetings with women. After Biden tapped Harris as his running mate, a satirical story was shared on social media that said Pence demanded an 'on-stage chaperone' for the vice presidential debate. But this story is fiction. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Video shows Joe Biden saying 'we can only re-elect Donald Trump.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump shared a deceptively edited video that made it appear former Vice President Joe Biden supported Trump's re-election. For the first time, Twitter applied its new policy and labeled the video as 'manipulated media,' though it could still be viewed on Twitter without the warning label. On March 7, Dan Scavino, an assistant to Trump and the White House's director of social media, tweeted a 13-second video of Biden speaking at a campaign event in Missouri: 'Sleepy Joe in St. Louis, Missouri today: 'We can only re-elect @realDonaldTrump.'' Sleepy Joe💤in St. Louis, Missouri today: 'We can only re-elect @realDonaldTrump.'#KAG2020LandslideVictory🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/FT4q2MWfcD- Dan Scavino (@DanScavino) March 8, 2020 The video tweet was viewed more than 6 million times and drew retweets from Trump. 'I agree with Joe!' tweeted Trump. He also retweeted the video clip posted by conservative activist Charlie Kirk and a later tweet by Scavino. I agree with Joe! https://t.co/h84mD7jVPW- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 8, 2020 By cutting what Biden said before and after this clip, the video distorts the meaning of what Biden said. We contacted the White House and did not get a response. Scavino tweeted March 9 that 'the video was NOT manipulated.' What Biden said in Kansas City Biden was speaking in Kansas City (not St. Louis, as Scavino said) on March 7 when he made the speech in question. Biden clearly stumbled over his words as he spoke during part of the speech. But it's clear that he wasn't calling for Trump to get re-elected. (Start at the 13:20 mark for a full minute listen.) Biden's point was to call on Democrats to unite as a party and avoid attacks on each other to aim to defeat Trump. 'If you want a nominee who will beat Donald Trump, keep the House of Representatives and elect the Senate, help me out. If you want a nominee who is a Democrat, a lifelong Democrat, a proud Democrat, an Obama-Biden Democrat, join us. If you want a nominee who will bring this party together, who will run a progressive, positive campaign and turn this primary from a campaign that's about negative attacks into one about what we are for, because we cannot get re-elect, we cannot win this re-election. Excuse me. We can only re-elect Donald Trump if in fact we get engaged in this circular firing squad here. It's got to be a positive campaign. So join us. Folks, we are building a coalition...' Speaking in St. Louis earlier in the day, Biden made the same point without stumbling over his words: 'If you want a nominee who will bring the party together, who will run a positive, progressive vision for the future - not turn this primary into a campaign of negative attacks because that will only re-elect Donald Trump if we go that route.' Twitter added the label of 'manipulated media' to the Scavino tweet on March 8 under a new policy. The policy applies to synthetic and manipulated media including videos, audio and images. The 'manipulated media' warning beneath the tweet was not showing up in tweet detail, but it is visible in the timeline. Twitter said it was working on a fix. On Facebook, Scavino's video was labeled 'partly false' after it was reviewed by fact-checkers. PolitiFact is also part of the fact-checking partnership with Facebook.
|
'Fact-checkers rated this video as partly false, so we are reducing its distribution and showing warning labels with more context for people who see it, try to share it, or already have,' Facebook said in a statement. 'As we announced last year, the same applies if a politician shares the video, if it was otherwise fact-checked when shared by others on Facebook.' Our ruling A White House video showed 13 seconds of Biden speaking at a campaign event when he said 'we can only re-elect Donald Trump.' Biden did make that statement as he stumbled over his words. But the video snippet omitted what Biden said immediately before and after, which removes his meaning. Biden's overall point was to call for Democratic Party unity and to run a positive campaign, rather than intra-party attacks. The video stripped that out. The video employs deceptive editing via omission. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"112464-proof-08-d0cfaf888ff097b60471ae9b91b8d401.jpg"
] |
Video shows Joe Biden saying 'we can only re-elect Donald Trump.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump shared a deceptively edited video that made it appear former Vice President Joe Biden supported Trump's re-election. For the first time, Twitter applied its new policy and labeled the video as 'manipulated media,' though it could still be viewed on Twitter without the warning label. On March 7, Dan Scavino, an assistant to Trump and the White House's director of social media, tweeted a 13-second video of Biden speaking at a campaign event in Missouri: 'Sleepy Joe in St. Louis, Missouri today: 'We can only re-elect @realDonaldTrump.'' Sleepy Joe💤in St. Louis, Missouri today: 'We can only re-elect @realDonaldTrump.'#KAG2020LandslideVictory🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/FT4q2MWfcD- Dan Scavino (@DanScavino) March 8, 2020 The video tweet was viewed more than 6 million times and drew retweets from Trump. 'I agree with Joe!' tweeted Trump. He also retweeted the video clip posted by conservative activist Charlie Kirk and a later tweet by Scavino. I agree with Joe! https://t.co/h84mD7jVPW- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 8, 2020 By cutting what Biden said before and after this clip, the video distorts the meaning of what Biden said. We contacted the White House and did not get a response. Scavino tweeted March 9 that 'the video was NOT manipulated.' What Biden said in Kansas City Biden was speaking in Kansas City (not St. Louis, as Scavino said) on March 7 when he made the speech in question. Biden clearly stumbled over his words as he spoke during part of the speech. But it's clear that he wasn't calling for Trump to get re-elected. (Start at the 13:20 mark for a full minute listen.) Biden's point was to call on Democrats to unite as a party and avoid attacks on each other to aim to defeat Trump. 'If you want a nominee who will beat Donald Trump, keep the House of Representatives and elect the Senate, help me out. If you want a nominee who is a Democrat, a lifelong Democrat, a proud Democrat, an Obama-Biden Democrat, join us. If you want a nominee who will bring this party together, who will run a progressive, positive campaign and turn this primary from a campaign that's about negative attacks into one about what we are for, because we cannot get re-elect, we cannot win this re-election. Excuse me. We can only re-elect Donald Trump if in fact we get engaged in this circular firing squad here. It's got to be a positive campaign. So join us. Folks, we are building a coalition...' Speaking in St. Louis earlier in the day, Biden made the same point without stumbling over his words: 'If you want a nominee who will bring the party together, who will run a positive, progressive vision for the future - not turn this primary into a campaign of negative attacks because that will only re-elect Donald Trump if we go that route.' Twitter added the label of 'manipulated media' to the Scavino tweet on March 8 under a new policy. The policy applies to synthetic and manipulated media including videos, audio and images. The 'manipulated media' warning beneath the tweet was not showing up in tweet detail, but it is visible in the timeline. Twitter said it was working on a fix. On Facebook, Scavino's video was labeled 'partly false' after it was reviewed by fact-checkers. PolitiFact is also part of the fact-checking partnership with Facebook.
|
'Fact-checkers rated this video as partly false, so we are reducing its distribution and showing warning labels with more context for people who see it, try to share it, or already have,' Facebook said in a statement. 'As we announced last year, the same applies if a politician shares the video, if it was otherwise fact-checked when shared by others on Facebook.' Our ruling A White House video showed 13 seconds of Biden speaking at a campaign event when he said 'we can only re-elect Donald Trump.' Biden did make that statement as he stumbled over his words. But the video snippet omitted what Biden said immediately before and after, which removes his meaning. Biden's overall point was to call for Democratic Party unity and to run a positive campaign, rather than intra-party attacks. The video stripped that out. The video employs deceptive editing via omission. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"112464-proof-08-d0cfaf888ff097b60471ae9b91b8d401.jpg"
] |
Video shows Joe Biden saying 'we can only re-elect Donald Trump.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump shared a deceptively edited video that made it appear former Vice President Joe Biden supported Trump's re-election. For the first time, Twitter applied its new policy and labeled the video as 'manipulated media,' though it could still be viewed on Twitter without the warning label. On March 7, Dan Scavino, an assistant to Trump and the White House's director of social media, tweeted a 13-second video of Biden speaking at a campaign event in Missouri: 'Sleepy Joe in St. Louis, Missouri today: 'We can only re-elect @realDonaldTrump.'' Sleepy Joe💤in St. Louis, Missouri today: 'We can only re-elect @realDonaldTrump.'#KAG2020LandslideVictory🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/FT4q2MWfcD- Dan Scavino (@DanScavino) March 8, 2020 The video tweet was viewed more than 6 million times and drew retweets from Trump. 'I agree with Joe!' tweeted Trump. He also retweeted the video clip posted by conservative activist Charlie Kirk and a later tweet by Scavino. I agree with Joe! https://t.co/h84mD7jVPW- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 8, 2020 By cutting what Biden said before and after this clip, the video distorts the meaning of what Biden said. We contacted the White House and did not get a response. Scavino tweeted March 9 that 'the video was NOT manipulated.' What Biden said in Kansas City Biden was speaking in Kansas City (not St. Louis, as Scavino said) on March 7 when he made the speech in question. Biden clearly stumbled over his words as he spoke during part of the speech. But it's clear that he wasn't calling for Trump to get re-elected. (Start at the 13:20 mark for a full minute listen.) Biden's point was to call on Democrats to unite as a party and avoid attacks on each other to aim to defeat Trump. 'If you want a nominee who will beat Donald Trump, keep the House of Representatives and elect the Senate, help me out. If you want a nominee who is a Democrat, a lifelong Democrat, a proud Democrat, an Obama-Biden Democrat, join us. If you want a nominee who will bring this party together, who will run a progressive, positive campaign and turn this primary from a campaign that's about negative attacks into one about what we are for, because we cannot get re-elect, we cannot win this re-election. Excuse me. We can only re-elect Donald Trump if in fact we get engaged in this circular firing squad here. It's got to be a positive campaign. So join us. Folks, we are building a coalition...' Speaking in St. Louis earlier in the day, Biden made the same point without stumbling over his words: 'If you want a nominee who will bring the party together, who will run a positive, progressive vision for the future - not turn this primary into a campaign of negative attacks because that will only re-elect Donald Trump if we go that route.' Twitter added the label of 'manipulated media' to the Scavino tweet on March 8 under a new policy. The policy applies to synthetic and manipulated media including videos, audio and images. The 'manipulated media' warning beneath the tweet was not showing up in tweet detail, but it is visible in the timeline. Twitter said it was working on a fix. On Facebook, Scavino's video was labeled 'partly false' after it was reviewed by fact-checkers. PolitiFact is also part of the fact-checking partnership with Facebook.
|
'Fact-checkers rated this video as partly false, so we are reducing its distribution and showing warning labels with more context for people who see it, try to share it, or already have,' Facebook said in a statement. 'As we announced last year, the same applies if a politician shares the video, if it was otherwise fact-checked when shared by others on Facebook.' Our ruling A White House video showed 13 seconds of Biden speaking at a campaign event when he said 'we can only re-elect Donald Trump.' Biden did make that statement as he stumbled over his words. But the video snippet omitted what Biden said immediately before and after, which removes his meaning. Biden's overall point was to call for Democratic Party unity and to run a positive campaign, rather than intra-party attacks. The video stripped that out. The video employs deceptive editing via omission. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"112464-proof-08-d0cfaf888ff097b60471ae9b91b8d401.jpg"
] |
Photo shows Ice Cube and 50 Cent wearing Donald Trump hats.
|
Contradiction
|
Rapper 50 Cent recently appeared to endorse President Donald Trump on Twitter while another rapper, Ice Cube, is working with the president on his plan for Black America. But a photo spreading on social media that shows the men sitting together and wearing 'Trump 2020' hats has been doctored. '50 Cent & Ice Cube have boarded the trump train!' one post sharing the photo 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.) Ice Cube tweeted the original, unaltered photo on July 6. 'Happy birthday to the homie @50Cent,' he wrote. In the photo, 50 Cent is wearing a New York Yankees hat. Ice Cube is wearing a hat that says BIG3, the name of the 3-on-3 basketball league he founded. '(VOTE forTrump),' 50 Cent said on Oct. 19, tweeting his displeasure over a news report that said that in some states Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's tax plan could result in high combined state and federal income tax rates for those with household incomes of more than $400,000. 'I don't care Trump doesn't like black people 62% are you out of ya f------ mind.' Among the people sharing the doctored image of the rapper and Ice Cube the next day was one of the president's sons, Eric Trump. 'Two great, courageous, Americans!' he tweeted. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
'WHO admits their testing grossly overstates individuals testing positive for COVID.
|
Contradiction
|
A conservative news site mischaracterized a message from the World Health Organization, claiming that the United Nations agency owned up to supporting a coronavirus test that resulted in huge numbers of false positives. 'An hour after Joe Biden is sworn in, WHO admits their testing grossly overstates individuals testing positive for COVID,' reads the headline of an article published by the Gateway Pundit. The article links to a tweet by user Andy Swan, which in turn references a Jan. 20 notice that the WHO released to lab technicians. Did the WHO really make such an admission? No. This article was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The notice cautions lab technicians that positive results should be interpreted with care and in the context of other information, such as clinical observation and patient history, to reduce the risk of false positives. The notice - dated Jan. 13 and published on the site Jan. 20, according to the timestamp on it - is written in highly technical language. But five virologists, most of whom work in COVID-19 testing labs, told us that the gist of it was to remind lab technicians to carefully read the user manuals that come with PCR tests, the most widely used diagnostic tests for the coronavirus. 'This is not new information. This is essentially a reminder from the WHO to testing laboratories,' said Jonathan Jarry, a science communicator with the McGill University Office for Science and Society. 'This notice is not an admission that the PCR test for COVID-19 does not work or is wildly inaccurate.' How the tests work Coronavirus tests are performed on samples of cells taken with a swab from the back of the throat. The lab isolates the genetic material from those cells and analyzes it for traces of the virus. PCR tests, considered the most reliable, work by duplicating the genetic material in cycles until traces of the virus become more easily detectable. If there's a large presence of virus in the sample, fewer cycles would be required to detect it, said Davidson Hamer, a professor of medicine at Boston University. The number of cycles required to detect the virus in a sample is known as a 'cycle threshold.' A low cycle threshold implies that a patient has a high risk of spreading the coronavirus to others. The question for lab technicians is how many times to duplicate a particular sample before determining whether it is positive or negative. 'Once you get up there in cycles, you can start detecting very small concentrations of virus,' Hamer said. As a result, a sample that tests positive after many amplification cycles is more likely to be a false positive than a sample that tests positive after fewer cycles. Nevertheless, Hamer said, false positives with PCR tests, even those with relatively high cycle thresholds, remain rare. 'PCR tests are considered the gold standard of diagnostic tests,' said Maureen Ferran, an associate professor of biology at the Rochester Institute of Technology. Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, cautioned against viewing a low cycle threshold value as a strict indicator of high infectivity, because some samples are less representative of the patient's overall viral load than others. 'It depends on how good the sample is,' he said. The cycle threshold value 'will measure the viral load for a particular sample, but not necessarily a patient.' In addition, the amount of cycles required to determine whether a patient is positive varies among different types of PCR tests. 'There are different tests that have different thresholds,' said Ben Neuman, a Texas A&M University-Texarkana virologist. 'Each lab knows where the thresholds are, and it's their job to give you the results of your test based on their setup.' That's why the WHO notice urges lab technicians to view weak positive test results (ones with high cycle thresholds) with caution and to consult the instructions on their PCR machinery before issuing positive or negative test results. Gateway Pundit did not respond to our request for comment.
|
Our ruling A Gateway Pundit article claims that the 'WHO admits their testing grossly overstates individuals testing positive for COVID,' citing a notice from the organization. However, the notice cited by the article is a reminder to lab technicians to carefully read the user's manuals that come with PCR tests to ensure that results are interpreted correctly. It is not an admission that PCR tests don't work or result in huge numbers of false positives. This claim is False.
|
[] |
Says Nancy Pelosi called Social Security recipients 'leeches' and 'burdens on society.
|
Contradiction
|
According to the internet, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi allegedly said that Social Security recipients are 'leeches,' and social media posts that share the quote are calling for users to 'make it go viral.' There's just one issue. She didn't say it. The abrasive statement was fabricated by a website that says it posts satire and then re-shared on Facebook as if it were real news. Although the satirical story was published in November 2019, Facebook text posts claiming she said it started to appear on the social network in April 2020. These posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The made-up statement was posted by Bustatroll.org, a website known for publishing fictional content in the name of satire, in a Nov. 14, 2019, story titled 'Pelosi: 'Social Security Recipients Are Just A Burden On Society.'' The article falsely claims that Pelosi called Social Security recipients 'leeches' who 'suck from the public teat' and are 'nothing more than burdens on society.' RELATED: If you're fooled by fake news, this man probably wrote it The website contains a disclaimer that says, 'Everything on this website is fiction. It is not a lie and it is not fake news because it is not real. If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined.' However, these articles are frequently copied to other websites, or in this case, social media posts, that don't include any indication that the information was made-up. We rate this Pants on Fire!
|
We rate this Pants on Fire!
|
[
"112502-proof-11-333258a0467f1c2cc8fa2c5c5781f2d1.jpg"
] |
Photo shows Joe Biden 'doesn't wear a mask on a plane.
|
Contradiction
|
An old photo of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is spreading on social media, suggesting the former vice president is a hypocrite when it comes to wearing face coverings to protect against the coronavirus. While he urges Americans to 'be a patriot' and wear a mask, a widely shared tweet makes it look like he doesn't hold himself to the same standard. 'Washington, DC phony!' reads the tweet from former acting national intelligence director Richard Grenell. '@JoeBiden doesn't wear a mask on a plane - but wears one OUTSIDE!?' The tweet features two photos. One shows Biden talking to a woman on a plane, and neither one is wearing a mask. The second shows Biden standing outdoors wearing a mask while speaking into a microphone. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because the photo of Biden without a mask is from November 2019, before the first case of COVID-19 was reported in China the following month. The image ran in a story in Vogue magazine about Remi Yamamoto, Biden's traveling national press secretary. The caption says: 'Yamamoto and Biden huddle on a flight to South Carolina in November 2019.' We rate this tweet False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
We rate this tweet False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[] |
'Heidi Cruz, Ted's wife, is managing director of Goldman Sachs. They oversee the Texas utilities.
|
Contradiction
|
Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife, Heidi Cruz, were criticized for leaving their home in Houston for Cancun during prolonged outages that left Texans across the state without power or heat during recent winter storms. But a claim spreading on social media that connects the Republican senator's wife to Texas utilities is wrong. 'DO YOU KNOW,' one post says, 'Heidi Cruz, Ted's wife, is managing director of Goldman Sachs. They oversee the Texas utilities.' 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.) Heidi Cruz is a managing director in the Consumer and Wealth Management Division of Goldman Sachs. But the company does not have a controlling stake in any U.S. energy or utility company, spokesperson Leslie Shribman told us. 'Some of these social media comments may be referring to an investment made by a Goldman Sachs fund as part of a private equity consortium that bought TXU in 2007,' Shribman said, referring to an electricity provider in Texas, 'but following the company's bankruptcy years ago, we no longer had a stake.' TXU was owned by private equity firms led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, TPG Capital and the buyout arm of Goldman Sachs, the New York Times reported, but after the buyout, natural gas prices dropped, and the equity invested by the owners was 'all but wiped out' by 2012. In Texas, the electricity grid's main operator is the nonprofit Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT. It manages the flow of electric power to more than 26 million customers, and it's governed by a board of directors that includes industry representatives, among others. ERCOT is subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas, which regulates the state's electric, telecommunication, water and sewer utilities. Gov. Greg Abbott called on ERCOT's leadership to resign in the wake of grid failures during the winter storm and he has made reforming the group an emergency item for the 2021 legislative session, which is now underway. We rate this Facebook post Mostly False.
|
We rate this Facebook post Mostly False.
|
[] |
'Heidi Cruz, Ted's wife, is managing director of Goldman Sachs. They oversee the Texas utilities.
|
Contradiction
|
Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife, Heidi Cruz, were criticized for leaving their home in Houston for Cancun during prolonged outages that left Texans across the state without power or heat during recent winter storms. But a claim spreading on social media that connects the Republican senator's wife to Texas utilities is wrong. 'DO YOU KNOW,' one post says, 'Heidi Cruz, Ted's wife, is managing director of Goldman Sachs. They oversee the Texas utilities.' 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.) Heidi Cruz is a managing director in the Consumer and Wealth Management Division of Goldman Sachs. But the company does not have a controlling stake in any U.S. energy or utility company, spokesperson Leslie Shribman told us. 'Some of these social media comments may be referring to an investment made by a Goldman Sachs fund as part of a private equity consortium that bought TXU in 2007,' Shribman said, referring to an electricity provider in Texas, 'but following the company's bankruptcy years ago, we no longer had a stake.' TXU was owned by private equity firms led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, TPG Capital and the buyout arm of Goldman Sachs, the New York Times reported, but after the buyout, natural gas prices dropped, and the equity invested by the owners was 'all but wiped out' by 2012. In Texas, the electricity grid's main operator is the nonprofit Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT. It manages the flow of electric power to more than 26 million customers, and it's governed by a board of directors that includes industry representatives, among others. ERCOT is subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas, which regulates the state's electric, telecommunication, water and sewer utilities. Gov. Greg Abbott called on ERCOT's leadership to resign in the wake of grid failures during the winter storm and he has made reforming the group an emergency item for the 2021 legislative session, which is now underway. We rate this Facebook post Mostly False.
|
We rate this Facebook post Mostly False.
|
[] |
The COVID-19 vaccine 'went out for distribution' in Nebraska 'days before the FDA even said they were going to approve it.
|
Contradiction
|
In a YouTube video posted Jan. 16, and shared on Facebook, Dr. Lee Merritt, who owns a Nebraska clinic that offers tattoo removal and other services, casts doubt on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. Merritt claims in an interview segment that the vaccine was sent to states before it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 'This vaccine was rolled out to distribution centers before they even made a show of caring about the FDA approving it,' she tells interviewer Alex Newman. 'It went out for distribution, I know in Nebraska, it was in the distribution center days before the FDA even said they were going to approve it.' The article was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We looked into the timeline of the FDA's approval of vaccines for emergency use, and when vaccine distribution began, and found no evidence for Merritt's claim. We reached out to Merritt twice for any evidence of her claim, but did not hear back. Merritt, an orthopaedic surgeon, has spoken out against mask mandates, and has supported the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine, which was touted by President Donald Trump as a possible COVID-19 treatment, has been the subject of several fact-checks by PolitiFact, and researchers have concluded that it's not an effective treatment for COVID-19. Approval and distribution The FDA announced on Dec. 11 that it had approved the first vaccine, manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech. In Nebraska, the Department of Health and Human Services announced on Dec. 14 that the first doses of the Pfizer vaccine 'arrived in Nebraska today.' In the same announcement, the state said that it expected to receive 4,875 doses of the Pfizer vaccine by the end of the day and 15,600 by week's end. On Dec. 21, Nebraska announced that it expected to receive the Moderna vaccine in the next week. The Moderna vaccine was approved by the FDA on Dec. 18. The communications director for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Khalilah LeGrand, confirmed to PolitiFact that no shipments of vaccine were received before approval, nor could officials order vaccine prior to approval. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website outlines how the vaccine approval and distribution process works. 'Distribution of FDA-authorized vaccines begin 24 hours after the Emergency Use Authorization,' the site states. 'The first deliveries of COVID-19 vaccines began December 14, 2020.' HHS spokesman Bill Hall confirmed that no vaccines were distributed prior to FDA approval. We could find no news coverage of any vaccines arriving in Nebraska before they were approved by the FDA. Speaking at a news briefing on Dec. 12, the day after the FDA authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, one of the federal government's top vaccine distribution planners said that vaccines were being prepared for shipment. Gen. Gustave Perna, chief operating officer of Operation Warp Speed, said: 'As I speak today, right now, vaccines are being packaged with a lot of emphasis on quality assurance. To that end, tomorrow morning, vaccines will start rolling from manufacturing to distribution hubs.' CNBC reported on how some of the vaccine distribution planning included sending protective gear for health care workers and inoculation supplies - but not the vaccine - to states ahead of FDA approval. These early shipments included needles, syringes and mixing vials. The advance planning also included building 'freezer farms' to hold the vaccine, which requires cold storage. Pfizer shipped vaccines from its Kalamazoo, Mich., factory after FDA approval and from a distribution facility in Pleasant Prairie, Wis., to states. McKesson, which is distributing the Moderna vaccine, said that its shipping partners would deliver initial vaccine doses on Dec. 21, days after approval.
|
Our ruling Merritt claimed that doses of COVID-19 vaccine arrived in distribution centers in Nebraska before it was approved by the FDA. The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services announced that it received both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines after the dates of FDA approval. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said that it releases vaccines for distribution 24 hours after they are approved. A top planner of the federal government's vaccine development efforts said that the vaccine began shipping after it was approved. We rate Merritt's claim False.
|
[
"112544-proof-35-15a82679e0fddeea29141caf5a6035e6.jpeg"
] |
The COVID-19 vaccine 'went out for distribution' in Nebraska 'days before the FDA even said they were going to approve it.
|
Contradiction
|
In a YouTube video posted Jan. 16, and shared on Facebook, Dr. Lee Merritt, who owns a Nebraska clinic that offers tattoo removal and other services, casts doubt on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. Merritt claims in an interview segment that the vaccine was sent to states before it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 'This vaccine was rolled out to distribution centers before they even made a show of caring about the FDA approving it,' she tells interviewer Alex Newman. 'It went out for distribution, I know in Nebraska, it was in the distribution center days before the FDA even said they were going to approve it.' The article was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We looked into the timeline of the FDA's approval of vaccines for emergency use, and when vaccine distribution began, and found no evidence for Merritt's claim. We reached out to Merritt twice for any evidence of her claim, but did not hear back. Merritt, an orthopaedic surgeon, has spoken out against mask mandates, and has supported the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine, which was touted by President Donald Trump as a possible COVID-19 treatment, has been the subject of several fact-checks by PolitiFact, and researchers have concluded that it's not an effective treatment for COVID-19. Approval and distribution The FDA announced on Dec. 11 that it had approved the first vaccine, manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech. In Nebraska, the Department of Health and Human Services announced on Dec. 14 that the first doses of the Pfizer vaccine 'arrived in Nebraska today.' In the same announcement, the state said that it expected to receive 4,875 doses of the Pfizer vaccine by the end of the day and 15,600 by week's end. On Dec. 21, Nebraska announced that it expected to receive the Moderna vaccine in the next week. The Moderna vaccine was approved by the FDA on Dec. 18. The communications director for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Khalilah LeGrand, confirmed to PolitiFact that no shipments of vaccine were received before approval, nor could officials order vaccine prior to approval. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website outlines how the vaccine approval and distribution process works. 'Distribution of FDA-authorized vaccines begin 24 hours after the Emergency Use Authorization,' the site states. 'The first deliveries of COVID-19 vaccines began December 14, 2020.' HHS spokesman Bill Hall confirmed that no vaccines were distributed prior to FDA approval. We could find no news coverage of any vaccines arriving in Nebraska before they were approved by the FDA. Speaking at a news briefing on Dec. 12, the day after the FDA authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, one of the federal government's top vaccine distribution planners said that vaccines were being prepared for shipment. Gen. Gustave Perna, chief operating officer of Operation Warp Speed, said: 'As I speak today, right now, vaccines are being packaged with a lot of emphasis on quality assurance. To that end, tomorrow morning, vaccines will start rolling from manufacturing to distribution hubs.' CNBC reported on how some of the vaccine distribution planning included sending protective gear for health care workers and inoculation supplies - but not the vaccine - to states ahead of FDA approval. These early shipments included needles, syringes and mixing vials. The advance planning also included building 'freezer farms' to hold the vaccine, which requires cold storage. Pfizer shipped vaccines from its Kalamazoo, Mich., factory after FDA approval and from a distribution facility in Pleasant Prairie, Wis., to states. McKesson, which is distributing the Moderna vaccine, said that its shipping partners would deliver initial vaccine doses on Dec. 21, days after approval.
|
Our ruling Merritt claimed that doses of COVID-19 vaccine arrived in distribution centers in Nebraska before it was approved by the FDA. The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services announced that it received both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines after the dates of FDA approval. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said that it releases vaccines for distribution 24 hours after they are approved. A top planner of the federal government's vaccine development efforts said that the vaccine began shipping after it was approved. We rate Merritt's claim False.
|
[
"112544-proof-35-15a82679e0fddeea29141caf5a6035e6.jpeg"
] |
The COVID-19 vaccine 'went out for distribution' in Nebraska 'days before the FDA even said they were going to approve it.
|
Contradiction
|
In a YouTube video posted Jan. 16, and shared on Facebook, Dr. Lee Merritt, who owns a Nebraska clinic that offers tattoo removal and other services, casts doubt on the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. Merritt claims in an interview segment that the vaccine was sent to states before it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 'This vaccine was rolled out to distribution centers before they even made a show of caring about the FDA approving it,' she tells interviewer Alex Newman. 'It went out for distribution, I know in Nebraska, it was in the distribution center days before the FDA even said they were going to approve it.' The article was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We looked into the timeline of the FDA's approval of vaccines for emergency use, and when vaccine distribution began, and found no evidence for Merritt's claim. We reached out to Merritt twice for any evidence of her claim, but did not hear back. Merritt, an orthopaedic surgeon, has spoken out against mask mandates, and has supported the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine, which was touted by President Donald Trump as a possible COVID-19 treatment, has been the subject of several fact-checks by PolitiFact, and researchers have concluded that it's not an effective treatment for COVID-19. Approval and distribution The FDA announced on Dec. 11 that it had approved the first vaccine, manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech. In Nebraska, the Department of Health and Human Services announced on Dec. 14 that the first doses of the Pfizer vaccine 'arrived in Nebraska today.' In the same announcement, the state said that it expected to receive 4,875 doses of the Pfizer vaccine by the end of the day and 15,600 by week's end. On Dec. 21, Nebraska announced that it expected to receive the Moderna vaccine in the next week. The Moderna vaccine was approved by the FDA on Dec. 18. The communications director for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Khalilah LeGrand, confirmed to PolitiFact that no shipments of vaccine were received before approval, nor could officials order vaccine prior to approval. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website outlines how the vaccine approval and distribution process works. 'Distribution of FDA-authorized vaccines begin 24 hours after the Emergency Use Authorization,' the site states. 'The first deliveries of COVID-19 vaccines began December 14, 2020.' HHS spokesman Bill Hall confirmed that no vaccines were distributed prior to FDA approval. We could find no news coverage of any vaccines arriving in Nebraska before they were approved by the FDA. Speaking at a news briefing on Dec. 12, the day after the FDA authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, one of the federal government's top vaccine distribution planners said that vaccines were being prepared for shipment. Gen. Gustave Perna, chief operating officer of Operation Warp Speed, said: 'As I speak today, right now, vaccines are being packaged with a lot of emphasis on quality assurance. To that end, tomorrow morning, vaccines will start rolling from manufacturing to distribution hubs.' CNBC reported on how some of the vaccine distribution planning included sending protective gear for health care workers and inoculation supplies - but not the vaccine - to states ahead of FDA approval. These early shipments included needles, syringes and mixing vials. The advance planning also included building 'freezer farms' to hold the vaccine, which requires cold storage. Pfizer shipped vaccines from its Kalamazoo, Mich., factory after FDA approval and from a distribution facility in Pleasant Prairie, Wis., to states. McKesson, which is distributing the Moderna vaccine, said that its shipping partners would deliver initial vaccine doses on Dec. 21, days after approval.
|
Our ruling Merritt claimed that doses of COVID-19 vaccine arrived in distribution centers in Nebraska before it was approved by the FDA. The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services announced that it received both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines after the dates of FDA approval. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said that it releases vaccines for distribution 24 hours after they are approved. A top planner of the federal government's vaccine development efforts said that the vaccine began shipping after it was approved. We rate Merritt's claim False.
|
[
"112544-proof-35-15a82679e0fddeea29141caf5a6035e6.jpeg"
] |
Politicians 'receive full pay retirement after serving 1 term!'
|
Contradiction
|
A specious claim that's been making the rounds for about two decades has recently resurfaced: that members of Congress can receive a pension equal to their full pay after serving just one term. But it's no more accurate now than it ever was. A Facebook post says, 'No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women who serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, ... only get 50% of their base pay. While politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving 1 term! Re-post if you believe this is absolutely WRONG.' The part about military pensions is somewhat accurate, but incomplete and outdated. However, the part about pensions for politicians - which we take to mean congressional pensions, since few executive branch politicians serve 'terms' - is flat-out wrong. Here, we'll tackle both parts of the claim. U.S. Marines near a military base in al-Hamra, United Arab Emirates, on March 23, 2020. (AP) Military pensions For years, the Facebook post's description of the military pension would have been in the ballpark. If you joined the military before September 1980, you get 50% of your final base pay after 20 years of service, or 100% of base pay if you retire after 40 years. If you joined between September 1980 and July 1986, you would be subject to the same percentages but a slightly different formula. Your pension would be based on the average of your three highest pay years, rather than your final base pay. If you joined between August 1986 and December 2017, you could choose between the previous option or a plan under which you get a bonus on your 15th service anniversary in exchange for a lower retirement pay. Under each of the systems above, a service member would qualify for a pension only after many years of service. Those with shorter military careers, who by some estimates account for about 80 percent of service members, would get no pension at all. That changed under a new law that took effect in 2018. It governs pensions for individuals who entered the military starting that year. Under this system, service members get pensions equivalent to 40% of their base pay after 20 years. But service members would also have a Thrift Savings Plan, which is similar to a 401(k), and after two years, the military would match contributions up to 5%. For the first time, service members will have a plan that can be rolled over after they leave the military, even if their departure comes just a few years after they sign up. So the current military pension system is more complex than the Facebook post suggests, but the post does roughly reflect the system. Congressional pensions However, the post's description of congressional pensions is simply inaccurate. Members elected prior to 1984 belong to a pension program known as the Civil Service Retirement System. But only five current House members and two senators were elected prior to 1984, so the vast majority belong to the successor plan, known as the Federal Employees' Retirement System. The latter plan isn't just for lawmakers; it's available to every federal employee. It includes Social Security, a pension and the Thrift Savings Plan. (Read a summary of the system on the website of the nonpartisan Congressional Institute and in this report by the Congressional Research Service.) Under either plan, a member of Congress can receive a pension only after serving for five years, although previous service as a federal employee can count toward that five-year vesting period. To be eligible, lawmakers must contribute part of their salary into the pension plan while they're in Congress. To collect, the lawmaker must be age 62, or be at least age 50 with 20 years of federal service, or be any age with 25 years of service. (The Constitution dictates a minimum age of 25 years for House members and 30 for senators.) Under the current pension law, the size of the pension is based on the highest three years of a member's salary, the number of years of service and a multiplier, which is 1.7% for the first 20 years of service and 1% for subsequent years. Here's an example, using a typical 25-year rank-and-file member who retired this year: The pension would be the sum of two calculations. First, multiply $174,000 (which is the average salary over the last three years) times 20 years times 0.017. Then, multiply $174,000 times 5 years times 0.01 and add that number to the first calculation. The total: about $67,860 per year. A three-term congressman (or one-term senator) who has now reached retirement age would be eligible for an annual pension of $17,745 for six years of work. That's generous, but not close to full pay. In fact, federal law prevents members of Congress from getting full pay as their pension. By law, the starting amount of a member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. Under the formula, it would take 67 years of federal service to hit that 80% limit. For context, no House member or senator has ever served more than 60 years in office. So, to recap: Retired lawmakers don't 'receive full pay' for their pension, and unless they were already a federal employee for three years before entering Congress, they wouldn't be vested after serving just '1 term.' And the earliest anyone could start receiving a pension is 50 years of age.
|
Our ruling The Facebook post said, politicians 'receive full pay retirement after serving 1 term!' The description of the military pension is in the ballpark, but incomplete and somewhat outdated. However, the description of the congressional pension is thoroughly inaccurate. Retired lawmakers don't 'receive full pay' for their pension, and unless they were already a federal employee for three years before entering Congress, they wouldn't be vested after serving just '1 term.' Meanwhile, the earliest any retired lawmaker could start receiving a pension is 50 years of age. We rate the statement False. Correction, May 6, 2020: This version corrects the pension calculations in the examples for the 25-year and five-year member of Congress. The rating remains the same.
|
[
"112585-proof-00-131285045e8f0ff921d498ae1f150e95.jpg"
] |
Politicians 'receive full pay retirement after serving 1 term!'
|
Contradiction
|
A specious claim that's been making the rounds for about two decades has recently resurfaced: that members of Congress can receive a pension equal to their full pay after serving just one term. But it's no more accurate now than it ever was. A Facebook post says, 'No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women who serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, ... only get 50% of their base pay. While politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving 1 term! Re-post if you believe this is absolutely WRONG.' The part about military pensions is somewhat accurate, but incomplete and outdated. However, the part about pensions for politicians - which we take to mean congressional pensions, since few executive branch politicians serve 'terms' - is flat-out wrong. Here, we'll tackle both parts of the claim. U.S. Marines near a military base in al-Hamra, United Arab Emirates, on March 23, 2020. (AP) Military pensions For years, the Facebook post's description of the military pension would have been in the ballpark. If you joined the military before September 1980, you get 50% of your final base pay after 20 years of service, or 100% of base pay if you retire after 40 years. If you joined between September 1980 and July 1986, you would be subject to the same percentages but a slightly different formula. Your pension would be based on the average of your three highest pay years, rather than your final base pay. If you joined between August 1986 and December 2017, you could choose between the previous option or a plan under which you get a bonus on your 15th service anniversary in exchange for a lower retirement pay. Under each of the systems above, a service member would qualify for a pension only after many years of service. Those with shorter military careers, who by some estimates account for about 80 percent of service members, would get no pension at all. That changed under a new law that took effect in 2018. It governs pensions for individuals who entered the military starting that year. Under this system, service members get pensions equivalent to 40% of their base pay after 20 years. But service members would also have a Thrift Savings Plan, which is similar to a 401(k), and after two years, the military would match contributions up to 5%. For the first time, service members will have a plan that can be rolled over after they leave the military, even if their departure comes just a few years after they sign up. So the current military pension system is more complex than the Facebook post suggests, but the post does roughly reflect the system. Congressional pensions However, the post's description of congressional pensions is simply inaccurate. Members elected prior to 1984 belong to a pension program known as the Civil Service Retirement System. But only five current House members and two senators were elected prior to 1984, so the vast majority belong to the successor plan, known as the Federal Employees' Retirement System. The latter plan isn't just for lawmakers; it's available to every federal employee. It includes Social Security, a pension and the Thrift Savings Plan. (Read a summary of the system on the website of the nonpartisan Congressional Institute and in this report by the Congressional Research Service.) Under either plan, a member of Congress can receive a pension only after serving for five years, although previous service as a federal employee can count toward that five-year vesting period. To be eligible, lawmakers must contribute part of their salary into the pension plan while they're in Congress. To collect, the lawmaker must be age 62, or be at least age 50 with 20 years of federal service, or be any age with 25 years of service. (The Constitution dictates a minimum age of 25 years for House members and 30 for senators.) Under the current pension law, the size of the pension is based on the highest three years of a member's salary, the number of years of service and a multiplier, which is 1.7% for the first 20 years of service and 1% for subsequent years. Here's an example, using a typical 25-year rank-and-file member who retired this year: The pension would be the sum of two calculations. First, multiply $174,000 (which is the average salary over the last three years) times 20 years times 0.017. Then, multiply $174,000 times 5 years times 0.01 and add that number to the first calculation. The total: about $67,860 per year. A three-term congressman (or one-term senator) who has now reached retirement age would be eligible for an annual pension of $17,745 for six years of work. That's generous, but not close to full pay. In fact, federal law prevents members of Congress from getting full pay as their pension. By law, the starting amount of a member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. Under the formula, it would take 67 years of federal service to hit that 80% limit. For context, no House member or senator has ever served more than 60 years in office. So, to recap: Retired lawmakers don't 'receive full pay' for their pension, and unless they were already a federal employee for three years before entering Congress, they wouldn't be vested after serving just '1 term.' And the earliest anyone could start receiving a pension is 50 years of age.
|
Our ruling The Facebook post said, politicians 'receive full pay retirement after serving 1 term!' The description of the military pension is in the ballpark, but incomplete and somewhat outdated. However, the description of the congressional pension is thoroughly inaccurate. Retired lawmakers don't 'receive full pay' for their pension, and unless they were already a federal employee for three years before entering Congress, they wouldn't be vested after serving just '1 term.' Meanwhile, the earliest any retired lawmaker could start receiving a pension is 50 years of age. We rate the statement False. Correction, May 6, 2020: This version corrects the pension calculations in the examples for the 25-year and five-year member of Congress. The rating remains the same.
|
[
"112585-proof-00-131285045e8f0ff921d498ae1f150e95.jpg"
] |
Politicians 'receive full pay retirement after serving 1 term!'
|
Contradiction
|
A specious claim that's been making the rounds for about two decades has recently resurfaced: that members of Congress can receive a pension equal to their full pay after serving just one term. But it's no more accurate now than it ever was. A Facebook post says, 'No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women who serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, ... only get 50% of their base pay. While politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving 1 term! Re-post if you believe this is absolutely WRONG.' The part about military pensions is somewhat accurate, but incomplete and outdated. However, the part about pensions for politicians - which we take to mean congressional pensions, since few executive branch politicians serve 'terms' - is flat-out wrong. Here, we'll tackle both parts of the claim. U.S. Marines near a military base in al-Hamra, United Arab Emirates, on March 23, 2020. (AP) Military pensions For years, the Facebook post's description of the military pension would have been in the ballpark. If you joined the military before September 1980, you get 50% of your final base pay after 20 years of service, or 100% of base pay if you retire after 40 years. If you joined between September 1980 and July 1986, you would be subject to the same percentages but a slightly different formula. Your pension would be based on the average of your three highest pay years, rather than your final base pay. If you joined between August 1986 and December 2017, you could choose between the previous option or a plan under which you get a bonus on your 15th service anniversary in exchange for a lower retirement pay. Under each of the systems above, a service member would qualify for a pension only after many years of service. Those with shorter military careers, who by some estimates account for about 80 percent of service members, would get no pension at all. That changed under a new law that took effect in 2018. It governs pensions for individuals who entered the military starting that year. Under this system, service members get pensions equivalent to 40% of their base pay after 20 years. But service members would also have a Thrift Savings Plan, which is similar to a 401(k), and after two years, the military would match contributions up to 5%. For the first time, service members will have a plan that can be rolled over after they leave the military, even if their departure comes just a few years after they sign up. So the current military pension system is more complex than the Facebook post suggests, but the post does roughly reflect the system. Congressional pensions However, the post's description of congressional pensions is simply inaccurate. Members elected prior to 1984 belong to a pension program known as the Civil Service Retirement System. But only five current House members and two senators were elected prior to 1984, so the vast majority belong to the successor plan, known as the Federal Employees' Retirement System. The latter plan isn't just for lawmakers; it's available to every federal employee. It includes Social Security, a pension and the Thrift Savings Plan. (Read a summary of the system on the website of the nonpartisan Congressional Institute and in this report by the Congressional Research Service.) Under either plan, a member of Congress can receive a pension only after serving for five years, although previous service as a federal employee can count toward that five-year vesting period. To be eligible, lawmakers must contribute part of their salary into the pension plan while they're in Congress. To collect, the lawmaker must be age 62, or be at least age 50 with 20 years of federal service, or be any age with 25 years of service. (The Constitution dictates a minimum age of 25 years for House members and 30 for senators.) Under the current pension law, the size of the pension is based on the highest three years of a member's salary, the number of years of service and a multiplier, which is 1.7% for the first 20 years of service and 1% for subsequent years. Here's an example, using a typical 25-year rank-and-file member who retired this year: The pension would be the sum of two calculations. First, multiply $174,000 (which is the average salary over the last three years) times 20 years times 0.017. Then, multiply $174,000 times 5 years times 0.01 and add that number to the first calculation. The total: about $67,860 per year. A three-term congressman (or one-term senator) who has now reached retirement age would be eligible for an annual pension of $17,745 for six years of work. That's generous, but not close to full pay. In fact, federal law prevents members of Congress from getting full pay as their pension. By law, the starting amount of a member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. Under the formula, it would take 67 years of federal service to hit that 80% limit. For context, no House member or senator has ever served more than 60 years in office. So, to recap: Retired lawmakers don't 'receive full pay' for their pension, and unless they were already a federal employee for three years before entering Congress, they wouldn't be vested after serving just '1 term.' And the earliest anyone could start receiving a pension is 50 years of age.
|
Our ruling The Facebook post said, politicians 'receive full pay retirement after serving 1 term!' The description of the military pension is in the ballpark, but incomplete and somewhat outdated. However, the description of the congressional pension is thoroughly inaccurate. Retired lawmakers don't 'receive full pay' for their pension, and unless they were already a federal employee for three years before entering Congress, they wouldn't be vested after serving just '1 term.' Meanwhile, the earliest any retired lawmaker could start receiving a pension is 50 years of age. We rate the statement False. Correction, May 6, 2020: This version corrects the pension calculations in the examples for the 25-year and five-year member of Congress. The rating remains the same.
|
[
"112585-proof-00-131285045e8f0ff921d498ae1f150e95.jpg"
] |
Republicans are 'trying to create a fake unemployment insurance crisis.
|
Contradiction
|
The floundering unemployment system has been an ongoing thorn in Wisconsin's side, as the outdated system has staggered beneath the weight of a pandemic-fueled surge in claims. It has provided yet another excuse for partisan finger-pointing, with Republicans blaming Democratic Gov. Tony Evers for not taking action to address the crisis, and Democrats noting Republicans haven't pursued substantive upgrades for the system through the eight years they controlled state government - or throughout 2020. RELATED: No, Evers cannot unilaterally OK a new unemployment system The sides came together - a rare occurrence in recent Wisconsin politics - on the first steps of an overhaul plan, which Evers signed into law Feb. 25, 2021. The project is expected to cost around $100 million and take years to complete. But the runup to that agreement included an interesting moment on the Assembly floor, as Minority Leader Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, took the microphone and chastised his Republican colleagues for the lack of action to that point. 'You guys can try to spin this and try to play politics with something like unemployment insurance, but it's cynical, and it's contrary to what we're here to do today,' Hintz said Feb. 23, noting steps Republicans have taken in recent years to add requirements for collecting unemployment. 'We need to have some urgency, we need to depoliticize the pandemic, and we need to be honest. 'You need to be honest with yourselves about what the obstacles to UI have been and quit trying to create a fake unemployment insurance crisis because of your guilt over all the things that you did over eight years.' The last line jumped out to us. Is it reasonable to claim Republicans are 'trying to create a fake unemployment insurance crisis'? The unemployment mess An audit released in September 2020 found fewer than 1% of calls to the Department of Workforce Development call centers were answered between March and June. That came shortly after Evers had asked the head of the agency to resign over the lingering backlog. RELATED: Evers right that unemployment benefits harder to access, but multiple factors involved in delays In November, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel detailed the devastating struggles of people who had been waiting months for their unemployment checks. For instance, Robert Johnson, a Milwaukee resident, had to sell a snowmobile, guns and a computer to pay bills, and he said his thoughts at one point turned to suicide. At that point in time, more than 74,000 Wisconsin residents were still caught in the backlog of unemployment claims, adding up to over 554,000 weekly claims in need of processing. In December, the Journal Sentinel reported 27,000 people were still stuck in the monthslong backlog. The article included the story of Angela Torres of Berlin, who had to file for bankruptcy while waiting since June for her claim to be processed. News outlets and legislators alike have been flooded with similar stories from people forced into impossible decisions by the system's failure to do timely processing. The Journal Sentinel in January detailed stories of people still waiting for their checks after the department asserted in December the backlog had been eliminated. In short, there's nothing fake about this crisis. Joanna Beilman-Dulin, a spokeswoman for Hintz, defended his phasing this way: 'To be clear: Rep. Hintz absolutely believes, and has consistently highlighted, that people not getting their unemployment benefits when they need them was and still is a crisis in Wisconsin,' she said in an email. 'People not getting their benefits more quickly over the last nine months because legislative Republicans chose to try to make Gov. Evers look bad rather than taking legislative action to address the UI delays, on the other hand, is an artificially-created, or fake, crisis.' DOCUMENT: View a full transcript of Hintz's remarks here That simply doesn't ring true. There's plenty of blame to go around in a discussion of why this crisis existed and persisted, but that doesn't make it any less of a crisis. And it stemmed from an insufficient system that leaders from both parties failed to address for more than a decade. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle started a project to upgrade the system, but it was abandoned in 2007 after spending $23 million because of delays and cost overruns. His successor, Republican Gov. Scott Walker didn't revive the project in his eight years despite having full Republican control of the Legislature and audits that showed significant deficiencies.
|
Our ruling Criticizing Republican inaction in the face of a staggering Wisconsin unemployment system, Hintz said they are 'trying to create a fake unemployment insurance crisis.' There's a point to be made about Republican inaction throughout 2020, as the Wisconsin Legislature was one of the least active in the nation in the face of the pandemic. But Hintz's claim went beyond that - to a description that flies in the face of what many Wisconsinites have experienced. This is a very real crisis that has had a devastating impact on thousands of people around the state. We rate Hintz's claim False.
|
[
"112587-proof-16-e8e5fdf4aad286eee2991c9647a26a25.jpg"
] |
Republicans are 'trying to create a fake unemployment insurance crisis.
|
Contradiction
|
The floundering unemployment system has been an ongoing thorn in Wisconsin's side, as the outdated system has staggered beneath the weight of a pandemic-fueled surge in claims. It has provided yet another excuse for partisan finger-pointing, with Republicans blaming Democratic Gov. Tony Evers for not taking action to address the crisis, and Democrats noting Republicans haven't pursued substantive upgrades for the system through the eight years they controlled state government - or throughout 2020. RELATED: No, Evers cannot unilaterally OK a new unemployment system The sides came together - a rare occurrence in recent Wisconsin politics - on the first steps of an overhaul plan, which Evers signed into law Feb. 25, 2021. The project is expected to cost around $100 million and take years to complete. But the runup to that agreement included an interesting moment on the Assembly floor, as Minority Leader Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, took the microphone and chastised his Republican colleagues for the lack of action to that point. 'You guys can try to spin this and try to play politics with something like unemployment insurance, but it's cynical, and it's contrary to what we're here to do today,' Hintz said Feb. 23, noting steps Republicans have taken in recent years to add requirements for collecting unemployment. 'We need to have some urgency, we need to depoliticize the pandemic, and we need to be honest. 'You need to be honest with yourselves about what the obstacles to UI have been and quit trying to create a fake unemployment insurance crisis because of your guilt over all the things that you did over eight years.' The last line jumped out to us. Is it reasonable to claim Republicans are 'trying to create a fake unemployment insurance crisis'? The unemployment mess An audit released in September 2020 found fewer than 1% of calls to the Department of Workforce Development call centers were answered between March and June. That came shortly after Evers had asked the head of the agency to resign over the lingering backlog. RELATED: Evers right that unemployment benefits harder to access, but multiple factors involved in delays In November, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel detailed the devastating struggles of people who had been waiting months for their unemployment checks. For instance, Robert Johnson, a Milwaukee resident, had to sell a snowmobile, guns and a computer to pay bills, and he said his thoughts at one point turned to suicide. At that point in time, more than 74,000 Wisconsin residents were still caught in the backlog of unemployment claims, adding up to over 554,000 weekly claims in need of processing. In December, the Journal Sentinel reported 27,000 people were still stuck in the monthslong backlog. The article included the story of Angela Torres of Berlin, who had to file for bankruptcy while waiting since June for her claim to be processed. News outlets and legislators alike have been flooded with similar stories from people forced into impossible decisions by the system's failure to do timely processing. The Journal Sentinel in January detailed stories of people still waiting for their checks after the department asserted in December the backlog had been eliminated. In short, there's nothing fake about this crisis. Joanna Beilman-Dulin, a spokeswoman for Hintz, defended his phasing this way: 'To be clear: Rep. Hintz absolutely believes, and has consistently highlighted, that people not getting their unemployment benefits when they need them was and still is a crisis in Wisconsin,' she said in an email. 'People not getting their benefits more quickly over the last nine months because legislative Republicans chose to try to make Gov. Evers look bad rather than taking legislative action to address the UI delays, on the other hand, is an artificially-created, or fake, crisis.' DOCUMENT: View a full transcript of Hintz's remarks here That simply doesn't ring true. There's plenty of blame to go around in a discussion of why this crisis existed and persisted, but that doesn't make it any less of a crisis. And it stemmed from an insufficient system that leaders from both parties failed to address for more than a decade. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle started a project to upgrade the system, but it was abandoned in 2007 after spending $23 million because of delays and cost overruns. His successor, Republican Gov. Scott Walker didn't revive the project in his eight years despite having full Republican control of the Legislature and audits that showed significant deficiencies.
|
Our ruling Criticizing Republican inaction in the face of a staggering Wisconsin unemployment system, Hintz said they are 'trying to create a fake unemployment insurance crisis.' There's a point to be made about Republican inaction throughout 2020, as the Wisconsin Legislature was one of the least active in the nation in the face of the pandemic. But Hintz's claim went beyond that - to a description that flies in the face of what many Wisconsinites have experienced. This is a very real crisis that has had a devastating impact on thousands of people around the state. We rate Hintz's claim False.
|
[
"112587-proof-16-e8e5fdf4aad286eee2991c9647a26a25.jpg"
] |
Republicans are 'trying to create a fake unemployment insurance crisis.
|
Contradiction
|
The floundering unemployment system has been an ongoing thorn in Wisconsin's side, as the outdated system has staggered beneath the weight of a pandemic-fueled surge in claims. It has provided yet another excuse for partisan finger-pointing, with Republicans blaming Democratic Gov. Tony Evers for not taking action to address the crisis, and Democrats noting Republicans haven't pursued substantive upgrades for the system through the eight years they controlled state government - or throughout 2020. RELATED: No, Evers cannot unilaterally OK a new unemployment system The sides came together - a rare occurrence in recent Wisconsin politics - on the first steps of an overhaul plan, which Evers signed into law Feb. 25, 2021. The project is expected to cost around $100 million and take years to complete. But the runup to that agreement included an interesting moment on the Assembly floor, as Minority Leader Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, took the microphone and chastised his Republican colleagues for the lack of action to that point. 'You guys can try to spin this and try to play politics with something like unemployment insurance, but it's cynical, and it's contrary to what we're here to do today,' Hintz said Feb. 23, noting steps Republicans have taken in recent years to add requirements for collecting unemployment. 'We need to have some urgency, we need to depoliticize the pandemic, and we need to be honest. 'You need to be honest with yourselves about what the obstacles to UI have been and quit trying to create a fake unemployment insurance crisis because of your guilt over all the things that you did over eight years.' The last line jumped out to us. Is it reasonable to claim Republicans are 'trying to create a fake unemployment insurance crisis'? The unemployment mess An audit released in September 2020 found fewer than 1% of calls to the Department of Workforce Development call centers were answered between March and June. That came shortly after Evers had asked the head of the agency to resign over the lingering backlog. RELATED: Evers right that unemployment benefits harder to access, but multiple factors involved in delays In November, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel detailed the devastating struggles of people who had been waiting months for their unemployment checks. For instance, Robert Johnson, a Milwaukee resident, had to sell a snowmobile, guns and a computer to pay bills, and he said his thoughts at one point turned to suicide. At that point in time, more than 74,000 Wisconsin residents were still caught in the backlog of unemployment claims, adding up to over 554,000 weekly claims in need of processing. In December, the Journal Sentinel reported 27,000 people were still stuck in the monthslong backlog. The article included the story of Angela Torres of Berlin, who had to file for bankruptcy while waiting since June for her claim to be processed. News outlets and legislators alike have been flooded with similar stories from people forced into impossible decisions by the system's failure to do timely processing. The Journal Sentinel in January detailed stories of people still waiting for their checks after the department asserted in December the backlog had been eliminated. In short, there's nothing fake about this crisis. Joanna Beilman-Dulin, a spokeswoman for Hintz, defended his phasing this way: 'To be clear: Rep. Hintz absolutely believes, and has consistently highlighted, that people not getting their unemployment benefits when they need them was and still is a crisis in Wisconsin,' she said in an email. 'People not getting their benefits more quickly over the last nine months because legislative Republicans chose to try to make Gov. Evers look bad rather than taking legislative action to address the UI delays, on the other hand, is an artificially-created, or fake, crisis.' DOCUMENT: View a full transcript of Hintz's remarks here That simply doesn't ring true. There's plenty of blame to go around in a discussion of why this crisis existed and persisted, but that doesn't make it any less of a crisis. And it stemmed from an insufficient system that leaders from both parties failed to address for more than a decade. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle started a project to upgrade the system, but it was abandoned in 2007 after spending $23 million because of delays and cost overruns. His successor, Republican Gov. Scott Walker didn't revive the project in his eight years despite having full Republican control of the Legislature and audits that showed significant deficiencies.
|
Our ruling Criticizing Republican inaction in the face of a staggering Wisconsin unemployment system, Hintz said they are 'trying to create a fake unemployment insurance crisis.' There's a point to be made about Republican inaction throughout 2020, as the Wisconsin Legislature was one of the least active in the nation in the face of the pandemic. But Hintz's claim went beyond that - to a description that flies in the face of what many Wisconsinites have experienced. This is a very real crisis that has had a devastating impact on thousands of people around the state. We rate Hintz's claim False.
|
[
"112587-proof-16-e8e5fdf4aad286eee2991c9647a26a25.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Exotic was pardoned.
|
Contradiction
|
Before Inauguration Day, a limousine was parked outside the office of the lawyer for Joseph Maldonado-Passage, the animal keeper known as Joe Exotic. The luxe ride was on standby to transport Exotic from federal prison in Fort Worth, Texas, where he's serving a sentence for animal abuse and murder for hire. Exotic, who became widely known to Americans as the subject of the Netflix documentary 'Tiger King', was hopeful that then-President Donald Trump would pardon him before he left office. Exotic's team was so confident he would be released that a hairdresser was waiting in the limo to style his hair before he was seen by the public. Some social media posts declared that it was a done deal. 'Joe Exotic is being pardoned,' one Jan. 20 post said. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Exotic was not among the 74 people that Trump pardoned, however. 'I was too innocent and too GAY to deserve a Prdon from Trump,' read a tweet from Exotic's account after President Joe Biden was sworn into office. 'Boy were we all stupid to believe he actually stood for Equal Justice? His corrupt friends all come first.' We rate claims that he was pardoned False.
|
We rate claims that he was pardoned False.
|
[] |
Says Barack Obama 'signed the law authorizing federal agents to snatch protesters off the streets' in Portland, Ore.
|
Contradiction
|
As President Donald Trump threatened to deploy federal agents beyond Portland, Ore., to other Democratic-led cities where crime has spiked amid protests, an image shared on Facebook claimed the controversial policy is actually a Democrat's doing. Above a photograph of a smiling Barack Obama, text in the image declares: 'When everyone just blames Trump but forgets who actually signed the law authorizing federal agents to snatch protestors off the streets in Portland.' 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 reference appears to be a law Obama signed regarding the military detention of suspected terrorists, not law-abiding domestic protesters. It doesn't apply to the current situation. Federal agents can detain law-breaking protesters, but they don't have authority to merely snatch them off the streets. In recent days, federal agents have cracked down on protesters in Portland, where some demonstrations have turned violent. The fact that many federal agents there are not wearing identifiable law enforcement gear and not driving law enforcement vehicles has raised legal questions about the agents' presence. Commenters on the Facebook post cited another image. It claims that Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, and that Section 1021 allows the president to detain anyone indefinitely for any reason. Law professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert in constitutional and national security law at the University of Texas, told PolitiFact he has seen the same reference, but it's erroneous. Vladeck said the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act signed by Obama includes controversial provisions concerning military detention of terrorism suspects - but it has nothing to do with what's happening in Portland. He said a provision known as Section 1315 - which is what the federal Department of Homeland Security says allows agents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection to enforce federal laws in Portland - was enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. That was signed into law by President George W. Bush. It is that provision that is cited by the Trump White House as the legal basis for the federal agents' actions. Federal agents can only enforce federal law, unless they are specifically authorized to enforce state law by the state, said Vanderbilt University law professor Christopher Slobogin, whose specialties include criminal law. 'So, federal agents cannot snatch any protester off the street, only those threatening federal property or personnel, or who are also committing some other federal crime such as drug trafficking or national security laws,' he said. Put another way, said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania who focuses on constitutional law, federal agents have authority to arrest people attacking a federal courthouse, but no government official has the authority to arrest peaceful protestors. We rate the statement False.
|
We rate the statement False.
|
[
"112607-proof-15-c6e7f38929c5f579800b2fa791796637.jpg"
] |
Says Barack Obama 'signed the law authorizing federal agents to snatch protesters off the streets' in Portland, Ore.
|
Contradiction
|
As President Donald Trump threatened to deploy federal agents beyond Portland, Ore., to other Democratic-led cities where crime has spiked amid protests, an image shared on Facebook claimed the controversial policy is actually a Democrat's doing. Above a photograph of a smiling Barack Obama, text in the image declares: 'When everyone just blames Trump but forgets who actually signed the law authorizing federal agents to snatch protestors off the streets in Portland.' 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 reference appears to be a law Obama signed regarding the military detention of suspected terrorists, not law-abiding domestic protesters. It doesn't apply to the current situation. Federal agents can detain law-breaking protesters, but they don't have authority to merely snatch them off the streets. In recent days, federal agents have cracked down on protesters in Portland, where some demonstrations have turned violent. The fact that many federal agents there are not wearing identifiable law enforcement gear and not driving law enforcement vehicles has raised legal questions about the agents' presence. Commenters on the Facebook post cited another image. It claims that Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, and that Section 1021 allows the president to detain anyone indefinitely for any reason. Law professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert in constitutional and national security law at the University of Texas, told PolitiFact he has seen the same reference, but it's erroneous. Vladeck said the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act signed by Obama includes controversial provisions concerning military detention of terrorism suspects - but it has nothing to do with what's happening in Portland. He said a provision known as Section 1315 - which is what the federal Department of Homeland Security says allows agents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection to enforce federal laws in Portland - was enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. That was signed into law by President George W. Bush. It is that provision that is cited by the Trump White House as the legal basis for the federal agents' actions. Federal agents can only enforce federal law, unless they are specifically authorized to enforce state law by the state, said Vanderbilt University law professor Christopher Slobogin, whose specialties include criminal law. 'So, federal agents cannot snatch any protester off the street, only those threatening federal property or personnel, or who are also committing some other federal crime such as drug trafficking or national security laws,' he said. Put another way, said Kermit Roosevelt, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania who focuses on constitutional law, federal agents have authority to arrest people attacking a federal courthouse, but no government official has the authority to arrest peaceful protestors. We rate the statement False.
|
We rate the statement False.
|
[
"112607-proof-15-c6e7f38929c5f579800b2fa791796637.jpg"
] |
Regarding the risks of coronavirus transmission on an airplane, 'It's as safe as an environment as you're going to find.
|
Contradiction
|
During an appearance on 'Face the Nation,' Southwest CEO Gary Kelly said that he believed it was safe for Americans to fly during the coronavirus epidemic and that a plane is as safe as any other space. 'I don't think the risk on an airplane is any greater risk than anywhere else, and in fact, you just look at the layered approach that we use. It's as safe as an environment as you're going to find,' said Kelly. We thought it was important to check this claim. After all, as states lift stay-at-home orders and summer weather starts to roll in, Americans are bound to start thinking about travel and whether it's safe to fly in the COVID age. We contacted Southwest Airlines to ask for the evidence to back up Kelly's claim. A company spokesperson pointed us to this statement -- the Southwest Promise - which outlines steps taken by the airline to protect employees and customers from COVID-19. The spokesperson also said that all of Southwest's flights are equipped with HEPA (High-Efficiency Particulate Air) filters, which also are used in hospitals to provide patients with clean air. All in all, it seems Kelly has some valid points about the safety of airplanes right now. But he also overplayed his hand. A matter of space So, how might someone contract COVID-19 on a plane? As with any setting that holds many people at the same time, there is a risk of virus transmission through the air as well as from high-touch surfaces. On an airplane, that could be a bathroom door handle. And it is easy to picture how this risk can be amplified on a long flight with other travelers. Case studies have shown that disease transmission occurs on flights. In 2003, for instance, 16 people tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS - a coronavirus closely related to COVID, after flying on a plane with a symptomatic passenger. The H1N1 virus, or swine flu, has also been documented as having spread between plane passengers. COVID-specific research is ongoing. There are specific issues concerning air travel. Qingyan Chen, a professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University who led Federal Aviation Administration-sponsored research examining infectious disease transmission on airplanes, said his team focused on certain specific ways an illness could spread on an aircraft: by direct contact with sick person, and by inhaling large droplets or aerosols expelled from a sick person. Large droplets are caused by forcing air out of your mouth, such as by breathing, talking, coughing or sneezing. A lot of the droplets are too large to stay airborne long, while others are very small and can stay airborne for hours. The small droplets are called aerosols. Though the air in an airplane is highly circulated, Chen said aerosols can still hang in the air for about three to four minutes before being sucked up by the ventilation system. Aerosols 'can be really dangerous. They have the highest risk,' said Chen. 'The small droplets can get to the seven rows around a sick passenger within four minutes.' However, Chen was quick to point out that his studies were focused on other airborne diseases, like flu, tuberculosis and SARS. Airlines maintain that there is little evidence that COVID-19 transmission has occurred on planes and that their ventilation systems are 99.9% effective at filtering out microscopic particles. There are also studies that suggest aerosols have a more limited reach, just two seats laterally and one row in front of and one row behind an infectious passenger. The International Air Transport Association, which represents 290 airlines from 120 countries, sent us details of a May 5 presentation by the group's medical adviser in which he referred to three 'studies' - actually two academic journal research letters and a news article - that showed little or no transmission of COVID-19 on flights that contained passengers who had the coronavirus. One of the letters, though, discussed a case in which a person flew from the Central African Republic to France and 'likely got infected on the plane.' 'The research that's been done over the years is that there's really not any significant difference in what you would have in a building such as we're sitting in today, in terms of air quality,' FAA chief Steve Dickson said at a March Capitol Hill hearing. Airlines for America, a U.S.-focused industry trade group, said the industry is 'taking substantial, proactive steps to protect passengers and employees,' including requiring that passengers and employees wear masks, implementing intensive cleaning protocols and changing policies such as the boarding of passengers from back to front and the reduced frequency of food and beverage services. (Kelly is on the board of directors for Airlines for America.) Degrees of risk But is that enough to justify Kelly's statement that airplanes are as safe as just about any other environment? Not really. The key difference is that you are able to make decisions about how much space to put between yourself and other people in almost all other locations, said Karen Hoffmann, the immediate past president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology. 'There are levels of what you can and can't do in an airplane,' said Hoffmann. 'If you're in your home, you can maintain no one else coming into your space. In the grocery store you can walk away from other people.' Chen agreed. 'In offices, you have ample space to stay far apart and keep your social distancing,' he said. 'But in the airplane, you cannot keep your social distance or else the airliners will not be profitable.' How do the infection-transmission risks of airplanes hold up in comparison with other modes of mass transportation? 'Compared to more cramped and less ventilated settings like subways and buses, the risks of getting sick on an airplane are lower overall - though you still face risk from whatever infections the people in your row may be carrying,' wrote Rachel Vreeman in an email. She is the director of the Arnhold Institute for Global Health at Mount Sinai's Icahn School of Medicine. But the research on this comparison predates COVID-19 and the impact of social distancing. The longer average length of time passengers spend on airplanes versus mass transit could also make it less safe, Vreeman added. With all of those factors taken into account, Kelly's statement unravels. Is an airplane potentially carrying an infectious passenger safer than your own home, where the only contact with a stranger you have is grabbing the takeout dinner order left on your porch by a delivery person? Clearly not. So, what about that summer vacation? It's clear that airlines do carry a transmission risk for illnesses like COVID-19, especially if you end up seated close to an infectious person. And people have less control over social distancing on airplanes than in other spaces. Overall, Chen said he thought it could be reasonably safe as long as every passenger and crew member wore a mask. He also suggested that passengers wipe down the surfaces around them and wash their hands, but said there would still be a risk. In late April, unions representing pilots and flight attendants sent letters to the U.S. Transportation Department , the Department of Health and Human Services, Congress and the White House detailing the risks faced by airline workers - as well as the number of infections and even deaths they have suffered - and urging increased safety protections. Shortly after, most major U.S. airlines, including JetBlue, Frontier, American, Delta, United and Southwest, announced they would now require customers to wear face masks during check-in and boarding, in flight and while deplaning. Hoffmann said that for a flight to be safe it would be crucial for social distancing rules to be in place, such as blocking out seats to space out travelers. 'Can you maintain that level of separation in an airplane?' she asked. 'I question whether that is something which can be accomplished.' Delta has started blocking out its middle seats. Some airlines are blocking the seats near where the flight attendants sit. United is not allowing customers to select seats next to each other or the middle seats. Both Southwest and JetBlue have said they will limit the number of passengers to ensure space between them. Vreeman pointed out, though, that there are times on an airplane or in an airport where it might be impossible to maintain the appropriate distance from others. 'When someone is walking in the aisle to the bathroom, for example, you might be stuck in close proximity - and that would increase the risks to both of you,' she wrote. And while all major U.S. airlines have announced increased efforts to disinfect and sanitize planes and eliminate or reduce food and beverage service, there is still a danger. 'Any time you are removing your mask or putting anything in your mouth, the risk of transmitting or being exposed to the virus will be higher,' wrote Vreeman. And, Vreeman argued, we are still in the containment stage of the pandemic, which means moving from one place to another is itself a public health risk. 'At this moment in American history, it is still very possible that someone infected with this very contagious virus could be in that space on the airplane with you - or that you could be carrying the virus yourself to a new location,' she wrote.
|
Our ruling The CEO of Southwest Airlines said during a TV interview that the risks of COVID-19 transmission on an airplane are no greater than anywhere else and that 'it's as safe as an environment as you're going to find.' Research shows that airplanes' strong ventilation systems do filter out virus particles. However, studies also indicate that some level of risk regarding the transmission of an infectious disease persists, particularly if you are seated near a contagious person. And passengers' ability to take steps to mitigate that risk is limited. Kelly's statement contained an element of truth regarding planes' air filtration and mitigation steps taken by the industry, but he took it a bit too far and left out key pieces of information and context. We rate it as Mostly False.
|
[] |
Stacks of bricks are showing up in Denver because 'the Evil Left is getting ready to destroy downtown.
|
Contradiction
|
Beware photos of bricks and claims that they're being staged for Election Day riots. Similar rumors during Black Lives Matter protests in the spring were largely unfounded, as were more recent ones about bricks appearing in Detroit, Mich. An image now being shared in connection with Denver is also being miscast as a nefarious plot. 'Hey look! Free bricks,' reads the description of a pile of bricks on a curb. 'Downtown Denver. Pic taken today.' One of the accounts that shared the image on Nov. 2 wrote, 'Look what is showing up in downtown Denver. Stacks of bricks with no construction near them. The Evil LEft is getting ready to destroy downtown Denver.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A Denver journalist went to the spot where the photo was taken, but there were no bricks there on Nov. 3, according to Colorado Public Radio. The ones that had been there were not randomly dropped off. Paul Hansen, director of facilities for the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, told the radio station that the bricks were left over from a nearby road construction project. He removed them himself. The Twitter account for the city and county of Denver also tweeted on Nov. 3 that 'there has been no evidence of any objects left to be used for non-peaceful protests.' We rate this Facebook post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
We rate this Facebook post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[] |
Says Joe Biden 'has officially lowered the age of consent to 5 years old.
|
Contradiction
|
Inflammatory social media posts are spreading online that falsely claim President Joe Biden's administration officially lowered the age of consent. Some say that the alleged bill passed Congress and lowers the age of consent to 5 years old. Other variations claim it was lowered to 8. One Instagram post displays text that reads: 'NEWS: Joe Biden has officially lowered the age of consent to 5 years old.' The caption adds: '#BreakingNews new age of consent Bill has just passed congress. It will be taking effect as soon as February 14, via @wikipedia !!' A similar post shared on Facebook features an image that purportedly shows a CNN article reporting that the Biden administration lowered the consenting age to 8 starting Feb. 16. 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.) These claims are false. We could not find any evidence of recent changes made by the Biden administration to the age at which an individual can legally consent to sexual activity. There are no legitimate news reports - by CNN, or any other outlet - of Congress passing such a bill. Each state has its own general age of consent that ranges from 16 to 18 years old and is usually defined in the states' statutory rape offenses, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. In some states, a 'close in age exemption' exists to decriminalize consensual sex between two individuals who are both under the age of consent. CNN confirmed that the article featured in the photo is fake. The screenshot appears to be from a real article by the news organization, but the headline, text and photo were replaced.
|
Our ruling Posts circulating on social media claim that Joe Biden officially lowered the age of consent to 5 years old. No bill has passed Congress or has the approval of the Biden administration that addresses lowering the age of consent to 5 or 8 years old in the U.S. Each state has its own general age of consent that ranges from 16 to 18 years old. CNN never reported this. The article screenshot was digitally manipulated. Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Says Joe Biden 'has officially lowered the age of consent to 5 years old.
|
Contradiction
|
Inflammatory social media posts are spreading online that falsely claim President Joe Biden's administration officially lowered the age of consent. Some say that the alleged bill passed Congress and lowers the age of consent to 5 years old. Other variations claim it was lowered to 8. One Instagram post displays text that reads: 'NEWS: Joe Biden has officially lowered the age of consent to 5 years old.' The caption adds: '#BreakingNews new age of consent Bill has just passed congress. It will be taking effect as soon as February 14, via @wikipedia !!' A similar post shared on Facebook features an image that purportedly shows a CNN article reporting that the Biden administration lowered the consenting age to 8 starting Feb. 16. 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.) These claims are false. We could not find any evidence of recent changes made by the Biden administration to the age at which an individual can legally consent to sexual activity. There are no legitimate news reports - by CNN, or any other outlet - of Congress passing such a bill. Each state has its own general age of consent that ranges from 16 to 18 years old and is usually defined in the states' statutory rape offenses, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. In some states, a 'close in age exemption' exists to decriminalize consensual sex between two individuals who are both under the age of consent. CNN confirmed that the article featured in the photo is fake. The screenshot appears to be from a real article by the news organization, but the headline, text and photo were replaced.
|
Our ruling Posts circulating on social media claim that Joe Biden officially lowered the age of consent to 5 years old. No bill has passed Congress or has the approval of the Biden administration that addresses lowering the age of consent to 5 or 8 years old in the U.S. Each state has its own general age of consent that ranges from 16 to 18 years old. CNN never reported this. The article screenshot was digitally manipulated. Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Says a photo shows Patrick Mahomes wearing a shirt that says, 'The Great State of Kansas.
|
Contradiction
|
After the Kansas City Chiefs won the Super Bowl on Feb. 2, the commander-in-chief fired off a tweet that he would perhaps soon regret. 'Congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs on a great game and a fantastic comeback,under immense pressure,' President Donald Trump wrote. 'You represented the Great State of Kansas and, in fact, the entire USA, so very well. Our Country is PROUD OF YOU!' But the Chiefs are based in and play in Kansas City, Mo., and Trump quickly deleted the message. When he tweeted again, he got their residence right. 'Congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs on a great game and a fantastic comeback under immense pressure. We are proud of you and the Great State of Missouri.' An image being shared online appears to show Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes poking fun at the president. Posted on Facebook on Feb. 5, the photo shows what looks like Mahomes wearing a shirt with the shape of the state of Missouri and the words 'The Great State of Kansas.' This post, which has been shared more than 15,000 times, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because the image has been doctored. Mahomes' marketing agent posted the original on Feb. 3. In that version, Mahomes' shirt says 'Showtime.' No states are pictured. 'Let the victory tour begin,' tweeted his agent, Jacquelyn Dahl. 'First stop: Disney World.' In another photo Dahl posted, Mahomes is posing with Chewbacca. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire!
|
We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Video shows police removing disabled protesters from the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
|
Contradiction
|
Footage from a 2017 demonstration has started circulating on Facebook, but not everyone realizes that it's old - and some people are confusing it with the events that happened in Washington on Jan. 6, when a mob of President Donald Trump's supporters stormed the Capitol. In a clip shared on Facebook, officers appear to be escorting a group of people - many in wheelchairs - down a hallway as they chant in unison. But they're not talking about the 2020 election results. They're saying: 'No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty.' 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 video is authentic. You can see some of the protesters in this C-SPAN footage from a September 2017 Senate hearing on health care legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. U.S. Capitol police arrested 181 people, including 15 people who were charged with disruption of Congress, the Associated Press reported at the time. We rate claims that footage from that demonstration happened during the siege at the Capitol on Jan. 6 as False.
|
We rate claims that footage from that demonstration happened during the siege at the Capitol on Jan. 6 as False.
|
[] |
During the Obama/Biden administration '18,000 people got clemency.
|
Contradiction
|
During a town hall in Miami, NBC's Lester Holt asked former Vice President Joe Biden about the Obama administration's record on criminal justice reform. Holt said that President Donald Trump and Biden's critics will say that Biden had almost 50 years in government and wasn't able to accomplish criminal justice reform including when the Obama/Biden administration had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. Biden pushed back with a defense of the Obama/Biden administration's efforts related to criminal justice. 'Yeah, we did. 18,000 people got clemency,' Biden said. 'He got two or three, what he's talking about.' We thought the 18,000 clemency figure for Obama sounded high based on our fact-check of a Facebook post comparing the pardon records of Obama and Trump. It was. We asked the Biden campaign about what he was referring to when he said 'he got two or three.' The Biden campaign didn't reply to our questions seeking clarification. Obama's clemency actions were a fraction of what Biden said Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says the president 'shall have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.' The general term for these presidential actions is clemency, but there are two types. A pardon, described as an 'expression of the President's forgiveness,' is issued after a person's conviction or after a person's sentence has been completed. It restores rights, such as the right to vote or run for office. A commutation reduces a sentence, either totally or partially, but it does not remove the conviction. Over his two terms, Obama issued 212 pardons and 1,715 commutations, for a total of 1,927 acts of clemency, according to federal Department of Justice data. The Biden campaign said he misspoke and meant to say about 1,800, but instead said 18,000. Trump has taken 38 clemency actions during his nearly four years in office, according to data through Sept. 8. Experts previously told us that Obama followed a policy of clemency actions aimed at low-level criminals who were given long sentences many years ago, and he followed recommendations made by the Justice Department. Trump has largely acted on his own based on recommendations from friends, celebrities, media personalities and business colleagues. In July, the White House announced that Trump commuted the sentence of longtime confidant Roger Stone on charges stemming from Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation. Trump's announcement occurred days before Stone was set to begin a 40-month prison sentence. In announcing Trump's clemency actions in February, the White House cited the election of Edward DeBartolo Jr. to the Pro Football Hall of Fame as an NFL team owner and his charitable contributions; called Michael Milken one of America's greatest financiers and noted his philanthropic work; and praised former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich for tutoring and mentoring fellow prisoners. (You can read more about their crimes here.) Trump has taken some steps toward criminal justice reform. In December 2018, Trump signed the First Step Act of 2018, which the Washington Post described as 'the most far-reaching overhaul of the criminal justice system in a generation.' RELATED: Super Bowl Ad Watch: Trump on criminal justice reform
|
Our ruling Biden said that during the Obama/Biden administration '18,000 people ... got clemency.' Biden misspoke and meant to say 1,800 got clemency. Federal justice department data showed Obama approved 1,927 clemency actions. We rate this statement False.
|
[
"112663-proof-27-588e484510df34c56af7be57b34f4dbe.jpg"
] |
During the Obama/Biden administration '18,000 people got clemency.
|
Contradiction
|
During a town hall in Miami, NBC's Lester Holt asked former Vice President Joe Biden about the Obama administration's record on criminal justice reform. Holt said that President Donald Trump and Biden's critics will say that Biden had almost 50 years in government and wasn't able to accomplish criminal justice reform including when the Obama/Biden administration had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. Biden pushed back with a defense of the Obama/Biden administration's efforts related to criminal justice. 'Yeah, we did. 18,000 people got clemency,' Biden said. 'He got two or three, what he's talking about.' We thought the 18,000 clemency figure for Obama sounded high based on our fact-check of a Facebook post comparing the pardon records of Obama and Trump. It was. We asked the Biden campaign about what he was referring to when he said 'he got two or three.' The Biden campaign didn't reply to our questions seeking clarification. Obama's clemency actions were a fraction of what Biden said Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says the president 'shall have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.' The general term for these presidential actions is clemency, but there are two types. A pardon, described as an 'expression of the President's forgiveness,' is issued after a person's conviction or after a person's sentence has been completed. It restores rights, such as the right to vote or run for office. A commutation reduces a sentence, either totally or partially, but it does not remove the conviction. Over his two terms, Obama issued 212 pardons and 1,715 commutations, for a total of 1,927 acts of clemency, according to federal Department of Justice data. The Biden campaign said he misspoke and meant to say about 1,800, but instead said 18,000. Trump has taken 38 clemency actions during his nearly four years in office, according to data through Sept. 8. Experts previously told us that Obama followed a policy of clemency actions aimed at low-level criminals who were given long sentences many years ago, and he followed recommendations made by the Justice Department. Trump has largely acted on his own based on recommendations from friends, celebrities, media personalities and business colleagues. In July, the White House announced that Trump commuted the sentence of longtime confidant Roger Stone on charges stemming from Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation. Trump's announcement occurred days before Stone was set to begin a 40-month prison sentence. In announcing Trump's clemency actions in February, the White House cited the election of Edward DeBartolo Jr. to the Pro Football Hall of Fame as an NFL team owner and his charitable contributions; called Michael Milken one of America's greatest financiers and noted his philanthropic work; and praised former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich for tutoring and mentoring fellow prisoners. (You can read more about their crimes here.) Trump has taken some steps toward criminal justice reform. In December 2018, Trump signed the First Step Act of 2018, which the Washington Post described as 'the most far-reaching overhaul of the criminal justice system in a generation.' RELATED: Super Bowl Ad Watch: Trump on criminal justice reform
|
Our ruling Biden said that during the Obama/Biden administration '18,000 people ... got clemency.' Biden misspoke and meant to say 1,800 got clemency. Federal justice department data showed Obama approved 1,927 clemency actions. We rate this statement False.
|
[
"112663-proof-27-588e484510df34c56af7be57b34f4dbe.jpg"
] |
'We do not have an approved (COVID) vaccine in America ... the Pfizer vaccine available in the U.S. is not FDA approved.
|
Contradiction
|
With COVID-19 still surging in parts of the country and booster shots being rolled out to strengthen immunity against the virus, many are still hesitant to get their first vaccine doses. A recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that a main motivator for those who recently got vaccinated is concerns about the delta variant, which is driving the third wave of the pandemic. Into that mix comes U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, who in an Oct. 4, 2021 appearance on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox News made a series of statements trashing the federal government's response to COVID, including one that is - at best - flat-out wrong. 'We do not have an approved vaccine in America,' Johnson said. 'They did it for the Comirnaty - it's available, I guess, in Europe, but the Pfizer vaccine available in the U.S. is not FDA approved - it's got an emergency use authorization.' He went on to add: 'I wrote a letter to the FDA on August 26th - they have still not given me an answer of why didn't they approve it? Why are they basically lying to the American public? That's a serious question to be asked - as we are destroying our health care system with these mandates.' Of course, the Pfizer vaccine has been approved by the FDA. It is now marketed as Comirnaty. Johnson is wrong on that point. Carlson did not correct Johnson's statement, instead offering: 'At some point, we're going to learn the depth of the lies and I think it's going to be shocking to everyone, even those of us who have a very low opinion of those making these decisions.' Let's dig in a little bit more. The FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine in August The federal U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine - the Pfizer-BioNTech shots - on August 23, 2021. Before that, each COVID-19 vaccine approved in the U.S. - Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson - had received an emergency use authorization (or EUA) from the FDA, following an expedited process because of the public health emergency the pandemic triggered. Due to the full FDA approval, the Pfizer vaccine is now marketed as Comirnaty; it's the same vaccine as the Pfizer vaccines that were available under the emergency use authorization. Comirnaty had previously been authorized in the European Union on May 28, 2021, according to Pfizer. In an email to PolitiFact Wisconsin, Johnson's staff said the senator wrote a letter to the FDA on Aug. 26 asking for clarification on 'extending the EUA for the vaccine used in the U.S. and ... granting the FDA approval of the Comirnaty vaccine used in Europe and other countries.' That's the letter Johnson referenced in the interview, saying of the FDA 'they have still not given me an answer of why didn't they approve it?' But they had approved it three days earlier. Johnson's confusion seems to extend from a footnote in the FDA documentation (one cited by his staff as evidence for the claim): 'Although COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older, there is not sufficient approved vaccine available for distribution to this population in its entirety at the time of reissuance of this EUA.' Thus, the emergency use authorization was extended for those ages 12 to 15, and later for those eligible for booster shots. To be sure, the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have not yet been fully approved and continue to be under the FDA's emergency use authorization. But Johnson in his interview said there were no approved vaccines in the U.S. and specifically - and wrongly - said the Pfizer vaccine has not been approved. The emergency use authorization does not mean manufacturers skipped important steps or blew safety standards. The COVID-19 vaccines are proven safe and effective, evaluated in tens of thousands of participants in clinical trials, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For emergency use authorization, the vaccines had to meet the FDA's scientific standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality. Moderna completed its submission for full FDA approval of its COVID-19 vaccine for ages 18 and older on Aug. 25, the company announced at the time.
|
Our ruling In an interview, Johnson claimed: 'We do not have an approved (COVID) vaccine in America ... the Pfizer vaccine available in the U.S. is not FDA approved.' That is entirely untrue. The Pfizer vaccine was approved for full use on Aug. 23, 2021 by the FDA, even though emergency authorization continues with some subsets of the population. We rate Johnson's claim False.
|
[
"112666-proof-10-0488b21065265f7cb2128a46d74a1aa7.jpg"
] |
'We do not have an approved (COVID) vaccine in America ... the Pfizer vaccine available in the U.S. is not FDA approved.
|
Contradiction
|
With COVID-19 still surging in parts of the country and booster shots being rolled out to strengthen immunity against the virus, many are still hesitant to get their first vaccine doses. A recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that a main motivator for those who recently got vaccinated is concerns about the delta variant, which is driving the third wave of the pandemic. Into that mix comes U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, who in an Oct. 4, 2021 appearance on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox News made a series of statements trashing the federal government's response to COVID, including one that is - at best - flat-out wrong. 'We do not have an approved vaccine in America,' Johnson said. 'They did it for the Comirnaty - it's available, I guess, in Europe, but the Pfizer vaccine available in the U.S. is not FDA approved - it's got an emergency use authorization.' He went on to add: 'I wrote a letter to the FDA on August 26th - they have still not given me an answer of why didn't they approve it? Why are they basically lying to the American public? That's a serious question to be asked - as we are destroying our health care system with these mandates.' Of course, the Pfizer vaccine has been approved by the FDA. It is now marketed as Comirnaty. Johnson is wrong on that point. Carlson did not correct Johnson's statement, instead offering: 'At some point, we're going to learn the depth of the lies and I think it's going to be shocking to everyone, even those of us who have a very low opinion of those making these decisions.' Let's dig in a little bit more. The FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine in August The federal U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine - the Pfizer-BioNTech shots - on August 23, 2021. Before that, each COVID-19 vaccine approved in the U.S. - Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson - had received an emergency use authorization (or EUA) from the FDA, following an expedited process because of the public health emergency the pandemic triggered. Due to the full FDA approval, the Pfizer vaccine is now marketed as Comirnaty; it's the same vaccine as the Pfizer vaccines that were available under the emergency use authorization. Comirnaty had previously been authorized in the European Union on May 28, 2021, according to Pfizer. In an email to PolitiFact Wisconsin, Johnson's staff said the senator wrote a letter to the FDA on Aug. 26 asking for clarification on 'extending the EUA for the vaccine used in the U.S. and ... granting the FDA approval of the Comirnaty vaccine used in Europe and other countries.' That's the letter Johnson referenced in the interview, saying of the FDA 'they have still not given me an answer of why didn't they approve it?' But they had approved it three days earlier. Johnson's confusion seems to extend from a footnote in the FDA documentation (one cited by his staff as evidence for the claim): 'Although COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older, there is not sufficient approved vaccine available for distribution to this population in its entirety at the time of reissuance of this EUA.' Thus, the emergency use authorization was extended for those ages 12 to 15, and later for those eligible for booster shots. To be sure, the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have not yet been fully approved and continue to be under the FDA's emergency use authorization. But Johnson in his interview said there were no approved vaccines in the U.S. and specifically - and wrongly - said the Pfizer vaccine has not been approved. The emergency use authorization does not mean manufacturers skipped important steps or blew safety standards. The COVID-19 vaccines are proven safe and effective, evaluated in tens of thousands of participants in clinical trials, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For emergency use authorization, the vaccines had to meet the FDA's scientific standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality. Moderna completed its submission for full FDA approval of its COVID-19 vaccine for ages 18 and older on Aug. 25, the company announced at the time.
|
Our ruling In an interview, Johnson claimed: 'We do not have an approved (COVID) vaccine in America ... the Pfizer vaccine available in the U.S. is not FDA approved.' That is entirely untrue. The Pfizer vaccine was approved for full use on Aug. 23, 2021 by the FDA, even though emergency authorization continues with some subsets of the population. We rate Johnson's claim False.
|
[
"112666-proof-10-0488b21065265f7cb2128a46d74a1aa7.jpg"
] |
'We do not have an approved (COVID) vaccine in America ... the Pfizer vaccine available in the U.S. is not FDA approved.
|
Contradiction
|
With COVID-19 still surging in parts of the country and booster shots being rolled out to strengthen immunity against the virus, many are still hesitant to get their first vaccine doses. A recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that a main motivator for those who recently got vaccinated is concerns about the delta variant, which is driving the third wave of the pandemic. Into that mix comes U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, who in an Oct. 4, 2021 appearance on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox News made a series of statements trashing the federal government's response to COVID, including one that is - at best - flat-out wrong. 'We do not have an approved vaccine in America,' Johnson said. 'They did it for the Comirnaty - it's available, I guess, in Europe, but the Pfizer vaccine available in the U.S. is not FDA approved - it's got an emergency use authorization.' He went on to add: 'I wrote a letter to the FDA on August 26th - they have still not given me an answer of why didn't they approve it? Why are they basically lying to the American public? That's a serious question to be asked - as we are destroying our health care system with these mandates.' Of course, the Pfizer vaccine has been approved by the FDA. It is now marketed as Comirnaty. Johnson is wrong on that point. Carlson did not correct Johnson's statement, instead offering: 'At some point, we're going to learn the depth of the lies and I think it's going to be shocking to everyone, even those of us who have a very low opinion of those making these decisions.' Let's dig in a little bit more. The FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine in August The federal U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine - the Pfizer-BioNTech shots - on August 23, 2021. Before that, each COVID-19 vaccine approved in the U.S. - Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson - had received an emergency use authorization (or EUA) from the FDA, following an expedited process because of the public health emergency the pandemic triggered. Due to the full FDA approval, the Pfizer vaccine is now marketed as Comirnaty; it's the same vaccine as the Pfizer vaccines that were available under the emergency use authorization. Comirnaty had previously been authorized in the European Union on May 28, 2021, according to Pfizer. In an email to PolitiFact Wisconsin, Johnson's staff said the senator wrote a letter to the FDA on Aug. 26 asking for clarification on 'extending the EUA for the vaccine used in the U.S. and ... granting the FDA approval of the Comirnaty vaccine used in Europe and other countries.' That's the letter Johnson referenced in the interview, saying of the FDA 'they have still not given me an answer of why didn't they approve it?' But they had approved it three days earlier. Johnson's confusion seems to extend from a footnote in the FDA documentation (one cited by his staff as evidence for the claim): 'Although COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older, there is not sufficient approved vaccine available for distribution to this population in its entirety at the time of reissuance of this EUA.' Thus, the emergency use authorization was extended for those ages 12 to 15, and later for those eligible for booster shots. To be sure, the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have not yet been fully approved and continue to be under the FDA's emergency use authorization. But Johnson in his interview said there were no approved vaccines in the U.S. and specifically - and wrongly - said the Pfizer vaccine has not been approved. The emergency use authorization does not mean manufacturers skipped important steps or blew safety standards. The COVID-19 vaccines are proven safe and effective, evaluated in tens of thousands of participants in clinical trials, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For emergency use authorization, the vaccines had to meet the FDA's scientific standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality. Moderna completed its submission for full FDA approval of its COVID-19 vaccine for ages 18 and older on Aug. 25, the company announced at the time.
|
Our ruling In an interview, Johnson claimed: 'We do not have an approved (COVID) vaccine in America ... the Pfizer vaccine available in the U.S. is not FDA approved.' That is entirely untrue. The Pfizer vaccine was approved for full use on Aug. 23, 2021 by the FDA, even though emergency authorization continues with some subsets of the population. We rate Johnson's claim False.
|
[
"112666-proof-10-0488b21065265f7cb2128a46d74a1aa7.jpg"
] |
Says you can get a free $100 Lowe's coupon by answering a few questions
|
Contradiction
|
As more people lose their jobs as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, the prospect of free money for grocery and home improvement stores sounds pretty great. One link being shared on social media claims you can 'answer a few questions to get free $100 coupon' to Lowe's. Another page, which has since been deleted, said everyone who shared the url - a long series of numbers and letters, just like the link about Lowe's - would be sent a $50 coupon from Kroger. The occasion? Anniversaries for both companies, purportedly. Both 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.) Lowe's told us the company is not currently offering free $100 coupons. 'We recommend the consumers only trust communications from Lowe's Twitter and Lowes.com,' said spokesperson Amy Allison. As it turns out, the anniversary scam is a long-running one. Snopes debunked offers of a $150 coupon in 2017, a $50 coupon in 2017 and a $100 coupon back in 2015. The Better Business Bureau has warned before that 'it's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. ... Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.' We rate these posts False.
|
We rate these posts False.
|
[] |
Says Tim Tebow wrote, 'The government might be preparing us for a cashless society, but it was predicted by the Bible.
|
Contradiction
|
In recent years there's been much consideration of a potential cash-free future. Just look at these stories from the New York Times, Fortune, USA Today and Marketplace. But don't be so quick to add former Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow to the list of writers weighing in. 'Tim Tebow posted this morning,' tops several paragraphs being shared lately on social media. The words attributed to the Heisman Trophy winner begin: 'The government might be preparing us for a cashless society, but it was predicted by the Bible. Already designed! If put into place, this just means our time is getting closer. I'm not worried about what is going to happen, but just looking up and getting ready. While the devil is preparing people for the Anti Christ, God is preparing people for the Rapture.' 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 Tebow via his official website and did not immediately hear back. But we couldn't find any credible source attributing this to him. Snopes reported that a representative for Tebow told the fact-checking organization that he 'did not author this.' Tebow's Facebook page, which regularly refers to God and quotes from the Bible, has no trace of such a statement. It doesn't appear on his Instagram page or his Twitter account, either. Searching for the text of the statement attributed to Tebow, we found it posted as early as last year without his name attached - in this Facebook post from July 2020, for example, and in this tweet thread. Some people believe that the Bible does predict a cashless society, as the Facebook post says. Revelation 13:17 says, 'No one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.' But we're not here to weigh in biblical interpretations. We're judging whether this post is accurately attributed to Tebow, and we rate claims that he authored it False.
|
But we're not here to weigh in biblical interpretations. We're judging whether this post is accurately attributed to Tebow, and we rate claims that he authored it False.
|
[] |
'Due to the large number of people who will refuse the forthcoming COVID-19 vaccine because it will include tracking microchips, the Gates Foundation is now spending billions to ensure that all medical and dental injections and procedures include the chips.
|
Contradiction
|
Unfounded fears about governments microchipping citizens predate the new coronavirus, but we've debunked chipping claims inspired by the pandemic, too. To recap: The United States isn't developing a vaccine with a chip to track people, Democrats aren't pushing for 'an implanted microchip in humans and everyone to be vaccinated,' and Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, did not say every American should be microchipped.' A recent Facebook post ups the ante, alleging that Americans will need to forgo any medical care if they want to avoid getting chipped. 'Due to the large number of people who will refuse the forthcoming COVID-19 vaccine because it will include tracking microchips, the Gates Foundation is now spending billions to ensure that all medical and dental injections and procedures include the chips so that they only way to avoid being 'chipped' will be to refuse any and all dental and medical treatment,' the post says. 'Please repost this information in as many media as possible to help this important warning to go viral. They will not be allowed to pull the wool over our eyes if freedom loving independent thinkers everywhere stand up to them and make the world aware of this scheme.' More than 44,000 people heeded this call and shared the post, which was 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 also drew hundreds of comments, and not all of them were charitable. Between vows from people saying they wouldn't be chipped, many users called him crazy among other names we won't print here. 'Fake made up post!' someone wrote. We think the person who published the claim might agree. On May 17, the account shared this quote attributed to 'Metallica drummer Bob Dylan' (who bears a startling resemblance to Prince): 'Don't believe everything you read on the internet about COVID-19.' Microchip implants for health care purposes is not a new idea, but we found nothing to support the claim that the Gates Foundation is spending billions to ensure all medical procedures include microchips. Other fact-checkers, like FactCheck.org and Reuters, have already debunked claims that Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder-turned-philanthropist, plans to use microchip implants against the coronavirus. Research unrelated to coronavirus and funded by the Gates Foundation proposed using invisible dye that could be read by a smartphone to record vaccination history on patients' skin. The idea was proposed to help strengthen vaccination record-keeping in developing countries. But Kevin McHugh, a Rice University bioengineering professor who worked on the study, told Reuters that 'the quantum dot dye technology is not a microchip or human-implantable capsule, and to my knowledge are no plans to use this for coronavirus.' Dr. Wilbur Chen, an infectious disease scientist at the University of Maryland's Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, previously told PolitiFact that injecting someone with a vaccine containing a small radio-frequency identification technology chip is preposterous. 'Even the smallest version of RFID chips are rather large that none would ever fit into a vaccine needle - these are very small-bore needles,' he said. 'The RFID chips that are routinely used for the tracking of pets are as small as a grain of rice ... or in other words, they are as large as a grain of rice, and no vaccine needles in use are that large in diameter.' Though tracking technology has been used to combat the coronavirus - in Singapore, China and South Korea, for example - human-rights groups have privacy concerns. But any worries about widespread microchipping don't reflect what's actually happening. 'The fear of insertion of tracking chips and other things like that into our bodies has been a longstanding bogeyman for theorists,' said Mark Fenster, a University of Florida law professor who has written extensively about conspiracy theorists and spoke to PolitiFact for another microchipping fact-check. 'There is a lot of tracking that goes on, but the suggestion that it's being used in this manner and this way seems absurd. This comes from the stream of conspiracy theories of the last 50 years. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with conspiracy theories.' We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
'Wisconsin took a break, and when they returned, Biden coincidentally came back ahead by 100k.
|
Contradiction
|
Misinformation about Wisconsin is flooding social media after yet another presidential race was decided in the key battleground state by a razor-thin margin. Democratic nominee Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump by roughly 20,000 votes in Wisconsin, according to unofficial results reported by the Associated Press. Trump beat Hillary Clinton in a similarly close battle for the state four years ago, and Biden's win will undoubtedly shape the outcome of the national race. But an influx of absentee ballots cast in Wisconsin because of the coronavirus pandemic meant results took longer than usual to come in - allowing rumors and false information to fill in the gaps. 'Wisconsin took a break, and when they returned, Biden coincidentally came back ahead by 100k,' stated a tweet posted early on Nov. 4, 2020. The tweet was cited in a viral Facebook post that claimed several key states with Democratic governors took a break from counting votes on election night. 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). And no part of it is accurate. Election results in Wisconsin Election officials worked all night and into the early morning to count more than 3.2 million ballots, said Reid Magney, public information officer for the Wisconsin Elections Commission. That included an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots that workers could not start counting until Election Day, per state law. By the morning of the election, more than 1.9 million people had returned absentee ballots. Trump enjoyed a lead of more than 100,000 votes in Wisconsin early in the night, but the picture quickly changed after the City of Milwaukee's central count finished processing mail-in votes around 3:30 a.m. Milwaukee and 38 other municipalities tally all of their absentee ballots at one location, instead of individual polling places. It's perfectly legal, but has the practical effect of large numbers being added at the same time. Other municipalities in the state count absentee ballots at the precinct level, so they are tallied along with in-person votes. The late boost for Biden from Milwaukee was expected, especially because mail-in ballots tend to skew toward Democrats and Milwaukee is a Democratic stronghold. After Milwaukee reported those returns, Biden jumped ahead of Trump by about 8,000 votes. His lead widened to around 20,000 after Green Bay reported in-person and absentee results and Kenosha finished its tally. So, two things: Biden was never up by 100,000 votes, and he will certainly not win Wisconsin by that much. It's also ridiculous to suggest Wisconsin election officials 'took a break' when they spent all night processing ballots. A delay in results does not mean the counting process stopped. What's more, people were permitted to observe the counting of absentee ballots in Wisconsin; and Green Bay and Milwaukee even live-streamed the process online. 'I think that it's insulting for local election officials to say yesterday's election was anything but an incredible success that was the result of years of preparation and meticulously, carefully following the law,' Meagan Wolfe, the commission's director, said in a news conference the morning after the election. The Facebook poster did not respond to a request for comment.
|
Our ruling A viral Facebook post cites a tweet that claimed, 'Wisconsin took a break, and when they returned, Biden coincidentally came back ahead by 100k.' The Democratic nominee never held that great of a lead in Wisconsin, even when the Associated Press called the race. And some of the state's election results arrived late due to an influx of mail-in ballots - not because officials 'took a break.' We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'Wisconsin took a break, and when they returned, Biden coincidentally came back ahead by 100k.
|
Contradiction
|
Misinformation about Wisconsin is flooding social media after yet another presidential race was decided in the key battleground state by a razor-thin margin. Democratic nominee Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump by roughly 20,000 votes in Wisconsin, according to unofficial results reported by the Associated Press. Trump beat Hillary Clinton in a similarly close battle for the state four years ago, and Biden's win will undoubtedly shape the outcome of the national race. But an influx of absentee ballots cast in Wisconsin because of the coronavirus pandemic meant results took longer than usual to come in - allowing rumors and false information to fill in the gaps. 'Wisconsin took a break, and when they returned, Biden coincidentally came back ahead by 100k,' stated a tweet posted early on Nov. 4, 2020. The tweet was cited in a viral Facebook post that claimed several key states with Democratic governors took a break from counting votes on election night. 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). And no part of it is accurate. Election results in Wisconsin Election officials worked all night and into the early morning to count more than 3.2 million ballots, said Reid Magney, public information officer for the Wisconsin Elections Commission. That included an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots that workers could not start counting until Election Day, per state law. By the morning of the election, more than 1.9 million people had returned absentee ballots. Trump enjoyed a lead of more than 100,000 votes in Wisconsin early in the night, but the picture quickly changed after the City of Milwaukee's central count finished processing mail-in votes around 3:30 a.m. Milwaukee and 38 other municipalities tally all of their absentee ballots at one location, instead of individual polling places. It's perfectly legal, but has the practical effect of large numbers being added at the same time. Other municipalities in the state count absentee ballots at the precinct level, so they are tallied along with in-person votes. The late boost for Biden from Milwaukee was expected, especially because mail-in ballots tend to skew toward Democrats and Milwaukee is a Democratic stronghold. After Milwaukee reported those returns, Biden jumped ahead of Trump by about 8,000 votes. His lead widened to around 20,000 after Green Bay reported in-person and absentee results and Kenosha finished its tally. So, two things: Biden was never up by 100,000 votes, and he will certainly not win Wisconsin by that much. It's also ridiculous to suggest Wisconsin election officials 'took a break' when they spent all night processing ballots. A delay in results does not mean the counting process stopped. What's more, people were permitted to observe the counting of absentee ballots in Wisconsin; and Green Bay and Milwaukee even live-streamed the process online. 'I think that it's insulting for local election officials to say yesterday's election was anything but an incredible success that was the result of years of preparation and meticulously, carefully following the law,' Meagan Wolfe, the commission's director, said in a news conference the morning after the election. The Facebook poster did not respond to a request for comment.
|
Our ruling A viral Facebook post cites a tweet that claimed, 'Wisconsin took a break, and when they returned, Biden coincidentally came back ahead by 100k.' The Democratic nominee never held that great of a lead in Wisconsin, even when the Associated Press called the race. And some of the state's election results arrived late due to an influx of mail-in ballots - not because officials 'took a break.' We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment ... Was aiming scanner.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump tweeted a baseless conspiracy theory about the 75-year-old protester shoved to the ground by police in Buffalo, N.Y., accusing the man whose injury was captured on video of being a member of antifa, trying to disrupt police communications and faking his fall. 'Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur,' Trump said in the June 9 tweet, which he posted with no supporting evidence. '75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment.' Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment. @OANN I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2020 The president referenced a TV segment from One America News Network, a cable network that has 'repeatedly published false or misleading information,' according to NewGuard, a company that monitors news outlets. 'I watched,' Trump wrote. 'He fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?' The OANN segment cited a conservative blog post. It claimed Gugino was 'using his phone as a capture scanner' to 'monitor the location of police' before he was pushed to the ground. Here's the absolutely insane OAN report that Trump is referencing: 'The latest tensions in the Buffalo police department could be the result of a false flag provocation by far left group antifa' pic.twitter.com/d709XfSj8U- Lis Power (@LisPower1) June 9, 2020 Sage Green, who knows Gugino through activism work in Buffalo, said she never knew him to be related to any antifa-type work, nor to be savvy with technology. 'I've never known him to be someone who has any radical tactics,' Green said. 'He's not the troublemaker in the crowd.' There's no evidence that Gugino was trying to 'scan police communications' before he was shoved - or that Gugino's fall, which left him bleeding from his ear and resulted in second-degree assault charges against two officers, was part of 'a set up.' 'Not a piece of proof,' said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a press conference. Kelly V. Zarcone, Gugino's attorney, said in a statement that Gugino has 'always been a peaceful protester.' 'No one from law enforcement has even suggested anything otherwise, so we are at a loss to understand why the president of the United States would make such dark, dangerous, and untrue accusations against him,' she said. The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment. Revisiting what happened A roughly 40-second video of the incident - which Buffalo police initially described as a 'skirmish involving protesters' in which Gugino 'tripped and fell' - was captured by WBFO's Mike Desmond on June 4. The video is graphic, but can be viewed here. The video shows Gugino approaching a line of police officers with a phone in his right hand and what looks like a helmet in his left. Gugino stands face-to-face with a pair of officers and talks for a few seconds as a third officer shouts for Gugino to move. One officer shoves Gugino with a baton while another pushes him with his hand. The force sends Gugino stumbling backward and hitting the ground hard. 'He's bleeding out of his ear,' a person says repeatedly as Gugino lays motionless and blood pools on the pavement beneath him. Zarcone, Gugino's attorney, said Gugino remains hospitalized. The incident is under both internal affairs and criminal investigations, and the two officers facing charges have been suspended without pay. More than 50 members of the Buffalo police riot response team have since resigned from the unit but are still working for the department. The Buffalo Police Department and a spokesperson for the Erie County district attorney's office both told us they could not comment on the case pending investigations. What we know about Gugino Gugino has worked on causes around Buffalo through PUSH Buffalo, the Western New York Peace Center and other organizations. The Buffalo News reported that he is also involved in Catholic peace activism and nuclear disarmament. Three activists who have worked with Gugino described him as willing to be involved in a range of social justice causes but said he was not an agitator. 'From what I know of Martin, he has never spoken to me with being affiliated with antifa-type work,' Green said. In a statement to PolitiFact, OANN's Pearson Sharp said the network is working on another report detailing Gugino's background as an activist. 'We have found substantial evidence that suggests Martin Gugino is, if not a professional provocateur, at least an enthusiastic one,' Sharp told PolitiFact, citing past tweets, arrest records, and comments he said others made about Gugino. The blog post cited by OANN includes a since-deleted tweet from Gugino saying, 'F--- the police.' The Buffalo News reported that the Twitter account belonged to Gugino. Another tweet featured an anti-police hashtag. The blog post also linked to Gugino's personal blog, where he says he's been arrested - but not convicted - for participating in prior protests. OANN's Sharp said Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown called Gugino an 'agitator' and a 'key and major instigator,' adding that Brown wouldn't 'single someone out like that without good reason.' But in those comments, Brown was talking about a different protester. Was Gugino trying to scan police communications? Trump's claims that the incident was a 'set up' and that Gugino was waving his phone in an attempt to scan police communications are similarly unsubstantiated, with the only proof being that Gugino was holding a phone at the moment that he was pushed. There are several mobile apps that let users listen to police scanners, and as the Washington Post noted, the Buffalo police radio frequencies are publicly available online. These apps don't give users the ability to 'black out the equipment,' according to BBC News. Green, Gugino's friend, said she didn't think Gugino had any capability to interfere with police communications. The OANN segment said 'newly released videos appear to show Gugino using a police tracker on his phone, trying to scan police communications.' But the segment showed only an edited version of the original video that was slowed down. The OANN segment - and the blog post it pulled from - also highlighted a photo of Gugino standing beside WBFO's Desmond, as well as a separate Twitter video that shows an unidentified protester saying, 'He's looking to get punched in the face.' But that doesn't substantiate Trump's claims about a 'set up' and a 'scanner,' either.
|
Our ruling Trump said, 'Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment ... Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?' This is an unsubstantiated conspiracy that made its way from a conservative blog site to Trump via One America News Network. There's no evidence that Gugino is connected to antifa, that he was 'aiming (a) scanner' or that he was staging his fall as 'a set up.' We rate this statement False.
|
[
"112747-proof-24-cb64919cc4f7f165249d6eb0b149348f.jpg"
] |
'Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment ... Was aiming scanner.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump tweeted a baseless conspiracy theory about the 75-year-old protester shoved to the ground by police in Buffalo, N.Y., accusing the man whose injury was captured on video of being a member of antifa, trying to disrupt police communications and faking his fall. 'Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur,' Trump said in the June 9 tweet, which he posted with no supporting evidence. '75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment.' Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment. @OANN I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2020 The president referenced a TV segment from One America News Network, a cable network that has 'repeatedly published false or misleading information,' according to NewGuard, a company that monitors news outlets. 'I watched,' Trump wrote. 'He fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?' The OANN segment cited a conservative blog post. It claimed Gugino was 'using his phone as a capture scanner' to 'monitor the location of police' before he was pushed to the ground. Here's the absolutely insane OAN report that Trump is referencing: 'The latest tensions in the Buffalo police department could be the result of a false flag provocation by far left group antifa' pic.twitter.com/d709XfSj8U- Lis Power (@LisPower1) June 9, 2020 Sage Green, who knows Gugino through activism work in Buffalo, said she never knew him to be related to any antifa-type work, nor to be savvy with technology. 'I've never known him to be someone who has any radical tactics,' Green said. 'He's not the troublemaker in the crowd.' There's no evidence that Gugino was trying to 'scan police communications' before he was shoved - or that Gugino's fall, which left him bleeding from his ear and resulted in second-degree assault charges against two officers, was part of 'a set up.' 'Not a piece of proof,' said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a press conference. Kelly V. Zarcone, Gugino's attorney, said in a statement that Gugino has 'always been a peaceful protester.' 'No one from law enforcement has even suggested anything otherwise, so we are at a loss to understand why the president of the United States would make such dark, dangerous, and untrue accusations against him,' she said. The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment. Revisiting what happened A roughly 40-second video of the incident - which Buffalo police initially described as a 'skirmish involving protesters' in which Gugino 'tripped and fell' - was captured by WBFO's Mike Desmond on June 4. The video is graphic, but can be viewed here. The video shows Gugino approaching a line of police officers with a phone in his right hand and what looks like a helmet in his left. Gugino stands face-to-face with a pair of officers and talks for a few seconds as a third officer shouts for Gugino to move. One officer shoves Gugino with a baton while another pushes him with his hand. The force sends Gugino stumbling backward and hitting the ground hard. 'He's bleeding out of his ear,' a person says repeatedly as Gugino lays motionless and blood pools on the pavement beneath him. Zarcone, Gugino's attorney, said Gugino remains hospitalized. The incident is under both internal affairs and criminal investigations, and the two officers facing charges have been suspended without pay. More than 50 members of the Buffalo police riot response team have since resigned from the unit but are still working for the department. The Buffalo Police Department and a spokesperson for the Erie County district attorney's office both told us they could not comment on the case pending investigations. What we know about Gugino Gugino has worked on causes around Buffalo through PUSH Buffalo, the Western New York Peace Center and other organizations. The Buffalo News reported that he is also involved in Catholic peace activism and nuclear disarmament. Three activists who have worked with Gugino described him as willing to be involved in a range of social justice causes but said he was not an agitator. 'From what I know of Martin, he has never spoken to me with being affiliated with antifa-type work,' Green said. In a statement to PolitiFact, OANN's Pearson Sharp said the network is working on another report detailing Gugino's background as an activist. 'We have found substantial evidence that suggests Martin Gugino is, if not a professional provocateur, at least an enthusiastic one,' Sharp told PolitiFact, citing past tweets, arrest records, and comments he said others made about Gugino. The blog post cited by OANN includes a since-deleted tweet from Gugino saying, 'F--- the police.' The Buffalo News reported that the Twitter account belonged to Gugino. Another tweet featured an anti-police hashtag. The blog post also linked to Gugino's personal blog, where he says he's been arrested - but not convicted - for participating in prior protests. OANN's Sharp said Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown called Gugino an 'agitator' and a 'key and major instigator,' adding that Brown wouldn't 'single someone out like that without good reason.' But in those comments, Brown was talking about a different protester. Was Gugino trying to scan police communications? Trump's claims that the incident was a 'set up' and that Gugino was waving his phone in an attempt to scan police communications are similarly unsubstantiated, with the only proof being that Gugino was holding a phone at the moment that he was pushed. There are several mobile apps that let users listen to police scanners, and as the Washington Post noted, the Buffalo police radio frequencies are publicly available online. These apps don't give users the ability to 'black out the equipment,' according to BBC News. Green, Gugino's friend, said she didn't think Gugino had any capability to interfere with police communications. The OANN segment said 'newly released videos appear to show Gugino using a police tracker on his phone, trying to scan police communications.' But the segment showed only an edited version of the original video that was slowed down. The OANN segment - and the blog post it pulled from - also highlighted a photo of Gugino standing beside WBFO's Desmond, as well as a separate Twitter video that shows an unidentified protester saying, 'He's looking to get punched in the face.' But that doesn't substantiate Trump's claims about a 'set up' and a 'scanner,' either.
|
Our ruling Trump said, 'Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment ... Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?' This is an unsubstantiated conspiracy that made its way from a conservative blog site to Trump via One America News Network. There's no evidence that Gugino is connected to antifa, that he was 'aiming (a) scanner' or that he was staging his fall as 'a set up.' We rate this statement False.
|
[
"112747-proof-24-cb64919cc4f7f165249d6eb0b149348f.jpg"
] |
'Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment ... Was aiming scanner.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump tweeted a baseless conspiracy theory about the 75-year-old protester shoved to the ground by police in Buffalo, N.Y., accusing the man whose injury was captured on video of being a member of antifa, trying to disrupt police communications and faking his fall. 'Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur,' Trump said in the June 9 tweet, which he posted with no supporting evidence. '75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment.' Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment. @OANN I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2020 The president referenced a TV segment from One America News Network, a cable network that has 'repeatedly published false or misleading information,' according to NewGuard, a company that monitors news outlets. 'I watched,' Trump wrote. 'He fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?' The OANN segment cited a conservative blog post. It claimed Gugino was 'using his phone as a capture scanner' to 'monitor the location of police' before he was pushed to the ground. Here's the absolutely insane OAN report that Trump is referencing: 'The latest tensions in the Buffalo police department could be the result of a false flag provocation by far left group antifa' pic.twitter.com/d709XfSj8U- Lis Power (@LisPower1) June 9, 2020 Sage Green, who knows Gugino through activism work in Buffalo, said she never knew him to be related to any antifa-type work, nor to be savvy with technology. 'I've never known him to be someone who has any radical tactics,' Green said. 'He's not the troublemaker in the crowd.' There's no evidence that Gugino was trying to 'scan police communications' before he was shoved - or that Gugino's fall, which left him bleeding from his ear and resulted in second-degree assault charges against two officers, was part of 'a set up.' 'Not a piece of proof,' said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a press conference. Kelly V. Zarcone, Gugino's attorney, said in a statement that Gugino has 'always been a peaceful protester.' 'No one from law enforcement has even suggested anything otherwise, so we are at a loss to understand why the president of the United States would make such dark, dangerous, and untrue accusations against him,' she said. The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment. Revisiting what happened A roughly 40-second video of the incident - which Buffalo police initially described as a 'skirmish involving protesters' in which Gugino 'tripped and fell' - was captured by WBFO's Mike Desmond on June 4. The video is graphic, but can be viewed here. The video shows Gugino approaching a line of police officers with a phone in his right hand and what looks like a helmet in his left. Gugino stands face-to-face with a pair of officers and talks for a few seconds as a third officer shouts for Gugino to move. One officer shoves Gugino with a baton while another pushes him with his hand. The force sends Gugino stumbling backward and hitting the ground hard. 'He's bleeding out of his ear,' a person says repeatedly as Gugino lays motionless and blood pools on the pavement beneath him. Zarcone, Gugino's attorney, said Gugino remains hospitalized. The incident is under both internal affairs and criminal investigations, and the two officers facing charges have been suspended without pay. More than 50 members of the Buffalo police riot response team have since resigned from the unit but are still working for the department. The Buffalo Police Department and a spokesperson for the Erie County district attorney's office both told us they could not comment on the case pending investigations. What we know about Gugino Gugino has worked on causes around Buffalo through PUSH Buffalo, the Western New York Peace Center and other organizations. The Buffalo News reported that he is also involved in Catholic peace activism and nuclear disarmament. Three activists who have worked with Gugino described him as willing to be involved in a range of social justice causes but said he was not an agitator. 'From what I know of Martin, he has never spoken to me with being affiliated with antifa-type work,' Green said. In a statement to PolitiFact, OANN's Pearson Sharp said the network is working on another report detailing Gugino's background as an activist. 'We have found substantial evidence that suggests Martin Gugino is, if not a professional provocateur, at least an enthusiastic one,' Sharp told PolitiFact, citing past tweets, arrest records, and comments he said others made about Gugino. The blog post cited by OANN includes a since-deleted tweet from Gugino saying, 'F--- the police.' The Buffalo News reported that the Twitter account belonged to Gugino. Another tweet featured an anti-police hashtag. The blog post also linked to Gugino's personal blog, where he says he's been arrested - but not convicted - for participating in prior protests. OANN's Sharp said Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown called Gugino an 'agitator' and a 'key and major instigator,' adding that Brown wouldn't 'single someone out like that without good reason.' But in those comments, Brown was talking about a different protester. Was Gugino trying to scan police communications? Trump's claims that the incident was a 'set up' and that Gugino was waving his phone in an attempt to scan police communications are similarly unsubstantiated, with the only proof being that Gugino was holding a phone at the moment that he was pushed. There are several mobile apps that let users listen to police scanners, and as the Washington Post noted, the Buffalo police radio frequencies are publicly available online. These apps don't give users the ability to 'black out the equipment,' according to BBC News. Green, Gugino's friend, said she didn't think Gugino had any capability to interfere with police communications. The OANN segment said 'newly released videos appear to show Gugino using a police tracker on his phone, trying to scan police communications.' But the segment showed only an edited version of the original video that was slowed down. The OANN segment - and the blog post it pulled from - also highlighted a photo of Gugino standing beside WBFO's Desmond, as well as a separate Twitter video that shows an unidentified protester saying, 'He's looking to get punched in the face.' But that doesn't substantiate Trump's claims about a 'set up' and a 'scanner,' either.
|
Our ruling Trump said, 'Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment ... Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?' This is an unsubstantiated conspiracy that made its way from a conservative blog site to Trump via One America News Network. There's no evidence that Gugino is connected to antifa, that he was 'aiming (a) scanner' or that he was staging his fall as 'a set up.' We rate this statement False.
|
[
"112747-proof-24-cb64919cc4f7f165249d6eb0b149348f.jpg"
] |
'All evidence points to the fact that our kids are 17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
North Carolina's lieutenant governor is among the biggest critics of Gov. Roy Cooper's handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Lt. Gov. Dan Forest, a Republican who's running against Cooper, says kids should be allowed to go to school. Currently, students in kindergarten through 12th grade are only allowed to attend in-person classes in some counties - and only at a reduced capacity. In an interview posted Sept. 2, Forest said Cooper's restrictions on in-person learning aren't necessary. 'There's no evidence anywhere in the world that our kids should not be in schools. There's no evidence of that anywhere. All evidence points to the fact that our kids are 17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus,' he said. Is it true that children are '17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus?' Forest has repeated similar claims at other events. What Forest said We asked Forest's campaign where he was getting his information. Forest spokesman Andrew Dunn pointed to a recent editorial from the Wall Street Journal. Citing analysis from The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, a think tank, the Journal wrote: 'Fatality rate comparisons between Covid-19 and the flu are inapt because they affect populations differently. Children under age 14 are between 6.8 and 17 times less likely to die of Covid-19 than the seasonal flu or pneumonia, assuming 150,000 coronavirus deaths this year.' Even if the Wall Street Journal's description of the study is accurate, Forest isn't representing it correctly. First, Forest ignores the paper's disclaimer that comparisons between COVID-19 and the flu are 'inapt because they affect populations differently.' Then, he misrepresented the math. The WSJ reported a mathematical range: 'between 6.8 and 17 times.' Forest cherry-picked the top of that range and has stated it as if it is an accepted fact. Then, Forest misquoted the study. The Journal mentioned deaths, and Forest has repeatedly said 'ill effects.' By doing this, Forest downplays the risk to children. Coronavirus and kids The flu appears to be more of a serious threat to children than the novel coronavirus, as PolitiFact reported in August and September. But the CDC hasn't said how much higher the risk is for the flu. And the CDC's website distinguishes between healthy children and those with pre-existing conditions. For healthy children, the risk of complications 'is higher for flu compared to COVID-19,' the CDC said. Meanwhile, kids with underlying medical conditions 'are at increased risk for both flu and COVID-19.' The term 'ill effects' is squishy and vague. Let's look at how many children have been hospitalized by the two illnesses. (PolitiFact Wisconsin reported these figures in its Sept. 8 fact-check of U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson.) During the 2018-19 flu season, the hospitalization rate among children 5 to 17 was 39.2 children per 100,000 children. For COVID-19 patients in that age group, the CDC says the hospitalization rate is 6 per 100,000 children. (For those interested in the math: 39 is 6.5 times higher than 6.) While children do appear to be more affected by the flu than by COVID-19, we struggled to find stats that match Forest's quote. What experts said We asked experts: Is there a consensus in the medical community that children are '17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus?' 'I'm not familiar with such a statistic,' said Bill Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center and medical director for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Neither is Alan Schroeder, critical care physician at Stanford Children's Health. Schroeder said he hesitates to put a number on the likelihood of children suffering from the flu more than COVID-19. 'The notion that kids aren't getting really sick is by and large true. But the disparities between influenza and COVID-19 have narrowed considerably,' he said. Schroeder noted that, generally speaking, between 100 and 200 children die each year from the flu in the U.S. (And those deaths occurred at times when the nation isn't limiting travel or practicing social distancing.) Meanwhile, with the novel coronavirus in the U.S. for less than a year, the number of pediatric deaths is still rising. As of Sept. 10, the CDC estimated that 62 children, from infants up to age 14, have died from COVID-19. In the CDC's 15-24 age bracket, coronavirus has killed another 315 people. Researchers think school cancellations this spring prevented up to even more deaths. The American Academy of Pediatrics estimated that COVID-19 had killed 90 people under age 20 by mid August. 'They're really oversimplifying the issues at hand,' Schroeder said of Forest's quote. In the context of school reopenings, Schroeder said there's a lot more to consider - children who have underlying conditions, child-to-adult transmissions - than a healthy child's likelihood of dying when compared with the flu. 'And for that reason I don't find it to be a useful comparison,' he said.
|
Our ruling Forest said, 'All evidence points to the fact that our kids are 17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus.' He misrepresented a line in the Wall Street Journal, which said 'children under age 14 are between 6.8 and 17 times less likely to die of Covid-19 than the seasonal flu or pneumonia.' He cherry-picks the highest number and incorrectly uses 'ill effects' rather than deaths. Are kids '17 times' more likely to suffer from the flu than COVID-19? It's possible, but not conclusive at this point. Is death an 'ill effect' of coronavirus? Of course. But Forest's phrasing doesn't accurately represent the Wall Street Journal's op-ed. Forest's claim contains an element of truth. But it isn't supported by 'all' evidence, as he claims, and it downplays the risks of COVID-19 by focusing only on death. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"112751-proof-36-6aa0fe0ec6e605b5cbdbf9516148ac75.jpg"
] |
'All evidence points to the fact that our kids are 17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
North Carolina's lieutenant governor is among the biggest critics of Gov. Roy Cooper's handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Lt. Gov. Dan Forest, a Republican who's running against Cooper, says kids should be allowed to go to school. Currently, students in kindergarten through 12th grade are only allowed to attend in-person classes in some counties - and only at a reduced capacity. In an interview posted Sept. 2, Forest said Cooper's restrictions on in-person learning aren't necessary. 'There's no evidence anywhere in the world that our kids should not be in schools. There's no evidence of that anywhere. All evidence points to the fact that our kids are 17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus,' he said. Is it true that children are '17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus?' Forest has repeated similar claims at other events. What Forest said We asked Forest's campaign where he was getting his information. Forest spokesman Andrew Dunn pointed to a recent editorial from the Wall Street Journal. Citing analysis from The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, a think tank, the Journal wrote: 'Fatality rate comparisons between Covid-19 and the flu are inapt because they affect populations differently. Children under age 14 are between 6.8 and 17 times less likely to die of Covid-19 than the seasonal flu or pneumonia, assuming 150,000 coronavirus deaths this year.' Even if the Wall Street Journal's description of the study is accurate, Forest isn't representing it correctly. First, Forest ignores the paper's disclaimer that comparisons between COVID-19 and the flu are 'inapt because they affect populations differently.' Then, he misrepresented the math. The WSJ reported a mathematical range: 'between 6.8 and 17 times.' Forest cherry-picked the top of that range and has stated it as if it is an accepted fact. Then, Forest misquoted the study. The Journal mentioned deaths, and Forest has repeatedly said 'ill effects.' By doing this, Forest downplays the risk to children. Coronavirus and kids The flu appears to be more of a serious threat to children than the novel coronavirus, as PolitiFact reported in August and September. But the CDC hasn't said how much higher the risk is for the flu. And the CDC's website distinguishes between healthy children and those with pre-existing conditions. For healthy children, the risk of complications 'is higher for flu compared to COVID-19,' the CDC said. Meanwhile, kids with underlying medical conditions 'are at increased risk for both flu and COVID-19.' The term 'ill effects' is squishy and vague. Let's look at how many children have been hospitalized by the two illnesses. (PolitiFact Wisconsin reported these figures in its Sept. 8 fact-check of U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson.) During the 2018-19 flu season, the hospitalization rate among children 5 to 17 was 39.2 children per 100,000 children. For COVID-19 patients in that age group, the CDC says the hospitalization rate is 6 per 100,000 children. (For those interested in the math: 39 is 6.5 times higher than 6.) While children do appear to be more affected by the flu than by COVID-19, we struggled to find stats that match Forest's quote. What experts said We asked experts: Is there a consensus in the medical community that children are '17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus?' 'I'm not familiar with such a statistic,' said Bill Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center and medical director for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Neither is Alan Schroeder, critical care physician at Stanford Children's Health. Schroeder said he hesitates to put a number on the likelihood of children suffering from the flu more than COVID-19. 'The notion that kids aren't getting really sick is by and large true. But the disparities between influenza and COVID-19 have narrowed considerably,' he said. Schroeder noted that, generally speaking, between 100 and 200 children die each year from the flu in the U.S. (And those deaths occurred at times when the nation isn't limiting travel or practicing social distancing.) Meanwhile, with the novel coronavirus in the U.S. for less than a year, the number of pediatric deaths is still rising. As of Sept. 10, the CDC estimated that 62 children, from infants up to age 14, have died from COVID-19. In the CDC's 15-24 age bracket, coronavirus has killed another 315 people. Researchers think school cancellations this spring prevented up to even more deaths. The American Academy of Pediatrics estimated that COVID-19 had killed 90 people under age 20 by mid August. 'They're really oversimplifying the issues at hand,' Schroeder said of Forest's quote. In the context of school reopenings, Schroeder said there's a lot more to consider - children who have underlying conditions, child-to-adult transmissions - than a healthy child's likelihood of dying when compared with the flu. 'And for that reason I don't find it to be a useful comparison,' he said.
|
Our ruling Forest said, 'All evidence points to the fact that our kids are 17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus.' He misrepresented a line in the Wall Street Journal, which said 'children under age 14 are between 6.8 and 17 times less likely to die of Covid-19 than the seasonal flu or pneumonia.' He cherry-picks the highest number and incorrectly uses 'ill effects' rather than deaths. Are kids '17 times' more likely to suffer from the flu than COVID-19? It's possible, but not conclusive at this point. Is death an 'ill effect' of coronavirus? Of course. But Forest's phrasing doesn't accurately represent the Wall Street Journal's op-ed. Forest's claim contains an element of truth. But it isn't supported by 'all' evidence, as he claims, and it downplays the risks of COVID-19 by focusing only on death. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"112751-proof-36-6aa0fe0ec6e605b5cbdbf9516148ac75.jpg"
] |
'All evidence points to the fact that our kids are 17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
North Carolina's lieutenant governor is among the biggest critics of Gov. Roy Cooper's handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Lt. Gov. Dan Forest, a Republican who's running against Cooper, says kids should be allowed to go to school. Currently, students in kindergarten through 12th grade are only allowed to attend in-person classes in some counties - and only at a reduced capacity. In an interview posted Sept. 2, Forest said Cooper's restrictions on in-person learning aren't necessary. 'There's no evidence anywhere in the world that our kids should not be in schools. There's no evidence of that anywhere. All evidence points to the fact that our kids are 17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus,' he said. Is it true that children are '17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus?' Forest has repeated similar claims at other events. What Forest said We asked Forest's campaign where he was getting his information. Forest spokesman Andrew Dunn pointed to a recent editorial from the Wall Street Journal. Citing analysis from The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, a think tank, the Journal wrote: 'Fatality rate comparisons between Covid-19 and the flu are inapt because they affect populations differently. Children under age 14 are between 6.8 and 17 times less likely to die of Covid-19 than the seasonal flu or pneumonia, assuming 150,000 coronavirus deaths this year.' Even if the Wall Street Journal's description of the study is accurate, Forest isn't representing it correctly. First, Forest ignores the paper's disclaimer that comparisons between COVID-19 and the flu are 'inapt because they affect populations differently.' Then, he misrepresented the math. The WSJ reported a mathematical range: 'between 6.8 and 17 times.' Forest cherry-picked the top of that range and has stated it as if it is an accepted fact. Then, Forest misquoted the study. The Journal mentioned deaths, and Forest has repeatedly said 'ill effects.' By doing this, Forest downplays the risk to children. Coronavirus and kids The flu appears to be more of a serious threat to children than the novel coronavirus, as PolitiFact reported in August and September. But the CDC hasn't said how much higher the risk is for the flu. And the CDC's website distinguishes between healthy children and those with pre-existing conditions. For healthy children, the risk of complications 'is higher for flu compared to COVID-19,' the CDC said. Meanwhile, kids with underlying medical conditions 'are at increased risk for both flu and COVID-19.' The term 'ill effects' is squishy and vague. Let's look at how many children have been hospitalized by the two illnesses. (PolitiFact Wisconsin reported these figures in its Sept. 8 fact-check of U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson.) During the 2018-19 flu season, the hospitalization rate among children 5 to 17 was 39.2 children per 100,000 children. For COVID-19 patients in that age group, the CDC says the hospitalization rate is 6 per 100,000 children. (For those interested in the math: 39 is 6.5 times higher than 6.) While children do appear to be more affected by the flu than by COVID-19, we struggled to find stats that match Forest's quote. What experts said We asked experts: Is there a consensus in the medical community that children are '17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus?' 'I'm not familiar with such a statistic,' said Bill Schaffner, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center and medical director for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. Neither is Alan Schroeder, critical care physician at Stanford Children's Health. Schroeder said he hesitates to put a number on the likelihood of children suffering from the flu more than COVID-19. 'The notion that kids aren't getting really sick is by and large true. But the disparities between influenza and COVID-19 have narrowed considerably,' he said. Schroeder noted that, generally speaking, between 100 and 200 children die each year from the flu in the U.S. (And those deaths occurred at times when the nation isn't limiting travel or practicing social distancing.) Meanwhile, with the novel coronavirus in the U.S. for less than a year, the number of pediatric deaths is still rising. As of Sept. 10, the CDC estimated that 62 children, from infants up to age 14, have died from COVID-19. In the CDC's 15-24 age bracket, coronavirus has killed another 315 people. Researchers think school cancellations this spring prevented up to even more deaths. The American Academy of Pediatrics estimated that COVID-19 had killed 90 people under age 20 by mid August. 'They're really oversimplifying the issues at hand,' Schroeder said of Forest's quote. In the context of school reopenings, Schroeder said there's a lot more to consider - children who have underlying conditions, child-to-adult transmissions - than a healthy child's likelihood of dying when compared with the flu. 'And for that reason I don't find it to be a useful comparison,' he said.
|
Our ruling Forest said, 'All evidence points to the fact that our kids are 17 times more likely to have ill effects from the seasonal flu than they are from the coronavirus.' He misrepresented a line in the Wall Street Journal, which said 'children under age 14 are between 6.8 and 17 times less likely to die of Covid-19 than the seasonal flu or pneumonia.' He cherry-picks the highest number and incorrectly uses 'ill effects' rather than deaths. Are kids '17 times' more likely to suffer from the flu than COVID-19? It's possible, but not conclusive at this point. Is death an 'ill effect' of coronavirus? Of course. But Forest's phrasing doesn't accurately represent the Wall Street Journal's op-ed. Forest's claim contains an element of truth. But it isn't supported by 'all' evidence, as he claims, and it downplays the risks of COVID-19 by focusing only on death. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"112751-proof-36-6aa0fe0ec6e605b5cbdbf9516148ac75.jpg"
] |
Says Marjorie Taylor Greene said, 'People are dying who have never died before.
|
Contradiction
|
First it was then-President Donald Trump who supposedly said, 'People are dying who have never died before.' Then it was President Joe Biden who said, 'People will die, who have never died before.' Now, it's U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. 'People are dying who have never died before,' a recent Facebook post claims the Georgia Republican said. Except she didn't, and neither did Trump or Biden. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to the congresswoman but did not immediately hear back. We didn't find the statement on either of her Twitter accounts. We didn't find it searching Politwoops, the ProPublica database that tracks deleted tweets by public officials. Searching more broadly online, we didn't find any credible evidence that she said this. But the quote, or something close to it, has been circulating on social media for more than a decade. 'I believe it was Ernest Hemingway who said: 'People are dying who have never died before,'' someone tweeted in 2009. According to a book of selected letters by Hemingway, he once wrote that someone had 'advised us all to be careful as men are dying this year who have never died before.' Sandra Spanier, general editor of the Hemingway Letters Project, told AFP that the author used the phrase two other times and attributed it to a friend, Edward 'Bra' Saunders. We rate claims that Greene said it False.
|
We rate claims that Greene said it False.
|
[] |
Says Marjorie Taylor Greene said, 'People are dying who have never died before.
|
Contradiction
|
First it was then-President Donald Trump who supposedly said, 'People are dying who have never died before.' Then it was President Joe Biden who said, 'People will die, who have never died before.' Now, it's U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. 'People are dying who have never died before,' a recent Facebook post claims the Georgia Republican said. Except she didn't, and neither did Trump or Biden. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to the congresswoman but did not immediately hear back. We didn't find the statement on either of her Twitter accounts. We didn't find it searching Politwoops, the ProPublica database that tracks deleted tweets by public officials. Searching more broadly online, we didn't find any credible evidence that she said this. But the quote, or something close to it, has been circulating on social media for more than a decade. 'I believe it was Ernest Hemingway who said: 'People are dying who have never died before,'' someone tweeted in 2009. According to a book of selected letters by Hemingway, he once wrote that someone had 'advised us all to be careful as men are dying this year who have never died before.' Sandra Spanier, general editor of the Hemingway Letters Project, told AFP that the author used the phrase two other times and attributed it to a friend, Edward 'Bra' Saunders. We rate claims that Greene said it False.
|
We rate claims that Greene said it False.
|
[] |
Says Marjorie Taylor Greene said, 'People are dying who have never died before.
|
Contradiction
|
First it was then-President Donald Trump who supposedly said, 'People are dying who have never died before.' Then it was President Joe Biden who said, 'People will die, who have never died before.' Now, it's U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. 'People are dying who have never died before,' a recent Facebook post claims the Georgia Republican said. Except she didn't, and neither did Trump or Biden. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to the congresswoman but did not immediately hear back. We didn't find the statement on either of her Twitter accounts. We didn't find it searching Politwoops, the ProPublica database that tracks deleted tweets by public officials. Searching more broadly online, we didn't find any credible evidence that she said this. But the quote, or something close to it, has been circulating on social media for more than a decade. 'I believe it was Ernest Hemingway who said: 'People are dying who have never died before,'' someone tweeted in 2009. According to a book of selected letters by Hemingway, he once wrote that someone had 'advised us all to be careful as men are dying this year who have never died before.' Sandra Spanier, general editor of the Hemingway Letters Project, told AFP that the author used the phrase two other times and attributed it to a friend, Edward 'Bra' Saunders. We rate claims that Greene said it False.
|
We rate claims that Greene said it False.
|
[] |
Says President Donald Trump this week will sign an executive order creating term limits for Congress.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump promised to push for term limits for members of Congress. But online posts claiming that this week he's signing an executive order toward that end are false. A YouTube account called 'The Conservative Network' on Jan. 22 posted a video 1 minute and 43 seconds long, which partly says: 'It's an idea whose time has come and one that the American people have been wanting for decades. Leave it to President Trump to finally do something about it. 'This week, Trump is expected to roll out an executive order which will put in place term limits for all members of Congress, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The order will be binding and none will be able to dispute or reverse it.' 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 video features still images of Democratic leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi and of Trump, with pictures of Capitol Hill in the background. The audio sounds like a computerized male voice. We found that the voice in the video is narrating, word-by-word, an article published on the satire website dailyworldupdate.us. But descriptions for the YouTube video do not say that the claims are made-up. The video is tagged under the category 'News & Politics' and, so far, has around 18,000 views and more than 1,000 likes. Commenters appear to think that the claims are true. The Federal Register does not list an executive order on term limits as one of Trump's actions to date. We have not seen any public indication from Trump that he plans to sign an executive order on that this week. We reached out to the White House for comment, but did not hear back. Last January, we reviewed Trump's promise to enact term limits and noted that he supported a bipartisan group of lawmakers who wanted term limits. But no major progress has been made on that end and, at the time, we rated it Promise Broken. A YouTube video claims that Trump this week will sign an executive order creating term limits for Congress. The video narrates an article from a satire website. We rate the claim False.
|
Last January, we reviewed Trump's promise to enact term limits and noted that he supported a bipartisan group of lawmakers who wanted term limits. But no major progress has been made on that end and, at the time, we rated it Promise Broken. A YouTube video claims that Trump this week will sign an executive order creating term limits for Congress. The video narrates an article from a satire website. We rate the claim False.
|
[] |
Says President Donald Trump this week will sign an executive order creating term limits for Congress.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump promised to push for term limits for members of Congress. But online posts claiming that this week he's signing an executive order toward that end are false. A YouTube account called 'The Conservative Network' on Jan. 22 posted a video 1 minute and 43 seconds long, which partly says: 'It's an idea whose time has come and one that the American people have been wanting for decades. Leave it to President Trump to finally do something about it. 'This week, Trump is expected to roll out an executive order which will put in place term limits for all members of Congress, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The order will be binding and none will be able to dispute or reverse it.' 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 video features still images of Democratic leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi and of Trump, with pictures of Capitol Hill in the background. The audio sounds like a computerized male voice. We found that the voice in the video is narrating, word-by-word, an article published on the satire website dailyworldupdate.us. But descriptions for the YouTube video do not say that the claims are made-up. The video is tagged under the category 'News & Politics' and, so far, has around 18,000 views and more than 1,000 likes. Commenters appear to think that the claims are true. The Federal Register does not list an executive order on term limits as one of Trump's actions to date. We have not seen any public indication from Trump that he plans to sign an executive order on that this week. We reached out to the White House for comment, but did not hear back. Last January, we reviewed Trump's promise to enact term limits and noted that he supported a bipartisan group of lawmakers who wanted term limits. But no major progress has been made on that end and, at the time, we rated it Promise Broken. A YouTube video claims that Trump this week will sign an executive order creating term limits for Congress. The video narrates an article from a satire website. We rate the claim False.
|
Last January, we reviewed Trump's promise to enact term limits and noted that he supported a bipartisan group of lawmakers who wanted term limits. But no major progress has been made on that end and, at the time, we rated it Promise Broken. A YouTube video claims that Trump this week will sign an executive order creating term limits for Congress. The video narrates an article from a satire website. We rate the claim False.
|
[] |
'Pfizer Confirms COVID-Vaccinated People Can 'Shed' Spike Proteins And Harm The Unvaccinated'
|
Contradiction
|
In the spring, claims began spreading widely that vaccinated people can 'shed' the COVID-19 vaccine and harm those around them. Now, six months later, those false claims have come full circle. A viral Oct. 27 blog post reads, 'Pfizer Confirms COVID-Vaccinated People Can 'Shed' Spike Proteins And Harm The Unvaccinated.' The claim can be traced to an April press release, when the hoax about vaccine shedding was proliferating. 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.) People vaccinated against COVID-19 cannot shed spike proteins to harm anyone. Many experts have debunked this notion, saying it is a conspiracy intended to undermine the vaccines. Experts also have said that the spike proteins produced through vaccination cannot infect others. The blog post says its source is a June 26 article from National Times Australia. That article, in turn, cites a May 4 post on Christians For Truth, which then references the ultimate source of the false information: an April 26 press release from America's Frontline Doctors. That group has spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about the coronavirus. In April, when America's Frontline Doctors issued the press release, claims about vaccine shedding had emerged as a prevailing narrative in the anti-vaccine community, PolitiFact reported. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that vaccine shedding 'can only occur when a vaccine contains a weakened version of the virus,' and none of the COVID-19 vaccines in use in the United States meet that description. Other vaccines, such as measles and flu, use a piece or weakened version of the germ that is being vaccinated against. The spike proteins referenced in the claim occur in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which use mRNA technology. The CDC explains that mRNA vaccines work like this: The vaccine sends instructions to the body's cells to make a piece of spike protein, which is also found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19. The cells make and display the protein, and 'our immune system then recognizes that it does not belong there and responds to get rid of it.' The resulting immune response produces antibodies. The spike proteins are harmless, do not cause illness and do not last long in the body. The claim also says that 'Pfizer confirmed' that people can shed spike proteins, which is unsubstantiated. This part of the claim appears to have originated with an April 29 tweet from Dr. Simone Gold, the founder of America's Frontline Doctors who also was arrested for actions stemming from her participation in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Gold's tweet says 'Pfizer trials warned men to stay away from pregnant women,' referencing part of Pfizer's trial protocol that explains when an 'environmental vaccine exposure' during pregnancy is considered to have taken place. PolitiFact reported that the passage in the protocol 'is described by experts as standard language meant to widely cover any possible exposures. ...(E)xposure to a person who has received the Pfizer vaccine will not transmit virus particles.'
|
Our ruling A blog post claims, 'Pfizer Confirms COVID-Vaccinated People Can 'Shed' Spike Proteins And Harm The Unvaccinated.' People vaccinated against COVID-19 cannot shed spike proteins, and spike proteins produced through vaccination cannot infect others. Vaccine shedding is not possible with the COVID-19 vaccines used in the U.S. Pfizer did not confirm that people can shed spike proteins. That claim is based on a misinterpretation of the company's clinical trial protocol. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"112770-proof-21-57e1838b229b03ce41d0027d306f2397.jpg"
] |
'Pfizer Confirms COVID-Vaccinated People Can 'Shed' Spike Proteins And Harm The Unvaccinated'
|
Contradiction
|
In the spring, claims began spreading widely that vaccinated people can 'shed' the COVID-19 vaccine and harm those around them. Now, six months later, those false claims have come full circle. A viral Oct. 27 blog post reads, 'Pfizer Confirms COVID-Vaccinated People Can 'Shed' Spike Proteins And Harm The Unvaccinated.' The claim can be traced to an April press release, when the hoax about vaccine shedding was proliferating. 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.) People vaccinated against COVID-19 cannot shed spike proteins to harm anyone. Many experts have debunked this notion, saying it is a conspiracy intended to undermine the vaccines. Experts also have said that the spike proteins produced through vaccination cannot infect others. The blog post says its source is a June 26 article from National Times Australia. That article, in turn, cites a May 4 post on Christians For Truth, which then references the ultimate source of the false information: an April 26 press release from America's Frontline Doctors. That group has spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about the coronavirus. In April, when America's Frontline Doctors issued the press release, claims about vaccine shedding had emerged as a prevailing narrative in the anti-vaccine community, PolitiFact reported. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that vaccine shedding 'can only occur when a vaccine contains a weakened version of the virus,' and none of the COVID-19 vaccines in use in the United States meet that description. Other vaccines, such as measles and flu, use a piece or weakened version of the germ that is being vaccinated against. The spike proteins referenced in the claim occur in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which use mRNA technology. The CDC explains that mRNA vaccines work like this: The vaccine sends instructions to the body's cells to make a piece of spike protein, which is also found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19. The cells make and display the protein, and 'our immune system then recognizes that it does not belong there and responds to get rid of it.' The resulting immune response produces antibodies. The spike proteins are harmless, do not cause illness and do not last long in the body. The claim also says that 'Pfizer confirmed' that people can shed spike proteins, which is unsubstantiated. This part of the claim appears to have originated with an April 29 tweet from Dr. Simone Gold, the founder of America's Frontline Doctors who also was arrested for actions stemming from her participation in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Gold's tweet says 'Pfizer trials warned men to stay away from pregnant women,' referencing part of Pfizer's trial protocol that explains when an 'environmental vaccine exposure' during pregnancy is considered to have taken place. PolitiFact reported that the passage in the protocol 'is described by experts as standard language meant to widely cover any possible exposures. ...(E)xposure to a person who has received the Pfizer vaccine will not transmit virus particles.'
|
Our ruling A blog post claims, 'Pfizer Confirms COVID-Vaccinated People Can 'Shed' Spike Proteins And Harm The Unvaccinated.' People vaccinated against COVID-19 cannot shed spike proteins, and spike proteins produced through vaccination cannot infect others. Vaccine shedding is not possible with the COVID-19 vaccines used in the U.S. Pfizer did not confirm that people can shed spike proteins. That claim is based on a misinterpretation of the company's clinical trial protocol. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"112770-proof-21-57e1838b229b03ce41d0027d306f2397.jpg"
] |
'Pfizer Confirms COVID-Vaccinated People Can 'Shed' Spike Proteins And Harm The Unvaccinated'
|
Contradiction
|
In the spring, claims began spreading widely that vaccinated people can 'shed' the COVID-19 vaccine and harm those around them. Now, six months later, those false claims have come full circle. A viral Oct. 27 blog post reads, 'Pfizer Confirms COVID-Vaccinated People Can 'Shed' Spike Proteins And Harm The Unvaccinated.' The claim can be traced to an April press release, when the hoax about vaccine shedding was proliferating. 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.) People vaccinated against COVID-19 cannot shed spike proteins to harm anyone. Many experts have debunked this notion, saying it is a conspiracy intended to undermine the vaccines. Experts also have said that the spike proteins produced through vaccination cannot infect others. The blog post says its source is a June 26 article from National Times Australia. That article, in turn, cites a May 4 post on Christians For Truth, which then references the ultimate source of the false information: an April 26 press release from America's Frontline Doctors. That group has spread misinformation and conspiracy theories about the coronavirus. In April, when America's Frontline Doctors issued the press release, claims about vaccine shedding had emerged as a prevailing narrative in the anti-vaccine community, PolitiFact reported. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that vaccine shedding 'can only occur when a vaccine contains a weakened version of the virus,' and none of the COVID-19 vaccines in use in the United States meet that description. Other vaccines, such as measles and flu, use a piece or weakened version of the germ that is being vaccinated against. The spike proteins referenced in the claim occur in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, which use mRNA technology. The CDC explains that mRNA vaccines work like this: The vaccine sends instructions to the body's cells to make a piece of spike protein, which is also found on the surface of the virus that causes COVID-19. The cells make and display the protein, and 'our immune system then recognizes that it does not belong there and responds to get rid of it.' The resulting immune response produces antibodies. The spike proteins are harmless, do not cause illness and do not last long in the body. The claim also says that 'Pfizer confirmed' that people can shed spike proteins, which is unsubstantiated. This part of the claim appears to have originated with an April 29 tweet from Dr. Simone Gold, the founder of America's Frontline Doctors who also was arrested for actions stemming from her participation in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Gold's tweet says 'Pfizer trials warned men to stay away from pregnant women,' referencing part of Pfizer's trial protocol that explains when an 'environmental vaccine exposure' during pregnancy is considered to have taken place. PolitiFact reported that the passage in the protocol 'is described by experts as standard language meant to widely cover any possible exposures. ...(E)xposure to a person who has received the Pfizer vaccine will not transmit virus particles.'
|
Our ruling A blog post claims, 'Pfizer Confirms COVID-Vaccinated People Can 'Shed' Spike Proteins And Harm The Unvaccinated.' People vaccinated against COVID-19 cannot shed spike proteins, and spike proteins produced through vaccination cannot infect others. Vaccine shedding is not possible with the COVID-19 vaccines used in the U.S. Pfizer did not confirm that people can shed spike proteins. That claim is based on a misinterpretation of the company's clinical trial protocol. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"112770-proof-21-57e1838b229b03ce41d0027d306f2397.jpg"
] |
The CDC said it 'made a mistake' and reduced its count of Florida COVID-19 cases from 90,000 to 11,000.
|
Contradiction
|
Was it a conspiracy that made Florida a coronavirus hotspot? That's the suggestion made in a viral image shared by a Facebook account called 'Stay with Trump.' The image, which includes a photo of comedian Tim Allen smiling, says: 'So, now that Trump has said hospitals are to report numbers to WH instead of the CDC, they came out & said they made a mistake in FL and they've been counting pneumonia and flu as covid, dropping their # from approx 90,000 to 11,000. Weird how that works, ain't it?' 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 Centers for Disease Control did not admit any kind of systematic error in its Florida COVID-19 counts. The Trump administration on July 10 did order hospitals to bypass the CDC and send COVID-19 patient information to the Department of Health and Human Services. Trump administration officials say the change will streamline data gathering, but the HHS database is not open to the public, which could affect the work of health officials who relied on the CDC database, the New York Times reported. The Facebook post we're checking was published July 21. The same day, the same claim was made in a tweet by former congressional candidate DeAnna Lorraine. Lorraine, a pro-Trump Republican, finished last among five candidates in the 2020 primary for the U.S. House seat held by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. In a reply to her tweet, Lorraine cited what she said were the 'sources' for a her claim, including: a report that a Florida motorcyclist's death had been added to the COVID-19 and then was removed; a partially debunked claim that hospitals are paid $13,000 for the admission of a COVID-19 patient and $39,000 if the patient goes on a ventilator; and her own statement that the CDC has admitted that it includes pneumonia and seasonal flu in its count of COVID-19 cases. Bob Anderson, chief of mortality statistics at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, told PolitiFact that similar claims were made in June. 'The claim was false then and is still false now. I'm not even sure where those numbers come from. They seem to have been pulled out of thin air,' he said. As of July 27, the day we published this fact-check, Florida had nearly 419,000 cases, according to the CDC. The CDC counts as COVID-19 cases those patients whose cases are confirmed by testing as well as those that are considered 'probable', CDC spokesman Jason McDonald told us. According to the epidemiological standards, a 'probable' case is one that meets clinical criteria and epidemiologic evidence even though there hasn't been testing; one in which antigens or antibodies have been detected and the person meets clinical criteria or there is epidemiologic evidence; or, one in which a death certificate lists COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 as a cause of death or a significant contributing factor. Cases that involve pneumonia or flu but not COVID-19 are not included in COVID-19 counts, McDonald said. However, a case would be included if, for example, a patient gets pneumonia that was caused by COVID-19, Anderson said. The CDC gets its Florida case counts from the Florida Department of Health, and no change from 90,000 to 11,000 was made, McDonald told PolitiFact. We rate the statement False.
|
We rate the statement False.
|
[
"112773-proof-30-9f75ace5606e1971201cc626ed145677.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden's campaign told an Iowa library where Jill Biden was holding an event 'to remove the American flag as they did not want to say the pledge of allegiance.
|
Contradiction
|
On Jan. 24, before the Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses, Jill Biden, the wife of former Vice President Joe Biden, held a meet-and-greet at a library in Corning, Iowa. Soon after, allegations about the Bidens' patriotism appeared on social media. Folks began sharing a screenshot of a Facebook post that claims the Biden campaign clashed with library staff over an American flag. 'This happened in my hometown this week in Iowa. It makes me so sad,' reads the screenshot, which we found being shared on Feb. 2. 'Joe Biden's wife stopped in town at the library this week. The library staff was told to remove the American flag as they did not want to say the pledge of allegiance. The librarian refused so the campaign people went out and took it down themselves! Now explain to me why someone representing her husband running for President of the United States would do this?' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to the person who wrote the original post - the one that people are sharing the screenshot of - but we didn't hear back. And it appears the original post recounting the flag flap has been removed from public view. We also reached out to Joe Biden. In a statement, his campaign told us that before Jill Biden went to the Corning Public Library, a campaign staff member arrived and saw that the American flag in the conference room reserved for the meet-and-greet 'was not properly dressed.' In this case, according to the campaign, it wasn't draped correctly. 'Out of respect for the flag - because it could not be dressed properly in time for the event - the staff member asked the library if they were comfortable moving it to another room. The library staff member then moved the flag out of the room. In no way did this have anything to do with the pledge of allegiance and in no way did a directive come from Dr. (Jill) Biden. This is pure misinformation swirling around Facebook. The Bidens are a military family. Any insinuation they would somehow disrespect the flag - or our veterans - is shameful and categorically false.' We called the library, which referred us to Corning Mayor Janice Mercer Leonard. Leonard told us that she had heard several different accounts of what happened at the library, though she was not there to witness it herself. Leonard said one of the librarians told her that Jill Biden's staff arrived at the library before the event and wanted to remove the flag from the conference room, where it was hanging on a stand in the corner. 'I heard two different stories,' Leonard said. 'One was the advance staff asked to remove it and one story was they weren't asked and just went ahead and set up the room the way they wanted to set up the room.' The flag was relocated to the hallway, she said. 'What possible reason could there be to remove the flag?' she asked. She heard two explanations from people she said attended the meet-and-greet but who did not see the room being set up. One person told Leonard that 'they didn't want to say the pledge of allegiance,' she said, and another told her that there was a smudge on the flag. In a letter to the editor, Leonard pointedly questioned why the Biden campaign removed the flag. 'Did you think you were going to have such a large turnout that you needed that two foot space in the corner where the flag was located?' she wrote. 'Was this just a stop to check off little Adams County so you could say you visited all 99 counties?' Snopes, which also looked into this claim, spoke with Fred Shearer, president of the library board in Corning. Shearer said the campaign rented the room and arranged it themselves, moving the flag 'probably 5 feet into a hallway next to the room,' according to Snopes.
|
Our ruling A viral post says Joe Biden's campaign told an Iowa library where Jill Biden was holding an event 'to remove the American flag as they did not want to say the pledge of allegiance.' It's true that a flag was removed from the library conference room where Jill Biden held a meet-and-greet. While the mayor says Joe Biden's campaign staff moved the flag and the campaign says a library staff member moved the flag, it's clear that it was moved to accommodate the campaign. But beyond unsourced reports on social media, we found no credible evidence that the flag was relocated to the hallway because Jill Biden didn't want to say the pledge of allegiance. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Says Democrats are embracing 'abortion up until the moment of birth and even, horrifically, after that.
|
Contradiction
|
In the latest push from Republicans to advance a federal ban on abortion after 20 weeks and a requirement for doctors to treat infants born after an attempted abortion, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, spoke in favor of the efforts from the Senate floor. In his remarks, Cruz urged his Democratic colleagues to support these kinds of 'common sense propositions,' a departure from the party's 'extreme' position on abortion. Neither bill - versions of which GOP lawmakers have attempted to pass several times over multiple years - was approved. 'We've seen far too many Democrats embrace extreme positions on abortion: abortion up until the moment of birth and even, horrifically, after that,' Cruz said, before highlighting a radio interview Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam gave in 2019 about a bill in the Virginia House of Delegates regulating third-trimester abortions. 'This bill was allowing a mother in labor, in the process of delivering a child, this bill would allow a doctor to kill that child instead of delivering that child in the midst of labor,' Cruz said. 'The idea of killing a child while the mother is in labor instead of delivering the infant is horrifying beyond words.' Cruz's claim that Democrats support abortion up until birth and 'even, horrifically, after that,' is inaccurate, as is his characterization of the Virginia proposal (which was unsuccessful). Trump claims This isn't the first time a Republican leader has used an inaccurate description of the Virginia bill to advance legislation to require care for infants 'born alive' after attempted abortions. When Senate Republicans attempted to pass a version of the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act in February 2019, President Donald Trump offered two inaccurate claims on this front. Speaking at a rally in El Paso, he said that Northam 'stated that he would even allow a newborn baby to come out into the world ... then talk to the mother and talk to the father and then execute the baby.' We rated this claim False. In a tweet sent days later, Trump said: 'The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don't mind executing babies AFTER birth.' We rated that claim False. To be clear: killing an infant after birth is illegal, and people on both sides of the abortion debate agree that this act should be illegal. Under federal law, the definitions of a person, human being, child and individual all include infants 'born alive at any stage of development.' Virginia legislation This characterization of Democrats as supporters of allowing abortions during and after a live birth surfaced in early 2019, when a subcommittee of the Virginia House of Delegates considered a bill aimed at loosening the state's abortion laws. In Virginia, a woman can choose to obtain an abortion through the end of the second trimester of pregnancy, up to 28 weeks from her last menstrual period. After that point, abortions are legal if they happen in a hospital and three physicians certify that 'the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.' The law also requires physicians to make 'measures for life support for the product of such abortion' available if there is 'any clearly visible evidence of viability' after an attempted abortion. The bill Virginia lawmakers considered in 2019 proposed multiple changes to state laws addressing abortion, including the provision regulating the procedure in the third trimester. The proposal would have lowered the number of physicians required to authorize a third-trimester abortion from three to one and remove the 'substantial and irremediable' threshold in the law. At the time of the debate, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that there were two confirmed third-trimester abortions performed in Virginia since 2000. Republican lawmakers questioned the bill's sponsor on the scope of the proposal, asking whether the measure would allow a woman who is dilating to get a abortion. 'My bill would allow that,' said Democratic lawmaker Kathy Tran. 'Yes.' Her response sparked intense backlash from anti-abortion advocates and footage of her remark circulated quickly on social media. But days later, Tran said she misspoke: 'I should have said: 'Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.'' A spokeswoman for Cruz pointed to the language of Tran's bill and said it clearly allows abortion up until the moment of birth, but Tran's bill only changed the requirements in place before a doctor can perform a third-trimester abortion. It did not change the law as it relates to when such an abortion could take place. As the law stands, abortion is legal in the third trimester only in cases where three physicians certify that the mother's life is in danger. Virginia law prohibits 'partial birth infanticide,' the killing of an infant who has 'been born alive, but who has not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother.' Northam's comments In a radio interview two days after the debate, Northam discussed the legislation and offered a confusing comment about third-trimester abortions: 'It's done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's nonviable. So, in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.' A number of anti-abortion advocates accused the Democratic governor of approving the killing of infants. Northam rejected this characterization of his remarks and a spokesperson said the comments were about options for care available to women with a nonviable pregnancy or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality. This can include issues like anencephaly, when an infant is born without parts of the brain and skull, and limb-body wall complex, when an infant's organs have developed outside of its body. In these cases, where there is 'little or no prospect' of an infant surviving after birth, families might opt for perinatal palliative care, or comfort care - prioritizing comfort while allowing an infant to die naturally without exercising full resuscitation efforts. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists describes this care as existing on a spectrum of care, 'which includes pregnancy termination (abortion) and full neonatal resuscitation and treatment.' Cruz's spokeswoman pointed to this care as an example of a doctor completing an abortion by denying medical care. This type of care is rare - a study of deaths at children's hospitals found that while neonates represented 41% of all deaths, perinatal palliative care was only utilized in 2% of cases - and does not meet the definition of abortion. Harvard Medical School defines abortion as 'the removal of pregnancy tissue, products of conception or the fetus and placenta (afterbirth) from the uterus.' Our Ruling Cruz said Democrats support 'abortion up until the moment of birth and even, horrifically, after that.' Cruz's remark hinged on an inaccurate characterization of legislation considered in Virginia's House of Delegates in 2019 and comments made by the state's Democratic governor at the same time. State law in Virginia allows doctors to perform abortions up until the moment of birth, but only in cases when three physicians certify that a continued pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman. The author of the bill clarified earlier remarks to say it would not allow an abortion to be performed on a woman during a live birth. PolitiFact has rated multiple statements making similar claims about Democrats supporting the execution of children False. We rate this claim False.
|
Our Ruling Cruz said Democrats support 'abortion up until the moment of birth and even, horrifically, after that.' Cruz's remark hinged on an inaccurate characterization of legislation considered in Virginia's House of Delegates in 2019 and comments made by the state's Democratic governor at the same time. State law in Virginia allows doctors to perform abortions up until the moment of birth, but only in cases when three physicians certify that a continued pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman. The author of the bill clarified earlier remarks to say it would not allow an abortion to be performed on a woman during a live birth. PolitiFact has rated multiple statements making similar claims about Democrats supporting the execution of children False. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"112782-proof-10-021b4c84e1b3ecffb4cd623a8b496699.jpg"
] |
Says Democrats are embracing 'abortion up until the moment of birth and even, horrifically, after that.
|
Contradiction
|
In the latest push from Republicans to advance a federal ban on abortion after 20 weeks and a requirement for doctors to treat infants born after an attempted abortion, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, spoke in favor of the efforts from the Senate floor. In his remarks, Cruz urged his Democratic colleagues to support these kinds of 'common sense propositions,' a departure from the party's 'extreme' position on abortion. Neither bill - versions of which GOP lawmakers have attempted to pass several times over multiple years - was approved. 'We've seen far too many Democrats embrace extreme positions on abortion: abortion up until the moment of birth and even, horrifically, after that,' Cruz said, before highlighting a radio interview Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam gave in 2019 about a bill in the Virginia House of Delegates regulating third-trimester abortions. 'This bill was allowing a mother in labor, in the process of delivering a child, this bill would allow a doctor to kill that child instead of delivering that child in the midst of labor,' Cruz said. 'The idea of killing a child while the mother is in labor instead of delivering the infant is horrifying beyond words.' Cruz's claim that Democrats support abortion up until birth and 'even, horrifically, after that,' is inaccurate, as is his characterization of the Virginia proposal (which was unsuccessful). Trump claims This isn't the first time a Republican leader has used an inaccurate description of the Virginia bill to advance legislation to require care for infants 'born alive' after attempted abortions. When Senate Republicans attempted to pass a version of the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act in February 2019, President Donald Trump offered two inaccurate claims on this front. Speaking at a rally in El Paso, he said that Northam 'stated that he would even allow a newborn baby to come out into the world ... then talk to the mother and talk to the father and then execute the baby.' We rated this claim False. In a tweet sent days later, Trump said: 'The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don't mind executing babies AFTER birth.' We rated that claim False. To be clear: killing an infant after birth is illegal, and people on both sides of the abortion debate agree that this act should be illegal. Under federal law, the definitions of a person, human being, child and individual all include infants 'born alive at any stage of development.' Virginia legislation This characterization of Democrats as supporters of allowing abortions during and after a live birth surfaced in early 2019, when a subcommittee of the Virginia House of Delegates considered a bill aimed at loosening the state's abortion laws. In Virginia, a woman can choose to obtain an abortion through the end of the second trimester of pregnancy, up to 28 weeks from her last menstrual period. After that point, abortions are legal if they happen in a hospital and three physicians certify that 'the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.' The law also requires physicians to make 'measures for life support for the product of such abortion' available if there is 'any clearly visible evidence of viability' after an attempted abortion. The bill Virginia lawmakers considered in 2019 proposed multiple changes to state laws addressing abortion, including the provision regulating the procedure in the third trimester. The proposal would have lowered the number of physicians required to authorize a third-trimester abortion from three to one and remove the 'substantial and irremediable' threshold in the law. At the time of the debate, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that there were two confirmed third-trimester abortions performed in Virginia since 2000. Republican lawmakers questioned the bill's sponsor on the scope of the proposal, asking whether the measure would allow a woman who is dilating to get a abortion. 'My bill would allow that,' said Democratic lawmaker Kathy Tran. 'Yes.' Her response sparked intense backlash from anti-abortion advocates and footage of her remark circulated quickly on social media. But days later, Tran said she misspoke: 'I should have said: 'Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.'' A spokeswoman for Cruz pointed to the language of Tran's bill and said it clearly allows abortion up until the moment of birth, but Tran's bill only changed the requirements in place before a doctor can perform a third-trimester abortion. It did not change the law as it relates to when such an abortion could take place. As the law stands, abortion is legal in the third trimester only in cases where three physicians certify that the mother's life is in danger. Virginia law prohibits 'partial birth infanticide,' the killing of an infant who has 'been born alive, but who has not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother.' Northam's comments In a radio interview two days after the debate, Northam discussed the legislation and offered a confusing comment about third-trimester abortions: 'It's done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's nonviable. So, in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.' A number of anti-abortion advocates accused the Democratic governor of approving the killing of infants. Northam rejected this characterization of his remarks and a spokesperson said the comments were about options for care available to women with a nonviable pregnancy or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality. This can include issues like anencephaly, when an infant is born without parts of the brain and skull, and limb-body wall complex, when an infant's organs have developed outside of its body. In these cases, where there is 'little or no prospect' of an infant surviving after birth, families might opt for perinatal palliative care, or comfort care - prioritizing comfort while allowing an infant to die naturally without exercising full resuscitation efforts. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists describes this care as existing on a spectrum of care, 'which includes pregnancy termination (abortion) and full neonatal resuscitation and treatment.' Cruz's spokeswoman pointed to this care as an example of a doctor completing an abortion by denying medical care. This type of care is rare - a study of deaths at children's hospitals found that while neonates represented 41% of all deaths, perinatal palliative care was only utilized in 2% of cases - and does not meet the definition of abortion. Harvard Medical School defines abortion as 'the removal of pregnancy tissue, products of conception or the fetus and placenta (afterbirth) from the uterus.' Our Ruling Cruz said Democrats support 'abortion up until the moment of birth and even, horrifically, after that.' Cruz's remark hinged on an inaccurate characterization of legislation considered in Virginia's House of Delegates in 2019 and comments made by the state's Democratic governor at the same time. State law in Virginia allows doctors to perform abortions up until the moment of birth, but only in cases when three physicians certify that a continued pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman. The author of the bill clarified earlier remarks to say it would not allow an abortion to be performed on a woman during a live birth. PolitiFact has rated multiple statements making similar claims about Democrats supporting the execution of children False. We rate this claim False.
|
Our Ruling Cruz said Democrats support 'abortion up until the moment of birth and even, horrifically, after that.' Cruz's remark hinged on an inaccurate characterization of legislation considered in Virginia's House of Delegates in 2019 and comments made by the state's Democratic governor at the same time. State law in Virginia allows doctors to perform abortions up until the moment of birth, but only in cases when three physicians certify that a continued pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman. The author of the bill clarified earlier remarks to say it would not allow an abortion to be performed on a woman during a live birth. PolitiFact has rated multiple statements making similar claims about Democrats supporting the execution of children False. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"112782-proof-10-021b4c84e1b3ecffb4cd623a8b496699.jpg"
] |
Says Democrats are embracing 'abortion up until the moment of birth and even, horrifically, after that.
|
Contradiction
|
In the latest push from Republicans to advance a federal ban on abortion after 20 weeks and a requirement for doctors to treat infants born after an attempted abortion, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, spoke in favor of the efforts from the Senate floor. In his remarks, Cruz urged his Democratic colleagues to support these kinds of 'common sense propositions,' a departure from the party's 'extreme' position on abortion. Neither bill - versions of which GOP lawmakers have attempted to pass several times over multiple years - was approved. 'We've seen far too many Democrats embrace extreme positions on abortion: abortion up until the moment of birth and even, horrifically, after that,' Cruz said, before highlighting a radio interview Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam gave in 2019 about a bill in the Virginia House of Delegates regulating third-trimester abortions. 'This bill was allowing a mother in labor, in the process of delivering a child, this bill would allow a doctor to kill that child instead of delivering that child in the midst of labor,' Cruz said. 'The idea of killing a child while the mother is in labor instead of delivering the infant is horrifying beyond words.' Cruz's claim that Democrats support abortion up until birth and 'even, horrifically, after that,' is inaccurate, as is his characterization of the Virginia proposal (which was unsuccessful). Trump claims This isn't the first time a Republican leader has used an inaccurate description of the Virginia bill to advance legislation to require care for infants 'born alive' after attempted abortions. When Senate Republicans attempted to pass a version of the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act in February 2019, President Donald Trump offered two inaccurate claims on this front. Speaking at a rally in El Paso, he said that Northam 'stated that he would even allow a newborn baby to come out into the world ... then talk to the mother and talk to the father and then execute the baby.' We rated this claim False. In a tweet sent days later, Trump said: 'The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don't mind executing babies AFTER birth.' We rated that claim False. To be clear: killing an infant after birth is illegal, and people on both sides of the abortion debate agree that this act should be illegal. Under federal law, the definitions of a person, human being, child and individual all include infants 'born alive at any stage of development.' Virginia legislation This characterization of Democrats as supporters of allowing abortions during and after a live birth surfaced in early 2019, when a subcommittee of the Virginia House of Delegates considered a bill aimed at loosening the state's abortion laws. In Virginia, a woman can choose to obtain an abortion through the end of the second trimester of pregnancy, up to 28 weeks from her last menstrual period. After that point, abortions are legal if they happen in a hospital and three physicians certify that 'the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.' The law also requires physicians to make 'measures for life support for the product of such abortion' available if there is 'any clearly visible evidence of viability' after an attempted abortion. The bill Virginia lawmakers considered in 2019 proposed multiple changes to state laws addressing abortion, including the provision regulating the procedure in the third trimester. The proposal would have lowered the number of physicians required to authorize a third-trimester abortion from three to one and remove the 'substantial and irremediable' threshold in the law. At the time of the debate, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that there were two confirmed third-trimester abortions performed in Virginia since 2000. Republican lawmakers questioned the bill's sponsor on the scope of the proposal, asking whether the measure would allow a woman who is dilating to get a abortion. 'My bill would allow that,' said Democratic lawmaker Kathy Tran. 'Yes.' Her response sparked intense backlash from anti-abortion advocates and footage of her remark circulated quickly on social media. But days later, Tran said she misspoke: 'I should have said: 'Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.'' A spokeswoman for Cruz pointed to the language of Tran's bill and said it clearly allows abortion up until the moment of birth, but Tran's bill only changed the requirements in place before a doctor can perform a third-trimester abortion. It did not change the law as it relates to when such an abortion could take place. As the law stands, abortion is legal in the third trimester only in cases where three physicians certify that the mother's life is in danger. Virginia law prohibits 'partial birth infanticide,' the killing of an infant who has 'been born alive, but who has not been completely extracted or expelled from its mother.' Northam's comments In a radio interview two days after the debate, Northam discussed the legislation and offered a confusing comment about third-trimester abortions: 'It's done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that's nonviable. So, in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.' A number of anti-abortion advocates accused the Democratic governor of approving the killing of infants. Northam rejected this characterization of his remarks and a spokesperson said the comments were about options for care available to women with a nonviable pregnancy or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality. This can include issues like anencephaly, when an infant is born without parts of the brain and skull, and limb-body wall complex, when an infant's organs have developed outside of its body. In these cases, where there is 'little or no prospect' of an infant surviving after birth, families might opt for perinatal palliative care, or comfort care - prioritizing comfort while allowing an infant to die naturally without exercising full resuscitation efforts. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists describes this care as existing on a spectrum of care, 'which includes pregnancy termination (abortion) and full neonatal resuscitation and treatment.' Cruz's spokeswoman pointed to this care as an example of a doctor completing an abortion by denying medical care. This type of care is rare - a study of deaths at children's hospitals found that while neonates represented 41% of all deaths, perinatal palliative care was only utilized in 2% of cases - and does not meet the definition of abortion. Harvard Medical School defines abortion as 'the removal of pregnancy tissue, products of conception or the fetus and placenta (afterbirth) from the uterus.' Our Ruling Cruz said Democrats support 'abortion up until the moment of birth and even, horrifically, after that.' Cruz's remark hinged on an inaccurate characterization of legislation considered in Virginia's House of Delegates in 2019 and comments made by the state's Democratic governor at the same time. State law in Virginia allows doctors to perform abortions up until the moment of birth, but only in cases when three physicians certify that a continued pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman. The author of the bill clarified earlier remarks to say it would not allow an abortion to be performed on a woman during a live birth. PolitiFact has rated multiple statements making similar claims about Democrats supporting the execution of children False. We rate this claim False.
|
Our Ruling Cruz said Democrats support 'abortion up until the moment of birth and even, horrifically, after that.' Cruz's remark hinged on an inaccurate characterization of legislation considered in Virginia's House of Delegates in 2019 and comments made by the state's Democratic governor at the same time. State law in Virginia allows doctors to perform abortions up until the moment of birth, but only in cases when three physicians certify that a continued pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman. The author of the bill clarified earlier remarks to say it would not allow an abortion to be performed on a woman during a live birth. PolitiFact has rated multiple statements making similar claims about Democrats supporting the execution of children False. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"112782-proof-10-021b4c84e1b3ecffb4cd623a8b496699.jpg"
] |
'America has been vaccinating cattle for coronavirus for years, yet the news tells you it's new and gunna kill you all so go buy mask.
|
Contradiction
|
The fact that there's already a coronavirus vaccine for cattle should make you doubt claims that the virus causing the current human outbreak is new and deadly. That's what a Facebook post would lead you to believe. It adds to a long list of misleading claims about the virus that, as of March 1, 2020, had hit 59 countries. 'Just in case you are wondering how much the media controls people, America has been vaccinating cattle for coronavirus for years,' the Feb. 27, 2020, post claims, 'yet the news tells you it's new and gunna kill you all so go buy mask.' 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 post shows a photo of a bottle with labeling that includes, 'Bovine Rotavirus-Coronavirus Vaccine' and 'For veterinary use only.' (The image and the post were deleted in the course of our reporting, but we found similar posts showing the image elsewhere along with similar claims.) The vaccine pictured, called ScourGuard 4K, is made by animal drug manufacturer Zoetis and is real. And we found products with similar labeling available for sale online. But the vaccine is, according to the drug manufacturer, 'effective as an aid in preventing diarrhea caused by bovine rotavirus (serotypes G6 and G10), bovine coronavirus, and E. coli in calves of vaccinated dams.' It won't help humans, at least not now. Why it won't help 'The coronavirus used in the Bovine Rotavirus-Coronavirus Vaccine is distinct from the current coronavirus,' said Ming Tan, a faculty member of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. 'The antibodies produced by the Bovine Rotavirus-Coronavirus Vaccine will not recognize the current' coronavirus 'and thus will not protect humans from infection.' Studies would need to be done to determine whether the bovine vaccine could provide any help with the current coronavirus, said Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University's Center for Health Security. 'The bovine vaccine may be formulated in a manner that is not conducive to humans,' he said. There is a 'very remote' chance a bovine vaccine might work in humans, said Richard Watanabe, professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California, but 'the possibility it would work is low enough that it is more efficient to design a vaccine specifically for COVD-19.' Sorting out terms It helps to differentiate some terms being used in the news and social media. Many reports refer to the coronavirus. But coronavirus is a general term; there are different coronaviruses out there. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses which may cause illness in animals or humans. They've been around for a long time, but there are different strains. More specific terms relating to the current situation include: 2019 novel coronavirus - novel, as in, new. SARS-CoV-2 - the technical name of the new virus. COVID-19 - the name of the disease caused by the new coronavirus, as in 'coronavirus disease, 2019.' All three of those terms refer specifically to the coronavirus that was discovered in late 2019 in Wuhan, China, and has spread around the world. Unfortunately, there is no vaccine for COVID-19 and none is expected soon. One of the leading American experts on coronavirus, Anthony Fauci, who is director of the federal government's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told Fox News on Feb. 27, 2020, his team is working with a drugmaker and expects to begin a clinical trial within the 'next month and a half.' 'That whole process is going to take about a year to a year and a half. Even though we are going as fast as you possibly can, it's still going to take a good year, year and a half to see if we have a vaccine that works,' he said.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims: 'America has been vaccinating cattle for coronavirus for years, yet the news tells you it's new and gunna kill you all so go buy mask.' Despite what the post suggests, the existence of a bovine vaccine doesn't mean there is a coronavirus vaccine for humans, and none is expected soon. We rate the claim False.
|
[] |
'America has been vaccinating cattle for coronavirus for years, yet the news tells you it's new and gunna kill you all so go buy mask.
|
Contradiction
|
The fact that there's already a coronavirus vaccine for cattle should make you doubt claims that the virus causing the current human outbreak is new and deadly. That's what a Facebook post would lead you to believe. It adds to a long list of misleading claims about the virus that, as of March 1, 2020, had hit 59 countries. 'Just in case you are wondering how much the media controls people, America has been vaccinating cattle for coronavirus for years,' the Feb. 27, 2020, post claims, 'yet the news tells you it's new and gunna kill you all so go buy mask.' 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 post shows a photo of a bottle with labeling that includes, 'Bovine Rotavirus-Coronavirus Vaccine' and 'For veterinary use only.' (The image and the post were deleted in the course of our reporting, but we found similar posts showing the image elsewhere along with similar claims.) The vaccine pictured, called ScourGuard 4K, is made by animal drug manufacturer Zoetis and is real. And we found products with similar labeling available for sale online. But the vaccine is, according to the drug manufacturer, 'effective as an aid in preventing diarrhea caused by bovine rotavirus (serotypes G6 and G10), bovine coronavirus, and E. coli in calves of vaccinated dams.' It won't help humans, at least not now. Why it won't help 'The coronavirus used in the Bovine Rotavirus-Coronavirus Vaccine is distinct from the current coronavirus,' said Ming Tan, a faculty member of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. 'The antibodies produced by the Bovine Rotavirus-Coronavirus Vaccine will not recognize the current' coronavirus 'and thus will not protect humans from infection.' Studies would need to be done to determine whether the bovine vaccine could provide any help with the current coronavirus, said Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University's Center for Health Security. 'The bovine vaccine may be formulated in a manner that is not conducive to humans,' he said. There is a 'very remote' chance a bovine vaccine might work in humans, said Richard Watanabe, professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California, but 'the possibility it would work is low enough that it is more efficient to design a vaccine specifically for COVD-19.' Sorting out terms It helps to differentiate some terms being used in the news and social media. Many reports refer to the coronavirus. But coronavirus is a general term; there are different coronaviruses out there. Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses which may cause illness in animals or humans. They've been around for a long time, but there are different strains. More specific terms relating to the current situation include: 2019 novel coronavirus - novel, as in, new. SARS-CoV-2 - the technical name of the new virus. COVID-19 - the name of the disease caused by the new coronavirus, as in 'coronavirus disease, 2019.' All three of those terms refer specifically to the coronavirus that was discovered in late 2019 in Wuhan, China, and has spread around the world. Unfortunately, there is no vaccine for COVID-19 and none is expected soon. One of the leading American experts on coronavirus, Anthony Fauci, who is director of the federal government's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told Fox News on Feb. 27, 2020, his team is working with a drugmaker and expects to begin a clinical trial within the 'next month and a half.' 'That whole process is going to take about a year to a year and a half. Even though we are going as fast as you possibly can, it's still going to take a good year, year and a half to see if we have a vaccine that works,' he said.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims: 'America has been vaccinating cattle for coronavirus for years, yet the news tells you it's new and gunna kill you all so go buy mask.' Despite what the post suggests, the existence of a bovine vaccine doesn't mean there is a coronavirus vaccine for humans, and none is expected soon. We rate the claim False.
|
[] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.