claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
The intelligence community 'secretly eliminated' a requirement that whistleblowers provide firsthand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings, allowing the complaint about Trump's dealings with Ukraine to be filed. | Contradiction | In September 2019, whistleblower allegations that U.S. President Donald Trump held back military aid to Ukraine in an effort to obtain damaging information on a political rival led to an impeachment inquiry and an ongoing scandal. It wouldn't be the 2010s if the fallout didn't include a conspiracy theory circulating in the right-wing media ecosystem. In this case, the conspiracy theory was given a major platform in the form of a tweet by Trump that his supporters widely shared: WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? DRAIN THE SWAMP! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2019 The claim originated on The Federalist website, which published a story on Sept. 27 that was not only inaccurate but played on the 'deep state' conspiracy theory, an idea now popular among both fringe fanatics and White House officials alike. It posits that U.S. intelligence agencies are scheming against Trump. The Federalist story implied that the intelligence community changed existing rules so that the 'anti-Trump complaint' could be filed on Aug. 12 using secondhand information. 'Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings,' The Federalist reported. The Federalist story included purported screenshots of previous and current versions of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form. The current form allows the whistleblower to check a box indicating that the person either learned of the information firsthand or from others, whereas the previous form contained the following language:But as Julian Sanchez, senior fellow at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, pointed out, even the previous version shown above doesn't say there was a 'requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings.' The law has never required them to do so. Sanchez pointed out that the form pictured above contains a 'description of the Inspector General's (IG) standard for making a credibility determination, as required by statute, within 14 days of the submission of a complaint. According to that guidance, the IG would not make a finding of credibility, and thus transmit the complaint to the [Director of National Intelligence], unless the DNI was in possession of direct evidence supporting the claim.' It does not say, Sanchez continued, 'that whistleblowers may not submit reports based on secondhand knowledge, but rather that such reports will not be escalated to the DNI unless the IG can obtain more.' The Intelligence Community Inspector General's Office (ICIG) was forced to issue a statement on Sept. 30 correcting the record. The statement read, in part: The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019 is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General [Michael] Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law the Complainant - or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees - need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower's lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations. In other words, the entire premise of The Federalist story is wrong. No requirement exists that whistleblowers provide firsthand knowledge of alleged wrong-doings, and changing the rules would have required an act of Congress. Tom Devine, legal director for the watchdog non-profit Government Accountability Project, called The Federalist story a 'shameless legal bluff.' 'No bureaucrat has the lawful authority to change the rules of the game for whistleblower rights,' Devine told us. 'Not even the president can change that unilaterally.' So how did the claim come about? It's true that the wording on an explanatory form for whistleblowers was changed, but the rules were not. The ICIG's statement notes that the wording was revised because 'certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read - incorrectly - as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees.' Devine added that government whistleblowers who report allegations of wrongdoing based on hearsay are still valuable resources in ferreting out government waste, corruption, and wrongdoing. 'If we restricted all credible government investigations to those with whistleblowers who have firsthand information, we'd cancel out 90% of law enforcement activity,' Devine said. 'Whistleblower investigations are routinely based on hearsay.' The ICIG's Sept. 30 statement additionally noted that the whistleblower's complaint did not contain only secondhand, 'unsubstantiated assertions.' The whistleblower 'checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, 'I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved'; and the second box stated that, 'Other employees have told me about events or records involved.'' In summary, the ICIG statement said: [The] whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower's filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress's intent, and the whistleblower's intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community. | In summary, the ICIG statement said: [The] whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower's filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress's intent, and the whistleblower's intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community. | [
"06897-proof-08-trump-profile-microphone-getty.jpg"
] |
In Britney Spears' 1998 hit song '... Baby One More Time,' the line beginning 'my loneliness is killing me' was an English translation of 'ma solitude me tue, j'avoue que je continue de croire' in French author Alexandre Dumas' novel, 'The Count of Monte Cristo. | Contradiction | In early 2021, Snopes became aware of social media posts claiming a line in Britney Spear's 1998 hit song '... Baby One More Time' was an English translation of an excerpt in a popular French novel written by Alexandre Dumas more than 150 years earlier, 'The Count of Monte-Cristo.' One tweet read: My loneliness is killing me, I must confess I still believe. - Britney Spears, Baby One More Time Ma solitude me tue, j'avoue que je continue de croire. - Alexandre Dumas, Le Comte de Monte-Cristo In other words, internet sleuths believed they had discovered the origin of the lyric 'my loneliness is killing me, I must confess I still believe,' which Swedish songwriter Max Martin included in the song on Spears' debut album. He told journalists the tune popped into his head as he was attempting to fall asleep one night. The posts claimed Dumas, not Martin, however, originally wrote the line about loneliness in the 1844 Romantic novel, 'Le Comte de Monte- Cristo' - which was about a man who was unjustly incarcerated during France's Bourbon Restoration era - and included an English-to-French translation of the quote that supposedly appeared in the book. However, the book does not include the verbatim phrase 'ma solitude me tue, j'avoue que je continue de croire,' according to Snopes' review of the unexpurgated edition of the classic French text. Using a keyword search for 'solitude,' we learned the text mentioned the word 12 times - none of which under the circumstances alleged in the claim. The phrase 'j'avoue' (or 'I admit' in English) did not appear once in the French text, according to our search. In sum, considering the fact that the original French text of 'Le Comte de Monte- Cristo' did not include the alleged line ('ma solitude me tue, j'avoue que je continue de croire'), we rate this claim 'False.' | In sum, considering the fact that the original French text of 'Le Comte de Monte- Cristo' did not include the alleged line ('ma solitude me tue, j'avoue que je continue de croire'), we rate this claim 'False.' | [] |
Billionaire political activist George Soros could go to prison for years because of $1.8 billion in 'intercepted' campaign contributions to candidates in local district attorney elections. | Contradiction | Billionaire political activist George Soros has long been the target of inaccurate and misleading reporting by hyperpartisan right-wing web sites. During the summer of 2018, a number of those sites posted identically-worded articles with headlines asserting that Soros could 'officially go to prison for years' as a result of $1.8 billion of his money being 'intercepted' by unnamed entities (presumably law enforcement agencies). For example, the following excerpt was taken from a 4 July 2018 blog post on viralitythings.us: BREAKING: $1.8 BIL Of Soros' Money Just Intercepted - He Could Officially Go To Prison For Years George Soros is at it again throwing his money around and trying to manipulate political races. This time he's trying to reshape the nation's criminal justice system. Soros thinks he can do this by dumping $1.8 billion into four of the 56 district attorney positions in California up for grabs June 5th. This is the same kind of tactic he used to grab control of attorney generals in varying states. Soros isn't the only one either. Wealthy progressive liberal donors are also pouring millions of dollars into these races. Liberal groups are offering their support to would-be prosecutors who favor lower incarceration rates, crackdowns on police misconduct and changes in a bail system that they argue discriminates against the poor, the Los Angeles Times reported. 'These people who want to create their own social policy are not worthy of the office,' former Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley told the newspaper. 'If they win in San Diego or Sacramento, L.A. is next. You mean the city where the Mexican mafia runs the prisons? That city? Soros headlines a consortium of private funders, the American Civil Liberties Union and other social justice groups and Democratic activists who are willing to put their money where their Marxism is. Notwithstanding its headline, nowhere in the body of the post did it actually state that Soros's money was 'intercepted,' much less detail when, where, why, or by whom. Nor did it state that Soros was faceing prison time for contributing to election campaigns. Moreover, neither of those allegations could be found in the 23 May 2018 Los Angeles Times story the blog post cited as the main source of its claims. The Times' coverage focused on the unprecedented amount of money flowing from wealthy liberal donors into local, nonpartisan district attorney election campaigns around the country. Soros wasn't the only contributor of such funding (but he was the largest). Although the article raised questions about the wisdom and propriety of injecting partisan cash into these elections, it imputed no illegality to Soros's actions. Besides fabricating claims about Soros' going to jail, the blog post distorted the total dollar amount the billionaire contributed to district attorney campaigns: $18.97 million as of May 2018 (according to the Times), not $1.8 billion as claimed. We have not found the higher figure cited in any legitimate news reports. In short, the author of the widely aggregated blog post fudged the facts and added fabricated claims to transform legitimate reporting on George Soros's localized campaign contributions into a political smear. Who was that author? Although the majority of reproductions of the post included no byline, we did find one listed on what appears to be the original post, which was published on a web site called Right Wing News on 25 May 2018. It was authored by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, whose byline appears on many other articles on that site as well as on other far-right web publications. We note, however, that two major revisions were made after Monroe-Hamilton's post was originally published. First, the headline was changed from 'BREAKING: $1.8 BIL Of Soros' Money Just Intercepted - He Could Officially Go To Prison For Years' to 'OPINION: $1.8 Million Of Soros' Money Just Intercepted - He Should Officially Go To Prison For Years.' Second, the sentence 'Soros thinks he can do this by dumping $1.8 billion into four of the 56 district attorney positions in California...' was changed to 'Soros thinks he can do this by dumping $1.5 Million into four of the 56 district attorney positions in California ...' No such corrections were added to versions of the post published on any other site we checked, including viralitythings.us. | In short, the author of the widely aggregated blog post fudged the facts and added fabricated claims to transform legitimate reporting on George Soros's localized campaign contributions into a political smear. Who was that author? Although the majority of reproductions of the post included no byline, we did find one listed on what appears to be the original post, which was published on a web site called Right Wing News on 25 May 2018. It was authored by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, whose byline appears on many other articles on that site as well as on other far-right web publications. We note, however, that two major revisions were made after Monroe-Hamilton's post was originally published. First, the headline was changed from 'BREAKING: $1.8 BIL Of Soros' Money Just Intercepted - He Could Officially Go To Prison For Years' to 'OPINION: $1.8 Million Of Soros' Money Just Intercepted - He Should Officially Go To Prison For Years.' Second, the sentence 'Soros thinks he can do this by dumping $1.8 billion into four of the 56 district attorney positions in California...' was changed to 'Soros thinks he can do this by dumping $1.5 Million into four of the 56 district attorney positions in California ...' No such corrections were added to versions of the post published on any other site we checked, including viralitythings.us. | [
"06966-proof-06-george_soros_feature.jpg"
] |
The CDC 'quietly updated' its COVID-19 mortality statistics in summer 2020 to show only 6% of previously reported deaths were actually due to the coronavirus, while the remaining 94% died from preexisting health conditions. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In attempt to ring the alarm on supposed deceptive practices by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), hard-line conservatives including U.S. President Donald Trump promoted the idea in August 2020 that the public health agency suddenly changed its methods for reporting COVID-19 mortality statistics. And as a result, viral social media posts alleged, America only tallied about 9,000 COVID-19 fatalities, or roughly 6% of the more than 150,000 deaths widely reported by politicians, scientists, and news reporters. Many believers, including conspiracy theorist Jeff Berwick, dubbed the alleged change by the CDC evidence that people other than his followers were exaggerating the seriousness of the pandemic, and that everyone should be skeptical of rules on social distancing that halt the economy. In a Sept. 1 video, for example, he said: 'It's been proven by the CDC - [the pandemic] is nothing, it was absolutely nothing. Zero. 9,000 people? That's nothing.' Numerous readers asked Snopes to investigate the matter. Several inquiries included a link to the hyperpartisan, junk news website The Gateway Pundit, or a link to another conspiratorial web page that phrased the alleged revelation like this: 'The CDC quietly released new covid numbers showing those who solely died from the virus was only 6% (9,210) of the total deaths (153,504). 94% of those who died, did so because they had existing health conditions.' Additionally, The Gateway Pundit page claimed, 'the overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among 'very old Americans' - without going into specifics on what age population that meant - and suggested nefarious intentions on the part of the CDC to try to change its guidance without anyone noticing. Versions of this notion circulated widely online in summer 2020, in part because of support from American politicians such as Trump. In two retweets - one by his campaign adviser that linked to the Gateway Pundit page and another by a supporter of the unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory (screenshot below) - Trump endorsed the claim, essentially denigrating scientific evidence by his own health advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. However, as of this writing, Twitter had removed the below-displayed post for violating its terms of service. First, to unpack the claim, let's be clear about how COVID-19 - which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2 - attacks the body and can become deadly. According to an article in the journal Science, a highly credible scientific publication: Once inside, the virus hijacks the cell's machinery, making myriad copies of itself and invading new cells. As the virus multiplies, an infected person may shed copious amounts of it, especially during the first week or so. Symptoms may be absent at this point. Or the virus' new victim may develop a fever, dry cough, sore throat, loss of smell and taste, or head and body aches. If the immune system doesn't beat back SARS-CoV-2 during this initial phase, the virus then marches down the windpipe to attack the lungs, where it can turn deadly. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 attacks lung cells, and that assault on a person's respiratory system can greatly exacerbate other preexisting conditions. That means COVID-19 patients run the risk of previously manageable health problems turning fatal - including cardiac arrest, liver failure, or lung scarring - after they're infected with SARS-CoV-2. Put another way, Ryan McNamara, a virologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a series of tweets compared the SARS-CoV-2 virus with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which causes AIDS. He wrote: After years of (HIV) virus spread, and in the absence of treatment, a patient infected with HIV will develop AIDS. [...] During this state of HIV progression, white blood cells called T-cells are depleted. This can allow co-infecting pathogens to spread unchecked or tumor cells to grow & metastasize. Hence pneumonia & AIDS-associated cancers are leading causes of death in HIV+ patients. Those saying 'only 6% die from COVID-19 alone', or some derivation thereof, don't understand how infectious diseases work. Many are not operating in good faith, & are the same people who have downplayed this pandemic since February. (4/4) - Ryan McNamara 🧬 (@Ryan_Mac_Phd) August 31, 2020 Next, we investigated how the CDC compiles COVID-19 death toll data. Since the viral posts did not specify what 'numbers' by the CDC to which they were alleging nefariousness, we considered the CDC's Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) web page, which is a compilation of death certificates updated weekly by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Additionally, we obtained an April 2020 document by the World Health Organization titled, 'International Guidelines For Certification and Classification (Coding) of COVID-19 As Cause of Death,' which stated that medical examiners must include as much detail as possible based on records and lab testing when they're filling out death certificates. For example, a death certification for a patient who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and afterwards developed pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress would list all three conditions as causes of death (see example below). The document also said death certificates for people who suffered from chronic conditions, such as coronary artery disease or diabetes, before their exposure to the coronavirus would list those conditions in addition to COVID-19. The coronavirus would still be labeled the underlying cause of death - or the disease that 'initiated the train of events leading directly to death,' per the WHO's definition - since the preexisting health issues were likely exacerbated by the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Next, we considered the CDC's process for analyzing those death certificates that list COVID-19. Its website explained: When a person dies, the cause of death is determined by the certifier - the physician, medical examiner, or coroner who reports it on the death certificate. States register all death certificates and send them to [NCHS], where they are used to produce the nation's official death statistics. [...] When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death. [...] Complete means describing a clear chain of events from the immediate to the underlying cause of death, reporting any other conditions that contributed to death, and providing information that is specific. In short, the CDC compiles mortality statistics that are based on all possible causes of death for one individual. So if a diabetes patient with high blood pressure was infected with COVID-19 - which can target blood vessels - and they die because their blood vessels were already so damaged, the CDC would consider their death related to both the coronavirus and diabetes. (According to the CDC database of death certificate data, that was the case for more than 27,500 people.) As of this writing, the CDC last updated its mortality statistics on Sept. 3, 2020. At that point, the agency said 171,787 death certificates included COVID-19 since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak in February 2020. And alongside the coronavirus, the majority of documents also listed comorbidities, or additional health issues that can either worsen or develop after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. For instance, 71,700 included influenza or pneumonia and COVID-19 as potential causes of death. However, fueling the conspiracy theory, the CDC web page stated: 'For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause [of death] mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.' That meant, yes, medical investigators believed only 6% of COVID-19 patients died from the coronavirus alone. Those patients had no reported comorbidities. However, it was dangerously wrong to misinterpret that fact to mean that the remaining fatalities (or 94 percent) died from health issues other than the coronavirus. Rather, most people's underlying cause of death was COVID-19 and the virus either intensified or caused other illnesses that contributed to patients' death. Note: The '6%' claim was not the first attempt by COVID-19 conspiracy theorists to allege without any substantial evidence that the CDC was nefariously compiling data to trick people into thinking the coronavirus was more serious than it actually is. In spring 2020, for instance, they attempted to ring the alarm on the agency supposedly inflating COVID-19 death numbers for political reasons, but in reality the alleged discrepancy was a result of comparing two separate data sources that report different measurements. (See our analysis into that claim here.) The death certification statistics, in short, prove that people with preexisting health problems - such as asthma or hypertension - face higher risk for serious illness, or dying, if they're infected with COVID-19, according to Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS. He said in a statement to NBC News: 'These data are consistent with CDC guidance that those with underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19.' Additionally, Fauci explained the phenomena in a Sept. 1 interview on the ABC program 'Good Morning America: The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of [COVID-19 deaths] had nothing else but just COVID. That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did. So the numbers that you've been hearing - the 180,000-plus deaths - are real deaths from COVID-19. ...It's not 9,000 deaths from COVID-19. Next, we found data to address another aspect of the fringe theory: that the 'overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among people of a 'very advanced age.' For the purpose of this report, we considered that group to be people aged 85 or older. And according to the CDC death certificate data, 53,000 documents for that population listed COVID-19 as a potential cause of death, accounting for about one-third of the total, or less than the majority. We should note here: Epidemiologists and health officials have been up front with the fact that COVID-19 patients who are older - as well as those who have underlying health problems - are at greater risk for serious problems. 'As you get older, your risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19 increases. Everyone, especially older adults and others at increased risk of severe illness, should take steps to protect themselves from getting COVID-19,' according to the CDC. Eight out of 10 people who have died as a result of COVID-19 in the U.S. were over the age of 65, per the agency's data. Lastly, we looked for any evidence to confirm or deny that the CDC attempted to 'quietly' adjust its mortality statistics under the public's radar. Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS, told NBC News in a statement the death certificate data does 'not represent new information as NCHS has been publishing this same information since the outset when we began posting data on COVID-19 deaths on our web site.' In sum, considering the way in which the coronavirus impacts the human body, the way the CDC compiles data from death certificates - listing comorbidities that were either developed or exacerbated by COVID-19 - as well as the fact that one-third of COVID-19 fatalities were people aged 85 or older, we rate this claim 'False.' | in summer 2020, in part because of support from American politicians such as Trump. In two retweets - one by his campaign adviser that linked to the Gateway Pundit page and another by a supporter of the unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory (screenshot below) - Trump endorsed the claim, essentially denigrating scientific evidence by his own health advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. However, as of this writing, Twitter had removed the below-displayed post for violating its terms of service. First, to unpack the claim, let's be clear about how COVID-19 - which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2 - attacks the body and can become deadly. According to an article in the journal Science, a highly credible scientific publication: Once inside, the virus hijacks the cell's machinery, making myriad copies of itself and invading new cells. As the virus multiplies, an infected person may shed copious amounts of it, especially during the first week or so. Symptoms may be absent at this point. Or the virus' new victim may develop a fever, dry cough, sore throat, loss of smell and taste, or head and body aches. If the immune system doesn't beat back SARS-CoV-2 during this initial phase, the virus then marches down the windpipe to attack the lungs, where it can turn deadly. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 attacks lung cells, and that assault on a person's respiratory system can greatly exacerbate other preexisting conditions. That means COVID-19 patients run the risk of previously manageable health problems turning fatal - including cardiac arrest, liver failure, or lung scarring - after they're infected with SARS-CoV-2. Put another way, Ryan McNamara, a virologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a series of tweets compared the SARS-CoV-2 virus with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which causes AIDS. He wrote: After years of (HIV) virus spread, and in the absence of treatment, a patient infected with HIV will develop AIDS. [...] During this state of HIV progression, white blood cells called T-cells are depleted. This can allow co-infecting pathogens to spread unchecked or tumor cells to grow & metastasize. Hence pneumonia & AIDS-associated cancers are leading causes of death in HIV+ patients. Those saying 'only 6% die from COVID-19 alone', or some derivation thereof, don't understand how infectious diseases work. Many are not operating in good faith, & are the same people who have downplayed this pandemic since February. (4/4) - Ryan McNamara 🧬 (@Ryan_Mac_Phd) August 31, 2020 Next, we investigated how the CDC compiles COVID-19 death toll data. Since the viral posts did not specify what 'numbers' by the CDC to which they were alleging nefariousness, we considered the CDC's Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) web page, which is a compilation of death certificates updated weekly by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Additionally, we obtained an April 2020 document by the World Health Organization titled, 'International Guidelines For Certification and Classification (Coding) of COVID-19 As Cause of Death,' which stated that medical examiners must include as much detail as possible based on records and lab testing when they're filling out death certificates. For example, a death certification for a patient who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and afterwards developed pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress would list all three conditions as causes of death (see example below). The document also said death certificates for people who suffered from chronic conditions, such as coronary artery disease or diabetes, before their exposure to the coronavirus would list those conditions in addition to COVID-19. The coronavirus would still be labeled the underlying cause of death - or the disease that 'initiated the train of events leading directly to death,' per the WHO's definition - since the preexisting health issues were likely exacerbated by the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Next, we considered the CDC's process for analyzing those death certificates that list COVID-19. Its website explained: When a person dies, the cause of death is determined by the certifier - the physician, medical examiner, or coroner who reports it on the death certificate. States register all death certificates and send them to [NCHS], where they are used to produce the nation's official death statistics. [...] When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death. [...] Complete means describing a clear chain of events from the immediate to the underlying cause of death, reporting any other conditions that contributed to death, and providing information that is specific. In short, the CDC compiles mortality statistics that are based on all possible causes of death for one individual. So if a diabetes patient with high blood pressure was infected with COVID-19 - which can target blood vessels - and they die because their blood vessels were already so damaged, the CDC would consider their death related to both the coronavirus and diabetes. (According to the CDC database of death certificate data, that was the case for more than 27,500 people.) As of this writing, the CDC last updated its mortality statistics on Sept. 3, 2020. At that point, the agency said 171,787 death certificates included COVID-19 since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak in February 2020. And alongside the coronavirus, the majority of documents also listed comorbidities, or additional health issues that can either worsen or develop after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. For instance, 71,700 included influenza or pneumonia and COVID-19 as potential causes of death. However, fueling the conspiracy theory, the CDC web page stated: 'For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause [of death] mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.' That meant, yes, medical investigators believed only 6% of COVID-19 patients died from the coronavirus alone. Those patients had no reported comorbidities. However, it was dangerously wrong to misinterpret that fact to mean that the remaining fatalities (or 94 percent) died from health issues other than the coronavirus. Rather, most people's underlying cause of death was COVID-19 and the virus either intensified or caused other illnesses that contributed to patients' death. Note: The '6%' claim was not the first attempt by COVID-19 conspiracy theorists to allege without any substantial evidence that the CDC was nefariously compiling data to trick people into thinking the coronavirus was more serious than it actually is. In spring 2020, for instance, they attempted to ring the alarm on the agency supposedly inflating COVID-19 death numbers for political reasons, but in reality the alleged discrepancy was a result of comparing two separate data sources that report different measurements. (See our analysis into that claim here.) The death certification statistics, in short, prove that people with preexisting health problems - such as asthma or hypertension - face higher risk for serious illness, or dying, if they're infected with COVID-19, according to Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS. He said in a statement to NBC News: 'These data are consistent with CDC guidance that those with underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19.' Additionally, Fauci explained the phenomena in a Sept. 1 interview on the ABC program 'Good Morning America: The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of [COVID-19 deaths] had nothing else but just COVID. That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did. So the numbers that you've been hearing - the 180,000-plus deaths - are real deaths from COVID-19. ...It's not 9,000 deaths from COVID-19. Next, we found data to address another aspect of the fringe theory: that the 'overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among people of a 'very advanced age.' For the purpose of this report, we considered that group to be people aged 85 or older. And according to the CDC death certificate data, 53,000 documents for that population listed COVID-19 as a potential cause of death, accounting for about one-third of the total, or less than the majority. We should note here: Epidemiologists and health officials have been up front with the fact that COVID-19 patients who are older - as well as those who have underlying health problems - are at greater risk for serious problems. 'As you get older, your risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19 increases. Everyone, especially older adults and others at increased risk of severe illness, should take steps to protect themselves from getting COVID-19,' according to the CDC. Eight out of 10 people who have died as a result of COVID-19 in the U.S. were over the age of 65, per the agency's data. Lastly, we looked for any evidence to confirm or deny that the CDC attempted to 'quietly' adjust its mortality statistics under the public's radar. Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS, told NBC News in a statement the death certificate data does 'not represent new information as NCHS has been publishing this same information since the outset when we began posting data on COVID-19 deaths on our web site.' In sum, considering the way in which the coronavirus impacts the human body, the way the CDC compiles data from death certificates - listing comorbidities that were either developed or exacerbated by COVID-19 - as well as the fact that one-third of COVID-19 fatalities were people aged 85 or older, we rate this claim 'False.' | [
"06986-proof-08-1920px-Novel_Coronavirus_SARS-CoV-2.jpg"
] |
The CDC 'quietly updated' its COVID-19 mortality statistics in summer 2020 to show only 6% of previously reported deaths were actually due to the coronavirus, while the remaining 94% died from preexisting health conditions. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In attempt to ring the alarm on supposed deceptive practices by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), hard-line conservatives including U.S. President Donald Trump promoted the idea in August 2020 that the public health agency suddenly changed its methods for reporting COVID-19 mortality statistics. And as a result, viral social media posts alleged, America only tallied about 9,000 COVID-19 fatalities, or roughly 6% of the more than 150,000 deaths widely reported by politicians, scientists, and news reporters. Many believers, including conspiracy theorist Jeff Berwick, dubbed the alleged change by the CDC evidence that people other than his followers were exaggerating the seriousness of the pandemic, and that everyone should be skeptical of rules on social distancing that halt the economy. In a Sept. 1 video, for example, he said: 'It's been proven by the CDC - [the pandemic] is nothing, it was absolutely nothing. Zero. 9,000 people? That's nothing.' Numerous readers asked Snopes to investigate the matter. Several inquiries included a link to the hyperpartisan, junk news website The Gateway Pundit, or a link to another conspiratorial web page that phrased the alleged revelation like this: 'The CDC quietly released new covid numbers showing those who solely died from the virus was only 6% (9,210) of the total deaths (153,504). 94% of those who died, did so because they had existing health conditions.' Additionally, The Gateway Pundit page claimed, 'the overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among 'very old Americans' - without going into specifics on what age population that meant - and suggested nefarious intentions on the part of the CDC to try to change its guidance without anyone noticing. Versions of this notion circulated widely online in summer 2020, in part because of support from American politicians such as Trump. In two retweets - one by his campaign adviser that linked to the Gateway Pundit page and another by a supporter of the unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory (screenshot below) - Trump endorsed the claim, essentially denigrating scientific evidence by his own health advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. However, as of this writing, Twitter had removed the below-displayed post for violating its terms of service. First, to unpack the claim, let's be clear about how COVID-19 - which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2 - attacks the body and can become deadly. According to an article in the journal Science, a highly credible scientific publication: Once inside, the virus hijacks the cell's machinery, making myriad copies of itself and invading new cells. As the virus multiplies, an infected person may shed copious amounts of it, especially during the first week or so. Symptoms may be absent at this point. Or the virus' new victim may develop a fever, dry cough, sore throat, loss of smell and taste, or head and body aches. If the immune system doesn't beat back SARS-CoV-2 during this initial phase, the virus then marches down the windpipe to attack the lungs, where it can turn deadly. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 attacks lung cells, and that assault on a person's respiratory system can greatly exacerbate other preexisting conditions. That means COVID-19 patients run the risk of previously manageable health problems turning fatal - including cardiac arrest, liver failure, or lung scarring - after they're infected with SARS-CoV-2. Put another way, Ryan McNamara, a virologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a series of tweets compared the SARS-CoV-2 virus with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which causes AIDS. He wrote: After years of (HIV) virus spread, and in the absence of treatment, a patient infected with HIV will develop AIDS. [...] During this state of HIV progression, white blood cells called T-cells are depleted. This can allow co-infecting pathogens to spread unchecked or tumor cells to grow & metastasize. Hence pneumonia & AIDS-associated cancers are leading causes of death in HIV+ patients. Those saying 'only 6% die from COVID-19 alone', or some derivation thereof, don't understand how infectious diseases work. Many are not operating in good faith, & are the same people who have downplayed this pandemic since February. (4/4) - Ryan McNamara 🧬 (@Ryan_Mac_Phd) August 31, 2020 Next, we investigated how the CDC compiles COVID-19 death toll data. Since the viral posts did not specify what 'numbers' by the CDC to which they were alleging nefariousness, we considered the CDC's Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) web page, which is a compilation of death certificates updated weekly by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Additionally, we obtained an April 2020 document by the World Health Organization titled, 'International Guidelines For Certification and Classification (Coding) of COVID-19 As Cause of Death,' which stated that medical examiners must include as much detail as possible based on records and lab testing when they're filling out death certificates. For example, a death certification for a patient who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and afterwards developed pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress would list all three conditions as causes of death (see example below). The document also said death certificates for people who suffered from chronic conditions, such as coronary artery disease or diabetes, before their exposure to the coronavirus would list those conditions in addition to COVID-19. The coronavirus would still be labeled the underlying cause of death - or the disease that 'initiated the train of events leading directly to death,' per the WHO's definition - since the preexisting health issues were likely exacerbated by the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Next, we considered the CDC's process for analyzing those death certificates that list COVID-19. Its website explained: When a person dies, the cause of death is determined by the certifier - the physician, medical examiner, or coroner who reports it on the death certificate. States register all death certificates and send them to [NCHS], where they are used to produce the nation's official death statistics. [...] When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death. [...] Complete means describing a clear chain of events from the immediate to the underlying cause of death, reporting any other conditions that contributed to death, and providing information that is specific. In short, the CDC compiles mortality statistics that are based on all possible causes of death for one individual. So if a diabetes patient with high blood pressure was infected with COVID-19 - which can target blood vessels - and they die because their blood vessels were already so damaged, the CDC would consider their death related to both the coronavirus and diabetes. (According to the CDC database of death certificate data, that was the case for more than 27,500 people.) As of this writing, the CDC last updated its mortality statistics on Sept. 3, 2020. At that point, the agency said 171,787 death certificates included COVID-19 since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak in February 2020. And alongside the coronavirus, the majority of documents also listed comorbidities, or additional health issues that can either worsen or develop after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. For instance, 71,700 included influenza or pneumonia and COVID-19 as potential causes of death. However, fueling the conspiracy theory, the CDC web page stated: 'For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause [of death] mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.' That meant, yes, medical investigators believed only 6% of COVID-19 patients died from the coronavirus alone. Those patients had no reported comorbidities. However, it was dangerously wrong to misinterpret that fact to mean that the remaining fatalities (or 94 percent) died from health issues other than the coronavirus. Rather, most people's underlying cause of death was COVID-19 and the virus either intensified or caused other illnesses that contributed to patients' death. Note: The '6%' claim was not the first attempt by COVID-19 conspiracy theorists to allege without any substantial evidence that the CDC was nefariously compiling data to trick people into thinking the coronavirus was more serious than it actually is. In spring 2020, for instance, they attempted to ring the alarm on the agency supposedly inflating COVID-19 death numbers for political reasons, but in reality the alleged discrepancy was a result of comparing two separate data sources that report different measurements. (See our analysis into that claim here.) The death certification statistics, in short, prove that people with preexisting health problems - such as asthma or hypertension - face higher risk for serious illness, or dying, if they're infected with COVID-19, according to Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS. He said in a statement to NBC News: 'These data are consistent with CDC guidance that those with underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19.' Additionally, Fauci explained the phenomena in a Sept. 1 interview on the ABC program 'Good Morning America: The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of [COVID-19 deaths] had nothing else but just COVID. That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did. So the numbers that you've been hearing - the 180,000-plus deaths - are real deaths from COVID-19. ...It's not 9,000 deaths from COVID-19. Next, we found data to address another aspect of the fringe theory: that the 'overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among people of a 'very advanced age.' For the purpose of this report, we considered that group to be people aged 85 or older. And according to the CDC death certificate data, 53,000 documents for that population listed COVID-19 as a potential cause of death, accounting for about one-third of the total, or less than the majority. We should note here: Epidemiologists and health officials have been up front with the fact that COVID-19 patients who are older - as well as those who have underlying health problems - are at greater risk for serious problems. 'As you get older, your risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19 increases. Everyone, especially older adults and others at increased risk of severe illness, should take steps to protect themselves from getting COVID-19,' according to the CDC. Eight out of 10 people who have died as a result of COVID-19 in the U.S. were over the age of 65, per the agency's data. Lastly, we looked for any evidence to confirm or deny that the CDC attempted to 'quietly' adjust its mortality statistics under the public's radar. Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS, told NBC News in a statement the death certificate data does 'not represent new information as NCHS has been publishing this same information since the outset when we began posting data on COVID-19 deaths on our web site.' In sum, considering the way in which the coronavirus impacts the human body, the way the CDC compiles data from death certificates - listing comorbidities that were either developed or exacerbated by COVID-19 - as well as the fact that one-third of COVID-19 fatalities were people aged 85 or older, we rate this claim 'False.' | in summer 2020, in part because of support from American politicians such as Trump. In two retweets - one by his campaign adviser that linked to the Gateway Pundit page and another by a supporter of the unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory (screenshot below) - Trump endorsed the claim, essentially denigrating scientific evidence by his own health advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. However, as of this writing, Twitter had removed the below-displayed post for violating its terms of service. First, to unpack the claim, let's be clear about how COVID-19 - which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2 - attacks the body and can become deadly. According to an article in the journal Science, a highly credible scientific publication: Once inside, the virus hijacks the cell's machinery, making myriad copies of itself and invading new cells. As the virus multiplies, an infected person may shed copious amounts of it, especially during the first week or so. Symptoms may be absent at this point. Or the virus' new victim may develop a fever, dry cough, sore throat, loss of smell and taste, or head and body aches. If the immune system doesn't beat back SARS-CoV-2 during this initial phase, the virus then marches down the windpipe to attack the lungs, where it can turn deadly. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 attacks lung cells, and that assault on a person's respiratory system can greatly exacerbate other preexisting conditions. That means COVID-19 patients run the risk of previously manageable health problems turning fatal - including cardiac arrest, liver failure, or lung scarring - after they're infected with SARS-CoV-2. Put another way, Ryan McNamara, a virologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a series of tweets compared the SARS-CoV-2 virus with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which causes AIDS. He wrote: After years of (HIV) virus spread, and in the absence of treatment, a patient infected with HIV will develop AIDS. [...] During this state of HIV progression, white blood cells called T-cells are depleted. This can allow co-infecting pathogens to spread unchecked or tumor cells to grow & metastasize. Hence pneumonia & AIDS-associated cancers are leading causes of death in HIV+ patients. Those saying 'only 6% die from COVID-19 alone', or some derivation thereof, don't understand how infectious diseases work. Many are not operating in good faith, & are the same people who have downplayed this pandemic since February. (4/4) - Ryan McNamara 🧬 (@Ryan_Mac_Phd) August 31, 2020 Next, we investigated how the CDC compiles COVID-19 death toll data. Since the viral posts did not specify what 'numbers' by the CDC to which they were alleging nefariousness, we considered the CDC's Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) web page, which is a compilation of death certificates updated weekly by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Additionally, we obtained an April 2020 document by the World Health Organization titled, 'International Guidelines For Certification and Classification (Coding) of COVID-19 As Cause of Death,' which stated that medical examiners must include as much detail as possible based on records and lab testing when they're filling out death certificates. For example, a death certification for a patient who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and afterwards developed pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress would list all three conditions as causes of death (see example below). The document also said death certificates for people who suffered from chronic conditions, such as coronary artery disease or diabetes, before their exposure to the coronavirus would list those conditions in addition to COVID-19. The coronavirus would still be labeled the underlying cause of death - or the disease that 'initiated the train of events leading directly to death,' per the WHO's definition - since the preexisting health issues were likely exacerbated by the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Next, we considered the CDC's process for analyzing those death certificates that list COVID-19. Its website explained: When a person dies, the cause of death is determined by the certifier - the physician, medical examiner, or coroner who reports it on the death certificate. States register all death certificates and send them to [NCHS], where they are used to produce the nation's official death statistics. [...] When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death. [...] Complete means describing a clear chain of events from the immediate to the underlying cause of death, reporting any other conditions that contributed to death, and providing information that is specific. In short, the CDC compiles mortality statistics that are based on all possible causes of death for one individual. So if a diabetes patient with high blood pressure was infected with COVID-19 - which can target blood vessels - and they die because their blood vessels were already so damaged, the CDC would consider their death related to both the coronavirus and diabetes. (According to the CDC database of death certificate data, that was the case for more than 27,500 people.) As of this writing, the CDC last updated its mortality statistics on Sept. 3, 2020. At that point, the agency said 171,787 death certificates included COVID-19 since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak in February 2020. And alongside the coronavirus, the majority of documents also listed comorbidities, or additional health issues that can either worsen or develop after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. For instance, 71,700 included influenza or pneumonia and COVID-19 as potential causes of death. However, fueling the conspiracy theory, the CDC web page stated: 'For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause [of death] mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.' That meant, yes, medical investigators believed only 6% of COVID-19 patients died from the coronavirus alone. Those patients had no reported comorbidities. However, it was dangerously wrong to misinterpret that fact to mean that the remaining fatalities (or 94 percent) died from health issues other than the coronavirus. Rather, most people's underlying cause of death was COVID-19 and the virus either intensified or caused other illnesses that contributed to patients' death. Note: The '6%' claim was not the first attempt by COVID-19 conspiracy theorists to allege without any substantial evidence that the CDC was nefariously compiling data to trick people into thinking the coronavirus was more serious than it actually is. In spring 2020, for instance, they attempted to ring the alarm on the agency supposedly inflating COVID-19 death numbers for political reasons, but in reality the alleged discrepancy was a result of comparing two separate data sources that report different measurements. (See our analysis into that claim here.) The death certification statistics, in short, prove that people with preexisting health problems - such as asthma or hypertension - face higher risk for serious illness, or dying, if they're infected with COVID-19, according to Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS. He said in a statement to NBC News: 'These data are consistent with CDC guidance that those with underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19.' Additionally, Fauci explained the phenomena in a Sept. 1 interview on the ABC program 'Good Morning America: The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of [COVID-19 deaths] had nothing else but just COVID. That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did. So the numbers that you've been hearing - the 180,000-plus deaths - are real deaths from COVID-19. ...It's not 9,000 deaths from COVID-19. Next, we found data to address another aspect of the fringe theory: that the 'overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among people of a 'very advanced age.' For the purpose of this report, we considered that group to be people aged 85 or older. And according to the CDC death certificate data, 53,000 documents for that population listed COVID-19 as a potential cause of death, accounting for about one-third of the total, or less than the majority. We should note here: Epidemiologists and health officials have been up front with the fact that COVID-19 patients who are older - as well as those who have underlying health problems - are at greater risk for serious problems. 'As you get older, your risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19 increases. Everyone, especially older adults and others at increased risk of severe illness, should take steps to protect themselves from getting COVID-19,' according to the CDC. Eight out of 10 people who have died as a result of COVID-19 in the U.S. were over the age of 65, per the agency's data. Lastly, we looked for any evidence to confirm or deny that the CDC attempted to 'quietly' adjust its mortality statistics under the public's radar. Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS, told NBC News in a statement the death certificate data does 'not represent new information as NCHS has been publishing this same information since the outset when we began posting data on COVID-19 deaths on our web site.' In sum, considering the way in which the coronavirus impacts the human body, the way the CDC compiles data from death certificates - listing comorbidities that were either developed or exacerbated by COVID-19 - as well as the fact that one-third of COVID-19 fatalities were people aged 85 or older, we rate this claim 'False.' | [
"06986-proof-08-1920px-Novel_Coronavirus_SARS-CoV-2.jpg"
] |
The CDC 'quietly updated' its COVID-19 mortality statistics in summer 2020 to show only 6% of previously reported deaths were actually due to the coronavirus, while the remaining 94% died from preexisting health conditions. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In attempt to ring the alarm on supposed deceptive practices by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), hard-line conservatives including U.S. President Donald Trump promoted the idea in August 2020 that the public health agency suddenly changed its methods for reporting COVID-19 mortality statistics. And as a result, viral social media posts alleged, America only tallied about 9,000 COVID-19 fatalities, or roughly 6% of the more than 150,000 deaths widely reported by politicians, scientists, and news reporters. Many believers, including conspiracy theorist Jeff Berwick, dubbed the alleged change by the CDC evidence that people other than his followers were exaggerating the seriousness of the pandemic, and that everyone should be skeptical of rules on social distancing that halt the economy. In a Sept. 1 video, for example, he said: 'It's been proven by the CDC - [the pandemic] is nothing, it was absolutely nothing. Zero. 9,000 people? That's nothing.' Numerous readers asked Snopes to investigate the matter. Several inquiries included a link to the hyperpartisan, junk news website The Gateway Pundit, or a link to another conspiratorial web page that phrased the alleged revelation like this: 'The CDC quietly released new covid numbers showing those who solely died from the virus was only 6% (9,210) of the total deaths (153,504). 94% of those who died, did so because they had existing health conditions.' Additionally, The Gateway Pundit page claimed, 'the overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among 'very old Americans' - without going into specifics on what age population that meant - and suggested nefarious intentions on the part of the CDC to try to change its guidance without anyone noticing. Versions of this notion circulated widely online in summer 2020, in part because of support from American politicians such as Trump. In two retweets - one by his campaign adviser that linked to the Gateway Pundit page and another by a supporter of the unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory (screenshot below) - Trump endorsed the claim, essentially denigrating scientific evidence by his own health advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. However, as of this writing, Twitter had removed the below-displayed post for violating its terms of service. First, to unpack the claim, let's be clear about how COVID-19 - which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2 - attacks the body and can become deadly. According to an article in the journal Science, a highly credible scientific publication: Once inside, the virus hijacks the cell's machinery, making myriad copies of itself and invading new cells. As the virus multiplies, an infected person may shed copious amounts of it, especially during the first week or so. Symptoms may be absent at this point. Or the virus' new victim may develop a fever, dry cough, sore throat, loss of smell and taste, or head and body aches. If the immune system doesn't beat back SARS-CoV-2 during this initial phase, the virus then marches down the windpipe to attack the lungs, where it can turn deadly. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 attacks lung cells, and that assault on a person's respiratory system can greatly exacerbate other preexisting conditions. That means COVID-19 patients run the risk of previously manageable health problems turning fatal - including cardiac arrest, liver failure, or lung scarring - after they're infected with SARS-CoV-2. Put another way, Ryan McNamara, a virologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a series of tweets compared the SARS-CoV-2 virus with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which causes AIDS. He wrote: After years of (HIV) virus spread, and in the absence of treatment, a patient infected with HIV will develop AIDS. [...] During this state of HIV progression, white blood cells called T-cells are depleted. This can allow co-infecting pathogens to spread unchecked or tumor cells to grow & metastasize. Hence pneumonia & AIDS-associated cancers are leading causes of death in HIV+ patients. Those saying 'only 6% die from COVID-19 alone', or some derivation thereof, don't understand how infectious diseases work. Many are not operating in good faith, & are the same people who have downplayed this pandemic since February. (4/4) - Ryan McNamara 🧬 (@Ryan_Mac_Phd) August 31, 2020 Next, we investigated how the CDC compiles COVID-19 death toll data. Since the viral posts did not specify what 'numbers' by the CDC to which they were alleging nefariousness, we considered the CDC's Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) web page, which is a compilation of death certificates updated weekly by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Additionally, we obtained an April 2020 document by the World Health Organization titled, 'International Guidelines For Certification and Classification (Coding) of COVID-19 As Cause of Death,' which stated that medical examiners must include as much detail as possible based on records and lab testing when they're filling out death certificates. For example, a death certification for a patient who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and afterwards developed pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress would list all three conditions as causes of death (see example below). The document also said death certificates for people who suffered from chronic conditions, such as coronary artery disease or diabetes, before their exposure to the coronavirus would list those conditions in addition to COVID-19. The coronavirus would still be labeled the underlying cause of death - or the disease that 'initiated the train of events leading directly to death,' per the WHO's definition - since the preexisting health issues were likely exacerbated by the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Next, we considered the CDC's process for analyzing those death certificates that list COVID-19. Its website explained: When a person dies, the cause of death is determined by the certifier - the physician, medical examiner, or coroner who reports it on the death certificate. States register all death certificates and send them to [NCHS], where they are used to produce the nation's official death statistics. [...] When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death. [...] Complete means describing a clear chain of events from the immediate to the underlying cause of death, reporting any other conditions that contributed to death, and providing information that is specific. In short, the CDC compiles mortality statistics that are based on all possible causes of death for one individual. So if a diabetes patient with high blood pressure was infected with COVID-19 - which can target blood vessels - and they die because their blood vessels were already so damaged, the CDC would consider their death related to both the coronavirus and diabetes. (According to the CDC database of death certificate data, that was the case for more than 27,500 people.) As of this writing, the CDC last updated its mortality statistics on Sept. 3, 2020. At that point, the agency said 171,787 death certificates included COVID-19 since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak in February 2020. And alongside the coronavirus, the majority of documents also listed comorbidities, or additional health issues that can either worsen or develop after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. For instance, 71,700 included influenza or pneumonia and COVID-19 as potential causes of death. However, fueling the conspiracy theory, the CDC web page stated: 'For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause [of death] mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.' That meant, yes, medical investigators believed only 6% of COVID-19 patients died from the coronavirus alone. Those patients had no reported comorbidities. However, it was dangerously wrong to misinterpret that fact to mean that the remaining fatalities (or 94 percent) died from health issues other than the coronavirus. Rather, most people's underlying cause of death was COVID-19 and the virus either intensified or caused other illnesses that contributed to patients' death. Note: The '6%' claim was not the first attempt by COVID-19 conspiracy theorists to allege without any substantial evidence that the CDC was nefariously compiling data to trick people into thinking the coronavirus was more serious than it actually is. In spring 2020, for instance, they attempted to ring the alarm on the agency supposedly inflating COVID-19 death numbers for political reasons, but in reality the alleged discrepancy was a result of comparing two separate data sources that report different measurements. (See our analysis into that claim here.) The death certification statistics, in short, prove that people with preexisting health problems - such as asthma or hypertension - face higher risk for serious illness, or dying, if they're infected with COVID-19, according to Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS. He said in a statement to NBC News: 'These data are consistent with CDC guidance that those with underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19.' Additionally, Fauci explained the phenomena in a Sept. 1 interview on the ABC program 'Good Morning America: The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of [COVID-19 deaths] had nothing else but just COVID. That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did. So the numbers that you've been hearing - the 180,000-plus deaths - are real deaths from COVID-19. ...It's not 9,000 deaths from COVID-19. Next, we found data to address another aspect of the fringe theory: that the 'overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among people of a 'very advanced age.' For the purpose of this report, we considered that group to be people aged 85 or older. And according to the CDC death certificate data, 53,000 documents for that population listed COVID-19 as a potential cause of death, accounting for about one-third of the total, or less than the majority. We should note here: Epidemiologists and health officials have been up front with the fact that COVID-19 patients who are older - as well as those who have underlying health problems - are at greater risk for serious problems. 'As you get older, your risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19 increases. Everyone, especially older adults and others at increased risk of severe illness, should take steps to protect themselves from getting COVID-19,' according to the CDC. Eight out of 10 people who have died as a result of COVID-19 in the U.S. were over the age of 65, per the agency's data. Lastly, we looked for any evidence to confirm or deny that the CDC attempted to 'quietly' adjust its mortality statistics under the public's radar. Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS, told NBC News in a statement the death certificate data does 'not represent new information as NCHS has been publishing this same information since the outset when we began posting data on COVID-19 deaths on our web site.' In sum, considering the way in which the coronavirus impacts the human body, the way the CDC compiles data from death certificates - listing comorbidities that were either developed or exacerbated by COVID-19 - as well as the fact that one-third of COVID-19 fatalities were people aged 85 or older, we rate this claim 'False.' | in summer 2020, in part because of support from American politicians such as Trump. In two retweets - one by his campaign adviser that linked to the Gateway Pundit page and another by a supporter of the unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory (screenshot below) - Trump endorsed the claim, essentially denigrating scientific evidence by his own health advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. However, as of this writing, Twitter had removed the below-displayed post for violating its terms of service. First, to unpack the claim, let's be clear about how COVID-19 - which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2 - attacks the body and can become deadly. According to an article in the journal Science, a highly credible scientific publication: Once inside, the virus hijacks the cell's machinery, making myriad copies of itself and invading new cells. As the virus multiplies, an infected person may shed copious amounts of it, especially during the first week or so. Symptoms may be absent at this point. Or the virus' new victim may develop a fever, dry cough, sore throat, loss of smell and taste, or head and body aches. If the immune system doesn't beat back SARS-CoV-2 during this initial phase, the virus then marches down the windpipe to attack the lungs, where it can turn deadly. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 attacks lung cells, and that assault on a person's respiratory system can greatly exacerbate other preexisting conditions. That means COVID-19 patients run the risk of previously manageable health problems turning fatal - including cardiac arrest, liver failure, or lung scarring - after they're infected with SARS-CoV-2. Put another way, Ryan McNamara, a virologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a series of tweets compared the SARS-CoV-2 virus with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which causes AIDS. He wrote: After years of (HIV) virus spread, and in the absence of treatment, a patient infected with HIV will develop AIDS. [...] During this state of HIV progression, white blood cells called T-cells are depleted. This can allow co-infecting pathogens to spread unchecked or tumor cells to grow & metastasize. Hence pneumonia & AIDS-associated cancers are leading causes of death in HIV+ patients. Those saying 'only 6% die from COVID-19 alone', or some derivation thereof, don't understand how infectious diseases work. Many are not operating in good faith, & are the same people who have downplayed this pandemic since February. (4/4) - Ryan McNamara 🧬 (@Ryan_Mac_Phd) August 31, 2020 Next, we investigated how the CDC compiles COVID-19 death toll data. Since the viral posts did not specify what 'numbers' by the CDC to which they were alleging nefariousness, we considered the CDC's Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) web page, which is a compilation of death certificates updated weekly by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Additionally, we obtained an April 2020 document by the World Health Organization titled, 'International Guidelines For Certification and Classification (Coding) of COVID-19 As Cause of Death,' which stated that medical examiners must include as much detail as possible based on records and lab testing when they're filling out death certificates. For example, a death certification for a patient who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and afterwards developed pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress would list all three conditions as causes of death (see example below). The document also said death certificates for people who suffered from chronic conditions, such as coronary artery disease or diabetes, before their exposure to the coronavirus would list those conditions in addition to COVID-19. The coronavirus would still be labeled the underlying cause of death - or the disease that 'initiated the train of events leading directly to death,' per the WHO's definition - since the preexisting health issues were likely exacerbated by the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Next, we considered the CDC's process for analyzing those death certificates that list COVID-19. Its website explained: When a person dies, the cause of death is determined by the certifier - the physician, medical examiner, or coroner who reports it on the death certificate. States register all death certificates and send them to [NCHS], where they are used to produce the nation's official death statistics. [...] When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death. [...] Complete means describing a clear chain of events from the immediate to the underlying cause of death, reporting any other conditions that contributed to death, and providing information that is specific. In short, the CDC compiles mortality statistics that are based on all possible causes of death for one individual. So if a diabetes patient with high blood pressure was infected with COVID-19 - which can target blood vessels - and they die because their blood vessels were already so damaged, the CDC would consider their death related to both the coronavirus and diabetes. (According to the CDC database of death certificate data, that was the case for more than 27,500 people.) As of this writing, the CDC last updated its mortality statistics on Sept. 3, 2020. At that point, the agency said 171,787 death certificates included COVID-19 since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak in February 2020. And alongside the coronavirus, the majority of documents also listed comorbidities, or additional health issues that can either worsen or develop after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. For instance, 71,700 included influenza or pneumonia and COVID-19 as potential causes of death. However, fueling the conspiracy theory, the CDC web page stated: 'For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause [of death] mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.' That meant, yes, medical investigators believed only 6% of COVID-19 patients died from the coronavirus alone. Those patients had no reported comorbidities. However, it was dangerously wrong to misinterpret that fact to mean that the remaining fatalities (or 94 percent) died from health issues other than the coronavirus. Rather, most people's underlying cause of death was COVID-19 and the virus either intensified or caused other illnesses that contributed to patients' death. Note: The '6%' claim was not the first attempt by COVID-19 conspiracy theorists to allege without any substantial evidence that the CDC was nefariously compiling data to trick people into thinking the coronavirus was more serious than it actually is. In spring 2020, for instance, they attempted to ring the alarm on the agency supposedly inflating COVID-19 death numbers for political reasons, but in reality the alleged discrepancy was a result of comparing two separate data sources that report different measurements. (See our analysis into that claim here.) The death certification statistics, in short, prove that people with preexisting health problems - such as asthma or hypertension - face higher risk for serious illness, or dying, if they're infected with COVID-19, according to Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS. He said in a statement to NBC News: 'These data are consistent with CDC guidance that those with underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19.' Additionally, Fauci explained the phenomena in a Sept. 1 interview on the ABC program 'Good Morning America: The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of [COVID-19 deaths] had nothing else but just COVID. That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did. So the numbers that you've been hearing - the 180,000-plus deaths - are real deaths from COVID-19. ...It's not 9,000 deaths from COVID-19. Next, we found data to address another aspect of the fringe theory: that the 'overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among people of a 'very advanced age.' For the purpose of this report, we considered that group to be people aged 85 or older. And according to the CDC death certificate data, 53,000 documents for that population listed COVID-19 as a potential cause of death, accounting for about one-third of the total, or less than the majority. We should note here: Epidemiologists and health officials have been up front with the fact that COVID-19 patients who are older - as well as those who have underlying health problems - are at greater risk for serious problems. 'As you get older, your risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19 increases. Everyone, especially older adults and others at increased risk of severe illness, should take steps to protect themselves from getting COVID-19,' according to the CDC. Eight out of 10 people who have died as a result of COVID-19 in the U.S. were over the age of 65, per the agency's data. Lastly, we looked for any evidence to confirm or deny that the CDC attempted to 'quietly' adjust its mortality statistics under the public's radar. Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS, told NBC News in a statement the death certificate data does 'not represent new information as NCHS has been publishing this same information since the outset when we began posting data on COVID-19 deaths on our web site.' In sum, considering the way in which the coronavirus impacts the human body, the way the CDC compiles data from death certificates - listing comorbidities that were either developed or exacerbated by COVID-19 - as well as the fact that one-third of COVID-19 fatalities were people aged 85 or older, we rate this claim 'False.' | [
"06986-proof-08-1920px-Novel_Coronavirus_SARS-CoV-2.jpg"
] |
The CDC 'quietly updated' its COVID-19 mortality statistics in summer 2020 to show only 6% of previously reported deaths were actually due to the coronavirus, while the remaining 94% died from preexisting health conditions. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In attempt to ring the alarm on supposed deceptive practices by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), hard-line conservatives including U.S. President Donald Trump promoted the idea in August 2020 that the public health agency suddenly changed its methods for reporting COVID-19 mortality statistics. And as a result, viral social media posts alleged, America only tallied about 9,000 COVID-19 fatalities, or roughly 6% of the more than 150,000 deaths widely reported by politicians, scientists, and news reporters. Many believers, including conspiracy theorist Jeff Berwick, dubbed the alleged change by the CDC evidence that people other than his followers were exaggerating the seriousness of the pandemic, and that everyone should be skeptical of rules on social distancing that halt the economy. In a Sept. 1 video, for example, he said: 'It's been proven by the CDC - [the pandemic] is nothing, it was absolutely nothing. Zero. 9,000 people? That's nothing.' Numerous readers asked Snopes to investigate the matter. Several inquiries included a link to the hyperpartisan, junk news website The Gateway Pundit, or a link to another conspiratorial web page that phrased the alleged revelation like this: 'The CDC quietly released new covid numbers showing those who solely died from the virus was only 6% (9,210) of the total deaths (153,504). 94% of those who died, did so because they had existing health conditions.' Additionally, The Gateway Pundit page claimed, 'the overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among 'very old Americans' - without going into specifics on what age population that meant - and suggested nefarious intentions on the part of the CDC to try to change its guidance without anyone noticing. Versions of this notion circulated widely online in summer 2020, in part because of support from American politicians such as Trump. In two retweets - one by his campaign adviser that linked to the Gateway Pundit page and another by a supporter of the unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory (screenshot below) - Trump endorsed the claim, essentially denigrating scientific evidence by his own health advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. However, as of this writing, Twitter had removed the below-displayed post for violating its terms of service. First, to unpack the claim, let's be clear about how COVID-19 - which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2 - attacks the body and can become deadly. According to an article in the journal Science, a highly credible scientific publication: Once inside, the virus hijacks the cell's machinery, making myriad copies of itself and invading new cells. As the virus multiplies, an infected person may shed copious amounts of it, especially during the first week or so. Symptoms may be absent at this point. Or the virus' new victim may develop a fever, dry cough, sore throat, loss of smell and taste, or head and body aches. If the immune system doesn't beat back SARS-CoV-2 during this initial phase, the virus then marches down the windpipe to attack the lungs, where it can turn deadly. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 attacks lung cells, and that assault on a person's respiratory system can greatly exacerbate other preexisting conditions. That means COVID-19 patients run the risk of previously manageable health problems turning fatal - including cardiac arrest, liver failure, or lung scarring - after they're infected with SARS-CoV-2. Put another way, Ryan McNamara, a virologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a series of tweets compared the SARS-CoV-2 virus with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which causes AIDS. He wrote: After years of (HIV) virus spread, and in the absence of treatment, a patient infected with HIV will develop AIDS. [...] During this state of HIV progression, white blood cells called T-cells are depleted. This can allow co-infecting pathogens to spread unchecked or tumor cells to grow & metastasize. Hence pneumonia & AIDS-associated cancers are leading causes of death in HIV+ patients. Those saying 'only 6% die from COVID-19 alone', or some derivation thereof, don't understand how infectious diseases work. Many are not operating in good faith, & are the same people who have downplayed this pandemic since February. (4/4) - Ryan McNamara 🧬 (@Ryan_Mac_Phd) August 31, 2020 Next, we investigated how the CDC compiles COVID-19 death toll data. Since the viral posts did not specify what 'numbers' by the CDC to which they were alleging nefariousness, we considered the CDC's Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) web page, which is a compilation of death certificates updated weekly by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Additionally, we obtained an April 2020 document by the World Health Organization titled, 'International Guidelines For Certification and Classification (Coding) of COVID-19 As Cause of Death,' which stated that medical examiners must include as much detail as possible based on records and lab testing when they're filling out death certificates. For example, a death certification for a patient who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and afterwards developed pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress would list all three conditions as causes of death (see example below). The document also said death certificates for people who suffered from chronic conditions, such as coronary artery disease or diabetes, before their exposure to the coronavirus would list those conditions in addition to COVID-19. The coronavirus would still be labeled the underlying cause of death - or the disease that 'initiated the train of events leading directly to death,' per the WHO's definition - since the preexisting health issues were likely exacerbated by the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Next, we considered the CDC's process for analyzing those death certificates that list COVID-19. Its website explained: When a person dies, the cause of death is determined by the certifier - the physician, medical examiner, or coroner who reports it on the death certificate. States register all death certificates and send them to [NCHS], where they are used to produce the nation's official death statistics. [...] When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death. [...] Complete means describing a clear chain of events from the immediate to the underlying cause of death, reporting any other conditions that contributed to death, and providing information that is specific. In short, the CDC compiles mortality statistics that are based on all possible causes of death for one individual. So if a diabetes patient with high blood pressure was infected with COVID-19 - which can target blood vessels - and they die because their blood vessels were already so damaged, the CDC would consider their death related to both the coronavirus and diabetes. (According to the CDC database of death certificate data, that was the case for more than 27,500 people.) As of this writing, the CDC last updated its mortality statistics on Sept. 3, 2020. At that point, the agency said 171,787 death certificates included COVID-19 since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak in February 2020. And alongside the coronavirus, the majority of documents also listed comorbidities, or additional health issues that can either worsen or develop after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. For instance, 71,700 included influenza or pneumonia and COVID-19 as potential causes of death. However, fueling the conspiracy theory, the CDC web page stated: 'For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause [of death] mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.' That meant, yes, medical investigators believed only 6% of COVID-19 patients died from the coronavirus alone. Those patients had no reported comorbidities. However, it was dangerously wrong to misinterpret that fact to mean that the remaining fatalities (or 94 percent) died from health issues other than the coronavirus. Rather, most people's underlying cause of death was COVID-19 and the virus either intensified or caused other illnesses that contributed to patients' death. Note: The '6%' claim was not the first attempt by COVID-19 conspiracy theorists to allege without any substantial evidence that the CDC was nefariously compiling data to trick people into thinking the coronavirus was more serious than it actually is. In spring 2020, for instance, they attempted to ring the alarm on the agency supposedly inflating COVID-19 death numbers for political reasons, but in reality the alleged discrepancy was a result of comparing two separate data sources that report different measurements. (See our analysis into that claim here.) The death certification statistics, in short, prove that people with preexisting health problems - such as asthma or hypertension - face higher risk for serious illness, or dying, if they're infected with COVID-19, according to Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS. He said in a statement to NBC News: 'These data are consistent with CDC guidance that those with underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19.' Additionally, Fauci explained the phenomena in a Sept. 1 interview on the ABC program 'Good Morning America: The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of [COVID-19 deaths] had nothing else but just COVID. That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did. So the numbers that you've been hearing - the 180,000-plus deaths - are real deaths from COVID-19. ...It's not 9,000 deaths from COVID-19. Next, we found data to address another aspect of the fringe theory: that the 'overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among people of a 'very advanced age.' For the purpose of this report, we considered that group to be people aged 85 or older. And according to the CDC death certificate data, 53,000 documents for that population listed COVID-19 as a potential cause of death, accounting for about one-third of the total, or less than the majority. We should note here: Epidemiologists and health officials have been up front with the fact that COVID-19 patients who are older - as well as those who have underlying health problems - are at greater risk for serious problems. 'As you get older, your risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19 increases. Everyone, especially older adults and others at increased risk of severe illness, should take steps to protect themselves from getting COVID-19,' according to the CDC. Eight out of 10 people who have died as a result of COVID-19 in the U.S. were over the age of 65, per the agency's data. Lastly, we looked for any evidence to confirm or deny that the CDC attempted to 'quietly' adjust its mortality statistics under the public's radar. Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS, told NBC News in a statement the death certificate data does 'not represent new information as NCHS has been publishing this same information since the outset when we began posting data on COVID-19 deaths on our web site.' In sum, considering the way in which the coronavirus impacts the human body, the way the CDC compiles data from death certificates - listing comorbidities that were either developed or exacerbated by COVID-19 - as well as the fact that one-third of COVID-19 fatalities were people aged 85 or older, we rate this claim 'False.' | in summer 2020, in part because of support from American politicians such as Trump. In two retweets - one by his campaign adviser that linked to the Gateway Pundit page and another by a supporter of the unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory (screenshot below) - Trump endorsed the claim, essentially denigrating scientific evidence by his own health advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. However, as of this writing, Twitter had removed the below-displayed post for violating its terms of service. First, to unpack the claim, let's be clear about how COVID-19 - which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2 - attacks the body and can become deadly. According to an article in the journal Science, a highly credible scientific publication: Once inside, the virus hijacks the cell's machinery, making myriad copies of itself and invading new cells. As the virus multiplies, an infected person may shed copious amounts of it, especially during the first week or so. Symptoms may be absent at this point. Or the virus' new victim may develop a fever, dry cough, sore throat, loss of smell and taste, or head and body aches. If the immune system doesn't beat back SARS-CoV-2 during this initial phase, the virus then marches down the windpipe to attack the lungs, where it can turn deadly. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 attacks lung cells, and that assault on a person's respiratory system can greatly exacerbate other preexisting conditions. That means COVID-19 patients run the risk of previously manageable health problems turning fatal - including cardiac arrest, liver failure, or lung scarring - after they're infected with SARS-CoV-2. Put another way, Ryan McNamara, a virologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a series of tweets compared the SARS-CoV-2 virus with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which causes AIDS. He wrote: After years of (HIV) virus spread, and in the absence of treatment, a patient infected with HIV will develop AIDS. [...] During this state of HIV progression, white blood cells called T-cells are depleted. This can allow co-infecting pathogens to spread unchecked or tumor cells to grow & metastasize. Hence pneumonia & AIDS-associated cancers are leading causes of death in HIV+ patients. Those saying 'only 6% die from COVID-19 alone', or some derivation thereof, don't understand how infectious diseases work. Many are not operating in good faith, & are the same people who have downplayed this pandemic since February. (4/4) - Ryan McNamara 🧬 (@Ryan_Mac_Phd) August 31, 2020 Next, we investigated how the CDC compiles COVID-19 death toll data. Since the viral posts did not specify what 'numbers' by the CDC to which they were alleging nefariousness, we considered the CDC's Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) web page, which is a compilation of death certificates updated weekly by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Additionally, we obtained an April 2020 document by the World Health Organization titled, 'International Guidelines For Certification and Classification (Coding) of COVID-19 As Cause of Death,' which stated that medical examiners must include as much detail as possible based on records and lab testing when they're filling out death certificates. For example, a death certification for a patient who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and afterwards developed pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress would list all three conditions as causes of death (see example below). The document also said death certificates for people who suffered from chronic conditions, such as coronary artery disease or diabetes, before their exposure to the coronavirus would list those conditions in addition to COVID-19. The coronavirus would still be labeled the underlying cause of death - or the disease that 'initiated the train of events leading directly to death,' per the WHO's definition - since the preexisting health issues were likely exacerbated by the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Next, we considered the CDC's process for analyzing those death certificates that list COVID-19. Its website explained: When a person dies, the cause of death is determined by the certifier - the physician, medical examiner, or coroner who reports it on the death certificate. States register all death certificates and send them to [NCHS], where they are used to produce the nation's official death statistics. [...] When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death. [...] Complete means describing a clear chain of events from the immediate to the underlying cause of death, reporting any other conditions that contributed to death, and providing information that is specific. In short, the CDC compiles mortality statistics that are based on all possible causes of death for one individual. So if a diabetes patient with high blood pressure was infected with COVID-19 - which can target blood vessels - and they die because their blood vessels were already so damaged, the CDC would consider their death related to both the coronavirus and diabetes. (According to the CDC database of death certificate data, that was the case for more than 27,500 people.) As of this writing, the CDC last updated its mortality statistics on Sept. 3, 2020. At that point, the agency said 171,787 death certificates included COVID-19 since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak in February 2020. And alongside the coronavirus, the majority of documents also listed comorbidities, or additional health issues that can either worsen or develop after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. For instance, 71,700 included influenza or pneumonia and COVID-19 as potential causes of death. However, fueling the conspiracy theory, the CDC web page stated: 'For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause [of death] mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.' That meant, yes, medical investigators believed only 6% of COVID-19 patients died from the coronavirus alone. Those patients had no reported comorbidities. However, it was dangerously wrong to misinterpret that fact to mean that the remaining fatalities (or 94 percent) died from health issues other than the coronavirus. Rather, most people's underlying cause of death was COVID-19 and the virus either intensified or caused other illnesses that contributed to patients' death. Note: The '6%' claim was not the first attempt by COVID-19 conspiracy theorists to allege without any substantial evidence that the CDC was nefariously compiling data to trick people into thinking the coronavirus was more serious than it actually is. In spring 2020, for instance, they attempted to ring the alarm on the agency supposedly inflating COVID-19 death numbers for political reasons, but in reality the alleged discrepancy was a result of comparing two separate data sources that report different measurements. (See our analysis into that claim here.) The death certification statistics, in short, prove that people with preexisting health problems - such as asthma or hypertension - face higher risk for serious illness, or dying, if they're infected with COVID-19, according to Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS. He said in a statement to NBC News: 'These data are consistent with CDC guidance that those with underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19.' Additionally, Fauci explained the phenomena in a Sept. 1 interview on the ABC program 'Good Morning America: The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of [COVID-19 deaths] had nothing else but just COVID. That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did. So the numbers that you've been hearing - the 180,000-plus deaths - are real deaths from COVID-19. ...It's not 9,000 deaths from COVID-19. Next, we found data to address another aspect of the fringe theory: that the 'overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among people of a 'very advanced age.' For the purpose of this report, we considered that group to be people aged 85 or older. And according to the CDC death certificate data, 53,000 documents for that population listed COVID-19 as a potential cause of death, accounting for about one-third of the total, or less than the majority. We should note here: Epidemiologists and health officials have been up front with the fact that COVID-19 patients who are older - as well as those who have underlying health problems - are at greater risk for serious problems. 'As you get older, your risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19 increases. Everyone, especially older adults and others at increased risk of severe illness, should take steps to protect themselves from getting COVID-19,' according to the CDC. Eight out of 10 people who have died as a result of COVID-19 in the U.S. were over the age of 65, per the agency's data. Lastly, we looked for any evidence to confirm or deny that the CDC attempted to 'quietly' adjust its mortality statistics under the public's radar. Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS, told NBC News in a statement the death certificate data does 'not represent new information as NCHS has been publishing this same information since the outset when we began posting data on COVID-19 deaths on our web site.' In sum, considering the way in which the coronavirus impacts the human body, the way the CDC compiles data from death certificates - listing comorbidities that were either developed or exacerbated by COVID-19 - as well as the fact that one-third of COVID-19 fatalities were people aged 85 or older, we rate this claim 'False.' | [
"06986-proof-08-1920px-Novel_Coronavirus_SARS-CoV-2.jpg"
] |
The CDC 'quietly updated' its COVID-19 mortality statistics in summer 2020 to show only 6% of previously reported deaths were actually due to the coronavirus, while the remaining 94% died from preexisting health conditions. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In attempt to ring the alarm on supposed deceptive practices by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), hard-line conservatives including U.S. President Donald Trump promoted the idea in August 2020 that the public health agency suddenly changed its methods for reporting COVID-19 mortality statistics. And as a result, viral social media posts alleged, America only tallied about 9,000 COVID-19 fatalities, or roughly 6% of the more than 150,000 deaths widely reported by politicians, scientists, and news reporters. Many believers, including conspiracy theorist Jeff Berwick, dubbed the alleged change by the CDC evidence that people other than his followers were exaggerating the seriousness of the pandemic, and that everyone should be skeptical of rules on social distancing that halt the economy. In a Sept. 1 video, for example, he said: 'It's been proven by the CDC - [the pandemic] is nothing, it was absolutely nothing. Zero. 9,000 people? That's nothing.' Numerous readers asked Snopes to investigate the matter. Several inquiries included a link to the hyperpartisan, junk news website The Gateway Pundit, or a link to another conspiratorial web page that phrased the alleged revelation like this: 'The CDC quietly released new covid numbers showing those who solely died from the virus was only 6% (9,210) of the total deaths (153,504). 94% of those who died, did so because they had existing health conditions.' Additionally, The Gateway Pundit page claimed, 'the overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among 'very old Americans' - without going into specifics on what age population that meant - and suggested nefarious intentions on the part of the CDC to try to change its guidance without anyone noticing. Versions of this notion circulated widely online in summer 2020, in part because of support from American politicians such as Trump. In two retweets - one by his campaign adviser that linked to the Gateway Pundit page and another by a supporter of the unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory (screenshot below) - Trump endorsed the claim, essentially denigrating scientific evidence by his own health advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. However, as of this writing, Twitter had removed the below-displayed post for violating its terms of service. First, to unpack the claim, let's be clear about how COVID-19 - which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2 - attacks the body and can become deadly. According to an article in the journal Science, a highly credible scientific publication: Once inside, the virus hijacks the cell's machinery, making myriad copies of itself and invading new cells. As the virus multiplies, an infected person may shed copious amounts of it, especially during the first week or so. Symptoms may be absent at this point. Or the virus' new victim may develop a fever, dry cough, sore throat, loss of smell and taste, or head and body aches. If the immune system doesn't beat back SARS-CoV-2 during this initial phase, the virus then marches down the windpipe to attack the lungs, where it can turn deadly. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 attacks lung cells, and that assault on a person's respiratory system can greatly exacerbate other preexisting conditions. That means COVID-19 patients run the risk of previously manageable health problems turning fatal - including cardiac arrest, liver failure, or lung scarring - after they're infected with SARS-CoV-2. Put another way, Ryan McNamara, a virologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a series of tweets compared the SARS-CoV-2 virus with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which causes AIDS. He wrote: After years of (HIV) virus spread, and in the absence of treatment, a patient infected with HIV will develop AIDS. [...] During this state of HIV progression, white blood cells called T-cells are depleted. This can allow co-infecting pathogens to spread unchecked or tumor cells to grow & metastasize. Hence pneumonia & AIDS-associated cancers are leading causes of death in HIV+ patients. Those saying 'only 6% die from COVID-19 alone', or some derivation thereof, don't understand how infectious diseases work. Many are not operating in good faith, & are the same people who have downplayed this pandemic since February. (4/4) - Ryan McNamara 🧬 (@Ryan_Mac_Phd) August 31, 2020 Next, we investigated how the CDC compiles COVID-19 death toll data. Since the viral posts did not specify what 'numbers' by the CDC to which they were alleging nefariousness, we considered the CDC's Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) web page, which is a compilation of death certificates updated weekly by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Additionally, we obtained an April 2020 document by the World Health Organization titled, 'International Guidelines For Certification and Classification (Coding) of COVID-19 As Cause of Death,' which stated that medical examiners must include as much detail as possible based on records and lab testing when they're filling out death certificates. For example, a death certification for a patient who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and afterwards developed pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress would list all three conditions as causes of death (see example below). The document also said death certificates for people who suffered from chronic conditions, such as coronary artery disease or diabetes, before their exposure to the coronavirus would list those conditions in addition to COVID-19. The coronavirus would still be labeled the underlying cause of death - or the disease that 'initiated the train of events leading directly to death,' per the WHO's definition - since the preexisting health issues were likely exacerbated by the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Next, we considered the CDC's process for analyzing those death certificates that list COVID-19. Its website explained: When a person dies, the cause of death is determined by the certifier - the physician, medical examiner, or coroner who reports it on the death certificate. States register all death certificates and send them to [NCHS], where they are used to produce the nation's official death statistics. [...] When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death. [...] Complete means describing a clear chain of events from the immediate to the underlying cause of death, reporting any other conditions that contributed to death, and providing information that is specific. In short, the CDC compiles mortality statistics that are based on all possible causes of death for one individual. So if a diabetes patient with high blood pressure was infected with COVID-19 - which can target blood vessels - and they die because their blood vessels were already so damaged, the CDC would consider their death related to both the coronavirus and diabetes. (According to the CDC database of death certificate data, that was the case for more than 27,500 people.) As of this writing, the CDC last updated its mortality statistics on Sept. 3, 2020. At that point, the agency said 171,787 death certificates included COVID-19 since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak in February 2020. And alongside the coronavirus, the majority of documents also listed comorbidities, or additional health issues that can either worsen or develop after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. For instance, 71,700 included influenza or pneumonia and COVID-19 as potential causes of death. However, fueling the conspiracy theory, the CDC web page stated: 'For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause [of death] mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.' That meant, yes, medical investigators believed only 6% of COVID-19 patients died from the coronavirus alone. Those patients had no reported comorbidities. However, it was dangerously wrong to misinterpret that fact to mean that the remaining fatalities (or 94 percent) died from health issues other than the coronavirus. Rather, most people's underlying cause of death was COVID-19 and the virus either intensified or caused other illnesses that contributed to patients' death. Note: The '6%' claim was not the first attempt by COVID-19 conspiracy theorists to allege without any substantial evidence that the CDC was nefariously compiling data to trick people into thinking the coronavirus was more serious than it actually is. In spring 2020, for instance, they attempted to ring the alarm on the agency supposedly inflating COVID-19 death numbers for political reasons, but in reality the alleged discrepancy was a result of comparing two separate data sources that report different measurements. (See our analysis into that claim here.) The death certification statistics, in short, prove that people with preexisting health problems - such as asthma or hypertension - face higher risk for serious illness, or dying, if they're infected with COVID-19, according to Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS. He said in a statement to NBC News: 'These data are consistent with CDC guidance that those with underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19.' Additionally, Fauci explained the phenomena in a Sept. 1 interview on the ABC program 'Good Morning America: The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of [COVID-19 deaths] had nothing else but just COVID. That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did. So the numbers that you've been hearing - the 180,000-plus deaths - are real deaths from COVID-19. ...It's not 9,000 deaths from COVID-19. Next, we found data to address another aspect of the fringe theory: that the 'overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among people of a 'very advanced age.' For the purpose of this report, we considered that group to be people aged 85 or older. And according to the CDC death certificate data, 53,000 documents for that population listed COVID-19 as a potential cause of death, accounting for about one-third of the total, or less than the majority. We should note here: Epidemiologists and health officials have been up front with the fact that COVID-19 patients who are older - as well as those who have underlying health problems - are at greater risk for serious problems. 'As you get older, your risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19 increases. Everyone, especially older adults and others at increased risk of severe illness, should take steps to protect themselves from getting COVID-19,' according to the CDC. Eight out of 10 people who have died as a result of COVID-19 in the U.S. were over the age of 65, per the agency's data. Lastly, we looked for any evidence to confirm or deny that the CDC attempted to 'quietly' adjust its mortality statistics under the public's radar. Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS, told NBC News in a statement the death certificate data does 'not represent new information as NCHS has been publishing this same information since the outset when we began posting data on COVID-19 deaths on our web site.' In sum, considering the way in which the coronavirus impacts the human body, the way the CDC compiles data from death certificates - listing comorbidities that were either developed or exacerbated by COVID-19 - as well as the fact that one-third of COVID-19 fatalities were people aged 85 or older, we rate this claim 'False.' | in summer 2020, in part because of support from American politicians such as Trump. In two retweets - one by his campaign adviser that linked to the Gateway Pundit page and another by a supporter of the unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory (screenshot below) - Trump endorsed the claim, essentially denigrating scientific evidence by his own health advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. However, as of this writing, Twitter had removed the below-displayed post for violating its terms of service. First, to unpack the claim, let's be clear about how COVID-19 - which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2 - attacks the body and can become deadly. According to an article in the journal Science, a highly credible scientific publication: Once inside, the virus hijacks the cell's machinery, making myriad copies of itself and invading new cells. As the virus multiplies, an infected person may shed copious amounts of it, especially during the first week or so. Symptoms may be absent at this point. Or the virus' new victim may develop a fever, dry cough, sore throat, loss of smell and taste, or head and body aches. If the immune system doesn't beat back SARS-CoV-2 during this initial phase, the virus then marches down the windpipe to attack the lungs, where it can turn deadly. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 attacks lung cells, and that assault on a person's respiratory system can greatly exacerbate other preexisting conditions. That means COVID-19 patients run the risk of previously manageable health problems turning fatal - including cardiac arrest, liver failure, or lung scarring - after they're infected with SARS-CoV-2. Put another way, Ryan McNamara, a virologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a series of tweets compared the SARS-CoV-2 virus with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which causes AIDS. He wrote: After years of (HIV) virus spread, and in the absence of treatment, a patient infected with HIV will develop AIDS. [...] During this state of HIV progression, white blood cells called T-cells are depleted. This can allow co-infecting pathogens to spread unchecked or tumor cells to grow & metastasize. Hence pneumonia & AIDS-associated cancers are leading causes of death in HIV+ patients. Those saying 'only 6% die from COVID-19 alone', or some derivation thereof, don't understand how infectious diseases work. Many are not operating in good faith, & are the same people who have downplayed this pandemic since February. (4/4) - Ryan McNamara 🧬 (@Ryan_Mac_Phd) August 31, 2020 Next, we investigated how the CDC compiles COVID-19 death toll data. Since the viral posts did not specify what 'numbers' by the CDC to which they were alleging nefariousness, we considered the CDC's Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) web page, which is a compilation of death certificates updated weekly by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Additionally, we obtained an April 2020 document by the World Health Organization titled, 'International Guidelines For Certification and Classification (Coding) of COVID-19 As Cause of Death,' which stated that medical examiners must include as much detail as possible based on records and lab testing when they're filling out death certificates. For example, a death certification for a patient who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and afterwards developed pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress would list all three conditions as causes of death (see example below). The document also said death certificates for people who suffered from chronic conditions, such as coronary artery disease or diabetes, before their exposure to the coronavirus would list those conditions in addition to COVID-19. The coronavirus would still be labeled the underlying cause of death - or the disease that 'initiated the train of events leading directly to death,' per the WHO's definition - since the preexisting health issues were likely exacerbated by the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Next, we considered the CDC's process for analyzing those death certificates that list COVID-19. Its website explained: When a person dies, the cause of death is determined by the certifier - the physician, medical examiner, or coroner who reports it on the death certificate. States register all death certificates and send them to [NCHS], where they are used to produce the nation's official death statistics. [...] When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death. [...] Complete means describing a clear chain of events from the immediate to the underlying cause of death, reporting any other conditions that contributed to death, and providing information that is specific. In short, the CDC compiles mortality statistics that are based on all possible causes of death for one individual. So if a diabetes patient with high blood pressure was infected with COVID-19 - which can target blood vessels - and they die because their blood vessels were already so damaged, the CDC would consider their death related to both the coronavirus and diabetes. (According to the CDC database of death certificate data, that was the case for more than 27,500 people.) As of this writing, the CDC last updated its mortality statistics on Sept. 3, 2020. At that point, the agency said 171,787 death certificates included COVID-19 since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak in February 2020. And alongside the coronavirus, the majority of documents also listed comorbidities, or additional health issues that can either worsen or develop after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. For instance, 71,700 included influenza or pneumonia and COVID-19 as potential causes of death. However, fueling the conspiracy theory, the CDC web page stated: 'For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause [of death] mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.' That meant, yes, medical investigators believed only 6% of COVID-19 patients died from the coronavirus alone. Those patients had no reported comorbidities. However, it was dangerously wrong to misinterpret that fact to mean that the remaining fatalities (or 94 percent) died from health issues other than the coronavirus. Rather, most people's underlying cause of death was COVID-19 and the virus either intensified or caused other illnesses that contributed to patients' death. Note: The '6%' claim was not the first attempt by COVID-19 conspiracy theorists to allege without any substantial evidence that the CDC was nefariously compiling data to trick people into thinking the coronavirus was more serious than it actually is. In spring 2020, for instance, they attempted to ring the alarm on the agency supposedly inflating COVID-19 death numbers for political reasons, but in reality the alleged discrepancy was a result of comparing two separate data sources that report different measurements. (See our analysis into that claim here.) The death certification statistics, in short, prove that people with preexisting health problems - such as asthma or hypertension - face higher risk for serious illness, or dying, if they're infected with COVID-19, according to Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS. He said in a statement to NBC News: 'These data are consistent with CDC guidance that those with underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19.' Additionally, Fauci explained the phenomena in a Sept. 1 interview on the ABC program 'Good Morning America: The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of [COVID-19 deaths] had nothing else but just COVID. That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID-19 - they did. So the numbers that you've been hearing - the 180,000-plus deaths - are real deaths from COVID-19. ...It's not 9,000 deaths from COVID-19. Next, we found data to address another aspect of the fringe theory: that the 'overwhelming majority' of reported COVID-19 deaths were among people of a 'very advanced age.' For the purpose of this report, we considered that group to be people aged 85 or older. And according to the CDC death certificate data, 53,000 documents for that population listed COVID-19 as a potential cause of death, accounting for about one-third of the total, or less than the majority. We should note here: Epidemiologists and health officials have been up front with the fact that COVID-19 patients who are older - as well as those who have underlying health problems - are at greater risk for serious problems. 'As you get older, your risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19 increases. Everyone, especially older adults and others at increased risk of severe illness, should take steps to protect themselves from getting COVID-19,' according to the CDC. Eight out of 10 people who have died as a result of COVID-19 in the U.S. were over the age of 65, per the agency's data. Lastly, we looked for any evidence to confirm or deny that the CDC attempted to 'quietly' adjust its mortality statistics under the public's radar. Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS, told NBC News in a statement the death certificate data does 'not represent new information as NCHS has been publishing this same information since the outset when we began posting data on COVID-19 deaths on our web site.' In sum, considering the way in which the coronavirus impacts the human body, the way the CDC compiles data from death certificates - listing comorbidities that were either developed or exacerbated by COVID-19 - as well as the fact that one-third of COVID-19 fatalities were people aged 85 or older, we rate this claim 'False.' | [
"06986-proof-08-1920px-Novel_Coronavirus_SARS-CoV-2.jpg"
] |
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was caught on camera staging a short bike ride after riding in an SUV. | Contradiction | On April 1, 2021, a video showing U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg unloading a bike from an SUV was shared on social media. Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza published: 'Buttigieg CAUGHT Faking Green Lifestyle, Rides Bike to Work After Car Drops Him Off Near Destination.' A headline on The Post Millennial read: 'WATCH: 'Environmentalist' Buttigieg unloads bike from SUV before riding the short distance to his destination.' A number of YouTube users including conservative commentator Charlie Kirk also shared the video in question. Twitter user @Xeriland tweeted that it was 'Pete Buttigieg's dog and pony show.' He claimed: 'Use an armored Suburban to bring a bike within a short distance of the destination. Unload it and ride in with a security detail in tow, pretending to save energy.' Despite being false, the tweet was shared by tens of thousands of accounts and viewed millions of times. These headlines, YouTube video titles, and tweets were all misleading and false. Buttigieg was not caught on camera staging a bike ride. We contacted the U.S. Department of Transportation. A spokesperson told us: 'He rode his bike to the White House Cabinet meeting and he rode his bike back to DOT after the meeting.' According to Google Maps, the 6-mile round trip might take around 40 minutes on a bicycle. The video in question was first posted by CNN journalist DJ Judd, who made no mention of Buttigieg staging the bike ride: Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg biked to the White House for today's Cabinet Meeting, it would appear. pic.twitter.com/XfYRB3COqm - DJ Judd (@DJJudd) April 1, 2021 The video showed Buttigieg mounting the bicycle and eventually riding away with the SUV following him. Katie Barlow from SCOTUSblog replied to DJ Judd's tweet, writing: 'And biked out of the complex.' And biked out of the complex. pic.twitter.com/M50jDbEQ1s - Katie Barlow (@katieleebarlow) April 1, 2021 The @Breaking911 Twitter account falsely tweeted that the video showed his arrival. This was misleading in that it implied Buttigieg arrived to the White House in the SUV and then 'wobbled' a short distance to the Cabinet meeting: This false tweet was shared thousands of times. As for why the SUV was there, Buttigieg has a security detail. The bicycle appeared to have been stored on the SUV's bike rack while he was inside the White House for a Cabinet meeting. DJ Judd's video was subsequently shared on Buttigieg's own Twitter account, an odd choice if he had been 'caught' doing something in a bad light. Buttigieg previously appeared in a video with the League of American Bicyclists. Bicycle Retailer and Industry News reported on the conversation, saying that he is a 'bike enthusiast': Pete Buttigieg was born in 'car country,' so the Indiana native would seem to have the perfect background to be U.S. Transportation secretary. But as he made abundantly clear Wednesday addressing the annual League of American Bicyclists National Bike Summit, he's been born again as a bike enthusiast. 'I come from an auto-making part of the country, and we're proud of it,' said Buttigieg, who made a short opening statement during the virtual event before taking questions from League Director Bill Nesper. 'But we can definitely be more of a bicycling country.' In sum, no, Buttigieg was not caught staging a bike ride after riding in an SUV. Countless headlines, YouTube video titles, and tweets were misleading and false. | In sum, no, Buttigieg was not caught staging a bike ride after riding in an SUV. Countless headlines, YouTube video titles, and tweets were misleading and false. | [
"07136-proof-02-breaking911-false-tweet.jpg",
"07136-proof-04-xeriland-false.jpg",
"07136-proof-06-buttigieg-bike-ride-staged.jpg"
] |
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was caught on camera staging a short bike ride after riding in an SUV. | Contradiction | On April 1, 2021, a video showing U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg unloading a bike from an SUV was shared on social media. Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza published: 'Buttigieg CAUGHT Faking Green Lifestyle, Rides Bike to Work After Car Drops Him Off Near Destination.' A headline on The Post Millennial read: 'WATCH: 'Environmentalist' Buttigieg unloads bike from SUV before riding the short distance to his destination.' A number of YouTube users including conservative commentator Charlie Kirk also shared the video in question. Twitter user @Xeriland tweeted that it was 'Pete Buttigieg's dog and pony show.' He claimed: 'Use an armored Suburban to bring a bike within a short distance of the destination. Unload it and ride in with a security detail in tow, pretending to save energy.' Despite being false, the tweet was shared by tens of thousands of accounts and viewed millions of times. These headlines, YouTube video titles, and tweets were all misleading and false. Buttigieg was not caught on camera staging a bike ride. We contacted the U.S. Department of Transportation. A spokesperson told us: 'He rode his bike to the White House Cabinet meeting and he rode his bike back to DOT after the meeting.' According to Google Maps, the 6-mile round trip might take around 40 minutes on a bicycle. The video in question was first posted by CNN journalist DJ Judd, who made no mention of Buttigieg staging the bike ride: Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg biked to the White House for today's Cabinet Meeting, it would appear. pic.twitter.com/XfYRB3COqm - DJ Judd (@DJJudd) April 1, 2021 The video showed Buttigieg mounting the bicycle and eventually riding away with the SUV following him. Katie Barlow from SCOTUSblog replied to DJ Judd's tweet, writing: 'And biked out of the complex.' And biked out of the complex. pic.twitter.com/M50jDbEQ1s - Katie Barlow (@katieleebarlow) April 1, 2021 The @Breaking911 Twitter account falsely tweeted that the video showed his arrival. This was misleading in that it implied Buttigieg arrived to the White House in the SUV and then 'wobbled' a short distance to the Cabinet meeting: This false tweet was shared thousands of times. As for why the SUV was there, Buttigieg has a security detail. The bicycle appeared to have been stored on the SUV's bike rack while he was inside the White House for a Cabinet meeting. DJ Judd's video was subsequently shared on Buttigieg's own Twitter account, an odd choice if he had been 'caught' doing something in a bad light. Buttigieg previously appeared in a video with the League of American Bicyclists. Bicycle Retailer and Industry News reported on the conversation, saying that he is a 'bike enthusiast': Pete Buttigieg was born in 'car country,' so the Indiana native would seem to have the perfect background to be U.S. Transportation secretary. But as he made abundantly clear Wednesday addressing the annual League of American Bicyclists National Bike Summit, he's been born again as a bike enthusiast. 'I come from an auto-making part of the country, and we're proud of it,' said Buttigieg, who made a short opening statement during the virtual event before taking questions from League Director Bill Nesper. 'But we can definitely be more of a bicycling country.' In sum, no, Buttigieg was not caught staging a bike ride after riding in an SUV. Countless headlines, YouTube video titles, and tweets were misleading and false. | In sum, no, Buttigieg was not caught staging a bike ride after riding in an SUV. Countless headlines, YouTube video titles, and tweets were misleading and false. | [
"07136-proof-02-breaking911-false-tweet.jpg",
"07136-proof-04-xeriland-false.jpg",
"07136-proof-06-buttigieg-bike-ride-staged.jpg"
] |
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was caught on camera staging a short bike ride after riding in an SUV. | Contradiction | On April 1, 2021, a video showing U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg unloading a bike from an SUV was shared on social media. Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza published: 'Buttigieg CAUGHT Faking Green Lifestyle, Rides Bike to Work After Car Drops Him Off Near Destination.' A headline on The Post Millennial read: 'WATCH: 'Environmentalist' Buttigieg unloads bike from SUV before riding the short distance to his destination.' A number of YouTube users including conservative commentator Charlie Kirk also shared the video in question. Twitter user @Xeriland tweeted that it was 'Pete Buttigieg's dog and pony show.' He claimed: 'Use an armored Suburban to bring a bike within a short distance of the destination. Unload it and ride in with a security detail in tow, pretending to save energy.' Despite being false, the tweet was shared by tens of thousands of accounts and viewed millions of times. These headlines, YouTube video titles, and tweets were all misleading and false. Buttigieg was not caught on camera staging a bike ride. We contacted the U.S. Department of Transportation. A spokesperson told us: 'He rode his bike to the White House Cabinet meeting and he rode his bike back to DOT after the meeting.' According to Google Maps, the 6-mile round trip might take around 40 minutes on a bicycle. The video in question was first posted by CNN journalist DJ Judd, who made no mention of Buttigieg staging the bike ride: Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg biked to the White House for today's Cabinet Meeting, it would appear. pic.twitter.com/XfYRB3COqm - DJ Judd (@DJJudd) April 1, 2021 The video showed Buttigieg mounting the bicycle and eventually riding away with the SUV following him. Katie Barlow from SCOTUSblog replied to DJ Judd's tweet, writing: 'And biked out of the complex.' And biked out of the complex. pic.twitter.com/M50jDbEQ1s - Katie Barlow (@katieleebarlow) April 1, 2021 The @Breaking911 Twitter account falsely tweeted that the video showed his arrival. This was misleading in that it implied Buttigieg arrived to the White House in the SUV and then 'wobbled' a short distance to the Cabinet meeting: This false tweet was shared thousands of times. As for why the SUV was there, Buttigieg has a security detail. The bicycle appeared to have been stored on the SUV's bike rack while he was inside the White House for a Cabinet meeting. DJ Judd's video was subsequently shared on Buttigieg's own Twitter account, an odd choice if he had been 'caught' doing something in a bad light. Buttigieg previously appeared in a video with the League of American Bicyclists. Bicycle Retailer and Industry News reported on the conversation, saying that he is a 'bike enthusiast': Pete Buttigieg was born in 'car country,' so the Indiana native would seem to have the perfect background to be U.S. Transportation secretary. But as he made abundantly clear Wednesday addressing the annual League of American Bicyclists National Bike Summit, he's been born again as a bike enthusiast. 'I come from an auto-making part of the country, and we're proud of it,' said Buttigieg, who made a short opening statement during the virtual event before taking questions from League Director Bill Nesper. 'But we can definitely be more of a bicycling country.' In sum, no, Buttigieg was not caught staging a bike ride after riding in an SUV. Countless headlines, YouTube video titles, and tweets were misleading and false. | In sum, no, Buttigieg was not caught staging a bike ride after riding in an SUV. Countless headlines, YouTube video titles, and tweets were misleading and false. | [
"07136-proof-02-breaking911-false-tweet.jpg",
"07136-proof-04-xeriland-false.jpg",
"07136-proof-06-buttigieg-bike-ride-staged.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Donald Trump complained about his experience in the White House bunker on Twitter, saying that President Barack Obama left it in a bad shape, with no food or supplies. | Contradiction | Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. On May 29, 2020, as protests grew in Washington, D.C., over the killing of a black man, George Floyd, at the hands of a police officer in Minneapolis, U.S. President Donald Trump was taken to a secure White House bunker due to concerns for his safety. Secret Service agents decided to move him after chants from protesters in nearby Lafayette Park could be heard in the White House, keeping him there for an hour. According to The Associated Press, this was one of the highest security alerts in the White House complex since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The tweet in question appears to have been posted on May 31, 2020, and was shared by many users, including a comedian. The tweet's language implies it was sent from the bunker. This tweet appears to be fake, or a joke. It has not appeared on the president's timeline, and there is little indication that it was posted and deleted. Also, Trump could not have tweeted this from the bunker on May 31 because he was only there for an hour on May 29. The New York Times also reported on the timing of his tweets, suggesting he went silent around the time he was moved to the bunker: Businesses far away from the White House boarded up to guard against vandalism, and Mayor Muriel E. Bowser ordered an 11 p.m. curfew. The White House turned off at least some of its exterior lights. Mr. Trump remained cloistered inside, periodically sending out Twitter messages like 'LAW & ORDER!' until the evening, when he went quiet. While some aides urged him to keep off Twitter, Mr. Trump could not resist blasting out a string of messages earlier in the day berating Democrats for not being tough enough and attributing the turmoil to radical leftists. Trump was presumably moved to a secure room under the East Wing of the White House. The room was described by former first lady Laura Bush in her book, where she was taken during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Washington Post: 'I was hustled inside and downstairs through a pair of big steel doors that closed behind me with a loud hiss, forming an airtight seal,' she wrote. 'I was now in one of the unfinished subterranean hallways underneath the White House, heading for the PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, built for President Franklin Roosevelt during World War II. We walked along old tile floors with pipes hanging from the ceiling and all kinds of mechanical equipment. The PEOC is designed to be a command center during emergencies, with televisions, phones, and communications facilities.' She describes being taken to a small conference room with a large table. The National Archives later released photos of members of the George W. Bush administration in that room that day. Another multi-level bunker was also reportedly built under the White House after the 9/11 attacks, though it is not clear if Trump was taken here. The Washington Post assumes that this newer facility has remained unoccupied since it was built. According to Gizmodo: The bunker was used by White House staff after the September 11 attacks in 2001, and there's no indication that it's been used in the 19 years since. As far as we know, President Barack Obama never used the underground bunker despite widespread protests in D.C. during his tenure organized by the so-called Tea Party. In sum, due to the discrepancy between the dates Trump was actually in the bunker and the date of the tweet, as well as the fact that the tweet does not appear to have come from his actual Twitter account, we rate this claim as 'False.' | In sum, due to the discrepancy between the dates Trump was actually in the bunker and the date of the tweet, as well as the fact that the tweet does not appear to have come from his actual Twitter account, we rate this claim as 'False.' | [
"07144-proof-07-95c3d6b1.jpeg",
"07144-proof-10-trump-1-e1590005656162.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Donald Trump complained about his experience in the White House bunker on Twitter, saying that President Barack Obama left it in a bad shape, with no food or supplies. | Contradiction | Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. On May 29, 2020, as protests grew in Washington, D.C., over the killing of a black man, George Floyd, at the hands of a police officer in Minneapolis, U.S. President Donald Trump was taken to a secure White House bunker due to concerns for his safety. Secret Service agents decided to move him after chants from protesters in nearby Lafayette Park could be heard in the White House, keeping him there for an hour. According to The Associated Press, this was one of the highest security alerts in the White House complex since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The tweet in question appears to have been posted on May 31, 2020, and was shared by many users, including a comedian. The tweet's language implies it was sent from the bunker. This tweet appears to be fake, or a joke. It has not appeared on the president's timeline, and there is little indication that it was posted and deleted. Also, Trump could not have tweeted this from the bunker on May 31 because he was only there for an hour on May 29. The New York Times also reported on the timing of his tweets, suggesting he went silent around the time he was moved to the bunker: Businesses far away from the White House boarded up to guard against vandalism, and Mayor Muriel E. Bowser ordered an 11 p.m. curfew. The White House turned off at least some of its exterior lights. Mr. Trump remained cloistered inside, periodically sending out Twitter messages like 'LAW & ORDER!' until the evening, when he went quiet. While some aides urged him to keep off Twitter, Mr. Trump could not resist blasting out a string of messages earlier in the day berating Democrats for not being tough enough and attributing the turmoil to radical leftists. Trump was presumably moved to a secure room under the East Wing of the White House. The room was described by former first lady Laura Bush in her book, where she was taken during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Washington Post: 'I was hustled inside and downstairs through a pair of big steel doors that closed behind me with a loud hiss, forming an airtight seal,' she wrote. 'I was now in one of the unfinished subterranean hallways underneath the White House, heading for the PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, built for President Franklin Roosevelt during World War II. We walked along old tile floors with pipes hanging from the ceiling and all kinds of mechanical equipment. The PEOC is designed to be a command center during emergencies, with televisions, phones, and communications facilities.' She describes being taken to a small conference room with a large table. The National Archives later released photos of members of the George W. Bush administration in that room that day. Another multi-level bunker was also reportedly built under the White House after the 9/11 attacks, though it is not clear if Trump was taken here. The Washington Post assumes that this newer facility has remained unoccupied since it was built. According to Gizmodo: The bunker was used by White House staff after the September 11 attacks in 2001, and there's no indication that it's been used in the 19 years since. As far as we know, President Barack Obama never used the underground bunker despite widespread protests in D.C. during his tenure organized by the so-called Tea Party. In sum, due to the discrepancy between the dates Trump was actually in the bunker and the date of the tweet, as well as the fact that the tweet does not appear to have come from his actual Twitter account, we rate this claim as 'False.' | In sum, due to the discrepancy between the dates Trump was actually in the bunker and the date of the tweet, as well as the fact that the tweet does not appear to have come from his actual Twitter account, we rate this claim as 'False.' | [
"07144-proof-07-95c3d6b1.jpeg",
"07144-proof-10-trump-1-e1590005656162.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Donald Trump complained about his experience in the White House bunker on Twitter, saying that President Barack Obama left it in a bad shape, with no food or supplies. | Contradiction | Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. On May 29, 2020, as protests grew in Washington, D.C., over the killing of a black man, George Floyd, at the hands of a police officer in Minneapolis, U.S. President Donald Trump was taken to a secure White House bunker due to concerns for his safety. Secret Service agents decided to move him after chants from protesters in nearby Lafayette Park could be heard in the White House, keeping him there for an hour. According to The Associated Press, this was one of the highest security alerts in the White House complex since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The tweet in question appears to have been posted on May 31, 2020, and was shared by many users, including a comedian. The tweet's language implies it was sent from the bunker. This tweet appears to be fake, or a joke. It has not appeared on the president's timeline, and there is little indication that it was posted and deleted. Also, Trump could not have tweeted this from the bunker on May 31 because he was only there for an hour on May 29. The New York Times also reported on the timing of his tweets, suggesting he went silent around the time he was moved to the bunker: Businesses far away from the White House boarded up to guard against vandalism, and Mayor Muriel E. Bowser ordered an 11 p.m. curfew. The White House turned off at least some of its exterior lights. Mr. Trump remained cloistered inside, periodically sending out Twitter messages like 'LAW & ORDER!' until the evening, when he went quiet. While some aides urged him to keep off Twitter, Mr. Trump could not resist blasting out a string of messages earlier in the day berating Democrats for not being tough enough and attributing the turmoil to radical leftists. Trump was presumably moved to a secure room under the East Wing of the White House. The room was described by former first lady Laura Bush in her book, where she was taken during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Washington Post: 'I was hustled inside and downstairs through a pair of big steel doors that closed behind me with a loud hiss, forming an airtight seal,' she wrote. 'I was now in one of the unfinished subterranean hallways underneath the White House, heading for the PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, built for President Franklin Roosevelt during World War II. We walked along old tile floors with pipes hanging from the ceiling and all kinds of mechanical equipment. The PEOC is designed to be a command center during emergencies, with televisions, phones, and communications facilities.' She describes being taken to a small conference room with a large table. The National Archives later released photos of members of the George W. Bush administration in that room that day. Another multi-level bunker was also reportedly built under the White House after the 9/11 attacks, though it is not clear if Trump was taken here. The Washington Post assumes that this newer facility has remained unoccupied since it was built. According to Gizmodo: The bunker was used by White House staff after the September 11 attacks in 2001, and there's no indication that it's been used in the 19 years since. As far as we know, President Barack Obama never used the underground bunker despite widespread protests in D.C. during his tenure organized by the so-called Tea Party. In sum, due to the discrepancy between the dates Trump was actually in the bunker and the date of the tweet, as well as the fact that the tweet does not appear to have come from his actual Twitter account, we rate this claim as 'False.' | In sum, due to the discrepancy between the dates Trump was actually in the bunker and the date of the tweet, as well as the fact that the tweet does not appear to have come from his actual Twitter account, we rate this claim as 'False.' | [
"07144-proof-07-95c3d6b1.jpeg",
"07144-proof-10-trump-1-e1590005656162.jpg"
] |
Audio of a 911 call documents the final moments before the disappearance of a man named Scott Chance. | Contradiction | In June 2019, the Facebook page 'CreepyPasta' renewed interest in an old piece of audio that supposedly documented a creepy 911 call made by a man named Scott Chance before he mysteriously disappeared: While this piece of audio is frequently shared on horror-focused corners of the internet as if it were a genuine 911 call, this is actually a short fictional film created by Rui Melo called 'The Break-In.' According to the film's IMDB page, Melo produced, directed, and edited the film. The only two listed cast members are Jonathan Gross and Tom Leroux, but it's unclear which roles they played. Melo uploaded 'The Break-In' to his YouTube page in September 2016. The original version of Melo's film, as well as the accompanying description, can be seen below: A short movie about a creepy 911 call made by a man called Scott Chance, attempting to report a break-in in progress. After a while, things take a turn for the worse and Scott becomes inadvertently involved in the situation. Melo's film has racked up more than 4 million views since it was first posted online. In November 2018, Melo posted a teaser for a follow-up that would supposedly feature footage from that fateful, fictional night: It's unclear if 'Part 2' will ever be completed. Melo responded to one YouTube user asking about the release date, saying: 'I'm trying to get this made but it hasn't been easy. I'll keep on trying though because I really wanna tell the rest of this story. What I have planned going forward is really interesting, in my honest opinion ...' In sum, this viral 911 call does not document the final moments before the disappearance of man named Scott Chance. This is a short film about a fictional incident. | In sum, this viral 911 call does not document the final moments before the disappearance of man named Scott Chance. This is a short film about a fictional incident. | [
"07165-proof-08-scott-chance-call-graphic.jpg"
] |
Hillary Clinton said several insulting things about Michelle Obama in a leaked 20 October 2016 e-mail. | Contradiction | On 4 January 2017 the Facebook page 'Powdered Wig Society' published the above-reproduced image macro, claiming that Hillary Clinton had insulted First Lady Michelle Obama in a 20 October 2016 e-mail (published by WikiLeaks), as captioned by that image: 'DO WE REALLY NEED THAT MICHELLE BITCH TO BE AT THE SAME EVENTS? ITS ENOUGH TO HAVE HER DUMB ASS PIMP STINKING UP THE WORKS. THESE SHIT FOR BRAINS VOTERS NEED TO JUST VOTE ALREADY.' WIKILEAKS HILLARY CLINTON EMAIL TO CHELSEA CLINTON OCTOBER 20, 2016 This claim would have made waves if it were true, but no other news outlet reported on what would have been an easily accessed e-mail. We searched WikiLeaks first by keyword and then for all e-mails published by WikiLeaks with a send date between 19 and 21 October 2016, but both searches similarly returned zero results. In short, the quote was fabricated and the e-mail in question does not exist. Powdered Wig Society was not the first source to advance a fabricated Hillary Clinton quote based on a non-existent WikiLeaks document. A high-profile example of a forgery that was claimed to be a WikiLeaks publication was the widespread 'bucket of losers' comment widely (and falsely) attributed to Clinton. | In short, the quote was fabricated and the e-mail in question does not exist. Powdered Wig Society was not the first source to advance a fabricated Hillary Clinton quote based on a non-existent WikiLeaks document. A high-profile example of a forgery that was claimed to be a WikiLeaks publication was the widespread 'bucket of losers' comment widely (and falsely) attributed to Clinton. | [] |
During protests over the police in-custody death of George Floyd in the summer of 2020, Kamala Harris donated money to a Minnesota nonprofit that helped protesters who were arrested get out of jail and break more laws. | Contradiction | On Aug. 11, 2020, then-U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden selected California U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris as his Democratic running mate in the race against Republican incumbents Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Following that announcement, Trump and his supporters attempted to call attention to what they framed as immoral judgment by Harris - the Trump campaign alleged she wrongly encouraged Americans to help people who were arrested during protests over the police in-custody death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. For example, in an Aug. 17 speech to supporters in Mankato, Minnesota (which is about 80 miles southwest of Minneapolis), Trump said, according to a Factba.se transcription of the event: Kamala Harris encouraged Americans to donate to the so-called Minnesota Freedom Fund - do you know that is? - which bailed out the rioters, looters, assaulters, and anarchists from jail. And Biden's staff did the same thing; they donated a lot of their money to get them out of jail so that everyone was right back on the streets. Think of that: This is what is running for office. Less than two weeks later, U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, doubled down on the president's claim, alleging in a tweet: 'Kamala Harris helped violent rioters in Minnesota get out of jail to do more damage.' Around the same time, at least one conservative website purported in a headline that Harris donated to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), which indeed gives cash to people who cannot afford bail so they don't have to wait in jail until court hearings, or agree to high-interest loans. Over the course of months, numerous Snopes readers contacted us to investigate whether Harris had actually given money to the Minnesota-based organization, and, if so, whether those contributions allowed for any of the roughly 170 people who were arrested during protests to get out of jail and commit more crimes. First, let us identify what appeared to be the basis of those assertions. Following Floyd's death, supporters of the civil rights movement nationwide (including many celebrities) donated more than $30 million to MFF, according to the nonprofit and news reports. High-profile donors used social media to promote their contributions, and Harris, on June 1, used her official accounts as a vice presidential candidate to express her support for the fundraising effort. 'If you're able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota,' she wrote on Facebook and Twitter, including links to an MFF donation page on the left-leaning fundraising site, ActBlue. In other words, while it was true Harris publicly expressed support for the nonprofit and encouraged others to donate to it in summer 2020, she did not say on social media - or via any other public statement - that she herself donated money to the organization. Next, we analyzed how Harris' 2020 campaign spent money and if, or to what extent, it helped the nonprofit, despite the fact she had not publicly declared the possible financial tie in a speech, interview, or on social media. Based on campaign filings compiled by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Center for Responsive Politics, no expenditure receipt listed 'Minnesota Freedom Fund' - debunking the possible claim that she used campaign money to help the nonprofit. Snopes reached out to MFF, asking if Harris at any point donated money and, if so, for the contribution's details. Greg Lewin, the organization's interim executive director, responded to us via email: 'No, we have nothing in our records indicating a donation from Vice President Harris.' We also reached out to Harris' press secretary, Symone Sanders, to comment on critics' accusations, but we have not heard back. We will update this report when or if we do. (As part of a wide-sweeping proposal to reform the country's criminal justice system, the Biden-Harris administration has pledged to eliminate the country's cash-bail system.) Now, let us move to the latter claim regarding the people who MFF helped during the protests, in light of Harris' June 1 posts praising the organization's work. Established in 2016, MFF is among the many nonprofits that attempt to counteract inequities in the country's cash-bail system by paying detainees' criminal and immigration bonds. Then, when those people attend court proceedings to determine the outcome of their case - or whether they indeed broke the law prior to their arrest - they must return the full value of the cash bail to the Minnesota-based nonprofit. The MFF website states: We've never made decisions based simply on pretrial charge - and we won't now. [...] We have always prioritized those who are unable to pay for freedom and face the greatest level of danger and marginalization. We will continue to center and prioritize the following groups in our bail payment: BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) Those experiencing homelessness People arrested who live in Minnesota Those who have been detained while fighting for justice Nearly half the people we pay bail for have had their case completely dismissed, suggesting there was never a case for the arrest or charge to begin with. Therefore, if a judge has decided that someone can be released so long as they can afford the price, we will pay that fee if we can afford it. Like in dozens of U.S. cities where people protested Floyd's death, peaceful marches during the day between May 26 and early June set the stage for vandalism and destruction at night. However, the overwhelming majority of people who were arrested during the large gatherings - whether chaotic or peaceful - did not need the MFF's help. Citing accounting by the American Bail Coalition (a trade group of insurance companies who profit from underwriting bail bonds) and Hennepin County jail records, The Washington Post reported in September that all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released, and, in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested did not have to pay bail - and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges, the news outlet reported. 'We have paid all the protest bails that have come our way,' the MFF website said. '[Many] of the people who were arrested during the uprising weren't detained and instead were given citations then released, have been released with no bail, or held with no bail.' However, among the small group of people who did receive direct bail assistance from the nonprofit, one man was arrested on suspicion of shooting at police with an AK-47-style mini Draco pistol in the early hours of May 30, as well as a woman who allegedly stole from a cell phone store in a Minneapolis suburb and other businesses the day prior, according to The Washington Post and other news reports. As of September, the nonprofit paid $75,000 in cash to help the former suspect and $750 to assist the latter. Additionally, a 32-year-old man whom MFF bailed out on an assault charge in July - a case that was unrelated to the protests - was charged with committing third-degree assault the following month, leaving the victim with a traumatic brain injury and a fractured skull, according to news reports. Lewin said in a statement afterward that the organization needs to 'strengthen our internal procedures' to ensure its clients stay out of the criminal justice system after their first go-around. In sum, while Harris indeed expressed public support for MFF following Floyd's death, it was false to claim she donated money to the organization, or that it helped protesters 'get out of jail and do more damage,' like Cotton alleged. Rather, no evidence existed to show the handful of people who received direct bail assistance for arrests related to the demonstrations committed more crimes after their initial detainment. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'Mostly false.' | in summer 2020, she did not say on social media - or via any other public statement - that she herself donated money to the organization. Next, we analyzed how Harris' 2020 campaign spent money and if, or to what extent, it helped the nonprofit, despite the fact she had not publicly declared the possible financial tie in a speech, interview, or on social media. Based on campaign filings compiled by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Center for Responsive Politics, no expenditure receipt listed 'Minnesota Freedom Fund' - debunking the possible claim that she used campaign money to help the nonprofit. Snopes reached out to MFF, asking if Harris at any point donated money and, if so, for the contribution's details. Greg Lewin, the organization's interim executive director, responded to us via email: 'No, we have nothing in our records indicating a donation from Vice President Harris.' We also reached out to Harris' press secretary, Symone Sanders, to comment on critics' accusations, but we have not heard back. We will update this report when or if we do. (As part of a wide-sweeping proposal to reform the country's criminal justice system, the Biden-Harris administration has pledged to eliminate the country's cash-bail system.) Now, let us move to the latter claim regarding the people who MFF helped during the protests, in light of Harris' June 1 posts praising the organization's work. Established in 2016, MFF is among the many nonprofits that attempt to counteract inequities in the country's cash-bail system by paying detainees' criminal and immigration bonds. Then, when those people attend court proceedings to determine the outcome of their case - or whether they indeed broke the law prior to their arrest - they must return the full value of the cash bail to the Minnesota-based nonprofit. The MFF website states: We've never made decisions based simply on pretrial charge - and we won't now. [...] We have always prioritized those who are unable to pay for freedom and face the greatest level of danger and marginalization. We will continue to center and prioritize the following groups in our bail payment: BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) Those experiencing homelessness People arrested who live in Minnesota Those who have been detained while fighting for justice Nearly half the people we pay bail for have had their case completely dismissed, suggesting there was never a case for the arrest or charge to begin with. Therefore, if a judge has decided that someone can be released so long as they can afford the price, we will pay that fee if we can afford it. Like in dozens of U.S. cities where people protested Floyd's death, peaceful marches during the day between May 26 and early June set the stage for vandalism and destruction at night. However, the overwhelming majority of people who were arrested during the large gatherings - whether chaotic or peaceful - did not need the MFF's help. Citing accounting by the American Bail Coalition (a trade group of insurance companies who profit from underwriting bail bonds) and Hennepin County jail records, The Washington Post reported in September that all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released, and, in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested did not have to pay bail - and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges, the news outlet reported. 'We have paid all the protest bails that have come our way,' the MFF website said. '[Many] of the people who were arrested during the uprising weren't detained and instead were given citations then released, have been released with no bail, or held with no bail.' However, among the small group of people who did receive direct bail assistance from the nonprofit, one man was arrested on suspicion of shooting at police with an AK-47-style mini Draco pistol in the early hours of May 30, as well as a woman who allegedly stole from a cell phone store in a Minneapolis suburb and other businesses the day prior, according to The Washington Post and other news reports. As of September, the nonprofit paid $75,000 in cash to help the former suspect and $750 to assist the latter. Additionally, a 32-year-old man whom MFF bailed out on an assault charge in July - a case that was unrelated to the protests - was charged with committing third-degree assault the following month, leaving the victim with a traumatic brain injury and a fractured skull, according to news reports. Lewin said in a statement afterward that the organization needs to 'strengthen our internal procedures' to ensure its clients stay out of the criminal justice system after their first go-around. In sum, while Harris indeed expressed public support for MFF following Floyd's death, it was false to claim she donated money to the organization, or that it helped protesters 'get out of jail and do more damage,' like Cotton alleged. Rather, no evidence existed to show the handful of people who received direct bail assistance for arrests related to the demonstrations committed more crimes after their initial detainment. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'Mostly false.' | [
"07347-proof-10-GettyImages-1151452810.jpg"
] |
During protests over the police in-custody death of George Floyd in the summer of 2020, Kamala Harris donated money to a Minnesota nonprofit that helped protesters who were arrested get out of jail and break more laws. | Contradiction | On Aug. 11, 2020, then-U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden selected California U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris as his Democratic running mate in the race against Republican incumbents Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Following that announcement, Trump and his supporters attempted to call attention to what they framed as immoral judgment by Harris - the Trump campaign alleged she wrongly encouraged Americans to help people who were arrested during protests over the police in-custody death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. For example, in an Aug. 17 speech to supporters in Mankato, Minnesota (which is about 80 miles southwest of Minneapolis), Trump said, according to a Factba.se transcription of the event: Kamala Harris encouraged Americans to donate to the so-called Minnesota Freedom Fund - do you know that is? - which bailed out the rioters, looters, assaulters, and anarchists from jail. And Biden's staff did the same thing; they donated a lot of their money to get them out of jail so that everyone was right back on the streets. Think of that: This is what is running for office. Less than two weeks later, U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, doubled down on the president's claim, alleging in a tweet: 'Kamala Harris helped violent rioters in Minnesota get out of jail to do more damage.' Around the same time, at least one conservative website purported in a headline that Harris donated to the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), which indeed gives cash to people who cannot afford bail so they don't have to wait in jail until court hearings, or agree to high-interest loans. Over the course of months, numerous Snopes readers contacted us to investigate whether Harris had actually given money to the Minnesota-based organization, and, if so, whether those contributions allowed for any of the roughly 170 people who were arrested during protests to get out of jail and commit more crimes. First, let us identify what appeared to be the basis of those assertions. Following Floyd's death, supporters of the civil rights movement nationwide (including many celebrities) donated more than $30 million to MFF, according to the nonprofit and news reports. High-profile donors used social media to promote their contributions, and Harris, on June 1, used her official accounts as a vice presidential candidate to express her support for the fundraising effort. 'If you're able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota,' she wrote on Facebook and Twitter, including links to an MFF donation page on the left-leaning fundraising site, ActBlue. In other words, while it was true Harris publicly expressed support for the nonprofit and encouraged others to donate to it in summer 2020, she did not say on social media - or via any other public statement - that she herself donated money to the organization. Next, we analyzed how Harris' 2020 campaign spent money and if, or to what extent, it helped the nonprofit, despite the fact she had not publicly declared the possible financial tie in a speech, interview, or on social media. Based on campaign filings compiled by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Center for Responsive Politics, no expenditure receipt listed 'Minnesota Freedom Fund' - debunking the possible claim that she used campaign money to help the nonprofit. Snopes reached out to MFF, asking if Harris at any point donated money and, if so, for the contribution's details. Greg Lewin, the organization's interim executive director, responded to us via email: 'No, we have nothing in our records indicating a donation from Vice President Harris.' We also reached out to Harris' press secretary, Symone Sanders, to comment on critics' accusations, but we have not heard back. We will update this report when or if we do. (As part of a wide-sweeping proposal to reform the country's criminal justice system, the Biden-Harris administration has pledged to eliminate the country's cash-bail system.) Now, let us move to the latter claim regarding the people who MFF helped during the protests, in light of Harris' June 1 posts praising the organization's work. Established in 2016, MFF is among the many nonprofits that attempt to counteract inequities in the country's cash-bail system by paying detainees' criminal and immigration bonds. Then, when those people attend court proceedings to determine the outcome of their case - or whether they indeed broke the law prior to their arrest - they must return the full value of the cash bail to the Minnesota-based nonprofit. The MFF website states: We've never made decisions based simply on pretrial charge - and we won't now. [...] We have always prioritized those who are unable to pay for freedom and face the greatest level of danger and marginalization. We will continue to center and prioritize the following groups in our bail payment: BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) Those experiencing homelessness People arrested who live in Minnesota Those who have been detained while fighting for justice Nearly half the people we pay bail for have had their case completely dismissed, suggesting there was never a case for the arrest or charge to begin with. Therefore, if a judge has decided that someone can be released so long as they can afford the price, we will pay that fee if we can afford it. Like in dozens of U.S. cities where people protested Floyd's death, peaceful marches during the day between May 26 and early June set the stage for vandalism and destruction at night. However, the overwhelming majority of people who were arrested during the large gatherings - whether chaotic or peaceful - did not need the MFF's help. Citing accounting by the American Bail Coalition (a trade group of insurance companies who profit from underwriting bail bonds) and Hennepin County jail records, The Washington Post reported in September that all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released, and, in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested did not have to pay bail - and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges, the news outlet reported. 'We have paid all the protest bails that have come our way,' the MFF website said. '[Many] of the people who were arrested during the uprising weren't detained and instead were given citations then released, have been released with no bail, or held with no bail.' However, among the small group of people who did receive direct bail assistance from the nonprofit, one man was arrested on suspicion of shooting at police with an AK-47-style mini Draco pistol in the early hours of May 30, as well as a woman who allegedly stole from a cell phone store in a Minneapolis suburb and other businesses the day prior, according to The Washington Post and other news reports. As of September, the nonprofit paid $75,000 in cash to help the former suspect and $750 to assist the latter. Additionally, a 32-year-old man whom MFF bailed out on an assault charge in July - a case that was unrelated to the protests - was charged with committing third-degree assault the following month, leaving the victim with a traumatic brain injury and a fractured skull, according to news reports. Lewin said in a statement afterward that the organization needs to 'strengthen our internal procedures' to ensure its clients stay out of the criminal justice system after their first go-around. In sum, while Harris indeed expressed public support for MFF following Floyd's death, it was false to claim she donated money to the organization, or that it helped protesters 'get out of jail and do more damage,' like Cotton alleged. Rather, no evidence existed to show the handful of people who received direct bail assistance for arrests related to the demonstrations committed more crimes after their initial detainment. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'Mostly false.' | in summer 2020, she did not say on social media - or via any other public statement - that she herself donated money to the organization. Next, we analyzed how Harris' 2020 campaign spent money and if, or to what extent, it helped the nonprofit, despite the fact she had not publicly declared the possible financial tie in a speech, interview, or on social media. Based on campaign filings compiled by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Center for Responsive Politics, no expenditure receipt listed 'Minnesota Freedom Fund' - debunking the possible claim that she used campaign money to help the nonprofit. Snopes reached out to MFF, asking if Harris at any point donated money and, if so, for the contribution's details. Greg Lewin, the organization's interim executive director, responded to us via email: 'No, we have nothing in our records indicating a donation from Vice President Harris.' We also reached out to Harris' press secretary, Symone Sanders, to comment on critics' accusations, but we have not heard back. We will update this report when or if we do. (As part of a wide-sweeping proposal to reform the country's criminal justice system, the Biden-Harris administration has pledged to eliminate the country's cash-bail system.) Now, let us move to the latter claim regarding the people who MFF helped during the protests, in light of Harris' June 1 posts praising the organization's work. Established in 2016, MFF is among the many nonprofits that attempt to counteract inequities in the country's cash-bail system by paying detainees' criminal and immigration bonds. Then, when those people attend court proceedings to determine the outcome of their case - or whether they indeed broke the law prior to their arrest - they must return the full value of the cash bail to the Minnesota-based nonprofit. The MFF website states: We've never made decisions based simply on pretrial charge - and we won't now. [...] We have always prioritized those who are unable to pay for freedom and face the greatest level of danger and marginalization. We will continue to center and prioritize the following groups in our bail payment: BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) Those experiencing homelessness People arrested who live in Minnesota Those who have been detained while fighting for justice Nearly half the people we pay bail for have had their case completely dismissed, suggesting there was never a case for the arrest or charge to begin with. Therefore, if a judge has decided that someone can be released so long as they can afford the price, we will pay that fee if we can afford it. Like in dozens of U.S. cities where people protested Floyd's death, peaceful marches during the day between May 26 and early June set the stage for vandalism and destruction at night. However, the overwhelming majority of people who were arrested during the large gatherings - whether chaotic or peaceful - did not need the MFF's help. Citing accounting by the American Bail Coalition (a trade group of insurance companies who profit from underwriting bail bonds) and Hennepin County jail records, The Washington Post reported in September that all but three of the 170 people arrested during the protests were released from jail within a week. Of the 167 released, only 10 had to put up a monetary bond to be released, and, in most cases, the amounts were nominal, such as $78 or $100. In fact, 92 percent of those arrested did not have to pay bail - and 29 percent of those arrested did not face charges, the news outlet reported. 'We have paid all the protest bails that have come our way,' the MFF website said. '[Many] of the people who were arrested during the uprising weren't detained and instead were given citations then released, have been released with no bail, or held with no bail.' However, among the small group of people who did receive direct bail assistance from the nonprofit, one man was arrested on suspicion of shooting at police with an AK-47-style mini Draco pistol in the early hours of May 30, as well as a woman who allegedly stole from a cell phone store in a Minneapolis suburb and other businesses the day prior, according to The Washington Post and other news reports. As of September, the nonprofit paid $75,000 in cash to help the former suspect and $750 to assist the latter. Additionally, a 32-year-old man whom MFF bailed out on an assault charge in July - a case that was unrelated to the protests - was charged with committing third-degree assault the following month, leaving the victim with a traumatic brain injury and a fractured skull, according to news reports. Lewin said in a statement afterward that the organization needs to 'strengthen our internal procedures' to ensure its clients stay out of the criminal justice system after their first go-around. In sum, while Harris indeed expressed public support for MFF following Floyd's death, it was false to claim she donated money to the organization, or that it helped protesters 'get out of jail and do more damage,' like Cotton alleged. Rather, no evidence existed to show the handful of people who received direct bail assistance for arrests related to the demonstrations committed more crimes after their initial detainment. For those reasons, we rate this claim 'Mostly false.' | [
"07347-proof-10-GettyImages-1151452810.jpg"
] |
Consuming tainted lettuce caused more deaths in 2018 than homicides perpetrated by undocumented immigrants. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump and some of his supporters have frequently talked up the alleged threat posed by undocumented immigrants crossing the southern border of the United States. Arguing in support of his long-promised border wall, President Trump, for example, has claimed that 'Sixty-three thousand Americans since 9/11 have been killed by illegal aliens,' a claim we have previously found to be false. In reality, repeated studies have shown that undocumented immigrants in the United States actually commit crime, including violent crime, at a lower rate than citizens of the United States. This clash between the 'violent illegals' rhetoric of right-leaning supporters of President Trump's proposed border wall and the empirical reality has given rise to a series of statistical counter-claims, especially popular among left-leaning opponents of Trump on social media. For example, we have previously examined the veracity of a viral meme that claimed lack of access to affordable health care was responsible for a greater number of deaths than terrorism and homicides perpetrated by undocumented immigrants combined. In January 2019, several weeks into the federal government shutdown prompted by a dispute between President Trump and Congressional Democrats over funding the proposed border wall, another eye-catching statistical comparison gained popularity on social media: 'Lettuce killed more Americans [in 2018] than undocumented immigrants.' Last year lettuce killed more Americans than undocumented immigrants so it's a good thing we're halting food inspections over a wall that won't work. - Ally Maynard (@missmayn) January 10, 2019 Despite the grammatical ambiguity in these claims, it's clear the assertion being made was that in 2018, a greater number of deaths resulted from the consumption of tainted lettuce than from homicides perpetrated by undocumented immigrants. Lettuce According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), two multi-state outbreaks of the E.coli bacterium occurred in 2018 involving lettuce. The first outbreak ended in June and led to five deaths as well as hospitalization of 96 people, 27 of whom developed a kind of kidney failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). HUS can be life-threatening, but according to the World Health Organization, only 3 to 5 percent of people who develop HUS die during the course of the disease, although that rate is higher among young children and the elderly. The second outbreak began in October and appeared to have ended by December, leading to 62 cases of infection, 25 hospitalizations (including two cases of HUS), but no deaths. So in total, the CDC documented a total of five deaths from consuming tainted lettuce in 2018. Homicides perpetrated by undocumented immigrants No official nationwide tally of the number of homicides committed by undocumented immigrants is kept, so those figures are less clear. However, we do have some useful data which we have previously examined in greater detail. In 2018, the Cato Institute published a report that used official Texas Department of Public Safety data and found that in 2015, undocumented immigrants were convicted of 46 homicides in the state of Texas, a rate of 2.6 convictions per 100,000 undocumented immigrants (a lower homicide conviction rate than among U.S. citizens in Texas). The author of the report stipulated that, 'The conviction and arrest rates for the entire period of January 1, 2011, through November 15, 2017, are nearly identical to those of 2015, so the choice of year makes little difference.' Assuming that there was no sudden and drastic change in the figures between 2011-2017 and 2018, the findings for 2015 are a reasonable proxy for homicides perpetrated by undocumented immigrants in 2018. Further, we know that an estimated 10.7 million undocumented immigrants lived in the United States in 2016. If the rate of homicide conviction seen in Texas was the same as the nationwide rate, this would work out to be around 278 homicide convictions of undocumented immigrants throughout the United States in 2016, and a similar number in 2018. (The estimated undocumented immigrant population of the U.S. has been declining in recent years, from 12.2 million in 2007 to 10.7 million in 2016, or roughly .16 annually. If that trend continued and the number fell to around 10.4 in 2018, that would still equate to an estimated 273 homicide convictions that year.) It's true that these figures relate to homicide convictions, and not, strictly speaking, homicides. However, for every murder that took place in 2016 but didn't culminate in a conviction until 2018, it's reasonable to assume that there was another murder that took place in 2018 but won't culminate in a conviction until 2020. In other words, the number of homicide convictions in any given year will not be significantly different from the number of prosecutable homicides in that same year. Whatever the exact number of homicides perpetrated by undocumented immigrants in 2018 was (and there is a reasonable statistical basis to estimate it was around 270), it is safe to say that it was a vastly higher figure than the mere five deaths the CDC recorded as being caused by lettuce tainted with E.coli. If one takes a step back from the criminal justice system for a moment, one can view the 'lettuce-vs.-undocumented-immigrants' comparison in another light. Between 2014 and 2016, the number of homicides recorded by the CDC increased each year from 15,872 to 19,362, so it may be reasonable to estimate around 20,000 homicides took place in 2018. In order for the number of homicides perpetrated by undocumented immigrants to be lower than the number of lettuce-related deaths (five), it would require that undocumented immigrants commit only 0.02 percent of homicides, despite making up more than 3 percent of the total U.S. population. That is, undocumented immigrants would need to have accounted for a share of homicides that was 165 times lower than their proportion of the U.S. population. We know from the Texas data that undocumented immigrants do account for a lower share of homicide convictions (5.9 percent) than their share of the population (6.4 percent) - but not 165 times lower. Conclusion Despite the absence of official nationwide data on homicides perpetrated by undocumented immigrants, we have more than enough robust data to conclude that the claim lettuce killed more people in the United States in 2018 than undocumented immigrants did is false. In reality, undocumented immigrants killed a vastly greater number of people than tainted lettuce did, even though undocumented immigrants in general commit crime, including violent crime, at a lower rate than native-born U.S. citizens. | Conclusion Despite the absence of official nationwide data on homicides perpetrated by undocumented immigrants, we have more than enough robust data to conclude that the claim lettuce killed more people in the United States in 2018 than undocumented immigrants did is false. In reality, undocumented immigrants killed a vastly greater number of people than tainted lettuce did, even though undocumented immigrants in general commit crime, including violent crime, at a lower rate than native-born U.S. citizens. | [
"07389-proof-08-shutterstock_1236977197.jpg"
] |
Extreme hackers are gaining control of people's personal information via links to web sites offering Facebook users the opportunity to see what they look like bald, or as a member of the opposite sex, etc. | Contradiction | A viral alert proliferating on Facebook since February 2018 warns users to avoid clicking on links that promote entertainment apps or web sites offering them a glimpse of what they might look like as a bald person or as a member of the opposite sex. This is the full text of the alert, according to which these apps are controlled by 'extreme hackers' out to invade your privacy: WARNING FACEBOOK There is a website link traveling around Facebook at an extraordinary rate which allows you 'to see what you would look like as the opposite sex' and also one that lets you see what you look like 'as a bald person'. DO NOT enter these links, they are controlled by extreme hackers who are now gaining control of people's personal information and selling it on the black market. As soon as you have clicked share to Facebook it gives these hackers instant access to your own personal details and puts your family and friends personal details at risk. PLEASE SHARE TO MAKE YOUR FRIENDS AWARE As is typical of such alerts, certain features of actual Facebook apps that access personal information in users' profiles have been misconstrued as illegal and the security threat they pose is exaggerated. A number of apps of this kind are constantly promoted on Facebook. This example poses the question, 'What would you look like as a bald person?': Clicking on the link opens an external web page that instructs the user to log in with Facebook to see the results: This disclaimer appears in fine print at the bottom of the page: This app uses data and contents only if they are publicly available or with the consent of the users. We kindly ask you to use the app only, if other users will not be affected adversely. *Only users who have reached the age of 16 may use this free function. You agree that your picture will be transmitted to the provider FaceApp (St. Petersburg, RU) for the sole purpose of its editing and will be deleted afterwards (data protection and objection notice). Users who log in are then presented with a dialogue box informing them that certain information (typically their Facebook profile data, photos, and e-mail address) will automatically be shared with the web site if they continue (although this particular one doesn't, some apps also request permission to post on the user's Facebook page). If they choose to continue, users are then presented with a selection of photos from their Facebook page and invited to choose one for the demonstration. The app displays the chosen photo side-by-side with an altered version depicting the subject without hair, and invites the user to like the app. It is all relatively harmless, but Facebook users should take seriously all notifications to the effect that they by using the app they are granting the company that provided it access to some of their personal data. We also advise reading the Terms of Service and Privacy notifications provided by such apps (usually via links somewhere on the associated web page) for a detailed description of what you're agreeing to. By granting access to your e-mail address, for example, you're agreeing to receive marketing e-mails and/or newsletters from that company. These pages are also where you would be notified if the company plans on sharing your data with third parties. Facebook provides this general overview of what types of information games and apps are allowed to collect when you install them: Keep in mind when you install an app, you give it permission to access your public profile, which includes your name, profile pictures, username, user ID (account number), networks and any info you choose to make publicly available. You also give the app other info to personalize your experience, including your friends list, gender, age range and locale. In short, the companies that offer apps like these aren't typically 'hackers' (much less 'extreme hackers,' which sounds exciting, but we're not sure how one goes from being a mere hacker to an extreme one), nor do they sell your private data on the 'black market.' However, when you use such apps you do grant them access to personal information in your Facebook profile, which may also be shared with third parties. The moral of the story is: Use Facebook apps cautiously, but don't buy into fear-mongering warnings about them. | In short, the companies that offer apps like these aren't typically 'hackers' (much less 'extreme hackers,' which sounds exciting, but we're not sure how one goes from being a mere hacker to an extreme one), nor do they sell your private data on the 'black market.' However, when you use such apps you do grant them access to personal information in your Facebook profile, which may also be shared with third parties. The moral of the story is: Use Facebook apps cautiously, but don't buy into fear-mongering warnings about them. | [
"07421-proof-02-bald_man_filter_hackers_facebook.jpg",
"07421-proof-09-fb-bald-person-2.jpg"
] |
Extreme hackers are gaining control of people's personal information via links to web sites offering Facebook users the opportunity to see what they look like bald, or as a member of the opposite sex, etc. | Contradiction | A viral alert proliferating on Facebook since February 2018 warns users to avoid clicking on links that promote entertainment apps or web sites offering them a glimpse of what they might look like as a bald person or as a member of the opposite sex. This is the full text of the alert, according to which these apps are controlled by 'extreme hackers' out to invade your privacy: WARNING FACEBOOK There is a website link traveling around Facebook at an extraordinary rate which allows you 'to see what you would look like as the opposite sex' and also one that lets you see what you look like 'as a bald person'. DO NOT enter these links, they are controlled by extreme hackers who are now gaining control of people's personal information and selling it on the black market. As soon as you have clicked share to Facebook it gives these hackers instant access to your own personal details and puts your family and friends personal details at risk. PLEASE SHARE TO MAKE YOUR FRIENDS AWARE As is typical of such alerts, certain features of actual Facebook apps that access personal information in users' profiles have been misconstrued as illegal and the security threat they pose is exaggerated. A number of apps of this kind are constantly promoted on Facebook. This example poses the question, 'What would you look like as a bald person?': Clicking on the link opens an external web page that instructs the user to log in with Facebook to see the results: This disclaimer appears in fine print at the bottom of the page: This app uses data and contents only if they are publicly available or with the consent of the users. We kindly ask you to use the app only, if other users will not be affected adversely. *Only users who have reached the age of 16 may use this free function. You agree that your picture will be transmitted to the provider FaceApp (St. Petersburg, RU) for the sole purpose of its editing and will be deleted afterwards (data protection and objection notice). Users who log in are then presented with a dialogue box informing them that certain information (typically their Facebook profile data, photos, and e-mail address) will automatically be shared with the web site if they continue (although this particular one doesn't, some apps also request permission to post on the user's Facebook page). If they choose to continue, users are then presented with a selection of photos from their Facebook page and invited to choose one for the demonstration. The app displays the chosen photo side-by-side with an altered version depicting the subject without hair, and invites the user to like the app. It is all relatively harmless, but Facebook users should take seriously all notifications to the effect that they by using the app they are granting the company that provided it access to some of their personal data. We also advise reading the Terms of Service and Privacy notifications provided by such apps (usually via links somewhere on the associated web page) for a detailed description of what you're agreeing to. By granting access to your e-mail address, for example, you're agreeing to receive marketing e-mails and/or newsletters from that company. These pages are also where you would be notified if the company plans on sharing your data with third parties. Facebook provides this general overview of what types of information games and apps are allowed to collect when you install them: Keep in mind when you install an app, you give it permission to access your public profile, which includes your name, profile pictures, username, user ID (account number), networks and any info you choose to make publicly available. You also give the app other info to personalize your experience, including your friends list, gender, age range and locale. In short, the companies that offer apps like these aren't typically 'hackers' (much less 'extreme hackers,' which sounds exciting, but we're not sure how one goes from being a mere hacker to an extreme one), nor do they sell your private data on the 'black market.' However, when you use such apps you do grant them access to personal information in your Facebook profile, which may also be shared with third parties. The moral of the story is: Use Facebook apps cautiously, but don't buy into fear-mongering warnings about them. | In short, the companies that offer apps like these aren't typically 'hackers' (much less 'extreme hackers,' which sounds exciting, but we're not sure how one goes from being a mere hacker to an extreme one), nor do they sell your private data on the 'black market.' However, when you use such apps you do grant them access to personal information in your Facebook profile, which may also be shared with third parties. The moral of the story is: Use Facebook apps cautiously, but don't buy into fear-mongering warnings about them. | [
"07421-proof-02-bald_man_filter_hackers_facebook.jpg",
"07421-proof-09-fb-bald-person-2.jpg"
] |
Extreme hackers are gaining control of people's personal information via links to web sites offering Facebook users the opportunity to see what they look like bald, or as a member of the opposite sex, etc. | Contradiction | A viral alert proliferating on Facebook since February 2018 warns users to avoid clicking on links that promote entertainment apps or web sites offering them a glimpse of what they might look like as a bald person or as a member of the opposite sex. This is the full text of the alert, according to which these apps are controlled by 'extreme hackers' out to invade your privacy: WARNING FACEBOOK There is a website link traveling around Facebook at an extraordinary rate which allows you 'to see what you would look like as the opposite sex' and also one that lets you see what you look like 'as a bald person'. DO NOT enter these links, they are controlled by extreme hackers who are now gaining control of people's personal information and selling it on the black market. As soon as you have clicked share to Facebook it gives these hackers instant access to your own personal details and puts your family and friends personal details at risk. PLEASE SHARE TO MAKE YOUR FRIENDS AWARE As is typical of such alerts, certain features of actual Facebook apps that access personal information in users' profiles have been misconstrued as illegal and the security threat they pose is exaggerated. A number of apps of this kind are constantly promoted on Facebook. This example poses the question, 'What would you look like as a bald person?': Clicking on the link opens an external web page that instructs the user to log in with Facebook to see the results: This disclaimer appears in fine print at the bottom of the page: This app uses data and contents only if they are publicly available or with the consent of the users. We kindly ask you to use the app only, if other users will not be affected adversely. *Only users who have reached the age of 16 may use this free function. You agree that your picture will be transmitted to the provider FaceApp (St. Petersburg, RU) for the sole purpose of its editing and will be deleted afterwards (data protection and objection notice). Users who log in are then presented with a dialogue box informing them that certain information (typically their Facebook profile data, photos, and e-mail address) will automatically be shared with the web site if they continue (although this particular one doesn't, some apps also request permission to post on the user's Facebook page). If they choose to continue, users are then presented with a selection of photos from their Facebook page and invited to choose one for the demonstration. The app displays the chosen photo side-by-side with an altered version depicting the subject without hair, and invites the user to like the app. It is all relatively harmless, but Facebook users should take seriously all notifications to the effect that they by using the app they are granting the company that provided it access to some of their personal data. We also advise reading the Terms of Service and Privacy notifications provided by such apps (usually via links somewhere on the associated web page) for a detailed description of what you're agreeing to. By granting access to your e-mail address, for example, you're agreeing to receive marketing e-mails and/or newsletters from that company. These pages are also where you would be notified if the company plans on sharing your data with third parties. Facebook provides this general overview of what types of information games and apps are allowed to collect when you install them: Keep in mind when you install an app, you give it permission to access your public profile, which includes your name, profile pictures, username, user ID (account number), networks and any info you choose to make publicly available. You also give the app other info to personalize your experience, including your friends list, gender, age range and locale. In short, the companies that offer apps like these aren't typically 'hackers' (much less 'extreme hackers,' which sounds exciting, but we're not sure how one goes from being a mere hacker to an extreme one), nor do they sell your private data on the 'black market.' However, when you use such apps you do grant them access to personal information in your Facebook profile, which may also be shared with third parties. The moral of the story is: Use Facebook apps cautiously, but don't buy into fear-mongering warnings about them. | In short, the companies that offer apps like these aren't typically 'hackers' (much less 'extreme hackers,' which sounds exciting, but we're not sure how one goes from being a mere hacker to an extreme one), nor do they sell your private data on the 'black market.' However, when you use such apps you do grant them access to personal information in your Facebook profile, which may also be shared with third parties. The moral of the story is: Use Facebook apps cautiously, but don't buy into fear-mongering warnings about them. | [
"07421-proof-02-bald_man_filter_hackers_facebook.jpg",
"07421-proof-09-fb-bald-person-2.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows a baby moose holding a rainbow flag. | Contradiction | In June 2016, a photograph purportedly showing a baby moose carrying a rainbow (i.e., gay pride) flag began circulating on social media. However, the image was digitally altered; the young moose in the original was not carrying a flag. The original picture was posted to the Reddit on 14 June 2016, a day before the rainbow flag version began circulating, along with the caption 'A baby moose I saw in town today.' Reddit user 'FlamingWarPig' provided additional information about the photograph's origins in the comments section: Before it got close I thought it was a huge weird a** dog. It's the smallest moose I've ever seen. This is actually dead center of Anchorage. There's a huge apartment complex just over the rise and about a 500 home subdivision behind me. The angle just makes it look more remote than it is. | In June 2016, a photograph purportedly showing a baby moose carrying a rainbow (i.e., gay pride) flag began circulating on social media. However, the image was digitally altered; the young moose in the original was not carrying a flag. The original picture was posted to the Reddit on 14 June 2016, a day before the rainbow flag version began circulating, along with the caption 'A baby moose I saw in town today.' Reddit user 'FlamingWarPig' provided additional information about the photograph's origins in the comments section: Before it got close I thought it was a huge weird a** dog. It's the smallest moose I've ever seen. This is actually dead center of Anchorage. There's a huge apartment complex just over the rise and about a 500 home subdivision behind me. The angle just makes it look more remote than it is. | [
"07439-proof-03-rainbow-moose.jpg",
"07439-proof-04-noflag.jpg"
] |
A video shows Osama bin Laden singing Lady Gaga's 'Poker Face. | Contradiction | A video supposedly showing the mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S., Osama bin Laden, singing Lady Gaga's 'Poker Face' has circulated online for several years. The video is frequently shared along with the caption: 'Osama Bin Laden Sings Lady Gaga's 'Poker Face' in Last Days on the run': This is not a genuine video of bin Laden singing 'Poker Face.' This video was created by Alison Jackson, an artist and photographer known for using look-alikes to depict famous celebrities and politicians in compromising situations. We've previously covered some of her other work, such as this fake photograph of Bill Clinton getting a massage, or this image of President Donald Trump getting a spray tan in the oval office. In June 2011, a few months before the above-displayed footage went viral, Jackson shared this footage to her Facebook and YouTube pages: Jackson captioned the footage: 'Rare, unseen video footage filmed shortly before his death. The world's most infamous Osama Bin Laden sings and dances to Lady Gaga. Watch Bin Laden sing his own version of 'Poker Face.'' She uploaded another video presumably featuring the same look-alike actor that supposedly showed bin Laden and his favorite hair-care product: L'Oreal. Jackson wrote: 'Watch recently discovered footage of America's former most-wanted man on the run - is this an unexpected vain side to the Al-Qeuda leader?' In short, the viral video supposedly showing bin Laden singing 'Poker Face' doesn't feature the deceased terrorist leader but a look-alike acting the part for an art piece. Here's how these 'mental images' are described on Jackson's website: 'Alison Jackson is renown for her explorations into how photography and the cult of the celebrity have transformed our relationship to what is 'real'. Her notorious photographic portraits, life-like sculptures, films and videos are startlingly realistically staged affairs that cast uncannily styled actors into an entirely fathomable projection of a future that could have been; or the intimate, often salacious, imagined private moments of media icons such as Diana Princess of Wales, the Queen of England, Marilyn Monroe, George Bush, Brad and Angelina, and David Beckham. Jackson's productions stress-test the implicit belief that a photograph can capture a frozen moment of 'truth'.' 'At best, a photograph of a celebrity reproduces something authentic only at the very moment the shutter clicks' says the artist 'yet we have been teased into giving these moments an absolute and unquestioned authority. However, what we actually do is create a narcissistic circle where we assert our control over the object of desire: we transform our celebrities into what we want. This whole projective process is further exaggerated by our capacity for fantasy and the inherently titillating nature of the image of a celebrity like Marilyn in flagrante. In this way, my productions, charged with desire, have become more real than the real life model they are based on, evolving into a 'mental image' rather than a direct record of reality.' Jackson's staging, her subversive form of social commentary which has its historical roots in artist William Hogarth, strips away the veneer of PR and hype that prop up the celebrities that come under her scrutiny. Unlike the paparazzi photo, where the actual real celebrity is caught on film in a frozen moment in time, Jackson's productions - where the likenesses are recognisable - use the celebrity aura to address a deeper universal lineage, the archetypal characters that define the history of human identity and the often humorous struggle of how they cope in the age of mass mediation. | In short, the viral video supposedly showing bin Laden singing 'Poker Face' doesn't feature the deceased terrorist leader but a look-alike acting the part for an art piece. Here's how these 'mental images' are described on Jackson's website: 'Alison Jackson is renown for her explorations into how photography and the cult of the celebrity have transformed our relationship to what is 'real'. Her notorious photographic portraits, life-like sculptures, films and videos are startlingly realistically staged affairs that cast uncannily styled actors into an entirely fathomable projection of a future that could have been; or the intimate, often salacious, imagined private moments of media icons such as Diana Princess of Wales, the Queen of England, Marilyn Monroe, George Bush, Brad and Angelina, and David Beckham. Jackson's productions stress-test the implicit belief that a photograph can capture a frozen moment of 'truth'.' 'At best, a photograph of a celebrity reproduces something authentic only at the very moment the shutter clicks' says the artist 'yet we have been teased into giving these moments an absolute and unquestioned authority. However, what we actually do is create a narcissistic circle where we assert our control over the object of desire: we transform our celebrities into what we want. This whole projective process is further exaggerated by our capacity for fantasy and the inherently titillating nature of the image of a celebrity like Marilyn in flagrante. In this way, my productions, charged with desire, have become more real than the real life model they are based on, evolving into a 'mental image' rather than a direct record of reality.' Jackson's staging, her subversive form of social commentary which has its historical roots in artist William Hogarth, strips away the veneer of PR and hype that prop up the celebrities that come under her scrutiny. Unlike the paparazzi photo, where the actual real celebrity is caught on film in a frozen moment in time, Jackson's productions - where the likenesses are recognisable - use the celebrity aura to address a deeper universal lineage, the archetypal characters that define the history of human identity and the often humorous struggle of how they cope in the age of mass mediation. | [
"07475-proof-03-GettyImages-542373274.jpg"
] |
A picture shows a silver-colored and heavily armored '2021 Dodge Ram' pickup truck, a dramatic departure from previous designs. | Contradiction | In February 2021, an online advertisement announced: 'Introducing The Head-Turning 2021 Dodge Ram.' The ad featured a picture of a vehicle that would be quite the departure from previous Ram pickup truck designs. Readers who clicked the ad were led to what appeared to be affiliate links that would allow the advertisers to make money: However, this picture did not show a '2021 Dodge Ram.' The real Ram for 2021 looked similar to previous years, as is seen in this picture from the official Ram website: Photo via Dodge / FCA US LLC Further, Dodge separated from Ram Trucks more than a decade ago. In reality, the ad showed the Dartz Prombron Monaco Red Diamond Edition from the Dartz Motorz Company. It was captured at the Top Marques Monaco auto show in April 2009: Photo via The Car Spy / Flickr Dartz made the news in the past for purportedly featuring whale penis leather seats in its vehicles. (This was not something that we expected to learn when researching this story.) On Oct. 26, 2009, Auto Evolution reported on details for the $1.45 million bulletproof SUV: The £1 million SUV is based on the Dartz Kombat model, a Russian response to the Hummer. But unlike the American SUV, the Soviet interpretation is probably the only all-terrain model that comes with the diamond encrusted watches and gold-plated windows as standard. And since, judging by its looks, it is a moving target, the world's most expensive SUV comes with an exterior bulletproof Kevlar coating. Inside is where things go a bit awkward, we might say, as the manufacturer says the seats are made of one of the softest materials around, namely a... whale's penis skin. Yes, you heard it right... and they also stated that apparently, one penis is not enough for such a car... It makes you wonder, doesn't it? The inspiration to use whale penis for the leather seats purportedly came from Aristotle Onassis' yacht. Auto Revolution said the yacht 'had bar stool seats made from sperm whale foreskin.' In November 2009, just weeks after Auto Evolution reported on the vehicle, Dartz apparently had a change of heart. At the time, the James Spotting blog reported that the company put out a press release. It said: 'Armored Car without Penis. Let's Save the Whales.' The company pulled back on the idea after receiving a 'lot of angry e-mails from Greenpeace, WWF, and also Pamela Anderson.' A rough translation of the letter was posted to the James Spotting Blog, and read, in part: We just looking for most expensive products for this car - and that's why we choosed whale penis leathure when we checked it is most of most. After wave of protest we realised our mistake and make a decision not to use natural leathure at all. We will focus on world most advanced nanotechnologies to achieve interior highest quality using artificial materials which also was never used for cars. We want to tell our hello to all whales: 'Our Sea Brothers! We all know that earth are stand on three whales - we will keep You live! We don't Earth fall down to Ocean!' Also we make a decision to pay more attention to glass and on our new car model we will use glass which will be made by special technology - from artificial grown chrystals, which will be gold sputerred to cut IR and UV rays, which make driving inconvinient when sun shine. Best regards, Leonard F. Yankelovich According to Top Speed, the company changed its mind again in 2013 with its $1 million Black Snake vehicle: Black Snake exterior. (Photo via Dartz Motorz Company) The Black Snake's interior is, in so many words, PETA's worst nightmare. Black Snake interior. (Photo via Dartz Motorz Company) Surely, the animal-rights group wouldn't think too kindly about a car that's been dressed with a lineup of animal skin that would make even Tito Ortiz faint. The choice of interior lining for the Black Snake includes, a crocodile belly, an ostrich, snake skin, and, of course, the now-infamous whale foreskin leather. Even the dashboard and the floor mats aren't bereft of any animal parts, as Dartz opting to lay snake skin on the dash, the armrests, and the door paneling, and white shark skin on the floor mats. In sum, the misleading ad did not depict a '2021 Dodge Ram' or a 2021 Ram at all. It showed the Dartz Prombron Monaco Red Diamond Edition, a vehicle from the same company that once offered whale penis leather seating. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.Recent Updates Feb. 8, 2021: This story was updated to correct the fact that Dodge and Ram Trucks separated more than a decade ago. | In sum, the misleading ad did not depict a '2021 Dodge Ram' or a 2021 Ram at all. It showed the Dartz Prombron Monaco Red Diamond Edition, a vehicle from the same company that once offered whale penis leather seating. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.Recent Updates Feb. 8, 2021: This story was updated to correct the fact that Dodge and Ram Trucks separated more than a decade ago. | [
"07541-proof-02-2021-dodge-ram-miscaptioned.jpg",
"07541-proof-05-dartz-pombron-wikimedia-e1612481556595.jpg",
"07541-proof-06-2013-dartz-black-snake-interior.jpg",
"07541-proof-08-dartz-pombron-wikimedia-featured.jpg",
"07541-proof-15-2021-dodge-ram-real.jpg"
] |
A picture shows a silver-colored and heavily armored '2021 Dodge Ram' pickup truck, a dramatic departure from previous designs. | Contradiction | In February 2021, an online advertisement announced: 'Introducing The Head-Turning 2021 Dodge Ram.' The ad featured a picture of a vehicle that would be quite the departure from previous Ram pickup truck designs. Readers who clicked the ad were led to what appeared to be affiliate links that would allow the advertisers to make money: However, this picture did not show a '2021 Dodge Ram.' The real Ram for 2021 looked similar to previous years, as is seen in this picture from the official Ram website: Photo via Dodge / FCA US LLC Further, Dodge separated from Ram Trucks more than a decade ago. In reality, the ad showed the Dartz Prombron Monaco Red Diamond Edition from the Dartz Motorz Company. It was captured at the Top Marques Monaco auto show in April 2009: Photo via The Car Spy / Flickr Dartz made the news in the past for purportedly featuring whale penis leather seats in its vehicles. (This was not something that we expected to learn when researching this story.) On Oct. 26, 2009, Auto Evolution reported on details for the $1.45 million bulletproof SUV: The £1 million SUV is based on the Dartz Kombat model, a Russian response to the Hummer. But unlike the American SUV, the Soviet interpretation is probably the only all-terrain model that comes with the diamond encrusted watches and gold-plated windows as standard. And since, judging by its looks, it is a moving target, the world's most expensive SUV comes with an exterior bulletproof Kevlar coating. Inside is where things go a bit awkward, we might say, as the manufacturer says the seats are made of one of the softest materials around, namely a... whale's penis skin. Yes, you heard it right... and they also stated that apparently, one penis is not enough for such a car... It makes you wonder, doesn't it? The inspiration to use whale penis for the leather seats purportedly came from Aristotle Onassis' yacht. Auto Revolution said the yacht 'had bar stool seats made from sperm whale foreskin.' In November 2009, just weeks after Auto Evolution reported on the vehicle, Dartz apparently had a change of heart. At the time, the James Spotting blog reported that the company put out a press release. It said: 'Armored Car without Penis. Let's Save the Whales.' The company pulled back on the idea after receiving a 'lot of angry e-mails from Greenpeace, WWF, and also Pamela Anderson.' A rough translation of the letter was posted to the James Spotting Blog, and read, in part: We just looking for most expensive products for this car - and that's why we choosed whale penis leathure when we checked it is most of most. After wave of protest we realised our mistake and make a decision not to use natural leathure at all. We will focus on world most advanced nanotechnologies to achieve interior highest quality using artificial materials which also was never used for cars. We want to tell our hello to all whales: 'Our Sea Brothers! We all know that earth are stand on three whales - we will keep You live! We don't Earth fall down to Ocean!' Also we make a decision to pay more attention to glass and on our new car model we will use glass which will be made by special technology - from artificial grown chrystals, which will be gold sputerred to cut IR and UV rays, which make driving inconvinient when sun shine. Best regards, Leonard F. Yankelovich According to Top Speed, the company changed its mind again in 2013 with its $1 million Black Snake vehicle: Black Snake exterior. (Photo via Dartz Motorz Company) The Black Snake's interior is, in so many words, PETA's worst nightmare. Black Snake interior. (Photo via Dartz Motorz Company) Surely, the animal-rights group wouldn't think too kindly about a car that's been dressed with a lineup of animal skin that would make even Tito Ortiz faint. The choice of interior lining for the Black Snake includes, a crocodile belly, an ostrich, snake skin, and, of course, the now-infamous whale foreskin leather. Even the dashboard and the floor mats aren't bereft of any animal parts, as Dartz opting to lay snake skin on the dash, the armrests, and the door paneling, and white shark skin on the floor mats. In sum, the misleading ad did not depict a '2021 Dodge Ram' or a 2021 Ram at all. It showed the Dartz Prombron Monaco Red Diamond Edition, a vehicle from the same company that once offered whale penis leather seating. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.Recent Updates Feb. 8, 2021: This story was updated to correct the fact that Dodge and Ram Trucks separated more than a decade ago. | In sum, the misleading ad did not depict a '2021 Dodge Ram' or a 2021 Ram at all. It showed the Dartz Prombron Monaco Red Diamond Edition, a vehicle from the same company that once offered whale penis leather seating. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.Recent Updates Feb. 8, 2021: This story was updated to correct the fact that Dodge and Ram Trucks separated more than a decade ago. | [
"07541-proof-02-2021-dodge-ram-miscaptioned.jpg",
"07541-proof-05-dartz-pombron-wikimedia-e1612481556595.jpg",
"07541-proof-06-2013-dartz-black-snake-interior.jpg",
"07541-proof-08-dartz-pombron-wikimedia-featured.jpg",
"07541-proof-15-2021-dodge-ram-real.jpg"
] |
A picture shows a silver-colored and heavily armored '2021 Dodge Ram' pickup truck, a dramatic departure from previous designs. | Contradiction | In February 2021, an online advertisement announced: 'Introducing The Head-Turning 2021 Dodge Ram.' The ad featured a picture of a vehicle that would be quite the departure from previous Ram pickup truck designs. Readers who clicked the ad were led to what appeared to be affiliate links that would allow the advertisers to make money: However, this picture did not show a '2021 Dodge Ram.' The real Ram for 2021 looked similar to previous years, as is seen in this picture from the official Ram website: Photo via Dodge / FCA US LLC Further, Dodge separated from Ram Trucks more than a decade ago. In reality, the ad showed the Dartz Prombron Monaco Red Diamond Edition from the Dartz Motorz Company. It was captured at the Top Marques Monaco auto show in April 2009: Photo via The Car Spy / Flickr Dartz made the news in the past for purportedly featuring whale penis leather seats in its vehicles. (This was not something that we expected to learn when researching this story.) On Oct. 26, 2009, Auto Evolution reported on details for the $1.45 million bulletproof SUV: The £1 million SUV is based on the Dartz Kombat model, a Russian response to the Hummer. But unlike the American SUV, the Soviet interpretation is probably the only all-terrain model that comes with the diamond encrusted watches and gold-plated windows as standard. And since, judging by its looks, it is a moving target, the world's most expensive SUV comes with an exterior bulletproof Kevlar coating. Inside is where things go a bit awkward, we might say, as the manufacturer says the seats are made of one of the softest materials around, namely a... whale's penis skin. Yes, you heard it right... and they also stated that apparently, one penis is not enough for such a car... It makes you wonder, doesn't it? The inspiration to use whale penis for the leather seats purportedly came from Aristotle Onassis' yacht. Auto Revolution said the yacht 'had bar stool seats made from sperm whale foreskin.' In November 2009, just weeks after Auto Evolution reported on the vehicle, Dartz apparently had a change of heart. At the time, the James Spotting blog reported that the company put out a press release. It said: 'Armored Car without Penis. Let's Save the Whales.' The company pulled back on the idea after receiving a 'lot of angry e-mails from Greenpeace, WWF, and also Pamela Anderson.' A rough translation of the letter was posted to the James Spotting Blog, and read, in part: We just looking for most expensive products for this car - and that's why we choosed whale penis leathure when we checked it is most of most. After wave of protest we realised our mistake and make a decision not to use natural leathure at all. We will focus on world most advanced nanotechnologies to achieve interior highest quality using artificial materials which also was never used for cars. We want to tell our hello to all whales: 'Our Sea Brothers! We all know that earth are stand on three whales - we will keep You live! We don't Earth fall down to Ocean!' Also we make a decision to pay more attention to glass and on our new car model we will use glass which will be made by special technology - from artificial grown chrystals, which will be gold sputerred to cut IR and UV rays, which make driving inconvinient when sun shine. Best regards, Leonard F. Yankelovich According to Top Speed, the company changed its mind again in 2013 with its $1 million Black Snake vehicle: Black Snake exterior. (Photo via Dartz Motorz Company) The Black Snake's interior is, in so many words, PETA's worst nightmare. Black Snake interior. (Photo via Dartz Motorz Company) Surely, the animal-rights group wouldn't think too kindly about a car that's been dressed with a lineup of animal skin that would make even Tito Ortiz faint. The choice of interior lining for the Black Snake includes, a crocodile belly, an ostrich, snake skin, and, of course, the now-infamous whale foreskin leather. Even the dashboard and the floor mats aren't bereft of any animal parts, as Dartz opting to lay snake skin on the dash, the armrests, and the door paneling, and white shark skin on the floor mats. In sum, the misleading ad did not depict a '2021 Dodge Ram' or a 2021 Ram at all. It showed the Dartz Prombron Monaco Red Diamond Edition, a vehicle from the same company that once offered whale penis leather seating. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.Recent Updates Feb. 8, 2021: This story was updated to correct the fact that Dodge and Ram Trucks separated more than a decade ago. | In sum, the misleading ad did not depict a '2021 Dodge Ram' or a 2021 Ram at all. It showed the Dartz Prombron Monaco Red Diamond Edition, a vehicle from the same company that once offered whale penis leather seating. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.Recent Updates Feb. 8, 2021: This story was updated to correct the fact that Dodge and Ram Trucks separated more than a decade ago. | [
"07541-proof-02-2021-dodge-ram-miscaptioned.jpg",
"07541-proof-05-dartz-pombron-wikimedia-e1612481556595.jpg",
"07541-proof-06-2013-dartz-black-snake-interior.jpg",
"07541-proof-08-dartz-pombron-wikimedia-featured.jpg",
"07541-proof-15-2021-dodge-ram-real.jpg"
] |
A picture shows a silver-colored and heavily armored '2021 Dodge Ram' pickup truck, a dramatic departure from previous designs. | Contradiction | In February 2021, an online advertisement announced: 'Introducing The Head-Turning 2021 Dodge Ram.' The ad featured a picture of a vehicle that would be quite the departure from previous Ram pickup truck designs. Readers who clicked the ad were led to what appeared to be affiliate links that would allow the advertisers to make money: However, this picture did not show a '2021 Dodge Ram.' The real Ram for 2021 looked similar to previous years, as is seen in this picture from the official Ram website: Photo via Dodge / FCA US LLC Further, Dodge separated from Ram Trucks more than a decade ago. In reality, the ad showed the Dartz Prombron Monaco Red Diamond Edition from the Dartz Motorz Company. It was captured at the Top Marques Monaco auto show in April 2009: Photo via The Car Spy / Flickr Dartz made the news in the past for purportedly featuring whale penis leather seats in its vehicles. (This was not something that we expected to learn when researching this story.) On Oct. 26, 2009, Auto Evolution reported on details for the $1.45 million bulletproof SUV: The £1 million SUV is based on the Dartz Kombat model, a Russian response to the Hummer. But unlike the American SUV, the Soviet interpretation is probably the only all-terrain model that comes with the diamond encrusted watches and gold-plated windows as standard. And since, judging by its looks, it is a moving target, the world's most expensive SUV comes with an exterior bulletproof Kevlar coating. Inside is where things go a bit awkward, we might say, as the manufacturer says the seats are made of one of the softest materials around, namely a... whale's penis skin. Yes, you heard it right... and they also stated that apparently, one penis is not enough for such a car... It makes you wonder, doesn't it? The inspiration to use whale penis for the leather seats purportedly came from Aristotle Onassis' yacht. Auto Revolution said the yacht 'had bar stool seats made from sperm whale foreskin.' In November 2009, just weeks after Auto Evolution reported on the vehicle, Dartz apparently had a change of heart. At the time, the James Spotting blog reported that the company put out a press release. It said: 'Armored Car without Penis. Let's Save the Whales.' The company pulled back on the idea after receiving a 'lot of angry e-mails from Greenpeace, WWF, and also Pamela Anderson.' A rough translation of the letter was posted to the James Spotting Blog, and read, in part: We just looking for most expensive products for this car - and that's why we choosed whale penis leathure when we checked it is most of most. After wave of protest we realised our mistake and make a decision not to use natural leathure at all. We will focus on world most advanced nanotechnologies to achieve interior highest quality using artificial materials which also was never used for cars. We want to tell our hello to all whales: 'Our Sea Brothers! We all know that earth are stand on three whales - we will keep You live! We don't Earth fall down to Ocean!' Also we make a decision to pay more attention to glass and on our new car model we will use glass which will be made by special technology - from artificial grown chrystals, which will be gold sputerred to cut IR and UV rays, which make driving inconvinient when sun shine. Best regards, Leonard F. Yankelovich According to Top Speed, the company changed its mind again in 2013 with its $1 million Black Snake vehicle: Black Snake exterior. (Photo via Dartz Motorz Company) The Black Snake's interior is, in so many words, PETA's worst nightmare. Black Snake interior. (Photo via Dartz Motorz Company) Surely, the animal-rights group wouldn't think too kindly about a car that's been dressed with a lineup of animal skin that would make even Tito Ortiz faint. The choice of interior lining for the Black Snake includes, a crocodile belly, an ostrich, snake skin, and, of course, the now-infamous whale foreskin leather. Even the dashboard and the floor mats aren't bereft of any animal parts, as Dartz opting to lay snake skin on the dash, the armrests, and the door paneling, and white shark skin on the floor mats. In sum, the misleading ad did not depict a '2021 Dodge Ram' or a 2021 Ram at all. It showed the Dartz Prombron Monaco Red Diamond Edition, a vehicle from the same company that once offered whale penis leather seating. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.Recent Updates Feb. 8, 2021: This story was updated to correct the fact that Dodge and Ram Trucks separated more than a decade ago. | In sum, the misleading ad did not depict a '2021 Dodge Ram' or a 2021 Ram at all. It showed the Dartz Prombron Monaco Red Diamond Edition, a vehicle from the same company that once offered whale penis leather seating. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.Recent Updates Feb. 8, 2021: This story was updated to correct the fact that Dodge and Ram Trucks separated more than a decade ago. | [
"07541-proof-02-2021-dodge-ram-miscaptioned.jpg",
"07541-proof-05-dartz-pombron-wikimedia-e1612481556595.jpg",
"07541-proof-06-2013-dartz-black-snake-interior.jpg",
"07541-proof-08-dartz-pombron-wikimedia-featured.jpg",
"07541-proof-15-2021-dodge-ram-real.jpg"
] |
Greenland was named Greenland because it is a green land. | Contradiction | The world's largest island is a vast tundra whose most defining geographical features are the large icebergs that line its coast. How then, did this icy region become known as Greenland? In March 2021, the etymological origins of Greenland found themselves at the center of the conversation on social media after Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin was quoted in The New York Times saying that Greenland was named Greenland because it was once a green land. The article, which focused primarily on Johnson's shaky relationship with the truth, later quoted Johnson saying that he had 'no idea' if his statements about Greenland in this interview were accurate: But there were signs in that first campaign of Mr. Johnson's predilection for anti-intellectualism. On several occasions, he declared that climate change was not man-made but instead caused by 'sun spots' and said excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 'helps the trees grow.' He also offered a false history of Greenland to dismiss the effects of global warming. 'You know, there's a reason Greenland was called Greenland,' Mr. Johnson told WKOW-TV in Madison back then. 'It was actually green at one point in time. And it's been, you know, since, it's a whole lot whiter now so we've experienced climate change throughout geologic time.' In the interview on Thursday, Mr. Johnson was still misinformed about the etymology of Greenland, which got its name from the explorer Erik the Red's attempt to lure settlers to the ice-covered island. 'I could be wrong there, but that's always been my assumption that, at some point in time, those early explorers saw green,' Mr. Johnson said. 'I have no idea.' As the Times notes above, the 'reason Greenland was called Greenland' is not because it was once a green land. The island actually received its deceptive name from Erik the Red, a Norse explorer who was exiled from Iceland circa 980 for murder. When Erik the Red established the first permanent European settlement in the ice-covered region to the west of Iceland, he dubbed the area 'Greenland' in an attempt to make it sound more hospitable to potential settlers. The deceptive origins of Greenland's naming can be found in 'The Saga of Erik the Red,' a text compiled between the 13th and 15th centuries. Here's an excerpt from an 1880 translation (emphasis ours): Eirik and his people were outlawed at Thorsnes Thing. He prepared a ship in Eiriksvagr (creek), and Eyjolf concealed him in Dimunarvagr while Thorgest and his people sought him among the islands. Eirik said to his people that he purposed to seek for the land which Gunnbjorn, the son of Ulf the Crow, saw when he was driven westwards over the ocean, and discovered Gunnbjarnarsker (Gunnbjorn's rock or skerry). He promised that he would return to visit his friends if he found the land. Thorbjorn, and Eyjolf, and Styr accompanied Eirik beyond the islands. They separated in the most friendly manner, Eirik saying that he would be of the like assistance to them, if he should be able so to be, and they should happen to need him. Then he sailed oceanwards under Snæfellsjokull (snow mountain glacier), and arrived at the glacier called Blaserkr (Blue-shirt); thence he journeyed south to see if there were any inhabitants of the country. He passed the first winter at Eiriksey, near the middle, of the Vestribygd (western settlement). The following spring he proceeded to Eiriksfjordr, and fixed his abode there. During the summer he proceeded into the unpeopled districts in the west, and was there a long time, giving names to the places far and wide. The second winter he passed in Eiriksholmar (isles), off Hvarfsgnupr (peak of disappearance, Cape Farewell); and the third summer he went altogether northwards, to Snæfell and into Hrafnsfjordr (Ravensfirth); considering then that he had come to the head of Eiriksfjordr, he turned back, and passed the third winter in Eiriksey, before the mouth of Eiriksfjordr. Now, afterwards, during the summer, he proceeded to Iceland, and came to Breidafjordr (Broadfirth). This winter he was with Ingolf, at Holmlatr (Island-litter). During the spring, Thorgest and he fought, and Eirik met with defeat. After that they were reconciled. In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, 'Because,' said he, 'men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.' This origin story is also recounted on the tourism site 'Visit Greenland,' Etymology Online, and in the following passage from book 'Amid Greenland Snows; Or, The Early History of Arctic Missions': In order to entice people to go to his new country he called it Greenland, and pointed it out as such an excellent place for pasture, wood, and fish, that the next year he was followed thither by twenty-five ships full of colonists, who had furnished themselves richly with household goods and cattle of all sorts ; but only fourteen of these ships arrived. While naming this ice-covered island Greenland was certainly a deceptive marketing ploy, Erik the Red was not being entirely dishonest. Greenland is primarily covered in ice, but there is vegetation in the southern fjords, especially during the summer when temperatures can reach 50 degrees Fahrenheit. The government of Greenland noted in a 2020 report: The deep fjords become so green, due to the warm summers, that Erik the Red, who was outlawed from Iceland for killing Eyjolf the Foul and Hrafn the Dueller, named the country Greenland. He believed the name to be likely to attract new settlers. South Greenland is still a hub of agriculture, based on the breeding of sheep imported from Iceland in 1915 and mixed with a few Faroese ewes and seven Scottish rams. It should also be noted that while Erik the Red may have slightly exaggerated the extent of Greenland's 'greeness' when he encouraged his fellow Icelanders to settle the area, this name would have aptly described the island a few hundred thousand years before it's discovery by European settlers. According to Scientific American, the southern part of Greenland contained a forest 400,000 to 800,000 years ago: In 1981 researchers removed a long tube of ice from the center of a glacier in southern Greenland at a site known as Dye 3. More than a mile (two kilometers) long, the deep end of the core sample had been crushed by the pressure of the ice above it and sullied by contact with rock and soil. By destroying the pattern of annual layers, this contamination seemingly made it impossible to assess the region's ancient climate. But DNA extracted from the previously ignored dirty bottom has revealed that Greenland was not only green, it boasted boreal forests like those found in Canada and Scandinavia today. [...] Adds team member and glaciologist Martin Sharp of the University of Alberta in Edmonton: 'One could argue that this shows that natural forcing could account for the current warm conditions, but the current orbital configuration does not support this, even when other natural forcings are taken into account. One could also argue that if natural warming can deglaciate much of southern Greenland, then natural warming plus anthropogenic warming could cause even more extensive deglaciation.' In short, the reason Greenland was named Greenland was because a Norse explorer named Erik the Red was hoping that the name would encourage people to settle on the newly discovered island. While Erik the Red had some standing to bestow this name on the land - the southern portion of Greenland does have some vegetation in the summer months - the island was primarily covered in snow and ice. | In short, the reason Greenland was named Greenland was because a Norse explorer named Erik the Red was hoping that the name would encourage people to settle on the newly discovered island. While Erik the Red had some standing to bestow this name on the land - the southern portion of Greenland does have some vegetation in the summer months - the island was primarily covered in snow and ice. | [
"07866-proof-09-erik-the-red.jpg"
] |
Greenland was named Greenland because it is a green land. | Contradiction | The world's largest island is a vast tundra whose most defining geographical features are the large icebergs that line its coast. How then, did this icy region become known as Greenland? In March 2021, the etymological origins of Greenland found themselves at the center of the conversation on social media after Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin was quoted in The New York Times saying that Greenland was named Greenland because it was once a green land. The article, which focused primarily on Johnson's shaky relationship with the truth, later quoted Johnson saying that he had 'no idea' if his statements about Greenland in this interview were accurate: But there were signs in that first campaign of Mr. Johnson's predilection for anti-intellectualism. On several occasions, he declared that climate change was not man-made but instead caused by 'sun spots' and said excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 'helps the trees grow.' He also offered a false history of Greenland to dismiss the effects of global warming. 'You know, there's a reason Greenland was called Greenland,' Mr. Johnson told WKOW-TV in Madison back then. 'It was actually green at one point in time. And it's been, you know, since, it's a whole lot whiter now so we've experienced climate change throughout geologic time.' In the interview on Thursday, Mr. Johnson was still misinformed about the etymology of Greenland, which got its name from the explorer Erik the Red's attempt to lure settlers to the ice-covered island. 'I could be wrong there, but that's always been my assumption that, at some point in time, those early explorers saw green,' Mr. Johnson said. 'I have no idea.' As the Times notes above, the 'reason Greenland was called Greenland' is not because it was once a green land. The island actually received its deceptive name from Erik the Red, a Norse explorer who was exiled from Iceland circa 980 for murder. When Erik the Red established the first permanent European settlement in the ice-covered region to the west of Iceland, he dubbed the area 'Greenland' in an attempt to make it sound more hospitable to potential settlers. The deceptive origins of Greenland's naming can be found in 'The Saga of Erik the Red,' a text compiled between the 13th and 15th centuries. Here's an excerpt from an 1880 translation (emphasis ours): Eirik and his people were outlawed at Thorsnes Thing. He prepared a ship in Eiriksvagr (creek), and Eyjolf concealed him in Dimunarvagr while Thorgest and his people sought him among the islands. Eirik said to his people that he purposed to seek for the land which Gunnbjorn, the son of Ulf the Crow, saw when he was driven westwards over the ocean, and discovered Gunnbjarnarsker (Gunnbjorn's rock or skerry). He promised that he would return to visit his friends if he found the land. Thorbjorn, and Eyjolf, and Styr accompanied Eirik beyond the islands. They separated in the most friendly manner, Eirik saying that he would be of the like assistance to them, if he should be able so to be, and they should happen to need him. Then he sailed oceanwards under Snæfellsjokull (snow mountain glacier), and arrived at the glacier called Blaserkr (Blue-shirt); thence he journeyed south to see if there were any inhabitants of the country. He passed the first winter at Eiriksey, near the middle, of the Vestribygd (western settlement). The following spring he proceeded to Eiriksfjordr, and fixed his abode there. During the summer he proceeded into the unpeopled districts in the west, and was there a long time, giving names to the places far and wide. The second winter he passed in Eiriksholmar (isles), off Hvarfsgnupr (peak of disappearance, Cape Farewell); and the third summer he went altogether northwards, to Snæfell and into Hrafnsfjordr (Ravensfirth); considering then that he had come to the head of Eiriksfjordr, he turned back, and passed the third winter in Eiriksey, before the mouth of Eiriksfjordr. Now, afterwards, during the summer, he proceeded to Iceland, and came to Breidafjordr (Broadfirth). This winter he was with Ingolf, at Holmlatr (Island-litter). During the spring, Thorgest and he fought, and Eirik met with defeat. After that they were reconciled. In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, 'Because,' said he, 'men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.' This origin story is also recounted on the tourism site 'Visit Greenland,' Etymology Online, and in the following passage from book 'Amid Greenland Snows; Or, The Early History of Arctic Missions': In order to entice people to go to his new country he called it Greenland, and pointed it out as such an excellent place for pasture, wood, and fish, that the next year he was followed thither by twenty-five ships full of colonists, who had furnished themselves richly with household goods and cattle of all sorts ; but only fourteen of these ships arrived. While naming this ice-covered island Greenland was certainly a deceptive marketing ploy, Erik the Red was not being entirely dishonest. Greenland is primarily covered in ice, but there is vegetation in the southern fjords, especially during the summer when temperatures can reach 50 degrees Fahrenheit. The government of Greenland noted in a 2020 report: The deep fjords become so green, due to the warm summers, that Erik the Red, who was outlawed from Iceland for killing Eyjolf the Foul and Hrafn the Dueller, named the country Greenland. He believed the name to be likely to attract new settlers. South Greenland is still a hub of agriculture, based on the breeding of sheep imported from Iceland in 1915 and mixed with a few Faroese ewes and seven Scottish rams. It should also be noted that while Erik the Red may have slightly exaggerated the extent of Greenland's 'greeness' when he encouraged his fellow Icelanders to settle the area, this name would have aptly described the island a few hundred thousand years before it's discovery by European settlers. According to Scientific American, the southern part of Greenland contained a forest 400,000 to 800,000 years ago: In 1981 researchers removed a long tube of ice from the center of a glacier in southern Greenland at a site known as Dye 3. More than a mile (two kilometers) long, the deep end of the core sample had been crushed by the pressure of the ice above it and sullied by contact with rock and soil. By destroying the pattern of annual layers, this contamination seemingly made it impossible to assess the region's ancient climate. But DNA extracted from the previously ignored dirty bottom has revealed that Greenland was not only green, it boasted boreal forests like those found in Canada and Scandinavia today. [...] Adds team member and glaciologist Martin Sharp of the University of Alberta in Edmonton: 'One could argue that this shows that natural forcing could account for the current warm conditions, but the current orbital configuration does not support this, even when other natural forcings are taken into account. One could also argue that if natural warming can deglaciate much of southern Greenland, then natural warming plus anthropogenic warming could cause even more extensive deglaciation.' In short, the reason Greenland was named Greenland was because a Norse explorer named Erik the Red was hoping that the name would encourage people to settle on the newly discovered island. While Erik the Red had some standing to bestow this name on the land - the southern portion of Greenland does have some vegetation in the summer months - the island was primarily covered in snow and ice. | In short, the reason Greenland was named Greenland was because a Norse explorer named Erik the Red was hoping that the name would encourage people to settle on the newly discovered island. While Erik the Red had some standing to bestow this name on the land - the southern portion of Greenland does have some vegetation in the summer months - the island was primarily covered in snow and ice. | [
"07866-proof-09-erik-the-red.jpg"
] |
Greenland was named Greenland because it is a green land. | Contradiction | The world's largest island is a vast tundra whose most defining geographical features are the large icebergs that line its coast. How then, did this icy region become known as Greenland? In March 2021, the etymological origins of Greenland found themselves at the center of the conversation on social media after Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin was quoted in The New York Times saying that Greenland was named Greenland because it was once a green land. The article, which focused primarily on Johnson's shaky relationship with the truth, later quoted Johnson saying that he had 'no idea' if his statements about Greenland in this interview were accurate: But there were signs in that first campaign of Mr. Johnson's predilection for anti-intellectualism. On several occasions, he declared that climate change was not man-made but instead caused by 'sun spots' and said excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 'helps the trees grow.' He also offered a false history of Greenland to dismiss the effects of global warming. 'You know, there's a reason Greenland was called Greenland,' Mr. Johnson told WKOW-TV in Madison back then. 'It was actually green at one point in time. And it's been, you know, since, it's a whole lot whiter now so we've experienced climate change throughout geologic time.' In the interview on Thursday, Mr. Johnson was still misinformed about the etymology of Greenland, which got its name from the explorer Erik the Red's attempt to lure settlers to the ice-covered island. 'I could be wrong there, but that's always been my assumption that, at some point in time, those early explorers saw green,' Mr. Johnson said. 'I have no idea.' As the Times notes above, the 'reason Greenland was called Greenland' is not because it was once a green land. The island actually received its deceptive name from Erik the Red, a Norse explorer who was exiled from Iceland circa 980 for murder. When Erik the Red established the first permanent European settlement in the ice-covered region to the west of Iceland, he dubbed the area 'Greenland' in an attempt to make it sound more hospitable to potential settlers. The deceptive origins of Greenland's naming can be found in 'The Saga of Erik the Red,' a text compiled between the 13th and 15th centuries. Here's an excerpt from an 1880 translation (emphasis ours): Eirik and his people were outlawed at Thorsnes Thing. He prepared a ship in Eiriksvagr (creek), and Eyjolf concealed him in Dimunarvagr while Thorgest and his people sought him among the islands. Eirik said to his people that he purposed to seek for the land which Gunnbjorn, the son of Ulf the Crow, saw when he was driven westwards over the ocean, and discovered Gunnbjarnarsker (Gunnbjorn's rock or skerry). He promised that he would return to visit his friends if he found the land. Thorbjorn, and Eyjolf, and Styr accompanied Eirik beyond the islands. They separated in the most friendly manner, Eirik saying that he would be of the like assistance to them, if he should be able so to be, and they should happen to need him. Then he sailed oceanwards under Snæfellsjokull (snow mountain glacier), and arrived at the glacier called Blaserkr (Blue-shirt); thence he journeyed south to see if there were any inhabitants of the country. He passed the first winter at Eiriksey, near the middle, of the Vestribygd (western settlement). The following spring he proceeded to Eiriksfjordr, and fixed his abode there. During the summer he proceeded into the unpeopled districts in the west, and was there a long time, giving names to the places far and wide. The second winter he passed in Eiriksholmar (isles), off Hvarfsgnupr (peak of disappearance, Cape Farewell); and the third summer he went altogether northwards, to Snæfell and into Hrafnsfjordr (Ravensfirth); considering then that he had come to the head of Eiriksfjordr, he turned back, and passed the third winter in Eiriksey, before the mouth of Eiriksfjordr. Now, afterwards, during the summer, he proceeded to Iceland, and came to Breidafjordr (Broadfirth). This winter he was with Ingolf, at Holmlatr (Island-litter). During the spring, Thorgest and he fought, and Eirik met with defeat. After that they were reconciled. In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, 'Because,' said he, 'men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.' This origin story is also recounted on the tourism site 'Visit Greenland,' Etymology Online, and in the following passage from book 'Amid Greenland Snows; Or, The Early History of Arctic Missions': In order to entice people to go to his new country he called it Greenland, and pointed it out as such an excellent place for pasture, wood, and fish, that the next year he was followed thither by twenty-five ships full of colonists, who had furnished themselves richly with household goods and cattle of all sorts ; but only fourteen of these ships arrived. While naming this ice-covered island Greenland was certainly a deceptive marketing ploy, Erik the Red was not being entirely dishonest. Greenland is primarily covered in ice, but there is vegetation in the southern fjords, especially during the summer when temperatures can reach 50 degrees Fahrenheit. The government of Greenland noted in a 2020 report: The deep fjords become so green, due to the warm summers, that Erik the Red, who was outlawed from Iceland for killing Eyjolf the Foul and Hrafn the Dueller, named the country Greenland. He believed the name to be likely to attract new settlers. South Greenland is still a hub of agriculture, based on the breeding of sheep imported from Iceland in 1915 and mixed with a few Faroese ewes and seven Scottish rams. It should also be noted that while Erik the Red may have slightly exaggerated the extent of Greenland's 'greeness' when he encouraged his fellow Icelanders to settle the area, this name would have aptly described the island a few hundred thousand years before it's discovery by European settlers. According to Scientific American, the southern part of Greenland contained a forest 400,000 to 800,000 years ago: In 1981 researchers removed a long tube of ice from the center of a glacier in southern Greenland at a site known as Dye 3. More than a mile (two kilometers) long, the deep end of the core sample had been crushed by the pressure of the ice above it and sullied by contact with rock and soil. By destroying the pattern of annual layers, this contamination seemingly made it impossible to assess the region's ancient climate. But DNA extracted from the previously ignored dirty bottom has revealed that Greenland was not only green, it boasted boreal forests like those found in Canada and Scandinavia today. [...] Adds team member and glaciologist Martin Sharp of the University of Alberta in Edmonton: 'One could argue that this shows that natural forcing could account for the current warm conditions, but the current orbital configuration does not support this, even when other natural forcings are taken into account. One could also argue that if natural warming can deglaciate much of southern Greenland, then natural warming plus anthropogenic warming could cause even more extensive deglaciation.' In short, the reason Greenland was named Greenland was because a Norse explorer named Erik the Red was hoping that the name would encourage people to settle on the newly discovered island. While Erik the Red had some standing to bestow this name on the land - the southern portion of Greenland does have some vegetation in the summer months - the island was primarily covered in snow and ice. | In short, the reason Greenland was named Greenland was because a Norse explorer named Erik the Red was hoping that the name would encourage people to settle on the newly discovered island. While Erik the Red had some standing to bestow this name on the land - the southern portion of Greenland does have some vegetation in the summer months - the island was primarily covered in snow and ice. | [
"07866-proof-09-erik-the-red.jpg"
] |
Greenland was named Greenland because it is a green land. | Contradiction | The world's largest island is a vast tundra whose most defining geographical features are the large icebergs that line its coast. How then, did this icy region become known as Greenland? In March 2021, the etymological origins of Greenland found themselves at the center of the conversation on social media after Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin was quoted in The New York Times saying that Greenland was named Greenland because it was once a green land. The article, which focused primarily on Johnson's shaky relationship with the truth, later quoted Johnson saying that he had 'no idea' if his statements about Greenland in this interview were accurate: But there were signs in that first campaign of Mr. Johnson's predilection for anti-intellectualism. On several occasions, he declared that climate change was not man-made but instead caused by 'sun spots' and said excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 'helps the trees grow.' He also offered a false history of Greenland to dismiss the effects of global warming. 'You know, there's a reason Greenland was called Greenland,' Mr. Johnson told WKOW-TV in Madison back then. 'It was actually green at one point in time. And it's been, you know, since, it's a whole lot whiter now so we've experienced climate change throughout geologic time.' In the interview on Thursday, Mr. Johnson was still misinformed about the etymology of Greenland, which got its name from the explorer Erik the Red's attempt to lure settlers to the ice-covered island. 'I could be wrong there, but that's always been my assumption that, at some point in time, those early explorers saw green,' Mr. Johnson said. 'I have no idea.' As the Times notes above, the 'reason Greenland was called Greenland' is not because it was once a green land. The island actually received its deceptive name from Erik the Red, a Norse explorer who was exiled from Iceland circa 980 for murder. When Erik the Red established the first permanent European settlement in the ice-covered region to the west of Iceland, he dubbed the area 'Greenland' in an attempt to make it sound more hospitable to potential settlers. The deceptive origins of Greenland's naming can be found in 'The Saga of Erik the Red,' a text compiled between the 13th and 15th centuries. Here's an excerpt from an 1880 translation (emphasis ours): Eirik and his people were outlawed at Thorsnes Thing. He prepared a ship in Eiriksvagr (creek), and Eyjolf concealed him in Dimunarvagr while Thorgest and his people sought him among the islands. Eirik said to his people that he purposed to seek for the land which Gunnbjorn, the son of Ulf the Crow, saw when he was driven westwards over the ocean, and discovered Gunnbjarnarsker (Gunnbjorn's rock or skerry). He promised that he would return to visit his friends if he found the land. Thorbjorn, and Eyjolf, and Styr accompanied Eirik beyond the islands. They separated in the most friendly manner, Eirik saying that he would be of the like assistance to them, if he should be able so to be, and they should happen to need him. Then he sailed oceanwards under Snæfellsjokull (snow mountain glacier), and arrived at the glacier called Blaserkr (Blue-shirt); thence he journeyed south to see if there were any inhabitants of the country. He passed the first winter at Eiriksey, near the middle, of the Vestribygd (western settlement). The following spring he proceeded to Eiriksfjordr, and fixed his abode there. During the summer he proceeded into the unpeopled districts in the west, and was there a long time, giving names to the places far and wide. The second winter he passed in Eiriksholmar (isles), off Hvarfsgnupr (peak of disappearance, Cape Farewell); and the third summer he went altogether northwards, to Snæfell and into Hrafnsfjordr (Ravensfirth); considering then that he had come to the head of Eiriksfjordr, he turned back, and passed the third winter in Eiriksey, before the mouth of Eiriksfjordr. Now, afterwards, during the summer, he proceeded to Iceland, and came to Breidafjordr (Broadfirth). This winter he was with Ingolf, at Holmlatr (Island-litter). During the spring, Thorgest and he fought, and Eirik met with defeat. After that they were reconciled. In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, 'Because,' said he, 'men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.' This origin story is also recounted on the tourism site 'Visit Greenland,' Etymology Online, and in the following passage from book 'Amid Greenland Snows; Or, The Early History of Arctic Missions': In order to entice people to go to his new country he called it Greenland, and pointed it out as such an excellent place for pasture, wood, and fish, that the next year he was followed thither by twenty-five ships full of colonists, who had furnished themselves richly with household goods and cattle of all sorts ; but only fourteen of these ships arrived. While naming this ice-covered island Greenland was certainly a deceptive marketing ploy, Erik the Red was not being entirely dishonest. Greenland is primarily covered in ice, but there is vegetation in the southern fjords, especially during the summer when temperatures can reach 50 degrees Fahrenheit. The government of Greenland noted in a 2020 report: The deep fjords become so green, due to the warm summers, that Erik the Red, who was outlawed from Iceland for killing Eyjolf the Foul and Hrafn the Dueller, named the country Greenland. He believed the name to be likely to attract new settlers. South Greenland is still a hub of agriculture, based on the breeding of sheep imported from Iceland in 1915 and mixed with a few Faroese ewes and seven Scottish rams. It should also be noted that while Erik the Red may have slightly exaggerated the extent of Greenland's 'greeness' when he encouraged his fellow Icelanders to settle the area, this name would have aptly described the island a few hundred thousand years before it's discovery by European settlers. According to Scientific American, the southern part of Greenland contained a forest 400,000 to 800,000 years ago: In 1981 researchers removed a long tube of ice from the center of a glacier in southern Greenland at a site known as Dye 3. More than a mile (two kilometers) long, the deep end of the core sample had been crushed by the pressure of the ice above it and sullied by contact with rock and soil. By destroying the pattern of annual layers, this contamination seemingly made it impossible to assess the region's ancient climate. But DNA extracted from the previously ignored dirty bottom has revealed that Greenland was not only green, it boasted boreal forests like those found in Canada and Scandinavia today. [...] Adds team member and glaciologist Martin Sharp of the University of Alberta in Edmonton: 'One could argue that this shows that natural forcing could account for the current warm conditions, but the current orbital configuration does not support this, even when other natural forcings are taken into account. One could also argue that if natural warming can deglaciate much of southern Greenland, then natural warming plus anthropogenic warming could cause even more extensive deglaciation.' In short, the reason Greenland was named Greenland was because a Norse explorer named Erik the Red was hoping that the name would encourage people to settle on the newly discovered island. While Erik the Red had some standing to bestow this name on the land - the southern portion of Greenland does have some vegetation in the summer months - the island was primarily covered in snow and ice. | In short, the reason Greenland was named Greenland was because a Norse explorer named Erik the Red was hoping that the name would encourage people to settle on the newly discovered island. While Erik the Red had some standing to bestow this name on the land - the southern portion of Greenland does have some vegetation in the summer months - the island was primarily covered in snow and ice. | [
"07866-proof-09-erik-the-red.jpg"
] |
Greenland was named Greenland because it is a green land. | Contradiction | The world's largest island is a vast tundra whose most defining geographical features are the large icebergs that line its coast. How then, did this icy region become known as Greenland? In March 2021, the etymological origins of Greenland found themselves at the center of the conversation on social media after Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin was quoted in The New York Times saying that Greenland was named Greenland because it was once a green land. The article, which focused primarily on Johnson's shaky relationship with the truth, later quoted Johnson saying that he had 'no idea' if his statements about Greenland in this interview were accurate: But there were signs in that first campaign of Mr. Johnson's predilection for anti-intellectualism. On several occasions, he declared that climate change was not man-made but instead caused by 'sun spots' and said excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 'helps the trees grow.' He also offered a false history of Greenland to dismiss the effects of global warming. 'You know, there's a reason Greenland was called Greenland,' Mr. Johnson told WKOW-TV in Madison back then. 'It was actually green at one point in time. And it's been, you know, since, it's a whole lot whiter now so we've experienced climate change throughout geologic time.' In the interview on Thursday, Mr. Johnson was still misinformed about the etymology of Greenland, which got its name from the explorer Erik the Red's attempt to lure settlers to the ice-covered island. 'I could be wrong there, but that's always been my assumption that, at some point in time, those early explorers saw green,' Mr. Johnson said. 'I have no idea.' As the Times notes above, the 'reason Greenland was called Greenland' is not because it was once a green land. The island actually received its deceptive name from Erik the Red, a Norse explorer who was exiled from Iceland circa 980 for murder. When Erik the Red established the first permanent European settlement in the ice-covered region to the west of Iceland, he dubbed the area 'Greenland' in an attempt to make it sound more hospitable to potential settlers. The deceptive origins of Greenland's naming can be found in 'The Saga of Erik the Red,' a text compiled between the 13th and 15th centuries. Here's an excerpt from an 1880 translation (emphasis ours): Eirik and his people were outlawed at Thorsnes Thing. He prepared a ship in Eiriksvagr (creek), and Eyjolf concealed him in Dimunarvagr while Thorgest and his people sought him among the islands. Eirik said to his people that he purposed to seek for the land which Gunnbjorn, the son of Ulf the Crow, saw when he was driven westwards over the ocean, and discovered Gunnbjarnarsker (Gunnbjorn's rock or skerry). He promised that he would return to visit his friends if he found the land. Thorbjorn, and Eyjolf, and Styr accompanied Eirik beyond the islands. They separated in the most friendly manner, Eirik saying that he would be of the like assistance to them, if he should be able so to be, and they should happen to need him. Then he sailed oceanwards under Snæfellsjokull (snow mountain glacier), and arrived at the glacier called Blaserkr (Blue-shirt); thence he journeyed south to see if there were any inhabitants of the country. He passed the first winter at Eiriksey, near the middle, of the Vestribygd (western settlement). The following spring he proceeded to Eiriksfjordr, and fixed his abode there. During the summer he proceeded into the unpeopled districts in the west, and was there a long time, giving names to the places far and wide. The second winter he passed in Eiriksholmar (isles), off Hvarfsgnupr (peak of disappearance, Cape Farewell); and the third summer he went altogether northwards, to Snæfell and into Hrafnsfjordr (Ravensfirth); considering then that he had come to the head of Eiriksfjordr, he turned back, and passed the third winter in Eiriksey, before the mouth of Eiriksfjordr. Now, afterwards, during the summer, he proceeded to Iceland, and came to Breidafjordr (Broadfirth). This winter he was with Ingolf, at Holmlatr (Island-litter). During the spring, Thorgest and he fought, and Eirik met with defeat. After that they were reconciled. In the summer Eirik went to live in the land which he had discovered, and which he called Greenland, 'Because,' said he, 'men will desire much the more to go there if the land has a good name.' This origin story is also recounted on the tourism site 'Visit Greenland,' Etymology Online, and in the following passage from book 'Amid Greenland Snows; Or, The Early History of Arctic Missions': In order to entice people to go to his new country he called it Greenland, and pointed it out as such an excellent place for pasture, wood, and fish, that the next year he was followed thither by twenty-five ships full of colonists, who had furnished themselves richly with household goods and cattle of all sorts ; but only fourteen of these ships arrived. While naming this ice-covered island Greenland was certainly a deceptive marketing ploy, Erik the Red was not being entirely dishonest. Greenland is primarily covered in ice, but there is vegetation in the southern fjords, especially during the summer when temperatures can reach 50 degrees Fahrenheit. The government of Greenland noted in a 2020 report: The deep fjords become so green, due to the warm summers, that Erik the Red, who was outlawed from Iceland for killing Eyjolf the Foul and Hrafn the Dueller, named the country Greenland. He believed the name to be likely to attract new settlers. South Greenland is still a hub of agriculture, based on the breeding of sheep imported from Iceland in 1915 and mixed with a few Faroese ewes and seven Scottish rams. It should also be noted that while Erik the Red may have slightly exaggerated the extent of Greenland's 'greeness' when he encouraged his fellow Icelanders to settle the area, this name would have aptly described the island a few hundred thousand years before it's discovery by European settlers. According to Scientific American, the southern part of Greenland contained a forest 400,000 to 800,000 years ago: In 1981 researchers removed a long tube of ice from the center of a glacier in southern Greenland at a site known as Dye 3. More than a mile (two kilometers) long, the deep end of the core sample had been crushed by the pressure of the ice above it and sullied by contact with rock and soil. By destroying the pattern of annual layers, this contamination seemingly made it impossible to assess the region's ancient climate. But DNA extracted from the previously ignored dirty bottom has revealed that Greenland was not only green, it boasted boreal forests like those found in Canada and Scandinavia today. [...] Adds team member and glaciologist Martin Sharp of the University of Alberta in Edmonton: 'One could argue that this shows that natural forcing could account for the current warm conditions, but the current orbital configuration does not support this, even when other natural forcings are taken into account. One could also argue that if natural warming can deglaciate much of southern Greenland, then natural warming plus anthropogenic warming could cause even more extensive deglaciation.' In short, the reason Greenland was named Greenland was because a Norse explorer named Erik the Red was hoping that the name would encourage people to settle on the newly discovered island. While Erik the Red had some standing to bestow this name on the land - the southern portion of Greenland does have some vegetation in the summer months - the island was primarily covered in snow and ice. | In short, the reason Greenland was named Greenland was because a Norse explorer named Erik the Red was hoping that the name would encourage people to settle on the newly discovered island. While Erik the Red had some standing to bestow this name on the land - the southern portion of Greenland does have some vegetation in the summer months - the island was primarily covered in snow and ice. | [
"07866-proof-09-erik-the-red.jpg"
] |
Silent-era actor Charlie Chaplin wrote a poem entitled, 'As I Began to Love Myself. | Contradiction | Charlie Chaplin was an actor, director, composer, and according to a persistent internet rumor, the author of a poem entitled, 'As I Began to Love Myself': As I began to love myself I found that anguish and emotional suffering are only warning signs that I was living against my own truth. Today, I know, this is 'AUTHENTICITY'. As I began to love myself I understood how much it can offend somebody As I try to force my desires on this person, even though I knew the time was not right and the person was not ready for it, and even though this person was me. Today I call it 'RESPECT'. As I began to love myself I stopped craving for a different life, and I could see that everything that surrounded me was inviting me to grow. Today I call it 'MATURITY'. As I began to love myself I understood that at any circumstance, I am in the right place at the right time, and everything happens at the exactly right moment. So I could be calm. Today I call it 'SELF-CONFIDENCE'. As I began to love myself I quit steeling my own time, and I stopped designing huge projects for the future. Today, I only do what brings me joy and happiness, things I love to do and that make my heart cheer, and I do them in my own way and in my own rhythm. Today I call it 'SIMPLICITY'. As I began to love myself I freed myself of anything that is no good for my health - food, people, things, situations, and everything that drew me down and away from myself. At first I called this attitude a healthy egoism. Today I know it is 'LOVE OF ONESELF'. As I began to love myself I quit trying to always be right, and ever since I was wrong less of the time. Today I discovered that is 'MODESTY'. As I began to love myself I refused to go on living in the past and worry about the future. Now, I only live for the moment, where EVERYTHING is happening. Today I live each day, day by day, and I call it 'FULFILLMENT'. As I began to love myself I recognized that my mind can disturb me and it can make me sick. But As I connected it to my heart, my mind became a valuable ally. Today I call this connection 'WISDOM OF THE HEART'. We no longer need to fear arguments, confrontations or any kind of problems with ourselves or others. Even stars collide, and out of their crashing new worlds are born. Today I know THAT IS 'LIFE'! In addition to the numerous websites that reproduced this poem in full while attributing it to Chaplin, a few stanzas of this poem have also been used to create share-worthy memes featuring the famous actor's image: This poem, however, was not penned by the silent-era actor. This actually appears to be an English translation of a Portuguese translation of an English-language book written by Kim and Alison McMillen. Before we get to the somewhat convoluted origins of this poem, let's consider the fact that Charlie Chaplin, who passed away at the age of 88 in 1977, was one of the most famous actors of the silent era. In addition to his own autobiography, dozens of books have been written and movies made about his life and work. If Chaplin truly wrote this poem, we should be able to easily find a record of where and when it was originally published. Yet, we were unable to find references to Chaplin's writing of this poem in any credible source. It seems that this poem has only been attributed to Chaplin on random blogs and internet memes. As for the poem itself, it appears to be a reworking of a selection of stanzas that were originally published in 2001 in the book 'When I Loved Myself Enough.' Although the stanzas in the alleged Chaplin poem are not verbatim replicas of passages in the McMillens' book, they express familiar sentiments with similar language: When I loved myself enough I quit settling for too little. When I loved myself enough I came to know my own goodness. When I loved myself enough I began taking the gift of life seriously and gratefully. When I loved myself enough I began to know I was in the right place at the right time and I could relax. When I loved myself enough I felt compelled to slow down way down. And that has made all the difference. In 2003, this book was translated into Portuguese by Iva Sofia Golcalves Lima under the title, 'Quando Me Amei de Verdade.' That translated text was later abbreviated to a few select passages and started to spread around the internet. Here's how a portion of that text appeared in one 2005 blog post: Quando me amei de verdade pude compreender que, em qualquer circunstância, eu estava no lugar certo, na hora certa. Então pude relaxar. Quando me amei de verdade pude perceber que o sofrimento emocional é sinal que estou indo contra minha verdade. Quando me amei de verdade parei de desejar que a minha vida fosse diferente e comecei a ver que tudo que acontece contribui para o meu crescimento. When I truly loved myself, I could understand that under any circumstances I was in the right place at the right time. Then I could relax. When I truly loved myself, I realized that emotional suffering It's a sign that I'm going against my truth. When I truly loved myself I stopped wishing my life was different and I started to see that everything that happens contributes for my growth. This text continued to evolve as it was translated back into English. It's not entirely clear when Chaplin's name was first attached to the text, but it appears to have been sometime around 2007, about 30 years after the actor's death. In sum, the poem 'As I Began to Love Myself' was not written by Charlie Chaplin. As far as we can tell, this poem is actually an English translation of Portuguese translation of an English language book written by Kim and Alison McMillen in 2001 entitled 'When I Loved Myself Enough.' That text was then altered even further into the shareable form it consists of today. It's unclear who arranged these stanzas into their current form. | In sum, the poem 'As I Began to Love Myself' was not written by Charlie Chaplin. As far as we can tell, this poem is actually an English translation of Portuguese translation of an English language book written by Kim and Alison McMillen in 2001 entitled 'When I Loved Myself Enough.' That text was then altered even further into the shareable form it consists of today. It's unclear who arranged these stanzas into their current form. | [
"07918-proof-02-GettyImages-3203302.jpg",
"07918-proof-08-chaplin-poem-not.jpg"
] |
Silent-era actor Charlie Chaplin wrote a poem entitled, 'As I Began to Love Myself. | Contradiction | Charlie Chaplin was an actor, director, composer, and according to a persistent internet rumor, the author of a poem entitled, 'As I Began to Love Myself': As I began to love myself I found that anguish and emotional suffering are only warning signs that I was living against my own truth. Today, I know, this is 'AUTHENTICITY'. As I began to love myself I understood how much it can offend somebody As I try to force my desires on this person, even though I knew the time was not right and the person was not ready for it, and even though this person was me. Today I call it 'RESPECT'. As I began to love myself I stopped craving for a different life, and I could see that everything that surrounded me was inviting me to grow. Today I call it 'MATURITY'. As I began to love myself I understood that at any circumstance, I am in the right place at the right time, and everything happens at the exactly right moment. So I could be calm. Today I call it 'SELF-CONFIDENCE'. As I began to love myself I quit steeling my own time, and I stopped designing huge projects for the future. Today, I only do what brings me joy and happiness, things I love to do and that make my heart cheer, and I do them in my own way and in my own rhythm. Today I call it 'SIMPLICITY'. As I began to love myself I freed myself of anything that is no good for my health - food, people, things, situations, and everything that drew me down and away from myself. At first I called this attitude a healthy egoism. Today I know it is 'LOVE OF ONESELF'. As I began to love myself I quit trying to always be right, and ever since I was wrong less of the time. Today I discovered that is 'MODESTY'. As I began to love myself I refused to go on living in the past and worry about the future. Now, I only live for the moment, where EVERYTHING is happening. Today I live each day, day by day, and I call it 'FULFILLMENT'. As I began to love myself I recognized that my mind can disturb me and it can make me sick. But As I connected it to my heart, my mind became a valuable ally. Today I call this connection 'WISDOM OF THE HEART'. We no longer need to fear arguments, confrontations or any kind of problems with ourselves or others. Even stars collide, and out of their crashing new worlds are born. Today I know THAT IS 'LIFE'! In addition to the numerous websites that reproduced this poem in full while attributing it to Chaplin, a few stanzas of this poem have also been used to create share-worthy memes featuring the famous actor's image: This poem, however, was not penned by the silent-era actor. This actually appears to be an English translation of a Portuguese translation of an English-language book written by Kim and Alison McMillen. Before we get to the somewhat convoluted origins of this poem, let's consider the fact that Charlie Chaplin, who passed away at the age of 88 in 1977, was one of the most famous actors of the silent era. In addition to his own autobiography, dozens of books have been written and movies made about his life and work. If Chaplin truly wrote this poem, we should be able to easily find a record of where and when it was originally published. Yet, we were unable to find references to Chaplin's writing of this poem in any credible source. It seems that this poem has only been attributed to Chaplin on random blogs and internet memes. As for the poem itself, it appears to be a reworking of a selection of stanzas that were originally published in 2001 in the book 'When I Loved Myself Enough.' Although the stanzas in the alleged Chaplin poem are not verbatim replicas of passages in the McMillens' book, they express familiar sentiments with similar language: When I loved myself enough I quit settling for too little. When I loved myself enough I came to know my own goodness. When I loved myself enough I began taking the gift of life seriously and gratefully. When I loved myself enough I began to know I was in the right place at the right time and I could relax. When I loved myself enough I felt compelled to slow down way down. And that has made all the difference. In 2003, this book was translated into Portuguese by Iva Sofia Golcalves Lima under the title, 'Quando Me Amei de Verdade.' That translated text was later abbreviated to a few select passages and started to spread around the internet. Here's how a portion of that text appeared in one 2005 blog post: Quando me amei de verdade pude compreender que, em qualquer circunstância, eu estava no lugar certo, na hora certa. Então pude relaxar. Quando me amei de verdade pude perceber que o sofrimento emocional é sinal que estou indo contra minha verdade. Quando me amei de verdade parei de desejar que a minha vida fosse diferente e comecei a ver que tudo que acontece contribui para o meu crescimento. When I truly loved myself, I could understand that under any circumstances I was in the right place at the right time. Then I could relax. When I truly loved myself, I realized that emotional suffering It's a sign that I'm going against my truth. When I truly loved myself I stopped wishing my life was different and I started to see that everything that happens contributes for my growth. This text continued to evolve as it was translated back into English. It's not entirely clear when Chaplin's name was first attached to the text, but it appears to have been sometime around 2007, about 30 years after the actor's death. In sum, the poem 'As I Began to Love Myself' was not written by Charlie Chaplin. As far as we can tell, this poem is actually an English translation of Portuguese translation of an English language book written by Kim and Alison McMillen in 2001 entitled 'When I Loved Myself Enough.' That text was then altered even further into the shareable form it consists of today. It's unclear who arranged these stanzas into their current form. | In sum, the poem 'As I Began to Love Myself' was not written by Charlie Chaplin. As far as we can tell, this poem is actually an English translation of Portuguese translation of an English language book written by Kim and Alison McMillen in 2001 entitled 'When I Loved Myself Enough.' That text was then altered even further into the shareable form it consists of today. It's unclear who arranged these stanzas into their current form. | [
"07918-proof-02-GettyImages-3203302.jpg",
"07918-proof-08-chaplin-poem-not.jpg"
] |
Silent-era actor Charlie Chaplin wrote a poem entitled, 'As I Began to Love Myself. | Contradiction | Charlie Chaplin was an actor, director, composer, and according to a persistent internet rumor, the author of a poem entitled, 'As I Began to Love Myself': As I began to love myself I found that anguish and emotional suffering are only warning signs that I was living against my own truth. Today, I know, this is 'AUTHENTICITY'. As I began to love myself I understood how much it can offend somebody As I try to force my desires on this person, even though I knew the time was not right and the person was not ready for it, and even though this person was me. Today I call it 'RESPECT'. As I began to love myself I stopped craving for a different life, and I could see that everything that surrounded me was inviting me to grow. Today I call it 'MATURITY'. As I began to love myself I understood that at any circumstance, I am in the right place at the right time, and everything happens at the exactly right moment. So I could be calm. Today I call it 'SELF-CONFIDENCE'. As I began to love myself I quit steeling my own time, and I stopped designing huge projects for the future. Today, I only do what brings me joy and happiness, things I love to do and that make my heart cheer, and I do them in my own way and in my own rhythm. Today I call it 'SIMPLICITY'. As I began to love myself I freed myself of anything that is no good for my health - food, people, things, situations, and everything that drew me down and away from myself. At first I called this attitude a healthy egoism. Today I know it is 'LOVE OF ONESELF'. As I began to love myself I quit trying to always be right, and ever since I was wrong less of the time. Today I discovered that is 'MODESTY'. As I began to love myself I refused to go on living in the past and worry about the future. Now, I only live for the moment, where EVERYTHING is happening. Today I live each day, day by day, and I call it 'FULFILLMENT'. As I began to love myself I recognized that my mind can disturb me and it can make me sick. But As I connected it to my heart, my mind became a valuable ally. Today I call this connection 'WISDOM OF THE HEART'. We no longer need to fear arguments, confrontations or any kind of problems with ourselves or others. Even stars collide, and out of their crashing new worlds are born. Today I know THAT IS 'LIFE'! In addition to the numerous websites that reproduced this poem in full while attributing it to Chaplin, a few stanzas of this poem have also been used to create share-worthy memes featuring the famous actor's image: This poem, however, was not penned by the silent-era actor. This actually appears to be an English translation of a Portuguese translation of an English-language book written by Kim and Alison McMillen. Before we get to the somewhat convoluted origins of this poem, let's consider the fact that Charlie Chaplin, who passed away at the age of 88 in 1977, was one of the most famous actors of the silent era. In addition to his own autobiography, dozens of books have been written and movies made about his life and work. If Chaplin truly wrote this poem, we should be able to easily find a record of where and when it was originally published. Yet, we were unable to find references to Chaplin's writing of this poem in any credible source. It seems that this poem has only been attributed to Chaplin on random blogs and internet memes. As for the poem itself, it appears to be a reworking of a selection of stanzas that were originally published in 2001 in the book 'When I Loved Myself Enough.' Although the stanzas in the alleged Chaplin poem are not verbatim replicas of passages in the McMillens' book, they express familiar sentiments with similar language: When I loved myself enough I quit settling for too little. When I loved myself enough I came to know my own goodness. When I loved myself enough I began taking the gift of life seriously and gratefully. When I loved myself enough I began to know I was in the right place at the right time and I could relax. When I loved myself enough I felt compelled to slow down way down. And that has made all the difference. In 2003, this book was translated into Portuguese by Iva Sofia Golcalves Lima under the title, 'Quando Me Amei de Verdade.' That translated text was later abbreviated to a few select passages and started to spread around the internet. Here's how a portion of that text appeared in one 2005 blog post: Quando me amei de verdade pude compreender que, em qualquer circunstância, eu estava no lugar certo, na hora certa. Então pude relaxar. Quando me amei de verdade pude perceber que o sofrimento emocional é sinal que estou indo contra minha verdade. Quando me amei de verdade parei de desejar que a minha vida fosse diferente e comecei a ver que tudo que acontece contribui para o meu crescimento. When I truly loved myself, I could understand that under any circumstances I was in the right place at the right time. Then I could relax. When I truly loved myself, I realized that emotional suffering It's a sign that I'm going against my truth. When I truly loved myself I stopped wishing my life was different and I started to see that everything that happens contributes for my growth. This text continued to evolve as it was translated back into English. It's not entirely clear when Chaplin's name was first attached to the text, but it appears to have been sometime around 2007, about 30 years after the actor's death. In sum, the poem 'As I Began to Love Myself' was not written by Charlie Chaplin. As far as we can tell, this poem is actually an English translation of Portuguese translation of an English language book written by Kim and Alison McMillen in 2001 entitled 'When I Loved Myself Enough.' That text was then altered even further into the shareable form it consists of today. It's unclear who arranged these stanzas into their current form. | In sum, the poem 'As I Began to Love Myself' was not written by Charlie Chaplin. As far as we can tell, this poem is actually an English translation of Portuguese translation of an English language book written by Kim and Alison McMillen in 2001 entitled 'When I Loved Myself Enough.' That text was then altered even further into the shareable form it consists of today. It's unclear who arranged these stanzas into their current form. | [
"07918-proof-02-GettyImages-3203302.jpg",
"07918-proof-08-chaplin-poem-not.jpg"
] |
A video tells the true story of a little girl named Chloe Jones who was abducted after getting on the wrong school bus. | Contradiction | In May 2017, a video purportedly showing a series of text messages sent by a young girl named Chloe Jones as she was abducted on a school bus appeared on social media: The YouTube page Don't Turn Around posted the video, which is a work of fiction. Director Paul Hough and actor Eddie McGee collaborate the channel, which features a new creepy story every week: Creepy, fun and original horror stories and films on a weekly basis. You won't find real death or nastiness here - but will find excitement and an awesome community of horror loving fans! We believe in horror for fun and in the movies, not in real life! If you like horror stories and find it fun to get scared, then Don't Turn Around is the place for you! Not only was Chloe Jones not abducted by a creepy school bus, but the image depicting her is actually a stock photograph: | In May 2017, a video purportedly showing a series of text messages sent by a young girl named Chloe Jones as she was abducted on a school bus appeared on social media: The YouTube page Don't Turn Around posted the video, which is a work of fiction. Director Paul Hough and actor Eddie McGee collaborate the channel, which features a new creepy story every week: Creepy, fun and original horror stories and films on a weekly basis. You won't find real death or nastiness here - but will find excitement and an awesome community of horror loving fans! We believe in horror for fun and in the movies, not in real life! If you like horror stories and find it fun to get scared, then Don't Turn Around is the place for you! Not only was Chloe Jones not abducted by a creepy school bus, but the image depicting her is actually a stock photograph: | [
"07919-proof-02-school_bus_fb-1.jpg"
] |
The father of Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin, saved a young Winston Churchill from drowning; in gratitude Churchill's father paid for Fleming's education. | Contradiction | Most of us are familiar with the basic penicillin legend: a London bacteriologist notices something unusual about the mold growing in an uncleaned Petri dish and ends up making one of the greatest medical discoveries of all time. What if the only reason this medical pioneer, the son of a poor farmer, had been able to receive the education that allowed him to make this monumental scientific breakthrough was his father's chance encounter years earlier with another (future) giant of 20th century history? And, in a delicious conclusion, the scientist later used his discovery to save his benefactor's life? Wouldn't that be an astounding and inspiring coincidence? It would. If only it were true. His name was Fleming, and he was a poor Scottish farmer. One day, while trying to eke out a living for his family, he heard a cry for help coming from a nearby bog. He dropped his tools and ran to the bog. There, mired to his waist in black muck, was a terrified boy, screaming and struggling to free himself. Farmer Fleming saved the lad from what could have been a slow and terrifying death. The next day, a fancy carriage pulled up to the Scotsman's sparse surroundings. An elegantly dressed nobleman stepped out and introduced himself as the father of the boy Farmer Fleming had saved. 'I want to repay you,' said the nobleman. 'You saved my son's life.' 'No, I can't accept payment for what I did,' the Scottish farmer replied, waving off the offer. At that moment, the farmer's own son came to the door of the family hovel. 'Is that your son?' the nobleman asked. 'Yes,' the farmer replied proudly. 'I'll make you a deal. Let me take him and give him a good education. If the lad is anything like his father, he'll grow to a man you can be proud of.' And that he did. In time, Farmer Fleming's son graduated from St. Mary's Hospital Medical School in London, and went on to become known throughout the world as the noted Sir Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of Penicillin. Years afterward, the nobleman's son was stricken with pneumonia. What saved him?? Penicillin. The name of the nobleman? Lord Randolph Churchill. His son's name? Sir Winston Churchill. Someone once said what goes around comes around. The first clue that should make us skeptical of this too-good-to-be-true tale is that it exists in multiple forms. For example, here are a couple of other common versions: A British family journeyed to Scotland for a summer vacation. The mother and father were looking forward to enjoying a beautiful Scottish countryside with their young son. But one day the son wandered off all by himself and got into trouble. As he walked through the woods, he came across an abandoned swimming hole, and as most boys his age do, he took off his clothes an jumped in! He was totally unprepared for what happened next. Before he had time to enjoy the pool of water, he was seized by a vicious attack of cramps. He began calling for help while fighting a losing battle with the cramps to stay afloat. Luckily, it happened that in a nearby field a farm boy was working. When he heard the frantic cries for help, he brought the English boy to safety. The father whose son had been rescued was of course very grateful. The next day, he went to meet the youth who have saved his son's life. As the two talked, the Englishman asked the brave lad what he planned to do with his future. The boy answered, 'Oh I suppose I'll be a farmer like my father.' The grateful father said, 'Is there something else you'd rather do?' 'Oh yes!' answered the Scottish lad. 'I've always wanted to be a doctor. But we are poor people and could never afford to pay for my education.' 'Never mind that,' said the Englishman. 'You shall have your heart's desire and study medicine. Make your plans, and I'll take care of the costs.' So, the Scottish lad did indeed become a doctor. There is more! Some years later, in December of 1943, Winston Churchill became very ill with pneumonia while in North Africa. Word was sent to Sir Alexander Fleming, who had discovered the new wonder drug, penicillin, to come immediately. Flying in from England, Dr. Fleming administered his new drug to the ailing prime minister. In the 1880s, a renowned member of the British parliament was in his carriage when it got stuck in the mud. A young farm boy saw his predicament and came over and put the carriage back on the road. The parliament member was surprised and asked, 'Young man, what do I owe you for this?' 'Nothing,' said the young man. 'I consider a privilege to help.' The man paid for the little boy's medical school training. This boy would later save Winston Churchill's life with penicillin when Churchill lay dying in a hospital during World War II's most critical hour. The man's name was Lord Randolph Churchill, Winston Churchill's father. So, Alexander Fleming's father saved a young Winston Churchill from drowning in a bog. Or young Alexander Fleming himself saved a young Winston Churchill from drowning in a swimming hole. Or young Alexander Fleming helped Winston Churchill's father get his carriage out of the mud and back onto the road. Well, whatever: we've got two fathers and two sons: one of the four helped one of the other three, and one of the remaining two paid for somebody's education. Or something like that. It's a good story, so let's not weigh it down with a bunch of pesky details. The facts of none of these versions jibe with what we know of these people's lives. No Churchill biography we've found mentions young Winston's chance encounter with a Fleming, father or son. Alexander Fleming was born in a remote, rural part of Scotland and lived on an 800-acre farm that was a mile from the nearest house - not the sort of place where a vacationing Winston would have been likely to wander, or to be discovered by anyone if he had. As well, Winston was seven years older than Alexander, so young Alexander would probably have been too small to physically rescue the older and larger Winston from drowning. But we don't have to speculate about those matters to disprove the tale. Alexander Fleming did not leave the farm to rush off to medical school to become the doctor he had supposedly always longed to be. In fact, young Alec (as he was then known) departed for London when he was 14, where his older brother Tom had studied medicine and opened a practice. Alec attended the Polytechnic School in Regent Street; after graduating, he entered the business world at the urging of his brother, worked as a clerk for a shipping firm for a few years, then joined a Scottish regiment when the Boer War broke out. It was not until after all of this that Alec decided to try his hand at medical school, and even then it was the encouragement of his older brother that was the deciding factor, not a lifelong yearning on Alec's part to become a doctor. Additionally, Alec's medical school education was financed with a £250 inheritance from a recently-deceased uncle, not an endowment from a grateful Randolph Churchill. Nor is the other end of this tale true. Winston Churchill did come down with a sore throat and a high fever while in Tunis (on the way home from his December 1943 meeting with Franklin Roosevelt and Josef Stalin in Tehran), and the diagnosis of the medical team called in from Cairo by his personal physician (Charles Wilson, later Lord Moran) was pneumonia. According to Wilson's biography, Churchill was treated with sulphonamide (an antimicrobial, but one unrelated to penicillin) and digitalis (for his heart) and sent to bed to rest. By the time a specialist, Professor John Scadding, was flown in from London, Churchill was already well on his way to recovery. In short, Alexander Fleming was neither present nor consulted when Churchill was diagnosed with pneumonia, nor was penicillin used to treat the British prime minister. According to the Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge, Churchill publicly denied the Fleming story in 1946. This bit of netsam aside, Alexander Fleming's life has already been the subject of considerable mythologizing. His discovery of penicillin was not the instant boon to medicine that we now assume it was. In fact, Fleming himself did not realize the significance of his findings: thinking he had developed a mere antiseptic that was too slow-acting and too difficult to produce in large quantities, Fleming failed to test his penicillin thoroughly, wrote a tepidly-received paper about it, and moved on to other work. There ended his real involvement with the 'greatest medical advance of the 20th (or any other) century.' In 1935, two specialists, Howard Florey, head of Oxford's William Dunn School of Pathology, and Ernst Chain, a Cambridge biochemistry PhD, took up where Fleming's paper left off and spent several years at the arduous laboratory work of refining and testing penicillin to produce the world's first effective antibiotic. Fleming visited the two men at the Dunn School after they published their first paper on penicillin in 1940 (by which time Chain thought Fleming was dead) and didn't reappear on the scene until after penicillin had proved itself invaluable during World War II. The press lauded the newly-emerged Fleming as the lone genius responsible for the miracle of penicillin, and he was awarded numerous honors, including a knighthood and the 1945 Nobel Prize for medicine. (The Nobel Prize committee, at least, was on the ball and named Florey and Chain as co-recipients of the honor.) | In short, Alexander Fleming was neither present nor consulted when Churchill was diagnosed with pneumonia, nor was penicillin used to treat the British prime minister. According to the Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge, Churchill publicly denied the Fleming story in 1946. This bit of netsam aside, Alexander Fleming's life has already been the subject of considerable mythologizing. His discovery of penicillin was not the instant boon to medicine that we now assume it was. In fact, Fleming himself did not realize the significance of his findings: thinking he had developed a mere antiseptic that was too slow-acting and too difficult to produce in large quantities, Fleming failed to test his penicillin thoroughly, wrote a tepidly-received paper about it, and moved on to other work. There ended his real involvement with the 'greatest medical advance of the 20th (or any other) century.' In 1935, two specialists, Howard Florey, head of Oxford's William Dunn School of Pathology, and Ernst Chain, a Cambridge biochemistry PhD, took up where Fleming's paper left off and spent several years at the arduous laboratory work of refining and testing penicillin to produce the world's first effective antibiotic. Fleming visited the two men at the Dunn School after they published their first paper on penicillin in 1940 (by which time Chain thought Fleming was dead) and didn't reappear on the scene until after penicillin had proved itself invaluable during World War II. The press lauded the newly-emerged Fleming as the lone genius responsible for the miracle of penicillin, and he was awarded numerous honors, including a knighthood and the 1945 Nobel Prize for medicine. (The Nobel Prize committee, at least, was on the ball and named Florey and Chain as co-recipients of the honor.) | [] |
The father of Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin, saved a young Winston Churchill from drowning; in gratitude Churchill's father paid for Fleming's education. | Contradiction | Most of us are familiar with the basic penicillin legend: a London bacteriologist notices something unusual about the mold growing in an uncleaned Petri dish and ends up making one of the greatest medical discoveries of all time. What if the only reason this medical pioneer, the son of a poor farmer, had been able to receive the education that allowed him to make this monumental scientific breakthrough was his father's chance encounter years earlier with another (future) giant of 20th century history? And, in a delicious conclusion, the scientist later used his discovery to save his benefactor's life? Wouldn't that be an astounding and inspiring coincidence? It would. If only it were true. His name was Fleming, and he was a poor Scottish farmer. One day, while trying to eke out a living for his family, he heard a cry for help coming from a nearby bog. He dropped his tools and ran to the bog. There, mired to his waist in black muck, was a terrified boy, screaming and struggling to free himself. Farmer Fleming saved the lad from what could have been a slow and terrifying death. The next day, a fancy carriage pulled up to the Scotsman's sparse surroundings. An elegantly dressed nobleman stepped out and introduced himself as the father of the boy Farmer Fleming had saved. 'I want to repay you,' said the nobleman. 'You saved my son's life.' 'No, I can't accept payment for what I did,' the Scottish farmer replied, waving off the offer. At that moment, the farmer's own son came to the door of the family hovel. 'Is that your son?' the nobleman asked. 'Yes,' the farmer replied proudly. 'I'll make you a deal. Let me take him and give him a good education. If the lad is anything like his father, he'll grow to a man you can be proud of.' And that he did. In time, Farmer Fleming's son graduated from St. Mary's Hospital Medical School in London, and went on to become known throughout the world as the noted Sir Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of Penicillin. Years afterward, the nobleman's son was stricken with pneumonia. What saved him?? Penicillin. The name of the nobleman? Lord Randolph Churchill. His son's name? Sir Winston Churchill. Someone once said what goes around comes around. The first clue that should make us skeptical of this too-good-to-be-true tale is that it exists in multiple forms. For example, here are a couple of other common versions: A British family journeyed to Scotland for a summer vacation. The mother and father were looking forward to enjoying a beautiful Scottish countryside with their young son. But one day the son wandered off all by himself and got into trouble. As he walked through the woods, he came across an abandoned swimming hole, and as most boys his age do, he took off his clothes an jumped in! He was totally unprepared for what happened next. Before he had time to enjoy the pool of water, he was seized by a vicious attack of cramps. He began calling for help while fighting a losing battle with the cramps to stay afloat. Luckily, it happened that in a nearby field a farm boy was working. When he heard the frantic cries for help, he brought the English boy to safety. The father whose son had been rescued was of course very grateful. The next day, he went to meet the youth who have saved his son's life. As the two talked, the Englishman asked the brave lad what he planned to do with his future. The boy answered, 'Oh I suppose I'll be a farmer like my father.' The grateful father said, 'Is there something else you'd rather do?' 'Oh yes!' answered the Scottish lad. 'I've always wanted to be a doctor. But we are poor people and could never afford to pay for my education.' 'Never mind that,' said the Englishman. 'You shall have your heart's desire and study medicine. Make your plans, and I'll take care of the costs.' So, the Scottish lad did indeed become a doctor. There is more! Some years later, in December of 1943, Winston Churchill became very ill with pneumonia while in North Africa. Word was sent to Sir Alexander Fleming, who had discovered the new wonder drug, penicillin, to come immediately. Flying in from England, Dr. Fleming administered his new drug to the ailing prime minister. In the 1880s, a renowned member of the British parliament was in his carriage when it got stuck in the mud. A young farm boy saw his predicament and came over and put the carriage back on the road. The parliament member was surprised and asked, 'Young man, what do I owe you for this?' 'Nothing,' said the young man. 'I consider a privilege to help.' The man paid for the little boy's medical school training. This boy would later save Winston Churchill's life with penicillin when Churchill lay dying in a hospital during World War II's most critical hour. The man's name was Lord Randolph Churchill, Winston Churchill's father. So, Alexander Fleming's father saved a young Winston Churchill from drowning in a bog. Or young Alexander Fleming himself saved a young Winston Churchill from drowning in a swimming hole. Or young Alexander Fleming helped Winston Churchill's father get his carriage out of the mud and back onto the road. Well, whatever: we've got two fathers and two sons: one of the four helped one of the other three, and one of the remaining two paid for somebody's education. Or something like that. It's a good story, so let's not weigh it down with a bunch of pesky details. The facts of none of these versions jibe with what we know of these people's lives. No Churchill biography we've found mentions young Winston's chance encounter with a Fleming, father or son. Alexander Fleming was born in a remote, rural part of Scotland and lived on an 800-acre farm that was a mile from the nearest house - not the sort of place where a vacationing Winston would have been likely to wander, or to be discovered by anyone if he had. As well, Winston was seven years older than Alexander, so young Alexander would probably have been too small to physically rescue the older and larger Winston from drowning. But we don't have to speculate about those matters to disprove the tale. Alexander Fleming did not leave the farm to rush off to medical school to become the doctor he had supposedly always longed to be. In fact, young Alec (as he was then known) departed for London when he was 14, where his older brother Tom had studied medicine and opened a practice. Alec attended the Polytechnic School in Regent Street; after graduating, he entered the business world at the urging of his brother, worked as a clerk for a shipping firm for a few years, then joined a Scottish regiment when the Boer War broke out. It was not until after all of this that Alec decided to try his hand at medical school, and even then it was the encouragement of his older brother that was the deciding factor, not a lifelong yearning on Alec's part to become a doctor. Additionally, Alec's medical school education was financed with a £250 inheritance from a recently-deceased uncle, not an endowment from a grateful Randolph Churchill. Nor is the other end of this tale true. Winston Churchill did come down with a sore throat and a high fever while in Tunis (on the way home from his December 1943 meeting with Franklin Roosevelt and Josef Stalin in Tehran), and the diagnosis of the medical team called in from Cairo by his personal physician (Charles Wilson, later Lord Moran) was pneumonia. According to Wilson's biography, Churchill was treated with sulphonamide (an antimicrobial, but one unrelated to penicillin) and digitalis (for his heart) and sent to bed to rest. By the time a specialist, Professor John Scadding, was flown in from London, Churchill was already well on his way to recovery. In short, Alexander Fleming was neither present nor consulted when Churchill was diagnosed with pneumonia, nor was penicillin used to treat the British prime minister. According to the Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge, Churchill publicly denied the Fleming story in 1946. This bit of netsam aside, Alexander Fleming's life has already been the subject of considerable mythologizing. His discovery of penicillin was not the instant boon to medicine that we now assume it was. In fact, Fleming himself did not realize the significance of his findings: thinking he had developed a mere antiseptic that was too slow-acting and too difficult to produce in large quantities, Fleming failed to test his penicillin thoroughly, wrote a tepidly-received paper about it, and moved on to other work. There ended his real involvement with the 'greatest medical advance of the 20th (or any other) century.' In 1935, two specialists, Howard Florey, head of Oxford's William Dunn School of Pathology, and Ernst Chain, a Cambridge biochemistry PhD, took up where Fleming's paper left off and spent several years at the arduous laboratory work of refining and testing penicillin to produce the world's first effective antibiotic. Fleming visited the two men at the Dunn School after they published their first paper on penicillin in 1940 (by which time Chain thought Fleming was dead) and didn't reappear on the scene until after penicillin had proved itself invaluable during World War II. The press lauded the newly-emerged Fleming as the lone genius responsible for the miracle of penicillin, and he was awarded numerous honors, including a knighthood and the 1945 Nobel Prize for medicine. (The Nobel Prize committee, at least, was on the ball and named Florey and Chain as co-recipients of the honor.) | In short, Alexander Fleming was neither present nor consulted when Churchill was diagnosed with pneumonia, nor was penicillin used to treat the British prime minister. According to the Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge, Churchill publicly denied the Fleming story in 1946. This bit of netsam aside, Alexander Fleming's life has already been the subject of considerable mythologizing. His discovery of penicillin was not the instant boon to medicine that we now assume it was. In fact, Fleming himself did not realize the significance of his findings: thinking he had developed a mere antiseptic that was too slow-acting and too difficult to produce in large quantities, Fleming failed to test his penicillin thoroughly, wrote a tepidly-received paper about it, and moved on to other work. There ended his real involvement with the 'greatest medical advance of the 20th (or any other) century.' In 1935, two specialists, Howard Florey, head of Oxford's William Dunn School of Pathology, and Ernst Chain, a Cambridge biochemistry PhD, took up where Fleming's paper left off and spent several years at the arduous laboratory work of refining and testing penicillin to produce the world's first effective antibiotic. Fleming visited the two men at the Dunn School after they published their first paper on penicillin in 1940 (by which time Chain thought Fleming was dead) and didn't reappear on the scene until after penicillin had proved itself invaluable during World War II. The press lauded the newly-emerged Fleming as the lone genius responsible for the miracle of penicillin, and he was awarded numerous honors, including a knighthood and the 1945 Nobel Prize for medicine. (The Nobel Prize committee, at least, was on the ball and named Florey and Chain as co-recipients of the honor.) | [] |
The father of Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin, saved a young Winston Churchill from drowning; in gratitude Churchill's father paid for Fleming's education. | Contradiction | Most of us are familiar with the basic penicillin legend: a London bacteriologist notices something unusual about the mold growing in an uncleaned Petri dish and ends up making one of the greatest medical discoveries of all time. What if the only reason this medical pioneer, the son of a poor farmer, had been able to receive the education that allowed him to make this monumental scientific breakthrough was his father's chance encounter years earlier with another (future) giant of 20th century history? And, in a delicious conclusion, the scientist later used his discovery to save his benefactor's life? Wouldn't that be an astounding and inspiring coincidence? It would. If only it were true. His name was Fleming, and he was a poor Scottish farmer. One day, while trying to eke out a living for his family, he heard a cry for help coming from a nearby bog. He dropped his tools and ran to the bog. There, mired to his waist in black muck, was a terrified boy, screaming and struggling to free himself. Farmer Fleming saved the lad from what could have been a slow and terrifying death. The next day, a fancy carriage pulled up to the Scotsman's sparse surroundings. An elegantly dressed nobleman stepped out and introduced himself as the father of the boy Farmer Fleming had saved. 'I want to repay you,' said the nobleman. 'You saved my son's life.' 'No, I can't accept payment for what I did,' the Scottish farmer replied, waving off the offer. At that moment, the farmer's own son came to the door of the family hovel. 'Is that your son?' the nobleman asked. 'Yes,' the farmer replied proudly. 'I'll make you a deal. Let me take him and give him a good education. If the lad is anything like his father, he'll grow to a man you can be proud of.' And that he did. In time, Farmer Fleming's son graduated from St. Mary's Hospital Medical School in London, and went on to become known throughout the world as the noted Sir Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of Penicillin. Years afterward, the nobleman's son was stricken with pneumonia. What saved him?? Penicillin. The name of the nobleman? Lord Randolph Churchill. His son's name? Sir Winston Churchill. Someone once said what goes around comes around. The first clue that should make us skeptical of this too-good-to-be-true tale is that it exists in multiple forms. For example, here are a couple of other common versions: A British family journeyed to Scotland for a summer vacation. The mother and father were looking forward to enjoying a beautiful Scottish countryside with their young son. But one day the son wandered off all by himself and got into trouble. As he walked through the woods, he came across an abandoned swimming hole, and as most boys his age do, he took off his clothes an jumped in! He was totally unprepared for what happened next. Before he had time to enjoy the pool of water, he was seized by a vicious attack of cramps. He began calling for help while fighting a losing battle with the cramps to stay afloat. Luckily, it happened that in a nearby field a farm boy was working. When he heard the frantic cries for help, he brought the English boy to safety. The father whose son had been rescued was of course very grateful. The next day, he went to meet the youth who have saved his son's life. As the two talked, the Englishman asked the brave lad what he planned to do with his future. The boy answered, 'Oh I suppose I'll be a farmer like my father.' The grateful father said, 'Is there something else you'd rather do?' 'Oh yes!' answered the Scottish lad. 'I've always wanted to be a doctor. But we are poor people and could never afford to pay for my education.' 'Never mind that,' said the Englishman. 'You shall have your heart's desire and study medicine. Make your plans, and I'll take care of the costs.' So, the Scottish lad did indeed become a doctor. There is more! Some years later, in December of 1943, Winston Churchill became very ill with pneumonia while in North Africa. Word was sent to Sir Alexander Fleming, who had discovered the new wonder drug, penicillin, to come immediately. Flying in from England, Dr. Fleming administered his new drug to the ailing prime minister. In the 1880s, a renowned member of the British parliament was in his carriage when it got stuck in the mud. A young farm boy saw his predicament and came over and put the carriage back on the road. The parliament member was surprised and asked, 'Young man, what do I owe you for this?' 'Nothing,' said the young man. 'I consider a privilege to help.' The man paid for the little boy's medical school training. This boy would later save Winston Churchill's life with penicillin when Churchill lay dying in a hospital during World War II's most critical hour. The man's name was Lord Randolph Churchill, Winston Churchill's father. So, Alexander Fleming's father saved a young Winston Churchill from drowning in a bog. Or young Alexander Fleming himself saved a young Winston Churchill from drowning in a swimming hole. Or young Alexander Fleming helped Winston Churchill's father get his carriage out of the mud and back onto the road. Well, whatever: we've got two fathers and two sons: one of the four helped one of the other three, and one of the remaining two paid for somebody's education. Or something like that. It's a good story, so let's not weigh it down with a bunch of pesky details. The facts of none of these versions jibe with what we know of these people's lives. No Churchill biography we've found mentions young Winston's chance encounter with a Fleming, father or son. Alexander Fleming was born in a remote, rural part of Scotland and lived on an 800-acre farm that was a mile from the nearest house - not the sort of place where a vacationing Winston would have been likely to wander, or to be discovered by anyone if he had. As well, Winston was seven years older than Alexander, so young Alexander would probably have been too small to physically rescue the older and larger Winston from drowning. But we don't have to speculate about those matters to disprove the tale. Alexander Fleming did not leave the farm to rush off to medical school to become the doctor he had supposedly always longed to be. In fact, young Alec (as he was then known) departed for London when he was 14, where his older brother Tom had studied medicine and opened a practice. Alec attended the Polytechnic School in Regent Street; after graduating, he entered the business world at the urging of his brother, worked as a clerk for a shipping firm for a few years, then joined a Scottish regiment when the Boer War broke out. It was not until after all of this that Alec decided to try his hand at medical school, and even then it was the encouragement of his older brother that was the deciding factor, not a lifelong yearning on Alec's part to become a doctor. Additionally, Alec's medical school education was financed with a £250 inheritance from a recently-deceased uncle, not an endowment from a grateful Randolph Churchill. Nor is the other end of this tale true. Winston Churchill did come down with a sore throat and a high fever while in Tunis (on the way home from his December 1943 meeting with Franklin Roosevelt and Josef Stalin in Tehran), and the diagnosis of the medical team called in from Cairo by his personal physician (Charles Wilson, later Lord Moran) was pneumonia. According to Wilson's biography, Churchill was treated with sulphonamide (an antimicrobial, but one unrelated to penicillin) and digitalis (for his heart) and sent to bed to rest. By the time a specialist, Professor John Scadding, was flown in from London, Churchill was already well on his way to recovery. In short, Alexander Fleming was neither present nor consulted when Churchill was diagnosed with pneumonia, nor was penicillin used to treat the British prime minister. According to the Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge, Churchill publicly denied the Fleming story in 1946. This bit of netsam aside, Alexander Fleming's life has already been the subject of considerable mythologizing. His discovery of penicillin was not the instant boon to medicine that we now assume it was. In fact, Fleming himself did not realize the significance of his findings: thinking he had developed a mere antiseptic that was too slow-acting and too difficult to produce in large quantities, Fleming failed to test his penicillin thoroughly, wrote a tepidly-received paper about it, and moved on to other work. There ended his real involvement with the 'greatest medical advance of the 20th (or any other) century.' In 1935, two specialists, Howard Florey, head of Oxford's William Dunn School of Pathology, and Ernst Chain, a Cambridge biochemistry PhD, took up where Fleming's paper left off and spent several years at the arduous laboratory work of refining and testing penicillin to produce the world's first effective antibiotic. Fleming visited the two men at the Dunn School after they published their first paper on penicillin in 1940 (by which time Chain thought Fleming was dead) and didn't reappear on the scene until after penicillin had proved itself invaluable during World War II. The press lauded the newly-emerged Fleming as the lone genius responsible for the miracle of penicillin, and he was awarded numerous honors, including a knighthood and the 1945 Nobel Prize for medicine. (The Nobel Prize committee, at least, was on the ball and named Florey and Chain as co-recipients of the honor.) | In short, Alexander Fleming was neither present nor consulted when Churchill was diagnosed with pneumonia, nor was penicillin used to treat the British prime minister. According to the Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge, Churchill publicly denied the Fleming story in 1946. This bit of netsam aside, Alexander Fleming's life has already been the subject of considerable mythologizing. His discovery of penicillin was not the instant boon to medicine that we now assume it was. In fact, Fleming himself did not realize the significance of his findings: thinking he had developed a mere antiseptic that was too slow-acting and too difficult to produce in large quantities, Fleming failed to test his penicillin thoroughly, wrote a tepidly-received paper about it, and moved on to other work. There ended his real involvement with the 'greatest medical advance of the 20th (or any other) century.' In 1935, two specialists, Howard Florey, head of Oxford's William Dunn School of Pathology, and Ernst Chain, a Cambridge biochemistry PhD, took up where Fleming's paper left off and spent several years at the arduous laboratory work of refining and testing penicillin to produce the world's first effective antibiotic. Fleming visited the two men at the Dunn School after they published their first paper on penicillin in 1940 (by which time Chain thought Fleming was dead) and didn't reappear on the scene until after penicillin had proved itself invaluable during World War II. The press lauded the newly-emerged Fleming as the lone genius responsible for the miracle of penicillin, and he was awarded numerous honors, including a knighthood and the 1945 Nobel Prize for medicine. (The Nobel Prize committee, at least, was on the ball and named Florey and Chain as co-recipients of the honor.) | [] |
You can microwave an ear of corn to make popcorn. | Contradiction | In February 2016, a video that purported to show it to be possible to make popcorn from an ear of corn inexplicably became a social media sensation, although versions of the video had been appearing online for several years: Another video came by way of Sun Gazing, which based a post from a single YouTube video: Who knew you could take a farm-fresh ear of corn and generate your own homemade popcorn?! I literally could not believe my eyes and EARS as I listened to the popping going on in this man's microwave. He explains and illustrates how to do it, with a really soothing 'Mr. Rogers' tone in his voice. All you need is lunch-sized brown paper bags and a fresh ear of corn ... I'm trying this fresh popcorn snack while corn on the cob is still available. Let us know if you think you will try this healthy alternative, to store-bought popcorn. The man in the video clarified that the ear of corn used was specifically popcorn (not sweetcorn, which produces a different kind of kernel): Many newer versions of the claim credited a BuzzFeed video, but we were unable to locate the clip, although we did find a multi-part 'microwave hacks' video. The 'DIY Popcorn' segment demonstrated using a brown bag and popcorn kernels (not fresh corn) to make a homemade bag of microwaved popcorn: We also found several failed attempts to pop corn on the cob. A 30 November 2015 Reddit thread involved one such endeavor: In that thread's comments, the user explained which mitigating factors possibly led to their failure to succeed in popping the corn: i tried for 7 mins, it overcooked the corn, so yay silly me i tried for 15 mins with corn covered with butter in a microwave save box. Off course i didnt realise that super heated corn would melt thru it! RIP one nuker soaked with toxic smoke, i have since bought a new nuker! There's a good reason so few people have reported success in popping popcorn from an ear of corn. The kernels are different, with a harder outer shell. It's also prepared for popping in a different way, according to Modern Farmer: [T]assels on sweet corn and field corn stand upright at attention. But popcorn plants are noticeably different - they have floppier tassels ... popcorn typically pops after being dried; the heated kernels retain a modicum of moisture that turns to steam, expanding corn into the pop zone. In an undated 'Good Things' segment, lifestyle guru Martha Stewart demonstrated to viewers how to pop corn from dried ears of popcorn. Stewart didn't delve into the difference between dried popcorn and ears of sweetcorn in the brief clip, and a single comment on the video read: We followed exactly what Martha said in the video, but after about 1min 40sec, the bag caught fire and our microwave started zapping. The popped corn acted as kindling to the flames and we literally had to drown our microwave with a bucket of water. Please use caution when using this recipe. While it remains possible to pop corn on a cob, it has to be popping corn. Standard field corn (or sweetcorn) cannot not be buttered and popped in the same way. Many 'dinner hack' clips you see don't make the distinction between popping corn and normal corn, so consider this: corn on the cob is regularly cooked in the microwave by people heating their dinner with no resulting accidental popcorn. However, if you try to make popped corn on the cob and use the wrong type of corn, you risk setting something on fire, or worse. In short, don't attempt to pop corn on the cob unless you've purchased popcorn specifically sold for that purpose. | In short, don't attempt to pop corn on the cob unless you've purchased popcorn specifically sold for that purpose. | [] |
You can microwave an ear of corn to make popcorn. | Contradiction | In February 2016, a video that purported to show it to be possible to make popcorn from an ear of corn inexplicably became a social media sensation, although versions of the video had been appearing online for several years: Another video came by way of Sun Gazing, which based a post from a single YouTube video: Who knew you could take a farm-fresh ear of corn and generate your own homemade popcorn?! I literally could not believe my eyes and EARS as I listened to the popping going on in this man's microwave. He explains and illustrates how to do it, with a really soothing 'Mr. Rogers' tone in his voice. All you need is lunch-sized brown paper bags and a fresh ear of corn ... I'm trying this fresh popcorn snack while corn on the cob is still available. Let us know if you think you will try this healthy alternative, to store-bought popcorn. The man in the video clarified that the ear of corn used was specifically popcorn (not sweetcorn, which produces a different kind of kernel): Many newer versions of the claim credited a BuzzFeed video, but we were unable to locate the clip, although we did find a multi-part 'microwave hacks' video. The 'DIY Popcorn' segment demonstrated using a brown bag and popcorn kernels (not fresh corn) to make a homemade bag of microwaved popcorn: We also found several failed attempts to pop corn on the cob. A 30 November 2015 Reddit thread involved one such endeavor: In that thread's comments, the user explained which mitigating factors possibly led to their failure to succeed in popping the corn: i tried for 7 mins, it overcooked the corn, so yay silly me i tried for 15 mins with corn covered with butter in a microwave save box. Off course i didnt realise that super heated corn would melt thru it! RIP one nuker soaked with toxic smoke, i have since bought a new nuker! There's a good reason so few people have reported success in popping popcorn from an ear of corn. The kernels are different, with a harder outer shell. It's also prepared for popping in a different way, according to Modern Farmer: [T]assels on sweet corn and field corn stand upright at attention. But popcorn plants are noticeably different - they have floppier tassels ... popcorn typically pops after being dried; the heated kernels retain a modicum of moisture that turns to steam, expanding corn into the pop zone. In an undated 'Good Things' segment, lifestyle guru Martha Stewart demonstrated to viewers how to pop corn from dried ears of popcorn. Stewart didn't delve into the difference between dried popcorn and ears of sweetcorn in the brief clip, and a single comment on the video read: We followed exactly what Martha said in the video, but after about 1min 40sec, the bag caught fire and our microwave started zapping. The popped corn acted as kindling to the flames and we literally had to drown our microwave with a bucket of water. Please use caution when using this recipe. While it remains possible to pop corn on a cob, it has to be popping corn. Standard field corn (or sweetcorn) cannot not be buttered and popped in the same way. Many 'dinner hack' clips you see don't make the distinction between popping corn and normal corn, so consider this: corn on the cob is regularly cooked in the microwave by people heating their dinner with no resulting accidental popcorn. However, if you try to make popped corn on the cob and use the wrong type of corn, you risk setting something on fire, or worse. In short, don't attempt to pop corn on the cob unless you've purchased popcorn specifically sold for that purpose. | In short, don't attempt to pop corn on the cob unless you've purchased popcorn specifically sold for that purpose. | [] |
You can microwave an ear of corn to make popcorn. | Contradiction | In February 2016, a video that purported to show it to be possible to make popcorn from an ear of corn inexplicably became a social media sensation, although versions of the video had been appearing online for several years: Another video came by way of Sun Gazing, which based a post from a single YouTube video: Who knew you could take a farm-fresh ear of corn and generate your own homemade popcorn?! I literally could not believe my eyes and EARS as I listened to the popping going on in this man's microwave. He explains and illustrates how to do it, with a really soothing 'Mr. Rogers' tone in his voice. All you need is lunch-sized brown paper bags and a fresh ear of corn ... I'm trying this fresh popcorn snack while corn on the cob is still available. Let us know if you think you will try this healthy alternative, to store-bought popcorn. The man in the video clarified that the ear of corn used was specifically popcorn (not sweetcorn, which produces a different kind of kernel): Many newer versions of the claim credited a BuzzFeed video, but we were unable to locate the clip, although we did find a multi-part 'microwave hacks' video. The 'DIY Popcorn' segment demonstrated using a brown bag and popcorn kernels (not fresh corn) to make a homemade bag of microwaved popcorn: We also found several failed attempts to pop corn on the cob. A 30 November 2015 Reddit thread involved one such endeavor: In that thread's comments, the user explained which mitigating factors possibly led to their failure to succeed in popping the corn: i tried for 7 mins, it overcooked the corn, so yay silly me i tried for 15 mins with corn covered with butter in a microwave save box. Off course i didnt realise that super heated corn would melt thru it! RIP one nuker soaked with toxic smoke, i have since bought a new nuker! There's a good reason so few people have reported success in popping popcorn from an ear of corn. The kernels are different, with a harder outer shell. It's also prepared for popping in a different way, according to Modern Farmer: [T]assels on sweet corn and field corn stand upright at attention. But popcorn plants are noticeably different - they have floppier tassels ... popcorn typically pops after being dried; the heated kernels retain a modicum of moisture that turns to steam, expanding corn into the pop zone. In an undated 'Good Things' segment, lifestyle guru Martha Stewart demonstrated to viewers how to pop corn from dried ears of popcorn. Stewart didn't delve into the difference between dried popcorn and ears of sweetcorn in the brief clip, and a single comment on the video read: We followed exactly what Martha said in the video, but after about 1min 40sec, the bag caught fire and our microwave started zapping. The popped corn acted as kindling to the flames and we literally had to drown our microwave with a bucket of water. Please use caution when using this recipe. While it remains possible to pop corn on a cob, it has to be popping corn. Standard field corn (or sweetcorn) cannot not be buttered and popped in the same way. Many 'dinner hack' clips you see don't make the distinction between popping corn and normal corn, so consider this: corn on the cob is regularly cooked in the microwave by people heating their dinner with no resulting accidental popcorn. However, if you try to make popped corn on the cob and use the wrong type of corn, you risk setting something on fire, or worse. In short, don't attempt to pop corn on the cob unless you've purchased popcorn specifically sold for that purpose. | In short, don't attempt to pop corn on the cob unless you've purchased popcorn specifically sold for that purpose. | [] |
You can microwave an ear of corn to make popcorn. | Contradiction | In February 2016, a video that purported to show it to be possible to make popcorn from an ear of corn inexplicably became a social media sensation, although versions of the video had been appearing online for several years: Another video came by way of Sun Gazing, which based a post from a single YouTube video: Who knew you could take a farm-fresh ear of corn and generate your own homemade popcorn?! I literally could not believe my eyes and EARS as I listened to the popping going on in this man's microwave. He explains and illustrates how to do it, with a really soothing 'Mr. Rogers' tone in his voice. All you need is lunch-sized brown paper bags and a fresh ear of corn ... I'm trying this fresh popcorn snack while corn on the cob is still available. Let us know if you think you will try this healthy alternative, to store-bought popcorn. The man in the video clarified that the ear of corn used was specifically popcorn (not sweetcorn, which produces a different kind of kernel): Many newer versions of the claim credited a BuzzFeed video, but we were unable to locate the clip, although we did find a multi-part 'microwave hacks' video. The 'DIY Popcorn' segment demonstrated using a brown bag and popcorn kernels (not fresh corn) to make a homemade bag of microwaved popcorn: We also found several failed attempts to pop corn on the cob. A 30 November 2015 Reddit thread involved one such endeavor: In that thread's comments, the user explained which mitigating factors possibly led to their failure to succeed in popping the corn: i tried for 7 mins, it overcooked the corn, so yay silly me i tried for 15 mins with corn covered with butter in a microwave save box. Off course i didnt realise that super heated corn would melt thru it! RIP one nuker soaked with toxic smoke, i have since bought a new nuker! There's a good reason so few people have reported success in popping popcorn from an ear of corn. The kernels are different, with a harder outer shell. It's also prepared for popping in a different way, according to Modern Farmer: [T]assels on sweet corn and field corn stand upright at attention. But popcorn plants are noticeably different - they have floppier tassels ... popcorn typically pops after being dried; the heated kernels retain a modicum of moisture that turns to steam, expanding corn into the pop zone. In an undated 'Good Things' segment, lifestyle guru Martha Stewart demonstrated to viewers how to pop corn from dried ears of popcorn. Stewart didn't delve into the difference between dried popcorn and ears of sweetcorn in the brief clip, and a single comment on the video read: We followed exactly what Martha said in the video, but after about 1min 40sec, the bag caught fire and our microwave started zapping. The popped corn acted as kindling to the flames and we literally had to drown our microwave with a bucket of water. Please use caution when using this recipe. While it remains possible to pop corn on a cob, it has to be popping corn. Standard field corn (or sweetcorn) cannot not be buttered and popped in the same way. Many 'dinner hack' clips you see don't make the distinction between popping corn and normal corn, so consider this: corn on the cob is regularly cooked in the microwave by people heating their dinner with no resulting accidental popcorn. However, if you try to make popped corn on the cob and use the wrong type of corn, you risk setting something on fire, or worse. In short, don't attempt to pop corn on the cob unless you've purchased popcorn specifically sold for that purpose. | In short, don't attempt to pop corn on the cob unless you've purchased popcorn specifically sold for that purpose. | [] |
U.S. President Donald Trump's June 20, 2020, election rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, during the coronavirus pandemic could be connected to two days of 100% positive COVID-19 tests reported in the state more than a week later. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. As U.S. President Donald Trump faced political fallout from his June 20, 2020, rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, many speculated about the health consequences of the large gathering due to the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. One such speculation took place on MSNBC's 'All in With Chris Hayes' program, where on June 29, the anchor addressed a spike in COVID-19 cases in the state. Though Hayes emphasized there was no way to confirm cause and effect, his analysis led to an incorrect theory that the rally resulted in two days of 100% positive COVID-19 tests a week later. In a later segment, Hayes clarified that the data he presented was incomplete. We will address this claim starting with the initial misreport, followed by a look at the actual data, and then the clarification. On June 29, Hayes reported that positive COVID-19 test rates in Oklahoma had skyrocketed. He said: And it comes less than 10 days after that infamous Tulsa, Oklahoma, rally where even with the arena far from full, you still had thousands of people gathered in an indoor space cheering and screaming in a city that had just seen a spike in cases and in violation of every single recommendation for safety ... And while we never know cause and effect exactly, particularly in the moment, it's hard to figure out what the exact impact of that rally looks ... Look at this: yesterday in Oklahoma, they tested 352 people for the coronavirus, and every single test came back positive. Today they tested another 178 people, and all those tests came back positive, too. If you can't do the math in your head, that's a 100% positive rate. According to data the show cited from The COVID Tracking Project on those dates, there did appear to be a 100% COVID-19 positive testing rate. On June 28 and 29 respectively, the data showed 352 and 178 tests were conducted and reported positive (see table below). This was in stark contrast to June 30 numbers that showed more than 15,000 tests had been conducted, and the number of negative cases had risen. However, Hayes' language led to misinterpretation. PoliticusUSA, a news organization, reported Trump's rally 'may have [had] an impact on the spread of coronavirus in the state.' Numerous tweets linked the two events together more directly. Over the past two days 100% percent of coronavirus tests in Oklahoma - where Trump staged his tiny rally - came back positive. - Amy Berg (@bergopolis) June 30, 2020 But the reality was not so simple. We found some lags in the government's reporting after looking at the Oklahoma health department's daily executive order reports, which provide updated cumulative COVID-19 data for the state, and speaking with Paul Monies, a reporter with Oklahoma Watch, a non-profit investigative journalism outlet. Those lags generally mean that percentages pinned to any specific day can be problematic. Each government report - only issued on weekdays - shares data from midnight of the previous day, so the Monday report would conceivably share new information from Sunday, in addition to cumulative data. Monies suggested that many labs with COVID-19 tests were closed on weekends, or worked limited hours, so complete numbers of COVID-19 tests would be released during the regular work week in government reports. Indeed, each report indicates with an asterisk which labs were closed on weekends. The COVID Tracking Project's reporting showed that on some weekends, negative specimens' numbers remained unchanged. For example, the government did not release reports for July 3, 4, and 5 during the Fourth of July break, so The COVID Tracking Project reflected the negative specimens' data from the July 2 report for those three days, a cumulative total of 348,789. The same lag happened on June 27, 28, and 29, where the number of negative specimens remained unchanged in reports (313,021), and The COVID Tracking Project reflected data from the government's June 26 report. In other words, reporting delays impacted both the data reported by the government and the data that The COVID Tracking Project pulled from the government. We also noticed that the state reported large batches of negative tests on Tuesday mornings. For this reason, looking at positive percentage rates on specific days was not useful, Dillon Richards, an Oklahoma City reporter with KOCO News, told us. On July 1, Hayes issued a correction: ... those numbers I cited on Monday did not provide a clear or complete picture because they were not the final numbers for Oklahoma's weekend testing. I have a cardinal rule that I violated there, that if a statistic sounds too wild to be true, it probably is ... PoliticusUSA also subsequently corrected its report. Hayes told Snopes: ... our reporting of what the state had published *was correct* ( I was so incredulous I actually checked it manually myself!) but it was a byproduct of a bad reporting system that is lumpy and misleading. All of that said, Trump's June 20 rally did violate numerous health recommendations from experts, took place when COVID-19 cases were rising in the state, and may have resulted in some positive cases. But no one has traced the increased number of cases to that one event. Oklahoma is also one of the unhealthiest states in the country, a potential factor in rising numbers. In sum, even though the rally may have increased risk for attendees, its connection to rising COVID cases is difficult to prove. The 100% positive test rate was also misreported, and Hayes issued a clarification. We therefore rate this claim as 'False.' | In sum, even though the rally may have increased risk for attendees, its connection to rising COVID cases is difficult to prove. The 100% positive test rate was also misreported, and Hayes issued a clarification. We therefore rate this claim as 'False.' | [
"08083-proof-08-GettyImages-12215332271-1.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Donald Trump's June 20, 2020, election rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, during the coronavirus pandemic could be connected to two days of 100% positive COVID-19 tests reported in the state more than a week later. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. As U.S. President Donald Trump faced political fallout from his June 20, 2020, rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, many speculated about the health consequences of the large gathering due to the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. One such speculation took place on MSNBC's 'All in With Chris Hayes' program, where on June 29, the anchor addressed a spike in COVID-19 cases in the state. Though Hayes emphasized there was no way to confirm cause and effect, his analysis led to an incorrect theory that the rally resulted in two days of 100% positive COVID-19 tests a week later. In a later segment, Hayes clarified that the data he presented was incomplete. We will address this claim starting with the initial misreport, followed by a look at the actual data, and then the clarification. On June 29, Hayes reported that positive COVID-19 test rates in Oklahoma had skyrocketed. He said: And it comes less than 10 days after that infamous Tulsa, Oklahoma, rally where even with the arena far from full, you still had thousands of people gathered in an indoor space cheering and screaming in a city that had just seen a spike in cases and in violation of every single recommendation for safety ... And while we never know cause and effect exactly, particularly in the moment, it's hard to figure out what the exact impact of that rally looks ... Look at this: yesterday in Oklahoma, they tested 352 people for the coronavirus, and every single test came back positive. Today they tested another 178 people, and all those tests came back positive, too. If you can't do the math in your head, that's a 100% positive rate. According to data the show cited from The COVID Tracking Project on those dates, there did appear to be a 100% COVID-19 positive testing rate. On June 28 and 29 respectively, the data showed 352 and 178 tests were conducted and reported positive (see table below). This was in stark contrast to June 30 numbers that showed more than 15,000 tests had been conducted, and the number of negative cases had risen. However, Hayes' language led to misinterpretation. PoliticusUSA, a news organization, reported Trump's rally 'may have [had] an impact on the spread of coronavirus in the state.' Numerous tweets linked the two events together more directly. Over the past two days 100% percent of coronavirus tests in Oklahoma - where Trump staged his tiny rally - came back positive. - Amy Berg (@bergopolis) June 30, 2020 But the reality was not so simple. We found some lags in the government's reporting after looking at the Oklahoma health department's daily executive order reports, which provide updated cumulative COVID-19 data for the state, and speaking with Paul Monies, a reporter with Oklahoma Watch, a non-profit investigative journalism outlet. Those lags generally mean that percentages pinned to any specific day can be problematic. Each government report - only issued on weekdays - shares data from midnight of the previous day, so the Monday report would conceivably share new information from Sunday, in addition to cumulative data. Monies suggested that many labs with COVID-19 tests were closed on weekends, or worked limited hours, so complete numbers of COVID-19 tests would be released during the regular work week in government reports. Indeed, each report indicates with an asterisk which labs were closed on weekends. The COVID Tracking Project's reporting showed that on some weekends, negative specimens' numbers remained unchanged. For example, the government did not release reports for July 3, 4, and 5 during the Fourth of July break, so The COVID Tracking Project reflected the negative specimens' data from the July 2 report for those three days, a cumulative total of 348,789. The same lag happened on June 27, 28, and 29, where the number of negative specimens remained unchanged in reports (313,021), and The COVID Tracking Project reflected data from the government's June 26 report. In other words, reporting delays impacted both the data reported by the government and the data that The COVID Tracking Project pulled from the government. We also noticed that the state reported large batches of negative tests on Tuesday mornings. For this reason, looking at positive percentage rates on specific days was not useful, Dillon Richards, an Oklahoma City reporter with KOCO News, told us. On July 1, Hayes issued a correction: ... those numbers I cited on Monday did not provide a clear or complete picture because they were not the final numbers for Oklahoma's weekend testing. I have a cardinal rule that I violated there, that if a statistic sounds too wild to be true, it probably is ... PoliticusUSA also subsequently corrected its report. Hayes told Snopes: ... our reporting of what the state had published *was correct* ( I was so incredulous I actually checked it manually myself!) but it was a byproduct of a bad reporting system that is lumpy and misleading. All of that said, Trump's June 20 rally did violate numerous health recommendations from experts, took place when COVID-19 cases were rising in the state, and may have resulted in some positive cases. But no one has traced the increased number of cases to that one event. Oklahoma is also one of the unhealthiest states in the country, a potential factor in rising numbers. In sum, even though the rally may have increased risk for attendees, its connection to rising COVID cases is difficult to prove. The 100% positive test rate was also misreported, and Hayes issued a clarification. We therefore rate this claim as 'False.' | In sum, even though the rally may have increased risk for attendees, its connection to rising COVID cases is difficult to prove. The 100% positive test rate was also misreported, and Hayes issued a clarification. We therefore rate this claim as 'False.' | [
"08083-proof-08-GettyImages-12215332271-1.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Donald Trump's June 20, 2020, election rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, during the coronavirus pandemic could be connected to two days of 100% positive COVID-19 tests reported in the state more than a week later. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. As U.S. President Donald Trump faced political fallout from his June 20, 2020, rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, many speculated about the health consequences of the large gathering due to the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. One such speculation took place on MSNBC's 'All in With Chris Hayes' program, where on June 29, the anchor addressed a spike in COVID-19 cases in the state. Though Hayes emphasized there was no way to confirm cause and effect, his analysis led to an incorrect theory that the rally resulted in two days of 100% positive COVID-19 tests a week later. In a later segment, Hayes clarified that the data he presented was incomplete. We will address this claim starting with the initial misreport, followed by a look at the actual data, and then the clarification. On June 29, Hayes reported that positive COVID-19 test rates in Oklahoma had skyrocketed. He said: And it comes less than 10 days after that infamous Tulsa, Oklahoma, rally where even with the arena far from full, you still had thousands of people gathered in an indoor space cheering and screaming in a city that had just seen a spike in cases and in violation of every single recommendation for safety ... And while we never know cause and effect exactly, particularly in the moment, it's hard to figure out what the exact impact of that rally looks ... Look at this: yesterday in Oklahoma, they tested 352 people for the coronavirus, and every single test came back positive. Today they tested another 178 people, and all those tests came back positive, too. If you can't do the math in your head, that's a 100% positive rate. According to data the show cited from The COVID Tracking Project on those dates, there did appear to be a 100% COVID-19 positive testing rate. On June 28 and 29 respectively, the data showed 352 and 178 tests were conducted and reported positive (see table below). This was in stark contrast to June 30 numbers that showed more than 15,000 tests had been conducted, and the number of negative cases had risen. However, Hayes' language led to misinterpretation. PoliticusUSA, a news organization, reported Trump's rally 'may have [had] an impact on the spread of coronavirus in the state.' Numerous tweets linked the two events together more directly. Over the past two days 100% percent of coronavirus tests in Oklahoma - where Trump staged his tiny rally - came back positive. - Amy Berg (@bergopolis) June 30, 2020 But the reality was not so simple. We found some lags in the government's reporting after looking at the Oklahoma health department's daily executive order reports, which provide updated cumulative COVID-19 data for the state, and speaking with Paul Monies, a reporter with Oklahoma Watch, a non-profit investigative journalism outlet. Those lags generally mean that percentages pinned to any specific day can be problematic. Each government report - only issued on weekdays - shares data from midnight of the previous day, so the Monday report would conceivably share new information from Sunday, in addition to cumulative data. Monies suggested that many labs with COVID-19 tests were closed on weekends, or worked limited hours, so complete numbers of COVID-19 tests would be released during the regular work week in government reports. Indeed, each report indicates with an asterisk which labs were closed on weekends. The COVID Tracking Project's reporting showed that on some weekends, negative specimens' numbers remained unchanged. For example, the government did not release reports for July 3, 4, and 5 during the Fourth of July break, so The COVID Tracking Project reflected the negative specimens' data from the July 2 report for those three days, a cumulative total of 348,789. The same lag happened on June 27, 28, and 29, where the number of negative specimens remained unchanged in reports (313,021), and The COVID Tracking Project reflected data from the government's June 26 report. In other words, reporting delays impacted both the data reported by the government and the data that The COVID Tracking Project pulled from the government. We also noticed that the state reported large batches of negative tests on Tuesday mornings. For this reason, looking at positive percentage rates on specific days was not useful, Dillon Richards, an Oklahoma City reporter with KOCO News, told us. On July 1, Hayes issued a correction: ... those numbers I cited on Monday did not provide a clear or complete picture because they were not the final numbers for Oklahoma's weekend testing. I have a cardinal rule that I violated there, that if a statistic sounds too wild to be true, it probably is ... PoliticusUSA also subsequently corrected its report. Hayes told Snopes: ... our reporting of what the state had published *was correct* ( I was so incredulous I actually checked it manually myself!) but it was a byproduct of a bad reporting system that is lumpy and misleading. All of that said, Trump's June 20 rally did violate numerous health recommendations from experts, took place when COVID-19 cases were rising in the state, and may have resulted in some positive cases. But no one has traced the increased number of cases to that one event. Oklahoma is also one of the unhealthiest states in the country, a potential factor in rising numbers. In sum, even though the rally may have increased risk for attendees, its connection to rising COVID cases is difficult to prove. The 100% positive test rate was also misreported, and Hayes issued a clarification. We therefore rate this claim as 'False.' | In sum, even though the rally may have increased risk for attendees, its connection to rising COVID cases is difficult to prove. The 100% positive test rate was also misreported, and Hayes issued a clarification. We therefore rate this claim as 'False.' | [
"08083-proof-08-GettyImages-12215332271-1.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Donald Trump's June 20, 2020, election rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, during the coronavirus pandemic could be connected to two days of 100% positive COVID-19 tests reported in the state more than a week later. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. As U.S. President Donald Trump faced political fallout from his June 20, 2020, rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, many speculated about the health consequences of the large gathering due to the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. One such speculation took place on MSNBC's 'All in With Chris Hayes' program, where on June 29, the anchor addressed a spike in COVID-19 cases in the state. Though Hayes emphasized there was no way to confirm cause and effect, his analysis led to an incorrect theory that the rally resulted in two days of 100% positive COVID-19 tests a week later. In a later segment, Hayes clarified that the data he presented was incomplete. We will address this claim starting with the initial misreport, followed by a look at the actual data, and then the clarification. On June 29, Hayes reported that positive COVID-19 test rates in Oklahoma had skyrocketed. He said: And it comes less than 10 days after that infamous Tulsa, Oklahoma, rally where even with the arena far from full, you still had thousands of people gathered in an indoor space cheering and screaming in a city that had just seen a spike in cases and in violation of every single recommendation for safety ... And while we never know cause and effect exactly, particularly in the moment, it's hard to figure out what the exact impact of that rally looks ... Look at this: yesterday in Oklahoma, they tested 352 people for the coronavirus, and every single test came back positive. Today they tested another 178 people, and all those tests came back positive, too. If you can't do the math in your head, that's a 100% positive rate. According to data the show cited from The COVID Tracking Project on those dates, there did appear to be a 100% COVID-19 positive testing rate. On June 28 and 29 respectively, the data showed 352 and 178 tests were conducted and reported positive (see table below). This was in stark contrast to June 30 numbers that showed more than 15,000 tests had been conducted, and the number of negative cases had risen. However, Hayes' language led to misinterpretation. PoliticusUSA, a news organization, reported Trump's rally 'may have [had] an impact on the spread of coronavirus in the state.' Numerous tweets linked the two events together more directly. Over the past two days 100% percent of coronavirus tests in Oklahoma - where Trump staged his tiny rally - came back positive. - Amy Berg (@bergopolis) June 30, 2020 But the reality was not so simple. We found some lags in the government's reporting after looking at the Oklahoma health department's daily executive order reports, which provide updated cumulative COVID-19 data for the state, and speaking with Paul Monies, a reporter with Oklahoma Watch, a non-profit investigative journalism outlet. Those lags generally mean that percentages pinned to any specific day can be problematic. Each government report - only issued on weekdays - shares data from midnight of the previous day, so the Monday report would conceivably share new information from Sunday, in addition to cumulative data. Monies suggested that many labs with COVID-19 tests were closed on weekends, or worked limited hours, so complete numbers of COVID-19 tests would be released during the regular work week in government reports. Indeed, each report indicates with an asterisk which labs were closed on weekends. The COVID Tracking Project's reporting showed that on some weekends, negative specimens' numbers remained unchanged. For example, the government did not release reports for July 3, 4, and 5 during the Fourth of July break, so The COVID Tracking Project reflected the negative specimens' data from the July 2 report for those three days, a cumulative total of 348,789. The same lag happened on June 27, 28, and 29, where the number of negative specimens remained unchanged in reports (313,021), and The COVID Tracking Project reflected data from the government's June 26 report. In other words, reporting delays impacted both the data reported by the government and the data that The COVID Tracking Project pulled from the government. We also noticed that the state reported large batches of negative tests on Tuesday mornings. For this reason, looking at positive percentage rates on specific days was not useful, Dillon Richards, an Oklahoma City reporter with KOCO News, told us. On July 1, Hayes issued a correction: ... those numbers I cited on Monday did not provide a clear or complete picture because they were not the final numbers for Oklahoma's weekend testing. I have a cardinal rule that I violated there, that if a statistic sounds too wild to be true, it probably is ... PoliticusUSA also subsequently corrected its report. Hayes told Snopes: ... our reporting of what the state had published *was correct* ( I was so incredulous I actually checked it manually myself!) but it was a byproduct of a bad reporting system that is lumpy and misleading. All of that said, Trump's June 20 rally did violate numerous health recommendations from experts, took place when COVID-19 cases were rising in the state, and may have resulted in some positive cases. But no one has traced the increased number of cases to that one event. Oklahoma is also one of the unhealthiest states in the country, a potential factor in rising numbers. In sum, even though the rally may have increased risk for attendees, its connection to rising COVID cases is difficult to prove. The 100% positive test rate was also misreported, and Hayes issued a clarification. We therefore rate this claim as 'False.' | In sum, even though the rally may have increased risk for attendees, its connection to rising COVID cases is difficult to prove. The 100% positive test rate was also misreported, and Hayes issued a clarification. We therefore rate this claim as 'False.' | [
"08083-proof-08-GettyImages-12215332271-1.jpg"
] |
A video shows police officers attempting to arrest an FBI agent during the George Floyd protests in 2020. | Contradiction | Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. As protests erupted across the United States in May 2020 after the death of an unarmed black man named George Floyd while in the custody of Minneapolis police officers, the internet was flooded with videos and photographs showing the sometimes chaotic scene. While much of this media gave genuine glimpses of these protests, a number of miscaptioned pieces of footage also made their way into the mix. The following video, for instance, was viewed millions of times as it circulated along with the claim that it showed two officers in Minnesota attempting to arrest a black man only to find out that he was an FBI agent: The moment when they realised they just attempted to arrest an FBI agent... 🙂 pic.twitter.com/fuGla4f0IA - 👑 King Kong Tunde (@iamwytunes) June 1, 2020 This video, however, does not show the attempted arrest of an FBI agent. On the contrary, this video reportedly shows a police 'encounter with [a] black male' in Rochester, Minnesota, and is unrelated to the protests in 2020. This video was originally posted to Instagram by @thisisnike1 on May 31: View this post on Instagram A post shared by Nike (@thisisnike1) on May 30, 2020 at 3:04pm PDT Its timing coincided with the Floyd protests, but the original post included a caption explaining that this incident had been filmed 'over a year' ago and that it involved the Rochester Minnesota Police Department. The original caption made no mention of the person in this video being an FBI agent. A version posted to YouTube by this account identified the person simply as a 'black male': Somethin' been telling me to hold on to this video over a year now, ok. 'Some days we make it home or some days we make it 6 feet deep.' Imagine getting killed at home, while jogging, playing, minding your own business or just damn breathing #BeingBlackInWhiteAmerica!! This incident happened a year ago. The Minnesota police department been corrupt. Can't even smoke a damn cigarette in peace. Soon after this video was posted, it was re-captioned and shared along with the claim that it showed the attempted arrest of an FBI agent. It's unclear where this rumor originated. The above-displayed video makes no mention of this person being an FBI agent and when his wallet is pulled out by the police officer it does not show an FBI badge. This rumor may have started with @thisisnike1, the account that originally posted the video. A screenshot supposedly showing a deleted tweet shows a message from @thisisnike1 reading '[he is an] FBI agent.' This appears to have been a joke, however, as this account has retweeted a number of people explaining that this person was not actually an FBI agent: In sum, this video was originally shared with a caption stating that this incident took place over a year earlier (i.e., in 2019, not 2020) and that it featured an encounter between police and an unidentified black male. There's nothing in the video or the original caption indicating that this person was an FBI agent. We reached out to @thisisnike1 and will update this article if more information becomes available. | In sum, this video was originally shared with a caption stating that this incident took place over a year earlier (i.e., in 2019, not 2020) and that it featured an encounter between police and an unidentified black male. There's nothing in the video or the original caption indicating that this person was an FBI agent. We reached out to @thisisnike1 and will update this article if more information becomes available. | [
"08169-proof-07-not-an-fbi-agent.jpg"
] |
A video shows police officers attempting to arrest an FBI agent during the George Floyd protests in 2020. | Contradiction | Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. As protests erupted across the United States in May 2020 after the death of an unarmed black man named George Floyd while in the custody of Minneapolis police officers, the internet was flooded with videos and photographs showing the sometimes chaotic scene. While much of this media gave genuine glimpses of these protests, a number of miscaptioned pieces of footage also made their way into the mix. The following video, for instance, was viewed millions of times as it circulated along with the claim that it showed two officers in Minnesota attempting to arrest a black man only to find out that he was an FBI agent: The moment when they realised they just attempted to arrest an FBI agent... 🙂 pic.twitter.com/fuGla4f0IA - 👑 King Kong Tunde (@iamwytunes) June 1, 2020 This video, however, does not show the attempted arrest of an FBI agent. On the contrary, this video reportedly shows a police 'encounter with [a] black male' in Rochester, Minnesota, and is unrelated to the protests in 2020. This video was originally posted to Instagram by @thisisnike1 on May 31: View this post on Instagram A post shared by Nike (@thisisnike1) on May 30, 2020 at 3:04pm PDT Its timing coincided with the Floyd protests, but the original post included a caption explaining that this incident had been filmed 'over a year' ago and that it involved the Rochester Minnesota Police Department. The original caption made no mention of the person in this video being an FBI agent. A version posted to YouTube by this account identified the person simply as a 'black male': Somethin' been telling me to hold on to this video over a year now, ok. 'Some days we make it home or some days we make it 6 feet deep.' Imagine getting killed at home, while jogging, playing, minding your own business or just damn breathing #BeingBlackInWhiteAmerica!! This incident happened a year ago. The Minnesota police department been corrupt. Can't even smoke a damn cigarette in peace. Soon after this video was posted, it was re-captioned and shared along with the claim that it showed the attempted arrest of an FBI agent. It's unclear where this rumor originated. The above-displayed video makes no mention of this person being an FBI agent and when his wallet is pulled out by the police officer it does not show an FBI badge. This rumor may have started with @thisisnike1, the account that originally posted the video. A screenshot supposedly showing a deleted tweet shows a message from @thisisnike1 reading '[he is an] FBI agent.' This appears to have been a joke, however, as this account has retweeted a number of people explaining that this person was not actually an FBI agent: In sum, this video was originally shared with a caption stating that this incident took place over a year earlier (i.e., in 2019, not 2020) and that it featured an encounter between police and an unidentified black male. There's nothing in the video or the original caption indicating that this person was an FBI agent. We reached out to @thisisnike1 and will update this article if more information becomes available. | In sum, this video was originally shared with a caption stating that this incident took place over a year earlier (i.e., in 2019, not 2020) and that it featured an encounter between police and an unidentified black male. There's nothing in the video or the original caption indicating that this person was an FBI agent. We reached out to @thisisnike1 and will update this article if more information becomes available. | [
"08169-proof-07-not-an-fbi-agent.jpg"
] |
A video shows police officers attempting to arrest an FBI agent during the George Floyd protests in 2020. | Contradiction | Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. As protests erupted across the United States in May 2020 after the death of an unarmed black man named George Floyd while in the custody of Minneapolis police officers, the internet was flooded with videos and photographs showing the sometimes chaotic scene. While much of this media gave genuine glimpses of these protests, a number of miscaptioned pieces of footage also made their way into the mix. The following video, for instance, was viewed millions of times as it circulated along with the claim that it showed two officers in Minnesota attempting to arrest a black man only to find out that he was an FBI agent: The moment when they realised they just attempted to arrest an FBI agent... 🙂 pic.twitter.com/fuGla4f0IA - 👑 King Kong Tunde (@iamwytunes) June 1, 2020 This video, however, does not show the attempted arrest of an FBI agent. On the contrary, this video reportedly shows a police 'encounter with [a] black male' in Rochester, Minnesota, and is unrelated to the protests in 2020. This video was originally posted to Instagram by @thisisnike1 on May 31: View this post on Instagram A post shared by Nike (@thisisnike1) on May 30, 2020 at 3:04pm PDT Its timing coincided with the Floyd protests, but the original post included a caption explaining that this incident had been filmed 'over a year' ago and that it involved the Rochester Minnesota Police Department. The original caption made no mention of the person in this video being an FBI agent. A version posted to YouTube by this account identified the person simply as a 'black male': Somethin' been telling me to hold on to this video over a year now, ok. 'Some days we make it home or some days we make it 6 feet deep.' Imagine getting killed at home, while jogging, playing, minding your own business or just damn breathing #BeingBlackInWhiteAmerica!! This incident happened a year ago. The Minnesota police department been corrupt. Can't even smoke a damn cigarette in peace. Soon after this video was posted, it was re-captioned and shared along with the claim that it showed the attempted arrest of an FBI agent. It's unclear where this rumor originated. The above-displayed video makes no mention of this person being an FBI agent and when his wallet is pulled out by the police officer it does not show an FBI badge. This rumor may have started with @thisisnike1, the account that originally posted the video. A screenshot supposedly showing a deleted tweet shows a message from @thisisnike1 reading '[he is an] FBI agent.' This appears to have been a joke, however, as this account has retweeted a number of people explaining that this person was not actually an FBI agent: In sum, this video was originally shared with a caption stating that this incident took place over a year earlier (i.e., in 2019, not 2020) and that it featured an encounter between police and an unidentified black male. There's nothing in the video or the original caption indicating that this person was an FBI agent. We reached out to @thisisnike1 and will update this article if more information becomes available. | In sum, this video was originally shared with a caption stating that this incident took place over a year earlier (i.e., in 2019, not 2020) and that it featured an encounter between police and an unidentified black male. There's nothing in the video or the original caption indicating that this person was an FBI agent. We reached out to @thisisnike1 and will update this article if more information becomes available. | [
"08169-proof-07-not-an-fbi-agent.jpg"
] |
On June 25, 2020, at a campaign event in Pennsylvania, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden incorrectly said 120 million people had died of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease. | Contradiction | Former Vice President and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has often put his foot in his mouth. But conservatives and others in the media exaggerated a recent slip-up to a whole new level as the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic continued to take its toll in the summer of 2020. Snopes readers asked us to verify if Biden had actually said that 120 million people had died from the disease (a wildly inaccurate figure). We learned that he did, but also that he immediately corrected the error. The gaffe occurred on June 25, 2020, at a campaign event in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. His statement was picked up by conservatives like Fox News host Sean Hannity, President Donald Trump, and official Republican accounts that tweeted only the portion of his remarks where he made the gaffe. Joe '30330' Biden: 'We Have Over 120 Million Dead from COVID' pic.twitter.com/3VJm1htpcr - Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) June 25, 2020 Hannity's tweeted clip, for instance, conveyed a truncated version of the truth. The media pool video cut off right when Biden appeared to catch himself erroneously saying, 'Now we have over 120 million dead from COVID.' A reporter for The Daily Beast shared in a pool report that the camera was ushered out of the courtyard during that part of the conversation, and was thus unable to broadcast the remainder of his comments. However, Mediaite obtained audio of Biden's remarks after the video was cut off: Now we have over 120 million dead from COVID, I mean, 120,000 dead from COVID. And you have so many - now we're past 2 million - I mean, and we're talking about it like it's over. I mean, it's over. My god. We should note that Biden did not specify if he was talking about COVID-19 deaths in the United States per se, though we assume he was, because the number '120,000' he referenced tied closely to U.S. data. On June 26, the day after Biden's remarks, the Johns Hopkins' tracker reported 124,424 deaths in the U.S. As of June 29, data from Hopkins showed the number of deaths rose to more than 125,000. In sum, because Biden did indeed mistakenly say 120 million people had died from COVID-19, but corrected the number to 120,000 right after he misspoke, we rule this claim about his gaffe is 'Mostly False.' | In sum, because Biden did indeed mistakenly say 120 million people had died from COVID-19, but corrected the number to 120,000 right after he misspoke, we rule this claim about his gaffe is 'Mostly False.' | [
"08276-proof-09-joe_biden.jpg"
] |
On June 25, 2020, at a campaign event in Pennsylvania, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden incorrectly said 120 million people had died of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease. | Contradiction | Former Vice President and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has often put his foot in his mouth. But conservatives and others in the media exaggerated a recent slip-up to a whole new level as the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic continued to take its toll in the summer of 2020. Snopes readers asked us to verify if Biden had actually said that 120 million people had died from the disease (a wildly inaccurate figure). We learned that he did, but also that he immediately corrected the error. The gaffe occurred on June 25, 2020, at a campaign event in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. His statement was picked up by conservatives like Fox News host Sean Hannity, President Donald Trump, and official Republican accounts that tweeted only the portion of his remarks where he made the gaffe. Joe '30330' Biden: 'We Have Over 120 Million Dead from COVID' pic.twitter.com/3VJm1htpcr - Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) June 25, 2020 Hannity's tweeted clip, for instance, conveyed a truncated version of the truth. The media pool video cut off right when Biden appeared to catch himself erroneously saying, 'Now we have over 120 million dead from COVID.' A reporter for The Daily Beast shared in a pool report that the camera was ushered out of the courtyard during that part of the conversation, and was thus unable to broadcast the remainder of his comments. However, Mediaite obtained audio of Biden's remarks after the video was cut off: Now we have over 120 million dead from COVID, I mean, 120,000 dead from COVID. And you have so many - now we're past 2 million - I mean, and we're talking about it like it's over. I mean, it's over. My god. We should note that Biden did not specify if he was talking about COVID-19 deaths in the United States per se, though we assume he was, because the number '120,000' he referenced tied closely to U.S. data. On June 26, the day after Biden's remarks, the Johns Hopkins' tracker reported 124,424 deaths in the U.S. As of June 29, data from Hopkins showed the number of deaths rose to more than 125,000. In sum, because Biden did indeed mistakenly say 120 million people had died from COVID-19, but corrected the number to 120,000 right after he misspoke, we rule this claim about his gaffe is 'Mostly False.' | In sum, because Biden did indeed mistakenly say 120 million people had died from COVID-19, but corrected the number to 120,000 right after he misspoke, we rule this claim about his gaffe is 'Mostly False.' | [
"08276-proof-09-joe_biden.jpg"
] |
Hillary Clinton vowed that she would shut down the NRA and ban handguns if she were elected President. | Contradiction | On 25 October 2015, a Tumblr page dedicated to dubious Hillary Clinton quotes posted an image of the Democratic presidential candidate along with a quote supposedly uttered by her during an interview with the Des Moines Register on 8 August 2015 about her vowing to shut down the NRA and ban handguns if she were elected President: The 'Shocking Hillary Clinton Quotes ...' Tumblr page claims that all of their quotes are 100% sourced and even provides links to make it appear as if the quotes have been verified: Get to know the psychopath known as Hillary Clinton a little better. These are 100% sourced and verified quotes. We recommend you SHARE and SPREAD these far and wide, to friends and family. But the link included with the above-displayed meme didn't lead to a page containing Clinton's purported quote; it just pointed to the Des Moines Register's main page. Additionally, a search of the Des Moines Register's archives yielded no results for the phrase in question (on 8 August 2015 or any other date). Hillary Clinton did campaign in Iowa in the summer and fall of 2015, and she was interviewed by the Des Moines Register more than once during that period. But she wasn't in Iowa on 8 August 2015, she wasn't interviewed by the Register on that date, nor was she quoted in the Register on that date. On 14 July 2015, the Register quoted Clinton on the subject of guns as follows: 'I'm going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better than that,' she said. 'A majority of Americans and a majority of gun owners agree with universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and people who are mentally unstable and even terrorists.' On 26 August 2015, the Register quoted Clinton on the subject of guns as follows: In answering questions about the murder of a TV reporter and cameraman in Virginia, Clinton said she was deeply saddened, but added that their deaths need to spark action to restrict access to handguns. 'We've got to do something,' she said. 'It's a very difficult political issue. But we are smart enough, compassionate enough to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights concerns with preventive measures and control measures, so whatever motivated this murderer ... we will not see more needless, senseless deaths.' And on 6 October 2015, the Register quoted Clinton on the subject of guns as follows: Most Americans, including most gun owners, would support reasonable limits on guns to help stop massacres like the one in Oregon, Hillary Clinton told Iowans. 'I'm tired of people in public life saying, 'Our thoughts and prayers are with families whose children are murdered at community colleges or elementary schools or people killed at Bible studies or going to the movies,'' the Democratic presidential candidate said. 'We can't tolerate that. This doesn't just happen ... We let it happen.' Her audience at Davenport's RiverCenter applauded as Clinton vowed to make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to obtain them. Among other things, she favors broader background checks, including sales at gun shows, and stronger measures to prevent gun purchases by domestic abusers or people with serious mental health problems. 'We keep getting stymied because of the lobby for a very small minority of gun owners and the gun manufacturers, which stand in the way,' she said. Clinton has spoken throughout the campaign about her intention to implement tighter gun rules, despite pressure from the National Rifle Association. This week, she released specifics of her proposals. 'I feel like this is unfinished business in our country, and I am very determined that we are going to try to bring some sanity back, so that people's Second Amendment rights are protected - but they are not absolute, the way the NRA wants them to be. There are common-sense ways to make sure people are not using guns to commit mass murders.' In short, Hillary Clinton spoke of wanting to implement broader, universal background checks for gun purchasers to keep firearms away from domestic abusers and people with serious mental health problems, but not of shutting down the NRA or banning handguns entirely. 'I will get the NRA shut down if I become president. If we can ban handguns we will do it.' is a completely fabricated quote that was not spoken by Hillary Clinton (or anyone else) and did not appear in the Des Moines Register (or any other source) on 8 August 2015 (or any other date). | In short, Hillary Clinton spoke of wanting to implement broader, universal background checks for gun purchasers to keep firearms away from domestic abusers and people with serious mental health problems, but not of shutting down the NRA or banning handguns entirely. 'I will get the NRA shut down if I become president. If we can ban handguns we will do it.' is a completely fabricated quote that was not spoken by Hillary Clinton (or anyone else) and did not appear in the Des Moines Register (or any other source) on 8 August 2015 (or any other date). | [
"08337-proof-01-clinton-quote.jpg",
"08337-proof-03-clinton-quote.jpg"
] |
Hillary Clinton vowed that she would shut down the NRA and ban handguns if she were elected President. | Contradiction | On 25 October 2015, a Tumblr page dedicated to dubious Hillary Clinton quotes posted an image of the Democratic presidential candidate along with a quote supposedly uttered by her during an interview with the Des Moines Register on 8 August 2015 about her vowing to shut down the NRA and ban handguns if she were elected President: The 'Shocking Hillary Clinton Quotes ...' Tumblr page claims that all of their quotes are 100% sourced and even provides links to make it appear as if the quotes have been verified: Get to know the psychopath known as Hillary Clinton a little better. These are 100% sourced and verified quotes. We recommend you SHARE and SPREAD these far and wide, to friends and family. But the link included with the above-displayed meme didn't lead to a page containing Clinton's purported quote; it just pointed to the Des Moines Register's main page. Additionally, a search of the Des Moines Register's archives yielded no results for the phrase in question (on 8 August 2015 or any other date). Hillary Clinton did campaign in Iowa in the summer and fall of 2015, and she was interviewed by the Des Moines Register more than once during that period. But she wasn't in Iowa on 8 August 2015, she wasn't interviewed by the Register on that date, nor was she quoted in the Register on that date. On 14 July 2015, the Register quoted Clinton on the subject of guns as follows: 'I'm going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better than that,' she said. 'A majority of Americans and a majority of gun owners agree with universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and people who are mentally unstable and even terrorists.' On 26 August 2015, the Register quoted Clinton on the subject of guns as follows: In answering questions about the murder of a TV reporter and cameraman in Virginia, Clinton said she was deeply saddened, but added that their deaths need to spark action to restrict access to handguns. 'We've got to do something,' she said. 'It's a very difficult political issue. But we are smart enough, compassionate enough to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights concerns with preventive measures and control measures, so whatever motivated this murderer ... we will not see more needless, senseless deaths.' And on 6 October 2015, the Register quoted Clinton on the subject of guns as follows: Most Americans, including most gun owners, would support reasonable limits on guns to help stop massacres like the one in Oregon, Hillary Clinton told Iowans. 'I'm tired of people in public life saying, 'Our thoughts and prayers are with families whose children are murdered at community colleges or elementary schools or people killed at Bible studies or going to the movies,'' the Democratic presidential candidate said. 'We can't tolerate that. This doesn't just happen ... We let it happen.' Her audience at Davenport's RiverCenter applauded as Clinton vowed to make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to obtain them. Among other things, she favors broader background checks, including sales at gun shows, and stronger measures to prevent gun purchases by domestic abusers or people with serious mental health problems. 'We keep getting stymied because of the lobby for a very small minority of gun owners and the gun manufacturers, which stand in the way,' she said. Clinton has spoken throughout the campaign about her intention to implement tighter gun rules, despite pressure from the National Rifle Association. This week, she released specifics of her proposals. 'I feel like this is unfinished business in our country, and I am very determined that we are going to try to bring some sanity back, so that people's Second Amendment rights are protected - but they are not absolute, the way the NRA wants them to be. There are common-sense ways to make sure people are not using guns to commit mass murders.' In short, Hillary Clinton spoke of wanting to implement broader, universal background checks for gun purchasers to keep firearms away from domestic abusers and people with serious mental health problems, but not of shutting down the NRA or banning handguns entirely. 'I will get the NRA shut down if I become president. If we can ban handguns we will do it.' is a completely fabricated quote that was not spoken by Hillary Clinton (or anyone else) and did not appear in the Des Moines Register (or any other source) on 8 August 2015 (or any other date). | In short, Hillary Clinton spoke of wanting to implement broader, universal background checks for gun purchasers to keep firearms away from domestic abusers and people with serious mental health problems, but not of shutting down the NRA or banning handguns entirely. 'I will get the NRA shut down if I become president. If we can ban handguns we will do it.' is a completely fabricated quote that was not spoken by Hillary Clinton (or anyone else) and did not appear in the Des Moines Register (or any other source) on 8 August 2015 (or any other date). | [
"08337-proof-01-clinton-quote.jpg",
"08337-proof-03-clinton-quote.jpg"
] |
Hillary Clinton vowed that she would shut down the NRA and ban handguns if she were elected President. | Contradiction | On 25 October 2015, a Tumblr page dedicated to dubious Hillary Clinton quotes posted an image of the Democratic presidential candidate along with a quote supposedly uttered by her during an interview with the Des Moines Register on 8 August 2015 about her vowing to shut down the NRA and ban handguns if she were elected President: The 'Shocking Hillary Clinton Quotes ...' Tumblr page claims that all of their quotes are 100% sourced and even provides links to make it appear as if the quotes have been verified: Get to know the psychopath known as Hillary Clinton a little better. These are 100% sourced and verified quotes. We recommend you SHARE and SPREAD these far and wide, to friends and family. But the link included with the above-displayed meme didn't lead to a page containing Clinton's purported quote; it just pointed to the Des Moines Register's main page. Additionally, a search of the Des Moines Register's archives yielded no results for the phrase in question (on 8 August 2015 or any other date). Hillary Clinton did campaign in Iowa in the summer and fall of 2015, and she was interviewed by the Des Moines Register more than once during that period. But she wasn't in Iowa on 8 August 2015, she wasn't interviewed by the Register on that date, nor was she quoted in the Register on that date. On 14 July 2015, the Register quoted Clinton on the subject of guns as follows: 'I'm going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better than that,' she said. 'A majority of Americans and a majority of gun owners agree with universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and people who are mentally unstable and even terrorists.' On 26 August 2015, the Register quoted Clinton on the subject of guns as follows: In answering questions about the murder of a TV reporter and cameraman in Virginia, Clinton said she was deeply saddened, but added that their deaths need to spark action to restrict access to handguns. 'We've got to do something,' she said. 'It's a very difficult political issue. But we are smart enough, compassionate enough to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights concerns with preventive measures and control measures, so whatever motivated this murderer ... we will not see more needless, senseless deaths.' And on 6 October 2015, the Register quoted Clinton on the subject of guns as follows: Most Americans, including most gun owners, would support reasonable limits on guns to help stop massacres like the one in Oregon, Hillary Clinton told Iowans. 'I'm tired of people in public life saying, 'Our thoughts and prayers are with families whose children are murdered at community colleges or elementary schools or people killed at Bible studies or going to the movies,'' the Democratic presidential candidate said. 'We can't tolerate that. This doesn't just happen ... We let it happen.' Her audience at Davenport's RiverCenter applauded as Clinton vowed to make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to obtain them. Among other things, she favors broader background checks, including sales at gun shows, and stronger measures to prevent gun purchases by domestic abusers or people with serious mental health problems. 'We keep getting stymied because of the lobby for a very small minority of gun owners and the gun manufacturers, which stand in the way,' she said. Clinton has spoken throughout the campaign about her intention to implement tighter gun rules, despite pressure from the National Rifle Association. This week, she released specifics of her proposals. 'I feel like this is unfinished business in our country, and I am very determined that we are going to try to bring some sanity back, so that people's Second Amendment rights are protected - but they are not absolute, the way the NRA wants them to be. There are common-sense ways to make sure people are not using guns to commit mass murders.' In short, Hillary Clinton spoke of wanting to implement broader, universal background checks for gun purchasers to keep firearms away from domestic abusers and people with serious mental health problems, but not of shutting down the NRA or banning handguns entirely. 'I will get the NRA shut down if I become president. If we can ban handguns we will do it.' is a completely fabricated quote that was not spoken by Hillary Clinton (or anyone else) and did not appear in the Des Moines Register (or any other source) on 8 August 2015 (or any other date). | In short, Hillary Clinton spoke of wanting to implement broader, universal background checks for gun purchasers to keep firearms away from domestic abusers and people with serious mental health problems, but not of shutting down the NRA or banning handguns entirely. 'I will get the NRA shut down if I become president. If we can ban handguns we will do it.' is a completely fabricated quote that was not spoken by Hillary Clinton (or anyone else) and did not appear in the Des Moines Register (or any other source) on 8 August 2015 (or any other date). | [
"08337-proof-01-clinton-quote.jpg",
"08337-proof-03-clinton-quote.jpg"
] |
Hillary Clinton vowed that she would shut down the NRA and ban handguns if she were elected President. | Contradiction | On 25 October 2015, a Tumblr page dedicated to dubious Hillary Clinton quotes posted an image of the Democratic presidential candidate along with a quote supposedly uttered by her during an interview with the Des Moines Register on 8 August 2015 about her vowing to shut down the NRA and ban handguns if she were elected President: The 'Shocking Hillary Clinton Quotes ...' Tumblr page claims that all of their quotes are 100% sourced and even provides links to make it appear as if the quotes have been verified: Get to know the psychopath known as Hillary Clinton a little better. These are 100% sourced and verified quotes. We recommend you SHARE and SPREAD these far and wide, to friends and family. But the link included with the above-displayed meme didn't lead to a page containing Clinton's purported quote; it just pointed to the Des Moines Register's main page. Additionally, a search of the Des Moines Register's archives yielded no results for the phrase in question (on 8 August 2015 or any other date). Hillary Clinton did campaign in Iowa in the summer and fall of 2015, and she was interviewed by the Des Moines Register more than once during that period. But she wasn't in Iowa on 8 August 2015, she wasn't interviewed by the Register on that date, nor was she quoted in the Register on that date. On 14 July 2015, the Register quoted Clinton on the subject of guns as follows: 'I'm going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better than that,' she said. 'A majority of Americans and a majority of gun owners agree with universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and people who are mentally unstable and even terrorists.' On 26 August 2015, the Register quoted Clinton on the subject of guns as follows: In answering questions about the murder of a TV reporter and cameraman in Virginia, Clinton said she was deeply saddened, but added that their deaths need to spark action to restrict access to handguns. 'We've got to do something,' she said. 'It's a very difficult political issue. But we are smart enough, compassionate enough to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights concerns with preventive measures and control measures, so whatever motivated this murderer ... we will not see more needless, senseless deaths.' And on 6 October 2015, the Register quoted Clinton on the subject of guns as follows: Most Americans, including most gun owners, would support reasonable limits on guns to help stop massacres like the one in Oregon, Hillary Clinton told Iowans. 'I'm tired of people in public life saying, 'Our thoughts and prayers are with families whose children are murdered at community colleges or elementary schools or people killed at Bible studies or going to the movies,'' the Democratic presidential candidate said. 'We can't tolerate that. This doesn't just happen ... We let it happen.' Her audience at Davenport's RiverCenter applauded as Clinton vowed to make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to obtain them. Among other things, she favors broader background checks, including sales at gun shows, and stronger measures to prevent gun purchases by domestic abusers or people with serious mental health problems. 'We keep getting stymied because of the lobby for a very small minority of gun owners and the gun manufacturers, which stand in the way,' she said. Clinton has spoken throughout the campaign about her intention to implement tighter gun rules, despite pressure from the National Rifle Association. This week, she released specifics of her proposals. 'I feel like this is unfinished business in our country, and I am very determined that we are going to try to bring some sanity back, so that people's Second Amendment rights are protected - but they are not absolute, the way the NRA wants them to be. There are common-sense ways to make sure people are not using guns to commit mass murders.' In short, Hillary Clinton spoke of wanting to implement broader, universal background checks for gun purchasers to keep firearms away from domestic abusers and people with serious mental health problems, but not of shutting down the NRA or banning handguns entirely. 'I will get the NRA shut down if I become president. If we can ban handguns we will do it.' is a completely fabricated quote that was not spoken by Hillary Clinton (or anyone else) and did not appear in the Des Moines Register (or any other source) on 8 August 2015 (or any other date). | In short, Hillary Clinton spoke of wanting to implement broader, universal background checks for gun purchasers to keep firearms away from domestic abusers and people with serious mental health problems, but not of shutting down the NRA or banning handguns entirely. 'I will get the NRA shut down if I become president. If we can ban handguns we will do it.' is a completely fabricated quote that was not spoken by Hillary Clinton (or anyone else) and did not appear in the Des Moines Register (or any other source) on 8 August 2015 (or any other date). | [
"08337-proof-01-clinton-quote.jpg",
"08337-proof-03-clinton-quote.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered the CIA to train and/or arm Islamic State fighters. | Contradiction | In October 2019, after the reported death of the Islamic State group (IS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, some apparent supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump turned their focus towards his predecessor's record with regard to the terrorist network. Right-wing conspiracy theorists have long claimed, implied, or speculated that former President Barack Obama has questionable loyalty to the United States, or that he is a secret Muslim and even a secret militant Islamist. Trump himself has repeatedly promulgated such false allegations, including the birther conspiracy theory, and during the 2016 presidential campaign he described Obama, more than once, as the 'founder' of IS. After the death of al-Baghdadi - who reportedly detonated a suicide vest during a U.S. raid on a compound in Syria - multiple social media users shared one article in particular: a 2015 post on NewsPunch, a website formerly known as YourNewsWire, which is known to publish junk news as well as sensationalist distortions of real news stories. The headline read 'Declassified Documents: Obama Ordered CIA to Train ISIS.' The article reported that: 'Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department. The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit revealed the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they should be 'supported' in order to isolate the Syrian regime. 'The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms [sic] suspicions that the United States and some of its coalition allies had actually facilitated the rise of the ISIS in Syria - as a counterweight to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad - but also that ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency at facilities in Jordan in 2012.' The NewsPunch article cited a few sources, including a 2015 article on the website Examiner.com, whose headline similarly claimed 'Obama Ordered CIA to Train ISIS Jihadists: Declassified Documents,' and a 2015 AlterVista blog post. The Examiner.com article stated: 'U.S. intelligence documents released to a government watchdog confirms [sic] the suspicions that the United States and some of its so-called coalition partners had actually facilitated the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as an effective adversary against the government of the Syrian dictator President Bashar al-Assad. In addition, ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) at facilities in Jordan in 2012. The original goal was to weaken the Syrian government which had engaged in war crimes against their own people, according to a number of reports on Sunday.' The Examiner.com report also cited as a source the same AlterVista post, which stated 'The ISIS terrorists, who were initially trained by the CIA in Jordan in 2012 to destabilize the Syrian government, are engaged in crimes against humanity in the areas under their control.' Notably, that post was in reality a republication of a May 2015 article published by Press TV, Iran's state-funded television network. The claim that the CIA, under orders from Obama, had set out to train IS in 2012, was not actually contained or revealed in declassified U.S. Department of Defense documents, contrary to both NewsPunch's and Examiner.com's characterization. The claim instead originated in a report by an Iranian state-funded broadcaster. Timber Sycamore Internal emails obtained by Judicial Watch through Freedom of Information Act requests included an August 2012 memo distributed to military, Defense, Homeland Security, FBI, and State Department officials, which gave a provisional outline of the circumstances surrounding, and participants involved in, the Syrian Civil War, as follows: 'The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria. The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition, while Russia, China and Iran support the [Assad] regime.' Of particular relevance, that memo also included the following 'assumptions' and predictions: 7. A. The [Assad] regime will survive and have control over Syrian territory. B. Development of the current events into proxy war: With support from Russia, China and Iran, the regime is controlling the areas of influence along coastal territories...and is fiercely defending Homs, which is considered the primary transportation route in Syria. On the other hand opposition forces are trying to control the Eastern areas...adjacent to the Western Iraqi provinces...in addition to neighboring Turkish provinces. Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts... [Emphasis added] The memo thus indicated that Western countries, including the United States, were at that time supportive of the opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. This was not a revelatory point in October 2019, nor in May 2015, when Judicial Watch published the internal documents, nor even in 2012, when the Obama administration openly and publicly declared its support for the rebels. The memo does not even mention U.S.-backed training of Syrian opposition forces, and certainly does not articulate a viewpoint that is pro-IS, or reflect a desire or intent, on the part of Obama himself or any part of his administration, to train, equip, bolster or facilitate IS. In fact, the very same memo, quoted so extensively in the articles mentioned above, actually cites the emergence of IS in Iraq as one of the potentially 'dire consequences' of the instability caused by the Syrian Civil War, stating: 8. D. The deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows: 1. This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI [Islamic State of Iraq, a precursor to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or IS] could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory. However, the United States did train and arm Syrian rebels, beginning in late 2012/early 2013. The program began as a covert CIA operation, but was later formalized and given the code name 'Timber Sycamore,' although it remained classified. Trump ordered the operation to be closed down in 2017, according to reports. During its years of operation, Timber Sycamore reportedly saw hundreds of millions of dollars spent, annually, on arming and training thousands of anti-government Syrian rebels. That's largely what happened, but according to multiple reports and investigations, some of the arms provided to the rebels were stolen or traded and ended up on the black market in Syria, with some ultimately being acquired by IS fighters. That was an unfortunate and inadvertent consequence of the program, rather than its aim. Indeed, far from intending the program to be used to train or arm IS fighters, the Obama administration actually set up a separate initiative, with Congressional approval, specifically to train and equip Syrian rebels to fight against IS. The program was not a success and was shut down in 2015. Conclusion Both NewsPunch and Examiner.com claimed that Obama had 'ordered the CIA to train ISIS.' That's not what happened. According to multiple reports by reputable news organizations, the CIA (under the Obama administration) carried out a covert program of training and arming Syrian rebels to fight against the Assad regime. That's largely what the program achieved, too; but as a result of greed and corruption, some of the weapons supplied to the rebels were sold on to the black market, and some of those ended up in the hands of IS fighters. One could conduct a reasonable debate about the Obama administration's overall management of the program, its efforts to vet the intermediaries involved, or prevent foreseeable theft or smuggling of the weapons, and so on. But one cannot, based on the facts available, claim that Obama 'ordered the CIA to train IS.' He didn't. Moreover, we know for a fact that he implemented a program that set out to do just the opposite - training and equipping Syrian rebels to fight and destroy IS. | Conclusion Both NewsPunch and Examiner.com claimed that Obama had 'ordered the CIA to train ISIS.' That's not what happened. According to multiple reports by reputable news organizations, the CIA (under the Obama administration) carried out a covert program of training and arming Syrian rebels to fight against the Assad regime. That's largely what the program achieved, too; but as a result of greed and corruption, some of the weapons supplied to the rebels were sold on to the black market, and some of those ended up in the hands of IS fighters. One could conduct a reasonable debate about the Obama administration's overall management of the program, its efforts to vet the intermediaries involved, or prevent foreseeable theft or smuggling of the weapons, and so on. But one cannot, based on the facts available, claim that Obama 'ordered the CIA to train IS.' He didn't. Moreover, we know for a fact that he implemented a program that set out to do just the opposite - training and equipping Syrian rebels to fight and destroy IS. | [
"08350-proof-10-GettyImages-540149010-e1572333222495.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Barack Obama ordered the CIA to train and/or arm Islamic State fighters. | Contradiction | In October 2019, after the reported death of the Islamic State group (IS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, some apparent supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump turned their focus towards his predecessor's record with regard to the terrorist network. Right-wing conspiracy theorists have long claimed, implied, or speculated that former President Barack Obama has questionable loyalty to the United States, or that he is a secret Muslim and even a secret militant Islamist. Trump himself has repeatedly promulgated such false allegations, including the birther conspiracy theory, and during the 2016 presidential campaign he described Obama, more than once, as the 'founder' of IS. After the death of al-Baghdadi - who reportedly detonated a suicide vest during a U.S. raid on a compound in Syria - multiple social media users shared one article in particular: a 2015 post on NewsPunch, a website formerly known as YourNewsWire, which is known to publish junk news as well as sensationalist distortions of real news stories. The headline read 'Declassified Documents: Obama Ordered CIA to Train ISIS.' The article reported that: 'Government watchdog Judicial Watch published more than 100 pages of formerly classified documents from the U.S. Department of Defense and the State Department. The documents obtained through a federal lawsuit revealed the agencies earlier views on ISIS, namely that they were a desirable presence in Eastern Syria in 2012 and that they should be 'supported' in order to isolate the Syrian regime. 'The U.S. intelligence documents not only confirms [sic] suspicions that the United States and some of its coalition allies had actually facilitated the rise of the ISIS in Syria - as a counterweight to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad - but also that ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency at facilities in Jordan in 2012.' The NewsPunch article cited a few sources, including a 2015 article on the website Examiner.com, whose headline similarly claimed 'Obama Ordered CIA to Train ISIS Jihadists: Declassified Documents,' and a 2015 AlterVista blog post. The Examiner.com article stated: 'U.S. intelligence documents released to a government watchdog confirms [sic] the suspicions that the United States and some of its so-called coalition partners had actually facilitated the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as an effective adversary against the government of the Syrian dictator President Bashar al-Assad. In addition, ISIS members were initially trained by members and contractors of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) at facilities in Jordan in 2012. The original goal was to weaken the Syrian government which had engaged in war crimes against their own people, according to a number of reports on Sunday.' The Examiner.com report also cited as a source the same AlterVista post, which stated 'The ISIS terrorists, who were initially trained by the CIA in Jordan in 2012 to destabilize the Syrian government, are engaged in crimes against humanity in the areas under their control.' Notably, that post was in reality a republication of a May 2015 article published by Press TV, Iran's state-funded television network. The claim that the CIA, under orders from Obama, had set out to train IS in 2012, was not actually contained or revealed in declassified U.S. Department of Defense documents, contrary to both NewsPunch's and Examiner.com's characterization. The claim instead originated in a report by an Iranian state-funded broadcaster. Timber Sycamore Internal emails obtained by Judicial Watch through Freedom of Information Act requests included an August 2012 memo distributed to military, Defense, Homeland Security, FBI, and State Department officials, which gave a provisional outline of the circumstances surrounding, and participants involved in, the Syrian Civil War, as follows: 'The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria. The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition, while Russia, China and Iran support the [Assad] regime.' Of particular relevance, that memo also included the following 'assumptions' and predictions: 7. A. The [Assad] regime will survive and have control over Syrian territory. B. Development of the current events into proxy war: With support from Russia, China and Iran, the regime is controlling the areas of influence along coastal territories...and is fiercely defending Homs, which is considered the primary transportation route in Syria. On the other hand opposition forces are trying to control the Eastern areas...adjacent to the Western Iraqi provinces...in addition to neighboring Turkish provinces. Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts... [Emphasis added] The memo thus indicated that Western countries, including the United States, were at that time supportive of the opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. This was not a revelatory point in October 2019, nor in May 2015, when Judicial Watch published the internal documents, nor even in 2012, when the Obama administration openly and publicly declared its support for the rebels. The memo does not even mention U.S.-backed training of Syrian opposition forces, and certainly does not articulate a viewpoint that is pro-IS, or reflect a desire or intent, on the part of Obama himself or any part of his administration, to train, equip, bolster or facilitate IS. In fact, the very same memo, quoted so extensively in the articles mentioned above, actually cites the emergence of IS in Iraq as one of the potentially 'dire consequences' of the instability caused by the Syrian Civil War, stating: 8. D. The deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows: 1. This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters. ISI [Islamic State of Iraq, a precursor to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or IS] could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory. However, the United States did train and arm Syrian rebels, beginning in late 2012/early 2013. The program began as a covert CIA operation, but was later formalized and given the code name 'Timber Sycamore,' although it remained classified. Trump ordered the operation to be closed down in 2017, according to reports. During its years of operation, Timber Sycamore reportedly saw hundreds of millions of dollars spent, annually, on arming and training thousands of anti-government Syrian rebels. That's largely what happened, but according to multiple reports and investigations, some of the arms provided to the rebels were stolen or traded and ended up on the black market in Syria, with some ultimately being acquired by IS fighters. That was an unfortunate and inadvertent consequence of the program, rather than its aim. Indeed, far from intending the program to be used to train or arm IS fighters, the Obama administration actually set up a separate initiative, with Congressional approval, specifically to train and equip Syrian rebels to fight against IS. The program was not a success and was shut down in 2015. Conclusion Both NewsPunch and Examiner.com claimed that Obama had 'ordered the CIA to train ISIS.' That's not what happened. According to multiple reports by reputable news organizations, the CIA (under the Obama administration) carried out a covert program of training and arming Syrian rebels to fight against the Assad regime. That's largely what the program achieved, too; but as a result of greed and corruption, some of the weapons supplied to the rebels were sold on to the black market, and some of those ended up in the hands of IS fighters. One could conduct a reasonable debate about the Obama administration's overall management of the program, its efforts to vet the intermediaries involved, or prevent foreseeable theft or smuggling of the weapons, and so on. But one cannot, based on the facts available, claim that Obama 'ordered the CIA to train IS.' He didn't. Moreover, we know for a fact that he implemented a program that set out to do just the opposite - training and equipping Syrian rebels to fight and destroy IS. | Conclusion Both NewsPunch and Examiner.com claimed that Obama had 'ordered the CIA to train ISIS.' That's not what happened. According to multiple reports by reputable news organizations, the CIA (under the Obama administration) carried out a covert program of training and arming Syrian rebels to fight against the Assad regime. That's largely what the program achieved, too; but as a result of greed and corruption, some of the weapons supplied to the rebels were sold on to the black market, and some of those ended up in the hands of IS fighters. One could conduct a reasonable debate about the Obama administration's overall management of the program, its efforts to vet the intermediaries involved, or prevent foreseeable theft or smuggling of the weapons, and so on. But one cannot, based on the facts available, claim that Obama 'ordered the CIA to train IS.' He didn't. Moreover, we know for a fact that he implemented a program that set out to do just the opposite - training and equipping Syrian rebels to fight and destroy IS. | [
"08350-proof-10-GettyImages-540149010-e1572333222495.jpg"
] |
As part of a federal lawsuit, U.S. President Donald Trump admitted criminal wrongdoing and said or argued to the effect that 'My crimes can't be investigated while I'm president. | Contradiction | In September 2019, we received multiple inquiries from readers about the veracity of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had admitted criminal wrongdoing and said, 'My crimes can't be investigated while I'm president,' or that he or his lawyers had made a legal argument to that effect. On Sept. 19, Vanity Fair published an article with the headline, 'Trump: My Crimes Can't Be Investigated While I'm President,' which went on to report that the president's attorneys had devised a 'novel' legal argument to prevent the involuntary release of their client's federal tax returns. Vanity Fair summarized that argument as being, 'It's illegal to investigate a sitting president for any crimes he may have committed.' The article continued: 'In a lawsuit filed today against Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who recently subpoenaed eight years of Trump's tax returns to determine if the Trump Organization falsified business records relating to Stormy Daniels payments, the president's lawyers claim such a request is unconstitutional because the founding fathers believed sitting presidents should not be subject to the criminal process. ''The framers of our Constitution understood that state and local prosecutors would be tempted to criminally investigate the president to advance their own careers and to advance their political agendas,' the suit reads. 'And they likewise understood that having to defend against these actions would distract the president from his constitutional duties.'' The Vanity Fair article did not quote Trump or any of his representatives or lawyers admitting any criminal action on his part, and it attributed the legal argument in question to the president's lawyers (not the president himself). The article also made clear that the statement, 'It's illegal to investigate a sitting president for any crimes he may have committed,' was the author's own summary of what Trump's attorneys had written, rather than a direct quotation from their court filings. Despite all that nuance, the article's headline had the effect of badly misleading those who did not carefully read the article itself. 'Trump: My Crimes Can't Be Investigated While I'm President' demonstrably created the false impression, among many readers, that Trump himself (as opposed to his lawyers) had said (rather than argued to the effect that), 'My crimes can't be investigated while I'm president,' and that in doing so, Trump or his lawyers had admitted wrongdoing on the part of the president. Trump did not say that nor did his lawyers. Nor did his lawyers even present an argument that could fairly be summarized in that way because, in making the argument they made, his lawyers did not admit any criminal actions on Trump's part. Unfortunately, the misleading nature of the article's headline was borne out in full. The Twitter account @stonecold2050 tweeted a link to the Vanity Fair article, adding, 'Trump says 'my crimes can't be investigated while I'm the president of the United States.' 'My Crimes,' What did he just say?' Trump says 'my crimes can't be investigated while I'm the president of the United States' 'My Crimes' What did he just say?#ImpeachTrump https://t.co/c3iQ86DThG - Stone 🥶 (@stonecold2050) September 20, 2019 That widely shared tweet was one of many social media posts that clearly demonstrated an understanding of the article's headline as meaning that Trump had himself explicitly admitted to having committed crimes. The left-leaning The Other 98% Facebook page further promulgated that false impression, borrowing from @stonecold2050's tweet: Comments posted on Vanity Fair's own Facebook page, and in response to its own tweeting of the article, clearly show that a considerable number of readers, without any editorial mediation, understood the headline to mean that Trump himself had admitted to criminal wrongdoing and said, 'My crimes can't be investigated while I'm president.' Analysis The passages quoted in the Vanity Fair article were taken from a civil complaint by Trump against New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance, filed on Sept. 19 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The key argument made by Trump's lawyers in that complaint was that Vance's efforts to obtain the president's tax returns, by issuing a subpoena to his accountants at Mazars, were an unconstitutional effort to advance a criminal investigation into a sitting president: 'Because the Mazars subpoena attempts to criminally investigate a sitting president, it is unconstitutional. This court should declare it invalid and enjoin its enforcement until the president is no longer in office.' To that extent, the Vanity Fair article was accurate in summarizing the argument as being, 'It's illegal to investigate a sitting president for any crimes he may have committed,' though it is worth stipulating that occupants of the White House can (and have been) investigated as part of federal civil lawsuits if those suits don't relate to their official actions as president. (For example, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal emerged from an investigation into Bill Clinton's personal life, stemming from a civil lawsuit brought against him by Paula Jones while Clinton was president.) Trump's attorneys are asking the District Court to declare the subpoena invalid and issue an injunction preventing the D.A.'s office from enforcing it and Mazars from complying with it. To that extent, Trump is also suing the accountancy firm. As of Sept. 23, Trump's legal team had filed a complaint, an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, a proposed order granting that motion, and a memorandum of law in support of that motion. Across those dozens of pages of legal argument, none of Trump's lawyers has once averred or admitted that their client has engaged in any criminal actions. Rather, they have argued that the U.S. Constitution forbids the D.A. from conducting a criminal investigation into Trump until he is no longer president, and that therefore the District Court must temporarily block the D.A.'s efforts to obtain Trump's personal federal tax returns by issuing a subpoena to his accountants. As such, the headline of Vanity Fair's article (as opposed to the article itself) was grossly misleading. Although it did not explicitly attribute a statement to Trump, the wording of the headline created that widespread false impression. Trump did not say, 'My crimes can't be investigated while I'm president,' nor did he make any similar statement in which he admitted having acted criminally, nor did his lawyers make an argument that involved an admission of criminal wrongdoing on the president's part. Subsequent social media posts that attributed 'My crimes can't be investigated while I'm president' to Trump, as a direct quotation, were downright false. | in summarizing the argument as being, 'It's illegal to investigate a sitting president for any crimes he may have committed,' though it is worth stipulating that occupants of the White House can (and have been) investigated as part of federal civil lawsuits if those suits don't relate to their official actions as president. (For example, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal emerged from an investigation into Bill Clinton's personal life, stemming from a civil lawsuit brought against him by Paula Jones while Clinton was president.) Trump's attorneys are asking the District Court to declare the subpoena invalid and issue an injunction preventing the D.A.'s office from enforcing it and Mazars from complying with it. To that extent, Trump is also suing the accountancy firm. As of Sept. 23, Trump's legal team had filed a complaint, an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, a proposed order granting that motion, and a memorandum of law in support of that motion. Across those dozens of pages of legal argument, none of Trump's lawyers has once averred or admitted that their client has engaged in any criminal actions. Rather, they have argued that the U.S. Constitution forbids the D.A. from conducting a criminal investigation into Trump until he is no longer president, and that therefore the District Court must temporarily block the D.A.'s efforts to obtain Trump's personal federal tax returns by issuing a subpoena to his accountants. As such, the headline of Vanity Fair's article (as opposed to the article itself) was grossly misleading. Although it did not explicitly attribute a statement to Trump, the wording of the headline created that widespread false impression. Trump did not say, 'My crimes can't be investigated while I'm president,' nor did he make any similar statement in which he admitted having acted criminally, nor did his lawyers make an argument that involved an admission of criminal wrongdoing on the president's part. Subsequent social media posts that attributed 'My crimes can't be investigated while I'm president' to Trump, as a direct quotation, were downright false. | [
"08355-proof-02-GettyImages-1170213818.jpg"
] |
In response to a question in a July 2020 CNN interview about what would happen if a COVID-19 outbreak occurred in schools, U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said, 'You can't plan for something that hasn't happened yet. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. Through the summer of 2020, the question of whether U.S. schools should reopen amidst the COVID-19 disease pandemic grew into a contentious political issue. School superintendents across the country were dismayed by President Donald Trump's push to reopen schools despite the health risks of doing so, and after Education Secretary Betsy DeVos gave an interview with CNN in July 2020 during which she reiterated the administration's goal, one statement attributed to her began making the internet rounds. Snopes readers asked us if DeVos actually said, 'You can't plan for something that hasn't happened yet,' in response to a question about what would happen if a school had a COVID-19 outbreak. The following image reproducing that alleged statement was widely shared on Facebook: The statement appeared to be a highly paraphrased version of what DeVos said during her July 12 interview with CNN's Dana Bash. We watched the 21-minute interview and found that Devos' response at roughly the 17:44 mark appears to be what was referenced in the meme. In answering Bash's questions, Devos often went in circles, hedged, or sidestepped providing direct responses. She did not use the exact words presented in the meme, and although she did say something similar, it was in a different context than that offered in the meme. During the interview, Bash persistently queried DeVos about what school districts should do in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak in the classroom, and a transcript of part of that exchange reads as follows: Bash: I am asking you ma'am, as Secretary of Education, if there is a flare-up [of COVID-19], should schools revert to remote learning? DeVos: I think the go-to needs to be kids in school, in person, in the classroom, because we know for most kids that's the best environment for them ... Bash: [interrupts] I understand that, but what if they can't? DeVos: What if they can't what? Bash: What if the school district feels that they can't safely go into the school because there is a flare-up in that district. Remote learning, are you okay with it in that situation? DeVos: If there is a short-term flare-up for a few days, that's a different situation than planning for an entire school year in anticipation of something that hasn't happened. That's a very different thing, kids have gotta be back in school ... As indicated by the bolded section, DeVos did not directly say that schools couldn't plan for a potential COVID-19 outbreak, but rather that planning for a long-term, school-year shutdown was 'different' than preparing for handling a brief flare-up of COVID-19 that might occur after schools had re-opened. We should note that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended that if a school found at least one confirmed COVID-19 case in the building, it should assess the risk, and regardless of the extent of community spread, shut down for potentially 2-5 days to clean and contact trace. In the case of substantial community spread, the CDC has recommended 'extended school dismissals.' Like many of DeVos' responses, this one did not offer a firm answer about what a school district could or should do in that situation. Rather, her language repeatedly sidestepped Bash's questioning in favor of returning to her main talking point about the necessity of reopening schools. In summary, the meme circulating on Facebook suggested a clear statement on DeVos' part that schools could not actually prepare for a COVID-19 outbreak that 'hasn't happened yet.' DeVos did not expressly say or suggest that, so we thus rate this claim 'Mostly False.' | In summary, the meme circulating on Facebook suggested a clear statement on DeVos' part that schools could not actually prepare for a COVID-19 outbreak that 'hasn't happened yet.' DeVos did not expressly say or suggest that, so we thus rate this claim 'Mostly False.' | [] |
Singer Celine Dion said that she can't even look at an American flag because she hates the country. | Contradiction | An image featuring two quotes purportedly uttered by singers Celine Dion and Loretta Lynn concerning their opposing views of the United States of America was circulated on social media in September 2017: 'I can't even look at an American flag any more, I hate this country.' Singer Celine Dion. 'You don't deserve to be American, You're not Patriot, Patriots love their country, Flag, President and People.' Singer Loretta Lynn. These quotes are as real as they are grammatically correct - which is to say, not at all. This rumor originated on a clickbait web site (with an apparent vendetta against Dion) called USADailyNewsPosts.com. The fake Dion quote originally appeared in a 1 September 2017 post that consisted solely of an image of the Canadian singer, the inaccurate quote, and a question: Over the next 7 days, USADailyNewsPosts.com concocted a make believe controversy involving flag burnings, talk show appearances, America-hating celebrities, and patriotic country singers. Loretta Lynn was the first to be dragged into this fictional foray when the web site published an post (again, consisting solely of an image and a fake quote) claiming that the country singer had criticized Dion for disrespecting the flag. With ideas in short supply, or possibly in an attempt to see if another singer would prove to be a more reliable source of traffic, the web site then placed this exact fictional phrase in the mouth of singer Cher: Lynn's (or Cher's) rebuttal to Dion's comment set off a series of imaginary events involving Katy Perry, Cyndi Lauper, Ellen Degeneres, Reba McEntire and President Trump. The following image contains a selection of articles from this fake news series (click to enlarge) and is accompanied by our attempt to summarize this bizarre fantasy: Summary: Celine Dion insults the American flag. Loretta Lynn (or Cher) calls her unpatriotic. This leads to Dion burning the American flag on stage. At this point the web site takes a poll to see if readers would support President Trump if he decided to deport Dion. This causes Katy Perry to voice her support of Dion, while the Canadian singer expresses remorse. It doesn't last long, however, as Dion goes onto the Ellen Degeneres show to burn another flag. Cyndi Lauper joins team flag burner and Reba McEntire joins the anti-Dions. The Canadian singer is again threatened with deportation, but instead of apologizing, Dion calls Donald Trump sexist. The last entry (at the time of this writing) showcases a fake quote from Cher in which she tells Dion to go back to Canada. Coincidentally, it is the same quote that Reba McEntire allegedly said a few articles prior. A feud of this magnitude would certainly warrant coverage by newspapers, or, at the very least, gossip magazines. Yet, we found no record of this invented controversy in any credible publication. All the quotes are fake and USADailyNewsPosts.com is not a credible source of information. | in short supply, or possibly in an attempt to see if another singer would prove to be a more reliable source of traffic, the web site then placed this exact fictional phrase in the mouth of singer Cher: Lynn's (or Cher's) rebuttal to Dion's comment set off a series of imaginary events involving Katy Perry, Cyndi Lauper, Ellen Degeneres, Reba McEntire and President Trump. The following image contains a selection of articles from this fake news series (click to enlarge) and is accompanied by our attempt to summarize this bizarre fantasy: Summary: Celine Dion insults the American flag. Loretta Lynn (or Cher) calls her unpatriotic. This leads to Dion burning the American flag on stage. At this point the web site takes a poll to see if readers would support President Trump if he decided to deport Dion. This causes Katy Perry to voice her support of Dion, while the Canadian singer expresses remorse. It doesn't last long, however, as Dion goes onto the Ellen Degeneres show to burn another flag. Cyndi Lauper joins team flag burner and Reba McEntire joins the anti-Dions. The Canadian singer is again threatened with deportation, but instead of apologizing, Dion calls Donald Trump sexist. The last entry (at the time of this writing) showcases a fake quote from Cher in which she tells Dion to go back to Canada. Coincidentally, it is the same quote that Reba McEntire allegedly said a few articles prior. A feud of this magnitude would certainly warrant coverage by newspapers, or, at the very least, gossip magazines. Yet, we found no record of this invented controversy in any credible publication. All the quotes are fake and USADailyNewsPosts.com is not a credible source of information. | [
"08386-proof-02-celine-dion-collage.jpg",
"08386-proof-08-celine_dion_loretta_lynn_quote_meme_fb.jpg",
"08386-proof-13-celine-dion.jpg"
] |
Singer Celine Dion said that she can't even look at an American flag because she hates the country. | Contradiction | An image featuring two quotes purportedly uttered by singers Celine Dion and Loretta Lynn concerning their opposing views of the United States of America was circulated on social media in September 2017: 'I can't even look at an American flag any more, I hate this country.' Singer Celine Dion. 'You don't deserve to be American, You're not Patriot, Patriots love their country, Flag, President and People.' Singer Loretta Lynn. These quotes are as real as they are grammatically correct - which is to say, not at all. This rumor originated on a clickbait web site (with an apparent vendetta against Dion) called USADailyNewsPosts.com. The fake Dion quote originally appeared in a 1 September 2017 post that consisted solely of an image of the Canadian singer, the inaccurate quote, and a question: Over the next 7 days, USADailyNewsPosts.com concocted a make believe controversy involving flag burnings, talk show appearances, America-hating celebrities, and patriotic country singers. Loretta Lynn was the first to be dragged into this fictional foray when the web site published an post (again, consisting solely of an image and a fake quote) claiming that the country singer had criticized Dion for disrespecting the flag. With ideas in short supply, or possibly in an attempt to see if another singer would prove to be a more reliable source of traffic, the web site then placed this exact fictional phrase in the mouth of singer Cher: Lynn's (or Cher's) rebuttal to Dion's comment set off a series of imaginary events involving Katy Perry, Cyndi Lauper, Ellen Degeneres, Reba McEntire and President Trump. The following image contains a selection of articles from this fake news series (click to enlarge) and is accompanied by our attempt to summarize this bizarre fantasy: Summary: Celine Dion insults the American flag. Loretta Lynn (or Cher) calls her unpatriotic. This leads to Dion burning the American flag on stage. At this point the web site takes a poll to see if readers would support President Trump if he decided to deport Dion. This causes Katy Perry to voice her support of Dion, while the Canadian singer expresses remorse. It doesn't last long, however, as Dion goes onto the Ellen Degeneres show to burn another flag. Cyndi Lauper joins team flag burner and Reba McEntire joins the anti-Dions. The Canadian singer is again threatened with deportation, but instead of apologizing, Dion calls Donald Trump sexist. The last entry (at the time of this writing) showcases a fake quote from Cher in which she tells Dion to go back to Canada. Coincidentally, it is the same quote that Reba McEntire allegedly said a few articles prior. A feud of this magnitude would certainly warrant coverage by newspapers, or, at the very least, gossip magazines. Yet, we found no record of this invented controversy in any credible publication. All the quotes are fake and USADailyNewsPosts.com is not a credible source of information. | in short supply, or possibly in an attempt to see if another singer would prove to be a more reliable source of traffic, the web site then placed this exact fictional phrase in the mouth of singer Cher: Lynn's (or Cher's) rebuttal to Dion's comment set off a series of imaginary events involving Katy Perry, Cyndi Lauper, Ellen Degeneres, Reba McEntire and President Trump. The following image contains a selection of articles from this fake news series (click to enlarge) and is accompanied by our attempt to summarize this bizarre fantasy: Summary: Celine Dion insults the American flag. Loretta Lynn (or Cher) calls her unpatriotic. This leads to Dion burning the American flag on stage. At this point the web site takes a poll to see if readers would support President Trump if he decided to deport Dion. This causes Katy Perry to voice her support of Dion, while the Canadian singer expresses remorse. It doesn't last long, however, as Dion goes onto the Ellen Degeneres show to burn another flag. Cyndi Lauper joins team flag burner and Reba McEntire joins the anti-Dions. The Canadian singer is again threatened with deportation, but instead of apologizing, Dion calls Donald Trump sexist. The last entry (at the time of this writing) showcases a fake quote from Cher in which she tells Dion to go back to Canada. Coincidentally, it is the same quote that Reba McEntire allegedly said a few articles prior. A feud of this magnitude would certainly warrant coverage by newspapers, or, at the very least, gossip magazines. Yet, we found no record of this invented controversy in any credible publication. All the quotes are fake and USADailyNewsPosts.com is not a credible source of information. | [
"08386-proof-02-celine-dion-collage.jpg",
"08386-proof-08-celine_dion_loretta_lynn_quote_meme_fb.jpg",
"08386-proof-13-celine-dion.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows a bride and groom during a 'Handmaid's Tale'-themed wedding. | Contradiction | In October 2019, a photograph supposedly showing a bride and groom surrounded by a group of 'Handmaid's Tale'-dressed bridesmaids in front of a 'Hanging Wall' went viral on social media, with many people expressing shock that someone would use the popular dystopian novel as a basis for a themed wedding: The picture stirred considerable controversy as it circulated online and left many people with questions. Before we get to the story behind this picture, let's get some basic facts out of the way: This photograph was taken at Cambridge Mill, a restaurant and wedding venue in Ontario, Canada, that is also used as part of the set for the Hulu television series 'The Handmaid's Tale.' This photograph was taken in front of the 'Hanging Wall' from the television show. The handmaids were digitally inserted into this image by wedding photographers. The actual wedding was not 'Handmaid's Tale'-themed. This photograph was originally posted to the social media pages of Van Daele & Russell Photography and shows a couple identified only as Kendra and Torsten. Many viewers expressed 'outrage' over the theme of 'The Handmaid's Tale,' a novel penned by Margaret Atwood in 1985 and later made into the Hulu show. The novel and show focus on a dystopian future in which fertile women, called handmaids, are subjected to brutal treatment and forced into child-bearing slavery. The hanging wall is a particular gruesome aspect of the show because it is where those who resist the rules of this new society are hanged. Photographer Shawn Van Daele said the bride and groom are big fans of the 'The Handmaid's Tale.' And, since their wedding was being held at the same venue that doubles as a set for the show, they wanted a photograph of them in front of the hanging wall. Van Daele told Peta Pixel that he digitally added the handmaids after the photo shoot: 'The couple as well as ourselves are HUGE fans of the TV show (and obviously, first, the book). Anyone who would put out an image like this without understanding what it implies has bigger problems than upset people on social media,' Shawn tells PetaPixel. 'I knew when creating the image that it would possibly upset people, but that's sort of the point...to wake people up.' 'The groom wanted photos on the 'hanging wall,' which is where we were taking their wedding photos; I joked about adding in some handmaids (since it seemed the natural thing to do since we were there ... I'm certain any 'creative' or photographer would have the exact same thoughts),' continues Shawn. 'We didn't expect the photo to go viral, but we are SOOO HAPPY IT HAS because hopefully it will wake people up to how they too contribute to the oppression and hatred that they're rightfully worked up over.' In sum, though this image will likely be the one most viewed from this couple's wedding, they didn't actually have a themed wedding based on the dystopian novel. The bride and groom are fans of the show and because the wedding was being held at Cambridge Mill, where part of the show is filmed, they decided to take at least one handmaid's-themed photograph. Peta Pixel reported: In the end, Shawn wants to remind people that this wasn't 'a 'Handmaid's Tale' themed wedding,' it was their wedding day. One photo in a series of thousands from their wedding day that was intended mostly as a keepsake for them. 'Everyone loves a good witch hunt ...' laments Shawn. 'Apparently today we are their witch.' | In sum, though this image will likely be the one most viewed from this couple's wedding, they didn't actually have a themed wedding based on the dystopian novel. The bride and groom are fans of the show and because the wedding was being held at Cambridge Mill, where part of the show is filmed, they decided to take at least one handmaid's-themed photograph. Peta Pixel reported: In the end, Shawn wants to remind people that this wasn't 'a 'Handmaid's Tale' themed wedding,' it was their wedding day. One photo in a series of thousands from their wedding day that was intended mostly as a keepsake for them. 'Everyone loves a good witch hunt ...' laments Shawn. 'Apparently today we are their witch.' | [
"08405-proof-01-handmaid-themed-wedding.jpg",
"08405-proof-03-handmaids-tale-wedding-snopes.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows a bride and groom during a 'Handmaid's Tale'-themed wedding. | Contradiction | In October 2019, a photograph supposedly showing a bride and groom surrounded by a group of 'Handmaid's Tale'-dressed bridesmaids in front of a 'Hanging Wall' went viral on social media, with many people expressing shock that someone would use the popular dystopian novel as a basis for a themed wedding: The picture stirred considerable controversy as it circulated online and left many people with questions. Before we get to the story behind this picture, let's get some basic facts out of the way: This photograph was taken at Cambridge Mill, a restaurant and wedding venue in Ontario, Canada, that is also used as part of the set for the Hulu television series 'The Handmaid's Tale.' This photograph was taken in front of the 'Hanging Wall' from the television show. The handmaids were digitally inserted into this image by wedding photographers. The actual wedding was not 'Handmaid's Tale'-themed. This photograph was originally posted to the social media pages of Van Daele & Russell Photography and shows a couple identified only as Kendra and Torsten. Many viewers expressed 'outrage' over the theme of 'The Handmaid's Tale,' a novel penned by Margaret Atwood in 1985 and later made into the Hulu show. The novel and show focus on a dystopian future in which fertile women, called handmaids, are subjected to brutal treatment and forced into child-bearing slavery. The hanging wall is a particular gruesome aspect of the show because it is where those who resist the rules of this new society are hanged. Photographer Shawn Van Daele said the bride and groom are big fans of the 'The Handmaid's Tale.' And, since their wedding was being held at the same venue that doubles as a set for the show, they wanted a photograph of them in front of the hanging wall. Van Daele told Peta Pixel that he digitally added the handmaids after the photo shoot: 'The couple as well as ourselves are HUGE fans of the TV show (and obviously, first, the book). Anyone who would put out an image like this without understanding what it implies has bigger problems than upset people on social media,' Shawn tells PetaPixel. 'I knew when creating the image that it would possibly upset people, but that's sort of the point...to wake people up.' 'The groom wanted photos on the 'hanging wall,' which is where we were taking their wedding photos; I joked about adding in some handmaids (since it seemed the natural thing to do since we were there ... I'm certain any 'creative' or photographer would have the exact same thoughts),' continues Shawn. 'We didn't expect the photo to go viral, but we are SOOO HAPPY IT HAS because hopefully it will wake people up to how they too contribute to the oppression and hatred that they're rightfully worked up over.' In sum, though this image will likely be the one most viewed from this couple's wedding, they didn't actually have a themed wedding based on the dystopian novel. The bride and groom are fans of the show and because the wedding was being held at Cambridge Mill, where part of the show is filmed, they decided to take at least one handmaid's-themed photograph. Peta Pixel reported: In the end, Shawn wants to remind people that this wasn't 'a 'Handmaid's Tale' themed wedding,' it was their wedding day. One photo in a series of thousands from their wedding day that was intended mostly as a keepsake for them. 'Everyone loves a good witch hunt ...' laments Shawn. 'Apparently today we are their witch.' | In sum, though this image will likely be the one most viewed from this couple's wedding, they didn't actually have a themed wedding based on the dystopian novel. The bride and groom are fans of the show and because the wedding was being held at Cambridge Mill, where part of the show is filmed, they decided to take at least one handmaid's-themed photograph. Peta Pixel reported: In the end, Shawn wants to remind people that this wasn't 'a 'Handmaid's Tale' themed wedding,' it was their wedding day. One photo in a series of thousands from their wedding day that was intended mostly as a keepsake for them. 'Everyone loves a good witch hunt ...' laments Shawn. 'Apparently today we are their witch.' | [
"08405-proof-01-handmaid-themed-wedding.jpg",
"08405-proof-03-handmaids-tale-wedding-snopes.jpg"
] |
Singer Avril Lavigne died and was replaced by a doppelgänger. | Contradiction | A bizarre theory claiming that singer Avril Lavigne died and was replaced with a doppelgänger has been circulating online since the idea was first offered by the Portuguese-language blog 'Avril Esta Morta' (Avril Is Dead) back in 2012; in October 2015, a reader asked: There is a rumor that Avril Lavigne is actually dead and that her doppelganger 'took over' as her. Is this real? Or is it just a whole bunch of bs? Since then, a ridiculous amount of 'evidence' has surfaced to prove that the person currently posing as Avril Lavigne is an impostor. Song lyrics were analyzed, photographs were examined, and soon the conspiracy theory was propagated by web sites such as God Like Productions: Too bad I can't post the link here because it certainly will get me banned LOL, but it's a VERY VERY well built website, probably made by a die-hard fan of Avril Lavigne, and the author of the article scrutinized several details of her career to came to a conclusion that the Canadian singer hanged herself before the second album and was replaced by a doppelganger, who left several clues about the death of the original Avril, in the lyrics and covers of the next albums. Some lyrics are pretty blatant by the way! I quoted the verses that highlight a possible suicide! According to the article's author, she killed herself after she went home and found out that her parents abandoned her. Nobody's Home: Open your eyes and look outside, find the reasons why. You've been rejected, and now you can't find what you left behind. Be strong, be strong now. Too many, too many problems. Don't know where she belongs, where she belongs. She wants to go home, but nobody's home. It's where she lies, broken inside. With no place to go, no place to go to dry her eyes. Broken inside. Her feelings she hides. Her dreams she can't find. She's losing her mind. She's fallen behind. She can't find her place. She's losing her faith. She's fallen from grace. She's all over the place. Yeah,oh The elaborate theory was even broken down by popular publications such as Vice and Gawker, and soon fans of the singer started questioning whether or not she was alive. But in July 2015 the 'Avril Esta Morta' blog admitted that the theory was completely fabricated as an object lesson in internet misinformation and rumor: Avril is not dead... The blog was a way to show how conspiracy theories can seem real. Many people believe everything they see on the internet, but is it right? There are many conspiracy theories about many things, but some seem no more convincing than theories that are not real. Avril Lavigne never died and was replaced by a lookalike, I created this theory to see if people would believe it, and thousands of people believed it was a fact. An important point is that I created this theory with no intention of lying; all I did is offer arguments that anyone could search for information about and prove. I used information to form a real theory that is in fact unreal. I apologize to people who believed that she was dead and feel disappointed about this revelation, but this was an exercise to teach to become more skeptical cand not believe everything you see! It was never my intention to offend anyone, just to create a theory and test people's reaction to it. You will observe I left some clues that it was all just a theory and not a fact, for example when in the beginning of the blog I referenced the 'supposed death of the singer Avril Lavigne.' In other words, it is just a guess! If you want to believe that she is dead, that is your choice, but I say that it was all just a theory created by me. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. The above-quoted update was only 'liked' 500 times within six months of its original publication. The Vice article, on the other hand, has been shared tens of thousands of times. As such, a number of Avril Lavigne's fans still believe that she passed away and was replaced with a doppelgänger: I watched a creepy conspiracy video last night about how Avril Lavigne is actually dead and I'm still freaked out - jacey (@jacerain) November 5, 2015 I kinda believe avril lavigne is really dead - santa baby (@shaghennessy) November 5, 2015 So apparently Avril Lavigne is dead, and has been replaced by a look a like named Malissa. - white cheddar (@Duda1Hayley) November 5, 2015 After reading theories about how Avril Lavigne is dead, I'm convinced this is true - princess (@Arianaspoon) November 4, 2015 In summation, there is no truth behind the theory that Avril Lavigne killed herself and was replaced by an actress. This theory was created with the sole purpose of proving how easy it is to spread misinformation on the Internet. Well, mission accomplished.Recent Updates | In summation, there is no truth behind the theory that Avril Lavigne killed herself and was replaced by an actress. This theory was created with the sole purpose of proving how easy it is to spread misinformation on the Internet. Well, mission accomplished.Recent Updates | [
"08541-proof-00-avril-dead.jpg",
"08541-proof-03-avril-lavigne-replaced-by-a-doppleganger.jpg"
] |
Singer Avril Lavigne died and was replaced by a doppelgänger. | Contradiction | A bizarre theory claiming that singer Avril Lavigne died and was replaced with a doppelgänger has been circulating online since the idea was first offered by the Portuguese-language blog 'Avril Esta Morta' (Avril Is Dead) back in 2012; in October 2015, a reader asked: There is a rumor that Avril Lavigne is actually dead and that her doppelganger 'took over' as her. Is this real? Or is it just a whole bunch of bs? Since then, a ridiculous amount of 'evidence' has surfaced to prove that the person currently posing as Avril Lavigne is an impostor. Song lyrics were analyzed, photographs were examined, and soon the conspiracy theory was propagated by web sites such as God Like Productions: Too bad I can't post the link here because it certainly will get me banned LOL, but it's a VERY VERY well built website, probably made by a die-hard fan of Avril Lavigne, and the author of the article scrutinized several details of her career to came to a conclusion that the Canadian singer hanged herself before the second album and was replaced by a doppelganger, who left several clues about the death of the original Avril, in the lyrics and covers of the next albums. Some lyrics are pretty blatant by the way! I quoted the verses that highlight a possible suicide! According to the article's author, she killed herself after she went home and found out that her parents abandoned her. Nobody's Home: Open your eyes and look outside, find the reasons why. You've been rejected, and now you can't find what you left behind. Be strong, be strong now. Too many, too many problems. Don't know where she belongs, where she belongs. She wants to go home, but nobody's home. It's where she lies, broken inside. With no place to go, no place to go to dry her eyes. Broken inside. Her feelings she hides. Her dreams she can't find. She's losing her mind. She's fallen behind. She can't find her place. She's losing her faith. She's fallen from grace. She's all over the place. Yeah,oh The elaborate theory was even broken down by popular publications such as Vice and Gawker, and soon fans of the singer started questioning whether or not she was alive. But in July 2015 the 'Avril Esta Morta' blog admitted that the theory was completely fabricated as an object lesson in internet misinformation and rumor: Avril is not dead... The blog was a way to show how conspiracy theories can seem real. Many people believe everything they see on the internet, but is it right? There are many conspiracy theories about many things, but some seem no more convincing than theories that are not real. Avril Lavigne never died and was replaced by a lookalike, I created this theory to see if people would believe it, and thousands of people believed it was a fact. An important point is that I created this theory with no intention of lying; all I did is offer arguments that anyone could search for information about and prove. I used information to form a real theory that is in fact unreal. I apologize to people who believed that she was dead and feel disappointed about this revelation, but this was an exercise to teach to become more skeptical cand not believe everything you see! It was never my intention to offend anyone, just to create a theory and test people's reaction to it. You will observe I left some clues that it was all just a theory and not a fact, for example when in the beginning of the blog I referenced the 'supposed death of the singer Avril Lavigne.' In other words, it is just a guess! If you want to believe that she is dead, that is your choice, but I say that it was all just a theory created by me. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. The above-quoted update was only 'liked' 500 times within six months of its original publication. The Vice article, on the other hand, has been shared tens of thousands of times. As such, a number of Avril Lavigne's fans still believe that she passed away and was replaced with a doppelgänger: I watched a creepy conspiracy video last night about how Avril Lavigne is actually dead and I'm still freaked out - jacey (@jacerain) November 5, 2015 I kinda believe avril lavigne is really dead - santa baby (@shaghennessy) November 5, 2015 So apparently Avril Lavigne is dead, and has been replaced by a look a like named Malissa. - white cheddar (@Duda1Hayley) November 5, 2015 After reading theories about how Avril Lavigne is dead, I'm convinced this is true - princess (@Arianaspoon) November 4, 2015 In summation, there is no truth behind the theory that Avril Lavigne killed herself and was replaced by an actress. This theory was created with the sole purpose of proving how easy it is to spread misinformation on the Internet. Well, mission accomplished.Recent Updates | In summation, there is no truth behind the theory that Avril Lavigne killed herself and was replaced by an actress. This theory was created with the sole purpose of proving how easy it is to spread misinformation on the Internet. Well, mission accomplished.Recent Updates | [
"08541-proof-00-avril-dead.jpg",
"08541-proof-03-avril-lavigne-replaced-by-a-doppleganger.jpg"
] |
Singer Avril Lavigne died and was replaced by a doppelgänger. | Contradiction | A bizarre theory claiming that singer Avril Lavigne died and was replaced with a doppelgänger has been circulating online since the idea was first offered by the Portuguese-language blog 'Avril Esta Morta' (Avril Is Dead) back in 2012; in October 2015, a reader asked: There is a rumor that Avril Lavigne is actually dead and that her doppelganger 'took over' as her. Is this real? Or is it just a whole bunch of bs? Since then, a ridiculous amount of 'evidence' has surfaced to prove that the person currently posing as Avril Lavigne is an impostor. Song lyrics were analyzed, photographs were examined, and soon the conspiracy theory was propagated by web sites such as God Like Productions: Too bad I can't post the link here because it certainly will get me banned LOL, but it's a VERY VERY well built website, probably made by a die-hard fan of Avril Lavigne, and the author of the article scrutinized several details of her career to came to a conclusion that the Canadian singer hanged herself before the second album and was replaced by a doppelganger, who left several clues about the death of the original Avril, in the lyrics and covers of the next albums. Some lyrics are pretty blatant by the way! I quoted the verses that highlight a possible suicide! According to the article's author, she killed herself after she went home and found out that her parents abandoned her. Nobody's Home: Open your eyes and look outside, find the reasons why. You've been rejected, and now you can't find what you left behind. Be strong, be strong now. Too many, too many problems. Don't know where she belongs, where she belongs. She wants to go home, but nobody's home. It's where she lies, broken inside. With no place to go, no place to go to dry her eyes. Broken inside. Her feelings she hides. Her dreams she can't find. She's losing her mind. She's fallen behind. She can't find her place. She's losing her faith. She's fallen from grace. She's all over the place. Yeah,oh The elaborate theory was even broken down by popular publications such as Vice and Gawker, and soon fans of the singer started questioning whether or not she was alive. But in July 2015 the 'Avril Esta Morta' blog admitted that the theory was completely fabricated as an object lesson in internet misinformation and rumor: Avril is not dead... The blog was a way to show how conspiracy theories can seem real. Many people believe everything they see on the internet, but is it right? There are many conspiracy theories about many things, but some seem no more convincing than theories that are not real. Avril Lavigne never died and was replaced by a lookalike, I created this theory to see if people would believe it, and thousands of people believed it was a fact. An important point is that I created this theory with no intention of lying; all I did is offer arguments that anyone could search for information about and prove. I used information to form a real theory that is in fact unreal. I apologize to people who believed that she was dead and feel disappointed about this revelation, but this was an exercise to teach to become more skeptical cand not believe everything you see! It was never my intention to offend anyone, just to create a theory and test people's reaction to it. You will observe I left some clues that it was all just a theory and not a fact, for example when in the beginning of the blog I referenced the 'supposed death of the singer Avril Lavigne.' In other words, it is just a guess! If you want to believe that she is dead, that is your choice, but I say that it was all just a theory created by me. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. The above-quoted update was only 'liked' 500 times within six months of its original publication. The Vice article, on the other hand, has been shared tens of thousands of times. As such, a number of Avril Lavigne's fans still believe that she passed away and was replaced with a doppelgänger: I watched a creepy conspiracy video last night about how Avril Lavigne is actually dead and I'm still freaked out - jacey (@jacerain) November 5, 2015 I kinda believe avril lavigne is really dead - santa baby (@shaghennessy) November 5, 2015 So apparently Avril Lavigne is dead, and has been replaced by a look a like named Malissa. - white cheddar (@Duda1Hayley) November 5, 2015 After reading theories about how Avril Lavigne is dead, I'm convinced this is true - princess (@Arianaspoon) November 4, 2015 In summation, there is no truth behind the theory that Avril Lavigne killed herself and was replaced by an actress. This theory was created with the sole purpose of proving how easy it is to spread misinformation on the Internet. Well, mission accomplished.Recent Updates | In summation, there is no truth behind the theory that Avril Lavigne killed herself and was replaced by an actress. This theory was created with the sole purpose of proving how easy it is to spread misinformation on the Internet. Well, mission accomplished.Recent Updates | [
"08541-proof-00-avril-dead.jpg",
"08541-proof-03-avril-lavigne-replaced-by-a-doppleganger.jpg"
] |
Singer Avril Lavigne died and was replaced by a doppelgänger. | Contradiction | A bizarre theory claiming that singer Avril Lavigne died and was replaced with a doppelgänger has been circulating online since the idea was first offered by the Portuguese-language blog 'Avril Esta Morta' (Avril Is Dead) back in 2012; in October 2015, a reader asked: There is a rumor that Avril Lavigne is actually dead and that her doppelganger 'took over' as her. Is this real? Or is it just a whole bunch of bs? Since then, a ridiculous amount of 'evidence' has surfaced to prove that the person currently posing as Avril Lavigne is an impostor. Song lyrics were analyzed, photographs were examined, and soon the conspiracy theory was propagated by web sites such as God Like Productions: Too bad I can't post the link here because it certainly will get me banned LOL, but it's a VERY VERY well built website, probably made by a die-hard fan of Avril Lavigne, and the author of the article scrutinized several details of her career to came to a conclusion that the Canadian singer hanged herself before the second album and was replaced by a doppelganger, who left several clues about the death of the original Avril, in the lyrics and covers of the next albums. Some lyrics are pretty blatant by the way! I quoted the verses that highlight a possible suicide! According to the article's author, she killed herself after she went home and found out that her parents abandoned her. Nobody's Home: Open your eyes and look outside, find the reasons why. You've been rejected, and now you can't find what you left behind. Be strong, be strong now. Too many, too many problems. Don't know where she belongs, where she belongs. She wants to go home, but nobody's home. It's where she lies, broken inside. With no place to go, no place to go to dry her eyes. Broken inside. Her feelings she hides. Her dreams she can't find. She's losing her mind. She's fallen behind. She can't find her place. She's losing her faith. She's fallen from grace. She's all over the place. Yeah,oh The elaborate theory was even broken down by popular publications such as Vice and Gawker, and soon fans of the singer started questioning whether or not she was alive. But in July 2015 the 'Avril Esta Morta' blog admitted that the theory was completely fabricated as an object lesson in internet misinformation and rumor: Avril is not dead... The blog was a way to show how conspiracy theories can seem real. Many people believe everything they see on the internet, but is it right? There are many conspiracy theories about many things, but some seem no more convincing than theories that are not real. Avril Lavigne never died and was replaced by a lookalike, I created this theory to see if people would believe it, and thousands of people believed it was a fact. An important point is that I created this theory with no intention of lying; all I did is offer arguments that anyone could search for information about and prove. I used information to form a real theory that is in fact unreal. I apologize to people who believed that she was dead and feel disappointed about this revelation, but this was an exercise to teach to become more skeptical cand not believe everything you see! It was never my intention to offend anyone, just to create a theory and test people's reaction to it. You will observe I left some clues that it was all just a theory and not a fact, for example when in the beginning of the blog I referenced the 'supposed death of the singer Avril Lavigne.' In other words, it is just a guess! If you want to believe that she is dead, that is your choice, but I say that it was all just a theory created by me. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. The above-quoted update was only 'liked' 500 times within six months of its original publication. The Vice article, on the other hand, has been shared tens of thousands of times. As such, a number of Avril Lavigne's fans still believe that she passed away and was replaced with a doppelgänger: I watched a creepy conspiracy video last night about how Avril Lavigne is actually dead and I'm still freaked out - jacey (@jacerain) November 5, 2015 I kinda believe avril lavigne is really dead - santa baby (@shaghennessy) November 5, 2015 So apparently Avril Lavigne is dead, and has been replaced by a look a like named Malissa. - white cheddar (@Duda1Hayley) November 5, 2015 After reading theories about how Avril Lavigne is dead, I'm convinced this is true - princess (@Arianaspoon) November 4, 2015 In summation, there is no truth behind the theory that Avril Lavigne killed herself and was replaced by an actress. This theory was created with the sole purpose of proving how easy it is to spread misinformation on the Internet. Well, mission accomplished.Recent Updates | In summation, there is no truth behind the theory that Avril Lavigne killed herself and was replaced by an actress. This theory was created with the sole purpose of proving how easy it is to spread misinformation on the Internet. Well, mission accomplished.Recent Updates | [
"08541-proof-00-avril-dead.jpg",
"08541-proof-03-avril-lavigne-replaced-by-a-doppleganger.jpg"
] |
Singer Avril Lavigne died and was replaced by a doppelgänger. | Contradiction | A bizarre theory claiming that singer Avril Lavigne died and was replaced with a doppelgänger has been circulating online since the idea was first offered by the Portuguese-language blog 'Avril Esta Morta' (Avril Is Dead) back in 2012; in October 2015, a reader asked: There is a rumor that Avril Lavigne is actually dead and that her doppelganger 'took over' as her. Is this real? Or is it just a whole bunch of bs? Since then, a ridiculous amount of 'evidence' has surfaced to prove that the person currently posing as Avril Lavigne is an impostor. Song lyrics were analyzed, photographs were examined, and soon the conspiracy theory was propagated by web sites such as God Like Productions: Too bad I can't post the link here because it certainly will get me banned LOL, but it's a VERY VERY well built website, probably made by a die-hard fan of Avril Lavigne, and the author of the article scrutinized several details of her career to came to a conclusion that the Canadian singer hanged herself before the second album and was replaced by a doppelganger, who left several clues about the death of the original Avril, in the lyrics and covers of the next albums. Some lyrics are pretty blatant by the way! I quoted the verses that highlight a possible suicide! According to the article's author, she killed herself after she went home and found out that her parents abandoned her. Nobody's Home: Open your eyes and look outside, find the reasons why. You've been rejected, and now you can't find what you left behind. Be strong, be strong now. Too many, too many problems. Don't know where she belongs, where she belongs. She wants to go home, but nobody's home. It's where she lies, broken inside. With no place to go, no place to go to dry her eyes. Broken inside. Her feelings she hides. Her dreams she can't find. She's losing her mind. She's fallen behind. She can't find her place. She's losing her faith. She's fallen from grace. She's all over the place. Yeah,oh The elaborate theory was even broken down by popular publications such as Vice and Gawker, and soon fans of the singer started questioning whether or not she was alive. But in July 2015 the 'Avril Esta Morta' blog admitted that the theory was completely fabricated as an object lesson in internet misinformation and rumor: Avril is not dead... The blog was a way to show how conspiracy theories can seem real. Many people believe everything they see on the internet, but is it right? There are many conspiracy theories about many things, but some seem no more convincing than theories that are not real. Avril Lavigne never died and was replaced by a lookalike, I created this theory to see if people would believe it, and thousands of people believed it was a fact. An important point is that I created this theory with no intention of lying; all I did is offer arguments that anyone could search for information about and prove. I used information to form a real theory that is in fact unreal. I apologize to people who believed that she was dead and feel disappointed about this revelation, but this was an exercise to teach to become more skeptical cand not believe everything you see! It was never my intention to offend anyone, just to create a theory and test people's reaction to it. You will observe I left some clues that it was all just a theory and not a fact, for example when in the beginning of the blog I referenced the 'supposed death of the singer Avril Lavigne.' In other words, it is just a guess! If you want to believe that she is dead, that is your choice, but I say that it was all just a theory created by me. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. The above-quoted update was only 'liked' 500 times within six months of its original publication. The Vice article, on the other hand, has been shared tens of thousands of times. As such, a number of Avril Lavigne's fans still believe that she passed away and was replaced with a doppelgänger: I watched a creepy conspiracy video last night about how Avril Lavigne is actually dead and I'm still freaked out - jacey (@jacerain) November 5, 2015 I kinda believe avril lavigne is really dead - santa baby (@shaghennessy) November 5, 2015 So apparently Avril Lavigne is dead, and has been replaced by a look a like named Malissa. - white cheddar (@Duda1Hayley) November 5, 2015 After reading theories about how Avril Lavigne is dead, I'm convinced this is true - princess (@Arianaspoon) November 4, 2015 In summation, there is no truth behind the theory that Avril Lavigne killed herself and was replaced by an actress. This theory was created with the sole purpose of proving how easy it is to spread misinformation on the Internet. Well, mission accomplished.Recent Updates | In summation, there is no truth behind the theory that Avril Lavigne killed herself and was replaced by an actress. This theory was created with the sole purpose of proving how easy it is to spread misinformation on the Internet. Well, mission accomplished.Recent Updates | [
"08541-proof-00-avril-dead.jpg",
"08541-proof-03-avril-lavigne-replaced-by-a-doppleganger.jpg"
] |
Singer Avril Lavigne died and was replaced by a doppelgänger. | Contradiction | A bizarre theory claiming that singer Avril Lavigne died and was replaced with a doppelgänger has been circulating online since the idea was first offered by the Portuguese-language blog 'Avril Esta Morta' (Avril Is Dead) back in 2012; in October 2015, a reader asked: There is a rumor that Avril Lavigne is actually dead and that her doppelganger 'took over' as her. Is this real? Or is it just a whole bunch of bs? Since then, a ridiculous amount of 'evidence' has surfaced to prove that the person currently posing as Avril Lavigne is an impostor. Song lyrics were analyzed, photographs were examined, and soon the conspiracy theory was propagated by web sites such as God Like Productions: Too bad I can't post the link here because it certainly will get me banned LOL, but it's a VERY VERY well built website, probably made by a die-hard fan of Avril Lavigne, and the author of the article scrutinized several details of her career to came to a conclusion that the Canadian singer hanged herself before the second album and was replaced by a doppelganger, who left several clues about the death of the original Avril, in the lyrics and covers of the next albums. Some lyrics are pretty blatant by the way! I quoted the verses that highlight a possible suicide! According to the article's author, she killed herself after she went home and found out that her parents abandoned her. Nobody's Home: Open your eyes and look outside, find the reasons why. You've been rejected, and now you can't find what you left behind. Be strong, be strong now. Too many, too many problems. Don't know where she belongs, where she belongs. She wants to go home, but nobody's home. It's where she lies, broken inside. With no place to go, no place to go to dry her eyes. Broken inside. Her feelings she hides. Her dreams she can't find. She's losing her mind. She's fallen behind. She can't find her place. She's losing her faith. She's fallen from grace. She's all over the place. Yeah,oh The elaborate theory was even broken down by popular publications such as Vice and Gawker, and soon fans of the singer started questioning whether or not she was alive. But in July 2015 the 'Avril Esta Morta' blog admitted that the theory was completely fabricated as an object lesson in internet misinformation and rumor: Avril is not dead... The blog was a way to show how conspiracy theories can seem real. Many people believe everything they see on the internet, but is it right? There are many conspiracy theories about many things, but some seem no more convincing than theories that are not real. Avril Lavigne never died and was replaced by a lookalike, I created this theory to see if people would believe it, and thousands of people believed it was a fact. An important point is that I created this theory with no intention of lying; all I did is offer arguments that anyone could search for information about and prove. I used information to form a real theory that is in fact unreal. I apologize to people who believed that she was dead and feel disappointed about this revelation, but this was an exercise to teach to become more skeptical cand not believe everything you see! It was never my intention to offend anyone, just to create a theory and test people's reaction to it. You will observe I left some clues that it was all just a theory and not a fact, for example when in the beginning of the blog I referenced the 'supposed death of the singer Avril Lavigne.' In other words, it is just a guess! If you want to believe that she is dead, that is your choice, but I say that it was all just a theory created by me. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. The above-quoted update was only 'liked' 500 times within six months of its original publication. The Vice article, on the other hand, has been shared tens of thousands of times. As such, a number of Avril Lavigne's fans still believe that she passed away and was replaced with a doppelgänger: I watched a creepy conspiracy video last night about how Avril Lavigne is actually dead and I'm still freaked out - jacey (@jacerain) November 5, 2015 I kinda believe avril lavigne is really dead - santa baby (@shaghennessy) November 5, 2015 So apparently Avril Lavigne is dead, and has been replaced by a look a like named Malissa. - white cheddar (@Duda1Hayley) November 5, 2015 After reading theories about how Avril Lavigne is dead, I'm convinced this is true - princess (@Arianaspoon) November 4, 2015 In summation, there is no truth behind the theory that Avril Lavigne killed herself and was replaced by an actress. This theory was created with the sole purpose of proving how easy it is to spread misinformation on the Internet. Well, mission accomplished.Recent Updates | In summation, there is no truth behind the theory that Avril Lavigne killed herself and was replaced by an actress. This theory was created with the sole purpose of proving how easy it is to spread misinformation on the Internet. Well, mission accomplished.Recent Updates | [
"08541-proof-00-avril-dead.jpg",
"08541-proof-03-avril-lavigne-replaced-by-a-doppleganger.jpg"
] |
Singer Avril Lavigne died and was replaced by a doppelgänger. | Contradiction | A bizarre theory claiming that singer Avril Lavigne died and was replaced with a doppelgänger has been circulating online since the idea was first offered by the Portuguese-language blog 'Avril Esta Morta' (Avril Is Dead) back in 2012; in October 2015, a reader asked: There is a rumor that Avril Lavigne is actually dead and that her doppelganger 'took over' as her. Is this real? Or is it just a whole bunch of bs? Since then, a ridiculous amount of 'evidence' has surfaced to prove that the person currently posing as Avril Lavigne is an impostor. Song lyrics were analyzed, photographs were examined, and soon the conspiracy theory was propagated by web sites such as God Like Productions: Too bad I can't post the link here because it certainly will get me banned LOL, but it's a VERY VERY well built website, probably made by a die-hard fan of Avril Lavigne, and the author of the article scrutinized several details of her career to came to a conclusion that the Canadian singer hanged herself before the second album and was replaced by a doppelganger, who left several clues about the death of the original Avril, in the lyrics and covers of the next albums. Some lyrics are pretty blatant by the way! I quoted the verses that highlight a possible suicide! According to the article's author, she killed herself after she went home and found out that her parents abandoned her. Nobody's Home: Open your eyes and look outside, find the reasons why. You've been rejected, and now you can't find what you left behind. Be strong, be strong now. Too many, too many problems. Don't know where she belongs, where she belongs. She wants to go home, but nobody's home. It's where she lies, broken inside. With no place to go, no place to go to dry her eyes. Broken inside. Her feelings she hides. Her dreams she can't find. She's losing her mind. She's fallen behind. She can't find her place. She's losing her faith. She's fallen from grace. She's all over the place. Yeah,oh The elaborate theory was even broken down by popular publications such as Vice and Gawker, and soon fans of the singer started questioning whether or not she was alive. But in July 2015 the 'Avril Esta Morta' blog admitted that the theory was completely fabricated as an object lesson in internet misinformation and rumor: Avril is not dead... The blog was a way to show how conspiracy theories can seem real. Many people believe everything they see on the internet, but is it right? There are many conspiracy theories about many things, but some seem no more convincing than theories that are not real. Avril Lavigne never died and was replaced by a lookalike, I created this theory to see if people would believe it, and thousands of people believed it was a fact. An important point is that I created this theory with no intention of lying; all I did is offer arguments that anyone could search for information about and prove. I used information to form a real theory that is in fact unreal. I apologize to people who believed that she was dead and feel disappointed about this revelation, but this was an exercise to teach to become more skeptical cand not believe everything you see! It was never my intention to offend anyone, just to create a theory and test people's reaction to it. You will observe I left some clues that it was all just a theory and not a fact, for example when in the beginning of the blog I referenced the 'supposed death of the singer Avril Lavigne.' In other words, it is just a guess! If you want to believe that she is dead, that is your choice, but I say that it was all just a theory created by me. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. The above-quoted update was only 'liked' 500 times within six months of its original publication. The Vice article, on the other hand, has been shared tens of thousands of times. As such, a number of Avril Lavigne's fans still believe that she passed away and was replaced with a doppelgänger: I watched a creepy conspiracy video last night about how Avril Lavigne is actually dead and I'm still freaked out - jacey (@jacerain) November 5, 2015 I kinda believe avril lavigne is really dead - santa baby (@shaghennessy) November 5, 2015 So apparently Avril Lavigne is dead, and has been replaced by a look a like named Malissa. - white cheddar (@Duda1Hayley) November 5, 2015 After reading theories about how Avril Lavigne is dead, I'm convinced this is true - princess (@Arianaspoon) November 4, 2015 In summation, there is no truth behind the theory that Avril Lavigne killed herself and was replaced by an actress. This theory was created with the sole purpose of proving how easy it is to spread misinformation on the Internet. Well, mission accomplished.Recent Updates | In summation, there is no truth behind the theory that Avril Lavigne killed herself and was replaced by an actress. This theory was created with the sole purpose of proving how easy it is to spread misinformation on the Internet. Well, mission accomplished.Recent Updates | [
"08541-proof-00-avril-dead.jpg",
"08541-proof-03-avril-lavigne-replaced-by-a-doppleganger.jpg"
] |
A prostitute named Gerda Puridle invented elongated eyelashes in the 1880s. | Contradiction | In January 2021, the website America's Best Pics shared a meme claiming that a prostitute named 'Gerda Puridle' invented long eyelashes in 1880s: The woman in this picture was not a prostitute, her name was not Gerda Puridle, and the claim about the origins of artificial eyelashes was made up out of whole cloth. The woman featured in this meme is Alice Regnault, a French actress and novelist who rose to prominence in the 1870s. This photograph appears to have been taken by French photographer Gaspard-Félix Tournachon (better known as 'Nadar') circa 1879. It was included in a guide published a few years later called 'Les Actrices de Paris' (The Actresses of Paris) by Emile Bergerat: Here's how Regnault was described in 'Les Actrices de Paris' (translated via Google and edited for clarity): 'An intelligent and flexible actress who, through commitment and hard work, has managed to escape a reputation as a 'pretty woman' - where the love of the masses kept her, as in a prison. So has the fine and elegant Mademoiselle Régnault proven herself, for some time now.' While Regnault laid claim to titles such as actress, novelist, and journalist, she did not invent elongated eyelashes. According to beauty magazine Marie Claire, humans were tinkering with and beautifying their eyelashes in ancient Egypt, though it wasn't until the late 1800s that people figured out that they could lengthen their eyelashes with human hair. An 1882 volume of 'Medical Record' explained the process of creating artificial eyelashes: False Eyelashes - Labouchere says in Truth: The Parisians have found out how to make false eyelashes. I do not speak of the vulgar and well-known trick of darkening the rim round the eye with all kinds of dirty composition, or the more artistic plan of doing so to the inside of the lid. No, they actually draw a fine needle, threaded with dark hair, through the skin of the eyelid, forming long loops, and after the process if over - I am told it is a painless one - a splendid dark fringe veils the coquette's eyes.' While the practice of artificially elongating eyelashes started in the late 1800s, the first patent for an artificial eyelash wasn't secured until 1911. Here's a look at inventor Anna Taylor's artificial eyelash patent: Despite the fact that artificial eyelashes have been around since the late 1800s, and that Taylor filed a patent in 1911, many people credit filmmaker D.W. Griffith for popularizing artificial eyelashes with his 1916 film 'Intolerance.' The New York Times reported: One day in 1916, while filming 'Intolerance,' D. W. Griffith studied an actress in a Babylonian costume and felt something wasn't right. Seena Owen's eyes, he said, should be twice as large and 'supernatural.' He ordered his wigmaker to use spirit gum to glue a pair of lashes made from human hair onto Owen's eyelids. 'One morning she arrived at the studio with her eyes swollen nearly shut,' the actress Lillian Gish, who was also in the movie, wrote in her memoir. 'Fortunately, Mr. Griffith had already shot the important scenes.' Within a decade, false lashes became standard equipment for actresses - and for flappers who imitated the 'baby doll' eyes that they saw on-screen. Gish claimed that Griffith invented false eyelashes, but like many Hollywood legends, this one proves to be not exactly true. In 1911, a Canadian woman named Anna Taylor received a U.S. patent for the artificial eyelash; hers was a crescent of fabric implanted with tiny hairs. And even before that, hairdressers and makeup artists tried a similar trick. A German named Charles Nestle (nee Karl Nessler) manufactured false lashes in the early 20th century and used the profit from sales to finance his next invention - the permanent wave. By 1915, Nestle had opened a New York hair-perming salon on East 49th Street, with lashes as his sideline. Nestle promoted false eyelashes as a guard against the glare of electric lights and hired chorus girls to bat their eyes at customers. To some men of the era, it was as if a booby trap had been introduced in the war between the sexes. 'When a fair young thing looks at you mistily through her long, curling lashes, do not fall for it until you investigate,' warned one columnist in 1921. 'The long, curling eyelashes may not be hers, except by right of purchase.' In short, the claim that a prostitute named Gerda Puridle invented elongated eyelashes is completely made up out of whole cloth. | In short, the claim that a prostitute named Gerda Puridle invented elongated eyelashes is completely made up out of whole cloth. | [
"08579-proof-02-alice-regnault-book.jpg",
"08579-proof-04-GettyImages-108434418.jpg",
"08579-proof-14-gerda-puridle.jpg"
] |
A prostitute named Gerda Puridle invented elongated eyelashes in the 1880s. | Contradiction | In January 2021, the website America's Best Pics shared a meme claiming that a prostitute named 'Gerda Puridle' invented long eyelashes in 1880s: The woman in this picture was not a prostitute, her name was not Gerda Puridle, and the claim about the origins of artificial eyelashes was made up out of whole cloth. The woman featured in this meme is Alice Regnault, a French actress and novelist who rose to prominence in the 1870s. This photograph appears to have been taken by French photographer Gaspard-Félix Tournachon (better known as 'Nadar') circa 1879. It was included in a guide published a few years later called 'Les Actrices de Paris' (The Actresses of Paris) by Emile Bergerat: Here's how Regnault was described in 'Les Actrices de Paris' (translated via Google and edited for clarity): 'An intelligent and flexible actress who, through commitment and hard work, has managed to escape a reputation as a 'pretty woman' - where the love of the masses kept her, as in a prison. So has the fine and elegant Mademoiselle Régnault proven herself, for some time now.' While Regnault laid claim to titles such as actress, novelist, and journalist, she did not invent elongated eyelashes. According to beauty magazine Marie Claire, humans were tinkering with and beautifying their eyelashes in ancient Egypt, though it wasn't until the late 1800s that people figured out that they could lengthen their eyelashes with human hair. An 1882 volume of 'Medical Record' explained the process of creating artificial eyelashes: False Eyelashes - Labouchere says in Truth: The Parisians have found out how to make false eyelashes. I do not speak of the vulgar and well-known trick of darkening the rim round the eye with all kinds of dirty composition, or the more artistic plan of doing so to the inside of the lid. No, they actually draw a fine needle, threaded with dark hair, through the skin of the eyelid, forming long loops, and after the process if over - I am told it is a painless one - a splendid dark fringe veils the coquette's eyes.' While the practice of artificially elongating eyelashes started in the late 1800s, the first patent for an artificial eyelash wasn't secured until 1911. Here's a look at inventor Anna Taylor's artificial eyelash patent: Despite the fact that artificial eyelashes have been around since the late 1800s, and that Taylor filed a patent in 1911, many people credit filmmaker D.W. Griffith for popularizing artificial eyelashes with his 1916 film 'Intolerance.' The New York Times reported: One day in 1916, while filming 'Intolerance,' D. W. Griffith studied an actress in a Babylonian costume and felt something wasn't right. Seena Owen's eyes, he said, should be twice as large and 'supernatural.' He ordered his wigmaker to use spirit gum to glue a pair of lashes made from human hair onto Owen's eyelids. 'One morning she arrived at the studio with her eyes swollen nearly shut,' the actress Lillian Gish, who was also in the movie, wrote in her memoir. 'Fortunately, Mr. Griffith had already shot the important scenes.' Within a decade, false lashes became standard equipment for actresses - and for flappers who imitated the 'baby doll' eyes that they saw on-screen. Gish claimed that Griffith invented false eyelashes, but like many Hollywood legends, this one proves to be not exactly true. In 1911, a Canadian woman named Anna Taylor received a U.S. patent for the artificial eyelash; hers was a crescent of fabric implanted with tiny hairs. And even before that, hairdressers and makeup artists tried a similar trick. A German named Charles Nestle (nee Karl Nessler) manufactured false lashes in the early 20th century and used the profit from sales to finance his next invention - the permanent wave. By 1915, Nestle had opened a New York hair-perming salon on East 49th Street, with lashes as his sideline. Nestle promoted false eyelashes as a guard against the glare of electric lights and hired chorus girls to bat their eyes at customers. To some men of the era, it was as if a booby trap had been introduced in the war between the sexes. 'When a fair young thing looks at you mistily through her long, curling lashes, do not fall for it until you investigate,' warned one columnist in 1921. 'The long, curling eyelashes may not be hers, except by right of purchase.' In short, the claim that a prostitute named Gerda Puridle invented elongated eyelashes is completely made up out of whole cloth. | In short, the claim that a prostitute named Gerda Puridle invented elongated eyelashes is completely made up out of whole cloth. | [
"08579-proof-02-alice-regnault-book.jpg",
"08579-proof-04-GettyImages-108434418.jpg",
"08579-proof-14-gerda-puridle.jpg"
] |
Heath Ledger improvised in the hospital scene in 'The Dark Knight' after something went wrong with the explosions. | Contradiction | On July 27, 2021, a new TikTok video was posted that claimed actor Heath Ledger 'completely improvised' the hospital explosion scene in the role of the Joker for the 2008 Batman film, 'The Dark Knight.' 30 Million Views The video was viewed more than 30 million times in less than one month. It was published by @learnwithsteve: @learnwithsteve This scene was definitely a wild one #joker #learnwithsteve #foryou #movieclips ♬ ЗВУК ДЛЯ РЕК - Будущая Хокаге😎☝🏿 This was false. Ledger did not 'completely improvise' during the hospital scene, nor was there a 'little mishap on the set' that caused the timing of explosions to malfunction. While it's true that Ledger likely brought a bit of his own flair to the scene, it was not 'completely improvised' after a problem occurred. Screen Rant previously debunked this claim in January 2020, as did Showbiz Cheat Sheet in June 2021. Another video with millions of views also made false claims about Ledger purportedly improvising during the scene. In the YouTube description, the user wrote: 'The explosion really failed but they didn't afford to stop shooting so Heath just did what he does best.' This was not true. 'A Practical Scenario' In reality, director Christopher Nolan said that the film's crew took great care to ensure that every moment of the hospital explosion scene was 'rehearsed endlessly.' This was the opposite of the idea that Ledger, then a major movie star, improvised during the dangerous scene. In a behind-the-scenes video also mentioned in Showbiz Cheat Sheet's reporting, Nolan walked through the entire creation of the scene. Nolan, who also co-wrote the script and served as the film's producer, said that special effects supervisor Chris Corbould added 'a little beat where the first set of explosions stops': Chris [Corbould] and his guys, working very closely with the demolition team, they were able to come up with a scenario in which Heath [Ledger] could actually be walking out of the building. Because what Chris worked out is if we put in a little beat where the first set of explosions stops, as if something has gone wrong, and the Joker just takes a second to look around, surprised, like the audience is surprised, then the major demolition comes in, and he jumps straight in the school bus. In that way, he was able to come up with a practical scenario in which we could actually take a principal actor, walk him out of a building that's about to be destroyed, and literally drop a building to the ground. In other words, the pause between explosions was planned. 12 Rehearsals Nolan noted that the cast and crew carefully rehearsed the scene around 12 times, as they only had one shot at getting it right: We rehearsed endlessly with Heath that morning. We walked him out, going through exactly what he was going to do. Chris Corbould calling the explosions where they would take place. We rehearsed it, I think, about 12 times, I think, we literally walked him out, videotaped the rehearsal, and looked at it from different camera angles. Heath was such a perfectionist to be so precise in what he was doing, which was essential because this was obviously a one-take thing, and the angle I knew that we really needed, despite all of the other cameras we set, we really needed that close shot on him walking out to work perfectly. He did it very, very precisely. I don't know how he resisted looking back, you know, all of the explosions and lightweight material that the special effects guys were blowing behind him. I think he winded up with bits in his hair at the end of it, so close he was to everything that was going off. Nolan also mentioned that multiple camera angles didn't make it into the final cut, all because he felt it was important to 'show the fact that we had done it for real and that Heath had done it for real.' The Final Cut When the scene came together for the movie, only two exterior shots of the hospital explosion made it in the film, at the 0:06 and 0:55 marks in this clip: Ledger died in 2008 before 'The Dark Knight' was released. In 2009, he won a posthumous Oscar for his acting, which members of his family accepted for him. In sum, it's false that Ledger improvised the hospital explosion scene in 'The Dark Knight.' In reality, it was perhaps one of the most carefully planned and rehearsed scenes in the entire film. | In sum, it's false that Ledger improvised the hospital explosion scene in 'The Dark Knight.' In reality, it was perhaps one of the most carefully planned and rehearsed scenes in the entire film. | [
"08584-proof-06-joker-improvised-hospital-scene.jpg"
] |
Heath Ledger improvised in the hospital scene in 'The Dark Knight' after something went wrong with the explosions. | Contradiction | On July 27, 2021, a new TikTok video was posted that claimed actor Heath Ledger 'completely improvised' the hospital explosion scene in the role of the Joker for the 2008 Batman film, 'The Dark Knight.' 30 Million Views The video was viewed more than 30 million times in less than one month. It was published by @learnwithsteve: @learnwithsteve This scene was definitely a wild one #joker #learnwithsteve #foryou #movieclips ♬ ЗВУК ДЛЯ РЕК - Будущая Хокаге😎☝🏿 This was false. Ledger did not 'completely improvise' during the hospital scene, nor was there a 'little mishap on the set' that caused the timing of explosions to malfunction. While it's true that Ledger likely brought a bit of his own flair to the scene, it was not 'completely improvised' after a problem occurred. Screen Rant previously debunked this claim in January 2020, as did Showbiz Cheat Sheet in June 2021. Another video with millions of views also made false claims about Ledger purportedly improvising during the scene. In the YouTube description, the user wrote: 'The explosion really failed but they didn't afford to stop shooting so Heath just did what he does best.' This was not true. 'A Practical Scenario' In reality, director Christopher Nolan said that the film's crew took great care to ensure that every moment of the hospital explosion scene was 'rehearsed endlessly.' This was the opposite of the idea that Ledger, then a major movie star, improvised during the dangerous scene. In a behind-the-scenes video also mentioned in Showbiz Cheat Sheet's reporting, Nolan walked through the entire creation of the scene. Nolan, who also co-wrote the script and served as the film's producer, said that special effects supervisor Chris Corbould added 'a little beat where the first set of explosions stops': Chris [Corbould] and his guys, working very closely with the demolition team, they were able to come up with a scenario in which Heath [Ledger] could actually be walking out of the building. Because what Chris worked out is if we put in a little beat where the first set of explosions stops, as if something has gone wrong, and the Joker just takes a second to look around, surprised, like the audience is surprised, then the major demolition comes in, and he jumps straight in the school bus. In that way, he was able to come up with a practical scenario in which we could actually take a principal actor, walk him out of a building that's about to be destroyed, and literally drop a building to the ground. In other words, the pause between explosions was planned. 12 Rehearsals Nolan noted that the cast and crew carefully rehearsed the scene around 12 times, as they only had one shot at getting it right: We rehearsed endlessly with Heath that morning. We walked him out, going through exactly what he was going to do. Chris Corbould calling the explosions where they would take place. We rehearsed it, I think, about 12 times, I think, we literally walked him out, videotaped the rehearsal, and looked at it from different camera angles. Heath was such a perfectionist to be so precise in what he was doing, which was essential because this was obviously a one-take thing, and the angle I knew that we really needed, despite all of the other cameras we set, we really needed that close shot on him walking out to work perfectly. He did it very, very precisely. I don't know how he resisted looking back, you know, all of the explosions and lightweight material that the special effects guys were blowing behind him. I think he winded up with bits in his hair at the end of it, so close he was to everything that was going off. Nolan also mentioned that multiple camera angles didn't make it into the final cut, all because he felt it was important to 'show the fact that we had done it for real and that Heath had done it for real.' The Final Cut When the scene came together for the movie, only two exterior shots of the hospital explosion made it in the film, at the 0:06 and 0:55 marks in this clip: Ledger died in 2008 before 'The Dark Knight' was released. In 2009, he won a posthumous Oscar for his acting, which members of his family accepted for him. In sum, it's false that Ledger improvised the hospital explosion scene in 'The Dark Knight.' In reality, it was perhaps one of the most carefully planned and rehearsed scenes in the entire film. | In sum, it's false that Ledger improvised the hospital explosion scene in 'The Dark Knight.' In reality, it was perhaps one of the most carefully planned and rehearsed scenes in the entire film. | [
"08584-proof-06-joker-improvised-hospital-scene.jpg"
] |
Heath Ledger improvised in the hospital scene in 'The Dark Knight' after something went wrong with the explosions. | Contradiction | On July 27, 2021, a new TikTok video was posted that claimed actor Heath Ledger 'completely improvised' the hospital explosion scene in the role of the Joker for the 2008 Batman film, 'The Dark Knight.' 30 Million Views The video was viewed more than 30 million times in less than one month. It was published by @learnwithsteve: @learnwithsteve This scene was definitely a wild one #joker #learnwithsteve #foryou #movieclips ♬ ЗВУК ДЛЯ РЕК - Будущая Хокаге😎☝🏿 This was false. Ledger did not 'completely improvise' during the hospital scene, nor was there a 'little mishap on the set' that caused the timing of explosions to malfunction. While it's true that Ledger likely brought a bit of his own flair to the scene, it was not 'completely improvised' after a problem occurred. Screen Rant previously debunked this claim in January 2020, as did Showbiz Cheat Sheet in June 2021. Another video with millions of views also made false claims about Ledger purportedly improvising during the scene. In the YouTube description, the user wrote: 'The explosion really failed but they didn't afford to stop shooting so Heath just did what he does best.' This was not true. 'A Practical Scenario' In reality, director Christopher Nolan said that the film's crew took great care to ensure that every moment of the hospital explosion scene was 'rehearsed endlessly.' This was the opposite of the idea that Ledger, then a major movie star, improvised during the dangerous scene. In a behind-the-scenes video also mentioned in Showbiz Cheat Sheet's reporting, Nolan walked through the entire creation of the scene. Nolan, who also co-wrote the script and served as the film's producer, said that special effects supervisor Chris Corbould added 'a little beat where the first set of explosions stops': Chris [Corbould] and his guys, working very closely with the demolition team, they were able to come up with a scenario in which Heath [Ledger] could actually be walking out of the building. Because what Chris worked out is if we put in a little beat where the first set of explosions stops, as if something has gone wrong, and the Joker just takes a second to look around, surprised, like the audience is surprised, then the major demolition comes in, and he jumps straight in the school bus. In that way, he was able to come up with a practical scenario in which we could actually take a principal actor, walk him out of a building that's about to be destroyed, and literally drop a building to the ground. In other words, the pause between explosions was planned. 12 Rehearsals Nolan noted that the cast and crew carefully rehearsed the scene around 12 times, as they only had one shot at getting it right: We rehearsed endlessly with Heath that morning. We walked him out, going through exactly what he was going to do. Chris Corbould calling the explosions where they would take place. We rehearsed it, I think, about 12 times, I think, we literally walked him out, videotaped the rehearsal, and looked at it from different camera angles. Heath was such a perfectionist to be so precise in what he was doing, which was essential because this was obviously a one-take thing, and the angle I knew that we really needed, despite all of the other cameras we set, we really needed that close shot on him walking out to work perfectly. He did it very, very precisely. I don't know how he resisted looking back, you know, all of the explosions and lightweight material that the special effects guys were blowing behind him. I think he winded up with bits in his hair at the end of it, so close he was to everything that was going off. Nolan also mentioned that multiple camera angles didn't make it into the final cut, all because he felt it was important to 'show the fact that we had done it for real and that Heath had done it for real.' The Final Cut When the scene came together for the movie, only two exterior shots of the hospital explosion made it in the film, at the 0:06 and 0:55 marks in this clip: Ledger died in 2008 before 'The Dark Knight' was released. In 2009, he won a posthumous Oscar for his acting, which members of his family accepted for him. In sum, it's false that Ledger improvised the hospital explosion scene in 'The Dark Knight.' In reality, it was perhaps one of the most carefully planned and rehearsed scenes in the entire film. | In sum, it's false that Ledger improvised the hospital explosion scene in 'The Dark Knight.' In reality, it was perhaps one of the most carefully planned and rehearsed scenes in the entire film. | [
"08584-proof-06-joker-improvised-hospital-scene.jpg"
] |
Photograph shows a split tongue body modification with a zipper installed. | Contradiction | The art of body modification may have progressed beyond basic tattoos and piercings, but not quite to the extent of a zippered tongue - at least, not as evidenced by the photograph displayed below. Example: Just wondering if you've seen this photo - and if it's for real ... As shown in the body art magazine Piel, the split tongue portion of the image (performed by Maryland body artist Zak Zito) is real, but the zipper (and second stud) were digitally added to the photograph, with the results submitted as an entry to a Worth1000.com PhotoShop contest: | The art of body modification may have progressed beyond basic tattoos and piercings, but not quite to the extent of a zippered tongue - at least, not as evidenced by the photograph displayed below. Example: Just wondering if you've seen this photo - and if it's for real ... As shown in the body art magazine Piel, the split tongue portion of the image (performed by Maryland body artist Zak Zito) is real, but the zipper (and second stud) were digitally added to the photograph, with the results submitted as an entry to a Worth1000.com PhotoShop contest: | [] |
Poll workers in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, were trained to mark ballots in order to invalidate them. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In October 2020, a piece of text supposedly written by a person who had just 'finished poll manager training' was copied and pasted across social media. The text warned readers to be on the lookout as they cast their votes in the upcoming presidential election for poll workers who might write something on their ballots such as a star, a checkmark, a letter, etc. This, according to the viral message, would invalidate their vote. One popular early version of this text claimed that this recently trained poll manager was stationed in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: ****Myrtle Beach Pay Attention*** Just finished Poll Manager training! I passed all the classes. I want you all to know something...if you are checking in at the polls and they happen to write anything on your ballot...a letter, a checkmark, a star, any writing of any kind...please request a new ballot. Your ballot will not be counted if it is written on. Please be on the lookout for this type of behavior. I know someone in Myrtle Beach who asked me about this during the primaries and I did not understand what it might have meant. Now I know. It disqualifies your ballot. BE ON GUARD!!! This claim, in general, is unfounded. Poll workers have practically no reason to mark ballots, and in the rare instance where they might, this would not invalidate a person's vote. Angela Westmoreland, a poll training manager for Horry County, where Myrtle Beach is located, commented below this post that 'this is not correct information.' Westmoreland wrote: 'Where did you train? I am the Training Coordinator for Horry County Elections and we have not even started training. Which county do you work for? This is not correct information.' The fact-checking website LeadStories managed to contact officials in Horry County, who also disputed the claims in this post. Chris Whitmire, the director of public information for the South Carolina state election commission, said: 'There's no truth to it at all. A poll manager is not going to write anything on your ballot and if they did it's not going to result in your ballot not being counted.' While the above-displayed Facebook post specifically mentioned Myrtle Beach, subsequent versions of this text were circulated without a specific location attached. These posts were often prefaced by a sentence claiming that the poster had received this information from a friend or relative. In other words, the vast majority of people sharing this post didn't seem to have any firsthand knowledge about the issue. States are responsible for running their own elections, so it's difficult to make a blanket statement covering all poll-worker training sessions across the country. However, we did reach out to election officials in various states for their interpretation of this post, and they, like the officials in Myrtle Beach, agreed that poll workers have little reason to write on ballots. If they did, it wouldn't invalidate the person's vote. Debra O'Malley, a spokesperson for the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth in Massachusetts, told us: There is no reason any poll worker would ever mark anything on a ballot, with the very rare exception of a challenged ballot. If a ballot is challenged for legal cause, the voter's name and address, as well as the challenger's, are written on the ballot to be reviewed only in the case of a recount or court order. Again, this is very rare. Ballots are not disqualified at the polling place. If a tabulator cannot read a ballot, the voter is offered a new ballot. If they do not want to spoil their ballot, it is set aside to be counted by hand at the end of the night. A spokesperson for the Maryland State Board of Elections provided a similar statement, explaining that poll workers in that state would have little reason to ever mark (or even be momentarily in possession of) a person's ballot, but if it did occur, it would not invalidate that person's vote. The spokesperson also explained some of the security measures that are in place to ensure a person's vote gets counted: A poll worker should never have possession of a voter's voted ballot. If a poll worker ever did have a voter's voted ballot and made a mark, it would not disqualify the ballot. It's possible that the mark could impact the ballot's ability to be scanned, but the voter would be present when the scanner rejected it and the voter would be issued a replacement ballot to vote. The only time a poll worker may write on a voted ballot is if the voter made a mistake on the ballot and needed a replacement ballot. The poll worker instructs the voter to 'overvote' every contest on the ballot and write 'Spoiled' on the ballot, but if the voter didn't write 'spoiled' on the ballot, the poll worker may need to write it. This is unlikely to occur as the poll worker is with the voter and instructing the voter on each step. A spokesperson for Maine's Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions told us: 'The State of Maine does not reject ballots because of a stray mark on the ballot.' North Carolina's representative also confirmed that a poll worker writing on a person's ballot would 'absolutely not' cause that vote to be rejected. However, it is commonplace (in fact, it's required), for a poll worker to mark a ballot. The spokesperson explained that poll workers in North Carolina must write the voter's 'one-stop' number on their ballot, saying: In North Carolina, poll workers must write the voter's one-stop (OS) number on the ballot. This is part of the process in NC that allows us to retrieve ballots if challenged, etc. They also write the voter's precinct on the ballot so that one-stop early voting ballots can be sorted back into the proper precincts after the election for reporting and data purposes. Early voters can cast their ballot at any early voting site in their county. In short, this text does not appear to have originated with a person who recently completed poll-manager training, and the vast majority of people sharing this message are doing so without any firsthand knowledge of this issue. It should also be noted that poll workers have practically no reason to write on a person's ballot. In the rare circumstance where it is warranted, this would not invalidate a person's ballot. Recent Updates 15 October 2020 [Updated]: Added statements from officials in Maine, North Carolina, and Maryland. | In short, this text does not appear to have originated with a person who recently completed poll-manager training, and the vast majority of people sharing this message are doing so without any firsthand knowledge of this issue. It should also be noted that poll workers have practically no reason to write on a person's ballot. In the rare circumstance where it is warranted, this would not invalidate a person's ballot. Recent Updates 15 October 2020 [Updated]: Added statements from officials in Maine, North Carolina, and Maryland. | [
"08722-proof-09-1200px-Voting_United_States.jpg"
] |
Poll workers in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, were trained to mark ballots in order to invalidate them. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In October 2020, a piece of text supposedly written by a person who had just 'finished poll manager training' was copied and pasted across social media. The text warned readers to be on the lookout as they cast their votes in the upcoming presidential election for poll workers who might write something on their ballots such as a star, a checkmark, a letter, etc. This, according to the viral message, would invalidate their vote. One popular early version of this text claimed that this recently trained poll manager was stationed in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: ****Myrtle Beach Pay Attention*** Just finished Poll Manager training! I passed all the classes. I want you all to know something...if you are checking in at the polls and they happen to write anything on your ballot...a letter, a checkmark, a star, any writing of any kind...please request a new ballot. Your ballot will not be counted if it is written on. Please be on the lookout for this type of behavior. I know someone in Myrtle Beach who asked me about this during the primaries and I did not understand what it might have meant. Now I know. It disqualifies your ballot. BE ON GUARD!!! This claim, in general, is unfounded. Poll workers have practically no reason to mark ballots, and in the rare instance where they might, this would not invalidate a person's vote. Angela Westmoreland, a poll training manager for Horry County, where Myrtle Beach is located, commented below this post that 'this is not correct information.' Westmoreland wrote: 'Where did you train? I am the Training Coordinator for Horry County Elections and we have not even started training. Which county do you work for? This is not correct information.' The fact-checking website LeadStories managed to contact officials in Horry County, who also disputed the claims in this post. Chris Whitmire, the director of public information for the South Carolina state election commission, said: 'There's no truth to it at all. A poll manager is not going to write anything on your ballot and if they did it's not going to result in your ballot not being counted.' While the above-displayed Facebook post specifically mentioned Myrtle Beach, subsequent versions of this text were circulated without a specific location attached. These posts were often prefaced by a sentence claiming that the poster had received this information from a friend or relative. In other words, the vast majority of people sharing this post didn't seem to have any firsthand knowledge about the issue. States are responsible for running their own elections, so it's difficult to make a blanket statement covering all poll-worker training sessions across the country. However, we did reach out to election officials in various states for their interpretation of this post, and they, like the officials in Myrtle Beach, agreed that poll workers have little reason to write on ballots. If they did, it wouldn't invalidate the person's vote. Debra O'Malley, a spokesperson for the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth in Massachusetts, told us: There is no reason any poll worker would ever mark anything on a ballot, with the very rare exception of a challenged ballot. If a ballot is challenged for legal cause, the voter's name and address, as well as the challenger's, are written on the ballot to be reviewed only in the case of a recount or court order. Again, this is very rare. Ballots are not disqualified at the polling place. If a tabulator cannot read a ballot, the voter is offered a new ballot. If they do not want to spoil their ballot, it is set aside to be counted by hand at the end of the night. A spokesperson for the Maryland State Board of Elections provided a similar statement, explaining that poll workers in that state would have little reason to ever mark (or even be momentarily in possession of) a person's ballot, but if it did occur, it would not invalidate that person's vote. The spokesperson also explained some of the security measures that are in place to ensure a person's vote gets counted: A poll worker should never have possession of a voter's voted ballot. If a poll worker ever did have a voter's voted ballot and made a mark, it would not disqualify the ballot. It's possible that the mark could impact the ballot's ability to be scanned, but the voter would be present when the scanner rejected it and the voter would be issued a replacement ballot to vote. The only time a poll worker may write on a voted ballot is if the voter made a mistake on the ballot and needed a replacement ballot. The poll worker instructs the voter to 'overvote' every contest on the ballot and write 'Spoiled' on the ballot, but if the voter didn't write 'spoiled' on the ballot, the poll worker may need to write it. This is unlikely to occur as the poll worker is with the voter and instructing the voter on each step. A spokesperson for Maine's Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions told us: 'The State of Maine does not reject ballots because of a stray mark on the ballot.' North Carolina's representative also confirmed that a poll worker writing on a person's ballot would 'absolutely not' cause that vote to be rejected. However, it is commonplace (in fact, it's required), for a poll worker to mark a ballot. The spokesperson explained that poll workers in North Carolina must write the voter's 'one-stop' number on their ballot, saying: In North Carolina, poll workers must write the voter's one-stop (OS) number on the ballot. This is part of the process in NC that allows us to retrieve ballots if challenged, etc. They also write the voter's precinct on the ballot so that one-stop early voting ballots can be sorted back into the proper precincts after the election for reporting and data purposes. Early voters can cast their ballot at any early voting site in their county. In short, this text does not appear to have originated with a person who recently completed poll-manager training, and the vast majority of people sharing this message are doing so without any firsthand knowledge of this issue. It should also be noted that poll workers have practically no reason to write on a person's ballot. In the rare circumstance where it is warranted, this would not invalidate a person's ballot. Recent Updates 15 October 2020 [Updated]: Added statements from officials in Maine, North Carolina, and Maryland. | In short, this text does not appear to have originated with a person who recently completed poll-manager training, and the vast majority of people sharing this message are doing so without any firsthand knowledge of this issue. It should also be noted that poll workers have practically no reason to write on a person's ballot. In the rare circumstance where it is warranted, this would not invalidate a person's ballot. Recent Updates 15 October 2020 [Updated]: Added statements from officials in Maine, North Carolina, and Maryland. | [
"08722-proof-09-1200px-Voting_United_States.jpg"
] |
Poll workers in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, were trained to mark ballots in order to invalidate them. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In October 2020, a piece of text supposedly written by a person who had just 'finished poll manager training' was copied and pasted across social media. The text warned readers to be on the lookout as they cast their votes in the upcoming presidential election for poll workers who might write something on their ballots such as a star, a checkmark, a letter, etc. This, according to the viral message, would invalidate their vote. One popular early version of this text claimed that this recently trained poll manager was stationed in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: ****Myrtle Beach Pay Attention*** Just finished Poll Manager training! I passed all the classes. I want you all to know something...if you are checking in at the polls and they happen to write anything on your ballot...a letter, a checkmark, a star, any writing of any kind...please request a new ballot. Your ballot will not be counted if it is written on. Please be on the lookout for this type of behavior. I know someone in Myrtle Beach who asked me about this during the primaries and I did not understand what it might have meant. Now I know. It disqualifies your ballot. BE ON GUARD!!! This claim, in general, is unfounded. Poll workers have practically no reason to mark ballots, and in the rare instance where they might, this would not invalidate a person's vote. Angela Westmoreland, a poll training manager for Horry County, where Myrtle Beach is located, commented below this post that 'this is not correct information.' Westmoreland wrote: 'Where did you train? I am the Training Coordinator for Horry County Elections and we have not even started training. Which county do you work for? This is not correct information.' The fact-checking website LeadStories managed to contact officials in Horry County, who also disputed the claims in this post. Chris Whitmire, the director of public information for the South Carolina state election commission, said: 'There's no truth to it at all. A poll manager is not going to write anything on your ballot and if they did it's not going to result in your ballot not being counted.' While the above-displayed Facebook post specifically mentioned Myrtle Beach, subsequent versions of this text were circulated without a specific location attached. These posts were often prefaced by a sentence claiming that the poster had received this information from a friend or relative. In other words, the vast majority of people sharing this post didn't seem to have any firsthand knowledge about the issue. States are responsible for running their own elections, so it's difficult to make a blanket statement covering all poll-worker training sessions across the country. However, we did reach out to election officials in various states for their interpretation of this post, and they, like the officials in Myrtle Beach, agreed that poll workers have little reason to write on ballots. If they did, it wouldn't invalidate the person's vote. Debra O'Malley, a spokesperson for the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth in Massachusetts, told us: There is no reason any poll worker would ever mark anything on a ballot, with the very rare exception of a challenged ballot. If a ballot is challenged for legal cause, the voter's name and address, as well as the challenger's, are written on the ballot to be reviewed only in the case of a recount or court order. Again, this is very rare. Ballots are not disqualified at the polling place. If a tabulator cannot read a ballot, the voter is offered a new ballot. If they do not want to spoil their ballot, it is set aside to be counted by hand at the end of the night. A spokesperson for the Maryland State Board of Elections provided a similar statement, explaining that poll workers in that state would have little reason to ever mark (or even be momentarily in possession of) a person's ballot, but if it did occur, it would not invalidate that person's vote. The spokesperson also explained some of the security measures that are in place to ensure a person's vote gets counted: A poll worker should never have possession of a voter's voted ballot. If a poll worker ever did have a voter's voted ballot and made a mark, it would not disqualify the ballot. It's possible that the mark could impact the ballot's ability to be scanned, but the voter would be present when the scanner rejected it and the voter would be issued a replacement ballot to vote. The only time a poll worker may write on a voted ballot is if the voter made a mistake on the ballot and needed a replacement ballot. The poll worker instructs the voter to 'overvote' every contest on the ballot and write 'Spoiled' on the ballot, but if the voter didn't write 'spoiled' on the ballot, the poll worker may need to write it. This is unlikely to occur as the poll worker is with the voter and instructing the voter on each step. A spokesperson for Maine's Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions told us: 'The State of Maine does not reject ballots because of a stray mark on the ballot.' North Carolina's representative also confirmed that a poll worker writing on a person's ballot would 'absolutely not' cause that vote to be rejected. However, it is commonplace (in fact, it's required), for a poll worker to mark a ballot. The spokesperson explained that poll workers in North Carolina must write the voter's 'one-stop' number on their ballot, saying: In North Carolina, poll workers must write the voter's one-stop (OS) number on the ballot. This is part of the process in NC that allows us to retrieve ballots if challenged, etc. They also write the voter's precinct on the ballot so that one-stop early voting ballots can be sorted back into the proper precincts after the election for reporting and data purposes. Early voters can cast their ballot at any early voting site in their county. In short, this text does not appear to have originated with a person who recently completed poll-manager training, and the vast majority of people sharing this message are doing so without any firsthand knowledge of this issue. It should also be noted that poll workers have practically no reason to write on a person's ballot. In the rare circumstance where it is warranted, this would not invalidate a person's ballot. Recent Updates 15 October 2020 [Updated]: Added statements from officials in Maine, North Carolina, and Maryland. | In short, this text does not appear to have originated with a person who recently completed poll-manager training, and the vast majority of people sharing this message are doing so without any firsthand knowledge of this issue. It should also be noted that poll workers have practically no reason to write on a person's ballot. In the rare circumstance where it is warranted, this would not invalidate a person's ballot. Recent Updates 15 October 2020 [Updated]: Added statements from officials in Maine, North Carolina, and Maryland. | [
"08722-proof-09-1200px-Voting_United_States.jpg"
] |
Poll workers in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, were trained to mark ballots in order to invalidate them. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In October 2020, a piece of text supposedly written by a person who had just 'finished poll manager training' was copied and pasted across social media. The text warned readers to be on the lookout as they cast their votes in the upcoming presidential election for poll workers who might write something on their ballots such as a star, a checkmark, a letter, etc. This, according to the viral message, would invalidate their vote. One popular early version of this text claimed that this recently trained poll manager was stationed in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: ****Myrtle Beach Pay Attention*** Just finished Poll Manager training! I passed all the classes. I want you all to know something...if you are checking in at the polls and they happen to write anything on your ballot...a letter, a checkmark, a star, any writing of any kind...please request a new ballot. Your ballot will not be counted if it is written on. Please be on the lookout for this type of behavior. I know someone in Myrtle Beach who asked me about this during the primaries and I did not understand what it might have meant. Now I know. It disqualifies your ballot. BE ON GUARD!!! This claim, in general, is unfounded. Poll workers have practically no reason to mark ballots, and in the rare instance where they might, this would not invalidate a person's vote. Angela Westmoreland, a poll training manager for Horry County, where Myrtle Beach is located, commented below this post that 'this is not correct information.' Westmoreland wrote: 'Where did you train? I am the Training Coordinator for Horry County Elections and we have not even started training. Which county do you work for? This is not correct information.' The fact-checking website LeadStories managed to contact officials in Horry County, who also disputed the claims in this post. Chris Whitmire, the director of public information for the South Carolina state election commission, said: 'There's no truth to it at all. A poll manager is not going to write anything on your ballot and if they did it's not going to result in your ballot not being counted.' While the above-displayed Facebook post specifically mentioned Myrtle Beach, subsequent versions of this text were circulated without a specific location attached. These posts were often prefaced by a sentence claiming that the poster had received this information from a friend or relative. In other words, the vast majority of people sharing this post didn't seem to have any firsthand knowledge about the issue. States are responsible for running their own elections, so it's difficult to make a blanket statement covering all poll-worker training sessions across the country. However, we did reach out to election officials in various states for their interpretation of this post, and they, like the officials in Myrtle Beach, agreed that poll workers have little reason to write on ballots. If they did, it wouldn't invalidate the person's vote. Debra O'Malley, a spokesperson for the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth in Massachusetts, told us: There is no reason any poll worker would ever mark anything on a ballot, with the very rare exception of a challenged ballot. If a ballot is challenged for legal cause, the voter's name and address, as well as the challenger's, are written on the ballot to be reviewed only in the case of a recount or court order. Again, this is very rare. Ballots are not disqualified at the polling place. If a tabulator cannot read a ballot, the voter is offered a new ballot. If they do not want to spoil their ballot, it is set aside to be counted by hand at the end of the night. A spokesperson for the Maryland State Board of Elections provided a similar statement, explaining that poll workers in that state would have little reason to ever mark (or even be momentarily in possession of) a person's ballot, but if it did occur, it would not invalidate that person's vote. The spokesperson also explained some of the security measures that are in place to ensure a person's vote gets counted: A poll worker should never have possession of a voter's voted ballot. If a poll worker ever did have a voter's voted ballot and made a mark, it would not disqualify the ballot. It's possible that the mark could impact the ballot's ability to be scanned, but the voter would be present when the scanner rejected it and the voter would be issued a replacement ballot to vote. The only time a poll worker may write on a voted ballot is if the voter made a mistake on the ballot and needed a replacement ballot. The poll worker instructs the voter to 'overvote' every contest on the ballot and write 'Spoiled' on the ballot, but if the voter didn't write 'spoiled' on the ballot, the poll worker may need to write it. This is unlikely to occur as the poll worker is with the voter and instructing the voter on each step. A spokesperson for Maine's Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions told us: 'The State of Maine does not reject ballots because of a stray mark on the ballot.' North Carolina's representative also confirmed that a poll worker writing on a person's ballot would 'absolutely not' cause that vote to be rejected. However, it is commonplace (in fact, it's required), for a poll worker to mark a ballot. The spokesperson explained that poll workers in North Carolina must write the voter's 'one-stop' number on their ballot, saying: In North Carolina, poll workers must write the voter's one-stop (OS) number on the ballot. This is part of the process in NC that allows us to retrieve ballots if challenged, etc. They also write the voter's precinct on the ballot so that one-stop early voting ballots can be sorted back into the proper precincts after the election for reporting and data purposes. Early voters can cast their ballot at any early voting site in their county. In short, this text does not appear to have originated with a person who recently completed poll-manager training, and the vast majority of people sharing this message are doing so without any firsthand knowledge of this issue. It should also be noted that poll workers have practically no reason to write on a person's ballot. In the rare circumstance where it is warranted, this would not invalidate a person's ballot. Recent Updates 15 October 2020 [Updated]: Added statements from officials in Maine, North Carolina, and Maryland. | In short, this text does not appear to have originated with a person who recently completed poll-manager training, and the vast majority of people sharing this message are doing so without any firsthand knowledge of this issue. It should also be noted that poll workers have practically no reason to write on a person's ballot. In the rare circumstance where it is warranted, this would not invalidate a person's ballot. Recent Updates 15 October 2020 [Updated]: Added statements from officials in Maine, North Carolina, and Maryland. | [
"08722-proof-09-1200px-Voting_United_States.jpg"
] |
Poll workers in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, were trained to mark ballots in order to invalidate them. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In October 2020, a piece of text supposedly written by a person who had just 'finished poll manager training' was copied and pasted across social media. The text warned readers to be on the lookout as they cast their votes in the upcoming presidential election for poll workers who might write something on their ballots such as a star, a checkmark, a letter, etc. This, according to the viral message, would invalidate their vote. One popular early version of this text claimed that this recently trained poll manager was stationed in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: ****Myrtle Beach Pay Attention*** Just finished Poll Manager training! I passed all the classes. I want you all to know something...if you are checking in at the polls and they happen to write anything on your ballot...a letter, a checkmark, a star, any writing of any kind...please request a new ballot. Your ballot will not be counted if it is written on. Please be on the lookout for this type of behavior. I know someone in Myrtle Beach who asked me about this during the primaries and I did not understand what it might have meant. Now I know. It disqualifies your ballot. BE ON GUARD!!! This claim, in general, is unfounded. Poll workers have practically no reason to mark ballots, and in the rare instance where they might, this would not invalidate a person's vote. Angela Westmoreland, a poll training manager for Horry County, where Myrtle Beach is located, commented below this post that 'this is not correct information.' Westmoreland wrote: 'Where did you train? I am the Training Coordinator for Horry County Elections and we have not even started training. Which county do you work for? This is not correct information.' The fact-checking website LeadStories managed to contact officials in Horry County, who also disputed the claims in this post. Chris Whitmire, the director of public information for the South Carolina state election commission, said: 'There's no truth to it at all. A poll manager is not going to write anything on your ballot and if they did it's not going to result in your ballot not being counted.' While the above-displayed Facebook post specifically mentioned Myrtle Beach, subsequent versions of this text were circulated without a specific location attached. These posts were often prefaced by a sentence claiming that the poster had received this information from a friend or relative. In other words, the vast majority of people sharing this post didn't seem to have any firsthand knowledge about the issue. States are responsible for running their own elections, so it's difficult to make a blanket statement covering all poll-worker training sessions across the country. However, we did reach out to election officials in various states for their interpretation of this post, and they, like the officials in Myrtle Beach, agreed that poll workers have little reason to write on ballots. If they did, it wouldn't invalidate the person's vote. Debra O'Malley, a spokesperson for the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth in Massachusetts, told us: There is no reason any poll worker would ever mark anything on a ballot, with the very rare exception of a challenged ballot. If a ballot is challenged for legal cause, the voter's name and address, as well as the challenger's, are written on the ballot to be reviewed only in the case of a recount or court order. Again, this is very rare. Ballots are not disqualified at the polling place. If a tabulator cannot read a ballot, the voter is offered a new ballot. If they do not want to spoil their ballot, it is set aside to be counted by hand at the end of the night. A spokesperson for the Maryland State Board of Elections provided a similar statement, explaining that poll workers in that state would have little reason to ever mark (or even be momentarily in possession of) a person's ballot, but if it did occur, it would not invalidate that person's vote. The spokesperson also explained some of the security measures that are in place to ensure a person's vote gets counted: A poll worker should never have possession of a voter's voted ballot. If a poll worker ever did have a voter's voted ballot and made a mark, it would not disqualify the ballot. It's possible that the mark could impact the ballot's ability to be scanned, but the voter would be present when the scanner rejected it and the voter would be issued a replacement ballot to vote. The only time a poll worker may write on a voted ballot is if the voter made a mistake on the ballot and needed a replacement ballot. The poll worker instructs the voter to 'overvote' every contest on the ballot and write 'Spoiled' on the ballot, but if the voter didn't write 'spoiled' on the ballot, the poll worker may need to write it. This is unlikely to occur as the poll worker is with the voter and instructing the voter on each step. A spokesperson for Maine's Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions told us: 'The State of Maine does not reject ballots because of a stray mark on the ballot.' North Carolina's representative also confirmed that a poll worker writing on a person's ballot would 'absolutely not' cause that vote to be rejected. However, it is commonplace (in fact, it's required), for a poll worker to mark a ballot. The spokesperson explained that poll workers in North Carolina must write the voter's 'one-stop' number on their ballot, saying: In North Carolina, poll workers must write the voter's one-stop (OS) number on the ballot. This is part of the process in NC that allows us to retrieve ballots if challenged, etc. They also write the voter's precinct on the ballot so that one-stop early voting ballots can be sorted back into the proper precincts after the election for reporting and data purposes. Early voters can cast their ballot at any early voting site in their county. In short, this text does not appear to have originated with a person who recently completed poll-manager training, and the vast majority of people sharing this message are doing so without any firsthand knowledge of this issue. It should also be noted that poll workers have practically no reason to write on a person's ballot. In the rare circumstance where it is warranted, this would not invalidate a person's ballot. Recent Updates 15 October 2020 [Updated]: Added statements from officials in Maine, North Carolina, and Maryland. | In short, this text does not appear to have originated with a person who recently completed poll-manager training, and the vast majority of people sharing this message are doing so without any firsthand knowledge of this issue. It should also be noted that poll workers have practically no reason to write on a person's ballot. In the rare circumstance where it is warranted, this would not invalidate a person's ballot. Recent Updates 15 October 2020 [Updated]: Added statements from officials in Maine, North Carolina, and Maryland. | [
"08722-proof-09-1200px-Voting_United_States.jpg"
] |
Poll workers in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, were trained to mark ballots in order to invalidate them. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In October 2020, a piece of text supposedly written by a person who had just 'finished poll manager training' was copied and pasted across social media. The text warned readers to be on the lookout as they cast their votes in the upcoming presidential election for poll workers who might write something on their ballots such as a star, a checkmark, a letter, etc. This, according to the viral message, would invalidate their vote. One popular early version of this text claimed that this recently trained poll manager was stationed in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina: ****Myrtle Beach Pay Attention*** Just finished Poll Manager training! I passed all the classes. I want you all to know something...if you are checking in at the polls and they happen to write anything on your ballot...a letter, a checkmark, a star, any writing of any kind...please request a new ballot. Your ballot will not be counted if it is written on. Please be on the lookout for this type of behavior. I know someone in Myrtle Beach who asked me about this during the primaries and I did not understand what it might have meant. Now I know. It disqualifies your ballot. BE ON GUARD!!! This claim, in general, is unfounded. Poll workers have practically no reason to mark ballots, and in the rare instance where they might, this would not invalidate a person's vote. Angela Westmoreland, a poll training manager for Horry County, where Myrtle Beach is located, commented below this post that 'this is not correct information.' Westmoreland wrote: 'Where did you train? I am the Training Coordinator for Horry County Elections and we have not even started training. Which county do you work for? This is not correct information.' The fact-checking website LeadStories managed to contact officials in Horry County, who also disputed the claims in this post. Chris Whitmire, the director of public information for the South Carolina state election commission, said: 'There's no truth to it at all. A poll manager is not going to write anything on your ballot and if they did it's not going to result in your ballot not being counted.' While the above-displayed Facebook post specifically mentioned Myrtle Beach, subsequent versions of this text were circulated without a specific location attached. These posts were often prefaced by a sentence claiming that the poster had received this information from a friend or relative. In other words, the vast majority of people sharing this post didn't seem to have any firsthand knowledge about the issue. States are responsible for running their own elections, so it's difficult to make a blanket statement covering all poll-worker training sessions across the country. However, we did reach out to election officials in various states for their interpretation of this post, and they, like the officials in Myrtle Beach, agreed that poll workers have little reason to write on ballots. If they did, it wouldn't invalidate the person's vote. Debra O'Malley, a spokesperson for the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth in Massachusetts, told us: There is no reason any poll worker would ever mark anything on a ballot, with the very rare exception of a challenged ballot. If a ballot is challenged for legal cause, the voter's name and address, as well as the challenger's, are written on the ballot to be reviewed only in the case of a recount or court order. Again, this is very rare. Ballots are not disqualified at the polling place. If a tabulator cannot read a ballot, the voter is offered a new ballot. If they do not want to spoil their ballot, it is set aside to be counted by hand at the end of the night. A spokesperson for the Maryland State Board of Elections provided a similar statement, explaining that poll workers in that state would have little reason to ever mark (or even be momentarily in possession of) a person's ballot, but if it did occur, it would not invalidate that person's vote. The spokesperson also explained some of the security measures that are in place to ensure a person's vote gets counted: A poll worker should never have possession of a voter's voted ballot. If a poll worker ever did have a voter's voted ballot and made a mark, it would not disqualify the ballot. It's possible that the mark could impact the ballot's ability to be scanned, but the voter would be present when the scanner rejected it and the voter would be issued a replacement ballot to vote. The only time a poll worker may write on a voted ballot is if the voter made a mistake on the ballot and needed a replacement ballot. The poll worker instructs the voter to 'overvote' every contest on the ballot and write 'Spoiled' on the ballot, but if the voter didn't write 'spoiled' on the ballot, the poll worker may need to write it. This is unlikely to occur as the poll worker is with the voter and instructing the voter on each step. A spokesperson for Maine's Bureau of Corporations, Elections and Commissions told us: 'The State of Maine does not reject ballots because of a stray mark on the ballot.' North Carolina's representative also confirmed that a poll worker writing on a person's ballot would 'absolutely not' cause that vote to be rejected. However, it is commonplace (in fact, it's required), for a poll worker to mark a ballot. The spokesperson explained that poll workers in North Carolina must write the voter's 'one-stop' number on their ballot, saying: In North Carolina, poll workers must write the voter's one-stop (OS) number on the ballot. This is part of the process in NC that allows us to retrieve ballots if challenged, etc. They also write the voter's precinct on the ballot so that one-stop early voting ballots can be sorted back into the proper precincts after the election for reporting and data purposes. Early voters can cast their ballot at any early voting site in their county. In short, this text does not appear to have originated with a person who recently completed poll-manager training, and the vast majority of people sharing this message are doing so without any firsthand knowledge of this issue. It should also be noted that poll workers have practically no reason to write on a person's ballot. In the rare circumstance where it is warranted, this would not invalidate a person's ballot. Recent Updates 15 October 2020 [Updated]: Added statements from officials in Maine, North Carolina, and Maryland. | In short, this text does not appear to have originated with a person who recently completed poll-manager training, and the vast majority of people sharing this message are doing so without any firsthand knowledge of this issue. It should also be noted that poll workers have practically no reason to write on a person's ballot. In the rare circumstance where it is warranted, this would not invalidate a person's ballot. Recent Updates 15 October 2020 [Updated]: Added statements from officials in Maine, North Carolina, and Maryland. | [
"08722-proof-09-1200px-Voting_United_States.jpg"
] |
Only 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions. | Contradiction | In early September 2021, the below-displayed compilation of alleged tweets were circulating on numerous Reddit threads. CNN supposedly offered several suggestions for how people in their day-to-day life could help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and then a media analyst responded with this critique: '[Reminder] that 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions and presenting the crisis as a moral failing on the part of individuals without noting this fact is journalistic malpractice.' Both tweets were authentic, though originally posted in October 2018. The underlying claim stemmed from Adam Johnson, a writer and co-host of the podcast 'Citations Needed.' In short, his post accused CNN of erroneously framing the crisis as the result of individual choice when, allegedly, just dozens of corporations were responsible for the majority of emissions trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere. However, the tweet was misleading based on evidence we outline below. After the post went viral, Johnson acknowledged the post's shortcomings on an April 2020 episode of his podcast, saying: 'The stat, albeit widely reported that way in the press, is deceiving in its media shorthand.' The Story Behind CNN's Tweet Before we identify the claim's flaws, let us provide some context to explain CNN's tweet. On Oct. 8, 2018, CNN tweeted several suggestions for people to help curb greenhouse gas emissions (eat less meat, take car rides or plane trips less often, and replace old thermostats) to promote an article published by the news outlet on the same day titled, 'What the new report on climate change expects from you.' The tweet's reference to 'that new report on climate change' alluded to a multi-chapter document that the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had released the same day. In short, that report compared various strategies for slowing (or pausing) the rate at which Earth's average surface temperature was warming, as well as provided recommendations for governments to consider while establishing regulatory laws. Based on our review of the report, the crux of the CNN tweet mostly aligned with the report's ideas - though it's worth noting the social media post editorialized the IPCC's findings with a 'second person' point of view (it referred to the speaker's audience) and cherry-picked concepts among numerous strategies to mitigate climate change. No, '100 Corporations' Are Not To Blame For '71%' of Global Emissions Now, let us address the veracity of Johnson's commendatory. Based on a cursory Google search for keywords in his tweet, we uncovered a July 10, 2017, article in The Guardian with the headline: 'Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says.' Via Twitter direct messaging, Johnson confirmed with us that he authored the viral social media post based on that headline. We elaborate more on his thinking below. The Guardian article summarized a July 2017 'Carbon Majors' study by an environmental non-profit called CDP and the Climate Accountability Institute, a 'tiny think tank' as defined by the Scientific American. However, here was the problem: The study did not assess all sources of global emissions worldwide (which includes agriculture, transportation, buildings' heating and cooling systems) but rather only analyzed the output of fossil-fuel producers, specifically. Its introduction read: 'This report looks at industrial carbon dioxide and methane emissions deriving from fossil fuel producers in the past, present, and future [...] [It] is aimed at investors wishing to better understand amount of carbon associated with their fossil fuel holdings.' Therefore, The Guardian headline - which did not note the study's strict focus on fossil fuel combustion - was unequivocally misleading. (When contacted by Snopes about the editorial decision, Kerry Eustice, a managing editor, emphasized the article's subhead and several paragraphs within the story's body make clear the referenced companies are fossil-fuel producers, specifically.) The headline appeared to be centered on this finding in the report: The distribution of emissions is concentrated: 25 corporate and state producing entities account for 51% of global industrial [greenhouse gas] emissions. All 100 [fossil fuel] producers account for 71% of global industrial [greenhouse gas] emissions. In other words, almost three fourths of worldwide fossil fuel emissions were indeed linked to just 100 corporations, based on the study. Those companies included Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco), Gazprom OAO, and National Iranian Oil Company. Meanwhile, together, those top-emitting fossil fuel companies produced roughly half of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Shaina Sadai, a Ph.D. in geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, elaborated on the researchers' work, as well as explained the consequences of its misinterpretations, in a November 2020 post on Sentient Media. In summary, she said the study focused on 'one piece of the puzzle' - the production of oil, gas, coal, and cement - when total global emissions includes cumulative outputs from other sectors, as well. Sadai wrote: The finding that 100 corporations were responsible for the majority of fossil fuel and cement production emissions is substantial, but it does not tell us about total emissions or about emissions from other sectors. [...] In order to get to net-zero emissions, all potential sources need to be considered. Fossil fuels are the largest source, but every sector needs to be scrutinized. Emissions from the agriculture sector have numerous sources. Changes in land use; for instance, when land that served one purpose is then used for another, such as when a rainforest is turned into pasture lead to increased emissions. These changes are not included in the Carbon Majors research, and more importantly, the emission sources they reflect are not either. Put another way, while fossil fuels are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and the study's identification of the sector's 100 worst-offenders is important, other industries (such as the food system and waste-management programs) contribute to global emissions, as well. See below for a 2020 sector-by-sector breakdown of emissions by the World Resources Institute: In sum, we rate this claim 'False.' While the fossil fuel industry accounts for a significant amount of all greenhouse gas emissions, and research analyzing that concept identified dozens of gas or oil companies that pollute the most, no evidence supported the claim as written. 'The point I was trying to make is that any media coverage that reduces the issue to personal choices is incomplete, and [structural] issues should always be central to climate reporting,' Johnson told us. 'Individuals' choices are not unimportant. They just shouldn't be the focus of climate coverage.' | In summary, she said the study focused on 'one piece of the puzzle' - the production of oil, gas, coal, and cement - when total global emissions includes cumulative outputs from other sectors, as well. Sadai wrote: The finding that 100 corporations were responsible for the majority of fossil fuel and cement production emissions is substantial, but it does not tell us about total emissions or about emissions from other sectors. [...] In order to get to net-zero emissions, all potential sources need to be considered. Fossil fuels are the largest source, but every sector needs to be scrutinized. Emissions from the agriculture sector have numerous sources. Changes in land use; for instance, when land that served one purpose is then used for another, such as when a rainforest is turned into pasture lead to increased emissions. These changes are not included in the Carbon Majors research, and more importantly, the emission sources they reflect are not either. Put another way, while fossil fuels are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and the study's identification of the sector's 100 worst-offenders is important, other industries (such as the food system and waste-management programs) contribute to global emissions, as well. See below for a 2020 sector-by-sector breakdown of emissions by the World Resources Institute: In sum, we rate this claim 'False.' While the fossil fuel industry accounts for a significant amount of all greenhouse gas emissions, and research analyzing that concept identified dozens of gas or oil companies that pollute the most, no evidence supported the claim as written. 'The point I was trying to make is that any media coverage that reduces the issue to personal choices is incomplete, and [structural] issues should always be central to climate reporting,' Johnson told us. 'Individuals' choices are not unimportant. They just shouldn't be the focus of climate coverage.' | [
"08730-proof-13-GettyImages-1200503727.jpg"
] |
Only 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions. | Contradiction | In early September 2021, the below-displayed compilation of alleged tweets were circulating on numerous Reddit threads. CNN supposedly offered several suggestions for how people in their day-to-day life could help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and then a media analyst responded with this critique: '[Reminder] that 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions and presenting the crisis as a moral failing on the part of individuals without noting this fact is journalistic malpractice.' Both tweets were authentic, though originally posted in October 2018. The underlying claim stemmed from Adam Johnson, a writer and co-host of the podcast 'Citations Needed.' In short, his post accused CNN of erroneously framing the crisis as the result of individual choice when, allegedly, just dozens of corporations were responsible for the majority of emissions trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere. However, the tweet was misleading based on evidence we outline below. After the post went viral, Johnson acknowledged the post's shortcomings on an April 2020 episode of his podcast, saying: 'The stat, albeit widely reported that way in the press, is deceiving in its media shorthand.' The Story Behind CNN's Tweet Before we identify the claim's flaws, let us provide some context to explain CNN's tweet. On Oct. 8, 2018, CNN tweeted several suggestions for people to help curb greenhouse gas emissions (eat less meat, take car rides or plane trips less often, and replace old thermostats) to promote an article published by the news outlet on the same day titled, 'What the new report on climate change expects from you.' The tweet's reference to 'that new report on climate change' alluded to a multi-chapter document that the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had released the same day. In short, that report compared various strategies for slowing (or pausing) the rate at which Earth's average surface temperature was warming, as well as provided recommendations for governments to consider while establishing regulatory laws. Based on our review of the report, the crux of the CNN tweet mostly aligned with the report's ideas - though it's worth noting the social media post editorialized the IPCC's findings with a 'second person' point of view (it referred to the speaker's audience) and cherry-picked concepts among numerous strategies to mitigate climate change. No, '100 Corporations' Are Not To Blame For '71%' of Global Emissions Now, let us address the veracity of Johnson's commendatory. Based on a cursory Google search for keywords in his tweet, we uncovered a July 10, 2017, article in The Guardian with the headline: 'Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says.' Via Twitter direct messaging, Johnson confirmed with us that he authored the viral social media post based on that headline. We elaborate more on his thinking below. The Guardian article summarized a July 2017 'Carbon Majors' study by an environmental non-profit called CDP and the Climate Accountability Institute, a 'tiny think tank' as defined by the Scientific American. However, here was the problem: The study did not assess all sources of global emissions worldwide (which includes agriculture, transportation, buildings' heating and cooling systems) but rather only analyzed the output of fossil-fuel producers, specifically. Its introduction read: 'This report looks at industrial carbon dioxide and methane emissions deriving from fossil fuel producers in the past, present, and future [...] [It] is aimed at investors wishing to better understand amount of carbon associated with their fossil fuel holdings.' Therefore, The Guardian headline - which did not note the study's strict focus on fossil fuel combustion - was unequivocally misleading. (When contacted by Snopes about the editorial decision, Kerry Eustice, a managing editor, emphasized the article's subhead and several paragraphs within the story's body make clear the referenced companies are fossil-fuel producers, specifically.) The headline appeared to be centered on this finding in the report: The distribution of emissions is concentrated: 25 corporate and state producing entities account for 51% of global industrial [greenhouse gas] emissions. All 100 [fossil fuel] producers account for 71% of global industrial [greenhouse gas] emissions. In other words, almost three fourths of worldwide fossil fuel emissions were indeed linked to just 100 corporations, based on the study. Those companies included Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco), Gazprom OAO, and National Iranian Oil Company. Meanwhile, together, those top-emitting fossil fuel companies produced roughly half of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Shaina Sadai, a Ph.D. in geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, elaborated on the researchers' work, as well as explained the consequences of its misinterpretations, in a November 2020 post on Sentient Media. In summary, she said the study focused on 'one piece of the puzzle' - the production of oil, gas, coal, and cement - when total global emissions includes cumulative outputs from other sectors, as well. Sadai wrote: The finding that 100 corporations were responsible for the majority of fossil fuel and cement production emissions is substantial, but it does not tell us about total emissions or about emissions from other sectors. [...] In order to get to net-zero emissions, all potential sources need to be considered. Fossil fuels are the largest source, but every sector needs to be scrutinized. Emissions from the agriculture sector have numerous sources. Changes in land use; for instance, when land that served one purpose is then used for another, such as when a rainforest is turned into pasture lead to increased emissions. These changes are not included in the Carbon Majors research, and more importantly, the emission sources they reflect are not either. Put another way, while fossil fuels are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and the study's identification of the sector's 100 worst-offenders is important, other industries (such as the food system and waste-management programs) contribute to global emissions, as well. See below for a 2020 sector-by-sector breakdown of emissions by the World Resources Institute: In sum, we rate this claim 'False.' While the fossil fuel industry accounts for a significant amount of all greenhouse gas emissions, and research analyzing that concept identified dozens of gas or oil companies that pollute the most, no evidence supported the claim as written. 'The point I was trying to make is that any media coverage that reduces the issue to personal choices is incomplete, and [structural] issues should always be central to climate reporting,' Johnson told us. 'Individuals' choices are not unimportant. They just shouldn't be the focus of climate coverage.' | In summary, she said the study focused on 'one piece of the puzzle' - the production of oil, gas, coal, and cement - when total global emissions includes cumulative outputs from other sectors, as well. Sadai wrote: The finding that 100 corporations were responsible for the majority of fossil fuel and cement production emissions is substantial, but it does not tell us about total emissions or about emissions from other sectors. [...] In order to get to net-zero emissions, all potential sources need to be considered. Fossil fuels are the largest source, but every sector needs to be scrutinized. Emissions from the agriculture sector have numerous sources. Changes in land use; for instance, when land that served one purpose is then used for another, such as when a rainforest is turned into pasture lead to increased emissions. These changes are not included in the Carbon Majors research, and more importantly, the emission sources they reflect are not either. Put another way, while fossil fuels are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and the study's identification of the sector's 100 worst-offenders is important, other industries (such as the food system and waste-management programs) contribute to global emissions, as well. See below for a 2020 sector-by-sector breakdown of emissions by the World Resources Institute: In sum, we rate this claim 'False.' While the fossil fuel industry accounts for a significant amount of all greenhouse gas emissions, and research analyzing that concept identified dozens of gas or oil companies that pollute the most, no evidence supported the claim as written. 'The point I was trying to make is that any media coverage that reduces the issue to personal choices is incomplete, and [structural] issues should always be central to climate reporting,' Johnson told us. 'Individuals' choices are not unimportant. They just shouldn't be the focus of climate coverage.' | [
"08730-proof-13-GettyImages-1200503727.jpg"
] |
Only 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions. | Contradiction | In early September 2021, the below-displayed compilation of alleged tweets were circulating on numerous Reddit threads. CNN supposedly offered several suggestions for how people in their day-to-day life could help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and then a media analyst responded with this critique: '[Reminder] that 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions and presenting the crisis as a moral failing on the part of individuals without noting this fact is journalistic malpractice.' Both tweets were authentic, though originally posted in October 2018. The underlying claim stemmed from Adam Johnson, a writer and co-host of the podcast 'Citations Needed.' In short, his post accused CNN of erroneously framing the crisis as the result of individual choice when, allegedly, just dozens of corporations were responsible for the majority of emissions trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere. However, the tweet was misleading based on evidence we outline below. After the post went viral, Johnson acknowledged the post's shortcomings on an April 2020 episode of his podcast, saying: 'The stat, albeit widely reported that way in the press, is deceiving in its media shorthand.' The Story Behind CNN's Tweet Before we identify the claim's flaws, let us provide some context to explain CNN's tweet. On Oct. 8, 2018, CNN tweeted several suggestions for people to help curb greenhouse gas emissions (eat less meat, take car rides or plane trips less often, and replace old thermostats) to promote an article published by the news outlet on the same day titled, 'What the new report on climate change expects from you.' The tweet's reference to 'that new report on climate change' alluded to a multi-chapter document that the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had released the same day. In short, that report compared various strategies for slowing (or pausing) the rate at which Earth's average surface temperature was warming, as well as provided recommendations for governments to consider while establishing regulatory laws. Based on our review of the report, the crux of the CNN tweet mostly aligned with the report's ideas - though it's worth noting the social media post editorialized the IPCC's findings with a 'second person' point of view (it referred to the speaker's audience) and cherry-picked concepts among numerous strategies to mitigate climate change. No, '100 Corporations' Are Not To Blame For '71%' of Global Emissions Now, let us address the veracity of Johnson's commendatory. Based on a cursory Google search for keywords in his tweet, we uncovered a July 10, 2017, article in The Guardian with the headline: 'Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says.' Via Twitter direct messaging, Johnson confirmed with us that he authored the viral social media post based on that headline. We elaborate more on his thinking below. The Guardian article summarized a July 2017 'Carbon Majors' study by an environmental non-profit called CDP and the Climate Accountability Institute, a 'tiny think tank' as defined by the Scientific American. However, here was the problem: The study did not assess all sources of global emissions worldwide (which includes agriculture, transportation, buildings' heating and cooling systems) but rather only analyzed the output of fossil-fuel producers, specifically. Its introduction read: 'This report looks at industrial carbon dioxide and methane emissions deriving from fossil fuel producers in the past, present, and future [...] [It] is aimed at investors wishing to better understand amount of carbon associated with their fossil fuel holdings.' Therefore, The Guardian headline - which did not note the study's strict focus on fossil fuel combustion - was unequivocally misleading. (When contacted by Snopes about the editorial decision, Kerry Eustice, a managing editor, emphasized the article's subhead and several paragraphs within the story's body make clear the referenced companies are fossil-fuel producers, specifically.) The headline appeared to be centered on this finding in the report: The distribution of emissions is concentrated: 25 corporate and state producing entities account for 51% of global industrial [greenhouse gas] emissions. All 100 [fossil fuel] producers account for 71% of global industrial [greenhouse gas] emissions. In other words, almost three fourths of worldwide fossil fuel emissions were indeed linked to just 100 corporations, based on the study. Those companies included Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco), Gazprom OAO, and National Iranian Oil Company. Meanwhile, together, those top-emitting fossil fuel companies produced roughly half of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Shaina Sadai, a Ph.D. in geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, elaborated on the researchers' work, as well as explained the consequences of its misinterpretations, in a November 2020 post on Sentient Media. In summary, she said the study focused on 'one piece of the puzzle' - the production of oil, gas, coal, and cement - when total global emissions includes cumulative outputs from other sectors, as well. Sadai wrote: The finding that 100 corporations were responsible for the majority of fossil fuel and cement production emissions is substantial, but it does not tell us about total emissions or about emissions from other sectors. [...] In order to get to net-zero emissions, all potential sources need to be considered. Fossil fuels are the largest source, but every sector needs to be scrutinized. Emissions from the agriculture sector have numerous sources. Changes in land use; for instance, when land that served one purpose is then used for another, such as when a rainforest is turned into pasture lead to increased emissions. These changes are not included in the Carbon Majors research, and more importantly, the emission sources they reflect are not either. Put another way, while fossil fuels are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and the study's identification of the sector's 100 worst-offenders is important, other industries (such as the food system and waste-management programs) contribute to global emissions, as well. See below for a 2020 sector-by-sector breakdown of emissions by the World Resources Institute: In sum, we rate this claim 'False.' While the fossil fuel industry accounts for a significant amount of all greenhouse gas emissions, and research analyzing that concept identified dozens of gas or oil companies that pollute the most, no evidence supported the claim as written. 'The point I was trying to make is that any media coverage that reduces the issue to personal choices is incomplete, and [structural] issues should always be central to climate reporting,' Johnson told us. 'Individuals' choices are not unimportant. They just shouldn't be the focus of climate coverage.' | In summary, she said the study focused on 'one piece of the puzzle' - the production of oil, gas, coal, and cement - when total global emissions includes cumulative outputs from other sectors, as well. Sadai wrote: The finding that 100 corporations were responsible for the majority of fossil fuel and cement production emissions is substantial, but it does not tell us about total emissions or about emissions from other sectors. [...] In order to get to net-zero emissions, all potential sources need to be considered. Fossil fuels are the largest source, but every sector needs to be scrutinized. Emissions from the agriculture sector have numerous sources. Changes in land use; for instance, when land that served one purpose is then used for another, such as when a rainforest is turned into pasture lead to increased emissions. These changes are not included in the Carbon Majors research, and more importantly, the emission sources they reflect are not either. Put another way, while fossil fuels are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and the study's identification of the sector's 100 worst-offenders is important, other industries (such as the food system and waste-management programs) contribute to global emissions, as well. See below for a 2020 sector-by-sector breakdown of emissions by the World Resources Institute: In sum, we rate this claim 'False.' While the fossil fuel industry accounts for a significant amount of all greenhouse gas emissions, and research analyzing that concept identified dozens of gas or oil companies that pollute the most, no evidence supported the claim as written. 'The point I was trying to make is that any media coverage that reduces the issue to personal choices is incomplete, and [structural] issues should always be central to climate reporting,' Johnson told us. 'Individuals' choices are not unimportant. They just shouldn't be the focus of climate coverage.' | [
"08730-proof-13-GettyImages-1200503727.jpg"
] |
The U.S. Department of Justice issued a card that exempts holders from wearing face masks on the grounds that it poses a health risk to them due to medical conditions they aren't required to disclose by authority of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). | Contradiction | Mandatory mask-wearing in public gradually became the law of the land in regions across the United States in 2020 due to the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. Seemingly in response to such regulations, images of cards and flyers citing the Department of Justice (DOJ) began cropping up across the internet, proclaiming certain laws made the bearer exempt from wearing face masks These cards were shared on California-based Facebook groups in June, around the same time the state issued an executive order requiring Californians to wear face masks in public. Snopes readers asked us if the cards were valid. We learned they were not. HEADS UP fellow businesses.... This is not a thing. This is what happens when Arts and Crafts Karens have too much time on their hands. We will throw it in the trash and send them on their way. pic.twitter.com/VKACSA3pRU - Lance Bass (@LanceBass) June 24, 2020 I am exempt from any ordinance requiring face mask usage in public. Wearing a face mask posses [sic] a mental and/or physical risk to me. Under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), I am not required to disclose my condition to you ... Denying access to your business/organization will be also reported to FTBA for further actions. Presented like a business card, it mislabeled the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as singular 'Disability' act, included the ADA information line's phone number, and claimed there would be steep fines for any violation. In an announcement on ADA.gov, while not explicitly referencing the above card, the Department of Justice (DOJ) declared such postings or flyers on the internet that used its seal as fraudulent. The San Luis Obispo County Public Health Department, California, reiterated this: The Freedom to Breathe Agency (FTBA), according to its Facebook page, was previously known as the Anti-Mask Task Force, and described itself as a 'movement of proud American citizens who are dedicated to protecting their freedom and liberty.' They would not be able to enforce any action against offenders because they are not connected to a government agency. But the card's fake credentials implied that able-bodied bearers could exploit legitimate ADA regulations meant to protect people with disabilities. Snopes fact-checked a similar story in May 2020, when we learned that the ADA requires that businesses with mandatory mask regulations must accommodate individuals who cannot wear masks due to their health or a disability. Coinciding with claims made in the card's text, in many parts of the U.S., people aren't required to disclose their physical condition if a business asks for proof of disability. But able-bodied people who seek to exploit such protections would not be supported by the ADA if, for example, they tried to sue a business for refusing them entry. In our previous investigation, we reached out to numerous ADA centers across the country. The New England ADA Center, for instance, told us: The ADA protects the privacy of people who have disabilities. People who lie about a medical condition and don't have one, do not have rights under the ADA. In sum, even though their arguments rely on existing protections for people with disabilities, such cards arguing that bearers can be exempted from wearing masks are totally fake. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | In sum, even though their arguments rely on existing protections for people with disabilities, such cards arguing that bearers can be exempted from wearing masks are totally fake. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | [] |
The U.S. Department of Justice issued a card that exempts holders from wearing face masks on the grounds that it poses a health risk to them due to medical conditions they aren't required to disclose by authority of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). | Contradiction | Mandatory mask-wearing in public gradually became the law of the land in regions across the United States in 2020 due to the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. Seemingly in response to such regulations, images of cards and flyers citing the Department of Justice (DOJ) began cropping up across the internet, proclaiming certain laws made the bearer exempt from wearing face masks These cards were shared on California-based Facebook groups in June, around the same time the state issued an executive order requiring Californians to wear face masks in public. Snopes readers asked us if the cards were valid. We learned they were not. HEADS UP fellow businesses.... This is not a thing. This is what happens when Arts and Crafts Karens have too much time on their hands. We will throw it in the trash and send them on their way. pic.twitter.com/VKACSA3pRU - Lance Bass (@LanceBass) June 24, 2020 I am exempt from any ordinance requiring face mask usage in public. Wearing a face mask posses [sic] a mental and/or physical risk to me. Under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), I am not required to disclose my condition to you ... Denying access to your business/organization will be also reported to FTBA for further actions. Presented like a business card, it mislabeled the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as singular 'Disability' act, included the ADA information line's phone number, and claimed there would be steep fines for any violation. In an announcement on ADA.gov, while not explicitly referencing the above card, the Department of Justice (DOJ) declared such postings or flyers on the internet that used its seal as fraudulent. The San Luis Obispo County Public Health Department, California, reiterated this: The Freedom to Breathe Agency (FTBA), according to its Facebook page, was previously known as the Anti-Mask Task Force, and described itself as a 'movement of proud American citizens who are dedicated to protecting their freedom and liberty.' They would not be able to enforce any action against offenders because they are not connected to a government agency. But the card's fake credentials implied that able-bodied bearers could exploit legitimate ADA regulations meant to protect people with disabilities. Snopes fact-checked a similar story in May 2020, when we learned that the ADA requires that businesses with mandatory mask regulations must accommodate individuals who cannot wear masks due to their health or a disability. Coinciding with claims made in the card's text, in many parts of the U.S., people aren't required to disclose their physical condition if a business asks for proof of disability. But able-bodied people who seek to exploit such protections would not be supported by the ADA if, for example, they tried to sue a business for refusing them entry. In our previous investigation, we reached out to numerous ADA centers across the country. The New England ADA Center, for instance, told us: The ADA protects the privacy of people who have disabilities. People who lie about a medical condition and don't have one, do not have rights under the ADA. In sum, even though their arguments rely on existing protections for people with disabilities, such cards arguing that bearers can be exempted from wearing masks are totally fake. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | In sum, even though their arguments rely on existing protections for people with disabilities, such cards arguing that bearers can be exempted from wearing masks are totally fake. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | [] |
The U.S. Department of Justice issued a card that exempts holders from wearing face masks on the grounds that it poses a health risk to them due to medical conditions they aren't required to disclose by authority of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). | Contradiction | Mandatory mask-wearing in public gradually became the law of the land in regions across the United States in 2020 due to the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. Seemingly in response to such regulations, images of cards and flyers citing the Department of Justice (DOJ) began cropping up across the internet, proclaiming certain laws made the bearer exempt from wearing face masks These cards were shared on California-based Facebook groups in June, around the same time the state issued an executive order requiring Californians to wear face masks in public. Snopes readers asked us if the cards were valid. We learned they were not. HEADS UP fellow businesses.... This is not a thing. This is what happens when Arts and Crafts Karens have too much time on their hands. We will throw it in the trash and send them on their way. pic.twitter.com/VKACSA3pRU - Lance Bass (@LanceBass) June 24, 2020 I am exempt from any ordinance requiring face mask usage in public. Wearing a face mask posses [sic] a mental and/or physical risk to me. Under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), I am not required to disclose my condition to you ... Denying access to your business/organization will be also reported to FTBA for further actions. Presented like a business card, it mislabeled the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as singular 'Disability' act, included the ADA information line's phone number, and claimed there would be steep fines for any violation. In an announcement on ADA.gov, while not explicitly referencing the above card, the Department of Justice (DOJ) declared such postings or flyers on the internet that used its seal as fraudulent. The San Luis Obispo County Public Health Department, California, reiterated this: The Freedom to Breathe Agency (FTBA), according to its Facebook page, was previously known as the Anti-Mask Task Force, and described itself as a 'movement of proud American citizens who are dedicated to protecting their freedom and liberty.' They would not be able to enforce any action against offenders because they are not connected to a government agency. But the card's fake credentials implied that able-bodied bearers could exploit legitimate ADA regulations meant to protect people with disabilities. Snopes fact-checked a similar story in May 2020, when we learned that the ADA requires that businesses with mandatory mask regulations must accommodate individuals who cannot wear masks due to their health or a disability. Coinciding with claims made in the card's text, in many parts of the U.S., people aren't required to disclose their physical condition if a business asks for proof of disability. But able-bodied people who seek to exploit such protections would not be supported by the ADA if, for example, they tried to sue a business for refusing them entry. In our previous investigation, we reached out to numerous ADA centers across the country. The New England ADA Center, for instance, told us: The ADA protects the privacy of people who have disabilities. People who lie about a medical condition and don't have one, do not have rights under the ADA. In sum, even though their arguments rely on existing protections for people with disabilities, such cards arguing that bearers can be exempted from wearing masks are totally fake. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | In sum, even though their arguments rely on existing protections for people with disabilities, such cards arguing that bearers can be exempted from wearing masks are totally fake. We thus rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | [] |
Pope Francis granted diplomatic immunity to a Vatican diplomat suspected of child pornography offenses in the United States. | Contradiction | In June 2018, a court in the Vatican City convicted and sentenced Monsignor Carlo Alberto Capella, a former diplomat, after he admitted to possessing and distributing child pornography while commissioned in the United States. In response, YourNewsWire.com - which has a long history of publishing misleading and inaccurate stories as well as conspiracy theories and fake news - pointed the finger at Pope Francis himself, claiming that the pontiff had 'granted [Capella] diplomatic immunity' in the case. A pedophile priest caught with child pornography while working in Washington has escaped prosecution by U.S. authorities because Pope Francis granted him diplomatic immunity, according to reports. Carlo Alberto Capella was in the U.S. as a senior Vatican diplomat when he was caught with a trove of indecent images and videos of children being sexually abused that investigators claim he was trading internationally with other pedophiles. Described as an 'open and shut case' that should have landed the pedophile priest in prison for years, the U.S. authorities were 'powerless' to prosecute him after the Vatican insisted he was diplomatically immune and must be allowed to leave the country, according [to the] Reuters news agency. Pope Francis did not 'grant' Capella diplomatic immunity, since Capella was an accredited Vatican diplomat in the United States when he committed his offenses and therefore had immunity by default. However, according to reports, the Vatican did refuse a request from U.S. prosecutors to waive that diplomatic immunity, which would have left Capella open to criminal prosecution in the United States. When Vatican authorities recalled Capella from his post in Washington in the fall of 2017, they announced that Vatican prosecutors had already opened a criminal investigation against him, suggesting that diplomatic immunity was waived in this case for the purpose of bringing Capella back to the Vatican to face justice there, which he subsequently did. Background On 21 August 2017, the State Department notified the Vatican that an investigation had uncovered evidence that one of its diplomatic staff - later named as Carlo Alberto Capella - had distributed and possessed child pornography, according to a later Vatican statement. At some point between then and mid-September, the Vatican recalled him from his diplomatic post, and he returned to the Vatican. According to an unnamed State Department official cited by the Washington Post, the U.S. had asked the Vatican to waive Capella's diplomatic immunity, but the Vatican refused to do so. This was corroborated by the Associated Press. It is highly likely that U.S. authorities would have expelled Capella from the country, a relatively infrequent and serious move in international diplomacy, if the Vatican had not recalled him first. According to State Department guidelines, expulsion is sought in cases where there is strong evidence of a 'serious' crime (that is, a felony or violent crime), and the other nation's officials refuse to waive immunity. The criminal immunity that foreign diplomatic and some consular personnel enjoy protects them from the normal jurisdiction of the courts with respect to alleged criminal activity. However, in those instances in which a person with immunity is believed to have committed a serious offense (any felony or crime of violence) and the sending country has not acceded to the U.S. Department of State's request for a waiver of immunity, it is the Department's policy to require the departure of that individual from the United States. Requiring the departure of a person who enjoys immunity is an extreme diplomatic tool, and it is used only after the most careful consideration to ensure that the United States is not perceived as having acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or prejudiced manner. Under U.S. Code Section 2252, receiving, possessing or distributing child pornography is punishable by a fine and between five and 20 years in prison (for repeat offenders, the term can be between 15 and 40 years). This makes the offenses Capella was suspected of felonies, meaning the State Department's own policy of expulsion would likely have been implemented in his case. In September 2017, after Capella's return to the Vatican, authorities in Canada announced that they too had been investigating his actions, and found evidence that he had possessed and shared child abuse images using a church computer during a visit to Windsor, Ontario at Christmas time in 2016. In a statement, Windsor Police wrote: In February of 2017 the Windsor Police Service Internet Child Exploitation Unit (ICE) received information that originated from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre (NCECC) indicating that a suspect in the city of Windsor had allegedly uploaded Child Pornography using a social networking website. Members of the Windsor Police Service ICE Unit launched an investigation. Investigators applied for and were granted judicial permission to review records related to the involved internet service provider address. Through investigation it was determined that the alleged offences occurred between December 24 - 27, 2016. Investigators believe that the offences occurred while the suspect was visiting a place of worship in Windsor, Ontario. Although the Vatican had already announced Capella's return to Italy, Windsor Police issued a nationwide warrant for Capella's arrest on charges of accessing, possessing and distributing child pornography. The Vatican investigation into Capella's crimes led to his arrest and imprisonment in April 2018. On 30 May 2018, he was indicted on charges of possessing and distributing a 'large quantity' of child pornography; his trial began on 22 June 2018. The Vatican City State Tribunal, composed of three judges, convicted Capella the following day, and Judge Giuseppe Dalla Torre sentenced him to five years in prison, the maximum sentence available under a child pornography law introduced in the Vatican City in 2013. Capella did not contest the charges against him, and blamed his actions on a 'personal crisis,' dismissing them as 'merely a bump in the road' and vowing to forge ahead in his ministry, the New York Times reported. Conclusion Monsignor Capella had diplomatic immunity by default, something bestowed upon him by the terms of the United Nations' 1961 Vienna Convention. That immunity wasn't granted to him by Pope Francis. However, it is true that the Vatican, led by its head of state Pope Francis, could have agreed to waive Capella's diplomatic immunity, but chose not to do so. If they had, Capella would almost certainly have faced trial in the United States, the jurisdiction where his crimes took place. If convicted, he would likely have been given a prison sentence of longer than the five years he got upon his return to the Vatican. Under U.S. law, five years is the minimum sentence for possession and distribution of child pornography, whereas in the Vatican it is the maximum. | Conclusion Monsignor Capella had diplomatic immunity by default, something bestowed upon him by the terms of the United Nations' 1961 Vienna Convention. That immunity wasn't granted to him by Pope Francis. However, it is true that the Vatican, led by its head of state Pope Francis, could have agreed to waive Capella's diplomatic immunity, but chose not to do so. If they had, Capella would almost certainly have faced trial in the United States, the jurisdiction where his crimes took place. If convicted, he would likely have been given a prison sentence of longer than the five years he got upon his return to the Vatican. Under U.S. law, five years is the minimum sentence for possession and distribution of child pornography, whereas in the Vatican it is the maximum. | [
"08780-proof-03-Untitled-design-14-1.jpg"
] |
Pope Francis granted diplomatic immunity to a Vatican diplomat suspected of child pornography offenses in the United States. | Contradiction | In June 2018, a court in the Vatican City convicted and sentenced Monsignor Carlo Alberto Capella, a former diplomat, after he admitted to possessing and distributing child pornography while commissioned in the United States. In response, YourNewsWire.com - which has a long history of publishing misleading and inaccurate stories as well as conspiracy theories and fake news - pointed the finger at Pope Francis himself, claiming that the pontiff had 'granted [Capella] diplomatic immunity' in the case. A pedophile priest caught with child pornography while working in Washington has escaped prosecution by U.S. authorities because Pope Francis granted him diplomatic immunity, according to reports. Carlo Alberto Capella was in the U.S. as a senior Vatican diplomat when he was caught with a trove of indecent images and videos of children being sexually abused that investigators claim he was trading internationally with other pedophiles. Described as an 'open and shut case' that should have landed the pedophile priest in prison for years, the U.S. authorities were 'powerless' to prosecute him after the Vatican insisted he was diplomatically immune and must be allowed to leave the country, according [to the] Reuters news agency. Pope Francis did not 'grant' Capella diplomatic immunity, since Capella was an accredited Vatican diplomat in the United States when he committed his offenses and therefore had immunity by default. However, according to reports, the Vatican did refuse a request from U.S. prosecutors to waive that diplomatic immunity, which would have left Capella open to criminal prosecution in the United States. When Vatican authorities recalled Capella from his post in Washington in the fall of 2017, they announced that Vatican prosecutors had already opened a criminal investigation against him, suggesting that diplomatic immunity was waived in this case for the purpose of bringing Capella back to the Vatican to face justice there, which he subsequently did. Background On 21 August 2017, the State Department notified the Vatican that an investigation had uncovered evidence that one of its diplomatic staff - later named as Carlo Alberto Capella - had distributed and possessed child pornography, according to a later Vatican statement. At some point between then and mid-September, the Vatican recalled him from his diplomatic post, and he returned to the Vatican. According to an unnamed State Department official cited by the Washington Post, the U.S. had asked the Vatican to waive Capella's diplomatic immunity, but the Vatican refused to do so. This was corroborated by the Associated Press. It is highly likely that U.S. authorities would have expelled Capella from the country, a relatively infrequent and serious move in international diplomacy, if the Vatican had not recalled him first. According to State Department guidelines, expulsion is sought in cases where there is strong evidence of a 'serious' crime (that is, a felony or violent crime), and the other nation's officials refuse to waive immunity. The criminal immunity that foreign diplomatic and some consular personnel enjoy protects them from the normal jurisdiction of the courts with respect to alleged criminal activity. However, in those instances in which a person with immunity is believed to have committed a serious offense (any felony or crime of violence) and the sending country has not acceded to the U.S. Department of State's request for a waiver of immunity, it is the Department's policy to require the departure of that individual from the United States. Requiring the departure of a person who enjoys immunity is an extreme diplomatic tool, and it is used only after the most careful consideration to ensure that the United States is not perceived as having acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or prejudiced manner. Under U.S. Code Section 2252, receiving, possessing or distributing child pornography is punishable by a fine and between five and 20 years in prison (for repeat offenders, the term can be between 15 and 40 years). This makes the offenses Capella was suspected of felonies, meaning the State Department's own policy of expulsion would likely have been implemented in his case. In September 2017, after Capella's return to the Vatican, authorities in Canada announced that they too had been investigating his actions, and found evidence that he had possessed and shared child abuse images using a church computer during a visit to Windsor, Ontario at Christmas time in 2016. In a statement, Windsor Police wrote: In February of 2017 the Windsor Police Service Internet Child Exploitation Unit (ICE) received information that originated from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre (NCECC) indicating that a suspect in the city of Windsor had allegedly uploaded Child Pornography using a social networking website. Members of the Windsor Police Service ICE Unit launched an investigation. Investigators applied for and were granted judicial permission to review records related to the involved internet service provider address. Through investigation it was determined that the alleged offences occurred between December 24 - 27, 2016. Investigators believe that the offences occurred while the suspect was visiting a place of worship in Windsor, Ontario. Although the Vatican had already announced Capella's return to Italy, Windsor Police issued a nationwide warrant for Capella's arrest on charges of accessing, possessing and distributing child pornography. The Vatican investigation into Capella's crimes led to his arrest and imprisonment in April 2018. On 30 May 2018, he was indicted on charges of possessing and distributing a 'large quantity' of child pornography; his trial began on 22 June 2018. The Vatican City State Tribunal, composed of three judges, convicted Capella the following day, and Judge Giuseppe Dalla Torre sentenced him to five years in prison, the maximum sentence available under a child pornography law introduced in the Vatican City in 2013. Capella did not contest the charges against him, and blamed his actions on a 'personal crisis,' dismissing them as 'merely a bump in the road' and vowing to forge ahead in his ministry, the New York Times reported. Conclusion Monsignor Capella had diplomatic immunity by default, something bestowed upon him by the terms of the United Nations' 1961 Vienna Convention. That immunity wasn't granted to him by Pope Francis. However, it is true that the Vatican, led by its head of state Pope Francis, could have agreed to waive Capella's diplomatic immunity, but chose not to do so. If they had, Capella would almost certainly have faced trial in the United States, the jurisdiction where his crimes took place. If convicted, he would likely have been given a prison sentence of longer than the five years he got upon his return to the Vatican. Under U.S. law, five years is the minimum sentence for possession and distribution of child pornography, whereas in the Vatican it is the maximum. | Conclusion Monsignor Capella had diplomatic immunity by default, something bestowed upon him by the terms of the United Nations' 1961 Vienna Convention. That immunity wasn't granted to him by Pope Francis. However, it is true that the Vatican, led by its head of state Pope Francis, could have agreed to waive Capella's diplomatic immunity, but chose not to do so. If they had, Capella would almost certainly have faced trial in the United States, the jurisdiction where his crimes took place. If convicted, he would likely have been given a prison sentence of longer than the five years he got upon his return to the Vatican. Under U.S. law, five years is the minimum sentence for possession and distribution of child pornography, whereas in the Vatican it is the maximum. | [
"08780-proof-03-Untitled-design-14-1.jpg"
] |
Pope Francis granted diplomatic immunity to a Vatican diplomat suspected of child pornography offenses in the United States. | Contradiction | In June 2018, a court in the Vatican City convicted and sentenced Monsignor Carlo Alberto Capella, a former diplomat, after he admitted to possessing and distributing child pornography while commissioned in the United States. In response, YourNewsWire.com - which has a long history of publishing misleading and inaccurate stories as well as conspiracy theories and fake news - pointed the finger at Pope Francis himself, claiming that the pontiff had 'granted [Capella] diplomatic immunity' in the case. A pedophile priest caught with child pornography while working in Washington has escaped prosecution by U.S. authorities because Pope Francis granted him diplomatic immunity, according to reports. Carlo Alberto Capella was in the U.S. as a senior Vatican diplomat when he was caught with a trove of indecent images and videos of children being sexually abused that investigators claim he was trading internationally with other pedophiles. Described as an 'open and shut case' that should have landed the pedophile priest in prison for years, the U.S. authorities were 'powerless' to prosecute him after the Vatican insisted he was diplomatically immune and must be allowed to leave the country, according [to the] Reuters news agency. Pope Francis did not 'grant' Capella diplomatic immunity, since Capella was an accredited Vatican diplomat in the United States when he committed his offenses and therefore had immunity by default. However, according to reports, the Vatican did refuse a request from U.S. prosecutors to waive that diplomatic immunity, which would have left Capella open to criminal prosecution in the United States. When Vatican authorities recalled Capella from his post in Washington in the fall of 2017, they announced that Vatican prosecutors had already opened a criminal investigation against him, suggesting that diplomatic immunity was waived in this case for the purpose of bringing Capella back to the Vatican to face justice there, which he subsequently did. Background On 21 August 2017, the State Department notified the Vatican that an investigation had uncovered evidence that one of its diplomatic staff - later named as Carlo Alberto Capella - had distributed and possessed child pornography, according to a later Vatican statement. At some point between then and mid-September, the Vatican recalled him from his diplomatic post, and he returned to the Vatican. According to an unnamed State Department official cited by the Washington Post, the U.S. had asked the Vatican to waive Capella's diplomatic immunity, but the Vatican refused to do so. This was corroborated by the Associated Press. It is highly likely that U.S. authorities would have expelled Capella from the country, a relatively infrequent and serious move in international diplomacy, if the Vatican had not recalled him first. According to State Department guidelines, expulsion is sought in cases where there is strong evidence of a 'serious' crime (that is, a felony or violent crime), and the other nation's officials refuse to waive immunity. The criminal immunity that foreign diplomatic and some consular personnel enjoy protects them from the normal jurisdiction of the courts with respect to alleged criminal activity. However, in those instances in which a person with immunity is believed to have committed a serious offense (any felony or crime of violence) and the sending country has not acceded to the U.S. Department of State's request for a waiver of immunity, it is the Department's policy to require the departure of that individual from the United States. Requiring the departure of a person who enjoys immunity is an extreme diplomatic tool, and it is used only after the most careful consideration to ensure that the United States is not perceived as having acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or prejudiced manner. Under U.S. Code Section 2252, receiving, possessing or distributing child pornography is punishable by a fine and between five and 20 years in prison (for repeat offenders, the term can be between 15 and 40 years). This makes the offenses Capella was suspected of felonies, meaning the State Department's own policy of expulsion would likely have been implemented in his case. In September 2017, after Capella's return to the Vatican, authorities in Canada announced that they too had been investigating his actions, and found evidence that he had possessed and shared child abuse images using a church computer during a visit to Windsor, Ontario at Christmas time in 2016. In a statement, Windsor Police wrote: In February of 2017 the Windsor Police Service Internet Child Exploitation Unit (ICE) received information that originated from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre (NCECC) indicating that a suspect in the city of Windsor had allegedly uploaded Child Pornography using a social networking website. Members of the Windsor Police Service ICE Unit launched an investigation. Investigators applied for and were granted judicial permission to review records related to the involved internet service provider address. Through investigation it was determined that the alleged offences occurred between December 24 - 27, 2016. Investigators believe that the offences occurred while the suspect was visiting a place of worship in Windsor, Ontario. Although the Vatican had already announced Capella's return to Italy, Windsor Police issued a nationwide warrant for Capella's arrest on charges of accessing, possessing and distributing child pornography. The Vatican investigation into Capella's crimes led to his arrest and imprisonment in April 2018. On 30 May 2018, he was indicted on charges of possessing and distributing a 'large quantity' of child pornography; his trial began on 22 June 2018. The Vatican City State Tribunal, composed of three judges, convicted Capella the following day, and Judge Giuseppe Dalla Torre sentenced him to five years in prison, the maximum sentence available under a child pornography law introduced in the Vatican City in 2013. Capella did not contest the charges against him, and blamed his actions on a 'personal crisis,' dismissing them as 'merely a bump in the road' and vowing to forge ahead in his ministry, the New York Times reported. Conclusion Monsignor Capella had diplomatic immunity by default, something bestowed upon him by the terms of the United Nations' 1961 Vienna Convention. That immunity wasn't granted to him by Pope Francis. However, it is true that the Vatican, led by its head of state Pope Francis, could have agreed to waive Capella's diplomatic immunity, but chose not to do so. If they had, Capella would almost certainly have faced trial in the United States, the jurisdiction where his crimes took place. If convicted, he would likely have been given a prison sentence of longer than the five years he got upon his return to the Vatican. Under U.S. law, five years is the minimum sentence for possession and distribution of child pornography, whereas in the Vatican it is the maximum. | Conclusion Monsignor Capella had diplomatic immunity by default, something bestowed upon him by the terms of the United Nations' 1961 Vienna Convention. That immunity wasn't granted to him by Pope Francis. However, it is true that the Vatican, led by its head of state Pope Francis, could have agreed to waive Capella's diplomatic immunity, but chose not to do so. If they had, Capella would almost certainly have faced trial in the United States, the jurisdiction where his crimes took place. If convicted, he would likely have been given a prison sentence of longer than the five years he got upon his return to the Vatican. Under U.S. law, five years is the minimum sentence for possession and distribution of child pornography, whereas in the Vatican it is the maximum. | [
"08780-proof-03-Untitled-design-14-1.jpg"
] |
Google has defined the word 'parasite' as a 'capitalist. | Contradiction | On Oct. 14, 2019, former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich posted a message on Twitter criticizing Google for providing an inaccurate definition for the word 'parasite.' According to Gingrich, Google defined the word 'parasite' as a 'capitalist': Google dictionary's definition of parasite as a capitalist is inaccurate, disgusting and an absurdity given the wealth of the google founders. That would make them among the largest parasites. - Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) October 14, 2019 Gingrich gets plenty of things wrong in this tweet. For starters, Google does not write its own dictionary entries. The search engine provides links and information from reputable dictionaries, such as the one compiled by Oxford University Press. Second, Gingrich's complaint is based on an example sentence showing a derogatory use of the word 'parasite,' and not an actual definition. When we searched for the term 'parasite definition' on Google, we were provided the following definition: 'an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.' Below is a screenshot of this search result. A few things are worth noting. First, Google includes the words 'From Oxford' at the bottom left of this image, indicating the source of the provided information. If you click on the words 'From Oxford' while performing this search on Google, you will be redirected to Lexico.com, a collaboration between Dictionary.com and Oxford University Press (OUP). Second, Google provides a usage example below its definitions: The problematic portion of this definition, according to Gingrich, can be seen when the information box is expanded. Google provides a second definition for the term 'parasite' but this time shows how the word can be used in a derogatory fashion. Google provides the definition here as 'a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.' They also give an example sentence of how 'parasite' can be used in this derogatory manner: 'The capitalist is really a parasite on the workers.' Danny Sullivan, Google's public search liaison, responded to Gingrich's complaint with some additional information. Sullivan explained the complaint was based on a usage example, not a definition, and that the information was taken from a third party, Lexico.com, and was not created by Google itself: Just to clarify: that's not the definition shown. That's a usage example shown with the second definition and one that comes from Oxford University Press, as indicated in the source line, which takes you to the original page. We'll pass this feedback along. pic.twitter.com/3zl3zSJLV3 - Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) October 14, 2019 In sum, Google did provide an example sentence for the word 'parasite' that showed how the term could be used in a derogatory fashion to describe a capitalist. However, this comparison was not made in the actual definition for the word (as alleged by Gingrich), nor was this example sentence written by Google. | In sum, Google did provide an example sentence for the word 'parasite' that showed how the term could be used in a derogatory fashion to describe a capitalist. However, this comparison was not made in the actual definition for the word (as alleged by Gingrich), nor was this example sentence written by Google. | [
"08784-proof-02-GettyImages-1179006456-e1595881750138.jpg",
"08784-proof-03-parasite-definition.jpg",
"08784-proof-12-parasite-definition-1.jpg"
] |
Google has defined the word 'parasite' as a 'capitalist. | Contradiction | On Oct. 14, 2019, former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich posted a message on Twitter criticizing Google for providing an inaccurate definition for the word 'parasite.' According to Gingrich, Google defined the word 'parasite' as a 'capitalist': Google dictionary's definition of parasite as a capitalist is inaccurate, disgusting and an absurdity given the wealth of the google founders. That would make them among the largest parasites. - Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) October 14, 2019 Gingrich gets plenty of things wrong in this tweet. For starters, Google does not write its own dictionary entries. The search engine provides links and information from reputable dictionaries, such as the one compiled by Oxford University Press. Second, Gingrich's complaint is based on an example sentence showing a derogatory use of the word 'parasite,' and not an actual definition. When we searched for the term 'parasite definition' on Google, we were provided the following definition: 'an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.' Below is a screenshot of this search result. A few things are worth noting. First, Google includes the words 'From Oxford' at the bottom left of this image, indicating the source of the provided information. If you click on the words 'From Oxford' while performing this search on Google, you will be redirected to Lexico.com, a collaboration between Dictionary.com and Oxford University Press (OUP). Second, Google provides a usage example below its definitions: The problematic portion of this definition, according to Gingrich, can be seen when the information box is expanded. Google provides a second definition for the term 'parasite' but this time shows how the word can be used in a derogatory fashion. Google provides the definition here as 'a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return.' They also give an example sentence of how 'parasite' can be used in this derogatory manner: 'The capitalist is really a parasite on the workers.' Danny Sullivan, Google's public search liaison, responded to Gingrich's complaint with some additional information. Sullivan explained the complaint was based on a usage example, not a definition, and that the information was taken from a third party, Lexico.com, and was not created by Google itself: Just to clarify: that's not the definition shown. That's a usage example shown with the second definition and one that comes from Oxford University Press, as indicated in the source line, which takes you to the original page. We'll pass this feedback along. pic.twitter.com/3zl3zSJLV3 - Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) October 14, 2019 In sum, Google did provide an example sentence for the word 'parasite' that showed how the term could be used in a derogatory fashion to describe a capitalist. However, this comparison was not made in the actual definition for the word (as alleged by Gingrich), nor was this example sentence written by Google. | In sum, Google did provide an example sentence for the word 'parasite' that showed how the term could be used in a derogatory fashion to describe a capitalist. However, this comparison was not made in the actual definition for the word (as alleged by Gingrich), nor was this example sentence written by Google. | [
"08784-proof-02-GettyImages-1179006456-e1595881750138.jpg",
"08784-proof-03-parasite-definition.jpg",
"08784-proof-12-parasite-definition-1.jpg"
] |
President Trump has scrapped plans for constructing a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border in favor of a proposal for a dome. | Contradiction | On 6 May 2018, the web site Daily World Update published an article reporting that President Trump had scrapped plans for constructing a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border in favor of a proposal for a dome: With Democrats running around whining about using our hard-earned tax money for 'realistic' things instead of a big beautiful wall to protect us from the threateningly dusky, our President has just doubled-down like a magnificent Blackjack player. Now will come: The Dome. None of this was true. This report was a fabricated story that originated solely with Daily World Update, a site that is part of a fake news network which engages in political trolling under the guise of offering 'satire.' The site's disclaimer notes that 'Everything on this website is fiction.' | On 6 May 2018, the web site Daily World Update published an article reporting that President Trump had scrapped plans for constructing a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border in favor of a proposal for a dome: With Democrats running around whining about using our hard-earned tax money for 'realistic' things instead of a big beautiful wall to protect us from the threateningly dusky, our President has just doubled-down like a magnificent Blackjack player. Now will come: The Dome. None of this was true. This report was a fabricated story that originated solely with Daily World Update, a site that is part of a fake news network which engages in political trolling under the guise of offering 'satire.' The site's disclaimer notes that 'Everything on this website is fiction.' | [
"08852-proof-02-US_Mexico_border_wall_feature.jpg"
] |
A photograph captures a solar eclipse as seen from space. | Contradiction | An image was commonly circulated online in mid-2012 that was billed as a photograph taken from space (via the International Space Station) of a 20 May 2012 solar eclipse visible from North America: I refuse to believe this image of the eclipse is real, as much as I wish it were. Not that it couldn't be real. It can. I've seen plenty of photos of eclipses taken from space, but this one is just too awesome to be real. The image was not a photograph of that celestial event, however - or a photograph at all. It was purely a work of Digital/3-Dimensional Art that was posted to the DeviantART web site back in 2009. | An image was commonly circulated online in mid-2012 that was billed as a photograph taken from space (via the International Space Station) of a 20 May 2012 solar eclipse visible from North America: I refuse to believe this image of the eclipse is real, as much as I wish it were. Not that it couldn't be real. It can. I've seen plenty of photos of eclipses taken from space, but this one is just too awesome to be real. The image was not a photograph of that celestial event, however - or a photograph at all. It was purely a work of Digital/3-Dimensional Art that was posted to the DeviantART web site back in 2009. | [
"08925-proof-02-eclipseart.jpg",
"08925-proof-10-eclipseart.jpg"
] |
Giant pythons were discovered in a small creek in Indiana. | Contradiction | A Facebook appearing to link to a genuine news item reporting that giant pythons were discovered in Salt Creek, a tributary of the White River in Indiana, fooled many in July 2017: However, the link leads to the web site BreakingNews247.net, a prank web site that allows users to easily create their own fake news stories: The web site carries a disclaimer stating that its content is fictional and meant to be humorous: This website is an entertainment website, news are created by users. These are humourous news, fantasy, fictional, that should not be seriously taken or as a source of information. In addition to the dubious source of this story, the attached photograph actually shows a 15-foot python on a nature reserve in Kenya, Africa - nowhere near Indiana. | A Facebook appearing to link to a genuine news item reporting that giant pythons were discovered in Salt Creek, a tributary of the White River in Indiana, fooled many in July 2017: However, the link leads to the web site BreakingNews247.net, a prank web site that allows users to easily create their own fake news stories: The web site carries a disclaimer stating that its content is fictional and meant to be humorous: This website is an entertainment website, news are created by users. These are humourous news, fantasy, fictional, that should not be seriously taken or as a source of information. In addition to the dubious source of this story, the attached photograph actually shows a 15-foot python on a nature reserve in Kenya, Africa - nowhere near Indiana. | [
"08953-proof-02-python_brown_monroe_indiana_fb.jpg"
] |
In 1975, Elvis Presley gave a young blind girl $50,000 and a concert ticket - plus travel expenses - to every one of his upcoming shows. | Contradiction | If you're an Elvis Presley fan with a social media account, you've probably come across a story about an interaction between 'The King' and young blind fan. In short, this viral anecdote claims that during a concert in 1975, Elvis was informed that there was a blind girl in the crowd. The musician stopped the show to bring the girl up on stage where they had a heartfelt exchange. After the show, Elvis was so moved by the little girl's story that he gave her a $50,000 check and a concert ticket (plus travel expenses) to every one of his future shows. There's no evidence to support this version of events. This is a modern-day work of fiction that is far removed from any firsthand accounts of Presley's interactions with blind fans. A spokesperson for Graceland, the Elvis Presley Museum in Memphis, Tennessee, told us that after checking with the archive team and various long-term staff members, they could provide 'no record of this happening.' The earliest version of the claim that Elvis gave a blind girl a $50,000 during a concert that we could find comes from a Facebook post in November 2016. That post, which makes no mention of a source for this information, starts with a brief introduction and then supposedly reproduces a verbatim conversation Elvis had with this little girl. The post ends with the claim that Elvis gave her a $50,000 check: This version of the 'Elvis and the blind girl' story is an exaggeration of similar story about Elvis and a blind girl that dates back to at least 2012. A 2012 post on iheartelvis.net (which notes that this story has been around 'for years' before they wrote about it) relays a much simpler story behind this photograph. In this version, Elvis simply had a brief conversation with a blind girl before giving her a scarf. This version makes no mention of a $50,000 check. Interestingly, this story from 2012 specifically notes that Elvis 'kept the microphone away from his mouth' so nobody could hear what they were talking about. That version of the story reads: During the July 20, 1975 show, between songs Elvis was joking around and giving out scarves when he noticed a little girl standing on the far left of the stage. He walked over and knelt down on one knee in front of her. Realizing she was blind, Elvis held her hands and spoke to her for a few minutes. The audience could not hear as he kept the microphone away from his mouth. He then kissed his scarf and touched both her eyes with it. When he was finished he took the scarf and held it to the child's face. The little girl stood there with complete confidence in what Elvis was doing. The girl had been blind since birth. This 2012 anecdote, however, also appears to be an embellishment of the original story. We found a review of Elvis' July 20, 1975 concert and it makes no mention of this incident. The review does state that several young fans lined up to meet Elvis, and that the musician gave them all scarves - something that he regularly did during his concerts, especially during his later years - but it does not mention a blind fan or a $50,000 check. Mary Dissen's wrote in her review of the concert for the Norfolk Ledger-Star: A fan, a female fan, a worshipper, approaches the stage. At first, they seem shy. They just drift up one by one. Elvis, stuffed into a suit so white and sparkling that it makes that famous shock of shoe-polish black hair gleam like a mirror, takes the scarf from around his neck, wraps it around the faithful's head and pulls her close to him. Then an assistant (who sings and plays guitar, but could also be called lead scarf player), drapes another filmy object around Elvis' neck. And on and on. By the end of the show, no one is shy, and it takes a little police ingenuity to keep these emotionally bedraggled fans from zapping onto the stage. While the viral photographs truly show Elvis handing a scarf to a young fan, we can't verify that this little girl was blind. Furthermore, the claim that Elvis gave this fan a $50,000 check appears to have been conjured out of thin air in 2016, some 40 years after this photo was allegedly taken. While the above-displayed image may not show Elvis and a blind girl, and while the claim that Elvis gave a blind girl $50,000 and a ticket (plus travel expenses) to his future shows is certainly a fabrication, there is at least one grain of truth to this story. In 1957, a blind girl named Judy Wilkinson won a radio contest to attend a concert and meet Elvis Presley. 27 Oct 1957, Sun The San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California) Newspapers.com In 2019, Wilkinson published an article for the California Council of the Blind that recounted her meeting with Elvis in 1957. But Elvis did not give Wilkinson a $50,000 check or tickets to any future shows. Instead, he gave her something that she still remembers to this day: a song. Wilkinson writes that she was nervous to meet her idol and when he asked her about her favorite song she responded: 'I Want You I Need You I Love You.' Elvis, in turn, told her that he'd play that during the concert just for her. Joyful stomach butterflies suffused my entire body. Our seats were in the absolute front row. At one point I reached out and touched the rope separating us from the stage. The previous days and especially the past hour were filled with excitement yes, but fear, panic and terror too: all at an almost unbearably painful intensity. Now instead of being a taut violin string, I became the singing violin joining the ritual, the fevered frenzy of hysterically-screaming girls, shrieking as one. 'Whether the preponderantly female audience came to hear Presley sing or to watch his caricature of sex, could not be determined. They roared through every one of his 14 rock-n-roll offerings in such crescendo that three policemen and four firemen were forced to leave the building.' Roar we did! Generally prim and reserved, I sobbed and shrieked with thousands. 'Don't Be Cruel,' with that famous, sexy, 'ummmmmm' and all of us in ecstatic screaming harmony! 'I Was the One Who Taught Her to Cry'; panting and hoarse with delirious exhaustion; 'Heartbreak Hotel'; and then some time in the middle of the set, 'I Want You I Need You I Love You,' surely sung especially for me!Recent Updates Updated [5 May 2021]: Added statement from Graceland. | In short, this viral anecdote claims that during a concert in 1975, Elvis was informed that there was a blind girl in the crowd. The musician stopped the show to bring the girl up on stage where they had a heartfelt exchange. After the show, Elvis was so moved by the little girl's story that he gave her a $50,000 check and a concert ticket (plus travel expenses) to every one of his future shows. There's no evidence to support this version of events. This is a modern-day work of fiction that is far removed from any firsthand accounts of Presley's interactions with blind fans. A spokesperson for Graceland, the Elvis Presley Museum in Memphis, Tennessee, told us that after checking with the archive team and various long-term staff members, they could provide 'no record of this happening.' The earliest version of the claim that Elvis gave a blind girl a $50,000 during a concert that we could find comes from a Facebook post in November 2016. That post, which makes no mention of a source for this information, starts with a brief introduction and then supposedly reproduces a verbatim conversation Elvis had with this little girl. The post ends with the claim that Elvis gave her a $50,000 check: This version of the 'Elvis and the blind girl' story is an exaggeration of similar story about Elvis and a blind girl that dates back to at least 2012. A 2012 post on iheartelvis.net (which notes that this story has been around 'for years' before they wrote about it) relays a much simpler story behind this photograph. In this version, Elvis simply had a brief conversation with a blind girl before giving her a scarf. This version makes no mention of a $50,000 check. Interestingly, this story from 2012 specifically notes that Elvis 'kept the microphone away from his mouth' so nobody could hear what they were talking about. That version of the story reads: During the July 20, 1975 show, between songs Elvis was joking around and giving out scarves when he noticed a little girl standing on the far left of the stage. He walked over and knelt down on one knee in front of her. Realizing she was blind, Elvis held her hands and spoke to her for a few minutes. The audience could not hear as he kept the microphone away from his mouth. He then kissed his scarf and touched both her eyes with it. When he was finished he took the scarf and held it to the child's face. The little girl stood there with complete confidence in what Elvis was doing. The girl had been blind since birth. This 2012 anecdote, however, also appears to be an embellishment of the original story. We found a review of Elvis' July 20, 1975 concert and it makes no mention of this incident. The review does state that several young fans lined up to meet Elvis, and that the musician gave them all scarves - something that he regularly did during his concerts, especially during his later years - but it does not mention a blind fan or a $50,000 check. Mary Dissen's wrote in her review of the concert for the Norfolk Ledger-Star: A fan, a female fan, a worshipper, approaches the stage. At first, they seem shy. They just drift up one by one. Elvis, stuffed into a suit so white and sparkling that it makes that famous shock of shoe-polish black hair gleam like a mirror, takes the scarf from around his neck, wraps it around the faithful's head and pulls her close to him. Then an assistant (who sings and plays guitar, but could also be called lead scarf player), drapes another filmy object around Elvis' neck. And on and on. By the end of the show, no one is shy, and it takes a little police ingenuity to keep these emotionally bedraggled fans from zapping onto the stage. While the viral photographs truly show Elvis handing a scarf to a young fan, we can't verify that this little girl was blind. Furthermore, the claim that Elvis gave this fan a $50,000 check appears to have been conjured out of thin air in 2016, some 40 years after this photo was allegedly taken. While the above-displayed image may not show Elvis and a blind girl, and while the claim that Elvis gave a blind girl $50,000 and a ticket (plus travel expenses) to his future shows is certainly a fabrication, there is at least one grain of truth to this story. In 1957, a blind girl named Judy Wilkinson won a radio contest to attend a concert and meet Elvis Presley. 27 Oct 1957, Sun The San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California) Newspapers.com In 2019, Wilkinson published an article for the California Council of the Blind that recounted her meeting with Elvis in 1957. But Elvis did not give Wilkinson a $50,000 check or tickets to any future shows. Instead, he gave her something that she still remembers to this day: a song. Wilkinson writes that she was nervous to meet her idol and when he asked her about her favorite song she responded: 'I Want You I Need You I Love You.' Elvis, in turn, told her that he'd play that during the concert just for her. Joyful stomach butterflies suffused my entire body. Our seats were in the absolute front row. At one point I reached out and touched the rope separating us from the stage. The previous days and especially the past hour were filled with excitement yes, but fear, panic and terror too: all at an almost unbearably painful intensity. Now instead of being a taut violin string, I became the singing violin joining the ritual, the fevered frenzy of hysterically-screaming girls, shrieking as one. 'Whether the preponderantly female audience came to hear Presley sing or to watch his caricature of sex, could not be determined. They roared through every one of his 14 rock-n-roll offerings in such crescendo that three policemen and four firemen were forced to leave the building.' Roar we did! Generally prim and reserved, I sobbed and shrieked with thousands. 'Don't Be Cruel,' with that famous, sexy, 'ummmmmm' and all of us in ecstatic screaming harmony! 'I Was the One Who Taught Her to Cry'; panting and hoarse with delirious exhaustion; 'Heartbreak Hotel'; and then some time in the middle of the set, 'I Want You I Need You I Love You,' surely sung especially for me!Recent Updates Updated [5 May 2021]: Added statement from Graceland. | [
"08957-proof-03-elvis-and-the-blind-girl.jpg"
] |
In 1975, Elvis Presley gave a young blind girl $50,000 and a concert ticket - plus travel expenses - to every one of his upcoming shows. | Contradiction | If you're an Elvis Presley fan with a social media account, you've probably come across a story about an interaction between 'The King' and young blind fan. In short, this viral anecdote claims that during a concert in 1975, Elvis was informed that there was a blind girl in the crowd. The musician stopped the show to bring the girl up on stage where they had a heartfelt exchange. After the show, Elvis was so moved by the little girl's story that he gave her a $50,000 check and a concert ticket (plus travel expenses) to every one of his future shows. There's no evidence to support this version of events. This is a modern-day work of fiction that is far removed from any firsthand accounts of Presley's interactions with blind fans. A spokesperson for Graceland, the Elvis Presley Museum in Memphis, Tennessee, told us that after checking with the archive team and various long-term staff members, they could provide 'no record of this happening.' The earliest version of the claim that Elvis gave a blind girl a $50,000 during a concert that we could find comes from a Facebook post in November 2016. That post, which makes no mention of a source for this information, starts with a brief introduction and then supposedly reproduces a verbatim conversation Elvis had with this little girl. The post ends with the claim that Elvis gave her a $50,000 check: This version of the 'Elvis and the blind girl' story is an exaggeration of similar story about Elvis and a blind girl that dates back to at least 2012. A 2012 post on iheartelvis.net (which notes that this story has been around 'for years' before they wrote about it) relays a much simpler story behind this photograph. In this version, Elvis simply had a brief conversation with a blind girl before giving her a scarf. This version makes no mention of a $50,000 check. Interestingly, this story from 2012 specifically notes that Elvis 'kept the microphone away from his mouth' so nobody could hear what they were talking about. That version of the story reads: During the July 20, 1975 show, between songs Elvis was joking around and giving out scarves when he noticed a little girl standing on the far left of the stage. He walked over and knelt down on one knee in front of her. Realizing she was blind, Elvis held her hands and spoke to her for a few minutes. The audience could not hear as he kept the microphone away from his mouth. He then kissed his scarf and touched both her eyes with it. When he was finished he took the scarf and held it to the child's face. The little girl stood there with complete confidence in what Elvis was doing. The girl had been blind since birth. This 2012 anecdote, however, also appears to be an embellishment of the original story. We found a review of Elvis' July 20, 1975 concert and it makes no mention of this incident. The review does state that several young fans lined up to meet Elvis, and that the musician gave them all scarves - something that he regularly did during his concerts, especially during his later years - but it does not mention a blind fan or a $50,000 check. Mary Dissen's wrote in her review of the concert for the Norfolk Ledger-Star: A fan, a female fan, a worshipper, approaches the stage. At first, they seem shy. They just drift up one by one. Elvis, stuffed into a suit so white and sparkling that it makes that famous shock of shoe-polish black hair gleam like a mirror, takes the scarf from around his neck, wraps it around the faithful's head and pulls her close to him. Then an assistant (who sings and plays guitar, but could also be called lead scarf player), drapes another filmy object around Elvis' neck. And on and on. By the end of the show, no one is shy, and it takes a little police ingenuity to keep these emotionally bedraggled fans from zapping onto the stage. While the viral photographs truly show Elvis handing a scarf to a young fan, we can't verify that this little girl was blind. Furthermore, the claim that Elvis gave this fan a $50,000 check appears to have been conjured out of thin air in 2016, some 40 years after this photo was allegedly taken. While the above-displayed image may not show Elvis and a blind girl, and while the claim that Elvis gave a blind girl $50,000 and a ticket (plus travel expenses) to his future shows is certainly a fabrication, there is at least one grain of truth to this story. In 1957, a blind girl named Judy Wilkinson won a radio contest to attend a concert and meet Elvis Presley. 27 Oct 1957, Sun The San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California) Newspapers.com In 2019, Wilkinson published an article for the California Council of the Blind that recounted her meeting with Elvis in 1957. But Elvis did not give Wilkinson a $50,000 check or tickets to any future shows. Instead, he gave her something that she still remembers to this day: a song. Wilkinson writes that she was nervous to meet her idol and when he asked her about her favorite song she responded: 'I Want You I Need You I Love You.' Elvis, in turn, told her that he'd play that during the concert just for her. Joyful stomach butterflies suffused my entire body. Our seats were in the absolute front row. At one point I reached out and touched the rope separating us from the stage. The previous days and especially the past hour were filled with excitement yes, but fear, panic and terror too: all at an almost unbearably painful intensity. Now instead of being a taut violin string, I became the singing violin joining the ritual, the fevered frenzy of hysterically-screaming girls, shrieking as one. 'Whether the preponderantly female audience came to hear Presley sing or to watch his caricature of sex, could not be determined. They roared through every one of his 14 rock-n-roll offerings in such crescendo that three policemen and four firemen were forced to leave the building.' Roar we did! Generally prim and reserved, I sobbed and shrieked with thousands. 'Don't Be Cruel,' with that famous, sexy, 'ummmmmm' and all of us in ecstatic screaming harmony! 'I Was the One Who Taught Her to Cry'; panting and hoarse with delirious exhaustion; 'Heartbreak Hotel'; and then some time in the middle of the set, 'I Want You I Need You I Love You,' surely sung especially for me!Recent Updates Updated [5 May 2021]: Added statement from Graceland. | In short, this viral anecdote claims that during a concert in 1975, Elvis was informed that there was a blind girl in the crowd. The musician stopped the show to bring the girl up on stage where they had a heartfelt exchange. After the show, Elvis was so moved by the little girl's story that he gave her a $50,000 check and a concert ticket (plus travel expenses) to every one of his future shows. There's no evidence to support this version of events. This is a modern-day work of fiction that is far removed from any firsthand accounts of Presley's interactions with blind fans. A spokesperson for Graceland, the Elvis Presley Museum in Memphis, Tennessee, told us that after checking with the archive team and various long-term staff members, they could provide 'no record of this happening.' The earliest version of the claim that Elvis gave a blind girl a $50,000 during a concert that we could find comes from a Facebook post in November 2016. That post, which makes no mention of a source for this information, starts with a brief introduction and then supposedly reproduces a verbatim conversation Elvis had with this little girl. The post ends with the claim that Elvis gave her a $50,000 check: This version of the 'Elvis and the blind girl' story is an exaggeration of similar story about Elvis and a blind girl that dates back to at least 2012. A 2012 post on iheartelvis.net (which notes that this story has been around 'for years' before they wrote about it) relays a much simpler story behind this photograph. In this version, Elvis simply had a brief conversation with a blind girl before giving her a scarf. This version makes no mention of a $50,000 check. Interestingly, this story from 2012 specifically notes that Elvis 'kept the microphone away from his mouth' so nobody could hear what they were talking about. That version of the story reads: During the July 20, 1975 show, between songs Elvis was joking around and giving out scarves when he noticed a little girl standing on the far left of the stage. He walked over and knelt down on one knee in front of her. Realizing she was blind, Elvis held her hands and spoke to her for a few minutes. The audience could not hear as he kept the microphone away from his mouth. He then kissed his scarf and touched both her eyes with it. When he was finished he took the scarf and held it to the child's face. The little girl stood there with complete confidence in what Elvis was doing. The girl had been blind since birth. This 2012 anecdote, however, also appears to be an embellishment of the original story. We found a review of Elvis' July 20, 1975 concert and it makes no mention of this incident. The review does state that several young fans lined up to meet Elvis, and that the musician gave them all scarves - something that he regularly did during his concerts, especially during his later years - but it does not mention a blind fan or a $50,000 check. Mary Dissen's wrote in her review of the concert for the Norfolk Ledger-Star: A fan, a female fan, a worshipper, approaches the stage. At first, they seem shy. They just drift up one by one. Elvis, stuffed into a suit so white and sparkling that it makes that famous shock of shoe-polish black hair gleam like a mirror, takes the scarf from around his neck, wraps it around the faithful's head and pulls her close to him. Then an assistant (who sings and plays guitar, but could also be called lead scarf player), drapes another filmy object around Elvis' neck. And on and on. By the end of the show, no one is shy, and it takes a little police ingenuity to keep these emotionally bedraggled fans from zapping onto the stage. While the viral photographs truly show Elvis handing a scarf to a young fan, we can't verify that this little girl was blind. Furthermore, the claim that Elvis gave this fan a $50,000 check appears to have been conjured out of thin air in 2016, some 40 years after this photo was allegedly taken. While the above-displayed image may not show Elvis and a blind girl, and while the claim that Elvis gave a blind girl $50,000 and a ticket (plus travel expenses) to his future shows is certainly a fabrication, there is at least one grain of truth to this story. In 1957, a blind girl named Judy Wilkinson won a radio contest to attend a concert and meet Elvis Presley. 27 Oct 1957, Sun The San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California) Newspapers.com In 2019, Wilkinson published an article for the California Council of the Blind that recounted her meeting with Elvis in 1957. But Elvis did not give Wilkinson a $50,000 check or tickets to any future shows. Instead, he gave her something that she still remembers to this day: a song. Wilkinson writes that she was nervous to meet her idol and when he asked her about her favorite song she responded: 'I Want You I Need You I Love You.' Elvis, in turn, told her that he'd play that during the concert just for her. Joyful stomach butterflies suffused my entire body. Our seats were in the absolute front row. At one point I reached out and touched the rope separating us from the stage. The previous days and especially the past hour were filled with excitement yes, but fear, panic and terror too: all at an almost unbearably painful intensity. Now instead of being a taut violin string, I became the singing violin joining the ritual, the fevered frenzy of hysterically-screaming girls, shrieking as one. 'Whether the preponderantly female audience came to hear Presley sing or to watch his caricature of sex, could not be determined. They roared through every one of his 14 rock-n-roll offerings in such crescendo that three policemen and four firemen were forced to leave the building.' Roar we did! Generally prim and reserved, I sobbed and shrieked with thousands. 'Don't Be Cruel,' with that famous, sexy, 'ummmmmm' and all of us in ecstatic screaming harmony! 'I Was the One Who Taught Her to Cry'; panting and hoarse with delirious exhaustion; 'Heartbreak Hotel'; and then some time in the middle of the set, 'I Want You I Need You I Love You,' surely sung especially for me!Recent Updates Updated [5 May 2021]: Added statement from Graceland. | [
"08957-proof-03-elvis-and-the-blind-girl.jpg"
] |
Subsets and Splits