radiofree.asia

Category: Debunking Viral Claims

  • Conservative Figures Spread Baseless Claims About Attack on Paul Pelosi

    Quick Take

    A man armed with a hammer broke into the home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and fractured the skull of her husband, Paul. Some conservative figures — including Donald Trump Jr. — have shared social media posts claiming with no evidence and contrary to police reports that the man was a prostitute known to Paul Pelosi. He wasn’t.

    Full Story

    Paul Pelosi, the 82-year-old husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was attacked by an intruder with a hammer in the couple’s San Francisco home in the early morning hours of Oct. 28.

    Following the attack, Pelosi needed surgery “to repair a skull fracture and serious injuries to his right arm and hands,” according to a statement from the speaker’s office.

    Police investigate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home after her husband, Paul Pelosi, was assaulted with a hammer. Photo by Tayfun Coskun via Getty Images.

    Federal agents have charged David DePape, 42, whom local police had identified as the intruder, with assault of an immediate family member of a U.S. official with the intent to retaliate against the official on account of the performance of official duties, which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison, and attempted kidnapping of a U.S. official on account of the performance of official duties, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 20 years, according to the Department of Justice.

    But false claims and innuendos about the attack have flooded social media, adding to a deepening well of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric.

    Elon Musk, for example, tweeted and then deleted a link to a story on a dubious website that baselessly suggested DePape was a prostitute. The claim then trended on Twitter, according to Ben Collins, who covers disinformation and extremism for NBC.

    Donald Trump Jr. also promoted the completely unfounded claim. He posted — and later deleted — a sexually explicit cartoon image on Instagram and included a message that said: “Dear fact checkers this has nothing at all to do with anything going on in the news and simply posting a cartoon of what appears to be an altered South Park scene.”

    But his 6.2 million followers showed their understanding of the post in the comments, saying things such as, “I dunno man, it doesn’t appear altered.. looks like a still from the Pelosis security cam to me.”

    Conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza posted a more suggestive claim on Twitter, asking: “How did Pelosi know his attacker’s name? He told the police the assailant’s name was ‘David.’ He also said David was his ‘friend.’ This is on the police recording and you can listen to it yourself. So how do you explain these two telling facts?”

    Any suggestion that Pelosi hired DePape as a prostitute or that Pelosi knew him in any capacity is false.

    Robert Rueca, spokesman for the San Francisco Police Department, told us in an email that officers found no “evidence that shows that the victim and the suspect knew each other.”

    San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins had said the same thing in a local TV news interview on Oct 30.

    And DePape himself told FBI officers in a recorded interview that he had broken into the home with the intention of holding Nancy Pelosi hostage and breaking her kneecaps if she “lied” to him. He wasn’t there for Paul Pelosi.

    What We Know About the Break-In

    Sometime before 2:30 a.m. on Oct. 28, DePape used a hammer to break the glass on the back door of the Pelosis’ home, DePape told the FBI.

    He entered the house and went up to the second floor where Paul Pelosi was in bed alone. Nancy Pelosi was not in San Francisco at the time.

    DePape “told Pelosi to wake up,” according to the charging documents from the FBI. DePape then “told Pelosi that he was looking for Nancy.”

    At about 2:23 a.m., Paul Pelosi called 911.

    The circumstances around the call are still unclear, but according to the charging documents and statements from police at press conferences, Pelosi was able to go into the bathroom where he dialed 911. DePape became aware of the call at some point and, without being able to relay specifics of the home invasion, Pelosi conveyed to the dispatcher that there was a problem.

    San Francisco Police Chief William Scott repeatedly praised the 911 dispatcher who took the call, explaining at an Oct. 28 press conference that the dispatcher’s experience and intuition told her that, although the report qualified for a wellbeing check, “something more was going on.”

    The dispatcher escalated the call to officers, Scott said, adding, “she went that extra step.”

    This might be where claims like D’Souza’s originated.

    Recorded audio of radio communications between the dispatcher and officers circulated on conservative media. In the audio, which identified Pelosi as “RP,” or “reporting person,” an officer can be heard saying, “RP stated that there’s a male in the home and that he’s going to wait for his wife. RP stated that he doesn’t know who the male is, but that he advised that his name is David and that he is a friend. RP sounded somewhat confused.”

    Scott explained in the press conference that dispatchers “can’t report anything other than what’s being told” to them over the phone.

    “An experienced dispatcher with good instincts, they know how to read between the lines, but they have to report what’s being told,” he said.

    So, any recording of officers getting initial information from dispatch would reflect only what had been relayed over the phone, which, in this case, came from Pelosi as he was trying to surreptitiously report the break-in while DePape was present.

    When responding officers arrived at the home minutes later, they witnessed Pelosi and DePape in a struggle over the hammer, ending with DePape hitting Pelosi in the head.

    Also, contrary to claims that DePape was in his underwear when officers arrived — like this one from conservative commentator Terrence K. Williams — according to the charging documents, DePape was clothed and, specifically, wearing shorts.

    What We Know About DePape

    DePape, raised in British Columbia, Canada, moved to the U.S. about 20 years ago to pursue a romantic relationship, according to news organizations that interviewed several members of his family, from whom DePape was estranged.

    At times homeless, DePape, prior to the attack on Pelosi, was living in the garage of a house in Richmond, California, according to the criminal complaint filed against him. Richmond is less than 20 miles from San Francisco.

    DePape’s ex-girlfriend, Oxane “Gypsy” Taub, a public nudity activist with whom DePape raised three children, recently told the San Francisco Chronicle that DePape has struggled for years with mental illness and drug abuse. Taub did the interview from a California women’s prison where she is serving a sentence for stalking and attempting to abduct a minor in 2018.

    News outlets have reported that DePape, in recent months, wrote dozens of troubling posts on his Facebook page and also allegedly posted numerous writings on a blog and website believed to have been registered in his name. According to news outlets that reviewed the sites, which have since been removed, the posts often repeated baseless conspiracy theories and made disparaging comments about religious and minority groups.

    “A WordPress blog that DePape maintained titled God Is Loving railed against censorship by an elite cabal of tech companies, government officials and media outlets,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported, for example. “As recently as Aug. 25, DePape posted entries with such headlines as ‘Communist Voodoo Science’ and ‘The Woke are racists with a guilty conscience.’”

    “On a separate website, DePape’s posts became more erratic,” the Chronicle said. “He espoused vaccine conspiracy theories and claims about election fraud, writing that any journalist who disputed such claims ‘should be dragged out into the street and shot.’ Days before the alleged hammer attack on Paul Pelosi, DePape published a post saying the war in Ukraine was a ploy to benefit Jewish people.”

    The Associated Press reported: “There appeared to be no direct posts about [Nancy] Pelosi, but there were entries defending former President Donald Trump and Ye, the rapper formally known as Kayne West who recently made antisemitic comments.”

     DePape’s Plan

    When DePape entered the Pelosis’ house in the early morning on Oct. 28, he “was prepared to detain and injure Speaker Pelosi,” according to the federal charging documents.

    He had arrived with zip ties, tape, rope and at least one hammer.

    According to the federal criminal complaint, DePape told officers “that he was going to hold Nancy hostage and talk to her. If Nancy were to tell DePape the ‘truth,’ he would let her go, and if she ‘lied,’ he was going to break ‘her kneecaps.’ DePape was certain that Nancy would not have told the ‘truth.’”

    DePape told FBI interviewers that “he viewed Nancy as the ‘leader of the pack’ of lies told by the Democratic Party,” according to the complaint. He “also later explained that by breaking Nancy’s kneecaps, she would then have to be wheeled into Congress, which would show other Members of Congress there were consequences to actions.”

    DePape used rhetoric common in right-wing media during the interview described in charging documents. He told officers that he didn’t leave the house after Pelosi’s call to 911, “because, much like the American founding fathers with the British, he was fighting against tyranny without the option of surrender.”

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    San Francisco Police Department. Press release. “San Francisco Police Arrest Suspect in Violent Assault at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Residence 22-153.” 29 Oct 2022.

    Hammill, Drew. Spokesman, Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Press release. “Pelosi Spokesperson Statement on Paul Pelosi’s Successful Surgery Following Violent Assault.” 28 Oct 2022.

    San Francisco Police Department. “San Francisco Police News Conference on Attack Against Paul Pelosi.” C-SPAN. 28 Oct 2022.

    Department of Justice. Press release. “Man Charged with Assault and Attempted Kidnapping Following Breaking and Entering of Pelosi Residence.” 31 Oct 2022.

    Stocking, Galen, et al. “The Role of Alternative Social Media in the News and Information Environment.” Pew Research Center. 6 Oct 2022.

    Rueca, Robert. Spokesman, San Francisco Police Department. Email to FactCheck.org. 31 Oct 2022.

    KPIX CBS SF Bay Area. “S.F. DA Jenkins swats back misinformation about Pelosi attack.” YouTube. 30 Oct 2022.

    U.S. v. David Wayne DePape. Complaint. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

    Tolan, Casey, et al. “Alleged Paul Pelosi attacker posted multiple conspiracy theories.” Cnn.com. 28 Oct 2022.

    Biesecker, Michael and Bernard Condon. “Suspect in assault at Pelosi home had posted about QAnon.” Associated Press. 29 Oct 2022.

    Lin, Summer, et al. “Accused Pelosi attacker David DePape spread QAnon, other far-right, bigoted conspiracies.” Los Angeles Times. 28 Oct 2022.

    Swan, Rachel, et al. “Paul Pelosi attack: From nudist activism to online hate, suspect David DePape’s strange descent.” San Francisco Chronicle. 28 Oct 2022, updated 31 Oct 2022.

    The post Conservative Figures Spread Baseless Claims About Attack on Paul Pelosi appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Viral Video Spouts Baseless Claim About Early Voting in Arizona

    Quick Take

    Millions of Arizona voters requested ballots to vote early in the 2022 election. Early voting results cannot be released until after the election, and ballot security measures prevent widespread voter fraud. Yet a viral video advises Republicans not to vote early, making the baseless claim that it could show Democrats how many votes they need “to fake” to win.

    Full Story

    Early voting in Arizona began on Oct. 12, with more than 3 million voters requesting mail-in ballots or in-person early voting for the 2022 election.

    More than half of Arizona voters, or 57%, said they will vote by mail or absentee ballot, 10% will vote at an early voting location, and 32% plan to vote on Election Day, according to the Marist Poll.

    The poll also found that about 72% of Democrats and 53% of independents said they plan to vote by mail or absentee ballot, while only 46% of Republicans said they will vote that way. 

    Conservative personality and author Lindsey Graham, also known as Patriot Barbie — not to be confused with Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — posted an Instagram reel on Oct. 23 advising Arizona Republicans not to vote early. She makes the baseless claim that voting early could show Democrats how many votes they will have “to fake” to win the election.

    Data is available on the number of mail ballots requested and returned in Arizona by party registration. As of Oct. 31, the percentage of mail ballots cast by registered Democrats (39.8%) is slightly higher than those from registered Republicans (37%) and from voters who are unaffiliated or registered with third parties (23.2%), according to the U.S. Elections Project. 

    Arizona law, however, prohibits the release of early voting results until all precincts have reported their results or one hour after polls close on Election Day. Doing so is a felony. 

    In addition, Arizona has measures in place to ensure the security of early ballots and the tabulation process.

    In the video, Graham focuses on the close gubernatorial race between Republican Kari Lake, a former TV news anchor, and Democrat Katie Hobbs, the secretary of state.

    “Arizona voters. This is why you vote in person. This is why you do not mail in your vote. This is why you do not vote early,” Graham says in the video. “I will say that when you vote early, I’m not making any accusations, but it does give the opposition the ability to say, ‘Hmm looks like, for example, Kari Lake has 2 million early voters. How many voters would we need to fake to catch up to that and surpass it?’ Just saying. Not making any accusations,” Graham says in the video.

    Graham shows a graphic of the “chain of custody” of a ballot. She says early voting and mail-in ballots go through six custody transfers before the vote is counted, while in-person votes go from the ballot being cast directly to being counted. She ends the video by saying, “This is why you vote in person on Election Day. Are we clear? Less opportunity for, oh, I don’t know, cheating.”

    Graham’s video has received more than 52,000 views and 6,000 likes on Instagram.

    But her claim that either party could determine how many votes were needed “to fake to catch up” is unfounded.

    When Votes Are Tabulated

    Although the number of mail and absentee ballots requested and returned is publicly available by party registration in Arizona and many other states, it’s not possible to know how many votes were actually cast for each candidate until after the polls close at 8 p.m. on Election Day.

    Arizona’s election law says counting absentee or mail-in ballots can begin immediately after they have gone through processing and been delivered to the early election board.

    But the law states, “In no event shall partial or complete tallies of the early election board be released or divulged before all precincts have reported or one hour after the closing of the polls on election day, whichever occurs first, and any person who unlawfully releases information regarding vote tallies or who possesses a tally sheet or summary without authorization from the recorder or officer in charge of elections is guilty of a class 6 felony.”

    Ballot Safety and Security in Arizona 

    Following the 2020 presidential election, a spotlight fell on Arizona, as former President Donald Trump and other Republicans baselessly cited voter fraud as the reason for Trump’s loss in the state. An audit of ballots and a forensic audit of voting equipment were conducted in Maricopa County, the state’s most populous county. The audits found no evidence of fraud and confirmed that Joe Biden had won in Arizona. 

    Republican claims of voter fraud continue, but Arizona has several levels of protection in place to ensure the safety and validity of mail-in ballots and the voting process. 

    Matthew Roberts, communications manager for the Maricopa County Elections Department, told us in an email that the county has “comprehensive policies and procedures that guard against votes being illegally cast.”  

    “Voting by mail is secure. Only registered voters may request a ballot in the mail,” Roberts said. “Each Maricopa County ballot is individually verified regardless of whether it is cast in-person at a Vote Center, or returned by mail. Only verified ballots are counted.”

    “When it comes to casting a ballot by mail, Maricopa County has internal controls and tracking methods for ballot security beginning from when the ballot is initially mailed, to how voted ballots are transported from the post office to onsite security and more,” Roberts said.

    “Maricopa County performs multiple audit checks before and after ballots are tabulated,” Roberts added. “All ballot affidavit envelopes require a signature that is compared against a known signature on the official voter registration file when received.”

    In order to receive a ballot-by-mail in Arizona, registered voters can either sign up for the Active Early Voting List or make a one-time request for a ballot. 

    Sophia Solis, communications director for the Arizona Secretary of State, told us in an email, “Each ballot has a barcode associated with a voter, which tracks the ballot from when it is printed, to when it is completed and returned to the county elections department.”

    A 2020 presentation by the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office says the state’s election security measures include paper trails for voting audits that verify each voter, keeping election systems unconnected to the internet, and conducting hand-count audits.

    In her Instagram video, Graham said that in-person votes are counted directly after being cast.

    But that depends on the county in Arizona. For both in-person ballots and early voting ballots, the voter’s identity is verified before the ballot is counted, according to the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, which was established by state voters in 1998 “to improve the integrity of Arizona state government and promote public confidence in the Arizona political process.” 

    Eight of 15 counties in Arizona use a “central count” method, while the other seven use a “precinct tabulation” method, according to information provided to us by Solis. In a “central count,” votes are transported back to a location used to count the ballots. In “precinct tabulation” counties, voters or poll workers run the ballot through a tabulation machine that saves the vote counts to a removable media device inside the machine, the Citizens Clean Elections Commission explains.  

    When the votes from the “central count” counties arrive at their location for counting, the votes and the poll workers are placed under a 24/7 live stream that monitors the actions in the room, which is required by law.

    The vote counts saved on a tabulation machine in a “precinct tabulation” county are transmitted to the central count location, where an election official loads the results into “the secure election management system and aggregates the vote totals for all voting locations,” according to the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.

    Solis said the “tabulation process has numerous safeguards and audit mechanisms to ensure that results are accurate with how a voter casts their ballot.”

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.

    Sources

    “Arizona 2022 Early Vote.” RPubs. Updates 27 Oct 2022. 

    “Arizona Revised Statutes Title 16. Elections and Electors § 16-551. Early election board;  violation;  classification.” Find Law. Updated 8 March 2022.

    “Arizona sheriff steps up security around ballot drop boxes.” Associated Press. 25 Oct 2022. 

    Ballotpedia. Arizona gubernatorial election, 2022. Accessed 28 Oct 2022.

    Brnovich, Mark (@GeneralBrnovich). “Any form of voter intimidation is absolutely unacceptable and will not be tolerated. I encourage Arizonans to contact local law enforcement and our office immediately if they feel threatened in any way. Here’s a link to file a complaint with us: https://azag.gov/complaints/election….” Twitter. 26 Oct 2022. 

    Brnovich. Mark. “Attorney General Brnovich Stands Up to Protect Arizona Voters.” Press Release. 12 Oct 2022.

    Cathay, Libby and Ali Dukakis. “6 cases of alleged Arizona voter intimidation referred to DOJ.” ABC News. 25 Oct 2022. 

    Duda, Jeremy. “Arizona ‘audit’ finds Biden won (by more votes) and no evidence of fraud.” AZ Mirror. 23 Sep 2021. 

    “ELECTION & BALLOT TRACKING.” Citizens Clean Elections Commission. Accessed 27 Oct 2022. 

    “Election Security.” Arizona Secretary of States Office. Accessed 27 Oct 2022. 

    FiveThirtyEight. “Who’s ahead in the Arizona governor race?” Accessed 28 Oct 2022.

    Hobbs, Katie. Secretary of State. “Early Voting officially underway for the Arizona 2022 General Election.” Press Release. 12 Oct 2022.

    “HOW VOTES ARE COUNTED.” Citizens Clean Elections Commission. Accessed 27 Oct 2022. 

    Jones, Brea. “Myth of Ballot Watermarks Flushed Out Again.” FactCheck.org. 12 May 2021. 

    Marist Poll. “The 2022 Elections in Arizona Marist Arizona Poll.” Accessed 27 Oct 2022. 

    Marist Poll. “Who We Are.” Accessed 27 Oct 2022. 

    Roberts, Matthew. Communications Manager Maricopa County Elections Department. Email to FactCheck.org. 28 Oct 2022.

    Solis, Sophia. Communications Director for the Arizona Secretary of State. Email to FactCheck.org. 28 Oct 2022.

    “Title 16 – Elections and Electors.” Azleg.gov. Accessed 27 Oct 2022. 

    “Voting by Mail: How to Get a Ballot-by-Mail.” Azsos.gov. Accessed 28 Oct 2022.

    The post Viral Video Spouts Baseless Claim About Early Voting in Arizona appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Social Media Post Misrepresents Connecticut Ballot Question on Early Voting

    Quick Take

    A ballot question in Connecticut asks voters if they want to enact early voting. But a social media post falsely claims the proposal would also “remove the requirement of a certified seal from certain ballots.” The measure refers to removing a seal on a list of election results and has nothing to do with ballots.

    Full Story

    Voters in Connecticut will have the option to establish early voting in the state by answering “yes” to a ballot question in this November’s election.

    Currently, Connecticut is one of four states that doesn’t offer early in-person voting, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The other three are Alabama, Mississippi and New Hampshire.

    The proposed constitutional amendment to establish early voting received support from more than 30 civic and political organizations in Connecticut — including the AARP, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Connecticut Town Clerks Association. It passed with bipartisan support in both the state House and Senate.

    Now it’s being put to voters, who will be presented with a ballot question that asks: “Shall the Constitution of the State be amended to permit the General Assembly to provide for early voting?”

    But a post on social media makes the false claim that answering “yes” to the question would also “remove the requirement of a certified seal from certain ballots when submitted to the Secretary of the State (meaning that certain ballots don’t have to have security seals to be processed because we can trust them @ @ wink-wink-nudge-nudge saynomore).”

    That’s not true.

    The proposed amendment would — in addition to establishing early voting — amend the state’s constitution to remove a requirement that some copies of election results that are sent to the secretary of state be under seal.

    The state constitution currently says (emphasis ours): “At all elections for members of the general assembly the presiding officers in the several towns shall receive the votes of the electors, and count and declare them in open meeting. The presiding officers shall make and certify duplicate lists of the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each. One list shall be delivered within three days to the town clerk, and within ten days after such meeting, the other shall be delivered under seal to the secretary of the state.”

    The proposed measure would remove the words “under seal” from the sentence in bold.

    Desmond Conner, spokesman for Connecticut’s Office of the Secretary of the State, explained in an email to FactCheck.org that the elimination of the seal requirement is meant to update archaic language and would have no impact on ballot security.

    “In the late 1700s and early 1800s the town clerks delivered the election *results* [not ballots] … to the Secretary of the State after sealing them with hot wax,” he said. “That requirement is still in the constitution, and the amendment, in addition to allowing for early voting, would remove the hot wax seal requirement.”

    He also emphasized that “this has nothing to do with ballots, ballots are never and have never been done with a wax seal.”

    State law setting out requirements for how municipalities transmit election results to the secretary of state has changed over the years. In 1995, for example, it changed to allow transmission by fax and in 2003 it allowed transmission by “other electronic means,” according to the legislative history of Connecticut’s election law.

    Under the current system, Conner said, “town clerks mail the results to us after entering it into the election night reporting system.”

    Referring to the proposed amendment, Conner said, “this change in the constitution would remove the constitutional requirement that the results are given under seal (with a wax and seal), but as a practical matter nothing will change, they will still enter the results into the system and mail us a copy.”

    “To be clear,” he said, “ballots aren’t affected at all here; this has nothing to do with the ballots. Ballots are still returned by voters sealed twice – an inner envelope and an outer envelope.”

    So, the social media post misrepresents what the ballot measure would do. It would have no effect on ballot security.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    National Conference of State Legislatures. Early in-person voting. 30 Aug 2022.

    Connecticut House. House Joint Resolution No. 59, RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW FOR EARLY VOTING. Accessed 27 Oct 2022.

    Connecticut Office of Legislative Research. Ballot Question and Explanatory Text for 2022 Proposed Constitutional Amendment on Early Voting. 14 Sep 2022.

    Constitution of the State of Connecticut. Cga.ct.gov. Accessed 27 Oct 2022.

    Conner, Desmond. Spokesman, Connecticut Office of the Secretary of the State. Email to FactCheck.org. 28 Oct 2022.

    Connecticut General Assembly, Government Administration and Elections Committee. Joint favorable report HJ-59. 5 Mar 2021.

    General Statutes of Connecticut. Chapter 148 Election Canvass and Returns. Sec. 9-314. Accessed 28 Oct 2022.

    The post Social Media Post Misrepresents Connecticut Ballot Question on Early Voting appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Fabricated Screenshot Misrepresents GOP’s ‘Commitment to America’

    Quick Take

    House Republicans unveiled a list of policy goals called the “Commitment to America” in September. But a fabricated screenshot purporting to show the agenda has been circulating on social media. None of the items included in the image come from the agenda — although some echo proposals made by the conservative Republican Study Committee.

    Full Story

    In the run-up to the midterm elections, House Republicans released a policy agenda on Sept. 23 called “Commitment to America,” broadly presenting the party’s positions on the economy, crime, health, government accountability and other issues.

    But a bogus screenshot purporting to show the Republicans’ agenda has been circulating on social media.

    The screenshot replicates the GOP’s “Commitment” logo, but the text included in the screenshot doesn’t match anything on the official website describing the plan.

    Mark Bednar, spokesman for House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, told us in an email that “those are fabricated images with false information.”

    The phony screenshot has been shared on many of the major platforms, including Twitter and Instagram.

    While the image is fabricated, some of the claims it includes appear to be adapted from the conservative Republican Study Committee’s proposed 2023 budget. The RSC includes a majority of House Republicans — 158 of the 212 total Republican representatives — and produced a proposed budget with more specifics than the recently unveiled “Commitment to America.”

    None of the claims in the image spreading on social media appear in the “Commitment to America,” which is light on the particulars of how government officials would reach the goals it has set.

    We’ll go through each of the claims made in the fabricated screenshot below:

    • “Make Social Security solvent by eliminating double-dipping. Retirees who have a pension, IRAs, 401k, disabled veteran benefits will be ineligible for Social Security benefits.”

    There’s no proposal to bar retirees who have a pension, an Individual Retirement Arrangement, or a 401k from collecting Social Security benefits in either the “Commitment to America” or the RSC’s proposed budget.

    The budget plan does, however, recommend discontinuing benefits for veterans who suffered an injury or disease while they were in the military, although not as a result of military service.

    “In these cases, these payments are duplicative with [Social Security Disability Insurance] benefits,” the budget proposal says.

    “Additionally, some people receive unemployability payments from the VA and regular Social Security benefits. The VA program is designed to cover the loss of ability to work for people that are in the workforce, not retirees that are drawing retirement benefits from Social Security. The RSC Budget would end this practice,” the proposal says.

    The budget plan also encourages the use of IRAs or 401ks, saying: “The RSC Budget supports efforts to provide workers the freedom to choose how to save their own money for retirement. It urges lawmakers to consider legislative options that allow employers and employees to reduce their payroll tax liability and use those savings to invest in private retirement options. Americans should be free to invest their savings in the way that best fits their needs – whether that is Social Security, an employee retirement plan, or an individual retirement plan.”

    • “Raise the age for Medicare eligibility to 75 and eligibility ends for anyone over the age of 90.”

    The “Commitment to America” doesn’t say anything about raising the age for Medicare eligibility, and it does not propose cutting off benefits at 90 years old.

    The proposed RSC budget, however, has a section titled: “Adjust the Medicare Eligibility Age to Reflect Life Expectancy.”

    There, the budget proposal explains that “as beneficiaries continue to live longer, the ratio of workers to retirees shrinks, threatening the solvency of Medicare.”

    Later, it says, “To address the increased demands on Medicare, the RSC Budget proposes aligning Medicare’s eligibility age with the normal retirement age for Social Security and then indexing this age to life expectancy.”

    In the budget proposal’s section on Social Security, it recommends raising the age at which retirees are eligible to receive full benefits to 70.

    Currently, Medicare is available to those who are 65 or older, and Social Security considers “full retirement age” to range from age 66 to 67, depending on when the beneficiary was born.

    The budget proposal does not suggest ending Medicare eligibility for those who are 90 or older.

    • “Tax Disabled Veteran benefits.”

    There’s no mention of a tax on benefits for disabled veterans in either the “Commitment to America” or in the RSC’s budget plan.

    As we noted earlier, the budget plan does recommend discontinuing benefits for certain veterans who are collecting “duplicative” benefits from Social Security Disability Insurance and would similarly end the practice of some veterans who collect “unemployability payments from the VA and regular Social Security benefits.”

    So, while there is no proposal for a tax on benefits for veterans, the RSC’s proposed budget would have implications for veterans’ benefits.

    • “Tax employer sponsored health care plans.”

    Again, there’s nothing in the “Commitment to America” about this. And, in this case, the RSC’s budget plan specifically rejects a related proposal.

    Right now, employers’ payments for employee health insurance premiums are exempt from federal income and payroll taxes.

    The budget plan refers to this policy and says: “Though one method of reform would be to repeal the exclusion entirely and use the increased revenues to reduce tax rates across the board, this would cause immediate upheaval to the health insurance system that the exclusion has distorted for almost 80 years. Instead, the RSC Budget would reform the tax treatment of private health insurance in a revenue-neutral manner by providing a capped exclusion for all spending on health insurance by and on behalf of the tax filer, as well as for related dependents.”

    The budget plan doesn’t detail the “revenue-neutral” tax treatment of private health insurance, so the impact of a capped exclusion proposal on employer-sponsored health insurance plans isn’t clear.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    The Republican Commitment to America. Republicanleader.gov. Accessed 25 Oct 2022.

    Bednar, Mark. Spokesman, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy. Email to FactCheck.org. 25 Oct 2022.

    Republican Study Committee. Fiscal Year 2023 Budget. Banks.house.gov. Accessed 25 Oct 2022.

    Medicare. U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare.gov. Accessed 26 Oct 2022.

    Tax Policy Center. Key Elements of the U.S. Tax System. How does the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance work? Accessed 26 Oct 2022.

    The post Fabricated Screenshot Misrepresents GOP’s ‘Commitment to America’ appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Social Media Claims Misrepresent Election Software CEO’s Arrest

    Quick Take

    The CEO of a company that maintained poll worker data for Los Angeles County has been arrested as “part of an investigation into the possible theft of personal identifying information” of those poll workers, according to Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón. Conspiracy theorists and election deniers have claimed that the arrest is evidence of election fraud, even though Gascón has said that the “alleged conduct had no impact on the tabulation of votes and did not alter election results.”

    Full Story

    Social media platforms have flooded users’ feeds with claims that undermine the integrity of U.S. elections since 2020.

    Now, about a month before the midterm elections, conspiracy theorists and election-fraud peddlers are pushing claims that the arrest of an election software company CEO is proof that their many debunked claims were true.

    A worker carries ballots at a Los Angeles County Registrar processing center on Nov. 5, 2020. Photo by Keith Birmingham via Getty Images.

    Conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, for example, claimed that the arrest was proof of “another election integrity ‘conspiracy theory’ confirmed.” His video making that claim has been viewed more than 23,000 times on Facebook.

    And Peggy Hubbard, who lost her bid in June for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Illinois, posted a screenshot on Facebook about the arrest from conservative activist Jack Posobiec’s Twitter account and added this message: “Tell me again, that there isn’t any tampering in our elections. I’ll wait…” Hubbard has 349,000 followers on Facebook.

    But the arrest of Eugene Yu, CEO of the Michigan-based company Konnech, doesn’t prove anything about election fraud.

    He’s charged with “embezzlement of public funds” from Los Angeles County, where his company had a contract to provide software for managing poll workers. The prosecutor bringing the case — Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón — also clearly said in a press release that the charges don’t involve election tampering.

    We’ll lay out the facts as we know them at this point:

    Eugene Yu, 64, incorporated a company called LJ Connection in Michigan in 2001. The following year, after adopting a new image for the company, he incorporated Konnech.

    According to the company’s website, Konnech provides software and support for election logistics for 32 clients in North America.

    In October 2019, it entered into a one-year contract with Los Angeles County for use of its PollChief software, which manages information about poll workers and staffing needs at polling locations.

    A year later, just before the presidential election, Los Angeles County extended that contract for another five years.

    Now, two years after the election, that company and its work in Los Angeles are under scrutiny.

    A conservative organization called True the Vote — which is best known for its contribution to the widely discredited election conspiracy theory video called “2,000 Mules” — held a conference in August during which organizers disparaged the integrity of U.S. elections and made sales pitches for various products and services that they claimed could fix the dubious problems they had identified.

    A major claim that came out of the conference was that Konnech maintained servers in China that could be accessed by the Chinese government.

    Gregg Phillips — who works with True the Vote director Catherine Engelbrecht — claimed in a video later that month that he had accessed those servers with his “guys” at a hotel room in Dallas in a “James Bond kind of thing” in January 2021.

    “We took it directly,” he said, claiming that he’d seen “the database” containing poll worker information and that the company also did “fast count ballot counting… in China.”

    Konnech has denied the claim that it has servers in China, and it filed a defamation suit in September against True the Vote.

    Then, on Oct. 4, Yu was arrested, and Gascón issued a press release that said the arrest was “part of an investigation into the possible theft of personal identifying information” for Los Angeles poll workers.

    The release also noted that the county’s contract with Konnech specified that only U.S. citizens and permanent residents would have access to its data and said that investigators “found that in contradiction to the contract, information was stored on servers in the People’s Republic of China.”

    The same day, True the Vote issued a press release that began: “True the Vote is honored to have played a small role in what must have been a wide ranging and complex investigation. The organization is profoundly grateful to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office for their thorough work and rapid action in this matter.”

    We asked Gascón’s office if it had worked with True the Vote and got this response: “Our Public Integrity Division (PID) routinely accepts complaints from the public. Often times, these complaints are made by political opponents of the accused. With that in mind, if a crime is alleged we have a responsibility to conduct an independent investigation. Greg Phillips’ report to PID was the first step in a thorough independent and still ongoing investigation which ultimately led to the arrest and charging of Mr. Yu. We initially indicated that Mr. Phillips played no role in the investigation. While we performed an independent investigation apart from Greg Philips, his report to us did in fact result in us initiating our investigation.”

    The office also said that it doesn’t plan to make any further arrests.

    According to the criminal complaint, which was filed Oct. 13, prosecutors allege that Konnech had used third-party contractors based in China to help with “creating and fixing” the company’s internal software and that those contractors had access to personal information about Los Angeles poll workers. Prosecutors argue that this contradicts Konnech’s contract with the county, which specified that only U.S. citizens and permanent residents would have access to the county’s poll worker data.

    They charged him with embezzling public funds in the amount of the five-year contract, which was $2.65 million.

    “This investigation is concerned solely with the personal identifying information of election workers,” the release from Gascón said. “In this case, the alleged conduct had no impact on the tabulation of votes and did not alter election results.”

    So, anyone suggesting that Yu’s arrest proves that the outcome of the 2020 election was fraudulent is wrong. What he is actually charged with has nothing to do with ballot tampering.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    FactCheck.org. “Viral Voting Misinformation.” Updated 21 Dec 2020.

    Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles County. REQUEST APPROVAL OF SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT #20-003 WITH KONNECH, INC. FOR POLLCHIEF. 13 Oct 2020.

    The People of the State of California v. Eugene Yu. No. BA509784. Complaint. Superior Court of the State of California For the County of Los Angeles. 13 Oct 2022.

    Farley, Robert. “Evidence Gaps in ‘2000 Mules.’” FactCheck.org. Updated 13 Jun 2022.

    Right Side Broadcasting Network. “REPLAY: from ‘The Pit’ , A Vital Strategy Session presented by True The Vote 8/13/22.” Rumble. 8 Aug 2022.

    Elijah Streams. “(RUMBLE ONLY) Prophets and Patriots – Episode 20 with Gregg Phillips and Steve Shultz.” Rumble. 23 Aug 2022.

    Konnech v. True the Vote. No. 4:22-cv-03096. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Complaint. 12 Sep 2022.

    State of Michigan v. Yu. No. 2022-2201561-EX. Michigan 55th District Court. 4 Oct 2022.

    Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Press release. “October 4, 2022: Head of Election Worker Management Company Arrested in Connection with Theft of Personal Data.” 4 Oct 2022.

    True the Vote. Press release. “True the Vote Issues Statement Regarding the Arrest of Konnech CEO Eugene Yu.” 4 Oct 2022.

    Konnech v. True the Vote. No. 4:22-cv-03096. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Defendants’ motion to hold matter in abeyance. 12 Oct 2022.

    The post Social Media Claims Misrepresent Election Software CEO’s Arrest appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Stacey Abrams Opposed Boycotts in Atlanta, Contrary to Facebook Post

    Quick Take

    Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams opposed the state’s new election law and gun laws, but she spoke out against corporations using economic sanctions to protest the laws. Yet, a social media post falsely claims Abrams “lobbied to move” the MLB’s All-Star Game out of Atlanta last year and a music festival this year.

    Full Story

    In April 2021, Major League Baseball announced it would move the All-Star Game out of Atlanta shortly after Georgia’s Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed into law election legislation that opponents said would make voting harder, particularly for minorities.

    This year, promoters canceled Atlanta’s Music Midtown festival in August after a Georgia court ruling in support of the state’s concealed carry law reportedly prevented organizers from banning guns from the event as it had done in the past.

    Now, a social media post falsely blames Abrams for both actions.

    “Never forget. Stacey Abrams lobbied to move the Allstars game and Music Midtown. She cost Georgia 150 million plus. Not Kemp,” the Facebook post claimed.

    While Abrams, who narrowly lost to Kemp in 2018, has staunchly opposed both the election law and Georgia’s gun laws, she did not push to block either event and publicly sought to keep the All-Star Game in Atlanta.

    On March 31, 2021, two days before MLB announced it was moving the All-Star Game and the MLB Draft out of Atlanta, Abrams posted an op-ed in USA Today asking corporations not to use economic sanctions to protest the law because they also hurt average people.

    “Instead of a boycott, I strongly urge other events and productions to do business in Georgia and speak out against our law and similar proposals in other states,” Abrams said. “I again repeat my admonition from 2019 that leaving us behind won’t save us. Bring your business to Georgia and, if you’re already here, stay and fight,” she added.

    In announcing the decision to move the All-Star Game, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said, “Major League Baseball fundamentally supports voting rights for all Americans and opposes restrictions to the ballot box.” The game ended up being played at Coors Field in Denver.

    The election law, among other things, cuts off mail-in vote applications 11 days before an election, restricts locations and times for ballot drop-off boxes that had a wider presence and were available 24 hours a day in 2020, and makes it an offense to hand out water to anyone waiting to vote.

    Abrams, former minority leader in the Georgia House, said the loss of the MLB events would cost Atlanta $100 million in economic activity and later put the loss of the music festival at $50 million.

    “Brian Kemp’s dangerous and extreme gun agenda endangers the lives of Georgians, and the cancellation of Music Midtown is proof that his reckless policies endanger Georgia’s economy as well,” Abrams, who trails Kemp in the polls, said in an Aug. 1 press release.

    Abrams’ campaign did not respond to our requests for comment on the social media post.

    Live Nation, the live entertainment promoter behind the music festival, also did not respond to requests for comment.

    In announcing the cancellation of the Sept. 17-18 event, the festival did not link it directly to Georgia’s gun laws, saying only it was “[d]ue to circumstances beyond our control …”

    “We were looking forward to reuniting in September and hope we can all get back to enjoying the festival together again soon,” the festival website said.

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution cited officials familiar with the decision as saying the cancellation was linked to continued legal fallout from a court ruling in March that hampered restricting guns from short-term events held on public land.

    The Journal-Constitution cited concerns that the festival would be sued by gun owners if it tried to put gun restrictions in place and the possibility some artists would pull out if none were in place. About 50,000 people attended the festival in 2021.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Nadler, Ben and Jeff Amy. “Georgia Gov. Kemp signs GOP election bill amid an outcry.” Associated Press. 26 Mar 2021.

    Capelouto, J.D, Greg Bluestein and Rodney Ho. “Atlanta Music Midtown festival canceled; decision linked to Georgia gun laws.” Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 1 Aug 2022.

    Diamond, Jared. “MLB Removes 2021 All-Star Game From Atlanta Because of Georgia Voting Law.” Wall Street Journal. 2 Apr 2021.

    Music Midtown. “Festival Update.” Accessed 5 Oct 2022.

    FiveThirtyEight.com. “Latest Polls.” Accessed 7 Oct 2022

     Layne, Nathan. “Explainer: Big changes under Georgia’s new election law.” Reuters. 14 Jun 2021.

    Major League Baseball. “MLB statement regarding 2021 All-Star Game.” MLB.com. 2 Apr 2021.

    Rowe, Sonia and Kim Bellware. “Atlanta’s canceled Music Midtown festival puts lax gun laws under scrutiny.”  Washington Post. 2 Aug 2022.

    Stacey Abrams for Governor Campaign. Press release. “Brian Kemp’s Dangerous Gun Agenda Cost Georgia Music Midtown.” 8 Aug 2022.

    Taylor, Jessica. “Georgia’s Stacey Abrams Admits Defeat, Says Kemp Used ‘Deliberate’ Suppression To Win.” NPR. 16 Nov 2018.

     

    The post Stacey Abrams Opposed Boycotts in Atlanta, Contrary to Facebook Post appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Fetterman’s Tattoos Under Scrutiny in Pennsylvania Senate Race

    Quick Take

    John Fetterman, Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor who is running for the U.S. Senate, has tattoos on his arms, some of which memorialize victims of violence. But conservative pundits — including Newt Gingrich — claim, without proof, that his tattoos suggest drug use and ties to a violent street gang.

    Full Story

    John Fetterman — the former mayor of a western Pennsylvania Rust Belt town called Braddock who later became lieutenant governor and is now running for the U.S. Senate — has tattoos.

    He’s been asked about them and commented on some of them repeatedly over the years.

    But two prominent conservative commentators — Fox News’ Tucker Carlson and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich — recently drew attention to the tattoos, sparking claims on social media that go so far as to say they are “satanic.”

    There’s no evidence to support the claims about Fetterman’s tattoos. We’ll explain how this all developed, though.

    In a roughly 18-minute segment about Fetterman on his Sept. 7 show, Carlson discussed Fetterman’s general appearance, finishing with, “all your stupid little fake tattoos — it’s a costume.”

    Democratic Pennsylvania Senate nominee John Fetterman holds a rally on Sept. 11, 2022, in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania. Photo by Mark Makela/Getty Images.

    Fetterman responded in an opinion piece published by NBC News on Sept. 25 explaining, as he has many times before, that the tattoos on his right arm list the dates on which people died violently in Braddock while he was mayor. The tattoo on his left arm displays the Braddock zip code.

    The same day that piece was posted, Gingrich tweeted about Fetterman’s third tattoo, which he has since inked over.

    “Why would Pennsylvania democratic senate candidate john fetterman have a tattoo saying ‘ i will make you hurt’?” Gingrich wrote.

    The next day, Gingrich posted this to his Twitter account: “Is Pennsylvania Democrat Fetterman’s tattoo ‘I will make you hurt’ based on his ties to the crips gang as reported by the Free Beacon or a reference to the nine inch nails heroin song ‘Hurt’. Fetterman won’t answer questions.”

    The following day, the Gateway Pundit, a popular conservative website, proclaimed in a headline: “SATANIC: Democrat John Fetterman Has Tattoo ‘I Will Make You Hurt’ on His Right Arm that He Now Hides – Taken from Song on Suicide.”

    That article borrowed the word “satanic” from an unrelated claim far-right political strategist Steve Bannon had made about Fetterman’s positions on prison reform — an issue we’ve written about before.

    The claim from Gateway Pundit’s headline was then copied on other conservative websites.

    What We Know About ‘I Will Make You Hurt’

    Most of the claims focus on Fetterman’s now-blotted-out tattoo.

    We asked Fetterman’s campaign for more information about it — including when and why he chose to get it and why he chose to black it out later.

    The campaign didn’t answer our questions, but instead offered this statement: “This attack from Republicans is totally false – all of John’s tattoos have to do with his commitment to Braddock, including that one. This is yet another example of national Republican politicians making John their #1 target, which is why they are desperately spreading disinformation and made-up lies about him.”

    So, without any further information from Fetterman, this is what we’ve been able to find:

    In a picture posted on a website that Fetterman set up to promote Braddock shortly after becoming mayor in 2006, his right forearm appears to not yet have the tattoo.

    The following year, a tattoo reading “I will make you hurt” is visible in a photo of Fetterman that ran with an Associated Press article, which explained that the phrase came from the Nine Inch Nails song titled, “Hurt.”

    On the inside of the same forearm, Fetterman has the list of those who died in violent incidents in Braddock during his tenure. He began that memorial shortly after the slaying of Christopher Williams, 36, who was shot while delivering a pizza on Jan. 16, 2006 — days after Fetterman was sworn in.

    “It was a senseless crime that affected me deeply,” Fetterman told local news outlet Trib Live in 2008. “Here was a guy that was my age, had a family and was just trying to do his job.”

    That incident gave Fetterman the idea to commemorate Williams with a tattoo, which started the list of dates.

    “I think a lot of tattoos are superfluous,” he said in 2008. “If you are going to get one, I think it should have meaning. Mr. Williams’ death had great meaning to me.”

    Fetterman, who was mayor of Braddock for 13 years, didn’t say anything in that interview about the lyrical tattoo, though.

    As is true of art generally, the meaning of “Hurt” is subjective. But it has commonly been interpreted as a song about suicide or depression.

    The first verse of the song, released in 1994, says:

    I hurt myself today
    To see if I still feel
    I focus on my pain
    The only thing that’s real
    The needle tears a hole
    The old familiar sting
    Try to kill it all away
    But I remember everything

    So, that could be interpreted as a reference to heroin, which is how Gingrich has apparently understood it. The song doesn’t explicitly say anything about heroin — or any other drug, for that matter — but it is relevant that Nine Inch Nails founder Trent Reznor, who wrote the song, had used heroin in the 1990s.

    Reznor has consistently said in interviews, however, that he wrote the song when he was having an identity crisis while he experienced early fame and has called it “a sort of valentine to the sufferer.”

    Although Reznor wrote it, “Hurt” is most often associated with Johnny Cash, who recorded a cover in 2002.

    Fetterman hasn’t explained why he chose to tattoo that lyric on his arm, or why he covered it over. But it’s a stretch to suggest that the tattoo is an endorsement of heroin.

    Reference to a Street Gang

    As for the claim that the “Hurt” phrase may indicate that Fetterman has “ties to the crips gang,” that’s even more far-fetched.

    Gingrich’s tweet referred to a story published in the conservative Washington Free Beacon, which posted this headline on Sept. 26: “Fetterman Gave Nod to Crips Street Gang During Mayoral Campaign.”

    There’s no reference to Fetterman’s tattoos in the story, though. Rather, it rehashes an issue from Fetterman’s original campaign for mayor in Braddock, a borough that has struggled since the U.S. steel industry collapsed.

    The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote about the situation in 2006, explaining:

    The way John Fetterman sees it, there are two Braddocks.

    Mr. Fetterman, the borough mayor, said those two Braddocks are illustrated by two different spellings.

    There is B-R-A-D-D-O-C-K, which the mayor describes as formerly prosperous. That Braddock, which he calls the “O-C-K,” is embodied by the older residents, those who remember Braddock’s heyday, when the town’s Braddock Avenue was loaded with shops and shoppers. They are the same residents he now describes as hiding behind locked doors, afraid of the younger people who have nothing to do but hang out on the street corners.

    It’s those younger people who belong to the other Braddock, the one Mr. Fetterman refers to as “B-R-A-D-D-O-C-C”, or the “O-C-C.” That is the underground spelling for the borough, which, he said, acknowledges an allegiance that many of the younger residents there have with the Crips gang.

    The article then notes that Fetterman had been working with “disaffected young men in Braddock” as part of his social services work before he became mayor.

    Braddock is located just outside of the Pittsburgh city line and, as noted in a 2011 publication from the U.S. Justice Department’s National Gang Center, the Crip and Blood gangs started to take hold in Pittsburgh in 1991. So, there is a presence from the gang in the area.

    The Free Beacon also quoted Joe Cavello, Fetterman’s spokesman, as saying, “The notion that John Fetterman has any affinity for the crips is complete and utter bullshit. Under John, crips in Braddock were taken off the street and put in jail.”

    We reached out to Gingrich’s consulting firm, Gingrich 360, to make sure that’s the article he was referencing, but we didn’t hear back.

    Gingrich suggested Fetterman’s tattoo is “based on his ties to the crips gang,” but Fetterman has no ties to the street gang that we could find other than being the top elected official of a borough that has struggled with a gang problem.

    And the notion that the tattoo is “satanic,” as the Gateway Pundit claimed, could be chalked up to opinion — but it’s an opinion that’s based on no evidence at all.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    The Colbert Report. Mayor John Fetterman details how he’d like to improve Braddock, PA. CC.com. 25 Feb 2009.

    Fetterman, John. “The truth about my tattoos… Here’s why I wear Braddock on my sleeve.” Medium. 16 Mar 2021.

    Fox News. Tucker Carlson: This is shocking. YouTube. 7 Sep 2022.

    Fetterman, John. “Tucker Carlson wants to talk about my tattoos. So let’s talk about them.” NBC. 25 Sep 2022.

    Gingrich, Newt (@newtgingrich). “Why would Pennsylvania democratic senate candidate john fetterman have a tattoo saying ‘ i will make you hurt’?” Twitter. 25 Sep 2022.

    Gingrich, Newt (@newtgingrich). “Is Pennsylvania Democrat Fetterman’s tattoo ‘I will make you hurt’ based on his ties to the crips gang as reported by the Free Beacon or a reference to the nine inch nails heroin song ‘Hurt’. Fetterman won’t answer questions.” Twitter. 26 Sep 2022.

    Farley, Robert. “FactChecking Republican Attacks on Fetterman’s Crime Stance.” FactCheck.org. 25 Aug 2022.

    Farley, Robert. “Fetterman’s Commutation Vote on Convicted Murderer.” FactCheck.org. 8 Sep 2022.

    Braddocc website. Mayor. 15104.cc as archived on the Internet Archives Wayback Machine. 22 Aug 2006.

    Plushnick-Masti, Ramit. “A mayor’s experiment.” Standard-Speaker. 22 Apr 2007.

    Plushnick-Masti, Ramit. “Hands-on mayor determined to save dying mill town.” Pocono Record. 22 Apr 2007.

    Heyl, Eric. “Violence ingrained on streets, skin.” Trib Live. 7 May 2008.

    Uitti, Jacob. “Behind the Meaning of ‘Hurt,’ by Nine Inch Nails, Johnny Cash.” American Songwriter. 11 Mar 2022.

    Taysom, Joe. “How Nine Inch Nails’ Trent Reznor wrote ‘Hurt’” Far Out Magazine. 26 Feb 2021.

    Nine Inch Nails. “Nine Inch Nails: Hurt (live) (1995).” YouTube. 16 Mar 2009.

    Beaumont, Mark. “The nine lives of Trent Reznor.” The Guardian. 8 Aug 2013.

    Still Watching Netflix. “How Nine Inch Nails Wrote ‘Hurt’ | Song Exploder.” YouTube. 12 Jan 2021.

    Wilkinson, Alec. “Music from the Machine.” The New Yorker. 10 Dec 2012.

    Howlett, Alex. “Hurt — Trent Reznor’s ‘valentine to the sufferer’ was deepened by Johnny Cash.” Financial Times. 29 Jul 2019.

    Ross, Chuck. “Fetterman Gave Nod to Crips Street Gang During Mayoral Campaign.” Washington Free Beacon. 26 Sep 2022.

    Belser, Ann. “Mayor has Web site, plans to energize ‘Braddocc’” Pittsburgh Post Gazette. 20 Apr 2006.

    Howell, James C., et al. “U.S. Gang Problem Trends and Seriousness, 1996–2009.” U.S. Justice Department, National Gang Center. May 2011.

    The post Fetterman’s Tattoos Under Scrutiny in Pennsylvania Senate Race appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Video Makes Baseless Claim About Insurance Coverage of Vaccinated Frenchman

    Quick Take

    COVID-19 vaccines have been found to be safe and effective in trials and real-world conditions. Yet an online video baselessly claims a French life insurer refused to pay benefits for a man who died after receiving the vaccine because the insurer deemed it “a medical experiment.” It also falsely claims that the same has happened in the U.S. 

    Full Story

    Four COVID-19 vaccines administered in the U.S. have been authorized or approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration following extensive testing, as we’ve previously written. (For more information, see SciCheck’s articles on the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and Novavax vaccines.) 

    Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were the first vaccines to receive the go-ahead in the U.S., receiving emergency use authorization in December 2020 and full FDA approval, respectively, in August 2021 and January 2022. Both vaccines use modified messenger RNA, or mRNA, which instruct cells to make spike proteins that will trigger an immune response.

    Though the process from development to approval was faster than usual for a variety of reasons, including past investment and research in mRNA technology, scientists said safety was not compromised. The safety of the vaccines has been proven not only in clinical trials, but in real-world conditions. 

    There have been more than 600 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the U.S., and serious adverse events have been very rare. Most people experience minor side effects, such as temporary pain at the injection site, fatigue or muscle pain, or no side effects at all. 

    U.S. insurance companies do not consider the vaccines experimental, and have not refused payouts to beneficiaries of policyholders who died after receiving the vaccine, as we’ve written.

    But a video shared on Instagram claims a French insurance company refused to pay life insurance benefits to the beneficiaries of an “elderly, wealthy” man who died after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine because the insurer deemed the vaccine “a medical experiment.” 

    The video was produced by America’s Frontline Doctors, a group that has spread misinformation about COVID-19 since 2020. It first appeared on March 14, 2022, as part of the group’s “Frontline Flash” video series, which carries the slogan, “The real story of fake news in 120 seconds or less.”

    Dr. Peterson Pierre, a dermatologist and narrator of the video, says that a French judge ruled the man’s death a suicide because he knew the vaccine had risks and “willingly chose” to get it. While he speaks, a headline appears on the screen that says: “France: Court rules COVID vaccine-related death a suicide.”

    The article about the French case featured in the video appeared in the Athens News on Jan. 14, citing the website Unser Mitteleuropa as the source of the report. Netzpolitik.org, a German website about “digital freedom rights,” describes Unser Mitteleuropa as a “right-hand portal” that promotes disinformation about COVID-19.

    In the video, Pierre goes on to say: “Suicides, along with death from experimental drugs, are not covered by life insurance.” The “American Life Insurance Council,” Pierre claims, allows U.S. companies to deny payment if someone dies as the result of the COVID-19 vaccine.

    But there is no basis for any of those claims. The video even gets the name of the American organization wrong; it’s the American Council of Life Insurers, or ACLI.

    In France, as in the U.S., COVID-19 vaccines have been approved.

    “The rumor that insurance companies would refuse to pay life insurance if the deceased had been vaccinated against Covid-19 continues to circulate on social networks. This is false information,” Jean-Baptiste Mounier, a spokesperson for the French Federation of Insurers, told us in a Sept. 26 email.  

    The Spanish fact-checking organization Maldita, which also debunked the video, reported that in French media there’s no mention of the incident alleged in the video.

    The French Ministry of Justice has no record of the case and the ACLI refuted the claim, according to Reuters. “The Ministry of Justice has no knowledge of this alleged claim concerning a French court supporting the decision of insurance companies’ refusal to pay out for life insurance due to death following COVID-19 vaccine,” a ministry representative told Reuters.

    No U.S. insurer or court would consider a death linked to a prescribed medication such as a vaccine “tantamount to suicide,” Glenn Kantor, a partner at Kantor & Kantor LLP, a Los Angeles-based law firm specializing in health, life and disability insurance cases, told us in a phone interview. That’s because people who get vaccinated are “trying to save their life, not end it,” he said.

    Basic life insurance policies in the U.S. generally pay for any death, regardless of cause, with suicides usually covered after the person has held the policy for two years, Kantor also said.

    The video isn’t the first to make the claim that insurers refused to pay when someone has died after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. ACLI last year debunked the claim that U.S. insurers don’t cover alleged vaccine-related deaths. 

    “The fact is that life insurers do not consider whether or not a policyholder has received a COVID vaccine when deciding whether to pay a claim,” Paul Graham, senior vice president for policy development at the ACLI, said in a May 21, 2021, statement that he emailed to us at the time for a story on a claim about denied benefits in the U.S.

    “Life insurance policy contracts are very clear on how policies work, and what cause, if any, might lead to the denial of a benefit. A vaccine for COVID-19 is not one of them,” Graham said.

    And state insurance regulators in Louisiana, New York, and Texas have all issued statements refuting the claims, according to Reuters.

    America’s Frontline Doctors couldn’t be reached for comment about the video’s baseless claims.

    Editor’s note: SciCheck’s COVID-19/Vaccination Project is made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation. The goal of the project is to increase exposure to accurate information about COVID-19 and vaccines, while decreasing the impact of misinformation.

    Sources

    Hale Spencer, Saranac. “Posts Misrepresent Data to Falsely Claim Italy Reduced Its COVID-19 Death Count.” FactCheck.org. 18 Nov 2021.

    McDonald, Jessica. “Q&A on COVID-19 Vaccines.” FactCheck.org. Updated 16 Jul 2021.

    NetzPolitik.net. “Disinformation from Austria.” 23 Mar 2021.

    American Council of Life Insurers. “American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI): Policyholders’ COVID-19 Vaccine Status Does Not Affect Life Insurance Claims.” Press release. 16 Sep 2021. 

    Corti, Delphine. “Es falso que la justicia francesa eximió a “una compañía de seguros de cubrir la muerte de un vacunado por considerar un suicidio que se inyectara un producto experimental.”  Chequedo. 1 Feb 2022.

    COVID-19. Vaccine Tracker. 9 Vaccines Approved for Use in France. Accessed 26 Sep 2022.

    Maldita. “No, la justicia francesa no ha eximido a “una compañía de seguros de cubrir la muerte de un vacunado” frente a la COVID-19 “por considerar un suicidio que se inyectara un producto experimental.” Maldita.es. 21 Jan 2022. 

    Reuters. “Fact Check — Life Insurance Not Denied on Grounds of COVID-19 Vaccination.” 31 Mar 2022.

    Gambardello, Joseph A. “Insurance Companies Provide Coverage After COVID-19 Vaccination.” FactCheck.org. 25 May 2021. 

    Kantor, Glenn. Partner at Kantor & Kantor LLP. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 21 Sep 2022.

    The post Video Makes Baseless Claim About Insurance Coverage of Vaccinated Frenchman appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • GM, Ford Vehicles Were Donated to Ukraine by Carmakers

    Quick Take

    Two American carmakers have donated 100 pickup trucks and SUVs to assist with humanitarian aid in Ukraine. But an Instagram post makes the baseless claim that the vehicles were provided at U.S. taxpayers’ expense.

    Full Story

    Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, the U.S. has provided Ukraine with more than $15.1 billion in security assistance, and the State Department signaled the intent to provide Ukraine with $2.2 billion more to bolster Ukraine’s defense systems.

    The Biden administration also has requested another $12 billion for humanitarian and military assistance to Ukraine.

    But some conservatives have criticized the amount of aid provided by the U.S., and a recent social media post makes a claim — without evidence — about shipments of pickup trucks and SUVs to Ukraine.

    On Sept. 20, an Instagram user posted photos of Ford trucks with the caption, “Your tax dollars at work, parking lot full of brand new ford diesels, no emission reduction systems at all, no def, no scr or dpf. Heading to Ukraine.”

    “Def” refers to diesel exhaust fluid, “scr” refers to selective catalytic reduction, and “dpf” refers to diesel particulate filters, each of which are designed to reduce emissions.

    A comment under the Instagram post by conservative activist Ryan Fournier reads, “We’ve already sent BILLIONS of dollars to this country with little to no transparency on how it’s being spent… meanwhile Zelensky is taking interviews, ringing the stock market bell and posting every Hollywood celeb he can. Now we’re sending them commercial vehicles with no emissions standards.”

    But we could find no evidence the vehicles were being sent by the U.S. government or that they were they funded by Americans’ “tax dollars.”

    There were, however, humanitarian donations made by Ford and GM in April, when Ford donated 50 Ranger pickups and GM donated 50 Chevrolet Tahoe SUVs to the country at war.

    Ford CEO Jim Farley tweeted on April 28, “As part of our efforts to support the Ukrainian people, we donated 50 @Ford Rangers. Proud of the hard work of our Ford team and partners at @Maersk for making this happen. I can confirm the last of the trucks arrived this week & are being put to work! #StandWithUkraine.”

    A month earlier, Farley posted a statement on Twitter condemning the invasion: “We at @Ford are deeply concerned about the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the safety of the Ukrainian people. Effective immediately, Ford is suspending our limited operations in Russia and taking action to support the Global Giving Ukraine Relief Fund.”

    GM, which hadn’t produced vehicles in Russia since 2019, stopped its exports to the country in April as well. Both companies had partnered with the global shipping company Maersk to get the vehicles to Ukraine for humanitarian purposes.

    GM spokesman George Svigos told us in a Sept. 21 email, “Following a request from the Ukrainian Government, GM donated 50 full-size SUVs to the Ukrainian Ministry of Infrastructure for humanitarian aid. The company has partnered with global shipping company Maersk, which donated the transport of the vehicles.”

    Ford spokespersons told us in a phone interview that the vehicles shown in the photos on the Instagram post are Ford Super Duty trucks and not Ford Rangers, which were the vehicles donated to Ukraine.

    We don’t know where the photos of the Super Duty trucks were taken. We tried to reach the person who posted the Instagram claim, but we did not hear back.

    Because the Rangers were built in Ford’s Silverton plant in South Africa, the emissions-reducing equipment on vehicles would be based on South African standards rather than standards provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    The Ford spokespersons also said it would not be unusual for exported vehicles to be sent without specific emissions-reducing equipment because the vehicles must align with the importing country’s regulations. In other words, cars produced in the U.S. with EPA-regulated equipment might not work in other countries due to different diesel standards.

    Regarding the claims made in the post about the donated Ford trucks being sent without emission-reduction systems, Svigos said, “I can’t see that anyone has alleged this about the Tahoes.”

    The Ford Rangers and Chevy Tahoes needed to be produced with whatever equipment aligns with Ukraine’s EURO-5 standard. 

    Both Ford and GM made monetary donations to Ukraine as well.

    A group of Ukrainian, American and European volunteers in Ukraine have been buying civilian trucks from European nations and retrofitting them for use in battle, according to Business Insider. The vehicles, including Ford Rangers, are being purchased through crowdfunding, Business Insider reported.

    We reached out to the State Department and Defense Department for response to the Instagram post, but we didn’t hear back.

    We could find no evidence that American taxpayers were footing the bill for Ford and GM vehicles sent to Ukraine.

    Daniel S. Hamilton, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and an expert on transatlantic trade, told us in an email, “Both GM and Ford have each donated 50 trucks directly to the government of Ukraine. As far as I know the US government has not been involved. GM and Ford are both private companies donating their products directly; there should be no impact on US taxpayers.”

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Barret, Ted and  Ellie Kaufman and Paul LeBlanc. “Republicans signal early support for $12 billion in Ukraine aid while other Biden priorities expected to drop from funding bill.” CNN. 19 Sep 2022.

    Dawson, Bethany. “Meet the international team of volunteers who are retrofitting civilian Fords and Toyotas into battle trucks for the Ukrainian forces.” Business Insider. 12 Jun 2022.

    Environmental Protection Agency. “Final Rule for Emergency Vehicle Rule – Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Maintenance and Regulatory Flexibility for Nonroad Equipment.” 8 Aug 2014.

    Farley, Jim. @jimfarley98. “We at @Ford are deeply concerned about the invasion of Ukraine by Russia…” Twitter. 1 Mar 2022.

    Farley, Jim. @jimfarley98. “As part of our efforts to support the Ukrainian people, we donated 50 @Ford Rangers.” Twitter. 28 Apr 2022. 

    Grzelewski, Jordyn. “Ford donates 50 Ranger pickup trucks to aid Ukrainian relief efforts.” Detroit News. 28 Apr 2022. 

    Hall, Kalea. “Ford suspends joint-venture operation in Russia.” Detroit News.1 Mar 2022. 

    Hamilton, Daniel S. Senior non-resident fellow, Brookings Institution. Email to FactCheck.org. 20 Sep 2022.

    International Standard Academy. “Ukraine began 2018 with the new environmental fuel standard EURO-5.” Baseline Analysis & Report. Jun 2018. 

    Kucinski, Joe. “Ford Motor Company Donates 50 Ranger Pickups to Support Ukrainian People.” Ford Truck Enthusiasts. 29 Apr 2022.

    Majewski, W. Addy. “Diesel Particulate Filters.” DieselNet Technology Guide. Jun 2020. 

    O’Brien, Connor. “Ukraine aid faces tougher crowd if Republicans Take Over.” Politico. 22 Sep 2022.

    Stolyarov, Gleb and Alexander Marrow. “General Motors pulls out of Russian car assembly business with Avtovaz deal.” Reuters. 9 Dec 2019.

    Svigos, George. Spokesman for GM. Email to FactCheck.org. 21 Sep 2022. 

    Taylor, Thom. “Ford and Chevy Donate Money, 100 Trucks to Ukraine.” MotorBiscuit. 4 May 2022. 

    U.S. Department of State. Bureau of Political-Military Affairs fact sheet.  “U.S. Security Cooperation with Ukraine.” 16 Sep 2022. 

    The post GM, Ford Vehicles Were Donated to Ukraine by Carmakers appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Biden Hasn’t Officially Filed for Reelection, Contrary to Social Media Claims

    Quick Take

    President Joe Biden hasn’t filed anything yet with the Federal Election Commission that would officially indicate he’s running for reelection. But partisan social media accounts have been falsely claiming that he has. The claims are based on a misinterpretation of a routine filing.

    Full Story

    President Joe Biden has said more than once that he expects to run for reelection in 2024, although he hasn’t officially filed forms indicating his intention.

    Partisan social media accounts, however, have falsely claimed that he has.

    For example, conservative comedian Tim Young made the claim on Instagram Aug. 30 and right-wing influencer Ryan Fournier posted it on Facebook the same day, although that post has since been deleted.

    But the bogus claim that Biden “has just officially filed for Reelection with the Federal Election Committee,” as one Instagram post phrased it, appears to have come from one short-lived tweet that misinterpreted the meaning of a recent FEC filing.

    Steve Herman, the Voice of America reporter who posted the original tweet, quickly corrected himself, writing on Twitter, “I misinterpreted the @fec filing and have deleted the tweet. Apologies for the confusion.” He explained that an official with the Democratic Party had told him that the filing was “just updating the form to change the treasurer name because the former treasurer is taking a government job.”

    Indeed, the only difference between the current FEC Form 1 filed for the Biden for President campaign committee and the previous one is the name of the committee treasurer.

    Also, that particular form — known as a statement of organization — wouldn’t necessarily signal that a candidate is running for office.

    According to the FEC, someone running for president is considered a candidate when they’ve raised or spent more than $5,000 in contributions or expenditures to seek elected office — not including money spent to “test the waters.”

    “All such candidates must register with a Statement of Candidacy (Form 2) and designate a principal campaign committee within 15 days of becoming a candidate as described,” according to the FEC website.

    Form 2, which is the “statement of candidacy,” has not been filed for the Biden for President campaign committee.

    Other Indications of Candidacy

    The FEC may not actually be the first place where a candidate’s intent to run is made clear.

    “There are a number of milestones in becoming an official presidential candidate,” John Fortier, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told FactCheck.org in an email.

    “It is true that candidates will at some point have to file with the FEC and create an official campaign committee, which will be the vehicle for certain direct fundraising and will have contribution disclosure and other legal requirements,” Fortier said. “But it is also true that there may be other entities and vehicles for campaign like activities such as an exploratory committee, former entities or entities used for running for another office, etc. And there are other more indirect outside entities that might work for a candidate, including political parties themselves.”

    Also, he said, “Going forward, there are other milestones such as ballot access in states for the primaries and ultimately getting on the ballot for the general election as a party nominee.”

    “Broadly speaking,” Fortier said, “the FEC will look at factors such as filings to be on the ballot, candidate statements, etc. to determine when a candidate should be creating a campaign entity.”

    Typically, candidates for president announce their intentions to run in the spring of the year before the election, and states hold primaries and caucuses in the first half of the election year.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    “Biden says he plans to run for reelection in 2024.” CBS News. 25 Mar 2021.

    Psaki, Jen. Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jen Psaki En Route Fort Bragg, NC. Whitehouse.gov. 22 Nov 2021.

    Federal Election Commission. FILING FEC-1627690. Biden for President. 30 Aug 2022.

    Richman, Jackson. “JUST IN: Joe Biden Files to Run for Re-Election in 2024.” MSN. com. 30 Aug 2022.

    Herman, Steve (@W7VOA). “I misinterpreted the @fec filing and have deleted the tweet. Apologies for the confusion.” (2/2). Twitter. 30 Aug 2022.

    Federal Election Commission. FILING FEC-1516687. Biden for President. 18 May 2021.

    Federal Election Commission. House, Senate and presidential candidate registration. Accessed 6 Sep 2022.

    Federal Election Commission. Biden for President committee filings. Accessed 6 Sep 2022.

    Fortier, John. Senior fellow, American Enterprise Institute. Email to FactCheck.org. 31 Aug 2022.

    The post Biden Hasn’t Officially Filed for Reelection, Contrary to Social Media Claims appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Widespread Claims Misrepresent Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines

    SciCheck Digest

    As the virus that causes COVID-19 has evolved, the vaccines have become less effective in preventing symptomatic infection while remaining highly effective in preventing severe disease and death. This shift has been misrepresented by anti-vaccine influencers who falsely claim that it means the vaccines don’t work and have been ineffective all along.

    Full Story

    Viruses mutate, or change, as they replicate. That’s largely why the currently available vaccine formulas aren’t working as well at preventing infection with the virus that causes COVID-19.

    Those vaccines — made by Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech and Johnson & Johnson — were highly effective in preventing both symptomatic infection and serious illness against early strains of the virus. But they are less effective against infection from the currently circulating subvariants of the omicron variant.

    Public health officials have acknowledged this shift and changed their advice accordingly, in an effort to deal with a disease that became the third-leading cause of death in the U.S. in 2020 and 2021 and has killed more than a million people across the country.

    But anti-vaccine campaigners and those who have cast doubt on the severity of COVID-19 have twisted those remarks to suggest that the health care establishment had given faulty advice about the value of the vaccines from the beginning.

    For example, conservative influencer David Harris Jr. — who has 1.5 million followers on Instagram — posted a pair of video clips featuring Brett Sutton, the chief health officer for the Australian state of Victoria. One clip is from April, showing Sutton encouraging people to get a booster shot, saying that it can help keep people from “getting infected in the first place.” The other clip shows part of a press conference from August, as Victoria was experiencing a surge in cases, where Sutton said: “Despite two, three, four doses of the vaccine, it’s not so good at preventing infection in the first place.”

    Harris didn’t include the dates of the clips — he labeled them only “Then” and “Now.” In the caption, he referred to his earlier claim that the COVID-19 vaccine “doesn’t work,” writing: “I wonder which of my other conspiracy theories will be proven true next???”

    Similar claims have been ubiquitous on social media and beyond. They’ve been posted on platforms such as the right-wing website Gateway Pundit, which claimed in a headline that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “finally admits their vaccines do not prevent anyone from getting or spreading the virus.”

    And they’ve shown up on a San Diego television station that has a history of promoting dubious claims about COVID-19. The station featured a guest who claimed the CDC had said of the vaccines, “turns out they don’t really work anyway,” and that CDC officials “knew they weren’t really going to do what we said they would.”

    That guest was Dr. Kelly Victory, who holds an active medical license in both Colorado and Ohio, but according to her LinkedIn profile has spent the last 16 years as a consultant for disaster preparedness training. She also campaigned against the Affordable Care Act in 2012.

    Victory has advocated against most public health advice over the course of the pandemic, claiming that “masks don’t work” and that asymptomatic spread “simply doesn’t occur with respiratory viruses.” In one talk radio appearance in 2021, Victory said that she had been “censored” for making those claims. But her claims just aren’t true.

    Other related claims have been pervasive online, such as the meme shared by Donald Trump Jr. suggesting that recently updated guidance from the CDC matches what those who have downplayed the severity of the pandemic and questioned the value of the vaccines had been saying all along.

    But the new guidance doesn’t indicate that health care experts were wrong about the vaccines or any other mitigation measures they had recommended.

    Highly Effective Against Initial Outbreak

    “The truth is, the effectiveness of vaccines shifted with each of the new variants,” Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, told us in a phone interview.

    When the vaccines were approved for emergency use in 2020, they were approved based on their demonstrated ability to prevent symptomatic illness, he said. And large clinical trials showed that the efficacy was high.

    For example, the updated trial results reported to the Food and Drug Administration for full approval showed the Moderna vaccine was 93.2% effective in preventing symptomatic disease at least two weeks after the second dose in people 18 years of age and older.

    The vaccines were also highly effective when they were first introduced to the public in the real world.

    “The initial SARS-CoV-2 that we had, that initial wild type, the vaccine against it did work against infection,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, said in a recent interview on Fox News. “It worked actually quite well against infection. It also worked against severe disease and death.”

    A promising early study from Israel showed that the vaccines had been more than 90% effective in preventing both symptomatic illness and asymptomatic infection in the early days after the rollout.

    “That was really exciting because it meant that, maybe, we could vaccinate our way out of this pandemic,” Hotez said.

    After the first variant, alpha, emerged, the vaccines remained highly effective against infection, severe disease and death, Walensky said.

    In May 2021, the CDC said that those who were fully vaccinated could stop wearing masks.

    Then the virus mutated, and the delta variant became dominant in the summer of 2021.

    Recommendations Evolved With Variants

    Although the vaccines remained effective against severe illness and death from COVID-19, they were somewhat less effective at preventing infection from delta.

    That’s when the CDC reversed its recommendation and said that those who were vaccinated should wear a mask indoors.

    That fall, the Biden administration made booster shots available.

    The virus keeps changing, and subvariants of omicron are now dominant. It’s become increasingly clear that the vaccines are less effective in preventing infection than they had been with earlier variants.

    This is due to two things, Hotez said — changes to the virus and the natural decline in the potency of vaccination over time, which happens with most vaccines.

    The CDC noted the waning effect of immunity from the vaccines in an August report explaining the most recent changes to its guidance on COVID-19 prevention, which included a recommendation for booster doses.

    “Overall booster dose coverage in the United States remains low, which is concerning given the meaningful reductions in risk for severe illness and death that booster doses provide and the importance of booster doses to counter waning of vaccine-induced immunity,” according to the paper, which was published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on Aug. 11.

    It also noted that the vaccines are “highly protective” against severe disease and death, and that they offer “minimal protection against infection and transmission.” That last part is what Victory and others highlighted, while neglecting to mention how effective the vaccines are against serious illness.

    Victory claimed that the CDC had “acknowledged” that the vaccines were “essentially ineffective.”

    But that’s not accurate.

    As we said, the CDC explained that being up to date with vaccination offers minimal protection from infection, but, importantly, significant protection against severe disease. Being up to date with vaccination means that you’ve gotten the primary series of doses and any boosters that are available for your age group, the CDC has explained.

    “Being up to date with vaccination provides a transient period of increased protection against infection and transmission after the most recent dose, although protection can wane over time,” the CDC said. The rates of hospitalization and death are “substantially higher” among unvaccinated adults, especially those 65 and older, compared with those who are up to date with vaccination, the CDC also said.

    In fact, data from the COVID-19 Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network for March 20 through May 31, 2022, showed: “Hospitalization rates among unvaccinated adults were 3.4 times as high as those among vaccinated adults,” according to an Aug. 26 CDC report.

    Editor’s note: SciCheck’s COVID-19/Vaccination Project is made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation. The goal of the project is to increase exposure to accurate information about COVID-19 and vaccines, while decreasing the impact of misinformation.

    Sources

    Cox, Elizabeth. “What is a coronavirus?” Yale School of Medicine. Updated 3 Sep 2020.

    National Institutes of Health. Press release. “COVID-19 was third leading cause of death in the United States in both 2020 and 2021.” 5 Jul 2022.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID Data Tracker. Accessed 26 Aug 2022.

    McDonald, Jessica. “The Evolving Science of Face Masks and COVID-19.” FactCheck.org. Updated 20 Jan 2022.

    McDonald, Jessica. “Unpacking WHO’s Asymptomatic COVID-19 Transmission Comments.” FactCheck.org. 12 Jun 2020.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Press release. “CDC streamlines COVID-19 guidance to help the public better protect themselves and understand their risk.” 11 Aug 2022.

    Hotez, Peter. Dean, National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine. Telephone interview with FactCheck.org. 23 Aug 2022.

    Walensky, Rochelle. Interview with Neil Cavuto. Your World. Fox News. 23 Aug 2022.

    Dagan, Noa, et al. “BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting.” New England Journal of Medicine. 15 Apr 2021.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. Updated 13 May 2021.

    McDonald, Jessica. “Vaccines Remain Largely Effective Against Delta Variant, Counter to Claims From Fox News Guest.” FactCheck.org. Updated 10 Feb 2022.

    Kiely, Eugene. “Misinformation About Face Masks.” FactCheck.org. 13 Aug 2021.

    Cohen, Jon. “How long do vaccines last? The surprising answers may help protect people longer.” Science. 18 Apr 2019.

    Massetti, Greta, et al. “Summary of Guidance for Minimizing the Impact of COVID-19 on Individual Persons, Communities, and Health Care Systems — United States, August 2022.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 11 Aug 2022.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Stay Up to Date with COVID-19 Vaccines Including Boosters.” Updated 23 Aug 2022.

    Havers, Fiona, et al. “Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19–Associated Hospitalizations Among Adults During SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 Variant Predominance — COVID-19–Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network, 14 States, June 20, 2021–May 31, 2022.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 26 Aug 2022.

    The post Widespread Claims Misrepresent Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Images Show IRS Educational Program, Not Training of Agents

    Quick Take

    The IRS Criminal Investigation division’s “Adrian Project” educates the public about the IRS through community outreach sessions with high school and college students. Posts on social media are sharing a video from one of the sessions to falsely claim it shows agents in training. The images were posted by a New Jersey university in 2017 and earlier this year.

    Full Story 

    The IRS has been in the spotlight — and has become a target of Republicans and conservative social media posts — because it will receive nearly $79 billion over 10 years from the Inflation Reduction Act.

    Critics have misleadingly claimed that the IRS will now hire “87,000 new agents” to investigate average citizens, and baselessly claimed that recent IRS ammunition purchases may be part of a “broader effort” to get ammunition off the market. 

    The agency is now the focus of a new viral claim. Social media posts are spreading a video and photos that purport to show agents training for the IRS Criminal Investigation division.

    As we’ve previously explained, the IRS Criminal Investigation division is the sixth-largest federal law enforcement agency in the U.S. The division doesn’t perform routine IRS audits on average Americans. It investigates criminal cases related to money laundering, cybercrime, bank secrecy, national security, national defense and narcotics organizations, which requires firearms and training for its special agents.

    But the content in the posts is not from an IRS Criminal Investigation division training. The images actually show the division’s community outreach sessions with high school and college students.

    The title of a video shared on Rumble by the Bongino Report, a website of conservative commentator Dan Bongino, falsely claims: “Newly surfaced IRS training video BREAKS the internet.” 

    A post on Facebook shared the same video with the headline, “Video shows armed training for IRS criminal division.” The post received more than 44,000 views and nearly 3,000 likes. 

    Another Facebook post shared photos — some showing the same individuals as in the video — with the caption, “These are actual photos of an IRS agent training class.” They are not. 

    Justin Cole, a spokesman for the IRS Criminal Investigation division, told us in an email the photos and video are from a program called the “Adrian Project” that has been presented at dozens of universities and high schools throughout the country.

    “To be clear, this is NOT training that IRS-CI is providing to any prospective special agents,” Cole said. “This is a community outreach event that educates the public about who we are and what we do.”   

    The Adrian Project — named after the first college where the IRS Criminal Investigation division conducted the project 20 years ago — is a day-long program in which students participate in a simulated criminal investigation. 

    Cole said the photos and video appear to be from 2017 and earlier this year, all taken at Stockton University in New Jersey. The university posted the images to the school website and on Flickr in October 2017 and March 2022, identifying them as Adrian Project activities. The video shared in the post on social media was posted in 2017 on Stockton University’s YouTube channel. 

    The caption of the video said, “The IRS Criminal Investigation Newark Field Office brought the Adrian Project to Stockton’s Campus Center for a day-long simulation of a mock criminal investigation.”

    Cole said that during the program, “participants investigate a mock financial crime while being monitored by IRS-CI special agents and professional staff. The nearly two-decade old program takes students through a basic overview of undercover work, surveillance, subpoenas and search warrants in scenario-based instruction led by IRS-CI special agents.”  

    The program’s website says, “Students are ‘sworn in’ as special agents in the morning and wear IRS protective vests, use handcuffs, toy guns and radios to communicate with their counterpart agents on the case. The students sharpen their forensic accounting skills and are introduced to interviewing suspects, conducting surveillance and document analysis. The day ends when the students solve the crime and arrest the mock offender.”

    The IRS, which is a bureau of the Treasury Department, will use money provided by the Inflation Reduction Act “to modernize the IRS” and “improve taxpayer services – from answering the phones to improving IT systems – and to crack down on high-income and corporate tax evaders,” according to a Treasury Department spokesperson.

    Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen directed IRS Commissioner Charles P. Rettig not to use the new funding to increase enforcement of taxpayers earning less than $400,000. 

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content. 

    Sources

    Cole, Justin. Director of communications, IRS Criminal Investigation Unit. Email to FactCheck.org. 18 Aug 2022.

    IRS. “Adrian Project allows students to become IRS Criminal Investigation special agents for a day.” IRS.gov. Last updated 15 Nov 2021. 

    Jones, Brea. “IRS Will Target ‘High-Income’ Tax Evaders with New Funding, Contrary to Social Media Posts.” FactCheck.org 18 Aug 2022.

    Stockton University. “Accounting Students Get Hands-On Lesson in IRS Criminal Investigations.” Stockton.edu. 30 Oct 2017.

    “The ‘Adrian Project’ to Make Its Final Presentation.” Adrian College. 8 Feb 2012.

    The post Images Show IRS Educational Program, Not Training of Agents appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • IRS Will Target ‘High-Income’ Tax Evaders with New Funding, Contrary to Social Media Posts

    Quick Take

    The Inflation Reduction Act includes $79 billion for the IRS. Social media posts misleadingly claim the IRS will now hire “87,000 new agents” to investigate average citizens. But most new hires will provide customer services, and enforcement efforts will be aimed at “high-income and corporate tax evaders,” a Treasury Department spokesperson said.

    Full Story 

    President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act — a climate, health care and tax package — into law on Aug. 16.         

    The legislation includes roughly $79 billion for the IRS over 10 years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the enhanced IRS enforcement funded by the law will generate an additional $204 billion in revenue over 10 years. That represents additional taxes that are owed under existing laws, but which go unpaid.

    Treasury Department officials say not all new hires will work on enforcement and increased revenues won’t come from middle-income earners. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen directed IRS Commissioner Charles P. Rettig not to use the new funding to increase enforcement of taxpayers earning less than $400,000. The IRS is a bureau of the Treasury Department.

    “Specifically, I direct that any additional resources—including any new personnel or auditors that are hired—shall not be used to increase the share of small businesses or households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited relative to historical levels,” Yellen wrote in an Aug. 10 letter to Rettig. “This means that, contrary to the misinformation from opponents of this legislation, small business or households earning $400,000 per year or less will not see an increase in the chances that they are audited.”

    But Republican members of Congress and social media users have spread the false claim that the new law will be used to hire “87,000 new IRS agents.”

    Sen. Ted Cruz, in an interview on Fox News that was posted to Facebook, got it doubly wrong when he claimed that “87,000 new IRS agents” will be going after small businesses and regular Americans.

    “And, by the way, these IRS agents aren’t there to go after billionaires,” Cruz said. “They’re there to go after you. They’re there to go after your small business.”

    But, as we will explain later, not all of the new hires will be “agents.” There’s a big difference between IRS agents, such as revenue agents and special agents, and the workers who make up the bulk of the IRS staff. And, as we said, the Treasury Department has directed the IRS not to focus on small businesses and those earning more than $400,000.

    Some versions of the claim suggest that the 87,000 new “agents” will be armed – but, as we’ve written before, only “special agents” who investigate criminal violations of the tax code are authorized to carry firearms.

    Rep. Matt Gaetz took it one step further, calling it “bizarre” that the IRS bought $700,000 worth of ammunition between March and June 1 of this year. He suggested that the purchases are part of a “broader effort” to get ammunition off the market. But, as we will detail later, the purchases this year are in line with past years, according to government data.

    Some of the claims about the IRS on social media were tied to an unrelated event — the FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Florida.

    “The IRS is coming for you. The DOJ is coming for you. The FBI is coming for you. No one is safe from political punishment in Joe Biden’s America,” the official Twitter account for the House Judiciary Committee Republicans tweeted. 

    But Rettig, the IRS commissioner, wrote in a letter to lawmakers on Aug. 4 that the resources obtained with the funding from the Inflation Reduction Act “are absolutely not about increasing audit scrutiny on small businesses or middle-income Americans.” 

    “Other resources will be invested in employees and IT systems that will allow us to better serve all taxpayers, including small businesses and middle-income taxpayers,” Rettig said. 

    Funds for Customer Service and Enforcement

    A Treasury Department report from May 2021 estimated that a similar $80 billion investment proposed in Biden’s American Families Plan would have allowed the IRS to modernize and restore the “IRS enforcement capability” in several ways — including by hiring 86,852 full-time employees. That’s where the claim about hiring “87,000 new agents” apparently comes from.

    The 2021 report said the $80 billion investment to restore the IRS would be broken down into two components: “a dedicated stream of mandatory funds ($72.5 billion over a decade) and a program integrity allocation ($6.7 billion over a decade).” 

    The $6.7 billion program integrity allocation will be used for “the hiring and retention of at least 5,000 new enforcement personnel,” the 2021 report said. “The mandatory funds are allocated over a 10-year horizon. They provide enforcement resources, including a significant investment in revitalizing the IRS’s examination of large corporations, partnerships, and global high-wealth and high-income individuals.”

    Over the past decade, the IRS has lost 40% of its “complex revenue agents” — agents who handle complicated tax returns of large businesses and corporations and go after high-end tax evaders — as its budget has been gutted, according to a Treasury Department spokesperson. “Today, the IRS has the same number of IRS revenue agents for complex work as it had in WWII,” the spokesperson told us in an email.

    Over the next five years, the IRS is expecting to lose up to 52,000 employees to attrition, the Treasury Department spokesperson told us in a phone interview. Most of the new hires will replace the outgoing employees and will be on the service side of the IRS.

    “The majority of hires made with these resources fill positions of the 50,000 IRS employees who are on the verge of retirement. Of the net new hires, the majority are hired to improve customer services – from upgrading IT to answering phone calls,” the Treasury Department spokesperson said.

    The IRS might net about 30,000 new hires, as a result of the number of retirements and new funding. But the IRS hasn’t yet released estimates for how many new employees the agency could hire with funding from the Inflation Reduction Act. The IRS is expected to release the final numbers and breakdown in the coming months.

    “The resources to modernize the IRS will be used to improve taxpayer services – from answering the phones to improving IT systems – and to crack down on high-income and corporate tax evaders who cost the American people hundreds of billions of dollars each year,” the spokesperson said. “The majority of new employees will replace the standard level of staff departures over the next few years and will be hired to improve taxpayer services. The agency will also bring on experienced auditors who can take on corporate and high-end tax evaders, without increasing audit rates relative to historical norms for people earning under $400,000 each year.”  

    A White House spokesperson told us in an email, “both Treasury Secretary Yellen and the IRS Commissioner have been explicit that these funds will be used for the wealthiest taxpayers and not those making less than $400,000 per year. These resources will improve technology and customer service, which will make it less likely that honest taxpayers get audited.”

    Spending on Ammunition and Armed Agents

    Gaetz, a Republican from Florida, raised concerns in June that the IRS spent $700,000 on ammunition from March to June of this year, and he introduced the Disarm the IRS Act in July. 

    Gaetz described the ammunition acquisition as “bizarre” in a recent interview. Others have also echoed the claim.

    But that’s not an unusual amount of money for the IRS to spend on ammunition and is on par with what has been spent in previous years for the IRS Criminal Investigation division, which was established in 1919.

    IRS Criminal Investigation is the sixth largest federal law enforcement agency in the U.S. But it’s a small unit of the IRS overall, less than 3% of its total workforce, according to the Treasury Department spokesperson. 

    The IRS Criminal Investigation division doesn’t perform routine IRS audits on average Americans.

    “The bulk of IRS’s tax administration work is done by civilian auditors and revenue collectors,” Justin Cole, a spokesman for the IRS Criminal Investigation division, told us in an email. “IRS Criminal Investigation oversees the entirety of the work related to criminal violations of the tax law and other financial crimes.”

    The division investigates cases related to money laundering, cybercrimes, bank secrecy, national security, national defense and narcotics organizations — a large reason for the need for firearms and training. The division is famously known for the arrest of American gangster Al Capone. More recently, the division has been involved in the task force that is tracking the assets of Russian oligarchs.

    “In order to carry out their daily duties, which include search warrants and arrests, CI special agents carry firearms,” Cole said. 

    Using usaspending.gov, the official source of U.S. spending data and the site used by Gaetz, we found that the IRS has spent $816,248.90 so far in the fiscal year 2022 for “duty ammunition” from Vista Outdoor Sales. That’s a little less than last fiscal year ($842,989.60) and slightly more than in fiscal 2020 ($761,265.40). (All amounts are “total obligations,” as of Aug. 18.)

    The majority of the recent $725,460.10 spending went for handgun ammunition and equals about 2,545 boxes of ammunition — “just enough for Special Agent handgun qualifications,” Cole said. “CI purchases the minimum amount of ammunition necessary to cover training and firearms qualifications for its law enforcement employees.”

    The IRS spent an average of $712,500 on ammunition for fiscal years 2010 to 2017, according to a 2018 report to Congress by the Government Accountability Office on firearms and ammunition purchases by federal law enforcement agencies.

    “There are about 3,000 employees in [the IRS Criminal Investigation division], 2,100 of which are special agents and the remaining professional staff. Only special agents carry firearms,” Cole said.

    In 2021, there were 2,046 special agents, who “are among the most highly trained financial investigators in the world,” according to the 2021 annual report. 

    The number of special agents in the division hasn’t changed much in five years, according to the division’s annual reports. In 2017, there were 2,159 special agents. But the number of special agents has declined substantially since 2009, when the bureau had 2,725 — as we noted 12 years ago while addressing a misleading claim about the IRS hiring “16,500 new agents.” That’s a 33% decrease from 2009 to 2021.

    New special agents complete six months of training, including firearms training.

    The IRS is not the only government agency that purchases guns and ammunition for enforcement officers. The 2018 GAO report lists several other agencies that make those purchases, such as the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the Veterans Health Administration.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content. 

    Sources

    Cole, Justin. Director of communications for IRS Criminal Investigation Unit. Email to FactCheck.org. 15 Aug 2022.

    “Criminal Investigation.” IRS.gov. Accessed 15 Aug 2022. 

    Erb, Kelly Phillips. “Al Capone Convicted On This Day In 1931 After Boasting, ‘They Can’t Collect Legal Taxes From Illegal Money’.” Forbes. 17 Oct 2020.

    Government Accountability Office. “FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT Purchases and Inventory Controls of Firearms, Ammunition, and Tactical Equipment.” Dec 2018.

    Hawkin, Awr. “Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) told Breitbart News Saturday the IRS spent approximately $700,000 ‘between March and June 1’ purchasing ammunition.” Breitbart. 19 Jun 2022. 

    “IRS Criminal Investigation Annual Reports.” IRS.gov. Accessed 15 Aug 2022. 

    “IRS: Criminal Investigation 2017 Annual Report.” IRS.gov. Accessed 15 Aug 2022. 

    “IRS:CI Annual Report 2021.” IRS.gov. Accessed 15 Aug 2022. 

    IRS spokesperson. Email to FactCheck.org. 15 Aug 2022.

    Kiely, Eugene, et al. “Q&A on the FBI’s Search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Home.” FactCheck.org. Updated 13 Aug 2022.

    “Program and Emphasis Areas for IRS Criminal Investigation.” IRS.gov. Accessed 15 Aug 2022. 

    Rettig, Charles P. “Letter to members of the Senate from Commissioner Rettig.” IRS.gov. 4 Aug 2022. 

    “Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen Sends Letter to IRS Commissioner in Support of Funding for IRS to Improve Taxpayer service & Combat Evasion By High Income Earners and Corporation.” U.S. Department of the Treasury. Press Release. 10 Aug 2022.

    U.S. Department of the Treasury. “The American Families Plan Tax Compliance Agenda.” May 2021.

    The post IRS Will Target ‘High-Income’ Tax Evaders with New Funding, Contrary to Social Media Posts appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Kathy Griffin Shares Satirical Trump Tweet, But Not Everyone Is in on the Joke

    Quick Take

    Dozens of former President Donald Trump’s supporters gathered outside his Florida home to protest a recent FBI search of the building. The activity triggered a satirical tweet falsely attributed to Trump’s eldest son, purportedly telling supporters to disperse, and saying, “We have many important people coming through the club and need to keep it clean.”

    Full Story

    Dozens of former President Donald Trump’s supporters gathered outside his home at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after the building was searched by the FBI on Aug. 8.

    Agents recovered some materials described as confidential, secret and top secret, according to a list of seized items that was unsealed with the search warrant on Aug. 12.

    Although the reason for the search wasn’t publicly disclosed at the time, it was widely assumed that the search was related to the National Archives and Records Administration’s ongoing efforts to retrieve documents from the former president. But Trump’s supporters protested the FBI’s actions and held signs and flags with Trump campaign slogans.

    Now a fake tweet attributed to Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., is circulating online. The tweet was created as satire, but it’s been shared widely without a disclaimer explaining it was satirical.

    The phony tweet said: “While my Father loves almost all his supporters, please do not come to Mar-a-Lago to support President Trump. We have many important people coming through the club and need to keep it clean.”

    The original version included a fictitious time stamp of “6:99 AM” and an attribution to “Parody by Back Rub” at the bottom — both of which clearly indicate that the tweet isn’t real. It was shared by a satirical Twitter account.

    But the image has now been shared without those indicators at the bottom.

    Even versions of the claim that did include the satirical clues at the bottom have confused social media users. For example, many of the commenters on comedian Kathy Griffin’s Facebook post that shared the fake tweet — with the “parody” label — didn’t appear to understand it was fabricated. One of Griffin’s 1 million followers wrote, “So he admits that his supporters are NOT important or clean people!!”

    But, as we said, the tweet didn’t come from Donald Trump Jr. Screen captures of his Twitter account from the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine also show that he never posted the tweet.

    Similar claims — using either intentionally misleading fake tweets or phony tweets that were originally made as satire — have been going around for years. We’ve written about at least a dozen of them before.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Bickerton, James. “Flag-Waving Trump Supporters Protest Outside Mar-a-Lago After FBI Raid.” Newsweek. 9 Aug 2022.

    Kiely, Eugene, Robert Farley and Lori Robertson. “Q&A on the FBI’s Search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Home.” FactCheck.org. Updated 13 Aug 2022.

    In Re Sealed Search Warrant. Case no. 22-mj-8332. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 11 Aug 2022.

    Hale Spencer, Saranac. “Former Presidents Are Not Allowed to Take Home Official Records.” FactCheck.org. Updated 18 Feb 2022.

    Nehamas, Nicholas. “Mar-a-Lago becomes a popular spot after FBI raids former President Trump’s home.” Miami Herald. Updated 9 Aug 2022.

    Follow Plz? Faith Back Rub (@FaithRubPol). “Trump to Trump supporters: get off our property.” Twitter. 14 Aug 2022.

    Internet Archive. Wayback Machine capture: Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) Twitter page. 13 Aug 2022.

    The post Kathy Griffin Shares Satirical Trump Tweet, But Not Everyone Is in on the Joke appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Video Makes Unsubstantiated Claim About Chinese Maneuvers After Pelosi Visit to Taiwan

    Quick Take

    China held live-fire military drills around Taiwan as a response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to the island on Aug. 2. But a video posted on social media made unfounded claims that China had attacked a Taiwanese armory. An expert told us that the claim was false and a majority of the video’s footage did not appear to be from the week of Pelosi’s visit. 

    Full Story

    China announced that it would conduct “joint anti-submarine and sea assault operations” in five exclusion zones around Taiwan in response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan on Aug. 2.

    The Chinese Ministry of Defense issued a statement in response to the visit, saying, “China has repeatedly clarified the serious consequences of the visit to Taiwan, but Pelosi knowingly and maliciously provoked and created a crisis.” 

    Pelosi’s visit was the highest-level visit by a U.S. official in 25 years and prompted Chinese military maneuvers in Taiwan’s air defense zone ahead of her landing in Taipei, as Insider reported.

    Beijing asserts that Taiwan is a part of China, though the island has been governed independently since 1949. The U.S. has maintained an unofficial relationship with Taiwan, which includes the sale of defense equipment. As Pelosi’s visit was in the works, some analysts feared that China would use the trip as a pretext to invade the island. 

    After her trip concluded, China conducted live-fire drills in Japan’s exclusive economic zone and, on Aug. 5, Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense reported 68 Chinese aircraft in the Taiwan Strait — an unofficial buffer zone between China and Taiwan. On Aug. 6, the Defense Ministry again reported that 14 Chinese aircraft had crossed the median line of the Taiwan Strait. China had also deployed 14 warships in the waters around Taiwan, simulating a blockade. 

    These exercises sparked unfounded claims online. On Aug. 7, a video posted on social media claimed, “China launch attack from 68 aircraft and destroys Taiwan armory as visit Pelosi,” as images of jets and tanks fired shots in the background.

    But there have been no reports to back the claim that China attacked a Taiwanese armory, and the video gives no supporting evidence. 

    In an email to FactCheck.org, Roderick Lee, director of research at the U.S. Air Force’s China Aerospace Studies Institute, told us that there had been no reports of an attack on an armory in Taiwan.

    “I haven’t seen any evidence that would remotely support the hypothesis that China attacked (kinetically or using cyber capabilities) a Taiwan armory in the past few days,” Lee said.

    Lee also said the video on social media included pieces of real footage released by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, or PLA, from Aug. 3 and 4 of air force flights around Taiwan and long-range rocket artillery fires into the Taiwan strait.

    Brief images of amateur video also appear, which Lee said was possibly from summer exercises by the PLA, but he noted that they might not be related to Taiwan. All of the other PLA footage that appeared in the video was “unrelated to the events in the last week,” he said.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content. 

    Sources

    Bertrand, Natasha, Katie Sullivan and Jennifer Hansler. “White House summoned Chinese ambassador to condemn provocations after Pelosi’s Taiwan visit.” CNN. 5 Aug 2022.

    Deng, Sean, Yong Xiong and Hannah Ritchie. “US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visits Taiwan.” CNN. 2 Aug 2022.

    He, Laura. “China hits Taiwan with trade restrictions after Pelosi visit.” CNN. 3 Aug 2022.

    Kuo, Lily. “Taiwan says military drills show China is preparing to invade.” Washington Post. 9 Aug 2022.

    Lee, Roderick. Director of research, China Aerospace Studies Institute. Email to FactCheck.org. 11 Aug 2022.

    Maizland, Lindsay. “Why China-Taiwan Relations Are So Tense.” Council on Foreign Relations. 3 Aug 2022.

    May, Tiffany and Mike Ives.“China’s Military Drills and Other Tensions With Taiwan, Explained.” New York Times. 8 Aug 2022.

    Shull, Abbie. “21 Chinese warplanes, including more than a dozen fighter aircraft, flew through Taiwan’s air defense zone on the day of Pelosi’s visit.” Insider. 2 Aug 2022.

    Wang, Zixu and Mikes Ives. “Pelosi Leaves Taiwan, but Tensions Rise in Her Wake.” New York Times. 3 Aug 2022.

    White House. “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby.” 4 Aug 2022.

    Yeung, Jessie and Eric Cheung. “Taiwan says multiple Chinese aircraft spotted in possible simulated attack.” CNN. 6 Aug 2022.

    Zitser, Joshua. “Taiwan scrambles its fighter jets as Chinese war planes conduct simulated attack, officials say.” Yahoo! News. 6 Aug 2022.

    The post Video Makes Unsubstantiated Claim About Chinese Maneuvers After Pelosi Visit to Taiwan appeared first on FactCheck.org.

  • Social Media, Politicians Make Unfounded Claims of Politicized Mar-a-Lago Search

    Quick Take

    FBI agents searched the home of former President Donald Trump in Florida on Aug. 8 looking for presidential records and classified materials that were improperly removed from the White House. Social media posts claiming the FBI search was politically motivated have been swirling online, despite there being no evidence that President Joe Biden “had his department of justice’s FBI raid” Trump’s home, as one viral post claimed.

    Full Story

    As calls for civil war rolled through social media following an FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida home on Aug. 8, conservative pundits and politicians fanned those flames by claiming the search was a political attack, despite a lack of evidence.

    The warrant for the search was initially sealed, but a motion to unseal it that was filed by prosecutors on Aug. 11 confirmed reports from multiple news organizations that the warrant sought classified documents Trump may have taken when he left the White House. The National Archives and Records Administration had already recovered 15 boxes of materials from his Mar-a-Lago residence in January and, at the time, NARA said that representatives for Trump were “continuing to search for additional Presidential records that belong to the National Archives.”

    But conservative talk radio personality Clay Travis, whose show replaced Rush Limbaugh’s, took to Twitter on the day of the search to speculate: “So the president with the lowest approval ratings in our lives just had his department of justice’s FBI raid the private home of the leading candidate to replace him in the next election? This is banana republic third world level crazy. And scary.”

    That claim was copied and reposted on other social media platforms, including Facebook, where prominent Trump supporter David Harris Jr. shared it, and Instagram, where a fan account for Trump’s former press secretary Kayleigh McEnany with 252,000 followers posted a screenshot of the tweet.

    But the claim goes beyond expressing the opinion that the search was politically motivated. It also misrepresents some of the facts.

    First of all, it suggests that President Joe Biden directed the FBI to search Trump’s home. There’s nothing to support this claim.

    Biden got no advanced notice about the search, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Aug. 9. He “learned about this FBI search from public reports,” she said.

    “The President was not briefed… was not aware of it,” Jean-Pierre said, responding to a reporter’s question. “No one at the White House was given a heads-up,” she said.

    There’s no evidence to contradict this account.

    In fact, there’s evidence to support it, since Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a press conference on Aug. 11 that he made the final call to pursue the search.

    “I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter,” Garland said.

    It’s also worth noting that FBI Director Christopher Wray was nominated by Trump. He announced his choice on Twitter June 7, 2017, saying that Wray was “a man of impeccable credentials.”

    A search of any kind isn’t up to law enforcement officials alone, though. They must convince a federal judge that there is probable cause a crime has occurred and that evidence of that crime can be found at the site of the search, as we’ve explained before. This process protects people from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” as established by the Fourth Amendment.

    And, although a minor point, Travis is wrong about the claim that Biden has “the lowest approval ratings in our lives.” According to polling data compiled by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, the president with the lowest approval rating in the last 20 years was George W. Bush, who had a 19% approval rating at the end of his second term as the country was sinking into a recession. Trump had the next-to-lowest approval rating — 29% — at the end of his only term, as he was trying to overturn the results of the election he had just lost. Biden comes in third, with a recent approval rating of 31%.

    Travis was not alone in making this type of claim, though. Other conservative pundits as well as some Republican members of Congress posted similar claims suggesting that the search was politically motivated.

    Rep. Matt Gaetz, for example, appeared on former Trump White House strategist Steve Bannon’s podcast on Aug. 9. He told Bannon the search was a “political performance” and claimed that his Republican colleagues in Congress had expressed to him: “We are ready for this battle. Let us put on the armor of God and go fight.”

    Similarly, in a video posted to Twitter, Sen. Marco Rubio compared the search to actions taken by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega to silence his opposition.

    But, as we said, there’s nothing to suggest that Biden or the White House was involved. Rather, the search appears to be related to NARA’s ongoing efforts to recover presidential documents.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Kiely, Eugene, Robert Farley and Lori Robertson. “Q&A on the FBI’s Search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Home.” FactCheck.org. 9 Aug 2022.

    National Archives and Records Administration. Press Statements in Response to Media Queries About Presidential Records. 14 Feb 2022.

    Gaetz, Matt (@RepMattGaetz). “The FBI raid of Mar-A-Lago is the most defining moment of the Joe Biden presidency. It was a political performance against Trump. The antidote has to be NOT ONE MORE damn penny for this administrative state that has been weaponized against our people in a very fascist way.” Twitter. 9 Aug 2022.

    Rubio, Marco (@marcorubio). “Biden is playing with fire by using a document dispute to get the @TheJusticeDept to persecute a likely future election opponent Because one day what goes around is going to come around And then we become Nicaragua under Ortega.” Twitter. 8 Aug 2022.

    Goldsmith, Jack. “Independence and Accountability at the Department of Justice.” Lawfare. 30 Jan 2018.

    Kiely, Eugene. “Why Did Trump Fire Comey?” FactCheck.org. Updated 12 May 2017.

    Trump, Donald (@realDonaldTrump). “I will be nominating Christopher A. Wray a man of impeccable credentials to be the new Director of the FBI. Details to follow.” 7 Jun 2017.

    White House. Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. 9 Aug 2022.

    Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Cornell University. Presidential Approval Highs & Lows. Accessed 10 Aug 2022.

    The post Social Media, Politicians Make Unfounded Claims of Politicized Mar-a-Lago Search appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Proposed ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ Includes Grandfather Clause, Contrary to Social Media Posts

    Quick Take 

    The House passed a bill on July 29 that would make it a crime to knowingly “import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.” Social media posts falsely claim “millions of people will become felons overnight” because of the bill. Under the bill, current owners of such firearms would be allowed to keep them. 

    Full Story 

    On July 29, the House passed H.R.1808, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022, which would make it a crime to knowingly “import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) or large capacity ammunition feeding device (LCAFD)” — with some exemptions. 

    The bill was introduced in March, but didn’t come up for a vote until after high-profile mass shootings this year that involved the use of AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles, including the May 24 massacre of 19 students and two teachers at a Texas elementary school. The bill is not expected to advance in the Senate. 

    The House bill includes a grandfather clause, so current owners of such firearms would be allowed to keep them. The grandfather clause is similar to the 10-year ban that was included in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That ban expired in 2004.

    But posts on social media post falsely claim the bill will create millions of “overnight felons.”

    “With this ban, millions of people will become felons overnight, and they will not go quietly,” reads one Facebook post. 

    A user on Twitter says, “I’ve been getting replies saying this is the same ban from the 90s and I’m pretty sure this one is more aggressive. Millions of people including myself would be overnight felons under this legislation and millions of people including myself will also not be turning any guns in.”

    But the bill would allow current owners to keep grandfathered semi-automatic assault weapons, or SAW, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices, or LCAFD. A summary of the bill states:

    • “The bill permits continued possession, sale, or transfer of a grandfathered SAW, which must be securely stored. A licensed gun dealer must conduct a background check prior to the sale or transfer of a grandfathered SAW between private parties.”
    • “The bill permits continued possession of, but prohibits sale or transfer of, a grandfathered LCAFD.”

    So, those who already own the firearms would not become felons and would be allowed to keep the guns they currently own. The bill would prevent them from buying new ones. 

    Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act earlier this year to provide incentives to states to enact their own gun control measures. The legislation — which was sponsored by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and signed into law by President Joe Biden on June 24 — did not include any weapon bans.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content. 

    Sources

    Cheang, Ko Lyn. “Greenwood gunman used AR-15 style rifle that’s behind deadliest mass shootings.” Indianapolis Star. 22 Jul 2022.

    H.R.1808 – Assault Weapons Ban of 2022. Congress.gov. As passed by the House on 29 Jul 2022. 

    H.R.3355 – Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Congress.gov. As passed on 13 Sep 1994.

    Kapur, Sahil. “House passes assault weapons ban that’s doomed in the Senate.” NBC. 29 Jul 2022.

    Kiely, Eugene. “Democratic Congressman Exaggerates Number of Gun ‘Massacres’.” FactCheck.org. 15 Jun 2022.

    Narea, Nicole. “Congress passes a landmark gun control package.” Vox. 24 Jun 2022.

    S.2938 – Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.  Congress.gov. As passed on 25 Jun 2022.

    The post Proposed ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ Includes Grandfather Clause, Contrary to Social Media Posts appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Trump Rally Photo Is From 2020, Not Recent Wisconsin Rally, as Social Media Posts Claim

    Quick Take

    Former President Donald Trump held a rally in Wisconsin on Aug. 5. Posts on social media circulated a photo to claim that the recent Trump rally in Wisconsin attracted a “massive” crowd. But the photo was from a previous Trump rally and was shared by Eric Trump in 2020.  

    Full Story 

    On Aug. 5, former President Donald Trump held a “Save America” rally at the Waukesha County Fair grounds in Wisconsin to campaign for Tim Michels, a Republican candidate for Wisconsin governor, and others.

    Posts on social media are sharing a photo online to claim that the recent rally held in Wisconsin drew a “massive” crowd. But the image shared in the posts is not from the recent Trump rally.

    The photo shows a large group of people standing outside, many wearing red hats. Some people were sitting in stands with American flags on top. In the corner of the image, there are screens that read, “THE BEST IS YET TO COME” — a Trump campaign theme in 2020. 

    A Facebook post shared the photo with the caption, “This is from last night in Wisconsin. MASSIVE!” The post received more than 1.7 thousand likes and 1.6 thousand shares. 

    Waynedupree.com, a website run by conservative political commentator Wayne Dupree, shared an article with the headline, “No, This Isn’t a Photo From a 2016 Trump Rally … It’s From LAST NIGHT in Wisconsin.”

    But the photo is not from 2016 or 2022.

    By doing a reverse image search, we found that Donald Trump’s middle son, Eric Trump, tweeted the photo on Nov. 16, 2020. He used the image to falsely claim that the turnout at his father’s campaign rallies was proof that the 2020 presidential election was “rigged.” 

    Eric Trump’s tweet and the photo were featured in several news articles in 2020.

    Dan Scavino, a former White House communications aide, first tweeted the photo on Nov. 2, 2020 — the day before the election — with the caption, “WHAT A NIGHT IN WISCONSIN! Get out and VOTE #MAGA tomorrow!” 

    The photo was taken at the Kenosha Regional Airport in Kenosha, Wisconsin. 

    As we said above, the photo shared in the social media posts shows individuals standing and some sitting in stands in a fairly large outdoor area.

    The location of the Trump rally held in Wisconsin on Aug. 5 had several key distinctions — including stands with “Save America” signs, “Save America” signs in several other places and the fair’s white tent in the background. None of those elements is pictured in the image shared with the recent social media claims and photos taken by media outlets during the 2020 rally.

    Save America is the name of a political action committee created by Trump after the 2020 election.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources 

    C-Span. “Former President Trump Holds Rally in Wisconsin.” 5 Aug 2022.

    Garrett, Alexandra. “Donald Trump Performed Worse With Voters In Counties Where He Held Large Rallies.” Newsweek. 2 Dec 2022.     

    Moye, David. “Eric Trump Can’t Accept That Rally Attendance And Votes Are Different.” HuffPost.16 Nov 2020. 

    Opoien, Jessie (@jessieopie). “Former state Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman is delivering the invocation at the Trump rally. Gableman is leading a taxpayer-funded review of Wisconsin’s 2020 presidential election.” Twitter. 5 Aug 2022.

    The post Trump Rally Photo Is From 2020, Not Recent Wisconsin Rally, as Social Media Posts Claim appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Four False Claims About Monkeypox

    SciCheck Digest

    Monkeypox is a viral disease that spreads through close physical contact with an infected person and large respiratory droplets that don’t travel more than a few feet. A recent meme on social media gets the facts wrong about how the virus spreads, its severity and symptoms.

    Full Story

    Monkeypox is a rare disease caused by a virus related to smallpox, as we’ve explained before. The disease was discovered in lab monkeys in 1958 and can spread from animals to humans, as well as between humans.

    On Aug. 4, the U.S. declared monkeypox a public health emergency as the number of confirmed cases in the country reached 7,102.

    Rumors have taken off online since early May, when an outbreak of monkeypox began in countries outside of Central and West Africa, where the disease is endemic. We recently debunked a false claim about its origins.

    Now, a meme spreading several false claims about the disease has been circulating online with a BBC logo, although no such image is available on BBC websites or social media accounts.

    We’ll address each of the meme’s inaccurate claims below.

    Claim: “CDC has now classified this disease as airborne and anybody within 15 ft can catch it”

    Facts: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has explained that monkeypox spreads through “close, personal, often skin-to-skin contact” with an infected person. That includes direct contact with an infected person’s sores or body fluids, contact with fabric or surfaces that have been used by someone who has monkeypox, and contact with infected “respiratory secretions.”

    As we’ve explained before, monkeypox can spread through respiratory droplets, probably because lesions in the mouth infect saliva. But those larger droplets only travel a few feet — far short of the 15 feet claimed in the meme. So this type of infection would require extended face-to-face contact.

    The CDC has also noted that scientists are still researching how often the virus is spread by respiratory secretions.

    Such spread doesn’t make the virus “airborne.” As the CDC explains: “Airborne transmission occurs when small virus particles become suspended in the air and can stay there for periods of time” or even “spread on air currents.” But monkeypox “may be found in droplets like saliva or respiratory secretions that drop out of the air quickly. Long range (e.g., airborne) transmission of monkeypox has not been reported.”

    Claim: “This disease is now classified as a form of herpes”

    Facts: Monkeypox is in the Poxviridae family of viruses, which includes the virus that causes the more severe disease of smallpox. Interestingly — and perhaps what led to the falsehood in the meme — despite its name, chickenpox is not caused by a virus in the Poxviridae family. Instead, it’s caused by varicella-zoster, which is in the Herpesviridae family of viruses, which includes herpes simplexes 1 and 2.

    Put simply, monkeypox is a poxvirus, not a herpesvirus.

    Claim: “The illness typically last 2-4 months. If you have symptoms avoid going outside”

    Facts: Monkeypox typically lasts between two and four weeks, according to the CDC, not “2-4 months,” as the meme claims.

    “In most cases, the symptoms of monkeypox go away on their own within a few weeks,” the World Health Organization has explained. “However, in some people, an infection can lead to medical complications and even death. Newborn babies, children and people with underlying immune deficiencies may be at risk of more serious symptoms and death from monkeypox.”

    Claim: “Monkeypox can lead to being paralyzed”

    Facts: According to the WHO, the most common symptoms of monkeypox include “fever, headache, muscle aches, back pain, low energy, and swollen lymph nodes.”

    Additionally, monkeypox typically causes a rash or lesions that begin flat, then fill with liquid before crusting over and falling off.

    The CDC has described a similar set of symptoms.

    Neither organization included paralysis in the list of symptoms, and we could find no evidence that paralysis has been a recognized problem associated with monkeypox.

    This claim may have come from conflating monkeypox with another viral illness that’s been in the headlines recently — polio. Although polio has been eliminated in the U.S., an unvaccinated person in a suburb of New York City was diagnosed in July. Polio is a viral illness that can cause paralysis.

    None of the four claims made in the meme is correct, based on what is currently known about the latest outbreak.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    World Health Organization. Monkeypox outbreak 2022. Accessed 5 Aug 2022.

    Jones, Brea. “Posts Distort Chinese Research Creating Fragment of Monkeypox Viral Genome.” FactCheck.org. 29 Jul 2022.

    McDonald, Jessica. “Q&A on Monkeypox.” FactCheck.org. Updated 4 Aug 2022.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Monkeypox — How it spreads. Updated 29 Jul 2022.

    Encyclopædia Britannica. Poxvirus. Updated 26 Jul 2022.

    Siegel, Robert David. Classification of Human Viruses. Principles and Practice of Pediatric Infectious Diseases. 18 Jul 2017.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Monkeypox — Signs and Symptoms. Updated 5 Aug 2022.

    World Health Organization. Monkeypox Q&A. 4 Aug 2022.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Polio Elimination in the United States. Reviewed 3 Aug 2022.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What is Polio? Reviewed 28 Sep 2021.

    The post Four False Claims About Monkeypox appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Posts Make Unfounded Claims About Death of Al-Qaeda Leader

    Quick Take

    The U.S. announced it had conducted a drone strike on July 31 killing al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in Kabul. But social media posts make unfounded claims that al-Zawahiri had died in 2020 from asthma. The posts cite an unconfirmed story in a British tabloid, which reported a year later that al-Zawahiri was still alive.

    Full Story

    President Joe Biden announced the U.S. had conducted a drone strike on July 31 in Kabul, Afghanistan, killing longtime al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al-Zawahiri was considered to be a key architect of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., and became the leader of al-Qaeda after Osama bin Laden’s death in 2011. 

    After the precision Hellfire drone strike, posts on Facebook and Twitter surfaced with the unfounded claim that al-Zawahiri had actually died from asthma in 2020. The Facebook post cited a Nov. 20, 2020, news article from The Sun, a British tabloid.

    Ayman al-Zawahiri in an October 2001 television broadcast. Photo by Maher Attar/Sygma via Getty Images.

    A year later, al-Zawahiri emerged from hiding and released a video on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sun subsequently reported on the video, dispelling the previous reports of his death. The Sun reported on Sept. 16, 2021, “Al-Qaeda chief Ayman [al-Zawahiri] has appeared in a gloating video released on the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 atrocity — despite reports he died last year.”

    In July 2021, a U.N. Security Council report from the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team noted, “Al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri is assessed by Member States to be alive but ailing in Afghanistan.”

    On a call with the media on Aug. 1, the U.S. State Department said that al-Zawahiri was killed in the drone strike, citing the “careful, patient, and persistent work by our counterterrorism professionals.”

    A senior administration official said, “Senior Haqqani Taliban figures were aware of Zawahiri’s presence in Kabul. Once Zawahiri arrived at the location, we are not aware of him ever leaving the safe house. We identified Zawahiri on multiple occasions for sustained periods of time on the balcony where he was ultimately struck.” 

    Addressing the ability to confirm that al-Zawahiri was indeed the person killed, the senior administration official said, “we have multiple intelligence sources via multiple methods that have enabled us to confirm that this was Zawahiri and that we were successful in achieving our objective. And while I can’t get into the details of that, we were able to confirm this in a fashion that enables us tonight to have the President go out to the world and announce that this has taken place with high confidence.” 

    Biden, in his remarks on the strike, reiterated confidence in the intelligence reports. “After relentlessly seeking Zawahiri for years under Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump, our intelligence community located Zawahiri earlier this year. He had moved to downtown Kabul to reunite with members of his immediate family,” Biden said. 

    White House national security spokesman John Kirby said that the U.S. did not have DNA confirmation of the death of al-Zawahiri and that the confirmation would not come through those means. “We have visual confirmation, but we also have confirmation through other sources,” Kirby said. 

    Colin Clarke, senior research fellow and terrorism expert at The Soufan Center, a nonprofit research center on security issues and foreign policy, also expressed his confidence in the mission in an email to FactCheck.org. “I don’t have any reason to doubt the White House on Zawahiri,” he said.

    “US intel has been watching him since April and established a pattern-of-life. His family was also tracked to the house in Kabul. I don’t think the Biden Admin would risk making such an important announcement unless it was highly confident that it was indeed Zawahiri,” Clarke said. 

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Chiacu, Doina. “U.S. has no DNA on Zawahiri, confirmed death by other sources – White House.” Reuters. 2 Aug 2022. 

    Clarke, Colin. Senior research fellow and terrorism expert, The Soufan Center. Email to FactCheck.org. 3 Aug 2022.

    Holloway, Henry. “Terror Chief ‘Dead’ Ayman al-Zawahiri ‘dead’ – Al-Qaeda boss dies from asthma in Afghan mountain hideout, reports claim.” The Sun. 20 Nov 2020.

    Knox, Patrick. “‘Back From The Dead’ Al-Qaeda ‘ready for bloody wave of terror attacks on US & UK’ as terrorists regroup in Taliban controlled Afghanistan.” The Sun. 16 Sep 2021.

    Leblanc, Paul. “Who was al Qaeda leader and key 9/11 architect Ayman al-Zawahiri?” CNN. 2 Aug 2022.

    Liptak, Kevin and Kylie Atwood et. al. “US kills al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in drone strike in Afghanistan.” CNN. 2 Aug 2022.

    United Nations Security Council. “Twenty-eighth report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team submitted pursuant to resolution 2368 (2017) concerning ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals and entities.” 21 Jul 2021.

    White House. “Background Press Call by a Senior Administration Official on a U.S. Counterterrorism Operation.” 1 Aug 2022.

    White House. “Remarks by President Biden on a Successful Counterterrorism Operation in Afghanistan.” 1 Aug 2022.

    The post Posts Make Unfounded Claims About Death of Al-Qaeda Leader appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Online ‘Stimulus Loan’ Offers Are Not Related to Government Programs

    Quick Take

    Three stimulus payments have been sent to Americans to ease the economic impact of the pandemic. Social media posts are now sharing a false claim about a new, $40,000 federal stimulus loan. But it’s a marketing ploy. The bottom of the web page says, “This is not a government program nor is it government aid, this is an advertorial for a loan service.” 

    Full Story

    In response to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government has sent three payments to eligible individuals. 

    To continue providing relief, 16 states will send, or have sent, payments to eligible taxpayers — though these payments are more targeted and most offer considerably lower dollar amounts.

    Yet some posts on social media falsely claim a new stimulus loan provided by President Joe Biden would provide eligible Americans “up to $40,000.”

    But these online loan offers are not from the federal government or related to any government programs.

    A Facebook post shared on July 26 included a link to a bogus article with the false headline, “Biden New Stimulus Loans Up To $40,000 To Help Americans Pay Bills, Rent, Start Businesses, Or Make Large Purchases.”

    The link in the Facebook post goes to a webpage on foramericanlife.com that urges readers to see if they are eligible for the “2022 Stimulus Loan.”

    “Millions of Americans are now rushing to apply before funding runs out and big banks are terrified!” the bogus article reads.

    Another Facebook post shared a link to the same misleading article with a similar title and a different photo of Biden that falsely announces a “Biden New Initiative” that gives Americans “stimulus loans up to $40,000.” The link goes to a different website, greatamericancenter.com.

    But at the bottom of both pages, it says, “This is not a government program nor is it government aid, this is an advertorial for a loan service.” 

    And when you click on the “Get 2022 Stimulus Loan” button at the bottom of the stories, both websites redirect readers to redarrowloans.com, a website that claims to provide loans and credit products. 

    The posts are part of a trend we have seen of posts that mimic news articles or use fake celebrity endorsements to attract new customers.

    In February, we wrote about one post that shared an old video of a White House official to spread false claims about stimulus checks earlier this year. (For more, see our article “Social Media Posts Use Old Video of White House Official to Make False Claim About Stimulus Checks.”). Another post shared a website masquerading as a CNN article to promote the sale of cannabidiol gummies, an edible form of a chemical found in marijuana. (For more, see our January article “Fake Article Falsely Links Dr. Sanjay Gupta to CBD Products.”)

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Jones, Brea. “Fake Article Falsely Links Dr. Sanjay Gupta to CBD Products.” FactCheck.org. 19 Jan 2022. 

    Jones, Brea. “Social Media Posts Use Old Video of White House Official to Make False Claim About Stimulus Checks.” FactCheck.org. 3 Feb 2022. 

    Lever, Rob. “Posts falsely offer ‘Biden stimulus loans.’” AFP. 27 Jul 2022.

    Napoletano, E. and Lisa Rowan. “16 States Have Approved Stimulus Checks—Is Yours Next?” Forbes. 22 Jul 2022.

    The post Online ‘Stimulus Loan’ Offers Are Not Related to Government Programs appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Three Canadian Doctors Died of Long-Term Illnesses, Contrary to False Claims COVID-19 Vaccine Was Cause

    SciCheck Digest

    It’s estimated that COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives, but false claims continue to cast doubt on their safety and efficacy. One such claim that has spread around the world falsely suggests that three Canadian doctors died from the shots. But they each died of a long-term illness unrelated to the vaccines.


    Full Story

    COVID-19 vaccines have been used widely for more than a year and a half. According to a recent modeling study from researchers at the Imperial College London and published in the Lancet Infectious Diseases journal, the COVID-19 vaccines prevented at least 14.4 million deaths in the first year they were available.

    But false claims casting doubt on the safety and efficacy of the shots remain rampant online.

    One recent claim was spread by the right-wing website Gateway Pundit, which published a story and accompanying social media posts on July 28 falsely suggesting that three Canadian doctors died as a result from the vaccine within days of each other, shortly after their employer mandated COVID-19 booster shots.

    The claim has also been shared in Spanish, Hebrew and Polish.

    Trillium Health Partners, the hospital system that employed the doctors, responded to the claim online, saying in a statement that was also posted on Twitter: “The rumour circulating on social media is simply not true. Their passings were not related to the COVID-19 vaccine. We ask to please respect their families’ privacy during this difficult time.”

    Indeed, two of the doctors died of cancer and the third died after what was described as a serious illness, as has been reported by several other fact–checking organizations.

    The three doctors were:

    • Dr. Jakub Sawicki, who died after he was diagnosed with stage 4 gastric cancer signet ring adenocarcinoma almost a year earlier, according to a GoFundMe campaign set up by his wife, who plans to create a scholarship fund in his name. He died on July 19.
    • Dr. Stephen McKenzie, who was “seriously ill” before he died, according to an outgoing message for his medical office, which is now permanently closed. He had reportedly joined Trillium Health almost 40 years ago and was one of the founding members of the neurology department. He died on July 18.
    • Dr. Lorne Segall, who died of lung cancer after a “year-long battle,” according to his obituary. He died on July 17.

    It’s unclear why those spreading this claim think these deaths were related to COVID-19 vaccines since Trillium Health Partners had implemented a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for “staff, professional staff, volunteers and learners” on Sept. 7, 2021 — almost a year before the doctors died.

    Not surprisingly, the claim has dubious origins. It appears to have come from an Instagram account run by Monique Mackay, a Canadian real estate agent who began filming outside of seemingly empty hospitals earlier in the pandemic to make the claim that COVID-19 was a hoax.

    A wide-spread conspiracy theory at the time had encouraged those who were skeptical of the existence or severity of the disease to film apparent inactivity outside their local hospitals, an action that was embraced by Simone Gold — a doctor who has become one of the primary promoters of COVID-19 disinformation and is currently serving a 60-day sentence for entering the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot.

    Mackay, who uses the name Monique Leal on many of her COVID-19-related social media accounts, now spreads anti-vaccination claims online and promoted the “Freedom Convoy,” in which hundreds of trucks and passenger vehicles protested Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions.

    She declined to answer questions from FactCheck.org.

    On July 22, Mackay posted a picture of a text message from an unidentified person on her Instagram account that typically gets about 500 likes per post. The text noted the doctors’ deaths and concluded, “How many more ‘coincidences’ will people accept. These shots need to be pulled.”

    Then Gateway Pundit cited the Instagram post in its July 28 story — and now the claim has gone around the world.

    The route this claim has taken — from an Instagram account, to a major partisan website, to posts shared internationally — shows how an unsubstantiated claim from a niche social media account can catapult to major notoriety in a matter of days.

    Editor’s note: SciCheck’s COVID-19/Vaccination Project is made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation. The goal of the project is to increase exposure to accurate information about COVID-19 and vaccines, while decreasing the impact of misinformation.

    Sources

    Watson, Oliver, et al. “Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study.” Lancet Infectious Diseases. 23 Jun 2022.

    McDonald, Jessica. “Trump Falsely Claims COVID-19 Death Projection Assumes ‘No Mitigation.’” FactCheck.org. 6 May 2020.

    Trillium Health Partners. Press release. “Statement from Trillium Health Partners on the Passing of Three Physicians.” 28 Jun 2022.

    Sawicki, Iris. “Dr. Jakub Sawicki Scholarship -Queen’s University.” GoFundMe. 25 Jul 2022.

    Alberga, Hannah. “Ontario hospital network mourns loss of three doctors who died within a week.” CTV News. Updated 28 Jul 2022.

    Segall, Lorne. Obituary. York Funeral Centre. Accessed 1 Aug 2022.

    Trillium Health Partners. COVID-19 — Information for Patients and Families. Accessed 3 Aug 2022.

    Ahmed, Wasim, et al. “COVID-19 and the ‘Film Your Hospital’ Conspiracy Theory: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Data.” Journal of Medical Internet Research. 5 Oct 2020.

    Hale Spencer, Saranac and Angelo Fichera. “In Viral Video, Doctor Falsely Touts Hydroxychloroquine as COVID-19 ‘Cure.’” FactCheck.org. 28 Jul 2020.

    Jones, Brea. “More than 100 Protesters Arrested in Ottawa, Despite Claims in Facebook Video.” FactCheck.org. 25 Feb 2022.

    The post Three Canadian Doctors Died of Long-Term Illnesses, Contrary to False Claims COVID-19 Vaccine Was Cause appeared first on FactCheck.org.

  • ‘Unequivocal’ Evidence that Humans Cause Climate Change, Contrary to Posts of Old Video

    SciCheck Digest

    There is “unequivocal” evidence that humans are causing global warming, the U.N. climate change panel has said. But viral posts revive a 2014 video of Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman falsely claiming “climate change is not happening.” The channel, which supports the scientific consensus that climate change is real, had distanced itself from Coleman.

    Full Story

    A vast and growing body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring and is largely caused by human activity, as we’ve written on multiple occasions.

    In 2007, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that the “evidence is now ‘unequivocal’ that humans are causing global warming,” the U.N. said in a press release at the time. The U.N. panel has repeated that finding ever since, most recently in an April report.

    “Widespread and rapid changes” have occurred as a result of climate change and “many changes … are irreversible” for at least centuries, the U.N. climate panel said in another report issued in 2021.

    “Many changes in the climate system become larger in direct relation to increasing global warming,” the 2021 report said. “They include increases in the frequency and intensity of hot extremes, marine heatwaves, heavy precipitation, and, in some regions, agricultural and ecological droughts; an increase in the proportion of intense tropical cyclones; and reductions in Arctic sea ice, snow cover and permafrost.”

    As the effects of climate change become increasingly evident, the issue is also becoming increasingly political. Just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions, President Joe Biden said he would take “strong executive action” to “tackle the climate crisis” if the Senate failed to act. 

    But social media posts continue to question the existence of global warming by reviving a 2014 interview on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” with climate change skeptic and Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman. 

    One Instagram post has the headline, “Weather Channel Founder Goes Savage on CNN for Network’s Climate Change Fake News.” A caption on the video clip says, “The climate change activist and movement is a fraud!” The post has been viewed more than 18,000 times.

    A post on Twitter attached a slightly longer portion of the same Coleman interview with the caption, “Founder of The Weather Channel tells Brian Stelter climate change is a hoax.” The post has over 66,000 likes and more than 28,000 retweets. 

    In the video shared in these posts, Coleman said: “Climate change is not happening. There is no significant man-made global warming now, there hasn’t been any in the past, and there’s no reason to expect any in the future.”

    Coleman’s claims are false, and so is the implication in the social media posts that he was an expert in climate science.

    Coleman, who died in 2018, worked as a weather anchor for over 60 years, including on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” But he did not hold a degree in any scientific discipline. The CNN clip was one of many instances in which Coleman perpetuated climate change falsehoods.

    In the CNN report, anchor Brian Stelter subsequently spoke with the Weather Channel’s then-CEO David Kenny. In that exchange, which the social media posts leave out, Kenny distanced the Weather Channel from Coleman’s claims and asked viewers to focus on the science. 

    “What I want people to know is that the science is pretty clear about climate change,” Kenny said. “We’re grateful that [Coleman] got [the Weather Channel] started 32 years ago, but he hasn’t been with us in 31 years. So he’s not really speaking for the Weather Channel in any way today.”

    Kenny continued, “Our position is really clear, it’s scientifically based, and we’ve been unwavering on it for quite some time now.”

    The Weather Channel had posted its statement on climate change a few days prior to Kenny’s CNN interview. In its statement, which was updated in 2017, the organization accurately said that “the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities.”

    Extensive scientific evidence gathered over many years corroborates the Weather Channel’s conclusion that, contrary to Coleman’s claims, human-caused warming exists. 

    As we’ve written, the theory of the greenhouse effect — that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere — has been repeatedly proven since it was first proposed in 1824.

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science notes that about 97% of climate scientists believe human-caused warming is occurring. Similarly, NASA calls the fact that “Earth’s climate is warming” a matter of “scientific consensus.”

    The Annual 2021 Global Climate Report, prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information, found that the global annual temperature increased an average rate of 0.14 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since 1880 but “over twice that rate” since 1981.

    “The years 2013–2021 all rank among the ten warmest years on record. The year 2021 was also the 45th consecutive year (since 1977) with global temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average,” the report added. 

    The year 2021 marked the sixth warmest year recorded, despite the cooling effect of La Niña climate pattern in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.

    Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

    NOAA charted the global average surface temperature since 1880. (See chart.)

    “That extra heat is driving regional and seasonal temperature extremes, reducing snow cover and sea ice, intensifying heavy rainfall, and changing habitat ranges for plants and animals,” NOAA explains on climate.gov. 

    The NCEI annual report concludes that only the “human emissions of heat-trapping gases” can explain this increase in global temperature. 

    The IPCC, a U.N. body of 278 climate experts from 65 countries, in a report released in April attributed climate change to “more than a century of … unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyle and patterns of consumption and production.”  

    The panel warned that “without urgent, effective and equitable mitigation actions,” climate change will continue to threaten biodiversity, global health and economic growth. “[C]limate change poses a serious threat to development and wellbeing in both rich and poor countries,” the report said, citing such climate impacts as premature deaths, food insecurity and loss of land and infrastructure. 

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Fichera, Angelo. “No, Climate Changes Isn’t ‘Made Up.’” FactCheck.org. 8 May 2019.

    McDonald, Jessica. “Trump Wrong on Climate Change, Again.” FactCheck.org. 18 Oct 2018.

    Levitan, Dave. “Jeb Bush Off on Contributions to Warming.” FactCheck.org. 22 May 2015.

    United Nations. “Evidence is now ‘unequivocal’ that humans are causing global warming — UN report.” 2 Feb 2007. 

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Summary for Policymakers.” 2021.

    United Nations. “UN climate report: It’s ‘now or never’ to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.” UN News. 4 Apr 2022.

    Totenberg, Nina. “Supreme Court restricts the EPA’s authority to mandate carbon emissions reductions.” NPR. 30 Jun 2022.

    “Statement by President Joe Biden.” White House. 15 Jul 2022.

    Coleman, John. “Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view.” USA Today. 21 Apr 2016.

    The Weather Channel. “John Coleman, The Weather Channel Co-Founder, Dies at Age 83.” 22 Jan 2018.

    Projectintellectus. “Weather Channel Founder Goes Savage on CNN for Network’s Climate Change Fake News.” Instagram. 26 Jul 2022.

    VRosen (@vrosen11). “Founder of The Weather Channel tells Brian Stelter climate change is a hoax.” Twitter. 20 Jul 2022.

    The Heartland Institute. “JOHN COLEMAN (1934-2018).” Accessed 29 Jul 2022.

    Nuccitelli, Dana. “Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman prefers conspiracies to climate science.” The Guardian. 3 Nov 2014.

    Snopes. “Did a Weather Channel Co-Founder Disprove Climate Change?” 20 Jun 2008.

    CNN. “Global warming storm at Weather Channel.” Accessed 29 Jul 2022.

    Molloy, Tim. “David Kenny Named Weather Channel Companies CEO.” Reuters. 24 Jan 2012.

    Mosbergen, Dominique. “Weather Channel Says Global Warming Is Real Following Co-Founder’s Climate Denial.” HuffPost. 30 Oct 2014.

    The Weather Channel. “Global Warming and Climate Change: The Weather Company Stand.” 9 Mar 2017.

    The Weather Channel. “Global Warming: The Weather Channel Position Statement.” Accessed 29 Jul 2022.

    Schipani, Vanessa. “Precision in Climate Science.” FactCheck.org. 7 Mar 2017.

    “What We Know: The Reality, Risks, And Response To Climate Change.” American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    NASA. “Scientific Consensus: Earth’s Climate is Warming.” Accessed 29 Jul 2022.

    NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. “State of the Climate: Monthly Global Climate Report for Annual 2021.” Accessed 29 Jul 2022.

    NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. “About.” Accessed 29 Jul 2022.

    NOAA Climate.gov. “El Niño & La Niña (El Niño — Southern Oscillation).” 14 Jun 2022.

    Lindsey, Rebecca and LuAnn Dahlman. “Climate Change: Global Temperature.” NOAA Climate.gov. 28 Jun 2022.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “About the IPCC.” Accessed 29 Jul 2022.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Authors.” Accessed 29 Jul 2022.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Climate Change 2022 Mitigation of Climate Change.” Accessed 29 Jul 2022.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change.” Accessed 1 Aug 2022.

     

    The post ‘Unequivocal’ Evidence that Humans Cause Climate Change, Contrary to Posts of Old Video appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Posts Distort Chinese Research Creating Fragment of Monkeypox Viral Genome

    SciCheck Digest

    A Wuhan Institute of Virology study describes assembling part of a monkeypox viral genome for use in a diagnostic test. Although the researchers only made a fraction of the genome — and it matches a different version of the virus — social media posts are using the study to baselessly claim that the current monkeypox outbreak is a result of a lab leak.

    Full Story

    On July 23, the World Health Organization declared monkeypox, a less dangerous relative of smallpox, a public health emergency of international concern.

    Monkeypox is a viral disease. People have typically become infected sporadically in the forested parts of Central and West Africa after an interaction with an infected animal. Once infected, however, people can spread the virus to others through close contact.

    That’s what is happening now with the current outbreak, which was first recognized in the U.K. in May. So far, cases have primarily affected men who have sex with men, but anyone who is exposed can contract the virus. (For more, see SciCheck’s “Q&A on Monkeypox.”)

    Of the two main types of monkeypox virus, the current outbreak is caused by the less severe West African version, or “clade.”

    There were 4,907 confirmed monkeypox cases in the U.S. and 21,148 cases globally as of July 28, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. The U.S. is among the nations with the most cases — causing concern among some Americans about contracting the disease, despite knowing little about it.

    The quick rise in cases has led to the spread of baseless claims on social media regarding the origins of the recent outbreak.

    Social media posts are citing a Chinese study published in June in the science journal Virologica Sinica to claim without evidence that the monkeypox virus originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The claim is similar to previous unsupported theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. 

    But experts say that the study cited in the posts does not show a monkeypox lab leak. The genome sequence used in the study is genetically distinct from the virus circulating in the recent outbreak, and no monkeypox virus was ever created in the study.

    Jimmy Dore, a frequent purveyor of misinformation on “The Jimmy Dore Show” on YouTube, produced a segment on July 20 with the headline, “Wuhan Lab Was Experimenting On Monkeypox Before Outbreak.” 

    During the segment, Dore showed a video of Dr. John Campbell, a retired nurse educator, discussing monkeypox and the Chinese study. 

    Campbell says in the video that the National Institute of Health and the Wuhan Institute of Virology were conducting experiments with monkeypox prior to the outbreak and misleadingly suggests viewers may “draw some parallels” between the origins of the monkeypox outbreak and the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

    After playing a clip of Campbell saying the NIH and the Wuhan Institute had been studying monkeypox before the outbreak, Dore asked, “What are the odds of that?”

    Dore continued, “whenever there’s a new outbreak now, 50/50 chance it was started in the Wuhan Lab funded by Dr. Fauci and the NIH,” referring to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.   

    Kurt Metzger, a comedian and Dore’s partner on the show, added, “not even a different virology lab accident, the same one.”

    The video has received more than 49,000 views on Facebook and 121,000 views on YouTube.

    Dore posted another video two days later with the headline, “Corporate Media Lies About ‘Debunking’ Monkeypox Leak Theory,” sharing the same unfounded claim and playing the same clip of Campbell. 

    Other posts online make similar baseless claims that monkeypox was engineered in a Wuhan lab. 

    “Funny how monkey pox was made in the Wuhan lab a few months ago!! WHO corrupt to the core, bought and paid for by Pfizer and Gates,” reads one tweet.

    Study Assembled Partial Viral Genome for Monkeypox Detection

    The claims made by Dore and the other posts about the Chinese study are inaccurate or misleading on several points.

    First, the study was not conducted by the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab associated with theories about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. 

    The social media posts also misinterpret the purpose and results of the study, as our colleagues at Health Feedback have also explained.

    Dr. Rebecca Fischer, an assistant professor teaching infectious disease epidemiology at Texas A&M University, told us in an email that the study “does not prove, nor does it suggest or seek to prove, that the monkeypox virus associated with the current international spread originated in a laboratory, nor in China.”

    The primary goal of the study was to test a method known as transformation-associated recombination, which is used to assemble large pieces of DNA. The Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists used it in this case to create a portion of the monkeypox viral genome that could be used in a molecular diagnostic test known as PCR, or polymerase chain reaction.

    Benjamin Neuman, chief virologist of the Global Health Research Complex and professor of biology at Texas A&M University, told us in an email there is no link between the recent monkeypox outbreak and the Wuhan study.

    Neuman said that the study is a “technical paper, testing out a new way to assemble small pieces of DNA into larger pieces of DNA.”

    “In molecular biology, making small pieces of DNA is easy, but making larger DNA strands is very difficult.  So, people have worked out creative ways to stitch small DNA strands to make larger ones — this is one of many,” Neuman added. “People assemble DNA in labs and companies around the world every day — it is an activity at the heart of modern biology and medical science.”

    “The process described here is in no way the same thing as creating a virus,” Fischer said.

    The monkeypox sequence the scientists used to assemble the partial genome is also different from the virus now circulating. While the current outbreak is due to a West African clade virus, the viral sequence used in the research belongs to the more deadly Congo Basin clade.  

    The monkeypox virus is quite large, with 197 kilobases, or kb, of DNA. The study, however, assembled less than one-third of the total genome —  a fragment that isn’t enough to produce a functional virus. The study’s authors stated in the paper that they limited their work to a fragment of the monkeypox viral genome specifically out of concerns for safety.  

    “In this study, although a full-length viral genome would be the ideal reference template for detecting MPXV by qPCR, we only sought to assemble a 55-kb viral fragment, less than one-third of the MPXV genome,” the authors wrote, using shorthand to refer to the monkeypox virus. “This assembly product is fail-safe by virtually eliminating any risk of recovering into an infectious virus while providing multiple qPCR targets for detecting MPXV or other Orthopoxviruses.” 

    No monkeypox virus was ever assembled in the study. 

     Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Campbell, John. “NIH, Wuhan were working on monkeypox.” YouTube. 31 May 2022. 

    “Emergence of Monkeypox — West and Central Africa, 1970 – 2017.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed 27 Jul 2022. 

    Fischer, Rebecca. Assistant professor of infectious disease epidemiology, Texas A&M University. Email to FactCheck.org. 26 Jul 2022. 

    Jones, Brea. “FDA-Approved ‘Electronic Pill’ Isn’t Evidence That COVID-19 Vaccine ‘Microchip’ Conspiracy Is ‘Proven’.” FactCheck.org. 26 May 2022. 

    Kamp, Jon. “U.S. Leads Globally in Known Monkeypox Cases, CDC Says.” Wall Street Journal. 26 Jul 2022.

    McDonald, Jessica. “Q&A on Monkeypox.” FactCheck.org. Updated 1 Jun 2022. 

    “Monkeypox.” World Health Organization. Accessed 27 Jul 2022. 

    “Monkeypox 2022 Global Map & Case Count.” World Health Organization. 26 Jul 2022. 

    “Monkeypox 2022 U.S. Map & Case Count.” World Health Organization. 26 Jul 2022. 

    “Monkeypox Key Facts.” World Health Organization. 19 May 2022. 

    “Monkeypox Past U.S. Cases & Outbreak.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated 6 Jun 2022. 

    “Multi-country monkeypox outbreak in non-endemic countries.” World Health Organization. 21 May 2022. 

    Neuman, Benjamin. Chief virologist of the Global Health Research Complex and professor of biology, Texas A&M University. Email to FactCheck.org. 27 Jul 2022. 

    “Reemergence of Human Monkeypox in Nigeria, 2017.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed 27 Jul 2022.  

    Rimoin, Anne, et al. “Major increase in human monkeypox incidence 30 years after smallpox vaccination campaigns cease in the Democratic Republic of Congo,” PNAS. 30 Aug 2010. 

    Robertson, Lori. “The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement.” FactCheck.org. Updated 1 Jul 2021. 

    “Second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) Emergency Committee regarding the multi-country outbreak of monkeypox.” World Health Organization. Press Release. 23 Jul 2022.

    Yang, Lei, et al. “Efficient assembly of a large fragment of monkeypox virus genome as a qPCR template using dual-selection based transformation-associated recombination.” Virologica Sinica.  28 Feb 2022. 

    The post Posts Distort Chinese Research Creating Fragment of Monkeypox Viral Genome appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Faulty Research Paper Leads to Unfounded Claims About Health of Atlantic Ocean

    SciCheck Digest

    Climate change has affected ocean ecosystems, scientists say. But an unfounded claim on social media that “plankton in the Atlantic Ocean is 90% gone” and the ocean is “now pretty much dead” is based on a faulty paper.

    Full Story

    The world’s oceans have changed over the last several decades. Climate change has warmed the surface water and caused the sea level to rise, for example.

    But some social media accounts that post about environmental issues have made the unfounded claim, “Plankton in the Atlantic Ocean is 90% gone.”

    Plankton — the catchall term for small marine plants, phytoplankton, and animals, zooplankton — serve two vital functions in the ecosystem. They are a major source of food for other marine life, and they absorb carbon dioxide while creating oxygen in the ocean.

    So, if the claim were true it would, indeed, be a major environmental catastrophe. But experts who study plankton have not found that to be the case.

    “We absolutely haven’t seen the drops that were noted” in the social media posts, David Johns, head of the Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey, told us in an email. “[I]n fact, in some areas there have been increases in plankton,” he said. The CPR Survey has been recording marine ecological data since 1931 and is now run by the Marine Biological Association in the U.K.

    We’ll explain how the inaccurate claim about plankton developed.

    It’s based on a quote from Howard Dryden, a marine biologist in Scotland who has, for most of his career, developed and distributed water treatment systems. In 2021, Dryden sought help from fellow members of the Ocean Cruising Club to gather water samples as part of a citizen science project.

    He wrote in a March 11, 2021, announcement calling for volunteers, “There are around 5,000 yachts crossing oceans every year, from Arctic regions to the equator. If some of these yachts were to start collecting data, then it would be invaluable for the measurement of oceanic pollution and productivity.”

    Three months later he posted a report suggesting that the primary problem facing ocean ecosystems was chemical and plastic pollution and, about a year after that, on May 6, he posted a paper titled: “Climate change…have we got it all wrong? an observational report by a Marine Biologist.”

    The abstract for that paper concluded, “peer reviewed literature shows we have lost more than 50% of all life in the oceans, but from own plankton sampling activity and other observations, we consider that losses closer to 90% have occurred, and these are due to chemical pollution from, for example, wastewater and not climate change.”

    The paper was cited in a July 17 article published by a Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Post, which also quoted extensively from an interview with Dryden.

    Among the quotes was this, referring to plankton: “Our results confirmed a 90% reduction in primary productivity in the Atlantic. Effectively, the Atlantic Ocean is now pretty much dead.”

    Shortly after the article was published, the claim that “plankton in the Atlantic Ocean is 90% gone” began circulating widely online.

    Ars Technica was among the first to address the claim and, after it published a story explaining that the claim was overstated, Dryden contacted the publication and said that the Sunday Post article should have reported a “90% reduction in marine plankton in the Equatorial Atlantic, not the whole Atlantic.”

    Dryden also changed the name of his May 6 paper to include the “equatorial Atlantic” distinction. It’s now titled: “Climate Change…Equatorial Atlantic Ocean plankton productivity and Caribbean pollution….a think piece for debate.”

    The newspaper updated its story and included an editor’s note at the bottom explaining the changes.

    The equatorial Atlantic includes currents flowing west from North Africa toward the southeast coast of the U.S. near the equator, as the name suggests.

    That area doesn’t typically have high numbers of visible plankton, though.

    “Equatorial waters are naturally not hotspots for plankton (unless you look at the really small stuff, like pico- and nanoplankton, which you cannot see with a typical microscope),” Johns, of the CPR Survey, told us. “So the claims are unfounded.”

    Johns also noted the reference in Dryden’s paper to a global loss of 50% of plankton, and disagreed with that, too.

    “I work with a large number of national and international plankton scientists,” Johns said, “and no one is reporting those sorts of declines – a decline in that order would be absolutely catastrophic, so many marine organisms depend on plankton, from larval through to adult fish, whales, whale sharks, manta rays, sea birds etc. And the phytoplankton are massively important as global producers of oxygen, and they ‘drawdown’ and fix CO2.”

    The larger premise of Dryden’s paper — that climate change isn’t much of a threat — is inaccurate, too.

    Looking at the anticipated impacts of climate change on the ocean alone, we can expect increased coastal flooding due to sea level rise, changes in climate patterns due to higher ocean temperatures that affect the currents, and decreased marine biodiversity as higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide acidify the water.

    “We have seen lots of changes relating to climate change, specifically the warming of the sea surface,” Johns said, addressing Dryden’s specific claim about the amount of plankton in the equatorial Atlantic. “In many cases, this has forced some plankton groups to retract northwards into cooler waters, and has allowed warming loving species to advance northwards as conditions for them become more favourable.”

    So, the claim that 90% of plankton has disappeared from the Atlantic is based on a faulty paper that was highlighted by a news outlet. Those who study the issue have found cause for concern about the impacts of climate change, but they haven’t clocked the magnitude of decline trumpeted in the viral social media claim.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Accessed 27 Jul 2022.

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration. “How Do We Know Climate Change Is Real?” Climate.nasa.gov. Updated 26 Jul 2022.

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “What are plankton?” Updated 26 Feb 2021.

    Johns, David. Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey. Email to FactCheck.org. 28 Jul 2022.

    Dryden, Howard. “Climate change…have we got it all wrong? an observational report by a Marine Biologist.” 6 May 2022.

    Howarth, Mark. “Our empty oceans: Scots team’s research finds Atlantic plankton all but wiped out in catastrophic loss of life.” Sunday Post. 17 Jul 2022.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Climate Change Indicators: Oceans.” Updated 12 May 2021.

    United Nations. “How is climate change impacting the world’s ocean.” Accessed 29 Jul 2022.

    The post Faulty Research Paper Leads to Unfounded Claims About Health of Atlantic Ocean appeared first on FactCheck.org.

  • Video Revives Old, Debunked Rumors About Tetanus Vaccines

    SciCheck Digest

    Tetanus vaccines can prevent deadly disease in infants, but a video circulating on social media is spreading old, unfounded rumors that discourage immunization.

    Full Story

    Children’s Health Defense — Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s organization with a history of spreading vaccine disinformation — has released a video rehashing an old claim that casts doubt on tetanus vaccines.

    Tetanus affects the nervous system after a bacteria called Clostridium tetani enters the body through an open wound. More than 80% of cases occur in mothers and their babies, according to UNICEF. The fatality rate for infants is between 80% and 100%, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Both organizations noted that lack of access to hygienic delivery and umbilical cord care contributes to high rates of infection, which is concentrated in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

    The World Health Organization and UNICEF have undertaken several vaccination programs to address maternal and neonatal tetanus. For example, UNICEF partnered with Kiwanis International in 2010 in a vaccination effort that resulted in more than a 40% decrease in the number of newborns dying of the disease between 2010 and 2015.

    Although there are safe and effective vaccines to prevent tetanus — which are often paired with immunization for diphtheria and pertussis, also called whooping cough — their use has been falling, as have vaccination rates, generally, since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

    Despite the danger of this disease for infants, Children’s Health Defense has made a video — and promoted it on social media — suggesting that some tetanus vaccines are actually part of a covert plot to control population growth by rendering women of childbearing age infertile.

    But the evidence they present is just a reprise of rumors that have been around since the 1990s.

    Basically, the theory is that a hormone blocker that would cause infertility had been surreptitiously added to tetanus vaccines. This claim, like many long-standing conspiracy theories, is based on a grain of truth. Researchers had developed a combination contraceptive and tetanus vaccine that was tested in the early 1990s and was designed to prevent pregnancies temporarily (it did not have a permanent effect on fertility). But hormone blockers have never been used in tetanus vaccines available to the public; they’ve only been used in research.

    The vaccine and contraceptive combination was developed by Dr. Gursaran Prasad Talwar, who founded India’s National Institute of Immunology and served as its first director, and was tested on 148 volunteers in 1992 and 1993.

    That study found that a birth control vaccine was feasible, but the tested formula wasn’t effective enough. Only about 80% of women in the trial produced enough antibodies to prevent pregnancy.

    “Efficacy above 90% is required and desirable,” Talwar explained in an interview with Nature India in 2010 when he was asked about that trial. “Thus, immunogenicity of the vaccine had to be improved to make it practicable for fertility control. All the while we had to contend with ill-informed criticism from interested lobbies that the birth control vaccine will sterilize women forever.”

    Development of the vaccine was put into “low gear” after he retired from NII, Talwar said.

    But research on a birth control vaccine revived in 2006, although — importantly for Children’s Health Defense’s claim — tetanus had been replaced with E. coli as the vehicle paired with the hormone blocker, so the most recent research didn’t even use tetanus.

    Talwar had initially chosen to use tetanus when he began his research because the disease so heavily affects women in childbirth, and he attributes his own mother’s death — eight days after he was born — to tetanus.

    Regardless, neither his original formulation nor the more recent formulation with E. coli has been produced or distributed for general use.

    But, as we said, the claim that a hormone blocker was added to tetanus vaccines to cause infertility and control population growth has been circulating for decades and has been thoroughly debunked. In fact, the Children’s Health Defense video features the same people who made the claim in Kenya in 2014. One of the most prominent was Dr. Stephen Karanja, who died of COVID-19 in April 2021, about two months after calling COVID-19 vaccines “totally unnecessary.” Karanja had discouraged the use of many vaccines through his organization, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association.

    So, Children’s Health Defense is peddling a long-debunked claim about a life-saving vaccine in a time when vaccination rates have plateaued and, in some cases, declined.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    UNICEF. “A Huge Milestone for Moms and Babies.” 28 Apr 2017.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Why CDC is Working to Prevent Global Tetanus. 21 Mar 2022.

    Vos, Theo, et al. “Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.” The Lancet. 17 Oct 2020.

    Causey, Kate, et al. “Estimating global and regional disruptions to routine childhood vaccine coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020: a modelling study.” The Lancet. 7 Aug 2021.

    Talwar, Gursaran Prasad, et al. “A vaccine that prevents pregnancy in women.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Aug 1994.

    Jayaraman, K. S. “Contraceptive vaccine bounces back.” Nature India. 29 Jul 2010.

    Mukerjee, Madhusree. “Profile: Gursaran Prasad Talwar, Pushing the Envelope for Vaccines.” Scientific American. Jul 1996.

    World Health Organization. Press release. “REPORTS OF CONTAMINATED TETANUS TOXOID VACCINE ARE FALSE, SAYS WHO.” 19 Jul 1995.

    Haelle, Tara. “A Resurrected Vaccine Fear Puts Kenyan Infants At Risk.” Forbes. 17 Nov 2014.

    Bhardwaj, Vinayak. “ANALYSIS: Why does an old, false claim about tetanus vaccine safety refuse to die?” Africa Check. 26 May 2016.

    Onyango, Emmanuel. “Stephen Karanja: Kenyan anti-vaccine doctor dies from Covid-19.” BBC. 30 Apr 2021.

    The post Video Revives Old, Debunked Rumors About Tetanus Vaccines appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Posts Mislead About Status of 2021 North Carolina Abortion Bill

    Quick Take

    A bill introduced in the North Carolina House of Representatives last year said anyone getting an abortion should be “held accountable” for murder. The bill received little support and did not advance. But social media posts misleadingly claimed the state is considering a proposal that would “make it legal to murder a pregnant woman” trying to get an abortion.

    Full Story

    Republican Rep. Larry Pittman introduced a bill in the North Carolina House of Representatives in February 2021 — long before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June — that said “human life begins at the moment of fertilization” and that “new human life is recognized by the State as an individual person, entitled to the protection under the State’s laws from the moment of fertilization until natural death.”

    The bill called for anyone “willfully seeking to destroy the life of another person, by any means, at any stage of life, or succeeds in doing so, to be held accountable for attempted murder or for first degree murder, respectively.” Murder in the first degree is punishable by life in prison or the death penalty. 

    The bill also said that the state “has an interest and a duty to defend innocent persons from willful destruction of their lives and to punish those who take the lives of persons, born or unborn, who have not committed any crime punishable by death.”

    The bill failed to advance. The North Carolina General Assembly website lists only five sponsors. Pittman, the main sponsor, is not running for reelection this year, according to the state House Principal Clerk’s Office.

    But comedian Amanda Seales misleadingly claimed in an Instagram video posted July 20 that North Carolina is considering a bill that would make it legal to “murder a pregnant woman who intends to get an abortion.”

    Seales, with an image of North Carolina House Bill 158 in the background, urged North Carolinians to vote. “If the Republicans win a supermajority, this is the type of shit that is happening, that’s going to be happening in your state, and the blood will be on your hands,” she said.

    Another Instagram post with more than 1,000 likes was posted by comedian TK Kirkland making a similar claim: “North Carolina Bill Proposes Women Who Get Abortions Should Face Death Penalty.”

    Republicans already control the North Carolina state legislature, and hope to have a supermajority in 2023, Insider reported. That would allow them to override any veto from Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat who recently issued an executive order aimed at protecting abortion rights. North Carolina lawmakers adjourned on July 1, although they will reconvene on several dates through the end of the year to take up bills related to election laws and other issues.

    Pittman long ago acknowledged his bill was a long shot. “A lot of my bills have never even been given a hearing since I’ve been here,” he said at a rally in September 2021, noting that he “tried to run a similar bill” in 2013. “I often have to stand alone,” he said. “I’m used to that.” 

    We tried to reach Pittman for further comment, but he did not respond.

    “The fact that this happened in February 2021 and the first time we’re hearing about it is July 2022 tells us all we really need to know about the fact that this was never legislation that had any chance at all of becoming law,” Steven Greene, a political science professor at North Carolina State University, told us.

    The bill “goes well beyond even the most extreme pro-life legislation being passed anywhere, and I have a hard time imagining this could get majority support among even a very conservative group of Republican state legislators,” Greene said.

    If the bill had gotten traction, it “goes so far that I’d have to imagine it would be enjoined by courts before ever going into effect,” Greene said. However, he added, “this is a brave new world we are in now where we are still very much learning just how far Republican legislators will go and how far courts will let them.”

    “This goes well beyond an abortion ban,” Maxine Eichner, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, told us in a phone interview. In theory, it allows use of force against a pregnant woman on the grounds that “she is now housing a human life who any third person could defend,” Eichner said.

    Pittman’s bill was proposed as an amendment to the state constitution, which requires approval by a three-fifths vote of both the state House and Senate before going on the ballot for voters. While the bill had no chance when it was introduced, things might be different after the November elections, Eichner noted.

    “I think there certainly would be legal challenges” to the bill, Eichner said. “Two months ago, I would have told you those legal challenges would be successful.” But that’s not a sure thing now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade and a U.S. appeals court has upheld a Georgia law banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, she said. 

    The Georgia law “had similar language about fetal personhood,” though it “didn’t directly address the issue of using violence against a person in defense of the fetus,” Eichner said.

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    North Carolina General Assembly. House Bill 158. Accessed 25 Jul 2022.

    North Carolina General Assembly. Session 2021. Resolution 2022-6. Accessed 25 Jul 2022.

    Greene, Steven. Professor, School of Public and International Affairs, North Carolina State University. Email to FactCheck.org. 21 Jul 2022.

    Eichner, Maxine. Graham Kenan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 22 Jul 2022.

    Rahman, Khaleda. “N. Carolina Bill Proposing Women Who Get Abortions Be Executed Sparks Fury.” Newsweek. 20 Jul 2022.

    Gov. Roy Cooper. Press release. “Governor Cooper Signs Executive Order to Help Protect Women’s Access to Reproductive Health Care in North Carolina.” 6 Jul 2022.

    Orecchio-Egresitz, Haven, and Charles R. Davis. “A 2021 North Carolina Bill Would Authorize Deadly Force to Stop an Abortion — But is Not Likely to See a Vote.” Insider. 19 Jul 2022.

    Castronuovo, Celine, and Ian Lopez, Ian. “Georgia’s Six-Week Abortion Ban Can Take Effect, Court Rules.” Bloomberg Law. 20 Jul 2022.

    The post Posts Mislead About Status of 2021 North Carolina Abortion Bill appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Posts on Social Media Misinterpret Biden’s Quote on Previous Cancer

    Quick Take

    President Joe Biden claimed in a July 20 speech that growing up in Delaware near oil refineries gave him cancer. Posts on social media misinterpreted that to mean he currently has cancer. A White House spokesperson said Biden was referring to a skin cancer that was removed before he became president. 

    Full Story

    On July 20, President Joe Biden spoke about what his administration has done to tackle climate change. During the speech, Biden blamed Delaware oil refineries for causing his bout with cancer in the past and high cancer rates in the state. 

    In the transcript and live video of the speech, Biden said, “That’s why I and so damn many other people I grew up [with] have cancer.” Here is the White House transcript of Biden’s remarks: 

    Biden, July 20: I just lived up the road. I just — in an apartment complex when we moved to Delaware. And just up the road was a little school I went to, Holy Rosary grade school. And because it was a four-lane highway that was accessible, my mother drove us and — rather than us be able to walk. And guess what? The first frost, you knew what was happening. You had to put on your windshield wipers to get, literally, the oil slick off the window. That’s why I and so damn many other people I grew up [with] have cancer and why can- — for the longest time, Delaware had the highest cancer rate in the nation.

    But that’s the past, and we’re going to get — we’re going to build a different future with one — one with clean energy, good-paying jobs.

    White House physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor released a health summary for Biden in November 2021 that confirmed that he had skin cancer that was removed before he became president — though O’Connor linked Biden’s cancer to sun exposure, not Delaware oil refineries.

    “It is well-established that President Biden did spend a good deal of time in the sun in his youth. He has had several localized, non-melanoma skin cancers removed with Mohs surgery before he started his presidency,” O’Connor said in the report.

    “These lesions were completely excised, with clear margins. Total body skin exam was performed for dermatologic surveillance. Several small areas of actinic change were treated with liquid nitrogen cryotherapy, but there are no areas suspicious for skin cancer at this time,” the report added.

    Andrew Bates, a White House spokesperson, confirmed on Twitter that Biden was referring to previously disclosed skin cancer — not a new diagnosis. 

    But posts on social media shared a short clip of Biden’s remarks, claiming he said he currently has cancer. 

    A video on Facebook said in its title, “Joe Biden LIED About Having Cancer?!” The caption on the post read, “Are we sure it’s cancer and not dementia? This guy has been lying since the second he took office.”

    “Did Biden just say he has CANCER? Very concerning if true, but I HIGHLY DOUBT he knows what he’s talking about,” read a tweet from Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas.

    “Cancer AND Covid? Rough day for Biden,” said another tweet referring to Biden’s recently announced COVID-19 diagnosis. 

    “Did Joe Biden just announce he has cancer?” the Republican National Committee tweeted. 

    Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler tweeted a response to the RNC. 

    “How dumb is this tweet? Check out Biden’s medical report. Before he became president, he’d had non-melanoma skin cancers removed,” Kessler said. “Has no one at @RNCResearch ever had this common procedure?”

    Bates, the White House spokesperson, shared Kessler’s tweet and said, “This is what the President was referring to.”  

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Bates, Andrew (@AndrewJBates46). “This is what the President was referring to.” Twitter. 20 Jul 2022. 

    Bontempo, Gina (@FlorioGina). “Cancer AND Covid? Rough day for Biden” Twitter. 21 Jul 2022. 

    Jackson, Ronny. “Did Biden just say he has CANCER? Very concerning if true, but I HIGHLY DOUBT he knows what he’s talking about. Biden’s cognitive decline is so bad, he’s 100% UNABLE to read from a teleprompter. This has gone too far. He needs to RESIGN!” Twitter. 20 Jul 2022. 

    Kessler, Glenn (@GlennKesslerWP). “How dumb is this tweet? Check out Biden’s medical report. Before he became president, he’d had non-melanoma skin cancers removed. Has no one at @RNCResearch ever had this common procedure?” Twitter. 20 Jul 2022. 

    Mayo Clinic. “Nonmelanoma skin cancer.” Accessed 22 Jul 2022. 

    O’Connor, Kevin. “Letter from Dr. Kevin O’Connor: President Biden Screened ‘Positive’ for SARS-CoV-2.” White House. 21 Jul 2022. 

    O’Connor, Kevin. “President Biden’s current health summary.” White House. 19 Nov 2021. 

    “O’Connor named White House physician; ’88 Bona’s alum was Biden’s doctor as VP.” St Bonaventure University. 27 Jan 2021.

    “Remarks by President Biden on Actions to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” White House. 20 Jul 2022. 

    RNC Research (@RNCResearch). “Did Joe Biden just announce he has cancer? ‘That’s why I — and so damn many other people I grew up with — have cancer.’” Twitter. 20 Jul 2022.

    The post Posts on Social Media Misinterpret Biden’s Quote on Previous Cancer appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Ocasio-Cortez Was Arrested at Abortion-Rights Protest, Contrary to Social Media Posts

    Quick Take

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was one of 17 members of Congress arrested at an abortion-rights protest on July 19. But social media posts falsely claim she was “pretending to be arrested.” Capitol Police records show the arrests did occur, and the congresswoman posted the arrest paperwork on her Instagram account.

    Full Story

    A group of abortion-rights demonstrators assembled in front of the Supreme Court building on July 19 to protest the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in June. 

    At 1:18 p.m., the Capitol Police tweeted that the protesters had begun blocking First Street. Under Washington, D.C.’s criminal code, it is illegal to obstruct the use of any street and to continue or resume the interference “after being instructed by a law enforcement officer to cease.” 

    By 1:20 p.m., the police tweeted that they had given protesters three warnings and would begin making arrests. The police then arrested 35 people, including 17 members of Congress, “for crowding, obstructing or incommoding.”

    Following the arrests, various Facebook posts falsely claimed that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York pretended to be arrested.

    One post showed multiple pictures of Ocasio-Cortez being held by a Capitol Police officer, and it read: “AOC pretending to be arrested and handcuffed is the most AOC moment of her career.”

    A Facebook meme showed a photo of the representative’s face and the words: “LITTLE MISS FAKE GETTING ARRESTED.” The caption read, “Little Miss PR stunt.” Other posts also falsely claimed the congresswoman faked her arrest.

    But Ocasio-Cortez was indeed one of those arrested.

    The Capitol Police’s weekly Arrest Summary Report states, “Thirty-five Suspects were placed under arrest and processed on scene” on July 19. The report does not list the names of those arrested. We contacted the Capitol Police to ask whether Ocasio-Cortez was among the 35 arrested but haven’t received a response.

    However, PolitiFact documented an Instagram story from Ocasio-Cortez’s personal account that showed her arrest paperwork and a $50 fine. We also reached out to Ocasio-Cortez’s office for comment but didn’t hear back. 

    Some of the social media posts appeared to misunderstand what it means to be arrested. As they were led away from the Supreme Court, Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota both walked with their hands behind their backs. Some posts took this to mean the two representatives were pretending to be in handcuffs.

    One of the responses to the Capitol Police tweet about the 35 arrests said, “So, they were handcuffed and placed into custody until their hearing, unless the[y] placed bail? If not, you didn’t arrest them, and lying about something like this is absolutely hillarious.” Another person told the Capitol Police, “Prove it. Where’s the mugshots of the arrested?”

    Being handcuffed, having mugshots taken and receiving a hearing are not necessary to be arrested. An arrest is defined as “the use of legal authority to deprive a person of their freedom of movement.” PolitiFact and Snopes both reported that Capitol Police said the protesters weren’t handcuffed because these arrests were “noncustodial,” meaning no one was taken into custody. 

    On Twitter, Ocasio-Cortez explained why she walked with her arms crossed behind her back. She tweeted, “Putting your hands behind your back is a best practice while detained, handcuffed or not, to avoid escalating charges like resisting arrest.”

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC). “No faking here. Putting your hands behind your back is a best practice while detained, handcuffed or not, to avoid escalating charges like resisting arrest. But given how you lied about a fellow rape survivor for ‘points,’ as you put it to me, I don’t expect much else from you.” Twitter. 20 Jul 2022.

    Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. “Arrest.” Accessed 22 Jun 2022.

    Council of the District of Columbia. “§ 22–1307. Crowding, obstructing, or incommoding.” Accessed 21 Jul 2022.

    Dobbs v. Jackson. No. 19-1392. U.S. Supreme Court. 24 Jun 2022.

    Evon, Dan. “Here’s Why AOC, Omar Were Arrested — But Not Handcuffed — at Abortion-Rights Protest.” Snopes. 20 Jul 2022.

    Geroge Finkle (@FinkleGeroge). “So, they were handcuffed and placed into custody until their hearing, unless the placed bail? If not, you didn’t arrest them, and lying about something like this is absolutely hillarious.” Twitter. 19 Jul 2022.

    Jackson, Jon. “Full List of Congress Members Arrested With AOC Protesting SCOTUS.” Newsweek. 19 Jul 2022.

    McCarthy, Bill. “No, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did not ‘fake’ her arrest outside the Supreme Court.” PolitiFact. 20 Jul 2022.

    Neil Tillman (@neiltillman). “Prove it. Where’s the mugshots of the arrested?” Twitter. 19 Jul 2022.

    “Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, other Dems arrested during abortion rights protest | USA TODAY.” USA Today. 19 Jul 2022.

    Schnell, Mychael. “Democrats including Pressley, Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib arrested at abortion rights rally outside Supreme Court.” The Hill. 19 Jul 2022.

    United States Capitol Police. “Arrest Summary Report: July 14 – 20, 2022.” 20 Jul 2022.

    U.S. Capitol Police (@CapitolPolice). “Correction: We made a total of 35 arrests for Crowding, Obstructing or Incommoding (DC Code § 22–1307). That arrest number includes 17 Members of Congress.” Twitter. 19 Jul 2022.

    U.S. Capitol Police (@CapitolPolice). “Demonstrators are starting to block First Street, NE. It is against the law to block traffic, so officers are going to give our standard three warnings before they start making arrests.” Twitter. 19 Jul 2022.

    U.S. Capitol Police (@CapitolPolice). “We have already given our standard three warnings. Some of the demonstrators are refusing to get out of the street, so we are starting to make arrests.” Twitter. 19 Jul 2022.

    Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon). “AOC pretended to be in handcuffs when she was escorted away from the Supreme Court.” Twitter. 19 Jul 2022.

    Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon). “Ilhan Omar pretended to be handcuffed when she was escorted away from the Supreme Court.” Twitter. 19 Jul 2022.

    The post Ocasio-Cortez Was Arrested at Abortion-Rights Protest, Contrary to Social Media Posts appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.

  • Social Media Posts Make Unsupported Claims About Zelensky’s Income, Net Worth

    Quick Take 

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had an income of about $623,000 in 2020, according to his financial disclosure submitted to the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption in Ukraine. But posts on social media claim, without evidence, that he has a monthly income of $11 million.  

    Full Story

    In late February, Ukraine was invaded by Russia, putting the country and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in the spotlight of Western media covering the war and its global impact. 

    In an effort to undermine Zelensky’s credibility, some posts on social media claim, without providing evidence, that Zelensky is corrupt and has a monthly income of $11 million. Different versions of the claim add that Zelensky makes an $11 million monthly profit from the war in Ukraine.

    “This, ladies and gentlemen, is what corruption looks like,” reads the caption of a Facebook post that shares a meme that claims Zelensky has an income of $11 million a month and a net worth of $596 million. The post offers no proof for those claims.

    A Twitter user claims, “Zelensky making $11 million per month as long as the conflict goes on. Do you think he’ll negotiate peace soon?” The tweet shares a post that says, “Zelensky has 1.4 Billion dollars. More than Will Smith, Chris Rock, and Dave Chapelle combined. We are to believe that he made that as a comedian in the poorest nation in Europe?” 

    “Why is Zelenskyy a billionaire?” reads a tweet from a Twitter account affiliated with Russian state media.

    But we could find no evidence he’s earning $11 million a month from his career before becoming president or from the war, and the available sources on his finances show income nowhere near such an amount.

    The Ukrainian news outlet Ukrinform reported that Zelensky’s financial disclosure for 2020 submitted to the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption in Ukraine showed he received a salary of 336,000 hryvnias (Ukrainian currency), royalties in the amount of 4.6 million hryvnias and 13.4 million hryvnias from the 2020 sale of real estate.

    In U.S. dollars, those figures total about $623,000, StopFake, a Ukrainian fact-checking website, reported in April. The exchange rate now is lower. 

    Zelensky earns a salary of roughly $930 per month as president of Ukraine — which is an annual salary of $11,160 per year — and he has a net worth of about $25 million, according to the website Celebrity Net Worth. That salary mirrors the figure on his 2020 financial disclosure. 

    One Twitter user repeats the claim, “Zelensky making $11 million per month as long as the conflict goes on,” and offers a source for the claim: “Details in Pandora Papers.”

    The Pandora Papers are documents published in 2021 by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists that revealed the offshore financial dealings of hundreds of global politicians. The papers reported that Zelensky and his close associates were the beneficiaries of a network of offshore companies and real estate holdings.

    As StopFake reported, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project published a story in October 2021 based on the Pandora Papers, finding that “Zelensky and his partners in comedy production owned a network of offshore companies related to their business based in the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, and Belize.”

    “But,” StopFake said, “OCCRP investigative reporters found no direct evidence that Zelensky was openly involved in high-value real estate deals during his tenure as President of Ukraine. In addition, even this independent investigation did not turn up Zelensky’s alleged billion-dollar fortune or any other sources of income that could be connected to him.”

    Before becoming a politician, Zelensky rose quickly in the entertainment industry, starting as a comedian at age 17 and joining KVN, a Russian comedy competition and game show. 

    He later formed Kvartal 95, a comedy group that toured with KVN from 1998 to 2003. Kvartal 95 became a company that produced television shows and films.

    From 2015 to 2019, Zelensky starred in a satirical television comedy series, “Servant of the People” — in which he played the president of Ukraine.

    Fluent in Russian, Ukrainian and English, Zelensky also appeared in several Russian-language films and dubbed Ukrainian voiceovers for several movies. 

    Most of Zelensky’s finances come from his work in the entertainment industry. Zelensky had a 25% stake in Kvartal 95 — his largest liquid asset — before transferring his shares in the business to his partners after he was elected president. “It is believed he would receive those shares back” at the end of his term, Celebrity Net Worth reported. 

    It’s also worth noting that Zelensky is not on any recent lists of the 100 richest Ukrainians, according to Forbes Ukraine or other news outlets in the area.    

    Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.

    Sources 

    “Fake: Zelensky’s Fortune Estimated at $850 Million.” Stop Fake. 27 Apr 2022.

    “Golden hundred 2021. NV magazine published the annual ranking of the Top 100 richest Ukrainians — a complete list.” NV. 6 Nov 2021.

    Hijazi, Wendy (@wendysone1). “Zelensky making $11 million per month as long as the conflict goes on. Do you think he’ll negotiate peace soon? Details in Pandora Papers. Have you ever seen a world leader like Boris Johnson take a stroll through a war zone?” Twitter. 10 Apr 2022. 

    “KVN” webpage. TVTropes.org. Accessed 19 Jul 2022.

    Rose (@Rose42397943). “Zelensky making $11 million per month as long as the conflict goes on. Do you think he’ll negotiate peace soon?” Twitter. 13 Apr 2022. 

    Semenova, Thaisa. “Wealth of 100 richest Ukrainians highest since 2014.” Kyiv Post. 5 Nov 2021.

    Sender, Courtney. “The Uncanny Prescience of ‘Servant of the People.’” The Atlantic. 6 Apr 2022.

    Stranahan, Lee (@stranahan). “Why is Zelenskyy a billionaire?” Twitter. 16 Apr 2022. 

    “Studio Kvartal 95.” Kvartal95. Accessed 19 Jul 2022.

    “UkrInform: Zelensky declares sale of property for almost Hr 13.5 million.” Kyiv Post. 8 Jul 2020.

    “Volodymyr Zelenskyy” webpage. Voice Actors from the world Wikia. Accessed 19 Jul 2022.

    “Volodymyr Zelenskyy Net Worth.” Celebrity Net Worth. Accessed 19 Jul 2022.

    “Zelensky submits asset declaration for 2020.” Ukrinform. 31 Mar 2021.

    The post Social Media Posts Make Unsupported Claims About Zelensky’s Income, Net Worth appeared first on FactCheck.org.

    This post was originally published on FactCheck.org.