Hillary Clinton Says Bernie Sanders "has reversed his position on immunity" for gun manufacturers and sellers.

National, Legal Issues, Guns, Hillary Clinton,

In the increasingly competitive Democratic primary for president, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spent months hammering Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders for his vote on a 2005 bill that provided gun makers, sellers and trade associations with significant protection against lawsuits. Now, after Sanders clarified his position on the issue, she’s calling him a flip-flopper. Sanders, who represents the small, rural state of Vermont where guns are widely accepted, has sometimes sided with advocates of gun rights on key legislation and sometimes sided with supporters of gun control. One of the primary examples where Sanders broke with Democrats is in supporting the gun liability bill, which was enacted in 2005. A similar bill also passed the U.S. House in 2003. Sanders, then serving in the House, voted for it both times. Clinton called on Sanders to "stand up and say I got this one wrong" in a Jan. 8 interview on MSNBC’s Hardball. About a week later, Sanders released a statement on the gun-liability issue in the run-up to the Jan. 17 Democratic debate in Charleston, S.C. In a news release, Sanders said, "I’m pleased that this legislation is being introduced," referring to proposals by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., to rescind portions of the 2005 law. "As I have said for many months now, we need to look at the underlying law and tighten it up," Sanders added. The Clinton camp portrayed this as a flip-flop during the Charleston debate. Clinton said, "I am pleased to hear that Sen. Sanders has reversed his position on immunity, and I look forward to him joining with those members of Congress who have already introduced legislation." The Sanders camp disagreed that this was a change of position. Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver had told MSNBC, "This is not a flip flop, this is consistent with the position he held earlier in the campaign." So is Clinton’s portrayal accurate? We took a closer look. Sanders’ vote on the 2005 bill While the bill includes two relatively non-controversial provisions -- one on trigger locks and the other on armor-piercing bullets -- the most contentious elements of the 2005 bill, and the ones that drove overwhelming Democratic opposition at the time, deal with liability for gun makers and sellers. The official bill summary provides for broad-based immunity for gun sellers, but it also provides a few exceptions, such as: • Cases where a person transfers a firearm knowing that a violent crime or drug-trafficking crime will be committed with it; • Cases where a seller is negligent or a manufacturer or seller knowingly violated the law; • And cases involving an injury caused by a physical defect with the weapon when it was used as intended. What Sanders and his campaign said prior to Jan. 16 On numerous occasions, Sanders or his aides have expressed comfort with his past vote. In June 2015, Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, told Politico, "I believe he would make the same vote" today. In October, at a Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Sanders said, "If somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer and that murderer kills somebody with the gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a lawsuit should be about." Sanders continued to make similar arguments into January 2016. Asked by CBS whether gun manufacturers should be held accountable for gun deaths, Sanders said, "Of course not, that doesn't make any sense," he said, while adding that if guns fall into the hands of criminals, "Of course you hold the gun manufacturers liable." At the same time, Sanders has increasingly fine-tuned his stance, saying he’d be open to reconsidering his vote on the 2005 measure. In an October 2015 interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Sanders said he was "willing to see changes" in the gun-liability provision: "Can we take another look at that liability issue? Yes." Then, in January, a few days before the campaign issued its news release on gun liability, Sanders told a crowd in Iowa, "I think we should take another look at that legislation and get rid of those provisions which allow gun manufacturers to act irresponsibly." The Jan. 16 news release In the news release, Sanders expressed support for the Blumenthal-Schiff initiative to rescind the liability portions of the 2005 law. The trigger-lock and armor-piercing-ammunition provisions would not be overturned. The sponsors said they will try to advance the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act as an amendment to an appropriations bill, according to the New York Times. On the Jan. 17 edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, Sanders explained that in 2005, "there were things in (the bill) that I did not like and I was willing to rethink. We have rethought it. There's a bill apparently being introduced, I like that bill, it makes some good changes and we will be supportive of it." Sanders did say in his news release that he will be proposing an amendment to the Blumenthal and Schiff bills to require the Commerce Department to monitor and report on the law’s impact in rural areas on the availability of hunting supplies, including firearms, sold by non-negligent local gun stores. This, he indicated, was consistent with his past concerns about the threat of lawsuits against small gun shops serving primarily rural areas of Vermont. Our ruling So is Clinton right that Sanders flip-flopped on immunity for gun manufacturers and sellers? Sanders voted for the 2005 measure that provided broad liability exclusions for gunmakers and sellers. After months of Sanders and his staff defending the vote, Sanders’ position started to evolve in October. Sanders’ position three months ago -- that he would "take another look" at the liability question -- is consistent with his Jan. 16 news release saying he supported a proposal to rescind the immunity provisions. But to look back only to October doesn’t tell the full story, ignoring not only the 2003 and 2005 votes but also several instances in which Sanders or his staff defended those votes in interviews between June 2015 and early January 2016. That sounds like a flip-flop to us.


Widespread flooding ahead for snowy western New York: officials.

Explanation: Warm temperatures and rain were forecast for the weekend in the city of Buffalo and western New York, bringing the threat of widespread flooding to the region bound for days by deep snow.

Areas where several feet of snow fell this week should brace for significant, widespread flooding, the National Weather Service warned on Friday. Swept by lake effect storms, parts of western New York including Buffalo, received as much as seven feet (2 meters) of snow, an amount equal to a year’s worth of accumulation for the region. Such storms occur when cold air moves across warmer Great Lake waters and can dump heavy snowfall when they hit land. Temperatures in western New York will stay above freezing through Tuesday night, with highs of nearly 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) on Sunday and nearly 60 F (16 C) on Monday, the Weather Service said. “The warming will bring melting. The melting will bring water. Water will bring floods,” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said at a news conference. “We are preparing now for more flooding than we have seen in a long, long time,” he said. “We’ve never had this much snow and this much melting of this much snow in a short period of time.”  Some areas should expect five (152 cm) to six feet (183 cm) of water, Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz said. To prepare, area residents said they were moving valuables out of their basements. Sections of the New York State Thruway will reopen on Friday afternoon to move vehicles and help remove snow, Cuomo said. Some 140 miles (225 km) of the thruway had been closed. So far, at least 13 deaths have been blamed on the weather. The most recent reported death was a person found buried in snow in a car in Cheektowaga, while two nursing home residents died in an evacuation of a Cheektowaga facility, officials said. Two people on Thursday died of exposure. Erie County officials said they had suffered mental illness and were found outside. Eight deaths were reported earlier in the week. Meanwhile, a Buffalo Bills home game scheduled for Sunday against the New York Jets was moved to Monday in Detroit due to public safety concerns, the National Football League said. The National Hockey League postponed the Buffalo Sabres’ home game against the New York Rangers on Friday.


For kids’ coughs, silence is golden and sweet

Explanation: This story reports on the publication of a study in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association comparing honey to cough syrup or no treatment for upper respiratory infections in children ages 2 to 18. The study found a modest benefit to honey over no treatment and no difference between honey and cough medicine. The study is timely because of recent news about the potential harms of over-the-counter cough and cold preparations for younger children. It is also "cold and flu season", and many parents are no doubt grappling with ways to provide symptom relief. The story does a fine job of outlining the study, main findings, potential mechanism, and potential harms. A bit more detail about how the study quantified the main findings (cough reduction) would be helpful to readers. By how much did the children cough less or sleep better? Did treatment result in a shorter duration of symptoms?

Other than to describe honey as "cheap" the story does not discuss costs. However, because honey is a food product, prices are dependent on the store and source. The story does not quantify the benefits of honey. By how much did the children cough less and sleep better? Did this result in a shorter duration of symptoms? The story explains that honey may cause an allergic reaction and that, rarely, it contains bacteria. The story adequately describes the design of the current study. The story does not exaggerate the prevalence of common colds. The story does quote an independent expert in addition to the lead author of the study. The story mentions cough medicine as the alternative. Clearly honey and over-the-counter cough medicine are available. The story mentions that using honey as a treatment is not a new idea. There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.


Millions of pigs culled as swine fever spreads through Asia.

Explanation: Millions of pigs have been culled in China and Vietnam as a U.N. food agency urges Asian governments to make containing virulent African swine fever their top priority.

Animals, Epidemics, Hong Kong, General News, North Korea, Hanoi, Asia, Health, Business, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, Asia Pacific, Disease outbreaks, Taiwan, International News

With an announcement by the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization that infections have spread to Laos, some experts are saying it is the largest animal disease outbreak in history. The FAO said in a report late Thursday that more than 3.7 million pigs in the region had been culled since the outbreak began in China last August. Vietnam has been the hardest hit, culling at least 2.6 million pigs followed by China, which reported more than 1.1 million. All the figures were provided to the FAO by governments of countries affected by the epidemic. Smaller outbreaks have been reported in Hong Kong, Taiwan, North Korea, Cambodia and Mongolia after cases were first reported in China’s northeast in August. African swine fever is harmless to people but fatal and highly contagious for pigs, with no known cure. With pork supplies dwindling as leading producer China and hard-hit Vietnam destroy huge numbers of hogs and tighten controls on shipments, prices have soared by up to 40% globally and caused shortages in other markets. “This is the largest animal disease outbreak in history,” said Dirk Pfieffer, a veterinary epidemiologist at the City University of Hong Kong. “We’ve never had anything like it.” In South Korea, where diets rely heavily on pork, there is concern an outbreak could hurt an industry with 6,300 farms raising more than 11 million pigs. “Animal disease containment in its broadest sense should be prioritized within the highest levels of governments,” the FAO said, warning, “Outbreak control strategies must be in place.” China has reported 139 outbreaks in all but two of its 34 provinces. The U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts its total hog herd will shrink by 18% this year to 350 million animals, the lowest since the 1980s. This year’s Chinese pork output might fall by up to 35%, according to Rabobank, a Dutch bank. Vietnam reported in mid-May that 1.2 million pigs, or about 5% of its total 30 million, an industry worth $18 billion, had died or been destroyed. FAO said Thursday that number had more than doubled to 2.6 million. Military and police were mobilized to help contain the outbreak, officials said. Rabobank expects Vietnamese pork production to fall 10% this year from 2018. The mass culling in Vietnam could sink many farmers deeper into poverty, said Wantanee Kalpravidh, a regional coordinator of the FAO’s Emergency Center for Transboundary Animal Disease. Last month, Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc urged authorities to prevent the disease, found in 58 of 63 provinces, from escalating into an epidemic. In My Duc, a suburb of Hanoi, disinfecting lime powder has been scattered around empty pig farms and checkpoints were set up to control shipments. “We have to prevent and fight this disease like fighting an enemy,” Phuc told Cabinet officials. Farmer Nguyen Van Hoa lamented that only three pigs had died from the fever but authorities culled 40 of his pigs. They were among 14,000 hogs buried in My Duc district in the past month. About 2.4 million Vietnamese households engage in small-scale pig farming. In Cambodia, more than 2,400 pigs have died or were culled since April in an eastern province bordering Vietnam, the FAO said. Sem Oun, a 58-year-old farmer and father of two in Ta Prum, a village near the capital Phnom Penh, frets that the illness could spread from Vietnam. “I don’t have any other job and my income that provides for my entire family relies solely on these pigs. If they die because of swine flu then everybody in the family will die too,” he told The Associated Press. Hong Kong authorities have killed 10,700 pigs in two outbreaks, including one triggered by an animal imported from the mainland that was found to be infected. Two dead pigs infected with a virus similar to those in mainland Chinese were found in Taiwan, the FAO says. Epidemic fighting efforts have gotten entangled in regional geopolitics. North Korea scaled back cooperation with South Korea after the collapse of a February summit between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump, hampering joint work on stemming the spread of the disease following an outbreak near North Korea’s border with China. South Korea’s agricultural ministry said that blood tests of pigs from some 340 farms near the border with the North were negative. Fences and traps have been installed near farms to protect hogs from being infected by wild boars that roam the inter-Korean border. The North’s official Rodong Sinmun newspaper said quarantine efforts were focused on disinfecting farms and transport vehicles, restricting visitors, and banning the distribution of food products containing pork. Its references to nationwide quarantine efforts suggest the disease may have spread beyond regions near China. Thailand and other countries still free of infections have taken strong preventive actions, including banning importation of pork, sausages, ham, or bacon. Sorawit Taneeto, director-general of Thailand’s Department of Livestock Development, urged people to cooperate with soldiers at checkpoints in border provinces and quarantine areas. Airports are using more dogs like beagles to help in luggage inspections. ___ McNeil reported from Beijing. Sopheng Cheang in Phnom Penh, Johnson Lai in Taipei, Taiwan, and Pitcha Dangprasith and Jim Gomez in Bangkok contributed to this report.


A list of comparative facts about margarine and butter.

Explanation: Butter versus Margarine

Food / Drink, Health / Medical, Household, Medical

The heart of this eRumor, the comparison between butter and Margarine, has been circulating since 2005. Later versions added the tidbit about Margarine being manufactured to fatten turkeys. We’ll go through the email one fact at time but it needs to be kept in mind that not every Margarine product is the same. There are other spreads that are loosely called Margarine but may, for example, be part vegetable oil or a fat-free Margarine product. 1. Margarine was originally manufactured to fatten turkeys. When it killed The turkeys, the people who had put all the money into the research wanted a Payback so they put their heads together to figure out what to do with this Product to get their money back. It was a white substance with no food Appeal so they added the yellow coloring and sold it to people to use in Place of butter. How do you like it? They have come out with some clever New flavorings According to the National Association of Margarine Manufacturers, Margarine was the idea of a Frenchman named Hippolyte Mege-Mouriez in response to a request from Emperor Louis Napoleon for ideas for a substitute for butter. In 1869 he used margaric acid and the name of his formulation became known as Margarine. It became a hit in the United States in the late 1800’s. 2. Both have the same amount of calories A tablespoon of butter is 100 calories. A tablespoon of Margarine is 100 calories. 3. Eating margarine can increase heart disease in women by 53% over eating the same amount of butter, according to a recent Harvard Medical Study We didn’t find the “53%” study, but Harvard School of Public Health has published a report on this. It says that more than 30 years ago research indicated that saturated fat (such as in butter) was bad for the heart and people were told to switch to margarine. A Harvard study of women between 1980 and 1994 found a significant reduction of heart disease risk by reducing smoking, hormone treatment, and dietary improvements including reducing or eliminating saturated fat (such as in butter.) Further research has shown, however, that some margarines contained trans fat, which was even worse for the heart than saturated fat. The report cautions us not to make decisions as a result of just one study but to consider the body of recent research about an issue like butter versus margarine. 4. Butter is slightly higher in saturated fats at 8 grams compared to 5 Grams A tablespoon of butter is 7g of saturated fat. A tablespoon of margarine is 2g of saturated fat. 5. Eating butter increases the absorption of many other nutrients in other Foods  We could not find anything definitive about this. 6. Butter has many nutritional benefits where margarine has a few only because they are added! It depends on what you are measuring. The advantage of butter is that it is a more natural product than margarine and does have more vitamin content. But butter is high in saturated fat, which is associated with increased heart attack risk. Saturated fats are the ones that are solid at room temperature and increase the “bad” cholesterol (LDL) as well as the “good” cholesterol (HDL). The disadvantage of true margarine is the trans fat level. The more solid a margarine is at room temperature, the more trans fat it contains, as much as 3 grams per tablespoon. Margarine makers have responded to that by releasing tub or liquid products that have either reduced or eliminated trans fats. Watch for the labels. Heart doctors recommend butter over normal margarine but recommend trans fat free margarines over butter. It all gets very confusing. There are even margarine products now that say they actually lower cholesterol. 7. Butter tastes much better than margarine and it can enhance the flavors of other foods-A Matter of Personal Taste! 8. Butter has been around for centuries where margarine has been around for Less than 100 years Margarine was introduced as an inexpensive alternative in France in 1869, according to a history found in the   Margarine and Spreads Association in the United Kingdom. 9. Margarine is high in trans fatty acids 10. Margarine triples the risk of coronary heart disease  Although trans fats are to be avoided, we did not find any research that says that the use of margarine triples the risk of heart disease. 11. Margarine ncreases total cholesterol and LDL (this is the bad cholesterol) and lowers HDL cholesterol, (the good cholesterol) 12. Increases the risk of cancers up to five fold We could not find any substantiation of this claim. 13. Margarine lowers quality of breast milk We didn’t find any research on this but there are studies on how a mother’s eating of trans fats affects the level of trans fats in her milk. One study, for example, comparing Canadian breast milk to Chinese breast milk found that Canadian mothers had 33 more trans fats in their milk than the Chinese mothers. So the quality of the breast milk can be affected by the consumption of trans fats. 14. Margarine decreases immune response We found several references to this including an article by nutritionist Dr. Mary Enig that said that consuming trans fatty acids “Affects immune response by lowering effeciency of B cell response and increasing proliferation of T cells.” 15. Decreases insulin response Actually the trans fat can increase blood insulin levels, which increases the risk for diabetes. 16. Margarine is but ONE MOLECULE away from being PLASTIC We found no support for this. Perhaps whoever wrote this heard a discussion about the “plasticity” of margarine. It is “plastic” at room temperature meaning that the shape of it can be changed when pressure is applied. That doesn’t mean it is composed of what we normally think of as plastic. It was originally made of animal fats but increasingly now is made from vegetable oils. Updated 3/29/07 Comments


Marilyn Monroe's intelligence quotient was measured at 168.

Explanation: Although Monroe was known to be more scholarly than her public persona indicated, we were unable to find any proof that her intelligence quotient was measured as 168 with any test at any time.

Pages devoted to both “facts” and Marilyn Monroe frequently share a tidbit of purported truth about the Hollywood legend, repeating a rumor that the storied actress and model had a profoundly high intelligence quotient: Marilyn Monroe had an IQ of 168. — What The F*** Facts (@WhatTheFFacts) March 29, 2017  We were unable to find any versions of this rumor that came with any corroborating information, such as the year she was tested, the type of IQ test she took, or why she took an IQ test to begin with; typically, it appeared alone or alongside a related claim that Monroe hated being typecast as a “dumb blonde.” The earliest iteration we were able to find of that particular rumor was in a BuzzFeed list published on 5 August 2013:  No citation was provided for the early appearance of that claim, but its wording indicated it may have formed the basis of subsequent rumors. Monroe was born in 1926, and turned 18 in 1944. According to the American Psychological Association’s Monitor on Psychology, Monroe was in her twenties when the modern form of IQ testing was introduced in 1949 (earlier versions were used, but less widely): Among intelligence tests for children, one test currently dominates the field: the WISC-III, the third revision of psychologist David Wechsler’s classic 1949 test for children, which was modeled after Army intelligence tests developed during World War I. A version for adults was introduced in 1955, when Monroe was nearly 30. We uncovered no evidence that the star had been tested using what were then relatively new psychological screening methods used primarily in relation to schooling and the military. Chronologically, it is possible that Monroe had undergone such testing, but there also is no reason to believe she had done so in an era when IQ tests were uncommon. Monroe’s early life was known to be marked by unrest and instability, and she spent much of her childhood in foster care. The tumultuous environment in which Monroe was raised seemed unlikely to have included intelligence testing; she married just after she turned 16 and became a homemaker before reinventing herself in her twenties. We consulted Scott Fortner, expert on Marilyn Monroe and curator of MarilynMonroeCollection.com. Fortner was familiar with the rumor that Monroe’s IQ was measured at 168, and told us that he believed it to be “unfounded”:  I’ve never come across any information or details on Marilyn actually having been tested on her intelligence quotient. I was lucky enough to have viewed the contents of her personal files on multiple locations. There were no records present of her having been tested. She was very sensitive about her education. It’s known widely that she never graduated high school, but she did focus on self improvement and development throughout her life. Her personal library contained over 400 books on a variety of subjects, reflecting both her intelligence and her wide-ranging interests. No surprise to those familiar with Monroe, they were the books of a well-read and inquiring mind. Works of Literature, Art, Drama, Biography, Poetry, Politics, History, Theology, Philosophy, and Psychology covered the walls in her library. Among the First Editions was her own copy of The Beat Generation classic On the Road by Jack Kerouac, Ralph Ellison’s The Invisible Man and William Styron’s This House on Fire. From Tolstoy to Twain, many other classic works of literature were represented, including her copies of The Great Gatsby, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, James Joyce’s Dubliners, Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises, and The Fall by Camus. Her library also contained books on gardening, her Bibles, and children’s books, including her own copy of The Little Engine That Could which was possibly marked with her own childish scrawl. Like others directly familiar with Monroe’s belongings and possessions, Fortner described her as an autodidact and literary buff (as did New York City-based clothing store Barneys style maven and Monroe fan, Simon Doonan): Shoes? Yes, there were several pairs of black suede Ferragamo stilettos with worn heels. But Marilyn — brace yourself for another shocker — was more into books than shoes. Her poignant desire to cultivate her mind and give herself an education resulted in an extensive library of first editions. Take that, Carrie Bradshaw!


Ardern's online messages keep spirits up in New Zealand's coronavirus lockdown.

Explanation: Hours after New Zealand imposed a nationwide lockdown to beat a coronavirus pandemic, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern took to Facebook, livestreaming in a sweater from bed, to “check in” on citizens and tell them of the day’s events.

Ardern’s news conferences for more than 30 minutes a day, taking queries, streaming Facebook videos and posting pictures on Instagram, offer a contrast with some world leaders who have stumbled through confusing briefings about virus combat plans. “I thought I would jump online quickly and check in with everyone...as we all prepare to hunker down for a few weeks,” she said in one of her social media messages, seen and cheered by millions in lockdown. “This feels like the comfort of being tucked into bed at night by my mum,” said a viewer who responded to the post. “Thanks for checking in with us.”   New Zealand’s tally of 589 virus infections, and one death, is far smaller than other countries, such as giant neighbor Australia, which has 4,200 cases and 17 deaths. Thursday’s lockdown is expected to have far-reaching effect on the export-oriented economy of the nation of five million. But the 39-year-old prime minister’s clear communication has garnered praise, even from her fiercest critics. “I think she communicates really clearly and really well,” John Key, a former prime minister and senior leader of the opposition National Party said on a radio show. While urging New Zealanders to keep to their own “bubble”, or stay home to save lives, Ardern has also talked about working from her office, spending time with family, and even a struggle with toilet training her daughter, who turns two in June. Ardern took the helm of the Labour-led government in October 2017, as the youngest female prime minister at the time, and became only the second elected leader to give birth while in office, after Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto. Her compassionate yet decisive actions after last year’s mass shooting at two Christchurch mosques drew global praise. But facing domestic criticism for her government’s handling of housing shortages and the economy, Ardern is expected to face a tough re-election contest in September. On Instagram on Sunday, she described events in her “bubble”, and was asked how toilet training was going with daughter Neve Te Aroha, who was three months old when she accompanied Ardern at her United Nations debut in 2018. “We are having zero success!” Ardern replied.


Owning a chihuahua can help cure a person of asthma.

Explanation: Beliefs that canines can be pressed into accepting human illness and thereby freeing human sufferers from their physical maladies are quite old. For instance, an 1898 folklore journal examined a Midwestern folk remedy that stated: “The Negro sometimes sleeps with a young dog in order to transmit rheumatism to the dog.”

Asthma is an inflammatory disorder of the bronchial tubes that affects more than 17 million Americans and causes more than 5,000 deaths per year. It is also the most common chronic childhood disorder, affecting 6.3 million children (approximately 1 in 13 school-aged kids). Although numerous medications exist that work to keep asthma in check, there is no cure for this malady. Because not all asthma medications are equally effective on all sufferers, it is therefore to be expected that at least some who live with this illness look to the world of folk medicine and superstition for relief from the crushing inability to breathe. In addition to various herbs, nostrums, and rituals said to alleviate asthma symptoms, a surprisingly widespread belief positions one particular breed of man’s best friend as an asthma cure. Chihuahuas, it is said, will take asthma out of a home, either their presence working to wipe out the disease, or the animals themselves soaking up the illness resident in human masters and so transferring it to themselves. (The rumor exists in both forms: something about these dogs kills asthma, or chihuahuas serve as canine illness sponges.) [Collected via e-mail, August 2004]  I have encountered a weird one that is apparently quite popular in the Georgia US area: chihuahua dogs will ‘take on’ a child’s asthma. The dog will pick out the one in the family with asthma and sleep on their chest, will cough, and one day will cough up black stuff and this cures the asthma sufferer. I couldn’t believe my ears – my neighbor believes this 100% as advised by both her MD and a vet, she tried it and claims this has cured her son of asthma. I am now finding that many folks around here have heard of this. [Collected via e-mail, May 2008]  I have heard from numerous people that if a person who has asthma owns a chihuahua the dog will actually exhibit asthma symptoms and the human’s attack will be less severe. I ask because I have a chihuahua and have recently been diagnosed with asthma. It seems farfetched, but my dog actually exhibits breathing problems and I can’t help but wander if there is a chance that I am making her sick. Consequently, many families of asthmatic children have rushed to purchase these dogs and install them as family pets. Some believers in this cure insist the child must sleep with the chihuahua if the remedy is to be effected; others also specify that the dog must lie on the child’s chest. When those who pass along the news of this cure advance a source for their information, they will often says that the chihuahua remedy began with the Aztecs. Some will add that the Aztecs revered the chihuahua as the “ruler of the nose” and thought it had the power to cure various ailments in addition to asthma. Impressive as that sounds, there’s only scant reason to believe Aztecs had anything to do with the development of the belief that this particular dog would cure this particular disease. The Aztecs certainly did like this little dog: while it is rumored that the chihuahua started out as a foodstuff for them, the small canine eventually came to be regarded as a spiritual guide that would help a dead Aztec make his way in the afterlife, with part of that process involving the animal’s absorbing the sins of the person who’d died. This information bears enough of a resemblance to the “chihuahuas cure asthma” rumor (i.e., it involves the notion that chihuahuas were used to take on something noxious their human masters wanted to be rid of) that the Aztec connection cannot be completely dismissed   More plausible is the explanation that the rumor became attached to this particular pooch because a great many chihuahuas wheeze and make breathing noises the sound like someone struggling with asthma. It can therefore sound (especially to those desperate for a cure) that the dog is drawing the asthma from the sufferer and taking it up himself. (For worried pet owners out there, we note that this not the case: asthma does not get passed from human to dog.) Unfortunately for asthma sufferers, the chihuahua remedy doesn’t work. While it is true that these creatures are somewhat less likely to provoke allergies than most other breeds of dogs, owning one will not in itself cure asthma. (Even in terms of providing canine companionship for allergy sufferers, these short-haired dogs aren’t a magic bullet: they can still stir up all the usual symptoms of asthma because it’s not fur that is the allergen; it’s substances contained in dander and bodily secretions. However, smaller dogs and dogs with single-layered coats generally produce less dander, and chihuahuas possess both these qualities.) The belief about chihuahuas as an asthma cure has been around for a very long time; we found it written up in a 1956 folklore journal and a 1965 medical journal. One of the reasons for the rumor’s longevity has to do with the nature of asthma in children: about half of young sufferers lose their symptoms sometime during childhood or adolescence. That inexplicable loss, coupled with the presence in the home of the four-legged asthma cure (the chihuahua), works to entrench belief in the fiction that the dog cures the disease. In this sense, the belief is akin to the various “wart cures“ that folklore advocates for the treatment of children afflicted with such bumpy growths: The body’s eventual triumph over the virus is mistakenly attributed to some external cure, such as rubbing these benign skin tumors with bean pods or snails or wishing them onto the occupants of passing hearses.


Ex-NFL player, doctor are arrested in Georgia opioid case.

Explanation: A former NFL football player and a Georgia doctor face charges of illegally distributing prescription drugs, including opioids.

Georgia, Opioids, Cartersville, NFL, Arrests, Prescription drugs, Atlanta, General News, Football

Former New Orleans Saints player Sedrick Hodge sold oxycodone pills in Cartersville, Georgia, northwest of Atlanta, federal prosecutors said Wednesday. Hodge, 40, is accused of illegal distribution of controlled substances, among other charges. Dr. Victor Hanson, 86, faces 14 counts of illegal drug distribution involving prescriptions that included powerful opioid painkillers, prosecutors said. Two other suspects also face charges. Hanson lives in the Atlanta suburb of Brookhaven and operated a weight loss clinic in nearby Sandy Springs. He issued “numerous illegitimate prescriptions for drugs, including powerful opioid painkillers,” U.S. Attorney Byung J. Pak said in a statement Wednesday. “While Hanson prescribed these drugs without a legitimate medical purpose, Sedrick Hodge and other associates allegedly sold these drugs in communities like Cartersville,” Pak said. The doctor accepted only cash or checks for the drugs, and Hodge then sold them on the street for cash, prosecutors wrote in the indictment. The drugs included oxycodone, hydrocodone, alprazolam and others, prosecutors said. Lawyers for Hodge didn’t immediately respond Wednesday to calls and emails requesting comment. It wasn’t known whether the others have lawyers yet. Hodge, a linebacker who played at the University of North Carolina, was drafted by the Saints in 2001. He spent all five of his NFL seasons in New Orleans, appearing in 63 games and starting 43. He signed with Miami as a free agent in 2006, but was cut before the regular season began. This case is part of the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Operation SCOPE, an acronym for Strategically Combatting Opioids through Prosecution and Enforcement, according to prosecutors. It is aimed at fighting the nation’s opioid crisis by cracking down on physicians and dealers. The opioid crisis is the “deadliest drug epidemic in American history,” the U.S. Department of Justice said in its recent budget request. President Donald Trump has declared it a National Public Health Emergency. Opioid overdoses claimed the lives of about 400,000 Americans from 1999-2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ___ Associated Press Writer Brett Martel in New Orleans contributed.


EPA boss visits polluted mining sites in Montana.

Explanation: The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency visited two contaminated mining sites in Montana on Friday as the agency faces pressure to speed cleanup work that’s dragged on for more than three decades.

U.S. News, Steve Daines, Environment, Montana, Billings, Butte, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler visited Butte and Anaconda with Republican U.S. Sen. Steve Daines. “Superfund is a priority for the administration, for President Trump, and it’s a priority for myself as well,” Wheeler said during his visit, Montana Public Radio reported . Wheeler also said the cleanup plans for both sites are works in progress and community input could still shape the final agreement. Butte is home to the notorious Berkeley Pit , an open-pit copper mine holding 50 billion gallons (190 billion liters) of acidic, metal-laden water. An estimated 3,000 snow geese died after landing in the pit in 2016. Anaconda’s environmental damage was caused by a century’s worth of copper smelting that sent arsenic, lead and other metals into the air until 1980. The two communities were placed on the EPA’s Superfund list, which includes many of the nation’s most contaminated sites, in 1983. EPA officials in June announced a “conceptual” cleanup plan for Butte. Details have not been made public because of a gag order imposed by a federal judge in a lawsuit over the pollution. In July, the agency reached a preliminary agreement over pollution in Anaconda with Atlantic Richfield Co., the state of Montana and Anaconda-Deer Lodge County. Daines has been prodding the EPA to accelerate the cleanup projects and said Wheeler’s visit demonstrated the agency’s willingness to work with the two communities after so many years. “It’s time for action,” Daines said in a telephone interview. “The sooner that happens, the sooner we can reduce the health risks.” Researchers from the University of South Carolina concluded in a study published last month that Butte and Anaconda residents continue to die from cancer, cardiovascular diseases and other illnesses at higher rates than in other Montana counties. The death rate has been falling over time but remains elevated, the study said, suggesting cleanup work done to date appears to be “slowly improving the health impact of ongoing and historical pollution from mining and smelting.” The study was based on an analysis of death certificate data between 2000 and 2016 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


When U.S. President Donald Trump took office, he inherited a “bare” Strategic National Stockpile that lacked an adequate supply of mechanical ventilators that would have aided the nation at the start of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.

Explanation: What's true: Stockpiles of some types of personal protective equipment such as N95 masks were depleted by the Obama administration’s response to the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, and had not been replenished by the time the COVID-19 outbreak began. What's false: The ventilator supply, specifically, was not depleted under the Obama administration, though it did fall short of what experts said would be needed in the event of a severe pandemic.

At the onset of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that he inherited a “bare” Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) that lacked an adequate supply of ventilators from the administration of former President Barack Obama, hindering Trump’s ability to adequately respond to the growing number of coronavirus cases across the nation. We revisited the timeline of the pandemic and the various (and contradictory) statements issued by Trump and his administration to check the accuracy of this claim. The SNS is overseen by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and is allocated as a resource to supplement state and local authorities in their response to public health emergencies. In addition to many state stockpiles, the federal stockpile includes medicines, supplies, and devices needed for life-saving care that are strategically located at secret warehouse locations around the country. According to a timeline published by the Department of Health and Human Services, the stockpile has been used at least 13 times since its 1999 creation, including during responses to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, and 2005 hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A mechanical ventilator is a breathing machine used to assist a patient suffering from respiratory distress, or a condition that makes it difficult for them to breathe on their own. SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for the 2020 pandemic, causes COVID-19, one such respiratory condition that can make it difficult for an infected person to breathe on their own. Concern over whether the U.S. had enough ventilators took center stage in early 2020 — shortly after the coronavirus outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11. When New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo asked the federal government for additional ventilators, Trump responded by criticizing Cuomo’s handling of the pandemic, saying that the state should have stockpiled ventilators. During a March 26 press briefing, Trump tried to buck the blame for a shortage of ventilators, saying that he had taken over an “empty shelf.” The president reiterated the claim just over a week later, adding that the depleted stockpile he supposedly inherited impacted his administration’s ability to respond to the pandemic. Hey, I inherited — we, this administration — we inherited a broken system, both militarily, but we’ve rebuilt our military where we now have so much ammunition, whereas you remember a very important general said, “Sir, we have no ammunition.” They wanted to save money on ammunition. They didn’t want to save money because they spent money like nobody ever spent money. But you know what? We now have a great military rebuilt. And we have so much ammunition, we don’t know what to do with it. Okay? And that’s a nice feeling to have. But they also gave us empty cupboards. The cupboard was bare. You’ve heard the expression: “The cupboard was bare.” So we took over a stockpile where the cupboard was bare and where the testing system was broken and old. And we redid it. Though Trump repeatedly blamed the Obama administration for leaving behind an empty stockpile and falsely took credit for restocking the ventilator supplies, he said on more than one occasion that the U.S. had enough ventilators in the weeks following the pandemic declaration. In the April 7 press briefing, Admiral Brett Giroir, assistant secretary of HHS, said that the number of ventilators is not a “number that we give out” but said that there were thousands remaining in the stockpile. Trump quickly added that there were 9,000 breathing machines. In an April 8 Tweet, the White House said that it had shipped out 8,000 ventilators and had an “additional 10,000 ready to go.” An op-ed written by Vice President Mike Pence added that the SNS “hadn’t been refilled since the H1N1 influenza outbreak in 2009, and it had only 10,000 ventilators on hand” in March — an inadequate number given the extent of the pandemic — but that by the June 16 publication of his piece, there were more than 30,000 ventilators in the SNS and that the administration was “well on [its] way to building 100,000 ventilators in 100 days.” It appeared that the Trump administration initially recognized that the ventilator supply was inadequate to respond to the pandemic, but failed to supplement the limited inventory despite promises to do so. The discrepancy continued well into 2020. Some references: While it is true that the Trump administration had inherited a depleted supply of some personal protective equipment (PPE) like N95 respirator masks, it is not accurate to say that the stockpile was left “bare” or depleted of ventilators. The SNS had 16,600 ventilators “immediately available for use” at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a spokesperson with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) who spoke with FactCheck.org in June 2020: [T]here were 16,660 ventilators in the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) inventory immediately available for use when the SNS began deploying ventilators in March 2020 in support of the COVID-19 response. All of these ventilators were serviced, recertified and operable. An additional 2,425 ventilators were in maintenance at that time as part of the normal and routine maintenance process. Every ventilator and resupply kit in the SNS is serviced regularly by a contracted commercial vendor to meet or exceed the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule. In general, prior to March of this year, the SNS stored approximately 19,000 ventilators in its inventory for many years, and this number fluctuated on any given day depending on the number of ventilators in scheduled maintenance. … [I]n January 2017 the total number of ventilators in the SNS inventory immediately available for use would not have been much different than what the SNS had immediately available for use in March 2020. The spokesperson added that the stockpile would likely have held the same number of ventilators in January 2016 when Trump was inaugurated, suggesting that ventilator stock left by the Obama administration was considered adequate by HHS when Trump took office. Snopes contacted the HHS to confirm the above figures, but had not received a response at the time of publication. However, given the nature of the 2020 pandemic, health experts argued that ventilator inventory at the onset of the outbreak was inadequate, and the Trump administration should have immediately taken measures to increase the inventory of ventilators and other emergency medical supplies. As part of the COVID-19 response, the SNS deployed more than 14,500 tons of cargo to states, according to data published on Sept. 16, 2020. An HHS document submitted to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform criticized the low number of ventilators that had been distributed from the stockpile in April 2020, suggesting that the outsourced 7,920 ventilators were inadequate compared with the estimated need of 139,000 machines. “Now that the national stockpile has been depleted of critical equipment, it appears that the Administration is leaving states to fend for themselves, to scour the open market for these scarce supplies, and to compete with each other and federal agencies in a chaotic, free-for-all bidding war,” said committee chairwoman Rep. Carolyn Maloney in a statement.


Treating depression w/ software: Tech from Mount Sinai steps into the digital healthcare universe

Explanation: The news release describes an interesting new technology that uses computer technology to try to “rebalance” activity in regions in the brain of depressed patients towards normal patterns by having them repeatedly do a task involving identifying moods on faces. Industry connections were clearly established, which is good. But many details are missing: How many people were in the study? How severe was their depression before and after? What were the limitations? Any adverse events? We need more and better ways of treating depression, which is one of the chronic diseases that disables millions of U.S. adults. But this release does not go far enough to help readers assess this new therapy’s potential, nor how it might compare to existing techniques such as drugs and psychotherapy.

There is no mention of costs. The release would have been stronger if it allowed readers to see the economic context of this new therapy. The release provides only percentages, with no actual numbers for the patients who did and did not receive the therapy. We don’t know if it was 10 patients or 10,000 patients. We also don’t know how the symptoms were measured, nor how severe the depression was in the two groups at baseline and afterward. (We looked up a presentation of the study: It had just 26 people.) Excerpt: “In the trial, the therapeutic reduced MDD symptoms by 42 percent in the experimental group after six weeks compared to 15.7 percent in the control group, which was given a similar task using simple shapes instead of emotions.” Also: If the groups received therapy for six weeks, how often did they receive it each week? What was the control group receiving? Was it once for 45 minutes or twice a week for 30 minutes? All these details would help us understand this. We found just one comment. Excerpt: “The initial results demonstrate that the efficacy of this digital therapeutic is comparable to drug therapy, with a highly favorable safety profile.” Each drug shows different efficacy, so we’re not sure how this was established. Also, it’s standard to track adverse events in trials. For this one, what adverse events did the researchers find? We’re not told. The news release doesn’t adequately establish the quality of the evidence. Specifically, that because the research has not been published in a journal, it is preliminary. It’s also worth pointing out that six weeks is a short timeframe to measure the effectiveness of a treatment for a chronic disorder. There is no disease mongering. We were glad to see the for-profit entity, Click Therapeutics, clearly labeled as a contributor to the research and employer of at least one of the investigators. But we would have liked a clearer explanation of conflicts. Do any of the study authors participate in patents related to this work? How might researchers benefit financially? The study presentation does disclose they hold patent applications. Excerpt: “Mount Sinai Innovation Partners (MSIP), the commercialization-arm of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, has been a key partner in this development.” Many other therapies for major depression have been developed, and some of them use technological approaches. Besides these, there are also drugs, psychotherapy and exercise with known benefits. The release would have been stronger if it had listed some of what is already known to work, and explained how the new therapy fit into that context. Is it cheaper? More effective? Easier for rural patients to access? Because the release is about a new therapy, we assume it is not available outside of a clinical study yet. The release establishes the novelty about this technology. Although we think this could have waited until a large, randomized study had been completed–and peer-reviewed–before they publicized the work. Some of the language appeared to swerve into exaggeration but was not unjustifiable.


A former Marine called out Sarah Palin for blaming her son, Trek Palin’s, arrest for domestic violence and weapons violations on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in an open letter.

Explanation: Marine’s Open Letter to Sarah Palin-Authorship Confirmed!

We can confirm that a former Marine wrote an open letter to Sarah Palin in which he said she had used PTSD to “divert blame from her family’s abhorrent, violent behavior.” The open letter surfaced days after Sarah Palin said Trek Palin’s arrest for domestic violence was linked to PTSD, and more specifically, to President Obama for not doing more to help veterans. Palin delivered the remarks in a January XX campaign stop with Donald Trump in Kentucky, the Daily Mail reports: ‘I guess it’s kind of the elephant in the room – because my own family, going through what we’re going through today with my son, a combat vet having served in a Stryker brigade, fighting for you all, America, in the war zone. But my son, like so many others, they come back a bit different. They come back hardened,’ Palin said at the Wednesday rally. ‘They come back wondering if there is that respect for what their fellow soldiers and airmen and every other member of the military have given so sacrificially to this country, and that starts at the top,’ Palin said. She continued to say it’s a ‘shame’ that military personnel come home and ‘have to wonder if they’re respected anymore’. ‘So when my own son is going through what he goes through coming back, I can certainly relate with other families who kind of feel these ramifications of PTSD and some of the woundedness that our soldiers do return with, and it makes me realize more than ever, it is now or never for the sake of America’s finest that we’ll have that commander in chief who will respect them and honor them,’ she said. In response, former Marine and Navy Officer Chris Marks wrote the open letter. The open letter, which was published on Marks’ personal blog site, begins: I am a former US Marine and US Navy Officer with a Combat Action Ribbon as well as service connected disabilities. I am also a Republican. I have also served with, and am friends with, dozens of combat veterans who suffer daily from various injuries and wounds to include PTSD. I recently read your comments related to PTSD in which you attempted to excuse your son’s arrest on domestic abuse charges and firearm charges by referencing his supposed PTSD. Based upon your previous comments I am not surprised that you would choose to use this very serious condition as a political football and, once again, attempt to divert blame from your own family’s abhorrent, violent behavior. Marks also called for Palin to use her “celebrity status” to help veterans in a more productive, less political manner. And Marks wasn’t the only veteran that took exception with Palin’s comments. Other veterans who spoke out in the media said Palin had used “dangerous stereotyping” about PTSTD and veterans in her remarks, the Boston Globe reports,


Softer restaurant music, lighting can help cut calories: study.

Explanation: Just as music and lighting can influence what shoppers buy, toning down the tunes and dimming the lights in a fast food restaurant can help diners enjoy their meal more and eat less, according to a U.S. study.

After transforming part of a fast food restaurant in Illinois with milder music and lighting, researchers found that customers ate 18 percent fewer calories than other people in the unmodified part of the restaurant. “When we softened the lights and softened the music in the restaurant it didn’t change what people ordered, but what it did do was lead them to eat less and made them more satisfied and happier,” said Brian Wansink, a professor of marketing and consumer behavior at Cornell University in New York. In the study published in the journal Psychological Reports, Wansink and his co-author Koert Van Ittersum, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the bright lights, stimulating colors, sound-reflecting surfaces and loud music in fast food restaurants are not designed to be relaxing. So they improved the mood in a section of a Hardee’s restaurant for the study, adding plants, paintings, indirect lights, tablecloths, candles and instrumental music. After seating customers in both the original and restyled sections of the restaurant, they timed how long their meal lasted and how many calories they consumed. Customers in the modified section ate longer than those in the main dining area, consumed fewer calories and rated the food as more enjoyable. “Spending that extra time eating a little more slowly at a more relaxed pace made a world of difference, not just to how much they ate but how much they liked it,” said Wansink, a former executive director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion and the author of the book “Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More than We Think.”  “These results suggest that a more relaxed environment increases satisfaction and decreases consumption,” he added. About one in three adults and one in six children and teens in the United States is obese, according to government figures. Wansink, who is sending the findings to restaurant chains, said some simple changes could help people eat better and enjoy food more. “If softer music and softer lighting seem to get people to eat less in a fast food situation, why not try the same thing at home?” said Wansink.


United States President Donald Trump was fined $2 million for using funds collected as donations to veterans for his 2016 campaign.

Explanation: Was Donald Trump Fined $2 Million for Misappropriating Funds Donated for Veterans but Used for His Campaign?

In November 2019, a constellation of Facebook posts appeared, collectively making one claim: that United States President Donald Trump was fined $2 million after a judge ruled that funds he had raised were improperly diverted to finance his campaign.One such post was shared on November 8 2019 (archived here):It read “Imagine a country where its president is fined $2 million for stealing money from a charity and nobody cares? You’re living there.” On November 10, another was shared (archived here):That one featured a photograph of the President surrounded by men in military uniforms and said “go ahead and fact check all you want,” and “it is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable donations that were meant for our Veterans.” On November 11 2019, another two posts were shared (archived here and here):The first read:If you believe a black man kneeling to peacefully protest racism dishonors veterans but Donald Trump stealing $2.8 million in charity from veterans doesn’t — you need to stop disguising your racism as patriotism.And the second said:On this Veteran’s Day, it is important to remember that Donald Trump stole money he raised for veterans to pay his own bills.In the aggregate, the posts made a broader set of allegations — that Donald Trump had raised more than $2 million for veterans, illegally used the money for his own campaign, and that as a result, he was fined $2 million. Two of the four posts we located were initially covered by a large Facebook pop-up stating that the claims were false information:Underneath an “i” (“information”) icon, boldface text read “False information,” and under that, “Checked by independent fact-checkers” and a button reading “See Why.” At the lower left corner, as seen in the bottom image, readers were shown a “See Photo” button, familiar from content tagged graphic.Clicking on “See Why” would trigger the following dialogue window to pop up (TruthOrFiction.com is familiar with Facebook content restrictions, having been under one for the better part of two months as of November 2019 due to the social network’s tagging of our content as “clickbait“):At the top it read “Conclusion: False,” and a lightbulb icon beneath those words accompanied text reading “The primary claims in the information are factually inaccurate.” A third line indicated that the conclusion originated with a Factcheck.org fact-check titled “Posts Falsely Claim Trump ‘Stole’ From Vets,” and a partial subheading which read “Viral Facebook posts falsely claim that President Donald Trump “stole …”We concluded the claim was “highway sharked,” a term meaning redoing an article about a stubborn piece of disinformation that has come up multiple times (recently coined with fellow fact checkers after “prebunked,” which means using transparent information to inoculate against anticipated disinformation ahead of time, was newly purposed.) To put it another way, FactCheck.org had evaluated the information first and, according to Facebook, rated it “false.”On November 12 2019, FactCheck.org’s assessment was published. Although the piece was in a category called “Debunking False Stories,” it did not seem to feature a truth rating — a common structural element of fact-check pages indicating the claim is true, not true, a mixture of veracity, out-of-context, or unknown:Pages on TruthOrFiction.com typically open with a “claim” statement, the standard being a concise version of the rumored information we are examining. FactCheck.org also lacked a claim field, opening instead with a “Quick Take,” which appeared to combine a claim with a conclusion centering around a January 28 2016 fundraiser hosted by then-candidate Trump in Iowa:Viral Facebook posts falsely claim that President Donald Trump “stole” charitable donations meant for veterans. A court ruled Trump illegally used his foundation for political purposes when it held a fundraiser for veterans, but all of the money raised went to veterans’ groups.At the top of this page, we set a claim field. Summarizing the claims made in these various memes, it reads:President Trump was fined $2 million for using funds collected as donations to veterans for his 2016 campaign.In a section labeled “Full Story” (we left out the portions transcribing the memes, as they appear above in our own fact check), FactCheck.org reported:President Donald Trump was recently ordered to pay $2 million to several charities to settle a lawsuit over the dealings of his now-defunct charitable organization, the Trump Foundation. But social media posts have distorted the facts about the court order to falsely claim that the foundation “stole” money earmarked for veterans. […]Those posts, spread during Veterans Day, misrepresent the facts of the case and the court order that resolved it.One of the Facebook posts linked by FactCheck.org was no longer available, but we were able to find a different version of it:…  it’s false to claim that Trump “stole” the money and that “none of the veterans groups that were supposed to get the money got a single dime.”A November 7 2019 press release from the Office of the New York State Attorney General was titled “AG James Secures Court Order Against Donald J. Trump, Trump Children, And Trump Foundation.” It too began with a “Quick Take” of sorts, which read:AG James Achieves Restitution of Misused Funds, Dissolution of Foundation, and Restrictions on Charitable Activity After Donald J. Trump’s Abuse of the Trump FoundationTrump to Pay $2 Million in Damages for Illegal Activity During 2016 ElectionFactCheck.org’s assessment, quoted above, acknowledged that Trump was “recently ordered” by the state’s Attorney General to pay $2 million, adding that “social media posts have distorted the facts about the court order to falsely claim that the foundation ‘stole’ money earmarked for veterans.” And all four of the Facebook post we linked or embedded mentioned a variation of “stealing” the funds.It is definitely true that Trump was ordered to pay $2 million in damages, in the words of the Attorney General of New York State, “for improperly using charitable assets to intervene in the 2016 presidential primaries and further his own political interests.” The November 7 2019 press release’s following two paragraphs said that he admitted to “personally misusing [Trump Foundation funds]” and a stipulation imposed required that he report any future attempts to create a charity.The press release further explained that “funds that were illegally misused are being restored,” wording suggestive that misappropriated donations remained outstanding and unrestored as of the November 7 2019 release:As part of the [$2 million] settlement, Attorney General James also announced that her office entered into multiple stipulations with the Trump Foundation and its directors to resolve the remaining claims in the lawsuit. Chiefly, Mr. Trump admits to personally misusing funds at the Trump Foundation, and agrees to restrictions on future charitable service and ongoing reporting to the Office of the Attorney General in the event he creates a new charity. The settlements also include mandatory training requirements for Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump. Finally, the settlements name the charities that will receive the remaining assets of the Trump Foundation as part of its dissolution.“The Trump Foundation has shut down, funds that were illegally misused are being restored, the president will be subject to ongoing supervision by my office, and the Trump children had to undergo compulsory training to ensure this type of illegal activity never takes place again,” said Attorney General James. “The court’s decision, together with the settlements we negotiated, are a major victory in our efforts to protect charitable assets and hold accountable those who would abuse charities for personal gain. My office will continue to fight for accountability because no one is above the law — not a businessman, not a candidate for office, and not even the President of the United States.”In that statement, the Attorney General’s Office referenced nearly $1.8 million in assets held by the Foundation at that point and plans for their distribution:The $1.78 million in assets currently being held by the Trump Foundation, along with the $2 million in damages to be paid by Mr. Trump, will be disbursed equally to eight charities: Army Emergency Relief, the Children’s Aid Society, Citymeals-on-Wheels, Give an Hour, Martha’s Table, United Negro College Fund, United Way of National Capital Area, and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. The charities — which were required as part of the resolution to be entities that did not have any relationship with Mr. Trump or entities he controlled — were approved by the Office of the Attorney General and the court.Another document referenced and linked by FactCheck.org was an October 2018 motion filed by the State of New York against President Trump, his foundation, and his children. On pages five and six of the document, Judge Saliann Scarpulla wrote:Mr. Trump’s fiduciary duty breaches included allowing his campaign to orchestrate the Fundraiser, allowing his campaign, instead of the Foundation, to direct distribution of the Funds, and using the Fundraiser and distribution of the Funds to further Mr. Trump’s political campaign.The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding.As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trump’s political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trump’s campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [laws and or statutes]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. Further, because the parties have agreed to dissolve the Foundation, I direct Mr. Trump to pay the $2,000,000, which would have gone to the Foundation if it were still in existence, on a pro rata basis to the Approved Recipients.In the above-quoted decision, Scarpulla described:Regarding additional “penalty” damages sought by the NYS AG’s office to, in their words, deter future misconduct, Scarpulla ruled:Here, Mr. Trump has stipulated to a number of proactive conditions so that the conduct which engendered this petition should not occur in the future. For this reason, I decline to award penalty damages.FactCheck.org also linked to an archived [PDF] list (“The Donald J. Trump Foundation List of Contributions to Veterans 2016”), totaling $2,825,000. Disbursals on that list took place between January and June of 2016. Around 34 organizations appeared on the list, alongside sums totaling $100,000, $75,000, $40,000, $25,000, and $10,000. Seventeen $100,000 donations amounted to $1.7 million in disbursals, 14 $75,000 donations to $1,050,000, and one each at $40,000, $25,000, and $10,000. The sum total was $2,825,000:As the list above demonstrated, more than half of the donations occurred on May 24 2016, and a check for the final donation was issued on June 28 2016. The first four checks (totaling $400,000) were cut one day after the fundraiser on January 29 2016. Ten more checks were cut in February, eight of which were for $100,000, and two for lower amounts, totaling $835,000. A total of $140,000 was disbursed in the month of March 2016, making the total share of the $2,823,000 disbursed between the January 28 2016 fundraiser June 23 2016 $1,375,000. The bulk of the remaining $1,448,000 was released on May 24 2016 specifically, and the final $100,000 on June 28 2016.We looked for news for the months intervening between January 28 2016 and May 24 2016, the date on which most of the checks were written. That highlighted a separate discrepancy in what turned out to be something of a warmed-over controversy. The day after the fundraiser, multiple news organizations quoted the Trump campaign’s claim that it had raised $6 million in one night for veterans:No one ever really doubted that Donald Trump could pull off a major counter-programing feat — even when competing with a GOP debate that was expected to draw millions of viewers. He did it [on January 28 2016], dazzling a crowd of hundreds of enthusiastic supporters by announcing that he had raised more than $6 million for veterans in one day — $1 million of it from his own checkbook. “We love our vets,” he said. […]$6 million for 22 veterans’ groups … The Trump campaign on [that] night released a list of 22 veterans’ organizations that will share the more than $6 million fundraising haul. The organizations run the gamut from groups focused on helping veterans with disabilities and mental health problems to those aimed at helping veterans reintegrate into civilian society.On March 3 2019 (at which point fewer than half the checks had been cut according to the 2018 court document embedded above), the Washington Post reported controversy over whether the donations collected by Trump on that day in January 2016 had been issued to veterans’ groups. Once again, the total funds raised was placed at $6 million in that report, not the $2,823,000 cited in 2018 and 2019 court documents:[On] January [28 2016], Donald Trump skipped a televised Republican debate in Iowa and held his own event instead — a rally to raise money for veterans. Trump said it was a huge success.“One hour. Six million dollars,” Trump told a campaign rally in Iowa a few days later, boasting about the total raised. He listed more than 20 groups that would receive money. “These people that get these checks are amazing people, amazing people.”More than a month later, about half of the money, roughly $3 million, has been donated to veterans’ charities, according to a summary released Thursday by the Trump campaign in response to inquiries from The Washington Post.In recent days, after the campaign initially did not provide details of where the money had gone, The Post had undertaken its own accounting. After contacting each of the 24 charities that Trump had previously listed as his beneficiaries, The Post had accounted for less than half of the $6 million.Contrasting March 2016’s news with November 2019’s left a confusing gap — according to Facebook popups, the meme’s claims were rated “false.” According to FactCheck.org, all $2.8 million collected by Trump for veterans eventually made it to charities, primarily on or about May 24 2016. And according to news from the date of the Iowa fundraiser through mid-2016, Trump claimed to have raised $6 million.In the Washington Post‘s report slightly more than a month after the fundraiser, the newspaper spoke to purported beneficiaries of the funds, some of whom seemed to believe received donations were either light or missing “a large chunk” of money:“Where’s the rest of the money going?” said Keith David at the Task Force Dagger Foundation, which offers support to Special Operations personnel and their families.David’s group typifies the confusion over Trump’s money. It was listed by Trump as a group that would benefit from his fundraising. And soon after the Iowa fundraising event, the group got a check for $50,000. It came from Rahr’s foundation, with a note that mentioned Trump.But was that it? The group’s board — noting the huge amount of money that Trump raised and the lesser amount of money Trump seemed to have given out — decided it could not be.“There’s a large chunk missing. I’m just kind of curious as to where that money went,” David said. “I’d like to see some of it come to us, because we are on the list.”As of that March 3 2016 report, the paper quoted the Trump campaign as saying “the Trump Foundation had given out about $1.1 million so far.” In our above calculations, the sum total of donations disbursed on the list before that date actually added up to $1,235,000. On March 7 2016, the Foundation distributed a further $40,000, and another $100,000 on March 22.On April 7 2016, the Wall Street Journal reported that two months had gone by since the $6 million was raised, and it appeared just over a third of the $6 million raised had been distributed to veterans’ groups:More than two months after Donald Trump skipped a Republican debate to hold a fundraiser for veterans, the targeted beneficiaries are still seeing a fraction of the promised money raised from the Republican’s charitable foundation and his wealthy friends.A survey by The Wall Street Journal of 19 of the 22 groups originally listed by Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign as the prospective recipients of the funds found that they had received roughly $2.4 million of the estimated $6 million in donations the campaign said the event generated. The total received by all of the groups is likely to be more.One organization refused to disclose how much it received, another said it needed to submit more paperwork before a check would be forthcoming, and one didn’t respond to multiple inquiries.All of the groups reported receiving checks from the Donald J. Trump Foundation or associates through the mail, and most arrived in late February in increments of $50,000 or $100,000. Three organizations reported getting smaller donations in March that averaged between $5,000 and $15,000.CNN raised the same question on April 22 2016, noting that of 22 listed beneficiaries, “only nine groups confirmed they had received payments totaling $800,000, one group said no payment had yet been made, and the rest either refused to disclose contributions or did not respond to CNN’s requests for comment.”Both reports were published more than a month prior to the flurry of May 24 2016 checks were cut, according to records obtained by New York State in the 2018 court documents. As we noted above, the “bulk of the remaining $1,448,000 was released on May 24 2016 specifically, and the final $100,000 on June 28 2016.”Three days before those checks appeared, the Washington Post published an article headlined, “Trump said he raised $6 million for veterans. Now his campaign says it was less.” It opened, reporting:One night in January [2016], Donald Trump skipped a GOP debate and instead held his own televised fundraiser for veterans. At the end of the night, Trump proclaimed it a huge success: “We just cracked $6 million, right? Six million.”Now, Trump’s campaign says that number is incorrect.Campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said the fundraiser actually netted about $4.5 million, or 75 percent of the total that Trump announced.Lewandowski blamed the shortfall on Trump’s own wealthy acquaintances. He said some of them had promised big donations that Trump was counting on when he said he had raised $6 million. But Lewandowski said those donors backed out and gave nothing.“There were some individuals who he’d spoken to, who were going to write large checks, [who] for whatever reason . . . didn’t do it,” Lewandowski said in a telephone interview. “I can’t tell you who.”Lewandowski also said he did not know whether a $1 million pledge from Trump himself was counted as part of the $4.5 million total. He said Trump has given that amount, but he declined to identify any recipients … The comments appear to be the first acknowledgment — almost four months later — that Trump’s fundraiser had brought in less than the candidate said. Lewandowski said he did not know the exact total raised or how much of it remained unspent.In that report, the Post noted that “as the [2016 primary] race continued, the checks from the fundraiser began to come less frequently,” and that the “most recent check identified by The Post was dated March 25 [2016].” As noted previously, one of two checks on the list above was purportedly issued on March 22 2016. The story concluded:In the past few days [prior to May 20 2016], The Post has interviewed 22 veterans charities that received donations as a result of Trump’s fundraiser. None of them have reported receiving personal donations from Trump.Did Trump make good on his promise to give from his personal funds?“The money is fully spent. Mr. Trump’s money is fully spent,” Lewandowski said.To whom did Trump give, and in what amounts?“He’s not going to share that information,” Lewandowski said.Four days after the Washington Post article was published, more than half of the donations were quietly disbursed to nearly twenty charities.A complaint filed by the Campaign Legal Center in July 2018 [PDF] cited the article quoted here, but further indicated that “the Fundraiser” on January 28 2016 raised a total of $5.6 million, $2.8 million of which was “contributed to the [Trump] Foundation.” Presumably, the $2.8 million portion of the $5.6 million total (a total that was challenged by the Trump campaign in May 2016) was the portion in dispute:At the televised fundraising event, the podium was decorated with a sign that borrowed Trump Campaign themes and slogans, displaying the DonaldTrumpForVets.com website on a blue placard with a red border and star pattern identical to the design of Trump Campaign signs and billboards, with Mr. Trump’s name in capital letters and his trademarked campaign slogan, Make America Great Again! The Fundraiser reaped approximately $5.6 million in tax-free donations, some of which went directly from the private donors to veterans charity groups. Of that total, $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation. […]The Fundraiser reaped approximately $5.6 million in tax-free donations, some of which went directly from the private donors to veterans charity groups. Of that total, $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation … Following the Fundraiser, senior Trump Campaign staff dictated the manner in which the Foundation would disburse those proceeds, including the timing, amounts, and recipients of the grants. (Incidentally, it appeared the referenced domain — DonaldTrumpForVets.com — was registered on January 28 2016, the day of the fundraiser. )At the end of the document, page two of twelve-page June 2018 letter from the New York State Office of the Attorney General (OAG) to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) said of their investigation into the total money purportedly raised ($5.6 million), an amount was disbursed from the fundraiser to the Trump Foundation ($2.8 million):The Investigation acquired substantial credible evidence that the Foundation disbursed in excess of $2.8 million to influence the 2016 Republican presidential primary election at the direction and under the control of senior leadership of the Trump presidential campaign committee and apparently with the candidate’s knowledge and approval. As such, the Foundation made — and the committee knowingly accepted — prohibited, excessive, and unreported in-kind contributions during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Moreover, the evidence of coordination and control further indicates that the Foundation and campaign may have violated the so-called soft money provisions of the Act as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”). Finally, we refer certain additional evidence relating to a $25,000 prohibited contribution the Foundation made in 2013 to the political committee of another candidate for public office for any further action that the Commission may deem warranted under the circumstances.Among the OAG’s findings was a claim that Trump had “personally distributed promotional checks from the Foundation to veterans groups at official campaign rallies, just days in advance of the [February 2016] Iowa caucuses, [which] underscore that the grants were intended to benefit Mr. Trump’s ambitions as candidate — that is, for the purpose of influencing the presidential election — and thus constitute expenditures under the Act.” Much of the OAG’s letter focused on the political effects of the purportedly charitable drive, adding that even in practice, the fundraiser served as a political promotion under the bailiwick of federal election law:[There remains] no genuine question that the rallies and events at which Mr. Trump and other campaign speakers promoted his Foundation’s philanthropic giving were Trump Campaign events that Mr. Trump attended in his capacity as a candidate for federal office. Moreover, the campaign committee’s extensive coordination of all the material elements of the featured charitable giving further confirms that publicizing the gifts of the Foundation in the context of a political event was intended to serve the purpose of promoting and advancing Mr. Trump’s prospects as a federal candidate in the looming election contest.In November 2019, a number of viral claims about United States President Donald Trump and a levied fine over the misappropriation of donations made by the public to the Trump Foundation that was intended for veterans circulated on Facebook. Facebook “flagged” the claims, triggering a FactCheck.org assessment that did not explicitly give the claim a false rating. Nevertheless, FactCheck.org effectively labeled all the claims false, leading to their reduced distribution and what appears to be a new “flagging” mechanism hiding the memes from initial view, as shown above.In sum, the claims were that Donald Trump was ordered to pay $2 million for “stealing” donations he collected for veterans; use of the word “stealing” appeared to be the hinge of the tacit “false” rating, as FactCheck.org ruled that the donations eventually were properly disbursed. In an attempt to replicate those findings ourselves, we came across a years-long controversy with many twists and turns. The controversy began in late January 2016, when the Trump campaign skipped a debate to hold a fundraiser for veterans. At the end of the night, Trump and the campaign claimed an approximately $6 million (or $5.6 million) haul of one-day donations.In the ensuing months, news outlets reported difficulty in verifying the $6 or $5.6 million in funds raised, and additional difficulty in tracking their disbursal. On May 20 2016, former campaign staffer Corey Lewandowski told the Washington Post that the original $5.6 to $6 million figure was inflated, that “the fundraiser actually netted about $4.5 million,” and Lewandowski was unable to account for “whether a $1 million pledge from Trump himself was counted as part of the $4.5 million total.” Four days after that article was published, the Trump Foundation wrote multiple checks dated on or around May 24 2016, totaling more than a million dollars from either $6 million, $5.6 million, $4.5 million, or $2.8 million.June and July 2018 investigations and complaints from organizations like the Campaign Legal Center and the New York State OAG were predicated on the collection of $5.6 million in donations for the fundraiser. The OAG issued a press release on November 7 2019 announcing that Trump had been ordered to pay $2 million following the investigation, that funds held by the Trump Foundation totaling nearly $1.8 million would be disbursed, and that the President “agrees to restrictions on future charitable service and ongoing reporting to the Office of the Attorney General in the event he creates a new charity.”One of the November 2019 memes claimed that “on this Veteran’s Day, it is important to remember that Donald Trump stole money he raised for veterans to pay his own bills.” Another mused “Imagine a country where its president is fined $2 million for stealing money from a charity and nobody cares? You’re living there.” FactCheck.org and by extension Facebook rated those claims completely false owing to the fact that the $2.8 million was “ultimately” donated. But the underlying story was both messier than indicated and almost inarguably not false. What was originally promoted as a $6 million haul of donations was adjusted down to $3.5 to $4.5 million as outlets queried it, and the record of checks showed that more than half were not released at all until an unflattering May 20 2016 Washington Post article asked about them.It is true that Trump was ordered to pay $2 million for — in the words of Judge Scarpulla’s decision — “using the Fundraiser and distribution of the Funds to further Mr. Trump’s political campaign.” The Trump Foundation was consequently shuttered, and “mandatory training requirements for Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump” were imposed as part of the settlement. Nearly four years after the fundraiser, there remained a great deal of confusion around the total amount collected and the timing of its disbursal, and while one meme’s apparent claim that no organizations saw “a dime” of the funds was untrue, the entire fundraiser was the subject of both extensive investigation, as well as the $2 million settlement and acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Owing to the extremely complicated nature of a vast constellation of details, we have rated this complex claim as “mixed” — but it certainly is not false.


During a recent radio address, President Barack Obama said the nation’s energy picture was robust. "Thanks in part to our all-of-the-above strategy for American energy, for the first time in nearly two decades, we produce more oil here at home than we buy from the rest of the world," Obama said on Jan. 18, 2014. "We generate more renewable energy than ever, and more natural gas than anybody." We’ve previously checked one of these claims. Earlier this month, we gave a True rating to Obama’s claim that "for the first time in nearly two decades, we produce more oil here in the United States than we buy from the rest of the world." But we hadn’t fact-checked his claim that we generate "more natural gas than anybody." So we’ll check it here. We turned to two widely used sources for energy data. One is the Statistical Review of World Energy, published by petroleum giant BP. The other is the website of the Energy Information Administration, an office of the U.S. Department of Energy. According to BP’s data, United States natural gas production in 2012 was 619 million tons of oil equivalent, or 20.4 percent of the world. The only nation that came close to that was the Russian Federation, which produced 533 million tons of oil equivalent, or 17.6 percent of the world total. So by this measurement, Obama was correct. And the Energy Information Administration data concurs that the United States was No. 1 in the world. According to EIA -- which has figures as recent as 2011 -- the gross natural gas production by the United States was 28.5 trillion cubic feet, or 19.7 percent of the world total. The figure for Russia was 23.7 trillion cubic feet, or 16.4 percent of the world total. That said, there are still some issues to factor in. One is that there’s no guarantee that every country’s data is reliable, since not every nation has put the same effort into researching the question -- or, if they have, they may not be interested in sharing accurate information with economic rivals. While it would seem less likely that Russia would undercount its production than overcount it, it can’t be ruled out that, intentionally or unintentionally, the Russian figure for production is higher than these tables would suggest. The second issue is whether it’s justified for Obama to claim a share of the credit for the United States’ burst of natural gas production. It’s nothing new that the United States is at or near the top in natural gas production internationally. According to BP’s data, the United States and Russia have traded off the No. 1 and No. 2 spots in natural gas production ever since the data separated out the Russian Federation from the old Soviet Republics in 1985. Since 1985, the United States has outpaced the Russian Federation in 13 years: 1985, 1986, 1995, 1997 to 2002 and 2009 to 2012. During the same period, the Russian Federation outpaced the United States from 1987 to 1994, 1996 and 2003 to 2008. The United States’ lead over Russia has increased during Obama’s tenure. The United States produced 12 percent more natural gas than Russia in 2009, but 16 percent more than Russia in 2012. A big reason is the expansion of natural gas extracted from shale, using advanced technologies known as fracking. In some areas of the country, fracking has kicked off an economic boom, and measured by carbon emissions at the point of combustion, natural gas represents an improvement over oil or coal. But environmentalists argue that there are other downsides to fracking, from the risk of localized water contamination to higher carbon emissions when the entire drilling and transportation cycle is considered. We won’t referee this debate, but we will note that both advocates of drilling and environmentalists have criticized Obama, either for being too cautious about promoting natural gas development or being too eager to support it. When we looked at Obama’s campaign promise to expedite oil and gas drilling from domestic shale formations, we rated it, noting that the numbers can be framed in ways that can either support or weaken the case that Obama has sped up the process of developing oil and natural gas resources. Obama did issue an executive order in 2012, titled, "Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources" that established an interagency working group to "facilitate coordinated" federal efforts on new types of natural gas extraction. "While natural gas production is carried out by private firms, and states are the primary regulators of onshore oil and gas activities, the federal government has an important role to play by regulating oil and gas activities on public and Indian trust lands, encouraging greater use of natural gas in transportation, supporting research and development aimed at improving the safety of natural gas development and transportation activities, and setting sensible, cost-effective public health and environmental standards to implement federal law and augment state safeguards," the order said. Alan Krupnick, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, a think tank that tracks energy policy, said that the administration at the very least "has not interfered with the shale gas revolution, which I'd say is something. In my view, the Environmental Protection Agency has not been heavy-handed on environmental concerns" relating to natural gas. Still, as the administration acknowledged, the advances in shale-based natural gas extraction largely developed due to the private sector. And given the long-term pattern, it’s clear that natural gas production in the United States was already high before Obama took office. "Obama's claim, implied or voiced, rings hollow," said Joel Darmstadter, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future. "The shale gas fracking revolution, especially in its development phase, antedates Obama's presidency. And the bonanza it has created and the dramatic price declines it has spurred don't seem to me to be traceable to any of his administration's policies." Our ruling Obama said, "Thanks in part to our all-of-the-above strategy for American energy," the United States generates "more natural gas than anybody." The best available data suggests that he’s right about the United States being No. 1 in the world in natural gas production, though it’s more in dispute whether his administration deserves credit (or, in the eyes of some environmentalists, blame) for "part" of this development, as Obama put it.