The sap of the giant hogweed plant can cause severe skin and eye irritation.

Explanation: Giant Hogweed Identification (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation)

In July 2013, many in the online world became aware of the hazard posed by the giant hogweed via forwardings of the full text of a 2010 Toronto National Post article reporting that the toxic plant had just been discovered growing wild in eastern Ontario: Is it a fact that there is a plant called a giant Hogweed that its toxic properties are on all parts of the plant and touching it causes burns that turn into blisters? It has been reported on 3 e-mails I received today. The plant overtakes fields and grows to over 10 feet. The plant is supposed to be indigenous to Europe. It was reported in the e-mail that it is in South western Ontario, Canada and finding its way everywhere and the warning is to report it and never touch it. Its flowers resemble a giant Queen Anne’s Lace weed. Both the plant and the description of the effects of contact with its sap are real. Giant hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) is an invasive herb in the carrot family which was originally brought to North America from Asia and has since become established in the New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Northwest regions of the United States. Giant hogweed grows along streams and rivers and in fields, forests, yards and roadsides, and a giant hogweed plant can reach 14 feet or more in height with compound leaves up to 5 feet in width. Giant hogweed sap contains toxic chemicals known as furanocoumarins. When these chemicals come into contact with the skin and are exposed to sunlight, they cause a condition called phytophotodermatitis, a reddening of the skin often followed by severe blistering and burns. These injuries can last for several months, and even after they have subsided the affected areas of skin can remain sensitive to light for years. Furanocoumarins are also carcinogenic and teratogenic, meaning they can cause cancer and birth defects. The sap can also cause temporary (or even permanent) blindness if introduced into the eyes. If someone comes into physical contact with giant hogweed, the following steps should be taken: If a reaction occurs, the early application of topical steroids may lessen the severity of the reaction and ease the discomfort. The affected area of skin may remain sensitive to sunlight for a few years, so applying sun block and keeping the affected area shielded from the sun whenever possible are sensible precautions. Hogweed is far from the only dangerous plant one might expect to encounter. Others we’ve written about include oleander (a flowering shrub often used in gardens and along freeways to provide decorative screening) and sago palm (a decorative shrub found in gardens and kept in pots within some homes). Additional information: Giant Hogweed (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation)


“We have one of the lowest mortality rates in the world” from COVID-19.

Explanation: The United States doesn’t have one of the world’s lowest mortality rates from the coronavirus. No fewer than 15 advanced, industrialized nations currently have a lower mortality rate, as do a host of other countries, including Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Russia, Turkey, Argentina, and India. Another measurement called the case-fatality rate, which Trump incorrectly referred to as the “mortality rate,” also doesn’t place the United States at or near the bottom internationally.

Public Health, Coronavirus, Donald Trump,

President Donald Trump defended his performance in fighting the coronavirus during an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, insisting that the mortality rate from COVID-19 in the United States is among the world’s lowest. In the interview that aired July 19, Wallace and Trump were in the middle of a discussion about the coronavirus’ impact. Wallace said that "we have the seventh-highest mortality rate in the world. Our mortality rate is higher than Brazil, it's higher than Russia and the European Union has us on a travel ban." Trump responded that "when you talk about mortality rates, I think it's the opposite. I think we have one of the lowest mortality rates in the world." When Wallace fact-checked that characterization, Trump doubled down: "I heard we had the best mortality rate. Number one low mortality rate." Trump is wrong. Neither the White House nor the Trump campaign responded to an inquiry for this article. Scientists define "mortality rate" as a measure of how frequently death occurs within a defined population. Data on this question is imperfect because of reporting inconsistencies between and even within countries. We turned to widely cited coronavirus data compiled by Johns Hopkins University to analyze Trump’s assertion. Specifically, we looked at the university’s calculations of COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 in population, which is a standard measurement of mortality rate. First, we compared the United States with other nations that have been hard-hit by the coronavirus. To do this, we looked at all nations that have recorded at least 100,000 confirmed cases. The United States has the sixth-highest mortality rate using this metric, behind the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Chile and France. But 16 hard-hit nations had a lower mortality rate: Peru, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Iran, Colombia, Germany, South Africa, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Argentina, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. We also looked at how the United States compared with its peers among advanced industrialized nations. In this comparison, six countries had higher mortality rates than the United States: Belgium, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Sweden, and France. But 15 countries had lower mortality rates than the United States: Ireland, the Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, Norway, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. By neither comparison is Trump close to correct. Mortality rate is strongly related to the age distribution in a country, said Brooke Nichols, a health economist and infectious disease mathematical modeler at the Boston University School of Public Health. "The countries with the lowest mortality rates will probably end up being the ones with the younger population age structures," she said. When "Fox News Sunday" aired the interview, Wallace said the White House had been referring to the "case-fatality rate" rather than the mortality rate. (White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany handed Trump a paper chart citing "case-fatality rate" during the interview.) The case-fatality rate is not the same as the mortality rate. The case-fatality rate shows how likely you are to die from the coronavirus if you are infected with it. The mortality rate shows how common it is to die of coronavirus in a particular population, such as a country. Trump’s point about the U.S. is not more accurate when looking at the case-fatality rate compared with other countries. Nine countries have a higher case-fatality rate than the United States. One country, Peru, has an equal rate and 11 have a lower rate: Colombia, Chile, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Argentina, Russia, South Africa, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Nichols said that the younger populations of many developing countries helps explain why their case-fatality rates are lower than that of the United States. (Infected patients who are younger and, often, healthier tend to die at lower rates from the coronavirus.) And when you compare the United States with its industrialized peers, seven countries have a lower case-fatality rate: Austria, Portugal, Norway, South Korea, Luxembourg, New Zealand and Australia. Nichols said that the U.S ranks relatively low on this measure because, despite its problems rolling out testing, it still handles more tests per capita than most other comparable countries. Trump said, "We have one of the lowest mortality rates in the world" from coronavirus. The United States doesn’t have one of the world’s lowest mortality rates from the coronavirus: No fewer than 15 advanced, industrialized nations currently have a lower mortality rate, as do a host of other countries, including Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Russia, Turkey, Argentina, and India. Another measurement called the case-fatality rate, which Trump incorrectly referred to as the "mortality rate," doesn’t place the United States at or near the bottom internationally. We rate the statement .


Evolution Fresh brand cold-pressed juices and smoothies are 'poison.'

Explanation: However, subsequent lab tests ordered by the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office found that the orange juice bottles allegedly dropped off by Behbehanian contained vinegar (a non-harmful substance), so the district attorney’s office declined to file charges against her.

Food, contaminated food, evolution fresh, starbucks

In late January 2017, an apparent hoax began circulating via Facebook claiming that Evolution Fresh brand cold-pressed juices and smoothies, commonly founds at Starbucks outlets, are “poison”:  We found no evidence that Evolution Fresh drinks are “poison,” nor that they are vended or produced “in Nigeria.” According to the brand’s official web site, most of the produce used in their manufacture is grown in California (and some of it in Arizona). Evolution Fresh products do not appear in the FDA’s database of food recalls. A representative from Evolution Fresh confirmed that the product has undergone no recent recalls, the company has received no reports of people made sick by the juice, and the product is not sold or manufactured in Nigeria: Our Evolution Fresh cold-pressed, High-Pressure Processed juices and smoothies are currently sold in Starbucks locations only in the United States and Canada and in some U.S. grocery stores. The distribution or sale of Evolution Fresh juices outside the United States and Canada is unauthorized. Any product sold outside the U.S. and Canada is either counterfeit or has been purchased, shipped and resold. In addition, we cannot vouch for the safety or quality of products labeled as Evolution Fresh juices that are sold in countries outside the United States and Canada. It’s unclear if the hoax was based on a 2013 news story about a Bay Area woman named Ramineh Behbehanian, who was accused of placing rubbing alcohol into two bottles Evolution Fresh drink, then switching the tainted bottles with others in a refrigerator at a San Jose Starbucks store. Behbehanian, a chemist, was initially charged with attempted murder and poisoning after tests by the San Jose Fire Department indicated the liquid in the bottles contained a lethal dose of rubbing alcohol.


Explanation: Former Ruth's Chris CEO Craig Miller says he 'created over 40,000 jobs'

Usually when politicians claim that they created jobs, they are talking about jobs created by the private sector while they held public office. And we're skeptical. But when that politician is a former Ruth's Chris Steak House chief executive running on his business credentials, well, we're curious. If a CEO can't take credit for job creation, who can? Craig Miller, a Republican who jumped into politics with a 2010 primary run for an Orlando-area congressional seat (he finished third), announced in July 2011 that he would run for the U.S. Senate. That made him a relative newcomer facing Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos, former U.S. Sen. George LeMieux, former state House Majority Leader Adam Hasner and former U.S. Army Col. Mike McCalister. (Haridopolos thinned the field by dropping out less than a week later.) Miller, 61, explained his decision to "take on the career politicians" in a four-paragraph essay on his website. Here's the third paragraph: "Those that have had a chance to lead have failed us. The politicians we have trusted to represent us are the ones who have gotten us into the mess we now face. The time for new leadership is now. I'm a businessman. I've been fortunate enough to live the American Dream, starting in the dish room and working my way up to the board room. Along the way, I've created over 40,000 jobs and I've spent my career in the restaurant industry balancing budgets and meeting payroll. I know the kind of pro-growth and pro-job environment we need to get our economy moving again. My life experiences have prepared me to go to Washington and take on the career politicians and entrenched interests that only know how to spend your money." We saw the same number in a campaign news release a day later and wondered: Did Craig Miller, restaurant executive, create 40,000 jobs? Here's how Miller told us he did the math. He explained that he started his executive career with the company that owned Red Lobster in 1973, back when the restaurant chain was only in the Southeast. (The company was called General Mills Restaurants, before General Mills spun it off as the behemoth Darden Restaurants in 1995. Heard of Olive Garden? LongHorn Steakhouse? Yeah, them.) Red Lobster's extraordinary growth — hundreds of new restaurants while Miller was there — meant lots of new jobs. In 1984 Miller joined Uno Restaurant Corp., helping transform pizza joint Pizzeria Uno into Uno Chicago Grill, where he landed his first CEO gig in 1996. By the time he left in 2001, Uno Chicago Grill had grown by more than 180 restaurants, creating yet more jobs. After a quick stint at already troubled Furr's Restaurant Group, he took on a higher-profile role at what became Ruth's Hospitality Group, where he was chief executive from 2004 to 2008. Before he left, he said, the high-end Ruth's Chris had added about 30 steak houses. So, to him, the math is simple: More than 700 new restaurants opened during his career, multiplied by an average number of about 60 new employees per restaurant, for more than 40,000 jobs. (For his specific estimates, see box.) Miller said his job claim did not include a National Restaurant Association stat-booster that says every restaurant job supports almost a full position elsewhere in the economy, which he figured would have put his job creation total "somewhere north of 80,000 or 90,000." "I tried to be conservative, because I come from a financial analysis background," he said. "I wanted to make sure we don't overstate what I've done." With Miller's calculus in hand, we started our own search, chatting with folks and digging through old news clips and earnings releases to piece together the numbers — and Miller's role in them. We'll accept the average-employees-per-restaurant figure of 62.5 that Miller used in making his claim — after checking with experts and industry data. And his estimates for the numbers of restaurants that popped up during his tenure at a handful of companies, while not exact, were generally close when we spot-checked them against business stories and earnings reports from the time. As for his role: Certainly, the guy has a reputation as a growth machine. Chris Muller, the dean of hospitality administration at Boston University, was an expert in chain restaurants at University of Central Florida when he met Miller. He named Miller UCF's restaurateur of the year in 2000 and featured him at a European food service conference. He also invested in Ruth's Chris when Miller took it public in 2005. He described Miller's approach as "very aggressive" as the head of Uno, which grew from just 10 to 15 restaurants when he joined as a vice president to nearly 200 when he left as CEO, and said he was similarly expansion-focused at Ruth's Chris, where he took the company public, creating additional pressure for growth. "So he does have a history of creating positions for people," Muller said. Of course, that growth also meant Ruth's Chris was stretched thin as the economy started to flail, and its stock price dove. The board asked Miller to leave in 2008. Miller's expansionist style had its "positives and negatives," Muller said, but you couldn't deny he was a "growth-oriented CEO." But what about his role before he was a head honcho? Miller's campaign manager pointed us to Bill Bridges, who worked with Miller for most of the 1970s, starting at General Mills as director of personnel the year before Miller came on board. He recalls a bright, hard-working guy who analyzed sites for expansion and made presentations to the executive committee about where to build. "From that perspective, he was integral to the growth of the company," he said. Miller's own two-page biography says he held positions at General Mills in finance, planning and analysis, development, real estate, corporate growth and purchasing. But he was there for over a decade. We had to know: Did he jump in with both feet, spawning Red Lobsters from his first months at General Mills in his early 20s? And that's when part of the story got off track. In 1996, when Miller was named CEO of Uno Restaurant Corp., the Boston Business Journal wrote a profile. It told of Miller's journey from high-school dishwasher to Vietnam Air Force veteran to accounting major at Florida State University. Then it described his start with General Mills in Tallahassee, after he wrote the company a letter asking about positions at Red Lobster. He didn't yet have his business degree, but "in 1973 became a part-time auditor of the local restaurant." Later, the article says, he was asked to audit the books of another Red Lobster in Central Florida. He finished his degree at University of Central Florida in 1974, it says, and started working in payroll. Eventually he became vice president of finance. Which means Miller claims to have created jobs at restaurants that sprang up as he was a 20-something part-time auditor and then a payroll employee. It's not clear how long it took for him to reach management. The claim gets even murkier when you look closely at his own bio. General Mills Restaurants' success was led by the blockbuster growth of Red Lobster, which by 1983 — just 15 years after the first restaurant opened — had 350 locations in 36 states and had started to reach into Japan, according to New York Times article at the time. But while Craig Miller's General Mills career started with paper-pushing, the last part focused on a chain with a far less impressive legacy than Red Lobster. As a finance guy, Miller had helped General Mills put together the acquisition of small Mexican food chain Casa Gallardo, according to the Boston Business Journal. His biography notes that after that deal in 1979, his "primary duties" were as vice president of the Mexican chain. Starting with just a handful of restaurants — one, according to his bio, or five, according to the Business Journal — Miller and Ramon Gallardo took the Casa Gallardo chain to 34. The goal, said an article at the time, had been 100. Not long after Miller had moved on to Pizzeria Uno, General Mills dumped the chain, which by then numbered just 25. It had been profitable for General Mills, just not profitable enough. "We didn't get it all put together with the speed that enabled us to capitalize," company spokesman Dean Belbas told Minneapolis-St. Paul City Business shortly after the sale. Why does any of this matter? Well, in Miller's back-of-the-napkin math, new Red Lobsters made up nearly half the jobs he claimed credit for. But those include new Red Lobsters while he was a part-time auditor. New Red Lobsters while he worked in payroll. New Red Lobsters while he worked in finance. New Red Lobsters as he built Casa Gallardo. His campaign's response? "He was the top financial and economic adviser to the CEO and was directly involved in all aspects of the company's business, even while serving as vice president of Casa Gallardo," campaign manager Paul Ciaramitaro said. "Craig had a vital hand in the company expansion and job creation at General Mills during the 1970s and into the 1980s." But was Miller ultimately responsible? More so than Red Lobster's founder, Bill Darden, or the man who followed in his footsteps, former Darden Restaurants chairman and CEO Joe Lee? Joe Lee did tell the Boston Business Journal in 1996 he considered Miller "one of the industry's top leaders." (We attempted to reach him at home, unsuccessfully.) But we would dare to speculate he wouldn't credit Miller with every job at every restaurant General Mills added from 1973 to 1984. Where does this leave us? Several folks told us that Miller's a respected restaurateur. Like Herman Cain, a former president and CEO of the National Restaurant Association, he served in leadership there as chairman of the board. Companies grew dramatically under his corporate leadership. But to reach 40,000 jobs created, Miller takes credit for thousands of jobs he wasn't in a position to create. Growth at Red Lobster, early in his career, accounts for 46 percent of his estimate — and it's a stretch to credit him for even half of that. He also counts job gains only and not losses — something any politician relying on net job creation numbers can't do. And we can't know how many jobs he actually added to communities — for every Casa Gallardo, a local mom-and-pop may have closed or had layoffs — though in strong economies, every job may have indeed added to the overall total. Make no mistake, our reporting shows Miller was a gung ho restaurant CEO who stressed expansion and by extension, job creation. A lower jobs number may have rated higher on the Truth-O-Meter. But 40,000 jobs? He just hasn't proved it. We rate this claim Barely True. Here's how Craig Miller breaks down his career job creation, with Red Lobster representing nearly half of the total: Miller's role: Joined as president and CEO; from Sept. 2006, also chairman of the board Restaurants added by company during tenure: 37 Estimated jobs created: 2,313 Miller's role: Joined as vice president for administration responsible for development and franchising, became executive vice president/chief operating officer, then in 1996 president and chief executive officer Restaurants added by company during tenure: About 185 Estimated jobs created: 11,563 Miller's role: Joined as part-time auditor before earning college degree; moved to payroll; held positions in finance, planning and analysis, development, real estate, corporate growth and purchasing; after acquisition of Casa Gallardo in 1979, primary duties were as vice president of Casa Gallardo Restaurants added by company during tenure: Casa Gallardo, about 30; Red Lobster, about 325; other brands, about 125 Estimated jobs created: 30,000 Sources: Craig Miller campaign, Boston Business Journal Notes: Restaurants added don't include acquisitions. General Mills Restaurants became Darden Restaurants in 1995.


Three Syrian refugees raped and murdered a 5-year-old girl at knifepoint in Idaho.

Explanation: What's true: Police investigated a 2 June 2016 incident in Twin Falls, Idaho, involving a five-year-old girl and three boys aged seven, ten, and fourteen. What's false: The incident was not a rape, the girl was not murdered, the boys involved were not Syrian, a knife was not used, and no "language barrier" prevented police from investigating or detaining two boys involved.

Uncategorized, idaho, infowars, mad world news

In June 2016, online outlets began reporting a rumor that three Syrian refugees had raped a 5-year-old Idaho girl at knifepoint, that police were lax in investigating the case, and that news media were refusing to cover the story: Proving a dangerous bias, the media have remained eerily silent on the horrific events that occurred on June 2. In a shameless bid to protect their leftist agenda, news outlets have given only vague details of the disturbing case, however, an outraged neighbor has come forward with the full story that is sure to put a damper on the federal refugee resettlement program. KMVT reported on June 7 that a sexual assault occurred near the Fawnbrook Apartment complex in Twin Falls, Idaho. Only stating that no charges have been filed, according to prosecutor Grant Loebs, the station concludes that allegations are swirling on social media from an eye witness. Although they’ve done well not to give any hint of who the perpetrators are, why they’re being investigated, or who the victim is, a neighbor has broken the silence out of pure indignance over the authorities’ handling of the case. The boys are ages 13, 10, and 8, and are Syrian refugee children from 2 families resettled in the apartments. What happened next is too sickening for mere words … [A] neighbor states that the Syrian boys stripped the girl naked, raped her, and urinated on her body and in her mouth. Although the two younger boys were unable to perform sexually due to their ages, the 13 “coached” the pair while he videoed the sexual assault after his own participation. The rumor made its way to a conspiracy-oriented web site, whose headline on the topic blared: “REPORT: THREE SYRIAN ‘REFUGEES; RAPE LITTLE GIRL AT KNIFEPOINT IN IDAHO; Furious residents accuse council of cover-up.” The headline made no mention of the ages of the “refugees” involved and asserted that police had declined to act due to a “language barrier”: Three Syrian refugees reportedly raped a little girl at knifepoint in Idaho before urinating on her body, an incident that prompted furious residents to accuse Twin Falls city council members of covering up the assault. The little girl was playing outside Fawnbrook apartment buildings when the boys put a knife to her throat and forced her inside a laundry unit. She was then stripped naked, raped and urinated on. The 13-year-old reportedly told the younger boys to urinate on her because they were incapable of ejaculating. The victim’s grandmother found the victim and then called the girl’s mother, who called the police. The police took 2 and a half hours to arrive but were unable to take any action due to the “language barrier”. When she arrived, the mother of the alleged rapists was only able to say “no police,” while the father reportedly congratulated his 13-year-old son. Video of the entire assault was captured on the boy’s cellphone. A follow-up KMTV report revealed that, “the case has officially been sealed by a judge with no chance of it ever being unsealed since all parties involved are minors.” A video of a Twin Falls council meeting shows irate residents demanding to know why council members have done nothing to address the alleged rape, as well as numerous other issues involving Syrian refugees being housed in the area, including hit and run incidents and Muslims spitting on non-Muslims. We contacted county prosecutor Grant Loebs to obtain first-hand information about the rumors. He confirmed to us that an incident did take place at the Fawnbrook Apartment complex in Twin Falls, Idaho, on 2 June 2016 involving  a five-year-old girl, a seven-year-old boy, a ten-year-old boy, and a 14-year-old boy. Loebs said that the three boys were of Middle Eastern descent, but they were not Syrian and he had no information indicating they were refugees. Because the case is still being investigated and involves minors, Loebs was unable to disclose many of its details. However, he confirmed that police have indeed been aggressively investigating leads in the case, observing all normal procedural practices rather than declining to act due to any purported language barriers. Officers have also interviewed the girl and all of the boys involved, with the ten- and fourteen-year-old boys having been detained in juvenile custody during the ongoing investigation. Loebs told us there was no indication a knife was involved in the incident, and that no one was “raped” or murdered (although contact of a sensitive nature allegedly occurred). Moreover, he stated that the investigation was a police matter, not one involving the local city council (which has no jurisdiction in criminal cases). Loebs subsequently provided much the same information to local news media:  “There were no Syrians involved, there was no knife involved, there was no gang-rape,” Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs said. His comments largely refute several differing accounts about the incident circulating on anti-refugee resettlement and conspiracy websites and anti-Muslim blogs. Most of those accounts claim a group of Syrian refugees sexually assaulted a mentally disabled girl at knife-point June 2 in the laundry facilities of Fawnbrook Apartments, a low-income housing complex in Twin Falls, and that the attack was celebrated by the perpetrators’ families as city officials orchestrated a cover-up. An incident did occur, Loebs said, and two juveniles have been charged after authorities obtained video shot on a cellphone. But the details of the case don’t match what’s being reported by anti-refugee groups, the prosecutor said. There were no adults involved, Loebs said, the boys didn’t have a knife, and the incident wasn’t a “gang-rape” instigated by the oldest boy. “All those involved are juveniles, and the older one didn’t touch the victim in any way,” Loebs said. Only one person is alleged to have touched the victim, said the prosecutor, though he declined to elaborate. Various officials attributed the spread of much of the misinformation reported about the case to locals opposed to refugee resettlement in their area:  Loebs said he didn’t want to “fan the flames of anti-Syrian refugee people” but suspects the false reports are the work of a local group opposed to refugee resettlement who hoped to stir up trouble by claiming the incident involved Syrian refugees who committed a violent sexual assault. “There is a small group of people in Twin Falls County whose life goal is to eliminate refugees, and thus far they have not been constrained by the truth,” Loebs said. “They have not been constrained by the truth in the past, and I don’t expect them to be constrained by the truth in the future.” Loebs said sex cases between minors aren’t uncommon and implied that this case is being exploited by the local anti-refugee movement to make a political point. No Syrians have been settled in Twin Falls through Idaho refugee programs, said Jan Reeves, director of the Idaho Office for Refugees. “There have been periodic website postings about hundreds of Syrians coming to Idaho that have all proven to be false in the past, and this is probably just one of those attempts to try and stir up hatred and bigotry,” he said. Echoing statements by the prosecutor, Zeze Rwasama, director of the CSI Refugee Center, said refugee opponents are trying to promote an agenda, particularly against Syrian refugees. He asked residents to confirm facts and refrain from speculating online. “It breaks my heart when people in the community are divided around issues of resettling refugees,” he said. Twin Falls Police Chief Craig Kingsbury later stated at a press conference that the boys involved were of Iraqi and Sudanese (not Syrian) descent, that “something a lot less serious than a sexual assault” was initially reported to police, and that none of the boys’ families were congratulating them following whatever took place:  At a press conference in Twin Falls, Chief Kingsbury addressed community members and the city council about the alleged assault and explained that two of the three boys involved in the incident are at a detention center following the alleged crime. The boys are reported to have been in the Twin Falls area for less than two years. The police chief also said there is no evidence to support claims the suspects’ fathers high-fived or praised the boys for committing the alleged assault, as has been reported on anti-refugee websites. Further refuting claims made in the stories online that police bungled the investigation or tried to cover it up, Loebs said the police investigated the incident thoroughly, interviewed everyone who needed to be and followed proper protocols. Kingsbury also addressed claims that it took the police department more than two hours to respond. “Simply, that just is not true,” the chief said. “The Twin Falls Police Department, the Magic Valley Paramedics, even the Twin Falls County Sheriff’s Office, responded in due time.” Earlier in his comments, Kingsbury said the call originally came in as “something a lot less serious than a sexual assault or lewd and lascivious conduct.” Chief Kingsbury was unable to confirm or deny if the boys are refugees. Multiple news outlets have indeed covered the incident, and they have “given only vague details of the disturbing case” because its active status and the involvement of minors precludes officials from providing more detail:  The criminal cases against those juveniles have been sealed, as is customary when children are charged. Although prosecutors and police are barred from discussing certain details in sealed juvenile cases,  [NOTE: The photograph displayed at the head of this article is unrelated to this case and does not picture anyone actually involved in the reported incident.]


UTA researcher patents “roach motel” for cancer

Explanation: This news release announces the European patent for a medical device that is designed to attract, trap and kill cancer cells. Ostensibly, the device could be used to detect early signs of metastasis in various forms of cancer, and potentially could find use in cancer treatment. However, the device’s utility at this point appears to be largely hypothetical. The release indicates that no clinical trials have been done; offers no information on benefits (or health risks) associated with such a device; and says nothing about the potential costs associated with such a device. Indeed, the release does not tell readers anything about the research that underlies the device. Based on the information in the release, the device appears to be — at this point — little more than a concept. As the National Cancer Institute notes, “Cancer has a major impact on society in the United States and across the world.” Indeed, cancers claim the lives of hundreds of thousands of people each year in the United States alone. With that in mind, it is important to be cautious when announcing a new tool that “can be used for early diagnosis and treatment of metastasized cancer.” To be more specific, one should at the very least be prepared to provide meaningful information to support the claim. Securing a patent may be valuable — both financially and for the public good — but that value can only be realized if the relevant technology can be used in a clinical setting. This release offers more questions than answers, with the foremost question being: will the device work in people?

cancer trap,University of Texas at Arlington

Cost is not mentioned. While it can be extremely difficult to place a precise cost on early stage medical technologies, the issue can be addressed in broader terms. Is the technology difficult to make? Can it be produced on a large scale? Are those questions that still need to be explored? This release neglects to do so, which is particularly problematic in a news release that is focused on the announcement of a patent. Patents are designed to secure intellectual property, allowing people and institutions to profit from their discoveries. As such, this release is effectively about business. Failing to address potential costs, even in the most general terms, is a significant oversight. Benefits are not put into any numerical context. In fact, benefits are discussed only in the most general of terms, referring to “early diagnosis” and the idea of “recruit[ing] the cancer cells into a small area where we can treat them with less overall side effects to the whole body.” However, the release also raises questions about how viable these potential benefits may be in human cancer patients. We’ll address this further under “Quality of Evidence.” Potential harms are not addressed. That may be for reasons that we’ll address under “Quality of Evidence.” The release provides little information to support its claims regarding the “cancer trap” that has been patented. There are two statements in the release that are particularly worth highlighting. First, the release states that: “The trap has been tested in the lab and proved effective on many kinds of cancer cells, including melanoma, prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, leukemia and esophageal cancer.” What sort of testing are they referring to? In vitro testing, wherein the technology was tested outside of a living organism? In vivo testing in an animal model, such as lab mice? Was this work peer reviewed or published anywhere? Second, the release quotes the lead researcher as saying: “We are hoping to move toward clinical trials in the next few years as this technology could potentially significantly increase the lifespan of cancer patients.” This statement would seem to indicate that the technology has not yet been tested in clinical trials. In other words, this statement seems to tell readers that the technology has never been tested in humans. That would mean we have no idea whether this technology could benefit human cancer patients, or what risks it may pose to patients. If this work has been done, the release needs to reference it. No disease mongering here. The release explains the rationale for the device and notes that it would be “complementary to current cancer treatments.” While the release does mention the institution’s overall level of funding for cancer research, it does not say where any of that funding came from — much less who funded the “cancer trap” research. Federal agencies? The private sector? Nonprofit organizations? The release offers only the broadest possible language regarding diagnosis and treatment of metastasizing cancers. We appreciate that it would be impossible to provide a detailed overview of the existing diagnosis and treatment options in a news release. However, we would expect some discussion of how the “cancer trap” would compare to existing techniques and technologies. This is missing. The release appears to be in conflict with itself here. On the one hand, the first paragraph talks about the patenting of an implantable medical device. On the other hand, the release also tells us that the researchers are “hoping to move toward clinical trials in the next few years.” The first paragraph may make many readers think this is a prototype that may be close to the market. But the lack of a timeline for clinical trials suggests that this could be many years away from clinical use (if it reaches clinical use at all). This lack of clarity is problematic. The language in the release is so broad that it is difficult to know what to compare it to. However, a quick search has no trouble finding other research efforts aimed at “trapping” cancer cells, such as this 2015 paper, this 2017 paper, or these news releases from 2014 and 2016. What sets this newly patented “cancer trap” apart? The release doesn’t tell us, because the release provides no context related to previous work in the field. The release tells readers that “This cancer trap can be used for early diagnosis and treatment of metastasized cancer.” The release also says “This method is effective for both diagnosing and treating metastasis cancer and can be used in combination with traditional chemotherapy and radiation therapy” and “We have also found it very effective in late stage cancers to stop the spread of the disease and to prolong lifespan.” Those are bold statements. But the release provides no information to support them and in fact raises doubt about their veracity when they state that no clinical trials have been done. Instead, the release also includes language that raises questions about the extent to which anyone knows how well the technology will perform in human patients. If the researchers have evidence that this technology is a significant advance for cancer diagnosis and treatment, the release doesn’t share it. While it may be interesting and newsworthy that a patent has been issued for this idea, this type of coverage is misdirected. It would be better covered in a brief report that states that the patent have been issued based on the hypothesis and suggests next steps in research.


A woman in South Korea was impregnated via mouth after eating a squid.

Explanation: What's true: A woman received several painful stings after she ate a squid's sperm bag in 2011. What's false: This woman was not impregnated by a squid, nor did she spit out baby squids.

A series of misleading and exaggerated headlines over the span of several years turned a story about a woman’s painful dining experience into a rumor about getting pregnant from a squid — via mouth. This turned into a battle of headlines as the facts . For example, an article published by The Sun in 2012 read: “Woman ‘pregnant’ with 12 baby squid.” Not to be outdone, the Mirror reported that the South Korean woman had become “pregnant by squid” and warned readers that they should “be careful when putting seafood in your mouth” because “you could end up spitting out babies.” Stories about the squeam-inducing squid encounter have been published by a wide range of outlets over the years. Most recently, this story was featured on an episode of Weird Wild World from the Facebook page “Nameless.tv”:  Some truth underlies these stories, but associated headlines (as well as some of the details) are severely misleading or wholly inaccurate and have led some readers to believe that a woman was “impregnated” by a squid via her mouth. The most misleading aspect of this rumor comes down to the words “pregnant” or “impregnate.” Although these words were frequently employed by outlets presumably hoping to generate clicks on their stories, they are inaccurate. The episode of Weird Wild World was actually referring to a case report originally published in Pathology International in September 2011: We present a case of stinging in the oral cavity caused by ingestion of the sperm bags of a squid. The patient experienced severe pain in her oral cavity immediately after eating raw squid. When she was examined at our hospital, we found that several small whitish spindle‐shaped stings were stuck to the mucous membrane of the hard palate. A biopsy was performed, and the whitish stings were removed as well. We also performed a histological examination of the remaining part of the raw squid brought by the patient. The biopsy showed that the sperm bags of the squid had thrust into the squamous epithelium of the patient. The remaining part of the raw squid consisted of the testis and the sperm bags. After removal of all stings, the pain reduced, and the wound healed in due course. Larva migrans and anisakiasis are infections known to be caused by consumption of raw seafood. Although the condition reported here is relatively rare, doctors should also keep this condition in mind for patients reporting pain after eating raw seafood. This woman, who was identified as a 63-year-old Korean woman in a subsequent report in the Journal of Parasitology, ate a sperm bag while ingesting a piece of raw squid. As Science 2.0 — one of the first web sites to pick up on this story when it first went viral in June 2012 — noted in their report about these rumors, there is a big difference between “inseminate” and “impregnate”:\ On Thursday I reported that a woman’s mouth had been inseminated by a squid she was eating. To be specific, squid spermatophores (packages of sperm) implanted themselves into her mucus membranes, and had to be removed by a doctor. Several sources have now erroneously reported that a woman was impregnated by a squid she was eating, and found baby squid in her mouth. Truth is strange — but this is fiction. “Impregnate” (in reproduction, not manufacturing) means that successful fertilization has already taken place: sperm met with egg and an embryo is developing. That did not happen. There was no impregnation, no pregnancy, and no baby squid. Exaggerated reports went one step further, claiming that the unfortunate woman had “squid babies” removed from where they had become embedded in her mouth: “A 63-year-old woman has become ‘pregnant’ with 12 baby squid after eating calamari.” This is another severe exaggeration. Doctors removed squid spermatophores, a capsule containing the squid sperm, from this woman’s mouth. For a number of scientific reasons (a human woman’s mouth is not the same as a female squid egg), these sperms never developed into baby squids. Although the story is bizarre, it is not without precedent. Several similar cases have been documented in various medical journals. A 2012 report in Zoomorphology examines these cases and explains that spermatophore attachment is autonomous (meaning it can occur without the aid of male or female squid) making the consumption of raw male squid a potentially hazardous dining experience: Male squid produce intricate spermatophores that, when transferred to the female, undergo the spermatophoric reaction, a complex process of evagination that leads to the attachment of the spermatangium, that is, the everted spermatophore containing the sperm mass. While this process is still not completely understood, the medical literature includes several reports of “oral stinging” (i.e., punctured wounds in the human oral cavity) following consumption of raw male squid, which contains undischarged spermatophores able to inflict such wounds. Moreover, spermatophore attachment is confirmed to be autonomous (i.e., performed by the spermatophore itself) in another squid species (possibly a loliginid), and the results strongly indicate that the attachment mechanism is not dependent upon a specialized epithelium, nor a mate’s specific chemical stimulus. From the pathological point of view, the best prophylactic measure at present is the removal of the internal organs of the raw squid prior to its consumption. Medical journals have documented several instances of people being stung by spermatophores after ingesting raw squid, but these reports, specifically an instance from 2011, were grossly misrepresented with clickbait headlines.


Gillibrand to discuss federal effort to combat Lyme disease.

Explanation: U.S. Sen. Kristen Gillibrand will be in upstate New York to discuss efforts by the federal government to battle Lyme disease.

Hudson, New York, Ticks, Lyme disease, Health

The New York Democrat will be in Hudson Falls in Washington County and later at Paul Smith’s College in the Adirondacks to announce that the Trump administration has started the process to establish the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group. Formation of the group was a provision in Gillibrand’s Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act, which became law in December. The group will serve as a federal advisory committee to the Department of Health and Human Services regarding tick-borne diseases. In 2015, New York state reported more than 3,200 confirmed cases of Lyme disease to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


Queen Elizabeth removed the Obamas from the guest list for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's wedding after she learned that Michelle Obama tried to "sneak a spot.

Explanation: Unlike the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in 2011, this royal wedding is not an official state occasion and is regarded as a private ceremony, so there is no onus on the couple to invite political leaders.

Junk News, barack obama, fake news, just news usa

The official guest list for the royal wedding of Britain’s Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had not been released as of early December 2017, but that didn’t stop disreputable web sites from inventing politically-charged stories about who would and wouldn’t be invited. The pro-Trump fake news site Just News USA reported on 3 December 2017 that despite “kissing up” to the royal family and trying to “sneak” an invitation to Harry’s wedding, former United States President and First Lady Barack and Michelle Obama had been “personally removed” from the guest list by Queen Elizabeth: For eight years, Michelle Obama genuinely thought she was a queen and expected to be treated like one. Now that she’s a regular citizen, she’s having a hard time of letting go of her former status as the (failed) first lady and keeps trying to push her way into every major social scene where she doesn’t belong and is apparently not invited. When she heard the news that Prince Harry was marrying a black American girl, she assumed it was her place to be on that guest list, which has to be approved by the Queen of England herself. Michelle made a desperation move to sneak a spot on that exclusive guest list and as soon as the real queen found out what the wannabe royalty did, she delivered a brutal beatdown that was definitely deserved. Several other sites, including the consistently unreliable  YourNewsWire.com, published slightly rearranged versions of the same article. For example: Invitations to Royal weddings in England have traditionally been extended to the sitting President of the United States and the current First Lady, so when Queen Elizabeth saw what Michelle Obama was up to – trying to sneak a spot at the wedding at the expense of the real POTUS and FLOTUS – she delivered Michelle a well-deserved and humiliating beatdown. While Barack Obama has been traveling around the world, operating as some kind of shadow president and attempting to undermine the real POTUS, Michelle has been trying to push her way into every major social event where she doesn’t belong and is apparently not invited. When Michelle Obama heard the news that Prince Harry was marrying a black American girl, she assumed it was her rightful place to be on that guest list. Michelle made a desperate move to sneak a spot on the guest list, but unfortunately for the former First Lady, the guest list has to be approved by the Queen of England herself. There was no basis in fact for any of these claims. As of 30 November (just a few days before these reports began appearing), word from Kensington Palace was that the guest list was still “in the early stages of being compiled,” according to the Telegraph, and the royal betrothed would have “primary input” into who would be on that list. No mainstream news sources in England or anywhere else reported that the Obamas were on the outs with Queen Elizabeth, nor that the queen intended to disinvite them or other potential wedding guests. As a matter of fact, if anyone were likely to be disinvited, it would probably have been President Trump, judging from the Telegraph‘s report, for two reasons: one, because it would go against the established precedent, which is not to invite sitting U.S. presidents to British royal weddings; and two, because bride-to-be Meghan Markle, who is an American, is not a big fan of Trump, whom she has called “misogynistic” and “divisive.” The Obamas, on the other hand, have enjoyed a comparatively warm relationship with the royal family ever since 2009, when the then-First Lady broke with protocol and hugged the queen during their first meeting. Barack Obama was seen hanging out with groom-to-be Prince Harry as recently as May 2017: Prince Harry hosted former US President @BarackObama at Kensington Palace today. pic.twitter.com/9SWfSRY4FH — Kensington Palace (@KensingtonRoyal) May 27, 2017  A 27 November 2017 article in Newsweek told a story very different from what would be reported by Just News USA and other fake news sites days later: The guest list hasn’t been set for the royal wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, but a number of things could stand in the way of President Donald Trump getting an invite. But a former U.S. president might make the list, due to his friendship with the young British royal: Barack Obama and his wife, former first lady Michelle, who appear to have amiable relations with Harry and his elder brother and future king, Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge. In the end, neither President Trump nor President Obama was invited, for reasons explained by the Palace: Kensington Palace announced that the royal couple would not be inviting political leaders to the event, at least not on the basis of their official position. Which means neither US President Donald Trump nor his predecessor Barack Obama will be there. Not even British Prime Minister Theresa May was deemed worthy of a place on the guest list. Instead, only personal friends of the couple will be inside Windsor Castle for the royal event of the year on May 19. “It has been decided that an official list of political leaders — both UK and international — is not required for Prince Harry and Ms. Markle’s wedding,” a Kensington Palace spokesman said. “Her Majesty’s Government was consulted on this decision, which was taken by the royal household.” A White House official confirmed neither Trump nor first lady Melania were invited; nor was Prime Minister May, Downing Street said. A royal source said that while Harry and Meghan hoped to see Barack and Michelle Obama soon, the former US President and his wife would not be at the wedding. The source would not say definitively whether the Obamas — who are close to the royal couple — had been invited.


Hank Johnson Says "by reducing chronic health care costs in the State of Georgia, we can reduce the $32.8 billion lost each year due to lack of productivity and economic costs.

Explanation: Johnson on target about health, productivity cost link

Georgia, Economy, Health Care, Hank Johnson,

A Georgia congressman’s defense of the hotly debated health care law brought some skepticism from one PolitiFact reader. "By reducing chronic health care costs in the State of Georgia, we can reduce the $32.8 billion lost each year due to lack of productivity and economic costs," Johnson, a Democrat from DeKalb County, wrote in a letter to Daniel Patterson. Patterson forwarded the letter to PolitiFact Georgia. We hadn’t heard this claim before and decided to do some research. Johnson spokesman Andy Phelan said the numbers came from a study done by the Milken Institute, a nonpartisan, economic think tank with offices in Southern California and Washington, D.C. In October 2007, the institute released a widely reported study called "An Unhealthy America: The Economic Burden of Chronic Disease." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote about the study. The study’s first sentence highlighted the trouble. "More than half of Americans suffer from one or more chronic diseases," it read. The seven diseases the 240-page study focused on were cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, mental disorder, pulmonary conditions and strokes. In 2003, there were 162.2 million Americans who suffered from one or more of those conditions, the study found. The productivity losses associated with those seven diseases were about $1.1 trillion. In Georgia, the Milken Institute researchers wrote in their study that the economic impact was $32.8 billion, as Johnson said. The researchers found about 5 million cases of those conditions were reported by Georgians in 2003. Pulmonary conditions and hypertension were easily the highest number of diseases reported. The researchers created an index and determined Georgia had the 31st healthiest population in the country. The healthiest states were largely along or west of the Rocky Mountains. The least healthiest states were along the Eastern Seaboard and the South. Utah was the healthiest state, and West Virginia was the least healthy state. The researchers calculated the number of lost workdays by using data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Interview Survey and matching all individuals who had a particular illness with the number of lost workdays in the last 12 months due to illness or injury. The next step they took was to multiply those days lost times wages per employee. Georgia’s total was 3 percent of the national cost. Georgia has about 3 percent of the nation’s population. We wondered since the study was based on 2003 figures how much the numbers have changed since then. Ross DeVol, the lead researcher, said no subsequent work had been done to determine what the total would be, but he guessed it would be greater today. "I can say with great certainty that the number is much higher today," DeVol told PolitiFact Georgia via email. Another report released in May, though, found lost productivity from various health problems was much less than the Milken Institute’s estimate. The report by Gallup-Healthways calculated the total at $84 billion a year. The conditions the Gallup-Healthways study described as chronic included asthma, cancer, depression, diabetes, heart attacks, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity and various physical pains. The estimated cost for each worker per day was $341. The Gallup-Healthways report based its findings on interviews with 94,000 adults nationwide who worked more than 30 hours a week, asking them how many workdays they missed each month due to poor health. Phone interviews were conducted from January through September 2012. The majority responded they missed about one day every three months. Phelan, the congressman’s spokesman, said he had not seen the Gallup-Healthways report beforehand. Phelan said he would reference the Milken report in future correspondence with constituents. "While both studies looked at lost productivity due to illnesses and disease, the Gallup study looks at it from the perspective of 14 job types for the entire nation while the Milken study looked at it from the standpoint of the illnesses and diseases people suffer and specifically at each state, including Georgia," Phelan said via email. There’s little additional research on this topic. The CDC looked at the economic impact of some conditions. "In 2009, the economic costs of cardiovascular diseases and stroke were estimated at $475.3 billion, including $313.8 billion in direct medical expenses and $161.5 billion in indirect costs ($39.1 billion in lost productivity due to sickness or disability and $122.4 billion in lost productivity due to premature death)," the CDC found. The $122.4 billion in lost productivity is more than the Gallup-Healthways conclusion, and that estimate was for just strokes and cardiovascular diseases. A 2001 report from the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine found 2.5 billion workdays were lost a year due to chronic diseases ranging from cancer to arthritis to substance abuse. To sum up, Rep. Johnson said in a letter that "by reducing chronic health care costs in the State of Georgia, we can reduce the $32.8 billion lost each year due to lack of productivity and economic costs." The congressman’s claim was based on accurate numbers from a Milken Institute study that appeared well-researched. We did find other research that differs from the Milken study. Johnson’s claim is based on accurate information, but there is a little context necessary to fully examine his statement. Under our rating system, Johnson gets a .


Dr. Fauci says every American should be microchipped.

Explanation: There is no evidence that Dr. Anthony Fauci has said every American should be "microchipped." Fauci has suggested Americans might someday carry certificates of immunity to COVID-19. Similar claims that Democrats and others are pushing microchips to fight the coronavirus have been debunked.

Public Health, Technology, Facebook Fact-checks, Coronavirus, Facebook posts,

Over the course of the coronavirus outbreak, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has become a household name — and a frequent target of misinformation. PolitiFact has debunked several online claims about Fauci from people trying to discredit him, including the idea that he has a financial stake in a coronavirus vaccine and that he served on Microsoft’s board of directors. A new claim says Fauci wants to "microchip" Americans. "Dr. Fauci says every American should be microchipped," one Facebook post says. This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat  news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence to support this claim, or any of several other claims that prominent people are pushing to implant or inject microchips into people as a response to COVID-19. PolitiFact previously fact-checked a claim that Democrats were pushing to implant microchips in humans and found it to be . We found no evidence of proposals or legislation that promoted the use of implanted microchips to fight COVID-19. Other news outlets including FactCheck.org and Reuters have also debunked claims that philanthropist Bill Gates planned to use microchip implants to combat coronavirus. This claim about microchips may have originated from a misinterpretation of a statement Gates made about possibly using "digital certificates" for health records on immunity. But he never said those certificates would be contained in microchips going into people. Gates’s interest in digital certificates may have also triggered  claims that he was pushing tracking bracelets and "invisible tattoos" to monitor Americans under lockdown. Fauci, too, has spoken about digital certificates of immunity. "You know, that’s possible," Fauci told CNN when asked if he could imagine a time where Americans carried certificates of immunity. "It’s one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure that we know who the vulnerable people are and not. This is something that’s being discussed. I think it might actually have some merit under certain circumstances." However, PolitiFact could find nothing to support the claim that Fauci said he wants every American microchipped. We rate this claim .


Representative Mick Mulvaney, who was recently selected as the Trump administration's nominee for director of the Office of Management and Budget, one posed the question “Do we really need government-funded research at all?” on Facebook.

Explanation: Mulvaney has not commented on his reason for deleting the post.

Politics, research, science, trump administration

On 17 December 2016, President-elect Donald Trump nominated South Carolina representative Mick Mulvaney to lead the Office of Management and Budget. From the transition team statement: “We are going to do great things for the American people with Mick Mulvaney leading the Office of Management and Budget,” said President-elect Trump. “Right now we are nearly $20 trillion in debt, but Mick is a very high-energy leader with deep convictions for how to responsibly manage our nation’s finances and save our country from drowning in red ink. With Mick at the head of OMB, my administration is going to make smart choices about America’s budget, bring new accountability to our federal government, and renew the American taxpayer’s trust in how their money is spent.” He has been characterized by many as a “deficit hawk” and is a member of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of hard-line fiscal conservatives. As director of the OMB, he would run an organization that, in its words: Assists the President in overseeing the preparation of the Federal budget and in supervising its administration in Federal agencies [and] also oversees and coordinates the Administration’s procurement, financial management, information, and regulatory policies. On 19 December 2016, Mother Jones’ Pema Levy reported on one of Mulvaney’s since-deleted Facebook posts, unearthed by a Democratic opposition research group named American Bridge. This post from 9 September 2016 came at a time that Congress was debating funding research into efforts to fight the spread of the Zika virus. In it, Mulvaney suggested the federal government (whose budget office he is now nominated to lead) might not be well served by funding science research at all: It has been a busy week, and with everything else going on I haven’t had a chance to post on Zika, which I know has been in the news a bit. I have received all sorts of emails and FB comments this week on Zika. Some people want me to pass a “clean” bill (which I suppose means not paying for it with spending reductions elsewhere). Other folks want us to fund more research if we can find a way to pay for it. No one has written me yet, though, to ask what might be the best question: do we really need government-funded research at all. The post, though deleted, can still be viewed on a cached version of Mulvaney’s Facebook page. His argument against science funding (and science in general) seems to follow arguments made by other prominent Trump transition team figures: because science is sometimes wrong, or not clear cut, it shouldn’t be trusted. In defense of his opposition to funding Zika research, the remainder of this 9 September 2016 post cited a recent study that cast doubt on the viruses connection to infant microcephaly: And before you inundate me with pictures of children with birth defects, consider this: Brazil’s microcephaly epidemic continues to pose a mystery — if Zika is the culprit, why are there no similar epidemics in other countries also hit hard by the virus? In Brazil, the microcephaly rate soared with more than 1,500 confirmed cases. But in Colombia, a recent study of nearly 12,000 pregnant women infected with Zika found zero microcephaly cases. If Zika is to blame for microcephaly, where are the missing cases? Perhaps there is another reason for the epidemic in Brazil. According to a new report by the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), the number of missing cases in Colombia and elsewhere raises serious questions about the assumed connection between Zika and microcephaly. That isn’t from some politicians website or some right-wing advocacy group. The information to which Mulvaney is referring comes from a press release provided by the New England Complex Systems Institute, and posted on the science news aggregator ScienceDaily.com on 24 June 2016. The findings that Mulvaney cites to are summarized in that release: In Brazil, the microcephaly rate soared with more than 1,500 confirmed cases. But in Colombia, a recent study of nearly 12,000 pregnant women infected with Zika found zero microcephaly cases. If Zika is to blame for microcephaly, where are the missing cases? In the final portion of Mulvaney’s post, he incorrectly asserts that this scientific information came from the New England Journal of Medicine because the press release cited a study from that journal. The NEJM study cited in the release — a review of data from Brazil’s Zika epidemic — concluded the exact opposite: On the basis of this review, we conclude that a causal relationship exists between prenatal Zika virus infection and microcephaly and other serious brain anomalies. And, as it turns out, so did the New England Complex Systems Institute. A closer look at the actual reports reveals that the NECSI had been releasing semi-monthly reports on Zika in Colombia since May 2016. Early on, they found no evidence to support a connection between the virus and microcephaly. Later data, however, revealed that more time was needed to see the effects of the virus in children born to Zika infected mothers. In their August report (the final one in this series), they stated: The epidemic of Zika in Colombia was expected to result in many cases of microcephaly. However, until epidemiological week 23 (June 11) there were only 6 reported cases. The number of cases increased to 21 in weeks 24-27, which appears to confirm expectations about Zika as a cause of microcephaly […]


Smoking to kill 5.6 million US kids if not stubbed out: report.

Explanation: Another 5.6 million American children may die prematurely unless smoking rates fall in the United States, according to a report by the U.S. surgeon general which links a range of new illnesses to the habit.

Fifty years after the first surgeon general’s report declared smoking a hazard to human health, the new study adds conditions ranging from colon cancer to diabetes and arthritis to the tally of tobacco-related diseases. The report, the first in more than a decade, found that smoking has killed more than 20 million Americans prematurely in the last half century. Although adult smoking rates have fallen to the current 18 percent from 43 percent of Americans in 1965, each day, more than 3,200 youths under the age 18 try their first cigarette, according to the report published on Friday. “Enough is enough,” acting Surgeon General Dr Boris Lushniak said in a telephone interview. “We need to eliminate the use of cigarettes and create a tobacco-free generation.”  Federal health officials are calling on businesses, state and local governments, and society as a whole, to end smoking within a generation through hard-hitting media campaigns, smoke-free air policies, tobacco taxes, unhindered access to cessation treatment and more spending by state and local governments on tobacco control. “It’s not just the federal lead on this anymore,” said Lushniak. “To get this done, we have to go to industry. We have to go to healthcare providers and remind them that this problem is not yet solved.”  The report, dubbed The Health Consequences of Smoking, 50 Years of Progress, details the growing science showing the diseases and health conditions caused by smoking since Dr Luther Terry issued the landmark report on January 11, 1964, that first confirmed smoking tobacco caused lung cancer. In that first report, only lung cancer was associated with smoking. Now there are 13. “We’re still a country very much addicted to tobacco,” U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said at a White House event to mark the anniversary. The new report adds liver and colorectal cancer to that list, but it also details several other conditions caused by smoking, including diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and impaired immune function, and cleft palate in infants. And in a startling statistic, the report found that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of stroke by 20 to 30 percent. “It really is astonishing that even 50 years in, we are finding new ways that tobacco maims and kills people,” Dr Thomas Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a telephone interview. He said the report found that smoking costs the nation $130 billion in direct medical expenses each year. Frieden reiterated that tobacco control efforts have saved as many as 8 million lives in the past five decades, but stressed that much more needs to be done to eliminate smoking, which remains the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. At the White House, officials pointed squarely at the tobacco industry continued efforts to promote their products. “This is not an accident,” Assistant Health Secretary Howard Koh said. “These deaths do not occur just by chance. Each year, the tobacco industry spends $8 billion - nearly $1 million an hour - to advertise and market cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products.”  As a result, Lushniak urged public health officials to take tougher action to curb tobacco use: “It’s all about getting more aggressive than we have been.”  Officials called on states to increase their investment in smoking prevention. CDC’s Frieden said states get $80 per capita from tobacco companies related to a major legal settlement in 1998, in which big tobacco makers agreed to pay $206 billion to 46 states to help pay the costs of treating ailing smokers. Although CDC recommends that states spend at least $12 per person on tobacco control, states “actually only spend about $1.50, and it’s been decreasing in recent years,” he said. Harold Wimmer, president and chief executive of the American Lung Association, said the new report, coming on the heels of the 50th anniversary of the landmark 1964 report, present an opportunity for renewed political commitment to ending the tobacco epidemic. On Wednesday, his group will release its own report grading state and federal efforts to control tobacco. “Only a recommitment to a heightened level of action will enable us to finish the job,” Wimmer said. Last week, the group and other advocacy organizations called on political leaders to commit to cutting smoking rates to less than 10 percent of the population in a decade and to protect all Americans from secondhand smoke within five years. Friday’s report briefly touched on the increasingly controversial topic of electronic or e-cigarettes - devices designed to deliver nicotine through vapor instead of tobacco smoke. It noted that major tobacco companies, including Altria Group Inc, best known for its Marlboro brand; Reynolds American Inc, maker of Camel cigarettes; and Lorillard Inc, maker of Newport cigarettes, have invested in the products. Previous studies have suggested that people can use the devices as smoking cessation tools, but some public health advocates worry that e-cigarettes might introduce more people to nicotine, the addicting chemical found in tobacco. Electronic devices that feature fruit and candy flavors are even more worrying, critics say, because they could introduce children to smoking. And there are still questions about the safety of the vapors released by the devices. Health groups and state attorneys general have been pressuring the FDA to impose regulations on the devices. CDC’s Frieden urged caution as the industry comes up with various new products given the known dangers about tobacco. “If we’re talking about tobacco products ... they are guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around,” he said at the White House. “All of these products may have an positive role is appropriately regulated but not in the way that they are being sold now with widespread marketing, over the Internet, with bubble gum and cotton candy flavors, with free samples.”  Altria said in a statement that it supports the FDA’s authority to regulate e-cigarettes as an extension of its power to regulate tobacco. “Our tobacco companies continue to focus on developing lower-risk products that appeal to adult tobacco consumers and see this as an important business opportunity under FDA regulation,” the company added.


Pandemic-related shutdown orders are unconstitutional, and persons arrested for violating them can collect damages.

Explanation: The challengers included a golf course, laundromat, timber company, real-estate agent and political committee tied to a Republican state legislative candidate. They turned to the nation’s top court after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected their arguments.

As Americans in various U.S. cities began demonstrating in April 2020 for the relaxation of social distancing and lockdown restrictions enacted to blunt the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, some protesters claimed that such restrictions were unconstitutional infringements of individual rights. One example of such claims was a social media post that asserted that citizens arrested for violating shutdown orders could “win damages in court” because “the constitution supersedes any other law”:  However, the basic premise of this message was wrong. Measures enacted to protect the public health, both during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 and in earlier health crises, have consistently been upheld against challenges in U.S. courts. For example, on May 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to lift a shutdown order issued by the governor of Pennsylvania requiring all non-life-sustaining businesses to temporarily close: The U.S. Supreme Court refused to lift Pennsylvania’s shutdown order, rejecting a request from businesses and a political campaign that said their constitutional rights were being violated. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat, ordered all non-life-sustaining businesses closed in March to stem the spread of the coronavirus. The state has since begun easing the restrictions.


In 1926, engineer and inventor Nikola Tesla predicted that humanity would one day "be able to communicate with one another instantly, irrespective of distance" and that "the instruments through which we shall be able to do all of this will fit in our vest pockets.

Explanation: Did Nikola Tesla Describe Mobile Phones in 1926?

On September 19 2019, an Imgur user shared the following quote meme, attributing commentary that seemed to predict cell phones to futurist and engineer Nikola Tesla (misspelled once as “Nikolai Tesla” in the post):Did Nikolai Tesla invent the Cronovisor?In a comment, the image’s submitter referenced an unsupported claim about Tesla “shocking himself” and “seeing” the “past, present, and future,” and alluded to a conspiracy theory about an alleged time viewer rumored to be called a “chronovisor”:When Tesla accidentally got shocked by very high voltage he claimed to have seen the past, the present, and the future all at once. From this might he have experienced cronovision and then later invent the Cronovisor?On the meme, text read:Nikola Tesla Describing a Cell Phone in 1926“When wireless is perfectly applied the whole earth will be converted into a huge brain, which in fact it is, all things being particles of a real and rhythmic whole. We shall be able to communicate with one another instantly, irrespective of distance. Not only this, but through television and telephony we shall see and hear one another as perfectly as though we were face to face, despite intervening distances of thousands of miles, and the instruments through which we shall be able to do all of this, will fit in our vest pockets.” Nikola Tesla, 1926September 2019 did not mark the first appearance of the quote on Imgur or Reddit; in May 2015, it was submitted in text format to r/quotes:"When wireless is perfectly applied the whole earth will be converted into a huge brain…" – Nikola Tesla, 1926 from quotesTesla did not, however, seem to predict that these wondrous and miraculous vest-pocket devices would also be almost instantly blamed for distracting the whole of humanity from staring at one another on train cars or looking out windows. (Tesla also didn’t appear to know that vests or waistcoats would fall to the wayside in favor of hoodies. )Elements of Tesla’s purported prognostication were poetic and subjective, describing the interconnected future world as a “whole earth … converted into a huge brain” and “all things being particles of a real and rhythmic whole.” That portion of the quote wouldn’t immediately be recognized by most readers as a prediction of cellular phones, but the preceding comments did sound reasonably well-guessed nearly a hundred years later.By way of context, telephones had been around for nearly half a century in 1926, the year Tesla made his purported phone prediction:In 1877-78, the first telephone line was constructed, the first switchboard was created and the first telephone exchange was in operation. Three years later, almost 49,000 telephones were in use. In 1880, Bell merged this company with others to form the American Bell Telephone Company and in 1885 American Telegraph and Telephone Company (AT&T) was formed; it dominated telephone communications for the next century. At one point in time, Bell System employees purposely denigrated the U.S. telephone system to drive down stock prices of all phone companies and thus make it easier for Bell to acquire smaller competitors.By 1900 there were nearly 600,000 phones in Bell’s telephone system; that number shot up to 2.2 million phones by 1905, and 5.8 million by 1910. In 1915 the transcontinental telephone line began operating. By 1907, AT&T had a near monopoly on phone and telegraph service, thanks to its purchase of Western Union. Its president, Theodore Vail, urged at the time that a monopoly could most efficiently operate the nation’s far-flung communications network. At the urging of the public and AT&T competitors, the government began to investigate the company for anti-trust violations, thus forcing the 1913 Kingsbury Commitment, an agreement between AT&T vice president Nathan Kingsbury and the office of the U.S. Attorney General. Under this commitment, AT&T agreed to divest itself of Western Union and provide long-distance services to independent phone exchanges.In 1891, thirty years prior, an AT&T wrote (albeit less lyrically):A system of telephony without wires seems one of the interesting possibilities, and the distance on the earth through which it is possible to speak is theoretically limited only by the curvation of the earth.In that context, not only had telephones been around for almost fifty years by then, but speculation they one day might lack wires took place three decades before, too. And in 1901, Guglielmo Marconi transmitted the first transatlantic wireless telegraph. In fact, Marconi and Tesla scuffled over who did what first:In 1909 Marconi shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with the German physicist Karl F. Braun, the inventor of the cathode ray tube. Marconi’s accolades were not without controversy: many other men had claims (some dubious, some not) to the “Father of Radio” title. As early as 1895, the Russian physicist Alexander Popov was broadcasting between buildings, while in India Jagdish Chandra Bose was using radio waves to ring bells and trigger explosions. In 1901 the Serbian-American electrical pioneer Nikola Tesla said he had developed a wireless telegraph in 1893; in 1943 the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated four Marconi radio patents, citing Tesla’s prior work.Articles about the Tesla quote appeared in July and January 2015. The latter piece mentioned that Tesla further seemed to fret over the “awakening of the intellect of women,” and he surmised:… Woman will ignore precedent and startle civilization with their progress.The acquisition of new fields of endeavor by women, their gradual usurpation of leadership, will dull and finally dissipate feminine sensibilities, will choke the maternal instinct, so that marriage and motherhood may become abhorrent and human civilization draw closer and closer to the perfect civilization of the bee.A citation for the original quote appeared in multiple places, including Tesla’s Wikiquote page. The quote appeared in the 1964 book Lightning in His Hand: The Life Story of Nikola Tesla, on pages 176 and 177.The publication in which it appeared was Colliers, and the piece (“When Woman is Boss,” an interview with Nikola Tesla by John B. Kennedy) was dated January 30 1926. The relevant portion appeared relatively early on in the interview, and included additional commentary about wireless technology:AT SIXTY-EIGHT years of age Nikola Tesla sits quietly in his study, reviewing the world that he has helped to change, foreseeing other changes that must come in the onward stride of the human race. He is a tall, thin, ascetic man who wears somber clothes and looks out at life with steady, deep-set eyes. In the midst of luxury he lives meagerly, selecting his diet with a precision almost extreme. He abstains from all beverages save water and milk and has never indulged in tobacco since early manhood.He is an engineer, an inventor and, above these as well as basic to them, a philosopher. And, despite his obsession with the practical application of what a gifted mind may learn in books, he has never removed his gaze from the drama of life.This world, amazed many times during the last throbbing century, will rub its eyes and stand breathless before greater wonders than even the past few generations have seen; and fifty years from now the world will differ more from the present-day than our world now differs from the world of fifty years ago.Nikola Tesla came to America in early manhood, and his inventive genius found quick recognition. When fortune was his through his revolutionary power-transmission machines he established plants, first in New York, then Colorado, later on Long Island, where his innumerable experiments resulted in all manner of important and minor advances in electrical science. Lord Kelvin said of him (before he was forty) that he had contributed more than any other man to the study of electricity.“From the inception of the wireless system,” he says, “I saw that this new art of applied electricity would be of greater benefit to the human race than any other scientific discovery, for it virtually eliminates distance. The majority of the ills from which humanity suffers are due to the immense extent of the terrestrial globe and the inability of individuals and nations to come into close contact.“Wireless will achieve the closer contact through transmission of intelligence, transport of our bodies and materials and conveyance of energy.“When wireless is perfectly applied the whole earth will be converted into a huge brain, which in fact it is, all things being particles of a real and rhythmic whole. We shall be able to communicate with one another instantly, irrespective of distance. Not only this, but through television and telephony we shall see and hear one another as perfectly as though we were face to face, despite intervening distances of thousands of miles; and the instruments through which we shall be able to do his will be amazingly simple compared with our present telephone. A man will be able to carry one in his vest pocket.“We shall be able to witness and hear events–the inauguration of a President, the playing of a world series game, the havoc of an earthquake or the terror of a battle–just as though we were present.“When the wireless transmission of power is made commercial, transport and transmission will be revolutionized. Already motion pictures have been transmitted by wireless over a short distance. Later the distance will be illimitable, and by later I mean only a few years hence. Pictures are transmitted over wires — they were telegraphed successfully through the point system thirty years ago. When wireless transmission of power becomes general, these methods will be as crude as is the steam locomotive compared with the electric train.”A meme with a vivid description of cell phones credited to Nikola Tesla in 1926 is correctly attributed. Tesla made the remarks among several in a January 1926 Collier’s interview with John B. Kennedy. Tesla is historically remembered for, among other things, detailed prognostications about the future of technology. However, some wireless advances existed in 1926, and Tesla was not the only person predicting “telephony without wires” in general.


One study calls fish a lifesaver, another is more cautious

Explanation: Health researchers have had a long and torrid affair with the humble fish. The New York Times article ably sums up the result of their imposing efforts—mass confusion. The story recaps the mixed evidence suggesting that fish eating can cheat death–as well as conflicting evidence suggesting it can speed our trip to the grave. The story’s sources are appropriate and their conflicts mostly transparent. The article’s omissions are mostly minor. However, there is one important failure. The story expresses the most significant reported benefits of fish consumption as reductions in the relative risk of death, but does not translate this into reductions in absolute risk; unfortunately, the JAMA study making the health claim does the same. (Read more about absolute vs. relative risk.) This is particularly relevant, because readers might overestimate the absolute risk reduction attributable to fish consumption for both cardiovascular disease and death.

The article did not report information about the costs of fish (from 63 cents to $2.59 per week, according to the JAMA study), but readers can easily find these on their own if they don’t know them already. The article expresses the most significant reported benefits of fish consumption—decreases in coronary death and total mortality—as reductions in relative risk. The article does not explain how this translates into reductions in absolute risk. (Read more about absolute vs. relative risk.) The story also doesn't explain what the risk of death is for those who do not consume fish—but neither does the JAMA study that makes the health claim. The story does quote one source who quips, “[The study] would indeed make eating fish the single most important decision you can make for your health.” The story presents balanced information about potential harms of fish consumption, though it would have been stronger if it had included more detail about harms. For example, it might have noted the effects of mercury on fetal development. The story explains briefly and accurately the quality of evidence to support the claims of cardioprotection (a mix of controlled trials and observational studies), and in so doing illustrates why it is so difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the health effects of fish consumption. This article will disappoint fishmongers and disease mongers alike. It carefully mutes the hope and hype surrounding both the purported benefits of dietary fish consumption (reductions in coronary death and death from all causes) as well as the risks (contamination by mercury, PCBs, and dioxins). The article cites an array of scientific experts, regulatory authorities, industry sources, and representatives of various advocacy groups. It also provides sufficient information to determine their potential conflicts of interest. The article nicely summarizes the potential advantages and disadvantages of fish consumption. However, it does not compare the reported protective effect of fish either to other potentially cardioprotective foods or to established medical therapies (e.g. aspirin) for cardiovascular disease. Eating fish is only one piece of a healthy lifestyle for minimizing risk of cardiovascular disease and overall mortality. There isn't any doubt about the availability of fish. The idea that fish consumption is protective against death and disease is not new, and the article provides sufficient context for readers to accurately judge this. Because the story relied on several different sources, it is appears safe to assume it did not rely solely or largely on a news release.


Find a goofy still frame of television, and people will propel it across the Internet. CNN got a taste of this law of social media on Wednesday after airing a silly-looking graphic about a serious topic: the Islamic State’s recruitment of female fighters. The anchor’s set-up of the segment did little to help viewers take it seriously. "ISIS is talking online about jars of Nutella, pictures of kittens and emojis," CNN Newsroom host Carol Costello said in the Feb. 18, 2015, segment. "These three images are in part helping ISIS recruiters lure westerners into their fight because they want people to believe their life on the battlefield isn't so different than yours. They actually eat Nutella, and I guess they have pet kittens." As she spoke, a highly sharable graphic depicting a jar of the chocolate hazelnut spread, two orange tabby kittens and a silly face from the emoji keyboard appeared with script (a chyron in TV talk) that said "ISIS LURES WOMEN WITH KITTENS, NUTELLA". Costello went on to interview Nimmi Gowrinathan, an academic who studies women in crisis and a visiting professor at the Colin Powell Center for Civic and Global Leadership at City College, New York. The words "Nutella," "kittens" or "emoji" were not part of their discussion. Instead Gowrinathan talked about how the discussion of female Islamic State fighters (also called ISIS or ISIL) should focus on the larger political suppression that pushes women to join these kind of movements rather than looking at what may have triggered one woman’s turning point to extremism. But her more nuanced discussion wasn’t the takeaway. Instead the blogosphere ranks of Jezebel, New York Magazine’s Daily Intel, and, most angrily, Vox dinged CNN for suggesting women could be easily "lured" into ISIS with guilty, silly pleasures. As fact-checkers, we felt beckoned to sort out the confusion. Was CNN’s segment just plain weird or onto something? CNN did not return emails and calls for comment. We went to experts who track jihadist groups, including ISIS, on social media. "The way that the CNN story was framed was kind of funny and eyeroll-inducing," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, "but it’s largely correct." The online prowess of the Islamic State is a well-documented strength of the movement. From videos to online forums to journals to various social media websites, supporters disseminate propaganda messages (90,000 a day) that are more slickly produced and reach wider audiences than efforts from other terrorist groups (think of al-Qaida home videos showing Osama bin Laden speaking into the camera with little other detail). ISIS even has plans for a 24-hour propaganda network, said Daniel Cohen, a research fellow and coordinator of the cyber security program at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies. The videos or posts are often translated into multiple languages so that demographic groups can be more effectively targeted around the world. Some of the imagery depicts a fulfilling life in a dream state ruled by sharia law, where kids are cheerful and ISIS recruits offer humanitarian aid in war zones. And yes, the group’s supporters also speak in emojis, tweet pictures of themselves unwinding with Nutella and run Twitter accounts like @ISILCats showing jihadists cuddling with kittens and kittens cuddling with firearms. It’s all part of an effort to speak the same cultural language as potential recruits so that they don’t think life with the Islamic State is all beheadings and burnings, Cohen said. "Most of the people sharing this content on social media came from Western culture," Cohen said. It makes them seem relatable and charismatic, said Gartenstein-Ross, adding that it’s nothing new for ISIS. Richard Brennan, a Middle East expert at the RAND Institute, said the ISIS campaign "is much more sophisticated" than what was portrayed on CNN. "It’s targeting the young men and women who want to be part of something greater than themselves to accept this movement for the validity that they believe the Koran is teaching," he said. Obviously, not all of the tweets, videos and images are cheery (the beheadings of prisoners, for instance). Other viral memes are designed to show how "disgusting" their enemies are by showing dead children’s bodies from bombs or airstrikes. The point is, the use of familiar western imagery in social media messages is just one tool in the Islamic State’s vast marketing toolbox, and the real motivations for someone joining the fight run much deeper. Those motivations are connected to the pursuit of identity and purpose. Some of the women recruited by ISIS act as internal police within their territories to make sure people are adhering to sharia law and stopping women who are not dressed appropriately, Cohen said. They also play a big role in online recruitment efforts. In an August article for Foreign Affairs, Gowrinathan criticized experts for being so perplexed by the formation of all-women brigades within ISIS. Women in war zones, she wrote, typically don’t have a role in the politics of their society and are drawn to extremism when they cannot air their grievances in the open. Still, some are coerced into joining and do so for their own safety. The audience for the communications with kittens and Nutella is a slim component of the majority of Sunni Islamic women who are joining ISIS from countries around the region out of oppression in their home state, she said in an interview with PunditFact. And even for the westerners, a life promising time with cute kitties and tasty sweets "won’t ever be enough of an effective recruitment tool for any group." "The kittens and emoticon thing is most damaging because it denies women any political agency," she said. "It infantilizes them in a way that you would assume they would be drawn to this for the most superficial reasons." For the record, Gowrinathan said she wasn’t brought on CNN to talk nutella and cats, nor was she pleased with the attention CNN producers brought to the popular hazelnut spread, winky faces and baby cats. "All I tried to point out is we dismiss women’s politics all the time," Gowrinathan said. Costello eventually deleted a tweet (which we captured below) promoting the segment with a video of the interview. And Gowrinathan tweeted that she did not, for the record, believe "emoticons are relevant in recruitment of #women to #isis." Our ruling This fact-check is a case study of what can go wrong when a news channel sacrifices nuance for an eye-catching graphic. On CNN, that graphic said, "ISIS LURES WOMEN WITH KITTENS, NUTELLA." There wasn’t much more to Costello’s introduction of the segment, but she did reference images of nutella, kittens and emojis that are used "in part" to recruit westerners. Costello’s words are technically accurate, but CNN’s click-baity graphic is incomplete and misleading. In reality, ISIS is using a vast array of tactics to persuade people to give up their lives for their fight. No expert would say that someone would join ISIS for the reasons isolated on CNN. To boil down ISIS’ recruitment strategy of women to nutella, emojis and kittens is a vast oversimplification that borders on the absurd. There is a shred of truth to this claim but not much beyond that. We rate it .