claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Hillary Clinton donned a hijab for a new campaign ad. | Neutral | On 28 June 2016, the web site Departed published an item reporting that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's 'latest' television campaign ad depicted the former Secretary of State wearing a hijab: Hillary's latest campaign video tries to build up her non-existent foreign policy experience. That means making as much as possible out of her feminist speech in China ... which avoided criticizing a Communist regime that forces women to have abortions. (Or as her Planned Parenthood pals call it, health care outreach.) And showing her travel photo slideshow. It's basically like those travel videos friends force you to watch except this is a really expensive commercial and no one can force you to watch it. But in odd contrast to touting Hillary's feminism and strength, is this shot of her wearing a Hijab; an Islamic garment of submission. However, Departed did not display or link to the campaign ad in question. And the very same claim was made back in October 2015, so clearly the referenced image didn't stem from a campaign ad that was 'new' in June 2016. In fact, the image of Hillary Clinton in a headscarf was a screen capture taken from a montage of very brief segments showing Hillary meeting with various foreign dignitaries in her role as secretary of state, compiled for a promotional campaign video that the Clinton campaign tweeted on 19 October 2015: 'I don't think I have ever met someone more prepared to be president.' -@Madeleine Albrighthttps://t.co/D6nCGEDC6v - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 19, 2015 The blink-and-you'll-miss-it screenshot occurred at the 0:27-0:28 mark of the video and was widely shared out of context to suggest that Hillary Clinton's 'new campaign ad' depicted her wearing a hijab as part of her ordinary attire. But it was clear in (the universally absent) context that the footage was captured while Clinton was visiting a location in which her wearing a head covering was expected by custom. Specifically, the image was taken from coverage of a 2009 visit to Pakistan by Secretary of State Clinton, during which she donned a head covering while visiting the shrine of the Sufi saint Shah Abdul Latif Kazmi and the Badshahi Mosque. Just as historical Catholic practice held until well into the 20th century that women should cover their heads in church, historical Islamic practice typically holds that all mosque visitors should cover their legs below the knee, and that women should cover their heads; failure to do so may be considered extremely disrespectful by practitioners of the religion. The donning of a head covering in such circumstance by a non-Muslim is a diplomatic courtesy, no more an act of 'submission' to Islam than the wearing of a yarmulke by a non-Jewish person while visiting temples or attending Jewish religious ceremonies constitutes 'submission' to Judaism. | nan | [] |
A list documents the myriad reasons why people were committed to insane asylums in the 19th century. | Neutral | In February 2016, an image of a list purportedly documenting dozens of reasons why people were committed to insane asylums between 1864 and 1889 began circulating on social media. The list was frequently shared with humorous messages about how common acts such as 'novel reading,' 'laziness,' or the 'overstudy of religion' would land much of today's population in an asylum: Although this list is frequently posted as a joke, it is somewhat rooted in truth. The list was compiled from the log book of the West Virginia Hospital for the Insane, documenting admissions to that institution between 1864 and 1889 and has been published or referenced in several books and research papers. It has also been archived by the West Virginia Division of Culture and History. In her 2001 book Parental Kidnapping in America: An Historical and Cultural Analysis, author Maureen Dabbagh used this list to illustrate how easy it was for a man to have his wife detained in an asylum in the latter half of the 19th century: Reasons for admission into the Trans-Allegheny Lunatic Asylum in West Virginia from 1864 to 1889 included laziness, egotism, disappointed love, female disease, mental excitement, cold, snuff, greediness, imaginary female trouble, 'gathering in the head,' exposure and quackery, jealousy, religion, asthma, masturbation, and bad habits. Spouses used lunacy laws to rid themselves of their partners and in abducting their children. Although this list was sourced from a contemporaneous hospital log, its entries should not be considered as denoting things that were all considered symptoms of mental instability. Rather, among patients who were treated at West Virginia Hospital for the Insane for various illnesses such as chronic dementia, acute mania, and melancholia, these entries recorded the reasons or causes why those patients were said to have developed their underlying maladies. That is, people didn't think that novel reading, asthma, the marriage of one's child, politics, or falling from a horse were symptoms of mental illness, but rather factors that might have produced or exacerbated such an illness. (To use an example from a different field, nobody claims that playing violent video games is itself a crime, but some people maintain - rightly or wrongly - that such an activity might be a factor that leads gamers into committing violent crimes): The diseases attributed to those admitted to the hospital from its opening in 1864 through 1880 were varied, with the most common being 304 patients with chronic dementia, 254 with acute mania, 225 with melancholia, and 165 with chronic mania. Listings were given of the supposed causes of the diseases, and they were labeled supposed causes, with the physicians of the time feeling 'a little unease with them,' they still published them. Most common at Weston were the 359 who were 'not assigned' a cause, and 'heredity,' and 'epilepsy' ranked next. Forty to fifty patients were attributed each of the following causes: 'intemperance,' 'ill health,' 'menstrual,' 'traumatic injury,' and 'masturbation.' One honest man was listed with 'masturbation for 30 years.' In general, this document might be more accurately described as 'a list of some reasons why people were believed to have eventually developed illnesses that led to their being admitted to the West Virginia Hospital for the Insane' and not a list of 'symptoms' or 'reasons' why people were admitted to that hospital. | nan | [
"03399-proof-02-weston-state-hospital.jpg"
] |
A list documents the myriad reasons why people were committed to insane asylums in the 19th century. | Neutral | In February 2016, an image of a list purportedly documenting dozens of reasons why people were committed to insane asylums between 1864 and 1889 began circulating on social media. The list was frequently shared with humorous messages about how common acts such as 'novel reading,' 'laziness,' or the 'overstudy of religion' would land much of today's population in an asylum: Although this list is frequently posted as a joke, it is somewhat rooted in truth. The list was compiled from the log book of the West Virginia Hospital for the Insane, documenting admissions to that institution between 1864 and 1889 and has been published or referenced in several books and research papers. It has also been archived by the West Virginia Division of Culture and History. In her 2001 book Parental Kidnapping in America: An Historical and Cultural Analysis, author Maureen Dabbagh used this list to illustrate how easy it was for a man to have his wife detained in an asylum in the latter half of the 19th century: Reasons for admission into the Trans-Allegheny Lunatic Asylum in West Virginia from 1864 to 1889 included laziness, egotism, disappointed love, female disease, mental excitement, cold, snuff, greediness, imaginary female trouble, 'gathering in the head,' exposure and quackery, jealousy, religion, asthma, masturbation, and bad habits. Spouses used lunacy laws to rid themselves of their partners and in abducting their children. Although this list was sourced from a contemporaneous hospital log, its entries should not be considered as denoting things that were all considered symptoms of mental instability. Rather, among patients who were treated at West Virginia Hospital for the Insane for various illnesses such as chronic dementia, acute mania, and melancholia, these entries recorded the reasons or causes why those patients were said to have developed their underlying maladies. That is, people didn't think that novel reading, asthma, the marriage of one's child, politics, or falling from a horse were symptoms of mental illness, but rather factors that might have produced or exacerbated such an illness. (To use an example from a different field, nobody claims that playing violent video games is itself a crime, but some people maintain - rightly or wrongly - that such an activity might be a factor that leads gamers into committing violent crimes): The diseases attributed to those admitted to the hospital from its opening in 1864 through 1880 were varied, with the most common being 304 patients with chronic dementia, 254 with acute mania, 225 with melancholia, and 165 with chronic mania. Listings were given of the supposed causes of the diseases, and they were labeled supposed causes, with the physicians of the time feeling 'a little unease with them,' they still published them. Most common at Weston were the 359 who were 'not assigned' a cause, and 'heredity,' and 'epilepsy' ranked next. Forty to fifty patients were attributed each of the following causes: 'intemperance,' 'ill health,' 'menstrual,' 'traumatic injury,' and 'masturbation.' One honest man was listed with 'masturbation for 30 years.' In general, this document might be more accurately described as 'a list of some reasons why people were believed to have eventually developed illnesses that led to their being admitted to the West Virginia Hospital for the Insane' and not a list of 'symptoms' or 'reasons' why people were admitted to that hospital. | nan | [
"03399-proof-02-weston-state-hospital.jpg"
] |
A photograph depicts a school art project titled 'candlelight' that yielded unexpectedly suggestive paintings. | Neutral | On 29 September 2015, Reddit user jimmypork published the above image to r/funny in a thread titled 'Local school art project titled 'candlelight'': Examples: [Collected via e-mail, October 2015] Saw the photo on Facebook with the following caption. Google is not telling me for sure if it is legit, and I'm tempted to think this is a study of Georgia O'Keefe paintings of 'flowers'. When the teacher at a local elementary school asked her students to 'paint a candle flame' ... It didn't turn out the way she had expected. In addition to its popularity on Reddit (where the image received thousands of upvotes), the image was shared on Facebook and Twitter, and at least two articles were inspired by the humorously suggestive image. Prior to its submission to Reddit, the image wasn't widely circulated on social media (and we were unable to find any previous iterations of the claim). The Reddit post carried no information other than the title labeling it a 'local school project titled 'candlelight,'' lacking even a country to which the purported assignment was 'local.' While nothing in the photograph specifically indicates it was captured in a school, the image similarly yielded no clues indicating it wasn't an elementary schoolkids' painting project gone slightly awry. Based on the scant information available, the most apparent observation that might be made was that the artwork lacked the typical construction paper mounting and block-lettered name or signature commonly seen in school art displays: The original poster didn't return to the thread to offer any additional information and was likely not a first-person source for the image. Among items previously shared by the same account were a photograph the poster described as an inadvertently phallic drawing done by his daughter, a Facebook screenshot of what he suggested was a ghost in the hospital room of a friend, and a photograph of a frog riding an insect (which he later admitted was 'stolen' from elsewhere). Like many of the photographs shared on funny image sites (including ones of deliberately risqué images erroneously attributed to schoolchildren), a humorous backstory was likely concocted to further propel an already interesting image onto Reddit's front page. | nan | [
"03408-proof-00-school-art.jpg",
"03408-proof-04-candlelight-vagina-paintings.jpg",
"03408-proof-07-school-artwork-candlelight.jpg",
"03408-proof-09-school-artwork-display.jpg"
] |
Bernie Sanders was photographed napping at a Memorial Day ceremony in 2016. | Neutral | On 30 May 2016, activist and military veteran Zoe Dunning published a photograph on Facebook purportedly showing Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders napping during a Memorial Day ceremony: Attending the Memorial Day Ceremony honoring the over 1 million Americans who have lost their lives serving our country, and watching Bernie Sanders fall asleep during it. There is nothing I can really add here. #imwithher The man featured in the above-displayed photograph is indeed Bernie Sanders, but there is little evidence (other than his slouched pose) to prove that he was sleeping during the event Dunning only provided a single photograph, making it difficult to determine if Sanders briefly nodded off during the ceremony, momentarily lowered his head and closed his eyes to fight off a bout of fatigue or pain, was bowing his head in respect, or something else. A collection of images from the event taken by Ed Caspersen show that the Democratic candidate was clearly awake throughout other portions of the ceremony and was not asleep for its duration, although he may have briefly 'rested his eyes' at one point: | nan | [
"03437-proof-06-bernie-rally.jpg"
] |
Donald Trump removed the terms 'LGBT' and 'climate change' from the White House web site. | Neutral | As Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States on 20 January 2017, many people noticed some considerable changes to the official White House web site at WhiteHouse.gov web site, such as the seeming removal of the terms 'LGBT' and 'climate change': It is true that searching for these terms immediately after the inauguration returned no related results: However, it's inaccurate to say that these terms were specifically scrubbed from the site by Donald Trump. On 17 January 2017, WhiteHouse.gov issued an announcement explaining the digital transition that would take place on Inauguration Day. For instance, all of the messages posted by Barack Obama under the @POTUS handle on Twitter were transferred to a new @POTUS44 account, giving Donald Trump the opportunity to take over the previous presidential Twitter account @POTUS. In the same way, the content related to the Obama administration on WhiteHouse.gov was migrated to a new web site, ObamaWhiteHouse.Archives.gov: Where you can access archival Obama White House content After January 20, 2017, materials will continue to be accessible on the platforms where they were created, allowing the public continued access to the content posted over the past eight years. WhiteHouse.gov becomes ObamaWhiteHouse.gov The Obama White House website - which includes press articles, blog posts, videos, and photos - will be available at ObamaWhiteHouse.gov, a site maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) beginning on January 20, 2017. If you are looking for a post or page on the Obama administration's WhiteHouse.gov from 2009 through 2017, you can find it by changing the URL to ObamaWhiteHouse.gov. For example, after the transition, this blog post will be available at ObamaWhiteHouse.gov/obama-administration-digital-transition-moving-forward. Content regarding the terms 'LGBT' and 'climate change' are still readily available on ObamaWhiteHouse.gov. As of this writing, Whitehouse.gov is sparsely populated. Its blog currently hosts one post (about the inaugural address), while pages for Press Briefings, Statements, Nominations, and Presidential Actions are all blank: One of the new pages that has since gone up up on Whitehouse.gov (titled 'An America First Energy Plan') suggests that the Trump administration will be targeting previous climate initiatives in order to help boost domestic oil and gas industries: Energy is an essential part of American life and a staple of the world economy. The Trump Administration is committed to energy policies that lower costs for hardworking Americans and maximize the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil. For too long, we've been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. | nan | [
"03478-proof-03-white-house.jpg",
"03478-proof-13-white-house-pages.jpg",
"03478-proof-14-search_not_found_fb.jpg"
] |
Donald Trump removed the terms 'LGBT' and 'climate change' from the White House web site. | Neutral | As Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States on 20 January 2017, many people noticed some considerable changes to the official White House web site at WhiteHouse.gov web site, such as the seeming removal of the terms 'LGBT' and 'climate change': It is true that searching for these terms immediately after the inauguration returned no related results: However, it's inaccurate to say that these terms were specifically scrubbed from the site by Donald Trump. On 17 January 2017, WhiteHouse.gov issued an announcement explaining the digital transition that would take place on Inauguration Day. For instance, all of the messages posted by Barack Obama under the @POTUS handle on Twitter were transferred to a new @POTUS44 account, giving Donald Trump the opportunity to take over the previous presidential Twitter account @POTUS. In the same way, the content related to the Obama administration on WhiteHouse.gov was migrated to a new web site, ObamaWhiteHouse.Archives.gov: Where you can access archival Obama White House content After January 20, 2017, materials will continue to be accessible on the platforms where they were created, allowing the public continued access to the content posted over the past eight years. WhiteHouse.gov becomes ObamaWhiteHouse.gov The Obama White House website - which includes press articles, blog posts, videos, and photos - will be available at ObamaWhiteHouse.gov, a site maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) beginning on January 20, 2017. If you are looking for a post or page on the Obama administration's WhiteHouse.gov from 2009 through 2017, you can find it by changing the URL to ObamaWhiteHouse.gov. For example, after the transition, this blog post will be available at ObamaWhiteHouse.gov/obama-administration-digital-transition-moving-forward. Content regarding the terms 'LGBT' and 'climate change' are still readily available on ObamaWhiteHouse.gov. As of this writing, Whitehouse.gov is sparsely populated. Its blog currently hosts one post (about the inaugural address), while pages for Press Briefings, Statements, Nominations, and Presidential Actions are all blank: One of the new pages that has since gone up up on Whitehouse.gov (titled 'An America First Energy Plan') suggests that the Trump administration will be targeting previous climate initiatives in order to help boost domestic oil and gas industries: Energy is an essential part of American life and a staple of the world economy. The Trump Administration is committed to energy policies that lower costs for hardworking Americans and maximize the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil. For too long, we've been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. | nan | [
"03478-proof-03-white-house.jpg",
"03478-proof-13-white-house-pages.jpg",
"03478-proof-14-search_not_found_fb.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows a 'kids' concentration camp' in the U.S. | Neutral | In May 2018, a photograph of two children sleeping inside a fenced enclosure was widely circulated via social media with accompanying text stating that it pictured a 'kids' concentration camp' in the U.S.: This photograph dates from 2014 (during the Obama administration) and was not directly related to a mid-2018 controversy over Trump administration policy of separating children from undocumented migrant parents at the U.S. border. The picture was one of several that accompanied an Arizona Republic article about a detention center for undocumented migrant children in Nogales, Arizona. What this photograph depicts is not a 'concentration camp' as the term is most commonly used (i.e., a facility where 'political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution') but rather a temporary holding facility/processing center for undocumented children who were apprehended entering the U.S. by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) during the height of an unprecedented surge of child migration from Central America that took place in 2014: They are undocumented. They entered the country illegally. And when they were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they were shipped to Nogales from overwhelmed processing facilities in Texas. But they are still children in cages, not gangsters, not delinquents. Just children, 900 of them, in a makeshift border-town processing center that is larger than a football field. They pass the day sitting on benches or lying side by side on tiny blue mattresses pressed up against each other on nearly every square inch of the floor in the fenced areas. Some might argue that the pictured facility was in fact a detention center where children were held in conditions that were woefully inadequate for their numbers, and thus it was concentration camp-like in those aspects: In essence, it is a juvenile prison camp. The children, mostly of high-school and junior-high-school age, are housed behind 18-foot-high chain-link fences topped with razor wire. They are segregated by age and gender: There is one area for those 12 and under. There are areas for boys and girls ages 13 to 15, and still more for boys and girls ages 16 and 17. Nylon tarps, tied to the fences, provide a modicum of privacy between the groups. They share the kind of portable toilets used at fairs and construction sites, placed inside the cages and vented with clothes-dryer hoses. There is an occasional frisbee or stuffed animal. One pregnant teen in the older girls' area sat with her back against the fence, holding her belly. Muted televisions blink incongruously, hanging from overhead beams. But most of the children lie motionless on side-by-side mattresses with looks of intense boredom on their faces. Inevitably, given the number of people, it smells of feet and sweat and straw, giving it the look and feel of the livestock areas at the State Fair. However, others maintained that - despite the difficult conditions - the facility was not comparable to a concentration camp in that the children kept there were treated humanely, were provided with medical care, and were held only until they could be placed with relatives or other caretakers pending adjudication of their cases: [The children] are fed and clothed, kept clean and cool, far better off than if they were walking through the desert in June temperatures. The Nogales facility is a way station where the children are identified, examined for health problems by the U.S. Public Health Service, vaccinated and then moved to other facilities in Texas, Oklahoma and California until they are placed with relatives already in the country to await their day in Immigration Court. [A] tour dispelled rumors of ill treatment. The CBP agents in the building seem to be genuinely compassionate in their interactions with the children. The facility is clean and air-conditioned. Still, in 2016 the conditions of similar detention facilities were being described as 'deplorable': Although [Texas] detention centers had been used long before [2014], that year the Obama administration made them key to its immigration policy. [The center in] Dilley was built that year, and Karnes was greatly expanded. Immigration advocates fought back, and last year in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Dolly Gee made a ruling that helped their case. In her decision last July, the judge said the centers were in 'deplorable' condition, and that they failed to meet even minimal standards. Gee pointed to a 1997 ruling that determined the government cannot treat a child in detention as it would an adult. She ordered the Obama administration to release the migrant kids from both Texas centers. That didn't happen. The Obama administration appealed, and for the past year has tried to figure out how to get around the ruling Debate continues about how undocumented migrant children who come to the U.S. (whether alone or with their parents) should be dealt with, and where and how they should be housed until their status has been resolved. No approach is likely to satisfy critics at both ends of the political spectrum. | nan | [
"03514-proof-11-kidsprison.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows a 'kids' concentration camp' in the U.S. | Neutral | In May 2018, a photograph of two children sleeping inside a fenced enclosure was widely circulated via social media with accompanying text stating that it pictured a 'kids' concentration camp' in the U.S.: This photograph dates from 2014 (during the Obama administration) and was not directly related to a mid-2018 controversy over Trump administration policy of separating children from undocumented migrant parents at the U.S. border. The picture was one of several that accompanied an Arizona Republic article about a detention center for undocumented migrant children in Nogales, Arizona. What this photograph depicts is not a 'concentration camp' as the term is most commonly used (i.e., a facility where 'political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution') but rather a temporary holding facility/processing center for undocumented children who were apprehended entering the U.S. by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) during the height of an unprecedented surge of child migration from Central America that took place in 2014: They are undocumented. They entered the country illegally. And when they were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they were shipped to Nogales from overwhelmed processing facilities in Texas. But they are still children in cages, not gangsters, not delinquents. Just children, 900 of them, in a makeshift border-town processing center that is larger than a football field. They pass the day sitting on benches or lying side by side on tiny blue mattresses pressed up against each other on nearly every square inch of the floor in the fenced areas. Some might argue that the pictured facility was in fact a detention center where children were held in conditions that were woefully inadequate for their numbers, and thus it was concentration camp-like in those aspects: In essence, it is a juvenile prison camp. The children, mostly of high-school and junior-high-school age, are housed behind 18-foot-high chain-link fences topped with razor wire. They are segregated by age and gender: There is one area for those 12 and under. There are areas for boys and girls ages 13 to 15, and still more for boys and girls ages 16 and 17. Nylon tarps, tied to the fences, provide a modicum of privacy between the groups. They share the kind of portable toilets used at fairs and construction sites, placed inside the cages and vented with clothes-dryer hoses. There is an occasional frisbee or stuffed animal. One pregnant teen in the older girls' area sat with her back against the fence, holding her belly. Muted televisions blink incongruously, hanging from overhead beams. But most of the children lie motionless on side-by-side mattresses with looks of intense boredom on their faces. Inevitably, given the number of people, it smells of feet and sweat and straw, giving it the look and feel of the livestock areas at the State Fair. However, others maintained that - despite the difficult conditions - the facility was not comparable to a concentration camp in that the children kept there were treated humanely, were provided with medical care, and were held only until they could be placed with relatives or other caretakers pending adjudication of their cases: [The children] are fed and clothed, kept clean and cool, far better off than if they were walking through the desert in June temperatures. The Nogales facility is a way station where the children are identified, examined for health problems by the U.S. Public Health Service, vaccinated and then moved to other facilities in Texas, Oklahoma and California until they are placed with relatives already in the country to await their day in Immigration Court. [A] tour dispelled rumors of ill treatment. The CBP agents in the building seem to be genuinely compassionate in their interactions with the children. The facility is clean and air-conditioned. Still, in 2016 the conditions of similar detention facilities were being described as 'deplorable': Although [Texas] detention centers had been used long before [2014], that year the Obama administration made them key to its immigration policy. [The center in] Dilley was built that year, and Karnes was greatly expanded. Immigration advocates fought back, and last year in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Dolly Gee made a ruling that helped their case. In her decision last July, the judge said the centers were in 'deplorable' condition, and that they failed to meet even minimal standards. Gee pointed to a 1997 ruling that determined the government cannot treat a child in detention as it would an adult. She ordered the Obama administration to release the migrant kids from both Texas centers. That didn't happen. The Obama administration appealed, and for the past year has tried to figure out how to get around the ruling Debate continues about how undocumented migrant children who come to the U.S. (whether alone or with their parents) should be dealt with, and where and how they should be housed until their status has been resolved. No approach is likely to satisfy critics at both ends of the political spectrum. | nan | [
"03514-proof-11-kidsprison.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows a 'kids' concentration camp' in the U.S. | Neutral | In May 2018, a photograph of two children sleeping inside a fenced enclosure was widely circulated via social media with accompanying text stating that it pictured a 'kids' concentration camp' in the U.S.: This photograph dates from 2014 (during the Obama administration) and was not directly related to a mid-2018 controversy over Trump administration policy of separating children from undocumented migrant parents at the U.S. border. The picture was one of several that accompanied an Arizona Republic article about a detention center for undocumented migrant children in Nogales, Arizona. What this photograph depicts is not a 'concentration camp' as the term is most commonly used (i.e., a facility where 'political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution') but rather a temporary holding facility/processing center for undocumented children who were apprehended entering the U.S. by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) during the height of an unprecedented surge of child migration from Central America that took place in 2014: They are undocumented. They entered the country illegally. And when they were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they were shipped to Nogales from overwhelmed processing facilities in Texas. But they are still children in cages, not gangsters, not delinquents. Just children, 900 of them, in a makeshift border-town processing center that is larger than a football field. They pass the day sitting on benches or lying side by side on tiny blue mattresses pressed up against each other on nearly every square inch of the floor in the fenced areas. Some might argue that the pictured facility was in fact a detention center where children were held in conditions that were woefully inadequate for their numbers, and thus it was concentration camp-like in those aspects: In essence, it is a juvenile prison camp. The children, mostly of high-school and junior-high-school age, are housed behind 18-foot-high chain-link fences topped with razor wire. They are segregated by age and gender: There is one area for those 12 and under. There are areas for boys and girls ages 13 to 15, and still more for boys and girls ages 16 and 17. Nylon tarps, tied to the fences, provide a modicum of privacy between the groups. They share the kind of portable toilets used at fairs and construction sites, placed inside the cages and vented with clothes-dryer hoses. There is an occasional frisbee or stuffed animal. One pregnant teen in the older girls' area sat with her back against the fence, holding her belly. Muted televisions blink incongruously, hanging from overhead beams. But most of the children lie motionless on side-by-side mattresses with looks of intense boredom on their faces. Inevitably, given the number of people, it smells of feet and sweat and straw, giving it the look and feel of the livestock areas at the State Fair. However, others maintained that - despite the difficult conditions - the facility was not comparable to a concentration camp in that the children kept there were treated humanely, were provided with medical care, and were held only until they could be placed with relatives or other caretakers pending adjudication of their cases: [The children] are fed and clothed, kept clean and cool, far better off than if they were walking through the desert in June temperatures. The Nogales facility is a way station where the children are identified, examined for health problems by the U.S. Public Health Service, vaccinated and then moved to other facilities in Texas, Oklahoma and California until they are placed with relatives already in the country to await their day in Immigration Court. [A] tour dispelled rumors of ill treatment. The CBP agents in the building seem to be genuinely compassionate in their interactions with the children. The facility is clean and air-conditioned. Still, in 2016 the conditions of similar detention facilities were being described as 'deplorable': Although [Texas] detention centers had been used long before [2014], that year the Obama administration made them key to its immigration policy. [The center in] Dilley was built that year, and Karnes was greatly expanded. Immigration advocates fought back, and last year in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Dolly Gee made a ruling that helped their case. In her decision last July, the judge said the centers were in 'deplorable' condition, and that they failed to meet even minimal standards. Gee pointed to a 1997 ruling that determined the government cannot treat a child in detention as it would an adult. She ordered the Obama administration to release the migrant kids from both Texas centers. That didn't happen. The Obama administration appealed, and for the past year has tried to figure out how to get around the ruling Debate continues about how undocumented migrant children who come to the U.S. (whether alone or with their parents) should be dealt with, and where and how they should be housed until their status has been resolved. No approach is likely to satisfy critics at both ends of the political spectrum. | nan | [
"03514-proof-11-kidsprison.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows a 'kids' concentration camp' in the U.S. | Neutral | In May 2018, a photograph of two children sleeping inside a fenced enclosure was widely circulated via social media with accompanying text stating that it pictured a 'kids' concentration camp' in the U.S.: This photograph dates from 2014 (during the Obama administration) and was not directly related to a mid-2018 controversy over Trump administration policy of separating children from undocumented migrant parents at the U.S. border. The picture was one of several that accompanied an Arizona Republic article about a detention center for undocumented migrant children in Nogales, Arizona. What this photograph depicts is not a 'concentration camp' as the term is most commonly used (i.e., a facility where 'political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution') but rather a temporary holding facility/processing center for undocumented children who were apprehended entering the U.S. by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) during the height of an unprecedented surge of child migration from Central America that took place in 2014: They are undocumented. They entered the country illegally. And when they were apprehended by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they were shipped to Nogales from overwhelmed processing facilities in Texas. But they are still children in cages, not gangsters, not delinquents. Just children, 900 of them, in a makeshift border-town processing center that is larger than a football field. They pass the day sitting on benches or lying side by side on tiny blue mattresses pressed up against each other on nearly every square inch of the floor in the fenced areas. Some might argue that the pictured facility was in fact a detention center where children were held in conditions that were woefully inadequate for their numbers, and thus it was concentration camp-like in those aspects: In essence, it is a juvenile prison camp. The children, mostly of high-school and junior-high-school age, are housed behind 18-foot-high chain-link fences topped with razor wire. They are segregated by age and gender: There is one area for those 12 and under. There are areas for boys and girls ages 13 to 15, and still more for boys and girls ages 16 and 17. Nylon tarps, tied to the fences, provide a modicum of privacy between the groups. They share the kind of portable toilets used at fairs and construction sites, placed inside the cages and vented with clothes-dryer hoses. There is an occasional frisbee or stuffed animal. One pregnant teen in the older girls' area sat with her back against the fence, holding her belly. Muted televisions blink incongruously, hanging from overhead beams. But most of the children lie motionless on side-by-side mattresses with looks of intense boredom on their faces. Inevitably, given the number of people, it smells of feet and sweat and straw, giving it the look and feel of the livestock areas at the State Fair. However, others maintained that - despite the difficult conditions - the facility was not comparable to a concentration camp in that the children kept there were treated humanely, were provided with medical care, and were held only until they could be placed with relatives or other caretakers pending adjudication of their cases: [The children] are fed and clothed, kept clean and cool, far better off than if they were walking through the desert in June temperatures. The Nogales facility is a way station where the children are identified, examined for health problems by the U.S. Public Health Service, vaccinated and then moved to other facilities in Texas, Oklahoma and California until they are placed with relatives already in the country to await their day in Immigration Court. [A] tour dispelled rumors of ill treatment. The CBP agents in the building seem to be genuinely compassionate in their interactions with the children. The facility is clean and air-conditioned. Still, in 2016 the conditions of similar detention facilities were being described as 'deplorable': Although [Texas] detention centers had been used long before [2014], that year the Obama administration made them key to its immigration policy. [The center in] Dilley was built that year, and Karnes was greatly expanded. Immigration advocates fought back, and last year in the Federal District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Dolly Gee made a ruling that helped their case. In her decision last July, the judge said the centers were in 'deplorable' condition, and that they failed to meet even minimal standards. Gee pointed to a 1997 ruling that determined the government cannot treat a child in detention as it would an adult. She ordered the Obama administration to release the migrant kids from both Texas centers. That didn't happen. The Obama administration appealed, and for the past year has tried to figure out how to get around the ruling Debate continues about how undocumented migrant children who come to the U.S. (whether alone or with their parents) should be dealt with, and where and how they should be housed until their status has been resolved. No approach is likely to satisfy critics at both ends of the political spectrum. | nan | [
"03514-proof-11-kidsprison.jpg"
] |
In four elections from 2012 to 2018, an aggregate of 28 million mail-in ballots went 'missing. | Neutral | On April 24, 2020, the RealClearPolitics website published an article by Mark Hemingway headlined '28 Million Mail-In Ballots Went Missing in Last Four Elections.' Drawing on a report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), which was in turn drawn from data compiled by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the RealClearPolitics article sought to raise the alarm about the supposed election fraud perils of the mail-in balloting process: Between 2012 and 2018, 28.3 million mail-in ballots remain unaccounted for, according to data from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The missing ballots amount to nearly one in five of all absentee ballots and ballots mailed to voters residing in states that do elections exclusively by mail. States and local authorities simply have no idea what happened to these ballots since they were mailed - and the figure of 28 million missing ballots is likely even higher because some areas in the country, notably Chicago, did not respond to the federal agency's survey questions. This figure does not include ballots that were spoiled, undeliverable, or came back for any reason. Although there is no evidence that the millions of missing ballots were used fraudulently, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, which compiled the public data provided from the Election Assistance Commission, says that the sheer volume of them raises serious doubts about election security. The headline and opening of the article, particularly in their use of the word 'missing,' left many readers with the impression that millions and millions of voters expected to receive ballots in the mail that mysteriously never arrived, or filled out and mailed in ballots that simply vanished without ever being counted. But as the EAC observed in response, those 28 million 'missing' ballots were ones that were 'neither returned undeliverable nor returned from voter' - in other words, ballots mailed out in multiple states over the course of four elections that were not marked and sent back. Declaring such ballots 'missing' is, as many others noted, akin to declaring all the millions of Americans who don't bother showing up at polling places each election (some 40 to 60% of the eligible voting population) as 'missing': Article author Mark Hemingway used the term 'missing' to describe ballots that were mailed out to voters but not cast by those voters. By this logic, all of the over 250 million votes not cast by in-person Election Day voters from 2012-2018 are also 'missing.' Conflating voters choosing not to cast their ballot with 'missing' ballots is a fundamental flaw in the argument ... The simple fact is: an un-cast ballot is not a missing ballot. Or, as Pro Publica's Electionland quoted an expert on the subject: 'Election officials 'know' what happened to those ballots,' said Paul Gronke, a professor at Reed College, who is the director of the Early Voting Information Center, a research group based there. 'They were received by eligible citizens and not filled out. Where are they now? Most likely, in landfills,' Gronke said by email. But is it true, as RealClearPolitics claims, that 'The potential to affect elections by chasing down unused mail-in ballots and make sure they get counted - using methods that may or may not be legal - is great' and that 'There's little doubt that as the number of mail-in ballots increases, so does fraud'? As to the former point, the article stated up front that 'there is no evidence that the millions of missing ballots were used fraudulently,' and as to the latter point, the article offered nothing more than a link to an 8-year-old New York Times article about absentee voting. On the other hand, the National Vote at Home Institute (NVAIH) pointed out that methods for tracking mail-in ballots have become increasingly more widespread and sophisticated: What the article does not cover is that since voting by mailed-out ballot has become more prevalent, there are many best practices in use that prevent the sort of wide-scale ballot mishandling that Hemingway suggests. As election officials work to ensure that mailed ballots get to voters in the first place, jurisdictions now extensively partner with the USPS's National Change of Address (NCOA) program as well as ERIC (the Electronic Registration Information Center) to keep their voter address files current. Mailed-out ballots are non-forwardable, so there can't be millions of ballots floating around within the USPS. They are returned to the election office. Since voting by mailed-out ballot has become more prevalent, 36 states have instituted 'ballot tracking' where both the voter and election officials can see where the ballot is en route to and from the voter, just as you would [track] a package. If the ballot really does 'go missing,' the voter can be notified and obtain a new one. But the data shows ballot misplacement rarely happens in the way that Hemingway insinuates. In the high mailed-out ballot states, well over 50% of cast ballots are returned at secure ballot drop boxes or at staffed 'vote centers' that look like traditional polling places, but without the lines. More recent analysis of the vote-by-mail (VBM) process suggests that 'as with all forms of voter fraud, documented instances of fraud related to VBM are rare': Another question surrounding VBM is whether it increases voter fraud. There are two major features of VBM that raise these concerns. First, the ballot is cast outside the public eye, and thus the opportunities for coercion and voter impersonation are greater. Second, the transmission path for VBM ballots is not as secure as traditional in-person ballots. These concerns relate both to ballots being intercepted and ballots being requested without the voter's permission. As with all forms of voter fraud, documented instances of fraud related to VBM are rare. However, even many scholars who argue that fraud is generally rare agree that fraud with VBM voting seems to be more frequent than with in-person voting. | nan | [
"03516-proof-05-GettyImages-1206477680-scaled-e1590100162864.jpg"
] |
In four elections from 2012 to 2018, an aggregate of 28 million mail-in ballots went 'missing. | Neutral | On April 24, 2020, the RealClearPolitics website published an article by Mark Hemingway headlined '28 Million Mail-In Ballots Went Missing in Last Four Elections.' Drawing on a report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), which was in turn drawn from data compiled by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the RealClearPolitics article sought to raise the alarm about the supposed election fraud perils of the mail-in balloting process: Between 2012 and 2018, 28.3 million mail-in ballots remain unaccounted for, according to data from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The missing ballots amount to nearly one in five of all absentee ballots and ballots mailed to voters residing in states that do elections exclusively by mail. States and local authorities simply have no idea what happened to these ballots since they were mailed - and the figure of 28 million missing ballots is likely even higher because some areas in the country, notably Chicago, did not respond to the federal agency's survey questions. This figure does not include ballots that were spoiled, undeliverable, or came back for any reason. Although there is no evidence that the millions of missing ballots were used fraudulently, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, which compiled the public data provided from the Election Assistance Commission, says that the sheer volume of them raises serious doubts about election security. The headline and opening of the article, particularly in their use of the word 'missing,' left many readers with the impression that millions and millions of voters expected to receive ballots in the mail that mysteriously never arrived, or filled out and mailed in ballots that simply vanished without ever being counted. But as the EAC observed in response, those 28 million 'missing' ballots were ones that were 'neither returned undeliverable nor returned from voter' - in other words, ballots mailed out in multiple states over the course of four elections that were not marked and sent back. Declaring such ballots 'missing' is, as many others noted, akin to declaring all the millions of Americans who don't bother showing up at polling places each election (some 40 to 60% of the eligible voting population) as 'missing': Article author Mark Hemingway used the term 'missing' to describe ballots that were mailed out to voters but not cast by those voters. By this logic, all of the over 250 million votes not cast by in-person Election Day voters from 2012-2018 are also 'missing.' Conflating voters choosing not to cast their ballot with 'missing' ballots is a fundamental flaw in the argument ... The simple fact is: an un-cast ballot is not a missing ballot. Or, as Pro Publica's Electionland quoted an expert on the subject: 'Election officials 'know' what happened to those ballots,' said Paul Gronke, a professor at Reed College, who is the director of the Early Voting Information Center, a research group based there. 'They were received by eligible citizens and not filled out. Where are they now? Most likely, in landfills,' Gronke said by email. But is it true, as RealClearPolitics claims, that 'The potential to affect elections by chasing down unused mail-in ballots and make sure they get counted - using methods that may or may not be legal - is great' and that 'There's little doubt that as the number of mail-in ballots increases, so does fraud'? As to the former point, the article stated up front that 'there is no evidence that the millions of missing ballots were used fraudulently,' and as to the latter point, the article offered nothing more than a link to an 8-year-old New York Times article about absentee voting. On the other hand, the National Vote at Home Institute (NVAIH) pointed out that methods for tracking mail-in ballots have become increasingly more widespread and sophisticated: What the article does not cover is that since voting by mailed-out ballot has become more prevalent, there are many best practices in use that prevent the sort of wide-scale ballot mishandling that Hemingway suggests. As election officials work to ensure that mailed ballots get to voters in the first place, jurisdictions now extensively partner with the USPS's National Change of Address (NCOA) program as well as ERIC (the Electronic Registration Information Center) to keep their voter address files current. Mailed-out ballots are non-forwardable, so there can't be millions of ballots floating around within the USPS. They are returned to the election office. Since voting by mailed-out ballot has become more prevalent, 36 states have instituted 'ballot tracking' where both the voter and election officials can see where the ballot is en route to and from the voter, just as you would [track] a package. If the ballot really does 'go missing,' the voter can be notified and obtain a new one. But the data shows ballot misplacement rarely happens in the way that Hemingway insinuates. In the high mailed-out ballot states, well over 50% of cast ballots are returned at secure ballot drop boxes or at staffed 'vote centers' that look like traditional polling places, but without the lines. More recent analysis of the vote-by-mail (VBM) process suggests that 'as with all forms of voter fraud, documented instances of fraud related to VBM are rare': Another question surrounding VBM is whether it increases voter fraud. There are two major features of VBM that raise these concerns. First, the ballot is cast outside the public eye, and thus the opportunities for coercion and voter impersonation are greater. Second, the transmission path for VBM ballots is not as secure as traditional in-person ballots. These concerns relate both to ballots being intercepted and ballots being requested without the voter's permission. As with all forms of voter fraud, documented instances of fraud related to VBM are rare. However, even many scholars who argue that fraud is generally rare agree that fraud with VBM voting seems to be more frequent than with in-person voting. | nan | [
"03516-proof-05-GettyImages-1206477680-scaled-e1590100162864.jpg"
] |
In four elections from 2012 to 2018, an aggregate of 28 million mail-in ballots went 'missing. | Neutral | On April 24, 2020, the RealClearPolitics website published an article by Mark Hemingway headlined '28 Million Mail-In Ballots Went Missing in Last Four Elections.' Drawing on a report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), which was in turn drawn from data compiled by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the RealClearPolitics article sought to raise the alarm about the supposed election fraud perils of the mail-in balloting process: Between 2012 and 2018, 28.3 million mail-in ballots remain unaccounted for, according to data from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The missing ballots amount to nearly one in five of all absentee ballots and ballots mailed to voters residing in states that do elections exclusively by mail. States and local authorities simply have no idea what happened to these ballots since they were mailed - and the figure of 28 million missing ballots is likely even higher because some areas in the country, notably Chicago, did not respond to the federal agency's survey questions. This figure does not include ballots that were spoiled, undeliverable, or came back for any reason. Although there is no evidence that the millions of missing ballots were used fraudulently, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, which compiled the public data provided from the Election Assistance Commission, says that the sheer volume of them raises serious doubts about election security. The headline and opening of the article, particularly in their use of the word 'missing,' left many readers with the impression that millions and millions of voters expected to receive ballots in the mail that mysteriously never arrived, or filled out and mailed in ballots that simply vanished without ever being counted. But as the EAC observed in response, those 28 million 'missing' ballots were ones that were 'neither returned undeliverable nor returned from voter' - in other words, ballots mailed out in multiple states over the course of four elections that were not marked and sent back. Declaring such ballots 'missing' is, as many others noted, akin to declaring all the millions of Americans who don't bother showing up at polling places each election (some 40 to 60% of the eligible voting population) as 'missing': Article author Mark Hemingway used the term 'missing' to describe ballots that were mailed out to voters but not cast by those voters. By this logic, all of the over 250 million votes not cast by in-person Election Day voters from 2012-2018 are also 'missing.' Conflating voters choosing not to cast their ballot with 'missing' ballots is a fundamental flaw in the argument ... The simple fact is: an un-cast ballot is not a missing ballot. Or, as Pro Publica's Electionland quoted an expert on the subject: 'Election officials 'know' what happened to those ballots,' said Paul Gronke, a professor at Reed College, who is the director of the Early Voting Information Center, a research group based there. 'They were received by eligible citizens and not filled out. Where are they now? Most likely, in landfills,' Gronke said by email. But is it true, as RealClearPolitics claims, that 'The potential to affect elections by chasing down unused mail-in ballots and make sure they get counted - using methods that may or may not be legal - is great' and that 'There's little doubt that as the number of mail-in ballots increases, so does fraud'? As to the former point, the article stated up front that 'there is no evidence that the millions of missing ballots were used fraudulently,' and as to the latter point, the article offered nothing more than a link to an 8-year-old New York Times article about absentee voting. On the other hand, the National Vote at Home Institute (NVAIH) pointed out that methods for tracking mail-in ballots have become increasingly more widespread and sophisticated: What the article does not cover is that since voting by mailed-out ballot has become more prevalent, there are many best practices in use that prevent the sort of wide-scale ballot mishandling that Hemingway suggests. As election officials work to ensure that mailed ballots get to voters in the first place, jurisdictions now extensively partner with the USPS's National Change of Address (NCOA) program as well as ERIC (the Electronic Registration Information Center) to keep their voter address files current. Mailed-out ballots are non-forwardable, so there can't be millions of ballots floating around within the USPS. They are returned to the election office. Since voting by mailed-out ballot has become more prevalent, 36 states have instituted 'ballot tracking' where both the voter and election officials can see where the ballot is en route to and from the voter, just as you would [track] a package. If the ballot really does 'go missing,' the voter can be notified and obtain a new one. But the data shows ballot misplacement rarely happens in the way that Hemingway insinuates. In the high mailed-out ballot states, well over 50% of cast ballots are returned at secure ballot drop boxes or at staffed 'vote centers' that look like traditional polling places, but without the lines. More recent analysis of the vote-by-mail (VBM) process suggests that 'as with all forms of voter fraud, documented instances of fraud related to VBM are rare': Another question surrounding VBM is whether it increases voter fraud. There are two major features of VBM that raise these concerns. First, the ballot is cast outside the public eye, and thus the opportunities for coercion and voter impersonation are greater. Second, the transmission path for VBM ballots is not as secure as traditional in-person ballots. These concerns relate both to ballots being intercepted and ballots being requested without the voter's permission. As with all forms of voter fraud, documented instances of fraud related to VBM are rare. However, even many scholars who argue that fraud is generally rare agree that fraud with VBM voting seems to be more frequent than with in-person voting. | nan | [
"03516-proof-05-GettyImages-1206477680-scaled-e1590100162864.jpg"
] |
In four elections from 2012 to 2018, an aggregate of 28 million mail-in ballots went 'missing. | Neutral | On April 24, 2020, the RealClearPolitics website published an article by Mark Hemingway headlined '28 Million Mail-In Ballots Went Missing in Last Four Elections.' Drawing on a report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), which was in turn drawn from data compiled by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the RealClearPolitics article sought to raise the alarm about the supposed election fraud perils of the mail-in balloting process: Between 2012 and 2018, 28.3 million mail-in ballots remain unaccounted for, according to data from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The missing ballots amount to nearly one in five of all absentee ballots and ballots mailed to voters residing in states that do elections exclusively by mail. States and local authorities simply have no idea what happened to these ballots since they were mailed - and the figure of 28 million missing ballots is likely even higher because some areas in the country, notably Chicago, did not respond to the federal agency's survey questions. This figure does not include ballots that were spoiled, undeliverable, or came back for any reason. Although there is no evidence that the millions of missing ballots were used fraudulently, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, which compiled the public data provided from the Election Assistance Commission, says that the sheer volume of them raises serious doubts about election security. The headline and opening of the article, particularly in their use of the word 'missing,' left many readers with the impression that millions and millions of voters expected to receive ballots in the mail that mysteriously never arrived, or filled out and mailed in ballots that simply vanished without ever being counted. But as the EAC observed in response, those 28 million 'missing' ballots were ones that were 'neither returned undeliverable nor returned from voter' - in other words, ballots mailed out in multiple states over the course of four elections that were not marked and sent back. Declaring such ballots 'missing' is, as many others noted, akin to declaring all the millions of Americans who don't bother showing up at polling places each election (some 40 to 60% of the eligible voting population) as 'missing': Article author Mark Hemingway used the term 'missing' to describe ballots that were mailed out to voters but not cast by those voters. By this logic, all of the over 250 million votes not cast by in-person Election Day voters from 2012-2018 are also 'missing.' Conflating voters choosing not to cast their ballot with 'missing' ballots is a fundamental flaw in the argument ... The simple fact is: an un-cast ballot is not a missing ballot. Or, as Pro Publica's Electionland quoted an expert on the subject: 'Election officials 'know' what happened to those ballots,' said Paul Gronke, a professor at Reed College, who is the director of the Early Voting Information Center, a research group based there. 'They were received by eligible citizens and not filled out. Where are they now? Most likely, in landfills,' Gronke said by email. But is it true, as RealClearPolitics claims, that 'The potential to affect elections by chasing down unused mail-in ballots and make sure they get counted - using methods that may or may not be legal - is great' and that 'There's little doubt that as the number of mail-in ballots increases, so does fraud'? As to the former point, the article stated up front that 'there is no evidence that the millions of missing ballots were used fraudulently,' and as to the latter point, the article offered nothing more than a link to an 8-year-old New York Times article about absentee voting. On the other hand, the National Vote at Home Institute (NVAIH) pointed out that methods for tracking mail-in ballots have become increasingly more widespread and sophisticated: What the article does not cover is that since voting by mailed-out ballot has become more prevalent, there are many best practices in use that prevent the sort of wide-scale ballot mishandling that Hemingway suggests. As election officials work to ensure that mailed ballots get to voters in the first place, jurisdictions now extensively partner with the USPS's National Change of Address (NCOA) program as well as ERIC (the Electronic Registration Information Center) to keep their voter address files current. Mailed-out ballots are non-forwardable, so there can't be millions of ballots floating around within the USPS. They are returned to the election office. Since voting by mailed-out ballot has become more prevalent, 36 states have instituted 'ballot tracking' where both the voter and election officials can see where the ballot is en route to and from the voter, just as you would [track] a package. If the ballot really does 'go missing,' the voter can be notified and obtain a new one. But the data shows ballot misplacement rarely happens in the way that Hemingway insinuates. In the high mailed-out ballot states, well over 50% of cast ballots are returned at secure ballot drop boxes or at staffed 'vote centers' that look like traditional polling places, but without the lines. More recent analysis of the vote-by-mail (VBM) process suggests that 'as with all forms of voter fraud, documented instances of fraud related to VBM are rare': Another question surrounding VBM is whether it increases voter fraud. There are two major features of VBM that raise these concerns. First, the ballot is cast outside the public eye, and thus the opportunities for coercion and voter impersonation are greater. Second, the transmission path for VBM ballots is not as secure as traditional in-person ballots. These concerns relate both to ballots being intercepted and ballots being requested without the voter's permission. As with all forms of voter fraud, documented instances of fraud related to VBM are rare. However, even many scholars who argue that fraud is generally rare agree that fraud with VBM voting seems to be more frequent than with in-person voting. | nan | [
"03516-proof-05-GettyImages-1206477680-scaled-e1590100162864.jpg"
] |
In four elections from 2012 to 2018, an aggregate of 28 million mail-in ballots went 'missing. | Neutral | On April 24, 2020, the RealClearPolitics website published an article by Mark Hemingway headlined '28 Million Mail-In Ballots Went Missing in Last Four Elections.' Drawing on a report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), which was in turn drawn from data compiled by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the RealClearPolitics article sought to raise the alarm about the supposed election fraud perils of the mail-in balloting process: Between 2012 and 2018, 28.3 million mail-in ballots remain unaccounted for, according to data from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The missing ballots amount to nearly one in five of all absentee ballots and ballots mailed to voters residing in states that do elections exclusively by mail. States and local authorities simply have no idea what happened to these ballots since they were mailed - and the figure of 28 million missing ballots is likely even higher because some areas in the country, notably Chicago, did not respond to the federal agency's survey questions. This figure does not include ballots that were spoiled, undeliverable, or came back for any reason. Although there is no evidence that the millions of missing ballots were used fraudulently, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, which compiled the public data provided from the Election Assistance Commission, says that the sheer volume of them raises serious doubts about election security. The headline and opening of the article, particularly in their use of the word 'missing,' left many readers with the impression that millions and millions of voters expected to receive ballots in the mail that mysteriously never arrived, or filled out and mailed in ballots that simply vanished without ever being counted. But as the EAC observed in response, those 28 million 'missing' ballots were ones that were 'neither returned undeliverable nor returned from voter' - in other words, ballots mailed out in multiple states over the course of four elections that were not marked and sent back. Declaring such ballots 'missing' is, as many others noted, akin to declaring all the millions of Americans who don't bother showing up at polling places each election (some 40 to 60% of the eligible voting population) as 'missing': Article author Mark Hemingway used the term 'missing' to describe ballots that were mailed out to voters but not cast by those voters. By this logic, all of the over 250 million votes not cast by in-person Election Day voters from 2012-2018 are also 'missing.' Conflating voters choosing not to cast their ballot with 'missing' ballots is a fundamental flaw in the argument ... The simple fact is: an un-cast ballot is not a missing ballot. Or, as Pro Publica's Electionland quoted an expert on the subject: 'Election officials 'know' what happened to those ballots,' said Paul Gronke, a professor at Reed College, who is the director of the Early Voting Information Center, a research group based there. 'They were received by eligible citizens and not filled out. Where are they now? Most likely, in landfills,' Gronke said by email. But is it true, as RealClearPolitics claims, that 'The potential to affect elections by chasing down unused mail-in ballots and make sure they get counted - using methods that may or may not be legal - is great' and that 'There's little doubt that as the number of mail-in ballots increases, so does fraud'? As to the former point, the article stated up front that 'there is no evidence that the millions of missing ballots were used fraudulently,' and as to the latter point, the article offered nothing more than a link to an 8-year-old New York Times article about absentee voting. On the other hand, the National Vote at Home Institute (NVAIH) pointed out that methods for tracking mail-in ballots have become increasingly more widespread and sophisticated: What the article does not cover is that since voting by mailed-out ballot has become more prevalent, there are many best practices in use that prevent the sort of wide-scale ballot mishandling that Hemingway suggests. As election officials work to ensure that mailed ballots get to voters in the first place, jurisdictions now extensively partner with the USPS's National Change of Address (NCOA) program as well as ERIC (the Electronic Registration Information Center) to keep their voter address files current. Mailed-out ballots are non-forwardable, so there can't be millions of ballots floating around within the USPS. They are returned to the election office. Since voting by mailed-out ballot has become more prevalent, 36 states have instituted 'ballot tracking' where both the voter and election officials can see where the ballot is en route to and from the voter, just as you would [track] a package. If the ballot really does 'go missing,' the voter can be notified and obtain a new one. But the data shows ballot misplacement rarely happens in the way that Hemingway insinuates. In the high mailed-out ballot states, well over 50% of cast ballots are returned at secure ballot drop boxes or at staffed 'vote centers' that look like traditional polling places, but without the lines. More recent analysis of the vote-by-mail (VBM) process suggests that 'as with all forms of voter fraud, documented instances of fraud related to VBM are rare': Another question surrounding VBM is whether it increases voter fraud. There are two major features of VBM that raise these concerns. First, the ballot is cast outside the public eye, and thus the opportunities for coercion and voter impersonation are greater. Second, the transmission path for VBM ballots is not as secure as traditional in-person ballots. These concerns relate both to ballots being intercepted and ballots being requested without the voter's permission. As with all forms of voter fraud, documented instances of fraud related to VBM are rare. However, even many scholars who argue that fraud is generally rare agree that fraud with VBM voting seems to be more frequent than with in-person voting. | nan | [
"03516-proof-05-GettyImages-1206477680-scaled-e1590100162864.jpg"
] |
California's governor 'forbids' Christians from singing in church during the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. | Neutral | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In early July 2020, the California Department of Public Health issued industry guidance for places of worship operating during the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic in light of a dramatic spike in coronavirus cases and hospitalizations. Among several suggestions for how places of worship can encourage safer social distancing, an early version of the guidance stated that religious sites must 'discontinue singing and chanting activities.' A subsequent version dated July 6 specified that indoor singing should be discontinued. The reasoning given by the state's public health department for the new guidance was as follows: Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing and chanting negate the risk reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing. A notable example of a 'super-spreading event' of COVID-19 occurred at a church choir rehearsal in Washington state, where 60 singers convened in Skagit County on March 10. Of those, 45 became ill with the virus and two died, despite attendees' best efforts to remain socially distant from each other. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 'The act of singing, itself, might have contributed to transmission through emission of aerosols, which is affected by loudness of vocalization.' The COVID-19 pandemic has become a political wedge issue in the the country's ongoing culture wars. Right-leaning media outlets seized on these new guidelines, writing headlines like, 'Outrage after California bans singing in churches amid coronavirus pandemic,' and also, 'California's Governor Forbids Christians From Singing in Church Houses.' These headlines are misleading. The state has no penalty for violating this guidance, so suggesting the state 'forbids' any group from singing is an exaggeration. A spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health told us in an email, 'Californians are being encouraged to be responsible as the guidance is used to educate the public without the threat of fines and citations as the first course of action.' Also, the guidance doesn't apply to Christian churches alone, it applies to all 'places of worship and providers of religious services and cultural ceremonies,' meaning any faith or cultural institution is equally affected. Nevertheless, headlines that highlighted the fact that Christian church congregations would be affected prompted a spate of internet outrage and misleading claims that Christians were being unfairly singled out. For example: Per the Los Angeles Times, the Independence Day holiday 'marked the 15th consecutive day that California tallied record hospitalization numbers of confirmed coronavirus patients. On Saturday, the state recorded 5,669 patients with confirmed coronavirus infections in California hospitals - an increase of 62% over the previous two weeks.' | nan | [] |
Barack Obama said that Hillary Clinton would 'say anything and do nothing' and that she was not qualified for the presidency in 2008. | Neutral | In July 2016 an image featuring quotes attributed to Barack Obama, uttered in 2008 about his then political opponent Hillary Clinton, was circulated on social media just as Clinton was claiming the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination: The first half of the quote reproduced in the image, at least, can be loosely attributed to Barack Obama. Although he didn't actually say those words, the phrase 'she will say anything and change nothing' was part of a voiceover narration used in a radio spot approved by Obama during the 2008 Democratic primaries: Obama: 'I'm Barack Obama, running for president and I approve this message.' Announcer: 'It's what's wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected. Now she's making false attacks on Barack Obama. 'The Washington Post says Clinton isn't telling the truth. Obama 'did not say that he liked the ideas of Republicans.' In fact, Obama's led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class. 'But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA - even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush's war in Iraq. 'Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page. Paid for by Obama for America.' Although this radio attack ad focused on Clinton's trustworthiness, the phrase 'Hillary can't be trusted and isn't qualified to be president' did not appear in it, and we found no record of Barack Obama's having otherwise uttered or used this phrase during the 2008 campaign. Such a charge would also have been problematic for the young Illinois senator to have made during the 2008 election, as back then Obama was seen as the more unqualified and inexperienced candidate compared to Hillary Clinton. Interestingly, when ABC News covered this ad in 2008, they presciently wrote that it was 'so harsh' that they wouldn't be surprised if the GOP eventually used it against Hillary Clinton: The ad is so harsh, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see whomever the GOP nominee ends up being using it in his ads against Clinton, should she become the Democratic nominee. | nan | [] |
Barack Obama said that Hillary Clinton would 'say anything and do nothing' and that she was not qualified for the presidency in 2008. | Neutral | In July 2016 an image featuring quotes attributed to Barack Obama, uttered in 2008 about his then political opponent Hillary Clinton, was circulated on social media just as Clinton was claiming the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination: The first half of the quote reproduced in the image, at least, can be loosely attributed to Barack Obama. Although he didn't actually say those words, the phrase 'she will say anything and change nothing' was part of a voiceover narration used in a radio spot approved by Obama during the 2008 Democratic primaries: Obama: 'I'm Barack Obama, running for president and I approve this message.' Announcer: 'It's what's wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected. Now she's making false attacks on Barack Obama. 'The Washington Post says Clinton isn't telling the truth. Obama 'did not say that he liked the ideas of Republicans.' In fact, Obama's led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class. 'But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA - even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush's war in Iraq. 'Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page. Paid for by Obama for America.' Although this radio attack ad focused on Clinton's trustworthiness, the phrase 'Hillary can't be trusted and isn't qualified to be president' did not appear in it, and we found no record of Barack Obama's having otherwise uttered or used this phrase during the 2008 campaign. Such a charge would also have been problematic for the young Illinois senator to have made during the 2008 election, as back then Obama was seen as the more unqualified and inexperienced candidate compared to Hillary Clinton. Interestingly, when ABC News covered this ad in 2008, they presciently wrote that it was 'so harsh' that they wouldn't be surprised if the GOP eventually used it against Hillary Clinton: The ad is so harsh, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see whomever the GOP nominee ends up being using it in his ads against Clinton, should she become the Democratic nominee. | nan | [] |
Cocktails are a wholly American invention, popularized by Prohibition. | Neutral | The Prohibition era lasted little more than a decade - from 1920 to 1933 - but its effects stretched far beyond those years. Speakeasies and saloons are still lionized by historical fetishists, and slang from that era is still in American English today. One popular story about Prohibition is that the cocktail (using both the general definition of a 'mixed drink' and the specific one of spirits, bitters, and sugar) emerged as a wholly American invention, straight from the alcohol ban. The popular mixed drinks, or so the story goes, were created to dilute or mask the pungent (if not outright nasty) taste of moonshine or bathtub brew: Where beer and wine had previously been the drinks of choice, now alcohol was drank much more frequently, as it was easier to transport and took up less space, making it cheaper for speakeasy patrons. It was at this time that the 'cocktail' was born, which had virtually been non-existent prior to Prohibition.... This sounds plausible, bolstered by a mixology recipe book a bit later in the century, penned by a bartender named 'Professor' Jerry Thomas and advancing the claim that cocktails came straight from the States. But human nature being what it is, how plausible is it that humanity has been consuming fermented drinks for thousands of years and only stumbled onto cocktails in the past few hundred? As it turns out, not very. Despite 'Professor' Thomas's valuable contributions to cocktail culture, not even the word is American: the first time the word can be found in print (at least where the drinks are concerned) is in 1798 - in a London newspaper. (Thomas worked in London before returning to the United States.) So Americans didn't invent the cocktail, after all. But they did help popularize it - just not during Prohibition. Mixed drinks actually showed up long before the 1920s; they were already well known in colonial times, an era in which alcohol was consumed routinely and enthusiastically. A 1991 article in the Organization of American Historians Magazine of History has alcohol consumption in the late 1700s at about three and a half gallons per person a year, or double today's rates: By 1770 Americans consumed alcohol regularly with every meal. Many people began the day with an 'eye-opener' and closed it with a nightcap. People of all ages drank, including toddlers who finished off the heavily sugared portion at the bottom of a parent's mug of rum toddy. That alcohol was often in the form of various mixed drinks, but they didn't officially evolve into the cocktail (officially, a mixture of 'aromatic bitters' mixed into spirit with water and a dash of sugar) until a bit later. Bitters, which are highly concentrated plant extracts, were used medicinally for centuries, but became famous in the 1800s in Venezuela (home of Angostura) when they were used to treat Simon Bolivar's army. As bitters were often taken with spirits and sugar to make them more palatable, they quickly went from medicinal to recreational use. Back in the United States, the rate of alcohol consumption was rising quickly. Historian W.J. Rorabaugh writes that by the 1830s, the average person drank around four gallons of alcoholic beverages per year: ...after 1800, as the quantity of spirits consumed increased, the total quantity of alcohol consumed from all sources until it reached a peak of nearly 4 gallons per capita in 1830. This rate of consumption was the highest in the annals of the United States. After reaching this peak, consumption fell sharply under the influence of the temperance movement, and since 1840 its highest levels have been under 2 gallons - less than half the rate of consumption in the 1820s. According to cocktail historian David Wondrich, bitters were an easy addition to the ferment, with the added bonus of being medicinal (early advertising sold bitters as hangover cures). It was an addition to which both Europeans and Americans took enthusiastically: In any case, by the middle of the 1700s, gin and bitters, brandy and bitters, and wine and bitters all appear frequently on both sides of the Atlantic. Indeed, in May 1783, when British officers were meeting with George Washington and his staff to arrange the British surrender of New York, 'Washington pulled out his watch,' as the Loyalist William Smith recorded in his diary, 'and observing that it was near Dinner Time, offered Wine and Bitters.' With this we should bear in mind the New Orleans Daily Picayune's 1844 observation that 'although the term of 'wine-and-bitters' be in appearance specific, it is indeed one of the most generic which the wealth of the English language furnishes,' and it is easily comprehended as the cocktail itself. Was the Father of His Country the host of the first cocktail hour on record? It's possible. Alcohol use continued to grow until Prohibition cut it, but not by as much as temperance proponents thought it might. Speakeasies quickly sprang up like mushrooms after a rain; a thriving black market brought in beer, wine, and liquor; and everyone knew someone with a still somewhere. But speakeasies, where the threat of raids loomed every moment, weren't a place to nurse your elegant and sophisticated mixed drink, no matter what you might have heard. They were instead a place to bolt down alcoholic drinks as quickly as possible, writes Wondrich: So if you desire a real speakeasy tipple, you can have either a glass of Champagne or a whiskey-and-ginger-ale highball. That's about it. All that talk of the fabulous cocktails made in the midst of Prohibition in order to mask the flavors of badly made alcohol is wrong. When your drinking experience is an illegal one, you just want to get down to drinking. After Prohibition ended, 'Americans didn't know a damn thing about drinking,' Esquire lamented. (The magazine was launched in 1933, the same year Prohibition was repealed.) The elegant tastes of medicinal bitters and delicately mixed drinks were all but forgotten: Fourteen years of adulterate alcohol and literally criminal bartenders had turned us into a nation of indiscriminate liquor swillers, people who thought the right wine for filet of sole was gin and orange juice. So clearly, cocktail culture had to be built up again from scratch. Luckily, the Old World had never even considered an alcohol ban and so the recipes were there, waiting to return to the United States, once Prohibition was repealed. And what of the word 'cocktail?' How did a drink that began as a hangover cure and medicinal morning pick-me-up get its name? Its history is murky and its etymology difficult to pin down, but cocktail historian David Wondrich says he thinks his theory is 'pretty solid': I actually know where 'cocktail' came from, pretty solidly. It's in the book. Ginger was used in the horse trade to make a horse stick its tail up. They'd put it in its ass. If you had an old horse you were trying to sell, you would put some ginger up its butt, and it would cock its tail up and be frisky. That was known as 'cock-tail.' It comes from that. It became this morning thing. Something to cock your tail up, like an eye-opener. I'm almost positive that's where it's from. | nan | [] |
Cocktails are a wholly American invention, popularized by Prohibition. | Neutral | The Prohibition era lasted little more than a decade - from 1920 to 1933 - but its effects stretched far beyond those years. Speakeasies and saloons are still lionized by historical fetishists, and slang from that era is still in American English today. One popular story about Prohibition is that the cocktail (using both the general definition of a 'mixed drink' and the specific one of spirits, bitters, and sugar) emerged as a wholly American invention, straight from the alcohol ban. The popular mixed drinks, or so the story goes, were created to dilute or mask the pungent (if not outright nasty) taste of moonshine or bathtub brew: Where beer and wine had previously been the drinks of choice, now alcohol was drank much more frequently, as it was easier to transport and took up less space, making it cheaper for speakeasy patrons. It was at this time that the 'cocktail' was born, which had virtually been non-existent prior to Prohibition.... This sounds plausible, bolstered by a mixology recipe book a bit later in the century, penned by a bartender named 'Professor' Jerry Thomas and advancing the claim that cocktails came straight from the States. But human nature being what it is, how plausible is it that humanity has been consuming fermented drinks for thousands of years and only stumbled onto cocktails in the past few hundred? As it turns out, not very. Despite 'Professor' Thomas's valuable contributions to cocktail culture, not even the word is American: the first time the word can be found in print (at least where the drinks are concerned) is in 1798 - in a London newspaper. (Thomas worked in London before returning to the United States.) So Americans didn't invent the cocktail, after all. But they did help popularize it - just not during Prohibition. Mixed drinks actually showed up long before the 1920s; they were already well known in colonial times, an era in which alcohol was consumed routinely and enthusiastically. A 1991 article in the Organization of American Historians Magazine of History has alcohol consumption in the late 1700s at about three and a half gallons per person a year, or double today's rates: By 1770 Americans consumed alcohol regularly with every meal. Many people began the day with an 'eye-opener' and closed it with a nightcap. People of all ages drank, including toddlers who finished off the heavily sugared portion at the bottom of a parent's mug of rum toddy. That alcohol was often in the form of various mixed drinks, but they didn't officially evolve into the cocktail (officially, a mixture of 'aromatic bitters' mixed into spirit with water and a dash of sugar) until a bit later. Bitters, which are highly concentrated plant extracts, were used medicinally for centuries, but became famous in the 1800s in Venezuela (home of Angostura) when they were used to treat Simon Bolivar's army. As bitters were often taken with spirits and sugar to make them more palatable, they quickly went from medicinal to recreational use. Back in the United States, the rate of alcohol consumption was rising quickly. Historian W.J. Rorabaugh writes that by the 1830s, the average person drank around four gallons of alcoholic beverages per year: ...after 1800, as the quantity of spirits consumed increased, the total quantity of alcohol consumed from all sources until it reached a peak of nearly 4 gallons per capita in 1830. This rate of consumption was the highest in the annals of the United States. After reaching this peak, consumption fell sharply under the influence of the temperance movement, and since 1840 its highest levels have been under 2 gallons - less than half the rate of consumption in the 1820s. According to cocktail historian David Wondrich, bitters were an easy addition to the ferment, with the added bonus of being medicinal (early advertising sold bitters as hangover cures). It was an addition to which both Europeans and Americans took enthusiastically: In any case, by the middle of the 1700s, gin and bitters, brandy and bitters, and wine and bitters all appear frequently on both sides of the Atlantic. Indeed, in May 1783, when British officers were meeting with George Washington and his staff to arrange the British surrender of New York, 'Washington pulled out his watch,' as the Loyalist William Smith recorded in his diary, 'and observing that it was near Dinner Time, offered Wine and Bitters.' With this we should bear in mind the New Orleans Daily Picayune's 1844 observation that 'although the term of 'wine-and-bitters' be in appearance specific, it is indeed one of the most generic which the wealth of the English language furnishes,' and it is easily comprehended as the cocktail itself. Was the Father of His Country the host of the first cocktail hour on record? It's possible. Alcohol use continued to grow until Prohibition cut it, but not by as much as temperance proponents thought it might. Speakeasies quickly sprang up like mushrooms after a rain; a thriving black market brought in beer, wine, and liquor; and everyone knew someone with a still somewhere. But speakeasies, where the threat of raids loomed every moment, weren't a place to nurse your elegant and sophisticated mixed drink, no matter what you might have heard. They were instead a place to bolt down alcoholic drinks as quickly as possible, writes Wondrich: So if you desire a real speakeasy tipple, you can have either a glass of Champagne or a whiskey-and-ginger-ale highball. That's about it. All that talk of the fabulous cocktails made in the midst of Prohibition in order to mask the flavors of badly made alcohol is wrong. When your drinking experience is an illegal one, you just want to get down to drinking. After Prohibition ended, 'Americans didn't know a damn thing about drinking,' Esquire lamented. (The magazine was launched in 1933, the same year Prohibition was repealed.) The elegant tastes of medicinal bitters and delicately mixed drinks were all but forgotten: Fourteen years of adulterate alcohol and literally criminal bartenders had turned us into a nation of indiscriminate liquor swillers, people who thought the right wine for filet of sole was gin and orange juice. So clearly, cocktail culture had to be built up again from scratch. Luckily, the Old World had never even considered an alcohol ban and so the recipes were there, waiting to return to the United States, once Prohibition was repealed. And what of the word 'cocktail?' How did a drink that began as a hangover cure and medicinal morning pick-me-up get its name? Its history is murky and its etymology difficult to pin down, but cocktail historian David Wondrich says he thinks his theory is 'pretty solid': I actually know where 'cocktail' came from, pretty solidly. It's in the book. Ginger was used in the horse trade to make a horse stick its tail up. They'd put it in its ass. If you had an old horse you were trying to sell, you would put some ginger up its butt, and it would cock its tail up and be frisky. That was known as 'cock-tail.' It comes from that. It became this morning thing. Something to cock your tail up, like an eye-opener. I'm almost positive that's where it's from. | nan | [] |
Cocktails are a wholly American invention, popularized by Prohibition. | Neutral | The Prohibition era lasted little more than a decade - from 1920 to 1933 - but its effects stretched far beyond those years. Speakeasies and saloons are still lionized by historical fetishists, and slang from that era is still in American English today. One popular story about Prohibition is that the cocktail (using both the general definition of a 'mixed drink' and the specific one of spirits, bitters, and sugar) emerged as a wholly American invention, straight from the alcohol ban. The popular mixed drinks, or so the story goes, were created to dilute or mask the pungent (if not outright nasty) taste of moonshine or bathtub brew: Where beer and wine had previously been the drinks of choice, now alcohol was drank much more frequently, as it was easier to transport and took up less space, making it cheaper for speakeasy patrons. It was at this time that the 'cocktail' was born, which had virtually been non-existent prior to Prohibition.... This sounds plausible, bolstered by a mixology recipe book a bit later in the century, penned by a bartender named 'Professor' Jerry Thomas and advancing the claim that cocktails came straight from the States. But human nature being what it is, how plausible is it that humanity has been consuming fermented drinks for thousands of years and only stumbled onto cocktails in the past few hundred? As it turns out, not very. Despite 'Professor' Thomas's valuable contributions to cocktail culture, not even the word is American: the first time the word can be found in print (at least where the drinks are concerned) is in 1798 - in a London newspaper. (Thomas worked in London before returning to the United States.) So Americans didn't invent the cocktail, after all. But they did help popularize it - just not during Prohibition. Mixed drinks actually showed up long before the 1920s; they were already well known in colonial times, an era in which alcohol was consumed routinely and enthusiastically. A 1991 article in the Organization of American Historians Magazine of History has alcohol consumption in the late 1700s at about three and a half gallons per person a year, or double today's rates: By 1770 Americans consumed alcohol regularly with every meal. Many people began the day with an 'eye-opener' and closed it with a nightcap. People of all ages drank, including toddlers who finished off the heavily sugared portion at the bottom of a parent's mug of rum toddy. That alcohol was often in the form of various mixed drinks, but they didn't officially evolve into the cocktail (officially, a mixture of 'aromatic bitters' mixed into spirit with water and a dash of sugar) until a bit later. Bitters, which are highly concentrated plant extracts, were used medicinally for centuries, but became famous in the 1800s in Venezuela (home of Angostura) when they were used to treat Simon Bolivar's army. As bitters were often taken with spirits and sugar to make them more palatable, they quickly went from medicinal to recreational use. Back in the United States, the rate of alcohol consumption was rising quickly. Historian W.J. Rorabaugh writes that by the 1830s, the average person drank around four gallons of alcoholic beverages per year: ...after 1800, as the quantity of spirits consumed increased, the total quantity of alcohol consumed from all sources until it reached a peak of nearly 4 gallons per capita in 1830. This rate of consumption was the highest in the annals of the United States. After reaching this peak, consumption fell sharply under the influence of the temperance movement, and since 1840 its highest levels have been under 2 gallons - less than half the rate of consumption in the 1820s. According to cocktail historian David Wondrich, bitters were an easy addition to the ferment, with the added bonus of being medicinal (early advertising sold bitters as hangover cures). It was an addition to which both Europeans and Americans took enthusiastically: In any case, by the middle of the 1700s, gin and bitters, brandy and bitters, and wine and bitters all appear frequently on both sides of the Atlantic. Indeed, in May 1783, when British officers were meeting with George Washington and his staff to arrange the British surrender of New York, 'Washington pulled out his watch,' as the Loyalist William Smith recorded in his diary, 'and observing that it was near Dinner Time, offered Wine and Bitters.' With this we should bear in mind the New Orleans Daily Picayune's 1844 observation that 'although the term of 'wine-and-bitters' be in appearance specific, it is indeed one of the most generic which the wealth of the English language furnishes,' and it is easily comprehended as the cocktail itself. Was the Father of His Country the host of the first cocktail hour on record? It's possible. Alcohol use continued to grow until Prohibition cut it, but not by as much as temperance proponents thought it might. Speakeasies quickly sprang up like mushrooms after a rain; a thriving black market brought in beer, wine, and liquor; and everyone knew someone with a still somewhere. But speakeasies, where the threat of raids loomed every moment, weren't a place to nurse your elegant and sophisticated mixed drink, no matter what you might have heard. They were instead a place to bolt down alcoholic drinks as quickly as possible, writes Wondrich: So if you desire a real speakeasy tipple, you can have either a glass of Champagne or a whiskey-and-ginger-ale highball. That's about it. All that talk of the fabulous cocktails made in the midst of Prohibition in order to mask the flavors of badly made alcohol is wrong. When your drinking experience is an illegal one, you just want to get down to drinking. After Prohibition ended, 'Americans didn't know a damn thing about drinking,' Esquire lamented. (The magazine was launched in 1933, the same year Prohibition was repealed.) The elegant tastes of medicinal bitters and delicately mixed drinks were all but forgotten: Fourteen years of adulterate alcohol and literally criminal bartenders had turned us into a nation of indiscriminate liquor swillers, people who thought the right wine for filet of sole was gin and orange juice. So clearly, cocktail culture had to be built up again from scratch. Luckily, the Old World had never even considered an alcohol ban and so the recipes were there, waiting to return to the United States, once Prohibition was repealed. And what of the word 'cocktail?' How did a drink that began as a hangover cure and medicinal morning pick-me-up get its name? Its history is murky and its etymology difficult to pin down, but cocktail historian David Wondrich says he thinks his theory is 'pretty solid': I actually know where 'cocktail' came from, pretty solidly. It's in the book. Ginger was used in the horse trade to make a horse stick its tail up. They'd put it in its ass. If you had an old horse you were trying to sell, you would put some ginger up its butt, and it would cock its tail up and be frisky. That was known as 'cock-tail.' It comes from that. It became this morning thing. Something to cock your tail up, like an eye-opener. I'm almost positive that's where it's from. | nan | [] |
Cocktails are a wholly American invention, popularized by Prohibition. | Neutral | The Prohibition era lasted little more than a decade - from 1920 to 1933 - but its effects stretched far beyond those years. Speakeasies and saloons are still lionized by historical fetishists, and slang from that era is still in American English today. One popular story about Prohibition is that the cocktail (using both the general definition of a 'mixed drink' and the specific one of spirits, bitters, and sugar) emerged as a wholly American invention, straight from the alcohol ban. The popular mixed drinks, or so the story goes, were created to dilute or mask the pungent (if not outright nasty) taste of moonshine or bathtub brew: Where beer and wine had previously been the drinks of choice, now alcohol was drank much more frequently, as it was easier to transport and took up less space, making it cheaper for speakeasy patrons. It was at this time that the 'cocktail' was born, which had virtually been non-existent prior to Prohibition.... This sounds plausible, bolstered by a mixology recipe book a bit later in the century, penned by a bartender named 'Professor' Jerry Thomas and advancing the claim that cocktails came straight from the States. But human nature being what it is, how plausible is it that humanity has been consuming fermented drinks for thousands of years and only stumbled onto cocktails in the past few hundred? As it turns out, not very. Despite 'Professor' Thomas's valuable contributions to cocktail culture, not even the word is American: the first time the word can be found in print (at least where the drinks are concerned) is in 1798 - in a London newspaper. (Thomas worked in London before returning to the United States.) So Americans didn't invent the cocktail, after all. But they did help popularize it - just not during Prohibition. Mixed drinks actually showed up long before the 1920s; they were already well known in colonial times, an era in which alcohol was consumed routinely and enthusiastically. A 1991 article in the Organization of American Historians Magazine of History has alcohol consumption in the late 1700s at about three and a half gallons per person a year, or double today's rates: By 1770 Americans consumed alcohol regularly with every meal. Many people began the day with an 'eye-opener' and closed it with a nightcap. People of all ages drank, including toddlers who finished off the heavily sugared portion at the bottom of a parent's mug of rum toddy. That alcohol was often in the form of various mixed drinks, but they didn't officially evolve into the cocktail (officially, a mixture of 'aromatic bitters' mixed into spirit with water and a dash of sugar) until a bit later. Bitters, which are highly concentrated plant extracts, were used medicinally for centuries, but became famous in the 1800s in Venezuela (home of Angostura) when they were used to treat Simon Bolivar's army. As bitters were often taken with spirits and sugar to make them more palatable, they quickly went from medicinal to recreational use. Back in the United States, the rate of alcohol consumption was rising quickly. Historian W.J. Rorabaugh writes that by the 1830s, the average person drank around four gallons of alcoholic beverages per year: ...after 1800, as the quantity of spirits consumed increased, the total quantity of alcohol consumed from all sources until it reached a peak of nearly 4 gallons per capita in 1830. This rate of consumption was the highest in the annals of the United States. After reaching this peak, consumption fell sharply under the influence of the temperance movement, and since 1840 its highest levels have been under 2 gallons - less than half the rate of consumption in the 1820s. According to cocktail historian David Wondrich, bitters were an easy addition to the ferment, with the added bonus of being medicinal (early advertising sold bitters as hangover cures). It was an addition to which both Europeans and Americans took enthusiastically: In any case, by the middle of the 1700s, gin and bitters, brandy and bitters, and wine and bitters all appear frequently on both sides of the Atlantic. Indeed, in May 1783, when British officers were meeting with George Washington and his staff to arrange the British surrender of New York, 'Washington pulled out his watch,' as the Loyalist William Smith recorded in his diary, 'and observing that it was near Dinner Time, offered Wine and Bitters.' With this we should bear in mind the New Orleans Daily Picayune's 1844 observation that 'although the term of 'wine-and-bitters' be in appearance specific, it is indeed one of the most generic which the wealth of the English language furnishes,' and it is easily comprehended as the cocktail itself. Was the Father of His Country the host of the first cocktail hour on record? It's possible. Alcohol use continued to grow until Prohibition cut it, but not by as much as temperance proponents thought it might. Speakeasies quickly sprang up like mushrooms after a rain; a thriving black market brought in beer, wine, and liquor; and everyone knew someone with a still somewhere. But speakeasies, where the threat of raids loomed every moment, weren't a place to nurse your elegant and sophisticated mixed drink, no matter what you might have heard. They were instead a place to bolt down alcoholic drinks as quickly as possible, writes Wondrich: So if you desire a real speakeasy tipple, you can have either a glass of Champagne or a whiskey-and-ginger-ale highball. That's about it. All that talk of the fabulous cocktails made in the midst of Prohibition in order to mask the flavors of badly made alcohol is wrong. When your drinking experience is an illegal one, you just want to get down to drinking. After Prohibition ended, 'Americans didn't know a damn thing about drinking,' Esquire lamented. (The magazine was launched in 1933, the same year Prohibition was repealed.) The elegant tastes of medicinal bitters and delicately mixed drinks were all but forgotten: Fourteen years of adulterate alcohol and literally criminal bartenders had turned us into a nation of indiscriminate liquor swillers, people who thought the right wine for filet of sole was gin and orange juice. So clearly, cocktail culture had to be built up again from scratch. Luckily, the Old World had never even considered an alcohol ban and so the recipes were there, waiting to return to the United States, once Prohibition was repealed. And what of the word 'cocktail?' How did a drink that began as a hangover cure and medicinal morning pick-me-up get its name? Its history is murky and its etymology difficult to pin down, but cocktail historian David Wondrich says he thinks his theory is 'pretty solid': I actually know where 'cocktail' came from, pretty solidly. It's in the book. Ginger was used in the horse trade to make a horse stick its tail up. They'd put it in its ass. If you had an old horse you were trying to sell, you would put some ginger up its butt, and it would cock its tail up and be frisky. That was known as 'cock-tail.' It comes from that. It became this morning thing. Something to cock your tail up, like an eye-opener. I'm almost positive that's where it's from. | nan | [] |
Cocktails are a wholly American invention, popularized by Prohibition. | Neutral | The Prohibition era lasted little more than a decade - from 1920 to 1933 - but its effects stretched far beyond those years. Speakeasies and saloons are still lionized by historical fetishists, and slang from that era is still in American English today. One popular story about Prohibition is that the cocktail (using both the general definition of a 'mixed drink' and the specific one of spirits, bitters, and sugar) emerged as a wholly American invention, straight from the alcohol ban. The popular mixed drinks, or so the story goes, were created to dilute or mask the pungent (if not outright nasty) taste of moonshine or bathtub brew: Where beer and wine had previously been the drinks of choice, now alcohol was drank much more frequently, as it was easier to transport and took up less space, making it cheaper for speakeasy patrons. It was at this time that the 'cocktail' was born, which had virtually been non-existent prior to Prohibition.... This sounds plausible, bolstered by a mixology recipe book a bit later in the century, penned by a bartender named 'Professor' Jerry Thomas and advancing the claim that cocktails came straight from the States. But human nature being what it is, how plausible is it that humanity has been consuming fermented drinks for thousands of years and only stumbled onto cocktails in the past few hundred? As it turns out, not very. Despite 'Professor' Thomas's valuable contributions to cocktail culture, not even the word is American: the first time the word can be found in print (at least where the drinks are concerned) is in 1798 - in a London newspaper. (Thomas worked in London before returning to the United States.) So Americans didn't invent the cocktail, after all. But they did help popularize it - just not during Prohibition. Mixed drinks actually showed up long before the 1920s; they were already well known in colonial times, an era in which alcohol was consumed routinely and enthusiastically. A 1991 article in the Organization of American Historians Magazine of History has alcohol consumption in the late 1700s at about three and a half gallons per person a year, or double today's rates: By 1770 Americans consumed alcohol regularly with every meal. Many people began the day with an 'eye-opener' and closed it with a nightcap. People of all ages drank, including toddlers who finished off the heavily sugared portion at the bottom of a parent's mug of rum toddy. That alcohol was often in the form of various mixed drinks, but they didn't officially evolve into the cocktail (officially, a mixture of 'aromatic bitters' mixed into spirit with water and a dash of sugar) until a bit later. Bitters, which are highly concentrated plant extracts, were used medicinally for centuries, but became famous in the 1800s in Venezuela (home of Angostura) when they were used to treat Simon Bolivar's army. As bitters were often taken with spirits and sugar to make them more palatable, they quickly went from medicinal to recreational use. Back in the United States, the rate of alcohol consumption was rising quickly. Historian W.J. Rorabaugh writes that by the 1830s, the average person drank around four gallons of alcoholic beverages per year: ...after 1800, as the quantity of spirits consumed increased, the total quantity of alcohol consumed from all sources until it reached a peak of nearly 4 gallons per capita in 1830. This rate of consumption was the highest in the annals of the United States. After reaching this peak, consumption fell sharply under the influence of the temperance movement, and since 1840 its highest levels have been under 2 gallons - less than half the rate of consumption in the 1820s. According to cocktail historian David Wondrich, bitters were an easy addition to the ferment, with the added bonus of being medicinal (early advertising sold bitters as hangover cures). It was an addition to which both Europeans and Americans took enthusiastically: In any case, by the middle of the 1700s, gin and bitters, brandy and bitters, and wine and bitters all appear frequently on both sides of the Atlantic. Indeed, in May 1783, when British officers were meeting with George Washington and his staff to arrange the British surrender of New York, 'Washington pulled out his watch,' as the Loyalist William Smith recorded in his diary, 'and observing that it was near Dinner Time, offered Wine and Bitters.' With this we should bear in mind the New Orleans Daily Picayune's 1844 observation that 'although the term of 'wine-and-bitters' be in appearance specific, it is indeed one of the most generic which the wealth of the English language furnishes,' and it is easily comprehended as the cocktail itself. Was the Father of His Country the host of the first cocktail hour on record? It's possible. Alcohol use continued to grow until Prohibition cut it, but not by as much as temperance proponents thought it might. Speakeasies quickly sprang up like mushrooms after a rain; a thriving black market brought in beer, wine, and liquor; and everyone knew someone with a still somewhere. But speakeasies, where the threat of raids loomed every moment, weren't a place to nurse your elegant and sophisticated mixed drink, no matter what you might have heard. They were instead a place to bolt down alcoholic drinks as quickly as possible, writes Wondrich: So if you desire a real speakeasy tipple, you can have either a glass of Champagne or a whiskey-and-ginger-ale highball. That's about it. All that talk of the fabulous cocktails made in the midst of Prohibition in order to mask the flavors of badly made alcohol is wrong. When your drinking experience is an illegal one, you just want to get down to drinking. After Prohibition ended, 'Americans didn't know a damn thing about drinking,' Esquire lamented. (The magazine was launched in 1933, the same year Prohibition was repealed.) The elegant tastes of medicinal bitters and delicately mixed drinks were all but forgotten: Fourteen years of adulterate alcohol and literally criminal bartenders had turned us into a nation of indiscriminate liquor swillers, people who thought the right wine for filet of sole was gin and orange juice. So clearly, cocktail culture had to be built up again from scratch. Luckily, the Old World had never even considered an alcohol ban and so the recipes were there, waiting to return to the United States, once Prohibition was repealed. And what of the word 'cocktail?' How did a drink that began as a hangover cure and medicinal morning pick-me-up get its name? Its history is murky and its etymology difficult to pin down, but cocktail historian David Wondrich says he thinks his theory is 'pretty solid': I actually know where 'cocktail' came from, pretty solidly. It's in the book. Ginger was used in the horse trade to make a horse stick its tail up. They'd put it in its ass. If you had an old horse you were trying to sell, you would put some ginger up its butt, and it would cock its tail up and be frisky. That was known as 'cock-tail.' It comes from that. It became this morning thing. Something to cock your tail up, like an eye-opener. I'm almost positive that's where it's from. | nan | [] |
Cocktails are a wholly American invention, popularized by Prohibition. | Neutral | The Prohibition era lasted little more than a decade - from 1920 to 1933 - but its effects stretched far beyond those years. Speakeasies and saloons are still lionized by historical fetishists, and slang from that era is still in American English today. One popular story about Prohibition is that the cocktail (using both the general definition of a 'mixed drink' and the specific one of spirits, bitters, and sugar) emerged as a wholly American invention, straight from the alcohol ban. The popular mixed drinks, or so the story goes, were created to dilute or mask the pungent (if not outright nasty) taste of moonshine or bathtub brew: Where beer and wine had previously been the drinks of choice, now alcohol was drank much more frequently, as it was easier to transport and took up less space, making it cheaper for speakeasy patrons. It was at this time that the 'cocktail' was born, which had virtually been non-existent prior to Prohibition.... This sounds plausible, bolstered by a mixology recipe book a bit later in the century, penned by a bartender named 'Professor' Jerry Thomas and advancing the claim that cocktails came straight from the States. But human nature being what it is, how plausible is it that humanity has been consuming fermented drinks for thousands of years and only stumbled onto cocktails in the past few hundred? As it turns out, not very. Despite 'Professor' Thomas's valuable contributions to cocktail culture, not even the word is American: the first time the word can be found in print (at least where the drinks are concerned) is in 1798 - in a London newspaper. (Thomas worked in London before returning to the United States.) So Americans didn't invent the cocktail, after all. But they did help popularize it - just not during Prohibition. Mixed drinks actually showed up long before the 1920s; they were already well known in colonial times, an era in which alcohol was consumed routinely and enthusiastically. A 1991 article in the Organization of American Historians Magazine of History has alcohol consumption in the late 1700s at about three and a half gallons per person a year, or double today's rates: By 1770 Americans consumed alcohol regularly with every meal. Many people began the day with an 'eye-opener' and closed it with a nightcap. People of all ages drank, including toddlers who finished off the heavily sugared portion at the bottom of a parent's mug of rum toddy. That alcohol was often in the form of various mixed drinks, but they didn't officially evolve into the cocktail (officially, a mixture of 'aromatic bitters' mixed into spirit with water and a dash of sugar) until a bit later. Bitters, which are highly concentrated plant extracts, were used medicinally for centuries, but became famous in the 1800s in Venezuela (home of Angostura) when they were used to treat Simon Bolivar's army. As bitters were often taken with spirits and sugar to make them more palatable, they quickly went from medicinal to recreational use. Back in the United States, the rate of alcohol consumption was rising quickly. Historian W.J. Rorabaugh writes that by the 1830s, the average person drank around four gallons of alcoholic beverages per year: ...after 1800, as the quantity of spirits consumed increased, the total quantity of alcohol consumed from all sources until it reached a peak of nearly 4 gallons per capita in 1830. This rate of consumption was the highest in the annals of the United States. After reaching this peak, consumption fell sharply under the influence of the temperance movement, and since 1840 its highest levels have been under 2 gallons - less than half the rate of consumption in the 1820s. According to cocktail historian David Wondrich, bitters were an easy addition to the ferment, with the added bonus of being medicinal (early advertising sold bitters as hangover cures). It was an addition to which both Europeans and Americans took enthusiastically: In any case, by the middle of the 1700s, gin and bitters, brandy and bitters, and wine and bitters all appear frequently on both sides of the Atlantic. Indeed, in May 1783, when British officers were meeting with George Washington and his staff to arrange the British surrender of New York, 'Washington pulled out his watch,' as the Loyalist William Smith recorded in his diary, 'and observing that it was near Dinner Time, offered Wine and Bitters.' With this we should bear in mind the New Orleans Daily Picayune's 1844 observation that 'although the term of 'wine-and-bitters' be in appearance specific, it is indeed one of the most generic which the wealth of the English language furnishes,' and it is easily comprehended as the cocktail itself. Was the Father of His Country the host of the first cocktail hour on record? It's possible. Alcohol use continued to grow until Prohibition cut it, but not by as much as temperance proponents thought it might. Speakeasies quickly sprang up like mushrooms after a rain; a thriving black market brought in beer, wine, and liquor; and everyone knew someone with a still somewhere. But speakeasies, where the threat of raids loomed every moment, weren't a place to nurse your elegant and sophisticated mixed drink, no matter what you might have heard. They were instead a place to bolt down alcoholic drinks as quickly as possible, writes Wondrich: So if you desire a real speakeasy tipple, you can have either a glass of Champagne or a whiskey-and-ginger-ale highball. That's about it. All that talk of the fabulous cocktails made in the midst of Prohibition in order to mask the flavors of badly made alcohol is wrong. When your drinking experience is an illegal one, you just want to get down to drinking. After Prohibition ended, 'Americans didn't know a damn thing about drinking,' Esquire lamented. (The magazine was launched in 1933, the same year Prohibition was repealed.) The elegant tastes of medicinal bitters and delicately mixed drinks were all but forgotten: Fourteen years of adulterate alcohol and literally criminal bartenders had turned us into a nation of indiscriminate liquor swillers, people who thought the right wine for filet of sole was gin and orange juice. So clearly, cocktail culture had to be built up again from scratch. Luckily, the Old World had never even considered an alcohol ban and so the recipes were there, waiting to return to the United States, once Prohibition was repealed. And what of the word 'cocktail?' How did a drink that began as a hangover cure and medicinal morning pick-me-up get its name? Its history is murky and its etymology difficult to pin down, but cocktail historian David Wondrich says he thinks his theory is 'pretty solid': I actually know where 'cocktail' came from, pretty solidly. It's in the book. Ginger was used in the horse trade to make a horse stick its tail up. They'd put it in its ass. If you had an old horse you were trying to sell, you would put some ginger up its butt, and it would cock its tail up and be frisky. That was known as 'cock-tail.' It comes from that. It became this morning thing. Something to cock your tail up, like an eye-opener. I'm almost positive that's where it's from. | nan | [] |
Cocktails are a wholly American invention, popularized by Prohibition. | Neutral | The Prohibition era lasted little more than a decade - from 1920 to 1933 - but its effects stretched far beyond those years. Speakeasies and saloons are still lionized by historical fetishists, and slang from that era is still in American English today. One popular story about Prohibition is that the cocktail (using both the general definition of a 'mixed drink' and the specific one of spirits, bitters, and sugar) emerged as a wholly American invention, straight from the alcohol ban. The popular mixed drinks, or so the story goes, were created to dilute or mask the pungent (if not outright nasty) taste of moonshine or bathtub brew: Where beer and wine had previously been the drinks of choice, now alcohol was drank much more frequently, as it was easier to transport and took up less space, making it cheaper for speakeasy patrons. It was at this time that the 'cocktail' was born, which had virtually been non-existent prior to Prohibition.... This sounds plausible, bolstered by a mixology recipe book a bit later in the century, penned by a bartender named 'Professor' Jerry Thomas and advancing the claim that cocktails came straight from the States. But human nature being what it is, how plausible is it that humanity has been consuming fermented drinks for thousands of years and only stumbled onto cocktails in the past few hundred? As it turns out, not very. Despite 'Professor' Thomas's valuable contributions to cocktail culture, not even the word is American: the first time the word can be found in print (at least where the drinks are concerned) is in 1798 - in a London newspaper. (Thomas worked in London before returning to the United States.) So Americans didn't invent the cocktail, after all. But they did help popularize it - just not during Prohibition. Mixed drinks actually showed up long before the 1920s; they were already well known in colonial times, an era in which alcohol was consumed routinely and enthusiastically. A 1991 article in the Organization of American Historians Magazine of History has alcohol consumption in the late 1700s at about three and a half gallons per person a year, or double today's rates: By 1770 Americans consumed alcohol regularly with every meal. Many people began the day with an 'eye-opener' and closed it with a nightcap. People of all ages drank, including toddlers who finished off the heavily sugared portion at the bottom of a parent's mug of rum toddy. That alcohol was often in the form of various mixed drinks, but they didn't officially evolve into the cocktail (officially, a mixture of 'aromatic bitters' mixed into spirit with water and a dash of sugar) until a bit later. Bitters, which are highly concentrated plant extracts, were used medicinally for centuries, but became famous in the 1800s in Venezuela (home of Angostura) when they were used to treat Simon Bolivar's army. As bitters were often taken with spirits and sugar to make them more palatable, they quickly went from medicinal to recreational use. Back in the United States, the rate of alcohol consumption was rising quickly. Historian W.J. Rorabaugh writes that by the 1830s, the average person drank around four gallons of alcoholic beverages per year: ...after 1800, as the quantity of spirits consumed increased, the total quantity of alcohol consumed from all sources until it reached a peak of nearly 4 gallons per capita in 1830. This rate of consumption was the highest in the annals of the United States. After reaching this peak, consumption fell sharply under the influence of the temperance movement, and since 1840 its highest levels have been under 2 gallons - less than half the rate of consumption in the 1820s. According to cocktail historian David Wondrich, bitters were an easy addition to the ferment, with the added bonus of being medicinal (early advertising sold bitters as hangover cures). It was an addition to which both Europeans and Americans took enthusiastically: In any case, by the middle of the 1700s, gin and bitters, brandy and bitters, and wine and bitters all appear frequently on both sides of the Atlantic. Indeed, in May 1783, when British officers were meeting with George Washington and his staff to arrange the British surrender of New York, 'Washington pulled out his watch,' as the Loyalist William Smith recorded in his diary, 'and observing that it was near Dinner Time, offered Wine and Bitters.' With this we should bear in mind the New Orleans Daily Picayune's 1844 observation that 'although the term of 'wine-and-bitters' be in appearance specific, it is indeed one of the most generic which the wealth of the English language furnishes,' and it is easily comprehended as the cocktail itself. Was the Father of His Country the host of the first cocktail hour on record? It's possible. Alcohol use continued to grow until Prohibition cut it, but not by as much as temperance proponents thought it might. Speakeasies quickly sprang up like mushrooms after a rain; a thriving black market brought in beer, wine, and liquor; and everyone knew someone with a still somewhere. But speakeasies, where the threat of raids loomed every moment, weren't a place to nurse your elegant and sophisticated mixed drink, no matter what you might have heard. They were instead a place to bolt down alcoholic drinks as quickly as possible, writes Wondrich: So if you desire a real speakeasy tipple, you can have either a glass of Champagne or a whiskey-and-ginger-ale highball. That's about it. All that talk of the fabulous cocktails made in the midst of Prohibition in order to mask the flavors of badly made alcohol is wrong. When your drinking experience is an illegal one, you just want to get down to drinking. After Prohibition ended, 'Americans didn't know a damn thing about drinking,' Esquire lamented. (The magazine was launched in 1933, the same year Prohibition was repealed.) The elegant tastes of medicinal bitters and delicately mixed drinks were all but forgotten: Fourteen years of adulterate alcohol and literally criminal bartenders had turned us into a nation of indiscriminate liquor swillers, people who thought the right wine for filet of sole was gin and orange juice. So clearly, cocktail culture had to be built up again from scratch. Luckily, the Old World had never even considered an alcohol ban and so the recipes were there, waiting to return to the United States, once Prohibition was repealed. And what of the word 'cocktail?' How did a drink that began as a hangover cure and medicinal morning pick-me-up get its name? Its history is murky and its etymology difficult to pin down, but cocktail historian David Wondrich says he thinks his theory is 'pretty solid': I actually know where 'cocktail' came from, pretty solidly. It's in the book. Ginger was used in the horse trade to make a horse stick its tail up. They'd put it in its ass. If you had an old horse you were trying to sell, you would put some ginger up its butt, and it would cock its tail up and be frisky. That was known as 'cock-tail.' It comes from that. It became this morning thing. Something to cock your tail up, like an eye-opener. I'm almost positive that's where it's from. | nan | [] |
A Congressional bill sought to add FDR's D-Day prayer to the national World War II Memorial, but the Obama administration killed it. | Neutral | On the evening 5 June 1944, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had big war news to report to the nation via radio: Allied troops had liberated the city of Rome, making it the first of the three Axis powers' capitals to be taken (in the words of FDR, 'One up, two to go'). The following day, FDR had even bigger news to discuss with his audience: Allied troops had begun the invasion of German-occupied Europe with the Normandy landings, an event which would come to be known simply as 'D-Day.' On that latter occasion, FDR asked his American radio audience to join with him in a prayer seeking blessings for American troops, reciting a supplication he had written himself, entitled 'Let Our Hearts Be Stout': My Fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far. And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer: Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph. They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest - until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war. For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home. Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom. And for us at home - fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them - help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice. Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts. Give us strength, too - strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces. And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be. And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment - let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose. With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace - a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen. (A recording of FDR's reciting 'Let Our Hearts Be Stout' can be heard here.) On 1 June 2011, Rep. Bill Johnson of Ohio introduced a bill in the House of Representatives (HR 2070) which sought to 'direct the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the Nation on June 6, 1944, the morning of D-Day.' Robert Abbey, the director of the Bureau of Land Management, indicated in statement provided to a congressional subcommittee on 3 November 2011 that his department did not view the proposal favorably: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2070, a bill which directs the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt prayed with the Nation on June 6, 1944, the morning of D-Day. The Department cannot support H.R. 2070, which essentially proposes adding another commemorative work to the existing World War II Memorial and as such is contrary to the Commemorative Works Act. We support the continued application of this law which, by prohibiting encroachment by a new commemoration on an existing one, respects the design of this completed work of civic art without alteration or addition of new elements. The World War II Memorial was authorized on May 23, 1993, by Public Law 103-32. In 1994, Congress approved its placement in the area containing the National Mall in Public Law 103-422. Its location at the site of the Rainbow Pool was approved in 1995 by the National Park Service (NPS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). In July 1997, the CFA and the NCPC reaffirmed prior approvals of the Rainbow Pool site in recognition of the significance of World War II as the single-most defining event of the 20th Century for Americans and the world. Even so, there were challenges to the establishment of this memorial. The design we see today was painstakingly arrived upon after years of public deliberations and spirited public debate. The Commemorative Works Act specifically states that a new commemorative work shall be located so that it does not encroach upon an existing one. It is not a judgment as to the merit of this new commemoration, simply that altering the Memorial in this way, as proposed in H.R. 2070, will necessarily dilute this elegant memorial's central message and its ability to clearly convey that message to move, educate, and inspire its many visitors. The Department strongly believes that the World War II Memorial, as designed, accomplishes its legislated purpose to honor the members of the Armed Forces who served in World War II and to commemorate the participation of the United States in that conflict. It should not be altered in the manner suggested by H.R. 2070. The views of the Department are consistent with those of the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, which reviewed this proposal at its meeting on September 14, 2011, and with the views of the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) which was also represented at that same meeting. The ABMC, charged by the Congress in Public Law 103-32 to design and build the World War II Memorial, concurred that no additional elements should be inserted into this carefully designed Memorial. It is inaccurate to maintain that President Obama 'killed' the plan proposed by HR 2070, as the bill had not yet even been voted upon by either house of Congress, much less passed by both and sent to the president for signature (or veto), at the time the message quoted above was written. Ultimately, the bill was passed by the House but stalled in the Senate and was never brought to a vote in the latter body. | nan | [
"03686-proof-04-GettyImages-982602258-e1558980584812.jpg"
] |
A Congressional bill sought to add FDR's D-Day prayer to the national World War II Memorial, but the Obama administration killed it. | Neutral | On the evening 5 June 1944, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had big war news to report to the nation via radio: Allied troops had liberated the city of Rome, making it the first of the three Axis powers' capitals to be taken (in the words of FDR, 'One up, two to go'). The following day, FDR had even bigger news to discuss with his audience: Allied troops had begun the invasion of German-occupied Europe with the Normandy landings, an event which would come to be known simply as 'D-Day.' On that latter occasion, FDR asked his American radio audience to join with him in a prayer seeking blessings for American troops, reciting a supplication he had written himself, entitled 'Let Our Hearts Be Stout': My Fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far. And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer: Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph. They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest - until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the violences of war. For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home. Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom. And for us at home - fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them - help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice. Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts. Give us strength, too - strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces. And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be. And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment - let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose. With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace - a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen. (A recording of FDR's reciting 'Let Our Hearts Be Stout' can be heard here.) On 1 June 2011, Rep. Bill Johnson of Ohio introduced a bill in the House of Representatives (HR 2070) which sought to 'direct the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the Nation on June 6, 1944, the morning of D-Day.' Robert Abbey, the director of the Bureau of Land Management, indicated in statement provided to a congressional subcommittee on 3 November 2011 that his department did not view the proposal favorably: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee to present the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2070, a bill which directs the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt prayed with the Nation on June 6, 1944, the morning of D-Day. The Department cannot support H.R. 2070, which essentially proposes adding another commemorative work to the existing World War II Memorial and as such is contrary to the Commemorative Works Act. We support the continued application of this law which, by prohibiting encroachment by a new commemoration on an existing one, respects the design of this completed work of civic art without alteration or addition of new elements. The World War II Memorial was authorized on May 23, 1993, by Public Law 103-32. In 1994, Congress approved its placement in the area containing the National Mall in Public Law 103-422. Its location at the site of the Rainbow Pool was approved in 1995 by the National Park Service (NPS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). In July 1997, the CFA and the NCPC reaffirmed prior approvals of the Rainbow Pool site in recognition of the significance of World War II as the single-most defining event of the 20th Century for Americans and the world. Even so, there were challenges to the establishment of this memorial. The design we see today was painstakingly arrived upon after years of public deliberations and spirited public debate. The Commemorative Works Act specifically states that a new commemorative work shall be located so that it does not encroach upon an existing one. It is not a judgment as to the merit of this new commemoration, simply that altering the Memorial in this way, as proposed in H.R. 2070, will necessarily dilute this elegant memorial's central message and its ability to clearly convey that message to move, educate, and inspire its many visitors. The Department strongly believes that the World War II Memorial, as designed, accomplishes its legislated purpose to honor the members of the Armed Forces who served in World War II and to commemorate the participation of the United States in that conflict. It should not be altered in the manner suggested by H.R. 2070. The views of the Department are consistent with those of the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, which reviewed this proposal at its meeting on September 14, 2011, and with the views of the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) which was also represented at that same meeting. The ABMC, charged by the Congress in Public Law 103-32 to design and build the World War II Memorial, concurred that no additional elements should be inserted into this carefully designed Memorial. It is inaccurate to maintain that President Obama 'killed' the plan proposed by HR 2070, as the bill had not yet even been voted upon by either house of Congress, much less passed by both and sent to the president for signature (or veto), at the time the message quoted above was written. Ultimately, the bill was passed by the House but stalled in the Senate and was never brought to a vote in the latter body. | nan | [
"03686-proof-04-GettyImages-982602258-e1558980584812.jpg"
] |
Luxottica controls 80 percent of eyewear brands, several major optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer. | Neutral | On 14 September 2016, the College Humor web site published a segment of popular truTV debunking show Adam Ruins Everything about 'The Conspiracy Behind Your Glasses,' describing how the Luxottica conglomerate owns 80 percent of eyeglass brands, most optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States: Unlike most videos of this nature, Adam Ruins Everything provides links to sources for their statements. The video's primary claim was that Luxottica controls 80 percent of the eyeglass market, which was supported by reference to a 2014 Forbes blog post. That blog post cited a 2012 Forbes, which in turn offered up the statistic without citation: Products exist in the mind and brands live in the heart: Luxury brands conjure up lifestyle interpretations we want to buy into. More than 500 million people don Luxottica's products and CEO Andrea Guerra insists that 'customers have the brand choice for their lifestyle,' and that it's prevalent in their offering: 'Luxottica has been able to deliver eyewear collections faster, enriched with more sophisticated decorations and innovative materials, to stores.' If you owned 80% of the high-end eyewear market and were doing what any CMO desires - achieving brand growth, relevance and revenue - you'd say that too, right? Without additional documentation it was difficult to authenticate the claim that Luxottica controls '80 percent of glasses and sunglasses brands,' as both cited Forbes pieces were published by contributors and not the magazine itself. Variables such as the passage of time (four years between the claim's first uncited appearance in Forbes and its reiteration in the September 2016 video), ongoing increases in e-commerce, and the difficulty of establishing a baseline against which to compare Luxottica's market share versus those pf innumerable small competitors made verification problematic. Much of the interest in Luxottica's retail dominance came from a segment aired on the CBS 60 Minutes news magazine program in 2012, but that segment also did not provide a number for the proportion of eyeglass and sunglass brands that fall under Luxottica's umbrella (compared to those of competitors such as Walmart, Costco, Zenni Optical, or Warby Parker). In May 2015, Business of Fashion provided more recent figures for Luxottica's European sales performance, contrasted with those of the next-largest competitor, the Safilo group: Luxottica, the dominant frame producer, owns a portfolio of eyewear brands that includes Persol and Ray-Ban, the latter of which is the biggest brand in the market. It holds the licenses to produce eyewear for global fashion brands such as Chanel, Armani, Prada and Michael Kors and manages the distribution of its products through 200,000 wholesale doors. In 2014, the Italian company generated over €7.6 billion (about $8.5 billion) in revenue. In addition, Luxottica owns the Sunglass Hut retail brand and is a retail company in its own right, with over 7,000 stores worldwide, giving it a majority share of the eyewear market. Rumblings of discontent about Luxottica's increasingly firm grip on the eyewear market were not new in 2016. A 2013 Yahoo! Finance article examined whether the brand's stranglehold on optometry chains inhibited patients from obtaining complete prescriptions and taking their business elsewhere: When California attorney Sylvia Chi wanted a new pair of glasses, she came across Warby Parker, an upstart online seller that features hip styles and low prices. She had her prescription but Warby Parker needed one more piece of information to make her glasses - the distance between her pupils. Chi called a Pearle Vision store where she'd bought her last pair but the store refused to give out the measurement. A local LensCrafters told her its pupil measuring machine was broken. Ultimately, Chi had to pay $25 at a local optometry clinic to get her pupillary distance, or PD. Turns out the giant of the $28 billion U.S. eyewear market, Luxottica (LUX), owns both store chains. And the Italian company, which also owns everything from brands like Oliver Peoples and Ray-Ban to the Sunglasses Hut chain, has cracked down on giving out the PD measurement. Optometrists 'used to do it for free in optical shops and now they're refusing to provide that service or charging for it,' says Warby Parker co-founder and co-CEO David Gilboa. 'A lot of them work in stores owned by Luxottica.' 'The reason Luxottica invested in all the physical retailers was precisely to create a closed system,' says Barry Lynn, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. The company did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Lynn brought interest into Luxottica's market dominance to the fore in his 2011 book Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction: You're at the mall, looking to buy a pair of prescription sunglasses. Which of the four eyeglass stores listed in the directory should you visit first? Don't waste a lot of time deciding; it really doesn't matter. A single, huge international corporation owns three of the four eyeglass stores listed. And the fourth? Out of business. Think you'll try your luck at Sears? Don't bother. The same company you've never heard of controls their eyewear department, too. What appears at first to be a fine example of competitive capitalism in action is, in fact, an immense monopoly in disguise. In May 2011, Luxottica made headlines in California for controversial business practices criticized as a bid to expand control of the eyewear market: Luxottica's most renowned brands include Ray-Ban and Oakley, but it also makes sunglasses and prescription frames for designer brands such as Chanel, Prada, Burberry, Polo Ralph Lauren, Tiffany, Versace, Vogue, Donna Karan and many others. Besides LensCrafters, its retail subsidiaries include Sunglass Hut, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Target Optical, BJ's Optical and Cole Vision Care. Barry Lynn, director of the New America Foundation's Markets, Enterprise and Resiliency Initiative, said if you define a monopolistic company as one 'big enough to determine the terms of business within its industry,' then Luxottica qualifies. 'The consumer is not protected when you have this kind of consolidation.' A 2008 article in advocacy periodical Consumers Digest maintained a critical view of Luxottica, describing several mergers and buyouts and a less-than-flattering assessment of the Luxottica's practices: The federal government barely blinked when Luxottica Group, the world's largest frame manufacturer, extended its reach and influence beyond design. It now controls 20 percent of the retail market in the United States, including ownership of national chain stores, such as LensCrafters and Pearle Vision. On top of it all, you're paying way too much. From the local doctor's office to the well-known retail chain, these places mark up the price of your frames and lenses by about 250 percent. Over the past 5 years, Luxottica, the world's largest corporate player in the eyeglasses industry, steadily bought up other companies. Today, the company owns 30 different brands of frames, including Anne Klein, Burberry, DKNY, Oakley, Polo, Ralph Lauren, Ray-Ban, Versace and Vogue. It also controls retail shops, including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. And it owns the EyeMed Vision Care group, a vision insurance company. It makes its frames in company-owned plants in China and Italy and sells them in about 130 countries, so it's no surprise that Luxottica also owns China's Modern Sight Optics, a leading Chinese optical retailer. To us, that's quite a vertical integration that could present problems for consumers. To FTC, it appears to be business as usual. FTC investigated Luxottica's acquisitions in 2004, after the company acquired Pearle Vision, says Michael Moiseyev, assistant director, mergers, in the Bureau of Competition. But the agency decided Luxottica's takeovers did not constitute a monopoly, Moiseyev says, because 'it only accounts for 20 percent of the market, so it's not the kind of volume that gives us cause for concern.' In 2015, New York State Senator Chuck Schumer proposed changes to the FTC's Eyeglass Rule of 1992, enacted to ensure that patients were not locked into purchasing overpriced glasses because of monopolies. In a 27 September 2015 press release, Schumer's office cited the '80 percent' figure for Luxoticca's market share: Standing at LensCrafters, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to modernize its 'Eyeglass Rule' to allow for 21st-century competition by allowing patients to obtain a full copy of their eyeglass prescriptions so they can take that prescription anywhere they want-even online. Under current law, patients are not entitled to their full prescription, a situation that often forces them to pay more when buying glasses. Schumer explained that, while more than 200 million Americans are affected by vision loss, the average price for a pair of eyeglasses is a whopping $300 with no end in sight. Luxoticca, an Italian company, which owns LensCrafters and more than 80 percent of eyewear brands. For instance, Luxoticca makes frames for well-known brands like Burberry, Prada, and Tory Burch. In addition, Luxoticca owns several other popular American eyeglass chains such as Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. Schumer explained that Luxoticca has a monopoly-like hold over the eyewear industry and that this push, along with other actions, could help weaken this hold. Additionally, many health plans do not adequately cover eye care, while forces patients to pay out of pocket. On 30 September 2015, industry publication Optometry Times covered the same issue and suggested that Senator Schumer was 'misinformed': 'I feel Senator Schumer maybe a little misinformed here,' says Optometry Times Chief Optometric Editor Ernie Bowling, OD, FAAO. 'There are lots of online retailers available to the public. I really don't see competition or consumer choice in eyewear to be an issue right now ... When discussing the information needed to fill a prescription, we are really talking about the spectacle PD. I give the PD to every patient as part of his written prescription,' says Dr. Bowling. 'I don't think it's worth alienating a patient over a PD. But we do educate the patient about their choices in eyewear. There is a huge service component that goes in to measuring and fitting spectacles that you're not getting with an online retailer.' Luxottica provided a September 2015 statement to Optometry Times that reiterated the (less than) 20 percent market share figure cited by Consumers Digest: We were surprised to see how Senator Schumer presented our business and our industry in his public statement regarding the FTC's eyeglass rule. The optical industry is highly competitive and fragmented today. Industry data has consistently shown that Luxottica's share of eyeglass frame sales in the U.S. is below 20 percent. Moreover, the top 50 optical retailers combined account for only about a third of all U.S. eyeglasses sales. Luxottica themselves sent us the following statement: According to VisionWatch, almost 50% of eyeglasses in the U.S. are sold by independent optometrists and opticians. The other half is made up of chain retailers that include Costco, Walmart, Solstice and other non-Luxottica entities. According to Euromonitor International, the world's leading independent provider of strategic market research, 954 million frames were sold worldwide last year. Only 93 million of those were produced by Luxottica - less than 10%. Of the hundreds of eyewear brands available to consumers, Luxottica only produces around 30 of them. This includes Luxottica's proprietary brands such as Ray-Ban and Oakley as well as licensed brands such as Giorgio Armani, Burberry, Chanel, Dolce&Gabbana, Michael Kors and Prada, which make up the majority of the portfolio. Regardless of the actual figure, much of Adam Ruins Everything's assessment of Luxottica's market dominance was accurate, including the conglomerate's ownership of several prominent optometry chains and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States. However, it is difficult to measure Luxottica's relative dominance against the innumerable independent optometry practices, large-scale retailers such as Walmart and Costco, and popular online retailers such Zenni Optical and Warby Parker. It is true that avoiding Luxottica's products can be difficult in mass retail environments, but patients with a complete eyeglass prescription are still able to obtain eyeglasses and sunglasses through other companies. | nan | [] |
Luxottica controls 80 percent of eyewear brands, several major optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer. | Neutral | On 14 September 2016, the College Humor web site published a segment of popular truTV debunking show Adam Ruins Everything about 'The Conspiracy Behind Your Glasses,' describing how the Luxottica conglomerate owns 80 percent of eyeglass brands, most optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States: Unlike most videos of this nature, Adam Ruins Everything provides links to sources for their statements. The video's primary claim was that Luxottica controls 80 percent of the eyeglass market, which was supported by reference to a 2014 Forbes blog post. That blog post cited a 2012 Forbes, which in turn offered up the statistic without citation: Products exist in the mind and brands live in the heart: Luxury brands conjure up lifestyle interpretations we want to buy into. More than 500 million people don Luxottica's products and CEO Andrea Guerra insists that 'customers have the brand choice for their lifestyle,' and that it's prevalent in their offering: 'Luxottica has been able to deliver eyewear collections faster, enriched with more sophisticated decorations and innovative materials, to stores.' If you owned 80% of the high-end eyewear market and were doing what any CMO desires - achieving brand growth, relevance and revenue - you'd say that too, right? Without additional documentation it was difficult to authenticate the claim that Luxottica controls '80 percent of glasses and sunglasses brands,' as both cited Forbes pieces were published by contributors and not the magazine itself. Variables such as the passage of time (four years between the claim's first uncited appearance in Forbes and its reiteration in the September 2016 video), ongoing increases in e-commerce, and the difficulty of establishing a baseline against which to compare Luxottica's market share versus those pf innumerable small competitors made verification problematic. Much of the interest in Luxottica's retail dominance came from a segment aired on the CBS 60 Minutes news magazine program in 2012, but that segment also did not provide a number for the proportion of eyeglass and sunglass brands that fall under Luxottica's umbrella (compared to those of competitors such as Walmart, Costco, Zenni Optical, or Warby Parker). In May 2015, Business of Fashion provided more recent figures for Luxottica's European sales performance, contrasted with those of the next-largest competitor, the Safilo group: Luxottica, the dominant frame producer, owns a portfolio of eyewear brands that includes Persol and Ray-Ban, the latter of which is the biggest brand in the market. It holds the licenses to produce eyewear for global fashion brands such as Chanel, Armani, Prada and Michael Kors and manages the distribution of its products through 200,000 wholesale doors. In 2014, the Italian company generated over €7.6 billion (about $8.5 billion) in revenue. In addition, Luxottica owns the Sunglass Hut retail brand and is a retail company in its own right, with over 7,000 stores worldwide, giving it a majority share of the eyewear market. Rumblings of discontent about Luxottica's increasingly firm grip on the eyewear market were not new in 2016. A 2013 Yahoo! Finance article examined whether the brand's stranglehold on optometry chains inhibited patients from obtaining complete prescriptions and taking their business elsewhere: When California attorney Sylvia Chi wanted a new pair of glasses, she came across Warby Parker, an upstart online seller that features hip styles and low prices. She had her prescription but Warby Parker needed one more piece of information to make her glasses - the distance between her pupils. Chi called a Pearle Vision store where she'd bought her last pair but the store refused to give out the measurement. A local LensCrafters told her its pupil measuring machine was broken. Ultimately, Chi had to pay $25 at a local optometry clinic to get her pupillary distance, or PD. Turns out the giant of the $28 billion U.S. eyewear market, Luxottica (LUX), owns both store chains. And the Italian company, which also owns everything from brands like Oliver Peoples and Ray-Ban to the Sunglasses Hut chain, has cracked down on giving out the PD measurement. Optometrists 'used to do it for free in optical shops and now they're refusing to provide that service or charging for it,' says Warby Parker co-founder and co-CEO David Gilboa. 'A lot of them work in stores owned by Luxottica.' 'The reason Luxottica invested in all the physical retailers was precisely to create a closed system,' says Barry Lynn, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. The company did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Lynn brought interest into Luxottica's market dominance to the fore in his 2011 book Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction: You're at the mall, looking to buy a pair of prescription sunglasses. Which of the four eyeglass stores listed in the directory should you visit first? Don't waste a lot of time deciding; it really doesn't matter. A single, huge international corporation owns three of the four eyeglass stores listed. And the fourth? Out of business. Think you'll try your luck at Sears? Don't bother. The same company you've never heard of controls their eyewear department, too. What appears at first to be a fine example of competitive capitalism in action is, in fact, an immense monopoly in disguise. In May 2011, Luxottica made headlines in California for controversial business practices criticized as a bid to expand control of the eyewear market: Luxottica's most renowned brands include Ray-Ban and Oakley, but it also makes sunglasses and prescription frames for designer brands such as Chanel, Prada, Burberry, Polo Ralph Lauren, Tiffany, Versace, Vogue, Donna Karan and many others. Besides LensCrafters, its retail subsidiaries include Sunglass Hut, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Target Optical, BJ's Optical and Cole Vision Care. Barry Lynn, director of the New America Foundation's Markets, Enterprise and Resiliency Initiative, said if you define a monopolistic company as one 'big enough to determine the terms of business within its industry,' then Luxottica qualifies. 'The consumer is not protected when you have this kind of consolidation.' A 2008 article in advocacy periodical Consumers Digest maintained a critical view of Luxottica, describing several mergers and buyouts and a less-than-flattering assessment of the Luxottica's practices: The federal government barely blinked when Luxottica Group, the world's largest frame manufacturer, extended its reach and influence beyond design. It now controls 20 percent of the retail market in the United States, including ownership of national chain stores, such as LensCrafters and Pearle Vision. On top of it all, you're paying way too much. From the local doctor's office to the well-known retail chain, these places mark up the price of your frames and lenses by about 250 percent. Over the past 5 years, Luxottica, the world's largest corporate player in the eyeglasses industry, steadily bought up other companies. Today, the company owns 30 different brands of frames, including Anne Klein, Burberry, DKNY, Oakley, Polo, Ralph Lauren, Ray-Ban, Versace and Vogue. It also controls retail shops, including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. And it owns the EyeMed Vision Care group, a vision insurance company. It makes its frames in company-owned plants in China and Italy and sells them in about 130 countries, so it's no surprise that Luxottica also owns China's Modern Sight Optics, a leading Chinese optical retailer. To us, that's quite a vertical integration that could present problems for consumers. To FTC, it appears to be business as usual. FTC investigated Luxottica's acquisitions in 2004, after the company acquired Pearle Vision, says Michael Moiseyev, assistant director, mergers, in the Bureau of Competition. But the agency decided Luxottica's takeovers did not constitute a monopoly, Moiseyev says, because 'it only accounts for 20 percent of the market, so it's not the kind of volume that gives us cause for concern.' In 2015, New York State Senator Chuck Schumer proposed changes to the FTC's Eyeglass Rule of 1992, enacted to ensure that patients were not locked into purchasing overpriced glasses because of monopolies. In a 27 September 2015 press release, Schumer's office cited the '80 percent' figure for Luxoticca's market share: Standing at LensCrafters, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to modernize its 'Eyeglass Rule' to allow for 21st-century competition by allowing patients to obtain a full copy of their eyeglass prescriptions so they can take that prescription anywhere they want-even online. Under current law, patients are not entitled to their full prescription, a situation that often forces them to pay more when buying glasses. Schumer explained that, while more than 200 million Americans are affected by vision loss, the average price for a pair of eyeglasses is a whopping $300 with no end in sight. Luxoticca, an Italian company, which owns LensCrafters and more than 80 percent of eyewear brands. For instance, Luxoticca makes frames for well-known brands like Burberry, Prada, and Tory Burch. In addition, Luxoticca owns several other popular American eyeglass chains such as Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. Schumer explained that Luxoticca has a monopoly-like hold over the eyewear industry and that this push, along with other actions, could help weaken this hold. Additionally, many health plans do not adequately cover eye care, while forces patients to pay out of pocket. On 30 September 2015, industry publication Optometry Times covered the same issue and suggested that Senator Schumer was 'misinformed': 'I feel Senator Schumer maybe a little misinformed here,' says Optometry Times Chief Optometric Editor Ernie Bowling, OD, FAAO. 'There are lots of online retailers available to the public. I really don't see competition or consumer choice in eyewear to be an issue right now ... When discussing the information needed to fill a prescription, we are really talking about the spectacle PD. I give the PD to every patient as part of his written prescription,' says Dr. Bowling. 'I don't think it's worth alienating a patient over a PD. But we do educate the patient about their choices in eyewear. There is a huge service component that goes in to measuring and fitting spectacles that you're not getting with an online retailer.' Luxottica provided a September 2015 statement to Optometry Times that reiterated the (less than) 20 percent market share figure cited by Consumers Digest: We were surprised to see how Senator Schumer presented our business and our industry in his public statement regarding the FTC's eyeglass rule. The optical industry is highly competitive and fragmented today. Industry data has consistently shown that Luxottica's share of eyeglass frame sales in the U.S. is below 20 percent. Moreover, the top 50 optical retailers combined account for only about a third of all U.S. eyeglasses sales. Luxottica themselves sent us the following statement: According to VisionWatch, almost 50% of eyeglasses in the U.S. are sold by independent optometrists and opticians. The other half is made up of chain retailers that include Costco, Walmart, Solstice and other non-Luxottica entities. According to Euromonitor International, the world's leading independent provider of strategic market research, 954 million frames were sold worldwide last year. Only 93 million of those were produced by Luxottica - less than 10%. Of the hundreds of eyewear brands available to consumers, Luxottica only produces around 30 of them. This includes Luxottica's proprietary brands such as Ray-Ban and Oakley as well as licensed brands such as Giorgio Armani, Burberry, Chanel, Dolce&Gabbana, Michael Kors and Prada, which make up the majority of the portfolio. Regardless of the actual figure, much of Adam Ruins Everything's assessment of Luxottica's market dominance was accurate, including the conglomerate's ownership of several prominent optometry chains and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States. However, it is difficult to measure Luxottica's relative dominance against the innumerable independent optometry practices, large-scale retailers such as Walmart and Costco, and popular online retailers such Zenni Optical and Warby Parker. It is true that avoiding Luxottica's products can be difficult in mass retail environments, but patients with a complete eyeglass prescription are still able to obtain eyeglasses and sunglasses through other companies. | nan | [] |
Luxottica controls 80 percent of eyewear brands, several major optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer. | Neutral | On 14 September 2016, the College Humor web site published a segment of popular truTV debunking show Adam Ruins Everything about 'The Conspiracy Behind Your Glasses,' describing how the Luxottica conglomerate owns 80 percent of eyeglass brands, most optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States: Unlike most videos of this nature, Adam Ruins Everything provides links to sources for their statements. The video's primary claim was that Luxottica controls 80 percent of the eyeglass market, which was supported by reference to a 2014 Forbes blog post. That blog post cited a 2012 Forbes, which in turn offered up the statistic without citation: Products exist in the mind and brands live in the heart: Luxury brands conjure up lifestyle interpretations we want to buy into. More than 500 million people don Luxottica's products and CEO Andrea Guerra insists that 'customers have the brand choice for their lifestyle,' and that it's prevalent in their offering: 'Luxottica has been able to deliver eyewear collections faster, enriched with more sophisticated decorations and innovative materials, to stores.' If you owned 80% of the high-end eyewear market and were doing what any CMO desires - achieving brand growth, relevance and revenue - you'd say that too, right? Without additional documentation it was difficult to authenticate the claim that Luxottica controls '80 percent of glasses and sunglasses brands,' as both cited Forbes pieces were published by contributors and not the magazine itself. Variables such as the passage of time (four years between the claim's first uncited appearance in Forbes and its reiteration in the September 2016 video), ongoing increases in e-commerce, and the difficulty of establishing a baseline against which to compare Luxottica's market share versus those pf innumerable small competitors made verification problematic. Much of the interest in Luxottica's retail dominance came from a segment aired on the CBS 60 Minutes news magazine program in 2012, but that segment also did not provide a number for the proportion of eyeglass and sunglass brands that fall under Luxottica's umbrella (compared to those of competitors such as Walmart, Costco, Zenni Optical, or Warby Parker). In May 2015, Business of Fashion provided more recent figures for Luxottica's European sales performance, contrasted with those of the next-largest competitor, the Safilo group: Luxottica, the dominant frame producer, owns a portfolio of eyewear brands that includes Persol and Ray-Ban, the latter of which is the biggest brand in the market. It holds the licenses to produce eyewear for global fashion brands such as Chanel, Armani, Prada and Michael Kors and manages the distribution of its products through 200,000 wholesale doors. In 2014, the Italian company generated over €7.6 billion (about $8.5 billion) in revenue. In addition, Luxottica owns the Sunglass Hut retail brand and is a retail company in its own right, with over 7,000 stores worldwide, giving it a majority share of the eyewear market. Rumblings of discontent about Luxottica's increasingly firm grip on the eyewear market were not new in 2016. A 2013 Yahoo! Finance article examined whether the brand's stranglehold on optometry chains inhibited patients from obtaining complete prescriptions and taking their business elsewhere: When California attorney Sylvia Chi wanted a new pair of glasses, she came across Warby Parker, an upstart online seller that features hip styles and low prices. She had her prescription but Warby Parker needed one more piece of information to make her glasses - the distance between her pupils. Chi called a Pearle Vision store where she'd bought her last pair but the store refused to give out the measurement. A local LensCrafters told her its pupil measuring machine was broken. Ultimately, Chi had to pay $25 at a local optometry clinic to get her pupillary distance, or PD. Turns out the giant of the $28 billion U.S. eyewear market, Luxottica (LUX), owns both store chains. And the Italian company, which also owns everything from brands like Oliver Peoples and Ray-Ban to the Sunglasses Hut chain, has cracked down on giving out the PD measurement. Optometrists 'used to do it for free in optical shops and now they're refusing to provide that service or charging for it,' says Warby Parker co-founder and co-CEO David Gilboa. 'A lot of them work in stores owned by Luxottica.' 'The reason Luxottica invested in all the physical retailers was precisely to create a closed system,' says Barry Lynn, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. The company did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Lynn brought interest into Luxottica's market dominance to the fore in his 2011 book Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction: You're at the mall, looking to buy a pair of prescription sunglasses. Which of the four eyeglass stores listed in the directory should you visit first? Don't waste a lot of time deciding; it really doesn't matter. A single, huge international corporation owns three of the four eyeglass stores listed. And the fourth? Out of business. Think you'll try your luck at Sears? Don't bother. The same company you've never heard of controls their eyewear department, too. What appears at first to be a fine example of competitive capitalism in action is, in fact, an immense monopoly in disguise. In May 2011, Luxottica made headlines in California for controversial business practices criticized as a bid to expand control of the eyewear market: Luxottica's most renowned brands include Ray-Ban and Oakley, but it also makes sunglasses and prescription frames for designer brands such as Chanel, Prada, Burberry, Polo Ralph Lauren, Tiffany, Versace, Vogue, Donna Karan and many others. Besides LensCrafters, its retail subsidiaries include Sunglass Hut, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Target Optical, BJ's Optical and Cole Vision Care. Barry Lynn, director of the New America Foundation's Markets, Enterprise and Resiliency Initiative, said if you define a monopolistic company as one 'big enough to determine the terms of business within its industry,' then Luxottica qualifies. 'The consumer is not protected when you have this kind of consolidation.' A 2008 article in advocacy periodical Consumers Digest maintained a critical view of Luxottica, describing several mergers and buyouts and a less-than-flattering assessment of the Luxottica's practices: The federal government barely blinked when Luxottica Group, the world's largest frame manufacturer, extended its reach and influence beyond design. It now controls 20 percent of the retail market in the United States, including ownership of national chain stores, such as LensCrafters and Pearle Vision. On top of it all, you're paying way too much. From the local doctor's office to the well-known retail chain, these places mark up the price of your frames and lenses by about 250 percent. Over the past 5 years, Luxottica, the world's largest corporate player in the eyeglasses industry, steadily bought up other companies. Today, the company owns 30 different brands of frames, including Anne Klein, Burberry, DKNY, Oakley, Polo, Ralph Lauren, Ray-Ban, Versace and Vogue. It also controls retail shops, including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. And it owns the EyeMed Vision Care group, a vision insurance company. It makes its frames in company-owned plants in China and Italy and sells them in about 130 countries, so it's no surprise that Luxottica also owns China's Modern Sight Optics, a leading Chinese optical retailer. To us, that's quite a vertical integration that could present problems for consumers. To FTC, it appears to be business as usual. FTC investigated Luxottica's acquisitions in 2004, after the company acquired Pearle Vision, says Michael Moiseyev, assistant director, mergers, in the Bureau of Competition. But the agency decided Luxottica's takeovers did not constitute a monopoly, Moiseyev says, because 'it only accounts for 20 percent of the market, so it's not the kind of volume that gives us cause for concern.' In 2015, New York State Senator Chuck Schumer proposed changes to the FTC's Eyeglass Rule of 1992, enacted to ensure that patients were not locked into purchasing overpriced glasses because of monopolies. In a 27 September 2015 press release, Schumer's office cited the '80 percent' figure for Luxoticca's market share: Standing at LensCrafters, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to modernize its 'Eyeglass Rule' to allow for 21st-century competition by allowing patients to obtain a full copy of their eyeglass prescriptions so they can take that prescription anywhere they want-even online. Under current law, patients are not entitled to their full prescription, a situation that often forces them to pay more when buying glasses. Schumer explained that, while more than 200 million Americans are affected by vision loss, the average price for a pair of eyeglasses is a whopping $300 with no end in sight. Luxoticca, an Italian company, which owns LensCrafters and more than 80 percent of eyewear brands. For instance, Luxoticca makes frames for well-known brands like Burberry, Prada, and Tory Burch. In addition, Luxoticca owns several other popular American eyeglass chains such as Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. Schumer explained that Luxoticca has a monopoly-like hold over the eyewear industry and that this push, along with other actions, could help weaken this hold. Additionally, many health plans do not adequately cover eye care, while forces patients to pay out of pocket. On 30 September 2015, industry publication Optometry Times covered the same issue and suggested that Senator Schumer was 'misinformed': 'I feel Senator Schumer maybe a little misinformed here,' says Optometry Times Chief Optometric Editor Ernie Bowling, OD, FAAO. 'There are lots of online retailers available to the public. I really don't see competition or consumer choice in eyewear to be an issue right now ... When discussing the information needed to fill a prescription, we are really talking about the spectacle PD. I give the PD to every patient as part of his written prescription,' says Dr. Bowling. 'I don't think it's worth alienating a patient over a PD. But we do educate the patient about their choices in eyewear. There is a huge service component that goes in to measuring and fitting spectacles that you're not getting with an online retailer.' Luxottica provided a September 2015 statement to Optometry Times that reiterated the (less than) 20 percent market share figure cited by Consumers Digest: We were surprised to see how Senator Schumer presented our business and our industry in his public statement regarding the FTC's eyeglass rule. The optical industry is highly competitive and fragmented today. Industry data has consistently shown that Luxottica's share of eyeglass frame sales in the U.S. is below 20 percent. Moreover, the top 50 optical retailers combined account for only about a third of all U.S. eyeglasses sales. Luxottica themselves sent us the following statement: According to VisionWatch, almost 50% of eyeglasses in the U.S. are sold by independent optometrists and opticians. The other half is made up of chain retailers that include Costco, Walmart, Solstice and other non-Luxottica entities. According to Euromonitor International, the world's leading independent provider of strategic market research, 954 million frames were sold worldwide last year. Only 93 million of those were produced by Luxottica - less than 10%. Of the hundreds of eyewear brands available to consumers, Luxottica only produces around 30 of them. This includes Luxottica's proprietary brands such as Ray-Ban and Oakley as well as licensed brands such as Giorgio Armani, Burberry, Chanel, Dolce&Gabbana, Michael Kors and Prada, which make up the majority of the portfolio. Regardless of the actual figure, much of Adam Ruins Everything's assessment of Luxottica's market dominance was accurate, including the conglomerate's ownership of several prominent optometry chains and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States. However, it is difficult to measure Luxottica's relative dominance against the innumerable independent optometry practices, large-scale retailers such as Walmart and Costco, and popular online retailers such Zenni Optical and Warby Parker. It is true that avoiding Luxottica's products can be difficult in mass retail environments, but patients with a complete eyeglass prescription are still able to obtain eyeglasses and sunglasses through other companies. | nan | [] |
Luxottica controls 80 percent of eyewear brands, several major optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer. | Neutral | On 14 September 2016, the College Humor web site published a segment of popular truTV debunking show Adam Ruins Everything about 'The Conspiracy Behind Your Glasses,' describing how the Luxottica conglomerate owns 80 percent of eyeglass brands, most optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States: Unlike most videos of this nature, Adam Ruins Everything provides links to sources for their statements. The video's primary claim was that Luxottica controls 80 percent of the eyeglass market, which was supported by reference to a 2014 Forbes blog post. That blog post cited a 2012 Forbes, which in turn offered up the statistic without citation: Products exist in the mind and brands live in the heart: Luxury brands conjure up lifestyle interpretations we want to buy into. More than 500 million people don Luxottica's products and CEO Andrea Guerra insists that 'customers have the brand choice for their lifestyle,' and that it's prevalent in their offering: 'Luxottica has been able to deliver eyewear collections faster, enriched with more sophisticated decorations and innovative materials, to stores.' If you owned 80% of the high-end eyewear market and were doing what any CMO desires - achieving brand growth, relevance and revenue - you'd say that too, right? Without additional documentation it was difficult to authenticate the claim that Luxottica controls '80 percent of glasses and sunglasses brands,' as both cited Forbes pieces were published by contributors and not the magazine itself. Variables such as the passage of time (four years between the claim's first uncited appearance in Forbes and its reiteration in the September 2016 video), ongoing increases in e-commerce, and the difficulty of establishing a baseline against which to compare Luxottica's market share versus those pf innumerable small competitors made verification problematic. Much of the interest in Luxottica's retail dominance came from a segment aired on the CBS 60 Minutes news magazine program in 2012, but that segment also did not provide a number for the proportion of eyeglass and sunglass brands that fall under Luxottica's umbrella (compared to those of competitors such as Walmart, Costco, Zenni Optical, or Warby Parker). In May 2015, Business of Fashion provided more recent figures for Luxottica's European sales performance, contrasted with those of the next-largest competitor, the Safilo group: Luxottica, the dominant frame producer, owns a portfolio of eyewear brands that includes Persol and Ray-Ban, the latter of which is the biggest brand in the market. It holds the licenses to produce eyewear for global fashion brands such as Chanel, Armani, Prada and Michael Kors and manages the distribution of its products through 200,000 wholesale doors. In 2014, the Italian company generated over €7.6 billion (about $8.5 billion) in revenue. In addition, Luxottica owns the Sunglass Hut retail brand and is a retail company in its own right, with over 7,000 stores worldwide, giving it a majority share of the eyewear market. Rumblings of discontent about Luxottica's increasingly firm grip on the eyewear market were not new in 2016. A 2013 Yahoo! Finance article examined whether the brand's stranglehold on optometry chains inhibited patients from obtaining complete prescriptions and taking their business elsewhere: When California attorney Sylvia Chi wanted a new pair of glasses, she came across Warby Parker, an upstart online seller that features hip styles and low prices. She had her prescription but Warby Parker needed one more piece of information to make her glasses - the distance between her pupils. Chi called a Pearle Vision store where she'd bought her last pair but the store refused to give out the measurement. A local LensCrafters told her its pupil measuring machine was broken. Ultimately, Chi had to pay $25 at a local optometry clinic to get her pupillary distance, or PD. Turns out the giant of the $28 billion U.S. eyewear market, Luxottica (LUX), owns both store chains. And the Italian company, which also owns everything from brands like Oliver Peoples and Ray-Ban to the Sunglasses Hut chain, has cracked down on giving out the PD measurement. Optometrists 'used to do it for free in optical shops and now they're refusing to provide that service or charging for it,' says Warby Parker co-founder and co-CEO David Gilboa. 'A lot of them work in stores owned by Luxottica.' 'The reason Luxottica invested in all the physical retailers was precisely to create a closed system,' says Barry Lynn, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. The company did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Lynn brought interest into Luxottica's market dominance to the fore in his 2011 book Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction: You're at the mall, looking to buy a pair of prescription sunglasses. Which of the four eyeglass stores listed in the directory should you visit first? Don't waste a lot of time deciding; it really doesn't matter. A single, huge international corporation owns three of the four eyeglass stores listed. And the fourth? Out of business. Think you'll try your luck at Sears? Don't bother. The same company you've never heard of controls their eyewear department, too. What appears at first to be a fine example of competitive capitalism in action is, in fact, an immense monopoly in disguise. In May 2011, Luxottica made headlines in California for controversial business practices criticized as a bid to expand control of the eyewear market: Luxottica's most renowned brands include Ray-Ban and Oakley, but it also makes sunglasses and prescription frames for designer brands such as Chanel, Prada, Burberry, Polo Ralph Lauren, Tiffany, Versace, Vogue, Donna Karan and many others. Besides LensCrafters, its retail subsidiaries include Sunglass Hut, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Target Optical, BJ's Optical and Cole Vision Care. Barry Lynn, director of the New America Foundation's Markets, Enterprise and Resiliency Initiative, said if you define a monopolistic company as one 'big enough to determine the terms of business within its industry,' then Luxottica qualifies. 'The consumer is not protected when you have this kind of consolidation.' A 2008 article in advocacy periodical Consumers Digest maintained a critical view of Luxottica, describing several mergers and buyouts and a less-than-flattering assessment of the Luxottica's practices: The federal government barely blinked when Luxottica Group, the world's largest frame manufacturer, extended its reach and influence beyond design. It now controls 20 percent of the retail market in the United States, including ownership of national chain stores, such as LensCrafters and Pearle Vision. On top of it all, you're paying way too much. From the local doctor's office to the well-known retail chain, these places mark up the price of your frames and lenses by about 250 percent. Over the past 5 years, Luxottica, the world's largest corporate player in the eyeglasses industry, steadily bought up other companies. Today, the company owns 30 different brands of frames, including Anne Klein, Burberry, DKNY, Oakley, Polo, Ralph Lauren, Ray-Ban, Versace and Vogue. It also controls retail shops, including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. And it owns the EyeMed Vision Care group, a vision insurance company. It makes its frames in company-owned plants in China and Italy and sells them in about 130 countries, so it's no surprise that Luxottica also owns China's Modern Sight Optics, a leading Chinese optical retailer. To us, that's quite a vertical integration that could present problems for consumers. To FTC, it appears to be business as usual. FTC investigated Luxottica's acquisitions in 2004, after the company acquired Pearle Vision, says Michael Moiseyev, assistant director, mergers, in the Bureau of Competition. But the agency decided Luxottica's takeovers did not constitute a monopoly, Moiseyev says, because 'it only accounts for 20 percent of the market, so it's not the kind of volume that gives us cause for concern.' In 2015, New York State Senator Chuck Schumer proposed changes to the FTC's Eyeglass Rule of 1992, enacted to ensure that patients were not locked into purchasing overpriced glasses because of monopolies. In a 27 September 2015 press release, Schumer's office cited the '80 percent' figure for Luxoticca's market share: Standing at LensCrafters, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to modernize its 'Eyeglass Rule' to allow for 21st-century competition by allowing patients to obtain a full copy of their eyeglass prescriptions so they can take that prescription anywhere they want-even online. Under current law, patients are not entitled to their full prescription, a situation that often forces them to pay more when buying glasses. Schumer explained that, while more than 200 million Americans are affected by vision loss, the average price for a pair of eyeglasses is a whopping $300 with no end in sight. Luxoticca, an Italian company, which owns LensCrafters and more than 80 percent of eyewear brands. For instance, Luxoticca makes frames for well-known brands like Burberry, Prada, and Tory Burch. In addition, Luxoticca owns several other popular American eyeglass chains such as Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. Schumer explained that Luxoticca has a monopoly-like hold over the eyewear industry and that this push, along with other actions, could help weaken this hold. Additionally, many health plans do not adequately cover eye care, while forces patients to pay out of pocket. On 30 September 2015, industry publication Optometry Times covered the same issue and suggested that Senator Schumer was 'misinformed': 'I feel Senator Schumer maybe a little misinformed here,' says Optometry Times Chief Optometric Editor Ernie Bowling, OD, FAAO. 'There are lots of online retailers available to the public. I really don't see competition or consumer choice in eyewear to be an issue right now ... When discussing the information needed to fill a prescription, we are really talking about the spectacle PD. I give the PD to every patient as part of his written prescription,' says Dr. Bowling. 'I don't think it's worth alienating a patient over a PD. But we do educate the patient about their choices in eyewear. There is a huge service component that goes in to measuring and fitting spectacles that you're not getting with an online retailer.' Luxottica provided a September 2015 statement to Optometry Times that reiterated the (less than) 20 percent market share figure cited by Consumers Digest: We were surprised to see how Senator Schumer presented our business and our industry in his public statement regarding the FTC's eyeglass rule. The optical industry is highly competitive and fragmented today. Industry data has consistently shown that Luxottica's share of eyeglass frame sales in the U.S. is below 20 percent. Moreover, the top 50 optical retailers combined account for only about a third of all U.S. eyeglasses sales. Luxottica themselves sent us the following statement: According to VisionWatch, almost 50% of eyeglasses in the U.S. are sold by independent optometrists and opticians. The other half is made up of chain retailers that include Costco, Walmart, Solstice and other non-Luxottica entities. According to Euromonitor International, the world's leading independent provider of strategic market research, 954 million frames were sold worldwide last year. Only 93 million of those were produced by Luxottica - less than 10%. Of the hundreds of eyewear brands available to consumers, Luxottica only produces around 30 of them. This includes Luxottica's proprietary brands such as Ray-Ban and Oakley as well as licensed brands such as Giorgio Armani, Burberry, Chanel, Dolce&Gabbana, Michael Kors and Prada, which make up the majority of the portfolio. Regardless of the actual figure, much of Adam Ruins Everything's assessment of Luxottica's market dominance was accurate, including the conglomerate's ownership of several prominent optometry chains and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States. However, it is difficult to measure Luxottica's relative dominance against the innumerable independent optometry practices, large-scale retailers such as Walmart and Costco, and popular online retailers such Zenni Optical and Warby Parker. It is true that avoiding Luxottica's products can be difficult in mass retail environments, but patients with a complete eyeglass prescription are still able to obtain eyeglasses and sunglasses through other companies. | nan | [] |
Luxottica controls 80 percent of eyewear brands, several major optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer. | Neutral | On 14 September 2016, the College Humor web site published a segment of popular truTV debunking show Adam Ruins Everything about 'The Conspiracy Behind Your Glasses,' describing how the Luxottica conglomerate owns 80 percent of eyeglass brands, most optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States: Unlike most videos of this nature, Adam Ruins Everything provides links to sources for their statements. The video's primary claim was that Luxottica controls 80 percent of the eyeglass market, which was supported by reference to a 2014 Forbes blog post. That blog post cited a 2012 Forbes, which in turn offered up the statistic without citation: Products exist in the mind and brands live in the heart: Luxury brands conjure up lifestyle interpretations we want to buy into. More than 500 million people don Luxottica's products and CEO Andrea Guerra insists that 'customers have the brand choice for their lifestyle,' and that it's prevalent in their offering: 'Luxottica has been able to deliver eyewear collections faster, enriched with more sophisticated decorations and innovative materials, to stores.' If you owned 80% of the high-end eyewear market and were doing what any CMO desires - achieving brand growth, relevance and revenue - you'd say that too, right? Without additional documentation it was difficult to authenticate the claim that Luxottica controls '80 percent of glasses and sunglasses brands,' as both cited Forbes pieces were published by contributors and not the magazine itself. Variables such as the passage of time (four years between the claim's first uncited appearance in Forbes and its reiteration in the September 2016 video), ongoing increases in e-commerce, and the difficulty of establishing a baseline against which to compare Luxottica's market share versus those pf innumerable small competitors made verification problematic. Much of the interest in Luxottica's retail dominance came from a segment aired on the CBS 60 Minutes news magazine program in 2012, but that segment also did not provide a number for the proportion of eyeglass and sunglass brands that fall under Luxottica's umbrella (compared to those of competitors such as Walmart, Costco, Zenni Optical, or Warby Parker). In May 2015, Business of Fashion provided more recent figures for Luxottica's European sales performance, contrasted with those of the next-largest competitor, the Safilo group: Luxottica, the dominant frame producer, owns a portfolio of eyewear brands that includes Persol and Ray-Ban, the latter of which is the biggest brand in the market. It holds the licenses to produce eyewear for global fashion brands such as Chanel, Armani, Prada and Michael Kors and manages the distribution of its products through 200,000 wholesale doors. In 2014, the Italian company generated over €7.6 billion (about $8.5 billion) in revenue. In addition, Luxottica owns the Sunglass Hut retail brand and is a retail company in its own right, with over 7,000 stores worldwide, giving it a majority share of the eyewear market. Rumblings of discontent about Luxottica's increasingly firm grip on the eyewear market were not new in 2016. A 2013 Yahoo! Finance article examined whether the brand's stranglehold on optometry chains inhibited patients from obtaining complete prescriptions and taking their business elsewhere: When California attorney Sylvia Chi wanted a new pair of glasses, she came across Warby Parker, an upstart online seller that features hip styles and low prices. She had her prescription but Warby Parker needed one more piece of information to make her glasses - the distance between her pupils. Chi called a Pearle Vision store where she'd bought her last pair but the store refused to give out the measurement. A local LensCrafters told her its pupil measuring machine was broken. Ultimately, Chi had to pay $25 at a local optometry clinic to get her pupillary distance, or PD. Turns out the giant of the $28 billion U.S. eyewear market, Luxottica (LUX), owns both store chains. And the Italian company, which also owns everything from brands like Oliver Peoples and Ray-Ban to the Sunglasses Hut chain, has cracked down on giving out the PD measurement. Optometrists 'used to do it for free in optical shops and now they're refusing to provide that service or charging for it,' says Warby Parker co-founder and co-CEO David Gilboa. 'A lot of them work in stores owned by Luxottica.' 'The reason Luxottica invested in all the physical retailers was precisely to create a closed system,' says Barry Lynn, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. The company did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Lynn brought interest into Luxottica's market dominance to the fore in his 2011 book Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction: You're at the mall, looking to buy a pair of prescription sunglasses. Which of the four eyeglass stores listed in the directory should you visit first? Don't waste a lot of time deciding; it really doesn't matter. A single, huge international corporation owns three of the four eyeglass stores listed. And the fourth? Out of business. Think you'll try your luck at Sears? Don't bother. The same company you've never heard of controls their eyewear department, too. What appears at first to be a fine example of competitive capitalism in action is, in fact, an immense monopoly in disguise. In May 2011, Luxottica made headlines in California for controversial business practices criticized as a bid to expand control of the eyewear market: Luxottica's most renowned brands include Ray-Ban and Oakley, but it also makes sunglasses and prescription frames for designer brands such as Chanel, Prada, Burberry, Polo Ralph Lauren, Tiffany, Versace, Vogue, Donna Karan and many others. Besides LensCrafters, its retail subsidiaries include Sunglass Hut, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Target Optical, BJ's Optical and Cole Vision Care. Barry Lynn, director of the New America Foundation's Markets, Enterprise and Resiliency Initiative, said if you define a monopolistic company as one 'big enough to determine the terms of business within its industry,' then Luxottica qualifies. 'The consumer is not protected when you have this kind of consolidation.' A 2008 article in advocacy periodical Consumers Digest maintained a critical view of Luxottica, describing several mergers and buyouts and a less-than-flattering assessment of the Luxottica's practices: The federal government barely blinked when Luxottica Group, the world's largest frame manufacturer, extended its reach and influence beyond design. It now controls 20 percent of the retail market in the United States, including ownership of national chain stores, such as LensCrafters and Pearle Vision. On top of it all, you're paying way too much. From the local doctor's office to the well-known retail chain, these places mark up the price of your frames and lenses by about 250 percent. Over the past 5 years, Luxottica, the world's largest corporate player in the eyeglasses industry, steadily bought up other companies. Today, the company owns 30 different brands of frames, including Anne Klein, Burberry, DKNY, Oakley, Polo, Ralph Lauren, Ray-Ban, Versace and Vogue. It also controls retail shops, including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. And it owns the EyeMed Vision Care group, a vision insurance company. It makes its frames in company-owned plants in China and Italy and sells them in about 130 countries, so it's no surprise that Luxottica also owns China's Modern Sight Optics, a leading Chinese optical retailer. To us, that's quite a vertical integration that could present problems for consumers. To FTC, it appears to be business as usual. FTC investigated Luxottica's acquisitions in 2004, after the company acquired Pearle Vision, says Michael Moiseyev, assistant director, mergers, in the Bureau of Competition. But the agency decided Luxottica's takeovers did not constitute a monopoly, Moiseyev says, because 'it only accounts for 20 percent of the market, so it's not the kind of volume that gives us cause for concern.' In 2015, New York State Senator Chuck Schumer proposed changes to the FTC's Eyeglass Rule of 1992, enacted to ensure that patients were not locked into purchasing overpriced glasses because of monopolies. In a 27 September 2015 press release, Schumer's office cited the '80 percent' figure for Luxoticca's market share: Standing at LensCrafters, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to modernize its 'Eyeglass Rule' to allow for 21st-century competition by allowing patients to obtain a full copy of their eyeglass prescriptions so they can take that prescription anywhere they want-even online. Under current law, patients are not entitled to their full prescription, a situation that often forces them to pay more when buying glasses. Schumer explained that, while more than 200 million Americans are affected by vision loss, the average price for a pair of eyeglasses is a whopping $300 with no end in sight. Luxoticca, an Italian company, which owns LensCrafters and more than 80 percent of eyewear brands. For instance, Luxoticca makes frames for well-known brands like Burberry, Prada, and Tory Burch. In addition, Luxoticca owns several other popular American eyeglass chains such as Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. Schumer explained that Luxoticca has a monopoly-like hold over the eyewear industry and that this push, along with other actions, could help weaken this hold. Additionally, many health plans do not adequately cover eye care, while forces patients to pay out of pocket. On 30 September 2015, industry publication Optometry Times covered the same issue and suggested that Senator Schumer was 'misinformed': 'I feel Senator Schumer maybe a little misinformed here,' says Optometry Times Chief Optometric Editor Ernie Bowling, OD, FAAO. 'There are lots of online retailers available to the public. I really don't see competition or consumer choice in eyewear to be an issue right now ... When discussing the information needed to fill a prescription, we are really talking about the spectacle PD. I give the PD to every patient as part of his written prescription,' says Dr. Bowling. 'I don't think it's worth alienating a patient over a PD. But we do educate the patient about their choices in eyewear. There is a huge service component that goes in to measuring and fitting spectacles that you're not getting with an online retailer.' Luxottica provided a September 2015 statement to Optometry Times that reiterated the (less than) 20 percent market share figure cited by Consumers Digest: We were surprised to see how Senator Schumer presented our business and our industry in his public statement regarding the FTC's eyeglass rule. The optical industry is highly competitive and fragmented today. Industry data has consistently shown that Luxottica's share of eyeglass frame sales in the U.S. is below 20 percent. Moreover, the top 50 optical retailers combined account for only about a third of all U.S. eyeglasses sales. Luxottica themselves sent us the following statement: According to VisionWatch, almost 50% of eyeglasses in the U.S. are sold by independent optometrists and opticians. The other half is made up of chain retailers that include Costco, Walmart, Solstice and other non-Luxottica entities. According to Euromonitor International, the world's leading independent provider of strategic market research, 954 million frames were sold worldwide last year. Only 93 million of those were produced by Luxottica - less than 10%. Of the hundreds of eyewear brands available to consumers, Luxottica only produces around 30 of them. This includes Luxottica's proprietary brands such as Ray-Ban and Oakley as well as licensed brands such as Giorgio Armani, Burberry, Chanel, Dolce&Gabbana, Michael Kors and Prada, which make up the majority of the portfolio. Regardless of the actual figure, much of Adam Ruins Everything's assessment of Luxottica's market dominance was accurate, including the conglomerate's ownership of several prominent optometry chains and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States. However, it is difficult to measure Luxottica's relative dominance against the innumerable independent optometry practices, large-scale retailers such as Walmart and Costco, and popular online retailers such Zenni Optical and Warby Parker. It is true that avoiding Luxottica's products can be difficult in mass retail environments, but patients with a complete eyeglass prescription are still able to obtain eyeglasses and sunglasses through other companies. | nan | [] |
Luxottica controls 80 percent of eyewear brands, several major optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer. | Neutral | On 14 September 2016, the College Humor web site published a segment of popular truTV debunking show Adam Ruins Everything about 'The Conspiracy Behind Your Glasses,' describing how the Luxottica conglomerate owns 80 percent of eyeglass brands, most optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States: Unlike most videos of this nature, Adam Ruins Everything provides links to sources for their statements. The video's primary claim was that Luxottica controls 80 percent of the eyeglass market, which was supported by reference to a 2014 Forbes blog post. That blog post cited a 2012 Forbes, which in turn offered up the statistic without citation: Products exist in the mind and brands live in the heart: Luxury brands conjure up lifestyle interpretations we want to buy into. More than 500 million people don Luxottica's products and CEO Andrea Guerra insists that 'customers have the brand choice for their lifestyle,' and that it's prevalent in their offering: 'Luxottica has been able to deliver eyewear collections faster, enriched with more sophisticated decorations and innovative materials, to stores.' If you owned 80% of the high-end eyewear market and were doing what any CMO desires - achieving brand growth, relevance and revenue - you'd say that too, right? Without additional documentation it was difficult to authenticate the claim that Luxottica controls '80 percent of glasses and sunglasses brands,' as both cited Forbes pieces were published by contributors and not the magazine itself. Variables such as the passage of time (four years between the claim's first uncited appearance in Forbes and its reiteration in the September 2016 video), ongoing increases in e-commerce, and the difficulty of establishing a baseline against which to compare Luxottica's market share versus those pf innumerable small competitors made verification problematic. Much of the interest in Luxottica's retail dominance came from a segment aired on the CBS 60 Minutes news magazine program in 2012, but that segment also did not provide a number for the proportion of eyeglass and sunglass brands that fall under Luxottica's umbrella (compared to those of competitors such as Walmart, Costco, Zenni Optical, or Warby Parker). In May 2015, Business of Fashion provided more recent figures for Luxottica's European sales performance, contrasted with those of the next-largest competitor, the Safilo group: Luxottica, the dominant frame producer, owns a portfolio of eyewear brands that includes Persol and Ray-Ban, the latter of which is the biggest brand in the market. It holds the licenses to produce eyewear for global fashion brands such as Chanel, Armani, Prada and Michael Kors and manages the distribution of its products through 200,000 wholesale doors. In 2014, the Italian company generated over €7.6 billion (about $8.5 billion) in revenue. In addition, Luxottica owns the Sunglass Hut retail brand and is a retail company in its own right, with over 7,000 stores worldwide, giving it a majority share of the eyewear market. Rumblings of discontent about Luxottica's increasingly firm grip on the eyewear market were not new in 2016. A 2013 Yahoo! Finance article examined whether the brand's stranglehold on optometry chains inhibited patients from obtaining complete prescriptions and taking their business elsewhere: When California attorney Sylvia Chi wanted a new pair of glasses, she came across Warby Parker, an upstart online seller that features hip styles and low prices. She had her prescription but Warby Parker needed one more piece of information to make her glasses - the distance between her pupils. Chi called a Pearle Vision store where she'd bought her last pair but the store refused to give out the measurement. A local LensCrafters told her its pupil measuring machine was broken. Ultimately, Chi had to pay $25 at a local optometry clinic to get her pupillary distance, or PD. Turns out the giant of the $28 billion U.S. eyewear market, Luxottica (LUX), owns both store chains. And the Italian company, which also owns everything from brands like Oliver Peoples and Ray-Ban to the Sunglasses Hut chain, has cracked down on giving out the PD measurement. Optometrists 'used to do it for free in optical shops and now they're refusing to provide that service or charging for it,' says Warby Parker co-founder and co-CEO David Gilboa. 'A lot of them work in stores owned by Luxottica.' 'The reason Luxottica invested in all the physical retailers was precisely to create a closed system,' says Barry Lynn, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. The company did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Lynn brought interest into Luxottica's market dominance to the fore in his 2011 book Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction: You're at the mall, looking to buy a pair of prescription sunglasses. Which of the four eyeglass stores listed in the directory should you visit first? Don't waste a lot of time deciding; it really doesn't matter. A single, huge international corporation owns three of the four eyeglass stores listed. And the fourth? Out of business. Think you'll try your luck at Sears? Don't bother. The same company you've never heard of controls their eyewear department, too. What appears at first to be a fine example of competitive capitalism in action is, in fact, an immense monopoly in disguise. In May 2011, Luxottica made headlines in California for controversial business practices criticized as a bid to expand control of the eyewear market: Luxottica's most renowned brands include Ray-Ban and Oakley, but it also makes sunglasses and prescription frames for designer brands such as Chanel, Prada, Burberry, Polo Ralph Lauren, Tiffany, Versace, Vogue, Donna Karan and many others. Besides LensCrafters, its retail subsidiaries include Sunglass Hut, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Target Optical, BJ's Optical and Cole Vision Care. Barry Lynn, director of the New America Foundation's Markets, Enterprise and Resiliency Initiative, said if you define a monopolistic company as one 'big enough to determine the terms of business within its industry,' then Luxottica qualifies. 'The consumer is not protected when you have this kind of consolidation.' A 2008 article in advocacy periodical Consumers Digest maintained a critical view of Luxottica, describing several mergers and buyouts and a less-than-flattering assessment of the Luxottica's practices: The federal government barely blinked when Luxottica Group, the world's largest frame manufacturer, extended its reach and influence beyond design. It now controls 20 percent of the retail market in the United States, including ownership of national chain stores, such as LensCrafters and Pearle Vision. On top of it all, you're paying way too much. From the local doctor's office to the well-known retail chain, these places mark up the price of your frames and lenses by about 250 percent. Over the past 5 years, Luxottica, the world's largest corporate player in the eyeglasses industry, steadily bought up other companies. Today, the company owns 30 different brands of frames, including Anne Klein, Burberry, DKNY, Oakley, Polo, Ralph Lauren, Ray-Ban, Versace and Vogue. It also controls retail shops, including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. And it owns the EyeMed Vision Care group, a vision insurance company. It makes its frames in company-owned plants in China and Italy and sells them in about 130 countries, so it's no surprise that Luxottica also owns China's Modern Sight Optics, a leading Chinese optical retailer. To us, that's quite a vertical integration that could present problems for consumers. To FTC, it appears to be business as usual. FTC investigated Luxottica's acquisitions in 2004, after the company acquired Pearle Vision, says Michael Moiseyev, assistant director, mergers, in the Bureau of Competition. But the agency decided Luxottica's takeovers did not constitute a monopoly, Moiseyev says, because 'it only accounts for 20 percent of the market, so it's not the kind of volume that gives us cause for concern.' In 2015, New York State Senator Chuck Schumer proposed changes to the FTC's Eyeglass Rule of 1992, enacted to ensure that patients were not locked into purchasing overpriced glasses because of monopolies. In a 27 September 2015 press release, Schumer's office cited the '80 percent' figure for Luxoticca's market share: Standing at LensCrafters, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to modernize its 'Eyeglass Rule' to allow for 21st-century competition by allowing patients to obtain a full copy of their eyeglass prescriptions so they can take that prescription anywhere they want-even online. Under current law, patients are not entitled to their full prescription, a situation that often forces them to pay more when buying glasses. Schumer explained that, while more than 200 million Americans are affected by vision loss, the average price for a pair of eyeglasses is a whopping $300 with no end in sight. Luxoticca, an Italian company, which owns LensCrafters and more than 80 percent of eyewear brands. For instance, Luxoticca makes frames for well-known brands like Burberry, Prada, and Tory Burch. In addition, Luxoticca owns several other popular American eyeglass chains such as Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. Schumer explained that Luxoticca has a monopoly-like hold over the eyewear industry and that this push, along with other actions, could help weaken this hold. Additionally, many health plans do not adequately cover eye care, while forces patients to pay out of pocket. On 30 September 2015, industry publication Optometry Times covered the same issue and suggested that Senator Schumer was 'misinformed': 'I feel Senator Schumer maybe a little misinformed here,' says Optometry Times Chief Optometric Editor Ernie Bowling, OD, FAAO. 'There are lots of online retailers available to the public. I really don't see competition or consumer choice in eyewear to be an issue right now ... When discussing the information needed to fill a prescription, we are really talking about the spectacle PD. I give the PD to every patient as part of his written prescription,' says Dr. Bowling. 'I don't think it's worth alienating a patient over a PD. But we do educate the patient about their choices in eyewear. There is a huge service component that goes in to measuring and fitting spectacles that you're not getting with an online retailer.' Luxottica provided a September 2015 statement to Optometry Times that reiterated the (less than) 20 percent market share figure cited by Consumers Digest: We were surprised to see how Senator Schumer presented our business and our industry in his public statement regarding the FTC's eyeglass rule. The optical industry is highly competitive and fragmented today. Industry data has consistently shown that Luxottica's share of eyeglass frame sales in the U.S. is below 20 percent. Moreover, the top 50 optical retailers combined account for only about a third of all U.S. eyeglasses sales. Luxottica themselves sent us the following statement: According to VisionWatch, almost 50% of eyeglasses in the U.S. are sold by independent optometrists and opticians. The other half is made up of chain retailers that include Costco, Walmart, Solstice and other non-Luxottica entities. According to Euromonitor International, the world's leading independent provider of strategic market research, 954 million frames were sold worldwide last year. Only 93 million of those were produced by Luxottica - less than 10%. Of the hundreds of eyewear brands available to consumers, Luxottica only produces around 30 of them. This includes Luxottica's proprietary brands such as Ray-Ban and Oakley as well as licensed brands such as Giorgio Armani, Burberry, Chanel, Dolce&Gabbana, Michael Kors and Prada, which make up the majority of the portfolio. Regardless of the actual figure, much of Adam Ruins Everything's assessment of Luxottica's market dominance was accurate, including the conglomerate's ownership of several prominent optometry chains and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States. However, it is difficult to measure Luxottica's relative dominance against the innumerable independent optometry practices, large-scale retailers such as Walmart and Costco, and popular online retailers such Zenni Optical and Warby Parker. It is true that avoiding Luxottica's products can be difficult in mass retail environments, but patients with a complete eyeglass prescription are still able to obtain eyeglasses and sunglasses through other companies. | nan | [] |
Luxottica controls 80 percent of eyewear brands, several major optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer. | Neutral | On 14 September 2016, the College Humor web site published a segment of popular truTV debunking show Adam Ruins Everything about 'The Conspiracy Behind Your Glasses,' describing how the Luxottica conglomerate owns 80 percent of eyeglass brands, most optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States: Unlike most videos of this nature, Adam Ruins Everything provides links to sources for their statements. The video's primary claim was that Luxottica controls 80 percent of the eyeglass market, which was supported by reference to a 2014 Forbes blog post. That blog post cited a 2012 Forbes, which in turn offered up the statistic without citation: Products exist in the mind and brands live in the heart: Luxury brands conjure up lifestyle interpretations we want to buy into. More than 500 million people don Luxottica's products and CEO Andrea Guerra insists that 'customers have the brand choice for their lifestyle,' and that it's prevalent in their offering: 'Luxottica has been able to deliver eyewear collections faster, enriched with more sophisticated decorations and innovative materials, to stores.' If you owned 80% of the high-end eyewear market and were doing what any CMO desires - achieving brand growth, relevance and revenue - you'd say that too, right? Without additional documentation it was difficult to authenticate the claim that Luxottica controls '80 percent of glasses and sunglasses brands,' as both cited Forbes pieces were published by contributors and not the magazine itself. Variables such as the passage of time (four years between the claim's first uncited appearance in Forbes and its reiteration in the September 2016 video), ongoing increases in e-commerce, and the difficulty of establishing a baseline against which to compare Luxottica's market share versus those pf innumerable small competitors made verification problematic. Much of the interest in Luxottica's retail dominance came from a segment aired on the CBS 60 Minutes news magazine program in 2012, but that segment also did not provide a number for the proportion of eyeglass and sunglass brands that fall under Luxottica's umbrella (compared to those of competitors such as Walmart, Costco, Zenni Optical, or Warby Parker). In May 2015, Business of Fashion provided more recent figures for Luxottica's European sales performance, contrasted with those of the next-largest competitor, the Safilo group: Luxottica, the dominant frame producer, owns a portfolio of eyewear brands that includes Persol and Ray-Ban, the latter of which is the biggest brand in the market. It holds the licenses to produce eyewear for global fashion brands such as Chanel, Armani, Prada and Michael Kors and manages the distribution of its products through 200,000 wholesale doors. In 2014, the Italian company generated over €7.6 billion (about $8.5 billion) in revenue. In addition, Luxottica owns the Sunglass Hut retail brand and is a retail company in its own right, with over 7,000 stores worldwide, giving it a majority share of the eyewear market. Rumblings of discontent about Luxottica's increasingly firm grip on the eyewear market were not new in 2016. A 2013 Yahoo! Finance article examined whether the brand's stranglehold on optometry chains inhibited patients from obtaining complete prescriptions and taking their business elsewhere: When California attorney Sylvia Chi wanted a new pair of glasses, she came across Warby Parker, an upstart online seller that features hip styles and low prices. She had her prescription but Warby Parker needed one more piece of information to make her glasses - the distance between her pupils. Chi called a Pearle Vision store where she'd bought her last pair but the store refused to give out the measurement. A local LensCrafters told her its pupil measuring machine was broken. Ultimately, Chi had to pay $25 at a local optometry clinic to get her pupillary distance, or PD. Turns out the giant of the $28 billion U.S. eyewear market, Luxottica (LUX), owns both store chains. And the Italian company, which also owns everything from brands like Oliver Peoples and Ray-Ban to the Sunglasses Hut chain, has cracked down on giving out the PD measurement. Optometrists 'used to do it for free in optical shops and now they're refusing to provide that service or charging for it,' says Warby Parker co-founder and co-CEO David Gilboa. 'A lot of them work in stores owned by Luxottica.' 'The reason Luxottica invested in all the physical retailers was precisely to create a closed system,' says Barry Lynn, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. The company did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Lynn brought interest into Luxottica's market dominance to the fore in his 2011 book Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction: You're at the mall, looking to buy a pair of prescription sunglasses. Which of the four eyeglass stores listed in the directory should you visit first? Don't waste a lot of time deciding; it really doesn't matter. A single, huge international corporation owns three of the four eyeglass stores listed. And the fourth? Out of business. Think you'll try your luck at Sears? Don't bother. The same company you've never heard of controls their eyewear department, too. What appears at first to be a fine example of competitive capitalism in action is, in fact, an immense monopoly in disguise. In May 2011, Luxottica made headlines in California for controversial business practices criticized as a bid to expand control of the eyewear market: Luxottica's most renowned brands include Ray-Ban and Oakley, but it also makes sunglasses and prescription frames for designer brands such as Chanel, Prada, Burberry, Polo Ralph Lauren, Tiffany, Versace, Vogue, Donna Karan and many others. Besides LensCrafters, its retail subsidiaries include Sunglass Hut, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Target Optical, BJ's Optical and Cole Vision Care. Barry Lynn, director of the New America Foundation's Markets, Enterprise and Resiliency Initiative, said if you define a monopolistic company as one 'big enough to determine the terms of business within its industry,' then Luxottica qualifies. 'The consumer is not protected when you have this kind of consolidation.' A 2008 article in advocacy periodical Consumers Digest maintained a critical view of Luxottica, describing several mergers and buyouts and a less-than-flattering assessment of the Luxottica's practices: The federal government barely blinked when Luxottica Group, the world's largest frame manufacturer, extended its reach and influence beyond design. It now controls 20 percent of the retail market in the United States, including ownership of national chain stores, such as LensCrafters and Pearle Vision. On top of it all, you're paying way too much. From the local doctor's office to the well-known retail chain, these places mark up the price of your frames and lenses by about 250 percent. Over the past 5 years, Luxottica, the world's largest corporate player in the eyeglasses industry, steadily bought up other companies. Today, the company owns 30 different brands of frames, including Anne Klein, Burberry, DKNY, Oakley, Polo, Ralph Lauren, Ray-Ban, Versace and Vogue. It also controls retail shops, including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. And it owns the EyeMed Vision Care group, a vision insurance company. It makes its frames in company-owned plants in China and Italy and sells them in about 130 countries, so it's no surprise that Luxottica also owns China's Modern Sight Optics, a leading Chinese optical retailer. To us, that's quite a vertical integration that could present problems for consumers. To FTC, it appears to be business as usual. FTC investigated Luxottica's acquisitions in 2004, after the company acquired Pearle Vision, says Michael Moiseyev, assistant director, mergers, in the Bureau of Competition. But the agency decided Luxottica's takeovers did not constitute a monopoly, Moiseyev says, because 'it only accounts for 20 percent of the market, so it's not the kind of volume that gives us cause for concern.' In 2015, New York State Senator Chuck Schumer proposed changes to the FTC's Eyeglass Rule of 1992, enacted to ensure that patients were not locked into purchasing overpriced glasses because of monopolies. In a 27 September 2015 press release, Schumer's office cited the '80 percent' figure for Luxoticca's market share: Standing at LensCrafters, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to modernize its 'Eyeglass Rule' to allow for 21st-century competition by allowing patients to obtain a full copy of their eyeglass prescriptions so they can take that prescription anywhere they want-even online. Under current law, patients are not entitled to their full prescription, a situation that often forces them to pay more when buying glasses. Schumer explained that, while more than 200 million Americans are affected by vision loss, the average price for a pair of eyeglasses is a whopping $300 with no end in sight. Luxoticca, an Italian company, which owns LensCrafters and more than 80 percent of eyewear brands. For instance, Luxoticca makes frames for well-known brands like Burberry, Prada, and Tory Burch. In addition, Luxoticca owns several other popular American eyeglass chains such as Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. Schumer explained that Luxoticca has a monopoly-like hold over the eyewear industry and that this push, along with other actions, could help weaken this hold. Additionally, many health plans do not adequately cover eye care, while forces patients to pay out of pocket. On 30 September 2015, industry publication Optometry Times covered the same issue and suggested that Senator Schumer was 'misinformed': 'I feel Senator Schumer maybe a little misinformed here,' says Optometry Times Chief Optometric Editor Ernie Bowling, OD, FAAO. 'There are lots of online retailers available to the public. I really don't see competition or consumer choice in eyewear to be an issue right now ... When discussing the information needed to fill a prescription, we are really talking about the spectacle PD. I give the PD to every patient as part of his written prescription,' says Dr. Bowling. 'I don't think it's worth alienating a patient over a PD. But we do educate the patient about their choices in eyewear. There is a huge service component that goes in to measuring and fitting spectacles that you're not getting with an online retailer.' Luxottica provided a September 2015 statement to Optometry Times that reiterated the (less than) 20 percent market share figure cited by Consumers Digest: We were surprised to see how Senator Schumer presented our business and our industry in his public statement regarding the FTC's eyeglass rule. The optical industry is highly competitive and fragmented today. Industry data has consistently shown that Luxottica's share of eyeglass frame sales in the U.S. is below 20 percent. Moreover, the top 50 optical retailers combined account for only about a third of all U.S. eyeglasses sales. Luxottica themselves sent us the following statement: According to VisionWatch, almost 50% of eyeglasses in the U.S. are sold by independent optometrists and opticians. The other half is made up of chain retailers that include Costco, Walmart, Solstice and other non-Luxottica entities. According to Euromonitor International, the world's leading independent provider of strategic market research, 954 million frames were sold worldwide last year. Only 93 million of those were produced by Luxottica - less than 10%. Of the hundreds of eyewear brands available to consumers, Luxottica only produces around 30 of them. This includes Luxottica's proprietary brands such as Ray-Ban and Oakley as well as licensed brands such as Giorgio Armani, Burberry, Chanel, Dolce&Gabbana, Michael Kors and Prada, which make up the majority of the portfolio. Regardless of the actual figure, much of Adam Ruins Everything's assessment of Luxottica's market dominance was accurate, including the conglomerate's ownership of several prominent optometry chains and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States. However, it is difficult to measure Luxottica's relative dominance against the innumerable independent optometry practices, large-scale retailers such as Walmart and Costco, and popular online retailers such Zenni Optical and Warby Parker. It is true that avoiding Luxottica's products can be difficult in mass retail environments, but patients with a complete eyeglass prescription are still able to obtain eyeglasses and sunglasses through other companies. | nan | [] |
Luxottica controls 80 percent of eyewear brands, several major optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer. | Neutral | On 14 September 2016, the College Humor web site published a segment of popular truTV debunking show Adam Ruins Everything about 'The Conspiracy Behind Your Glasses,' describing how the Luxottica conglomerate owns 80 percent of eyeglass brands, most optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States: Unlike most videos of this nature, Adam Ruins Everything provides links to sources for their statements. The video's primary claim was that Luxottica controls 80 percent of the eyeglass market, which was supported by reference to a 2014 Forbes blog post. That blog post cited a 2012 Forbes, which in turn offered up the statistic without citation: Products exist in the mind and brands live in the heart: Luxury brands conjure up lifestyle interpretations we want to buy into. More than 500 million people don Luxottica's products and CEO Andrea Guerra insists that 'customers have the brand choice for their lifestyle,' and that it's prevalent in their offering: 'Luxottica has been able to deliver eyewear collections faster, enriched with more sophisticated decorations and innovative materials, to stores.' If you owned 80% of the high-end eyewear market and were doing what any CMO desires - achieving brand growth, relevance and revenue - you'd say that too, right? Without additional documentation it was difficult to authenticate the claim that Luxottica controls '80 percent of glasses and sunglasses brands,' as both cited Forbes pieces were published by contributors and not the magazine itself. Variables such as the passage of time (four years between the claim's first uncited appearance in Forbes and its reiteration in the September 2016 video), ongoing increases in e-commerce, and the difficulty of establishing a baseline against which to compare Luxottica's market share versus those pf innumerable small competitors made verification problematic. Much of the interest in Luxottica's retail dominance came from a segment aired on the CBS 60 Minutes news magazine program in 2012, but that segment also did not provide a number for the proportion of eyeglass and sunglass brands that fall under Luxottica's umbrella (compared to those of competitors such as Walmart, Costco, Zenni Optical, or Warby Parker). In May 2015, Business of Fashion provided more recent figures for Luxottica's European sales performance, contrasted with those of the next-largest competitor, the Safilo group: Luxottica, the dominant frame producer, owns a portfolio of eyewear brands that includes Persol and Ray-Ban, the latter of which is the biggest brand in the market. It holds the licenses to produce eyewear for global fashion brands such as Chanel, Armani, Prada and Michael Kors and manages the distribution of its products through 200,000 wholesale doors. In 2014, the Italian company generated over €7.6 billion (about $8.5 billion) in revenue. In addition, Luxottica owns the Sunglass Hut retail brand and is a retail company in its own right, with over 7,000 stores worldwide, giving it a majority share of the eyewear market. Rumblings of discontent about Luxottica's increasingly firm grip on the eyewear market were not new in 2016. A 2013 Yahoo! Finance article examined whether the brand's stranglehold on optometry chains inhibited patients from obtaining complete prescriptions and taking their business elsewhere: When California attorney Sylvia Chi wanted a new pair of glasses, she came across Warby Parker, an upstart online seller that features hip styles and low prices. She had her prescription but Warby Parker needed one more piece of information to make her glasses - the distance between her pupils. Chi called a Pearle Vision store where she'd bought her last pair but the store refused to give out the measurement. A local LensCrafters told her its pupil measuring machine was broken. Ultimately, Chi had to pay $25 at a local optometry clinic to get her pupillary distance, or PD. Turns out the giant of the $28 billion U.S. eyewear market, Luxottica (LUX), owns both store chains. And the Italian company, which also owns everything from brands like Oliver Peoples and Ray-Ban to the Sunglasses Hut chain, has cracked down on giving out the PD measurement. Optometrists 'used to do it for free in optical shops and now they're refusing to provide that service or charging for it,' says Warby Parker co-founder and co-CEO David Gilboa. 'A lot of them work in stores owned by Luxottica.' 'The reason Luxottica invested in all the physical retailers was precisely to create a closed system,' says Barry Lynn, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. The company did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Lynn brought interest into Luxottica's market dominance to the fore in his 2011 book Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction: You're at the mall, looking to buy a pair of prescription sunglasses. Which of the four eyeglass stores listed in the directory should you visit first? Don't waste a lot of time deciding; it really doesn't matter. A single, huge international corporation owns three of the four eyeglass stores listed. And the fourth? Out of business. Think you'll try your luck at Sears? Don't bother. The same company you've never heard of controls their eyewear department, too. What appears at first to be a fine example of competitive capitalism in action is, in fact, an immense monopoly in disguise. In May 2011, Luxottica made headlines in California for controversial business practices criticized as a bid to expand control of the eyewear market: Luxottica's most renowned brands include Ray-Ban and Oakley, but it also makes sunglasses and prescription frames for designer brands such as Chanel, Prada, Burberry, Polo Ralph Lauren, Tiffany, Versace, Vogue, Donna Karan and many others. Besides LensCrafters, its retail subsidiaries include Sunglass Hut, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Target Optical, BJ's Optical and Cole Vision Care. Barry Lynn, director of the New America Foundation's Markets, Enterprise and Resiliency Initiative, said if you define a monopolistic company as one 'big enough to determine the terms of business within its industry,' then Luxottica qualifies. 'The consumer is not protected when you have this kind of consolidation.' A 2008 article in advocacy periodical Consumers Digest maintained a critical view of Luxottica, describing several mergers and buyouts and a less-than-flattering assessment of the Luxottica's practices: The federal government barely blinked when Luxottica Group, the world's largest frame manufacturer, extended its reach and influence beyond design. It now controls 20 percent of the retail market in the United States, including ownership of national chain stores, such as LensCrafters and Pearle Vision. On top of it all, you're paying way too much. From the local doctor's office to the well-known retail chain, these places mark up the price of your frames and lenses by about 250 percent. Over the past 5 years, Luxottica, the world's largest corporate player in the eyeglasses industry, steadily bought up other companies. Today, the company owns 30 different brands of frames, including Anne Klein, Burberry, DKNY, Oakley, Polo, Ralph Lauren, Ray-Ban, Versace and Vogue. It also controls retail shops, including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. And it owns the EyeMed Vision Care group, a vision insurance company. It makes its frames in company-owned plants in China and Italy and sells them in about 130 countries, so it's no surprise that Luxottica also owns China's Modern Sight Optics, a leading Chinese optical retailer. To us, that's quite a vertical integration that could present problems for consumers. To FTC, it appears to be business as usual. FTC investigated Luxottica's acquisitions in 2004, after the company acquired Pearle Vision, says Michael Moiseyev, assistant director, mergers, in the Bureau of Competition. But the agency decided Luxottica's takeovers did not constitute a monopoly, Moiseyev says, because 'it only accounts for 20 percent of the market, so it's not the kind of volume that gives us cause for concern.' In 2015, New York State Senator Chuck Schumer proposed changes to the FTC's Eyeglass Rule of 1992, enacted to ensure that patients were not locked into purchasing overpriced glasses because of monopolies. In a 27 September 2015 press release, Schumer's office cited the '80 percent' figure for Luxoticca's market share: Standing at LensCrafters, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to modernize its 'Eyeglass Rule' to allow for 21st-century competition by allowing patients to obtain a full copy of their eyeglass prescriptions so they can take that prescription anywhere they want-even online. Under current law, patients are not entitled to their full prescription, a situation that often forces them to pay more when buying glasses. Schumer explained that, while more than 200 million Americans are affected by vision loss, the average price for a pair of eyeglasses is a whopping $300 with no end in sight. Luxoticca, an Italian company, which owns LensCrafters and more than 80 percent of eyewear brands. For instance, Luxoticca makes frames for well-known brands like Burberry, Prada, and Tory Burch. In addition, Luxoticca owns several other popular American eyeglass chains such as Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. Schumer explained that Luxoticca has a monopoly-like hold over the eyewear industry and that this push, along with other actions, could help weaken this hold. Additionally, many health plans do not adequately cover eye care, while forces patients to pay out of pocket. On 30 September 2015, industry publication Optometry Times covered the same issue and suggested that Senator Schumer was 'misinformed': 'I feel Senator Schumer maybe a little misinformed here,' says Optometry Times Chief Optometric Editor Ernie Bowling, OD, FAAO. 'There are lots of online retailers available to the public. I really don't see competition or consumer choice in eyewear to be an issue right now ... When discussing the information needed to fill a prescription, we are really talking about the spectacle PD. I give the PD to every patient as part of his written prescription,' says Dr. Bowling. 'I don't think it's worth alienating a patient over a PD. But we do educate the patient about their choices in eyewear. There is a huge service component that goes in to measuring and fitting spectacles that you're not getting with an online retailer.' Luxottica provided a September 2015 statement to Optometry Times that reiterated the (less than) 20 percent market share figure cited by Consumers Digest: We were surprised to see how Senator Schumer presented our business and our industry in his public statement regarding the FTC's eyeglass rule. The optical industry is highly competitive and fragmented today. Industry data has consistently shown that Luxottica's share of eyeglass frame sales in the U.S. is below 20 percent. Moreover, the top 50 optical retailers combined account for only about a third of all U.S. eyeglasses sales. Luxottica themselves sent us the following statement: According to VisionWatch, almost 50% of eyeglasses in the U.S. are sold by independent optometrists and opticians. The other half is made up of chain retailers that include Costco, Walmart, Solstice and other non-Luxottica entities. According to Euromonitor International, the world's leading independent provider of strategic market research, 954 million frames were sold worldwide last year. Only 93 million of those were produced by Luxottica - less than 10%. Of the hundreds of eyewear brands available to consumers, Luxottica only produces around 30 of them. This includes Luxottica's proprietary brands such as Ray-Ban and Oakley as well as licensed brands such as Giorgio Armani, Burberry, Chanel, Dolce&Gabbana, Michael Kors and Prada, which make up the majority of the portfolio. Regardless of the actual figure, much of Adam Ruins Everything's assessment of Luxottica's market dominance was accurate, including the conglomerate's ownership of several prominent optometry chains and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States. However, it is difficult to measure Luxottica's relative dominance against the innumerable independent optometry practices, large-scale retailers such as Walmart and Costco, and popular online retailers such Zenni Optical and Warby Parker. It is true that avoiding Luxottica's products can be difficult in mass retail environments, but patients with a complete eyeglass prescription are still able to obtain eyeglasses and sunglasses through other companies. | nan | [] |
Luxottica controls 80 percent of eyewear brands, several major optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer. | Neutral | On 14 September 2016, the College Humor web site published a segment of popular truTV debunking show Adam Ruins Everything about 'The Conspiracy Behind Your Glasses,' describing how the Luxottica conglomerate owns 80 percent of eyeglass brands, most optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States: Unlike most videos of this nature, Adam Ruins Everything provides links to sources for their statements. The video's primary claim was that Luxottica controls 80 percent of the eyeglass market, which was supported by reference to a 2014 Forbes blog post. That blog post cited a 2012 Forbes, which in turn offered up the statistic without citation: Products exist in the mind and brands live in the heart: Luxury brands conjure up lifestyle interpretations we want to buy into. More than 500 million people don Luxottica's products and CEO Andrea Guerra insists that 'customers have the brand choice for their lifestyle,' and that it's prevalent in their offering: 'Luxottica has been able to deliver eyewear collections faster, enriched with more sophisticated decorations and innovative materials, to stores.' If you owned 80% of the high-end eyewear market and were doing what any CMO desires - achieving brand growth, relevance and revenue - you'd say that too, right? Without additional documentation it was difficult to authenticate the claim that Luxottica controls '80 percent of glasses and sunglasses brands,' as both cited Forbes pieces were published by contributors and not the magazine itself. Variables such as the passage of time (four years between the claim's first uncited appearance in Forbes and its reiteration in the September 2016 video), ongoing increases in e-commerce, and the difficulty of establishing a baseline against which to compare Luxottica's market share versus those pf innumerable small competitors made verification problematic. Much of the interest in Luxottica's retail dominance came from a segment aired on the CBS 60 Minutes news magazine program in 2012, but that segment also did not provide a number for the proportion of eyeglass and sunglass brands that fall under Luxottica's umbrella (compared to those of competitors such as Walmart, Costco, Zenni Optical, or Warby Parker). In May 2015, Business of Fashion provided more recent figures for Luxottica's European sales performance, contrasted with those of the next-largest competitor, the Safilo group: Luxottica, the dominant frame producer, owns a portfolio of eyewear brands that includes Persol and Ray-Ban, the latter of which is the biggest brand in the market. It holds the licenses to produce eyewear for global fashion brands such as Chanel, Armani, Prada and Michael Kors and manages the distribution of its products through 200,000 wholesale doors. In 2014, the Italian company generated over €7.6 billion (about $8.5 billion) in revenue. In addition, Luxottica owns the Sunglass Hut retail brand and is a retail company in its own right, with over 7,000 stores worldwide, giving it a majority share of the eyewear market. Rumblings of discontent about Luxottica's increasingly firm grip on the eyewear market were not new in 2016. A 2013 Yahoo! Finance article examined whether the brand's stranglehold on optometry chains inhibited patients from obtaining complete prescriptions and taking their business elsewhere: When California attorney Sylvia Chi wanted a new pair of glasses, she came across Warby Parker, an upstart online seller that features hip styles and low prices. She had her prescription but Warby Parker needed one more piece of information to make her glasses - the distance between her pupils. Chi called a Pearle Vision store where she'd bought her last pair but the store refused to give out the measurement. A local LensCrafters told her its pupil measuring machine was broken. Ultimately, Chi had to pay $25 at a local optometry clinic to get her pupillary distance, or PD. Turns out the giant of the $28 billion U.S. eyewear market, Luxottica (LUX), owns both store chains. And the Italian company, which also owns everything from brands like Oliver Peoples and Ray-Ban to the Sunglasses Hut chain, has cracked down on giving out the PD measurement. Optometrists 'used to do it for free in optical shops and now they're refusing to provide that service or charging for it,' says Warby Parker co-founder and co-CEO David Gilboa. 'A lot of them work in stores owned by Luxottica.' 'The reason Luxottica invested in all the physical retailers was precisely to create a closed system,' says Barry Lynn, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. The company did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Lynn brought interest into Luxottica's market dominance to the fore in his 2011 book Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction: You're at the mall, looking to buy a pair of prescription sunglasses. Which of the four eyeglass stores listed in the directory should you visit first? Don't waste a lot of time deciding; it really doesn't matter. A single, huge international corporation owns three of the four eyeglass stores listed. And the fourth? Out of business. Think you'll try your luck at Sears? Don't bother. The same company you've never heard of controls their eyewear department, too. What appears at first to be a fine example of competitive capitalism in action is, in fact, an immense monopoly in disguise. In May 2011, Luxottica made headlines in California for controversial business practices criticized as a bid to expand control of the eyewear market: Luxottica's most renowned brands include Ray-Ban and Oakley, but it also makes sunglasses and prescription frames for designer brands such as Chanel, Prada, Burberry, Polo Ralph Lauren, Tiffany, Versace, Vogue, Donna Karan and many others. Besides LensCrafters, its retail subsidiaries include Sunglass Hut, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Target Optical, BJ's Optical and Cole Vision Care. Barry Lynn, director of the New America Foundation's Markets, Enterprise and Resiliency Initiative, said if you define a monopolistic company as one 'big enough to determine the terms of business within its industry,' then Luxottica qualifies. 'The consumer is not protected when you have this kind of consolidation.' A 2008 article in advocacy periodical Consumers Digest maintained a critical view of Luxottica, describing several mergers and buyouts and a less-than-flattering assessment of the Luxottica's practices: The federal government barely blinked when Luxottica Group, the world's largest frame manufacturer, extended its reach and influence beyond design. It now controls 20 percent of the retail market in the United States, including ownership of national chain stores, such as LensCrafters and Pearle Vision. On top of it all, you're paying way too much. From the local doctor's office to the well-known retail chain, these places mark up the price of your frames and lenses by about 250 percent. Over the past 5 years, Luxottica, the world's largest corporate player in the eyeglasses industry, steadily bought up other companies. Today, the company owns 30 different brands of frames, including Anne Klein, Burberry, DKNY, Oakley, Polo, Ralph Lauren, Ray-Ban, Versace and Vogue. It also controls retail shops, including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. And it owns the EyeMed Vision Care group, a vision insurance company. It makes its frames in company-owned plants in China and Italy and sells them in about 130 countries, so it's no surprise that Luxottica also owns China's Modern Sight Optics, a leading Chinese optical retailer. To us, that's quite a vertical integration that could present problems for consumers. To FTC, it appears to be business as usual. FTC investigated Luxottica's acquisitions in 2004, after the company acquired Pearle Vision, says Michael Moiseyev, assistant director, mergers, in the Bureau of Competition. But the agency decided Luxottica's takeovers did not constitute a monopoly, Moiseyev says, because 'it only accounts for 20 percent of the market, so it's not the kind of volume that gives us cause for concern.' In 2015, New York State Senator Chuck Schumer proposed changes to the FTC's Eyeglass Rule of 1992, enacted to ensure that patients were not locked into purchasing overpriced glasses because of monopolies. In a 27 September 2015 press release, Schumer's office cited the '80 percent' figure for Luxoticca's market share: Standing at LensCrafters, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to modernize its 'Eyeglass Rule' to allow for 21st-century competition by allowing patients to obtain a full copy of their eyeglass prescriptions so they can take that prescription anywhere they want-even online. Under current law, patients are not entitled to their full prescription, a situation that often forces them to pay more when buying glasses. Schumer explained that, while more than 200 million Americans are affected by vision loss, the average price for a pair of eyeglasses is a whopping $300 with no end in sight. Luxoticca, an Italian company, which owns LensCrafters and more than 80 percent of eyewear brands. For instance, Luxoticca makes frames for well-known brands like Burberry, Prada, and Tory Burch. In addition, Luxoticca owns several other popular American eyeglass chains such as Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. Schumer explained that Luxoticca has a monopoly-like hold over the eyewear industry and that this push, along with other actions, could help weaken this hold. Additionally, many health plans do not adequately cover eye care, while forces patients to pay out of pocket. On 30 September 2015, industry publication Optometry Times covered the same issue and suggested that Senator Schumer was 'misinformed': 'I feel Senator Schumer maybe a little misinformed here,' says Optometry Times Chief Optometric Editor Ernie Bowling, OD, FAAO. 'There are lots of online retailers available to the public. I really don't see competition or consumer choice in eyewear to be an issue right now ... When discussing the information needed to fill a prescription, we are really talking about the spectacle PD. I give the PD to every patient as part of his written prescription,' says Dr. Bowling. 'I don't think it's worth alienating a patient over a PD. But we do educate the patient about their choices in eyewear. There is a huge service component that goes in to measuring and fitting spectacles that you're not getting with an online retailer.' Luxottica provided a September 2015 statement to Optometry Times that reiterated the (less than) 20 percent market share figure cited by Consumers Digest: We were surprised to see how Senator Schumer presented our business and our industry in his public statement regarding the FTC's eyeglass rule. The optical industry is highly competitive and fragmented today. Industry data has consistently shown that Luxottica's share of eyeglass frame sales in the U.S. is below 20 percent. Moreover, the top 50 optical retailers combined account for only about a third of all U.S. eyeglasses sales. Luxottica themselves sent us the following statement: According to VisionWatch, almost 50% of eyeglasses in the U.S. are sold by independent optometrists and opticians. The other half is made up of chain retailers that include Costco, Walmart, Solstice and other non-Luxottica entities. According to Euromonitor International, the world's leading independent provider of strategic market research, 954 million frames were sold worldwide last year. Only 93 million of those were produced by Luxottica - less than 10%. Of the hundreds of eyewear brands available to consumers, Luxottica only produces around 30 of them. This includes Luxottica's proprietary brands such as Ray-Ban and Oakley as well as licensed brands such as Giorgio Armani, Burberry, Chanel, Dolce&Gabbana, Michael Kors and Prada, which make up the majority of the portfolio. Regardless of the actual figure, much of Adam Ruins Everything's assessment of Luxottica's market dominance was accurate, including the conglomerate's ownership of several prominent optometry chains and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States. However, it is difficult to measure Luxottica's relative dominance against the innumerable independent optometry practices, large-scale retailers such as Walmart and Costco, and popular online retailers such Zenni Optical and Warby Parker. It is true that avoiding Luxottica's products can be difficult in mass retail environments, but patients with a complete eyeglass prescription are still able to obtain eyeglasses and sunglasses through other companies. | nan | [] |
Luxottica controls 80 percent of eyewear brands, several major optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer. | Neutral | On 14 September 2016, the College Humor web site published a segment of popular truTV debunking show Adam Ruins Everything about 'The Conspiracy Behind Your Glasses,' describing how the Luxottica conglomerate owns 80 percent of eyeglass brands, most optometry chains, and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States: Unlike most videos of this nature, Adam Ruins Everything provides links to sources for their statements. The video's primary claim was that Luxottica controls 80 percent of the eyeglass market, which was supported by reference to a 2014 Forbes blog post. That blog post cited a 2012 Forbes, which in turn offered up the statistic without citation: Products exist in the mind and brands live in the heart: Luxury brands conjure up lifestyle interpretations we want to buy into. More than 500 million people don Luxottica's products and CEO Andrea Guerra insists that 'customers have the brand choice for their lifestyle,' and that it's prevalent in their offering: 'Luxottica has been able to deliver eyewear collections faster, enriched with more sophisticated decorations and innovative materials, to stores.' If you owned 80% of the high-end eyewear market and were doing what any CMO desires - achieving brand growth, relevance and revenue - you'd say that too, right? Without additional documentation it was difficult to authenticate the claim that Luxottica controls '80 percent of glasses and sunglasses brands,' as both cited Forbes pieces were published by contributors and not the magazine itself. Variables such as the passage of time (four years between the claim's first uncited appearance in Forbes and its reiteration in the September 2016 video), ongoing increases in e-commerce, and the difficulty of establishing a baseline against which to compare Luxottica's market share versus those pf innumerable small competitors made verification problematic. Much of the interest in Luxottica's retail dominance came from a segment aired on the CBS 60 Minutes news magazine program in 2012, but that segment also did not provide a number for the proportion of eyeglass and sunglass brands that fall under Luxottica's umbrella (compared to those of competitors such as Walmart, Costco, Zenni Optical, or Warby Parker). In May 2015, Business of Fashion provided more recent figures for Luxottica's European sales performance, contrasted with those of the next-largest competitor, the Safilo group: Luxottica, the dominant frame producer, owns a portfolio of eyewear brands that includes Persol and Ray-Ban, the latter of which is the biggest brand in the market. It holds the licenses to produce eyewear for global fashion brands such as Chanel, Armani, Prada and Michael Kors and manages the distribution of its products through 200,000 wholesale doors. In 2014, the Italian company generated over €7.6 billion (about $8.5 billion) in revenue. In addition, Luxottica owns the Sunglass Hut retail brand and is a retail company in its own right, with over 7,000 stores worldwide, giving it a majority share of the eyewear market. Rumblings of discontent about Luxottica's increasingly firm grip on the eyewear market were not new in 2016. A 2013 Yahoo! Finance article examined whether the brand's stranglehold on optometry chains inhibited patients from obtaining complete prescriptions and taking their business elsewhere: When California attorney Sylvia Chi wanted a new pair of glasses, she came across Warby Parker, an upstart online seller that features hip styles and low prices. She had her prescription but Warby Parker needed one more piece of information to make her glasses - the distance between her pupils. Chi called a Pearle Vision store where she'd bought her last pair but the store refused to give out the measurement. A local LensCrafters told her its pupil measuring machine was broken. Ultimately, Chi had to pay $25 at a local optometry clinic to get her pupillary distance, or PD. Turns out the giant of the $28 billion U.S. eyewear market, Luxottica (LUX), owns both store chains. And the Italian company, which also owns everything from brands like Oliver Peoples and Ray-Ban to the Sunglasses Hut chain, has cracked down on giving out the PD measurement. Optometrists 'used to do it for free in optical shops and now they're refusing to provide that service or charging for it,' says Warby Parker co-founder and co-CEO David Gilboa. 'A lot of them work in stores owned by Luxottica.' 'The reason Luxottica invested in all the physical retailers was precisely to create a closed system,' says Barry Lynn, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. The company did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Lynn brought interest into Luxottica's market dominance to the fore in his 2011 book Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction: You're at the mall, looking to buy a pair of prescription sunglasses. Which of the four eyeglass stores listed in the directory should you visit first? Don't waste a lot of time deciding; it really doesn't matter. A single, huge international corporation owns three of the four eyeglass stores listed. And the fourth? Out of business. Think you'll try your luck at Sears? Don't bother. The same company you've never heard of controls their eyewear department, too. What appears at first to be a fine example of competitive capitalism in action is, in fact, an immense monopoly in disguise. In May 2011, Luxottica made headlines in California for controversial business practices criticized as a bid to expand control of the eyewear market: Luxottica's most renowned brands include Ray-Ban and Oakley, but it also makes sunglasses and prescription frames for designer brands such as Chanel, Prada, Burberry, Polo Ralph Lauren, Tiffany, Versace, Vogue, Donna Karan and many others. Besides LensCrafters, its retail subsidiaries include Sunglass Hut, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical, Target Optical, BJ's Optical and Cole Vision Care. Barry Lynn, director of the New America Foundation's Markets, Enterprise and Resiliency Initiative, said if you define a monopolistic company as one 'big enough to determine the terms of business within its industry,' then Luxottica qualifies. 'The consumer is not protected when you have this kind of consolidation.' A 2008 article in advocacy periodical Consumers Digest maintained a critical view of Luxottica, describing several mergers and buyouts and a less-than-flattering assessment of the Luxottica's practices: The federal government barely blinked when Luxottica Group, the world's largest frame manufacturer, extended its reach and influence beyond design. It now controls 20 percent of the retail market in the United States, including ownership of national chain stores, such as LensCrafters and Pearle Vision. On top of it all, you're paying way too much. From the local doctor's office to the well-known retail chain, these places mark up the price of your frames and lenses by about 250 percent. Over the past 5 years, Luxottica, the world's largest corporate player in the eyeglasses industry, steadily bought up other companies. Today, the company owns 30 different brands of frames, including Anne Klein, Burberry, DKNY, Oakley, Polo, Ralph Lauren, Ray-Ban, Versace and Vogue. It also controls retail shops, including LensCrafters, Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. And it owns the EyeMed Vision Care group, a vision insurance company. It makes its frames in company-owned plants in China and Italy and sells them in about 130 countries, so it's no surprise that Luxottica also owns China's Modern Sight Optics, a leading Chinese optical retailer. To us, that's quite a vertical integration that could present problems for consumers. To FTC, it appears to be business as usual. FTC investigated Luxottica's acquisitions in 2004, after the company acquired Pearle Vision, says Michael Moiseyev, assistant director, mergers, in the Bureau of Competition. But the agency decided Luxottica's takeovers did not constitute a monopoly, Moiseyev says, because 'it only accounts for 20 percent of the market, so it's not the kind of volume that gives us cause for concern.' In 2015, New York State Senator Chuck Schumer proposed changes to the FTC's Eyeglass Rule of 1992, enacted to ensure that patients were not locked into purchasing overpriced glasses because of monopolies. In a 27 September 2015 press release, Schumer's office cited the '80 percent' figure for Luxoticca's market share: Standing at LensCrafters, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to modernize its 'Eyeglass Rule' to allow for 21st-century competition by allowing patients to obtain a full copy of their eyeglass prescriptions so they can take that prescription anywhere they want-even online. Under current law, patients are not entitled to their full prescription, a situation that often forces them to pay more when buying glasses. Schumer explained that, while more than 200 million Americans are affected by vision loss, the average price for a pair of eyeglasses is a whopping $300 with no end in sight. Luxoticca, an Italian company, which owns LensCrafters and more than 80 percent of eyewear brands. For instance, Luxoticca makes frames for well-known brands like Burberry, Prada, and Tory Burch. In addition, Luxoticca owns several other popular American eyeglass chains such as Pearle Vision, Sears Optical and Target Optical. Schumer explained that Luxoticca has a monopoly-like hold over the eyewear industry and that this push, along with other actions, could help weaken this hold. Additionally, many health plans do not adequately cover eye care, while forces patients to pay out of pocket. On 30 September 2015, industry publication Optometry Times covered the same issue and suggested that Senator Schumer was 'misinformed': 'I feel Senator Schumer maybe a little misinformed here,' says Optometry Times Chief Optometric Editor Ernie Bowling, OD, FAAO. 'There are lots of online retailers available to the public. I really don't see competition or consumer choice in eyewear to be an issue right now ... When discussing the information needed to fill a prescription, we are really talking about the spectacle PD. I give the PD to every patient as part of his written prescription,' says Dr. Bowling. 'I don't think it's worth alienating a patient over a PD. But we do educate the patient about their choices in eyewear. There is a huge service component that goes in to measuring and fitting spectacles that you're not getting with an online retailer.' Luxottica provided a September 2015 statement to Optometry Times that reiterated the (less than) 20 percent market share figure cited by Consumers Digest: We were surprised to see how Senator Schumer presented our business and our industry in his public statement regarding the FTC's eyeglass rule. The optical industry is highly competitive and fragmented today. Industry data has consistently shown that Luxottica's share of eyeglass frame sales in the U.S. is below 20 percent. Moreover, the top 50 optical retailers combined account for only about a third of all U.S. eyeglasses sales. Luxottica themselves sent us the following statement: According to VisionWatch, almost 50% of eyeglasses in the U.S. are sold by independent optometrists and opticians. The other half is made up of chain retailers that include Costco, Walmart, Solstice and other non-Luxottica entities. According to Euromonitor International, the world's leading independent provider of strategic market research, 954 million frames were sold worldwide last year. Only 93 million of those were produced by Luxottica - less than 10%. Of the hundreds of eyewear brands available to consumers, Luxottica only produces around 30 of them. This includes Luxottica's proprietary brands such as Ray-Ban and Oakley as well as licensed brands such as Giorgio Armani, Burberry, Chanel, Dolce&Gabbana, Michael Kors and Prada, which make up the majority of the portfolio. Regardless of the actual figure, much of Adam Ruins Everything's assessment of Luxottica's market dominance was accurate, including the conglomerate's ownership of several prominent optometry chains and the second-largest vision care insurer in the United States. However, it is difficult to measure Luxottica's relative dominance against the innumerable independent optometry practices, large-scale retailers such as Walmart and Costco, and popular online retailers such Zenni Optical and Warby Parker. It is true that avoiding Luxottica's products can be difficult in mass retail environments, but patients with a complete eyeglass prescription are still able to obtain eyeglasses and sunglasses through other companies. | nan | [] |
Account of a 10-year-old boy's death explains dry drowning and its symptoms. | Neutral | The following item was the text of an article titled 'Boy's death highlights a hidden danger: Dry drowning' that was posted to the TodayShow.com site on 5 June 2008 and circulated widely online: The tragic death of a South Carolina 10-year-old more than an hour after he had gone swimming has focused a spotlight on the little-known phenomenon called 'dry drowning' - and warning signs that every parent should be aware of. 'I've never known a child could walk around, talk, speak and their lungs be filled with water,' Cassandra Jackson told NBC News in a story broadcast Thursday on TODAY. On Sunday, Jackson had taken her son, Johnny, to a pool near their home in Goose Creek, S.C. It was the first time he'd ever gone swimming - and, tragically, it would be his last. [Rest of article here.] Although the account is essentially true, the article contains some confusing elements that could send parents scuttling to protect their children from one danger when they should be trying to guard them against a quite different one. A 10-year-old boy named Johnny ('Jon Jon') Jackson died as described above on 1 June 2008 in Goose Creek, South Carolina, subsequent to swimming in the pool at the apartment complex where he lived. Although Johnny, a child who lived with autism and attention deficit disorder, was wearing flotation devices on his arms and was being monitored by his mother during his time in the pool, he did inhale some water while swimming; his mother described him as 'taking a little bit of water in and coughing and then calming down.' He afterwards appeared fine, but less than two hours after leaving the pool he twice defecated in his pants and complained of being tired. After being bathed and dressing himself back at the apartment, the boy walked to his bed unaided, leaving his mother to believe he was simply worn out. Yet when his mother checked on Johnny a few minutes later, she discovered that white foam was issuing from his mouth, his lips were blue, and his tongue was sticking out. The family called 911, but the Johnny suffered cardiac arrest during transport to the hospital and was pronounced dead on arrival at Trident Medical Center. According to the coroner, water was found in Johnny's lungs, and the cause of his death was listed as asphyxiation by drowning. While the article about Johnny's death is factual, it contains one key element of confusion: Jon Jon Jackson was not technically a 'dry drowning' victim, but rather a victim of 'delayed drowning,' also termed 'secondary drowning.' That distinction is important because numerous news articles that mentioned Johnny's death and attributed it to dry drowning also supplied the information that dry drowning is responsible for ten to fifteen percent of all drowning deaths, thereby making it seem as though the tragic circumstances that swept away this one particular child loom as a huge risk to other children. This is not the case: The incidence of delayed drowning (which is what killed Johnny) is relatively uncommon; the incidence of true dry drowning is much greater. The latter is therefore what adult swimmers and the parents of juvenile swimmers need be more concerned about, but that form of drowning was not truly described in the article about Johnny's death. Many news stories, by the way, indicate they drew the 'ten to fifteen percent' figure from the Centers for Disease Control. The CDC denies this, distancing itself from that particular factoid with this statement: UPDATE: Recent media reports have incorrectly attributed to CDC data about incidents of 'dry drowning.' CDC supports international consensus defining drowning as 'the process of experiencing respiratory impairment from submersion/immersion in liquid' and does not distinguish between 'wet' and 'dry' drowning. The primary difference between dry drowning and secondary (or delayed) drowning is the presence or absence of water in the victim's lungs. In Jon Jon Jackson's case, he died with water in his lungs, so his death was more typical of 'ordinary' drowning victims (i.e., water in the lungs prevented those organs from transporting oxygen into the bloodstream) even though he lived for a couple of hours after leaving the pool. By contrast, true dry drowning deaths do not involve the presence of liquid in the lungs. There are two primary theories as to what causes dry drowning, and it may well be that both are correct and that this form of death can be brought on in two different ways. The first theory is that a sudden rush of water into the throat causes the airway to snap shut, a condition known as a laryngospasm. During this event, although no water enters the lungs, no air enters either, so the victim dies of asphyxiation. The second explanation posits that the shock of a swimmer's suddenly entering extremely cold water causes the heart to stop. Dry drowning accounts for ten to fifteen percent of all drowning deaths. Considering that approximately 4,000 people drown in the U.S. each year, that means dry drowning kills about 400 to 600 U.S. victims annually. It therefore poses a significant enough mortality risk that those who swim (or who supervise swimmers) should know what can be done to decrease the chance of its happening to them or their loved ones. To help prevent dry drowning, keep your mouth closed when jumping or diving into water, thereby protecting the larynx from a sudden inrush of water that could cause it to spasm and cut off the airway. Also, do not dive or jump into extremely cold water; instead enter cold water gradually. Those who have a history of heart problems should avoid entering very cold water at all, even if they plan to go slowly. Drowning is the second most common cause of death in children in the United States. In addition to following the more usual cautions (e.g., watch them like hawks all the time), caregivers of young swimmers should try to head off dry drowning by training their charges to keep their mouths closed when jumping into water and to enter very cold water slowly. Caregivers should also guard against delayed drowning by monitoring very closely any child who has come out of the water coughing and sputtering (signs of water having been breathed in), especially keeping an eye out for any further difficulties in breathing, extreme tiredness, or marked changes in behavior, all of which are signs that a swimmer may have inhaled a dangerous amount of fluid. Should such difficulties be noted in a swimmer, that person should be taken promptly to an emergency room for medical observation and, if necessary, intervention. One additional caution should be noted regarding drowning: It is a fallacy that those who lose their lives in such fashion will flail about wildly even as they are slipping beneath the water's surface. Drowning generally occurs silently and smoothly, the victim quietly passing away wholly unnoticed as friends or family chatter nearby. Therefore, never mistake a lack of commotion for a sign that everything is all right; instead, keep your eyes on those you are supposed to be watching rather than trust that they will do or shout something to alert you if anything goes awry. Forget about trusting that old saw about drowners' going down three times: they go down once, and they stay down. | nan | [] |
Account of a 10-year-old boy's death explains dry drowning and its symptoms. | Neutral | The following item was the text of an article titled 'Boy's death highlights a hidden danger: Dry drowning' that was posted to the TodayShow.com site on 5 June 2008 and circulated widely online: The tragic death of a South Carolina 10-year-old more than an hour after he had gone swimming has focused a spotlight on the little-known phenomenon called 'dry drowning' - and warning signs that every parent should be aware of. 'I've never known a child could walk around, talk, speak and their lungs be filled with water,' Cassandra Jackson told NBC News in a story broadcast Thursday on TODAY. On Sunday, Jackson had taken her son, Johnny, to a pool near their home in Goose Creek, S.C. It was the first time he'd ever gone swimming - and, tragically, it would be his last. [Rest of article here.] Although the account is essentially true, the article contains some confusing elements that could send parents scuttling to protect their children from one danger when they should be trying to guard them against a quite different one. A 10-year-old boy named Johnny ('Jon Jon') Jackson died as described above on 1 June 2008 in Goose Creek, South Carolina, subsequent to swimming in the pool at the apartment complex where he lived. Although Johnny, a child who lived with autism and attention deficit disorder, was wearing flotation devices on his arms and was being monitored by his mother during his time in the pool, he did inhale some water while swimming; his mother described him as 'taking a little bit of water in and coughing and then calming down.' He afterwards appeared fine, but less than two hours after leaving the pool he twice defecated in his pants and complained of being tired. After being bathed and dressing himself back at the apartment, the boy walked to his bed unaided, leaving his mother to believe he was simply worn out. Yet when his mother checked on Johnny a few minutes later, she discovered that white foam was issuing from his mouth, his lips were blue, and his tongue was sticking out. The family called 911, but the Johnny suffered cardiac arrest during transport to the hospital and was pronounced dead on arrival at Trident Medical Center. According to the coroner, water was found in Johnny's lungs, and the cause of his death was listed as asphyxiation by drowning. While the article about Johnny's death is factual, it contains one key element of confusion: Jon Jon Jackson was not technically a 'dry drowning' victim, but rather a victim of 'delayed drowning,' also termed 'secondary drowning.' That distinction is important because numerous news articles that mentioned Johnny's death and attributed it to dry drowning also supplied the information that dry drowning is responsible for ten to fifteen percent of all drowning deaths, thereby making it seem as though the tragic circumstances that swept away this one particular child loom as a huge risk to other children. This is not the case: The incidence of delayed drowning (which is what killed Johnny) is relatively uncommon; the incidence of true dry drowning is much greater. The latter is therefore what adult swimmers and the parents of juvenile swimmers need be more concerned about, but that form of drowning was not truly described in the article about Johnny's death. Many news stories, by the way, indicate they drew the 'ten to fifteen percent' figure from the Centers for Disease Control. The CDC denies this, distancing itself from that particular factoid with this statement: UPDATE: Recent media reports have incorrectly attributed to CDC data about incidents of 'dry drowning.' CDC supports international consensus defining drowning as 'the process of experiencing respiratory impairment from submersion/immersion in liquid' and does not distinguish between 'wet' and 'dry' drowning. The primary difference between dry drowning and secondary (or delayed) drowning is the presence or absence of water in the victim's lungs. In Jon Jon Jackson's case, he died with water in his lungs, so his death was more typical of 'ordinary' drowning victims (i.e., water in the lungs prevented those organs from transporting oxygen into the bloodstream) even though he lived for a couple of hours after leaving the pool. By contrast, true dry drowning deaths do not involve the presence of liquid in the lungs. There are two primary theories as to what causes dry drowning, and it may well be that both are correct and that this form of death can be brought on in two different ways. The first theory is that a sudden rush of water into the throat causes the airway to snap shut, a condition known as a laryngospasm. During this event, although no water enters the lungs, no air enters either, so the victim dies of asphyxiation. The second explanation posits that the shock of a swimmer's suddenly entering extremely cold water causes the heart to stop. Dry drowning accounts for ten to fifteen percent of all drowning deaths. Considering that approximately 4,000 people drown in the U.S. each year, that means dry drowning kills about 400 to 600 U.S. victims annually. It therefore poses a significant enough mortality risk that those who swim (or who supervise swimmers) should know what can be done to decrease the chance of its happening to them or their loved ones. To help prevent dry drowning, keep your mouth closed when jumping or diving into water, thereby protecting the larynx from a sudden inrush of water that could cause it to spasm and cut off the airway. Also, do not dive or jump into extremely cold water; instead enter cold water gradually. Those who have a history of heart problems should avoid entering very cold water at all, even if they plan to go slowly. Drowning is the second most common cause of death in children in the United States. In addition to following the more usual cautions (e.g., watch them like hawks all the time), caregivers of young swimmers should try to head off dry drowning by training their charges to keep their mouths closed when jumping into water and to enter very cold water slowly. Caregivers should also guard against delayed drowning by monitoring very closely any child who has come out of the water coughing and sputtering (signs of water having been breathed in), especially keeping an eye out for any further difficulties in breathing, extreme tiredness, or marked changes in behavior, all of which are signs that a swimmer may have inhaled a dangerous amount of fluid. Should such difficulties be noted in a swimmer, that person should be taken promptly to an emergency room for medical observation and, if necessary, intervention. One additional caution should be noted regarding drowning: It is a fallacy that those who lose their lives in such fashion will flail about wildly even as they are slipping beneath the water's surface. Drowning generally occurs silently and smoothly, the victim quietly passing away wholly unnoticed as friends or family chatter nearby. Therefore, never mistake a lack of commotion for a sign that everything is all right; instead, keep your eyes on those you are supposed to be watching rather than trust that they will do or shout something to alert you if anything goes awry. Forget about trusting that old saw about drowners' going down three times: they go down once, and they stay down. | nan | [] |
Keurig coffee maker users are at risk because the machines are prone to growth of mold, algae, and bacteria. | Neutral | On 1 October 2014, an article (later aggregated to several other sources) titled 'Why I Kicked My Keurig to the Curb' was published to the alternative health site Underground Health. In it, the author made a case against the use of Keurig coffee makers and their proprietary 'K-cup' grounds packets for a number of reasons. Most compelling to many readers was a short segue into the issue of mold, bacteria, and algae growth in Keurig brewers. The author discussed several of her gripes with the Keurig system, questioning whether the cups were imbued with toxins, whether the coffee in K-cups was fresh, and (oddly) whether the matter of numb and tingly lips was linked with Keurig-brewed coffee. However, of all complaints listed, the one about Keurigs and mold was of the greatest concern to readers. According to the author, part of the specific issue with Keurigs and mold related to the impossibility of cleaning those machines: Keurig.com states, 'Once your Keurig home brewer has been primed, you cannot empty the water from the inside. The internal tank of the brewer cannot be drained.' The rubber tubing and the internal tank of the Keurig cannot be drained. It is possible that bacteria and mold are happily living inside that hidden water tank where it is nice and dark and warm. Another mold-magnet is that black rubber ring on the bottom of the exterior water container. Look now! Is there green or black slime? ewwwww (biofilm!). Donna Duberg, M.A., M.S., an assistant professor of clinical laboratory science at Saint Louis University said, 'Bacteria forms a slick biofilm when grown in moist, dark places, and so do molds.' No, your coffee bean's antibacterial action is not enough to kill these microbes that are floating through the system. Duberg said, 'There is research which shows that it is only about 50 percent effective in killing bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus mutans, and molds.' A number of things stand out in the quoted portion. First and foremost, it's not reasonable to believe a 'coffee bean's antibacterial action' is sufficient to keep a daily personal use appliance clean and mold free. But as to the part about Keurigs being not drainable, Keurig.com offered the following instructions to clean the cold water reservoir: To access the Cold Water Reservoir, lift the lid. Remove the Water Level Guide and then clean inside the reservoir with a damp, non-abrasive lint-free cloth as necessary. Replace the Water Level Guide and lower the lid when finished. Directly beneath those instructions, Keurig listed information on how to empty the internal tank. Below that, the company explained how to de-scale the tank. As such, the assertion that Keurigs cannot be cleaned is faulty. It may be a hassle to thoroughly drain, descale, rinse, or otherwise perform Keurig maintenance, but not only can Keurig machines be cleaned, Keurig sells products specifically designed for that purpose. Even if Keurigs can be cleaned, are they exceptionally more risky than common coffee pot brewers or other similar systems? Consumer health and safety experts cited all coffee makers as mold hideouts in 2011: A 2011 study from NSF International found that about half of coffee makers (we're talking the classic, basket-and-carafe kind here) had yeast and mold growing in their reservoirs. About one in ten were home to coliform bacteria. On average, home coffee reservoirs also had higher germ counts than both bathroom door handles and toilet seats. And while the study tested only 22 households, germ specialist Kelly Reynolds said she doesn't doubt the results. '(Coffee makers) are certainly a moist environment where mold and bacteria are known to grow in high numbers,' said Reynolds, who studies household germs at the University of Arizona. 'Our bodies can deal with them, but at some point they'll grow to levels high enough to cause sickness.' Across the web, reports of mold, algae, and other water-based bacterial risks remain rampant. Brita water pitchers are a frequently-cited culprit, along with both classic style and single-cup brewing systems like the Keurig. A 2013 article on mold in coffee makers explained coffee cups, not coffee pots, may pose a larger risk: 'Germs are present in every corner of our lives,' says Donna Duberg, M.A., M.S., an assistant professor of clinical laboratory science at Saint Louis University. 'Are there germs in our coffee makers? Yes. Will they make us sick? Maybe, if there are enough of them, and especially if we don't clean our pots often enough.' It's not just the coffee pots that accumulate these germs, either. 'Bacteria forms a slick biofilm when grown in moist, dark places, and so do molds,' says Duberg, pointing to the coffee maker's water reservoir and piping system as ideal areas for accumulation. 'If there is obvious slimy stuff in the coffee maker ... this is a good sign there is something growing.' 'Coffee mugs are usually [the] worst,' adds microbiologist Dr. Charles Gerba. 'In our studies, half had fecal bacteria in them. People probably contaminate them when they wipe them out with sponges or cleaning cloths.' Some Keurig owners have experienced issues with mold, bacteria, and algae. But the problem is not exclusive to Keurig; and similar products (particularly those that hold water or wet grounds) have caused similar problems. While Keurigs do have a water reservoir and it can become dirty, they should be regularly cleaned like any other household item. Nothing about Keurigs or any other food or beverage device makes them immune from day-to-day grime-collecting, and anything that dispenses consumable food or drink should be regularly examined for signs of grubbiness. Mold growth is not exclusive to the Keurig; and while the water reservoir is a larger cleaning chore, checking regularly will lessen mold and bacteria problems. As the quoted portion above suggested, visible mold in any coffeemaker is a strong signal it needs to be cleaned. | nan | [] |
Keurig coffee maker users are at risk because the machines are prone to growth of mold, algae, and bacteria. | Neutral | On 1 October 2014, an article (later aggregated to several other sources) titled 'Why I Kicked My Keurig to the Curb' was published to the alternative health site Underground Health. In it, the author made a case against the use of Keurig coffee makers and their proprietary 'K-cup' grounds packets for a number of reasons. Most compelling to many readers was a short segue into the issue of mold, bacteria, and algae growth in Keurig brewers. The author discussed several of her gripes with the Keurig system, questioning whether the cups were imbued with toxins, whether the coffee in K-cups was fresh, and (oddly) whether the matter of numb and tingly lips was linked with Keurig-brewed coffee. However, of all complaints listed, the one about Keurigs and mold was of the greatest concern to readers. According to the author, part of the specific issue with Keurigs and mold related to the impossibility of cleaning those machines: Keurig.com states, 'Once your Keurig home brewer has been primed, you cannot empty the water from the inside. The internal tank of the brewer cannot be drained.' The rubber tubing and the internal tank of the Keurig cannot be drained. It is possible that bacteria and mold are happily living inside that hidden water tank where it is nice and dark and warm. Another mold-magnet is that black rubber ring on the bottom of the exterior water container. Look now! Is there green or black slime? ewwwww (biofilm!). Donna Duberg, M.A., M.S., an assistant professor of clinical laboratory science at Saint Louis University said, 'Bacteria forms a slick biofilm when grown in moist, dark places, and so do molds.' No, your coffee bean's antibacterial action is not enough to kill these microbes that are floating through the system. Duberg said, 'There is research which shows that it is only about 50 percent effective in killing bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus mutans, and molds.' A number of things stand out in the quoted portion. First and foremost, it's not reasonable to believe a 'coffee bean's antibacterial action' is sufficient to keep a daily personal use appliance clean and mold free. But as to the part about Keurigs being not drainable, Keurig.com offered the following instructions to clean the cold water reservoir: To access the Cold Water Reservoir, lift the lid. Remove the Water Level Guide and then clean inside the reservoir with a damp, non-abrasive lint-free cloth as necessary. Replace the Water Level Guide and lower the lid when finished. Directly beneath those instructions, Keurig listed information on how to empty the internal tank. Below that, the company explained how to de-scale the tank. As such, the assertion that Keurigs cannot be cleaned is faulty. It may be a hassle to thoroughly drain, descale, rinse, or otherwise perform Keurig maintenance, but not only can Keurig machines be cleaned, Keurig sells products specifically designed for that purpose. Even if Keurigs can be cleaned, are they exceptionally more risky than common coffee pot brewers or other similar systems? Consumer health and safety experts cited all coffee makers as mold hideouts in 2011: A 2011 study from NSF International found that about half of coffee makers (we're talking the classic, basket-and-carafe kind here) had yeast and mold growing in their reservoirs. About one in ten were home to coliform bacteria. On average, home coffee reservoirs also had higher germ counts than both bathroom door handles and toilet seats. And while the study tested only 22 households, germ specialist Kelly Reynolds said she doesn't doubt the results. '(Coffee makers) are certainly a moist environment where mold and bacteria are known to grow in high numbers,' said Reynolds, who studies household germs at the University of Arizona. 'Our bodies can deal with them, but at some point they'll grow to levels high enough to cause sickness.' Across the web, reports of mold, algae, and other water-based bacterial risks remain rampant. Brita water pitchers are a frequently-cited culprit, along with both classic style and single-cup brewing systems like the Keurig. A 2013 article on mold in coffee makers explained coffee cups, not coffee pots, may pose a larger risk: 'Germs are present in every corner of our lives,' says Donna Duberg, M.A., M.S., an assistant professor of clinical laboratory science at Saint Louis University. 'Are there germs in our coffee makers? Yes. Will they make us sick? Maybe, if there are enough of them, and especially if we don't clean our pots often enough.' It's not just the coffee pots that accumulate these germs, either. 'Bacteria forms a slick biofilm when grown in moist, dark places, and so do molds,' says Duberg, pointing to the coffee maker's water reservoir and piping system as ideal areas for accumulation. 'If there is obvious slimy stuff in the coffee maker ... this is a good sign there is something growing.' 'Coffee mugs are usually [the] worst,' adds microbiologist Dr. Charles Gerba. 'In our studies, half had fecal bacteria in them. People probably contaminate them when they wipe them out with sponges or cleaning cloths.' Some Keurig owners have experienced issues with mold, bacteria, and algae. But the problem is not exclusive to Keurig; and similar products (particularly those that hold water or wet grounds) have caused similar problems. While Keurigs do have a water reservoir and it can become dirty, they should be regularly cleaned like any other household item. Nothing about Keurigs or any other food or beverage device makes them immune from day-to-day grime-collecting, and anything that dispenses consumable food or drink should be regularly examined for signs of grubbiness. Mold growth is not exclusive to the Keurig; and while the water reservoir is a larger cleaning chore, checking regularly will lessen mold and bacteria problems. As the quoted portion above suggested, visible mold in any coffeemaker is a strong signal it needs to be cleaned. | nan | [] |
Keurig coffee maker users are at risk because the machines are prone to growth of mold, algae, and bacteria. | Neutral | On 1 October 2014, an article (later aggregated to several other sources) titled 'Why I Kicked My Keurig to the Curb' was published to the alternative health site Underground Health. In it, the author made a case against the use of Keurig coffee makers and their proprietary 'K-cup' grounds packets for a number of reasons. Most compelling to many readers was a short segue into the issue of mold, bacteria, and algae growth in Keurig brewers. The author discussed several of her gripes with the Keurig system, questioning whether the cups were imbued with toxins, whether the coffee in K-cups was fresh, and (oddly) whether the matter of numb and tingly lips was linked with Keurig-brewed coffee. However, of all complaints listed, the one about Keurigs and mold was of the greatest concern to readers. According to the author, part of the specific issue with Keurigs and mold related to the impossibility of cleaning those machines: Keurig.com states, 'Once your Keurig home brewer has been primed, you cannot empty the water from the inside. The internal tank of the brewer cannot be drained.' The rubber tubing and the internal tank of the Keurig cannot be drained. It is possible that bacteria and mold are happily living inside that hidden water tank where it is nice and dark and warm. Another mold-magnet is that black rubber ring on the bottom of the exterior water container. Look now! Is there green or black slime? ewwwww (biofilm!). Donna Duberg, M.A., M.S., an assistant professor of clinical laboratory science at Saint Louis University said, 'Bacteria forms a slick biofilm when grown in moist, dark places, and so do molds.' No, your coffee bean's antibacterial action is not enough to kill these microbes that are floating through the system. Duberg said, 'There is research which shows that it is only about 50 percent effective in killing bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus mutans, and molds.' A number of things stand out in the quoted portion. First and foremost, it's not reasonable to believe a 'coffee bean's antibacterial action' is sufficient to keep a daily personal use appliance clean and mold free. But as to the part about Keurigs being not drainable, Keurig.com offered the following instructions to clean the cold water reservoir: To access the Cold Water Reservoir, lift the lid. Remove the Water Level Guide and then clean inside the reservoir with a damp, non-abrasive lint-free cloth as necessary. Replace the Water Level Guide and lower the lid when finished. Directly beneath those instructions, Keurig listed information on how to empty the internal tank. Below that, the company explained how to de-scale the tank. As such, the assertion that Keurigs cannot be cleaned is faulty. It may be a hassle to thoroughly drain, descale, rinse, or otherwise perform Keurig maintenance, but not only can Keurig machines be cleaned, Keurig sells products specifically designed for that purpose. Even if Keurigs can be cleaned, are they exceptionally more risky than common coffee pot brewers or other similar systems? Consumer health and safety experts cited all coffee makers as mold hideouts in 2011: A 2011 study from NSF International found that about half of coffee makers (we're talking the classic, basket-and-carafe kind here) had yeast and mold growing in their reservoirs. About one in ten were home to coliform bacteria. On average, home coffee reservoirs also had higher germ counts than both bathroom door handles and toilet seats. And while the study tested only 22 households, germ specialist Kelly Reynolds said she doesn't doubt the results. '(Coffee makers) are certainly a moist environment where mold and bacteria are known to grow in high numbers,' said Reynolds, who studies household germs at the University of Arizona. 'Our bodies can deal with them, but at some point they'll grow to levels high enough to cause sickness.' Across the web, reports of mold, algae, and other water-based bacterial risks remain rampant. Brita water pitchers are a frequently-cited culprit, along with both classic style and single-cup brewing systems like the Keurig. A 2013 article on mold in coffee makers explained coffee cups, not coffee pots, may pose a larger risk: 'Germs are present in every corner of our lives,' says Donna Duberg, M.A., M.S., an assistant professor of clinical laboratory science at Saint Louis University. 'Are there germs in our coffee makers? Yes. Will they make us sick? Maybe, if there are enough of them, and especially if we don't clean our pots often enough.' It's not just the coffee pots that accumulate these germs, either. 'Bacteria forms a slick biofilm when grown in moist, dark places, and so do molds,' says Duberg, pointing to the coffee maker's water reservoir and piping system as ideal areas for accumulation. 'If there is obvious slimy stuff in the coffee maker ... this is a good sign there is something growing.' 'Coffee mugs are usually [the] worst,' adds microbiologist Dr. Charles Gerba. 'In our studies, half had fecal bacteria in them. People probably contaminate them when they wipe them out with sponges or cleaning cloths.' Some Keurig owners have experienced issues with mold, bacteria, and algae. But the problem is not exclusive to Keurig; and similar products (particularly those that hold water or wet grounds) have caused similar problems. While Keurigs do have a water reservoir and it can become dirty, they should be regularly cleaned like any other household item. Nothing about Keurigs or any other food or beverage device makes them immune from day-to-day grime-collecting, and anything that dispenses consumable food or drink should be regularly examined for signs of grubbiness. Mold growth is not exclusive to the Keurig; and while the water reservoir is a larger cleaning chore, checking regularly will lessen mold and bacteria problems. As the quoted portion above suggested, visible mold in any coffeemaker is a strong signal it needs to be cleaned. | nan | [] |
Keurig coffee maker users are at risk because the machines are prone to growth of mold, algae, and bacteria. | Neutral | On 1 October 2014, an article (later aggregated to several other sources) titled 'Why I Kicked My Keurig to the Curb' was published to the alternative health site Underground Health. In it, the author made a case against the use of Keurig coffee makers and their proprietary 'K-cup' grounds packets for a number of reasons. Most compelling to many readers was a short segue into the issue of mold, bacteria, and algae growth in Keurig brewers. The author discussed several of her gripes with the Keurig system, questioning whether the cups were imbued with toxins, whether the coffee in K-cups was fresh, and (oddly) whether the matter of numb and tingly lips was linked with Keurig-brewed coffee. However, of all complaints listed, the one about Keurigs and mold was of the greatest concern to readers. According to the author, part of the specific issue with Keurigs and mold related to the impossibility of cleaning those machines: Keurig.com states, 'Once your Keurig home brewer has been primed, you cannot empty the water from the inside. The internal tank of the brewer cannot be drained.' The rubber tubing and the internal tank of the Keurig cannot be drained. It is possible that bacteria and mold are happily living inside that hidden water tank where it is nice and dark and warm. Another mold-magnet is that black rubber ring on the bottom of the exterior water container. Look now! Is there green or black slime? ewwwww (biofilm!). Donna Duberg, M.A., M.S., an assistant professor of clinical laboratory science at Saint Louis University said, 'Bacteria forms a slick biofilm when grown in moist, dark places, and so do molds.' No, your coffee bean's antibacterial action is not enough to kill these microbes that are floating through the system. Duberg said, 'There is research which shows that it is only about 50 percent effective in killing bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus mutans, and molds.' A number of things stand out in the quoted portion. First and foremost, it's not reasonable to believe a 'coffee bean's antibacterial action' is sufficient to keep a daily personal use appliance clean and mold free. But as to the part about Keurigs being not drainable, Keurig.com offered the following instructions to clean the cold water reservoir: To access the Cold Water Reservoir, lift the lid. Remove the Water Level Guide and then clean inside the reservoir with a damp, non-abrasive lint-free cloth as necessary. Replace the Water Level Guide and lower the lid when finished. Directly beneath those instructions, Keurig listed information on how to empty the internal tank. Below that, the company explained how to de-scale the tank. As such, the assertion that Keurigs cannot be cleaned is faulty. It may be a hassle to thoroughly drain, descale, rinse, or otherwise perform Keurig maintenance, but not only can Keurig machines be cleaned, Keurig sells products specifically designed for that purpose. Even if Keurigs can be cleaned, are they exceptionally more risky than common coffee pot brewers or other similar systems? Consumer health and safety experts cited all coffee makers as mold hideouts in 2011: A 2011 study from NSF International found that about half of coffee makers (we're talking the classic, basket-and-carafe kind here) had yeast and mold growing in their reservoirs. About one in ten were home to coliform bacteria. On average, home coffee reservoirs also had higher germ counts than both bathroom door handles and toilet seats. And while the study tested only 22 households, germ specialist Kelly Reynolds said she doesn't doubt the results. '(Coffee makers) are certainly a moist environment where mold and bacteria are known to grow in high numbers,' said Reynolds, who studies household germs at the University of Arizona. 'Our bodies can deal with them, but at some point they'll grow to levels high enough to cause sickness.' Across the web, reports of mold, algae, and other water-based bacterial risks remain rampant. Brita water pitchers are a frequently-cited culprit, along with both classic style and single-cup brewing systems like the Keurig. A 2013 article on mold in coffee makers explained coffee cups, not coffee pots, may pose a larger risk: 'Germs are present in every corner of our lives,' says Donna Duberg, M.A., M.S., an assistant professor of clinical laboratory science at Saint Louis University. 'Are there germs in our coffee makers? Yes. Will they make us sick? Maybe, if there are enough of them, and especially if we don't clean our pots often enough.' It's not just the coffee pots that accumulate these germs, either. 'Bacteria forms a slick biofilm when grown in moist, dark places, and so do molds,' says Duberg, pointing to the coffee maker's water reservoir and piping system as ideal areas for accumulation. 'If there is obvious slimy stuff in the coffee maker ... this is a good sign there is something growing.' 'Coffee mugs are usually [the] worst,' adds microbiologist Dr. Charles Gerba. 'In our studies, half had fecal bacteria in them. People probably contaminate them when they wipe them out with sponges or cleaning cloths.' Some Keurig owners have experienced issues with mold, bacteria, and algae. But the problem is not exclusive to Keurig; and similar products (particularly those that hold water or wet grounds) have caused similar problems. While Keurigs do have a water reservoir and it can become dirty, they should be regularly cleaned like any other household item. Nothing about Keurigs or any other food or beverage device makes them immune from day-to-day grime-collecting, and anything that dispenses consumable food or drink should be regularly examined for signs of grubbiness. Mold growth is not exclusive to the Keurig; and while the water reservoir is a larger cleaning chore, checking regularly will lessen mold and bacteria problems. As the quoted portion above suggested, visible mold in any coffeemaker is a strong signal it needs to be cleaned. | nan | [] |
Ronald Reagan, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease five years after he left the presidency, was actually suffering from the disease while he was in office. | Neutral | The publication in 2018 of a tell-all book about the Trump White House in which aides are reported to have questioned President Trump's mental stability has revived longstanding rumors holding that Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's Disease during his presidency. He was diagnosed with the condition, but not until 1994, five years after leaving office. Reagan was 69 when he won his first presidential election. Trump was 70, making him the oldest person to be elected to the presidency (excluding Reagan's re-election at 73). Trump was given a clean bill of cognitive health in January 2018 by White House physician Dr. Ronny Jackson, who had tested him for cognitive impairment and said he had no concerns about the president's mental fitness. Reagan's doctors said much the same thing while he was in office despite the former president's memory lapses and bouts of confusion in public, most visibly during the 1984 presidential debates and his 1990 Iran-Contra testimony. Incidents such as these led to speculation that he was undergoing a gradual mental decline that those around him didn't want to admit. A 1987 article in the New Republic posed the troubling question outright: 'Is Reagan Senile?' That was precisely what CBS News reporter Lesley Stahl was asking herself during a 1986 visit with a president she would later describe in her 2000 memoir, Reporting Live, as 'shriveled' and verging on catatonic. 'Reagan didn't seem to know who I was,' she wrote. 'He gave me a distant look with those milky eyes and shook my hand weakly. Oh, my, he's gonzo, I thought.' But a few minutes later, he snapped out of it and from that point on seemed perfectly fine. When asked, White House aides admitted to Stahl that they had witnessed similar episodes. Even Reagan's own son, Ron, sensed something was wrong at the time. He wrote in his 2011 book, My Father at 100: A Memoir, that he first became concerned that 'something beyond mellowing' was afflicting his father three years into Reagan's first term. Of the latter's bumbling debate performance against Walter Mondale in 1984, the younger Reagan observed: At 73, Ronald Reagan would be the oldest president ever re-elected. Some voters were beginning to imagine grandpa - who can never find his reading glasses - in charge of a bristling nuclear arsenal, and it was making them nervous. Worse, my father now seemed to be giving them legitimate reason for concern. My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered. But Ron Reagan isn't a physician, much less one trained to diagnose the symptoms of Alzheimer's Disease. His half-brother Michael Reagan vehemently disagreed with Ron's armchair diagnosis and accused him of trying to 'sell out his father to sell books.' Ron later softened his claims in remarks to the New York Times, insisting he never meant to say his father was suffering from dementia while still in office, but rather that the disease was 'likely present in him' long before it was diagnosed. Experts say physiological and neurological changes linked to Alzheimer's start showing up in the brain years before outward symptoms appear. However, the physicians who directly attended Ronald Reagan while he was president agreed unanimously that he never displayed signs or symptoms of dementia the whole time he was in office, the New York Times reported in 1997: ...even with the hindsight of Mr. Reagan's [Alzheimer's] diagnosis, his four main White House doctors say they never detected any evidence that his forgetfulness was more than just that. His mental competence in office, they said in a series of recent interviews, was never in doubt. Indeed, they pointed out, tests of his mental status did not begin to show evidence of the disease until the summer of 1993, more than four years after he left the White House. 'There was never anything that would raise a question about his ability to function as President,' said Dr. Lawrence C. Mohr, one of Mr. Reagan's physicians in his second term. 'Ronald Reagan's cognitive function, belief structure, judgment, ability to choose between options, behavior and ability to communicate were totally and completely intact.' [...] He 'never forgot appointments, misplaced or lost things, where he put his glasses, never forgot to put his hearing aids in, never forgot to put his contact lenses in, and these are things he did for himself,' Dr. Mohr said. 'I saw him saddle and bridle horses at the ranch and later put things back exactly where they belonged.' And Mr. Reagan, the doctors stressed, was punctual, never depressed and had no difficulty with language or understanding what was going on around him. Although no cognitive tests were administered to Reagan during his time in office (his doctors saw no need for them), he did begin receiving annual mental and psychological assessments in 1990, after undergoing surgery to remove a blood clot in his brain. The four-hour battery of tests, which would have detected signs of dementia, found nothing amiss for the first three years they were administered. 'All parameters for his age absolutely were within the normal range,' one of Reagan's doctors said. It was Reagan himself who announced the diagnosis of Alzheimer's in 1994. There were certainly no indications of dementia (age, perhaps, but not dementia) when the 81-year-old former president delivered a 35-minute speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention, a performance Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward described as 'flawless.' It must also be said that given that the average life expectancy of a patient diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease is eight to 10 years, Reagan, who died in 2004 (10 years after his diagnosis), would have been extraordinarily long-lived for an Alzheimer's patient if he was already suffering from the disease, as some claim, in 1984. Two academic studies, one published in 1988 and the other in 2015, analyzed transcripts and recordings of Reagan speaking in debates and press conferences to see if his speech patterns betrayed otherwise imperceptible signs of cognitive decline. The first, which compared Reagan's speech patterns to those of other politicians, found that Reagan had 'significantly higher levels of cognitive impairment scores' than other subjects in the study (including President Carter and Vice President Mondale). The second found that changes in Reagan's speaking patterns known to be associated with the onset of dementia were detectable 'years before clinical diagnosis.' But although these findings indicate that Reagan did display subtle linguistic signs of cognitive decline while still president, they are experimental and do not suffice to push back the post-presidency diagnosis of Alzheimer's into his time in office. Visar Berisha, assistant professor of science and hearing at Arizona State University and the lead researcher in the 2015 study told us: While the language complexity declines we observed are consistent with what you may expect to see in individuals with early signs of dementia, it is impossible to make any conclusive diagnosis based on our study. It's certainly possible that President Reagan deliberately simplified his language because he found it to be politically advantageous. | nan | [
"03916-proof-04-ronald_reagan_fb.jpg"
] |
Ronald Reagan, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease five years after he left the presidency, was actually suffering from the disease while he was in office. | Neutral | The publication in 2018 of a tell-all book about the Trump White House in which aides are reported to have questioned President Trump's mental stability has revived longstanding rumors holding that Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's Disease during his presidency. He was diagnosed with the condition, but not until 1994, five years after leaving office. Reagan was 69 when he won his first presidential election. Trump was 70, making him the oldest person to be elected to the presidency (excluding Reagan's re-election at 73). Trump was given a clean bill of cognitive health in January 2018 by White House physician Dr. Ronny Jackson, who had tested him for cognitive impairment and said he had no concerns about the president's mental fitness. Reagan's doctors said much the same thing while he was in office despite the former president's memory lapses and bouts of confusion in public, most visibly during the 1984 presidential debates and his 1990 Iran-Contra testimony. Incidents such as these led to speculation that he was undergoing a gradual mental decline that those around him didn't want to admit. A 1987 article in the New Republic posed the troubling question outright: 'Is Reagan Senile?' That was precisely what CBS News reporter Lesley Stahl was asking herself during a 1986 visit with a president she would later describe in her 2000 memoir, Reporting Live, as 'shriveled' and verging on catatonic. 'Reagan didn't seem to know who I was,' she wrote. 'He gave me a distant look with those milky eyes and shook my hand weakly. Oh, my, he's gonzo, I thought.' But a few minutes later, he snapped out of it and from that point on seemed perfectly fine. When asked, White House aides admitted to Stahl that they had witnessed similar episodes. Even Reagan's own son, Ron, sensed something was wrong at the time. He wrote in his 2011 book, My Father at 100: A Memoir, that he first became concerned that 'something beyond mellowing' was afflicting his father three years into Reagan's first term. Of the latter's bumbling debate performance against Walter Mondale in 1984, the younger Reagan observed: At 73, Ronald Reagan would be the oldest president ever re-elected. Some voters were beginning to imagine grandpa - who can never find his reading glasses - in charge of a bristling nuclear arsenal, and it was making them nervous. Worse, my father now seemed to be giving them legitimate reason for concern. My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered. But Ron Reagan isn't a physician, much less one trained to diagnose the symptoms of Alzheimer's Disease. His half-brother Michael Reagan vehemently disagreed with Ron's armchair diagnosis and accused him of trying to 'sell out his father to sell books.' Ron later softened his claims in remarks to the New York Times, insisting he never meant to say his father was suffering from dementia while still in office, but rather that the disease was 'likely present in him' long before it was diagnosed. Experts say physiological and neurological changes linked to Alzheimer's start showing up in the brain years before outward symptoms appear. However, the physicians who directly attended Ronald Reagan while he was president agreed unanimously that he never displayed signs or symptoms of dementia the whole time he was in office, the New York Times reported in 1997: ...even with the hindsight of Mr. Reagan's [Alzheimer's] diagnosis, his four main White House doctors say they never detected any evidence that his forgetfulness was more than just that. His mental competence in office, they said in a series of recent interviews, was never in doubt. Indeed, they pointed out, tests of his mental status did not begin to show evidence of the disease until the summer of 1993, more than four years after he left the White House. 'There was never anything that would raise a question about his ability to function as President,' said Dr. Lawrence C. Mohr, one of Mr. Reagan's physicians in his second term. 'Ronald Reagan's cognitive function, belief structure, judgment, ability to choose between options, behavior and ability to communicate were totally and completely intact.' [...] He 'never forgot appointments, misplaced or lost things, where he put his glasses, never forgot to put his hearing aids in, never forgot to put his contact lenses in, and these are things he did for himself,' Dr. Mohr said. 'I saw him saddle and bridle horses at the ranch and later put things back exactly where they belonged.' And Mr. Reagan, the doctors stressed, was punctual, never depressed and had no difficulty with language or understanding what was going on around him. Although no cognitive tests were administered to Reagan during his time in office (his doctors saw no need for them), he did begin receiving annual mental and psychological assessments in 1990, after undergoing surgery to remove a blood clot in his brain. The four-hour battery of tests, which would have detected signs of dementia, found nothing amiss for the first three years they were administered. 'All parameters for his age absolutely were within the normal range,' one of Reagan's doctors said. It was Reagan himself who announced the diagnosis of Alzheimer's in 1994. There were certainly no indications of dementia (age, perhaps, but not dementia) when the 81-year-old former president delivered a 35-minute speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention, a performance Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward described as 'flawless.' It must also be said that given that the average life expectancy of a patient diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease is eight to 10 years, Reagan, who died in 2004 (10 years after his diagnosis), would have been extraordinarily long-lived for an Alzheimer's patient if he was already suffering from the disease, as some claim, in 1984. Two academic studies, one published in 1988 and the other in 2015, analyzed transcripts and recordings of Reagan speaking in debates and press conferences to see if his speech patterns betrayed otherwise imperceptible signs of cognitive decline. The first, which compared Reagan's speech patterns to those of other politicians, found that Reagan had 'significantly higher levels of cognitive impairment scores' than other subjects in the study (including President Carter and Vice President Mondale). The second found that changes in Reagan's speaking patterns known to be associated with the onset of dementia were detectable 'years before clinical diagnosis.' But although these findings indicate that Reagan did display subtle linguistic signs of cognitive decline while still president, they are experimental and do not suffice to push back the post-presidency diagnosis of Alzheimer's into his time in office. Visar Berisha, assistant professor of science and hearing at Arizona State University and the lead researcher in the 2015 study told us: While the language complexity declines we observed are consistent with what you may expect to see in individuals with early signs of dementia, it is impossible to make any conclusive diagnosis based on our study. It's certainly possible that President Reagan deliberately simplified his language because he found it to be politically advantageous. | nan | [
"03916-proof-04-ronald_reagan_fb.jpg"
] |
Ronald Reagan, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease five years after he left the presidency, was actually suffering from the disease while he was in office. | Neutral | The publication in 2018 of a tell-all book about the Trump White House in which aides are reported to have questioned President Trump's mental stability has revived longstanding rumors holding that Ronald Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's Disease during his presidency. He was diagnosed with the condition, but not until 1994, five years after leaving office. Reagan was 69 when he won his first presidential election. Trump was 70, making him the oldest person to be elected to the presidency (excluding Reagan's re-election at 73). Trump was given a clean bill of cognitive health in January 2018 by White House physician Dr. Ronny Jackson, who had tested him for cognitive impairment and said he had no concerns about the president's mental fitness. Reagan's doctors said much the same thing while he was in office despite the former president's memory lapses and bouts of confusion in public, most visibly during the 1984 presidential debates and his 1990 Iran-Contra testimony. Incidents such as these led to speculation that he was undergoing a gradual mental decline that those around him didn't want to admit. A 1987 article in the New Republic posed the troubling question outright: 'Is Reagan Senile?' That was precisely what CBS News reporter Lesley Stahl was asking herself during a 1986 visit with a president she would later describe in her 2000 memoir, Reporting Live, as 'shriveled' and verging on catatonic. 'Reagan didn't seem to know who I was,' she wrote. 'He gave me a distant look with those milky eyes and shook my hand weakly. Oh, my, he's gonzo, I thought.' But a few minutes later, he snapped out of it and from that point on seemed perfectly fine. When asked, White House aides admitted to Stahl that they had witnessed similar episodes. Even Reagan's own son, Ron, sensed something was wrong at the time. He wrote in his 2011 book, My Father at 100: A Memoir, that he first became concerned that 'something beyond mellowing' was afflicting his father three years into Reagan's first term. Of the latter's bumbling debate performance against Walter Mondale in 1984, the younger Reagan observed: At 73, Ronald Reagan would be the oldest president ever re-elected. Some voters were beginning to imagine grandpa - who can never find his reading glasses - in charge of a bristling nuclear arsenal, and it was making them nervous. Worse, my father now seemed to be giving them legitimate reason for concern. My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered. But Ron Reagan isn't a physician, much less one trained to diagnose the symptoms of Alzheimer's Disease. His half-brother Michael Reagan vehemently disagreed with Ron's armchair diagnosis and accused him of trying to 'sell out his father to sell books.' Ron later softened his claims in remarks to the New York Times, insisting he never meant to say his father was suffering from dementia while still in office, but rather that the disease was 'likely present in him' long before it was diagnosed. Experts say physiological and neurological changes linked to Alzheimer's start showing up in the brain years before outward symptoms appear. However, the physicians who directly attended Ronald Reagan while he was president agreed unanimously that he never displayed signs or symptoms of dementia the whole time he was in office, the New York Times reported in 1997: ...even with the hindsight of Mr. Reagan's [Alzheimer's] diagnosis, his four main White House doctors say they never detected any evidence that his forgetfulness was more than just that. His mental competence in office, they said in a series of recent interviews, was never in doubt. Indeed, they pointed out, tests of his mental status did not begin to show evidence of the disease until the summer of 1993, more than four years after he left the White House. 'There was never anything that would raise a question about his ability to function as President,' said Dr. Lawrence C. Mohr, one of Mr. Reagan's physicians in his second term. 'Ronald Reagan's cognitive function, belief structure, judgment, ability to choose between options, behavior and ability to communicate were totally and completely intact.' [...] He 'never forgot appointments, misplaced or lost things, where he put his glasses, never forgot to put his hearing aids in, never forgot to put his contact lenses in, and these are things he did for himself,' Dr. Mohr said. 'I saw him saddle and bridle horses at the ranch and later put things back exactly where they belonged.' And Mr. Reagan, the doctors stressed, was punctual, never depressed and had no difficulty with language or understanding what was going on around him. Although no cognitive tests were administered to Reagan during his time in office (his doctors saw no need for them), he did begin receiving annual mental and psychological assessments in 1990, after undergoing surgery to remove a blood clot in his brain. The four-hour battery of tests, which would have detected signs of dementia, found nothing amiss for the first three years they were administered. 'All parameters for his age absolutely were within the normal range,' one of Reagan's doctors said. It was Reagan himself who announced the diagnosis of Alzheimer's in 1994. There were certainly no indications of dementia (age, perhaps, but not dementia) when the 81-year-old former president delivered a 35-minute speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention, a performance Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward described as 'flawless.' It must also be said that given that the average life expectancy of a patient diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease is eight to 10 years, Reagan, who died in 2004 (10 years after his diagnosis), would have been extraordinarily long-lived for an Alzheimer's patient if he was already suffering from the disease, as some claim, in 1984. Two academic studies, one published in 1988 and the other in 2015, analyzed transcripts and recordings of Reagan speaking in debates and press conferences to see if his speech patterns betrayed otherwise imperceptible signs of cognitive decline. The first, which compared Reagan's speech patterns to those of other politicians, found that Reagan had 'significantly higher levels of cognitive impairment scores' than other subjects in the study (including President Carter and Vice President Mondale). The second found that changes in Reagan's speaking patterns known to be associated with the onset of dementia were detectable 'years before clinical diagnosis.' But although these findings indicate that Reagan did display subtle linguistic signs of cognitive decline while still president, they are experimental and do not suffice to push back the post-presidency diagnosis of Alzheimer's into his time in office. Visar Berisha, assistant professor of science and hearing at Arizona State University and the lead researcher in the 2015 study told us: While the language complexity declines we observed are consistent with what you may expect to see in individuals with early signs of dementia, it is impossible to make any conclusive diagnosis based on our study. It's certainly possible that President Reagan deliberately simplified his language because he found it to be politically advantageous. | nan | [
"03916-proof-04-ronald_reagan_fb.jpg"
] |
Health officials warned that a new STD superbug could be deadlier than AIDS. | Neutral | In November 2019, the website MyColumbusPower published an article claiming that a 'new STD superbug' had the capacity to kill people within days and that health officials were worried that the incoming epidemic would be worse than AIDS: STD Superbug May Be Deadlier Than AIDS; Kills Within Days There is a new STD superbug that experts say may be more deadly than AIDS and could cause an epidemic. According to a report, an antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea is more aggressive than AIDS, which means the potential to infect the public will be exponentially greater. This article stirred up a considerable amount of concern on social media. However, this article was already several years old. Furthermore, the claim that there is an 'STD superbug' that is 'worse than AIDs' can be traced back to a single quote from a single doctor and has been disputed by other medical professionals. Archived pages from the Internet Wayback Machine show that while the date on this MyColumbusPower article currently reads Nov. 7, 2019, this article has actually been on the site since at least September 2014. Furthermore, the information contained within is based on a CNBC report that was originally published in April 2013. CNBC quoted Alan Christianson, a doctor of naturopathic medicine, who was concerned about an antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea called 'HO41' that had been discovered in a woman in Japan. The news outlet reported: An antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea-now considered a superbug-has some analysts saying that the bacteria's effects could match those of AIDS. 'This might be a lot worse than AIDS in the short run because the bacteria is more aggressive and will affect more people quickly,' said Alan Christianson, a doctor of naturopathic medicine. Even though nearly 30 million people have died from AIDS related causes worldwide, Christianson believes the effect of the gonorrhea bacteria is more direct. 'Getting gonorrhea from this strain might put someone into septic shock and death in a matter of days,' Christianson said. 'This is very dangerous.' 'It's an emergency situation,' said William Smith, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors. 'As time moves on, it's getting more hazardous.' While the above-quoted text did originate with a genuine news source, there are a few problems worth noting about this report. For one, as of this writing, six years after the CNBC article was originally published, there has not been an AIDS-level epidemic due to this gonorrhea strain. While health officials may have been concerned at the time, the claim that this strain was 'worse than AIDS' has proved to be overstated. The CNBC article was also updated to note that 'there have been no treatment failures reported in the U.S.for gonorrhea treated with currently-recommended first-line regimens.' Furthermore, although CNBC quoted a doctor of naturopathic medicine saying that this strain of gonorrhea could be 'worse than AIDS,' other medical professionals weighed in at the time to dispute this classification. Dr. Bruce Hirsch, an attending physician in infectious diseases at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y., told Live Science that this was not a fair comparison: A recent CNBC article with the headline 'Sex Superbug Could Be 'Worse Than AIDS'' quoted Alan Christianson, a naturopathic doctor, as saying that an antibiotic-resistant strain of the sexually transmitted disease gonorrhea 'might be a lot worse than AIDS in the short run because the bacteria is more aggressive and will affect more people quickly.' However, some experts called the comparison hyperbolic. 'I disagree with the general comparison,' said Dr. Bruce Hirsch, an attending physician in infectious diseases at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y. 'The rate of complications from gonorrhea in terms of systemic problems is so much lower than the rate of complications from untreated AIDS infection,' Hirsch said. Although this strain of gonorrhea has not proven to be 'worse than AIDS' and has not spurred any sort of epidemic, antibiotic-resistant strains of gonorrhea are a real and serious problem. Health officials have developed several ways to treat gonorrhea, but this disease has adapted over the years and is now resistant to many of them. The CDC told us in an email that gonorrhea has developed resistance to most treatments over the years. As of this writing, however, the disease can still be treated with antibiotics: Is the CDC worried about a new STD superbug epidemic? Over time, gonorrhea has developed resistance to all but one class of antibiotics. Half of all infections are resistant or demonstrate signs of emerging resistance to at least one antibiotic. Unfortunately tests for antibiotic resistance are not currently available to healthcare providers at the time of treatment. History shows us that it is only a matter of time before resistance outsmarts our last treatment - ceftriaxone. Based on laboratory and surveillance data, ceftriaxone remains an effective treatment in the U.S. There has not been a confirmed treatment failure in the U.S. using the recommended regimen. However, we are concerned as treatment failures have been identified outside the U.S., including in Canada. CDC estimates that over 1 million cases of gonorrhea occur each year. Reducing the overall number of gonorrhea cases might prevent or delay the development of resistance to ceftriaxone, and is a critical component. ·Can gonorrhea still be treated with antibiotics? Yes, gonorrhea can be treated with antibiotics. CDC recommends using a regimen of dual therapy for the treatment of gonorrhea - the injectable ceftriaxone, plus oral azithromycin. This video from the CDC explains how health officials are racing to find new drugs to treat gonorrhea as this disease becomes more resistant to antibiotics: Lastly, it should be noted that when this MyColumbusPower article was shared on social media it was accompanied by a misleading image: This is not an image of gonorrhea or an STD superbug. This image actually shows the back of a man with AIDS and syphilis. | nan | [
"03982-proof-07-GettyImages-168166158.jpg"
] |
Health officials warned that a new STD superbug could be deadlier than AIDS. | Neutral | In November 2019, the website MyColumbusPower published an article claiming that a 'new STD superbug' had the capacity to kill people within days and that health officials were worried that the incoming epidemic would be worse than AIDS: STD Superbug May Be Deadlier Than AIDS; Kills Within Days There is a new STD superbug that experts say may be more deadly than AIDS and could cause an epidemic. According to a report, an antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea is more aggressive than AIDS, which means the potential to infect the public will be exponentially greater. This article stirred up a considerable amount of concern on social media. However, this article was already several years old. Furthermore, the claim that there is an 'STD superbug' that is 'worse than AIDs' can be traced back to a single quote from a single doctor and has been disputed by other medical professionals. Archived pages from the Internet Wayback Machine show that while the date on this MyColumbusPower article currently reads Nov. 7, 2019, this article has actually been on the site since at least September 2014. Furthermore, the information contained within is based on a CNBC report that was originally published in April 2013. CNBC quoted Alan Christianson, a doctor of naturopathic medicine, who was concerned about an antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea called 'HO41' that had been discovered in a woman in Japan. The news outlet reported: An antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea-now considered a superbug-has some analysts saying that the bacteria's effects could match those of AIDS. 'This might be a lot worse than AIDS in the short run because the bacteria is more aggressive and will affect more people quickly,' said Alan Christianson, a doctor of naturopathic medicine. Even though nearly 30 million people have died from AIDS related causes worldwide, Christianson believes the effect of the gonorrhea bacteria is more direct. 'Getting gonorrhea from this strain might put someone into septic shock and death in a matter of days,' Christianson said. 'This is very dangerous.' 'It's an emergency situation,' said William Smith, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors. 'As time moves on, it's getting more hazardous.' While the above-quoted text did originate with a genuine news source, there are a few problems worth noting about this report. For one, as of this writing, six years after the CNBC article was originally published, there has not been an AIDS-level epidemic due to this gonorrhea strain. While health officials may have been concerned at the time, the claim that this strain was 'worse than AIDS' has proved to be overstated. The CNBC article was also updated to note that 'there have been no treatment failures reported in the U.S.for gonorrhea treated with currently-recommended first-line regimens.' Furthermore, although CNBC quoted a doctor of naturopathic medicine saying that this strain of gonorrhea could be 'worse than AIDS,' other medical professionals weighed in at the time to dispute this classification. Dr. Bruce Hirsch, an attending physician in infectious diseases at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y., told Live Science that this was not a fair comparison: A recent CNBC article with the headline 'Sex Superbug Could Be 'Worse Than AIDS'' quoted Alan Christianson, a naturopathic doctor, as saying that an antibiotic-resistant strain of the sexually transmitted disease gonorrhea 'might be a lot worse than AIDS in the short run because the bacteria is more aggressive and will affect more people quickly.' However, some experts called the comparison hyperbolic. 'I disagree with the general comparison,' said Dr. Bruce Hirsch, an attending physician in infectious diseases at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y. 'The rate of complications from gonorrhea in terms of systemic problems is so much lower than the rate of complications from untreated AIDS infection,' Hirsch said. Although this strain of gonorrhea has not proven to be 'worse than AIDS' and has not spurred any sort of epidemic, antibiotic-resistant strains of gonorrhea are a real and serious problem. Health officials have developed several ways to treat gonorrhea, but this disease has adapted over the years and is now resistant to many of them. The CDC told us in an email that gonorrhea has developed resistance to most treatments over the years. As of this writing, however, the disease can still be treated with antibiotics: Is the CDC worried about a new STD superbug epidemic? Over time, gonorrhea has developed resistance to all but one class of antibiotics. Half of all infections are resistant or demonstrate signs of emerging resistance to at least one antibiotic. Unfortunately tests for antibiotic resistance are not currently available to healthcare providers at the time of treatment. History shows us that it is only a matter of time before resistance outsmarts our last treatment - ceftriaxone. Based on laboratory and surveillance data, ceftriaxone remains an effective treatment in the U.S. There has not been a confirmed treatment failure in the U.S. using the recommended regimen. However, we are concerned as treatment failures have been identified outside the U.S., including in Canada. CDC estimates that over 1 million cases of gonorrhea occur each year. Reducing the overall number of gonorrhea cases might prevent or delay the development of resistance to ceftriaxone, and is a critical component. ·Can gonorrhea still be treated with antibiotics? Yes, gonorrhea can be treated with antibiotics. CDC recommends using a regimen of dual therapy for the treatment of gonorrhea - the injectable ceftriaxone, plus oral azithromycin. This video from the CDC explains how health officials are racing to find new drugs to treat gonorrhea as this disease becomes more resistant to antibiotics: Lastly, it should be noted that when this MyColumbusPower article was shared on social media it was accompanied by a misleading image: This is not an image of gonorrhea or an STD superbug. This image actually shows the back of a man with AIDS and syphilis. | nan | [
"03982-proof-07-GettyImages-168166158.jpg"
] |
Health officials warned that a new STD superbug could be deadlier than AIDS. | Neutral | In November 2019, the website MyColumbusPower published an article claiming that a 'new STD superbug' had the capacity to kill people within days and that health officials were worried that the incoming epidemic would be worse than AIDS: STD Superbug May Be Deadlier Than AIDS; Kills Within Days There is a new STD superbug that experts say may be more deadly than AIDS and could cause an epidemic. According to a report, an antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea is more aggressive than AIDS, which means the potential to infect the public will be exponentially greater. This article stirred up a considerable amount of concern on social media. However, this article was already several years old. Furthermore, the claim that there is an 'STD superbug' that is 'worse than AIDs' can be traced back to a single quote from a single doctor and has been disputed by other medical professionals. Archived pages from the Internet Wayback Machine show that while the date on this MyColumbusPower article currently reads Nov. 7, 2019, this article has actually been on the site since at least September 2014. Furthermore, the information contained within is based on a CNBC report that was originally published in April 2013. CNBC quoted Alan Christianson, a doctor of naturopathic medicine, who was concerned about an antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea called 'HO41' that had been discovered in a woman in Japan. The news outlet reported: An antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea-now considered a superbug-has some analysts saying that the bacteria's effects could match those of AIDS. 'This might be a lot worse than AIDS in the short run because the bacteria is more aggressive and will affect more people quickly,' said Alan Christianson, a doctor of naturopathic medicine. Even though nearly 30 million people have died from AIDS related causes worldwide, Christianson believes the effect of the gonorrhea bacteria is more direct. 'Getting gonorrhea from this strain might put someone into septic shock and death in a matter of days,' Christianson said. 'This is very dangerous.' 'It's an emergency situation,' said William Smith, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors. 'As time moves on, it's getting more hazardous.' While the above-quoted text did originate with a genuine news source, there are a few problems worth noting about this report. For one, as of this writing, six years after the CNBC article was originally published, there has not been an AIDS-level epidemic due to this gonorrhea strain. While health officials may have been concerned at the time, the claim that this strain was 'worse than AIDS' has proved to be overstated. The CNBC article was also updated to note that 'there have been no treatment failures reported in the U.S.for gonorrhea treated with currently-recommended first-line regimens.' Furthermore, although CNBC quoted a doctor of naturopathic medicine saying that this strain of gonorrhea could be 'worse than AIDS,' other medical professionals weighed in at the time to dispute this classification. Dr. Bruce Hirsch, an attending physician in infectious diseases at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y., told Live Science that this was not a fair comparison: A recent CNBC article with the headline 'Sex Superbug Could Be 'Worse Than AIDS'' quoted Alan Christianson, a naturopathic doctor, as saying that an antibiotic-resistant strain of the sexually transmitted disease gonorrhea 'might be a lot worse than AIDS in the short run because the bacteria is more aggressive and will affect more people quickly.' However, some experts called the comparison hyperbolic. 'I disagree with the general comparison,' said Dr. Bruce Hirsch, an attending physician in infectious diseases at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y. 'The rate of complications from gonorrhea in terms of systemic problems is so much lower than the rate of complications from untreated AIDS infection,' Hirsch said. Although this strain of gonorrhea has not proven to be 'worse than AIDS' and has not spurred any sort of epidemic, antibiotic-resistant strains of gonorrhea are a real and serious problem. Health officials have developed several ways to treat gonorrhea, but this disease has adapted over the years and is now resistant to many of them. The CDC told us in an email that gonorrhea has developed resistance to most treatments over the years. As of this writing, however, the disease can still be treated with antibiotics: Is the CDC worried about a new STD superbug epidemic? Over time, gonorrhea has developed resistance to all but one class of antibiotics. Half of all infections are resistant or demonstrate signs of emerging resistance to at least one antibiotic. Unfortunately tests for antibiotic resistance are not currently available to healthcare providers at the time of treatment. History shows us that it is only a matter of time before resistance outsmarts our last treatment - ceftriaxone. Based on laboratory and surveillance data, ceftriaxone remains an effective treatment in the U.S. There has not been a confirmed treatment failure in the U.S. using the recommended regimen. However, we are concerned as treatment failures have been identified outside the U.S., including in Canada. CDC estimates that over 1 million cases of gonorrhea occur each year. Reducing the overall number of gonorrhea cases might prevent or delay the development of resistance to ceftriaxone, and is a critical component. ·Can gonorrhea still be treated with antibiotics? Yes, gonorrhea can be treated with antibiotics. CDC recommends using a regimen of dual therapy for the treatment of gonorrhea - the injectable ceftriaxone, plus oral azithromycin. This video from the CDC explains how health officials are racing to find new drugs to treat gonorrhea as this disease becomes more resistant to antibiotics: Lastly, it should be noted that when this MyColumbusPower article was shared on social media it was accompanied by a misleading image: This is not an image of gonorrhea or an STD superbug. This image actually shows the back of a man with AIDS and syphilis. | nan | [
"03982-proof-07-GettyImages-168166158.jpg"
] |
Health officials warned that a new STD superbug could be deadlier than AIDS. | Neutral | In November 2019, the website MyColumbusPower published an article claiming that a 'new STD superbug' had the capacity to kill people within days and that health officials were worried that the incoming epidemic would be worse than AIDS: STD Superbug May Be Deadlier Than AIDS; Kills Within Days There is a new STD superbug that experts say may be more deadly than AIDS and could cause an epidemic. According to a report, an antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea is more aggressive than AIDS, which means the potential to infect the public will be exponentially greater. This article stirred up a considerable amount of concern on social media. However, this article was already several years old. Furthermore, the claim that there is an 'STD superbug' that is 'worse than AIDs' can be traced back to a single quote from a single doctor and has been disputed by other medical professionals. Archived pages from the Internet Wayback Machine show that while the date on this MyColumbusPower article currently reads Nov. 7, 2019, this article has actually been on the site since at least September 2014. Furthermore, the information contained within is based on a CNBC report that was originally published in April 2013. CNBC quoted Alan Christianson, a doctor of naturopathic medicine, who was concerned about an antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea called 'HO41' that had been discovered in a woman in Japan. The news outlet reported: An antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea-now considered a superbug-has some analysts saying that the bacteria's effects could match those of AIDS. 'This might be a lot worse than AIDS in the short run because the bacteria is more aggressive and will affect more people quickly,' said Alan Christianson, a doctor of naturopathic medicine. Even though nearly 30 million people have died from AIDS related causes worldwide, Christianson believes the effect of the gonorrhea bacteria is more direct. 'Getting gonorrhea from this strain might put someone into septic shock and death in a matter of days,' Christianson said. 'This is very dangerous.' 'It's an emergency situation,' said William Smith, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors. 'As time moves on, it's getting more hazardous.' While the above-quoted text did originate with a genuine news source, there are a few problems worth noting about this report. For one, as of this writing, six years after the CNBC article was originally published, there has not been an AIDS-level epidemic due to this gonorrhea strain. While health officials may have been concerned at the time, the claim that this strain was 'worse than AIDS' has proved to be overstated. The CNBC article was also updated to note that 'there have been no treatment failures reported in the U.S.for gonorrhea treated with currently-recommended first-line regimens.' Furthermore, although CNBC quoted a doctor of naturopathic medicine saying that this strain of gonorrhea could be 'worse than AIDS,' other medical professionals weighed in at the time to dispute this classification. Dr. Bruce Hirsch, an attending physician in infectious diseases at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y., told Live Science that this was not a fair comparison: A recent CNBC article with the headline 'Sex Superbug Could Be 'Worse Than AIDS'' quoted Alan Christianson, a naturopathic doctor, as saying that an antibiotic-resistant strain of the sexually transmitted disease gonorrhea 'might be a lot worse than AIDS in the short run because the bacteria is more aggressive and will affect more people quickly.' However, some experts called the comparison hyperbolic. 'I disagree with the general comparison,' said Dr. Bruce Hirsch, an attending physician in infectious diseases at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y. 'The rate of complications from gonorrhea in terms of systemic problems is so much lower than the rate of complications from untreated AIDS infection,' Hirsch said. Although this strain of gonorrhea has not proven to be 'worse than AIDS' and has not spurred any sort of epidemic, antibiotic-resistant strains of gonorrhea are a real and serious problem. Health officials have developed several ways to treat gonorrhea, but this disease has adapted over the years and is now resistant to many of them. The CDC told us in an email that gonorrhea has developed resistance to most treatments over the years. As of this writing, however, the disease can still be treated with antibiotics: Is the CDC worried about a new STD superbug epidemic? Over time, gonorrhea has developed resistance to all but one class of antibiotics. Half of all infections are resistant or demonstrate signs of emerging resistance to at least one antibiotic. Unfortunately tests for antibiotic resistance are not currently available to healthcare providers at the time of treatment. History shows us that it is only a matter of time before resistance outsmarts our last treatment - ceftriaxone. Based on laboratory and surveillance data, ceftriaxone remains an effective treatment in the U.S. There has not been a confirmed treatment failure in the U.S. using the recommended regimen. However, we are concerned as treatment failures have been identified outside the U.S., including in Canada. CDC estimates that over 1 million cases of gonorrhea occur each year. Reducing the overall number of gonorrhea cases might prevent or delay the development of resistance to ceftriaxone, and is a critical component. ·Can gonorrhea still be treated with antibiotics? Yes, gonorrhea can be treated with antibiotics. CDC recommends using a regimen of dual therapy for the treatment of gonorrhea - the injectable ceftriaxone, plus oral azithromycin. This video from the CDC explains how health officials are racing to find new drugs to treat gonorrhea as this disease becomes more resistant to antibiotics: Lastly, it should be noted that when this MyColumbusPower article was shared on social media it was accompanied by a misleading image: This is not an image of gonorrhea or an STD superbug. This image actually shows the back of a man with AIDS and syphilis. | nan | [
"03982-proof-07-GettyImages-168166158.jpg"
] |
A woman was raped and murdered in Turkey during a trek for 'world peace. | Neutral | On 19 February 2016, the web site Yes I'm Right shared a story about a woman who had been raped and murdered while hitchhiking in the Middle East: This Facebook post (and blatantly clickbaiting headline) linked to an article (riddled with inconsistencies, bad information, and misspellings) about the death of Giuseppina Pasqualino di Marineo, better known as Pippa Bacca, a performing artist who was killed during a world peace effort known as 'Brides on Tour': Woman hitchhiked through the middle east to prove muslims are peaceful. What they did next... OMG! We as conservatives get a bad rap when we say Muslims and Islam don't operate under peaceful ideologies. Liberals would argue they do. Well once again, the liberals are proven wrong and unfortunately, what it took was for someone to die in the worst way imaginable. That may be a bit morbid, but I think it's important to show bleeding heart liberals everything possible to get them to understand. Here's a shocking and sad story that should be shared everywhere to get the word out. An Italian woman who was hitch hiking from Italy to Israel to promote world peace was raped and murdered by Muslims in Turkey. While the Yes I'm Right story was based on a New York Times article published in April 2008, the web site made no attempt to inform its readers that the incident had taken place over eight years earlier and that they were republishing a years-old story with no clarification about when it occurred. In addition to misleading their readers about the time frame of the incident, Yes I'm Right also falsely claimed that the 'mainstream media' were 'ignoring' the story. While it's true that most mainstream media outlets did not write about Pippa Bacca in February 2016, it is because the incident, shocking and tragic as it was, was an eight-year-old story by then. Yes I'm Right also emphasized that Bacca was on a mission to prove that Muslims were peaceful. But in her description of the 'Brides on Tour' project, Bacca and her traveling partner Silvia Moro made no mention of Muslims. Instead, Morro described their project in an interview as simply a way to promote peace in a general sense: Ultimately this long performance, this hitchhiking trip through the countries devastated by war, was aimed at spreading a message of peace and trust in the people that we met along our route. The Yes I'm Right article also alleged that Bacca's death was directly attributable to religious views in the Middle East: 'This is what happens with a religion that rapes and kills if you don't abide by their law and worship their god. This is absolutely disgusting.' Yet shortly after Bacca's death, officials emphasized that her murder was not motivated by religion: After reports of Ms. Bacca's death circulated, Ms. Bacca's family and Italian and Turkish government officials immediately emphasized that the killing had been a cruel act by a possibly deranged person and could have happened almost anywhere. 'Just read any newspaper - people get killed for playing music too loudly, and women get raped in the subway; there are fiends everywhere,' (Rosalia Pasqualino, a sister of Ms. Bacca) said. 'This was not a question of Turkey or of religion.' As the incident occurred eight years ago and Turkey is an officially secular country, it's not clear how Yes I'm Right concluded (despite the statements from law enforcement and her own family) that Bacca had been killed over religion. While it is true that Pippa Bacca was murdered while hitchhiking in Turkey during a world peace effort known as 'Brides on Tour,' this incident occurred in 2008 (not 2016), and her death was not tied to any religious motives. | nan | [
"04021-proof-06-hitchhiking_woman_fb.jpg"
] |
A woman was raped and murdered in Turkey during a trek for 'world peace. | Neutral | On 19 February 2016, the web site Yes I'm Right shared a story about a woman who had been raped and murdered while hitchhiking in the Middle East: This Facebook post (and blatantly clickbaiting headline) linked to an article (riddled with inconsistencies, bad information, and misspellings) about the death of Giuseppina Pasqualino di Marineo, better known as Pippa Bacca, a performing artist who was killed during a world peace effort known as 'Brides on Tour': Woman hitchhiked through the middle east to prove muslims are peaceful. What they did next... OMG! We as conservatives get a bad rap when we say Muslims and Islam don't operate under peaceful ideologies. Liberals would argue they do. Well once again, the liberals are proven wrong and unfortunately, what it took was for someone to die in the worst way imaginable. That may be a bit morbid, but I think it's important to show bleeding heart liberals everything possible to get them to understand. Here's a shocking and sad story that should be shared everywhere to get the word out. An Italian woman who was hitch hiking from Italy to Israel to promote world peace was raped and murdered by Muslims in Turkey. While the Yes I'm Right story was based on a New York Times article published in April 2008, the web site made no attempt to inform its readers that the incident had taken place over eight years earlier and that they were republishing a years-old story with no clarification about when it occurred. In addition to misleading their readers about the time frame of the incident, Yes I'm Right also falsely claimed that the 'mainstream media' were 'ignoring' the story. While it's true that most mainstream media outlets did not write about Pippa Bacca in February 2016, it is because the incident, shocking and tragic as it was, was an eight-year-old story by then. Yes I'm Right also emphasized that Bacca was on a mission to prove that Muslims were peaceful. But in her description of the 'Brides on Tour' project, Bacca and her traveling partner Silvia Moro made no mention of Muslims. Instead, Morro described their project in an interview as simply a way to promote peace in a general sense: Ultimately this long performance, this hitchhiking trip through the countries devastated by war, was aimed at spreading a message of peace and trust in the people that we met along our route. The Yes I'm Right article also alleged that Bacca's death was directly attributable to religious views in the Middle East: 'This is what happens with a religion that rapes and kills if you don't abide by their law and worship their god. This is absolutely disgusting.' Yet shortly after Bacca's death, officials emphasized that her murder was not motivated by religion: After reports of Ms. Bacca's death circulated, Ms. Bacca's family and Italian and Turkish government officials immediately emphasized that the killing had been a cruel act by a possibly deranged person and could have happened almost anywhere. 'Just read any newspaper - people get killed for playing music too loudly, and women get raped in the subway; there are fiends everywhere,' (Rosalia Pasqualino, a sister of Ms. Bacca) said. 'This was not a question of Turkey or of religion.' As the incident occurred eight years ago and Turkey is an officially secular country, it's not clear how Yes I'm Right concluded (despite the statements from law enforcement and her own family) that Bacca had been killed over religion. While it is true that Pippa Bacca was murdered while hitchhiking in Turkey during a world peace effort known as 'Brides on Tour,' this incident occurred in 2008 (not 2016), and her death was not tied to any religious motives. | nan | [
"04021-proof-06-hitchhiking_woman_fb.jpg"
] |
A woman was raped and murdered in Turkey during a trek for 'world peace. | Neutral | On 19 February 2016, the web site Yes I'm Right shared a story about a woman who had been raped and murdered while hitchhiking in the Middle East: This Facebook post (and blatantly clickbaiting headline) linked to an article (riddled with inconsistencies, bad information, and misspellings) about the death of Giuseppina Pasqualino di Marineo, better known as Pippa Bacca, a performing artist who was killed during a world peace effort known as 'Brides on Tour': Woman hitchhiked through the middle east to prove muslims are peaceful. What they did next... OMG! We as conservatives get a bad rap when we say Muslims and Islam don't operate under peaceful ideologies. Liberals would argue they do. Well once again, the liberals are proven wrong and unfortunately, what it took was for someone to die in the worst way imaginable. That may be a bit morbid, but I think it's important to show bleeding heart liberals everything possible to get them to understand. Here's a shocking and sad story that should be shared everywhere to get the word out. An Italian woman who was hitch hiking from Italy to Israel to promote world peace was raped and murdered by Muslims in Turkey. While the Yes I'm Right story was based on a New York Times article published in April 2008, the web site made no attempt to inform its readers that the incident had taken place over eight years earlier and that they were republishing a years-old story with no clarification about when it occurred. In addition to misleading their readers about the time frame of the incident, Yes I'm Right also falsely claimed that the 'mainstream media' were 'ignoring' the story. While it's true that most mainstream media outlets did not write about Pippa Bacca in February 2016, it is because the incident, shocking and tragic as it was, was an eight-year-old story by then. Yes I'm Right also emphasized that Bacca was on a mission to prove that Muslims were peaceful. But in her description of the 'Brides on Tour' project, Bacca and her traveling partner Silvia Moro made no mention of Muslims. Instead, Morro described their project in an interview as simply a way to promote peace in a general sense: Ultimately this long performance, this hitchhiking trip through the countries devastated by war, was aimed at spreading a message of peace and trust in the people that we met along our route. The Yes I'm Right article also alleged that Bacca's death was directly attributable to religious views in the Middle East: 'This is what happens with a religion that rapes and kills if you don't abide by their law and worship their god. This is absolutely disgusting.' Yet shortly after Bacca's death, officials emphasized that her murder was not motivated by religion: After reports of Ms. Bacca's death circulated, Ms. Bacca's family and Italian and Turkish government officials immediately emphasized that the killing had been a cruel act by a possibly deranged person and could have happened almost anywhere. 'Just read any newspaper - people get killed for playing music too loudly, and women get raped in the subway; there are fiends everywhere,' (Rosalia Pasqualino, a sister of Ms. Bacca) said. 'This was not a question of Turkey or of religion.' As the incident occurred eight years ago and Turkey is an officially secular country, it's not clear how Yes I'm Right concluded (despite the statements from law enforcement and her own family) that Bacca had been killed over religion. While it is true that Pippa Bacca was murdered while hitchhiking in Turkey during a world peace effort known as 'Brides on Tour,' this incident occurred in 2008 (not 2016), and her death was not tied to any religious motives. | nan | [
"04021-proof-06-hitchhiking_woman_fb.jpg"
] |
A woman was raped and murdered in Turkey during a trek for 'world peace. | Neutral | On 19 February 2016, the web site Yes I'm Right shared a story about a woman who had been raped and murdered while hitchhiking in the Middle East: This Facebook post (and blatantly clickbaiting headline) linked to an article (riddled with inconsistencies, bad information, and misspellings) about the death of Giuseppina Pasqualino di Marineo, better known as Pippa Bacca, a performing artist who was killed during a world peace effort known as 'Brides on Tour': Woman hitchhiked through the middle east to prove muslims are peaceful. What they did next... OMG! We as conservatives get a bad rap when we say Muslims and Islam don't operate under peaceful ideologies. Liberals would argue they do. Well once again, the liberals are proven wrong and unfortunately, what it took was for someone to die in the worst way imaginable. That may be a bit morbid, but I think it's important to show bleeding heart liberals everything possible to get them to understand. Here's a shocking and sad story that should be shared everywhere to get the word out. An Italian woman who was hitch hiking from Italy to Israel to promote world peace was raped and murdered by Muslims in Turkey. While the Yes I'm Right story was based on a New York Times article published in April 2008, the web site made no attempt to inform its readers that the incident had taken place over eight years earlier and that they were republishing a years-old story with no clarification about when it occurred. In addition to misleading their readers about the time frame of the incident, Yes I'm Right also falsely claimed that the 'mainstream media' were 'ignoring' the story. While it's true that most mainstream media outlets did not write about Pippa Bacca in February 2016, it is because the incident, shocking and tragic as it was, was an eight-year-old story by then. Yes I'm Right also emphasized that Bacca was on a mission to prove that Muslims were peaceful. But in her description of the 'Brides on Tour' project, Bacca and her traveling partner Silvia Moro made no mention of Muslims. Instead, Morro described their project in an interview as simply a way to promote peace in a general sense: Ultimately this long performance, this hitchhiking trip through the countries devastated by war, was aimed at spreading a message of peace and trust in the people that we met along our route. The Yes I'm Right article also alleged that Bacca's death was directly attributable to religious views in the Middle East: 'This is what happens with a religion that rapes and kills if you don't abide by their law and worship their god. This is absolutely disgusting.' Yet shortly after Bacca's death, officials emphasized that her murder was not motivated by religion: After reports of Ms. Bacca's death circulated, Ms. Bacca's family and Italian and Turkish government officials immediately emphasized that the killing had been a cruel act by a possibly deranged person and could have happened almost anywhere. 'Just read any newspaper - people get killed for playing music too loudly, and women get raped in the subway; there are fiends everywhere,' (Rosalia Pasqualino, a sister of Ms. Bacca) said. 'This was not a question of Turkey or of religion.' As the incident occurred eight years ago and Turkey is an officially secular country, it's not clear how Yes I'm Right concluded (despite the statements from law enforcement and her own family) that Bacca had been killed over religion. While it is true that Pippa Bacca was murdered while hitchhiking in Turkey during a world peace effort known as 'Brides on Tour,' this incident occurred in 2008 (not 2016), and her death was not tied to any religious motives. | nan | [
"04021-proof-06-hitchhiking_woman_fb.jpg"
] |
Undercover video footage shows that Beto O'Rourke campaign staff illegally used campaign resources to provide food, supplies and transportation to Central American migrants. | Neutral | On 1 November 2018, less than a week before the U.S. midterm elections, the conservative activist James O'Keefe's 'Project Veritas' published a 'sting' video which he presented as evidence that some staff members working for the campaign of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke in Texas may have illegally used campaign resources to provide food and supplies to Central American migrants: Project Veritas Action Fund has released undercover video from current Congressman and US Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke's campaign. The video exposes how his campaign staff appear to be illegally using campaign resources to buy supplies and help transport Honduran aliens. Featured in this report are campaign staffers who work on Congressman O'Rourke's US Senate campaign discussing how they use campaign resources to help Honduran aliens and transport them to airports and bus stations. The story was picked up by other prominent conservative commentators and news outlets, including Breitbart and the web site of the Fox News host Sean Hannity. As of 2 November, the most extensive footage published was a 24-minute video posted to YouTube by Project Veritas, which can be viewed below. Like many of the videos previously published by O'Keefe and Project Veritas, the one published on 1 November was heavily edited, making the context of many conversation fragments and statements unclear: O'Keefe has attracted criticism for editing and framing video footage in such a way as to unfairly harm the reputation of progressive organizations and politicians, and he has faced multiple lawsuits and even a criminal conviction for illegally entering the office of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu in an attempt to tamper with her telephones. We sent the O'Rourke campaign a set of questions related to the footage. In response, Chris Evans, a spokesperson for the U.S. Representative for Texas' 16th District, directed us to remarks he offered to the Texas Tribune, in which he acknowledged that some campaign staffers had 'taken it upon themselves' to donate around $300 worth of supplies to a local charity helping migrants: 'Staff members took it upon themselves to use prepaid cards from one of our more than 700 field offices to buy baby wipes, diapers, water, fruit and granola bars, and donate them to a local humanitarian nonprofit (Annunciation House) that helps mothers and children in the community,' O'Rourke spokesman Chris Evans said in a statement. 'The value was under $300 and it will be appropriately reported to the FEC [Federal Election Commission].' Some of the footage posted on 1 November also appeared to show campaign staff discussing the possibility of using campaign vehicles to give rides to migrants, but the video did not show anyone actually doing that or even talking about having taken that action. In response to our questions, the O'Rourke campaign asserted that no staff had used campaign vehicles to give rides to any migrants. In the video posted on 1 November, O'Keefe said that 'charity is not a bad thing' but accused the O'Rourke campaign staff of breaking the law in their efforts to donate supplies: 'We support charity at Project Veritas Action, but you cannot break the law to do it ...' Roughly speaking, it is prohibited for a political campaign to spend campaign money for what's known as 'personal use.' For spending to be considered campaign-related, it must be for a purpose that arises only in the context of a campaign. As the FEC guidelines state: 'If the expense would exist even in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies.' The logic of O'Keefe's argument was that when the O'Rourke campaign staff bought food and supplies to help the migrants, they were spending campaign money on something that was not strictly campaign-related, and therefore they had violated the 'personal use' rules. However, what O'Keefe did not mention is that exceptions to those rules exist, one of which allows political campaigns to donate to charities (under certain conditions): Gifts to charity are not considered personal use expenses as long as the candidate does not receive compensation from the charitable organization before it has expended the entire amount donated. Note that the amount donated must have been used for purposes that do not personally benefit the candidate. The footage published by O'Keefe on 1 November did not constitute evidence of a member of the O'Rourke campaign team's using campaign funds to give supplies directly to the migrants, as opposed to donating them to Annunciation House, a registered charity in El Paso. We asked the O'Rourke campaign whether any of their staff had given supplies purchased with campaign money directly to any migrants. A spokesperson firmly denied this, writing: 'Absolutely not. The materials were dropped off to Annunciation House ... at the donation site Annunciation House had set up.' We asked Project Veritas whether it had uncovered any evidence (not shown in their video) of O'Rourke's campaign staff providing supplies directly to the migrants (as opposed to the charity). A spokesperson for the organization did not directly answer that question but reiterated that they had found evidence of campaign staff discussing an intention to buy supplies for the migrants and to give them rides in a campaign vehicle. | nan | [
"04028-proof-08-betoveritas.jpg"
] |
Undercover video footage shows that Beto O'Rourke campaign staff illegally used campaign resources to provide food, supplies and transportation to Central American migrants. | Neutral | On 1 November 2018, less than a week before the U.S. midterm elections, the conservative activist James O'Keefe's 'Project Veritas' published a 'sting' video which he presented as evidence that some staff members working for the campaign of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke in Texas may have illegally used campaign resources to provide food and supplies to Central American migrants: Project Veritas Action Fund has released undercover video from current Congressman and US Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke's campaign. The video exposes how his campaign staff appear to be illegally using campaign resources to buy supplies and help transport Honduran aliens. Featured in this report are campaign staffers who work on Congressman O'Rourke's US Senate campaign discussing how they use campaign resources to help Honduran aliens and transport them to airports and bus stations. The story was picked up by other prominent conservative commentators and news outlets, including Breitbart and the web site of the Fox News host Sean Hannity. As of 2 November, the most extensive footage published was a 24-minute video posted to YouTube by Project Veritas, which can be viewed below. Like many of the videos previously published by O'Keefe and Project Veritas, the one published on 1 November was heavily edited, making the context of many conversation fragments and statements unclear: O'Keefe has attracted criticism for editing and framing video footage in such a way as to unfairly harm the reputation of progressive organizations and politicians, and he has faced multiple lawsuits and even a criminal conviction for illegally entering the office of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu in an attempt to tamper with her telephones. We sent the O'Rourke campaign a set of questions related to the footage. In response, Chris Evans, a spokesperson for the U.S. Representative for Texas' 16th District, directed us to remarks he offered to the Texas Tribune, in which he acknowledged that some campaign staffers had 'taken it upon themselves' to donate around $300 worth of supplies to a local charity helping migrants: 'Staff members took it upon themselves to use prepaid cards from one of our more than 700 field offices to buy baby wipes, diapers, water, fruit and granola bars, and donate them to a local humanitarian nonprofit (Annunciation House) that helps mothers and children in the community,' O'Rourke spokesman Chris Evans said in a statement. 'The value was under $300 and it will be appropriately reported to the FEC [Federal Election Commission].' Some of the footage posted on 1 November also appeared to show campaign staff discussing the possibility of using campaign vehicles to give rides to migrants, but the video did not show anyone actually doing that or even talking about having taken that action. In response to our questions, the O'Rourke campaign asserted that no staff had used campaign vehicles to give rides to any migrants. In the video posted on 1 November, O'Keefe said that 'charity is not a bad thing' but accused the O'Rourke campaign staff of breaking the law in their efforts to donate supplies: 'We support charity at Project Veritas Action, but you cannot break the law to do it ...' Roughly speaking, it is prohibited for a political campaign to spend campaign money for what's known as 'personal use.' For spending to be considered campaign-related, it must be for a purpose that arises only in the context of a campaign. As the FEC guidelines state: 'If the expense would exist even in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies.' The logic of O'Keefe's argument was that when the O'Rourke campaign staff bought food and supplies to help the migrants, they were spending campaign money on something that was not strictly campaign-related, and therefore they had violated the 'personal use' rules. However, what O'Keefe did not mention is that exceptions to those rules exist, one of which allows political campaigns to donate to charities (under certain conditions): Gifts to charity are not considered personal use expenses as long as the candidate does not receive compensation from the charitable organization before it has expended the entire amount donated. Note that the amount donated must have been used for purposes that do not personally benefit the candidate. The footage published by O'Keefe on 1 November did not constitute evidence of a member of the O'Rourke campaign team's using campaign funds to give supplies directly to the migrants, as opposed to donating them to Annunciation House, a registered charity in El Paso. We asked the O'Rourke campaign whether any of their staff had given supplies purchased with campaign money directly to any migrants. A spokesperson firmly denied this, writing: 'Absolutely not. The materials were dropped off to Annunciation House ... at the donation site Annunciation House had set up.' We asked Project Veritas whether it had uncovered any evidence (not shown in their video) of O'Rourke's campaign staff providing supplies directly to the migrants (as opposed to the charity). A spokesperson for the organization did not directly answer that question but reiterated that they had found evidence of campaign staff discussing an intention to buy supplies for the migrants and to give them rides in a campaign vehicle. | nan | [
"04028-proof-08-betoveritas.jpg"
] |
Undercover video footage shows that Beto O'Rourke campaign staff illegally used campaign resources to provide food, supplies and transportation to Central American migrants. | Neutral | On 1 November 2018, less than a week before the U.S. midterm elections, the conservative activist James O'Keefe's 'Project Veritas' published a 'sting' video which he presented as evidence that some staff members working for the campaign of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke in Texas may have illegally used campaign resources to provide food and supplies to Central American migrants: Project Veritas Action Fund has released undercover video from current Congressman and US Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke's campaign. The video exposes how his campaign staff appear to be illegally using campaign resources to buy supplies and help transport Honduran aliens. Featured in this report are campaign staffers who work on Congressman O'Rourke's US Senate campaign discussing how they use campaign resources to help Honduran aliens and transport them to airports and bus stations. The story was picked up by other prominent conservative commentators and news outlets, including Breitbart and the web site of the Fox News host Sean Hannity. As of 2 November, the most extensive footage published was a 24-minute video posted to YouTube by Project Veritas, which can be viewed below. Like many of the videos previously published by O'Keefe and Project Veritas, the one published on 1 November was heavily edited, making the context of many conversation fragments and statements unclear: O'Keefe has attracted criticism for editing and framing video footage in such a way as to unfairly harm the reputation of progressive organizations and politicians, and he has faced multiple lawsuits and even a criminal conviction for illegally entering the office of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu in an attempt to tamper with her telephones. We sent the O'Rourke campaign a set of questions related to the footage. In response, Chris Evans, a spokesperson for the U.S. Representative for Texas' 16th District, directed us to remarks he offered to the Texas Tribune, in which he acknowledged that some campaign staffers had 'taken it upon themselves' to donate around $300 worth of supplies to a local charity helping migrants: 'Staff members took it upon themselves to use prepaid cards from one of our more than 700 field offices to buy baby wipes, diapers, water, fruit and granola bars, and donate them to a local humanitarian nonprofit (Annunciation House) that helps mothers and children in the community,' O'Rourke spokesman Chris Evans said in a statement. 'The value was under $300 and it will be appropriately reported to the FEC [Federal Election Commission].' Some of the footage posted on 1 November also appeared to show campaign staff discussing the possibility of using campaign vehicles to give rides to migrants, but the video did not show anyone actually doing that or even talking about having taken that action. In response to our questions, the O'Rourke campaign asserted that no staff had used campaign vehicles to give rides to any migrants. In the video posted on 1 November, O'Keefe said that 'charity is not a bad thing' but accused the O'Rourke campaign staff of breaking the law in their efforts to donate supplies: 'We support charity at Project Veritas Action, but you cannot break the law to do it ...' Roughly speaking, it is prohibited for a political campaign to spend campaign money for what's known as 'personal use.' For spending to be considered campaign-related, it must be for a purpose that arises only in the context of a campaign. As the FEC guidelines state: 'If the expense would exist even in the absence of the candidacy or even if the officeholder were not in office, then the personal use ban applies.' The logic of O'Keefe's argument was that when the O'Rourke campaign staff bought food and supplies to help the migrants, they were spending campaign money on something that was not strictly campaign-related, and therefore they had violated the 'personal use' rules. However, what O'Keefe did not mention is that exceptions to those rules exist, one of which allows political campaigns to donate to charities (under certain conditions): Gifts to charity are not considered personal use expenses as long as the candidate does not receive compensation from the charitable organization before it has expended the entire amount donated. Note that the amount donated must have been used for purposes that do not personally benefit the candidate. The footage published by O'Keefe on 1 November did not constitute evidence of a member of the O'Rourke campaign team's using campaign funds to give supplies directly to the migrants, as opposed to donating them to Annunciation House, a registered charity in El Paso. We asked the O'Rourke campaign whether any of their staff had given supplies purchased with campaign money directly to any migrants. A spokesperson firmly denied this, writing: 'Absolutely not. The materials were dropped off to Annunciation House ... at the donation site Annunciation House had set up.' We asked Project Veritas whether it had uncovered any evidence (not shown in their video) of O'Rourke's campaign staff providing supplies directly to the migrants (as opposed to the charity). A spokesperson for the organization did not directly answer that question but reiterated that they had found evidence of campaign staff discussing an intention to buy supplies for the migrants and to give them rides in a campaign vehicle. | nan | [
"04028-proof-08-betoveritas.jpg"
] |
Former U.S. President Donald Trump was banned for life from Facebook in May 2021. | Neutral | On May 5, 2021, the Facebook Oversight Board announced that it had made a decision regarding former U.S. President Donald Trump's ban from the social network. As this news circulated, many people rushed to social media (and television) with incorrect statements about the board's decision. On Fox News, for example, a chyron briefly appeared that stated: 'Facebook Oversight Board Bans Trump for Life.' The Twitter account for Newsmax also posted a message stating that 'Facebook has decided to permanently ban former President Donald Trump from its platform.' But Trump has not been banned for life from Facebook. Yet. On Jan 6. 2021, a violent mob stormed the Capitol in an attempt to delay the certification of President Joe Biden's electoral victory spurred on in part by the multitude of election falsehoods that Trump had peddled. In the days after the attack, several social media networks announced that they were banning Trump to prevent him from posting messages that could encourage further violence. Twitter, for instance, announced that they had 'permanently suspended [Trump's] account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.' Facebook made a similar announcement. However, Facebook said that they were banning Trump's account for an 'indefinite' period of time (not permanently) as they believed he would continue to use his account to 'undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power to his elected successor.' A few weeks later, Facebook announced that it had formed an independent Oversight Board that would review the merits of Trump's suspension: We believe our decision was necessary and right. Given its significance, we think it is important for the board to review it and reach an independent judgment on whether it should be upheld. While we await the board's decision, Mr. Trump's access will remain suspended indefinitely. We look forward to receiving the board's decision - and we hope, given the clear justification for our actions on January 7, that it will uphold the choices we made. In addition to the board's determination on whether to uphold or overturn the indefinite suspension, Facebook welcomes any observations or recommendations from the board around suspensions when the user is a political leader. On May 5, Facebook's Oversight Board announced that it upheld Facebook's initial decision to suspend Trump's account. However, the board did not state that this ban should be permanent. Rather, the board said that it was 'not appropriate' for Facebook to suspend Trump's account for an indefinite period of time and gave Facebook six months to determine if Trump's account should be permanently banned. The Facebook Oversight Board wrote: The Board has upheld Facebook's decision on January 7, 2021, to restrict then-President Donald Trump's access to posting content on his Facebook page and Instagram account. However, it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension. Facebook's normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account. The Board insists that Facebook review this matter to determine and justify a proportionate response that is consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform. Facebook must complete its review of this matter within six months of the date of this decision. The Board also made policy recommendations for Facebook to implement in developing clear, necessary, and proportionate policies that promote public safety and respect freedom of expression. In other words, while Trump is still banned from Facebook, that could change (or could be made permanent) within six months. | nan | [] |
Former U.S. President Donald Trump was banned for life from Facebook in May 2021. | Neutral | On May 5, 2021, the Facebook Oversight Board announced that it had made a decision regarding former U.S. President Donald Trump's ban from the social network. As this news circulated, many people rushed to social media (and television) with incorrect statements about the board's decision. On Fox News, for example, a chyron briefly appeared that stated: 'Facebook Oversight Board Bans Trump for Life.' The Twitter account for Newsmax also posted a message stating that 'Facebook has decided to permanently ban former President Donald Trump from its platform.' But Trump has not been banned for life from Facebook. Yet. On Jan 6. 2021, a violent mob stormed the Capitol in an attempt to delay the certification of President Joe Biden's electoral victory spurred on in part by the multitude of election falsehoods that Trump had peddled. In the days after the attack, several social media networks announced that they were banning Trump to prevent him from posting messages that could encourage further violence. Twitter, for instance, announced that they had 'permanently suspended [Trump's] account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.' Facebook made a similar announcement. However, Facebook said that they were banning Trump's account for an 'indefinite' period of time (not permanently) as they believed he would continue to use his account to 'undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power to his elected successor.' A few weeks later, Facebook announced that it had formed an independent Oversight Board that would review the merits of Trump's suspension: We believe our decision was necessary and right. Given its significance, we think it is important for the board to review it and reach an independent judgment on whether it should be upheld. While we await the board's decision, Mr. Trump's access will remain suspended indefinitely. We look forward to receiving the board's decision - and we hope, given the clear justification for our actions on January 7, that it will uphold the choices we made. In addition to the board's determination on whether to uphold or overturn the indefinite suspension, Facebook welcomes any observations or recommendations from the board around suspensions when the user is a political leader. On May 5, Facebook's Oversight Board announced that it upheld Facebook's initial decision to suspend Trump's account. However, the board did not state that this ban should be permanent. Rather, the board said that it was 'not appropriate' for Facebook to suspend Trump's account for an indefinite period of time and gave Facebook six months to determine if Trump's account should be permanently banned. The Facebook Oversight Board wrote: The Board has upheld Facebook's decision on January 7, 2021, to restrict then-President Donald Trump's access to posting content on his Facebook page and Instagram account. However, it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose the indeterminate and standardless penalty of indefinite suspension. Facebook's normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account. The Board insists that Facebook review this matter to determine and justify a proportionate response that is consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform. Facebook must complete its review of this matter within six months of the date of this decision. The Board also made policy recommendations for Facebook to implement in developing clear, necessary, and proportionate policies that promote public safety and respect freedom of expression. In other words, while Trump is still banned from Facebook, that could change (or could be made permanent) within six months. | nan | [] |
Watching horror movies increases calorie consumption and reduces the risk of obesity. | Neutral | For several years running, the internet was abuzz over a 2012 medical study supposedly showing that the average adult burns as many calories while watching a scary movie as he or she would during a 30-minute walk - and the scarier the movie, the more calories burned. Some even go so far as to say that watching horror movies reduces one's risk of obesity. Is there anything to these claims? Is watching horror movies a good weight-loss strategy? The timing of the release of the findings offers a clue: Halloween. According to a 28 October 2012 report in The Telegraph, the study was commissioned by the UK movie rental service LoveFilm (since acquired by Amazon) and was publicized just before the spooky holiday with the clear aim of beefing up video sales. It doesn't appear that the study was ever peer-reviewed, or published, or even meant to be published. That having been said, the research was conducted at an actual medical institution, the University of Westminster in London, and supervised by an actual specialist in cell metabolism and physiology, Dr. Richard Mackenzie. The Telegraph summarized its methodology and findings as follows: The University of Westminster study measured the total energy expenditure of ten different people as they watched a selection of frightening movies. Scientists recorded their heart rate, oxygen intake and carbon dioxide output - and discovered the number of calories used increased by an average a third during the films. The research also revealed films featuring moments designed to make viewers jump in terror are the best calorie-burners, as they cause heart rates to soar. Dr. Richard Mackenzie, senior lecturer and specialist in cell metabolism and physiology at the University of Westminster, said: 'Each of the ten films tested set pulses racing, sparking an increase in the heart rate of the case studies. 'As the pulse quickens and blood pumps around the body faster, the body experiences a surge in adrenaline. 'It is this release of fast acting adrenaline, produced during short bursts of intense stress (or in this case, brought on by fear), which is known to lower the appetite, increase the Basal Metabolic Rate and ultimately burn a higher level of calories.' Two things to note are the very small sample size (just 10 people) and the narrow scope of the study, which only measured participants' metabolism in real time and did not track actual weight loss over an extended period or compare the efficacy of weight loss methods. Moreover, the number of calories allegedly burned while viewing horror films simply isn't that large or impressive. 'The movie top of the list of calorie-burners was found to be the 1980 psychological thriller The Shining, with the average viewer using up a whopping 184 calories,' The Telegraph reported. 'Jaws took the runner-up spot, with viewers burning on average 161 calories, and The Exorcist came third, with 158 calories.' But some of the other films shown to participants - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, to name one - burned as few as 107. According to a popular fitness and weight-loss website, a 150-pound person burns that many calories just sitting still for 90 minutes (the average length of a feature film). So, while the 2012 study does suggest, based on very slight evidence, that some people might burn a few more calories passively watching a horror film than sitting still for 90 minutes, the research was conducted for publicity purposes and ought not to be taken terribly seriously. People with a sincere interest in losing weight are better advised to consult a physician and develop an appropriate weight-loss plan. | nan | [
"04145-proof-10-nightmare.jpg"
] |
Man-made, radioactive 'diamond batteries' are capable of providing thousands of years of energy without a charge. | Neutral | In February 2017, the World Economic Forum's 'Futurism' column reported on a lecture given by University of Bristol materials engineering professor Tom Scott. As part of the university's Cabot Institute's annual 'Ideas to Change the World' lecture series, Scott spoke in generally theoretical terms about the potential to turn a specific part of nuclear waste into a radioactive diamond which could then be used as a source of energy. In this talk, titled 'Diamonds Are Forever', Scott spoke optimistically about the prospect of solving two problems at once: The buildup of undisposable radioactive graphite used in containers that store spent nuclear fuel, and the need for a long-lasting source of constant energy. The solution could lie in 'deliberately radioactive' diamonds made from carbon found and extracted from the this graphite casing, as described in Scott's lecture: [The reactors in the UK], instead of using water, [...] use gas. We use carbon dioxide gas in a sealed vessel which we cycle round and around and that never leaves the reactor core. [...] We use that graphite [in that reactor core as well] because it slows down the particles which are coming out of the nuclear fuel and that makes the heat transfer more efficient, but what that means in the UK, because we have been running for 60 years with dozens of nuclear reactors, is we've accumulated a lot of interesting nuclear waste. [...] Some of the graphite becomes radioactive. In fact, what happens is it gains some mass. It gains particles and it turns into radioactive carbon 14. [...] What if we do something really useful with the radioactive carbon 14? What if instead of using normal carbon to make our diamonds, we use radioactive carbon and we form the world's first highly and deliberately radioactive diamond? Diamonds, by their nature, are made up entirely of carbon, and take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form naturally. That means that they would never naturally contain any of this radioactive carbon, which has a half life of more than 5,000 years. The prospect of radioactive diamonds, however, raises interesting possibilities for energy generation. That is because carbon-14 emits beta radiation, which in this case simply means it that it puts out high-energy electrons as it decays. Since the 1970s, beta radiation (which does not travel far through air and is therefore relatively safe compared to other forms of radiation) has been investigated as a possible source of energy through the production of what are known as betavoltaic cells. A 1973 paper described the topic as follows: The basic entity in a betavoltaic power source consists of a beta-emitting material coupled to a junction device [...]. The current source is due to collection of electron-hole pairs generated by high energy beta particles. In other words, as individual carbon atoms making up the diamond matrix lose electrons, certain regions with missing electrons (electron holes) would carry a net positive charge than surrounding areas. One could theoretically exploit this to maintain a current of electricity that lasts as long as the carbon-14 is decaying - a process that would take many thousands of years. The specific concept of a diamond battery exploiting these process is, for the most part, theoretical. The concept's individual components - synthetic diamonds and betavoltaic cells - are already a reality, however. Betavoltaic cells which utilized the radioactive elements promethium or plutonium were once a common energy source for pacemakers, prior to the advent of lithium-ion batteries. Today, many betavoltaic systems are employed in applications where a constant supply of low power energy that can also withstand harsh environments are beneficial, according to a 2014 review of the technology: Betavoltaic power sources can potentially replace conventional chemical batteries in many low-power applications, since they can also operate well in extreme environmental conditions. Betavoltaics find application in present-day micro-electromechanical and electronic devices, implantable biomedical prosthetic devices, and in the military intelligence applications. Synthetic diamonds have been a reality for some time as well, and are increasingly common. In his lecture, Scott says: 'We can grow diamonds, and we do that every day of the week.' That process, known as chemical vapor deposition, occurs at high temperatures but (unlike real diamond formation) at low pressure. The process has become increasingly refined and perfected over the years, per a 2009 review on the topic: Growth of diamond by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) has become a well-established field over the last three decades. CVD diamond materials range in grain size from ultrananocrystalline and nanocrystalline films, through polycrystalline plates and wafers, to large single crystals. The benefit to using a diamond (which is, by definition, made up of carbon atoms) to create a betavoltaic cell is threefold. First, it is the hardest material on the planet, and as such will not break apart as its decay continues (or through any other physical mechanism). Second, diamonds are superconductors that readily carry a current. And third, according to Scott, their diamond-making process makes it possible to encase the radioactive carbon-14 diamond with a thin layer of regular diamond made from carbon-12, thus confining its radiation and amplifying its output: The one thing we can do with that diamond and we need to do to make the technology work is actually we sandwich it in normal diamond. The reason for that is the normal diamond will not only shield that radiation and not let it out but it also increases the efficiency of the energy generation. By making that sandwich, we have the radioactive carbon 14 on the inside of the sandwich and the normal carbon 12 on the outside of that sandwich and hooking it up to our electrodes, we have our tiny little diamond device. A final benefit would be that, in theory, the removal of large amounts of carbon-14 from the graphite in these holding containers would make disposing of that material much cheaper. This idea, as neat and as flashy as it sounds, is, as best we can tell, still entirely theoretical. At the time of his lecture, Scott said they have developed a prototype battery, but this was made using nickel-63 as the radiation source and is therefore not a diamond, and also was not harvested from nuclear waste. Since then, Scott tells us, he and his team have created a prototype synthetic diamond that uses a combination of carbon-14 and bits of tritium (a form of radioactive hydrogen) as the source of beta-radiation. 'Some devices will have just 14C and others will have tritium and beryllium as additional beta emitting radioisotopes,' he told us via email. So far their work has remained private, however. 'We have filed patents in the US and the UK and a number of publications and demonstrations will shortly be forthcoming.' It also bears mentioning that, while the total output of energy from this theoretical battery would far exceed the length of time that modern agriculture has thus far existed, it would likely have fairly limited applications, according to the researcher's press release: The actual amount of carbon-14 in each battery has yet to be decided but one battery, containing 1g of carbon-14, would deliver 15 Joules per day. This is less than an AA battery. Standard alkaline AA batteries are designed for short timeframe discharge: one battery weighing about 20g has an energy storage rating of 700J/g. If operated continuously, this would run out in 24 hours. Using carbon-14 the battery would take 5,730 years to reach 50 per cent power, which is about as long as human civilization has existed. However, it is unlikely that the diamond battery will provide direct power to an attached device. More likely is that it will be associated with a capacitor that will be 'trickle charged' by the battery and then discharge at set intervals, to power devices at set intervals or to continually power low draw devices. The science discussed in Scott's 'Diamonds Are Forever' lecture is valid, and rests on decades of research into both betavoltaic systems and synthetic diamond production. However, as such a battery has yet to be made, and because its applications would in all likelihood be somewhat limited, we rank any claim that suggests this technology is a reality now as a mixture.Recent Updates Updated [29 September 2017]: Added statements and information provided by Tom Scott via email. | nan | [
"04165-proof-02-diamond_battery_fb.jpg"
] |
Man-made, radioactive 'diamond batteries' are capable of providing thousands of years of energy without a charge. | Neutral | In February 2017, the World Economic Forum's 'Futurism' column reported on a lecture given by University of Bristol materials engineering professor Tom Scott. As part of the university's Cabot Institute's annual 'Ideas to Change the World' lecture series, Scott spoke in generally theoretical terms about the potential to turn a specific part of nuclear waste into a radioactive diamond which could then be used as a source of energy. In this talk, titled 'Diamonds Are Forever', Scott spoke optimistically about the prospect of solving two problems at once: The buildup of undisposable radioactive graphite used in containers that store spent nuclear fuel, and the need for a long-lasting source of constant energy. The solution could lie in 'deliberately radioactive' diamonds made from carbon found and extracted from the this graphite casing, as described in Scott's lecture: [The reactors in the UK], instead of using water, [...] use gas. We use carbon dioxide gas in a sealed vessel which we cycle round and around and that never leaves the reactor core. [...] We use that graphite [in that reactor core as well] because it slows down the particles which are coming out of the nuclear fuel and that makes the heat transfer more efficient, but what that means in the UK, because we have been running for 60 years with dozens of nuclear reactors, is we've accumulated a lot of interesting nuclear waste. [...] Some of the graphite becomes radioactive. In fact, what happens is it gains some mass. It gains particles and it turns into radioactive carbon 14. [...] What if we do something really useful with the radioactive carbon 14? What if instead of using normal carbon to make our diamonds, we use radioactive carbon and we form the world's first highly and deliberately radioactive diamond? Diamonds, by their nature, are made up entirely of carbon, and take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form naturally. That means that they would never naturally contain any of this radioactive carbon, which has a half life of more than 5,000 years. The prospect of radioactive diamonds, however, raises interesting possibilities for energy generation. That is because carbon-14 emits beta radiation, which in this case simply means it that it puts out high-energy electrons as it decays. Since the 1970s, beta radiation (which does not travel far through air and is therefore relatively safe compared to other forms of radiation) has been investigated as a possible source of energy through the production of what are known as betavoltaic cells. A 1973 paper described the topic as follows: The basic entity in a betavoltaic power source consists of a beta-emitting material coupled to a junction device [...]. The current source is due to collection of electron-hole pairs generated by high energy beta particles. In other words, as individual carbon atoms making up the diamond matrix lose electrons, certain regions with missing electrons (electron holes) would carry a net positive charge than surrounding areas. One could theoretically exploit this to maintain a current of electricity that lasts as long as the carbon-14 is decaying - a process that would take many thousands of years. The specific concept of a diamond battery exploiting these process is, for the most part, theoretical. The concept's individual components - synthetic diamonds and betavoltaic cells - are already a reality, however. Betavoltaic cells which utilized the radioactive elements promethium or plutonium were once a common energy source for pacemakers, prior to the advent of lithium-ion batteries. Today, many betavoltaic systems are employed in applications where a constant supply of low power energy that can also withstand harsh environments are beneficial, according to a 2014 review of the technology: Betavoltaic power sources can potentially replace conventional chemical batteries in many low-power applications, since they can also operate well in extreme environmental conditions. Betavoltaics find application in present-day micro-electromechanical and electronic devices, implantable biomedical prosthetic devices, and in the military intelligence applications. Synthetic diamonds have been a reality for some time as well, and are increasingly common. In his lecture, Scott says: 'We can grow diamonds, and we do that every day of the week.' That process, known as chemical vapor deposition, occurs at high temperatures but (unlike real diamond formation) at low pressure. The process has become increasingly refined and perfected over the years, per a 2009 review on the topic: Growth of diamond by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) has become a well-established field over the last three decades. CVD diamond materials range in grain size from ultrananocrystalline and nanocrystalline films, through polycrystalline plates and wafers, to large single crystals. The benefit to using a diamond (which is, by definition, made up of carbon atoms) to create a betavoltaic cell is threefold. First, it is the hardest material on the planet, and as such will not break apart as its decay continues (or through any other physical mechanism). Second, diamonds are superconductors that readily carry a current. And third, according to Scott, their diamond-making process makes it possible to encase the radioactive carbon-14 diamond with a thin layer of regular diamond made from carbon-12, thus confining its radiation and amplifying its output: The one thing we can do with that diamond and we need to do to make the technology work is actually we sandwich it in normal diamond. The reason for that is the normal diamond will not only shield that radiation and not let it out but it also increases the efficiency of the energy generation. By making that sandwich, we have the radioactive carbon 14 on the inside of the sandwich and the normal carbon 12 on the outside of that sandwich and hooking it up to our electrodes, we have our tiny little diamond device. A final benefit would be that, in theory, the removal of large amounts of carbon-14 from the graphite in these holding containers would make disposing of that material much cheaper. This idea, as neat and as flashy as it sounds, is, as best we can tell, still entirely theoretical. At the time of his lecture, Scott said they have developed a prototype battery, but this was made using nickel-63 as the radiation source and is therefore not a diamond, and also was not harvested from nuclear waste. Since then, Scott tells us, he and his team have created a prototype synthetic diamond that uses a combination of carbon-14 and bits of tritium (a form of radioactive hydrogen) as the source of beta-radiation. 'Some devices will have just 14C and others will have tritium and beryllium as additional beta emitting radioisotopes,' he told us via email. So far their work has remained private, however. 'We have filed patents in the US and the UK and a number of publications and demonstrations will shortly be forthcoming.' It also bears mentioning that, while the total output of energy from this theoretical battery would far exceed the length of time that modern agriculture has thus far existed, it would likely have fairly limited applications, according to the researcher's press release: The actual amount of carbon-14 in each battery has yet to be decided but one battery, containing 1g of carbon-14, would deliver 15 Joules per day. This is less than an AA battery. Standard alkaline AA batteries are designed for short timeframe discharge: one battery weighing about 20g has an energy storage rating of 700J/g. If operated continuously, this would run out in 24 hours. Using carbon-14 the battery would take 5,730 years to reach 50 per cent power, which is about as long as human civilization has existed. However, it is unlikely that the diamond battery will provide direct power to an attached device. More likely is that it will be associated with a capacitor that will be 'trickle charged' by the battery and then discharge at set intervals, to power devices at set intervals or to continually power low draw devices. The science discussed in Scott's 'Diamonds Are Forever' lecture is valid, and rests on decades of research into both betavoltaic systems and synthetic diamond production. However, as such a battery has yet to be made, and because its applications would in all likelihood be somewhat limited, we rank any claim that suggests this technology is a reality now as a mixture.Recent Updates Updated [29 September 2017]: Added statements and information provided by Tom Scott via email. | nan | [
"04165-proof-02-diamond_battery_fb.jpg"
] |
Man-made, radioactive 'diamond batteries' are capable of providing thousands of years of energy without a charge. | Neutral | In February 2017, the World Economic Forum's 'Futurism' column reported on a lecture given by University of Bristol materials engineering professor Tom Scott. As part of the university's Cabot Institute's annual 'Ideas to Change the World' lecture series, Scott spoke in generally theoretical terms about the potential to turn a specific part of nuclear waste into a radioactive diamond which could then be used as a source of energy. In this talk, titled 'Diamonds Are Forever', Scott spoke optimistically about the prospect of solving two problems at once: The buildup of undisposable radioactive graphite used in containers that store spent nuclear fuel, and the need for a long-lasting source of constant energy. The solution could lie in 'deliberately radioactive' diamonds made from carbon found and extracted from the this graphite casing, as described in Scott's lecture: [The reactors in the UK], instead of using water, [...] use gas. We use carbon dioxide gas in a sealed vessel which we cycle round and around and that never leaves the reactor core. [...] We use that graphite [in that reactor core as well] because it slows down the particles which are coming out of the nuclear fuel and that makes the heat transfer more efficient, but what that means in the UK, because we have been running for 60 years with dozens of nuclear reactors, is we've accumulated a lot of interesting nuclear waste. [...] Some of the graphite becomes radioactive. In fact, what happens is it gains some mass. It gains particles and it turns into radioactive carbon 14. [...] What if we do something really useful with the radioactive carbon 14? What if instead of using normal carbon to make our diamonds, we use radioactive carbon and we form the world's first highly and deliberately radioactive diamond? Diamonds, by their nature, are made up entirely of carbon, and take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form naturally. That means that they would never naturally contain any of this radioactive carbon, which has a half life of more than 5,000 years. The prospect of radioactive diamonds, however, raises interesting possibilities for energy generation. That is because carbon-14 emits beta radiation, which in this case simply means it that it puts out high-energy electrons as it decays. Since the 1970s, beta radiation (which does not travel far through air and is therefore relatively safe compared to other forms of radiation) has been investigated as a possible source of energy through the production of what are known as betavoltaic cells. A 1973 paper described the topic as follows: The basic entity in a betavoltaic power source consists of a beta-emitting material coupled to a junction device [...]. The current source is due to collection of electron-hole pairs generated by high energy beta particles. In other words, as individual carbon atoms making up the diamond matrix lose electrons, certain regions with missing electrons (electron holes) would carry a net positive charge than surrounding areas. One could theoretically exploit this to maintain a current of electricity that lasts as long as the carbon-14 is decaying - a process that would take many thousands of years. The specific concept of a diamond battery exploiting these process is, for the most part, theoretical. The concept's individual components - synthetic diamonds and betavoltaic cells - are already a reality, however. Betavoltaic cells which utilized the radioactive elements promethium or plutonium were once a common energy source for pacemakers, prior to the advent of lithium-ion batteries. Today, many betavoltaic systems are employed in applications where a constant supply of low power energy that can also withstand harsh environments are beneficial, according to a 2014 review of the technology: Betavoltaic power sources can potentially replace conventional chemical batteries in many low-power applications, since they can also operate well in extreme environmental conditions. Betavoltaics find application in present-day micro-electromechanical and electronic devices, implantable biomedical prosthetic devices, and in the military intelligence applications. Synthetic diamonds have been a reality for some time as well, and are increasingly common. In his lecture, Scott says: 'We can grow diamonds, and we do that every day of the week.' That process, known as chemical vapor deposition, occurs at high temperatures but (unlike real diamond formation) at low pressure. The process has become increasingly refined and perfected over the years, per a 2009 review on the topic: Growth of diamond by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) has become a well-established field over the last three decades. CVD diamond materials range in grain size from ultrananocrystalline and nanocrystalline films, through polycrystalline plates and wafers, to large single crystals. The benefit to using a diamond (which is, by definition, made up of carbon atoms) to create a betavoltaic cell is threefold. First, it is the hardest material on the planet, and as such will not break apart as its decay continues (or through any other physical mechanism). Second, diamonds are superconductors that readily carry a current. And third, according to Scott, their diamond-making process makes it possible to encase the radioactive carbon-14 diamond with a thin layer of regular diamond made from carbon-12, thus confining its radiation and amplifying its output: The one thing we can do with that diamond and we need to do to make the technology work is actually we sandwich it in normal diamond. The reason for that is the normal diamond will not only shield that radiation and not let it out but it also increases the efficiency of the energy generation. By making that sandwich, we have the radioactive carbon 14 on the inside of the sandwich and the normal carbon 12 on the outside of that sandwich and hooking it up to our electrodes, we have our tiny little diamond device. A final benefit would be that, in theory, the removal of large amounts of carbon-14 from the graphite in these holding containers would make disposing of that material much cheaper. This idea, as neat and as flashy as it sounds, is, as best we can tell, still entirely theoretical. At the time of his lecture, Scott said they have developed a prototype battery, but this was made using nickel-63 as the radiation source and is therefore not a diamond, and also was not harvested from nuclear waste. Since then, Scott tells us, he and his team have created a prototype synthetic diamond that uses a combination of carbon-14 and bits of tritium (a form of radioactive hydrogen) as the source of beta-radiation. 'Some devices will have just 14C and others will have tritium and beryllium as additional beta emitting radioisotopes,' he told us via email. So far their work has remained private, however. 'We have filed patents in the US and the UK and a number of publications and demonstrations will shortly be forthcoming.' It also bears mentioning that, while the total output of energy from this theoretical battery would far exceed the length of time that modern agriculture has thus far existed, it would likely have fairly limited applications, according to the researcher's press release: The actual amount of carbon-14 in each battery has yet to be decided but one battery, containing 1g of carbon-14, would deliver 15 Joules per day. This is less than an AA battery. Standard alkaline AA batteries are designed for short timeframe discharge: one battery weighing about 20g has an energy storage rating of 700J/g. If operated continuously, this would run out in 24 hours. Using carbon-14 the battery would take 5,730 years to reach 50 per cent power, which is about as long as human civilization has existed. However, it is unlikely that the diamond battery will provide direct power to an attached device. More likely is that it will be associated with a capacitor that will be 'trickle charged' by the battery and then discharge at set intervals, to power devices at set intervals or to continually power low draw devices. The science discussed in Scott's 'Diamonds Are Forever' lecture is valid, and rests on decades of research into both betavoltaic systems and synthetic diamond production. However, as such a battery has yet to be made, and because its applications would in all likelihood be somewhat limited, we rank any claim that suggests this technology is a reality now as a mixture.Recent Updates Updated [29 September 2017]: Added statements and information provided by Tom Scott via email. | nan | [
"04165-proof-02-diamond_battery_fb.jpg"
] |
Man-made, radioactive 'diamond batteries' are capable of providing thousands of years of energy without a charge. | Neutral | In February 2017, the World Economic Forum's 'Futurism' column reported on a lecture given by University of Bristol materials engineering professor Tom Scott. As part of the university's Cabot Institute's annual 'Ideas to Change the World' lecture series, Scott spoke in generally theoretical terms about the potential to turn a specific part of nuclear waste into a radioactive diamond which could then be used as a source of energy. In this talk, titled 'Diamonds Are Forever', Scott spoke optimistically about the prospect of solving two problems at once: The buildup of undisposable radioactive graphite used in containers that store spent nuclear fuel, and the need for a long-lasting source of constant energy. The solution could lie in 'deliberately radioactive' diamonds made from carbon found and extracted from the this graphite casing, as described in Scott's lecture: [The reactors in the UK], instead of using water, [...] use gas. We use carbon dioxide gas in a sealed vessel which we cycle round and around and that never leaves the reactor core. [...] We use that graphite [in that reactor core as well] because it slows down the particles which are coming out of the nuclear fuel and that makes the heat transfer more efficient, but what that means in the UK, because we have been running for 60 years with dozens of nuclear reactors, is we've accumulated a lot of interesting nuclear waste. [...] Some of the graphite becomes radioactive. In fact, what happens is it gains some mass. It gains particles and it turns into radioactive carbon 14. [...] What if we do something really useful with the radioactive carbon 14? What if instead of using normal carbon to make our diamonds, we use radioactive carbon and we form the world's first highly and deliberately radioactive diamond? Diamonds, by their nature, are made up entirely of carbon, and take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form naturally. That means that they would never naturally contain any of this radioactive carbon, which has a half life of more than 5,000 years. The prospect of radioactive diamonds, however, raises interesting possibilities for energy generation. That is because carbon-14 emits beta radiation, which in this case simply means it that it puts out high-energy electrons as it decays. Since the 1970s, beta radiation (which does not travel far through air and is therefore relatively safe compared to other forms of radiation) has been investigated as a possible source of energy through the production of what are known as betavoltaic cells. A 1973 paper described the topic as follows: The basic entity in a betavoltaic power source consists of a beta-emitting material coupled to a junction device [...]. The current source is due to collection of electron-hole pairs generated by high energy beta particles. In other words, as individual carbon atoms making up the diamond matrix lose electrons, certain regions with missing electrons (electron holes) would carry a net positive charge than surrounding areas. One could theoretically exploit this to maintain a current of electricity that lasts as long as the carbon-14 is decaying - a process that would take many thousands of years. The specific concept of a diamond battery exploiting these process is, for the most part, theoretical. The concept's individual components - synthetic diamonds and betavoltaic cells - are already a reality, however. Betavoltaic cells which utilized the radioactive elements promethium or plutonium were once a common energy source for pacemakers, prior to the advent of lithium-ion batteries. Today, many betavoltaic systems are employed in applications where a constant supply of low power energy that can also withstand harsh environments are beneficial, according to a 2014 review of the technology: Betavoltaic power sources can potentially replace conventional chemical batteries in many low-power applications, since they can also operate well in extreme environmental conditions. Betavoltaics find application in present-day micro-electromechanical and electronic devices, implantable biomedical prosthetic devices, and in the military intelligence applications. Synthetic diamonds have been a reality for some time as well, and are increasingly common. In his lecture, Scott says: 'We can grow diamonds, and we do that every day of the week.' That process, known as chemical vapor deposition, occurs at high temperatures but (unlike real diamond formation) at low pressure. The process has become increasingly refined and perfected over the years, per a 2009 review on the topic: Growth of diamond by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) has become a well-established field over the last three decades. CVD diamond materials range in grain size from ultrananocrystalline and nanocrystalline films, through polycrystalline plates and wafers, to large single crystals. The benefit to using a diamond (which is, by definition, made up of carbon atoms) to create a betavoltaic cell is threefold. First, it is the hardest material on the planet, and as such will not break apart as its decay continues (or through any other physical mechanism). Second, diamonds are superconductors that readily carry a current. And third, according to Scott, their diamond-making process makes it possible to encase the radioactive carbon-14 diamond with a thin layer of regular diamond made from carbon-12, thus confining its radiation and amplifying its output: The one thing we can do with that diamond and we need to do to make the technology work is actually we sandwich it in normal diamond. The reason for that is the normal diamond will not only shield that radiation and not let it out but it also increases the efficiency of the energy generation. By making that sandwich, we have the radioactive carbon 14 on the inside of the sandwich and the normal carbon 12 on the outside of that sandwich and hooking it up to our electrodes, we have our tiny little diamond device. A final benefit would be that, in theory, the removal of large amounts of carbon-14 from the graphite in these holding containers would make disposing of that material much cheaper. This idea, as neat and as flashy as it sounds, is, as best we can tell, still entirely theoretical. At the time of his lecture, Scott said they have developed a prototype battery, but this was made using nickel-63 as the radiation source and is therefore not a diamond, and also was not harvested from nuclear waste. Since then, Scott tells us, he and his team have created a prototype synthetic diamond that uses a combination of carbon-14 and bits of tritium (a form of radioactive hydrogen) as the source of beta-radiation. 'Some devices will have just 14C and others will have tritium and beryllium as additional beta emitting radioisotopes,' he told us via email. So far their work has remained private, however. 'We have filed patents in the US and the UK and a number of publications and demonstrations will shortly be forthcoming.' It also bears mentioning that, while the total output of energy from this theoretical battery would far exceed the length of time that modern agriculture has thus far existed, it would likely have fairly limited applications, according to the researcher's press release: The actual amount of carbon-14 in each battery has yet to be decided but one battery, containing 1g of carbon-14, would deliver 15 Joules per day. This is less than an AA battery. Standard alkaline AA batteries are designed for short timeframe discharge: one battery weighing about 20g has an energy storage rating of 700J/g. If operated continuously, this would run out in 24 hours. Using carbon-14 the battery would take 5,730 years to reach 50 per cent power, which is about as long as human civilization has existed. However, it is unlikely that the diamond battery will provide direct power to an attached device. More likely is that it will be associated with a capacitor that will be 'trickle charged' by the battery and then discharge at set intervals, to power devices at set intervals or to continually power low draw devices. The science discussed in Scott's 'Diamonds Are Forever' lecture is valid, and rests on decades of research into both betavoltaic systems and synthetic diamond production. However, as such a battery has yet to be made, and because its applications would in all likelihood be somewhat limited, we rank any claim that suggests this technology is a reality now as a mixture.Recent Updates Updated [29 September 2017]: Added statements and information provided by Tom Scott via email. | nan | [
"04165-proof-02-diamond_battery_fb.jpg"
] |
Man-made, radioactive 'diamond batteries' are capable of providing thousands of years of energy without a charge. | Neutral | In February 2017, the World Economic Forum's 'Futurism' column reported on a lecture given by University of Bristol materials engineering professor Tom Scott. As part of the university's Cabot Institute's annual 'Ideas to Change the World' lecture series, Scott spoke in generally theoretical terms about the potential to turn a specific part of nuclear waste into a radioactive diamond which could then be used as a source of energy. In this talk, titled 'Diamonds Are Forever', Scott spoke optimistically about the prospect of solving two problems at once: The buildup of undisposable radioactive graphite used in containers that store spent nuclear fuel, and the need for a long-lasting source of constant energy. The solution could lie in 'deliberately radioactive' diamonds made from carbon found and extracted from the this graphite casing, as described in Scott's lecture: [The reactors in the UK], instead of using water, [...] use gas. We use carbon dioxide gas in a sealed vessel which we cycle round and around and that never leaves the reactor core. [...] We use that graphite [in that reactor core as well] because it slows down the particles which are coming out of the nuclear fuel and that makes the heat transfer more efficient, but what that means in the UK, because we have been running for 60 years with dozens of nuclear reactors, is we've accumulated a lot of interesting nuclear waste. [...] Some of the graphite becomes radioactive. In fact, what happens is it gains some mass. It gains particles and it turns into radioactive carbon 14. [...] What if we do something really useful with the radioactive carbon 14? What if instead of using normal carbon to make our diamonds, we use radioactive carbon and we form the world's first highly and deliberately radioactive diamond? Diamonds, by their nature, are made up entirely of carbon, and take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form naturally. That means that they would never naturally contain any of this radioactive carbon, which has a half life of more than 5,000 years. The prospect of radioactive diamonds, however, raises interesting possibilities for energy generation. That is because carbon-14 emits beta radiation, which in this case simply means it that it puts out high-energy electrons as it decays. Since the 1970s, beta radiation (which does not travel far through air and is therefore relatively safe compared to other forms of radiation) has been investigated as a possible source of energy through the production of what are known as betavoltaic cells. A 1973 paper described the topic as follows: The basic entity in a betavoltaic power source consists of a beta-emitting material coupled to a junction device [...]. The current source is due to collection of electron-hole pairs generated by high energy beta particles. In other words, as individual carbon atoms making up the diamond matrix lose electrons, certain regions with missing electrons (electron holes) would carry a net positive charge than surrounding areas. One could theoretically exploit this to maintain a current of electricity that lasts as long as the carbon-14 is decaying - a process that would take many thousands of years. The specific concept of a diamond battery exploiting these process is, for the most part, theoretical. The concept's individual components - synthetic diamonds and betavoltaic cells - are already a reality, however. Betavoltaic cells which utilized the radioactive elements promethium or plutonium were once a common energy source for pacemakers, prior to the advent of lithium-ion batteries. Today, many betavoltaic systems are employed in applications where a constant supply of low power energy that can also withstand harsh environments are beneficial, according to a 2014 review of the technology: Betavoltaic power sources can potentially replace conventional chemical batteries in many low-power applications, since they can also operate well in extreme environmental conditions. Betavoltaics find application in present-day micro-electromechanical and electronic devices, implantable biomedical prosthetic devices, and in the military intelligence applications. Synthetic diamonds have been a reality for some time as well, and are increasingly common. In his lecture, Scott says: 'We can grow diamonds, and we do that every day of the week.' That process, known as chemical vapor deposition, occurs at high temperatures but (unlike real diamond formation) at low pressure. The process has become increasingly refined and perfected over the years, per a 2009 review on the topic: Growth of diamond by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) has become a well-established field over the last three decades. CVD diamond materials range in grain size from ultrananocrystalline and nanocrystalline films, through polycrystalline plates and wafers, to large single crystals. The benefit to using a diamond (which is, by definition, made up of carbon atoms) to create a betavoltaic cell is threefold. First, it is the hardest material on the planet, and as such will not break apart as its decay continues (or through any other physical mechanism). Second, diamonds are superconductors that readily carry a current. And third, according to Scott, their diamond-making process makes it possible to encase the radioactive carbon-14 diamond with a thin layer of regular diamond made from carbon-12, thus confining its radiation and amplifying its output: The one thing we can do with that diamond and we need to do to make the technology work is actually we sandwich it in normal diamond. The reason for that is the normal diamond will not only shield that radiation and not let it out but it also increases the efficiency of the energy generation. By making that sandwich, we have the radioactive carbon 14 on the inside of the sandwich and the normal carbon 12 on the outside of that sandwich and hooking it up to our electrodes, we have our tiny little diamond device. A final benefit would be that, in theory, the removal of large amounts of carbon-14 from the graphite in these holding containers would make disposing of that material much cheaper. This idea, as neat and as flashy as it sounds, is, as best we can tell, still entirely theoretical. At the time of his lecture, Scott said they have developed a prototype battery, but this was made using nickel-63 as the radiation source and is therefore not a diamond, and also was not harvested from nuclear waste. Since then, Scott tells us, he and his team have created a prototype synthetic diamond that uses a combination of carbon-14 and bits of tritium (a form of radioactive hydrogen) as the source of beta-radiation. 'Some devices will have just 14C and others will have tritium and beryllium as additional beta emitting radioisotopes,' he told us via email. So far their work has remained private, however. 'We have filed patents in the US and the UK and a number of publications and demonstrations will shortly be forthcoming.' It also bears mentioning that, while the total output of energy from this theoretical battery would far exceed the length of time that modern agriculture has thus far existed, it would likely have fairly limited applications, according to the researcher's press release: The actual amount of carbon-14 in each battery has yet to be decided but one battery, containing 1g of carbon-14, would deliver 15 Joules per day. This is less than an AA battery. Standard alkaline AA batteries are designed for short timeframe discharge: one battery weighing about 20g has an energy storage rating of 700J/g. If operated continuously, this would run out in 24 hours. Using carbon-14 the battery would take 5,730 years to reach 50 per cent power, which is about as long as human civilization has existed. However, it is unlikely that the diamond battery will provide direct power to an attached device. More likely is that it will be associated with a capacitor that will be 'trickle charged' by the battery and then discharge at set intervals, to power devices at set intervals or to continually power low draw devices. The science discussed in Scott's 'Diamonds Are Forever' lecture is valid, and rests on decades of research into both betavoltaic systems and synthetic diamond production. However, as such a battery has yet to be made, and because its applications would in all likelihood be somewhat limited, we rank any claim that suggests this technology is a reality now as a mixture.Recent Updates Updated [29 September 2017]: Added statements and information provided by Tom Scott via email. | nan | [
"04165-proof-02-diamond_battery_fb.jpg"
] |
Man-made, radioactive 'diamond batteries' are capable of providing thousands of years of energy without a charge. | Neutral | In February 2017, the World Economic Forum's 'Futurism' column reported on a lecture given by University of Bristol materials engineering professor Tom Scott. As part of the university's Cabot Institute's annual 'Ideas to Change the World' lecture series, Scott spoke in generally theoretical terms about the potential to turn a specific part of nuclear waste into a radioactive diamond which could then be used as a source of energy. In this talk, titled 'Diamonds Are Forever', Scott spoke optimistically about the prospect of solving two problems at once: The buildup of undisposable radioactive graphite used in containers that store spent nuclear fuel, and the need for a long-lasting source of constant energy. The solution could lie in 'deliberately radioactive' diamonds made from carbon found and extracted from the this graphite casing, as described in Scott's lecture: [The reactors in the UK], instead of using water, [...] use gas. We use carbon dioxide gas in a sealed vessel which we cycle round and around and that never leaves the reactor core. [...] We use that graphite [in that reactor core as well] because it slows down the particles which are coming out of the nuclear fuel and that makes the heat transfer more efficient, but what that means in the UK, because we have been running for 60 years with dozens of nuclear reactors, is we've accumulated a lot of interesting nuclear waste. [...] Some of the graphite becomes radioactive. In fact, what happens is it gains some mass. It gains particles and it turns into radioactive carbon 14. [...] What if we do something really useful with the radioactive carbon 14? What if instead of using normal carbon to make our diamonds, we use radioactive carbon and we form the world's first highly and deliberately radioactive diamond? Diamonds, by their nature, are made up entirely of carbon, and take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to form naturally. That means that they would never naturally contain any of this radioactive carbon, which has a half life of more than 5,000 years. The prospect of radioactive diamonds, however, raises interesting possibilities for energy generation. That is because carbon-14 emits beta radiation, which in this case simply means it that it puts out high-energy electrons as it decays. Since the 1970s, beta radiation (which does not travel far through air and is therefore relatively safe compared to other forms of radiation) has been investigated as a possible source of energy through the production of what are known as betavoltaic cells. A 1973 paper described the topic as follows: The basic entity in a betavoltaic power source consists of a beta-emitting material coupled to a junction device [...]. The current source is due to collection of electron-hole pairs generated by high energy beta particles. In other words, as individual carbon atoms making up the diamond matrix lose electrons, certain regions with missing electrons (electron holes) would carry a net positive charge than surrounding areas. One could theoretically exploit this to maintain a current of electricity that lasts as long as the carbon-14 is decaying - a process that would take many thousands of years. The specific concept of a diamond battery exploiting these process is, for the most part, theoretical. The concept's individual components - synthetic diamonds and betavoltaic cells - are already a reality, however. Betavoltaic cells which utilized the radioactive elements promethium or plutonium were once a common energy source for pacemakers, prior to the advent of lithium-ion batteries. Today, many betavoltaic systems are employed in applications where a constant supply of low power energy that can also withstand harsh environments are beneficial, according to a 2014 review of the technology: Betavoltaic power sources can potentially replace conventional chemical batteries in many low-power applications, since they can also operate well in extreme environmental conditions. Betavoltaics find application in present-day micro-electromechanical and electronic devices, implantable biomedical prosthetic devices, and in the military intelligence applications. Synthetic diamonds have been a reality for some time as well, and are increasingly common. In his lecture, Scott says: 'We can grow diamonds, and we do that every day of the week.' That process, known as chemical vapor deposition, occurs at high temperatures but (unlike real diamond formation) at low pressure. The process has become increasingly refined and perfected over the years, per a 2009 review on the topic: Growth of diamond by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) has become a well-established field over the last three decades. CVD diamond materials range in grain size from ultrananocrystalline and nanocrystalline films, through polycrystalline plates and wafers, to large single crystals. The benefit to using a diamond (which is, by definition, made up of carbon atoms) to create a betavoltaic cell is threefold. First, it is the hardest material on the planet, and as such will not break apart as its decay continues (or through any other physical mechanism). Second, diamonds are superconductors that readily carry a current. And third, according to Scott, their diamond-making process makes it possible to encase the radioactive carbon-14 diamond with a thin layer of regular diamond made from carbon-12, thus confining its radiation and amplifying its output: The one thing we can do with that diamond and we need to do to make the technology work is actually we sandwich it in normal diamond. The reason for that is the normal diamond will not only shield that radiation and not let it out but it also increases the efficiency of the energy generation. By making that sandwich, we have the radioactive carbon 14 on the inside of the sandwich and the normal carbon 12 on the outside of that sandwich and hooking it up to our electrodes, we have our tiny little diamond device. A final benefit would be that, in theory, the removal of large amounts of carbon-14 from the graphite in these holding containers would make disposing of that material much cheaper. This idea, as neat and as flashy as it sounds, is, as best we can tell, still entirely theoretical. At the time of his lecture, Scott said they have developed a prototype battery, but this was made using nickel-63 as the radiation source and is therefore not a diamond, and also was not harvested from nuclear waste. Since then, Scott tells us, he and his team have created a prototype synthetic diamond that uses a combination of carbon-14 and bits of tritium (a form of radioactive hydrogen) as the source of beta-radiation. 'Some devices will have just 14C and others will have tritium and beryllium as additional beta emitting radioisotopes,' he told us via email. So far their work has remained private, however. 'We have filed patents in the US and the UK and a number of publications and demonstrations will shortly be forthcoming.' It also bears mentioning that, while the total output of energy from this theoretical battery would far exceed the length of time that modern agriculture has thus far existed, it would likely have fairly limited applications, according to the researcher's press release: The actual amount of carbon-14 in each battery has yet to be decided but one battery, containing 1g of carbon-14, would deliver 15 Joules per day. This is less than an AA battery. Standard alkaline AA batteries are designed for short timeframe discharge: one battery weighing about 20g has an energy storage rating of 700J/g. If operated continuously, this would run out in 24 hours. Using carbon-14 the battery would take 5,730 years to reach 50 per cent power, which is about as long as human civilization has existed. However, it is unlikely that the diamond battery will provide direct power to an attached device. More likely is that it will be associated with a capacitor that will be 'trickle charged' by the battery and then discharge at set intervals, to power devices at set intervals or to continually power low draw devices. The science discussed in Scott's 'Diamonds Are Forever' lecture is valid, and rests on decades of research into both betavoltaic systems and synthetic diamond production. However, as such a battery has yet to be made, and because its applications would in all likelihood be somewhat limited, we rank any claim that suggests this technology is a reality now as a mixture.Recent Updates Updated [29 September 2017]: Added statements and information provided by Tom Scott via email. | nan | [
"04165-proof-02-diamond_battery_fb.jpg"
] |
Facebook is removing coupon and coupon-sharing groups from their network. | Neutral | On 25 September 2014, Facebook users who frequent coupon and couponing -related communities began to report that Facebook groups devoted to sharing discount codes and coupons were being deleted en masse for unknown reasons. Blogs and groups devoted to couponing have been speculating about the Facebook coupon group deletion issue; however, not only are any potential reasons for such an action on the part of Facebook still not clear, there is no official confirmation that coupon groups have even been the subject of Facebook scrutiny at all. Since the rumor about Facebook couponing group deletions began to circulate, users from those communities have suggested that Facebook has taken action against groups in which prohibited activities are occurring. Among the violations cited in the rumors are the sale of coupons (which is often not permitted by the manufacturer), collusion to defraud through the misuse of coupons, or general information exchange about the misuse of coupons. Other shutdown reasons suggested by couponers include scammers' running rampant and selling counterfeit coupons, and the possibility of Facebook groups' being used for the purpose of commerce without a proper business page. One Facebook user suggested that the panic over couponing group deletion might be overstated, and that the fears may have stemmed from a single group deletion and not a large-scale action against coupon groups: I have not see ANY proof that this is true, just a bunch of rumors. I saw one screenshot showing that a coupon PAGE had been deleted but no groups. There's one group I'm in where two ladies sell inserts so if it's selling that they're targeting, that group should be gone, but it's not. Facebook's list of rules regarding page administration (including relevant portions regarding use of Facebook for advertising, commerce, and promotions) can be found here. | nan | [] |
Donald Trump said, 'Laziness is a trait in blacks ... I believe that. No black person will be president again any time soon. | Neutral | An Internet meme circulating in August 2016 paired two racially charged statements previously attributed separately to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump: While neither attribution was new, the conjunction of the two statements created the impression that Trump must have at some time opined that no black person would be President of the United States again any time soon because 'laziness is a trait in blacks.' There is a public record of Donald Trump's having stated, more or less, that no black person would be president again any time soon because of the poor performance of his predecessor in the White House, Barack Obama: Sadly, because president Obama has done such a poor job as president, you won't see another black president for generations! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 25, 2014 When called upon to explain the statement in a 2 August 2015 interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC News' This Week, Trump offered: TRUMP: Well, I think he's been a very poor president. I think he has done a very poor job as president. We have $18 trillion right now in debt and going up rapidly. KARL: But what did you mean? What - TRUMP: Wait a minute. The world is - we don't have victories anymore. China is killing us on trade. Mexico's killing us at the border and also killing us on trade. Mexico's doing unbelievably against us in trade. You look at what's going on with Japan. You look at what's going on with Vietnam. You look at Saudi Arabia, makes $1 billion a day and we defend them. We get nothing. KARL: I understand your critique. But why do you say that means we won't see another black president for generations? TRUMP: Because I think that he has set a very poor standard. I think that he has set a very low bar and I think it's a shame for the African American people. And by the way, he has done nothing for African Americans. You look at what's gone on with their income levels. You look at what's gone on with their youth. I thought that he would be a great cheerleader for this country. I thought he'd do a fabulous job for the African American citizens of this country. A source attributing the statement 'Laziness is a trait in blacks' to Donald Trump dates to the early 1990s. It should be noted, however, that that source was a book written by a disgruntled former employee of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, John R. O'Donnell, and neither the statement nor the sentiment behind it has been corroborated elsewhere. As one might expect, O'Donnell's account, Trumped!, paints an unflattering portrait of its subject overall but offers this anecdote specifically as evidence of Trump's low opinion of the African Americans in his employ: 'What do you think of him?' Donald asked. I said I was familiar with his abilities, and he had shortcomings. 'To be honest, I don't think he's the best we can have,' I said. 'I'd like to see him either come up to speed, where he can help me a lot more, or maybe there's something else he can do.' Instantly, Donald was enthused. 'Yeah, I never liked the guy. I don't think he knows what the fuck he's doing. My accountants up in New York are always complaining about him. He's not responsive. And isn't it funny, I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else.' I couldn't believe I was hearing this But Donald went on, 'Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It's not anything they can control.... Don't you agree?' He looked at me square in the eye and waited for my reply. 'Donald, you really shouldn't say things like that to me or anybody else,' I said. 'That is not the kind of image you want to project. We shouldn't even be having this conversation, even if it's the way you feel.' 'Yeah, you're right,' he said. 'If anybody ever heard me say that ... holy shit ... I'd be in a lot of trouble. But I have to tell you, that's the way I feel.' Although Trump didn't deny any of O'Donnell's specific allegations in a subsequent (1997)Playboy magazine interview - 'The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true,' Trump said at the time - he vehemently denied O'Donnell's account of the conversation when asked about it during a 24 October 1999 interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press: MR. TRUMP: I never said it. I don't even know ... MR. RUSSERT: Donald Trump ... MR. TRUMP: I hardly know this guy. He was running one of my casinos for a short period of time. He was fired, we fired him because he wasn't doing a very good job. He wrote this nasty book. He made up stuff. This is like Jon Lovitz on 'Saturday Night Live,' the liar. 'I went to Harvard. Yeah, I went to Harvard.' This guy, I hardly know him. He made up this quote. I've heard the quote before, and it's nonsense. MR. RUSSERT: You've never said anything like that? MR. TRUMP: I've never said anything like it, ever. As the Washington Post noted, it is, at best, a secondhand quote from a private conversation, written down years after the fact, and should be viewed 'with some skepticism.' | nan | [
"04756-proof-03-laziness-is-a-trait.jpg",
"04756-proof-07-trumpblack.jpg"
] |
Donald Trump said, 'Laziness is a trait in blacks ... I believe that. No black person will be president again any time soon. | Neutral | An Internet meme circulating in August 2016 paired two racially charged statements previously attributed separately to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump: While neither attribution was new, the conjunction of the two statements created the impression that Trump must have at some time opined that no black person would be President of the United States again any time soon because 'laziness is a trait in blacks.' There is a public record of Donald Trump's having stated, more or less, that no black person would be president again any time soon because of the poor performance of his predecessor in the White House, Barack Obama: Sadly, because president Obama has done such a poor job as president, you won't see another black president for generations! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 25, 2014 When called upon to explain the statement in a 2 August 2015 interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC News' This Week, Trump offered: TRUMP: Well, I think he's been a very poor president. I think he has done a very poor job as president. We have $18 trillion right now in debt and going up rapidly. KARL: But what did you mean? What - TRUMP: Wait a minute. The world is - we don't have victories anymore. China is killing us on trade. Mexico's killing us at the border and also killing us on trade. Mexico's doing unbelievably against us in trade. You look at what's going on with Japan. You look at what's going on with Vietnam. You look at Saudi Arabia, makes $1 billion a day and we defend them. We get nothing. KARL: I understand your critique. But why do you say that means we won't see another black president for generations? TRUMP: Because I think that he has set a very poor standard. I think that he has set a very low bar and I think it's a shame for the African American people. And by the way, he has done nothing for African Americans. You look at what's gone on with their income levels. You look at what's gone on with their youth. I thought that he would be a great cheerleader for this country. I thought he'd do a fabulous job for the African American citizens of this country. A source attributing the statement 'Laziness is a trait in blacks' to Donald Trump dates to the early 1990s. It should be noted, however, that that source was a book written by a disgruntled former employee of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, John R. O'Donnell, and neither the statement nor the sentiment behind it has been corroborated elsewhere. As one might expect, O'Donnell's account, Trumped!, paints an unflattering portrait of its subject overall but offers this anecdote specifically as evidence of Trump's low opinion of the African Americans in his employ: 'What do you think of him?' Donald asked. I said I was familiar with his abilities, and he had shortcomings. 'To be honest, I don't think he's the best we can have,' I said. 'I'd like to see him either come up to speed, where he can help me a lot more, or maybe there's something else he can do.' Instantly, Donald was enthused. 'Yeah, I never liked the guy. I don't think he knows what the fuck he's doing. My accountants up in New York are always complaining about him. He's not responsive. And isn't it funny, I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else.' I couldn't believe I was hearing this But Donald went on, 'Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It's not anything they can control.... Don't you agree?' He looked at me square in the eye and waited for my reply. 'Donald, you really shouldn't say things like that to me or anybody else,' I said. 'That is not the kind of image you want to project. We shouldn't even be having this conversation, even if it's the way you feel.' 'Yeah, you're right,' he said. 'If anybody ever heard me say that ... holy shit ... I'd be in a lot of trouble. But I have to tell you, that's the way I feel.' Although Trump didn't deny any of O'Donnell's specific allegations in a subsequent (1997)Playboy magazine interview - 'The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true,' Trump said at the time - he vehemently denied O'Donnell's account of the conversation when asked about it during a 24 October 1999 interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press: MR. TRUMP: I never said it. I don't even know ... MR. RUSSERT: Donald Trump ... MR. TRUMP: I hardly know this guy. He was running one of my casinos for a short period of time. He was fired, we fired him because he wasn't doing a very good job. He wrote this nasty book. He made up stuff. This is like Jon Lovitz on 'Saturday Night Live,' the liar. 'I went to Harvard. Yeah, I went to Harvard.' This guy, I hardly know him. He made up this quote. I've heard the quote before, and it's nonsense. MR. RUSSERT: You've never said anything like that? MR. TRUMP: I've never said anything like it, ever. As the Washington Post noted, it is, at best, a secondhand quote from a private conversation, written down years after the fact, and should be viewed 'with some skepticism.' | nan | [
"04756-proof-03-laziness-is-a-trait.jpg",
"04756-proof-07-trumpblack.jpg"
] |
Donald Trump said, 'Laziness is a trait in blacks ... I believe that. No black person will be president again any time soon. | Neutral | An Internet meme circulating in August 2016 paired two racially charged statements previously attributed separately to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump: While neither attribution was new, the conjunction of the two statements created the impression that Trump must have at some time opined that no black person would be President of the United States again any time soon because 'laziness is a trait in blacks.' There is a public record of Donald Trump's having stated, more or less, that no black person would be president again any time soon because of the poor performance of his predecessor in the White House, Barack Obama: Sadly, because president Obama has done such a poor job as president, you won't see another black president for generations! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 25, 2014 When called upon to explain the statement in a 2 August 2015 interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC News' This Week, Trump offered: TRUMP: Well, I think he's been a very poor president. I think he has done a very poor job as president. We have $18 trillion right now in debt and going up rapidly. KARL: But what did you mean? What - TRUMP: Wait a minute. The world is - we don't have victories anymore. China is killing us on trade. Mexico's killing us at the border and also killing us on trade. Mexico's doing unbelievably against us in trade. You look at what's going on with Japan. You look at what's going on with Vietnam. You look at Saudi Arabia, makes $1 billion a day and we defend them. We get nothing. KARL: I understand your critique. But why do you say that means we won't see another black president for generations? TRUMP: Because I think that he has set a very poor standard. I think that he has set a very low bar and I think it's a shame for the African American people. And by the way, he has done nothing for African Americans. You look at what's gone on with their income levels. You look at what's gone on with their youth. I thought that he would be a great cheerleader for this country. I thought he'd do a fabulous job for the African American citizens of this country. A source attributing the statement 'Laziness is a trait in blacks' to Donald Trump dates to the early 1990s. It should be noted, however, that that source was a book written by a disgruntled former employee of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, John R. O'Donnell, and neither the statement nor the sentiment behind it has been corroborated elsewhere. As one might expect, O'Donnell's account, Trumped!, paints an unflattering portrait of its subject overall but offers this anecdote specifically as evidence of Trump's low opinion of the African Americans in his employ: 'What do you think of him?' Donald asked. I said I was familiar with his abilities, and he had shortcomings. 'To be honest, I don't think he's the best we can have,' I said. 'I'd like to see him either come up to speed, where he can help me a lot more, or maybe there's something else he can do.' Instantly, Donald was enthused. 'Yeah, I never liked the guy. I don't think he knows what the fuck he's doing. My accountants up in New York are always complaining about him. He's not responsive. And isn't it funny, I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else.' I couldn't believe I was hearing this But Donald went on, 'Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It's not anything they can control.... Don't you agree?' He looked at me square in the eye and waited for my reply. 'Donald, you really shouldn't say things like that to me or anybody else,' I said. 'That is not the kind of image you want to project. We shouldn't even be having this conversation, even if it's the way you feel.' 'Yeah, you're right,' he said. 'If anybody ever heard me say that ... holy shit ... I'd be in a lot of trouble. But I have to tell you, that's the way I feel.' Although Trump didn't deny any of O'Donnell's specific allegations in a subsequent (1997)Playboy magazine interview - 'The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true,' Trump said at the time - he vehemently denied O'Donnell's account of the conversation when asked about it during a 24 October 1999 interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press: MR. TRUMP: I never said it. I don't even know ... MR. RUSSERT: Donald Trump ... MR. TRUMP: I hardly know this guy. He was running one of my casinos for a short period of time. He was fired, we fired him because he wasn't doing a very good job. He wrote this nasty book. He made up stuff. This is like Jon Lovitz on 'Saturday Night Live,' the liar. 'I went to Harvard. Yeah, I went to Harvard.' This guy, I hardly know him. He made up this quote. I've heard the quote before, and it's nonsense. MR. RUSSERT: You've never said anything like that? MR. TRUMP: I've never said anything like it, ever. As the Washington Post noted, it is, at best, a secondhand quote from a private conversation, written down years after the fact, and should be viewed 'with some skepticism.' | nan | [
"04756-proof-03-laziness-is-a-trait.jpg",
"04756-proof-07-trumpblack.jpg"
] |
Donald Trump said, 'Laziness is a trait in blacks ... I believe that. No black person will be president again any time soon. | Neutral | An Internet meme circulating in August 2016 paired two racially charged statements previously attributed separately to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump: While neither attribution was new, the conjunction of the two statements created the impression that Trump must have at some time opined that no black person would be President of the United States again any time soon because 'laziness is a trait in blacks.' There is a public record of Donald Trump's having stated, more or less, that no black person would be president again any time soon because of the poor performance of his predecessor in the White House, Barack Obama: Sadly, because president Obama has done such a poor job as president, you won't see another black president for generations! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 25, 2014 When called upon to explain the statement in a 2 August 2015 interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC News' This Week, Trump offered: TRUMP: Well, I think he's been a very poor president. I think he has done a very poor job as president. We have $18 trillion right now in debt and going up rapidly. KARL: But what did you mean? What - TRUMP: Wait a minute. The world is - we don't have victories anymore. China is killing us on trade. Mexico's killing us at the border and also killing us on trade. Mexico's doing unbelievably against us in trade. You look at what's going on with Japan. You look at what's going on with Vietnam. You look at Saudi Arabia, makes $1 billion a day and we defend them. We get nothing. KARL: I understand your critique. But why do you say that means we won't see another black president for generations? TRUMP: Because I think that he has set a very poor standard. I think that he has set a very low bar and I think it's a shame for the African American people. And by the way, he has done nothing for African Americans. You look at what's gone on with their income levels. You look at what's gone on with their youth. I thought that he would be a great cheerleader for this country. I thought he'd do a fabulous job for the African American citizens of this country. A source attributing the statement 'Laziness is a trait in blacks' to Donald Trump dates to the early 1990s. It should be noted, however, that that source was a book written by a disgruntled former employee of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, John R. O'Donnell, and neither the statement nor the sentiment behind it has been corroborated elsewhere. As one might expect, O'Donnell's account, Trumped!, paints an unflattering portrait of its subject overall but offers this anecdote specifically as evidence of Trump's low opinion of the African Americans in his employ: 'What do you think of him?' Donald asked. I said I was familiar with his abilities, and he had shortcomings. 'To be honest, I don't think he's the best we can have,' I said. 'I'd like to see him either come up to speed, where he can help me a lot more, or maybe there's something else he can do.' Instantly, Donald was enthused. 'Yeah, I never liked the guy. I don't think he knows what the fuck he's doing. My accountants up in New York are always complaining about him. He's not responsive. And isn't it funny, I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else.' I couldn't believe I was hearing this But Donald went on, 'Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It's not anything they can control.... Don't you agree?' He looked at me square in the eye and waited for my reply. 'Donald, you really shouldn't say things like that to me or anybody else,' I said. 'That is not the kind of image you want to project. We shouldn't even be having this conversation, even if it's the way you feel.' 'Yeah, you're right,' he said. 'If anybody ever heard me say that ... holy shit ... I'd be in a lot of trouble. But I have to tell you, that's the way I feel.' Although Trump didn't deny any of O'Donnell's specific allegations in a subsequent (1997)Playboy magazine interview - 'The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true,' Trump said at the time - he vehemently denied O'Donnell's account of the conversation when asked about it during a 24 October 1999 interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press: MR. TRUMP: I never said it. I don't even know ... MR. RUSSERT: Donald Trump ... MR. TRUMP: I hardly know this guy. He was running one of my casinos for a short period of time. He was fired, we fired him because he wasn't doing a very good job. He wrote this nasty book. He made up stuff. This is like Jon Lovitz on 'Saturday Night Live,' the liar. 'I went to Harvard. Yeah, I went to Harvard.' This guy, I hardly know him. He made up this quote. I've heard the quote before, and it's nonsense. MR. RUSSERT: You've never said anything like that? MR. TRUMP: I've never said anything like it, ever. As the Washington Post noted, it is, at best, a secondhand quote from a private conversation, written down years after the fact, and should be viewed 'with some skepticism.' | nan | [
"04756-proof-03-laziness-is-a-trait.jpg",
"04756-proof-07-trumpblack.jpg"
] |
Chase Bank canceled the credit cards of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn due to 'reputational risk. | Neutral | In late August 2021, an image started circulating on social media that supposedly showed a letter issued by Chase Bank informing retired Gen. Michael Flynn that his credit cards had been canceled due to a 'reputational risk': This is a genuine letter sent from Chase to a member of the Flynn family. The first name on this letter has been redacted so we can't say with certainty that this letter was addressed to Gen. Flynn. A spokesperson for Chase confirmed to us that this letter was real, but added that it was sent by mistake and that this person's credit cards would not actually be closed. A spokesperson for Chase told us: 'We've contacted our customer to let her know that we made an error and we apologized for any inconvenience this caused.' The Chase spokesperson's use of the pronoun 'her' leads us to believe that this letter may not have been sent to Flynn himself, but to another member of his family. The spokesperson did not elaborate. Where Did the Image of This Letter Originate? Many people encountered this letter as it was circulated on Twitter by third-party accounts. As this letter wasn't shared on the platform under Flynn's own handle (Flynn has been banned from Twitter since January 2021), it left people wondering if this letter was authentic. Disinformation researcher Jim Stewartson detailed the origins of the letter in a Twitter thread. According to Stewartson, this letter was originally shared on Telegram by Qanon influencer and recently elected South Carolina GOP official Tracy Diaz (@tracybeanz). The letter was deleted shortly after it was posted along with a message stating that there had been a 'miscommunication' about making the letter public. However, the image continued to circulate and eventually Flynn posted two messages on Telegram that seemingly confirmed the authenticity of the letter. We archived @RealGenFlynn's Telegram posts here and here. On Aug. 30, 2021, Flynn posted an update to the situation, thanking his followers for their support and praying that 'Chase Bank and all their cancel culture partners think twice about what they are doing to destroy the fabric of our constitution.' What Is 'Reputational Risk'? Banks assess a number of risk factors when deciding whether or not to do business with someone. For example, if a person has a criminal history of fraud they may find it difficult to get a credit card. Banks also look at reputational risk, or the impact that doing business with a person or company may have on the bank's reputation. Here's how the German multinational investment bank Deutsche Bank explains their approach to 'reputational risk.' The reputation of Deutsche Bank is founded on trust from its employees, clients, shareholders, regulators and from the public in general. Isolated events can undermine that trust and negatively impact Deutsche Bank's reputation and it is therefore of the utmost importance that it is protected, for which it is the responsibility of every employee of the Bank. Reputational risk at Deutsche Bank is defined as the risk of possible damage to Deutsche Bank's brand and reputation, and the associated risk to earnings, capital or liquidity arising from any association, action or inaction which could be perceived by stakeholders to be inappropriate, unethical or inconsistent with the Bank's values and beliefs. Reputational risk is governed by the Reputational Risk Framework, which was established to provide consistent standards for the identification, assessment and management of reputational risk issues. Why Would Flynn Be a Reputational Risk? Assuming this letter is real, it's possible that Chase deemed Flynn a 'reputational risk' as he pled guilty to lying to federal officials about his contacts with a Russian ambassador in 2017 (Flynn was later pardoned by former U.S. President Donald Trump), his statements in support of the QAnon conspiracy theory, or, more recently, his comments in June 2021 that seemingly encouraged people to stage a violent coup to overthrow the U.S. government. Flynn later released a statement saying that he has never advocated for a coup. It's also possible that Chase deemed Flynn a 'reputational risk' due to questionable financial transactions. In 2017, for example, it was reported that Flynn's consulting firm received more than $500,000 from the Turkish government while Flynn was serving as Trump's national security adviser. The New York Times reported: The candidate he was advising last fall was running on a platform of America First. The client he was working for last fall was paying him more than $500,000 to put Turkey first. Michael T. Flynn, who went from the campaign trail to the White House as President Trump's first national security adviser, filed papers this week acknowledging that he worked as a foreign agent last year representing the interests of the Turkish government in a dispute with the United States. The viral image truly shows a letter that was sent from Chase Bank to Gen. Flynn's family regarding credits cards that were to be canceled due to reputational risk. A spokesperson for Chase confirmed the authenticity of the letter, but said that it had been sent in error and that the account would not be closed.Recent Updates Updated [31 August 2021]: Status changed to 'Mixture' after receiving a statement from Chase Bank. | nan | [
"04937-proof-06-gen.-flynn.jpg",
"04937-proof-09-gen-flynn-telegram.jpg"
] |
Chase Bank canceled the credit cards of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn due to 'reputational risk. | Neutral | In late August 2021, an image started circulating on social media that supposedly showed a letter issued by Chase Bank informing retired Gen. Michael Flynn that his credit cards had been canceled due to a 'reputational risk': This is a genuine letter sent from Chase to a member of the Flynn family. The first name on this letter has been redacted so we can't say with certainty that this letter was addressed to Gen. Flynn. A spokesperson for Chase confirmed to us that this letter was real, but added that it was sent by mistake and that this person's credit cards would not actually be closed. A spokesperson for Chase told us: 'We've contacted our customer to let her know that we made an error and we apologized for any inconvenience this caused.' The Chase spokesperson's use of the pronoun 'her' leads us to believe that this letter may not have been sent to Flynn himself, but to another member of his family. The spokesperson did not elaborate. Where Did the Image of This Letter Originate? Many people encountered this letter as it was circulated on Twitter by third-party accounts. As this letter wasn't shared on the platform under Flynn's own handle (Flynn has been banned from Twitter since January 2021), it left people wondering if this letter was authentic. Disinformation researcher Jim Stewartson detailed the origins of the letter in a Twitter thread. According to Stewartson, this letter was originally shared on Telegram by Qanon influencer and recently elected South Carolina GOP official Tracy Diaz (@tracybeanz). The letter was deleted shortly after it was posted along with a message stating that there had been a 'miscommunication' about making the letter public. However, the image continued to circulate and eventually Flynn posted two messages on Telegram that seemingly confirmed the authenticity of the letter. We archived @RealGenFlynn's Telegram posts here and here. On Aug. 30, 2021, Flynn posted an update to the situation, thanking his followers for their support and praying that 'Chase Bank and all their cancel culture partners think twice about what they are doing to destroy the fabric of our constitution.' What Is 'Reputational Risk'? Banks assess a number of risk factors when deciding whether or not to do business with someone. For example, if a person has a criminal history of fraud they may find it difficult to get a credit card. Banks also look at reputational risk, or the impact that doing business with a person or company may have on the bank's reputation. Here's how the German multinational investment bank Deutsche Bank explains their approach to 'reputational risk.' The reputation of Deutsche Bank is founded on trust from its employees, clients, shareholders, regulators and from the public in general. Isolated events can undermine that trust and negatively impact Deutsche Bank's reputation and it is therefore of the utmost importance that it is protected, for which it is the responsibility of every employee of the Bank. Reputational risk at Deutsche Bank is defined as the risk of possible damage to Deutsche Bank's brand and reputation, and the associated risk to earnings, capital or liquidity arising from any association, action or inaction which could be perceived by stakeholders to be inappropriate, unethical or inconsistent with the Bank's values and beliefs. Reputational risk is governed by the Reputational Risk Framework, which was established to provide consistent standards for the identification, assessment and management of reputational risk issues. Why Would Flynn Be a Reputational Risk? Assuming this letter is real, it's possible that Chase deemed Flynn a 'reputational risk' as he pled guilty to lying to federal officials about his contacts with a Russian ambassador in 2017 (Flynn was later pardoned by former U.S. President Donald Trump), his statements in support of the QAnon conspiracy theory, or, more recently, his comments in June 2021 that seemingly encouraged people to stage a violent coup to overthrow the U.S. government. Flynn later released a statement saying that he has never advocated for a coup. It's also possible that Chase deemed Flynn a 'reputational risk' due to questionable financial transactions. In 2017, for example, it was reported that Flynn's consulting firm received more than $500,000 from the Turkish government while Flynn was serving as Trump's national security adviser. The New York Times reported: The candidate he was advising last fall was running on a platform of America First. The client he was working for last fall was paying him more than $500,000 to put Turkey first. Michael T. Flynn, who went from the campaign trail to the White House as President Trump's first national security adviser, filed papers this week acknowledging that he worked as a foreign agent last year representing the interests of the Turkish government in a dispute with the United States. The viral image truly shows a letter that was sent from Chase Bank to Gen. Flynn's family regarding credits cards that were to be canceled due to reputational risk. A spokesperson for Chase confirmed the authenticity of the letter, but said that it had been sent in error and that the account would not be closed.Recent Updates Updated [31 August 2021]: Status changed to 'Mixture' after receiving a statement from Chase Bank. | nan | [
"04937-proof-06-gen.-flynn.jpg",
"04937-proof-09-gen-flynn-telegram.jpg"
] |
Speaker Paul Ryan is blocking all incoming calls and faxes to his various offices. | Neutral | In January 2017, a viral message began spreading on social platforms, carrying the rumor that House Speaker Paul Ryan had blocked his phone and fax lines from receiving calls and documents: The instructions of the message were somewhat self-perpetuating, potentially inducing social media users to try calling the phone numbers for Speaker Ryan's office and thereby overload those phone lines, thus making it more difficult for others trying to call in (and fostering the impression among those unsuccessful callers that the phone lines had indeed been disabled and encouraging them to spread a social media message that further strained Ryan's office phone lines). First, we tried calling Ryan's constituent hotline, three satellite office numbers, and his main Washington, D.C. switchboard extension. The first returned a message stating that the number was accessible only to individuals in a certain area, likely only those calling from numbers that correspond to residents of his home district. The other lines generated busy signals, which was to be expected given that this rumor has been so popular. The message claimed that Ryan's office lines had also rejected faxes, but we received normal connect responses from answering fax machines when we dialed those numbers. We reached a press contact for the House of Representatives, who told us that it is not possible for anyone there to switch off or otherwise block access to their switchboard lines. Although it is perhaps possible Ryan could have blocked open lines at his satellite offices, it is also likely that high call volume simply made them impossible to use. We also tried to contact two members of Ryan's staff about the rumor (neither of their lines was busy) but have not yet received any response from them. Some media reports suggested Speaker Ryan had enlisted security guards to block the delivery of paper petitions to his office: [A] crowd of Planned Parenthood Action Fund supporters lined the halls of the Longworth House Office Building in Washington, D.C. to hand-deliver over 87,000 #StandWithPP petitions to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan's office. Ryan confirmed that the GOP would move to 'defund' Planned Parenthood as part the reconciliation bill they plan to introduce soon to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), known colloquially as Obamacare. Ryan reportedly sent six security guards to block the delivery of the petitions by the pink-T-shirt-clad Planned Parenthood volunteers, who waited in the halls to make their delivery of the petitions, which ask Ryan to protect funding for Planned Parenthood through Medicaid and Title X. The security guards ultimately blocked the volunteers from being able to deliver their petitions, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood [said]. | nan | [
"04988-proof-06-phone_blocked_fb.jpg"
] |
After Donald Trump was elected president, Pope Francis said he had lost all faith in American Christians. | Neutral | On 9 November 2016, a small Sri Lankan blog published an article reporting that Pope Francis stated he had lost all faith in American Christians due to the election of Donald Trump as President on 8 November 2016: However, during a mass [on 9 November 2016], Pope Francis said that, he is simply shocked to see how Americans elected their president despite the significant differences of Christian values both candidates possess. Jesus never looked at race, religion, creed or cast when healing people, reached out to everyone with the same love and care. Anyone could reach out to Jesus or the god for forgiveness and guidance. 'True Christians do not treat anyone differently, talk bad about them or look down on them. God help poor Mexicans, Africans and Cubans who wanted to realize American dream' he said. 'I am not sure whether we still can vouch for the faith of American Christians, as they need more wisdom looking at the leader they finally elected', said Pope Francis. Last time when pope made the controversial statement Trump responded promptly saying that its ''disgraceful' for a religious leader to question anyone's faith. He added, 'If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been the president,'. Ironically he is now the president and he has another statement by Pope Francis to deal forthwith. The article appeared to be the sort that would attract attention in the tense aftermath of the 2016 election, but no other sources we could find reported any similar about the Pontiff and his take on the election. Early on in the 2016 election cycle, Pope Francis asserted he would make no effort to influence the Catholic vote, although His Holiness was inaccurately claimed to have endorsed Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders, by fake news purveyors. Although the web site on which the article was hosted did not feature a disclaimer marking it as fake news, it did assert: The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information provided by 'Religious Mind' are news content which we try to keep up to date and correct, yet we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own consent and accord. Pope Francis made several appearances and statements in the days following the 8 November 2016 U.S. election, but none appeared to pertain to the outcome of that event. No credible sources reported anything resembling the claim which circulated, much less any commentary the Pope had lost 'all faith' in American Christians (and neither did he make such remarks on Twitter). | nan | [] |
After Donald Trump was elected president, Pope Francis said he had lost all faith in American Christians. | Neutral | On 9 November 2016, a small Sri Lankan blog published an article reporting that Pope Francis stated he had lost all faith in American Christians due to the election of Donald Trump as President on 8 November 2016: However, during a mass [on 9 November 2016], Pope Francis said that, he is simply shocked to see how Americans elected their president despite the significant differences of Christian values both candidates possess. Jesus never looked at race, religion, creed or cast when healing people, reached out to everyone with the same love and care. Anyone could reach out to Jesus or the god for forgiveness and guidance. 'True Christians do not treat anyone differently, talk bad about them or look down on them. God help poor Mexicans, Africans and Cubans who wanted to realize American dream' he said. 'I am not sure whether we still can vouch for the faith of American Christians, as they need more wisdom looking at the leader they finally elected', said Pope Francis. Last time when pope made the controversial statement Trump responded promptly saying that its ''disgraceful' for a religious leader to question anyone's faith. He added, 'If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been the president,'. Ironically he is now the president and he has another statement by Pope Francis to deal forthwith. The article appeared to be the sort that would attract attention in the tense aftermath of the 2016 election, but no other sources we could find reported any similar about the Pontiff and his take on the election. Early on in the 2016 election cycle, Pope Francis asserted he would make no effort to influence the Catholic vote, although His Holiness was inaccurately claimed to have endorsed Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders, by fake news purveyors. Although the web site on which the article was hosted did not feature a disclaimer marking it as fake news, it did assert: The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information provided by 'Religious Mind' are news content which we try to keep up to date and correct, yet we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own consent and accord. Pope Francis made several appearances and statements in the days following the 8 November 2016 U.S. election, but none appeared to pertain to the outcome of that event. No credible sources reported anything resembling the claim which circulated, much less any commentary the Pope had lost 'all faith' in American Christians (and neither did he make such remarks on Twitter). | nan | [] |
Hillary Clinton's campaign made several payments to a company that destroys sensitive data due to an ongoing investigation into her use of e-mail while she was secretary of state. | Neutral | On 3 May 2016, web site the Washington Free Beacon published an article provocatively titled 'Clinton Campaign Made Payments to Hard Drive and Document Destruction Company' (and subtitled 'Payments could have purchased destruction of 14 hard drives'). The article reported that the Hillary Clinton campaign made payments totaling $187 to a document destruction company (American Document Destruction, Inc.) in February and March of 2016. The article implied (without directly stating) that the Clinton campaign might have spent the funds on destroying disk drives involved in the controversy surrounding Clinton's use of private, home-based servers and accounts for official business she conducted while serving as U.S. secretary of state: The Hillary Clinton campaign made multiple payments to a company that specializes in hard drive and document destruction, campaign finance records show. The payments, which were recorded in February and March of 2016, went to the Nevada-based American Document Destruction, Inc., which claims expertise in destroying hard drives or 'anything else that a hard drive can come from.' 'Our hard drive destruction procedures take place either at your site or at our secure facility in Sparks, NV,' the company's website states. 'This decision is yours to decide based on cost and convenience to you. In either situation, the hard drive will be destroyed by a shredding.' Nowhere did the Washington Free Beacon article offer any evidence that the services provided by American Document Destruction, Inc. to the Clinton campaign involved the destruction of hard drives or data from the private server she used while serving as secretary as state. In fact, the article didn't even offer any evidence that the provided services involved the destruction of hard drives at all (rather than paper documents). It simply noted that the Clinton campaign paid American Document Destruction, Inc. an amount of money that would have covered the costs of destroying 14 hard drives or shredding 37.4 cubic feet of paper (or, presumably, some combination of the two). A follow-up article from another news outlet reported that Clinton's campaign also paid $50 to Shredco, a company that provides safe disposal of paper documents. It's extremely unlikely either of these companies were involved in destroying material related to Clinton's use of a private e-mail server, for a number of reasons. First of all, the expenditures were openly reported to the Federal Election Commission, an unlikely move for a campaign furtively involved in destroying evidence relating to a federal investigation: Second, anyone seeking to destroy sensitive information related to a high-level federal investigation probably wouldn't trust the task to businesses who charged only a few hundred dollars for the service, rather than to much more expensive (and presumably more private and secure) outfits. Moreover, even though Bernie Sanders' campaign wasn't embroiled in an e-mail controversy, his campaign paid nearly three times as much as Clinton's did for similar services: Former Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz also contracted for shredding services in the same timeframe: Paying for data destruction services is hardly suspect for an organization that processes thousands of donations each month, as the Hillary Clinton campaign does. Personal information from donors (such as credit card numbers) would, if printed or stored on hard drives, need to be securely destroyed to protect those donors. And given Bernie Sanders' repeated insistence that the average donation made to his campaign is $27, it seems reasonable that his organization would also be contracting for similar services and paying for a higher volume of shreddable transactions than the Clinton campaign. | nan | [] |
Swabbing ticks with liquid soap is a recommended and effective method for removing them. | Neutral | In addition to their being repulsive-looking bugs that survive by latching onto warm-blooded victims to suck blood from them, there is another reason to regard ticks with horror: they can deliver a deadly payload of disease to those they are making a meal of. These arachnids feed by burrowing their heads into skin, a method that introduces their body fluids into their victims. If those fluids are disease-laden, those microbes will be passed to the ones being dined upon. However, it generally takes at least 12 to 24 hours of feeding before an infected tick can spread disease to its host, so speedy removal of these parasites is therefore key to avoiding tick-borne illness, including Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and Ehrlichia. Household lore is replete with tick removal suggestions that involve covering or coating the embedded arachnid with a substance it will find objectionable. Other long-lived suggestions for removing ticks include touching a lit match or hot needle to the tick's rear, swabbing the tick with nail polish or petroleum jelly, and tickling the tick's underside in an effort to persuade it to release its bite: A School Nurse has written the info below - good enough to share - And it really works!! 'I had a pediatrician tell me what she believes is the best way to remove a tick. This is great, because it works in those places where it's some times difficult to get to with tweezers: between toes, in the middle of a head full of dark hair, etc. Apply a glob of liquid soap to a cotton ball. Cover the tick with the soap-soaked cotton ball and swab it for a few seconds (15-20), the tick will come out on it's own and be stuck to the cotton ball when you lift it away. This technique has worked every time I've used it (and that was frequently), and it's much less traumatic for the patient and easier for me. Unless someone is allergic to soap, I can't see that this would be damaging in any way. I even had my doctor's wife call me for advice because she had one stuck to her back and she couldn't reach it with tweezers. She used this method and immediately called me back to say, 'It worked!'' Although these home remedies are effective in some cases, however, those in the know about tick removal warn against them. Countermeasures of such nature don't always work to encourage ticks to detach from skin promptly (if at all), and even if such measures do seemingly aid the process of removing the critters, they may also make matters worse by stimulating the creatures to release additional saliva or regurgitate their gut contents, acts that increase the chance of their transmitting pathogens to their hosts. A 2006 journal article review of published literature on tick removal methods reported that: One study compared several different techniques for removing ticks. Application of petroleum jelly, fingernail polish, 70% isopropyl alcohol, or a hot kitchen match failed to induce detachment of adult American dog ticks. Experimental evidence suggests that chemical irritants are ineffective at persuading ticks to detach, and risk triggering injection of salivary fluids and possible transmission of disease-causing microbes. In addition, suffocating ticks by smothering them with petroleum jelly is an ineffective method of killing them because they have such a low respiratory rate (only requiring 3-15 breaths per hour) that by the time they die, there may have been sufficient time for pathogens to be transmitted. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) likewise advises readers to 'Avoid folklore remedies such as 'painting' the tick with nail polish or petroleum jelly, or using heat to make the tick detach from the skin. Your goal is to remove the tick as quickly as possible - not wait for it to detach.' Similarly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautions: If a tick is removed within 24 hours, the chances of it transmitting Lyme disease or other infections are much less. Use fine-point tweezers to grasp the tick as close to the skin as possible. Pull gently. Avoid squeezing the body of the tick. Clean the site of the bite, your hands and the tweezers with disinfectant. You may want to wear protective gloves. You also may want to place the tick in a small container, like a pill container, and bring it to your vet for identification. Never use a burned match, petroleum jelly, or nail polish to try to remove ticks. These methods are ineffective. A list of 'DO NOTS' in a Medline Plus article about tick removal similarly warned: Do NOT try to burn the tick with a match or other hot object. Do NOT twist the tick when pulling it out. Do NOT try to kill, smother, or lubricate the tick with oil, alcohol, vaseline, or similar material. The recommended procedure for removing ticks is: Grasp the tick close to its head or mouth with tweezers. Do not use your bare fingers. If needed, use a tissue or paper towel. Pull it straight out with a slow and steady motion. Avoid squeezing or crushing the tick. Be careful not to leave the head embedded in the skin. Clean the area thoroughly with soap and water. Also wash your hands thoroughly. Save the tick in a jar and watch carefully for the next week or two for signs of Lyme disease. If all parts of the tick cannot be removed, get medical help. Bring the tick in the jar to your doctor's appointment. To reduce your chances of becoming a tick's dinner: Avoid tick-prone areas whenever possible. When in areas where ticks may be present, wear clothing that covers the arms and legs, with cuffs fastened and pants tucked into boots and socks. Use a tick repellent that contains DEET and reapply it every 1-2 hours for maximum protection. After any outdoor excursion into areas where ticks are commonly found, adults should check themselves and their children. Your four-legged friends should be checked for ticks too, because dogs and cats can also be felled by the diseases spread by these blood-sucking creatures. | nan | [] |
Swabbing ticks with liquid soap is a recommended and effective method for removing them. | Neutral | In addition to their being repulsive-looking bugs that survive by latching onto warm-blooded victims to suck blood from them, there is another reason to regard ticks with horror: they can deliver a deadly payload of disease to those they are making a meal of. These arachnids feed by burrowing their heads into skin, a method that introduces their body fluids into their victims. If those fluids are disease-laden, those microbes will be passed to the ones being dined upon. However, it generally takes at least 12 to 24 hours of feeding before an infected tick can spread disease to its host, so speedy removal of these parasites is therefore key to avoiding tick-borne illness, including Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and Ehrlichia. Household lore is replete with tick removal suggestions that involve covering or coating the embedded arachnid with a substance it will find objectionable. Other long-lived suggestions for removing ticks include touching a lit match or hot needle to the tick's rear, swabbing the tick with nail polish or petroleum jelly, and tickling the tick's underside in an effort to persuade it to release its bite: A School Nurse has written the info below - good enough to share - And it really works!! 'I had a pediatrician tell me what she believes is the best way to remove a tick. This is great, because it works in those places where it's some times difficult to get to with tweezers: between toes, in the middle of a head full of dark hair, etc. Apply a glob of liquid soap to a cotton ball. Cover the tick with the soap-soaked cotton ball and swab it for a few seconds (15-20), the tick will come out on it's own and be stuck to the cotton ball when you lift it away. This technique has worked every time I've used it (and that was frequently), and it's much less traumatic for the patient and easier for me. Unless someone is allergic to soap, I can't see that this would be damaging in any way. I even had my doctor's wife call me for advice because she had one stuck to her back and she couldn't reach it with tweezers. She used this method and immediately called me back to say, 'It worked!'' Although these home remedies are effective in some cases, however, those in the know about tick removal warn against them. Countermeasures of such nature don't always work to encourage ticks to detach from skin promptly (if at all), and even if such measures do seemingly aid the process of removing the critters, they may also make matters worse by stimulating the creatures to release additional saliva or regurgitate their gut contents, acts that increase the chance of their transmitting pathogens to their hosts. A 2006 journal article review of published literature on tick removal methods reported that: One study compared several different techniques for removing ticks. Application of petroleum jelly, fingernail polish, 70% isopropyl alcohol, or a hot kitchen match failed to induce detachment of adult American dog ticks. Experimental evidence suggests that chemical irritants are ineffective at persuading ticks to detach, and risk triggering injection of salivary fluids and possible transmission of disease-causing microbes. In addition, suffocating ticks by smothering them with petroleum jelly is an ineffective method of killing them because they have such a low respiratory rate (only requiring 3-15 breaths per hour) that by the time they die, there may have been sufficient time for pathogens to be transmitted. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) likewise advises readers to 'Avoid folklore remedies such as 'painting' the tick with nail polish or petroleum jelly, or using heat to make the tick detach from the skin. Your goal is to remove the tick as quickly as possible - not wait for it to detach.' Similarly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautions: If a tick is removed within 24 hours, the chances of it transmitting Lyme disease or other infections are much less. Use fine-point tweezers to grasp the tick as close to the skin as possible. Pull gently. Avoid squeezing the body of the tick. Clean the site of the bite, your hands and the tweezers with disinfectant. You may want to wear protective gloves. You also may want to place the tick in a small container, like a pill container, and bring it to your vet for identification. Never use a burned match, petroleum jelly, or nail polish to try to remove ticks. These methods are ineffective. A list of 'DO NOTS' in a Medline Plus article about tick removal similarly warned: Do NOT try to burn the tick with a match or other hot object. Do NOT twist the tick when pulling it out. Do NOT try to kill, smother, or lubricate the tick with oil, alcohol, vaseline, or similar material. The recommended procedure for removing ticks is: Grasp the tick close to its head or mouth with tweezers. Do not use your bare fingers. If needed, use a tissue or paper towel. Pull it straight out with a slow and steady motion. Avoid squeezing or crushing the tick. Be careful not to leave the head embedded in the skin. Clean the area thoroughly with soap and water. Also wash your hands thoroughly. Save the tick in a jar and watch carefully for the next week or two for signs of Lyme disease. If all parts of the tick cannot be removed, get medical help. Bring the tick in the jar to your doctor's appointment. To reduce your chances of becoming a tick's dinner: Avoid tick-prone areas whenever possible. When in areas where ticks may be present, wear clothing that covers the arms and legs, with cuffs fastened and pants tucked into boots and socks. Use a tick repellent that contains DEET and reapply it every 1-2 hours for maximum protection. After any outdoor excursion into areas where ticks are commonly found, adults should check themselves and their children. Your four-legged friends should be checked for ticks too, because dogs and cats can also be felled by the diseases spread by these blood-sucking creatures. | nan | [] |
Swabbing ticks with liquid soap is a recommended and effective method for removing them. | Neutral | In addition to their being repulsive-looking bugs that survive by latching onto warm-blooded victims to suck blood from them, there is another reason to regard ticks with horror: they can deliver a deadly payload of disease to those they are making a meal of. These arachnids feed by burrowing their heads into skin, a method that introduces their body fluids into their victims. If those fluids are disease-laden, those microbes will be passed to the ones being dined upon. However, it generally takes at least 12 to 24 hours of feeding before an infected tick can spread disease to its host, so speedy removal of these parasites is therefore key to avoiding tick-borne illness, including Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and Ehrlichia. Household lore is replete with tick removal suggestions that involve covering or coating the embedded arachnid with a substance it will find objectionable. Other long-lived suggestions for removing ticks include touching a lit match or hot needle to the tick's rear, swabbing the tick with nail polish or petroleum jelly, and tickling the tick's underside in an effort to persuade it to release its bite: A School Nurse has written the info below - good enough to share - And it really works!! 'I had a pediatrician tell me what she believes is the best way to remove a tick. This is great, because it works in those places where it's some times difficult to get to with tweezers: between toes, in the middle of a head full of dark hair, etc. Apply a glob of liquid soap to a cotton ball. Cover the tick with the soap-soaked cotton ball and swab it for a few seconds (15-20), the tick will come out on it's own and be stuck to the cotton ball when you lift it away. This technique has worked every time I've used it (and that was frequently), and it's much less traumatic for the patient and easier for me. Unless someone is allergic to soap, I can't see that this would be damaging in any way. I even had my doctor's wife call me for advice because she had one stuck to her back and she couldn't reach it with tweezers. She used this method and immediately called me back to say, 'It worked!'' Although these home remedies are effective in some cases, however, those in the know about tick removal warn against them. Countermeasures of such nature don't always work to encourage ticks to detach from skin promptly (if at all), and even if such measures do seemingly aid the process of removing the critters, they may also make matters worse by stimulating the creatures to release additional saliva or regurgitate their gut contents, acts that increase the chance of their transmitting pathogens to their hosts. A 2006 journal article review of published literature on tick removal methods reported that: One study compared several different techniques for removing ticks. Application of petroleum jelly, fingernail polish, 70% isopropyl alcohol, or a hot kitchen match failed to induce detachment of adult American dog ticks. Experimental evidence suggests that chemical irritants are ineffective at persuading ticks to detach, and risk triggering injection of salivary fluids and possible transmission of disease-causing microbes. In addition, suffocating ticks by smothering them with petroleum jelly is an ineffective method of killing them because they have such a low respiratory rate (only requiring 3-15 breaths per hour) that by the time they die, there may have been sufficient time for pathogens to be transmitted. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) likewise advises readers to 'Avoid folklore remedies such as 'painting' the tick with nail polish or petroleum jelly, or using heat to make the tick detach from the skin. Your goal is to remove the tick as quickly as possible - not wait for it to detach.' Similarly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautions: If a tick is removed within 24 hours, the chances of it transmitting Lyme disease or other infections are much less. Use fine-point tweezers to grasp the tick as close to the skin as possible. Pull gently. Avoid squeezing the body of the tick. Clean the site of the bite, your hands and the tweezers with disinfectant. You may want to wear protective gloves. You also may want to place the tick in a small container, like a pill container, and bring it to your vet for identification. Never use a burned match, petroleum jelly, or nail polish to try to remove ticks. These methods are ineffective. A list of 'DO NOTS' in a Medline Plus article about tick removal similarly warned: Do NOT try to burn the tick with a match or other hot object. Do NOT twist the tick when pulling it out. Do NOT try to kill, smother, or lubricate the tick with oil, alcohol, vaseline, or similar material. The recommended procedure for removing ticks is: Grasp the tick close to its head or mouth with tweezers. Do not use your bare fingers. If needed, use a tissue or paper towel. Pull it straight out with a slow and steady motion. Avoid squeezing or crushing the tick. Be careful not to leave the head embedded in the skin. Clean the area thoroughly with soap and water. Also wash your hands thoroughly. Save the tick in a jar and watch carefully for the next week or two for signs of Lyme disease. If all parts of the tick cannot be removed, get medical help. Bring the tick in the jar to your doctor's appointment. To reduce your chances of becoming a tick's dinner: Avoid tick-prone areas whenever possible. When in areas where ticks may be present, wear clothing that covers the arms and legs, with cuffs fastened and pants tucked into boots and socks. Use a tick repellent that contains DEET and reapply it every 1-2 hours for maximum protection. After any outdoor excursion into areas where ticks are commonly found, adults should check themselves and their children. Your four-legged friends should be checked for ticks too, because dogs and cats can also be felled by the diseases spread by these blood-sucking creatures. | nan | [] |
Swabbing ticks with liquid soap is a recommended and effective method for removing them. | Neutral | In addition to their being repulsive-looking bugs that survive by latching onto warm-blooded victims to suck blood from them, there is another reason to regard ticks with horror: they can deliver a deadly payload of disease to those they are making a meal of. These arachnids feed by burrowing their heads into skin, a method that introduces their body fluids into their victims. If those fluids are disease-laden, those microbes will be passed to the ones being dined upon. However, it generally takes at least 12 to 24 hours of feeding before an infected tick can spread disease to its host, so speedy removal of these parasites is therefore key to avoiding tick-borne illness, including Lyme disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and Ehrlichia. Household lore is replete with tick removal suggestions that involve covering or coating the embedded arachnid with a substance it will find objectionable. Other long-lived suggestions for removing ticks include touching a lit match or hot needle to the tick's rear, swabbing the tick with nail polish or petroleum jelly, and tickling the tick's underside in an effort to persuade it to release its bite: A School Nurse has written the info below - good enough to share - And it really works!! 'I had a pediatrician tell me what she believes is the best way to remove a tick. This is great, because it works in those places where it's some times difficult to get to with tweezers: between toes, in the middle of a head full of dark hair, etc. Apply a glob of liquid soap to a cotton ball. Cover the tick with the soap-soaked cotton ball and swab it for a few seconds (15-20), the tick will come out on it's own and be stuck to the cotton ball when you lift it away. This technique has worked every time I've used it (and that was frequently), and it's much less traumatic for the patient and easier for me. Unless someone is allergic to soap, I can't see that this would be damaging in any way. I even had my doctor's wife call me for advice because she had one stuck to her back and she couldn't reach it with tweezers. She used this method and immediately called me back to say, 'It worked!'' Although these home remedies are effective in some cases, however, those in the know about tick removal warn against them. Countermeasures of such nature don't always work to encourage ticks to detach from skin promptly (if at all), and even if such measures do seemingly aid the process of removing the critters, they may also make matters worse by stimulating the creatures to release additional saliva or regurgitate their gut contents, acts that increase the chance of their transmitting pathogens to their hosts. A 2006 journal article review of published literature on tick removal methods reported that: One study compared several different techniques for removing ticks. Application of petroleum jelly, fingernail polish, 70% isopropyl alcohol, or a hot kitchen match failed to induce detachment of adult American dog ticks. Experimental evidence suggests that chemical irritants are ineffective at persuading ticks to detach, and risk triggering injection of salivary fluids and possible transmission of disease-causing microbes. In addition, suffocating ticks by smothering them with petroleum jelly is an ineffective method of killing them because they have such a low respiratory rate (only requiring 3-15 breaths per hour) that by the time they die, there may have been sufficient time for pathogens to be transmitted. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) likewise advises readers to 'Avoid folklore remedies such as 'painting' the tick with nail polish or petroleum jelly, or using heat to make the tick detach from the skin. Your goal is to remove the tick as quickly as possible - not wait for it to detach.' Similarly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautions: If a tick is removed within 24 hours, the chances of it transmitting Lyme disease or other infections are much less. Use fine-point tweezers to grasp the tick as close to the skin as possible. Pull gently. Avoid squeezing the body of the tick. Clean the site of the bite, your hands and the tweezers with disinfectant. You may want to wear protective gloves. You also may want to place the tick in a small container, like a pill container, and bring it to your vet for identification. Never use a burned match, petroleum jelly, or nail polish to try to remove ticks. These methods are ineffective. A list of 'DO NOTS' in a Medline Plus article about tick removal similarly warned: Do NOT try to burn the tick with a match or other hot object. Do NOT twist the tick when pulling it out. Do NOT try to kill, smother, or lubricate the tick with oil, alcohol, vaseline, or similar material. The recommended procedure for removing ticks is: Grasp the tick close to its head or mouth with tweezers. Do not use your bare fingers. If needed, use a tissue or paper towel. Pull it straight out with a slow and steady motion. Avoid squeezing or crushing the tick. Be careful not to leave the head embedded in the skin. Clean the area thoroughly with soap and water. Also wash your hands thoroughly. Save the tick in a jar and watch carefully for the next week or two for signs of Lyme disease. If all parts of the tick cannot be removed, get medical help. Bring the tick in the jar to your doctor's appointment. To reduce your chances of becoming a tick's dinner: Avoid tick-prone areas whenever possible. When in areas where ticks may be present, wear clothing that covers the arms and legs, with cuffs fastened and pants tucked into boots and socks. Use a tick repellent that contains DEET and reapply it every 1-2 hours for maximum protection. After any outdoor excursion into areas where ticks are commonly found, adults should check themselves and their children. Your four-legged friends should be checked for ticks too, because dogs and cats can also be felled by the diseases spread by these blood-sucking creatures. | nan | [] |
People in Brooklyn are refusing to vaccinate their pets based on fears created by the anti-vaccine movement. | Neutral | On 1 August 2017, BrooklynPaper.com - the internet-facing side of a local Brooklyn weekly - published a story that claimed to document an increase in Brooklyn pet owners refusing to vaccinate their pets over fears the treatment would give their furry friends autism: A growing, national anti-vaccination movement that claims the inoculations can cause autism in children has led Brooklyn pet-owners to withhold vaccines against deadly and spreadable diseases from their critters, according to local veterinarians. The story has since gone viral, thanks primarily to the British tabloid Daily Mail, which essentially republished the same piece with no additional reporting, but with more capital letters in their headline: 'Brooklyn dog owners refuse to vaccinate their pets because they fear shots will give them AUTISM.' These stories make two highly shareable claims: 1) Pet owner behavior in Brooklyn has changed such that an increasing number of pet owners are refusing to vaccinate their pets; and 2) this purported change in behavior is attributable to the (human) anti-vaccine movement, which embraces the widely discredited link between vaccines and autism. Unfortunately, the evidence provided to support these Tweet-friendly claims is insufficient to document either a change in behavior or hypothesize a reason for why it may or may not be happening. In support of the claim that pet owners are increasingly refusing vaccinations, BrooklynPaper quotes two local veterinarians. The first vet, Dr. Amy Ford, does suggest she has seen an increasing number of clients who 'don't want to vaccinate their pet' (not that they are actually avoiding the treatment, mind you): 'We do see a higher number of clients who don't want to vaccinate their animals,' said Dr. Amy Ford of the Veterinarian Wellness Center of Boerum Hill. The second vet provides one example (which is mathematically incapable of being evidence of a trend on its own), while reiterating the point that dogs are not typically diagnosed with autism: 'I had a client concerned about an autistic child who didn't want to vaccinate the dog for the same reason,' said Dr. Stephanie Liff of Clinton Hill's Pure Paws Veterinary Care. 'We've never diagnosed autism in a dog. I don't think you could.' Collectively, then, the evidence for this change in behavior rests on a single incident in one clinic and the qualitative testimony of a single vet in another that suggests only increased concern, not increased refusal. The evidence linking this supposed trend to the anti-vaccine movement is similarly tenuous, and primarily relies, again, on speculative statements from Ford and Linn: '[People refusing to vaccinate their pets may] be stemming from the anti-vaccine movement, which people are applying to their pets.' [...] 'It's actually much more common in the hipster-y areas,' Ford said. 'I really don't know what the reasoning is, they just feel that injecting chemicals into their pet is going to cause problems.' To shore up both claims, BrooklynPaper then conducted interviews with random dog owners on the street, only to find that none of them personally held these views or acted on them: Not all residents of Kings County's 'hipster-y areas' refuse to inoculate their pets, however, according to Greenpoint dog owner Larissa Moon, spotted on Wednesday walking her pooch in Prospect Park. 'It's a pretty good idea to vaccinate both your dogs and your kids' she said, while wearing a leaf for a hat. [...] 'I've bumped into a couple people who told me 'Don't vaccinate your dog,' ' said Adam Weller. 'I'm like, 'Okay, have a nice day!' ' [...] Another former pup owner said that while she has vaccinated pets in the past, recent concerns over the injections' side affects [sic] have moved her to doubt their necessity. 'I've heard over the past couple of years that there can be issues with [vaccinations],' said Park Slope resident Jeannette D'Mico, whose two pooches died last year. 'I will get another dog eventually, and will look into not doing that blindly.' We are, to be clear, arguing neither for or against the notion that the human anti-vaccine movement may be altering pet owner behavior. We are, however, arguing that the claims made in the original story and in headlines and tweets across the internet stem primarily from the speculative testimony of two Brooklyn vets, and from interviews of random people on the street that, in reality, provide zero direct support said claims. As such, we rank the purported increase anti-pet-vaccination in Brooklyn as unproven. | nan | [
"05173-proof-06-jack_russel_terrier_dog_fb.jpg"
] |
People in Brooklyn are refusing to vaccinate their pets based on fears created by the anti-vaccine movement. | Neutral | On 1 August 2017, BrooklynPaper.com - the internet-facing side of a local Brooklyn weekly - published a story that claimed to document an increase in Brooklyn pet owners refusing to vaccinate their pets over fears the treatment would give their furry friends autism: A growing, national anti-vaccination movement that claims the inoculations can cause autism in children has led Brooklyn pet-owners to withhold vaccines against deadly and spreadable diseases from their critters, according to local veterinarians. The story has since gone viral, thanks primarily to the British tabloid Daily Mail, which essentially republished the same piece with no additional reporting, but with more capital letters in their headline: 'Brooklyn dog owners refuse to vaccinate their pets because they fear shots will give them AUTISM.' These stories make two highly shareable claims: 1) Pet owner behavior in Brooklyn has changed such that an increasing number of pet owners are refusing to vaccinate their pets; and 2) this purported change in behavior is attributable to the (human) anti-vaccine movement, which embraces the widely discredited link between vaccines and autism. Unfortunately, the evidence provided to support these Tweet-friendly claims is insufficient to document either a change in behavior or hypothesize a reason for why it may or may not be happening. In support of the claim that pet owners are increasingly refusing vaccinations, BrooklynPaper quotes two local veterinarians. The first vet, Dr. Amy Ford, does suggest she has seen an increasing number of clients who 'don't want to vaccinate their pet' (not that they are actually avoiding the treatment, mind you): 'We do see a higher number of clients who don't want to vaccinate their animals,' said Dr. Amy Ford of the Veterinarian Wellness Center of Boerum Hill. The second vet provides one example (which is mathematically incapable of being evidence of a trend on its own), while reiterating the point that dogs are not typically diagnosed with autism: 'I had a client concerned about an autistic child who didn't want to vaccinate the dog for the same reason,' said Dr. Stephanie Liff of Clinton Hill's Pure Paws Veterinary Care. 'We've never diagnosed autism in a dog. I don't think you could.' Collectively, then, the evidence for this change in behavior rests on a single incident in one clinic and the qualitative testimony of a single vet in another that suggests only increased concern, not increased refusal. The evidence linking this supposed trend to the anti-vaccine movement is similarly tenuous, and primarily relies, again, on speculative statements from Ford and Linn: '[People refusing to vaccinate their pets may] be stemming from the anti-vaccine movement, which people are applying to their pets.' [...] 'It's actually much more common in the hipster-y areas,' Ford said. 'I really don't know what the reasoning is, they just feel that injecting chemicals into their pet is going to cause problems.' To shore up both claims, BrooklynPaper then conducted interviews with random dog owners on the street, only to find that none of them personally held these views or acted on them: Not all residents of Kings County's 'hipster-y areas' refuse to inoculate their pets, however, according to Greenpoint dog owner Larissa Moon, spotted on Wednesday walking her pooch in Prospect Park. 'It's a pretty good idea to vaccinate both your dogs and your kids' she said, while wearing a leaf for a hat. [...] 'I've bumped into a couple people who told me 'Don't vaccinate your dog,' ' said Adam Weller. 'I'm like, 'Okay, have a nice day!' ' [...] Another former pup owner said that while she has vaccinated pets in the past, recent concerns over the injections' side affects [sic] have moved her to doubt their necessity. 'I've heard over the past couple of years that there can be issues with [vaccinations],' said Park Slope resident Jeannette D'Mico, whose two pooches died last year. 'I will get another dog eventually, and will look into not doing that blindly.' We are, to be clear, arguing neither for or against the notion that the human anti-vaccine movement may be altering pet owner behavior. We are, however, arguing that the claims made in the original story and in headlines and tweets across the internet stem primarily from the speculative testimony of two Brooklyn vets, and from interviews of random people on the street that, in reality, provide zero direct support said claims. As such, we rank the purported increase anti-pet-vaccination in Brooklyn as unproven. | nan | [
"05173-proof-06-jack_russel_terrier_dog_fb.jpg"
] |
People in Brooklyn are refusing to vaccinate their pets based on fears created by the anti-vaccine movement. | Neutral | On 1 August 2017, BrooklynPaper.com - the internet-facing side of a local Brooklyn weekly - published a story that claimed to document an increase in Brooklyn pet owners refusing to vaccinate their pets over fears the treatment would give their furry friends autism: A growing, national anti-vaccination movement that claims the inoculations can cause autism in children has led Brooklyn pet-owners to withhold vaccines against deadly and spreadable diseases from their critters, according to local veterinarians. The story has since gone viral, thanks primarily to the British tabloid Daily Mail, which essentially republished the same piece with no additional reporting, but with more capital letters in their headline: 'Brooklyn dog owners refuse to vaccinate their pets because they fear shots will give them AUTISM.' These stories make two highly shareable claims: 1) Pet owner behavior in Brooklyn has changed such that an increasing number of pet owners are refusing to vaccinate their pets; and 2) this purported change in behavior is attributable to the (human) anti-vaccine movement, which embraces the widely discredited link between vaccines and autism. Unfortunately, the evidence provided to support these Tweet-friendly claims is insufficient to document either a change in behavior or hypothesize a reason for why it may or may not be happening. In support of the claim that pet owners are increasingly refusing vaccinations, BrooklynPaper quotes two local veterinarians. The first vet, Dr. Amy Ford, does suggest she has seen an increasing number of clients who 'don't want to vaccinate their pet' (not that they are actually avoiding the treatment, mind you): 'We do see a higher number of clients who don't want to vaccinate their animals,' said Dr. Amy Ford of the Veterinarian Wellness Center of Boerum Hill. The second vet provides one example (which is mathematically incapable of being evidence of a trend on its own), while reiterating the point that dogs are not typically diagnosed with autism: 'I had a client concerned about an autistic child who didn't want to vaccinate the dog for the same reason,' said Dr. Stephanie Liff of Clinton Hill's Pure Paws Veterinary Care. 'We've never diagnosed autism in a dog. I don't think you could.' Collectively, then, the evidence for this change in behavior rests on a single incident in one clinic and the qualitative testimony of a single vet in another that suggests only increased concern, not increased refusal. The evidence linking this supposed trend to the anti-vaccine movement is similarly tenuous, and primarily relies, again, on speculative statements from Ford and Linn: '[People refusing to vaccinate their pets may] be stemming from the anti-vaccine movement, which people are applying to their pets.' [...] 'It's actually much more common in the hipster-y areas,' Ford said. 'I really don't know what the reasoning is, they just feel that injecting chemicals into their pet is going to cause problems.' To shore up both claims, BrooklynPaper then conducted interviews with random dog owners on the street, only to find that none of them personally held these views or acted on them: Not all residents of Kings County's 'hipster-y areas' refuse to inoculate their pets, however, according to Greenpoint dog owner Larissa Moon, spotted on Wednesday walking her pooch in Prospect Park. 'It's a pretty good idea to vaccinate both your dogs and your kids' she said, while wearing a leaf for a hat. [...] 'I've bumped into a couple people who told me 'Don't vaccinate your dog,' ' said Adam Weller. 'I'm like, 'Okay, have a nice day!' ' [...] Another former pup owner said that while she has vaccinated pets in the past, recent concerns over the injections' side affects [sic] have moved her to doubt their necessity. 'I've heard over the past couple of years that there can be issues with [vaccinations],' said Park Slope resident Jeannette D'Mico, whose two pooches died last year. 'I will get another dog eventually, and will look into not doing that blindly.' We are, to be clear, arguing neither for or against the notion that the human anti-vaccine movement may be altering pet owner behavior. We are, however, arguing that the claims made in the original story and in headlines and tweets across the internet stem primarily from the speculative testimony of two Brooklyn vets, and from interviews of random people on the street that, in reality, provide zero direct support said claims. As such, we rank the purported increase anti-pet-vaccination in Brooklyn as unproven. | nan | [
"05173-proof-06-jack_russel_terrier_dog_fb.jpg"
] |
People in Brooklyn are refusing to vaccinate their pets based on fears created by the anti-vaccine movement. | Neutral | On 1 August 2017, BrooklynPaper.com - the internet-facing side of a local Brooklyn weekly - published a story that claimed to document an increase in Brooklyn pet owners refusing to vaccinate their pets over fears the treatment would give their furry friends autism: A growing, national anti-vaccination movement that claims the inoculations can cause autism in children has led Brooklyn pet-owners to withhold vaccines against deadly and spreadable diseases from their critters, according to local veterinarians. The story has since gone viral, thanks primarily to the British tabloid Daily Mail, which essentially republished the same piece with no additional reporting, but with more capital letters in their headline: 'Brooklyn dog owners refuse to vaccinate their pets because they fear shots will give them AUTISM.' These stories make two highly shareable claims: 1) Pet owner behavior in Brooklyn has changed such that an increasing number of pet owners are refusing to vaccinate their pets; and 2) this purported change in behavior is attributable to the (human) anti-vaccine movement, which embraces the widely discredited link between vaccines and autism. Unfortunately, the evidence provided to support these Tweet-friendly claims is insufficient to document either a change in behavior or hypothesize a reason for why it may or may not be happening. In support of the claim that pet owners are increasingly refusing vaccinations, BrooklynPaper quotes two local veterinarians. The first vet, Dr. Amy Ford, does suggest she has seen an increasing number of clients who 'don't want to vaccinate their pet' (not that they are actually avoiding the treatment, mind you): 'We do see a higher number of clients who don't want to vaccinate their animals,' said Dr. Amy Ford of the Veterinarian Wellness Center of Boerum Hill. The second vet provides one example (which is mathematically incapable of being evidence of a trend on its own), while reiterating the point that dogs are not typically diagnosed with autism: 'I had a client concerned about an autistic child who didn't want to vaccinate the dog for the same reason,' said Dr. Stephanie Liff of Clinton Hill's Pure Paws Veterinary Care. 'We've never diagnosed autism in a dog. I don't think you could.' Collectively, then, the evidence for this change in behavior rests on a single incident in one clinic and the qualitative testimony of a single vet in another that suggests only increased concern, not increased refusal. The evidence linking this supposed trend to the anti-vaccine movement is similarly tenuous, and primarily relies, again, on speculative statements from Ford and Linn: '[People refusing to vaccinate their pets may] be stemming from the anti-vaccine movement, which people are applying to their pets.' [...] 'It's actually much more common in the hipster-y areas,' Ford said. 'I really don't know what the reasoning is, they just feel that injecting chemicals into their pet is going to cause problems.' To shore up both claims, BrooklynPaper then conducted interviews with random dog owners on the street, only to find that none of them personally held these views or acted on them: Not all residents of Kings County's 'hipster-y areas' refuse to inoculate their pets, however, according to Greenpoint dog owner Larissa Moon, spotted on Wednesday walking her pooch in Prospect Park. 'It's a pretty good idea to vaccinate both your dogs and your kids' she said, while wearing a leaf for a hat. [...] 'I've bumped into a couple people who told me 'Don't vaccinate your dog,' ' said Adam Weller. 'I'm like, 'Okay, have a nice day!' ' [...] Another former pup owner said that while she has vaccinated pets in the past, recent concerns over the injections' side affects [sic] have moved her to doubt their necessity. 'I've heard over the past couple of years that there can be issues with [vaccinations],' said Park Slope resident Jeannette D'Mico, whose two pooches died last year. 'I will get another dog eventually, and will look into not doing that blindly.' We are, to be clear, arguing neither for or against the notion that the human anti-vaccine movement may be altering pet owner behavior. We are, however, arguing that the claims made in the original story and in headlines and tweets across the internet stem primarily from the speculative testimony of two Brooklyn vets, and from interviews of random people on the street that, in reality, provide zero direct support said claims. As such, we rank the purported increase anti-pet-vaccination in Brooklyn as unproven. | nan | [
"05173-proof-06-jack_russel_terrier_dog_fb.jpg"
] |
People in Brooklyn are refusing to vaccinate their pets based on fears created by the anti-vaccine movement. | Neutral | On 1 August 2017, BrooklynPaper.com - the internet-facing side of a local Brooklyn weekly - published a story that claimed to document an increase in Brooklyn pet owners refusing to vaccinate their pets over fears the treatment would give their furry friends autism: A growing, national anti-vaccination movement that claims the inoculations can cause autism in children has led Brooklyn pet-owners to withhold vaccines against deadly and spreadable diseases from their critters, according to local veterinarians. The story has since gone viral, thanks primarily to the British tabloid Daily Mail, which essentially republished the same piece with no additional reporting, but with more capital letters in their headline: 'Brooklyn dog owners refuse to vaccinate their pets because they fear shots will give them AUTISM.' These stories make two highly shareable claims: 1) Pet owner behavior in Brooklyn has changed such that an increasing number of pet owners are refusing to vaccinate their pets; and 2) this purported change in behavior is attributable to the (human) anti-vaccine movement, which embraces the widely discredited link between vaccines and autism. Unfortunately, the evidence provided to support these Tweet-friendly claims is insufficient to document either a change in behavior or hypothesize a reason for why it may or may not be happening. In support of the claim that pet owners are increasingly refusing vaccinations, BrooklynPaper quotes two local veterinarians. The first vet, Dr. Amy Ford, does suggest she has seen an increasing number of clients who 'don't want to vaccinate their pet' (not that they are actually avoiding the treatment, mind you): 'We do see a higher number of clients who don't want to vaccinate their animals,' said Dr. Amy Ford of the Veterinarian Wellness Center of Boerum Hill. The second vet provides one example (which is mathematically incapable of being evidence of a trend on its own), while reiterating the point that dogs are not typically diagnosed with autism: 'I had a client concerned about an autistic child who didn't want to vaccinate the dog for the same reason,' said Dr. Stephanie Liff of Clinton Hill's Pure Paws Veterinary Care. 'We've never diagnosed autism in a dog. I don't think you could.' Collectively, then, the evidence for this change in behavior rests on a single incident in one clinic and the qualitative testimony of a single vet in another that suggests only increased concern, not increased refusal. The evidence linking this supposed trend to the anti-vaccine movement is similarly tenuous, and primarily relies, again, on speculative statements from Ford and Linn: '[People refusing to vaccinate their pets may] be stemming from the anti-vaccine movement, which people are applying to their pets.' [...] 'It's actually much more common in the hipster-y areas,' Ford said. 'I really don't know what the reasoning is, they just feel that injecting chemicals into their pet is going to cause problems.' To shore up both claims, BrooklynPaper then conducted interviews with random dog owners on the street, only to find that none of them personally held these views or acted on them: Not all residents of Kings County's 'hipster-y areas' refuse to inoculate their pets, however, according to Greenpoint dog owner Larissa Moon, spotted on Wednesday walking her pooch in Prospect Park. 'It's a pretty good idea to vaccinate both your dogs and your kids' she said, while wearing a leaf for a hat. [...] 'I've bumped into a couple people who told me 'Don't vaccinate your dog,' ' said Adam Weller. 'I'm like, 'Okay, have a nice day!' ' [...] Another former pup owner said that while she has vaccinated pets in the past, recent concerns over the injections' side affects [sic] have moved her to doubt their necessity. 'I've heard over the past couple of years that there can be issues with [vaccinations],' said Park Slope resident Jeannette D'Mico, whose two pooches died last year. 'I will get another dog eventually, and will look into not doing that blindly.' We are, to be clear, arguing neither for or against the notion that the human anti-vaccine movement may be altering pet owner behavior. We are, however, arguing that the claims made in the original story and in headlines and tweets across the internet stem primarily from the speculative testimony of two Brooklyn vets, and from interviews of random people on the street that, in reality, provide zero direct support said claims. As such, we rank the purported increase anti-pet-vaccination in Brooklyn as unproven. | nan | [
"05173-proof-06-jack_russel_terrier_dog_fb.jpg"
] |
Under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) approved the use of taxpayer dollars to fund 'cruel and unnecessary' testing of an experimental vaccines and drugs on beagles. | Neutral | Throughout the latter half of 2021, the taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project (WCW) released announcements that it had exposed several government-funded 'cruel and unusual' research projects that tested potential vaccines and drug therapeutics on beagles, which collectively cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In all cases, WCW pointed blame at Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whom the group posited as having given the final approval to fund the projects. Snopes readers asked our team to focus our investigation on three of the studies in question, which included research conducted at the University of Georgia Research Foundation (UGR) the nonprofit research institute SRI International, and by scientists in Tunisia. The allegations began in July 2021, when the Republican-led animal rights advocacy group published a report that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, approved funding from taxpayer dollars to conduct 'painful experiments' on beagles. WCW claimed in its July 30 report that Fauci, in an attempt to advance a human vaccine for a parasitic disease called lymphatic filariasis, 'spent $424,000 to commission a study in which healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans.' The findings of the WCW investigation were subsequently reported in publications like Fox News and conservative-leaning outlets such as RT, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and The Patriot Project. Fauci Agency Tested Experimental Drug on Beagles, Cruel Experiment Had Dogs in Obvious Pain https://t.co/z4Re5aMh34 - Tea Party Patriots (@TPPatriots) August 15, 2021 In October 2021, Republican U.S. House Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina tweeted a letter she sent to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, referencing documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from WCW. WCW claimed that from October 2018 to February 2019, Fauci 'ordered cruel and unusual drug toxicity tests on dogs... that cost taxpayers $1.68 million.' Yesterday, I sent a letter to Dr. Fauci regarding cruel, taxpayer-funded experiments on puppies; debarking before drugging and killing them. Thankful to my 23 democrat and republican colleagues who signed on. This is disgusting. What say you @NIH pic.twitter.com/c54SXipD9Q - Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) October 23, 2021 In a third report, WCW claimed that NIAID funded more than $375,000 to conduct a study that again used beagles as test subjects in experiments involving sand flies that the organization described as 'torture.' Snopes contacted WCW and obtained copies of documents reportedly obtained via separate Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the organization. Claims of Fauci funding the 'torture' of dogs circulated and recirculated in Fall 2021 and are largely based on two studies funded by the NIAID that did, indeed, involve using beagles as test subjects. We break those claims down below, but first, a closer look at the organization behind the reports. What Is the White Coast Waste Project? Founded in 2013, WCW is a watchdog group that is self-described as representing more than 2 million 'liberty lovers and animal-lovers' who oppose using taxpayer dollars to support experiments on animals. It is not a traditional animal advocacy group but instead devotes its efforts to denouncing what it characterizes as wasted government funds spent on testing. In 2016, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported that the Washington, D.C.-based organization is the 'brainchild' of former Republican strategist Anthony Bellotti. 'His opposition to animal research began in 1995, when, in the summer between high school and college, he worked in a hospital laboratory that was conducting heart studies on pigs and witnessed experiments he saw as cruel. After he became a political consultant, he hit upon the idea of framing such research as a waste of taxpayer money,' wrote AAAS. Study 1: SRI Testing of Potential HIV Therapeutic, 2018-2019 Following the UGR investigation into the lymphatic filariasis studies, a spokesperson for WCW told Snopes that in August 2021, the watchdog group also requested documents related to toxicity testing on beagles 'commissioned by Anthony Fauci's [NIAID].' Snopes read through the file to verify the claims made in the WCW report specific to NIH contract number HHSN272201400006I, which was described in a government database as 'preclinical development services for AIDS therapeutics' with SRI International, a California-based nonprofit scientific research institute. According to the government fiduciary site USA Spending, a $1.1 million grant was awarded to the organization by DHHS on behalf of the NIAID. The study was listed to begin July 15, 2020, and wrap up by Dec. 24, 2021, and included testing on small animals for therapeutics to treat HIV as well as Hepatitis B and C viruses. 'The request returned 1,438 pages of documents describing 'wasteful and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on beagle puppies,'' a WCW spokesperson told Snopes. The documents are hosted on our site at the link below. https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/10/maddap_beagles.pdf The records outlined several studies involving both rats and beagles. The documents outline both the proposed study design as well as the actual results of the study, the latter of which resulted in 40 beagles between the ages of 8 and 9 months being administered oral and subcutaneous (under the skin) doses of an unnamed HIV therapeutic between September 2018 and October 2019. It is true that all dogs were euthanized following the study and their organs were analyzed for potential toxicity from the drugs. It is also true that the dogs vocal cords were 'cut out.' In an statement emailed to MedPage Today, NIAID told the publication that the contract for 'preclinical pharmacology and toxicology services' was conducted 'as required in animal models by the FDA, in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines and in a facility accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) or its equivalent.' WCW 'Vocal cordectomies, conducted humanely under anesthesia, may be used in research facilities where numerous dogs are present,' the statement said. 'This is to reduce noise, which is not only stressful to the animals but can also reach decibel levels that exceed OSHA allowable limits for people and can lead to hearing loss.' The housing and care of the beagles at the time of the study was in accordance with the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, while welfare requirements were met in accordance with regulations established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare. 'Every effort will be made to minimize , if not eliminate, pain and suffering in all animals in this study. Moribund animals and animals experiencing undue pain and suffering will be euthanized at the discretion of the Study Director, attending veterinarian, or other qualified person. The Study Director will make every effort to protect the scientific validity of the study,' read the document. While at least some of the funding was provided by NIAID, it is still unclear whether Fauci personally signed off on approving the research. Study 2: University of Georgia Testing of Lymphatic Filariasis, November 2020 Claims of Fauci ordering the funding of therapeutic testing on beagles originated with a 38-page FOIA request submitted by WCW and shared publicly in July. Those are hosted in this Dropbox folder and have been archived on our site: Snopes read through the document, and our analysis confirmed that obligated funds were issued to the UGR by the NIH in the amount of $424,555 to determine the efficacy of a potential vaccine for lymphatic filariasis on beagle test subjects. A contract shared online by the U.S. government defined the research as: 'PRE-CLINICAL MODELS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES; TASK C12 LYMPHATIC FILARIASIS VACCINE (LFGUARD) EFFICACY TRIAL IN DOGS.' Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through annual funds allocated by Congress and the president, though direct projects may be signed off on by various leaders within NIH. However, there is no evidence that the grant was personally approved by Fauci and there is no mention of him in the FOIA documentation. All that we can definitively say is that at least some of the money came from NIH. Neither the NIH nor UGR responded to Snopes' requests to verify the documents published by WCW, but a spokesperson for WCW sent our team a letter, written by NIAID Government Information Specialist Lauren Bartok in response to the FOIA request under case number 55876. The letter referenced the experimental documents obtained by WCW, confirming that the experiments took place. As with the first study, personal and proprietary information had been removed from the document, including the name of the vaccine and experiment objectives. The files did note that the contractor (UGR) was to acquire 'healthy, adult beagle dogs' to 'administer different formulations [presumably of vaccine] to dogs via the intramuscular route.' 'Each set of experiments will use 14 dogs, which total 28 dogs at completion of the study (7 dogs in each group),' read the statement of work. Studies began in mid-November 2020 at which point the 'pathogen-free adult beagle dogs' were scheduled to receive a total of three doses on days 0, 28, and 56. Throughout the study, researchers were instructed to monitor the dogs' health twice daily and collect blood and urine samples. A first dose of the vaccine was administered on Nov. 12 with a second-round given on Dec. 17 'without incident with one important exception.' That exception was four dogs in the so-named 'blue' group reported as having 'vocalized in pain upon administration.' After a physical examination five days later, the four dogs were observed as being 'bright, alert, and responsive.' A third and final round was administered on Jan. 14, 2021, also without incident but with 'one important exception.' Half of the animals in the 'blue' group again 'vocalized in pain upon administration.' A week later, they were once gain deemed 'bright, alert and responsive.' Emails sent between the researchers were included in the FOIA documents and confirmed that only the 'blue' group showed a 'consistent pain response.' The research is scheduled to be completed by Jan. 15, 2022, and all animals 'will be euthanized after day 196,' read the FOIA document. Image of the filarial worm Dirofilaria immitis (heartworms) in a lymph node of a dog with lymphoma. Lance Wheeler/Public Domain The UGR contract noted the vaccine was for lymphatic filariasis, a mosquito-borne parasitic infection, caused by microscopic, thread-like worms. When inside of their human hosts, these filarial worms live in the human lymph system and can cause elephantiasis and, in men, a condition called hydrocele that causes the swelling of the scrotum, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Lymphatic filariasis affects an estimated 120 million people worldwide with another 1.2 billion at risk of infection, wrote researchers in 2014. Currently, there is no vaccine available for human cases, though treatment typically consists of chemotherapy and multiple drug therapies. But as the White Coat Project reported, vaccines for the disease have been tested in mice - and were shown to be 90% effective - and macaques (70% effective). In fact, at least 27 related animal experiments have been conducted since the 1940s on filarial worms. While WCW deemed the experiments 'cruel and unnecessary' and claimed that some of the dogs were 'bitten to death,' the NIH contends that all research involving animals is overseen by the agency's Office of Laboratory Welfare to ensure it is conducted ethically. 'All animals used in NIH-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies that ensure the smallest number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare,' notes the agency on its website. Furthermore, no evidence was put forward showing that the dogs were subject to biting, let alone 'bitten to death.' If any such information was included in the FOIA document, it has since been redacted. In an interview with Newsweek, Greg Trevor, associate vice president for marketing and communications at UGR, confirmed that the research was for a potential vaccine that was developed and another institution. In an emailed statement, Trevor reportedly told the publication that 'under federal rules, a vaccine must be tested in two animal species before it can be cleared for human clinical trials.' NIAID decided to fund this research and that it needed to be conducted on a dog model, of which beagles are the 'standard.' 'Because this disease currently has no cure, unfortunately, the animals that are part of this trial must be euthanized. We do not take lightly the decision to use such animals in some of our research,' Trevor reportedly told the publication. Study 3: Study Transmission of Leishmaniasis in Dogs, Tunisia, July 2021 The third study took place in Tunisia and analyzed whether a species of sand fly (Phlebotomus perniciosus) was noticeably attracted to beagles who were infected with Leishmania infantum, the parasite that causes the skin disease leishmaniasis. Sand flies are the main vector of L. infantum and dogs are the main host and reservoir of the disease. Though the research took place, NIAID did not fund the study and the journal that published the study, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, issued a correction after reporting that the federal agency did support the study. 'The manuscript mistakenly cited support from NIAID, when in fact NIAID did not support this specific research shown in the images of the beagles being circulated,' NIAID told Politifact. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases confirmed to MedPage Today that the mistake was made and posted a correction online, adding that NIAID 'did not provide any funding for this research and any such claim was made in error.' Following the Federal Dollars Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through congressional and executive actions deciding how to allocate taxpayer dollars. These annual allocations are then signed off on by the sitting president. NIAID funding for the fiscal year 2021 was awarded $5.4 billion by then-U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020. The following year, President Joe Biden requested an increase of $178.9 million, or 2.9%, for a total of $6.2 billion to be awarded in the fiscal year 2022. It is true that research conducted at UGR and SRI International was at least in part funded by NIAID with taxpayer dollars, though it is unclear whether such allocations were personally approved by Fauci. | nan | [
"05319-proof-02-GettyImages-960990096.jpg",
"05319-proof-09-ria_of_Dirofilaria_immitis_Heartworms_Surrounded_by_Neoplastic_Lymphocytes_1.jpg"
] |
Under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) approved the use of taxpayer dollars to fund 'cruel and unnecessary' testing of an experimental vaccines and drugs on beagles. | Neutral | Throughout the latter half of 2021, the taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project (WCW) released announcements that it had exposed several government-funded 'cruel and unusual' research projects that tested potential vaccines and drug therapeutics on beagles, which collectively cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In all cases, WCW pointed blame at Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whom the group posited as having given the final approval to fund the projects. Snopes readers asked our team to focus our investigation on three of the studies in question, which included research conducted at the University of Georgia Research Foundation (UGR) the nonprofit research institute SRI International, and by scientists in Tunisia. The allegations began in July 2021, when the Republican-led animal rights advocacy group published a report that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, approved funding from taxpayer dollars to conduct 'painful experiments' on beagles. WCW claimed in its July 30 report that Fauci, in an attempt to advance a human vaccine for a parasitic disease called lymphatic filariasis, 'spent $424,000 to commission a study in which healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans.' The findings of the WCW investigation were subsequently reported in publications like Fox News and conservative-leaning outlets such as RT, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and The Patriot Project. Fauci Agency Tested Experimental Drug on Beagles, Cruel Experiment Had Dogs in Obvious Pain https://t.co/z4Re5aMh34 - Tea Party Patriots (@TPPatriots) August 15, 2021 In October 2021, Republican U.S. House Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina tweeted a letter she sent to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, referencing documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from WCW. WCW claimed that from October 2018 to February 2019, Fauci 'ordered cruel and unusual drug toxicity tests on dogs... that cost taxpayers $1.68 million.' Yesterday, I sent a letter to Dr. Fauci regarding cruel, taxpayer-funded experiments on puppies; debarking before drugging and killing them. Thankful to my 23 democrat and republican colleagues who signed on. This is disgusting. What say you @NIH pic.twitter.com/c54SXipD9Q - Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) October 23, 2021 In a third report, WCW claimed that NIAID funded more than $375,000 to conduct a study that again used beagles as test subjects in experiments involving sand flies that the organization described as 'torture.' Snopes contacted WCW and obtained copies of documents reportedly obtained via separate Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the organization. Claims of Fauci funding the 'torture' of dogs circulated and recirculated in Fall 2021 and are largely based on two studies funded by the NIAID that did, indeed, involve using beagles as test subjects. We break those claims down below, but first, a closer look at the organization behind the reports. What Is the White Coast Waste Project? Founded in 2013, WCW is a watchdog group that is self-described as representing more than 2 million 'liberty lovers and animal-lovers' who oppose using taxpayer dollars to support experiments on animals. It is not a traditional animal advocacy group but instead devotes its efforts to denouncing what it characterizes as wasted government funds spent on testing. In 2016, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported that the Washington, D.C.-based organization is the 'brainchild' of former Republican strategist Anthony Bellotti. 'His opposition to animal research began in 1995, when, in the summer between high school and college, he worked in a hospital laboratory that was conducting heart studies on pigs and witnessed experiments he saw as cruel. After he became a political consultant, he hit upon the idea of framing such research as a waste of taxpayer money,' wrote AAAS. Study 1: SRI Testing of Potential HIV Therapeutic, 2018-2019 Following the UGR investigation into the lymphatic filariasis studies, a spokesperson for WCW told Snopes that in August 2021, the watchdog group also requested documents related to toxicity testing on beagles 'commissioned by Anthony Fauci's [NIAID].' Snopes read through the file to verify the claims made in the WCW report specific to NIH contract number HHSN272201400006I, which was described in a government database as 'preclinical development services for AIDS therapeutics' with SRI International, a California-based nonprofit scientific research institute. According to the government fiduciary site USA Spending, a $1.1 million grant was awarded to the organization by DHHS on behalf of the NIAID. The study was listed to begin July 15, 2020, and wrap up by Dec. 24, 2021, and included testing on small animals for therapeutics to treat HIV as well as Hepatitis B and C viruses. 'The request returned 1,438 pages of documents describing 'wasteful and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on beagle puppies,'' a WCW spokesperson told Snopes. The documents are hosted on our site at the link below. https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/10/maddap_beagles.pdf The records outlined several studies involving both rats and beagles. The documents outline both the proposed study design as well as the actual results of the study, the latter of which resulted in 40 beagles between the ages of 8 and 9 months being administered oral and subcutaneous (under the skin) doses of an unnamed HIV therapeutic between September 2018 and October 2019. It is true that all dogs were euthanized following the study and their organs were analyzed for potential toxicity from the drugs. It is also true that the dogs vocal cords were 'cut out.' In an statement emailed to MedPage Today, NIAID told the publication that the contract for 'preclinical pharmacology and toxicology services' was conducted 'as required in animal models by the FDA, in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines and in a facility accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) or its equivalent.' WCW 'Vocal cordectomies, conducted humanely under anesthesia, may be used in research facilities where numerous dogs are present,' the statement said. 'This is to reduce noise, which is not only stressful to the animals but can also reach decibel levels that exceed OSHA allowable limits for people and can lead to hearing loss.' The housing and care of the beagles at the time of the study was in accordance with the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, while welfare requirements were met in accordance with regulations established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare. 'Every effort will be made to minimize , if not eliminate, pain and suffering in all animals in this study. Moribund animals and animals experiencing undue pain and suffering will be euthanized at the discretion of the Study Director, attending veterinarian, or other qualified person. The Study Director will make every effort to protect the scientific validity of the study,' read the document. While at least some of the funding was provided by NIAID, it is still unclear whether Fauci personally signed off on approving the research. Study 2: University of Georgia Testing of Lymphatic Filariasis, November 2020 Claims of Fauci ordering the funding of therapeutic testing on beagles originated with a 38-page FOIA request submitted by WCW and shared publicly in July. Those are hosted in this Dropbox folder and have been archived on our site: Snopes read through the document, and our analysis confirmed that obligated funds were issued to the UGR by the NIH in the amount of $424,555 to determine the efficacy of a potential vaccine for lymphatic filariasis on beagle test subjects. A contract shared online by the U.S. government defined the research as: 'PRE-CLINICAL MODELS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES; TASK C12 LYMPHATIC FILARIASIS VACCINE (LFGUARD) EFFICACY TRIAL IN DOGS.' Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through annual funds allocated by Congress and the president, though direct projects may be signed off on by various leaders within NIH. However, there is no evidence that the grant was personally approved by Fauci and there is no mention of him in the FOIA documentation. All that we can definitively say is that at least some of the money came from NIH. Neither the NIH nor UGR responded to Snopes' requests to verify the documents published by WCW, but a spokesperson for WCW sent our team a letter, written by NIAID Government Information Specialist Lauren Bartok in response to the FOIA request under case number 55876. The letter referenced the experimental documents obtained by WCW, confirming that the experiments took place. As with the first study, personal and proprietary information had been removed from the document, including the name of the vaccine and experiment objectives. The files did note that the contractor (UGR) was to acquire 'healthy, adult beagle dogs' to 'administer different formulations [presumably of vaccine] to dogs via the intramuscular route.' 'Each set of experiments will use 14 dogs, which total 28 dogs at completion of the study (7 dogs in each group),' read the statement of work. Studies began in mid-November 2020 at which point the 'pathogen-free adult beagle dogs' were scheduled to receive a total of three doses on days 0, 28, and 56. Throughout the study, researchers were instructed to monitor the dogs' health twice daily and collect blood and urine samples. A first dose of the vaccine was administered on Nov. 12 with a second-round given on Dec. 17 'without incident with one important exception.' That exception was four dogs in the so-named 'blue' group reported as having 'vocalized in pain upon administration.' After a physical examination five days later, the four dogs were observed as being 'bright, alert, and responsive.' A third and final round was administered on Jan. 14, 2021, also without incident but with 'one important exception.' Half of the animals in the 'blue' group again 'vocalized in pain upon administration.' A week later, they were once gain deemed 'bright, alert and responsive.' Emails sent between the researchers were included in the FOIA documents and confirmed that only the 'blue' group showed a 'consistent pain response.' The research is scheduled to be completed by Jan. 15, 2022, and all animals 'will be euthanized after day 196,' read the FOIA document. Image of the filarial worm Dirofilaria immitis (heartworms) in a lymph node of a dog with lymphoma. Lance Wheeler/Public Domain The UGR contract noted the vaccine was for lymphatic filariasis, a mosquito-borne parasitic infection, caused by microscopic, thread-like worms. When inside of their human hosts, these filarial worms live in the human lymph system and can cause elephantiasis and, in men, a condition called hydrocele that causes the swelling of the scrotum, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Lymphatic filariasis affects an estimated 120 million people worldwide with another 1.2 billion at risk of infection, wrote researchers in 2014. Currently, there is no vaccine available for human cases, though treatment typically consists of chemotherapy and multiple drug therapies. But as the White Coat Project reported, vaccines for the disease have been tested in mice - and were shown to be 90% effective - and macaques (70% effective). In fact, at least 27 related animal experiments have been conducted since the 1940s on filarial worms. While WCW deemed the experiments 'cruel and unnecessary' and claimed that some of the dogs were 'bitten to death,' the NIH contends that all research involving animals is overseen by the agency's Office of Laboratory Welfare to ensure it is conducted ethically. 'All animals used in NIH-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies that ensure the smallest number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare,' notes the agency on its website. Furthermore, no evidence was put forward showing that the dogs were subject to biting, let alone 'bitten to death.' If any such information was included in the FOIA document, it has since been redacted. In an interview with Newsweek, Greg Trevor, associate vice president for marketing and communications at UGR, confirmed that the research was for a potential vaccine that was developed and another institution. In an emailed statement, Trevor reportedly told the publication that 'under federal rules, a vaccine must be tested in two animal species before it can be cleared for human clinical trials.' NIAID decided to fund this research and that it needed to be conducted on a dog model, of which beagles are the 'standard.' 'Because this disease currently has no cure, unfortunately, the animals that are part of this trial must be euthanized. We do not take lightly the decision to use such animals in some of our research,' Trevor reportedly told the publication. Study 3: Study Transmission of Leishmaniasis in Dogs, Tunisia, July 2021 The third study took place in Tunisia and analyzed whether a species of sand fly (Phlebotomus perniciosus) was noticeably attracted to beagles who were infected with Leishmania infantum, the parasite that causes the skin disease leishmaniasis. Sand flies are the main vector of L. infantum and dogs are the main host and reservoir of the disease. Though the research took place, NIAID did not fund the study and the journal that published the study, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, issued a correction after reporting that the federal agency did support the study. 'The manuscript mistakenly cited support from NIAID, when in fact NIAID did not support this specific research shown in the images of the beagles being circulated,' NIAID told Politifact. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases confirmed to MedPage Today that the mistake was made and posted a correction online, adding that NIAID 'did not provide any funding for this research and any such claim was made in error.' Following the Federal Dollars Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through congressional and executive actions deciding how to allocate taxpayer dollars. These annual allocations are then signed off on by the sitting president. NIAID funding for the fiscal year 2021 was awarded $5.4 billion by then-U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020. The following year, President Joe Biden requested an increase of $178.9 million, or 2.9%, for a total of $6.2 billion to be awarded in the fiscal year 2022. It is true that research conducted at UGR and SRI International was at least in part funded by NIAID with taxpayer dollars, though it is unclear whether such allocations were personally approved by Fauci. | nan | [
"05319-proof-02-GettyImages-960990096.jpg",
"05319-proof-09-ria_of_Dirofilaria_immitis_Heartworms_Surrounded_by_Neoplastic_Lymphocytes_1.jpg"
] |
Under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) approved the use of taxpayer dollars to fund 'cruel and unnecessary' testing of an experimental vaccines and drugs on beagles. | Neutral | Throughout the latter half of 2021, the taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project (WCW) released announcements that it had exposed several government-funded 'cruel and unusual' research projects that tested potential vaccines and drug therapeutics on beagles, which collectively cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In all cases, WCW pointed blame at Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whom the group posited as having given the final approval to fund the projects. Snopes readers asked our team to focus our investigation on three of the studies in question, which included research conducted at the University of Georgia Research Foundation (UGR) the nonprofit research institute SRI International, and by scientists in Tunisia. The allegations began in July 2021, when the Republican-led animal rights advocacy group published a report that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, approved funding from taxpayer dollars to conduct 'painful experiments' on beagles. WCW claimed in its July 30 report that Fauci, in an attempt to advance a human vaccine for a parasitic disease called lymphatic filariasis, 'spent $424,000 to commission a study in which healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans.' The findings of the WCW investigation were subsequently reported in publications like Fox News and conservative-leaning outlets such as RT, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and The Patriot Project. Fauci Agency Tested Experimental Drug on Beagles, Cruel Experiment Had Dogs in Obvious Pain https://t.co/z4Re5aMh34 - Tea Party Patriots (@TPPatriots) August 15, 2021 In October 2021, Republican U.S. House Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina tweeted a letter she sent to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, referencing documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from WCW. WCW claimed that from October 2018 to February 2019, Fauci 'ordered cruel and unusual drug toxicity tests on dogs... that cost taxpayers $1.68 million.' Yesterday, I sent a letter to Dr. Fauci regarding cruel, taxpayer-funded experiments on puppies; debarking before drugging and killing them. Thankful to my 23 democrat and republican colleagues who signed on. This is disgusting. What say you @NIH pic.twitter.com/c54SXipD9Q - Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) October 23, 2021 In a third report, WCW claimed that NIAID funded more than $375,000 to conduct a study that again used beagles as test subjects in experiments involving sand flies that the organization described as 'torture.' Snopes contacted WCW and obtained copies of documents reportedly obtained via separate Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the organization. Claims of Fauci funding the 'torture' of dogs circulated and recirculated in Fall 2021 and are largely based on two studies funded by the NIAID that did, indeed, involve using beagles as test subjects. We break those claims down below, but first, a closer look at the organization behind the reports. What Is the White Coast Waste Project? Founded in 2013, WCW is a watchdog group that is self-described as representing more than 2 million 'liberty lovers and animal-lovers' who oppose using taxpayer dollars to support experiments on animals. It is not a traditional animal advocacy group but instead devotes its efforts to denouncing what it characterizes as wasted government funds spent on testing. In 2016, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported that the Washington, D.C.-based organization is the 'brainchild' of former Republican strategist Anthony Bellotti. 'His opposition to animal research began in 1995, when, in the summer between high school and college, he worked in a hospital laboratory that was conducting heart studies on pigs and witnessed experiments he saw as cruel. After he became a political consultant, he hit upon the idea of framing such research as a waste of taxpayer money,' wrote AAAS. Study 1: SRI Testing of Potential HIV Therapeutic, 2018-2019 Following the UGR investigation into the lymphatic filariasis studies, a spokesperson for WCW told Snopes that in August 2021, the watchdog group also requested documents related to toxicity testing on beagles 'commissioned by Anthony Fauci's [NIAID].' Snopes read through the file to verify the claims made in the WCW report specific to NIH contract number HHSN272201400006I, which was described in a government database as 'preclinical development services for AIDS therapeutics' with SRI International, a California-based nonprofit scientific research institute. According to the government fiduciary site USA Spending, a $1.1 million grant was awarded to the organization by DHHS on behalf of the NIAID. The study was listed to begin July 15, 2020, and wrap up by Dec. 24, 2021, and included testing on small animals for therapeutics to treat HIV as well as Hepatitis B and C viruses. 'The request returned 1,438 pages of documents describing 'wasteful and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on beagle puppies,'' a WCW spokesperson told Snopes. The documents are hosted on our site at the link below. https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/10/maddap_beagles.pdf The records outlined several studies involving both rats and beagles. The documents outline both the proposed study design as well as the actual results of the study, the latter of which resulted in 40 beagles between the ages of 8 and 9 months being administered oral and subcutaneous (under the skin) doses of an unnamed HIV therapeutic between September 2018 and October 2019. It is true that all dogs were euthanized following the study and their organs were analyzed for potential toxicity from the drugs. It is also true that the dogs vocal cords were 'cut out.' In an statement emailed to MedPage Today, NIAID told the publication that the contract for 'preclinical pharmacology and toxicology services' was conducted 'as required in animal models by the FDA, in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines and in a facility accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) or its equivalent.' WCW 'Vocal cordectomies, conducted humanely under anesthesia, may be used in research facilities where numerous dogs are present,' the statement said. 'This is to reduce noise, which is not only stressful to the animals but can also reach decibel levels that exceed OSHA allowable limits for people and can lead to hearing loss.' The housing and care of the beagles at the time of the study was in accordance with the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, while welfare requirements were met in accordance with regulations established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare. 'Every effort will be made to minimize , if not eliminate, pain and suffering in all animals in this study. Moribund animals and animals experiencing undue pain and suffering will be euthanized at the discretion of the Study Director, attending veterinarian, or other qualified person. The Study Director will make every effort to protect the scientific validity of the study,' read the document. While at least some of the funding was provided by NIAID, it is still unclear whether Fauci personally signed off on approving the research. Study 2: University of Georgia Testing of Lymphatic Filariasis, November 2020 Claims of Fauci ordering the funding of therapeutic testing on beagles originated with a 38-page FOIA request submitted by WCW and shared publicly in July. Those are hosted in this Dropbox folder and have been archived on our site: Snopes read through the document, and our analysis confirmed that obligated funds were issued to the UGR by the NIH in the amount of $424,555 to determine the efficacy of a potential vaccine for lymphatic filariasis on beagle test subjects. A contract shared online by the U.S. government defined the research as: 'PRE-CLINICAL MODELS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES; TASK C12 LYMPHATIC FILARIASIS VACCINE (LFGUARD) EFFICACY TRIAL IN DOGS.' Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through annual funds allocated by Congress and the president, though direct projects may be signed off on by various leaders within NIH. However, there is no evidence that the grant was personally approved by Fauci and there is no mention of him in the FOIA documentation. All that we can definitively say is that at least some of the money came from NIH. Neither the NIH nor UGR responded to Snopes' requests to verify the documents published by WCW, but a spokesperson for WCW sent our team a letter, written by NIAID Government Information Specialist Lauren Bartok in response to the FOIA request under case number 55876. The letter referenced the experimental documents obtained by WCW, confirming that the experiments took place. As with the first study, personal and proprietary information had been removed from the document, including the name of the vaccine and experiment objectives. The files did note that the contractor (UGR) was to acquire 'healthy, adult beagle dogs' to 'administer different formulations [presumably of vaccine] to dogs via the intramuscular route.' 'Each set of experiments will use 14 dogs, which total 28 dogs at completion of the study (7 dogs in each group),' read the statement of work. Studies began in mid-November 2020 at which point the 'pathogen-free adult beagle dogs' were scheduled to receive a total of three doses on days 0, 28, and 56. Throughout the study, researchers were instructed to monitor the dogs' health twice daily and collect blood and urine samples. A first dose of the vaccine was administered on Nov. 12 with a second-round given on Dec. 17 'without incident with one important exception.' That exception was four dogs in the so-named 'blue' group reported as having 'vocalized in pain upon administration.' After a physical examination five days later, the four dogs were observed as being 'bright, alert, and responsive.' A third and final round was administered on Jan. 14, 2021, also without incident but with 'one important exception.' Half of the animals in the 'blue' group again 'vocalized in pain upon administration.' A week later, they were once gain deemed 'bright, alert and responsive.' Emails sent between the researchers were included in the FOIA documents and confirmed that only the 'blue' group showed a 'consistent pain response.' The research is scheduled to be completed by Jan. 15, 2022, and all animals 'will be euthanized after day 196,' read the FOIA document. Image of the filarial worm Dirofilaria immitis (heartworms) in a lymph node of a dog with lymphoma. Lance Wheeler/Public Domain The UGR contract noted the vaccine was for lymphatic filariasis, a mosquito-borne parasitic infection, caused by microscopic, thread-like worms. When inside of their human hosts, these filarial worms live in the human lymph system and can cause elephantiasis and, in men, a condition called hydrocele that causes the swelling of the scrotum, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Lymphatic filariasis affects an estimated 120 million people worldwide with another 1.2 billion at risk of infection, wrote researchers in 2014. Currently, there is no vaccine available for human cases, though treatment typically consists of chemotherapy and multiple drug therapies. But as the White Coat Project reported, vaccines for the disease have been tested in mice - and were shown to be 90% effective - and macaques (70% effective). In fact, at least 27 related animal experiments have been conducted since the 1940s on filarial worms. While WCW deemed the experiments 'cruel and unnecessary' and claimed that some of the dogs were 'bitten to death,' the NIH contends that all research involving animals is overseen by the agency's Office of Laboratory Welfare to ensure it is conducted ethically. 'All animals used in NIH-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies that ensure the smallest number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare,' notes the agency on its website. Furthermore, no evidence was put forward showing that the dogs were subject to biting, let alone 'bitten to death.' If any such information was included in the FOIA document, it has since been redacted. In an interview with Newsweek, Greg Trevor, associate vice president for marketing and communications at UGR, confirmed that the research was for a potential vaccine that was developed and another institution. In an emailed statement, Trevor reportedly told the publication that 'under federal rules, a vaccine must be tested in two animal species before it can be cleared for human clinical trials.' NIAID decided to fund this research and that it needed to be conducted on a dog model, of which beagles are the 'standard.' 'Because this disease currently has no cure, unfortunately, the animals that are part of this trial must be euthanized. We do not take lightly the decision to use such animals in some of our research,' Trevor reportedly told the publication. Study 3: Study Transmission of Leishmaniasis in Dogs, Tunisia, July 2021 The third study took place in Tunisia and analyzed whether a species of sand fly (Phlebotomus perniciosus) was noticeably attracted to beagles who were infected with Leishmania infantum, the parasite that causes the skin disease leishmaniasis. Sand flies are the main vector of L. infantum and dogs are the main host and reservoir of the disease. Though the research took place, NIAID did not fund the study and the journal that published the study, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, issued a correction after reporting that the federal agency did support the study. 'The manuscript mistakenly cited support from NIAID, when in fact NIAID did not support this specific research shown in the images of the beagles being circulated,' NIAID told Politifact. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases confirmed to MedPage Today that the mistake was made and posted a correction online, adding that NIAID 'did not provide any funding for this research and any such claim was made in error.' Following the Federal Dollars Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through congressional and executive actions deciding how to allocate taxpayer dollars. These annual allocations are then signed off on by the sitting president. NIAID funding for the fiscal year 2021 was awarded $5.4 billion by then-U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020. The following year, President Joe Biden requested an increase of $178.9 million, or 2.9%, for a total of $6.2 billion to be awarded in the fiscal year 2022. It is true that research conducted at UGR and SRI International was at least in part funded by NIAID with taxpayer dollars, though it is unclear whether such allocations were personally approved by Fauci. | nan | [
"05319-proof-02-GettyImages-960990096.jpg",
"05319-proof-09-ria_of_Dirofilaria_immitis_Heartworms_Surrounded_by_Neoplastic_Lymphocytes_1.jpg"
] |
Guatemalan authorities rescued a group of minors from human smugglers in the migrant caravan. | Neutral | On 25 October 2018, the blog for the right-wing legal activist organization Judicial Watch reported that they had 'obtained exclusive information and photos from Guatemalan authorities revealing that they have recovered seven unaccompanied minors from human smugglers working inside the caravan.' However the report, which included a blurred image of several children in what appeared to be a dirty bathroom, contained no specifics by which we could independently verify it. We reached out to Guatemalan police and are awaiting an answer, and we also sent Judicial Watch a list of detailed questions about the source of their information. The latter organization's president, Tom Fitton, didn't answer our questions, claiming their source was 'confidential.' The caravan in question originated in Honduras on 12 October 2018, when thousands of migrants banded together for safety and began the journey on foot toward the U.S.-Mexico border. Since its inception, the caravan has been the source of a number of hoaxes, conspiracy theories and continuous fear mongering in the lead-up to consequential midterm elections that could tip the political balance of power in the United States. Judicial Watch thus far has been the only source of information on this subject we've located. The information, they claimed, was given to them by unidentified Guatemalan authorities: Judicial Watch has obtained exclusive information and photos from Guatemalan authorities revealing that they have recovered seven unaccompanied minors from human smugglers working inside the caravan. The children have been taken into custody and they are being provided with food, water and medical attention, according to a high-level Guatemalan government official. The smugglers have been arrested and the broader investigation into criminal activity in the caravan is ongoing. A Judicial Watch team, headed by Director of Investigations Chris Farrell, spent several days on the Guatemala-Honduras border covering the illegal alien caravan, which originated in the northern Honduran city of San Pedro Sula. The team filed a number of exclusive reports and videos and met with Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales and other top government officials. The story was accompanied by an image of what appeared to be children in a dirty, trash-strewn bathroom: Using several search engines, we were unable to locate any other source for that image. Judicial Watch previously published a misleading report that suggested 100 ISIS terrorists were among the caravan travelers by combining two unrelated news items under one alarming headline reading '100 ISIS Terrorists Caught in Guatemala as Central American Caravan Heads to U.S.' Although it was true the Guatemalan government had arrested and deported 100 people with links to the terrorist organization, this event was unrelated to, and occurred before, the caravan crossed into Guatemala. The organization previously falsely reported that an ISIS attack was imminent on the border. Farrell, the head of the Judicial Watch 'team' that was responsible for the report, was banned by Fox News for making false allegations on air that billionaire philanthropist George Soros was funding the migrant caravan. Soros, who is Jewish, is the frequent target of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and received, along with several prominent Democrats and CNN, a pipe bomb device in his mailbox in late October 2018. Robert Bowers was arrested on suspicion of murdering 11 Jewish synagogue members in Pittsburgh just days after the bombs were delivered and has been charged with various hate crimes. Before the shooting, Bowers posted messages on social media referencing conspiracy theories about Jewish people funding the caravan.Bethania Palma | nan | [
"05338-proof-10-smugglers.jpg"
] |
President Trump's White House invited mostly white children to the Easter Egg Roll event. | Neutral | On 18 April 2017, the liberal blog Occupy Democrats reported that the majority of children that attended that the annual White House Easter Egg Roll held for the first time under President Donald Trump were white: Yesterday, the White House's held the annual Easter Egg Roll and while Trump's gaffes inevitably took the spotlight away from the focus of the event - the children - and placed it back on our attention-obsessed narcissist-in-chief, it wasn't long before it was noticed that an important tradition had been abandoned. After the event had concluded, shrewd observers noticed something very disturbing but was perhaps to be expected from the #AmericaFirst White Supremacy House. The attendees were almost overwhelmingly white children. The reason? Donald and Melania chose not to invite the local DC public school children that traditionally are invited to the White House Easter Roll. During an 11 April 2017 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that tickets to the event had been 'sent out to all the schools in the area.' That was not the case. Representatives for all three immediately-surrounding public school districts, D.C., Arlington and Alexandria, all told us they did not receive tickets to the event this year, unlike in previous years. According to the New York Times, these districts have in the past received tickets for as many as 4,000 children to attend the event. Some observers noted that in photographs from the event, the children in attendance appeared to be majority white. The reason these districts (all of which are racially diverse) were not invited was not immediately clear. We have asked both the Department of Education and the White House Press Office for a listing of schools or districts that received tickets but have not yet received a response. A Department of Education spokesperson told us by e-mail that 'hundreds of tickets' were provided to 'traditional public schools, public charter schools, private schools and home school families' so long as their schools were not on spring break. Although D.C. public schools (DCPS) were closed for spring break during the 17 April 2017 event, Alexandria schools were in session. Arlington schools were closed to students for a 'grade preparation day' but like Alexandria had spring break the week before. In the preceding year, DCPS was invited to the 28 March 2016 Easter Egg Roll even though they were on spring break. All three public school districts surrounding the White House are racially diverse. As of 2015, the latest figures available, Alexandria is 36 percent Hispanic, 29 percent black and 27 percent white. Arlington as of October 2016 is 47 percent white, 28 percent Hispanic and 10 percent black. D.C. Public Schools are predominantly African-American - 64 percent of the student body is black as of 2016, while 18 percent are Hispanic and 13 percent are white. (The District of Columbia overall is 48 percent African-American, with whites making up 44 percent and Hispanics totaling nearly 11 percent according to 2015 Census figures.) On 11 April 2017, less than a week from the event, planning for the Trumps' first Easter Egg Roll seemed to be off to a slow and rocky start. The Times noted that First Lady Melania Trump lives in New York with a limited presence in Washington D.C. and has been slow to hire the staff that would plan such things: The evidence points to a quickly thrown-together affair that people close to the planning said would probably draw about 20,000 people - substantially smaller than last year's Easter Egg Roll, which drew 37,000. It will be staffed by 500 volunteers, Ms. Grisham said, half the usual. Ms. Grisham said she did not have 'firm numbers' on the overall number of attendees, and those who provided estimates did so on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to describe the plans for the Easter Egg Roll, which are still evolving just a week before the event. ... Washington-area public schools that normally receive blocks of tickets for as many as 4,000 children have yet to hear from the White House, according to representatives for school systems in the District of Columbia; Arlington, Va.; and Alexandria, Va. Several groups representing military families, who have accounted for as many as 3,000 guests in recent years, also said they had yet to be contacted. 'I've had quite a few families from across the country reach out and say: 'Hey, are we getting tickets? Our family wants to drive in for the event,'' said Ashley Broadway-Mack, the president of the American Military Partner Association, which represents the families of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender service members and has received tickets for five to 10 of them for each of the last several years. 'Unfortunately, the Trump administration has not reached out about it.' ... Members of Congress have not received word from the White House about whether they will get tickets to distribute to their constituents. One aide to a Republican lawmaker said White House officials 'seem to be a bit behind schedule.' What remains unclear is whether the Trump White House invited more schools and districts that simply chose not to attend - Frank Bellavia, spokesperson for Arlington Public Schools told us by phone that even if the district had received tickets, they would not have attended this year, simply because the logistics of transporting and chaperoning hundreds of children at a high-security event is taxing. Further, news reports leading up to the event indicate that it was hastily-planned and may have even caught the new administration off guard. We do not have enough evidence to support or disprove claims that the children who were invited to and attended the 2017 Easter Egg Roll were more predominantly white than previous years without knowing which districts or schools were invited, and of those, which attended or declined to attend. | nan | [
"05403-proof-05-Trump_white_children_easter_fb.jpg"
] |
President Trump's White House invited mostly white children to the Easter Egg Roll event. | Neutral | On 18 April 2017, the liberal blog Occupy Democrats reported that the majority of children that attended that the annual White House Easter Egg Roll held for the first time under President Donald Trump were white: Yesterday, the White House's held the annual Easter Egg Roll and while Trump's gaffes inevitably took the spotlight away from the focus of the event - the children - and placed it back on our attention-obsessed narcissist-in-chief, it wasn't long before it was noticed that an important tradition had been abandoned. After the event had concluded, shrewd observers noticed something very disturbing but was perhaps to be expected from the #AmericaFirst White Supremacy House. The attendees were almost overwhelmingly white children. The reason? Donald and Melania chose not to invite the local DC public school children that traditionally are invited to the White House Easter Roll. During an 11 April 2017 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters that tickets to the event had been 'sent out to all the schools in the area.' That was not the case. Representatives for all three immediately-surrounding public school districts, D.C., Arlington and Alexandria, all told us they did not receive tickets to the event this year, unlike in previous years. According to the New York Times, these districts have in the past received tickets for as many as 4,000 children to attend the event. Some observers noted that in photographs from the event, the children in attendance appeared to be majority white. The reason these districts (all of which are racially diverse) were not invited was not immediately clear. We have asked both the Department of Education and the White House Press Office for a listing of schools or districts that received tickets but have not yet received a response. A Department of Education spokesperson told us by e-mail that 'hundreds of tickets' were provided to 'traditional public schools, public charter schools, private schools and home school families' so long as their schools were not on spring break. Although D.C. public schools (DCPS) were closed for spring break during the 17 April 2017 event, Alexandria schools were in session. Arlington schools were closed to students for a 'grade preparation day' but like Alexandria had spring break the week before. In the preceding year, DCPS was invited to the 28 March 2016 Easter Egg Roll even though they were on spring break. All three public school districts surrounding the White House are racially diverse. As of 2015, the latest figures available, Alexandria is 36 percent Hispanic, 29 percent black and 27 percent white. Arlington as of October 2016 is 47 percent white, 28 percent Hispanic and 10 percent black. D.C. Public Schools are predominantly African-American - 64 percent of the student body is black as of 2016, while 18 percent are Hispanic and 13 percent are white. (The District of Columbia overall is 48 percent African-American, with whites making up 44 percent and Hispanics totaling nearly 11 percent according to 2015 Census figures.) On 11 April 2017, less than a week from the event, planning for the Trumps' first Easter Egg Roll seemed to be off to a slow and rocky start. The Times noted that First Lady Melania Trump lives in New York with a limited presence in Washington D.C. and has been slow to hire the staff that would plan such things: The evidence points to a quickly thrown-together affair that people close to the planning said would probably draw about 20,000 people - substantially smaller than last year's Easter Egg Roll, which drew 37,000. It will be staffed by 500 volunteers, Ms. Grisham said, half the usual. Ms. Grisham said she did not have 'firm numbers' on the overall number of attendees, and those who provided estimates did so on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to describe the plans for the Easter Egg Roll, which are still evolving just a week before the event. ... Washington-area public schools that normally receive blocks of tickets for as many as 4,000 children have yet to hear from the White House, according to representatives for school systems in the District of Columbia; Arlington, Va.; and Alexandria, Va. Several groups representing military families, who have accounted for as many as 3,000 guests in recent years, also said they had yet to be contacted. 'I've had quite a few families from across the country reach out and say: 'Hey, are we getting tickets? Our family wants to drive in for the event,'' said Ashley Broadway-Mack, the president of the American Military Partner Association, which represents the families of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender service members and has received tickets for five to 10 of them for each of the last several years. 'Unfortunately, the Trump administration has not reached out about it.' ... Members of Congress have not received word from the White House about whether they will get tickets to distribute to their constituents. One aide to a Republican lawmaker said White House officials 'seem to be a bit behind schedule.' What remains unclear is whether the Trump White House invited more schools and districts that simply chose not to attend - Frank Bellavia, spokesperson for Arlington Public Schools told us by phone that even if the district had received tickets, they would not have attended this year, simply because the logistics of transporting and chaperoning hundreds of children at a high-security event is taxing. Further, news reports leading up to the event indicate that it was hastily-planned and may have even caught the new administration off guard. We do not have enough evidence to support or disprove claims that the children who were invited to and attended the 2017 Easter Egg Roll were more predominantly white than previous years without knowing which districts or schools were invited, and of those, which attended or declined to attend. | nan | [
"05403-proof-05-Trump_white_children_easter_fb.jpg"
] |
A father and son were gravely sickened at an Omaha Ramada resort by a hotel coffee pot was used to cook meth by a previous guest. | Neutral | In September 2015, a message above about Omaha resort guests purportedly sickened by a coffee pot used to cook meth by previous guests was published by a user named Amber Richard to the Facebook page 'Kearney Area Exchange Group 2.0.' (The message was visible only to members of the closed group, but members reproduced its text in separate Facebook status updates and forwarded screenshots to us.) Please everyone share this n make it viral Thank you to everyone that has been concerned and the prayers have been answered. We will b going home today. As some of u know we were on vacation at the Ramada hotel coco keys resort in Omaha NE. Yesterday morning my husband did the normal and made a cup of coffee, and Deekin loves all the creamer and sugar that goes in so he had to share with dad. Sadly to find out the people prior to our stay had been cooking meth in the room coffee pot. Hence my husband and 2 yr old son were fighting for another chance here on this beautiful planet. Sitting here and holding my son today i am so thankful for my loving family. If anything comes out of this I hope that people will pass this on so families in the future do not make coffee in their hotel rooms. The cops said this is happening all the time here in little ol Kearney. Nothing can b done according to Omaha police so PLEASE be aware and learn from our mistakes. So I just read a post in Kearney Area Exchange where a family was staying at Ramada-Coco-Keys in Omaha, made coffee in the room coffee maker and they were taken to Hosp very sick. Found out prior hotel guests were found cooking meth in the room coffeemaker. Has been reported from Police that this is happening all over!! Be safe people! Unsubstantiated rumors about individuals cooking meth in hotel coffee pots have circulated on the internet since at least 2007. A 2009 Associated Press article reported an uptick in arrests related to drug-making in hotels and motels and noted that the practice was 'probably' fairly common, but it didn't mention the activity's causing any injuries to unwitting guests: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration records obtained by The Associated Press show that states reported finding evidence of drug-making in 1,789 motel and hotel rooms in the past five years - and that's just those the authorities found. The number of clandestine labs that are never found is difficult to pin down. There was a slight uptick in hotel and motel lab busts reported to the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2008 from the previous year, with 149 in 2006, 87 in 2007 and 127 in 2008. The tally was 461 in 2005 and 965 in 2004, before there were restrictions on purchasing over-the-counter decongestants often used as ingredients. The DEA count is based on states that reported labs. 'It probably happens all the time,' said John Martyny, a National Jewish Medical and Research Center associate professor who is also an industrial hygienist and meth researcher. 'The difficulty is, how do you make that attribution? You might think it is from cigarette smoking.' In April 2013, a hospitality industry publication article addressed the liability meth labs present for properties. That piece cited one instance wherein a hotel room had to be rehabilitated after it was used as a meth lab, an onerous process which suggested significant palpable damage to the unit: When a meth lab was found in a La Quinta hotel in Denver, the expense to fix the hotel was enormous. 'This is not just rehab work, you need to be a highly trained individual to perform decontamination,' Buchheit said, especially with large heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems to consider. According to the American Hotel & Lodging Association, clean up for meth labs can cost from $2,000 to $20,000. 'Everything has to be removed,' Buchheit said. 'You have to basically tear apart that room and rebuild it,' Ohman Back said. 'You have to tear out the carpeting, take the dry wall down. You have to replace the furniture and maybe the neighboring rooms as well. However, we've been unable to locate any reports wherein any resort guests were sickened via a hotel coffee pot because they occupied a room once used as a meth lab. We contacted both the Omaha Police and the general manager of the Ramada hotel adjacent to the Omaha CoCo Key Water Resort to find out whether the incident described (or any like it) had occurred in recent months. Police quickly responded and answered that the department didn't 'have any reports of this here in Omaha,' contradicting the poster's claim that the scenario was common and known to law enforcement in and around the Kearney-Omaha area. Moreover, the officer with whom we spoke was skeptical that the scenario presented was possible, let alone plausible: We don't have any reports of this here in Omaha. I contacted the General Manager from Ramada and he has been in contact with the Kearney PD. I'm not a chemist but I'm sure it's highly unlikely, if not impossible to be exposed to meth as was described. And not sure how she would know the coffee pot was 'infected with meth' if she didn't report it and have it tested. It's looking like it's a BAD rumor at this point. On 10 September 2015, the Omaha Police Department acknowledged the then-popular claim on their Facebook page and indicated that at that time, they had received no reports matching the rumor: Later that day, the department added a comment to the post: Since the publication of this post, we have received additional information. We are currently working with the Kearney PD to investigate this situation. On 14 September 2015, original poster Amber Richard spoke to a local news outlet about her husband's claim: 'All I know is the facts, that my loved ones tested positive for amphetamines,' Amber said. When asked why the family thought the coffee pot was the source of the meth, Amber answered, 'You know I didn't at first. I mean it was just thinking and thinking and thinking after a huge process of elimination what my husband and my son had that me and my other kids did not.' After she posted a warning about what had happened to her family, some questioned if they intentionally got high. 'I do have a past with it over ten years ago; I did have a problem,' Travis answered. But he said he's been clean since. To date, police in Omaha have released no further information about the case. | nan | [
"05499-proof-06-getty_coffee.jpg"
] |
A father and son were gravely sickened at an Omaha Ramada resort by a hotel coffee pot was used to cook meth by a previous guest. | Neutral | In September 2015, a message above about Omaha resort guests purportedly sickened by a coffee pot used to cook meth by previous guests was published by a user named Amber Richard to the Facebook page 'Kearney Area Exchange Group 2.0.' (The message was visible only to members of the closed group, but members reproduced its text in separate Facebook status updates and forwarded screenshots to us.) Please everyone share this n make it viral Thank you to everyone that has been concerned and the prayers have been answered. We will b going home today. As some of u know we were on vacation at the Ramada hotel coco keys resort in Omaha NE. Yesterday morning my husband did the normal and made a cup of coffee, and Deekin loves all the creamer and sugar that goes in so he had to share with dad. Sadly to find out the people prior to our stay had been cooking meth in the room coffee pot. Hence my husband and 2 yr old son were fighting for another chance here on this beautiful planet. Sitting here and holding my son today i am so thankful for my loving family. If anything comes out of this I hope that people will pass this on so families in the future do not make coffee in their hotel rooms. The cops said this is happening all the time here in little ol Kearney. Nothing can b done according to Omaha police so PLEASE be aware and learn from our mistakes. So I just read a post in Kearney Area Exchange where a family was staying at Ramada-Coco-Keys in Omaha, made coffee in the room coffee maker and they were taken to Hosp very sick. Found out prior hotel guests were found cooking meth in the room coffeemaker. Has been reported from Police that this is happening all over!! Be safe people! Unsubstantiated rumors about individuals cooking meth in hotel coffee pots have circulated on the internet since at least 2007. A 2009 Associated Press article reported an uptick in arrests related to drug-making in hotels and motels and noted that the practice was 'probably' fairly common, but it didn't mention the activity's causing any injuries to unwitting guests: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration records obtained by The Associated Press show that states reported finding evidence of drug-making in 1,789 motel and hotel rooms in the past five years - and that's just those the authorities found. The number of clandestine labs that are never found is difficult to pin down. There was a slight uptick in hotel and motel lab busts reported to the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2008 from the previous year, with 149 in 2006, 87 in 2007 and 127 in 2008. The tally was 461 in 2005 and 965 in 2004, before there were restrictions on purchasing over-the-counter decongestants often used as ingredients. The DEA count is based on states that reported labs. 'It probably happens all the time,' said John Martyny, a National Jewish Medical and Research Center associate professor who is also an industrial hygienist and meth researcher. 'The difficulty is, how do you make that attribution? You might think it is from cigarette smoking.' In April 2013, a hospitality industry publication article addressed the liability meth labs present for properties. That piece cited one instance wherein a hotel room had to be rehabilitated after it was used as a meth lab, an onerous process which suggested significant palpable damage to the unit: When a meth lab was found in a La Quinta hotel in Denver, the expense to fix the hotel was enormous. 'This is not just rehab work, you need to be a highly trained individual to perform decontamination,' Buchheit said, especially with large heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems to consider. According to the American Hotel & Lodging Association, clean up for meth labs can cost from $2,000 to $20,000. 'Everything has to be removed,' Buchheit said. 'You have to basically tear apart that room and rebuild it,' Ohman Back said. 'You have to tear out the carpeting, take the dry wall down. You have to replace the furniture and maybe the neighboring rooms as well. However, we've been unable to locate any reports wherein any resort guests were sickened via a hotel coffee pot because they occupied a room once used as a meth lab. We contacted both the Omaha Police and the general manager of the Ramada hotel adjacent to the Omaha CoCo Key Water Resort to find out whether the incident described (or any like it) had occurred in recent months. Police quickly responded and answered that the department didn't 'have any reports of this here in Omaha,' contradicting the poster's claim that the scenario was common and known to law enforcement in and around the Kearney-Omaha area. Moreover, the officer with whom we spoke was skeptical that the scenario presented was possible, let alone plausible: We don't have any reports of this here in Omaha. I contacted the General Manager from Ramada and he has been in contact with the Kearney PD. I'm not a chemist but I'm sure it's highly unlikely, if not impossible to be exposed to meth as was described. And not sure how she would know the coffee pot was 'infected with meth' if she didn't report it and have it tested. It's looking like it's a BAD rumor at this point. On 10 September 2015, the Omaha Police Department acknowledged the then-popular claim on their Facebook page and indicated that at that time, they had received no reports matching the rumor: Later that day, the department added a comment to the post: Since the publication of this post, we have received additional information. We are currently working with the Kearney PD to investigate this situation. On 14 September 2015, original poster Amber Richard spoke to a local news outlet about her husband's claim: 'All I know is the facts, that my loved ones tested positive for amphetamines,' Amber said. When asked why the family thought the coffee pot was the source of the meth, Amber answered, 'You know I didn't at first. I mean it was just thinking and thinking and thinking after a huge process of elimination what my husband and my son had that me and my other kids did not.' After she posted a warning about what had happened to her family, some questioned if they intentionally got high. 'I do have a past with it over ten years ago; I did have a problem,' Travis answered. But he said he's been clean since. To date, police in Omaha have released no further information about the case. | nan | [
"05499-proof-06-getty_coffee.jpg"
] |
A father and son were gravely sickened at an Omaha Ramada resort by a hotel coffee pot was used to cook meth by a previous guest. | Neutral | In September 2015, a message above about Omaha resort guests purportedly sickened by a coffee pot used to cook meth by previous guests was published by a user named Amber Richard to the Facebook page 'Kearney Area Exchange Group 2.0.' (The message was visible only to members of the closed group, but members reproduced its text in separate Facebook status updates and forwarded screenshots to us.) Please everyone share this n make it viral Thank you to everyone that has been concerned and the prayers have been answered. We will b going home today. As some of u know we were on vacation at the Ramada hotel coco keys resort in Omaha NE. Yesterday morning my husband did the normal and made a cup of coffee, and Deekin loves all the creamer and sugar that goes in so he had to share with dad. Sadly to find out the people prior to our stay had been cooking meth in the room coffee pot. Hence my husband and 2 yr old son were fighting for another chance here on this beautiful planet. Sitting here and holding my son today i am so thankful for my loving family. If anything comes out of this I hope that people will pass this on so families in the future do not make coffee in their hotel rooms. The cops said this is happening all the time here in little ol Kearney. Nothing can b done according to Omaha police so PLEASE be aware and learn from our mistakes. So I just read a post in Kearney Area Exchange where a family was staying at Ramada-Coco-Keys in Omaha, made coffee in the room coffee maker and they were taken to Hosp very sick. Found out prior hotel guests were found cooking meth in the room coffeemaker. Has been reported from Police that this is happening all over!! Be safe people! Unsubstantiated rumors about individuals cooking meth in hotel coffee pots have circulated on the internet since at least 2007. A 2009 Associated Press article reported an uptick in arrests related to drug-making in hotels and motels and noted that the practice was 'probably' fairly common, but it didn't mention the activity's causing any injuries to unwitting guests: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration records obtained by The Associated Press show that states reported finding evidence of drug-making in 1,789 motel and hotel rooms in the past five years - and that's just those the authorities found. The number of clandestine labs that are never found is difficult to pin down. There was a slight uptick in hotel and motel lab busts reported to the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2008 from the previous year, with 149 in 2006, 87 in 2007 and 127 in 2008. The tally was 461 in 2005 and 965 in 2004, before there were restrictions on purchasing over-the-counter decongestants often used as ingredients. The DEA count is based on states that reported labs. 'It probably happens all the time,' said John Martyny, a National Jewish Medical and Research Center associate professor who is also an industrial hygienist and meth researcher. 'The difficulty is, how do you make that attribution? You might think it is from cigarette smoking.' In April 2013, a hospitality industry publication article addressed the liability meth labs present for properties. That piece cited one instance wherein a hotel room had to be rehabilitated after it was used as a meth lab, an onerous process which suggested significant palpable damage to the unit: When a meth lab was found in a La Quinta hotel in Denver, the expense to fix the hotel was enormous. 'This is not just rehab work, you need to be a highly trained individual to perform decontamination,' Buchheit said, especially with large heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems to consider. According to the American Hotel & Lodging Association, clean up for meth labs can cost from $2,000 to $20,000. 'Everything has to be removed,' Buchheit said. 'You have to basically tear apart that room and rebuild it,' Ohman Back said. 'You have to tear out the carpeting, take the dry wall down. You have to replace the furniture and maybe the neighboring rooms as well. However, we've been unable to locate any reports wherein any resort guests were sickened via a hotel coffee pot because they occupied a room once used as a meth lab. We contacted both the Omaha Police and the general manager of the Ramada hotel adjacent to the Omaha CoCo Key Water Resort to find out whether the incident described (or any like it) had occurred in recent months. Police quickly responded and answered that the department didn't 'have any reports of this here in Omaha,' contradicting the poster's claim that the scenario was common and known to law enforcement in and around the Kearney-Omaha area. Moreover, the officer with whom we spoke was skeptical that the scenario presented was possible, let alone plausible: We don't have any reports of this here in Omaha. I contacted the General Manager from Ramada and he has been in contact with the Kearney PD. I'm not a chemist but I'm sure it's highly unlikely, if not impossible to be exposed to meth as was described. And not sure how she would know the coffee pot was 'infected with meth' if she didn't report it and have it tested. It's looking like it's a BAD rumor at this point. On 10 September 2015, the Omaha Police Department acknowledged the then-popular claim on their Facebook page and indicated that at that time, they had received no reports matching the rumor: Later that day, the department added a comment to the post: Since the publication of this post, we have received additional information. We are currently working with the Kearney PD to investigate this situation. On 14 September 2015, original poster Amber Richard spoke to a local news outlet about her husband's claim: 'All I know is the facts, that my loved ones tested positive for amphetamines,' Amber said. When asked why the family thought the coffee pot was the source of the meth, Amber answered, 'You know I didn't at first. I mean it was just thinking and thinking and thinking after a huge process of elimination what my husband and my son had that me and my other kids did not.' After she posted a warning about what had happened to her family, some questioned if they intentionally got high. 'I do have a past with it over ten years ago; I did have a problem,' Travis answered. But he said he's been clean since. To date, police in Omaha have released no further information about the case. | nan | [
"05499-proof-06-getty_coffee.jpg"
] |
A father and son were gravely sickened at an Omaha Ramada resort by a hotel coffee pot was used to cook meth by a previous guest. | Neutral | In September 2015, a message above about Omaha resort guests purportedly sickened by a coffee pot used to cook meth by previous guests was published by a user named Amber Richard to the Facebook page 'Kearney Area Exchange Group 2.0.' (The message was visible only to members of the closed group, but members reproduced its text in separate Facebook status updates and forwarded screenshots to us.) Please everyone share this n make it viral Thank you to everyone that has been concerned and the prayers have been answered. We will b going home today. As some of u know we were on vacation at the Ramada hotel coco keys resort in Omaha NE. Yesterday morning my husband did the normal and made a cup of coffee, and Deekin loves all the creamer and sugar that goes in so he had to share with dad. Sadly to find out the people prior to our stay had been cooking meth in the room coffee pot. Hence my husband and 2 yr old son were fighting for another chance here on this beautiful planet. Sitting here and holding my son today i am so thankful for my loving family. If anything comes out of this I hope that people will pass this on so families in the future do not make coffee in their hotel rooms. The cops said this is happening all the time here in little ol Kearney. Nothing can b done according to Omaha police so PLEASE be aware and learn from our mistakes. So I just read a post in Kearney Area Exchange where a family was staying at Ramada-Coco-Keys in Omaha, made coffee in the room coffee maker and they were taken to Hosp very sick. Found out prior hotel guests were found cooking meth in the room coffeemaker. Has been reported from Police that this is happening all over!! Be safe people! Unsubstantiated rumors about individuals cooking meth in hotel coffee pots have circulated on the internet since at least 2007. A 2009 Associated Press article reported an uptick in arrests related to drug-making in hotels and motels and noted that the practice was 'probably' fairly common, but it didn't mention the activity's causing any injuries to unwitting guests: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration records obtained by The Associated Press show that states reported finding evidence of drug-making in 1,789 motel and hotel rooms in the past five years - and that's just those the authorities found. The number of clandestine labs that are never found is difficult to pin down. There was a slight uptick in hotel and motel lab busts reported to the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2008 from the previous year, with 149 in 2006, 87 in 2007 and 127 in 2008. The tally was 461 in 2005 and 965 in 2004, before there were restrictions on purchasing over-the-counter decongestants often used as ingredients. The DEA count is based on states that reported labs. 'It probably happens all the time,' said John Martyny, a National Jewish Medical and Research Center associate professor who is also an industrial hygienist and meth researcher. 'The difficulty is, how do you make that attribution? You might think it is from cigarette smoking.' In April 2013, a hospitality industry publication article addressed the liability meth labs present for properties. That piece cited one instance wherein a hotel room had to be rehabilitated after it was used as a meth lab, an onerous process which suggested significant palpable damage to the unit: When a meth lab was found in a La Quinta hotel in Denver, the expense to fix the hotel was enormous. 'This is not just rehab work, you need to be a highly trained individual to perform decontamination,' Buchheit said, especially with large heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems to consider. According to the American Hotel & Lodging Association, clean up for meth labs can cost from $2,000 to $20,000. 'Everything has to be removed,' Buchheit said. 'You have to basically tear apart that room and rebuild it,' Ohman Back said. 'You have to tear out the carpeting, take the dry wall down. You have to replace the furniture and maybe the neighboring rooms as well. However, we've been unable to locate any reports wherein any resort guests were sickened via a hotel coffee pot because they occupied a room once used as a meth lab. We contacted both the Omaha Police and the general manager of the Ramada hotel adjacent to the Omaha CoCo Key Water Resort to find out whether the incident described (or any like it) had occurred in recent months. Police quickly responded and answered that the department didn't 'have any reports of this here in Omaha,' contradicting the poster's claim that the scenario was common and known to law enforcement in and around the Kearney-Omaha area. Moreover, the officer with whom we spoke was skeptical that the scenario presented was possible, let alone plausible: We don't have any reports of this here in Omaha. I contacted the General Manager from Ramada and he has been in contact with the Kearney PD. I'm not a chemist but I'm sure it's highly unlikely, if not impossible to be exposed to meth as was described. And not sure how she would know the coffee pot was 'infected with meth' if she didn't report it and have it tested. It's looking like it's a BAD rumor at this point. On 10 September 2015, the Omaha Police Department acknowledged the then-popular claim on their Facebook page and indicated that at that time, they had received no reports matching the rumor: Later that day, the department added a comment to the post: Since the publication of this post, we have received additional information. We are currently working with the Kearney PD to investigate this situation. On 14 September 2015, original poster Amber Richard spoke to a local news outlet about her husband's claim: 'All I know is the facts, that my loved ones tested positive for amphetamines,' Amber said. When asked why the family thought the coffee pot was the source of the meth, Amber answered, 'You know I didn't at first. I mean it was just thinking and thinking and thinking after a huge process of elimination what my husband and my son had that me and my other kids did not.' After she posted a warning about what had happened to her family, some questioned if they intentionally got high. 'I do have a past with it over ten years ago; I did have a problem,' Travis answered. But he said he's been clean since. To date, police in Omaha have released no further information about the case. | nan | [
"05499-proof-06-getty_coffee.jpg"
] |
A father and son were gravely sickened at an Omaha Ramada resort by a hotel coffee pot was used to cook meth by a previous guest. | Neutral | In September 2015, a message above about Omaha resort guests purportedly sickened by a coffee pot used to cook meth by previous guests was published by a user named Amber Richard to the Facebook page 'Kearney Area Exchange Group 2.0.' (The message was visible only to members of the closed group, but members reproduced its text in separate Facebook status updates and forwarded screenshots to us.) Please everyone share this n make it viral Thank you to everyone that has been concerned and the prayers have been answered. We will b going home today. As some of u know we were on vacation at the Ramada hotel coco keys resort in Omaha NE. Yesterday morning my husband did the normal and made a cup of coffee, and Deekin loves all the creamer and sugar that goes in so he had to share with dad. Sadly to find out the people prior to our stay had been cooking meth in the room coffee pot. Hence my husband and 2 yr old son were fighting for another chance here on this beautiful planet. Sitting here and holding my son today i am so thankful for my loving family. If anything comes out of this I hope that people will pass this on so families in the future do not make coffee in their hotel rooms. The cops said this is happening all the time here in little ol Kearney. Nothing can b done according to Omaha police so PLEASE be aware and learn from our mistakes. So I just read a post in Kearney Area Exchange where a family was staying at Ramada-Coco-Keys in Omaha, made coffee in the room coffee maker and they were taken to Hosp very sick. Found out prior hotel guests were found cooking meth in the room coffeemaker. Has been reported from Police that this is happening all over!! Be safe people! Unsubstantiated rumors about individuals cooking meth in hotel coffee pots have circulated on the internet since at least 2007. A 2009 Associated Press article reported an uptick in arrests related to drug-making in hotels and motels and noted that the practice was 'probably' fairly common, but it didn't mention the activity's causing any injuries to unwitting guests: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration records obtained by The Associated Press show that states reported finding evidence of drug-making in 1,789 motel and hotel rooms in the past five years - and that's just those the authorities found. The number of clandestine labs that are never found is difficult to pin down. There was a slight uptick in hotel and motel lab busts reported to the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2008 from the previous year, with 149 in 2006, 87 in 2007 and 127 in 2008. The tally was 461 in 2005 and 965 in 2004, before there were restrictions on purchasing over-the-counter decongestants often used as ingredients. The DEA count is based on states that reported labs. 'It probably happens all the time,' said John Martyny, a National Jewish Medical and Research Center associate professor who is also an industrial hygienist and meth researcher. 'The difficulty is, how do you make that attribution? You might think it is from cigarette smoking.' In April 2013, a hospitality industry publication article addressed the liability meth labs present for properties. That piece cited one instance wherein a hotel room had to be rehabilitated after it was used as a meth lab, an onerous process which suggested significant palpable damage to the unit: When a meth lab was found in a La Quinta hotel in Denver, the expense to fix the hotel was enormous. 'This is not just rehab work, you need to be a highly trained individual to perform decontamination,' Buchheit said, especially with large heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems to consider. According to the American Hotel & Lodging Association, clean up for meth labs can cost from $2,000 to $20,000. 'Everything has to be removed,' Buchheit said. 'You have to basically tear apart that room and rebuild it,' Ohman Back said. 'You have to tear out the carpeting, take the dry wall down. You have to replace the furniture and maybe the neighboring rooms as well. However, we've been unable to locate any reports wherein any resort guests were sickened via a hotel coffee pot because they occupied a room once used as a meth lab. We contacted both the Omaha Police and the general manager of the Ramada hotel adjacent to the Omaha CoCo Key Water Resort to find out whether the incident described (or any like it) had occurred in recent months. Police quickly responded and answered that the department didn't 'have any reports of this here in Omaha,' contradicting the poster's claim that the scenario was common and known to law enforcement in and around the Kearney-Omaha area. Moreover, the officer with whom we spoke was skeptical that the scenario presented was possible, let alone plausible: We don't have any reports of this here in Omaha. I contacted the General Manager from Ramada and he has been in contact with the Kearney PD. I'm not a chemist but I'm sure it's highly unlikely, if not impossible to be exposed to meth as was described. And not sure how she would know the coffee pot was 'infected with meth' if she didn't report it and have it tested. It's looking like it's a BAD rumor at this point. On 10 September 2015, the Omaha Police Department acknowledged the then-popular claim on their Facebook page and indicated that at that time, they had received no reports matching the rumor: Later that day, the department added a comment to the post: Since the publication of this post, we have received additional information. We are currently working with the Kearney PD to investigate this situation. On 14 September 2015, original poster Amber Richard spoke to a local news outlet about her husband's claim: 'All I know is the facts, that my loved ones tested positive for amphetamines,' Amber said. When asked why the family thought the coffee pot was the source of the meth, Amber answered, 'You know I didn't at first. I mean it was just thinking and thinking and thinking after a huge process of elimination what my husband and my son had that me and my other kids did not.' After she posted a warning about what had happened to her family, some questioned if they intentionally got high. 'I do have a past with it over ten years ago; I did have a problem,' Travis answered. But he said he's been clean since. To date, police in Omaha have released no further information about the case. | nan | [
"05499-proof-06-getty_coffee.jpg"
] |
A father and son were gravely sickened at an Omaha Ramada resort by a hotel coffee pot was used to cook meth by a previous guest. | Neutral | In September 2015, a message above about Omaha resort guests purportedly sickened by a coffee pot used to cook meth by previous guests was published by a user named Amber Richard to the Facebook page 'Kearney Area Exchange Group 2.0.' (The message was visible only to members of the closed group, but members reproduced its text in separate Facebook status updates and forwarded screenshots to us.) Please everyone share this n make it viral Thank you to everyone that has been concerned and the prayers have been answered. We will b going home today. As some of u know we were on vacation at the Ramada hotel coco keys resort in Omaha NE. Yesterday morning my husband did the normal and made a cup of coffee, and Deekin loves all the creamer and sugar that goes in so he had to share with dad. Sadly to find out the people prior to our stay had been cooking meth in the room coffee pot. Hence my husband and 2 yr old son were fighting for another chance here on this beautiful planet. Sitting here and holding my son today i am so thankful for my loving family. If anything comes out of this I hope that people will pass this on so families in the future do not make coffee in their hotel rooms. The cops said this is happening all the time here in little ol Kearney. Nothing can b done according to Omaha police so PLEASE be aware and learn from our mistakes. So I just read a post in Kearney Area Exchange where a family was staying at Ramada-Coco-Keys in Omaha, made coffee in the room coffee maker and they were taken to Hosp very sick. Found out prior hotel guests were found cooking meth in the room coffeemaker. Has been reported from Police that this is happening all over!! Be safe people! Unsubstantiated rumors about individuals cooking meth in hotel coffee pots have circulated on the internet since at least 2007. A 2009 Associated Press article reported an uptick in arrests related to drug-making in hotels and motels and noted that the practice was 'probably' fairly common, but it didn't mention the activity's causing any injuries to unwitting guests: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration records obtained by The Associated Press show that states reported finding evidence of drug-making in 1,789 motel and hotel rooms in the past five years - and that's just those the authorities found. The number of clandestine labs that are never found is difficult to pin down. There was a slight uptick in hotel and motel lab busts reported to the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2008 from the previous year, with 149 in 2006, 87 in 2007 and 127 in 2008. The tally was 461 in 2005 and 965 in 2004, before there were restrictions on purchasing over-the-counter decongestants often used as ingredients. The DEA count is based on states that reported labs. 'It probably happens all the time,' said John Martyny, a National Jewish Medical and Research Center associate professor who is also an industrial hygienist and meth researcher. 'The difficulty is, how do you make that attribution? You might think it is from cigarette smoking.' In April 2013, a hospitality industry publication article addressed the liability meth labs present for properties. That piece cited one instance wherein a hotel room had to be rehabilitated after it was used as a meth lab, an onerous process which suggested significant palpable damage to the unit: When a meth lab was found in a La Quinta hotel in Denver, the expense to fix the hotel was enormous. 'This is not just rehab work, you need to be a highly trained individual to perform decontamination,' Buchheit said, especially with large heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems to consider. According to the American Hotel & Lodging Association, clean up for meth labs can cost from $2,000 to $20,000. 'Everything has to be removed,' Buchheit said. 'You have to basically tear apart that room and rebuild it,' Ohman Back said. 'You have to tear out the carpeting, take the dry wall down. You have to replace the furniture and maybe the neighboring rooms as well. However, we've been unable to locate any reports wherein any resort guests were sickened via a hotel coffee pot because they occupied a room once used as a meth lab. We contacted both the Omaha Police and the general manager of the Ramada hotel adjacent to the Omaha CoCo Key Water Resort to find out whether the incident described (or any like it) had occurred in recent months. Police quickly responded and answered that the department didn't 'have any reports of this here in Omaha,' contradicting the poster's claim that the scenario was common and known to law enforcement in and around the Kearney-Omaha area. Moreover, the officer with whom we spoke was skeptical that the scenario presented was possible, let alone plausible: We don't have any reports of this here in Omaha. I contacted the General Manager from Ramada and he has been in contact with the Kearney PD. I'm not a chemist but I'm sure it's highly unlikely, if not impossible to be exposed to meth as was described. And not sure how she would know the coffee pot was 'infected with meth' if she didn't report it and have it tested. It's looking like it's a BAD rumor at this point. On 10 September 2015, the Omaha Police Department acknowledged the then-popular claim on their Facebook page and indicated that at that time, they had received no reports matching the rumor: Later that day, the department added a comment to the post: Since the publication of this post, we have received additional information. We are currently working with the Kearney PD to investigate this situation. On 14 September 2015, original poster Amber Richard spoke to a local news outlet about her husband's claim: 'All I know is the facts, that my loved ones tested positive for amphetamines,' Amber said. When asked why the family thought the coffee pot was the source of the meth, Amber answered, 'You know I didn't at first. I mean it was just thinking and thinking and thinking after a huge process of elimination what my husband and my son had that me and my other kids did not.' After she posted a warning about what had happened to her family, some questioned if they intentionally got high. 'I do have a past with it over ten years ago; I did have a problem,' Travis answered. But he said he's been clean since. To date, police in Omaha have released no further information about the case. | nan | [
"05499-proof-06-getty_coffee.jpg"
] |
As many as nine transgender children (some adult children) committed or attempted suicide the night Donald Trump was elected President. | Neutral | Social media reactions to the outcome of the 8 November 2016 election of Donald Trump as President of the United States included a viral rumor holding that Facebook transgender parenting groups had witnessed anywhere between one and nine suicide attempts among the children of the groups' members. The claim circulated widely on Facebook, where two popular versions asserted: Trigger warning: suicide Edited to add: we are up to 8. 8 dead. 1 on life support. Edited again to add: these numbers are being reported by parents. When I say 'kids' I should clarify that I'm just speaking about someone child... that child could be anywhere from a teenager to an adult. I'm in a couple of Facebook groups for parents who have transgender children. As of right now we have reports that we lost four children to suicide since last night's election results. FOUR CHILDREN TO SUICIDE. And a 5th is on life support. I don't know how to accurately describe how terrified I am. I can love my son with every ounce of my being. I can advocate for him until I'm blue in the face. I can get him the best therapist & psychiatrist I can find, but unless the rest of society supports him too, I run a 41% chance of losing him just like the parents in my groups lost their kids. But I guess that doesn't really matter as long as we've all got our guns, bibles, and a shot at reversing Roe vs. Wade. Those things are obviously more important. Why else would we elect someone who has promised to overturn President Obama's trans directives, or someone who promised to remove all protections for the LGBT community, or someone who thinks my kid can be 'saved' with conversion therapy instead of love and acceptance. Sorry, not sorry, if this offends you. Trust me, being offended is so much easier than being scared for your kids life, health, and happiness. In my transgender parenting groups, there are reports of 8 (updated) children who committed suicide last night, and 1 on life support, after hearing the results of the election. I am so hurt by this news, and I am embarrassed to be an American. I will leave this here for you to digest. We are facing tyranny. This is certain. Versions of the posts (both copied and reposted) circulated widely, but their posters declined to include specifics such as the name of the groups in which the information purportedly first appeared. We were unable to substantiate that any transgender children attempted or committed suicide on the night of 8 November 2016 in reaction to the election results or for another reason. No names, dates, locations, or other information along those lines have been presented, and those sharing versions of the rumor were not themselves parties to the purported tragedies. In the absence of any additional information, the claim remains unsubstantiated. | nan | [] |
Subsets and Splits