FACT CHECK: Trump pitches drug not approved for coronavirus.

Explanation: President Donald Trump is pitching a medicine for COVID-19 sufferers that science has not concluded is effective or safe for their use. “Take it,” he said of the drug.

AP Top News, Malaria, Health, General News, AP Fact Check, Politics, Latin America, Impeachments, Trump impeachment, Donald Trump, Virus Outbreak, Michael Pence, Pandemics

For people sick with the coronavirus, he said Sunday, “It can help them but it’s not going to hurt them.” In fact, it may or may not help some people, and it may or may not hurt them. His straight-ahead advocacy of hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug, is the latest and one of the most consequential examples of Trump and public-health authorities not being on the same page in the pandemic. His statement came during a weekend when he also misrepresented the facts behind his firing of the intelligence community’s inspector general whose handling of a whistleblower complaint led to impeachment proceedings. Over the previous days, he’d spread a number of distortions on the pandemic. A look at his recent remarks: MALARIA DRUG TRUMP, on the government’s decision to stockpile millions of doses of hydroxychloroquine drug to make it available for patients with COVID-19: “What do you have to lose? I’ll say it again: What do you have to lose? Take it. I really think they should take it. But it’s their choice and it’s their doctor’s choice, or the doctors in the hospital. But hydroxychloroquine — try it, if you’d like.” — news briefing Saturday. TRUMP: “They say taking it before the fact is good. ... I’m not acting as a doctor. I’m saying do what you want. ... It can help them but it’s not going to hurt them.” — briefing Sunday night. THE FACTS: He’s making unverified claims about a drug that can have serious side effects and may not work. The drug has not been approved as a treatment for COVID-19 and Trump’s own health experts say more studies are needed to know whether it’s safe and effective to use. The president has been talking up hydroxychloroquine, a drug long used to treat malaria, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, after very small preliminary studies suggested it might help prevent coronavirus from entering cells and possibly help patients clear the virus sooner. Doctors can already prescribe the malaria drug to patients with COVID-19, a practice known as off-label prescribing. Research studies are now beginning to test if the drugs truly help COVID-19 patients, and the Food and Drug Administration has allowed the drugs into the national stockpile as an option for doctors to consider for patients who cannot get into one of the studies. But the drug has major potential side effects, especially for the heart, and large studies are underway to see if it is safe and effective for treating coronavirus. The FDA says people should not take it without a prescription and emphasizes that the malaria drugs being explored “are not FDA-approved for treatment of COVID-19.” On Friday, Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health and a member of the White House coronavirus task force, said Americans shouldn’t consider hydroxychloroquine a “knockout drug.” “We still need to do the definitive studies to determine whether any intervention, not just this one, is truly safe and effective,” he said on Fox News. The American Medical Association, the American Pharmacists Association and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists in a joint statement previously cautioned against “prophylactically prescribing medications currently identified as potential treatments for COVID-19.” That means prescribing a medicine for the purpose of warding off a disease or preventing its spread. ___ SPANISH FLU TRUMP: “The problem is when something like this comes along, which you don’t expect. Look, 1917, it’s a long time ago, perhaps 100 million people died. It’s a long time ago, so people don’t think it’s going to happen.” — briefing Sunday night. THE FACTS: He got the year wrong for the Spanish flu and appeared to overstate deaths from it. The pandemic spread from early 1918 to late 1920. It killed an estimated 50 million or more worldwide, with about 675,000 of the deaths in the U.S., says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ___ IMPEACHMENT TRUMP, on firing Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general: “I thought he did a terrible job. Absolutely terrible. He took a whistleblower report, which turned out to be a fake report — it was fake. It was totally wrong.” — news briefing Saturday. THE FACTS: No, the whistleblower’s accusations have not been shown to be wrong. Key details have been corroborated. For example, the White House account of Trump’s July 25, 2019, phone call with Ukraine’s new president showed that the whistleblower had accurately summarized the conversation, as relayed by unidentified U.S. officials, in the complaint Atkinson sent to the acting director of national intelligence. Witnesses who heard the call testified to the accuracy of that account. ___ TRUMP, suggesting that Atkinson had claimed that the whistleblower complaint regarding Ukraine should be discounted because of political bias: “He even said it was politically biased. He actually said that.” — news briefing Saturday. THE FACTS: He actually did not say that. Atkinson did not state that the complaint was “politically biased” or suggest that it should not be regarded seriously. To the contrary, Atkinson wrote in a letter to Joseph Maguire, then the acting director of national intelligence, that any potential bias on the whistleblower’s part did not take away from his overall conclusion that the complaint was “credible.” He noted that an initial review by his inspector general’s office had found support for key allegations in the complaint, including that Trump had put pressure on Ukraine’s leader to take action favorable to his re-election campaign. ___ THE VIRUS THREAT TRUMP, on a warning that had just been delivered by Dr. Deborah Birx of the coronavirus task force that more Americans need to heed distancing steps ordered by many states and recommended by Washington: “She wasn’t referring to our country, she was referring to one state.” — briefing Thursday. THE FACTS: No, she was talking about more Americans overall needing to keep away from each other. More specifically, Birx said the outbreak would not be spreading by now in areas with low infection rates if everyone were following the guidelines. Instead, officials are now seeing cases of people who were infected after the guidelines took effect. “This should not be happening any longer in new places if people are doing the social distancing, washing their hands, not getting together in large groups more than 10,” she said at the briefing where Trump then tried to tamp down her warning out of his concern about the “headlines tomorrow.” Birx said: “We see Spain, we see Italy, we see France, we see Germany. When we see others beginning to bend their curves, we can bend ours. But it means everybody has to take that same responsibility as Americans.” Bending the curve means flattening out the rate of increase in cases. She added: “Yes. There are states that are dead flat. But, you know, every — what changes the curve is a new Detroit, a new Chicago, a new New Orleans, a new Colorado.” ___ TRUMP: “Four weeks ago, we had the greatest economy in the history of the world. The greatest in the world — greatest in the history of the world.” — briefing Thursday. THE FACTS: Not true. The economy was healthy back then but not the best in U.S. history, much less world history. Economic gains largely followed along the lines of an expansion that started more than a decade ago under President Barack Obama. And while posting great job and stock market numbers, Trump never managed to achieve the rates of economic growth he promised in the 2016 campaign. The U.S. economy was not the world’s best in history when this started. ___ TRUMP, going back to that period four weeks ago: “And then, one day, I get a call from Deborah, who’s fantastic, and from Dr. Fauci. And he said and she said, ’We have a problem. I said, ’What’s the problem?’ And they said, ‘We may have to close it up.’ I said, ‘Close what up?’ They said, ‘Close up the country.’ And I said, ‘What’s that all about?’” — briefing Thursday. THE FACTS: You’d think that Trump was just learning about the outbreak from Birx and Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health in the phone call. That’s not the case. Trump knew the U.S. had “a problem” well before that timeline of roughly early March. By then the U.S. had restricted travel from abroad, experienced its first coronavirus infections and was told to expect the outbreak to spread in the country. The World Health Organization declared a global health emergency Jan. 30. ___ VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: “I don’t believe the president has ever belittled the threat of the coronavirus.” — CNN interview Wednesday. MITCH McCONNELL, Senate majority leader: The coronavirus crisis “came up while we were tied down in the impeachment trial. And I think it diverted the attention of the government, because everything, every day was all about impeachment.” — interview Tuesday with radio host Hugh Hewitt. THE FACTS: While Pence claims Trump always treated the virus threat seriously, McConnell suggests Trump may not have because he was distracted by impeachment. Neither claim is credible. Trump says he would not have done anything faster on the virus, absent impeachment. And he actually belittled the coronavirus threat repeatedly from January to mid-March, maintaining his position even after the Senate acquitted him Feb. 5 in his impeachment trial. He dismissed the threat as a small number of U.S. cases that were under “control” and would fall to zero by April. On Feb. 10, he asserted “we’re in great shape ... we have 12 cases” and told Fox Business it will be fine because “in April, supposedly, it dies with the hotter weather. And that’s a beautiful date to look forward to.”  “When you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done,” he said Feb. 26. A day later he said: “It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear,” “It’s got the world aflutter, but it’ll work out,” Trump told the National Association of Counties on March 3. Along the way, he said Democrats who were calling on him to do more were perpetuating a hoax. On March 9, he tweeted the 546 cases and 22 deaths experienced by then in the U.S. were no reason to take drastic steps: “Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on.” Trump now acknowledges the U.S. could see 100,000 to 240,000 deaths from the pandemic even if current distancing guidelines are maintained. When asked Tuesday if impeachment proceedings had distracted him from the U.S. coronavirus response, he said, “I don’t think I would have acted any differently or I don’t think I would have acted any faster.” ___ SOCIAL MEDIA TRUMP: “I have, you know, hundreds of millions of people. Number one on Facebook. Did you know I was number one on Facebook? I mean, I just found out I’m number one on Facebook. I thought that was very nice for whatever it means.” — news briefing Wednesday. THE FACTS: It doesn’t mean anything because it’s not true. He’s nowhere close to No. 1. Trump has 29 million followers on Facebook, far below former President Barack Obama, who has 54 million. Cristiano Ronaldo, the Portuguese soccer player, has 126 million. ___ TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS TRUMP: “I stopped some very, very infected, very, very sick people, thousands coming in from China long earlier than anybody thought, including the experts. Nobody thought we should do it except me. And I stopped everybody. We stopped it cold.” — interview March 30 with “Fox & Friends.” PENCE: “The president suspended all travel from China in January.” — interview Wednesday with CNN. THE FACTS: Trump didn’t “stop cold” all the people infected with coronavirus from entering the U.S. with a ban of all travel from China. There were gaps in containment and initial delays in testing, leading to the U.S. rising to No. 1 globally in the number of people infected by COVID-19. Nor did Trump decide on his own to impose travel restrictions on China — he followed a consensus recommendation by his public-health advisers. His order in late January temporarily barred entry by foreign nationals who had traveled in China within the previous 14 days, with exceptions for the immediate family of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Americans returning from China were allowed back for two more weeks. They were given enhanced screenings. But screenings can miss people who are carrying the virus but showing no symptoms. ___ MORTALITY TRUMP: “So we have more cases than anybody, but we’re doing really well, and we also have a very low — relative to other countries — very low mortality rate. And there are reasons for that.” — interview March 30 with “Fox & Friends.” TRUMP: “We’ve been doing more test — tests than any other country anywhere in the world. It’s one of the reasons that we have more cases than other countries, because we’ve been testing. It’s also one of the reasons that we’re just about the lowest in terms of mortality rate.” — news briefing on March 29. THE FACTS: His suggestion that the U.S. response is better than other countries’ because its mortality rate is “just about the lowest” is unsupported and misleading. It’s too early to know the real death rate from COVID-19 in any country. Look at a count kept by Johns Hopkins University, and you can divide the number of reported cases by the number of recorded deaths. But that math provides a completely unreliable measurement of death rates, and the Johns Hopkins tally is not intended to be that. First, the count changes every day as new infections and deaths are recorded. More important, every country is testing differently. Knowing the real denominator, the true number of people who become infected, is key to determining what portion of them die. Some countries, the U.S. among them, have had trouble making enough tests available. When there’s a shortage of tests, the sickest get tested first. And even with a good supply of tests, someone who’s otherwise healthy and has mild symptoms may not be tested and thus go uncounted. The result is a hodgepodge of numbers that get sorted out as the crisis diminishes. Indeed, initial death rates were thought to be as high as 4% in parts of China. But a report published Monday in The Lancet Infectious Diseases calculated that 1.38% actually is the best estimate of deaths among confirmed cases across China and that accounting for unconfirmed cases could drop that rate below 1%. Early on Fauci estimated that the death rate in the U.S. might hit around 1%, which would be 10 times higher than mortality from a typical flu season. ___ Associated Press writers Darlene Superville, Lauran Neergaard and Matthew Perrone in Washington, Alan Suderman in Richmond, Va., and Amanda Seitz in Chicago contributed to this report. ___ EDITOR’S NOTE — A look at the veracity of claims by political figures. ___  Find AP Fact Checks at http://apne.ws/2kbx8bd  Follow @APFactCheck on Twitter: https://twitter.com/APFactCheck___


Explanation: Q: Did the Obama administration legalize “bump stocks” for semiautomatic rifles?A: No federal law explicitly addresses “bump stocks.” The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ruled 10 times between 2008 and 2017 that certain models could not be prohibited under existing gun laws.

Q: Did the Obama administration legalize “bump stocks” for semiautomatic rifles? A: No federal law explicitly addresses “bump stocks.” The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ruled 10 times between 2008 and 2017 that certain models could not be prohibited under existing gun laws.I just read on AOL that Trump announced (via tweet of course) the Obama administration legalized the sale of bump stocks. True or false? Naturally, he now takes credit for outlawing them. Please set the record straight.A “bump stock” is a plastic or metal device that can be attached to the rear of a semiautomatic rifle to make it shoot almost as fast as a fully automatic weapon. The stock uses recoil to make the weapon bump back and forth between the shooter’s shoulder and trigger finger, causing the firearm to fire rapidly.The devices became part of the gun debate in October after 64-year-old Stephen Paddock used AR-style rifles affixed with bump stocks to shoot people attending an outdoor concert in Las Vegas. More than 50 people were killed and hundreds more were injured.Then, in February, after another deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school, President Donald Trump directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look into “banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.” The Department of Justice announced on March 23 that it was proposing a rule to that effect.That same day on Twitter, Trump faulted former President Barack Obama for the devices, saying it was a “bad idea” that his administration had “legalized” bump stocks. Since then, a number of FactCheck.org readers have emailed us, inquiring whether the gun accessories were allowed during Obama’s presidency.Obama Administration legalized bump stocks. BAD IDEA. As I promised, today the Department of Justice will issue the rule banning BUMP STOCKS with a mandated comment period. We will BAN all devices that turn legal weapons into illegal machine guns.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 23, 2018The president’s tweet may have left some with the false impression that bump stocks had been illegal and the Obama administration made some change in the law. That’s not the case. Instead, whether bump stocks are legal depends on how exactly different models function. At issue is whether the devices meet the definition of “machinegun” under federal firearm laws, which have prohibited, with some exceptions, the transfer and possession of a “machinegun” since 1986.Federal law defines a machine gun as a weapon that “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” The definition says it also includes “the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”In December, the Department of Justice announced it would launch a regulatory process “to determine whether bump stocks are prohibited.”It’s true that, under Obama, the ATF — an agency within the Justice Department — ruled that it could not prevent the use of certain models of bump stocks.In June 2010, for example, the bureau responded to a request to evaluate a product sold by Slide Fire Solutions, a Texas company that makes the devices. In a letter, John Spencer, then the ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch chief, wrote that the device examined had no “functioning mechanical parts or springs” that made it perform like an automatic weapon.“In order to use the installed device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hand and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand,” Spencer said. “Accordingly, we find that the ‘bump-stock’ is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.”The ATF, under Trump, also made a similar determination in April 2017, about a different model of bump stock.In that letter, Michael Curtis, the head of ATF’s Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch, wrote: “The FTISB examination of the submitted device indicates that if as a shot is fired — and a sufficient amount of pressure is applied to the handguard/gripping surface with the shooter’s support hand — the AR-type rifle assembly will come forward until the trigger re-contacts the shooter’s stationary firing-hand trigger finger: Re-contacting allows the firing of a subsequent shot. In this manner, the shooter pulls the receiver assembly forward to fire each shot, each succeeding shot firing with a single trigger function.”“Since your device does not initiate an automatic firing cycle by a single function of the trigger,” Curtis said, “FTISB finds that it is NOT a machinegun under the [National Firearms Act], or the amended [Gun Control Act].”In fact, in a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register in December, the ATF said “since 2008,” which predates Obama’s time in office, “ATF has issued a total of 10 private letters in which it classified various bump stock devices to be unregulated parts or accessories, and not machineguns or machinegun conversion devices as defined” in federal gun laws.The letters were sent to individuals and manufacturers who voluntarily submitted devices for classification. Because the letters are private, the ATF does not make them readily available to the public without the recipient’s consent.Slide Fire posted its June 2010 letter from the ATF on its website. The letter the ATF sent in 2017 under Trump was obtained from the Justice Department by the Giffords Law Center and Democracy Forward, which, according to BuzzFeed, filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act. The recipient’s name was redacted.We asked the ATF for the dates the letters were sent, and we were referred to the agency’s March 29 rulemaking proposal that only mentions a range of 2008 to 2017. Still, that suggests that at least one of the letters was sent during the George W. Bush administration. That’s in addition to the letter we know was issued under Trump’s administration.Some bump stocks have been deemed illegal, though.In an April 2013 letter to Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Richard Marianos, then ATF assistant director for public and governmental affairs, wrote: “Those bump-fire stocks which were found to convert a weapon to shoot automatically were classified as machineguns and regulated accordingly, most notably, the Akins Accelerator.”Marianos said the Akins Accelerator, an attachment patented by former U.S. Marine Bill Akins in 2000, “incorporated a mechanism to automatically reset and activate the fire-control components of a firearm” after a single pull of the trigger. That meets the definition of a machine gun. The ATF ruling was made in 2006, and was later upheld by a federal appeals court.On the other hand, Marianos said devices like the Slide Fire stock, which “requires continuous multiple inputs by the user for each successive shot,” could not be classified as a restricted firearm. “Therefore, ATF does not have the authority to restrict their lawful possession, use, or transfer,” he said.The ATF under Trump now disputes that interpretation and wants to classify all bump stocks as federally banned weapons.Its proposed rule seeks to clarify that a machine gun includes “bump-stock-type devices, i.e, devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.” The agency says it has reviewed the “relevant statutory language” and determined that bump stocks do turn semiautomatic firearms into automatic ones.It argues: “When a shooter who has affixed a bump-stock-type device to a semiautomatic firearm pulls the trigger, that movement initiates a firing sequence that produces more than one shot. And that firing sequence is ‘automatic’ because the device harnesses the firearm’s recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth cycle that allows the shooter to attain continuous firing after a single pull of the trigger, so long as the trigger finger remains stationary on the device’s ledge (as designed). Accordingly, these devices are included under the definition of machinegun and, therefore, come within the purview of the [National Firearms Act].”The proposed rule would require those who possess, sell or make bump stocks to destroy them, surrender them or permanently render them inoperable.Trump, though, got ahead of himself during a speech in Ohio on March 30 when he claimed that his administration “got rid of the bump stocks,” but “nobody reported it.” In fact, some bump stocks are still legal. A final rule cannot be issued until after the public comment period ends June 27.Even then, gun rights groups and advocates have said any final rule could be challenged in court. They argue that the ATF is changing the definition of a machine gun, which they say can only be done by Congress.Sen. Dianne Feinstein agrees with that assessment. She, along with fellow Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, introduced a bill in October that would ban bump stocks and similar devices. It has received a committee hearing, but not a vote.“If ATF tries to ban these devices after admitting repeatedly that it lacks the authority to do so, that process could be tied up in court for years, and that would mean bump stocks would continue to be sold,” Feinstein said in a statement in February.“Legislation is the only answer,” she said.Buchanan, Larry, et al. “What Is a Bump Stock and How Does It Work?” New York Times. 20 Feb 2018.“ATF: Las Vegas shooter had 12 guns modified to mimic automatics – live updates.” CBS News. 3 Oct 2017.White House. “Presidential Memorandum on the Application of the Definition of Machinegun to ‘Bump Fire’ Stocks and Other Similar Devices.” 20 Feb 2018.Rose, Veronica, and Reilly, Meghan. “Summary of State and Federal Machine Gun Laws.” Office of Legislative Research, Connecticut General Assembly. 12 Jan 2009.U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. National Firearms Act. Atf.gov. 1 Dec 2016.U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Letter to Slide Fire. 7 Jun 2010.U.S. Department of Justice. “Attorney General Sessions Announces Regulation Effectively Banning Bump Stocks.” Press release. 23 March 2018.U.S. Department of Justice. “Justice Department and ATF Begin Regulatory Process to Determine Whether Bump Stocks Are Prohibited.” Press release. 5 Dec 2017.U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Letter about bump stock device. 6 Apr 2017.Holden, Dominic. “Documents Show The Trump Administration Approved Bump Stocks Before It Opposed Them.” BuzzFeed. 22 Mar 2018.U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “Application of the Definition of Machinegun to ‘Bump Fire’ Stocks and Other Similar Devices.” Federal Register. 26 Dec 2017.U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “Bump-Stock-Type Devices.” Federal Register. 29 Mar 2018.U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Letter to Rep. Ed Perlmutter. 16 Apr 2013.Ax, Joseph. “Inventor of ‘bump stock’ spent years fighting for device, and lost.” Reuters. 6 Oct 2017.Krouse, William. “Gun Control: ‘Bump-Fire’ Stocks.” Congressional Research Service. 10 Oct 2017.White House. “Remarks by President Trump on the Infrastructure Initiative.” Transcript. 30 Mar 2018.Wheeler, Lydia. “Trump sets up legal fight over bump stocks.” The Hill. 27 Mar 2018.Feinstein, Dianne. “Feinstein on Bump Stocks: Legislation is the Only Answer.” Press release. 20 Feb 2018.Blumenthal, Richard. “Blumenthal and Murphy Introduce Bill to Close Automatic Weapon Loophole.” Press release. 4 Oct 2017.S.1916 – Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act. Congress.gov. As introduced 4 Oct 2017.


I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke [in March 2007], and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it.

Explanation: 2007 was too late to head off the crisis

The country's economic woes were a somber topic at the presidential debate in Nashville, Tenn., on Oct. 7, 2008, with both candidates explaining their thoughts on the root of the crisis. "I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it." It's undisputed that Obama wrote the two officials a letter on March 22, 2007. "There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures," Obama wrote. "Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge." (  Read the full text here  .) But Obama brought up this letter in the context of explaining the current economic crisis. There's nothing to suggest in the letter that Obama had early insights into the events that would unfold in 2008. His letter is concerned with people losing their homes, not a systemic threat to the economic system. (See our story and other statements on potential causes of the economic crisis here.) We also checked news clips to look at Bernanke and Paulson's public statements around the time after Obama sent his letter. • On March 28, 2007, Bernanke testified before Congress, saying,   "Although the turmoil in the       subprime   mortgage market has created financial problems for many individuals and families, the implications of these developments for the housing market as a whole are less clear." • On May 15, 2007, Bernanke gave a speech in which he discouraged new regulation of derivatives, which played a role in the credit crisis of 2008. " We should always keep in view the enormous economic benefits that flow from a healthy and innovative financial sector," Bernanke said. • On May 17, 2007, Bernanke said the Federal Reserve was considering taking steps to rein in subprime lending, but would be cautious not to overregulate. "We do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system," Bernanke said. • On June 20, 2007, Paulson said, "We have had a major housing correction in this country. ... I do believe we are at or near the bottom." So it sounds like Obama's letter didn't make much of a splash. Certainly Bernanke and Paulson were not sounding alarm bells. We asked two economists, one with a right-leaning group and one with a left-leaning group, if a warning issued in 2007 could have made a difference to the problems of October 2008. Both of them said it was too late by then, because the questionable loans and securities had been issued by that point. "The horse was already out of the barn," said Dean Baker,   an economist and co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. "Everyone with a brain who was paying attention knew that there were big problems associated with outstanding subprime risk," said Charles Calomiris, a professor at Columbia Business School and a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. But, he added,  "There was little that the Fed could have done after March 2007 to prevent the crisis from happening." So Obama is right that he wrote the letter. Saying Bernanke and Paulson didn't do anything about it sounds harsh, but it is a rough approximation of what happened. But Obama's letter was largely confined to the problems of low-income homeowners who were losing their homes. It was not an early warning on the economic collapse of '08.


The legalization of marijuana will force police departments to euthanize their drug sniffing dogs.

Explanation: However, the claim that legalization would force drug dogs to be euthanized is a bad-faith argument rooted in logical fallacies that confound police forces experienced in legalized marijuana. As such, we rank it false.

Politics, cannabis, dogs, drug sniffing dogs

In early May 2018, Illinois-area newspaper The Pantagraph posed an interesting question in a headline: If Illinois legalizes marijuana, what happens to pot-sniffing dogs? In broad strokes, the article discussed the potential financial hardship that could be wrought against police departments in that state should it approve the legalization of cannabis — a question that may be on the ballot in November. Those claims rely primarily on the testimony of Macon County Sheriff Howard Buffett, who told the paper: “The biggest thing for law enforcement is, you’re going to have to replace all of your dogs,” said Macon County Sheriff Howard Buffett, whose private foundation paid $2.2 million in 2016 to support K-9 units in 33 counties across Illinois. “So to me, it’s a giant step forward for drug dealers, and it’s a giant step backwards for law enforcements and the residents of the community.” Howard Buffett is the son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett, has been active in the Illinois law enforcement and philanthropy communities for years, and is an opponent of marijuana legalization. Buffett was selected by retiring Macon County Sheriff Thomas Schneider to serve the remainder of his term after that sheriff retired in part due to health concerns, and he was sworn into office on 15 September 2017. The most controversial comments in the article came from Chad Larner, the director of of the K-9 Training Academy in Macon County (a beneficiary of Buffett’s), who said that retraining the animals would be abusive, and thus many retired drug dogs would have to be euthanized if marijuana legalization were passed: Chad Larner, training director of the K-9 Training Academy in Macon County, dismissed the idea of retraining dogs, saying it would amount to “extreme abuse” to change their mindset. K-9s are rewarded for successfully alerting to the presence of narcotics, and they continue to train regularly with their handlers for a suggested minimum of 16 hours a month. […] Because many K-9s are trained not to be social so their work won’t be affected, Larner said a number of dogs would likely have to be euthanized. We spoke with representatives of two major police forces in jurisdictions that have experienced the legalization of marijuana — the Denver Police Department and the Seattle Police Department — and both vigorously disputed the argument presented by Buffett and Lerner. On the claim that these animals are “trained not to be social” and therefore unable to be cared for after their service, a spokesperson for the Denver PD told us via e-mail that their dogs are not trained against being social: We actually want them to be people friendly, it puts people at ease around the dogs and this leads to more effective deployments. We have had instances where our handlers are a little too friendly with the dogs while they are at home, and this can impact effectiveness. The reason is, that the dog should see going to work as being their play time. To them, finding drugs is the same as playing fetch, if they play too much at home, they slack off at work. The notion that these dogs would have to be euthanized because they would not be social enough to find a home in retirement was equally confounding to the Seattle PD, in part because the dogs (in both Seattle and Denver and elsewhere) live full time with their handlers, and continue to do so after their retirement. Seattle PD spokesman Sean Whitcomb spoke to us by phone, telling us, “That’s nonsense. The dogs that we would retire would stay with the handler.” The idea that the dogs would require active retraining, or would need to be relieved of service if the law changed, is also disputed by both departments. The Denver PD told us they still retain dogs that had been trained prior to legalization: We can only speak to what we do at the Denver Police Department. We do not euthanize our dogs, we would never do that. When [Marijuana, MJ] was first legalized we continued to have our dogs trained on 4 odors: MJ, cocaine, Meth, and heroin. Once a dog is trained on an odor, it is very difficult to train them off of it. We continued to utilize these dogs because we still have a booming black market for MJ. We did begin training with larger amounts of marijuana (10 or more pounds). As these dogs have been retired (they usually stay with their police handlers and become their family pets) we purchased new dogs, a couple of these dogs have not been trained on MJ. So right now we have some dogs on MJ and some dogs off of MJ. This works for us depending on the type of investigation we are conducting. Whitcomb, who described the arguments presented by the Macon County Sheriff as “absurd,” told us — similarly — that the Seattle PD does not “retrain” their dogs either, and that they remain part of their force: When we transitioned from illegal marijuana to legal marijuana some years ago, we didn’t turn over or transition our canine dogs. What we did was discontinue the use of marijuana as a training aid. […] We continued to train our narcotics detection dogs with things like heroin, meth, cocaine. […] That’s what they live for. They got a reward when they successfully find what they’re trained to find, what they’re trained to do, and so when you stop rewarding for hunting marijuana it ceases over time to be a skill. One factual complication, to which Buffett alluded, is that a dog previously trained to sniff marijuana (along with other major drugs) may complicate legal efforts to prosecute people individuals caught carrying legal weed in addition to illegal drugs. The argument is that (legal) marijuana may be what a dog is indicating to the police, who would then use that information to justify a search leading to arrest of an individual for possession of another drug. This argument is especially relevant to California, which recently legalized recreational marijuana through Proposition 64: Prop. 64, which made it legal for individuals to use marijuana and grow it for personal use, specifically states that legal amounts of marijuana and cannabis products don’t create the basis for a search, detention or arrest: A dog that alerts on marijuana could taint an otherwise lawful search that turns up illegal guns or other contraband. “There’s a strong argument that if one of these four-odor dogs smells something, it violates the statute,” [Lauren Mendelsohn, a criminal defense attorney who specializes in cannabis law] said. “It will be interesting to see how it plays out in court.”


“If you look at the one (hydroxychloroquine) survey, the only bad survey, they were giving it to people that were in very bad shape. They were very old. Almost dead.”

Explanation: Trump spoke as though there was only one study that found no benefit from hydroxychloroquine, and said it only looked at people “that were in very bad shape,” almost dead. There have been three studies, and all found no link between hydroxychloroquine and reduced deaths. All studies filtered out the impact of underlying health problems.

Count President Donald Trump as hydroxychloroquine’s No. 1 fan. At a press conference, Trump told reporters he’s putting his health where his mouth is. "Couple of weeks ago I started taking it," he said May 18. "Because I think it’s good. I’ve heard a lot of good stories. And if it’s not good, I’ll tell you right. I’m not going to get hurt by it." To be clear, the Food and Drug Administration cautions that hydroxychloroquine can hurt people. It increases the risk of an irregular heartbeat, which can lead to cardiac arrest. Trump didn’t mention that. He did, however, dismiss the research that cast doubt on whether the drug does any good against COVID-19. "If you look at the one survey, the only bad survey, they were giving it to people that were in very bad shape," Trump said at a May 19 press event. "They were very old. Almost dead. It was a Trump enemy statement." Later that day, Trump clarified that he was talking about a study of Veterans Administration patients. Trump spoke as if there were only one negative study. There have been three: the one on VA patients and two larger ones. They all reached the same conclusion that outcomes with hydroxychloroquine were the same as without it. The earliest work on hydroxychloroquine was small studies, sometimes with as few as 30 patients, and for each study that showed promise, another study found no benefit. The mixed results spurred more research. The analysis Trump criticized came in late April, when researchers at the universities of South Carolina and Virginia released their paper on 368 VA patients with COVID-19. They looked at who got hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or both, and they tracked who ended up on a ventilator or died. The paper was released without peer review. They found that hydroxychloroquine, with or without the other drug, had no effect on whether someone had to be put on a ventilator. Worse, hydroxychloroquine increased the chances of dying. The authors cautioned that all of the patients involved in the study, regardless of outcome, were men over 65. And they also factored in a range of underlying conditions, including diabetes, high blood pressure and other health risks. Those issues were found in roughly equal numbers across all groups of patients. Ultimately, about 75% of the patients getting hydroxychloroquine lived. The survival rate was close to 90% for those who didn’t get it. In early May, two studies emerged based on patients treated in the nation’s biggest COVID-19 hotspot, New York City. Both investigations were much larger than the study of VA patients. The study that appeared May 7 in the New England Journal of Medicine looked at the medical records of 1,376 people who tested positive for COVID-19 and were admitted to the hospital. Their results echoed the first study on hydroxychloroquine. "There was no association between administration of the drug and a lower chance of dying or winding up on a respirator," said co-author Neil Schluger, the head of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Now, it’s fair to say that the patients who got the drug were, as a group, a bit worse off than those who didn’t. In particular, their blood oxygen levels were lower when they were first admitted. Schluger said that didn’t matter. "The difference in oxygen levels between the two groups we compared were fairly small and not clinically important," Schluger said. These patients were not close to death, Schluger said. "Overall, about 83% of the patients in our cohort survived, and that survival had no association with hydroxychloroquine administration," he said. On May 11, the JAMA Network of the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study of 1,438 randomly selected COVID-19 patients treated at 25 New York area hospitals. That group of researchers tracked whether they died in the hospital. They, too, found no connection between outcomes and use of hydroxychloroquine. They also found no impact from the use of another drug, azithromycin. About 75% of patients getting hydroxychloroquine survived, compared with about 87% who were not given the drug. Like the other study, this one found that patients who got the drug were in worse health at admission than those who didn’t. They might have lower oxygen levels, or some other condition such as diabetes or obesity. But by examining patients’ full medical records, both teams were able to use stronger analytic tools to filter out the impact of differences in underlying health. Once that was done, they could make apples-to-apples comparisons of the effect of hydroxychloroquine on people who got the drug and those who didn’t. The authors of all studies acknowledged that working with patient records after the fact isn’t the final answer, and they called for more research. We reached out to the White House and did not hear back. Trump spoke about "the one survey," a study of VA patients and hydroxychloroquine, and said it was "bad" because "they were giving it to people that were in very bad shape. They were very old. Almost dead." There have been three studies, not just one. None of them found that the drug reduced the death toll. As a group, the patients getting the drug were not on the verge of death. Across three studies, about 75% to 80% of the patients receiving the drug survived. To say they were in very bad shape is also off the mark. Health issues were found in members of both the treatment and non-treatment groups. That allowed researchers to tease out the impact, and make informed comparisons that took these health differences into account.


Pelosi sets Medicare showdown on drug costs and new benefits.

Explanation: The House will hold a showdown vote next week on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s bill empowering Medicare to negotiate drug prices, expanded Thursday to provide seniors with dental, vision and hearing benefits not currently covered.

Seniors, Frank Pallone, Health, General News, Politics, Bobby Scott, Richard Neal, Medicare, Prices, Business, Bills, Nancy Pelosi

Leading Democratic committee chairmen said the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that Pelosi’s bill would save the government $500 billion over 10 years, which they pledged to use for new Medicare benefits and other health care priorities such as the National Institutes of Health and the opioid crisis. “These significant investments are made possible as a result of our promise to finally empower the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices for the American people,” Reps. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., Richard Neal, D-Mass., and Bobby Scott, D-Va., said in a joint statement. While the bill is expected to pass the Democratic-controlled House, it has no chance in the Republican-run Senate. Most Republicans oppose authorizing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, arguing the job is better done by private insurers who deliver the program’s prescription benefit. President Donald Trump, as a candidate, called for giving Medicare negotiating clout, but since taking office he has backed off. The White House now strongly opposes Pelosi’s bill, arguing it will keep up to one-third of new drugs from coming to market over a decade, an estimate far higher than the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has calculated. The legislation from Pelosi, D-Calif., would authorize Medicare to negotiate prices for the costliest drugs, including insulin, using lower prices paid in other economically advanced countries as the reference point. The budget office says that could result in price cuts of 40% to 55% for pharmacy drugs subject to negotiations. The bill would allow private insurance plans to also get Medicare’s price. As a hammer to force companies to negotiate, Pelosi would impose steep sales taxes on the medications at issue. Overall, budget analysts estimated the legislation would cut industry revenues by $500 billion to $1 trillion over 10 years. Updated estimates from the budget office are expected before the bill goes to the House floor next Wednesday or Thursday. Trump is backing a competing bill in the Senate, bipartisan legislation that would require drugmakers to pay rebates to Medicare if they hike prices above inflation. Pelosi’s bill also includes inflation rebates. Both the House and Senate bills would cap what Medicare recipients must pay annually in out-of-pocket costs for their prescriptions. A White House report released this week said Pelosi’s bill “will harm American patients in ways that far outweigh any benefits” by making it harder for pharmaceutical companies to develop breakthrough drugs and bring them to market. In the middle of an impeachment, chances of a deal between Pelosi, Trump and congressional lawmakers of both parties appear slim. Though Medicare is very popular among seniors, it has always had gaps in coverage. Dental, vision and hearing are seen as the biggest. Many seniors pay out-of-pocket for hearing aids, dentures and eyeglasses. Others rely on limited benefits offered through private Medicare Advantage plans. Separately, a government report out Thursday found that prices for prescription drugs bought at the pharmacy edged down by 1% last year, the first such drop since the 1970s.


Are You At Risk? 5 Different Types of Prostate Cancer Found

Explanation: This news release puts readers in a worried, defensive posture right from the get-go with its headline, “Are you at risk?” It concludes with a pitch for the services of robotic prostate cancer surgeon and urologic oncologist Dr. David Samadi of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. In between, it briefly recaps a study published in the EBioMedicine journal that apparently discovered “five different types of prostate cancer” (the study characterizes this finding, much more soberly, as “five separate patient subgroups with distinct genomic alterations and expression profiles”). The release suggests that genetic testing used in the study is better than current methods at forecasting prostate cancer progression; however, this apparent benefit is never quantified and key limitations of the study are never addressed. The tone is promotional, with links to a Fox news program featuring the surgeon quoted, a link to a “ProstateCancer911” website and the surgeon’s phone number for making an appointment for a consult. The study seems secondary at best. About 220,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States annually, according to the American Cancer Society. The vast majority (98 percent) live at least 10 years after diagnosis and 94 percent are alive 15 years after diagnosis. If the cancer spreads to other parts of the body, the risk for death increases. This study highlights the possibility that men with high-risk gene profiles would be candidates for more aggressive follow-up treatment following removal of their prostates. The discussion also makes it clear that the value of these risk categories for clinical care remains to be determined. The news release would have done well to communicate that uncertainty more clearly.

The release makes no mention of the cost for an additional genetic test. The news release states there is a benefit to having a genetic test in addition to the standard Gleason score and PSA tests. However, as discussed under the “Evidence” section, there is no data giving us any idea of the differences in accuracy or improved outcomes if patients undergo genetic testing. The main potential harm from the test is risk misclassification (which could happen when the gene tests are applied in a larger, unselected population) resulting in either under- or over-treatment of prostate cancer. This is not addressed in the news release. The release includes an overview of the evidence from the cited research study but doesn’t provide details on how adding a genetic test helps oncologists target treatment and improve outcomes. The study, which carefully selected a small group of patients, looked only at biochemical recurrence–which is only a weak surrogate for prostate cancer mortality. The news release fails to indicate whether the new gene tests are significantly more accurate than current clinical/pathological markers and does not indicate that biochemical progression does not necessarily herald clinical progression or mortality. The statistics provided about prostate cancer are close to what the American Cancer Society and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have published on their websites. However, the headline for the release — “Are you at risk?” — seems to be blatantly exploiting the results of a preliminary research study to create worry. In addition, men with a family history of prostate cancer should do more than consult Dr. Samadi for a baseline PSA test as suggested by the news release — they should engage in shared decision-making with their provider about their options. This release isn’t hiding any conflicts since it is openly sponsored and released by the prostate cancer specialist named. However, it almost appears as though the author hijacked a recent study about prostate cancer genetics in order to sell the physician’s services to concerned patients. Details about the study itself are minimal. The release states that genetic testing is more accurate in predicting prostate cancer progression than either the PSA or Gleason score, but doesn’t tell us how much more or accurate or how outcomes may be improved other than a vague statement about targeting and individualized treatment. We can’t be sure if the testing protocol discussed in the release is available or not. One might reasonably assume that genetic cancer screening for the five identified genetic types of prostate cancer is available at the specialist’s hospital. However, the release isn’t clear on this point. The findings reported in the study seem to be newsworthy, and we’ll give credit for indicating that “new research has revealed” and “this discovery” as establishing novelty. There’s also a nod to previous research about prostate cancer genetics. The news release makes several leaps intended to drive readers to think there’s something notable being offered, but there’s little hard evidence provided to back up the claims. One example: “If five types of the disease exist, how does this change popular medical opinion on prostate cancer screening? This may mean that each type of the disease needs its own approach to screening, diagnosis, treatment and even recurrence,” noted Dr. Samadi. This is misleading, since the test has no effect on screening and cannot be used to diagnose cancer (you still need a biopsy); it might lead to different treatment and surveillance strategies.


Explanation: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common and potentially devastating eye disorder. There are two major types of AMD, “dry” and “wet”. “Dry” AMD is by far the more common type, but it progresses very slowly. “Wet” or neovascular AMD, is less common, but the onset is very sudden and can progress quickly to blindness. The recent FDA approval of the drug Lucentis and the publication of two studies on Lucentis in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine bring new information to patients with neovascular AMD. While the clinical trial results are promising, the extremely high cost of the drug (around $2000 a month) may be unaffordable for many patients and could place a great strain on Medicare, which would cover 80% of the cost. Furthermore, there are currently no studies showing how Lucentis compares to a very similar drug, Avastin, which is not approved for used in AMD, but is frequently used off-label for the condition and which costs much less. This story does a decent job of describing the new developments, but missed an opportunity to explain the controversy surrounding the use of Avastin. The story clearly states that Lucentis was recently approved by the FDA. The story should have been more clear that the approval was for neovascular, or “wet”, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and not the more common “dry” form of AMD. The story does states that the cost of the drug is about $2000 a month. However, the story should have provided more context by comparing this cost to the cost of other treatments for AMD. The story could have been more clear about the difference between the “wet” and “dry” forms of the disease. Although the story mentions two studies, this is not enough information on the strength of the available evidence. Specifically, there have been no studies comparing the effectiveness of Lucentis to Avastin. The story provides estimates of benefit for the drug group only. The story should have given the estimates of benefit for both the drug group and the control group. Furthermore, the story only quotes one expert. The story should have quoted other researchers or clinicians who could provide more context.

The story does states that the cost of the drug is about $2000 a month. However, the story should have provided more context by comparing this cost to the cost of other treatments for AMD. The story provides estimates of benefit for the drug group only. The story should have given the estimates of benefit for both the drug group and the control group. The story does mention side effects, such as inflammation, infection, and detached retina. Although the story mentions two studies, this is not enough information on the strength of the available evidence. Specifically, there have been no studies comparing the effectiveness of Lucentis compared to Avastin, another drug that is commonly used off-label to treat AMD. By accurately describing the prevalence and seriousness of AMD, the story avoids disease mongering. However, the story could have been more clear about the difference between the “wet” and “dry” forms of the disease. The story only quotes one expert. The story should have quoted other researchers or clinicians who could provide more context. The story does not mention any of the existing treatments, such as Avastin or laser therapy, although it does list preventive strategies, such as smoking cessation and treatment of hypertension. The story clearly states that Lucentis was recently approved by the FDA. The story should have been more clear that the approval was for neovascular, or “wet”, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and not the more common “dry” form of AMD. The story clearly states that Lucentis is a new drug. The story should have mentioned that a very similar drug, Avastin, has been used in the same manner for a few years. There is no way to know if the story relies on a press release as the sole source of information.


Under last year’s health care reform, "a bunch of bureaucrats decide whether you get care, such as continuing on dialysis or cancer chemotherapy.

Explanation: Gingrey claims federal health care board can decide if you get dialysis, chemo

U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey, who’s also a doctor, is aiming his scalpel at a lesser-known provision of last year’s health care overhaul. The Marietta Republican recommends swift removal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which was created to rein in growing Medicare costs. Gingrey, an obstetrician-gynecologist, wants the board repealed. He said at a recent news conference it’s worse than tossing Granny off Stone Mountain. "Democrats like to picture us as pushing Grandmother over the cliff or throwing someone under the bus. In either one of those scenarios, at least the senior has a chance to survive," Gingrey said June 22. "But under this IPAB we described that the Democrats put in Obamacare, where a bunch of bureaucrats decide whether you get care, such as continuing on dialysis or cancer chemotherapy, I guarantee you, when you withdraw that, the patient is going to die," said Gingrey. "It’s rationing." What a bleak prognosis. Under the IPAB, does "a bunch of bureaucrats" really "decide whether you get care"? PolitiFact Georgia asked a Gingrey spokeswoman for proof, but she did not provide any. We turned to four health care policy experts with differing opinions on the IPAB. They all told us that Gingrey was wrong. But before we explain their reasoning, here’s more about the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Lawmakers created the board in response to criticism that Congress has been unable to make the politically risky and technically complex decisions needed to slow the growth of costs for Medicare, the federal program that provides health care for seniors. Under the health care reform bill, if Medicare spending growth is projected to exceed certain targets, the IPAB must come up with plans to slow the increase. If Congress does not act on the recommendation within a set time frame, it is automatically implemented. Both sides of the aisle have their problems with the board. Some worry it will be too hard for Congress to overrule IPAB recommendations, or that the board will stifle innovation. In recent months, Republicans such as Gingrey and even Democrats have signed on to repeal the board. This brings us back to Gingrey’s claim that under the IPAB, "a bunch of bureaucrats decide whether you get care, such as continuing on dialysis or cancer chemotherapy." Gingrey is "not even close to correct," said Michael Tanner, a scholar with the libertarian Cato Institute. He opposes the IPAB. "It [IPAB] has nothing to do with individual care at all. It’s not making decisions on individuals," Tanner said. Experts agree that the IPAB has no say in whether a specific person receives dialysis, chemotherapy or any other such treatment. The board does not intercede in individual patient cases. It makes broad policy decisions that affect Medicare’s overall cost. Furthermore, the IPAB is barred from making policy recommendations that would block patients from receiving needed care, experts told PolitiFact Georgia. "The legislation explicitly forbids the board from rationing care," said Stuart Guterman, a health policy expert with the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan group which works to improve health care access, quality and efficiency. Guterman said he thinks the IPAB can help with health care savings. Our analysis of the bill only found language designed to avoid the result Gingrey foretells. For instance, the IPAB may not submit "any recommendation to ration health care," Section 3403 states. The same section also bars raising premiums for Medicare beneficiaries, as well as increasing deductibles, coinsurance or co-payments. The IPAB cannot change who is eligible for Medicare, restrict benefits or make recommendations that would raise revenue, either. The IPAB can reduce how much the government pays health care providers for services, reduce payments to hospitals with very high rates of readmissions, or recommend innovations that cut wasteful spending. Some may argue that because the IPAB can reduce the money a doctor receives for giving chemotherapy to a Medicare patient, this could lead to an indirect form of rationing. If Medicare reimbursements for chemotherapy drop too low, doctors might stop treating Medicare patients, or avoid recommending chemotherapy. But this is not the scenario that Gingrey describes. Gingrey makes no mention of indirect or long-term consequences. He says that with the IPAB, "a bunch of bureaucrats decide whether you get care, such as continuing on dialysis or cancer chemotherapy. I guarantee you, when you withdraw that, the patient is going to die." In other words, Gingrey says that bureaucrats will have the power to deny you treatment. And because of the bureaucrats, you could die. This claim is incorrect. The IPAB does not have anything close to the power that Gingrey suggests. It cannot raise costs to Medicare recipients, much less kill them off by denying lifesaving care. The claim is also outrageous. A policy board is not deadlier than pushing Grandma off a cliff. We diagnose Dr. Gingrey with a not-quite-fatal case of .


Explanation: In the wake of the mass shooting in Orlando, in which the killer used a semiautomatic rifle was used, Johnson stated: "Assault rifles already are banned." Some, including Johnson, contend that only weapons that are automatic — firing continuously when the trigger is held down are assault weapons — are assault weapons. Those are essentially prohibited by federal laws. But that definition is narrow, and Johnson’s claim gives a misleading impression of a comprehensive ban. Lawmakers, law enforcement officials and others widely refer to many semiautomatic weapons like the rifle used in Orlando and other mass shootings — which reload automatically but fire only once each time the trigger is depressed — as assault weapons. Those are not banned by federal law. For a statement that has an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

Government Regulation, Terrorism, Guns, Wisconsin, Ron Johnson,

The day after a man with a semiautomatic rifle killed 49 people and wounded 53 others at a gay nightclub, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton renewed her call for a federal ban on assault weapons. On the same day, June 13, 2016, Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson responded to an interviewer’s question about the Orlando incident by stating: "Assault rifles already are banned." So, are they prohibited in the United States, or not? It depends on what assault means. But Johnson, who is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is off-target in suggesting there is a blanket ban on assault rifles. Johnson’s claim Johnson was interviewed by Charlie Sykes, a conservative talk show host on WTMJ-AM in Milwaukee, who asked: "Should we be more concerned with the possible violation of Omar Mateen's Second Amendment rights, as opposed to the constitutional rights of the 50 people who are now dead?" Mateen, who was shot dead in the club by police after the rampage, had been armed with a Sig Sauer MCX semiautomatic rifle and a 9mm handgun. (Orlando police officials initially said Mateen used an "AR-15-type assault rifle." Both an AR-15 and the Sig MCX can fire the same type of ammunition at roughly the same speeds, are aesthetically similar and equally lethal, according to the Washington Post. The manufacturer describes the Sig MCX as "the first true mission-adaptable weapon system.") Johnson answered Sykes’ question by saying: "That's that delicate balance, Charlie. And that's what we need to have an honest and legitimate conversation about, as opposed to leaping to conclusions. "To say things like we've got to ban assault rifles. Well, assault rifles already are banned. OK? So, we need to actually have an honest discussion about these issues and understand that this is very difficult, very complex." One thing to understand up front is the difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Automatic weapons -- banned Automatic weapons -- sometimes known as fully automatic, or machine guns -- fire continuously when the trigger is held down. Two federal laws have essentially banned them in the United States. One law in 1935 all but banned automatic weapons like the Tommy gun. And another in 1986 prohibited fully automatic weapons, except for pre-existing weapons that were grandfathered in. Semiautomatic weapons -- not banned Semiautomatic weapons, like the rifle Mateen carried, reload automatically but fire only once each time the trigger is depressed. They are not banned by federal law. From 1994 to 2004, there was a federal law that banned the sale of certain types of new semiautomatic weapons, including some types of AR-15 rifles. A limit on high-capacity magazines also was set. The law, which was adopted to last for 10 years, was not renewed by Congress when it expired. The takeaway Johnson takes the position that only automatic weapons qualify as assault weapons. It’s worth noting that in at least one other interview the same day — with conservative Green Bay radio talk show host Jerry Bader — he spelled that out, saying "an assault weapon is a fully automatic." His office made the same argument to us, citing technical military definitions. However, that’s not a generally accepted line of separation. The federal law that became defunct in 2004 was called the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and at the time the Department of Justice defined some semiautomatic guns as assault weapons. A number of state laws still have that wording on their books. And law enforcement agencies consider certain semiautomatic weapons, including the one used by Mateen, as assault weapons — or at minimum, assault-style weapons. Indeed, the weapons used in the mass shootings in San Bernardino, Calif., Aurora, Colo. and Newtown, Conn. -- all of which were semiautomatic -- were all described by police as assault rifles. Our rating In the wake of the mass shooting in Orlando, in which the killer used a semiautomatic rifle was used, Johnson stated: "Assault rifles already are banned." Some, including Johnson, contend that only weapons that are automatic — firing continuously when the trigger is held down are assault weapons — are assault weapons. Those are essentially prohibited by federal laws. But that definition is narrow, and Johnson’s claim gives a misleading impression of a comprehensive ban. Lawmakers, law enforcement officials and others widely refer to many semiautomatic weapons like the rifle used in Orlando and other mass shootings — which reload automatically but fire only once each time the trigger is depressed — as assault weapons. Those are not banned by federal law. For a statement that has an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is .


Muslim girls buried alive by their father are fed and comforted by Jesus until rescuers come for them.

Explanation: Variations:   A December 2007 version added the information that the Muslim man killed his wife “because she was reading the Bible.”

We first encountered this story in April 2004 when it began to land in the snopes.com inbox. It has since come to us labeled “News from Egypt,” “Miracle in Egypt,” and “Murder Miracle in Egypt!” The story, as appealing as it may be, appears to have nothing to it. Despite the tale’s claim that “The country is outraged over the incident, and the man will be executed,” we found no news reports from Egypt about a man’s murdering his wife and burying her along with his two still-alive daughters, let alone about the two little girls’ being nurtured below ground by Jesus for 15 days before being rescued from their premature graves: Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2004] NEWS FROM EGYPT A Muslim man in Egypt killed his wife and then buried her with their infant baby and 8-year old daughter. The girls were buried alive! He then reported to the police that an uncle killed the kids. 15 days later, another family member died. When they went to bury him, they found the little girls under the sand — ALIVE !! The country is outraged over the incident, and the man will be executed. The older girl was asked how she had survived. “A man wearing shiny white clothes, with bleeding wounds in his hands, came every day to feed us. He woke up my mom so she could nurse my sister,” she said. She was interviewed on Egyptian national TV, by a veiled Muslim woman news anchor. She said on public TV, “This was none other than Jesus, because nobody else does things like this!” Muslims believe Isa (Jesus) would do this, but the wounds mean He really was crucified, and it’s clear also that He is alive! But, it’s also clear that the child could not make up a story like this, and there is no way these children could have survived without a true miracle. Muslim leaders are going to have a hard time to figure out what to do with this, and the popularity of the Passion movie doesn’t help! With Egypt at the center of the media and education in the Middle East, you can be sure this story will spread. Christ is still turning the world upside down! Please let this story be shared here too. The Lord says, “I will bless the person who puts his trust in me.” (Jeremiah 17:7) As to where the story came from, while a number of the forwards identify as the writer of the e-mail a woman whose husband is a Christian pastor who runs a Muslim outreach program in the U.S. (and therefore as the one both providing and vouching for the story), some of the earliest versions that bear her name led off with this now-elided paragraph: I don’t want to wait until our next newsletter to get this story out to you. It begins as a tragedy but ends as an incredible miracle. Victor received this by email a few days ago (5/20/04), and talked with family in Egypt to confirm the details that were given there on the news. A careful reading of that preface provides the information that the putative author did not pen the written account now so often attributed to her — the piece was instead something her husband received from an unnamed source. As for confirming details with family in Egypt, we can only guess what got asked and how it was answered.


Foreign Chinese prostitution money is allegedly behind the groups funding Congressman Jim Renacci’s Republican majority.

Explanation: DCCC claims money from Chinese prostitution supports Jim Renacci's GOP majority

Ohio, Campaign Finance, Negative Campaigning, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,

Billionaire Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson donates millions of dollars to Republican causes. A fired former employee of Adelson’s filed a lawsuit which alleges that Adelson personally approved of prostitution at properties his company owns in Macau, a former Portuguese colony near Hong Kong that now is part of China. Adelson vigorously denies those allegations. What does any of that have to do with Rep. Jim Renacci? Even though Federal Election Commission records show that Adelson hasn’t ever donated to Renacci, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee tried to use the casino owner’s legal woes against the Medina County congressman with a provocatively titled press release: "Congressman Renacci’s Re-election Funded by Chinese Prostitution Money?" "Foreign Chinese prostitution money is allegedly behind the groups funding Congressman Jim Renacci’s Republican majority," the DCCC claimed in a news release on July 2, 2012. "What will Congressman Jim Renacci do when his Chinese prostitution money comes from billionaire Sheldon Adelson?" it continued, urging Renacci to "reject the support of these groups funded by money from a Chinese prostitution strategy." As a result of redistricting, Renacci, a Republican from Wadsworth, Ohio, is pitted against Rep. Betty Sutton, a Democrat. That makes him a target for the DCCC. The DCCC release noted that Adelson and his wife gave $5 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund Super PAC, which is backed by House Speaker John Boehner and other GOP leaders. FEC records indicate that Super PAC hasn’t spent anything so far. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, also gave more than $60,000 to the Republican counterpart of the DCCC, the National Republican Congressional Committee, during the past election cycle. The NRCC regularly sends out news releases that attack Sutton, Renacci’s November election rival who is from Copley Township near Akron. When we asked Renacci campaign spokesman James Slepian about the DCCC’s claim that the congressman’s re-election might somehow be funded by Chinese prostitution money, Slepian replied that there is "no money from Chinese prostitutes, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy in our campaign coffers." "The DCCC's Chinese prostitution fantasy demonstrates that they are now fully immersed in the gutter and will literally say anything to avoid talking about Betty Sutton's lockstep support for the failed Obama economic agenda," Slepian said. "This campaign needs to be about the economy and voting records, not fairy tales about Chinese hookers." The allegations that Adelson signed off on prostitution at his properties in Macau were raised last month during a lawsuit filed by former Sands executive Steven Jacobs, who was fired from overseeing those properties in July 2010. Associated Press reported that Jacobs’ lawsuit accuses Adelson of breach of contract and pushing him into illegal activity. A court filing from Jacobs says he tried to rid the casino floor of "loan sharks and prostitution" while he worked there, which upset senior executives who informed him that "the prior prostitution strategy had been personally approved by Adelson." A spokesman for the Adelson’s company, Las Vegas Sands, issued a statement that said Adelson has always "maintained a strong policy against prostitution on our properties and any accusation to the contrary represents a blatant and reprehensible personal attack on Mr. Adelson’s character." In a July 9 interview with Forbes magazine,  Adelson said there’s not a "shred of evidence" to back his former employee’s charges, and "says the fact that he and his wife (a physician who specializes in treating addiction) have given millions of dollars to set up clinics around the world to treat people with drug addictions (many of them prostitutes) makes the … claims even more preposterous." Adelson also told the publication that promoting prostitution could cost him his gaming licenses in Las Vegas, Singapore and Macau. Do unproven charges by a disgruntled former Adelson employee coupled with Adelson’s generosity to GOP groups that are likely to back Renacci justify the DCCC’s claim that "foreign Chinese prostitution money is allegedly behind the groups funding Congressman Jim Renacci’s Republican majority?" We don’t think so. The root of the allegation stems from a fired employee’s claim that Adelson allowed prostitution to be present in a casino in Macau. Based on that, the DCCC claims that Adelson, one of the wealthiest people in America, made political contributions with cash from prostitution revenues. And then the claim invokes Renacci’s name as part of the Republican majority that this tainted money is supposedly supporting. Renacci hasn’t accepted money from Adelson and doesn’t control contributions to the GOP groups that support him. The claim that Adelson’s donations to these other groups amount to "Chinese prostitution money" is dubious enough that inserting the word "allegedly" can’t save it. On the Truth-O-Meter, the DCCC statement rates .


Henry Winkler Dead at 77 – A Huge Trump Supporter and Lifelong Gun Lover.

Explanation: An Egyptian masseur plays with fire to relieve his clients’ muscle pain at his spa in the Nile Delta governorate of Gharbeya.

Abdel Rehim Saeid, 35, applies the ancient Pharaonic technique, known as the “fiery towel” by starting with a standard massage, using oil and camomile, to stimulate blood circulation and alleviate some of the pain in affected areas. Then comes the heat. Saeid places several layers of towels and other isolating materials on the client’s back. Then a towel soaked in alcohol is placed on top and set on fire. It burns for roughly a minute before the flames are put out with a wet towel. “It is ...called a fiery massage,” Saeid said, that works by sucking moisture out of the body. “I communicate with the human body, coming into close contact with the body of the human in front of me,” he said. Saeid said he cannot use the technique with people suffering from high blood pressure, kidney failure or haemophilia. He said he trained under an expert in the fiery towel technique in Morocco, and had earned several massage certifications from institutions in Egypt. Mohammed al-Shaer, a client in his 30s, said his pain had improved “100%” after the fiery treatment. “Before, I could not stand to pray. I couldn’t stretch my back when I got out of a car,” he said. “Now, after the second session, my body is getting better and my movement is better. I used to be very lazy but this is no longer the case.”


A set of images show a congenital anomaly that resulted in an a hand with eight fingers.

Explanation: What's true: "Mirror hand" is a real, documented congenital condition. What's undetermined: Whether these particular images showing the syndrome are genuine.

Fauxtography, hands, Medical, medical anomalies

In April 2018, a set of images purportedly showing a hand with eight fingers and no thumbs started to go viral:  Although these images were met with a heavy dose of skepticism, we found several reasons to believe that these photographs are genuine. At the very least, they do depict a real syndrome. Many Internet users may have encountered these images on Imgur, where they were posted with a humorous title, or various Facebook pages, where they were shared with some misinformation about “mirror hand syndrome.” These unreliable posts may have made some viewers especially doubtful about its authenticity. However, while we cannot say with authorities that these exact photographs are real, they do show a real condition: Ulnar dimelia, a rare congenital anomaly of the upper limb characterized by “duplication of the ulna, absence of the radius and polydactyly”: Ulnar dimelia, called also the mirror-hand, is classified to the 3rd group of congenital hand malformation, according to the classification proposed by Swanson [Swanson 1976] and adopted by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) and the International Federation of Societies for Surgery of the Hand (IFSSH). There have been several documented cases. Dr. Rupesh Namdev of Bilaspur, India documented a similar condition in a seven-year-old girl in 2012. This child also had eight fingers on one hand:  Plain radiograph of wrist joint shows polydactyly with duplication of ulna, duplication of ulnar side of carpal bones, metacarpals and phalanges, absence of radius and absence of thumb. Eight triphalangeal digits are seen. The middle phalanx of medial index finger is hypoplastic. Similar cases can be found elsewhere on Radiopaedia.org and the National Center for Biotechnology Information:  The condition can be mitigated with surgery.


The existence of a canine coronavirus vaccine casts doubt on statements that there isn’t one for humans.

Explanation: Social media posts featuring a photo of a vial of canine coronavirus vaccine is legitimate, but the vaccine is for a gastrointestinal issue in dogs and has nothing to do with COVID-19.

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

There is currently no vaccine for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 that has infected millions of people around the world. But some posts on Facebook point out that a canine coronavirus vaccine has been around for years, and question why it hasn’t been made for humans. One post shares a photo displaying a vial of the vaccine, with text along the top that says, "Now this was 2001 tell me why 19 years later they say there is no vaccine share before they take it down again." The post’s caption reads: "Canine vaccine for dogs and not humans? And since 2001.....STAY WOKE PEOPLE!!" Other versions that have been debunked went even further and questioned why the dog vaccine isn’t being used in humans. A couple of key problems here: The vaccine is for dogs, not humans. It’s not for COVID-19. The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat  news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 at the center of the current pandemic was discovered in 2019. It had not been previously identified in humans. No vaccine for it could have been developed before that. The vaccine in the photo is real, but it’s for canine coronavirus disease, known also as CCoV. Merck Animal Health makes the vaccine and now includes a note on its webpage explaining that canine coronaviruses "are not the same virus as SARS-CoV-2 that is responsible for causing the COVID-19 infection." According to VCA Animal Hospitals, which operates nearly 800 animal hospitals in the U.S., the canine coronavirus comes from the Coronaviridae family and is a "highly infectious intestinal infection in dogs, especially puppies." "There are many types of coronavirus, each affecting different animal species, including humans. Canine coronavirus (CCoV) is not the same virus as SARS-CoV-2," which causes COVID-19, the company says. "CCoV does not affect people. CCoV causes gastrointestinal problems in dogs, as opposed to respiratory disease." A vaccine is available for dogs with canine coronavirus, which causes gastrointestinal issues. It is not for prevention of COVID-19 in humans; there is no vaccine for that. We rate this .


“Since the reopening of (Georgia), we’ve seen our COVID rate skyrocket by 40%.”

Explanation: Stacey Abrams said after reopening, Georgia’s COVID-19 rate went up 40%. In fact, the number of cases fell 12% compared with the same period before reopening. It will take more time before the impact of reopening shows up in the data.

Stacey Abrams has often come up as a potential running mate for presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. The Georgia Democrat nearly won the 2018 governor’s race. In an interview with Mother Jones, Abrams said if she were in the governor’s mansion today, she would have handled the COVID-19 crisis totally differently. "I wouldn’t have led Georgia to be one of the last states to shut down, and we certainly wouldn’t have been one of the first to reopen," Abrams said in a May 7 interview. "Since the reopening of the state, we’ve seen our COVID rate skyrocket by 40%." Abrams’ statistic is wrong. Abrams spokesman Seth Bringman said she relied on a post that briefly appeared on Forbes.com. The post was withdrawn. Virus testing in Georgia, drawn from the Covid Testing Project data, shows there was a smaller increase in the number of new cases in the period after Gov. Brian Kemp relaxed restrictions than in a similar period before the change. Under Kemp, Georgia was one of the first states to reopen businesses. Between April 24 and April 27, restaurants, gyms, beauty parlors and a number of other kinds of businesses began to welcome customers, so long as they followed rules to keep patrons separated and took other measures to prevent infection. In the 12 days before April 24, when Kemp began easing restrictions, Georgia had a total of 9,695 confirmed coronavirus cases. In the 12 days after (which coincides with Abrams’ interview), Georgia reported about 1,100 fewer confirmed cases, 8,549. Overall, comparing the two time periods, cases in Georgia decreased 12% after the reopening. They didn’t increase 40%. Bringman said no one has firm numbers in Georgia. "The state is not producing accurate data, thus there is no way to know how many Georgians who have suffered," he said. The state has had problems, particularly in tracking deaths at long-term care facilities. But without good data, Abrams also wouldn’t have any basis to say cases rose 40%. When she spoke, it was way too early to know if relaxing the rules on business had caused the disease to spread. It takes anywhere from three to 14 days for an infection to take hold. And after that, more days before a person feels ill enough to see a doctor, get tested and get test results back. Boston University epidemiologist Eleanor Murray emphasized that the impact of reopening business life in Georgia won’t be clear for some time. "There could be up to a month or more delay between when a case is reported and when the infection was transmitted," Murray said. "This makes it very difficult to say whether cases are from before or after opening, especially in the first few weeks." Abrams said that after Georgia’s governor reopened certain business activities, the COVID-19 rate rose 40%. In reality, the period after reopening had 12% fewer cases. Even if the policy shift did cause infections to rise, it wouldn’t appear until several weeks later. Abrams spoke before that effect would show up in the data.


Donald Trump raped his former wife and a young woman, and his modeling agency was found to be trafficking young girls.

Explanation: The original poster of the image stated that after “the 2005 video of Donald Trump was released” she wished just to “add fuel to the fire on how disgusting he is” by highlighting things the public allegedly had ignored about the candidate’s history. But two of the three claims about Trump that the public or the news media “are not going to talk about” have in fact received widespread media attention, and the third was contorted to the point of being unrecognizable when compared to the source material from which it was derived.

In October 2016 Republican candidate Donald Trump came under fire after the release of a decade-old tape capturing him making lewd comments, followed by multiple women coming forward to claim that Trump had groped them. Shortly afterwards, an image containing allegations about incidents of Trump’s having sexually abused women circulated via social media:   The first claim held that in 1989 Donald Trump’s first ex-wife, Ivana, swore under oath in a deposition that he had violently raped her and that somehow that information wasn’t brought to light during the comprehensive mudslinging that engulfed the extremely heated 2016 election. But a simple online search shows quite clearly that numerous articles published from the summer of 2015 onwards made frequent reference to Ivana Trump’s purported statement:   The allegation largely stemmed from a 1993 book about Trump titled Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump by Harry Hurt III, as detailed by the New Yorker:  The part of the book that caused the most controversy concerns Trump’s divorce from his first wife, Ivana. Hurt obtained a copy of her sworn divorce deposition, from 1990, in which she stated that, the previous year, her husband had raped her in a fit of rage. In Hurt’s account, Trump was furious that a “scalp reduction” operation he’d undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation, Hurt wrote, Trump yanked out a handful of his wife’s hair, and then forced himself on her sexually. Afterward, according to the book, she spent the night locked in a bedroom, crying; in the morning, Trump asked her, “with menacing casualness, ‘Does it hurt?’” Trump has denied both the rape allegation and the suggestion that he had a scalp-reduction procedure. Hurt said that the incident, which is detailed in Ivana’s deposition, was confirmed by two of her friends. Hurt held on to his copy of Ivana’s sealed deposition for years. “It was sworn testimony,” he said. But eventually, when he was cleaning house during his own divorce, he said, “I threw it all out.” He went on, “The larger tragedy is that Trump might be elected President of the United States. I never imagined in my wildest nightmares that it would come to this.” Before Hurt’s book came out, Trump’s lawyers pressured the publisher, W. W. Norton, to paste a clarifying statement from Ivana into the flyleaf of every copy. In it, she confirmed that she had said in a deposition that her husband had “raped” her, but added that she did not want those words to be interpreted in “a literal or criminal sense.” She also said, “As a woman, I felt violated.” Hurt said that he considers the note a non-denial denial, and believes that Ivana agreed to amend her words in order to secure the divorce settlement, in which she reportedly received fourteen million dollars in cash. When the rape story resurfaced [in 2015], Ivana issued a statement saying that it was “without merit.” “She and Donald have raised three kids together. They’re picking their bedrooms in the White House,” Hurt said. “But she’s not saying it’s untrue, or that she didn’t swear to it under oath.”   As described, the book was appended with a statement from Ivana Trump disavowing that she intended to use the word “rape” in its commonly understood manner (i.e., forcible sex without consent):  During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me. I wish to say that on one occasion during 1989, Mr Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness which he normally exhibited toward me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense. Any contrary conclusion would be an incorrect and most unfortunate interpretation of my statement which I do not want to be interpreted in a speculative fashion and I do not want the press or media to misconstrue any of the facts set forth above. All I wish is for this matter to be put to rest. Ivana’s statement, according to a “Notice to the Reader” in the book, “does not contradict or invalidate any information contained in this book.” The second allegation in the image was less well known and likely new to many social media users, holding that Trump Model Management (New York City modeling agency) was “caught trafficking young girls and hiding them in basements” — something that likely would have been quite newsworthy, given that human trafficking is an extremely serious crime. This claim originated with a 30 August 2016 Mother Jones article that notably had nothing to do with any allegations that Donald Trump or his modeling agency had engaged in human trafficking. Instead, the Mother Jones article presented a case that Trump’s anti-immigration position was hypocritical due to Trump Model Management’s purported illegal employment of non-American models. Many of the article’s details involved uncompensated work, a grayer legal area and a circumstance not uncommon among hopefuls trying to get a break in the highly competitive field of modeling. The article included comment from Canadian former model Rachel Blais and two unnamed women who claimed they worked for Trump Model Management around the mid-2000s and experienced illegal and/or unethical business practices. Although the details of the article were not flattering to Trump or his agency if accurate, asserting that the article accused Trump or his agents of “trafficking young women and hiding them in basements” is a gross exaggeration. The word “basement” appeared a single time in the article and was not mentioned as a place young female models were held against their will but simply as an example of cramped and pricey “model’s quarters” (of a type not exclusive to Trump’s modeling agency). The image reproduced above elided the article’s description of the unpleasant living arrangements as an unfortunate but not uncommon aspect of the industry that is too often foisted upon aspiring models by agencies: [Along with one named woman, t]wo other former Trump models — who requested anonymity to speak freely about their experiences, and who we are giving the pseudonyms Anna and Kate — said the agency never obtained work visas on their behalf, even as they performed modeling assignments in the United States … Each of the three former Trump models said she arrived in New York with dreams of making it big in one of the world’s most competitive fashion markets. But without work visas, they lived in constant fear of getting caught … According to three immigration lawyers consulted by Mother Jones, even unpaid employment is against the law for foreign nationals who do not have a work visa. “If the US company is benefiting from that person, that’s work,” explained Anastasia Tonello, global head of the US immigration team at Laura Devine Attorneys in New York. These rules for immigrants are in place to “protect them from being exploited,” she said. “That US company shouldn’t be making money off you.” Two of the former Trump models said Trump’s agency encouraged them to deceive customs officials about why they were visiting the United States and told them to lie on customs forms about where they intended to live. Anna said she received a specific instruction from a Trump agency representative: “If they ask you any questions, you’re just here for meetings.” Fashion industry sources say that skirting immigration law in the manner that the three former Trump models described was once commonplace in the modeling world … Kate, who worked for Trump Model Management in 2004, marveled at how her former boss has recently branded himself as an anti-illegal-immigration crusader on the campaign trail. “He doesn’t want to let anyone into the US anymore,” she said. “Meanwhile, behind everyone’s back, he’s bringing in all of these girls from all over the world and they’re working illegally.” Models’ apartments, as they’re known in the industry, are dormitory-style quarters where agencies pack their talent into bunks, in some cases charging the models sky-high rent and pocketing a profit. According to the three former models, Trump Model Management housed its models in a two-floor, three-bedroom apartment in the East Village, near Tompkins Square Park. Mother Jones is withholding the address of the building, which is known in the neighborhood for its model tenants, to protect the privacy of the current residents. When Blais lived in the apartment, she recalled, a Trump agency representative who served as a chaperone had a bedroom to herself on the ground floor of the building. A narrow flight of stairs led down to the basement, where the models lived in two small bedrooms that were crammed with bunk beds — two in one room, three in the other. An additional mattress was located in a common area near the stairs. At times, the apartment could be occupied by 11 or more people. The third and final claim in the meme was perhaps the most widely-reported of all the three things that no one was supposedly talking about. It pertained to a twice-filed civil (not criminal) lawsuit against Donald Trump brought by a woman using the alias “Katie Johnson” who claimed that Trump “sexually and physically” abused her at parties hosted by billionaire Jeffrey Epstein when she was 13 years old and then threatened her to ensure her silence:  I traveled by bus to New York City in June 1994 in the hope of starting a modeling career. I went to several modeling agencies but was told that I needed to put together a modeling portfolio before I would be considered. I then went to the Port Authority in New York City to start to make my way back home. There I met a woman who introduced herself to me as Tiffany. She told me about the parties and said that, if I would join her at the parties, I would be introduced to people who could get me into the modeling profession. Tiffany also told me I would be paid for attending. The parties were held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Each of the parties had other minor females and a number of guests of Mr. Epstein, including Defendant Donald Trump at four of the parties I attended. I understood that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein knew I was 13 years old. Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at four different parties in the summer of 1994. On the fourth and fnial sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me. During the course of this savage sexual attack, I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but he did not. Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted, Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump’s sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I wold be physically harmed if not killed. As our article on the lawsuit notes, “Katie Johnson” has not been identified or interviewed, and she has not provided any information or evidence outside of her court filing. Donald Trump hasn’t been afforded any opportunity to confront his accuser or the evidence against him in court, and the case may never get that far.