Did Congress Use a 'Slush Fund' to Pay $17 Million to Women They Sexually Harassed?
In November 2017, a meme circulating on social media reported that Congress has been using a "slush fund" to quietly pay out $17 million in settlements to women who had been sexually harassed or abused by lawmakers. Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a "slush fund" which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees. Unlike a "slush fund" which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports  for example money laid out from the fund in Fiscal Year 2016 can be viewed here under "Awards and Settlements, Office of Compliance." In FY 2016 the fund paid out a total of $491,733.97. here   Yearly breakdowns dating back to 1995 can be viewed here (click on the year desired then scroll to "Part Three Fiscal Year 2016 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances," then click on the report for the Legislative Branch). viewed here Citing increased public interest in the issue of sexual harassment settlement funding sources, Office of Compliance Director Susan Tsui Grundmann released a compilation of money paid from the fund by year since 1997, totaling more than $17 million. But not all of that money went to congressional harassment cases, she pointed out. The money is used to settle workplace disputes on Capitol Hill and the amounts for various complaints are not broken out by type: compilation A large portion of cases originate from employing offices in the legislative branch other than the House of Representatives or the Senate, and involve various statutory provisions incorporated by the [Congressional Accountability Act], such as the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The statistics on payments are not further broken down into specific claims because settlements may involve cases that allege violations of more than one of the 13 statutes incorporated by the CAA. In at least one of the high-profile cases, that of accusations of harassment leveled against Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan), settlement money was paid by his congressional office budget, not the Treasury fund overseen by OOC. The meme is false  the money isn't paid from an illegal "slush fund." It's unknown how much of the $17 million total over the last 20 years went to sexual harassment claim settlements. However, allegations of sexual abuse and harassment against powerful men like Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, Rep. Conyers and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota), NBC News anchor Matt Lauer and in the days leading up to the 2016 presidential election, President Donald Trump, have raised awareness of how rampant the problem is and how secretive and bureaucratically-cumbersome the process is for handling complaints against legislators -- at the expense of taxpayers. This has prompted Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Callifornia) to draft legislation to make the OOC's process more transparent and user-friendly for victims of harassment. (A spokesperson for Speier said the way the system currently works "is obviously created to protect the institution over the victims.") As it stands, people seeking to file complaints of harassment on Capitol Hill have to wait a minimum of 90 days after filing their initial incident report with OOC, during which time they must receive mandatory counseling and mediation, then wait an additional 30 days in a "cooling off" period. According to documents provided by Speier's office, the bill (dubbed "Me Too" after a social media campaign in which women and some men shared their stories of assault and abuse) seeks to change the process and help prevent future harassment by making the mandatory counseling and mediation voluntary, giving OOC more investigative power, allowing victims to file complaints anonymously, giving them more time to do so and providing them a central platform they can use. It would also implement sexual harassment training and require any members of Congress who settle a claim to personally reimburse the Treasury fund. OOC would also be required to publish the name of the employing office and amount awarded in settlements. Me Too some men Schor, Elana."Congress Sexual Harassment System, Decoded."
Politico.21 November 2017. Hartmann, Margaret."Representative John Conyers Settled Sexual-Harassment Complaint Using Taxpayer Money: Report."
New York Magazine.21 November 2017. Lee, MJ, et al."Congress Paid Out $17 Million in Settlements. Here's Why We Know So Little About That Money."
CNN.16 November 2017. Bennett, Jessica."The #MeToo Moment."
The New York Times.30 November 2017.
As Memorial Day approached in May 2021, a rumor started circulating on social media alleging that U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters had introduced a bill to rename the federal holiday to "George Floyd Day": George Floyd   Waters did not introduce any bills to rename Memorial Day. This piece of text, which read: "Maxine Waters just introduced a bill to re-name Memorial Day George Floyd Day. Are you FRICK'N kidding me?" was repeated verbatim across a wide range of colorful backgrounds. No matter how many times this message was repeated, and no matter how vibrant of a background was used, this rumor remained utterly false. A list of bills that have been introduced in Congress can be seen at Congress.gov. This government website also allows users to sort these bills by politicians. When we go to the page for Waters, we can see that the California politician has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills in 2021  such as legislation that would "provide better care and outcomes for Americans living with Alzheimer's disease" and "to allow Americans to earn paid sick time"  but Waters has not introduced legislation that would result in the renaming of Memorial Day. Congress.gov page for Waters provide better care and outcomes for Americans living with Alzheimer's disease to allow Americans to earn paid sick time Waters did co-sponsor the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, but that bill had nothing to do with the annual federal holiday. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, which would address "a wide range of policies and issues regarding policing practices and law enforcement accountability," was passed by the House in March 2021, but has not yet received a vote in the U.S. Senate. George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 A series of imagespurportedly showinga UFO photographed by several different people began circulating via social media in October 2015: Yesterday afternoon in Memphis 4-6 random people posted these pictures on social media. The weirdest thing is that each of these individuals did not know each other and they all captured the same thing! Why isn't this being broadcasted on all major media outlets?! Somebody has some explaining to do. While the example Facebook post shown above reported that the alien ship was spotted over Memphis, Tennessee, other iterations of the photo set have claimed that the UFO was actually spotted inBenguela, Angola: claimed We'vehad a lot of people visiting the site over the past few weeks looking specifically for information about a remarkable UFO sighting in Banguela, Angola. The sightings were originally reported to MUFON and included a rather stunning image of the gigantic UFO that was not featured here on the UFOMG! copies of the reports. Here it isnow:  Even though these images all feature different settings, the UFO, as well as the surrounding cloud formations, pictured in each photograph are exactly the same. This means one of two things: Either a race of aliens has developed an efficient form of replicating technology, or the above-displayed photographs were created using the same stock image of a UFO. In fact, this series of photographs purportedly showing a UFO over Memphis (or Benguela) was created using a piece of fan art related to the V science fiction television series (about alien visitors to Earth) created bydigital artist Jukka Korhonen: artist   I was a big fan of V when it first came out. My love for the series has been growing bigger ever since they released the show on the DVD. The biggest news for V fans was the possible release of a sequel-series titled "V: The Second Generation". I quickly scetched out a few concept works and a fanmade poster to celebrate the announcement. As with many times in the media-mentality of amercan television, the "V: Second Generation" was not considered a mainstream series and so the network decided to freeze the project at the final meters. For this portfolio, I took out the V model I had made for the poster and combined it with one of my matteclouds. This image was one of the "doom" concept ideas that I had in mind when I first heard about the new series.  Modelled in trueSpace and postwork in Corel GS. This is NOT official art for the series, its merely fan-art from a dedicated admirer of Kenneth Johnson's work. I hope one day we will see the series come to life and see these iconic ships rise again to the LA skies ... On April 26, 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Republicans, narrowly passed budget legislation raising the federal government's legal debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion on the condition that deep spending cuts would also be undertaken. Democrats balked at the spending-cuts requirement, demanding instead the passage of what they called a "clean bill" without preconditions to raise the debt ceiling before the deadline of June 1, when the government would default on its debts. passed budget legislation debt ceiling Some Democrats, notably U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., claimed that by demanding budget cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, Republicans were "creating an economic crisis" and "threatening default" for partisan gain. No such demands were made during the administration of former President Donald Trump, Omar argued in a May tweet: "Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling 3 times when Donald Trump was President, with no preconditions."  argued in a May tweet   (Image Via @IlhanMN/Twitter) What exactly is the debt ceiling? This is how the U.S. Department of the Treasury defines it (emphasis added): U.S. Department of the Treasury The debt ceiling, or debt limit, is a restriction imposed by Congress on the amount of outstanding national debt that the federal government can have. The debt ceiling is the amount that the Treasury can borrow to pay the bills that have become due and pay for future investments. Once the debt ceiling is reached, the federal government cannot increase the amount of outstanding debt, losing the ability to pay bills and fund programs and services. Since 1960, Congress has acted 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit  49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents. 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit It is true that during the Trump administration, legislation to raise the debt ceiling and avoid default was passed three times with varying degrees of bipartisan support, according to Bipartisan Policy Center: Bipartisan Policy Center   (Image Via Bipartisan Policy Center) In 2017, 2018, and 2019, the debt limit was reset at $20.5 trillion, $22 trillion and $28.4 trillion, respectively. None of these bills, when signed into law, contained a precondition to cut spending, despite the wishes of some Republicans.  $20.5 trillion, $22 trillion and $28.4 trillion wishes It should be noted, though, that the 2019 legislation, which included hefty spending increases for defense and domestic programs, did mandate $77 billion in "offsets" for those spending increases. According to Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa., the $77 billion in offsets would be achieved in two ways: 1) "$15.5 billion from extending the expiration date of customs user fees" from May 26, 2027, to Sept. 30, 2029, and 2) $61.7 billion from "extending mandatory spending sequester" (described by the Congressional Budget Office as "automatic spending cuts that occur through the withdrawal of funding for certain but not all  government programs") from Sept. 30, 2027, to Sept. 30, 2029. These administrative offsets were described by some as "cosmetic."  $77 billion in "offsets" Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa. mandatory spending sequester By contrast, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's "Limit, Save, Grow Act" of 2023, as passed by the House, would require broad-based spending cuts totaling $4.5 trillion, according to CBS News. As of this writing, Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden had said he would refuse to sign the act into law, and it was said to be "dead on arrival" in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Limit, Save, Grow Act spending cuts totaling $4.5 trillion Davis, Susan. "Trump, Congress Reach Agreement On 2-Year Budget Deal." NPR, 22 July 2019. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/744104213/hill-and-trump-administration-close-in-on-2-year-budget-deal. "Debt Limit." U.S. Department of the Treasury, 17 Apr. 2023, https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-markets-financial-institutions-and-fiscal-service/debt-limit. Federal Debt and the Statutory Limit, February 2023 | Congressional Budget Office. 19 Jan. 2023, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58945. Fiscal Data Explains the National Debt. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt/. Accessed 3 May 2023. "House Republicans Pass US Debt Bill, Push Biden on Spending." AP NEWS, 26 Apr. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/speaker-mccarthy-debt-biden-republicans-d4995f10a26d6c8bfa89a2bbfd1de93c. Interactive: Recent History of the Debt Limit | Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/debt-limit-history/. Accessed 3 May 2023. Sequestration | Congressional Budget Office. https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget/sequestration#:~:text=Sequestration%20refers%20to%20automatic%20spending,but%20not%20all)%20government%20programs. Accessed 3 May 2023. Tausche, Kayla. "GOP Group Assembles Debt Ceiling Wish List  for 2018." CNBC, 30 Nov. 2017, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/gop-group-assembles-debt-ceiling-wish-list----for-2018.html. The Debt Limit Through the Years | Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/debt-limit-through-the-years/. Accessed 3 May 2023. Torry, Harriet, and Anthony DeBarros. "WSJ News Exclusive | Economists in WSJ Survey Still See Recession This Year Despite Easing Inflation." Wall Street Journal, 15 Jan. 2023. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/despite-easing-price-pressures-economists-in-wsj-survey-still-see-recession-this-year-11673723571. Trump Signs Budget Deal and Suspends Debt Ceiling until 2021. 2 Aug. 2019, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-in-the-budget-deal-negotiated-by-congress-and-the-white-house/. "What's behind the Looming 'x-Date' on the US Debt Limit?" AP NEWS, 24 Apr. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/biden-mccarthy-debt-limit-ceiling-cap-2b76f685cff4a284021f9b5c2c95cd4c. Editor's note: As of April 20, 2023, Twitter had droppedall "state-affiliated" and "government-funded" labels on the accounts of government officials and media outlets, including the CBC. dropped On April 17, 2023, several social media posts surfaced claiming that Twitter, under Elon Musk's leadership, had labeled the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) as "69% Government-funded Media." The claim was true. several social media posts  As of this writing on April 18, CBC's Twitter profile indeed included the label "69% Government-funded Media" above its bio reading, "The official CBC Twitter. Bringing you the best of Canada." CBC's Twitter profile Initially, the figure was reportedly 70%, according to a screenshot shared by Musk. It was unclear when, exactly, the social media platform decreased the number by 1% in what some observers took to be an allusion to a sex joke.Sharing a screenshot depicting the "69%" figure, Musktweetedin the early hours of April 18: "Canadian Broadcasting Corp said they're 'less than 70% government-funded', so we corrected the label." screenshot shared by Musk allusion to a sex joke tweeted The "government-funded media" label wasattachedafter the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Pierre Poilievre, posted a message on social mediaasking for it. "I believe that Twitter should apply the Government-funded Media label to the CBC's various news-related accounts, including @CBC, @CBCNew and @CBCAlerts," wrote Poilievre, who is challenging Justin Trudeau as prime minister, in theletter. CBC's new "government-funded" designation also followed Twitter'smove to label Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Media (NPR) "government-funded media," and those media outlets' subsequent decision to go silent on the platform. As far as we can determine, no other accounts labeled as government-funded media had a percentage attached to the label. posted a message letter For the purposes of this fact check, we are not attempting to confirm, nor deny, whether the label was appropriate or accurate considering CBC's budget composition. Rather, we are focusing whether such a designation was actually made. That was true. The CBC receives some funding through Canadian Parliament appropriations. (According toCBC's annual financial report,the media outlet received $1.24 billion (in Canadian dollars) in public funding through parliamentary appropriations in 2021-2022. That accounts to roughly 66% of that year's revenue.)However,the "69%" figure was not seemingly based on the factual makeup of CBC's budget. Rather, it appeared to be an instance of Musk thumbing his nose at the CBC (and possibly making a joke about a sex position, which would not have been out of character for Musk). CBC's annual financial report would not have been out of character When we asked Twitter's communications team how, or why, it picked the number to supposedly depict the proportion of CBC's budget that is government funding, we got a poop emoji autoreply. (Musk instituted that autoreply to all questions from journalists on March 19.) autoreply We asked CBC spokesperson Leon Mar  about Twitter's recent labeling of the media outlet's Twitter profile, and the spokesperson said, "With regard to the latest from Elon Musk,this is not a serious response. Journalistic independence is not a game." this The CBC official said the real issue was that "Twitter's definition of 'Government-funded Media' means [that account is] open to editorial interference by government," or that it takes editorial direction from government officials. The spokesperson shared a statement from CBC Editor-in-Chief Brodie Fenlon'sin which the top editor said, "[The] government has no  zero involvement in our editorial content or journalism." Twitter's definition statement Considering the government money that helps fund CBC's operations, Michael Geist, who is a Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, said "publicly-funded media" would be a more accurate designation on the media outlet's Twitter profile, rather than "government-funded media." The former group, according to Geist'sinterpretation of Twitter's policies, "includes media organizations with public financing and does not reference government involvement in editorial content." according to Geist'sinterpretation On April 20, Twitter removed all "government-funded" and "state-affiliated" profile labels, including those on CBC accounts. removed Goswami, Rohan. "Twitter Drops Labels for President Joe Biden, State-Affiliated and Government-Funded Media."CNBC, 21 Apr. 2023, https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/21/twitter-drops-government-related-account-labels.html.
Government and Media Account Labels on Twitter. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/government-media-labels. Accessed 18 Apr. 2023. Https://Cbc.Radio-Canada.ca/En/Impact-and-Accountability/Finances/Annual-Reports/Ar-2021-2022/Highlights/Financial-Highlights. https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/impact-and-accountability/finances/annual-reports/ar-2021-2022/highlights/financial-highlights. Accessed 18 Apr. 2023. Https://Cbc.Radio-Canada.ca/En/Media-Centre/Cbc-Radio-Canada-Is-Not-Governement-Funded-Media. https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/media-centre/cbc-radio-canada-is-not-governement-funded-media. Accessed 18 Apr. 2023. Https://Cbc.Radio-Canada.ca/En/Media-Centre/Statement-Regarding-Twitter-Labelling-Cbc-Radio-Canada-as-Government-Funded-Media. https://cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/media-centre/statement-regarding-twitter-labelling-cbc-radio-canada-as-government-funded-media. Accessed 18 Apr. 2023. News , Brodie Fenlon . CBC. "Why We Have Paused Our CBC News Twitter Accounts | CBC News." CBC, 18 Apr. 2023, https://www.cbc.ca/news/editorsblog/cbc-twitter-news-1.6813747. 'Twitter Labels CBC Account as "Government-Funded Media"'.Thestar.Com, 16 Apr. 2023, https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2023/04/16/twitter-labels-cbc-account-as-government-funded-media.html. Update [April 21, 2023]: Noted that Twitter removed all "government-funded" and "state-affiliated" labels throughout the platform as of April 20. In early 2019, several progressive Democratic politicians who were frequent headline subjects  including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Sen. Bernie Senators of Vermont, and Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota  were often tagged by critics with the word "socialist," used as a pejorative. At the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), for example, Republicans warned of "radical" Democrats "embracing socialism." News accounts proclaimed that "Republicans are determined to paint Democrats as out-of-control, out-of-their minds socialists." CPAC accounts That political climate touched off the online circulation of a memetic quote from 33rd U.S. President Harry S. Truman, who purportedly fended off similar attacks on Democrats in 1952 by declaring that "socialism" was a "scare word [Republicans] have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years":  The circulated meme was an accurate reproduction of a portion of a campaign speechTruman delivered from the rear platform of a train in Syracuse, New York, on 10 October 1952. (Truman himself was not a candidate for re-election that year, but he stumped for the Democratic ticket, headed by Illinois Gov.Adlai Stevenson II). Much of Truman's speech was a caustic rebuke of Republicans (and their presidential nominee, General Dwight D. Eisenhower), whom Truman characterized as having "opposed almost all our programs to help the economic life of the country" and "having blindly turned [their] back on the tradition of public action for the public good": speech [Republican Senator Robert] Taft explained that the great issue in this campaign is "creeping socialism." Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people. When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan "Down With Socialism" on the banner of his "great crusade," that is really not what he means at all. What he really means is, "Down with Progress -- down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal," and "down with Harry Truman's fair Deal." That is what he means. Truman had earlier touched on the idea of "socialism" as a Republican scare word during an address he delivered at a Better Business Bureaus dinner on 6 June 1950, leading into a sardonic joke about New York Gov. Thomas E. Dewey (the unsuccessful Republican presidential nominee in the 1944 and 1948 elections): address I know that you have been hearing a lot of charges lately about Government interference with business, about the undermining of the free enterprise system, and about "creeping socialism." In short, you have been hearing that the Government is doing everything possible to wreck every industry in the country. Nothing could be further from the truth. The record shows that the Government action in recent years has been the salvation of private enterprise ... I know there are some people who still don't believe that the policies of the Government have had anything to do with our present prosperity. That reminds me of a story I heard on my recent nonpolitical trip. It seems that there was a rock-ribbed old gentleman of a political persuasion, shall we say, somewhat different from mine. One of his friends asked him what man to vote for for President in 1952. "Well," he said, "I would like to vote for Dewey." "Dewey!" said the friend. "Why Dewey?" "Well," he said, "I voted for him the last two times, in 1944 and in 1948, and business has never been so good as it is today" ... The funny thing is that this has all been said before. The current campaign is almost exactly like the campaign of the old Liberty League, back in 1935 and 1936. I was in that campaign, too, by the way. It uses the same old slogans, the same old scare words, and the same old falsehoods. The only difference is that it sounds even more foolish now than it did 14 years ago. Lightman, David.  "Accusations of Socialism Drive GOP's 2019 (and 2020) Playbook."   The [Tacoma] News Tribune.  12 February 2019. Pappas, Alex.  "At CPAC, Conservatives Warn of 'Radical' Dems Embracing Socialism, Trump Impeachment."   Fox News.  28 February 2019. Truman, Harry S.  "Address at a Dinner of the Better Business Bureaus."   The American Presidency Project.  6 June 1950. Truman, Harry S.  "Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in New York ."   The American Presidency Project.  10 October 1952. Every flu season sees an increase in viral web stories making largely unsubstantiated allegations about the health risks of the flu shot that include claims about their scary-sounding ingredients, connections to a variety of diseases (including Alzheimer's), and their supposed lack of efficacy in general: The pharmaceutical industry, medical experts and the mainstream media are candid in telling us that flu vaccines contain strains of the flu virus. What they are less likely to reveal though is the long list of other ingredients that come with the vaccine. It is now a known fact that flu vaccines contain mercury, a heavy metal known to be hazardous for human health. Mercury toxicity can cause depression, memory loss, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory problems, ADD, oral health problems, digestive imbalances and other serious health issues. The article quoted above, which is representative of the text and claims that appear nearly identically in hundreds of Facebook posts, makes a number of claims that need to be investigated on their own merits: identically  Claim: The flu shot makes you sick to begin with.  Flu shots work by introducing dead (inactivated) strains of influenza virus, which trigger your immune system to create antibodies to fight those strains. These antibodies make your body more prepared to fight if should it be exposed to an active strain in the future. Because the strains are inactive, any sickness you develop after the shot is not caused by influenza, according to the Harvard Medical School: according The vaccine is made from an inactivated virus that can't transmit infection. So people who get sick after receiving a flu vaccination were going to get sick anyway. It takes a week or two to get protection from the vaccine. But people assume that because they got sick after getting the vaccine, the shot caused their illness. It is, of course, possible that feelings of sickness come from some of the side effects of the injection, but the vaccine itself is not infecting you in any way. side effects Claim: Flu vaccines contain other dangerous ingredients such as mercury. false Flu shots administered from multi-use vials may contain a preservative called thimerosal, which breaks down into ethylmercury in the body. Mercury is an element and as such it can be found in many different chemical forms. But when people are concerned about mercury toxicity, they are concerned about methylmercury, which is indeed toxic at high levels and could cause some of the problems listed above. may contain methylmercury Ethylmercury, on the other hand, passes through your body quickly, and numerous studies have found it safe for use in vaccines (though there is some evidence that its use could be problematic for infants  a population that CDC does not  recommend for flu shots anyway). Saying ethylmercury is dangerous because is contains mercury is like saying that your table salt is at risk of spontaneous combustion because it contains sodium. passes for infants  recommend spontaneous combustion Thimerosal, additionally, has been used for decades by the anti-vaccine movement to stoke vaccination fear by suggesting it causes by suggesting it causes autism. This link has been discredited over, and over, and over, and over, and over again and is further compromised by the fact that autism rates are still climbing despite the fact that childhood vaccines no longer contain this ingredient. over over over over over climbing contain  Claim: The flu shot can give you Alzheimer's disease. false The leading immunogeneticist Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, whom the article cites as the authority on this claim, had his medical license revoked in 1995 for ethical misconduct and was an outspoken proponent of the widely discredited MMR-autism link. His claim of the link between Alzheimer's and vaccines, though hard to trace, may or may not come from a talk he gave at the 1997 NVIC International Vaccine Conference. The statement has not been backed up by any published peer-reviewed research since then. In fact, a 2001 study found that adults exposed to vaccines were at a lower risk of Alzheimers. revoked in 1995 may or may not study Claim: The very people pushing flu vaccinations are making billions of dollars each year.  Pharmaceutical companies (sometimes) profit from vaccines, but the fact that a company makes a profit is an appeal to emotion and is not evidence to support the claim of a faulty product or of nefarious intent. It also may not be accurate. A recent Atlantic article covered this question extensively, stating: article Not only do pediatricians and doctors often lose money on vaccine administration, it wasn't too long ago that the vaccine industry was struggling with slim profit margins and shortages. The Economist wrote that "for decades vaccines were a neglected corner of the drugs business, with old technology, little investment and abysmal profit margins. Many firms sold their vaccine divisions to concentrate on more profitable drugs." The suggestion of massive profits from flu shots ignores the fact that profits margins are generally much higher for other drugs than for flu vaccines, as well. The same Atlantic article cites one estimate that puts the vaccine market at around $24 billion. This sounds like a large number, but it would, in fact, account for only two to three percent of the pharmaceutical market worldwide. article Claim: There is a lack of real evidence that young children even benefit fromflu shots.  Many anti-vaccine articles parrot the claim that "51 studies involving 260,000 children showed no benefit compared to a placebo for children under the age of two". This stems from a 2008 meta-analysis that did indeed conclude that there is less efficacy for children under the age of two, something the CDC already recognizes on their website. However, of the 51 studies analyzed and the 260,000 observations those studies included, only one study (at the time) was performed on children below the age of two using inactive strains (the kind found in flu shots). A later study in 2011 that reviewed over 5,000 research articles concluded that flu shots consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years), categorically rejecting the claim that there is a lack of real evidence that young children benefit from the shot. 2008 meta-analysis recognizes study Claim: The flu shot makes you more susceptible to pneumonia and other contagious diseases. false People with compromised immune systems are at higher risk of complications from vaccines when those vaccines contain live strains (which, again, the flu shot does not), and some skin reactions are possible immediately following an injection. risk possible However, the notion that the flu shot weakens the immune system is false. According to a review paper in the journal Pediatrics: paper Vaccines may cause temporary suppression of delayed-type hypersensitivity skin reactions or alter certain lymphocyte function tests in vitro. However, the short-lived immunosuppression caused by certain vaccines does not result in an increased risk of infections with other pathogens soon after vaccination. Claim: The flu shot causes vascular disorders such as fever, jaw pain, muscle aches, pain and stiffness in the neck, upper arms, shoulder and hips and headache. MISLEADING While the term vascular disorder is fear-inducing, it merely describes anything having to do with veins and arteries. The flu shot does not, de facto, cause any of these problems, but all the complications listed above are listed by the CDC as possible side effects. It is worth noting, however, that the flu will almost certainly give you some or all of these symptomsand with a much greater intensity than the symptoms resulting from a flu shot. CDC almost certainly give you some or all Claim: Children under the age of 1 are at risk of a neurotoxic breach of the blood-brain barrier.  The blood-brain barrier is the medical term for the chemical and physical adaptations humans and other animals have that prevent pathogens and other chemicals in the body from entering the central nervous system. For this claim about neurotoxic breach be true, an infant would have to have a relatively weaker blood-brain barrier than an adult. The idea that the barrier is weaker in young infants, however, is a long-held but unsubstantiated myth. Numerous studies have refuted the claim, showing that the blood-brain barrier is fully developed in the womb, long before a child is born. blood-brain barrier myth fully developed  Claim: Flu shots carry an increased risk of narcolepsy. false There is a well-documented, though statistically minor, connection between a specific H1N1 flu vaccine (Pandemrix) and narcolepsy. But such reports concerned only that one vaccine, which was produced for a specific flu strain, and have limited relevance to the seasonal flu shot. Pandemrix is available in Europe but not the United States or Canada. well-documented connection not Claim: The flu shot weakens immunological responses.  This claim, from a scientific standpoint, is a repeat of the earlier false claim (above) that suggests your body is more susceptible to infection or disease after a flu shot. Harmful immunological responses is a broad and unhelpful term that, while it may have aided in turning up literally thousands of responses in an academic search, is not really all that surprising as the term would includes the already documented risk of a skin and allergic reactions that come with pretty much any injection. already documented Claim: The flu shot can cause serious neurological disorders. false The neurological disorder specifically associated with flu vaccines is the Guillain-Barr Syndromea terrifying disease that causes nerve damage and sometimes paralysis. A widely cited study on a population of individuals who received the H1N1 vaccine in 1976 showed an increased risk of contracting this disease  whose cause is unknown  compared to those who did not receive the vaccine: Guillain-Barr Syndrome The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a scientific review of this issue in 2003 and found that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. The increased risk was approximately one additional case of GBS for every 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. Scientists have several theories about the cause, but the exact reason for this link remains unknown. The link between GBS and flu vaccination in other years is unclear, and if there is any risk for GBS after seasonal flu vaccines it is very small, about one in a million. Studies suggest that it is more likely that a person will get GBS after getting the flu than after vaccination. It is important to keep in mind that severe illness and death are associated with flu, and getting vaccinated is the best way to prevent flu infection and its complications. This topic has been heavily researched for decades, and no specific consensus regarding the link or mechanism behind the flu virus and the disease has been established. What has been established, however, is how small the risk is relative to the risks of contracting complications from flu itself. A 2013 study in The Lancet stated that: study The relative and attributable risks of Guillain-Barr syndrome after seasonal influenza vaccination are lower than those after influenza illness. Patients considering immunisation should be fully informed of the risks of Guillain-Barr syndrome from both influenza vaccines and influenza illness. Current iterations of the seasonal flu shot do not have any live strains in them (though the nasal spray includes weakened strains), nor do they have any mercury (in the United States), detergent, antifreeze, or aluminum. They contain, at most, 50 times less formaldehyde than a pear. nasal spray nor aluminum pear  We, of course, are not healthcare providers and cannot make any medical decisions for you. The purpose of this post is to correct misinformation on the Internet, and there are few topics that lend themselves to as much misinformation as vaccines. All healthcare decisions, however, should be made between you and your doctor. Harvard Medical School.  "10 Flu Myths."
  November 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Possible Side-Effects from Vaccines."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Thimerosal in Vaccines."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. World Health Organization.  "Statement on Thimerosal."
  July 2006. Dorea, J.G.  "Low-Dose Mercury Exposure in Early Life: Relevance of Thimerosal to Fetuses, Newborns and Infants."
  Current Medical Chemistry.  2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Verreault, Rene et al.  "Past Exposure to Vaccines and Subsequent Risk of Alzheimer's Disease."
  CMAJ.  27 November 2001. Gorski, David.  "Oh, Come On, Superman!: Bill Maher Versus 'Western Medicine.'"
  Science Based Medicine.  7 September 2009. Casewatch.  "Disciplinary Actions Against Herman Hugh Fudenberg, M.D."
  20 April 2005. Pediatrics.  "Joint Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS)."
  September 1999. Taylor. Luke E. et al.  Vaccines Are Not Associated with Autism: An Evidence-Based Meta-Analysis of Case-Control and Cohort Studies."
  Vaccine.  17 June 2014. Ball, L.K. et al.  An Assessment of Thimerosal Use in Childhood Vaccines."
  Pediatrics.  May 2001. Madsen, Kreesten, M. et al.  A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism."
  New England Journal of Medicine.  7 November 2002. Hviid, Anders et al.  Association Between Thimerosal-Containing
Vaccine and Autism."
  New England Journal of Medicine.  October 2003. The National Academies.  "Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism."
  2004. Vaccine Knowledge Project.  "Vaccine Ingredients."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccines Adjuvants."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Flublok Seasonal Influenza (Flu) Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Guillain-Barre Syndrome."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Narcolepsy Following Pandemrix Influenza Vaccination in Europe."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Miller, Elizabeth et al.  Risk of Narcolepsy in Children and Young People Receiving As03 Adjuvanted Pandemic A/h1n1 2009 Influenza Vaccine: Retrospective Analysis."
  BMJ.  26 February 2013. Moretti, Raffella et al.  Blood-Brain Barrier Dysfunction in Disorders of the Developing Brain."
  Frontiers in Neuroscience.  17 February 2015. Volodin, N.N. et al.  Status of the Blood-brain Barrier in Newborn Infants of Various Gestational Ages in the Normal State and in Pathology."
  Pediatriia.  1989. Saunders, Norman R. et al.  The Rights and Wrongs of Blood-brain Barrier Permeability Studies: S Walk Through 100 Years of History."
  Frontiers in Neuroscience.  16 December 2014. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Flu Symptoms & Complications."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Osterholm, Michael T. et al.  Efficacy and Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis."
  The Lancet.  January 2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccine Effectiveness  How Well Does the Flu Vaccine Work?"
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Jefferson, T. et al.  Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Children."
  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.  16 April 2008. Lam, Bourree.  Vaccines Are Profitable, So What?"
  The Atlantic.  10 February 2015. Claim:  Russian forces will be providing security at large events in the U.S.   Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] I have been told that some sort of deal between the Obama administration and the Russian govt. would allow Russian military forces to act as security, on American soil, during large, special events (such as Super Bowl) or in the case of national emergencies.  Any truth here?  I already know how the Constitution treats such things.  Now days, it doesn't seem to matter tho.  Has FEMA struck an agreement with Russia that will provide for the Russian Military to provide crowd control at U.S. events on American Soil?  This was reported as true in a post I saw on FB and reported that these soldiers would be able to fire on and kill Americans on U.S. soil. Origins:  On 26 June 2013, Russia announced an agreement between the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry  to share information and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers from each other's countries during joint rescue operations: announced The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and the USA Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are going to exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters. This is provided by a protocol of the fourth meeting of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential  Commission Working Group on Emergency Situations and seventeenth meeting of Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations, which took place in Washington on 25 June. The document provides for expert cooperation in disaster response operations and to study the latest practices. In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events. At the end of the meeting the parties expressed their satisfaction with the level of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the United States in the area of emergency prevention and response and agreed to develop it in order to respond efficiently to all kinds of disasters. The conspiracy site Infowars then spun this announcement into a claim that Russian military forces would be providing security for large events in the United States such as the Super Bowl and presidential inaugurations: Infowars As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide "security at mass events" in the United States, a scenario that wont sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil. According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations. In addition to agreeing with FEMA to "exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters," the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing "security at mass events" in the United States. This suggests that events designated as "National Special Security Events" by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security. However, the Infowars article was an alarmist, far-fetched interpretation of the original announcement, which said nothing about Russia's providing security for events taking place within the U.S.  The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry announcement merely noted that "provision of security at mass events" was one of the areas of interest which the two countries hoped to study and learn about from each other as part of their joint agreement. FEMA and the Russian news agency RIA Novosti quickly debunked Infowars' unsupported assumption, stating plainly that the U.S. and Russia would not be deploying security guards or military forces in each other's countries: The top US emergency response agency moved to quell a flurry of Internet-driven speculation that Russian security teams could be deployed at large public events in the United States, saying the two countries will not swap security guards or soldiers under a long-running partnership agreement. There will be "no exchange of security or military personnel" under a recently renewed partnership between the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Russias Emergency Situations Ministry, a FEMA spokesman told RIA Novosti. "The agreement continues information-sharing meetings and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers," the spokesman said. Picking up on an Emergency Situations Ministry statement declaring that partnership agreement "envisages the exchange of experience" in "the provision of security at mass events," numerous websites suspicious of the US governments encroachment on its citizens' rights suggested the deal means Russian security guards could be deployed at major public gatherings. The libertarian website Infowars.com, run by radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, proposed these events could include US presidential inaugurations and the Super Bowl. The FEMA spokesman said that while the US agency will not exchange security or military personnel with its Russian counterpart, the two sides "agreed to an exchange of emergency management experts to share best practices  a continuation of a 17 year partnership." Last updated:   2 July 2013 Claim:  Predators, pedophiles, and child trafficking rings are using Facebook to source new victims by friending trusting parents and mining images posted of their children. Example:  [Collected on Facebook, September 2014] A guy sends you a friend request. You don't know him, but he's got a cute profile pic, so you accept. It's baby girl's first day of school! She looks SO cute in her new outfit you just have to take a picture and put it on Facebook so all your friends and family can see. You're so excited dropping her off that you "check in" to her school on Fb saying "I can't believe how big she's gotten. Time sure flies. One proud momma/daddy right here!"... Meanwhile, the mystery guy whose friend request you hurriedly accepted earlier this morning is saving that picture you posted of your daughter in her cute new outfit to his phone and texting it to 60 other grown men across the world with the caption "Caucasian female. Age 5. Brown hair, green eyes. $2,500." Not only did you provide a picture of your little girl to a child trafficker, you've handed him the name and exact location of her school on a silver cyber platter. You go to pick her up at 3:00 this afternoon, but she's nowhere to be found. Little do you know, your precious baby girl was sold to a 43-year-old pedophile before you even stepped foot off campus this morning, and now she's on her way to South Africa with a bag over her head, confused, terrified and crying because a man she's never seen before picked her up from school, and now she doesn't know where her parents are, where she's going, or what's gonna happen to her. STOP ADDING STRANGERS ON FACEBOOK. Origins:  In September 2014, the post above (without original attribution) went viral on Facebook. While this iteration is a new one, panic over internet strangers is as old as the internet itself, and warnings such as this have largely morphed from email forwards to Facebook shares. panic over internet strangers In May and June of 2015, the story received a second wave of interest after it was published to the website StylishLisa on 27 May 2015. On 30 May 2015 the message appeared on the Facebook page Lil' Red Warriors, but was later deleted after Facebook commenters correctly identified the photograph's origin on a page about children's hairstyles. The photo and its claim were later published verbatim to the Facebook page of Cyn Malvita, from where it was shared hundreds of thousands of times. A cached version of the iteration involving the hairstyling picture is embedded below: published Lil' Red Warriors deleted children's hairstyles Cyn Malvita  The Facebook post currently in circulation bears some resemblance to a well-traveled warning from years back describing a similar danger. While the premise is similar, the stated risk has evolved, incorporating Facebook's open and share-friendly nature as the door through which rampant child predators will enter your life and summarily terrorize you. well-traveled warning This particular warning has some unpleasant undertones in its telling, suggesting that female users are too readily tempted by a "cute" potential predator to consider the safety of their children. It also tacitly condemns parents (mothers, presumably in particular) for even mentioning their children in hawking its highly improbable, sanctimonious premise. Facebook and similar social media sites have ushered in a new level of panic when it comes to internet safety, given that the social network requires users to supply accurate information about their true identities and real names to use the service. While many users flout this aspect of the site's terms and services, many others have been banned temporarily or permanently for using aliases in place of real names. Reading the circulating post above might lead one to believe that the danger is very real and omnipresent, but the scenario presented is one that is exceedingly unlikely. Among other implausibilities, this warning makes it sound as though the bad guys are stymied in their search for victims and don't know where to look for kids to abduct until they see pictures of them on Facebook. But potential abductors' seeing a Facebook photo of a particular child who attends a given school does nothing to facilitate the snatching of random children for sale to pedophiles  would-be kidnappers don't need Facebook photos, as they could simply lie in wait outside just about any school and try to grab children as such opportunities presented themselves. Aside from that, first and foremost, most schools nowadays do not release children to parties who have not been explicitly granted permission and had their names recorded on an authorized list, a fact to which any parent who has ever needed a friend to make a last-minute school pickup can attest. Secondly, while the risk of child abduction and trafficking may exist, children are far, far more likely to be endangered by a relative or other "trusted" adult than a random Facebook contact. According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the most recent statistics reflect a far different danger than the one described above. Of 800,000 children reported missing, 200,000 were abducted by relatives, 58,000 were kids taken by nonfamily members, and only 115 missing child reports were considered "stereotypical" abductions involving a complete stranger with intent to harm or keep the child. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children A lengthy report on Child Exploitation Prevention presented to Congress by the Justice Department in 2010 [PDF] further delves into the profiles of predators involved in child abuse and trafficking. According to the data presented, the vast majority of children harmed in this manner are either introduced or otherwise victimized by family members or other trusted adults such as babysitters, coaches, or family friends. Only four percent of victims identified were exploited or abused by an adult not previously known to the child or their family. PDF In the cases examined, abuse typically occurred over the course of years and involved "grooming" and other behaviors designed to created compliance. Child victims were not at risk of being immediately whisked to Africa by a strange Facebook user, but rather more likely placed in harm's way by the people meant to ensure their safety and care. On rare occasions child predators may mine publicly posted photos of children for personal use or trade, and posted Facebook pictures and locations might facilitate a kidnapping if the abductors were seeking to grab a specific child (rather than trolling for random victims), but no evidence suggests the posting of kids' photos on Facebook has resulted in a general increase of kidnapping or abuse of children. Last updated:  4 June 2015 Sitting in front of a mock pharmacy and flanked by people in white lab coats, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders on July 24, 2020, that he framed as end-all solutions for Americans who struggle to pay high premium prices for prescription drugs. Of one of the directives, specifically, Trump told a crowd of supporters and reporters at the ceremony: told Under this order, the price of insulin for affected patients will come down to just pennies a day  pennies a day from numbers that you werent even able to think about. Its a massive cost savings. News outlets such as The New York Times and Washington Post described the signing event like it was largely symbolic, since the executive orders are unlikely to take effect this year, if at all (we explain more below). The New York Times Washington Post Meanwhile, at least two conservative media sources, Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire and CNSNews  which claims to balance "liberal bias" in mainstream news with its coverage  reported on the president's pledge to slash prescription prices at face value, and highlighted the above-mentioned quote by Trump regarding insulin. Daily Wire CNSNews published the story, "Trump Says Executive Order Will Drop the Price of Insulin Down to Pennies a Day," which mainly quoted the president verbatim, and numerous Snopes readers reached out to us to investigate the claim's accuracy. Namely, diabetic patients wondered whether they would indeed pay less for insulin syringes or insulin cartridges for their pens or pumps because of the president. story pens   According to a Congressional analysis in September 2019, insulin averaged $34.75 per dose in the U.S.  a total that's almost 2.5 times higher than the average price in other countries. First, we'll lay out what was unequivocally true: Trump issued Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications during the July 24, 2020, signing event, and that directive authorized the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make certain changes regarding the cost of EpiPens for Americans with severe allergies and the cost of insulin for those who suffer from diabetes, specifically. It stated: Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications Department of Health and Human Services EpiPens The price of insulin in the United States has risen dramatically over the past decade. ... While Americans with diabetes and severe allergic reactions may have access to affordable insulin and injectable epinephrine through commercial insurance or Federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, many Americans still struggle to purchase these products. Medicare Medicaid Here's some more context: Medicare, the federal program that covers the majority of Americans over age 65 and those with disabilities, offers plans that help diabetic patients cover the cost of some insulin products. Meanwhile, policies for Medicaid, the government-run health insurance system for low-income people, vary state by state  variances that include whether or not the program covers the cost of diabetic enrollees' insulin, or to what extent. state by state Trump's directive pertained to "federally qualified health centers" (FQHC), which are about 1,400 community health care clinics nationwide that treat low-income patients on sliding fee scales and purchase discounted drugs from pharmaceutical companies under an existing federal program, known as 340B. The July 2020 executive order was worded like this: federally qualified health centers 1,400 340B   In other words, the president's order requires participants of the 340B Program to offer insulin at greatly reduced prices to patients with no or little insurance coverage, without providing specifics on how or when the change would take effect. Advisory Board, a news site for health care providers, said in a statement: "Only patients with low incomes; those with high cost-sharing requirements for insulin or epinephrine; those with high, unmet deductibles; and/or those without health insurance would be eligible for the discount." A news release from the HHS said: statement news release This will increase access to life-saving insulin and epinephrine for the patients who face especially high costs among the 28 million patients who visit FQHCs every year, over six million of whom are uninsured. For perspective, about 34.2 million Americans had diabetes as of 2018, which represented about 10.5 percent of the population, according to the American Diabetes Association. So, hypothetically, if the same proportion of people had diabetes within the FQHC population of 28 million patients (a total reported by the HHS), then Trump's executive order could help about 2.9 million people, depending on whether their insurance already covers the treatment. American Diabetes Association So to recap, in regard to the claim in question, it was true to state Trump signed an executive order in July 2020 that aimed to make it easier for low-income diabetic patients to pay for insulin. But nowhere in the federal document did the presidential administration explain its plan for implementing the change, nor the level to which insulin prices would drop. There was no proof that the order would allow any American to someday pay "pennies a day" on the protein hormone. We should note here: In addition to that previously explained executive order, a separate directive signed by Trump on July 24, 2020, touched on a yet-to-be-finalized initiative by the White House to relax international drug importation rules and added insulin to a list of prescription medications that can be imported from Canada. The president characterized that directive, too, as a positive step for people who want lower insulin costs. separate directive yet-to-be-finalized And that brings us to our final point: Much of what Trump celebrated in the July 2020 executive orders had been proposed by his administration prior to the signing ceremony but stalled amid opposition from pharmaceutical companies and political barriers. "[None] of these ideas put forth are new, or in fact any more implementable than before, especially without congressional action, an investor told FeircePharma, a trade publication for the pharmaceutical industry. FeircePharma For instance, in May 2020, Trump unveiled a plan to cap the cost of insulin for Medicare recipients at $35 per month beginning in 2021 (even that initiative would cost patients more than "pennies a day"). But as of this writing, it was unclear exactly how that directive would roll out, and when or if qualifying seniors with diabetes would notice a price difference. The Washington Post reported on July 24, 2020: May 2020 Washington Post The moves [by Trump] are largely symbolic because the orders are unlikely to take effect anytime soon, if they do so at all, because the power to implement drug pricing policy through executive order is limited. Voters will not see an impact before the November elections, and the drug industry is sure to challenge them in court. A couple days after the July signing ceremony, for example, Politico reported that representatives of major drug lobbies refused to meet with the president to discuss one of the four executive orders: a non-specific and controversial proposal to link Medicare payments for certain medicines to lower costs that people pay in other countries. After that refusal on industry leaders' part, investors told MarketWatch that the executive orders were "largely campaign fodder" and "come without the necessary force to meaningfully change prices in the U.S."  Politico reported meet controversial MarketWatch In sum, while it was truthful to claim Trump issued an executive order in July 2020 that was intended to lower the price of insulin for some Americans, it was misleading to claim that all diabetic patients would save money as a result of the directive  the directive only targeted low-income patients who are uninsured or underinsured and seek help from certain federal community health providers. Additionally, it was unclear as of this report when, if at all, that group would actually reap the benefit of the cost savings, and the estimated amount of such was unknown. It would be wrong to state based on available evidence that the executive order alone would drive down prices to "pennies a day." For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. White House. "Executive Order On Access To Affordable Life-saving Medications".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Lowering Prices For Patients by Eliminating Kickbacks To Middlemen".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Increasing Drug Importation To Lower Prices For American Patients".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Remarks By President Trump At Signing Of Executive Orders On Lowering Drug Prices".
 24 July 2020. Sanger-Katz, Margot. "As He Woos Drugmakers On Virus, Trump Demands Drug Price Controls".
 New York Times. 24 July 2020. Arter, Melanie. "Trump Says Executive Order Will Drop the Price of Insulin Down to Pennies a Day".
 CNSNews. 24 July 2020. National Conference of State Legislatures. "Diabetes Health Coverage: State Laws And Programs".
 10 January 2016. HHS.gov. "Trump Administration Announces Historic Action To Lower Drug Prices For Americans".
 24 July 2020. American Diabetes Association. "Statistics About Diabetes".
 Accessed 30 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Increasing Drug Importation To Lower Prices For American Patients".
 24 July 2020. Luhby, Tami. "Trump Administration Proposes Allowing Imports Of Certain Drugs From Canada".
 CNN. 18 December 2019. O'Donnell, Carl. "Explainer: Trump's Plan To Cut Drug Prices".
 Reuters. 27 July 2020. Abutaleb, Yasmeen and Josh Dawsey. "Trump Signs Executive Orders Aimed At Lowering Drug Prices In Largely Symbolic Move".
 Washington Post. 24 July 2020. Cohen, Joshua. "Trump's Executive Orders On Drug Pricing Contain Caveats And Limitations".
 Forbes. 25 July 2020. Ways And Means Committee Staff. "A Painful Pill To Swallow: U.S. Vs. International Prescription Drug Prices".
 September 2019. Reklaitis, Victor. "Trump's Meeting With Pharma Execs Called Off, As Analysts Say His Moves On Drug Prices Lack Bite". Prestigiacomo, Amanda. "Trump Issues Executive Orders To Slash Insulin, EpiPen Prices; End 'Global Freeloading'.
 The Daily Wire. 27 July 2020. In early February 2019, amid continued public outcry over the soaring cost of life-saving pharmaceuticals, readers shared a screen-captured image on social media of a local news station's reporting on the story of a woman who said she bought inexpensive insulin without a prescription at Walmart: pharmaceuticals   Readers asked us whether this was true. It is true, although you should note Walmart sells human insulin, an older version of the glucose-moderating hormone, whereas most insulin-dependent diabetics are currently prescribed insulin analogs that have evolved to help prevent dangerous swings in blood-glucose levels. The screenshot above was taken from a 4 February 2019 news broadcast from DallasFort Worth television station KDFW: We confirmed with Walmart that the retail chain does indeed sell human insulin without a prescription (except in Indiana). That product is Novo Nordisk-manufactured Novolin, which Walmart has branded as ReliOn and sells for $24.88 per vial. Walmart spokeswoman Marilee McInnis confirmed to us that the company has "maintained, through negotiation, the same retail to patients since 2011." To say that the insulin is sold "over-the-counter" isn't quite accurate, however, as customers must ask a pharmacist for it. Indiana Although this revelation might be important, life-saving information for diabetics, an important caveat is that human insulin behaves differently than the newer analog insulin currently retailing for more than $300 a vial. retailing Dr. Todd Hobbs, chief medical officer for Novo Nordisk, wrote that the different types of insulin have the same effect of lowering blood-glucose levels, but, "Training is required whenever someone is prescribed insulin, whether that be human insulin or the newer analog insulin products. Differences in the timing of all types of insulin must be considered for patients to effectively use them ... The difference in the types of insulin is related to how slowly or rapidly they are absorbed once injected. Scientific advances over the years have made improvements on the speed and length of time this absorption occurs." wrote Diabetes Forecast, a health-oriented magazine associated with the American Diabetics Association, explained the history of the two types of insulin and the difference in health benefits this way: explained In the 1970s, researchers discovered how to program bacteria in the lab to manufacture human insulin, and in 1982, regular human insulin became the first recombinant DNA drug product. Its a very pure, clean product, and its exactly what we as humans make, [Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy associate professor and a spokesman for the American Association of Diabetes Educators Evan] Sisson says. Human insulin is now available as short-acting regular (or R) insulin, which is used at mealtimes, and intermediate-acting NPH (or N) insulin, which is used as a basal insulin ... While the development of human insulin was a major advancement, it wasnt perfect. Regular insulin didnt hit the bloodstream quick enough to cover the rapid absorption of carbohydrates after meals, and it stuck around too long after meals, causing hypoglycemia [low blood glucose, which can lead to unconsciousness and death if untreated]. In 1996, Eli Lilly introduced the first rapid-acting insulin analog to the market: insulin lispro (Humalog). Insulin aspart (Novo Nordisks Novolog) and insulin glulisine (Sanofis Apidra) quickly followed. With rapid-acting insulin analogs, onset occurs 10 to 20 minutes after injection, instead of the 30 to 60 minutes it takes for regular human insulin to take effect. This allows people to inject their insulin right before a meal, rather than having to dose 30 minutes or more before eating ... hypoglycemia Deliver a dose of NPH [human] insulin, and itll reach its peak about six to eight hours later. This means your insulin may peak while youre sleeping, posing a serious danger if you dont wake up to treat. Long-acting analogs, on the other hand, dont peak, resulting in more-stable blood glucose levels and fewer unexpected highs or lows. In fact, one study showed that long-acting analog insulin glargine reduced overnight bouts of hypoglycemia by up to 48 percent compared with NPH. In another study, detemir reduced nighttime hypoglycemia by 34 percent. This is especially beneficial for people with type 1, who need to be much more precise about matching insulin dosages with their insulin needs to avoid nighttime lows, says Sisson. Note, there are two types of diabetes. Type 1 diabetics' bodies cannot manufacture insulin, the hormone responsible for glucose absorption. Type 2 diabetics' bodies, on the other hand, become resistant to insulin. In most cases, Type 1 diabetes starts in childhood, whereas Type 2 is sometimes referred to as "adult-onset" diabetes. Writing for Insulin Nation, Nicki Nichols explained why the older form of human insulin is difficult to control in children: Insulin Nation When my child was first diagnosed, she was on NPH. It was incredibly difficult to limit a growing childs diet to such a strict schedule. Heres what it looked like: 8 a.m.- 45-carb meal10:30 a.m.  15-carb snack12 p.m.  45-carb meal2 p.m.  15-carb snack5 p.m.  45-carb meal7:30 p.m.  15-20 carb snack before bed to keep blood sugar up overnight. I cannot tell you how many times my child refused to eat the 45 carbs in her dinner. There is something wrong when you are fussing at your 5-year-old to stop eating her green beans and to eat her bread, or mashed potatoes, or pasta. The screen shot from the KDFW report no doubt went viral as a result of an ongoing controversy over the cost of analog insulin, which as of 7 February 2019 soared to a retail price of more than $300 per vial. Americans have been awash in medical horror stories such the death of Jesse Lutgen, a 32-year-old Type 1 diabetic who lost his job at a distribution center in Dubuque, Iowa, and with it, his health insurance. He was found dead in his home in February 2018, having run out of insulin. His last vials of the medication were given to him by a friend. soared Jesse Lutgen Hobbs, Todd, MD.  "The Truth About Human Insulin."
  Novo Nordisk.  29 November 2018. Tsai, Allison.  "Can Switching from Analog to Human Insulin Save You Money?"
  Diabetes Forecast.  March 2017. Johnson, Carolyn Y.  "Why Treating Diabetes Keeps Getting More Expensive."
  The Washington Post.  31 October 2016. Nichols, Nicki.  "Why Walmart Insulins Arent the Answer to High Insulin Prices."
  Insulin Nation.  16 September 2016. Des Moines Register.  "Iowa Man Loses Job, Health Insurance, Access to Insulin and His Life. When Will Congress Act?"
  6 February 2019.