Is it advisable to refrain from receiving a flu vaccination?
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.
On 7 December 2016, conspiracy web site SuperStation95 published a post reporting that 86-year-old astronaut Buzz Aldrin (who had just been evacuated from the South Pole due to health concerns) had mysteriously and alarmingly tweeted a photograph of a mountain along with a chilling comment:  post evacuated His words: "We are all in danger. It is evil itself." and showed a photograph of a pyramid located at the South Pole as show here. Mr. Aldrin seems to be referring to this object, as seen in an serial photo from Google Earth ... As has been reported by worldwide media, US Secretary of State John Kerry recently traveled to the South Pole, allegedly to become better informed about "Climate Change." Kerry was the highest ranking US government official ever to visit the South Pole, and his visit struck many as unusual. Few saw any purpose whatsoever to sending America's top Diplomat to the farthest reaches of the earth to see ... ice. Now, with Buzz Aldrin's tweet, and its strange deletion, folks are wondering if sending America's top Diplomat to no-man's land, perhaps had something to do with Diplomacy after all. Is there some entity there with which we need Diplomatic contact? ... If so, why did Buzz Aldrin warn that we are all in danger? Why did he call it "Evil itself?" The blog post, which was a pparently inspired by a 6 December 2016 thread on the conspiracy forum  Before It's News, cited two tweets as a first and second source for the photograph. One included an embedded video which referenced the SuperStation95 post as its source, making it useless as supporting confirmation: forum  What did Buzz Aldrin mean and WHY did he delete this tweet? "We are all in danger. It is evil itself. pic.twitter.com/tYb9IFCfZk pic.twitter.com/tYb9IFCfZk  slone (@slone) December 7, 2016 December 7, 2016 Buzz Aldrin Warns "it is evil itself"https://t.co/i0mqoHnh5y https://t.co/i0mqoHnh5y  Christopher Horn (@NightHorn) December 9, 2016 December 9, 2016  Images of the purported tweet circulated widely after 7 December 2016, but there were a number of visual cues the graphic was altered:   For contrast, here's a screenshot taken of a then-recent tweet sent via Aldrin's @TheRealBuzz account:   The first tweet did not have a date, share count, number of replies, number of favorites, or number of retweets; all could be used to determine whether Twitter's archive backed the claims made by the sites. Additional irregularities existed in the background display of Aldrin's account: The suspect tweet didn't display in the same manner it did in our screenshot. Aldrin's account data was oddly arranged, and his blue verification checkmark was missing.  SuperStation95 did not provide a date, time, or sturdy source for the screenshot of the tweet. Using Twitter's "advanced search" tool, we were able to determine that no retweets or "modified tweets" (a form of copying and pasting a retweet) existed anywhere on Twitter. The first verbal mention of the purported tweet appeared on 8 December 2016, one day after the blog post linked above. no retweets It wasn't just skeptics questioning the authenticity of the claim. YouTube's SecureTeam (the self-described "number one source for breaking news and exposure of the alien phenomenon") examined the claim, quickly dismissing it as a forgery: questioning After appearing in late 2015, Superstation95 began using what were often legitimate tragedies or unfortunate events (such as Buzz Aldrin's evacuation from Antarctica in December 2016) with falsified and often frightening details. Among the most prominent were claims that a large group of Muslim men had fired randomly upon campers and hikers in California, Fukushima radiation caused severe mutations in ocean-dwelling creatures, cargo ships mysteriously ground to a halt signaling nothing short of an imminent global economic catastrophe, a deadly Las Vegas strip car crash involved a driver shouting "Allahu Akbar," the San Bernardino shooting was provoked by pork served at a holiday party shortly before the massacre, the Earth's "magnetosphere" inexplicably collapsed for two hours, a (nonexistent) suicide note left by a genuinely deceased ICE agent revealed impending FEMA camp implementation and mass enslavement, and that articles about the Orlando shooting appeared on Google News hours before the attack. Although the pieces sometimes contained details of real-life events, the claims were always willfully distorted to peddle a false and upsetting conclusion. Muslim men Fukushima cargo ships Allahu Akbar San Bernardino magnetosphere ICE agent Orlando shooting Superstation95's opportunistic leveraging of tragedy has never borne out as the real thing, despite the innumerable grandiose claims made since the site's inception. However, despite them, no one has yet gone to FEMA camp, the global economy has not melted down, the magnetosphere caused no space-based catastrophes, and no hikers were reported injured or dead as a result of roving Muslim shooters. Its been nearlyeight years since George W. Bush was president, but Democrats still plan to run against him. Certainly, thats what Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz promised on the eve of the first Democratic presidential debate. There are so many people who are focused on making sure we can look at the fact that, when we had a conservative Republican president, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month, Wasserman Schultz said on CNNsState of the UnionOct. 11, 2015. Weve come through that -- 67 straight months of job growth in the private sector. People are no longer losing their homes. Thats the contrast well talk about. The DNC press office told us that Wasserman Schultz was thinking of President George W. Bush, and that the time period she had in mind were the last few months of his presidency, November through January. President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, so its reasonable to count that month as part of the Bush legacy. We pulled up theBureau of Labor Statisticsnumbers and Wasserman Schultz is on solid ground. Month Jobs (000s) Loss Nov 135,469 -765 Dec 134,773 -696 Jan 133,977 -796 Average -752 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Benchmark comparison The number is particularly high because Wasserman Schultz chose the three worst months of the Bush presidency. If she had chosen a longer period, say the last full year, the losses would have averaged about 365,000 per month. The losses would shrink even more if you look at longer period of time. Wasserman Schultz didnt mention that the economy continued to shed jobs at or above the 700,000 mark for the first two months of Obamas presidency before the trend began to ease. This chart from theBureau of Labor Statisticsgives a more complete jobs picture. The Great Recession saw employment declines of historic proportions.Government analystscompared the relative losses from 2007 to 2009 to past downturns. The bottom purple line on their chart tracks jobs in the Great Recession which officially began December 2007. Of course, Wasserman Schultzs statement implies that conservative Republican policies alone brought about a massive loss of jobs and the reality is more complicated. Some analysts believe that a portion of the blame goes back to policies that enjoyed Democratic support, including changes in financial regulation passed during the Clinton administration. But Wasserman Schultz did not make that claim specifically. Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said that under a conservative Republican president the country was losing 750,000 jobs a month. Wasserman Schultz was speaking of President George W. Bush and at the end of his term, the monthly job losses averaged about 750,000 jobs. The average would of course be less if she had included Bushs final 12 months -- or a period longer than that. There is an element of cherry-picking here, but the overall point holds up. We rate the claim Mostly True. Claim:  The federal government is preventing Volkswagen's XL1 model car from being sold in the U.S. because the vehicle is too fuel-efficient.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] Volkswagen's New 300 MPG Car Not Allowed In America Because It Is Too Efficient Would like to know of the article is valid. Origins:  For many years conspiracy rumors have circulated positing that a collusion between Big Oil and the U.S. government has prevented the American public from having the opportunity to purchase fully developed, market-ready automobiles capable of obtaining fuel efficiencies of 200-300 MPG.  Such rumors have taken the form of everything from mysterious forces stealing cars equipped with miracle carburetors to keep that technology's existence a secret, to the federal government's enacting regulations intended for the sole purpose of keeping high-mileage vehicles out of the U.S. market in order to protect the interests (and profits) of American oil companies. miracle carburetors high-mileage April 2014 saw the emergence of yet another entry in this vein, courtesy of Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist (the same "journalist" who promulgated the ridiculous story about a passenger on missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 who supposedly hid his cell phone in his rectum and used it to post a picture to the Internet after the flight was hijacked), positing that Volkswagen has a terrific 300 MPG vehicle that only costs $60,000 all ready to go, but it can't be sold (or even seen) in America because politicians in the pay of oil companies are conspiring to keep it unknown and unsellable in the U.S.: Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist ridiculous You won't find the 300 MPG Volkswagen XL1 in an American showroom, in fact it has even been denied a tour of America because it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of, and oil profits are too high in America with the status quo in place. No tour has been allowed for this car because the myth that 50 mpg is virtually impossible to obtain from even a stripped down econobox is too profitable to let go of, and when it comes to corporate oil profits, ignorance is bliss. The answer is obvious. Simply for the sake of raking in huge profits from $4 a gallon gas, getting guzzled at 10X the rate it should be, the corporations have via campaign contributions and other types of pay outs succeeded in getting the FED to legislate the best cars off the road for irrelevant trumped up reasons.  Even after being hand made with "exotic" materials in an intentionally limited edition, the Xl1 still only costs $60,000. There is a lot more of a market for this car than 2,000 units at that price, have no doubt, this car is being held back on purpose. In this case the vehicle in question is the Volkswagen XL1, a two-person,  "one-liter" concept car (i.e., a vehicle capable of averaging 100 km per liter of fuel, or about 235 MPG) originally shown to the public back in 2002 and modified (and renamed) several times since over the intervening years.  The latest unveiled version of the XL1, already put into production, is a plug-in diesel-electric hybrid described thusly by Green Car Reports: XL1 Green Car Reports The Volkswagen XL1 is a plug-in diesel hybrid with a body seemingly beamed in from a future time. It's the physical representation of the benefits of reducing weight and improving aerodynamics. The small body may only take two people, but it's allowed for an incredibly streamlined body with a drag coefficient of only 0.189. Low weight  only 1,752 lbs  means only a small engine and electric motor is needed to deliver respectable performance. Much of the car is constructed from carbon fiber, aluminum and titanium. VW says the car will do 261 mpg, though the real figure will be lower than that should it ever be tested under EPA guidelines. Even so, it'll still use comfortably less fuel than any vehicle currently on sale. A diesel engine of only 0.8 liters and 2 cylinders capacity produces 47 horsepower, with a further 27 horses delivered by the electric motor. Power reaches the wheels via a 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox. Those figures sound miniscule by modern standards, but the XL1 should reach 62 mph in 12.7 seconds. Top speed is 98 mph. Operating alone, the small battery can deliver up to 31 miles of range, and can be charged via plug or regenerative effect. It's true that very few, if any, Volkswagen XL1s will likely be seen on U.S. roads in the immediate future, but that situation will be due to a confluence of factors that does not include a government/Big Oil conspiracy to keep them out of the U.S. First of all, it's not true that the XL1 has "been denied a tour of America because  it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of."  Existing safety and traffic regulations do limit where the current XL1 models can be legally driven in public roads in the U.S., but Volkswagen has taken at least three of the vehicles on tour around the U.S., and the staff of Jalopnik drove one around Manhattan at the end of 2013. Jalopnik Second, the primary reason the XL1 won't be seen in the U.S. anytime soon is that Volkswagen is only producing 200 units for retail sale (not 2,000 as claimed above), all of them to be sold in Europe via some sort of selection (i.e., lottery) process.     200 units But why only 200 cars?  And why only in Europe? As for the first part, the answer is that new vehicles like the XL1 are expensive to develop and produce (and therefore expensive for consumers to afford), and similar forms of automobiles have not yet met with tremendous success on the commercial market, so any automotive company that puts such a model into full-blown production risks sinking a whole lot of money into something that may not sell well at all (especially in the U.S. market, where consumers have very different expectations and preferences than European car buyers do). The XL1 is in many ways still a concept/prototype vehicle, and so Volkswagen is testing the waters by putting out a limited production run to see how many consumers are really interested in shelling out the equivalent of U.S. $150,000 (not $60,000 as claimed above) for a two-person car.  And the testers at Car and Driver found that while the XL1's fuel efficiency might be superb, it might also be somewhat overblown as presented in promotional materials: Car and Driver The XL1 should run 31 miles solely on electric power, says [VW development engineer Ulrich] Mitze. But on the cold and rainy April day we drove it, the small, 60-cell, 5.5-kWh, 150-pound lithium-ion battery pack needed a recharge after only 22 miles.  According to the on-board computer, we are fuel hogs. Having started with a full tank (2.6 gallons) and fully charged batteries, we ended our trip after 67 miles; fuel consumption plummeted at one point to a dismal 128 mpg. Achieving the XL1's theoretical 749-mile range would take a right foot as light as a moonbeam. As for why only Europe, the answer is that the U.S. does have many safety standards in place (enacted many years ago a variety of reasons, none of which was to keep high-mileage vehicles off the U.S. market) that all automobile manufacturers have to meet in order to legally sell their vehicles in America, regulations that sometimes require manufacturers to modify or retrofit models that were produced for sale under less strict regulations in Europe (or other parts of the world).  If Volkswagen wants to test-market their XL1 in limited quantities, there's no reason for them to expend millions of dollars preparing and certifying those vehicles for U.S. safety standards when they can vend  their small lot of cars just as well in the European market without all the added expense.  As noted by USA Today: The XL1 [is] a spaceship-like, ultra-high-mpg, plug-in diesel-electric hybrid. VW used exotic, but obtainable, materials and technologies to craft a mileage-above-all car able to get 261 mpg in European tests, equating, very roughly, to perhaps 200 mpg in U.S. tests. Barely a real production model, it's made in a factory, but largely by hand. It couldn't meet U.S. safety rules and needed changes in German rules to be on the road there. And if one buys into the conspiracy theory that the government and Big Oil are colluding to keep high-mileage vehicles off the U.S. market in order to protect profits from gasoline sales, one has to wonder why those powerful and malevolent entities aren't doing anything to stop Americans from purchasing cars produced by Tesla, superbly-performing vehicles that use no gasoline at all yet still deliver premium performance, have great range for electric cars, have received the highest rating of any automobile ever evaluated by Consumer Reports, are top-rated for safety even under tougher U.S. standards, but are widely available for purchase in the U.S.: Tesla Most Americans may never actually see a Tesla Model S sedan in person, but you will want to know why this car is so important to the automotive industry and what all the media fuss is about. Tesla Motors was founded in 2003 by a group of intrepid Silicon Valley engineers who set out to prove that electric vehicles could be awesome. The name of the company pays homage to Nicola Tesla, a Serbian American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist, and futurist best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system. As the California automakers first production model, the Tesla Model S is 100 percent electric, a car so advanced it sets the new standard for premium performance. This is not a hybrid, nor is it equipped with any kind of "range expanding" gasoline engine. At the heart of the vehicle is the proven Tesla powertrain, delivering both unprecedented range and a thrilling drive experience. The Tesla Model S has won the 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year award, received the highest rating of any automobile in history from Consumer Reports (99 out of 100) and achieved the best possible US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rating. Unlike the internal combustion engine with hundreds of moving pieces that spark, pump, belch, and groan, the Tesla motor has only one moving piece: the rotor. As a result, Model S acceleration is instantaneous, like flipping a switch. Hit the accelerator. In 5.4 seconds, Model S is traveling 60 miles per hour, without hesitation and without a drop of gasoline. As in so many cases, what is attributed to furtive conspiracy is more easily explained away as wishful thinking colliding with the hard, cold realities of economics. Last updated:  14 April 2014    Healey, James R.  "Test Drive: VW XL1 Shows How to Get 200 MPG."   USA Today.  7 December 2013.     Ingram, Antony.  "261 MPG Volkswagen XL1 Production Confirmed, Debuts Geneva."   Green Car Reports.  21 February 2013.     Ingram, Antony.  "Orders for 261-MPG Volkswagen XL1 Exceed Production of 200."   Green Car Reports.  28 October 2013.     Zoellter, Juergen.  "2014 Volkswagen XL1."   Car and Driver.  June 2013.     Green Bay Press Gazette.  "2014 Tesla Model S Sedan Takes the Electric Car to a New Level."   14 April 2014. Answering a question for the May 1Voters Guidefrom the League of Women Voters of the Austin Area, City Council hopeful Kathie Tovo made us check our pocketbooks. Tovo said: Austin Energy, the citys electric utility,  is considering its first rate increase since 1994.We wondered about that, since our first thought was that surely electric bills went up during that time. Tovos campaign manager, Mark Yznaga, told us Tovo was referring to the utilitys base charge for electricity. News reports and posts on Austin Energys website show hearings are expected to culminate in the City Council considering a rate bump as soon as later this year.The utility says in aJanuary Austin Energy Rate Review newsletterthat since 1994, its added more than 100,000 customers, experienced big increases in the cost of materials and services and added business functions while expanding others such as energy efficiency and solar rebate programs. At the same time, the article says growth in Austin Energy electric sales has trended downward of late, requiring the utility to dip into its reserves for operations.Echoing the newsletter article, Austin Energy spokesman Ed Clark told us the base electric rate, covering the costs of staff, the electric system, power plants, vehicles and the like, has not changed since 1994. Its 3.55 cents for each of the first 500 kilowatt-hours of electricity used and 7.82 cents for each additional kilowatt-hour. Clark said customers also pay an unchanged $6 monthly service charge,Yet that doesnt mean theyve paid the same amount for electricity every year.Their bills include such variables as a fee for statewide transmission costs added by the Texas Public Utility Commission in November plus a fluctuating fee tied to ups and downs in fuel costs. At our request, Clark told us what an average residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours a month would have been billed each August from 1994 through 2011. For the period, we calculate, the fuel charge averaged 2.322 cents per kilowatt-hour, though its exceeded that every year from 2004 on.In 1994, the bill for 1,000 kilowatt-hours would have been $79.14. In 2010, the bill for using that much electricity was $100.20 -- an increase of 27 percent. In August 2011, the same usage would be billed $94.72, due to a drop in the fuel charge. Put another way, the 2011 charge looks to be 20 percent more than what it cost a customer using the same amount of electricity in 1994.A-ha! Is it really fair to say Austin Energys rates have not increased since 1994?Well, we realized, our comparison failed to consider inflation over the years. According to our check using theConsumer Price Index inflation calculatorposted online by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 2011 bill actually ends up about $15 less than the comparable 1994 bill. When we ran this by Austin economist Stuart Greenfield, he pointed out that according to a finer inflation adjustment tied to household energy prices, the average August 2010 bill was about $33 less than what it was in 1994.At a glance, still, Tovos statement could leave the misimpression that utility customers havent had to dig out more dollars for electricity since 1994. They have. We rate the statement Mostly True. Images reflecting an old rumor about the Rothschild Family's unimaginable accumulated global wealth hold that the Rothschilds are worth $500 trillion and hold more than 80% of the world's total wealth:   While the Rothschilds are indeed very wealthy, claims about their net worth such as the ones displayed above are grossly exaggerated. Conspiracy theories concerning the Rothschild family date back to the 18th century, and the family's wealth was largely responsible for the anti-semitic belief that "Jews control the world's money supply." The Rothschilds are frequently associated with theories about the Illuminati, the New World Order, and other dark money groups that supposedly pull the strings of world governments, and the Rothschilds have been blamed for everything from starting wars for personal gain to funding the Holocaust to assassinating U.S. presidents. Skeptoid delved into the Rothschild family history in 2012, noting that: history The greatest of these financial adepts was Mayer Amschel Rothschild, born in 1744 in a Jewish slum of Frankfurt. Not much is known about his early life, as his was one of tens of thousands of marginalized, outcast families. But once he came of age he became an apprentice at a small bank in Hamburg, where he learned the trade. Returning to Frankfurt at the age of 19, he offered his own banking services in a modest way, beginning with trading of rare coins and related investments. He was energetic, clever, and most of all he was charismatic. And he was smart, seeking out wealthy clientele, and associating with nobility whenever he could. By the age of 40, he had consolidated his most important business contact: the Landgrave William, the Elector of Hesse, one of only a tiny number of nobles empowered to elect the Holy Roman Emperor. When William was younger, he had engaged in the trading of rare coins with Mayer's father, and so the two had always known one another. When William inherited his own father's massive fortune, his friendship with Mayer Rothschild gave Mayer the ability to begin conducting larger international transactions. This was the point at which the Rothschild name became first involved with the manipulation of money behind the scenes of wars. Mayer was a firm believer in family business, and insisted on using his own sons  by then he had five  as his business partners. What he did next became the model for many powerful Jewish financiers who followed: He installed each of his five sons as his agents in the five major financial centers of Europe: the eldest Amschel Mayer Rothschild in Frankfurt, Salomon Mayer Rothschild in Vienna, Nathan Mayer Rothschild in London, Calmann Mayer Rothschild in Naples, and the youngest Jakob Mayer Rothschild in Paris. Although the Rothschild family has amassed great wealth since the 1700s, claims that they have a net worth of $500 trillion or that they own 80% of the world's wealth are problematic. For one, the world's total wealth was estimated as of 2015 to be only $250 trillion, half of what the Rothchilds alone are claimed to possess: wealth Global wealth reached 250 trillion US dollars in 2015, slightly less than a year earlier, due to adverse exchange rate movements. The underlying wealth trends do, however, generally remain positive, according to the Credit Suisse Research Institute's annual "Global Wealth Report." Also, the Rothschilds began acquiring their wealth in the 1700s, and since then the family has spawned hundreds of descendants, so there is no longer any centralized Rothschild family wealth.  The closest thing to a "Rothschild Family" business in 2016 is the Rothschild Group, a multinational investment banking company, but that firm does not in itself generate nearly enough income to back up claims about the family's wealth. In 2015, the Rothschild Group's annual revenue was approximately $500 million. In comparison, the world's largest company, Walmart, has an annual revenue of nearly $500 billion. annual Walmart It should also be noted that only one member of the Rothschild family is included among Forbes' 2015 list of the world's billionaires: Benjamin de Rothschild, who was ranked at number #1121 with a net worth of $1.61 billion.  list While the Rothschild family certainly was one of the world's most significant financial powers in centuries past, they no longer wield the same sort of influence over global affairs. Dunning, B.  "The Rothschild Conspiracy." 
  Skeptoid Media.  22 May 2012.  Kersley, Richard.  "Global Wealth in 2015: Underlying Trends Remain Positive."
  Credit Suisse.  13 October 2013. After signing a coronavirus and economic relief plan into law, President Joe Biden turned to an infrastructure proposal as his next legislative priority. Cabinet members, including Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, have fanned out to promote the presidents $2 trillion-plus package, while critics of the plan are complaining about the cost. In an interview on NBCs Meet the Press April 4, Buttigieg emphasized that the expenditures would be covered by revenue increases. The vision the president has put forward (in the infrastructure bill) is fully paid for,he said. Across 15 years, it would raise all of the revenue needed for these once-in-a-lifetime investments. The president himself re-emphasized the importance of this point in a speech touting the plan on April 7. Weve got to pay for this, he said. Buttigieg is largely correct, though there are some important caveats to note. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg appeared on NBCs Meet the Press on April 4, 2021. (Screenshot) Bidens proposal, called the American Jobs Plan, would provide funding for highways, bridges, ports, airports and transit systems, as well as infrastructure for water, the electric grid, and expanded high-speed Internet access. It would also support retrofitting and upgrading homes, commercial and federal buildings, schools, child care facilities and veterans hospitals, and it would invest in research and development. The proposal also includes items not traditionally considered infrastructure, such as funding to support home health care workers and job training, and pro-union provisions. In all, the proposal comes with a price tag of more than $2 trillion over a decade. To pay for it, Biden would lean heavily on new or higher taxes on corporations, including raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, preventing U.S. corporations from claiming an offshore tax haven as their place of business, eliminating tax preferences for fossil fuels, tightening tax enforcement by adding employees to the Internal Revenue Service, and changing other taxes that hit corporations. Republicans have attacked both the spending and revenue sides of Bidens proposal, arguing that some of the items in it are not really infrastructure, and that raising corporate tax rates could lead businesses to leave the United States. Biden said in his April 7 remarks that hes open to compromise on what a bill ultimately includes. For this article, well focus on whether the spending portions of the plan are equaled by the revenue-raising portions, as Buttigieg said. The White House pointed us to thefact sheetit has released on the plan, which makes that claim, but doesnt get into details. However, at least two independent groups have analyzed the plan and found that Buttigiegs formulation checks out. One was published by theCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It found that the plan has approximately $2.65 trillion in new costs over eight years. Over the first 10 years, the group found, the plan would increase the deficit by about $900 billion. However, over a longer, 15-year period the one Buttigieg cited  the plans revenues would match its expenses and would actually reduce deficits beyond that. The other analysis, published by the University of PennsylvaniasPenn Wharton Budget Model, came to a similar conclusion. The Penn group said the Biden plan would spend $2.7 trillion over 10 years and raise $2.1 trillion in that period, expanding the deficit by about $600 billion. However, the group found that over 15 years, it would generate more than $3.6 billion, which would be more than enough to cover its costs. Projections are always just that  projections. Rght now, there is not even a formal bill, so the spending and revenue provisions could shift in either direction before theyre signed into law. For instance, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.  whose support would be required for any Democratic bill  has already said he wont support a corporate tax hike to anything higher than 25%. And under a 25% corporate tax, a lot of revenue would disappear. Similarly, some of the bills spending items could also disappear during lawmaker negotiations. Another asterisk is that these analyses are based on eight years worth of spending and 15 years of revenue increases, which is an unusual method. Typically, congressional legislation is judged based on what happens during a 10-year window. Buttigieg wouldnt have been able to say the plan paid for itself over the standard, 10-year budget window, so his focus on the 15-year time frame is a bit of cherry-picking. And the revenue impacts 15 years down the road are going to be harder to predict than the impacts in 10 years. That said, theres nothing economically significant about the 10-year window, said Marcos Dinerstein, an economist with the Penn Wharton Budget Model. Its just a convention. Just looking at a 10-year window can miss the benefits of policies like infrastructure and research and development that often take a while to start generating returns. Buttigieg said Bidens infrastructure proposal is fully paid for. Across 15 years, it would raise all of the revenue needed for these once-in-a-lifetime investments. Two independent analyses back up the notion that the new spending will be evened out by the new revenue raised in the plan after 15 years. But long-term projections like this are always tricky, and a 15-year time frame is unusual for evaluating the budget impact of legislation; under the typical 10-year time frame, the plan would not be fully paid for. We rate the statement Mostly True. Why the big surplus predicted in the state budget? Gov.Scott Walkersays wise government belt-tightening and reforms, tax cuts and business-friendly deregulation boosted hiring and the economy, promising now to help fill state coffers with extra income-tax revenue. When Walker made that claim in hisState of the State addresson Jan. 22, 2014, theDemocratic Party of Wisconsinbegged to differ. Scott Walkers surplus isnt built on prudent financial decisions -- its built on disinvestments in our future that harm the economic security of the middle class, aDemocratic news releaseissued during the speech argued. Walkers first budget cut nearly one billion dollars from public schools and our technical college system that provides critical job training programs. Then the party added this: The national economic recovery has led to higher than expected tax revenues and projected budget surpluses in nearly every state in the nation, including Wisconsin. Before Walkers speech fades into history, lets check the claim that Wisconsin is far from alone in enjoying a firmer financial footing. Wisconsin is projected to have a $1 billion surplus at the end of the two-year budget period covering July 2013 to July 2015 -- almost all of it because tax collections are rising faster than expected, the nonpartisanLegislative Fiscal Bureau saidin January. The predicted surplus -- expected revenues exceeding planned expenditures -- is a notable switch from shortfalls that forced Wisconsin and other states into emergency changes to keep budgets balanced during the Great Recession and its immediate aftermath. We asked Democratic Party spokesperson Melissa Baldauff to back up the claim of higher than expected tax revenues and projected budget surpluses in nearly every state. She cited anAssociated Press storyfrom January 2014 that said that almost all states will see fairly decent surpluses in their 2014 budgets. That story quoted theNational Association of State Budget Officers(NASBO). We followed up with Scott Pattison, executive director of the budget officers group. He confirmed the projection. The 2013 stock market surge will goose income tax collections, Pattison said, and many states budgeted conservatively for 2014, not foreseeing the markets runup. That, he said, means surpluses are in store for fiscal year 2014, which for most states ends by mid-year. And that comes on the heels of the 2013 budget year in which 37 states exceeded original (revenue) forecasts, six states were on target and seven states ended fiscal 2013 below the original revenue estimate, according to the nonpartisan budget associations December 2013 report,The Fiscal Survey of States.Baldauff also cited that report. The revenue windfalls meant surpluses were common, the report said. So the Democrats claim of higher than expected tax revenues and resulting widespread surpluses was confirmed by the group. We broadened our view, checking with theNational Conference of State Legislatures, which also regularly tracks state budgets. State fiscal conditions continued to improve in fiscal year (FY) 2013, the group said in itsState Budget Actions FY 2013 and FY 2014.General fund revenue growth was notably strong and outpaced projections in most states. Did that leave states with extra money to play with? Yes, the group said. At the same time, expenditures were generally on target, its report said. The combination of these factors enabled many states to shore up reserves and support supplemental expenditures. Overall, the fiscal situation was solid in almost every state in FY 2013. In another report, the group noted in January 2014 that in a dramatic turn from recent years, California lawmakers will consider how to allocate a potential budget surplusyes, a surplus. In itsState Legislatures Magazinein January 2014, the group added: Driven by improving revenues and on-target expenditures, states entered fiscal year 2014 in better economic shape than they have been in years. The revenue collection boost was somewhat unexpected, it said, and many states used the excess to supplement appropriations or fortify their rainy day funds. Early in fiscal 2014 pointed, state revenue collections were meeting or exceeding targets in most states,the group reported. Few are predicting, though, that revenue gains will be as strong as in 2013. Many states planned for that, said Pattison of the budget officers organization, fearing that the 2013 rise was a one-time event. Our rating The Democratic Party of Wisconsin generated this claim: The national economic recovery has led to higher than expected tax revenues and projected budget surpluses in nearly every state in the nation, including Wisconsin. State budget watchers confirm a widespread recovery in tax revenues as the nation continues to edge out of the Great Recession. This fiscal year likely will not match 2013 in tax-revenue growth, but states predicted that and most should see surpluses by mid 2014, as most did in 2013. We rate the partys claim True. Claim:  Photograph shows Mitt Romney posing with children whose shirts spell out the word "MONEY."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2012] I've seen this image floating around Facebook for about two weeks now. I was wondering if this is the result of photo manipulation, or if this was an honest mistake (or perhaps an intentional joke on the part of the Romney family). I can't trace the origin of this image.    Origins:  Former Massachusetts governor and 2012 Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has a net worth estimated (in his own words) to be "between $150 and about $200-and-some-odd million dollars," making him one of the wealthiest U.S. presidential candidates of recent years.  (CNBC rated  net worth him third on their list of "10 Richest US Presidential Candidates," behind Steve Forbes and Ross Perot.)   third Mitt Romney's financial assets (along with various finance-related comments the candidate has made during the 2012 presidential campaign) have often been the focus of political criticism, with detractors such as Republican opponent Newt Gingrich's terming the former Massachusetts governor a "'rich guy' incapable of connecting with working class Americans." comments The photograph displayed above plays on that image of a wealthy, unsympathetic candidate, supposedly showing Mitt Romney being so crass as to pose with a group of children (not his own  Mitt and Ann Romney have five adult sons) wearing shirts that spell out the word 'MONEY' against the backdrop of an American flag.   In fact, this picture is a digitally manipulated rearrangement of an Associated Press photograph showing off the Romney campaign logo, with the young woman on the left wearing a shirt that bears the stylized red-white-and-blue 'R' of that logo, and the rest of the children's shirts spelling out the remainder of the candidate's surname.  The original AP photograph and caption were as follows: campaign logo original Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, poses for a photo with the Fisher family backstage prior to a campaign rally in Elko, Nev., Friday, Feb. 3, 2012. Campaigning throughout Nevada on Friday, Romney sought to convince weary voters that he alone had the prescriptions for what ails the country, even as the government reported that a quarter-million Americans streamed back into the work force in January. Last updated:  6 March 2012 Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In May 2020, a video supposedly showing Vice President Mike Pence delivering empty boxes that were supposed to be filled with personal protective equipment (PPE) to the Woodbine Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center in Alexandria, Virginia, was featured on the show "Jimmy Kimmel Live." A clip of this segment was later shared on social media along with the caption: "Mike Pence caught on hot mic delivering empty boxes of PPE for a PR stunt."  This is genuine footage of Pence. However, it does not show him "caught on hot mic" admitting that he just delivered a bunch of empty boxes to a health care facility. This video actually shows Pence making a humorous quip after delivering boxes that were truly filled with PPE.  The full video from C-Span shows Pence transporting several boxes from a truck to the door of the health care center. After unloading the boxes from his dolly, Pence returns to the truck to grab another round of boxes but is informed by someone that the remaining boxes are empty. Pence then jokes that he should carry one of the empty boxes for the cameras. The man replies with a quip of his own, saying that the empty ones are much easier to carry than the full ones, which draws laughter from the crowd. Pence then closes the van door. You can see this exchange around the 9-minute mark of the following video from C-Span: https://www.c-span.org/video/?471876-1/vice-president-pence-delivers-ppe-woodbine-rehabilitation-center We reached out to the Woodbine Rehabilitation Center to confirm that it had received PPE from the vice president. While we have yet to receive a response, the facility did post a message on Facebook to thank Pence and his team: Facebook   Jon Thompson, a spokesperson for the vice president, called the claim that Pence was delivering empty boxes "absolute garbage" in a tweet: tweet     Coleman, Justine.  "Pence Delivers PPE to Alexandria Nursing Home."
  The Hill.  7 May 2020. C-Span.  "Vice President Pence Delivers PPE to Woodbine Rehabilitation Center."
  7 May 2020. Claim:  Canadian Richard Brunt penned an open letter about America's midterm elections. On 7 November 2014, shortly after midterm elections in the U.S., the Detroit Free Press published Canadian Richard Brunt's open letter to American voters, a missive that quickly went viral on the Internet: published  A Canadian perspective on the #GOPtakeover. pic.twitter.com/NmBaPjnqju #GOPtakeover pic.twitter.com/NmBaPjnqju  Rick Strandlof (@RickStrandlof) November 9, 2014 November 9, 2014  Brunt wrote in his letter, titled "You Americans have no idea just how good you have it with Obama," that his fellow Canadians were confused about the results of the midterm elections. For Brunt, the Republican gains in those elections did not make sense to him when things were seemingly going so well in the U.S.:  Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections. Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs, the country's adding 200,000 jobs per month, unemployment is below 6%, U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The dollar is at its strongest levels in years, the stock market is near record highs, gasoline prices are falling, there's no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing, the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money. America is leading the world once again and respected internationally  in sharp contrast to the Bush years. Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden. So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason. When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way? Richard Brunt Victoria, British Columbia The letter was soon shared thousands of times on Facebook and Twitter by both Republicans and Democrats, although their reasons for sharing the message were very different:  Hey Richard Brunt, of Victoria, British Columbia... if you want our Obama, you can have our Obama.  Frank Miani (@FJM2425) November 11, 2014 November 11, 2014  Richard Brunt from British Columbia, telling it like it is... pic.twitter.com/OKm0Rkfu5x pic.twitter.com/OKm0Rkfu5x  Baumer Kid (@bostonsboy87) November 11, 2014 November 11, 2014  Richard Brunt's letter represented one man's opinion, but it wasn't the first such expression of admiration from fans of President Obama up north. In a 2009 article titled "Canada's Love Affair with Barack Obama," for example, author Charlie Gillis wrote: Charlie Gillis We love him, with an asterisk. The broad-band smile, the Lincolnesque bearing, the sense of the man as an avatar of multiculturalism  it all makes Barack Obama the perfect U.S. president in the eyes of Canadians. Heaven knows we've been waiting. When the motorcade rolls down Wellington Street, or pulls up to Rideau Hall, you can expect dewy-eyed kids to line barricades with paper flags, no matter how foul the Ottawa weather. Eighty-two per cent of us say we approve of Obama, the polls indicate, and the number requires a moment to digest. Never mind American politicians. Who's the last American we can say that about?   Last updated:  11 November 2014