Organ Trail
FACT CHECK: Does a photograph depict Mexican immigrants who were coerced into "donating" kidneys to enter the United States?      Claim:  A photograph shows several Mexican immigrants who were forced to surrender  kidneys in order to enter the United States.    Example:   [Collected via Facebook, July 2015] Take notice, the scar on the side of each Central American immigrant going through Mexico to get to the USA, they are forced by local authorities in the state of Coahuila which borders with Texas to "volunteer" a kidney, of course the government of such state sells the kidneys to US agencies for hundreds of thousands of dollars, this is the price they pay to be allowed to cross through the Mexican territory...The cost of wanting a better life and freedom must be worth it for these people...I am originally from Mexico, however at this time I'm not proud of it.......Please shere with all your friends in the US, these is only made public in digital newspapers in Mexico, PLEASE SHARE!!!! Origins: On 12 July 2015, a Facebook user published a status update consisting of the photograph seen above along with the claim that it depicted Mexican immigrants who each had to "donate" a kidney to local Mexican authorities in order to be allowed to cross through into the United States. published However, the photograph in question was at least two years old by July 2015, and it does not match the claim now appended to it. The picture was published in April 2013 as part of an article about the 2013 documentary Tales from the Organ Trade. While the photograph was originally taken to illustrate the impact of a coercive black market for organs, the individuals depicted were identified as Filipino (not as Mexican or Central American), and the circumstances under which their organs were taken did not involve immigration to the United States from Mexico (or any other country): article Steering well clear of sensationalist tales of men and women waylaid by bio-buccaneers who snatch people's chloroformed kidneys while they sleep, the director tells the stories of those who "willingly" exchange their bodily integrity for another year's worth of food and shelter for their families. [The filmmaker] takes us to a village in the Philippines where nearly every adult male sports a nephrectomy (kidney removal operation) scar. Through candid interviews, we learn how badly these people (in places around the globe) are counting on continued demand for the only moderately valuable assets they possess  pieces of their own bodies.   Both the above-quoted excerpt and an HBO page about the film reference a classic urban legend in which an unwitting individual is incapacitated and robbed of a kidney by black market organ traders. HBO urban legend Although individuals attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally often face genuine and serious dangers, coerced organ donation is not documented among those risks. dangers Last updated:  13July 2015 Originally published: 13July 2015
In October 2016 Republican candidate Donald Trump came under fire after the release of a decade-old tape capturing him making lewd comments, followed by multiple women coming forward to claim that Trump had groped them.  Shortly afterwards, an image containing allegations about incidents of Trump's having sexually abused women circulated via social media: image   The first claim held that in 1989 Donald Trump's first ex-wife, Ivana, swore under oath in a deposition that he had violently raped her and that somehow that information wasn't brought to light during the comprehensive mudslinging that engulfed the extremely heated 2016 election. But a simple online search shows quite clearly that numerous articles published from the summer of 2015 onwards made frequent reference to Ivana Trump's purported statement:     The allegation largely stemmed from a 1993 book about Trump titled Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump by Harry Hurt III, as detailed by the New Yorker: detailed The part of the book that caused the most controversy concerns Trumps divorce from his first wife, Ivana. Hurt obtained a copy of her sworn divorce deposition, from 1990, in which she stated that, the previous year, her husband had raped her in a fit of rage. In Hurts account, Trump was furious that a scalp reduction operation hed undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation, Hurt wrote, Trump yanked out a handful of his wifes hair, and then forced himself on her sexually. Afterward, according to the book, she spent the night locked in a bedroom, crying; in the morning, Trump asked her, with menacing casualness, Does it hurt? Trump has denied both the rape allegation and the suggestion that he had a scalp-reduction procedure. Hurt said that the incident, which is detailed in Ivanas deposition, was confirmed by two of her friends. Hurt held on to his copy of Ivanas sealed deposition for years. It was sworn testimony, he said. But eventually, when he was cleaning house during his own divorce, he said, I threw it all out. He went on, The larger tragedy is that Trump might be elected President of the United States. I never imagined in my wildest nightmares that it would come to this. Before Hurts book came out, Trumps lawyers pressured the publisher, W. W. Norton, to paste a clarifying statement from Ivana into the flyleaf of every copy. In it, she confirmed that she had said in a deposition that her husband had raped her, but added that she did not want those words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense. She also said, As a woman, I felt violated. Hurt said that he considers the note a non-denial denial, and believes that Ivana agreed to amend her words in order to secure the divorce settlement, in which she reportedly received fourteen million dollars in cash. When the rape story resurfaced [in 2015], Ivana issued a statement saying that it was without merit. She and Donald have raised three kids together. Theyre picking their bedrooms in the White House, Hurt said. But shes not saying its untrue, or that she didnt swear to it under oath.  As described, the book was appended with a statement from Ivana Trump disavowing that she intended to use the word "rape" in its commonly understood manner (i.e., forcible sex without consent): statement During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me. I wish to say that on one occasion during 1989, Mr Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness which he normally exhibited toward me, was absent. I referred to this as a 'rape,' but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense. Any contrary conclusion would be an incorrect and most unfortunate interpretation of my statement which I do not want to be interpreted in a speculative fashion and I do not want the press or media to misconstrue any of the facts set forth above. All I wish is for this matter to be put to rest. Ivana's statement, according to a Notice to the Reader in the book, does not contradict or invalidate any information contained in this book. The second allegation in the image was less well known and likely new to many social media users, holding that Trump Model Management (New York City modeling agency) was "caught trafficking young girls and hiding them in basements"  something that likely would have been quite newsworthy, given that human trafficking is an extremely serious crime. This claim originated with a 30 August 2016 Mother Jones article that notably had nothing to do with any allegations that Donald Trump or his modeling agency had engaged in human trafficking. article Instead, the Mother Jones article presented a case that Trump's anti-immigration position was hypocritical due to Trump Model Management's purported illegal employment of non-American models. Many of the article's details involved uncompensated work, a grayer legal area and a circumstance not uncommon among hopefuls trying to get a break in the highly competitive field of modeling. The article included comment from Canadian former model Rachel Blais and two unnamed women who claimed they worked for Trump Model Management around the mid-2000s and experienced illegal and/or unethical business practices. Although the details of the article were not flattering to Trump or his agency if accurate, asserting that the article accused Trump or his agents of "trafficking young women and hiding them in basements" is a gross exaggeration. The word "basement" appeared a single time in the article and was not mentioned as a place young female models were held against their will but simply as an example of cramped and pricey "model's quarters" (of a type not exclusive to Trump's modeling agency). The image reproduced above elided the article's description of the unpleasant living arrangements as an unfortunate but not uncommon aspect of the industry that is too often foisted upon aspiring models by agencies: [Along with one named woman, t]wo other former Trump models  who requested anonymity to speak freely about their experiences, and who we are giving the pseudonyms Anna and Kate  said the agency never obtained work visas on their behalf, even as they performed modeling assignments in the United States ... Each of the three former Trump models said she arrived in New York with dreams of making it big in one of the world's most competitive fashion markets. But without work visas, they lived in constant fear of getting caught ... According to three immigration lawyers consulted by Mother Jones, even unpaid employment is against the law for foreign nationals who do not have a work visa. "If the US company is benefiting from that person, that's work," explained Anastasia Tonello, global head of the US immigration team at Laura Devine Attorneys in New York. These rules for immigrants are in place to "protect them from being exploited," she said. "That US company shouldn't be making money off you." Two of the former Trump models said Trump's agency encouraged them to deceive customs officials about why they were visiting the United States and told them to lie on customs forms about where they intended to live. Anna said she received a specific instruction from a Trump agency representative: "If they ask you any questions, you're just here for meetings." Fashion industry sources say that skirting immigration law in the manner that the three former Trump models described was once commonplace in the modeling world ... Kate, who worked for Trump Model Management in 2004, marveled at how her former boss has recently branded himself as an anti-illegal-immigration crusader on the campaign trail. "He doesn't want to let anyone into the US anymore," she said. "Meanwhile, behind everyone's back, he's bringing in all of these girls from all over the world and they're working illegally." Models' apartments, as they're known in the industry, are dormitory-style quarters where agencies pack their talent into bunks, in some cases charging the models sky-high rent and pocketing a profit. According to the three former models, Trump Model Management housed its models in a two-floor, three-bedroom apartment in the East Village, near Tompkins Square Park. Mother Jones is withholding the address of the building, which is known in the neighborhood for its model tenants, to protect the privacy of the current residents. When Blais lived in the apartment, she recalled, a Trump agency representative who served as a chaperone had a bedroom to herself on the ground floor of the building. A narrow flight of stairs led down to the basement, where the models lived in two small bedrooms that were crammed with bunk beds  two in one room, three in the other. An additional mattress was located in a common area near the stairs. At times, the apartment could be occupied by 11 or more people. The third and final claim in the meme was perhaps the most widely-reported of all the three things that no one was supposedly talking about. It pertained to a twice-filed civil (not criminal) lawsuit against Donald Trump brought by a woman using the alias "Katie Johnson" who claimed that Trump "sexually and physically" abused her at parties hosted by billionaire Jeffrey Epstein when she was 13 years old and then threatened her to ensure her silence: abused I traveled by bus to New York City in June 1994 in the hope of starting a modeling career. I went to several modeling agencies but was told that I needed to put together a modeling portfolio before I would be considered. I then went to the Port Authority in New York City to start to make my way back home. There I met a woman who introduced herself to me as Tiffany. She told me about the parties and said that, if I would join her at the parties, I would be introduced to people who could get me into the modeling profession. Tiffany also told me I would be paid for attending. The parties were held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Each of the parties had other minor females and a number of guests of Mr. Epstein, including Defendant Donald Trump at four of the parties I attended. I understood that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein knew I was 13 years old. Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at four different parties in the summer of 1994. On the fourth and fnial sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me. During the course of this savage sexual attack, I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but he did not. Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted, Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump's sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I wold be physically harmed if not killed. As our article on the lawsuit notes, "Katie Johnson" has not been identified or interviewed, and she has not provided any information or evidence outside of her court filing.  Donald Trump hasn't been afforded any opportunity to confront his accuser or the evidence against him in court, and the case may never get that far.    article The original poster of the image stated that after "the 2005 video of Donald Trump was released" she wished just to "add fuel to the fire on how disgusting he is" by highlighting things the public allegedly had ignored about the candidate's history. But two of the three claims about Trump that the public or the news media "are not going to talk about" have in fact received widespread media attention, and the third was contorted to the point of being unrecognizable when compared to the source material from which it was derived. stated Biddle, Sam.  "The Time Donald Trump's Ex-Wife Accused Him of Brutally Raping Her."
  Gawker.   30 July 2015. Ericksen, Brittany and Ilse Knecht.  "Statutes of Limitations for Sexual Assault: A State-by-State Comparison."
  The National Center for Victims of Crime.  21 August 2013. Osborne, Samuel.  "Donald Trump's Ex-Wife's Claim He 'Raped' Her Resurfaces in New Documentary."
  The Independent.  27 January 2016. West, James.  "Former Models for Donald Trump's Agency Say They Violated Immigration Rules and Worked Illegally."
  Mother Jones.  30 August 2016. Mayer, Jane.  "Documenting Trump's Abuse of Women."
  The New Yorker.  24 October 2016. Picking a favorite holiday is almost like picking a favorite child, but PolitiFact Ohio admits to particular fondness for the Fourth of July.We enjoy the invocations of history, especially when they're factually accurate. We like the annual cookout with old friends. And we love fireworks.So we were especially interested to read a newspaper commentary by Bill Weimer, vice president of Youngstown-based Phantom Fireworks, the nations largest retailer of consumer fireworks.Fireworks have never been safer, and their use continues to increase each year, he wrote. This alone provides a strong case for the regulated and sensible use of consumer fireworks.Really? Safer than ever?In 1994, Weimer said, the United States imported 117 million pounds of fireworks, and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported 12,500 fireworks-related injuries. By 2010,  fireworks imports grew more than 75 percent to 205.9 million pounds, but the number of fireworks-related injuries dropped by more than 30 percent to 8,600.This is phenomenal progress in safety, Weimer wrote, calling on Ohio's General Assembly to relax state laws and legalize consumer fireworks.PolitiFact Ohio looked at the law and checked the numbers.Ohio law, which now permits the use of only novelty and trick fireworks, is among the more restrictive nationally. Three other states have similar laws, and four ban all consumer fireworks. Forty-one states and Washington, D.C., allow some or all types of consumer fireworks permitted by federal regulations, according to the American Pyrotechnics Association.We found that Weimer's numbers, as reported by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the American Pyrotechnics Association, a trade group, are accurate.The same day Weimers column was published, the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission, which set standards for consumer fireworks in 1976, issued its annual fireworks report last week. It confirmed the injury number Weimer used -- 8,600 for 2010.CPSC spokeswoman Nikki Fleming said the injury rate as measured by injuries per 100,000 persons has leveled off.The Massachusetts-based National Fire Protection Association takes the position that using consumer fireworks is simply not worth the risk, division manager Guy Colonna said.We don't seem to be trending that rapidly toward zero, he said of the injury numbers. Youhaven't moved the needle so much in terms of saying it's safe for consumers to use.The NFPA -- which coordinates the national Alliance to Stop Consumer Fireworks -- said in its annual report in June that there are more fires on a typical July 4th than any other day of the year, and that fireworks account for 40 percent.Colonna acknowledged statistics showing that the rate of injury per 100,000 pounds of imported fireworks has declined, but said it is still a significant number.The American Pyrotechnics Association, a trade group, cites the latter statistic. It shows that the rate of injuries dropped from 38 per 100,000 pounds of fireworks in 1976 to 7 in 2000 and to 4 per 100,000 pounds of fireworks in 2010.The trade group considers that significant because U.S. fireworks consumption has skyrocketed. It more than doubled between 2000, when the trade group says the trend in relaxing (state) consumer fireworks laws was first initiated, and 2011, when 212 million pounds were sold.The trade group credits safety education efforts and the ever improving quality of its products. It says that injuries and fires most typically result from illegal fireworks and from improper use, especially involving children.But does that mean that fireworks themselves are safer?We asked Weimer what he had to support his statement. He immediately credited the work of the CPSC and the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory.In the 1970s, the CPSC set federal requirements for consumer fireworks that cover cautionary labeling, the burn time of fuses, explosive powder content, stability for both ground-based and aerial devices and proper performance.In 1988, the CPSC started an inspection and enforcement program for Chinese-manufactured fireworks. China -- which now supplies 98 percent of the fireworks in the United States -- began exporting fireworks to this country in 1973.Initially, 75 percent of fireworks tested  by the CPSC failed to comply with the regulations.The quality truly wasn't very good, Weimer said. The quality was inconsistent. The industry knew that if it didn't so something there would be big issues.Working with the CPSC, importers established the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory to set additional, stricter requirements for consumer fireworks. The AFSL went to factories in China, conducted seminars, worked with manufacturers and started a testing program in China in 1994.The linchpin of the system is the testing, Weimer said.The testing is conducted by an independent laboratory hired from outside China by the AFSL. Each fireworks shipment is tested for compliance with 15 quality standards, Weimer said. If any standard is not met by any of the randomly selected cases, the entire case lot fails.In the program's first year, 1994, 36 percent of the random lots of tested fireworks were rejected. By 2002, that number was less than 10 percent. The compliance rate exceeded 90 percent.CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, speaking at a symposium in China last January, noted that the agency has been working for years with manufacturers and with China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.While AQSIQ and CPSC may work to improve product safety with somewhat different motivations, everyone benefits from the end result, which is improved product safety, she said, adding that we have increased the frequency, scope, and depth of our training in China.Weimer thinks that the availability of regulated consumer fireworks diminishes the use of the really lethal illegal and homemade variety.So what's the grand finale?PolitiFact Ohio is not ruling on the advisability of maintaining, relaxing or tightening Ohio laws regulating fireworks. And were not taking a position on whether consumer use of fireworks is even a good idea.Weimers statement addressed legal and proper use of fireworks by consumers -- not use of homemade or illegal products. And fireworks are -- as Weimer told us -- a product with risk associated with it.But, the statistical record shows that the rate of injury from fireworks declined nationally while their use increased dramatically, and while laws governing their consumer use loosened. There still are injuries, but the annual rate has plateaued even while consumption continues to grow.We found no stronger explanation than the concurrent regulatory and policing work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory to make fireworks safer.Weimers claim is accurate. On the Truth-O-Meter it rates True. On 18 July 2016 the web site Conservative Daily Post published an article reporting that an "illegal alien" had been fired after she declined to serve police officers at an Alabama McDonald's, declaring that we dont serve pigs. article The outrage-provoking article was set against the backdrop of a month of tensions between police officers and community members in July 2016. The shooting deaths of civilians Alton Sterling and Philando Castile led to national protests, and police officers were killed in ambush shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Alton Sterling Philando Castile Dallas Baton Rouge In that period, several rumors of police officers "shunned" or mistreated at restaurants circulated online. A group of policemen in Pennsylvania said they paid the bill of a couple who refused to sit near them, a sheriff in Washington reported that a Chinese restaurant's owners had said law enforcement was not welcome there, and officers in Baton Rouge maintained that a server at Las Palmas restaurant had put mucus in their drinks.  Pennsylvania reported Las Palmas After those claims became virally popular, Conservative Daily Post asserted: Its pretty sad to look around and see how police officers are being treated right now. They put their lives on the line every single day to defend our freedoms within the local community. We are more than thankful for our military, yet we fail to recognize the very people that keep us safe in our homes at night. Police officers dont get paid a lot either. They knowingly walk into possible gunfights almost every day. They do it because they heard the call to serve. They do it because they are true American patriots. Well, there was just another case of disrespect against cops. In Alabama, last week a cashier decided that she didnt want to serve the cops. Maria Englesia pictured above told the officers to get out of here because they didnt serve pigs. This was blatant. McDonalds stepped in as soon as they heard what happened. They immediately fired the woman and issued a formal apology to the police department of Alabama. Social media users accepted that report at face value: @McDonalds #Illegal Alien Denied Cops Service, We Dont Serve Pigs https://t.co/5n3esRSePy #BoycottMcDonalds @McDonalds #Illegal https://t.co/5n3esRSePy #BoycottMcDonalds  Jan Johnson (@JanJohnsonFL) July 18, 2016 July 18, 2016  Illegal Alien McDonald's clerk tells police: "We don't serve your kind" Get the fuck out of my country, you bitch!! https://t.co/3HGU4ml3ow  obamasucksballs (@obamasucksballs) July 19, 2016 https://t.co/3HGU4ml3ow July 19, 2016  Conservative Daily Post claimed McDonald's had fired the employee and apologized, but no mention of any such controversy (by the company or by commenters) was visible on the hamburger chain's Twitter account, nor on McDonald's Facebook page save for one cryptic comment: Twitter  Aside from the single comment, no one appeared to be asking about any incidents involving a Maria Englesia in Alabama.  Had the story been genuine, it would have generated news coverage from other outlets.  Conservative Daily Post's article also waved another very large red flag:  The image doesn't depict a "Maria Englesia" or anyone else recently fired from any McDonald's, anywhere, for any reason. It's a stock photograph dating to at least 2012:  Conservative Daily News doesn't carry any sort of warning or disclaimer advising readers about hosting fabricated content, but this story was clearly untrue. No public apology was tendered by McDonald's over an employee's purported refusal to serve Alabama cops, no news outlets or blogs reported on the incident, and the image of the woman "pictured above" was a stock photograph swiped from Getty. Claim:   Wisconsin has passed a bill banning poor people from purchasing shellfish, potatoes, and ketchup.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2015] Is this true?  Origins:  Recents months have seen efforts by lawmakers in several states to limit what recipients of food stamps and other forms of public assistance may purchase with those benefits.  For example, a member of the Missouri legislature introduced a bill that would bar recipients of supplemental nutrition assistance programs (SNAP) from using their benefits to purchase cookies, chips, energy drinks, seafood or steak. And Kansas passed a law prohibiting recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds from spending those monies on a variety of goods and services: Missouri Kansas   Similarly, in May 2015, the Wisconsin State Assembly passed a bill (Assembly Bill 177) that would require those who receive food stamps to spend at least two-thirds of their benefits on foodstuffs designated by the state as nutritional items. The list of allowed nutritional items includes meat, fish, fresh produce, and white potatoes, but specifically excludes food stamps from being used for purchases of crab, lobster, shrimp, or any other shellfish: bill   The larger list of allowed foodstuffs excludes such items as white potatoes, nuts, cranberry sauce, popsicles, spaghetti sauce, soup, ketchup, pickles, baked beans, flavored peanut butter, flavored milk, and brown eggs. foodstuffs Contrary to various inaccurate headlines, however, the proposed law (if fully passed and enacted as law) would not "ban" food stamp recipients from purchasing these food items; rather, it would restrict them from spending more than one-third of their SNAP benefits on such foodstuffs.  It's also unlikely the bill will be codified as law, as it would require a federal waiver that no state has ever received: headlines  No state has received such a waiver, but Rep. Brooks said he believes his bill is less restrictive than some proposed in other states and has a better chance of being implemented.   Proponents of the bill argue that it would promote healthier eating habits which would benefit both food stamp recipients and taxpayers:  They argue that limiting the purchase of junk food promotes healthy eating, reduces unspecified "abuses" and benefits society in the long run. "There is a direct financial benefit not just to the individual, which of course is obvious to have better health, but also to state taxpayers and society as a whole," said Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.   Oppoents, however, contend that the bill would neither promote healthier eating nor reduce fraud:  "It's a restriction that's designed just to make the lives of those that are already struggling that much harder," said Rep. Lisa Subeck. "And instead, we should be focusing not on the foods people buy but on putting people to work by creating jobs that get people off of FoodShare." To illustrate Democrats' opposition, Rep. Evan Goyke held a platter of four Wisconsin cheeses. All four were cheddar. One was shredded and three were in block form. Three displayed flags that said "GOP Prohibited." One flag said "GOP Approved." The approved cheese was a block of mild cheddar. Two sharp cheddars  one shredded and one block  were not approved. One mild cheddar was not approved because it was too large, Goyke said. "The stated goals of this bill are nutrition and fraud," said Rep. Mark Spreitzer. "When you look at something like this cheese plate, there's no evidence of sharp cheddar fraud. People are not buying sharp cheddar in order to defraud FoodShare, and there's no nutritional difference. So if those are the stated goals, the bill is not accomplishing either."   Last updated:  16 May 2015 On 23 December 2015, the conspiracy theory web siteMysterious Universepublished a photo purportedly showing an ancient clay tablet resembling a cellphone which was dug up by archaeologists "earlier this year" in Austria: published   While Mysterious Universefailed to provide the details you'd expect from a possibly world-changing dig,such as the names of the archaeologists, secondary photos of the tablet, comments from the team, the object's dimensions, etc., the web site did manage to add some wild speculation about the object: A controversial theory proposed by author Zecharia Sitchin is that aliens known as the Anunnaki came from Nibiru (the rumored Planet X beyond Neptune) and created the Sumerian civilization. The tablet looks surprisingly like a modern phone, with the 12 keys, a display and a talk button. Could these extraterrestrials have tried to introduce the Sumerians to a phone-like communications device, only to find they werent ready for it and dialed them back to a stylus and clay tablets? While the theory that the this cellphone was created by the alien race Anunnaki from the planet Nibiru in order to introduce the Sumerian civilization to modern technology is interesting, this "alien cellphone" was actually created by a German sculptor and is only a few years old. Karin and Karl Weingrtnerof the Art Replik Studio created the clay tablet in January 2012. While the photo was originally shared with a description similar to the one published byMysterious Universe (Art Replik never mentioned aliens) there are several indications that this post was simply a joke, such as thetitle of the object ("BablyoNokia"), comments on the photogrAPH("Yes, exactly!" in response to "is that my old phone?"), and the fact that the image was watermarked art-replik.com. created shared The "alien phone" was created in jest and was likely used as a marketing tool:   The above-displayed "ancient cellphone" was not discovered by a group of archaeologists in Austria and it was not left behind by aliens. It was created by a German sculptor who specializes in making replicas of ancient art. Despite what online scammers might have you believe, Dr. Mehmet Oz of the former "Dr. Oz" talk show has never endorsed apple cider vinegar (ACV) weight loss gummies or any sort of CBD or keto diet gummies. According to scammy websites where customers can purchase many of these kinds of products, Oz once called keto gummies the "holy grail" of weight loss. However, he never said anything of the sort.  A seemingly countless number of product websites falsely claim that Oz gave his endorsement of weight loss gummies. A few recent examples of the Oz scam appearing on order pages included the product namesRetroFit Keto + ACV Gummies, XtremeFit Keto + ACV Gummies, Optimal Keto + ACV Gummies, Speedy Keto + ACV Gummies, Transform Keto + ACV Gummies, and Ketoviva Keto + ACV Gummies. RetroFit Keto + ACV Gummies XtremeFit Keto + ACV Gummies Optimal Keto + ACV Gummies Speedy Keto + ACV Gummies Transform Keto + ACV Gummies Ketoviva Keto + ACV Gummies While some of the websites for these products have since disappeared, we were able to confirm that they all originally promoted Oz's name. Again, these were just a few recent examples. Going back to 2022, it's possible hundreds of more keto gummy product names falsely mentioned that Oz endorsed them. The websites for these purported weight loss products promised that the candy-like gummies can "melt fat fast without diet or exercise." Always remember with online offers that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.  These websites alsofalsely claimed that CBS News, NBC, CNN, Women's Health, Honolulu Magazine, Woman's World, and theDiabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism Journal all endorsed, reviewed, or mentioned the products. In truth, none of them ever did. Parent company information for many keto diet weight loss gummies products is often hard to find. Phone numbers for customer support, if they haven't been omitted from the websites, route to call centers that greet customers in a general sense without announcing any company names. Most of them simply begin with, "Thank you for calling customer service." We previously asked one of the call center agents to reveal parent company information or anything about the whereabouts of the people behind the gummy websites. The person provided no details. In our research, we found that many customers who received these products at their doorstep and found a charge on their credit card said that they had no recollection of ever ordering them. Other commenters said that, in addition to not remembering ordering the keto gummies, they also found no charge on their credit card. It's possible that this could have occurred because ofcard-skimming scams, when a criminal places a device on top of a credit card reader at a place of business, all to secretly capture the card's sensitive data. card-skimming scams Customers who shared their experiences also said that the return address for these weight loss gummy products that bore Oz's name was a nameless "fulfillment center" with a P.O. Box in Smyrna, Tennessee, or Las Vegas, Nevada. Many others also said that Tampa, Florida, was the city mentioned on their packages. Oz While a package at the door is the last step of some of these scams, the first step oftentimes involves an alluring paid ad. This kind of an ad might appear next to an article on a website or on Facebook or Instagram.  Clicking on the ad leads to the second step: a fake article that scammers designed to fool readers into believing they're reading from Fox News, CNN, ABC, or other big-name news organizations.  While these kinds of fake articles might look like the website for one of those companies, the address bar at the top of the browser reveals the truth  that the user is not, in fact, on cnn.com, for example, but instead on a strange scam website that's simply pretending to be CNN simply by featuring its logo and article page design. Within the fake articles are links to the third step in the scam: the aforementioned product order pages that misleadingly mention Oz's name. On these pages people fill out their credit card information, a move that, apparently unbeknownst to the customers, enrolls them in recurring charges of hundreds of dollars per month. As we've done in the past, we'll continue to provide more reporting about these dangerous and costly scams in the future. in the past Note: In the past, Ozfaced allegations of promoting a "magic weight-loss cure" for "green coffee extract." However, this had nothing to do with weight loss gummies. allegations Gabriel, Trip. "'Magic' Weight-Loss Pills and Covid Cures: Dr. Oz Under the Microscope." The New York Times, 26 Dec. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/26/us/politics/dr-oz-medical-advice.html. Liles, Jordan. "Did Oprah Winfrey Suffer a 'Tragedy' and Endorse Keto Weight Loss Gummies?" Snopes, 12 May 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oprah-winfrey-tragedy-keto-gummies/. ---. "Oprah Winfrey 'Allegations' Facebook Ads Are False, Nor Did She Ever Endorse 'Weight Loss Gummies.'" Snopes, 13 Jan. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/01/13/oprah-winfrey-allegations-weight-loss-gummies/. Smith, Daeshen. "Better Business Bureau Warns Customers to Be Mindful of Card Skimming Schemes." Fox10TV.com, 25 Apr. 2023, https://www.fox10tv.com/2023/04/25/better-business-bureau-warns-customers-be-mindful-card-skimming-schemes/. Gov. Andrew Cuomo thinks you can win money by making a bet with someone on New York States tax rates. Ask people about what the state has done with the rates, and everybodys going to say, raise taxes, because it is inconceivable that a government actually lowers taxes, Cuomo said. At public appearances recently, Cuomotoutedwhat he called the lowest tax rate for the middle class in 70 years. Wager anyone you know and say, Did New York State raise taxes or lower taxes? Cuomo said. New York State haslowered taxesfor everyone in the state and every income level in the state. Taxes are always a top issue for voters. So does the governors claim check out? Are middle-class state residents taxed at the lowest rate in seven decades? Whos in the middle? No official state definition exists for the middle class. But in the scope of todays tax brackets, themiddle class arethose making between about $40,000 to $300,000 a year. Whos included in the middle class has changed over time with the rate of inflation. A salary today of $80,000 is equivalent to a $9,000 salary in 1953. The tax brackets used today are not the same as those used in past decades. In 1946, anyone making more than $9,000 was taxed at a 3.5 percent rate. The next year the rate increased to 4.2 percent. In 1948, the rate jumped to 6.3 percent, and thats the year the Cuomo administration bases its claim. The Department of Tax and Financesays most- if not all - earners in the middle class in 1948 would have paid the top rate. That year the top rate applied to people making about $9,000. That fits what the state has defined as middle class in todays dollars, and the Department of Tax and Finance says thats how the middle class would have been defined in that year. How low? Since 1948, the lowest top tax rate fell to between 6.45 and 6.65 percent for people in the same comparable income bracket. That was in 2014, and remains at that level. Thats higher than the now-scheduled rate for 2025 as part ofthis years resolution. Anyone making between $40,000 and $150,000 will see their income tax rate drop to 5.5 percent by that year. The tax rate will drop to 6 percent for those making between $150,000 and $300,000. But there are caveats. The rates do not factor in tax exemptions or deductions, as pointed out by E.J. McMahon from the Empire Center for Public Policy. The center researches and analyzes the states economy, including the tax law. To some extent, the tax rates for 2025 and 1948 are like apples to oranges, McMahon said. Its much like saying the 2016 Ford Focus has the best headroom since the 1946 Ford Tudor  the two tax codes and the household situations to which they apply are that different, McMahon said. Hewrote recentlythe new rates will be the largest tax cut since the mid-1990s, when lawmakers passed the Taxpayer Relief Act. At the time, the legislation dropped taxes to the lowest rates since 1954. The new tax rates, once fully phased in, will be even lower, according to the Department of Taxation and Finance data. An analysis from the Fiscal Policy Institute confirms Cuomos claim holds true - but like McMahon, the institute points out the income range that defines the middle class looks different today than it did 70 years ago. The 1958 exception The Department of Taxation and Finance, in adifferent report, reveals another interesting historical nugget. Employers were not required by law to withhold tax until 1959. According to the document, because this would have required two years of taxes to be paid in just one year, taxes were canceled for 1958 - meaning the tax rate for that year was zero. Our ruling Governor Andrew M. Cuomo claimed new tax rates passed by lawmakers during this yearsstate budget processare the lowest in the state in 70 years. Data from the Department of Taxation and Finance backs up his claim. Because of an unusual set of circumstances, there was no income tax rate in 1958 as the state implemented a new system. The first year rates will appear lower than the 1948 rates will be in 2019. We rate this claim as Mostly True. In February 2021, Pat Sajak's net worth was the subject of a misleading online advertisement. Sajak is, of course, well known as the host of the game show "Wheel of Fortune" since the early 1980s. The ad claimed "Pat Sajak's Net Worth Left His Family in Tears," and the accompanying picture was one of Sajak captured at a Los Angeles Lakers basketball game in 2018. Another ad display on the same page reported the same about former "Family Matters" actor Jaleel White, who portrayed nosy neighbor Steve Urkel on the sitcom: captured Family Matters Jaleel White,   A second, similar ad stated, "At Age 73, Pat Sajak Leaves Behind a Net Worth That Will Boggle Your Mind," with an accompanying picture that was taken in 2007: taken   However, there's no indication that Pat Sajak's net worth has left anyone in tears or with a "boggled" mind. Furthermore, the "Wheel of Fortune" game show host was still alive at the time these advertisements appeared.   Pat Sajak was not the first celebrity to be the subject of a misleading net worth advertisement. In fact, he wasn't even the first game show host to be featured in one of the "net worth left his family in tears" ads. We previously reported on a similar story for the late "Jeopardy" game show host Alex Trebek. Alex Trebek Other celebrities whose names and likenesses have been used in such misleading ads include Pierce Brosnan, Chuck Norris, Richard Gere, Clint Eastwood, and Sean Connery. Trebek and Connery both died in 2020, but the claims about their net worths leaving their families "in tears" was nothing more than a ploy by advertisers. Pierce Brosnan Chuck Norris Richard Gere Clint Eastwood Sean Connery Readers who clicked the net worth ads for Pat Sajak were led to a 233-page slideshow article in which Sajak didn't appear until page 94: page 94 PAT SAJAK  EST. $65 MILLION Television personality and talk show host Pat Sajak was born on October 26, 1946, in Chicago. When serving in the U.S. Army, he also hosted a musical show on American Forces Radio during the Vietnam War. After the war, Sajak anchored the five-minute newscast and a substitute weatherman at NBC. Many know him now as the host of the longtime running television game show "Wheel of Fortune." Pat Sajak is reportedly worth $65 million. Interestingly enough, Sajak shared that he grew up practically dirt poor with his parents, who eventually separated when he was young, being unable to afford even the most trivial items. He started as a DJ, and soon enough, ended up as a weatherman for KNBC-TV. In 1981, he was invited to host the television game show "Wheel of Fortune," and Sajak, to his credit, has been hosting it ever since. There has been no shortage of these strange net worth advertisements online. It's likely the misleading ads will continue to be displayed for other celebrities in the future  dead or alive. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Fans of former president Barack Obama -- or at least critics who like seeing current President Donald Trump get roasted online -- might have gotten their hopes up at what appeared to be a Twitter jab aimed at Trump by his predecessor. But the truth is, the tweet was manufactured. On 1 August 2018, an image began circulating online designed to look like it issued from Obama's Twitter account, with wording that read, "What type of ID do we need to buy groceries I'm at the store and all I have on me is my birth certificate":   Actually, Barack Obama only posted two tweets that day  one of them listed the Democratic Party candidates he was endorsing in the 2018 midterm elections, and the other promoted those candidates: listed other I'm confident that, together, they'll strengthen this country we love by restoring opportunity, repairing our alliances and standing in the world, and upholding our fundamental commitment to justice, fairness, responsibility, and the rule of law. But first, they need our votes. The fake tweet contained two barbs aimed at the current president. It made light of Trump's already widely-derided argument for voter identification cards offered during a 31 July 2018 speech, when the President said, "If you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID. You go out, you want to buy anything, you need ID, you need your picture." widely-derided  In reality, shoppers only need to produce identification when purchasing age-restricted items such as cigarettes or alcohol, or picking up prescriptions from grocery stores that include pharmacies. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said a day later that Trump was referring to alcohol purchases when he made the remark. said The "birth certificate" reference in the fake Obama tweet was also a callback to Trump's longtime promotion of the "birther" conspiracy theory, which claimed that Obama was not born in the U.S. and consequently ineligible to be president.  In 2011, Trump claimed credit for the fact that Obama released his long-form birth certificate. But unidentified advisers reportedly said in 2017 that even after being elected president, Trump "used closed-door conversations to question the authenticity" of his predecessor's birth certificate. claimed released reportedly Snider, Mike.  "ID for Groceries? Trump Trolled on Twitter for His Shopping Comment at Florida Rally."
  USA Today.  2 August 2018. Levy, Pema.  "Sanders Defends Trump on Needing an ID to Buy Groceries."
  Mother Jones.  1 August 2018. Scherer, Michael.  "Birtherism Is Dead, But the Birther Industry Continues."
nbsp;  TIME.  27 April 2011. Haberman, Maggie and Jonathan Martin.  "Trump Once Said the 'Access Hollywood' Tape Was Real. Now He's Not Sure."
  The New York Times.  28 November 2017. Claim:  Letter from Judge David Kithil provides accurate line item criticisms of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements. We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program? Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs. I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." Other problems I have with this bill include: Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future." Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas.  Origins:  A number of similar pieces presenting lists of line item criticisms of a pending health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) began circulating on the Internet in mid-2009, and they continue to circulate widely three years later as arguments to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare." The versions of this item that continue to be spread via e-mail forwards and online postings are wrong in nearly every particular, however:  Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued Peter Fleckenstein the list as a series of Tweets and posted it to his blog in July 2009.  The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress.  A   completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare."  Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan). H.R. 3200 H.R. 3590  Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous, as detailed below:    The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. This is false.  The PPACA, as enacted, doesn't "provide insurance" to anyone  it institutes some regulations on the insurance industry to make medical insurance more broadly available and affordable to Americans, and it requires that Americans enroll in PPACA-qualified medical plans or pay a penalty, but everyone is still responsible for obtaining (and paying for) their own insurance coverage.   Moreover, the section of the unpassed HB 3200 bill referenced in the above statement is 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE, which simply states that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."  It doesn't explicity grant or authorize government funds for providing illegal immigrants with health care or health insurance, and another section of the bill specifically states that  "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."  The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. This is false. The section of HB 3200 referenced here does nothing more than attempt to provide a framework for simplifying the use of electronic payments for health services, emulating the way that many consumers currently use to make a variety of other payments (e.g., utilities, mortgages, credit card balances).   The bill simply calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice."  Nothing in this section grants the government "real-time access to an individual's bank account" or the "authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts."  The bill doesn't even require that consumers use an electronic payment system  it simply seeks to make that an option for those who want to use it.   The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). This statement is misleading, as the section of HB 3200 referenced here is SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES, which addresses "retirees and ... spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees" who are covered by "employment-based [health benefit] plans."  It does not specifically provide for subsidizing health insurance for "all union members, union retirees and community organizations"; it sets up a new federal reinsurance plan for any retirees and their spouses who are covered by any employer plan, not just those who are covered under plans run by unions or community groups.  The reinsurance would be available to any "group health benefits plan that ... is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations."  The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) This statement misleadingly tries to make HB 3200 sound ridiculous by deliberately eliding the end of the statement it quotes.  What the bill actually says is that"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."  Section 55 is a reference to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the purpose of this portion of the bill is to mitigate the effects that new health care-related taxes would have on persons making over $350,000 a year.   Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. This is false. The section of the bill referenced here is an updating of the physician fee schedule for Medicare services, which neither states that "all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty" nor that the "government will set all doctors' fees."  All this section does is slightly revise the formula used for determining how much doctors are reimbursed for providing Medicare services, depending upon which of two categories those services fall under.   Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. This is false. The section referenced here is one which does nothing more than call for a study to determine whether certain classes of hospitals incur higher costs than other hospitals for the cancer-related care they deliver, with the aim of providing "an appropriate adjustment [in payments] "to reflect those higher costs." This section in no way "rations care" provided by "cancer hospitals" based on a patient's age (or any other factor); it simply seeks to pay some hospitals more to compensate for their higher costs in treating cancer patients.  The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. This is false. As noted by FactCheck, forbids hospital expansion "only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban."   The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. This is false. This statement references a much-distorted portion of the bill that would allow for Medicare to cover voluntary counseling sessions for seniors with their doctors to discuss aspects of end-of-life care such as hospice care, DNR orders, life-sustaining treatments, living wills, and the like (a form of counseling not previously covered by Medicare).  Nothing about such counseling sessions would be mandatory, for Social Security recipients or anyone else.   The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. This is false. The bill does not "specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order."  It merely defines an "end-of-life order" (i.e., an order for life-sustaining treatment) as a document "signed and dated by a physician [that] effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment."  It is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. This is false. HB 3200 did not contain a provision stating that it would "not apply to members of Congress."  The bill likely would have had little or no effect on members of Congress because they belong to a class of federal worker who have the benefit of choosing from a variety of subsidized insurance plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the same requirements for obtaining and having health insurance would have applied to them just as much to other citizens.  The version of the PPACA that was actually passed did indeed require lawmakers to give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created.  Variations:  A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76.  This claim is covered in a separate article on this site: separate PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be readby everyone, especially important to those over 75.......If you areyounger, then it applies to your parents. Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. Youmust be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to payfor it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated asoutpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tipof the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 &2014! Age 76 Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have beengetting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out theneedle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got veryquiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that myinsurance takes care of it. She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr.about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but theyhad tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn manythings away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. Shewas brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old", I am sovery sorry!! Please for the sake of many good people ... be informed please.YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS. Last updated:  11 March 2014