Does Pic Show an Early 1900s Charging Station for Electric Buses?
A photo often shared on social media purportedly shows an electric bus driving into a "charging and power station" in the early 1900s. shared  The picture shows an authentic bus charging station operated by the London Electrobus Company during that company's short existence between 1906 and 1909. A version of this photo appears in the Getty Images archives. version As reported by The Economist in 2007, these charging stations were not plug-in stations as we know them today, but instead were facilities in which old batteries were swapped for fresh ones: reported The electrobus needed 1.5 tonnes of lead-acid batteries to carry its 34 passengers. It could travel 60km (38 miles) on one charge. So at lunchtime the buses went to a garage in Victoria and drove up a ramp. The batteries, slung under the electrobus, were lowered onto a trolley and replaced with fresh ones. It all took three minutes.  An ad for the company indicated that they had two charging and power stations for electric buses located at 1 Earl Street and 45 Horseferry Road in London. Here is another close-up photo of one such "electrobus" from 1907: An ad  By several reports, the buses were a hit, thanks to their reduced noise and smoother ride. In debuting their first bus in 1906, the directors of the company said that they "confidently anticipate that the petrol omnibus, young as it is, will shortly be an obsolete vehicle, so far as urban traffic is concerned." reports said It was not to be. The company was beset by allegations of fraud during its effort to go public on the London Stock Exchange in 1908. As described in The Economist, the company had been duped by a team of con artists: described The firm was buying rights to a patent for 20,000 (7.5m, or $15m, in today's money) from the Baron de Martigny. But the patent was old and had nothing to do with battery buses. It was a scam. Investors asked for their money back, and the firm had to return 80,000. The investors would have been even less impressed had they known the true identity of the "Baron", who was a Canadian music-hall artist. Martigny was only the front man. The mastermind behind this and a clutch of subsequent scams was Edward Lehwess, a German lawyer and serial con-artist with a taste for fast cars and expensive champagne. After this initial fiasco, the London Electrobus Company struggled to raise money. But Lehwess had set up a network of front companies to siphon off its funds. Chief among these was the Electric Vehicle Company of West Norwood, which built the buses. The company collapsed entirely in 1909. Because, however, the photo is in several archives and the buses and their charging stations are documented in newspaper accounts from that time, the claim is  "Electrobus Makes Debut on Streets of London." The San Francisco Call, 27 May 1906, p. 19. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/120381891/electrobus-makes-debut-on-streets-of/. "How Crooks Stalled the Rise of Electric Cars for 100 Years." New Scientist, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531420-600-how-crooks-stalled-the-rise-of-electric-cars-for-100-years/. Accessed 7 Mar. 2023. "The London Electrobus Company Limited." The Guardian, 27 Apr. 1908, p. 9. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/120388804/london-electrobus-1908/. "What Is This That Roareth Thus?" The Economist, https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2007/09/08/what-is-this-that-roareth-thus. Accessed 7 Mar. 2023.
Liberal comedian Bill Maher made an out-of-this-world comparison to poke a hole in the Republican argument that the estate tax threatens the livelihoods of family farmers. Of 5,000 Americans who paid the estate tax in 2013, 20 farmers paid it, Maher said on his April 17, 2015, show. Twenty-four Americans have been to the moon. More astronauts have been to the moon than farmers who paid the inheritance tax in 2013. There obviously is no relation between the number of farmers paying the estate tax and the number of Americans who went to the moon, but as a point of trivia, Mahers claim is an intriguing one. A reader asked us to do the magic that you do, which is determining whether Mahers point is accurate. One small step for fact-checkers ... Caveat No 1: Maher is using the number of astronauts who have been to the vicinity of the moon, not just the number of moonwalkers. Twelve Americans have walked the moons surface over six Apollo missions, starting with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planting an American flag in 1969. (If youre not sure about whether the lunar landing really happened, you wont like this fact-check, but you may enjoy these bona fidemoon misconceptions.) Add another 12 American astronauts who orbited the moon but did not walk on it, and you get  24. NASA chief historian William Barry said the 24 Americans is a solid figure in that it doesnt double count Americans who made more than one lunar trip. There were several astronauts who flew to the Moon and orbited it on one mission and then were lucky enough to go back and land on it on a later mission, Barry said. Jim Lovell, for instance, made two trips to the moon in Apollo 8 and Apollo 13, but he never walked on it. (In this Smithsonian picture, Lovell and his crew emerge from the U.S.S. Iwo Jima after landing the spacecraftApollo 13in the South Pacific.) One giant leap for the truth What Maher calls the inheritance tax and what Republicans call the death tax is more accurately described as the estate tax. Some wealthy families face this tax when they pass on assets (cash, land, homes, stocks, etc.) to heirs after death. Most estates do not owe estate taxes. It affects about 5,500 Americans whose estates exceed the exemption limit of$5.43 million per person. If the estate is worth more than that, an heir could pay a tax rate up to 40 percent on the value of the estate above that limit. Even though it doesnt affect all that many people, it brings in big bucks for the government. Repealing it would cost about $270 billion over the next decade, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. In the week ahead of Mahers April 17 show, House Republicans approveda planto eliminate the estate tax, saying it can prove devastating to families  forcing them to sell land, lay off workers, and even shut down entirely. So did this tax really affect just 20 farmers in 2013, as Maher said? The number comes from an estimate by the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. Tax Policy Center economists wanted to get an idea of how the tax would affect estates, including those with farm and business assets, in 2013. All of their numbers are estimates based on the centersestate tax model. They defined family farms and businesses as estates having farm or business assets less than $5 million and half of the estate. These farms and businesses had taxable returns and total assets between $5 million and up $10 million. Its a definition that hones in on small farms and business  the most relevant in responding to the myth that many small farms and small businesses must be liquidated to pay estate tax, said Brandon DeBot, a research assistant at the federal fiscal policy division of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Using the Tax Policy Centers model, an estimated 20 small farms and small businesses would have had to pay the estate tax in 2013, amounting to a total of $6.9 million of tax with an average tax rate of 4.9 percent. So thats not just small farms, its small farmsandsmall businesses, which might not be a farm. Caveat No. 2: The number of farms and businesses is probably not exactly 20, as it is an estimate rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. That means the number is anywhere from 16-24. Caveat No. 3: Maher talked about family farmers, addressing the Republican argument about the plight of farmers who could lose their livelihood because of the estate tax. But family farms can be big farms, and thats where things get more complicated. Maher set up his comparison by discussing the plight of family farmers, but then later dropped the word family. That one word is important. The Tax Policy Center broadened the scope to include all farm and business estates, regardless of size, with at least half of their value from farm business activity. By that method, 120 farm and business estates would have had to pay the estate tax in 2013, said Roberton Williams, a Tax Policy Center fellow who worked on the model. Alan D. Viard, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who studies federal tax and budget policy, says the the estate tax has a lot of flaws, but the effect on farmers is just not the right grounds to criticize this tax. Mahers point was strong, he said. In 2001, House Republicans voted to repeal the death tax.New York TimesreporterDavid Cay Johnston scoured1999 IRS filings, phoned the American Farm Bureau Federation, and interviewed farmers in effort to find examples of working farmers who lost their farms because of estate taxes. He found none, writing that the reality of who is bitten by the estate tax is different from the mythology, as the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries are the heirs of people who made their fortunes through their businesses and investments in securities and real estate. And in 2001, the estate tax wasmore robust than it is now, with a lower exemption level of $675,000 and a higher top tax rate of 55 percent. It is a small number, bottom line, Williams said. Theyre going to be the exception rather than the rule. Our ruling Maher compared 24 American astronauts who have been to the moon to 20 farmers whom he said were the only ones to pay the estate tax. His count for astronauts who have been to the moon is reasonable, counting both American moonwalkers and those who have flown in its orbit during various Apollo missions. The larger point about only 20 farmers paying the estate tax is a little more complicated. A 2013nonpartisan study found 20 small farmsandsmall businesses faced the estate tax in 2013. Maher referred to family farms in setting up his claim. Saying small farms would have been better. And he dropped family in later references. Experts said Maher generally could have been more careful in his wording, but that his bit of trivia largely checks out, as does his point that the estate tax affectsvery few small farmers. We rate his claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/2edf78cd-008c-408e-ae35-939322661e70 In October 2017, multiple versions of a dubious post titled "Pizza Hut is giving 3 FREE Large Pizza Coupon on their 58th Anniversary" circulated on Facebook. The link lead to suspicious domains including pizzahutfree.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, and massiveoffers.xyz/p/, none of which followed the proper formatting for a pizzahut.com subdomain, which is "link.pizzahut.com." Those who clicked through found a page that looked somewhat legitimate, but showed signs of being a very common survey scam. Users were first asked a series of questions: page very survey scam   The page followed a common scammer template of appropriating Pizza Hut's logo and Facebook's visual interface, but sloppily boasted that entrants had "a chance to get [a] Papa [John's] Coupon." Any interaction with the prompts (again mentioning Papa John's 58th anniversary, not Pizza Hut's) led to a screen encouraging potential victims to spread the scam further on Facebook:   Underneath the "Congratulations" interface was a series of what appeared to be comments from real Facebook users who'd successfully redeemed the purported coupon. All of the profiles featured were for individuals with jobs displayed as "MD, at the Hospital":   Pizza Hut addressed a previous flood of customer queries on their Facebook wall during a similar scam in May 2016: Facebook users continue to regularly encounter survey scams (quite often the "anniversary" version) on the social network. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau advised users how not to fall prey: anniversary article Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card. 
 Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. 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 As COVID-19 vaccines became widely available to Americans in spring 2021, anti-vaccine groups attempted to frame the shots' manufacturers as untrustworthy to try to stop people from getting inoculated. COVID-19 Below is a sample of such claims  all from a single meme  that we fact-checked using reputable sources such as court records, resources distributed by the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the vaccine manufacturers' websites.   All in all, the meme stated facts about companies that have developed COVID-19 vaccines but failed to demonstrate how those histories are relevant to the safety or effectiveness of the manufacturers' solutions for ending the pandemic.   Firstly, in an attempt to persuade people against the two-dose Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the meme alleged the New York-based company faced almost $5 billion in penalties for supposedly breaking laws while manufacturing or distributing unidentified products.  "Pfizer: $4.7 billion in fines for false claims, drug and medical equipment safety violations, off-label promotion, corrupt practices, kickbacks, and bribery," according to the meme. The claim was factually accurate. But its implication  that, because of prior lawsuits, Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccines were potentially unsafe  was unsubstantiated, a conclusion on which we elaborate below. As one of the world's largest pharmaceutical corporations, Pfizer's multiple subsidiaries (which produce a range of drugs, including Advil, the erectile disfunction drug Viagra, and the anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor) indeed faced penalties totaling about $4.7 billion over the years, according to Good Jobs First, a left-leaning watchdog group tracking corporate subsidies. left-leaning Those cases, which originated in jurisdictions nationwide, essentially included the above-listed offenses involving all sorts of products between 2000 and 2019, according to Good Jobs First's database. above-listed offenses For instance, in 2004, the Warner-Lambert company  which Pfizer acquired four years earlier  pleaded guilty to illegally marketing the epilepsy drug Neurontin "even when scientific studies had shown it was not effective," the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a statement. illegally marketing statement Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million, said that it "cooperated fully with the government to resolve this matter," and stressed the alleged violations occurred before Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert. agreed said Then, in 2009, the company paid the largest settlement for health care fraud to date, totaling $2.3 billion, according to the DOJ.  DOJ. In that case, the company's subsidy Pharmacia & Upjohn Company pleaded guilty to promoting a painkiller Bextra "for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns," and paid a $1.3 billion criminal fine, the DOJ said in a statement. Bextra had been taken off the market four years earlier. statement had been taken off Additionally, Pfizer paid $1 billion to resolve civil claims regarding not only Bextra but also the antipsychotic Geodon, the antibiotic Zyvox, and the anti-epileptic drug Lyrica, per the statement. Pfizer denied all of those accusations, aside from acknowledging the improper promotion of Zyvox, Reuters reported at the time. Reuters reported Shortly after reaching the historic settlement, the company's general counsel told reporters that it regretted "certain actions in the past," but was proud of the action it had taken to strengthen its internal oversight. told reporters But here's how the meme misled people: It lacked critical evidence to show how those cases against Pfizer were relevant to COVID-19 vaccines, pictured below.    It also failed to acknowledge that clinical trials have shown the vaccines to be safe and effective. In December 2020, the FDA issued what's called an "Emergency Use Authorization" that deemed a COVID-19 vaccine created by Pfizer and BioNTech, as well as one manufactured by competitor Moderna, safe and effective enough for mass production. December 2020 Emergency Use Authorization BioNTech Moderna The CDC's advisory committee on immunizations also recommended the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, along with Moderna and Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) formulas. (Here's the CDC's explanation for how vaccines like Pfizer's  which uses mRNA technology  attempt to train people's immune systems into producing antibodies that can fight the coronavirus, if necessary.) CDC's advisory committee (Here's the CDC's explanation mRNA technology Early on, clinical trials showed the Pfizer vaccine 95% effective in preventing COVID-19. The company confirmed "high efficacy and no serious safety concerns" after a March 2021 follow-up study. 95% effective confirmed follow-up study Because of those results, the FDA expanded Pfizer's eligible vaccine population to include adolescents between the ages of 12 to 15 in mid-May. Also, at that time, Pfizer and Moderna were seeking the FDA's full, regular authorization for their inoculation formulas. That status, which requires at least six months of patient data, would allow the companies to begin marketing the shots. Pfizer and Moderna  full, regular authorization In other words, if or when the FDA grants the Pfizer vaccine full approval, the company "can advertise on TV and promote their products under the watchful eye of the FDA," former FDA commissioner Dr. Robert Califf told CNBC. told CNBC To conclude our research, we reached out to Pfizer's communication's department with the following questions: No one has answered our inquiry, but we will update this report when, or if, that changes. In sum, we rate the claim regarding Pfizer a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. It was an accurate depiction of the company's alleged violations involving a handful of its numerous drugs over years. However, no evidence connected those offenses with COVID-19 vaccines nor showed Pfizer had made false claims about, or illegally promoted, its vaccine.  Next, in attempt to deny the legitimacy of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, the meme claimed the Massachusetts-based company had tried numerous times to develop vaccines for mass production prior to the pandemic with no success. "Moderna: Has never brought a vaccine to market since its founding, despite fielding 9+ vaccine candidates, none of which made it through phase 3 clinical trials," the meme alleged. Similarly to the Pfizer allegation, the claim was rooted in truth. But the statement failed to explain how it was relevant to Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine, as well as erroneously implied the company's other vaccines did not reach mass distribution solely because of shortcomings in the products themselves, such as their effect on patients or alleged lack of success preventing viral outbreaks. Rather, other barriers  such as a lack of funding for research  also played a role in the pharmaceutical company's vaccine history. In addition to the COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna has developed nine prophylactic immunizations using mRNA technology since its founding in 2010, according to the company's website. The company describes mRNA "like software for the cell" with the potential to fighting many diseases. prophylactic immunizations using mRNA technology company's website like software for the cell In April 2020, before the FDA granted emergency authorization of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine, BioSpace reported: BioSpace reported So far, Moderna has conducted early trials with success on nine vaccine candidates, including respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus (hMPV) and parainfluenza virus (PIV3), influenza H7N9, cytomegalovirus (CMV), Zika, Epstein-Barr, chikungunya. [...] However, the meme was accurate in claiming none of those experimental immunizations (aside from the COVID-19 vaccine) progressed past Phase II clinical trails. That's the stage after researchers test a product on an initial group of people and want to see how it affects a larger sample. (See the FDA's website for more differences between phases of clinical research, and see here for Moderna's process for developing and testing its mRNA vaccines.) test a product clinical research here for Moderna's process for Here's Moderna's visualization of its various vaccines and their development:   But, as you can see, Moderna's Influenza H7N9 vaccine was only advancing "subject to funding," negating the meme's implication that the company halted development solely due to safety concerns or ineffectiveness. Furthermore, Moderna's Cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccine was the first of its kind to enter a Phase II clinical trial, showed "promising" results so far, and was scheduled to progress in 2021, The Medicine Maker reported. Studies on the company's other immunizations remained ongoing, too. Phase II clinical trial The Medicine Maker Similar to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the Moderna shot was 94% effective in preventing recipients from catching the virus. 94% effective Lastly, Snopes contacted representatives of Moderna with the following questions: Pending answers to those questions, we will update this report. In short, the meme factually stated that the COVID-19 vaccine was Moderna's first inoculation to reach mass production. However, it simultaneously implied, without evidence to substantiate the claim, that the company's other vaccines stalled due to their effects on test patients. For those reasons, we rate the claim a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. Much like the meme's claim about Pfizer, its allegation that Johnson & Johnson was "named in hundreds of thousands of lawsuits for toxic and/or dangerous products, including drugs, shampoos, medical equipment, and asbestos-contaminated baby powder" was at least partially accurate at face value. asbestos-contaminated baby powder But the post failed to provide substantial evidence to prove how, or to what extent, that fact was relevant to the safety of the company's COVID-19 vaccine. Let us explain. In fall 2020, Johnson & Johnson indeed paid over $100 million to resolve more than 1,000 lawsuits claiming that the pharmaceutical giant's banned powder and talc products caused cancer due to asbestos contamination, Bloomberg reported. Some 20,000 pending cases made similar accusations. Bloomberg reported Additionally, unrelated lawsuits alleged the company violated medical equipment or drug safety guidelines, among other offenses, according to Good Jobs First, the corporate accountability watchdog. For instance, one investigation concluded the company did not fully disclose the risks of devices to support women's prolapsed pelvic organs, according to The Gaurdian. Good Jobs First The Gaurdian Let us note here: The exact number of lawsuits that named the company for allegedly selling "toxic and/or dangerous products" since its founding was unknown, which meant the meme's reference to "hundreds of thousands" of cases was unsubstantiated. No violation listed in the Good Jobs First database was related to Johnson & Johnson's single-dose COVID-19 vaccine, which the FDA approved months after Pfizer's and Moderna's, in early 2021. approved Instead of using mRNA technology, the J&J shot takes the form of whats called a viral vector to attack one specific part of SARS-CoV-2. AstraZeneca's COVID-19 immunization (which the FDA has not approved, as of this writing, and discuss below) uses that same process. The J&J shot was about 66% effective in preventing COVID-19 from infecting recipients during clinical trials, according to the CDC. AstraZeneca's COVID-19 according to the CDC That said, J&J's immunization was not without controversy. In mid-April, mass vaccination sites in states including Georgia, Colorado, and North Carolina temporarily halted the shot's distribution after a few recipients felt dizzy, light-headed, and faint. The CDC monitored the reports and continued to recommend the shot's use. temporarily halted Then, shortly later, the CDC recommended all vaccine providers nationwide to temporarily halt giving out the J&J shot while health officials investigated a potential blood clotting issue that occurred in seven cases out of 6.8 million shots administered. recommended That pause ended on April 23, when the CDC said in a statement: said in a statement We reached out to J&J with the following questions: We will update this report when, or if, the company responds. In conclusion, we also rated the meme's statements about J&J a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. While it was a mostly factual representation of the company's alleged lawsuits over the years, nothing linked those cases with the company's COVID-19 immunization nor showed that the product included toxic or dangerous ingredients, like the meme implied. Of all of the meme's claims, the assertion about AstraZeneca was the least misleading. It was a direct reference to the manufacturer's COVID-19 vaccine (which is not currently in use in the U.S. and was developed in partnership with Oxford University) instead of an out-of-context fact pertaining to other pharmaceutical products. not currently "AstraZeneca: Suspended by two dozen European countries due to severe, lethal adverse reactions, like blood clots," the post alleged. lethal Yes, in spring 2021, a number of European countries (Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Bulgaria, etc.) temporarily suspended rollouts of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine after reports of patients developing blood clots. Less than 40 cases of blood clots were reported out of the 17 million vaccine recipients, according to AstraZeneca.  Denmark Norway Iceland Bulgaria according to AstraZeneca Reputable sources, including Snopes, said "more than a dozen European countries" issued the suspension  not "two dozen," like the meme claimed. Reputable sources Snopes Additionally, the meme's use of the phrase "due to" discredited its message. Rather, AstraZeneca, health officials, the World Health Organization (WHO) and government regulatory bodies all said there was no causal link between the vaccine formula and the patients' blood clots. "In fact, nearly every country that issued a suspension acknowledged that it had no evidence the vaccine had caused the blood clots," NBC reported at the time. "Health experts have pointed out that the people most likely to currently be receiving COVID-19 vaccinations are also more likely to have other health problems, which could put them at higher risk for blood clots." reported at the time See our fact check into the matter here. here Since then, many European countries restarted their programs after the European Medicine Agency dubbed the AstraZeneca vaccine safe and effective" despite the blood-clot reports. EMA said in a statement: European Medicine Agency In other words, we rate the meme's claim regarding AstraZeneca a "Mixture" of false and factual information. It was true that a number of European countries temporarily suspended the use of the manufacturer's COVID-19 vaccine after a handful of recipients reported blood clots. But no evidence proved those thromboembolic issues were a direct, adverse affect of the vaccine (rather than unrelated medical issues), and several countries restarted their AstraZeneca vaccination programs since the brief halt. A reader forwarded anemailto us in which state Rep. Senfronia Thompson urged a boycott of Macys department stores on the day after Thanksgiving 2013. The fact that Macy's doesn't support equal pay for women should stop you from shopping there on Black Friday, the Houston Democrat wrote, saying that her equal-pay proposal cleared the Legislature earlier this year, but then Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto the law, which he ultimately did. Thompsons House Bill950was among 24 bills PerryvetoedJune 14, 2013. It would have created state law similar to 2009s federal Lilly Ledbetter Act, which gave plaintiffs more time to sue over pay discrimination in federal courts. AnAug. 6, 2013,news storyin theHouston Chroniclereported that Texas Retailers Association members including Macys and Krogers had written Perry in May asking him to kill the legislation because, they said, it would lead to open-ended litigation and duplicate federal law. Thompson spokeswoman Milda Mora told us by phone that the representative learned of the letters from theHouston Chroniclereporter in August and checked with the governors office, which provided her with copies that Moraemailedto us. One written on Macys letterhead (clickhereor scroll down to view it) concluded, The federal requirements under Lilly Ledbetter are unnecessary and would be harmful to Texas employers. We urge you to veto this legislation. Macys spokeswoman Bethany Charlton confirmed that her company sent the May 31, 2013, letter, which was signed by a company vice president. By email, Charlton said the company absolutely supports equal pay for equal work among men and women but believes existing laws provide strong remedies for discrimination. Perrys logic was similar: House Bill 950 duplicates federal law, which already allows employees who feel they have been discriminated against through compensation to file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said his June 14, 2013,veto statement. Progress Texas, the pro-Democratic organization that distributed Thompsons email and is organizing theboycott,disputesPerrys statement that the bill would have duplicated federal law, saying that the Ledbetter protections need to be codified in state law for them to apply to cases in state courts. The groups executive director, Ed Espinoza, told us by email that his group launched a boycott of Macys and other retailers when the news broke in August. An Aug. 7, 2013,Chroniclenews blog postsaid Thompson took part in that boycott also, canceling a planned appearance at a Macys store to mark the states annual sales-tax holiday. Mora said that Thompson, who was quoted in an Aug. 9, 2013 Texas Public Radionews storyas saying she had previously been a card-packing member of Macys, but had not shopped there since the letters became public. Our ruling Thompson said Macy's sent a letter to Rick Perry urging him to veto her equal pay measure. As the Houston newspaper reported, Macys wrote the governor May 31, 2013, saying We urge you to veto this legislation. The claim is True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. The election results are in, but we still had a question concerning a particular item on the ballot in Georgias second-largest county that seemed worthy for a fact check. Gwinnett County officials had an interesting sales pitch to voters about the merits of continuing a 1 percent special purpose local option sales tax to pay for various projects. It would cost the county more money if they had to borrow the cash instead of collecting it in sales taxes. How much more? One billion dollars. Heres a passage about it from an interview with Gwinnett Commission Chairwoman Charlotte Nash in the Gwinnett Daily Post: SPLOST is the best tool that the Legislature has ever given local government, Nash said, adding that finance experts estimate that paying in cash for the $2.5 billion in projects funded by the sales tax saved the county more than $1 billion in interest payments that would have been owed if debt had been issued. It allowed us to work on those quality of life things, and we were able to do it without debt. PolitiFact Georgia wondered if Gwinnett would have spent $1 billion in interest payments had the county borrowed the money for the projects as opposed to collecting revenue from the sales tax. Gwinnett voters passed the countys first SPLOST program in June 1985. Theyve approved SPLOST referendums in 1987, 1991, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008. Since 1985, Gwinnett officials say theyve collected about $2.5 billion in SPLOST revenue. On Nov. 5, Gwinnett voters approved the latest SPLOST referendum by a 58-42 percent margin. The sales tax would raise $498 million over the next three years. More than two-thirds of the money will be spent on roads, bridges, drainage, sidewalks, intersection improvements and other transportation projects. The countys 16 cities will collect about $100 million. The rest will be spent on public safety equipment; parks; library and senior citizen facilities; water and sewer improvements; and parking. Gwinnett officials told PolitiFact Georgia they calculated the potential interest rates by using a municipal index scale for counties with AAA bond ratings. Gwinnett gave us the average interest rates for a 20-year deal originated at the beginning of the year for each time period. The interest rates ranged from 8.9 percent in 1985 and gradually declined to 3.85 percent for the SPLOST passed in 2004. The interest rate for the SPLOST referendum passed in 2008 was not included in the countys calculations. Several experts we spoke with said the countys methodology appeared sound. In order for the county to have accomplished the capital outlay projects funded by the SPLOSTs, it would have either had to impose massive property tax increases to fund the projects or borrow money to finance the projects. Borrowing money to finance the projects would have been less painful for the property taxpayers than imposing millage rate increases to fund the projects, because debt can be paid off over 20-30 years, said Earle Taylor III, who has spent about three decades working on public financing projects and is a partner at the law firm McKenna, Long & Aldridge. Ray Hill, who teaches managerial economics and finance at Emory University, said the countys claim is based on the assumption that Gwinnett would have borrowed that much money. Hill and Taylor didnt see any glaring holes in the countys calculations. If the assumption was that, in any event, the county was going to spend an amount of money equal to the SPLOST revenues, it would be easy to get to an interest saving figure of $1 billion, said Hill, who is an expert in financing large projects. The potential interest rates look reasonable. If you assumed they issued a 20-year bond at the amounts listed, you could easily get interest payments that total $1 billion. To sum up, Nash said Gwinnett County would have spent $1 billion in interest payments had the county borrowed the money for the projects as opposed to collecting revenue from the sales tax. Experts we interviewed agreed with the countys methodology and math. We did our own calculations, and it appeared to us that they would have paid more than $1 billion in interest had they borrowed $2.5 billion. We rate Nashs claim as True. Central Florida U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson is digging on some 1970s Led Zeppelin in his first ad attacking Republican opponent Daniel Webster.The ad is called Dan Webster's Stairway to Nowhere. See where this is going, Zeppelin fans?It opens with someone ripping off Jimmy Page's recognizable guitar introduction to Stairway to Heaven. A narrator talks over a black-and-white image of Webster, a longtime state legislator and former House speaker.When career politician Daniel Webster became speaker of the House, he wasted $32,000 of our money on a spiral staircase for his office, the narrator says, before moving on to a claim that he used tax money for private flights.The ad then finishes with a spin off of Robert Plant's vocals.And he's charged us for a stairway to nowhere.To be honest, it's a pretty poor rendition.But we're PolitiFact Florida, not American Idol, so we'll stick to the factual claims in the ad -- specifically about the stairwell.Stepping stones to the staircaseWebster was elected to the state House in 1980. In 1996, he became the first Republican state House speaker in more than 100 years after the GOP seized power.That also put him in charge of improvements and renovations to House offices and facilities. Each new speaker traditionally has made changes, upgrades, or renovations. In 1999, Speaker John Thrasher, now a state senator and chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, approved nearly $7 million for the House chamber -- now adorned in mahogany -- the Speaker's Office, and House office building.In 2002, leaders of the House and Senate spent about $1.5 million on furniture, structural changes, even a private bathroom. On the other hand, former Speaker Allan Bense spent only about $1,500 on changes in 2004, according to theSt. Petersburg Times.According to newspaper accounts Webster spent about $100,000 in taxpayer dollars on improvements to House facilities in his first months as speaker, including $31,983 on a spiral staircase.The staircase connected the Republican Majority Office on the Capitol's third floor with the Speaker's Office above it on the fourth floor. The staircase was intended to make it easier to move back and forth between the two offices -- namely, it allowed legislators and Webster as speaker to avoid walking through the public hallways filled with lobbyists, reporters and members of the public. The staircase will allow us to better coordinate things between the Speaker's Office and the Majority Office, Webster said at the time. He also noted that he took the idea from Democrats, who previously had drawn up plans for a spiral staircase of their own. It was built in a spiral style because it was the only way it could work given the space. The Grayson ad includes an image of an elaborate white spiral staircase to help make its point about Webster. But that's not the Webster staircase, said Todd Reid, staff director for the Florida House Majority Office. The staircasewas closed off in 2006 during more than $500,000 of renovations ordered by then-Speaker Marco Rubio. The stairway's fourth-floor landing became the new offices of the speaker's chief of staff. It was a standard black metal staircase, Reid said. It certainly wasn't heavy on the accouterments. Reid described the staircase as noisy and said whenever someone walked up or down it, people could hear the staircase rattling from both offices. He said the bottom half of the staircase remains in place; a closet was built around it. If you were in Tallahassee, I'd take you in to see it, Reid told PolitiFact Florida. Your humble fact-checker didn't have time to jump in a car for the five-hour trip to Tallahassee, but we were able to send theSt. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald'sLee Logan for an exclusive tour. Cribs: Staircase to Nowhere-edition Logan filed the following report, complete with apicture. Behind a door labeled No Entry in the House Majority Office is the famed Webster staircase. The small closet without lights is used so rarely that Reid had to hunt down someone in the House Sergeant at Arms office to get a key to the door. The bottom half of the black spiral staircase is still bolted to the floor. (Stairs are simple black metal, with a black metal railing.) Pieces of the top half are also in the closet, including a large piece that rests on top of the lower portion.The ceiling of the closet is now covered over with concrete, forming the floor of the chief of staff's office on the fourth floor. Reid says it's unlikely the stairway would be re-installed because the fourth floor spot is prime real estate -- now the House speaker and his chief of staff have direct access to one another through a door.Before Rubio made the space into the chief of staff's office, the staircase came up through a hole in the floor and emptied into a common area that also housed a few supplies.Reid said the closet could be used for supplies if the stairs were removed. But he speculated that they weren't taken out because they're simply too big. Also, a speaker sometime in the future might find a use for the stairs.The stairs were used irregularly, Reid said, usually on peak days when the Capitol was crowded. He also recalled former Gov. Jeb Bush occasionally using the stairs.Currently, if a staffer (not Joe Public) wanted to go from the Majority Office to the Speaker's Office, he or she could go up a back stairwell and cut through the Member's Lounge, which requires a key card and is reserved for lawmakers. Speaker Larry Cretul has said staffers can cut through the area if they don't loiter or disturb the lawmakers. Our ruling Grayson's ad is unintentionally ironic in that Webster's stairway to nowhere actually now is a stairway to nowhere, as it's bolted to the ground of a seldom-used closet. The stairway leads to a concrete ceiling, which now serves as the floor of an office above. Those changes were made by Marco Rubio in 2006. The stairs haven't been used since then. But that's not how Webster left it. When he became speaker in 1996, Webster did what most every speaker has done in recent times -- he spent taxpayer money on House renovations. The amount has varied wildly over the years depending on the size of the renovation.Among the $100,000 or so Webster spent, he allocated just under $32,000 for a plain spiral staircase to internally link the Speaker's Office with the House Republican Offices below.While Grayson's ad is correct on the reported dollar amount and the type of staircase, we think it's slightly misleading for two reasons. First, the imagery displayed suggests an ornate staircase when the staircase is far from ornate and only a spiral staircase by necessity. Second, it fails to provide the context that most every speaker spends taxpayer dollars on renovations, and several spent more than Webster. We rate the claim Mostly True.Now cue the Led Zeppelin ... (Update Sept. 1: We reached out to the Webster campaign before publishing this story via phone and e-mail, but did not hear back. After publication, Webster spokesman Brian Graham said in an e-mail that the staircase actually cost less than published reports. The original construction contract was for $28,126. The state paid even less, $22,242, Graham said). (Update Sept. 3:We noticed that the Grayson ad has been removed from his You Tube web page. We're not sure why). With Illinois entering its 17th month without a state budget as Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner and Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan continue their epic stalemate, Republican legislative leaders repeatedly talk about the need for a property tax freeze. They suggest the freeze, which Rauner hasmade a prerequisite for any budget negotiation, is particularly necessary, as the state will need to raise other taxes to cover itsgrowing bill backlogwhen a budget is signed into law. Rauner has called for daily meetings with Madigan and the states three other legislative leaders as the states stopgap spending authority expires at years end. As the legislative leaders began those closed-door meetings in their six-day fall veto session, both Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno and House Republican Leader Jim Durkin again made the case for a property tax freeze by saying Illinois has one of the worst tax burdens nationwide. Radogno said, People in this state right now are suffering because they dont have jobs. We have the fifth-highest tax burden in the country. People are moving out of their homes because of the property tax burden. These are issues that have to be addressed and have to be addressed now. This is a claim weve often heard for years in Illinois, and it seems various groups are releasing rankings daily. So we decided to check this one out. Patty Schuh, press secretary to the Illinois Senate GOP staff, said the source for the fifth-worst tax burden claim was a January release of rankings by the Tax Foundation. Indeed, the nonpartisan foundation did issue rankings of the 50 states tax burdens that showed Illinois at No. 5 for its overall burden. But thats not the entire picture. Measuring the rankings What does the Foundations overall burden measure? And is that the best, most relevant measurement? Jared Walczak, a policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, noted there are many ways to measure tax systems and rates and burdens. A states own tax structure can play a big part in how it ranks compared to others. For instance, he said Alaska derives a lot of its tax revenue from oil sales, but Alaskans pay relatively little of those taxes, which are paid by all of us who use gasoline, Walczak said. The Tax Foundation does measure the overall tax burden of the people paying taxes in a state, but that overall metric includes both taxes that return to Illinois and those that are paid outside of Illinois, Walczak said. Annette Nellen, a professor in and director of San Jos State University's graduate tax program, agreed, noting that people need to understand how the rankings are calculated and what they mean. I think it gets to that legislator using that information incorrectly. A legislator should look at whats paid and what the rates are in Illinois if she is trying to make the argument that Illinois taxes are too high, she said. They should look at the rate in the state for income and sales and property taxes and how much does the middle quintile of taxpayers pay for various taxes within Illinois, Nellen added. The Tax Foundations ownwebsitenotes, Tax collections are useful for some purposes and cited frequently. However, dividing total taxes collected by governments in a state by the states total income is not an accurate measure of the tax burden on a states residents as a whole because it does not accurately reflect the taxes that are actually paid out of that states income. Walczak, the Foundation analyst, said Illinois actually ranked seventh-highest in taxes residents paid to their own state and the fifth-most overall when taxes paid outside of Illinois are included. The ranking of taxes paid by residents in their state is a more accurate reflection of the states tax structure and burden on residents, experts agreed. But theres one more thing to consider. The Tax Foundation rankings were released in January but were calculated using census data from 2012, the bureaus most recent release of that particular data. John Frendreis, a Loyola University political science professor, said the Foundations work was sound, but noted the income tax rate in 2012 was higher than it is now. The rate then for individuals was 5 percent but dropped in January 2015 to 3.75 percent. As a point of comparison, during the two fiscal years preceding FY 2012, the total state tax burden was 10.5 percent, which dropped Illinois several places in the ranking, Frendreis noted. Still, he said, In general, Illinois total tax burden puts it into roughly the top quarter of states on a regular basis. Our ruling Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno said Illinois has the fifth-highest tax burden in the country. Its a statistic she and other Republicans cite often as they argue for a property tax freeze as one of several changes they want made before they will agree to a budget with Madigan and Democrats. While independent experts say the No. 5 rank for Illinois issued by the Tax Foundation for overall tax burden is accurate, the overall burden includes taxes paid outside of Illinois and is not the best metric for the burden taxpayers carry as a result of tax policy and structure and those taxes paid within the state. Illinois actually is No. 7 nationwide by the measure that best reflects in-state tax policy set by lawmakers. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f500e006-4c6e-49cb-b6c3-eada6c7ee46a Claim:  The soft drink 7Up was named for the number of its ingredients. LEGEND Origins:  The   power of the enigma lies in its ability to enthrall, to capture the imagination. As a society, we delight in the little mysteries that don't immediately yield up their   answers, which is why products whose names we can't fathom hold their appeal.  One such product is 7Up. Though the soft drink itself is not the least bit mysterious, its name is. To this day, no one can swear to know the reason for that particular choice of moniker. Here is what is known: 7Up was invented in October 1929 by Charles Leiper Grigg, a man who ten years earlier had formulated a carbonated orange-flavored drink ("Whistle")  while working for an employer with whom he later had a falling out. Said contretemps led to his packing up and leaving, and in 1920 the employerless Grigg formed his own soft drink company, the Howdy Corporation to produce "Howdy," yet another orange-flavored soda. Howdy was fairly successful as soft drinks go, but it was unable to seriously challenge Orange Crush, the leader in the field, and over time Howdy lost market shareto its predominant rival. Rather than see his company die by inches, C.L. Grigg cast about for another sort of soda to broaden his company's consumer base. Grigg discarded colas, root beers, and ginger ales in favor of a lemon-lime concoction. Although most every bottler was producing a lemon-lime drink in thosedays, none of those sodas had achieved national prominence, a state of affairs that left a golden opportunity forlornly sitting there waiting to be noticed.  And Grigg noticed. In response, he invented the soda we now call 7Up.  However, the uncola wasn't known as 7Up for the first few years of its existence. It was originally christened "Bib-Label Lithiated Lemon-Lime Soda." In his formulation, Grigg had included lithia, a naturally-occurring substance found in minute quantities in bubbling waters fed by underground springs. (Lithia is better known as lithium, a drug used to even out mood swings.) Grigg had the notion that the chemical's presumed healthful aspects would be a selling point with the soda-buying public, hence the "Lithiated" in the name. As for "Bib-Label," it was Howdy Corporation's intent to use paper labels of the sort that could be dropped over the necks of otherwise unlabeled bottles. lithium Fortunately, the unwieldy name was soon morphed to "7Up Lithiated Lemon Soda," and in 1936 the soda was officially re-dubbed "7Up." That same year, the Howdy Corporation became the Seven-Up Company. As to why "7Up," C.L. Grigg never explained how he came up with the cryptic name. Several theories exist about its origin:  7Up was the product of seven ingredients. (Which, in a way, was at least true with regard to the classes of ingredients in that original formulation: sugar, carbonated water, essences of lemon and lime oils, citric acid, sodium citrate, and lithium citrate.)  "Seven Up" has seven letters. (This explanation is rather far-fetched, as it posits that the drink was named after itself.)  The beverage was originally sold in 7-ounce bottles.   (Which it was. Then again, so was Orange Crush.)  Its inventor boasted the drink would cure mankind's "seven hangovers." (Grigg did make this statement, but it was rather tongue-in-cheek.)  Grigg saw cattle branded with a mark that resembled "7UP." Reasoning that if the brand was distinctive enough to help a rancher identify his cattle, the soft drink inventor concluded it would similarly work to help consumers remember his new lemon-lime beverage. (A former 7Up president and chairman did recount this anecdote in a 1942 speech, saying Grigg had read about the history of cow brands in a Sunday newspaper article, including one brand that consisted of a letter "u" on top and to the right of a number "7.")  Grigg won a great deal of money in a craps game thanks to all the sevens that were rolled that night.  (Though oft repeated, little supports this tale. What money Grigg needed when he started the Howdy Corporation he obtained by bringing in moneyed partners.)  Grigg won a fortune at poker, thanks to the seventh "up" card dealt him. (The same reasons for disbelieving the craps explanation apply to the poker postulation.) It's quite possible the drink's name was meant to be a enigma, given that its creator never publicly explained it. It could even have been a nonsense term meant to leave people wondering after its backstory as a way of generating interest in the beverage. (We humans do love mysteries, after all.) Questions of how it came by its name aside, 7Up has attracted another origin rumor. Many trivia lists circulated on the Internet make the following claim: The 'spot' on 7UP comes from its inventor who had red eyes.  He was albino. Charles Leiper Grigg wasn't an  albino. In photographs (albeit black and white ones),  albino  he appears normally pigmented, and we've yet to encounter a biography of him that makes any mention of his displaying traits of albinism. (By the way, though it is   possible for an albino to have reddish or violet eyes, most people with that condition have blue eyes, and some have hazel or brown eyes.)  As to where the red dot in the beverage's logo came from, so far the earliest examples we've found of that design have come from the 1970s. Prior to that, the company's trademark for the longest time was a black-outlined white "7Up" on a red background that bore some white bubbles  the red dot was nowhere to be seen. In very early ads, the "7up" had wings. Barbara "7Upswept" Mikkelson Last updated:  27 April 2014 The Legend of Dr. Pepper/7Up FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015 In May 2023, an old rumor began to spread in a scammy article that claimed singer and talk show host Kelly Clarkson was "forced" by producers of NBC's "The Voice" to lose weight. However, this was a false story. It was created in order to push a scam meant to fool consumers into signing up for expensive monthly subscription charges for keto and apple cider vinegar (ACV) weight loss gummies. The scam article appeared on exclusiveinsiderdeals.com. The website's domain was registered with Namecheap, while its hosting was with Cloudfare. exclusiveinsiderdeals.com registered The story showed the false headline, "Kelly Clarkson Forced To Lose 30 Pounds By 'NBC' Producers... She Lost 50! (Her Diabetes Finally In Control)." The page was misleadingly designed by scammers to resemble the "Today" show website. According to the story, Clarkson consulted with Dr. Mehmet Oz of the former "Dr. Oz" talk show, who told her to try to start her supposed weight loss journey with keto and ACV gummies. None of this was true. Clarkson, Oz, NBC, "The Voice," and "Today" had no involvement with any of this. Names and faces were used completely without permission. Over the years, a large number of CBD and keto products have been featured with this same sort of scammy article. For example, in 2018, we previously published a very similar fact check about Clarkson being fired from "The Voice." It, too, led to a diet supplement scam. fact check As of May 26, one of the products that was being pushed with Clarkson's name was SlimDNA Keto + ACV Gummies. Dr. Oz's name and a number of other scammy aspects also appeared on a SlimDNA product page on slimdnabrands.com. This domain was registered with Tucows and received hosting from Cloudfare. slimdnabrands.com If any readers were victim to one of these gummy scams, we recommend reaching out to your credit card company to alert them of the matter. These sorts of CBD and keto gummies scams often attempt to rope customers into hidden subscription charges of hundreds of dollars per month. We recommend being proactive and calling your credit card company immediately in order to stop further charges from taking place. Brockington, Ariana. "Blake Shelton Announces He Is Leaving 'The Voice' after Season 23." TODAY.Com, 12 Oct. 2022, https://www.today.com/popculture/tv/blake-shelton-leaving-voice-season-23-rcna51798. Evon, Dan. "Was Kelly Clarkson Fired from 'The Voice'?" Snopes, 20 Dec. 2018, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clarkson-fired-voice/. "WHOIS Domain Lookup." GoDaddy.Com, https://www.godaddy.com/whois/.