Republican candidate for California governor Travis Allen gave campaign donations to Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and Barbara Boxer.
DidTravis Allen, arguably the most conservative candidate for California governor, donate campaign money to three of the states leading liberal Democrats? Thats the Republican-on-Republican attack levied by John Coxs campaign for governor in arecent TV adthat goes after Allen, an Orange County assemblyman whos positioned himself as a GOP populist. Heres the full text of the ad, which includes three attacks on Allen: Narrator: For Republicans, the race for governor is crystal clear: Theres conservative businessman John Cox, leading the opposition to Jerry Browns Sanctuary State and chairman of the initiative campaign to repeal the gas tax. Then theres career politician Travis Allen. He gave campaign donations to Jerry Brown. Gavin Newsom and Barbara Boxer. And on the floor vote, Allen refused to join Republicans opposing driver licenses for illegal aliens. The conservative choice is clear: John Cox for governor. The ad was paid for by John Cox for Governor 2018. Well examine the other two attacks on Allen in future fact-checks. In this piece, well focus on the claim he donated to top Democrats. Background on GOP rivals Recent polls show growing support for Coxs campaign for governor, less than a week after President Trumpendorsedthe San Diego businessman. A surveyreleased Wednesday nightfrom the Public Policy Institute of California shows Newsom, the states lieutenant governor, leading Cox, 25 percent to 19 percent. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was third, at 15 percent, followed by Allen with 11 percent,  State Treasurer John Chiang at 9 percent and former state schools chief Delaine Eastin with 6 percent. Coxand Allen have sparred at campaign events over who is the most conservative candidate. Theyve both criticized Californias Democratic leadership over the gas tax increase and sanctuary state protections. The top two candidates in the June 5 primary, regardless of party affiliation, will move on to the November runoff. Donating to Democrats? The ad accuses Allen of donating to three of the states top Democrats. The irony, of course, is that Allens run for governor has centered on criticizing those same politicians, particularly Brown and Newsom. We found clear evidence supporting the claim, though Coxs ad ignores the fact that the contributions took place nearly a decade ago, before Allen ran for elected office, and that he also donated to Republicans. Campaign finance records show that in October 2010, Allen donated $1,000 to Jerry Brown for Governor, through Wealth Strategies Group, his wealth management firm in Huntington Beach. In August 2010, Allen gave $100 to Gavin Newsom for Lieutenant Governor. And, in October 2010, he donated $250 to Barbara Boxer for Senate. SOURCE: Campaign finance records from the California Secretary of State'swebsite. Asked about this, a spokeswoman for Allens campaign said in an email that the contributions took place before Travis was an elected official, as a businessman, he purchased tickets to some events. A November 2017 Mercury-Newsarticlesummarized these and additional donations Allen made to Democrats in 2010 and 2011. He told the paper at that time: As a businessman I was invited to some events by friends, and I purchased tickets to these events. Attending these events, however, opened my eyes to the damage the Democrats were doing to California, and brought about my decision to do everything in my power to stop them, including running for public office. Similar claim In April 2016, PolitiFact California ratedMostly Truea similar claim about then Presidential candidate Donald Trump donating to Democrats. Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, at the time Trumps rival for the Republican presidential nomination, claimed Trump has given $12,000 to Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris. Campaign finance data showed the claim was accurate, though we noted Cruz left out that the donations took place long before Trump announced his run for president. The contribution to Jerry Brown took place in 2006, while the donations to the other Democrats took place in 2009, 2011 and 2013. Our ruling In a recentTV ad, John Coxs campaign for governor claimed rival GOP candidate Travis Allen donated to three of Californias top Democrats. Campaign records prove the claim, though the contributions took place a decade ago, before Allen entered politics. The statement is accurate but needs this clarification. We rate it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
On 25 August 2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas, bringing extended heavy rainfall, flooding, and, of course, rumors and scams in its wake. Hurricane Harvey landfall flooding One such rumor involved high-paying Federal Emergency Management Agency jobs ("FEMA Field Inspectors") purportedly created by the storm. Readers forwarded various versions of the rumor they spotted on social media, most mentioning a "Mr. Adrian Davis" recruiting a thousand workers for positions paying between $2,000 and $5,000 per week: FEMA is looking to hire help. $2000 per week plus expenses. 90 days or longer they need over 1000 people. Cannot have any felonies. 888 776 1296. Mr. Adrian Davis.True of False?I have not been able to verify this-the phone number goes from a fast busy to a regular busy.Thank you There is a post going around Facebook seeking FEMA Field Inspectors. $4-5 K per week. No experience necessary. The ad contains an error: "Will be reimburse travel"The phone number to call is 214-[redacted].All sounds too good to be true and I don't see anything similar on the FEMA website or Facebook page. Can you please check out a rumor via Facebook that FEMA is paying people up to 5,000 dollars per week to work in Houston as field inspectors. They have to call 214.[redacted] to register.Why wouldn't the FEMA hire people directly? Sounds like a HUGE scam to me!! The rumor spread quickly, thanks to its plausible premise of FEMA being understaffed in August 2017, the high (but not impossibly so) pay described, and the ease with which one could plausibly qualify. Although some iterations listed an area code of (888) and a contact name of "Adrian Davis," others provided a 214 (Dallas-area) number which appears to have no affiliation with FEMA. A poster provided an application deadline of 31 August 2017: deadline   On 30 August 2017, the agency addressed the "FEMA Field Inspectors" rumor on its official Facebook page: FEMA linked to a Hurricane Harvey page, with an expandable section titled "Rumor Control." That section revealed that the rumor was in fact true: Rumor Control There is a lot of misinformation circulating online and because rumors spread fast please tell a friend, share this page, and help us provide accurate information. Check here often for an on-going list of rumors and their true or false status. Hiring Rumor: There are reports of a flyer titled FEMA Field Inspectors needed ASAP and states Earn $4-5K per week call (214) 284-6594 for instructions on how to apply between the hours of 9:00am  11:00am up to August 31, 2017. This report is  (August 29). FEMA is hiring field inspectors under a pre-existing contract to assist with surge capacity of field inspections. Read more about becoming a home inspector. becoming a home inspector Rumor: There are reports stating FEMA is looking to employ 1,000 people offering to pay $2,000/week for 90 days and the phone number to call is 888-776-1296. This report is . (August 29) Learn more about official FEMA job opportunities to help with the response and review a list of trusted non-profit organizations who are active in disaster response. official FEMA job opportunities to help with the response trusted non-profit organizations who are active in disaster response According to FEMA, these jobs are available under a pre-existing contract "to assist with surge capacity," and the 214 number circulating is legitimate, as is the 31 August 2017 deadline. However, FEMA says the 888 number is not legitimate and the "$2,000 a week for 90 days" claim is inaccurate. We contacted the agency for further confirmation, but we have not yet received a response. FEMA.  "Hurricane Harvey: Rumor Control."
  Accessed 30 August 2017. As President Donald Trumpstrade warwages on, we decided to check in on the most affected sectors. U.S. Agriculture Department Secretary Sonny Perdue said farmers, who will receive $12 billion in aid, were particularly affected by the dispute. Americas hard-working agricultural producers have been treated unfairly by Chinas illegal trading practices and have taken a disproportionate hit when it comes to illegal retaliatory tariffs, Perdue said in a USDApress releaseon July 26. Well leave aside the question of whether the retaliatory tariffs are any more illegal than the initial U.S. tariffs on imports. But we were interested in the second half of his claim: Have agricultural producers taken a disproportionate hit? The Agriculture Department pointed out that 37 percent of U.S. exports facing retaliatory tariffs are agricultural exports. Those are the tariffs as of July 31, 2018 coming from China, the European Union, India, Turkey, Mexico and Canada. Thats disproportionate to the total goods the United State exports: about 10 percent are agricultural goods, according to the USDAs 2017 data. Its hard to measure the exact numbers, though. Thats because tariffs are listed individually by the governments that issue them (in this case, not the United States), and because the United States doesnt keep close tabs on exports. USDA calculated the 37 percent figure using official import customs data from the retaliating partner through a private third party, Global Trade Atlas. Export data is notoriously bad, Laura Baughman, president of the Trade Partnership, told us in July. Its inaccurate because people dont necessarily report it very carefully, since you are not assessing tariffs on exports. However, the agricultural industry is on average much more dependent on world markets than other industries, according to David Laborde, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute. Exports comprise 10 percent of total GDP in the United States, whereas they comprise about 20 percent of GDP in the American agricultural sector. That fraction iseven higherfor crops like cotton (76 percent is exported), soybeans (50 percent) and wheat (46 percent), according to USDA. About 16 to 17 percent of exports to China are agricultural goods, so any conflict with China (like the ongoing one) takes a heavy toll on agriculture, Laborde said. He calculated that 86.8 percent of agricultural exports to China are impacted by retaliatory tariffs while 36.9 percent of the non-agricultural exports are covered. Farmers face two additional aggravators: their products are easily replaceable and theyre an easy political target. One ton of U.S. soybeans is a nearly perfect substitute to one ton of Brazilian soybeans, Laborde pointed out. But high-tech medical equipment (another type of products exported to China) is difficult to substitute, so Chinese consumers are more willing to endure the tariff. And from a political economy point of view, Laborde said it made sense for China to maintain pressure on farmers in particular, as a core constituency for the Trump administration. Perdue said, Americas hard-working agricultural producers  have taken a disproportionate hit when it comes to illegal retaliatory tariffs. Its difficult to measure the impact of tariffs on the economy and particularly hard to measure the impact of retaliatory tariffs on exports. That said, the economy sets up agricultural producers to bear the brunt of tariffs. Exports are doubly important for the agricultural sectors GDP as for the countrys GDP. USDA calculated that 37 percent of exports facing tariffs are agricultural goods, whereas agricultural goods comprise 10 percent of total exports. We rate this statement Mostly True. A photograph supposedly showing the mouth of an adult suffering from hyperdontia (i.e., an excessive number of teeth) has been circulating online for several years. In February 2019, the Facebook page "Pictures From History" renewed interest in this image when they shared it on social media with the caption "Inside the mouth of an adult suffering from Hyperdontia": Facebook Pictures From History   Hyperdontia is a genuine medical condition involving the growth of more teeth than is usual (also known as "supernumerary teeth"), as described by the Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago: medical condition described Extra teeth, also called supernumerary teeth or hyperdontia, is a condition in which the jaws contain more teeth  usually permanent teeth  than the usual number. These extra teeth are usually categorized in two ways, by their shape and by their position. They can be of normal shape but simply be extra (called supplemental). They can be barrel-shaped (tuberculate), peg-shaped or conical, multiple shapes (compound odontoma), or an undefined shape (complex odontoma). They can form in several places. They may be mesiodens (midline), paramolar (on either side of the molars), or distomolar (behind the molars). Most often occuring is the mesiodens, which is peg-shaped and grows between the top two center teeth. However, the viral photograph seen here does not offer a genuine look at the mouth of a person experiencing that condition. This image has been online since at least December 2010, when it was shared on the Blogspot blog Holyloly. The image reached a larger audience a few months later when it was included in a post from the SCP Foundation -- a fictional organization that purports to cover a wide range of highly classified materials -- in a blog post about SCP-478, an imaginary disease that causes a body to generate extra teeth: Holyloly SCP Foundation SPC-478 will enter a victims mouth while they sleep, and attach onto the soft palate in the upper nasal cavity, usually blocking one nostril. The bodys mucus production will increase, leading the victim, upon waking, to believe that they have developed a minor cold. From there, the victims palate will begin to generate teeth in addition to the gingiva's (gums) normal replacement of teeth. This growth process will begin at a rate several times faster than normal tooth growth, and quickly increases in speed and severity. It's clear that this image was created with the help of digital photo-editing software. It appears that someone took a genuine photograph of a mouth and then duplicated several of its teeth to make it appear as if the picture captured an extremely severe case of hyperdontia. Here we've circled a few of the teeth that were digitally repeated throughout this image:   Interestingly, this isn't the only fake photograph purporting to show an extreme case of hyperdontia. Again, we found that these images were created with the same technique of duplicating existing teeth:   While researching this article we came across one more example below of this sort of digitally doctored dentistry. This image on the left of the following graphic is often shared as if it showed a person suffering from hyperdontia, but again, this picture was created by digitally duplicated existing teeth. The image on the right of the graphic below, meanwhile, is unaltered and shows the mouth of a person who genuinely experienced a (less severe form of) this condition: person   Parolia, Abhishek.  "Management of Supernumerary Teeth."
  Journal of Conservative Dentistry.  July 2011. Lurie Children's Hospital.  "Extra Teeth (Supernumerary Teeth, Hyperdontia)."
  Retrieved 4 February 2019. Claim:  The 'Codex Alimentarius' will eliminate U.S. consumers' rights to purchase and use vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements.     : In June 2005 the U.S. was forced to accept Codex Alimentarius regulation of vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements.  OUTDATED: Bills proposing the regulation of dietary supplements are currently before Congress.  : In June 2010, President Obama signed Codex Alimentarius regulations into law by Executive Order. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 2005] Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may end in June of this year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (Food Code) is setting the supplement standards for all countries in the WTO. They will be enforced by the WTO and will over ride U.S. laws. The U.S. President and Congress agreed to this take-over when the WTO Treaty was signed. Violations are punished by WTO trade sanctions. CODEX drastically restricts vitamins, minerals, herbs and other supplements. CODEX met secretly in November, 2004 and finalized "Step 8 (the final stage)" to begin implementation in June, 2005. The CODE includes:(1) No supplement can be sold for preventive or therapeutic use.(2) Any potency higher than RDA (minimal strength) is a "drug" requiring a prescription and must be produced by drug companies. Over 5000 safe items now in health stores will be banned, terminating health stores as we now know them.(3) CODEX regulations become binding internationally.(4) New supplements are banned unless given very expensive CODEX testing and approval. CODEX now applies to Norway and Germany, among others, where zinc tablets rose from $4 per bottle to $52. Echinacea (an ancient immune-enhancement herb) rose from $14 to $153 (both examples are now allowed by prescription only). They are now "drugs". Vitamin C above 200 mg, niacin above 32 mg, vitamin B6 above 4 mg  all are banned over-the-counter as drugs. No amino acids (arginine, lysine, carnitine, etc. = essential amino acids!), essential fatty acids (omegas 3, 6, 9, etc.), or other essential supplements such as DMEA, DHEA, CoQ10, MSM, beta-carotene, etc. are allowed. The CODEX rules are not based on real science. They are made by a few people meeting in secret (see web sites below), not necessarily scientists. In 1993 the FDA and drug corporations tried to put all supplements under restriction and prescription. But over 4 million Americans told Congress and the President to protect their freedom of choice on health supplements. The DSHEA Law was passed in 1994, which does so. But this will be over ruled by CODEX and the World Trade Organization. Virtually nothing about it has been in the media. What the drug corporations have failed to do through Congress they have gotten by sneak attack through CODEX with the help of a silent media. What can be done at this late hour? (1) Spread the word as much as possible. Inform yourselves fully at https://www.ahha.org, www.iahf.com and www.alliance-natural-health.org.(2) Oppose bills S. 722 and H.R. 3377. These support the CODEX restrictions with U.S. laws, changing the DSHEA law.(3) Support H.R. 1146 which would restore the sovereignty of the U.S. Constitution over CODEX, etc.(4) Express your wishes to the President, Senators and Representatives (They got us into this!) ASAP.(5) Contact multi-level health marketing groups that can get their members to inform the government.(6) Send donations, however small, to the British Alliance for Natural Health (see web site above). It has succeeded in challenging the CODEX directives in World Court later this month or next. They need helpfinancially, having carried the fight effectively for everyone. CODEX and the FDA wish to protect us by controlling supplements in the same way they do prescription drugs. A study of the latter by three medical scientists was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998  Vol. 279, No.15, p. 1200 "Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR's) was found to beextremely high." Covering 30 years (1966 to 1996) it was found that in the U.S. an average of 106,000 hospitalized patients per year (290 per day) die from ADR's and 2,200,000 need more hospitalization for recovery. These were FDA approved drugs, properly administered by competent professionals in hospitals  none were considered malpractice. This is the number four cause of death in the U.S. When combined, these account for 7% of all hospitalized patients. This is equivalent to a 9-11 attack every ten days. There are very few fatalities from supplements or the news would be on every front page. There is no need for more FDA control of supplements than is already in place, which is substantial. Instead of drastically restricting supplements, why doesn't the FDA better control and restrict the extremely dangerous pharmaceutical drugs which are now killing us at the rate of a major airline crash per day? Wallace G. Heath, Ph.D.1145 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225www.pulseplus@earthlink.net Origins:  This e-mailed alert began circulating on the Internet in January 2005. Although the call to arms is worded in such a way as to convince those who receive that their right to purchase vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements in the U.S. is about to be lost to them unless they act decisively in defense of it, it is outdated and the facts of what is being considered by American lawmakers and why are radically dissimilar from the red cape being waved.  First of all, this is another case of an issue that is now largely moot due to outdated information. Back in 2003, two versions of a bill that proposed the regulation of dietary supplements (S. 722, the "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003," and H.R. 3377, the "Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act") were introduced to Congress.  Neither of these bills was ever voted upon, much less passed.  They both expired with the end of the 108th Congress in 2004 and have not been reintroduced to the currently sitting 109th Congress. S. 722 H.R. 3377 Moreover, neither of these items of potential legislation was forced on the U.S. by an outside regulatory body, nor did they say anything about restricting the American public's access to vitamins and minerals. Their sole target was dietary supplements, a class of products that has been unregulated since 1994, when Congress passed legislation that exempted them from federal regulation. Claims that your right to take vitamins and minerals is about to be impaired or that you will require doctors' prescriptions to obtain such products should be regarded as attempts at rabble-rousing, deliberate moves to spur you into action against one thing by convincing you that something very different and far closer to your heart is at stake. Vitamins and minerals are not under the gun. Dietary supplements are. And no outside regulatory body is behind this move: the proposed legislation is the work of American lawmakers looking to safeguard the public from the unscrupulous and the hazardous. If you take nothing else from this article, take the preceding three sentences. Despite their presence on store shelves, not all dietary supplements are safe for consumers to use, let alone are beneficial to their health. Products can be 100% natural yet deliver a deadly payload, as have some in the past. Lacking regulation of such ingestibles, there is no protection afforded consumers, and  authoritative-looking labels are no guarantee that what is being vended in those bottles they envelop is not harmful. Under current law, dangerous supplements get onto the market and stay there, with serious physical harm resulting among those who use them, as was the case with ephedra, which caused strokes, heart attacks, and upwards of 150 deaths before the Food and Drug Administration was finally able to get it out of the stores. In 2004, according to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, almost one in five Americans (19%) reported using a supplement, which means the pool of folks at risk is great. Yet the incentives are there for the dietary supplement industry to keep on doing what it has been doing: in 2002, it reported $18.7 billion in sales. With so much profit at stake, there is little desire on the part of manufacturers to police themselves or their products all that carefully.  It's not just about inherently dangerous substances being sold to the unwary as the latest miracle answer for what ails them  even when dietary supplements contain nothing obviously harmful, the current lack of regulation results in improperly manufactured or contaminated products reaching the public. Quality control is missing. Absent regulation, consumers have little reason to trust they are getting the dosage they believe they are taking. ConsumerLab.com, an independent laboratory that tests dietary supplements, found that some name-brand products contain only small quantities of the active ingredient on their label. "Some have none, some have 80 percent, some have 20 percent," Dr. Tod Cooperman, president of the lab, told ABC News. Also, some contaminated supplements reach the market and thus fall into the hands of unknowing consumers. In December 2004, pesticide was found in ginseng being vended on the East Coast, and heavy metals such as mercury and arsenic were discovered in herbal supplements. Two bills put before Congress in 2003 looked to regulate dietary nostrums by imposing quality and safety standards on them, and giving the FDA the ability to take them off the market before a great number of folks have been harmed by them. In March 2003, Senator Richard Durbin introduced bill S. 722, the "Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2003" in the U.S. Senate. The purpose of this legislation was to "protect consumers from dangerous dietary supplements such as ephedra and other stimulants by requiring manufacturers to submit proof that their product is safe prior to bringing it to market." The bill would require manufacturers of the most dangerous types of dietary supplements (stimulants) to submit proof of their products' safety prior to bringing them to market. The bill also expands the FDA's authority to require from any dietary supplement maker proof of its product's safety if that agency has received information suggesting the product is causing death or other serious adverse health effects. It would also require manufacturers to report serious adverse health events (e.g.; heart attack, seizure, stroke, death), to the FDA no later than 15 calendar days after they learn of them. The bill also looks to close a loophole in current law that, according to Senator Durbin, "has been exploited by many dietary supplement manufacturers, allowing anabolic steroids to be sold widely as dietary supplements" by clarifying that anabolic steroids are not dietary supplements and are subject to regulation that restricts their availability under the Controlled Substances Act. S. 722 In October 2003, Representatives Susan Davis (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA) and John Dingell (DMI) introduced bill H.R. 3377, the "Dietary Supplement Access and Awareness Act" in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation would increase the FDA's authority over dietary supplements, enabling that agency to monitor the health risks of dietary supplements and take appropriate action if problems develop. The proposed law was not intended to have any impact on the regulation of vitamins and minerals, which are specifically excluded from the bill. In addition, for dietary supplements that contain herbs, amino acids, and other botanicals, the bill will ensure that FDA has basic information about who makes them and the products' ingredients. It would also require dietary supplement manufacturers to provide FDA with information about all adverse events, so that the agency could spot warning signs and investigate if necessary. It further allows the FDA to prohibit sales to minors of supplements that may cause significant harm to children. Finally, it allows the FDA to demand safety information from a manufacturer if the FDA has evidence that a particular supplement may pose serious risks.  H.R. 3377 Getting back to the e-mail's claim that a foreign regulatory body is behind all this, we address the claim that: Your right to choose your vitamin, mineral and other supplements may end in June of this year (2005). After that U.S. supplements will be defined and controlled by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. It is the body of government representatives and non-governmental organizations charged by the United Nations with establishing a reference for  international guidelines on food law.  However, it has no power to force its will on any nation. Codex standards are voluntary; no country is obligated to adopt them. In November 2004, the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU) reached agreement on the definitions and regulatory guidelines for the worldwide use of vitamins and minerals in food supplements and presented its "Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements" to the Codex annual meeting in Rome in July 2005.  The Codex guidelines form a reference point that may be used in cases of international trade disputes in the area of food supplements. That, in a nutshell, is the extent of its teeth. Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements In the latter half of 2010, erroneous claims began to circulate claiming that President Obama had signed Codex Alimentarius regulations into law via Executive Order.  In fact, the referenced order simply  in accordance with recently passed health care reform legislation (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)  established the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council within the Department of Health and Human Services in order to provide federal coordination and leadership of "prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the U.S."  The council so established has no specific power or mandate to regulate the sales of vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements. Executive Order Barbara "vitaminimized" Mikkelson Additional information:      Codex Alimentarius  (World Health Organization)  Last updated:  15 August 2010    Sumner Burstyn, Barbara.  "Conventional Medicine Far Riskier Than Supplements."   The New Zealand Herald.  16 July 2003.    Community Pharmacy.  "Ruled Maximum Levels for Vitamins and Minerals."   12 August 2004.  (p. 5).    Europe Agri.  "International Agreement Reached on Guidelines for Vitamins and Minerals."   16 November 2004.    Lincoln Journal Star.  "Regulation Needed for Supplements."   31 January 2005.  (p. B4).    Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  "Judge Allows FDA Ban of Dietary Supplement."   13 April 2004.  (p. A6).    Nutraceuticals World.  "Reps. Davis, Waxman & Dingell Introduce Legislation."   December 2003.  Vol. 6, No. 12, p. 8.    Nutraceuticals World.  "Senator Durbin Introduces Bill to Amend DSHEA."   May 2003.  Vol. 6, No. 5, p. 8. On 5 February 2018, Shaun Usher, the owner of the blog "Letters of Note" posted an image on Twitter that purported to show Donald Trump opining that any president presiding over the United States during a stock market crash of more than 1,000 points should be "shot out of a cannon." blog image Although the image was intended to poke fun at now-President Trump's prolific Twitter use and his timeline that has offered a running joke that puts his past criticisms of his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, in context with current events (such as a precipitous stock market drop a few hours before), this tweet was not real: before   Sweet mother of god. Not for one second did I think people would believe that to be genuine.  Shaun Usher (@ShaunUsher) February 5, 2018 February 5, 2018 omg it's everywhere. What have I done.  Shaun Usher (@ShaunUsher) February 5, 2018 February 5, 2018 siri can i be arrested for making a fake tweet  Shaun Usher (@ShaunUsher) February 5, 2018 February 5, 2018 In a message sent via Twitter, Usher confirmed he was the tweet's author and that it was not real. He told us: Naively thought it too ridiculous to be believable. Says a lot, really. Was going to delete it but it was everywhere within minutes: feels like I need to leave it up in its place of birth. President Trump has legitimately tweeted about the stock market in the past, however: tweeted   Creating fake tweets is extremely easy and can spread virally within minutes  as Usher has now demonstrated, even if unintentionally. fake tweets It's not uncommon for the human eye to pick out familiar-seeming shapes among clouds in the sky, nor for the human mind to experience, however briefly, the sensation that such a resemblance is more than just coincidental. There's a name for this general phenomenon: pareidolia. pareidolia It's also not uncommon, especially in this era of digital image manipulation and virality, for human beings to fabricate "eerie" photographs along the same lines to share on social media. There's also a name for this general phenomenon: hoaxes. A perfect example of the latter came to Snopes' attention in January 2023, in the form of a YouTube video (originally posted on TikTok) supposedly showing a cloud formation in the shape of shockingly detailed "praying hands." Watch: praying hands  Interestingly, in addition to the above video captioned "A strange cloud in the sky of America," a very similar video can be found elsewhere on YouTube with the caption, "The cloud appeared in the sky of Ukraine during the war." Here is a comparison between the two "cloud formations": very similar video  (YouTube screenshots) Note how artificial the "cloud hands" appear in both of these videos. Note, too, how similar to each other they appear as if they were both modeled after the same source image. We found other specimens with the same similarities. other specimens Clearly, these videos and photographs were the products of digital editing, not miraculous meteorological events. What source image might they have been modeled after? Our vote goes to this drawing of praying hands by the German artist Albrecht Durer, dating from about 1500: Praying hands by the German artist Albrecht Durer (1471-1528), circa 1500. (Hulton Archive/Getty Images)  Definition of PAREIDOLIA. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pareidolia. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023. "Praying Hands by the German Artist Albrecht Durer , circa 1500." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/praying-hands-by-the-german-artist-albrecht-durer-circa-news-photo/2635952. Accessed 18 Jan. 2023. Claim:  Entering a phone number into the Google search engine can produce a home address and a map with directions to that address.   . Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] Beware the New Google Feature! www.google.com Type your home telephone number into Google's search bar & click the search button . . . MapQuest returns with a physical location of your phone number. People could use this feature to locate your home address, and receive explicit directions on how to get there from anywhere in the country. You can remove your name off this database  To do this: Type in your full phone number  using dashes  like this:555-123-4567. If your number appears in the mapping database, an icon resembling a telephone will appear to left of the entry on the results page.                 Click on this icon and it will take you to a page containing a description of the service, and a link to request your number be removed! Recheck your phone # to be sure it has been removed.  Also, if you have children, please check their phone # too! This is another example of invasion of privacy, isn't it? Origins:  The gist of the message quoted above is true: Typing a phone number into the popular Google search engine can produce a display like the following: Google  Here we entered a phone number (805-495-9897) and were presented with a display showing the name and address of the person to whom that number is assigned, as well as two links (Yahoo! Maps and Mapquest) which will produce maps and driving directions for that address.  (The information we used for our display belongs to a friend who has since moved to another state, so we're not giving away anyone's valid personal information here.)  Clicking on the telephone icon will take the user to an informational page about the Google Phonebook feature, which includes a link to a form one can use to request that his personal information be removed from this feature. form As to the issue of whether this Google feature is a shocking "invasion of privacy," there are a few points to keep in mind:  This feature is not "new"  the PhoneBook service has been offered by Google for several years now.  This feature does not work for every phone number.  Some classes of phone numbers, such as unpublished phone numbers (i.e., numbers belonging to customers who have requested that their local phone service providers not publish their numbers in printed phone directories or make them available through directory assistance), will not display.  The information displayed is compiled from a number of publicly accessible sources and is not unique to Google.  There are many other web sources through which users can look up the same information.  Google has simply combined two different services readily available on a number of different web sites: reverse phone directory look-ups and mapping/driving directions services.  Even without Google, it's a simple feat for any moderately knowledgeable web user to plug a phone number into a reverse phone directory web site to find the name and address corresponding to that number, then use an on-line service such as Mapquest to obtain directions to that address. Mapquest In short, the Google PhoneBook feature may be troubling to those who value their privacy, but it's a symptom and not a cause.  The larger issue is that many entities we deal with in daily life who are privy to our personal information can make that information available to sources that compile databases which services such as Google PhoneBook use.  The public has been making privacy gains through the implementation of laws such as those requiring credit bureaus, phone companies, and motor vehicle bureaus to offer "opt-out" features which provide customers with means to restrict the distribution of their personal information, but until that larger issue is completely eliminated, trying to keep one's personal information off the web is akin to engaging in a perpetual game of "Wack-a-Mole": it provides momentary satisfaction but otherwise accomplishes little. credit bureaus phone companies motor vehicle Last updated:  21 February 2005 In June 2022, an image supposedly showing a particularly old, haggard, and "unwell" former President Donald Trump was circulated on social media:   This photograph was deceptively edited to make Trump look particularly old and haggard. It was created by altering a real photograph of Trump that was posted by Andrew Giuliani, the son of Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, to Twitter on June 15:  The genuine photo was subsequently digitally altered to create the viral version. For example, extra wrinkles were added to Trump's face, his hair was lightened, and the bags under his eyes were enlarged. Here's a comparison between the genuine photo (left) and the doctored one (right):   This isn't the first time that a subtly edited image of Trump has gained traction online. In December 2020, an image went viral that added a few digital inches to Trump's waist. Similar subtle edits were made to an image of Trump's sons Eric and Trump Jr. image went viral that added a few digital inches to Trump's waist image of Trump's sons Eric and Trump Jr. You may also find our full collection of Trump photo fakery of interest. Trump photo fakery In efforts to lure Amazon to the Midwest, Missouri officials sent three proposals to the tech-giant by Oct. 19 to be considered for the location of its second headquarters. Kansas City and St. Louis officials threw their hats into the ring, and state officials proposed an innovation corridor along I-70, which would link the two metro areas. Missouris brochurereleased on theMakeMOHQ2Home websiteclaims the state ranked third in average yearly growth of high-tech industries. When you think of a high-tech state, California and New York may be the first states to come to mind, but not Missouri. We wanted to find out how high-tech Missouri really is, and how it ranks in the country. We spoke with the researchers behind the data and economic experts who all agreed that rate of growth can be misleading. The Bureau of Labor Statistics notes that defining high-tech is a moving target. Generally, though, it considers jobs with lots of workers in science, technology, engineering and math fields to be part of the high-tech industry. Missouri officials used a2016 Milken Institute studyin their claim.The Milken Instituteis a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank. The Milken Institute has a free-market slant, said Michael Leeds, chair of the economics department at Temple University, but (is) a credible group of scholars. Minoli Ratnatunga, director of regional economics research at the institutes Center for Regional Economics, was a researcher in the study. Ratnatunga said the group considered 19 industries it thought were high-tech. A few of these industries include: pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing, commercial and service industry machinery manufacturing, medical equipment and supplies manufacturing, telecommunications and computer systems design. The Milken Institutes2016 State Technology and Science Indexshows that Missouri ranked third in average yearly growth of high-tech industries from 2010 to 2015. However, this is just one component that makes up Missouris overall placement. In 2016, Missouri ranked 28 out of 50. Two years prior, Missouri ranked 34 out of 50. In 2012, Missouri ranked 29 out of 50. These scores are based on several factors: human capital investment, research and development, risk capital, technology and science workforce, and technology concentration. Massachusetts, Colorado and Maryland were ranked the top three states overall in 2016. Kansas, Tennessee and Oklahoma ranked behind Missouri, with West Virginia rated last. That tells us where Missouri ranks relative to its peers, Ratnatunga said. Its improving, and things like (high-tech) growth is one aspect thats impacted its overall ranking, but its not in the top tier. Ratnatunga said its easy for Missouris high-tech industry to look as if its grown exponentially. If you have a relatively small sector, its easier to get a higher growth rate, Ratnatunga said. The same 500 jobs added in California would be a smaller growth rate. Leeds also said the rate of growth can be deceiving. If you have a very small base, twice a very small number is 100 percent growth, but it can be a very small number, he said. Ratnatunga said companies like Amazon need to look at the index overall when considering a states economy. This means recognizing qualities like overall growth in the economy, the quality of the workforce, universities, capital investments and research and development inputs. If it doesnt meet Amazons requirements, it might be a great choice for other companies that are looking to grow in high-tech, Ratnatunga said. Missouri officials claimed Missouri ranked 3rd (in) average yearly growth of high-tech industries. While Missouri high-tech industries may have seen growth, the size of base matters. Missouri has seen a growth in high-tech jobs, but the claim can be misleading when you dont consider the size of the base. Overall, Missouri is about average in the rankings. We rate this Mostly True. Claim:  Senator John Kerry referred to a Secret Service agent as a "son of a bitch."    . Origins:  Prior to February 2004, Senator John Kerry was the polar opposite of a "household name"  very few who didn't follow politics had even heard of him, let alone felt they had some sense of the man. Yet his emergence as the Democratic Party's front runner for the presidential nomination has stirred interest in the Senator, leaving a great many folks wondering what sort of fellow he is.  Because few Americans will have a chance to make the Senator's acquaintance before being called upon to cast their votes in the November   2004 election, most will have to base their assessments of his character upon accounts given by others. Yet sorting fact from rumor is often a difficult task in that all too often the stories that appear to offer startling insight can't be proved or disproved; they exist as unverifiable anecdotes (e.g., the rumor that John Kerry ate some long-suffering pilot's pizza). pizza However, every now and then a story comes along that the news agencies have vetted. Which brings us to the "son of a bitch" incident of 18 March 2004. While snowboarding in Ketchum, Idaho, Senator Kerry was knocked over by one of the Secret Service men assigned to protect him. According to The New York Times, "Mr. Kerry [was] taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow." A reporter and camera crew, who were following on skis, witnessed the collision but did not capture it on film. When asked about the crash, the Senator said, "I don't fall down. That son-of-a-bitch ran into me." Or "knocked me over," depending on which version you heard. (Actually, the Senator does fall down, at least according to The New York Post, which reported him as having taken a header on the wet floor of a convenience store the night before.) It probably needs to be pointed out the Senator referred to the agent in such fashion to a third party, as opposed to shouting his assessment into the bodyguard's face at the time of the accident. Yet, that Mr. Kerry didn't deliver the insult directly might speak worse of him. Though the etiquette mavens might not agree, it's almost understandable to call the other party to an accident all manner of cuss words in the immediate aftermath of a collision. Such an outburst is akin to dancing about swearing a blue streak after dropping a hammer on your foot, in that what is vented  though heartily felt at the time  is inappropriate and is realized to be such once the moment has passed. Yet, once there is distance between the accident and the fulmination, the "heat of the moment" defense no longer applies in that sober reflection is presumed to have taken place in the  interim. Did sufficient time pass between the accident and the remark for the initial frustration over having been upended into the snow in front of an audience to have worn off? Or did one follow quickly upon the heels of the other? The New York Times characterized that span as "a moment later" whereas CNN said "He later used an expletive to describe the agent who knocked him down," a phrasing that implies the passage of a goodly chunk of time, even if it doesn't state so outright. Whether Senator Kerry had time to cool down or not, it was churlish of him to call the person charged with protecting his life a son-of-a-bitch, and foolhardy to address such remark to a reporter, an act guaranteed to propel the ire-filled comment into the morning editions. Discretion around members of the fourth estate needs to be second nature for those who look to make their careers in politics, in that an elected official given to blurting things willy-nilly is a liability to those he serves. In similar vein, if a man can't be troubled to speak well of his Secret Service cover, the very agents who will lay down their lives for him, he should at least be enough of a gentleman to refrain from describing them with cuss words. Some who have encountered this story have stopped to ponder if perhaps the Senator voiced his "son of a bitch" characterization in an affectionate or playful manner, as some are wont to do in reference to acquaintances they feel particularly close to. Or, that the remark had been delivered in a tone of pretend anger as a way of ruefully admitting how inglorious the collision must have appeared to onlookers. Yet those theories wash out upon examination of the earliest account. According to The New York Times' description of the incident, Senator Kerry wasn't joking  he was pissed off: When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, "I don't fall down," then used an expletive to describe the agent who "knocked me over." "Sharply" does not describe any form of affectionate phrasing. Far from escaping public notice, Kerry's characterization of one of his government-appointed bodyguards became fodder for Jay Leno of The Tonight Show on 22 March 2004: But he's [John Kerry] quite an athlete. They showed him snowboarding. He's in Idaho and he's snowboarding. You see him on the news? He is pretty good. He's a good snowboarder. Man, he was going downhill faster than Howard Dean. It was unbelievable. There was an accident on the slopes. This is true. Kerry snowboarding. A skier collided with him, knocked him to the ground. Kerry got up, called the guy a son of a bitch. That's what he called the guy. In fact, today the FCC fined him $500,000 dollars and told him the next time he goes snowboarding it has to be with a five-second delay. President Bush has also been guilty of publicly labeling someone with a vulgarity  in 2000 while then the Republican presidental nominee, his privately-meant assessment of a certain reporter as "a major league asshole" was picked up by a live microphone. Our Major League Remark describes what happened and how, plus offers a variety of points to ponder for those intent upon working out whether President Bush or Senator Kerry was the more boorish. Major League Remark Barbara "the boor war" Mikkelson Last updated:  2 September 2007    Sources:   Crowley, Candy.  "Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics."   CNN.  19 March 2004.    Halbfinger, David.  "Amid Natural Splendor in Idaho, a Weary Kerry Gets Away From It All."   The New York Times.  19 March 2004  (p. A20).    Parker, Kathleen.  "Be a Sport, Senator Kerry."   Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  31 March 2004  (p. A15).    The New York Post.  "Kerry Flopped Day Before, Too."   21 March 2004  (p. 10).    The White House Bulletin.  "Late Night Political Humor."   22 March 2004.