Does Walmart Sell Insulin for $25 a Vial Without a Prescription?
In early February 2019, amid continued public outcry over the soaring cost of life-saving pharmaceuticals, readers shared a screen-captured image on social media of a local news station's reporting on the story of a woman who said she bought inexpensive insulin without a prescription at Walmart: pharmaceuticals   Readers asked us whether this was true. It is true, although you should note Walmart sells human insulin, an older version of the glucose-moderating hormone, whereas most insulin-dependent diabetics are currently prescribed insulin analogs that have evolved to help prevent dangerous swings in blood-glucose levels. The screenshot above was taken from a 4 February 2019 news broadcast from DallasFort Worth television station KDFW: We confirmed with Walmart that the retail chain does indeed sell human insulin without a prescription (except in Indiana). That product is Novo Nordisk-manufactured Novolin, which Walmart has branded as ReliOn and sells for $24.88 per vial. Walmart spokeswoman Marilee McInnis confirmed to us that the company has "maintained, through negotiation, the same retail to patients since 2011." To say that the insulin is sold "over-the-counter" isn't quite accurate, however, as customers must ask a pharmacist for it. Indiana Although this revelation might be important, life-saving information for diabetics, an important caveat is that human insulin behaves differently than the newer analog insulin currently retailing for more than $300 a vial. retailing Dr. Todd Hobbs, chief medical officer for Novo Nordisk, wrote that the different types of insulin have the same effect of lowering blood-glucose levels, but, "Training is required whenever someone is prescribed insulin, whether that be human insulin or the newer analog insulin products. Differences in the timing of all types of insulin must be considered for patients to effectively use them ... The difference in the types of insulin is related to how slowly or rapidly they are absorbed once injected. Scientific advances over the years have made improvements on the speed and length of time this absorption occurs." wrote Diabetes Forecast, a health-oriented magazine associated with the American Diabetics Association, explained the history of the two types of insulin and the difference in health benefits this way: explained In the 1970s, researchers discovered how to program bacteria in the lab to manufacture human insulin, and in 1982, regular human insulin became the first recombinant DNA drug product. Its a very pure, clean product, and its exactly what we as humans make, [Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy associate professor and a spokesman for the American Association of Diabetes Educators Evan] Sisson says. Human insulin is now available as short-acting regular (or R) insulin, which is used at mealtimes, and intermediate-acting NPH (or N) insulin, which is used as a basal insulin ... While the development of human insulin was a major advancement, it wasnt perfect. Regular insulin didnt hit the bloodstream quick enough to cover the rapid absorption of carbohydrates after meals, and it stuck around too long after meals, causing hypoglycemia [low blood glucose, which can lead to unconsciousness and death if untreated]. In 1996, Eli Lilly introduced the first rapid-acting insulin analog to the market: insulin lispro (Humalog). Insulin aspart (Novo Nordisks Novolog) and insulin glulisine (Sanofis Apidra) quickly followed. With rapid-acting insulin analogs, onset occurs 10 to 20 minutes after injection, instead of the 30 to 60 minutes it takes for regular human insulin to take effect. This allows people to inject their insulin right before a meal, rather than having to dose 30 minutes or more before eating ... hypoglycemia Deliver a dose of NPH [human] insulin, and itll reach its peak about six to eight hours later. This means your insulin may peak while youre sleeping, posing a serious danger if you dont wake up to treat. Long-acting analogs, on the other hand, dont peak, resulting in more-stable blood glucose levels and fewer unexpected highs or lows. In fact, one study showed that long-acting analog insulin glargine reduced overnight bouts of hypoglycemia by up to 48 percent compared with NPH. In another study, detemir reduced nighttime hypoglycemia by 34 percent. This is especially beneficial for people with type 1, who need to be much more precise about matching insulin dosages with their insulin needs to avoid nighttime lows, says Sisson. Note, there are two types of diabetes. Type 1 diabetics' bodies cannot manufacture insulin, the hormone responsible for glucose absorption. Type 2 diabetics' bodies, on the other hand, become resistant to insulin. In most cases, Type 1 diabetes starts in childhood, whereas Type 2 is sometimes referred to as "adult-onset" diabetes. Writing for Insulin Nation, Nicki Nichols explained why the older form of human insulin is difficult to control in children: Insulin Nation When my child was first diagnosed, she was on NPH. It was incredibly difficult to limit a growing childs diet to such a strict schedule. Heres what it looked like: 8 a.m.- 45-carb meal10:30 a.m.  15-carb snack12 p.m.  45-carb meal2 p.m.  15-carb snack5 p.m.  45-carb meal7:30 p.m.  15-20 carb snack before bed to keep blood sugar up overnight. I cannot tell you how many times my child refused to eat the 45 carbs in her dinner. There is something wrong when you are fussing at your 5-year-old to stop eating her green beans and to eat her bread, or mashed potatoes, or pasta. The screen shot from the KDFW report no doubt went viral as a result of an ongoing controversy over the cost of analog insulin, which as of 7 February 2019 soared to a retail price of more than $300 per vial. Americans have been awash in medical horror stories such the death of Jesse Lutgen, a 32-year-old Type 1 diabetic who lost his job at a distribution center in Dubuque, Iowa, and with it, his health insurance. He was found dead in his home in February 2018, having run out of insulin. His last vials of the medication were given to him by a friend. soared Jesse Lutgen Hobbs, Todd, MD.  "The Truth About Human Insulin."
  Novo Nordisk.  29 November 2018. Tsai, Allison.  "Can Switching from Analog to Human Insulin Save You Money?"
  Diabetes Forecast.  March 2017. Johnson, Carolyn Y.  "Why Treating Diabetes Keeps Getting More Expensive."
  The Washington Post.  31 October 2016. Nichols, Nicki.  "Why Walmart Insulins Arent the Answer to High Insulin Prices."
  Insulin Nation.  16 September 2016. Des Moines Register.  "Iowa Man Loses Job, Health Insurance, Access to Insulin and His Life. When Will Congress Act?"
  6 February 2019.
Claim:  E-mail reports the truth about the environmental impact of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)    OF  AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] First, do you know what ANWR is? ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now, a comparison:  And some perspective ...  NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS ... (its in the "ANWR Coastal Plain")  THIS IS WHAT THE TV People and others "GREENS" SHOW YOU WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANWR ... and they are right ... these ARE photographs of ANWR   Isn't ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place? Well, thats not exactly the truth. Do you remember the map? The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain. Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you? What's going on here? The answer is simple. That is NOT where they are wanting to drill! This is what the proposed exploration area ACTUALLY looks like in the winter:  And this is what it ACTUALLY looks like in the summer:    HERE ARE A COUPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM GOOGLE EARTH   As you can see, the area where they are talking about drilling is a barren wasteland.  Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife. Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the 'depleted wildlife' situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay. Don't you think that the Caribou really hate that drilling?  Here's that same spot during the winter:  Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.  Now, why do you think that the Democrats are LYING about ANWR? Remember when Al Gore said that the government should work to ARTIFICIALLY raise gas prices to $5 a gallon? Well, Al Gore and his fellow Democrats have almost reached their goal! Now that you know that the Democrats have been lying, what are you going to do about it? You can start by forwarding this to everyone you know, so that they will know the truth. P.S.: Drilling does not "destroy." It creates jobs, resources and strengthens our economy  all while protecting our environment. Everyone benefits, even caribou. Origins:  As the price of oil continues to rise with no predictable end in sight, debates over whether the U.S. can and should be producing more oil from domestic sources have been renewed.  A primary focus of such  debates has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area which encompasses 19 million acres in the northeast corner of Alaska. The ANWR issue is now a political hot potato batted back and forth between proponents of exploration and development in ANWR's Coastal Plain who assert that the area could become a valuable source of domestic oil production with minimal impact on the environment, and opponents who maintain that the potential advantages to be gained from drilling for oil in ANWR are far too small to offset the despoiling (and potential devastation) of a protected wildlife area.The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.    factors The e-mailed slide show reproduced above might serve a useful function in prompting the public to take a greater interest in all the issues surrounding the potential opening of ANWR to oil exploration, but the information it presents is scant and one-sided.  Since the ANWR issue is far too extensive and complex to cover in detail here, we'll just provide a brief summary of both sides' arguments regarding points mentioned by the e-mailed slide show, with links to sites (on both sides of the issue) that provide greater detail:  Although the ANWR is small in size compared to the entirety of Alaska, at 19 million acres it is larger than ten other states.  (As the third graphic shows, ANWR is about the size of the state of South Carolina.) Proponents point out that the proposed development area within the ANWR Coastal Plain is a relatively small patch of 2,000 acres, an area which constitutes roughly1/10,000 of the total acreage of the ANWR.  Opponents maintain that a similar drilling operation in Alaska at Prudhoe Bay was originally designated to encompass only 2,100 acres but has since expanded to a total drilling footprint of 12,000 acres spread over 640,000 acres of the North Slope. size expanded  Proponents maintain that wildlife continues to flourish amid drilling and other oil production activities in other Arctic regions and would fare just as well near ANWR exploration facilities.  Opponents assert that other North Slope oil development activities have caused an average of 504 spills per year since 1996, including "4,532 spills between 1996 and 2004 totaling more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances." flourish spills  Proponents maintain that the proposed ANWR Coastal Plain development area is primarily a featureless, barren expanse that is frozen and windswept for most of the year, and therefore exploration and drilling activities would have minimal impact on wildlife in the immediate area (or in the greater ANWR).  Opponents assert that environmental accidents can have devastating effects far outside the limited areas in which they originally occur.  Last updated:  2 July 2008 On 10 December 2015, the web site YourNewsWire.com published a video purportedly showing film acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick, who helmed such groundbreaking films as Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and A Clockwork Orange, confessing to having helped NASA fake the Apollo program moon landings: published A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick's death in which Kubrick admits that the NASA moon landings were faked. Filmmaker T. Patrick Murray interviewed Kubrick three days before his death in March 1999. He was forced to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents of the interview a secret for 15 years. Below is a transcript from the interview with Stanley Kubrick, in which the 2001 Space Odyssey Director admits on camera that, "the moon landings ALL were faked, and that I was the person who filmed it." In the interview, the alleged Stanley Kubrick figures confesses that: Kubrick: I perpetrated a huge fraud on the American public, which I am now about to detail, involving the United States government and NASA, that the moon landings were faked, that the moon landings ALL were faked , and that I was the person who filmed it. Murray: Ok. (laughs) What are you talking ... You're serious. Ok. Kubrick: I'm serious. Dead serious. Yes, it was fake. Murray: Why are you telling the world? Why does the world need to know that the moon landings aren't real and you faked them? Kubrick: I consider them to be my masterpiece. Murray: And you can' t take credit, or even talk about ... Kubrick: Well, I am now ... Murray: So, you can't talk to Roger Ebert about it. Does that frustrate you? Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that? Kubrick: Because it is impossible to get there ... 2001 was very ambitious, but that's not to say that faking the moon landing was not ambitious. But I learned things from making 2001, and that's why I got this gig in the first place. Murray: That makes sense Kubrick: Well, it was easy for me, because I didn't think a whole lot about the morality of it. But I didn't. And I could see that Neil [Armstrong] was, he was bothered by it. This video has been circulating online since at least August 2015 and is one of several clips purportedly showing Kubrick talking about his alleged involvement in faking the U.S. moon landings. While there are various edits of this infamous (and fake) interview circulating on YouTube, the videos all originated with a new film from T. Patrick Murray titled Shooting Kubrick. film Murray claimed on the Shooting Kubrick web site that he was granted unprecedented access to interview the director in May 1999, which would have been quite an impressive feat since Kubrick had passed away two months earlier:Although the date could be a simple typographical error, that was not the only questionable aspect of the interview. The man being interviewed simply doesn't look or sound like Stanley Kubrick when compared to a video of the real Kubrick accepting the D.W. Griffith Award in 1997:  Furthermore, unedited versions of the interview contain hints that the "Stanley Kubrick" in the video is an actor. In a since-deleted clip, the interviewer called his subject "Tom" and instructed him on how to tell the next part of his story: "You don't say he said anything. You say what he says. Tom, I'm giving you directions. You don't have to imitate him (Richard Nixon). You're not reporting it. You're repeating it ... We're doing exposition here. That's how we're going to sneak it in." A spokesman for Kubrick's widow also proclaimed that "[t]he interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray the whole story is made up, fraudulent and untrue." T. Patrick Murray has not admitted that his interview with Stanley Kubrick is a hoax, but he certainly is banking the mystery's driving interest in his project: In the wake of the Great Recession, some conservative political leaders are considering a new portion of the state budget to save money -- the prison system.Gov. Nathan Deal has talked about his desire to find less costly alternatives to prison for drug addicts who commit nonviolent crimes.It is draining our state treasury and depleting our workforce, Deal said in his inaugural address.It seems some of this new thinking comes from conservative mastermind Newt Gingrich, the former Georgia congressman and one-time U.S. House speaker who says he is considering a run for president.Gingrich co-wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post a few days before Deals speech that contained similar themes.The criminal justice system is broken, and conservatives must lead the way in fixing it, wrote Gingrich and Pat Nolan, a former California lawmaker who is now vice president of a Christian ministry that aids prisoners, ex-prisoners and their families.Some people attribute the nations recent drop in crime to more people being locked up. But the facts show otherwise, they added. While crime fell in nearly every state over the past seven years, some of those with the largest reductions in crime have also lowered their prison population.AJC PolitiFact Georgia stumbled upon the second sentence late last week and wondered whether it was true. Wouldnt the reason why some states have less crime is because more criminals are in prison?A Gingrich spokesman pointed to data from states such as Texas to make the former speakers case. In 2007, Texas lawmakers approved broad changes to the states correctional system -- then the nations largest -- that included more drug courts and treatment programs, The New York Times reported. Crime, Gingrich and Nolan wrote, dropped 10 percent between 2004 and 2009, and the Lone Star State is expected to save about $2 billion in prison costs over five years.Gingrich and Nolan also compared New York and Florida to further prove their point.Over the past seven years, Florida's incarceration rate has increased 16 percent, while New York's decreased 16 percent, they wrote. Yet the crime rate in New York has fallen twice as much as Florida's. Put another way, although New York spent less on its prisons, it delivered better public safety.We looked around to see whether anyone has done research on this topic. The Washington-based Pew Center on the States puts together an annual report on the prison population of each state. Its most recent annual report, released in April 2010, found the number of state inmates in America declined for the first time in 38 years. Between 1972 and 2008, the number of state prisoners grew by an astounding 708 percent, Pew found.The Pew Center has also done research, using data from the federal government, on the nations crime rate. It shared two charts: one with the change in crime rate between 1999 and 2009; the other contained the incarceration rate change during that same time period.The Pew research showed four of the 10 states with the greatest drops in crime were also among the top 10 states in lowering their incarceration rates. Those four states were Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Utah. The six other states had increases in their incarceration rates. Texas, which Gingrich and Nolan held up as an example of their theory, had a 10 percent drop in crime and a 15 percent decline in its incarceration rate.Georgia, by the way, had a 21 percent decrease in crime and a 1 percent decrease in its incarceration rate, according to Pews data. The Peach State did not rank in the top 10 in either category.We also looked at data from the federal National Institute of Corrections, which compiled 2008 crime statistics from several state and federal agencies and the incarceration rates in 2009. Seven of the 10 states with the lowest crime rates also had among the 15 lowest incarceration rates. Those seven states were Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota and Vermont. Georgia had the eighth-highest crime rate and incarceration rate.Florida and Texas ranked among the top 10 highest crime rates and incarceration rates.So are some of these states making a concerted attempt to leave more space in their prisons?Texas is trying to change its approach in order to save money on incarceration, Gingrich and The New York Times noted.In Oregon, where officials say the crime rate is at its lowest rate in four decades, the states Criminal Justice Commission analyzed five-year intervals of the states incarceration rate, the Portland Oregonian reported. Oregon had a 36 percent decrease in crime between 1999 and 2009, the largest decrease in the nation, according to the Pew data.The commission found major drops in both violent and property crime from 1995 through 2000, when Oregon's prison population grew more than 50 percent, the Oregonian reported. It also showed that when incarceration remained fairly flat from 2005 to 2008, violent crime and property crime continued to fall. Then-Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat, has used the lack of growth in the prison system to argue that Oregon should not overinvest in our prison system. Others in the Oregonian article suggest the lower crime rate is a result of an aging population and efforts to reduce the production of a key ingredient of methamphetamine.There is some debate about what factors are causing a decline in crime. Gingrich and Nolan argued that some states with major reductions in crime have also had large drops in their incarceration rate. The Pew figures provide support to Gingrichs point. So does the National Institute of Corrections data. Therefore, we rate Gingrichs statement as True. On April 22, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden gave remarks at the "Virtual Leaders Summit on Climate" in which he framed a nationwide effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions as an opportunity for "millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs." By investing in these new jobs, Biden said, he hopes the United States can cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030:  Joe Biden remarks The United States isnt waiting. We are resolving to take action  not only the  our federal government, but our cities and our states all across our country; small businesses, large businesses, large corporations; American workers in every field. I see an opportunity to create millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs. I see line workers laying thousands of miles of transmission lines for a clean, modern, resilient grid. I see workers capping hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells that need to be cleaned up, and abandoned coal mines that need to be reclaimed, putting a stop to the methane leaks and protecting the health of our communities. I see auto workers building the next generation of electric vehicles, and electricians installing nationwide for 500,000 charging stations along our highways. I see  engineers and the construction workers building new carbon capture and green hydrogen plants to forge cleaner steel and cement and produce clean power. I see farmers deploying cutting-edge tools to make soil of our  of our Heartland the next frontier in carbon innovation. By maintaining those investments and putting these people to work, the United States sets out on the road to cut greenhouse gases in half  in half by the end of this decade. Thats where were headed as a nation, and thats what we can do if we take action to build an economy thats not only more prosperous, but healthier, fairer, and cleaner for the entire planet. At no point in this speech did Biden announce any initiative to impose a limit on red meat consumption. At no point in his presidency has Biden suggested policies aimed at limiting red meat consumption. Despite these facts, right-wing news outlets and politicians began aggressively repeating the claim that Biden's plan included "cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030." This false notion stems from the British tabloid the Daily Mail, which  in lieu of actual details the Biden administration has not yet provided  took it upon themselves to speculate about what terrible things "could" be theoretically included in the plan: to speculate   The Daily Mail cited a report published by the University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems that looked, in extremely simplified terms, how much of a reduction would result from various dietary changes. As reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, the researchers concluded: reported That replacing half of all animal-based foods with plant-based alternatives would reduce diet-related emissions by 35%. And if half of all animal-based foods were replaced with plant-based alternatives and beef consumption fell by 90%, dietary emissions would drop by 51%. If American diets remain unchanged, emissions associated with producing the food we eat will climb 9% by 2030. The University of Michigan exercise is, in their words, "reliant on a number of simplifying assumptions" and designed to show the impact of various diet change scenarios on climate. It is not, in any way, a policy suggestion or proposal. As you may recall, the Biden announcement was about green jobs and did not once mention initiatives to change the diet of Americans. Despite this, Biden's critics used the Daily Mail's baseless speculation as if it were actual scientific analysis of a plan whose details Biden has not yet released. their words Former Fox News pundit Todd Starnes argued on his show that the January 2020 Michigan study was actually an analysis of a Biden plan that, at the time of this reporting in April 2021, has not been released: argued   The claim that Biden's plan includes this 90% red meat reduction is often paired with a Fox News screen capture: often paired   As it is clear by the citation, this information comes from the same University of Michigan study the Daily Mail relied on to speculate about potential paths to carbon emission reductions. It is not, as suggested, a "requirement" for Biden's climate plan. Fox's reporting made it all the way to the halls of Congress. On April 24, 2021, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., asserted in a viral tweet that the Daily Mail's speculation was an actual policy proposal by Biden: viral tweet   Because the Daily Mail is a British tabloid and not involved in American climate policy discussions, and because Biden's plan has not yet been released, claims that it includes a policy that requires a 90% reduction in red meat are On 12 April 2017, the partisan web site Crooks and Liars reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions owns shares in the private prison industry and stands to gain financially from some of his recent policy announcements: reported It's more than a conflict of interest. The more people Attorney General Jeff Sessions sends to private prisons, the more money he shoves in his pockets. From announcing he wants federal law enforcement agencies to bust people for a little bit of weed, to ordering federal prosecutors to find ways to convict more immigrants, Sessions is looking for ways to provide more clients to private prisons that are contracted by the federal government... ...As Attorney General Sessions fills these private prisons, he is making money. According to his latest financial disclosures required by congress, dated December 23, 2016, he divested of other investments that were found to be in conflict. In these disclosures, he also lists numerous Vanguard funds. Vanguard owns more private prison stock than any other investment management company. A popular meme also broadcast this claim:   The article lists three funds that Sessions has shares in, all of which are managed by the investment firm Vanguard, and claims that the funds contain holdings in two leading companies in the private prison industry: CoreCivic and GEO Group. This is true of only two of those funds. The third seems to be listed as the result of a mix-up. The article rightly states that one of these funds, the Vanguard Total International Stock Index fund, contains holdings in "GEO Holdings Corporation". However, this is a Japanese company that has no relation to the Florida-based private prison company GEO Group, as confirmed to Snopes.com by a spokesperson for GEO Group. Japanese company As for the other two investment funds, federal financial disclosure records show that the Attorney General owns between $31,003 and $115,000 worth of shares in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, yielding a total of between $1,403 and $4,500 in income per year for Sessions. federal financial disclosure records Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund And this fund does indeed include CoreCivic and GEO Group:   However, what the article does not mention is that CoreCivic and GEO Group constitute just two out of 3,557 companies in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund. Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund is what's known as an Excepted Investment Fund (EIF) - that means the fund is independently managed (that is, not by Sessions himself), and either publicly traded or "widely-diversified" (that is, it doesn't focus on one particular sector of the economy), according to the Office of Government Ethics.  Office of Government Ethics A brief look at this particular fund shows that its more than 3,500 holdings relate to companies from throughout the economy, including well-known names such as Cracker Barrel, Zillow and Rite Aid.  The same is true of the Vanguard Small-Cap Index fund, in which Sessions has between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of shares, yielding between $201 and $1,000 in income for him, per year. Vanguard Small-Cap Index fund While it does include holdings in CoreCivic and GEO Group, these are just two of 1,422 companies listed in the fund, which come from a variety of sectors and include names like Domino's Pizza and JetBlue Airways. According to Kathleen Clark, a Professor at Washington University School of Law and an expert on legal and government ethics, investments in widely-diversified funds such as these are unlikely to leave a public official vulnerable to conflicts of interest. If it's a diversified fund as opposed to being a sector fund [focused on one sector of the economy], then it's not subject to the conflict of interest statute. Clark told us that even if one or two companies in a widely-diversified fund were to perform well and increase their value, the presence of a large number of other companies in that fund means "It is exceedingly unlikely that such an interest would influence the government official, or that the public would perceive that as a significant risk." This is because income from a widely-diversified fund, like the two we're examining, is based on the aggregate value of the companies within that fund. Remember that in one fund, CoreCivic and GEO Group represent two out of 3,557 companies, and in the other, they represent two out of 1,422. Now remember that the Attorney General's total annual income from the first fund is between $1,403 and $4,500 and from the second fund, it's between $201 and $1,000. So while it's true that Jeff Sessions has some shares in funds that include holdings in two private prison companies, it's misleading to say that this means he stands to gain in any meaningful way from an increase in the value of those companies, or that "The more people Attorney General Jeff Sessions sends to private prisons, the more money he shoves in his pockets." The Attorney General's annual income from these funds - which is relatively low - depends on the overall performance of those funds. A surge in the value of CoreCivic or the GEO Group would very quickly be cancelled out by a dip in the value of just a handful of the thousands of other companies included in those two funds, and because these are widely-diversified Excepted Invested Funds, they don't fall foul of conflict of interest regulations. Budd, Jenn.  "Jeff Sessions Getting Rich Filling Private Prisons."
  Crooks and Liars.  12 April 2017
 Office of Government Ethics.  "Excepted Investment Fund."
  Accessed 17 May 2017.

 Vanguard.  "Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund."
  30 April 2017.

 Vanguard.  "Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund."
  30 April 2017.

 Office of Government Ethics.  "Public Financial Disclosure Report - Jefferson B. Sessions."
  Accessed 17 May 2017. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In early March 2020, amid the COVID-19 coronavirus disease outbreak that would later grow into a pandemic, the massive retail and delivery company Amazon launched the Amazon Relief Fund, which among other things, offers grants to contract and seasonal workers so they can receive sick pay if they contract the coronavirus. The $25 million fund established by Amazon sparked an online backlash after a liberal newsletter pointed out that seasonal and contract workers would have to file an application to receive the funds, and that Amazon, a behemoth corporation whose founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the world, solicited public donations for the program. Anger over the idea that a famously profitable corporation was soliciting donations from the public to fund sick leave for some of its workforce during a pandemic was initiated by reporting from Popular Information, described as a "newsletter about politics and power." The letter's founder, Judd Legum, posted this Twitter thread on March 24, 2020:We reached out to Amazon for comment and received the following statement: reporting Twitter thread  We are not and have not asked for donations and the Amazon Relief Fund has been funded by Amazon with an initial donation of $25 million. The structure to operate a fund like this, which hundreds of companies do through the same third-party, requires the program to be open to public contributions but we are not soliciting those contributions in any way. Amazon truly did launch a $25 million fund to provide sick leave for contract workers and seasonal employees through a grant program to which those workers must file applications before receiving benefits. Although the wording on the page has since been updated to indicate that donations are not expected, initially the language did indicate that Amazon was seeking  or at the very least suggesting  donations. An archived version of the page from March 19, 2020, included this statement (shown in the screen capture below): "The Fund relies primarily on individual donations from individuals and support from Amazon.com Services LLC to fund this program."The page has since been updated. The highlighted sentence above was removed and the page now explicitly states that donations from the public are not expected, as follows:We reached out to Legum, who told us via email that he believed Amazon changed the wording on the relief fund page "because the optics were clearly bad and the company is trying to cover up its actions." Legum added that in his view, "Amazon has ample resources to simply pay their contractors while they are out sick during this pandemic." updated archived version  updated  According to Amazon's announcement, the Amazon Relief Fund will provide their delivery partners and drivers "the ability to apply for grants approximately equal to up to two-weeks of pay if diagnosed with COVID-19 or placed into quarantine by the government or Amazon." announcement Additionally, the statement reads, "this fund will support our employees and contractors around the world who face financial hardships from other qualifying events, such as a natural disaster, federally declared emergency, or unforeseen personal hardship. Applicants can apply and receive a personal grant from the fund ranging from $400 to $5,000 USD per person." The company also announced it is offering unlimited unpaid time off for hourly staff during the month of March. announced Whether or not Amazon actively solicited donations, the original wording on its Amazon Relief Fund page did call for individuals to donate to the fund. Even though the wording has been updated to state explicitly that no donations from the public are expected, a "Donate" button still exists on the page, which could be interpreted as an invitation to do so. We therefore rate this claim  Legum, Judd.  "Amazon Soliciting Public Donations to Pay Workers' Sick Leave."
  Popular Information.24 March 2020. Galetti, Beth.  "COVID-19 Update: More Ways Amazon Is Supporting Employees and Contractors."
  DayOne, the Amazon blog.11 March 2020. Palmer, Annie.  "Amazon Launches $25 Million Relief Fund for Delivery Drivers and Seasonal Employees Amid Coronavirus Outbreak."
  CNBC.  11 March 2020. Greene, Jaye.  "Amazon Workers Test Positive for Covid-19 at 10 U.S. Warehouses."
  Washington Post.25 March 2020. [CORRECTION 03/25/20]: A previous version of this article erroneously stated that Amazon was offering "unlimited paid time off" to hourly staff during the month of March; that has been corrected to "unlimited unpaid time off." Since at least 2020, various Facebook and Instagram ads claimed that U.S. citizens with "no DUIs in the last 3 years" could receive $610, $622, $710, or $712 as a government refund check, perhaps as part of a stimulus plan, if they simply entered their ZIP code into a form. For example, one video ad showed U.S. President Joe Biden signing a piece of paper and another person holding checks that appeared to resemble the design used by the U.S. Treasury. It also included a clip of a family celebrating something they saw on their computer. one video ad Joe Biden  The video of the family celebrating likely had something to do with the girl in the video being accepted to a college. It's unclear if they knew their video was being used in this Facebook ad.  This Facebook ad from the Edwin Parker Facebook page, which had more than 70,000 followers, read: "Enter Your Zip Code To See What You Get Back. US Citizens with no DUIs in the last 3 years are getting $610 back if they sign up before the deadline ends. HURRY." Edwin Parker Facebook page However, there was no truth to any of this. Biden did not sign legislation to provide $610, $622, $710, $712, or any other amount of money to drivers who hadn't driven under the influence in the last three years. No other U.S. government entity was providing money either. A picture of Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court also appeared in some of the ads as well, which was also misleading. These sorts of Facebook and Instagram ads often lead to little more than offers to change insurance providers. However, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) told us that these can also be scams that attempt to obtain your personally identifiable information for nefarious purposes. We previously reported about a similar scam that also used pictures of Biden and promised $3,600 stimulus checks from the government to homeowners. reported The ad on the Edwin Parker Facebook page led to the website expertsinfinance.online. We noticed that the website's terms and conditions page was rather short, and that the address it listed was in Mumbai, India. expertsinfinance.online terms and conditions page Mumbai, India  The Facebook ads claimed the dollar amount was $610 or $622, while the website resulting from the ad said $710 or $712.  The website's landing page stated the following: People With No DUIs In Last 3 Years Are Getting $710 Back in Savings. ENDING SOON: Drivers Should Check Savings Before the 30th ... Disclaimer: This is an advertorial and not an actual news article, blog or consumer protection update. Our aim is to bring consumers the best information that may help them make informed decisions. This article is for demonstration purposes only. By proceeding forward you automatically agree to our terms and conditions. The purpose of this site is the solicitation of insurance. This article is for demonstration purposes only. By proceeding forward you automatically agree to our terms and conditions. The purpose of this site is the solicitation of insurance. This site is not a part of the Facebook website or Facebook Inc. This site is not endorsed by Facebook in any way. FACEBOOK is a trademark of FACEBOOK, Inc. As for the Edwin Parker Facebook page, it listed 19 page managers in India, one in Germany, and one in the U.S. Also, its profile picture did not show a man named Edwin Parker, but rather Ezekiel Emanuel. profile picture Emanuel's bio said that he was "the Vice Provost for Global Initiatives, the Diane v.S. Levy and Robert M. Levy University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania." He was also listed as "a Special Advisor to the Director General of the World Health Organization, as well as a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress." He appeared to do have nothing to do with the Facebook page and likely did not know his picture was being misused. bio In sum, no, drivers with "no DUIs in the last 3 years" were not eligible for government refund checks of $610, $622, $710, $712, or any other dollar amount. Readers as well as their friends and family are advised to steer clear of these kinds of ads and websites. For the reasons stated within this story, along with guidance from the BBB, we have rated this claim as a "Scam." In November 2023, multiple Facebook ads were displayed to users that led to an article that bore the People magazine logo and claimed that Sheryl Underwood, the longtime co-host of "The Talk," would be leaving the TV talk show to work on expanding her own line of keto gummies for weight loss. However, this was not true. Underwood has nothing to do with any keto gummies for weight loss, nor did People magazine ever publish any such story. Underwood was simply the latest person in a long line of famous people who had had their image and likeness used without permission to sell keto gummies. Further, this false rumor that mentioned Underwood led to a dangerous scam that could potentially cost victims thousands of dollars per year. a long line of famous people One version of the Facebook ad claimed, "Producers are furious that she came forward." The headline in the ads read, "Sheryl Abandons 'The Talk' After Confessing Her Trick." Two of the false Facebook ads that promoted the scam. These ads led to a fake People magazine article on scam websites including emperorsland.pro, sizzlingpear.pro, mindfulmovement.pro and chillytreats.info. (We were unable to provide an archived link to the article since scammers design these websites so that the scam version of the page is cloaked from prying eyes  that is, unless users specifically came from a Facebook ad.) This is not a true story, nor did People.com ever publish any such article. The fake People magazine article, which was nothing more than fiction and a scam, began as follows: Sheryl Underwood Confirms She Is Leaving 'The Talk' After Her Accidental 'Live' Confession On-Air... The host said that it was 'time for a break', but she may actually have bigger things in mind. (People) - Sheryl Underwood, the 60-year-old host on CBS's show 'The Talk', shocked everyone when she announced her departure from the show after 12 record-breaking years on-air. Sheryl, who has earned the reputation of being one of the most business savvy women in the industry, made sponsors (and CBS) FURIOUS. Why? Because Sheryl failed to disclose her new weight loss line to the network. Sheryl's new company is actually a HUGE competitor to CBS's current sponsor Weight Watchers because Sheryl's product is 90% cheaper and five times more effective than Weight Watchers's competing product. According to sources, CBS made Sheryl decide on which direction she was going to focus on in the future. Being so turned off by the reaction of the network and their power move she has decided to pursue her new weight loss line and dream. The scam article went on to falsely claim that other celebrities had joined with Underwood to promote the products, whether they be Belly Blast Keto Gummies, Total Fit Keto Gummies or other products. It is a fact that no celebrities have ever endorsed keto gummies that are purportedly intended for use in weight loss. Websites that promote sales of keto gummies for weight loss usually lack information about the true creators of the products and the source of where they were packaged. In the past, some consumers who fell victim to these scams told Snopes that the post office box numbers included in return addresses for the products don't exist. The rabbit hole for keto gummies goes even deeper, however. Two odd scenarios have been laid out by numerous victims of the scams, which usually involve monthly subscription fees often reported as being around $200 or more, or around $2,400 per year. Some consumers said that they never ordered the products but kept receiving shipments that they had no way of returning, due to fake return addresses. On the flip side, other customers said that they received charges for the products on their credit card statements despite never having ordered them, and then never received any products in the mail. Further, listings for keto gummies for weight loss on Amazon.com and Walmart.com often feature the words "Shark" and "Tank," although not consecutively as "Shark Tank." The two words are included in product listings on Amazon.com and Walmart.com so that any customers searching online for keto gummies with the words "Shark Tank"  after those same customers saw false claims that said the TV show's investors endorsed the products  would then fall victim to the scam and purchase the products based on the "Shark Tank" lie. Again, to be clear, no investors associated with "Shark Tank" ever endorsed gummies. false claims If any readers have been victimized by these scams, we recommend contacting your credit card company immediately, reporting fraud to the FTC and also searching the U.S. Better Business Bureau's (BBB) website to perform a search for the product name associated with the purchase on your account or the product that arrived at your doorstep, so that you can find the company or LLC connected with the scam. reporting fraud to the FTC website Liles, Jordan. Shark Tank Keto Gummies Weight Loss Reviews Are a Scam. Snopes, 14 Mar. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shark-tank-keto-gummies-weight-loss-reviews/. New York Republican State Committee Chairman Edward F. Cox claimed the unemployment rate is rising in upstate counties, something Republicans intend to remind voters about in the 2018 race for governor. Of all the 62 counties in New York state, all of them, unemployment is going up except for the five counties of New York City, Coxsaidin a radio interview. The claim is in direct contrast to a rosier picture of the economy painted by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. The governor touted a decline in unemployment statewide during his State of the State address this month. Every region has seen a drop in unemployment and underemployment, Cuomo said. Is Cox right that unemployment is up everywhere outside New York City? Coxs numbers Cox based his claim on a press release on unemployment from the state Department of Labor, his spokesperson said. The release showed the jobless rate for the states 15 metro areas in November 2016 and November 2017, the latest data released by the department. The release does not break down unemployment by county, though it links to that data. Albany, Schenectady and Troy are all counted as one area even though the cities are in different counties. Each of the 14 metro areas outside New York City had a higher unemployment rate in November 2017 than the year before, the data showed. The rural parts of the state, lumped into one category, also had a higher unemployment rate. The New York City metro area was the only place where unemployment went down. A short-term rise in unemployment isn't always bad news. As was the case inMassachusettslast year, a higher unemployment rate could mean more people have decided to enter a growing workforce, but have not landed a job yet. All but five of the state's metro areas added private sector jobs last year. The labor force, meanwhile, increased in all but two counties in New York state. Unemployment by county The state Department of Labor also tracks the unemployment rate for each county. Our analysis of the data shows Cox is mostly correct in his claim, with a few exceptions. The unemployment rate in Lewis County decreased from 6.1 percent in November 2016 to 5.9 percent a year later. The countys labor force and the number of people working increased during that time. Seneca and Clinton counties saw no change in unemployment during that time. The labor force and the number of people employed increased in those counties as well. Unemployment in every other county outside New York City went up between November 2016 and November 2017. Unemployment in each of New York Citys five boroughs went down. The rates for each county and metro area are not seasonally adjusted. That means they dont adjust the data for major shifts in employment during retail holidays seasons, or construction in the summer. A market analyst from the state Department of Labor said the agency does not calculate seasonally adjusted numbers at the county level. Since 2011 While unemployment has inched up in most counties outside New York City recently, the trend has been very different since Cuomo took office in 2011. The unemployment rate is lower in every county since Cuomo took office in 2011, according to state data. Hamilton County, which recorded the largest one-year increase in unemployment in 2017, still has a lower unemployment rate than it did in 2011. Other counties, like Clinton and Columbia, now have an unemployment rate less than half of what it was when Cuomo took office. Someanalystsbelieve drops in unemployment upstate have been inflated by a shrinking population. Monroe County had more than 13,000 fewer people in the labor force in November 2017 than January 2011, for example. During that time, the countys unemployment rate decreased from 8.3 percent to 5.1 percent. Our ruling Of all the 62 counties in New York state, all of them, unemployment is going up except for the five counties of New York City, Cox said. Cox was comparing unemployment figures between November 2017 and November 2016. The figures showed unemployment up in almost every county outside New York City. One county had a lower rate, and two other counties had no change in their unemployment rates. We rate his claim Mostly True. Rumors are surging in the wake of George Floyd's death and resulting protests against police violence and racial injustice in the United States. Stay informed. Read our special coverage, contribute to support our mission, and submit any tips or claims you see here. Read contribute here In June 2020, several social media users copy-pasted a piece of text across social media that claimed the Rev. Al Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at the funeral of George Floyd, the Black man whose death while in police custody sparked nationwide protests against police brutality and racial injustice. social media     Verbatim or near-verbatim copies of this message  "Al Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at George Floyd's funeral"  have been shared by dozens of users on Facebook and Twitter. The earliest posting of this message that we could find was shared on June 13, a few days after Floyd's funeral service, by Brian Benedetto. That post had been shared more than 69,000 times:   However, none of the posts that we examined offered any evidence to support the claim. These posts weren't accompanied by links to news articles, quotes, TV interviews, financial records, or any other evidence to prove this accusation. It seems that this claim was simply conjured up out of thin air.  This type of post, a piece of text overlaid on a bright background, is frequently used to share unfounded claims, which are repeated over and over until some people become convinced that they are true.  Poynter wrote in 2019: Poynter When Facebook started letting users post text on top of colored backgrounds in 2016, it seemed like a fairly benign way to get people to share more personal thoughts on the platform. [...] But since then, like other formats on Facebook, the text post feature has been weaponized into an effective way to spread misinformation on the platform. Over the past few weeks, some of the most viral hoaxes on Facebook have spread in the form of text posts. They make salacious political claims without linking to any website or attaching a photo or video. They often come from regular Facebook users instead of Pages or Groups. There is no evidence to support the claim that Sharpton was paid $24,000 to speak at Floyd's funeral. This claim did not originate with a credible source and is not supported by any available evidence. However, we can't definitively say that Sharpton was not paid for this speaking engagement. We reached out to Sharpton and The Fountain of Praise Church in Houston for more information and will update this story if we hear back.  A video of Sharpton's eulogy can be viewed below: eulogy    Funke, Daniel.  "Forget Fake News Stories. False Text Posts Are Getting Massive Engagement on Facebook."
  Poynter.  6 March 2019. Emmrich, Stuart.  "The Most Moving Moment of Al Sharptons Eulogy for George Floyd."
  Vogue. 2 June 2020. CBS Minnesota.  "Al Sharpton To Deliver Eulogy At George Floyd Memorial Service."   2 June 2020.