McClosure
Claim: The McDonald's fast food chain will be closing 17,000 locations due to an increase in the minimum wage.  Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2015] Is McDonald's closing 17,000 stores because of the $15.00 minimum wage? Origins: On 28 October 2015, the web site Now 8 News published an article reporting that 17,000 McDonald's locations would be closing by 1 April 2016 due to a recent increase in the minimum wage: The largest chain of fast food restaurants in the world has announced that the minimum wage increase from $8.75 an hour to $15 an hour has caused them to schedule the close 17,000 restaurants in the United States.With already decreasing profits, McDonald says this is the "straw that broke the camels back." The above-quoted story is a piece of fiction. The United States minimum wage, as established by federal law, is still $7.25 per hour (although some cities have approved a gradual raising of their minimum wages to $15 an hour), and McDonald's has not announced that they will be closing 17,000 stores due to any wage increases.Now 8 News is one of many fake news sites that attempts to attract traffic through the frequent publication of false rumors under clickbait headlines. frequent false rumors This isn't the first time that a fake news story has used "McDonald's response to a$15 minimum wage" as its basis. The equally disreputableNews Examiner posted a fake news story claiming that the restaurant chain would start using a robotic staff to avoid paying their employees $15 per hour. robotic   Last updated: 4 November 2015 Originally published: 4 November 2015
Bell peppers come in a variety of sizes and colors, and, according to a popular internet rumor, a variety of genders as well:  This old cook's tale about identifying the gender of bell peppers has been around for years, but it has recently seen an uptick in Internet interest on social media sites such as Pinterest. But no matter how many times the above-displayed image is shared, it will not change the fact that a bell pepper's sex cannot be determined by the number of bumps on its outer surface  in large part because peppers aren't classifiable as being wholly one sex or the other: Pinterest A section on the reproductive biology of peppers in The Encyclopedia of Fruit and Nuts notes that bell peppers come from flowers possessing both male and female sex organs: "Pepper flowers are complete and perfect, that is they have a calyx, corolla and male and female sex organs. The flowers are protogynous, but readily self-pollinate." notes David Karp, a pomologist at UC Riverside, also addressed the rumor of bell pepper gender in 2013: "The supposition that there are male and female peppers is a common canard, but untrue. Peppers grow from flowers that have both male and female parts. The fruits do not have a gender." addressed While bell peppers are neither male nor female, some food blogs have insisted there is still some usefulness to this widespread rumor. For example, the Garden Frugal writes that while it is not scientifically accurate to label bell peppers male or female, assigning a gender may help cooks remember how to choose the right peppers: writes Describing peppers as a gender is not accurate, because bell peppers are hermaphroditic. The gender reference is used only as a memory aid to help select the best bell pepper for each purpose either eating raw, seed collection, or for cooking. There is a simple method for identifying which bell pepper has the traits you desire. Peppers with four lobes are female and those with three lobes are male. The female peppers with more lobes, contain more seeds are best for seed collecting and growing new plants (hence female). They are also sweeter when eaten raw. The male peppers with three or fewer lobes are better for grilling, cooking. They also contain fewer seeds. But this claim is also unfounded, as the number of lobes on a pepper does not have any bearing on its taste. And while it could be argued a four-lobed pepper has more seeds than a three-lobed pepper, this has more to do with the overall size of the fruit than the number of lobes. In his2023-25 budget proposal, Gov. Tony Evers called for tapping a state surplus to spend $290 million on stadium renovations to help ensure the Milwaukee Brewers stay in Wisconsin. The cash would go into an escrow account operated by the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District, a state-created agency that owns American Family Field and leases it to the Brewers. In return, the Brewers would extend their current ballpark lease, which could expire by the end of 2030, and agree to stay in Milwaukee through 2043. But Assembly Speaker Robin Vos has said the stadium funding question should be taken up outside of the budget process, and has argued there are other sources of money that could better be tapped to address the issue. (In March we ratedMostly Falsea claim by Evers that the original plan was bipartisan in nature.) In a March 9 appearance on aWisconsin Right Nowpodcast, and more recently at the Milwaukee Press Club, Vos has noted that taxes paid by visiting professional athletes could be tapped as a revenue source. Here is what he said on the podcast: When a basketball player or football or baseball player from another team plays in Wisconsin, that one game's salary, they pay Wisconsin income tax on it. ... So, if for some reason we do not have the Brewers in Wisconsin all of those player salaries that generate dollars for the state of Wisconsin go away, Vos said. This statement piqued our interest. Is it true that if the Brewers leave town, Wisconsins tax coffers would take a hit? Jock tax If a pro athlete plays in a state that collects income tax, any money made from that game is taxed as income earned in that state, which is informally known as a jock tax. The jock tax has been around in some form since the 1960s, according to severalonline sources. However, the practice heated up in the 1990s, after the state of California slapped the tax on the earnings of Chicago Bulls players who traveled to Los Angeles for the 1991 NBA finals. Illinois retaliated, imposing a similar tax on out of state players. According toHuddle Up, a newsletter focused on the business of sports, such taxes are collected in every state, with theexception of five:Florida, Nevada, Texas, Washington and Tennessee. RELATED:Will Wisconsin taxpayers get 'tremendous' payback for money spent on new Fiserv Forum? RELATED:Examining Scott Walker's 'cheaper to keep them' slogan The Vos claim came in response to a question about baseball players, so lets start there. Patricia A. Mayers, communications director for the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, provided a breakdown of the amount of Wisconsin withholding from MLB teams by year, noting It doesn't account for non-wage income of the team employees or any income of individuals who are not employed by the teams. State withholding by year Year             Baseball 2012           $8.4 million 2013            $8 million 2014            $8.9 million 2015            $9.2 million 2016             $7.8 million 2017            $8.8 million 2018            $11.9 million 2019            $12.3 million 2020             $5 million 2021            $10.5 million 2022            $12.4 million  Meanwhile, these are the figures for the three top-level professional leagues in which there is a Wisconsin team, in millions by year:  2020 2021 2022 Baseball 5.0 10.5 12.4 Basketball 10.6 14.1 13.3 Football 21.3 16.1 25.5 So, in 2022 alone, taxes from those visiting athletes topped $50 million. Vos said: When a basketball player or football or baseball player from another team plays in Wisconsin, that one game's salary, they pay Wisconsin income tax on it. ... So, if for some reason we do not have the Brewers in Wisconsin all of those player salaries that generate dollars for the state of Wisconsin go away. Indeed, in 2022 alone, state income taxes on visiting players in the big three leagues topped $50 million. For a statement that is accurate and has nothing significant missing, our rating is True. The Virginia Education Association says the state has been saving money by lowering public school standards.Since the 2008 General Assembly, we have permanently cut biennial funding for public education by $1.6 billion through changes in the Standards of Quality funding formula, VEA President Kitty Boitnottsaidin a Jan. 23 news conference.The $1.6 billion cited by Boitnott is an eye-popping number. We wanted to know if her figure is correct and if the loss of the funding is, as she said permanent.The Standards of Quality are minimum mandates Virginia sets forth for public education on teacher-pupil ratios, benefits for educators and basic curricula. The General Assembly sets the benchmarks every two years after considering recommendations by the state Board of Education.Virginia is required by law to pay 55 percent of the overall cost of the SOQs and local school districts must pay the rest. For this two-year budget cycle, which began July 1, 2010, the state will pay about $9.6 billion toward meeting the SOQs, and localities will pay about $7.8 billion.Boitnott is essentially saying the state obligation would have been $1.6 billion higher if the General Assembly had not taken steps since 2008 to lower Virginias education standards.Robley Jones, the VEAs director of government relations, said Boitnotts figures came from areporton education funding released last month by the Senate Finance Committee. The study contained a table detailing the 10 substantive reductions to public education programs approved by the General Assembly since 2008. The cuts came to a biennial total of $1.57 billion, and Boitnott rounded up.The biggest savings came from reducing the number of support positions -- such as clerks, teacher aides and bus drivers -- required by the state. That action removed $754 million in SOQ obligations.Lawmakers in 2010 found another $513 million in savings by eliminating certain types of equipment and travel from SOQ calculations and changing the formula for estimating health care costs for school employees.Boitnott, however, is slightly off in her analysis of the the Senate Finance Committees data. The table makes no claim that the 10 cut education programs it lists were part of the SOQs, as Boitnott suggests.In fact, four of the items were not part of the states minimum requirements, according to Charles Pyle, a spokesman for the Department of Education. They account for $174 million in biennial costs.So the real reduction in SOQ mandates comes to about $1.4 billion per biennium. Jones, who provided the information for Boitnotts statement, said he made an inadvertent mistake in computing the SOQ reductions.That brings us down to one last question: Are the cuts to the SOQ formula permanent, as Boitnott says?Technically, they are not. The General Assembly is free to restore the funding, but that is not likely to happen. Julie Grimes, a spokeswoman at the Department of Education, said officials there cannot recall an instance where legislators cut funding for an SOQ program and later replenished it.When the state reduces funding for SOQ programs, localities often absorb the costs. Most school districts in Virginia are not satisfied with just attaining minimum SOQ standards and fund their schools at far greater levels than the state demands.The SOQs allow legislators to claim they fund 55 percent of the states educational mandates. But a different picture emerges when total expenditures on Virginia public education are computed. The localities pay about 50 percent, the state, the state pays 40 percent and roughly 10 percent comes from the federal government.Our ruling:Boitnott said that since 2008, the legislature has permanently cut $1.6 billion in programs from the states formula for funding public schools. Shes a bit off; the actual figure is $1.4 billion.Boitnott said these losses are permanent. The General Assembly could restore funding, but a spokesman at the state Department of Education said officials cannot recall an instance where lawmakers cut an SOQ program and later reversed themselves.We rate Boitnotts claim Mostly True. In mid-September 2020, videos started to circulate on TikTok that supposedly showed an alien spaceship, or unidentified flying object (UFO), flying over New Jersey: circulate   The video, which racked up millions of views within a few days, shows several curious onlookers observing the "UFO" near New Jersey's Route 21 highway. While this may have been an unidentified flying object to these onlookers, this "alien spaceship" has since been identified as a Goodyear Blimp.  The above-displayed video was taken on Monday, Sept. 14, in an area close to MetLife Stadium. Coincidentally, the stadium was hosting the NFL's Monday Night Football game between the New York Giants and the Pittsburgh Steelers.  A Goodyear spokesman told Insider that the company's blimp was indeed flying in the area: Insider  "A representative for Goodyear confirmed to Insider that the company flew a blimp in New York City and northern New Jersey on Monday evening to capture aerial footage of the NFL game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the New York Giants at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey." The object in the above-displayed video does resemble the size and shape of a Goodyear blimp. The "alien" looking light can also be explained, as many Goodyear blimps are equipped with bright digital displays. Here's a video from Goodyear showing a Veteran's Day message on the blimp in 2017: video   While it's easy to see how this large, unidentified, flying, and seemingly glowing object could be mistaken for a UFO, it's also easy to see how the "UFO" in the viral video looks eerily similar to the Goodyear Blimp. Here's a comparison of the "UFO" from the viral video (left) and a genuine photograph of the Goodyear Blimp that was taken in 2016.  photograph of the Goodyear Blimp       Young, Jabari.  "ESPNs Week 1 Monday Night Football Ratings Fall Nearly 11%."
  MSNBC.  16 September 2020. Greenspan, Rachel.  "Viral Videos of a 'UFO' in New Jersey Really Captured a Goodyear Blimp."
  Insider.  15 September 2020. CORRECTION [Sept. 17, 2020]: A previous version of this article erroneously stated the NY Jets played the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sept. 14, 2020.  It was the NY Giants. Claim:  Wayne Allyn Root opined that President Obama will lose his re-election bid in 2012 by a landslide. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Root, May 2012] Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races. Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I dont believe its possible to turnaround America. But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980. Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge? [Rest of article here.] here   Origins:  Wayne Allyn Root, a political commentator who was the Libertarian Party's 2008  vice presidential candidate, is a regular contributor to FOX News and the author of several books, including The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts.  He writes political opinion columns published on Townhall.com,and his entry for 30 May 2012 was the article excerpted above, entitled "Why Obama Will Lose in a Landslide." Wayne Allyn Root columns article Last updated:  11 June 2012 Claim:  The job of President of the United States is being outsourced to India.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Is this true?  What a GREAT IDEA!!! Washington, DC   June 11, 2009 Congress today announced, that the office of President of the United States of America will be outsourced to India, as of September 1, 2009. The move is being made in order to save the President's $500,000 yearly salary, and also a record $750 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead that his office has incurred during the last 3 months. It is anticipated that $7 trillion can be saved to the end of the President's term. "We believe this is a wise financial move. The cost savings are huge," stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-WA). "We cannot remain competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash outlay," Reynolds noted. Obama was informed by email this morning of his termination. Preparations for the job move have been underway for some time. Gurvinder Singh, a tele-technician for IndusTeleservices, Mumbai, India, will assume the office of President as of September 1, 2009. Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents were vacationing at Niagara Falls, NY. Thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month, but no health coverage or other benefits. It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job responsibilities without a support staff. Due to the time difference between the US and India, he will be working primarily at night. "Working nights will allow me to keep my day job at the Dell Computer call center," stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive interview. "I am excited about this position. I always hoped I would be President." A Congressional spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be fully aware of all the issues involved in the office of President, this should not be a problem as Obama had never been familiar with the issues either. Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond effectively to most topics of concern. Using these canned responses, he can address common concerns without having to understand the underlying issue at all. "We know these scripting tools work," stated the spokesperson. "Obama has used them successfully for years, with the result that some people actually thought he knew what he was talking about." Obama will receive health coverage, expenses, and salary until his final day of employment. Following a two-week waiting period, he will be eligible for $140 a week unemployment for 26 weeks. Unfortunately he will not be eligible for Medicaid, as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed limit. Obama has been provided with the outplacement services of Manpower, Inc. to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition. According to Manpower, Obama may have difficulties in securing a new position due to a lack of any successful work experience during his lifetime. A greeter position at WalMart was suggested due to Obama's extensive experience at shaking hands, as well as his 'special' smile. Origins:  As we've noted on many occasions, really good satire hews a fine line between plausibility and absurdity, so it's not surprising we often receive "Is this true?" inquiries about satirical articles that circulate widely via e-mail  the receipt of an out-of-context, news-like article with a premise that seems vaguely credible with a quick read-through can easily leave readers confused about its authenticity. This humor piece about the U.S. presidency's being outsourced to India is actually an updated version of a 2004 satirical article about President George W. Bush.  Although the 2009 version's topical references  a weak economy, a  updated growing budget deficit, the looming threat of job outsourcing  might strike a chord with many Americans, and those who are no fans of the current U.S. president might appreciate its sly digs at Barack Obama, why we've received so many inquiries about this particular article is something of a puzzle, as its premise isn't at all plausible: The U.S. Constitution and U.S. law have very specific provisions about the line of succession to the presidency, and that line does not encompass Congress' arbitrarily bypassing the vice president (and everyone else in the chain of succession) to hand over the office of chief executive to an unelected foreign resident.   Not to mention that if the U.S. presidency were really set to change hands within the next few months, that subject would be the dominant topic of every American news outlet, not an obscure bit of information spread solely via e-mail. If nothing else, the notion that the U.S. presidency would be given over to someone who would undertake it as a moonlighting job for $320 per month crosses the line from believability to absurdity. Last updated:  23 July 2009 Claim:  President Bush is responsible for a 17% increase in Medicare premiums. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium increase  the biggest in history"? That ad is a stroke of genius on Kerry's part and will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed. It was found to be so amazing that someone did some homework on the issue. As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton, voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration. Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people. Don't be duped by his misstatement of facts! Origins:  The availability of health care and the associated costs of medical care, prescription drugs, and insurance are a major issue in every campaign, especially among older voters.  With premiums for the government-funded Medicare program scheduled to rise from $66.60 to $78.20 per month in January 2005 (a 17.4% increase over current levels, and 56 percent higher than the premiums charged in 2001), both sides in the upcoming presidential election are seeking the upper hand on the issue. Medicare Democrats have maintained that the Bush administration bears much of the responsibility for the increase in premiums because it has done little to control health costs and had directed too much Medicare money to the managed health care industry, and Democratic nominee John Kerry's campaign aired a commercial that (incorrectly) implied that President Bush  was responsible for the increase in Medicare premiums ("George Bush imposes the biggest Medicare premium increase in history . . .").  President Bush's campaign countered by running a TV spot that (incorrectly) stated Senator Kerry had "voted five times to raise Medicare premiums": Republicans had hoped to emphasize their support of Medicare in this campaign season, after making herculean efforts to pass legislation adding drug benefits to the health program for 41 million people who are elderly or disabled. But the new law, signed by Bush in December, has met mixed reviews. The drug benefits, representing the largest expansion of Medicare since its creation in 1965, do not become available until 2006, and the increase in premiums has nothing to do with the new drug coverage. Beneficiaries will have to pay an additional premium, expected to average $35 a month in 2006, for drug benefits. The Bush campaign advertisement, titled "Medicare Hypocrisy," says, "It was Mr. Kerry who voted five times to raise Medicare premiums." The votes, from 1985 to 1997, were not on premiums alone, but on comprehensive budget bills that included hundreds of provisions affecting Medicare and scores of other federal programs. Like most political issues, health care is a complex subject that has been shaped and affected by many different pieces of legislation, and no one person or political party is solely responsible for the rise in Medicare premiums.  Those interested in trying to follow the bouncing ball and track the origins of the 17% increase in Medicare premiums may find this article helpful. article Last updated:  12 October 2004    Sources:    Pear, Robert and Carl Hulse.  "Medicare Costs Are New Focus for Candidates."   The New York Times.  12 September 2004  (p. 1).     The [Pottstown] Mercury.  "Health Care a Passionate Issue for Candidates."   1 October 2004. Claim:  President Obama is using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the government shutdown.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] I recently read an article online stating that president Obama is using his personal funds to keep the international museum of Muslim culture open during the government shutdown. I was wondering if your site had any information regarding this.   Origins:  On 2 October 2013,  the National Report published an article positing that President Obama would be using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the current government budget shutdown: article While up to 800,000 federal workers faced life without a paycheck as Day One of the government shutdown kicked in, President Barack Obama held a press conference to announce  that he is using his own money to open the federally funded International Museum of Muslim Cultures. "During this shutdown, people will have to deal with some of their favorite parks and museums being closed," Obama told reporters. "Just keep in mind, they will always be there. The Grand Canyon and the Smithsonian are not going anywhere." Obama continued, "The International Museum of Muslim Cultures is sacred. That is why I have taken it upon myself to use my own personal funds to re-open this historic piece of American culture." The International Museum of Muslim Cultures closed its doors as parts of the federal government shut down after Congress failed to reach an agreement on spending. The fiscal standoff stems in large part from Republican attempts to block President Obama's healthcare initiative. By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article.  However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report,  a web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways.  All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news.  Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. Nonetheless, Fox News host Anna Kooiman fell for this spoof during a Fox & Friends segment, reporting that "[W]e're going to talk a little bit later in the show  about some things that are continuing to be funded. And President Obama has offered to pay out of his own pocket for the museum of Muslim culture ...":  (For the record, we note that there is indeed an International Museum of Muslim Cultures in Jackson, Mississippi, but it is an independent museum and not a federally funded one.) International Museum of Muslim Cultures Last updated:  5 October 2013 In January2015, links began circulating on Facebook promisingusers free lifetime passes to popular fast food outlets such as KFC, McDonald's, Wendy's, Starbucks, Subway, and Burger King, typically presented as promotions offeredin celebration of the brands' purported anniversaries: The embedded links led to severalURLs, and users who clicked through on them to claim the promised lifetime passes were routed to a pages that clonedthe style of Facebook-based content (but werehostedoff Facebook):    As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users.A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media:Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy.When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information.Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. Starbucks Every flu season sees an increase in viral web stories making largely unsubstantiated allegations about the health risks of the flu shot that include claims about their scary-sounding ingredients, connections to a variety of diseases (including Alzheimer's), and their supposed lack of efficacy in general: The pharmaceutical industry, medical experts and the mainstream media are candid in telling us that flu vaccines contain strains of the flu virus. What they are less likely to reveal though is the long list of other ingredients that come with the vaccine. It is now a known fact that flu vaccines contain mercury, a heavy metal known to be hazardous for human health. Mercury toxicity can cause depression, memory loss, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory problems, ADD, oral health problems, digestive imbalances and other serious health issues. The article quoted above, which is representative of the text and claims that appear nearly identically in hundreds of Facebook posts, makes a number of claims that need to be investigated on their own merits: identically  Claim: The flu shot makes you sick to begin with.  Flu shots work by introducing dead (inactivated) strains of influenza virus, which trigger your immune system to create antibodies to fight those strains. These antibodies make your body more prepared to fight if should it be exposed to an active strain in the future. Because the strains are inactive, any sickness you develop after the shot is not caused by influenza, according to the Harvard Medical School: according The vaccine is made from an inactivated virus that can't transmit infection. So people who get sick after receiving a flu vaccination were going to get sick anyway. It takes a week or two to get protection from the vaccine. But people assume that because they got sick after getting the vaccine, the shot caused their illness. It is, of course, possible that feelings of sickness come from some of the side effects of the injection, but the vaccine itself is not infecting you in any way. side effects Claim: Flu vaccines contain other dangerous ingredients such as mercury. false Flu shots administered from multi-use vials may contain a preservative called thimerosal, which breaks down into ethylmercury in the body. Mercury is an element and as such it can be found in many different chemical forms. But when people are concerned about mercury toxicity, they are concerned about methylmercury, which is indeed toxic at high levels and could cause some of the problems listed above. may contain methylmercury Ethylmercury, on the other hand, passes through your body quickly, and numerous studies have found it safe for use in vaccines (though there is some evidence that its use could be problematic for infants  a population that CDC does not  recommend for flu shots anyway). Saying ethylmercury is dangerous because is contains mercury is like saying that your table salt is at risk of spontaneous combustion because it contains sodium. passes for infants  recommend spontaneous combustion Thimerosal, additionally, has been used for decades by the anti-vaccine movement to stoke vaccination fear by suggesting it causes by suggesting it causes autism. This link has been discredited over, and over, and over, and over, and over again and is further compromised by the fact that autism rates are still climbing despite the fact that childhood vaccines no longer contain this ingredient. over over over over over climbing contain  Claim: The flu shot can give you Alzheimer's disease. false The leading immunogeneticist Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, whom the article cites as the authority on this claim, had his medical license revoked in 1995 for ethical misconduct and was an outspoken proponent of the widely discredited MMR-autism link. His claim of the link between Alzheimer's and vaccines, though hard to trace, may or may not come from a talk he gave at the 1997 NVIC International Vaccine Conference. The statement has not been backed up by any published peer-reviewed research since then. In fact, a 2001 study found that adults exposed to vaccines were at a lower risk of Alzheimers. revoked in 1995 may or may not study Claim: The very people pushing flu vaccinations are making billions of dollars each year.  Pharmaceutical companies (sometimes) profit from vaccines, but the fact that a company makes a profit is an appeal to emotion and is not evidence to support the claim of a faulty product or of nefarious intent. It also may not be accurate. A recent Atlantic article covered this question extensively, stating: article Not only do pediatricians and doctors often lose money on vaccine administration, it wasn't too long ago that the vaccine industry was struggling with slim profit margins and shortages. The Economist wrote that "for decades vaccines were a neglected corner of the drugs business, with old technology, little investment and abysmal profit margins. Many firms sold their vaccine divisions to concentrate on more profitable drugs." The suggestion of massive profits from flu shots ignores the fact that profits margins are generally much higher for other drugs than for flu vaccines, as well. The same Atlantic article cites one estimate that puts the vaccine market at around $24 billion. This sounds like a large number, but it would, in fact, account for only two to three percent of the pharmaceutical market worldwide. article Claim: There is a lack of real evidence that young children even benefit fromflu shots.  Many anti-vaccine articles parrot the claim that "51 studies involving 260,000 children showed no benefit compared to a placebo for children under the age of two". This stems from a 2008 meta-analysis that did indeed conclude that there is less efficacy for children under the age of two, something the CDC already recognizes on their website. However, of the 51 studies analyzed and the 260,000 observations those studies included, only one study (at the time) was performed on children below the age of two using inactive strains (the kind found in flu shots). A later study in 2011 that reviewed over 5,000 research articles concluded that flu shots consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years), categorically rejecting the claim that there is a lack of real evidence that young children benefit from the shot. 2008 meta-analysis recognizes study Claim: The flu shot makes you more susceptible to pneumonia and other contagious diseases. false People with compromised immune systems are at higher risk of complications from vaccines when those vaccines contain live strains (which, again, the flu shot does not), and some skin reactions are possible immediately following an injection. risk possible However, the notion that the flu shot weakens the immune system is false. According to a review paper in the journal Pediatrics: paper Vaccines may cause temporary suppression of delayed-type hypersensitivity skin reactions or alter certain lymphocyte function tests in vitro. However, the short-lived immunosuppression caused by certain vaccines does not result in an increased risk of infections with other pathogens soon after vaccination. Claim: The flu shot causes vascular disorders such as fever, jaw pain, muscle aches, pain and stiffness in the neck, upper arms, shoulder and hips and headache. MISLEADING While the term vascular disorder is fear-inducing, it merely describes anything having to do with veins and arteries. The flu shot does not, de facto, cause any of these problems, but all the complications listed above are listed by the CDC as possible side effects. It is worth noting, however, that the flu will almost certainly give you some or all of these symptomsand with a much greater intensity than the symptoms resulting from a flu shot. CDC almost certainly give you some or all Claim: Children under the age of 1 are at risk of a neurotoxic breach of the blood-brain barrier.  The blood-brain barrier is the medical term for the chemical and physical adaptations humans and other animals have that prevent pathogens and other chemicals in the body from entering the central nervous system. For this claim about neurotoxic breach be true, an infant would have to have a relatively weaker blood-brain barrier than an adult. The idea that the barrier is weaker in young infants, however, is a long-held but unsubstantiated myth. Numerous studies have refuted the claim, showing that the blood-brain barrier is fully developed in the womb, long before a child is born. blood-brain barrier myth fully developed  Claim: Flu shots carry an increased risk of narcolepsy. false There is a well-documented, though statistically minor, connection between a specific H1N1 flu vaccine (Pandemrix) and narcolepsy. But such reports concerned only that one vaccine, which was produced for a specific flu strain, and have limited relevance to the seasonal flu shot. Pandemrix is available in Europe but not the United States or Canada. well-documented connection not Claim: The flu shot weakens immunological responses.  This claim, from a scientific standpoint, is a repeat of the earlier false claim (above) that suggests your body is more susceptible to infection or disease after a flu shot. Harmful immunological responses is a broad and unhelpful term that, while it may have aided in turning up literally thousands of responses in an academic search, is not really all that surprising as the term would includes the already documented risk of a skin and allergic reactions that come with pretty much any injection. already documented Claim: The flu shot can cause serious neurological disorders. false The neurological disorder specifically associated with flu vaccines is the Guillain-Barr Syndromea terrifying disease that causes nerve damage and sometimes paralysis. A widely cited study on a population of individuals who received the H1N1 vaccine in 1976 showed an increased risk of contracting this disease  whose cause is unknown  compared to those who did not receive the vaccine: Guillain-Barr Syndrome The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a scientific review of this issue in 2003 and found that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. The increased risk was approximately one additional case of GBS for every 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. Scientists have several theories about the cause, but the exact reason for this link remains unknown. The link between GBS and flu vaccination in other years is unclear, and if there is any risk for GBS after seasonal flu vaccines it is very small, about one in a million. Studies suggest that it is more likely that a person will get GBS after getting the flu than after vaccination. It is important to keep in mind that severe illness and death are associated with flu, and getting vaccinated is the best way to prevent flu infection and its complications. This topic has been heavily researched for decades, and no specific consensus regarding the link or mechanism behind the flu virus and the disease has been established. What has been established, however, is how small the risk is relative to the risks of contracting complications from flu itself. A 2013 study in The Lancet stated that: study The relative and attributable risks of Guillain-Barr syndrome after seasonal influenza vaccination are lower than those after influenza illness. Patients considering immunisation should be fully informed of the risks of Guillain-Barr syndrome from both influenza vaccines and influenza illness. Current iterations of the seasonal flu shot do not have any live strains in them (though the nasal spray includes weakened strains), nor do they have any mercury (in the United States), detergent, antifreeze, or aluminum. They contain, at most, 50 times less formaldehyde than a pear. nasal spray nor aluminum pear  We, of course, are not healthcare providers and cannot make any medical decisions for you. The purpose of this post is to correct misinformation on the Internet, and there are few topics that lend themselves to as much misinformation as vaccines. All healthcare decisions, however, should be made between you and your doctor. Harvard Medical School.  "10 Flu Myths."
  November 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Possible Side-Effects from Vaccines."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Thimerosal in Vaccines."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. World Health Organization.  "Statement on Thimerosal."
  July 2006. Dorea, J.G.  "Low-Dose Mercury Exposure in Early Life: Relevance of Thimerosal to Fetuses, Newborns and Infants."
  Current Medical Chemistry.  2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Verreault, Rene et al.  "Past Exposure to Vaccines and Subsequent Risk of Alzheimer's Disease."
  CMAJ.  27 November 2001. Gorski, David.  "Oh, Come On, Superman!: Bill Maher Versus 'Western Medicine.'"
  Science Based Medicine.  7 September 2009. Casewatch.  "Disciplinary Actions Against Herman Hugh Fudenberg, M.D."
  20 April 2005. Pediatrics.  "Joint Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS)."
  September 1999. Taylor. Luke E. et al.  Vaccines Are Not Associated with Autism: An Evidence-Based Meta-Analysis of Case-Control and Cohort Studies."
  Vaccine.  17 June 2014. Ball, L.K. et al.  An Assessment of Thimerosal Use in Childhood Vaccines."
  Pediatrics.  May 2001. Madsen, Kreesten, M. et al.  A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism."
  New England Journal of Medicine.  7 November 2002. Hviid, Anders et al.  Association Between Thimerosal-Containing
Vaccine and Autism."
  New England Journal of Medicine.  October 2003. The National Academies.  "Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism."
  2004. Vaccine Knowledge Project.  "Vaccine Ingredients."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccines Adjuvants."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Flublok Seasonal Influenza (Flu) Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Guillain-Barre Syndrome."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Narcolepsy Following Pandemrix Influenza Vaccination in Europe."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Miller, Elizabeth et al.  Risk of Narcolepsy in Children and Young People Receiving As03 Adjuvanted Pandemic A/h1n1 2009 Influenza Vaccine: Retrospective Analysis."
  BMJ.  26 February 2013. Moretti, Raffella et al.  Blood-Brain Barrier Dysfunction in Disorders of the Developing Brain."
  Frontiers in Neuroscience.  17 February 2015. Volodin, N.N. et al.  Status of the Blood-brain Barrier in Newborn Infants of Various Gestational Ages in the Normal State and in Pathology."
  Pediatriia.  1989. Saunders, Norman R. et al.  The Rights and Wrongs of Blood-brain Barrier Permeability Studies: S Walk Through 100 Years of History."
  Frontiers in Neuroscience.  16 December 2014. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Flu Symptoms & Complications."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Osterholm, Michael T. et al.  Efficacy and Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis."
  The Lancet.  January 2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccine Effectiveness  How Well Does the Flu Vaccine Work?"
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Jefferson, T. et al.  Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Children."
  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.  16 April 2008. Lam, Bourree.  Vaccines Are Profitable, So What?"
  The Atlantic.  10 February 2015.