Rhode Island has the second highest per enrollee (Medicaid) cost of any state in the country, which is 60 percent higher than the national average.
In an effort to bring Rhode Island's budget under control, Gov. Gina Raimondo is hoping to rein in the cost of Medicaid. She has proposed cutting $88 million from the states $2.7-billion Medicaid spending in the next fiscal year and has created a task force to reinvent the program. During theMarch 13, 2015 tapingof WPRI-TV's Newsmakers program, Raimondo argued that the costs of the joint state and federal program that provides health insurance to the very poor are extraordinarily high in the state. You have to remember, she said, Rhode Island has the second highest per enrollee [Medicaid] cost of any state in the country, which is 60 percent higher than the national average. So we have to do a better job. It's just not sustainable. She madea similar statementon Rhode Island Public Radio. Paying, on average, 60 percent more for anything seems pretty scandalous. We decided to see if the typical cost of a Rhode Island Medicaid recipient was really that much higher than average, and whether per-patient costs were actually lower in 48 other states. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation is a reliable source of data on health issues. We got a state-by-state tally oftotal state and federal Medicaid spendingfor the 2013 fiscal year and divided it by the number ofpeople in each state on Medicaid in December 2013in hopes of getting a rough estimate. By that back-of-the-envelope method, Rhode Island ranked fifth, not second, with all the New England states except New Hampshire in the top 10. The cost was 39 percent above the national average. But that's using 12 months of expenses and one-month enrollment totals.Laura Snyder, a senior policy analyst with Kaiser, said that's an apples-to-oranges mix. When we asked Raimondo's office for the source of her numbers, her spokeswoman cited Kaiser as well, specifically a page that directly ranksMedicaid spending per enrollee by state, although it doesn't list actual total spending or enrollment. And it's from  the 2011 fiscal year. Nonetheless, on that list, Rhode Island, at $9,247 per enrollee, does indeed rank second. Only Alaska, at $9,474, spent more. In addition, per enrollee spending in Rhode Island was 60 percent higher than the $5,790 U.S. average. So, by that ranking, Raimondo is correct on both counts. We asked why newer numbers aren't available. Snyder said annual enrollment statistics by state are slow to come out from the federal government, so the 2011 data are the most recent available. Because we wondered if state rankings fluctuate significantly from year to year -- and might be significantly different in 2012, 2013 and 2014 -- we asked Kaiser to see its rankings from some previous years. They gave us data going back to 2000. It turns out that our standing has bounced around a bit, but not a lot. For example, Rhode Island ranked fifth in 2010 and 2009, but ranked first in 2007. Our ruling Raimondo said, Rhode Island has the second highest per enrollee [Medicaid] cost of any state in the country, which is 60 percent higher than the national average. But in making her statement on one of the central elements in her proposed budget, Raimondo didnt note that the numbers were from the 2011 year. Granted, those are the most recent statistics available, according to Kaiser. But a lot can happen in four years. Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule itMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)
The 2015-16 academic year ended withpomp,circumstance-- and skirmishes between Gov.Scott Walkerand professors in the University of Wisconsin System. Walker, irked byno-confidence votesfaculty are taking against the systems leadership, fired attacks on University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professors (including one we ratedPants on Fire). Several days later, on May 16, 2016, Walker kept up the offensive inan interviewon WTMJ-AM in Milwaukee. We have some of the best schools in the country, no doubt about it, Walker told conservative talk show host Charlie Sykes. But weve got to stop feeding into this national perception that how much you pay in tuition suddenly is a correlation to what the value is. Yeah, you want to have a reasonable level of support for the system; and we do. In fact, by the way, Walker continued, the University of Wisconsin System budget is the biggest it has ever been. The amount of money they get from state government is only a fraction of what they have overall. So, for all this hysteria out there, they have never had more money to spend in the UW System. With the 2015-17 state budget, Walker and his fellow Republicans in the Legislaturecut $250 millionover the two years from the UW System. That was an 11 percent reduction in state support and a big reason for the no-confidence votes. So, we wondered about Walkers claim that UW Systems budget is the biggest its ever been. Hes essentially correct, but with some caveats. Walker was referring to the systems all-funds budget -- which, as the name suggests, is comprehensive. It includes state tax dollars, but also an array of other funds, such as tuition, revenue from enterprises such as dormitories and athletics, federal research dollars and gifts. We asked for budget figures from the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau for the entire history of theUW System, which began in 1973-'74. Heres a look at the last six years, when the figures were highest. Year All-funds budget -- actual All-funds budget -- adjusted for inflation 2010-11 $5.591 billion $6.077 billion 2011-12 $5.589 billion $5.889 billion 2012-13 $5.901 billion $6.092 billion 2013-14 $5.997 billion $6.101 billion 2014-15 $6.098 billion $6.105 billion 2015-16 $6.194 billion* $6.059 billion As you might expect, the current all-funds budget (2015-16) is the largest on record. But with an asterisk. Thats because in 2015-16, for the first time, the UW System included unspent tuition money carried over from the previous year in its all-funds budget. If that money wasnt included, the 2015-16 all-funds budget would have been $6.059 billion -- the second-highest ever, behind 2014-15, rather than $6.194 billion. Adjusted for inflation -- a better measure for comparing figures over time -- the 2015-16 all funds budget is slightly smaller than in four of the five previous years, but still near the top. State support Walker made it clear his claim was about total funding for the UW System, and that state money covers only a portion of the systems budget. But its worth noting that, adjusted for inflation, state support of the system -- known as general purpose revenue -- is in a historic decline, according to figures from the fiscal bureau. The highest state support, adjusted for inflation, was in the first year of the system, 1973-74 -- at just under $1.52 billion. That figure hit an all-time low of $1.03 billion in 2015-16. UW System officials often cite the reduction in state support because they have generally have more flexibility in spending state tax dollars than with revenues that are designated for certain purposes. Our rating Walker said: The University of Wisconsin System budget is the biggest it has ever been. The systems 2015-16 all-funds budget -- which includes not only state tax dollars but federal funds, tuition and other income -- is $6.194 billion, the biggest since the system was created in 1973-74. But adjusted for inflation, the 2015-16 all-funds budget is among the biggest, though not the biggest. And the 2015-16 figure includes unspent tuition revenue that hadnt been counted in the all-funds budget in previous years. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True. The Internal Revenue Service has been on the defensive since the news broke that the agency has been giving extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Among the lawmakers expressing concern about the IRS was Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va. In a May 17, 2013, interview, Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson asked Forbes, What's your No. 1 concern about the IRS being in charge of Obamacare? (Carlson was wrong about the agency's role. It is not in charge, as we addressed with ourrecent fact-check of Michele Bachmann.) Forbes responded, Well, Gretchen, first of all, it is the power that the IRS has that's different than any other agency, any other department. The IRS doesn't have to prove something against you. They can walk in and you've got the burden of proof. The idea that the burden of proof rests on the accuser is a bedrock principle of justice around the world. While neither of the terms burden of proof or presumption of innocence appears in the U.S Constitution, an accusers burden of proving that someone has committed a criminal act goes back to ancient times. In 1895, when the Supreme Court issued a resounding defense of the concept in the caseCoffin vs. United States, it cited sources as varied as the Bible, Sparta, Athens and Rome. The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law, the court wrote. So we wondered whether its really the case that the IRS doesn't have to prove something against you. You've got the burden of proof. The ways in which Forbes is correct Saving receipts and canceled checks in case the IRS calls is all too familiar to many taxpayers. And generally speaking -- beyond some exceptions that well outline below -- the burden of supplying information is indeed on the taxpayer when he or she is told by the IRS that they underpaid their taxes or when they face an IRS audit. This is a traditional rule, going back a long way, said David Weisbach, a University of Chicago law professor who worked earlier in his career as an attorney-advisor in the Department of Treasurys Office of the Tax Legislative Counsel. The IRS lays out the specifics on aWeb pagetitled Burden of Proof. The responsibility to prove entries, deductions, and statements made on your tax returns is known as the burden of proof, it says. You must be able to prove  certain elements of expenses to deduct them. Generally, taxpayers meet their burden of proof by having the information and receipts  for the expenses. You should keep adequate records to prove your expenses or have sufficient evidence that will support your own statement. You generally must have documentary evidence, such as receipts, canceled checks, or bills, to support your expenses. In other words, the IRS is presumed to be correct unless the taxpayer produces credible evidence to counter the agencys finding, said Timothy Jacobs, a partner specializing in tax law at the firm Hunton & Williams. Its worth noting that as frustrating as this burden may be, the alternative is even worse, said Neil H. Buchanan, a law professor at George Washington University. If the IRS had the burden to produce evidence, it would have to be given access to individuals' private files, in order to find that evidence, he said. Is that what we really want the IRS to be doing? So, for the most common interactions with the IRS, the burden of proof is indeed on the taxpayer. The exceptions to the rule There are a few exceptions to this rule. The most notable, since the penalties are so severe, are for tax-related criminal cases and civil fraud cases. In these types of cases, the burden of proof is essentially the same as it is for any other criminal case: The government, not the taxpayer, has to prove their case. If the government wants to convict you of murder, it has to show that you intentionally killed someone, said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. And if the IRS takes you to court, he said, it has to show that you owe a certain amount of taxes and didnt pay it. Technically, Forbes was referring to the burden of production, which is the burden of providing supporting evidence, rather than the burden of proof, which typically refers to the burden of proving a case in court, Buchanan said. Still, the IRS uses the term burden of proof on the Web page that spells out what people have to provide to justify their deductions. So how common are the exceptions? Tax experts said criminal and civil-fraud cases are rare today when compared to ordinary tax-liability cases. Essentially all tax cases are normal, non-fraudulent adjustments, Weisbach said. This ratio of cases suggests that Forbes claim is largely accurate. Nothing the congressman said on the burden of proof would strike me as outside of the norm or the general rule if I or any other tax litigator heard it in everyday conversation, Jacobs said. Our ruling Forbes said the IRS doesn't have to prove something against you. They can walk in and you've got the burden of proof. Hes correct for most tax disputes. As long as no criminal or fraud charges are being tried, and as long as the case is taken up administratively rather than in court, the burden of justifying a taxpayers calculations falls upon the taxpayer. But in the relatively small number of criminal or civil fraud cases, the burden is on the government, just as it is in other types of prosecutions. On balance, we rate Forbes claim Mostly True. Throughout the latter half of 2021, the taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project (WCW) released announcements that it had exposed several government-funded cruel and unusual research projects that tested potential vaccines and drug therapeutics on beagles, which collectively cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In all cases, WCW pointed blame at Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whom the group posited as having given the final approval to fund the projects.  Snopes readers asked our team to focus our investigation on three of the studies in question, which included research conducted at the University of Georgia Research Foundation (UGR) the nonprofit research institute SRI International, and by scientists in Tunisia.  The allegations began in July 2021, when the Republican-led animal rights advocacy group published a report that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, approved funding from taxpayer dollars to conduct painful experiments on beagles.     WCW claimed in its July 30 report that Fauci, in an attempt to advance a human vaccine for a parasitic disease called lymphatic filariasis, spent $424,000 to commission a study in which healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans. The findings of the WCW investigation were subsequently reported in publications like Fox News and conservative-leaning outlets such as RT, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and The Patriot Project. report Fox News RT The Federalist The Daily Caller The Patriot Project  In October 2021, Republican U.S. House Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina tweeted a letter she sent to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, referencing documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from WCW. WCW claimed that from October 2018 to February 2019, Fauci ordered cruel and unusual drug toxicity tests on dogs that cost taxpayers $1.68 million.  WCW claimed https://twitter.com/RepNancyMace/status/1452036537139466254/photo/1  In a third report, WCW claimed that NIAID funded more than $375,000 to conduct a study that again used beagles as test subjects in experiments involving sand flies that the organization described as "torture." funded Snopes contacted WCW and obtained copies of documents reportedly obtained via separate Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the organization. Claims of Fauci funding the torture of dogs circulated and recirculated in Fall 2021 and are largely based on two studies funded by the NIAID that did, indeed, involve using beagles as test subjects.  We break those claims down below, but first, a closer look at the organization behind the reports.  Founded in 2013, WCW is a watchdog group that is self-described as representing more than 2 million liberty lovers and animal-lovers who oppose using taxpayer dollars to support experiments on animals. It is not a traditional animal advocacy group but instead devotes its efforts to denouncing what it characterizes as wasted government funds spent on testing. self-described In 2016, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported that the Washington, D.C.-based organization is the brainchild of former Republican strategist Anthony Bellotti. reported His opposition to animal research began in 1995, when, in the summer between high school and college, he worked in a hospital laboratory that was conducting heart studies on pigs and witnessed experiments he saw as cruel. After he became a political consultant, he hit upon the idea of framing such research as a waste of taxpayer money, wrote AAAS. Following the UGR investigation into the lymphatic filariasis studies, a spokesperson for WCW told Snopes that in August 2021, the watchdog group also requested documents related to toxicity testing on beagles commissioned by Anthony Faucis [NIAID]. Snopes read through the file to verify the claims made in the WCW report specific to NIH contract number HHSN272201400006I, which was described in a government database as preclinical development services for AIDS therapeutics with SRI International, a California-based nonprofit scientific research institute. According to the government fiduciary site USA Spending, a $1.1 million grant was awarded to the organization by DHHS on behalf of the NIAID. The study was listed to begin July 15, 2020, and wrap up by Dec. 24, 2021, and included testing on small animals for therapeutics to treat HIV as well as Hepatitis B and C viruses.  HHSN272201400006I USA Spending testing The request returned 1,438 pages of documents describing wasteful and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on beagle puppies, a WCW spokesperson told Snopes. The documents are hosted on our site at the link below.  1,438 pages of documents https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/10/maddap_beagles.pdf The records outlined several studies involving both rats and beagles. The documents outline both the proposed study design as well as the actual results of the study, the latter of which resulted in 40 beagles between the ages of 8 and 9 months being administered oral and subcutaneous (under the skin) doses of an unnamed HIV therapeutic between September 2018 and October 2019. It is true that all dogs were euthanized following the study and their organs were analyzed for potential toxicity from the drugs.  It is also true that the dogs vocal cords were cut out. In an statement emailed to MedPage Today, NIAID told the publication that the contract for "preclinical pharmacology and toxicology services" was conducted "as required in animal models by the FDA, in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines and in a facility accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) or its equivalent. MedPage Today  WCW    "Vocal cordectomies, conducted humanely under anesthesia, may be used in research facilities where numerous dogs are present," the statement said. "This is to reduce noise, which is not only stressful to the animals but can also reach decibel levels that exceed OSHA allowable limits for people and can lead to hearing loss." The housing and care of the beagles at the time of the study was in accordance with the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, while welfare requirements were met in accordance with regulations established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare.  Every effort will be made to minimize , if not eliminate, pain and suffering in all animals in this study. Moribund animals and animals experiencing undue pain and suffering will be euthanized at the discretion of the Study Director, attending veterinarian, or other qualified person. The Study Director will make every effort to protect the scientific validity of the study, read the document. While at least some of the funding was provided by NIAID, it is still unclear whether Fauci personally signed off on approving the research.  Claims of Fauci ordering the funding of therapeutic testing on beagles originated with a 38-page FOIA request submitted by WCW and shared publicly in July. Those are hosted in this Dropbox folder and have been archived on our site: Dropbox https://www.snopes.com/uploads/2021/08/Lopez-Brena-55876-Release.pdfSnopes read through the document, and our analysis confirmed that obligated funds were issued to the UGR by the NIH in the amount of $424,555 to determine the efficacy of a potential vaccine for lymphatic filariasis on beagle test subjects. A contract shared online by the U.S. government defined the research as: "PRE-CLINICAL MODELS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES; TASK C12 LYMPHATIC FILARIASIS VACCINE (LFGUARD) EFFICACY TRIAL IN DOGS." Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through annual funds allocated by Congress and the president, though direct projects may be signed off on by various leaders within NIH. However, there is no evidence that the grant was personally approved by Fauci and there is no mention of him in the FOIA documentation. All that we can definitively say is that at least some of the money came from NIH.  Congress Neither the NIH nor UGR responded to Snopes requests to verify the documents published by WCW, but a spokesperson for WCW sent our team a letter, written by NIAID Government Information Specialist Lauren Bartok in response to the FOIA request under case number 55876. The letter referenced the experimental documents obtained by WCW, confirming that the experiments took place. a letter As with the first study, personal and proprietary information had been removed from the document, including the name of the vaccine and experiment objectives. The files did note that the contractor (UGR) was to acquire healthy, adult beagle dogs to administer different formulations [presumably of vaccine] to dogs via the intramuscular route. Each set of experiments will use 14 dogs, which total 28 dogs at completion of the study (7 dogs in each group), read the statement of work. Studies began in mid-November 2020 at which point the pathogen-free adult beagle dogs were scheduled to receive a total of three doses on days 0, 28, and 56. Throughout the study, researchers were instructed to monitor the dogs health twice daily and collect blood and urine samples. A first dose of the vaccine was administered on Nov. 12 with a second-round given on Dec. 17 without incident with one important exception. That exception was four dogs in the so-named blue group reported as having vocalized in pain upon administration. After a physical examination five days later, the four dogs were observed as being bright, alert, and responsive. A third and final round was administered on Jan. 14, 2021, also without incident but with one important exception. Half of the animals in the blue group again vocalized in pain upon administration. A week later, they were once gain deemed bright, alert and responsive. Emails sent between the researchers were included in the FOIA documents and confirmed that only the blue group showed a consistent pain response. The research is scheduled to be completed by Jan. 15, 2022, and all animals will be euthanized after day 196, read the FOIA document.  Image of the filarial worm Dirofilaria immitis (heartworms) in a lymph node of a dog with lymphoma. Lance Wheeler/Public Domain  Lance Wheeler/Public Domain The UGR contract noted the vaccine was for lymphatic filariasis, a mosquito-borne parasitic infection, caused by microscopic, thread-like worms. When inside of their human hosts, these filarial worms live in the human lymph system and can cause elephantiasis and, in men, a condition called hydrocele that causes the swelling of the scrotum, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). contract Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Lymphatic filariasis affects an estimated 120 million people worldwide with another 1.2 billion at risk of infection, wrote researchers in 2014. Currently, there is no vaccine available for human cases, though treatment typically consists of chemotherapy and multiple drug therapies. 2014 But as the White Coat Project reported, vaccines for the disease have been tested in mice  and were shown to be 90% effective  and macaques (70% effective). In fact, at least 27 related animal experiments have been conducted since the 1940s on filarial worms. While WCW deemed the experiments "cruel and unnecessary" and claimed that some of the dogs were "bitten to death," the NIH contends that all research involving animals is overseen by the agency's Office of Laboratory Welfare to ensure it is conducted ethically.  tested macaques  at least 27 All animals used in NIH-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies that ensure the smallest number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare, notes the agency on its website. website Furthermore, no evidence was put forward showing that the dogs were subject to biting, let alone "bitten to death." If any such information was included in the FOIA document, it has since been redacted.  In an interview with Newsweek, Greg Trevor, associate vice president for marketing and communications at UGR, confirmed that the research was for a potential vaccine that was developed and another institution. In an emailed statement, Trevor reportedly told the publication that under federal rules, a vaccine must be tested in two animal species before it can be cleared for human clinical trials. NIAID decided to fund this research and that it needed to be conducted on a dog model, of which beagles are the standard. Newsweek "Because this disease currently has no cure, unfortunately, the animals that are part of this trial must be euthanized. We do not take lightly the decision to use such animals in some of our research, Trevor reportedly told the publication. The third study took place in Tunisia and analyzed whether a species of sand fly (Phlebotomus perniciosus) was noticeably attracted to beagles who were infected with Leishmania infantum, the parasite that causes the skin disease leishmaniasis. Sand flies are the main vector of L. infantum and dogs are the main host and reservoir of the disease. Though the research took place, NIAID did not fund the study and the journal that published the study, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, issued a correction after reporting that the federal agency did support the study. The manuscript mistakenly cited support from NIAID, when in fact NIAID did not support this specific research shown in the images of the beagles being circulated, NIAID told Politifact. analyzed issued a correction Politifact. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases confirmed to MedPage Today that the mistake was made and posted a correction online, adding that NIAID did not provide any funding for this research and any such claim was made in error.  MedPage Today Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through congressional and executive actions deciding how to allocate taxpayer dollars. These annual allocations are then signed off on by the sitting president. congressional NIAID funding for the fiscal year 2021 was awarded $5.4 billion by then-U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020. The following year, President Joe Biden requested an increase of $178.9 million, or 2.9% compared with the fiscal year 2021 enacted level, for a total of $6.2 billion to be awarded in the fiscal year 2022. It is true that research conducted at UGR and SRI International was at least in part funded by NIAID with taxpayer dollars, though it is unclear whether such allocations were personally approved by Fauci. awarded requested #55876 Final.Pdf. Dropbox, https://www.dropbox.com/s/3rluc7ikty2d9sm/%2355876%20Final.pdf?dl=0. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Archive.Md. https://archive.md/n1mkN. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://archive.md/n1mkN. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Budget & Planning | NIH: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/budget-planning. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/budget-planning. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Chelbi, Ifhem, et al. Enhanced Attraction of Sand Fly Vectors of Leishmania Infantum to Dogs Infected with Zoonotic Visceral Leishmaniasis. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 15, no. 7, July 2021, p. e0009647. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009647. Cole, Brendan. University Defends Vaccine Tests on Dogs after Dr. Fauci and NIH Blasted with Criticism. Newsweek, 6 Aug. 2021, https://www.newsweek.com/anthony-fauci-vaccine-experiments-beagle-dog-research-university-georgia-1616987. Conservatives, Liberals Team up against Animal Research. https://www.science.org/content/article/conservatives-liberals-team-against-animal-research. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Creitz, Charles. Fauci under Fire over Report Alleging NIAID Spent $400k on Research Infecting Dogs with Parasites. Fox News, 5 Aug. 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/media/fauci-report-niaid-400k-research-dogs. Fauci Blasted Over Puppy Research Claims. 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95275. 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95275. Fauci Funded Abusive Dog Experiments. The Federalist, https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/05/fauci-spent-nearly-half-a-million-in-taxpayer-dollars-on-abusive-experiments-on-dogs/fauci-funded-abusive-dog-experiments-2/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Fauci-Led Agency Funded Abusive Animal Experiments Promising To Kill Dozens Of Beagles. https://dailycaller.com/2021/08/04/anthony-fauci-niaid-georgia-beagle-experiment/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Faucis Institute Funded Deadly & Unnecessary Experiments on DOGS, Animal Research Watchdog Says. RT International, https://www.rt.com/usa/531275-fauci-experiments-beagles-abuse/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. How Does the NIH Ensure Animal Welfare? | Grants.Nih.Gov. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/air/NIH_ensure_welfare.htm. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. Journal, Cameron Arcand, The Western. Fauci Agency Tested Experimental Drug on Beagles, Cruel Experiment Had Dogs in Obvious Pain. Patriot Project, 15 Aug. 2021, https://www.patriotproject.com/fauci-agency-tested-experimental-drug-beagles-cruel-experiment-dogs-obvious-pain/. Khatri, Vishal, et al. Prospects of Developing a Prophylactic Vaccine against Human Lymphatic Filariasis - Evaluation of Protection in Non-Human Primates. International Journal for Parasitology, vol. 48, no. 910, Aug. 2018, pp. 77383. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2018.04.002. Morris, C. Paul, et al. A Comprehensive, Model-Based Review of Vaccine and Repeat Infection Trials for Filariasis. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, vol. 26, no. 3, July 2013, pp. 381421. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00002-13. NOT-AI-20-002: Pre-Solicitation Notice: Preclinical Services for HIV Therapeutics, RFP: 75N93019R00021. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AI-20-002.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-AI-20-002.html. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. PHOTOS: Fauci Funded $375K Beagle Torture Overseas, Too. White Coat Waste Project, 31 Aug. 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/08/31/photos-fauci-funded-beagle-torture-overseas-too/. Prevention, CDC-Centers for Disease Control and. CDC - Lymphatic Filariasis. 11 Jan. 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lymphaticfilariasis/index.html. Samykutty, Abhilash, et al. Multivalent Vaccine for Lymphatic Filariasis. Procedia in Vaccinology, vol. 3, 2010, pp. 1218. PubMed, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.provac.2010.11.003.USAspending.Gov. https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_75N93020F00001_7529_HHSN272201400006I_7529. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. WCW Expos: Fauci Spent $424K on Beagle Experiments, Dogs Bitten to Death by Flies. White Coat Waste Project, 30 July 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/07/30/fauci-funding-wasteful-deadly-dog-tests/. WCW Investigation: Fauci Wasted $1M+ to Poison Beagle Puppies, Cut Out Vocal Cords. White Coat Waste Project, 5 Oct. 2021, https://blog.whitecoatwaste.org/2021/10/05/wcw-investigation-fauci-wasted-1m-to-de-bark-poison-beagle-puppies/. White Coat Waste Project  STOP Taxpayer-Funded Animal Experiments. https://www.whitecoatwaste.org/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2021. UPDATE [Oct. 25, 2021]: Article was updated to note research in progress on a second WCW report. UPDATE [Nov. 3, 2021]: This article was updated to include additional studies mentioned in WCW reports, one conducted in Tunisia and a second by the research institute SRI, that tested potential therapeutics on beagles. A source list was also added. In January 2021, the website America's Best Pics shared a meme claiming that a prostitute named "Gerda Puridle" invented long eyelashes in 1880s: shared   The woman in this picture was not a prostitute, her name was not Gerda Puridle, and the claim about the origins of artificial eyelashes was made up out of whole cloth. The woman featured in this meme is Alice Regnault, a French actress and novelist who rose to prominence in the 1870s. This photograph appears to have been taken by French photographer Gaspard-Flix Tournachon (better known as "Nadar") circa 1879. It was included in a guide published a few years later called "Les Actrices de Paris" (The Actresses of Paris) by Emile Bergerat: appears to have been taken    Here's how Regnault was described in "Les Actrices de Paris" (translated via Google and edited for clarity): "An intelligent and flexible actress who, through commitment and hard work, has managed to escape a reputation as a 'pretty woman'  where the love of the masses kept her, as in a prison. So has the fine and elegant Mademoiselle Rgnault proven herself, for some time now." While Regnault laid claim to titles such as actress, novelist, and journalist, she did not invent elongated eyelashes. According to beauty magazine Marie Claire, humans were tinkering with and beautifying their eyelashes in ancient Egypt, though it wasn't until the late 1800s that people figured out that they could lengthen their eyelashes with human hair. An 1882 volume of "Medical Record" explained the process of creating artificial eyelashes: Marie Claire Medical Record False Eyelashes - Labouchere says in Truth: The Parisians have found out how to make false eyelashes. I do not speak of the vulgar and well-known trick of darkening the rim round the eye with all kinds of dirty composition, or the more artistic plan of doing so to the inside of the lid. No, they actually draw a fine needle, threaded with dark hair, through the skin of the eyelid, forming long loops, and after the process if over - I am told it is a painless one - a splendid dark fringe veils the coquette's eyes."  While the practice of artificially elongating eyelashes started in the late 1800s, the first patent for an artificial eyelash wasn't secured until 1911. Here's a look at inventor Anna Taylor's artificial eyelash patent:   Despite the fact that artificial eyelashes have been around since the late 1800s, and that Taylor filed a patent in 1911, many people credit filmmaker D.W. Griffith for popularizing artificial eyelashes with his 1916 film "Intolerance." The New York Times reported: reported One day in 1916, while filming "Intolerance," D. W. Griffith studied an actress in a Babylonian costume and felt something wasn't right. Seena Owen's eyes, he said, should be twice as large and "supernatural." He ordered his wigmaker to use spirit gum to glue a pair of lashes made from human hair onto Owen's eyelids. "One morning she arrived at the studio with her eyes swollen nearly shut," the actress Lillian Gish, who was also in the movie, wrote in her memoir. "Fortunately, Mr. Griffith had already shot the important scenes." Within a decade, false lashes became standard equipment for actresses  and for flappers who imitated the "baby doll" eyes that they saw on-screen. Gish claimed that Griffith invented false eyelashes, but like many Hollywood legends, this one proves to be not exactly true. In 1911, a Canadian woman named Anna Taylor received a U.S. patent for the artificial eyelash; hers was a crescent of fabric implanted with tiny hairs. And even before that, hairdressers and makeup artists tried a similar trick. A German named Charles Nestle (nee Karl Nessler) manufactured false lashes in the early 20th century and used the profit from sales to finance his next invention  the permanent wave. By 1915, Nestle had opened a New York hair-perming salon on East 49th Street, with lashes as his sideline. Nestle promoted false eyelashes as a guard against the glare of electric lights and hired chorus girls to bat their eyes at customers. To some men of the era, it was as if a booby trap had been introduced in the war between the sexes. "When a fair young thing looks at you mistily through her long, curling lashes, do not fall for it until you investigate," warned one columnist in 1921. "The long, curling eyelashes may not be hers, except by right of purchase."   In short, the claim that a prostitute named Gerda Puridle invented elongated eyelashes is completely made up out of whole cloth. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In mid-November 2020, after U.S. Democrat Joe Biden secured the majority of the country's electoral votes in the presidential race against President Donald Trump, an email from the sitting president's campaign to supporters implied that the country's constitutionally mandated elections process allowed time for Trump to defy the outcome of the popular vote. (Read more fact checks like this one here.) Joe Biden Donald Trump here "Joe Biden has NOT been certified as the winner of any states, let alone any highly contested states headed for mandatory recounts, or any states where our campaign has valid and legitimate legal challenges that could determine the ultimate victor," read a Nov. 13 Trump fundraising email obtained by Snopes.   The email alleged that states had not certified results of the 2020 election and Trump's political enemies were wrongfully trying to convince Americans that a Biden presidency was inevitable when it wasn't. when it wasn't The claim was two-pronged: Key battleground states had not certified results of the popular vote, and because of that Trump had a chance to defy its outcome. First, let's define what step in the country's election process  which functions under the Constitution, federal statutes, and state laws  to which the campaign was referring. step Every four years in America, people submit ballots in a popular vote for the president. Most states grant counties the authority to administer those elections via a board of electors, an election official or officials, or both. Those local jurisdictions operate under varying timelines for processing votes. As they begin to publish unofficial voter tallies via secretary of state websites or other government-run databases on election night, statisticians compare the sum of votes counted to the difference in totals between the losing and winning candidate. When there appears to be no statistical chance for a losing candidate to overcome the competitor in a state, journalists "call" the race and project a winner there. As a result, that candidate receives that state's total number of electoral votes. electoral votes In the Trump-Biden contest, the news media did not announce a winner in several states until days after polls closed, in part, due to an unprecedented surge in mail-in voting and states' varying rules for when they can start processing those ballots. See National Public Radio's graphic showing deadlines below, based on data from state elections offices, the National League for State Legislatures, and Ballotpedia: National Public Radio's   On Nov. 7, however, Biden secured the majority of the country's electoral votes (again, based on unofficial voter tallies), and was announced the 46th President of the United States. Historically, it is that point in the election process  when ballots haven't been certified at the county or state level  that a losing candidate concedes defeat. That acknowledgment, while not constitutionally required, has come to represent a losing candidates' willingness to help the winner transition's into the White House. It also serves to help the losing candidate's supporters accept the election's outcome. concedes defeat Cue the above-mentioned claim about Trump having a chance at another term and that the election's "ultimate victor" was yet to be decided. The Associated Press reported: reported Certifying results is a routine yet important step after local election officials have tallied votes, reviewed procedures, checked to ensure votes were counted correctly and investigated discrepancies. Typically, this certification is done by a local board of elections and then, later, the results are certified at the state level. But as Trump has refused to concede to Biden and continues to spread false claims of victory, this mundane process is taking on new significance. Under state and federal laws, the process of cementing voter tallies continues regardless of a candidate's acceptance of the popular vote. First, local election boards certify ballots at a precinct level. After that, state executive authorities seal state's results via a "Certificate of Ascertainment"  a document that lists the names of the state's chosen electors who will cast official votes for president through the Electoral College. (State legislatures decide how to appoint electors and their necessary qualifications.) appoint electors Deadlines for completing certifications vary state by state under local laws. According to MIT Technology Review, such dates for battleground states were: MIT Technology Review, Georgias certification deadline is November 20. Pennsylvania counties must submit certification by November 23. Michigans certification deadline is November 23.Nevadas certification deadline is November 24. Arizonas certification deadline is November 30.Wisconsins certification deadline is December 1. Once completed, governors submit their "Certificate of Ascertainment" to the U.S. Archivist. The electors listed on the document then meet at state capitals to formally cast their votes for president and vice president on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, per guidelines outlined in the Constitution. In 2020, thats Dec. 14. formally cast their votes In other words, it was accurate to state, as of mid-November, several battleground states had not certified results of the popular vote, including Georgia, where the state's Republican secretary of state ordered a manual recount of ballots and Biden led by a slim margin of 0.3 percentage points. Georgia However, less clear was whether that fact meant Trump had a chance to overturn Biden's victory. Via lawsuits and campaign messages to supporters, like the above-displayed fundraising email, the Trump campaign was trying to convince Americans that governments should hold off on certifying ballots because widespread voter fraud tainted the numbers, even though no evidence showed that was true. voter fraud Matt Morgan, the Trump campaigns general counsel, said the push to try to delay or stop voter certification in battleground states aimed to give the campaign more time to get a handle on voter tallies and whether it would have the right to automatic recounts, according to The Associated Press. battleground states Additionally, some Trump allies wanted to slow down the process to give GOP-controlled legislatures an opportunity to pick a slate of electors who would overturn Biden's victory through the Electoral College or send the election to the U.S. House of Representatives. (Read here for how Congress would decide the outcome of the 2020 election, pending what happens with the Electoral College.) here As of this writing, two Republican election officials in Michigan's Wayne County had refused to certify results of the popular vote, citing the unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud, and then reversed course on Nov. 17. GOP officials in Arizona were also trying to pressure county officials to delay the process, per news reports. Simultaneously, Trump allies in Michigan and Nevada pushed lawsuits attempting to stop voter certification. Michigan's Wayne County per news reports University of Kentucky Law Professor Joshua Douglas told The Associated Press there was no precedent for such an effort to delay or undermine the typically sleepy step in the country's presidential elections. It would be the end of democracy as we know it, Douglas said. This is just not a thing that can happen. We should note here: The emails from Trump's campaign about states certifying voting results asked supporters to chip in to a so-called "Official Election Defense Fund" or "Election Defense Task Force," both of which the campaign framed as costly initiatives involving ballot recounts or various lawsuits to challenge Biden's win. But according to Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at Campaign Legal Center, the average donor's money was not covering those expenses. Rather, people were giving their money to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, where contributions are divided between Trump's committees and the Republican National Committee.  Brendan Fischer Republican National Committee "Small donors who give to Trump thinking they are financing an 'official election defense fund' are in fact helping pay down the Trump campaigns debt or funding his post-presidential political operation," Fischer tweeted. tweeted In sum, while it was true to claim states had not certified results of the popular vote, the resulting success of the Trump campaign's efforts to intervene in that typically procedural step remained unknown at the time of this writing, and it was erroneous to claim that a winner of the election had not been named. For those reasons, we rate the allegation in the fundraising email a "mixture" of accurate, undetermined, and false information. Republican State Assemblyman Jim Patterson of Fresno recently claimed California would soon have the highest gas tax in the nation. He made the claim in a press release days after the California Legislaturepassed a 12 cent per gallon gasoline tax hike, part of a funding package to raise billions of dollars for state road repairs. The $52 billion tax will also put Californians in a special, yet unenviable category  drivers who pay the highest gas tax in the nation, Patterson said in the release issued April 10, 2017. With Democratic Gov. Jerry Browns signature the bill will go into effect in November. The Golden States per gallon gas tax is already high. We set out to fact-check whether it really will be the highest in the country. Our research Asked for evidence, Pattersons spokeswoman pointed us to a map showing state-by-state gasoline tax ratesproduced in March 2016by the nonprofit Tax Foundation. That map and its numbers, however, are outdated. A mapproduced in January 2017by the foundation includes the most current state-by-state gas tax rates. Those rates are calculated by adding up state and local gas taxes and fees. It shows Pennsylvania has the highest per gallon tax rate in the nation at more than 58 cents. Californias current per gallon tax is about 38 cents per gallon, the seventh highest in the nation. Do the arithmetic: Even with the 12-cent increase, Californias tax will trail Pennsylvanias by 8 cents per gallon. You wont be No. 1, thats for sure, said John Buhl, a spokesman for the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation. Pennsylvania will still be the highest. Achart produced in January 2017by the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association, confirms the tax foundations figures, though it adds in the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax for each state. Based on current rates, Californias increase will likely result in the second highest state gas tax in the nation, ahead of Washington and Hawaii. This second highest tax ranking could leave California with the highest overall gas prices at the pump, according to energy analysts. We looked at that topic in arecent article. As of this week, Californias average price was $2.99 per gallon. It trailed only Hawaiis $3.04, for a margin of about 5 cents per gallon. The 12 cent per gallon increase could cause California to leap-frog Hawaii, analysts said. Joe Henchman, a vice president with the Tax Foundation, noted that California also adds a 2.25 percent sales tax on gasoline. This sales tax is not counted by the foundation or the petroleum institute as part of the states gas tax. But based on the current price of gasoline in the state, it represents about 6 or 7 cents per gallon in tax, which would not entirely close the gap with Pennsylvania, Henchman said. Five other states charge a sales tax on gasoline: Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Indiana and Illinois. Pennsylvania does not. Our ruling Republican State Assemblyman Jim Patterson claimed Californias recent gas tax increase, once approved by Gov. Jerry Brown as expected, would result in the highest gas tax in the nation. Patterson relied on outdated gas tax rates. Current figuresfrom the Tax Foundation show Californias per gallon gas tax will still trail Pennsylvanias rate by more than 6 cents, even after the tax hike goes into effect in November. California would likely move from seventh highest to second in the nation. These figures are alsoconfirmedby the American Petroleum Institute. In the end, we rate Pattersons claim False. UPDATE:This fact-check has been updated with comments from Joe Henchman of the Tax Foundation about the sales tax California charges on gasoline. The foundation provided us a second update later in April 2017 that accounted for an additional and less-publicized gas tax increase under Californias new legislation. It concluded Pennsylvania will still be highest, but by a narrower margin. This latest update factors inan additional 7.5 cent per gallon gas tax increasethat would start in July 2019. This is on top of the 12 cent per gallon hike that would go into effect in November. The states full gas tax increase would amount to 19.5 cents per gallon by this time. Californias overall gas tax would climb to 58.3 cents per gallon under the foundations latest calculations. We continue to rate Patterson's claim as False as the foundation concluded this higher California gas tax, even in 2019, would  be just behind Pennsylvania's highest-in-the-nation 59.3 (cents-per-gallon) tax. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Sitting in front of a mock pharmacy and flanked by people in white lab coats, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders on July 24, 2020, that he framed as end-all solutions for Americans who struggle to pay high premium prices for prescription drugs. Of one of the directives, specifically, Trump told a crowd of supporters and reporters at the ceremony: told Under this order, the price of insulin for affected patients will come down to just pennies a day  pennies a day from numbers that you werent even able to think about. Its a massive cost savings. News outlets such as The New York Times and Washington Post described the signing event like it was largely symbolic, since the executive orders are unlikely to take effect this year, if at all (we explain more below). The New York Times Washington Post Meanwhile, at least two conservative media sources, Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire and CNSNews  which claims to balance "liberal bias" in mainstream news with its coverage  reported on the president's pledge to slash prescription prices at face value, and highlighted the above-mentioned quote by Trump regarding insulin. Daily Wire CNSNews published the story, "Trump Says Executive Order Will Drop the Price of Insulin Down to Pennies a Day," which mainly quoted the president verbatim, and numerous Snopes readers reached out to us to investigate the claim's accuracy. Namely, diabetic patients wondered whether they would indeed pay less for insulin syringes or insulin cartridges for their pens or pumps because of the president. story pens   According to a Congressional analysis in September 2019, insulin averaged $34.75 per dose in the U.S.  a total that's almost 2.5 times higher than the average price in other countries. First, we'll lay out what was unequivocally true: Trump issued Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications during the July 24, 2020, signing event, and that directive authorized the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make certain changes regarding the cost of EpiPens for Americans with severe allergies and the cost of insulin for those who suffer from diabetes, specifically. It stated: Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications Department of Health and Human Services EpiPens The price of insulin in the United States has risen dramatically over the past decade. ... While Americans with diabetes and severe allergic reactions may have access to affordable insulin and injectable epinephrine through commercial insurance or Federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, many Americans still struggle to purchase these products. Medicare Medicaid Here's some more context: Medicare, the federal program that covers the majority of Americans over age 65 and those with disabilities, offers plans that help diabetic patients cover the cost of some insulin products. Meanwhile, policies for Medicaid, the government-run health insurance system for low-income people, vary state by state  variances that include whether or not the program covers the cost of diabetic enrollees' insulin, or to what extent. state by state Trump's directive pertained to "federally qualified health centers" (FQHC), which are about 1,400 community health care clinics nationwide that treat low-income patients on sliding fee scales and purchase discounted drugs from pharmaceutical companies under an existing federal program, known as 340B. The July 2020 executive order was worded like this: federally qualified health centers 1,400 340B   In other words, the president's order requires participants of the 340B Program to offer insulin at greatly reduced prices to patients with no or little insurance coverage, without providing specifics on how or when the change would take effect. Advisory Board, a news site for health care providers, said in a statement: "Only patients with low incomes; those with high cost-sharing requirements for insulin or epinephrine; those with high, unmet deductibles; and/or those without health insurance would be eligible for the discount." A news release from the HHS said: statement news release This will increase access to life-saving insulin and epinephrine for the patients who face especially high costs among the 28 million patients who visit FQHCs every year, over six million of whom are uninsured. For perspective, about 34.2 million Americans had diabetes as of 2018, which represented about 10.5 percent of the population, according to the American Diabetes Association. So, hypothetically, if the same proportion of people had diabetes within the FQHC population of 28 million patients (a total reported by the HHS), then Trump's executive order could help about 2.9 million people, depending on whether their insurance already covers the treatment. American Diabetes Association So to recap, in regard to the claim in question, it was true to state Trump signed an executive order in July 2020 that aimed to make it easier for low-income diabetic patients to pay for insulin. But nowhere in the federal document did the presidential administration explain its plan for implementing the change, nor the level to which insulin prices would drop. There was no proof that the order would allow any American to someday pay "pennies a day" on the protein hormone. We should note here: In addition to that previously explained executive order, a separate directive signed by Trump on July 24, 2020, touched on a yet-to-be-finalized initiative by the White House to relax international drug importation rules and added insulin to a list of prescription medications that can be imported from Canada. The president characterized that directive, too, as a positive step for people who want lower insulin costs. separate directive yet-to-be-finalized And that brings us to our final point: Much of what Trump celebrated in the July 2020 executive orders had been proposed by his administration prior to the signing ceremony but stalled amid opposition from pharmaceutical companies and political barriers. "[None] of these ideas put forth are new, or in fact any more implementable than before, especially without congressional action, an investor told FeircePharma, a trade publication for the pharmaceutical industry. FeircePharma For instance, in May 2020, Trump unveiled a plan to cap the cost of insulin for Medicare recipients at $35 per month beginning in 2021 (even that initiative would cost patients more than "pennies a day"). But as of this writing, it was unclear exactly how that directive would roll out, and when or if qualifying seniors with diabetes would notice a price difference. The Washington Post reported on July 24, 2020: May 2020 Washington Post The moves [by Trump] are largely symbolic because the orders are unlikely to take effect anytime soon, if they do so at all, because the power to implement drug pricing policy through executive order is limited. Voters will not see an impact before the November elections, and the drug industry is sure to challenge them in court. A couple days after the July signing ceremony, for example, Politico reported that representatives of major drug lobbies refused to meet with the president to discuss one of the four executive orders: a non-specific and controversial proposal to link Medicare payments for certain medicines to lower costs that people pay in other countries. After that refusal on industry leaders' part, investors told MarketWatch that the executive orders were "largely campaign fodder" and "come without the necessary force to meaningfully change prices in the U.S."  Politico reported meet controversial MarketWatch In sum, while it was truthful to claim Trump issued an executive order in July 2020 that was intended to lower the price of insulin for some Americans, it was misleading to claim that all diabetic patients would save money as a result of the directive  the directive only targeted low-income patients who are uninsured or underinsured and seek help from certain federal community health providers. Additionally, it was unclear as of this report when, if at all, that group would actually reap the benefit of the cost savings, and the estimated amount of such was unknown. It would be wrong to state based on available evidence that the executive order alone would drive down prices to "pennies a day." For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. White House. "Executive Order On Access To Affordable Life-saving Medications".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Lowering Prices For Patients by Eliminating Kickbacks To Middlemen".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Increasing Drug Importation To Lower Prices For American Patients".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Remarks By President Trump At Signing Of Executive Orders On Lowering Drug Prices".
 24 July 2020. Sanger-Katz, Margot. "As He Woos Drugmakers On Virus, Trump Demands Drug Price Controls".
 New York Times. 24 July 2020. Arter, Melanie. "Trump Says Executive Order Will Drop the Price of Insulin Down to Pennies a Day".
 CNSNews. 24 July 2020. National Conference of State Legislatures. "Diabetes Health Coverage: State Laws And Programs".
 10 January 2016. HHS.gov. "Trump Administration Announces Historic Action To Lower Drug Prices For Americans".
 24 July 2020. American Diabetes Association. "Statistics About Diabetes".
 Accessed 30 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Increasing Drug Importation To Lower Prices For American Patients".
 24 July 2020. Luhby, Tami. "Trump Administration Proposes Allowing Imports Of Certain Drugs From Canada".
 CNN. 18 December 2019. O'Donnell, Carl. "Explainer: Trump's Plan To Cut Drug Prices".
 Reuters. 27 July 2020. Abutaleb, Yasmeen and Josh Dawsey. "Trump Signs Executive Orders Aimed At Lowering Drug Prices In Largely Symbolic Move".
 Washington Post. 24 July 2020. Cohen, Joshua. "Trump's Executive Orders On Drug Pricing Contain Caveats And Limitations".
 Forbes. 25 July 2020. Ways And Means Committee Staff. "A Painful Pill To Swallow: U.S. Vs. International Prescription Drug Prices".
 September 2019. Reklaitis, Victor. "Trump's Meeting With Pharma Execs Called Off, As Analysts Say His Moves On Drug Prices Lack Bite". Prestigiacomo, Amanda. "Trump Issues Executive Orders To Slash Insulin, EpiPen Prices; End 'Global Freeloading'.
 The Daily Wire. 27 July 2020. In May 2014 Facebook announced they would be rolling out an "Identify TV and Music" feature that would allow users who access the social media platform through their cell phones to identify and tag music or television programs playing in their area. When a user begins to compose a status update, Facebook will activate the phone's microphone, filter out live conversations, and try to detect and identify audio programming. If a matching song is found, Facebook will include a sample of the music in the status; if a matching television program is found, Facebook will label the specific season and episode "so you can avoid any spoilers": announced When writing a status update  if you choose to turn the feature on  you'll have the option to use your phone's microphone to identify what song is playing or what show or movie is on TV. That means if you want to share that you're listening to your favorite Beyonc track or watching the season premiere of Game of Thrones, you can do it quickly and easily, without typing. If you share music, your friends can see a 30-second preview of the song. For TV shows, the story in News Feed will highlight the specific season and episode youre watching, so you can avoid any spoilers and join in conversations with your friends after you've caught up. Facebook said the digital fingerprinting feature would be opt-in only, meaning users would have to give the program permission to start. Once activated, an icon on the face of the phone would indicate that the microphone was active and the phone was listening. Users who opted in could still choose to turn off the feature on a post-by-post basis. (Audio fingerprinting would only be available in the United States and only via iOS and Android mobile apps; it would not function if Facebook were accessed through a browser.)   Facebook's announcement was later updated to address rumors that the new app would listen in on, and store, user conversations: Myth: The feature listens to and stores your conversations. Fact: Nope, no matter how interesting your conversation, this feature does not store sound or recordings. Facebook isn't listening to or storing your conversations. Here's how it works: if you choose to turn the feature on, when you write a status update, the app converts any sound into an audio fingerprint on your phone. This fingerprint is sent to our servers to try and match it against our database of audio and TV fingerprints. By design, we do not store fingerprints from your device for any amount of time. And in any event, the fingerprints can't be reversed into the original audio because they don't contain enough information. Myth: Facebook is always listening using your microphone. Fact: Nope, if you choose to turn this feature on, it will only use your microphone (for 15 seconds) when you're actually writing a status update to try and match music and TV. Two years later, a similar rumor erupted, holding that Facebook was listening to user conversations in order to better target advertising and content to them. rumor  Griffin, Andrew.  "Facebook Is Using Smartphones To Listen To What People Say, Professor Suggests."
  The Independent.  31May 2016. Hill, Kashmir.  "Facebook Wants To Listen in on What You're Doing."
  Forbes.  22 May 2014. Kleinman, Zoe.  "Facebook 'Listening' Claim Denied By Professor"
  BBC.  3June2016. Tate, Ryan.  "Facebook Will Soon Detect What You're Watching and Listening To."
  Wired.  21 May 2014. Tate, Ryan.  "Why Facebook Spent a Year Learning to Listen in on Your TV Shows."
  Wired.  22 May 2014. Facebook Newsroom.  "Facebook Does Not Use Your Phones Microphone for Ads or News Feed Stories."
  2 June 2016. A series of creepy images purportedly showing a half-human, half-lion hybrid appeared in mid-October 2017, and quickly made the usual rounds on social media:    These images were originally posted along with a piece of Indonesian text claiming that this creature was the result of a human mating with a lioness: text claiming Telah ditemukan bayi hasil hubungan manusia dan singa betina.... Dunia sudah mao kiamat....Ketik amin dan bagikan... The baby has been found to be the result of a human relationship with the lioness...The world is doomed...Type in Amen and share it...  This is not the first time that we have come across images purportedly showing a half-human, half-animal hybrid. In every case, we found that either the images or the attached claims were faked in one way or another. For instance, a "human-dog hybrid" was actually asculpture, a "gorilla-human" was a doctored image, and a "goat-person" was actually just a deformed goat. In the case of this particular image, the human-lion is a silicone doll.  sculpture image deformed Social media user Octavia Mulia told Kumparan.com that the photographs had been posted by her sister and that they were originally shared in jest. When the images went viral, Mulia found it necessary to explain that these photographs actually showed a silicone doll and not a real human-lion hybrid (text translated via Google and edited for clarity): Octavia Mulia Kumparan.com Hasilnya, foto tersebut bukanlah bayi sungguhan, tetapi hanya sebuah boneka. "Itu namanya silicon doll. Jadi kakak aku bikin ginian (unggahan di Facebook) buat bercandaan doang sama teman-teman toys lovernya," kata Octavia saat dikonfirmasi kumparan, Jumat (13/10/2017). Octavia dan kakaknya tidak menyangka unggahan ini akan viral di Facebook dan banyak orang yang percaya. Padahal awalnya hanya untuk bercanda. Kakak saya hanya bikin postnya saja buat joke satir sama teman-teman komunitasnya. Tapi ternyata terus tembus 5,5 ribu share karena orang pada percaya," kata Octavia. Menurut Octavia, kakaknya mendapatkan foto boneka itu dari rekannya sesama penggemar mainan. Keduanya bertemu dalam forum Toyslover Planet 12. The photograph is not a real baby, but just a doll. "It's a silicon doll my sister uploaded to Facebook to share with her friends who love toys," confirmed Octavia, Friday (13/10/2017). Octavia and her sister did not expect this upload to go viral on Facebook and that so many people would believe it. Initially, it was intended as a joke. "My sister made a post just to joke with her friends, but it kept going with 5.5 thousand shares because people believed it," said Octavia. According to Octavia, her sister got the doll photo from her fellow toy fans. They met in the Toyslover Planet 12 forum. These images show a silicon doll that was created by Italian artist Laira Maganuco. These images were featured on her Etsy page in a listing for a "baby Licantropo," or baby werewolf, doll. Maganuco also posted images showing the creation of this "baby Licantropo" to her Facebook page: featured Facebook   The images were originally shared with the claim that this creature was the result of a human mating with a lioness. Although scientists are experimenting with various chimeras, it is generally thought that creating human-animal hybrids is virtually impossible: impossible In general, two types of changes prevent animals from interbreeding. The first includes all those factorscalled pre-zygotic reproductive isolating mechanismsthat would make fertilization impossible. After so many generations apart, a pair of animals might look so different from one another that theyre not inclined to have sex. If the animals do try to get it on despite changed appearances, incompatible genitalia or sperm motility could pose another problem: A human spermatozoon may not be equipped to navigate the reproductive tract of a chimpanzee, for example. The second type of barrier includes post-zygotic reproductive isolating mechanisms, or those factors that would make it impossible for a hybrid animal fetus to grow into a reproductive adult. If a human were indeed inclined and able to impregnate a monkey, post-zygotic mechanisms might result in a miscarriage or sterile offspring. The further apart two animals are in genetic terms, the less likely they are to produce viable offspring. At this point, humans seem to have been separate from other animals for far too long to interbreed. We diverged from our closest extant relative, the chimpanzee, as many as 7 million years ago. (For comparison, our apparent tryst with the Neanderthals occurred less than 700,000 years after we split off from them.) Bosch, Torie.  "We Mated with Neanderthals. Can We Breed With Other Animals, Too?"
  Slate.  14 November 2006. Kumparan.  "Fakta Di Balik Foto Bayi Hasil Perkawinan Manusia Dengan Singa."
  13 October 2017. In January 2018, Rep. Joe Kennedy III attracted scrutiny from both left-wing and right-wing observers, after he was designated to give the official Democratic response to President Donald Trump's first State of the Union address in January 2018.  right-wing On 28 January 2018, this meme appeared, making claims about the Massachusetts Congressman's purported links to the pharmaceutical industry, and his record on several major issues: meme   This is Joe. Pharmaceutical companies have given Joe $348K since 2011. Joe has $434K of stock in a company charging $1,000 per pill for a live-saving drug. Joe opposes legal marijuana and universal healthcare legislation. Don't be like Joe.  Pharmaceutical industry donations An article from GritPost.com elaborated on these claims: article Rep. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) might be pharmas favorite Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, given that hes received more than $57,000 from the pharmaceutical/health products industry in this current election cycle alone. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, thats approximately four times more than pharmas average contribution to House Democrats. Over the course of his short Congressional career, Kennedy has received more than $348,000 since 2011. The source of these claims about contributions to Kennedy is the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, DC-based non-profit that tracks political donations on the web site Open Secrets.  Open Secrets The figures in the article are accurate; the industry's contributions to Kennedy total $348,077 over the course of his six-year career as a politician. career Investments in pharmaceuticals The Grit Post article and the meme also allege Kennedy had personal investments in a controversial pharmaceutical company. Grit Post writes: As the Boston Globe reported last year, Rep. Kennedy has more than $434,000 invested in Gilead Sciences, Inc. Gilead is the manufacturer of life-saving hepatitis C drug Sovaldi  which Gilead recently increased to $1,000 per pill, or $84,000 for a treatment.  While it's true Kennedy has investments in Gilead, this claim is slightly misleading and out of date. In May 2016, the Boston Globe reported that the Congressman had "earned stock value of up to $434,999 from investments in Gilead Sciences Inc" and furthermore: Boston Globe His holdings in Gilead, as of the end of 2015, totaled between $180,004 and $450,000, according to financial disclosures. So actually, Kennedy's investments in Gilead could have been as low as $180,004 at the time of the Boston Globe article in May 2016. The Globe was careful to point out that members of Congress are not required to provide exact figures for their personal investments and assets, but rather ranges. Grit Post left out this detail.  In any event, Kennedy provided a more up-to-date financial disclosure at the end of 2016, which showed his investments in Gilead by then totalled between $80,003 and $200,000.  2016 Financial disclosures for 2017 have not yet been published.  Whatever the exact amounts involved, Kennedy's investment in Gilead has been controversial largely because the company sells Solvadi, its brand name for the drug sofosbuvir, which is used to treat Hepatitis C. As Grit Post points out, Gilead Sciences has attracted criticism for the high price of Solvadi which is $1,000 per pill or $84,000 for a course of treatment. criticism Kennedy's investment is part of a trust fund managed by a financial adviser. Craig Holman, from the advocacy group Public Citizen, told the Globe in 2016 that the profits Kennedy and the company were making were "harming many of the citizens of Massachusetts." trust fund According to Open Secrets, 19 members of Congress (as well as Donald Trump) held shares in Gilead Sciences in 2015.  members Stance on marijuana The Grit Post meme's claim that Kennedy opposes marijuana legalization is accurate. While the national conversation has shifted to discuss recreational marijuana's legalization, over the years many leaders have come to voice support for the medical uses for marijuana. However, Kennedy not only opposes recreational use, but he has a record of voting against measures to protect and enhance access to medical marijuana. In 2015, Kennedy was one of 10 Democrats who sided with a Republican majority to pass a bill that wouldamong many other thingsrestrict funding for states that wanted to legalize marijuana. The bill died in Senate. record among many other things Grit Post also correctly pointed out that Kennedy, in a 2016 interview, said "I don't think marijuana should be legalized." interview Stance on universal healthcare The meme's claim that Kennedy opposes "universal healthcare legislation" requires closer examination. In September 2017, Kennedy expressed tentative support for a single-payer healthcare system, but hesitated to support bills then before the House of Representatives and Senate that would have expanded Medicare.  House Senate At the time, Kennedy told Boston Public Radio the bills were "100 percent right on the value that they're trying to enshrine into federal law -- that healthcare is a right in this country, not a privilege to be enjoyed by the few..." Boston Public Radio However, he said there were "details" in the House bill (introduced by Democratic Rep. John Conyers) with which he was 'struggling.' When pressed, Kennedy said he supported universal healthcare, but said a single-payer system (funded by taxes and administered by the government) was "a way that we could get there, and that's great, but I think that the critical piece to this is ensuring that everybody gets access to quality, affordable, accessible healthcare..." So Kennedy has given theoretical support to universal healthcare, but has been fuzzy on the details of how it should be achieved, and he did not support specific legislation that, if passed, would have massively expanded health coverage in the United States. Shaw, Jordan.  "Pharma's Favorite Democrat Is Giving the Official Response to Trump State of the Union."
  Grit Post.  28 January 2018. Rozier, Alex.  "Joe Kennedy III Profits from Stock in Expensive Hep C Drug."
  Boston Globe.  5 May 2016. Angell, Tom.  "Dems Pick Anti-Marijuana Kennedy for Trump State of the Union Response."
  Marijuana Moment.  28 January 2018. Sweeney, Chris.  "The Interview: Joe Kennedy III."
  Boston Magazine.  11 September 2016. Bedford, Tori.  "Joe Kennedy Supports Single-Payer, But Only in Theory."
  WGBH-TV.  14 September 2017.