IRS Notification: Federal Tax Return/Payment Rejection or Refund Notification
Phishing bait:  Notice from the IRS indicating the recipient's electronic tax return or payment has been rejected or that the recipient has a refund coming. Examples:   [Collected via e-mail, October 2010] Subject: Your Federal Tax Payment ID 010357109 is rejected.  Urgent Report. Your Federal Tax Payment ID: 01037524 has been rejected. Return Reason Code R21 - The identification number used in the Company Identification Field is not valid. Please, check the information and refer to Code R21 to get details about your company payment in transaction contacts section: EFTPS: The Electronic Federal Tax Payment System PLEASE NOTE: Your tax payment is due regardless of EFTPS online availability. In case of an emergency, you can always make your tax payment by calling the EFTPS.  [Collected via e-mail, January 2008] After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a Stimulus Payment. Please submit the Stimulus Payment Online Form in order to process it. A Stimulus Payment can be delayed for a variety of reasons.For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline. To submit your Stimulus Payment form, please download the document attached to your email. Note: If filing or preparation fees were deducted from your 2007 Refund or you received a refund anticipation loan, you will be receiving a check instead of a direct deposit. Regards,Internal Revenue Servicestimulus.payment@irs.gov  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] From: "Internal Revenue Service" Subject: IRS Notification - Fiscal ActivityDate: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:57:35 +0300 After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $268.32. Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to process it. A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline. To access the form for your tax refund, please click here Regards,Internal Revenue Service Copyright 2007, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved.  [Collected via e-mail, February 2009] Re: US Stimulus Check Information--------------------------------------------------------------------If you're one of the millions of Americans struggling in today's economy, help is available. You've been chosen for the chance to get a US Stimulus Check based on your annual income level. (Participation required. See below for details.) Refer to the chart below to determine the amount of money you can receive: --------------------------------------------------------------------$0 - $35,000........................$709 US Stimulus Check--------------------------------------------------------------------$35,000 - $70,000.................$615 US Stimulus Check--------------------------------------------------------------------$70,000+.............................$504 US Stimulus Check--------------------------------------------------------------------  Make your selection here, then follow the instructions on our website before this offer expires.  [Collected via e-mail, July 2009] Tax Refund Notification After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity, we have determined that you are eligible to receive tax refund of 488.50 GBP. You are require to submit the tax refund request using the tax refund reference below and allow up 6-9 working days in order to process it [link elided] Note : A refund can be delayed for different reasons, for example submitting invalid records or applying after deadline. we apologise for any inconveniences and thank you for your co-operation. Yours Sincerely HM Revenue & Customs  [Collected via e-mail, June 2011] Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Source Important information about your tax return We are unable to process your tax return We recived your tax return. However, we are unable to process the return as field. Our records indicate that the person identified as the primary taxpayer or spouse on the tax return did not provided all the required documents shown on the tax form. Our records are based on information received from the Social Security Administration. Based on this information, the tax account for the individual has been locked  What you need to do Print out the attached notification and list of missing documents, fill it in, add the documents and send the following information to the adress shown in the attached notification. List of required documents: 1. A copy of this letter 2. Notification letter 3. A photocopy of valid U.S. Federal or State Government issued identification. Keep this notice for your records. If you need assistance, please don'thesitate to contact us  [Collected via e-mail, January 2012] IRS notice, The analysis of the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity has indicated that you are entitled to receive a tax refund of $115.25 Please submit a request of the tax refund and a processing of the request will take 7-14 days. A tax refund can be delayed by different reasons. For instance submission of invalid records or sending after the deadline. Please find the form of your tax refund attached and fill out it and send a report. Regards,Internal Revenue Service. Origins:  Notices purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) make good  phishing bait for a number of reasons: phishing  Notices from institutions of the federal government (especially an agency with the ominous reputation of the IRS) grab people's attention.  Unlike other phishing schemes that emulate mailings from various private financial institutions (e.g., Bank of America) and are therefore easily recognized as phony by many recipients (because they do no business with those companies), a forged IRS notice has the potential to take in a much larger pool of victims, as most adult U.S. residents have dealings with that agency.  Many people find the federal income tax filing process complicated and confusing, so the idea that they might have unclaimed refunds or payments waiting for them to claim seems plausible. An August 2007 mass phish e-mailing (reprised in January 2012) took advantage of those points, spamming millions of Internet users with phony notices that advised recipients they were eligible to receive tax refunds (of amounts such as $109.30 or $268.32) and invited them to click on a link that took them to a form  through which they could claim those refunds.  Of course, the link included in the messages didn't actually send users to the genuine IRS web site; it redirected claimants to an imposter site that instructed them to enter sensitive personal information (e.g., Social Security number and debit card number) in order to "deposit" their refunds.   Similarly, January 2009 versions redirected claimants to an imposter site with a form for them to fill out in order to claim stimulus payments, and an October 2010 version used the lure of claiming that the recipients' Electronic Federal Tax Payments (EFTPS) had been rejected due to invalid information and sent them to a phony imitation of the real EFTPS site to enter new information. The IRS never offers refunds through e-mail or sends out unsolicited e-mails to taxpayers.   When the IRS needs to contact a taxpayer, it sends notice via U.S. Mail, and every such notice includes a telephone number that the recipient can call for confirmation.  Should you need to visit the IRS web site for any reason, go there directly (by entering the www.irs.gov URL into your web browser) rather than following links in e-mail messages. The IRS says about such e-mails that: IRS The IRS does not initiate taxpayer communications through e-mail. In addition, the IRS does not request detailed personal information through e-mail or ask taxpayers for the PIN numbers, passwords or similar secret access information for their credit card, bank or other financial accounts.  Do not open any attachments to questionable e-mails, which may contain malicious code that will infect your computer. Please be advised that the IRS does not initiate contact with taxpayers via e-mails. The EFTPS web site also states that: EFTPS EFTPS values your privacy and security and will never attempt to contact you via e-mail. If you ever receive an e-mail that claims to be from EFTPS or from a sender you do not recognize that mentions a payment made through EFTPS, forward the e-mail to phishing@irs.gov or call the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration at 1.800.366.4484. Last updated:  9 January 2012
During Russia's invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, American social media users enthusiastically shared posts that called for a boycott of Lukoil gas stations on the East Coast, on the basis that they were Russian owned. As one very widely shared tweet summarized: social media users enthusiastically shared posts called boycott Russian summarized "#BoycottRussia. Lukoil gas is Russian owned."   wrote "Fill your tank elsewhere. Lukoil is a Russian multinational corporation headquartered in Moscow. Their CEO, Vagit Alekperov, is a Russian oligarch worth an estimated $19.6 billion. Lukoil gas stations are all over PA, NJ and NY." These posts undoubtedly contained a significant element of truth. Lukoil is indeed a large Russian-headquartered multinational petroleum and natural gas producer, with a U.S. subsidiary that oversees a network of gas stations, primarily in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. Moreover, the company's billionaire president, Vagit Alekperov, has ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. has ties However, Lukoil typically does not operate those U.S. gas stations itself. Rather, it operates on a franchise basis, meaning any successful boycott of Lukoil-branded gas stations would likely have a negligible effect on the parent company or its billionaire president, but could prove financially devastating for dozens of U.S. franchise owners and their hundreds of local employees. In brief, Lukoil itself might be "Russian owned," but its U.S. gas stations are U.S.-operated and locally staffed. As such, we're issuing a rating of "Mixture." Lukoil emerged from the dissolving Soviet Union in the early 1990s, and entered the American market a decade later. According to the company's website, Lukoil acquired the American company Getty Oil in 2000, taking over and rebranding its existing network of gas stations. the company's website The first Lukoil-branded gas station was opened in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan in September, 2003. Notably, the grand opening was attended by Putin himself  who was in the U.S. at that time for talks with then-President George W. Bush. In the photograph below, Putin can be seen outside the Manhattan Lukoil, with Alekperov to his right, and U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to his left: attended by Putin himself  Russian President Vladimir Putin (C) and Lukoil President Vagit Alekperov (L) listen as U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) (R) gestures as he speaks about U.S.-Russian relations during the opening of Lukoil's gasoline station September 26, 2003 in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York City. Lukoil, a Russian oil company, acquired Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. and its 1,300 stations in November 2000. (Photo by Stephen Chernin/Getty Images)  At the time, Lukoil was reported to have taken over Getty's existing network of 1,300 gas stations, but by 2022, the number of Lukoil-branded gas stations in the United States had declined to around 230  most, if not all, located in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York.  Importantly, most  if not all  of those gas stations are operated as franchises. Franchising is a popular business model in the United States, with the best-known examples being fast food restaurants such as McDonald's and convenience stores like 7-Eleven.  popular business model in the United States Roughly speaking, the franchisee (local entrepreneur) pays the franchisor (main company) some fees: typically an up-front franchise fee, and regular royalties  usually a percentage cut of their income from sales. In return, the franchisor gives the franchisee the right to operate a business using their well-known brand, for a defined period of time, usually several years. The company might also provide advice or assistance with logistics, advertising, marketing, and so on. The local entrepreneur is also contractually obliged to operate the business in accordance with certain prescribed methods, customer service models, and so on. Lukoil  or more specifically, Lukoil North America, a Delaware-registered LLC with an address in Moorestown, New Jersey offers three-year leases to franchisees in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. In fact, as of March 2, the company's website listed for lease 13 different gas station sites in those states: Lukoil North America, a Delaware-registered LLC 13 different gas station sites   offer to lease" document The aforementioned Bidder is submitting the below rental offer to lease the LUKOIL branded service station listed above, and is prepared to enter into an Agreement with LNA for the lease of the same, subject to the conditions specified below. The lease term is generally three (3) years, however a longer term can be approved, at LNA's discretion, provided a sufficient site improvement or supply commitment is made to justify a longer term.   Google post "LUKOIL gas stations in the United States are independently owned and operated by local business owners who are members of the communities they serve, and 100% of the gasoline and diesel fuel sold is sourced from American oil refiners." Snopes asked Lukoil for details on the exact number of Lukoil-branded gas stations in the United States, and the number of those operated on a franchise basis, if not all. We also asked for precise details about the company's revenue from franchise fees, royalties and/or rent paid by U.S. franchisees, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.  However, Lukoil's 2021 financial results, which were published on March 2, gave an indication of the relatively small role of U.S. gas station revenue in the company's overall income, most of which stems from oil and gas exploration and production inside Russia. Lukoil's 2021 financial results In 2021, according to Lukoil, the company had total sales of 9.4 trillion rubles ($88 billion), and its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) were 1.4 trillion rubles ($13 billion). Of that $13 billion, just 8.3% ($1 billion) was made up of "refining, marketing and distribution" outside Russia. Although a more detailed breakdown is not available, it is reasonable to suppose that income related specifically to U.S. gas stations made up an even smaller fraction of that $1 billion, given that Lukoil refines, markets, and distributes petroleum in several other countries throughout the world.  It's also not clear whether, in the event of an effective widespread boycott of U.S. Lukoil-branded gas stations, franchisees would still be obliged to continue paying fees and rent to Lukoil North America even if they had no income from gas or convenience store sales. Therefore, a successful boycott could require financial devastation  if not ruination  among many dozens of local entrepreneurs in the United States, as well as sudden unemployment for their hundreds of workers, in order to achieve what would be only a very small financial impact on the Russian parent company, or its bosses in Moscow.  On March 3, Lukoil's board of directors issued a statement in which they expressed their "deepest concerns about the tragic events in Ukraine," and called for an immediate end to the conflict and a "lasting ceasefire." issued a statement Maass, Peter. The Triumph of the Quiet Tycoon. The New York Times, 1 Aug. 2004. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/magazine/the-triumph-of-the-quiet-tycoon.html. PRESS RELEASE MARCH 02, 2022 LUKOIL RELEASES FINANCIAL RESULTS UNDER IFRS FOR 2021 PJSC LUKOIL Today Released Its Audited Consol. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AnFU75r0Wkh4J%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.lukoil.com%2Fapi%2Fpresscenter%2Fexportpressrelease%3Fid%3D577486+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us. Accessed 3 Mar. 2022. Updated [March 4, 2022]: Added reference to the Lukoil board of directors March 3 statement about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. An item about a collection of U.S. tax increases which were supposedly enacted as of 1 January 2016 due to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare") was circulated widely at the beginning of 2016, but it was merely an updated version of identical claims circulated in previous years that set 2014 or 2015 as the imposition date for those tax increases:  Although the tax increases listed in this item did come to pass, they took effect at the beginning of 2013 (not 2014 or 2015 or 2016), were completely unrelated to the Affordable Care Act, applied only to very high-income earners, and have been overstated in this list.  These tax hikes were enacted through the passage of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, a compromise bill pushed through Congress as a partial resolution to the then-looming "fiscal cliff" crisis.  Under the provisions of that bill: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 fiscal cliff   The top marginal federal income tax rate increased from 35% to 39.6%  The top marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains increased from 15% to 20% (not 28%).  The top marginal tax rate on dividends increased from 15% to 20% (not 39.6%).  Estate taxes increased from 35% of an estate's value in excess of $5,120,000 (in 2012) to 40% of the value above $5,340,000 (in 2014). It's important to note that the increase in marginal tax rates for federal income tax, capital gains, and dividends affected only those persons with taxable incomes over a $400,000 (single)/$450,000 (married) threshold.  It's also important to note that the previous estate tax rate of 0% was a special rule that applied only to the estates of persons who died in 2010 (the estate tax has since been increased to 35% for those who died in 2011 and 40% for those who died in 2012 and thereafter), and even today an estate tax  filing is required only for estates with gross assets in excess of $5 million (indexed for inflation).   estate tax The tax rate for dividends has also not increased from 15% to 39.6%: it appears someone has confused qualified dividends with nonqualified dividends. Qualified dividend earnings are tax-free for those in the 10% and 15% brackets, taxed at a 15% rate for those in the 25% up to 35% tax brackets, and taxed at a 20% rate for higher income taxpayers whose income surpasses the 35% tax bracket.  Nonqualified dividends only are taxed as ordinary income.  (Theoretically, a taxpayer with nonqualified dividend earnings who reached the top marginal federal income tax rate would be paying 39.6% tax on those earnings, but that's a condition that only applies to persons earning over several hundred thousand dollars per year.) dividends The list's reference to an "income payroll tax" increase from 37.4% to 52.2% is something of a mystery, as this is not a standard term for any type of government income- or payroll-related tax.  The only adjustment to payroll-related taxes resulting from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was that a two-year old cut to payroll taxes which had previously reduced the rate from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011 and 2012 was not extended.  Additionally, this item's coda claiming that "not one Republican voted to do these taxes" is completely false.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed Congress by a margin of 89-8 in the Senate with 40 Republican votes in favor, and a margin of 257-167 in the House with 85 Republican votes in favor. (The original claim undoubtedly refers to the House or Representatives' voting in 2010 to pass the health-care reform bill without a single Republican vote in favor, but that association is moot because, as noted, the tax increases listed above had nothing to do with that bill.) 89-8 257-167 health-care reform bill In October 2017, what appears to be a legitimate news article appeared on Facebook, claiming that Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe legalized recreational and medicinal marijuana in the state of Virginia:   An error-laden article automatically displayed the date on which it was opened, misleading readers into thinking it represented a brand-new development: article Govenor Terry McAuliffe passed a law legalizing the use of recreational and medicinal marijuana for the state of VirginiaAs of November, first 2017 marijuana will be legalOverall support for legalize marijuana has hit 64 30 states in the district of Columbia currently have laws broadly legalizing marijuanaI knew Gallup poll released earlier this month shows that a record high percentage of Americans now support legalizing marijuana For the first time immaturity of Republicans are in favor of legalizing marijuana as well Update coming soon The claim is completely false, originating with prank-generating fake news site React365. Although the ostensible purpose of the site is to allow people to "prank" one another with phony articles, overly broad general interest topics such as statewide marijuana legalization often rapidly spreads outside its creator's circle of Facebook followers.  prank-generating fake news React365 On the heels of the longest federal government shutdown in United States history, and on the potential precipice of another shutdown in February 2019, Facebook users started to share a meme about how the country of Australia handled their own government shutdown back in 1975:   The text of the meme stated: "In 1975 Australia had a government shutdown. In the end, all the members of Parliament were fired and then elections were held to restart from scratch. They haven't had another shutdown since." This meme is largely accurate. Australia's government was effectively shutdown due to a budget impasse in October 1975, the prime minister was dismissed, both houses of Parliament were dissolved, and a new election was held. Since then, Australia has not had another government shutdown. However, Australia's constitutional crisis in 1975, often referred to as "The Dismissal," was a bit more complicated than portrayed in this meme. Furthermore, the meme is often offered up on social media as a solution to government shutdowns in the United States, but Australia's government doesn't function in the same manner as the U.S. government. Some of the key differences that enabled "The Dismissal" to occur in Australia is that the country is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy, which means that despite Australia's having elected officials, the head of state in Australia is still the Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, as represented by the governor-general). While the Queen rarely exercises her power and is often viewed as a mere figurehead in Australia, the monarch (and in turn the governor-general) is afforded some powers in the country's constitution. During the constitutional crisis of 1975, Governor-General Sir John Kerr used his constitutional authority to dismiss Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. constitutional monarchy Australia's constitution also permits a "double dissolution" procedure to resolve deadlocks between the House and Senate: The Australian Constitution gives almost identical powers to the House of Representatives and the Senate. A bill (proposed law) must be agreed to by both houses in order to become law. The drafters of the Constitution saw the possibility of a deadlock occurring between the two houses, in which there may be disagreement over a bill. Section 57 of the Constitution provides a mechanism to resolve the disagreement, by dissolving both houses of Parliament and calling an election to let the voters decide what the outcome will be. The double dissolution mechanism only relates to a bill that originates in the House of Representatives. While the viral meme states that members of parliament were "fired" due to the government shutdown, that isn't exactly accurate. Both houses of parliament were dissolved, so all of the seats in the House and Senate went up for election again. The "fired" lawmakers therefore still had a chance to retain their seats by winning them back in a subsequent election. In 1975, Prime Minister Whitlam and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) held a majority in the House of Representatives, but the Opposition controlled the Senate. When the two parties failed to pass appropriations bills to fund the government, Governor-General Kerr dismissed the prime minister and commissioned Malcom Fraser of the Liberal Party as the caretaker prime minister. Fraser then passed an appropriations bill, and Kerr dissolved Parliament, setting up a double dissolution election to be held the following month. Here's a summary of what took place from the Australian Broadcast Corporation: Australian Broadcast Corporation The Dismissal of the Whitlam Government by the Governor-General, on November 11, 1975, still stands as the most dramatic and controversial event in Australias political history. The decision of the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to dismiss the Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, and install the Liberal Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, as caretaker prime minister, on condition that he called an election, was a sensational development that ended a three-week parliamentary stand-off. The crisis began on October 15, when the Opposition parties announced they would block the governments Supply Bills in the Senate, as a means of forcing the government to an election. Whitlam refused to call an election and three weeks of parliamentary debate and public campaigning convulsed the political system. On November 11, Whitlam sought a half-Senate election from the Governor-General. Kerr rejected the advice and dismissed Whitlam. He commissioned Malcolm Fraser as caretaker prime minister. Fraser immediately secured the passage of Supply through the Senate and recommended a double dissolution of the parliament. The election was held on December 13, 1975. The Fraser-led Coalition won the largest victory in Australias federal history. The Parliament of Australia website provided some additional context to this historic event: context Several weeks later, and after intense negotiations and a third attempt to enact the appropriation bills, the new Governor-General took the extraordinary and unprecedented step of acting at his own initiative to invoke his power under sec. 62 of the Constitution: There shall be a Federal Executive Council [in practice, the Government] to advise the GovernorGeneral in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the GovernorGeneral and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure. (emphasis added) Governor-General Kerr dismissed the Whitlam Government, even though it still enjoyed majority support in the House of Representatives to which, by constitutional convention, it was responsible. To replace it, Kerr appointed a caretaker Liberal Government with Fraser as prime minister. In justifying his decision, the Governor-General argued that, in the Australian system, the confidence of both Houses on supply is necessary to ensure its provision: When ... an Upper House possesses the power to reject a money bill including an appropriation bill, and exercises the power by denying supply, the principle that a government which has been denied supply by the Parliament should resign or go to an election must still applyit is a necessary consequence of Parliamentary control of appropriation and expenditure and of the expectation that the ordinary and necessary services of Government will continue to be provided. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 104) In this position the Governor-General was supported by the Chief Justice, who wrote that: the Senate has constitutional power to refuse to pass a money bill; it has power to refuse supply to the Government of the day. ... a Prime Minister who cannot ensure supply to the Crown, including funds for carrying on the ordinary services of Government, must either advise a general election (of a kind which the constitutional situation may then allow) or resign. (quoted in Odgers Australian Senate Practice 2001: 105) Not surprisingly, the two houses reacted very differently. The Senate acted almost instantaneously to pass the stalled appropriation bills. The House agreed to a motion expressing its lack of confidence in the newly-designated prime minister and requesting the Speaker to ask the Governor-General to have Whitlam again form a government. But before the Speaker was allowed to deliver this message, the Governor-General declared, at Frasers request and by pre-arrangement, a double dissolution of both houses. As Solomon put it: In the 1975 double dissolution, the Governor-General had to dismiss a Prime Minister (who controlled a majority in the House of Representatives) and appoint another (who lacked the confidence of that House) to find an advisor who was prepared to recommend to him the course he wished to adoptnamely the dissolution of both Houses of Parliament under section 57. (Solomon 1978: 169) While some Americans may look at Australia's constitutional crisis of 1975 as a "solution" to modern U.S. government shutdowns, "The Dismissal" remains one of the most controversial events in Australia's history:  Australia.gov.au.  "How Government Works."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. AustralianPolitics.com.  "Comparing the American and Australian Political Systems."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Whitlamdismissal.com.  "What Happened."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Barnett, Bronwyn.  "The Dismissal: Through the News Camera Lens."
  National Film and Sound Archive of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "The Crisis of 1974-75."
  Parliament of Australia.  Retrieved 14 February 2019. ABC.Net.Au.  "The Dismissal, Australia's Constitutional Crisis."
  Retrieved 14 February 2019. Fisher, Max.  "Australia Had a Government Shutdown Once. In the End, the Queen Fired Everyone in Parliament."
  The Washington Post.  1 October 2013. In February 2021, during U.S. Senate hearings on the confirmation of Merrick Garland as President Joe Biden's nominee for attorney general, a widely shared tweet purported to capture a startlingly frank exchange between Garland and Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas. The tweet, posted by @Roshan_Rinaldi on Feb. 22, contained a link to a PBS live video of the hearing, along with the following text: tweet Tom Cotton: "Can you make a commitment on resources?"Garland: "I don't make commitments unless I know the facts first."Cotton: "When we confirmed Bill Barr, he was able to make a commitment on resources. Why can't you do that now?"Garland: "Because I'm not a liar"   The tweet, which has since been deleted, was widely shared on Twitter and its text contents tweeted out by several users in separate tweets. It was also shared on the popular left-wing forum Democratic Underground. On Facebook, users enthusiastically shared screenshots of it in the hours and days that followed. The following screenshot demonstrates the popularity of the post on Facebook in February 2021: several users shared shared   In reality, Garland never called former Attorney General Bill Barr "a liar." Nor did he describe him in a way that could fairly be summarized in that way. The tweet paraphrased a real line of questioning from Cotton but grossly misrepresented both the wording and tone of Garland's response. @Roshan_Rinaldi's tweet was particularly misleading because it not only misrepresented Garland's utterances in response to Cotton's questioning, but also used quotation marks, thereby presenting the exchange between Cotton and Garland as a direct quotation, which it certainly was not. During a confirmation hearing on Feb. 22, Garland, a U.S. Circuit Court judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, faced questioning from Republican senators about the future of Special Counsel John Durham's investigation. In 2019, then-President Donald Trump asked Durham to investigate whether federal investigators engaged in wrongdoing or criminality during the early stages of investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government actors during the 2016 presidential election. In 2020, Trump gave Durham the title and powers of a special counsel.  John Durham special counsel In particular, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and later Cotton, asked Garland whether he would commit to providing Durham the resources he required in order to complete his investigation. Garland demurred, and both Grassley and Cotton pointed out (accurately) that Barr, during his confirmation hearings in January 2019, was willing to make such a commitment to continuing and resourcing the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who had been leading an investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. accurately In order to provide the full and proper account of what Garland actually said about Barr (or rather, did not say), the following are excerpted transcripts and videos of his exchanges with Grassley and then Cotton: Grassley: I'm going to go to the Durham investigation. At Barr's hearing, he stated the following [with] regard to Mueller's investigation: "It's virtually [read: vitally] important that the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation." Also, at that same hearing, Sen. Feinstein asked: "Will you commit to providing Mr. Mueller with the resources, funds and time needed to complete his investigation?" Attorney General Barr answered Sen. Feinstein with a one-word "Yes." With respect to Special Counsel Durham's investigation, I expect that he will be allowed to complete his investigation. If confirmed, will you commit to providing Special Counsel Durham with the staff, resources, funds and time needed to thoroughly complete the investigation? vitally Garland: Senator, I don't have any information about the investigation, as I sit here today. And another one of the very first things I'm going to have to do is speak with Mr. Durham, figure out how his investigation is going. I understand that he has been permitted to remain in his position, and sitting here today, I have no reason to think that that was not the correct decision.  Grassley: Okay. And I suppose that would be an answer that [means] he would only be removed for cause, then? Would that be your position? Garland: Well, Senator, I really do have to have an opportunity to talk with him. I have not had that opportunity. As I said, I don't have any reason, from what I know now, which is really very little, to make any determination on that ground. But I don't have any reason to think that he should not remain in place.   Later, Cotton followed up on Grassley's line of questioning, and the following exchange took place: Cotton: I want to return to Sen. Grassley's questions about the Durham investigation. Sen. Grassley asked you if you would commit, specifically, to ensure that John Durham had the staff, the resources and the time that he needed to complete that investigation. You said you didn't have the info yet, that you needed to speak to him, but you had no reason to think that him staying on was not the correct decision  Garland: That's correct, Sir, yes. Cotton: Why can't you commit, specifically, to saying that he will have the time, staff and resources he needs to complete his investigation? Garland: Well, again, it's because I'm sitting here and I don't have any information about what he needs, in his resources and the allocation of resources. But my  everything I know, sitting here, suggests that he should of course have those resources. Cotton: Judge, two years ago Bill Barr made that exact commitment about the Mueller special counsel [investigation]. He did not have that information, he had not consulted with the department. He was in the same posture you are. He simply said "Yes." Why can't you say "Yes" today, the way Bill Barr did two years ago? Garland: Again, my view about every investigation and every decision I make is I have to know the facts before I can make those kind of decisions. I don't know what went into his consideration, but for myself, I have to be there and learn what's going on, before I can make a decision. But as I said, I have no reason to doubt that the decision to keep him in place, and to continue his investigation, was in any way wrong. Cotton: Was it wrong for Bill Barr to make that commitment two years ago? Garland: Again, as I said, Senator, I'm not going to be making judgements about my predecessors. I don't think there's any purpose in that for myself. I want you to judge me on my own record and what I do going forward. Cotton: Was it wrong for Democratic senators on this committee to repeatedly demand that Bill Barr make that commitment two years ago? Garland: I think my answer would be the same.  As the videos and transcripts show, far from calling Barr "a liar" or saying words to that effect, Garland actually repeatedly refused openings to criticize Barr in any way. The wording presented in the viral tweet was inaccurate, and the underlying claim that Garland attacked Barr's honesty was a gross misrepresentation of what he actually said. 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 On Inauguration Day, Kamala Harris made history several times over. In being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021, the outgoing California senator became the first Black person, first woman, and first person of South Asian heritage to be elevated to the vice presidency.  Inauguration Day The historic nature of her achievement was placed in stark context in a viral meme that showed Harris, whose parents immigrated to the United States from India and Jamaica, respectively, juxtaposed with a long list of official portraits of white men. (Charles Curtis, who served with Herbert Hoover from 1929 to 1933, had some Native American heritage and was therefore the first person of color to hold the office of vice president). Charles Curtis The meme also highlighted several purported landmarks in the slow progress of women's rights and racial desegregation in the United States, as follows: Dont understand why its a big deal that Kamala Harris is VP? Until Red box? She would have been enslaved. Until Blue box? She couldnt vote. Until Yellow box? She had to attend a segregated school. Until Green one? She couldnt have her own bank account.   The following screenshot shows a selection of instances of the meme on Facebook and demonstrates its popularity on social media in January 2021: popularity   The vice presidents highlighted in various colors were as follows (along with the dates of their tenure as vice president): Red: Andrew Johnson, March 4 to April 15,1865 Andrew Johnson Blue: Calvin Coolidge, March 4, 1921, to Aug. 3, 1923 Calvin Coolidge Yellow: Richard Nixon, Jan. 20, 1953, to Jan. 20, 1961 Richard Nixon Green: Spiro Agnew, Jan. 20, 1969, to Oct. 10, 1973 Spiro Agnew The claims made in the meme were therefore that: until Johnson's tenure as vice president (in 1865), Harris would have been enslaved due to her racial heritage; until Coolidge's tenure as vice president (1921 to 1923), she would have been denied the right to vote due to her gender; until Nixon's tenure as vice president (1953 to 1961), she would have been forced to attend a segregated school due to her racial heritage; and until Agnew's tenure as vice president (1969 to 1973), she would have been denied the right to her own bank account, due to her status as a married woman.  On the whole, the claims contained a high degree of historical accuracy, though in some cases they over-simplified certain discriminatory practices and made some relatively minor errors in identifying the vice president in office during certain major reforms. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "true." The following is our assessment of each of those claims.   The creator of the meme appears to have chosen the year 1865, and therefore the tenure of Johnson, because that is the year in which the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, was passed. The text of the amendment reads as follows:  text Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress passed the amendment in January 1865, while Johnson was vice president-elect to President-elect Abraham Lincoln, but it was not ratified by the states until December 1865, by which time Johnson had ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, leaving the vice presidency vacant for the duration of his presidency. So the sequence of events is a bit muddled, but it is certainly reasonable to place the 13th Amendment, and the abolition of slavery, during the Johnson era.  Until the passing of the 13th Amendment, Black people in the United States lacked legal protection against enslavement. That doesn't mean that all Black people before 1865 were slaves, but the vast majority were. Based on figures included in the 1860 U.S. Census (page 14), some 89% of Black people in the country at that time were slaves. page 14 Slavery was far more prevalent in the southern states, but on average, a Black woman in the U.S. shortly before the 13th Amendment had close to a 90% likelihood of being enslaved. From a human rights perspective, Black people had no legal or constitutional protection from slavery, which is likely the thrust of the point made in the meme.   The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was passed by Congress in June 1919 and ratified by the states in August 1920. The text of the amendment read: text The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. On both those dates, Thomas Riley Marshall was vice president, under President Woodrow Wilson. So the meme was incorrect in stating that women could not vote until the vice presidency of Calvin Coolidge. In fact, women voted for the first time in the November 1920 election, which saw Warren Harding and his running mate Coolidge elected president and vice president, respectively.  Thomas Riley Marshall That inaccuracy does not impinge upon the truth of the broader point being made in the meme, namely that Harris, as a woman, would not have been able to vote in the United States until the early 1920s. However, the meme does miss an important additional barrier to voting rights that Harris, as a Black woman, could have faced even after the passage of the 19th Amendment.  While the 15th Amendment in principle gave Black men the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment gave all women the right to vote, states continued to discriminate against Black voters by imposing obstacles such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and "grandfather clauses"  all of which were designed to suppress Black voters. 15th Amendment obstacles It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that such practices were prohibited by federal law, although many activists argue that present-day voter-ID rules continue the legacy of electoral restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on voters of color. Voting Rights Act argue   The creator of the meme appears to have selected the vice presidency of Nixon (1953 to 1961) because that was the period during which the U.S. Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools constituted a violation of the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown vs. the Board of Education. In a follow-up ruling in 1955, the court ordered school districts to arrange for the desegregation of public schools "with all deliberate speed."  declared follow-up ruling Most, though not all, schools were racially segregated in the 19th and early-20th centuries in the United States. So a Black student, such as Harris, would very likely have been forced to "attend a segregated school," as the meme claims. Brown vs. the Board of Education marked the beginning of the end of school segregation, but it did not bring about integration overnight. Over the course of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, state lawmakers and local authorities fought protracted and often bitter battles to resist the Supreme Court's clear mandate. battles So while the meme was right to point out that Black students would be very likely forced to attend segregated schools before the decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education, it's also the case that many Black students were forced to attend segregated schools for many years after the ruling, as well. What changed in 1954 was that the nation's highest court clearly declared that system of racial segregation to be unconstitutional.   The meme appears to refer to the enactment of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in the early 1970s, which made it illegal for financial services companies to discriminate against customers on the basis of anything other than their creditworthiness. The legislation stated that: stated It shall be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction(1) on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract)... However, the law wasn't enacted until October 1974, when the office of vice president was vacant. Spiro Agnew resigned in late 1973, after he was charged with bribery and tax fraud, and his replacement, Gerald Ford, ascended to the presidency in August 1974, after Nixon resigned. So the meme is again mistaken on the precise sequence of events. While Agnew was vice president, banks could (and did) legally deny credit to a woman on the basis of extraneous considerations such as her marital status, her husband's income and credit history, and so on. and did The meme also somewhat overstated the restrictions in place before 1974. Women, including married women, could open their own bank accounts before the ECOA was passed, but often faced difficulty and discrimination in doing so. It was particularly difficult for women to obtain a line of credit or a credit card, in her own name. In 1972, the National Commission on Consumer Finance published a report that found the following common discriminatory practices in lending: report What the ECOA changed in 1974, and what the meme appears to allude to, is that banks and lenders could no longer legally engage in such discriminatory practices. Newsbrokeon May 27, 2015 that an agreement was close on how to pay for a new $500 million arena for the Milwaukee Bucks, the basketball team that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar once led to glory. Some details of the proposed arrangement between the Bucks and state and local government officials were new. But the overallcost sharing was, more or less, what hadlong beenexpected: The Bucks owners would pay half and taxpayers would pay half. According to Tim Sheehy, president of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, such a split would be good for taxpayers. Here is whathe saidApril 10, 2015 on Here and Now, a Wisconsin Public Television show: If this comes out close to a 50-50 partnership, it will be much better -- in terms of the portion of the public financing -- than most of the other arena projects done around the country. In other words, Sheehy, who supports the new arena, is saying that taxpayers picking up half the tab for a new Milwaukee arena is relatively low, compared to how much taxpayers have contributed toward arenas for other National Basketball Association teams. The parties set a self-imposeddeadlineof May 29, 2015 to try and finalize the financing deal, which would have to be approved, likely within the next few weeks, as part of the 2015-17 state budget. So, lets take a look. The Bucks and their arenas The Bucksjoined the NBA in the 1968-69 season. Led byAbdul-Jabbarand another future Hall of Famer, Oscar Robertson, they won their only league championship in the 1970-71 season. That,according tothe team, meant the Bucks went further, faster, than any expansion team in the history of major professional sports. In recent years, however, the Bucks have struggled, and that is one reason there has been a drive to build a new arena. The teams current home -- the $90 millionBMO Harris Bradley Center, which was built through a donation by the late Milwaukee philanthropist Jane Bradley Pettit -- opened in 1988. The 18,600-seat arena is thethird-oldestand the third-smallest in the 30-team NBA. Momentum for a new arena picked up in April 2014, when the Bucks longtime owner, former U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl of Milwaukee,announcedhe was selling the team to New York hedge-fund investors Marc Lasry and Wesley Edens. Kohl and the new owners pledged to contribute $250 million toward a new arena. Coming up with the other $250 million has been the sticking point,leading to months of negotiations involvingGov. Scott Walker, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele. There is time pressure in that the NBA has said a new arena must be built by the fall of 2017, or Milwaukee would risk losing the team to another market. Other arena deals To see how other NBA arenas have been financed, we turned to two sources: The 2012 edition of Financing Economic Development in the 21st Century,  a textbook that includesa chapteron financing professional sports facilities. And a database,last updatedin August 2014, that is maintained by Marquette University Law Schools National Sports Law Institute. Weve listed the 15 NBA arenas -- comprising half the arenas in the league -- that have been built since 1999. We went back to 1999 because a wave of NBA arenas -- seven of them -- went up that year. As well see, there is some disagreement between the figures provided by the textbook and by Marquette. Holy Cross College sports economistVictor Matheson, who wrote the sports facilities chapter in the textbook, told us thats not surprising because there are different ways to define a public contribution and because stadium financing deals arent always transparent. Based on the two sources we checked, at least eight of the 15 NBA arenas built since 1999 were financed with more than 50 percent taxpayer support. Indeed, although there is some variation in the figures in the two sources, seven of the eight arenas were built with at least 82 percent public money (the total cost figures are according to the textbook). Arenas built with more than 50% public money NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the texbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Orlando 2010 $480 million 90% 87.5% Charlotte 2005 $265 million 100% 100% Memphis 2004 $250 million 100% 83% Houston 2003 $235 million 82% 100% San Antonio 2002 $186 million 85% 84% Oklahoma City 2002 $89 million 100% 100% Miami 1999 $213 million 100% 59% New Orleans 1999 $114 million 100% 100%  Conversely, the textbook and Marquette agree that only four of the arenas were built with taxpayer contributions of 50 percent or less. Arenas built with 50% or less public money NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the textbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Dallas 2001 $420 million 50% 30% Toronto 1999 $265 million 0% 0% Denver 1999 $160 million 22% 3% Los Angeles 1999 $375 million 16% 19%  There was not agreement between the between the two sources on the public portion paid for arenas in Brooklyn, Indianapolis and Atlanta: NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the texbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Indianapolis 1999 $183 million 100% 43% Atlanta 1999 $214 million 29% 91% Brooklyn 2010 $637 million 24% N/A  Our rating Sheehy said a 50-50 public-private split for paying for a new Milwaukee Bucks arena would be much better in terms of the portion of the public financing than most of the other arena projects done around the country. Of the 15 NBA arenas -- comprising half the cities in the league -- built since 1999, at least eight were built with more than 50 percent of the money coming from taxpayers. Seven of those eight were built with at least 82 percent public money. We rate his statement True. In February 2020, a variation of a familiar scam circulated on Facebook. The dubious website airalaskaoffer.com offered users a "chance to get 2 free tickets of Alaska Air." To enter, users had to complete survey questions.   Alaska Airlines was quick to call out the scam on its Facebook page, offering advice on how to spot real offers: call out advice  As if the poor writing on the bogus offer weren't enough of a red flag, we've seen numerous scams like this one before. Save the company name, it was practically a carbon copy of previous anniversary scams. As we previously reported: this one before These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook share buttons and post comments to the scammers site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two Reward Offers (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards). 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. In late July 2018, Facebook users circulated a meme bearing the image of U.S. Rep. Jason Lewis (R-Minnesota) with text stating that he had "called for a dress code for American women":   The meme referenced comments Lewis made in 2012, five years before he assumed office, when his primary occupation was hosting the syndicated talk radio program "The Jason Lewis Show." Those comments resurfaced on 18 July 2018, when CNN published excerpts from Lewis' former radio program (which ended in 2014) in the lead-up to Lewis's bid for reelection in the 2018 November midterms. excerpts In recordings from March 2012 released by CNN, Lewis "repeatedly expressed disbelief that people could no longer refer to women as 'sluts'," even if those women were sexually active or dressed provocatively: "Well, the thing is, can we call anybody a slut? This is what begs the question. Take "Sandra Fluke out of it, take Rush [Limbaugh] out of it for a moment ... Does a woman now have the right to behave  and I know there's a double standard between the way men chase women and running and running around  you know, I'm not going to get there, but you know what I'm talking about. But it used to be that women were held to a little bit of a higher standard. We required modesty from women. Now, are we beyond those days where a woman can behave as a slut, but you can't call her a slut?" Sandra Fluke "Now Limbaugh's reasoning was, look, if you're demanding that the taxpayers pay for your contraception, you must use a lot of them and therefore, ergo, you're very sexually active and in the old days, what we used to call people who were in college or even graduate school who were sexually active, we called them sluts." "But have we really got to the point where you can't refer to Madonna as a slut without being sued? I mean, Madonna has had a series of lovers, as have many in Hollywood. Now in the old days, what did we call this? Madonna dresses up in these sorts of prostitute-like outfits on stage, and she goes there and she sings and she shows half of her body. What did we call those people? 30 years ago? 40 years ago? 50 years ago? You can't do that today, it's too politically incorrect?" Lewis was referring to a then-current controversy over comments made by fellow conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who had termed Sandra Fluke, then a law student at Georgetown University, a "slut" and a "prostitute" for speaking before a House committee in support of mandatory insurance coverage for contraceptives. speaking Although Lewis may have been, in a very broad sense, suggesting a "dress code" for women by criticizing figures such as Madonna for "running around [in] slutty outfits" and making statements such as "Only we can tell our young women, 'don't look like some slut and you won't get hit on,'" we found no instance of his advocating the imposition of a mandatory (i.e., legislatively established) mode of dress for women.  We reached out to Lewis's spokespeople and received no response, but Lewis campaign spokeswoman Becky Alery told CNN that Lewis's comments as a radio host were old news: "This has all been litigated before, and as Congressman Lewis has said time and time again, it was his job to be provocative while on the radio." Kaczynski, Andrew.  "A GOP Congressman Once Lamented Not Being Able to Call Women 'Sluts' Anymore."
  CNN.  18 July 2018. Brodey, Sam.  "There Are New Recordings from Jason Lewis Lightning-Rod Past as a Talk Radio Host. Will It Matter This Time?"
  MinnPost.  26 July 2018. Cottle, Michelle.  "Meet Minnesota's Mini-Trump."
 The Atlantic.  12 August 2016. DeBonis, Mike.  "Paul Ryan Backs Rep. Jason Lewis, Who Faces Drumbeat of Revelations from His Talk-Radio Career."
  The Washington Post.  27 July 2018.