Tomaselli Letter
Item:  Texas doctor pens opinion piece about the treatment of prisoners captured in Afghanistan. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] I was just reading Yahoo news and the San Antonio Express newspaper. You know what upsets me?  People with absolutely nothing to do with their lives, so they complain on how the U.S.  is treating the prisoners or "Detainees" from Afghanistan. Do you know why they are complaining?  They see a picture on the news or the Internet and they see someone who is shackled and blindfolded and walking with two armed guards behind razor wire.  This picture tells them they are treated unfairly. Here is what I see . . . I see a thin, sickly looking person who under severe mental duress from being bombed, was cleaned up, given a haircut to prevent infestation of parasites, and given new clothes and shoes to wear.  I see a person who is given three nutritious meals per day and a bed to sleep in a tropical climate, not the cold desert floor of Afghanistan, eating worms, bugs, and goat.  I see a person who will be able to get relief from their pains and illnesses without paying a dime for medical expenses.  They will get rest, educated, and their mental stress levels will have dropped tremendously because they were taken out of a combat area and will not be shot at again. I see these people blindfolded and shackled behind razor wire.  I have the intellectual ability to understand why they are this way.  For those that do not have this ability, let me explain it to you.  They are blindfolded to protect OUR U.S. SOLDIERS from further harm.  These people can not plan to destroy something if they can not see it.  They are shackled because these same people have proven they will easily give up their lives to kill just ONE AMERICAN.  We are protecting their life as well as our own.  The razor wire is a mental deterrent, just like the little alarm company warning signs most of you out there have on your home, but don't have the actual alarm system.  You would think many times over before actually trying to cross that razor wire.  For all of you people out there thinking how bad these poor detainees have it under such strict guard, you need to do a lot more thinking about other things in your life. I was born on September 11th, 1966, and every birthday I have from now on will never be a happy one.  Why, do you ask?  Because as I am out somewhere trying to have a nice dinner, someone will have a candle or a ribbon or something, crying about the anniversary of a national tragedy. And then I will think, about how insignificant my one little birthday actually is compared to everything else that had happened on that one day. It boggles my mind that there are actually people out there in this world, in leadership positions, head of companies that actually think that we are doing something wrong when it comes to protecting our nation and our people.  These same people will be the first ones to complain about something that happens to them when they are vacationing outside this country.  They will ask why the U.S.  does not do anything about their misfortune. These are the same people that complain about taxes and how bad their lives actually are. If you receive this email, please pass it on to everyone in your address book.  I am not afraid or ashamed to speak my peace.  I am an American, my father fought for this country, and was willing to die for it. Dr.  Steven TomaselliUvalde, TexasUnited States of America Origins:  This item is another entry difficult to categorize with a simple "true" or "false," as it's merely an opinion piece, not an article asserting any factual claims.  Even though this item was not written by an established journalist or published as an editorial in any newspaper (even as a letter to the editor), it has been circulated widely because a great many people seem to give anything authored by someone identified by the title of "Dr." a good deal of unwarranted credibility.   If the good Dr. Steven Tomaselli holds that title because he has earned a doctorate in a field such as political science, his opinions might be expected to offer informative insights; if he's a dentist or a mathematics professor, there's no real reason to expect his opinions to be more noteworthy than those of millions of other citizens.  (For the record, "Dr." Tomaselli is a chiropractor.) chiropractor As of mid-February 2002, the Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners (or "detainees") held in Camp X-ray at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, numbered 220.  The U.S. drew criticism from representatives of European nations and human rights organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross for maintaining that captured Taliban and al-Qaeda soldiers did not qualify for prisoner of war status under the Geneva Convention, and for asserting that the captives were being treated humanely while nonetheless denying the Red Cross permission to visit the  camp.   The issue at the heart of the dispute has been the application of Geneva Convention treaties, which provide international safeguards for the humane treatment of battlefield captives.  The United States asserted that under the terms of the 1949 agreement, to which the U.S. was a signatory, Taliban soldiers did not qualify as prisoners of war because they wore no uniforms or insignia, nor did they have an organized command structure established according to the "laws and customs" of war.  Al-Qaeda combatants were even further removed from this classification, the U.S.stated, because they operated in different countries and targeted civilians as well as military forces, and lumping all these captives into one "prisoner of war" category would blur important distinctions between legitimate national military forces and armed terrorist groups.   (Granting captives POW status entitles them to additional legal rights, such as the right to legal representation; the right to respond to interrogation by providing no more than name, rank, and serial number, and the right to be sent home when military hostilities have ceased.) The International Committee of the Red Cross in Switzerland said it considered both the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters held by U.S. forces to be prisoners of war under  revisions made to the Geneva Convention treaties in 1977, although those revisions were never ratified by either the United States or Afghanistan. The Geneva Convention treaties also state that "should any doubt arise" about the status of captives, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal," and human rights organizations and European nations criticized the U.S. government for refusing to hold such a tribunal.  They were also critical of the treatment some of the captives were reportedly receiving, including being blindfolded, sedated, and held in metal cages.  revisions On Thursday, 7 February 2002, the Bush administration modified its position and announced that it would apply Geneva Convention rules to Taliban detainees, although it refused to offer the same treatment to al-Qaeda fighters and continued to decline categorizing either group as prisoners of war.  It also allowed Red Cross representatives to visit at Camp X-ray to review the conditions there and interview some of the detainees held there, and it implemented some of the recommendations (allowed prisoners to talk more freely among themselves, changing meal times to allow for earlier prayers, allowing prisoners more exercise) made by those representatives.  (The relaxation of some of the stricter rules regarding prisoners might also have been a by-product of the fact that newer arrivals were generally less dangerous than those who had been captured earlier.) Last updated:  15 April 2008    Sources:   Aurora, Chris.  "Hicks Allowed to Talk with Fellow Prisoners."   The [Sydney] Daily Telegraph.  12 February 2002  (p. 21).     Becker, Elizabeth.  "Red Cross Man in Guantanamo: A 'Busybody,' but Not Unwelcome."   The New York Times.   20 February 2002  (p. A10).     Bender, Bryan.  "Red Cross Disputes U.S. Stance on Detainees."   The Boston Globe.   9 February 2002  (p. A1).
In June 2023, paid ads were displaying on Facebook and Instagram that led to a claim that said Simon Cowell would be leaving "America's Got Talent," NBC's performance-competition TV show that's perhaps better known as "AGT." However, not only was this false, but the reason for these ads was to lure users to a scam that might end up costing those users thousands of dollars a year. The claim made by this scam was that Cowell had endorsed an "amazing miracle gummy product" for weight loss called G6 Keto ACV Gummies, with "ACV" standing for apple cider vinegar. To be clear, none of this was true. Cowell never endorsed any CBD or keto weight loss gummy products. His image and likeness were being used without permission. Further, we don't recommend placing trust in weight loss promises that feature the words "amazing miracle." In this story, we'll walk through how this scam worked, including shedding light on the strange return addresses that appeared on packages that customers who ordered similar gummies had received in the past. The Facebook and Instagram ads with Cowell featured before-and-after pictures that appeared to show a weight loss transformation. "Simon Cowell Shares How He Dropped 56 In Just Weeks," the ads read.  The link in the ads directed users to a specific page on the website brownnature.art. Before clicking on the link in the ad, we decided to check out the homepage for brownnature.art. According to what we found, this website appeared to have been created for the sole purpose of running scams. How did we know this? A fake bookstore served as the facade for the scam operation on the website. This bookstore didn't have any payment options enabled, which meant that users couldn't order any of the books the website claimed to offer. Back to the subject about the ads that featured Cowell, we clicked the link that took us to a specific page on brownnature.art. An article loaded in our browser that featured a People magazine logo. "Simon Cowell Confirms He is 'LEAVING' America's Got Talent After His Accidental 'Live' Confession On-Air," the false headline of the story read.  The article also falsely claimed that celebrities Kelly Clarkson and Melissa McCarthy had lost weight with G6 Keto ACV Gummies. Both Clarkson and McCarthy have been featured in these scams for years, even though they have nothing to do with any keto weight loss gummies. This was not a story that People magazine had ever published. Scammers had replicated on brownnature.art the design of how articles are displayed on people.com, the official website for the magazine, all as a way to try to fool users into believing they were reading an authentic story put out by the publication. After clicking on one of the many links in the fake People magazine article on brownnature.art, we were led to the G6 Keto ACV Gummies website,secure.get6gproducts.com/v1/. The creator or creators of the product's website published several false statements that were an extension of the scam seen in the social media ads and the fake People magazine article. secure.get6gproducts.com/v1/ For example, Dr. Mehmet Oz never called the product the "holy grail" of weight loss, nor did the Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism medical journal publish any pieces about the gummies, as the G6 website claimed. never called the product The G6 website also included mentions of CBS News, NBC, CNN, Women's Health, Woman's World, and Honolulu Magazine, even though these publications never featured, mentioned, or endorsed anything about the product. Perhaps worst of all was the fact that no phone number was available on the G6 website, not even in its privacy policy or terms and conditions documentation. In fact, part of the terms and conditions left two spaces after "TOLL FREE" where the phone number belonged: "Please contact Customer service at TOLL FREE between the hours of 9am EST - 9pm EST Mon - Sat with any questions regarding your product, payment or return." We've seen phone numbers be omitted like this on CBD and keto weight loss gummies websites for more than a year. This was not a one-time issue. For many months, we've been observing comments from purported customers who complained about being victims of CBD and keto weight loss gummies scams. Many of these comments were posted to YouTube and contained detailed accounts of how they were scammed. These customers often said in their comments that they were charged around $200 after believing they would only be paying about $40. They also said that they were surprised that making a purchase enrolled them in a subscription that would charge their credit card hundreds of dollars per month, charges that would end up totaling thousands of dollars per year. Additionally, customers said that when the gummy packages arrived at their doorstep, they contained no real identifying information about a parent company or anything about the people behind the products. According to the customers, the packages only would include the two words "fulfillment center" with a P.O. Box physical mailing address for Tampa, Florida, or Las Vegas, Nevada. Customers often reported a return address with the city of Smyrna, Tennessee. If any readers ordered CBD or keto gummies that promised an "amazing miracle" involving weight loss, we recommend they contact their credit card company to inform them of the scam. Again, these scams sign customers up for subscriptions. Unless action is taken, a new charge for hundreds of dollars will be placed on customers' credit cards every month. As for how Cowell truly lost weight, he once credited dropping pounds to hisvegan diet. We found no credible reporting that said anything about him ever consuming gummies. vegan diet To be completely clear, we have never found even one real example of a celebrity who endorsed CBD or keto weight loss gummies. DeSantis, Rachel. "Simon Cowell's Vegan Diet Helped Him Lose 20 Lbs.: 'I've Found It Quite Enjoyable.'" People Magazine, 14 Aug. 2019, https://people.com/health/simon-cowells-vegan-diet-helped-lose-20-lbs/. Liles, Jordan. "Did Dr. Oz Endorse Keto Weight Loss Gummies?" Snopes, 30 May 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dr-oz-keto-weight-loss-gummies/. On Nov. 13, 2021, Victory News Network (VNN) Twitter account published a graphic positing that Ben & Jerry's honored one of Kyle Rittenhouse's shooting victims, Joseph Rosenbaum, with a new flavor: Victory News Network Ben & Jerry's Honors Rittenhouse Shooting Victim All profits from 'Rosenbaum's Heroic Hazelnut' will be donated to the Black Lives Matter organization.  This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with a Twitter account website that describes its output as being humorous or satirical in nature, as follows: follows   Simlarly, the corresponding website, VictoryNews.online, describes its content this way: "This is a parody website, dummy." Rosenbaum, one of the men shot and killed by Rittenhouse during a riot stemming from an August 2020 protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, had previously been sentenced to prison for sexually abusing five boys, according to court records. There is, however, no ice cream flavor from Ben & Jerry's known as "Rosenbaum's Heroic Hazelnut." The satirical tweet from VNN emerged after Ben & Jerry's Twitter account criticized the proceedings of the Rittenhouse trial.  sentenced  In response, Twitter and Facebook users shared the satirical post about "Rosenbaum's Heroic Hazelnut" -- often with no satire or parody disclaimer -- as a commentary on Ben & Jerry's announcement:    For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. why Twitter, Nov. 13, 2021. https://twitter.com/VictoryNewsNet/status/1459574391042236423. Accessed 16 Nov. 2021. Victory News Network. Victory News Network, https://www.victorynews.online/. Accessed 16 Nov. 2021. Whats True and False About Kyle Rittenhouses Alleged Victims. Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-records/. Accessed 16 Nov. 2021. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As the COVID-19 pandemic ravaged the global economy in 2020, resulting in growing unemployment, governments scrambled to support people and businesses to varying degrees, announcing a range of stimulus relief funds meant to help struggling businesses and furloughed employees. By December 2020, lawmakers in the U.S. were also running out of time to pass another major coronavirus relief package. ravaged running out of time A meme began circulating in late 2020 that compared the U.S. governments stimulus checks -- given to a significant portion of the U.S. population -- to coronavirus relief funds deployed around the world. The meme effectively argued that the U.S. was not giving enough money to support workers compared with other countries. We broke down the numbers below and learned that, while the numbers are largely accurate, the meme was comparing apples to oranges.   Below are the respective stimulus relief funds being provided to populations around the world, particularly across Europe, Australia, and the U.K. In March 2020, the Australian government outlined a plan to subsidize the wages of 6 million people in order to keep them in their jobs. The plan would pay employees at any company that saw a 30% reduction in revenue around $1,500 Australian dollars (the equivalent of $928 U.S. dollars according to Reuters) every two weeks. March 2020 outlined pay Reuters This calculation would amount to $1,856 U.S. dollars per month. But according to conversion rates calculated by Newsweek in April, the relief check amounted to around $1,993 per month. Based on current conversion rates calculated on Google Finance, this same amount would now be more than $2,200 every four weeks. Newsweek Australia also had a number of other social security measures including one-off Economic Support Payments of AU$750 in April and July 2020 to qualifying recipients.  Economic Support Payments The Canadian government provides $500 Canadian dollars per week for up to 26 weeks for workers who stopped working or had their income reduced by at least 50% due to COVID-19. Based on current conversion rates on Google, this amounts to around $1,565 U.S. dollars per month. The meme presumably pulled their data from Newsweek's April 2020 story, which calculated the amount as being $1,433 U.S. dollars per month at that time. provides Newsweek Overall, the Canadian government aims to spend up to $75 billion U.S. dollars in emergency aid and economic stimulus to assist members of their population who are struggling financially. Measures include boosting child benefit payments, wage subsidies for small businesses, and tax relief measures. Overall The Danish government will cover up to 75% of employee salaries in private companies as long as those companies agree to not fire people. According to Flemming Larsen, a professor at the Center for Labor Market Research at Denmarks Aalborg University, this would amount to up to $3,288 per month (roughly based on the conversion rate at the time of the interview), which lines up with the number in the meme. For hourly workers who qualify, the government would cover 90% of their wages. Flemming Larsen hourly workers The deal, which was struck between the government and trade unions, covers companies who have to lay off at least 30% of their staff, or 50 staff or more. But this particular form of coverage does not support the self-employed and other vulnerable groups. deal self-employed According to The Guardian, more than 12 million people in France are covered by a partial unemployment scheme that covers 70% of salaries when companies are forced to reduce or suspend work, which is up to 6,927 euros per month (which according to Newsweeks calculations in April were $7,575 U.S. dollars, but around $8,400 today). Employees previously on minimum wage receive 100% coverage of their salaries. The Guardian $7,575 U.S. dollars The French government is also giving paid leave to parents who cannot work from home and who are responsible for children younger than 16. paid leave The German scheme covers 10 million workers according to The Guardian, paying up to 67% of net wages lost due to shorter hours, to a maximum of 6,700 euros per month (again, $7,326.78 U.S. dollars in April according to Newsweek, but $8,125 today) for employees with children and 60% for those without children. The Guardian $7,326.78 The budget also includes a 50 billion euro program to help the self-employed and small businesses threatened with bankruptcy, giving them direct payments of up to 15,000 euros (more than $18,000). Irelands temporary wage subsidy scheme allows affected companies to recoup up to 70% of their net income up to 21,400 euros until May. After May 4, 2020, the scheme became more generous, paying an 85% subsidy up to the same amount. temporary wage subsidy After May 4, employees would be given a maximum of 350 euros per week if they earned less than or equal to 412 euros per week, and they would receive a maximum of 410 euros per week if they earned between 500 and 586 euros per week. 410 euros amounted to $448.36 U.S. dollars per week according to Newsweek in April, which matches up with the memes calculation of $1793.44. Today that amounts to around $1,987. May 4 Newsweek The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme reimburses companies for 80% of their gross salaries up to 2,500 pounds per month (which amounts to around $3,300 U.S. dollars today, and according to Newsweek was $3,084 in April). As of August, some workers were able to return to their jobs part-time, and in November the government extended the scheme until March 31, 2021. Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme Newsweek November The U.S. government did indeed give many qualifying people a one-time stimulus relief check of $1,200, which on the surface appears to be to a small fraction of what these other countries appear to be giving workers who are unemployed or in danger of being furloughed. This check was given to individual taxpayers who made less than $75,000 in adjusted gross income in 2018. They would receive between $600 and $1,200 with the highest earners getting the maximum payment. one-time given But this meme did not account for the overall stimulus package, including unemployment benefits and additional funds granted for dependents. The data from other countries showcased relief funds for helping the unemployed or preventing lay-offs, so the numbers were comparing two totally different items. The CARES Act, a $2 trillion dollar relief bill that was passed in March 2020, increased unemployment benefits and added $600 dollars per week from the federal government on top of whatever base amount workers received from their state. The legislation also added 13 weeks of unemployment insurance. However, many of the provisions from this expired in July. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act also expanded paid family and medical leave options for some workers. A new relief bill is being debated by congress, with Republicans and Democrats disagreeing over how much stimulus the U.S. economy needs. CARES Act Families First Coronavirus Response Act debated Given that the numbers cited in the meme compare very different stimulus packages around the world, with a range of complex provisions, to a one-time payment in the U.S. that does not reflect the full stimulus relief package, we rate this claim a Mixture. Since November 2020, an identically worded bit of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim has its origins on the website Armstrong Economics  which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong  and would become a well-shared bit of copy-and-paste "copypasta," reproduced in part below: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention its origins well-shared Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively a government-funded [sic]  very curious. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still creep up on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters to that post were evidently confused: republished published   The allegations leveled against the CDC are not all that coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this, because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation  the CDC Foundation  that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives.  housed in in 1992 mandated the creation CDC Foundation "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. its website The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC foundation are an indirect route as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." by law a portion For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed so long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents: policy documents The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes  both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself  have caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: an editorial In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemenseach of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. [...] In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDCs efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector  we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. CDCs gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. has policies since 2014 While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress: 2020 fiscal year compared to   Even from a rhetorical standpoint it would be a stretch to argue the CDC proportionally is awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity). As such, the claim is Left-leaning or anti-Trump accounts often share memes with a quote about Trump and his supporters attributed to actor Bryan Cranston. The statement conveyed a belief that former U.S. President Donald Trump was "not sane," but that he was more worried about "the sanity of anyone who can still support this deeply troubled man to lead our country." One example came from a Facebook post by the group Occupy Democrats: example  The quote's authenticity is easily verified, because it comes from a Tweet Cranston published in April 2020 that is still visible today: still visible I've stopped worrying about the president's sanity. He's not sane. And the realization of his illness doesn't fill me with anger, but with profound sadness. What I now worry about is the sanity of anyone who can still support this deeply troubled man to lead our country.  Bryan Cranston (@BryanCranston) April 25, 2020 April 25, 2020  The remarks came amid the controversy generated by Trump's suggestion that injecting a "disinfectant" into the body could be a treatment for COVID-19. amid Because Cranston wrote these words; the quote is correctly attributed to him. Bryan Cranston Says Hes Profoundly Sad Over His Realization Trump Is Not Sane. Yahoo Entertainment, 27 Apr. 2020, https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/bryan-cranston-says-profoundly-sad-132812382.html. In late February 2020, as a new coronavirus spread worldwide, a letter providing advice on avoiding a viral infection was shared and memed heavily. The letter is attributed to pathologist James Robb who described himself as "one of the first molecular virologists in the world to work on coronaviruses." The letter itself provides common-sense solutions to preventing disease transmission: letter shared memed 1) NO HANDSHAKING! Use a fist bump, slight bow, elbow bump, etc. 2) Use ONLY your knuckle to touch light switches. elevator buttons, etc.. Lift the gasoline dispenser with a paper towel or use a disposable glove. 3) Open doors with your closed fist or hip - do not grasp the handle with your hand, unless there is no other way to open the door. Especially important on bathroom and post office/commercial doors. 4) Use disinfectant wipes at the stores when they are available, including wiping the handle and child seat in grocery carts. 5) Wash your hands with soap for 10-20 seconds and/or use a greater than 60% alcohol-based hand sanitizer whenever you return home from ANY activity that involves locations where other people have been. 6) Keep a bottle of sanitizer available at each of your home's entrances. AND in your car for use after getting gas or touching other contaminated objects when you can't immediately wash your hands. 7) If possible, cough or sneeze into a disposable tissue and discard. Use your elbow only if you have to. The clothing on your elbow will contain infectious virus that can be passed on for up to a week or more! The portion of the missive that garnered the most attention, however, was the pathologist's recommendation of zinc lozenges: Stock up now with zinc lozenges. These lozenges have been proven to be effective in blocking coronavirus (and most other viruses) from multiplying in your throat and nasopharynx. Use as directed several times each day when you begin to feel ANY "cold-like" symptoms beginning. It is best to lie down and let the lozenge dissolve in the back of your throat and nasopharynx. Cold-Eeze lozenges is one brand available, but there are other brands available. This portion of the letter apparently resulted in memes suggesting the product Cold-Eeze was a "silver bullet" that would "kill coronavirus":   We reached out to Robb to ask if he was the author of this letter. Via email, he told us that he did indeed write it, but that it was never meant to be for anyone besides family and close friends, and that it was not intended to be an advertisement for any specific product: It was my email to my family and close friends ONLY. Someone put it on their Facebook page. It was intended to be a monologue - not a dialogue. I do not use any social media and may have been too naive about what "sharing" means today. His history with coronaviruses is accurately recounted. In the late 1970s, as professor of pathology at the University of California, San Diego, Robb published some of the earliest descriptions of coronaviruses. He also published a book chapter on this class of viruses for "Comprehensive Virology." earliest descriptions book chapter While Robb does recommend zinc lozenges (of any brand, he told us), he would not describe the product as the silver bullet solution to the outbreak: In my experience as a virologist and pathologist, zinc will inhibit the replication of many viruses, including coronaviruses. I expect COVID-19 [the disease caused by the novel coronavirus] will be inhibited similarly, but I have no direct experimental support for this claim. I must add, however, that using zinc lozenges as directed by the manufacturer is no guarantee against being infected by the virus, even if it inhibits the viral replication in the nasopharynx. In general terms, research suggests that zinc may be able to inhibit the spread of some viral infections, but the question remains scientifically unsettled. A 2010 study using cell cultures published in PLOS One found evidence that increasing intracellular zinc concentrations "can efficiently impair the replication of a variety of RNA viruses" including coronaviruses. According to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, "trials conducted in high-income countries since 1984 investigating the role of zinc for the common cold symptoms have had mixed results." The common cold is, in some cases, caused by a virus also classified as a coronavirus. 2010 study According common cold Because the letter was written by him, we rank this claim as Correctly Attributed" to Robb. For more tips on protecting against the coronavirus, visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tip sheet here. tip sheet Bond, Clifford W., et al.  "Pathogenic Murine Coronaviruses II. Characterization of Virus-specific Proteins of Murine Coronaviruses JHSMV and A59V."
  Virology.  30 April 1979. Robb, James A. and Clifford W. Bond.  "Coronaviridae."
  Comprehensive Virology.  1979. te Velthuis, Aartjan J. W., et al.  "Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture."
  PLOS Pathogens.  4 November 2010. Singh, Meenu and Rashmi R. Das.  "Zinc for the Common Cold."
  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. &nbsp 18 June 2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Common Human Coronaviruses."
  Accessed 2 March 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Prevention and Treatment."
  Accessed 2 March 2020. Correction [13 March 2020]: Clarified that human coronaviruses are just one of several potential causes of the common cold. During a visit to Howell, Mich., President Joe Biden touted key agenda items under negotiation in Congress. One of the proposals he wants to see receive final Congressional approval is support for child care, which he said would benefit both children and their parents, including mothers who want to take jobs outside the home. How can we compete in the world if millions of American parents, especially moms, cant join the workforce because they cant afford the cost of child care or elder care? They have to stay home, Bidensaidin the Oct. 5 speech. He went on to say that the United States had fallen behind its industrialized peers in the percentage of women in the labor force. Thirty years ago, the United States ranked sixth among advanced economies in the share of women in the workforce, Biden said. You know where we are today? Twenty-three. Twenty-two countries have a higher percentage of their women in the workforce making a competitive wage than the United States. While our competitors are investing in the care economy, were standing still. Has the United States really fallen so far behind in womens participation in the labor force? Our research shows it has. We asked the White House for a source, and they pointed to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a think tank that studies advanced industrialized nations. The data broadly supports how Biden characterized the shifts between 1990 and 2020. There are multiple ways to measure the phenomenon Biden addressed  notably, what age ranges are used. If you look at the labor force participation rate for all women at least 15 years of age, the United States ranked seventh in 1990, behind Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, Finland, Norway and Canada. But by2020, the United States ranking had fallen to 17th. (Labor force participation rate refers to the percentage of a given group that is either employed or is actively seeking work.) An alternative statistic  the labor force participation rate for women in the prime working ages of 25 to 54  shows an even steeper U.S. decline. In1990, the United States ranked seventh, behind the same six countries. But by2020, the U.S. had fallen to 31st. The White House used a slightly different version of the OECD data than we did, which accounts for the differences in the U.S. rankings. But multiple economists told us that the differences in rankings were minor, and that the trend line was much more important. Specifically, the U.S. percentage of women working basically stagnated over those 30 years, even as 13 nations leapfrogged the U.S. between 1990 and 2020: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. However you define it, I think the president is highlighting genuine trends, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution. Historically, women in the U.S. gravitated to the labor force earlier than women in other countries did. Right after World War II, only about one-third of U.S. women were in the labor force, but by the late 1990s, that percentage had risen steeply, to the low-60% range. Since then, however, it has plateaued and even fallen modestly overall. By the early 1990s, the United States ranked higher on this measurement than most of its economic peers. Since the 1990s, the downturn has been driven mostly by married women with a college degree, particularly those married to high-earning men, said Stefania Albanesi, an economist at the University of Pittsburgh. Albanesi said her research suggests that a rise in earnings of college-educated men, particularly those at the top of the income distribution, has reduced the pressure for married women to take paying work outside the home. As the U.S. rate began to fall, other nations caught up. Several factors drove these international shifts, economists say. One is that women in other countries have belatedly made gains in educational attainment, giving them a boost in the labor market. But perhaps the biggest difference comes from the lack of social policies in the United States that enable women with children to take jobs. The policies that are common in other industrialized countries but not in the U.S. include publicly provided child care services, an entitlement to paid parental leave, laws giving workers the right to demand a change to a part-time work schedule without exception and without being discriminated against, said Mihaela Pintea, an economist at Florida International University. The upshot of the lack of such policies in the U.S. is that its costly or burdensome for women with kids to remain in the workforce after they have a child, Burtless said. Claudia Goldin, a Harvard University economist, cautioned that its tricky to make cross-national comparisons on labor-force participation. Perhaps the biggest factor complicating Bidens comparison is that countries define part-time work differently. Generally speaking, when looking only at participation among women who work full-time hours, the U.S. ranks higher in international comparisons, Goldin said. If you did this comparison just for full-time work, wed be up there, she said. If you weighted by hours, wed be up there. Pintea added that, despite grim statistics like those cited by Biden, U.S. women who are working may still be better positioned in some ways. Effectively, the U.S. labor market environment pushes women to either skip working entirely or take a full-time job, rather than finding a middle ground. In a lot of other countries, women might work part-time as opposed to full time and may be less likely to be promoted into managerial positions, or may have lower wages than their male counterparts because of their career path, she said. Biden said, Thirty years ago, the United States ranked sixth among advanced economies in the share of women in the workforce. You know where we are today? Twenty-three. The specific rankings vary a bit depending on what measure one uses, though by one measurement, the U.S. position is even worse than Biden said. The general conclusion is the same: The United States used to rank near the top of the pack of industrialized countries in womens participation in the labor force, but over the past 30 years, many other countries have leapfrogged the U.S. in that measurement, as the rate in the U.S. stagnated or even fell. Economists say the U.S. rate has been lagging for several reasons, including a lack of government policies encouraging child care and paid leave and other countries catching up to the United States earlier gains in womens educational attainment. We rate the statement Mostly True. The issue doesn't generate many headlines, but proposed changes in trucking's Hours-of-Service regulations have stirred hot controversy in the industry.When the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on the economic impact of the changes, the title alone hinted at some of the issues involved: The Price of Uncertainty: How Much Could DOT's Proposed Billion Dollar Service Rule Cost Consumers This Holiday Season?The Hours-of-Service regulations set limits for when and how long commercial motor vehicle operators may drive. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which developed the rules, says they were based on an exhaustive review of research on the science on driver alertness and working hours, and strike the crucial balance between safety and economic vitality.The committee chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio's 4th District, stressed how widely the regulations would be felt: The vast majority of all retailers, and 80 percent of all U.S. communities, depend solely on trucks to deliver and supply the products sold in stores or ordered on-line, he said.That caught the interest of PolitiFact Ohio. We asked Jordan's office for more information.Jordans press secretary, Meghan Snyder, said the 80 percent figure came from the American Trucking Associations, which cited the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide.Darrin Roth, director of highway operations for the American Trucking Associations, confirmed that. He said his group had found the number of communities served by railroads -- 18.3 percent -- and did the inverse.He sent us the spreadsheet from atlas publisher Rand McNally showing state-by-state figures for rail service.It had the 18.3 percent figure. It also showed a slightly smaller percentage for Ohio, where 627 communities of a total 3,516 (or 17.8 percent) were shown having rail service.We found that puzzling for another reason. Census data on the website of Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted show Ohio with 247 cities, 691 villages and 1,308 townships, for a total of 2,246 divisions.That's 1,270 fewer than the number of communities cited by Rand McNally. Where did they get their figure?Rand McNally's media relations department told us that they have not produced the Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide in many years, so we can't query the database any longer to specifically explain the difference in Ohio.In fact, the spreadsheet the American Trucking Associations provided lists its data source as from May 2000.The atlas makers mapping specialists provided this explanation about the communities: Rand McNally included unincorporated places into the count which would make our number higher. Rand McNally had its own criteria for smaller populated places that would differ from the Census. Over the last decade that we produced the Commercial Atlas, Rand McNally continually analyzed and removed some of these smaller populated places year after year as population decreased from these older places or they went out of existence. These sometimes included rail yards, postal facilities, parks, etc., with small populations around them. In some portions of the country, this could result in significant differences between the Census reporting of 'community' and ours.In other words, city neighborhoods and rural crossings that are not distinct governmental entities might have been counted as communities. And while an area like Greater Cleveland most definitely has rail service, not all of the area's hundreds of neighborhoods and suburbs do.Jordan's statement originates with a credible source -- Rand McNally. And the cited data backs his claim that 80 percent of all U.S. communities depend solely on trucks to deliver and supply the products sold in stores or ordered online.But it also should be noted that Rand McNally hasnt produced the Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide in many years, and it is that data that the American Trucking Associations used to generate the figure of 80 percent. Thats a piece of information that provides clarification.On the Truth-O-Meter, Jordans claim rates as Mostly True. During a meeting with the San Antonio City Council, former mayor Henry Cisneros made a pitch for a new transportation plan that emphasizes roads over public mass transit. Cisneros, who served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Bill Clinton, highlighted the need for more money to go toward transportation and explained how this kind of investment could transform the city. We are a poor city, Cisneros said of San Antonio. We have the lowest per capita income of any major Texas city. We ran the numbers, and the latest figures show that San Antonio has a lower per capita income than some, but not all, of the states most populous cities. Cisneros did not return a request for comment seeking clarification on his definition of a major Texas city. To be clear: there is no universal definition of a major city, so we looked at Texas cities with a population estimate of at least 500,000 in 2018. Census figures show rankings To check this claim, we looked at yearly estimates of per capita income from the Census Bureaus American Community Survey. Per capita income is the mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in a particular group, according to the Census Bureau. In this case, those groups are Texas cities. The per capita income is calculated by dividing the aggregate income of a particular group by the total population in that group. The final figure is rounded to the nearest whole dollar. In 2018, the per capita income in Texas was $30,641. In the United States, it was $33,831. Looking at individual Texas cities reveals a wide range of values, from $65,743 in The Woodlands, a master planned community north of Houston, to $15,369 in Pharr, a city on the Texas-Mexico border east of McAllen. In San Antonio, per capita income in 2018 was $24,684. San Antonio is the second most populous city in the state (1.5 million), preceded by Houston (2.3 million) and followed in order by Dallas (1.3 million), Austin (964,254), Fort Worth (895,008) and El Paso (840,758), according to 2018 population figures. Heres the per capita income in 2018 in these cities, presented from highest to lowest: An analysis of the rankings of these cities each year from 2010 through 2018 shows that San Antonio is low on the list, followed by El Paso. Another way to assess income in a community is to look at median household income or median family income. Median household income includes the income of the householder and anyone else living in the home over 15 years old. This figure is different than median family income, according to the Census Bureau: Because many households consist of only one person, average household income is usually less than average family income. Median family income looks at incomes of all members 15 years old and over related to the householder. In 2018, the median household income in San Antonio was $49,024, lower than all of the six most populous Texas cities besides El Paso ($45,031). San Antonios median family income was $60,689 in 2018, a higher figure than Dallas ($58,835), Houston ($56,693) and El Paso ($50,245). Poverty in San Antonio Cisneros made this claim after stating that San Antonio is a poor city, so we also looked at poverty data available from the Census Bureau for the 10 most populous cities in the state. In 2018 in San Antonio, about 19% of its population was living below the poverty line  more than any of the other cities with populations over 500,000. Take at look at each city and the percent of its population below the poverty line, ordered from highest to lowest: Another factor worth mentioning here is cost of living. San Antonio may be among the cities with the lowest per capita income, but the cost of living is also on the lower end. The Economic Policy Institutes Family Budget Map shows an estimated cost of living for a two-parent, two-child family in counties across the state. Here is the cost of living per year in the predominate county in each city with a population over 500,000, in order from highest to lowest: Our ruling Cisneros said that San Antonio has the lowest per capita income of any major Texas city. San Antonio is among the six most populous Texas cities with the lowest per capita income. El Paso has consistently recorded a lower per capita income than San Antonio. We rate this claim Mostly True.