A roundup of this week’s most popular but not entirely true stories and visuals. Here are the facts:
___
House Republicans didn’t tell Ruskin to remove the head covering
CLAIM: House Republicans are calling on Rep. Jamie Ruskin, Democrat of Maryland, to remove the hat he wore on the floor of the House while undergoing chemotherapy.
Fact: Republicans have made no such demands and are really just endorsements, a Ruskin spokesperson told The AP that Ruskin announced he had been I was diagnosed with malignant lymphoma last year.attended the first House Oversight Committee hearing of the year on Tuesday. wearing a bandana. but, New Republican House Majority took control, confusion over Ruskin-made jokes about House rules governing headgear sparked false rumors on social media. “Kevin McCarthy insisted Jamie Ruskin remove the headscarf he was wearing because the chemotherapy had caused his hair to fall out,” said the Republican Speaker of the House, garnering 34,000 “likes.” “You might think they’d sympathize with their cancer colleagues, but they’re monsters.” In a tweet on Tuesday, Punchbowl News reporter Heather Cagle said that Ruskin opposed Republican efforts to get him to take off his hat. “And I’ll make them take their wigs off,” Caigl quoted Ruskin. “I was comfortable answering imaginary questions from colleagues,” he told the Associated Press in an email. rice field. In a follow-up tweet, Caygle revealed that Raskin said House Republicans had never spoken to him about the hat rule. refused. Wilson said Democrats “receive nothing but support and encouragement from all colleagues and leaders on both sides of the aisle.” McCarthy spokesperson Mark Bednar said the Speaker of the House did not tell Ruskin to remove his head covering. hats were banned in the House of Commons in 1837.
— San Francisco AP writer Graph Massara contributed to this report, with additional reporting from New York’s Sophia Tulp.
___
Experts: Pfizer Tests on COVID Vaccines, Treatments Aligned with Industry Standards
Claims: In a statement, Pfizer acknowledged conducting “gain-of-function” research as part of its development of a vaccine and other treatments for COVID-19.
FACT: Experts suggest in recent statements by the company that it is conducting research designed to make COVID-19 more harmful, as claimed by some social media users says nothing. Statement issued on January 27 In response to allegations that Pfizer was conducting dangerous “gain-of-function” research, it sparked another round of false speculation against one of the top COVID vaccine makers. Refers to a scientific experiment that imparts or enhances an existing property. For viruses such as the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, this can make them more harmful or give them the ability to infect other species. However, the company made no such statement in its statement, emphasizing that vaccine-related experiments will only be conducted after a new subspecies has been identified by public health officials. It provides a method to rapidly assess the ability of existing vaccines to induce antibodies that neutralize newly identified variants of concern,” the company said. “We will then make this data available through peer-reviewed scientific journals and use it as one step in determining whether a vaccine update is needed.” says “most” of the research has been done using computer simulations or mutations of non-infectious parts of the virus. He said there was nothing to suggest Pfizer was conducting research designed to “weaponize” COVID-19 or “enhance its virulence.” User claims. “They may be conducting virological studies to test the limits of the technology, knowing that evolution of the virus may cause some of these changes to occur naturally.” Benjamin Neumann, a virologist at Texas A&M University, agreed, but that Pfizer’s statement was “written in a technical manner” and therefore “may be of interest to non-scientific readers.” It may have been explained in an easy-to-understand way,” he said. “To gain functionality, researchers must intentionally make changes. Knowing that the changes make the virus more dangerous, the changes must be something the virus cannot reasonably do on its own.” because they are in the market,” Neumann wrote in an email. “If you miss one part of that definition, it’s not a gain of function. It’s a very high hurdle, and the last part is the key.” Albert Coe, head of the epidemiology department, said the online allegations were “fear-mongering.” “Manipulating viruses doesn’t always mean gain-of-function research,” he said. “Vaccines are made by putting fragments of one virus into another. This does not necessarily mean that there is a higher risk of creating a stronger and more dangerous virus.” should disclose more information about its work, including internal approval processes and safety protocols, he said. A Pfizer spokesperson declined to respond to a request for additional comment. It’s a comment.
— New York Associated Press writer Philip Marcelo contributed to this report.
___
Georgia school form on risk of sudden cardiac arrest is nothing new
Claims: Georgia high schools are now issuing “Sudden Cardiac Arrest Awareness Forms,” suggesting a new phenomenon related to the COVID-19 vaccine.
Fact: This form has been distributed to families of Georgia students since 2019 in accordance with state law. Social media posts circulate images of educational forms provided to families in Georgia focused on sudden cardiac arrest. Some users have falsely implied it was related to the COVID-19 vaccine. “Parents must now sign a Sudden Cardiac Arrest Awareness Form. But remember the jab is safe enough to give to your baby,” read one tweet with an image. The title of the document shown in the media post is “Georgia High School Association Student/Guardian Sudden Cardiac Arrest Notification Form.” But that form predates both the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines.version of the same form available online Georgia High School Association spokesperson Steve Figueroa told The AP that the form has been in use since the 2019-2020 school year in response to state legislation centered around preventing sudden cardiac arrest. law, Passed in 2019,need Hold meetings on the symptoms and signs of sudden cardiac arrest in both public and private schools and provide parents and caregivers with “information sheets.”The form details the following warning signs sudden cardiac arrest, sudden malfunction of the heart. For example, if a child suddenly faints during exercise, feels chest pain or is short of breath, parents are instructed to consult a doctor. flawedClaim When deceptive video The unsubstantiated theory that the COVID-19 vaccine is behind a wave of young athletes experiencing such heart problems has spread. told AP Long before the COVID-19 pandemic, there were cases of athletes experiencing sudden cardiac death or cardiac arrest, and they have not observed a likely dramatic increase.
— Philadelphia AP writer Angelo Fichella contributed to this report.
___
False claims in NFL referee investigation started as satire
Allegations: The NFL is investigating AFC Championship Referee Ronald Taubert. That’s because his son played Sunday in Cincinnati Kansas City before he beat the Bengals because he bet heavily on the Chiefs.
Fact: This claim originated from a parody Twitter account, and the elements of the post make it clear that it is fiction. Some Bengals fans AFC Championship Gamewhich sent the Chiefs to the Super Bowl. However, despite misleading posts circulating on social media, it is not true that the NFL is investigating the referee who made the call. It was from a satirical account featuring the character of Mann. Some social media users who shared the post as authentic lost their details. “Breaking news: NFL head referee for the AFC championship game, Ronald Torbert, comments on an NFL investigation that his family placed a bet on the game this morning,” the post reads. I didn’t know until after the game that he had placed a huge bet on the Chiefs.” The post claims Torbert commented on a radio station called “101.4 ‘The Juice'”, which does not exist. An Internet search for the station shows several juices sold in quantities of 101.4 fluid ounces. A self-professed parody/satire sports anchor. Still, social media users spread bogus quotes without context on Facebook and Twitter to explain why umpires repeatedly ruled in favor of Kansas City on Sunday night. In some cases, posts were shared as screenshots and lacked satirical disclaimers on their Twitter accounts. There is no evidence that such investigations have taken place. Asked for comment, an NFL spokesperson pointed to the fact that it identified the account that spread the allegations as satire.
___
You can find AP fact checks here. https://apnews.com/APFactCheck
___
Follow @APFactCheck on Twitter. https://twitter.com/APFactCheck