#fackcheck

[geportr]

Vyhodnocování informačních zdrojů

Jednotlivá nezávisle prozkoumávané a hodnocené (důvěryhodné i nedůvěryhodné) zdroje jsou udělována na stupnici, kde nižší číslo představuje

[chubbycaucasianchristiancloseted]

Never, ever, ever has a Doctor EVER been wrong about anything 😉.

When Cigarette Companies Used Doctors to Push Smoking

Before studies showed that cigarettes caused cancer, tobacco companies recruited the medical community for their ads.

Never, ever, ever has a Doctor EVER been wrong about anything. In the 1930s and 1940s “Doctors hadn’t yet discovered a clear link between smoking and lung cancer, and a majority of them actually smoked cigarettes.” Did that mean we should never trust the medical community again? In fact the American people understood the lack of knowledge and gave grace to the medical community. JUST LOOKING FOR CONSISTENCY TODAY.

It took several decades for doctors to finally come out against cigarettes. Cigarettes finally ended their ad campaign about the “controversy”, on if cigarettes were unhealthy in 1998! Over 60 years!

The medical community was forgiven. Should people be allowed to have an open discussion, question and conduct studies on the new vaccine? Shouldn’t we actually encourage doctors to continue to investigate the new covid 19 vaccine? I can only imagine the disgust and harassment the first few doctors and individuals who spoke out against cigarettes faced. If those few brave individuals did not stand up, would we know what we know now about smoking?

The final paragraph talks about vaping. Are we allowed to investigate that? In 2019 six deaths were reported with vaping-related lung illness.

Direct Quotes

What cigarette do doctors says causes less throat irritation? In the 1930s and 40s, tobacco companies would happily tell you it was theirs. Doctors hadn’t yet discovered a clear link between smoking and lung cancer, and a majority of them actually smoked cigarettes.

“People started to get worried in the ‘40s because lung cancer was spiking; the lung cancer death rate was going through the roof,” says Martha Gardner, a history and social sciences professor at Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences.

Yes, cigarettes did cause coughing and throat irritation. But companies used this to their advantage to promote their product as better than the competition. It wasn’t all cigarettes that gave you problems—it was just those other ones.

The first cigarette company to use physicians in their ads was American Tobacco, maker of Lucky Strikes. In 1930, it published an ad claiming “20,679 Physicians say ‘LUCKIES are less irritating’” to the throat.

Unsurprisingly, many doctors responded positively to this biased, leading question, and Lucky Strike ads used their answers to imply their cigarettes must be medically better for your throat. In 1937, the Philip Morris company took that one step forward with a Saturday Evening Post ad claiming doctors had conducted a study showing “when smokers changed to Philip Morris, every case of irritation cleared completely and definitely improved.” What it didn’t mention was that Philip Morris had sponsored those doctors.

Philip Morris continued to advertise “studies” it sponsored through the 1940s

In 1946, Reynolds launched an ad campaign with the slogan, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” They’d solicited this “finding” by giving doctors a free carton of Camel cigarettes, and then asking what brand they smoked.

By the mid-1950s, when tobacco companies had to confront good evidence that their products caused lung cancer, advertising strategies started to shift. “What happens is, all the different cigarette companies kind of work together to try to promote the idea that…we don’t know yet if it’s harmful,”

Doctors were coming out against cigarettes, culminating in 1964 with the U.S. Surgeon General’s report that smoking causes lung cancer, laryngeal cancer and chronic bronchitis.

Still, tobacco companies continued to maintain, through their research committee, that there was still a “controversy” over whether cigarettes were unhealthy until 1998.

[chubbycaucasianchristiancloseted]

Always love me a good USAToday Fact Check!

Fact check: Biden leveraged $1B in aid to Ukraine to oust corrupt prosecutor, not to help his son

Despite a Senate GOP investigation that found no wrongdoing by Joe Biden on foreign policy in Ukraine, claims to the contrary continue to ci

Always love me a good USAToday Fact Check! One odd thing about this fact check is 3 out of the 4 articles used to “Fact Check” are USAToday articles (you can see at the bottom). So, roughly 75% of the information used by USAToday to Fact Check a claim came from itself.

Now this article contradicts itself SLIGHTLY! Even though it fact checks the claim as FALSE it does admit that the Ukraine prosecutor was investigating Burisma, where Hunter Biden worked, for money laundering and tax irregularities. However this happened in 2014 and Joe Biden offered his quid pro quo in March of 2016.

More interestingly is to compare this article to Hunter’s interview with ABC news. Hunter admitted that he has no experience in natural gas and does not even speak the language. PERSONALLY after watching that interview the first paragraph of this article does not pass the sniff test and sounds a LITTLE shady. Hunter Biden is innocent until proven guilty and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt BUT he is a sorry excuse for a son and the same benefit of doubt would not be offered to a Republican.

Direct Quotes:

While former Vice President Joe Biden oversaw foreign policy in Ukraine, his son Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma Holdings, the largest gas company in the fledgling democracy.

It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016. But it wasn't because Shokin was investigating Burisma. It was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians.

As European and American diplomats pressed Ukraine to clean up its corruption, they focused on Shokin's leadership of the Prosecutor General's Office, which he took over in February 2015.

As a result, Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid as "a stick to move Ukraine forward," Kupchan said. "He was acting alongside our European allies. Everybody was of a single mind that this prosecutor was not the right guy for the job."

Burisma Holdings was not under scrutiny at the time Joe Biden called for Shokin to be removed, per the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, an independent agency that has worked closely with the FBI.

In 2014, Shokin had investigated Burisma for money laundering and tax irregularities, per USA TODAY.

Based on our research, the claim that Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion from Ukraine to save his son's job is FALSE. The then-vice president leveraged aid dollars to persuade the country to oust its top prosecutor as part of anti-corruption efforts endorsed by other international players that were unrelated to his son, Hunter Biden.

[chubbycaucasianchristiancloseted]

Dang PolitiFact putting the beat down on Biden! The Honeymoon is over!

PolitiFact - Joe Biden gets history wrong on the Second Amendment limiting gun ownership

President Joe Biden’s plan to curb rising violence relies on several steps: more aid to local police departments, expand

Dang PolitiFact putting the beat down on Biden! The honeymoon is over! Biden has no idea what he is doing, saying or what day it is. He continuously misrepresents and makes fake claims about history. The man needs to go back to grade school and spend a year or two in American history. @Biden you have Been involved in government since 1973! It would be nice if you knew a little bit about it.

Direct Quotes:

"The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own.”

“Joe Biden gets history wrong on the Second Amendment limiting gun ownership

If Your Time is short

The Second Amendment limited governmental power, not the right of individuals to own a weapon.

Laws at the time that limited firearm ownership were primarily racist, aimed at controlling Black people and Native Americans.

The first national gun regulation law in 1934 did not rely on the Second Amendment.”

During the campaign, Biden made a similar claim about cannons in the Revolutionary War and who could own them. We rated that False.

This time, on top of that, Biden misrepresents what the Second Amendment says.

"The first federal gun control law does not appear until the 20th century," Johnson said.

That law, the National Firearms Act, came in 1934 when machine guns were the weapon of choice of Prohibition Era gangsters. (The law was drafted before Prohibition ended in 1933.)

When U.S. Attorney General Homer Cummings made the case for the law before the House Ways and Means Committee, he based it on the government’s power to tax and regulate interstate commerce, not the Second Amendment.

"Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population," Vandercoy wrote in 1994.

We rate Biden’s claim False.

[ocionews]

Demontando bulos 28 (26/06/20)

[antoniocakshiri]

Discussion table about fact checking in journalism, with colleagues from the Balkans #FackCheck #Faktoje #conference #Tirana #Albania (at Rogner Hotel) https://www.instagram.com/p/BycIXAfAWQy/?igshid=sglwuqf2ubcq