Remedia je neovisni projekt za provjeru činjenica, razotkrivanje dezinformacija i razumijevanje informacija koje svakodnevno čitamo na internetu.

Remedia

Americans will go to the polls on November 3 in midterm elections that will determine whether Republicans retain control of Congress or Democrats take control of at least one chamber. President Donald Trump is not on the ballot, but the outcome could significantly affect the remainder of his term.
Voters will elect all 435 members of the House of Representatives and 35 members of the Senate, according to the BBC's guide. Numerous state-level elections, including gubernatorial races, will also take place. Congress passes federal laws, so the party that controls it has greater influence over which proposals become law and which are blocked.
The key issues go beyond party politics and Trump's popularity. Many Americans are concerned about the cost of food, fuel, housing and healthcare. In Texas, as reported by German public broadcaster Tagesschau, young people also describe difficulties finding their first jobs after graduating and affording increasingly expensive homes. Some still believe that education and hard work can provide a more secure future, while others feel that effort is no longer enough and that politicians are not listening to ordinary citizens.
That does not mean the election outcome is already decided. Although polling cited in the BBC report shows low approval for Trump, elections are decided across individual states and congressional districts, and many seats are considered safe for one party or the other. The historical tendency for voters to punish the president's party in midterm elections does not guarantee the same result this year.
If Democrats take control of the House or Senate, they could make it harder for Trump to pass legislation and could launch congressional investigations. If Republicans retain control of both chambers, the president will have an easier path to pursuing his agenda. Neither outcome would automatically lower prices or solve problems with jobs and housing.
The midterms are therefore an important test of political support and an opportunity for voters to influence Congress. They are not a vote for president. The results will reveal how political power is distributed, while addressing everyday economic problems will require concrete policies and time.

US Midterms Will Decide Control of Congress, Not the Presidency

Ukraine has restored a stable Starlink connection after its forces reported connectivity problems for several days. However, it remains unclear exactly who imposed the restrictions, why they were introduced, and how much they affected military operations. Claims that the service was completely shut down or that Ukraine's defences were about to collapse should therefore be distinguished from what has actually been confirmed.

Elon Musk, the owner of SpaceX, which operates Starlink, said the Ukrainian military had violated the service's terms by using the civilian internet system for drone attacks. He claims that this loophole was closed. Ukrainian representative Serhii Beskrestnov disputed Musk's account, arguing that speed restrictions on Starlink in Ukraine made such attacks over longer distances impossible. The available reports do not resolve this disagreement.

It is also important to distinguish between Starlink and Starshield. Starshield is a military version of the satellite service and is controlled by the US government. Conflicting statements from Musk and US officials have left it unclear who ordered the restrictions on the different services. US President Donald Trump said he had asked for Ukraine's Starlink access to be restored, and Ukrainian officials subsequently reported that the connection was stable again.

Why does this matter? Ukrainian forces rely on satellite connectivity to communicate and coordinate operations on the battlefield. According to the BBC, Europe does not yet have a fully comparable alternative. Eutelsat's OneWeb is one option, but its satellite network is considerably smaller. Europe's planned Iris² system is not expected to become operational until 2029.

There is currently no confirmation that Starlink has been completely shut down in Ukraine. Instead, officials have reported that the connection has stabilised. However, the dispute over the restrictions and Ukraine's heavy reliance on a service it does not control remain serious security concerns. Restoring the connection does not mean these problems have been resolved.

Starlink connection in Ukraine is stable again, but reliance on Musk's network remains a serious problem

Brazil's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has won re-election, defeating right-wing challenger Flávio Bolsonaro with 51.79% of the vote against 48.21%, according to the country's Superior Electoral Court. The result reverses the outcome of the first round, in which Bolsonaro finished ahead, and gives Lula a fourth, non-consecutive presidential election victory.

Despite headlines describing a shock result and a disputed election, the available reports do not establish that the vote was rigged or that the result is invalid. Bolsonaro has refused to accept his defeat and says he will seek to have the election annulled, pointing to a two-hour extension of polling hours on election day.

The circumstances surrounding that extension are more complicated than some headlines suggest. Both campaigns had called for voting hours to be extended because of problems that could prevent people from reaching polling stations. Lula's campaign cited public transport difficulties, while Bolsonaro's team raised concerns about severe weather in several states. According to the BBC, the head of the electoral court later confirmed Lula's victory and said the extension had not caused problems for the vote count or electoral process.

The political consequences, however, are far from settled. Lula won by a margin of around 3.6 percentage points, but more than 48% of voters backed Bolsonaro. The result therefore reflects a deeply divided country, not a sweeping victory that erases the opposition. Lula will also face a Congress with a strong conservative presence, which could make it harder to pass his agenda.

For now, the established outcome is clear: Brazil's electoral court has confirmed Lula's win, while Bolsonaro intends to challenge it. His demand for annulment is a political and legal challenge, not proof that the election was stolen. Any further claims about the result should be judged on evidence and the decisions of the relevant authorities, rather than on the dramatic language used in headlines.

Lula Wins Brazil's Election with 51.79% of the Vote, but Bolsonaro Seeks Annulment

Israel is heading into a closely contested election after three years of regional war, with security, government accountability and the country's political direction at the center of the campaign. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made the Iranian nuclear threat a major part of his message, but his latest warning is a campaign argument, not evidence that a nuclear attack is imminent.

Two days before the vote, Netanyahu shared an illustration showing a nuclear explosion over Tel Aviv. He warned that an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose an existential threat to Israel and argued that voters should prioritize security over domestic political disputes. His message invoked the possibility of a second Holocaust. Iran denies plans to develop nuclear weapons, according to the reports provided, and the articles offer no evidence that an attack on Tel Aviv is imminent.

Netanyahu's main rival, former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, accused him of spreading fear and using the threat of mass destruction for political gain. The competing claims reflect a deeply divided election campaign, in which both sides present their approach to security as crucial to Israel's future.

The vote is also about accountability for the Hamas-led attacks of 7 October 2023, which killed nearly 1,200 people and saw 251 taken hostage. Families of victims and hostages have joined large protests demanding an independent state inquiry into the security failures. Netanyahu's government has not established the independent inquiry sought by critics and has instead proposed a politically appointed alternative.

Polls cited in the reports suggest that neither Netanyahu's bloc nor the main opposition bloc is on course for a clear parliamentary majority. The final result and the coalition negotiations that follow remain uncertain.

The real issues facing Israeli voters are serious, including national security and accountability for past failures. But a dramatic image of a nuclear explosion does not establish that such an attack is about to happen. The available reports describe a political warning during a tense election, not a confirmed immediate nuclear threat.

Israel's Election Is Too Close to Call, and Netanyahu's Nuclear Warning Is Campaign Rhetoric

US authorities have released 28 new files about unidentified anomalous phenomena, commonly known as UFOs. The documents contain reports of unusual objects in the sky, radar sightings, and accounts of strange events. However, their release does not prove that people have encountered alien craft or beings.

One report describes an incident from June 2026, when two federal agents in the western United States reported seeing a matte black, triangular object. According to their account, it rose above a ridge and then moved at high speed toward a canyon. The US Department of Defense office responsible for investigating such cases says the incident needs further investigation, but it has not yet identified the object.

The documents also include older reports, among them a radar sighting of an unidentified object in 1957 and accounts of unusual sightings near the California coast. For one sighting in 1955, the US Air Force concluded that a meteor was the likely explanation.

Reports from a ranch in Utah have also attracted attention. Witnesses described glowing spheres and unusual creatures. However, analysis of some samples collected at the site found dog DNA, indicating that at least some of the traces had an ordinary animal origin.

The files also include documents explaining how US institutions should respond if they find the remains of spacecraft. Such procedures do not mean that alien technology has been discovered. They are also linked to space programs and Cold War competition between the United States and the Soviet Union.

The release therefore does not confirm sensational claims about extraterrestrial visitors. It shows that some reported sightings remain unexplained, while others have possible conventional explanations. An unidentified object simply means that its origin has not been established. It does not mean that it has been proven to come from outer space.

New Pentagon UFO Files Do Not Prove the Existence of Alien Craft

Israeli forces are demolishing Palestinian homes, shops and other buildings in Hebron, in the occupied West Bank, forcing large numbers of residents to leave their homes. The operation began after two Palestinian gunmen killed two Israeli soldiers and wounded three others at a military checkpoint. The two attackers were also killed. How many people have been displaced? Reports give different figures. The mayor of Hebron and other Palestinian officials say at least 200 families have been displaced, while reports put the number of people forced to leave at around 1,200 to 2,000. The mayor estimates that the total could reach about 2,500 people. These figures may reflect different estimates or stages of the operation, but the total number has not been confirmed in the reports provided. Israeli authorities say the operation aims to find members of armed groups and weapons, and to remove infrastructure linked to attacks. Other buildings have also been demolished, while residents face restrictions on movement. The Palestinian Authority has condemned the operation as collective punishment. Israeli human rights groups have previously criticised the demolition of homes belonging to people suspected of attacks, arguing that such measures also affect their families and neighbours. What can be concluded so far? The displacement and demolitions are not merely unverified claims: multiple news outlets have reported them, citing local officials and Israeli authorities. However, it remains unclear whether the current operation will form part of the wider military campaign announced by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or how extensive that campaign might be. The mayor has claimed that the operation is linked to the upcoming election, but the reports provided do not independently confirm that claim.

Israeli forces demolish buildings in Hebron as thousands of Palestinians face displacement

Mike Rogers

In August 2026, Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers accused Michigan Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed of believing that the United States deserved the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The accusation followed El-Sayed’s victory in the Democratic primary and was amplified through political statements and social media. However, the available evidence does not support attributing the statement to El-Sayed. The controversy stems from a remark made by political commentator Hasan Piker in 2019. Although Piker campaigned alongside El-Sayed in 2026, there is no evidence that El-Sayed made the same statement. Moreover, El-Sayed explicitly rejected the idea that the September 11 attacks were justified. <h3> Who actually made the statement?</h3>On August 21, 2019, Piker made the remark during a livestream on Twitch while responding to comments by Republican Representative Dan Crenshaw about American foreign policy and the causes of the September 11 attacks. Piker said, “America deserved 9/11, dude.” The statement attracted widespread criticism, and Twitch suspended him for one week. Piker subsequently addressed the controversy in an interview with Cenk Uygur on The Young Turks’ program The Conversation. Asked whether he meant that America deserved the attacks, Piker replied, “No, obviously not.” He argued that American foreign policy, including support for armed groups and efforts that destabilized the Middle East, had consequences that contributed to the conditions surrounding the attacks. He also said he opposed violence and acknowledged that his wording had been inappropriate. Piker’s explanation provides context for his remark, but it does not change the identity of the person who made it. The original statement was Piker’s, not El-Sayed’s. <h3>What did El-Sayed say?</h3>El-Sayed did campaign with Piker in April 2026, and their association became a subject of political controversy. At a campaign event, a reporter asked El-Sayed whether there were any views held by Piker that he disavowed. El-Sayed responded that he was not there to disavow people’s views and criticized what he described as “gotcha” questions and “cancel culture.” Rogers’ campaign later cited this exchange as part of its justification for the accusation. However, the exchange did not establish that El-Sayed personally believed America deserved the September 11 attacks. He had already addressed that specific issue in an interview with Fox News’ Fox &amp; Friends on April 7, 2026, the same day as his campaign appearances with Piker. Asked about Piker’s controversial remarks, El-Sayed said, “Of course I don’t think 9/11 was justified.” He added that appearing with someone does not mean agreeing with that person on everything. In an August 9 interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, El-Sayed again rejected the statement, calling it a “dumb statement” and saying, “America didn’t deserve 9/11.” These direct statements are important because they address the precise belief attributed to him. His reluctance to condemn every aspect of an associate’s public record is a separate political issue and does not establish that he shares that associate’s past statements. <h3>What evidence supports the accusation?</h3>In its August 2026 investigation, Snopes reported that searches of Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo found no evidence that El-Sayed had said America deserved the attacks. The investigation also found no corroborating report of the alleged quotation from major news organizations such as Reuters, The Associated Press or Bloomberg. The absence of media coverage alone cannot prove that a statement was never made, but it does not provide support for the accusation. FactCheck.org likewise reported that Rogers had provided no evidence for his claim. According to its investigation, the Rogers campaign pointed to a video in which El-Sayed declined to disavow Piker’s comments at a campaign event. PolitiFact independently examined the accusation and found that Rogers had attributed another person’s seven-year-old statement to El-Sayed. It rated Rogers’ claim “Pants on Fire,” its strongest false rating. The evidence therefore distinguishes three separate facts: Piker made the original remark in 2019; El-Sayed campaigned with Piker in 2026; and El-Sayed explicitly said that the September 11 attacks were not justified. The first two facts do not establish the accusation, while the third directly contradicts it. <h3>Conclusion</h3>The claim that Abdul El-Sayed said he believed America deserved the September 11 attacks is false. The documented quotation belongs to Hasan Piker, not El-Sayed. Although El-Sayed faced criticism for his association with Piker and his response to questions about their political relationship, the available evidence does not show that he made or endorsed the statement. His own recorded comments explicitly reject the proposition that the attacks were justified. Political candidates can reasonably be questioned about their associates and their responses to controversial remarks. Such questions, however, should not be presented as proof that a candidate expressed a belief for which there is no supporting evidence. <h3>Sources</h3><ul><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/el-sayed-america-deserved-911/">Snopes: Did Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed say he believes America deserved 9/11? There’s no proof</a></li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="https://www.snopes.com/collections/el-sayed-claims/">Snopes: 4 claims about Abdul El-Sayed, examined</a></li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="https://www.factcheck.org/2026/08/rogers-makes-false-9-11-claim-about-el-sayed/">FactCheck.org: Rogers Makes False 9/11 Claim About El-Sayed</a></li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" href="https://politifact.com/factchecks/2026/aug/07/mike-rogers/abdul-el-sayed-9-11-hasan-piker-michigan/">PolitiFact: In Michigan Senate race, Mike Rogers falsely ties Abdul El-Sayed to Twitch streamer’s 9/11 comments</a></li></ul>

False Claim Attributes Hasan Piker’s 9/11 Remark to Abdul El-Sayed

With less than two weeks to go before the November 3, 2026 U.S. midterm elections, a wave of social media posts claimed that electronic voting machines were turning Democratic votes into Republican ones. A copy-and-paste message shared on Facebook, Threads and X around October 21 said early voters in Texas, Florida, Tennessee and Ohio were struggling to get machines to accept Democratic choices, and that the machines kept reverting to Republican candidates unless the voter pressed several times. The rumor was reinforced by a short video of a touch screen apparently marking the wrong candidate and by a separate TikTok clip from Illinois.Fact-checkers who examined these claims, along with election officials from both parties, found no evidence that any voting machine is deliberately altering votes. The available evidence points to old footage, misread screen messages, human error and touch screen calibration problems.<h3>What the posts claim</h3>The rumor spread in several forms:<ul><li>A generic warning post claiming machines in multiple states were rejecting Democratic votes.</li><li>A Facebook post by Stella Parton, sister of the late Dolly Parton, saying one of her selections in Tennessee kept defaulting to Republican Marsha Blackburn, who is running for governor.</li><li>A video in which a voter tries to select Democrat Tobi Beck, but the screen marks Republican Jim Baird instead, shared with captions describing it as proof of nationwide rigging.</li><li>A TikTok video from a woman in Cook County, Illinois, who said a Dominion machine told her a Republican judicial candidate she picked was not a popular choice.</li></ul><h3>The “vote flip” video is from 2018</h3>The most widely shared clip appears to be genuine, but it is not from 2026. According to <a href='https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/video-voting-machine-changing-vote/'>Snopes</a>, it was reportedly recorded during the 2018 midterms at a polling place in Tippecanoe County, Indiana. Beck and Baird were opponents in that year's race for Indiana's 4th Congressional District, which Baird won comfortably.At the time, the Lafayette Journal &amp; Courier reported that the county clerk had received a handful of formal complaints during early voting. Officials from both parties looked into the issue and did not find anything widespread or deliberate. The county's Democratic Party chair said she did not believe malice was involved and attributed the problem to poor calibration of the touch screens. Indiana has since added a paper trail that lets voters check their choices independently. A current Tippecanoe County election specialist described the recirculated video as deceptive and the vote-switching allegations as false.<h3>The Cook County claim does not match the ballot</h3>The Illinois TikTok claim falls apart on a basic fact: there are no Republican judicial candidates on the 2026 Cook County ballot. Officials from both parties rejected the story, as <a href='https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/illinois-voting-machines-republicans/'>Snopes reported</a>. Cook County Clerk Monica Gordon, a Democrat, explained that voting equipment does not rank candidates by popularity or discourage any choice, but it can warn voters who leave a contest blank or make fewer selections than allowed, known as an undervote. Streamwood's village clerk, a Republican, said his office tried and failed to reproduce the message the woman described.The clerk's office said it had received no similar complaints, even though more than 54,000 early ballots had already been cast in a jurisdiction of roughly 1.8 million registered voters. The woman later posted a follow-up saying she would remove the original video, admitted she was wrong about the judicial race, and said she had not meant to mislead anyone. The most likely explanation is that she misread a standard undervote notice. The machine maker, formerly Dominion Voting Systems, was bought in 2025 by former Republican election official Scott Leiendecker and renamed Liberty Vote; its spokesperson pointed to the clerk's statement.<h3>What state officials found</h3>In a <a href='https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/voting-machines-switching-votes-midterms/'>broader review</a>, Snopes contacted election officials in six states named in the posts. None reported evidence of systematic vote switching. Several said the reports most likely came from human error or touch screen alignment, and noted that voters can review their choices and get help from poll workers before submitting a ballot. The few firsthand accounts that surfaced described temporary problems that were corrected before the vote was cast, not completed ballots with wrong selections.<h3>Why a coordinated vote flip is implausible</h3>U.S. elections are run by states and local governments, which buy and test their own equipment. That makes a nationwide, coordinated rigging scheme extremely difficult to organize, let alone keep secret. Other safeguards include:<ul><li>Public testing: each state mentioned in the claims requires testing of voting equipment before elections.</li><li>No internet connection: federal certification requires voting systems to be isolated from outside networks.</li><li>Federal minimum standards: under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, voters must be able to review and correct their selections before casting a ballot, systems must produce an auditable record, and error rates may not exceed one per 10 million ballot positions.</li><li>Paper records: many states print a paper ballot or record that voters can check before submission.</li></ul>Vote-switching rumors are not new. Similar claims have circulated since at least 2008 and have resurfaced in nearly every election cycle without supporting evidence.<h3>What voters can do</h3>Voters who see a wrong selection on a touch screen should not cast the ballot. They should use the review screen or printed record to check their choices, and ask a poll worker for help or to recalibrate or switch the machine. Concerns should be reported to local election officials, who are responsible for investigating them.<h3>Verdict</h3>The claim is false. The viral video is from Indiana's 2018 election and was attributed to calibration problems at the time. The Cook County story conflicts with the actual ballot and was likely a misread undervote warning. Election officials in several states reported no evidence of machines switching votes in the 2026 midterms.<h3>Sources</h3><ul><li><a href='https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/video-voting-machine-changing-vote/'>Snopes: Video of voting machine ‘switching’ vote to Republican is misleading and outdated</a></li><li><a href='https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/illinois-voting-machines-republicans/'>Snopes: Illinois voting machines aren't flagging Republican picks as unpopular</a></li><li><a href='https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/voting-machines-switching-votes-midterms/'>Snopes: Voting machines aren't deliberately switching votes</a></li><li>Lafayette Journal &amp; Courier, Election Day 2018 report on Tippecanoe County touch screen complaints (as cited by Snopes)</li><li>Cook County Clerk's Office statement on undervote notifications (as cited by Snopes)</li></ul>

No, voting machines are not flipping Democratic votes to Republicans in the 2026 midterms

In September 2026, social media posts began claiming that 3D-printed salmon manufactured by Israeli company Steakholder Foods had reached U.S. grocery stores. The claim is substantially accurate, but some of the discussion surrounding it confuses 3D-printed plant-based food with meat grown from animal cells.<h2>What the company announced</h2>On September 3, 2026, Steakholder Foods announced the commercial launch of its Perfecta brand at retail outlets across the northeastern United States. The company's announcement described the products as premium plant-based meat alternatives made using 3D-printing technology. Its range includes alternatives to fish, including salmon.The announcement establishes that the company intended its products to reach retail shelves, rather than merely demonstrating an experimental product in a laboratory. However, it does not identify the individual grocery chains or stores carrying the products. Consequently, the general claim that the products have entered U.S. retail is supported, but claims about their availability at a particular supermarket require separate evidence.Product information is available through the company's retail brand, <a href="https://www.perfectafoods.com/products">Perfecta Foods</a>, while Steakholder Foods published the launch announcement on its <a href="https://www.steakholderfoods.com/blog/steakholder-foods-launches-perfecta-tm-at-retail-outlets-across-the-northeastern-u-s">official website</a>.<h2>What does 3D-printed salmon actually mean?</h2>The most important distinction is that Perfecta's salmon alternative is plant-based. It is not a piece of fish grown from cultivated salmon cells. Steakholder Foods uses plant-derived ingredients and 3D-printing technology to shape food into structures intended to resemble conventional meat or fish in appearance and texture.Three-dimensional food printing is a manufacturing method. It allows ingredients to be deposited in controlled patterns to create particular shapes and textures. It does not, by itself, mean that a product is synthetic in the sense of being made entirely from artificial chemicals, nor does it establish that the food contains cultured animal cells.The Good Food Institute's explanation of <a href="https://gfi-apac.org/science/the-science-of-plant-based-meat/">plant-based meat production</a> describes several techniques for transforming plant ingredients into meat-like structures. Three-dimensional printing is one such technique, alongside other methods used to produce the texture and consistency of meat alternatives.<h2>Does the packaging have to disclose 3D printing?</h2>Product images cited in the reporting identify Perfecta foods as plant-based products, but do not appear to explicitly identify them as 3D-printed. That observation supports the narrower point that the manufacturing technique may not be prominently disclosed on the packaging. It does not, by itself, establish that the company is violating labeling law.U.S. rules concerning foods made from cultured animal cells address a different category of product. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) have regulatory responsibilities concerning cell-cultivated foods, including applicable labeling requirements. Those rules do not automatically apply to a plant-based food merely because it is manufactured using 3D printing.In its response to Snopes about the salmon product, the FDA indicated that the described food appeared to be made from plant-based ingredients using a manufacturing process, without cultured cells. The agency also explained that it generally does not approve finished foods or manufacturing processes as such, although food ingredients and additives must meet applicable safety requirements.Therefore, the claim that the product lacks a specific 3D-printing label should not be confused with the separate assertion that it is unlawfully marketed as lab-grown animal meat. The available evidence does not establish that the salmon alternative is cultured animal meat or that its packaging violates federal labeling requirements.<h2>What about methylcellulose?</h2>Online posts have also highlighted methylcellulose, an ingredient listed for the plant-based salmon alternative, because it is used in some laxative products. The chemical has several applications, however, and its presence in food does not mean that the food is a laxative or that consuming it has the same effect as taking a medicinal dose.Methylcellulose can act as a binder, helping plant-based ingredients hold together and contributing to a meat-like texture. The FDA lists methylcellulose among substances used in food, subject to the applicable conditions of use. Its presence alone is not evidence that the product is unsafe.As with any packaged food, consumers who have specific allergies, intolerances, dietary restrictions or other concerns should consult the ingredient list and relevant product information rather than relying on sensational descriptions of an individual ingredient.<h2>What remains uncertain?</h2>Although Steakholder Foods announced a retail launch, the precise stores stocking the salmon alternative have not been independently identified in the available reporting. The announcement also does not prove that every product in the Perfecta range is available at every participating retailer. Availability may vary by location.These limitations matter: a company announcement is evidence of a commercial launch, but it is not the same as independently verifying stock at a named supermarket. They do not, however, negate the announcement that the products were introduced to retail outlets in the northeastern United States.<h2>Conclusion</h2>The central claim is supported: Steakholder Foods announced that its 3D-printed, plant-based salmon alternative was included in the Perfecta product launch at northeastern U.S. retail outlets in September 2026. The important qualification is that this is plant-based food shaped using 3D-printing technology, not salmon meat grown from animal cells. The specific stores selling it remain unclear, and the available evidence does not establish that the product is unsafe or unlawfully labeled.

Yes, 3D-Printed Plant-Based Salmon Has Reached U.S. Retail, but It Is Not Lab-Grown Fish

Rating: the claim is not supported by available credible evidence. A federal investigation that examines it, among other matters, is ongoing (as of October 19, 2026).The claim that U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar married her own brother to help him immigrate to the United States emerged in 2016, during her campaign for the Minnesota House of Representatives. It has since spread through social media and political statements. It is important to distinguish documented facts from conclusions not supported by evidence. Omar did legally marry Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009, but publicly available evidence has not confirmed that he is her biological brother.What did journalistic investigations find?On June 23, 2019, the Minnesota Star Tribune published a report based on documents from an investigation by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board and on other public records. The reporters could neither confirm nor rule out the claim that Omar and Elmi are siblings. Omar did not answer the paper's questions or make her family members available for interviews. The report is available on the <a href='https://www.startribune.com/new-documents-revisit-questions-about-rep-ilhan-omar-s-marriage-history/511681362'>Minnesota Star Tribune website</a>.On July 18, 2019, PolitiFact analyzed the claim and described the limits of the available evidence. That analysis also did not establish that Elmi is Omar's biological brother. <a href='https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/jul/18/did-ilhan-omar-marry-her-brother-her-hometown-news/'>PolitiFact's analysis</a> explains what could be established and which questions remained open.A lack of evidence confirming a family relationship does not prove that no such relationship exists. The accurate conclusion is that the claim is not supported by available evidence and should not be presented as established fact.What is known about Omar's marriages?In 2002, Omar married Ahmed Hirsi in a religious ceremony. That marriage was not legally registered at the time. The couple separated in 2008. In February 2009, Omar legally married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, whom she has described as a British citizen. According to Omar, her relationship with Elmi ended in 2011, when she reconciled with Hirsi. Her legal divorce from Elmi was finalized in 2017, and she legally married Hirsi in January 2018.The timeline of her marriages has drawn media scrutiny and political accusations. However, an unusual marital history does not by itself prove either a blood relationship or immigration fraud.As early as 2016, Omar called suggestions that Elmi is her brother absurd and offensive, and she has repeatedly denied them since. Her denial is not independent evidence. Likewise, accusations based on incomplete documents, circumstantial indications or unverified social media posts cannot substitute for evidence of an actual family relationship.What about the tax returns and campaign finances?In 2019, during an investigation into the use of campaign funds, the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board found that Omar had filed joint tax returns with Hirsi for 2014 and 2015 while she was still legally married to Elmi. The board ordered her to reimburse her campaign nearly $3,500 and to pay a $500 penalty.These irregularities do not by themselves prove that Elmi is Omar's biological brother. They are separate factual claims that require separate evidence.What is known about the October 2026 federal investigation?On October 12, 2026, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents searched Omar's home in Washington, D.C. The Justice Department confirmed that the warrant was judicially authorized and that the search was part of an ongoing criminal investigation, but provided no further details. A <a href='https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-report-federal-agents-search-rep-ilhan-omars-home-as-part-of-a-criminal-investigation'>report by the Associated Press</a> describes the search.According to unnamed sources familiar with the investigation, the warrant lists conspiracy, false statements on immigration documents and immigration fraud as possible offenses. Investigators are reportedly examining whether Omar or her late father misstated her age so that she could derive citizenship through her father, who was naturalized in 2000. According to <a href='https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/14/politics/judge-limited-justice-department-access-rep-ilhan-omar-records-immigration-fraud'>CNN</a>, investigators are also examining the claim that Elmi is her brother. The federal investigation therefore bears directly on the claim reviewed here.According to the <a href='https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-report-rep-ilhan-omars-phone-seized-and-relatives-subpoenaed-in-criminal-probe'>AP</a>, authorities seized Omar's phone and issued more than a dozen grand jury subpoenas in Minnesota, including to some of her relatives. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., is separately reviewing her financial disclosures. Omar has not been charged with any crime, and the Justice Department has not made any evidence public. Omar denies the allegations and calls the investigation politically motivated. Her lawyers say agents did not follow the judge's instructions during the search and are seeking the return of seized property.A search warrant and grand jury activity mean that authorities are gathering evidence. They are not the same as an indictment, a court ruling or a final finding on the alleged family relationship.What did the 2019 review find?In October 2026, the Washington Post reported, citing former officials, that Omar's immigration file had already been reviewed in 2019 at the request of a political appointee in the first Trump administration. HSI concluded at the time that there was insufficient evidence to open a full investigation, and an internal USCIS memo found no issues. The same report states, citing one former official, that Elmi had filed a petition to remove the conditions on his marriage-based residency. When USCIS requested additional evidence over concerns about the validity of the marriage, Elmi withdrew the petition. It is not publicly known when this happened or why the petition was withdrawn. Immigration officials' doubts about the validity of a marriage are not evidence of a blood relationship, but they are relevant to the question of the marriage's purpose.ConclusionIt is documented that Ilhan Omar was legally married to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. Journalistic investigations in 2019 could not confirm the alleged family relationship, and a review conducted that same year found insufficient evidence to open an investigation. In October 2026, federal authorities are conducting a criminal investigation into possible immigration fraud that, according to media sources, also covers this claim, but no charges have been filed and no evidence has been made public. The claim that Omar married her own brother to help him immigrate to the United States should therefore be treated as unconfirmed, not as established fact. This rating will be updated if the investigation produces verifiable evidence.

No confirmed evidence that Ilhan Omar married her brother

The Epoch Times

A report published by The Epoch Times says that Science Translational Medicine retracted a 2022 COVID-19 vaccination paper on October 14 after an investigation by the Francis Crick Institute in London found fabricated data and falsified images, and that first author Kevin W. Ng admitted responsibility. Remedia checked the claim against the original paper, the retraction notice, statements from the Crick Institute and independent reporting by Retraction Watch.<h3>What was claimed</h3>The report makes several factual claims: that the journal retracted the paper 'SARS-CoV-2 S2-targeted vaccination elicits broadly neutralizing antibodies' more than four years after publication; that the Crick investigation found Ng responsible for fabricated data and falsified images and that he admitted it; that no misconduct was found among the other authors; and that Nature had earlier retracted another paper by Ng and later added an editor's note to a third.<h3>What the evidence shows</h3>The retraction is confirmed by primary sources. The <a href='https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.abn3715'>original paper</a> appeared in Science Translational Medicine (volume 14, issue 655, article eabn3715) in July 2022, with Ng as first author and Crick group leader George Kassiotis as corresponding author, as listed on the <a href='https://www.crick.ac.uk/research/publications/sars-cov-2-s2-targeted-vaccination-elicits-broadly-neutralizing-antibodies'>Crick Institute's publication page</a>. The period between July 2022 and October 2026 is indeed slightly more than four years.The <a href='https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aem5154'>retraction notice</a>, dated October 14, 2026, states that the institutional investigation found fabricated data in one figure and falsified images in another, that Ng admitted responsibility, and that the fabrication casts doubt on other experiments in the paper whose primary data and samples are no longer available for verification. <a href='https://retractionwatch.com/2026/10/14/former-crick-ph-d-student-loses-covid-vaccine-paper-for-fabrication/'>Retraction Watch</a>, which reported the case independently, confirms these details and quotes a Crick statement that there was no evidence of malpractice by any other author. A journal spokesperson told Retraction Watch that the Crick asked for the retraction on September 8. One small imprecision in the report is that Ng is described as having 'worked for' the institute; according to Retraction Watch, he was a PhD student there at the time.The related claims are also accurate. In January 2026, Nature retracted Ng's 2023 paper on endogenous retrovirus antibodies and lung cancer immunotherapy (<a href='https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05771-9'>doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05771-9</a>) after a Crick investigation found manipulated data and held Ng responsible, as <a href='https://retractionwatch.com/2026/01/14/nature-retraction-francis-crick-institute-data-manipulation-phd-student/'>Retraction Watch reported</a> and the <a href='https://www.crick.ac.uk/about-us/our-approach-to-science/research-integrity/2025-research-integrity-news'>Crick's research integrity page</a> documents. On September 29, 2026, Nature added an editor's note to <a href='https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04888-7'>another 2022 paper</a> co-authored by Ng, after concerns were raised on PubPeer. That investigation is still ongoing, so no conclusion about that paper can be drawn yet.<h3>Important context</h3>The report describes the paper as having claimed that vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 elicited strong antibodies. This simplification can mislead readers. The retracted study did not test any authorized COVID-19 vaccine, such as those from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or AstraZeneca, and it did not involve human participants. As its <a href='https://www.crick.ac.uk/research/publications/sars-cov-2-s2-targeted-vaccination-elicits-broadly-neutralizing-antibodies'>abstract</a> states, it was a preclinical mouse study of an experimental vaccine targeting the S2 subunit of the coronavirus spike protein, asking whether such a vaccine could neutralize a broader range of coronaviruses. Its retraction therefore has no bearing on the safety or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in use, whose evidence comes from separate clinical trials and real-world studies.The retraction also does not, by itself, discredit the broader scientific idea of targeting the conserved S2 region. Independent groups have published their own data on broadly neutralizing antibodies against S2, for example in <a href='https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9348754/'>Science (fusion peptide antibodies)</a> and in work on <a href='https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8923106'>stem-helix antibodies</a>. Those studies stand or fall on their own evidence. What is clear is that the specific results in the retracted paper, which had been cited 83 times according to Retraction Watch, should no longer be relied upon.<h3>Conclusion</h3>The central claim is true and supported by primary sources: Science Translational Medicine retracted the 2022 paper on October 14, 2026, because of fabricated data and falsified images, the Crick Institute's investigation identified first author Kevin W. Ng as responsible, and he admitted it. The claims about the earlier Nature retraction and the September editor's note are also accurate. Readers should keep in mind that the retracted work was an animal study of an experimental vaccine candidate, not a study of approved COVID-19 vaccines.<h3>Sources</h3><ul><li><a href='https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aem5154'>Retraction notice, Science Translational Medicine (2026)</a></li><li><a href='https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.abn3715'>Original paper, Science Translational Medicine (2022)</a></li><li><a href='https://www.crick.ac.uk/research/publications/sars-cov-2-s2-targeted-vaccination-elicits-broadly-neutralizing-antibodies'>Francis Crick Institute publication page</a></li><li><a href='https://retractionwatch.com/2026/10/14/former-crick-ph-d-student-loses-covid-vaccine-paper-for-fabrication/'>Retraction Watch, October 14, 2026</a></li><li><a href='https://retractionwatch.com/2026/01/14/nature-retraction-francis-crick-institute-data-manipulation-phd-student/'>Retraction Watch, January 14, 2026</a></li><li><a href='https://www.crick.ac.uk/about-us/our-approach-to-science/research-integrity/2025-research-integrity-news'>Francis Crick Institute research integrity news</a></li></ul>

Yes, Science Translational Medicine retracted a 2022 COVID-19 vaccine study over fabricated data, but it was a mouse study of an experimental vaccine

Verdict: False. There is no credible evidence that U.S. President Donald Trump accused Ukraine of interfering in the upcoming midterm elections by attacking Russian bot farms. The story attributed to Trump originated in a satirical article, while separate claims that the strikes crippled Russian online influence operations are not supported by the available evidence.<h2>Where did the story come from?</h2>On October 14, 2026, the Australian website <a href='https://www.betootaadvocate.com/trump-accuses-ukraine-of-midterm-election-interference-after-russian-bot-farm-strikes/'>The Betoota Advocate published an article</a> claiming Trump had accused Ukraine of trying to alter the outcome of the U.S. midterm elections. The supposed remarks were said to have been made to reporters aboard Air Force One. The article attributed threatening comments to Trump and claimed that social media engagement had fallen sharply after Ukrainian strikes on Russian technology company Yandex's data centers.However, <a href='https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ukraine-russia-bot-farms-satire/'>Snopes investigated the story</a> and found no credible reporting to support Trump's alleged statements. Searches for the quoted remarks produced no reliable confirmation. Trump did speak to reporters in Bullhead City, Arizona, on October 14, but the available record did not support the article's account of him discussing Ukraine, Russia or the Yandex strikes. The White House also published a <a href='https://www.whitehouse.gov/videos/president-trump-gaggles-with-press-at-bullhead-city-az-oct-14-2026/'>recording of Trump's press appearance that day</a>.The publication is known for satire, although the specific article was not clearly marked as satire. Australia's ABC has also described <a href='https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-19/the-betoota-advocate/7948238'>The Betoota Advocate as a satirical publication</a>. Its story should therefore not be treated as a reliable record of a presidential statement. The fact that the claim was subsequently shared on social media does not make it true.<h2>What actually happened to Yandex?</h2>The story appeared alongside a separate claim that Ukrainian strikes had knocked Russian propaganda bots offline, supposedly reducing pro-Trump online activity. The underlying infrastructure disruption was real: reported Ukrainian drone strikes hit three Yandex facilities in Russia between October 7 and 11, disrupting the company's networks. But the damage to those networks does not establish that Russian political influence operations were disabled.In its October 14 analysis, internet infrastructure company Cloudflare examined traffic associated with Yandex's search and cloud networks. Its <a href='https://blog.cloudflare.com/yandex-outage'>published findings</a> showed that the sharp drop in Yandex search traffic consisted largely of automated crawlers used to index webpages and other content. Such crawlers are bots, but they are not necessarily propaganda accounts or tools for political manipulation.Cloudflare also found that some malicious automated activity using Yandex's cloud network shifted to other hosting providers after the disruption. Its data showed no unexpected change in overall social media traffic that would support the claim that the strikes had crippled online manipulation. This does not prove that no individual account or operation was affected; it means the broader claim goes beyond what the available data establishes.<h2>What about Zelenskyy's comments?</h2>Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on October 12 that people had noticed less hate, division and provocation online following the strikes. That remark helped fuel speculation about the effects on Russian bots. However, according to Snopes, Zelenskyy's office subsequently told the BBC that he had been referring to the atmosphere on social media rather than reporting a measured drop in bot activity.The distinction matters because a fall in traffic from one network does not prove that propaganda accounts have disappeared, much less that political engagement has fallen because a particular group of bots was disabled.<h2>Conclusion</h2>The allegation that Trump publicly accused Ukraine of interfering in the U.S. midterm elections after the Yandex strikes is false: it comes from a satirical article, and there is no reliable evidence that he made the quoted remarks. The separate claim that the strikes shut down Russian pro-MAGA propaganda bots is also unsupported by the available evidence. The strikes disrupted Yandex infrastructure, but the data does not show that they brought Russian online influence operations to a halt.

Trump Did Not Accuse Ukraine of Election Interference After Yandex Strikes; Russian Bot Farm Claims Remain Unsupported

The CDC and a Pfizer-affiliated pharmaceutical company sponsored a pro-LGBT public school event for fifth-grade students in Chicago.

Claim: The CDC and a Pfizer-affiliated pharmaceutical company sponsored a pro-LGBT public school event for fifth-grade students.What the evidence showsThe claim refers to the Galaxy Summit organized through the Chicago Public Schools system. Available reporting states that ViiV Healthcare was a sponsor of the event. ViiV Healthcare is a pharmaceutical company focused on HIV medicines and is a joint venture involving GSK, Pfizer and Shionogi.Reporting also identified the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention among organizations associated with or sponsoring the event. The event was described by Chicago Public Schools as an educational gathering intended to provide an affirming environment for students and to address diversity, gender, sexuality and related subjects.However, the wording of the claim can give the impression that the CDC and Pfizer directly organized or jointly ran the event. The available information does not establish that interpretation. The sponsorship and organizational relationships are more specific: ViiV Healthcare was a sponsor, while the event itself was organized through the Chicago Public Schools and associated organizations.Reports also described activities involving gender identity, pronouns and LGBTQ advocacy. Those descriptions should be distinguished from broader claims about what every fifth-grade student was taught or required to do.ConclusionThe core claim is partially supported: the Galaxy Summit was a Chicago Public Schools event involving LGBTQ-related content, and ViiV Healthcare, a company with Pfizer ownership ties, was identified as a sponsor. However, describing it simply as a CDC-and-Pfizer-sponsored event for fifth graders overstates the documented organizational relationships and requires additional context.

Fact-Checking the Claim: CDC and Pfizer Affiliate Sponsor Pro-LGBT Public School Event for Fifth Graders

Cjepiva protiv COVID-19 uzrokovala su 84% svih smrtnih slučajeva zabilježenih u VAERS-u u posljednje 32 godine

U posljednje vrijeme, kruže tvrdnje da su cjepiva protiv COVID-19 uzrokovala 84% svih smrtnih slučajeva zabilježenih u VAERS-u (Sustav prijavljivanja nuspojava cjepiva) u posljednje 32 godine. Ova tvrdnja je netočna i potrebno je razjasniti nekoliko ključnih točaka.
Što je VAERS?
VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) je sustav koji prikuplja izvješća o nuspojavama cjepiva u SAD-u. Sustav je pokrenut 1990. godine kako bi se pratile ozljede i smrtni slučajevi prijavljeni nakon primanja cjepiva. VAERS je otvoren za prijave od strane bilo koga, uključujući zdravstvene radnike, proizvođače cjepiva i javnost.
VAERS nije dokaz uzročnosti
Važno je napomenuti da prijava u VAERS-u ne znači da je cjepivo uzrok nuspojave ili smrtnog slučaja. VAERS je sustav za prijavljivanje, a ne za dokazivanje uzročnosti. Mnogi prijavljeni slučajevi mogu biti slučajni događaji koji se dogode u isto vrijeme kada je osoba primila cjepivo.
Analiza podataka
Prema podacima Centra za kontrolu i prevenciju bolesti (CDC), većina smrtnih slučajeva prijavljenih u VAERS-u nije povezana s cjepivima. CDC i FDA (Uprava za hranu i lijekove) redovno analiziraju podatke iz VAERS-a kako bi identificirali moguće uzroke i preduzeli mjere za zaštitu javnog zdravlja.
Studije i dokazi
Naučne studije pokazuju da su cjepiva protiv COVID-19 sigurna i učinkovita. Na primjer, studija objavljena u časopisu <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765">New England Journal of Medicine</a> pokazuje da su cjepiva protiv COVID-19 visoko učinkovita u prevenciji teških oblika bolesti i smrtnih slučajeva.
Zaključak
Tvrdnja da su cjepiva protiv COVID-19 uzrokovala 84% svih smrtnih slučajeva zabilježenih u VAERS-u u posljednje 32 godine je netočna. VAERS je sustav za prijavljivanje, a ne za dokazivanje uzročnosti. Naučne studije i analize podataka pokazuju da su cjepiva protiv COVID-19 sigurna i učinkovita. Važno je da se informacije o cjepivima temelje na znanstvenim dokazima i stručnim analizama.

Provjera tvrdnji: Cjepiva protiv COVID-19 uzrokovala su 84% svih smrtnih slučajeva zabilježenih u VAERS-u u posljednje 32 godine?

U posljednje vrijeme, mnoge tvrdnje o cjepivima protiv COVID-19 kruže medijima i društvenim mrežama. Jedna od takvih tvrdnji je da su cjepiva protiv COVID-19 uzrokovala 84% svih smrtnih slučajeva zabilježenih u VAERS-u u posljednje 32 godine. Ova tvrdnja je netočna i potrebno je razjasniti nekoliko ključnih točaka.
Što je VAERS?
VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) je sustav za prijavljivanje nuspojava cjepiva koji je pokrenut 1990. godine u SAD-u. Ovaj sustav omogućuje prijavljivanje bilo kojeg događaja koji se dogodio nakon cijepljenja, bez obzira na to je li taj događaj povezan s cjepivom ili ne. VAERS nije dizajniran za dokazivanje uzročnosti, već za praćenje i identifikaciju potencijalnih problema koji mogu zahtijevati daljnje istraživanje.
Razumijevanje podataka iz VAERS-a
Podaci iz VAERS-a mogu biti zbunjujući ako se ne razumiju pravilno. Važno je napomenuti da prijava u VAERS-u ne znači da je cjepivo uzrok smrtnog slučaja ili nuspojave. Mnogi smrtni slučajevi prijavljeni u VAERS-u nisu povezani s cjepivima protiv COVID-19. Na primjer, smrtni slučajevi mogu biti posljedica drugih uzroka, kao što su prethodne bolesti ili nesreće.
Znanstvene studije i dokazi
Brojne znanstvene studije su potvrdile sigurnost i učinkovitost cjepiva protiv COVID-19. Na primjer, studija objavljena u časopisu <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765">New England Journal of Medicine</a> pokazala je da su cjepiva protiv COVID-19 visoko učinkovita u prevenciji teških oblika bolesti i smrti. Druga studija, objavljena u časopisu <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00947-8/fulltext">The Lancet</a>, također potvrđuje sigurnost cjepiva protiv COVID-19.
Zaključak
Tvrdnja da su cjepiva protiv COVID-19 uzrokovala 84% svih smrtnih slučajeva zabilježenih u VAERS-u u posljednje 32 godine je netočna. VAERS je sustav za prijavljivanje nuspojava, a ne za dokazivanje uzročnosti. Većina smrtnih slučajeva u VAERS-u nije povezana s cjepivima protiv COVID-19. Znanstvene studije potvrđuju sigurnost i učinkovitost cjepiva protiv COVID-19. Važno je da se informacije o cjepivima temelje na znanstvenim dokazima i stručnim mišljenjima.

COVID-19 was a deliberate act of total war against civilization and the beginning of an effort to establish worldwide totalitarian control.

Claim: COVID-19 was a deliberate act of total war against civilization and the beginning of an effort to establish worldwide totalitarian control.What the evidence showsThis claim is presented as an interpretation of the COVID-19 pandemic, government responses and subsequent political and social developments. It has been promoted by British academic David A. Hughes, who has described the pandemic and lockdowns as the beginning of what he calls an “omniwar” against civilization.However, the available evidence does not establish that the COVID-19 pandemic was deliberately initiated as an act of total war or that it was a coordinated operation designed to establish worldwide totalitarian control.Criticism of lockdowns, censorship, vaccination policies or other government measures is separate from evidence of a coordinated plan behind the emergence of the virus. Governments in different countries adopted different policies, often changing them in response to new evidence, local conditions and political decisions.The existence of serious disagreements over pandemic policy therefore does not establish the much broader claim that COVID-19 itself was deliberately created or deployed as part of a global war against civilization.ConclusionThe claim that COVID-19 was established as a deliberate act of total war against civilization is unsupported by reliable evidence. It is an interpretation of subsequent events and policies rather than an established factual finding.

Claim Review: COVID-19 Was Not Established as a Deliberate Act of Total War Against Civilization

Djeca koja su primila 3 miligrama ili više aluminija povezanog s cjepivom imala su najmanje 36% veći rizik od razvoja trajne astme

U posljednje vrijeme, na internetu se pojavljuju tvrdnje da cjepiva koja sadrže aluminij povećavaju rizik od trajne astme kod djece. Ova tvrdnja se temelji na studiji koja je navodno financirana od strane države i koja je izvijestila o 'pozitivnoj povezanosti' između 'izloženosti aluminiju povezanog sa cjepivom' i 'stalne astme' kod djece u dobi od 24 do 59 mjeseci. Međutim, ova tvrdnja zahtijeva pažljivu provjeru.
Aluminij se koristi u cjepivima kao adjuvans, što pomaže u jačanju imunološkog odgovora. Adjuvansi su važni za povećanje učinkovitosti cjepiva i smanjenje potrebe za više doza. Međutim, tvrdnje da aluminij u cjepivima povećava rizik od astme nisu potvrđene znanstvenim istraživanjima.
Studija objavljena u časopisu <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5659301/">Vaccine</a> pokazuje da aluminij u cjepivima ne predstavlja značajan rizik za zdravlje. Autori studije zaključuju da 'nema dokaza da aluminij u cjepivima uzrokuje bilo kakve zdravstvene probleme, uključujući astmu'.
Dodatno, Svjetska zdravstvena organizacija (WHO) i Centar za kontrolu i prevenciju bolesti (CDC) također potvrđuju sigurnost aluminija u cjepivima. Prema WHO, 'aluminij se koristi u cjepivima već više od 70 godina i nema dokaza da uzrokuje bilo kakve dugoročne zdravstvene probleme'.
Tvrdnja da cjepiva povezana s aluminijem povećavaju rizik od trajne astme kod djece nije potvrđena znanstvenim istraživanjima. Studije pokazuju da aluminij u cjepivima ne predstavlja značajan rizik za zdravlje. Važno je da se oslanjamo na pouzdane znanstvene izvore i ne dopuštamo da nas dezinformacije zbune.

Provjera tvrdnji: Cjepiva i aluminij povezani s trajnom astmom kod djece?

Rezultati patologa dr Sucharit Bhakdia i dr Arne Burkhardta pokazuju da je 93% ljudi, koji su umrli nakon cijepljenja, ubijeno cjepivom.

Tvrdnja da je 93% ljudi koji su umrli nakon cijepljenja ubijeno cjepivom potječe od istraživanja koje su provedili patolozi dr Sucharit Bhakdi i dr Arne Burkhardt.
Međutim, ovo istraživanje ima nekoliko značajnih nedostataka koji čine ovu tvrdnju netočnom.
Prvo, istraživanje spominje samo 15 slučajeva, što je premalo da bi se došlo do zaključka o postotku smrti uzrokovanih cjepivom.
Drugo, istraživanje nije recenzirano, što znači da nije prošlo kroz standardni proces provjere i potvrde znanstvene zajednice.
Treće, tvrdnja se temelji na podacima iz Njemačke i možda nije primjenjiva na druge zemlje ili populacije. &nbsp;Prema Centrim za kontrolu i prevenciju bolesti (CDC), smrti nakon cijepljenja su rijetki i obično su uzrokovani drugim čimbenicima, a ne cjepivom. CDC i druge zdravstvene organizacije nastavljaju praćenje sigurnosti i učinkovitosti cjepiva kako bi se osiguralo da su sigurni i učinkoviti.
Zbog ovih razloga, tvrdnja da je 93% ljudi koji su umrli nakon cijepljenja ubijeno cjepivom je netočna.

Provjera tvrdnje: Da li je 93% ljudi koji su umrli nakon cijepljenja ubijeno cjepivom?

Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed said he believed the United States deserved the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

About Remedia

Remedia is developed and run by Mist Art. The platform, claim reviews and comment moderation tracking are free and will stay free. Development is funded by paid tools, such as the reply-drafting tool, and by grants. The Artes Association is our partner for educational content and workshops. Contact: 

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

Browser Extension

with one click. Reports are anonymous and need no account.

of an article or post. You'll get a queue number and, if you like, an email when the review is published.

 to scan news from several sites at once, and search our 

The extension automatically checks only the address of the page you're viewing, on every page you visit. On Facebook, when you right-click to open the menu, the extension reads the nearby post or comment text locally in your browser so the chosen action is ready immediately — but nothing is sent to our server until you pick a specific action (e.g. "Generate response" or "Summarize article"). It doesn't read your messages, passwords or forms, and we don't sell data. More in our 

The Remedia extension

When you read an article Remedia has reviewed, you'll see a label with the rating and a link to the review.

On supported news sites we replace clickbait headlines with one that says what the article is actually about. These headlines are written automatically by AI and labeled as such. If one is off, let us know.

Pages that users have flagged as unreliable appear dimmed, so you can decide for yourself whether to read them.

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

Contact

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Opinions and explainers from our users, newest first.

Latest articles

Short, de-escalating reports on stories repeated across several portals at once.

Brief reports

Independent reviews that add evidence and context to claims in circulation.

Claim reviews

Explore the claims being reviewed, the evidence around them, and how the community rates each one.

Claims

Alternate title

Search our growing library of fact-checked reviews and alternate headlines. Or browse what people are talking about right now.

Our browser extensions surface Remedia's work while you browse, so you can pause before you share.

Follow newsrooms and publishers, or create your own to write content on their behalf.

Organizations

Find and follow people with the same interests and opinions as you.

People

Edit status

Create post

The newest reviews, opinions and statuses from people you follow.

Follow a few people and explore some recent claim reviews to start filling it in.

Your feed is empty

People and content you might like

Mixes editorial content from the Remedia team into your feed, on top of whoever you follow yourself.

Feed content

Feed

Alternate Title

Fact-check labels and clearer headlines while you read the news. Free, no sign-up needed.

Answering misinformation in the comments? A tool that drafts replies in your own voice, and you review and post them.

Tracking how news sites moderate their comments, and collaborating on fact-checks.

Remedia is developed and run by Mist Art, a small software studio from Istria. The Artes Association is our partner for educational content and workshops.

How Remedia Works

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Legal notice

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

News sites formally reported to Croatia's Electronic Media Agency for breaching their legal duty to moderate reader comments.

Media accountability

AI prepares a draft; only a person publishes. We sign this content as "Remedia Ai", so no one takes personal credit for text that AI partly wrote.

AI writes and publishes these automatically, without prior human review. They are labeled as automatically generated, and editors review them afterwards and remove bad ones. If you see a bad headline, please report it.

AI writes a short post for a new article. The post is scheduled with a delay, during which an editor can edit or cancel it.

AI only suggests which comments need review. People make the decisions.

. When we correct content, we note at the bottom of the article what was corrected and when.

We make mistakes too. If you think a review contains an error, write to 

Remedia is developed and run by Mist Art, a small software studio from Istria. The Artes Association is our partner for educational content and workshops. We take no money from political parties and don't allow our tools to be used in political campaigns.

the claim is accurate and nothing significant is missing.

the claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional context.

the claim is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

the claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts.

How we work

We review specific claims circulating in public, regardless of who made them. We don't rate opinions, only factual claims that can be verified.

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

AI helps us find, sort and summarize large volumes of content. Claim reviews and brief reports are always published by a person. We are open about what is automated and what isn't in our 

. We're happy to show how the system works on real examples.

flag posts and start checks through the extension.

can, once approved, publish their own fact-checks and articles on Remedia.

on specific news sites, periods or topics are available on request.

Work with Remedia

If you don't like fake news, clickbait headings, false claims, etc... Join us!

Support Remedia

Remedia is developed and run by Mist Art, a small software studio from Istria. The Artes Association is our partner for educational content and workshops. Support covers what keeps Remedia running: AI and server costs, tools, and the time it takes to check claims. Once a month we publish what came in and where it went.

Read beyond the headline.

False Claim Attributes Hasan Piker’s 9/11 Remark to Abdul El-Sayed

Latest claim reviews