Avatar

Hello I Love Fact Checking

@is-the-post-reliable / is-the-post-reliable.tumblr.com

The autism won today<3
If you want a post fact checked, or think I've missed something, feel free to send an ask!
Posts

Pinned

Avatar

FAQ’s

If you believe I’ve made a mistake, please feel free to contact me! I try to be as accurate as possible, but I am Just Some Guy and am very much capable of mistakes. However, if you have a correction, please include a source. Please don't just send in your opinions - keep it factual.

My rating system:

🟢 Reliable 🟢 - Entirely accurate, supported by reliable sources.

🟨 Mostly Reliable 🟨 - Generally accurate, but may be slightly misleading (ie by omitting relevant contradictory information), or may contain a minor error.

🔶Partially Reliable 🔶 - Includes some reliable information, but also includes errors.

❌ Unreliable ❌ - Misinformation. May include some small amounts of factual information, but is mostly unreliable, or the overall impression is misleading/incorrect.

I also rate things as TBC (To Be Confirmed) when I feel I do not have enough reliable information to rate a post as reliable or not reliable.

I try to add an image description whenever needed, but if I forget feel free to message me about it!

Responses to my fact checks are tagged #peer review

#faq's#is-the-post-reliable#about
Avatar
Reblogged
Avatar
Avatar
Avatar

manchineel perfec t place for rest under in rain

Avatar

RATING: 🟢 RELIABLE 🟢

Manchineel do fit the description here. There are noted for being sweet smelling and tasting, with a large stone insisde.

From Britannica: 'The sweet-scented fruits are borne singly or in pairs and range in color from yellow to reddish. The fruit contains a hard stone that encloses six to nine seeds.'

The most common reaction to ingestion seems to be oral blistering with burning sensation, rather than numbness. However, as this individual claims to have licked and not eaten any, this could account for the descrepancy.

From Britannica: 'Consumption of the fruits is potentially lethal and frequently causes burnlike blisters in the mouth and esophagus.'

Whether it's the most deadly fruit in the world is difficult to say, as there isn't enough data on the subject, but it is highly toxic and frequently considered one of most deadly. Howstuffworks claims the species is 'Known as the most dangerous tree in the world.'

It is often called the death apple tree, apparently named by Spanish invadors.

From Howstuffworks.com: 'The manchineel's small apple-like fruit definitely won't keep the doctor away — it packs such a poisonous punch that the Spanish conquistadors called it the manzanilla de la muerte or little apple of death. This ominous name may sound extreme, but history shows that indigenous peoples used the sap to poison their arrows and contaminate the water supply of the invading Spaniards.'

It is also true that sitting under it during rain can cause harm to skin.

From Britannica: 'The milky sap of the leaves and bark contains an irritating chemical called phorbol, which generates a strong allergic skin reaction. Raindrops falling through the tree can collect phorbol and burn a person standing underneath.'

The claim that 'manchineel perfec t place for rest under in rain' is subjective. Humans may not enjoy the burning skin element, but the striped iguana might think it's the perfect place for a rest, as they're immune to toxic elements of tree.

From Howstuffworks.com: "And it provides a safe home and full belly for one lucky reptile — the garrobo, or striped iguana of Central and South America. Immune to its poison, the garrobo has the tree all to itself."

#fact check#manchineel#trees#biology#ecology#reliable
Avatar
snumpkins asked:

The recent discourse about cough CPR is making me remember when I was naught but a young teenager convinced that hiccups could possibly restart my heart if the timing was right. I got a lot of hiccups. I needed to make myself feel better about them.

Avatar

that is... not one I've heard of before

#ask#snumpkins#not a fact check
Avatar
Reblogged
Avatar

“Cough CPR” is misinformation

What is “cough CPR”?

“Cough CPR” is a myth which claims that rhythmic coughing can reduce the impact of a heart attack. It has been circulating for over two decades via email and on social media platforms (Wikipedia, 2023).

Why doesn’t it work?

A heart attack happens when the blood flow to the heart is restricted due to blockage. Cardiac arrest is when your heart stops pumping completely (British Heart Foundation, n.d.).

These definitions alone should demonstrate the problem with “cough CPR”. If you have a heart attack, your heart is still pumping, so you do not need CPR. If you experience cardiac arrest, you will fall unconscious within seconds (Resuscitation Council UK, 2021) and therefore won’t be able to perform “cough CPR”.

In many cases, “cough CPR” could even worsen the problem or prove fatal if coughing is undertaken to the wrong rhythm (Snopes, 2003).

Is “cough CPR” ever useful?

Coughing creates pressure that forces blood to flow to the brain (Cleveland Clinic, 2020).

It may therefore be possible for someone experiencing sudden arrhythmia to maintain consciousness for a few seconds by coughing. However, the patient would already need to be under constant monitoring for the arrhythmia to be detected. It should also only be done at the instruction of a doctor, as a medical professional will still be needed to treat the abnormal heart rhythm (American Heart Association, 2023).

Cases where “cough CPR” has been useful have all been isolated incidents performed in this kind of clinical setting (see Snopes, 2003; UChicago Medicine, 2019; American Heart Association, 2023).

Reference list

#cough cpr#misinformation
Avatar
cough-cpr-is-fake asked:

Hello! I hope you're well and completely recovered from your surgery <3

You may remember me from a couple of years ago when I started my blog and you kindly signal boosted for me.

I was wondering if you might consider sharing my pinned post again? I've seen a big uptick in reblogs of cough CPR posts in the past few days, so I'm trying to think of ways to proactively spread the correct information in addition to contacting those who have reblogged the misinformation.

No pressure if you're not up for sharing, though - I just thought I'd ask!

Thanks for continuing to do such valuable work over the past couple of years, and I hope you find the joy in it again :)

Avatar

hey!! Thank you! Unfortunately the surgical wound got infected so I'm not as recovered as I would like, but I'm still kicking!

Of course I remember you, my fellow warrior against my most hated post. I'll go reblog that now. Thank you! <3

#ask#cough-cpr-is-fake#not a fact check
Avatar

update

hi everyone! From now on, I won't be taking requests anymore. It was turning this blog into something stressful, rather than a hobby, and I started avoiding it because I didn't want to look in my inbox. So from now on, I'll only be fact checking stuff I'm interested in

I'm intending to get back to fact checking more regularly, but I'm having surgery tomorrow so I probably won't be doing anything intellectually challenging whilst I'm recovering. so I'll see ya'll on the other side ✌️

#not a fact check#about#update
Avatar
Reblogged disco-tea
Avatar

The clearest image of Venus ever taken !

by Japan's Akatsuki spacecraft

Avatar

🟨 RATING: MOSTLY RELIABLE 🟨

This one almost got rated as fully reliable, but without some context, the photo could be misleading. But, don't worry, this is in fact a photo of Venus!

From Snopes article on the photo: 'The photograph truly does show Venus, so we have rated this claim as "True."

The Planetary Society shared the photograph, informing it showed "Venus' Lower Clouds" and was captured by Akatsuki spacecraft's IR2 camera.''

However, it should be noted that the claim that it is the 'clearest' image is dubious - although it is likely that the Akatsuki has taken some of the highest resolution photos of Venus, I could find nothing to suggest that this is clearer than any of the other photos from the Akatsuki.

From The Planetary Society: 'ESA’s Venus Express had great views of polar regions and the same technique was used to study unusual clouds in the polar vortex. The Akatsuki images, on the other hand, show low latitude regions and have higher spatial resolution: they show all kinds of new details and features that may be correlated to surface topography.'

Furthermore, this photo is actually a false colour image. The original photos were captured using a UVI cameras, which capture UV light, rather than the visible spectrum.

From The Planetary Society: 'I focused on the data from two cameras. The UVI camera captures images in ultraviolet wavelengths, at 283 and 365 nanometers. It is intended to observe the atmosphere of the planet in great detail. These allow me to make false-colour images [using 283nm in the blue channel and 365nm in the red], after some small manipulation to build a synthetic green channel.'

#fact check#space#venus#space photography#mostly reliable
Avatar
firefilledhikey asked:

<3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

Avatar

hello friend!! <3<3<3

#ask#firefilledhikey
Avatar
slut-for-literature asked:

i did a little research into this rating you did about glucose levels being the reason for gluten intolerance in american grain wheat, and i found that while you’re findings are correct, the concerns of the people who you responded to also have some merit.

an article from snopes simplified it well on a discussion pertains to the topic, that while it is not common for harmful chemicals to be present in our grain products in the US, 5% of wheat acres that produce our supply of grains use glyphosate (most commonly Roundup) to speed up harvesting.

it’s debated on and has mixed responses amongst government health agencies on if consumption of glyphosate treated crops is harmful, but anyone familiar with farming/landscaping/property maintenance knows about the RoundUp lawsuits and that it is all types of poison. a large study found that its use is also correlated with health issues amongst infants born in areas that commonly utilize it

it’s not completely agreed upon by everyone across the board yet, but the concern of chemical absorption of glysophate in grain crops in america and it’s potential effects on a person’s health still have a whole lot more research to be done before anything is considered surefire. it certainly doesn’t help that we got negligent folks like Dr. Stephanie Seneff spreading around bullshit studies on these topics that got a snowballs chance in hell of getting even one good peer review.

when it comes to concerns of the US government either doing something 100% responsibly with intentions to protect its citizens, or being 100% evil and trying to kill us, it more often is a sliding scale between those two points. and which end of the scale its farther on is often determined by if the public has previously had a riot, a lot of people died as a result of a thing being used, or folks across the board made it clear to the government that a standard will not be excepted.

i believe i’ve gotten everything communicated as i intended here, but let me know if i’ve used a term incorrectly or anything, i’m new to the fact checking blood sport game and am looking for tips on how to improve.

Avatar

hey, sorry for the slow response to this!

Thanks for sending this in, it's an interesting topic and definitely expands the discussion. It's well sourced and explained.

When fact checking, I'm always torn between adding more context and sticking to the original claims. Here I've tried to stick to the spirit of the claims, ie whether people's varying gluten intolerence were likely due to pesticide intolerence, or most likely a reaction to differing levels of gluten. However, it makes me really happy to see people looking into it further!

You asked for tips on improving, so I've looked for some constructive criticisms. First, though, I want to say that these are mostly nitpicks - overall this is well written and sourced!

Your statement that 'anyone familiar with farming/landscaping/property maintenance knows about the RoundUp lawsuits and that it is all types of poison' I think is the most vulnerable to criticism. I've got three potential criticisms on this statement:

  1. It's making an unsourced generalisation about general knowledge. This might be true - I am very much not familiar with farming - but you haven't given any evidence to back it up.
  2. The claim of 'all types of poison' is non-specific and non-scientific. (I think this was probably hyperbole but considering the factual nature of the discussion, it's generally best practice to keep things literal)
  3. Most importantly, the relevence of this to the original argument is questionable. The original post was not referencing people who were exposed to large quantities of glysophosphate - e.g. through agricultural work - and made no reference to cancers or birth weights. I think it could be reasonable to add this in for context, but it should be made clear that the research and lawsuit does not directly support the claim that use of pesticides affect or mimic the symptoms of gluten intolerence.

I hope these are helpful and not discouraging - if you disagree with any of my criticisms, feel free to send another ask!

#ask#slut-for-literature#peer review#discussion
Avatar
flamingspitballs asked:

I wanted to practice media literacy, but something that keeps coming up is reaffirming to trust what a majority of scientists and doctors believe rather than the fringe ones who may be trying to sell you something. And I agree with that, but I keep getting this bad feeling in the back of my mind because, well, I remember learning about how a lot of different scientific fields are based in ableism, racism, misogyny, etc. Like, for example, a majority of doctors in the US are in favour of invasive and traumatizing surgeries on intersex infants to "fix" them, while intersex adults advocate against these surgeries.

Will this come up in the later courses and discussions on media literacy? Stuff like, trusting the scientific method even if the general consensus is scewed due to being a part of an oppressive system? Thank you ☆

Avatar

hi! so first of all, I want to start by saying this is probably outside of the scope of this blog to definitively answer - this kind of issue could be debated forever. Also, I want to clarify that I’m not trying to give a ‘course’ here, I’m not a teacher in any way, I’m just some guy who likes fact checking

So with that in mind, I think we should definitely acknowledge that scientific communites are made up of people, who all have their own biases. Social beliefs absolutely have, and will continue, to affect our scientific understanding. That being said, I don’t think that bias is inherent to the scientific method - in actuality, it’s the opposite. When biases affect the research, that’s bad science, which is exactly what media literacy and scientific literacy helps us distinguish. Essentially, I don’t think that these biases are a reason to not practice media literacy. Media literacy is what helps us to think critically about these things.

To use your own example, surgical intervention on intersex infants was based on little data, and became the normalised ‘treatment’ before any rigorous studies were done. It’s the introduction of proper scientific method in medical care that has helped to change our understanding of surgical intervention, and is now pushing to limit surgeries on intersex infants.

From the American Journal of Bioethics: ‘However, the main empirical premises behind this approach, namely, that significant psychosocial benefits would in fact accrue to the child because of early surgery and that these benefits would, moreover, reliably outweigh the associated risks of physical and mental harm, were never subjected to rigorous testing (Creighton and Liao Citation2004; Liao et al. Citation2019). Rather, standard practice in this area became entrenched and institutionalized long before the advent of modern evidence-based medicine (Diamond and Beh Citation2008; Garland and Travis Citation2020a; Dalke, Baratz, and Greenberg Citation2020) as well as key developments in bioethics and children’s rights (Brennan Citation2003; Reis Citation2019; Alderson Citation2023; Gheaus Citation2024).‘

#ask#not a fact check#critical thinking#intersex issues
Avatar
Reblogged
Avatar
makothedorito asked:

hey, are there any other fact-checking blogs out there just like you?/genq the more fact-checking blogs, the merrier!/pos

also props to you you are doing some extremely helpful and important work on here

Avatar
is-the-post-reliable answered:

hi! thank you! there were a few blogs made after I made mine (I encouraged anyone who was interested to make their own fact checking blog, and gave shout outs to these blogs at the time), but as far as I know all of these are now either deactivated/inactive sadly

if anyone else knows of other fact checking blogs on here, feel free to mention it in the comments!

Avatar
Avatar

Okay now I kind of want to start my own one, but I may need to brush up on my researching skills. Whats your process for finding sources, if you don't mind me asking?

Avatar

hi! I've written about this before here.

#not a fact check

Sponsored

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.