CheckMate is a weekly RMIT FactLab newsletter that summarizes the latest developments in the world of fact-checking and misinformation, based on the work of FactLab and its sister organization, RMIT ABC Fact Check.
You can read the latest edition below and subscribe to receive the next newsletter directly in your inbox.
CheckMate June 10, 2022
Good morning,
This week, CheckMate addresses the false claim of a One Nation senator that Australia is still at risk of its health measures being dictated by foreign entities.
We also investigate whether last month’s election saw the Liberal Party get its lowest female vote in history, and we clarified the record in a fake news report.
Malcolm Roberts’ WHO statement is not clear to experts
WHO is in charge here ?: Senator Malcolm Roberts said a change in rules at the World Health Organization could have seen blockades and compulsory vaccination “oblige all Australians”. (Provided by: Twitter)
One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts has continued to push the baseless claim that Australia was (and still could be) at risk of being forced to take restrictive health measures by the World Health Organization (WHO).
“The WHO has silently withdrawn amendments to the International Health Regulations that would have decimated sovereignty,” a recent tweet said.
“They will come back to try otherwise, we will continue to watch and defend against foreign incursions into our way of life.”
The tweet also linked to an article in which Senator Roberts claimed that the changes could have seen the blockades and compulsory vaccination “compulsory for all Australians”.
So what are you talking about?
The United States recently proposed a series of amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), which provide the legal framework covering the rights and obligations of states to manage public health events with potential for international spread.
These current and legally binding rules require signatories to maintain their ability to detect and respond to emerging threats, and to report them to the WHO.
They also set out the criteria for declaring a “public health emergency of international interest”, during which the WHO may develop and recommend health measures.
The US amendments were on the agenda of last month’s meeting of the World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of the WHO, and sparked a wave of misinformation about the organization’s capacity. to intervene in the affairs of the states.
However, regulations cannot dictate national health policy.
This is because, as AAP Fact Check and FactCheck.org have explained, WHO can only make recommendations and has no powers to enforce these or the rules, and the proposed amendments would not change that.
In an email to the Associated Press’s fact-checkers, one expert labeled the suggestions as “completely false,” noting that the changes would require countries to report outbreaks of infectious diseases quickly and accurately. “and would allow the WHO to” offer assistance. “
Meanwhile, a U.S. government spokesman told FactCheck.org that the changes “would strengthen WHO’s ability to use publicly available information” to assess potential threats, “inform all nations of the threat in a timely manner.” and provide recommendations, not mandates, on how to respond safely and effectively. “
Sara Davies, a professor of international relations at Griffith University, told CheckMate that the amendments “never addressed blockages or vaccine warrants” and that because national law had to comply with regulations, “there were no no risk to sovereignty “.
Similar claims about sovereignty have circulated – and have been denied – regarding a separate WHO process to develop a pandemic treaty in 2024.
As for whether the U.S. proposal was “silenced,” there is little evidence to support it, and recent summit delegates agreed that a dedicated working group would now “work exclusively” on updating health regulations before presenting “a package of specific amendments.” “in the assembly in 2024.
Professor Davies said the assembly had “adopted a resolution setting out a process and timetable” for changing the rules, and that the amendments tabled by the US would be considered along with those from other states, which should be tabled. before September 2022.
And while the May summit considered and adopted only one of the U.S. amendments, it was important: halve the time for future changes to take effect, from 24 to 12 months.
Reuters previously reported that the amendment “was seen as a first step in a broader process of reforming the CSR,” while Professor Davies said the change “put the ball in the way when additional amendments are discussed by the group.” work “, and that could be seen. as a strategic US move.
Be liberal with the facts about the female vote
Man of the House: Scott Morrison’s Liberals may have returned the worst party count with female voters in the May election. (ABC News: Nick Haggarty)
As the dust settles in the federal election, Twitter users have suggested that a historically low number of women voted for former Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the Liberal Party.
“Morrison won the lowest percentage of female votes in Liberal Party history,” one user suggested, citing a blog post in which former Labor politician Barry Jones made an identical statement.
But is that so?
Of course, only voters in Mr. Cook’s electorate. Morrison had a chance to vote for him directly. However, the blog post and subsequent tweets refer more broadly to the number of first-class votes cast by women for Liberal lower house candidates.
Due to the nature of anonymous voting in Australia, we cannot know for sure how women voted in 2022 or any other election.
Experts, however, pointed to the low general vote counts for the Coalition, of which the Liberal Party is only a partner, in 2022 as an indication that support could have fallen to historic lows among all voters, including women.
Political analyst Murray Goot, a professor emeritus at Macquarie University, told CheckMate in an email: “Since support for the Coalition in 2022 was … lower than in any other post-war election, it is likely “Support for the Coalition between both men and men. Women were lower in 2022 than in any other post-war election.”
ABC resident election expert Antony Green agreed.
“If the Coalition had a low voting record, there is a high probability that it will be a low female voting record,” she told CheckMate.
In fact, an analysis of election data dating back to the early Liberal Party in 1944 shows that the proportion of first-preference votes for any of the coalition members was lower in 2022 than in any election since 1946.
Experts suggested that the Australian Electoral Survey, conducted by the Australian National University since 1987, could be used to assess patterns of voting behavior by gender, although the 2022 study has not yet been completed. ‘had published.
That said, the study completed after Morrison’s victory in the 2019 election found that while 45% of men cast their first preference vote in the Liberal Party, only 35% of women did so. same.
“These results show a growing gender gap with men becoming more likely than women to vote for the Liberal Party,” the 2019 study concluded.
“The relationship has reversed over time; in the 1990s, women were a little more likely to vote liberal than men.”
Pre-election polls also provide data on party support by gender, but as Australia’s chief election study researcher Sarah Cameron explained, they may not reflect people’s actual votes.
Dr Cameron, a professor of political science at the University of Sydney, told CheckMate: “Asking people about their voting intentions before the election will not capture everything because a lot of people are still deciding.”
CoronaCheck: No, a Canadian news outlet did not say that the Pfizer jab had “a 12 percent efficiency rate.”
Social media posts have talked about the effectiveness of Pfizer vaccines and talked about the company’s alleged plan to eliminate half of the planet. (AP: Francisco Seco)
Several fact-checkers have dismissed claims by a Canadian news outlet in a headline suggesting that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine had “a 12 per cent efficacy rate”.
Screenshots circulating widely on Facebook and Twitter appear to attribute the headline to Global News, but Reuters fact-checkers found that the image was digitally altered.
A spokesman for Global News told Reuters that the network could “confirm that the headline and subtitle in question were never posted on our site,” while an advanced search on Google by fact-checkers did not reveal any statement published by any media.
As for the source of the 12 percent effectiveness figure, CheckYourFact reported that the claim appeared to have originated from a post on the Substack website of “investigative journalist” Sonia Elijah on April 3, 2022, speaking at a U.S. Food and Drug Administration briefing. document on the Pfizer vaccine dated December 2020.
According to Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, an epidemiologist at Wollongong University, this publication miscalculated the vaccine’s effectiveness rate using a number of “suspected but unconfirmed” cases rather than “confirmed” cases.
In addition, AFP fact-checkers noted that the author of Substack writes for Trial Site News, a website that has promoted untested COVID-19 treatments.
Meanwhile, a statement that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla had said the company’s “dream” was to “reduce the number of people in the world by 50 percent” by 2023, Politifact’s fact-checkers they found that it was based on manipulated media.
The appointment stemmed from a filmed conversation between Bourla and the executive director of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, at the annual forum meeting in Davos, but the fact-checkers found that the keywords were edited from his conversation before posting to BitChute.
In fact, Dr. Bourla said he wanted to “reduce the number of people to …