Conspiracy theories on social media have circulated for months regarding the mRNA technology used in the COVID-19 vaccines. Recent claims have emerged that state the vaccines don’t fit the medical definition of vaccines and haven’t passed safety tests. An expert in vaccines explained to VERIFY why those statements are wrong. 

THE QUESTION

Do existing COVID-19 vaccines fail to meet the medical definition of vaccines and can they alter DNA?

THE ANSWER

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services and a vaccinology expert confirm there is no single medical definition of a vaccine, but COVID-19 vaccines meet the generally accepted criteria that requires a vaccine to prevent disease by building immunity.

They cannot change your DNA.

WHY ARE WE VERIFYING

Claims online are spreading misinformation about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine stemming from confusion around how the vaccine utilizes mRNA to help you build immunity. People have falsely claimed for months that it can alter DNA and are now claiming it’s not even a vaccine.

RELATED: VERIFY: Rare instances of vaccinated people still getting COVID are expected

RELATED: VERIFY: Yes, all of the COVID-19-causing coronavirus in the world could fit in a soda can

RELATED: VERIFY: Wear two masks and know the tricks to a snug fit to stop COVID-19

WHAT WE FOUND

Many of these claims talk about “the medical definition of a vaccine,” but there isn’t just one single definition. The CDC and the HHS define vaccines as aids to prevent disease.

The CDC’s specific definition says vaccines are “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.”

The HHS says on its vaccines.gov website that a vaccine “is made from very small amounts of weak or dead germs that can cause diseases — for example, viruses, bacteria, or toxins. It prepares your body to fight the disease faster and more effectively so you won’t get sick.”

Dr. Daniel Salmon, who is trained in vaccinology and is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, explained that vaccines are preventive “and a preventative vaccine is something you give to your body that stimulates an immune response, so when you're exposed to the natural infection, your body will already be prepared to respond.”

“Certainly, the COVID vaccines fall into that category of being preventative vaccines,” he added.

He also dismissed the claims that the vaccines will alter a patient's DNA. “People think ‘oh my God, it's gonna change my DNA, or it's somehow altering my DNA,' and that's not the case at all. If you think about it, if you eat an apple, you've just eaten the DNA of an apple, that doesn't mean that it's going to change your DNA, it's certainly not going to turn you into an apple.”

He also made clear that these vaccines — like any other vaccine or new drug — go over several trials before their release to the general population. He said that by the time a vaccine reaches authorization, or emergency authorization in the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, the FDA and external experts have already looked over data from trials. They’ll continue that observation as more people receive the vaccines.

The technology behind the creation of the vaccine has been in development for a decade, he added. It’s not something that happened in the last year.

“I understand that new technologies can create a bit of apprehension, but the technology behind this vaccine has been worked on for over a decade,” he said. “It was created if a pandemic were to emerge, which is exactly where we are. This is the first vaccine using it.”

Something you’d like VERIFIED? Click here to submit your story.

WASHINGTON — With the results in from the 2020 Census, states across the country are re-drawing their maps, as they do every ten years. This process prompts the typical complaints about partisan gerrymandering. 

Our team Verifies whether explicitly partisan gerrymandering is allowed. The answer, which was solidified through a 2019 Supreme Court case, is yes.

QUESTION:

Is explicitly partisan gerrymandering, meant to help one party, allowed under the constitution? 

ANSWER: 

Yes. States have full control over the redistricting process, and the majority party is allowed to gerrymander in a partisan way. Lawmakers in some states have decided to create non-partisan commissions to do the redistricting process, but lawmakers in 33 states have left this power with the legislature. 

SOURCES: 

• Todd Belt, Professor and Director of the Political Management Master’s Program, The George Washington University
• Capri Cafaro, Professor at American University; Former Senate Minority Leader in Ohio 
• Nadia E. Brown, Professor of Government, Chair of the Women's And Gender Studies Program at The Georgetown University
• Brennan Center For Justice, "Gerrymandering Explained"
• "Rucho V. Common Cause", Supreme Court Case from 2019

WHAT WE KNOW: 

On social media, there are complaints about partisan gerrymandering, coming from both sides of the political aisle. 

Democrats have raised concerns over districts such as TX-02 in the Houston area, which stretches far to the northeast of Houston, while simultaneously picking up part of the city. 

Meanwhile, Republicans have lamented over districts in Democratic states such as Illinois and Maryland, which have bizarre shapes of their own. 

Gov. Larry Hogan took to Twitter to complain about the DOJ decision to sue Texas over their proposed Congressional map while looking the other way at blue states. 

To Verify what's allowed, and what's not, we reached out to a trio of political experts from top D.C. universities. 

Belt said that the term "gerrymandering" is named after Elbridge Gerry, a founding father, who served as vice president in the early 1800s. 

"He wanted to become a member of the House," said Belt. "And he was able to draw a district that the reporters very quickly noticed looked a little bit like a salamander. So they called it a Gerry-Mander.”

Since then, the process has been replicated many times by both parties. 

"Both Democrats and Republicans do this," said Nadia E. Brown. "And who really hurts is our American voters. Not political parties."

Capri Cafaro, who saw the redistricting process firsthand, while serving as Ohio's Sen. Minority leader a decade ago, agreed that both parties are guilty. 

"Whether you're in deep-blue Illinois," she said. "Or a red state like Texas - you know - all parties in all states at some point over time have utilized partisan gerrymandering." 

In 2019, the Supreme Court weighed in on this issue with their ruling in Rucho V. Common Cause. According to the Brennan Center For Justice, this ruling found that "gerrymandering for party advantage cannot be challenged in federal court." 

This ruling leaves the process entirely in the hands of the states, which have very different approaches to re-districting. The vast majority, 33 states, leave the redistricting process in the hands of the state legislature, which opens the door for major partisan gerrymandering. 

"Whatever party controls the state legislature," said Cafaro. "Is usually the party in charge of drawing and subsequently passing the new map." 

However, some states have created non-partisan commissions, which attempt to redraw the lines in a less-partisan manner. This is not done in the majority of states. 

The Voting Rights Act still protects against gerrymandering that is explicitly meant to discriminate against certain races, although this can be hard to prove. 

"We know that a lot of the geographical areas that are heavily minority tend to be Democratic," said Belt. "And so it will be difficult to try and prove that this was done to disenfranchise racial minorities because they happen to be Democrats. Republicans can just say 'Oh, we were just doing it for partisan advantage,' and the Supreme Court has said this is okay."