#FactCheck: IIT Baba Abhay Singh Is Alive; False Death Claim Debunked by Hisar Police
Executive Summary
A social media post is being shared claiming that the body of IIT Baba Abhay Singh has been found in Hisar. The viral post also features a photograph of Abhay Singh, popularly known as IIT Baba. The caption accompanying the post reads, “The body of #IITian Baba was found in a bedroom in Hisar, along with a methane gas cylinder and a pipe in his mouth; suicide is suspected… Further details will emerge as the investigation progresses.”
CyberPeace Research found that the claim about IIT Baba Abhay Singh’s death is false.
Claim:
Social media users are claiming that ‘IITian Baba’, who came into the limelight during the Prayagraj Maha Kumbh, died by suicide in Hisar. The post alleges that his body was found in a room at a house in the PLA area of Hisar, with preliminary information suggesting that the police suspect suicide.
https://x.com/rajivojha9/status/2110238805177585752
https://archive.ph/submit/?url
Fact Check
To verify the claim that IIT Baba Abhay Singh’s body was found in Hisar, we first conducted a Google search using relevant keywords. However, we did not find any credible media reports confirming his death. During the search, we came across a report published on the Dainik Bhaskar website on October 15, 2026, which stated that Abhay Singh, popularly known as IIT Baba, is alive and currently in Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, with his wife.
According to the Dainik Bhaskar report, IIT Baba Abhay Singh denied the rumours of his death during a conversation. The report also stated that he had spoken to his family members amid the circulation of these rumours.
During our research, we found a video posted on the official X account of news agency IANS on October 14, 2026. In the video, Hisar Police social media in-charge Amarinder Singh clarified while speaking to the media that the claim circulating on social media about IIT Baba Abhay Singh’s death was
false.He explained that three days earlier, the body of a local resident named Rahul Jain had been found at his residence in the PLA area of Hisar, following which rumours about IIT Baba Abhay Singh’s death began circulating on social media. Amarinder Singh also appealed to people not to share misleading information.
https://x.com/ians_india/status/2110293986904768641?s=20
Conclusion
The evidence gathered during our research confirms that the claim that IIT Baba Abhay Singh’s body was found in Hisar is false. Hisar Police also refuted the claim after reports of his death went viral on social media.
Related Blogs
Introduction
In an era when misinformation spreads like wildfire across the digital landscape, the need for effective strategies to counteract these challenges has grown exponentially in a very short period. Prebunking and Debunking are two approaches for countering the growing spread of misinformation online. Prebunking empowers individuals by teaching them to discern between true and false information and acts as a protective layer that comes into play even before people encounter malicious content. Debunking is the correction of false or misleading claims after exposure, aiming to undo or reverse the effects of a particular piece of misinformation. Debunking includes methods such as fact-checking, algorithmic correction on a platform, social correction by an individual or group of online peers, or fact-checking reports by expert organisations or journalists. An integrated approach which involves both strategies can be effective in countering the rapid spread of misinformation online.
Brief Analysis of Prebunking
Prebunking is a proactive practice that seeks to rebut erroneous information before it spreads. The goal is to train people to critically analyse information and develop ‘cognitive immunity’ so that they are less likely to be misled when they do encounter misinformation.
The Prebunking approach, grounded in Inoculation theory, teaches people to recognise, analyse and avoid manipulation and misleading content so that they build resilience against the same. Inoculation theory, a social psychology framework, suggests that pre-emptively conferring psychological resistance against malicious persuasion attempts can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. As the term suggests, the MO is to help the mind in the present develop resistance to influence that it may encounter in the future. Just as medical vaccines or inoculations help the body build resistance to future infections by administering weakened doses of the harm agent, inoculation theory seeks to teach people fact from fiction through exposure to examples of weak, dichotomous arguments, manipulation tactics like emotionally charged language, case studies that draw parallels between truths and distortions, and so on. In showing people the difference, inoculation theory teaches them to be on the lookout for misinformation and manipulation even, or especially, when they least expect it.
The core difference between Prebunking and Debunking is that while the former is preventative and seeks to provide a broad-spectrum cover against misinformation, the latter is reactive and focuses on specific instances of misinformation. While Debunking is closely tied to fact-checking, Prebunking is tied to a wider range of specific interventions, some of which increase motivation to be vigilant against misinformation and others increase the ability to engage in vigilance with success.
There is much to be said in favour of the Prebunking approach because these interventions build the capacity to identify misinformation and recognise red flags However, their success in practice may vary. It might be difficult to scale up Prebunking efforts and ensure their reach to a larger audience. Sustainability is critical in ensuring that Prebunking measures maintain their impact over time. Continuous reinforcement and reminders may be required to ensure that individuals retain the skills and information they gained from the Prebunking training activities. Misinformation tactics and strategies are always evolving, so it is critical that Prebunking interventions are also flexible and agile and respond promptly to developing challenges. This may be easier said than done, but with new misinformation and cyber threats developing frequently, it is a challenge that has to be addressed for Prebunking to be a successful long-term solution.
Encouraging people to be actively cautious while interacting with information, acquire critical thinking abilities, and reject the effect of misinformation requires a significant behavioural change over a relatively short period of time. Overcoming ingrained habits and prejudices, and countering a natural reluctance to change is no mean feat. Developing a widespread culture of information literacy requires years of social conditioning and unlearning and may pose a significant challenge to the effectiveness of Prebunking interventions.
Brief Analysis of Debunking
Debunking is a technique for identifying and informing people that certain news items or information are incorrect or misleading. It seeks to lessen the impact of misinformation that has already spread. The most popular kind of Debunking occurs through collaboration between fact-checking organisations and social media businesses. Journalists or other fact-checkers discover inaccurate or misleading material, and social media platforms flag or label it. Debunking is an important strategy for curtailing the spread of misinformation and promoting accuracy in the digital information ecosystem.
Debunking interventions are crucial in combating misinformation. However, there are certain challenges associated with the same. Debunking misinformation entails critically verifying facts and promoting corrected information. However, this is difficult owing to the rising complexity of modern tools used to generate narratives that combine truth and untruth, views and facts. These advanced approaches, which include emotional spectrum elements, deepfakes, audiovisual material, and pervasive trolling, necessitate a sophisticated reaction at all levels: technological, organisational, and cultural.
Furthermore, It is impossible to debunk all misinformation at any given time, which effectively means that it is impossible to protect everyone at all times, which means that at least some innocent netizens will fall victim to manipulation despite our best efforts. Debunking is inherently reactive in nature, addressing misinformation after it has grown extensively. This reactionary method may be less successful than proactive strategies such as Prebunking from the perspective of total harm done. Misinformation producers operate swiftly and unexpectedly, making it difficult for fact-checkers to keep up with the rapid dissemination of erroneous or misleading information. Debunking may need continuous exposure to fact-check to prevent erroneous beliefs from forming, implying that a single Debunking may not be enough to rectify misinformation. Debunking requires time and resources, and it is not possible to disprove every piece of misinformation that circulates at any particular moment. This constraint may cause certain misinformation to go unchecked, perhaps leading to unexpected effects. The misinformation on social media can be quickly spread and may become viral faster than Debunking pieces or articles. This leads to a situation in which misinformation spreads like a virus, while the antidote to debunked facts struggles to catch up.
Prebunking vs Debunking: Comparative Analysis
Prebunking interventions seek to educate people to recognise and reject misinformation before they are exposed to actual manipulation. Prebunking offers tactics for critical examination, lessening the individuals' susceptibility to misinformation in a variety of contexts. On the other hand, Debunking interventions involve correcting specific false claims after they have been circulated. While Debunking can address individual instances of misinformation, its impact on reducing overall reliance on misinformation may be limited by the reactive nature of the approach.
.png)
CyberPeace Policy Recommendations for Tech/Social Media Platforms
With the rising threat of online misinformation, tech/social media platforms can adopt an integrated strategy that includes both Prebunking and Debunking initiatives to be deployed and supported on all platforms to empower users to recognise the manipulative messaging through Prebunking and be aware of the accuracy of misinformation through Debunking interventions.
- Gamified Inoculation: Tech/social media companies can encourage gamified inoculation campaigns, which is a competence-oriented approach to Prebunking misinformation. This can be effective in helping people immunise the receiver against subsequent exposures. It can empower people to build competencies to detect misinformation through gamified interventions.
- Promotion of Prebunking and Debunking Campaigns through Algorithm Mechanisms: Tech/social media platforms may promote and guarantee that algorithms prioritise the distribution of Prebunking materials to users, boosting educational content that strengthens resistance to misinformation. Platform operators should incorporate algorithms that prioritise the visibility of Debunking content in order to combat the spread of erroneous information and deliver proper corrections; this can eventually address and aid in Prebunking and Debunking methods to reach a bigger or targeted audience.
- User Empowerment to Counter Misinformation: Tech/social media platforms can design user-friendly interfaces that allow people to access Prebunking materials, quizzes, and instructional information to help them improve their critical thinking abilities. Furthermore, they can incorporate simple reporting tools for flagging misinformation, as well as links to fact-checking resources and corrections.
- Partnership with Fact-Checking/Expert Organizations: Tech/social media platforms can facilitate Prebunking and Debunking initiatives/campaigns by collaborating with fact-checking/expert organisations and promoting such initiatives at a larger scale and ultimately fighting misinformation with joint hands initiatives.
Conclusion
The threat of online misinformation is only growing with every passing day and so, deploying effective countermeasures is essential. Prebunking and Debunking are the two such interventions. To sum up: Prebunking interventions try to increase resilience to misinformation, proactively lowering susceptibility to erroneous or misleading information and addressing broader patterns of misinformation consumption, while Debunking is effective in correcting a particular piece of misinformation and having a targeted impact on belief in individual false claims. An integrated approach involving both the methods and joint initiatives by tech/social media platforms and expert organizations can ultimately help in fighting the rising tide of online misinformation and establishing a resilient online information landscape.
References
- https://mark-hurlstone.github.io/THKE.22.BJP.pdf
- https://futurefreespeech.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Empowering-Audiences-Through-%E2%80%98Prebunking-Michael-Bang-Petersen-Background-Report_formatted.pdf
- https://newsreel.pte.hu/news/unprecedented_challenges_Debunking_disinformation
- https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/global-vaccination-badnews/
Executive Summary
After reports identifying Cole Thomas Allen as the accused in the shooting incident at the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) dinner, several Pakistani propaganda-linked social media accounts began circulating a new claim alleging that the suspect’s wife is an Indian woman named Priyanka Rao. Users shared a photo purportedly showing Cole Thomas Allen with Priyanka Rao, along with an alleged Indian passport in her name. One user posted the image with the caption: “31-year-old Cole Thomas Allen with his Indian wife Priyanka Rao. Why do they always have three names?”
However, research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be fake. The viral passport and accompanying image appear to be AI-generated.
Claim:
Social media users claimed that Cole Thomas Allen, accused in the WHCA dinner shooting, is married to an Indian woman named Priyanka Rao.
Fact Check:
During the research, multiple inconsistencies were found in the viral passport image, strongly indicating it is fabricated. A close review of the document revealed several obvious errors commonly seen in AI-generated content. For instance, in the “Nationality” field, the name “Cole Thomas Allen” was written instead of a country name. Such a basic mistake would not appear in any genuine government-issued passport.
The Hindi text on the document was also highly inaccurate and unnatural. Examples included:
- “राष्ट्रीयता” misspelled as “राष्ट्रीयाय”
- “जन्मतिथि” replaced with meaningless text
- “जन्म स्थान” incorrectly written
- “Issue” mistranslated as unrelated wording
- “Date of Expiry” left untranslated in Hindi format
Further analysis using an AI detection tool indicated that the viral passport image had a 69 percent probability of being AI-generated.
Conclusion:
The claim that WHCA dinner shooting accused Cole Thomas Allen has an Indian wife named Priyanka Rao is fake. The viral passport and image being shared online are likely AI-generated and part of a misinformation campaign.
Executive Summary
A post is going viral across various social media platforms claiming that the World Health Organization (WHO) has issued a warning over the issue of adulteration in food products. According to the claim, WHO has warned that milk adulteration is continuously increasing in India and if it continues, 87 percent of Indians will suffer from cancer by 2035. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found that the viral claim has been circulating on social media for several years. Earlier, the same claim was shared with the year changed to 2025, stating that 87 percent of Indians would suffer from cancer by that year. Now, the year has been changed from 2025 to 2035 and the claim is being circulated again. WHO has repeatedly denied this claim and termed it fake news.
Claim:
A Facebook user named ‘Vikalp Kuchamancity’ shared the viral post on August 3, 2026, with a caption claiming, “India produces 14 crore litres of milk, but consumption is 64 crore litres. Where does this extra milk come from? WHO has warned that if adulteration is not stopped, 87 percent of Indians may suffer from cancer by 2035.”
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=968660469565357&set=a.109816988783047
Fact Check:
While examining the viral post, we noticed that the report displayed in the image carries the date September 19, 2035, even though the current year is 2026. This raised initial doubts about the authenticity of the claim.To investigate further, we conducted a Google search using relevant keywords. During the search, we found a post from the official Facebook page of WHO India, shared on August 3, 2026. The post denied the viral claim and stated that it is false that WHO issued any advisory to the Indian government warning that adulteration in milk and dairy products could lead to cancer and other diseases among 87 percent of Indians by 2035. WHO clarified that no such advisory has been issued.
WHO India Facebook link:
According to data mentioned in a press release issued by the Government of India on November 26, 2025, the country’s total milk production was estimated at 247.87 million tonnes in 2024-25, compared to 239.30 million tonnes in 2023-24. The per capita availability of milk increased from 319 grams per day in 2014-15 to 485 grams per day in 2024-25. The top five milk-producing states are Uttar Pradesh (15.66%), Rajasthan (14.82%), Madhya Pradesh (9.12%), Gujarat (7.78%), and Maharashtra (6.71%). Together, these states contribute 54.09% of India’s total milk production.
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2195049®=3&lang=2
Conclusion:
The research confirmed that there is no evidence of any WHO warning stating that 87 percent of Indians could develop cancer by 2035 due to milk adulteration. WHO has clarified that it has not issued any such advisory. The viral claim is a recycled false claim that has been repeatedly circulated with changed dates.
