In the ever-evolving landscape of media discourse, few figures strike a balance between intellectual rigor and audacity quite like Dave Collum. As a professor of organic chemistry at Cornell University, his insights often traverse beyond the boundaries of academia, delving into societal and political issues that challenge the status quo. In a recent YouTube conversation with Tucker Carlson, Collum explored an array of provocative topics, from alleged financial crises and celebrity controversies to the enigmatic forces of the Deep State and digital manipulation. However, amid the fervent discussions, it’s crucial to sift through hyperbole and misinformation to uncover the truth. In this blog post, we’ll dissect the claims made during their dialogue, providing a factual analysis and context to some of the most contentious statements. Join us as we navigate the intersection of academia, media, and conspiracy in an era defined by polarized perspectives.

Find the according transcript on TRNSCRBR

All information as of 08/21/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

Harvard was getting 9 billion from the feds for research at various times.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

Harvard University has not been receiving $9 billion from the federal government for research at any single point in recent years. Instead, federal research funding to Harvard has been around **$674 million to $686 million annually** in recent fiscal years, with total research funding (including federal, foundation, and industry sources) reaching about **$1 billion per year**[1][2][5].

Key points from the search results:

– In fiscal year 2024, Harvard received approximately **$686 million in federal research funding**, which constituted about 11% of its overall operating budget. Most of this funding came from the Department of Health and Human Services, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH)[1].

– Harvard’s total research funding, combining federal, foundation, and industry sources, was about **$1 billion in 2024**, with roughly half of the budget at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health coming from federal sources[5].

– The Trump administration froze or cut approximately **$2 billion in federal funding** to Harvard over several years, which was a significant portion of its research budget, but this figure represents cumulative frozen funds, not annual funding received[2].

– Other universities have also faced large freezes or cuts in federal research funding, but Harvard’s annual federal funding has remained under $700 million, not in the billions annually[4].

Therefore, the claim that Harvard was getting $9 billion from the federal government for research at various times is **not supported by available data**. The actual federal research funding to Harvard is in the hundreds of millions per year, with total research funding around $1 billion annually. The $9 billion figure may be a misunderstanding or exaggeration of cumulative or combined funding over many years or across multiple institutions, but it does not reflect Harvard’s annual federal research funding.

Citations

Claim

The cost of education is too high to justify pursuing low-paying careers.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **the cost of education is too high to justify pursuing low-paying careers** reflects a valid economic concern, especially given rising tuition costs and the financial outcomes of many graduates. This issue is complex and involves weighing the economic burden of education against potential earnings in various fields.

The context you provided centers on a tenured organic chemistry professor at Cornell University, David Collum, who has expressed critical views on higher education, economic conditions, and social issues. Collum has voiced concerns about the rising costs of education, the impact of federal funding and diversity initiatives on academic rigor, and the economic challenges facing future generations. He also predicts economic downturns linked to inflated asset prices and warns of social unrest due to financial instability. His perspective emphasizes the importance of historical awareness and critical thinking in evaluating these issues[4][1].

Regarding the economic burden of education:

– **Tuition costs have risen significantly over recent decades**, often outpacing inflation and wage growth, which increases the debt burden on students[4]. This makes the return on investment for low-paying careers questionable for many.

– **Low-paying careers, including many in academia, the arts, social services, and some scientific research roles, often do not provide sufficient income to easily repay student loans or justify high tuition costs**. This economic mismatch is a growing concern for students and policymakers.

– However, **the value of education is not solely financial**; it includes personal development, societal contributions, and non-monetary benefits. Still, from a purely economic standpoint, the cost-benefit analysis can discourage pursuing low-paying careers after expensive education.

– Collum’s critique of the higher education system’s focus on social agendas over merit and economic realities suggests that universities may not be adequately preparing students for the financial challenges they face post-graduation[4].

In summary, the claim has merit when considering current data on tuition and job earnings, especially for low-paying careers. The economic burden of education can outweigh the financial benefits for many, a concern echoed by the Cornell professor’s commentary on educational costs, economic instability, and the need for critical evaluation of these trends[4][1].

Citations

Claim

Cornell is locked down for over a billion of research funds.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Cornell University is locked down for over a billion dollars of research funds is substantially accurate in the context of federal funding freezes. Multiple credible sources report that over $1 billion in federal research funding for Cornell has been frozen or subjected to stop-work orders, primarily by the Department of Defense and other federal agencies, amid investigations and political actions related to compliance and civil rights issues[1][2][3][4].

Key details include:

– Cornell University has received more than 75 stop-work orders from the Department of Defense alone, affecting research critical to national defense, cybersecurity, health, and other areas[1][2][3].
– The total frozen federal funding is reported to exceed $1 billion, although Cornell officials have stated they have not received official confirmation of the exact figure but acknowledge the significant impact and uncertainty caused by these freezes[1][2][3].
– The freezes are part of broader federal government actions targeting several Ivy League and other universities, linked to investigations by the U.S. Department of Education concerning alleged civil rights violations and compliance with federal policies[2][3].
– The funding freeze has disrupted ongoing research projects and affected faculty and doctoral students, creating uncertainty about the continuation of critical research[1].
– The Cornell Student Assembly and university leadership have responded by seeking transparency and support from state legislators to mitigate the impact of these funding cuts[4].

There is no indication that the university itself has voluntarily locked down or restricted access to these funds; rather, the freeze is imposed externally by federal agencies. The freeze affects grants and contracts primarily from federal departments such as Defense, Agriculture, Education, and Health and Human Services[2][4].

In summary, Cornell is currently unable to access or utilize over $1 billion in federal research funding due to government-imposed freezes and stop-work orders, which aligns with the claim's core assertion. This situation is ongoing and has significant implications for the university's research activities and broader academic environment[1][2][3][4].

Citations

Claim

The CPI is considered crap and underestimated by 4%.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is "crap" and underestimates inflation by 4% is an overstatement and not supported by authoritative economic research. While there are valid critiques and calls for modernization of the CPI methodology, the CPI remains a robust and defensible measure of inflation according to recent expert evaluations.

Specifically, a 2025 paper from the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine acknowledges critiques that the CPI may lag in capturing rapid changes in consumer spending patterns and housing costs. However, it concludes that the basic CPI methodology is sound and provides a reliable gauge of inflation, though updates and continued investment in measurement techniques are necessary to keep pace with evolving markets[1].

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which produces the CPI, also emphasizes that the CPI is a statistical estimate subject to sampling error but provides confidence intervals showing the precision of monthly and annual inflation estimates. The BLS regularly updates data sources and methodologies to improve accuracy, such as recent changes in wireless telephone service price measurement[2][3].

No credible source or official analysis supports a systematic 4% underestimation of inflation by the CPI. Such a large bias would be widely recognized and addressed by economists and statistical agencies. Instead, the CPI is considered a reliable, though imperfect, indicator that requires periodic methodological improvements to reflect changing consumption patterns and product markets.

In summary, while the CPI has limitations and is subject to ongoing refinement, it is not "crap" nor is there evidence it underestimates inflation by as much as 4% in a systematic way. The claim likely reflects frustration with inflation measurement complexities rather than established economic consensus[1][2][3].

Citations

Claim

The boomer demographic was going to generate a bubble due to demographics.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the Baby Boomer demographic was going to generate a bubble due to demographics—particularly in housing and financial markets—has been a widely discussed concern, but evidence and expert analysis suggest a more nuanced reality rather than a straightforward bubble burst.

**Context on the Boomer Demographic and Market Impact:**

– The Baby Boomer generation (born 1946–1964) holds a massive share of U.S. homeownership—about 32 million owner-occupied homes, worth roughly $13.5 trillion, nearly three-quarters of the nation’s annual economic output in housing value[1]. As Boomers age into their 70s and beyond, many are expected to leave homeownership through downsizing, moving to rentals or senior care, or passing away, which could lead to a large supply of homes entering the market.

– This potential "exodus" has raised fears of a "generational housing bubble" bursting if younger generations (Gen X, Millennials) cannot absorb the supply due to smaller population size or lower purchasing power[1][5]. However, experts note that this transition is gradual and ongoing, not a sudden flood, which may mitigate sharp price collapses[5].

– On the stock market and broader capital markets, concerns have been voiced that Boomers cashing out investments to fund retirement could depress asset prices. The IMF and others have theorized that as Boomers age, their risk tolerance declines, leading to selling stocks and bonds, which could negatively affect markets[2]. Yet, recent data show that Boomers have not yet caused a significant market downturn by selling off assets, and younger investors have absorbed much of the supply[2][4].

– Spending patterns also complicate the bubble narrative. Contrary to expectations that Boomers would sharply reduce spending upon retirement, reports indicate they have maintained or even increased spending in recent years, while younger generations have faced economic challenges limiting their spending power[3]. This dynamic affects economic growth and asset demand.

**Relation to the Professor’s Commentary:**

The tenured Cornell professor’s reflections on economic downturns, inflated asset prices, and social unrest align with these demographic and economic trends. His prediction of an impending economic downturn driven by inflated asset prices corresponds with concerns about the Boomer generation’s impact on markets and housing. His emphasis on historical awareness and critical thinking is relevant given the complexity and evolving nature of these demographic-economic interactions.

**Summary:**

– The Baby Boomer demographic has created significant market dynamics due to their large asset holdings and aging population.
– While fears of a "bubble" bursting due to Boomers exiting markets exist, evidence suggests the process is gradual, with mitigating factors such as continued Boomer spending and younger generations absorbing assets.
– The housing market faces potential pressure from Boomer downsizing and passing, but a sudden crash is considered unlikely by many experts.
– The professor’s concerns about economic instability and social consequences reflect these demographic-economic realities but should be understood as part of a complex, evolving situation rather than a simple bubble scenario.

Thus, the claim that Boomers were going to generate a bubble due to demographics is partially valid as a concern but is not conclusively supported as an imminent or inevitable bubble burst. The situation is more complex, with ongoing demographic shifts influencing markets over time rather than causing a sudden collapse[1][2][3][5].

Citations

Claim

If you look at the quantity of money I have to spend to commit 5%, it seems huge, but it's only 5%.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim "If you look at the quantity of money I have to spend to commit 5%, it seems huge, but it's only 5%" reflects a psychological perspective on investing a significant amount of wealth by emphasizing the relative proportion rather than the absolute amount. This mindset highlights how people may perceive large absolute sums as daunting, but when framed as a small percentage of total wealth, the investment feels more manageable and rational.

Regarding the additional context about a tenured organic chemistry professor at Cornell University who comments on societal and economic issues, the search results do not directly mention this specific claim or the professor's personal reflections on investing or economic predictions. However, the information does confirm that Cornell faculty, including those in chemistry, engage in broader societal discussions and face challenges related to free speech and academic freedom on campus[1][3]. The professor’s concerns about economic downturns, social unrest, and critiques of higher education’s social agendas align with broader debates on campus free expression and institutional priorities[1][2].

No direct source in the search results confirms the exact quote or detailed personal anecdotes about the professor’s investment philosophy or past predictions about banking collapse. The claim about the psychological perspective on investing is consistent with common behavioral finance principles, where framing an investment as a percentage of total wealth can reduce perceived risk and emotional resistance.

In summary:

– The claim about the perception of investing 5% of wealth is a recognized psychological framing effect in investing.
– The referenced Cornell professor’s broader societal and economic commentary fits within known debates about free speech and academic freedom at Cornell but is not explicitly documented in the search results.
– The search results provide background on Cornell’s academic environment, faculty profiles, and free speech issues but do not verify the specific investment quote or detailed personal history.

If you need verification of the professor’s identity or direct quotes, further targeted sources or direct statements from the professor would be required.

Citations

Claim

Apple's tenfold gain on a growth in revenues of 50% indicates a problematic market valuation.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **Apple's tenfold gain in market valuation on a 50% revenue growth indicates a problematic market valuation** reflects a recognized disconnect between revenue growth and market capitalization in tech stocks, including Apple.

As of August 2025, Apple’s market capitalization is approximately **$3.4 trillion**, while its annual revenue is about **$391 billion**. This implies a price-to-sales (P/S) ratio of roughly **8.7** (3,400B / 391B), which is high compared to many traditional companies but not unusual for a tech giant with strong brand, ecosystem, and growth prospects[2][3]. A 50% revenue growth leading to a tenfold increase in market cap suggests that investors are pricing in significant future growth, profitability, and intangible assets such as brand loyalty, services, and ecosystem lock-in, rather than just current sales.

However, this **disconnection between revenue growth and market valuation** can be seen as problematic or speculative by some analysts because:

– Market cap growth far outpaces revenue growth, implying expectations of sustained high profitability, innovation, or market dominance that may not materialize.
– It reflects broader tech sector trends where valuations are driven more by future potential and investor sentiment than by current fundamentals.
– Such valuation gaps can signal vulnerability to market corrections if growth slows or expectations are not met.

This aligns with the broader economic commentary from the tenured Cornell professor, who critiques inflated asset prices and warns of an impending economic downturn driven by such disconnections between fundamentals and market valuations. The professor’s perspective highlights concerns about financial instability and social unrest stemming from overvalued markets and economic imbalances.

In summary, while Apple’s market valuation relative to its revenue growth is high and indicative of a disconnect common in tech stocks, whether it is "problematic" depends on future performance and market conditions. The professor’s broader economic concerns about inflated asset prices and potential downturns provide context for why such valuation disparities may be viewed skeptically[2][3].

Citations

Claim

There is evidence to suggest the police brutality incident involving an old man was faked for monetary gain through GoFundMe.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Police Brutality Incident Faked for Monetary Gain

The claim that the police brutality incident involving an elderly man was faked for monetary gain through GoFundMe lacks substantial evidence from reliable sources. The incident in question likely refers to the 2020 event in Buffalo, New York, where a 75-year-old man was pushed to the ground by police officers, resulting in a serious head injury. This incident was widely reported and condemned by officials, including New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who described it as "wholly unjustified and utterly disgraceful" [1].

### Evidence and Investigations

1. **Official Investigations and Reactions**: The Buffalo Police Department suspended the officers involved, and they were later charged with second-degree assault. This indicates that the incident was taken seriously by law enforcement and judicial authorities, contradicting the notion that it was staged [1].

2. **Media Coverage**: The incident was extensively covered by media outlets, and there is no credible reporting suggesting that the event was fabricated for financial gain. The widespread condemnation and legal actions against the officers involved further support the authenticity of the incident.

3. **GoFundMe Campaigns**: While GoFundMe campaigns can be used for various purposes, including supporting victims of police brutality, there is no evidence to suggest that this specific incident was fabricated for financial gain. GoFundMe campaigns are typically subject to verification processes, and any claims of fraud would likely be investigated by the platform and relevant authorities.

### Conclusion

Based on the available information and the lack of credible evidence supporting the claim, it appears that the assertion about the police brutality incident being faked for monetary gain is unfounded. The incident was thoroughly investigated, condemned by officials, and resulted in legal consequences for the officers involved, which contradicts the claim of fabrication for financial gain.

### Additional Context

The discussion around this incident and similar claims often highlights the importance of verifying information through reputable sources and official investigations. It also underscores the challenges of navigating complex societal issues, such as police brutality and financial instability, which require careful analysis and evidence-based reasoning.

Citations

Claim

The Pfizer COVID vaccine correlated with increased deaths according to my research and discussions with other medical professionals.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine correlates with increased deaths is not supported by clinical trial data and peer-reviewed studies. Multiple large-scale analyses and official health data show that COVID-19 vaccination, including Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine, significantly reduces COVID-19 mortality and does not increase the risk of death from other causes.

Key evidence includes:

– A comprehensive study analyzing death cases after COVID-19 vaccination found very few deaths with a plausible causal link to the Pfizer vaccine, and those were mostly related to rare myocarditis cases (2 out of 38 cases in the study), which are extremely rare and outweighed by the vaccine’s benefits[1].

– A CDC study examining sudden cardiac deaths in young people found no evidence linking mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (including Pfizer) to increased sudden cardiac death risk. Among deaths occurring within 100 days of vaccination, none were attributed to the vaccine[2].

– A large population-level study found that COVID-19 vaccination greatly reduced the risk of death from COVID-19 and showed no increased risk of death from other causes in the weeks following vaccination, including for Pfizer’s vaccine[3].

– While some observational data suggest differences in effectiveness and waning immunity between Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, these do not indicate increased mortality risk from Pfizer vaccination; rather, booster doses improve protection and reduce mortality risk[4].

– Ongoing CDC surveillance continues to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for all eligible age groups due to its clear benefits in preventing severe disease and death[5].

In summary, the scientific consensus based on clinical trials, epidemiological data, and mortality studies is that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective, with no credible evidence of it causing increased deaths. The rare adverse events reported are vastly outweighed by the reduction in COVID-19 mortality and morbidity[1][2][3][5].

Citations

Claim

I think it came out of a lab probably in North Carolina.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that COVID-19 "came out of a lab probably in North Carolina" is not supported by current credible evidence. Investigations into the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, have focused primarily on Wuhan, China, where the earliest known cases emerged and where a major SARS research lab is located. The U.S. intelligence community and scientific investigations consider two main hypotheses plausible: natural zoonotic spillover and a laboratory-associated incident, but there is no specific evidence implicating a lab in North Carolina[2][4].

Key points from authoritative sources include:

– The earliest known cluster of COVID-19 cases arose in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, with the virus likely emerging no later than November 2019[2].

– The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is noted for conducting gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, and some researchers there reportedly experienced COVID-like symptoms in fall 2019, before the outbreak was recognized[5].

– The U.S. intelligence community remains divided on whether the virus originated naturally or from a lab incident but has found no conclusive evidence that the virus was genetically engineered or developed as a biological weapon[2].

– The University of North Carolina (UNC) has been involved in collaborative coronavirus research, including gain-of-function studies, but there is no direct evidence linking UNC labs to the initial emergence of SARS-CoV-2. Investigations have noted that some U.S. funding and research collaborations with Chinese labs occurred, but the origin of the virus itself has not been traced to North Carolina labs[4].

– Molecular and epidemiological evidence points to a natural origin involving infected animals sold at a market in Wuhan, with viral RNA found in environmental samples from that market[1].

In summary, while the lab-leak hypothesis remains under investigation, the specific claim that COVID-19 originated from a lab in North Carolina lacks supporting evidence. The focus of origin studies remains on Wuhan, China, with no verified link to North Carolina laboratories.

Citations

Claim

There were something like 36 bioweapons labs in Ukraine of U.S. origin.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that there were "something like 36 bioweapons labs in Ukraine of U.S. origin" is **false** and has been widely debunked by multiple credible sources including the United Nations, U.S. government, independent fact-checkers, and scientific experts.

Key points to consider:

– The United Nations disarmament chief stated explicitly that the UN is not aware of any biological weapons program being conducted in Ukraine, despite Russian allegations to the contrary[1].

– Russia claimed to have evidence of U.S.-funded biological weapons research in Ukraine, including allegations of dozens of labs, but these claims have been dismissed by the U.S. government as "preposterous" and "total nonsense," with the U.S. and Ukraine both denying the existence of bioweapons labs[2].

– The U.S. Department of Defense has partnered with Ukraine under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and the Biological Threat Reduction Program to help secure and reduce the risk of biological threats, including preventing proliferation of dangerous pathogens. These labs are operated by Ukrainian authorities and focus on public health and safety, not weapons development[3].

– Independent fact-checkers and media outlets such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, the BBC, and others have found no evidence supporting the existence of U.S. bioweapons labs in Ukraine. Russian claims have been characterized as disinformation and propaganda[3][5].

– The number "36" labs is not supported by credible evidence. Russian and Chinese sources have cited numbers like 26 labs, but these figures come from unverified claims and have been refuted by international experts and governments[2][5].

– The labs in question are public health laboratories that receive U.S. funding to help monitor and control infectious diseases, not to develop biological weapons[3].

In summary, the allegation that the U.S. operates dozens of bioweapons labs in Ukraine is a **disinformation narrative** propagated primarily by Russian state sources and amplified by some conspiracy groups. There is no credible evidence to support the claim, and it has been refuted by multiple authoritative sources including the UN and U.S. officials[1][2][3][5].

Citations

Claim

They used an estimated 13,000 to 14,000 foster kids to do clinical trials.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that an estimated 13,000 to 14,000 foster children were used in clinical trials is not supported by available evidence. Investigations and reports from the late 1980s and 1990s indicate that several hundred foster children, particularly those with HIV/AIDS, were enrolled in clinical trials, but the numbers cited in official reviews are in the range of approximately 465 to 532 children, not in the tens of thousands[1][2][3].

Key points from the evidence include:

– The Vera Institute of Justice reviewed the enrollment of about 465 foster children in HIV/AIDS clinical trials during the late 1980s and 1990s in New York City[2].

– Another report identified 532 foster children who participated in clinical trials or observational studies related to HIV/AIDS, with careful review showing that most met inclusion criteria and that deaths were not directly caused by trial medications[1].

– Congressional hearings and expert testimony acknowledged the sensitive nature of enrolling foster children in trials but did not support claims of tens of thousands being used[3].

– Ethical concerns focused on consent processes and protections for these vulnerable children, with ongoing reviews by federal and state agencies to ensure compliance with regulations[4][5].

In summary, while foster children were enrolled in clinical trials, particularly for HIV/AIDS treatments, the scale was in the hundreds rather than thousands or tens of thousands. The claim of 13,000 to 14,000 foster children used in clinical trials appears to be a significant overestimation not supported by documented data from credible investigations and government reports.

Citations

Claim

Every penny FDR spent during the Great Depression was to buy votes; he was a compulsive liar.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "every penny FDR spent during the Great Depression was to buy votes" and that he was a "compulsive liar" is not supported by historical evidence and scholarly research. Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal spending was primarily aimed at economic recovery, relief for the unemployed, and financial system stabilization, rather than direct vote-buying.

FDR's New Deal involved large-scale federal spending to combat the severe economic downturn. Between 1933 and 1939, federal outlays increased significantly to nearly 11 percent of 1929 GDP, funding programs that created jobs, built infrastructure, and provided relief to millions of Americans suffering from unemployment and poverty[1][3]. These programs included the Public Works Administration (PWA), Works Progress Administration (WPA), and others that built roads, schools, hospitals, and more, leaving a lasting impact on the American landscape[3].

FDR faced a national deficit when he took office, but he rejected strict budget balancing during the crisis, arguing that cutting spending would worsen human suffering. Instead, he embraced deficit spending to stimulate the economy, a Keynesian approach that was innovative at the time[2]. This spending helped reduce unemployment from 25% in 1933 to 14% by 1937, though the recovery was uneven and incomplete until World War II's economic mobilization[2][5].

While political motives are inherent in any administration, the historical record shows that FDR's policies were driven by a complex mix of economic theory, humanitarian concern, and political strategy—not simply vote-buying. There is no credible evidence that he was a "compulsive liar" in relation to his New Deal policies; rather, he communicated openly about the need for government intervention to restore economic security and freedom[2].

In summary, FDR's New Deal spending was a response to unprecedented economic crisis, aimed at relief and recovery rather than mere political gain. The claim reduces a complex historical reality to an unfounded personal attack unsupported by the extensive economic and historical scholarship on the period.

Citations

Claim

The guy who shot Thomas Crooks was the same guy who organized the protection of Trump.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the person who shot Thomas Crooks was the same person who organized the protection of Donald Trump is **false** and factually incorrect.

Thomas Matthew Crooks was the individual who **attempted to assassinate Donald Trump** at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024. Crooks fired an AR-15-style rifle from a rooftop, wounding Trump and killing one attendee before being killed by a Secret Service counter sniper team[1]. There is no credible evidence or report indicating that Crooks was involved in organizing Trump's protection; rather, he was the attacker.

The protection of Donald Trump at such events is handled by the **United States Secret Service**, a federal agency responsible for presidential security. The agent who killed Crooks was part of this protective detail, acting in defense of Trump, not as the shooter or organizer of protection in any other capacity.

In summary:

No credible sources or investigations support the claim that the shooter and the organizer of Trump's protection were the same individual[1][3][4].

Therefore, the claim is **unsubstantiated and contradicted by all available credible information**.

Citations

Claim

You're not completely said to be John F. Kennedy Jr. waiting to come back and save the world.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "You're not completely said to be John F. Kennedy Jr. waiting to come back and save the world" relates to a conspiracy theory popularized by QAnon and similar movements, which falsely assert that John F. Kennedy Jr., who died in a plane crash in 1999, is still alive and will return to play a significant political role. This claim is unfounded and contradicted by established facts: JFK Jr. died in 1999, and there is no credible evidence supporting his survival or return[2].

This conspiracy theory gained traction notably around events such as the 2021 Dallas rally, where QAnon followers gathered under the false belief that JFK Jr. would appear and announce political changes[2]. The theory is part of a broader pattern of misinformation involving public figures and political narratives.

Regarding Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.), JFK Jr.'s cousin, he is a public figure known for controversial views, particularly around vaccines and public health, and has been involved in political and social discourse. However, RFK Jr. is a distinct individual from JFK Jr. and should not be conflated with the conspiracy theories about JFK Jr.'s return[3][4].

The additional information about a tenured organic chemistry professor at Cornell University discussing societal and economic issues, free speech, and academic culture does not provide evidence supporting the JFK Jr. return claim. Instead, it reflects concerns about academic freedom, economic predictions, and social commentary unrelated to the conspiracy theory about JFK Jr.

In summary, the claim that JFK Jr. is waiting to come back and save the world is a conspiracy theory without factual basis. JFK Jr. died in 1999, and the narrative of his return is a falsehood propagated by fringe groups such as QAnon[2]. Public discourse and academic commentary on societal issues, such as those by the Cornell professor, are separate from and do not validate this conspiracy.

Citations

Claim

There were multiple shooters during the Las Vegas shooting incident.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that there were multiple shooters during the Las Vegas shooting incident is **not supported by credible evidence**. The 2017 Las Vegas shooting was carried out by a single gunman, Stephen Paddock, who fired from a suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel into the crowd at the Route 91 Harvest music festival[1][2].

Key points supporting this conclusion:

– Investigations and official reports have consistently identified Stephen Paddock as the sole shooter. He fired approximately 35 rounds through a barricaded door before police intervened[1].

– There is no verified evidence or official confirmation of any other shooters involved. Police and MGM Resorts International have not reported multiple shooters or additional active gunmen during the incident[1][2].

– The extensive search of Paddock’s hotel rooms and properties found numerous firearms, but no indication of accomplices or coordinated multiple shooters[2].

– Theories or speculation about multiple shooters have circulated in media and public discourse but lack factual basis or investigative support.

In summary, the comprehensive investigation into the Las Vegas shooting concludes that it was a lone gunman attack by Stephen Paddock, and the claim of multiple shooters is unfounded based on available evidence[1][2].

Citations

Claim

Trauma surgeons noted inconsistencies in the injuries reported from the Las Vegas shooting.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

There is no credible evidence from trauma surgeons or medical professionals indicating **inconsistencies in the injuries reported from the 2017 Las Vegas shooting**. Trauma surgeons who treated victims described a wide range of severe injuries consistent with a mass casualty shooting event, including gunshot wounds to the head, chest, abdomen, pelvis, and extremities, as well as many walking wounded and patients brought in by various means[1][2][5]. The volume and severity of injuries were described as horrific and comparable to a war zone, with hospitals rapidly adapting military-style triage protocols to manage the unprecedented patient influx[3][5].

Detailed hospital reports and academic analyses confirm that the injuries treated were consistent with the nature of the attack—a high-volume, multi-injury mass shooting with hundreds of victims requiring urgent care[2][3][5]. There is no mention in these authoritative sources of trauma surgeons noting discrepancies or inconsistencies in the injury reports. Instead, the focus is on the overwhelming scale, the logistical challenges, and the psychological impact on medical staff[4].

In summary, expert trauma surgeons and hospital case studies from the Las Vegas shooting do not support the claim that there were inconsistencies in the injuries reported. The medical response and injury patterns align with expectations for such a mass casualty event.

Citations

Claim

750 kids are missing after the fires in Maui, according to USA Today.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "750 kids are missing after the fires in Maui, according to USA Today" is **not supported by available credible sources**. While reports indicate a large number of people were initially unaccounted for after the Maui wildfires, the figure of 750 missing children specifically is inaccurate.

Key points from reliable sources:

– As of August 21, 2023, approximately **850 people were reported as unaccounted for** in total after the Maui wildfires, according to multiple news outlets including CBS News and Ideastream[2][3]. This number refers to all missing persons, not just children.

– The Maui Police Department later clarified and reduced the number of missing persons significantly, with the latest official list showing only about **10 individuals still unaccounted for** as of October 6, 2023[1].

– There is no credible evidence or official report from USA Today or other major news organizations confirming that 750 children specifically were missing. The total missing persons count was for all ages, and the number of missing children was never reported to be anywhere near 750.

Therefore, the claim conflates the total number of missing people early in the crisis with the number of missing children, which is unsupported by official data and news reports. The initial large number of unaccounted people was later clarified and greatly reduced, and no credible source confirms 750 missing children after the Maui fires.

Citations

Claim

There were 26 fires in Quebec that started simultaneously, which raises suspicions.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that there were 26 fires in Quebec that started simultaneously, raising suspicions of arson or weapon testing, is not supported by available evidence from 2025 wildfire reports. Official sources indicate that as of May 2025, Quebec experienced a total of 59 wildfires, which is actually 44 fewer than the 10-year average for that period. These fires were reported individually over time, with no indication of a large number igniting simultaneously or suspiciously[1][2].

Specifically, SOPFEU (the Quebec wildfire management agency) reported fires starting on different dates and locations, such as a five-hectare fire on May 10 and a one-hectare fire on May 11, with causes noted as residents rather than coordinated arson[1]. There is no mention in official reports or news sources of 26 fires igniting at the same time or any investigation into such a pattern.

Furthermore, the overall wildfire situation in Quebec in 2025 was less severe than average, with no active fires in the intensive protection zone by late May and a total burned area below the 10-year average[2]. The broader Canadian wildfire season in 2025 was severe in other provinces like Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but Quebec's wildfire activity was comparatively moderate and typical for the season[3][5].

In summary, there is no credible evidence supporting the claim of 26 simultaneous fires in Quebec in 2025 that would raise suspicions of arson or weapon testing. The fires reported were fewer than average, occurred on different dates, and were managed by official agencies without indication of suspicious circumstances[1][2]. Any investigation into wildfire causes would rely on meteorological data and fire reports, which currently do not support this claim.

Citations

Claim

Columbia put out a memo that said canceled.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Columbia University "put out a memo that said canceled" appears to be a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the actual events. In March 2025, four federal agencies—the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Education (ED), and General Services Administration (GSA)—announced the **immediate cancellation of approximately $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University** due to the university's alleged inaction regarding persistent harassment of Jewish students on campus[1][4]. This cancellation was an action taken by the federal government, not a memo issued by Columbia University itself.

The federal agencies notified Columbia and demanded compliance with certain conditions to restore funding, and Columbia did not initiate the cancellation; rather, it was the recipient affected by the federal decision[1][3]. Later, in July 2025, Columbia agreed to pay $220 million in a deal with the Trump administration to resume federal funding, indicating ongoing negotiations rather than a unilateral cancellation by the university[5].

In summary:

– The **cancellation of funding was imposed by federal agencies**, not by Columbia University issuing a memo stating cancellation[1][4].
– Columbia was subject to this federal action due to concerns about campus antisemitism and failure to protect Jewish students[1].
– The university later negotiated a financial settlement to restore funding[5].

Therefore, the claim that Columbia "put out a memo that said canceled" is inaccurate; the cancellation was a federal government action communicated to Columbia, not an internal university memo announcing cancellation.

Citations

Claim

Private equity buys has bought up 80% of the hospitals in healthcare.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that private equity has bought up **80% of the hospitals in healthcare** is **not accurate**. According to the most recent and authoritative data from the Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP) and related analyses as of 2025, private equity firms own approximately **488 U.S. hospitals**, which represents about **8.5% of all private hospitals** and roughly **22-23% of all for-profit hospitals** in the United States—not 80%[1][2][5].

Key points from the data include:

– Private equity ownership accounts for about **22.6% of for-profit hospitals**, which is a significant minority but far from 80%[1][5].
– The total number of hospitals in the U.S. is around 5,700+, so 488 hospitals owned by private equity is less than 10% of all hospitals overall[1][5].
– Private equity ownership is concentrated in certain states, with Texas having the most PE-owned hospitals (108) and New Mexico the highest proportion (36.2% of hospitals in that state)[1][2].
– Private equity ownership also extends to physician practices and other healthcare entities, but this does not translate to owning the majority of hospitals[5].

Therefore, the figure of 80% is a substantial overstatement. The actual proportion is closer to about one-fifth to one-quarter of for-profit hospitals and less than 10% of all hospitals overall.

Additional context from research highlights concerns about the impact of private equity ownership on hospital financial health and patient outcomes, but these do not affect the ownership percentage itself[3][4].

In summary, private equity firms own a notable but minority share of U.S. hospitals, far below the claimed 80%. This is supported by recent, detailed hospital ownership tracking data from reputable sources[1][2][5].

Citations

Claim

According to Gretchen Morgenson a 47% bankruptcy rate exists post-sale.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **Gretchen Morgenson states a 47% bankruptcy rate post-sale** by private equity firms is **not supported by the available evidence** from the search results. Instead, Morgenson has reported that companies owned by private equity firms experience **bankruptcy rates about 10 times higher than non-private equity-owned companies**, but no specific figure of 47% is mentioned or corroborated in the sources reviewed[1][2].

Key points from the sources include:

– Morgenson highlights that **private equity-owned companies have a bankruptcy rate roughly 10 times higher** than comparable non-private equity-owned companies, indicating significantly elevated financial distress risk in these leveraged buyouts[1][2].

– She discusses the **unsustainable debt-heavy business model** of private equity firms, especially in healthcare, where rising interest rates are causing more bankruptcies and financial strain[1][3].

– No source explicitly states a 47% bankruptcy rate post-sale; rather, the emphasis is on the relative increase (10x) compared to non-private equity firms, without specifying an absolute percentage[1][2].

– Morgenson also notes other negative outcomes of private equity ownership, such as increased mortality rates in nursing homes and higher healthcare costs, but these are separate from bankruptcy statistics[1][2][4].

In summary, while Gretchen Morgenson documents a significantly higher bankruptcy risk for private equity-owned companies, the **specific figure of 47% bankruptcy rate post-sale is not found in her reported data or related credible sources**. The claim appears to be an exaggeration or misinterpretation of the "10 times higher bankruptcy rate" statistic she discusses.

Citations

Claim

First time homebuyers are now on average 56 years old, compared to about 30 years old a few decades ago.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that first-time homebuyers are now on average 56 years old, compared to about 30 years old a few decades ago, is **incorrect**.

According to multiple recent and authoritative sources, the median or average age of first-time homebuyers in the U.S. has been rising but is currently around **35 to 38 years old**, not 56. For example:

– The National Association of Realtors (NAR) data shows the median age of first-time homebuyers was about 30 in 2010 and has risen to a record high of **38 years in 2024**[1][3][5].

– Other analyses report the average age of first-time buyers around **35 to 36 years in 2024**, with some variation depending on the data source, but still well below 40[2][4].

– The figure of 56 years corresponds to the overall median age of *all* homebuyers (including repeat buyers), not specifically first-time buyers. For instance, one source notes the overall median buyer age hit 56 years in 2024, while first-time buyers averaged 38 years[5].

In summary, while the age of first-time homebuyers has increased significantly over the past few decades—from about 29-30 years old in the 1980s and 2010 to about 38 years old today—it has not reached 56 years. The 56-year figure applies to the median age of all homebuyers, not first-timers[1][3][5]. This demographic shift reflects economic factors such as housing affordability, savings challenges, and market conditions, but the claim as stated conflates different buyer groups and overstates the age increase for first-time buyers.

Citations

Claim

Platinum could go to 20,000.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **platinum could go to $20,000** is highly speculative and not supported by current expert forecasts or market data. Most credible price predictions for platinum in the near to medium term (2025–2030) range between approximately **$800 and $2,400 per ounce**, with some forecasts expecting moderate increases but nowhere near $20,000.

Key points from recent expert analyses and forecasts:

– Forecasts for platinum prices in 2025 generally range from about **$800 to $1,250**, with some bullish scenarios pushing slightly higher if industrial demand strengthens, but still well below $2,000[1][2].

– Long-term forecasts suggest gradual price increases, with platinum potentially reaching around **$1,700 to $2,400 by the mid-2020s to early 2030s**, reflecting supply deficits and industrial demand but not anywhere near $20,000[4].

– In 2025, platinum prices have shown volatility but mostly traded between **$900 and $1,400**, influenced by supply-demand dynamics, industrial use (especially in automotive catalysts), and inventory levels[3][5].

– The current market fundamentals include a supply deficit but also substantial above-ground inventory, which acts as a price ceiling and limits extreme price spikes[3].

– No mainstream financial or commodity analysts predict platinum prices anywhere close to $20,000 per ounce in the foreseeable future. Such a price would represent an unprecedented and extreme increase, likely requiring extraordinary market disruptions or speculative bubbles.

Regarding the broader context of the claim, it appears to be a speculative statement possibly reflecting an extreme or hypothetical market scenario rather than a grounded forecast. The discussion involving the Cornell professor and economic commentary highlights concerns about economic downturns and asset price inflation but does not provide evidence or rationale supporting a $20,000 platinum price.

**In summary, while platinum prices may rise moderately due to supply constraints and demand shifts, the claim that platinum could reach $20,000 per ounce is not supported by current expert forecasts or market fundamentals.** It remains a speculative and highly unlikely scenario based on available data[1][2][3][4][5].

Citations

Claim

A global debt crisis occurs when the entire world thinks they are going to get products that the world can't produce.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "a global debt crisis occurs when the entire world thinks they are going to get products that the world can't produce" is not an accurate or standard definition of a global debt crisis.

A **global debt crisis** is more precisely defined as a situation where countries, corporations, or individuals collectively face an inability to meet their debt obligations, leading to widespread financial distress and risk of default across multiple economies worldwide[1][2][4]. It involves excessive borrowing, unsustainable debt levels relative to income or economic output, and often results in economic recessions, currency devaluations, and social challenges[1][2][3]. The crisis is fundamentally about financial imbalances and the inability to service debt, rather than a mismatch between global expectations of product availability and actual production capacity.

The idea that a global debt crisis stems from collective expectations of products that cannot be produced conflates economic demand and supply issues with debt sustainability. While supply constraints and unmet expectations can contribute to economic stress, a debt crisis specifically concerns financial obligations and repayment capacity. For example, the 1980s Latin American debt crisis and recent concerns about rising global debt levels illustrate how debt accumulation and repayment difficulties trigger crises, not merely unmet product expectations[1][2][3].

In summary, the claim oversimplifies and mischaracterizes the nature of a global debt crisis, which is primarily about the inability to service debt on a large scale rather than a global mismatch between expected and actual production of goods.

Citations

Claim

The Nikkei hit a high in 1989 and took about 20 years for new investors to break even if they started buying at that time.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the Nikkei hit a high in 1989 and took about 20 years for new investors to break even if they started buying at that time is **partially accurate but understated**. The Nikkei 225 reached its all-time high on December 29, 1989, closing at 38,915.87 during the Japanese asset price bubble[1]. However, it did not surpass this peak again until March 2024, more than 34 years later[3]. This means investors who bought at the 1989 peak had to wait over three decades to break even on the nominal price level.

While the claim mentions "about 20 years," historical data shows the recovery took significantly longer, with the index only exceeding the 1989 high in early 2024[3]. The long stagnation period is well-documented and is often cited as a cautionary example of a prolonged asset bubble burst and lost decades in Japan's economy.

In summary:

– Nikkei 225 peak: December 29, 1989, at 38,915.87[1].
– Nikkei did not surpass this peak again until March 2024, over 34 years later[3].
– Therefore, investors buying at the 1989 peak had to wait more than 30 years to break even on the index price, not just 20 years.

This aligns with historical stock price data and expert analyses of Japan's economic stagnation following the asset bubble burst.

Citations

Claim

Valuation metrics shouldn't trend unless there's a strong argument for why they should.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "valuation metrics shouldn't trend unless there's a strong argument for why they should" reflects a philosophical stance emphasizing that valuation metrics in finance should remain stable or only change based on substantive, justified reasons rather than arbitrary or market-driven trends.

This perspective aligns with a critical approach to economic and financial analysis, where metrics such as price-to-earnings ratios, yield spreads, or other valuation indicators are expected to reflect underlying fundamentals rather than transient market sentiment or speculative behavior. Without a strong rationale—such as changes in economic conditions, corporate earnings, or risk profiles—valuation metrics trending upward or downward could signal distortions or bubbles rather than genuine value shifts.

The additional context you provided about a tenured organic chemistry professor at Cornell University engaging in societal and economic commentary, including predictions about banking collapses and concerns about inflated asset prices, supports this viewpoint. The professor’s reflections on economic instability and the consequences of inflated asset prices suggest a skepticism toward valuation trends that lack solid economic justification. His emphasis on historical awareness and critical thinking in evaluating economic conditions further underscores the importance of grounding valuation changes in reasoned analysis rather than trends alone.

Regarding the professor’s academic environment, Cornell University officially supports academic freedom and free expression, encouraging open inquiry even on controversial topics, which would include economic critiques and predictions about financial markets[1][2]. This institutional stance provides a framework within which the professor can express such views without formal reprimand, consistent with his experience.

In summary:

– **Valuation metrics ideally should not trend without strong, fundamental reasons** such as changes in economic indicators or corporate performance.
– **Trends in valuation metrics without justification may indicate market distortions or speculative bubbles.**
– The Cornell professor’s economic commentary and warnings about inflated asset prices and impending downturns illustrate this principle in practice.
– Cornell University’s policies on academic freedom support the expression of such critical economic views within the academic community[1][2].

This philosophical stance on valuation metrics is consistent with sound financial theory, which emphasizes fundamental analysis over market-driven trends.

Citations

Claim

The speaker would not be surprised if a market correction is significantly overdue and the valuations are 'catastrophically overpriced'.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the speaker—a tenured organic chemistry professor at Cornell University—would not be surprised if a market correction is significantly overdue and valuations are "catastrophically overpriced" is supported by statements from David Collum, a Cornell organic chemistry professor known for his economic commentary. He has warned publicly about a coming "catastrophic" market collapse due to dishonest macroeconomic metrics and inflated asset prices[1][5].

This professor, David Collum, has expressed concern about economic conditions and predicted an impending downturn driven by overvaluation in markets. His commentary includes reflections on social and economic issues, including the consequences of rising educational costs and potential social unrest linked to financial instability[1][5]. He has also shared his views on free speech and academic freedom at Cornell, noting resistance to cancel culture despite societal pressures.

In summary, the forward-looking claim about market overvaluation and an overdue correction aligns with Collum’s publicly stated views as an organic chemistry professor engaged in economic and societal commentary. His warnings about "catastrophically overpriced" valuations and a looming market collapse are documented in recent interviews and social media posts[1][5].

Citations

Claim

The leaders of the world cannot guarantee healthcare and pensions without increasing wealth production.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that world leaders cannot guarantee healthcare and pensions without increasing wealth production is fundamentally grounded in economic feasibility: social welfare programs like healthcare and pensions require sustainable funding, which typically depends on the size and growth of the economy. Without increasing economic output or wealth production, maintaining or expanding such programs becomes financially challenging.

This economic principle aligns with the broader discussion about the limits of policy proposals addressing social welfare relative to economic output. The professor from Cornell University, as described, reflects on economic instability and social unrest linked to financial constraints and inflated asset prices, which indirectly supports the notion that economic growth is crucial for sustaining social programs. His concern about an impending economic downturn and financial instability underscores the difficulty of guaranteeing social welfare benefits without a robust economic base.

While the search results do not directly quote this professor on the specific claim, his expressed views on economic risks, the consequences of policy decisions, and the importance of critical thinking about economic conditions support the claim's premise. Additionally, economic theory widely accepts that social welfare programs require funding from government revenues, which are largely dependent on economic productivity and growth.

In summary, the claim is valid in the context of economic realities: **guaranteeing healthcare and pensions without increasing wealth production is not feasible because these programs depend on economic resources generated through wealth creation**. The Cornell professor’s reflections on economic and social challenges provide a contextual backdrop reinforcing this understanding.

Citations

Claim

The above ground platinum supply is something like 3 billion which is something a medium sized hedge fund could buy at current prices.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the above-ground platinum supply is around 3 billion (presumably dollars in value) and that a medium-sized hedge fund could buy it at current prices is **not supported by recent data on platinum supply and market size**.

Key points from recent authoritative sources:

– **Above-ground platinum stocks are estimated at around 3 million ounces**, not billions of ounces. For example, in 2025, above-ground stocks are reported to be approximately 3.01 million ounces, equivalent to just over four months of global demand[1]. Another source cites a larger figure of about 9.2 million ounces as above-ground inventory, representing roughly 14 months of demand[2]. These figures are in ounces, not billions.

– **Platinum prices have ranged roughly between $900 and $1,330 per ounce in 2025**, with a recent surge to a 10-year high around $1,330/oz[3]. Using the 3 million ounces figure and a price near $1,000/oz, the total above-ground platinum stock value would be about $3 billion (3 million oz × $1,000/oz = $3 billion). This aligns with the claim if it refers to dollar value, not quantity in ounces.

– However, the **above-ground stock is not a single liquid asset that can be easily bought outright by one entity**. These stocks are held by various investors, industries, and governments, and include physical bars, coins, jewelry, and industrial holdings. Market liquidity and regulatory factors limit the ability of any single hedge fund to acquire the entire above-ground supply at once.

– The platinum market is characterized by **ongoing supply deficits and tightness**, with mine production constrained and recycling only partially offsetting demand[1][3][4]. This structural tightness supports higher prices but also means that above-ground stocks are being drawn down gradually.

– The claim's implication that a medium-sized hedge fund could buy the entire above-ground platinum supply at current prices oversimplifies market realities. While the *nominal value* of above-ground platinum might be on the order of a few billion dollars, **the practical feasibility of such a purchase is highly questionable** due to market liquidity, ownership dispersion, and regulatory constraints.

In summary, the **above-ground platinum stock is roughly valued at around $3 billion at current prices**, consistent with the claim if interpreted as dollar value rather than quantity. However, the notion that a medium-sized hedge fund could buy all of it easily is unrealistic given market structure and liquidity constraints[1][2][3].

Citations

Claim

The platinum market has been in deficit production for at least four years, meaning that we are consuming more per year than the miners are producing.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the platinum market has been in production deficit for at least four years, meaning consumption exceeds mining output annually, is supported by multiple recent reports. The platinum market has experienced a structural deficit for at least three consecutive years (2023, 2024, and 2025), with deficits reported around 896,000 ounces in 2023, 922,000 ounces in 2024, and a projected 966,000 ounces in 2025[3][5]. This means that demand has consistently outpaced mine production, leading to consumption of above-ground stocks.

Key factors driving this deficit include:

– **Declining mine production**, particularly from South Africa (which produces about 70-80% of global platinum), due to chronic electricity shortages, labor issues, and infrastructure challenges[2][3][5].
– **Insufficient recycling growth** to offset supply shortfalls, despite some increases in autocatalyst and jewelry recycling[1][2].
– **Sustained or growing demand** from automotive catalytic converters, hydrogen fuel cells, jewelry, and investment demand[1][2].

While the deficit has been ongoing for at least three years, some sources suggest the shortage may persist through 2026, implying a multi-year structural deficit[2]. Above-ground inventories have been drawn down to fill the gap but are shrinking rapidly, projected to fall to about 2.5 million ounces by 2025, which could be depleted within two to three years if deficits continue[5]. This supply-demand imbalance has contributed to significant price appreciation, with platinum prices rising about 40-50% year-to-date in 2025[2][4].

In summary, the platinum market has been in a multi-year production deficit, consuming more annually than miners produce, driven by constrained mine supply and sustained demand. This dynamic is expected to continue, influencing future prices and market behavior[1][2][3][5].

Citations

Claim

Based on the rate of deficit production, the above ground supply will be gone within about a year.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the above-ground supply of platinum will be gone within about a year based on the rate of deficit production is **not supported by current data**. While the platinum market is indeed experiencing significant supply deficits for multiple consecutive years, the above-ground inventory remains substantial enough to buffer these deficits for several years.

Key points from recent authoritative sources:

– The platinum market is facing its third consecutive year of deficit in 2025, with a projected shortfall around 529,000 to 966,000 ounces, representing roughly 12% of global demand[1][4][5].

– Despite these deficits, the above-ground inventory of platinum is estimated at approximately 9.2 million ounces, which corresponds to about 14 months of demand—far more than a single year’s supply[3].

– Market analysts and the World Platinum Investment Council (WPIC) indicate that it would take multiple years of similar deficits to significantly deplete these inventories[3][5].

– Supply constraints are driven by declining mine production (notably a 6% to 13% drop in 2025), limited recycling growth, and steady or rising demand from automotive, industrial, jewelry, and investment sectors[1][2][4][5].

– While the deficits are eroding above-ground stocks, the current inventory acts as a significant buffer, preventing immediate exhaustion within a year[3].

In summary, although platinum supply deficits are serious and ongoing, the available above-ground stockpile is large enough to sustain supply for more than a year. The claim that the above-ground supply will be exhausted within about a year overstates the immediacy of depletion and is contradicted by recent market analyses and inventory estimates.

Citations

Claim

The global debt has grown relative to the global GDP, making the world priced much more than 10 years ago.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **global debt has grown relative to global GDP, making the world more "priced" (valued or leveraged) than 10 years ago, is supported by recent data and expert analysis**. This rising debt-to-GDP ratio signals macroeconomic conditions that could increase the risk of a debt crisis.

Key points supporting this are:

– **Global public debt is projected to reach or exceed 100% of global GDP by the end of this decade**, reflecting a significant increase compared to a decade ago. This rise is driven by pandemic-related fiscal support, geopolitical tensions, and economic slowdowns[2][3].

– About **80% of the global economy now has higher and faster-rising public debt than before the COVID-19 pandemic**, with many countries facing heavier debt burdens than a decade ago[2].

– Advanced economies have an average debt-to-GDP ratio of about **110% in 2025**, compared to lower ratios in emerging economies, but still elevated compared to 10 years prior. For example, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is around **123%**, and Japan's is extremely high at **235%**, both much higher than a decade ago[1].

– High and rising debt levels constrain fiscal space, increase borrowing costs, and heighten vulnerability to economic shocks, which can precipitate financial instability or debt crises[3].

– The OECD and IMF emphasize the need for fiscal policies aimed at reducing debt and rebuilding economic resilience to avoid long-term fiscal sustainability issues[2][5].

Regarding the additional context about the tenured Cornell professor's reflections on economic and social issues, his concerns about an impending economic downturn driven by inflated asset prices and financial instability align with the macroeconomic evidence of rising global debt burdens and associated risks. His emphasis on historical awareness and critical thinking is consistent with expert calls for prudent fiscal management and policy responses to these challenges.

In summary, **the global debt-to-GDP ratio has indeed increased significantly over the past decade, raising concerns about economic stability and the potential for a debt crisis**, which matches the claim and the professor's broader economic commentary[1][2][3][5].

Citations

Claim

To commit to an asset requires committing a percentage that's not stupid.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "to commit to an asset requires committing a percentage that's not stupid" aligns with prudent investment strategy principles emphasizing measured, rational allocation to avoid excessive risk. This reflects the emotional complexity of investing, where overcommitment can lead to significant financial and psychological harm.

Regarding the additional context about a tenured organic chemistry professor at Cornell University who comments on societal and economic issues, while no direct source explicitly links this professor's investment advice to the claim, the broader narrative supports cautious, historically informed economic perspectives. The professor recounts experiences of speaking out on controversial topics without institutional reprimand, critiques the current higher education system, and warns of economic downturns driven by inflated asset prices and social unrest. This suggests an awareness of risk and the importance of critical thinking in economic decisions, consistent with advocating for sensible investment commitments.

No direct references were found in the search results to a Cornell organic chemistry professor explicitly discussing investment percentages or the emotional complexity of investing. However, Cornell's commitment to academic freedom and open inquiry supports faculty engaging in such societal commentary without fear of censorship[1][2]. The professor mentioned may be Geoffrey W. Coates, a prominent Cornell chemistry professor known for interdisciplinary research and public engagement, though his public statements focus on chemistry rather than investment strategy[3].

In summary, the claim about committing a reasonable percentage to an asset is consistent with sound investment principles and the professor's broader cautionary economic views, though no direct citation links the exact statement to the professor or Cornell sources. The professor's reflections on economic instability and social consequences underscore the importance of prudent financial decisions and critical historical awareness.

Citations

Claim

If you commit 0.01% of your assets to it, it's not going to make a difference.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that committing 0.01% of your assets to an investment "is not going to make a difference" reflects a common perception that very small investments have negligible impact on overall financial outcomes. This idea aligns with the notion that such a tiny fraction of assets is unlikely to significantly affect one's portfolio performance or economic influence.

Regarding the context of a tenured organic chemistry professor at Cornell University who comments on societal and economic issues, there is no direct evidence in the search results linking this exact quote or claim to a specific professor at Cornell. However, the broader discussion about free speech, academic freedom, and economic commentary by faculty at Cornell is documented. For example, Cornell has publicly affirmed its commitment to free speech and academic freedom, though some policies and incidents have raised concerns about the limits of political expression on campus[1][2].

The professor described in the query appears to be engaged in critical reflection on economic conditions, educational policies, and social unrest, emphasizing the importance of historical awareness and critical thinking. While the search results do not provide a direct quote or detailed account of this professor’s statements about small investments or the 0.01% figure, the general theme of economic caution and skepticism about prevailing social and academic trends is consistent with the environment described.

In summary:

– The claim about 0.01% of assets being insignificant is a reasonable economic perspective on small investments.
– There is no direct citation of this claim from a Cornell organic chemistry professor in the search results.
– Cornell University faculty, including those in chemistry, are involved in broader societal discussions, with some tensions around free speech and political expression[1][2][3].
– The professor’s reflections on economic downturns, social unrest, and educational challenges fit within ongoing debates about academic freedom and societal roles of universities.

If you seek verification of the exact quote or more detailed commentary from the specific professor mentioned, additional direct sources or interviews would be required beyond the current search results.

Citations

Claim

The valuation should not trend compounded annually at 4 percent a year.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "The valuation should not trend compounded annually at 4 percent a year" relates to an economic principle about asset valuation and expected growth rates, implying that assuming a steady 4% annual compounded growth may be inappropriate or misleading.

The additional context you provided involves a tenured organic chemistry professor at Cornell University who comments on societal and economic issues, including concerns about inflated asset prices and an impending economic downturn. While the search results do not directly address the specific economic principle or the 4% compounding rate, they do confirm the professor's engagement in broader economic and social commentary, including predictions about financial instability and critiques of higher education and social agendas at Cornell[1][2][3].

Regarding the economic principle itself, standard valuation models often use a discount rate or expected growth rate to estimate asset values. A fixed 4% compounded annual growth rate may not be justified if underlying economic conditions, inflation, risk factors, or market dynamics differ significantly from that assumption. Asset valuations should reflect realistic, variable growth expectations rather than a fixed compounded rate, especially in volatile or uncertain economic environments.

In summary:

– The professor at Cornell is known for interdisciplinary expertise and societal commentary, including economic predictions about asset inflation and downturns[3].
– The claim about valuation not trending at a fixed 4% compounded annually aligns with economic caution against assuming steady growth rates in asset valuation.
– No direct source from the search results explicitly confirms or refutes the 4% compounding claim, but the professor’s broader concerns about economic instability support skepticism toward fixed growth assumptions.

Therefore, the claim is reasonable from an economic standpoint, emphasizing that valuation models should not simplistically assume a steady 4% annual compounded growth without considering broader economic realities and risks.

Citations

Claim

A 90 percent correction could take markets back to 2015 levels.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that a "90 percent correction could take markets back to 2015 levels" is a predictive statement about a significant market downturn returning asset prices roughly to where they were around 2015. This type of forecast implies a severe bear market or crash scenario, reflecting concerns about inflated asset prices and an impending economic downturn.

Regarding the context of a tenured organic chemistry professor at Cornell University making such economic and societal commentary, the search results do not identify a specific Cornell organic chemistry professor making this exact prediction. However, they do provide relevant background:

– Cornell University officially supports academic freedom and free speech, allowing faculty to express controversial or unpopular views without formal reprimand, though there are ongoing debates about the limits and enforcement of these freedoms on campus[1][2].

– The chemistry faculty at Cornell includes distinguished professors such as Geoffrey W. Coates, who specializes in organic and polymer chemistry, but there is no direct evidence from the search results that he or other organic chemistry professors have publicly made detailed economic predictions or commentary on market corrections[3].

– The broader narrative described—of a tenured professor reflecting on past predictions about banking collapses, facing backlash for social or political views, and critiquing university culture and economic conditions—fits a profile of a faculty member engaged in interdisciplinary societal critique. However, no direct source confirms this professor’s identity or the precise market correction claim.

In summary, while the claim about a 90 percent market correction returning prices to 2015 levels is a plausible economic forecast reflecting concerns about asset inflation and economic instability, there is no direct evidence from the provided search results that a Cornell organic chemistry professor has made this specific prediction. The university environment described supports faculty freedom to express such views, but the claim remains a speculative economic outlook rather than an established fact documented in the search results.

Citations

Claim

Cornell's administration did not reprimand me for discussing topics outside my expertise.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Cornell's administration did not reprimand the professor for discussing topics outside his expertise aligns with Cornell University's stated commitment to academic freedom and free expression, which includes extramural speech on political and societal issues beyond one's disciplinary expertise. Cornell's policies and statements emphasize protecting faculty rights to engage in research, teaching, and extramural speech, even on controversial or non-disciplinary topics, without fear of formal reprimand or censorship[2][3][5].

Cornell University explicitly affirms the importance of **academic freedom** and **free and open inquiry and expression**, including the right of faculty to speak on matters beyond their academic specialization. The university's policy framework protects such speech as essential to its educational mission, bounded only by considerations of civil rights, health, safety, and core operations[2][4]. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) chapter at Cornell has defended faculty extramural speech rights, including political commentary, and criticized any administrative actions that might threaten these freedoms[3][5].

However, there have been instances where Cornell's administration has issued guidance or statements that some perceive as limiting political speech in classrooms or responding to controversial extramural speech, but these have not typically resulted in formal reprimands of faculty. For example, a provost guidance advised faculty to avoid advancing political views in class, and a joint statement condemned a professor's extramural speech while reviewing the incident, but this did not equate to a formal reprimand[1][5]. This suggests a tension between administrative caution and the university's foundational commitment to free expression.

In the specific case described—an organic chemistry professor discussing societal and economic topics, including a banking collapse prediction and support for police during a cancel culture incident—the absence of formal reprimand is consistent with Cornell's policies and the university's general stance on protecting faculty speech, even when it falls outside their strict academic expertise or provokes backlash[2][3][5].

Thus, the claim that the professor was not reprimanded by Cornell's administration for discussing topics outside his expertise is supported by Cornell's institutional policies and documented practices, which uphold broad protections for academic freedom and extramural speech.

Citations

Claim

I blurted out in class that the banking system's about to collapse in March 2007.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the banking system was predicted to collapse in March 2007 by a Cornell organic chemistry professor aligns with statements made by Dave Collum, a tenured professor at Cornell, who publicly recounted that in early 2007 he blurted out in his organic chemistry class that the banking system was about to collapse. He expressed surprise that he faced no reprimand for this prediction, which was made well before the full financial crisis unfolded in 2008[2][4].

Dave Collum’s account is supported by his own public statements, including a recent video where he describes telling his students in February 2007 that the entire banking system was "going down the tubes," and later reminding them in 2009 that he had warned them before the crisis fully hit[2]. This personal testimony is consistent with the timeline of the global financial crisis, which began to manifest in 2007 with the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and the subsequent credit crunch leading to the 2008 banking crisis[1][3].

While Collum is not an economist by training, his prediction is notable because it came from outside the typical economic or financial expert community, and he has since commented on economic and social issues related to the crisis and its aftermath[2][4]. Other economists, such as Peter Schiff, also predicted a financial collapse around this time, highlighting the housing bubble and credit issues as early as 2006 and 2007[1].

In summary, the claim that the banking system's collapse was predicted in March 2007 by this Cornell professor is credible based on his own detailed recounting and the known timeline of the financial crisis. This prediction preceded the widespread recognition of the crisis and was made in an academic setting unrelated to economics, which adds a unique perspective to the historical record of early warnings about the banking collapse[2][4].

Citations

Claim

The banking system did collapse a year and a half after my warning in class.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the banking system collapsed a year and a half after the professor's warning in class is supported by statements from Dave Collum, a tenured organic chemistry professor at Cornell University. He recounts that in 2007 or 2008, during an organic chemistry class, he warned students that the entire banking system was about to collapse, and it took about a year to a year and a half for that collapse to materialize, referring to the 2008 financial crisis[2][5].

Dave Collum has publicly discussed this timeline in interviews and talks, emphasizing that his prediction was made well before the crisis became widely recognized. He also notes that his economics professors did not warn students about the impending collapse, highlighting his unique foresight[2]. This aligns with the historical timeline of the 2007-2008 global financial crisis, which was triggered by the collapse of mortgage-backed securities and major financial institutions.

Additional context from Collum includes his critique of economic policies and central banking, which he believes contributed to the crisis and ongoing financial instability[3]. His reflections also touch on broader societal and academic issues, but the core claim about the timing of his warning and the subsequent banking collapse is consistent with documented financial history and his own accounts.

Therefore, based on Collum's own detailed recounting and the known timeline of the 2008 financial crisis, the claim that the banking system collapsed about a year and a half after his warning in class is valid and supported by historical financial records and his testimony[2][3][5].

Citations

Claim

I was 'canceled' in 2020 for supporting the police.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that a tenured Cornell University professor was "canceled" in 2020 for supporting the police is supported by documented events involving Professor David Collum. In June 2020, Collum faced intense backlash and calls for termination after tweeting in defense of police officers involved in a controversial incident of alleged police brutality. This led to a petition with thousands of signatures demanding his firing and public condemnation from Cornell's president, who described his tweets as "deeply insensitive" and "deeply offensive." Despite the backlash and Collum stepping down from a leadership position in the chemistry department, there was no formal disciplinary action or termination by the university[1].

This incident occurred in the broader sociopolitical context of 2020, marked by nationwide protests against police brutality and heightened tensions around issues of race and law enforcement. The professor’s experience reflects the challenges faced by some academics who expressed support for police during this period, often encountering significant opposition from students and colleagues but not necessarily formal institutional sanctions. The university's response indicated a balancing act between upholding free speech and addressing community concerns about police misconduct[1][4].

The professor also critiques the higher education system’s focus on social agendas and diversity initiatives, arguing that these trends can stifle free speech and academic rigor. He highlights Cornell as somewhat resistant to these pressures compared to other institutions, noting that while he faced backlash, the university did not formally oppose him. His reflections include concerns about economic and social instability, emphasizing the importance of historical awareness and critical thinking in evaluating such issues.

In summary, the claim is valid in that the professor experienced significant social and professional backlash—commonly described as "cancel culture"—for his pro-police stance in 2020, though this did not result in formal university sanctions or termination[1][4].

Citations

Claim

Young children experienced disrupted learning during school lockdowns.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

Young children experienced disrupted learning during school lockdowns, with evidence showing significant learning deficits, lower academic performance, and negative impacts on language development and socio-emotional factors.

Multiple systematic reviews and studies confirm that COVID-19 school closures and the shift to remote learning led to reduced instructional time and lower achievement in key academic areas such as reading, mathematics, and language skills. For example, standardized test scores declined compared to previous years, with younger children showing larger negative effects due to the importance of instructional time at early ages[1][2][4]. Language learning was particularly affected, especially for children who relied on speech and language therapy, which was disrupted by the lack of in-person services[1].

The learning deficits are quantified as reductions in achievement of about 0.10 to 0.11 standard deviations in mathematics and reading across various countries, indicating a measurable and meaningful decline in learning progress[2]. Additionally, the rate of reading ability gain in kindergarten children slowed by approximately 66% during school closures compared to normal schooling[3]. These disruptions also disproportionately affected disadvantaged and underprivileged children, exacerbating existing educational inequalities[3][5].

Beyond academics, school closures deprived children of essential social interaction and emotional development opportunities, contributing to motivational and behavioral challenges reported by educators and parents[1][3][5]. Mental health struggles increased due to isolation and reduced physical activity during remote learning periods[5].

In summary, research strongly supports the claim that young children experienced disrupted learning during school lockdowns, with broad negative consequences on academic achievement, language development, motivation, and socio-emotional well-being[1][2][3][4][5].

Citations

Claim

The Japanese medical system has correlated the number of COVID vaccine doses with death rates.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the Japanese medical system has correlated the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses with death rates is supported by recent scientific studies published in 2024 and 2025. Research from Japan indicates a significant increase in excess deaths and age-adjusted mortality rates following repeated COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations, particularly after the third dose.

Key findings include:

– Japan had one of the highest per capita rates of COVID-19 mRNA vaccination doses globally, with an average of 3.6 doses per person as of March 2024[1][2].

– After the emergence of the Omicron variant, there was a notable explosion in COVID-19 cases and deaths, followed by a significant increase in excess deaths in 2022 and 2023. The exact causes remain under investigation, but the studies highlight the need to elucidate the possible contribution of repeated mRNA vaccinations to these excess deaths[1][2].

– A 2024 study found statistically significant increases in age-adjusted mortality rates for all cancers and several specific types (ovarian, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers) after mass vaccination with the third mRNA vaccine dose in 2022. This increase was unlikely to be explained by healthcare service shortages and suggests a potential association with the vaccination campaign[3][5].

– The authors of these studies emphasize that while hypotheses exist, sufficient data disclosure and further research are necessary to fully understand the relationship between repeated mRNA vaccination and excess mortality, including cancer mortality[1][3][5].

In summary, Japanese public health data and peer-reviewed research have identified correlations between the number of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine doses administered and increased death rates, including excess deaths and cancer mortality. However, these findings are preliminary and call for more comprehensive investigation to establish causality and underlying mechanisms[1][3][5].

Citations

Claim

Four of the five cops who died after January 6th died from suicide.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that "Four of the five cops who died after January 6th died from suicide," we need to examine the available data and reports related to police fatalities following the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack.

## Evidence and Reports

1. **Police Fatalities and Suicides**:
– **Brian Sicknick**: A Capitol Police officer who died after suffering multiple strokes hours after being pepper-sprayed by rioters. The Washington D.C. medical examiner ruled his death as due to natural causes, but noted that his experience on January 6 played a role in his condition[3][5].
– **Howard Liebengood**: A Capitol Police officer who died by suicide three days after the attack[3][4].
– **Jeffrey Smith**: A D.C. Metro Police officer who died by suicide after being injured in the attack[3][4].
– **Kyle DeFreytag and Gunther Hashida**: Both Metropolitan Police officers who died by suicide in July 2021, having responded to the Capitol attack[3].

2. **Total Deaths Attributed to the Event**:
– The total number of deaths directly or indirectly attributed to the January 6th event includes one person killed during the riot and several officers who died later. The claim specifically mentions five officers, but the context suggests that these include the four who died by suicide and Brian Sicknick, whose death was not by suicide but occurred after the event[3][4][5].

## Conclusion

The claim that "Four of the five cops who died after January 6th died from suicide" is **substantially accurate** based on available reports. Four officers (Howard Liebengood, Jeffrey Smith, Kyle DeFreytag, and Gunther Hashida) died by suicide following their involvement in the response to the Capitol attack. Brian Sicknick, the fifth officer mentioned, died from natural causes related to his experience on January 6 but not by suicide[3][4][5]. Therefore, the claim is supported by the evidence, with the clarification that Brian Sicknick's death was not by suicide.

Citations

Claim

Y2K turned out to be a grift.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Y2K "turned out to be a grift" reflects a perspective that the Y2K issue was overhyped or exploited for financial or political gain rather than being a genuine threat. This view is a subjective interpretation rather than an established fact.

Y2K, or the "Millennium Bug," was a widely recognized computer problem where many systems represented years with two digits, risking errors when the year rolled over from 1999 to 2000. Extensive efforts were made globally to fix and mitigate potential failures in software and hardware. While the transition passed with relatively few major incidents, experts generally credit this outcome to the massive remediation work done beforehand, not to the problem being a hoax or scam.

Regarding the broader context you provided about a tenured Cornell professor discussing societal and economic issues, including free speech and academic freedom at Cornell University, the search results show that Cornell publicly affirms its commitment to free expression and academic freedom but faces ongoing debates and challenges in balancing these principles with campus policies and social dynamics[1][2][3][4][5]. This context illustrates the complexity of institutional responses to controversial topics but does not directly relate to the factual nature of Y2K.

In summary, the claim that Y2K was a grift is an opinion that overlooks the extensive, documented technical efforts to prevent failures. The relatively smooth transition was largely due to those efforts, not because the threat was fabricated. The professor’s reflections on free speech and institutional challenges at Cornell highlight broader societal debates but do not substantiate the claim about Y2K.

Citations

Claim

The black community is moving to the right politically.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the Black community is moving to the right politically is partially supported by recent voting data but requires nuance. While Black voters overwhelmingly continue to support Democratic candidates, there has been a noticeable increase in the share of Black voters supporting Republican candidates, particularly Donald Trump in the 2024 election. However, this shift is modest and does not indicate a wholesale realignment.

Key points from recent analyses include:

– In the 2024 presidential election, about 15% of Black voters supported Trump, up from 8% in 2020 and 6% in 2016. This increase was seen among both Black men (21% for Trump) and Black women (10% for Trump) in 2024. Despite this, a strong majority (83%) of Black voters still supported the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris[2].

– The increase in Republican support among Black voters in 2024 was driven more by changes in turnout patterns than by large numbers of voters switching parties. Some Black voters did switch from Biden in 2020 to Trump in 2024, but these defections were roughly balanced by voters moving in the opposite direction[2].

– Republican primary participation by Black voters remains very low. For example, in 2024 Republican primaries in South Carolina and Virginia, Black voters made up only 3-4% of GOP primary voters. In Georgia, only 5% of Black voters in the presidential primary chose a Republican ballot, indicating that the GOP remains overwhelmingly white and that Black voters largely participate in Democratic primaries[1].

– State-level data show that while Black voters maintain strong Democratic preferences, there were declines in Democratic support in some swing states between 2020 and 2024. However, these shifts are smaller compared to the more variable Latino/Hispanic vote margins[3].

– Broader political affiliation data show that while younger adults and women tend to lean Democratic, men in all age groups are more likely to identify as Republican. This gender gap is consistent across age groups but does not specifically isolate Black voters’ partisan identification[5].

In summary, while there is evidence of a modest rightward shift among some Black voters, especially in terms of increased Republican support in recent elections, the Black community as a whole remains predominantly aligned with the Democratic Party. The shift is not a wholesale realignment but rather a nuanced change influenced by turnout and demographic factors. The Republican Party has not experienced a major surge in Black voter participation or primary support[1][2][3].

Citations

Claim

The Ukraine war was initially characterized as a police action rather than a war.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the Ukraine war was initially characterized as a "police action" rather than a war is **accurate in the context of Russian official rhetoric at the start of the 2022 invasion**. Russian President Vladimir Putin described the February 24, 2022, invasion as a "special military operation," which is widely interpreted as a euphemism to avoid calling it a full-scale war. This terminology aligns with the concept of a "police action," implying a limited military engagement rather than an outright war[1][2].

Key supporting details:

– On February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but Putin framed it as a "special military operation" aimed at "demilitarizing and denazifying" Ukraine, rather than declaring war[1]. This language is consistent with downplaying the scale and nature of the conflict.
– The invasion involved simultaneous ground and air attacks from multiple fronts, marking it as the largest war in Europe since World War II[1][2].
– The term "police action" historically refers to limited military interventions without formal war declarations, often used to justify operations without full war mobilization or international war status. Putin’s "special military operation" can be seen as a modern parallel to this concept.
– Western and Ukrainian sources, however, have consistently described the event as a war or invasion from the outset, emphasizing the scale and intensity of the conflict[1][2][3].

Thus, the initial characterization as a "police action" or "special military operation" was a deliberate political framing by Russia to minimize the perception of war, but the actual military engagement was a full-scale war by international standards.

Regarding the additional context about the Cornell professor and his commentary on societal and economic issues, this does not directly affect the factual accuracy of the claim about the war’s initial characterization but illustrates how political narratives and terminology can influence public and academic discourse.

In summary, **the claim is valid in terms of Russian official terminology at the start of the conflict, but the reality on the ground was a full-scale war**[1][2][3].

Citations

Claim

John Cullen provided analysis suggesting shooting came from helicopters during the Las Vegas incident.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that John Cullen provided analysis suggesting the shooting during the 2017 Las Vegas incident came from helicopters is part of an alternate theory discussed by Cullen, who has engaged in commentary on the event's coverups and unusual aspects. Cullen has appeared in interviews and podcasts where he explores unconventional explanations, including the possibility of gunfire originating from aerial platforms such as helicopters or UAVs, rather than solely from the official sniper position in the Mandalay Bay hotel[2][5].

John Cullen, a tenured organic chemistry professor at Cornell University, is known for his societal and economic commentary, often challenging mainstream narratives despite potential backlash from colleagues. His involvement in discussing the Las Vegas shooting fits within his broader pattern of critical analysis and questioning of official accounts[5].

However, Cullen's helicopter gunfire theory is not supported by mainstream investigations or official technical evidence. The official investigation by law enforcement and forensic experts concluded that the gunfire originated from the Mandalay Bay hotel sniper suite, with no verified evidence of shots fired from helicopters or UAVs. Cullen’s analysis remains a speculative alternative theory rather than an established fact[1][2].

In summary:

– John Cullen has publicly discussed and analyzed the Las Vegas shooting, including suggesting the possibility of gunfire from helicopters or UAVs as an alternate theory[2][5].
– This theory is not supported by official investigations or technical evidence, which attribute the shooting to the Mandalay Bay hotel sniper position[1].
– Cullen’s commentary is consistent with his broader role as a critical thinker challenging mainstream narratives, but his helicopter gunfire claim remains speculative and unverified.

Thus, while John Cullen has indeed proposed or entertained the helicopter gunfire theory, it lacks corroboration from authoritative sources or forensic data.

Citations

Claim

Jamal Khashoggi was killed in the embassy in Istanbul.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside the Saudi consulate (often referred to as the embassy in common parlance) in Istanbul, Turkey, on October 2, 2018. He was ambushed, strangled, and murdered by a 15-member squad of Saudi operatives. His body was dismembered and disposed of in a manner that has never been publicly revealed[1][2].

The killing was premeditated, with investigations by Turkish officials, the United Nations, and the CIA concluding that the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally approved or ordered the assassination[1][2][5]. The consulate premises, which are under Saudi jurisdiction, were bugged by Turkish authorities, capturing Khashoggi’s final moments on audio recordings[1]. The Saudi government initially denied the killing but later admitted it was a premeditated murder, though they denied direct orders from the Crown Prince, who accepted responsibility only as it happened under his watch[1].

This incident led to international outcry, multiple investigations, and trials, with ongoing legal and diplomatic repercussions[2][4]. The case raised significant issues about consular immunity, international law, and human rights violations[4].

In summary, the claim that Jamal Khashoggi was killed in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul is accurate and well-documented by multiple credible sources[1][2][3][4][5].

Citations

Claim

We killed 5 million people in the Middle East directly and indirectly due to our post 9/11 responses.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "We killed 5 million people in the Middle East directly and indirectly due to our post 9/11 responses" aligns with some estimates of total deaths—including indirect deaths—from U.S. wars in the region after 9/11, but it is a controversial and debated figure.

A detailed report by researchers associated with Brown University’s Costs of War project estimates that **indirect deaths** (from war-related devastation such as economic collapse, health deterioration, and social disruption) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen have reached approximately **3.6 to 3.7 million**, with nearly **1 million additional deaths from direct combat** during the same period, totaling around **4.6 to 4.7 million deaths**[2]. This figure is close to the 5 million claimed but includes a broad definition of war-related deaths beyond direct combat fatalities.

In contrast, official U.S. Department of Defense data report much lower numbers of direct U.S. military casualties (around 4,400 deaths in Iraq alone) and civilian casualties in operations such as Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, numbering in the hundreds of thousands for host-nation civilians[1][4]. Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths vary widely, but credible sources suggest direct deaths in the hundreds of thousands, with indirect deaths raising the toll significantly.

The claim’s higher figure likely includes both direct combat deaths and indirect deaths caused by the broader consequences of war, such as infrastructure collapse, displacement, and health crises. This broader accounting is supported by academic and NGO reports but remains contested due to difficulties in precise measurement and differing methodologies[2][3][4].

In summary:

Thus, while the **5 million figure is within the range of some comprehensive estimates including indirect deaths**, it is not a universally accepted or precise number but rather a controversial estimate reflecting the complex human cost of post-9/11 U.S. military interventions in the Middle East[2][3][4].

Citations

Claim

The Uvalde shooting involved 800 law enforcement officers within reach, but they didn't engage for 78 minutes.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **800 law enforcement officers were within reach during the Uvalde shooting but did not engage for 78 minutes** is not supported by the most credible investigations. According to the Texas House of Representatives investigation and multiple detailed reports, about **376 law enforcement officers** responded to the Robb Elementary School shooting, not 800[1][2].

Regarding the timeline, law enforcement officers were on scene and in the hallways within minutes of the shooting starting, but a significant delay occurred before they breached the classroom where the shooter was located. The delay lasted approximately **about 1 hour and 15 minutes (75 minutes)** from the time the shooter entered the classroom until officers engaged and killed him[2][4]. This delay has been widely criticized as a failure of leadership, coordination, and urgency among the responding officers[1][4].

Key details include:

– 376 officers responded, including U.S. Border Patrol, state police, local police, and federal agents[1].
– Officers were present in the hallways near the classroom within minutes but did not immediately enter[2].
– The classroom door was reportedly never locked, but officers waited outside for over an hour before breaching[2].
– The delay was attributed to poor command decisions and lack of clear leadership on scene[1][4].
– The Texas House investigation described the law enforcement response as plagued by "systemic failures and egregious poor decision making"[4].

In summary, while there was a large law enforcement presence and a prolonged delay in engaging the shooter, the number of officers was closer to 376 rather than 800, and the delay was about 75 minutes, not exactly 78. The incident remains under scrutiny for these critical failures in response[1][2][4].

Citations

Claim

Last year I wrote about the history of World War II and the story we got about World War II is all wrong.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "The Story We Got About World War II is All Wrong"

The claim that the conventional narrative about World War II is incorrect suggests a revisionist perspective, which challenges the traditional understanding of historical events. Revisionism in historical contexts involves re-examining established interpretations and often presents alternative viewpoints. To assess the validity of this claim, we must consider the broader context of historical revisionism regarding World War II.

### Historical Revisionism and World War II

Historical revisionism concerning World War II encompasses a range of arguments, including:

1. **Causes of the War**: Some revisionists argue that the conflict was not solely the result of aggressive German expansionism but also due to Allied interventionism. For example, Charles A. Beard suggested that the United States contributed to the outbreak of war by pressuring Japan in 1940 and 1941[2]. Patrick Buchanan argued that the Anglo-French guarantee to Poland in 1939 encouraged Poland not to seek a compromise with Germany, thereby escalating tensions[2].

2. **Moral Ambiguity**: Revisionists often highlight the moral complexities of the war, suggesting that the Allies' actions were not entirely different from those of the Axis powers. Norman Davies has noted that the outcome of the war was ambiguous and that the Allies' moral reputation was tarnished[1].

3. **Eastern Front and Soviet Role**: There is also a focus on re-evaluating the Soviet Union's role in the war, with some arguing that the transformation of the Red Army into an effective force was underestimated, while others emphasize Stalin's responsibility for atrocities comparable to Hitler's[1][3].

### Validity of the Claim

The claim that the story we got about World War II is "all wrong" is an oversimplification. While revisionist perspectives offer valuable insights into the complexities and nuances of the war, they do not necessarily invalidate the entire traditional narrative. The orthodox view, which emphasizes the role of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as aggressors, remains widely accepted among historians[2].

However, revisionism does contribute to a more nuanced understanding by highlighting aspects such as Allied brutality, the role of economic pressures, and the moral ambiguities of the conflict. Therefore, the claim should be understood as an invitation to engage with a broader range of historical interpretations rather than a wholesale rejection of established history.

### Conclusion

In conclusion, while the traditional narrative of World War II remains a cornerstone of historical understanding, revisionist perspectives offer important critiques and insights. These perspectives do not render the conventional story "all wrong" but rather enrich our understanding of the war's complexities. Engaging with both orthodox and revisionist views is essential for a comprehensive historical analysis.

Citations

Claim

AI's going to make the system very unforgivingly brittle.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **AI will make the system very unforgivingly brittle** is a speculative future-oriented assertion about the impact of artificial intelligence on societal and systemic resilience, implying that AI could increase fragility in social, economic, or institutional structures.

Regarding the context of the Cornell professor’s commentary, there is no direct evidence in the search results linking AI specifically to system brittleness or fragility. However, the professor’s broader concerns about societal and economic instability, rising educational costs, social unrest, and the consequences of policy and cultural shifts at universities like Cornell do reflect anxieties about systemic vulnerabilities and rigidity in institutions[1][4][5].

Key relevant points from the search results about Cornell’s environment and systemic challenges include:

– Cornell has faced controversies around free speech, expressive activity policies, and campus climate, with ongoing tensions between protecting free expression and maintaining community standards[1][2][3][4].
– The university’s policies have evolved to balance free speech with preventing harassment and disruption, but surveys show significant self-censorship and discomfort expressing ideas among students, indicating a fragile climate for open discourse[5].
– The professor’s reflections on cancel culture and institutional pressures align with a perception that some systems (like higher education) may be brittle or unforgiving in terms of ideological conformity and resistance to dissent[5].
– Economic concerns about inflated asset prices, educational costs, and potential downturns suggest systemic financial vulnerabilities that could exacerbate social unrest[summary].

While AI is not explicitly discussed in these sources as a cause of systemic brittleness, the professor’s broader critique of institutional rigidity and social risk could be extended to include AI’s potential to amplify systemic fragility if AI-driven automation, decision-making, or surveillance intensify existing vulnerabilities or reduce system adaptability.

In summary, **the claim about AI making systems unforgivingly brittle is a plausible speculative concern but is not directly supported or detailed in the provided search results**. The professor’s commentary highlights systemic risks and institutional challenges that could be worsened by technological changes like AI, but explicit evidence or analysis on AI’s role in brittleness is absent from the available information.

Citations

Claim

There is no mention of dead children related to the Maui fires on Wikipedia.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that there is no mention of dead children related to the Maui fires on Wikipedia can be fact-checked by reviewing credible sources and the available information about the event.

Based on the search results:

– The Maui wildfires in August 2023 caused at least 115 fatalities overall, with extensive destruction in Lahaina and surrounding areas[1][2]. However, specific details about the number or mention of deceased children are not explicitly provided in the sources reviewed.

– The Hawaii Department of Education (DOE) stated that the number of students missing or killed in the Lahaina fire is so small that releasing exact figures would violate privacy laws[3]. This implies that there were some student deaths, but the exact number is withheld to protect identities.

– The DOE is actively tracking displaced students and their enrollment status but has not publicly disclosed specific data on deceased children, consistent with privacy concerns[3].

– Official reports and investigations focus on overall fatalities and emergency response but do not detail age-specific death counts publicly[4].

Regarding Wikipedia, while the search results do not directly confirm the current Wikipedia content, the absence of publicly available detailed information about deceased children in official and news sources suggests that Wikipedia may not have explicit mention of dead children related to the Maui fires, likely due to privacy and sensitivity reasons.

In summary, credible sources acknowledge fatalities including potentially some children, but exact numbers or explicit mentions are withheld for privacy. This likely explains the absence of such details on Wikipedia. Therefore, the claim that Wikipedia does not mention dead children related to the Maui fires is consistent with the available public information and privacy practices.

Citations

Claim

The control of information shapes people's understanding of the world around them and is a core issue.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **control of information shapes people's understanding of the world and is a core issue** aligns with broader theories about information control, media narratives, and censorship. This is reflected in the context of a Cornell University organic chemistry professor who comments on societal and economic issues, facing some backlash but no formal university opposition, illustrating tensions around free speech and information control in academia.

Cornell University has recently updated its policies on expressive activity and free speech, emphasizing a balance between **free and open inquiry and expression** and necessary regulations to protect civil rights and campus safety. The university explicitly supports academic freedom and free speech, including controversial or offensive ideas, while also setting boundaries against harassment, threats, and disruptions[1][2][4][5].

The professor's experience with pushback for expressing views on policing and economic predictions, yet not facing formal reprimand, suggests that while there is some social pressure or "cancel culture," Cornell's policies and culture still somewhat protect free expression compared to other institutions. The university's policy updates and statements indicate an ongoing negotiation between protecting free speech and managing community standards, which inherently involves control over what information and viewpoints are allowed or suppressed[1][2][5].

This dynamic illustrates how **control of information—through university policies, social norms, and institutional responses—can shape what ideas are heard and how people understand social and economic realities**. The professor's critique of higher education's focus on diversity initiatives and federal funding, and his warnings about economic downturn and social unrest, underscore the importance of critical thinking and historical awareness in navigating these controlled information environments.

In summary, the claim is valid and exemplified by the Cornell case: control over expressive activity and information shapes understanding and is a core societal issue, especially in academic settings where free speech and social agendas intersect[1][2][4][5].

Citations

Claim

The internet has made it impossible to control information effectively, leading to the flooding of misleading content.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the internet has made it impossible to control information effectively, leading to a flood of misleading content, is broadly supported by media studies and societal observations, though it is not absolute. The internet’s decentralized and rapid dissemination capabilities have indeed complicated traditional information control, enabling both widespread access and the proliferation of misinformation.

Regarding the context of Cornell University and the professor described, Cornell officially affirms strong commitments to free speech, academic freedom, and open inquiry, despite some tensions and criticisms about policy enforcement and campus climate. Cornell’s policies emphasize protecting free expression even when ideas are controversial or offensive, while balancing civil rights and safety[2][3][4]. However, critics and advocacy groups like the Cornell Free Speech Alliance argue that impediments to viewpoint diversity and free expression persist, advocating reforms to restore these principles more fully[5].

The professor’s experience—predicting economic events in class without reprimand, facing backlash for expressing support for police, and critiquing social agendas in higher education—reflects ongoing debates about free speech, academic rigor, and ideological pressures within universities. Cornell’s administration publicly supports free expression but also issues guidance that some view as limiting political speech in classrooms, illustrating the complex balance institutions try to maintain between open discourse and community standards[1].

In summary:

– The internet’s nature makes controlling information difficult, contributing to the spread of misleading content, a widely recognized phenomenon in media studies.

– Cornell University officially endorses free speech and academic freedom but faces challenges and criticisms in practice, reflecting broader societal tensions around expression and ideological diversity.

– The professor’s narrative aligns with these tensions, highlighting issues of cancel culture, ideological conformity, and the impact of social agendas on academic environments.

This nuanced situation illustrates how the internet and institutional policies intersect with free expression debates, especially in academic settings. The claim about the internet’s impact on information control is valid in a general sense, while Cornell’s case exemplifies the complexities of managing free speech and viewpoint diversity in practice.

Citations

Claim

Gorbachev seemed to want to get rid of directed energy weapons.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

Mikhail Gorbachev did not explicitly seek to "get rid of directed energy weapons" as a category, but he was strongly concerned about the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which involved directed energy weapons such as space-based lasers. He was influenced by his military advisors who warned that the U.S. was developing advanced space weapons including kinetic energy and directed energy weapons, and he insisted that the U.S. should not be allowed to test these technologies beyond laboratory settings. Gorbachev’s stance was shaped by fears of an arms race in space and the potential threat these weapons posed, leading him to push for delaying or limiting their development and testing[2].

At the same time, Gorbachev was focused on reducing overall military spending and nuclear arms, exemplified by his signing of the INF Treaty in 1987, which eliminated an entire class of intermediate-range nuclear missiles. His reforms under *perestroika* aimed to curb excessive military expenditures, including opposition to the Soviet version of the U.S. "Star Wars" program (SDI), reflecting skepticism about the feasibility and wisdom of such directed energy weapons programs[1][3][5].

In summary, Gorbachev’s approach was not a blanket desire to eliminate all directed energy weapons but rather a strategic effort to control and limit the development and deployment of space-based directed energy weapons, particularly those associated with the U.S. SDI program, while pursuing broader nuclear disarmament and military spending reductions[2][3][5].

Citations

Claim

Directed energy weapons (DEWs) are considered to be a form of advanced military technology.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

Directed energy weapons (DEWs) are indeed considered a form of advanced military technology. They use concentrated electromagnetic energy, such as high-energy lasers or high-powered microwaves, to incapacitate, damage, or destroy enemy equipment, facilities, or personnel without relying on traditional kinetic projectiles[1][2][4].

The U.S. Department of Defense and other military organizations actively develop and deploy DEWs, recognizing their unique advantages such as engaging targets at the speed of light, precision, potentially deep magazines (ability to fire many shots without reloading), and relatively low cost per shot[1][3]. These weapons are being integrated into various platforms including ground vehicles, aircraft, ships, and are intended for missions like short-range air defense, counter-unmanned aircraft systems, and counter-rocket artillery[1][2].

While DEWs are not expected to replace conventional weapons entirely, they are viewed as essential adjuncts to modern military capabilities, providing new options for dominance in land, air, sea, and space domains[2][5]. The technology has matured significantly over recent decades, with programs such as the U.S. Air Force’s Tactical High-power Operational Responder (THOR), the UK’s DragonFire laser weapon, and others demonstrating operational potential[4].

In summary, DEWs are classified as advanced military technology due to their novel use of electromagnetic energy for offensive and defensive purposes, their ongoing development and deployment by major military powers, and their strategic implications for future warfare[1][2][3][4][5].

Citations

Claim

The average person does not understand how universities work.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "the average person does not understand how universities work" is supported by the complex realities of higher education institutions, including their internal policies, social dynamics, and economic pressures, which are often opaque to the general public.

A tenured organic chemistry professor at Cornell University highlights this disconnect by discussing his experiences with controversial societal and economic commentary within the university setting. He notes that despite potential pushback from colleagues, he has been able to express views on topics such as economic downturns and social unrest, reflecting a nuanced environment where free speech is both valued and contested. His recounting of a past prediction about the banking collapse and a 2020 incident involving backlash for supporting the police illustrates the tensions between academic freedom and social pressures on campus.

Cornell University officially promotes free speech and academic freedom as core values, with policies affirming the importance of open inquiry and expression. However, recent developments show that the university has implemented restrictions on political speech in classrooms and regulated outdoor demonstrations and student postings, which some critics argue limit spontaneous expression and may chill academic freedom. For example, guidance issued to faculty advises avoiding advancing personal political views in class, and new policies require advance registration for large outdoor events and administrative approval for posting flyers, which complicates free expression on campus.

These policies reflect a balancing act between protecting free speech and maintaining a "community of belonging," which sometimes leads to restrictions on speech that could be perceived as harassment or disruptive. The professor critiques the broader higher education system for emphasizing diversity initiatives and federal funding over merit and warns about the rising costs of education and their impact on future generations.

Overall, the professor’s perspective and Cornell’s evolving policies demonstrate that universities are complex institutions with competing priorities—academic freedom, social inclusion, political expression, and administrative regulation—that are not always well understood by the public. This complexity supports the claim that the average person may lack a full understanding of how universities operate internally and navigate these challenges[1][2][3][4][5].

Citations

Claim

Educated 22 year olds are having trouble getting jobs.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **educated 22-year-olds are having trouble getting jobs** is supported by recent employment statistics showing elevated unemployment and underemployment rates among recent college graduates, especially outside high-demand fields like engineering or chemistry.

Recent data indicate that the unemployment rate for recent college graduates aged roughly 20–29 was about **7.1% in late 2024**, nearly double the general population rate of 4.1% in mid-2025[1]. Another source reports a 5.8% unemployment rate for recent graduates aged 22–27 as of March 2025, the highest since 2013 outside pandemic anomalies[2]. This confirms a worsening job market for new graduates compared to historical trends.

Employment prospects vary significantly by major. Graduates in **engineering, healthcare, computer science, and government** tend to have strong employment rates, while those in **liberal arts, social sciences, communications, and hospitality** face much higher unemployment and underemployment[1][2]. For example, the underemployment rate (working in jobs not requiring a degree) remains high, with over half of graduates initially underemployed and many remaining so even 10 years later, indicating persistent career challenges[5].

Additionally, gender disparities exist: male college graduates now face unemployment rates similar to non-college-educated men, signaling a diminished "degree premium" in some demographics[3].

In summary, **educated young adults, particularly recent college graduates outside STEM or healthcare fields, are indeed experiencing significant difficulty securing suitable employment**, with elevated unemployment and underemployment rates documented in multiple recent sources[1][2][3][5]. This aligns with the broader economic concerns and critiques of higher education outcomes discussed by the Cornell professor, who highlights systemic issues affecting graduates' economic prospects.

Citations

Claim

There's foreshadowing of real trouble coming in the economy.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that there is foreshadowing of real trouble coming in the economy aligns with the perspective of the Cornell organic chemistry professor described, who predicts an impending economic downturn driven by inflated asset prices and expresses concern about future financial instability and social unrest. This view is based on his analysis of economic conditions and historical awareness, reflecting a cautious outlook on the economy's near future.

The professor's commentary highlights several key points:

– He has previously predicted significant economic events, such as a banking collapse, indicating his engagement with economic forecasting despite being primarily a chemistry academic.

– He critiques current higher education trends, including reliance on diversity initiatives and federal funding, arguing these contribute to rising educational costs and potential economic consequences for future generations.

– His prediction of economic trouble is tied to inflated asset prices, suggesting a bubble or unsustainable growth that could lead to a downturn.

– He also foresees social unrest as a consequence of financial instability, emphasizing the interconnectedness of economic and societal factors.

– The professor stresses the importance of historical knowledge and critical thinking in evaluating economic and educational outcomes, implying that understanding past patterns can help anticipate future challenges.

Regarding the university environment, Cornell appears to maintain a commitment to free expression and academic freedom, as reflected in recent policy updates that balance free speech with community safety and civil rights protections. This environment may allow faculty like this professor to express controversial or critical views without formal reprimand, despite occasional backlash or social pressures.

In summary, the claim of foreshadowing economic trouble is supported by the professor's informed analysis and concerns about inflated asset prices and social consequences, grounded in his broader critique of educational and societal trends. This perspective is consistent with cautious economic forecasts that warn of potential downturns following periods of asset inflation and systemic vulnerabilities.

Citations

Claim

The Case Shiller PE averaged around 12-13 for 110 years and then around 1990 it started to take off.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the Case-Shiller PE (Cyclically Adjusted Price-to-Earnings, or CAPE) ratio averaged around 12-13 for about 110 years and then started to rise around 1990 is broadly consistent with historical data, though the exact average and timing require some nuance.

Key points from the data:

– The long-term average Shiller PE ratio for the S&P 500 is about 17.27 since 1881, with a median of 16.05, a minimum around 4.78 (in 1920), and a maximum of 44.19 (in 1999)[1]. This suggests the average was somewhat higher than 12-13 over the full 140+ years of data.

– However, research shows a structural shift in valuation levels starting roughly in the early 1980s. Between 1953 and 1983, the average Shiller PE was about 15.6, while from 1983 to 2025 it rose to approximately 24.5[3]. This indicates a notable increase in valuation multiples beginning around that time.

– The claim of a rise "around 1990" aligns reasonably well with this observed shift in the 1980s-1990s period, when valuations began to trend higher and the CAPE ratio moved away from its earlier historical range.

– The original Shiller PE data and methodology date back to Robert Shiller's work in the 1980s and his book *Irrational Exuberance*, which popularized the CAPE ratio as a valuation metric smoothing earnings over 10 years to reduce volatility[1][5].

In summary, while the exact average CAPE over the entire 110+ year period was closer to 15-17 rather than 12-13, there is strong evidence that the CAPE ratio was relatively stable at lower levels for much of the 20th century and then began a sustained upward trend starting in the 1980s, continuing through the 1990s and beyond. This supports the core of the claim about a historical baseline followed by a significant rise in valuations around that time.

Citations

Claim

Interest rates from 1981 to 1999 went down, while they went up from 1967 to 1981.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **interest rates rose from 1967 to 1981 and then declined from 1981 to 1999** is historically accurate according to financial records and economic history.

From the late 1960s through 1981, interest rates in the United States generally increased, reaching very high levels by the early 1980s. This period was marked by high inflation and tight monetary policy under Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who raised the federal funds rate to combat inflation. The prime interest rate peaked around 1981 at historically high levels (over 20%) during this time.

After 1981, interest rates began a long-term decline through the 1980s and 1990s, reflecting the successful reduction of inflation and a shift to more accommodative monetary policy. By the late 1990s, interest rates were significantly lower than their early 1980s peak, with the federal funds rate and long-term bond yields falling steadily.

This trend is well documented in historical economic data and financial records, confirming the claim's accuracy.

Regarding the additional context about the tenured organic chemistry professor at Cornell University, while the search results provide extensive information about Cornell's policies on academic freedom and some prominent chemistry faculty, they do not directly address the historical interest rate trends or the professor's economic commentary. However, the professor's reflections on economic conditions and social issues align with the broader understanding of economic cycles and monetary policy impacts during those decades.

In summary:

– **Interest rates increased from 1967 to 1981**, peaking in the early 1980s due to inflation and tight monetary policy.
– **Interest rates decreased from 1981 to 1999**, as inflation was brought under control and monetary policy eased.
– This pattern is consistent with historical financial data and economic analysis.

No contradictory evidence was found in the search results, and this economic trend is widely accepted in economic literature.

Citations

Claim

The Case Shiller PE is now 38, which is much higher than the historical average.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the **Case Shiller PE ratio is now 38, which is much higher than the historical average**, is accurate based on recent financial data. The Shiller PE ratio, also known as the cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings (CAPE) ratio, currently stands around **38.3**, which is significantly above its recent 20-year average of about **27**[1]. This elevated level indicates that the market valuation is high relative to historical norms, suggesting lower expected future returns.

Key supporting details:

– The Shiller PE ratio smooths earnings over 10 years adjusted for inflation to reduce volatility and provide a long-term valuation metric[2].
– A current Shiller PE of 38.3 is about **41% higher** than the recent 20-year average of 27, confirming that valuations are elevated compared to historical levels[1].
– Historically, the average Shiller PE ratio has been closer to 15-20 over the very long term, so 38 is well above typical historical norms, indicating a potentially overvalued market.
– This high valuation level implies subdued future market returns, with estimates around 2.2% annual return going forward if the ratio mean-reverts[1].

In summary, the claim is supported by up-to-date market valuation data from authoritative financial sources, confirming that the Case Shiller PE ratio is indeed around 38 and significantly above its historical average, reflecting elevated market valuations[1][2].

Citations

We believe in transparency and accuracy. That’s why this blog post was verified with CheckForFacts.
Start your fact-checking journey today and help create a smarter, more informed future!