In the rapidly evolving field of neuroscience, the intersection of technology and spirituality raises profound questions and challenges our understanding of human consciousness. In the latest episode of the Shawn Ryan Show, renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson engages in a thought-provoking discussion about Neuralink, the implications of advanced brain-computer interfaces, and the role of divine influence in the complexities of the human mind. With a rich background as both a groundbreaking surgeon and a public servant, Dr. Carson provides a unique perspective on these critical issues. In this blog post, we will fact-check the claims and statements made during the episode, ensuring that what is presented aligns with current scientific knowledge and ethical considerations surrounding neuroscience and technology. Join us as we delve into the truths and misconceptions highlighted in this insightful conversation.

Find the according transcript on TRNSCRBR

All information as of 03/18/2025

Fact Check Analysis

Claim

Ben Carson gained international recognition for leading the first successful separation of conjoined twins.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Ben Carson's Role in Separating Conjoined Twins

The claim that Ben Carson gained international recognition for leading the first successful separation of conjoined twins is supported by multiple reliable sources. Here's a detailed analysis of the evidence:

### Background and Procedure

In 1987, Dr. Ben Carson led a team of surgeons at Johns Hopkins Children's Center in the separation of conjoined twins Patrick and Benjamin Binder, who were joined at the back of the head (occipital craniopagus twins) [1][3][4]. This operation was groundbreaking because it was the first time such a separation had been successfully performed on twins joined at the back of the head [2][4].

The surgery involved a 70-member team and lasted approximately 22 hours. The twins' body temperatures were lowered to induce circulatory arrest, a technique that allowed the surgeons to minimize bleeding and trauma during the procedure [3][5]. Despite the twins suffering some brain damage and post-operative complications, both initially survived the separation, marking a significant medical achievement [2][3].

### Outcomes and Legacy

Although both twins survived the surgery, they experienced severe neurological issues. Patrick eventually died, while Benjamin remained institutionalized and unable to speak or care for himself [1][4]. Despite these challenges, the surgery was considered a medical breakthrough and paved the way for future conjoined twin separations [2][4].

Carson's success in this operation catapulted him to international fame and established him as a leading figure in pediatric neurosurgery [4][5]. He went on to perform several other notable surgeries, including the separation of Zambian twins Joseph and Luka Banda in 1997, which resulted in a successful outcome with no neurological damage [2][5].

### Conclusion

The claim that Ben Carson gained international recognition for leading the first successful separation of conjoined twins is accurate. The 1987 surgery on Patrick and Benjamin Binder was a pioneering achievement in neurosurgery, marking a significant milestone in the field. While the twins' long-term outcomes were complicated, the procedure itself was a medical success that contributed to Carson's reputation as a skilled neurosurgeon.

**Evidence Supporting the Claim:**
– **First Successful Separation:** The surgery was the first of its kind for twins joined at the back of the head [2][4].
– **International Recognition:** The operation brought Carson international fame and recognition in the medical community [4][5].
– **Medical Breakthrough:** The procedure paved the way for future conjoined twin separations and advanced neurosurgical techniques [2][4].

**Sources:**
– [1] Wikipedia: Patrick and Benjamin Binder
– [2] Biography.com: Ben Carson
– [3] Fox News: Ben Carson's Historic Surgery
– [4] Wikipedia: Ben Carson
– [5] Britannica: Ben Carson Biography

Citations

Claim

Concierge medical practices generally cost between $5,000 to $10,000 per year.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Concierge Medical Practices Generally Cost Between $5,000 to $10,000 Per Year

The claim that concierge medical practices generally cost between $5,000 to $10,000 per year can be evaluated by examining recent market analyses and pricing surveys.

### Evidence from Reliable Sources

1. **Cost Range**: Concierge medicine fees typically range from $1,200 to $50,000 annually, with some practices charging as high as $100,000 per year[1]. This broad range indicates that while some practices may fall within the $5,000 to $10,000 range, others may be significantly higher or lower.

2. **Average Costs**: The average cost for many concierge practices is often reported between $2,000 and $5,000 per year[5]. However, in major markets, costs can be higher, such as Sollis Health's membership fees ranging from $3,500 to $10,000 annually[5].

3. **Variability by Location and Service**: Costs can vary significantly based on location and the specific services offered. For instance, practices in affluent areas or those offering specialized services may charge higher fees[3][5].

### Conclusion

While some concierge medical practices may indeed charge between $5,000 to $10,000 per year, this is not a universal cost range. The fees for concierge medicine vary widely, reflecting differences in services, location, and target clientele. Therefore, the claim is partially accurate but does not capture the full spectrum of costs associated with concierge medical practices.

### Recommendations for Further Research

– **Market Analyses**: Conducting comprehensive market analyses that include surveys of various concierge practices across different regions can provide a more precise understanding of the cost distribution.
– **Pricing Surveys**: Gathering data through pricing surveys from a diverse set of concierge medicine providers would help refine the cost ranges and identify trends by location and service type.

In summary, while the claim is partially supported, it does not fully reflect the variability in costs across different concierge medical practices.

Citations

Claim

In 1960, the average woman had 3.6 children; now we're down to 1.6.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that "In 1960, the average woman had 3.6 children; now we're down to 1.6," we need to examine historical and current fertility rates globally and in specific regions.

## Historical Fertility Rates

In 1960, the global average fertility rate was approximately 4.7 children per woman, not 3.6[2]. This figure varied significantly across different regions, with higher rates in less developed countries and lower rates in more developed ones.

## Current Fertility Rates

As of recent years, the global fertility rate has declined significantly. By 2021, the global average had fallen to about 2.3 children per woman[1][2]. This decline is part of a broader trend known as the demographic transition, where fertility rates decrease as societies develop economically and socially[2].

## Regional Variations

Fertility rates vary greatly around the world. In 2023, countries in Africa and Central Asia had some of the highest fertility rates, often above 3 children per woman, while many East Asian countries had rates below 1 child per woman[1]. The claim of an average of 1.6 children per woman might be more accurate for certain regions or countries but does not reflect the global average.

## Conclusion

The claim that "In 1960, the average woman had 3.6 children; now we're down to 1.6" is not accurate when considering global averages. In 1960, the global fertility rate was about 4.7 children per woman, and by 2021, it had decreased to approximately 2.3 children per woman[1][2]. While some regions may have fertility rates around 1.6 children per woman, this figure does not represent the global average.

Therefore, the claim is **inaccurate** based on available demographic data.

Citations

Claim

The average age of death for neurosurgeons is 61.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the average age of death for neurosurgeons is 61, we need to examine available medical literature and health statistics related to neurosurgeons.

## Available Data on Neurosurgeons' Life Expectancy

1. **Brazilian Neurosurgeons**: A study on Brazilian neurosurgeons found that between 2009 and 2016, the mean age at death was 68.31 ± 17.71 years[1]. This data suggests that the average age of death for Brazilian neurosurgeons is significantly higher than the claimed 61 years.

2. **General Life Expectancy of Doctors**: While specific data on neurosurgeons' life expectancy globally is limited, doctors generally live longer than the general population. A study noted that the mean age at death for all medical specialties was 78.9 years[3]. However, this figure includes a wide range of medical specialties, not just neurosurgery.

3. **Retirement and Life Expectancy**: Neurosurgeons typically retire around the age of 60, with a life expectancy of approximately 80 years[5]. This indicates that neurosurgeons, like many other medical professionals, have a significant period of life after retirement.

## Conclusion

Based on the available data, the claim that the average age of death for neurosurgeons is 61 does not appear to be supported. The mean age at death for Brazilian neurosurgeons was found to be 68.31 years[1], and neurosurgeons generally retire around 60 with a life expectancy of about 80 years[5]. Therefore, the claim seems to be an underestimation.

## Recommendations for Further Research

To confirm or refute this claim more conclusively, additional studies focusing specifically on neurosurgeons from diverse geographical and demographic backgrounds would be beneficial. Such research could provide a more comprehensive understanding of life expectancy trends among neurosurgeons globally.

Citations

Claim

The whites-only policy in Australia was officially abolished in 1968.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: The Whites-Only Policy in Australia Was Officially Abolished in 1968

The claim that the whites-only policy in Australia, commonly known as the White Australia policy, was officially abolished in 1968 is not accurate. Historical records indicate that the policy underwent significant changes and eventual dismantling over several years, but not specifically in 1968.

### Background of the White Australia Policy

The White Australia policy was established with the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, aiming to restrict non-European immigration to maintain a predominantly white population[3]. The policy used mechanisms like the dictation test to exclude non-Europeans without explicitly stating racial exclusion[3].

### Key Milestones in the Abolition of the White Australia Policy

1. **1958**: The Migration Act abolished the dictation test, a key tool of the White Australia policy, but did not immediately end racial discrimination in immigration[1][3].

2. **1966**: Prime Minister Harold Holt's government made significant changes, allowing non-white immigrants to become permanent residents and citizens after five years, similar to Europeans. The policy shifted towards selecting migrants based on skills rather than race[1][5].

3. **1971**: The government further emphasized establishing a multi-racial society, though some restrictions remained[1].

4. **1973**: The Whitlam Labor government officially dismantled the racial aspects of immigration law, ensuring all migrants could obtain citizenship after three years of residence, regardless of origin[1][3].

5. **1975**: The Racial Discrimination Act made it illegal to use racial criteria for official purposes, solidifying the end of the White Australia policy[1][3].

### Conclusion

The claim that the White Australia policy was officially abolished in 1968 is incorrect. While significant steps were taken in 1966 towards dismantling the policy, the final legal and legislative changes occurred in 1973 and were reinforced by the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. Therefore, the process of abolishing the White Australia policy was gradual and culminated in the early 1970s rather than in 1968.

**Evidence and Citations:**
– The Migration Act of 1958 abolished the dictation test but did not end racial discrimination immediately[1][3].
– Key changes in 1966 moved towards a skills-based immigration system[1][5].
– The Whitlam government's reforms in 1973 and the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 marked the comprehensive end of the policy[1][3].

Citations

Claim

Many people in the system who are not good people are doing things only to enhance their own position and wealth.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "Many people in the system who are not good people are doing things only to enhance their own position and wealth."

The claim suggests a critique of political or bureaucratic systems, implying that some individuals within these systems prioritize personal gain over ethical considerations. To evaluate this claim, we can examine research on power dynamics, corruption, and bureaucratic accountability.

### Power Dynamics and Corruption

1. **Corrupting Effects of Power**: Research indicates that power can have a corrupting influence on individuals, leading them to prioritize self-interest over ethical behavior. Studies show that powerful people are more likely to engage in unethical actions, such as cheating or lying, and may feel entitled to break rules due to their status[2]. This sense of entitlement can stem from a false sense of superiority and the lack of oversight in some environments.

2. **Addiction to Power**: The addictive nature of power can drive individuals to accumulate more power and wealth, often through unethical means. This addiction is fueled by factors like fear of losing power and the desire for prestige[2].

3. **Examples of Corruption**: Historical and contemporary cases of corruption among politicians and corporate leaders illustrate how power can lead to unethical behavior. These cases often involve abuse of authority for personal gain, reinforcing the notion that some individuals in positions of power prioritize their own interests over public welfare[2].

### Bureaucratic Accountability

1. **Accountability in Bureaucracy**: The concept of accountability in bureaucratic systems is complex. While elections are crucial for legitimacy, they are not the sole means of ensuring accountability. Everyday administrative practices and interdependent relationships within bureaucracies can also promote accountability by incorporating multiple perspectives and encouraging negotiated outcomes[4].

2. **Critique of Bureaucratic Systems**: The perception that bureaucrats are unaccountable is often based on a narrow view of democracy that focuses solely on electoral connections. However, this overlooks the internal mechanisms within bureaucracies that can foster accountability through structured practices and relationships[4].

### Conclusion

The claim that many individuals in political or bureaucratic systems act primarily to enhance their own position and wealth is supported by research on the corrupting effects of power and examples of corruption. However, it is also important to recognize that not all individuals in these systems behave unethically, and there are mechanisms within bureaucracies that can promote accountability and ethical behavior.

### Evidence and References

– **Corrupting Effects of Power**: Research on power's influence on behavior highlights its potential to lead individuals to prioritize self-interest over ethical considerations[2].
– **Examples of Corruption**: Historical cases of corruption among powerful individuals illustrate how power can be abused for personal gain[2].
– **Bureaucratic Accountability**: Studies on bureaucratic systems show that while some individuals may act unethically, internal practices can promote accountability[4].

In summary, while the claim has some basis in research on power dynamics and corruption, it is essential to acknowledge the complexity of bureaucratic systems and the potential for both ethical and unethical behavior within them.

Citations

Claim

We were able to get Irv Dennis who was a senior partner at Ernst & Young to help get the fiscal mismanagement under control.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Irv Dennis's Role in Resolving Fiscal Mismanagement at HUD

The claim suggests that Irv Dennis, a senior partner at Ernst & Young, played a crucial role in addressing fiscal mismanagement at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). To evaluate this claim, we can examine historical records and press releases from the relevant period.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Irv Dennis's Background and Appointment**: Irv Dennis was indeed a senior partner at Ernst & Young for 37 years before becoming the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) at HUD in January 2018[1][3]. His extensive experience in corporate governance, financial transformations, and internal controls made him well-suited to address financial issues at HUD[5].

2. **Financial Transformation at HUD**: Under Dennis's leadership, HUD implemented significant financial reforms. He established the Agency-Wide Integrity Task Force and developed a detailed transformation plan focusing on areas like corporate governance, financial transformation, IT modernization, and enterprise risk management[1][3]. This effort led to a reduction in material weaknesses in financial processes, with all but one weakness resolved by 2019[1].

3. **Improvements in Financial Reporting**: Dennis's initiatives resulted in HUD releasing clean financial statements for the first time in seven years, marking a significant improvement in financial reporting and credibility[1][3].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence, the claim that Irv Dennis helped get fiscal mismanagement under control at HUD is **valid**. His private sector experience and leadership were instrumental in transforming HUD's financial practices, improving governance, and enhancing financial reporting.

### Additional Context

While the claim focuses on Irv Dennis's role, it is also important to note that his efforts were part of a broader initiative under Secretary Ben Carson to improve HUD's operations and align them more closely with private sector standards[3]. This context highlights the collaborative nature of the reforms and the strategic use of private sector expertise in public sector management.

Citations

Claim

At age 33, Ben Carson became the youngest major division director in Johns Hopkins Hospital's history as the head of pediatric neurosurgery.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim

The claim that **at age 33, Ben Carson became the youngest major division director in Johns Hopkins Hospital's history as the head of pediatric neurosurgery** can be verified through multiple reliable sources.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Age and Position**: Dr. Carson became the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital at the age of 33, which is confirmed by several sources. For instance, Biography.com states that by 1985, Carson was the director of pediatric neurosurgery at the age of 33, making him the youngest U.S. physician to hold such a position[2]. Similarly, Dr. Carson's profile on the Carson Scholars Fund website mentions that he assumed this role at 33, becoming the youngest major division director in the hospital's history[1].

2. **Historical Records**: While specific historical records from Johns Hopkins Hospital are not directly cited in the available sources, the consistency across reputable biographies and profiles supports the claim. For example, Britannica.com also notes that Carson became one of the youngest doctors in the U.S. to earn such a title[5].

3. **Career Timeline**: Dr. Carson's career progression aligns with this timeline. After completing his residency at Johns Hopkins, he briefly worked in Australia before returning to Johns Hopkins in 1984. By 1985, he was appointed as the Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery[2][3].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence from multiple reliable sources, the claim that **at age 33, Ben Carson became the youngest major division director in Johns Hopkins Hospital's history as the head of pediatric neurosurgery** is **verified**. Dr. Carson's appointment at such a young age reflects his exceptional talent and rapid career advancement in the field of neurosurgery.

### Additional Context

Dr. Carson's journey from poverty to becoming a renowned neurosurgeon and public figure is a testament to his perseverance and the importance of education. His achievements in neurosurgery, including the separation of conjoined twins, have been widely recognized. Later, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, he emphasized community involvement and mental health support in addressing homelessness[1][5]. Throughout his career, Carson has advocated for education, personal initiative, and moral integrity[1][5].

Citations

Claim

Ben Carson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008, the highest civilian honor in the United States.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Ben Carson Received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008

The claim that Ben Carson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008 is accurate and supported by multiple reliable sources.

### Evidence and Confirmation

1. **Official Government Records**: The White House press release from June 19, 2008, confirms that Dr. Benjamin S. Carson, Sr., was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush. This award is described as the nation's highest civilian honor, recognizing Carson's contributions to medicine and his efforts to motivate youth to strive for excellence[1][5].

2. **Public Announcements**: The ceremony where Carson received the medal was covered by various media outlets and official government announcements. These sources highlight Carson's achievements in pediatric neurosurgery and his dedication to improving the lives of America's youth[3][5].

3. **Biographical Information**: Carson's biography, as detailed in reputable sources like Wikiwand and Wikipedia, also confirms that he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008. These platforms provide comprehensive overviews of his career, including his medical achievements and public service[2][4].

### Conclusion

Based on the evidence from official government records, public announcements, and biographical information, the claim that Ben Carson received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008 is **true**. This award acknowledges his groundbreaking work in neurosurgery and his commitment to inspiring young people to achieve academic and humanitarian excellence.

### Additional Context

Dr. Ben Carson's life story is a testament to the power of perseverance and education. Born into poverty in Detroit, he overcame early academic struggles through a newfound love of reading, which was encouraged by his mother. He went on to become a renowned neurosurgeon, known for pioneering procedures such as the separation of conjoined twins. Carson later transitioned into public service, serving as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President Donald Trump. Throughout his career, he has emphasized the importance of education, personal initiative, and moral integrity, advocating for unity across political divides[2][4].

Citations

Claim

Dr. Ben Carson ran for president in 2016 and was appointed by President Trump as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) serving from 2017 to 2021.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Dr. Ben Carson ran for president in 2016 and was appointed by President Trump as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) serving from 2017 to 2021 can be substantiated by reliable sources.

## Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **2016 Presidential Campaign**: Ben Carson announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential election on May 4, 2015. He officially ended his campaign on March 4, 2016, and later endorsed Donald Trump on March 11, 2016[1][3].

2. **Appointment as HUD Secretary**: On December 5, 2016, President-elect Donald Trump announced his intention to nominate Dr. Ben Carson as Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)[1][2]. Carson accepted the nomination, stating his commitment to strengthening communities and addressing housing needs[2].

3. **Service as HUD Secretary**: Dr. Carson was confirmed by the Senate on March 2, 2017, and served as HUD Secretary until the end of the Trump administration in January 2021[1][2].

## Additional Information on Dr. Ben Carson

– **Early Life and Career**: Dr. Ben Carson was born in Detroit, Michigan, on September 18, 1951. He overcame early academic struggles through a newfound passion for reading, which his mother encouraged. Carson went on to become a renowned pediatric neurosurgeon, known for his groundbreaking work, including the separation of conjoined twins[2][5].

– **Public Service and Advocacy**: As HUD Secretary, Carson focused on community-based solutions for housing issues, emphasizing the importance of education and personal initiative. He also advocated for unity across political divides[1][2].

## Conclusion

The claim that Dr. Ben Carson ran for president in 2016 and served as HUD Secretary under President Trump from 2017 to 2021 is accurate and supported by official records and announcements from reputable sources. Dr. Carson's journey from a challenging childhood to becoming a prominent figure in medicine and politics highlights themes of perseverance, education, and public service.

Citations

Claim

The average cost of healthcare in the United States is approximately $13,100 per capita per year.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the average cost of healthcare in the United States is approximately $13,100 per capita per year, we need to consult reliable sources such as government reports and academic studies. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) provides comprehensive data on healthcare expenditures, which can be used to verify this claim.

## Evidence from CMS and Other Sources

1. **CMS Reports**: The CMS publishes annual reports on national health expenditures, which include per capita spending. However, the specific figure of $13,100 per capita is not directly mentioned in the most recent reports available. For instance, the CMS Financial Report for FY 2024 discusses overall healthcare spending but does not provide a precise per capita figure for the current year[2].

2. **National Health Expenditure Projections**: These projections indicate that total health spending is expected to reach $5.3 trillion in 2025[3]. To calculate per capita spending, we would need the total U.S. population and the total healthcare expenditure. Assuming a U.S. population of approximately 334 million (based on recent estimates), we can estimate per capita spending. However, without the exact total expenditure for a specific year, this calculation remains an approximation.

3. **Per Capita Health Spending Growth**: Reports indicate that per capita health spending growth is expected to slow slightly in 2025 to about 4.2%[3]. This growth rate suggests that healthcare costs are increasing, but it does not provide a direct figure for per capita spending.

4. **Comparison with Other Countries**: The U.S. spends significantly more on healthcare compared to other high-income countries[4]. This high expenditure supports the notion that per capita healthcare costs in the U.S. are substantial, though it does not confirm the specific figure of $13,100.

## Conclusion

While the claim that the average cost of healthcare in the United States is approximately $13,100 per capita per year seems plausible given the high healthcare expenditures in the U.S., it cannot be directly verified with the provided sources. To confirm this figure, one would need to access the most recent and detailed national health expenditure reports from CMS or other authoritative sources. The U.S. indeed has one of the highest per capita healthcare expenditures globally, which supports the likelihood of a high figure, but precise verification requires specific data from recent reports.

In summary, without direct access to the latest detailed CMS reports or other authoritative sources providing per capita healthcare expenditure figures, the claim cannot be definitively confirmed or denied based on the available information. However, the context of high healthcare spending in the U.S. suggests that such a figure could be within the realm of possibility.

Citations

Claim

Dr. Carson stated that the healthcare system would improve with more transparency, saving money and improving patient care.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Dr. Ben Carson stated the healthcare system would improve with more transparency, saving money and improving patient care, we need to examine available statements and policies related to healthcare transparency from Dr. Carson and relevant studies on the impact of transparency in healthcare.

## Dr. Ben Carson's Statements on Healthcare Transparency

While Dr. Carson has discussed healthcare reform extensively, including the importance of expanding individual choice and restoring the doctor-patient relationship, specific statements on transparency as a means to improve healthcare are not directly cited in the provided sources. However, in a broader context, Dr. Carson has emphasized the need for empowering patients and improving healthcare outcomes, which aligns with principles of transparency.

In a discussion with Dr. Marty Makary, Dr. Carson highlighted the importance of transparency and reform in healthcare, noting that price transparency efforts, such as those initiated by the Trump administration, have been beneficial[3]. This suggests that Dr. Carson supports transparency as a tool for improving healthcare.

## Impact of Transparency on Healthcare Costs and Patient Outcomes

Transparency in healthcare, particularly price transparency, has been shown to have several benefits:

1. **Cost Reduction**: Studies indicate that price transparency can lead to reduced healthcare costs by allowing patients to compare prices and make informed decisions about their care[2]. For instance, the Hospital Price Transparency Rule requires hospitals to post their prices for shoppable services, which can help patients choose more affordable options.

2. **Improved Patient Care**: Transparency can also enhance patient care by providing accurate and meaningful information to patients and healthcare providers. This can lead to better decision-making and potentially improved outcomes[2].

3. **Enhanced Trust**: Transparency is crucial for building trust between patients and healthcare providers. When patients feel informed and involved in their care, they are more likely to adhere to treatment plans and have better health outcomes[3].

## Conclusion

While the specific claim about Dr. Carson's statement on transparency is not directly supported by the provided sources, his broader advocacy for healthcare reform and patient empowerment aligns with the principles of transparency. The available evidence suggests that transparency in healthcare can indeed lead to cost savings and improved patient care, supporting the general assertion that transparency is beneficial for the healthcare system.

In summary, while Dr. Carson's exact words on transparency are not cited, his support for healthcare reform and patient empowerment, combined with the known benefits of transparency in healthcare, lend credibility to the idea that transparency can improve the healthcare system by saving money and enhancing patient care.

Citations

Claim

Ben Carson claims that many people who are entrenched in the current healthcare system make substantial profits from it.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that **many people who are entrenched in the current healthcare system make substantial profits from it**, we need to consider financial analyses of the healthcare industry and the profit margins of insurance companies. Here's a detailed analysis:

## Overview of Healthcare Profits

1. **Healthcare Spending and Profitability**: The U.S. healthcare system is complex, with high spending levels that often exceed GDP growth. This environment can create opportunities for substantial profits, particularly for insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms[2].

2. **Insurance Companies' Profitability**: Insurance companies in the U.S. have faced criticism for prioritizing profits over patient care. Dr. Ben Carson has argued that insurance companies make profits by denying people care, which he views as a conflict of interest[5]. While this is a controversial perspective, it highlights concerns about the profit-driven nature of some healthcare sectors.

3. **Financial Performance of Healthcare Companies**: Major healthcare companies, including insurance providers, often report significant profits. For instance, large insurance companies have seen substantial revenue and profit growth over the years, partly due to increased premiums and efficient management of claims[2].

## Evidence Supporting the Claim

– **Profit Margins**: Insurance companies have been known to maintain high profit margins by managing claims effectively and setting premiums that ensure profitability. This can be seen as making substantial profits from the system[5].

– **Criticism of Profit-Driven Healthcare**: Critics argue that the profit-driven nature of healthcare leads to inefficiencies and higher costs for consumers. This aligns with Carson's assertion that substantial profits are made within the system[2][5].

## Counterarguments and Limitations

– **Complexity of Healthcare Economics**: The healthcare system is multifaceted, involving numerous stakeholders and factors influencing profitability. While some entities may profit significantly, others may struggle financially, especially in sectors like Medicaid and Medicare, where providers often report negative margins[2].

– **Regulatory and Market Pressures**: The healthcare industry is subject to regulatory pressures and market dynamics that can impact profitability. For example, increased competition and regulatory changes can reduce profit margins for some companies[2].

## Conclusion

The claim that many people entrenched in the current healthcare system make substantial profits from it has some validity, particularly when considering the financial performance of insurance companies and other healthcare sectors. However, the complexity of the healthcare system means that profitability varies widely among different stakeholders, and not all entities within the system are equally profitable. Evidence from financial analyses and critiques of the profit-driven nature of healthcare supports Carson's assertion, but it is essential to consider the broader economic and regulatory context of the healthcare industry.

**References:**

[1] Healthcare Finance News: Ben Carson's healthcare plan hinges on health savings accounts.
[2] McKinsey on Healthcare: Best of 2019.
[3] Mother Jones: Ben Carson Made Money With the Help of a Felon Convicted of Health Care Fraud.
[4] Columbia Law Review: Corporate Finance for Social Good.
[5] OnTheIssues.org: Ben Carson on Health Care.

Citations

Claim

Carson describes his upbringing, including the impact of poverty on his life and education.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Dr. Ben Carson's Upbringing and Its Impact on His Life and Education

The claim that Dr. Ben Carson describes his upbringing, including the impact of poverty on his life and education, is supported by various sources. Here's a detailed analysis of the claim and additional insights into how his experiences relate to socio-economic studies on poverty and educational outcomes.

### Dr. Ben Carson's Background

Dr. Ben Carson was born into poverty in Detroit and later moved to Boston. His early life was marked by significant challenges, including exposure to crime and violence. Despite these hardships, Carson's mother played a pivotal role in his development by encouraging his love for reading, which became a crucial factor in his academic success[1][3].

Carson's journey from poverty to becoming a renowned pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore is well-documented. He graduated from Yale University and went on to achieve groundbreaking medical feats, such as leading the surgical team that separated conjoined twins[1][3].

### Impact of Poverty on Education

Poverty has profound effects on educational outcomes, often due to disparities in access to resources and opportunities. Children from impoverished backgrounds typically begin school less prepared than their more affluent peers, facing challenges such as inadequate early learning experiences and poor nutrition[2]. These factors can lead to significant achievement gaps, which are not solely due to individual capabilities but rather systemic inequalities[2].

Dr. Carson's personal experience highlights the importance of education as a tool for overcoming poverty. He emphasizes the role of reading and education in changing his life trajectory, demonstrating how individual initiative and support can mitigate some of the negative impacts of poverty[1].

### Socio-Economic Insights

Socio-economic studies underscore the complex relationship between poverty and educational outcomes. Factors such as housing, access to healthcare, and community resources significantly influence a child's ability to learn and succeed academically[2][4]. Dr. Carson's advocacy for education and his establishment of initiatives like the Carson Reading Rooms reflect an understanding of these dynamics, aiming to provide opportunities for disadvantaged children to access quality educational resources[1].

### Conclusion

The claim that Dr. Ben Carson describes his upbringing and its impact on his life and education is accurate. His experiences provide valuable insights into the socio-economic challenges faced by individuals from impoverished backgrounds and the critical role of education in overcoming these obstacles. Through his personal story and public initiatives, Carson emphasizes the importance of perseverance, education, and community support in achieving success despite adversity.

### Evidence Summary

– **Personal Background**: Dr. Carson grew up in poverty in Detroit and Boston, with his mother's encouragement of reading being a key factor in his academic success[1][3].
– **Impact of Poverty**: Poverty affects educational outcomes due to disparities in access to resources and opportunities[2].
– **Socio-Economic Insights**: Education is a critical tool for overcoming poverty, and initiatives like Carson's reading rooms aim to provide access to quality educational resources[1][2].
– **Public Career**: Carson's career as a neurosurgeon and public figure, including his role as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, highlights his focus on innovative solutions for social issues[1][5].

Citations

Claim

Dr. Carson emphasizes that poverty only bothered him temporarily because he believed he could change it.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim

The claim that Dr. Ben Carson emphasizes poverty only bothered him temporarily because he believed he could change it reflects themes of resilience and mindset in overcoming adversity. This perspective aligns with psychological studies on the role of mindset in personal achievement and overcoming obstacles.

### Background on Dr. Ben Carson

Dr. Ben Carson grew up in poverty in Detroit, raised by a single mother who had only a third-grade education. Despite these challenges, Carson's mother instilled in him a love of reading and a strong belief in education as a means to improve his circumstances[1][3]. This emphasis on education and personal initiative is central to Carson's narrative of overcoming poverty.

### Psychological Perspectives on Mindset and Resilience

Psychological studies suggest that mindset plays a significant role in resilience and overcoming adversity. The belief in a just world, where individuals believe they get what they deserve, can influence how people perceive and respond to challenges like poverty[2]. However, this perspective has been criticized for oversimplifying the complex causes of poverty and neglecting structural barriers[2].

### Dr. Carson's Statements on Poverty

Dr. Carson has made statements suggesting that poverty is, to some extent, a "state of mind," emphasizing the importance of personal mindset in overcoming it[4]. While this perspective highlights the role of individual initiative, it has been criticized for underestimating the impact of systemic factors on poverty[2][4].

### Conclusion

The claim that Dr. Carson emphasizes poverty only bothered him temporarily because he believed he could change it is supported by his personal narrative and statements on the importance of mindset. However, this perspective should be considered alongside the broader scientific understanding of poverty, which includes both individual and structural factors[2][4].

### Evidence and References

– **Personal Narrative**: Dr. Carson's journey from poverty to success is well-documented, emphasizing the role of education and personal initiative[1][3].
– **Psychological Perspectives**: Studies highlight the role of mindset in resilience but also note the complexity of poverty beyond individual beliefs[2].
– **Public Statements**: Dr. Carson's comments on poverty as a "state of mind" reflect his emphasis on personal responsibility[4].

Citations

Claim

At age 14 another kid angered me and changed the channel that I was involved with.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that at age 14, another kid angered Dr. Ben Carson by changing the channel, we need to examine available sources for any mention of such an incident. The claim seems to refer to a pivotal moment in Carson's life, possibly related to his temper, which he has discussed publicly.

Dr. Ben Carson has indeed spoken about having a violent temper as a youth. In his book *Gifted Hands* and in interviews, he described incidents where he became violent, including an attempt to stab a friend with a knife when the friend changed the radio station. This incident occurred when Carson was in the ninth grade, which would have been around age 14 or 15[1]. However, there is no specific mention of the exact age or the context of the channel-changing incident in the provided sources.

Carson's accounts of his temper and violent outbursts have been somewhat controversial, as some of his classmates and neighbors have not corroborated these stories[1]. Despite this, Carson has consistently referenced these incidents as transformative moments in his life, highlighting his personal growth and development.

In summary, while there is no direct confirmation of the exact claim about being angered by someone changing the channel at age 14, Dr. Carson has discussed similar incidents involving his temper during his youth, which aligns with the broader narrative of his personal struggles and growth[1][5].

### Conclusion:
– **Claim Validity**: The claim about being angered by someone changing the channel at age 14 is not explicitly confirmed in available sources. However, Carson has discussed similar incidents involving his temper during his youth.
– **Relevant Evidence**: Carson's accounts of his temper and violent outbursts during his youth, as described in *Gifted Hands* and interviews[1][5].
– **Psychological Implications**: These incidents highlight Carson's personal growth and transformation, emphasizing themes of perseverance and self-improvement.

Citations

Claim

Hemispherectomies are routinely done now.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: "Hemispherectomies are Routinely Done Now"

To assess the validity of the claim that hemispherectomies are routinely performed, it is essential to consider current medical practices, the evolution of the procedure, and its application in modern neurosurgery.

### Background and Evolution of Hemispherectomy

Hemispherectomy, initially developed over 85 years ago for treating brain tumors, is now primarily used for medically refractory epilepsy[3]. The procedure has evolved significantly, transitioning from an anatomical hemispherectomy (AH), which involves removing a large portion of the brain hemisphere, to more refined techniques like functional hemispherectomy (FH) and hemispherotomy[1][3][5]. These newer methods focus on disconnecting the affected hemisphere while minimizing tissue removal, reducing complications such as hydrocephalus and hemosiderosis[1][3].

### Current Practice and Frequency

While hemispherectomy is a recognized and effective treatment for severe epilepsy, particularly in pediatric cases, it is not a routine procedure for all epilepsy patients. It is typically reserved for cases where seizures originate from one hemisphere and are resistant to medication[5]. The surgery is performed at specialized centers with experienced neurosurgeons, and its application is based on careful patient selection[1][3].

### Evidence from Recent Literature

Recent studies and reviews highlight the efficacy of hemispherectomy in achieving seizure freedom, with success rates ranging from 54% to 90%[3]. However, the procedure is not without risks, and complications can include infection, transient neurological deficits, and, rarely, contralateral strokes[5]. Despite these risks, modern techniques have made hemispherectomy safer and more effective, especially when performed early in the course of severe epilepsy[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that hemispherectomies are "routinely done now" may be misleading. While hemispherectomy is a well-established and effective surgical option for certain cases of epilepsy, it is not a routine procedure for all epilepsy patients. It is typically performed in specialized centers for carefully selected patients with severe, unilateral epilepsy that does not respond to medication[1][3][5]. The evolution of surgical techniques has improved outcomes, but the procedure remains significant and is not universally applied.

In summary, hemispherectomy is an important treatment option for specific cases of epilepsy but is not a routine procedure in general neurosurgical practice. Its application is highly specialized and based on specific clinical criteria.

Citations

Claim

The ethics committee said no this is too far out.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: "The ethics committee said no this is too far out."

The claim suggests an ethical debate within a medical institution where an ethics committee has rejected a proposal or procedure, deeming it "too far out." To evaluate this claim, we need to consider how ethics committees function in medical settings and whether there are any specific instances related to Dr. Ben Carson's work that might align with this scenario.

### Role of Ethics Committees in Medical Institutions

Ethics committees in healthcare institutions play a crucial role in addressing complex ethical issues, including decisions about withdrawing life-sustaining treatments, resource allocation, and the appropriateness of innovative medical procedures[2]. These committees are diverse in structure and function but are integral in ensuring that medical practices align with ethical standards and patient rights.

### Dr. Ben Carson's Medical Career and Ethical Debates

Dr. Ben Carson is renowned for his pioneering work in neurosurgery, particularly in procedures like the separation of conjoined twins and the revival of hemispherectomy techniques for treating severe epilepsy[1][3]. While his work has been groundbreaking, there is no specific mention in available sources of an ethics committee rejecting one of his procedures as "too far out." However, given the nature of his innovative surgeries, it is plausible that some of his procedures might have faced ethical scrutiny.

### Conclusion

Without specific details or records from ethics committee meetings related to Dr. Carson's work, it is challenging to validate the claim directly. However, it is reasonable to infer that any pioneering medical procedure, especially those as complex as separating conjoined twins, would undergo rigorous ethical review. If such a rejection occurred, it would likely be documented in institutional records or academic discussions on bioethics.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

1. **Access to Institutional Records**: Reviewing minutes from ethics committee meetings at institutions where Dr. Carson worked, such as Johns Hopkins, could provide direct evidence.
2. **Academic Literature**: Searching for academic papers or case studies related to Dr. Carson's procedures might reveal discussions on ethical considerations.
3. **Interviews with Colleagues**: Speaking with colleagues or team members involved in Dr. Carson's surgeries could offer insights into any ethical debates that occurred.

In summary, while the claim cannot be directly validated without specific evidence, it is plausible that ethical debates occurred around Dr. Carson's innovative procedures. Further investigation into institutional records and academic literature is necessary to confirm such claims.

Citations

Claim

I do well in courses where I do a lot of reading.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "I do well in courses where I do a lot of reading."

The claim that an individual performs well in courses with extensive reading can be supported by several educational and psychological principles. Here's a detailed evaluation based on available evidence:

### 1. **Reading and Academic Performance**

Research consistently shows that students who engage in regular reading tend to perform better academically across various subjects. This is because reading enhances comprehension, vocabulary, and critical thinking skills, all of which are crucial for academic success[1][3]. For instance, studies have found a strong positive relationship between reading habits and academic achievement in English, suggesting that reading can significantly improve academic performance[5].

### 2. **Personal Learning Preferences**

The claim may also reflect a personal learning preference. Educational psychology often discusses individual differences in learning styles and preferences, such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learning. However, reading is a versatile method that can cater to various learning styles by providing detailed information and fostering critical thinking[3]. While specific learning style theories have been debated, the effectiveness of reading as a learning tool is well-documented.

### 3. **Case Studies and Anecdotal Evidence**

Dr. Ben Carson's story illustrates the transformative power of reading. He credits reading with improving his academic performance and broadening his perspectives, which ultimately contributed to his success[2][4]. Such anecdotal evidence supports the idea that reading can be a powerful tool for personal and academic growth.

### 4. **Critical Thinking and Analytical Skills**

Reading helps develop critical and analytical thinking skills, which are essential for academic success. By analyzing texts, students learn to evaluate information, identify themes, and solve problems—skills that are valuable across disciplines[1][3].

### Conclusion

The claim that one performs well in courses with extensive reading is supported by both academic research and anecdotal evidence. Reading enhances academic performance by improving comprehension, vocabulary, and critical thinking skills. It also aligns with personal learning preferences that emphasize the importance of detailed information and analysis. Therefore, the claim is valid and reflects broader educational principles.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

– **Quantitative Studies**: Conducting quantitative studies to measure the correlation between reading habits and academic performance across different subjects could provide more robust evidence.
– **Learning Style Assessments**: Investigating how reading aligns with or diverges from traditional learning style theories could offer insights into why some individuals prefer reading-intensive courses.
– **Case Studies**: Collecting more case studies like Dr. Carson's could help generalize the impact of reading on personal and academic success.

Citations

Claim

That was probably my first 15 minutes of fame.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "That was probably my first 15 minutes of fame."

The claim in question likely refers to Dr. Ben Carson's early experiences with public recognition. To evaluate this claim, we need to examine key events in his life that could be considered as his "first 15 minutes of fame."

### Background and Early Life

Dr. Ben Carson was born on September 18, 1951, in Detroit, Michigan. He grew up in poverty, raised by a single mother with a third-grade education. Despite these challenges, Carson excelled academically, particularly after discovering a passion for reading[2]. He attended public schools in Detroit and graduated third in his class from Southwestern High School[2].

### Academic and Professional Career

Carson pursued a degree in psychology from Yale University and later attended the University of Michigan Medical School[2]. He became renowned for his work in neurosurgery, particularly at Johns Hopkins Hospital, where he was accepted for a residency in 1976[2].

### Groundbreaking Surgical Procedures

One of Carson's most notable achievements was the successful separation of conjoined twins, which garnered significant media attention. In his interview, Carson mentions receiving "15 minutes of fame" for several operations, including hemispherectomies in 1985, an intra-uterine shunt in 1986, and the separation of German twins in 1987[1]. The latter event is particularly noted as it marked a significant increase in his public recognition.

### Public Recognition and Media Coverage

Carson's rise to fame was not limited to his medical achievements. His life story, as detailed in his autobiography *Gifted Hands*, and the subsequent film adaptation, further increased his public profile[3]. His entry into politics, including his candidacy for the 2016 U.S. presidential election, also contributed to his widespread recognition[3].

### Conclusion

While Carson mentions several instances of "15 minutes of fame," the first significant public recognition event that can be validated through media coverage was likely his work on hemispherectomies in 1985. However, it was the separation of conjoined twins in 1987 that truly catapulted him into international fame[1][3]. Therefore, the claim about his "first 15 minutes of fame" could refer to these early medical achievements, which were widely covered by the media.

### Evidence and Citations

– **Early Medical Achievements**: Carson's work on hemispherectomies and other groundbreaking surgeries marked the beginning of his public recognition[1].
– **Separation of Conjoined Twins**: This event in 1987 significantly increased his fame and media coverage[1][3].
– **Autobiography and Film Adaptation**: *Gifted Hands* and its film adaptation further enhanced his public profile[3].
– **Entry into Politics**: His presidential candidacy in 2016 also contributed to his widespread recognition[3].

Citations

Claim

They had completely fallen out of favor until I started doing them.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "They had completely fallen out of favor until I started doing them."

The claim in question pertains to hemispherectomy surgeries, which have undergone significant historical changes. To assess the validity of this statement, we must consider the evolution of hemispherectomy procedures and their acceptance in the medical community.

### Historical Context of Hemispherectomy

1. **Early Development and Decline**: Anatomic hemispherectomy was first described by Walter Dandy in 1928 for treating gliomas, and it was later applied to epilepsy by McKenzie in 1938[1][5]. However, due to complications such as superficial cerebral hemosiderosis, the procedure fell out of favor by the 1960s[1][5].

2. **Revival and Modifications**: In the 1970s, Rasmussen introduced functional hemispherectomy to reduce morbidity[1][5]. The 1990s saw the development of hemispherotomy techniques, which further minimized brain removal while maximizing disconnections[1]. These modifications helped revive interest in hemispheric disconnection surgeries for epilepsy.

### Dr. Ben Carson's Role

Dr. Ben Carson is credited with reviving interest in hemispherectomy in the 1980s, particularly for treating intractable seizures in children[2]. His work highlighted the potential benefits of the procedure, especially in pediatric cases where brain plasticity allows for better recovery[2][4].

### Conclusion

While Dr. Carson did play a significant role in reviving interest in hemispherectomy, stating that these surgeries "had completely fallen out of favor until I started doing them" might be an overstatement. Hemispherectomy had indeed declined due to complications but was not entirely abandoned. Instead, it evolved with new techniques like functional hemispherectomy and hemispherotomy, which were developed before Carson's contributions[1][5]. Carson's work helped popularize and refine these procedures, especially in pediatric neurosurgery, but he was not the sole figure responsible for their revival[2][4].

In summary, while Dr. Carson's contributions were significant, the claim might be seen as somewhat exaggerated. Hemispherectomy surgeries were evolving and adapting to new techniques and understanding of brain function, rather than being completely out of favor until his involvement.

Citations

Claim

The criticism was that this was too risky.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Criticism of Dr. Ben Carson's Medical Practices

The claim that Dr. Ben Carson faced criticism for his medical practices being too risky is supported by several reports of medical malpractice lawsuits against him. These lawsuits highlight specific instances where his surgical decisions were questioned for their riskiness and impact on patients.

### Evidence of Criticism

1. **Medical Malpractice Lawsuits**: Dr. Carson has faced multiple medical malpractice lawsuits, which suggest that some of his surgical decisions were deemed risky or inappropriate by patients and their families. For example, in one case, he allegedly removed an entire brain tumor from a 9-year-old girl, contrary to the parents' consent to only remove part of it, resulting in permanent paralysis on her right side[1]. Another case involved a man who suffered irreversible brain damage, leading to symptoms such as deafness and slurred speech[1].

2. **Surgical Mistakes**: Carson was also sued for leaving equipment inside patients, including a sponge in a 69-year-old woman's brain and an upside-down shunt in a young girl[1]. These incidents indicate that some of his practices were criticized for being risky or negligent.

### Public Perception and Medical Ethics

The public perception of Dr. Carson's medical practices is influenced by these lawsuits and the outcomes of his surgeries. While he is renowned for groundbreaking procedures like separating conjoined twins, the criticism surrounding his riskier decisions reflects broader discussions in medical ethics about patient consent, surgical risk assessment, and the consequences of medical errors.

### Conclusion

The claim that Dr. Ben Carson's medical practices were criticized for being too risky is supported by documented cases of medical malpractice lawsuits and reported surgical mistakes. These incidents highlight the complexities of medical decision-making and the importance of ethical considerations in surgical practices.

### References

[1] Shapiro Law Group. (2015, November 9). Inside Ben Carson's Shocking History of Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.
[2] Science Feedback. (2024, January 8). Scam ads use a fake endorsement by Ben Carson to promote unproven hypertension treatment.
[3] Yale Medicine Magazine. (n.d.). A neurosurgeon describes “the best feeling in the world.”
[4] AFP Fact Check. (2024, January 24). Facebook ads promote unproven treatments with fake Ben Carson endorsement.
[5] AFP Fact Check. (2024, December 18). Ben Carson, Reba McEntire falsely linked to unproven Alzheimer's product.

Citations

Claim

Traditional marriage rates are declining in America; traditional nuclear families are being questioned.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Traditional Marriage Rates Are Declining in America; Traditional Nuclear Families Are Being Questioned

The claim that traditional marriage rates are declining in America and that traditional nuclear families are being questioned is supported by various sociological studies and census data.

### Decline in Traditional Marriage Rates

1. **Marriage Rates Over Time**: According to census data, the percentage of married Americans has significantly decreased. In 1960, about 72% of Americans were married, whereas now only about half are married[1]. This decline is also reflected in the number of new marriages per year, which has been steadily decreasing[1].

2. **Age and Marriage**: The age at which people first get married has increased by six years since 1960, with only 20% of Americans marrying before the age of 30[1]. This trend indicates a shift in societal norms regarding marriage.

3. **Census Data**: The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the marriage rate per 1,000 women aged 15 and older decreased from 16.3 in 2011 to 14.9 in 2021[3]. This decline further supports the claim of decreasing traditional marriage rates.

### Questioning of Traditional Nuclear Families

1. **Rise of Alternative Family Structures**: The rise of unmarried cohabitation and other non-traditional family forms has led to a reevaluation of what constitutes a family. In 1960, few couples lived together outside of marriage, but this number has increased dramatically[1][2].

2. **Societal Attitudes**: Pew Research Center surveys indicate that Americans have a mixed view on changing family structures. While many see these changes as neutral or positive, others express concern, particularly regarding the impact on children[2][5].

3. **Economic Factors**: The decline in traditional marriage is partly attributed to economic factors, such as the increased financial independence of women and the emphasis on financial stability before marriage, especially among lower socio-economic groups[2].

### Impact on Children and Society

1. **Child Well-being**: Studies suggest that children raised in traditional nuclear families often experience better outcomes in terms of emotional well-being and academic achievement compared to other family arrangements[4].

2. **Societal Views**: Religious groups in the U.S. generally view the decline of marriage negatively, with concerns about its impact on society and family structures[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that traditional marriage rates are declining in America and that traditional nuclear families are being questioned is supported by evidence from sociological studies and census data. The decline in marriage rates, the rise of alternative family structures, and changing societal attitudes all contribute to this trend. While there are concerns about the impact on children and society, the shift reflects broader changes in societal values and economic conditions.

Citations

Claim

The birth rate per family in America has dropped to 1.6 children.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the birth rate per family in America has dropped to 1.6 children, we need to examine relevant demographic data and statistics from reputable sources such as health organizations and government census data.

## Understanding Birth Rates and Family Size

1. **Birth Rate vs. Family Size**: The birth rate typically refers to the number of births per 1,000 people in a population, not the average number of children per family. The average family size or the total fertility rate (TFR) is a more relevant measure for assessing the number of children per family.

2. **Total Fertility Rate (TFR)**: The TFR is the average number of children a woman would have in her lifetime based on the current age-specific fertility rates of a population. It is a more direct indicator of family size than the birth rate.

## Current Data on Birth Rates and Family Size

– **Birth Rate**: According to the CDC, the birth rate in the U.S. was reported as 11.0 births per 1,000 population in 2022[3]. However, this figure does not directly indicate the average number of children per family.

– **Total Fertility Rate (TFR)**: The general fertility rate in the U.S. has been declining, reaching historic lows in recent years[5]. While the exact TFR for 2023 or 2024 is not specified in the provided sources, the general trend suggests a decrease in fertility rates.

– **Average Family Size**: The claim of an average of 1.6 children per family is not directly supported by the provided sources. However, it is known that the U.S. has experienced declining fertility rates, which could imply smaller family sizes.

## Conclusion

While the claim that the birth rate per family in America has dropped to 1.6 children is not directly supported by the provided sources, it aligns with the broader trend of declining fertility rates in the U.S. For precise data on average family size or TFR, one would need to consult specific demographic studies or reports from organizations like the CDC or the U.S. Census Bureau. The general fertility rate and TFR are key indicators for assessing changes in family size over time.

To confirm the claim, one would ideally look for data on the total fertility rate or specific studies on average family size in the U.S. The CDC and other health organizations regularly publish reports that could provide more detailed insights into these trends.

In summary, while the U.S. has seen declining fertility rates, the specific claim about an average of 1.6 children per family requires more targeted demographic data for verification.

Citations

Claim

The values of traditional nuclear families are being questioned.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "The values of traditional nuclear families are being questioned."

The claim that the values of traditional nuclear families are being questioned is supported by various sociological studies, media analyses, and changes in societal structures. Here's a detailed examination of this claim:

### Societal Changes and Family Structures

1. **Shifts in Family Structures**: Traditional nuclear families, defined as a married couple with biological children, are no longer the norm. According to recent data, **82.2% of American households depart from this traditional structure**[5]. This shift reflects changing societal values and realities, such as increased single parenthood, cohabitation, and diverse family forms.

2. **Diverse Family Forms**: The concept of "family" has expanded beyond the nuclear model. Multigenerational households, chosen families, and LGBTQ+ families are increasingly recognized and valued[5]. This diversity challenges the traditional nuclear family as the sole ideal.

### Sociological and Academic Perspectives

1. **Questioning Traditional Family Values**: Scholars and policy experts have debated whether the traditional nuclear family remains a viable ideal for public policy, given its decreasing prevalence[1]. Some argue that focusing on traditional family values can be discriminatory and unsustainable in a society with diverse family structures.

2. **Historical Context**: Historically, family structures have varied, and the nuclear family has not always been the dominant form[1]. This variability challenges the notion that traditional nuclear families are universally valuable.

3. **Racial and Socioeconomic Factors**: The promotion of traditional family values has been criticized for ignoring racial and socioeconomic disparities. Public policies have historically supported white nuclear families while marginalizing others, particularly Black families[3].

### Media and Public Discourse

1. **Media Representation**: Media discussions often highlight the challenges faced by non-traditional families and the need for broader support systems beyond the nuclear family model[5].

2. **Policy Debates**: There is a growing call for policies that support diverse family structures, such as paid family leave and community-based care models[5]. This reflects a shift away from solely valuing traditional nuclear families.

### Conclusion

The claim that the values of traditional nuclear families are being questioned is valid. Societal changes, academic debates, and media discussions all indicate a shift towards recognizing and valuing diverse family structures. The traditional nuclear family is no longer seen as the only ideal, and there is a growing recognition of the need for policies and societal support that accommodate a broader range of family forms.

Evidence from various sources supports this conclusion:
– **Societal changes**: The prevalence of non-traditional family structures is increasing[5].
– **Academic perspectives**: Scholars question the universality of traditional family values[1][3].
– **Media and policy debates**: There is a call for broader support systems beyond the nuclear family[5].

Citations

Claim

Congressman Hurlong of Florida read into the congressional record the 45 goals of communism in America on January 10, 1963.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Congressman Hurlong of Florida read into the congressional record the 45 goals of communism in America on January 10, 1963, we need to verify the details through official congressional records and reliable sources.

## Claim Details
– **Congressman's Name**: The claim mentions "Congressman Hurlong," but the actual name is **A. S. Herlong, Jr.**, not Hurlong.
– **Date**: January 10, 1963.
– **Content**: Reading the 45 goals of communism into the congressional record.

## Verification
1. **Congressional Record**: On January 10, 1963, Congressman A. S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida did indeed read into the congressional record what he referred to as "Current Communist Goals," which were purportedly excerpted from "The Naked Communist" by Cleon Skousen[1][3][5].

2. **Number of Goals**: The claim mentions 45 goals, but the actual list includes 45 items when considering all the points mentioned in the context of communist goals. However, the primary list provided by Herlong includes several key objectives, and additional points might be inferred from broader discussions about communist strategies[1][3].

3. **Official Records**: The official congressional records from January 10, 1963, confirm that Herlong did read these goals into the record. This can be verified through the Congressional Record and other reliable sources[1][3][5].

## Conclusion
The claim is largely accurate, with the exception of the congressman's name being misstated as "Hurlong" instead of "Herlong." The event occurred on January 10, 1963, and involved reading communist goals into the congressional record. However, the exact number of goals might be subject to interpretation based on how one categorizes the objectives listed.

## Additional Note
The information about Dr. Ben Carson's journey is unrelated to the claim about Congressman Herlong and the communist goals. It highlights themes of perseverance and education in Carson's life but does not pertain to the validation of the claim regarding the congressional record.

Citations

Claim

The majority of homeless people in California are mentally ill.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "The majority of homeless people in California are mentally ill."

To assess the validity of this claim, we must examine recent studies and reports from reputable sources on homelessness and mental health in California.

### Evidence from Studies and Reports

1. **Prevalence of Mental Health Conditions**: A comprehensive study by the University of California found that 82% of people experiencing homelessness in California reported having a mental health condition or substance use challenge in their lifetime, with 66% currently experiencing mental health problems[3]. This suggests a significant correlation between homelessness and mental health issues but does not necessarily mean that the majority are mentally ill in the clinical sense.

2. **Severe Mental Illness**: In Los Angeles County, about 25% of homeless adults suffer from severe mental illness[5]. While this indicates a strong correlation between homelessness and severe mental health issues, it does not apply universally across California.

3. **San Francisco Data**: In San Francisco, 51% of the homeless population suffers from psychiatric or emotional conditions, marking a significant increase[1]. However, this figure, although high, does not constitute a majority across the entire state of California.

### Conclusion

While there is a substantial overlap between homelessness and mental health issues in California, the claim that "the majority of homeless people in California are mentally ill" may be overstated. The data shows that a significant portion of the homeless population experiences mental health challenges, but the prevalence varies by region and the specific definition of "mentally ill." For instance, the term "mentally ill" often implies a clinical diagnosis, which may not apply to all individuals experiencing mental health challenges. Therefore, while mental health issues are prevalent among the homeless, the claim should be nuanced to reflect the complexity of the issue.

### Recommendations for Future Claims

– **Precision in Terminology**: Clarify what is meant by "mentally ill" to ensure accuracy in claims.
– **Regional Variability**: Acknowledge differences in mental health prevalence across different regions within California.
– **Contextualizing Data**: Provide context for statistics to avoid misinterpretation and ensure that claims reflect the full complexity of the issue.

Citations

Claim

About anywhere from 40 to 60% of the homeless population are there because of mental illness or drug addiction.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "About anywhere from 40 to 60% of the homeless population are there because of mental illness or drug addiction."

To assess the validity of this claim, we need to examine available data and research on the causes of homelessness, particularly focusing on mental illness and drug addiction.

### Mental Illness and Substance Abuse in Homelessness

1. **Prevalence of Mental Illness and Substance Abuse:**
– The 2013 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) noted that 257,000 people who were homeless had a severe mental illness or a chronic substance abuse issue[1].
– The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) highlights that people who are homeless have a high risk of overdose from illicit substances, with a higher prevalence of substance use disorders compared to the general population[1].
– A 2019 HUD report estimated that 36% of the chronically homeless suffered from a chronic substance use problem or a severe mental illness[3].

2. **Causes and Risk Factors:**
– While mental illness and substance abuse are significant factors, they often co-occur and can be both causes and consequences of homelessness[3][5].
– The National Coalition for the Homeless emphasizes that substance abuse can be both a cause and a result of homelessness, as many people begin using substances after losing their homes to cope with stress[3].

3. **Affordable Housing as a Primary Factor:**
– Research suggests that the lack of affordable housing is a more significant predictor of homelessness rates than mental illness or substance abuse[2][5].
– A study by Clayton Page Aldern and Gregg Colburn found that high housing costs, rather than mental illness or addiction, are more closely linked to homelessness rates across different regions[2].

### Conclusion

The claim that "about anywhere from 40 to 60% of the homeless population are there because of mental illness or drug addiction" may overstate the role of these factors as primary causes. While mental illness and substance abuse are prevalent among the homeless and can contribute to homelessness, they are often outcomes rather than initial causes. The lack of affordable housing is widely recognized as a more significant factor contributing to homelessness[2][5]. Therefore, the claim is not entirely accurate and should be nuanced to reflect the complex interplay of factors leading to homelessness.

### Evidence Summary

– **Mental Illness and Substance Abuse Prevalence:** Significant but not the sole cause.
– **Affordable Housing:** Primary predictor of homelessness rates.
– **Complexity of Homelessness:** Mental illness and substance abuse often co-occur and can be both causes and consequences of homelessness.

This analysis highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to addressing homelessness, focusing on affordable housing, mental health support, and substance abuse treatment.

Citations

Claim

Many of the college students seem to be taking socialism as something that is good.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "Many of the college students seem to be taking socialism as something that is good."

To assess the validity of this claim, we need to examine recent surveys and studies on political attitudes among college students and younger demographics.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Surveys on Socialism and Capitalism**: A Gallup poll from 2019 found that among young adults, socialism and capitalism are tied in popularity, with about half of young adults viewing socialism positively[3]. This trend suggests a significant portion of younger generations, including college students, are open to or supportive of socialist ideas.

2. **Increased Sympathy for Socialism**: A survey by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation noted that a substantial percentage of Millennials (44%) would prefer to live under a socialist system rather than a capitalist one[1]. This indicates a growing sympathy for socialism among younger adults.

3. **Approval of Communism**: A YouGov poll reported that 36% of Millennials approve of communism, which is an increase from previous years[5]. While this does not directly reflect college students' views, it suggests a broader trend among younger generations.

### Factors Influencing Political Beliefs

1. **Influence of Peers and Campus Life**: Studies suggest that while professors may have limited influence on students' political beliefs, peers and campus life activities play a significant role in shaping these views[1]. This could contribute to the spread of socialist ideas among college students.

2. **Lack of Historical Context**: Some argue that a lack of education about the historical failures of socialism and communism contributes to their appeal among younger generations[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that many college students view socialism positively is supported by various surveys and studies. These sources indicate a significant portion of younger adults, including college students, are open to or supportive of socialist ideas. However, it's important to note that these views are influenced by a variety of factors, including peer interactions, campus life, and potentially a lack of historical context regarding socialism and communism.

In summary, while Dr. Ben Carson's journey highlights themes of perseverance and education, the trend among college students regarding socialism is distinct and supported by empirical evidence.

Citations

Claim

COVID halted plans to address the homelessness problem in Los Angeles.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that COVID-19 halted plans to address the homelessness problem in Los Angeles, we need to examine the impact of the pandemic on homelessness initiatives in the city. Here's a detailed analysis based on available data and reports:

## Impact of COVID-19 on Homelessness in Los Angeles

1. **Pre-Pandemic Homelessness Trends**: Before COVID-19, homelessness in Los Angeles was already on the rise. The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) reported a 12.7% increase in homelessness from the previous year, with specific increases in chronic homelessness and youth homelessness[1][3].

2. **Pandemic Response and Initiatives**: Despite the challenges posed by COVID-19, Los Angeles implemented several initiatives to address homelessness during the pandemic. These included **Project Roomkey**, which provided temporary housing in hotels and motels for vulnerable individuals, and **Homekey**, a program to acquire and develop properties for permanent supportive housing[2][5]. These efforts suggest that while the pandemic presented significant challenges, it did not entirely halt plans to address homelessness.

3. **Challenges and Adaptations**: The pandemic exacerbated existing health and social issues among the homeless population, including increased risk of infection, food insecurity, and difficulty in maintaining social distancing in shelters[1][4]. However, organizations like LAHSA and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health worked together to develop coordinated responses, including expanded shelter access and hygiene services[4].

4. **Effectiveness of Initiatives**: Reports indicate that initiatives like Project Roomkey were effective in reducing the number of people on the streets, with less than 4% of participants returning to homelessness after exiting the program[2]. The Homekey program also contributed significantly by converting temporary housing into permanent supportive housing[5].

## Conclusion

While COVID-19 undoubtedly complicated efforts to address homelessness in Los Angeles by introducing new challenges such as increased health risks and economic strain, it did not halt plans entirely. Instead, the pandemic prompted innovative responses and accelerated existing initiatives like Housing First models, Project Roomkey, and Homekey[2][3][5]. These programs demonstrated that despite the pandemic's impact, Los Angeles continued to adapt and implement strategies to address homelessness.

In summary, the claim that COVID-19 halted plans to address homelessness in Los Angeles is not entirely accurate. The pandemic presented significant challenges but also spurred creative solutions and accelerated existing initiatives to support homeless populations.

Citations

Claim

You could be covered in under 10 minutes with no health exam required.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that **"You could be covered in under 10 minutes with no health exam required"** by Fabric by Gerber Life, let's analyze the available information:

1. **Fabric by Gerber Life's No-Exam Policy**: Fabric offers term life insurance with the option to skip a medical exam for qualified applicants. This is particularly true for coverage amounts under $1.5 million[1][2]. The application process is designed to be fast and convenient, allowing for instant coverage for those who qualify[1].

2. **Application Process**: The application involves answering detailed health questions online, which can be completed quickly. However, the claim of being covered in under 10 minutes might depend on how quickly the applicant can complete the application and how fast the approval process is[2][4].

3. **Approval Time**: While Fabric's process is streamlined and can offer instant approval for some applicants, the exact time frame for approval can vary. The claim of coverage in under 10 minutes likely refers to the application and approval process for those who qualify immediately[1][5].

4. **Coverage Start**: Coverage does not begin until a successful payment has been made, which is a standard practice for life insurance policies[5].

**Conclusion**: The claim that you could be covered in under 10 minutes with no health exam required is plausible for qualified applicants who apply through Fabric by Gerber Life. However, it assumes that the applicant meets the criteria for instant approval and can complete the application quickly. The actual time to coverage might vary slightly based on individual circumstances and the speed of payment processing.

**Evidence**:
– **Instant Coverage**: Fabric offers instant coverage for qualified applicants without a medical exam[1].
– **Application Speed**: The application process is designed to be fast and can be completed online[2][4].
– **Payment Requirement**: Coverage begins after a successful payment[5].

While the claim is generally accurate for those who qualify, it's essential to note that not all applicants will receive instant approval or coverage in under 10 minutes.

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!