Did Nostradamus Predict the COVID-19 Pandemic?
In the midst of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic that broke out globally in the first part of 2020, some social media users shared what they claimed was a prediction of that pandemic back in 1551 by the 16th century astrologer (and alleged soothsayer) known as Nostradamus: There will be a twin year (2020) from which will arise a queen (corona) who will come from the east (China) and who will spread a plague (virus) in the darkness of night, on a country with 7 hills (Italy) and will transform the twilight of men into dust (death), to destroy and ruin the world. It will be the end of the world economy as you know it.  Michel de Nostradame was an astrologer who lived in France in the 1500s and is most famous today for the poetic quatrains he wrote for his book, "Les Prophties," which many enthusiasts now claim foretold various significant historical events. Nostradamus wrote a lot of stuff so general (and obscure) that with the help of a little imagination (and some liberal interpretations from the original French), people have claimed he has "predicted" nearly every event of significance since the mid-16th century. But this particular viral prediction was not expressed in quatrain form, nor could we find anything like it published in "Les Prophties." We also found no mention of this supposed prophecy prior to the events of early 2020, which generally indicates it is a modern hoax. find published Nostradamus.  Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus.
  Wordsworth Editions,  1999.
In late July 2020, Snopes readers asked for verification of numerous social media posts that stated Target had canceled its annual "Shop with a Cop" program, which is officially known as "Heroes & Helpers," in an effort to "distance themselves from Police Officers." Here is an example of one such post circulating on Facebook:   Similar posts also made the rounds on Twitter, and to add to the confusion, a website called The Courier Daily only reported that people were talking about the rumor on Twitter but didn't offer any evidence for the claim. posts website We reached out to the source itself, asking Target Corporate whether it had ended the long-standing program that pairs children from low-income backgrounds with local law enforcement officers for holiday shopping trips funded by charitable donations. A spokesperson for Target told us that the program will continue, although details about how it will move forward amid the COVID-19 pandemic are still pending. In response to our question asking whether the program had been canceled, the company sent the following statement: We plan to continue to support children with Heroes & Helpers events across the country this holiday season. Like many of our holiday programs, were carefully considering how to manage these events during the COVID-19 environment in a way that ensures the health and safety of our team and guests. We will have additional details to share as we approach the holiday season. The program was launched in 2009 and takes place in stores nationwide. To date, $5 million in grants has been used to support the shopping trips, and more than 100,000 children and 60,000 police officers have participated, per Target. program The false social media rumors may have been inspired by the fact that since the May 25, 2020, death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, there have been ongoing protests against and conversation about police violence and racism in America, spurring calls to reform policing practices and even some activists calling for police departments to be defunded. George Floyd However, Target, as of this writing, doesn't plan to cancel the program as a result of the racial justice protests. With the information currently available, we rate this claim  A Bullseye View.  "Target Teams Up with Donnie Wahlberg to Celebrate 10 Years of Heroes & Helpers."
  4 December 2019. Trujillo, Damian.  "Shop With a Cop Foundation Considers Name Change to Reconnect with Community."
  KNTV.  2 July 2020. Hill, Evan, et al.  "How George Floyd Was Killed in Police Custody."
  The New York Times.  31 May 2020. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In October and November 2021, Snopes readers asked us to verify the authenticity and provenance of a message widely shared on social media throughout 2020 and 2021, and heavily promoted by those opposed to COVID-19 lockdowns. According to almost all the posts in question, the message originally came from a "Hopi Indian Chief" named "White Eagle." The message was permeated with the language of New Age spirituality, and typically began by likening "the moment humanity is going through now" to a "portal" or a "hole," and encouraging readers to engage in "resistance through joy":   Despite extensive research, we have not yet been able to find evidence to corroborate the claim that the message originated with a prominent Hopi named "White Eagle," or indeed of any other name. Furthermore, good reasons exist to doubt that widespread attribution, and the earliest versions of the message that we found were published by a Brazilian "medium" who engages in pseudoscientific practices like "reincarnation psychotherapy" and proponents of a Brazilian religious movement  entirely different cultural contexts to the Hopi tribe in Arizona. For now, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." If definitive evidence becomes available, we will update this fact check accordingly. The message was posted and re-posted multiple times in 2020 and 2021, with occasional minor tweaks, but was almost always attributed to "White Eagle," who was typically described as a "Hopi Indian Chief." 2020 2021 In some cases, social media posts featured photographs of what appeared to be an elderly man, while others contained a picture of an elderly woman  two mutually exclusive claims as to the gender of "White Eagle," and a sign that that attribution might be dubious. In another prominent early version of the message, posted in French on March 28, 2020, the photograph used was actually taken in 1904, meaning it could not possibly show anyone alive in the age of online memes or COVID-19. an elderly man an elderly woman the photograph used actually taken in 1904 In June 2020, "Bird Clan Messenger"  a Canadian blog that espouses "indigenous wisdom" and alternative medicine, as well as opposing COVID-19 mitigation measures like lockdowns and vaccine passports  attributed the "portal and hole" message to Joseph White Eagle, whom the site described as "a Cree spiritual leader and teacher of traditional Native wisdom." attributed the "portal and hole" message However, that blog post was later deleted, and Joseph White Eagle posted on Facebook in September 2021, explicitly denying he had authored the message, and adding: "Somebody first gave credit to a fictitious Hopi Chief White Eagle and when they found he does not exist they started giving me credit for this message." later deleted explicitly denying he had authored the message On March 28, 2020, artist and new-age spiritualist Alex Grey included the message in an Instagram Live broadcast, describing it as "Channeled from White eagle in daime church / Message from Caboclo guia Branca," and dating it to March 16, 2020. In this context, "Daime" likely refers to "Santo Daime," a religious movement which emerged from Brazil in the early 20th century and encompasses elements of various other religions, as well as using the psychedelic drink ayahuasca in rituals. included message Instagram Live broadcast Santo Daime Grey's reference to "Caboclo guia Branca" directed our research to an even earlier social media post containing the message  a March 19, 2020 Instagram post by Jefferson Orlando, a Brazilian "reincarnation pyschotherapist," which bore the headline "Mensagem do Caboclo guia Branca" ("message from White Eagle.") When translated from Portuguese, the message was clearly the same one later attributed to a "Hopi Chief" named White Eagle, and shared widely in English on social media. March 19, 2020 Instagram post   It's not clear whether "White Eagle" is purported to be an actual, living person, a persona adopted by Orlando, or a long-deceased figure whose voice and message Orlando putatively "channeled." Snopes asked Orlando for clarification about the origins of the message, but we did not receive a response. Also on March 19, 2020, a popular Facebook page which celebrates the Umbanda faith  like Santo Daime, Umbanda is a Brazilian religious movement that borrows from other religious practices  also posted the same message as Orlando, in Portuguese: posted the same message   It's not clear whether "Sabedoria de Umbanda" ("Umbanda Wisdom") or Orlando published their post first, and what the ultimate source of the message was. We were unable to find any reference to the "portal and hole" message dated before March 19, and the "Hopi" attribution appears to have only emerged several days later. The earliest available instances of the message emerged from Brazilian religious movements, by way of new-age spirituality and pseudo-scientific paranormal psychology  vastly different cultural milieus from the traditions of the Hopi people. This strongly suggests the claim that a "Hopi Chief White Eagle" authored the message was unfounded. However, we cannot definitively rule out the possibility that the March 19 Brazilian posts were, themselves, borrowed from Hopi culture in some way, with the chain of cross-germination no longer available due to social media posts having been deleted. "Edward S. Curtis." WESTON GALLERY, https://www.westongallery.com/original-works-by/edward-curtis. Accessed 4 Nov. 2021. In July 2021, photographs and videos started circulating on social media that supposedly showed the world's smallest cow, a 51 centimeters (20 inches) tall dwarf cow in Bangladesh named Raani (possibly spelled Rani): photographs   This is a genuine photograph of a very small cow in Bangladesh. It was taken by Munir Us Zaman, and is available via Getty Images with the caption: A dwarf cow named Rani (bottom), whose owners applied to the Guinness Book of Records claiming it to be the smallest cow in the world, walks next to a goat at a cattle farm in Charigram, about 25 km from Savar on July 6, 2021.  While this is a genuine photograph of a dwarf cow, Raani has not yet been officially declared the world's smallest cow. But Raani's owner, Abu Sufian, has already filed paperwork with the Guinness Book of World Records.  Sufian said: "Guinness has acknowledged our entry and will be doing an independent verification, but we are confident that Raani will get the award." Sufian said At the time of this writing, the official record holder for world's smallest cow (or world's shortest cow) belongs to Manikyam, a 61-centimeter-tall cow in India that has held the record since June 2014.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=walK6YEmFUURaani is certainly smaller than Manikyam and it seems likely that this itty-bitty bovine will soon be crowned the world's smallest cow. Raani, a Bhutti or Bhutanese cow, is reportedly 23 months old. France 24 reports that the other Bhuttis on this farm near Charigram in Bangladesh are more than twice Raani's size.  France 24 reports: reports Rani is a Bhutti, or Bhutanese, cow which is prized for its meat in Bangladesh. The other Bhuttis on the farm are twice Rani's size. "We did not expect such huge interest. We did not think people would leave their homes because of the worsening virus situation. But they have come here in droves," the manager said. Sajedul Islam, the government's chief vet for the region, said Rani is a product of "genetic inbreeding" and was unlikely to become any bigger. Raani has become a popular tourist attraction, with thousands of people flocking to this farm to catch a glimpse of potentially the world's smallest cow. Below is a video report from WION, a news outlet covering southern Asia:  See also on Snopes: Are Cow Farts Causing Global Warming? Are Warning Signs About Parachuting Cows Real? Did a K-9 Dog Bite a Cow, Deputy Tase a K-9, Cow Kick a Deputy? Did a Cow Really Sit on the Hood of this Car? During the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media postings repeatedly warned readers that Democratic candidate Joe Biden was planning to slap a 3% federal tax on the value of homes, above and beyond any property taxes homeowners were already paying:   However, this warning about a Biden-backed federal property tax was specious. Property taxes in the U.S. are set and collected at the state, county, and city levels, and the announced Biden Tax Plan includes nothing that could be remotely construed as imposing an additional federal property tax on privately-owned homes. announced Biden Tax Plan The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, summarizes the Biden tax plan as including the following primary elements applicable to individuals (rather than businesses): summarizes Imposes a 12.4 percent Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (Social Security) payroll tax on income earned above $400,000, evenly split between employers and employees. This would create a donut hole in the current Social Security payroll tax, where wages between $137,700, the current wage cap, and $400,000 are not taxed. Reverts the top individual income tax rate for taxable incomes above $400,000 from 37 percent under current law to the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act level of 39.6 percent. Taxes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at the ordinary income tax rate of 39.6 percent on income above $1 million and eliminates step-up in basis for capital gains taxation. Caps the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28 percent of value for those earning more than $400,000, which means that taxpayers earning above that income threshold with tax rates higher than 28 percent would face limited itemized deductions. Restores the Pease limitation on itemized deductions for taxable incomes above $400,000. Phases out the qualified business income deduction (Section 199A) for filers with taxable income above $400,000. Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for childless workers aged 65+; provides renewable-energy-related tax credits to individuals. Expands the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) from a maximum of $3,000 in qualified expenses to $8,000 ($16,000 for multiple dependents) and increases the maximum reimbursement rate from 35 percent to 50 percent. For 2021 and as long as economic conditions require, increases the Child Tax Credit (CTC) from a maximum value of $2,000 to $3,000 for children 17 or younger, while providing a $600 bonus credit for children under 6. The CTC would also be made fully refundable, removing the $2,500 reimbursement threshold and 15 percent phase-in rate. Reestablishes the First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit, which was originally created during the Great Recession to help the housing market. Bidens homebuyers credit would provide up to $15,000 for first-time homebuyers. Expands the estate and gift tax by restoring the rate and exemption to 2009 levels. Similar analysis of Biden's tax plan by other entities include no mention of a federal property tax. analysis Watson, Garrett et al.  "Details and Analysis of Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Bidens Tax Plan/
  Tax Foundation.  22 October 2020. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.  "Understanding Joe Biden's 2020 Tax Plan."
  30 July 2020. In mid-October 2018, Facebook users shared an inaccurate meme asking "Were any of you aware that ALL the Democrats voted AGAINST the 2.8% Social Security cost of living increase?":     No Democrats, or any other legislators for that matter, voted for or against the 2.8 percent cost of living allowance (COLA) increase that Social Security recipients will see beginning in 2019. Since 1975, COLA increases have kicked in automatically and are based on changes in the consumer price index, a figure calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. figure Here's how the Social Security Administration has summarized the history of COLA increases: summarized Most people are aware that there are annual increases in Social Security benefits to offset the corrosive effects of inflation on fixed incomes. These increases, now known as Cost of Living Allowances (COLAs), are such an accepted feature of the program that it is difficult to imagine a time when there were no COLAs. But in fact, when Ida May Fuller received her first $22.54 benefit payment in January of 1940, this would be the same amount she would receive each month for the next 10 years. For Ida May Fuller, and the millions of other Social Security beneficiaries like her, the amount of that first benefit check was the amount they could expect to receive for life. It was not until the 1950 Amendments that Congress first legislated an increase in benefits. Current beneficiaries had their payments recomputed and Ida May Fuller, for example, saw her monthly check increase from $22.54 to $41.30. These recomputations were effective for September 1950 and appeared for the first time in the October 1950 checks. A second increase was legislated for September 1952. Together these two increases almost doubled the value of Social Security benefits for existing beneficiaries. From that point on, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation for that purpose. In 1972 legislation the law was changed to provide, beginning in 1975, for automatic annual cost-of-living allowances (i.e., COLAs) based on the annual increase in consumer prices. No longer do beneficiaries have to await a special act of Congress to receive a benefit increase and no longer does inflation drain value from Social Security benefits. In 1972 legislation The latest increase will affect 62 million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients starting in January 2019. It's the largest increase since 2012, when beneficiaries saw a 3.6 percent boost. affect largest Konish, Lorie.  "Your Social Security Check Will Get a 2.8% Boost in 2019."
  AL.com.  16 October 2018. Social Security Administration.  "Historical Background and Development of Social Security."
  Accessed 17 October 2018. Social Security Administration.  "Social Security Benefits to Increase in 2019."
  11 October 2018. A popular trope used by those seeking to recast the shark as a misunderstood beast is to compare the risk sharks pose to humans to the purported risk posed by ripening coconuts. These sweet-tasting, nutrient-rich tree nuts  the logic goes  kill more people by falling out of trees than do sharks. This is an ostensibly simple question to investigate, as it requires knowing only two things: the annual death rate from unprovoked shark attacks and the annual death rate from falling coconuts. trope The annual death rate from sharks is pretty straightforward. The University of Florida runs a comprehensive database of shark attacks and fatalities: The International Shark Attack File. According to their research, there has been an average of six deaths annually over the past decade. research Problems emerge, however, when one tries to get a handle on how many people die each year as a direct result of injuries sustained by falling coconuts. The most commonly cited figure is that 150 people die each year from falling coconuts. No published research, however, has come up with any reliable estimate of this statistic whatsoever. Perhaps ironically, it appears that this number, as well, gained a sense of legitimacy from the University of Florida's International Shark Attack File, when a researcher there quoted the statistic in a press release for a local event: press release "Falling coconuts kill 150 people worldwide each year, 15 times the number of fatalities attributable to sharks," said George Burgess, Director of the University of Florida's International Shark Attack File and a noted shark researcher. "The reality is that, on the list of potential dangers encountered in aquatic recreation, sharks are right at the bottom of the list," said Burgess, who was one of three scientists participating Tuesday in a National Sea Grant College Program and NOAA Fisheries sponsored press briefing on sharks and the risks of shark attacks at the National Press Club. Investigating the specific claim of 150 coconut deaths each year, syndicated skeptic column The Straight Dope reached out to Burgess in 2002 to ask what his source was for that statistic, and discovered that, ultimately, it came from a British travel-insurance firm named Club Direct: reached out When I called Burgess, he told me he had gotten this statistic off the Internet  specifically, from a widely reported press release from the British travel-insurance firm Club Direct, saying that "holidaymakers hit by falling coconuts will be guaranteed full cover under their travel insurance policy. The news follows reports from Queensland, Australia, that coconut trees are being uprooted by local councils fearful of being sued for damages by people injured by coconuts.  'Coconuts kill around 150 people worldwide each year, which makes them about ten times more dangerous than sharks,' says Brent Escott, managing director of Club Direct." According to the column, this press release also cited a 1984 study from the Journal of Trauma titled "Injuries Due to Falling Coconuts". That study  the recipient of a 2001 Ig Nobel award for research that "cannot or should not be replicated"  did not set out to calculate the global annual death rate from falling coconuts, however. Instead, using simple physics and four years of data collected from a remote Papua New Guinean hospital, it sought to demonstrate that the risk to human health from falling coconuts was a real one. From a physics standpoint, the paper argued: 1984 study recipient If a coconut weighing 2 kg falls 25 meters onto a person's head, the impact velocity is 80 km/hr. The decelerating force on the head will vary depending on whether a direct or glancing blow is received. The distance in which the coconut is decelerated is also an important factor. Thus an infant's head lying on the ground would receive a much greater force than that received by the head of a standing adult, that dropped as it was struck. For a stopping distance of 5cm and a direct blow, the force would be 1,000 kg. From a number of fatalities standpoint, however, the data did not actually directly identify a single fatality, though it did anecdotally report one death: Nine trauma admissions resulted from falling coconuts during the 4-year study period; during this time a total of 355 trauma cases were admitted. Thus 2.5% of trauma admissions were caused by falling coconuts. Injuries were to the back, shoulders, or head. [...] The health worker who referred Patient 1 for craniotomy informed us about another person in the same village who had died instantly a few years earlier when struck on the head by a falling coconut. While it might perhaps be possible to use this limited data to come up with a rough global estimate, no study has actually attempted to do this with systematic methodology. As such, there is no way to debunk the claim with 100 percent certainty. We can say, though, that newspaper reports of death from falling coconuts are far more sparse than reports of death from shark attacks. A 1973 article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin detailed the tragic death of a 2-year old girl struck by a large number of falling coconuts on a beach, while claiming that as far as they could tell, this was the first newspaper report of such an incident in the area:    Honolulu Star-Bulletin. 28 July 1973. Credit: Newspapers.com  The fact that this 1973 story has been cited decades after the fact (for example from a 1999 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser below), at least superficially reinforces the notion that death from falling coconut is a rare (but real) occurrence:    The Honolulu Advertiser. 14 January 1997. Credit: Newspapers.com  We rank this as unproven because accurate, published estimates on the global annual rate of death from falling coconut do not yet exist. Given the dearth of firsthand accounts of death from falling coconut, however, it seems unlikely that they pose more of a threat to human health than do sharks  even if death from either event is extremely unlikely. Turnbull, Leslie.  "How to Avoid Being Eaten by a Shark."
  This Week.  29 May 2017. Florida Museum.  "International Shark Attack File"
  Accessed 30 May 2017. UniSci.  "Falling Coconuts Kill More People Than Shark Attacks."
  Accessed 30 May 2017. Barss, Peter.  "Injuries Due to Falling Coconuts."
  Journal of Trauma.  November 1984. Improbable Research.  "Portrait of an Ig Winner: Dr. Barss."
  Accessed 30 May 2017. Honolulu Star-Bulletin.  "Baby Dies After Being Hit by Falling Cluster of Coconuts."
  28 July 1973. The Honolulu Advertiser.  "Coconut Danger in Park."
  14 January 1997. In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old). collecting While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations: not perfect numbers  Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data: describes Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace. However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations. Moreover, during 20062008, a break occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but in all subsequent years has been followed by even greater decreases. The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Roe v. Wade It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties. It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. The claim, then, that abortion rates (at least since their mid-1980s peak) have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama's administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute: report Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (20112013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (20012010). At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. 1976 Hyde Amendment Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute: study Forty-four laws intended to restrict access to abortion were implemented in 18 states between 2008 and 2010; an additional 62 were implemented in 2011 in 21 states. Some of these laws, such as those that added information to existing counseling requirements, would not necessarily be expected to have a measurable impact. In turn, we found no indication that they affected state-specific trends in abortion incidence. [...] Finally, a number of states that did not enact any new abortion restrictions and that are generally supportive of abortion rightsfor example, by allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for eligible womenexperienced declines in their abortion rates comparable to, and sometimes greater than, the national decline (e.g., California, New Jersey and New York). That these states also experienced a slight drop in the number of clinics offering abortion services may reflect a decline in demand as opposed to the imposition of legal barriers. According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions: CDC Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. Claim:  Albert Einstein once declared compound interest to be "the most powerful force in the universe." UNDETERMINED Examples:  [Sangillo, 2006] There's an urban legend that Albert Einstein once said compounding [interest] is the most powerful force in the universe.  Whether or not he really said it, that line has become my financial motto. I strongly suggest you adopt it.  [Hartgill, 1997] When asked to name the greatest invention in human history, Albert Einstein simply replied "compound interest." Origins:  Many homeowners who have struggled to meet their  mortgages month after month, only to find after years of making payments that most of their money has gone to cover interest charges, have felt like cursing whoever came up with the concept of compound interest. In that vein, around 1980 (when the neutron bomb and soaring interest rates were prominent news topics) Johnny Carson once quipped during a Tonight Show monologue that "Scientists have developed a powerful new weapon that destroys people but leaves buildings standing  it's called the 17% interest rate."  Perhaps that explains why many of us seem to recognize a kindred spirit in the declaration by one of the greatest intellects of our time, Albert Einstein, that compound interest is "the most powerful force in the universe" or "the greatest invention in human history."  (Since no context is ever offered for this purported quote, readers might also fairly assume that its intent was to praise compound interest as a wonderful device that allows thrifty savers to realize a significant, low-risk return on their money.) compound But did the eminent physicist really ever say such a thing?  The claim that he did appears dubious for a couple of significant reasons:  The attribution of this sentiment about compound interest to Einstein doesn't seem to have existed during the scientist's lifetime, first appearing in print only several decades after his death, and always repeated as something he supposedly said in some indefinite time and place.  (Albert Einstein died in 1955, but the earliest mention we could find of this item was in a 1983 New York Times blurb.)  Just what Einstein reportedly said about compound interest varies quite a bit from source to source: That it was "the greatest invention in human history" (or "the greatest invention of mankind," or "the greatest invention of all," or "the most significant invention of the nineteenth century"), that it is "the most powerful force in the universe," or that it is "more complicated than the theory of relativity."  (That last variation echoes another sentiment popularly attributed to Einstein which also began to appear only well after his death, to the effect that "preparing a tax return is more complicated than relativity theory" or "the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.") We suspect that this perspective on the power of compound interest is a fairly modern invention, one which has been retroactively placed into the mouth of a prominent dead person to give it more punch. Last updated:  19 April 2011    Calaprice, Alice.  The New Quotable Einstein.   Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.  ISBN 0-691-12074-9  (pp. 294-295). The New Quotable Einstein     Dorfman, Dan.  "Fundamental Advice, Phenomenal Success."   USA Today.  2 August 1991  (p. B4).     Hartgill, David.  "Power of Compounding."   The Advertiser.  15 September 1997.     Havemann, Judith.  "Uncle Sam's Dual Standards."   The Washington Post.  23 January 1988  (p. A1).     Langworthy, David.  "Einstein Was Right  So Is 'Wealthy Barber.'"   The Houston Chronicle.  1 June 1998  (p. A20).    Sangillo, Karen.  "All About 'Free Money' and How to Earn It."   Bucks County Courier Times.  5 November 2006.    Shapiro, Fred R.  The Yale Book of Quotations.   New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.  ISBN 0-300-10798-6  (pp. 230-231). The Yale Book of Quotations    Topolnicki, Denise M.  "How You Can Beat the Five Threats to Your Retirement."   The Buffalo News.  8 November 1993  (p. 12). FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release?  Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial."    Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015]   There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or some similar wording. This is about the speech of Nick Hanauer, apparently a Seattle venture capitalist. The language of this sensational claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the claim. Is it true? What is the source of the rumour?   Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a spate of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual:  Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating claiming that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive (to rich people) nature. On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known (and widely reported upon) protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street): article Occupy Wall Street TED organizers invited a multimillionaire Seattle venture capitalist named Nick Hanauer  the first nonfamily investor in Amazon.com  to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic  specifically, Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials told Hanauer initially they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as described as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. But in 2015, many social media users continued to assert Hanauer's talk was banned: Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer  Rich People Dont Create Jobs (VIDEO) #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48 #news https://t.co/wmlAmaIZ48  Hannah Kennison (@HannahKennison1) July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015   Nick Hanauer on His Banned TED Talk & Why the Middle Class are the Job Creators https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ https://t.co/KKQOqIK5PQ  Jonathan Goodman (@GoodmanJonathan) July 20, 2015 July 20, 2015   if you are interested in #economics, then it is worth listeningBanned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer 'Rich people don't... https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g #economics https://t.co/00E6rlPF1g  Mudassar Bashir (@mb62020) June 15, 2015 June 15, 2015   Nick Hanauer too politically controversial: rich people dont create jobs, consumers do - via Reese Jones https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz https://t.co/9xzs0vn1kz  VritTV (@Verite_TV) June 11, 2015 June 11, 2015   In late May 2012 a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during the course of which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson on why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted.     The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. asked shuttered version Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. But it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk is explicitly attacking what he calls an article of faith for Republicans. He criticizes Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings  some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at the various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one [uncensored] TED Talk video in 2011. video Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Nick Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a coverup. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." titled While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality) his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated:  27July 2015 Originally published: 27July 2015 Central Health, the government agency entrusted with improving health care access across Travis County, has a low tax rate that will remain low if voters ratify Proposition 1 on the November 2012ballot, a proponent says.Mark Nathan of theKeep Austin HealthyPAC said recently: Our health care districts tax rate is the lowest among the largest counties in Texas, and it will continue to be the lowest if the proposal wins approval. His comment appeared in anAustin American-Statesmannews article posted online the same day, Oct. 18, 2012.Central Health, the county health-care district created in 2004, seeks to increase its tax rate from 7.89 cents per $100 of assessed value to 12.9 cents for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013. Resulting revenue would help support health-care initiatives including a new medical school plus a site for a new teaching hospital.We wondered about the districts current and possible future tax rates.In 2005, the first year the district collected property taxes, Central Healths governing  board set a tax rate of 7.79 cents per $100 of assessed property value, which cost the average taxpayer $126.84, according to a July 31, 2012,Statesmannews story. Between 2005 and 2011, the average tax bill for Central Health rose $29.77 to the current $156.61 on the average-valued home in Travis County, counting exemptions--an increase of 23.5 percent, the story says.Generally, according to the story, Central Healths finances were helped over the years by unexpected windfalls in federal payments, a robust real estate market that pumped up property tax collections and a deal the City of Austin cut with the Seton Healthcare Family years before voters created the district, allowing the district to steadily expand services while setting relatively modest tax rates.By phone, district spokeswoman Christie Garbe told us the districts low tax rate is an artifact of how the district was born, reflecting the merger of separate rates previously levied for health care by the City of Austin and Travis County. Garbe said by email that after the change, residents outside the city experienced a significant rate increase while city residents saw a slight decrease.Another fiscally relevant distinction: Unlike hospital districts in Harris, Dallas, Bexar, Tarrant and El Paso counties, the JulyStatesmanstory says, Central Health does not run a hospital, so it can function with a lower tax rate. The Seton Healthcare Family operates the safety-net University Medical Center Brackenridge and bears most of the financial responsibility for it, the story says, which has helped Central Health set property tax rates 60 to 74 percent lower than other urban Texas hospital districts.At our inquiry, Nathan emailed us a chart, attributed to Central Health, indicating that its tax rate trails those of hospital districts in the urban counties noted in the JulyStatesmanarticle plus Nueces County. All things staying equal, the other districts rates would also outpace the Central Health rate if Proposition 1 passes, according to the chart. Garbe told us by email that the chart reflects April 2012 research by Central Health.According to the chart, the Nueces County district has the next-lowest rate, 16.24 cents per $100 valuation. That's more than double Central Healths rate.Via telephone interviews and web research, we confirmed the proclaimed rates, but found one rate getting cut. Mike Norby of the Harris County Hospital District, also known as the Harris Health System, said by phone that the countys commissioners court voted to reduce the districts tax rate by a penny to 18.22 cents per $100 valuation, effectively cutting the districts revenue by $10 million once all factors are considered. (He said the vote to do so occurred Oct. 23, 2012, which was after Nathan made his claim. )So, Central Health has the lowest rate among seven urban Texas hospital districts and would still have the lowest rate if the proposition passes, presuming other districts do not slash rates in the meantime.At the recommendation of Jonny Hipp, ceo of the Nueces County district, we queried Austin consultant Shari Holland, who told us she has written reports in the past comparing Texas hospital districts; report purchasers have included Central Health, she said.Holland agreed that Central Health has and will likely have a lower tax rate than the other cited districts, due in part, she said, to the Austin areas high property values. In 2008, she said, Travis County had assessed property values of $97,100 per resident, tops among the 10 most populous counties.Curious about the possible effect of higher property values, we asked Nathan how much tax revenue each of the cited health districts raises per resident.Central Health has ranked last among the seven districts in total tax revenues per resident, at $71, according to another Central Health chart emailed to us by Nathan. However, its per-resident revenue would escalate to $115 if the proposition passes. The district could then be collecting more per resident than the districts in Nueces and El Paso counties, which  have per-person tax revenues of $91 and $86, respectively, according to Central Health. The other analyzed health districts still would generate more tax revenue per resident, the districts research suggests.By email, Nathan pointed out he did not say Central Healths per-resident tax collections would stay the lowest.Our rulingNathan, the PAC spokesman, said Central Health has the lowest tax rate among districts in the largest Texas counties and will retain that distinction if the proposition passes. Thats correct, presuming other districts dont slash rates.Still, Central Healths per-person tax levy is projected to outpace those of two other districts should Travis County voters approve the bump. This information was missing from the spokesman's statement. Tax rates alone make the comparison incomplete..We rate the claim as Mostly True.