Is the majority of farmland in the United States owned by Bill Gates?
In April 2022, researchers warned about the potential risk of a global food shortage, spurred on in part by Russia's ongoing attacks on Ukraine. While there are currently no nationwide food shortages in the United States, nor widespread disruptions in the supply chain, the potential of such shortages caused many people to feel that their food security was suddenly uncertain.  researchers warned about the potential risk of a global food shortage currently no nationwide food shortages in the United States In the wake of this uncertainty, unfounded rumors began to spread that attempted to lay the blame for any coming food shortages on nefarious forces. One such rumor claimed that there had been an unusual number of fires at food processing facilities in 2022. The explanation offered by conspiracy theorists for this untrue claim was that these fires were being intentionally set in order to create a food crisis. In reality, the number of fires was not extraordinary, the causes of the fires were not unusual, and the damage caused by the fires was minimal.  the number of fires was not extraordinary, the causes of the fires were not unusual, and the damage caused by the fires was minimal As unfounded rumors related to the cause of a yet-to-happen food crisis circulated online, many people started to point fingers at a favorite target of conspiracy theorists, former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates.  One of the most prevalent claims related to Gates and the potential for food shortages is that the billionaire owns a suspicious amount of farmland in the United States. On social media, we found people claiming, for example, that Gates owns the "majority" of U.S. farmland -- 80%, they claimed -- and that Gates is trying to buy up "all" of the farmland.   These claims are not true. Gates does not own anywhere close to the majority of America's farmland.  Gates does own a lot of farmland. In fact, he reportedly owns more farmland than any other individual in America. According to 2021 article from the Land Report, a magazine about land ownership, Gates owns approximately 242,000 acres of farmland. While this is certainly a lot of acreage, it represents less than 1% of all the farmland in the United States.  reportedly owns more farmland According to a 2021 report from the United States Department of Agriculture and the National Agriculture Statistics Service, there are 895,300,000 acres of farmland in the United States. Gates' 242,000 acres amounts to about 0.03% of the total.  2021 report from the United States Department of Agriculture and the National Agriculture Statistics Service To put that into perspective, if you put all of the land that Gates owns into one place (his holdings are spread throughout the country), you'd cover an area about a quarter the size of Rhode Island.  you'd cover an area about a quarter the size of Rhode Island While viral conspiracy theories baselessly conjecture that Gates is buying up farmland in order to starve Americans for some unknown reason, there's likely a simpler explanation: Gates makes money off this land.  Gates started purchasing farmland circa 2013 through his investment group, Cascade Investments. Agfundernews.com, a website about agricultural investments, reported in 2021 that Gates' investments were part of a broader trend that started after the financial crisis of 2008, as investors looked for reliable returns.  Agfundernews.com For many years, farmland was not a common asset class among financial investors ... The tide began to shift in the early 2000s, when institutional investors began to give farmland a closer look. Momentum accelerated during the 2008-2009 Great Financial Crisis, when investors grew desperate for alternatives to traditional safe haven investments like bonds and gold. In this short period of time, there was a proliferation in funds that were specifically focused on farmland investing. In 2020, there were 166 such funds globally, nearly a 9x increase from only 19 in 2005. [...] Bill Gates investments in farmland can be seen as part of this trend. The Gates have been quietly acquiring farmland through their investment manager, Cascade Investment, for over 10 years. While many have also speculated that Gates' land purchases were in some way related to his efforts to curb climate change, Gates has said that the two are unrelated. Gates said during a Reddit AMA: Reddit AMA  My investment group chose to do this. It is not connected to climate. The agriculture sector is important. With more productive seeds we can avoid deforestation and help Africa deal with the climate difficulty they already face. It is unclear how cheap biofuels can be but if they are cheap it can solve the aviation and truck emissions. During times of uncertainty, people often look for someone to blame, and peddlers of misinformation are quick to tell others at whom they should be pointing their fingers. Oftentimes, those fingers get pointed at Gates. During the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine-hesitant Americans were inundated with false rumors claiming that Gates was putting microchips into vaccines, that he was working on a mind-altering vaccine, that Gates had input tracking devices into vaccines, and that he once called for vaccinations as a way to depopulate the planet. These rumors, like the present rumor about Gates buying up the majority of farmland in the United States for nefarious purposes, are all false.  Gates was putting microchips into vaccines working on a mind-altering vaccine Gates had input tracking devices into vaccines vaccinations as a way to depopulate the planet Sources: Bill Gates: Americas Top Farmland Owner | The Land Report. 11 Jan. 2021, https://landreport.com/2021/01/bill-gates-americas-top-farmland-owner/. Bill Gates Uses Farmland as an Investment Outlet Buying up Potato, Carrot and Onion Farms. NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/mcdonald-s-french-fries-carrots-onions-all-foods-come-bill-n1270033. Accessed 28 Apr. 2022. Bill Gates Uses Farmland as Investment Vehicle, Owning 269,000 Acres of Land. NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/bill-gates-is-nation-s-largest-farmland-owner-114566213692. Accessed 28 Apr. 2022. Estes, Nick. Bill Gates Is the Biggest Private Owner of Farmland in the United States. Why? The Guardian, 5 Apr. 2021. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/05/bill-gates-climate-crisis-farmland. If Not for Climate, Then Why Is Bill Gates Buying so Much Farmland? AFN, 27 Aug. 2021, https://agfundernews.com/gates-if-not-for-climate-then-why-is-bill-buying-up-so-much-farmland.
In December 2020, a picture of a seemingly oddly shaped branch was widely circulated on social media along with the punny title "chemistree":   Many viewers appeared skeptical that this was a genuine photograph. For starters, one of the earliest and most popular postings of this image was shared to r/LSD, a section of Reddit dedicated to the hallucinogenic drug Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, along with comments about how the branch resembled the chemical structure of the drug. This, in turn, led some to believe that the picture of the branch had been edited to better resemble the chemical structure of LSD: r/LSD   Other social media users seemed to think that the hexagonal shapes of this branch were too unnatural to be real. As the image started circulating under the punny "chemistree" title, it appeared, once again, that this picture was digitally edited with the intent of scoring internet points.  We have not been able to source this particular image, but we don't see any reason to believe that this "chemistree" was photoshopped. In fact, this branch doesn't seem all that unusual. Hexagons may have the appearance of being humanmade, but these six-sided shapes are widely found throughout nature, such as in the honeycomb of a beehive or the symmetrical shape of a snowflake. Several plants can also grow in seemingly oddly shaped formations.  shape of a snowflake plants formations We reached out to the U.S. National Arboretum for help identifying this branch. While we haven't been able to identify this tree species with absolute certainty yet, we have come across a few likely contenders. The Sophora prostrata, or dwarf kowhai, for instance, has angular branches similar to the ones in the above-displayed picture.  Before we show you an image of the dwarf kowhai, it should also be noted that the lighting in the viral picture makes it difficult to discern any depth. This branch appears, more or less, to be two-dimensional, with all of the branches moving at angles equidistant to the camera. In reality, however, it's likely that the branches' offshoots are moving slightly toward and away from the camera. In July 2020, the non-profit organization Trees For Canterbury, shared an image showing a branch of this "little twister" : Trees For Canterbury   Here's another picture of the dwarf kowhai:   While the branch in the viral "chemistree" picture may belong to a dwarf kowhai, this tree is native to New Zealand. If this picture was snapped in the United States, it's possible that it shows a spiny black olive (Bucida spinosa), a tree that grows in warmer climates, like the Caribbean, Hawaii, or Florida. Here's an eerily similar photograph of a spiny black olive tree branch that was posted to Flickr by Jenny Evans in 2008: spiny black olive Bucida spinosa Flickr by Jenny Evans in 2008   While we have not been able to positively identify the "chemistree" branch, it isn't out of the ordinary for trees and plants to have angular branches. The viral picture most likely shows a poorly lit photo of a spiny black olive (Bucida spinosa) tree. Claim:  Wal-Mart employees must pony up to buy flags, flagpoles, and floodlights, or else their stores have to do without American flag displays. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] I have run across a situation that I think should be changed; it upset me and so I decided to put it out on the Internet. If you decide to forward this note to your friends, that's fine-if not, that's okay, too. Maybe I'm wrong in feeling this way, but this is what I found on Friday, October 12, 2001. I ran to our local Wal-Mart store before I went to work. While I was being checked out at the counter, I realized that I had not noticed an American Flag flying outside and asked the clerk why there wasn't one. I was told that the policy is that Wal-Mart does not provide flags to their stores. Rather, each store must provide their own.  At this store, the employees would have to take up a collection among themselves to make the purchase of the flag, pole & flood light. I was sure there was a misunderstanding in that policy somewhere, but I needed to get to a meeting, so I didn't pursue the problem. As I drove to my meeting I became more and more upset to think that the Company that always "seems" to encourage patriotism and "Buy American" won't even, in these days of horror and heroism and war on terrorism, provide their stores with flags to show their support!!  When I got to my meeting I told one of my friends what I had found that morning and they agreed that I must be mistaken. Wal-Mart would not have a policy that made individual stores/employees purchase their own flag, "for heavens sake!" My friend suggested I just call Wal-Mart's corporate offices and there I would discover the truth to this misunderstanding. So, I did. I called the Corporate office and spoke to their representative. By the way, their number is 1-800-Wal-Mart. Do you know what I was told? I wasn't misunderstanding their policy!  Each store must provide their own flag  if the store can't fit the expense into their budget, then the employees have to take up a collection. Now, I find this a disgrace. I have always noticed the large flags flying at every Perkins Pancake House  they always fly the flag, even when there isn't a National Emergency. But here's Wal-Mart, the company who has become wealthy beyond measure in this great Country of ours; who claims to be "one big happy family," who recommends we "Buy American," but who cannot/will not provide a flag pole/flag and light to each of their stores wherever they are.  Would this be expensive? Oh, somewhat, I agree, but I hear that Wal-Mart is planning to build many new stores in the near future and that, possibly, they will make every existing store into a "super-store." Now, I realize that expanding like that will bring in more money and make them wealthier still, where providing flags to all their stores would only COST money and not add money to their fortune. Maybe, just maybe, not providing flags to their stores and not flying the flag in support of our Country will start costing them more money-maybe I will start looking more closely for the flag before I shop and begin supporting the smaller stores who don't worry so much about the "bottom line," but rather are happy to spend some money to show they really love America. Do you think I am really way off base on this, or do you feel the same. Thanks for taking the time to think about this with me-if you feel the same, forward this on to your address list-if not, that's what your "Delete" is for. Origins:  This one reminds me of an episode of TV's M*A*S*H, in which Hawkeye and Trapper John attempt to acquire an incubator so that they can save time (and lives) by growing bacterial cultures right at the M*A*S*H hospital instead of having to send them out to labs.  As they   attempt to cut their way through layers of military red tape they find that even though the Army agrees an incubator is a perfectly sensible piece of equipment for a M*A*S*H unit to possess, they can't have one because an incubator is not on the list of recommended supplies for a M*A*S*H unit, leaving them to resort to some less "official" means of obtaining their goal.  (They finally get their incubator when Radar, the company clerk, surreptitiously swaps their commanding officer's barbeque for one.) Most of us who have had to deal with the management of business budgets know that you often have to make do with whatever amount of money you're allotted, even if it's woefully inadequate for the job expected of you.  You soon become an expert in finding all sorts of ways to pay Paul by robbing Peter: charging necessary expenses to different budgets (preferably someone else's), making deals, getting creative with expense reports, and doing whatever it takes to scrounge up the funds you need.   If you desperately need to purchase a new photocopier because the old one is broken beyond repair, but you've already used up the entire year's office equipment budget, you claim it as a personnel expense and maintain with a straight face that yes, you did indeed hire a contractor by the name of Mr. Xerox. So, you're the manager of a Wal-Mart store, and you need an American flag to display outside the store.  Wal-Mart corporate may have assigned money (on paper) to your facilities budget for a flag (and Wal-Mart corporate assures us they do indeed  budget each store for such an expense), but maybe you already used up all the start-up funds allotted to you getting the store ready for its grand opening before you got around to purchasing a flag and pole.  Or maybe you had a flag, but it got ruined; you need a new one, but you're already over budget. What do you do?  Go without a flag? Purchase one, submit the expense, and hope you don't draw corporate censure for running over budget?  Perhaps you take the path of least resistance and just go and pay for a new flag out of your own pocket (possibly even asking some of your employees to chip in).   Wal-Mart itself stated on its web site that: web site Wal-Mart shares the enthusiasm of Americans everywhere for displaying the American flag. In fact, we display the flag at all Wal-Mart stores and Supercenters. While some of our stores are equipped to fly the flag outside on flagpoles, others display the flag inside, usually in the front of our stores. In every instance, the flag has been purchased by Wal-Mart out of the local store's operating budget. Wal-Mart is proud of our American heritage and the things our associates and customers do every day to support this great country. So, if this piece isn't a complete work of fiction, it sounds like the writer grossly misunderstood what she was told.  Yes, Wal-Mart stores get money for flags, but managers often have to perform juggling acts with their budgets, and funds don't always end up being used for their specifically allocated purposes.  If you're a store manager and your store needs six things (including a flag), but the cost of those six things (which all come out of the same budget) exceeds the monies available to you, you have to decide which one(s) you're going to do without.  You don't have to take up a collection amongst your employees to buy a flag, but you might decide it's better to do that than to skip on lights for the exterior sign or painting lines in the parking lot.  Certainly your workers are more likely (out of pride) to chip in for an American flag than they are for, say, new mops and brooms.  It's not hard to see how someone might misinterpret  an explanation of the sometimes difficult trade-offs managers have to make to mean "They have to get their employees to pay for this stuff or do without!"  Last updated:  2 December 2007 Claim:  The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) owns a patent on Ebola. : : The CDC patented a strain of Ebola in 2010.     : The CDC created Ebola and obtained a patent for it to restrict or profit from the development of a vaccine.  Example:  [Collected via email, October 2014]Is there any truth to the rumor that The United States Government is one of 6 owners of a patent on the Ebola virus?  Does this mean they have the right to demand blood samples from any victims?  Can they force those on government health care to take experimental Ebola vaccines that they develop?  Is the CDC purposely allowing Ebola to enter the country in order to cause a "run" on a newly developed vaccine?   Origins:  The 2014 Ebola outbreak began in December 2013 and is the deadliest recorded since the discovery of ebolaviruses in 1976. The severity and scope of the 2014 Ebola outbreak has caused significant global concern over the threat posed by the disease, and a number of rumors have resulted. One pervasive strain of rumors centers around "ownership" of what many understand to be the Ebola virus: more specifically, ownership of a patent granted to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2010, Patent No. CA2741523A1. An abstract for that patent reads: CA2741523A1 The invention provides the isolated human Ebola (hEbola) viruses denoted as Bundibugyo (EboBun) deposited with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC"; Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America) on November 26, 2007 and accorded an accession number 200706291. As the Ebola outbreak intensified, concern over the spread of the disease steadily increased; and the seemingly-suspect CDC patent on Ebola began to circulate on social media. Many users interpreted use of words like "invention" to indicate the U.S. government or its agents had literally invented Ebola in the lab as a tool to control the population or push forward an agenda involving expensive vaccines and cures.  However,  the 2014 Ebola outbreak is due to a strain of the virus known as Ebola Zaire and not the EboBun strain for which the CDC patent was obtained,  so any pharmaceutical dollars to be made would not be affected by a patent protecting a strain of the virus not central to the current outbreak. Speculation often centers upon the reasons any agency (government or privately held) would patent a virus such as Ebola if not to restrict the development of a cure or to capitalize on the profits from a potential cure. But at the time the Ebola patent was granted in 2010, the area of human gene patents was not as legally clear as it became following a Supreme Court decision a few years later. On 13 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case of Association For Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics in respect to whether isolated genetic material was patent eligible. Justice Clarence Thomas opined in the decision that "genes and the information they encode are not patent-eligible ... simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material," and he added: decision In this case, by contrast, Myriad did not create anything. To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention. On 9 October 2014, professor of biological sciences at Purdue University and Ebola researcher David Sanders addressed rumors about the CDC's patent on Ebola. Sanders explained that overall the practice of patenting "life forms" is not uncommon for the CDC, noting that patents like the one the CDC holds on the EboBun strain of Ebola can circumvent for-profit patenting as well as facilitate broader research: The CDC does hold some patents on life forms, but it generally does this for the common good, so a commercial company can't come along and patent it. The CDC lets researchers work with the strain without fees. Until the Supreme Court's 2013 decision on isolated genetic material, the ambiguity involved made such patents a potential necessity. In light of it the CDC's intent in patenting Ebola appears to be far less nefarious.  Last updated:  10 October 2014    Mears, Bill.  "Court: Human Genes Cannot Be Patented"   CNN.  13 June 2014. 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 Claim:  Best Buy is distributing free $1,000 gift cards to users who click an online link.  Examples:   [Collected via e-mail, April 2012] Your entry last month has Won!!  Goto [URL elided] and enter your Winning Code:  3333 to claim your free $1000 BestBuy GiftCard!  [Collected via e-mail, October 2012] Your entry last month has Won!  Go to [URL elided]  and enter your winning code 5555 to claim your FREE $1000 Best Buy Gift card within 24 hours.   Origins:  In October 2012, a scam purporting to offer free $1,000 Best Buy gift cards to those who accessed a proffered link then entered a "winning code" spread by cell phone text message. It was a reprise of a March 2012 scam that invoked the name of the same retailer to lure the unwary. Those who attempted to claim the enticing freebie were then led to a web page (which was not operated or sponsored by electronics retailer Best Buy) that asked them to certify they were U.S. residents over the age of 18 and had agreed to the privacy policy and terms and conditions of the site they'd been sent to, the latter being: This Gift Redemption Program is an independent rewards program for consumers and is not affiliated with, sponsored by or endorsed by any of the listed products or retailers. Trademarks, service marks, logos, and/or domain names (including, without limitation, the individual names of products and retailers) are the property of their respective owners. THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. SEE TERMS & CONDITIONS FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Members are being accepted subject to the following Program Requirements: 1) Must be a legal US resident; 2) must be at least 18 years old or older; 3) must have a valid email and shipping address; 4) Eligible members can receive the incentive gift package by completing two reward offers from each of the Silver and Gold reward offer page options and nine reward offers from the Platinum reward offer page options and refer 3 friends to do the same. Various types of reward offers are available. Completion of reward offers most often requires a purchase or filing a credit application and being accepted for a financial product such as a credit card or consumer loan. Those still in hot pursuit of the promised $1,000 gift cards were then asked to provide their names, mailing addresses, e-mail addresses, cell phone numbers, and dates of birth, or were taken directly to web pages that required them to select a number of  "free" offers. As always, it was just a con meant to trick the credulous into divulging their personal information and signing up for expensive services. The Better Business Bureau provides this advice on avoiding being victimized by such scams: Better Business Bureau If you receive a questionable or unsolicited text message, check the URL or phone number for free on the Better Business Bureau website. website Most financial institutions, utility, or other business will not communicate with you via text message. If you do not recognize the website or phone number being sent to you, don't visit or call it. Don't e-mail or text personal and financial information. Review your credit card and bank statements to make sure there are no unauthorized charges. Other recent scams of similar construction include: $50 or $100 Starbucks gift cards [October 2011] Starbucks  $25 Tim Hortons gift cards [October 2011] Tim Hortons  Apple iPods, iPhones, or MacBooks in memory of Steve Jobs [October 2011] Apple  $1,000 Costco gift cards [December 2011] Costco  $1,000 Walmart gift cards [March 2012] Walmart  Pair of JetBlue air travel tickets [April 2012] JetBlue Last updated:  5 October 2012 In late January 2022, Google users looked to Reddit and elsewhere to find out if an email for the status of the Equifax data breach settlement was a "scam or legit," as readers often do after receiving such notices. The email had the subject line, "Equifax Data Breach Settlement (Credit Monitoring Instructions and Activation Code)," and linked to the website, experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement. It promised a free four-year membership for the credit monitoring service Experian IdentityWorks. Google Reddit experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement This was a legitimate notice for a data breach settlement for Equifax. Readers might remember making a claim in the settlement back in July 2019. Users who opted to receive credit monitoring instead of a check were sent activation codes in the new email for Experian IdentityWorks. The official website for the settlement was equifaxbreachsettlement.com. back in July 2019 equifaxbreachsettlement.com The official settlement website documented the fact that in September 2017, Equifax was "the victim of a criminal cyberattack," giving the attackers "unauthorized access to the personal information of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers." This included "peoples names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and in some instances drivers license numbers, credit card numbers, or other personal information." documented Equifax Numerous lawsuits were brought on behalf of consumers whose personal information was impacted as a result of the Data Breach. Chief Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is overseeing these lawsuits. These lawsuits are known as In re: Equifax Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md-2800-TWT. The consumers who sued are called the Plaintiffs. Equifax, Inc., and two of its subsidiaries are the Defendants. Plaintiffs claimed that Equifax did not adequately protect consumers personal information and that Equifax delayed in providing notice of the data breach. The most recent version of the lawsuit, which describes the specific legal claims alleged by the Plaintiffs, is available here. Equifax denies any wrongdoing, and no court or other judicial entity has made any judgment or other determination of any wrongdoing. here In the end, both sides of the legal battle "agreed to a settlement after a lengthy mediation process overseen by a retired federal judge." That settlement allowed claimants to choose to receive a check or credit monitoring. Anyone who chose to receive a check might eventually receive an amount much smaller than expected, as the "alternative compensation of up to $125" would "likely will be substantially lowered" to a "small percentage" of what was expected.  In 2017, the Equifax website provided steps for consumers to take following a security breach at the company. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)  The email that began to be sent in late January 2022 provided a status update on the Equifax data breach settlement. According to a copy of the email that we reviewed, it read as follows: Equifax Data Breach Settlement (Credit Monitoring Instructions and Activation Code) Issue Date: January 31, 2022 Claim No. (removed)Dear (removed): You filed a claim in the Equifax Data Breach Settlement and chose to receive free, three-bureau (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) credit monitoring from Experian for four years. Implementation of the Settlement was delayed by appeals; however, the Settlement is now effective because appellate courts have affirmed it. This email provides additional information about the services provided by Experian as part of the Settlement and how you can enroll. You are receiving free membership in Experian IdentityWorks for four years. You must enroll by June 27, 2022. This service is free for you and provided as a Settlement benefit. You do not need to provide any payment information to enroll and you do not need to cancel the service when it ends. We encourage you to enroll today. HOW TO ENROLL:  Visit the Experian IdentityWorks Website: www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement Enter Your Activation Code: (removed) www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement You must use the above code to enroll by June 27, 2022 (your activation code will not work after this date). If you have questions, need help with Identity Restoration (either because you were a victim of fraud or identity theft) because of the Equifax data breach, or would like another way to sign up for Experian IdentityWorks, please call Experians customer care team toll-free at 1-877-251-5822. So that the team may better serve you, please be prepared to provide them with engagement number (removed) so that you may access the Settlements Identity Restoration services for assistance with fraud or identity theft. For more information on Identity Restoration services, visit www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement. www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement The email also broke down exactly what is included in the four-year membership to the credit monitoring service known as Experian IdentityWorks: Experian IdentityWorks - Daily Credit Monitoring* from each of the three nationwide Consumer Reporting Agencies showing key changes to your Consumer Reports;- Automated alerts when new accounts are opened; inquiries or requests for credit reports are made for the purpose of determining credit; changes to address; and negative information (including delinquencies or bankruptcies);- On-demand online access to a copy of your Experian Consumer Report, updated monthly;- Automated non-credit alerts, using public or proprietary data sources, for example: when certain information is found on a suspicious website or the dark web; when names, aliases, and addresses have been associated with your Social Security Number; when a payday loan or unsecured credit has been taken or opened using your Social Security Number; when your information matches information in arrest or criminal court records; when your information is used for identity authentication; when your mail has been redirected through the U.S. Postal Service; when banking activity is detected related to new deposit account applications, changes to personal information, and new signers are added to accounts; and when a balance is reported on your credit line that has been inactive for at least six months;- Up to One Million in Identity Theft Insurance** which provides coverage for certain costs and unauthorized electronic fund transfers;- A customer service center to assist with enrollment, monitoring alerts, disputes, fraud, and other Credit Monitoring Service questions;- Full Identity Restoration Service if you are the victim of fraud or identity theft (which includes a dedicated identity theft restoration specialist who will provide you with step-by-step assistance, and form letters to contact companies, government agencies, and Consumer Reporting Agencies), and- Child Monitoring Services (for Class Members under the age of eighteen). * Daily credit reports are only available online. If you do not register online, you can call for additional reports each quarter after you sign-up.** The Identity Theft Insurance is underwritten and administered by American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, an Assurant company. Please refer to the actual policies for terms, conditions, and exclusions of coverage. Coverage may not be available in all jurisdictions.  Close-up of code on a computer screen for the Apache Struts framework, which was exploited by computer hackers using a Remote Code Execution exploit in order to allegedly steal the personal information of millions of people from credit bureau Equifax, Oct. 2, 2017. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)  To reach the administrator of the Equifax data breach settlement or to inquire about its status, the email said to call 1-833-759-2982. Meanwhile, any questions about Experian IdentityWorks can be directed to the phone number 1-877-251-5822. Equifax We previously reported on other legal matters involving settlements for National Grid and a Plaid Inc. National Grid Plaid Inc Sitting in front of a mock pharmacy and flanked by people in white lab coats, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders on July 24, 2020, that he framed as end-all solutions for Americans who struggle to pay high premium prices for prescription drugs. Of one of the directives, specifically, Trump told a crowd of supporters and reporters at the ceremony: told Under this order, the price of insulin for affected patients will come down to just pennies a day  pennies a day from numbers that you werent even able to think about. Its a massive cost savings. News outlets such as The New York Times and Washington Post described the signing event like it was largely symbolic, since the executive orders are unlikely to take effect this year, if at all (we explain more below). The New York Times Washington Post Meanwhile, at least two conservative media sources, Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire and CNSNews  which claims to balance "liberal bias" in mainstream news with its coverage  reported on the president's pledge to slash prescription prices at face value, and highlighted the above-mentioned quote by Trump regarding insulin. Daily Wire CNSNews published the story, "Trump Says Executive Order Will Drop the Price of Insulin Down to Pennies a Day," which mainly quoted the president verbatim, and numerous Snopes readers reached out to us to investigate the claim's accuracy. Namely, diabetic patients wondered whether they would indeed pay less for insulin syringes or insulin cartridges for their pens or pumps because of the president. story pens   According to a Congressional analysis in September 2019, insulin averaged $34.75 per dose in the U.S.  a total that's almost 2.5 times higher than the average price in other countries. First, we'll lay out what was unequivocally true: Trump issued Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications during the July 24, 2020, signing event, and that directive authorized the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make certain changes regarding the cost of EpiPens for Americans with severe allergies and the cost of insulin for those who suffer from diabetes, specifically. It stated: Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications Department of Health and Human Services EpiPens The price of insulin in the United States has risen dramatically over the past decade. ... While Americans with diabetes and severe allergic reactions may have access to affordable insulin and injectable epinephrine through commercial insurance or Federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, many Americans still struggle to purchase these products. Medicare Medicaid Here's some more context: Medicare, the federal program that covers the majority of Americans over age 65 and those with disabilities, offers plans that help diabetic patients cover the cost of some insulin products. Meanwhile, policies for Medicaid, the government-run health insurance system for low-income people, vary state by state  variances that include whether or not the program covers the cost of diabetic enrollees' insulin, or to what extent. state by state Trump's directive pertained to "federally qualified health centers" (FQHC), which are about 1,400 community health care clinics nationwide that treat low-income patients on sliding fee scales and purchase discounted drugs from pharmaceutical companies under an existing federal program, known as 340B. The July 2020 executive order was worded like this: federally qualified health centers 1,400 340B   In other words, the president's order requires participants of the 340B Program to offer insulin at greatly reduced prices to patients with no or little insurance coverage, without providing specifics on how or when the change would take effect. Advisory Board, a news site for health care providers, said in a statement: "Only patients with low incomes; those with high cost-sharing requirements for insulin or epinephrine; those with high, unmet deductibles; and/or those without health insurance would be eligible for the discount." A news release from the HHS said: statement news release This will increase access to life-saving insulin and epinephrine for the patients who face especially high costs among the 28 million patients who visit FQHCs every year, over six million of whom are uninsured. For perspective, about 34.2 million Americans had diabetes as of 2018, which represented about 10.5 percent of the population, according to the American Diabetes Association. So, hypothetically, if the same proportion of people had diabetes within the FQHC population of 28 million patients (a total reported by the HHS), then Trump's executive order could help about 2.9 million people, depending on whether their insurance already covers the treatment. American Diabetes Association So to recap, in regard to the claim in question, it was true to state Trump signed an executive order in July 2020 that aimed to make it easier for low-income diabetic patients to pay for insulin. But nowhere in the federal document did the presidential administration explain its plan for implementing the change, nor the level to which insulin prices would drop. There was no proof that the order would allow any American to someday pay "pennies a day" on the protein hormone. We should note here: In addition to that previously explained executive order, a separate directive signed by Trump on July 24, 2020, touched on a yet-to-be-finalized initiative by the White House to relax international drug importation rules and added insulin to a list of prescription medications that can be imported from Canada. The president characterized that directive, too, as a positive step for people who want lower insulin costs. separate directive yet-to-be-finalized And that brings us to our final point: Much of what Trump celebrated in the July 2020 executive orders had been proposed by his administration prior to the signing ceremony but stalled amid opposition from pharmaceutical companies and political barriers. "[None] of these ideas put forth are new, or in fact any more implementable than before, especially without congressional action, an investor told FeircePharma, a trade publication for the pharmaceutical industry. FeircePharma For instance, in May 2020, Trump unveiled a plan to cap the cost of insulin for Medicare recipients at $35 per month beginning in 2021 (even that initiative would cost patients more than "pennies a day"). But as of this writing, it was unclear exactly how that directive would roll out, and when or if qualifying seniors with diabetes would notice a price difference. The Washington Post reported on July 24, 2020: May 2020 Washington Post The moves [by Trump] are largely symbolic because the orders are unlikely to take effect anytime soon, if they do so at all, because the power to implement drug pricing policy through executive order is limited. Voters will not see an impact before the November elections, and the drug industry is sure to challenge them in court. A couple days after the July signing ceremony, for example, Politico reported that representatives of major drug lobbies refused to meet with the president to discuss one of the four executive orders: a non-specific and controversial proposal to link Medicare payments for certain medicines to lower costs that people pay in other countries. After that refusal on industry leaders' part, investors told MarketWatch that the executive orders were "largely campaign fodder" and "come without the necessary force to meaningfully change prices in the U.S."  Politico reported meet controversial MarketWatch In sum, while it was truthful to claim Trump issued an executive order in July 2020 that was intended to lower the price of insulin for some Americans, it was misleading to claim that all diabetic patients would save money as a result of the directive  the directive only targeted low-income patients who are uninsured or underinsured and seek help from certain federal community health providers. Additionally, it was unclear as of this report when, if at all, that group would actually reap the benefit of the cost savings, and the estimated amount of such was unknown. It would be wrong to state based on available evidence that the executive order alone would drive down prices to "pennies a day." For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. White House. "Executive Order On Access To Affordable Life-saving Medications".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Lowering Prices For Patients by Eliminating Kickbacks To Middlemen".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Increasing Drug Importation To Lower Prices For American Patients".
 24 July 2020. White House. "Remarks By President Trump At Signing Of Executive Orders On Lowering Drug Prices".
 24 July 2020. Sanger-Katz, Margot. "As He Woos Drugmakers On Virus, Trump Demands Drug Price Controls".
 New York Times. 24 July 2020. Arter, Melanie. "Trump Says Executive Order Will Drop the Price of Insulin Down to Pennies a Day".
 CNSNews. 24 July 2020. National Conference of State Legislatures. "Diabetes Health Coverage: State Laws And Programs".
 10 January 2016. HHS.gov. "Trump Administration Announces Historic Action To Lower Drug Prices For Americans".
 24 July 2020. American Diabetes Association. "Statistics About Diabetes".
 Accessed 30 July 2020. White House. "Executive Order On Increasing Drug Importation To Lower Prices For American Patients".
 24 July 2020. Luhby, Tami. "Trump Administration Proposes Allowing Imports Of Certain Drugs From Canada".
 CNN. 18 December 2019. O'Donnell, Carl. "Explainer: Trump's Plan To Cut Drug Prices".
 Reuters. 27 July 2020. Abutaleb, Yasmeen and Josh Dawsey. "Trump Signs Executive Orders Aimed At Lowering Drug Prices In Largely Symbolic Move".
 Washington Post. 24 July 2020. Cohen, Joshua. "Trump's Executive Orders On Drug Pricing Contain Caveats And Limitations".
 Forbes. 25 July 2020. Ways And Means Committee Staff. "A Painful Pill To Swallow: U.S. Vs. International Prescription Drug Prices".
 September 2019. Reklaitis, Victor. "Trump's Meeting With Pharma Execs Called Off, As Analysts Say His Moves On Drug Prices Lack Bite". Prestigiacomo, Amanda. "Trump Issues Executive Orders To Slash Insulin, EpiPen Prices; End 'Global Freeloading'.
 The Daily Wire. 27 July 2020. Fear-mongering articles reporting that radiation from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (triggered by the tsunami that followed the Thoku earthquake of 11 March 2011) had caused a 100% infant mortality among orca whales born since then have been circulated online for several years. The web site Humans Are Free renewed interest in that rumor in September 2016 when they published an article with the clickbait title "Radiation from Fukushima Now Causes 100% Infant Mortality Rate in West Coast Orcas": published  The Humans Are Free piece was sourced from an article by the disreputable Natural News web site that employed a similarly misleading title ("West Coast Orcas Experiencing 100% Infant Mortality Rate as Radiation from Fukushima Drifts Across Ocean") even though the text of that article plainly admitted that there was no proven connection between the Fukushima disaster and the mortality of infant orcas: No one has yet proven that there is a direct link between the 100 percent mortality rate seen among orca infants and the effects of the radiation contamination of the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima reactor leak in Japan, but it certainly can't be ruled out as a possibility. Natural News listed several sources about whale deaths at the bottom of their article, but none of those sources mentioned radiation from Fukushima as likely or definitive cause. listed several sources bottom article Quotes from Ken Balcomb, executive director of the Center for Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Washington, were also misleadingly reproduced out of context by Natural News to bolster a claim that Balcomb's statement didn't support: The recent discovery of a carcass off the coast of British Columbia  that of a 19-year-old orca female, which was believed to be in the late stages of pregnancy, is just one example of the recent orca deaths that have scientists and conservationists worried. Ken Balcomb, executive director of the Center For Whale Research in Friday Harbor, Washington, said: Her death doesn't bode well for the southern resident population and certainly not for that matriline. Her mother died young. Her aunt had two sons and she's probably post-reproductive. She hasn't had any babies in the last 12 years. So there's no future. Balcomb also remarked: We haven't had any survivals in babies for a couple of years. We have had stillborns and newborns die and a number of whales that appear to be pregnant but didn't ultimately produce any calves. It's like zero survival in birth rate here. While Balcom did say that "we haven't had any survivals in babies for a couple of years," he was talking about the local Puget Sound orca whale population only, and he didn't in any way connect a 100% infant orca mortality rate to radiation from Fukushima. His quotes originated with a story published by the Seattle Times in December 2014 about a baby orca whale that had died in the Pugent Sound, and while the exact cause of that whale's death was unclear, Balcolm suggested that the whale likely died due to a diminished food supply (and not radiation): suggested But two of the whales three biggest problems  the buildup of pollutants such as DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls in their blubber, and disturbance by marine traffic  appear to be worsened by a third, a reduction in available prey. These whales can eat sockeye and halibut, but overwhelmingly prefer fatty chinook from Puget Sound and Canadas Fraser River, distinguishing them from other fish by using sonar to sense differences in the animals swim bladders. And Puget Sound chinook numbers have dropped to about 10 percent of their historic high. They, too, are listed for protection under the ESA. For Balcomb, the loss of J32 suggests its time to consider drastic measures, such as a ban or steep curtailment in chinook fishing, even though fishing is likely the least of the threats chinook face. Its a wake-up call  we know what the problem is, whether its dams or fishing or habitat destruction, he said. Its just what happens when millions of people move into the watershed. (But) stopping fishing, at least for a while, is something we can do immediately. [...] The reality is, the basic problem is food, Balcomb said. Although apparently no baby orcas survived long after birth in Puget Sound in 2013 or 2014, that wasn't the case in the immediately following years, as 2015 saw nine successful orca births in Puget Sound: births In just over a year, Puget Sound has welcomed nine baby Southern-resident orcas to the fold, as the pod continues to rebound from 30-year-low numbers reported at the end of 2014. While radiation from the Fukushima disaster did have a major impact on marine life, the leak of radiactive material from the plant leak did not cause a proven "100% infant mortality" rate among orca whales. Moreover, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration do not list nuclear radiation (from any source) among the threats currently facing the world's whale population.  impact Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  Welch, Craig.  "Puget Sound Orca Numbers Rise Fast After 30-Year Low in 2014."
  The Seattle Times.  20 January 2016. Welch, Craig.  "Ten Years After ESA Listing, Killer Whale Numbers Falling."
  The Seattle Times.  20 December 2014. 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 mid-April 2020, social media users shared a meme implying that hospitals had a financial incentive to inflate the number of COVID-19 patients they were admitting in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. The meme contained red text that said, "So, hospitals get an extra $13,000 if they diagnose a death as COVID-19 and an additional $39,000 if they use a ventilator!" and prompted readers to ask Snopes.com to verify whether the statement is true:The idea that hospitals are getting paid $13,000 for patients with COVID-19 diagnoses and $39,000 more if those patients are placed on ventilators appears to have originated with an interview given on the Fox News prime-time program "Ingraham Angle" by Dr. Scott Jensen, a physician who also serves as a Republican state senator in Minnesota.  During the April 9, 2020 interview, Jensen suggested to host Laura Ingraham that he believed the number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. was being artificially inflated. "The idea that were going to allow people to massage and sort of game the numbers is a real issue because were going to undermine the (public) trust," he said. interview suggested Ingraham then played footage from a press conference with comments from Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in which Fauci called claims that the number of coronavirus cases are being "padded" a conspiracy theory. In an exchange that followed, Jensen suggested that Medicare, the national health care plan for the elderly, was paying hospitals set amounts for each patient diagnosed and treated for COVID-19: INGRAHAM: Dr. Fauci was asked about the COVID death count today. Here's what he said, in part. [Cut to briefing] REPORTER: What do you say to those folks who are making the claim without really any evidence that these deaths are being padded, that the number of COVID-19 deaths are being padded? FAUCI: You will always have conspiracy theories when you have very challenging public health crises. They are nothing but distractions. [Cut back to Ingraham] INGRAHAM: Conspiracy theories, doctor? So you're engaging in conspiracy theories. What do you say to Dr. Fauci tonight? JENSEN: Well I would remind him that any time health care intersects with dollars it gets awkward. Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital, you'll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000, three times as much. Nobody can tell me after 35 years in the world of medicine that sometimes those kinds of things impact on what we do. We attempted to reach Jensen by phone and email, but did not get a response in time for publication. We also reached out to the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to ask whether the statement that Medicare was paying hospitals $13,000 and $39,000, respectively, for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and patients with the disease who are placed on ventilators. A spokesperson for CMS told us that whether hospitals are paid by Medicare for care of a COVID-19 patient would depend on whether that patient was covered by Medicare insurance. CMS also told us there is no set or predetermined amount paid to hospitals for diagnosing and treating COVID-19 patients, and the amounts would depend on a variety of factors driven by the needs of each patient. Pay-outs would also depend on the variance of the costs of medical care in different regions. The closest match for the numbers cited by Jensen we could locate was in an April 7, 2020, article published by the health care nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. As a starting point to estimate how much hospitals might get paid by the federal government for treating uninsured COVID-19 patients, the article used average payments for hospital admissions for similar conditions in 2017:  article For less severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for respiratory infections and inflammations with major comorbidities or complications in 2017, which was $13,297. For more severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for a respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator support for greater than 96 hours, which was $40,218. But while these industry estimates are similar to the numbers Jensen cited, they do not represent actual Medicare payments to hospitals for COVID-19 diagnoses or treatment, or even a national average of such payments.  We therefore rate this claim "Mixture." While it seems plausible that Medicare disbursements to hospitals treating COVID-19 patients could be in the range given by Jensen in the Fox News interview (if those patients are covered by Medicare), we found no evidence to support Jensen's assertion that "Medicare has determined" that hospitals will be paid $13,000 for patients with COVID-19 diagnoses or $39,000 for COVID-19 patients place on ventilators. Gillum, Jack, et al."Theres Been a Spike in People Dying at Home in Several Cities. That Suggests Coronavirus Deaths Are Higher Than Reported."
ProPublica.14 April 2020. WNBC TV."Massive Spike in NYC Cardiac Arrest Deaths Seen as Sign of COVID-19 Undercounting."
10 April 2020. Brown, Emma, et al."Which Deaths Count Toward the COVID-19 Death Toll? It Depends on the State."
 The Washington Post.16 April 2020. Levitt, Larry, et al."Estimated Cost of Treating the Uninsured Hospitalized with COVID-19."
Kaiser Family Foundation.7 April 2020. Fox News."Dr. Jensen Calls Out 'Ridiculous' CDC Guidelines for Coronavirus-Related Deaths."
9 April 2020. Claim:  After a young man slips his date an aphrodisiac and leaves her alone in the car, he returns to find that she has impaled herself on the stick shift handle in a sexual frenzy. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 1995] A friend at work says that when she was in high school a story circulated about a boy who wanted to sleep with his girlfriend, but she was unwilling. After he complained to his friends about this state of affairs, someone suggested he try Spanish fly.   He agrees and gets some. They go to a drive-in movie, and he slips the spanish fly in her drink. A while passes and nothing happens, so he gets out to go to the bathroom.  While he is out of the car she, in a fit of sexual frustration, impales herself on the gearshift.  Variations:   Where the boy takes his date varies: usually either a drive-in movie or parking at some secluded spot.   The reason why the boy leaves his date alone for a few minutes also varies: generally either to go to the bathroom or to visit to the drive-in's snack bar.  Sometimes one (or both) of the participants is a well-known community member.   Origins:  The   legend that Spanish fly (or cantharides, a substance made from dried beetle remains) is a powerful aphrodisiac has been around for hundreds of years.  The substance irritates the urogenital tract and produces an itching sensation in sensitive membranes, a feeling that allegedly increases a woman's desire for intercourse.  No medical or scientific test has ever shown Spanish fly to be deserving of its reputation as an aphrodisiac, however, and its indiscriminate use can result in serious medical problems. The legend of the girl and the gearshift lever has been circulating since at least the early 1950s, and has probably been in existence as long as automobiles have been around.  The legend combines the male fantasy of a "love potion" that turns any female into a willing sexual partner with a sort of medical "sorcerer's apprentice" horror story about the perils of the uninitiated attempting to cast powerful spells they can't control. Perhaps the latter point plays on the adolescent male fear of the (perceived) strength and irrationality of the female sex drive; the idea that even a "nice" girl is really a ravening sexual beast just waiting to be awakened, and that if you do arouse this primal lust, it will be more than you can handle. (Female hypersexuality is a common feature of adolescent sex legends.) There may also an element of the sexist "cain't leave 'em alone fer a minute" in the fact that the boy leaves, then comes back to find his girlfriend sexually active. The unfortunate young man then experiences the ultimate American male nightmare: being cuckolded by his own automobile. Last updated:  22 March 2011  The Choking Doberman    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be .   New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 123-124). Too Good To Be     Nordenberg, Tamar.  "The Facts About Aphrodisiacs."   FDA Consumer.  January 1996  (p. 10).     Reuben, David.  Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex.   New York: David McKay Company, 1970  (p. 73).    Rodgers, Joann.  "The Enduring Myth of Aphrodisiacs."   The Los Angeles Times.  14 December 1987  (p. B4).