Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Health & medicine fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about health & medicine. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

13,667 published reviews in this topic

dpaHealth & medicine

FDA erkent ivermectine als legitieme behandeling tegen COVID-19 en artsen hadden het volste recht dit voor te schrijven.

Publisher’s rating: De FDA heeft het medicijn ivermectine niet goedgekeurd of aangeraden voor de behandeling van COVID-19. De uitspraak van een overheidsadvocaat wordt verkeerd geïnterpreteerd. Zij zei dat de FDA adviezen kan geven, zoals tegen het gebruik van ivermectine, maar dat artsen zelf kunnen bepalen of ze een medicijn zogenaamd 'off-label' voorschrijven. Dat maakt ivermectine nog geen 'legitieme behandeling' bij COVID-19.

The claim arose from remarks by FDA government attorney Ashley Cheung Honold in an appeal involving three doctors who had prescribed ivermectin to COVID-19 patients. The dpa review says the doctors argued that the FDA had overstepped through a public information campaign against the drug. Honold’s point, as described in the review, was that FDA warnings are not laws or regulations and do not legally prevent a doctor from prescribing a medicine for an unapproved use. That legal distinction does not amount to FDA recognition of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment. The review distinguishes permission to prescribe off-label from approval or recommendation for a particular disease. It reports that the FDA allows doctors to prescribe medicines for conditions for which they are not officially approved, under conditions and based on an individual patient’s situation. It also says the agency reiterated that ivermectin was not a recommended COVID-19 treatment. Thus, the claim combines a point about doctors’ prescribing discretion with a separate, unsupported assertion about the FDA’s view of the drug’s effectiveness or legitimacy. On the medical question, the review reports that an NIH panel’s analysis of studies found the benefit of ivermectin for COVID-19 remained unproven, and that health authorities continued to advise against its use for the disease. It also distinguishes this from ivermectin’s FDA approval for other conditions in humans, and from products formulated for animals. The review’s account therefore does not support the claim that the FDA changed its position or endorsed ivermectin for COVID-19.

日本ファクトチェックセンターHealth & medicine

サウナで年間1万7000人が死亡している

Publisher’s rating: 誤り

The review finds that the cited estimate of about 17,000 deaths in 2011 concerned heat-shock-related deaths during bathing, not sauna deaths. The research it identifies focused mainly on older adults and was not related to saunas.

Projeto ComprovaHealth & medicine

Fausto Silva está em "prioridade máxima" e em "prioridade médica" na lista do transplante de coração.

Publisher’s rating: O apresentador de TV Faustão não terá prioridade na lista de transplante de coração por ser famoso ou rico. Coordenada pelo Sistema Nacional de Transplantes (SNT), do Ministério da Saúde, a lista de espera por transplante de órgãos é única e vale tanto para pacientes da rede pública quanto para os da privada. Ela é ordenada com base em critérios técnicos, como gravidade do quadro de saúde do paciente e compatibilidade com o doador do órgão.

مرصد أخبار ميترHealth & medicine

تطويل القامة بفضل العسل العشبي

Publisher’s rating: خبر كاذب - الإعلان كاذب، واستخدمت الصيدلية صورة من حساب الدكتور المصري هاني عبد الجواد استشاري جراحة العمود الفقري مع أحد مرضاه للتسويق

LupaHealth & medicine

“ [A pílula do câncer] age nas células cancerosas como marcadores, é como se as capsulas colocassem sinalizadores nas células doentes, fazendo com que elas fiquem mais visíveis para o sistema imunológico (...) Ele [fosfoetanolamina] está sendo comercializado como suplemento vitamínico, só que a pessoa toma e se tiver tumor: ‘babal’ [elimina o tumor]. FOSFOETANOLAMINA ORIGINAL® USP Líder de mercado nos Estados Unidos, com certificado FDA e alta qualidade chega ao Brasil”.

Publisher’s rating: Falso

Sunanda NaikHealth & medicine

Skin cancer was not there before 60 years.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The review investigated an Instagram reel in which a woman said skin cancer was a “relatively new phenomenon” over the past 60 years and argued that ancestors who lived and worked outdoors did not get it. NewsMeter compared that claim with historical descriptions of skin cancers and interviewed dermatologist Dr. D. Dinesh Kumar. The historical account quoted from the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology places descriptions of cancer in Egyptian papyri dating to 2500 BC. It also identifies early descriptions of melanoma in 1804, basal cell carcinoma in 1827, and squamous cell carcinoma in situ in 1912. This chronology directly contradicts the assertion that skin cancer itself did not exist before the past six decades. The review further reports that research in the 19th and 20th centuries linked ultraviolet radiation to skin cancers, and that the first sunscreen became available in 1928; these are developments in understanding and prevention, not evidence that the disease first appeared then. Kumar described several factors relevant to skin cancer, including sunlight, dangerous chemicals, genetic history, and melanin. He also suggested that increased life expectancy, better detection, and greater awareness help explain why cases may be noticed more today, while exposure to chemicals or ultraviolet rays has increased. The review therefore distinguishes the longstanding existence of skin cancer from changes in diagnosis, awareness, prevention, and exposure. Its evidence does not support the reel’s broad claim that people in earlier generations did not get skin cancer.

dpa-factcheckingHealth & medicine

Die WHO hat eine "Krankheit X" im August 2023 in ihre Liste potenziell gefährlicher Krankheiten aufgenommen.

Publisher’s rating: Schon seit 2018 steht «Krankheit X» als Platzhalter für eine noch nicht bekannte Krankheit auf der Liste der WHO. Die Liste erschien zuerst 2017 und soll die gezielte Forschung zu potenziell gefährlichen Krankheitserregern vorantreiben. Gegenmassnahmen und Impfstofftechnologien sollen weiterentwickelt werden. Bei derartigen Vorbereitungen auf künftige Pandemien beteiligen sich auch britische Behörden. Dabei wird nicht an einem konkreten Impfstoff, sondern an Methoden zur Prüfung der Impfstoffwirksamkeit, Impfstofftechnologien sowie an der Verbesserung von bestehenden Impfstoffen geforscht.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Das WHO-Programm "One Health" soll die Ernährung auf der Welt kontrollieren, z.B. über Essensmarken und ein Sozialkreditsystem. In nationalen Parlamenten ist das bereits beschlossen.

Publisher’s rating: Mit «One Health» soll ein Gleichgewicht zwischen der Gesundheit von Menschen, Tieren und Natur hergestellt werden, um der Entstehung und Ausbreitung von Krankheiten vorzubeugen. Ein Aspekt ist die Gewährleistung von Lebensmittel- sowie Trinkwassersicherheit. Vorgaben zur Ernährung beinhaltet das Konzept aber nicht.

The claim alleges that the WHO’s “One Health” program is intended to control what people eat, including through food vouchers and mandatory meal programs, and that national parliaments have already approved such measures. The DPA review examined the same central allegation: that WHO planned to prescribe people’s diets through “One Health.” It reports that a video by the outlet AUF1 made claims about food vouchers and mandatory nutrition programs, but that the video relied on a blog article rather than citing WHO materials. The review describes “One Health” as an approach linking human, animal and environmental health to prevent health risks and improve recognition and response to them. It says food is relevant to the approach, but distinguishes food-safety monitoring from rules dictating what people may eat. The review cites the “One Health Joint Plan of Action” as addressing monitoring food safety, not requirements for particular foods. It also reports that a WHO spokesperson called the claims about mandatory nutrition programs misinformation, and that the German agriculture ministry knew of no plans for food vouchers or intervention in people’s eating habits. The food-voucher and tailored-meal examples, the review says, came from US programs that arose independently of WHO. It describes SNAP as income-limited assistance, with restrictions on some purchases but not a general requirement to buy only healthy foods. The excerpt does not identify any national-parliament votes approving WHO food controls; its evidence instead challenges the asserted link between those controls and “One Health.”