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

Florida County hat die mRNA-COVID-Impfstoffe zur Biowaffe erklärt.

Publisher’s rating: Lediglich eine Gruppe von Lokalpolitikern hat dazu eine Forderung gestellt - Florida oder ein Bezirk des Bundesstaates haben keine der behaupteten Maßnahmen vollzogen.

The claim turned a political demand into an action supposedly taken by “Florida County.” The dpa review says that in July 2023, posts alleged Florida or a county had declared mRNA COVID-19 vaccines a “bioweapon.” It distinguishes that allegation from what actually happened: a group of Florida Republicans published a resolution calling for COVID-19 vaccinations to stop and for the vaccines to be classified as a bioweapon. The resolution was a request, not a government order. The review checked whether the state or a county had implemented the alleged measures. It reports that Florida’s government had not published such a declaration, and that the state’s page on COVID-19 vaccination developments did not mention a halt. It also says none of Florida’s 67 counties had made a declaration matching the claim. The Republican group was active in Brevard County, but the county government there had neither stopped vaccinations nor declared the vaccines a bioweapon. The review further explains a naming problem in the claim: there is no Florida county whose proper name is simply “Florida County.” Its conclusion rests on the distinction between the resolution’s non-binding demand and actions by state or county authorities. The excerpt says the government could respond to the request as it chose; it does not report that the requested policy changes were enacted.

dpaHealth & medicine

In diesem Kopfschmerzmittel von Pfizer ist Graphenoxid.

Publisher’s rating: Es gibt keine Hinweise darauf, dass die Schmerztabletten Graphenoxid enthalten. Der Aufdruck besteht aus dem unbedenklichen Eisenoxid. Außerdem stellt Reckitt Benckiser und nicht Pfizer das Produkt her.

The claim concerned a video shared on Facebook in which a woman said that the black marking on a pain-relief capsule was potentially harmful graphene oxide. The accompanying German text also attributed the medicine to Pfizer. The review identifies the product under discussion as Nurofen and examined both the alleged ingredient and the manufacturer attribution. The article reports that Reckitt Benckiser, the Nurofen manufacturer, told dpa that its tablets do not contain graphene oxide and that the black marking is ink containing black iron oxide. It also says the medicine’s ingredient list does not list graphene oxide, but does list iron oxide. This provides evidence about the listed ingredients and the manufacturer’s account of the ink, rather than relying on the video’s magnetic-particle demonstration. On the Pfizer point, the article says Nurofen is a competitor to Pfizer’s pain medicines and therefore Pfizer cannot be the manufacturer of Nurofen Zavance. The supplied review thus addresses the same product and the two central assertions in the claim.

THIP MediaHealth & medicine

mammograms are harmful and ineffective

Publisher’s rating: Mostly False

Research from related reporting addresses the claim’s two parts, but the evidence distinguishes mammograms themselves from computer-aided detection (CAD), a tool used to assist with interpreting mammograms. A Times of India article says the radiation doses involved in mammograms are “far below levels that can cause cancer” and that regular mammograms are “crucial for early detection of breast cancer.” This excerpt supports neither the claim that mammograms are harmful from radiation nor the claim that screening is ineffective. A separate report describes a limitation in older CAD systems, not in mammography generally. It says studies found that CAD-interpreted mammograms had “increasing false positives without improving cancer detection rates.” That is evidence of a problem with this added computer support in the studies described; it does not establish that mammograms themselves are ineffective or harmful. The supplied excerpts provide no study details, measurements, or broader assessment of mammography’s benefits and risks, so they support a distinction between screening and one interpretation technology rather than a comprehensive evaluation of mammography.