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.

13,668 published reviews in this topic

Factcrescendo Sri LankaHealth & medicine

Bill Gates was enraged by the journalist asking questions about Covid vaccinations and Microsoft !!

Publisher’s rating: False

The claim concerns a viral video presented as showing Bill Gates being cornered and angered by a journalist’s questions about Covid-19 policies and Microsoft ownership. Factcrescendo examined that specific video. It reported that, on close inspection, the journalist’s and Gates’s lip movements did not match the audio, and that narration covered their faces—features the investigators considered unusual for an authentic interview. Their review traced the footage to an ABC News Australia interview with journalist Sarah Ferguson and Gates, published on 31 January; the excerpt does not specify the year. The review compared the viral clip with that interview. It says Ferguson did not ask the questions heard in the viral version, Gates did not respond angrily or uncomfortably, and the interview ended amicably rather than with a sudden departure. In the genuine interview, the topics included climate change and Australia’s green technologies. The Covid-19 discussion was about whether Gates had complained to social media companies over misinformation about him and Covid-19 vaccination—not the confrontational exchange represented by the viral clip. The review concludes that the viral video was altered, with voices manipulated using AI. It also reports that a fact-checking organization traced the video’s beginning to a TikTok user who regularly posted about AI and had shared the clip with the caption “How dangerous AI can be”; the post was unavailable when the review was written. The supplied excerpt gives no further technical analysis of how the clip was edited, so the conclusion here is limited to the comparison and findings the review describes.

dpaHealth & medicine

Poetin beveelt de vernietiging van alle coronavaccins in Rusland.

Publisher’s rating: Het verhaal is fout. Het is afkomstig van een Amerikaanse 'satirische' website die vaker desinformatie verspreidt. Russen kunnen nog steeds ingeënt worden met een coronavaccin, en dat wordt ook aanbevolen door het Russisch ministerie van Volksgezondheid.

The claim was that President Vladimir Putin had ordered all Russian COVID-19 vaccines destroyed, supposedly two days after the scientist who helped develop one of them was found dead. The review traces the allegation to the US website Real Raw News. It notes that the site describes its material as “humor, parody and satire,” and reports that the fact-check found no evidence for the alleged order or any corresponding announcement from the Russian government or its Ministry of Health. The review then points to information that contradicts the claim that vaccination had stopped. A Russian government information site published an item dated 6 March 2023 saying vaccines were available at all Moscow vaccination points and that people could get vaccinated without an appointment. The Ministry of Health’s official Telegram channel had also posted the previous day that vaccine deliveries were being distributed in Moscow and other regions. Together, these records support the review’s conclusion that vaccination continued and that the alleged order was fabricated.

APA - Austria Presse AgenturHealth & medicine

Anzahl an Totgeburten in Singapur durch Impfung gestiegen

Publisher’s rating: Falsch. Die höheren Zahlen an Totgeburten kommen dadurch zustande, dass Singapur durch eine neue Definition von Totgeburten nun viel mehr Fälle erfasst.

The claim was that stillbirths in Singapore rose sharply nine months after COVID-19 vaccinations began, implying that vaccination caused the increase. The APA review traces the claim to a media article based on a blog post by Alex Berenson, who compared vaccination data with Singapore’s stillbirth figures. The review reports that Berenson later withdrew the claim, changing his headline to say that the article was essentially incorrect because Singapore had changed its definition of stillbirths. The review’s central explanation is a change in what Singapore counted. From 2021, stillbirth statistics included all fetuses born dead from the 22nd week of pregnancy; previously, the threshold was 28 weeks. The expanded definition therefore captured cases that had not been included under the earlier standard, accounting for the higher recorded total. The review says the increase in documented stillbirths was unrelated to vaccination. The review also cites studies from the prior year that it says found no increased risk of preterm birth, miscarriage, or stillbirth associated with COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. It adds that Austria’s Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics recommended vaccination for women seeking pregnancy and those who were pregnant. These points provide additional context, while the definition change and Berenson’s retraction directly address the specific Singapore claim.

dpaHealth & medicine

La vaccination contre les papillomavirus est dangereuse et inutile.

Publisher’s rating: Selon les experts, les craintes émises à l'égard des vaccins autorisés contre les HPV sont infondées. Les effets indésirables sont connus et bénins pour la plupart. La balance des bénéfices/risques de la vaccination reste favorable.

The review investigates claims that HPV vaccination is dangerous, including claims prompted by 18 students feeling unwell after a vaccination campaign at the Athénée provincial de Morlanwelz in Belgium in November 2022. It reports that Belgium’s medicines agency, AFMPS, quarantined the vaccine lot as a precaution but found no quality defect. The agency described the reported faintness, headaches, nausea and vomiting as known, generally mild effects consistent with Gardasil 9’s safety profile.

dpaHealth & medicine

GroenLinks wil geen geld meer in de zorg van zeventigplussers steken en geriaters inschakelen om ze te overtuigen geen zorg meer aan te nemen.

Publisher’s rating: De gedeelde foto schetst een verkeerd beeld van een al ouder voorstel van GroenLinks-Kamerlid Corinne Ellemeet. Zij wil standaard een geriater betrekken bij de keuze van behandeling voor oudere patiënten. Het voorstel is er niet op gericht om ouderen van nodige zorg te doen afzien.

The review examines a Facebook claim that GroenLinks MP Corinne Ellemeet wanted to deny people over 70 expensive medical treatment and involve a geriatrician to persuade them to refuse care. It identifies the allegation as a distorted account of a proposal Ellemeet had made in February 2019, rather than a policy to stop older people receiving treatment. The proposal was to routinely involve geriatricians in deciding what care is appropriate for older patients. [S1: “Verlies je het recht op een dure medische behandeling na je zeventigste? Daarvoor zou GroenLinks-Kamerlid Corinne Ellemeet pleiten”] [S1: “Ellemeet wil standaard geriaters betrekken bij het kiezen van de juiste zorg voor oudere patiënten.”] The review explains that Ellemeet’s stated rationale was potential health benefit: operations can be burdensome for older people and may not always benefit a patient. A geriatrician, as a specialist, could help assess treatment options. The review says the proposal was intended to secure the best care, not to persuade patients to refuse necessary treatment. [S1: “Operaties kunnen voor ouderen erg belastend zijn. Een operatie is dus niet altijd in het voordeel van de patiënt.”] [S1: “Daarin stelt ze dat haar voorstel bedoeld is om de beste zorg voor oudere patiënten te verzekeren.”] The account also notes that the final decision would remain with the patient and that it was not clear whether the measure would save money or cost money. Those qualifications matter because the claim frames the proposal as a plan to cut spending and withhold care, whereas the review describes a proposal about involving a specialist in treatment decisions. [S1: “Ook benadrukt ze dat de eindbeslissing altijd bij de patiënt zelf ligt”] [S1: “aangezien het nog niet duidelijk is of deze maatregel geld zou kosten dan wel opleveren.”]

El Detector / Univision NoticiasHealth & medicine

La leche pasteurizada no tiene nutrientes.

Publisher’s rating: Falso

The review examines a viral post claiming that pasteurized milk has no nutrients. It says it checked information from the CDC, FDA, US Dairy, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the British Columbia Dairy Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The review’s central finding is that pasteurization heats milk to kill bacteria but does not eliminate its nutritional value: “el proceso de pasteurización (en el que se eliminan a través del calor las bacterias y se hace más segura para el consumo) no cambia su valor nutricional.” The evidence described includes the CDC’s statement that most nutritional benefits of milk remain available in pasteurized milk, and FDA-reported studies finding minimal nutritional impact. The review says the FDA’s findings show that calcium concentrations are the same in raw and pasteurized milk and that their protein quality does not differ. It also notes a qualification: pasteurization has little effect on vitamin levels generally, except vitamin C, which the review says milk supplies only insignificantly. The review distinguishes nutritional content from food-safety risk. It reports that pasteurization is used to eliminate bacteria, and cites health authorities’ warnings that raw milk can carry dangerous microorganisms. Thus, the claim is contradicted by the cited nutritional evidence; the review’s comparison also gives important safety context rather than suggesting raw milk is a safer or nutritionally superior alternative.