PeakMetrics / Fact Checks
Health & medicine fact checks
Explore claims publishers have checked about health & medicine. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.
Search fact checks
Search by text or image13,669 published reviews in this topic
Tar free, a syrup that helps smokers restore their lungs’ full potential
Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING
The claim concerns a product advertised as “Tar Free,” a syrup said to restore a smoker’s lungs to their full potential. FACTLY’s review evaluates that claim, but the excerpt does not describe a clinical test of the syrup or provide product-specific trial results. Instead, it reports that the review searched online for research on restoring lung capacity or detoxifying smokers’ lungs and “could not find any relevant information.” The review’s central evidence is that the American Lung Association (ALA) describes lungs as self-cleaning and says they begin healing after exposure to pollutants stops. It also reports the ALA’s warning not to trust quick fixes: detox products are mostly not FDA-approved and lack adequate scientific data to recommend routine use of natural remedies for prevention. The review quotes pulmonologist Joshua Englert saying there is “no scientific research to support the use” of products claiming to remove toxins from lungs. Together, these points undermine the advertised promise; they do not establish that the syrup was independently tested and found ineffective. The review also explains why quitting smoking is not equivalent to restoring lungs to their original condition. It cites WebMD on emphysema and chronic bronchitis as forms of lasting smoking-related damage, noting that destroyed air sacs cannot be replaced, though some bronchitis-related swelling and inflammation can improve. It quotes pulmonologist Sarthak Rastogi saying quitting can allow natural recovery and prevent further damage, while describing the damage as not reversible. The review’s conclusion is therefore that evidence does not substantiate this product’s promise—not that stopping smoking has no health benefit.
කුඩා දරුවන්ව ආදරයට ඒ මේ අත සෙමින් සොලවමින් හුරතල් කිරීමෙන් Shaken Baby Syndrome තත්වයට මුහුණ පෑමට සිදුවේ ද?
Publisher’s rating: Misleading
The review examined a social-media video and caption warning that cuddling children could lead to Shaken Baby Syndrome. Its central finding was that the warning blurred the difference between gentle soothing and violent shaking: the condition is associated with forceful shaking, not ordinary gentle rocking. The review says that gently rocking a child or soothing them on a knee does not usually cause the condition, and that the risk comes from shaking a child rapidly and forcefully. [S1: “දරුවන්ව සෙමින් , ආදරයෙන් සෙලවීම හෝ දණහිස මත තබා නළවන අවස්ථාවලදී මෙවැනි තත්ත්වයන් සාමාන්‍යයෙන් ඇති නොවේ.”] To check the claim, the article describes consulting child specialist Dr. Deepal Perera. He said the condition does not occur when children are gently soothed, but can result from violent, rapid shaking—particularly up and down—and that gentle rocking or moving a child side to side at the same level can prevent this risk. [S1: “ළමා විශේෂඥ වෛද්‍ය දීපාල් පෙරේරා මේ පිළිබඳව අප හා සමග අදහස් දැක්වූ විශේෂඥ වෛද්‍ය දීපාල් පෙරේරා පැවසුවේ මෙය, ළමයින්ව සෙමින් ආදරයෙන් නළවන විට සිදු නොවන අතර හිංසාකාරී ලෙස වේගයෙන් නැලවීම මගින් සිදුවන බවයි.”] The review also describes the condition as a serious brain injury caused by forcefully shaking an infant or young child, and reports that it consulted information on causes from Oklahoma’s state health department. It says that crying can lead caregivers to shake a child violently while trying to soothe them. The review’s conclusion is therefore about the misleading implication that all affectionate rocking is dangerous: it distinguishes gentle soothing from forceful shaking. It separately notes that the video itself did not appear to be problematic, while its caption was misleading. [S1: “Shaken Baby Syndrome ලෙස හැදින්වෙන්නේ කුඩා දරුවෙක්ව හෝ ළදරුවෙක්ව බලෙන් සෙලවීමට ලක්කිරීම මගින් මොලයේ හටගන්නා දරුණු ආබාධ තත්ත්වයක්.”] [S1: “කෙසේ නමුත් මේ සඳහා සමාජ ජාලා සටහනේ යොදාගෙන ඇති වීඩියෝවේ වරදක් නිරීක්ෂණය නොවන අතර නමුත් “ආදරේට හුරතක් කළා වගේ නෙමෙයි ,පේනවනේ !!” යන ශීර්ෂය නොමගයවන සුලු බව අපට නිරික්ෂණය වේ.”]
Brushing teeth with the non-dominant hand is beneficial
Publisher’s rating: Mostly False
Research from related reporting describes brushing with the non-dominant hand as a way to make a familiar routine more mentally demanding. A 2026 article about healthy-aging habits says the change stimulates the brain by making it work outside its normal routine. A separate article, published in December 2025, reports a neuroscientist’s suggestion that using the less-dominant hand may engage attention and brain processes involved in coordinating movements. These excerpts document proposed benefits, but they do not establish that the practice improves health or prevents dementia. The 2025 article presents the advice and explains its rationale; the supplied excerpt does not identify or describe the studies it invokes in enough detail to assess their methods or findings. The other article offers the habit as one item in a list of brain-health suggestions, not as the result of a reported experiment. Thus the supplied material supports that the practice has been recommended as cognitively stimulating, but is insufficient to establish the broader claim that it is beneficial in a clinically meaningful way.
Daten aus dem Divi-Intensivregister zeigen, dass Menschen, die gegen das Coronavirus geimpft sind, häufiger auf Intensivstationen müssen als Ungeimpfte.
Publisher’s rating: Je mehr Menschen insgesamt geimpft wurden, desto höher ist auch deren Anteil an den Intensivpatienten. Zudem zeigen die Divi-Daten etwa auch Patienten, die zwar positiv auf das Coronavirus getestet wurden, aber wegen einer anderen Erkrankung als Covid-19 auf der Intensivstation behandelt werden müssen.
“A UFRJ ESTÁ DIZENDO QUE A COVID VOLTOU PARA ACABAR COM AS MANIFESTAÇÕES! NÃO CAIAM NESSA, É MENTIRA! FAKE!!”
Publisher’s rating: Falso
XBB Subvariant Of Omicron Is Highly Transmissible , Deadly and Symptoms Largely Differ from Other Subvariants!!
Publisher’s rating: Misleading
Marc van Ranst maakt op Twitter excuses voor zijn corona-aanpak.
Publisher’s rating: De Tweet komt van een nepaccount, waarvan de naam inmiddels veranderd is in "Not Marc Van Ranst". De echte Van Ranst maakt op Twitter duidelijk dat het bericht niet van zijn hand is.
The review examined a screenshot purporting to show virologist Marc van Ranst apologizing for his handling of the coronavirus crisis. It found that the tweet was not from Van Ranst: the account used the handle “@vanransstmarc,” with an extra “s” in the surname, and its profile name was later changed from “Marc Van Ranst” to “Not Marc Van Ranst.” The account description identified it as parody and sarcasm. To check the screenshot, the review searched for its text and located the same message on Twitter, posted at the same time shown in the screenshot: 5 November at 19:22. The matching post remained under the distinctive handle and fish-cake-with-swirl symbol. In the reply thread, the real Van Ranst’s account said that the apology tweet came from a fake account. The screenshot could still mislead people because it showed the account before its profile name had been changed. The review therefore distinguishes the apparent identity in the earlier screenshot from the account’s later presentation and from Van Ranst’s own response: the apology was posted by an impersonating account, not by the virologist.
the consumption of burnt honeycomb treat vitiligo
Publisher’s rating: Mostly False
Der Corona-Impfstoff des Pharmaherstellers Pfizer wurde nie auf seine Wirkung gegen die Übertragung des Virus getestet. Das hat Pfizer jetzt zugegeben.
Publisher’s rating: Die Behauptung ist falsch. Bereits bei der Zulassung war öffentlich bekannt, dass der Impfstoff nicht auf die Übertragungsrate getestet wurde - und dass dies auch kein Teil der Zulassung war. Vielmehr ging es darum, Infizierte vor einer schweren Erkrankung zu schützen. Dennoch gab es Anfang 2021 erste Erkenntnisse über den sogenannten Fremdschutz. Dieser Schutz vor Übertragung auf andere (Transmission) nahm später mit dem Aufkommen neuer Virus-Varianten ab.
Karl Lauterbach wollte Ungeimpfte zur Impfung zwingen.
Publisher’s rating: Das Zitat ist zwar echt, doch es wurde aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen. Lauterbach schilderte lediglich ein fiktives Szenario und distanzierte sich direkt anschließend von der beschriebenen Vorgehensweise.
The claim arose from a short video in which Health Minister Karl Lauterbach says he would try to force unvaccinated people to get vaccinated by telling them they could not go out otherwise. The DPA review says the widely shared clip contains only ten seconds of an interview that ran for more than an hour and was published on the YouTube channel Jung & Naiv on 25 February 2022. In the interview, journalist Tilo Jung asked why restrictions would not be removed for vaccinated people while remaining in place for unvaccinated people. Lauterbach replied that this would not work and that he was not in favor of it. The review explains that the forceful-sounding sentence was delivered in the subjunctive, as a hypothetical account of what would be necessary under the proposal Jung had raised. Crucially, the circulated excerpt cuts off before Lauterbach’s immediate qualification: “That is politically untenable.” He also describes the proposal as extremely risky, comparing it to a precarious crossing over Lake Constance. The clip therefore contains a real sentence, but removing its surrounding exchange obscures that he was describing a hypothetical scenario and rejecting the approach, rather than announcing an intention to impose it. To check whether the line had been used in another context, the DPA says it conducted a targeted Google search using the statement from the video. It reports that this search found no reputable sources showing Lauterbach had said it in a different context. The evidence described in the review supports treating the viral excerpt as misleadingly truncated, not as proof that he wanted to force unvaccinated people to be vaccinated.
“Liberal politicians block access to medicine based on skin color”
Publisher’s rating: False
Lula foi internado no Sírio-Libanês depois de sofrer um AVC (ou infarto)
Publisher’s rating: Falso
ファイザー社長「私は健康だから(ワクチンを)絶対に打たない」と発言した
Publisher’s rating: 不正確
The review found that Bourla did not say he would never get vaccinated because he was healthy. In the full interview, he said he wanted to get vaccinated as soon as possible but did not want to appear to cut in line; he also described seeking a way to demonstrate confidence in the vaccine.