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.

13,672 published reviews in this topic

FACTLYHealth & medicine

Sauna blankets aid in reducing body fat

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The review examines a social-media post showing someone wrapped in a sauna blanket. The post promotes the treatment as helping people “lose inches,” while the review states the specific claim under assessment: that sauna blankets reduce body fat. It describes sauna blankets as using far-infrared heat and says it found no scientific evidence supporting fat reduction by this method. To investigate, the reviewers say they searched for relevant evidence from organizations including the CDC and NCBI. They also considered a paper on the clinical effects of regular dry sauna bathing. The paper’s reported conclusion concerned potential health benefits, including for people with cardiovascular-related or rheumatological disease and athletes; the review notes that it did not establish sauna bathing as effective for weight loss. The excerpt does not identify the paper or provide details of the search, so those aspects cannot be assessed further from the supplied material. The review distinguishes a temporary change in scale weight from a reduction in body fat. It cites a physician’s explanation that sweating causes fluid loss, which is replaced when a person drinks, and quotes a dermatology professor saying that sweating does not itself trigger fat burning. It also cites Healthline’s explanation that sauna-related weight loss is fluid weight that returns after eating or drinking. These points address why a lower post-session scale reading would not, by itself, show that body fat has been reduced. The review’s conclusion is that evidence for sauna blankets reducing body fat was not found.

FactCrescendo Sri LankaHealth & medicine

Pfizer CEO Says That Pfizer Aims To Reduce The World Population By 50%

Publisher’s rating: Altered

The claim concerns a viral clip of Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla speaking with World Economic Forum executive director Klaus Schwab. In the clip, Bourla appears to say that one of Pfizer’s goals was to reduce the number of people in the world by 50% by 2023. Fact Crescendo’s review says the clip was edited, and that the omitted words change what the 50% reduction refers to. To trace the clip, the review says it identified the World Economic Forum setting in the background and searched YouTube using relevant keywords. It located a video on the Forum’s official YouTube channel titled “Conversation with Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer,” and describes it as a conversation at Davos. The review says Schwab had asked Bourla about a plan to provide medicines on a non-profit basis to 45 economically disadvantaged nations. In the full recording, according to the review’s transcript, Bourla said Pfizer aimed to reduce by 50% the number of people in the world who could not afford the company’s medicines—not the world’s population. The review therefore concludes that the viral clip omitted the qualifying phrase “that cannot afford our medicines,” making the statement appear to refer to reducing the number of people in the world. Its finding is about the editing and meaning of this specific video, not a claim that Bourla made the viral statement in full.

dpaHealth & medicine

Die CDC hat «klammheimlich» die Information, dass der Körper das Spike-Protein der mRNA-Impfung gegen Covid-19 nach wenigen Tagen abbaut, entfernt. Das bedeutet, dass die Behörde zurückgerudert ist in ihrer Position und dass das Spike-Protein offenbar doch länger im Körper bleibt als angenommen.

Publisher’s rating: Die US-Gesundheitsbehörde CDC hat ihre Informationsseite zur mRNA-Impfung tatsächlich verändert, aber damit keinen neuen Wissensstand zugegeben. Sie weist weiter darauf hin, dass die mRNA und das Spike-Protein, das bei der Impfung gebildet wird, nur kurze Zeit im Körper bleiben.

The claim concerned a change to a CDC webpage about mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. Blogs interpreted the removal of a highlighted statement about how long mRNA and vaccine-produced spike protein remain in the body as evidence that the CDC had reversed its position. The review confirms that the page changed, but finds that the change did not establish a new scientific understanding. [S1: “Die Veränderung auf der Homepage wird von Impfgegnern dahingehend interpretiert, dass das Spike-Protein offenbar doch länger im Körper bleibt.”] The review compared the wording in an archived version of the CDC page with the information available after the change. It reports that the highlighted text appeared through at least July 22, 2022, and was no longer highlighted from July 23 onward. The removed passage said that cells break down vaccine mRNA within days and that spike protein may remain for up to a few weeks. The review also found continuing CDC-page text about cells breaking down mRNA, and a CDC-linked information page attributing the estimate of up to a few weeks for spike protein to the Infectious Diseases Society of America. [S1: “In einer archivierten Version der Seite ist sichtbar, dass bis mindestens 22. Juli 2022 in einer blau hervorgehobenen Box (übersetzt) stand: «Die mRNA und das Spike-Protein bleiben nicht lange im Körper.”] [S1: “Seit dem 23. Juli und auch aktuell ist dieser Hinweis nicht mehr hervorgehoben.”] [S1: “An anderer Stelle steht auf der Webseite jedoch weiter: «Nachdem das Proteinstück erstellt wurde, bauen unsere Zellen die mRNA ab und entfernen sie, indem sie den Körper als Abfallprodukt verlässt.»”] The review also reports the CDC’s explanation for the edit: it was part of an effort to make its Covid-19 vaccine webpages consistent, not a change in the science. Thus, the disappearance of the highlighted wording is real, but the article’s evidence does not support interpreting it as the CDC conceding that spike protein remains longer than previously understood. [S1: “Im Bestreben, alle Webseiten zur Covid-19-Impfung einheitlich zu gestalten, wurden Informationen auf der Webseite »Die mRNA-Covid-19-Impfung verstehen« angepasst und ein Abschnitt entfernt”] [S1: “Das bedeutet jedoch keine Veränderung der Wissenschaft, wie die mRNA-Impfung wirkt.”]

dpaHealth & medicine

Eine Studie aus den Niederlanden belegt Übersterblichkeit durch Impfungen gegen Corona

Publisher’s rating: Der zitierte Text belegt keine höhere Sterblichkeit nach einer Covid-19 Impfung und ist wenig aussagekräftig. Insgesamt ist die wissenschaftliche Qualität der Arbeit fragwürdig. Offizielle Daten der niederländischen Statistik- und Gesundheitsbehörden kamen zu dem Ergebnis, dass die Impfung das Todesrisiko durch Covid-19 verringert und das Sterberisiko aus anderen Gründen nicht erhöht.

The claim concerns a Dutch investigation said to show that more COVID-19 vaccinations led to higher mortality. The dpa review says the investigation compared vaccination and mortality patterns at population level; its author wrote that the expected negative correlation between vaccination and mortality was not observed. But that observation does not establish that vaccination caused excess deaths, or even show that vaccinated individuals were more likely to die: the review reports that the study did not identify causes of death, and its expert says that conclusion cannot be drawn without knowing them. The review describes substantial limits in the analysis. The study used a simple linear model that did not account for nonlinear effects or differences among populations, and it did not adjust for age or underlying conditions, even though COVID-19 and vaccine effectiveness vary with age. It also had no control group to compare vaccinated with unvaccinated people. The review notes that more vulnerable groups may have been vaccinated at higher rates, another factor the study did not account for. A population-level correlation between vaccination coverage and mortality therefore cannot by itself establish a causal effect. The review also raises concerns about the study’s scientific status: it says the work appeared on ResearchGate rather than in a scientific journal, had not undergone the usual peer-review process, and was associated with the author’s company rather than a research institution. It reports that the author described himself as an app programmer and that he acknowledged shortcomings in the study. As counterevidence, the review cites a June study by the Dutch health ministry and statistics office, which found no evidence of increased population-level mortality after first, second, or booster doses. Together, these points do not support the claim that the Dutch study establishes vaccine-caused excess mortality.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

US-Behörde CDC gibt, dass mRNA und Spikeprotein lange im Körper verbleiben und löscht Entwarnung zu Corona-Impfstoffen von ihrer Webseite.

Publisher’s rating: Falsch

The claim concerned a change to a CDC webpage about mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. The review examined archived and current versions of that page, along with the CDC’s explanation. It found that an earlier highlighted box had said that mRNA is broken down within days and that spike protein may remain for up to a few weeks. The box was no longer highlighted after July 22, 2022, and its wording was no longer findable on the page. However, the review reports that the page still explained that cells break down the mRNA, and that a linked Nebraska health-system page continued to give the estimate of up to a few weeks for spike protein. The removed or altered box therefore did not establish that the CDC had concluded these components remain in the body for a long time. The CDC told the agency that it had adjusted the information to make its Covid-19 vaccine webpages consistent, and that the change did not reflect new scientific findings. Its explanation specifically characterized the alteration as a website edit, not a change in the science of how the vaccine works. The review’s evidence supports a narrower account than the social-media claim: a highlighted passage was removed or repositioned, while related information about mRNA breakdown and the spike-protein estimate remained available elsewhere on the CDC page or through its link. The review also notes that the claim’s implication of a changed scientific understanding was not supported by the CDC’s statement or the webpage material it examined.

המשרוקית של גלובסHealth & medicine

רוב האשפוזים במוסדות לבריאות הנפש נעשים בכפייה

Publisher’s rating: לא נכון

The review examines Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz’s assertion that most people in Israel’s mental-health institutions are admitted against their will. Horowitz made the claim during an interview with Keren Neubach on the program “Seder Yom,” while discussing an investigation into conduct at the Eitanim Mental Health Center. The review reports that he described involuntary admissions as common and said that most people in the institutions were there against their will. To test the assertion, the review compared admission figures from several sources. It cites a State Comptroller report showing that in 2015, 34% of psychiatric admissions were involuntary, and in 2016, 26% were involuntary; the remaining admissions were by consent. It also discusses a study published in late 2020 in the Ministry of Welfare’s journal, which examined first admissions rather than readmissions. For 2018, that study found 40.2% of first admissions were involuntary—below half, though higher than the roughly 35% level described for the first decade of the century and below the 44.5% peak in 2014. The review additionally says it sought updated figures from the Ministry of Health. The ministry reported that 65–70% of psychiatric admissions were by consent and 30–35% were involuntary. Taken together, the sources cited in the review do not support the claim that most admissions were involuntary: each reported involuntary share was below 50%. The review’s conclusion concerns admissions, not the proportion of all people receiving mental-health care who might be in other settings.

El Detector / Univision NoticiasHealth & medicine

Ver al Sol directamente activa la glándula pineal, que produce la hormona que regula el sueño: reto sun gazing de TikTok

Publisher’s rating: Falso

The claim concerns the TikTok “sun gazing” challenge: that looking directly at the Sun activates the pineal gland, which releases melatonin and helps regulate sleep. The review explains that this confuses ordinary light exposure with direct viewing. It reports that the pineal gland receives light-related signals indirectly: the retina sends signals to the brain, which then signals the gland. The review says this process occurs naturally during normal exposure to light, without looking at the Sun.