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

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Henry Kissinger hat auf einer Rede vor der WHO eine Zwangsimpfung der Menschen für die Kontrolle des Erbguts gefordert: «Sobald die Herde die obligatorische Impfung akzeptiert, ist das Spiel vorbei!»

Publisher’s rating: Eine solche Aussage von Henry Kissinger ist nicht bekannt, das genannte WHO-Gremium gibt es nicht.

The claim attributes a demand for compulsory vaccination and genetic control to Henry Kissinger, allegedly made in a speech to a WHO body on 25 February 2009. The review says the supposed venue was a “Council for Eugenics,” which it reports does not exist at the WHO. It also notes that an earlier version of the allegation placed the speech before the WHO Executive Board, but that board had not yet met on the stated date. [S1]

dpaHealth & medicine

Jonge kinderen krijgen hepatitis/leverschade nadat ze borstvoeding kregen van hun gevaccineerde moeders.

Publisher’s rating: Er is op dit moment geen enkele indicatie dat de moedermelk van gevaccineerde moeders hun kinderen hepatitis zou geven. De precieze oorzaak van de recente stijging van hepatitis bij (jonge) kinderen wordt nog volop onderzocht.

The claim linked acute hepatitis cases among young children—particularly cases reported in the United Kingdom—to breastfeeding by mothers who had been vaccinated against COVID-19. The review says that this theory circulated online and concerned children who had received breast milk during the preceding year. It distinguishes that allegation from the underlying reports of a rise in acute hepatitis, whose cause was still being investigated. The review reports that the usual hepatitis A–E viruses were not found in the affected children and that researchers and authorities were still looking for an explanation, with adenovirus mentioned as one possible line of inquiry. It also notes that the World Health Organization said the overwhelming majority of affected children had not themselves received a COVID-19 vaccine. The review therefore describes the proposed explanation involving mothers’ vaccination and breastfeeding as unsupported by the cited public-health reporting, rather than as an established cause. For its assessment of that proposed link, the review says that neither the WHO nor the UK Health Security Agency mentioned a connection between cases and mothers’ vaccination status or breastfeeding in the previous year, and that the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control likewise made no such connection. It also cites an earlier Full Fact fact-check that reached the same conclusion about the theory. The review emphasizes that the cause of the cases remained unresolved; it does not present a definitive explanation for the increase.

FACTLYHealth & medicine

Applying ginger oil on belly button would burn fat ten times faster and eventually help in weight loss

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The reviewed social-media post claimed that applying ginger oil to the belly button would burn fat ten times faster and lead to weight loss. FACTLY distinguishes that topical practice from reports about consuming ginger: it says some reports and research discuss ginger water and weight loss, but it found no studies or reports showing that applying ginger oil to the navel reduces belly fat or helps with weight loss. The review describes its assessment as a search for supporting evidence and cites expert comments reported by AFP. It reports that obesity researcher Donna Ryan said there was “nothing in the scientific literature” supporting a claim about ginger oil eliminating cellulite or subcutaneous fat. The review concludes that evidence about ginger water does not establish the claimed effect of putting ginger oil on the belly button. The article also notes that preliminary research in rats concerned ginger water, not navel application: it says the research found ginger water reduced body-weight gain and improved energy expenditure. That distinction matters because evidence about ingesting ginger cannot, on the information presented in the review, demonstrate that applying ginger oil at the navel produces the advertised fat-loss effect.

FACTLYHealth & medicine

A compassionate, real story of a little boy donating blood to his twin sister, believing that the procedure would kill him

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

FACTLY examined a social-media story, attributed to a surgeon named Jim Clark, that was being presented as a real incident: a little boy donates blood to his twin sister while believing the procedure will kill him. The review says the story is not a real incident. Its central check was whether the depicted donation was plausible under the age limits it reports: the article says the minimum age is 18 in most countries, while a few permit 16- and 17-year-olds under conditions. It contrasts those limits with the post’s description of a little boy donating blood. The review also traces parallels to older works. It reports that a similar story had circulated since at least the 1920s, citing the 1925 film *Little Annie Rooney*, in which a 12-year-old girl offers blood to her brother despite fearing the procedure would kill her. It further notes a similar tale, “On Courage,” in the 1993 book *Chicken Soup for the Soul*. FACTLY says it could not trace the viral story’s exact origin; its conclusion that it was made up rests on the reported age restrictions and these earlier parallels, rather than on identifying the original author or source.

BR24 FaktenfuchsHealth & medicine

Umfrage der Charité belege, dass es mehr Corona-Impfnebenwirkungen gebe als offiziell angegeben

Publisher’s rating: Unbelegt. Die Aussagen und Zahlen von Harald Matthes sind kein Beleg für ein häufigeres Auftreten von Nebenwirkungen als offiziell berichtet. Das heißt nicht, dass es nicht tatsächlich mehr Fälle sein könnten, die Methode von Matthes’ Umfrage lässt Experten zufolge aber keine repräsentativen Rückschlüsse auf die Allgemeinheit zu.

dpaHealth & medicine

Deze foto toont een Medbed, dat alle ziekten kan genezen.

Publisher’s rating: De gedeelde foto toont een filmattribuut die geen enkele medische kwaliteiten bezit. De foto wordt gebruikt om complottheoreiën, gelinkt aan QAnon te verspreiden.

The claim concerns a photograph of a capsule in a storage space, presented in social-media posts as a “MedBed” or “MedPod” able to cure every physical condition. The posts also suggested that such capsules had recently arrived in Germany and would be distributed after a supposed “Great Event.” The investigation identifies the pictured object as a film prop, not a medical treatment device. (S1: “Een nieuwe generatie medische machines zou in staat zijn om elke lichamelijke aandoening binnen de paar minuten te genezen. Deze 'MedBeds' of 'MedPods' zouden volgens verschillende Facebookgebruikers (hier, hier en hier) recent in Duitsland geleverd zijn. Dat moet blijken uit een foto van een capsule in een opslagruimte.”) The review points to details visible in the image: a Lego logo on a wooden box behind the capsule, and the number “709” on the capsule. It identifies the object as a prop from the 2016 film *Passengers*, where it served as a sleeping capsule for a long space journey; the same prop was also used as set decoration at the film’s premiere. The review says the capsule can open and close and move up and down, but does not provide medical treatment. (S1: “De houten doos achter de capsule bevat het logo van het speelgoedmerk Lego.”; S1: “Het is een attribuut van de film Passengers uit 2016. In de film werd het gebruikt als slaapcapsule voor een jarenlange ruimtereis. Deze capsule werd ook gebruikt als decoratie tijdens de première van de film. Het nummer \"709\" is op beide foto's herkenbaar.”; S1: “Deze 'hoogtechnologische' capsule is dus helaas tot niet veel meer in staat dan openen en sluiten, en op en neer bewegen. Maar medische behandelingen kunnen niet verwacht worden van deze machine.”) The review also distinguishes the pictured prop from the real ZAP-X device mentioned in some posts. It describes the ZAP-X as a radiological device developed by California’s ZAP Surgical Systems that treats brain tumours with radiation—not as a machine that cures all diseases or rejuvenates bodies. The review reports that the photo appeared in a Spanish-language YouTube video on 23 April 2022, whose narration repeated the claims circulated with the Facebook image. (S1: “Dit lijkt te verwijzen naar een radiologisch toestel, ontwikkelt door het Californische ZAP Surgical Systems.”; S1: “De ZAP-X is een toestel dat hersentumoren bestrijdt via bestraling.”; S1: “Op 23 april 2022 verschijnt de foto in een Youtubevideo van een Spaanstalig kanaal dat QAnon-theorieën verspreidt.”)

dpa FaktencheckHealth & medicine

Eine Studie der Berliner Charité hat gezeigt, dass die Zahl schwerer Komplikationen nach MRNA-Impfungen gegen Sars-CoV-2» vierzig Mal höher ist, als vom Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI) erfasst.

Publisher’s rating: Die Charité stellt klar: Es handelt sich nicht um die Ergebnisse einer wissenschaftlichen Studie, sondern «um eine noch nicht einmal abgeschlossene offene Internetumfrage». Matthes hat die von ihm erhobenen Daten bisher nicht veröffentlicht, für die angebliche Untererfassung der Nebenwirkungen gibt es keinen Beleg.

The claim concerns figures attributed to a purported long-term study at Berlin’s Charité, led by Professor Harald Matthes: that severe complications after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination were forty times more numerous than the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI) recorded, with eight in every 1,000 vaccinated people said to have severe side effects. The review asked whether those figures were substantiated. Charité told dpa the work was an unfinished, open internet survey, not a scientific study, and said its data could not support general conclusions about how frequently complications occur in the population. The account describes how the survey gathered self-reported reactions and side effects. People were invited to participate in vaccination centres and by email, and participation was also promoted in Telegram groups. The review notes that this collection method would generally not yield representative results. Matthes did not provide dpa with the data or exact questions despite repeated written requests, saying they would first be published after scientific peer review. The underlying figures therefore could not be independently examined in the review. The review also addresses figures cited as comparisons. Matthes referred dpa to vaccine authorization trials and a WHO database analysis. Although those sources included reported rates of serious health problems, the trial rates were similar in the placebo groups; the review says this leaves a connection to vaccination unclear. The WHO analysis itself cautioned that not all recorded health problems could appropriately be attributed to vaccination. The review concludes that the claim of a forty-fold undercount was not established by the evidence it examined.

dpaHealth & medicine

De werkzaamheid van de coronavaccins van Pfizer zijn slechts 12%, niet 95% zoals zij zelf eerder zeiden.

Publisher’s rating: Het cijfer van 12% werkzaamheid voor het Pfizervaccin is volledig fout. De redenering die wordt gebruikt om bij dit cijfer uit te komen is verkeerd en rust op een misinterpretatie van de data van de klinische studie van Pfizer.

The claim says Pfizer’s vaccine efficacy was 12%, contradicting the 95% figure the company had previously reported. The review traces the lower figure to an interpretation of Pfizer trial data, rather than to a newly released finding about vaccine performance. It identifies a Substack post by Sonia Elijah as the apparent origin of the claim and says the documents used were FDA documents from December 2020, which had already been publicly available. The review explains that the 95% figure came from comparing confirmed COVID-19 cases in the trial’s placebo and vaccine groups: 162 in the placebo group and eight among vaccine recipients. It also notes that the original clinical trials did not examine later variants such as Omicron, so the 95% figure was not a measurement of performance against those variants. The claim’s comparison therefore omits an important distinction about which evidence and variant the figures concern. The 12% calculation counted “suspected but unconfirmed” cases as COVID-19 cases, producing totals of 1,816 in the placebo group and 1,594 in the vaccinated group. The review says these participants had symptoms that could indicate COVID-19 but tested negative by PCR; they were therefore not counted as confirmed COVID-19 cases in the efficacy calculation. It reports that biostatistician Jeffrey Morris examined the calculation and that the FDA put the error margin of the Cepheid test used in the trial at about 2%. On the evidence described, the 12% figure depends on counting PCR-negative suspected cases as COVID-19, not on the trial’s confirmed-case comparison.