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 image13,672 published reviews in this topic
هل ظهر متحوّر جديد لكوفيد-19 "b.1.640.2"؟
Publisher’s rating: صحيح
The review discusses the reported identification in southern France of a COVID-19 variant called IHU (B.1.640.2). It says the variant was first identified by experts at the IHU Méditerranée infection center in Marseille after 12 patients tested positive and showed an “atypical combination” that raised suspicion. The review therefore treats the report as concerning a detected variant, not merely a hypothetical one. (S1: “نشر موقع "euronews" مقالا عن متحوّر جديد باسم IHU (b.1.640.2) تم تحديده حديثًا لأول مرة من قبل فريق من الخبراء في مركز IHU Méditerranée للعدوى في مدينة مرسيليا جنوب فرنسا. وتبين أن 12 مريضًا أتت فحوصهم إيجابية لكوفيد-19 وأظهروا "مزيجًا غير نمطي" أثار الشبهة.”) According to the review’s account of a preliminary study, analysis identified 46 mutations. It also reports that the variant carried N501Y and E484K mutations, which the article says could enable stronger binding to human cells. These are reported study findings and a possible biological implication; the review does not present evidence that the variant had already become widespread or caused a large outbreak. (S1: “ونشر موقع "medRxiv" المخصص لنشر الدراسات قيد العمل في العلوم الطبيّة والسريرية والعلوم الصحيّة أنّ وبعد التحليل تمّ كشف 46 طفرة لهذا المتحوّر الجديد بينما متحوّر أوميكرون يملك حوالي الـ50 طفرة. ووفقا للدراسة، تم العثور أيضًا على طفرات بروتين N501Y و E484K في متغير فيروس كورونا الجديد والذي يتسبب في ارتباط العامل الممرض بقوة أكبر بالخلايا البشرية وبالتالي ينتشر بسهولة أكبر في الجسم.”) The review qualifies the significance of the finding: it says the variant was placed under monitoring, while its epidemiological impact remained unclear and further evidence and reassessment were needed. It also relays a German virologist’s view that the variant was not very dangerous and had not spread widely like Omicron. Thus, its conclusion is that B.1.640.2 had been identified, but the available information described in the review did not establish broad spread or a serious public-health impact. (S1: “لكن إلى الأن يبقى التأثير الوبائي غير واضح، مما يتطلب مراقبة محسّنة وتكرار التقييم في انتظار أدلة جديدة.”; “ويقول رئيس معهد علم الفيروسات في مستشفى دوسلدورف الجامعي يورغ تيم إنّ الشكل الجديد لكوفيد-19 ليس خطير للغاية، إذ أنّه ورغم تحديده لم ينتشر حتى اليوم على نطاق واسع كمتحوّ أوميكرون”)
Laut dem Impfpflicht-Gesetz müssen sich die Geimpften alle drei Monate impfen lassen, sonst gebe es Strafen.
Publisher’s rating: Im vorläufigen Gesetzestext ist davon keine Rede. In Abständen von jeweils drei Monaten werden Ungeimpfte an die Impfpflicht erinnert. Wer sich dann nicht impfen lässt, muss Strafen zahlen. Aktuell sind drei Impfungen vorgesehen.
The claim concerned Austria’s then-proposed COVID-19 vaccination mandate: social-media posts said vaccinated people had to receive a shot every three months or face penalties, and that the mandate would mean 12 shots over three years. The APA review examined the ministerial draft and its provisional statutory text, rather than treating the three-month interval as a vaccination schedule. It reports that the draft’s §6 provided for identifying unvaccinated people and reminding them of the obligation at three-month intervals; penalties under §§7 and 8 applied to people who did not comply with the vaccination requirement. The review also distinguishes the reminder schedule from the number of required vaccinations. It states that the usual requirement at the time comprised three vaccinations, while noting exceptions where a new series or different intervals could apply. The draft did not set out 12 vaccinations over three years. The review says the law was expected to expire on 31 January 2024 and that the vaccinations subject to the obligation could be specified by ministerial regulation on the National Immunization Panel’s recommendation. It also notes that a fourth dose was not generally recommended in the cited guidance at that time, while the law could change with scientific evidence and ministry decisions.
All meals need to be hot (not cold) to prevent COVID-19.
Publisher’s rating: False
To eliminate the virus, consume more alkaline foods above the acid level of the virus.
Publisher’s rating: False
Das Coronavirus ist nichts anderes als eine herkömmliche Grippe
Publisher’s rating: Falsch! Das Coronavirus ist ansteckender - und tödlicher und traf auf eine immunnaive Bevölkerung.
Es gibt einen Zusammenhang zwischen Übersterblichkeit und Impfquote in Deutschland.
Publisher’s rating: Das ist irreführend: Es ist wissenschaftlich nicht haltbar, aus dem in einem ausgewählten, relativ kurzen Zeitraum auftretenden statistischen Verhältnis abzuleiten, dass ein Zusammenhang zwischen hoher Impfquote und hoher Übersterblichkeit bestehe. Die Wissenschaftler, auf deren Auswertung sich der Magazin-Artikel unter anderem beruft, stellten klar, dass ihre Einschätzung keineswegs beweise, dass eine erhöhte Impfquote zu einer erhöhten Sterbewahrscheinlichkeit führe.
The claim concerns a specific statistical argument in a Compact article dated December 30, 2021. The article relied on an analysis comparing excess mortality across German states with vaccination rates and presented the result as evidence that higher vaccination rates went with higher excess mortality. The dpa review examines that comparison, rather than disputing that excess mortality occurred during the pandemic. The analysis compared the calculated excess mortality for calendar weeks 36–40 of 2021 with each state’s vaccination rate in week 40. The review says these are mismatched time windows: the mortality figure covers five weeks, while the vaccination figure represents only one week. It also reports that the calculated correlation of 0.31 was not statistically significant, meaning the observed value could reflect random variation. The review notes that the correlations changed with the weeks selected: weeks 20–40 produced a smaller positive value of 0.14, while weeks 36–44 produced a negative value of −0.37. The review also cites the Federal Statistical Office’s finding that the pandemic substantially influenced the rise in deaths, and says the highest excess mortality had occurred around the turn of 2020/2021 and in spring 2021, when vaccination was absent or limited. The official whose analysis was discussed, Felix zur Nieden, said the researchers’ own graph showed no systematic connection. The review further emphasizes that even a statistical association would not establish causation, and that the researchers themselves said their assessment did not prove that vaccination increased the probability of death.
Corona Impfungen machen Frauen unfruchtbar
Publisher’s rating: Aussage nicht haltbar. In nicht klinischen Studien sind wurden Frauen mit und ohne Impfstoff schwanger.
COVID-19 message by Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, taken from her notes from a call with Edward Ryan MD, Director of International Infectious Disease at Massachusetts General Hospital
Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING
The claim concerned a circulating COVID-19 and Omicron message attributed to Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, with the post saying it came from notes she took during a call with Edward Ryan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital. FACTLY reports that it found no recent news articles or call notes linking Shaw to the message, and that her social media accounts did not mention it. These checks did not establish who originally wrote the message, but the review reports evidence against the specific attribution. The review says the same message had circulated in the United States and China without Shaw’s name. It also reports that Massachusetts General Hospital characterized the notes as lacking nuance, context, and details. In its cited clarification, the hospital pointed to omitted information about vaccines’ role in mitigating severe disease or death and advised that people with comorbid conditions continue taking extra precautions regardless of age. As further evidence about attribution, FACTLY reports that Newschecker had contacted Shaw about a similar claim and that she confirmed she had not taken the notes. Taken together, the reported circulation without her name, the absence of support in the sources FACTLY checked, and Shaw’s reported denial contradict the post’s attribution. The hospital’s clarification addresses the message’s missing context, rather than establishing who authored it.
هل تتشابه أعراض "البرد" مع أعراض كوفيد-19؟
Publisher’s rating: صحيح
The review examines a specific claim about symptom overlap: that symptoms resembling a cold can be signs of COVID-19. It reports on a study by ZOE COVID Study, covered by GB News on 30 December 2021, rather than presenting a direct comparison of cold and COVID-19 cases. According to the review, the study estimated that 75% of people with new cold-like symptoms were likely to have COVID-19. The symptoms highlighted included sore throat, headache and runny nose. The review says the estimate drew on reports from about 840,000 weekly contributors to ZOE. It also reports that the study described the 75% figure as a 50% increase from the preceding few days. These are reported study findings; the excerpt does not describe how participants’ illnesses were clinically confirmed or provide enough methodological detail to assess the estimate independently. The review gives UK figures from the study’s reporting: 192,280 new COVID-19 cases, described as a 33% increase over 144,284 reported in the prior week. ZOE scientist Claire Steves argued that the traditional symptom guidance needed urgent updating, specifically proposing that sore throat, headache and runny nose be added. However, the review also reports that a Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said COVID-19 already had a longer symptom list than the one used for the official case definition, which experts continued to review. Thus, the evidence supports overlap between cold-like symptoms and COVID-19, but does not establish that cold symptoms alone diagnose COVID-19 or that every cold-like illness is COVID-19.
COVID-19 symptoms appear on the third day after infection.
Publisher’s rating: Inaccurate
Onder de microscoop is te zien hoe er microtechnologie in het coronavaccin van Pfizer zit.
Publisher’s rating: De vierkantige vorm is een alledaags zoutkristal en geen microtechnologie. Het coronavaccin van Pfizer bevat natriumchloride om de oplossing liquide te houden en de pH-waarden te stabiliseren. Het is onschadelijk in de aanwezige hoeveelheid.
The claim arose from a video promoted by Frontnieuws and Het Andere Nieuws as showing “circuits” and microtechnology in Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine under a microscope. The review traces the footage to a video by the Spanish website La Quinta Columna, associated in the article with Ricardo Delgado Martin. It reports that Martin said he let a vaccine sample dry, but the video did not describe a precise methodology. The review compares the shapes in the footage with images of salt crystals under a microscope. It notes that granulated salt is usually cube-shaped and points to a video showing how a crystal’s shape changes as it forms. Vaccinologist Anke Huckriede of the University of Groningen also told dpa that, if the material was dried vaccine, it could be salt crystals: she said such crystals can look orderly and grow larger as water evaporates slowly. The article explains that sodium chloride—the same substance as table salt—is listed as an ingredient in the Pfizer vaccine and serves to stabilize the solution and keep it liquid. It reports no evidence that the vaccine contained microtechnology in addition to salt. The source therefore does not establish the video’s sample through a detailed methodology; its account instead offers the crystal comparison, the expert’s conditional explanation, and the ingredient information as evidence against the microtechnology interpretation.
Video of Neurologist Dr. Sushil Razdan suggesting dry Ginger powder as a home remedy to prevent or cure COVID-19
Publisher’s rating: FALSE
The review examined a social-media video presented as showing neurologist Dr. Sushil Razdan recommending dry ginger powder as a home remedy for COVID-19, including the Omicron variant. The person in the video reportedly argued that ginger’s alkaline nature could kill infections in the nostrils. The investigation’s central finding was that the man shown was not Razdan: the review says it compared photographs of Razdan with the person in the video, and reports that Razdan publicly disassociated himself from the video through Kashmiri media platforms. According to the review, Razdan also described the proposed remedy as unscientific and urged people to follow appropriate COVID-19 precautions. The investigation could not identify the man in the video, so it established who he was not rather than confirming his identity. That distinction matters: the video’s attribution to Razdan is unsupported even apart from whether the suggested remedy works. On the medical claim, the review says it found no scientific evidence that inhaling dry ginger powder cures COVID-19. It distinguishes ginger’s reported use in mixtures for ordinary cold and cough symptoms from proof that it treats COVID-19, noting that the reports it referred to did not claim such a cure. The excerpt describes image comparison and Razdan’s reported clarification, but does not provide study details or identify the person shown.
De Franse ziekenhuizen zijn zo overrompeld door omikronpatiënten dat ze vergaten om de "patiënt", die eigenlijk een mannequin is, zijn armen aan te doen.
Publisher’s rating: De Franse TV-zender BFM TV zond dit beeld helemaal niet uit. In realiteit werd het genomen uit een Canadese reportage van april 2020, waar er in het begin duidelijk werd gemaakt dat het om een oefening ging.
The claim attached an image of a mannequin in a hospital bed to a French television broadcast and suggested that hospitals overwhelmed by omicron patients had failed to make the supposed patient look realistic. The review identifies the image as one that appeared to resemble a segment of BFM TV’s “22h MAX,” dated November 22, 2021, and explains that the banner referred to French Prime Minister Jean Castex testing positive for COVID-19. But the review says BFM TV was not showing that image at the time: it was broadcasting a press conference about the situation in Guadeloupe. The review traces the mannequin image to a report by French-language broadcaster Radio-Canada from April 2020. It says the image appears from about 2:05 into that report and identifies the speaker as Dr. Mathieu Simon, head of intensive care at the Quebec Heart and Lung Institute. This provenance places the image well before the French omicron surge described in the claim, and in a different country and broadcast. The report’s stated purpose also contradicts the implication that the mannequin was passed off as a real patient. According to the review, Simon explains at the outset that journalists would not be taken into the actual COVID ward; mannequins were used to demonstrate the protocol followed when a coronavirus patient was admitted to intensive care. The review therefore describes the image as part of an explicitly explained demonstration, not footage of an overwhelmed French hospital or an attempt to deceive viewers.
ఆయుష్మాన్ హెల్త్ కార్డ్ ద్వారా ఉచితంగా 5 లక్షల రూపాయల బెనిఫిట్స్ పొందొచ్చు
Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING