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.

13,673 published reviews in this topic

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Die Mund-zu-Mund-Beatmung gehört ohne Wenn und Aber zur Ersten Hilfe.

Publisher’s rating: Dass eine Wiederbelebung ohne Atemspende gar nichts bringe, ist in seiner Pauschalität falsch. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz und Deutscher Rat für Wiederbelebung empfehlen sogar: Laien sollten sich auf die Herzdruckmassage konzentrieren. Aus Vorsicht vor einer Corona-Infektion könne auf eine Mund-zu-Mund-Beatmung verzichtet werden. Diese Erkenntnis ist nicht neu.

The claim presents mouth-to-mouth ventilation as an indispensable part of first aid in every case. The review examines resuscitation after cardiac arrest, in the context of pandemic-era guidance and social-media criticism of advice to perform chest compressions without rescue breaths. It reports that the German Red Cross (DRK) and the German Resuscitation Council advised lay rescuers to prioritize chest compressions; during the pandemic, the DRK specifically advised omitting mouth-to-mouth ventilation and continuing compressions until emergency services arrived. That guidance directly contradicts an unconditional requirement to give breaths. [S1: “Das DRK schreibt auf seiner Homepage: «Bei einem Herz-Kreislaufstillstand sollte in der aktuellen Situation der Corona-Pandemie auf die Mund-zu-Mund-Beatmung verzichtet und nur die Herzdruckmassage durchgeführt werden.» Das gelte solange, bis der Rettungsdienst übernehme.”] The article also distinguishes the general resuscitation method from what is indispensable when rescue breaths cannot or should not be given. It describes the standard approach as alternating 30 chest compressions with two breaths, but says the essential element is chest compressions. A cited medical professor explains that, for adults, compressions alone will generally suffice for the first few minutes because oxygen remains in the body. The article therefore does not say that breaths never matter; it shows why they are not an unconditional prerequisite to providing first aid. [S1: “Im Grundsatz besteht die Wiederbelebung laut DRK aus Herzdruckmassage und Atemspende, und zwar im Verhältnis 30 zu 2 - also dreißig Mal Drücken, zwei Mal Beatmen.”] [S1: “Der unverzichtbare Teil der Wiederbelebung ist aber tatsächlich die Herzdruckmassage.”] [S1: “Es reicht bei Erwachsenen für die ersten Minuten in aller Regel aus, nur zu drücken, weil noch ausreichend Sauerstoff im Körper ist”] The review’s conclusion is qualified rather than universal in the opposite direction: it notes that breaths can be particularly important in cardiac arrests caused by drowning and that children are also advised to receive ventilation. Thus, the evidence supports prioritizing compressions and allowing breaths to be omitted in relevant circumstances, not a blanket rule that they must always be given—or that they are never useful. [S1: “Eine Ausnahme seien etwa Herz-Kreislauf-Stillstände durch Ertrinken. In solch einem Fall könnten zusätzliche Atemspenden für die Überlebenschancen wesentlich sein. Auch bei Kindern wird zu einer Beatmung geraten.”]

dpaHealth & medicine

Oostenrijkse arsten waarschuwen dat mRNA-vaccins alle organen aantasten en auto-immuunziekten veroorzaken.

Publisher’s rating: Er is geen bewijs dat de coronavaccins auto-immuunziekten veroorzaken, noch dat ze alle organen in het lichaam aantasten. De uitspraken van de Oostenrijkse dokter zijn dan ook fout.

The claim concerns a video shared on social media, said to have aired on Austrian television. In it, Austrian doctors warn that coronavirus vaccinations could affect every organ and cause autoimmune reactions. The review identifies the man speaking as Christian Fiala, an Austrian gynaecologist, and says another version of the same clip on Twitter shows it airing on OE24. The review says there is no evidence that mRNA vaccines cause autoimmune diseases on a mass scale. It distinguishes the claim about mRNA vaccines from a documented qualification: the Janssen vaccine, which is a vector vaccine rather than an mRNA vaccine, can rarely cause Guillain-Barré syndrome. The review describes that condition as an immune-system attack on nerves outside the central nervous system, and notes it is also a rare side effect of the flu shot. On the assertion that mRNA vaccines affect all organs, the review says the vaccine does not spread throughout the body: most remains near the injection site, in the arm muscles and local lymph nodes. It adds that the precise duration of the spike protein in the body was not fully clear, but estimated it would be at most a few weeks, comparable to other proteins. Thus, the review’s evidence challenges both broad assertions while distinguishing them from the rare, specifically identified Janssen side effect.

APA - Austrian Presse AgenturHealth & medicine

Laut der WHO-Datenbank VigiBase gibt es bisher über 2 Millionen Nebenwirkungen bei Covid-19-Impfstoffen und damit deutlich mehr als bei anderen Impfungen.

Publisher’s rating: Aus der Datenbank der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) lassen sich keine Sicherheitsbedenken in Bezug auf die Corona-Impfung ableiten. Es handelt sich lediglich um gemeldete vermutete Nebenwirkungen nach der Einnahme von Arzneimitteln oder einer Impfung.

The claim combines a count of reports in WHO’s VigiBase with a comparison to other vaccines, and treats that comparison as evidence of safety concerns. The review explains that WHO makes VigiBase information publicly accessible through VigiAccess, and that the database collects reports of suspected adverse effects on medical products. Such reports may come from medicines-monitoring or national authorities; they are reports, not confirmed findings that a product caused a symptom. (S1: “Über VigiAccess (4) stellt die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) der Öffentlichkeit Daten der VigiBase-Datenbank zur Verfügung. Die Datenbank sammelt gemeldete vermutete Nebenwirkungen von medizinischen Produkten. Gemeldet werden diese zum Beispiel von Arzneimittelüberwachungs- oder nationalen Behörden.”) The review says the database cannot establish whether a reported symptom was caused by a medicine or vaccination, nor how likely an effect is to occur. It also says the database is not suitable for comparing the safety profiles of medical products. Although the reported counts for individual vaccines were in the same order of magnitude as figures circulated in social-media posts, that fact alone does not establish confirmed adverse effects or show that COVID-19 vaccination is dangerous. (S1: “Die Datenbank lässt keine Rückschlüsse darauf zu, inwieweit ein Symptom mit dem Arzneimittel, beispielsweise einer zuvor erfolgten Impfung, in kausalem Zusammenhang steht oder von dem Produkt ausgelöst worden ist.”; “Genauso wenig ist die Datenbank dazu geeignet, Sicherheitsprofile verschiedener Medizinprodukte miteinander zu vergleichen.”; “Die Zahl der gemeldeten vermuteten Nebenwirkungen einzelner Impfungen sind in derselben Größenordnung wie die angeführten Zahlen in den Social Media-Beiträgen.”) The review also identifies reasons why counts across vaccination campaigns may not be directly comparable: the number of administered doses differed, and public interest and calls for reporting during the pandemic may have affected reporting. It describes vaccine safety as being monitored by the European Medicines Agency, which regularly publishes safety reports; the review says those reports concluded that the benefits of the vaccines outweighed the risks. These points provide context for interpreting report totals, but the review does not present those totals as proof that a reported symptom was caused by a vaccine. (S1: “Alleine deswegen ist eine höhere Anzahl an Meldungen vermuteter Nebenwirkungen zu erwarten.”; “Zudem haben einige Faktoren Einfluss auf das Meldeverhalten nach der Corona-Impfung, wie das pandemiebedingte gesteigerte öffentliche Interesse oder auch, dass öffentliche Institutionen zu Meldungen aufgerufen haben, um möglichst viele Daten zu erhalten.”; “In den aktuellen Berichten (5,6,7,8) bestätigt die EMA, dass die Vorteile der Impfungen die Risiken überwiegen.”)

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Am 15.12. ist in Harrislee ein Fünfjähriger vom Kinderarzt geimpft worden und am 16.12. zu Hause verstorben.

Publisher’s rating: Das Gerücht des vermeintlich verstorbenen Kindes ist erfunden. Dem Kinderarzt und Behörden vor Ort ist kein derartiger Fall bekannt.

The claim concerns a purported death in Harrislee, Schleswig-Holstein: a social-media post said that a five-year-old boy was vaccinated by a paediatrician on 15 December 2021 and died at home the following day. The review identifies this as a specific local allegation, not a report of a child’s death elsewhere: it quotes the post as saying, “24955 Harrislee, 5 jähriger Junge am 15.12 vom Kinderarzt geimpft und am 16.12 zu Hause verstorben.” The review describes checks with the local paediatrician and authorities. It says the only paediatrician listed for Harrislee by the professional association called the rumour false and knew of no death of a five-year-old. The doctor also said that no child under 12 had been vaccinated at his practice. The review reports that he checked with a hospital and the health authority, where no such death was known. These checks address both the alleged vaccination and the alleged death in the town named in the post. The review also reports that the Flensburger Tageblatt’s inquiries to the police, health authority and registry office found no report of a dead five-year-old, and that the district administrator confirmed no such death had been reported. Taken together, the local doctor’s account and the reported checks with multiple local institutions provide no support for the post’s account; the review concludes that the rumour was fabricated.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Schweden hat in ganz Europa die niedrigste Inzidenz, Stand 15. Dezember

Publisher’s rating: Die Behauptung ist übertrieben. Europäische Länder wie Malta, Bulgarien oder Rumänien hatten zum Zeitpunkt der Behauptung niedrigere Inzidenzen als Schweden. In dem skandinavischen Land liegt die Zahl der neuen Corona-Fälle zwar noch auf relativ niedrigem Niveau, steigt aber derzeit deutlich an.

dpaHealth & medicine

Na de booster is de QR-code telkens nog maar 3 maanden geldig. Daarna moet je weer een nieuwe booster.

Publisher’s rating: Het klopt niet dat Ursula von der Leyen in de video zegt dat de QR-code drie maanden na de booster niet meer geldig is. Het Europese coronacertificaat blijft momenteel negen maanden na de eerste twee vaccinaties geldig. Hoe lang het certificaat geldig is na de booster, is nog niet bepaald.

The claim concerned a video of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and alleged that a QR code would expire just three months after a booster, requiring another booster to keep it valid. The review examined the video and reports circulating alongside it. It found that the three-month period in her remarks did not describe validity after a booster: the certificate was valid for nine months after the initial vaccination series, while the period after a booster had not been set. The review traced the video excerpt to a post on von der Leyen’s Twitter account on 17 December 2021 and examined her remarks about boosters. She said boosters were recommended within six months after full vaccination and that the certificate would remain valid for a further three-month grace period. Together, those periods meant nine months after the initial series—not three months after a booster. The review also reported that the European Commission’s nine-month rule, specified as 270 days, took effect on 21 December 2021. It said the Commission added the three-month margin to give countries time for booster campaigns and ensure people had access to a third dose. The video did not specify how long the certificate would remain valid after a booster; the Commission said there was not yet a standard acceptance period because data on the duration of protection was insufficient.