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

dpaHealth & medicine

Pfizer ajoute de la trométhamine chimique aux vaccins pour enfants contre le Covid-19.

Publisher’s rating: Cette information n’est alarmante qu’hors de son contexte. La trométhamine est présente dans de nombreux médicaments. Elle est utilisée comme agent tampon pour maintenir le pH d’un vaccin stable ou comme excipient pour faciliter son administration, sa conservation et son transport. On la retrouve dans le vaccin pour enfants (cinq à onze ans) Comirnaty de Pfizer/BioNTech contre le Covid-19 mais en quantité très restreinte. Elle est également présente dans le vaccin pour adultes de Moderna, dans des traitements contre le diabète ou même dans des produits cosmétiques.

The review examined a Facebook post alleging that tromethamine had been added to children’s COVID-19 vaccines. The post described the substance as a blood-acid reducer used to stabilize people having heart attacks. The review specifically addressed Pfizer/BioNTech’s pediatric Comirnaty formulation for children aged five to eleven, explaining that tromethamine is used there as a buffer to help keep the vaccine’s pH stable and support storage and transport. [S1: “Selon une publication sur Facebook, une substance appelée trométhamine aurait été ajoutée aux vaccins pour enfants contre le Covid-19.”; “Elle est utilisée comme agent tampon pour maintenir le pH d’un vaccin stable ou comme excipient pour faciliter son administration, sa conservation et son transport.”] The article reported that the pediatric vaccine contained 0.06 mg of tromethamine. It compared that amount with a much higher dose used when tromethamine is administered to treat metabolic acidosis: the Belgian medicines agency’s spokesperson described a treatment dose of 36 mg per kilogram of body weight for children. The review also reported that the substance had been authorized for use in manufacturing adult Comirnaty in the United States, while a proposal to replace the existing buffer in the EU was under consideration. [S1: “un vaccin Comirnaty pédiatrique, lui, contient 0,06 mg de trométhamine.”; “Cela signifie 36 mg par kilogramme de poids corporel”] The article’s central distinction is between tromethamine’s role and amount in the pediatric vaccine and its use as an active treatment for acidosis. It reported that the substance is also used in other medicines and cosmetics, and quoted the Belgian agency as saying that the dose used in the vaccine did not pose a risk to children. [S1: “La trométhamine est, en effet, un principe actif dans le traitement de l'acidose métabolique”; “Nous pouvons confirmer que la throméthamine, à la dose utilisée, ne présente pas de risque pour les enfants.”]

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Die zitierten Studien belegen, dass die zugelassenen Corona-Impfstoffe nur einen geringen Nutzen haben.

Publisher’s rating: Der offene Brief enthält Falschinformationen. So wurden etwa Studien falsch zitiert und Zahlen frei erfunden. Mehrere Informationen sind zudem unvollständig wiedergegeben.

The DPA reviewed claims in an online open letter by “Ärzte stehen auf” that approved Covid-19 vaccines offered little benefit and that some risks remained unclear. Its review challenges that case by checking how the letter represented two studies and by identifying information it left out. For the Israeli cohort study, the letter claimed that vaccination reduced the relative risk of hospitalization by 58%. The DPA says the cited study did not support that figure: it reports a 74% reduction 14–20 days after the first dose and 87% one week after the second. The study covered people in Israel vaccinated between December 20, 2020, and February 1, 2021. The review acknowledges that protection against hospitalization had since fallen with viral mutations, while stating that authorized vaccines remained effective. The DPA also disputes the letter’s claims about transmission and waning protection. It notes that vaccinated people can spread the virus after breakthrough infections, but says the letter omitted evidence that people with the full primary vaccination were less likely to become infected. On the Swedish study, the review says the cited decline concerned protection against symptomatic infection: protection against severe disease remained for up to about nine months, depending on age and sex. Taken together, the review’s evidence addresses the claim by showing that the letter’s cited figures and conclusions were either unsupported or presented without important qualifications.

dpaHealth & medicine

Un document d'un hôpital en France montre la propagande du gouvernement au sujet des vaccins contre le Covid-19.

Publisher’s rating: Le document partagé sur Facebook est bien un document officiel du Centre Hospitalier de Haguenau. Il s’agit d’un compte-rendu de la cellule Covid de l’hôpital. Toutefois, l’établissement a dénoncé une instrumentalisation des chiffres qui s’y trouvent.

The Facebook post presented a photograph of an official Centre Hospitalier de Haguenau document as evidence of “media lies” and “government propaganda.” The document was a Covid-19 monitoring-cell update for the morning of 6 December 2021. It said that seven of the eight Covid patients then in intensive care were vaccinated, but the hospital’s review of its patients and its public response supplied important context for those figures. [S1: “Dans ce document du 6 décembre 2021, on peut lire que, sur les 8 patients Covid hospitalisés en réanimation, 7 sont vaccinés.”; “Une preuve des « mensonges médiatiques » et de « la propagande du gouvernement », selon la publication Facebook.”; “La photo du document montre un compte-rendu de la « cellule de veille Covid-19 » de l’établissement, situé à une trentaine de kilomètres de Strasbourg. Il s’agit d’un point de situation au matin du 6 décembre 2021.”] The hospital said on 20 December that the document was a summary of Covid-cell discussions and had been circulated in a way that left out information needed to understand it. Of the seven vaccinated intensive-care patients listed on 6 December, three were immunocompromised and taking immunosuppressive treatment, three had not yet received a booster after completing their initial vaccination schedule, and one had an incomplete or doubtful schedule. The hospital also reported that on 20 December, eight of its nine Covid patients in intensive care were unvaccinated; the vaccinated patient was immunocompromised. [S1: “Le document en question constitue un « compte-rendu synthétique des débats se déroulant en cellule Covid », clarifie l’hôpital.”; “Ce document « a été abondement diffusé et manifestement instrumentalisé sans que les éléments permettant d’en comprendre le contenu n’aient été repris, ce que nous ne pouvons que regretter », déclare l’établissement.”; “parmi les patients vaccinés figuraient 3 patients « immunodéprimés avec un traitement immunosuppresseur, traitement qui diminue significativement l’efficacité de la vaccination par baisse de la production d’anticorps, 3 patients en fin de schéma vaccinal n’ayant pas encore bénéficié de leur dose de rappel (3e dose) et 1 patient dont le schéma vaccinal était incomplet ou douteux »”] The review further notes that the hospital cautioned against drawing general conclusions from its small, local patient counts. It said those figures could not establish a general trend or determine vaccine effectiveness, and cited the proportion of the Bas-Rhin population vaccinated as relevant context. The document therefore records a particular hospital snapshot; the figures alone do not demonstrate that authorities or media were conducting propaganda. [S1: “Les chiffres du Centre Hospitalier de Haguenau ne permettent donc pas d’établir une tendance générale ou de tirer des conclusions sur l’efficacité des vaccins contre le Covid-19. Ils ne sont pas non plus le signe d’une quelconque « propagande » ou manipulation de la part des médias ou des autorités, contrairement à ce que laisse entendre la publication Facebook.”; “De plus, les chiffres communiqués par l’hôpital sont « à rapprocher à la proportion de la population vaccinée dans le Bas-Rhin », département où près de 89 % des personnes majeures sont complètement vaccinées (au 19 décembre 2021).”]

maharat-newsHealth & medicine

لقاح "جونسون أند جونسون" في لبنان... فهل منعته مراكز السيطرة على الأمراض؟

Publisher’s rating: غير صحيح

The review examined claims circulating in Lebanon that the CDC had banned the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, amid social-media posts calling it a “vaccine of American death” and linking it to a donation for Lebanon. It reports that the U.S. Embassy announced the arrival of 336,000 Johnson & Johnson doses as a donation. The central distinction in the review is between a preference for other vaccines and a prohibition: it says the CDC supported updated recommendations from its advisory committee that preferred mRNA vaccines over Johnson & Johnson, rather than stating that the CDC had banned Johnson & Johnson. (The source describes the relevant agency as the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) For the basis of that distinction, the review reports that the advisory committee met on December 16, 2021, considered the available data, and concluded that when other vaccines were unavailable, Johnson & Johnson’s benefits and safety outweighed its risks. It also says the committee would continue reviewing safety data. These details describe a qualified recommendation and ongoing review, not a decision to prohibit use. The review further reports that the World Health Organization considered the vaccine’s benefits greater than its risks and recommended it for adults over 18. It says the U.S. Food and Drug Administration continued to authorize emergency use for adults, including as a booster and as a booster after a different vaccine. Taken together, the account supports the review’s conclusion that the claim of a CDC ban misrepresented a preference for mRNA vaccines as a prohibition. The supplied excerpt does not include the underlying CDC, committee, WHO, or FDA documents, so those bodies’ positions are reported here as described by the review.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Pflegekräften zufolge ist der Nutzen der Covid-Impfungen «zu gering», das «Nutzen-Risiko-Verhältnis» negativ.

Publisher’s rating: Die Zitate der mutmaßlichen Pflegekräfte enthalten Aussagen über die Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit der Covid-19-Impfstoffe, die teilweise dem Forschungsstand widersprechen. Das Online-Portal Wochenblick.at macht sich diese Aussagen durch die Art und Weise der Darstellung zu eigen, indem es sie teilweise nicht ausreichend als Zitate kennzeichnet, nicht einordnet, bestimmte Aussagen durch Zwischenüberschriften hervorhebt und insgesamt durch die Autoren keinerlei inhaltliche Auseinandersetzung mit den Aussagen erfolgt. Ob die zitierten Personen tatsächlich im Gesundheitswesen arbeiten, lässt sich auf Grundlage der vorliegenden Informationen nicht überprüfen.

The review examined a Wochenblick.at article about a protest by people described as purported care workers. It focused on the article’s presentation of their statements that the benefit of Covid vaccinations was low and the benefit-risk balance negative—not on independently verifying whether the quoted people worked in healthcare. The review says that could not be established from the available information. The article’s presentation was also relevant to the assessment: the fact-check found that the claims were not adequately contextualized and that some appeared as unmarked assertions in subheadings. The review explains that a publisher may report false claims as quotations, but should make clear that they are quotations and distance itself from them, for example by adding context. It found the article marked quotations correctly in the main text, but not in the subheadings, which stated that the preparations’ benefit was too low and their benefit-risk balance negative. It also found no discussion of assessments by the Robert Koch Institute or Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, or of scientific studies on vaccine effectiveness and safety. To address the underlying assertions, the review cited evidence described in its text: studies had established protection against infection and, in particular, severe disease; it reported that a continuing review commissioned by the RKI incorporated data from 17 studies. It also cited the Federal Centre for Health Education’s account that clinical-trial data showed a 70–95% lower likelihood of illness among vaccinated participants than among placebo recipients. On safety, it cited the agency’s statement that the vaccines were effective and their benefits greatly outweighed possible risks, while acknowledging that side effects and rare or very rare complications can occur. The review said such complications were covered in PEI safety reports.

dpaHealth & medicine

Le même homme, hospitalisé à cause du Covid-19, interrogé par deux médias différents à deux endroits différents en France.

Publisher’s rating: L’homme en question a été interrogé à la fois par BFMTV et l’AFP au même endroit, à savoir dans un hôpital de Montreuil. Dans son tweet, BFMTV évoque bien la situation au Centre hospitalier universitaire (CHU) de Nice. Mais, dans son reportage, la mention « Montreuil » apparaît lors de l’interview du dénommé Karim.

The photos juxtaposed an AFP report about COVID-19 patients at a hospital in Montreuil with a BFMTV tweet saying that unvaccinated people accounted for nine out of ten patients at Nice University Hospital. The original review examined the two reports and found that the different locations referred to different parts of BFMTV’s coverage, not to two hospitals where Karim was interviewed. The AFP video identifies its setting as André Grégoire Hospital in Montreuil. BFMTV’s report also opens with Karim, aged 48, receiving oxygen; the review says the same statements by him appear in both outlets’ footage. Crucially, BFMTV’s opening segment labels Karim’s location as Montreuil. Only after his interview does an on-screen label identify the following images as footage from Nice University Hospital. The review therefore distinguishes the location of the interview from the location described in BFMTV’s tweet and shown in the later part of its report. The Facebook montage omitted BFMTV’s Montreuil location label and placed the Nice reference beside Karim’s image, making the two locations appear to conflict. The evidence in the review supports the conclusion that both outlets interviewed Karim in Montreuil, while BFMTV’s report also covered the situation in Nice.

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaHealth & medicine

FACT CHECK: Death Wish Coffee – කෝප්පයක් පානය කිරීමෙන් දින තුනක් නිදිවර්ජිතව සිටිය හැකිද?

Publisher’s rating: Misleading

The review investigates a social-media post claiming that Death Wish Coffee has 200% more caffeine than ordinary coffee and that drinking one cup can keep someone awake for about three days. It compares the post’s claims with information attributed to the coffee company, U.S. consumer reports and FDA data; it also discusses consumer reports and a comparison with another coffee brand. According to the review, the company described its coffee as exceptionally strong and said it was made with Arabica and Robusta beans, but its website did not say that a cup could keep someone awake for three days. The review reports that consumer data put caffeine at about 50 milligrams per ounce for Death Wish, versus 12–16 milligrams per ounce for ordinary coffee. It also reports that an eight-ounce cup contains about 400–500 milligrams of caffeine, while the article gives about 1,200 milligrams per day as the amount at which insomnia can occur. On that basis, it says a cup is not enough to cause the claimed effect. The article further complicates the “world’s strongest” assertion: it reports 708 milligrams in a 12-ounce Death Wish cup and says a 12-ounce cup of Biohazard can contain 928 milligrams. Its conclusion is that the three-day-awake claim is false and the strongest-coffee claim is misleading, despite Death Wish’s comparatively high caffeine content.

dpaHealth & medicine

In 2021 stierven veel meer piloten als gevolg van de coronavaccins.

Publisher’s rating: Er is geen opmerkelijke toename in het aantal overlijdens van piloten, zo bevestigt Alpa. Er is verder ook geen indicatie dat er in 2021 een stijging was in het aantal stergevallen van piloten.

The claim arose from a memorial page in an Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) magazine that circulated on social media. It showed many pilot names for 2021, compared with a handful for 2020 and one for 2019. Posts interpreted the page as evidence that coronavirus vaccines had caused an unusual number of pilot deaths. The review explains that a single magazine page cannot establish year-by-year totals. ALPA responded to the rumors using information it had received from families. According to the review, the association said it had verified information of more pilot deaths in both 2019 and 2020 than in 2021. ALPA also cautioned that the information in one issue did not represent the total number of deaths in each year. The page therefore did not support the claim that deaths had increased in 2021. The review additionally reports that there was no indication that the pilots listed on the page had died from COVID-19 or a coronavirus vaccine. It notes that the magazine was available only to subscribers and that not every issue could be viewed online. The review’s account thus distinguishes the names printed in one issue from annual death totals, and from evidence about the cause of any individual death.