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 image13,673 published reviews in this topic
Od 8 grudnia 2021 roku w Singapurze niezaszczepieni pacjenci COVID-19 będą obciążeni kosztami leczenia w szpitalach.
Publisher’s rating: Prawda
World Economic Forum reported about the Omicron variant in July 2021
Publisher’s rating: FALSE
The claim concerned a post circulating with a photograph of a World Economic Forum (WEF) article. It alleged that WEF knew about the Omicron variant, B.1.1.529, in July 2021, before the World Health Organization (WHO) reported the variant in November. FACTLY checked the WEF article identified in the post, including its publication and revision history, rather than relying only on the date shown for its original publication. The article was originally published on 12 July 2021 but updated on 26 November to add information about the variant. The article’s appearance in July therefore did not establish that its Omicron content was present then. FACTLY compared archived versions dated 12 July and 22 September with a version dated 27 November. The first two contained no mention of either Omicron or B.1.1.529; the November version did mention a new COVID variant in South Africa. FACTLY also noted that the updated article linked to a news report about Omicron published on 25 November, further supporting that the relevant content was added after July. The review’s chronology also places the variant’s identification in November: it says B.1.1.529 was first reported to WHO from South Africa on 24 November, and that the first known confirmed infection came from a specimen collected on 9 November. WHO designated it a variant of concern on 26 November. Those dates, together with the archived article comparison, contradict the claim that the WEF article reported on Omicron in July.
Australien: Ungeimpfte werden in Lager geschickt.
Publisher’s rating: Die Aussagen der Premierministerin sind aus dem Kontext gerissen. Sie spricht über Einreisende, die sich in Quarantäne begeben müssen. Ungeimpfte Personen würden dabei aufgrund der Einreisebeschränkungen des Staates maximal 14 Tage in einer solchen Einrichtung bleiben.
The video concerned Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and appeared to show her saying that unvaccinated citizens would get a final chance to be vaccinated before being sent to a quarantine facility. The review traced the footage to a television interview on 19 October 2021 and a press conference the previous day. In the interview, the relevant remarks came after the moderator asked whether facilities for quarantining arrivals would still be needed. The review says the circulating clip removed that setting and omitted information about who the facilities were intended to serve. «Das Video zeigt Ausschnitte aus einem Fernsehinterview vom 19. Oktober 2021 mit der Premierministerin des australischen Bundesstaates Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk.» The review describes the facilities as part of quarantine arrangements for people entering Queensland, not as a measure to detain unvaccinated residents. Palaszczuk also discussed unvaccinated arrivals, but the review says they were among several groups covered: people returning from overseas, international students, and people arriving from an Australian risk area. Separately, the 18 October press conference concerned a plan to admit fully vaccinated travellers from declared Covid-19 risk areas without quarantine once the state reached a specified vaccination threshold. Unvaccinated people entering the state remained subject to 14 days of quarantine. «Die Premierministerin erklärt in dem Interview weiter, dass die Einrichtungen neben ungeimpften Einreisenden, aber auch für Personen, die aus dem Ausland zurückkehren, internationale Studierende oder Personen, die aus einem Risikogebiet innerhalb Australiens nach Queensland einreisen, entwickelt wurden.» The distinction is therefore between quarantine requirements for people entering Queensland and a policy of sending unvaccinated residents to a camp. The review also reports that a Queensland government spokesperson told AFP the facilities were not intended to imprison unvaccinated people, but to provide an alternative to hotel quarantine. «Den Faktenprüfern der AFP bestätigte eine Sprecherin der Regierung in Queenland, dass die Quarantäne-Einrichtungen nicht dafür genutzt werden Ungeimpfte zu «inhaftieren». Vielmehr seien die Einrichtungen als Alternative zur Hotelquarantäne gedacht.»
Omicron variant began with a person with HIV
Publisher’s rating: NEEDS CONTEXT
Die Inhaltsstoffe der Corona-Impfstoffe sind nicht deklariert. Weder Hersteller, Arzt noch Staat sind haftbar. In den USA gab es 17 000 Tote und 2 700 Fehlgeburten aufgrund der Covid-Vakzine.
Publisher’s rating: Die Inhaltsstoffe der Covid-Impfstoffe sind in der Produktinformation zu finden und im Internet abrufbar. Die Haftung bei möglichen Impfschäden ist in der Schweiz geregelt. Bei den angeblichen Impftoten und Fehlgeburten in den USA handelt es sich lediglich um Verdachtsmeldungen.
The allegations appeared in an open letter criticizing Swiss musicians Stefanie Heinzmann, Stress and Baschi for supporting the national vaccination week held November 8–14, 2021. The letter asserted that vaccine leaflets were “empty,” that no manufacturer, doctor or government could be held liable, and that Covid vaccinations had caused 17,000 deaths and 2,700 miscarriages in the United States. The review checked each allegation rather than treating the figures in the letter as established outcomes. For ingredients, it points to Swissmedicinfo, the medicines information database, where patient leaflets and professional product information for the approved Comirnaty, Spikevax and Janssen vaccines listed active and excipient ingredients. On liability, it describes the Swiss rules for vaccine injuries: a manufacturer may be liable for a production defect, a vaccinating professional for failure to exercise due care, and the federal government may provide compensation when other sources do not cover the injury. The review says cases are assessed individually. For the U.S. figures, the review traces them to VAERS reports, which record adverse events observed after vaccination. It explains that these are suspicions, not proof that vaccination caused the event, and that reports may be submitted by members of the public as well as health professionals. It also notes that the cited miscarriage reports did not establish causation and that studies had not found increased miscarriages among vaccinated women. Thus, the figures in the letter were reports following vaccination, not confirmed counts of vaccine-caused deaths or miscarriages.
400 garment workers at Jet Star located in Dangkor district were panic after a medical team from the [health] ministry went down to collect sample from a worker for Covid-19 test. The result had yet been known; they were panic and run out of the factory. After an explanation from the factory’s administration, they returned to work.
Publisher’s rating: False
Die Pflegedienstleiterin der Universitätsklinik Ljubljana ist zurückgetreten, weil dort Politikern statt Impfstoffen Placebos verabreicht wurden.
Publisher’s rating: Die dortige Pflegedienstleiterin ist der Universitätsklinik Ljubljana zufolge nicht zurückgetreten. Die Klinik teilte außerdem mit, dass «nichts davon» dort stattgefunden habe. Das Video, auf das die Anekdote zurückgeht, ist mindestens vier Monate alt.
Hoofdverpleegster neemt ontslag en beweert dat de vaccins of placebo's of kankerverwekkend zijn.
Publisher’s rating: De vrouw in kwestie is nooit een medewerker van het universitair ziekenhuis van Ljubjana geweest. De beweringen over de verschillende vaccinflesjes zijn ongegrond. Een code die als bewijs moet dienen is in realiteit een code om COVID-certificaten - geen vaccins - te identificeren.
Der Covid-Impfpass schließt bestimmte Menschengruppen so aus, wie damals im Nationalsozialismus die Juden aus dem sozialen Leben ausgeschlossen wurden.
Publisher’s rating: Der Gesundheitspass hatte im Nationalsozialismus keine flächendeckende Relevanz und führte zu keinen Bewegungseinschränkungen, wenn man ihn nicht dabei hatte. Andere Pässe wie der Ahnennachweis hatten im Nationalsozialismus mehr Bedeutung. Hier stand aber einzig die Abstammung einer Person im Mittelpunkt und nicht der Gesundheitszustand. Ein Vergleich mit heutigen Impfzertifikaten ist unzulässig.
The APA review examines a circulating Facebook post that used an image of an old health pass to suggest that, in Nazi Germany, people without a “genealogical” pass were barred from social and working life. It distinguishes that document from ancestry records and asks whether health status or possession of the pictured pass governed access to public life. The review consulted historians and institutions specializing in the history of medicine and the Nazi period; it also refers to historical publications and museum material. The historians interviewed described the pictured document as a health pass used by organizations including the Hitler Youth and the NSDAP’s Office of Public Health to record examination results. They said it was not an access-control document for social or working life, and that it was needed for certain health-related services, such as recuperative stays. Historian Winfried Süß said it did not need to be shown to non-doctors; the review also reports that a plan to combine hereditary and health data did not progress beyond initial approaches. The pictured pass, moreover, was not used in Vienna and did not have state-wide significance. The review distinguishes this health pass from the “Ahnenpass,” which historian Robert Jütte identified as the likely document meant by “genealogical pass” in the post. Ancestry documentation could be required for specific occasions, such as marriage or civil-service appointment. The article separately records that Jews were systematically excluded from public and working life because of their Jewish ancestry, with identification including the stamped “J” in passports and, from 1941, the Star of David. It therefore treats the comparison with present-day vaccination certificates as failing to account for the different documents, grounds for exclusion, and circumstances.
ديكساميثازون المساعد في علاج كوفيد-19... هل لجنس المريض علاقة؟
Publisher’s rating: صحيح
The review examines social-media posts claiming that a study found dexamethasone benefits men with COVID-19 more than women. It says those posts did not identify the study, but that their description referred to research from the University of Calgary. The review presents that research as evidence of a possible sex-related difference in response, rather than as a definitive conclusion about treatment for all patients. As described in the review, researchers assessed data from intensive-care patients collected during the pandemic. The review reports that the number of men dying from COVID-19 decreased when dexamethasone was added to treatment, while the same treatment did not affect women’s outcomes. It also describes a proposed immune-system explanation: men had a stronger interferon response that was moderated after dexamethasone, whereas women had a more moderate response and showed little effect from the drug. The review’s conclusion is that the posts’ central description of the study—that men may benefit more than women—is supported by the study as the review recounts it. It qualifies that conclusion by saying further studies are needed. The evidence provided here does not establish that dexamethasone benefits only men, or that the reported difference applies to every patient or treatment setting.
Image of Phantom cartoon which predicted the coronavirus back in 1957
Publisher’s rating: FALSE
The post presents an image of the Phantom wearing a mask as evidence that a comic from 1957 predicted coronavirus. FACTLY reports that the image comes from a real Phantom strip published in 1957, but says the version circulating online had been digitally altered: the wording was changed to suggest a reference to COVID-19. The original strip, it explains, concerned a fictional illness called “sleep death,” not coronavirus. The decisive comparison is the text in the original panel. FACTLY quotes it as: “Tie it on as I do this will protect you from the ‘sleep death’ in the valley.” The review contrasts that wording with the circulated image’s reference to “China Virus,” concluding that the viral image alters the original text to create a false impression of a prediction. The review identifies the strip as “The valley of no Return,” published between 01 July and 21 September 1957. It says the Phantom’s mask was intended to protect people from a mysterious illness that put them to sleep. Thus, the shared image and year have a genuine comic-strip origin, but the coronavirus wording is not part of the original panel.
Japan dumpt de (herhaalde) vaccinatie voor een betere en duurzamere remedie: ivermectine.
Publisher’s rating: Japan vaccineert nog steeds tegen COVID-19. Ivermectine is er geen geautoriseerd middel in de behandeling van COVID-19. Het bericht is dan ook fout.
The claim circulated above a screenshot of an article titled “Japan crushes Big Pharma with a small yet effective move.” The review traces the screenshot to the Indian website TFIGlobal and identifies its central assertion: that Japan was stopping COVID-19 vaccinations in favor of ivermectin. The review says that assertion was false. To assess the vaccination claim, the review points to Our World in Data’s tracker. It reports that the tracker still showed vaccination on its latest visible day, November 23, and that nearly 77% of Japan’s population was fully vaccinated by late November. This evidence contradicts the claim that Japan had abandoned vaccination. The review also addresses whether ivermectin had replaced vaccines as an authorized COVID-19 treatment. It says ivermectin was not on Japan’s list of approved medicines to treat or prevent COVID-19. As further evidence, it cites the Tokyo prefecture’s COVID-19 FAQ, which said that no antiviral medicines had then been proven effective against coronavirus and that treatment focused on relieving symptoms. The review notes that a Japanese medical association leader had advocated approval, but says this was his personal view, not Japanese policy.
