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

Diese Tabelle fasst die Schäden aufgrund von Impfungen zusammen; sogar Facebook schreibt, dass sie schwere Schäden verursachen können.

Publisher’s rating: Die Statistik der WHO gibt keine Auskunft über Impfschäden, sondern über mögliche - aber nicht erwiesene - Nebenwirkungen. Der Hinweis von Facebook auf mögliche «schwere Schäden» bezieht sich auf noch nicht zugelassene Behandlungsmethoden, nicht auf zugelassene Impfungen.

The post presents a WHO-branded graphic as a summary of vaccine injuries, says Covid is at the top, and argues that Facebook itself acknowledges vaccines can cause severe harm. The review identifies the graphic as drawing on the WHO’s VigiAccess database, which lists medicines used for 24 conditions and reported adverse drug reactions. Covid-19 vaccines account for about 2.5 million reports in the graphic, but those entries are reports of possible adverse effects, not confirmed vaccine injuries. (S1: “Diese bezieht sich auf die WHO-Datenbank VigiAccess. In dieser Grafik sind Arzneimittel - nicht nur Impfstoffe - gegen 24 unterschiedliche Krankheiten einschließlich der dazu gemeldeten ADR (Adverse Drug Reaction/Unerwünschte Arzneimittelwirkungen) aufgelistet. Dabei entfallen mit etwa 2,5 Millionen die meisten unerwünschten Wirkungen auf die Impfstoffe gegen Covid-19.”) The review cites VigiAccess’s own cautions: a reported symptom or circumstance may or may not have been caused by a medicine, the records do not establish a confirmed connection, and the database cannot determine the likelihood of an adverse effect. The Covid-19 entries also combine different vaccines and are not set against the number of vaccinations given. Thus, the table’s report count alone cannot establish that the vaccines caused the listed conditions or show their frequency. (S1: “Die Informationen auf dieser Website spiegeln daher keinen bestätigten Zusammenhang zwischen einem Arzneimittel und einer Nebenwirkung wider.” “VigiAccess kann nicht verwendet werden, um die Wahrscheinlichkeit des Auftretens einer Nebenwirkung zu bestimmen.” “Die Daten werden auch nicht in einen Bezug zur Zahl der erfolgten Impfungen gesetzt.”) The Facebook warning refers instead to some Covid-19 treatment methods that had not been approved, with the review giving claims about using horse deworming medicines as an example. It does not refer to Covid-19 vaccines; the review states that vaccines used in Europe and much of the world were approved. The post therefore conflates a warning about unapproved treatments with a claim about vaccines. (S1: “Facebook verweist darauf, dass «einige noch nicht zugelassene Covid-19-Behandlungsmethoden» schwere Schäden verursachen können.” “Die in Europa und großen Teilen der Welt verwendeten Impfstoffe sind allesamt zugelassen.”)

dpaHealth & medicine

Myocarditis na vaccinatie is ernstiger dan na coronabesmetting.

Publisher’s rating: De uitspraken in deze video zijn zeer misleidend en er is geen wetenschapelijk bewijs voor. Hoewel myocarditis een gekende bijwerking van de mRNA-vaccins is, komt dit maar zeer zelden voor en bijna altijd in milde vorm.

The video features American cardiologist Peter McCullough arguing that myocarditis following vaccination should be distinguished from myocarditis after natural infection, and that the vaccine-associated condition is more serious. The review says his main support for this comparison is an asserted stronger rise in troponin after vaccination. It reports that cardiologists contacted by dpa did not know of scientific literature explicitly comparing the severity of the two types, and one said the comparison could not simply be made from the available evidence. The review explains that troponin alone does not establish myocarditis: cardiologist Andreas Gevaert told dpa that diagnosis requires the Lake Louise criteria, including symptoms, blood-test abnormalities such as elevated troponin, and MRI abnormalities. The review also reports cardiologist Peter Sinnaeve’s caution that severity can appear overstated because the mildest cases often go unrecorded, while Sofie Gevaert said she knew of no severe vaccine-associated case in Flanders. These observations do not establish that every case is mild, but they challenge the video’s use of troponin as proof of greater severity. On comparative risk, the review cites studies from Israel indicating that myocarditis occurred more often after coronavirus infection than after vaccination. It also reports estimates that, among young men, the chance was six times higher after infection, and that children under 16 were 37 times more likely to develop myocarditis after infection than if they did not contract the virus. The review’s conclusion is that the claim of greater severity after vaccination is unsupported by the available evidence; it separately notes that vaccine-associated myocarditis is rare and usually mild.

dpaHealth & medicine

Hugo de Jonge kreeg al 5 (!) coronavaccinaties.

Publisher’s rating: Drie van de vijf foto’s in de collage zijn van griepprikken die demissionair minister De Jonge in 2021, 2019 en 2018 ontving. De foto’s bij nummer 1 en 3 in de collage zijn wel van coronavaccinaties. De Jonge ontving, net als de meeste andere Nederlanders, nog maar twee coronaprikken.

The claim concerns a five-photo collage presented as showing Hugo de Jonge receiving five COVID-19 vaccinations. The review says the collage circulated with posts asserting that he had already had five shots. It identifies the key distinction: the images show injections, but not all are COVID-19 vaccinations. The review reports that photos numbered 1 and 3 show COVID-19 vaccinations, while the other three show flu vaccinations. (S1) The review traces the images to posts on de Jonge’s Twitter account. It says photos numbered 4 and 5 had appeared in earlier fact-checks and were posted on 1 November 2018 and 9 December 2019; the collage itself also included his tweets identifying them as flu shots. The newly added photo, numbered 2, was posted on 15 November 2021 with text describing it as a flu vaccination. (S1) For the two images that do show COVID-19 vaccinations, the review gives the dates as 4 June 2021 for the first and 9 July for the second. On that evidence, the collage combines two COVID-19 shots with three flu shots; it does not establish that de Jonge had received five COVID-19 vaccinations. (S1)

maharat-newsHealth & medicine

لا إصابة بكوفيد-19 بعد التعرض لنزلات البرد؟

Publisher’s rating: غير صحيح

The claim under review is that a previous common cold protects a person from COVID-19. The review says a website made that claim by suggesting that antibodies produced during a cold provide protection. It contrasts this with a study of healthcare workers in the UK during the first pandemic wave: their PCR tests were not positive, and they did not produce detectable antibodies to the virus during the four months after entering the study. The review describes the study group as about 60 workers, all working in hospitals and therefore exposed to infection risk. The researchers observed signs of immune activity in some participants, not proof that colds prevented COVID-19. In 20 participants, T cells had multiplied; 19 also had increased levels of the immune-system protein IFI 27, which the review describes as a possible early sign of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The researchers proposed that T cells might have stopped the virus from establishing itself by disrupting viral proteins needed for replication. The review reports that a higher proportion of participants who remained PCR-negative had T cells that recognized those proteins than did healthcare workers who developed COVID-19. The review also notes that T cells in pre-pandemic blood samples could recognize SARS-CoV-2, and that prior infection with common-cold coronaviruses was one possible origin for these cells. But it says the study did not directly establish how or when those cells arose, and the researchers cautioned that their findings did not show that people who had colds were protected from COVID-19. The review concludes that the cited study does not substantiate the broad claim that exposure to a cold prevents COVID-19; it also says the figures in the claim did not match the study.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Italien senkt die Zahl der Corona-Todesopfer von 130.000 auf 3783.

Publisher’s rating: In Italien sind mehr als 130 000 Corona-Patienten infolge der Krankheit gestorben. Diese Zahl wurde nicht nach unten korrigiert.

The claim that Italy reduced its COVID-19 death toll from more than 130,000 to 3,783 misrepresents what the figures refer to. The review says that more than 130,000 people had died of COVID-19 in Italy since the pandemic began, and that this total had not been revised downward. The 3,783 figure comes from applying the 2.9 percent share of deceased patients who had no other condition to the overall death toll; it is not a revised count of deaths caused by COVID-19. [S1]

Vishvas NewsHealth & medicine

৩০ মিনিটৰ বেজী দিয়াৰ পিছত ভেকছিনটো পৰিষ্কাৰ কৰা। ৩০ মিনিটৰ ভিতৰত মমৰ সামগ্ৰী আঁতৰোৱাৰ ভিডিঅ’। পোষ্টটোৰ সৈতে শিৰোনামটোত লিখা আছে: “তেজ গোট মৰা… এইটো টিকাকৰণকাৰীসকলৰ ক্ষেত্ৰত হৈ আছে!

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

maharat-newsHealth & medicine

هل من المحتمل أن يساعد فيتامين "د" في مواجهة كوفيد-19؟

Publisher’s rating: صحيح

The review discusses a study of active forms of vitamin D and lumisterol, a compound it describes as related to vitamin D. The reported work examined whether these compounds could affect SARS-CoV-2 processes: the review says the researchers found effects on the viral enzymes Mpro and RdRP and that the compounds could inhibit viral expansion and development. The findings therefore concern a proposed biological mechanism; they do not, as described here, establish that taking vitamin D prevents infection or improves outcomes in patients. The review also distinguishes this laboratory research from clinical evidence. It says a ClinicalTrials study was underway to investigate vitamin D as a treatment for people with COVID-19, but that its results had not yet been announced. It further reports that the study’s authors planned additional studies and clinical trials to test vitamin D and lumisterol as antiviral treatments. Thus, the evidence presented supports investigating a possible effect, while the review itself describes clinical effectiveness as not yet established by reported trial results.

dpaHealth & medicine

Medien lügen, weil sie dieselbe Schwangere beim Impfen in Kolumbien und einige Wochen später in Belgrad zeigen.

Publisher’s rating: Die Quellenangaben der Bilder werden ausser Acht gelassen. Beim serbischen Artikel ist vermerkt, dass das Bild lediglich zur Illustration dient und somit in keinem direkten Zusammenhang mit dem Textinhalt steht. Beide Fotos sind in Kolumbien aufgenommen worden. Die Schwangere wurde also in Kolumbien geimpft. Fakten

The claim arose from comparing an El Colombiano report about pregnant women in Colombia with a later N1 report from Belgrade. Both articles showed a pregnant woman receiving a vaccination, leading a social-media post to allege that the same woman had been vaccinated in Colombia and then in Serbia. The review examined the images’ captions and credited photographers to establish whether the pictures documented the two articles’ respective events. El Colombiano’s image was credited to its photographer Manuel Saldarriaga. The image used by N1 showed the same scene, but its caption identified it as an illustration. The review traced that photograph to AFP photographer Joaquin Sarmiento and a Getty Images listing, whose caption said it was taken on 24 July 2021 at a vaccination centre in Medellín, Colombia, when vaccination began for women in the third month of pregnancy. The image provenance therefore places both photographs in Colombia and shows the same vaccination scene; it does not show the woman being vaccinated in Belgrade. N1’s “Ilustracija” label indicated that its image was illustrative, not a photograph of the pregnant Serbian woman mentioned in its article. The review’s evidence supports the conclusion that the comparison misrepresented an illustrative image as documentation of the Belgrade story.

فکت‌نامهHealth & medicine

دکتر رابرت مالون؛ دانشمندی علیه واکسن mRNA

Publisher’s rating: او پس از همه‌گیری کرونا، بارها ادعا کرده که واکسن‌های mRNA خطرناک است و در مصاحبه‌ها و نوشته‌های مختلف خود، اعلام کرده که این واکسن‌ها باعث بروز عوارضی خطرناک در افراد می‌شوند. این ادعاها بارها از سوی متخصصان و پژوهشگران رد شده و بسیاری او را به انتشار اطلاعات نادرست متهم می‌کنند.