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

maharat-newsHealth & medicine

هل يقلّل دواء "فلوفوكسامين" من شدّة عوارض كوفيد-19؟

Publisher’s rating: صحيح

The review addresses whether fluvoxamine can lessen COVID-19 severity. It describes a randomized study of people with COVID-19 at 11 sites in Brazil: 741 participants received fluvoxamine and 756 received a placebo, with an average participant age of 50. The review reports that 79 people in the fluvoxamine group, compared with 119 in the placebo group, were observed in emergency care for more than six hours or transferred to hospital. It says the study used 100 mg twice daily for 10 days and concluded that early treatment reduced the need for hospitalization. [S1: “وشملت الدراسة مصابين بكوفيد-19 من 11 موقعا في البرازيل، وتمّ إعطاء فلوفوكسامين لـ741 مصاب تم اختيارهم بطريقة عشوائيّة، وتمّ إعطاء دواء وعمي لـ756 مصاب، وقد بلغ متوّسط عمر المشاركين 50 سنة.”; “وقد لاحظ القيّمون على الدراسة أنّ نسبة المرضى المصابين بكوفيد-19 الذين تمت ملاحظتهم في حالة طوارئ لأكثر من 6 ساعات أو تم نقلهم إلى المستشفى أقل بالنسبة لمجموعة فلوفوكسامين(79 من أصل 741) مقارنة مع الدواء الوهمي(119 من أصل 756).”] The review also notes an important qualification: a small U.S. National Institutes of Health study did not reach its primary endpoint, which the review says made it difficult to draw final conclusions about fluvoxamine’s effectiveness. Thus, the review presents the Brazilian trial as evidence of reduced hospitalization risk for early-treated patients, while acknowledging that the evidence discussed was not conclusive overall. [S1: “وفي دراسة صغيرة أجرتها معاهد الصحة الوطنية الأميركية في هذا الإطار، وبعد صدور النتائج، اعتبرت المعاهد أنها لم تصل إلى نقطة نهاية أولوية أي أنّه من الصعب استخلاص استنتاجات نهائية حول فعالية فلوفوكسامين في علاج كوفيد-19.”]

dpaHealth & medicine

Als positiv auf Covid getesteter Geimpfter darf man weiter an 2G-Veranstaltungen teilnehmen.

Publisher’s rating: Das ist falsch. Die Grundlagen für die sogenannten 2G-Regeln sind in der bundesweit gültigen Covid-19-Schutzmaßnahmen-Ausnahmenverordnung formuliert. Darin ist definiert, dass nur als genesen oder geimpft im Sinne der Verordnung gilt, wer keine typischen Symptome zeigt. Geimpfte mit Symptomen einer Corona-Infektion dürfen demnach 2G-Veranstaltungen nicht besuchen. Die einleitende Anekdote des Posts kann auf Grundlage der vorliegenden Informationen nicht überprüft werden.

The claim concerns whether a vaccinated person who tested positive for Covid-19 could still attend events under Germany’s 2G rules. The Facebook post described in the review asked whether someone could enter a large event as a vaccinated person despite being ill, having symptoms, and testing positive twice. The review distinguishes that individual status from the conditions required to count as vaccinated or recovered under the applicable federal rules. The review cites the COVID-19 Protective Measures Exemption Ordinance. It says the ordinance defines a vaccinated or recovered person, for its purposes, as someone who is asymptomatic and has the relevant proof of status. On that basis, a vaccinated person with typical Covid-19 symptoms does not qualify as vaccinated for these rules and may not attend a 2G event. The review therefore does not support the claim that vaccination alone permits a symptomatic person to attend after testing positive. The review also notes a separate qualification: people with breakthrough infections can still be recorded as vaccinated in relevant statistics. It attributes that point to confirmation previously given to dpa by the Federal Ministry of Health. Statistical classification, however, does not change the ordinance’s asymptomatic-person condition. The post’s introductory anecdote could not be independently verified from the information available to the review.

dpaHealth & medicine

FDA verbietet Biontech/Pfizer für Booster, weil Daten auf Risiken hindeuten.

Publisher’s rating: Die Booster-Impfung mit dem Wirkstoff von Biontech/Pfizer ist in den USA nicht verboten - die FDA empfiehlt sie für Menschen ab 65 sowie für Risikogruppen. Der angebliche Corona-Forscher ist ein Elektroingenieur ohne medizinische Ausbildung. Die zitierten Dokumente sind nicht geleakt, sondern frei zugänglich.

The review examines a video in which former Austrian FPÖ politician Peter Westenthaler says the US Food and Drug Administration had prohibited a third dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. It reports that the FDA had instead recommended a booster for people aged 65 and older and authorized it for adults at least 18 who were at higher risk or regularly exposed to the virus, including some care, school and kindergarten workers. The specific claim of a prohibition is therefore at odds with the FDA action described in the review. The review traces Westenthaler’s assertion to a presentation by Steve Kirsch at an FDA meeting on September 17, 2021. Kirsch spoke during the public-comment portion of the meeting, and the recording remained publicly viewable; the material was not leaked, contrary to the claim. The review also reports that Kirsch was presented by the cited fund as an electrical engineer and computer scientist, and that it found no vaccination research by him in Google Scholar or PubMed. Kirsch cited VAERS reports to claim that cardiac arrests were 71 times more frequent among vaccinated people. The review explains that these reports record events occurring after vaccination but cannot establish that vaccination caused them; it notes that the database warns reports may be incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental or unverifiable. It also says a Pfizer study cited by Kirsch did not establish that reported deaths were caused by vaccination. The review acknowledges ongoing monitoring of rare myocarditis and an Israeli study finding increased risk after vaccination, while noting that the study found a higher risk after COVID-19 infection.

APA - Austria Presse AgenturHealth & medicine

Corona-Geimpfte, die wegen eines schweren Verlaufs auf der Intensivstation sind, werden im Krankenhaus Bludenz auf ungeimpft „umgestellt”, da sie trotz Impfung keine Antikörper aufgebaut hätten. So kommt die hohe Zahl der Ungeimpften auf Intensivstationen zustande.

Publisher’s rating: Die Behauptungen sind falsch. In den Vorarlberger Landeskrankenhäusern wird der Impfstatus der Corona-Patientinnen und ‑patienten nicht verändert. Die Zahl der Antikörper wird zudem nicht erhoben.

dpaHealth & medicine

Millionen von Menschen, die eine Impfung mit einem experimentellen mRNA-Impfstoff verweigert haben, könnten bald gezwungen sein, die Gentherapie in ihrer Nahrung zu sich zu nehmen.

Publisher’s rating: Diese Behauptung ist falsch. Richtig ist allerdings, dass in den USA tatsächlich daran geforscht wird, ob man mRNA-Impfstoff mit Hilfe von Gemüse herstellen kann.

The claim originated in a Facebook post from Luxembourg. It alleged that people who refused mRNA vaccination might soon be forced to eat vegetables containing a COVID-19 vaccine, and linked that prospect to a U.S. research project. The review distinguishes the project’s actual research question from the post’s claims about replacing injections and compelling people to consume such food. The review reports that the U.S. National Science Foundation awarded $500,000 to the University of California, Riverside, for research into producing mRNA in plants. A university announcement described three aims: testing whether DNA carrying vaccine mRNA could enter and multiply in plant cells, whether plants could produce enough mRNA, and how to determine an appropriate dose. The review says the research concerned a possible new way to manufacture mRNA vaccines, not replacing COVID-19 injections with edible vaccines. The evidence also contradicts the claim’s suggestion that this would happen soon or by force. The research was funded through the end of 2023, but the review quotes project leader Juan Pablo Giraldo saying the work would take years to prove the concept and that further studies would be needed before people could use leafy vegetables as vaccine production systems. The review reports no indication that anyone would be compelled to eat such plants.

dpaHealth & medicine

Duitse ziekenhuisbaas pleegt zelfmoord omdat ie leugens over vaccins niet meer kan verkopen.

Publisher’s rating: De claims zijn met een aan zekerheid grenzende waarschijnlijkheid als onwaar te bestempelen. Er is geen enkel bewijs voor het bestaan van de afscheidsbrief. De politie laat aan dpa weten niet bekend te zijn met een dergelijke brief. Ook staan de sentimenten die Jendges daarin zou hebben verwoord in complete tegenstelling tot sentimenten over coronavaccinatie die hij wél echt heeft uitgesproken.

The claim circulated on social media that Thomas Jendges, a German hospital director who had apparently died by suicide, left a note saying he could no longer live with supposed lies that vaccines were harmless. The review says posts presented a German text alongside a Bild article, attributing the alleged note to Jendges and saying it was in police hands. (S1: “Volgens verschillende gebruikers is er een afscheidsbrief van hem in handen van de politie, waarin Jendges schrijft niet meer te kunnen leven”) The investigation found no evidence that the letter existed. Dpa contacted police and the Chemnitz municipality; their spokespeople said they knew of no such letter. The review also reports that the German text attributed to the letter did not come from the Bild article. These findings undermine both the purported document and the way it was presented online. (S1: “Dpa deed zodoende navraag bij de politie en de gemeente Chemnitz. Woordvoerders laten weten niet bekend te zijn met een afscheidsbrief.”; “de Duitse tekst waarin de afscheidsbrief wordt genoemd niet uit het Bild-artikel komt”) The review contrasts the alleged anti-vaccine sentiments with Jendges’s documented public position: in an August hospital press release, he said vaccination was proven effective and expressed pleasure that a vaccination site was coming to his hospital. It reports no other evidence for the letter or the sentiments attributed to him. The evidence therefore addresses the claim’s central explanation for his death—the alleged note—but does not establish further details about the circumstances of his death. (S1: “Zo zegt hij eind augustus nog in een persbericht van het ziekenhuis dat vaccineren bewezen effectief is en daarom blij te zijn met de komst van een nieuwe vaccinatielocatie in zijn ziekenhuis.”; “Ook is er nergens anders enig bewijs te vinden voor het bestaan van de afscheidsbrief”)

dpaHealth & medicine

Quote over verplichte vaccinatie is afkomstig van Henry Kissinger.

Publisher’s rating: De uitspraak is niet echt van Henry Kissinger: er is geen enkel bewijs voor. Toch wordt het al jaren foutief aan hem toegeschreven.

The claim is that Henry Kissinger said a quote warning that mandatory vaccination would let authorities control people and profit from their deaths. The review notes that the version it examined did not give a source. It says other versions attribute the words to a supposed meeting of a World Health Organization Eugenics Council on 25 February 2009, where Kissinger was alleged to have spoken.

dpaHealth & medicine

Bientôt une troisième dose de quelque chose qui n’a pas fonctionné à deux reprises.

Publisher’s rating: Il est faux de dire que les deux premières doses de vaccin contre le Covid-19 n’ont pas fonctionné. Même si les vaccins font parfois face à l’épreuve du temps, des variants ou encore à des immunités réduites chez certaines personnes, ils se sont montrés efficaces pour éviter les formes graves de la maladie.

The Facebook image said that a third dose was coming “of something that had not worked twice,” and paired that message with a quotation attributed to Albert Einstein. The post appeared shortly after Switzerland recommended an additional Covid-19 vaccine dose for people aged 65 and older. The review examined whether that recommendation meant the first two doses had failed; its account distinguishes waning protection in some groups from protection against severe disease. The review reports that Switzerland’s Federal Office of Public Health and Federal Commission for Vaccinations recommended boosters from 26 October 2021 for people aged 65 and over, with particular emphasis on residents of care facilities and people with serious pre-existing conditions. It says the recommendation reflected the possibility that vaccine protection could decline over time, especially in older people. It also describes a case-by-case option for some under-65s with weakened immune systems, rather than a general booster recommendation for everyone. To address whether the initial doses had worked, the review quotes the public-health office’s statement that available scientific data showed vaccinated people were “very well protected” against severe Covid-19, with protection remaining above 90% after a complete vaccination. It adds that breakthrough infections were usually asymptomatic or mild and rarely led to severe illness, and reports that authorities did not then observe declining protection against severe disease among people under 65. The review therefore presents boosters for selected vulnerable groups as a response to potentially diminishing protection—not evidence that the first two doses had provided no benefit. The review also traces the Einstein-attributed quotation: it says the wording appears among quotations falsely attributed to Einstein in *The Ultimate Quotable Einstein*, and identifies Rita Mae Brown’s 1983 book *Sudden Death* as its likely origin. This addresses the post’s accompanying attribution, separately from its vaccine claim.

maharat-newsHealth & medicine

هل لجنس المولود علاقة بإنتاج الأجسام المضادة لدى الحوامل المصابات بكوفيد-19؟

Publisher’s rating: صحيح

The review examines whether the fetus’s sex is associated with a pregnant woman’s antibody response to COVID-19. It describes two studies published in *Science Translational Medicine*. One concerned vaccination, while the other examined infection during pregnancy; the latter is the study relevant to the claim about pregnant people with COVID-19. The review says that study included 68 pregnant women, 38 of whom had COVID-19 late in pregnancy, and that the children in both the infected and uninfected groups were split evenly between boys and girls. For the infection study, the review reports that women carrying male fetuses had lower COVID-19-specific antibody titers and transferred a smaller proportion of those antibodies to their babies. It also quotes study author Andrea Edlow saying fetal sex affected the mother’s ability to produce and transfer antibodies. These findings support an association between fetal sex and the measured antibody response in the study; the excerpt does not establish why the difference occurs or provide numerical antibody measurements. The review separately reports that the vaccination study assessed immune responses before the first dose, around the second dose, and two to five weeks afterward. It found lower antibody levels among pregnant and breastfeeding women after the first dose, with a smaller gap after the second. That vaccination result is distinct from the infection study and should not be treated as evidence about antibody responses to infection. The review’s reported conclusion is specific to the study findings and does not supply further detail about the studies’ methods or limitations.

dpaHealth & medicine

47 études confirment l'inefficacité des masques anti-Covid et 32 autres confirment leurs effets négatifs sur la santé.

Publisher’s rating: Le message est trompeur. Son auteure reprend le titre d'un article du site d'informations canadien « LifeSiteNews », qui établit ces listes. Elles sont loin de confirmer l'inefficacité globale des masques de protection contre le coronavirus, dont les effets positifs l'emportent de loin sur les effets négatifs, d'après la communauté scientifique.

The claim appeared in a Belgian social-media post and repeated the headline of a LifeSiteNews article. The review says that headline is misleading: the cited lists do not establish that masks are generally ineffective against coronavirus or that they inevitably harm users. It reports that the Canadian site’s article appeared in July 2021 and that a group called “Résistance mondiale” translated it into French on October 31. The review explains why the lists do not support the broad claim. Some cited studies predated the Covid-19 pandemic, which began in December 2019, or were not about preventing coronavirus transmission. It also notes that several listed links were not scientific studies at all. Thus, the count of entries does not demonstrate that the studies collectively reached the conclusions asserted in the headline. For the broader evidence, the review reports that scientific and public-health sources supported mask use as a way to reduce respiratory-disease transmission. It cites Belgium’s official Infocoronavirus.be site explaining that masks primarily protect other people, and says Sciensano and Canada’s National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health discuss both benefits and possible drawbacks without establishing inevitable health damage. It also cites Meedan’s Health Desk and a University of California, San Francisco summary, concluding that the reported evidence supports mask benefits outweighing potential disadvantages when masks are worn correctly.