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

De coronapandemie is gepland.

Publisher’s rating: Het bestaan van Event 201 vormt op geen enkele manier het bewijs dat de huidige pandemie zou gepland zijn. Het was een oefening in pandemiebeheersing, zoals er al meerdere zijn geweest.

The claim arose from a Facebook post sharing the Event 201 website and describing the exercise as evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic had been planned. The review examined that specific inference: whether the exercise’s existence and scenario establish that the real pandemic was planned, or that its organizers knew about the virus responsible for it. It concludes that the exercise does not establish either point. Event 201 was held in October 2019 and used a fictional scenario involving a global outbreak caused by a coronavirus. The review places that exercise before the first reported cases of a new lung disease in Wuhan in December 2019, and says SARS-CoV-2 was identified on January 7, 2020. It cautions that the timing and broad virus category alone do not show advance knowledge or planning. The review explains why a coronavirus was a plausible choice for a preparedness exercise: coronaviruses include multiple viruses, and SARS and MERS had already caused outbreaks. It also reports that Johns Hopkins University said Event 201 was not a prediction of COVID-19 and described differences between the exercise and events as they unfolded, including the fictional scenario’s origin in Brazil rather than Wuhan. These details distinguish a hypothetical preparedness exercise from evidence that the later pandemic was arranged.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Im Internet kursiert ein Video, in dem behauptet wird, dass Masken zur Eindämmung der Corona-Pandemie gesundheitsschädlich seien (hier archiviert). «Durch Rückatmung unserer Ausatemluft entsteht unvermeidbar Sauerstoffmangel und eine Kohlendioxid-Überflutung», heißt es darin (ab Minute 3:10). Ein solcher Mangel schade dem Gehirn und hemme seine Entwicklung. Gerade für Kinder und Jugendliche seien Masken daher ein absolutes «No-No» (8:50). Denn der dadurch entstandene Schaden könne nicht rückgängig gemacht werden, warnt die Frau im Video. Sie bezeichnet sich als Neurologin und ist eigenen Angaben nach in Deutschland und London tätig.

Publisher’s rating: Es ist falsch, dass ein Sauerstoffmangel durch die Rückatmung der Luft unter der Maske droht. Denn sie macht nur einen Bruchteil der Luft aus, die man einatmet. Auch die Gefahr einer Kohlendioxid-Vergiftung ist daher unrealistisch. Das Tragen einer Mund-Nasen-Bedeckung ist für gesunde Menschen grundsätzlich unbedenklich.

The reviewed video argues that breathing air trapped under a mask inevitably deprives the wearer of oxygen, that this could damage brain development, and that children should therefore not wear masks. The review identifies the central flaw as treating the small volume beneath a mask as if it were all the air a person inhales. It reports that Michael Achenbach, a physician and spokesperson for the German Association of Paediatricians, put a healthy adult’s resting breath volume at roughly 500 millilitres to just under a litre, while the air under a mask amounts to far less than 50 millilitres. It also notes that air enters from the sides and through the fabric of everyday masks. (S1) That comparison addresses the video’s oxygen-deprivation claim: the space beneath an ordinary mask is only a small part of each inhalation, and the air there mixes with outside air. The review adds that exhaled air still contains about 17 percent oxygen, compared with nearly 21 percent in fresh air, and says the body responds to insufficient oxygen by breathing more deeply and quickly. Achenbach is quoted as saying children’s use of everyday masks had long been routine in hospitals, including on cancer wards, without being a cause for concern; he distinguishes these from fully closed dust-protection masks, which he advises against for children. (S1) The investigation also addresses the video’s carbon-dioxide and “CO2 narcosis” allegations. It cites the German Respiratory League’s view that a rise in carbon dioxide is unlikely with simple surgical or homemade face coverings because they are not fully airtight. For measurements shown in online videos, the review reports that Uwe Pliquett, a professor at the Institute for Bioprocess and Analytical Measurement Technology, cautioned that the devices used were often not designed to analyze breathing air. The review says that even assuming elevated CO2 in air remaining beneath a mask, the average concentration in inhaled air would be about 0.1–0.2 percent, depending on ambient CO2. (S1)

dpaHealth & medicine

Wer geimpft ist und an Covid-19 erkrankt, verliert seinen Impfstatus.

Publisher’s rating: Der Artikel bezieht sich auf die norditalienische Region Südtirol. Zwar müssen in Deutschland auch vollständig geimpfte Menschen nach einer Corona-Infektion die Quarantäne-Auflagen der Gesundheitsbehörden befolgen, sie gelten aber nach überstandener Krankheit weiterhin als vollständig geimpft. Auch das Impfzertifikat bleibt weiterhin gültig.

The claim concerns whether a person who catches Covid-19 despite being vaccinated thereby loses vaccinated status. The review traces the claim to a Facebook post using a screenshot of an article published on the South Tyrolean news programme Tagesschau’s website on 20 August 2021. That article discussed Italy’s Green Pass rules, not a general rule that applies in Germany.

dpaHealth & medicine

Il y aura une troisième dose du vaccin contre le Covid-19 "pour tous".

Publisher’s rating: L’Agence européenne des médicaments ne recommande pas d’administrer une 3e dose de vaccin à tout le monde, même le Comirnaty de Pfizer/BioNTech. Par ailleurs, les vaccins contre le Covid-19 bénéficient certes d’une « autorisation de mise sur le marché conditionnelle », dans l’Union européenne, mais ne sont pas considérés pour autant comme expérimentaux.

The post under review claimed that a third Covid-19 vaccine dose would be given “to everyone,” citing an EMA recommendation, and also described the vaccines as experimental. The review checks those assertions against the EMA’s 4 October 2021 recommendation, which addressed both additional doses for people with severely weakened immune systems and possible boosters for people with normal immune systems. The EMA guidance was a recommendation to EU member states, not a legally binding requirement. For people with severely weakened immune systems, the recommendation said an additional dose of Comirnaty or Spikevax could be given at least 28 days after the second dose. Separately, the EMA said booster doses could be considered for people aged 18 and over at least six months after their second Comirnaty dose. The review notes that “could be considered” did not mean a dose was recommended for everyone. It also reports that, in Belgium, people with reduced immunity and residents of care homes were invited to receive a third dose; the review characterizes this as not obligatory. The post’s separate description of the vaccines as experimental is also addressed. The review says the four Covid-19 vaccines authorized by the EMA for use in the EU had conditional marketing authorization while large phase 3 clinical studies were being completed. It explains that this authorization process allows approval once sufficient data show that a medicine’s benefits outweigh its risks, with safeguards and monitoring after authorization. Thus, the review distinguishes conditional authorization and continued safety monitoring from the claim that the vaccines were still experimental.

dpaHealth & medicine

Les virus n'existent pas.

Publisher’s rating: Cette affirmation est fausse ; les virus existent. Et celui dont tout le monde parle actuellement (et qui a fait plus de quatre millions de morts) n’est rien d’autre que le coronavirus, apparu fin 2019.

The review examines a Facebook post claiming that viruses do not exist and, as a consequence, that vaccine-effectiveness debates are unnecessary. It identifies the post as having been made on 7 October 2021 and says the author implies viruses have never existed. The review’s conclusion is that viruses do exist; it also distinguishes that question from whether viruses count as living organisms, a point on which it reports differing scientific views. To explain what viruses are, the review cites definitions from Larousse and Futura: both describe infectious agents or particles that reproduce by entering a cell. It also reports research suggesting viruses that infect vertebrates may be as old as their hosts, while noting that several hypotheses about viral origins remain in circulation. These points support the existence of viruses without claiming that their precise origins are settled. The review then gives examples and evidence of viral presence and effects: it reports that viruses infect many kinds of organisms, discusses viral contributions to human DNA, and describes illnesses including Spanish flu, HIV and COVID-19. For the contemporary example, it identifies SARS-CoV-2 as the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 and cites the WHO’s account of receiving notice of a viral-pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan on 31 December 2019. The article’s evidence addresses the post’s broad denial of viruses; its discussion of whether viruses are “living” is a separate question, not evidence that they do not exist.