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

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Schwangeren Frauen wird eine experimentelle und genverändernde Injektion wärmstens ans Herz gelegt.

Publisher’s rating: Impfstoffe müssen mehrere Studienphasen durchlaufen, bis sie als sicher eingestuft und zugelassen werden. Anschliessend werden regelmässig Nutzen-Risiko-Analysen vorgenommen, um die Impfsicherheit zu gewährleisten. Für schwangere und stillende Frauen wurde der Covid-Impfstoff erst empfohlen, als Daten zur Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit vorlagen. Covid-Impfstoffe gelangen nicht in den Zellkern und können somit das menschliche Erbgut nicht verändern.

The claim concerns a sharepic saying that pregnant women are being warmly encouraged to receive an “experimental and gene-changing” injection. The review identifies the injection as a Covid vaccine and examines both the timing of the recommendation for pregnant women and the claim that vaccination changes human genetic material. It reports that Swiss authorities initially excluded pregnant women from Covid vaccination because the effects on mother and child had been little studied. The recommendation changed as evidence accumulated: from 14 September 2021, Switzerland recommended the mRNA vaccines authorised there for pregnant women. The review describes evidence that informed the changing recommendation. It says studies found vaccine effectiveness in pregnant women, and reports that an Israeli study found lower infection risk among pregnant women with Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA protection than among unvaccinated pregnant women. It also cites US research finding that vaccinated pregnant women passed antibodies to newborns via the placenta and breast milk. Animal studies involving vaccination before or during pregnancy reportedly raised no safety concerns. These findings support the review’s account of an evidence-based change in guidance; they do not mean that every possible risk is absent. On the “gene-changing” part of the claim, the review explains that mRNA vaccines are not live vaccines: they provide instructions for making a pathogen protein, which prompts an immune response, and the mRNA is subsequently broken down. It states that the genetic material remains unchanged. The excerpt does not name the sharepic’s author or provide a link to its original publication, so it establishes the claim’s wording and subject through the review’s description rather than documenting the image’s provenance.

APA - Austria Presse AgenturHealth & medicine

Vergleiche der gemeldeten Verdachtsfälle von Nebenwirkungen und Todesfälle nach Impfungen ergeben für die Corona-Impfung erschreckende Daten.

Publisher’s rating: Bei den Zahlen handelt es sich um gemeldete Todesfälle in zeitlichem Zusammenhang zur Impfung. Sicherheitsbedenken lassen sich nicht daraus ableiten. Dem aktuellen Sicherheitsbericht des Paul-Ehrlich-Instituts (PEI) zufolge gibt es in Deutschland 1.450 Verdachtsfallmeldungen von Todesfällen nach der Corona-Impfung. Dem vorherigen Bericht zufolge wird nur in 48 Fällen ein ursächlicher Zusammenhang mit der Impfung für möglich oder wahrscheinlich gehalten. Die große Anzahl an Impfungen in einem kurzen Zeitraum, die Personengruppe sowie das große öffentliche Interesse an den neuen Corona-Impfungen müssen in die Beurteilung einfließen.

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaHealth & medicine

FACT CHECK: ස්කෑන් පරීක්ෂාවකට මුහුණ දීම, පරමාණු බෝම්බක් හා සමාන විකිරණවලට මුහුණදීමේ අවදානමක්ද?

Publisher’s rating: Misleading

The review examined a social-media assertion that full-body CT scans expose patients to radiation at a level comparable to the Hiroshima atomic bomb. It describes the claim as circulating in posts about scans and radiation, and focuses on CT rather than treating all kinds of scans as equivalent. The review explains that CT uses X-rays, whereas MRI does not use radiation, and says CT exposes a person to more radiation than an ordinary X-ray examination. To assess the bomb comparison, the article reports consulting Dharmakeerthi Epa, identified as general secretary of Sri Lanka’s Government Radiographers’ Association. He rejected the comparison as misleading and argued that, if the exposure were equivalent in the way claimed, patients would be expected to die immediately or suffer severe complications; the review says such outcomes had not been reported in examinations to date. It also describes a US radiology-society study comparing atomic-bomb survivors’ exposure with medical X-ray exposure, and reports that the X-ray doses were far lower than the bomb radiation. The review does not say CT scans are risk-free. It notes that repeated CT examinations can pose risks and that scans are generally not needed for healthy people without a medical reason. Its conclusion is that the claimed equivalence is misleading, while the risks of an indicated scan should be weighed against its diagnostic and treatment benefits. The article says those benefits can be substantial for patients with serious or life-threatening conditions.

dpaHealth & medicine

Anthony Fauci und Rick Bright haben im Fernsehen gesagt, es sei ein krisenhaftes Ereignis nötig, um den Widerstand gegen mRNA-Impfstoffe zu überwinden.

Publisher’s rating: Fauci hat das nicht gesagt. Seine Äußerungen und die anderer Wissenschaftler sind falsch zitiert, fehlerhaft übersetzt und zugleich aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen.

The post described in the review alleges that Anthony Fauci and Rick Bright spoke on television on October 29, 2019, about making mRNA vaccines, and that a “disruptive event” was needed to get around public resistance and bureaucratic constraints. The review identifies the broadcast as a C-SPAN panel held during a Milken Institute health conference in Washington. Its subject was the prospect of a universal influenza vaccine—not mRNA vaccines or resistance to gene-based therapies. The review says the panel ran for about 58 minutes and that the phrase “disruptive event” was not used. It distinguishes that alleged phrase from the panelists’ use of “disruptive” and “disrupting” while discussing new approaches to influenza research. Bright said the field needed unconventional ideas and excitement to make universal flu-vaccine research more attractive; Fauci discussed funding and new research perspectives as ways to change the field. The review reports that neither the claimed public resistance nor a crisis to overcome it appears in the discussion, and that the panel did not discuss manipulating coronaviruses in a laboratory. The key discrepancy is therefore both the subject of the event and the meaning assigned to the words used in it. In the review’s account, Bright and Fauci were talking about stimulating influenza research, not overcoming opposition to mRNA therapies. The post’s description turns that discussion into a claim about a crisis and coronavirus engineering that the review says are absent from the broadcast.

APA - Austria Presse AgenturHealth & medicine

Der Impfstoff von BioNTech/Pfizer wurde von der US-Behörde Food and Drug Administration (FDA) für eine Drittimpfung verboten, nachdem ein „führender Corona-Forscher” festgestellt hat, dass der Impfstoff mehr schadet als er hilft.

Publisher’s rating: Die FDA hat den Pfizer-Booster nicht verboten, sondern nur für gewisse Risikogruppen empfohlen und freigegeben. Der angebliche Corona-Forscher ist Elektroingenieur und Informatiker, seine Berechnungen fußen größtenteils auf nicht belastbaren Daten.

The claim linked two assertions: that the FDA prohibited a third Pfizer/BioNTech dose, and that a leading coronavirus researcher had shown it did more harm than good. The review identifies the researcher as Steve Kirsch, who presented at an FDA meeting, and says the claim spread in Austria after former politician Peter Westenthaler discussed it on television. The FDA record described in the review does not support a ban: an FDA committee rejected a general booster recommendation on September 17, 2021, but recommendations were made for people over 65 and for certain adults over 18 at higher risk or with regular exposure to the virus. An FDA announcement on September 22 confirmed the authorization, so the review distinguishes rejecting a blanket recommendation from prohibiting booster doses. The review also challenges the characterization of Kirsch as an expert epidemiologist. It describes him as an electrical engineer and computer scientist, and says his presentation’s claim of a 71-fold higher heart-attack risk relied on VAERS reports. The review cautions that such reports record events occurring after vaccination and cannot, by themselves, establish that vaccination caused them. It further notes that Kirsch used deaths and individual causes of death in a trial to argue that vaccination posed greater danger than benefit, although the trial reported that deaths were similarly distributed between groups and none was attributed to vaccination. The review adds that the trial found the vaccine effective against the virus and reported no safety concerns in its six-month results. It does not say that possible adverse effects were ignored: it notes that myocarditis had been detected as a very rare possible consequence of mRNA vaccination and was being monitored, while citing an Israeli study that found the risk of myocarditis was higher after COVID-19 infection than after vaccination. Thus the evidence presented disputes both the supposed FDA prohibition and the claim that the cited presentation established that the vaccine did more harm than good.

BBC Reality CheckHealth & medicine

"48 new hospitals, 50,000 more nurses"

Publisher’s rating: This is a work in progress. Construction has begun at six sites. To reach the nurses target, the party has 35,842 full-time equivalent posts to fill over the next three-and-a-half years.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Krankheiten werden nicht durch Viren übertragen.

Publisher’s rating: Viren werden zwar immer noch intensiv erforscht, sind der Medizin aber seit etwas mehr als 100 Jahren bekannt. Dass sie Krankheiten übertragen, ist in der Forschung und praktischen Medizin unstrittig.

The claim appeared on a photo of a Facebook post that called viruses a supposed “fairy tale” and asserted that diseases are not transmitted by viruses. The review rejects that assertion and explains that disease transmission by viruses is established in both research and medical practice. It also notes that viruses can cause disease in plants, animals and people, or trigger cancer; the fact that viruses are not living organisms does not negate their capacity to transmit disease.

dpaHealth & medicine

Duitse pathologen hebben schokkende ontdekkingen gedaan bij een autopsie van overleden gevaccineerde mensen.

Publisher’s rating: De beweringen in de persconferentie zijn niet wetenschappelijk onderbouwd en worden door Duitse pathologenverenigingen en wetenschappers verworpen. Een deel van de beweringen is ook al meermaals weerlegd in andere factchecks.

The claim refers to a press conference in Reutlingen on 20 September, where retired pathologists Arne Burkhardt and Walter Lang discussed ten deaths following vaccination. They said that five deaths were “very likely” related to vaccination and two were “likely,” and reported finding potentially dangerous material—including metal objects, undefined objects and alleged parasites—in vaccines. The review explains that these were claims made at the conference, not established findings. [S1: “De persconferentie vond plaats op 20 september in Reutlingen. De pathologen in kwestie, Arne Burkhardt en Walter Lang - beide gepensioneerd - presenteerden hun bevindingen van tien autopsieën bij overlijdens na vaccinatie. Van de tien onderzochte overlijdens zouden er \"vijf zeer waarschijnlijk gerelateerd aan het vaccin zijn en twee gevallen waarschijnlijk\". Hiernaast meldden ze ook dat ze verdachte en potentieel gevaarlijke stoffen in de vaccins hadden aangetroffen: metalen objecten, ongedefinieerde objecten en zelfs parasieten.”] The review reports that Germany’s Deutsche Gesellschaft für Pathologie and Bundesverband Deutscher Pathologen distanced themselves from the conference. They characterized its conclusions as personal opinion rather than scientifically supported, and said the conference did not demonstrate a causal link between vaccination and death. [S1: “Zowel de Deutsche Gesellschaft für Pathologie (DGP) als het Bundesverband Deutscher Pathologen (BDP) distantiëren zich uitdrukkelijk van de conferentie. Beide stellen dat de conclusie van de conferentie een persoonlijke meningsuiting is en niet wetenschappelijk onderbouwd. Een causaal verband tussen vaccinatie en overlijden wordt dan ook niet door deze conferentie aangetoond, aldus de organisaties.”] The review also describes specific objections to the evidence presented. Virologist Christian Drosten said the microscopic images were not necessarily unusual and could result from sample drying or filtration; Konrad Steinestel, head of pathology at the military hospital in Ulm, said many of the samples shown were contaminated. It further reports that scientists cited in a Correctiv fact-check considered the methods unclear and the samples’ origins unknown, preventing a scientifically supported conclusion from being drawn from the data. [S1: “Hij stelt dat de microscopische beelden van objecten in het vaccin helemaal niet zo uitzonderlijk zijn en onder andere het gevolg zijn van opdroging van stalen en filtratieprocessen. Volgens Konrad Steinestel - hoofd pathologie van het militair ziekenhuis in Ulm - is een groot deel van de getoonde stalen eenvoudigweg verontreinigd en bevatten daarom vreemde objecten.”] [S1: “De onderzoeksmethodes van Burkhardt en Lang zijn volgens hen onduidelijk, net zoals de oorsprong van de gebruikte stalen. Hierdoor is het onmogelijk om een wetenschappelijk onderbouwde conclusie op basis van deze gegevens te trekken.”]