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

Des anomalies détectées dans le sang de personnes vaccinées contre le Covid-19.

Publisher’s rating: La vidéo n’apporte aucune preuve tangible qui montrerait que les vaccins contre le Covid-19 seraient à l’origine d’anomalies sanguines. Les experts interrogés par la dpa s’accordent pour dire que les personnes présentes dans la vidéo multiplient les non-sens. De plus, la femme qui dit avoir réalisé l’analyse sanguine n’est pas une médecin qualifiée.

The review investigates a social-media video presented as showing “the blood of a vaccinated person” under a microscope. In the longer German-language version, Bärbel Ghitalla comments on an image on a computer, says it comes from a blood analysis of someone vaccinated against Covid-19, and suggests that the features she points out could be consequences of vaccination. The review identifies Ghitalla as a naturopath in Germany who also says she has nursing experience; it says she is not a doctor and does not appear to have relevant expertise in hematology or immunology. The review sought expert assessments of the images and claims. Yves Beguin, a hematology professor at the University of Liège and head of hematology at its university hospital, described the images as a crude superimposition of fabricated images and criticized the video’s terminology and arguments as unscientific. He rejected its purported metallic particles, saying vaccines do not contain metal elements of the size suggested. Pierre Coulie, an immunology professor at the de Duve Institute, said that antibodies can be detected in a vaccinated person’s blood through an ordinary blood test, but that vaccines leave no traces visible under a microscope. The review also reports an assessment from Mariëlle L’Ortye of the Dutch Association of Hematology: rouleaux can be observed when blood is spread for examination, but the structure in the video did not appear to be rouleaux, and a connection with Covid-19 vaccination was considered unlikely. She said rouleaux form outside the body and can be associated with excess protein production, including in some infections or cancers. The review distinguishes this video from rare reports of blood clots after certain viral-vector vaccines, stating that those reports are unrelated to what the video purports to show.

dpaHealth & medicine

25 000 décès liés aux vaccins contre le Covid-19.

Publisher’s rating: Le tableau relayé par l’utilisateur circule régulièrement sur les réseaux sociaux. Fabriqué de toutes pièces, les chiffres qui y sont repris sont eux bel et bien issus d’une base de données européenne sur les rapports d’effets indésirables suspectés suite à l’utilisation d’un médicament. Mais ces chiffres ne représentent absolument pas le nombre de décès dont la cause avérée est la vaccination contre le Covid-19.

The claim arose from a Facebook table shared by a Swiss user. The table presented figures from a European database as showing nearly 25,000 Covid-19 vaccine-related deaths in Europe. The dpa review checked the figures against the database and confirmed that adding the listed entries for the four vaccines produced 24,528, the total shown in the table. But the figures count reports of fatal outcomes by reaction group; they do not establish that vaccination caused those deaths or that the deaths were linked to vaccination. The database records suspected adverse effects: medical events observed after vaccination that may have another cause. The review also explains that summing fatal reports across reaction groups can count more than one suspected effect from an individual case, so that sum exceeds the total number of fatal cases. Reports can also include duplicates, which the European Medicines Agency reviews as part of its scientific assessment. The table therefore uses real figures, but its presentation turns reports and a potentially overlapping sum into a misleading claim about deaths caused by the vaccines.

Fact Crescendo CambodiaHealth & medicine

ក្ដៅៗ !!! លោក ហ៊ុន សែន កំពុងតែឈឺធ្ងន់ ចូលបន្ទប់សង្គ្រោះបន្ទាន់ បញ្ជូនទៅមន្ទីពេទ្យសិង្ហបូរីព្យាបាល

Publisher’s rating: False

The claim described a video as showing Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen in critical condition, taken to intensive care and then sent to a Singapore hospital. Fact Crescendo says the clip circulated on Facebook on September 5, 2021, alongside that allegation. Its investigation traced the clip to a TikTok account belonging to Ouk Rithysak and identified the man in the footage as his father, not Hun Sen. To verify the video’s provenance, the investigators searched for the TikTok account identified in the clip, reviewed its posts and related Facebook material, and interviewed Ouk Rithysak. He told the outlet that the man shown was his father. The review identifies him as Ouk Bunchhoeun, a former justice minister and Cambodian senator, and reports that he had been sent abroad for medical treatment in early September. The review also describes Hun Sen’s public appearance on September 17, when he presided over a vaccination campaign for children aged 6–12 and spoke with journalists for several hours. The evidence therefore separates the people in the viral footage: it showed Bunchhoeun receiving care, not Hun Sen being hospitalized. The article’s conclusion concerns the specific video and accompanying claim, rather than establishing a general assessment of either man’s health.

maharat-newsHealth & medicine

هل يمكنكم تلقي لقاح الانفلونزا وكوفيد-19 معًا؟

Publisher’s rating: صحيح

The review addresses whether people may receive a COVID-19 vaccine and an influenza vaccine together, including without waiting 14 days between them. It explains that the earlier advice to give COVID-19 vaccines separately, with a 14-day interval before or after other vaccines, was a precaution because the vaccines were new—not a response to known safety or immune-system concerns. The review attributes this account to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

APA - Austrian Presse AgenturHealth & medicine

Ein großer Teil der Intensivpatienten in Österreich ist gegen Covid geimpft. Die Impfung zeigt daher eine zu geringe Effektivität.

Publisher’s rating: Die Covid-Impfungen sind effektiv, auch die von Kickl verwendeten Daten zeigen das. In Österreich liegen zu einem sehr großen Teil Ungeimpfte auf Intensivstationen. Wie groß der Anteil Geimpfter an Testungen ist, kann derzeit nicht genau gesagt werden. Allerdings machen freiwillige Testungen in Teststraßen nur einen kleinen Teil der erfassten Fälle aus. Krankenhäuser erfassen Covid-Intensivpatienten unterschiedlich. Tatsächlich können auch zum Beispiel Unfallpatienten in die Covid-Statistik einfließen, dies ist laut kontaktierten Spitälern allerdings nur selten der Fall.

maharat-newsHealth & medicine

هل يعالج دواء "إيفرمكتين" كوفيد-19 في 3 ايام؟

Publisher’s rating: غير صحيح

The review addresses claims circulated on Twitter that ivermectin treats COVID-19 in three days and had been officially adopted in U.S. hospitals. It identifies ivermectin as an antiparasitic medicine approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for certain parasitic diseases, while distinguishing that existing use from treatment of COVID-19. The excerpt does not describe a trial establishing a three-day cure: it instead assesses the evidence available for ivermectin against COVID-19. (S1: “انتشرت عبر موقع \"تويتر\"عدّة تغريدات مفادها أنّ دواء إيفرمكتين \"ivermectin\" يعالج المصابين بكوفيد-19 خلال ثلاث أيّام، وأنّه تمّ اعتماده رسميّا في مستشفيات الولايات المتّحدة الأميركية.”; “Ivermectin هو دواء مضاد للطفيليات معتمد من إدارة الغذاء والدواء (FDA) ويستخدم لعلاج العديد من الأمراض \"المداريّة المهملة\"، التي تتضمن الديدان الطفيليّة والجرب وغيرهما من الأمراض.”) For its account of the U.S. hospital case, the review says an Ohio judge, Gregory Howard, ordered West Chester Hospital to administer ivermectin to COVID-19 patient Jeff Smith after Smith’s wife sued to compel treatment. It then reports that Judge Michael Oster overturned that order, citing insufficient data from recent studies, and that the university operating the hospital welcomed the decision. This episode concerns a court order in one patient’s case; the excerpt does not present it as evidence of general hospital adoption or proof of a three-day treatment. (S1: “قاض في ولاية أوهايو الأميركيّة يدعى جريجوري هوارد أمر مستشفى \"ويست تشستر\"بإعطاء عقار \"ivermectin\"إلى جيف سميث وهو مصاب كوفيد-19، في حين رفعت زوجة سميث دعوى لإجبار المستشفى بالبدء بإعطاء الدواء.”; “وقام بعدها القاضي مايكل أوستر بنقض أمر هوارد مستندا إلى عدم وجود بيانات كافية في الدراسات الحديثة تظهر فعّالية إيفرمكتين كعلاج لمصابي كوفيد-19.”) The review cites a World Health Organization recommendation to restrict ivermectin’s use to clinical trials. It says a guideline panel assessed data from 16 clinical trials involving about 2,407 COVID-19 patients and judged the evidence suggesting reductions in death, need for mechanical ventilation, or time to improvement to be of very low certainty. It also reports the FDA’s position that clinical trials had not shown effectiveness against COVID-19, and warns that large doses pose substantial danger. These findings address the treatment claim but, as presented in the excerpt, do not establish a specific three-day outcome. (S1: “وأوصت منظّمة الصحّة العالميّة بحصر استخدام هذا الدواء في إطار التجارب السريرية فقط نظرا لضآلة البيانات حول فعاليّته ضد كوفيد-19.”; “واستعرض فريق مشكّل لإعداد إرشادات بهذا الشأن بيانات جمعت من 16 تجربة سريرية (حوالي 2407 حالة من المصابين بكوفيد-19)، وخلص الفريق إلى أنّ البيانات التي تشير إلى أنّ إيفرمكتين يقلّل من احتمالات الوفاة والحاجة للتنفّس الاصطناعي ويقلّل من الوقت الذي يستغرقه المرضى للتحسّن هي بيانات مستوى اليقين فيها منخفض جدا.”; “وقد صرّحت إدارة الغذاء والدواء الأميركيّة أنّ التجارب السريريّة تظهر حتّى الأن عدم فعّاليّة هذا الدواء بمواجهة كوفيد-19.”)

dpaHealth & medicine

Hydroxychloroquine werd al in 1955 door de FDA goedgekeurd als veilig en effectief, om dan in 2020 als omstreden en levensgevaarlijk bestempeld te worden. Daarnaast is er een wet die verbiedt om een vaccin te produceren zolang er een werkend medicijn is.

Publisher’s rating: Er is geen wettelijk mechanisme dat in de weg staat dat een vaccin wordt geproduceerd indien er een ander geneesmiddel beschikbaar is. De niet nader genoemde wet waarnaar verwezen wordt lijkt niet te bestaan. Wat betreft hydroxychloroquine mist het bericht context. Het werd inderdaad in 1955 goedgekeurd door de FDA voor de behandeling van onder andere malaria. Dat wil niet automatisch zeggen dat het ook voor een volledig andere ziekte als COVID-19 ook werkzaam is.

The review examines a Facebook post claiming that the FDA approved hydroxychloroquine in 1955, later called it “controversial” and “life-threatening” in 2020, and that a law prohibits producing a vaccine while an effective medicine is available. It distinguishes the drug’s original approval from whether it treats COVID-19: the review says hydroxychloroquine was approved in 1955 for malaria, lupus and arthritis, but that approval for those conditions does not establish effectiveness against a different disease. The review’s account of the COVID-19 timeline is that the FDA authorized emergency use for hospitalized patients in March 2020, then withdrew that authorization in June because evidence did not show the drug was safe and effective for treating or preventing COVID-19. It reports that the FDA and WHO maintained that position at the time of the review. This addresses the post’s portrayal of a later change in view: the review describes a specific emergency authorization and its withdrawal for COVID-19, not the cancellation of hydroxychloroquine’s earlier approvals for other conditions. On the alleged law, the review says the post does not identify a statute and reports that legal and health-science expert Katrina Perehudoff, of the University of Amsterdam, said the right to develop and produce one medicine is generally separate from whether another is available. It describes safety, quality and ethical requirements, as well as possible constraints such as repeating clinical trials or patent rights, but says these do not constitute the claimed general prohibition. The review also notes that the European Commission had identified five promising COVID-19 treatments in June 2021 as possible additions to the EU’s vaccination strategy.