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

2021 sind in der EU im Zusammenhang mit Impfungen fast 19 000 Menschen gestorben.

Publisher’s rating: Die Europäischen Arzneimittelagentur (EMA) verzeichnete 2021 zwar mehrere Todesfälle, die nach einer Corona-Impfung aufgetreten sind. Dabei handelt es sich jedoch um Verdachtsmeldungen. Dass die Impfung die Todesursache war, ist nicht belegt. Gesundheitsbehörden zufolge ist der Nutzen der Impfung höher als deren Risiko.

The claim concerns deaths allegedly linked to vaccinations in the EU in 2021 and attributes a figure of nearly 19,000 to EMA data. The original review reports that the EMA’s spokesperson told dpa the agency did not know that figure, and says the claimed total could not be substantiated. The review describes the relevant EMA system, EudraVigilance, as collecting reports of symptoms occurring in temporal connection with vaccination—not as a count of deaths proven to have been caused by vaccines. The review explains that these reports are suspected adverse events. It cites the EMA’s guidance that a report does not confirm that a medicine caused an effect, and notes that such reports alone do not establish the cause of symptoms or a medicine’s safety. The review also reports the EMA spokesperson’s caution that a medical problem or death after vaccination does not necessarily mean the vaccine caused it. Thus, the existence of reports following vaccination does not establish the claim that nearly 19,000 people died because of vaccination. A further limitation is that EudraVigilance can list multiple suspected reactions for one person, including when that person died. The EMA told dpa that the sum of fatal cases can therefore exceed the number of individual fatal cases, so the database cannot by itself establish the actual number of deaths. The review distinguishes this 2021 claim from the tweet’s separate historical comparison: its account of the 1976 US swine-flu campaign says 41 deaths were reported in temporal connection with vaccination at the time, while responsibility had not yet been established.

dpaHealth & medicine

Raad van Europa heeft bepaald dat dwingen en verplichten van vaccinatie niet mag.

Publisher’s rating: Het bericht mist context. De Raad van Europa is een adviserende organisatie die buiten de Europese Unie staat. Het heeft geen bevoegdheid om regels op te leggen aan de Europese Unie, de lidstaten of andere landen in Europa. Op basis van deze resolutie stellen dat 'dwingen en verplichten niet kan en mag,' klopt dus niet. Een resolutie van de Raad van Europa is niet bindend, maar geeft alleen het standpunt van de organisatie aan.

The reviewed Facebook post used an image of a Council of Europe resolution to claim that vaccination was not mandatory, people who refused it could not be discriminated against, and vaccination certificates could not be used as passports or entry passes. The post’s author concluded that vaccination therefore could not be compelled or required. The review finds that this conclusion overstates what the resolution establishes: it records the Council of Europe’s position, but is not a binding rule for European states or the EU. 【S1: “In een bericht op Facebook wordt een afbeelding gedeeld met een resolutie van de Raad van Europa. Deze organisatie zou hebben bepaald dat vaccinatie niet verplicht is, weigeraars niet gediscrimineerd mogen worden en vaccinatiecertificaten niet als paspoort of toegangsbewijs mogen worden gebruikt. ‘Bij deze, dwingen en verplichten kan en mag dus niet!’ schrijft de persoon die de afbeelding deelt erbij.”】【S1: “Een resolutie van de Raad van Europa is niet bindend, maar geeft alleen het standpunt van de organisatie aan.”】 The document at issue was Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 2361 (2021), adopted on 27 January 2021. The review distinguishes the Council of Europe from EU institutions with similar names and explains that the Parliamentary Assembly is one of the Council of Europe’s two branches. It describes an Assembly resolution as an expression of the Assembly’s own position, not a law, treaty or other binding agreement. 【S1: “De tekst die in het Facebookbericht wordt genoemd is resolutie 2361 (2021), van 27 januari 2021.”】【S1: “Een resolutie van de Parlementaire Vergadering is een tekst waarin de Vergadering het eigen standpunt duidelijk maakt. Dit is dus geen wet, verdrag of een andere bindende overeenkomst.”】 The review says the resolution did contain recommendations about vaccination and certificates, but not in the simplified form presented in the image. It quotes the resolution’s advice that people should be informed vaccination is not compulsory and should not face pressure to be vaccinated, and that people should not be discriminated against for declining or being unable to receive a vaccine. On certificates, it notes that the text called for using them to monitor vaccine effectiveness and possible side effects; it did not literally state that they could never be used as proof of access. The review concludes that governments and the EU decide how to respond to the Assembly’s advice, and that the resolution itself does not prohibit compulsory vaccination or access requirements. 【S1: “Een passage uit de resolutie (punt 7.3.1) leest: ‘Met betrekking tot en respect voor het waarborgen van een hoge vaccinatiegraad, moet worden verzekerd dat burgers worden geïnformeerd dat het vaccin niet verplicht is, en dat niemand onder politieke,sociale of andere druk staat om te worden gevaccineerd als ze dat niet willen.’”】【S1: “Wat betreft de vaccinatiecertificaten noemt de letterlijke tekst niet dat deze niet als toegangsbewijs mogen worden gebruikt, maar staat er letterlijk (punt 7.5.2): ‘Gebruik met het oog op het monitoren van lange termijneffecten van COVID-19-vaccins en hun veiligheid vaccinatiecertificaten alleen voor hun beoogde doel van het monitoren van vaccinwerkzaamheid en mogelijke bijwerkingen.’”】【S1: “Lidstaten en de Europese Unie bepalen zelf hoe zij omgaan met adviezen en meningen van de Raad van Europa.”】

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaHealth & medicine

FACT CHECK: සොබෙරානා 2 එන්නත පිළිබඳව වෛද්‍ය නලින්ද ජයතිස්ස මහතාගේ ප්‍රකාශ පෙළක්?

Publisher’s rating: False

The review investigated two social-media claims linking Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa to Cuba’s Soberana 2 COVID-19 vaccine. One said that the Red Star group, associated with the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), was arranging vaccination for people under 30 and inviting them to register. Another attributed to Jayatissa an allegation that the government’s purchase of Chinese Sinopharm doses at Rs. 3,000, rather than obtaining Soberana doses from Cuba at Rs. 135, involved financial fraud. To assess the claims, the review examined information about Soberana 2 and checked mainstream news for reports that Jayatissa had made the alleged statements. It reported finding no such news coverage, and said the vaccine had no approval in Sri Lanka. The review also checked the phone number in the first post: it said the number did belong to Jayatissa, but that this did not authenticate the posts. When asked, he said his number was being misused and that the circulating statements about Red Star and Soberana 2 were entirely false. The review’s conclusion was that the posts were fabricated and misused Jayatissa’s name and phone number. Its account distinguishes the real connection—the phone number—from the unsubstantiated claims attributed to him; it does not present the posts as genuine statements by Jayatissa.