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.

13,674 published reviews in this topic

dpaHealth & medicine

Schnelltests sind zu 80 Prozent Falschtests.

Publisher’s rating: Die Behauptung, Corona-Schnelltests seien «zu 80 Prozent Falschtests», ist falsch. Tatsächlich sind die Tests deutlich zuverlässiger und aussagekräftiger.

The claim appeared in Facebook posts in Luxembourg and asserted that rapid tests were “80 percent false tests.” The review describes one post as concerning rapid tests for detecting Covid-19 infections among visitors to care homes in Luxembourg. It says the post did not provide evidence for the 80 percent figure. The review also notes that similar claims had often relied on misunderstood or misrepresented figures attributed to Germany’s Robert Koch Institute (RKI).

dpaHealth & medicine

Een rusthuis in Lier heeft de cafetaria weer geopend, maar enkel voor de gevaccineerde bewoners. Bewoners moeten ook een badge dragen waarop hun vaccinatiestatus staat.

Publisher’s rating: De beweringen zijn deels fout. Een van de drie Lierse woonzorgcentra heeft inderdaad de cafetaria met terras opnieuw geopend voor de gevaccineerde bewoners, in overeenstemming met richtlijnen van de Vlaamse overheid. In de praktijk is dat quasi iedereen: slechts 1 bewoner weigerde vaccinatie. Bezoek is voorlopig nog niet welkom in de cafetaria, daarom moeten mensen hun bewonersbadge tonen om toegang te krijgen. Die badge heeft dus niets te maken met hun vaccinatiestatus.

dpaHealth & medicine

Stop World Control promoot chloordioxide als wondermiddel tegen COVID-19

Publisher’s rating: Er klopt werkelijk niets van dat bericht. Er is geen enkel klinisch bewijs dat chloordioxide enige bescherming zou bieden tegen het coronavirus. Gezondheidsautoriteiten waarschuwen zelfs voor het middel. Bovendien staat de pagina die het bericht verspreid - Stop World Control - bekend om het verspreiden van complottistische en desinformatieve berichten.

The review examined a social-media article from Stop World Control, accompanied by a video, that promoted chlorine dioxide as a supposed COVID-19 cure. It reports that the article credited bio-physicist Andreas Kalcker with reducing COVID-19 deaths to almost zero in several countries and alleged that a “New World Order” was concealing the substance. The review also identifies claims about deaths in Bolivia and infections in Guayaquil as part of the material it checked. The review says there was no clinical evidence that chlorine dioxide protected against the coronavirus and notes that health authorities warned against using it. It further reports that the article and video relied on arbitrary figures and statistics that did not match reality. As one specific check, it says Worldometers had not recorded exactly 100 COVID-19 deaths per day in Bolivia, and that the country’s reporting limitations made such a daily count impossible to establish. The review gives an average of 14 deaths per day on April 11, rather than 100. It also says the video’s recording date was unclear, while its publication timing did not fit the cited daily-death figures. The review rejects the claim that “literally every family” in Guayaquil was infected, but the excerpt provides no detailed figures or method for that check. It describes Kalcker’s proposed remedy as a theory that had been repeatedly debunked and says independent fact-checkers had previously examined the video. These findings address the specific Stop World Control article and video, rather than chlorine dioxide claims in general.

Pagella PoliticaHealth & medicine

«Oggi una variante inglese è 40 volte più contagiosa di prima» (min. 11:16)

Publisher’s rating: Panzana pazzesca

The claim concerns Nicola Zingaretti’s statement on Rai 3 that the so-called English coronavirus variant was 40 times more contagious than variants previously circulating. The review says he made the remark during an appearance on *Mezz’ora in più* on April 11, while discussing the epidemic in Italy. It distinguishes a 40-fold increase from a 40 percent increase: the former would mean transmissibility was 3,900 percent higher. To assess the figure, the review compares estimates from different evidence it describes: estimates published in mid-February, Italian variant data published by the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS) in late March, and a study in *Science* by Nicholas Davies and colleagues. It reports that the February estimates put increased transmissibility at 30–75 percent; the ISS estimate was about 37 percent; and the study using English data estimated 40–93 percent, with a wider range of 38–130 percent. These figures indicate an increase, but not a 40-fold one. The review’s conclusion is that the estimates it discusses put the English variant’s increased transmissibility between 35 and 90 percent, or at most about double—not 40 times. It notes that Zingaretti may have meant 40 percent, but says that would still be an estimate based on the Italian context. The review therefore rejects the stated magnitude, while acknowledging that estimates vary by method and data source.

Pagella PoliticaHealth & medicine

«[Con il governo Conte II n.d.r.] l’Italia è stata prima in Europa per numero di vaccinazioni effettuate»

Publisher’s rating: Nì

Pagella Politica checked a statement by Stefano Buffagni, an M5S deputy and former deputy minister, that Italy had been first in Europe for the number of vaccinations administered under the Conte II government. The review treated “Europe” as the European Union, excluding the United Kingdom, and examined vaccination data from 31 December 2020 through 13 February 2021, when Conte II left office. It distinguished raw totals from doses administered relative to population, since EU vaccine allocations were based on population and Italy was among the Union’s most populous countries. [S1: “consideriamo l’«Europa» citata da Buffagni nel senso di ‘Unione europea’ e non conteggiamo, tra gli altri, il Regno Unito”] [S1: “Vediamo allora che cosa dicono i dati sulle vaccinazioni relativi al periodo che va dal 31 dicembre 2020 al 13 febbraio 2021, cioè fino a quando è rimasto in carica il governo Conte II.”] On raw totals, Italy led for six of the 45 days reviewed: 11–12 January and 14–17 January. It was second for most of the other days, behind Germany, and third on 31 December, behind Poland as well. The review cautioned that these totals are a poor measure of comparative performance because larger populations meant larger vaccine allocations. [S1: “Nei 45 giorni di vaccinazioni durante il governo Conte II, l’Italia è stata prima per sei giorni, l’11 e il 12 gennaio e tra il 14 e il 17 dello stesso mese.”] [S1: “Per il resto del tempo è sempre stata seconda, alle spalle della Germania (con l’eccezione del 31 dicembre, quando era terza dietro anche alla Polonia).”] [S1: “L’Italia è infatti il terzo Paese più popoloso della Ue, i vaccini vengono distribuiti agli Stati membri in base alla loro popolazione”] By the review’s more informative per-capita measure, Italy was never first among all EU countries. It reached fourth place on six days, behind Denmark, Slovenia, and Malta; in February through 13 February it ranked no higher than eighth. The review noted a narrower qualification: Italy led among the four largest EU countries only through 20 January, before Spain overtook it. Thus, the unqualified claim that Italy was first in Europe overstates what the data show: it describes a brief lead in absolute doses, not a sustained or per-capita lead across the EU. [S1: “In questa classifica l’Italia non è mai stata prima.”] [S1: “A febbraio, fino al 13 incluso, l’Italia è poi stata al massimo in ottava posizione”] [S1: “Risulterebbe prima se guardassimo solo ai grandi Paesi Ue e solo fino al 20 gennaio (poi ci supera la Spagna)”]

BBC Reality CheckHealth & medicine

Lateral flow tests contain ethylene oxide and are a cancer risk

Publisher’s rating: False - the tests are not harmful. The Department of Health and Social Care told us that while the chemical is used in gaseous form to sterilise test swabs, the amounts used are well within safety limits and are "rigorously tested and are safe to use on a regular basis".