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

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

PCR-Tests sind nicht zur Diagnostik von Covid-19 geeignet, das sieht auch die WHO so. Das österreichische Gesundheitsministerium verwendet «ganz andere» Covid-19-Falldefinitionen als die WHO.

Publisher’s rating: Die Entscheidung des Gerichts enthält bereits widerlegte Falschbehauptungen und unbelegte oder irreführende Informationen. PCR-Tests sind zur Diagnostik von Covid-19 geeignet – das sieht auch die WHO so. Die Falldefinition eines bestätigten Covid-19-Falls des österreichischen Gesundheitsministeriums ist prinzipiell im Einklang mit den Richtlinien der WHO. Laut einem Verwaltungsjuristen ist die Entscheidung des Gerichts methodisch mangelhaft.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Eine Frau in Berlin wurde gleich nach Weihnachten mit Astrazeneca gegen Corona geimpft und liegt nun im Sterben.

Publisher’s rating: Der Impfstoff von Astrazeneca ist innerhalb der Europäischen Union erst am 29.1.2021 zugelassen worden - also lange nach Weihnachten. In Deutschland verfügbar ist das Präparat erst seit Anfang Februar.

The post alleged that a woman in Berlin had been hospitalized for months after receiving AstraZeneca “very early”—“after Christmas”—and was now dying. The fact-check’s central question was whether such an early vaccination in Berlin was possible. Its timeline rules that out: the EU’s conditional authorization for AstraZeneca came on 29 January 2021, and Berlin’s first delivery arrived on 6 February. A vaccination in Berlin immediately after Christmas could therefore not have happened as described. The review supports those dates by referring to the EU authorization and reporting from the city on Berlin’s first delivery. It does not provide evidence identifying the woman, independently establish her medical condition, or show what happened to her. Its conclusion is specifically about the implausibility of the post’s claimed vaccination timing—not a finding about the woman’s identity or whether she was ill. The article also gives context about AstraZeneca’s use and reported blood-clot cases in Germany. It says the Stiko had most recently recommended the vaccine only for people aged 60 and older, while the EMA recommended its use without restriction. Those details concern the wider vaccine debate; they do not establish anything about the particular woman in the post.

dpaHealth & medicine

Il n'y a pas eu de confinement pour la grippe H1N1 et il y a eu plus de cas que pour le coronavirus.

Publisher’s rating: La publication comporte des éléments inexacts (nombre de cas de la grippe H1N1). La publication est également trompeuse car elle ne reprend pas les chiffres relatifs aux décès provoqués par les virus cités. Le coronavirus est plus mortel que la grippe H1N1. À la date du 8 avril 2021, l’OMS rapporte 2.875.672 décès attribués au COVID-19. En 2009, l’épidémie de grippe A (H1N1) a provoqué « entre 100.000 et 400.000 décès », à travers le monde.

The post examined by dpa used a shared image to compare 124,305,890 coronavirus cases with a purported 700 million to 1.9 billion H1N1 cases. Its author also argued that H1N1 had involved no lockdown or mask requirement. The review identifies the figures and the lockdown question as claims made in that same Facebook post. (S1: “Une photo partagée sur les réseaux sociaux compare le nombre de cas de coronavirus (« 124.305.890 » cas) et celui des cas de grippe H1N1 (« Entre 700 millions et 1,9 milliards » de « cas confirmés »).” and “Elle s’interroge ensuite sur le confinement, qui était inexistant au moment de l’épidémie de grippe H1N1.”) The review says that the post’s coronavirus case figure was broadly accurate, but that the H1N1 total was not established by official institutions: the review traces it to Wikipedia, which used different wording in French and English, and says the linked references did not contain the cited figures. For comparison, it reports that WHO counted 132,485,386 confirmed coronavirus cases worldwide as of 8 April 2021. (S1: “Concernant le coronavirus, les chiffres cités sont plus ou moins corrects. En date du 8 avril 2021, l’OMS comptabilise 132.485.386 cas confirmés de coronavirus à travers le monde.” and “Mais, jamais, les chiffres ne sont cités par des instances officielles et les liens auxquels l'article Wikipédia fait référence ne comportent pas ces données.”) The review also says the comparison leaves out deaths. It reports WHO estimates of 100,000–400,000 H1N1 deaths worldwide in the first year, and CDC estimates of 151,700–575,400 deaths over that period. It contrasts those estimates with 2,875,672 COVID-19 deaths reported by WHO as of 8 April 2021. The review’s explanation for the different public-health measures is that they were taken in a different context, including a higher fatality rate. (S1: “En 2009, l’épidémie de grippe H1N1 a provoqué entre « 151.700 et 575.400 » décès à travers le monde « durant la première année de circulation du virus », selon les estimations du CDC.” and “Les mesures concernant le port du masque et le confinement en 2020 et 2021 ont donc été prises dans un autre contexte (taux de létalité plus important).”)

dpaHealth & medicine

Dans les pays qui ont massivement vacciné, les contaminations explosent.

Publisher’s rating: C’est faux. Dans quatre des cinq pays qui comptent actuellement le plus de personnes vaccinées, par rapport à leur population, les infections dues au Covid-19 sont en forte baisse. Il n'y a qu'au Chili qu’elles augmentent. Vu que les vaccins ne confèrent une protection qu'après un certain nombre de jours, la diminution du nombre d'infections n’est pas mesurable immédiatement après le début d'un programme de vaccination.

The post claims that infections surge in countries that have vaccinated extensively, implying vaccination coincides with worsening outbreaks. The review tests that broad assertion against the five countries it identifies as having the highest proportions of people who had received at least one vaccine dose: Israel, the United Kingdom, Chile, the United States and Bahrain. It reports falling infections in four of the five, with Chile the exception. This comparison does not establish that vaccination alone caused the changes, but it contradicts the post’s blanket description of the countries examined. The review describes the timing and outbreak conditions behind the trends. In Israel, infections had risen sharply in January, when the country was already in a new pandemic wave; the review says cases then declined from the end of January. It notes that vaccination began in late December 2020 for older and vulnerable people, and that the Pfizer vaccine used for most Israelis takes 12 days to work. It also cites the spread of the more contagious British variant during the outbreak. The review says the United Kingdom and United States likewise experienced January peaks before infections fell as vaccination increased. Chile is a documented qualification, not evidence that all highly vaccinated countries saw rising cases. The review says infections there continued to grow in the weeks examined, despite 37% of the population having received at least one dose. It lists the recent end of summer holidays, new variants and the first-dose effectiveness of Coronavac, the country’s most-used vaccine, among the possible explanations. Thus the evidence supports a narrower account: outcomes differed by country and timing, and the post’s sweeping claim leaves out the declines in the other countries in the review’s comparison.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Fotos belegen, dass Uschi Glas ihre Corona-Impfung nur vorgetäuscht hat.

Publisher’s rating: Die Fotos sind kein Beleg dafür, dass Glas nicht geimpft wurde. Tatsächlich wurden die Bilder zu einem früheren Zeitpunkt für die Werbekampagne produziert - sie dokumentieren nicht die Impfung. Diese fand später in einem bayerischen Impfzentrum statt.

The claim focused on two images from a video promoting Germany’s “Deutschland krempelt die Ärmel hoch” vaccination campaign. Posts used an apparent mismatch—the injection scene shows Glas receiving an injection in her right upper arm, while a separate image shows a plaster on her left—as evidence that she had not really been vaccinated. The review identifies the images as campaign material, rather than documentation of an actual vaccination. The German Federal Ministry of Health told the agency that the photos did not show the actual vaccination. They were taken for the campaign many weeks before vaccinations officially began, and the different placement of the plaster could result from arranging campaign images to convey the campaign’s messages and symbols. Thus, the arm mismatch does not establish that the vaccination was faked. The ministry’s spokesperson also said Glas was vaccinated with BioNTech at a vaccination center in Bavaria at the end of March. The images therefore show a staged campaign scene, not the later vaccination event; the review reports no evidence in these images that she had not been vaccinated.

dpaHealth & medicine

Dolores Cahill is beter gekwalificeerd dan Hugo de Jonge om over vaccins te oordelen.

Publisher’s rating: Beide uitspraken zijn gegrond, omdat beide figuren het recht hebben om hun mening te geven. Toch mist de vergelijking van de uitspraken alle context. De controversiële achtergrond van Prof. Dr. Cahill, die in het verleden al onderwerp was van factchecks, wordt niet meegegeven. Desondanks is ook de vergelijking van demissionair minister De Jonge kort door de bocht.

The review examines an Instagram image comparing Dolores Cahill’s academic qualifications with Hugo de Jonge’s teacher training, alongside their statements about COVID-19 vaccines. The image attributes to Cahill a degree in molecular biology and a doctorate in immunology, and presents her as rejecting the vaccine; it contrasts this with de Jonge’s comparison of the vaccine to a frikandel. The review says the image provides no source for the quoted statement attributed to Cahill, while noting that de Jonge’s interview with YouTuber Robbrecht Rodenburg is readily identifiable. To assess the comparison, the review places Cahill’s vaccine claims against her record of other public claims. It reports that she had said there was no pandemic and compared COVID-19’s death rate with an ordinary flu epidemic, and that those claims had previously been fact-checked. The review also says she was a prominent member of the World Doctors Alliance, which had shared COVID-19 misinformation, and that University College Dublin had distanced itself from her statements. It argues that the qualifications listed in the image omit this relevant context when readers assess her assertions. The review does not conclude that de Jonge’s analogy is a complete or equivalent account of vaccine risks. It notes that debate about the health risks of mRNA vaccines is more intense than debate about fried snacks, and says de Jonge’s point was that the vaccine’s ingredients could be consulted. Its central criticism is that two selected interview quotes do not provide a nuanced account of vaccine benefits and harms, and that the comparison presents the speakers and their statements without adequate context.