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

APA - Austrian Presse AgenturHealth & medicine

Die Anti-Baby-Pille erhöht das Risiko auf eine Thrombose und ist daher mit der derzeitigen Situation um ein eventuelles Thrombose-Risiko durch die Corona-Impfung vergleichbar.

Publisher’s rating: Hormonelle Verhütungsmittel führen bei Frauen zu einem erhöhten Risiko für venöse Thromboembolie. Obwohl auch ein geringes Risiko für eine Sinusvenenthrombose besteht, die derzeit im Zusammenhang mit AstraZeneca diskutiert wird, halten die kontaktierten Experten einen Vergleich für nicht zulässig.

FACTLYHealth & medicine

List of precautions issued by ICMR in view of COVID-19

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The review examined a social-media post that attributed a list of COVID-19 precautions to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), amid rising cases in some states. It reports that searches of ICMR’s official website and social-media accounts found no such list or related instructions. The review also says that when the same list circulated in 2020, ICMR denied issuing it; the article does not provide the wording of that earlier denial.

FACTLYHealth & medicine

Dr. Rajendra Badwe, Tata memorial hospital stated that hot coconut water kills cancer cells

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The review investigates a social-media post attributing to Dr. Rajendra Badwe, identified as Tata Memorial Hospital’s director, the statement that hot coconut water kills cancer cells. It reports that the hospital issued a clarification denying that the viral message came from Badwe and saying there was no scientific data that hot coconut water could cure any type of cancer. To check the attribution and the medical assertion, the review says it searched relevant keywords and consulted reporting by The Times of India and The Hindu. It also describes an alleged hospital press release shared on Facebook, but says it could not independently verify that document. The review adds that it found no credible information in reputed medical journals supporting a cancer cure from hot coconut water. Its conclusion addresses both parts of the post: the hospital and doctor did not make the attributed statement, and the claimed cure is unsupported by the evidence it found.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

THW-Mitarbeiter starb nach einer Astrazeneca-Impfung.

Publisher’s rating: Der Mitarbeiter erlitt einen Herzinfarkt und wurde nicht mit Astrazeneca geimpft, wie das THW mitteilte.

The claim concerned a THW volunteer in the Aue-Schwarzenberg area of the Erzgebirge who was said online to have died from a blood clot after receiving an AstraZeneca vaccine. The review identifies the person as a 43-year-old volunteer and reports that he died during the night of February 24–25, 2021. It also notes that a separate detail circulating with the claim—that he was the local branch’s official representative—was false. The review’s account relies on statements from the THW Aue-Schwarzenberg branch and reporting by the regional newspaper Freie Presse. The THW branch publicly rejected the circulating allegations; a branch spokesperson told the newspaper that no helpers in Aue-Schwarzenberg had received AstraZeneca. The review reports that Freie Presse described the cause of death as a heart attack. Together, these details address both the alleged vaccination and the asserted cause of death, rather than merely discussing vaccine risks in general.

FACTLYHealth & medicine

The list of countries that imposed new lockdown restrictions to contain the second wave of COVID-19 virus

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The post’s list named eight countries and presented their restrictions as new lockdowns imposed in response to a second wave. FACTLY reports that it traced the same message to social-media posts circulating at least since December 2020, then compared the listed countries’ measures using the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker and its Stringency Index. Its overall finding was that the countries’ measures varied; the claim that all had imposed lockdowns again was misleading. The examples in the review show why the list did not establish a uniform new-lockdown response. Saudi Arabia lifted most COVID-related restrictions on 7 March 2021, though it had earlier banned travellers from 20 countries. Tanzania’s president advised mask-wearing and distancing but, according to the review, reiterated that the country would not impose another lockdown. Brazil’s reported two-week lockdown applied to Brasília, not the whole country. Spain had lifted most restrictions from 15 March, while a night curfew remained. The review also reports that the UK was under strict measures but had begun a phased roadmap to lift them on 8 March. The other entries likewise describe differing policies rather than a single shared action: France had a curfew and localized weekend restrictions; Germany extended restrictions to 28 March while easing some measures in low-infection areas; and Italy imposed a regional lockdown from 15 March alongside a nationwide curfew. These details indicate that some places did have restrictions, but their scope, timing and form differed. The original post’s broad framing obscured those distinctions and presented an old circulating message as a new list.

dpaHealth & medicine

Het coronavaccin van AstraZeneca leek enkel veilig in de klinische proeven omdat de controlegroep een meningokokkenvaccin kreeg, dat notoir is voor bijwerkingen.

Publisher’s rating: De beweringen zijn deels fout en missen context. De controlegroep bij het AstraZenecavaccin kreeg inderdaad een meningokokkenvaccin toegediend, maar dat is niet opmerkelijk of gevaarlijk. Het meningokokkenvaccin is ook niet speciaal gekend voor zijn bijwerkingen.

The review confirms that the trial’s control group did receive a meningococcal vaccine in some cases, but says this was not evidence that AstraZeneca’s vaccine only appeared safe. It reports that trial participants in the control group received either a meningococcal vaccine or a saline solution, and points to page 7 of the vaccine’s product information for that detail. The review does not describe a comparison showing that the control vaccine concealed safety problems with AstraZeneca’s vaccine. [S1] The review explains that using another vaccine instead of a true placebo is not unusual in vaccine trials. It quotes vaccinologist Corinne Vandermeulen of KU Leuven, who said this can help prevent participants from guessing their group based on differences in local side effects, while also giving control-group participants some protection. The review gives meningococcal vaccine as an example and notes that hepatitis A vaccine had also been used in this role. [S1] On the allegation that the control vaccine is “notorious” for side effects, the review points to the Belgian Superior Health Council’s advice listing common effects such as injection-site pain, swelling, redness, fever and headache. It characterizes these as conventional, commonly occurring effects, and quotes Vandermeulen saying the quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine does not have particularly many side effects and is comparable to commonly used adult vaccines such as HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. [S1] The review therefore distinguishes two points: the control group did receive a meningococcal vaccine, but the review’s cited trial information and expert explanation do not support the claim that this made the AstraZeneca vaccine appear safe or that the control vaccine was unusually prone to side effects. It also says that the control-group choice could not be used to establish that AstraZeneca’s vaccine was unsafe amid concern about possible thrombosis; the European Medicines Agency was then investigating that concern. [S1]

dpaHealth & medicine

L’Etat de Saxe en Allemagne décide d’arrêter le vaccin Pfizer en plus de l’AstraZeneca

Publisher’s rating: La pénurie de doses vaccinales des laboratoires Pfizer-Biontech explique le fait que les premières vaccinations aient été suspendues, en Saxe. Il ne s’agit pas d’une « décision » du Land de la République fédérale d'Allemagne.

The post claimed that Saxony had decided to stop Pfizer vaccinations as well as AstraZeneca vaccinations. The review says the circumstances were different: Saxony’s initial Pfizer vaccinations had been suspended because doses were unavailable, not because the state government had made a decision to halt the vaccine or raised public-health concerns. It attributes its account of the shortage to a report by local public broadcaster Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (MDR).

APA - Austrian Presse AgenturHealth & medicine

Die nach der Impfung von AstraZeneca beobachteten Fälle von Thrombosen sind in ihrer Anzahl derartig hoch, dass sie deutlich über der Inzidenz in der Durchschnittsbevölkerung liegen.

Publisher’s rating: Dies wird derzeit von der Wissenschaft und öffentlichen Stellen überprüft. Die Inzidenz von Sinusthrombosen wird teilweise mit drei bis fünf Fällen pro Millionen Einwohner im Jahr angegeben. Dieser Wert ist allerdings umstritten, Studien weisen darauf hin, dass er deutlich höher sein könnte. Mit einer Covid-Erkrankung geht ein deutlich erhöhtes Thrombose-Risiko einher, vor allem bei schweren Verläufen.

Pagella PoliticaHealth & medicine

«[In South Dakota] nessuna restrizione, nessuna mascherina, solo informazione e responsabilizzazione. Numeri uguali a North Dakota con mascherine e restrizioni»

Publisher’s rating: Pinocchio andante

The claim under review is Claudio Borghi’s comparison of South Dakota, which he described as having no restrictions or mask requirement, with North Dakota, which he said had restrictions and masks, while the two states had similar pandemic numbers. Pagella Politica says that, looking at cumulative figures, the states had nearly identical case and death numbers relative to population. It also cautions that North Dakota performed many more tests, so the states’ recorded outcomes cannot be compared without qualification: more testing can identify more infections, and South Dakota’s higher test-positivity rate suggested it was not testing enough to keep pace with the outbreak. The review distinguishes the policies in place during the November surge from the broader comparison. It reports that North Dakota introduced a mask requirement in November, while South Dakota recommended masks. Cases began falling in both states and fell faster in North Dakota; the review says the mask requirement may have contributed, without presenting it as the sole explanation. It also rejects the claim that North Dakota had restrictions while South Dakota had none: both were among the states with the fewest restrictions, though their policies differed during some short periods and in some local areas. The review’s conclusion is that similar headline totals do not establish that a response without restrictions performed as well as one with restrictions. It says the comparison leaves out differences in testing and local mask measures in South Dakota, and that the state-level policy contrast was less stark than Borghi’s wording suggested. It therefore treats the figures as only partly supportive of his claims and rejects the inference drawn from them.