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

Le passeport vaccinal est prévu, dans l'Union européenne, depuis 2018.

Publisher’s rating: L’Union n’envisage pas de créer un « passeport vaccinal » que devraient obligatoirement brandir les voyageurs européens lors du passage de frontières. Elle étudie depuis 2018, bien avant le déclenchement de la crise du coronavirus, la faisabilité de développer une « carte/passeport commune de vaccination» qui permettrait, notamment, aux citoyens se déplaçant de poursuivre à l’étranger leur programme de vaccination contre certaines « maladies évitables », telles que la rougeole.

The claim links the EU’s COVID-era travel document to a plan supposedly set in motion in 2018. The review traces that date to EU work on cooperation against vaccine-preventable diseases, but distinguishes that work from a requirement for travellers to show a vaccination passport at borders. It says the 2018 proposal concerned exploring a shared record that could help people continue vaccination programmes when moving between countries, including for diseases such as measles. The review points to the Council’s December 2018 recommendation. It says the Council welcomed the Commission’s intention to examine cross-border gaps in vaccination coverage and the possibility of a common record compatible with electronic systems. The stated purpose was to improve information about vaccination status for people moving within the EU—not to establish border checks. This distinction matters: the 2018 document discussed a possible vaccination record, not the later COVID travel proposal described in the claim. The review separately describes the COVID-era proposal announced by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on 1 March 2021. It was intended to record vaccination, test results, or recovery from COVID-19 and to facilitate travel. The review also cites Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders’s 4 March interview, in which he described a certificate to facilitate travel and said vaccination would not be required to travel. Taken together, the review’s cited chronology and document descriptions do not support treating the 2018 work as a plan for a mandatory COVID vaccination passport.

maharat-newsHealth & medicine

جرعة واحدة من اللقاح كافية للمصابين السابقين بكوفيد-19

Publisher’s rating: غير صحيح

The review assesses a Facebook post by public-health doctoral researcher Mohamed Mansour claiming that one dose of Pfizer’s vaccine is enough to produce a strong immune response in people previously infected with COVID-19. It describes two preliminary studies discussed by the BMJ, while noting that the studies were small and had not yet been peer-reviewed. The first, by researchers at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York and Paris, compared antibody responses in 109 people: 41 had previously had COVID-19 and 68 had not. The review reports that antibody levels among the previously infected were 10–20 times higher, and that, two weeks after one dose, their antibody concentrations were ten times those observed in uninfected people who had received two doses. The review also reports that the first study examined vaccine reactions in 231 people, including 83 with a prior infection. Injection-site reactions were similar across groups, but systemic effects such as fatigue, headache, chills, fever, and muscle or joint pain were more frequent among those with prior immunity. A second study from the University of Maryland reportedly reached similar results. These findings concern immune response and side effects after an initial dose; the review presents them as preliminary evidence, not as proof that one dose provides sufficiently durable protection or should replace the recommended course. To assess what the findings established, the review contrasts them with the available dosing evidence and official guidance. It says the FDA supported two specified doses of each authorized vaccine at specified intervals, and that follow-up of participants who did not receive two doses was generally too short to draw firm conclusions about the depth or duration of protection after one dose. It also cites the possibility of reinfection and expert support for following the two-dose approach, including for people previously infected. The review therefore distinguishes a promising early antibody response from evidence establishing one dose as an adequate vaccination course.

dpaHealth & medicine

Le virologue Marc Van Ranst n'a pas été vacciné correctement.

Publisher’s rating: Marc Van Ranst a bien reçu une injection « intramusculaire » du vaccin AstraZeneca.

The claim arose from a poor-quality photo of virologist Marc Van Ranst being vaccinated. A Belgian Facebook user argued that the syringe appeared intended for a subcutaneous injection, despite the AstraZeneca vaccine being administered intramuscularly, and suggested that Van Ranst should be vaccinated again. The review checked the specific vaccination shown, rather than relying on the photo alone. It reports that Van Ranst announced on 24 February 2021 that he would receive his first AstraZeneca dose and planned to go to the Willebroek vaccination centre that afternoon. « Le 24 février 2021, le virologue belge, Marc Van Ranst, a annoncé sur Twitter qu’il allait recevoir la première dose du vaccin AstraZeneca. Il indiquait alors qu’il allait se rendre dans le courant “de l’après-midi” au centre de vaccination de Willebroek. » To assess how the dose was given, the review examined video published by 7sur7.be and another video on the Gazet Van Antwerpen website. It says both show the vaccinator stretching the skin and inserting the needle perpendicular to the skin, which the review identifies as the intramuscular technique described in the AstraZeneca instructions. In contrast, the French article cited in the social-media post concerned a skin-fold technique used when administering Pfizer, not syringe type. The review notes that the image alone does not reveal the needle’s size, and says that the needle type mentioned in the post could be used for several kinds of injection. « Une vidéo publiée sur le site de 7sur7.be et une autre sur le site du quotidien Gazet Van Antwerpen démontrent que le spécialiste a bien été vacciné de façon intramusculaire : la peau est étirée par les doigts du soignant effectuant le vaccin. Il insère ensuite l’aiguille de façon perpendiculaire, comme indiqué dans la notice du vaccin AstraZeneca »

dpaHealth & medicine

Stappenplan over hoe je de 'oproepingsbrief' tot vaccinatie kan weigeren.

Publisher’s rating: De post staat vol foute beweringen. De coronavaccins zijn geen gentherapie, er is geen sprake van een illegaal medisch experiment in strijd met de Code van Neurenberg. En wie geen vaccin wil, kan dit simpelweg weigeren. Er is geen verplichting of ander contract.

The review concerns a Facebook post claiming that people in Belgium would receive a vaccination “summons.” The post described COVID-19 vaccines as genetic technology still in an illegal experimental phase, invoked the Nuremberg Code, and offered tips for avoiding vaccination. The review says the wording “summons” was misleading: the Flemish government called the document an invitation, and COVID-19 vaccination was not mandatory. To address the post’s advice about refusing vaccination, the review points to a sample invitation. It says the document explained that someone who did not want a vaccine could say so online or by telephone and then not attend the vaccination centre. The review also rejects the post’s claim that receiving an invitation created a contract, noting that even a contract could not arise without both parties’ consent. The review separately addresses the post’s experimental-phase argument. It explains that European conditional approvals required further research and safety monitoring, including follow-up on how long Pfizer’s vaccine protection lasted and testing in groups such as children and pregnant women who were not in the original trial group. It distinguishes those follow-up studies from the voluntary clinical trials, rather than treating vaccination itself as involuntary participation in an experiment.

APA - Austria Presse AgenturHealth & medicine

Corona-Impfstoffhersteller können nicht haftbar gemacht werden.

Publisher’s rating: In der EU bleibt in erster Linie der Impfstoffhersteller gemäß den Produkthaftungsgesetzen der jeweiligen Länder gegenüber dem geschädigten Patienten haftbar. EU-Mitgliedstaaten können den Hersteller in möglichen Haftungsfällen aber entschädigen.

The review addresses social-media claims that pharmaceutical companies had been freed from liability for COVID-19 vaccine injuries, and checks the specific assertion that manufacturers cannot be held liable. Its conclusion is about the EU: it says that the marketing-authorisation holder remains responsible under product-liability rules, while EU member states may compensate manufacturers in certain cases. That possibility of compensation is not the same as removing the manufacturer’s liability to an injured patient. (S1: “Zu überprüfende Information: Corona-Impfstoffhersteller können nicht haftbar gemacht werden. Einschätzung: In der EU bleibt in erster Linie der Impfstoffhersteller gemäß den Produkthaftungsgesetzen der jeweiligen Länder gegenüber dem geschädigten Patienten haftbar. EU-Mitgliedstaaten können den Hersteller in möglichen Haftungsfällen aber entschädigen.”) To assess the claim, the review consulted European Medicines Agency and European Commission information and sought comments from the Commission and Vienna lawyer Francine Brogyányi. It reports that the EU vaccines discussed—BioNTech/Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca—received conditional marketing authorisations, and distinguishes those from emergency authorisations used in some other countries. According to the review’s account of Commission rules, conditional authorisation leaves responsibility with the marketing-authorisation holder, as with standard authorisation. (S1: “In der EU wurden die drei Corona-Impfstoffe von BioNTech/Pfizer, Moderna und AstraZeneca mittels bedingter Marktzulassung zugelassen”; “Im Rahmen einer bedingten Marktzulassung haftet laut der Webseite der EU-Kommission genau wie bei einer Standard-Marktzulassung der Inhaber der Marktzulassung.”) The review describes an important qualification: liability depends on the applicable national rules and, in the lawyer’s account, on proof that the damage was caused by the vaccine and that a product defect existed. It says member states could reimburse manufacturers under specified conditions in advance-purchase agreements, citing clause 14.1 of the published AstraZeneca contract; the review notes that only part of that contract had been made public. It also mentions national compensation arrangements, including Austria’s Vaccine Damage Act, and says a patient would receive compensation only once. Thus, the evidence described does not support a blanket claim that manufacturers are immune from liability, but it does not establish that every alleged injury would qualify for compensation. (S1: “Das treffe zu, wenn der geltend gemachte Schaden nachweislich auf den Impfstoff zurückzuführen sei und ein Produktfehler vorliege”; “nur der Vertrag mit AstraZeneca wurde teilweise geschwärzt veröffentlicht”; “Der Patient würde aber nur einmal einen Schadenersatzbetrag erhalten”)

dpaHealth & medicine

68% van de artsen is tegen het (corona)vaccin.

Publisher’s rating: De bewering is achterhaald en misleidend. Uit een rondvraging van 800 artsen in september 2020 zou 68% het vaccin niet aanbevelen aan zijn patiënten. Aanbevelen en tegen iets zijn, is niet hetzelfde. In een recentere enquête ligt het cijfer ook een pak hoger.

dpaHealth & medicine

Viroloog Marc Van Ranst werd niet echt gevaccineerd met het coronavaccin

Publisher’s rating: Het bericht is fout. Marc Van Ranst werd op 24 februari wel degelijk geinjecteerd met het AstraZenecavaccin.

The claim arose from a Facebook post questioning whether virologist Marc Van Ranst had really received a COVID-19 vaccine. The post pointed to close-up, blurry photographs of the injection and argued that the person administering it had not used the proper technique. The review reports that the post had been shared more than a thousand times.

FACTLYHealth & medicine

Video of a news report that talks about the research that eating bananas can prevent COVID-19

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The post presented a video as a news report about research suggesting bananas could prevent COVID-19. FACTLY reports that the video was edited from clips taken from different sources, rather than being a single report making that claim. Its account identifies the clips’ original sources and checks what those source videos actually said. The opening clip came from an ABC News (Australia) report about University of Queensland scientists trying to develop a vaccine for the novel coronavirus. According to the review, that report did not mention bananas preventing COVID-19. Another segment came from a March 2020 YouTube video listing banana benefits, which also did not say bananas could prevent the disease. A clip bearing a Wall Street Journal logo came from a February 2020 video about efforts to develop a coronavirus vaccine; it likewise made no such claim. The review says investigators examined keyframes using Google Reverse Image Search and found the original videos associated with the clips; it also located one clip on a stock-video website. As further evidence against the health claim, it cites the World Health Organization’s statement that “There is no single food that will prevent you from catching COVID-19.” The evidence presented therefore concerns both the video’s assembled, misleading provenance and the absence of the claimed message in the identified source clips.

dpaHealth & medicine

RIVM heeft aantal doden bijgesteld van 15.000 naar 8.750.

Publisher’s rating: De bewering dat er maar 8.750 mensen overleden aan Covid-19, in plaats van 15.000, klopt niet. Het RIVM stelde niet het absolute sterftecijfer bij, maar de schatting van het sterftecijfer (IFR). Deze statistiek geeft alleen een schatting van de kans dat je aan het coronavirus overlijdt, als je hiermee besmet raakt. Het heeft niet met terugwerkende kracht invloed op het aantal coronadoden.

The claim arose from a Facebook image saying that the RIVM had changed the Covid-19 death toll from 15,000 to 8,750. The review says the image did not explicitly identify Covid-19, but inferred that subject from the figures, comparison with flu and accompanying reactions. Its central finding is that the RIVM had revised an estimate of the infection fatality rate (IFR), not the count of people already recorded as having died. The review explains that the RIVM’s website had stated an estimated fatality rate of 1.3 percent and, after questions from NRC in late February, changed this to a range of 1 to 1.3 percent. In practical terms, that range meant an estimated 10 to 13 deaths for every 1,000 people infected. The review emphasizes that this is an estimate of risk among infected people, whereas the number of recorded deaths is an observed total; changing the estimate does not retrospectively alter that total. As a specific comparison, the review reports that RIVM data recorded 15,730 Covid-19 deaths as of 4 March 2021. It also quotes data scientist Marino van Zelst, a member of the RED-team, saying that the number of people who had died would not change because it was fixed. The review separately notes that flu activity was very low, but that describing flu as completely gone was an overstatement: reported flu-like GP visits were not all confirmed flu, and the Nivel researcher cited in the review cautioned that flu surveillance was disrupted because people with symptoms were more likely to seek coronavirus testing.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Mehr als die Hälfte der Corona-Intensivpatienten hat einen Migrationshintergrund.

Publisher’s rating: Zwar gibt es vereinzelte Berichte, Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund seien stärker von Covid-19 betroffen. Zum tatsächlichen Anteil der Corona-Intensivpatienten mit Migrationshintergrund werden aber keinerlei Daten erhoben. Eine bundesweit gültige Zahl kann weder von Gesundheitsämtern noch vom Robert Koch-Institut genannt werden.

The claim concerns the share of Covid-19 patients in intensive care who had a migration background. The review says that estimates circulating at the time varied, with 50% and 90% among the figures frequently asserted. It examined whether official German reporting or intensive-care records could substantiate such a national percentage. The review describes checking the legal requirements for reporting infectious diseases and the Robert Koch Institute’s recommendations for reporting suspected Covid-19 cases. It found that the specified information included details such as sex, birth month and year, and place of residence, but not nationality or migration background. The RKI’s DIVI intensive-care register likewise did not collect migration-background information. Its scientific lead told the agency he knew of no other nationwide data source recording that characteristic. The evidence therefore does not establish that more than half of Covid-19 intensive-care patients had a migration background. Rather, the review found no data from which a reliable national proportion could be calculated. It separately notes reporting and research suggesting that people with migration backgrounds may be more affected by the pandemic; that broader observation does not provide the missing figure for intensive-care patients.