Health & medicine fact checks

Carta enviada ao presidente Jair Bolsonaro sobre a farsa Covid

Publisher’s rating: Falso

Video toont jonge vrouw in Spaans ziekenhuis die in elkaar stort na covidvaccinatie.

Publisher’s rating: De vrouw had een aanval gelinkt aan diabetes in een ziekenhuis in Buenos Aires, geen allergische reactie op een coronavaccinatie.

The claim described a video of a young woman collapsing outside a hospital as evidence of an allergic reaction to a COVID vaccination, and placed the scene in Spain. The review traced the footage to the Dr. Raul F. Larcade hospital in San Miguel, a city near Buenos Aires in Argentina, and reported that the woman’s collapse was linked to diabetes, not vaccination. To identify the location, the review compared screenshots with a clearer version of the video shared on Twitter. It notes that the Spanish-speaking footage includes the words “Hospital San Miguel,” and that the clearer version shows “Raul F. Larcade” on a window beside the entrance. Those details narrowed the location to the hospital in San Miguel. The review then traced the video to an Instagram account run by hospital workers. In a post dated 20 February, the workers said the woman had diabetes, suffered an attack outside the hospital entrance on the night of 19 February, was admitted, and was stable. The review therefore described the incident as a diabetic attack or hypoglycemia, rather than the claimed vaccine-related anaphylactic reaction.

Penyebab meninggalnya empat tenaga kesehatan baru-baru ini adalah vaksin Covid-19

Publisher’s rating: Keliru

Medizinische Masken schützen nicht vor Viren.

Publisher’s rating: Das Tragen eines einfachen Mund-Nasen-Schutzes kann das Infektionsrisiko senken. Medizinische Masken schützen vor allem andere Menschen vor Tröpfchen.

The claim appeared on a widely shared Facebook image of a medical mask. The image said, “This is no virus protection,” and also claimed the mask was only protection from a fine. The review considered whether masks can reduce infection risk, and noted that a mask cannot prevent every infection. Its account therefore distinguishes reducing risk from providing complete protection. The review cites evidence about mask effectiveness, including a Canadian study that it says found a mouth-and-nose covering lowered infection risk. It reports that a researcher confirmed the study explicitly included surgical masks, like the one pictured. It also points to a German working paper examining the effect of masks using Jena’s early mask requirement, and to a Chinese study suggesting masks could be more important than social distancing for reducing transmission. The excerpt does not provide study methods, numerical results, or enough detail to assess those studies independently. The review also reports that Germany’s Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices had reiterated mask effectiveness in January 2021. It cites the Robert Koch Institute’s advice that a simple mask can reduce the risk of infecting someone else through coughing, sneezing, or speaking, while noting that such simple masks do not themselves protect the wearer from infection. This qualification is relevant to the image’s broad wording: the cited evidence supports risk reduction, not a guarantee against infection, and the review describes protection of others as an important function.

Bericht zeigt neue teilweise tödliche Nebenwirkungen der Corona-Impfung

Publisher’s rating: Der Bericht der britischen Arzneimittelbehörde MHRA sammelt Meldungen über gesundheitliche Probleme und Todesfälle, die in einer zeitlichen Nähe zu einer Impfung beobachtet werden konnten. Es handelt sich um keine bestätigten Nebenwirkungen der Covid-19-Impfung, wie auch im Bericht selbst erwähnt wird.

The claim concerned a British Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) report that a social-media post said revealed “further partly fatal side effects” of Covid-19 vaccines. It cited figures including 236 deaths, 13 reports of blindness and eight miscarriages. The review identifies the document as an MHRA report updated on 11 February 2021, listing reports of health problems and deaths after vaccination—not establishing that vaccination caused them. The distinction matters because the report drew on the Yellow Card system, which accepts reports from both medical professionals and members of the public. The review says a report does not require proof of a causal connection, a doctor’s certificate, an autopsy or a medical assessment. It therefore describes reported events occurring after vaccination, not a verified tally of vaccine-caused injuries or deaths. The review also notes that the MHRA warned readers not to interpret the suspected reactions in the report as proven vaccine side effects. It reports the agency’s assessment that the number and nature of reported suspected reactions were not unusual compared with other routinely used vaccines. Thus, the post’s presentation of reports as newly established, partly fatal effects omitted the report’s stated limits and the agency’s assessment.

Assista você. Vídeo feito hoje 03/03 no Hospital Moinhos de Vento em Porto Alegre.

Publisher’s rating: Falso

Nur Geimpfte dürfen in Israel Lebensmittel kaufen.

Publisher’s rating: Alle Menschen in Israel dürfen Lebensmittel kaufen – unabhängig von ihrem Impfstatus. Das galt auch zum Zeitpunkt, als das Video aufgenommen wurde.

A photo of a woman wearing a blouse covering her arms while getting vaccinated features Vice President Leni Robredo.

Publisher’s rating: False

Corona in China beendet - ohne Impfstoff.

Publisher’s rating: In China wurden schon Millionen Menschen gegen das Coronavirus geimpft. Dennoch gibt es dort nach wie vor Neuinfektionen.

The review examined a social-media sharepic asserting that the coronavirus situation in China was over and that this had been achieved without a vaccine. It compared that assertion with reported infections and vaccination figures, rather than treating China’s ability to control spread as proof that transmission had stopped. The evidence presented does not support the claim that the pandemic had ended there: new infections were still being reported, and millions of people had received vaccines. The review cites World Health Organization figures showing continuing daily reports of infections in China, usually in the two-digit range. It says that more than 100,000 cases had been reported from the start of 2020 through February 27, 2021, and that 4,843 people had died in connection with a coronavirus infection. Those figures contradict an unqualified assertion that the outbreak was over. The claim’s “without a vaccine” framing is also misleading. By the end of February 2021, more than 40 million people in China had been vaccinated, according to the Bloomberg tracker cited in the review; the vaccines identified were those produced by Sinopharm and Sinovac. The review also describes mass testing, contact tracing and isolation of infected people as measures used to control spread. Its evidence therefore distinguishes containment efforts from the claim that China had eliminated the disease without vaccination.

Parabéns ao Prefeito de Búzios pelo tratamento precoce contra #covid_19 que implementou em sua cidade

Publisher’s rating: FALSO: Prefeitura de Búzios não adotou o chamado "tratamento precoce" para a covid-19, ao contrário do que afirmou o senador Flávio Bolsonaro em seu perfil no Instagram.

Krankenhauszahlen von 2020 im Vergleich zu 2019 zeigen, dass Gesundheitssystem nicht überlastet ist

Publisher’s rating: Irreführend. Die angeführten Zahlen der Initative Qualitätsmedizin stimmen. Ihre Aussagekraft zur tatsächlichen Belastung der Krankenhäuser ist aber stark eingeschränkt. Die Krankenhaus-Zahlen von 2020 lassen sich aufgrund mehrerer Faktoren nicht ohne Weiteres mit denen von 2019 oder anderen Vorjahren vergleichen. Eine angeblich nicht vorhandene Überlastung lässt sich aus ihnen nicht ableiten.

Wie zich laat inenten verliest dekking van zijn levensverzekering want neemt deel aan een experiment.

Publisher’s rating: De claim is onjuist. Wanneer je overlijdt nadat je een vaccinatie hebt ontvangen, wordt de levensverzekering gewoon uitgekeerd als je verder aan de voorwaarden voldoet.

The claim circulated on social media that getting a COVID-19 shot would invalidate life insurance because the vaccinated person was taking part in an experiment. The review describes a Facebook post making that argument and says it had been shared more than 200 times. It concludes that vaccination does not, by itself, prevent a life-insurance payout when the policy’s other conditions are met. To assess the claim, the review distinguishes among types of life insurance and reports that it checked policy terms from Nationale-Nederlanden, Interpolis and Dela. It also reports a direct comment from a spokesperson for the Association of Insurers, who rejected the claim as “utter nonsense.” The investigation found no provision in the reviewed insurers’ terms that excluded payment because the insured had participated in a medical experiment. The finding is not that every policy pays in every circumstance. The review notes that policy conditions can include exclusions, giving suicide within a specified period after taking out a policy and death in warfare outside the Netherlands as examples. It also says a beneficiary may not receive payment if they were responsible for the insured person’s death. Its conclusion is therefore limited: vaccination itself is not listed as a reason to deny a payout in the policy terms it examined.

Unimed Comunicado O pico do vírus será de 6 a 20 de abril.

Publisher’s rating: Falso

Wenn dieselbe Person mehrfach positiv getestet wird, geht sie jedes Mal als neuer Fall in die RKI-Statistiken ein.

Publisher’s rating: Die Gesundheitsämter geben nicht jedes einzelne positive Testergebnis als Neuinfektion weiter, sondern stufen einzelne Personen als Fälle ein - die dann an die Landes- und Bundesbehörden übermittelt werden. Dieser Zwischenschritt fehlt bei den Behauptungen. Häufig wiederholten Tests werden zudem nur bei wenigen Infizierten durchgeführt.

The claim concerned a video in which a doctor from the Bad Dürkheim district in Rhineland-Palatinate said that every further positive test in a short period for the same person was reported to the RKI as a separate new infection. The review explains that positive test results entered a reporting chain; they were not sent directly from doctors or laboratories to the RKI. Local health authorities received the reports, while Rhineland-Palatinate also had a state-level agency in the chain. The central distinction is between a report of a positive test and a person recorded as a case. The head of the Bad Dürkheim health authority told dpa that staff entered reports into software and compared identifying details, so “Eine Person kann dabei nicht zweimal als Fall angelegt werden.” The RKI received anonymized reports without personal names, but the local matching step was intended to prevent a later positive result for the same person from becoming an entirely new case. The review also notes that repeated testing did occur for some infected people, but not routinely for everyone. It describes RKI-recommended end-of-isolation testing for certain groups, such as residents of care homes, and says isolation for mild or symptom-free cases usually ended without another test. Additional positive results from tests ordered by doctors could still be reported, but health authorities would compare the tested person’s details. The review’s conclusion is about the reporting process as described; it qualifies the accuracy of the resulting figures on health authorities making no errors.

Price of COVID-19 vaccine in different countries

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

هفت دانشگاه در آمریکا تایید کرده‌اند ویروس کرونا وجود ندارد و کووید ۱۹ یک فریب است

Publisher’s rating: شاخ‌دار

Die gezeigte Impfampulle von Astrazeneca wurde 2008 hergestellt und läuft im Mai 2021 ab.

Publisher’s rating: Der Impfstoff wurde erst sechs Monate vor dem Ablaufdatum im Mai 2021 hergestellt. Das teilte Astrazeneca der Deutschen Presse-Agentur mit. Die als Chargennummer interpretierte Zahl ist in Wahrheit eine von Astrazeneca intern für den Produktionsprozess genutzte Zahl.

The claim concerns a photograph of an AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine vial circulated on Facebook. It treated the vertically printed number “3041572008” as a manufacturing date and interpreted “05-2021” as the expiry date. The review identifies the photograph as one used by Tagesschau and explains that the label also shows “EXP” before “05-2021” and “LOT” before “AB0003.” Thus, the post correctly identified the expiry marking but assigned the alleged manufacturing-date number the wrong meaning. [S1]

Der Europarat hat Impfzwang verboten.

Publisher’s rating: Die Parlamentarische Versammlung des Europarats hat in ihrer Resolution lediglich empfohlen, auf die Freiwilligkeit einer Corona-Impfung hinzuweisen. Rechtlich bindend ist diese Empfehlung nicht.

The claim concerned whether the Council of Europe had prohibited compulsory vaccination by resolution. The review identifies the measure at issue as Resolution 2361/2021 of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly, and explains that the claim arose from the resolution’s language about vaccination being voluntary. The resolution urged member states and the European Union to inform the public that vaccination was not compulsory and that people should not be pressured to be vaccinated against their wishes. That wording does not establish a legally binding prohibition. The review cites an information note from the German Bundestag’s Scientific Service, which describes the Parliamentary Assembly as the Council of Europe’s consultative body and says its resolutions are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers as recommendations. The note states that resolutions do not create legal obligations for member states. The review therefore distinguishes the resolution’s recommendation about voluntary vaccination from a binding legal ban on compulsory vaccination.

2,7 % des personnes vaccinées ne sont pas en état « de travailler ou d’exercer leur activité quotidienne » après avoir reçu l’injection.

Publisher’s rating: Beaucoup d’informations évoquées par la généticienne sont fausses, mal interprétées ou exagérées. Pour commencer, les effets indésirables qui empêcheraient 2,7 % de personnes vaccinées de travailler, se résumeraient à une période de deux jours maximum avec des symptômes tels que fatigue, maux de tête et dans peu de cas, de la fièvre. Il s’agit d’effets secondaires bénins. Ensuite, le vaccin a été testé sur quelques personnes âgées, avec de très bons résultats. Pour terminer, l’enzyme évoquée par Alexandra Henrion-Caude a, dans la pratique, très peu de chances de transformer l’ARN du vaccin en ADN.

De uitslag van de coronatest wordt van tevoren bepaald.

Publisher’s rating: De bewering klopt niet. De twee afgebeelde verpakkingen zijn voor controles die moeten checken of de test goed functioneert. Ze worden niet gebruikt om een monster bij mensen af te nemen. Het is dus ook geen indicator of de sneltest positief of negatief zal uitvallen.