PeakMetrics / Fact Checks
Health & medicine fact checks
Explore claims publishers have checked about health & medicine. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.
Search fact checks
Search by text or image13,674 published reviews in this topic
New COVID-19 vaccination guidelines of India
Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING
The post made several claims about India’s expanded COVID-19 vaccination programme, effective 1 March 2021. FACTLY’s review checked three specific points: a supposed Rs. 500 charge for one vaccine dose, a claimed 40% allocation for pre-registered people and 60% for walk-ins, and which identity documents could be used for registration. The review says the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare announced the expansion on 27 February 2021 for people aged over 60 and people aged 45–59 with specified co-morbidities. [S1] On charges, the review cites the ministry’s ceiling of Rs. 250 per person per dose at private vaccination centres. It notes the distinction that the total for two doses could be Rs. 500, while government facilities offered vaccination free of charge. Thus, the post’s Rs. 500 figure did not accurately describe the charge for a single dose. [S1] On appointment slots, the review refers to the CO-WIN 2.0 guidance, which distinguished reserved slots—including slots for state-organized on-site registration and second doses—from open slots for online appointments. It says states would decide the proportion of mobilization slots and that the guidance did not stipulate the post’s fixed 40/60 split. For registration, the review lists Aadhaar, voter ID, passport, driving licence, PAN, NPR Smart Card and a photographed pension document as acceptable identity documents. The post therefore left out valid options beyond the documents it mentioned. [S1]
Misleading Covid-19 claims made in a leaflet by three political parties: Renua, the Irish Freedom Party, and Direct Democracy Ireland
Publisher’s rating: Misleading and false
The website link to register for COVID-19 vaccination.
Publisher’s rating: FALSE
The review examined a social-media post that asked people to register for COVID-19 vaccination using their mobile numbers through a linked website. The question was whether that link led to the official registration portal. The review reports that the Press Information Bureau (PIB) identified the linked site as fraudulent and as impersonating the government’s official portal. The review distinguishes the fake link from the genuine service: it says the government announced the CO-WIN 2.0 registration portal on 28 February 2021, that it opened to the general public on 1 March, and that it was available at www.cowin.gov.in. It describes Co-WIN as a platform for Indian citizens to register and schedule vaccination slots at nearby vaccination centres. The review’s conclusion rests on the PIB’s stated warning about the specific impersonating website, rather than on the mere fact that a vaccination-registration website existed. It says the PIB directed people to official COVID-19 vaccination information on the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare website. The excerpt does not describe independent technical testing of the link or provide further details about the post’s circulation.
कोरोना के बढ़ते संक्रमण के मद्देनज़र तेलंगना सरकार ने स्कूल/कॉलेजों को छुट्टी दे दी है
Publisher’s rating: False
Wie zich laat inenten verliest dekking van zijn levensverzekering want neemt deel aan een experiment.
Publisher’s rating: De bewering klopt niet. Coronavaccinatie is geen uitsluitingsgrond voor uitbetaling van een levensverzekeringspremie.
The review examines a Facebook user’s claim that coronavirus vaccination would cost someone their life-insurance coverage because the vaccine is an experiment and experiments are not covered. It focuses on whether vaccination or a medical experiment is an exclusion that could prevent payment under a life-insurance policy. To check the claim, the review reports speaking with Barbara Van Speybroeck, spokesperson for Assuralia, the association of insurance companies. She rejected the claim. The review also says it examined the general terms and conditions of life-insurance policies from Belfius, AG Insurance and Allianz, where it found customary exclusions but no exclusion for vaccination or medical experiments. The review distinguishes those alleged exclusions from examples it says are commonly present in life-insurance policies: suicide within a specified period after taking out a contract, dangerous sports such as parachuting, and war or terrorism. On the evidence described, the claim that vaccination itself removes life-insurance coverage is not supported.
«Giudico uno scandalo, ad esempio, che ci siano più di un milione di dosi di vaccini non utilizzate»
Publisher’s rating: C'eri quasi
Christian Drosten ist wegen des PCR-Tests vor Gericht zitiert worden. Der Test kann bei "Gesunden" keine Infektion nachweisen.
Publisher’s rating: Die Überschrift ist falsch und irreführend. Christian Drosten ist von einem Amtsgericht zum Sachverständigen ernannt worden - und soll ein schriftliches Gutachten abgeben. PCR-Tests können Corona-Infektionen auch bei Menschen feststellen, die keine Symptome zeigen.
Die Impfung in Israel bringt nichts. Das zeigt die gleich bleibende Case fatality rate (CFR).
Publisher’s rating: Aktuelle Untersuchungen aus Israel zeigen, dass die Corona-Impfung wirksam ist. Unter den Geimpften werden viel weniger Covid-19-Fälle, schwere Verläufe und Todesfälle verzeichnet. Die Case fatality rate (CFR) ist in Israel konstant, kann aber nicht als Beleg für eine fehlende Wirksamkeit der Corona-Impfung herangezogen werden.
The claim was based on a shared graphic showing Israel’s case fatality rate (CFR) between 13 January and 13 February 2021. The review says the graph did show a rate that stayed just above 0.7. But it explains that the CFR is confirmed deaths divided by confirmed cases, and cautions that this measure is not a direct measure of the risk of dying from Covid-19. It can vary with the population, testing, place and timing, and does not include undetected cases. The review also gives context for why Israel’s CFR might remain steady even as vaccination proceeded. Epidemiologist Eva Schernhammer told APA that Israel had already had one of the world’s lower CFRs in mid-2020. She said the country’s relatively young population, broad testing that could detect asymptomatic cases, and protection of care homes could help explain the rate; those factors did not necessarily change with vaccination. The review notes that Israel began vaccinating on 19 December 2020, and that by 24 February 2021 about half the population had received at least one dose. To assess vaccination beyond the CFR, the review cites studies and reported outcomes among vaccinated people. It reports that Clalit data found 94% fewer symptomatic infections among people who had received two doses than in an unvaccinated comparison group, and 92% fewer severe cases among those infected despite vaccination. It also describes a study of Israeli healthcare workers and a national study estimating high effectiveness against documented infection, symptomatic disease, hospitalisation and severe illness. These findings address outcomes among vaccinated people directly; a stable population-level CFR alone does not establish that vaccination had no effect.
Afbeelding toont lijst met 10 zwangere vrouwen die het coronavaccin kregen en enkele dagen later een miskraam meemaken.
Publisher’s rating: De screenshot bevat foute informatie en mist noodzakelijke context. De VAERS databank is geen bewijs dat een bijwerking veroorzaakt werd door een vaccinatie. Indien men een mogelijke bijwerking meldt moet er geen oorzakelijk verband aangetoond worden. Daarnaast worden zwangere vrouwen, in de EU of de VS, niet systematisch gevaccineerd tegen COVID-19.
Mouammar Kadhafi a dit: « Ils créeront eux mêmes les virus et vous vendront les antidotes. Par la suite, ils feront semblant de prendre du temps pour trouver la solution alors qu'ils l'ont déjà."
Publisher’s rating: En gros, Mouammar Kadhafi était de cet avis. Cependant, la citation qui lui est attribuée est fausse.
The claim attributes to Muammar Gaddafi a specific prediction that people would create viruses, sell antidotes, and pretend to take time to find a solution already known to them. The review traces the attribution to a Facebook post and compares it with Gaddafi’s remarks at the United Nations General Assembly on September 23, 2009. It reports that he did speak about the possibility of viruses being made in laboratories and about companies profiting from viruses and vaccines, but that the viral quote is not an exact account of his words. [S1: “Une citation circule, sur Facebook, qui est attribuée à l’ancien leader révolutionnaire libyen Mouammar Kadhafi”] [S1: “Mouammar Kadhafi, qui était alors également président de l'Organisation de l'unité africaine (OUA), s'est en effet exprimé sur cette question dans un discours à l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies le 23 septembre 2009.”] [S1: “Cependant, la citation qui lui est attribuée n'est pas exactement authentique.”] The review gives the speech’s relevant wording as a claim that companies produce viruses and vaccines to profit from them; it does not report that Gaddafi used the circulating quotation’s specific language about selling “antidotes” or pretending to search for a solution. The distinction is between a broadly similar allegation in the speech and the particular wording attributed to him online. The review also notes that Gaddafi made the allegation without proving it. [S1: “Les sociétés capitalistes produisent des virus pour pouvoir produire et vendre des vaccins.”] [S1: “Kadhafi a donc prétendu - sans le prouver d’aucune façon - que les entreprises produisent des virus pour vendre des vaccins.”]
Impfstoff von Astrazeneca hat geringe Wirksamkeit und führt bei 40 Prozent zu teils starken Nebenwirkungen.
Publisher’s rating: Angaben zur Wirksamkeit können bei Impfstoffen leicht missverstanden werden. Starke Nebenwirkungen bei 40 Prozent der Geimpften sind nicht belegt.
The claim concerned AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine: social-media users described it as having low efficacy and causing sometimes severe side effects in 40 percent of recipients. The review examined both parts of that claim, distinguishing reported efficacy figures from the meaning of those figures and assessing the stated frequency of severe reactions. The review’s printed assessment says efficacy figures can be misunderstood and that the claim about severe effects in 40 percent was not substantiated. On efficacy, the review reports early study figures of 70 percent from the manufacturer and “about 60 percent” from the European Medicines Agency. It also cites newer studies finding efficacy above 80 percent when the interval between doses was at least 12 weeks, as explained by Erlangen microbiologist and immunologist Christian Bogdan. It compares these figures with more than 90 percent for the BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but explains that efficacy refers to reducing relative risk—not the proportion of vaccinated people who are protected. The review quotes the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut’s explanation that a 60 percent figure means 60 percent of cases that would otherwise occur are prevented. On side effects, the review describes reactions as a normal response to vaccination and says they were reported as more noticeable among younger people. It notes that AstraZeneca was then being given mainly to people aged 18–64 under the German vaccination commission’s recommendation, while the other vaccines were mainly going to seniors. The review also reports that the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut characterized reactions as known and temporary and that the EMA described the most common effects as mild to moderate and resolving within a few days. These details address reported reactions but do not establish that severe effects occurred in 40 percent of recipients.
RIVM zegt: "Vaccinatie is vrijwillig, maar je hebt geen keuze."
Publisher’s rating: De afbeelding op Facebook mist context. Het RIVM reageert met de tweet op een vrouw die zich zorgen maakt over het nemen van het AstraZeneca vaccin. De zin "je hebt geen keuze", slaat hierbij niet op een verplichte vaccinatie, maar gaat erover dat je niet zelf kunt kiezen welke van de beschikbare vaccins je krijgt. De toegevoegde tekst in de Facebookafbeelding is daarmee misleidend. Ook in de reacties bij het Facebookbericht is te zien dat veel mensen de tweet onjuist interpreteren.
The claim concerns a specific RIVM reply to a woman worried about receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was later shared on Facebook with “maar je hebt geen keuze” highlighted. The review says the phrase was taken to mean vaccination was compulsory. Its account of the exchange instead distinguishes two choices: whether to get vaccinated, and which manufacturer’s vaccine a person would receive. It reports that the woman said she had recently turned 65 and did not want AstraZeneca because she considered it doubtful for people over 65. The RIVM reply said vaccination was voluntary, but recipients could not choose the manufacturer.
Verstorbene, die kein Corona hatten, fließen in die Statistik der Corona-Toten ein.
Publisher’s rating: In die Statistik der Corona-Toten fließen keine Verstorbenen ein, deren Corona-Infektion nicht mit einem PCR-Test nachgewiesen wurde. Das hat das RKI so festgelegt. Die veröffentlichten Totenscheine belegen kein systematisches Hintergehen.
Fact Check: ටැටූ කිරීම, රුධිරය දන් දීමට බාධාවක්ද?
Publisher’s rating: False
Anosmia bukan gejala khas virus dan bisa diobati dengan mecobalamin
Publisher’s rating: Keliru