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

Auch nach einem Jahr Leben mit dem Coronavirus verbreitet sich weiterhin die Verschwörungserzählung, die Pandemie sei eine geplante Aktion. Zurzeit wird als angeblicher Beleg für diesen Mythos ein Foto des Impfstoffs der Firma Astrazeneca herangezogen. In sozialen Medien teilen Nutzer ein Bild eines kleinen Behälters mit organgenem Deckel. Auf dessen Etikett steht «ChAdOx1 nCoV-19» und «15-Mar-20» - es entsteht der Eindruck, schon im März vergangenen Jahres habe es den Impfstoff gegeben (hier archiviert). Dazu heißt es: «DAS IST DER ZENECA ASTRA IMPFSTOFF MIT DATUM 15. MÄRZ 2020 Glaubst du immer noch, dass das alles nicht geplant war? ????»

Publisher’s rating: Das Foto ist nicht aktuell. Es stammt aus einer frühen Phase der Impfstoffentwicklung. Im April 2020 erschien es in einem Bericht, in dem es um die ersten klinische Tests des Impfstoffs ging.

The claim treats a photo of a small container marked “ChAdOx1 nCoV-19” and “15-Mar-20” as evidence that AstraZeneca’s vaccine—and therefore the pandemic—had been planned in advance. The review identifies the image as a container from an early phase of vaccine testing, rather than a current product image, and says the photograph does not substantiate the conspiracy claim. [S1] The review places the image in the vaccine’s development timeline: AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford announced their collaboration on a vaccine called “ChAdOx1 nCoV-19” in late April 2020. The university had begun development in January, and the first clinical tests in people began in April, involving around 500 healthy volunteers. The “15-Mar-20” label is therefore presented as dating a container from early development—not as proof that a completed, publicly available vaccine existed then or that the pandemic was planned. [S1] For the photo’s provenance, the review points to a report about the first human vaccine tests that appeared on a British newspaper’s website on April 21. It says that report used a photo showing containers with the same label, with similar ice cubes visible in the background. It also notes that a Press Association explainer video published on Yahoo News in July showed the containers. Together, those details connect the circulating image to coverage of vaccine testing. [S1]

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

In Deutschland gilt eine verschärfte Maskenpflicht. Das bedeutet: In öffentlichen Verkehrsmitteln sowie in Geschäften müssen medizinische Schutzmasken getragen werden - einfache OP- oder auch FFP-2-Masken. Parallel dazu geht in den sozialen Medien die Behauptung um: «... hilft alles nicht...» (hier archiviert). Denn die Hersteller selbst schlössen in den Gebrauchsanweisungen aus, dass FFP-2-Masken wirksam gegen Viren wie Sars-CoV-2 schützen.

Publisher’s rating: Experten widersprechen: Zwar bieten auch FFP2-Masken keinen 100-prozentigen Schutz, sie filtern aber nachweislich Sars-CoV-2-Viren aus der Luft. Dass einzelne Hersteller in ihren Gebrauchsanweisungen dennoch warnen, die Masken schützten nicht gegen Viren, hängt womöglich mit Haftungsfragen zusammen.

The claim arose alongside Germany’s tightened mask rules for public transport and shops: social-media posts cited instructions warning that FFP2 masks were not effective against viruses, and used that warning to suggest the masks could not protect against SARS-CoV-2. The review confirms that the pictured instructions did contain such a warning, but notes that the images had no source or date, so their currentness could not be established. It rejects the broader conclusion that FFP2 masks are ineffective against SARS-CoV-2. The review explains that FFP2 masks must meet the European standard EN 149:2001+A1:2009, which requires filtering at least 94 percent of specified test aerosols. The tests use sodium-chloride aerosols rather than live viruses; experts quoted by the review said a virus test was unnecessary and dangerous, and that the test aerosols allow conclusions about infection protection. The review cites the RKI for SARS-CoV-2’s diameter of 0.08–0.14 micrometres, and explains that the virus leaves the body in a liquid-containing aerosol, making it at least 0.5 micrometres. It reports that FH Münster’s diagram indicated these aerosols would be captured by FFP2 filter material. The evidence does not establish that any mask offers complete protection: the review says very small aerosols may pass through and that no mask provides 100-percent protection. It presents the explanation for manufacturers’ warnings as a hypothesis from the Münster experts: some viruses, such as parvovirus, are much smaller than SARS-CoV-2, and manufacturers may exclude effectiveness claims to protect themselves from liability. Thus, a warning about viruses generally does not by itself show that FFP2 masks fail to filter SARS-CoV-2 aerosols.

Vishvas NewsHealth & medicine

கொரோனா வைரஸ் பரவலை சிறப்பாக கட்டுப்படுத்திய நாடுகளில் உலகின் ஐந்தாவது சிறந்த நாடாக இலங்கையினை உலக சுகாதார நிறுவனம் அறிவித்துள்ளது,” என்று சிங்கள மொழியில் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns a social-media post saying that the World Health Organization (WHO) had named Sri Lanka the world’s fifth-best country at controlling the coronavirus. The post included an image with Sinhala text making that assertion, along with a line about “6.9 million people” saving “20 million people.” The review says it investigated the ranking claim and found that WHO had not issued such a ranking. (The quoted population-related line is part of the post’s text; the excerpt does not provide separate verification of it.)

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Die Corona-Impfungen beschäftigen weiterhin viele Menschen in den sozialen Netzwerken. Einige Nutzer verbreiten eine überraschende Meldung: «KALIFORNIEN STOPPT CORONA IMPFUNG» (sic!), heißt es in Postings auf Facebook (hier archiviert). Grund sollen «dramatische Nebenwirkungen» sein. Auch ist die Rede von «immer mehr Toten» durch Impfungen.

Publisher’s rating: Der US-Bundesstaat Kalifornien hat die Impfungen gegen Covid-19 nicht gestoppt. Nach einigen allergischen Reaktionen wird dort lediglich eine Charge des Unternehmens Moderna vorerst nicht mehr verwendet. Über Todesfälle durch Impfungen ist bislang nichts bekannt.

The posts claimed that California had stopped Covid-19 vaccination because of “dramatic side effects” and an increasing number of deaths. The review distinguishes that statewide claim from the narrower action taken in mid-January: Erica Pan, an epidemiologist with California’s public health department, recommended temporarily not using a particular Moderna batch. The recommendation covered 330,000 doses distributed in California, while the batch as a whole contained more than 1.2 million doses and had also gone to other states. The review describes the action as a precaution, not a general halt to vaccination. The account of the reported reactions is limited and specific. Pan said there had been fewer than ten cases at one vaccination centre, with people kept under medical observation for 24 hours because of possible allergic reactions. The review says the Associated Press report suggested that six healthcare workers vaccinated in San Diego on January 14 may have been involved; it also notes that vaccinations at that centre continued with a different vaccine. Thus, the reported reactions prompted a temporary pause affecting one batch, not a stop to California’s vaccination programme. The review also addresses the claim about deaths. It reports that, as of January 21, among the cases examined by dpa’s fact-checking team, authorities had not confirmed vaccination as the cause of any death. It separately notes that Norway was investigating possible connections between vaccinations and deaths, but had not banned the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. These details do not establish that no deaths occurred after vaccination; they show that the review found no confirmed vaccine-caused deaths in the cases it discusses, and that the Norway report did not amount to an immunization ban.