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.

13,675 published reviews in this topic

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

In den vergangenen zwei Wochen fanden in Österreich landesweit Corona-Massentests statt. Getestet wurde mittels Antigen-Schnelltests. Einige Menschen zweifeln an deren Genauigkeit und stellen die Sinnhaftigkeit der Massentests daher infrage. Es sei Unsinn Gesunde zu testen, schreibt etwa ein Facebook-User. «MASSENTESTUNG bei Gesunden = 98% FALSSCH POSITIVE» (sic), heißt es in einem oft geteilten Posting (hier archiviert). Als Beleg wird ein Dokument des deutschen Robert Koch-Instituts (RKI) angeführt.

Publisher’s rating: Das ist missverständlich. Nicht bei der gesamten Massentestung sind 98 Prozent falsch-positiv, sondern bei den positiven Tests sind nur zwei Prozent der Getesteten wirklich infiziert, so das RKI-Dokument. Bei den Tests in Österreich fiel das nicht weiter ins Gewicht, weil nach einem positiven Antigen-Testergebnis mittels PCR-Test erneut getestet wurde, um das positive Testergebnis zu bestätigen.

ComprovaHealth & medicine

Em entrevista ao deputado federal Daniel Silveira, Alessandro Loiola afirma que vacina vai alterar o código genético

Publisher’s rating: FALSO: Especialistas ouvidos pelo Comprova desmentem alegações de um médico em um vídeo publicado por deputado federal no Facebook. Os especialistas reforçam que não existem estudos científicos catalogados de que no futuro as vacinas contra o novo coronavírus possam causar câncer ou alterações genéticas em quem se imunizar.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Im Internet wird ein Foto geteilt, auf dem Londons Bürgermeister Sadiq Khan seine Grippeschutzimpfung erhält. Doch ein Detail auf dem Bild macht manche Nutzer stutzig: Die Nadel der Impfspritze ist noch mit einer Kappe abgedeckt. In Beiträgen im Netz folgern Nutzer daraus, dass Khan die Injektion gar nicht wirklich erhalten hat und sprechen von einer «Fakekimpfung» (sic!) (

Publisher’s rating: Das Foto ist kein Beleg dafür, dass Khan nicht geimpft wurde. Es zeigt nach Angaben eines Sprechers nicht den Moment der Impfung, sondern entstand davor. Khan und ein Apotheker posierten demnach in der Szene für ein Foto, bevor der Bürgermeister die Injektion erhielt.

The claim concerns a photo of London Mayor Sadiq Khan with a flu-shot syringe whose needle cap is still on. Online users treated that detail as evidence that he had only pretended to receive the injection. The dpa review reports that the mayor’s press office confirmed he received a flu vaccination at a local pharmacist on 28 September 2020. The press office said the widely shared photo was taken shortly before the injection, accounting for the cap being in place at that moment. The review also addresses the related observation that the area where the needle points is not exposed. It explains that the photo was made while Khan and a pharmacist were posing for the photographer in preparation for the vaccination, rather than depicting the injection itself. The review therefore distinguishes the staged photograph from the subsequent vaccination, rather than treating the image as a record of the procedure. The review says Khan posted the photo on his Twitter and Facebook channels that day as part of a campaign promoting free flu vaccinations. This posting context is consistent with a publicity image, but the review’s account of whether he was vaccinated rests on the confirmation from the mayor’s press office and its explanation of when the image was taken.

Fact CrescendoHealth & medicine

Claim: misinformation being shared as Afridi daughter died in blood cancer

Publisher’s rating: False

The review examined a social-media post claiming that former Pakistan cricket captain Shahid Afridi’s daughter had died of blood cancer. It describes the post as combining a photograph of a deceased child with an image of Afridi looking at a child receiving treatment. The post was shared by Mrk Ganesh on December 13, 2020, and the review says the claim was being reshared by others. The allegation arose amid renewed online discussion of Afridi’s daughter after he withdrew from the Lanka Premier League and returned home for a personal emergency.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Anfang Dezember startete die Impfung gegen das Coronavirus in Großbritannien. Bereits im Vorfeld wurde sie kontrovers diskutiert. Einige Menschen äußerten Zweifel bezüglich möglicher Impfschäden. Ein Facebook-User behauptete gar in einem Posting (hier archiviert), dass die britische «Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency» (MHRA) verraten habe, dass man mit «massiven Impf-Schäden durch die Corona-Impfung» rechne. Als Beleg dafür führt er ein Schreiben der britischen Behörde an.

Publisher’s rating: Bei dem Schreiben der MHRA handelt es sich um eine Ausschreibung. Die Behörde sucht nach einem Software-Tool, um die erwartete große Menge an Impfnebenwirkungen der Corona-Impfung gut verarbeiten zu können. Von erwarteten massiven Impfschäden ist keine Rede. Nach Angaben des Arzneimittelexperten Christoph Baumgärtel handelt es sich dabei um kein unübliches Vorgehen. Die MHRA erwartet, dass das allgemeine Sicherheitsprofil der Corona-Impfung ähnlich ist wie bei anderen Impfstofftypen.

The Facebook post claimed that a letter from Britain’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) showed the agency expected “massive vaccine injuries.” The document examined by the original review was instead a public procurement notice, published on the European Union’s Tenders Electronic Daily portal on 23 October 2020. The MHRA sought an artificial-intelligence software tool to handle the expected volume of reports about possible adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines. The notice warned that the agency’s existing system could not be upgraded to manage that volume and that, without effective processing, it might not identify potential safety issues quickly. The review notes that the notice did not say the agency expected widespread or severe injuries: its concern was the capacity to process reports and detect possible safety signals. The distinction matters because a large number of reports is not itself evidence of a large number of serious injuries. The review also reports that medicine expert Christoph Baumgärtel of Austria’s AGES medicines authority considered the post’s inference unfounded. He explained that reports of vaccine side effects could rise because people tend to report suspected effects after vaccination, particularly amid intense attention to COVID-19. The MHRA separately told the agency that, based on published phase-one and phase-two trial reports then available, it expected the vaccine’s general safety profile to be similar to other vaccine types. The document therefore described preparation for monitoring reports, not an expectation of massive vaccine injuries.

Vishvas NewsHealth & medicine

கோவிட்-19 இன் பரவலைக் குறைக்க, முகமூடிகளை அணிவது, கழுவப்படாத கைகளைக் கொண்டு முகத்தைத் தொடுவதைத் தவிர்ப்பது, சோப்பு மற்றும் தண்ணீரால் கைகளை குறைந்தது 20 விநாடிகள் கழுவுவது போன்ற பிற அன்றாட தடுப்பு நடவடிக்கைகளுடன் சமூக இடைவெளியையும் கடைபிடிக்க வேண்டும். முகக்கவசம் அணிவது சமூக இடைவெளிக்கு மாற்று இல்லை. குறைந்தபட்சம் 6 அடி இடைவெளிவிட்டு விலகி நிற்பதோடு கூடுதலாக முகக்கவசம் அணிய வேண்டும்

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Die Corona-Pandemie bringt viele Einschränkungen - und eine viele Menschen verunsichernde Frage: Soll ich mich möglichst bald gegen das Virus impfen lassen oder warte ich erstmal ab? In einem Facebook-Post (hier archiviert) ist ein Ausschnitt eines Beitrages der türkischen Nachrichtensendung «Show Ana Haber» vom 22. Oktober 2020 zu sehen. Es wird vom Tod eines 28-jährigen brasilianischen Arztes berichtet, der sich freiwillig für die Testimpfung des Corona-Impfstoffes gemeldet habe. Im Text unterhalb des Videos ist zu lesen «In der BRD verschweigt man so etwas natürlich. Derartige Informationen könnten ja dazu führen, dass die Impfbereitschaft noch weiter abnimmt.»

Publisher’s rating: Falsch. Es gab in Deutschland sowie auch in der Schweiz zahlreiche Medienberichte über den Vorfall. Zudem wird nicht der ganze Beitrag der Sendung «Show Ana Haber» gezeigt.

The post suggested that German media were concealing the death of a 28-year-old Brazilian doctor who had volunteered for an AstraZeneca vaccine study. The review found that the post’s clip showed only an excerpt of a Turkish Show Ana Haber report, not the full broadcast. In the portion left out, the programme said the cause of death was still being investigated when it aired on 22 October 2020. The clip therefore omitted context relevant to what had happened and what was known at the time. [S1: “Irreführend ist, dass im Video auf Facebook nur ein Ausschnitt des Originalbeitrages gezeigt wird. Im weiteren, nicht gezeigten Verlauf des Beitrages wird gesagt, dass die Todesursache des Arztes zum Zeitpunkt der Sendung am 22. Oktober 2020 noch in Abklärung ist.”] The review also contradicts the post’s assertion that the incident was being kept from the German public: it reports that the dpa, Reuters and AFP covered it, as did German outlets including Tagesschau and Süddeutsche Zeitung. It also notes coverage by the Swiss newspaper Blick. [S1: “Neben der dpa hatten auch andere Agenturen wie Reuters und AFP sowie zahlreiche Medien darüber berichtet. Dazu gehörten etwa die Tagesschau und überregionale Medien wie die «Süddeutsche Zeitung». Auch Schweizer Medien haben das Thema aufgegriffen, etwa der «Blick».”] The review describes the death as occurring during an AstraZeneca clinical vaccine study in Brazil, but its account does not support an inference that the vaccine caused it. It cites CNN Brasil reporting that the man died from Covid-19, and O Globo reporting that he may have received a placebo rather than the vaccine. [S1: “Bei dem Toten handelte es sich dem Fernsehsender CNN Brasil zufolge um einen 28 Jahre alten Mann aus Rio de Janeiro. Er sei nicht an Impfkomplikationen, sondern an den Folgen einer Covid-19-Erkrankung gestorben. Die Zeitung «O Globo» berichtete, der Mann sei Arzt gewesen und habe als Freiwilliger an der Studie teilgenommen, möglicherweise aber gar nicht den Impfstoff, sondern ein Placebo bekommen.”]

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Hinweise auf geheime Vorgänge? Ein Foto einer mutmaßlichen Verpackung soll belegen, dass die Firma AstraZeneca die Zusammensetzung ihres Impfstoffs kannte, lange bevor dieser angekündigt wurde. «Monate zuvor wurden diese Packungen für den Impfstoff angefertigt», heißt es in einem Beitrag auf Facebook (hier archiviert).

Publisher’s rating: Die Vermutungen sind falsch. Die Produktion des Impfstoffs hat begonnen, ohne dass eine Zulassung gibt, wie AstraZeneca mitteilt. Erste Meldungen über die Entwicklung eines Covid-19-Impfstoffs durch das Unternehmen gab es aber bereits Ende April - lange vor dem Posting auf Facebook.

The Facebook post circulated a photo described as a possible vaccine package and asserted that the packaging had been prepared months earlier. The review says the image was shared as a screenshot in early December 2020. The message shown in it said the packages had been prepared for shipment “a few weeks” earlier, while also claiming production had begun months before, or “at least 4 months” earlier. Taking the post’s timing as the reference point would place the start of packaging production in the summer of 2020. That chronology does not show that AstraZeneca knew the vaccine’s composition before announcing its development. The review points to the company’s April 30, 2020 announcement of an agreement with the University of Oxford. Oxford had already developed a vaccine called ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and the announcement said initial volunteer tests in a Phase 1 study had begun in April. It also assigned AstraZeneca responsibility for the vaccine’s worldwide manufacture and distribution. Asked by the agency, AstraZeneca did not give an exact production start date, but confirmed that production had begun while clinical studies were still underway. The company described doing so as a way to avoid losing time if the vaccine received regulatory approval. The review therefore distinguishes advance production from evidence that the company had secretly known the vaccine’s composition before its development was announced. It also notes an important limitation: AstraZeneca would not say whether the Facebook photo actually showed packaging for its vaccine.

Vishvas NewsHealth & medicine

వాస్తవ తనిఖీ కోసం విశ్వాస్ న్యూస్ వాట్సాప్ చాట్‌బాట్‌లో ఈ పోస్ట్‌ను అందుకుంది. కరోనా వైరస్‌ను నివారించడానికి ప్రజలు తమ ముఖంపై జుట్టును (మీసాలు, గడ్డం) తీసివేయాలని సిడిసి సిఫారసు చేస్తుందని పేర్కొన్న వాదనతో పాటు ముఖంపై జుట్టు మరియు శ్వాసక్రియకు తోడ్పడే సాధనాలకు సంబంధించిన గ్రాఫిక్స్ వైరల్ అవుతున్నాయి.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns viral posts saying that the CDC advised people to remove their moustaches or beards to prevent COVID-19, accompanied by graphics about facial hair and respirators. Vishvas News reports that it received the claim through its WhatsApp chatbot and investigated the graphics’ origin and whether they related to COVID-19. The review says it used a Google reverse-image search and found the same graphics on the CDC website in November 2017. It describes them as material for workers who wear respirators at work, where facial hair can interfere with the seal. That earlier provenance places the graphics more than two years before the novel coronavirus was identified, rather than showing that the CDC issued COVID-19 prevention guidance to the general public. The review also cites a CDC warning on the blog post directing readers seeking current COVID-19 information to the CDC’s COVID-19 website, and a February 2020 NIOSH tweet stating that the CDC was not then recommending respirators for the general public. A pulmonologist consulted by Vishvas News said there was no evidence that facial hair spreads coronavirus. Taken together, the review’s evidence supports its conclusion that the graphics were old workplace respirator guidance, not a CDC recommendation to remove facial hair to prevent COVID-19.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Der Vorwurf ist altbekannt - schallt nun aber in neuer Schärfe: 22 Forscher stellen in einem Report (hier archiviert) die wissenschaftliche Basis des Coronatests infrage. Das angewandte Diagnosewerkzeug, entwickelt vom Team des deutschen Virologen Christian Drosten, tauge nicht dazu, das neuartige Sars-CoV-2 nachzuweisen. Die Autoren fordern, die grundlegende Veröffentlichung zurückzuziehen.

Publisher’s rating: Es gibt keinen Beleg dafür, dass der aktuell verwendete PCR-Test das Sars-CoV-2-Virus nicht nachweisen kann. Der kritische Report, der dies behauptet, umging tradierte wissenschaftliche Kontrollinstanzen.

The claim concerns a report by 22 researchers that challenged the scientific basis of the coronavirus test developed by Christian Drosten’s team and called for the foundational paper to be withdrawn. The review says the report described the PCR method as “useless,” but distinguishes that allegation from evidence that the test in use could not detect SARS-CoV-2. It reports that fellow specialists had not identified serious flaws in the original study. The review’s account focuses in part on how the challenge was presented. The report appeared on a website created for it; a page there said it had also been submitted to Eurosurveillance, the journal that published the paper under criticism. The review contrasts this with the usual route of journal peer review, or preprint publication, and says that presenting the claims to the public before expert review bypassed customary scientific checks. That procedural criticism does not, by itself, establish whether the PCR method works; the review separately notes the lack of identified serious errors in the study. The review also describes the technical objection: the critics challenged the design of the “primers,” molecules that bind to SARS-CoV-2 genetic material in the test. It reports that some of the signatories were researchers outside the relevant specialties, while identifying the original study as widely cited and saying it had received two minor improvements. These points provide context for the dispute, but the excerpt does not describe new experimental testing by the review; its stated conclusion rests on the reported status of the original study and the way the critical report was submitted and presented.