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

Gegner der Maskenpflicht bezweifeln den Nutzen einer Maske in der Corona-Pandemie, teilweise halten sie ihn sogar für gesundheitsgefährdend. Mit Verweis auf ein Dokument der US-Gesundheitsbehörde CDC soll nun bewiesen werden, dass es deutlich mehr Corona-Infektionen gibt unter denjenigen Personen, die immer eine Maske tragen, als unter jenen, die nie eine Maske tragen. Die Rede ist von mehr als 70 Prozent gegenüber etwa 4 Prozent (hier archiviert).

Publisher’s rating: Die CDC-Studie wird völlig falsch interpretiert. Die Gesundheitsbehörde kommt in dem Papier zu dem Schluss, dass das Tragen von Masken die Ausbreitung des Coronavirus verlangsamt.

The claim treats the CDC table’s percentages for mask use as if they showed the share of mask wearers who became infected. The review explains that the table instead separates people who tested positive (“case-patients”) from those who tested negative (“control participants”), and reports mask-wearing habits within each group. The study surveyed more than 300 adults between July 1 and 29, 2020; its results were published September 11. “Always” wearing a mask in the preceding 14 days was reported by 70.6% of the 153 positive cases and 74.2% of the 159 negative controls. “Never” wearing one was reported by 3.9% of cases and 3.1% of controls. Those figures do not establish that mask wearers were more likely to be infected. The review says the relevant comparison is between the two groups, not between “always” and “never” within the positive-case group alone. It notes that the Facebook post showed only the 153 positive cases, a partial view that omitted the comparison group. On the table’s reported figures, a greater share of the negative controls than of the positive cases said they always wore a mask. The review also describes other differences between the groups that matter to interpreting the study: 42.2% of positive cases reported close contact with someone with COVID-19, compared with 14.5% of controls, and more cases than controls had visited a restaurant or bar in the preceding 14 days. The study authors cautioned that masks cannot be worn effectively while eating or drinking. The review says the CDC paper did not claim masks increase infection risk; it recommended wearing them in public and near people outside one’s household, while presenting masks as one part of a broader prevention strategy.

BBC Reality CheckHealth & medicine

"It's estimated that if we wore masks the next few months, by his own experts in the CDC and other agencies... we'd save 100,000 lives."

Publisher’s rating: The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) does not make this projection, nor do others.

The claim concerned a statement by Joe Biden during the 2020 US election campaign: that wearing masks over the next few months could save 100,000 lives, supposedly according to the CDC and other agencies. The BBC’s review examined whether that figure came from the CDC and compared it with a projection it identified as a possible source of Biden’s number. [S1] The review says Biden may have been referring to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), at the University of Washington, rather than to a CDC projection. It reports that the IHME’s latest estimate was that 62,000 lives would be saved by the end of January 2021 if mask-wearing was almost universal—substantially below the 100,000 figure Biden cited. [S1] The review also distinguishes the CDC’s recommendation from a forecast: it says the CDC recommended masks in public settings, events and gatherings to help stop coronavirus spread, but did not make the cited projection. The excerpt does not describe a separate calculation by the BBC; it presents the CDC’s position and compares Biden’s figure with the IHME estimate. [S1]

Vishvas NewsHealth & medicine

అరుదుగా ఒక మహిళ సత్కరించబడిన వీడియో, అన్నీస్ కన్మనీ జాయ్ త్రివేండ్రం మెడికల్ కాలేజీలో నర్సు. ఆమె ఐఎఎస్ పూర్తి చేసి కొడగులో డిస్ట్రిక్ట్ కమిషనర్‌గా పనిచేస్తున్నారు. ఆమె నర్సింగ్ అనుభవం కారణంగా, కోడగ్ జిల్లాను పూర్తిగా కోవిడ్ నుండి బయటకు తీసుకురావడానికి తోడ్పాటునందిస్తున్నారు. ఆమె కొడగు ప్రజల నుండి ప్రత్యేక ప్రశంసలు పొందుతున్నారు.'

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

MediaWiseHealth & medicine

The flu kills 100,000 annually and is it more lethal than the coronavirus

Publisher’s rating: Not Legit

The review addresses a claim President Donald Trump made in an Oct. 6 tweet: that more than 100,000 people die of flu each year and that COVID-19 is far less lethal. It says the claim is unsupported on both points. The review reports that, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, the highest annual flu death toll in the preceding ten years was 62,000, in 2017–2018, and that annual deaths had not exceeded 100,000 in more than 50 years. For comparison, the review says coronavirus had killed well over 200,000 Americans since March and was estimated to be ten times more deadly than the flu. These figures directly address the comparison in the claim: the review’s cited flu history does not support an annual toll of 100,000, while its reported coronavirus deaths and estimated relative lethality contradict the assertion that COVID-19 was less lethal. The excerpt identifies CDC data as the basis for the flu-death figures but does not provide the underlying calculations or explain the method behind the ten-times estimate.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Es gebe keine Pandemie, sondern, im Gegenteil, eine sogenannte Untersterblichkeit - so steht es in einer Grafik, die auf Facebook verbreitet wird (hier archiviert). Gezeigt werden Diagramme des Netzwerks EuroMOMO, das Daten zur Sterblichkeit in mehreren europäischen Ländern und Regionen sammelt und veröffentlicht.

Publisher’s rating: Die Grafiken sind aus dem Kontext gerissen und bieten keinen Beleg für die Behauptung, es gebe keine Pandemie. EuroMOMO weist für alle teilnehmenden Länder und Regionen zusammen insbesondere für den Zeitraum der ersten Corona-Welle eine sehr hohe Übersterblichkeit aus. Auch in Deutschland ist ein solcher statistischer Effekt bereits messbar gewesen.

The Facebook graphic used EuroMOMO mortality charts to suggest that there was no pandemic and, instead, below-average mortality. The review found that the graphic showed only Austria and Berlin, not mortality across Europe or even all of Germany. It therefore left out the places whose mortality data showed the strongest effects during the first COVID-19 wave. The review compared those selected charts with EuroMOMO data for other participating countries and regions. It reports that Italy, Spain, the UK, Belgium and Sweden showed pronounced excess mortality over several weeks in March and April 2020. The peak was generally in calendar week 14, March 30 to April 5; EuroMOMO’s bulletin for that week explicitly linked the excess to COVID-19. The review also points to the pooled EuroMOMO chart, which recorded more than 30,000 deaths above expected in some weeks in March and April. The lower or sometimes below-expected figures in Austria and Berlin did not establish that there was no pandemic. The review notes that restrictions and changes in public behaviour had slowed transmission in those locations, while the October values shown in the graphic could also reflect ordinary variation. For Germany, it cites a Federal Statistical Office special analysis: across calendar weeks 12–20 of 2020, deaths were about 8,700 above the 2016–2019 average. That analysis used a broader data base than EuroMOMO’s contributions from Berlin and Hesse alone.

Factcrescendo Sri LankaHealth & medicine

සතියක් හුමාලය ආශ්වාස කිරීමෙන් කෝවිඩ්-19 වැළඳීම වළක්වා ගත හැකි බවක් රජයේ වෛද්‍ය නිලධාරීන්ගේ සංගමය පැවසුවේ නැත!

Publisher’s rating: False

The review investigated a social-media post presented as a GMOA message. It said that inhaling steam through the nose and mouth for a week could prevent COVID-19, and also claimed the virus was destroyed at 70°C. The post was circulated by the Facebook page “රට වෙනුවෙන් අපි” under the theme “වාෂ්ප සතිය අරඹමු.” The review’s conclusion was specifically that this was not an official GMOA notice—not that the claimed advice had been issued by the association. To check the post’s provenance, the review examined the GMOA’s official Facebook page, where it found a post identifying the circulating message as fake. It also reported that the association told the fact-checkers it had never issued such advice. These checks directly address whether the message came from the GMOA. The article additionally described comments by GMOA secretary Dr. Haritha Aluthge about proposals to reduce COVID-19 spread, including limiting movement and avoiding crowded, close-contact, and enclosed settings; it did not present those measures as endorsement of steam inhalation. The review separately addressed the health claim: it said scientific evidence had not established steam inhalation alone as a way to prevent COVID-19, and noted that incorrect inhalation could cause burns. It also quoted the WHO’s position that, although some remedies may temporarily relieve symptoms, no medicine had yet been found to prevent or cure the disease. The review concluded that the supposed GMOA advice was not an official announcement and that steam inhalation should not be treated as a proven means of preventing infection.

ComprovaHealth & medicine

A letalidade da covid-19 é similar às consequências que podem ser causadas pela vacina da China

Publisher’s rating: ENGANOSO: Tuítes que viralizaram nas redes sociais comparam indevidamente coisas diferentes. A letalidade é o número de pessoas que morreram após contrair o novo coronavírus; as reações adversas da vacina tratam da quantidade de pessoas que apresentaram sintomas como dor muscular no local da aplicação ou perda de apetite após receberem o imunizante