Health & medicine fact checks

දැඩි ලෙස රෝගාතුරව අසරණව සිටින W.D.ආරියසිංහ මහතාට පිහිටවන ලෙස ඉල්ලීමක්

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The posts under review said that veteran singer W.D. Ariyasinghe was seriously ill at his home in Rathmalana and asked people to help him. The review investigated whether that appeal reflected his actual circumstances. It reports contacting his son, Harshadeva Ariyasinghe, who confirmed that his father had been ill after an accident but said the circulated photograph was taken months earlier, during that earlier illness. He also said his father had undergone surgery on one leg and was recovering.

“Menina de 13 anos desmaia e morre em ônibus escolar, asfixiada pela máscara, na Alemanha”.

Publisher’s rating: Falso

இந்தச் சிகிச்சையைக் கண்டுபிடித்தவர் பிரேசில் நாட்டில் பிறந்தவரும், சிறந்த மருத்துவரும், பாதிரியாருமாகிய Fr ரோமனோ சகோ (Fr Romano Zago) என்பவர். இவர் கண்டுபிடித்த இம்மருந்தை புற்று நோயால் மிகக்கடுமையாக பாதிக்கப்பட்டவர்கள் கூட உபயோகித்து குணமடைந்துள்ளனர். சோற்றுக் கற்றாழை 400 கிராம், சுத்தமான தேன் 500 கிராம், Whisky (or) Brandy 50 மில்லி (மருந்தாக மட்டும் பயன்படுத்துக). தயாரிப்பு முறை – சோற்றுக் கற்றாழையை எடுத்து பக்கவாட்டில் உள்ள முட்களை நீக்கி கொள்ள வேண்டும். தோலை நீக்கிவிடக்கூடாது. தோலை சுத்தமான துணியினால் துடைத்துக் கொள்ள வேண்டும். அடுத்த படியாக எவ்வளவு முடியுமோ அவ்வளவு சிறியதாக கற்றாழையை நறுக்கிக் கொள்ளவேண்டும். நறுக்கப்பட்ட துண்டுகளை ஒரு பாத்திரத்தில் கொட்டி தேன் மற்றும் whisky (or) brandy யுடன் சேர்த்து ஒரு கரண்டியால் நன்றாக கலக்க வேண்டும். இப்போது மருந்து தயாராகி விட்டது. மருந்தை உட்கொள்ளும் விதம் – இம்மருந்தை தினமும் மூன்று வேளை உணவு அருந்துவதற்கு 30 நிமிடத்திற்கு முன்பு 15 ml வீதம் உண்ண வேண்டும்.ஒவ்வொரு முறை பயன்படுத்தும் போதும் மருந்தை நன்றாக குலுக்கிக் கொள்ள வேண்டும. மேலே சொன்ன அளவில் செய்தால் பத்து நாட்களுக்கு இந்த மருந்து வரும். மருந்து தீர்ந்தவுடன் 10 நாள் கழித்து மீண்டும் தயாரித்து உண்ணவேண்டும். பத்து நாட்களுக்கு மேல் மருந்தை storage செய்ய கூடாது.

Publisher’s rating: Fake

LA PANDEMIA ESTÁ DISEÑADO DESDE 2017 EN EL BANCO MUNDIAL

Publisher’s rating: Falso

“If this were the Obama administration, you wouldn’t have that [COVID-19] vaccine for three years, and you probably wouldn’t have it all.”

Publisher’s rating: Unsupported

Claims Joe Biden and running mate Kamala Harris are spreading “anti-vaccine conspiracy theories" about a COVID-19 vaccine.

Publisher’s rating: Distorts the Facts

Die Zahl der Corona-Toten ist immer wieder Gegenstand von Diskussionen. «Still und heimlich» sei in den USA «offengelegt» worden, wie viele Patienten dort ausschliesslich an Covid-19 verstorben seien, heisst es nun in einigen Posts. Offizielle Zahlen der amerikanischen Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) würden es belegen: Nur ein Bruchteil der Corona-Toten in den USA sei allein auf Covid-19 zurückzuführen. Die CDC hätten die Corona-Todeszahlen nämlich «massiv nach unten» korrigiert (hier archiviert).

Publisher’s rating: Die CDC haben die Zahlen nicht vor Kurzem nach unten korrigiert. Nach Angaben der CDC sind bisher weit mehr als 100 000 Menschen in den USA als direkte Folge von Covid-19 gestorben. In 94 Prozent der ausgewerteten Todesfälle wiesen die gestorbenen Personen eine oder mehrere Vorerkrankungen auf oder es wurden weitere Todesursachen genannt. Die US-Behörde veröffentlicht diese Art von Auswertungen der Corona-Todesfälle schon seit Monaten auf ihrer Webseite.

The claim mischaracterizes a CDC breakdown of deaths where Covid-19 was listed on the death certificate as a recent downward revision of the overall US death count. The review reports that the CDC had published this breakdown since early May and updated it weekly; it says the figures had not been newly revised downward. The CDC description explicitly covered deaths with Covid-19 listed on the death certificate, rather than identifying deaths in which Covid-19 was absent. The review quotes the CDC breakdown as saying Covid-19 was the only mentioned cause in 6% of those deaths. For the remaining cases, it reports an average of 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. Those figures describe recorded accompanying conditions, not a finding that Covid-19 did not cause the deaths. The review also cites the CDC’s response to the German Press Agency: Covid-19 was the underlying cause in 92% of deaths where it appeared on the death certificate. The distinction matters: the posts’ “only Covid-19” framing treats the presence of other conditions as evidence against Covid-19 being a cause. The review instead explains that the CDC table concerned deaths involving Covid-19 and that accompanying conditions could include a range of illnesses. It also reports that the agency had published the analysis for months, contradicting the claim that it had been disclosed secretly or newly used to cut the death count.

Im Internet kursiert die Behauptung, die Angst vor Viren sei unbegründet. Angeblich konnte bislang keine Ansteckung durch sie bewiesen werden. Als Beleg wird in dem Beitrag (hier archiviert) auf einen Bericht der US-Gesundheitsbehörde CDC verwiesen. Angeführt werden außerdem vermeintliche Thesen des Chemikers Louis Pasteur. Er habe im Laufe seiner Forschung «den Glauben an die Lehre der außerkörperlichen Krankheitserreger» aufgegeben.

Publisher’s rating: Die Ansteckungsgefahr durch Viren ist wissenschaftlich belegt. Die Bezüge zu Pasteur sind zudem irreführend und der von der CDC veröffentlichte Forschungsbericht falsch wiedergegeben.

The claim combines two assertions: that no viral infection has been demonstrated, and that Louis Pasteur came to reject the idea that disease-causing agents could come from outside the body. The review traces the first assertion to a CDC-magazine report about a study by researchers in Hong Kong, rather than to a report concluding that viruses do not spread. The study considered whether measures such as hand hygiene and face masks helped prevent influenza transmission. The review says the study’s conclusions were narrower: its authors found no evidence of a larger effect from those interventions in the research they examined. It also noted that scientific evidence for the effectiveness of recommended sneeze etiquette was lacking. The review explains that these qualifications concern the evidence for particular preventive measures; they do not establish that influenza or other viruses cannot be transmitted. It further cites the CDC’s warnings about transmission risks from coronavirus and influenza. On Pasteur, the review describes disputes with Claude Bernard and Antoine Béchamp over the role of external germs versus the body’s internal condition. It reports that Pasteur eventually agreed with the importance of the body’s condition, but says this does not mean he denied that viruses can cause disease. The review also states that Pasteur’s germ theory underpinned his research and that he helped scientifically demonstrate the rabies agent and develop a vaccine. The account therefore distinguishes the role of a person’s susceptibility from whether infectious agents can cause disease.

¿Salió realmente el virus covid-19 de un laboratorio en China como sugiere Trump y su equipo?

Publisher’s rating: No hay evidencia

Kayleigh McEnany claimed that Obama promised a COVID vaccine

Publisher’s rating: false

“FIESTA IRRESPONSABLE DEL SENADOR JUAN CASTRO DEJA A MÁS DE 20 INVITADOS CON COVID-19”

Publisher’s rating: Impreciso

“Eu amo carne mal passada ! Quando tu for a uma churrascaria e pedir "aquela carne mal passada", lembre-se deste vídeo. Para quem já ouviu falar, mas nunca viu uma Tênia Solium/Saginata,

Publisher’s rating: Falso

“Assistam até o final!!! Uma família morta por causa da vacina covid-19. "Se toda população se unir o jogo acaba.".

Publisher’s rating: Falso

In Berliner Corona-Klinik werden Schauspieler bezahlt, damit sie als Corona-Kranke gelten

Publisher’s rating: Diese Aussage ist falsch. In Berlin werden keine Schauspieler bezahlt, um als Corona-Kranke zu gelten. Es handelte sich um eine Übung der Reserveklinik in der Jafféstraße. Dafür wurden Statisten benötigt,damit sich das medizinische Personal für den Notfall vorbereiten kann.

Angesichts vieler Neuinfektionen mit dem Coronavirus beschäftigt sich das Portal «Journalistenwatch» in einem Artikel mit der Diskussion um die sogenannten PCR-Tests - und schreibt, dass «90 Prozent der Positiv-Getesteten [...] gar nicht positiv gewesen» seien.

Publisher’s rating: Die aktuelle Diskussion in der Wissenschaft beschäftigt sich nicht mit der Frage, ob PCR-Tests auf das Coronavirus falsch ausfallen, sondern ob sie möglicherweise zu sensitiv sind. Das heißt: Viele positiv Getestete könnten eine ungefährliche Viruslast aufweisen. Bei der eingangs genannten hohen Fehlerquote wurden Zahlen der «New York Times» falsch interpretiert.

The claim concerned a Journalistenwatch article about PCR testing, which said that 90 percent of people testing positive “had not actually tested positive.” The dpa review compared that claim with the New York Times article Journalistenwatch cited. It found that the cited article did not say that 90 percent of positive tests in the United States were false, or might be false. The figure referred instead to data from three states that the New York Times had been able to examine. In those datasets, up to 90 percent of positive tests were associated with very low viral loads, as indicated by the number of amplification cycles. The distinction is important: the review says the test results were positive, while the data raised a separate question about how much the results indicated about viral load and possible infectiousness. The dpa review also distinguishes a test’s positive result from a false positive. It explains that a false positive is an error in the test’s yes-or-no detection of infection, whereas a positive result accompanied by low viral load is not thereby a false positive. The review notes that sampling errors can occur but describes them as very rare.

“El presidente nunca le restó importancia al virus”

Publisher’s rating: Falso

The claim was made by White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany at a September 9, 2020, briefing: “El presidente nunca le restó importancia al virus” (“The president never downplayed the virus”). The review tested that statement against Trump’s public remarks and his recorded conversations with journalist Bob Woodward. It reports that, in a March 19 recording, Trump said he had wanted to downplay the coronavirus and still wanted to do so to avoid causing panic. The review also describes a sequence of public reassurances before mid-March. It cites Trump saying on January 30 that the problem was “muy pequeño” and appeared under control; on February 14 that the country was in a “muy buena posición”; and on February 24 that the virus was “prácticamente bajo control.” On March 9, he blamed media and Democrats for trying to exacerbate the situation beyond what the facts warranted. The review contrasts those remarks with Trump’s later insistence that he had always known the pandemic was real. Its conclusion concerns what Trump said publicly, not why he said it: the review states that his words did not support McEnany’s categorical denial that he had downplayed the virus, and rates her statement false. It notes that Trump said he was trying to prevent panic, but treats that motive as separate from whether his public remarks minimized the threat.

Die Zahl der Corona-Toten ist immer wieder Gegenstand von Diskussionen. «Still und heimlich», heißt es nun in einigen Posts, sei in den USA «offengelegt» worden, wie viele Patienten dort ausschließlich an Covid-19 verstorben seien. Offizielle Zahlen der amerikanischen Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) würden es belegen: Nur ein Bruchteil der Corona-Toten in den USA sei allein auf Covid-19 zurückzuführen. Die CDC hätten die Corona-Todeszahlen nämlich «drastisch nach unten» korrigiert (hier archiviert).

Publisher’s rating: Die CDC haben die Zahlen nicht vor Kurzem nach unten korrigiert. Nach Angaben der CDC sind bisher weit mehr als 100 000 Menschen in den USA als direkte Folge von Covid-19 gestorben. In 94 Prozent der ausgewerteten Todesfälle wiesen die gestorbenen Personen eine oder mehrere Vorerkrankungen auf oder es wurden weitere Todesursachen genannt. Die US-Behörde veröffentlicht diese Art von Auswertungen der Corona-Todesfälle schon seit Monaten auf ihrer Webseite.

The posts claimed that the CDC had quietly disclosed that only a small fraction of U.S. COVID-19 deaths were caused by COVID-19, and had drastically reduced its death count. The dpa review examined the CDC’s published breakdown of death-certificate records and the timing of its release. It reports that the analysis had appeared on the CDC website since early May and was updated weekly—not newly introduced as a downward revision. The key distinction is between COVID-19 being the underlying cause of death and other conditions also being recorded. The CDC table covered cases in which COVID-19 was listed on the death certificate; the review quotes the agency’s National Center for Health Statistics as saying that COVID-19 was the underlying cause in 92 percent of those deaths. The table’s “Comorbidities” section said COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned in 6 percent of deaths, while the other cases included additional conditions or causes. That 6 percent figure therefore did not mean that COVID-19 caused only 6 percent of the deaths in the table. The review also notes that the CDC count included more than 100,000 people who died as a direct result of COVID-19 at the time. It explains that a recorded additional condition does not by itself establish that COVID-19 was not causal: the CDC table described contributing conditions alongside COVID-19, rather than a revised count of deaths attributable to the virus.

Die Zahl der Corona-Toten ist immer wieder Gegenstand von Diskussionen in sozialen Netzwerken. Nun kursiert das Video eines Arztes, in dem er behauptet, Covid-19 sei nur noch eine «Laborpandemie». «Wo sind die ganzen Toten?» sei die wichtigste Frage, erklärt der Urologe in dem Video. Eine gefährliche Erkrankung werde nämlich «durch die Toten bestimmt, nicht durch die Infizierten». Laut den neuesten Daten der amerikanischen Seuchenbehörde CDC seien in den USA «nur etwa 6 Prozent überhaupt ursächlich an Sars-CoV-2 gestorben».

Publisher’s rating: Diese Behauptung ist falsch. Nach Angaben der CDC sind bisher weit mehr als 100 000 Menschen in den USA als direkte Folge von Covid-19 gestorben. In 92 Prozent aller Fälle mit Covid-19 auf dem Totenschein war laut CDC die Krankheit die zugrundliegende Todesursache.

The claim concerns a video in which a urologist calls Covid-19 a “laboratory pandemic,” asks where the dead are, and says that only about 6 percent of U.S. deaths were caused by SARS-CoV-2. The review examined the CDC statistic behind that percentage. It reports that the CDC table counted deaths where Covid-19 was listed on the death certificate, and that the 6 percent figure referred to cases where Covid-19 was the only cause mentioned—not to cases where it was the underlying cause. To check how the figure should be understood, the review cites the CDC’s explanation of its data and a response from the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics to the agency. The NCHS said that Covid-19 was the underlying cause in 92 percent of deaths where it appeared on the death certificate. The review also notes that, in the remaining cases, the records listed an average of 2.6 additional conditions or causes. It gives examples such as diabetes, pneumonia, obesity and Alzheimer’s disease, which can be present alongside Covid-19 rather than displacing it as a cause of death. The review adds a separate comparison from Hamburg, using city and Robert Koch Institute figures current to September 1, 2020. The city reported 236 deaths in which its institute of forensic medicine had determined Covid-19 to be the cause; the RKI listed 266 deaths after laboratory confirmation. The review calculates that 89 percent of the RKI-listed cases were considered actually caused by Covid-19. It also describes a study of 80 deaths among people infected with SARS-CoV-2: the authors classified 76 as Covid-19 deaths, while four were judged independent of Covid-19. Together, these details show why the 6 percent “sole cause” statistic does not establish that only 6 percent of deaths were caused by Covid-19.

"US-Behörde: Statt 161.000 Todesfällen sind in den USA tatsächlich nur 9.600 an Covid-19 gestorben. (...) Nun wird offengelegt, wieviele Patienten tatsächlich an Covid-19 verstorben sind. Dies geschah jedoch still und heimlich (...)"

Publisher’s rating: Falsch. Behauptungen, neue Zahlen aus den USA zeigten, dass lediglich sechs Prozent der offiziellen Corona-Toten dort auch tatsächlich an Covid-19 gestorben seien, sind falsch. Die restlichen 94 Prozent sind ebenfalls Covid-19-Tote - bei ihnen wurden jedoch Vor- oder Begleiterkrankungen auf dem Totenschein vermerkt. Die CDC-Daten werden nicht still und heimlich korrigiert, die Daten und Anmerkungen dazu sind öffentlich.

Op sociale media wordt regelmatig gesteld dat mondmaskers schadelijk zijn voor de gezondheid. De reden: er zit te veel koolstofdioxide (CO2) onder het masker. Een Oostenrijkse video die in verschillende talen wordt gedeeld, moet dat punt bewijzen aan de hand van een "CO2-sensor", die onder een chirurgisch masker wordt gestoken. Het bericht moet aantonen dat na slechts een paar keer ademen de Maximaal Aanvaarde Concentratie (of MAC-waarde) veelvoudig wordt overschreden. "De video laat zien hoe het masker zelfmoord is", klinkt het, maar klopt dat wel?

Publisher’s rating: De meting in de video is misleidend omdat het apparaat niet voor dit doel is ontworpen. Bovendien is het dragen van een mondmasker over het algemeen niet schadelijk voor de mens en leidt het er zeker niet toe dat we een schadelijke hoeveelheid koolstofdioxide inademen.

The claim concerns a video in which a CO2 meter is put under a surgical mask, supposedly showing that after only a few breaths the MAC value is greatly exceeded. The review says that this measurement does not establish that mask wearers inhale a harmful amount of CO2: the meter is being used outside the conditions for which it was designed, and the air trapped beneath a mask is not the same as the air a person inhales in a room. Professor Uwe Pliquett of the German Institute for Bioprocess and Analytical Measurement Techniques explains that simple infrared CO2 meters are calibrated for room-air conditions, including ordinary pressure, temperature and humidity. Under a mask, the sensor encounters exhaled air with a much higher CO2 concentration; pressure there can also raise its reading by 10 to 20 percent. The device therefore registers conditions that are not representative of the amount of CO2 a person breathes in. The review also notes that a person inhales more air than the air held just beneath the mask. The review reports that the German Respiratory Association considers a harmful increase in CO2 unlikely with loose surgical or homemade masks. It distinguishes these from tighter FFP2 and FFP3 masks, which can make breathing more effortful, while describing dangerous CO2 increases as unlikely. People with chronic breathing problems may experience discomfort or shortness of breath; this qualification does not support the video’s general claim about masks being harmful to health.