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 image13,676 published reviews in this topic
Gasoline and diesel can be used as disinfectant against the virus that causes COVID-19.
Publisher’s rating: False
Demos und Protestveranstaltungen führen zu einem Anstieg der Infektionszahlen.
Publisher’s rating: Falsch nach bisherigem Kenntnisstand. Bisher haben das RKI und die Gesundheitsbehörden von München und Berlin aber keine konkreten Hinweise darauf, dass es einen Anstieg von Corona-Fällen nach größeren Demos gab. Prinzipiell birgt aber jede größere Ansammlung von Menschen das Risiko, sich mit Sars-CoV-2 anzustecken, vor allem, wenn die Hygieneregeln nicht eingehalten werden. Infektionen auf Demonstrationen zurückzuführen ist für die Behörden jedoch aus mehreren Gründen schwierig.
Foto yang diklaim sebagai foto jutaan warga Jerman yang berdemonstrasi terkait Covid-19 pada 1 Agustus 2020
Publisher’s rating: Keliru
Vicks VapoRub will help in reducing belly fat
Publisher’s rating: There is no scientific evidence to prove that Vicks VapoRub, a topical ointment used for nasal congestion and cough can melt away belly fat and eventually lead to weight loss. The claim is false.
Op Facebook is een post geplaatst waarin een zogenaamde brief van het Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM) te lezen valt. De brief is gericht aan ouders en stelt dat ze "impliciet toestemming geven" om hun kinderen te laten vaccineren tegen het nieuwe coronavirus, door hen naar school te laten gaan. Dat zou gebaseerd zijn op een "besluit" van de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie (WHO).
Publisher’s rating: De brief is nep en niet van het RIVM afkomstig. Een "impliciete toestemming" bestaat net zo min als de bijgevoegde WHO-richtlijn. Er is ook nog helemaal geen vaccin tegen COVID-19 klaar om op grote schaal ingezet te worden, noch is er een datum bekend van wanneer dat er zou komen.
The review examined a Facebook post showing a purported RIVM letter to parents. The letter claimed that parents implicitly consented to their children being vaccinated against the coronavirus by sending them to school, supposedly under a WHO decision. The review found that the letter was not issued by RIVM and that the asserted implicit-consent rule and accompanying WHO guidance did not exist. It also reported that no COVID-19 vaccine was then ready for widespread use and that there was no known date for one to become available. [S1: “Op Facebook is een post geplaatst waarin een zogenaamde brief van het Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM) te lezen valt. De brief is gericht aan ouders en stelt dat ze \"impliciet toestemming geven\" om hun kinderen te laten vaccineren tegen het nieuwe coronavirus, door hen naar school te laten gaan. Dat zou gebaseerd zijn op een \"besluit\" van de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie (WHO).”] [S1: “BEOORDELING: De brief is nep en niet van het RIVM afkomstig. Een \"impliciete toestemming\" bestaat net zo min als de bijgevoegde WHO-richtlijn. Er is ook nog helemaal geen vaccin tegen COVID-19 klaar om op grote schaal ingezet te worden, noch is er een datum bekend van wanneer dat er zou komen.”] The investigation reports that an RIVM communications adviser, Loes Hartman, explicitly denied that the letter came from the institute. She pointed to its content and incorrect use of the government’s visual identity as evidence it was fake. The review also describes a practical check with a staff member at The Hague’s Centre for Youth and Family, who rejected the letter’s suggestion that vaccinations take place at schools and described other vaccination settings. [S1: “Loes Hartman, communicatieadviseur bij het RIVM, zegt in een e-mail aan dpa: \"De betreffende brief is zeer zeker NIET van het RIVM afkomstig. De brief bevat duidelijk nepnieuws.\" Dat blijkt uit zowel inhoud als vorm. \"Enerzijds is dat te zien aan het feit dat de inhoud volstrekte onzin is, anderzijds wijst het verkeerd gebruik van de huisstijl erop dat het RIVM niet de echte afzender is.\"”] [S1: “Bij de CJG Den Haag is men verbaasd over de suggestie in de brief dat er in scholen gevaccineerd zou worden. \"Er wordt nooit gevaccineerd op scholen\", aldus een medewerkster. \"Er wordt in Nederland alleen gevaccineerd bij de huis- of kinderarts, bij de GGD'en (gemeentelijke gezondheidsdiensten) of in een CJG.\"”] The review further says that vaccination in the Netherlands was voluntary, with parental consent required for minors and consent from children aged 12 and older as well. Hartman said COVID-19 vaccines were still in development and not yet ready or tested for use; when they would be ready was unknown. These details address the letter’s central implication that school attendance itself authorized an imminent vaccination campaign. [S1: “In zijn algemeenheid geldt dat inentingen in Nederland alleen gebeuren op vrijwillige basis. Bij minderjarigen moeten de ouders ermee instemmen. Kinderen vanaf 12 jaar moeten zelf ook instemmen met een vaccinatie.”] [S1: “Inhoudelijk gesproken kan het RIVM ook helemaal geen landelijke vaccinatiecampagne tegen COVID-19 lanceren omdat vaccins, weliswaar in ontwikkeling, maar nog niet klaar en getest zijn voor gebruik. Wanneer het wel zover zal zijn is volgens haar \"koffiedik kijken\".”]
Claim: Has Ranjan Gogoi infected with Covid 19
Publisher’s rating: False
The review examined reports and a Facebook post claiming that Ranjan Gogoi, the retired Chief Justice of India associated with the Ayodhya Ram temple ruling, had tested positive for COVID-19. It says the Samayam Tamil post was published on August 5, 2020, and that other Tamil outlets also carried the claim. The review recounts that the reports described the news as confirmed, but says the fact-checkers later encountered a correction from Bar & Bench, a court-news outlet. [S1: “ராமர் கோவில் தீர்ப்பு வழங்கிய நீதிபதிக்கு இன்று கொரோனா என்று Samayam Tamil ஃபேஸ்புக் பக்கத்தில் பகிரப்பட்டுள்ளது. 2020 ஆகஸ்ட் 5ம் தேதி இந்த செய்தி வெளியிடப்பட்டுள்ளது.”] [S1: “சமயம் தமிழ், தினத்தந்தி, தமிழ் ஒன் இந்தியா என்று தமிழின் முன்னணி ஊடகங்களில் உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தின் ஓய்வு பெற்ற தலைமை நீதிபதி ரஞ்சன் கோகாய்க்கு கொரோனா என்று செய்தி வெளியாகி இருந்தது.”] The decisive evidence described in the review is Bar & Bench’s statement that the claim was false and that Gogoi had confirmed this when asked. The review says this correction was then echoed in Tamil online coverage, including Nakkeeran. It concludes that the reports arose after someone circulated a rumor amid the start of the Ram temple construction, and that the claim was not true. The excerpt does not provide the underlying exchange with Gogoi or the other outlets’ independent verification, so the stated confirmation is evidence as reported by the review rather than documentation reproduced here. [S1: “ரஞ்சன் கோகாய்க்கு கொரோனா என்று வெளியான தகவல் தவறு என்று குறிப்பிட்டிருந்தனர். மேலும், ரஞ்சன் கோகாயிடம் இது பற்றி விசாரித்ததாகவும், இந்த தகவல் தவறானது என்று அவர் உறுதி செய்ததாகவும் குறிப்பிட்டிருந்தனர்.”] [S1: “தமிழில் நக்கீரன் உள்ளிட்ட ஆன்லைன் செய்திகளில் ரஞ்சன் கோகாய்க்கு கொரோனா இல்லை என்று செய்தி வெளியிட்டிருந்தன.”] [S1: “ராமர் கோவில் கட்டுமானப் பணிகள் தொடங்கிய நிலையில் யாரோ வதந்தி கிளப்பிவிட, அது உண்மை என்று நம்பி பலரும் செய்தி வெளியிட்டிருப்பது உறுதியானது.”]
La vidéo de la conférence de presse d’un groupe de médecins américains – qui s’est attribué le nom de « America’s Frontline Doctors »- sont largement partagés sur les réseaux sociaux. Les médecins, qui s’adressent aux caméras, affirment que l’hydroxychloroquine est le médicament idéal pour traiter le coronavirus. Ils appellent les hôpitaux à utiliser ce traitement dans la lutte contre le COVID-19. Les médecins évoquent également le niveau de contagiosité nul des enfants et l’ingestion de compléments alimentaires tels que le zinc pour soigner les patients atteints du SARS-CoV-2.
Publisher’s rating: De nombreuses déclarations des médecins américains sont fausses. Il n’existe aucune étude scientifique vérifiée et appuyée scientifiquement qui démontre que l’hydroxychloroquine et le zinc sont efficaces pour traiter le coronavirus. Il n’est pas non plus exclu que les enfants puissent transmettre le virus.
In een post op Facebook wordt beweerd dat een verplicht pasje vanaf september nodig is om aan te tonen dat je gevaccineerd bent tegen het coronavirus. Dat pasje moet je bijvoorbeeld tonen om te worden toegelaten bij het publiek van een voetbalwedstrijd: "[...] Bloed afnemen, kijken of je gevaccineerd bent en anti-stoffen hebt. Dan pas krijg je een pasje zodat je naar het voetbalstadion kan [...]”, valt er te lezen.
Publisher’s rating: De stelling is fout. Er zijn volgens de KNVB geen plannen om zo'n pas verplicht te stellen. Er wordt wel gewerkt aan een elektronische pas om te bewijzen dat men niet besmet is, maar dan voor gebruik op vrijwillige basis. De regering bevestigt dat er geen plannen zijn voor een verplichte pas.
Auf Facebook kursiert in einem Posting die Behauptung, dass die angebliche Herstellerfirma eines Covid-19-Tests den makabren Namen «Ispos Mori» trage. Das bedeute aus dem Lateinischen übersetzt: «Du wirst sterben» beziehungsweise «Sie sterben».
Publisher’s rating: Ipsos MORI ist kein Hersteller für Medizinprodukte, sondern ein Marktforschungsunternehmen. Dessen Name entstand durch die Zusammenfügung zweier Firmennamen und hat darüber hinaus keinerlei Bedeutung, erklärt das Unternehmen.
The Facebook post joined two claims: that a company called “Ipsos MORI” made Covid-19 tests, and that its name translated from Latin as “you will die” or “they die.” The review says the post paired a claim about the test maker with a Google Translate screenshot; that translation showed “Sie sterben” (“they die”). The search result shown in another screenshot was titled “COVID-19 Swab Test FAQs | Ipsos MORI,” which the review says suggested the post meant coronavirus tests. The review rejects the claim about the name’s meaning and origin. It reports that Ipsos MORI described its name as having no meaning: it was formed when the French market-research company Ipsos merged with the British company Market and Opinion Research International, abbreviated MORI, in 2005. Ipsos itself had been founded in 1975 and was named in reference to the Latin expression “ipso facto”; MORI had existed since 1969. The combined name was therefore not a Latin phrase. The review also distinguishes the company’s role in Covid-19 research from manufacturing tests. It identifies Ipsos MORI as an international opinion-research institute and says it had no involvement in making Covid-19 tests. In British studies on the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the company handled the design and administration of a survey that participants completed after a Covid-19 test. The post’s search result and the company’s research activity thus did not establish that Ipsos MORI manufactured the tests.
"Our healthcare workers still don't have enough PPE."
Publisher’s rating: There is evidence of shortages in some healthcare facilities.
Waarom wil je geen mondkapje dragen in de strijd tegen Corona? Dat is het onderwerp van een gedeelde facebookpost. Volgens het bericht zou het dragen van een mondmasker niet helpen tegen COVID-19, omdat de gaatjes in de stof te groot zijn om het virus tegen te houden. Verder zou het dragen van een mondmasker ronduit schadelijk zijn omdat je minder zuurstof krijgt. Dat maakt je dan weer vatbaarder maakt voor ziektes. Daarnaast adem je ook je eigen bacteriën in, waardoor je ziek wordt.
Publisher’s rating: De beweringen zijn grotendeels fout. Je besmet jezelf niet door je eigen bacteriën in te ademen. Voor een gezond iemand heeft het dragen van een mondkapje geen invloed op de hoeveelheid zuurstof die hij of zij binnenkrijgt. Hoewel het inderdaad zo is dat mondkapjes niet perfect beschermen, hebben ze toch hun nut.
The review investigated a shared Facebook post arguing that masks cannot stop COVID-19 because virus particles are smaller than the openings in the fabric. It also alleged that masks reduce oxygen intake, making wearers more vulnerable to illness, and that people become sick by inhaling their own bacteria. The review distinguished between a mask blocking every virus particle and reducing the spread of virus-containing droplets: virologist Steven Van Gucht explained that what people exhale is “druppels waarin mogelijk virus zit” (droplets that may contain virus), and said a mask can block 80 to 90 percent of those droplets. The review therefore noted that masks are not guaranteed protection, while explaining why they can still help reduce transmission. On oxygen, Van Gucht said masks have no effect on oxygen intake for a healthy person. The review acknowledged that a mask can cause a feeling of breathlessness and faster, shallower breathing, but reported his explanation that this is mental rather than a physical loss of oxygen. RIVM communications officer Loes Hartman added that healthcare workers would also be unable to breathe if the post’s claim were correct, whereas they manage to do so. The review also rejected the claim that wearing a mask causes illness by making people inhale their own bacteria. Van Gucht said people inhale their own bacteria with or without a mask, that these are usually beneficial bacteria, and that this does not cause self-infection. The review did include a hygiene qualification: hands should be clean before touching a mask, and masks should be replaced daily, to avoid spreading bacteria or viruses from a dirty mask via the hands.
"President Trump ordered his administration to slow down coronavirus testing."
Publisher’s rating: Trump did suggest this in a speech, but officials say they have not been instructed to restrict testing.
The claim concerns whether President Trump ordered his administration to slow coronavirus testing. The review examines his remarks at a rally on June 21, where he told the crowd, “I said to my people, slow the testing down, please.” That is direct evidence that he publicly suggested slowing testing, but it does not by itself establish that an order was issued or carried out. The review also notes that Trump later called the comments “semi-tongue in cheek” and that his press secretary said they were made in jest. On whether officials were instructed to act, the review quotes Dr Anthony Fauci, the White House’s top infectious disease expert, saying: “To my knowledge, none of us have ever been told to slow down on testing.” This is a relevant account from a senior official, but it is framed as Fauci’s knowledge rather than a documented review of every instruction or agency record. The evidence therefore distinguishes Trump’s public suggestion from an established administrative directive. The review also compares testing activity before and after the remarks. Citing the Covid Tracking Project, it reports an average of almost 744,000 tests a day in July, up from around 508,000 a day in June. That increase weighs against the idea that testing was broadly slowed in the period measured. But the figures alone do not establish what instructions were given, and the review adds that the rate of positive tests also increased, so increased testing alone did not account for the rise in cases.
Zwei von drei Corona-Ansteckungen im Ausgang
Publisher’s rating: Falsch. Das BAG korrigierte die Zahlen zwei Tage später. Die neue Kern-Aussage von Daten der Kantone bestätigt.
Kein Mundschutz in der Zahnarztpraxis? Bei Facebook kursiert das Foto eines Infozettels, der angeblich in einer saarländischen Zahnarztpraxis ausgehängt wurde. Mit diesem fordert der Zahnarzt seine Patienten auf, in seiner Praxis bitte keinen Mundschutz zu tragen. Zur Erläuterung heißt es: «Hier gilt die behördliche Anordnung nicht und ich kann diesen hygienischen Unsinn mit dem Mundschutz aus fachlichen wie hygienischen Gründen nicht nur nicht unterstützen, sondern lehne dies komplett in Laienhänden und erstrecht in der Öffentlichkeit ab» (Sic!).
Publisher’s rating: Der Aushang ist echt. Doch die Behauptung, in einer Zahnarztpraxis gelte nicht die behördliche Anordnung, eine Mund-Nasen-Bedeckung zu tragen, ist falsch. Der Aushang musste darum unterdessen entfernt werden.
The review concerns a notice circulating on Facebook that asked patients not to wear masks at a dental practice in Saarland. It reports that the notice was authentic, but that its assertion—that the official mask requirement did not apply at the practice—was wrong. The practice was in Bous, where a municipal spokesperson confirmed both that the practice existed and that the misleading notice had been displayed. The review checked the applicable Saarland rules. It says the regulation of 29 May 2020, effective from 1 June, explicitly required visitors to dental practices to wear a mask, except where health reasons or the nature of the treatment made that impracticable. It also reports that subsequent regulations dated 12 June, 26 June, 10 July and 24 July retained that requirement; the 24 July version was then in force. To assess the notice’s authenticity, the review compared its design and practice logo with the dentist’s website. The dentist had not responded to the agency’s inquiry at the time of the review, but a spokesperson for the municipality confirmed the notice’s existence and said local authorities had arranged for it to be taken down. The review therefore distinguishes the genuine notice from its incorrect claim about the rules.
"Because we do more tests, we have more cases."
Publisher’s rating: Incorrect