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.

13,676 published reviews in this topic

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Auf Facebook kursiert die Behauptung, die angebliche Herstellerfirma eines Covid-19-Tests trage einen makabren Namen. «Ipsos Mori» bedeute aus dem Lateinischen übersetzt: «Sie sterben».

Publisher’s rating: Die Behauptung entbehrt jeder Grundlage. 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 claimed that the name “Ipsos Mori” meant “You die” in Latin and belonged to the supposed maker of a Covid-19 test. The review identifies Ipsos MORI instead as an international market-research company. It says the company took part in UK government-commissioned studies on the spread of SARS-CoV-2, designing and conducting the survey that participants completed before taking a Covid-19 test; it did not make the test. The review distinguishes a possible translation from the company’s actual name. It reports that Google Translate returned “Sie sterben” for “Ipsos mori,” but quotes Latinist Hartmut Loos explaining that the phrase makes sense only as part of a main clause. His example, “Scio ipsos mori,” means “I know that they themselves die”; the review describes the standalone phrase as unusual. Thus the translation result alone does not establish that this is the meaning or origin of the company name. For the name’s origin, the review reports that Ipsos MORI said it had no meaning and was an invented name formed when two firms merged in 2005. Ipsos was a French market-research company founded in 1975, while MORI abbreviated the name of a British market-research company established in 1969. The evidence therefore addresses both parts of the post: Ipsos MORI was not the test manufacturer, and the name came from the merger of the firms rather than from the alleged Latin phrase.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Erneut zirkuliert auf Facebook ein Posting, in dem vor dem Tragen von Masken gewarnt wird. Der Beitrag bezieht sich auf ein Schreiben, in dem fünf Punkte aufgelistet werden, die «aus medizinischer Sicht passieren», wenn man eine Maske trägt. So heißt es etwa, die Lunge werde beim Tragen einer Maske nicht mehr so gut «belüftet» - was Lungenkrankheiten fördere.

Publisher’s rating: Mediziner geben weitgehend Entwarnung. Es gibt keinen Beleg dafür, dass Masken Lungenkrankheiten fördern oder anderweitig gefährlich sind. Allein Menschen mit bestimmten Erkrankungen wird vom Tragen von Masken abgeraten. Einer aktuellen Studie zufolge reduziert das Tragen einer Maske während körperlicher Anstrengung die Leistungsfähigkeit des Herzen und der Lunge. Die Studie ist aber laut den Autoren nicht als Infragestellen der Maskenpflicht gedacht und kann nicht auf Alltagssituationen übertragen werden.

The post under review listed five alleged medical effects of wearing a mask. Among them, it said that a mask prevents the lungs from being properly ventilated and thereby promotes lung disease. The review checked that specific claim with Ali Önder Yildirim, director of the Institute for Lung Biology at Helmholtz Zentrum München. He said the claim was incorrect and that there were no studies showing that masks cause lung disease. He added that greater effort or fatigue while breathing in professional masks for people with respiratory conditions does not mean that a disease is being promoted. The review also discusses a University Hospital Leipzig study led by sports physician Sven Fikenzer. It examined healthy participants wearing surgical or FFP2 masks during exertion. The reported results included reduced performance of the heart-lung system and effects on breathing, including the volume and maximum speed of exhaled air. But participants exercised on bicycle ergometers, and Fikenzer said the findings could not be applied to everyday situations; the study’s press release also said it was not intended as a challenge to mask requirements. Those exertion results therefore do not establish that masks cause lung disease during ordinary use. The review distinguishes those findings from advice for people with certain health conditions: professional masks can increase breathing effort, and the German Respiratory League described possible difficulty for sick patients. For the post’s separate ventilation-and-lung-disease assertion, however, the cited lung specialist said there was no evidence that masks promote lung disease. The review also notes that the study of exertion measured exercise performance, not whether mask use causes lung illness.

APA - Austria Presse AgenturHealth & medicine

Bakterien, Viren sowie Keime gelangen aus der eigenen Mundhöhle durch die Maske in die Lunge und sorgen für Atemwegserkrankungen.

Publisher’s rating: Für die Behauptung gibt es keinen Beleg. Wie ein Pneumologe der APA – Austria Presse Agentur via Mail sagte, erfolgt ein Austausch von Mikroorganismen mit der Lunge fortlaufend. Das Tragen einer Maske habe keinen relevanten Einfluss darauf. Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) sowie das deutsche Robert-Koch-Institut (RKI) empfehlen mittlerweile das Tragen von Masken.

FactCheck.orgHealth & medicine

"In the wake of the recent mass gatherings Americans have witnessed in the streets of Portland and Seattle, we are also tracking a significant rise in cases in both metropolitan areas because of what’s been going on."

Publisher’s rating: No Evidence

At a July 28 briefing, President Donald Trump attributed rising COVID-19 cases in Portland and Seattle to recent mass gatherings and protests. The review reports that both cities had seen increases, but that health department officials said the available evidence did not show protests caused them. This distinction matters: the statement that cases were rising was not the same as evidence that protests produced the rise. Supporting passage: “Both cities have observed a recent rise in cases, but health department officials told us there was no indication that it was due to protests.” For Seattle, the review quotes Dr. Jeffrey Duchin, the health officer for Public Health—Seattle and King County, saying that available data did not support the assertion that protests were driving the increase. Duchin also noted that large outdoor gatherings could transmit COVID-19, but said investigations and testing-site data found relatively few cases associated with these events. Of approximately 5,000 people who reported attending a protest and were tested at a city-sponsored site, 0.2% tested positive. The review says officials instead linked many recent cases to broader community activity, including family and social gatherings, household exposures, and workplace transmission. Supporting passage: “Duchin said that of the approximately 5,000 people who said they attended a protest event and were tested at a city-sponsored testing site, only 0.2% were positive for COVID-19.” For Portland, Multnomah County Public Health Director Rachael Banks told the review that the county had found no evidence that the increase was due to residents who were protesting. The department had not identified protest-associated clusters since June 1; Banks said 19 of the county’s more than 2,000 cases had reported attending a mass gathering such as a protest. She instead identified work-site exposures, households, and social networks as sources of case clusters. These figures and officials’ assessments support the review’s conclusion that the asserted causal link was not established by the evidence described. Supporting passage: “Since June 1, Banks said only 19 of the county’s more than 2,000 cases have reported attending a mass gathering such as a protest — or less than 1%.”

FactCheck.orgHealth & medicine

"You can look at large portions of our country; it’s — it’s corona-free."

Publisher’s rating: False

The claim is Donald Trump’s assertion at a July 28, 2020, briefing that “large portions” of the United States were “corona-free.” FactCheck.org examined whether substantial parts of the country had reported no recent coronavirus cases. It asked the White House to identify the areas Trump meant, but says it received no response. The review then used county-level data from USAFacts, described as a nonprofit that supplies data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to count counties with no reported cases during the week ending July 28, the latest day of data available to the review. That count found 230 of 3,142 counties or county equivalents with no reported case during that week. Although those places were concentrated in sparsely populated parts of the West, together they accounted for only 0.42% of the U.S. population. The review also cited a July 26 coronavirus task force report: Vermont alone was in the “green zone” for cases, while all other states were in the yellow or red zones. On July 29, the country was averaging just over 64,000 new cases per day over seven days, according to the COVID-19 Tracking Project. The review acknowledged that some heavily affected areas were improving: its account of a Johns Hopkins University analysis says Arizona, California, Texas and Florida had downward case trends as of July 29. But it distinguished falling cases in those hotspots from being free of the virus. The county data and wider state and national indicators showed that only a very small share of the population lived in counties reporting no cases that week, rather than the large portions suggested by Trump.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

«Masken machen krank», behauptet ein Facebook-Posting. Demnach gelangen «Bakterien, Viren sowie Keime aus der Mundhöhle durch die Maske in die Lunge und sorgen für Atemwegserkrankungen». Illustriert ist das Posting mit einer Grafik, die offenbar den Weg von Viren in die Lunge darstellen soll, sowie mit einem Foto von einer Hautirritation in der Mundhöhle.

Publisher’s rating: Für die Behauptung, dass Schutzmasken Atemwegserkrankungen verursachen, gibt es keine Belege. Das Tragen der Masken könne bei Menschen mit Atemwegserkrankungen zu Müdigkeit führen, die beim Abnehmen der Maske aber wieder vergehe, so ein Lungenexperte. Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) empfiehlt mittlerweile vor dem Hintergrund der Corona-Pandemie das Tragen von Masken.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Op Facebook wordt een reactie gedeeld van een man die uitspraken doet over de immuniteit tegen het nieuwe coronavirus. Volgens de man - die naar eigen zeggen in Kenia met artsen werkt - bestaat corona al sinds de jaren '60, kan je er niet ziek van worden en zijn we er allemaal immuun voor. Bovendien zou 90 procent van de testen een positief resultaat tonen en zouden zelfs groenten en fruit corona bevatten. Maar wat is daar precies van aan?

Publisher’s rating: Het bericht staat vol verzinsels en telt enkele halve waarheden. De mens is niet van nature immuun tegen het SARS-Cov-2 virus en kan er wel ziek van worden. Het klopt niet dat 90 procent van de testen positief zijn. Het eerste menselijke coronavirus werd inderdaad in de jaren '60 ontdekt, maar het eerste coronavirus dateert van 1930. Verder staat het bericht vol complotstellingen zonder bewijzen.

Pagella PoliticaHealth & medicine

«Le prenotazioni effettuate nella nostra regione [la Liguria, ndr] rispetto al 2019 sono quasi centuplicate (+4.600 per cento)»

Publisher’s rating: Panzana pazzesca

Giovanni Toti made the statement on social media on July 28, 2020, describing bookings in Liguria as almost one hundred times higher than in 2019, with a 4,600 per cent increase. The review traces the figure to a July 15 press release by Belvilla, a holiday-rental platform. That release concerned bookings by Italians in June on Belvilla’s platform—not tourism bookings across Liguria as a whole. The review notes that hotels and other forms of accommodation were excluded, as were tourists outside the stated group. (The source describes the comparison as June 2020 versus the same period in 2019.)

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Kritiker der staatlichen Maßnahmen während der Corona-Pandemie ziehen häufig einen Vergleich des neuartigen Erregers Sars-CoV-2 zur saisonalen Grippe. Nun wird im Netz die Behauptung verbreitet, die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) habe «Corona» und Schweinegrippe «willkürlich» zur Pandemie erklärt, «aber komischerweise nie die Influenza». Mit «Influenza» ist offensichtlich die saisonale Grippe gemeint.

Publisher’s rating: Den Begriff «Pandemie» auf das gewöhnliche saisonale Grippegeschehen anzuwenden, ist nach den gängigen Kriterien der WHO ausgeschlossen. Denn das Virus muss demnach unter anderem neu oder zumindest lange nicht aufgetreten sein. Die Verbreitung von Sars-CoV-2 erfüllt die Kriterien der WHO für eine Pandemie, sie wurde also nicht «willkürlich» zu einer solchen erklärt. Die WHO wertet neben der Ausbreitung des neuen Coronavirus und der Schweinegrippe durchaus einige Grippewellen der Vergangenheit als Pandemien.

The claim under review says that the WHO arbitrarily classified COVID-19 and swine flu as pandemics while never applying that label to influenza. The review distinguishes ordinary seasonal flu from influenza pandemics: it reports that flu viruses circulate continuously and often form new variants, while the WHO helps develop vaccines for each season. The relevant question, therefore, is not whether seasonal flu recurs, but whether an outbreak meets the criteria for a pandemic. The review describes those criteria as a virus being new or having been absent for a long time, spreading widely, and causing illness. It says seasonal flu ordinarily does not qualify because its viruses have changed only slightly, leaving some people with a degree of immunity. By contrast, the review says SARS-CoV-2 met the criteria and that the WHO classified its spread as a pandemic in March 2020. On that account, the classification was based on the stated criteria, not made arbitrarily. The assertion that the WHO had never classified influenza outbreaks as pandemics also omits earlier examples. The review lists the 1918 Spanish flu, outbreaks in 1957 and 1968, and the 2009 swine flu. It further notes that the virus responsible for the 2009 swine flu later became an established seasonal virus. Thus, the distinction in the review is between ordinary seasonal flu and pandemics caused by novel influenza viruses—not between influenza and pandemics as mutually exclusive categories.