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

Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel habe «sichtliche, körperliche Probleme», wird in einem Facebookpost behauptet. Als Beweismittel ist ein Foto von Merkel in einem Auto gepostet, unter dem das Datum «20. Juli 2020» zu lesen ist

Publisher’s rating: Das Foto von Merkel stammt von 2015 und wurde manipuliert. So wurde ihr Gesicht teilweise rötlich eingefärbt.

The Facebook post presents a photo of Angela Merkel in a car as evidence for a claim that she had visible physical problems, with “20 July 2020” displayed beneath the image. The review identifies that date as misleading: the image records Merkel arriving at the Federal Chancellery in Berlin and was taken by Reuters photographer Adnan Abidi on 9 October 2015, nearly five years earlier. To assess whether the posted image had been altered, the review compared it with the original photograph. It reports that Merkel’s eye area, nose and chin had been tinted slightly red in the Facebook version, and that the image had also been darkened overall. Thus, the visible redness in the post is not evidence that the photograph was taken in July 2020 or that it documents a new health episode; the post uses an old, modified image. The review also notes that Merkel had recently said she was doing well health-wise, quoting her remarks about having a strong personal interest in her health. That statement is relevant context, but the review’s image-based finding rests on the photograph’s 2015 provenance and the visible differences from the original, not on the health statement alone.

FACTLYHealth & medicine

Four kidneys available for donation. Contact the given numbers

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

FACTLY investigated a social-media message claiming that four kidneys were available for donation and giving phone numbers to contact the donors’ relatives. The review says the message had circulated since at least 2017 and that it checked the phone numbers and earlier reports about the same message. The key evidence was that the person reached through one number had already said the message was “totally wrong” and “fake,” while the other two numbers in the version FACTLY examined were not working. FACTLY also reports that an earlier version, circulated in August 2017 with a different number, prompted a complaint to Karnataka cybercrime police. On the evidence described in the review, the message was not a genuine offer of four kidneys.

FACTLYHealth & medicine

Video of the baby born with three eyes

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

FACTLY examined a social-media video presented as showing a baby born with three eyes in Germany. Its review says the apparent third eye was added by copying the baby’s left eye and placing it on the forehead. It also reports finding no information that the baby was born with three eyes and no other photos or videos of the baby. The review describes two visual checks: the left eye and forehead eye appear identical in every frame, and FACTLY used After Effects to make versions of the posted video depicting the same baby with two eyes and four eyes. The review therefore concludes that the video was edited, rather than evidence that a baby was born with three eyes.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

In einem Youtube-Video, das bereits über 100 000 Mal angeschaut worden ist, wird behauptet, dass es seit dem 13. April 2020 «keine Covid 19 Fälle mehr» (sic!) gegeben habe. Als Quelle wird ein offizieller Lagebericht des Robert Koch-Instituts (RKI) vom 25. Juni gezeigt

Publisher’s rating: Die Behauptung stützt sich auf ein Zitat aus dem RKI-Bericht, das aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen wurde und nur einen kleinen Teil der Infektionsmeldungen an das Institut beschreibt. Insgesamt wurden dem RKI seit April Zehntausende Covid-19-Fälle gemeldet.

The video used the RKI’s 25 June 2020 daily coronavirus report to support the claim that there had been no COVID-19 cases since 13 April. The review traces that claim to a sentence on page 12: “Since calendar week 16 of 2020, there have been no detections of SARS-CoV-2.” Calendar week 16 began on 13 April that year. But the sentence appeared in a passage about detections through the RKI’s Working Group on Influenza (AGI), not about all COVID-19 infections or the countrywide case count. The AGI network consisted of sentinel medical practices monitoring respiratory illness.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Ein auf Facebook geteilter Text warnt vor der kommenden Grippe-Impfung für Kinder in Österreich (http://archive.is/6SCOK). Laut den Angaben einer anonymen ehemaligen «Mitarbeiterin eines führenden Pharmakonzerns» sei geplant, ab Herbst alle Kinder mit einem Nasenspray gegen die Grippe zu impfen, heißt es darin. Dieses Spray enthalte «gentechnisch veränderte Bestandteile». «Abgesehen von mehreren toxischen Stoffen» seien zudem «Zellen von Affen und Hunden (Cockerspaniel)» enthalten. Zudem soll es einen Beipackzettel mit abweichenden Informationen über noch mehr Bestandteile geben.

Publisher’s rating: Der Text stellt mehrere falsche Behauptungen auf. Die Impfung ist ein freiwilliges Angebot und limitiert. Das angedachte Nasenspray ist überprüft und laut Experten unbedenklich. Es enthält weder tierische Zellen noch in der vorhergesehenen Dosierung bedenkliche Stoffe. Die enthaltenen und zur Immunisierung erforderlichen Viren sind genetisch modifiziert. Die verlinkte Gebrauchsinformation entspricht der dem Medikament beiliegenden Gebrauchsinformation der Grippesaison 2019/20.

The Facebook post alleged that Austria would vaccinate all children against flu from autumn using a nasal spray containing genetically modified material, toxic substances, and cells from monkeys and dogs. It also claimed an anonymous former pharmaceutical-company employee had a different leaflet listing additional ingredients. The review examined the planned offer of Fluenz Tetra, Austria’s official information about the programme, the leaflet linked in the post, and responses from the manufacturer and medical experts. [S1: “Laut den Angaben einer anonymen ehemaligen «Mitarbeiterin eines führenden Pharmakonzerns» sei geplant, ab Herbst alle Kinder mit einem Nasenspray gegen die Grippe zu impfen”] [S1: “Es wird allerdings behauptet, dass die erwähnte anonyme Quelle einen anderen Beipackzettel vorlegen konnte”] The review reports that Austria’s health ministry said the children’s vaccination offer would be voluntary and available in a limited quantity, not an injection of every child as the post implied. The ministry described the nasal vaccine as an authorised product with a positive benefit-risk profile; it was approved only for children aged 24 months and older because of possible side effects. [S1: “dass die Inanspruchnahme dieses Angebots sowie die Inanspruchnahme aller anderen Impfungen des kostenlosen Kinderimpfprogrammes freiwillig seien. Die Grippe-Impfung stehe in einer begrenzten Menge zur Verfügung.”] [S1: “Aufgrund möglicher Nebenwirkungen sei der Impfstoff erst ab einem Alter von 24 Monaten zugelassen.”] On the leaflet allegation, the review says the company responsible for the online medicine information confirmed that the posted leaflet matched the one supplied with the vaccine for the 2019/20 flu season. AstraZeneca also said the product information lists the active substances and ingredients, including the genetically modified organisms. The review’s experts explained that the modified organisms are attenuated influenza viruses used to induce immunity, while the vaccine contains no animal cells and none of its ingredients is toxic at the dose used. [S1: “AstraZeneca versichert, dass die online abrufbare Gebrauchsinformation von «Fluenz Tetra» dem tatsächlichen Beipackzettel der Impfsaison 2019/2020 entspricht.”] [S1: “Das Nasenspray enthalte weder pflanzliche noch tierische Zellen. Somit seien auch keine Zellen von Affen, Hunden oder sonstigen Organismen enthalten. Keiner der verwendeten Bestandteile sei in der «verwendeten Dosierung» toxisch.”]

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Lichtblick in der Corona-Krise? In den sozialen Medien kursiert seit wenigen Wochen die Meldung, türkischen Ärzten sei es gelungen, weltweit erstmalig einen Covid-19-Erkrankten mit UV-Licht zu heilen. Ein flankierendes Fernseh-Standbild, einer Nachrichtensendung des türkischen Senders TRT entnommen, zeigt die Behandler bei der Arbeit. Im Facebook-Post mit der Titelzeile «Sensationelle EILMELDUNG!!!!» (sic!) heißt es: Die Methode gelte als neue Therapie

Publisher’s rating: Die Strahlenbehandlung wird derzeit getestet. Ende Juni 2020 haben türkische Ärzte sie erstmals bei einem Covid-19-Patienten eingesetzt. Die Wirksamkeit der Therapie ist bislang unklar.

The post claimed that Turkish doctors had achieved the world’s first cure of a Covid-19 patient using UV light, presenting a still from a TRT news broadcast as supporting evidence. The review distinguishes the reported first use of the treatment from proof that it cured the patient: Turkish media reported that a patient at a hospital in Diyarbakir received the treatment in late June 2020, but the broadcast caption described the invention as offering “hope,” not as a cure. The treatment, called “TurkishBeam,” was developed by the Turkish research company RD Global Invamed. The review says Turkey’s health ministry authorized clinical studies on 4 May 2020, while the company described earlier work in animal experiments and human cell cultures. These stages do not establish that the treatment works in patients. The review also checked reports that two US clinics were testing it and found no corresponding information on those clinics’ websites. A recovered patient was quoted in the German-language edition of Hürriyet as saying that he had accepted the radiation treatment and felt well. The regional health director also expressed pride in the recovery. But the review reports that key details were unavailable: how ill the patient had been, what other hospital treatment he received, and whether radiation alone could account for his recovery. As of 15 July, no further successful treatments had been reported, and clinical-study results assessing effectiveness were lacking. The evidence therefore supports that a patient was treated, not the post’s claim that the method had been shown to cure him.