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
Claim: Has ICMR published any report on covid 19 peak time in November-mid
Publisher’s rating: Partly False
The claim concerned reports and social-media posts saying ICMR had stated that COVID-19 would peak in India in November. The review says a Puthiya Thalaimurai TV news video reported that the projected time to the peak had increased from 34 to 74 days and attributed a November peak forecast to ICMR. The review investigated that attribution, rather than establishing whether the underlying model’s forecast ultimately proved accurate. The decisive evidence reported is ICMR’s public denial. The review quotes ICMR saying the reports attributing the study to it were misleading: the work was a non-peer-reviewed model, was not carried out by ICMR, and did not represent ICMR’s official position. The review adds a qualification: researchers from the Operations Research Group established by ICMR had produced the paper, but ICMR had not officially published it under its own name. That distinction explains how a study associated with researchers in an ICMR-established group could be misrepresented as an official ICMR report. The review also describes how the attribution continued to circulate. Puthiya Thalaimurai published a follow-up after ICMR’s denial, but the original report remained in circulation; the review says News7 Tamil also reported the study as an ICMR paper. It concludes that the reports contained a mixture of truth and misleading attribution: there was a modelling paper by researchers associated with the group, but it was not an ICMR-conducted study or official ICMR position.
;Composite=(type=URL,url=https://images.radio-canada.ca/v1/assets/elements/16x9/outdated-content-2021.png),gravity=SouthEast,placement=Over,location=(0,0),scale=1)
AstraZeneca a annoncé que son vaccin contre la COVID-19 est inefficace
Publisher’s rating: FAUX
Details of COVID-19 Medical kit for home usage and the three stages of COVID-19 issued by Tata Health.
Publisher’s rating: FALSE
FACTLY investigated a social-media message titled “Covid Medical kit required at home.” It described a home medical kit and three COVID-19 stages, and linked to Tata Health in a way that suggested the recommendations came from the company. The review’s central question was whether Tata Health had issued those recommendations. The decisive evidence was Tata Health’s direct response after a Twitter user asked it to verify the message. The company said the message “is not from Tata Health.” FACTLY also reported that Tata Health posted a disclaimer stating that unverified information was being circulated with its website link and that the company was not associated with those messages. Thus, the presence of a Tata Health link did not establish that Tata Health authored or endorsed the advice. The review separately examined the message’s description of three COVID-19 stages. It said searches found no renowned institute or organization making the same classification as the viral message. FACTLY noted that scientists had described three phases of disease progression—infection, pulmonary, and hyperinflammatory—but these were not evidence that Tata Health issued the message or that its stages matched the viral classification. The review also flagged the message’s claims about steam inhalation and hot-water gargling, noting that FACTLY had previously debunked them. Its conclusion on the specific attribution rests chiefly on Tata Health’s denial, rather than on the existence of other scientific descriptions of disease phases.
Une déclaration publiée sur Facebook, attribuée au controversé docteur français Didier Raoult, affirme qu’on ne doit pas redouter une résurgence de la pandémie de Covid-19. Citation : « La deuxième vague, ça n’existe pas, dans aucune épidémie. On voudrait faire peur, on ne s’y prendrait pas autrement.»
Publisher’s rating: La plupart des membres de la communauté scientifique internationale s’attendent à une résurgence de la pandémie, dont la gravité dépendra de la bonne application des mesures qui encadreront le déconfinement progressif de la population. Le professeur Didier Raoult ne partage pas tout à fait leur avis, c’est connu. Il a souvent exprimé en public ses doutes face à la « deuxième vague », mais pas en des termes aussi directs que ceux utilisés dans la citation qui lui est attribuée, dont l’origine est inconnue.
The "bacteria" that causes COVID-19 is amplified by 5G technology.
Publisher’s rating: False
Une publication virale prétend qu’un poème de Kathleen O’Mara, écrit en 1869, aurait été une nouvelle fois publié en 1919, en pleine pandémie de grippe espagnole. Intitulé « Au temps de la pandémie », ce texte en anglais qui parle du confinement est aujourd’hui massivement partagé sur les réseaux sociaux. « L’histoire se répète », commente une utilisatrice en Belgique.
Publisher’s rating: Le poème a été écrit en mars 2020, par une professeure à la retraite, Catherine « Kitty » O’Meara.
The review examines a viral image presenting a poem about staying home as a work written by Kathleen O’Mara in 1869 and reprinted in 1919 during the Spanish flu pandemic. It identifies the wording and attribution shown on the image, including the claim that the poem was “réimprimé en 1919.” The review’s central finding is that the poem was not written in 1869 by Kathleen O’Mara: it was written on 16 March 2020 by Catherine “Kitty” O’Meara, an American living in Wisconsin. The review explains that the mix-up likely arose from the women’s similar names. Kathleen “Kitty” O’Mara wrote under the pseudonym Grace Ramsey; Catherine “Kitty” O’Meara is the retired teacher who writes poems. The review says the poem can be found on Catherine O’Meara’s personal blog, where she asks that it not be used without her written permission, especially for commercial purposes. For further background, the review reports that O’Meara told The Oprah Magazine she wrote the poem in one sitting after months of anxiety while following pandemic developments in the news. It also notes that Snopes and PolitiFact had independently fact-checked the viral attribution. The cited material thus distinguishes the 2020 poem and its author from the similar name used in the older attribution; it does not support the claim that this poem was written in 1869 or reprinted in 1919.
COVID-19 is caused by bacteria, not a virus.
Publisher’s rating: False
Related reporting directly contradicts the claim that COVID-19 is caused by bacteria rather than a virus. In an article about illnesses encountered on cruise ships, S5 distinguishes viral diseases from bacterial infections and describes COVID-19 as an illness caused by a virus. The article says COVID-19 began spreading at the end of 2019 and became a pandemic in 2020. It also reports that the virus spreads between people in close contact, most commonly through the air in tiny droplets, attributing that transmission information to the Mayo Clinic. The excerpt therefore identifies the cause as a virus, not a bacterium. This is evidence from related reporting, not a summary of Vera Files’ original investigation. The supplied material contains no original Vera Files review text, so it does not support extracting that review’s printed rating or describing its checking methods.
COVID-19 is disseminated intravascular coagulation or pulmonary thrombosis.
Publisher’s rating: False
Research from related reporting describes COVID-19 as an infectious disease and treats coagulation problems as possible complications, rather than defining COVID-19 itself as disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) or pulmonary thrombosis. One medical article states that “COVID-19 is both infectious and highly contagious” and separately says that “Systemic consequences of COVID-19 infection, including sepsis and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), may also mediate cardiac injury.” That distinction contradicts the claim’s equation of the disease with those conditions. The article also discusses thrombosis and vascular inflammation among possible COVID-19-related problems, and describes research into anticoagulants for patients with venous-thrombosis risk. It says that “Thrombosis and vascular inflammation can be found” and that hospitalized patients at risk of venous thrombosis receive treatment. This supports a more limited account: thrombosis can occur in connection with COVID-19, but the excerpt does not identify it as COVID-19 itself. These findings come from related medical reporting, not from the Vera Files review, which is not included in the supplied evidence.
This image of a woman carrying a saline drip bottle, which is connected to a child is recent.
Publisher’s rating: FALSE
Los láseres de los termómetros de infrarrojos provocan daños en la retina
Publisher’s rating: Falso
The investigation addresses a circulated warning that people should cover their eyes when their temperature is taken with an infrared thermometer. The warning claimed these devices work using a laser and could injure the retina if aimed there. Newtral consulted ophthalmologists Alberto González-Costea of the Asociación de Oftalmólogos de España and Anna Boixadera of the Sociedad Catalana de Oftalmología. Both rejected the asserted risk from the thermometer’s aiming light: González-Costea said there was no reason to conclude that an infrared thermometer could harm the retina or other eye structures, while Boixadera explained that the red light helps the operator see where the measurement is being taken and is not a laser. The article distinguishes temperature measurement from the visible aiming light. It says the device measures infrared radiation emitted by the body and converts it into an electrical signal to produce a temperature reading. González-Costea also noted that most such devices do not contain a laser. The experts’ explanation therefore addresses the warning’s premise: the measurement itself is not a laser beam directed into the eye, and the indicator light is not described as having the capacity to injure the retina. The article adds a qualification: it does not claim that every laser is harmless. Boixadera warned that high-power laser pointers can cause severe, lasting retinal injury. The article says lasers that might be incorporated into infrared thermometers are class 1 under the cited classification, described as safe under reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, including direct viewing with optical instruments. González-Costea advised checking that a thermometer is certified and authorized for measuring human body temperature. These qualifications distinguish the devices discussed in the warning from potentially harmful high-power lasers.
COVID-19 significa Certificado de Identificación de Vacunación con Inteligencia Artificial
Publisher’s rating: Falso
Une publication circulant sur Facebook affirme que l'OMS aurait été fondée par les riches familles Rockefeller et Rothschild et serait actuellement financée par « Bill Gates et la Chine ». Le message central de ce post est véhiculé par la photo qui l'accompagne. L'image montre un poignet recouvert d'un prétendu « tatoo électronique », supposé être un test afin de vérifier si la personne qui le porte a été vaccinée ou non. Car selon les allégations de cette publication, Bill Gates serait « obnubilé par la réduction de la population ». Celui-ci disposerait de « brevets de coronavirus » et souhaiterait faire vacciner « la terre entière » avec un vaccin électronique. Ce supposé vaccin serait cependant une puce permettant d'identifier la personne et probablement d'obtenir des informations sur celle-ci
Publisher’s rating: les Rotschild et les Rockefeller n'ont rien à voir avec la création de l'OMS. La fondation du milliardaire Bill Gates et la Chine participent bien au financement de l'organisation, mais ne sont pas les seuls. Le directeur de Microsoft n'a jamais exprimé son souhait de « réduire la population » mondiale et n'a pas conçu de «vaccin électronique», puisque la photo montre, en fait, un biocapteur breveté par le professeur John Rogers et l'Université de l'Illinois.
The Facebook post bundled several claims: that the Rockefeller and Rothschild families founded the World Health Organization (WHO), that Bill Gates and China fund it, and that Gates wanted population reduction and a chip-like “electronic vaccine.” It used a picture of a wrist device as the central visual evidence. The review distinguishes the claims rather than treating the image as proof of the post’s broader allegations. [S1: “Une publication circulant sur Facebook affirme que l'OMS aurait été fondée par les riches familles Rockefeller et Rothschild et serait actuellement financée par « Bill Gates et la Chine ».”] On the WHO’s origins, the review says it was established through the 1946 Health Conference, where 61 states co-signed the organization’s constitution—not by the two families. On funding, it notes that China contributes as one of the WHO’s 194 member countries, alongside other states, and that voluntary donations are an additional funding stream. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is among the largest voluntary contributors, but the review stresses that it is not the organization’s sole funder. [S1: “À cette occasion, la Constitution de l'OMS a été co-signée par 61 États”] [S1: “La Fondation Bill & Melinda Gates fait, en effet, partie des plus gros contributeurs volontaires de l'OMS”] The review traces the population-reduction allegation to remarks in a 2010 TED Talk that it says were edited together from a longer speech. It also explains that a patent involving a virus does not by itself mean its holder created that virus, and says the cited coronavirus patents were not filed by Gates. Finally, it identifies the wrist image as a flexible bioc sensor developed by Professor John A. Rogers and University of Illinois researchers, intended to help monitor or detect problems in sensitive organs. The review says the device is applied to skin like a temporary tattoo and points to the image’s original appearance in a university brochure. [S1: “Cependant, ces paroles ont été montées dans une vidéo à partir d'un discours beaucoup plus long lors de son Ted Talk en 2010”] [S1: “le présumé tatouage électronique est, en fait, un biocapteur inventé, il y a presque dix ans, par le professeur John A. Rogers et les chercheurs de l'Université de l'Illinois”] [S1: “On peut trouver la photo d'origine du prétendu « vaccin électronique » dans la brochure de l'université”]
