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

Mitte Februar wurden in Italien die ersten Todesfälle im Zusammenhang mit Sars-CoV-2-Infektionen bekannt. Im Internet werden nun Zahlen verbreitet, die angeblich auf das italienische Statistikamt Istat zurückgehen. Der Auflistung zufolge gab es in den ersten drei Monaten des Jahres 2020 mit 165 367 deutlich weniger Todesfälle als im ersten Quartal des Vorjahres (185 967).

Publisher’s rating: Während die Zahl für 2019 von Istat veröffentlicht wurde, stammt der Wert für 2020 aus einer Projektion auf der Internetseite ItaliaOra.org. Für den Zeitraum von Mitte Februar bis Ende März hat das italienische Statistikamt mittlerweile wesentlich mehr Tote gemeldet als in den Vorjahren. Auch das Netzwerk EuroMOMO verzeichnete einen starken Anstieg.

The claim concerns a circulated list saying Italy had 165,367 deaths in January–March 2020, fewer than the 185,967 deaths in the first quarter of 2019, and implying that both figures came from Istat. The review checked the figures against Istat’s published data and examined the cited source for the 2020 number. It found that the 2019 total could be reproduced from Istat’s monthly figures, but that Istat had not yet published 2020 data for that period. The review traced the 165,367 figure to an Italian blog that cited both Istat and ItaliaOra.org. ItaliaOra’s own description of its methods said the site used an algorithm combining the latest available data with estimated rates of change and projections generated by its models. Thus, the 2020 figure was an estimate, not an Istat-reported total. The comparison presented the two numbers as if they had the same official basis when they did not. The review also reported later evidence about deaths during the outbreak period. Istat said that more than 90,000 people died between 20 February and 31 March, 38.7% above the average for the same period in 2015–2019; that analysis drew on data from about 6,900 municipalities. Separately, EuroMOMO recorded particularly high excess mortality in Italy by the end of March. These findings concern a different period and measure from the January–March total, but show why the lower projected figure should not be treated as an official Istat count or as evidence that deaths had not risen.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Une publication largement partagée sur Facebook donne un conseil « sûr et facile » pour enlever une tique: tamponner l'acarien avec une boule de coton imbibée de savon ou d'huile.

Publisher’s rating: La publication comporte des conseils inadaptés. Les tiques ne se retirent pas à l'aide d'un produit. Si tel est le cas, ces petits arachnides se sentent agressés et le risque de transmission de pathogènes est plus élevé si ils sont infectés.

The Facebook post under review described dabbing a tick with a cotton ball soaked in soap or oil as a “safe and easy” way to remove it. The DPA’s investigation reports that Belgian experts advise against using soap for this purpose. It explains that a tick may react to the product and regurgitate stomach contents, which can increase the risk of transmitting pathogens if the tick is infected, including the bacterium that causes Lyme borreliosis. The expert quoted by DPA says the same concern applies to ether and heat from a flame. As an alternative, the review cites guidance from TiquesNet, a platform created by the infectious-disease epidemiology service of Belgium’s Scientific Institute of Public Health. It recommends using a tick tweezer or tick card without compressing the tick’s rear body. DPA also quotes Sciensano epidemiologist Tinne Lernout recommending a fine or dedicated tick-removal tool: grasp the tick close to the skin and head, then pull gently upward without crushing, squeezing, or twisting it. The review says twisting can break off mouthparts, which may remain in the skin and cause a local infection. The advice concerns removal, not cleaning afterward: the review says soap and disinfectant alcohol may be used once the tick has been removed, and that Belgium’s Poison Centre advises cleaning the bite site after extraction. Thus, the investigation distinguishes applying a substance to an attached tick from cleaning the area after removal.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Plusieurs publications circulent sur les réseaux sociaux, attribuant au Premier ministre italien Giuseppe Conte les mots suivants: « Nous avons perdu le contrôle, nous avons tué l’épidémie physiquement et moralement. On ne peut pas comprendre ce que nous pouvons faire de plus, toutes les solutions sont épuisées sur terre. Notre seul espoir reste dans le ciel, Dieu sauve ton peuple. » (http://dpaq.de/zdAra) Ce message a été largement diffusé en différentes versions, en langue française, mais aussi en anglais et espagnol.

Publisher’s rating: Une telle déclaration par le Premier ministre italien Giuseppe Conte n'existe pas sur le site du gouvernment italien. De plus, la photo en arrière-plan de la citation représente Jair Bolsonaro, président du Brésil.

The review examined social-media posts attributing a statement about losing control of the epidemic, exhausting all solutions, and hoping for God’s help to Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte. It reported that the post circulated in French as well as English and Spanish. The investigation’s finding was that there was no trace of an official statement by Conte matching the quotation, and that the government website did not contain such a declaration. To compare the claim with a documented statement, the review points to Conte’s address to the nation on 21 March 2020. It quotes him ending that address with a message about sacrifices, returning to workplaces and public spaces, and not abandoning courage and hope. This is different from the viral quotation: the review presents it as the documented closing message, not as support for the words circulating online. The image also does not show Conte. The review identifies the person pictured as Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, and reports that Italian newspaper La Repubblica and other cited coverage traced the photograph to a Thanksgiving ceremony at which Bolsonaro was moved to tears. The post therefore combines an unsupported attribution of the words to Conte with an image of Bolsonaro.

Pagella PoliticaHealth & medicine

«0,51 [di Rt] che cosa vuol dire? Che per infettare me bisogna trovare due persone nello stesso momento infette perché è a 0,50. Questo vuol dire che non è così semplice trovare due persone infette nello stesso momento per infettare me [...]. Quando è a 1, vuol dire che basta che io incontro una persona infetta che mi infetto anch’io»

Publisher’s rating: Pinocchio andante

The claim came from a 22 May 2020 press conference in which Giulio Gallera, Lombardy’s Welfare councillor, discussed the region’s estimated Rt of 0.51. He said that at 0.50 two people had to be infected at the same time to infect someone, and that at 1 meeting one infected person would be enough. The review identifies the estimate as an Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) figure published on 22 May, and notes that Gallera defended his explanation in a Facebook video the following day. (S1: “Secondo i dati dell’Iss pubblicati il 22 maggio, in base alle stime più recenti la Lombardia aveva allora un indice Rt (da leggersi ‘erre con ti’) pari a 0,51.”; “ma il 23 maggio lo stesso Gallera aveva difeso la sua spiegazione in un video pubblicato su Facebook”) The review explains that Rt estimates the average number of new infections generated by an infected person under the conditions then in place. It therefore describes transmission across a population, not a requirement that multiple infected people be present at once for an individual infection to occur. For an Rt near 0.5, the review says, two infected people cause one new infection on average; that does not mean a person must encounter two infected people to be at risk. (S1: “Se in questi giorni in Lombardia l’indice Rt (ossia l’indice R0 dopo aver introdotto le misure di contenimento) è pari a circa 0,5, significa che due singoli contagiati da Covid-19 in media ne contagiano uno solo.”; “Ma da questo non ne deriva che per infettarsi «bisogna trovare due persone nello stesso momento infette», come dice Gallera.”) The review also rejects the claim’s implication that an Rt of 1 makes infection from a single encounter possible in a way that a lower Rt does not. It says contact with even one infected person can still carry a risk at lower values, while the index changes the average number of people infected by each case. The review concludes that Gallera’s explanation misinterpreted this statistical measure. (S1: “Questo, come abbiamo visto, varrebbe però anche se l’indice Rt fosse più basso, per esempio pari a 0,2: basta comunque un contatto anche solo con un malato da Covid-19 per contagiarsi”; “cambia solo il numero di quanti vengono contagiati da chi è stato contagiato.”)