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

Un message publié en français sur Facebook, le 14 mai 2020, souligne que « suite à la réouverture d’une école », 22 enfants ont été placés en quarantaine en Flandre (nord de la Belgique), à cause du coronavirus

Publisher’s rating: Les écoles ont, très progressivement, rouvert leurs portes le 18 mai seulement, en Belgique. Il est donc impossible que les faits aient pu se produire dans le milieu scolaire, plusieurs jours auparavant. En réalité, la mise en quatorzaine (et non quarantaine) à domicile a été décidée après qu’un enfant placé en garderie, dans le cadre de l’accueil extrascolaire d’enfants dont les parents travaillent, eut développé des symptômes du Covid-19.

The Facebook post said that 22 children had been quarantined in Flanders “following the reopening of a school.” The original investigation identifies the incident as having taken place during the week of 4 May in Westrozebeke, a village in the municipality of Staden in West Flanders. It involved De Paddestoel, a childcare centre—not a school. The review reports that 22 children and three childcare supervisors were told to isolate at home after the father of one child said he had coronavirus. That child was also showing Covid-19 symptoms, according to Staden mayor Francesco Vanderjeugd in an interview with Flemish public broadcaster VRT. The Facebook post did not identify when or where the incident occurred; the review says it was published on 14 May and included the alarmist comment “C’est reparti mon kiki.” The timing matters: the review says Belgian schools began reopening gradually on 18 May, four days after the post appeared. It also explains that childcare centres had not closed, while Flemish arrangements for children needing daytime care were eased on 4 May. The evidence therefore places the reported isolation in ongoing childcare, not in a school reopened before the event.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Einige bezeichnen das Malaria-Medikament Hydroxychloroquin als Wundermittel gegen das Coronavirus. Selbst US-Präsident Donald Trump preist es als "Geschenk Gottes" und nimmt es eigenen Angaben zufolge ein, um sich in der Corona-Pandemie zu schützen. Es wird verbreitet, das Präparat beuge einer Infektion vor und helfe auch gegen die von Sars-CoV-2 ausgelöste Lungenkrankheit Covid-19

Publisher’s rating: Für solch eine Wirksamkeit gibt es bislang keine belastbaren wissenschaftlichen Belege.

The dpa review examines claims that hydroxychloroquine could prevent coronavirus infection or help treat COVID-19, amid Donald Trump’s public promotion of the drug and his statement that he was taking it. It distinguishes these claims from established uses: the article says hydroxychloroquine, like the related drug chloroquine, is used for malaria and certain autoimmune diseases, while its possible benefit for COVID-19 was still being investigated. On prevention, the review quotes virologist Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit saying there was no evidence that taking the drug prophylactically worked. Studies were underway, but, according to his account, they had not produced valid data or undergone independent scientific review. The review therefore does not present the absence of proof as proof that the drug could never work; it says the evidence then available was insufficient to establish the claimed benefit. For treatment, the article describes two studies from China and France, involving 150 and 180 participants, respectively, that found no effect on the course of COVID-19. It also reports that a U.S. study of about 370 men found a higher death rate among patients given hydroxychloroquine, while noting that those patients had particularly severe symptoms. The review additionally discusses known potential adverse effects and advises against taking the medicine without a prescription or medical supervision.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Einem Facebook-Posting zufolge werden in Großbritannien alle, die älter als 65 Jahre alt sind und eine Grippeimpfung bekommen haben, in die «Gruppe der Höchstgefährdeten» für die Lungenkrankheit Covid-19 eingeordnet. Damit seien sie auf derselben Stufe wie etwa «schwer Krebskranke» oder «frisch Transplantierte». Der ursprüngliche Text stammt vom deutschen Arzt Ruediger Dahlke.

Publisher’s rating: Das ist falsch. Die britische Regierung hat nicht behauptet, dass eine Grippeimpfung das Risiko für eine Covid-19-Erkrankung erhöhe.

The claim concerns a Facebook post attributing to the UK government a rule that people over 65 who had received a flu vaccination were placed in Covid-19’s highest-risk group, alongside people with severe cancer or recent organ transplants. The review traces the claim to comments by Jonathan Van-Tam, England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, in a BBC Breakfast interview on 17 March 2020. It says he was asked which parts of society should consider themselves at risk and replied that people offered a flu vaccination by the state were generally among those at risk, excluding children. The review describes this as a simplified reference to groups also considered at risk from Covid-19, not as a claim that vaccination caused greater Covid-19 risk. (S1: “Er antwortete am 17. März 2020 in der Sendung «BBC Breakfast» auf die Frage, welche Teile der Gesellschaft sich als Risikogruppen für Covid-19 ansehen sollten, dass vor allem jene, denen staatlicherseits eine Grippe-Impfung angeboten werde, in der Risikogruppe seien - mit Ausnahme von Kindern.”; “Van-Tam beschrieb also vereinfacht diejenigen, die auch für Covid-19 als Risikogruppen gelten.”) The review distinguishes being offered a flu vaccine because of an existing risk-group status from becoming high-risk because one received the vaccine. It reports that Van-Tam did not say vaccination increased the chance of contracting Covid-19 or put people in the same highest-risk category as recent organ-transplant patients. A UK Department of Health spokesperson also told the agency that Van-Tam had neither said nor meant that. (S1: “Jedoch sagte Van-Tam im Interview nicht, dass man aufgrund einer vorangegangenen Grippeimpfung eine höhere Gefahr habe, an Covid-19 zu erkranken. Erst recht behauptete er nicht, dass Menschen wegen ihrer Grippeimpfung in dieselbe Hochrisikogruppe eingestuft werden wie etwa Patienten, denen kürzlich ein Organ transplantiert wurde.”; “Eine Sprecherin des britischen Gesundheitsministeriums bestätigte der Deutschen Presse-Agentur, dass Van-Tam dies weder behauptet noch gemeint habe.”) The review also points to the NHS’s published Covid-19 risk categories: it says flu vaccination is not listed in either the high-risk or moderate-risk category. That evidence is consistent with the review’s distinction between vaccination as an indicator of pre-existing eligibility for a flu shot and vaccination as a cause of Covid-19 risk. (S1: “Auch der staatliche Gesundheitsdienst National Health Service (NHS) führt auf seiner Website sowohl in der Kategorie «high risk» (hohes Risiko) als auch «moderate risk» (mittleres Risiko) für das Coronavirus die Grippeimpfung nicht auf.”)

USA TodayHealth & medicine

Airline travelers to Florida must fill out a form at the airport with contact information and trip details and self-quarantine for 14 days

Publisher’s rating: True

The claim concerns Florida’s 2020 requirements for certain arriving airline passengers, not every traveler flying into the state. The investigation says Florida began scrutinizing flights from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and other high-risk areas in March. It reports that Executive Order 20-80, issued by Gov. Ron DeSantis on March 23, required covered visitors to self-quarantine for 14 days, while the airport form was part of the state’s implementation of that order. The review checked the executive orders and statements from state agencies. Florida’s Department of Transportation said each arriving traveler—or a responsible family member traveling with them—had to complete an airport form, providing contact information and trip details to the Department of Health. The review also reports that passengers on flights from eight New York City areas were given forms before boarding, and that more than 37,400 forms had been collected at public-use airports by May 19. The important qualification is geographic scope: the form and quarantine requirements described were directed at travelers from affected areas, especially the Northeast, rather than all incoming flights. The review says a later order, EO 20-86, specifically covered visitors from Louisiana and required forms for affected-state travelers, but distinguished that highway-related measure from the airport order. Thus, the claim accurately describes the requirements for covered airline travelers, but its wording can mislead if read as applying to everyone flying to Florida.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Das Tragen von Masken zur Bedeckung von Mund und Nase ist nach Überzeugung von Kritikern gefährlich. Sie argumentieren, die Masken verursachten mehr Kohlendioxid und weniger Sauerstoff im Blut. Dies wird mit dem Wieder-Einatmen der eigenen verbrauchten Atemluft begründet. Ein österreichischer Praktischer Arzt behauptet auch, Masken förderten Lungenkrankheiten

Publisher’s rating: Richtig ist, dass Menschen mit bestimmten Lungen-Erkrankungen vom Tragen von Masken abgeraten wird. Es gibt aber keinen Beleg dafür, dass Masken Lungenkrankheiten fördern oder dass sie gefährlich oder unwirksam sind.

The review examines a Facebook post attributed to a practitioner in Styria, Austria. The post claims that breathing air trapped under a mask increases carbon dioxide and nitric oxide in the blood, reduces oxygen intake, and that inadequate lung ventilation promotes lung disease. The review also considers claims that masks become contaminated with extended use and cannot stop viruses. On carbon dioxide and oxygen, the review describes a 2004 doctoral thesis that found a slight rise in blood carbon dioxide after surgical-mask use. It notes that the thesis did not find increased breathing rate or reduced oxygen saturation, and quotes its author, Ulrike Butz, cautioning that health impairment could not be inferred from the work. The review also reports that the German Respiratory League considered severe breathing resistance and possible distress relevant to professional FFP2 and FFP3 masks for sick patients, while describing a dangerous carbon-dioxide rise from surgical or homemade face coverings as unlikely. It says some people with serious pre-existing conditions may need to avoid face coverings. For the post’s lung-disease claim, the review quotes Önder Yildirim, director of the Institute for Lung Biology at Helmholtz Zentrum München, saying there are no studies showing that a mask causes lung disease. He distinguishes possible breathing fatigue in people with respiratory illness from promoting that illness, and says any short-term carbon-dioxide increase would improve quickly after removing the mask. On contamination and protection, he says masks should be single-use or carefully cleaned, but that bacteria already present in the wearer’s airways are not, by themselves, a reason for concern. He also says ordinary cloth masks can limit droplets leaving the mouth, offering protection to others.