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.

13,677 published reviews in this topic

YouturnHealth & medicine

“சர்ப்பமுண்டு சர்வ நோயுமுண்டு கர்ப்பமறியா கன்னியும் வாயு பகவான் பகைகொண்டு பித்தம் சித்தம் சிதை கொள்வாள்” பாடலின் அர்த்தம் இந்த பாடலின் அர்த்தம் என்னவென்றால், பாம்பை சாப்பிடுகின்றவர்களுக்கு இந்த உலகத்தில் உள்ள எல்லா நோய்களும் ஒன்று சேர்ந்தது போல, அதிக உடல் பலமாக இருக்கின்றவர் குழந்தை பெற்றுக் கொள்ளாத கன்னிப் பெண்ணால் கூட தாங்கிக் கொள்ள முடியாத, நுரயைீரலைத் தாக்கி உயிரையே அழிக்கத் துணியும் நோய்க்கு ஆளாவார்கள் என்று குறிப்பிடுகிறார் அகத்தியர்.

Publisher’s rating: Fake

YouturnHealth & medicine

கிமு 400 ஆம் நூற்றாண்டிலேயே கொரோனா வைரஸ் பற்றி சித்தர் போகர் எழுதிய பாடல்.. ” சரவணனடி வாழ் அரவும் விடப்பற் கொண்டு நெளியும் வெட்டியதை புசிப்பவர் தம் உடலில் சுவாசம் திணறும் ரோகம் சேரும் சர்வ நாசம் நேரும் உடற் மண்டலம் சிதைந்து உயிர் போகுமே பறந்து “.

Publisher’s rating: Fake

NewtralHealth & medicine

Los alemanes en cuarentena en La Gomera por el Coronavirus han «abandonado sin permiso» el aislamiento domiciliario

Publisher’s rating: Falso

The claim concerned five German travel companions being monitored at home in Hermigua, on La Gomera, after a coronavirus case was identified. A Facebook post alleged they had left their apartments without permission or the authorities’ knowledge. The review reports that the Canary Islands health department and La Gomera’s president, Casimiro Curbelo, rejected that account. Curbelo said the Germans who had gone to Tenerife were transferred to their country by agreement, not by leaving their isolation without authorization. [S1: “A través de una publicación de Facebook, un usuario y locutor de radio ha asegurado que los pacientes han abandonado sin permiso y sin conocimiento de las autoridades los apartamentos en los que estaban en aislamiento domiciliario”.] [S1: “Es falso. Eso tiene que ver con dos alemanes que se habían detectado en la cadena de contactos posibles que están en Tenerife y que de forma pactada, se trasladaron a su país”] The review says the health department also denied the allegation directly to Newtral and referred it to a statement issued the day after the rumor circulated. That statement said the five travel companions continued home monitoring in Hermigua. It distinguished four men who had shown symptoms and tested negative twice from a fifth traveler who had remained without symptoms. [S1: “La Consejería de Sanidad del Gobierno de Canarias también lo ha desmentido a Newtral.es por teléfono y nos han remitido a un comunicado publicado el día siguiente a la difusión del bulo”.] [S1: “Los cinco compañeros de viaje [del paciente afectado] continúan su seguimiento domiciliario en el municipio de Hermigua”] [S1: “los cuatro hombres que presentaron síntomas y que han dado negativo en dos pruebas así como al quinto viajero alemán que se ha mantenido asintomático durante toda su estancia en Canarias.”] The cited statement said that, if their condition remained unchanged, the five could be discharged from monitoring on 14 February, when the protocol’s control period would end. This supports the review’s distinction between an agreed transfer of two people associated with Tenerife and the five companions still being monitored in Hermigua; it does not support the claim that the quarantined group had left without permission. [S1: “De mantenerse esa situación podrán recibir el alta el día 14 de febrero, fecha en la que se da por finalizado el control que establece el protocolo de actuación fijado por el Ministerio de Sanidad”]

台灣事實查核中心Health & medicine

【錯誤】網傳「放置一顆沒有剝皮的洋蔥在房間裏...醫生觀察時真的在洋蔥上發現了流感病菌...洋蔥吸收了病菌，因此讓這家人保持健康。...洋蔥會因為病菌而在次日清晨變黑」？

Publisher’s rating: 錯誤

The claim combines three assertions: that an unpeeled onion placed in a room absorbs influenza germs, that this protects a family from illness, and that an onion turns black overnight because of germs. The review examined these claims by consulting disease-control and hospital experts, rather than reporting an experiment of its own. It quotes a disease-control physician and an infectious-disease specialist on whether onions can absorb pathogens. The experts said onions do not actively absorb viruses or bacteria. The disease-control physician added that germs found on an onion could have landed there passively; the hospital specialist noted that influenza is caused by a virus, not bacteria, and likewise said onions do not absorb viruses. This evidence contradicts the story’s explanation that an onion takes up influenza germs and thereby keeps a household healthy. On the claim that onions darken because of germs, the disease-control physician attributed darkening to deterioration, while a hospital nutritionist said contact with air can cause oxidation and discoloration. The review therefore concludes that the reported darkening is not evidence that an onion absorbed pathogens. Its account supports rejecting the claimed mechanism, while not presenting a separate test of whether the particular story’s household remained healthy.

台灣事實查核中心Health & medicine

【錯誤】網傳「由於NCP新型冠狀病毒，有0～24天的潛伏期...專家提供一方法讓你盡早知道自己肺部的狀況：最、最、最大深度地“吸氣”並且“屏氣”超過10秒以上...證明肺部沒有纖維化」？

Publisher’s rating: 錯誤

The review examined a circulating February 2020 message that linked a possible 0–24-day coronavirus incubation period to claims that lung fibrosis could develop without symptoms, and that a person who could inhale deeply and hold their breath for more than ten seconds could rule out fibrosis and infection. The review traced the incubation-period figure to a paper published on February 9 by Zhong Nanshan’s team, then consulted National Taiwan University epidemiology professor Fang Chi-tai about how to interpret it. Fang said the paper analyzed 1,099 confirmed cases: the median incubation period was three days, while 24 days was the longest observed in an individual case and an extreme result, not a typical period. The review quotes his interpretation: “24天的個案是極端案例，只有千分之一的機會，研究的解讀重點應該放在中位數3天。” (S1) To assess the claim about silent fibrosis, the review consulted Fang and physicians from Taiwan’s disease-control system and hospitals. Fang said coronavirus-related lung injury would ordinarily begin with inflammation and symptoms such as cough, fever, and phlegm; he rejected the claim that infection would leave someone symptom-free until the lungs were already 50% fibrotic. He distinguished this from reported fibrosis in people exposed to toxic chemicals, which he described as a special circumstance rather than the expected result of viral infection. The review also reports that other consulted physicians described fibrosis as a developing process, rather than a sudden change with no symptoms. (S1) The experts did not support using a ten-second breath hold to diagnose fibrosis. Fang said he had not heard of the proposed test and explained that discomfort while holding one’s breath would not establish fibrosis. Infectious-disease specialist Yang Chia-jui said the method was incorrect and advised that lung function testing at a hospital was needed to determine whether fibrosis was present. The review therefore found that the breath-hold test did not establish that a person was free of fibrosis or coronavirus. (S1)

台灣事實查核中心Health & medicine

【錯誤】傳言引述研究指稱「武漢新型冠狀肺炎完全是人造出來的，就是她石正麗造的」？

Publisher’s rating: 錯誤

The claim linked Shi Zhengli to the creation of the Wuhan novel coronavirus by citing a 2015 paper about bat coronaviruses. The review identifies that paper as “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence,” published in Nature Medicine, and confirms that Shi was one of its researchers. The review says the paper did not establish that the novel coronavirus was made by that research team. The study described in the review used reverse genetics to create a chimeric virus: researchers replaced the spike-protein gene in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone with the spike-protein gene from the bat virus SHC014. The resulting virus was used to investigate whether SHC014’s spike protein could enable infection of human cells. The review reports that experts explained this experiment concerned a SARS-like virus, not the Wuhan novel coronavirus; the fact that a human-infectious virus was engineered in the study does not establish that it was the virus behind the outbreak. The review also gives a genetic distinction cited by one expert: apart from its spike gene, SHC014-MA15’s sequence came from SARS coronavirus, while SARS and the novel coronavirus differed by 10–20% outside the spike gene. The expert said this made it very unlikely that SHC014-MA15 was the novel coronavirus. The review’s conclusion is limited to what the cited 2015 study can show: it provides no direct evidence that Shi’s team manufactured the novel coronavirus. The review explicitly says that the virus’s origin and whether it was artificial were outside the scope of its check.