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

FACTLYHealth & medicine

తన కూతురి వైద్యానికి సహాయం కోసం ప్రధానమంత్రి మోడీకి లెటర్ రాసిన రాజస్తాన్ కి చెందిన సుమేర్ సింగ్. ‘ప్రధాన మంత్రి జాతీయ సహాయ నిధి’ ద్వారా 30 లక్షల రూపాయులు సహాయం చేసిన ప్రధానమంత్రి కార్యాలయం. ఆ డబ్బుతో తన కూతురి ఆరోగ్యాన్ని సుమేర్ సింగ్ బాగుచేయించాడు

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

台灣事實查核中心Health & medicine

網傳「癌症打一針就好了！動物實驗已100%成功」

Publisher’s rating: 部分錯誤

The claim concerns a cancer treatment described online as curing cancer throughout the body with one injection, with animal experiments supposedly achieving 100% success. The review identifies the underlying study as Ronald Levy’s paper, “Eradication of spontaneous malignancy by local immunotherapy,” published in Science Translational Medicine on January 31, 2018. It reports that the journal’s website listed the study and that experts consulted by the review considered the journal, author, and research genuine. The experimental results, however, did not establish the sweeping claims made in the online headline. (S1: “此新聞是介紹史丹佛大學醫學院腫瘤科教授羅納德·列維（Ronald Levy），於2018年1月 31日，在《科學轉譯醫學》（Science Translation Medicine）期刊發布的學術論文〈Eradication of spontaneous malignancy by local immunotherapy〉。”; “查詢期刊官網確實有此研究報告，作者和報告應屬真實。”) The review describes experiments using four transplanted mouse tumor models—lymphoma, breast cancer, colon cancer, and melanoma—and a separate model of spontaneous mouse breast cancer. The treatment used low doses of CpG DNA and an OX40 antibody injected directly into a tumor. It could suppress or cause regression of particular tumors, including matching tumors at a distant site; that is not evidence that one injection clears every cancer throughout the body. The review also notes that additional treatments were given when tumors recurred, rather than all cases being resolved by a single shot. (S1: “共用四種人為性同源腫瘤移植的動物模式 （分別為：淋巴瘤、乳腺癌、大腸癌及黑色素瘤細胞），和一種自發性老鼠乳腺癌的動物模式”; “使用低劑量的50微克 CpG DNA 以及8微克的OX40抗體，以局部腫瘤內接種（直接注入腫瘤）的方式”; “在小鼠的腫瘤復發時（90隻中有3隻復發），陸續增加多針性的治療。”) The “100%” characterization is contradicted by the review’s reported results: tumors recurred in 3 of 90 animals, and about 25% of animals in the spontaneous breast-cancer experiment died after 16 weeks of treatment. The evidence was limited to mouse models and the four tested cancer types; the review cautions that results in mice do not establish effectiveness in people or in other cancers. Thus, the reported research was real and showed activity in particular experimental settings, but it did not support the claim’s universal cure or perfect-success framing. (S1: “此研究的動物實驗數據，仍有3.3%的動物有腫瘤復發的情況(90隻中有3隻復發)，且在自發性老鼠乳腺癌的的動物實驗裡，約有25%的動物在治療16周後死亡。”; “小白鼠實驗的成功，並不等於人體實驗一定會成功。”; “四種」癌細胞在小鼠實驗有療效，不等於「所有的」癌細胞在小鼠實驗也一定會有療效。” )

FACTLYHealth & medicine

In Zimbabwe, an X-ray image shows a live cockroach in a patient’s chest.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The post described an X-ray taken at Rusape General Hospital in Zimbabwe as showing a live cockroach in a patient’s chest. It further claimed that doctors sent the patient to India, where another X-ray found no cockroach, and that the insect had instead been in the Zimbabwean X-ray machine. The review investigated the image behind this specific story.

FACTLYHealth & medicine

ABP news reported that eating egg along with banana will lead to poisoning and death.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

FACTLY examined a Facebook post showing an ABP News video and claiming that eating egg with banana would cause poisoning and death. The review says the clip was taken from ABP’s fact-check video about the same viral message, not a report endorsing it. In the full video, the reporter reads the message at the beginning and later debunks it as a hoax; the post’s edit therefore reversed the report’s meaning. To identify the clip, FACTLY says it searched Google for “ABP news viral sach on eggs and banana” after noticing the “#viralsach” hashtag in the video. It found ABP’s full video, titled “Viral Sach: Will you die if you eat egg and a banana together?”, and compared it with the Facebook excerpt. According to the review, the excerpt used only about 30 seconds in which the reporter reads the viral message, omitting the later debunking. The review identifies the full video as published on March 15, 2017.

NewtralHealth & medicine

Las vacunas causan autismo: hay pruebas científicas al respecto

Publisher’s rating: Falso

Newtral examines the claim that vaccines cause autism and that scientific evidence supports a causal link. Its account begins with a disciplinary action by the Madrid College of Physicians against a pediatrician who had linked vaccination with autism in publications. The college cited a professional-deontology rule that preventive activities are appropriate only when they have proven scientific value. Newtral identifies the central question as whether scientific evidence shows that vaccines cause autism, and says it found no such evidence. The review also reports that Autism Confederation of Spain had repeatedly rejected the alleged connection. (S1) The review traces the rumor to Andrew Wakefield. It says his research, published in The Lancet in 1998, was later withdrawn by the journal, which issued a retraction; the review describes the work as lacking scientific rigor and as falsified. It further reports that Wakefield lost his license to practice. These details concern the provenance and reliability of the claim’s cited origin, rather than evidence establishing that vaccines cause autism. (S1) Newtral also quotes the World Health Organization as stating that there is no evidence of a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and autism-spectrum disorders. The WHO’s quoted explanation is that earlier studies suggesting a causal connection had significant methodological deficiencies. The review adds that the WHO found no evidence that another childhood vaccine increases autism risk. Taken together, the review’s stated conclusion is that the claim’s asserted scientific support is absent, while the study associated with the rumor was withdrawn and criticized for serious flaws. (S1)