Fact Or Fiction: Health & Science
Updated: Sep 5
Fact Or Fiction is our evidence hub for health scares, scientific claims, medicines, public-health rumours and misused research. Each entry starts with the claim as people are likely to encounter it, separates what is known from what is assumed, and links readers to the evidence used for the verdict.
Review status — 4 September 2026
This page was reviewed on 4 September 2026. No new health or science claim was added simply to make the hub look active. New entries will be added when there is a current, consequential claim that can be checked against reliable scientific or official evidence.
How we check claims
We identify the original source, check dates and context, look for primary evidence where possible, and distinguish a false statement from a true fact presented in a misleading way. When evidence is incomplete, the verdict should say so rather than forcing certainty.
What you will find here
Claims are updated as new evidence appears. Corrections are part of the process, not something to hide. Screenshots and viral clips can disappear, so we preserve enough context for readers to understand exactly what was checked.
A frightening headline is not a scientific conclusion
Health misinformation spreads because the stakes are personal. A claim about cancer, vaccines, fertility, medication or food can make somebody feel they must act immediately. That urgency is exactly why evidence matters. We look for the original study, its sample, what was actually measured, whether the result was replicated and whether regulators or professional bodies reached the same conclusion.
Relative risk is a common source of distortion. A percentage increase can sound enormous when the underlying absolute risk is very small. Equally, a rare side effect should not be dismissed simply because it is rare. Good reporting gives both the size of the risk and the context needed to understand it.
Correlation is not automatically causation
Two things happening at the same time do not prove one caused the other. Population health is influenced by age, deprivation, access to care, behaviour, environment and many other variables. A graph that puts two rising lines next to each other can be visually persuasive while proving almost nothing about cause.
What this hub is for
TruthVsHate.com view on this story
We will be direct when evidence is being abused to frighten people, sell a product or build distrust. But this page is for checking public claims, not diagnosing individuals. Personal medical decisions belong with qualified professionals who know the person and the clinical evidence.
Start with reliable sources
Truth Vs Hate publishes the sources behind our reporting so readers can check the evidence, context and claims for themselves. Transparency matters because readers should be able to verify what we say rather than simply take our word for it.
Useful starting points include GOV.UK https://www.gov.uk/ , the Office for National Statistics https://www.ons.gov.uk/ , Full Fact https://fullfact.org/ , Ofcom https://www.ofcom.org.uk/ and the relevant regulator or public body for the claim.
How we handle health and science claims
We look for the underlying study, regulator notice or public-health dataset rather than relying on a screenshot of a headline. A single study rarely settles a scientific question, and relative risks can sound dramatic when the absolute risk is small, so study design, sample size and the baseline rate matter.
For medicines and treatments, we distinguish regulatory approval, evidence of effectiveness, reported side effects and individual medical advice. This hub explains the evidence behind public claims; it is not a substitute for personal advice from a qualified healthcare professional.
Comments