Accurate information is the foundation of a functioning democracy.
Science Feedback is a worldwide network of scientists sorting fact from fiction in science based media coverage. Our goal is to help readers know which news to trust.
Latest Reviews
-
MisleadingBenefits of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines outweigh their risks, even for teenagers, contrary to Alex Berenson’s claim
Claim:
“1 million mRNA covid shots or teens will prevent 0-1 deaths and CAUSE 100,000 – 200,000 severe side effects”
Source: Substack, Alex Berenson, 2023-09-13 -
Lacks contextLack of clinical evidence for claim that N-acetylcysteine is effective against COVID-19 and stops viral replication
Claim:
N-acetylcysteine inhibits viral replication, breaks up mucus, and is effective against COVID-19
Source: Facebook, Steve Lucchino, 2023-09-02 -
IncorrectVAERS death reports don’t prove COVID-19 vaccines killed hundreds of thousands, contrary to claim by Steve Kirsch
Claim:
VAERS reports show 410,000 Americans were killed by COVID-19 vaccines; the COVID-19 vaccine caused 41 times more deaths than reported
Source: Facebook, Steve Kirsch, 2023-08-06 -
UnsupportedCDC data didn’t show an increased risk of hospitalization in people vaccinated against COVID-19, contrary to claim by Alex Berenson
Claim:
“vaccinated and boosted people were MORE likely to be hospitalized with the new Omicron variant than unvaccinated people”
Source: Substack, Alex Berenson, 2023-09-13 -
IncorrectClaim that current climate change can be explained satisfactorily by natural cycles and volcanic activity does not have scientific support
Claim:
The cyclical activity of the Sun as well as other variations in solar and earth activity, and NOT anthropogenic CO2 emissions, are responsible for climate change
Source: Twitter, Social media users, 2023-09-02 -
MisleadingYale University researchers reported a technology to deliver mRNA vaccines in the nose, not a way to remotely vaccinate people
Claim:
Researchers from Yale University created a new delivery method for mRNA vaccines… through the air
Source: The Epoch Times, Roman Balmakov, 2023-09-02
Newsletter subscription
Get scientists’ reviews delivered directly to your inbox
Health Reviews
-
Misleading
Benefits of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines outweigh their risks, even for teenagers, contrary to Alex Berenson’s claim
Claim:
“1 million mRNA covid shots or teens will prevent 0-1 deaths and CAUSE 100,000 – 200,000 severe side effects”
Source: Substack, Alex Berenson, 2023-09-13
-
Lacks context
Lack of clinical evidence for claim that N-acetylcysteine is effective against COVID-19 and stops viral replication
Claim:
N-acetylcysteine inhibits viral replication, breaks up mucus, and is effective against COVID-19
Source: Facebook, Steve Lucchino, 2023-09-02 -
Incorrect
VAERS death reports don’t prove COVID-19 vaccines killed hundreds of thousands, contrary to claim by Steve Kirsch
Claim:
VAERS reports show 410,000 Americans were killed by COVID-19 vaccines; the COVID-19 vaccine caused 41 times more deaths than reported
Source: Facebook, Steve Kirsch, 2023-08-06
Insights
-
What do we know about the safety of COVID-19 vaccine mRNA in breast milk?
The mRNA inCOVID-19 mRNA vaccines can enter breast milk. However, research only detected small amounts of it, which were mostly degraded and non-functional form. COVID-19 vaccines are beneficial to pregnant women because they are particularly at risk of severe disease and poorer pregnancy outcomes. Furthermore, breast milk from lactating women contains antibodies able to neutralize the COVID-19 virus, meaning that vaccinated women can pass on some protection against COVID-19 to their babies.
-
Are phthalates causing a decline in male fertility?
Introduction According to an estimate published by the World Health Organization in April 2023, infertility affects roughly one in six…
-
What’s in a number? The significance of the 1.5°C warming threshold and reporting on its possible breach in popular media
These findings were widely covered by popular media outlets, including in articles published by The Guardian, CNN, and BBC, which all reported that this temperature increase would represent a breach of the key IPCC threshold. However, this is missing some important context.
“A single year above 1.5°C does not mean the world has passed that particular warming level”, said Zeke Hausfather. Such nuance was better captured by articles published in Reuters and Axios, which both correctly did not report that these new temperature projections, if realized, would constitute a breach of the threshold.
Climate reviews
-
Incorrect
Claim that current climate change can be explained satisfactorily by natural cycles and volcanic activity does not have scientific support
Claim:
The cyclical activity of the Sun as well as other variations in solar and earth activity, and NOT anthropogenic CO2 emissions, are responsible for climate change
Source: Twitter, Social media users, 2023-09-02
-
IncorrectCLINTEL group inaccurately represents climate science in its declaration of “no climate emergency” once again
Claim:
Global warming is just the end of the Little Ice Age; Warming is slower than climate models forecasted; Carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth; Global warming is not intensifying or increasing the frequency of natural disasters
Source: Clintel, The Epoch Times, Naveen Athrappully, Viv Forbes, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Moore, Ian Plimer, Guus Berkhout, Christopher Monckton, Benoit Rittaud, 2023-08-19 -
IncorrectNearly three decades on, the chemtrail-HAARP geoengineering conspiracy theory remains popular despite lack of evidence and no scientific basis
Claim:
Global weather is controlled by secret geoengineering programs using chemtrails and ionosphere heating facilities.
Source: Facebook, Facebook users, 2023-08-07
Analysis & Investigations
-
Authorities undertaking climate action targeted by viral “Climate lockdowns” narrative on social media
The increasing number of measures to limit greenhouse gas pollution that can be expected in the future will certainly present opportunities for future weaponization and misrepresentation. Writers, editors, and journalists should be aware of these manipulation tactics when discussing the aftermath of COVID-19 restrictions or future climate policies, knowing that some actors are trawling for any evidence to boost the manufactured ‘climate lockdown’ outrage.
-
Misinformation superspreaders are thriving on Musk-owned Twitter
Key results 1. A study of 490 “misinformation superspreaders” (here defined as accounts that have repeatedly published popular tweets linking…
-
Germany-based network of websites and Facebook accounts amplify clickbait content to monetize web traffic via Google AdSense and e-commerce
SUMMARY This investigation, which took place between May and August 2022, shows that a network of German- and English-language Facebook…
News & events
press
-
Hard times are here for news sites and social media. Is this the end of Web 2.0?
One recent study by Science Feedback, a fact-checking organization, found that user engagement with so-called superspreaders of misinformation increased 44% on the platform since Musk took over.
-
They’re getting smarter: How disinformation peddlers avoid regulation
Does Facebook’s method work? A study done by Science Feedback said yes, but only to a certain extent. Facebook’s interventions on accounts that repeatedly share disinformation and misinformation results in reduced engagement on posts that violate community standards. However, the study found that this did not change the behavior of repeat offenders in the long run.
-
How Google’s Ad Business Funds Disinformation Around the World
Science Feedback, a French nonprofit fact-checking organization that employs journalists and scientists, provided ProPublica with 427 active URLs of articles about climate change in French and other languages it has rated false since 2021. A fifth of them were earning money with Google, according to the analysis.
-
Why possible loss of CrowdTangle worries fact-checkers and disinformation researchers
How do you know if the fact-checking program works? The fact-check group Science Feedback attempted to answer this question by analyzing Facebook data captured through CrowdTangle and Buzzsumo. (…) “In our research we have been able to show how much Facebook is reducing the visibility of posts in these repeat offender accounts. We were able to transparently verify that Facebook is implementing this policy. Otherwise there is no way of knowing that. We really need this kind of data if we want to be able to measure what is happening on the platform,” Vincent told Rappler.