Last updated on August 17th, 2021 at 03:20 pm
These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.
- Overall, we rate Health Feedback a pro-science fact-checker based on utilizing scientific evidence to refute claims. We also rate them Very-High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and the use of expert Ph.D. level scientists/doctors to fact check claims.
Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE
Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH
Country: France (34/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Founded in 2015, Health Feedback is a worldwide network of scientists sorting fact from fiction in health and medical media coverage. They state their goal is to help readers know which news to trust. They also provide feedback to editors about the credibility of information published in their outlets. Each reviewer holds a Ph.D. and has recently published articles in top-tier peer-reviewed science journals.
Funded by / Ownership
Health Feedback is owned and published by Science Feedback, a not-for-profit organization verifying the credibility of influential claims and media coverage that claims to be scientific, starting with climate and health. Revenue is derived through donations.
Analysis / Bias
In review, the website asks scientists in relevant fields to assess the credibility and accuracy of media stories related to Health and Medicine. Fact checks are broken up into two categories. The first is “Article Reviews,” which fact checks stories written by media publications. The second is “Claim Reviews,” which evaluates claims by individuals, social media, and sources. The article reviews rate stories on their scientific credibility with a scale that ranges from -2 (very low) to +2 (very high). For example, in The New York Times story, New York Times accurately reports vaccine-derived polio outbreaks caused by low vaccine coverage is scored +1 (high scientific credibility).
Claim reviews are graded on a scale that ranges from Correct to Inaccurate. For example, this claim by Natural News “Coronavirus pandemic would likely not be nearly as bad if 5G exposure/radiation pollution wasn’t already compromising the structure and function of hemoglobin cells.” is rated as Incorrect. Multiple scientists within the medical field review each fact check. In general, Health Feedback displays minimal bias and stays focused on science.
On September 27, 2019, The IFCN concluded an investigation into a Science Feedback/Health Feedback fact check and found that “Science Feedback’s conclusion appears sound and fair, based on the best evidence. Their fact-check is an accurate attempt to inform readers on the veracity of a claim and strictly adheres to their scientific fact-checking methodology.” However, the independent right-leaning Zebra Fact Check reports that Science Feedback “ignored context, altered a quotation, and ultimately relied on an equivocal argument.” Zebra Fact Check is not a signatory of the IFCN.
Failed Fact Checks
- None. In fact, they are a part of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN).
Overall, we rate Health Feedback a pro-science fact-checker based on utilizing scientific evidence to refute claims. We also rate them Very-High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and the use of expert Ph.D. level scientists/doctors to fact check claims. (D. Van Zandt 4/19/2020) Updated (8/17/2021)