Which fact‑checking organizations maintain lists of confirmed medical deepfakes?
Executive summary
Full Fact is the clearest, repeatedly documented fact‑checking organisation that has identified and catalogued hundreds of AI‑generated deepfakes of medical experts circulating on social media, and it has published specific investigations exposing those videos and their misuses [1] [2]. The available reporting does not show other major international fact‑checking groups maintaining comparable public, curated lists of confirmed medical deepfakes, though government and professional bodies provide guidance on identifying and removing such material [3] [4].
1. Full Fact: the fact‑checker with documented deepfake investigations
Full Fact’s investigations into AI‑altered videos of doctors and academics are cited across multiple outlets: Full Fact reported hundreds of manipulated videos used to promote supplements and misinformation and published specific examples of academics and public‑health figures who were impersonated, including Professor Taylor‑Robinson and others [1] [2]. Major news outlets summarized Full Fact’s findings and described the organisation’s role uncovering a wave of synthetic medical endorsements across TikTok, X, Facebook and YouTube [2] [5]. Full Fact’s work is explicitly presented as a primary source for claims about medical deepfakes in these reports [1].
2. What the reporting shows — and what it does not
While Full Fact is directly documented as cataloguing and exposing specific deepfake videos and campaigns tied to Wellness Nest and similar operations, the reporting reviewed does not demonstrate that other fact‑checking organisations maintain publicly accessible, ongoing lists devoted exclusively to confirmed medical deepfakes [2] [1]. Government and regulatory bodies such as Australia’s eSafety Commissioner and professional journals like the British Medical Journal offer guidance on recognising and responding to health‑related deepfakes, but those are resources and advice rather than curated fact‑checked inventories of confirmed items [3]. A handful of sources reference fact‑checkers in passing—AFP Fact Check appears in an academic citation about deepfakes—but the material does not show AFP or similar outfits running a consolidated public list of medical deepfakes comparable to Full Fact’s documented investigations [6].
3. Why Full Fact’s role matters and who might have an agenda
Full Fact’s investigations matter because they document concrete instances where synthetic media impersonated trusted clinicians to sell products and spread health misinformation, a pattern reporters flagged as a new phase of synthetic‑media abuse in health contexts [5] [1]. It is important to note that Full Fact’s health fact‑checking has received funding from the Health Foundation since 2023, a disclosure that appears on its reporting and is relevant when assessing institutional context and potential incentives in health coverage [1]. Other actors in the ecosystem—platforms, supplement sellers, and advocacy groups—have different incentives: platforms face pressure to remove content, sellers profit from conversions, and public‑health bodies seek mitigation and removal [2] [4].
4. Practical limits of the available reporting and next steps for readers
The assembled sources make a strong case that Full Fact is the most visible fact‑checking organisation with a documented record of identifying and cataloguing medical deepfakes, but the sources do not provide a comprehensive survey of every fact‑checking group worldwide or confirm whether other organisations maintain private or less public lists [2] [1]. Readers seeking comprehensive inventories should inspect Full Fact’s published investigations and follow government resources and medical journals for guidance on identification and remediation; academic and forensic tools for verification are also described in technical literature, but those do not equate to curated lists of confirmed medical deepfakes [7] [3].