80
/ 100
True
United Kingdom
Robert Liston, a British surgeon, performed a surgery where he accidentally cut off an assistant's fingers, leading to the deaths of the patient, the assistant, and a spectator, resulting in a 300% mortality rate.
Infact verdict: True (80/100).
The claims about Robert Liston's infamous surgery are largely supported by historical accounts. Speed was indeed crucial in surgeries before anesthesia to minimize pain and improve survival rates. Robert Liston's surgery, where he accidentally cut off an assistant's fingers, is well-documented, and both the patient and the assistant reportedly died of infection. Additionally, a spectator is said to have died of shock, leading to the claim of a 300% mortality rate. These events are corroborated by multiple sources, making the claims credible.
How is this score determined? →Individual claims
92
True
History
Before anesthesia, speed was essential to minimize pain and improve the odds of survival.
Multiple reliable sources confirm that speed was crucial in surgeries before anesthesia to minimize pain and improve survival rates. This is supported by historical accounts from sources like History.com and Live Science.
Fact Check Score
None
Fact Check Weight
0
Web Consensus Score
90
Web Consensus Weight
40
Source Quality Score
90
Source Quality Weight
20
Llm Reasoning Score
85
Llm Reasoning Weight
40
Llm Reasoning Score Raw
85
Weighted Total
92
Evidence Summary
3 web sources confirm speed was crucial in pre-anesthesia surgeries.
90
True
History
Robert Liston once performed a surgery where he accidentally cut off an assistant's fingers.
The claim is supported by multiple sources that describe Robert Liston's surgery where he accidentally cut off an assistant's fingers. This incident is well-documented in historical accounts.
Fact Check Score
None
Fact Check Weight
0
Web Consensus Score
85
Web Consensus Weight
40
Source Quality Score
85
Source Quality Weight
20
Llm Reasoning Score
80
Llm Reasoning Weight
40
Llm Reasoning Score Raw
80
Weighted Total
90
Evidence Summary
3 web sources confirm the incident of cutting off an assistant's fingers.
88
True
Health
Both the patient and the assistant died of infection after the surgery.
The claim is corroborated by multiple sources stating that both the patient and the assistant died of sepsis following the surgery. This aligns with historical accounts of the event.
Fact Check Score
None
Fact Check Weight
0
Web Consensus Score
80
Web Consensus Weight
40
Source Quality Score
80
Source Quality Weight
20
Llm Reasoning Score
75
Llm Reasoning Weight
40
Llm Reasoning Score Raw
75
Weighted Total
88
Evidence Summary
2 web sources confirm deaths due to infection.
69
Mostly True
Health
One spectator died of shock during the surgery.
The claim is supported by multiple sources that report a spectator died of shock during the surgery. This is consistent with historical narratives of the event.
Fact Check Score
None
Fact Check Weight
0
Web Consensus Score
75
Web Consensus Weight
40
Source Quality Score
75
Source Quality Weight
20
Llm Reasoning Score
70
Llm Reasoning Weight
40
Llm Reasoning Score Raw
70
Weighted Total
69
Evidence Summary
2 web sources confirm a spectator died of shock.
60
Mostly True
Health
This surgery had a 300% mortality rate.
The claim of a 300% mortality rate is based on the deaths of the patient, assistant, and spectator. While this is a well-known anecdote, the concept of a 300% mortality rate is more of a historical exaggeration than a statistical fact.
Fact Check Score
None
Fact Check Weight
0
Web Consensus Score
60
Web Consensus Weight
40
Source Quality Score
60
Source Quality Weight
20
Llm Reasoning Score
65
Llm Reasoning Weight
40
Llm Reasoning Score Raw
65
Weighted Total
60
Evidence Summary
2 web sources discuss the 300% mortality rate as a historical anecdote.
