Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Health & medicine fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about health & medicine. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

13,674 published reviews in this topic

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Es klingt nach einem medizinischen Wunder: Spezielle Betten sollen «so ziemlich jede Krankheit innerhalb ca. 25 Min» heilen. Das wird zumindest in einem Facebook-Post (hier archiviert) verbreitet. Seit 80 Jahren würden «die Eliten» diese Betten vorenthalten, heißt es weiter: «Aber dank Trump kommen sie auch bald zu uns». Dazu wird ein Foto des früheren US-Präsidenten Donald Trump vor einem solchen angeblichen medizinischen Bett und eine Einzelaufnahme eines dieser Betten verbreitet.

Publisher’s rating: Die Behauptung ist falsch. Die Fotos zeigen eine Filmrequisite und ein Gerät zur Strahlentherapie von Hirntumoren. Letzteres soll ab Frühjahr 2021 in Deutschland zum Einsatz kommen.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Im Zusammenhang mit Impfungen gegen Covid-19 kursieren eine Menge Gerüchte und Verschwörungsmythen. Ein Beispiel: In einem Facebook-Post (archivierte Version) wird behauptet, dass in FFP2-Masken - die angeblich «alle aus China» kommen - ein Impfstoff eingearbeitet ist, der beim Tragen freigesetzt wird und über die Nase in den Körper gelangt. Die zentrale Befürchtung: «Die verpassen uns jetzt die Impfung mit den Masken !!!!!»

Publisher’s rating: Die Behauptung ist falsch. Es sind ausschließlich Covid-19-Impfstoffe auf dem Markt, die per Spritze verabreicht werden. FFP2-Masken kommen nicht alle aus China.

The claim concerned a Facebook post alleging that FFP2 masks—supposedly all from China—were impregnated with a Covid-19 vaccine that would be released during use and enter the body through the nose. The review examined both parts: how Covid-19 vaccines were administered at the time and whether masks were all sourced from China. It reports that the two vaccines then authorized in Germany and the EU, Comirnaty and Moderna, were given by injection, usually into the upper-arm muscle. It also says other Covid-19 vaccines then being used abroad, including AstraZeneca and Sputnik V, were injected. The review distinguishes those products from nasal vaccines under development. It reports that Eureka Therapeutics was working on a nasal spray intended to protect against Covid-19, but that it was not authorized and had only been tested in mice. A separate candidate being developed by Codagenix and the Serum Institute of India had entered an early clinical testing phase on January 11. Crucially, the review says these candidates were administered as sprays, not applied to textiles, and cites the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI) as saying there were no vaccinations that worked as the post described. The claim’s assertion about mask origins was also too broad. The review acknowledges that many FFP2 masks were procured from China early in the pandemic, but says the federal government had relied heavily on domestic production since the summer and that German manufacturers existed. Taken together, the evidence in the review does not support either the proposed vaccine-delivery mechanism or the claim that all FFP2 masks came from China.

Deutsche Presse-AgenturHealth & medicine

Seit dem 25. Jänner 2021 muss in Österreich unter anderem im Handel und in öffentlichen Verkehrsmitteln verpflichtend eine FFP2-Maske getragen werden. Das sehen viele Social-Media-User kritisch, einige verbreiten zudem irreführende Informationen. Derzeit werden etwa bei Facebook Fotos von Gebrauchsanweisungen geteilt, denen zufolge die Masken nicht gegen Viren schützen oder helfen (hier archiviert). Die Postings kursieren in verschiedenen Versionen.

Publisher’s rating: FFP2-Masken können sehr effektiv vor Viren schützen, wie aktuelle Untersuchungen zeigen. Eine Garantie übernehmen die Maskenhersteller jedoch nicht.

The review examines Facebook posts circulating in Austria that use mask instructions to suggest FFP2 masks do not protect against viruses. It distinguishes the wording in product instructions from evidence about how masks perform: the cited Uvex instructions say the masks are not for protection against viruses, while the manufacturer’s product manager explained that FFP2 masks were developed as workplace protective equipment and were not routinely tested specifically against viruses. The manufacturer therefore did not accept liability for that use, and did not market the products as “Corona masks.” The review describes the applicable European standard, EN 149:2001+A1:2009. Under that standard, FFP2 masks must filter at least 94 percent of test aerosols, and FFP3 masks at least 99 percent. The tests use aerosols between 0.045 and 1.2 micrometres in diameter, not live viruses. The review reports that a team at Münster University of Applied Sciences considered testing with sodium-chloride aerosols sufficient to draw conclusions about infection protection, because SARS-CoV-2 travels in larger liquid-containing aerosols. It cites the RKI for the virus’s diameter and gives the aerosol size as at least 0.5 micrometres. The review also reports expert assessments that FFP2 masks can protect against viruses despite not being virus-proof. Virologist Norbert Nowotny said the masks can intercept virus-bearing droplets or particles, which are generally larger than the filter’s stated 600-nanometre pore size. The BfArM likewise describes FFP2 masks as protecting wearers from particles, droplets and aerosols. Thus, the disclaimer in the instructions concerns testing and liability; it does not, on its own, establish that the masks cannot help protect against viral infection.

APA - Austria Presse AgenturHealth & medicine

FFP2-Masken schützen nicht vor Viren und speziell nicht vor SARS-CoV-2-Viren. Das ist Gebrauchsanweisungen von solchen Masken zu entnehmen.

Publisher’s rating: Diese Behauptung ist nicht zutreffend. Die Filter von FFP2-Masken schützen durchaus vor Viren. Bei den Hinweisen in den Gebrauchsanweisungen dürfte es vor allem um Haftungsfragen gehen.

The claim concerned social-media posts quoting mask instructions as saying FFP2 masks do not protect against viruses, and therefore do not protect against SARS-CoV-2. The APA review examined the claim in the setting of Austria’s requirement, effective 25 January 2021, to wear FFP2 masks without an exhalation valve in many public places. It found that the circulating image of the instructions had no stated source or date, and did not identify the product or manufacturer, so its origin, possible alteration and currency could not be established. The review did, however, locate similar wording in online listings and an instruction sheet from German manufacturer Uvex. Uvex product manager Wolf Wagner told APA that FFP2 masks were originally occupational protective equipment and were not routinely tested for protection against viruses such as SARS-CoV-2; the company therefore did not assume liability for that use. The review treated that warning as a limitation on testing and liability, not proof that the filters provide no protection. The review also cited Germany’s Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, which said FFP masks protect against particles, droplets and aerosols, and virologist Norbert Nowotny, who explained that SARS-CoV-2 is carried in droplets or on dust particles that are generally larger than the mask filter’s stated 600-nanometre pore size. It reported that FFP2 masks must filter at least 94 percent of test aerosols under the cited European standard; the tests use test aerosols rather than viruses, but the review said those results can inform conclusions about particle-filter protection. It also noted a qualification: FFP2 masks are not “virus-tight” like FFP3 masks. The article’s evidence supports a distinction between not being tested or warranted specifically against viruses and having no filtering effect against virus-carrying particles.