Prof. Dr. Markus Veit is a pharmacist and managing director of a consulting firm for the pharmaceutical industry. In the course of his Career he not only worked in pharmaceutical quality control, but was also directly involved in the certification of masks as medical devices. The expert has been criticizing the lack of evidence that masks are compulsory since 2020 and, in a Twitter thread on July 12, was again appalled at the adherence to this measure – on the part of politicians, but also the obedient and uncritical population.
I would like to take the fact that politicians in unison, parts of the media and unfortunately also scientists want to continue to convince us that masks (can) make a positive contribution to infection processes as an opportunity to tweet the following statements (1-11):
- Masks were never designed to protect against viral diseases or to prevent the spread of (respiratory) viruses.
- FFP masks were developed to protect people from particles, medical (surgical) masks to protect patients or their open wounds from microorganisms (not viruses).
- Infection events would require that we know what the infection pathways and mechanisms are. There are at best assumptions but no documented or even proven concept.
- The assumption of the “effect” of masks in everyday life (non-professional use) is based on models with dubious assumptions (cf. 1. / 2.). Depending on the validity of the assumptions in the (artificial) models, the studies published on this are at best hypothesis-generating.
- The hypothesis of the “effect” of masks in everyday life is clearly refuted by the epidemiological data that have become available in the meantime. This applies to the use of whatever masks – outdoors and indoors.
- That FFP2 masks are supposed to work “better” than medical masks is a claim that cannot be substantiated by epidemiological data. The use of FFP2 masks implies not only health risks but also …
- …the risk of the masks contributing to the spread of the virus through improper and repeated use. Hygiene experts, such as Prof. Kappstein, have pointed this out from the beginning of the pandemic.
- In the light of a benefit-risk assessment to be carried out, the obligation to wear masks for children or even small children is to be viewed very critically. FFP2 masks are not approved for children but are still sold and used.
- In the course of my professional life, I have dealt with the certification of masks as medical devices, among other things. It is frightening to what extent politicians today ignore existing safety standards when testing masks and protecting those who wear them
- From my point of view, in the light of these findings, the adherence to the requirements for wearing masks can only be commented on with (small-child) defiance, (political) helplessness and also a denial of scientific evidence.
- The topic of masks illustrates pars pro toto where we have got to in this country and how uncritically (naively) people deal with this topic when they dutifully put on the mask on the train, for example when they travel from Switzerland to Germany by train.
For more information and data: For example, you can find an overview of studies on the lack of effectiveness of masks at the Brownstone Institute.