Difference between revisions of "Covid Updates"

From SaveTheWorld - a project of The Partnership Machine, Inc. (Sponsor: Family Music Center)

(→‎Updates: Important Questions (raised mostly by Doctors))
(→‎USA Today: masks don’t cause oxygen problems(May 30))
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 580: Line 580:
  
 
The 10-page article reviews research that struggles to measure aerosol transmission. Some of it uses fine water spray jets (“high-powered jet nebulizers”) to infect tiny “aerosols”, squirt them in the air, and see how long the virus can survive on them. One such study found some that lived 16 hours, floating in the air. The doubts about the study were about whether the infected aerosols thus produced were like what those that humans exhale.
 
The 10-page article reviews research that struggles to measure aerosol transmission. Some of it uses fine water spray jets (“high-powered jet nebulizers”) to infect tiny “aerosols”, squirt them in the air, and see how long the virus can survive on them. One such study found some that lived 16 hours, floating in the air. The doubts about the study were about whether the infected aerosols thus produced were like what those that humans exhale.
 +
 +
 +
=====Fears, Facts, Prevention (July 13, 2020)=====
 +
 +
Title:  COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic: fears, facts and preventive measures
 +
 +
Authors: Israel Oluwasegun Ayenigbara1,*, Olasunkanmi Rowland Adeleke2, George Omoniyi Ayenigbara3, Joseph Sunday Adegboro4, Oluwaseyi Oye Olofintuyi5 
 +
Received: 11 April 2020; revised: 06 July 2020; accepted: 13 July 2020. 
 +
This study claims: “ Presently, there is no known cure for COVID-19, …”
 +
 +
Why do people keep SAYING that? The word “Hydroxychloroquine” isn’t even mentioned in this article! Not even to refute it! As if the authors never heard of it.
 +
 +
“however, remdesivir has been approved for emergency use for the treatment of COVID-19”.
 +
 +
Notice the wording: it has been approved. As if to skim over the fact that no studies have proved it effective. Later, it “is expected to be an effective treatment”. No reason given why it is expected.
 +
 +
Here’s the list of stuff we have to do: “this review revealed that thorough hand washing with antiseptic soap and running water and usage of alcohol hand sanitizer, frequent surfaces cleaning, strict adherence to social distancing, regular respiratory hygiene, wearing of protective face masks, frequent testing, self-isolation, quarantine and rigorous contact tracing….”.
 +
 +
What support can the study muster for requiring those measures?
 +
 +
How can a paper hope to address “facts, fears, and appropriate preventive measures against COVID-19” without even mentioning  Hydroxychloroquine? It’s not as if only a tiny few doctors are for it. [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Covid_Updates#Doctors_from_30_countries_support_hydroxychloroquine_.28May_26.29 My entry] from May 26: “Doctors from 30 countries agree hydroxychloroquine works  - May 26 Red Right Daily, from the New York Post: Of 2,171 physicians surveyed, 37% of them said that hydroxychloroquine is the “most effective therapy” for combating the virus. 32% of doctors, however, said "nothing" is effective. 6,227 physicians were questioned about at least 15 treatments used for COVID-19. Only 2,171 of them were asked which drug is most effective. But in the U.S., only 23% of doctors have prescribed the drug - only in severe cases - far less than in other countries, where it is often prescribed in all cases. ”
 +
 +
This study continues: “there is not strong evidence to substantiate that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne” That’s as of July 6. Over a month later that evidence was published. See [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Covid_Updates#Covid_is_an_Aerosol.2C_not_blocked_by_masks_.28Aug_11.29 my post.]
 +
 +
As of page 222, half way through this study, there is quite a summary of “mitigating” measures taken globally, but no summaries of any research supporting any of them. Will research be mentioned later? Or <u>are the measures taken by others a substitute for research proving we should take them? </u>
 +
 +
So far this paper reads, not like any kind of evidence for people who make decisions based on that sort of thing, but like a flow chart showing children how to behave. Except for the big words. Right here on 222 is that kind of flow chart. No evidence, just assumptions. Just conclusions. Oh, also, except for the footnotes. MAYBE some of them contain evidence. But that hope is not encouraged by the failure of this article to summarize any of it. Nor by the few footnotes I did read, whose titles indicated no support for these assumptions.
 +
 +
Like this assumption: “SARS-CoV-2 is primarily transmitted by droplet and contact routes. For instance, droplet transmission is through bigger respiratory particles, usually above 5 μm in diameter, which are subject to gravitational forces; these droplets and particles tend to travel no more than 1 meter, ” Again, this is before the August 11 study, and only repeats the earlier statement that research doesn’t yet indicate aerosol transmission.
 +
 +
I’ve reached the end. Was there evidence that I missed? No evidence. No summaries of research. Just claims, directions how to behave, and reviews of how tyrannies all over the world are doing so well following those directions.
  
 
=====Do masks block even aerosols, after all? (Apr 24)=====
 
=====Do masks block even aerosols, after all? (Apr 24)=====
Line 592: Line 623:
  
 
CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, we have measured the filtration efficiencies of various commonly available fabrics for use as cloth masks in filtering particles in the significant (for aerosol-based virus transmission) size range of∼10 nm to∼6μm and have presented filtration efficiency data as a function of aerosol particle size. We find that cotton, natural silk, and chiffon can provide good protection, typically above 50% in the entire 10nm to 6.0μm range, provided they have a tight weave. Higher threads per inch cotton with tighter weaves resulted in better filtration efficiencies. For instance, a 600 TPI cotton sheet can provide average filtration efficiencies of 79±23% (in the 10nm to 300 nm range) and 98.4±0.2% (in the 300 nm to 6μmrange). A cotton quilt with batting provides 96±2% (10 nm to 300 nm) and 96.1±0.3% (300 nm to 6μm). Likely the highly tangled fibrous nature of the batting aids in the superior performance at small particle sizes. Materials such as silk and chiffon are particularly effective (considering their sheerness) at excluding particles in the nanoscale regime (<∼100 nm), likely due to electrostatic effects that result in charge transfer with nanoscale aerosol particles. A four-layer silk (used, for instance, as a scarf) was surprisingly effective with an average efficiency of >85% across the 10 nm−6μm particle size range. As a result, we found that hybrid combinations of cloths such as high threads-per-inch cotton along with silk, chiffon, or flannel can provide broad filtration coverage across both the nanoscale (<300 nm) and micron scale (300 nm to 6μm)range, likely due to the combined effects of electrostatic and physical filtering. Finally, it is important to note that openings and gaps (such as those between the mask edge and the facial contours) can degrade the performance. Our findings indicate that leakages around the mask area can degrade efficiencies by ∼50% or more, pointing out the importance of“fit”.Opportunities for future studies include cloth mask design for better“fit”and the role of factors such as humidity (arising from exhalation) and the role of repeated use and washing of cloth masks. In summary, we find that the use of cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection against the transmission of particles in the aerosol size range.
 
CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, we have measured the filtration efficiencies of various commonly available fabrics for use as cloth masks in filtering particles in the significant (for aerosol-based virus transmission) size range of∼10 nm to∼6μm and have presented filtration efficiency data as a function of aerosol particle size. We find that cotton, natural silk, and chiffon can provide good protection, typically above 50% in the entire 10nm to 6.0μm range, provided they have a tight weave. Higher threads per inch cotton with tighter weaves resulted in better filtration efficiencies. For instance, a 600 TPI cotton sheet can provide average filtration efficiencies of 79±23% (in the 10nm to 300 nm range) and 98.4±0.2% (in the 300 nm to 6μmrange). A cotton quilt with batting provides 96±2% (10 nm to 300 nm) and 96.1±0.3% (300 nm to 6μm). Likely the highly tangled fibrous nature of the batting aids in the superior performance at small particle sizes. Materials such as silk and chiffon are particularly effective (considering their sheerness) at excluding particles in the nanoscale regime (<∼100 nm), likely due to electrostatic effects that result in charge transfer with nanoscale aerosol particles. A four-layer silk (used, for instance, as a scarf) was surprisingly effective with an average efficiency of >85% across the 10 nm−6μm particle size range. As a result, we found that hybrid combinations of cloths such as high threads-per-inch cotton along with silk, chiffon, or flannel can provide broad filtration coverage across both the nanoscale (<300 nm) and micron scale (300 nm to 6μm)range, likely due to the combined effects of electrostatic and physical filtering. Finally, it is important to note that openings and gaps (such as those between the mask edge and the facial contours) can degrade the performance. Our findings indicate that leakages around the mask area can degrade efficiencies by ∼50% or more, pointing out the importance of“fit”.Opportunities for future studies include cloth mask design for better“fit”and the role of factors such as humidity (arising from exhalation) and the role of repeated use and washing of cloth masks. In summary, we find that the use of cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection against the transmission of particles in the aerosol size range.
 +
 +
 +
 +
=====Facial protection for healthcare workers (April 23, 2020)=====
 +
 +
 +
Title: Facial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping review (that is, a review of others’ research; this is not original research)
 +
 +
Authors: Laura R Garcia Godoy ,1 Amy E Jones ,1 Taylor N Anderson , Cameron L Fisher ,1 Kylie M L Seeley ,1 Erynn A Beeson ,1 Hannah K Zane ,1 Jaime W Peterson ,2 Peter D Sullivan
 +
 +
The article begins: “Limitations included few COVID-19-specific studies and exclusion of non-English language articles.”
 +
 +
That is an important limitation. This article is not about original research. It is a review of research by others. Which is pretty limited where there is little research by others. By this time the Denmark study had been completed in which nearly 6,000 wore masks and 6,000 did not, and after two months the difference in covid infections was less than a tenth of one percent. But no peer-reviewed journal would publish the research until the following November.
 +
 +
To do the best they could under that limitation, “the review included grey literature such as preprint publications, [copies of research reports before they have been edited and accepted by peer-reviewed publications] product descriptions, guidelines, guidance documents and news articles in addition to peer-reviewed publications. We initially used grey literature to define best or recommended practices, then analysed peer-reviewed documents.”
 +
 +
The study talks about the “N95 respirator A respiratory protective device designed to achieve a close facial fit and efficient filtration of airborne particles, requires fit testing to be fully effective.”
 +
 +
N95 respirators are not widely available, and “fit testing” is not available to ordinary folks. But IF that were available,  N95 would: ”When compared with surgical masks in this setting, N95 respirators provide superior protection against aerosols and viruses similar in size to influenza, especially when combined with eye protection. Isolated [meaning, not on a person but tested in a lab] surgical mask material protects against >[more than] 95% of viral aerosols under laboratory conditions, while surgical
 +
masks are able to reduce aerosolised influenza exposure by an average of sixfold, depending on mask design. Mask fit is another important component in the functional efficacy of N95 respirators. Untrained individuals without proper fit testing can often achieve Federal Drug Administration (FDA) minimum fit factor standards, but fewer than 25% achieve the score of 100 expected
 +
in workplace settings. Addition of a peripheral Vaseline barrier [smearing vaseline on your face under the mask edges] has been shown to prevent peripheral air leakage and reduce exposure to airborne viral particles, making this a potential compensatory strategy when fit testing is not feasible.  [!!!!]sm
 +
Face shields provide barrier protection from splash and splatter contamination, as well as acutely expelled aerosols generated during procedures such as bronchoscopy, airway suctioning and intubation.
 +
However, the evidence for the effectiveness of face shields in preventing transmission of viral respiratory diseases is minimal, as highlighted in a recent narrative review.”
 +
 +
My Notes: April 23, the publication date, was pretty outdated by the time my brother forwarded it to me. It acknowledges the paucity of covid-specific research. The only real major mask study I know of is the Danish study completed June 2 but not published until months later, in November.
 +
 +
This “Scoping” study uses N95 masks because they are better; the Danish study used the surgical masks “with a filtration rate of 98%” because there is no difference. Why do the two studies, with access to the same body of research during the same time frame, disagree on such a detail?
 +
 +
The Danish study used surgical masks “with a filtration rate of 98%” rather than N95 because “A published meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in preventing influenza in health care workers between respirators (N95 [American standard] or FFP2 [European standard]) and surgical face masks (38). ” Footnote 38 is to another Danish study (in English) published March 13, 2020. That was 11 days before this “scoping” study stopped reviewing studies. “we limited our search to records published or most recently updated between 1 January 2000 and 24 March 2020” Why didn’t this “scoping” study acknowledge it?
 +
 +
The Danish study involved “A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants”. This “scoping” study cited a trial that reached the same result, but did not believe it because other studies indicated N95’s are better. The  single trial  that failed to impress this study involved only 1/20th of the people as the Danish study; “446 nurses in emergency departments”. had this study considered the Danish study perhaps it would have been more impressed.
 +
 +
The larger study found “no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.92-1.28, P > .05), laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.70-1.11), laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.42-1.29) and influenzalike illness (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.33-1.14) using N95 respirators and surgical masks. ”
 +
 +
The November Danish study found zero “statistically significant” benefit to wearers.
 +
 +
(Detractors say the fact that masks don’t significantly stop covid from getting to wearers from others leaves untested whether masks stop covid from getting to others from wearers, but if it is proved covid passes easily through masks one way, doesn’t that prove they can as easily pass through the other direction? In the only direction covid travel can be tested, masks fail. It is impossible to test whether masks protect others from wearers, unless you want to put masks on a few hundred coughing, sneezing covid sufferers and mix them up with a healthy population that could not possibly catch covid from any other source, and see how many get sick.)
 +
 +
Dr. Ted Noel. retired, from Florida, wrote: As for the fabled N95 respirator masks, “Respirators work as PPE only when they are the right size and have been fit-tested to demonstrate they achieve an adequate protection factor.” The mask must be "properly fitted. Then you need to re-sterilize it every four hours using UV light or properly dispose of it and start over with a new one. That is too expensive for most people." However, this “scoping” study claims fit doesn’t matter at all! “An RCT comparing fit-tested and non-fit- tested N95 respirators found no significant difference in ability to protect against respiratory illness, despite in vitro evidence of significant reduction in filtration efficacy with peripheral air leakage.24 27”
 +
This study recommends smearing vaseline around the edges of your mask to fill the leaks. I will be sure to remember that when alien nanobots invade from the Narnian Galaxy. Meanwhile, until then, that is disgusting.
 +
 +
This study trashes the practicality  of face shields by describing their original purpose, as well as acknowledging that much of covid travels by aerosols: “Face shields provide barrier protection from splash and splatter contamination, as well as acutely expelled aerosols generated during procedures such as bronchoscopy, airway suctioning and intubation. However, the evidence for the effectiveness of face shields in preventing transmission of viral r espiratory diseases is
 +
minimal, as highlighted in a recent narrative review.” aerosol transmission: “protection was decreased with smaller aerosol particles and 30 min after cough simulation, due to persistence of airborne particles and particle flow around the sides of the mask.” The beginning of the article had said the N95 “Prevents inhalation of 95% of 0.3 μm particles”  That is, 300 billionths of a meter; droplets can be as small as 10 billionths. (10 nm.) Up to 5 millionths is called “aerosols”.
 +
 +
I posted an April 24 study of [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Covid_Updates#Do_masks_block_even_aerosols.2C_after_all.3F_.28Apr_24.29 mask materials]  showing the remarkable ability of some materials to stop very tiny particles, but that only applies to what goes THROUGH the material.
 +
 +
I appreciate the acknowledgment of the existence of “user discomfort due to increased respiratory resistance.” I have read articles indicating the issue is more than mere “discomfort”, but reduction of health, for those required to wear them at work all day long. (From reduction of oxygen, and buildup of CO2.)
 +
 +
Something I have forgotten to notice as I read these studies comparing one mask with another: is there a third control group with no masks at all?<U> If there is no significant benefit of any kind of mask, that would explain why some studies show no difference between one kind and another.</u> “The evidence comparing the efficacy of N95 respirators to surgical masks in the outpatient setting is minimal.”
 +
 +
Here is acknowledgment of a study without that control group: “One RCT including inpatient nurses and doctors found incidence of respiratory illness to be significantlyhigher in healthcare workers with continuous use of two-layer, cotton cloth masks compared with those who wore surgical masks (relative risk=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07). Particle penetration was approximately 97% for cloth masks versus 44% for surgical masks. However, the authors were unable to determine the relative efficacy of cloth masks compared with no mask use since the
 +
study lacked a no-mask control arm.”
 +
 +
Huh? This study is not even aimed at advising NON-hospital mask use?
 +
 +
Conclusion: “...Based on the literature, the safest approach to address this shortage is to ensure provision of a sufficient quantity of medical-grade facial protection for healthcare workers....” Why didn’t I notice the same limitation: “for health care workers” in the abstract? So why am I even reading this?
 +
 +
Now I read farther and this study acknowledges the lack of consensus that N95 works any better. Or does it? This is confusing: “However, studies comparing efficacy of different types of medical-grade masks in the inpatient setting have conflicting results. One non-inferiority RCT of nurses working in medical and paediatric inpatient units found that use of a surgical mask compared with a fit-tested N95 respirator resulted in non-inferior rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza.22 (No difference.) Several other RCTs found that rates of respiratory infection illness were lower in healthcare workers who used fit-tested N95 respirators compared with those who used surgical masks.23–25 (N95 better) Similarly, N95 respirators have been shown to provide superior protection against respiratory bacterial infections or bacterial-viral coinfections when compared with surgical masks.26 (N95 better) The literature regarding mask fit in the inpatient setting is limited to one study. An RCT comparing fit-tested and non-fit- tested N95 respirators found no significant difference in ability to protect against respiratory illness, despite in vitro evidence of significant reduction in filtration efficacy with peripheral air leakage.24 27 (N95 fitting is a waste of time) Furthermore, non-fit-  tested N95 respirators were significantly more protective than surgical masks.24 (N95 better) In the context of COVID-19, a recent case report identified 41 healthcare workers exposed to SARS-CoV-2 through aerosol-generating procedures. Among these providers, 85% were wearing surgical masks at the time of exposure, and the remaining 15% were wearing N95 respirators.28 None of the exposed providers contracted COVID-19.28 Our scoping review did not identify any other studies comparing the efficacy of medical-grade masks during aerosol-generating procedures. ”
 +
(No difference.)
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
  
 
=====USA Today: masks don’t cause oxygen problems(May 30)=====
 
=====USA Today: masks don’t cause oxygen problems(May 30)=====

Latest revision as of 19:54, 29 May 2022

Forum (Articles) Offer Partners Rules Tips SaveTheWorld:FAQ Begin! Donate

Main Article: God's Coronavirus Cure in 3 Verses Related article: Cure for Covid Censors

GodsCoronavirusCure.gif

     This article was started by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC).
     Please interact! To interact with any particular point made here, simply click "edit", then right after that point, type four dashes (to create a horizontal line), hit "enter" to start on the next line typing your response, then close with four tildes which will leave your real name, time etc. (after you "request account" and "log in"); then on the last line, four more dashes.
     To vote, Like, rate, argue, change your past comment, add a section with a heading that appears in the Table of Contents, start a new article, use colors, write in Greek, etc. find suggestions and codes at Begin!


Contents

Questions for Doctors

Masks

Droplets vs. Aerosols. Is it true that the virus is carried not just on "droplets" which are 5 millionths of a meter or larger, which masks can block at 70% to 90%, but also on "aerosols", the name of moisture that is as small as 100 billionths of a meter? Which would render masks ineffective IF the percentage of covid transmitted on the smaller particles is significant? But is it known whether it is significant?

One article says it is not known; that it is only assumed that much more covid is carried on droplets. What is the basis for that conclusion?

A doctor has a youtube video where he blows Vape vapor through a variety of masks to show how easily it rushes around and through masks. He says Vape droplets are as larger or larger than covid droplets. Meanwhile another article that measures Vape droplets indicates they are up to 50 times larger than the 5-millionths-of-a-meter droplets of which masks are supposed to stop 70%. Although the volume of airflow isn't reduced or a wearer would be gasping for breath, the direction of exhalations is definitely changed: exhalations hover around the breather rather than shooting forward several feet. Most of it shoots across the eyes; does this unnatural flow of CO2 and moisture harm the eyes? Dentists say it damages teeth and gums, causing infections that threaten heart attacks.

Covid Buildup in Masks. What about the harm to the wearer of covid buildup in masks? If the wearer has covid, then exhaling would develop quite a culture of covid on the inside of the mask. If the wearer is healthy but is around others with covid, there would be a buildup on the outside of the mask. Is that a problem for the wearer?

Oxygen Reduction. Apparently there is no controversy that masks cause measurable reduction of oxygen levels in the blood of wearers, nor that long term reduction can cause serious harm to vital organs, and weakens the immune system, in that way actually increasing the risk of covid. That is why even authorities imposing lockdowns and mask wearing usually spell out exceptions for people with breathing problems, and people exercising. (Although usually not with as much flexibility as common sense requires; for example I met a forkleft operator who works alone in a warehouse, doing a lot of heavy work, yet the company policy requires masks inflexibly.)

My wife is more vulnerable to the harm of oxygen reduction than I am, I THINK; she feels its effects fairly quickly. So far God has blessed me with much better health than He has her. But even for myself, at age 75, but even if I were 7.5, the idea of deliberately lowering my oxygen level does not strike me as a healthy strategy.

On the other hand some theorize that, assuming masks do significantly reduce covid flow, the small amount of covid that still gets through has the positive effect of "immunizing" the wearer, activating his immune system with a manageable exposure.

Is there any scientific way to balance these harms v. hoped-for benefits? Especially since, it seems from articles below, the evidence is more certain about the harms of oxygen reduction than it is about the reduction of covid through masks?

How serious is Covid?

Doubts about the seriousness of Covid are raised by those who point out that when someone dies in a car crash who has covid, the cause of death is put down as covid. I don't know if that happened more than once, but it was a memorable headline. More commonly things like cancer or heart problems are "comorbidities" lumped with covid. Is there really no way to compare the death rates of people with covid who have NO "comorbities", with the death rates of, for example, people with influenza who have no "comorbities"?

If more honest stats really are impossible, how trustworthy are the judgements that covid was a primary cause of death where there was a "comorbidity"? I am told that balance may be subjective, but what is objective is that the total death rate from all causes has jumped 25% higher this year than in previous years, which is huge, considering covid is the only new killer on the block. But another article says that is not true - the overall death rate is about the same! How do we rationally process this?

The significance of this question is that if indeed covid is NOT dramatically more threatening than any other communicable disease, then the drastically clear harms from shutdowns and masks, to our economy and mental as well as physical health, require quickly returning to "normal".

A nurse at Unity Health told me doctors in her office constantly argue all these points, about masks, etc. When I asked her why we can't see any statistics comparing covid WITHOUT comorbidities with INFLUENZA without comorbidities, she answered simply and emphatically, "influenza is worse".

However, she said there is one sense in which covid is a greater strain on our health system: with influenza, where symptoms include things like vomiting, patients can manage such things at home in all but the most serious stages. But with covid, where the most common symptom is shortness of breath, the patient, even at a medium stage of severity, needs to be in a hospital.

Hydroxychloroquine

Apparently dozens of studies have been done in dozens of countries showing promising results. India was particularly miffed that the drug was shot down. "American's Frontline Doctors", several doctors called themselves, took a dramatic stand for it, and the national response? Censorship. Social media deleted them. Everybody else mostly ignored them. The black woman was attacked most, ironically, by liberals, not for her medicine but for her theology. Several other doctors and some research supporting the drug followed, then I stopped seeing anything. So what's the latest?

The Unity nurse tells me HCQ is commonly used in their hospital, but not for outpatients. However, Simon Conway, WHO talk show host, says he is taking it as he broadcasts from home.

Dr. Harvey Risch, Harvard, says many earlier studies finding against HCQ were flawed because they didn't distinguish between treatment in earlier vs. later stages. He writes that HCQ is especially effective in earlier stages; it keeps people out of hospitals.

Personal Attacks

"Dr. Joseph Mercola just wants to sell supplements." Dr. Blaylock is out of his field. Bill Gates owns a drug company which explains why he wants the whole world to shut down until they buy his vaccine. Dr. Fauci actually invented covid, and when his U.S. company couldn't take the political heat for developing such a killer, he sold it to China to perfect it. Democrats want to shut down everything and require masks because Trump doesn't. Republicans want to open everything up because they suspect Democrats are only out to control everything and usher in the Mark of the Beast.

I have heard all these accusations. They are all true, for all I know. I have an agenda too: I hate masks, and especially shudder when I see people outside doing hard work with masks on even though no one is around. We are humans. We have our agendas. We aren't perfectly open minded.

But to justify ignoring our opponent's evidence by attacking his motives, saying he "has an agenda", which is why he acts and speaks contrary to evidence, makes us as resistant to evidence as we say he is.

Therefore, let us all seek the evidence. Let us judge it on it merits. Even God listens to mere men, judging our prayers on their merits, not on the miserable spirituality credentials of their authors. If God can treat humans as not so far below Him as to merit ignoring us, let us listen to each other, judging each other's evidence on its merits.

Where are answers?

I know of NO source where the claims of a few maverick, though eminently qualified, doctors are addressed and refuted in language understandable to non-medical folks like me.

Is there any hospital in Des Moines where the thousands here who have heard these alternative conclusions on the internet (before they were censored by social media) can find them addressed and refuted if they are wrong?

Does the governor make available an information source upon which she has relied for her covid rules, that assures us that she has at least heard of this opposing expert testimony and it has been addressed and refuted?

National division is caused by national mandates whose basis is defended only by censoring opposing evidence. "Suppression of the evidence is the strongest possible evidence" is a principle articulated in the Tryal of John Peter Zenger, a newspaper publisher who was prosecuted in 1735 for "libel" against the Royal Governor of New York. The jury acquitted him, which established Freedom of the Press in the United States. Social media censors opposing evidence, while government ignores it. Wrong move. I makes Americans suspicious. The failure to disprove opposing evidence makes no sense unless it cannot be disproved, people logically reason.

Thank you for your willingness to address my questions. I urge you to create a repository somewhere - anywhere - where all such questions may find answers. At your hospital, your professional medical association, some government medical association like the CDC, SOMEWHERE, where censored doctors who think they have evidence meriting our attention can interact with other doctors who think they don't, in nontechnical language which us ordinary folk who don't know the jargon but don't mind reading a lot of details can watch the interaction and learn.



Updates: Important Questions (raised mostly by Doctors)

Dr Ted Noel was "fact checked". Let's see the evidence

The September 5 entry below, a doctor using vape "smoke" exhaled through various masks to show how much gets through masks, was "fact checked" by AFP.

There are three attacks on Dr. Noel.

(1) First, that his license expired in 2014. This is a great "personal attack" on the doctor - a great way to prejudice readers against the fact he presents. But since when is a retired doctor (he would have been 62 in 2014) not a medical expert?

(2) Second, as even Noel's video shows, the vape "smoke", though not diminished in quantity, is deflected so that much of it escapes around the edges of the mask, going to the side and backward, protecting the person the wearer is talking to. So, if that is such a strong point to make in favor of masks, why was the video censored? Why wasn't it left up to make that wonderful point? Indeed, it would be a valid point, if covid were carried mostly on large droplets which fall to the ground quickly. And if droplets that carry covid were not way smaller, blowing through masks way easier, than vape droplets. But to the extent that the droplets carrying covid are billionths of an inch, called "aerosols", which linger in the air quite a while, the direction of exhaling matters less.

(3) Third, covid droplets don't go through masks as easily as vape droplets because they are "much larger". "Experts agree that while the virus itself is small enough to fit through mask fibers -- as is vape smoke -- masks do help stop the much-larger respiratory droplets that carry potentially infectious particles." This is simply false. Just as the doctor said in his video, vape droplets are larger than the largest droplets theorized to carry covid. In my entry about him earlier, In included a link to an article about vape droplet size.


WHO Radio, November 17, 2020

Heard November 17, 2020 on WHO radio, 10:10 am. A fill-in host for Jeff Angelo, who was off two weeks because his father died of covid. "We will talk about the governor's new mask mandate last night. People say they've been in businesses, and not many people are wearing masks. I am receiving a lot of text messages. One said 'wearing a mask to stop covid is like putting up a chain link fence to stop mosquitos. But I will wear one, because it makes other people feel better.' I DON'T KNOW the science. I DON'T KNOW if masks work. But they DO make people feel better. So WHY WOULDN'T people want to make other people feel better?"

Why wouldn't we? Because when people need distance from reality to "feel better", reality will do things to them that will make them feel very bad.

And then when we pass laws forcing people to step away from reality, it is certainly more comfortable to obey stupid laws than to violate them, but that is not freedom. It is insanity.

Not that insane people never feel good. In fact, a very large number of Americans spend huge amounts of money for drugs and drink that will separate them from reality, for the express purpose of feeling good.

But feeling good, at the expense of reality and evidence, is short term happiness. Reality has a way of imposing itself on our attention eventually. The longer we delay, the more forceful it is. Not to mention the really crappy feeling we all get when reality pokes its unwelcome proboscus through our happiness haze to stare us down, and we realize what idiots we have been.

Idiots, not for not knowing, but for not caring. For knowing we didn't know the science - and for knowing the nasty habit shared by Twitter, Google, Facebook, and Youtube of censoring unpopular science, yet continuing to patronize those anti-science evidence censors.

The science of masks matters. If mask wearing actually saves hundreds of thousands of lives, we should definitely do all we can to encourage it.

If it stops almost no covid but accomplishes only the destruction of our economy and the closing of hundreds of thousands of businesses, downgrades schools, and costs thousands of lives through delayed "nonessential" cancer screenings, etc, and suicide, and the disruption of our civil liberties which, freed from conformance to reality, are conformed to the arbitrary dictates of politicians, then we should definitely do all we can to encourage one another to reakkt care a lot about things like truth, reality, and evidence, which are the only forces strong enough to set us free - if we will let them.


Johns Hopkins deleted study: NO overall increase in deaths (Nov 22)

Johns Hopkins University Newsletter The prestigious Johns Hopkins University deleted a study in its own newsletter done by one of its economics professors that showed there is virtually no change in the rate of death from all causes over the past year, according to CDC statistics. While there are many deaths attributed to covid this year where of course none were reported last year, the increased covid deaths closely match, in numbers, a suspicious decrease in deaths from traditionally high causes of death such as heart disease. Older people, the ones most at risk from covid, do not suffer a higher overall death rate over last year. These unexpected results are consistent with the classification of deaths with multiple causes as if covid were the only cause. (The previous link is to the study itself, which now can only be found on the Wayback Machine, a web service that stores all present and past websites. The following quotes are taken from this article.)

Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, is an expert not in medicine but in processing statistics. She analyzed the CDC's statistics over the past year about the overall number of deaths from all causes. The previous link is to the study itself, which was deleted by Johns Hopkins university a few days after it was published, complaining not that it was inaccurate but that other people were misusing it. (See their quote below.)

As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.

The study found that “This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years.” In fact, “the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19.”

Briand concludes that the COVID-19 death toll in the United States is misleading and that deaths from other diseases are being categorized as COVID-19 deaths.

On Thursday, Johns Hopkins University explained that they deleted the article on the study because it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.” They did not, however, challenge the accuracy of the data or its conclusions. In other words, the article was deleted because it didn’t fit the proper narrative.

Maybe covid infection rates are 6.2 times higher (Nov 26)

MedicalPress.com A trio of researchers with Ikigai Research, Australian National University and the University of Melbourne respectively, has found evidence that suggests the true COVID-19 infection rate for 15 selected countries is on average 6.2 times higher than official tallies have listed. In their paper published in the journal Royal Society Open Science, Steven Phipps, Quentin Grafton and Tom Kompas describe analyzing infection data from 15 similar countries and using it to estimate true infection rates.

(If infection rates are 6.2 times higher than reported, then that means the survival rate is 6.2 times better. Iowa's reported survival rate is 1.02%, see article below. 1.02% of people who get covid, die. So is the real rate only 0.17%?)

Doctors want CDC to be honest about how bad covid vaccine is - so people will TAKE it (Nov 26)

Big League Politics Doctors worry that if the CDC is not honest with people about the painful, crippling side effects of the first Covid vaccine shot, that then after they take it and suffer those effects, they won't take the second one. (Two shots are required to make it work.) The side effects include fever, headaches and sustained exhaustion.

California Governor made to act nutso by Impractical Jokers (Nov 26)

Now you know WHY California Governor Newsome, whose recall petition has soared past 750,000 signatures, makes such head-scratching rules about covid. He has an earpiece through which the Impractical Jokers are telling him the most outrageous things they can think of for him to say!

Well, it's just a cartoon, but could it really be - ?

It IS California, after all!

California Pastor strips to keep church open (Nov 26)

Rightwing.org This video begins with a clip of former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, now a TV host, joking about a San Diego judge's ruling allowing a strip club to open despite covid mandates. Huckabee said then a church could open again, by converting to a strip club where maybe the pastor could take off his tie in front of everyone?

That clip is shown being shown on the church's AV system. After it, the pastor comes out to the infamous strip theme, dancing just like the girls on TV, provocatively removing his tie while loud excited parishioners stand up and wave dollar bills, and the pastor finally throws out his tie.

The one thing proving they don't really watch QUITE enough TV to get the parody right, is that afterward, someone brought the tie back to the pastor.

The rest of the hour-long video is the pastor's sermon, but that is just my guess. I haven't watched it yet.

Later: OK, now I've listened to it. Quite a screed on politics. Very encouraging to see a young fellow who knows this stuff, says it, and the people don't throw him out. Yet. Some notes, focusing especially on the Scriptures he quoted:

8:20 in the video: When Jesus said "upon this Rock I will build my church", Matthew 16:18, the Greek word translated "church" in the King James version was εκκλεσια, (ekklesia), which actually describes the meetings where Greeks came to make decisions about their government. Today we say "we shouldn't have politics in church", but Jesus made it all ABOUT politics.

32:30 What Tyndale, the Bible translator, was burned at the stake for, was for his translation of εκκλεσια not as "church", but as "congregation". For centuries, the word had been understood to mean "public square". A place where the Greek words for "Liberty and Equality" were written above the door.

(I think Rob McCoy is almost right. My understanding is that Tyndale was the first to translate the Bible into English from the Greek; there was one English translation before that from the Latin. In between, Erasmus had published the first complete Greek New Testament, upon which Tyndale was able to draw. I have written much about this in Upon_this_Rock_I_will_build_my_Congress. In Part Four, in the section [English translations of εκκλεσια], I list the early English translations: Wycliffe, 1384 (translates from Latin, says Jesus will build His "church"); Purvey, 1395, (revises Wycliffe, retains "church"); Tyndale, 1526, translates "congregation", (which is copied by future translations). New Testament only; although he had begun translating the Old Testament before he was burned at the stake, he kept it out of his publication to keep it smaller and thus easier to smuggle; Coverdale, 1535; Matthew’s Bible, 1537 (Tyndale's translation including his Old Testament portions); Great Bible, 1539 (Coverdale's later edition); Bishop’s Bible, 1568, commissioned by Queen Elizabeth; The Geneva translation of 1560 and 1599, which translated "church".

(So what is the basis for saying Tyndale's translation of εκκλεσια was the single, or at least principal reason he was executed? McCoy didn't explain. I reached a similar conclusion. My basis was not only the fact that Tyndale was executed, but the fact that when King James set up his translators a century later, there was only one English word that he ordered his translators to use: "church, instead of congregation".

(So although scholars before Tyndale who read Greek knew from other Greek literature that ekklesia was the name for the assembly that elected Athens' political leaders, English readers were not made aware of it before Tyndale.)

8:35 (McCoy sermon notes, continued) "Love your neighbor" is not obeyed when we leave our neighbors to be destroyed by government because saving them would be "politics".

12:00 He who knows what to do but doesn't do it, for him it is a sin. James 4:17.

12:30 What's left of the "gospel" after politics is left out.

13:10 We are being saved by 18-year-olds. It is harder to be a Conservative than to say you are a "professing Christian", because the latter is understood as one who does not confront his culture.

13:45 What "gospel" is worth preaching that avoids confronting tyranny?

14:15 ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Jude 3.

14:55 My generation gave up on Life.

16:30 I couldn't preach like this 20 years ago, and keep people from leaving.

17:10 We sacrifice children on the altar to Molech. (Reference to abortion; people used to throw their children into the red-hot arms of their "god" Molech, heated by fires underneath.)

18:40 Abortion of blacks, today, is worse than slavery of blacks, in history.

25:20 and 34:20 2 Kings 22:1-14, when the boy King Josiah first heard the Law, and realized, "we're not obeying this", is like a realization I see today.

30:00 Before Josiah found the Law, the Temple then was like churches today: a place to collect money.

31:00 We have great theological excuses for ignoring responsibility. "We don't keep the law. God gave it to us only to show us we can't keep it. 'not of works, lest any man should boast'. Ephesians 2:9.

31:20 How we love the "good news" that Jesus died for us so we don't have to do anything.

32:00 Why, if we talk about our responsibility to act, that hinders the saving message of salvation!

34:50 Job 8:8 Study history. Learn what your fathers discovered. When I analyze what is going on and conclude that our Democratic leaders appear to not want us to own property, and you call that "conspiracy talk", YOU sound like a conspirator, trying to talk people out of what their eyes tell them.

36:50 I apologize for violating the governor's order that churches not meet indoors. There. An apology was enough for Governor Newsome when he was caught violating his own order by eating with friends in a restaurant; if an apology works for him, it works for me.

40:20 There is a famous painting of the Pilgrims that showed their Bible open to Matthew 16, which they read is not meaning "church" but "public square".

(Actually, they had the Geneva translation, which was "church". Although they certainly understood their political responsibility, creating their Mayflower Compact binding themselves into a "body politic". See my documentary at www.1620.US.

(And the painting does not show the Bible open to Matthew 16. "The “Embarkation of the Pilgrims” shows Elder William Brewster holding a Bible opened to the title page which reads “The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” The words “God With Us” are inscribed on the lower corner sail of the ship. The painting hangs in the Rotunda of the Capitol." Godfather Politics You can see an image showing the words written in the Bible at Wallbuilders.)

50:00 No president quoted the Bible more than Lincoln, even though he didn't consider himself a Christian before the Battle of Gettysburg, and he never publicly acknowledged his faith, and was never baptized.

CDC Thanksgiving Guidelines (Nov 26)

Thanksgiving Lockdowns are justified, if not initiated, by the CDC. They recommend:

  • Bring your own food, drinks, plates, cups, and utensils.
  • Wear a mask and safely store your mask while eating and drinking.
  • Avoid going in and out of the areas where food is being prepared or handled, such as in the kitchen.
  • Use single-use options, like salad dressing and condiment packets, and disposable items like food containers, plates, and utensils.
  • Have a small outdoor meal with family and friends who live in your community.
  • Limit the number of guests.
  • Have conversations with guests ahead of time to set expectations for celebrating together.
  • Clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces and items between use.
  • If celebrating indoors, bring in fresh air by opening windows and doors, if possible.
  • You can use a window fan in one of the open windows to blow air out of the window. This will pull fresh air in through the other open windows.
  • Limit the number of people in food preparation areas.
  • Have guests bring their own food and drink.
  • If sharing food, have one person serve food and use single-use options, like plastic utensils.

Had enough rules? The other half of this page of rules is about travel. There are links where you can see

  • how covid threatens in your town compared with where you are going.
  • how crowded hospitals are "here" vs. "there".
  • travel restrictions "here" and "there".

You are advised to

  • check if your destination family has had "close contact with people they don't live with".
  • talk to your family about the risks.
  • get your flu shot.
  • wear a mask, stay 6 feet from others.
  • don't touch your face.
  • bring your own hand sanitizer, use it often. AND MOST IMPORTANT...
  • STAY HOME.
CDC Nov 26 Update

CDC This link features a map of the U.S. with color coding to tell how many covid cases there are per state. The default setting is "last 7 days", "rate per 100,000", and "cases". It shows-the coastal states with the lowest rates - fewer than 34 (per 100,000), while all the inner states show at least 72, and north central states, including Iowa, at least 102.8.

Changing the map settings to "Since January 21" and "deaths" (instead of "cases") considerably lightens the map. Oregon, Maine, and Vermont have the lowest death rates: fewer than 21. The highest death rates have been in North Dakota, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Which includes the states that are hardest to spell. They range from 116 to 288. In Iowa, my home state, the rate is 93. California, where my sister is retired, 47. Mississippi, where my brother is a chiropractor and covid researcher, 125. Colorado, where my daughter is raising two World's Best Looking grandbabies, 50 Oregon, where my son is a top jug band consultant and computer wiz, and is raising an artist and circus performer, 20!

The average death rate for all states, since January 21, is 79 per 100,000 population. That is 0.079%. Almost a tenth of one percent. The other relevant figure to watch is the rate of deaths per cases, which is 2.07%. (My own calculation, based on the CDC figures of 259,005 total deaths divided by 12,498,734 total cases.) In other words, nationwide, on average, 2% of those who test positive for covid die.

Several articles below claim this death rate is exaggerated by counting, as covid deaths, deaths where there were other serious medical problems, yet "cause of death" was listed as covid, as if it were the single cause of death. (What I have not yet seen is a discussion of whether anything like that happens in the reporting of other medical conditions?)

How does this 2% survival rate look in different states, using CDC data? This map lets you drag your cursor over each state to get the data for just that state.

Iowa's 70 deaths per 100,000, divided by 6,848 cases per 100,000, yields a 1.02% survival rate. Oregon's 20 deaths, divided by 1,607 cases, yields 1.24%. California: 47/2,846 = 1.65%. Colorado: 50/3,625 = 1.37%. Mississippi: 125/4,876 = 2.56%. I always did think my brother had something to do with a lot of the world's problems.

[Rob: NOW will you "create an account" and join this forum?]

CDC is behind governor's shutdowns of Thanksgiving family gatherings (Nov 25)

Smithsonian Institute With Thanksgiving tomorrow, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is strongly dissuading friends and families from different households to gather.


If you’re an average person looking at what’s allowed and what’s not allowed, it may not make a lot of sense," Ashleigh Tuite, an infectious disease modeler at the University of Toronto in Canada, tells the Times. "I can get together with nine of my best friends and sit around a table at a restaurant. So why can’t I do that in my house?"

..."It seems like [officials are] passing off the responsibility for controlling the outbreak to individuals and individual choices," Ellie Murray, an epidemiologist at Boston University, tells the Times. "A pandemic is more a failure of the system than the failure of individual choices. Household gatherings would be much safer if officials put stricter limits on commercial and nonresidential activities. They are choosing not to, and then saying the fault lies with individuals."

Christopher Babiuch, a physician at the Cleveland Clinic Lorain Family Health Center, tells Lynanne Vucovich of the Norwalk Reflector, says as cases rise, it's still important for people to remain vigilant in protecting themselves and others. If people choose to attend gatherings, they should remain masked, bring their own eating utensils and consider moving the event outside. If it is indoors, they should open windows to improve air flow, reports the Norwalk Reflector.

Dr. Scott Atlas: "Rise Against Lockdowns!" (Nov 16)

Dr. Scott Aglas tweeted:

"The only way this stops is if people rise up. You get what you accept." #FreedomMatters #StepUp www t.co/8QKBszgKTM — Scott W. Atlas (@SWAtlasHoover) November 15, 2020

The medical establishment is taking aim at Dr. Atlas because he has emerged as one of the most credible opponents of lockdown tyranny and now has the ear of President Trump. He has urged for medical professionals to actually use science and data to make predictions, rather than relying on absurd hypotheticals.

Dr. Chris Fortenbach MD PhD (Nov 16)

University of Iowa Health Care, Resident Phusician, Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences. Fortenbach is the lead researcher on a covid-related project.

These are notes of my conversation with the doctor, when he helped patch up my eye after I put in a contact soaked in surgical soap which had been in a bottle nearly identical to contact solution:

Dr. Fortenbach read over my "questions for doctors", but quickly, responding only to the headings. He said yes covid is serious, but only for old buzzards like me. Not for young whippersnappers like him. (Not his exact words.) Which suggests the question, then why is it mandated in schools where no one is very old?

He said yes it causes oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide buildup, so people with breathing problems need their exemptions, but for most of us our oxygen blood levels are way higher than the level where doctors would treat anyone. Which makes me think, but I LIKE having my oxygen levels way higher than the level where doctors would put me in a hospital. We eat mercury every time we eat fish from the ocean too, yet we try to cut that down even though the levels of mercury we eat are way lower than the level where doctors would need to treat us. Isn't that a GOOD thing?

He acknowledged that yes, there is a covid buildup from others who have covid near you, on the outside of your mask. Which is why masks need to be cleaned often, and you should avoid handling the outside or wash your hands when you do. He didn't address buildup on the inside if you have a trace of covid, which would strengthen your own exposure to covid. Nor did he address questions whether masks even stop covid with any appreciable effectiveness, although the existence of a buildup would prove masks at least stop some.

Dr. Stella Emmanuel Update (November 15)

The Candace Owens Show, on "Prager U", gave perspective of the viral video several months ago of "Frontline Doctors" speaking on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. As the article below explains, our nation had virtually zero interest in her testimony that her covid patients all lived - even those very old, very diabetic, etc. Rather, the nation's interest was on her unusual religious beliefs - which, by the way, were alleged by several hostile sources, none of whom provided a link to where she actually expressed those beliefs.

Candace Owens made the point that with ever other sickeness, patients have a right to a second medical opinion. But all the second opinions about covid are vigorously censored.

Dr. Emmanuel's medical business skyrocketed. She set up www.frontlinemds.com to inform anyone in any state where they can find a doctor who will give them HCQ.

The show was about Emmanuel's credentials, her experience, and her prayers for America.

Of 1,000 covid patients, only 3 died; one very old, one very obese. The three refused Emmanuel's instructions. She is still just as adamant about HCQ's curative power, and just as fearless about facing unreasoning censorship and villification. But she says it isn't just about Trump. The lockdowns and the obstacles to HCQ are all over the world.

Vape Demonstrates that Masks Don't Work (Sept 5)

August 2021 update: this link now leads to a youtube screen that says "This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines."

Dr. Étienne Lolkek exhales vape vapor through different masks to see how easily breath goes through the masks. He says vaping particles are as big or bigger than the droplets which carry covid. Indeed, an article about vape particle measurements indicates the smallest vape particles are much larger than the "droplets" large enough for masks to stop.

This is a pretty graphic demonstration. He demonstrates with a dozen kinds of masks: an N95 surgical mask, a bandana used by wild west train robbers, a plastic mask with vents,

My brother made the "cake and eat it too" point: if we are going to say masks can't work because covid droplets sail right through it, how can we also complain that we can't breathe well because masks restrict our air flow?

Just a little reasoning from a lowly trumpet player: obviously masks can't significantly reduce the volume of air that we breathe, or we would die. But masks can make our lungs work a little harder to get past the restriction. Plus, a tiny bit of exhaled air is trapped in the mask long enough for us to inhale it back, which over time can add up to less oxygen and more carbon dioxide. But because we exhale both through and around masks, any covid comes right on out.

One point glossed over by the doctor: although the air flow seems little restricted, the air direction is definitely impacted. Exhalations stay much closer to the breather instead of shooting straight ahead several feet - could that account for some of the carbon dioxide buildup?

Update: A print version of the video, with further evidence, was published by Oppressed News December 28. Below are excerpts from the article, with links to peer reviewed research supporting his claims.

Although the youtube link calls him "Dr. Étienne Lolkek", the print article calls him Dr. Ted Noel. He begins, “I wore surgical masks daily for 36 years as an anesthesiologist. Their purpose was to reduce the chance that I would infect an open wound with bacteria from my mouth. This article of faith has been shown to be false. If staff who are working outside of the immediate sterile field do not wear masks, there is no increase in wound infections. And this is in a closed environment where staff will be present for hours. This casts a very large cloud of doubt on the utility of masks for COVID-19.”

Even accepting the uncertain premise that masks are useful, “incorrect use and disposal may actually increase the risk of pathogen transmission, rather than reduce it, especially when masks are used by non-professionals.

When households with sick kids were examined, even rigorous mask-wearing provided no statistically significant improvement in adult infections. “[H]ousehold use of face masks is associated with low adherence and is ineffective for controlling seasonal respiratory disease”.

Cloth masks were only one third as effective when worn by the sick person as a surgical mask. The CDC says, “Cloth face coverings may slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.” Translation: It might help, but we don’t have any data to back that up. Cloth masks had a “relative risk” of flu infection thirteen times greater than medical masks. “Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”

As for the fabled N95 respirator masks, “Respirators work as PPE only when they are the right size and have been fit-tested to demonstrate they achieve an adequate protection factor.” The mask must be "properly fitted. Then you need to re-sterilize it every four hours using UV light or properly dispose of it and start over with a new one. That is too expensive for most people."

"it’s time to recognize that the only person who should be wearing a mask is the Lone Ranger."

This article was "fact checked" February 6, 2021. See entry under that date, above.

Covid PCR Tests Waste Time (Nov 13)

November 13 Joseph Mercola: this article explains why PCR tests can't distinguish between live and inert covid germs, and often can't correctly tell if there are either.

But are PCR tests the only Covid tests? I asked a nurse whose job is covid testing. She answers: "Great article! We do the quick Antigen test, which looks for proteins in the front of the nasal cavity, which I believe to be the live active form of the virus that is actually contagious. But I have always had an underlying feeling that this pandemic is like the story, "the Emperors New clothes."

Dentists warn of serious mouth disease from masks (Aug 7)

August 7 Dentists say 'mask mouth' can cause serious health complications, including strokes

Co-founder at One Manhattan Dental, Rob Ramondi, said 50% of his patients are suffering from negative health issues due to mask-wearing. “We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before,” Ramondi said. “About 50% of our patients are being impacted by this, [so] we decided to name it ‘mask mouth’ — after ‘meth mouth.’”

The dentists said that the face coverings increase mouth dryness and contribute to a buildup of bad bacteria.

“People tend to breathe through their mouth instead of through their nose while wearing a mask,” Sclafani said. “The mouth breathing is causing the dry mouth, which leads to a decrease in saliva — and saliva is what fights the bacteria and cleanses your teeth.”

Sclafani suggested those who have no choice but to wear masks can drink more water, cut down on caffeine, snag a humidifier to moisten the air, use an alcohol-free mouthwash, scrape their tongue, and refrain from smoking.

Also published at Technocracy

Multiple journals reject THE ONLY major Covid mask study (Oct 23)

Update: the study was published 3 weeks after this story was published. See details below.

October 23 JustTheNews A major study out of Denmark that sought to examine the efficacy of face masks at limiting the spread of COVID-19 has reportedly been rejected by multiple academic journals amid hints that the study found face coverings are not effective in protecting individuals from the coronavirus.

The team of Danish scientists earlier this year carried out a major randomized controlled trial study to determine how effective masks might be at stopping COVID transmission. The study, begun in April, involved around 6,000 Danish citizens, half of whom wore face coverings during "normal behavior" and the other half of whom went without them.

The study concluded in June. Yet the Copenhagen newspaper Berlingske reported this week that it has been rejected by at least three elite medical journals so far — the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"They all said no,"

The researchers are ethically bound to not publicly announce their findings until it is published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, so all we have, months after their study was completed - the ONLY major study of mask effectiveness specifically for Covid - is hints dropped by the extremely frustrated researchers.

Hints that the study finds masks are ineffective.

Hints like :(Results will be published) as soon as a journal is brave enough."

Or, "its results may run against the grain of current public orthodoxy on mask usage."

Or, asked by the paper if the study's results could be considered "controversial," another researcher said: "That's how I want to interpret it."

The research was ready for publication 5 months ago.

Although its authors feel ethically bound to refrain from self-publishing their results, critics have managed to view the paper and have published their criticism of it, yet without fully revealing its findings, and without the researchers having a chance to defend themselves. Their criticism offers us more hints: they say inherent design flaws in the study — including possible noncompliance factors within both the control and study groups — could unfairly skew the results in favor of non-mask usage.

The study "poses a serious risk of mistranslation" due to concerns that "null or too-small effects will be misinterpreted to mean that masks are ineffective," the writers stated. The academics warned policy-makers against "interpreting the results of this trial as being anything other than artifacts of weak design."

Update: What the Study Showed

That article must have shaken something loose, because three weeks later, November 18, it was published. The study indeed seriously challenges the assumptions supporting public mask wearing.

3030 participants wore surgical masks, of whom 42 (1.8%) got sick. 2994 didn't, of whom 53 (2.1%) got sick. That difference is not "statistically significant".

Here is the math they offer to explain the statistical insignificance of that 0.3% difference: "The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection."

That means that masks might reduce infection by 46%, or they might increase infection by 23%, for all these numbers tell us. Later the numbers were presented as: "the findings were inconclusive and cannot definitively exclude a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection of mask wearers in such a setting. " The researchers had expected to prove a 50% reduction in infection from mask wearing. That didn't happen.

The study summarized previous mask studies:

A systematic review of observational studies reported that mask use reduced risk for SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and COVID-19 by 66% overall, 70% in health care workers, and 44% in the community (12). However, surgical and cloth masks were grouped [not tested separately as in this study which used only "high-quality surgical masks with a filtration rate of 98%"] in preventive studies, and none of the 3 included non–health care studies related directly to COVID-19. Another systematic review (18) and American College of Physicians recommendations (19) concluded that evidence on mask effectiveness for respiratory infection prevention is stronger in health care than community settings.

Here is a surprising finding that makes little sense: "A total of 52 participants in the mask group and 39 control participants reported COVID-19 in their household. Of these, 2 participants in the face mask group and 1 in the control group developed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggesting that the source of most observed infections was outside the home." !!!

The participants contracted other viruses. 9 who wore masks, 11 who did not. However, the study was not "powered" to [focused on] accurately measure that.

Conclusion: "...a recommendation to wear a surgical mask when outside the home among others did not reduce, at conventional levels of statistical significance, incident SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with no mask recommendation."

Now watch this careful wording: "The findings, however, should not be used to conclude that a recommendation for everyone to wear masks in the community would not be effective in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections, because the trial did not test the role of masks in source control of SARS-CoV-2 infection." In other words, all that was proved was that wearing a mask won't protect YOU. The study doesn't indicate if it protects others FROM you.

(How could you measure such a thing? You would have to take 3,000 people coughing and sneezing with covid, put masks on them, expose them to tens of thousands of healthy people who can't possibly catch covid from anyone else, and see how many they infect?)

The authorize theorize that perhaps there is so little difference between wearing or not wearing masks because the droplets carrying covid measure billionths of an inch after all, (aerosols), rather than the millionths of an inch that masks can stop: "How SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted—via respiratory droplets, aerosols, or (to a lesser extent) fomites—is not firmly established. Droplets are larger and rapidly fall to the ground, whereas aerosols are smaller (≤5 μm) and may evaporate and remain in the air for hours (39). Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 may take place through multiple routes. It has been argued that for the primary route of SARS-CoV-2 spread—that is, via droplets—face masks would be considered effective, whereas masks would not be effective against spread via aerosols, which might penetrate or circumnavigate a face mask (37, 39). Thus, spread of SARS-CoV-2 via aerosols would at least partially explain the present findings."

Two Analyses of this study: "Masks DO work", and "Masks DON'T work"!

Masks DO work: Bangor Daily News is mad at people who read, in this study, that masks don't work! The study "did not find that masks don’t work in slowing the spread of COVID-19." Well, no, it did not positively even test whether wearing a mask might protect others from you, but it certainly threw cold water on your hope that wearing a mask will protect you from others.

Plus, this article points out, at the time of the Danish study, most Danes were not wearing masks. IF wearing a mask DOES protect others from you, (a theory awaiting evidence), then if everyone wears a mask, that protects you too! So MAYBE masks work after all! Although that theory awaits clear evidence, this article points out that the CDC called the theory "likely". “The relationship between source control and personal protection is likely complementary and possibly synergistic, so that individual benefit increases with increasing community mask use,” the CDC concluded earlier this month.

Masks DON'T work! Business World is mad at people who read, in this study, that masks still might work. "One would think the study’s findings would encourage greater scrutiny on the efficacy of mandatory mask mandates, considering the absurd burden it places on individuals and businesses, not to mention the likely violation of civil liberties."

BW says the context of this study is "study after study showing that masks in the public setting do tend to be ineffective. And a CDC Report of Sept. 11, 2020, which found that amongst those infected by COVID-19, 85% 'always' or 'often' wore masks, while 70% of those actually hospitalized for COVID-19 'always' wore masks."

BW complains about the flip flopping mask mandates: "up to March 2020, the advice had nearly always been: 'don’t wear masks' Yet, suddenly, mask proponents, imposed an about-face. It became 'yes wear it publicly because it protects you.' Then it changed to: 'no, actually it doesn’t protect you but it protects others.' The current manifestation seems to be: 'well, wear it to raise awareness of COVID-19.' The foregoing is bizarrely contradicted by CDC Director Robert Redfield’s Sept. 16 statement: A 'face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine.' Which in turn weirdly contradicted the CDC’s own Sept. 11 Report (particularly in an e-mail to Health Feedback), which stated that it 'clearly stated that wearing a mask is intended to protect other people in case the mask wearer is infected. At no time has CDC guidance suggested that masks were intended to protect the wearers.'”

"Note that an Oct. 23 study (Dhaval Adjodah, et al), published on medRxiv, had to be retracted when it claimed that mask mandates resulted in reducing COVID-19 cases, only to find infections in the subject areas rose after the study was released."

BW argues that asymptomatic spread is disproven, so why mandate mask wearing for people without symptoms, if masks are supposedly only useful to protect others from you?

"Then, finally, there is this: a study (Shiyi Cao, et al) published Nov. 20, described 'a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening program between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. There were no positive tests [no one tested positive] amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases.' In short, and if true: asymptomatic spread is not real. And if that is the case, with nearly 98-99% of COVID-19 cases being asymptomatic or mild, what could then justify mandatory mask wearing?"

Therefore, "if the science on public mask wearing shows that such is useless or doesn’t work...or at the very least uncertain, then for the government to make public mask wearing a mandatory requirement is arbitrary, capricious, and even perhaps despotic."

Another perspective of the fact that this study disproved any SIGNIFICANT benefit from masks, for wearers: How could masks protect others from wearers, while unable to protect wearers from others? Their inability to protect wearers from others shows masks do not significantly block germs traveling from others, through the masks, to wearers. How does that not also show masks do not significantly block germs traveling from wearers, through the masks, to others? There is nothing about masks that permits only one way travel. If germs can travel through one way, they can also travel the other way.

The inability of masks to block germs traveling from wearers to others, through masks, was graphically demonstrated by a doctor who exhaled vape "smoke" through different masks. (See description above.) Vape droplets are larger than the largest droplets theorized to carry covid, yet the droplets passed through almost as easily as they passed around the masks. The masks affected the direction and speed of exhaled breath, but not quantity.

In fact, if masks COULD actually TRAP large droplets and keep them from going into the room, wouldn't they become soggy after a couple of minutes? Doesn't the fact that they remain dry for hours prove they don't block droplets?

President's Top Covid Doctor Censored by Twitter (Oct 18)

October 18 The Federalist. By David Marcus. Scott Atlas, a member of the White House scientific team battling the coronavirus, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institute, not only had his tweets removed, he was banned from tweeting until he deleted the tweets that Twitter for unclear reasons objects to.

Atlas writes, "In the deleted tweet, I cited the following evidence against general population masks:

"1) Cases exploded even with mandates: Los Angeles County, Miami-Dade County, Hawaii, Alabama, the Philippines, Japan, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Israel.

"2) Dr. Carl Heneghan, University of Oxford, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and editor in chief of British Medical Journal Evidence-Based Medicine: ‘It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.’

(https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/)

"3) The WHO: ‘The widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider’ (bitly.ws/afUm)

"4) The CDC: ‘Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.’ (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article).

"I also cited an article giving detailed explanation of the reasons why masks might not prevent spread: t.co/1hRFHsxe59"

Dissenting Doctors (Oct 17)

October 17 “I’m Shocked That This Man Has ANY Sort of Podium – He’s Been Wrong So Many Times” – Top US Doctor UNLOADS on Crazy Dr. Fauci …(Plus Fauci’s 19 Mistakes)

Laura Ingraham: Now Dr. Fauci has taken another shot at that Great Barrington Declaration, Dr. O., which of course is all the hundreds and hundreds of doctors and health care professionals opposing lockdowns and other severe Covid restrictions…

Dr. Ramin Oskoui: I think some have accused him of being responsible for this crime against humanity. The reality is never in human history have we locked down a whole society. You quarantine the sick. You quarantine the vulnerable. You don’t shut down the whole country. What he is suggesting is scientifically antithetical and unsubstantiated. I’m shocked that this man has any sort of podium anymore. He’s been wrong so many times. It’s terrible!… I think the biggest mistake was involving him.

Nursing Home Residents Riot (Oct 8)

October 8 Well, "riot" is a bit strong, but didn't the headline make you want to read about it?

Waving signs that read such things as “I’d rather die of COVID than loneliness,” and “We are prisoners in our home,” residents of one nursing facility staged their own anti-lockdown protest along one of the busiest streets in Greeley, directly across the street from the city’s largest and longest operating hospital.

“Freedom, freedom, freedom,” one lady chanted while waving a sign that read “we want our families back.”

Thousands of Doctors Petition to End Lockdowns (Oct 7)

Ocober 7 The Berkshire Eagle. Three infectious disease epidemiologists drafted and signed the Great Barrington Declaration to propose the idea and launched it online for signatures.

As of Wednesday, more than 8,000 medical and public health scientists and medical professionals have signed it; as well as more than 76,000 from the general public.

The scientists are Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University; and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor. All three are epidemiologists.

They say ancillary effects of the lockdowns include “lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come”

They say it is a “grave injustice” to keep students from school, and that the poor are most affected.

“Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”

Sweden Update (Oct 4)

October 4

Death tolls rose in Sweden – and remain far higher than in neighbouring countires. Nearly 6,000 lives have been lost, almost 10 times the number in Denmark. Care home patients bore the brunt of these losses, representing nearly 50 per cent of all Covid-19 deaths in the country.

But life continued far closer to normal than in countries that went for lockdown, and there have been zero coronavirus deaths reported in Sweden on each of the past five days. The UK lost 231 people to Covid-19 in that period.

At the moment, Sweden looks to have best weathered the pandemic storm. Per population it is now reporting the lowest death rate of any European country. 75,000 people could die in the UK from non-Covid causes as a direct result of lockdown. Thousands more are predicted to die over the next five years as a result of overlooked cancer diagnoses and the impacts on our health from recession.

This comes on top of other incalculable impacts from the lockdown; the quality of a life is arguably as important as its length.

Singing is no more risky than talking, finds new COVID-19 study (Aug 21)

Singing is Safe August 21, 2020 Singing does not produce very substantially more respiratory particles than when speaking at a similar volume. There is a steep rise in aerosol mass with increase in the loudness of the singing and speaking, rising by as much as a factor of 20-30. However, singing does not produce very substantially more aerosol than speaking at a similar volume. There were no significant differences in aerosol production between genders or among different genres (choral, musical theater, opera, choral, jazz, gospel, rock and pop).

New cases down 40% from peak 5 weeks ago (Sept 1)

Wall Street Journal September 1 We hate to be the bearer of good news, but here goes: The so-called second virus wave is receding and has been far less deadly than the first in the spring thanks to better therapies and government preparation. Nobody is suggesting we should now let it rip, but the progress should give Americans more confidence that schools and businesses can reopen safely.

The U.S. seven-day rolling average of new cases has fallen by about 40% from its peak on July 25. Hospitalizations and deaths in hot spots peaked at about the same time in apparent contradiction to epidemiological models that have predicted two- to three-week lags between cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

Covid new caes down 40% as of Sept 4.png
Just 6% of deaths reported as covid deaths caused by covid alone, BUT...

There have been headlines about deaths reported as caused by covid which were obviously primarily caused by other things, like auto accidents. So several writers have jumped on new CDC data which distinguishes deaths caused by only covid from deaths involving other serious health issues, like diabetes or cancer, and concludes that 94% of deaths reported as covid-caused were actually caused by 3.6 medical issues, on average, only one of which was covid.

In other words, instead of covid being responsible for 183,000 American deaths, it is solely responsible for only 9,000 deaths; for the rest, it is partly responsible.

Several writers interpret this data as if covid has miniscule responsibility for the other 174,000 deaths; but the CDC says of those 174,000 deaths where covid shared responsibility with other causes, covid was still primarily responsible 95% of the time.

Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, co-author of two studies looking at the fatality rates of COVID-19, says the covid is the cause of many of its “comorbidities”. For example, covid causes “influenza and pneumonia”, the leading comorbidity, in 68,000 cases. So even though covid shares responsibility for a separate cause, covid is responsible for that separate cause too. Obviously every comorbidity which comes along after the onset of covid may reasonably be blamed on covid.

But I don’t find where death certificates, upon which the CDC data is based, tells whether covid’s “comorbidities” came after covid or were in place long before. Certainly diabetes, a comorbidity in 26,000 cases, did not come along in the last two weeks after the patient started coughing. A Des Moines nurse I get to talk with, who cares for covid patients, thinks the bulk of comorbidities precede covid.

And a Christian Post article, apparently quoting the CDC, says “Conditions described as comorbidities are often chronic or long-term conditions. Other names to describe comorbid conditions are coexisting or co-occurring conditions and sometimes also ‘multimorbidity’ or ‘multiple chronic conditions.’”

So much is at stake politically that medical amateurs rush slogging through foreign medical terminology they never heard of before but which has suddenly become interesting. The stakes: If the commonly reported 183,000 American covid deaths is accurate, of the known 6 million cases, that is a 3% death rate, which is high enough to justify abridgment of our freedom and an iron ball fastened to the feet of our economy. But if it’s only 9,000, then whoopee! These lockdowns can’t survive such a low figure much longer! Not when flu by comparison caused between 24,000-62,000 deaths last flu season!

Gideon links to the CDC estimate that of the 94% of alleged covid deaths with comorbidities, 95% of them are primarily caused by covid:

...in some cases, COVID-19 may have contributed to the death, but the underlying cause of death was another cause, such as terminal cancer. For the majority of deaths where COVID-19 is reported on the death certificate (approximately 95%), COVID-19 is selected as the underlying cause of death.

“Underlying” is slightly ambiguous in this context. It ‘’might’’ mean the cause of the cause. But it might also mean “the straw that broke the camel’s back”.

Gideon sees no ambiguity. Here’s his interpretation:

So what’s happening here? Well, it’s pretty simple — in the U.S., deaths are recorded using standardized death certificates. On these certificates, completed by medical certifiers, there are several spaces to fill in — one for the immediate cause of death, and then several lines for the underlying causes of that. As an example, say someone has lung cancer, and dies in hospital of an infection after having a lung removed. The immediate cause of death is the infection, which occurred due to complications of the lung removal, which was ultimately caused by the underlying issue of lung cancer. In the same way, someone who gets COVID-19, which causes respiratory failure, and then dies of kidney failure due to being on a ventilator would have at least three things on their form — the immediate cause, kidney failure, the secondary cause, respiratory failure, and the underlying cause, COVID-19.
One way of looking at the precise number is to ask how many COVID-19 deaths had coronavirus as the UNDERLYING cause. That is, the cause that precipitated any other issues, or the thing that actually killed a person. The CDC has actually estimated this, and puts it at >95% of all COVID-19 deaths, meaning that the vast majority of deaths recorded as caused by coronavirus in the U.S. were caused by COVID-19.

I chose the Christian Post report of the CDC’s 6% figure, to share with you, over several other reports I found that were dripping with sarcasm and exaggerated examples; such as characterizing mainstream covid death reporting as calling it a covid death when the patient also had, by the way, stage 4 cancer; or was struck by a car. The CDC statement specifically said when a patient ‘’with’’ covid dies of “terminal cancer”, the death certificate does not normally put down covid as the “underlying cause”.

At the Christian Post link you can see a copy of the CDC graph which is also posted by Gideon. Be sure to fetch your magnifying glass. The Post’s summary of leading comorbidities: “The top conditions contributing to deaths involving coronavirus disease include influenza and pneumonia, respiratory failure, hypertensive disease, diabetes, vascular and unspecified dementia, cardiac arrest, heart failure, renal failure, intentional and unintentional injury and poisoning, the report shows.”

CONCLUSION: The seriousness of covid is somewhere between a 3% death rate and a 0.1% death rate, depending on how many of those average 3.6 serious conditions preceded covid, versus were caused by covid, which the records don't tell us. It also depends on how philosophically we should weigh the covid responsibility when for example a person with diabetes died of covid who might otherwise have survived several more years.

Before this year the thought of "weighing" such a thing would have seemed as pointless as it is callous; we do all we can for every patient. But now new political involvement has us weighing not just how much personal medical care we give those in need, but how much personal freedom we surrender to prevent exposure of others - even though such "weighing" is complicated by not knowing how covid is transmitted, how well masks or social distancing even works, or how to even count the death rate.

Sorry, I've run out of perspective about this. Maybe you can help me out.

Masks work? Indicated by “common sense” - NOT PROVED (Aug 4)

Reminder: no one says they will protect the wearer - only those he breathes on.

“The Daily Signal” August 4, 2020 lists 10 “true/false” facts about Covid. #7 quotes the CDC saying “Masks MAY help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others.” DS explains: “The CDC says that wearing a mask “may” have this effect because scientific certainty isn’t possible. You can’t conduct a properly controlled experiment that yields scientific proof that masks really help prevent the spread of the coronavirus. If there’s no definitive proof that masks work, why wear them? Mostly, commonsense. Scientists seem fairly certain that COVID-19 is spread by droplets, although there’s some evidence it’s present in aerosols. Either way, it’s on our breaths.”

In other words, the current state of human science can’t determine how much of the virus in our breaths is attached to much larger though still microscopic “droplets” of moisture, which masks can trap, as opposed to germs floating freely in the air, in which case they can float through the comparatively gigantic weave of a mask as easily as a gnat can fly through a chain link fence.

This article linked at the word “droplets” linked to CDC guidance for doctors which in turn linked to a WHO review of droplet vs. aerosol research. That article begins by defining the difference between “droplets” and “aerosols”. Apparently the only difference is the size. “Respiratory droplets are >5-10 μm in diameter whereas droplets <5μm in diameter are referred to as droplet nuclei or aerosols.” One μm, or μ for short, is 1/1,000 of a millimeter; that is, one millionth of a meter.

The article says “WHO, together with the scientific community, has been actively discussing and evaluating whether SARS-CoV-2 may also spread through aerosols in the absence of aerosol generating procedures, particularly in indoor settings with poor ventilation....To date, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by this type of aerosol route has not been demonstrated; much more research is needed given the possible implications of such route of transmission.” But there are some medical procedures which produce such aerosols.

As droplets evaporate they become aerosols. How much does that happen? That has been studied for other diseases but not covid. One study established that aerosols are produced by coughing and talking. Another study said that varies a lot from person to person and the volume of one’s talking. Droplet transmission has been studied at a choir practice, restaurant, and fitness class.

The 10-page article reviews research that struggles to measure aerosol transmission. Some of it uses fine water spray jets (“high-powered jet nebulizers”) to infect tiny “aerosols”, squirt them in the air, and see how long the virus can survive on them. One such study found some that lived 16 hours, floating in the air. The doubts about the study were about whether the infected aerosols thus produced were like what those that humans exhale.


Fears, Facts, Prevention (July 13, 2020)

Title: COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic: fears, facts and preventive measures

Authors: Israel Oluwasegun Ayenigbara1,*, Olasunkanmi Rowland Adeleke2, George Omoniyi Ayenigbara3, Joseph Sunday Adegboro4, Oluwaseyi Oye Olofintuyi5 

Received: 11 April 2020; revised: 06 July 2020; accepted: 13 July 2020.

This study claims: “ Presently, there is no known cure for COVID-19, …”

Why do people keep SAYING that? The word “Hydroxychloroquine” isn’t even mentioned in this article! Not even to refute it! As if the authors never heard of it.

“however, remdesivir has been approved for emergency use for the treatment of COVID-19”.

Notice the wording: it has been approved. As if to skim over the fact that no studies have proved it effective. Later, it “is expected to be an effective treatment”. No reason given why it is expected.

Here’s the list of stuff we have to do: “this review revealed that thorough hand washing with antiseptic soap and running water and usage of alcohol hand sanitizer, frequent surfaces cleaning, strict adherence to social distancing, regular respiratory hygiene, wearing of protective face masks, frequent testing, self-isolation, quarantine and rigorous contact tracing….”.

What support can the study muster for requiring those measures?

How can a paper hope to address “facts, fears, and appropriate preventive measures against COVID-19” without even mentioning Hydroxychloroquine? It’s not as if only a tiny few doctors are for it. My entry from May 26: “Doctors from 30 countries agree hydroxychloroquine works - May 26 Red Right Daily, from the New York Post: Of 2,171 physicians surveyed, 37% of them said that hydroxychloroquine is the “most effective therapy” for combating the virus. 32% of doctors, however, said "nothing" is effective. 6,227 physicians were questioned about at least 15 treatments used for COVID-19. Only 2,171 of them were asked which drug is most effective. But in the U.S., only 23% of doctors have prescribed the drug - only in severe cases - far less than in other countries, where it is often prescribed in all cases. ”

This study continues: “there is not strong evidence to substantiate that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne” That’s as of July 6. Over a month later that evidence was published. See my post.

As of page 222, half way through this study, there is quite a summary of “mitigating” measures taken globally, but no summaries of any research supporting any of them. Will research be mentioned later? Or are the measures taken by others a substitute for research proving we should take them?

So far this paper reads, not like any kind of evidence for people who make decisions based on that sort of thing, but like a flow chart showing children how to behave. Except for the big words. Right here on 222 is that kind of flow chart. No evidence, just assumptions. Just conclusions. Oh, also, except for the footnotes. MAYBE some of them contain evidence. But that hope is not encouraged by the failure of this article to summarize any of it. Nor by the few footnotes I did read, whose titles indicated no support for these assumptions.

Like this assumption: “SARS-CoV-2 is primarily transmitted by droplet and contact routes. For instance, droplet transmission is through bigger respiratory particles, usually above 5 μm in diameter, which are subject to gravitational forces; these droplets and particles tend to travel no more than 1 meter, ” Again, this is before the August 11 study, and only repeats the earlier statement that research doesn’t yet indicate aerosol transmission.

I’ve reached the end. Was there evidence that I missed? No evidence. No summaries of research. Just claims, directions how to behave, and reviews of how tyrannies all over the world are doing so well following those directions.

Do masks block even aerosols, after all? (Apr 24)

Although other articles flatly say “no”, I found a study that concludes “yes”. Dated April 24, 2020, it concludes that 50% blocking is possible from cotton, chiffon, and silk with a tight weave. Cotton, with 600 threads per inch, can achieve 79% reduction with moisture particles between 10 and 300 nm (billionths of a meter) and 98% between 300 nm to 6 μm (300 billionths of a meter and 6 millionths of a meter).

But be warned: that assumes you don’t get to breathe ANY air from around the sides of your mask! All your oxygen has to come THROUGH it. Openings around the edges reduces these results by 50% ‘’or more’’.

Here is the official conclusion. Remember that nm means billionths of a meter and μm means millionths of a meter.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acsnano.0c03252

CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, we have measured the filtration efficiencies of various commonly available fabrics for use as cloth masks in filtering particles in the significant (for aerosol-based virus transmission) size range of∼10 nm to∼6μm and have presented filtration efficiency data as a function of aerosol particle size. We find that cotton, natural silk, and chiffon can provide good protection, typically above 50% in the entire 10nm to 6.0μm range, provided they have a tight weave. Higher threads per inch cotton with tighter weaves resulted in better filtration efficiencies. For instance, a 600 TPI cotton sheet can provide average filtration efficiencies of 79±23% (in the 10nm to 300 nm range) and 98.4±0.2% (in the 300 nm to 6μmrange). A cotton quilt with batting provides 96±2% (10 nm to 300 nm) and 96.1±0.3% (300 nm to 6μm). Likely the highly tangled fibrous nature of the batting aids in the superior performance at small particle sizes. Materials such as silk and chiffon are particularly effective (considering their sheerness) at excluding particles in the nanoscale regime (<∼100 nm), likely due to electrostatic effects that result in charge transfer with nanoscale aerosol particles. A four-layer silk (used, for instance, as a scarf) was surprisingly effective with an average efficiency of >85% across the 10 nm−6μm particle size range. As a result, we found that hybrid combinations of cloths such as high threads-per-inch cotton along with silk, chiffon, or flannel can provide broad filtration coverage across both the nanoscale (<300 nm) and micron scale (300 nm to 6μm)range, likely due to the combined effects of electrostatic and physical filtering. Finally, it is important to note that openings and gaps (such as those between the mask edge and the facial contours) can degrade the performance. Our findings indicate that leakages around the mask area can degrade efficiencies by ∼50% or more, pointing out the importance of“fit”.Opportunities for future studies include cloth mask design for better“fit”and the role of factors such as humidity (arising from exhalation) and the role of repeated use and washing of cloth masks. In summary, we find that the use of cloth masks can potentially provide significant protection against the transmission of particles in the aerosol size range.


Facial protection for healthcare workers (April 23, 2020)

Title: Facial protection for healthcare workers during pandemics: a scoping review (that is, a review of others’ research; this is not original research)

Authors: Laura R Garcia Godoy ,1 Amy E Jones ,1 Taylor N Anderson , Cameron L Fisher ,1 Kylie M L Seeley ,1 Erynn A Beeson ,1 Hannah K Zane ,1 Jaime W Peterson ,2 Peter D Sullivan

The article begins: “Limitations included few COVID-19-specific studies and exclusion of non-English language articles.”

That is an important limitation. This article is not about original research. It is a review of research by others. Which is pretty limited where there is little research by others. By this time the Denmark study had been completed in which nearly 6,000 wore masks and 6,000 did not, and after two months the difference in covid infections was less than a tenth of one percent. But no peer-reviewed journal would publish the research until the following November.

To do the best they could under that limitation, “the review included grey literature such as preprint publications, [copies of research reports before they have been edited and accepted by peer-reviewed publications] product descriptions, guidelines, guidance documents and news articles in addition to peer-reviewed publications. We initially used grey literature to define best or recommended practices, then analysed peer-reviewed documents.”

The study talks about the “N95 respirator A respiratory protective device designed to achieve a close facial fit and efficient filtration of airborne particles, requires fit testing to be fully effective.”

N95 respirators are not widely available, and “fit testing” is not available to ordinary folks. But IF that were available, N95 would: ”When compared with surgical masks in this setting, N95 respirators provide superior protection against aerosols and viruses similar in size to influenza, especially when combined with eye protection. Isolated [meaning, not on a person but tested in a lab] surgical mask material protects against >[more than] 95% of viral aerosols under laboratory conditions, while surgical masks are able to reduce aerosolised influenza exposure by an average of sixfold, depending on mask design. Mask fit is another important component in the functional efficacy of N95 respirators. Untrained individuals without proper fit testing can often achieve Federal Drug Administration (FDA) minimum fit factor standards, but fewer than 25% achieve the score of 100 expected in workplace settings. Addition of a peripheral Vaseline barrier [smearing vaseline on your face under the mask edges] has been shown to prevent peripheral air leakage and reduce exposure to airborne viral particles, making this a potential compensatory strategy when fit testing is not feasible. [!!!!]sm Face shields provide barrier protection from splash and splatter contamination, as well as acutely expelled aerosols generated during procedures such as bronchoscopy, airway suctioning and intubation. However, the evidence for the effectiveness of face shields in preventing transmission of viral respiratory diseases is minimal, as highlighted in a recent narrative review.”

My Notes: April 23, the publication date, was pretty outdated by the time my brother forwarded it to me. It acknowledges the paucity of covid-specific research. The only real major mask study I know of is the Danish study completed June 2 but not published until months later, in November.

This “Scoping” study uses N95 masks because they are better; the Danish study used the surgical masks “with a filtration rate of 98%” because there is no difference. Why do the two studies, with access to the same body of research during the same time frame, disagree on such a detail?

The Danish study used surgical masks “with a filtration rate of 98%” rather than N95 because “A published meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in preventing influenza in health care workers between respirators (N95 [American standard] or FFP2 [European standard]) and surgical face masks (38). ” Footnote 38 is to another Danish study (in English) published March 13, 2020. That was 11 days before this “scoping” study stopped reviewing studies. “we limited our search to records published or most recently updated between 1 January 2000 and 24 March 2020” Why didn’t this “scoping” study acknowledge it?

The Danish study involved “A total of six RCTs involving 9 171 participants”. This “scoping” study cited a trial that reached the same result, but did not believe it because other studies indicated N95’s are better. The single trial that failed to impress this study involved only 1/20th of the people as the Danish study; “446 nurses in emergency departments”. had this study considered the Danish study perhaps it would have been more impressed.

The larger study found “no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.92-1.28, P > .05), laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.70-1.11), laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.42-1.29) and influenzalike illness (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.33-1.14) using N95 respirators and surgical masks. ”

The November Danish study found zero “statistically significant” benefit to wearers.

(Detractors say the fact that masks don’t significantly stop covid from getting to wearers from others leaves untested whether masks stop covid from getting to others from wearers, but if it is proved covid passes easily through masks one way, doesn’t that prove they can as easily pass through the other direction? In the only direction covid travel can be tested, masks fail. It is impossible to test whether masks protect others from wearers, unless you want to put masks on a few hundred coughing, sneezing covid sufferers and mix them up with a healthy population that could not possibly catch covid from any other source, and see how many get sick.)

Dr. Ted Noel. retired, from Florida, wrote: As for the fabled N95 respirator masks, “Respirators work as PPE only when they are the right size and have been fit-tested to demonstrate they achieve an adequate protection factor.” The mask must be "properly fitted. Then you need to re-sterilize it every four hours using UV light or properly dispose of it and start over with a new one. That is too expensive for most people." However, this “scoping” study claims fit doesn’t matter at all! “An RCT comparing fit-tested and non-fit- tested N95 respirators found no significant difference in ability to protect against respiratory illness, despite in vitro evidence of significant reduction in filtration efficacy with peripheral air leakage.24 27” This study recommends smearing vaseline around the edges of your mask to fill the leaks. I will be sure to remember that when alien nanobots invade from the Narnian Galaxy. Meanwhile, until then, that is disgusting.

This study trashes the practicality of face shields by describing their original purpose, as well as acknowledging that much of covid travels by aerosols: “Face shields provide barrier protection from splash and splatter contamination, as well as acutely expelled aerosols generated during procedures such as bronchoscopy, airway suctioning and intubation. However, the evidence for the effectiveness of face shields in preventing transmission of viral r espiratory diseases is minimal, as highlighted in a recent narrative review.” aerosol transmission: “protection was decreased with smaller aerosol particles and 30 min after cough simulation, due to persistence of airborne particles and particle flow around the sides of the mask.” The beginning of the article had said the N95 “Prevents inhalation of 95% of 0.3 μm particles” That is, 300 billionths of a meter; droplets can be as small as 10 billionths. (10 nm.) Up to 5 millionths is called “aerosols”.

I posted an April 24 study of mask materials showing the remarkable ability of some materials to stop very tiny particles, but that only applies to what goes THROUGH the material.

I appreciate the acknowledgment of the existence of “user discomfort due to increased respiratory resistance.” I have read articles indicating the issue is more than mere “discomfort”, but reduction of health, for those required to wear them at work all day long. (From reduction of oxygen, and buildup of CO2.)

Something I have forgotten to notice as I read these studies comparing one mask with another: is there a third control group with no masks at all? If there is no significant benefit of any kind of mask, that would explain why some studies show no difference between one kind and another. “The evidence comparing the efficacy of N95 respirators to surgical masks in the outpatient setting is minimal.”

Here is acknowledgment of a study without that control group: “One RCT including inpatient nurses and doctors found incidence of respiratory illness to be significantlyhigher in healthcare workers with continuous use of two-layer, cotton cloth masks compared with those who wore surgical masks (relative risk=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07). Particle penetration was approximately 97% for cloth masks versus 44% for surgical masks. However, the authors were unable to determine the relative efficacy of cloth masks compared with no mask use since the study lacked a no-mask control arm.”

Huh? This study is not even aimed at advising NON-hospital mask use?

Conclusion: “...Based on the literature, the safest approach to address this shortage is to ensure provision of a sufficient quantity of medical-grade facial protection for healthcare workers....” Why didn’t I notice the same limitation: “for health care workers” in the abstract? So why am I even reading this?

Now I read farther and this study acknowledges the lack of consensus that N95 works any better. Or does it? This is confusing: “However, studies comparing efficacy of different types of medical-grade masks in the inpatient setting have conflicting results. One non-inferiority RCT of nurses working in medical and paediatric inpatient units found that use of a surgical mask compared with a fit-tested N95 respirator resulted in non-inferior rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza.22 (No difference.) Several other RCTs found that rates of respiratory infection illness were lower in healthcare workers who used fit-tested N95 respirators compared with those who used surgical masks.23–25 (N95 better) Similarly, N95 respirators have been shown to provide superior protection against respiratory bacterial infections or bacterial-viral coinfections when compared with surgical masks.26 (N95 better) The literature regarding mask fit in the inpatient setting is limited to one study. An RCT comparing fit-tested and non-fit- tested N95 respirators found no significant difference in ability to protect against respiratory illness, despite in vitro evidence of significant reduction in filtration efficacy with peripheral air leakage.24 27 (N95 fitting is a waste of time) Furthermore, non-fit- tested N95 respirators were significantly more protective than surgical masks.24 (N95 better) In the context of COVID-19, a recent case report identified 41 healthcare workers exposed to SARS-CoV-2 through aerosol-generating procedures. Among these providers, 85% were wearing surgical masks at the time of exposure, and the remaining 15% were wearing N95 respirators.28 None of the exposed providers contracted COVID-19.28 Our scoping review did not identify any other studies comparing the efficacy of medical-grade masks during aerosol-generating procedures. ” (No difference.)




USA Today: masks don’t cause oxygen problems(May 30)

Fact check: Wearing a face mask will not cause hypoxia, hypoxemia or hypercapnia Adrienne Dunn, USA TODAY, May 30

“N95 masks are more tightly fitted, making them more likely to inhibit the breathing of the wearer if worn for a prolonged period of time”, this article acknowledges. “Research has found that the masks can inhibit the wearer's breathing if worn for extended periods of time, particularly in cases where the person has an existing respiratory illness.”

The link is to research dated May, 2010, which concludes: “CONCLUSIONS: In healthy healthcare workers, FFR (the N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirator) did not impose any important physiological burden during 1 hour of use, at realistic clinical work rates, but the FFR dead-space carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards, and elevated PCO2 is a possibility. Exhalation valve did not significantly ameliorate the FFR's PCO2 impact....The FFR dead-space oxygen and carbon dioxide levels did not meet the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's ambient workplace standards.”

Unaddressed in the conclusion is the danger of masks to less healthy, obese, diabetic, elderly etc. healthcare workers. And even for the healthiest of workers, the study does not consider the effect of wearing a mask for 20 hour shifts, for several months, as health care workers have had to do this year; the study was completed in a single hour on a treadmill with only 10 workers.

USA Today says other masks “are looser fitting, making it highly unlikely that wearers would see significant depletions in their oxygen intake....Neither the CDC nor the World Health Organization has issued warnings suggesting the use of surgical face masks would result in dangerous oxygen level depletion within the general public....’”

Confirming the general challenge of masks to health, USA Today acknowledges, “The CDC does advise that cloth face coverings should not be placed on...those who have trouble breathing....“

The article asks important questions, like “Will face masks cause hypoxia?” But notice how far its answer falls below complete reassurance, saying harm is “unlikely”; it is “mostly” safe:

“A reduced oxygen intake level may lead to hypoxemia, a condition where there is low arterial oxygen supply, or hypoxia, a condition where the supply of oxygen in tissue is insufficient. ...It's important to note that the majority of the time, with health care workers as an exception, the general public is not wearing face masks for prolonged periods of time, meaning a dangerous build-up of CO2 is unlikely.”

Huh? Employees at a majority of indoor businesses all across America are required by their employers, if not by their governors, to wear masks all day long!

USA Today continues: “Additionally, the CDC told Reuters,

"The CO2 will slowly build up in the mask over time. However, the level of CO2 likely to build up in the mask is ‘’’mostly’’’ tolerable to people exposed to it ... It is ‘’’unlikely’’’ that wearing a mask will cause hypercapnia. ...The CDC told Snopes that N95 respirators could cause the buildup of carbon dioxide over time, which can also be mitigated by feeding in oxygen or simply taking a break and removing the mask. But the same effects are not likely in people wearing cloth face masks, especially for the brief amount of time they are in public. ...It is true that those who are ‘’’most at risk’’’ of negative effects from face masks have been advised by the CDC to avoid the face coverings and reach out to their health care providers for additional guidance.”

In that “most at risk” phrase is acknowledgment that risk is relative; for everyone, there is at least some small risk. But people whose risk is less clear are unlikely to find any support from doctors. At least not the kind of support it takes to get a doctor’s order allowing one to work maskless.

Authors of Pro-Hydroxychloroquine Study Defend Their Work After Attack by Fauci (Aug 4)

The doctors whose hydroxychloroquine research turned out to support the cure were attacked by NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci at a recent Congressional hearing. The doctors responded.

Drs. Adnan Munkarah and Steven Kalkanis of the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit wrote in an open letter that “a whole scientific field exists in which scientists examine how a drug is working in the real world to get as best an answer as they can as soon as possible. Our promising Henry Ford treatment study should be considered as another important contribution to the other studies of hydroxychloroquine that describes what the authors found in our patient population.”

Fauci had dismissed the research because as a “bad study”, not because of any deficiencies he could point to, but because it was not a “randomized clinical trial” - as if no other research has any value at all, and is only done by irresponsible doctors. To which the doctors responded:

“We — along with all doctors and scientists — eagerly support the need for randomized clinical trials. Unfortunately, the political climate that has persisted has made any objective discussion about this drug impossible, and we are deeply saddened by this turn of events.” The science should “speak for itself.” “Furthermore, it is not unusual that results from such studies vary in different populations and at different times, and no one study can ever be considered all by itself.”

“To that end, we have made the heartfelt decision to have no further comment about this outside the medical community,” the doctors said.

Dr. Munkarah works as the chief clinical officer of the Henry Ford Health System while Dr. Kalkanis works as the chief academic officer for the system. Munkarah and Kalkanis call for more research to take place but believe that their findings could save lives and should not be discounted.

Fauci had told a House Subcommittee hearng, “That study is a flawed study, and I think anyone who examines it carefully is that it is not a randomized placebo-controlled trial.”

When Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) noted that the study conducted the Henry Ford Health System was peer reviewed, Fauci denigrated the peer review process that is typically vaunted by academics, intellectuals and experts. “It doesn’t matter, you can peer-review something that’s a bad study. The fact is it is not a randomized placebo-controlled trial. The point that I think is important, because we all want to keep an open mind, any and all of the randomized placebo-controlled trials, which is the gold standard of determining if something is effective, none of them have shown any efficacy for hydroxychloroquine.”

Fauci expressed an opposite standard for vaccines. He is calling for COVID-19 vaccines to be synthesized as quickly as possible and is downplaying the potential risks. “From everything we’ve seen now — in the animal data, as well as the human data — we feel cautiously optimistic that we will have a vaccine by the end of this year and as we go into 2021,” Fauci told the same subcommittee hearing. “I don’t think it’s dreaming.”

European Revolt (Aug 6)

Europeans Are Fighting Back Against COVID Tyranny. August 6, Right Country. This is a report about mass protests across Europe. Part of the report is based on a Ron Paul report on Newsmax. The article concludes that here in America, “No, they say, we must keep locked down and masked until we have a vaccine. The U.S. government is dumping billions into a vaccine that may be less than 60 percent effective to prevent a virus that has something like a 99.8 percent survival rate. What kind of math is that? How many may be harmed more by the vaccine than helped?”

It made sense at first, but now? (Aug 6)

August 6 Isolation works very well when it is a virus like the bubonic plague or Ebola which can kill quickly.  There is no time to develop immunity to it.  These are highly lethal viruses. But with flu and the common cold, we develop a herd type of immunity.  Not everyone exposed to the flu virus actually develops the flu. ...What we did not know even six weeks ago, was how many people already had exposure to the virus and were therefore immune to COVID-19. The numbers have now come in, and we were well contaminated with the virus before the lockdown began.  Therefore, the spread was slowing even before the lockdown started. ...And because we didn’t know the number of people who were exposed, we didn’t know how dangerous the virus was. Initially, we only tested people when they were really sick and on a ventilator.  That made it look like the virus was killing people at a rate of 5%. A virus that could kill 5% of America was a scary thought.  But as more data came in, it became clear that it killed less than .01%, and most of those were people with deadly health conditions.

Fauci's flip flops and hypocrisy: Documentary (Sep 1)

The Fauci Files Ron Paul Liberty Report, summary and comments by Dr. Mercola.

Fauci has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984. In April he praised the NIAID-sponsored drug Remdesivir, which has an improvement rate of 31%. But Fauci still claims there’s only anecdotal evidence supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine, and that the drug doesn’t work for COVID-19, even though research now shows hydroxychloroquine reduced mortality by 50% when given early, and many doctors anecdotally claim survival rates close to 100%.

Mercola quotes Robert F. Kennedy Jr: "Fauci insists he will not approve HCQ for COVID until its efficacy is proven in ‘randomized, double blind placebo studies.’ To date, Dr. Fauci has never advocated such studies for any of the 72 vaccine doses added to the mandatory childhood schedule since he took over NIAID in 1984. Nor is he requiring them for the COVID vaccines currently racing for approval. Why should chloroquine be the only remedy required to cross this high hurdle? HCQ is less in need of randomized placebo studies than any of these vaccines since its safety is well established after 60 years of use and decades on WHO’s listed of ‘essential medicines.’"

The article accompanying the documentary lists vaccine safety violations under Fauci's 36-year administration, the failure of NIAID to develop a single vaccine of its own though while adding 72 vaccines to requirements for children, his habit of using foster children under state care for guinea pigs, a research paper recounting past failures to develop a coronavirus vaccine without serious lung complications, and speculations about Fauci's desperate drive to leave behind a legacy of at least one single successful vaccine.

The Skepticism Bred by Hypocrisy (Aug 12)

Mask Wars and Pandemic Theater August 12, Patriot Post email, by Louis DeBroux

This article builds upon examples of lockdown rules that are arbitrary on their face. For example, "In many restaurants across the country, you must wear a mask from the entrance to your seat, but you may remove it when seated. Apparently, the virus-drenched vaporous exhalations stay perfectly situated around the table and don't drift toward other patrons." The article also notes hypocrisy, such as Dr. Fauci at a ball game, no mask, goggles, or social distances as he had just urged upon the rest of us.

It lists examples of violence over mask-wearing.

It gives a measure of public ignorance: "A recent survey found that, on average, Americans believe that 20% of the U.S. population has contracted COVID-19 and that 9% (equal to three million people) had died from it. In reality, just 1% have been infected, and just 0.04% have died from it."

"And when Democrat governors and mayors shut down churches and gyms but leave open liquor stores and casinos, and when they vilify business owners for reopening against shutdown orders yet praise violent rioters and looters, can anyone really blame the skeptical?"

All this angst, when the WHO itself has said "At the present time, the widespread use of masks everywhere is not supported by high-quality scientific evidence, and there are potential benefits and harms to consider."

(That WHO statement was posted June 7. It is found under the FAQ, "Does WHO recommend the use of fabric masks for the general public?" It is followed by statements which very nearly contradict it, but in reading what follows one must not ignore the quote here. The quote leaves us curious: WHAT harms? Why are mask harms not explained?)

Covid is an Aerosol, not blocked by masks (Aug 11)

New York Times August 11, Health: ‘A Smoking Gun’: Infectious Coronavirus Retrieved From Hospital Air By Apoorva Mandavilli

Airborne virus plays a significant role in community transmission, many experts believe. A new study fills in the missing piece: Floating virus can infect cells.

Doctors in Johannesburg demonstrated how to place a device called an intubox over a patient, to help curb the spread of viral droplets during intubation.

Skeptics of the notion that the coronavirus spreads through the air — including many expert advisers to the World Health Organization — have held out for one missing piece of evidence: proof that floating respiratory droplets called aerosols contain live virus, and not just fragments of genetic material. Now a team of virologists and aerosol scientists has produced exactly that: confirmation of infectious virus in the air.

“This is what people have been clamoring for,” said Linsey Marr, an expert in airborne spread of viruses who was not involved in the work. “It’s unambiguous evidence that there is infectious virus in aerosols.”

A research team at the University of Florida succeeded in isolating live virus from aerosols collected at a distance of seven to 16 feet from patients hospitalized with Covid-19 — farther than the six feet recommended in social distancing guidelines.

The findings, posted online last week, have not yet been vetted by peer review, but have already caused something of a stir among scientists. “If this isn’t a smoking gun, then I don’t know what is,” Dr. Marr tweeted last week. But some experts said it still was not clear that the amount of virus recovered was sufficient to cause infection.

The research was exacting. Aerosols are minute by definition, measuring only up to five micrometers across; evaporation can make them even smaller. Attempts to capture these delicate droplets usually damage the virus they contain. “It’s very hard to sample biological material from the air and have it be viable,” said Shelly Miller, an environmental engineer at the University of Colorado Boulder who studies air quality and airborne diseases. “We have to be clever about sampling biological material so that it is more similar to how you might inhale it.”

Previous attempts were stymied at one step or another in the process. For example, one team tried using a rotating drum to suspend aerosols, and showed that the virus remained infectious for up to three hours. But critics argued that those conditions were experimental and unrealistic.

Other scientists used gelatin filters or plastic or glass tubes to collect aerosols over time. But the force of the air shrank the aerosols and sheared the virus. Another group succeeded in isolating live virus, but did not show that the isolated virus could infect cells.

In the new study, researchers devised a sampler that uses pure water vapor to enlarge the aerosols enough that they can be collected easily from the air. Rather than leave these aerosols sitting, the equipment immediately transfers them into a liquid rich with salts, sugar and protein, which preserves the pathogen.

“I’m impressed,” said Robyn Schofield, an atmospheric chemist at Melbourne University in Australia, who measures aerosols over the ocean. “It’s a very clever measurement technique.” As editor of the journal Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, Dr. Schofield is familiar with the options available, but said she had not seen any that could match the new one.

The researchers had previously used this method to sample air from hospital rooms. But in those attempts, other floating respiratory viruses grew faster, making it difficult to isolate the coronavirus.

Scientists found airborne virus at a distance much farther than the recommended six feet. This time, the team collected air samples from a room in a ward dedicated to Covid-19 patients at the University of Florida Health Shands Hospital. Neither patient in the room was subject to medical procedures known to generate aerosols, which the W.H.O. and others have contended are the primary source of airborne virus in a hospital setting.

The team used two samplers, one about seven feet from the patients and the other about 16 feet from them. The scientists were able to collect virus at both distances and then to show that the virus they had plucked from the air could infect cells in a lab dish. The genome sequence of the isolated virus was identical to that from a swab of a newly admitted symptomatic patient in the room.

The room had six air changes per hour and was fitted with efficient filters, ultraviolet irradiation and other safety measures to inactivate the virus before the air was reintroduced into the room. That may explain why the researchers found only 74 virus particles per liter of air, said John Lednicky, the team’s lead virologist at the University of Florida. Indoor spaces without good ventilation — such as schools — might accumulate much more airborne virus, he said.

But other experts said it was difficult to extrapolate from the findings to estimate an individual’s infection risk. “I’m just not sure that these numbers are high enough to cause an infection in somebody,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York. “The only conclusion I can take from this paper is you can culture viable virus out of the air,” she said. “But that’s not a small thing.”

Several experts noted that the distance at which the team found virus is much farther than the six feet recommended for physical distancing. “We know that indoors, those distance rules don’t matter anymore,” Dr. Schofield said. It takes about five minutes for small aerosols to traverse the room even in still air, she added. The six-foot minimum is “misleading, because people think they are protected indoors and they’re really not,” she said.

That recommendation was based on the notion that “large ballistic cannonball-type droplets” were the only vehicles for the virus, Dr. Marr said. The more distance people can maintain, the better, she added. The findings should also push people to heed precautions for airborne transmission like improved ventilation, said Seema Lakdawala, a respiratory virus expert at the University of Pittsburgh. “We all know that this virus can transmit by all these modes, but we’re only focusing on a small subset,” Dr. Lakdawala said.

She and other experts noted one strange aspect of the new study. The team reported finding just as much viral RNA as they did infectious virus, but other methods generally found about 100-fold more genetic matter. “When you do nasal swabs or clinical samples, there is a lot more RNA than infectious virus,” Dr. Lakdawala said.

Dr. Lednicky has received emails and phone calls from researchers worldwide asking about that finding. He said he would check his numbers again to be sure. But ultimately, he added, the exact figures may not matter. “We can grow the virus from air — I think that should be the important take-home lesson,” he said.

Caveat: This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Abstract (Doctor Jargon): Background - There currently is substantial controversy about the role played by SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols in disease transmission, due in part to detections of viral RNA but failures to isolate viable virus from clinically generated aerosols. Methods - Air samples were collected in the room of two COVID-19 patients, one of whom had an active respiratory infection with a nasopharyngeal (NP) swab positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR. By using VIVAS air samplers that operate on a gentle water-vapor condensation principle, material was collected from room air and subjected to RT-qPCR and virus culture. The genomes of the SARS-CoV-2 collected from the air and of virus isolated in cell culture from air sampling and from a NP swab from a newly admitted patient in the room were sequenced. Findings - Viable virus was isolated from air samples collected 2 to 4.8m away from the patients. The genome sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 strain isolated from the material collected by the air samplers was identical to that isolated from the NP swab from the patient with an active infection. Estimates of viable viral concentrations ranged from 6 to 74 TCID50 units/L of air. Interpretation - Patients with respiratory manifestations of COVID-19 produce aerosols in the absence of aerosol-generating procedures that contain viable SARS-CoV-2, and these aerosols may serve as a source of transmission of the virus.

Hydroxychloroquine Saved NYC Councilman (Aug 9)

New York City councilman thanks Trump for raising awareness about hydroxychloroquine after drug ‘saved’ him By Pamela Geller - on August 9, 2020

Councilman Paul Vallone, a Democrat, told the New York Post that he took hydroxychloroquine, a drug known for treating malaria, while he fell ill with COVID-19 in March. He claimed that the drug saved his life and thanked President Trump for raising awareness about the medication.

“At that time, there was only fear and panic, he offered hope in a possible treatment when there was none. With my sarcoidosis and then my COVID symptoms, It basically saved me. For that, my family will always be thankful,” Vallone said.

Vallone said he struggled with severe symptoms after contracting the virus. “I couldn’t breathe, very weak, couldn’t get out of bed. My doctor prescribed it. My pharmacy had it. Took it that day and within two to three days, I was able to breathe,” Vallone said. “Within a week, I was back on my feet.”

Plandemic Pt 2 (Aug 25)

Plandemic Part 2 This video says the United States CDC, Centers for Disease Prevention, patented the Coronovirus in 2007. How is that possible? It is illegal to patent some natural life form that is not man-made. So either the patent is illegal, or Coronavirus is man-made. What the video did not address, that I could tell, was that what existed then was a slightly different strain than from what has emerged this year. Still - . The video alleges that at some point the CDC decided its involvement in the project was unethical. Solution? Continue research in the Chinese lab. Of course if all this is true, then it really is partly true, as the Chinese said, that it was produced by the U.S. Army. The video alleges involvement all along this shady work by Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci.

Late in May 2020, media producer Mikki Willis released the first part of his documentary “Plandemic,” featuring Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., a cellular and molecular biologist1 whose research revealed many vaccines are contaminated with gammaretroviruses, due to the viruses being grown in contaminated animal cell lines. The 26-minute film was banned on every social media platform after going viral.2 August 18, 2020, Part 2, titled “Plandemic — Indoctornation,” was released.

Why doctors and researchers need access to hydroxychloroquine (Aug 7)

August 7 The Hill The reasoning of Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, is vice chairman of medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and a professor of medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas. An internist, cardiologist and epidemiologist, he is the editor in chief of “Cardiorenal Medicine” and “Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine.” He has authored over 500 cited works in the National Library of Medicine.

...it has become apparent to physicians that the medicine works best when — as with any anti-infective agent — it is given early in the course of the infection. Moreover, hospitalization can be avoided if treatment starts within the first day of symptoms.

...Of these drugs, only HCQ was singled out as a political football early in spring — right after President Trump urged the medical community to consider HCQ.

...The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has more than 60 million HCQ tablets sitting in its warehouses. [But] Absent a new Emergency Use Authorization, FEMA cannot ship this valuable medicine for appropriate “off-label” treatment of COVID-19 patients. Nor can hospitals or clinics easily recruit patients for the kind of randomized clinical trials needed to ultimately settle the question of how HCQ might best be used in the fight against COVID-19.

... The few randomized trials of HCQ reported to date have been a debacle because of the failure to distinguish clearly between early treatment (one to seven days after the onset of symptoms), when the medicine should work, versus later treatment, when it is unlikely to help.

...Many doctors who understand the science and the threats to validity in the HCQ literature continue to prescribe HCQ appropriately “off-label” to COVID-19 victims at home, in senior centers, and early in the hospital. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is suing the FDA for access to HCQ.

Netherlands, Sweden call masks "pointless" (Jul 31)

July 31

“From a medical perspective there is no proven effectiveness of masks, the Cabinet has decided that there will be no national obligation for wearing non-medical masks” announced Netherlands Minister for Medical Care Tamara van Ark.

In Sweden, meanwhile, senior epidemiologist Anders Tegnell declared that there is “no point” in wearing masks in public.

“We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” Tegnell said.

3 ways Covid death rates are inflated (Jul 31)

July 31

Factor 1. Anyone who dies and is diagnosed with COVID-19 gets put on the fatality list regardless of how mild their symptoms were or any proof that something else was the real culprit.

According to Coronavirus Task Force coordinator, Dr. Birx herself: "If someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death." The unofficial mascot of our response to COVID-19, Dr. Fauci said: "I can’t imagine if someone comes in with coronavirus, goes to an ICU, and they have an underlying heart condition and they die—they’re going to say, ‘Cause of death: heart attack.’ I cannot see that happening."

(Coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-april-7-2020. The link no longer exists at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-april-7-2020)

Thus the official Covid death rate has included motor-cycle fatalities and gunshot victims.

Factor 2. The CDC directs doctors to put Covid on the death certificate if Covid might have been a factor - not requiring a test. The CDC March 24 memo says "Q: Should “COVID-19” be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test? A: COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death." No reason for such an assumption is asked.

Factor 3. Medicare pays doctors for checking the "patient has Covid" box. Dr. Scott Jensen, told Laura Ingraham way back on April 9: "If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much. Nobody can tell me, after 35 years in the world of medicine, that sometimes those kinds of things [don’t have an] impact on what we do."

Press Conference by a Dozen Doctors (Jul 29)

Press Conference by a Dozen Doctors: Transcript July 29, 2020 The censorship is getting out of hand! When a press conference on the U.S. Capitol Steps, hosted by a Congressman, of over a dozen very qualified doctors, is censored in turn by Facebook, Youtube, Vimeo, and Bitchute - not refuted, not addressed, just censored without a sensible explanation - the enemies of wisdom, evidence, information, and intelligence have taken a few more steps out of their "closet".

Watch video.

Snopes checkup on Press Conference by Several Doctors July 30, 2020 Snopes apparently made the censored video permanently available at archive.org! (You have to open an account there, apparently free.) Snopes discovered as I did that the website address given by the doctors has "expired". Snopes read at Breitbart News that their server, Squarespace, took it down. Snopes begins by saying the doctors' "claimed credentials and affiliations could not be confirmed, and [they made] questionable and outright dangerous claims regarding an unproven “cure” and preventative treatment for COVID-19."

But not one word of Snopes' report even tried to address and disprove the doctors' "claims" or to back up Snopes' claim that the hydroxycloroquine cure is "unproven". The report focused on efforts to document the doctors' medical credentials. Snopes' treatment of the video host, Dr. Simone Gold, was to notice that another video of her was filmed in front of a California hospital, which Snopes contacted in order to learn that Gold was not on their staff. Snopes' implication was that Gold lied, leading the world to think that standing outside a hospital proves you work there, but it doesn't. Interesting logic. The video conference of a dozen doctors was filmed on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. Why didn't Snope whine that Gold was filmed there even though she is not a Supreme Court judge? Snopes said nothing more about any search for credentials of her. Snopes cites the home page of the archived website that was taken down; Snopes could therefore have clicked on the [Speakers: https://web.archive.org/web/20200727215021/https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/speakers speakers] tab and learned that she is also a lawyer, has worked for the Surgeon General, serves Native Americans as well as many others, and does legal work, yet nowhere does she claim to be on the staff of the California hospital.

President Trump was blindsided by these personal attacks. He was asked about the doctors, and especially about the black doctor. Knowing only about her testimony, he said "I thought she was very impressive". The followup question was about claims of "alien DNA". That was enough dialog for him. He walked out, creating the headline, Trump defends doctor who claimed medicine is made from alien DNA and walks out of briefing mid question.

(No curiosity about whether the doctor might have the answer for a lot of suffering. No, never mind something so uninteresting compared with this wonderful opportunity to poke around her personal theology for something much easier to mock.)

Mayor Gulliani, President Trump's personal lawyer, was similarly blindsided - for the "crime" of being so focused on getting Americans well was willing to consider a solution even from someone whose religious ideas were different.

Wait - isn't there a civil rights law against discrimination on the basis of religion?

Snopes confirmed that Dr. Hamilton is a real pediatrician. As for Dr. James Todaro, he "includes a 'not medical advice' caveat on his Twitter profile" (implying that somehow undermines his medical credentials, yet any doctor or lawyer must put that caveat on published articles to avoid liability; Snopes adds, "and who has no known experience treating COVID-19." Huh? Snopes does not refute, but chooses not to bring up this statement on the doctors' archived website: "He continues to lead investigative research in COVID-19 on a global scale. He wrote the first widely read paper on chloroquine in treatment of COVID-19 in An Effective Treatment for Coronavirus (COVID-19), and most recently the first detailed exposé on Surgisphere in A Study Out of Thin Air. His early discovery of the fraudulent data investigation led to what is now referred to as #LancetGate - the stunning once-in-a-generation retraction of the now infamous The Lancet study that had led to the European Union and the WHO halting studies of HCQ."

What does Snopes find wrong with Dr. Lapado? Well, maybe he is a real doctor, but he "said that he was speaking for himself." Huh? Is that supposed to somehow undermine his medical credentials, or imply that he does not agree with the rest of the doctors present? The rest of his sentence: "I’m a physician at UCLA and I’m a clinical researcher also. And I’m speaking for myself and not on behalf of UCLA." All he was saying was that he does not have UCLA's endorsement of his testimony that day.

As for Dr. Erickson, Snopes found that he is part owner of "Accelerated Urgent Care", but Snopes is skeptical: "We have yet to confirm the background, license or specialty of Erickson." Which is another way of saying "We have yet to disprove that Erickson is any less qualified than he says, but we won't give up trying!"

As for the most dramatic witness, Dr. Stella Immanuel, Snopes confirmed her medical credentials but wants everyone to know she is also a preacher, believes in demons and witches, and believes them the cause of some conditions. Snopes says "We found no evidence to suggest Immanuel has treated “hundreds” of COVID-19 patients — including herself, staff, and “many doctors” — nor that her alleged treatments were successful." But Snopes mentions no evidence that she didn't treat that many Covid patients successfully.

Snopes ignores the dramatic claim of the doctors that a published study alleging hydroxycloroquine doesn't work was retracted after one of the doctors who spoke exposed its gross errors, including administering the drug at toxic dosages.

Other archived copies of AmericasFrontlineDoctors.com: their Home page, their Media page (a couple of videos), and their References page.

More personal attacks:

MSN.com Business Insider.

Censorship by Twitter, Facebook

Hydroxychloroquine Works but does that matter? (May 27)

My summary/translation of the italicized excerpt, below, of the abstract of the paper of Yale epidemiology professor Harvey Risch: Remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are the two treatments that have been used for covid. Remdesivir has proven mildly effective in hospitalized patients. No "trials" for outpatients have been reported. HCQ + AZ, for hospitalized patients, has been widely misrepresented in both clinical reports and public media. Clinical trials for outpatient use are not expected before September.

However, Five studies, including 2 controlled clinical trials, have shown very good results. It has been the standard of care for 300,000 older covid patients suffering from other serious medical problems in addition. The treatment may have caused cardiac arrhythmia in 47 of 100,000 patients, 9 of whom died. But that is within the boundaries of chance, and of what designates a drug as "safe". These medications need to be made widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.

OilPrice has an article about this with responses to criticisms and links to related articles.

Yale epidemiology professor Harvey Risch May 27, 2020 says “In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence. But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points.” -- “When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective,

Among the successful treatment experiments, he writes, are “an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk.” Risch says the drug is most effective “when given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control.”

Two candidate medications have been widely discussed: remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) + azithromycin (AZ). Remdesivir has shown mild effectiveness in hospitalized inpatients, but no trials in outpatients have been registered. HCQ + AZ has been widely misrepresented in both clinical reports and public media, and results of outpatient trials are not expected until September. Early outpatient illness is very different from later florid disease requiring hospitalization, and the treatments differ. Evidence about use of HCQ alone, or of HCQ + AZ in inpatients, is irrelevant with regard to the efficacy of HCQ + AZ in early high-risk outpatient disease. Five studies, including 2 controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy. HCQ + AZ has been used as the standard of care in more than 300,000 older adults with multiple comorbid conditions; the estimated proportion of such patients diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmia attributable to the medications is 47 per 100,000 users, among whom estimated mortality is less than 20% (9/100,000 users), as compared with the 10,000 Americans now dying each week. These medications need to be made widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.

The Political Response to a Cure:

The Ohio Board of Pharmacy outlawed the use of HCQ by doctors in Ohio July 29.

Federal Exceptions to Masks (Jul 26)

A Batesville, Arkansas Gun Shop Sign July 26, 2020 reads: "THOSE IN OUR LOVELY GOVERNMENT HAVE RESOLVED THAT ALL PERSONS ENTERING INDOOR FACILITIES SHOULD WEAR A MASK. IF YOU HAVE A MEDICAL CONDITION THAT PREVENTS YOU FROM WEARING A MASK, YOU ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS. DUE TO HIPAA AND THE 4TH AMENDMENT, WE CANNOT LEGALLY ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR MEDICAL CONDITION. THEREFORE, IF WE SEE YOU WITHOUT A MASK, WE WILL ASSUME YOU HAVE A MEDICAL CONDITION AND WE WILL WELCOME YOU INSIDE TO SUPPORT OUR BUSINESS." There are also federal exceptions for very young children. Children under 6, and in some areas under 10, are exempt.

Correspondence with Dr. Robert Leach, a famous chiropractor, website admins brother
Dr. Leach: Mercola's studies questioning masks are old; relying on them is dangerous (Jul 19)

July 19, 2020, 11:14 pm - I am VERY concerned about Dr Mercola’s information that you forwarded to me, primarily because it may affect your (and my brother’s) decision to wear a mask when around others during the present pandemic. While as you know I’m not a medical doctor, I do have a graduate degree in health education (which means one of the things I study is how to differentiate strong science from poor science, and how to translate complicated research into easy to understand knowledge for health care consumers and patients), am a certified health education specialist, have written 4 books on chiropractic theory, teach health education at Mississippi State University, and am currently involved in COVID-19 survey research with another scientist at MSU re steps taken by bodywork specialists (chiropractors and licensed massage therapists) to limit exposure to covid in their practices. Because of the research we are involved in I happen to have been keeping up on the current debate on masking and thought I might share a few comments with you. While this is not detailed I am happy to refer you to specific studies for further reading if you are interested.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST MASKING: First, several points made by Dr Mercola and those he cited that are supported by current science: a) masks will not TOTALLY protect you or others from Covid transmission, and for example that air coming in and out of our masks could not possibly stop all droplet transmission, b) main viral spread is probably airborne, as the virus (500,000 RNA strands from a typical cough ejected from a few to 15-20 feet), hangs in droplets/aerosolized so that they may be around for upwards of 50 seconds after a cough, and c) we suspect that like other viruses humidity affects so that with increasing humidity droplets do not stay airborne as long, making it safer to be outdoors, and transmission through air conditioning systems may be possible, and d) a few small and older randomized control group trials (considered gold standard for establishing causation regarding any medical issue) on prior viruses did not verify that masking was effective, other than surgical masking and face shields.

Some of the above information, in fact, is why the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was so slow to endorse masking, and to my recollection did not actively support masking until early March of this year, (although the World Health Organization may have been advocating for masking prior to the CDC). Here’s why. In contrast with Dr Mercola’s arguments, there is now very strong epidemiological research (areas that mask and socially distance versus those that don’t) coming from around the world, lab research showing dose of RNA strands released collecting on face masks (both inside and out) on mannequins placed at various distances from release of the COVID while being blown by a fan, and even research suggesting the importance of dose regarding the severity of the disease.

HOW MASKING AND SOCIAL DISTANCING HELPS: Let me try to explain a few of these points in plain English. While masking and socially distancing cannot possibly stop all transmission of this virus, here’s how they help. When known amounts of virus material (RNA strands) are ejected in a lab setting onto mannequins wearing various types of masks, some virus strands in droplet form collect on the outside of even the simple cloth mask you can make at home. The further away the mannequins from the material ejected, the less RNA penetrates the mask. Another study showed that even cloth masks limited droplet transmission of the virus as effectively as social distancing to about 1.8 meters (~6 feet). Hence, when wearing a cloth or simple mask sig droplet transmission decreases to a distance of about 30 cm (a little over a foot). So in plain English, if you are within a few feet of someone and wearing a mask, odds of transmission goes down, it goes down further when the other person wears a mask, and it REALLY goes down when both are wearing a mask at a distance of 6 feet. FURTHER, scientists now believe that the DOSE of the Covid you are exposed to matters. DOSE MAY MATTER A LOT. So for example, if you are 6 feet from your friend talking while both are wearing masks, and one has asymptomatic COVID and you are exposed to a very small dose, you may come down with only very mild or no symptoms at all; indeed, your immune system might even be primed for months to years so that subsequent exposure does not make you (as) sick. On the other hand, in the same scenario had neither of you worn masks and the conversation occurred at a two foot distance, especially if you are older and especially if immunocompromised or with other comorbidities like hypertension, COPD or diabetes, you might instead have serious, even life threatening infection. Hence, even though not all masks are created equal, and none save the PPE used by high exposure physicians/nurses and first responders can totally protect you (and even then mistakes in use can prove fatal), you are better off using some mask and distancing than none.

IS COVID A LEGITIMATE PANDEMIC? Finally, Dr Mercola points out that there was a spike in COVID-19 transmission everywhere in the world right after a Pandemic was declared in that particular area, as if WHO and government advice to mask and socially distance could somehow be spreading the virus instead of stopping it. This argument is so preposterous as to be outrageous. Here he wants his cake and to eat it as well. In the first place he argues overall all cause mortality has not increased in the world, so the pandemic isn’t affecting overall death rates. Then he argues there’s a spike in COVID deaths everywhere governments ask people to wear masks after declaring a pandemic. REALLY? And if Dr Mercola were right, shouldn’t countries where masking is mandatory have HIGH Covid rates? A few simple searches expose his fallacies. First, all-cause mortality is most certainly elevated around the world and it has been devastating here in the U.S. since the onset of this Pandemic. Indeed, in just 3 months this spring (March-April-May), we had over 105,000 deaths in the U.S. from Covid-19, that’s more than all the boys that died in the Vietnam War (68,000 from 1961-1975) in addition to all the opioid deaths in America last year, combined! In those three months more than 10 times as many Americans died from Covid-19, as normally would die in a whole year from the flu! Second, epidemiologists are finding the opposite is true, and that where masking is mandatory Covid rates are low to non-existent. For example, Taiwan (and many other countries epidemiologists are looking at) immediately and continuously called for masking and had excellent compliance with it (a lot of Asians already mask because of pollution, so they aren’t as against it generally as are middle Americans); out of a population of 23.78 million, even after a half year of the pandemic, Taiwan has had only 455 cases and 7 deaths. That’s less than 1 death per million people, and only 15 deaths per 1,000 infected persons! That last point goes to the heart of the masking question, and for Covid-19 after 3 million infections around the world the death rate stands at 44 per 1,000 infected persons, and in the US the death rate is 42 per 1,000 infected persons (by contrast, the rate of death for the flu is typically 2 per 1,000). It supports the idea that in Taiwan and other countries that mask, fewer people die per 1,000 infected, perhaps because they get a lower dose when they are exposed.

Please allow me to make perhaps the most important argument for being skeptical of Dr Mercola. He is selling products, and proposes that we NOT listen to the CDC and WHO and all the tens of thousands of doctors/nurses and scientists on the front lines literally risking their lives to help us, who with one accord are telling us to take this pandemic seriously by masking and social distancing, but instead that we should listen to him, and purchase his vitamins and herbs. Don’t ask me as a Christian what I feel about that. Christ taught what would happen to those who hurt his children, and scripture teaches that we should have mercy on the poor, not take advantage of them for our own financial interests.

I’m sorry if I’ve stepped on any toes, and purposely am sending this unsolicited information to you only and not the group you sent your email to. I’ve shared my knowledge only because I care for you and Dave, and am praying for your safety. Whether you share any or all of this with your friends is your business. You guys are family and my brother and sister so you are mine.

Love, Rob

Dave Leach answers Dr. Rob Leach, raising other questions

July 20, 2020 - 4 am I couldn't sleep, after Dorothy and I woke at the same time briefly and she summarized your letter. I was especially alarmed at the idea of you stepping on my toes, since my foot isn't completely healed from slicing it with a chain saw. If we visit again this side of glory, maybe I better be sure to wear my new steel toed boots.

As for the spikes Mercola alleged correlating with government mask requirements, I thought it seemed weird when I read it, although I didn't go back over it and read it more carefully to see if it really was as weird as the first impression indicated. He seemed to say there were sharp peaks coinciding with exactly when governments took action. Hmmm. Without clarifying whether the peaks occurred AFTER governments took action or AS they took action, it would seem that if the peak was the moment they took action, then it was the action which caused cases to drop - which is what happens on the other side of a "peak". Maybe the hour and 20 minute video which the article summarizes, which I don't feel like watching this early in the morning, clarifies that detail. Thank you for going over it again for me.

The article also alleges "We're talking many really [high-]quality trials." But not one is named. Studies you have summarized are not mentioned in anything I have read, so thank you very much for your summary. Maybe someday I will need a list of them.

I see that the link Dorothy sent you is to Mercola's article posted July 19, that's the day of your response. Are you really that much on top of his stuff to have read the same post, or has Mercola said similar stuff earlier to which you are responding?

Yesterday's Mercola post was of an interview with Dennis Rancourt, a Canadian researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Union. His focus was whether to challenge the Canadian government for reliance on bad science.

The article touched very lightly on a great concern that Dorothy and I share: "We’ve already mentioned that certain masks can increase your likelihood of headaches. Others believe masks can cause lower partial pressure of oxygen, which could cause serious health problems. In the video above, Peggy Hall with TheHealthyAmerican.org claims certain masks can result in low oxygen levels, thus violating OSHA rules on oxygen requirements." That was as much as the article said, although the linked video is 13 minutes. Maybe tomorrow. (uh, technically, after I get back to sleep and then wake up, that will be "today".)

Another article by perhaps an equally favorite doctor of yours, Dr. Blaylock, goes into much more frightening detail about this. He lists several studies by name, even. I wonder if you have reviewed it? It was posted May 16.

He says even surgeons, wearing masks, find their own oxygen levels reduced over time, and CO2 levels increased. With people suffering precarious oxygen levels already, that can be dangerous. Although I am healthy enough to not feel effects from things like heat, humidity, mold, stuff like that, and when I wear a mask it feels like breathing into a paper sack at first but if I have my computer to distract me pretty soon I forget it's on, Dorothy very quickly feels difficulty breathing; she relates palpably to the description of oxygen suppression from mask wearing, and it seriously concerns her.

Blaylock makes the same claims Mercola does about the lack of studies showing mask effectiveness; he certainly does not address the studies you summarize. But can you address Blaylock's claims about the dangers of oxygen reduction? I've been posting relevant articles at http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/God's_Coronavirus_Cure_in_3_Verses. I've added your post to me, and this answer of mine to you. It would be real swell if you would come on my site and interact directly. At the very least you can see my cool coronavirus animation. My article started out, as the title indicates, as a Bible study. Three verses are especially encouraging about God's protection from pandemics, but the whole article addresses numerous other passages, along with interesting research showing Christians in general have better health than others, as if God's promises aren't TOTALLY ridiculous. It also acknowledges God's warnings to be responsible, not leave your safety all up to angels scrambling to keep you alive; for example, the preacher who died of Covid shortly after assuring his congregation that God would protect them.

The Blaylock article is posted there; the website is a wiki so that you are able to add your analysis of it right where you spot an offending claim.

Blaylock also claims that oxygen suppression encourages cancer growth; Dorothy just yesterday got back a report on a test with indications that need checking, although the day before her doctor, who must have had the report, said nothing about it; we need to get clarification Monday. Anyway, we don't want anything that will encourage cancer. Oxygen suppression also depresses immunity in general, Blaylock claims. Another thing about masks he claims is that if you have covid, and wear a mask, droplets are caught in the inside of the mask causing you to suffer that high concentration of covid which you point out can be fatal. We sure look forward to your reply! Last week I think it was about 300 people drove around the Governor's Mansion to underline their demand that Reynolds require everyone in the state to wear a mask whenever they leave home.

You must have heard of the letter to President Trump signed by thousands of doctors, not opposing masks or social distancing but opposing business shutdowns and delays of "elective" checkups and surgeries, and dental work, because of the thousands of lives they have already cost. I wonder what you think of those concerns? That letter is also posted with my "updates" section.

One great frustration of mine is that when Trump and Governor Reynolds had their daily press conferences, and had their anointed physicians there backing up their orders, there was virtually no acknowledgment of alternative evidence. No discussion. No interaction. Here were doctors making dramatic claims on Youtube, raising other concerns deserving to be balanced against the anointed consensus, and were they refuted? Did anyone bother to point out any errors in their posts? Not that I could find. After millions of views in some cases, Youtube censored them, end of discussion!

This of course is why we have some people like me leery of the dangers of masks, wearing only when required, while mask wearers look at me like I am a murderer and they are in my line of fire. Way too little experience in our society of people looking at each other's information and interacting about it. Which is what makes your letter very, very special.

Out of concern for that, I have made proposed changes in Emergency Powers laws that would require the governor to create a public record where the governor's own facts could be part of a forum where other experts could submit their evidence, and where experts could hopefully interact.

Dave, senior sibling

Dr. Rob Leach response

Just a quick follow up,

You’re so right no citations are provided, although the problem is not so much what studies and information he cited, for the most part it’s the studies he left out that are problematic, since they reach polar opposite conclusions from his own.

In contrast with his lack of citations, I don’t make many promises but will promise to provide you with several several references within the coming few months in the form of rough drafts of the introduction to our research which we will begin writing soon.

As far as the date, I went ahead and read his stuff before responding to Dorothy.

As for lack of oxygen and carbon dioxide build up triggering headaches—or even worse affecting renal and liver function as some suspect….I find this to be another great “cake and eat it too” argument. If masks do nothing at all and viruses and air flow go right through them unaffected, as Mercola seemingly argues, then why worry about oxygen? However, if indeed SOME air flow (and possibly droplet transmission with it) is restricted by masks, then they may be effective to some degree and now we can move on to the next argument about oxygen to our lungs, having been satisfied that Mercola was WRONG about air flow. Here I have sympathy for anti-maskers because I do agree it’s harder to breath—especially in Mississippi when the humidity is high—while wearing a mask. In fact, I hate them. I do however, wear them even outdoors at my grandson’s ballgame when people start getting close to me to talk. The rest of the time when I’m outdoors and away from people I can promise you the mask is hanging off one ear it it’s on at all. Bottom line, if your circulation is compromised in any way, you have COPD or liver/renal or diabetes, you should limit mask wear to when you have to wear one, and basically just try to stay away from people unless you can be 6’ or more away from them. And PLEASE try to avoid exercise while wearing a mask for those same reasons. Again, in my own office, when I am away from patients at my desk, my mask comes off.

While I haven’t seen studies about oxygen deprivation and cancer it wouldn’t surprise me. Again however, does that mean if we briefly wear a mask when we go to Wal Mart to lessen the likelihood of getting Covid, that we’re going to immediately get cancer? Not sure I follow that and pretty sure there are no data to support that argument to make it worth proceeding.

Anyway, I’ve got a number of other fires burning now or would chat longer, but at least I’ve said (most) of my peace😊

Love you guys, be safe, and I would tell you above all else continue you prayers for our Christian brothers and sisters to show the love of Christ every day, but then I’m sure you guys already do that,

Dave Leach response

No one, of course, says a little exposure to ANYTHING will certainly give you cancer, short of an atomic bomb going off over your head. When people talk about cancer risk, and write warning labels about it on products, or make you sign waivers when you take an x-ray, it's like maybe you slightly more likely to get cancer from minimal exposure and maybe 50% more likely with max exposure but even with max exposure it's still a small fraction per 1,000 people.

And yet the low risk still concerns most people.

Neither Blaylock's article nor my summary of it said masks give you cancer; only that "oxygen suppression encourages cancer growth". Nothing was said about how much suppression, or how much encouragement. However, since Dorothy has had cancer, she is peculiarly particular about avoiding anything with scary warnings. Also she has just gone over her past blood work reports and noticed that CO2 levels are a bit high, and she puts that together with the fact that even mask wearing a short time makes her feel like she is struggling to breathe. The mother of one of my students is a nurse with 12 hour shifts, during which she must wear a mask without an office to go into where she can take it off, and she suffers headaches and a nose rash.

I agree with you that the articles in question talk about the inability of masks to stop "aerosol" forms of covid, without addressing the value of stopping the droplets. I remain curious about the point that if you have it, and wear a mask, wouldn't that indeed cause a buildup of droplets inside the mask, causing you to acquire a much more serious case of it? Of course it would be better for others.

I suppose this is a great time to have a business into which half a dozen customers wander in on a good day.

That will be exciting, to get to see drafts of your research conclusions!

I don't know if you got to Blaylock's article, which focuses on the dangers of masks. He states at one point, "As for the scientific support for the use of face mask, a recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that, 'None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.'”1 Curious how recent "recent" was, I looked down at his footnote which was to a study from 2012! However, the rest of his footnotes, documenting the harms of masks, are appropriately recent.

As for Mercola's cake which you want to eat too, looking again I see his reasoning for discounting all but the aerosol virus is “The large droplets drop to the floor immediately and are not breathed in. So, they're not part of the transmission mechanism." Apparently the studies you are talking about indicate that "immediately" is just shy of 6 feet. Anyway, I don't see that you disagree that masks don't stop the aerosol form - although I am not certain there is a definite boundary between the two forms - but he also makes the point that most of the air passes around the masks, not through them. So of course oxygen comes around the masks too; and if you take a big deep breath, then of course the CO2 held close to your nose by the mask would be negligible compared to the incoming volume of air, but when not breathing heavily surely the proportion of CO2, of the air coming in, would increase and add up after time.

I'm tired. Does it show?

Thousands of Doctor Warn that Shutdowns Kill (July 13)

Thousands of doctors Oppose Deadly Lockdowns A letter signed by over 500 doctors in May, see below, has now been signed by thousands of doctors:

President Donald J. Trump

The White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20500May 19, 2020Dear Mr. President:Thousands of physicians in all specialties and from all States would like to expressour gratitude for your leadership.

We write to you today to express our alarm over theexponentially growing negative health consequences of the national shutdown.In medical terms, the shutdown was a mass casualty incident.

During a mass casualty incident, victims are immediately triaged to black, red,yellow, or green. The first group, triage level black, includes those who require too manyresources to save during a mass crisis. The red group has severe injuries that aresurvivable with treatment, the yellow group has serious injuries that are not immediately life threatening, and the green group has minor injuries.

The red group receives highest priority. The next priority is to ensure that the other two groups do not deteriorate a level. Decades of research have shown that by strictly following this algorithm, we save the maximum number of lives.

Millions of Americans are already at triage level red. These include 150,000 Americans per month who would have had a new cancer detected through routine screening that hasn’t happened, millions who have missed routine dental care to fix problems strongly linked to heart disease/death, and preventable cases of stroke, heart attack, and child abuse.

Suicide hotline phone calls have increased 600%.

Tens of millions are at triage level yellow. Liquor sales have increased 300-600%, cigarettes sales have increased, rent has gone unpaid, family relationships have become frayed, and millions of well-child check-ups have been missed.

Hundreds of millions are at triage level green. These are people who currently are solvent, but at risk should economic conditions worsen. Poverty and financial uncertainty is closely linked to poor health.

A continued shutdown means hundreds of millions of Americans will downgrade a level. The following are real examples from our practices.

Patient E.S. is a mother with two children whose office job was reduced to part-time and whose husband was furloughed. The father is drinking more, the mother isdepressed and not managing her diabetes well, and the children are barely doing anyschoolwork.

Patient A.F. has chronic but previously stable health conditions. Her elective hip replacement was delayed, which caused her to become nearly sedentary, resulting in a pulmonary embolism in April.

Patient R.T. is an elderly nursing home patient, who had a small stroke in early March but was expected to make a nearly complete recovery. Since the shutdown, he has had no physical or speech therapy, and no visitors. He has lost weight, and is deteriorating rather than making progress.

Patient S.O. is a college freshman who cannot return to normal life, school, and friendships. He risks depression, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, trauma, and future financial uncertainty.

We are alarmed at what appears to be the lack of consideration for the future health of our patients. The downstream health effects of deteriorating a level are being massively under-estimated and under-reported. This is an order of magnitude error.

It is impossible to overstate the short, medium, and long-term harm to people’s health with a continued shutdown. Losing a job is one of life’s most stressful events, and the effect on a person’s health is not lessened because it also has happened to 30 million other people. Keeping schools and universities closed is incalculably detrimental for children, teenagers, and young adults for decades to come.

The millions of casualties of a continued shutdown will be hiding in plain sight, but they will be called alcoholism, homelessness, suicide, heart attack, stroke, or kidney failure. In youths it will be called financial instability, unemployment, despair, drug addiction, unplanned pregnancies, poverty, and abuse.

Because the harm is diffuse, there are those who hold that it does not exist. We,the undersigned, know otherwise.

Please let us know if we may be of assistance.

Respectfully,Simone Gold, M.D., J.D. & >500 physicians (attached)

Covid-19 losing official epidemic status (July)

CDC: COVID-19 is close to losing its epidemic status in the U.S. Coronavirus deaths in the country have nearly reached a level where the virus will cease to qualify as an epidemic under Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rules, the federal agency reported on Friday. The CDC qualifies a disease outbreak as an “epidemic” if the number of deaths attributable to the disease exceeds a certain percentage of total deaths per week. 5.9% is the current threshold. Covid deaths have been dropping for the past 10 weeks.

Understanding "Herd Immunity" (June 25)

COVID-19 ‘herd immunity’ without vaccination? Teaching modern vaccine dogma old tricks Dr: Andrew Bostom · June 25, 2020 Vaccine enthusiast Fauci and the more sober Bell each conveniently ignore unsuccessful vaccine experiences with other coronaviruses over the past two decades:...experimental non-human (animal model) evaluations of four SARS-Cov1 candidate vaccine types, revealed that despite conferring some protection against infection with SARS-Cov1, each also caused serious lung injury, caused by an overreaction of the immune system, upon viral challenge....Although the term “herd immunity” was first coined in 1923, it only became broadly used, stimulated by increased vaccine use over the past five decades, when discussing disease eradication. Contrary to the vaccination paradigm of “eradicating” disease, herd immunity, including its mathematical underpinnings (a 1927 theorem still applied by vaccine modelers),...The epidemic continues to increase so long as the density of the unaffected population is greater than the threshold density [the threshold of “herd immunity” or “herd immunity threshold”], but when this critical point is approximately reached the epidemic begins to wane, and ultimately to die out. ...Naturally acquired herd immunity to COVID-19 combined with earnest protection of the vulnerable elderly — especially nursing home and assisted living facility residents — is an eminently reasonable and practical alternative to the dubious panacea of mass compulsory vaccination against the virus. This strategy was successfully implemented in Malmo, Sweden, which had few COVID-19 deaths by assiduously protecting its elder care homes, while “schools remained open, residents carried on drinking in bars and cafes, and the doors of hairdressers and gyms were open throughout.” (This is a very technical article with several mathematical formulas.)

Andrew Bostom, M.D., M.S., is an associate professor of family medicine (research) at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. Dr. Bostom is a trained clinician, epidemiologist, and clinical trialist.

Wearing Masks Endangers Healthy People: Dr. Blaylock (May 11)

Wearing masks endangers healthy people May 11, 2020 Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD reports that wearing masks may actually harm you.

"As for the scientific support for the use of face mask, a recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that, “ None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”1 Keep in mind, no studies have been done to demonstrate that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any effect on transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Any recommendations, therefore, have to be based on studies of influenza virus transmission. And, as you have seen, there is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus transmission.

"It is also instructive to know that until recently, the CDC did not recommend wearing a face mask or covering of any kind, unless a person was known to be infected, that is, until recently. Non-infected people need not wear a mask. When a person has TB we have them wear a mask, not the entire community of non-infected. The recommendations by the CDC and the WHO are not based on any studies of this virus and have never been used to contain any other virus pandemic or epidemic in history.

"Now that we have established that there is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention, are there dangers to wearing a face mask, especially for long periods? Several studies have indeed found significant problems with wearing such a mask. This can vary from headaches, to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications.

There is a difference between the N95 respirator mask and the surgical mask (cloth or paper mask) in terms of side effects. The N95 mask, which filters out 95% of particles with a median diameter >0.3 µm2 , because it impairs respiratory exchange (breathing) to a greater degree than a soft mask, and is more often associated with headaches. In one such study, researchers surveyed 212 healthcare workers (47 males and 165 females) asking about presence of headaches with N95 mask use, duration of the headaches, type of headaches and if the person had preexisting headaches.2

They found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of the mask, most had preexisting headaches that were worsened by the mask wearing, and 60% required pain medications for relief. As to the cause of the headaches, while straps and pressure from the mask could be causative, the bulk of the evidence points toward hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia). It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%, which can lead to a loss of consciousness, as happened to the hapless fellow driving around alone in his car wearing an N95 mask, causing him to pass out, and to crash his car and sustain injuries. I am sure that we have several cases of elderly individuals or any person with poor lung function passing out, hitting their head. This, of course, can lead to death.

A more recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask.3 Some had pre-existing headaches that were precipitated by the masks. All felt like the headaches affected their work performance.

Unfortunately, no one is telling the frail elderly and those with lung diseases, such as COPD, emphysema or pulmonary fibrosis, of these dangers when wearing a facial mask of any kind—which can cause a severe worsening of lung function. This also includes lung cancer patients and people having had lung surgery, especially with partial resection or even the removal of a whole lung.

While most agree that the N95 mask can cause significant hypoxia and hypercapnia, another study of surgical masks found significant reductions in blood oxygen as well. In this study, researchers examined the blood oxygen levels in 53 surgeons using an oximeter. They measured blood oxygenation before surgery as well as at the end of surgeries.4 The researchers found that the mask reduced the blood oxygen levels (pa02) significantly. The longer the duration of wearing the mask, the greater the fall in blood oxygen levels.

The importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. . This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.5,6,7

People with cancer, especially if the cancer has spread, will be at a further risk from prolonged hypoxia as the cancer grows best in a microenvironment that is low in oxygen. Low oxygen also promotes inflammation which can promote the growth, invasion and spread of cancers.8,9 Repeated episodes of hypoxia has been proposed as a significant factor in atherosclerosis and hence increases all cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.10

There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask, they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs and the nasal passages. We know that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. And this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number.

It gets even more frightening. Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain.11,12 In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.13

It is evident from this review that there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus. The fact that this virus is a relatively benign infection for the vast majority of the population and that most of the at-risk group also survive, from an infectious disease and epidemiological standpoint, by letting the virus spread through the healthier population we will reach a herd immunity level rather quickly that will end this pandemic quickly and prevent a return next winter. During this time, we need to protect the at-risk population by avoiding close contact, boosting their immunity with compounds that boost cellular immunity and in general, care for them.

One should not attack and insult those who have chosen not to wear a mask, as these studies suggest that is the wise choice to make.

References

1. bin-Reza F et al. The use of mask and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: A systematic review of the scientific evidence. Resp Viruses 2012;6(4):257-67.

2. Zhu JH et al. Effects of long-duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask: a pilot study. J Lung Pulm Resp Res 2014:4:97-100.

3. Ong JJY et al. Headaches associated with personal protective equipment- A cross-sectional study among frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19. Headache 2020;60(5):864-877.

4. Bader A et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia 2008;19:12-126.

5. Shehade H et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 negatively regulates Th1 function. J Immunol 2015;195:1372-1376.

6. Westendorf AM et al. Hypoxia enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity. Cell Physiol Biochem 2017;41:1271-84.

7. Sceneay J et al. Hypoxia-driven immunosuppression contributes to the pre-metastatic niche. Oncoimmunology 2013;2:1 e22355.

8. Blaylock RL. Immunoexcitatory mechanisms in glioma proliferation, invasion and occasional metastasis. Surg Neurol Inter 2013;4:15.

9. Aggarwal BB. Nucler factor-kappaB: The enemy within. Cancer Cell 2004;6:203-208.

10. Savransky V et al. Chronic intermittent hypoxia induces atherosclerosis. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2007;175:1290-1297.

11. Baig AM et al. Evidence of the COVID-19 virus targeting the CNS: Tissue distribution, host-virus interaction, and proposed neurotropic mechanisms. ACS Chem Neurosci 2020;11:7:995-998.

12. Wu Y et al. Nervous system involvement after infection with COVID-19 and other coronaviruses. Brain Behavior, and Immunity, In press.

13. Perlman S et al. Spread of a neurotropic murine coronavirus into the CNS via the trigeminal and olfactory nerves. Virology 1989;170:556-560.

Hospitals created, then closed without serving a patient (May 23)

Another hospital closes that never served a patient May 23, Western Journal: A $20.8 million emergency field hospital built to serve coronavirus patients has closed without ever serving a single person. Ditto for a Seattle emergency hospital and a $17 million Houston hospital. However, the $19.8 million facility at New York City's tennis center did serve 79 patients before it closed. The $40 million bill will be passed to American taxpayers through FEMA.

CDC Downgrades Fatality Rate (May 25)

CDC revises covid fatality rate to 0.25% May 25 That's still twice the rate for colds, but a tenth of what was originally reported, which was the basis for government action. Republicans are more aware of updated mortality data than Democrats. May 26 The Just the News poll found that only half the nation (48%) knows that the fatality rate from the coronavirus is lower than originally thought. Twenty-five percent (25%) believe it’s not true while 27% are not sure. Among Democrats, awareness was evenly divided between those who thought, correctly, it was true (34%) that the fatality rate was lower than originally thought and those who thought it was false (35%). Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans are aware of the good news about survivability. That falls to 43% among Independents (of who 26% believe it is false). That is why Republicans are more alarmed by the economic harm of shutdowns, while Democrats are more alarmed at the termination of shutdowns. Why the two groups have different understanding of the facts is not clear.

Mob drives out customer not wearing mask (May 26)

Mob Chases Person Out of Grocery Store in New York for Not Wearing a Mask May 26. A video, links to the debate whether masks even help, or whether rather they expose wearers, & the lack of clear scientific evidence that they help. If you are coughing or sneezing, then of course if you wear a mask that will protect others.

Doctors from 30 countries support hydroxychloroquine (May 26)

Doctors from 30 countries agree hydroxychloroquine works May 26 Red Right Daily, from the New York Post: Of 2,171 physicians surveyed, 37% of them said that hydroxychloroquine is the “most effective therapy” for combating the virus. 32% of doctors, however, said "nothing" is effective. 6,227 physicians were questioned about at least 15 treatments used for COVID-19. Only 2,171 of them were asked which drug is most effective. But in the U.S., only 23% of doctors have prescribed the drug - only in severe cases - far less than in other countries, where it is often prescribed in all cases.

38% of Americans are delaying medical treatment (May 24)

38% of Americans are delaying medical treatment May 24, Breitbart The Census Bureau is tabulating how many Americans are delaying medical treatment - 38%, and how many are jobless - 47%.

Travel restrictions did NOT stop covid spread (May 7)

Travel restrictions did NOT delay virus spread May 7, Cato Institute: an analysis of data showing that cutting off travel from China did NOT delay virus spread; or if it did, it did by, at most, 15 days.

Shutdowns spread cancer (May 24)

How shutdowns etc. to reduce Covid have increased cancer May 24, Breitbart: "Potential ‘Massive Wave’ of Cancer from Avoiding Routine Medical Care" Even though hospitals are now permitted to resume normal care, many people are afraid to come in for regular checkups. “Many patients are concerned about coming to visit us, to be screened for cancer, to be surveilled for their previous cancers we’ve taken out,” DiPerna explained.

Judge overturns governor's lockdown (May 21)

Judge overturns another governor's lockdown May 21 The judge followed Oregon's emergency powers law which requires the legislature's approval before the governor can exercise those powers beyond 4 weeks. (Iowa's emergency powers law has the same limit.) The reporter adds, presumably, to the judge's reasoning: "For months, everyone has been told that staying home is designed to flatten the curve of coronavirus. ...The curve has flattened. ...The original goals of flattening the COVID-19 infection curve and not overwhelming hospitals have been met; as a matter of fact, the coronavirus curve is so flat that hospitals are laying off healthcare people because there isn’t enough work for them."

Covid Lies (May 18)

6 Lies about Covid that make all the difference May 18 Lie #1: deliberate inflation of death toll by counting everyone who died WITH Covid (but dying FROM something more serious) as if they died FROM Covid. So far only Colorado has been ordered by courts to be more honest. #2: Lockdowns save lives? States with lockdowns suffer MORE Covid deaths, plus CAUSING many other deaths, especially dying at home for fear of going to a hospital for other problems. #3: There is danger outside nursing homes? Not! Chance of death of those testing positive, age 0-30, 0.003%. Age 60-64, 0.99%. #4: It's worse than the flu? Outside lockdown New York which sends Covid patients to stay in nursing homes and has nurses on Youtube crying over atrocious medical care, its the same as flu, and much lower than influenza. #6: Social distancing was invented by scientists? No: by a high school kid for a term paper. Doctors ridiculed it when President Bush talked about it.

Covid does NOT spread easily from touching surfaces (May 21)

Little need for wiping down things May 21 The CDC revised its web page to say there is no evidence the virus will transmit easily from hard surfaces. Theoretically MAYBE you can get it from touching a hard surface with the virus on it, and then sucking your thumb. The CDC still thinks "social distancing" and masks are needed, though.

Social Distancing Prolongs Threat (May 18)

We could open up again (and forget we ever closed) May 18 Dr. Knut M. Wittkowski, who holds two doctorates in computer science and medical biometry, former head of biostatistics, epidemiology and research design at Rockefeller University, is a ferocious critic of the nation’s current steps to fight the coronavirus. He has derided social distancing, saying it only prolongs the virus’ existence. He has attacked the current lockdown as mostly unnecessary. He believes the coronavirus should be allowed to achieve “herd immunity,” and that short of a vaccine the pandemic will only end after it has sufficiently spread through the population. “With all respiratory diseases, the only thing that stops the disease is herd immunity. About 80% of the people need to have had contact with the virus, and the majority of them won’t even have recognized that they were infected,” he says in the now-deleted Youtube video which had racked up more than 1.3 million views.. He says he has no idea why Youtube deleted it. “They don’t tell you. They just say it violates our community standards. There’s no explanation for what those standards are or what standards it violated.” The footage was produced by the British film company Journeyman Pictures.

Reopening causes no spike (May 17)

NO SPIKE in coronavirus in places reopening, U.S. health secretary says May 17 Reuters: U.S. health secretary Alex Azar said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program on Sunday: “We are seeing that in places that are opening, we’re not seeing this spike in cases. We still see spikes in some areas that are in fact close to very localized situations [still closed].”

Open states: no more cases than closed states (May 14)

[https://gellerreport.com/2020/05/states-that-reopened-do-not-have-more-covid-19-infections-than-

Retrieved from "http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/index.php?title=Covid_Updates&oldid=49042"