Covid Updates - Revision history

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

2022-05-29T19:54:45Z

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

DaveLeach: /* Fears, Facts, Prevention (July 13, 2020) */

2022-05-29T16:26:55Z

‎Fears, Facts, Prevention (July 13, 2020)

DaveLeach: /* Do masks block even aerosols, after all? (Apr 24) */

2022-05-29T16:20:32Z

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

DaveLeach: /* Updates: Important Questions (raised mostly by Doctors) */

2021-08-08T03:44:56Z

‎Updates: Important Questions (raised mostly by Doctors)

DaveLeach: /* Dr Ted Noel was "fact checked". Let's see the evidence */

2021-08-08T03:39:32Z

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

DaveLeach: /* WHO Radio, November 17, 2020 */

2021-08-08T03:37:35Z

‎WHO Radio, November 17, 2020

DaveLeach at 03:36, 8 August 2021

2021-08-08T03:36:08Z

Show changes

DaveLeach: Created page with "{| class="wikitable" |Forum (Articles) |Offer |Partners |Rules |Tips |SaveTheWorld:FAQ |Begin! |[https://family-music-cente..."

2021-08-08T03:32:50Z

Created page with "{| class="wikitable" |Forum (Articles) |Offer |Partners |Rules |Tips |SaveTheWorld:FAQ |Begin! |[https://family-music-cente..."

New page

{| class="wikitable"
|[[Forum]] (Articles)
|[[Offer]]
|[[Partners]]
|[[Rules]]
|[[Tips]]
|[[SaveTheWorld:FAQ]]
|[[Begin!]]
|[https://family-music-center.square.site '''Donate''']
|}

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

[[File:GodsCoronavirusCure.gif|right|170px]]      This article was started by [[User:DaveLeach|Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa]] ([[User talk:DaveLeach|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!]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:54, 29 May 2022
Line 623:		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)=====

@@ Line 600: / Line 600: @@
 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/God's_Coronavirus_Cure_in_3_Verses#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. ”
+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/God's_Coronavirus_Cure_in_3_Verses#Covid_is_an_Aerosol.2C_not_blocked_by_masks_.28Aug_11.29 my post.]
+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>
@@ Line 610: / Line 610: @@
 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)=====

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:20, 29 May 2022
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/God's_Coronavirus_Cure_in_3_Verses#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/God's_Coronavirus_Cure_in_3_Verses#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)=====

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:44, 8 August 2021
Line 13:		Line 13:

	[[File:GodsCoronavirusCure.gif\|right\|170px]] <span style="color:#0000FF"><br>     This article was started by [[User:DaveLeach\|Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa]] ([[User talk:DaveLeach\|talk]]) 20:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC). <br>     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. <br>     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!]]</span>		[[File:GodsCoronavirusCure.gif\|right\|170px]] <span style="color:#0000FF"><br>     This article was started by [[User:DaveLeach\|Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa]] ([[User talk:DaveLeach\|talk]]) 20:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC). <br>     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. <br>     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!]]</span>
		+
		+
		+	=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.
		+
		+

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 =Updates: Important Questions (raised mostly by Doctors)=
-====Dr Ted Noel was "fact checked". Let's see the evidence====
+=====Dr Ted Noel was "fact checked". Let's see the evidence=====
 The [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/God%27s_Coronavirus_Cure_in_3_Verses#Vape_Demonstrates_that_Masks_Don.27t_Work_.28Sept_5.29 September 5] entry below, a doctor using vape "smoke" exhaled through various masks to show how much gets through masks, was "fact checked" by [https://factcheck.afp.com/doctor-expired-license-falsely-claims-masks-dont-work AFP].
@@ Line 1,029: / Line 1,029: @@
 =====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-ones-that-stayed-closed.html/ States That Reopened Do Not Have More COVID-19 Infections Than Ones That Stayed Closed] By: Kim Coulter, The National File, May 14, 2020 - Many governors, including Governor Brian Kemp (R,GA) who started reopening their states have not seen dramatic increases in coronavirus deaths as critics suggested. According to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation report from May 12, the rates of infection would dramatically spike from hundreds of new cases a day up into the thousands by June and well into August of this year. Now that Georgia has had shelter-in-place lifted for 14 days and they are a month into the reopening of the state, new IHME predictions fall dramatically short of prior predictions. Media outlets that criticized Governor Kemp as well as the other governors who reopened their states earlier have not retracted or corrected their original stories suggesting massive death tolls and overwhelmed hospitals.
+[https://gellerreport.com/2020/05/states-that-reopened-do-not-have-more-covid-19-infections-than-

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:37, 8 August 2021
Line 30:		Line 30:


−	====WHO Radio, November 17, 2020====	+	=====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?"		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?"