# data[].attributes.headline
4/5/2025 mRNA Vaccines Linked to Genetic Changes That Can Cause Cancer, Autoimmune Disorders

# data[].attributes.subject
4/5/2025 mRNA Vaccines Linked to Genetic Changes That Can Cause Cancer, Autoimmune Disorders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
mRNA Vaccines Linked to Genetic Changes That Can Cause Cancer, Autoimmune Disorders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A peer-reviewed study by 19 German researchers links the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to long-term changes in genetic structures that can lead to the onset of cancer and autoimmune disorders.

# data[].attributes.headline
Over 1300 studies on Vax Adverse Effects

# data[].attributes.subject
Over 1300 studies on Vax Adverse Effects

# data[].attributes.body
Links to those studies in PDF

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
"Conspiracy Theory" Confirmed: Covid Jabs INCREASE Risk of Infection According to New England Journal of Medicine

# data[].attributes.headline
2022-06-21 New England JOM: Jabs increase risk of infection 

# data[].attributes.subject
2022-06-21 New England JOM: Jabs increase risk of infection 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Several recent studies have indicated the Covid-19 vaccines actually increase the risk of contracting the disease over time, but these studies have been ignored or even debunked by corporate media and Big Pharma for months. Now, they'll have to contend with a new study published in the highly respected New England Journal of Medicine.

This study was huge in scale, sifting through data collected from over 100,000 people infected by the Omicron variant. It lends credibility to the statistical significance of the findings, which are absolutely startling. Here are the key points:

Those who have been "fully vaccinated" with two shots from Moderna or Pfizer are more likely to contract Covid-19 than those who have not been vaccinated at all

Booster shots offer protection approximately equal to natural immunity, but the benefits wane after 2-5 months

Natural immunity lasts for at least 300-days, which is the length of the study; it likely lasts much longer

The Government of Canada has confirmed that the vaccinated population account for 4 in every 5 Covid-19 deaths to have occurred across the country since the middle of February 2022, and 70% of those deaths have been among the triple vaccinated population.
Despite the scope of the study and the credibility of the source, it will not receive any attention from corporate media. It is imperative that our readers get the word out because this is an absolute narrative-buster for Big Pharma. Now more than ever, we must alert the people of the truth because we are on the verge of seeing millions of children under the age of five-years-old injected.

The good news is we've seen more vaccinated people becoming receptive to the truth. That's anecdotal, based on what I'm seeing online and the correspondence I receive, but I believe there are more people who are becoming skeptical of governments' unhinged push for universal vaccinations. If we can share more news that will keep them from getting boosted, and more importantly keep them from jabbing their children, then it's a worthwhile effort.

If this is, as I believe, part of a nefarious plan to control people and enact the globalist elites' depopulation agenda, then it behooves us to prevent as many people as possible from getting boosted. The science seems to indicate more shots mean more damage, so limiting exposure is important. We're going to need allies if things continue down this road. The fewer booster-addicted Americans, the better.

Vaccination Increases Risk of COVID-19, But Infection Without Vaccination Gives Immunity: Study

The authors of the study found that those who had a prior infection but no vaccination had a 46.1 and 50 percent immunity against the two subvariants of the Omicron variant, even at an interval of more than 300 days since the previous infection.

Though the authors reported that three doses of the Pfizer vaccine increased immunity to over 50 percent, this was measured just over 40 days after the third vaccination, which is a very short interval. In comparison, natural immunity persisted at around 50 percent when measured over 300 days after the previous infection, while immunity levels fell to negative figures 270 days after the second dose of vaccine.

These figures indicate a risk of waning immunity for the third vaccine dose as time progresses.

Individuals that were previously infected but not vaccinated had half the risks of reinfection as compared to those that were vaccinated with two doses but not infected.

"Natural immunity wins again," Dr. Martin Adel Makary, a public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, wrote on Twitter, referring to the Israeli study.

"Among persons who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, protection against reinfection decreased as the time increased," the authors concluded, "however, this protection was higher" than protection conferred in the same time interval through two doses of the vaccine.
Enrico Trigoso contributed to this report.
Please, if you have the means to be able to help us financially, we could definitely use it. You can donate through Giving Fuel, GiveSendGo, or by purchasing a premium subscription to this Substack.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Conspiracy Theory" Confirmed: Covid Jabs INCREASE Risk of Infection According to New England Journal of Medicine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Several recent studies have indicated the Covid-19 vaccines actually increase the risk of contracting the disease over time, but these studies have been ignored or even debunked by corporate media and Big Pharma for months. Now, they'll have to contend with a new study published in the highly respected New England Journal of Medicine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
HOW MANY MORE ATHLETES WILL DIE FROM THE ''VACCINE''?

# data[].attributes.headline
3/15/2022 - Over 500 dead athletes due to heart failure in 6 months

# data[].attributes.subject
3/15/2022 - Over 500 dead athletes due to heart failure in 6 months

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
HOW MANY MORE ATHLETES WILL DIE FROM THE ''VACCINE''?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An error has occurred whilst processing your request!

# data[].attributes.headline
11/5/2021 - In response to attorney’s FOIA request, US CDC admits that it has no record of an unvaccinated person spreading COVID after recovering from COVID.

# data[].attributes.subject
11/5/2021 - In response to attorney’s FOIA request, US CDC admits that it has no record of an unvaccinated person spreading COVID after recovering from COVID.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
UK Government reports suggest the Fully Vaccinated are rapidly developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, and the Immune System decline has now begun in Children

# data[].attributes.headline
10/30/21 UK Government reports another study suggesting the Fully Vaccinated are rapidly developing AIDS

# data[].attributes.subject
10/30/21 UK Government reports another study suggesting the Fully Vaccinated are rapidly developing AIDS

# data[].attributes.body
Study included and real video demo of Pfizer destroying the haemoglobin of a blood sample

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The eight previous Public Health England / UK Health Security Agency 'Vaccine Surveillance' reports on Covid-19 cases show that double vaccinated 40-79 year olds have now lost lost 50% of their immune system capability and are consistently losing a further 4-5% every week (between 3.7% and 7.9%). Projections also now show that 30-49 year olds will have zero Covid / viral defence at best, or a form of vaccine mediated acquired immunodeficiency syndrome at worst, by the first week in January and all double vaccinated people over 30 will have completely lost that part of their immune system which deals with Covid-19 in the next 18 weeks. By a concerned reader
The Vaccine Surveillance reports published by the UK Health Security Agency (previously Public Health England) of all fully genome sequenced UK Delta Covid-19 cases ( mainly using a genome identifying PCR test), clearly show the progressive damage that the vaccines are doing to the immune response of the fully vaccinated.

Here is the weekly decline in double vaccinated immune system performance compared to unvaccinated people.

Vaccine efficacy is measured using Pfizer's vaccine effectiveness formula...

Unvaccinated case rate per 100k - Fully Vaccinated case rate per 100k / the Larger of Unvaccinated or Vaccinated case rate

We are using the normalised absolute ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated case numbers to determine vaccine effectiveness just as Pfizer itself does.

A vaccine effectivenessof + 50% means that double vaccinated people are 50% more protected from Covid than unvaccinated people. It means that the Delta case rate in the vaccinated is half the delta case rate in the unvaccinated.

A Vaccine efficacy of -50% means that unvaccinated people are 50% more protected from Covid than doubly vaccinated people. It means that the delta case rate in the vaccinated is double the Delta case rate in the unvaccinated.

A Vaccine efficacy of 0% means that doubly vaccinated people are 0% more protected from Covid than unvaccinated people. It means that the delta case rate in the vaccinated equals the Delta case rate in the unvaccinated. It means the vaccines have lost all their effectiveness.

These new figures show a slowing down in degradation last week which is good news. But they also show children are beginning to suffer immune system degradation which is despicable news. Their figures went up due to more and more 12-15 year olds being included in the cohort since Chris Whitty overruled the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. They have now just about finished being included. So the slow degradation can now begin to be seen.

At the other end of the age scale, the 80+ group saw a major improvement, due to the boosters which will buy them a couple of months of improved Covid immunity which will hide the continuing gradual immune system degradation. These boosters are the same as the original vaccinations (because no other shot has yet been approved).

So the worry is that whilst Covid-19 immunity may be improved for a couple of months, their general immunity will begin to degrade even faster than it would have done had the booster not been taken. We shall see if that turns out to be the case from future data.

The 70-79 year olds are also seeing a slow down in apparent degradation due to the boosters improving their Covid response. It may also be the case that other age group are already taking boosters. There is no shortage of places who will vaccinate people on demand without offering the necessary information for giving an informed consent. The latest clinical information from Dr Richard Fleming detailed below is terminal for vaccines and boosters.

The risk benefit analysis for these vaccines has now become a risk detriment analysis for everyone over 30.

Latest Projections

Everybody over 30 will have lost 100% of their entire immune capability (certainly for Covid and most likely for viruses and certain cancers - following the evidence from Cole Diagnostics in Idaho and Dr Nathan Thompson and Dr Ralph Baric) within 18 weeks.

Fully vaccinated 30-49 year olds will have lost it by the 1st week in January. These people will then have no immune defence against Covid-19 at all. The question then becomes how much of the immune system is involved in defending against Covid-19? The worst case scenario is that they effectively develop full blown acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and destroy the NHS.

"In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated". - PHE Vaccine Surveillance Report for week 41.
"There is the potential for ADE, but the bigger problem is probably Th2 immunopathology," says Ralph Baric, an epidemiologist and expert in coronaviruses-named for the crown-shaped spike they use to enter human cells-at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In previous studies of SARS, aged mice were found to have particularly high risks of life-threatening Th2 immunopathology in which a faulty T cell response triggers allergic inflammation, and poorly functional antibodies that form immune complexes, activating the complement system and potentially damaging the airways. Baric expresses his concern about what that might mean for use of a COVID-19 vaccine in elderly people. "Of course, the elderly are our most vulnerable population," he adds. - https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218 (the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA)
The underlined passage (which has been redacted from the online PNAS report - but is in many other online copies - https://principia-scientific.com/study-covid-19-vaccine-can-destroy-your-immune-system/) is critical as it relates to an immune deficiency in killer T cells.

This was seen by Dr Ryan Cole who has done over 100,000 pathology lab examinations from Covid patients. He identified it as a form of AIDS (reverse HIV he called it - where you lose CD8 killer T cells rather than CD4 Helper T cells). Ralph Baric should know. In 2002 on April 19, the University of North Carolina filed US patent 7279327 for an infectious replication defective coronavirus (to be used as a virus vector for an HIV vaccine), claiming priority from US28531801P. Inventors were: Kristopher M. Curtis, Boyd Yount, Ralph S. Baric

These immune system degradations could be caused by ADE (Antibody Dependent Enhancement - where the vaccine induced antibodies start working in reverse) and be specific to Covid, or could be more general and result in a form of vaccine mediated AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome). Baric suspects the latter above.

The fact that the 3rd Jabs worked in Israel (for a short period of time before the 4th jabs were proposed) means that vaccine antibodies do still have a protective effect immediately after vaccination. So that may rule out ADE. The latest figures suggest that boosters are working, in the short term for 70-79-year-olds and 8the 80+.

The falling efficacy of the vaccines does not asymptotically approach zero (which would mean that vaccines merely lose effectiveness over time). It goes straight through zero and then goes dangerously negative (which means the vaccines become toxic to the immune system). Then it goes more negative in a linear manner week on week. If this continues then the vaccines will completely destroy the part of your immune system which deals with Covid by the end of January.

This may well result in more cases of Shingles, HPV, Herpes, Epstein Barr, Endometriosis and other viral infections - https://www.nbc12.com/2021/10/15/reports-shingles-outbreaks-not-directly-linked-covid-19-vaccine/
HARRISONBURG, Va. (WHSV) - There have been case studies showing people are experiencing recurrences or outbreaks of shingles after getting the COVID-19 vaccine. Local doctors say that is rare and not necessarily caused by the vaccine.
"I've seen a lot of shingles recently, but I haven't seen it associated with the vaccine personally. That's my personal experience," Dr. Jennifer Derby, a family physician with Sentara RMH, said. (2021October15)
Tables 2 and 5: COVID-19 cases by vaccination status...

The immune system boost or degradation column, which is the vaccine efficiency/inefficiency column, column10, is calculated from Pfizer's vaccine efficiency formula of -
U-V/U for U>V and U-V/V for V>U
This is the formula they used to claim 95% vaccine efficiency against Wuhan alpha.

For previous versions of Table 2 from Week 32 onwards see here.

Cases reported by specimen date between week 37 & 40 2021 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf

Cases reported by specimen date between week 38 & 41 2021 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf

Cases reported by specimen date between week 39 & 42 2021 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1029606/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-43.pdf

Choosing your formula...

The Immune System boost/degradation column is a measure of the boost or damage to your immune system - see report
The Vaccine Effectiveness % for double vaccinated column shows how much more or less resistant to Covid the double vaccinated are than the unvaccinated - see report

So if you are 40 years old and double vaxxed then your immune response is now degraded by 56.9%. This means that unvaccinated 40 year olds are 56.9% less likely to catch covid than the fully vaccinated, and the fully vaccinated 40 year olds are 131.9% more likely to catch covid than the unvaccinated.

You can look at it either way. It just depends whether your chosen parameter is the double vaccinated or the unvaccinated. But whichever one you choose, the outlook this winter for those who have been fully vaccinated with the experimental Covid-19 injections looks terrible.

PHE death rates verses ONS death rates

There is a massive immunological contradiction between the PHE case rates which crudely speaking now show that the vaccinated are twice as likely to be infected as unvaccinated whereas the PHE death rates show that the unvaccinated are 3 to 6 times more likely to die than the vaccinated.

The contradiction arises because the immunological functionality of the vaccines is merely to increase or decrease the viral load, but we now know that the viral loads are the same in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated (see here).

This was also confirmed by Dr Fauci earlier this year -

"What we learned that's new ... is that when you look at the level of virus in the nasopharynx of people who are vaccinated who get breakthrough infections, it's really quite high and equivalent to the level of virus in the nasopharynx of unvaccinated people who get infected," Fauci said in an interview with CBS News' "Face the Nation" on Sunday. The nasopharynx is part of the nasal cavity near the back of the throat https://www.theepochtimes.com/fauci-amount-of-covid-19-in-breakthrough-delta-cases-almost-identical-to-unvaccinated_3929532.html

Furthermore it is known that the vaccines have been becoming progressively less effective/more damaging since then. So what is happening with case numbers should also be occurring with deaths unless the vaccines only kick in at near lethal viral loads. But that is nonsense because they merely train the immune system to recognise a new antigen. They should be altering the manner in which it responds upon recognition. Vaccines do not do that.

Although of course these gene therapies are a lot more than vaccines. So from Fauci's own mouth the death should be following the case numbers not going in the other direction. Fortunately the ONS (Office of National Statistics) produce overall mortality figures and Profs Norman Fenton and Martin Neil of Queen Mary College University of London have analysed these as follows -

Week 26 was 2021 June 28th -July 4th. Below is the mortality rate for those who had received two doses of a Covid-19 vaccine for the first half of 2021 -

Since 19th March the double dose vaccination mortality rate has increased week-on-week more or less consistently. - Prof Norman Fenton - https://www.normanfenton.com/post/comparing-age-adjusted-all-cause-mortality-rates-in-england-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated

So the ONS death rates as analysed by Prof Fenton are consistent with the PHE case rates as analysed in the article. The PHE death rates are not credible. So the ONS death rates show the same linear increase as the PHE case numbers are showing. That makes a lot more sense immunologically.

The effect of the Pfizer Vaccine on the blood

Dr Richard Fleming teamed up with Prof Luc Montagnier, who won the Nobel prize for discovering HIV, and filed a case in the Hague along with Holocaust survivors on breaches of the Nuremberg Code by Government worldwide forcing vaccines on their citizens (see here).

Then he had the simple idea (which no one else appears to have thought of) to look at blood samples under the microscope and then add the Pfizer Vaccine.

The vaccine destroys all the Haemoglobin in the blood and makes the red cells stick together and form clots. It is amazing - the blood just stops being red. That is why people cannot breathe. Watch minute 9 to minute 20 of this video and you will see precisely what the vaccines do to human blood.

When you are jabbed, the vaccine goes into your deltoid muscle hopefully (they are supposed to withdraw the plunger slightly to make sure they have not hit a blood vessel - but they are not generally doing that now). If it hits a blood vessel then what you see in the video happens immediately

If the jab does hit the muscle then the above happens more slowly.

The lighter areas on the left and right pictures are where a drop of the Pfizer vaccine has hit the blood on the 40x microscope slide. You can see that the red colour is missing from the red cells in the vaccine droplet areas. This is the destruction of your haemoglobin by the vaccine. It occurs within seconds according to the video.

If you have no haemoglobin, then your blood cannot carry any oxygen to your tissues and your breathing fails. The video also show that the haemoglobin depleted red blood cells start to stick together. They start to clot within minutes of the vaccine mixing with the blood, destroying the blood's ability to carry oxygen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK Government reports suggest the Fully Vaccinated are rapidly developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, and the Immune System decline has now begun in Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The eight previous Public Health England / UK Health Security Agency 'Vaccine Surveillance' reports on Covid-19 cases show that double vaccinated 40-79 year olds have now lost lost 50% of their immune system capability and are consistently losing a further 4-5% every week (between 3.7% and 7.9%).

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
91 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted ⋆ Brownstone Institute

# data[].attributes.headline
10/15/2021 91 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted

# data[].attributes.subject
10/15/2021 91 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We should not force COVID vaccines on anyone when the evidence shows that naturally acquired immunity is equal to or more robust and superior to existing vaccines. Instead, we should respect the right of the bodily integrity of individuals to decide for themselves.

Public health officials and the medical establishment with the help of the politicized media are misleading the public with assertions that the COVID-19 shots provide greater protection than natural immunity. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, for example, was deceptive in her October 2020 published LANCET statement that "there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection" and that "the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future."

Immunology and virology 101 have taught us over a century that natural immunity confers protection against a respiratory virus's outer coat proteins, and not just one, e.g. the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein. There is even strong evidence for the persistence of antibodies. Even the CDC recognizes natural immunity for chicken-pox and measles, mumps, and rubella, but not for COVID-19.

The vaccinated are showing viral loads (very high) similar to the unvaccinated ( Acharya et al. and Riemersma et al.), and the vaccinated are as infectious. Riemersma et al. also report Wisconsin data that corroborate how the vaccinated individuals who get infected with the Delta variant can potentially (and are) transmit(ting) SARS-CoV-2 to others (potentially to the vaccinated and unvaccinated).

This troubling situation of the vaccinated being infectious and transmitting the virus emerged in seminal nosocomial outbreak papers by Chau et al. (HCWs in Vietnam), the Finland hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients), and the Israel hospital outbreak (spread among HCWs and patients). These studies also revealed that the PPE and masks were essentially ineffective in the healthcare setting. Again, the Marek's disease in chickens and the vaccination situation explains what we are potentially facing with these leaky vaccines (increased transmission, faster transmission, and more 'hotter' variants).

Moreover, existing immunity should be assessed before any vaccination, via an accurate, dependable, and reliable antibody test (or T cell immunity test) or be based on documentation of prior infection (a previous positive PCR or antigen test). Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity. This will function to mitigate the societal anxiety with these forced vaccine mandates and societal upheaval due to job loss, denial of societal privileges etc. Tearing apart the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in a society, separating them, is not medically or scientifically supportable.

The Brownstone Institute previously documented 30 studies on natural immunity as it relates to Covid-19.

This follow-up chart is the most updated and comprehensive library list of 91 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allow you to draw your own conclusion.

I've benefited from the input of many to put this together, especially my co-authors:

Dr. Harvey Risch, MD, PhD (Yale School of Public Health)

Dr. Howard Tenenbaum, PhD ( Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto)

Dr. Ramin Oskoui, MD (Foxhall Cardiology, Washington)

Dr. Peter McCullough, MD (Truth for Health Foundation (TFH)), Texas

Dr. Parvez Dara, MD (consultant, Medical Hematologist and Oncologist)

Evidence on natural immunity versus COVID-19 vaccine induced immunity as of October 15th 2021:

Study / report title, author, and year published

Predominant finding on natural immunity

2) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected controls, Le Bert, 2020

"Studied T cell responses against the structural (nucleocapsid (N) protein) and non-structural (NSP7 and NSP13 of ORF1) regions of SARS-CoV-2 in individuals convalescing from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ( n = 36). In all of these individuals, we found CD4 and CD8 T cells that recognized multiple regions of the N protein...showed that patients ( n = 23) who recovered from SARS possess long-lasting memory T cells that are reactive to the N protein of SARS-CoV 17 years after the outbreak of SARS in 2003; these T cells displayed robust cross-reactivity to the N protein of SARS-CoV-2."

3) Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections,Gazit, 2021

"A retrospective observational study comparing three groups: (1) SARS-CoV-2-naïve individuals who received a two-dose regimen of the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, (2) previously infected individuals who have not been vaccinated, and (3) previously infected and single dose vaccinated individuals found para a 13 fold increased risk of breakthrough Delta infections in double vaccinated persons, and a 27 fold increased risk for symptomatic breakthrough infection in the double vaccinated relative to the natural immunity recovered persons...the risk of hospitalization was 8 times higher in the double vaccinated (para)...this analysis demonstrated that natural immunity affords longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity."

4) Highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, Le Bert, 2021

"Studied SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in a cohort of asymptomatic ( n = 85) and symptomatic ( n = 75) COVID-19 patients after seroconversion...thus, asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals are not characterized by weak antiviral immunity; on the contrary, they mount a highly functional virus-specific cellular immune response."

13) Natural immunity to covid is powerful. Policymakers seem afraid to say so, Makary, 2021

Makary writes "it's okay to have an incorrect scientific hypothesis. But when new data proves it wrong, you have to adapt. Unfortunately, many elected leaders and public health officials have held on far too long to the hypothesis that natural immunity offers unreliable protection against covid-19 - a contention that is being rapidly debunked by science. More than 15 studies have demonstrated the power of immunity acquired by previously having the virus. A 700,000-person study from Israel two weeks ago found that those who had experienced prior infectionswere 27 times less likely to get a second symptomatic covid infection than those who were vaccinated. This affirmed a June Cleveland Clinic study of health-care workers (who are often exposed to the virus), in which nonewho had previously tested positive for the coronavirus got reinfected. The study authors concluded that "individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination." And in May, a Washington University study found that even a mild covid infection resulted in long-lasting immunity."

14) SARS-CoV-2 elicits robust adaptive immune responses regardless of disease severity, Nielsen, 2021

"203 recovered SARS-CoV-2 infected patients in Denmark between April 3 rd and July 9 th 2020, at least 14 days after COVID-19 symptom recovery... report broad serological profiles within the cohort, detecting antibody binding to other human coronaviruses... the viral surface spike protein was identified as the dominant target for both neutralizing antibodies and CD8⁺ T-cell responses. Overall, the majority of patients had robust adaptive immune responses, regardless of their disease severity."

31) Researchers find long-lived immunity to 1918 pandemic virus, CIDRAP, 2008
and the actual 2008 NATURE journal publication by Yu

"A study of the blood of older people who survived the 1918 influenza pandemic reveals that antibodies to the strain have lasted a lifetime and can perhaps be engineered to protect future generations against similar strains...the group collected blood samples from 32 pandemic survivors aged 91 to 101..the people recruited for the study were 2 to 12 years old in 1918 and many recalled sick family members in their households, which suggests they were directly exposed to the virus, the authors report. The group found that 100% of the subjects had serum-neutralizing activity against the 1918 virus and 94% showed serologic reactivity to the 1918 hemagglutinin. The investigators generated B lymphoblastic cell lines from the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of eight subjects. Transformed cells from the blood of 7 of the 8 donors yielded secreting antibodies that bound the 1918 hemagglutinin." Yu: "here we show that of the 32 individuals tested that were born in or before 1915, each showed sero-reactivity with the 1918 virus, nearly 90 years after the pandemic. Seven of the eight donor samples tested had circulating B cells that secreted antibodies that bound the 1918 HA. We isolated B cells from subjects and generated five monoclonal antibodies that showed potent neutralizing activity against 1918 virus from three separate donors. These antibodies also cross-reacted with the genetically similar HA of a 1930 swine H1N1 influenza strain."

33) Differential effects of the second SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose on T cell immunity in naïve and COVID-19 recovered individuals, Camara, 2021

"Characterized SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific humoral and cellular immunity in naïve and previously infected individuals during full BNT162b2 vaccination...results demonstrate that the second dose increases both the humoral and cellular immunity in naïve individuals. On the contrary, the second BNT162b2 vaccine dose results in a reduction of cellular immunity in COVID-19 recovered individuals."

34) Op-Ed: Quit Ignoring Natural COVID Immunity, Klausner, 2021

"Epidemiologists estimate over 160 million people worldwide have recovered from COVID-19. Those who have recovered have an astonishingly low frequency of repeat infection, disease, or death."

41) SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell memory is sustained in COVID-19 convalescent patients for 10 months with successful development of stem cell-like memory T cells, Jung, 2021

"ex vivo assays to evaluate SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell responses in COVID-19 convalescent patients up to 317 days post-symptom onset (DPSO), and find that memory T cell responses are maintained during the study period regardless of the severity of COVID-19. In particular, we observe sustained polyfunctionality and proliferation capacity of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells. Among SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells detected by activation-induced markers, the proportion of stem cell-like memory T (T SCM) cells is increased, peaking at approximately 120 DPSO."

42) Immune Memory in Mild COVID-19 Patients and Unexposed Donors Reveals Persistent T Cell Responses After SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Ansari, 2021

"Analyzed 42 unexposed healthy donors and 28 mild COVID-19 subjects up to 5 months from the recovery for SARS-CoV-2 specific immunological memory. Using HLA class II predicted peptide megapools, we identified SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive CD4⁺ T cells in around 66% of the unexposed individuals. Moreover, we found detectable immune memory in mild COVID-19 patients several months after recovery in the crucial arms of protective adaptive immunity; CD4⁺ T cells and B cells, with a minimal contribution from CD8⁺ T cells. Interestingly, the persistent immune memory in COVID-19 patients is predominantly targeted towards the Spike glycoprotein of the SARS-CoV-2. This study provides the evidence of both high magnitude pre-existing and persistent immune memory in Indian population."

45) Humoral Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 in Iceland, Gudbjartsson, 2020

"Measured antibodies in serum samples from 30,576 persons in Iceland...of the 1797 persons who had recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1107 of the 1215 who were tested (91.1%) were seropositive...results indicate risk of death from infection was 0.3% and that antiviral antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 did not decline within 4 months after diagnosis (para)."

47) The prevalence of adaptive immunity to COVID-19 and reinfection after recovery - a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 011 447 individuals, Chivese, 2021

"Fifty-four studies, from 18 countries, with a total of 12 011 447 individuals, followed up to 8 months after recovery, were included. At 6-8 months after recovery, the prevalence of detectable SARS-CoV-2 specific immunological memory remained high; IgG - 90.4%... pooled prevalence of reinfection was 0.2% (95%CI 0.0 - 0.7, I ² = 98.8, 9 studies). Individuals who recovered from COVID-19 had an 81% reduction in odds of a reinfection (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.1 - 0.3, I ² = 90.5%, 5 studies)."

50) Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with protection against symptomatic reinfection, Hanrath, 2021

"We observed no symptomatic reinfections in a cohort of healthcare workers...this apparent immunity to re-infection was maintained for at least 6 months...test positivity rates were 0% (0/128 [95% CI: 0-2.9]) in those with previous infection compared to 13.7% (290/2115 [95% CI: 12.3-15.2]) in those without ( P<0.0001 χ ² test)."

52) Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals, Grifoni, 2020

"Using HLA class I and II predicted peptide "megapools," circulating SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ T cells were identified in ∼70% and 100% of COVID-19 convalescent patients, respectively. CD4⁺ T cell responses to spike, the main target of most vaccine efforts, were robust and correlated with the magnitude of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA titers. The M, spike, and N proteins each accounted for 11%-27% of the total CD4⁺ response, with additional responses commonly targeting nsp3, nsp4, ORF3a, and ORF8, among others. For CD8⁺ T cells, spike and M were recognized, with at least eight SARS-CoV-2 ORFs targeted."

53) NIH Director's Blog: Immune T Cells May Offer Lasting Protection Against COVID-19, Collins, 2021

"Much of the study on the immune response to SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, has focused on the production of antibodies. But, in fact, immune cells known as memory T cells also play an important role in the ability of our immune systems to protect us against many viral infections, including-it now appears-COVID-19.An intriguing new study of these memory T cells suggests they might protect some people newly infected with SARS-CoV-2 by remembering past encounters with other human coronaviruses. This might potentially explain why some people seem to fend off the virus and may be less susceptible to becoming severely ill with COVID-19."

55) Why COVID-19 Vaccines Should Not Be Required for All Americans, Makary, 2021

"Requiring the vaccine in people who are already immune with natural immunity has no scientific support. While vaccinating those people may be beneficial - and it's a reasonable hypothesis that vaccination may bolster the longevity of their immunity - to argue dogmatically that they must get vaccinated has zero clinical outcome data to back it. As a matter of fact, we have data to the contrary: A Cleveland Clinic study found that vaccinating people with natural immunity did not add to their level of protection."

59) SARS-CoV-2 specific memory B-cells from individuals with diverse disease severities recognize SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, Lyski, 2021

"Examined the magnitude, breadth, and durability of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies in two distinct B-cell compartments: long-lived plasma cell-derived antibodies in the plasma, and peripheral memory B-cells along with their associated antibody profiles elicited after in vitro stimulation. We found that magnitude varied amongst individuals, but was the highest in hospitalized subjects. Variants of concern (VoC) -RBD-reactive antibodies were found in the plasma of 72% of samples in this investigation, and VoC-RBD-reactive memory B-cells were found in all but 1 subject at a single time-point. This finding, that VoC-RBD-reactive MBCs are present in the peripheral blood of all subjects including those that experienced asymptomatic or mild disease, provides a reason for optimism regarding the capacity of vaccination, prior infection, and/or both, to limit disease severity and transmission of variants of concern as they continue to arise and circulate."

60) Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 generates T-cell memory in the absence of a detectable viral infection, Wang, 2021

"T-cell immunity is important for recovery from COVID-19 and provides heightened immunity for re-infection. However, little is known about the SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell immunity in virus-exposed individuals...report virus-specific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T-cell memory in recovered COVID-19 patients and close contacts...close contacts are able to gain T-cell immunity against SARS-CoV-2 despite lacking a detectable infection."

61) CD8+ T-Cell Responses in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals Target Conserved Epitopes From Multiple Prominent SARS-CoV-2 Circulating Variants, Redd, 2021and Lee, 2021

"The CD4 and CD8 responses generated after natural infection are equally robust, showing activity against multiple "epitopes" (little segments) of the spike protein of the virus. For instance, CD8 cells responds to 52 epitopes and CD4 cells respond to 57 epitopes across the spike protein, so that a few mutations in the variants cannot knock out such a robust and in-breadth T cell response...only 1 mutation found in Beta variant-spike overlapped with a previously identified epitope (1/52), suggesting that virtually all anti-SARS-CoV-2 CD8+ T-cell responses should recognize these newly described variants."

62) Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2, La Jolla, Crotty and Sette, 2020

"Exposure to common cold coronaviruses can teach the immune system to recognize SARS-CoV-2"

64) Longitudinal observation of antibody responses for 14 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, Dehgani-Mobaraki, 2021

"Better understanding of antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection might provide valuable insights into the future implementation of vaccination policies. Longitudinal analysis of IgG antibody titers was carried out in 32 recovered COVID-19 patients based in the Umbria region of Italy for 14 months after Mild and Moderately-Severe infection...study findings are consistent with recent studies reporting antibody persistency suggesting that induced SARS-CoV-2 immunity through natural infection, might be very efficacious against re-infection (>90%) and could persist for more than six months. Our study followed up patients up to 14 months demonstrating the presence of anti-S-RBD IgG in 96.8% of recovered COVID-19 subjects."

66) Convergent antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in convalescent individuals, Robbiani, 2020

"149 COVID-19-convalescent individuals...antibody sequencing revealed the expansion of clones of RBD-specific memory B cells that expressed closely related antibodies in different individuals. Despite low plasma titres, antibodies to three distinct epitopes on the RBD neutralized the virus with half-maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC ₅₀ values) as low as 2 ng ml −1."

75) Antigen-Specific Adaptive Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 in Acute COVID-19 and Associations with Age and Disease Severity, Moderbacher, 2020

"Adaptive immune responses limit COVID-19 disease severity...multiple coordinated arms of adaptive immunity control better than partial responses...completed a combined examination of all three branches of adaptive immunity at the level of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell and neutralizing antibody responses in acute and convalescent subjects. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells were each associated with milder disease. Coordinated SARS-CoV-2-specific adaptive immune responses were associated with milder disease, suggesting roles for both CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells in protective immunity in COVID-19."

78) Negligible impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants on CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell reactivity in COVID-19 exposed donors and vaccinees, Tarke, 2021

"Performed a comprehensive analysis of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses from COVID-19 convalescent subjects recognizing the ancestral strain, compared to variant lineages B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1, and CAL.20C as well as recipients of the Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) COVID-19 vaccines... the sequences of the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes are not affected by the mutations found in the variants analyzed. Overall, the results demonstrate that CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses in convalescent COVID-19 subjects or COVID-19 mRNA vaccinees are not substantially affected by mutations."

83) Broad and strong memory CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells induced by SARS-CoV-2 in UK convalescent COVID-19 patients, Peng, 2020

"Study of 42 patients following recovery from COVID-19, including 28 mild and 14 severe cases, comparing their T cell responses to those of 16 control donors...found the breadth, magnitude and frequency of memory T cell responses from COVID-19 were significantly higher in severe compared to mild COVID-19 cases, and this effect was most marked in response to spike, membrane, and ORF3a proteins...total and spike-specific T cell responses correlated with the anti-Spike, anti-Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) as well as anti-Nucleoprotein (NP) endpoint antibody titre...furthermore showed a higher ratio of SARS-CoV-2-specific
CD8⁺ to CD4⁺ T cell responses...immunodominant epitope clusters and peptides containing T cell epitopes identified in this study will provide critical tools to study the role of virus-specific T cells in control and resolution of SARS-CoV-2 infections."

85) Potent SARS-CoV-2-Specific T Cell Immunity and Low Anaphylatoxin Levels Correlate With Mild Disease Progression in COVID-19 Patients, Lafron, 2021

"Provide a full picture of cellular and humoral immune responses of COVID-19 patients and prove that robust polyfunctional CD8⁺ T cell responses concomitant with low anaphylatoxin levels correlate with mild infections."

87) Karl Friston: up to 80% not even susceptible to Covid-19, Sayers, 2020

"Results have just been published of a study suggesting that 40%-60% of people who have not been exposed to coronavirus have resistance at the T-cell level from other similar coronaviruses like the common cold...the true portion of people who are not even susceptible to Covid-19 may be as high as 80%."

88) CD8⁺ T cells specific for an immunodominant SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid epitope cross-react with selective seasonal coronaviruses, Lineburg, 2021

"Screening of SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools revealed that the nucleocapsid (N) protein induced an immunodominant response in HLA-B7⁺ COVID-19-recovered individuals that was also detectable in unexposed donors...the basis of selective T cell cross-reactivity for an immunodominant SARS-CoV-2 epitope and its homologs from seasonal coronaviruses, suggesting long-lasting protective immunity."

89) SARS-CoV-2 genome-wide mapping of CD8 T cell recognition reveals strong immunodominance and substantial CD8 T cell activation in COVID-19 patients, Saini, 2020

"COVID-19 patients showed strong T cell responses, with up to 25% of all CD8⁺ lymphocytes specific to SARS-CoV-2-derived immunodominant epitopes, derived from ORF1 (open reading frame 1), ORF3, and Nucleocapsid (N) protein. A strong signature of T cell activation was observed in COVID-19 patients, while no T cell activation was seen in the 'non-exposed' and 'high exposure risk' healthy donors."

Dr Alexander holds a PhD. He has experience in epidemiology and in the teaching clinical epidemiology, evidence-based medicine, and research methodology. Dr Alexander is a former Assistant Professor at McMaster University in evidence-based medicine and research methods; former COVID Pandemic evidence-synthesis consultant advisor to WHO-PAHO Washington, DC (2020) and former senior advisor to COVID Pandemic policy in Health and Human Services (HHS) Washington, DC (A Secretary), US government; worked/appointed in 2008 at WHO as a regional specialist/epidemiologist in Europe's Regional office Denmark, worked for the government of Canada as an epidemiologist for 12 years, appointed as the Canadian in-field epidemiologist (2002-2004) as part of an international CIDA funded, Health Canada executed project on TB/HIV co-infection and MDR-TB control (involving India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Afghanistan, posted to Kathmandu); employed from 2017 to 2019 at Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) Virginia USA as the evidence synthesis meta-analysis systematic review guideline development trainer; currently a COVID-19 consultant researcher in the US-C19 research group

READ MORE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
91 Research Studies Affirm Naturally Acquired Immunity to Covid-19: Documented, Linked, and Quoted ⋆ Brownstone Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We should not force COVID vaccines on anyone when the evidence shows that naturally acquired immunity is equal to or more robust and superior to existing vaccines. Instead, we should respect the right of the bodily integrity of individuals to decide for themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
A comparison of official Government reports suggest the Fully Vaccinated are developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

# data[].attributes.headline
10/10/2021 Fully Vaccinated are developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

# data[].attributes.subject
10/10/2021 Fully Vaccinated are developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Latest UK PHE Vaccine Surveillance Report figures on Covid cases show that doubly vaccinated 40-70 year olds have lost 40% of their immune system capability compared to unvaccinated people. Their immune systems are deteriorating at around 5% per week (between 2.7% and 8.7%). If this continues then 30-50 year olds will have 100% immune system degradation, zero viral defence by Christmas and all doubly vaccinated people over 30 will have lost their immune systems by March next year. By a concerned reader
The 5 PHE tables below from their excellent Vaccine Surveillance Report, separated by 4 weeks, clearly show the progressive damage that the vaccines are doing to the immune system's response.

People aged 40-69 have already lost 40% of their immune system capability and are losing it progressively at 3.3% to 6.4% per week.

Weekly Decline in doubly vaccinated immune system performance compared to unvaccinated people...

Everybody over 30 will have lost 100% of their entire immune capability (for viruses and certain cancers) within 6 months.
30-50 year olds will have lost it by Christmas. These people will then effectively have full blown acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and destroy the NHS.

The vaccine booster shots have to be the same as the vaccines themselves, because it takes forever to do clinical trials and get approval for something different. So if you take a booster shot, these figures show that you are giving yourself an even faster progressive form of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (after a couple of months of effectiveness).

Table 2. COVID-19 cases by vaccination status...

Cases reported by specimen date between week 32 and week 35 2021 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016465/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf

Cases reported by specimen date between week 33 and week 36 2021 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018416/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_37_v2.pdf

Cases reported by specimen date between week 34 and week 37 2021 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019992/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_38.pdf

Cases reported by specimen date between week 35 and week 38 2021 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1022238/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_39.pdf

Cases reported by specimen date between week 36 and week 39 2021 - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1023849/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_40.pdf

Pfizer originally claimed a 95% efficiency for their vaccine (calculated as in the last column above). The figures above indicate that their figures may well have been correct immediately after vaccination (the younger age groups have had the vaccine for the shortest time).

But the figures above also show that the vaccines do NOT merely lose efficiency over time down to zero efficiency, they progressively damage the immune system until a negative efficiency is realised. They presently leave anybody over 30 in a worse position than they were before vaccination For more see here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A comparison of official Government reports suggest the Fully Vaccinated are developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Latest UK PHE Vaccine Surveillance Report figures on Covid cases show that doubly vaccinated 40-70 year olds have lost 40% of their immune system capability compared to unvaccinated people. Their immune systems are deteriorating at around 5% per week (between 2.7% and 8.7%). If this continues then 30-50 year olds will have 100% immune system degradation,...

# data[].attributes.headline
8/31/2021 Graphene Oxide, a nanotechnology, amongst other toxic and carcinogenic ingredients identified in “vaccines” via scientific study

# data[].attributes.subject
8/31/2021 Graphene Oxide, a nanotechnology, amongst other toxic and carcinogenic ingredients identified in “vaccines” via scientific study

# data[].attributes.body
According to Dr. Young an estimated 500 million people worldwide have already been injured, with potentially 35 million deaths, due to Covid injections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
American Scientists Confirm Toxic Graphene Oxide, and More, in Covid Injections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is a human right, and global law governed under the Nuremberg Code, that vaccine specific ingredient information is disclosed. It is critical, required and necessary information so anyone, from any country in the world, can make an informed decision whether or not to consent to medical intervention.

# data[].attributes.headline
8/22/2021 A pro-vaccine MD’s perspective of the COVID vaccine 

# data[].attributes.subject
8/22/2021 A pro-vaccine MD’s perspective of the COVID vaccine 

# data[].attributes.body
The author, Dr. Buzz Hollander, also provides several links to peer reviewed studies in order to solidify his points.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a family physician, I spend my days dispensing advice. I mean, there's the occasional cast, skin biopsy, or shot, but most of my patients are seeing me for medical counsel. Never have I been asked about one subject so much as the Covid-19 vaccines, and never have I seen so much doubt and confusion among a group of smart, well-educated people. Interpreting the reality of the effectiveness of these vaccines is complicated: it is waning with time, weakened against delta, unknown when coupled with prior infection, and may not be improved with a booster - but there is new, often murky, data emerging every day. Speaking the truth about the vaccines, however, should not be that hard. We have to be willing to adapt to new data, even when it does not fit neatly into prior messaging.

That's where our institutions went astray. I understand the desire of our public health officials, spearheaded by the CDC, to instill confidence in the Covid-19 vaccines; they remain the most expedient path to minimize the suffering inflicted by this pandemic. However, by taking on the role of no-nuance vaccine cheerleaders, they left everyone in a worse situation.

Patients and doctors looking to the CDC for guidance in decision-making receive low quality or dated information. The mainstream media is stuck between reporting public health dictates as valid, while being unable to resist doom-and-gloom reports of vaccine "failures" that sell ad space. The obvious gap between "what the CDC says" and "what we see, hear and read" has left a large space for grifters, self-styled experts, and conspiracy theorists to thrive, especially among the large group of vaccine-hesitant (often vaccine-terrified) Americans. The whole thing might have gone better had we stuck to telling the truth as we knew it.

What follows is the truth about the Covid-19 vaccines, as I see it, from the data in hand right now. It is often inconvenient, especially for someone like me, who preferred the easy days of being a vaccine cheerleader when the initial trial data emerged. Do I still recommend a Covid-19 vaccine for the vast majority of my patients? Yes. It just takes a couple extra minutes to discuss now. Most importantly, if I speak the truth now, my patients will be more inclined to trust me later. So let's see where we really stand:
Let's stop pretending the vaccines are 90% effective and breakthrough cases are "uncommon."
Right now, we have two widely-cited studies claiming 87-88% effectiveness for Pfizer against symptomatic infection: from Canada and the UK. Both studies, however, ended in May, in countries that spaced their two doses out by 2-3 months, leading to a short window after full vaccination.

Some of this is likely due to the delta variant's modest ability to evade immunity. Neutralizing antibody responses among both those with prior infection and vaccination are several fold less to delta than the original SARS-2-CoV strain. However, I suspect the dramatic drop in effectiveness now being seen is a product of this immune evasion being amplified by waning immunity.

The truth here matters. For one, on a personal level, if you went from hiding in your house in March, to cheering on the local hockey team in June after your second Pfizer shot, it's time to re-assess. Look at the recent UK REACT data: vaccinated people in mid-July were three times less likely than unvaccinated people to test positive for Covid-19. Great. But... they were almost twice as likely to test positive as unvaccinated people did just a month before, in mid-June! If you reduce your odds of infection by a factor of three with vaccination, but increase your risk of exposure by a factor of five, either due to rising prevalence or shifting your behaviors, you're still more likely to catch a case of Covid-19 than if you had skipped the vaccine and stayed fixed in time. Put simply, regular high-risk exposures to SARS-CoV-2 can overwhelm a very good but imperfect vaccine.

Remarkably, the CDC is still proclaiming that vaccine breakthrough infections are rare - but when normal people hear that their barber, their cousin's husband, and seemingly half the New York Yankees' starters have experienced breakthrough infections, they might assume the CDC is lying.
Let's stop pretending that vaccinated people are far less likely to spread SARS-CoV-2.
We have made pariahs of the unvaccinated as menaces to the public good. Even if this might not be the most effective form of public health messaging, perhaps this made statistical sense, at least, when we believed the mRNA vaccines to reduce all infections (including asymptomatic) by some 90%. Coupled with limited data from a UK study which showed household contacts of someone with a vaccine breakthrough infection were about half as likely to develop covid-19 as contacts of an unvaccinated person who became infected, it was reasonable to estimate that vaccinated people were almost 20 times less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 than unvaccinated people. This assumption led to the CDC's recommendation that vaccinated people could drop their masks.

From a societal perspective, is it reasonable to discriminate between the vaccinated and unvaccinated given this data? My second Pfizer shot was 7 months ago. An unvaccinated person without prior immunity is probably now only twice as likely to be infected as I am, but I can walk into a bar in New York City or Paris for a drink, and a VA hospital or Mayo Clinic for work - and they cannot.
Let's stop pretending that it's rare for vaccinated people to develop severe Covid-19 or die.
I cringe when I read Dr Anthony Fauci, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, or Surgeon General Vivek Murthy remind us that 97% of new covid-19 hospitalizations or 99% of covid-19 deaths are among the unvaccinated. I know the message is well-intentioned: "Vaccines will protect you from severe disease, so go get vaccinated!" The problem is when the message is not quite true.

We saw this in the UK, where deaths among the vaccinated went from "rare" to two-thirds of all delta variant deaths by July. We saw this in Israel, where literally no fully vaccinated people died of covid-19 for entire weeks in June, but by August over 60% of the severely ill were fully vaccinated.

Here in the US, there should be no shock value to reports of fully vaccinated people falling gravely ill with Covid-19. No vaccine is perfect, and half our population is fully vaccinated. However, many vaccine cheerleaders helped create an aura of perfection when it came to their touting of the vaccine trials: "Not a single death or hospitalization in the vaccine arms due to Covid-19 in over 75,000 participants!" Even without the arrival of delta and the recognition of waning immunity, no reasonable person would imply that there would be no deaths or hospitalizations once applied to 200 million participants. From this expectation of bulletproof immunity, much of the public now feels betrayed.

Should they, though? When it comes to preventing severe infection or death, this is the great promise of the vaccines, and the clear basis for why I recommend them to almost all my patients. In all the studies I cited above with worrisome vaccine effectiveness against infection, virtually all still showed 90% or better effectiveness against hospitalization; the Mayo study was the outlier at 75%. So, to the best of our knowledge right now, if you get vaccinated you will be about 10 times less likely to be hospitalized with covid-19!

However, in the interest of truthfulness, there might be one substantial exception to that claim.
Let's stop pretending that prior infection should not influence the decision to vaccinate.
Much has already been written about the CDC's willful decision to ignore the relevance of prior infection, as if natural immunity simply did not exist. Most are aware that prior Covid-19 infection allows some degree of protection from future infection, with most studies suggesting this protection is north of 80% relative to someone with no immunity. It also leads to a greater immune response with first vaccination, which, in theory at least, could lead to better long-term protection, but also a higher rate of adverse effects. We are often told to "follow the science." In this regard, there really is not much "science" to follow to endorse vaccination after infection.

Real world data is mixed; a recent study from Kentucky found two-fold additional protection to those with prior infection after full vaccination, while a larger study from the Cleveland Clinic showed no difference in re-infection rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers with prior infection.

Fortunately, we do have randomized controlled trial evidence to help shed light on the question. Unlike Johnson&Johnson, both Pfizer and Moderna tracked outcomes in their trials of those who had a history of Covid-19 infection before entering the placebo or vaccine arms. Moderna efficacy could not be evaluated due to having only one case in the placebo arm, while Pfizer showed a very modest 19% vaccine efficacy in the immunized group (vs 95% overall).

So - what does the science say? It says: barring new evidence, there is no clear benefit to immunizing those with confirmed prior infection. Common sense suggests there is a good chance these people would benefit from at least one (and possibly only one) shot as a "booster," especially after 6 months or more have passed since the time of infection, especially with a more transmissible variant on the loose - but that's common sense, not good quality data.

As a physician, I do think all but my lowest risk individuals with prior infection would have appreciable benefit from a single man-made "booster," especially if they did not show evidence of antibodies, given the fairly robust correlation between a negative antibody test and risk of infection. However, I would not push if a previously infected patient opted to pass. As a citizen, I find it troubling that someone with prior infection could face an employer mandate to undergo vaccination against their will, given the slender evidence available.

Since we're wading into divisive waters now, let's dig into an even more charged subject: kids and vaccines.
Let's stop pretending that the vaccines are a no-brainer for adolescents and children.
We parents are a sensitive bunch. Throw politics and heaps of fear-mongering into the equation, and talk of required vaccinations for school or sports quickly turns the volume up to 11. Lost in the noise, though, is that once again, evidence-based science is lacking that universal vaccination is appropriate for kids.

Virtually every American by now knows that Covid-19 severity drops with age. What no one knows is how well a Pfizer vaccine given to an adolescent today will reduce transmission by winter, and the adult data already discussed is concerning. So, are mostly left considering whether the risks of covid-19 to the lowest risk segment of our population outweigh the risks of the vaccine (and future boosters).

Just as no vaccine is perfectly effective, no vaccine is perfectly safe. The world has watched the adenovirus vector vaccines (AstraZeneca and Jansen/J&J) lead to serious thrombosis events mostly in younger women, and the mRNA vaccines trigger myocarditis mostly in younger men, roughly in the 1/10,000-20,000 range. To clarify: not 1%, not 0.1%, but <0.01%. These adverse reactions need to be acknowledged openly, however, as they are terrifying, and lead to chilling newspaper headlines and social media posts that make the possibility seem very real for your own child.

I also observe that these Covid-19 hospitalization rates are unlikely to stay this low, given the arrival of delta and it's markedly higher transmission rates. What's more, this calculation neglects the real concern for persistent disease from a covid-19 infection, aka "long covid," which appears, very roughly, to affect somewhere in the 2-10% range of infected kids.

We must allow for some very small chance the mRNA vaccines will be the first vaccines in history to have a hidden adverse effect we missed in their first eight months of study. However, we must also allow for the chance that the virus itself might have some yet-unknown future harm, like the ability of Human Papilloma Virus and Epstein-Barr Virus to trigger certain cancers later in life.

All in all, I do think honest consideration of risk and benefit favors kids getting the Pfizer vaccine, and especially those with risk factors like obesity, asthma or diabetes, who make up the majority of hospitalized children. However, I think it's important to remember that we are talking about 0.05%-type risks of serious disease versus 0.01%-type risks of severe vaccine reactions here - slim margins of benefit versus harm. I would rather the trial for the 12-15 year old age group had been larger than 1131 subjects in the vaccine arm to help us quantify those risks better.

I don't want to appear dismissive about the potential importance of vaccination for kids. While pediatric cases are rising and still roughly only half their prior peak levels from January, hospitalizations are already approaching that January peak, and we hear reports of pediatric ICUs filling, especially those under the strain of the current high rates of serious RSV cases. However, sometimes "do everything possible" is not the best long-game response to a short-term crisis. I question whether the reward of adolescent vaccination is so great and conclusively demonstrated that we should shame parents opting against this vaccine, or take schooling options away from their children.
Let's stop pretending that a third booster is definitely going to help.
With recent approval for booster doses for the immunocompromised, they are today's hot topic. While I am asked many questions about them, the truth is: I don't have many answers. Pfizer has finally started a trial in in the past few weeks with 10,000 prior vaccine recipients. Once we get that data, perhaps in just a few months, we will move out of the theoretical realm.

Right now, theories are all we have. Perhaps one more dose of the original vaccine, by boosting overall antibodies, will help fight off the large infectious doses of delta. Or perhaps, by only stimulating the same imperfect antibodies, it won't. Maybe the delta-specific boosters Pfizer and Moderna are developing will be ready for arms before the next variant arrives - and maybe not. Maybe we find new adverse effects with repeat doses of boosters. Maybe the extra protection lasts 4 months, or maybe years. Little is clear now.

Given their muted responses, on average, to their initial vaccine doses, the immunocompromised are most likely to benefit, and the most obvious candidates for a booster. Again though, this is based on laboratory studies of improved immune response, not actual trial data. As to the rest of us, I suspect the benefit will be modest, and/or quite possibly fleeting (remember, our annual flu shot's efficacy fades about 10% per month, too). Until we see more definitive evidence that protection against severe disease truly is waning, I will be reluctant to recommend a booster except for my highest risk patients.
Let's stop pretending that these vaccines are "kill-shots," cause sterility, spread disease, etc.
Obviously, this is not directed at the public health community, but rather those who have built their social media brand by alarming the masses about the covid-19 vaccines. Everyone should have the right to raise their doubts and concerns about a new medical intervention. However, it is an abuse of that right to cherry-pick or deliberately misrepresent data while pretending to be impartial, or to sensationalize case reports without giving their context, with the sole purpose of breeding fear.

I try to read everything my patients and friends send me from these misinformers. They sprinkle into their missives bits and pieces of truth - generally the bits and pieces the CDC and WHO failed to mention - which lend them currency with their followers as "the only ones telling it like it is." They don't help their followers make rational decisions about vaccination, unfortunately.
Let's stop pretending that the vaccines are the only way to reduce the burden of Covid-19.
No, I am not going to talk about Ivermectin here, having already said more than enough on the subject elsewhere. Our federal fascination with vaccination, however, has led to a frustrating lack of definitive research into potential treatments for covid-19, especially early in the disease course. We know HCQ failed; and that Regeneron's monoclonal antibody treatments appear effective but are hard to access, costly and untested against delta; and that remdesivir only works a bit, and dexamethasone a bit more, but only for the very ill. Whatever happened to colchicine, famotidine, inhaled steroids, quercetin, fluvoxamine, and all the other potential agents which had an appealing study or two but never a large, definitive RCT? Perhaps a small diversion of some of the billions spent on vaccines could have led to an actual, evidence-based recommendation for physicians like me after our patients have a Covid-19 exposure or positive test. We literally have no CDC/NIH-endorsed treatments to offer that do not involve a trip to the hospital.

It's also time to get real about obesity in this country. The US has an obesity rate of 36%, highest among "large" nations; for comparison sake, European nations generally fall in the 20-25% range, and Japan, South Korea, and China are all under 7%. At what point in the "pandemic era" does this become a national security risk? Studies of overweight/obesity on covid-19 hospital and ICU admissions suggest a 2- to 5-fold increased risk for the obese. That makes a normal BMI about a 65-85% effective "vaccine" against severe infection - one that keeps people out of the hospital from a variety of diseases, including the flu, and probably the next pandemic virus. Approaches to slimming down Americans come in many shapes and sizes, from Blue Zones concepts to soda taxes - which could be extended to all sweetened, calorie-dense processed and fast foods.

This pandemic has been an utter disaster. The next one might be worse. Bolstering our national capacity to fight off viruses would be a wise investment.
And, finally, let's stop pretending that vaccines alone will bring an end to Covid-19.
Predictions have largely been useless in this pandemic. However, some basic principles are likely to hold true. We do not get to go back to alpha or the original strain of SARS-CoV-2; we are stuck with delta, likely until a variant even more transmissible mutates along and outcompetes it. That next variant will not have much evolutionary pressure to be either more or less severe; but imagining a variant able to spread even more rapidly than delta is dispiriting enough.

As more and more people gain immunity from infection and vaccination, there will be more pressure for SARS-CoV-2 to find its next host by evading immune defenses. It's not hard to envision an eternal cat-and-mouse game in which reinfections are a commonplace event for all of us, and trying to avoid them will involve either a cycle of ever-shifting boosters, or acceptance that most 3rd, 4th or 5th SARS-CoV-2 infections will be mild enough to deal with.

The inconvenient truth is that neither natural immunity nor vaccines are likely to protect well enough, long enough, to shift this disease from pandemic to endemic and have it look the way most of us would prefer: partying like it's 2019, and free of worry about hospital capacity. That, unfortunately, is probably a fantasy in the immediate future. So, too, is the idea that if we could only convince a few more stubborn vaccine hold-outs to get one set of shots that this will all be over and New Zealand can open its borders.

No, the way forward is going to be choppier than that. The "Covid long game" will involve uncertainty, surprises, and many hard choices, both for individuals and society as a whole. I hope we can be honest with ourselves as we make them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Let's Stop Pretending About the Covid-19 Vaccines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a family physician, I spend my days dispensing advice. I mean, there's the occasional cast, skin biopsy, or shot, but most of my patients are seeing me for medical counsel. Never have I been asked about one subject so much as the Covid-19 vaccines, and never have I seen so much doubt and confusion among a group of smart, well-educated people.

# data[].attributes.headline
8/15/21 - previously infected do not benefit from vaccine in fighting COVID infection 

# data[].attributes.subject
8/15/21 - previously infected do not benefit from vaccine in fighting COVID infection 

# data[].attributes.body
“Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ABSTRACT

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Methods Employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System working in Ohio on Dec 16, 2020, the day COVID-19 vaccination was started, were included. Any subject who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at least 42 days earlier was considered previously infected. One was considered vaccinated 14 days after receipt of the second dose of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection over the next five months, among previously infected subjects who received the vaccine, was compared with those of previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated, previously uninfected subjects who received the vaccine, and previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated.

Results Among the 52238 included employees, 1359 (53%) of 2579 previously infected subjects remained unvaccinated, compared with 22777 (41%) of 49659 not previously infected. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study. In a Cox proportional hazards regression model, after adjusting for the phase of the epidemic, vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among those not previously infected (HR 0.031, 95% CI 0.015 to 0.061) but not among those previously infected (HR 0.313, 95% CI 0 to Infinity).

Conclusions Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.

Summary Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined among 52238 employees in an American healthcare system. COVID-19 did not occur in anyone over the five months of the study among 2579 individuals previously infected with COVID-19, including 1359 who did not take the vaccine.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

There was no funding for this study.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was approved by the Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board. A waiver of informed consent and waiver of HIPAA authorization were approved to allow access to personal health information by the research team, with the understanding that sharing or releasing identifiable data to anyone other than the study team was not permitted without additional IRB approval.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

De-identified subject-level data and code to reproduce the results are available on a public data repository.

https://osf.io/k7wtv/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Methods Employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System working in Ohio on Dec 16, 2020, the day COVID-19 vaccination was started, were included.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Up To 62% mRNA Vaccinated Show Evidence Of Blood Clotting

# data[].attributes.headline
8/20/21 How mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can affect your body at the cellular level.

# data[].attributes.subject
8/20/21 How mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can affect your body at the cellular level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Please Share This Story!

Dr. Charles Hoffe, a family physician from Lytton, British Columbia, wrote to Dr. Bonnie Henry, B.C. provincial health officer, in April 2021 with serious concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. One of his patients died after the shot, and six others had adverse effects. While their small town had no cases of COVID-19, Hoffe said the vaccine was causing serious damage and he believed "this vaccine is quite clearly more dangerous than COVID-19."

Hoffe was quickly accused of causing "vaccine hesitancy" and local health authorities threatened to report him to the licensing body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. He was also told by government health authorities that he could not say anything negative about the COVID-19 vaccine, but the issues Hoffe was seeing compelled him to speak out anyway.

Blood Clot Formation With mRNA Vaccines 'Inevitable'

Hoffe created the video above to explain how mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can affect your body at the cellular level. In each dose of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine are 40 trillion mRNA - or messenger RNA - molecules.

Each mRNA "package" is designed to be absorbed into your cell, but only 25% stay in your arm at the site of the injection. The other 75%, Hoffe says, are collected by your lymphatic system and fed into your circulation. The cells where mRNA is absorbed are those around your blood vessels - the capillary network, which are the tiniest blood vessels in your body.

When the mRNA is absorbed into your vascular endothelium - the inner lining of your capillaries - the "packages" open and genes are released. Each gene can produce many COVID-19 spike proteins, and your body gets to work manufacturing these spike proteins, numbering in the trillions.

Your body recognizes the spike protein as foreign, so it begins to manufacture antibodies to protect you against COVID-19, or so the theory goes. But there's a problem. In a coronavirus, the spike protein becomes part of the viral capsule, Hoffe says, but when you get the vaccine, "it's not in a virus, it's in your cells." The spike protein, in turn, can lead to the development of blood clots:
"So it therefore becomes part of the cell wall of your vascular endothelium, which means that these cells, which line your blood vessels, which are supposed to be smooth so that your blood flows smoothly, now have these little spiky bits sticking out. So it is absolutely inevitable that blood clots will form, because your blood platelets circulate around in your vessels and the purpose of blood platelets is to detect a damaged vessel and block that damage when it starts bleeding. So when a platelet comes through a capillary and suddenly hits all these covid spikes that are jutting into the inside vessel ... blood clots will form to block that vessel. That's how platelets work."
62% of Recently Vaccinated Patients Have Evidence of Clotting

Hoffe spoke with Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, a retired professor, microbiologist and infectious disease and immunology specialist who, along with several other doctors and scientists, formed Doctors for COVID Ethics. Bhakdi has also warned that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor on platelets.

The subsequent activation of the platelets can lead to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), i.e., a pathological overstimulation of your coagulation system that can result in abnormal, and life threatening, blood clotting, as well as thrombocytopenia (low platelet count) and hemorrhaging.

While some of the blood clots you may have heard about associated with the COVID-19 vaccines are the large variety that show up on MRIs and CT scans, Hoffe states that the variety he's referring to are microscopic and scattered throughout the capillary network, so they won't show up on any scan.

The only way to find out if this predictable mechanism of clotting is happening is with a test called D-dimer. D-dimer is a protein fragment produced by the body when a blood clot dissolves. It's typically undetectable or present only at very low levels, buts its level may significantly rise when the body is forming and breaking down blood clots.

According to Bhakdi, "Now a number of German doctors have been measuring the D-dimers in the blood of patients before vaccination and days after vaccinations and with respect to the symptoms they have just found out that triggering of clot formation is a very common event with all vaccines."

Hoffe has been conducting the D-dimer test on his patients within four to seven days of them receiving a COVID-19 vaccine and found that 62% have evidence of clotting. While he's still trying to accumulate more information, he said:
"It means that these blood clots are not rare. The majority of people are getting blood clots and they have no idea that they even have them. The most alarming thing about this is that there are some parts of your body, like your heart and your brain and your spinal cord and your lungs, which cannot regenerate. When those tissues are damaged by blocked vessels, they are permanently damaged."
'The Worst Is Yet to Come'

As Bhakdi explained, post-vaccination it's possible to end up with so many blood clots throughout your vascular system that your coagulation system is exhausted, resulting in bleeding (hemorrhaging). Hoffe now has patients who get out of breath much more easily than they used to because "they've clogged up thousands of tiny capillaries in their lungs." This is only the first problem, as it can lead to more significant, permanent damage. Hoffe noted:
"The terrifying thing about this is not just that these people are short of breath and can't do what they used to be able to do. Once you block off a significant number of blood vessels to your lungs, your heart is now pumping against a much greater resistance to try to get the blood through your lungs."
The end result can be pulmonary artery hypertension, which is basically high blood pressure in your lungs, because the blood can't get through due to the many vessels that are blocked. "People with this usually die of right-sided heart failure within three years," Hoffe said. "So the huge concern about this mechanism of injury is that these shots are causing permanent damage and the worst is yet to come."

As he noted, while some tissues, like your liver and kidneys, can regenerate, others, like your heart, cannot. An increased risk of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, has already been seen among young males who receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. "They have permanently damaged hearts," Hoffe explained, adding:
"It doesn't matter how mild it is, they will not be able to do what they used to do because heart muscle doesn't regenerate. The long-term outlook is very grim, and with each successive shot, it will add more damage. The damage is cumulative because you're progressively getting more damaged capillaries."
Because of the risk of the formation of blood clots in your vessels, Bhakdi went so far as to say that giving the COVID-19 vaccine to children is a crime: "Do not give it to children because they have absolutely no possibility to defend themselves; if you give it to your child you are committing a crime."

Spike Protein Damages Human Cells

The key causative agent causing damage from COVID-19 vaccines appears to be the spike protein. Scientists from the University of California San Diego created a pseudo virus, or cell surrounded by the spike proteins that did not contain a virus.

Using an animal model, the researchers administered the pseudo virus into the lungs and found the virus was not necessary to create damage. Instead, the spike protein was enough to cause inflammation, damage to vascular endothelial cells and inhibited mitochondrial function.

Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology, has also spoken out about the dangers of the spike protein used in COVID-19 vaccines.

In its native form in SARS-CoV-2, the spike protein is responsible for the pathologies of the viral infection, and in its wild form it's known to open the blood-brain barrier, cause cell damage (cytotoxicity) and, Malone said, "is active in manipulating the biology of the cells that coat the inside of your blood vessels - vascular endothelial cells, in part through its interaction with ACE2, which controls contraction in the blood vessels, blood pressure and other things." Bhakdi also described this as "a disastrous situation" paving the way for clotting:
"This is a disastrous situation, because the spike protein itself is now sitting on the surface of the cells, facing the bloodstream. It is known that these spike proteins, the moment they touch platelets, they active them [the platelets], and that sets the whole clotting system going. The second thing that should happen, according to theory, is that the waste products of this protein that are produced in the cell, are put in front of the 'door' of the cell ... and is presented to the immune system. The immune system, especially the lymphocytes, recognize these and will attack the cells, because they don't want them to make viruses or viral parts. And the viral parts are now being made in locations where viral parts would never, ever reach [naturally], like the vessel wall in your brain ... If that 'tapestry' of the wall [i.e., the lining of the blood vessel] is then destroyed, then that is the signal for the clotting system to [activate], and create a blood clot. And this happens with all of these vaccines because the gene [the instruction to make spike protein] is being introduced to the vessel wall."
Physicians Forbidden From Countering Narrative

Equally as disturbing as the potential harm caused by experimental mRNA vaccines is the censorship going along with it, such that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which regulates the practice of medicine in Ontario, issued a statement prohibiting physicians from making comments or providing advice that goes against the official narrative - basically anything "anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown."

The statement was released, according to CPSO, because physicians, in isolated incidents, have been spreading blatant misinformation via social media, which is undermining "public health measures meant to protect all of us." But if a physician is unable to speak freely, the independent relationship between doctor and patient ceases to exist, and so does the doctor's ability to act in the best interest of the patient.

Hoffe certainly experienced this but is still speaking out, putting his patients first and trying to get the word out that, he believes the COVID-19 vaccination program should be stopped until the causes of the many injuries and deaths are understood. The tragic question is, how many others with similar concerns have been intimidated into remaining silent?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Up To 62% mRNA Vaccinated Show Evidence Of Blood Clotting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Charles Hoffe has been vilified in global media for his research. His income went to zero between being fired from the local health system and his private practice being burned to the ground. Nevertheless, Hoffe refuses to be silent and continues to warn others.

# data[].attributes.headline
8/8/2021 - A Canadian doctor who has given the Covid vaccine to more than 900 patients has reported that 62 percent of those patients are positive for blood clots.

# data[].attributes.subject
8/8/2021 - A Canadian doctor who has given the Covid vaccine to more than 900 patients has reported that 62 percent of those patients are positive for blood clots.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
World Tribune: U.S. Politics and Culture, Geopolitics, East Asia Intelligence, China, Geostrategy, Military, National security, Corporate Watch, Media Watch, North Korea, Iran, Columnists: Dennis Prager, Michelle Malkin, John Metzler, Jeffrey Kuhner, John McNabb, Joe Schaeffer, Bill Juneau, Alexander Maistrovoy, Donald Kirk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Canadian doctor who has given the Covid vaccine to more than 900 patients has reported that 62 percent of those patients are positive for blood clots.

Dr. Charles Hoffe, who has been practicing medicine for 28 years in British Columbia, said he has given about 900 doses of the Moderna experimental mRNA vaccine and the core problem he has seen are microscopic clots in his patients' tiniest capillaries.

Hoffe said the blood clots are "occurring at a capillary level. This has never before been seen. This is not a rare disease. This is an absolutely new phenomenon."

The micro-clots, Hoffe said, are too small to show up on CT scans, MRI, and other conventional tests, such as angiograms. They can only be detected using the D-dimer blood test, he said.

Using the D-dimer test, Hoffe said he found that 62 percent of his patients injected with an mRNA shot were positive for clotting, Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn noted in an April 7 op-ed for the No Q Report.

The spike proteins in the vaccine become "part of the cell wall of your vascular endothelium," the doctor said. "This means that these cells which line your blood vessels, which are supposed to be smooth so that your blood flows smoothly now have these little spikey bits sticking out. ... When the platelet comes through the capillary it suddenly hits all these Covid spikes and it becomes absolutely inevitable that blood clots will form to block that vessel."

Hoffe added: "The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc. The clots I'm talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test. ... The most alarming part of this is that there are some parts of the body like the brain, spinal cord, heart and lungs which cannot re-generate. When those tissues are damaged by blood clots they are permanently damaged."

Hoffe continued: "Blood vessels in the lungs are now blocked up. In turn, this causes the heart to need to work harder to try to keep up against a much greater resistance trying to get the blood through your lungs. This is called pulmonary artery hypertension - high blood pressure in the lungs because the blood simply cannot get through effectively. People with this condition usually die of heart failure within a few short years."

In an April letter to the provincial Ministry of Health, Hoffe cited a high rate of serious side-effects from the vaccine he was administering: "It must be emphasized, that these people were not sick people, being treated for some devastating disease. These were previously healthy people, who were offered an experimental therapy, with unknown long-term side-effects, to protect them against an illness that has the same mortality rate as the flu. Sadly, their lives have now been ruined."

In a June report, Dr. Peter McCullough noted: "So, this is a very different type of blood clotting that we would see with major blood clots in the arteries and veins. For instance, blood clots involved in stroke and heart attack."

McCullough added: "Blood clots involved in major blood vessels in the legs. This was a different type of clotting and in fact the Italians courageously did some autopsies and found micro blood clots in the lungs. And so, we understood in the end, the reason why the lungs fail is not because the virus is there. It is because micro blood clots are there. ... When People can't breathe, the problem is micro-blood clotting in the lungs. ... The spicule on the ball of the virus itself which damages blood vessels that causes blood clotting."

McCullough has also openly stated that none of the Covid vaccines are safe for most people at little risk from the virus.

Hirschhorn noted that the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) in July confirmed 27 cases of vaccine-related blood clotting in Canadians who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine, with five deaths among those cases.

A Yale University report on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine reported 6 of 28 deaths following vaccine-related blood clotting.

"Also noted was that these were a particularly rare and dangerous blood clot in the brain, known as cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), because it appears in the brain's venous sinuses Also noted that there were abnormally low platelet levels in their blood, an unusual situation also found for those impacted by the AstraZeneca vaccine," Hirschhorn noted.

AstraZeneca, Doctor who vaccinated 900 calls blood clots at capillary level an 'absolutely new phenomenon', J&J, jab, Moderna, WorldTribune.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Doctor who vaccinated 900 calls blood clots at capillary level an 'absolutely new phenomenon'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Canadian doctor who has given the Covid vaccine to more than 900 patients has reported that 62 percent of those patients are positive for blood clots. Dr. Charles Hoffe, who has been practicing medicine for 28 years in British Columbia, said he has given about 900 doses of the Moderna experimental mRNA vaccine and the core problem he has seen are microscopic clots in his patients' tiniest capillaries.

# data[].attributes.headline
8/2/2021 - CDC Study on 12- to 17-Year-Olds Who Got Pfizer Vaccine: 397 Reports of Heart Inflammation, 14 Deaths

# data[].attributes.subject
8/2/2021 - CDC Study on 12- to 17-Year-Olds Who Got Pfizer Vaccine: 397 Reports of Heart Inflammation, 14 Deaths

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A study released last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed 9,246 adverse events reported among adolescents aged 12 to 17, including 863 serious events, 14 deaths and 397 reports of myocarditis.
The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the day. It's free.
In a study published July 30, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledged nearly 400 reports of children between the ages of 12 and 17 who experienced heart inflammation after receiving the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

The CDC study also included 14 reports of deaths after vaccination in teens. Among those who died, four were between the ages of 12 and 15, and 10 occurred in 16- to 17-year-olds.

Deaths reviewed by the CDC included two reports of pulmonary embolism, two suicides, two intracranial hemorrhages, one report of heart failure and one rare blood disorder.

The CDC's corresponding author, Anne M. Hause, Ph.D., said:

"Impressions regarding cause of death did not indicate a pattern suggestive of a causal relationship with vaccination; however, cause of death for some decedents is pending receipt of additional information."

All deaths were reviewed by CDC physicians and six deaths are pending further analysis. None of the death reports were determined to have been caused by heart inflammation.

Last month, The Defender reported on a 13-year-old boy who, according to a preliminary autopsy, died of myocarditis three days after receiving his second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

"A wk ago today my brother's 13-yr-old son had his 2nd covid shot. Less than 3 days later he died. The initial autopsy results were that his heart was enlarged + there was some fluid surrounding it. He had no known health problems. Was on no medications." https://t.co/gwapruSEP5

- Children's Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) June 24, 2021

Michigan health authorities reported the 13-year-old's death to the CDC, which said it was investigating. It's not known if the boy's death is one of the six still pending investigation by the CDC.
Overall results for 12- to 17-year-olds
Overall, the CDC study reviewed adverse events among 12- to-17-year-olds reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) between Dec. 14, 2020, and July 16, 2021. VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer vaccine for children 16 years and older on Dec. 11, 2020. The FDA expanded the authorization to children 12 and over on May 10.

The Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (marketed under the Janssen brand) vaccines are authorized for emergency use only in people age 18 or older.

According to the CDC study, as of July 16, about 8.9 million U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years had received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. VAERS received 9,246 reports after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination in this age group - 90.7% of these were for non-serious adverse events and 9.3% were for serious adverse events, including myocarditis (4.3% or 397 reports).

The CDC also reviewed adverse events for the 12 - to 17-year-old age group reported during the same timeframe to V-safe, a smartphone-based safety surveillance system controlled by the CDC and private partners.

According to the study, 129,000 U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years enrolled in V-safe after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination. They reported local (63.4%) and systemic (48.9%) reactions with a frequency similar to that reported in preauthorization clinical trials. Systemic reactions were more common after dose two.

The study stated that a small number of V-safe participants reported they were hospitalized after vaccination, however, V-safe does not record a reason for hospitalization, and it cannot be determined whether hospitalization was related to vaccination. Though run by the CDC, V-safe data is not accessible by the public.
Most common reactions related to myocarditis
Although the CDC study did not link any of the deaths that occurred in the 12- to-17-year-old group to heart inflammation, it did find the most commonly reported serious adverse events in that age group included chest pain, increased troponin levels, myocarditis, increased c-reactive protein and negative SARS-CoV-2 test results.

According to the CDC, the findings were consistent with a diagnosis of myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle that can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death.

According to researchers at the National Organization for Rare Disorders, myocarditis can result from infections, but "more commonly the myocarditis is a result of the body's immune reaction to the initial heart damage." According to Mayo Clinic, severe myocarditis can permanently damage your heart muscle possibly causing heart failure.

The CDC's Hause said the study was subject to several limitations, including:

VAERS is a passive surveillance system and is subject to under-reporting and reporting bias.

Documentation might be delayed or unavailable for medical review.

A lack of statistical safety signal in planned monitoring does not preclude a safety concern.

The study was not designed to identify all cases of myocarditis -- only those reports that listed the MedDRA term "myocarditis" were included.

The study also noted that V-safe is a voluntary self-enrollment program that requires children older than 15 be enrolled by a parent or guardian and might not be generalizable to the overall vaccinated adolescent population.

The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) conducted a risk-benefit assessment based on the adverse reaction reports and continues to recommend the Pfizer vaccine to children aged 12 and older.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on June 25 added a warning to patient and provider fact sheets for Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines indicating an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis following vaccination.

The warning notes reports of adverse events suggest increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly following the second dose and with onset of symptoms within a few days after vaccination.

The FDA's update followed a review of information and discussion by the ACIP meeting on June 23 where the committee acknowledged 1,200 cases of heart inflammation in 16- to 24-year-olds and said mRNA COVID vaccines should carry a warning statement.

Health officials said the benefits of receiving a COVID vaccine still outweigh any risks. Physicians and other public commenters accused the CDC during the meeting of exaggerating the risk to young people of COVID and minimizing the risk of the vaccines.

Pfizer and its vaccine partner BioNTech submitted an application in May to the FDA requesting full FDA approval of its COVID vaccine. Pfizer was the first COVID vaccine maker in the U.S. to request full approval.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CDC Study on 12- to 17-Year-Olds Who Got Pfizer Vaccine: 397 Reports of Heart Inflammation, 14 Deaths

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A study released last week by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed 9,246 adverse events reported among adolescents aged 12 to 17, including 863 serious events, 14 deaths and 397 reports of myocarditis. The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels.

# data[].attributes.headline
7/23/2021 - “19th technical briefing on Covid-19 variants of concern” by Public Health England

# data[].attributes.subject
7/23/2021 - “19th technical briefing on Covid-19 variants of concern” by Public Health England

# data[].attributes.body
Fully vaccinated people are 65% more likely to be hospitalised & 1540% more likely to die due to Covid-19 than people who are unvaccinated according to latest Public Health England data - https://tapnewswire.com/2021/07/fully-vaccinated-people-are-65-more-likely-to-be-hospitalised-1540-more-likely-to-die-due-to-covid-19-than-people-who-are-unvaccinated-according-to-latest-public-health-england-data/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper by Andrew Atkeson, Karen Kopecky, and Tao Zha focused on countries and U.S. states with more than 1,000 COVID deaths as of late July. In all, the study included 25 U.S. states and 23 countries.

Based on their analysis, the authors present four "Stylized Facts" about COVID-19, which are:

1. Once a region reaches 25 total COVID deaths, within a month the growth rate in deaths per day falls to approximately zero. In other words, no matter the country or state and its policies, deaths per day stop increasing within 20-30 days of passing a threshold of 25 deaths.

2. Once that happens, deaths per day either begin to fall or the trend remains flat.

3. The variability in death trends across regions has fallen sharply since the beginning of the epidemic and remains low. All states studied, all countries studied, have become more similar in their trends and have remained so.

4. Observations 1-3 suggest that the effective reproduction number, R, has hovered around one worldwide after the first 30 days of the epidemic.

The paper's conclusion is that the data trends observed above likely indicate that nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) - such as lockdowns, closures, travel restrictions, stay-home orders, event bans, quarantines, curfews, and mask mandates - do not seem to affect virus transmission rates overall.

Why? Because those policies have varied in their timing and implementation across countries and states, but the trends in outcomes do not.

From the study's authors:

Location and sampling uncertainty. The black solid line in both charts represents the median posterior estimate. The solid magenta line in the top chart represents the median growth rate of 7-day smoothed daily deaths for all 50 locations and corresponds only to the left scale. The two dash-dotted bands in both charts contain two thirds of the posterior probability at each point in time and the two dashed bands, 0.90 of the posterior probability. The growth rates of death is estimated according to the fitted Weibull function. Effective reproduction numbers and normalized transmission rates are based on the SIR model. Day 0 is the earliest date when the cumulative death toll reached 25 in each location.

This study runs counter to previous studies claiming that NPIs were effective in reducing transmission rates during the early stages of the epidemic. The authors explain:

Given the observation that transmission rates for COVID-19 fell virtually everywhere in the world during this early pandemic period, we are concerned that these studies may substantially overstate the role of government-mandated NPIs in reducing disease transmission due to an omitted variable bias.

One of the key candidates for the key "omitted variable," i.e. the true cause of the decline in transmission rates after the first month of an epidemic, is that human interaction does not conform to simple epidemiological models. In the real world human social networks overlap in such a way that a virus can spread rapidly for a short period of time, as some people contact more networks than others, but reaches natural dead-ends and roundabouts where potential new hosts in a "new" social network have already been exposed through other networks. The effect can resemble what some think of as "herd immunity," but at relatively low infection rates.

The authors reason that even if NPIs were effective early on, they do not appear to be anymore:

Moreover, given the observation that disease transmission rates have remained low with relatively low dispersion across locations worldwide for the past several months as NPIs have been lifted, we are concerned that estimates of the effectiveness of NPIs in reducing disease transmission from the earlier period may not be relevant for forecasting the impact of the relaxation of those NPIs in the current period, due to some unobserved switch in regime.

This study provides strong statistical support for what so many have been observing for six months. The epidemic has a natural tendency to spread quickly at first and slow down, seemingly on its own, a point made not only here but as early as April 14 by Isaac Ben-Israel. Meanwhile governors imagine that very specific rules for opening bars and restaurants are the key to containment.

Governments have conducted an unprecedented social, economic, and political experiment in controlling whole populations' behavior, with high economic and human cost. The authors ask the right question: has this experiment in government-managed virus control and suppression made a difference? The startling answer they found, after examining data from around the country and the world, is that the evidence simply is not there.

If we are concerned about the evidence on this global experiment, we must concede that most government authorities have likely acted in error.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lockdowns and Mask Mandates Do Not Lead to Reduced COVID...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The paper's conclusion is that the data trends observed above likely indicate that nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) - such as lockdowns, closures, travel restrictions, stay-home orders, event bans, quarantines, curfews, and mask mandates - do not seem to affect virus transmission rates...

# data[].attributes.body
Johns Hopkins Univ. study - TLDR: the states with more vaxxed people have more cases of COVID.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Please Share This Story!

It is inconceivable that all of these gene therapy "vaccines" are not summarily terminated by every nation on earth. The EU counterpart to the U.S. VAERS database reports deaths and injuries that are likely understated because not all cases are reported. Even still, the actually reported numbers are staggering.

The Technocrats/Transhumans who are running this global human reset must be stopped. ⁃ TN Editor
The European database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, which also tracks reports of injuries and deaths following the experimental COVID-19 "vaccines."
A subscriber from Europe recently emailed us and reminded us that this database maintained at EudraVigilance is only for countries in Europe who are part of the European Union (EU), which comprises 27 countries.

The total number of countries in Europe is much higher, almost twice as many, numbering around 50, although there are some differences of opinion as to which countries are technically part of Europe.

So as high as these numbers are, they do NOT reflect all of Europe. The actual number in Europe who are reported dead or injured due to COVID-19 shots would be much higher than what we are reporting here.

The EudraVigilance database reports that through June 19, 2021 there are 15,472 deaths and 1,509,266 injuries reported following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:

From the total of injuries recorded, half of them (753,657) are serious injuries.
"Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as 'serious' if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect."
A Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. This subscriber has volunteered to do this, and it is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.

Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.[1]

Here is the summary data through June 19, 2021.

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2, Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 7,420 deaths and 560,256 injuries to 19/06/2021

16,133 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 81 deaths

12,637 Cardiac disorders incl. 964 deaths

101 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 6 deaths

7000 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 4 deaths

265 Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death

8,122 Eye disorders incl. 17 deaths

51,030 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 348 deaths

155,486 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 2,290 deaths

468 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 31 deaths

6,110 Immune system disorders incl. 32 deaths

17,549 Infections and infestations incl. 762 deaths

6,275 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 104 deaths

13,249 Investigations incl. 285 deaths

4,162 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 139 deaths

79,125 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 88 deaths

325 Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl. cysts and polyps) incl. 23 deaths

100,895 Nervous system disorders incl. 780 deaths

384 Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 10 deaths

107 Product issues

9,928 Psychiatric disorders incl. 105 deaths

1,765 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 115 deaths

2,696 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 3 deaths

23,689 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 848 deaths

26,641 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 66 deaths

846 Social circumstances incl. 10 deaths

281 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 19 deaths

14,987 Vascular disorders incl. 289 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273 (CX-024414) from Moderna: 4,147 death s and 122,643 injuries to 19/06/2021

2,239 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 29 deaths

3,315 Cardiac disorders incl. 446 deaths

39 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 3 deaths

1,454 Ear and labyrinth disorders

82 Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death

1,883 Eye disorders incl. 7 deaths

10,655 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 142 deaths

33,936 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,759 deaths

209 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 11 deaths

1,117 Immune system disorders incl. 5 deaths

3,835 Infections and infestations incl. 234 deaths

2,480 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 77 deaths

2,670 Investigations incl. 89 deaths

1,297 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 85 deaths

15,131 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 77 deaths

128 Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl. cysts and polyps) incl. 15 deaths

21,684 Nervous system disorders incl. 424 deaths

255 Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 2 death

20 Product issues

2,437 Psychiatric disorders incl. 69 deaths

807 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 52 deaths

459 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 1 death

5,640 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 399 deaths

6,538 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 28 deaths

504 Social circumstances incl. 13 deaths

397 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 38 deaths

3,432 Vascular disorders incl. 141 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222/VAXZEVRIA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/AstraZeneca: 3,364 death s and 793,036 injuries to 19/06/2021

9,136 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 132 deaths

12,135 Cardiac disorders incl. 396 deaths

95 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 2 deaths

8,797 Ear and labyrinth disorders

309 Endocrine disorders incl. 2 deaths

13,459 Eye disorders incl. 12 deaths

81,806 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 161 deaths

212,663 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 891 deaths

525 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 25 deaths

3,085 Immune system disorders incl. 11 deaths

17,791 Infections and infestations incl. 217 deaths

7,854 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 77 deaths

16,731 Investigations incl. 79 deaths

9,765 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 50 deaths

123,637 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 45 deaths

332 Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl. cysts and polyps) incl. 8 deaths

169,286 Nervous system disorders incl. 532 deaths

223 Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 4 deaths

103 Product issues

14,931 Psychiatric disorders incl. 27 deaths

2,809 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 29 deaths

5,967 Reproductive system and breast disorders

26,631 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 387 deaths

36,457 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 22 deaths

772 Social circumstances incl. 4 deaths

671 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 16 deaths

17,066 Vascular disorders incl. 235 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson: 541 deaths and 33, 331 injuries to 19/06/2021

306 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 16 deaths

496 Cardiac disorders incl. 56 deaths

14 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders

177 Ear and labyrinth disorders

8 Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death

383 Eye disorders incl. 3 deaths

3,086 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 23 deaths

8,761 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 137 deaths

52 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 4 deaths

85 Immune system disorders

392 Infections and infestations incl. 13 deaths

320 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 8 deaths

2,003 Investigations incl. 37 deaths

184 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 10 deaths

5,718 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 17 deaths

16 Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl. cysts and polyps)

7,093 Nervous system disorders incl. 68 deaths

9 Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 1 death

9 Product issues

355 Psychiatric disorders incl. 5 deaths

119 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 8 deaths

114 Reproductive system and breast disorders

1,130 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 43 deaths

804 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 2 deaths

72 Social circumstances incl. 3 deaths

336 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 26 deaths

1,289 Vascular disorders incl. 60 deaths

Read full story here...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shock: European Union Reports 1.5 Million Vaccine Injuries, 15,472 Deaths

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is inconceivable that all of these gene therapy "vaccines" are not summarily terminated by every nation on earth. The EU counterpart to the U.S.' VAERS database reports deaths and injuries that are likely understated because not all cases are reported. Even still, the actually reported numbers are staggering.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis

# data[].attributes.headline
According to this study the holes in surgical masks are measured in micrometers making the holes 1000x larger than the virus aerosols.

# data[].attributes.subject
According to this study the holes in surgical masks are measured in micrometers making the holes 1000x larger than the virus aerosols.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hypothesis

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a global public health emergency of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing illness of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) . As of October 1, 2020, worldwide 34,166,633 cases were reported and 1,018,876 have died with virus diagnosis. Interestingly, 99% of the detected cases with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic or have mild condition, which contradicts with the virus name ( severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2) . Although infection fatality rate (number of death cases divided by number of reported cases) initially seems quite high 0.029 (2.9%) , this overestimation related to limited number of COVID-19 tests performed which biases towards higher rates. Given the fact that asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times higher than the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate is considerably less than 1% . This was confirmed by the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from US stating, "the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 are similar to those of severe seasonal influenza" , having a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1% , , , . In addition, data from hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and general public indicate that the majority of deaths were among older and chronically ill individuals, supporting the possibility that the virus may exacerbates existing conditions but rarely causes death by itself , . SARS-CoV-2 primarily affects respiratory system and can cause complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), respiratory failure and death , . It is not clear however, what the scientific and clinical basis for wearing facemasks as protective strategy, given the fact that facemasks restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia and increase the risk for respiratory complications, self-contamination and exacerbation of existing chronic conditions , , , , .

Of note, hyperoxia or oxygen supplementation (breathing air with high partial O ₂ pressures that above the sea levels) has been well established as therapeutic and curative practice for variety acute and chronic conditions including respiratory complications , . It fact, the current standard of care practice for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is breathing 100% oxygen , , . Although several countries mandated wearing facemask in health care settings and public areas, scientific evidences are lacking supporting their efficacy for reducing morbidity or mortality associated with infectious or viral diseases , , . Therefore, it has been hypothesized: 1) the practice of wearing facemasks has compromised safety and efficacy profile, 2) Both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to reduce human-to-human transmission and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, 3) Wearing facemasks has adverse physiological and psychological effects, 4) Long-term consequences of wearing facemasks on health are detrimental.

Evolution of hypothesis

Breathing Physiology

Breathing is one of the most important physiological functions to sustain life and health. Human body requires a continuous and adequate oxygen (O ₂) supply to all organs and cells for normal function and survival. Breathing is also an essential process for removing metabolic byproducts [carbon dioxide (CO ₂)] occurring during cell respiration , . It is well established that acute significant deficit in O ₂ (hypoxemia) and increased levels of CO ₂ (hypercapnia) even for few minutes can be severely harmful and lethal, while chronic hypoxemia and hypercapnia cause health deterioration, exacerbation of existing conditions, morbidity and ultimately mortality , , , . Emergency medicine demonstrates that 5-6 min of severe hypoxemia during cardiac arrest will cause brain death with extremely poor survival rates , , , . On the other hand, chronic mild or moderate hypoxemia and hypercapnia such as from wearing facemasks resulting in shifting to higher contribution of anaerobic energy metabolism, decrease in pH levels and increase in cells and blood acidity, toxicity, oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, immunosuppression and health deterioration , , , .

Efficacy of facemasks

The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales , , . According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] , , while medical and non-medical facemasks' thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger . Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask . In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material . With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists .

Clinical scientific evidence challenges further the efficacy of facemasks to block human-to-human transmission or infectivity. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus . The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose ect...) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people . This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days. The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase .

A meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs . Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus . A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings .

Another meta-analysis of 44 non-RCT studies (n = 25,697 participants) examining the potential risk reduction of facemasks against SARS, middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) and COVID-19 transmissions . The meta-analysis included four specific studies on COVID-19 transmission (5,929 participants, primarily health-care workers used N95 masks). Although the overall findings showed reduced risk of virus transmission with facemasks, the analysis had severe limitations to draw conclusions. One of the four COVID-19 studies had zero infected cases in both arms, and was excluded from meta-analytic calculation. Other two COVID-19 studies had unadjusted models, and were also excluded from the overall analysis. The meta-analytic results were based on only one COVID-19, one MERS and 8 SARS studies, resulting in high selection bias of the studies and contamination of the results between different viruses. Based on four COVID-19 studies, the meta-analysis failed to demonstrate risk reduction of facemasks for COVID-19 transmission, where the authors reported that the results of meta-analysis have low certainty and are inconclusive .

In early publication the WHO stated that "facemasks are not required, as no evidence is available on its usefulness to protect non-sick persons" . In the same publication, the WHO declared that "cloth (e.g. cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstance" . Conversely, in later publication the WHO stated that the usage of fabric-made facemasks (Polypropylene, Cotton, Polyester, Cellulose, Gauze and Silk) is a general community practice for "preventing the infected wearer transmitting the virus to others and/or to offer protection to the healthy wearer against infection (prevention)" . The same publication further conflicted itself by stating that due to the lower filtration, breathability and overall performance of fabric facemasks, the usage of woven fabric mask such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for infected persons and not for prevention practice in asymptomatic individuals . The Central for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made similar recommendation, stating that only symptomatic persons should consider wearing facemask, while for asymptomatic individuals this practice is not recommended . Consistent with the CDC, clinical scientists from Departments of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology in Australia counsel against facemasks usage for health-care workers, arguing that there is no justification for such practice while normal caring relationship between patients and medical staff could be compromised . Moreover, the WHO repeatedly announced that "at present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19) on the effectiveness face masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection of respiratory viruses, including COVID-19". Despite these controversies, the potential harms and risks of wearing facemasks were clearly acknowledged. These including self-contamination due to hand practice or non-replaced when the mask is wet, soiled or damaged, development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne and psychological discomfort. Vulnerable populations such as people with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, hearing problems, those living in hot and humid environments, children and patients with respiratory conditions are at significant health risk for complications and harm .

Physiological effects of wearing facemasks

Wearing facemask mechanically restricts breathing by increasing the resistance of air movement during both inhalation and exhalation process , . Although, intermittent (several times a week) and repetitive (10-15 breaths for 2-4 sets) increase in respiration resistance may be adaptive for strengthening respiratory muscles , , prolonged and continues effect of wearing facemask is maladaptive and could be detrimental for health , , . In normal conditions at the sea level, air contains 20.93% O ₂ and 0.03% CO ₂, providing partial pressures of 100 mmHg and 40 mmHg for these gases in the arterial blood, respectively. These gas concentrations significantly altered when breathing occurs through facemask. A trapped air remaining between the mouth, nose and the facemask is rebreathed repeatedly in and out of the body, containing low O ₂ and high CO ₂ concentrations, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia , , , , . Severe hypoxemia may also provoke cardiopulmonary and neurological complications and is considered an important clinical sign in cardiopulmonary medicine , , , , , . Low oxygen content in the arterial blood can cause myocardial ischemia, serious arrhythmias, right or left ventricular dysfunction, dizziness, hypotension, syncope and pulmonary hypertension . Chronic low-grade hypoxemia and hypercapnia as result of using facemask can cause exacerbation of existing cardiopulmonary, metabolic, vascular and neurological conditions , , , , , . summarizes the physiological, psychological effects of wearing facemask and their potential long-term consequences for health.

Table 1

Physiological Effects

Psychological Effect

Health Consequences

* Hypoxemia

* Hypercapnia

* Shortness of breath

* Increase lactate concentration

* Decline in pH levels

* Acidosis

* Toxicity

* Inflammation

* Self-contamination

* Increase in stress hormones level (adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol)

* Increased muscle tension

* Immunosuppression

* Activation of "fight or flight" stress response

* Chronic stress condition

* Fear

* Mood disturbances

* Insomnia

* Fatigue

* Compromised cognitive performance

* Increased predisposition for viral and infection illnesses

* Headaches

* Anxiety

* Depression

* Hypertension

* Cardiovascular disease

* Cancer

* Diabetes

* Alzheimer disease

* Exacerbation of existing conditions and diseases

* Accelerated aging process

* Health deterioration

* Premature mortality

In addition to hypoxia and hypercapnia, breathing through facemask residues bacterial and germs components on the inner and outside layer of the facemask. These toxic components are repeatedly rebreathed back into the body, causing self-contamination. Breathing through facemasks also increases temperature and humidity in the space between the mouth and the mask, resulting a release of toxic particles from the mask's materials , , , , , . A systematic literature review estimated that aerosol contamination levels of facemasks including 13 to 202,549 different viruses . Rebreathing contaminated air with high bacterial and toxic particle concentrations along with low O ₂ and high CO ₂ levels continuously challenge the body homeostasis, causing self-toxicity and immunosuppression , , , , , .

A study on 39 patients with renal disease found that wearing N95 facemask during hemodialysis significantly reduced arterial partial oxygen pressure (from PaO ₂ 101.7 to 92.7 mm Hg), increased respiratory rate (from 16.8 to 18.8 breaths/min), and increased the occurrence of chest discomfort and respiratory distress . Respiratory Protection Standards from Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Department of Labor states that breathing air with O ₂ concentration below 19.5% is considered oxygen-deficiency, causing physiological and health adverse effects. These include increased breathing frequency, accelerated heartrate and cognitive impairments related to thinking and coordination . A chronic state of mild hypoxia and hypercapnia has been shown as primarily mechanism for developing cognitive dysfunction based on animal studies and studies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease .

The adverse physiological effects were confirmed in a study of 53 surgeons where surgical facemask were used during a major operation. After 60 min of facemask wearing the oxygen saturation dropped by more than 1% and heart rate increased by approximately five beats/min . Another study among 158 health-care workers using protective personal equipment primarily N95 facemasks reported that 81% (128 workers) developed new headaches during their work shifts as these become mandatory due to COVID-19 outbreak. For those who used the N95 facemask greater than 4 h per day, the likelihood for developing a headache during the work shift was approximately four times higher [Odds ratio = 3.91, 95% CI (1.35-11.31) p = 0.012], while 82.2% of the N95 wearers developed the headache already within ≤10 to 50 min .

With respect to cloth facemask, a RCT using four weeks follow up compared the effect of cloth facemask to medical masks and to no masks on the incidence of clinical respiratory illness, influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections among 1607 participants from 14 hospitals . The results showed that there were no difference between wearing cloth masks, medical masks and no masks for incidence of clinical respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections. However, a large harmful effect with more than 13 times higher risk [Relative Risk = 13.25 95% CI (1.74 to 100.97) was observed for influenza-like illness among those who were wearing cloth masks . The study concluded that cloth masks have significant health and safety issues including moisture retention, reuse, poor filtration and increased risk for infection, providing recommendation against the use of cloth masks .

Psychological effects of wearing facemasks

Psychologically, wearing facemask fundamentally has negative effects on the wearer and the nearby person. Basic human-to-human connectivity through face expression is compromised and self-identity is somewhat eliminated , , . These dehumanizing movements partially delete the uniqueness and individuality of person who wearing the facemask as well as the connected person . Social connections and relationships are basic human needs, which innately inherited in all people, whereas reduced human-to-human connections are associated with poor mental and physical health , . Despite escalation in technology and globalization that would presumably foster social connections, scientific findings show that people are becoming increasingly more socially isolated, and the prevalence of loneliness is increasing in last few decades , . Poor social connections are closely related to isolation and loneliness, considered significant health related risk factors , , , .

A meta-analysis of 91 studies of about 400,000 people showed a 13% increased morality risk among people with low compare to high contact frequency . Another meta-analysis of 148 prospective studies (308,849 participants) found that poor social relationships was associated with 50% increased mortality risk. People who were socially isolated or fell lonely had 45% and 40% increased mortality risk, respectively. These findings were consistent across ages, sex, initial health status, cause of death and follow-up periods . Importantly, the increased risk for mortality was found comparable to smoking and exceeding well-established risk factors such as obesity and physical inactivity . An umbrella review of 40 systematic reviews including 10 meta-analyses demonstrated that compromised social relationships were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, depression, anxiety suicide, cancer and overall physical illness .

As described earlier, wearing facemasks causing hypoxic and hypercapnic state that constantly challenges the normal homeostasis, and activates "fight or flight" stress response, an important survival mechanism in the human body , , . The acute stress response includes activation of nervous, endocrine, cardiovascular, and the immune systems , , , . These include activation of the limbic part of the brain, release stress hormones (adrenalin, neuro-adrenalin and cortisol), changes in blood flow distribution (vasodilation of peripheral blood vessels and vasoconstriction of visceral blood vessels) and activation of the immune system response (secretion of macrophages and natural killer cells) , . Encountering people who wearing facemasks activates innate stress-fear emotion, which is fundamental to all humans in danger or life threating situations, such as death or unknown, unpredictable outcome. While acute stress response (seconds to minutes) is adaptive reaction to challenges and part of the survival mechanism, chronic and prolonged state of stress-fear is maladaptive and has detrimental effects on physical and mental health. The repeatedly or continuously activated stress-fear response causes the body to operate on survival mode, having sustain increase in blood pressure, pro-inflammatory state and immunosuppression , .

Long-Term health consequences of wearing facemasks

Long-term practice of wearing facemasks has strong potential for devastating health consequences. Prolonged hypoxic-hypercapnic state compromises normal physiological and psychological balance, deteriorating health and promotes the developing and progression of existing chronic diseases , , , , , , , , , . For instance, ischemic heart disease caused by hypoxic damage to the myocardium is the most common form of cardiovascular disease and is a number one cause of death worldwide (44% of all non-communicable diseases) with 17.9 million deaths occurred in 2016 . Hypoxia also playing an important role in cancer burden . Cellular hypoxia has strong mechanistic feature in promoting cancer initiation, progression, metastasis, predicting clinical outcomes and usually presents a poorer survival in patients with cancer. Most solid tumors present some degree of hypoxia, which is independent predictor of more aggressive disease, resistance to cancer therapies and poorer clinical outcomes , . Worth note, cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, with an estimate of more than 18 million new diagnosed cases and 9.6 million cancer-related deaths occurred in 2018 .

With respect to mental health, global estimates showing that COVID-19 will cause a catastrophe due to collateral psychological damage such as quarantine, lockdowns, unemployment, economic collapse, social isolation, violence and suicides , , . Chronic stress along with hypoxic and hypercapnic conditions knocks the body out of balance, and can cause headaches, fatigue, stomach issues, muscle tension, mood disturbances, insomnia and accelerated aging , , , , . This state suppressing the immune system to protect the body from viruses and bacteria, decreasing cognitive function, promoting the developing and exacerbating the major health issues including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer disease, rising anxiety and depression states, causes social isolation and loneliness and increasing the risk for prematurely mortality , , , , .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a global public health emergency of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing illness of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) . As of October 1, 2020, worldwide 34,166,633 cases were reported and 1,018,876 have died with virus diagnosis.

# data[].attributes.headline
3/16/21 MIT & Harvard Study Suggests mRNA Vaccine Might Permanently Alter DNA After All

# data[].attributes.subject
3/16/21 MIT & Harvard Study Suggests mRNA Vaccine Might Permanently Alter DNA After All

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ALARMING VIDEO ON C19 TESTS & VAX *MUST-SEE!!!!*

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
mirror: https://www.bitchute.com/video/dm2paKoQbwYA/ Published on 2.16.21 by Cairns News at https://www.cairnsnews.org/. The video from original site is banned from FB & FakeJewTube. Freely share this one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
AAPS | Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
curated by Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D. - http://marilynsingletonmdjd.com/
Updated September 26, 2020 Introduction
COVID-19 is as politically-charged as it is infectious. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO, the CDC and NIH's Dr. Anthony Fauci discouraged wearing masks as not useful for non-health care workers. Now they recommend wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are hard to do (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies). The recommendation was published without a single scientific paper or other information provided to support that cloth masks actually provide any respiratory protection. Let's look at the data.

The theory behind mask wearing:

Source control: Cloth mask can trap droplets that come out of a person's mouth when they cough or sneeze.

Protection: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) - only N95 masks

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2
Note: A COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) particle is 0.125 micrometers/microns (μm); influenza virus size is 0.08 - 0.12 μm; a human hair is about 150 μm.
*1 nm = 0.001 micron; 1000 nm = 1 micron; Micrometer (μm) is the preferred name for micron *1 meter is = 1,000,000,000 [trillion] nm or 1,000,000 [million] microns
*For a complete dissection and explanation of aerosols and airborne particles, please see Understanding Particle Size and Aerosol-based Transmission by Steve Probst. https://www.4cconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Understanding-Particle-Size-and-Aerosol-Based-Transmission.pdf

Virus is transmitted through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.
This idea guides the CDC's advice to maintain at least a 6-foot distance.

Small (<5 μm) aerosolized droplets can remain in the air for at least 3 hours and travel long distances (up to 27 ft.).

Air currents

In an air conditioned environment these large droplets may travel farther.

Ventilation. Even the opening of an entrance door and a small window can dilute the number of small droplets to one half after 30 seconds. (This study looked at droplets from uninfected persons). This is clinically relevant because poorly ventilated and populated spaces, like public transport and nursing homes, have high SARS-CoV-2 disease transmission despite physical distancing.

Since 1961, experiments showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times as ambient humidity was increased. Dryness drives the small aerosol particles. See e.g., review of studies, https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-20-06-covid-0302

Conclusions

The preponderance of scientific evidence supports that aerosols play a critical role in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Years of dose response studies indicate that if anything gets through, you will become infected.

Thus, any respiratory protection respirator or mask must provide a high level of filtration and fit to be highly effective in preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. (Works for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (3μm)

Public health authorities define a significant exposure to COVID-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes).
The chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal.

MASKS Filter Efficiency and Fit Data from a University of Illinois at Chicago review https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data Laboratory Studies

HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filters are 99.97 to 100% efficient. HEPA filters are tested with particles that are 0.125 μm (the size of SARS-CoV-2).

Masks and respirators work by collecting particles through several physical mechanisms, including diffusion (small particles) and interception and impaction (large particles).

Surgical masks are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids. They aren't effective at blocking particles smaller than 100 μm. https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/957730O/respirators-and-surgical-masks-contrast-technical-bulletin.pdf
OSHA/CDC: A surgical mask is not a respirator. It cannot be used to protect workers who perform or assist with aerosol-generating procedures, which may create very fine aerosol sprays. A surgical mask can only be used to protect workers from contact with the large droplets made by patients when they cough, sneeze, talk or breathe. https://www.osha.gov/dts/guidance/flu/healthcare.html

Human Studies

N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are constructed from electret (a dielectric material that has a quasi-permanent electric charge.) An electret generates internal and external electric fields so the filter material has electrostatic attraction for additional collection of all particle sizes. As flow increases, particles will be collected less efficiently.

A properly fitted N95 will block 95% of tiny air particles down to
0.3 μm from reaching the wearer's face.
Problem: no source control. An N95 does not filter exhaled air passing through the exhaust/exhalation valve (for easier breathing and less moisture inside the mask).

Study measuring filter efficiency (2010)
Efficiency for the entire range of particles

Study measuring filter efficiency (2014, Korea)

https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201

Evaluated 44 masks, respirators, and other materials with similar methods and small aerosols (0.08 and 0.22 µm)

N95 FFR filter - >95% efficiency

Medical masks - 55% efficiency

General (cloth) masks - 38% efficiency

Handkerchiefs - 2% (one layer) to 13% (four layers) efficiency.

Conclusion: Wearing masks (other than N95) will not be effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE.
N95s protect health care workers, but are not recommended for source control transmission.

Surgical masks are better than cloth but not very efficient at preventing emissions from infected patients. Cloth masks must be 3 layers, plus adding static electricity by rubbing with rubber glove.

The cloth that serves as the filtration for the mask is meant to trap particles being breathed in and out. But it also serves as a barrier to air movement because it forces the air to take the path of least resistance, resulting in the aerosols going in and out at the sides of the mask.

An August 2020 UCSF study suggested that the mask would decrease the absolute volume of the inoculum. (The concentrations of bacteria upstream and downstream of the test devices were measured with an aerodynamic size spectrometer) https://ucsf.app.box.com/s/blvolkp5z0mydzd82rjks4wyleagt036

Study of surgical face mask use in health care workers (2009, Japan).
Masks did not provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting cold.

*The first randomized controlled trial of cloth masks in health care workers (2015, Australia).
Penetration of:
Cloth masks by particles - 97%

Cloth masks resulted in significantly higher rates of infection than medical masks, and also performed worse than the control arm some of whom may have worn masks.

The virus may survive on the surface of the face masks

Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. A contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer.

Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks, and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.

Cloth masks should not be recommended for health care workers, particularly in high-risk situations.

Review of N95 and surgical masks against respiratory infection (2016). https://www.cmaj.ca/content/cmaj/188/8/567.full.pdf

From January 1990 to December 2014. 6 clinical studies: 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 1 cohort study and 2 case-control studies, and 23 surrogate exposure studies.

In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, "no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism."

Review of masks and N95s against respiratory infection (2017, Singapore).
Separate meta-analyses of 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 23 observational studies conducted during the 2003 SARS pandemic.

Compared to medical masks, N95 respirators provided greater protection against clinical respiratory illness (CRI) and bacterial respiratory illness (BRI). These 2 outcomes were common in these trials (average risks of 8.7% and 7.3%, respectively).

Compared to masks, N95 respirators conferred superior protection against clinical respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed bacterial, but not viral infections or influenza life illness (ILI).

Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias.

Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection was not statistically significant (compared to no mask)

Randomized Controlled Trial: N95s vs medical masks in health care workers (HCWs) against influenza (2019).

2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons.

Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators (8.2%) vs medical masks (7.2%) resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza. 90% said they wore the mask all the time.

Review of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza (March 2020, China).

6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 9,171 participants were included (2015-2020). There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks.

Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization.

CDC Review since 1946 of masks and influenza (May 2020)

Studied different types of face coverings in non-clinical setting (August 2020).
They used a black box, a laser, and a camera. A person wears a face mask and speaks into the direction of an expanded laser beam inside a dark enclosure. Droplets that propagate through the laser beam scatter light, which is recorded with a camera. A simple computer algorithm then counts the droplets seen in the video.

The N95 led to a droplet transmission of below 0.1%.

Cotton and polypropylene masks, some of which were made from apron material showed a droplet transmission ranging from 10% to 40%.

Knitted mask had up to 60% droplet transmission.

Neck fleece had 110% droplet transmission (10% higher than not wearing a mask).

Speaking through some masks (particularly the neck fleece, bandanas) seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets ... which explains the apparent increase in droplet count relative to no mask in that case.

See "Positive Effects of Masks" below. A recent study suggested that the mask would decrease the absolute volume of the inoculum. (The concentrations of bacteria upstream and downstream of the test devices were measured with an aerodynamic size spectrometer) https://ucsf.app.box.com/s/blvolkp5z0mydzd82rjks4wyleagt036

Austrian observation(August 2020)

News report (August 13, 2020)

Study from France:

https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/ (Swiss Policy Research)

Johns Hopkins, 9/21/20
Negative Effects of Masks

https://twitter.com/Covid19Crusher/status/1308013900546428928

Decreased PaO2
Air inside the mask is definitely stale. In filtering particles, the mask makes it harder to breathe.
Increased CO2

A 2004 observational study of end stage renal disease patients during dialysis for 4 hours (2004, Taiwan).

Stanford engineers estimated that N95 masks cause a 5% to 20% reduction in O2 intake. This can cause dizziness and lightheadedness. This can be life-threatening for someone with lung disease or with respiratory distress.
Moisture retention

This may be merely theoretical. Carbon dioxide molecules freely diffuse through the masks, allowing normal gas exchange while breathing.

CO2 is present in the atmosphere at a level of about 0.04% (400ppm). According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture / OSHA, carbon dioxide becomes toxic at concentrations above 4 percent (40,000ppm); symptoms at 5,000-10,000 ppm. 10,000 ppm has been measured behind mask.

Health care worker study (2009, Japan) with similar headache results as Scandinavian study (above).

While there are some articles reporting OSHA tests, it is not clear they were proper tests.

Some people have mistakenly claimed that OSHA standards (e.g., the Respiratory Protection standard, 29 CFR 1910.134; the Permit-Required Confined Space standard 29 CFR 1910.146; and the Air Contaminants standard, 29 CFR 1910.1000) apply to the issue of oxygen or carbon dioxide levels resulting from the use of medical masks or cloth face coverings in work settings with normal ambient air (e.g. healthcare settings, offices, retail settings, construction). These standards do not apply to the wearing of medical masks or cloth face coverings in work settings with normal ambient air). These standards would only apply to work settings where there are known or suspected sources of chemicals (e.g., manufacturing facilities) or workers are required to enter a potentially dangerous location (e.g., a large tank or vessel). https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/covid-19-faq.html

It is hard to tell if the headaches experienced by HCWs with N95s is CO2 or having a strap around the head.

Reuse of cloth masks, frequency and effectiveness of cleaning, and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.

Observations during SARS suggested double-masking and other practices increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion.

Recent study (in German) cultured 82 bacterial colonies & 4 mold (fungoid) colonies from a child's masks after 8 hours of wear.

Self-contamination
"Mask mouth"

Contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. The virus may survive on the surface of the mask. The pathogen goes from mask to bare hands.

Wearing masks increases dryness, which leads to decrease in saliva. It is the saliva that fights bacteria. Result is decaying teeth, receding gum lines and seriously sour breath. Gum disease - or periodontal disease - will eventually lead to strokes and an increased risk of heart attacks."

World Health Organization (WHO), June 2020

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

"The likely disadvantages of the use of mask by healthy people in the general public include:
potential increased risk of self-contamination due to the manipulation of a face mask and subsequently touching eyes with contaminated hands;

potential self-contamination that can occur if non- medical masks are not changed when wet or soiled. This can create favourable conditions for microorganism to amplify;

potential headache and/or breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used;

potential development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for long hours;

difficulty with communicating clearly;

a false sense of security, leading to potentially lower adherence to other critical preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene;

poor compliance with mask wearing, in particular by young children;

waste management issues; improper mask disposal leading to increased litter in public places, risk of contamination to street cleaners and environment hazard;

difficulty communicating for deaf persons who rely on lip reading;

disadvantages for or difficulty wearing them, especially for children, developmentally challenged persons, those with mental illness, elderly persons with cognitive impairment, those with asthma or chronic respiratory or breathing problems, those who have had facial trauma or recent oral maxillofacial surgery, and those living in hot and humid environments.

The Hamburg Environmental Institute (July 2020) warned of the inhalation of chlorine compounds in polyester masks as well as problems in connection with face mask disposal. https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/; https://corona-transition.org/maskentragen-noch-ungesunder-als-gedacht (in German)

Psychological Damage in Children (September 11, 2020).
https://www.world-today-news.com/70-doctors-in-open-letter-to-ben-weyts-abolish-mandatory-mouth-mask-at-school-belgium/
Unanswered questions

70 Belgian doctors begged for cancellation of mask mandate at school. "In recent months, the general well-being of children and young people has come under severe pressure. We see in our practices an increasing number of children and young people with complaints due to the rules of conduct that have been imposed on them. We diagnose anxiety and sleep problems, behavioral disorders and fear of contamination. We are seeing an increase in domestic violence, isolation and deprivation. Many lack physical and emotional contact; attachment problems and addiction are obvious. 'The mandatory mouth mask in schools is a major threat to their development. It ignores the essential needs of the growing child. The well-being of children and young people is highly dependent on the emotional connection with others. (...) The aim of education is to create an optimal context so that a maximum development of young people is possible. The school environment must be a safe practice field. The mouth mask obligation, on the other hand, makes the school a threatening and unsafe environment, where emotional connection becomes difficult. 'In addition, there is no large-scale evidence that wearing face masks in a non-professional environment has any positive effect on the spread of viruses, let alone on general health.'
Positive Mask Studies

Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?

What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?

Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?

Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioral modification?

What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?

Conclusions from Organizations

Some cite a September 2019 study mentioned above (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214) comparing N95s and surgical masks in preventing flu. BUT there was no control wearing no mask. The point of the study found that both types had similar incidence of flu. (N95-8.2% vs 7.2%).

The main study used is the Missouri hairdressers who were SARS-CoV-2 infected but asymptomatic and wore a mask; clients did not get infected.(July 2020)

Review of mask use (March 2020, multi-country)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302301?via%3Dihub

21 studies; 8,686 participants. Mask use by health care workers (HCWs) and non-HCWs. HCWs had 80% reduction of viral infections. Non-HCW had 56%. Asian better than Western. Study stressed that masks were an adjunct to other measures.

Other factors:

Older age of the population, urbanization, obesity, and longer duration of the outbreak in a country were independently associated with higher country-wide per-capita coronavirus mortality.

International travel restrictions were associated with lower per-capita mortality.

Other containment measures, testing and tracing polices, and the amount of viral testing were not statistically significant predictors of country-wide coronavirus mortality, after controlling for other predictors.

Societal norms and government policies supporting mask-wearing by the public were independently associated with lower per-capita mortality from COVID-19.

Review of 8 pre-COVID-19 studies (June 2020, Australia).

No good evidence face masks protect the public against viral respiratory illnesses

"Australia and New Zealand currently, the questionable benefits arguably do not justify health‐care staff wearing surgical masks when treating low‐risk patients and may impede the normal caring relationship between patients, parents and staff."

Review of face mask efficacy (July 2020, China).
21 studies, 8,686 participants: 13 case-control studies, 6 cluster randomized trials, and 2 cohort studies. 12 studies of health care workers (HCWs); 8 studies of non-healthcare professional populations; 1 study of HCWs and relatives of patients. SARS, H1N1, influenza lab confirmed.

Masks (N95 and surgical) were generally effective in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses. After wearing a mask, the risk of contracting RVIs was significantly reduced. Use of masks by HCWs and non-HCWs can reduce the risk of respiratory virus infection by 80% and 47% respectively.

The study they reference regarding "social" masks is footnoted to a model that assumes complete compliance and universality.

Summer 2020 study with laboratory coughs (Summer 2020)

*July-August 2020- UCSF - Mask can be a crude "vaccine."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-020-06067-8;

Universal masking reduces the "inoculum" or dose of the virus for the mask-wearer, leading to more mild and asymptomatic infection manifestations similar to variolation with small pox. CDC estimates 40% asymptomatic. But masked cruise ship folks had 81% asymptomatic, 95% masked prison folks, food processing plants. (The concentrations of bacteria upstream and downstream of the test devices were measured with an aerodynamic size spectrometer.)

Many studies ignore the effect of other measures, the natural development of infection numbers, changes in test activity, or they compare countries with very different conditions.
Final Thoughts

The World Health Organization (WHO): (April 6, 2020)

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331693/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.3-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

"Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for healthy people in community settings:

The wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks."

"Medical masks should be reserved for health care workers. The use of medical masks in the community may create a false sense of security, with neglect of other essential measures, such as hand hygiene practices and physical distancing, and may lead to touching the face under the masks and under the eyes, result in unnecessary costs, and take masks away from those in health care who need them most, especially when masks are in short supply."

"Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water." WHO acknowledges that most people do not use masks properly.

But in June 8, 2020

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

The World Health Organization has changed its stance on wearing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. People over 60 and people with underlying medical conditions should wear a medical-grade mask when they're in public and cannot socially distance. The general public should wear a three-layer fabric mask in those situations. Admitting that this was despite evidence with randomized controlled trials. "The use of a mask alone is insufficient to provide an adequate level of protection or source control, and other personal and community level measures should also be adopted to suppress transmission of respiratory viruses."

The reasons for recommending masks has little to do with effectiveness. "The likely advantages of the use of masks by healthy people in the general public include:

reduced potential exposure risk from infected persons before they develop symptoms;

reduced potential stigmatization of individuals wearing masks to prevent infecting others (source control) or of people caring for COVID-19 patients in non-clinical settings;

making people feel they can play a role in contributing to stopping spread of the virus;

reminding people to be compliant with other measures (e.g., hand hygiene, not touching nose and mouth).

potential social and economic benefits.
Amidst the global shortage of surgical masks and PPE, encouraging the public to create their own fabric masks may promote individual enterprise and community integration.

the production of non-medical masks may offer a source of income for those able to manufacture masks within their communities.

Fabric masks can also be a form of cultural expression, encouraging public acceptance of protection measures in general.

The safe re-use of fabric masks will also reduce costs and waste and contribute to sustainability."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncontrol/maskguidance.htm

In March 5, 2019 regarding the flu: "Masks are not usually recommended in non-healthcare settings; however, this guidance provides other strategies for limiting the spread of influenza viruses in the community":

*Cover their nose and mouth when coughing or sneezing,

*Use tissues to contain respiratory secretions and, after use, to dispose of them in the nearest waste receptacle, and

*Perform hand hygiene (e.g., handwashing with non-antimicrobial soap and water, and alcohol-based hand rub if soap and water are not available) after having contact with respiratory secretions and contaminated objects/materials.

On August 7, 2020

Masks are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the mask coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control.

CDC recommends that people wear masks in public settings and when around people who don't live in your household, especially when other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain.

Masks may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others.

Masks are most likely to reduce the spread of COVID-19 when they are widely used by people in public settings.

Masks should NOT be worn by children under the age of 2 or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.

Masks with exhalation valves or vents should NOT be worn to help prevent the person wearing the mask from spreading COVID-19 to others (source control).

From the New England Journal of Medicine, Universal Masking in the Covid-19 Era, July 9, 2020;

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic." It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers' perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask.

But later authors said, "A growing body of research shows that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is strongly correlated with the duration and intensity of contact: the risk of transmission among household members can be as high as 40%, whereas the risk of transmission from less intense and less sustained encounters is below 5%. This finding is also borne out by recent research associating mask wearing with less transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly in closed settings." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2020836

Holland's Medical Care Minister Tamara van Ark

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/12292821/face-masks-not-necessary-say-holland-scientists/

"Despite a global stampede of mask-wearing, data show that 80-90 percent of people in Finland and Holland say they "never" wear masks when they go out, a sharp contrast to the 80-90 percent of people in Spain and Italy who say they "always" wear masks when they go out. "From a medical point of view, there is no evidence of a medical effect of wearing face masks, so we decided not to impose a national obligation."

Panel, Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7118603/

Recommendations on face mask use in community settings

WHO
If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection.

China

People at moderate risk of infection: surgical or disposable mask for medical use.

People at low risk of infection: disposable mask for medical use.

People at very low risk of infection: do not have to wear a mask or can wear non-medical mask (such as cloth mask).

Hong Kong

Surgical masks can prevent transmission of respiratory viruses from people who are ill. It is essential for people who are symptomatic (even if they have mild symptoms) to wear a surgical mask.

Wear a surgical mask when taking public transport or staying in crowded places. It is important to wear a mask properly and practice good hand hygiene before wearing and after removing a mask.

Singapore
Wear a mask if you have respiratory symptoms, such as a cough or runny nose.

Japan
The effectiveness of wearing a face mask to protect yourself from contracting viruses is thought to be limited. If you wear a face mask in confined, badly ventilated spaces, it might help avoid catching droplets emitted from others but if you are in an open-air environment, the use of face mask is not very efficient.

USA

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend that people who are well wear a face mask (including respirators) to protect themselves from respiratory diseases, including COVID-19.

US Surgeon General urged people on Twitter to stop buying face masks

UK
Face masks play a very important role in places such as hospitals, but there is very little evidence of widespread benefit for members of the public.

Germany
There is not enough evidence to prove that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduces a healthy person's risk of becoming infected while wearing it. According to WHO, wearing a mask in situations where it is not recommended to do so can create a false sense of security because it might lead to neglecting fundamental hygiene measures, such as proper hand hygiene.

Surgical masks are loose fitting. They are designed to protect the patient from the doctors' respiratory droplets. There wearer is not protected from others' airborne particles.

People do not wear masks properly. Many people have the mask under the nose. The wearer does not have glasses on and the eyes are a portal of entry. If the virus lands on the conjunctiva, tears will wash it into the nasopharynx.

Most studies cannot separate out hand hygiene.

The designer masks and scarves offer minimal protection. They give a false sense of security to both the wearer and those around the wearer.
**Not to mention they add a perverse lightheartedness to the situation.

If you are walking alone, no need for a mask. Avoid other folks; use common sense.

Remember: children under 2 years should not wear masks because of accidental suffocation and difficulty breathing in some.

Even if a universal mask mandate were imposed, several studies noted that folks do not use the mask properly and over-report their wearing. Additionally, how would the mandate be enforced??

The positive studies are models that assume universality and full compliance.

If wearing a mask makes people go out and get Vitamin D - go for it. In the 1918 flu pandemic people who went outside did better. Early reports are showing people with COVID-19 with low Vitamin D do worse than those with normal levels. Perhaps that is why shut-ins do so poorly. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058578v4

Objects and surfaces
Wash your hands ---- If you are sick, stay home!

Person to person touching

The CDC's most recent statement regarding contracting COVID-19 from touching surfaces: "Based on data from lab studies on Covid-19 and what we know about similar respiratory diseases, it may be possible that a person can get Covid-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose or possibly their eyes," the agency wrote. "But this isn't thought to be the main way the virus spreads. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0522-cdc-updates-covid-transmission.html.

Chinese study with data taken from swabs on surfaces around the hospital (July 2020)
The surfaces where tested with the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, which greatly amplifies the viral genetic material if it is present. That material is detectable when a person is actively infected. At the time of the study, it was thought to be the most reliable test. Because of the amplification of the viral material, there are many false positives. It is not clear that the mere presence of virus means it is infectious.
Computer mouse (ICU 6/8, 75%; General ward (GW) 1/5, 20%)

Trash cans (ICU 3/5, 60%; GW 0/8)

Sickbed handrails (ICU 6/14, 42.9%; GW 0/12)

Doorknobs (GW 1/12, 8.3%)

81.3% of the miscellaneous personal items were positive:
Medical equipment (spirometer, pulse oximeter, nasal cannula)

Cellular phones (83.3% positive for viral RNA)

Remote controls for in-room TVs (64.7% percent positive)

Room surfaces (80.4% of all sampled)

Bedside tables and bed rails (75.0%)

Stainless Steel: up to 2-3 days

Floor - gravity causes droplets to fall to the floor. Half of ICU workers all had virus on the bottoms of their shoes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mask Facts - AAPS | Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
curated by Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D. - http://marilynsingletonmdjd.com/ Updated September 26, 2020 Introduction COVID-19 is as politically-charged as it is infectious. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO, the CDC and NIH's Dr. Anthony Fauci discouraged wearing masks as not useful for non-health care workers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Israeli scientists report that Pfizer vaccine is more dangerous than the virus 

# data[].attributes.subject
Israeli scientists report that Pfizer vaccine is more dangerous than the virus 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'Science will win': Pfizer

A front-page article appeared in the FranceSoir newspaper about findings on the Nakim website regarding what some experts are calling "the high mortality caused by the vaccine."

The paper interviews Aix-Marseille University Faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit's Dr. Hervé Seligmann and engineer Haim Yativ about their research and data analysis. They claim that Pfizer's shot causes "mortality hundreds of times greater in young people compared to mortality from coronavirus without the vaccine, and dozens of times more in the elderly, when the documented mortality from coronavirus is in the vicinity of the vaccine dose, thus adding greater mortality from heart attack, stroke, etc."

Dr Hervé Seligmann works at the Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. He is of Israeli-Luxembourg nationality. He has a B. Sc. In Biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and has written over 100 scientific publications.

FranceSoir writes that they follow publications, data analyzes, and feedback from various countries on vaccination, and have therefore taken an interest in the Nakim article, asking to interview them in order to understand their analysis and its limitations.

The authors of the article declare they have no conflicts or interests other than having children in Israel.

After a presentation, the authors discussed their data analysis, the validations carried out, limitations, and above all, their conclusions that they compare with data received via a Health Ministry Freedom of Information Act request.

Their findings are:

There is a mismatch between the data published by the authorities and the reality on the ground.

They have three sources of information, besides the emails and adverse event reports they receive through the Internet. These three sources are Israeli news site Ynet, the Israeli Health Ministry database, and the U.S. federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database.

In January 2021, there were 3,000 records of vaccine adverse events, including 2,900 for mRNA vaccines.

Compared to other years, mortality is 40 times higher.

On February 11, a Ynet article presented data related to vaccination. The authors of the Nakim article claim to have debunked this analysis based on data published by Ynet itself: "We took the data by looking at mortality during the vaccination period, which spans 5 weeks. By analyzing these data, we arrived at startling figures that attribute significant mortality to the vaccine."

The authors say "vaccinations have caused more deaths than the coronavirus would have caused during the same period."

Haim Yativ and Dr. Seligmann declare that for them, "this is a new Holocaust," in face of Israeli authority pressure to vaccinate citizens.

They also invite specialists to complete their analyses, and intend to pursue legal follow-up to their discovery. The Health Ministry was not available for comment on a FranceSoir query regarding the findings.

The authors also deplored "the fact of not being able to communicate on this vital information" to their fellow citizens.

On their site, Nakim writes: "On February 11, 2021, Ynet (the most known Israeli News website) published a confused and confusing article entitled ' Vaccination efficiency data in Israel, and its rapid effects on the young'.

"Our reanalyses of these data explain why during the massive vaccination project initiated mid-December 2020 during a confinement, daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases failed to decrease as they do during confinements, and, more importantly, why numbers of serious, critical, and death cases increased during that period that covered at least one month. From mid-December to mid-February (two months), 2,337 among all Israeli 5,351 official COVID-deaths occurred. Our analyses indicate orders of magnitude increases in deaths rates during the 5-week long vaccination process, as compared to the unvaccinated and those after completing the vaccination process. Presumably, asymptomatic cases before vaccination, and those infected shortly after the 1st dose, tend to develop graver symptoms than those unvaccinated.

"The Ynet article is organized in an exciting way and uses data provided in an erroneous way by the Ministry of Health. It is unclear whether this was intentional to prove the vaccine's efficiency or if this was done erroneously because the provided data were misunderstood. Note that in Israel, all vaccines are from Pfizer.

"The data in the table, rather than indicating the vaccine efficacy, indicate the vaccine's adverse effects," the authors conclude.

Sources:

http://www.nakim.org/israel-forums/viewtopic.php?t=270812

https://www.francesoir.fr/videos-debriefings/vaccination-en-israel-des-chiffres-de-mortalite-qui-interpellent-video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vaccination in Israel: Challenging mortality figures?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'Science will win': Pfizer A front-page article appeared in the FranceSoir newspaper about findings on the Nakim website regarding what some experts are calling "the high mortality caused by the vaccine." The paper interviews Aix-Marseille University Faculty of Medicine Emerging Infectious and Tropical Diseases Unit's Dr. Hervé Seligmann and engineer Haim Yativ about their research and data analysis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Centers for Disease Control report released in September shows that masks and face coverings are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19, even for those people who consistently wear them.

A study conducted in the United States in July found that when they compared 154 "case-patients," who tested positive for COVID-19, to a control group of 160 participants from health care facilities who were symptomatic but tested negative, over 70 percent of the case-patients were contaminated with the virus and fell ill despite "always" wearing a mask.

"In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public," the report stated.

In addition, over 14 percent of the case-patients said they "often" wore a face covering and were still infected with the virus. The study also demonstrates that under 4 percent of the case-patients became sick with the virus even though they "never" wore a mask or face covering.

Despite over 70 percent of the case-patient participants' efforts to follow CDC recommendations by committing to always wearing face coverings at "gatherings with ≤10 or >10 persons in a home; shopping; dining at a restaurant; going to an office setting, salon, gym, bar/coffee shop, or church/religious gathering; or using public transportation," they still contracted the virus.

While the study notes that some of these people may have contracted the virus from the few moments that they removed their mask to eat or drink at "places that offer on-site eating or drinking," the CDC concedes that there is no successful way to evaluate if that was the exact moment someone became exposed and contracted the virus.

"Characterization of community exposures can be difficult to assess when widespread transmission is occurring, especially from asymptomatic persons within inherently interconnected communities," the report states.

In fact, the report suggests that "direction, ventilation, and intensity of airflow might affect virus transmission, even if social distancing measures and mask use are implemented according to current guidance."

Despite this new scientific information, the CDC, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci, and many political authorities are still encouraging people to wear masks. Many states and cities have even mandated masks, citing them as one of the main tools to "slow the spread" of coronavirus and keep case numbers in their area down.

CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield makes it as clear as he can: "This face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine." pic.twitter.com/Ul0Ppj5qqv

- The Recount (@therecount) September 16, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CDC Study Finds Overwhelming Majority Of People Getting Coronavirus Wore Masks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Centers for Disease Control report released in September shows that masks and face coverings are not effective in preventing the spread of COVID-19, even for those people who consistently wear them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password.

# data[].attributes.headline
Young adult mortality in Israel during time of COVID-19 crisis 

# data[].attributes.subject
Young adult mortality in Israel during time of COVID-19 crisis 

# data[].attributes.body
Study from Israel showing increased mortality rate amongst 20-49 year olds during February-March 2021 time frame.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Masks and respirators do not work.

There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.
(From Words from the Publisher: "We pledge to publish all letters, guest commentaries, or studies refuting [Rancourt's] general premise that this mask-wearing culture and shaming could be more harmful than helpful. Please send your feedback to info@rcreader.com.") [UPDATE: August 12, 2020 Still No Evidence Justifying Mandatory Masks]
N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

"There were 17 eligible studies. ... None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection."

"We identified six clinical studies ... . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism."

"Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant"; as per Fig. 2c therein:

"Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. ... Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza."

"A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza."

Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.

Masks and respirators do not work.

In addition to pandemics that can occur anytime, in the temperate latitudes there is an extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality that is seasonal, and that is caused by viruses. For example, see the review of influenza by Paules and Subbarao (2017). This has been known for a long time, and the seasonal pattern is exceedingly regular. (Publisher's note: All links to source references to studies here forward are found at the end of this article.)

For example, see Figure 1 of Viboud (2010), which has "Weekly time series of the ratio of deaths from pneumonia and influenza to all deaths, based on the 122 cities surveillance in the US (blue line). The red line represents the expected baseline ratio in the absence of influenza activity," here:

The seasonality of the phenomenon was largely not understood until a decade ago. Until recently, it was debated whether the pattern arose primarily because of seasonal change in virulence of the pathogens, or because of seasonal change in susceptibility of the host (such as from dry air causing tissue irritation, or diminished daylight causing vitamin deficiency or hormonal stress). For example, see Dowell (2001).

In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.

Lowen et al. (2007) demonstrated the phenomenon of humidity-dependent airborne-virus virulence in actual disease transmission between guinea pigs, and discussed potential underlying mechanisms for the measured controlling effect of humidity.

The underlying mechanism is that the pathogen-laden aerosol particles or droplets are neutralized within a half-life that monotonically and significantly decreases with increasing ambient humidity. This is based on the seminal work of Harper (1961). Harper experimentally showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times, as ambient humidity was increased.

Harper argued that the viruses themselves were made inoperative by the humidity ("viable decay"), however, he admitted that the effect could be from humidity-enhanced physical removal or sedimentation of the droplets ("physical loss"): "Aerosol viabilities reported in this paper are based on the ratio of virus titre to radioactive count in suspension and cloud samples, and can be criticized on the ground that test and tracer materials were not physically identical."

The latter ("physical loss") seems more plausible to me, since humidity would have a universal physical effect of causing particle/droplet growth and sedimentation, and all tested viral pathogens have essentially the same humidity-driven "decay." Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how a virion (of all virus types) in a droplet would be molecularly or structurally attacked or damaged by an increase in ambient humidity. A "virion" is the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid. The actual mechanism of such humidity-driven intra-droplet "viable decay" of a virion has not been explained or studied.

In any case, the explanation and model of Shaman et al. (2010) is not dependent on the particular mechanism of the humidity-driven decay of virions in aerosol/droplets. Shaman's quantitatively demonstrated model of seasonal regional viral epidemiology is valid for either mechanism (or combination of mechanisms), whether "viable decay" or "physical loss."

The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.

In particular, Shaman's work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic's basic reproduction number (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.

For a definition of R0, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): R0 is "the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible." The average R0 for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19-1.37); see the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014).

In fact, Shaman et al. showed that R0 must be understood to seasonally vary between humid-summer values of just larger than "1" and dry-winter values typically as large as "4" (for example, see their Table 2). In other words, the seasonal infectious viral respiratory diseases that plague temperate latitudes every year go from being intrinsically mildly contagious to virulently contagious, due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration.

Therefore, all the epidemiological mathematical modeling of the benefits of mediating policies (such as social distancing), which assumes humidity-independent R0 values, has a large likelihood of being of little value, on this basis alone. For studies about modeling and regarding mediation effects on the effective reproduction number, see Coburn (2009) and Tracht (2010).

To put it simply, the "second wave" of an epidemic is not a consequence of human sin regarding mask wearing and hand shaking. Rather, the "second wave" is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity.

If my view of the mechanism is correct (i.e., "physical loss"), then Shaman's work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to large droplets that are quickly gravitationally removed from the air.

Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Despres, 2012). It is not entirely unlikely that viruses can thereby be physically transported over inter-continental distances (e.g., Hammond, 1989).

More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centers, and on-board airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011):

"Half of the 16 samples were positive, and their total virus −3 concentrations ranged from 5800 to 37 000 genome copies m . On average, 64 per cent of the viral genome copies were associated with fine particles smaller than 2.5 μm, which can remain suspended for hours. Modeling of virus concentrations indoors suggested a source strength of 1.6 ± 1.2 × 105 genome copies m−3 air h−1 and a deposition flux onto surfaces of 13 ± 7 genome copies m−2 h−1 by Brownian motion. Over one hour, the inhalation dose was estimated to be 30 ± 18 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50), adequate to induce infection. These results provide quantitative support for the idea that the aerosol route could be an important mode of influenza transmission."

Such small particles (< 2.5 μm) are part of air fluidity, are not subject to gravitational sedimentation, and would not be stopped by long-range inertial impact. This means that the slightest (even momentary) facial misfit of a mask or respirator renders the design filtration norm of the mask or respirator entirely irrelevant. In any case, the filtration material itself of N95 (average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm) does not block virion penetration, not to mention surgical masks. For example, see Balazy et al. (2006).

Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference.

On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case.

1. Most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibility

2. It is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the host

3. The 50-percent probability MID ("TCID50") has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000 virions

4. There are typically 10 to 3rd power − 10 to 7th power virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm − 10 μm

5. The 50-percent probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized droplet

6. For further background:

7. A classic description of dose-response assessment is provided by Haas (1993).

8. Zwart et al. (2009) provided the first laboratory proof, in a virus-insect system, that the action of a single virion can be sufficient to cause disease.

9. Baccam et al. (2006) calculated from empirical data that, with influenza A in humans,"we estimate that after a delay of ~6 h, infected cells begin producing influenza virus and continue to do so for ~5 h. The average lifetime of infected cells is ~11 h, and the half-life of free infectious virus is ~3 h. We calculated the [in-body] basic reproductive number, R0, which indicated that a single infected cell could produce ~22 new productive infections."

10. Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90 percent of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed.

Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features:

All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.

1. Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.

2. Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.

3. Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviors; see Wada (2012).

4. The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.

5. Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.

6. Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.

7. Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.

8. Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.

9. Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.

1. Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?

2. Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?

3. Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?

4. What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?

5. How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?

6. What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?

7. Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?

8. Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioral modification?

9. What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?

10. Do the masks shed fibers or substances that are harmful when inhaled?

Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. For example, such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008).

In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.
Denis G. Rancourt is a researcher at the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA.ca) and is formerly a tenured professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada. The original April 2020 white paper in .pdf format is available here, complete with charts that have not been reprinted in the Reader print or web versions. RELATED COMMENTARY: An Unprecedented Experiment: Sometimes You Just Gotta Wear the Stupid This paper was originally published at Rancourt's account on ResearchGate.net. As of June 5, 2020, this paper was removed from his profile by its administrators at Rese archgate.net/profile/D_Rancourt. At Rancourt's blog ActivistTeacher.blogspot.com, he recounts the notification and responses he received from ResearchGate.net and states, "This is censorship of my scientific work like I have never experienced before."
Otherwise, what is the point of publicly funded science?

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Endnotes:
Baccam, P. et al. (2006) "Kinetics of Influenza A Virus Infection in Humans", Journal of Virology Jul 2006, 80 (15) 7590-7599; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01623-05 https://jvi.asm.org/content/80/15/7590

Balazy et al. (2006) "Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?", American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 34, Issue 2, March 2006, Pages 51-57. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2005.08.018 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.488.4644&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Biggerstaff, M. et al. (2014) "Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature", BMC Infect Dis 14, 480 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-14-480

Brooke, C. B. et al. (2013) "Most Influenza A Virions Fail To Express at Least One Essential Viral Protein", Journal of Virology Feb 2013, 87 (6) 3155-3162; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.02284-12 https://jvi.asm.org/content/87/6/3155

Coburn, B. J. et al. (2009) "Modeling influenza epidemics and pandemics: insights into the future of swine flu (H1N1)", BMC Med 7, 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-7-30

Davies, A. et al. (2013) "Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic?", Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Available on CJO 2013 doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.43 http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1935789313000438

Despres, V. R. et al. (2012) "Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: a review", Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 64:1, 15598, DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598 https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598

Dowell, S. F. (2001) "Seasonal variation in host susceptibility and cycles of certain infectious diseases", Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(3):369-374. doi:10.3201/eid0703.010301 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631809/

Hammond, G. W. et al. (1989) "Impact of Atmospheric Dispersion and Transport of Viral Aerosols on the Epidemiology of Influenza", Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Volume 11, Issue 3, May 1989, Pages 494-497, https://doi.org/10.1093/clinids/11.3.494

Haas, C.N. et al. (1993) "Risk Assessment of Virus in Drinking Water", Risk Analysis, 13: 545-552. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.x

HealthKnowlege-UK (2020) "Charter 1a - Epidemiology: Epidemic theory (effective & basic reproduction numbers, epidemic thresholds) & techniques for analysis of infectious disease data (construction & use of epidemic curves, generation numbers, exceptional reporting & identification of significant clusters)", HealthKnowledge.org.uk, accessed on 2020-04-10. https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/research-methods/1a- epidemiology/epidemic-theory

Lai, A. C. K. et al. (2012) "Effectiveness of facemasks to reduce exposure hazards for airborne infections among general populations", J. R. Soc. Interface. 9938-948 http://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2011.0537

Leung, N.H.L. et al. (2020) "Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks", Nature Medicine (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2

Lowen, A. C. et al. (2007) "Influenza Virus Transmission Is Dependent on Relative Humidity and Temperature", PLoS Pathog 3(10): e151. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.0030151

Paules, C. and Subbarao, S. (2017) "Influenza", Lancet, Seminar| Volume 390, ISSUE 10095, P697-708, August 12, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30129-0

Sande, van der, M. et al. (2008) "Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population", PLoS ONE 3(7): e2618. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002618 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002618

Shaman, J. et al. (2010) "Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States", PLoS Biol 8(2): e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000316

Tracht, S. M. et al. (2010) "Mathematical Modeling of the Effectiveness of Facemasks in Reducing the Spread of Novel Influenza A (H1N1)", PLoS ONE 5(2): e9018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009018 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009018

Viboud C. et al. (2010) "Preliminary Estimates of Mortality and Years of Life Lost Associated with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic in the US and Comparison with Past Influenza Seasons", PLoS Curr. 2010; 2:RRN1153. Published 2010 Mar 20. doi:10.1371/currents.rrn1153 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843747/

Wada, K. et al. (2012) "Wearing face masks in public during the influenza season may reflect other positive hygiene practices in Japan", BMC Public Health 12, 1065 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-1065

Yang, W. et al. (2011) "Concentrations and size distributions of airborne influenza A viruses measured indoors at a health centre, a day-care centre and on aeroplanes", Journal of the Royal Society, Interface. 2011 Aug;8(61):1176-1184. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0686. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2010.0686

Yezli, S., Otter, J.A. (2011) "Minimum Infective Dose of the Major Human Respiratory and Enteric Viruses Transmitted Through Food and the Environment", Food Environ Virol 3, 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12560-011-9056-7

Zwart, M. P. et al. (2009) "An experimental test of the independent action hypothesis in virus- insect pathosystems", Proc. R. Soc. B. 2762233-2242 http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0064

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Masks Don't Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cooper, Mick ( 1999) An empirical and theoretical investigation into the psychological effects of wearing a mask. PhD thesis, University of Sussex.

Abstract

A review of the literature shows that the wearing of a mask has been hypothesised to bring about four main psychological effects: disinhibition, transformation, facilitation of the expression of aspects of the wearer's Self, and various psycho-somatic changes. Several different explanations have been proposed as to why each of these effects come about. Using theoretical and empirical research, the thesis explores in detail the hypothesis that a mask can disinhibit its wearer, and that this disinhibition comes about because the mask-wearer feels less identifiable. The findings show that a mask can significantly reduces its wearer's feelings of identifiability, and that it can also significantly reduce its wearer's public self-awareness as a consequence of changes in attentional focus. However, the empirical evidence suggests that the mask's disinhibiting effect is limited to situations in which an individual wants to behave in a particular way, but inhibits that behaviour out of a concern with 'mask-able' facets of their public self. Concomitantly, the findings suggest that, if an individual wants to behave in a way for which they require 'mask-able' facets of the public self, then the wearing of a mask may be experienced as inhibiting. This thesis also examines the hypothesis that a mask can transform its wearer, and that this occurs through the self-attribution process outlined by Kellerman and Laird (1982). The thesis provides strong empirical support for both these hypotheses, showing that the wearing of a mask can make individuals feel less like their usual self and more like the character represented in the mask. However, the empirical evidence suggests that this latter effect only occurs under conditions in which an individual is specifically focused on their masked appearance. A final chapter discusses the theoretical and applied implications of these findings, with specific reference to the use of masks in therapeutic practice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An empirical and theoretical investigation into the psychological effects of wearing a mask

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cooper, Mick ( 1999) An empirical and theoretical investigation into the psychological effects of wearing a mask. PhD thesis, University of Sussex. A review of the literature shows that the wearing of a mask has been hypothesised to bring about four main psychological effects: disinhibition, transformation, facilitation of the expression of aspects of the wearer's Self, and various psycho-somatic changes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr. Parker Huston said any big changes that happen in the world or in the environment or schedule or routine can cause temporary feelings of distress.

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Parents shouldn't discount their child's feelings of fear and anxiety during the first few weeks of returning to on-campus learning while wearing masks all day long, says experts.

"Right now, with all the different stuff, the extra hand washing, keeping your distance, mask wearing, it's an extra mental load on people in general and kids especially," says Dr. Parker Huston, a pediatric psychologist at Nationwide Children's Hospital.

Dr. Huston said any big changes that happen in the world or in the environment or schedule or routine can cause temporary feelings of distress.

"Anything new can feel disruptive so there are a lot of things they are being asked to do that are outside of the norm for them," Dr. Huston said.

Huston says parents can take a few steps at home before kids return to school to ease that anxiety.

He says practice mask wearing around the house for a few minutes a day to 10 minutes at a time and build up from there, such as playing outside while wearing a mark or riding a bike with a mask.

This will help demystify the novelty of mask wearing and make it seem more doable.

"As a parent, we need to focus on practicing at home, getting them used to taking slow deep breaths and not hyperventilate or breathing quickly," he adds.

People on Nextdoor reached out to 10TV about whether wearing masks long-term is an issue for their family.

"My 6-year-old doesn't mind wearing them," says Ashley W. from the Hungarian Village of Columbus. "He thinks it's fun, like dress up. The only thing he's having a lot of trouble with, since the lockdown started, is not getting to play with his friends at school."

Dr. Huston, who is also the clinical director for On Our Sleeves, a program through Nationwide Children's Hospital that focuses on transforming children's mental health, says parents should also watch their kids for potential long-term psychological effects.

Chronic stress, PTSD, and even depression from being isolated are all valid concerns.

"Some kids will report fears in other areas that are triggered by general anxiety - I'm too scared to play in the backyard, or too scared riding in the car," he explains. "Appetite changes, drastic behavior changes, those are things we look for and tell parents to keep an eye on them."

Other signs, says Huston, include changes in sleeping patterns, nightmares, or fears not related to COVID-19.

At the same time, Dr. Huston says kids are resilient, and the more open the conversation a parent can have with them about wearing a mask, the better.'

He says to have a conversation deeper than asking 'how are you doing today?' and get into what they are feeling and what are they thinking about.

"The stress or fear or anxiety that they're experiencing is not specific to them and in some ways. Seeing other people adopt the same behaviors and same safety precautions temporarily will help with that," he said. "So, they'll see it's nothing to do with me or my family, but just something people are doing right now."
Resources from Nationwide Children's Hospital:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mask side effects on a child's mental health are real

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Parker Huston said any big changes that happen in the world or in the environment or schedule or routine can cause temporary feelings of distress. COLUMBUS, Ohio - Parents shouldn't discount their child's feelings of fear and anxiety during the first few weeks of returning to on-campus learning while wearing masks all day long, says experts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Coronavirus Seems to Spare Most Kids From Illness, but Its Effect on Their Mental Health Is Deepening

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Nobody is immune to the stress that comes with a pandemic, but children may be at a particular risk"

# data[].attributes.headline
MIT Study on inefficacy of “social distancing” against COVID

# data[].attributes.subject
MIT Study on inefficacy of “social distancing” against COVID

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The risk of being exposed to Covid-19 indoors is as great at 60 feet as it is at 6 feet - even when wearing a mask, according to a new study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers who challenge social distancing guidelines adopted across the world.

MIT professors Martin Z. Bazant, who teaches chemical engineering and applied mathematics, and John W.M. Bush, who teaches applied mathematics, developed a method of calculating exposure risk to Covid-19 in an indoor setting that factors in a variety of issues that could affect transmission, including the amount of time spent inside, air filtration and circulation, immunization, variant strains, mask use, and even respiratory activity such as breathing, eating, speaking or singing.

Bazant and Bush question long-held Covid-19 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization in a peer-reviewed study published earlier this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America.

"We argue there really isn't much of a benefit to the 6-foot rule, especially when people are wearing masks," Bazant said in an interview. "It really has no physical basis because the air a person is breathing while wearing a mask tends to rise and comes down elsewhere in the room so you're more exposed to the average background than you are to a person at a distance."

The important variable the CDC and the WHO have overlooked is the amount of time spent indoors, Bazant said. The longer someone is inside with an infected person, the greater the chance of transmission, he said.

Opening windows or installing new fans to keep the air moving could also be just as effective or more effective than spending large amounts of money on a new filtration system, he said.

Bazant also says that guidelines enforcing indoor occupancy caps are flawed. He said 20 people gathered inside for 1 minute is probably fine, but not over the course of several hours, he said.

"What our analysis continues to show is that many spaces that have been shut down in fact don't need to be. Often times the space is large enough, the ventilation is good enough, the amount of time people spend together is such that those spaces can be safely operated even at full capacity and the scientific support for reduced capacity in those spaces is really not very good," Bazant said. "I think if you run the numbers, even right now for many types of spaces you'd find that there is not a need for occupancy restrictions."

Six-feet social distancing rules that inadvertently result in closed businesses and schools are "just not reasonable," according to Bazant.

"This emphasis on distancing has been really misplaced from the very beginning. The CDC or WHO have never really provided justification for it, they've just said this is what you must do and the only justification I'm aware of, is based on studies of coughs and sneezes, where they look at the largest particles that might sediment onto the floor and even then it's very approximate, you can certainly have longer or shorter range, large droplets," Bazant said.

"The distancing isn't helping you that much and it's also giving you a false sense of security because you're as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you're indoors. Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually," he noted.

Pathogen-laced droplets travel through the air indoors when people talk, breathe or eat. It is now known that airborne transmission plays a huge role in the spread of Covid-19, compared with the earlier months of the pandemic where hand-washing was considered the leading recommendation to avoid transmission.

Those droplets from one's warm exhalation mix with body heat and air currents in the area to rise and travel throughout the entire room, no matter how socially distanced a person is. People seem to be more exposed to that "background" air than they are by droplets from a distance, according to the study.

For example, if someone infected with Covid-19 is wearing a mask and singing loudly in an enclosed room, a person who is sitting at the other side of the room is not more protected than someone who is sitting just six feet away from the infected person. This is why time spent in the enclosed area is more important than how far you are from the infected person.

Masks work in general to prevent transmission by blocking larger droplets, therefore larger droplets aren't making up the majority of Covid infections because most people are wearing masks. The majority of people who are transmitting Covid aren't coughing and sneezing, they're asymptomatic.

Masks also work to prevent indoor transmission by blocking direct plumes of air, best visualized by imagining someone exhaling smoke. Constant exposure to direct plumes of infectious air would result in a higher risk of transmission, though exposure to direct plumes of exhaled air doesn't usually last long.

Even with masks on, as with smoking, those who are in the vicinity are heavily affected by the secondhand smoke that makes its way around the enclosed area and lingers. The same logic applies to infectious airborne droplets, according to the study. When indoors and masked, factors besides distance can be more important to consider to avoid transmission.

As for social distancing outdoors, Bazant says it makes almost no sense and that doing so with masks on is "kind of crazy."

"If you look at the air flow outside, the infected air would be swept away and very unlikely to cause transmission. There are very few recorded instances of outdoor transmission." he said. "Crowded spaces outdoor could be an issue, but if people are keeping a reasonable distance of like 3 feet outside, I feel pretty comfortable with that even without masks frankly."

Bazant says this could possibly explain why there haven't been spikes in transmission in states like Texas or Florida that have reopened businesses without capacity limits.

As for variant strains that are 60% more transmissible, increasing ventilation by 60%, reducing the amount of time spent inside or limiting the number of people indoors could offset that risk.

Bazant also said that a big question that is coming will be when masks can be removed, and that the study's guidelines can help quantify the risks involved. He also noted that measuring carbon dioxide in a room can also help quantify how much infected air is present and hence risk of transmission.

"We need scientific information conveyed to the public in a way that is not just fearmongering but is actually based in analysis," Bazant said. After three rounds of heavy peer review, he said it's the most review he's ever been through, and that now that it's published he hopes it will influence policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MIT researchers say you're no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet in new study challenging social distancing policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The risk of being exposed to Covid-19 indoors is as great at 60 feet as it is at 6 feet - even when wearing a mask, according to a new study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers who challenge social distancing guidelines adopted across the world. MIT professors Martin Z.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
COVID-19: Continuous Wearing of Mask Aggravates Risk of Infection. "Psychological Terrorism"?
Continuous wearing of masks aggravates the risk of infection. This statement is based on scientific and medical analysis. The air, once exhaled, is heated, humidified and charged with CO2. It becomes a perfect culture medium for infectious agents (bacteria, fungi, viruses). Studies have shown that the porosity (microscopic holes) of the masks allows exhaled germs to accumulate on the external surface of the mask. Not only do we re-inhale our own CO2, but by touching our mask all the time (an inevitable gesture), we spread germs everywhere! Forcing everyone to wear them all the time, while the epidemic is in a process of decline, is a scientific and medical aberration!
A pharmaceutical analysis has shown that in masks for personal use, there are " staphylococci, streptococci, neisseria, bacilli which contribute to contaminatation..."
Non-pharmaceutical Interventions".
Masks with gloves, physical distancing (1.5 -2.0 m) and containment (lockdown) are part of so-called "N on-pharmaceutical Interventions ".

Masks are considered by governments as a "protection against the transmission of Covid-19". It is better to wear a mask (any mask) than nothing. People are instructed to obey the guidelines of the Ministry of Health. These guidelines are erroneous.

They are imposed on population groups which have been traumatized by the fear campaign, applied in countries which have applied the lockdown.

In Belgium, 4 months after the lockdown was first introduced and more than 2 months after the end of confinement, wearing a mask is now compulsory for everyone, everywhere, even on the dikes, except for children under 12 years of age, who were not at the heart of the epidemic.

People are being masked and there is talk of reconfinement for the wrong reasons:

Authorities are confusing a resurgence of positive RT-PCR tests with a resurgence of COVID-19 infections, which is not the same thing!

The media say: "the number of infections is increasing again", whereas it is the number of positive tests that is increasing.

The reality is that the epidemic is subsiding.
Masks: dangers not to be overlooked
Apart from overestimating the benefit of masks, the authorities underestimate its deleterious effects.

"The researchers found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with the use of the mask, most had pre-existing headaches that were aggravated by wearing the mask, and 60% needed pain medication to relieve it. With respect to the cause of the headaches, while the straps and pressure of the mask may be causative, most of the evidence points to hypoxia and/or hypercapnia as the cause. That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an increase in blood C02 (hypercapnia)." [1]

Hypoxia (lack of blood oxygenation) due to prolonged mask wear is common [2-3-4] in apparently healthy individuals. It is even worse when worn by people suffering from chronic respiratory insufficiencies, already hypoxemic and/or hypercapnic at baseline.

Do our authorities underestimate or trivialize the deleterious effects of hypoxemia and chronic hypercapnia? These disorders can far outweigh the respiratory problems caused by COVID-19.
Image Source: Pikist.com Masks: a usefulness to be put into perspective
Strong scientific evidence through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been required to validate the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine!

Surprisingly, in the case of face masks, this criterion is no longer required.

Based on existing randomized controlled trials, there is no evidence that face masks work to reduce transmission by droplets and aerosol particles in viral respiratory diseases such as influenza or colds [5].

Professor Denis Rancourt [5] has conducted an extensive review of the literature on this topic.

The type of mask most widely used by the population, paper surgical masks, does not protect against viral transmission [6] :

"A surgical mask does not provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection against inhalation of small airborne particles and is not considered respiratory protection.

Permission to wear a surgical mask made more sense when scientists initially thought that the virus (SARS-CoV-2) was spread by large droplets. But more and more research shows that the virus is spread by tiny viral particles. "

Cotton (cloth) masks worn by some people do not do any better [7] :

"Neither surgical masks nor cotton masks effectively filtered out CoV-2 SARS when infected patients coughed. It should be noted that we found greater contamination on the outside surfaces than on the inside surfaces of the masks.

In conclusion, surgical and cotton masks appear to be ineffective in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 from the cough of COVID-19 patients to the environment and to the external surface of the mask. "

Especially since masked people touch their faces more often than unmasked people.
Masks: a false sense of security
Wearing the mask induces a false sense of security.

People no longer pay attention and "forget" other gestures that are more essential than wearing a mask: hand washing or physical distance of more than 1.5 metres.

The WHO (World Health Organization) insists on the importance of washing hands, keeping one's distance and avoiding touching one's face, nose and mouth! It only recommends wearing a mask (surgical, N95 or FFP2) if you are ill or if you are caring for a sick person (health care staff) [8].

[8] " At this time, there is no direct evidence (from studies of COVID-19 and healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of widespread mask use by healthy people to prevent infections due to respiratory viruses, including COVID-19. " [8]

In shopping malls, restaurants, bars or even on the street, I have observed a large number of people touching their faces regularly, distractedly, sometimes ten to fifteen times a minute, either as a reflex or to readjust their masks.

This is the case in hospitals, health care services, from caregivers, including doctors.

It's stronger than you are, it's an unconscious gesture.
The mask increases the contact between our fingers and our face [9] and that's really harmful!
In Denmark [10], the Public Health Agency [10] testifies:

" We create a false sense of security (with the masks). Hans Jorn Jepsen Kolmos, a microbiologist and researcher at Odense University Hospital, puts it bluntly: "We don't believe it. They are effective for the nursing staff or employees of retirement homes. But I am really very much opposed to their widespread use. It becomes a ritual that is adopted for no reason, and creates a false sense of security. The most important thing is to keep your distance, to wash your hands, and to clean the surfaces you have touched, such as door handles. This is the winning formula for hygiene. "

241 scientists [11] emphasize the need for proper air ventilation in workplaces, buildings, schools, hospitals and nursing homes. Opening doors and windows will have a far greater impact on the fight against viral transmission than wearing a mask, which, as we have seen, does not really protect and has deleterious effects on health.
Masks: a shock strategy tool
Here again, is the real problem more psychological than scientific?

Certainly, for the general public, the wearing of the mask reassures, whether its protection is real or not, whether it is well worn or not, or even, what is more serious, whether it makes things worse or not.

People need to believe in something that protects them from the scourge and it is true that the media and our "experts", at least in Belgium, have done everything to make people very afraid and accept anything and everything.

Astronomical fines for not wearing the mask!

1000 euros in a closed space in Campanile, Italy [12].

250 euros fine in public places [13], in Belgium, 3 times more for restaurants and unmasked waiters.

What psychological terrorism!

Yet the wearing of masks everywhere and by everyone is not based on science or common sense and has serious deleterious effects on our health.

It impedes the application of essential non-pharmaceutical measures and gives a false sense of security.

Rather than being strengthened, all these measures must be dissipated, as this epidemic is doing.

Physical distancing destroys the social relationships that are dear to every human being.

We are social beings: psychology, sociology, medicine, everyone knows that.

Excessive hand washing becomes a pathological hyperhygienism that takes on the appearance of OCD: obsessive compulsive disorder.

These extreme measures, which are no longer justified, must give way to common sense, to authentic social relations and to the return of confidence in one's immune system and in the natural extinction of this epidemic contaminated by hysteria.

It is high time.
Dr. Pascal Sacré, physician specialized in critical care, author and renowned public health analyst, Charleroi, Belgium, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Translation from French. Maya for Global Research

Featured Image: pixabay.com

[1] Le danger mortel des masques, by Dr. Russell L Blaylock, author, U.S. neurosurgeon, Assistant Professor of Clinical Neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and currently Visiting Professor in the Department of Biology at Belhaven College. Translation of the original articlel : Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy, 26 may 2020 on the Global Research website.

[2] Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery, A Beder & al, Neurocirugia, 2008, 19, pp 121-126

[3] Respiratory consequences of N95-type Mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers-a controlled clinical study, Antimicrob Resist Infect Control, 2015, 4 : 48

[4] Headaches and the N95 face-mask amongst healthcare providers, Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, avril 2006

[5] La science est concluante : les masques n'empêchent PAS la transmission des virus, 26 mai 2020, article initialement paru en anglais sur le site ResearchGate, écrit par le Dr Denis Rancourt, PhD, consultable ici : Masks Don't Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy

[6] Widely used surgical masks are putting health care workers at serious risk, 28 avril 2020

[7] Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2 : A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients, Ann Intern Med, 6 avril 2020

[8] Nouveau coronavirus (2019-nCov) : conseils au grand public - Quand et comment utiliser un masque, WHO, mise à jour le 17 juin 2020, PDF téléchargeable : Conseils sur le port du masque dans le cadre de la COVID-19.

[9] Masques et gants, fausse bonne idée contre le virus, 17 March 2020, False good idea against the virus, on the Le Télégramme website. In the face of the spread of the coronavirus, masks and gloves have almost become a trend, "just in case". But for the general population, wearing them is not necessarily effective, and may even encourage contamination, warn experts.

[10] Danemark : ce pays qui ne croit pas aux masques, 7 May 2020 on the website Le Point.fr. The Danish government advises against wearing them and epidemiologists are so unconvinced of their usefulness that they have launched a study on the subject

[11] It is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of COVID-19, par Lidia Morawska et Donald K Milton, 2020, Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[12] Déconfinement dans le sud de l'Italie : 1000 euros d'amende pour non-respect du port du masque en lieu clos

[13] Les amendes " corona " de 250 euros vont-elles pleuvoir ? Le ministre annonce un durcissement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
COVID-19: Continuous Wearing of Mask Aggravates Risk of Infection. "Psychological Terrorism"? - Global Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Continuous wearing of masks aggravates the risk of infection. This statement is based on scientific and medical analysis. The air, once exhaled, is heated, humidified and charged with CO2. It becomes a perfect culture medium for infectious agents (bacteria, fungi, viruses). Studies have shown that the porosity (microscopic holes) of the masks allows exhaled ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Dr. Mike Yeadon, former VP of Pfizer, discusses his disagreement with COVID vaccine

# data[].attributes.subject
Dr. Mike Yeadon, former VP of Pfizer, discusses his disagreement with COVID vaccine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mike Yeadon  - Expert on Viruses Disagrees with Liberal Politicians

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The million-dollar question right now, with regards to COVID-19, is "Do masks work?"

President Trump's recent COVID-19 diagnosis has many of his haters crying foul over his attitude about masks. They blame that for his catching the virus.

Those same people then had a hissy fit when Trump did a drive-by outside Walter Reed in a vehicle where everyone inside was wearing a mask.

So, the question is, do masks prevent the spread of COVID-19? The best way to answer this question is to look at how mask mandates have impacted infection rates. So, let's do that.

Here's a chart showing daily new cases of COVID-19 in Hawaii, compared with the state's mask mandates:

Here's a chart showing daily new cases of COVID-19 in Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, and San Diego counties in California, compared with the respective county's mask mandates:

Let's try another region of the country. Here's a chart showing daily new cases of COVID-19 in Kansas, compared with the state's mask mandates:

Now here's a chart showing daily new cases of COVID-19 in West Virginia, compared with the state's mask mandate:

See any correlation? Me neither. What about outside the United States? Let's take a look.

Now here's a chart showing daily new cases of COVID-19 in Peru, compared with the country's mask mandate:

Now here's a chart showing daily new cases of COVID-19 in Spain, compared with the country's mask mandates:

And finally, here's a chart showing daily new cases of COVID-19 in France, compared with the country's mask mandates:

In case it isn't obvious, these charts fail to show any correlation between mask mandates (which presumably increase the wearing of masks) and reductions in COVID-19 infections. If you look at all of the available charts over at Rational Ground, you'll see there are some instances of infection rates declining after a mask mandate was imposed, but those mandates were put in place after infection rates were already on the decline. For example, this chart showing New York City's daily new deaths from COVID-19:

Like countries that experience that experienced huge spikes early in the pandemic, New York City's daily new cases followed roughly the same pattern.

There are more graphs over at Rational Ground you can look at, and you can decide for yourself, and then ask why Joe Biden seems intent on imposing an unconstitutional federal mask mandate.
Editor's Note: Want to support PJ Media so we can continue telling the truth about the Biden-Harris campaign? Join PJ Media VIP TODAY and use the promo code LAWANDORDER to get 25% off your VIP membership. _____
Matt Margolis is the author of the new book Airborne: How The Liberal Media Weaponized The Coronavirus Against Donald Trump , and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama . You can follow Matt on Twitter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do Masks Really Work? Here's What the Charts Tell Us

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The million-dollar question right now, with regards to COVID-19, is "Do masks work?" President Trump's recent COVID-19 diagnosis has many of his haters crying foul over his attitude about masks. They blame that for his catching the virus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article uses information and quotes from a similar article originally published by Microsoft News (MSN). The MSN article was subsequently removed in recent weeks as more and more states began mandating mask wearing for "essential workers" and people working, shopping, eating and playing in everyday situations across the country. The goal of this article is to present a different perspective than what is typically shown in the mainstream media, highlighting information from health professionals and research. Consult a doctor before making any major changes to your health routine.
The "new normal" following the coronavirus situation that has unfolded includes a host of changes to society as we know it, as governmental organizations and leaders seek to provide some measure of uniform guidance on how to respond.

While there have been virtually no recommendations on nutrition, healthy lifestyle, or similar tried-and-true strategies, the refrain of hand-washing, mask wearing and the intimation that "society must wait for a vaccine in order to resume normal life" (one that Bill Gates stated could harm at least 700,000 people; watch the CNBC video at the 3:00 mark to see why he says he needs legal protection from countries to roll out these fast-tracked vaccines) has been repeated often.

Recently, the focused has shifted to masks: are they really the key to keeping the coronavirus at bay, or are they not as necessary as some state and local governments are making them out to be?

Adding to the confusion, the WHO has said that masks should only be worn by healthy people when taking care of people suffering from coronavirus symptoms (which are similar to many other diseases anyway), not when out in public.

The CDC has recommended wearing the masks whenever possible, however.

Both organizations have received funding from the Gates Foundation and the Bill Gates funded vaccination organization GAVI, which is closely tied to groups funding vaccines as the ultimate solution to the pandemic, despite top U.S. infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci's recent admission to Congress that there is "no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective" and that it may actually make the course of the disease even stronger (full CNBC article here).

While it is common sense that a mask may prevent the transmission of germs and viruses, it is also well worth knowing the potential side effects of wearing them for long hours as well.
Potential Side Effects of Long Term Mask Wearing
The potential side effects include the following according to several doctors quoted by MSN.com:
1. Shortness of Breath and Lightheadedness:
According to Dr. Lili Barsky, any activities that result in the expulsion of air, such as talking, singing and exercising can result "in the accumulation of carbon dioxide between the face and the mask."

The symptoms are seen due to increases in CO2 levels in the body according to Dr. Rashmi Byakodi as mentioned in the MSN article.

"Breathing over exhaled air that turns into carbon dioxide might make you feel dizzy."

The good news is that going outside and getting fresh air without a mask is always an option to aid in healing.
2. Headaches:
According to Dr. Byakodi, long term wearing of masks can result in prolonged, repeated episodes of headaches.

"Headaches may occur due to the band fitting around the head all day, stress from breathing through the mask, or slight changes in oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in the blood," Dr. Leann Poston added according to the article.
3. Dermatitis:
Some people's skin may break out, and scarring around the area where the mask is worn may result in some cases.
4. A Weakened Immune System:
Perhaps the most troubling of all symptoms on the list of doctor warnings, the immune system can be greatly weakened by low oxygen levels in the tissues as noted by Dr. Esteban Kosak in the article.

"Scientific investigations have proven that a prolonged denial of enough oxygen in the body can cripple the ability of our immune system to tackle infections which is even worse with older and younger people," he said.

Recently a video went viral in Australia demonstrating additional pitfalls of cloth masks for protecting people, and why they may not be as effective as originally thought.
5. Development of Skin Wrinkles:
According to leading dermatologist Dr. Viseslav Tonkovic-Capin, "new patterns of skin wrinkling" may emerge in people who wear masks long-term.
6. Chronic Respiratory Conditions:
It may sound too bizarre to be true, but long-term wearing of face masks may actually trigger symptoms similar to the disease caused by coronavirus, COVID-19, in their own way.

These masks also must be cleaned and disinfected often because bacteria can build up over long-term use.

"Essential workers" and others who wear masks all day long on the job could be exposing themselves to inflammatory and other potential disease-causing particles, potentially leading to the development of serious respiratory issues.

"In the case of the surgical masks which are made of nonwoven fabric, the exposure for some people can trigger an asthma-like inflammatory response in the lungs," said Dr. Sanul Corrielus, a Philadelphia based cardiologist.

"This is likely due to the inhalation of the microfibers in the material that forms the masks."
New Jersey Man Crashes Car Into a Pole, Excessive Mask Wearing Believed to Be a Factor
This past April, a Lincoln Park, New Jersey man passed out and crashed his car into a pole. His long-term wearing of an N95 mask was believed to be a contributing factor to him losing consciousness according to police, as reported by ABC News.

"The crash is believed to have resulted from the driver wearing an N95 mask for several hours and subsequently passing out behind the wheel due to insufficient oxygen intake/excessive carbon dioxide intake," a post from the Lincoln Park Police Department on Facebook read.

An updated post clarified that while those on the scene are not physicians, they did know that he had been wearing the mask inside his vehicle for several hours.

"As it relates to this specific incident, we reiterate that police officers are not physicians and do not know the medical history of every person we encounter... It was stated in the original post that we 'believed' the excessive wearing of an N95 mask was a contributing factor to this accident. While we don't know this with 100% certainty, we do know that the driver had been wearing an N95 mask inside the vehicle for several hours and ultimately passed out while operating the vehicle."
Final Thoughts on Mask Recommendations and the "New Normal"
While many experts continue to recommend or even mandate wearing masks to protect against the virus, wearing masks for too long comes with its own set of risks, as do lockdowns, and even vaccines, as Gates admitted to CNBC recently noting that he would need legal protection for compensating the hundreds of thousands of people who may be harmed (see CNBC video here).

Regardless of whether or not you think masks are necessary, everybody deserves to know the risks now, rather than five, ten, or fifteen years later as is often the case with so many medical and pharmaceutical-based products.
This article does not constitute medical advice. Consult a licensed naturopathic doctor, nation and local laws before making any major changes. [Related Reading: 600 Physicians send letter to White House warning lockdowns are a "mass casualty incident"]
Comments

comments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Doctors Warn: Potential Long Term Side Effects of Mask Wearing Include Shortness of Breath, a Weakened Immune System and Chronic Respiratory Conditions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article uses information and quotes from a similar article originally published by Microsoft News (MSN). The MSN article was subsequently removed in recent weeks as more and more states began mandating mask wearing for "essential workers" and people working, shopping, eating and playing in everyday situations across the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If there's one unwavering fact in the middle of the chaos surrounding COVID-19, it's this: wearing masks helps to prevent the spread of the virus. In addition to hand washing and social distancing, wearing a mask is the only other thing that can help protect yourself as well as others from this highly contagious virus. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control have issued in their guidance that all students and staff should wear masks when they return to school. So we know that a mask can help keep a child safe physically. But what about emotionally? Apparently, children wearing face masks experience psychological effects as well, according to experts.

Now, the point of this story is not to discourage the use of masks. Far, far from it. It is simply to alert parents to the potential psychological and emotional reactions that can occur when children (particularly elementary school-aged ones) have to wear a mask for the entire school day. "Depending on your child's personality type, masks can affect them in different ways," says Dr. Lori Whatley, a clinical psychologist. "I think this is a new paradigm and we will see lots of different reactions from the kids regarding their acceptance of the masks."

What can make mask wearing easy (or challenging) for your child ultimately comes from your own feelings on the subject. "Definitely the way parents think of masks will affect the kids' idea of them," says Dr. Whatley. "The older kids will likely find it easier to keep masks on. For younger kids, it will be like expecting them to keep up with their hats and wear them. Sometimes they just forget or lose them."

But even if you try to normalize the idea of wearing masks, your kid still might feel scared wearing one. "The psychological aspect of masks we need to be most worried about for children is that they internalize the idea that the world outside, and the people living in it, are inherently dangerous," says Dr. Aaron Weiner, PhD, a board-certified and licensed clinical psychologist. "This perspective can lead to long-lasting anxiety disorders, and difficulty with their ability to function socially after guidelines are relaxed."

For children of all ages, they might find that wearing a mask feels isolating, according to Dr. Carole Lieberman, MD, a psychiatrist and best-selling author. "It can make people feel as if their voice is muted, or that they are not allowed to speak," says Dr. Lieberman. "So, kids may especially feel like you don't want them to ask you questions about Coronavirus or to tell you how upset the masks make them feel." After all, children wearing face masks isn't something that they're used to, so it's going to take time for them to adapt.

And then, there's the question of how kids will socialize with masks on. When everyone is wearing a mask (and voices might get muffled), how can children read facial cues in order to form new friendships? "Some children have told me that they don't like not seeing people's smiles especially and it makes them feel "weird' and alone even when with people," says Dr. Elena Lister, MD, an adult and child psychiatrist on the faculty at Columbia and Cornell Medical Center. "It can make forming new friendships harder because of that but will not have a huge impact on ongoing relationships."

That said, some kids might take comfort in wearing face masks. "There will be the child who feels much more secure because of wearing the masks, and this will help calm COVID concerns and anxieties so they are free to learn," says Dr. Whatley. And wearing a mask can be a learning opportunity for kids to understand that doing so actually helps (and not hurts) people. "Helping children keep a balanced view of the situation is essential," says Dr. Weiner. "For example, you could say something like: 'Wearing a mask right now is very important for your health, just like washing your hands after using the bathroom. It's good hygiene, and it's also considerate to everyone else. We don't want anyone to get sick!'" By helping your child view mask-wearing as something considerate, and an activity that we do to keep everyone safe, it reinforces the good that comes from wearing a mask. "Frame mask-wearing as a pro-social activity where we all take care of each other, rather than focusing on the element of mask-wearing that draws attention to sickness, disease, and death," says Dr. Weiner.

That's why parents should start sooner (rather than later) in instructing their children about the benefits of wearing masks. That way, they'll be ready for them once school starts. "Some children may not like the feeling of the mask on their face, or fiddle with the mask during the day (which lowers its protective value to them)," says Dr. Weiner. "Model how to wear a mask appropriately, as well as how to take the mask off from your ears without touching your face." By doing this for even 15-20 minutes daily to start, your child can acclimate to the idea of masks, and you can come up with solutions if your child is uncomfortable.

And some kids actually report feeling comforted by the idea of wearing masks in school. "I hear from my young patients, parents, and school personnel that the masks create a feeling of safety that is reassuring to them," says Dr. Lister. "They feel that they and their families won't get sick, because a lot of children are highly anxious about that." In that way, kids can view like donning a mask makes them a medical superhero helping others.

Still, it might take some time for your child to adjust to the idea of wearing a mask all day at school, and that's okay. Children wearing face masks isn't something that has been a part of our collective culture until now. The most important thing is to be positive, give your child the information that they need, and be supportive as they adapt to this new normal. That way, your child can enjoy being in school-safely.

Photo Credit: Shutterstock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Children Wearing Face Masks Experience Psychological Effects, According To Experts -

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If there's one unwavering fact in the middle of the chaos surrounding COVID-19, it's this: wearing masks helps to prevent the spread of the virus. In addition to hand washing and social distancing, wearing a mask is the only other thing that can help protect yourself as well as others from this highly contagious virus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy

First published by GR on May 26, 2020
"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." - Russell Blaylock, MD
Researchers 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.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.

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.

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. Repeated episodes of hypoxia have been proposed as a significant factor in atherosclerosis and hence increases all cardiovascular (heart attacks) and cerebrovascular (strokes) diseases.

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. 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."

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Russell Blaylock, author of The Blaylock Wellness Report newsletter, is a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, and lecturer. He attended the Louisiana State University School of Medicine and completed his internship and neurological residency at the Medical University of South Carolina. For 26 years, practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from his neurosurgical duties to devote his full attention to nutritional research. Dr. Blaylock has authored four books, Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients, and his most recent work, Cellular and Molecular Biology of Autism Spectrum Disorders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy - Global Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
First published by GR on May 26, 2020 "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." - Russell Blaylock, MD Researchers found that about a third of the workers developed headaches with use of ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Researchers Say Prolonged Mask Use Causes Psychological Discomfort, Physical Fatigue - National File

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Masks are becoming ubiquitous throughout the country, though the consequences of their use are still being studied.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Here's how you can prevent hypoxia and other negative effects of facial masks.

As many states move into the green area of COVID-19, face masks and coverings are still mandatory for indoor public spaces in order to keep the infectious disease from spreading again. As we swiftly enter into the summer months, many are concerned about the lack of oxygen, especially if wearing a mask can last longer than eight hours a day.

"There was a study in 2008, which investigated the risk of hypoxia (a condition in which the body or a region of the body is deprived of adequate oxygen supply at the tissue level) amongst 53 surgeons, wearing surgical masks for prolonged operations. The study found a slight decrease in blood saturation and an increase in heart rate," explains Dr. Dimitar Marinov MD, Ph.D., and Assistant Professor at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Medical University of Varna, Bulgaria. "The effect was more prominent in surgeons over 35 years of age. This indicates that some level of silent hypoxia does occur due to wearing a surgical mask."

According to Dr. Marinov, it is likely that hypoxemia results from the increased CO2 content of the inspired air due to the exhaled CO2 getting trapped beneath the surgical face mask. Unfortunately, there has been no controlled study investigating the effect of surgical masks on the level of blood oxygenation.

"The risk might be higher for tight-fitting masks such as N95 and KN95 respirators which form a seal around the face of the wearer. However, people wearing thin and loose-fitting cloth masks are at no risk of hypoxia at all," he further explains.

While municipal governments have ordered residential businesses to require their employees and customers to wear masks, a few municipalities even went so far as to impose fines on citizens who violated the mandate.

Making an appearance on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday 26 April, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said his original mandate to require face masks and coverings for retail customers went " too far " before he reversed his decision. During his press briefing on April 28, he announced a change of heart but strongly recommended that face masks not be required for retail customers.

With the constant wearing of a face mask, especially those that work in the service business, the question of how long a person can wear a mask without fear of hypoxia comes to mind.

"According to that same study, the onset of slight hypoxia starts after the first hour," says Dr. Marinov. "It can trap the exhaled CO2 which changes the normal O2/CO2 ratio of the air we breathe and induce silent hypoxia."

It is also important to note that there are rising concerns about wearing masks while exercising especially indoors. "Those are activities that usually last no more than an hour," informs Dr. Marinov. "Considering that in combination with the rapid breathing naturally caused by exercise, there is no risk for hypoxia due to wearing a mask."

Another side effect to avoid is reusing and sanitizing the mask with disinfectant. Legal attorney Alexis Moore, Esq. learned this lesson when she was injured by a hospital-grade disinfectant calledRe-Juv-Nal which is being advertised to sanitize against COVID-19. "One of the biggest fears I have for people wearing the masks is that they will sanitize them with a hospital-grade disinfectant, and experience the serious injuries that I have," Moore advises. Moore stated that she sustained burns to her face, eyes, and body. She now has a permanent life-threatening injury from ingesting and inhaling the fumes of this disinfectant.

While there are negative aspects of wearing a mask too long, there are ways to minimize the effects. "Get plenty of fresh air. Whenever you are about to take off your mask, do so," Dr. Marinov recommends. "Make sure that your mask doesn't fit too tight around your face, so as not to restrict your breathing." It is also suggested that people exercise at least 30 minutes a day to strengthen the lungs. Lastly, it is important to throw your disposable mask away and not use chemicals to sanitize them. If you are wearing a cloth mask, it is perfectly fine to hand wash daily or place in your weekly wash.

For more information about wearing face masks and coverings, visit the Center for Disease Control to learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Potential Dangers of Wearing a Face Mask

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As many states move into the green area of COVID-19, face masks and coverings are still mandatory for indoor public spaces in order to keep the infectious disease from spreading again. As we swiftly enter into the summer months, many are concerned about the lack of oxygen, especially if wearing a mask can last longer than eight hours a day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There has been a shifting of positions on the use of face masks with the COVID-19 outbreak. Initially it was not recommended, then we had different signals from the U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams and representatives of the CDC, the NIH and other agencies. More recently, the policies recommending wearing face masks have become more prevalent and often mandated in public places. Is there sound medical or scientific basis for the recommendations? Is much of it simply virtue signaling? Is there a legitimate rationale to do it to protect the vulnerable? And if so, at what cost to the rest of society? There are many important considerations including the risk versus the reward. So, what are the risks vs. the benefits? And would there be a partisan reason for some policy makers to push for one over the other? Because as unfortunate as it is, all decisions and policies have to be viewed from at least two lenses, politics and who stands to benefit financially?

Let's look at the two camps in the debate:

The benefit is greater than the risk-

Proponents of face masks use the following arguments:

We can prevent sick or asymptomatic infected people from infecting others by wearing masks - There may be some credible evidence to suggest this, but in doing so the infected person wearing the mask may be making their infection much worse as a result. The "wear them only in a medical setting" arguments below will prove this out. N-95 masks have been shown to block 95% of airborne particles with a median diameter >0.3 μm ² ( greater than 0.3 micrometers or microns squared), whereas standard face masks may block 50-70% of particles depending on the mask. ( http://medcraveonline.com/JLPRR/JLPRR-01-00021.pdf)

If healthy people wear face masks, they will be protected from those that may be infected- The counterpoint in the next section will make the argument against that logic.

If you wear a mask, you are less likely to touch your nose, mouth or eyes, which is where the vast majority of infections begin- Some claim this to be true, but an argument can be made that people handle their mask frequently when adjusting them on their face and to remove them and put them on. All this touching of the mask raises the potential that viral transmission to the mask can then transfer to the nasal and oral cavities. Recent video of the Coronavirus Task Force news conferences has underscored this, as Dr Fauci and others from the task force are seen frequently fiddling with their masks in the background.

Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill.

The risk is greater than the benefit (except in a medical setting)-

Detractors from the regular use of face masks cite the following:
Face masks do not protect the wearer from transmission by others-
The American Medical Association just released a position paper on masks:

"Face masks should be used only by individuals who have symptoms of respiratory infection such as coughing, sneezing, or, in some cases, fever. Face masks should also be worn by healthcare workers, by individuals who are taking care of or are in close contact with people who have respiratory infections, or otherwise as directed by a doctor. Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill. Face masks should be reserved for those who need them because masks can be in short supply during periods of widespread respiratory infection. Because N95 respirators require special fit testing, they are not recommended for use by the general public." ( Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA); April 21, 2020 Volume 323, Number 15 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762694)

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." (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. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/)
Face masks restrict the elimination of virus, recirculating the virus into the nasal/sinus and upper respiratory passages-

"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." Article by Russell Blaylock M.D., published May 14, 2020 in Technocracy News & Trends. Dr. Blaylock is a prominent retired neurosurgeon and author of health-related books. "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." (Blaylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy; https://www.technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy/)

This direct rebreathing of the virus back into the nasal passages can contribute to the migration of the virus to the brain. (1, 2) "Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain. 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."(3)

1. 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.

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

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

Wearing a face can cause headaches and reduce oxygen levels- A recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask... That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood CO2 (hypercapnia). It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%And proper oxygenation of the blood is essential for energy, mental clarity, focus and emotional well-being. ( 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.)

Wearing a face mask causes one to re-breath the carbon dioxide (CO2), that the lungs are attempting to expel- This in turn reduces the immune response, negatively affects epithelial cell function (cells in the lungs and blood vessels) and lowers the amount of oxygen exchange across the alveolar membranes. From the article:

"Hypercapnia, the elevation of carbon dioxide (CO2) in blood and tissues, commonly occurs in severe acute and chronic respiratory diseases, and is associated with increased risk of mortality. Recent studies have shown that hypercapnia adversely affects innate immunity, host defense, lung edema clearance and cell proliferation. Airway epithelial dysfunction is a feature of advanced lung disease....These changes in gene expression indicate the potential for hypercapnia to impact bronchial epithelial cell function in ways that may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with severe acute or advanced chronic lung diseases."

This clearly can have a negative impact with a disease like COVID-19. ( https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-32008-x.pdf)

Wearing a face mask can increase your risk of infections- The last point discussed the drop of oxygen levels after wearing a mask. 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 T-regs. 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. In addition, reduced oxygenation can accelerate cancer growth. ( 1. Shehade H et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 negatively regulates Th1 function. J Immunol 2015;195:1372-1376. 2. 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. 3. Sceneay J et al. Hypoxia-driven immunosuppression contributes to the premetastatic niche. Oncoimmunology 2013;2:1 e22355.)

Wearing face masks is a constant reminder that we should fear this invisible enemy or "monster" as some politicians have called it- There is no doubt that wearing a mask reinforces the worry and fear about COVID-19. Even being in public mask-less and seeing that most people are wearing masks leaves one with a sense of angst. Fear, worry and anxiety are powerful immune suppressing emotions. This is another factor relating to the immunosuppressive effects of face masks. This is a link to a section of a 2007 book titled, Cytokines: Stress and Immunity- Second Edition 2007. You can read Chapter 2 titled Worried to Death? Worry, and Immune Dysregulation in Health and HIV. Interestingly, HIV is a viral infection as is SARS-C0V-2 (COVID-19).

What are some government agencies saying?

On April 27, 2020, the Ventura County California Public Health Department released a Pros and Cons one-sheet summary about face masks (link at end of this section). One thing they warn against is the general public buying and using N-95 masks, because of the shortage of PPE for medical personnel. This is very wise advice. ( https://www.simivalley.org/home/showdocument?id=22324)

It also cites some other limited benefits of preventing transmission, pretty well characterized by this quote:

"There is a 'very slight protective advantage' to wearing a medical mask as opposed to wearing nothing at all in a community setting. The risk of acquiring a viral infection is reduced by 6%. When both ill and well wear a medical mask in a household, the risk is reduced by 19%. There is more "evidence to support the use of medical masks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient high-risk situations."

Altogether, common fabric cloth masks are not considered protective against respiratory viruses and their use should not be encouraged.

But what else does it say?

And what scientific evidence do they present that describes the effectiveness of masks and that warns against the use of face masks by the general public? Here is a good sampling...

With near universal use of cloth and medical masks worn in public in Wuhan, China during the 2019-2020 flu season leading up to the COVID-19 outbreak, the outbreak spread virtually unchecked.

"Available evidence shows that (cloth masks)... may even increase the risk of infection due to moisture, liquid diffusion and retention of the virus. Penetration of particles through cloth is reported to be high." "Altogether, common fabric cloth masks are not considered protective against respiratory viruses and their use should not be encouraged."

( https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/face-masks.html)

In total, the document presented 18 arguments and studies against the effectiveness and use of masks and 10 showing some limited benefit. After careful scrutiny of the pros and cons, I am landing squarely against the use of them other than by medical personnel in a clinical setting, or if an individual that is in close proximity of an infected person with the risk of being directly coughed or sneezed on, as in when caring for or visiting a sick person. ( https://vcportal.ventura.org/CEO/VCNC/2020-05-05_VCNC_Masks_Pros_and_Cons.pdf)
The conclusion of the Russell Blaylock M.D. article states the following:

"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."

So, what's the motivation behind the mask?

Given all of that information, it's time to ask the obvious question. What would be the possible motivation for pushing the narrative about face masks and in some cases even mandatory face mask rules? And how does that motivation interface with the extended stay-at-home orders? We have "flattened the curve" to prevent the risk of overwhelming our health care system (but so did Sweden without lockdowns - a great topic for another post), so why the continued extreme social distancing and face mask mantra?

Here is a hypothesis, but in the form of two questions. It implies malintent which I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but just indulge me for a moment. In the end, each person must decide that for themselves. Here we go....

1. If you wanted to prevent the population from gaining herd immunity, which would further support the need and desire for a vaccine, what would be the best way to do that?
2. If you were successful at preventing people from developing natural immunity by keeping all the healthy and young low-risk people apart from one another and thus wanted to increase the chances for a second wave of the virus in a few months, how could you increase the chances of those people becoming infected and ensuring a second wave once they are released from quarantine and begin mingling?
Now match those two questions with the proper answers:
A. Suppress their immune systems with fear, loss of income, lack of exercise and sunshine and face masks whenever going away from home.
B. Keep the young and healthy people at home and sequestered from each other.

If you paired 1 with B, and 2 with A, congratulations! Welcome to the growing number of free-thinking people that are connecting the dots.

One thing for certain is that so many people have taken the wearing of face masks and social distancing to a bizarre extreme. A few days ago, I saw one woman in the neighborhood out for a walk in the heat of the day. I commented to her that it sure was a hot time of day to be out for a walk. She looked at me with an odd look of concern on her face and said, "yeah, but at least there are no other people out now". Other common examples are the people driving alone in their car with a face mask on and people walking through parking lots and down uncrowded sidewalks or at a park wearing face masks. My purpose on mentioning these examples is not to be condescending or critical of individuals that are overly fearful or are unaware of the harm face masks may cause them. These individuals have been duped by a complicit media that has continued to run with the absolutely, ridiculously, outrageously inaccurate models and never adjusted their level of hype and fear mongering long after those models had been exposed for what they were-ridiculous. In the meantime, people that are living with an irrational level of fear as a result, are being harmed physically and emotionally.

The reduced oxygen levels will increase anxiety, fatigue and brain fog, decrease learning capacity due to decreased oxygen to the brain, weaken their immune systems and can lead to an increased rate and severity of all types of infections, not just COVID-19.

CDC's recommendations for opening schools require children to wear face masks

Picture classrooms of children wearing face masks. This image is repulsive to me on so many levels. Yet, updated CDC guidelines on May 19 th, 2020 and posted on their site titled Considerations for Schools, recommends that children older than the age of 2 wear face masks. In part, it says, "Teach and reinforce use of cloth face coverings." It then goes on to say...

Note: Cloth face coverings should not be placed on:

And many in the government and educational system are echoing these preposterous recommendations. My opinion based on the science we just looked at is that this would be a huge mistake. Making children wear face masks has the potential to cause long-term psychological, emotional and physical damage. It promotes an excessive fear of germs (phobia) and of social interaction. The reduced oxygen levels will increase anxiety, fatigue and brain fog, decrease learning capacity due to decreased oxygen to the brain, weaken their immune systems and can lead to an increased rate and severity of all types of infections, not just COVID-19. We know that children are at very low risk of complications from COVID-19. Yet, this practice of wearing face masks could potentially increase that level of risk.

Teaching children good hygiene practices and that their immune system can help prevent and fight "germs" if they eat healthy food, exercise and practice good health habits would go a long way to empower them with positive and practical knowledge that they can learn and use throughout their lives.

Going forward

As we learn about the miscalculations from the hugely exaggerated models, the inaccurate coding and calculations of COVID-19 deaths bloating the numbers, the large percentages of people that are already immune because they have had the infection and recovered, many not even knowing they were sick, we realize that the mortality rate from COVID-19 is nowhere near what we had thought. Then there are the mistakes made within nursing homes and long-term care facilities, including sending positive COVID patients into those facilities and the mistakes with the way we treated many cases with ventilators. In a retrospective analysis of all of these factors, I believe that we will realize that mortality from COVID-19 is not even as bad as a "normal" flu and pneumonia season.

This is not to say that initially we shouldn't have viewed COVID-19 as a serious potential health crisis, but so is 50,000 to 80,000 people dying from flu and pneumonia every winter. My greatest concern is the destruction of the economy, loss of jobs, loss of small businesses, the effects on marriages and families, skyrocketing mental health disorders, stress related diseases and the deaths due to despair and loss of hope, people not getting the medical attention for things like heart issues, high blood pressure and cancer they would otherwise get if they had access to hospitals and routine procedures. These are all the unintended consequences of what we have already done, and if we continue to ignore the new evidence of the data, science and doctors' experiences on the front lines, we will certainly cause much more harm than good. Going forward with the current situation (and should a viral outbreak occur in the future), risk versus benefit of every decision must be considered.
Dr. Alan Palmer is the author of a FREE eBook called 1200 Studies- Truth Will Prevail. It is an amazing research tool with easy navigation tools, containing excerpts and summaries from over 1,400 studies that contradict what the public is being told about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Risks vs. Benefits of Face Masks- Is There an Agenda? * Children's Health Defense

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There has been a shifting of positions on the use of face masks with the COVID-19 outbreakIs there sound medical or scientific basis for the recommendations? Is much of it simply virtue signaling? Is there a legitimate rationale to do it to protect the vulnerable?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wearing a face mask has become common as it may prevent coronavirus but wearing a face mask may have many side effects.

Research

Face mask burdens the breath and forces the person to inhale small amount of oxygen especially impacting people suffering from asthma. According to a research, a prolonged denial of enough oxygen can cripple the ability of your immune system. According to Dr. Dennis A Castro, that prolonged use of face masks causes hypoxia. Using a face mask can reduce blood oxygenation by 20%. A study measured the oxygen level in blood of 53 surgeons.

"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," Russel Blaylock wrote.

Harmful Effects

Wearing face masks for long time may cause headache. In an article Dr. Russell Blaylock wrote that the side effects from prolonged wearing of a face mask "can vary from headaches to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications."

According to a recent study, because of wearing a face mask, 128 healthcare workers out of 159 healthcare workers whose aged between 21 and 35 reported facing inefficiency at work.

Another study involved 212 healthcare workers to observe headache due to using face masks. The researchers noted the duration, type and any related pre-existing conditions. 33% of the workers reported suffering from headache and majority had pre-existing headache that became worse due to wearing face masks.

Another side effect is that when a person wears a face mask, the exhaled air containing carbon dioxide moves toward the eyes generating uncomfortable feeling. Face mask can also cause different diseases like Maskne, malaria, etc.

What Is MASKNE?

MASKNE is the most common disease that may be caused by wearing a face mask. Maskne is a term used to describe the acne in the area where the mask is worn. It is caused because the mask traps oil and dirt in pores. This oil and dirt also irritate the skin.
Also Read: Study: COVID-19 And Diabetes
Dr. Craig Kraffert, dermatologist and president of Amarte Skin Care believes, "[Maskne] is a play on the 'derm-urban dictionary' term 'backne' (back acne), newly coined for our novel COVID-19 face mask era. Chestne (chest acne) is a previous play on the infamous term backne, as well,". He also said that a similar acne response is often common with helmet straps and seen in acne-prone football players and cyclists.

Wearing a mask can also cause malaria and rosacea. Malaria can result from sweat under the face mask. More microorganisms go into your body because of wearing a face mask.

"Mask wearing leads to local alteration of the skin microbiome. With mask use, the covered skin is subjected to elevated CO2 levels, increased humidity, higher temperatures, and more bacteria and microorganisms from the mouth and respiratory system," said Kraffert.

Recommendations

Emollient, prescription, and moisturizer can help control maskne. Skin irritation with wearing face mask is most common. Friedman told that thicker emollient, such as Aquaphor can be use to minimize it- in the area to augment skin barrier function and provide lubrication for the junction of the mask with the skin. To protect yourself from side effects of wearing a face mask, Kraffert recommended to wash your face after removing the mask.

Experts recommend taking of face masks when not in public. In fact, the wearer inhales his or her own exhaled air which contains mostly carbon dioxide. So, inhaling carbon dioxide causes different diseases like breathing difficulties, rapid heart rate, emotional upset, etc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wearing a face mask has become common as it may prevent coronavirus but wearing a face mask may have many side effects. Research Face mask burdens the breath and forces the person to inhale small amount of oxygen especially impacting people suffering from asthma.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Could the requirement to wear masks in public to prevent the spread of the coronavirus be doing more harm than good to people's health?

A retired neurosurgeon believes so, pointing toward studies which found that wearing masks for prolonged periods can cause serious side effects.

In an article published by Technocracy News, Dr. Russell Blaylock wrote that the side effects from prolonged wearing of a face mask "can vary from headaches to increased airway resistance, carbon dioxide accumulation, to hypoxia, all the way to serious life-threatening complications."

The side effects vary depending on whether they are cloth or paper surgical masks or N95 respirator masks because the N95, being a more effective filter, also limits breathing to a greater degree, and is therefore more commonly associated with headaches, Blaylock reported.

He highlighted one study of 212 healthcare workers who were asked to report on the presence of headaches while using the N95 mask, including the duration of the headache, the type of headache, and whether they had pre-existing headaches. The study found that around a third of workers developed headaches when using the N95 mask, the majority had pre-existing headaches that were made worse by the use of the mask, and around three in five required pain medication to relieve the headache.

And although tight straps or pressure from the mask were considered as potential causes, the evidence pointed to the headaches being caused by reduced blood oxygenation, or an increase in carbon dioxide in the blood.

"It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%," Blaylock wrote. This, he said, "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 of 159 healthcare workers between the ages of 21 and 35 found that 81% developed headaches through the use of face masks, to the level at which their work performance was affected.

A third study measured the blood oxygen of 53 surgeons using an oximeter before and after surgery.

"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," Blaylock wrote.

The potential for masks to reduce oxygen levels in the wearer are important not only because this can lead to passing out, but also because they have been linked to reduced natural immunity.

"In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections, and if so, having a much worse outcome," he wrote.

Little is definitively known about how effective the use of masks is in controlling the spread of COVID-19 because no studies have yet been carried out specifically connecting the coronavirus to mask use.

From the outset of the pandemic, it has been assumed that the coronavirus behaves like other respiratory viruses in terms of spread as well as symptoms. However, Blaylock points to a 2012 study titled, "The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: A systematic review of the scientific evidence," which looked at 17 of the best studies in the field and concluded: "None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection."

He also highlights that both the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization initially recommended that only those already known to be infected with the coronavirus need wear a mask, to minimize spreading it to others, a policy which is also considered good practice regarding other diseases.

"When a person has TB we have them wear a mask, not the entire community of non-infected," Blaylock wrote. "The recommendations by the CDC and the WHO [for everyone to wear a mask] are not based on any studies of this virus and have never been used to contain any other virus pandemic or epidemic in history."

The current advice given on the WHO's website is still not to use masks unless you have the virus and are at risk of infecting others, or looking after those who may be infected with coronavirus.

An information video by the organization titled, "Can wearing a mask protect you against coronavirus?" advises: "Medical masks cannot protect against the new coronavirus when used alone. When you use them, you must combine with hand hygiene and other preventative measures.

"WHO only recommends the use of masks in specific cases," the video continues. "If you have a cough, fever and difficulty breathing, you should wear a mask and seek medical care. If you do not have these symptoms, you do not have to wear masks because there is no evidence that they protect people who are not sick."

It is currently a requirement to wear a mask while in public spaces in Israel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Could wearing a mask for long periods be detrimental to health?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Could the requirement to wear masks in public to prevent the spread of the coronavirus be doing more harm than good to people's health? A retired neurosurgeon believes so, pointing toward studies which found that wearing masks for prolonged periods can cause serious side effects.

# data[].attributes.headline
“New”(er) Study Finds Masks Hurt Schoolchildren Physically, Psychologically, and Behaviorally

# data[].attributes.subject
“New”(er) Study Finds Masks Hurt Schoolchildren Physically, Psychologically, and Behaviorally

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new study, involving over 25,000 school-aged children, shows that masks are harming schoolchildren physically, psychologically, and behaviorally, revealing 24 distinct health issues associated with wearing masks.

The health issues and impairments observed in this study were found to affect 68% of masked children who are forced to wear a face covering for an average of 4.5 hours per day. The study also includes 17,854 health complaints submitted by parents.

Some of the health issues found in the study include: increased headaches (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), drowsiness or fatigue (37%), malaise (42%), and nearly a third of children experience more sleep issues than they had previously and a quarter of children developed new fears.

Though these results are concerning, the study also found that 29.7% of children experienced shortness of breath, 26.4% experienced dizziness, and hundreds of the participants experiencing accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness, and short-term impairment of consciousness.

The study authors noted the lack of unbiased research on this topic:

"There are no manufacturer-independent studies on the use of masks for children and adolescents that are certified as medical products for occupational safety in professional applications. In addition, due to the unknown materials used, there are no findings on the potential protective effects or side effects of the often home-made 'everyday masks' worn by the majority of children. In view of the ongoing measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, and in particular the varying obligations for children and adolescents to wear masks in school over a longer period of time, there is an urgent need for research."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Study Finds Masks Hurt Schoolchildren Physically, Psychologically, and Behaviorally - Montana Daily Gazette

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new study, involving over 25,000 school-aged children, shows that masks are harming schoolchildren physically, psychologically, and behaviorally, revealing 24 distinct health issues associated with wearing masks. The health issues and impairments observed in this study were found to affect 68% of masked children who are forced to wear a face covering for an average [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Please Share This Story!

At this writing, there is a recent surge in widespread use by the public of facemasks when in public places, including for extended periods of time, in the United States as well as in other countries. The public has been instructed by media and their governments that one's use of masks, even if not sick, may prevent others from being infected with SARS-CoV-2, the infectious agent of COVID-19.

https://youtu.be/4QxlvqiaYCM

A review of the peer-reviewed medical literature examines impacts on human health, both immunological, as well as physiological. The purpose of this paper is to examine data regarding the effectiveness of facemasks, as well as safety data. The reason that both are examined in one paper is that for the general public as a whole, as well as for every individual, a risk-benefit analysis is necessary to guide decisions on if and when to wear a mask.

Are masks effective at preventing transmission of respiratory pathogens?

In this meta-analysis, face masks were found to have no detectable effect against transmission of viral infections. (1) It found: "Compared to no masks, there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases or influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers."

This 2020 meta-analysis found that evidence from randomized controlled trials of face masks did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility. (2)

Another recent review found that masks had no effect specifically against Covid-19, although facemask use seemed linked to, in 3 of 31 studies, "very slightly reduced" odds of developing influenza-like illness. (3)

This 2019 study of 2862 participants showed that both N95 respirators and surgical masks "resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza." (4)

This 2016 meta-analysis found that both randomized controlled trials and observational studies of N95 respirators and surgical masks used by healthcare workers did not show benefit against transmission of acute respiratory infections. It was also found that acute respiratory infection transmission "may have occurred via contamination of provided respiratory protective equipment during storage and reuse of masks and respirators throughout the workday." (5)

A 2011 meta-analysis of 17 studies regarding masks and effect on transmission of influenza found that "none of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection." (6) However, authors speculated that effectiveness of masks may be linked to early, consistent and correct usage.

Face mask use was likewise found to be not protective against the common cold, compared to controls without face masks among healthcare workers. (7)

Airflow around masks

Masks have been assumed to be effective in obstructing forward travel of viral particles. Considering those positioned next to or behind a mask wearer, there have been farther transmission of virus-laden fluid particles from masked individuals than from unmasked individuals, by means of "several leakage jets, including intense backward and downwards jets that may present major hazards," and a "potentially dangerous leakage jet of up to several meters." (8) All masks were thought to reduce forward airflow by 90% or more over wearing no mask. However, Schlieren imaging showed that both surgical masks and cloth masks had farther brow jets (unfiltered upward airflow past eyebrows) than not wearing any mask at all, 182 mm and 203 mm respectively, vs none discernible with no mask. Backward unfiltered airflow was found to be strong with all masks compared to not masking.

For both N95 and surgical masks, it was found that expelled particles from 0.03 to 1 micron were deflected around the edges of each mask, and that there was measurable penetration of particles through the filter of each mask. (9)

Penetration through masks

A study of 44 mask brands found mean 35.6% penetration (+ 34.7%). Most medical masks had over 20% penetration, while "general masks and handkerchiefs had no protective function in terms of the aerosol filtration efficiency." The study found that "Medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs were found to provide little protection against respiratory aerosols." (10)

It may be helpful to remember that an aerosol is a colloidal suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas. In respiration, the relevant aerosol is the suspension of bacterial or viral particles in inhaled or exhaled breath.

In another study, penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. (11)

N95 respirators

Honeywell is a manufacturer of N95 respirators. These are made with a 0.3 micron filter. (12) N95 respirators are so named, because 95% of particles having a diameter of 0.3 microns are filtered by the mask forward of the wearer, by use of an electrostatic mechanism. Coronaviruses are approximately 0.125 microns in diameter.

This meta-analysis found that N95 respirators did not provide superior protection to facemasks against viral infections or influenza-like infections. (13) This study did find superior protection by N95 respirators when they were fit-tested compared to surgical masks. (14)

This study found that 624 out of 714 people wearing N95 masks left visible gaps when putting on their own masks. (15)

Surgical masks

This study found that surgical masks offered no protection at all against influenza. (16) Another study found that surgical masks had about 85% penetration ratio of aerosolized inactivated influenza particles and about 90% of Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, although S aureus particles were about 6x the diameter of influenza particles. (17)

Use of masks in surgery were found to slightly increase incidence of infection over not masking in a study of 3,088 surgeries. (18) The surgeons' masks were found to give no protective effect to the patients.

Other studies found no difference in wound infection rates with and without surgical masks. (19) (20)

This study found that "there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination." (21)

This study found that medical masks have a wide range of filtration efficiency, with most showing a 30% to 50% efficiency. (22)

Specifically, are surgical masks effective in stopping human transmission of coronaviruses? Both experimental and control groups, masked and unmasked respectively, were found to "not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols." (23) In that study, they "did not confirm the infectivity of coronavirus" as found in exhaled breath.

A study of aerosol penetration showed that two of the five surgical masks studied had 51% to 89% penetration of polydisperse aerosols. (24)

In another study, that observed subjects while coughing, "neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients." And more viral particles were found on the outside than on the inside of masks tested. (25)

Cloth masks

Cloth masks were found to have low efficiency for blocking particles of 0.3 microns and smaller. Aerosol penetration through the various cloth masks examined in this study were between 74 and 90%. Likewise, the filtration efficiency of fabric materials was 3% to 33% (26)

Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks were found to have 13 times the risk of influenza-like illness than those wearing medical masks. (27)

This 1920 analysis of cloth mask use during the 1918 pandemic examines the failure of masks to impede or stop flu transmission at that time, and concluded that the number of layers of fabric required to prevent pathogen penetration would have required a suffocating number of layers, and could not be used for that reason, as well as the problem of leakage vents around the edges of cloth masks. (28)

Masks against Covid-19

The New England Journal of Medicine editorial on the topic of mask use versus Covid-19 assesses the matter as follows:

"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 20 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic." (29)

Are masks safe?

During walking or other exercise

Surgical mask wearers had significantly increased dyspnea after a 6-minute walk than non-mask wearers. (30)

Researchers are concerned about possible burden of facemasks during physical activity on pulmonary, circulatory and immune systems, due to oxygen reduction and air trapping reducing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. As a result of hypercapnia, there may be cardiac overload, renal overload, and a shift to metabolic acidosis. (31)

Risks of N95 respirators

Pregnant healthcare workers were found to have a loss in volume of oxygen consumption by 13.8% compared to controls when wearing N95 respirators. 17.7% less carbon dioxide was exhaled. (32) Patients with end-stage renal disease were studied during use of N95 respirators. Their partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) decreased significantly compared to controls and increased respiratory adverse effects. (33) 19% of the patients developed various degrees of hypoxemia while wearing the masks.

Healthcare workers' N95 respirators were measured by personal bioaerosol samplers to harbor influenza virus. (34) And 25% of healthcare workers' facepiece respirators were found to contain influenza in an emergency department during the 2015 flu season. (35)​

Risks of surgical masks

Healthcare workers' surgical masks also were measured by personal bioaerosol samplers to harbor for influenza virus. (36)

Various respiratory pathogens were found on the outer surface of used medical masks, which could result in self-contamination. The risk was found to be higher with longer duration of mask use. (37)

Surgical masks were also found to be a repository of bacterial contamination. The source of the bacteria was determined to be the body surface of the surgeons, rather than the operating room environment. (38) Given that surgeons are gowned from head to foot for surgery, this finding should be especially concerning for laypeople who wear masks. Without the protective garb of surgeons, laypeople generally have even more exposed body surface to serve as a source for bacteria to collect on their masks.

Risks of cloth masks

Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks had significantly higher rates of influenza-like illness after four weeks of continuous on-the-job use, when compared to controls. (39)

The increased rate of infection in mask-wearers may be due to a weakening of immune function during mask use. Surgeons have been found to have lower oxygen saturation after surgeries even as short as 30 minutes. (40) Low oxygen induces hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1). (41) This in turn down-regulates CD4+ T-cells. CD4+ T-cells, in turn, are necessary for viral immunity. (42)​

Weighing risks versus benefits of mask use

In the summer of 2020 the United States is experiencing a surge of popular mask use, which is frequently promoted by the media, political leaders and celebrities. Homemade and store-bought cloth masks and surgical masks or N95 masks are being used by the public especially when entering stores and other publicly accessible buildings. Sometimes bandanas or scarves are used. The use of face masks, whether cloth, surgical or N95, creates a poor obstacle to aerosolized pathogens as we can see from the meta-analyses and other studies in this paper, allowing both transmission of aerosolized pathogens to others in various directions, as well as self-contamination.

It must also be considered that masks impede the necessary volume of air intake required for adequate oxygen exchange, which results in observed physiological effects that may be undesirable. Even 6- minute walks, let alone more strenuous activity, resulted in dyspnea. The volume of unobstructed oxygen in a typical breath is about 100 ml, used for normal physiological processes. 100 ml O2 greatly exceeds the volume of a pathogen required for transmission.

The foregoing data show that masks serve more as instruments of obstruction of normal breathing, rather than as effective barriers to pathogens. Therefore, masks should not be used by the general public, either by adults or children, and their limitations as prophylaxis against pathogens should also be considered in medical settings.

Endnotes

1 T Jefferson, M Jones, et al. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 7.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217v2
2 J Xiao, E Shiu, et al. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in non-healthcare settings - personal protective and environmental measures. Centers for Disease Control. 26(5); 2020 May.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
3 J Brainard, N Jones, et al. Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID19: A rapid systematic review. MedRxiv. 2020 Apr 1.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1.full.pdf
4 L Radonovich M Simberkoff, et al. N95 respirators vs medical masks for preventing influenza among health care personnel: a randomized clinic trial. JAMA. 2019 Sep 3. 322(9): 824-833.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214
5 J Smith, C MacDougall. CMAJ. 2016 May 17. 188(8); 567-574.
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567
6 F bin-Reza, V Lopez, et al. The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. 2012 Jul; 6(4): 257-267.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/
7 J Jacobs, S Ohde, et al. Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Infect Control. 2009 Jun; 37(5): 417-419.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19216002/
8 M Viola, B Peterson, et al. Face coverings, aerosol dispersion and mitigation of virus transmission risk.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.10720 , https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2005/2005.10720.pdf

9 S Grinshpun, H Haruta, et al. Performance of an N95 filtering facepiece particular respirator and a surgical mask during human breathing: two pathways for particle penetration. J Occup Env Hygiene. 2009; 6(10):593-603.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15459620903120086
10 H Jung, J Kim, et al. Comparison of filtration efficiency and pressure drop in anti-yellow sand masks, quarantine masks, medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2013 Jun. 14:991-1002.
https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf
11 C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long
12 N95 masks explained. https://www.honeywell.com/en-us/newsroom/news/2020/03/n95-masks-explained

13 V Offeddu, C Yung, et al. Effectiveness of masks and respirators against infections in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Inf Dis. 65(11), 2017 Dec 1; 1934-1942.

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 ​

14 C MacIntyre, Q Wang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza J. 2010 Dec 3.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo

15 M Walker. Study casts doubt on N95 masks for the public. MedPage Today. 2020 May 20.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/publichealth/86601
16 C MacIntyre, Q Wang, et al. A cluster randomized clinical trial comparing fit-tested and non-fit-tested N95 respirators to medical masks to prevent respiratory virus infection in health care workers. Influenza J. 2010 Dec 3.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo
17 N Shimasaki, A Okaue, et al. Comparison of the filter efficiency of medical nonwoven fabrics against three different microbe aerosols. Biocontrol Sci. 2018; 23(2). 61-69.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bio/23/2/23_61/_pdf/-char/en

18 T Tunevall. Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study. World J Surg. 1991 May; 15: 383-387.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01658736

19 N Orr. Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre? Ann Royal Coll Surg Eng 1981: 63: 390-392.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf
20 N Mitchell, S Hunt. Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms - a costly and unnecessary ritual? J Hosp Infection. 18(3); 1991 Jul 1. 239-242.
https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf
21 C DaZhou, P Sivathondan, et al. Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery. JR Soc Med. 2015 Jun; 108(6): 223-228.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480558/
22 L Brosseau, M Sietsema. Commentary: Masks for all for Covid-19 not based on sound data. U Minn Ctr Inf Dis Res Pol. 2020 Apr 1.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
23 N Leung, D Chu, et al. Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks Nature Research. 2020 Mar 7. 26,676-680 (2020).
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-16836/v1
24 S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection - evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798.
https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744
25 S Bae, M Kim, et al. Effectiveness of surgical and cotton masks in blocking SARS-CoV-2: A controlled comparison in 4 patients. Ann Int Med. 2020 Apr 6.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342
26 S Rengasamy, B Eimer, et al. Simple respiratory protection - evaluation of the filtration performance of cloth masks and common fabric materials against 20-1000 nm size particles. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Oct; 54(7): 789-798.

https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744

27 C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577.long ​

28 W Kellogg. An experimental study of the efficacy of gauze face masks. Am J Pub Health. 1920. 34-42.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.10.1.34
29 M Klompas, C Morris, et al. Universal masking in hospitals in the Covid-19 era. N Eng J Med. 2020; 382 e63.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
30 E Person, C Lemercier et al. Effect of a surgical mask on six minute walking distance. Rev Mal Respir. 2018 Mar; 35(3):264-268.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29395560/
31 B Chandrasekaran, S Fernandes. Exercise with facemask; are we handling a devil's sword - a physiological hypothesis. Med Hypothese. 2020 Jun 22. 144:110002.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32590322/
32 P Shuang Ye Tong, A Sugam Kale, et al. Respiratory consequences of N95-type mask usage in pregnant healthcare workers - A controlled clinical study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015 Nov 16; 4:48.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26579222/
33 T Kao, K Huang, et al. The physiological impact of wearing an N95 mask during hemodialysis as a precaution against SARS in patients with end-stage renal disease. J Formos Med Assoc. 2004 Aug; 103(8):624-628.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15340662/
34 F Blachere, W Lindsley et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Viro Methods. 2018 Oct; 260:98-106.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30029810/
35 A Rule, O Apau, et al. Healthcare personnel exposure in an emergency department during influenza season. PLoS One. 2018 Aug 31; 13(8): e0203223.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30169507/
36 F Blachere, W Lindsley et al. Assessment of influenza virus exposure and recovery from contaminated surgical masks and N95 respirators. J Viro Methods. 2018 Oct; 260:98-106.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30029810/
37 A Chughtai, S Stelzer-Braid, et al. Contamination by respiratory viruses on our surface of medical masks used by hospital healthcare workers. BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 3; 19(1): 491.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159777/ ​

38 L Zhiqing, C Yongyun, et al. J Orthop Translat. 2018 Jun 27; 14:57-62.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30035033/
39 C MacIntyre, H Seale, et al. A cluster randomized trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(4)
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
​40 A Beder, U Buyukkocak, et al. Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery. Neurocirugia. 2008; 19: 121-126.
http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf
41 D Lukashev, B Klebanov, et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha and its activation-inducible short isoform negatively regulate functions of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. J Immunol. 2006 Oct 15; 177(8) 4962-4965.
https://www.jimmunol.org/content/177/8/4962
42 A Sant, A McMichael. Revealing the role of CD4+ T-cells in viral immunity. J Exper Med. 2012 Jun 30; 209(8):1391-1395.
https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/3420330
Read full story here...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Masks Are Neither Effective Nor Safe: A Summary Of The Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Please Share This Story! At this writing, there is a recent surge in widespread use by the public of facemasks when in public places, including for extended periods of time, in the United States as well as in other countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Centers for Disease Control continues to take pains to remind Americans to wear their masks when they are out in public.

A missive from CDC that encouraged COVID safety during the Labor Day holiday says: "Do your part to help slow the spread of COVID-19 this Labor Day weekend. If you go to a park, beach, event or gathering, be sure to" do several things, including: "Wear a mask to protect yourself and others."

On its website, the CDC offers guidance on mask selection. Masks should "have two or more layers of washable, breathable fabric," they proclaim.

Such a mask, the CDC suggests, will filter the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19, from the air we breath.

Will it?

The size of the virus based on electron micrographs show that the virus varies from 60 to 140 nanometers in diameter (.06 to .14 microns). N95 filters provide filtration down to .3 microns. On this basis alone, they should not be relied on for protection from small virus particles such as those of SARS-CoV-2.

Still, the mainstream media and the the organs of the state insist that even mere cloth masks work for protection from the COVID virus, suggesting that the much better N95 must be nearly foolproof. USA Today published a " Fact Check " that insists that N95 filters work effectively for COVID 19 regardless of the fact that virus particles are small enough to pass through.

"The COVID-19 particle is indeed around 0.1 microns in size, but it is always bonded to something larger," USA Today says.

According to the paper, "The virus attaches to water droplets or aerosols (i.e. really small droplets) that are generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc. These consist of water, mucus protein and other biological material and are all larger than 1 micron."

These are caught up by the mask. "Breathing and talking generate particles around 1 micron in size, which will be collected by N95 respirator filters with very high efficiency," Lisa Brosseau, a retired professor of environmental and occupational health sciences, told the paper.

Moreover, the paper insists, .3 micron limit on filtration from N95 masks is meaningless, because such masks actually filter even smaller particles. And, they filter the even smaller particles better than they filter out the large particles.

"The N95 filter indeed is physically around the 0.3 micron size," USA Today continues. But that doesn't mean it can only stop particles larger than that. The masks are actually best for particles either larger or smaller than that 0.3 micron threshold."

How does this official narrative on N95 masks hold up to scientific findings on the matter?

A team of researchers affiliated with the Center for Health-Related Aerosol Studies, Department of Environmental Health, at the University of Cincinnati looked into this matter in a study published in the American Journal of Infection Control in 2006.

Here is the abstract of their paper, in total:

Background: Respiratory protection devices are used to protect the wearers from inhaling particles suspended in the air. Filtering face piece respirators are usually tested utilizing nonbiologic particles, whereas their use often aims at reducing exposure to biologic aerosols, including infectious agents such as viruses and bacteria.

Methods: The performance of 2 types of N95 half-mask, filtering face piece respirators and 2 types of surgical masks were determined. The collection efficiency of these respiratory protection devices was investigated using MS2 virus (a nonharmful simulant of several pathogens). The virions were detected in the particle size range of 10 to 80 nm.

Results: The results indicate that the penetration of virions through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified N95 respirators can exceed an expected level of 5%. As anticipated, the tested surgical masks showed a much higher particle penetration because they are known to be less efficient than the N95 respirators. The 2 surgical masks, which originated from the same manufacturer, showed tremendously different penetration levels of the MS2 virions: 20.5% and 84.5%, respectively, at an inhalation flow rate of 85 L/min.

Conclusion: The N95 filtering face piece respirators may not provide the expected protection level against small virions. Some surgical masks may let a significant fraction of airborne viruses penetrate through their filters, providing very low protection against aerosolized infectious agents in the size range of 10 to 80 nm. It should be noted that the surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer, whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment.

Worn properly, N95 masks reduce exposure to particulate contamination, but perhaps not to the degree most people believe. Moreover, the "worn properly" proviso must be emphasized. An inexperienced user, or a careless user, can easily negate any benefit of the mask by contaminating themselves with it while removing the mask.

A more recent study published in the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health further elaborated on the efficacy of masks. "A meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials of pre‐COVID‐19 showed that surgical masks or N95 respirators reduced clinical respiratory illness in health‐care workers by 41% and influenza‐like illness by 66%: they work but are far from perfect," this study found. Additionally, the study, published in June 2020, warned about the dangers of improper use of masks.

"Surgical facemasks are designed to be discarded after single use," the researchers wrote. "As they become moist they become porous and no longer protect. Indeed, experiments have shown that surgical and cotton masks do not trap the SARS‐CoV‐2 (COVID‐19) virus, which can be detected on the outer surface of the masks for up to 7 days. Thus, a pre‐symptomatic or mildly infected person wearing a facemask for hours without changing it and without washing hands every time they touched the mask could paradoxically increase the risk of infecting others."

Moreover, the health impact of wearing the N95 mask must not be discounted. A study published in the Journal of the Formosan Medical Association ( JFMA), a journal published in Taipei that has been in continual publication since 1902, looked at the impact of wearing N95 masks on physiology.

The study reported these results:

Thirty nine patients (23 men; mean age, 57.2 years) were recruited for participation in the study. Seventy percent of the patients showed a reduction in partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), and 19% developed various degrees of hypoxemia. Wearing an N95 mask significantly reduced the PaO2 level (101.7 +/- 12.6 to 92.7 +/- 15.8 mm Hg, p = 0.006), increased the respiratory rate (16.8 +/- 2.8 to 18.8 +/- 2.7/min, p < 0.001), and increased the occurrence of chest discomfort (3 to 11 patients, p = 0.014) and respiratory distress (1 to 17 patients, p < 0.001). Baseline PaO2 level was the only significant predictor of the magnitude of PaO2 reduction (p < 0.001).

From this, the researchers reached the following conclusion:

"Wearing an N95 mask for 4 hours during HD [hemodialysis] significantly reduced PaO2 and increased respiratory adverse effects in ESRD [end-stage renal disease] patients."

Granted, the participants in this study were very ill. But the results underscore the fact that universal mask wearing can be dangerous for some, and possibly for many, people.

Most of the relevant results from the studies cited above are related to the N95 mask, currently the best mask for protection from viruses. The various types of cloth masks now regularly recommended and frequently used perform much worse.

Now, even the CDC itself has admitted that wearing cloth masks of the type it recommends for COVID are not effective for small particles. On August 30, the CDC posted a warning on this point to Facebook related to smoke.

"Cloth masks that are used to slow the spread of COVID-19 offer little protection against wildfire smoke," the CDC said. "They do not catch small particles found in wildfire smoke that can harm your health."

Writing for RedState, Scott Hounsell makes several good points about this CDC admission:

"Remember that 'science' that they always like to throw in the face of conservatives?" Hounsel writes. "Let's take a quick look at this info through the lens of actual science. They just told us that smoke particulates are too small to be stopped by a cloth mask. While N95 masks will protect up to 95% of particles, down to .1 microns in size. A quick Google search will tell us that smoke particles and debris are usually .4 to .7 microns in size. According to the CDC, cloth masks are not effective in stopping materials that size."

Hounsel continues:

Another quick Google search will tell us that the Wuhan Virus is .12 microns in size, about a quarter in size of the smoke and fire debris particulate. Even if we factor for the "respiratory droplets" that are allegedly to blame for the spread of coronavirus, those droplets are as small as .5 microns, or as small or smaller than smoke and fire debris particulate. These factors and figures aren't hidden in some CDC vault that only their scientists are capable of accessing. Yet another quick Google search will show these figures within seconds.

The CDC cannot, on one hand, demand we wear masks because of the prevention of the spread of a disease (or droplets containing the disease) and then tell us that those same masks are ineffective in stopping particles that are bigger than the disease we are trying to prevent.

In the end, people who wish to wear masks of whatever type should feel free to do so. But mandates as favored by Democrat and RINO politicians are inappropriate and ineffective, as the CDC is now more or less admitting.

Photo: zsv3207/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Dennis Behreandt is a research professional and writer, frequently covering subjects in history, theology, and science and technology. He has worked as an editor and publisher, and is a former managing editor of The New American.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The CDC Admission: Mask Effectiveness up in Flames - The New American

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Now, even the CDC itself has admitted that wearing cloth masks of the type it recommends for COVID are not effective for small particles. On August 30, the CDC posted a warning on this point to Facebook related to smoke. By Dennis Behreandt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A recent blog discussed prolonged respirator use and the potential physiological burden that could result from the buildup of CO ₂ within the respirator facepiece. Heat stress is another potential stress factor that healthcare workers (HCWs) who use personal protective equipment (PPE) and their employers should be aware of in order to recognize the signs and be prepared with the knowledge of how to alleviate the burden.

Respirator and Other PPE Use in Warm and Potentially Humid Environments.

HCWs working in warm and humid environments often must wear full coverage PPE, including respirators. When responding to disasters that challenge the resources of the hospital or other healthcare systems, it may become necessary for the HCW to wear the PPE for extended periods of time. Extended wear of PPE increases the wearer's physiological burden, usually in the form of respiratory stress ( addressed in the previous blog) and heat stress. Although most HCWs conduct their work in an indoor setting (hospital, clinic) with environmental controls to keep the workspace comfortable, emergency or pandemic situations may necessitate the rapid construction of field hospitals, which may not have environmental control systems able to create and maintain a comfortable temperature. Under these circumstances, the surrounding environment may achieve levels of heat and humidity great enough to cause discomfort or to become dangerous to the occupants (both HCWs and patients).

The more encapsulating the PPE that workers must wear, the greater their risk of experiencing heat stress and physiological strain.

If the HCW does not have the opportunity to rehydrate by drinking fluids, the sweat loss can contribute to a decrease in blood volume that can lead to low blood pressure and dizziness. In addition to dizziness, core body temperature may increase, which may lead to other symptoms (see list below) (NIOSH, 2016). If the HCW continues to "power through" without being able to rehydrate, then they may not be able to compensate and could easily escalate to heat injury.
Too busy to remember to hydrate? Here's a tip - when working in a moderately hot setting, set a timer on your phone or smart watch to remind you to drink a cup of water (8 oz.) every 15-20 minutes.
Signs and Symptoms of Heat Stress and Physiological Strain

Thirst (although remember that thirst is not a reliable indicator of hydration status)

Headache

Dark yellow colored urine with a strong odor (compare to a urine color chart for an indication of level of dehydration)

Flushed skin

Heavy sweating

Fatigue (heat exhaustion)

Increase in body temperature

Dizziness or loss of orientation

Decreased cognitive function (decreased situational awareness, poor judgement)

Loss of balance, leading to an increased risk of slips, trips, and falls

Heat syncope while standing upright (temporary circulatory failure) with symptoms of light-headedness or dizziness.

Taking Control - How you Can Prevent Heat Stress

In order to control the effects of heat stress NIOSH recommends:

Limit time in the heat and/or increase recovery time spent in a cool environment.

Train supervisors and workers about heat stress that may be found in atypical places such as a healthcare setting while using encapsulating PPE.

Implement a buddy system in which workers observe each other for signs and symptoms of physiological heat strain.

Provide adequate amounts of cool (15⁰C or 59⁰F) water near the work area and encourage workers to drink frequently. Should employees work for more than 90 minutes continuously in a hot environment accompanied by profuse sweating, then cool (15⁰C or 59⁰F), balanced carbohydrate/electrolyte drinks should be provided in order to prevent hyponatremia or other electrolyte imbalances.

Implement a heat alert program whenever the weather service forecasts that a heat wave is likely to occur.

Don't Self-Contaminate! Donning and Doffing PPE to Prevent Exposure

Workers must remain healthy and focused especially when donning and doffing PPE in order to prevent a possible self-contamination. Any surface of your PPE can become contaminated during use and be a potential source of exposure. Given that fact that heat exposure may affect cognition, it is important to limit heat strain on workers who may have a greater chance of inadvertent self-contamination during the PPE doffing procedure. This is particularly important because there may be an increase in work breaks to limit heat exposure, thereby increasing the number of chances for self-contamination during repeated doffing procedures.

Hand hygiene is another vital step in preventing the spread of any infectious disease. Workers must always perform hand hygiene after removing any PPE, especially gloves as they do not replace the need for completing adequate hand hygiene after use.

To Summarize, Prepare by Being Aware - Recognizing the Signs and Symptoms of Heat Stress

Supervisors should be trained to recognize the signs and symptoms of heat stress. Workers should also be aware of their own health conditions and encouraged to know the limits of when to take a break for personal health and safety. When working in environments with high heat or humidity levels, it is important to take preventative measures such a scheduled breaks (if possible given the circumstances) to visit a rest area and take time away from the immediate work and the discomforts of the PPE (doff the gear). While on break, HCWs should rehydrate either with cool water or balanced carbohydrate/electrolyte "sports" drink, eat some nutritious food, and take enough time to cool off in an air-conditioned area prior to resuming work. Without adequate rest, food, removal from hot environment (or doffing PPE for relief), and hydration, fatigue can set in and increase the possibility of a heat injury or illness.
Warren (Jon) Williams, PhD is a research physiologist in the NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory Research Branch Jaclyn Krah Cichowicz, MA, is a health communications specialist in the NIOSH National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory Research Branch Other blogs on the effects of prolonged PPE use on healthcare workers include: The Physiological Burden of Prolonged PPE Use on Healthcare Workers during Long Shifts Skin Irritation from Prolonged Use of Tight-Fitting Respirators
Additional Resources
Heat Stress Hydration Hydration Status
NIOSH Heat Stress Topic Page (more resources can be found here)

References

NIOSH [2016]. NIOSH criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to heat and hot environments. By Jacklitsch B, Williams WJ, Musolin K, Coca A, Kim J-H, Turner N. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 2016-106.

Posted on by W. Jon Williams, PhD and Jaclyn Krah Cichowicz, MA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Heat Stress Imposed by PPE Worn in Hot and Humid Environments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent blog discussed prolonged respirator use and the potential physiological burden that could result from the buildup of CO 2 within the respirator facepiece. Heat stress is another potential stress factor that healthcare workers (HCWs) who use personal protective equipment (PPE) and their employers should be aware of in order to recognize the signs and be prepared with the knowledge of how to alleviate the burden.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On November 10, Ved Pal Yadav, a private cab driver in Delhi, experienced breathlessness and a burning sensation in his eyes. "Nothing like this has ever happened to me", said Pal, who is in his early thirties. The city had been under a thick blanket of smog for a three days. The air quality was categorised as severe, the worst on a scale of six categories set by the Central Pollution Control Board.

Driving past people wearing anti-pollution masks, Yadav thought of buying one for his five-year-old daughter. "But I cannot afford it for all of us in the family," he said.

Most Delhi residents have resorted to using different kinds of masks to tide over the worst of winter pollution when the air is heavy with high concentrations of harmful pollutants like carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, ammonia and particulate matter. But do masks really work and can using a mask cause other health problems?

"Wearing a mask will not prevent you from getting pollution-related diseases," said Dr Sai Kiran Chaudhari, pulmonologist at Delhi Heart and Lung Institute. "You are breathing that air everywhere and all the time, even while sleeping."

Delhi residents have been using many kinds of masks to protect themselves from the bad air - cloth masks, surgical masks and more sophisticated masks with pollution filters referred to as N95 and N99 masks. The prefix N denotes non-oil, meaning that the masks filter out non-oil-based particles. The N95 and N99 masks are supposed to block 95% and 99% of PM2.5 - particulate matter of 2.5 micrometres or less in diameter (about 30 times lesser than the width of a human-hair strand). PM2.5 particles are a complex combination of pollutants as dust, pollen, smoke and mist. The tiny particles get easily lodged in the body, and have been linked to cancer and heart attacks. These are harmful at any concentration and are present in a high concentration in Delhi's air.

Even though these masks are the "go to" protective gear against winter pollution, most health and environmental experts say that the only way to stay safe from the ill effects of air pollution is to prevent pollution itself.

Moreover, they warn that using masks can have several adverse effects, many of which mask users do not know.

How good is your mask?

Cloth masks are only marginally effective in protecting against harmful PM2.5 pollutants, a study from the University of Massachusetts Amherst last year showed. Such masks remove only between 15% and 57% of particle emitted from diesel combustion. The study's authors said that wearing cloth masks also provided a false sense of security, allowing the wearer to go out in dense pollution even though he or she is not adequately protected.

Meanwhile, masks with filters such as the N95 and N99 masks are also only efficient when worn properly.

"The N95 or N99 mask varieties have been traditionally used in hospitals to prevent tuberculosis and other infections during flu season," said Dr KK Aggarwal, president of the Indian Medical Association. "They can block particulate matter only if you completely prevent air-leaks, and that is not possible."

This is because a mask will protect against pollutants only if they fit snugly on a wearer's face and there are as many facial structures as there are people. Often, well-fitting masks are hard to find and uncomfortable to wear. Even beards and facial hair may be obstructions to a good fit and could let in contaminated air, as some brands specify on their packaging.

While ill-fitting masks let in pollutants, mask that fit too tightly can also be problematic. A person wearing any kind of mask faces breathing resistance as air filters through the device, making the wearer work harder to inhale than he would without the mask. This can have several adverse physiological effects when the mask is worn for long periods of time. Moreover, carbon dioxide that is exhaled can get trapped in the chamber of the mask the re-enter the body each time the mask user inhales. This delivers less oxygen into the body than when the person is not wearing a mask.

"It can lead to oxygen shortage, suffocation, respiration trouble, and heart attacks," said Dr D Saha, scientist and additional director at the Central Pollution Control Board.

He pointed out that masks are a potential source of bacteria and viruses. "The moisture from exhalation inside the mask, when in constant contact with the 37 degrees Celsius warm human body, becomes ideal place for virus and bacteria to thrive," he said. This could result in the growth of microbes on masks and aid the spread of airborne diseases like influenza.

User awareness

Even though, health workers often use such masks while dealing with patients of infectious disease, they tend to use them in controlled conditions and replace them at suitable intervals. A resident of Delhi wearing a mask, however, is often not aware of these risks.

For example, traffic policeman Virendra Singh, who was on duty at the intersection of Janpath and Tolstoy Road on a dense fog day in November, wore a disposable N95 mask of a brand approved by the United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The institute recommends replacing N95 products when soiled, damaged, or when they cause increased breathing resistance. For polluted workplaces, the institute cautions against using the mask for more than eight hours.

"The N95 and N99 are paper or fibre masks and have to be changed every day," said Chaudhari.

But Singh's mask had turned a dirty grey at the centre from many days of use. "I will wash it today," he said, showing no intention of replacing the disposable mask.

And then there are pollutants that even masks with filters cannot keep out. The particulate-specific N95 and N99 offer no protection against gases and vapours like sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and carbon monoxide, that are responsible for conditions such as reduced lung function and lung diseases, irritation of the eyes, asthma, and inflammation of the respiratory tract. "The masks are completely ineffective against gaseous pollutants," said Aggarwal.

Marketing the mask

At a pharmacy in Central Delhi, Sumeet Arora, a 40-year-old businessman, looked at N95 masks of two companies priced at Rs 295 and Rs 799. With no significant information on the product-packages to aid his buying-decision, he chose the latter with the belief that a costlier product would provide better protection.

Many international companies manufacturing masks for industrial workers are marketing these products as useful tools against particulate and other pollutants. But few specify how these products should be used and when they should be discarded or replaced. One masks manufactured by a US company bears a warning that "misuse may result in sickness or death", without stating what qualifies as misuse.

In the absence of doctors' recommendations on anti-pollution masks, the sales staff at pharmacies stores often relay usage-guidelines to buyers, which are inconsistent and arbitrary. At a medical store in Central Delhi's Khan Market, the salesperson stated the life of a microfibre mask of a popular brand at 200 hours. Two stores away, at another medical shop, a salesperson said the same mask can be used for up to six months.

Sarah Elizabeth Jacob, a media professional, decided to buy a mask after watching news reports on the hazardous levels of pollution in the city. "Wearing a mask means I do not feel breathless but there is nothing to protect my eyes, they burn," she said.

Aggarwal said such comfort from wearing a mask "is only psychological" and warned against using masks without doctor's recommendations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No good choices: A mask may block out some pollution but have other ill health effects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On November 10, Ved Pal Yadav, a private cab driver in Delhi, experienced breathlessness and a burning sensation in his eyes. "Nothing like this has ever happened to me", said Pal, who is in his early thirties. The city had been under a thick blanket of smog for a three days.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
First, it was gloves that health professionals deemed as potentially hazardous, now, face masks also face the same critique as a health expert, Dr. Russell Blaylock says it poses serious health risks for wearers. Mainstream doctors however say otherwise.

Blaylock, a retired U.S. neurosurgeon and author, cautions that face masks cannot entirely protect you from getting sick and catching pathogens. He adds that it can also pose a serious health risk for wearers. He stresses that only ill people should wear face masks.

Since the coronavirus pandemic started, people everywhere have been wearing protective equipment such as face masks, face shields, and gloves. Wearing gloves in public places such as the grocery had been previously debunked as 'unhelpful' or possibly harmful, especially if not used properly.

Are Face Masks Effective Against COVID-19?

The Cleveland Clinic says that gloves do not provide immunity from viruses, and it doesn't permit you to touch everything within reach. Furthermore, germs that come in contact with your gloves could be transferred to all the other surfaces you touch.

Now, even face masks face the same critique as Dr. Blaylock says that exhaled viruses would not be given a chance to escape if wearing a mask. He says that the virus would further concentrate and circulate within the nasal passages and could eventually travel into the brain.

According to Dr. Blaylock, there have been no studies conducted to establish that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has an impact on the transmission of the coronavirus. It was not until recently that the Commission on Disease Control and Prevention changed its guidelines for wearing face masks.

Previously, they only advised sick people to wear protective masks, but now they encourage everyone to wear them when out in public since it has been found out that some could be asymptomatic carriers of the virus. The CDC also has guidelines for wearing cloth masks to slow the spread of the coronavirus.
Also Read: Face Mask that Lights Up When it Senses Coronavirus: A Possible Alternative for Antibody Tests and Temperature Checks
Aside from the lack of scientific evidence pointing to requiring the use of a face mask for preventive measures, several studies have explored the dangers of wearing a face mask, especially for long periods.

These dangers include increased airway resistance, accumulation of carbon dioxide, hypoxia or inadequate oxygen supply, headaches, and even other life-threatening complications.

In a study conducted by the National Taiwan University Hospital, it has been found that the use of N-95 masks in healthcare workers has caused them to experience hypoxemia, the low level of oxygen in the blood, and hypercapnia, an elevation in the blood's carbon dioxide levels.

Another study reported findings of headache in health professionals using the same protective face mask. Similarly, pregnant women wearing N-95 masks were also found to have breathing difficulties associated with the use of the mask.

Researchers suggest that the benefits of using N95 masks to prevent contraction of infectious diseases should be weighed against possible respiratory consequences linked with extended use of N95 masks.

Newer evidence also reveals that the coronavirus may enter the brain in some cases. By wearing a mask, viruses released upon expiration will not be given a chance to escape and will further congregate in the nasal passages. This allows the virus to enter the olfactory nerves and travel further, eventually reaching the brain.

Dr. Blaylock says that one should not attack or criticize healthy people who do not wear masks, as studies point out that it may be a wise choice after all.

The Benefits of Using Face Masks Against COVID-19

In a previous report by Science Times, it noted that the number of COVID-19 cases in Austria went down from 90 to 10 cases per one million people within two weeks after its government required everyone to wear a face mask on April 6.

According to Daily Mail, "Austria seemingly managed to reverse its crisis by making masks compulsory on April 6, following a spike in infections in late March."

This seems to be the case in the Czech Republic and Slovakia as well. They were the first countries to make masks compulsory in Europe and enjoyed a small infection rate per capita.

UK, on the other hand, which said that wearing a mask could spread the virus has seen 82 out of 100,000 Britons infected, while 25 per 100,000 died due to COVID-19.

UK's Public Health England argued that wearing masks causes people to touch their face and increases the chances of a person acquiring the virus.

George Gao, the director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, told Telegraph, "The big mistake in the US and Europe, in my opinion, is that people aren't wearing masks."

Gao added, "This virus is transmitted by droplets and close contact. Droplets play a very important role - you've got to wear a mask, because when you speak, there are always droplets coming out of your mouth."

Read Also: Austria Has 90% Drop in Coronavirus Cases After Requiring People to Wear Face Masks

©2017 ScienceTimes.com All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission. The window to the world of science times.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Face Masks Effective Against COVID-19? The Pros and the Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
First, it was gloves that health professionals deemed as potentially hazardous, now, face masks also face the same critique as a health expert, Dr. Russell Blaylock says it poses serious health risks for wearers. Click the link above to learn more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Michael J. Imperiale , Editor

DOI: 10.1128/mSphere.00637-20

ABSTRACT

Guidelines from the CDC and the WHO recommend the wearing of face masks to prevent the spread of coronavirus (CoV) disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the protective efficiency of such masks against airborne transmission of infectious severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2) droplets/aerosols is unknown. Here, we developed an airborne transmission simulator of infectious SARS-CoV-2-containing droplets/aerosols produced by human respiration and coughs and assessed the transmissibility of the infectious droplets/aerosols and the ability of various types of face masks to block the transmission. We found that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks all have a protective effect with respect to the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols of SARS-CoV-2 and that the protective efficiency was higher when masks were worn by a virus spreader. Importantly, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) were not able to completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when completely sealed. Our data will help medical workers understand the proper use and performance of masks and determine whether they need additional equipment to protect themselves from infected patients.

IMPORTANCE Airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks provide some protection from the transmission of infective SARS-CoV-2 droplets/aerosols; however, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) could not completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when sealed.

OBSERVATION

The potential for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission via infective droplets and aerosols ( 1), coupled with guidelines from the CDC ( https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html) and WHO ( https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks) recommending the wearing of face masks to prevent the spread of CoV disease 2019 (COVID-19), prompted us to evaluate the protective efficiency of face masks against airborne transmission of infectious SARS-CoV-2 droplets/aerosols.

We developed an airborne transmission simulator of infectious droplets/aerosols produced by human respiration and coughs and assessed the transmissibility of the infectious droplets/aerosols produced and the ability of various types of face masks to block the transmission ( Fig. 1, and see the Methods section in Text S1 in the supplemental material for additional details). A test chamber for airborne transmission experiments was constructed in a biosafety level 3 (BSL3) facility, and two mannequin heads were placed facing each other. One mannequin head was connected to a customized compressor nebulizer and exhaled a mist of virus suspension through its mouth, mimicking a virus spreader. The nebulizer was charged with 6 ml of virus suspension at the viral doses in culture medium indicated in Fig. 2 (without fetal calf serum) or diluted in phosphate-buffered saline to generate droplets/aerosols, and the respiration was exhaled continuously, simulating a mild cough at a flow speed of 2 m/s ( 2) for 20 min. Although the initial particle size exhaled was 5.5 ± 0.2 μm in mass median diameter (particle size percentages were as follows: <3 μm, 20%; 3 to 5 μm, 40%; >5 to 8 μm, 40% [ 3]), some of the droplets likely gradually evaporated and changed to aerosols. Therefore, both droplets and aerosols were likely present in the chamber. The other mannequin head was connected to an artificial ventilator through a virus particle collection unit. Tidal breathing, conducted by the artificial ventilator, was set to a lung ventilation rate representative of a steady state in adults. Face masks were attached to the mannequin heads, and the viral loads and infective virus that passed through the masks were measured by use of a plaque assay and quantitative real-time reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR), respectively.

Viral loads in the inhalation droplets/aerosols were inversely proportional to the distance between the virus spreader and the virus receiver; however, infectious virus was detected even 1 m away ( Fig. 2A). The blue bars and the brown bars in the figures show the viral titers and viral RNA copy numbers, respectively. The numbers below each bar show the percentages relative to the leftmost control column values. When a mannequin exposed to the virus was equipped with various masks (cotton mask, surgical mask, or N95 mask), the uptake of the virus droplets/aerosols was reduced. A cotton mask led to an approximately 20% to 40% reduction in virus uptake compared to no mask ( Fig. 2B). The N95 mask had the highest protective efficacy (approximately 80% to 90% reduction) of the various masks examined; however, infectious virus penetration was measurable even when the N95 mask was completely fitted to the face with adhesive tape ( Fig. 2B). In contrast, when a mask was attached to the mannequin that released virus, cotton and surgical masks blocked more than 50% of the virus transmission, whereas the N95 mask showed considerable protective efficacy ( Fig. 2C). There was a synergistic effect when both the virus receiver and virus spreader wore masks (cotton masks or surgical masks) to prevent the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols ( Fig. 2D and E).

We next tested the protective efficacy of masks when the amount of exhaled virus was increased. The viral load was augmented to 10 ⁸ PFU and exhaled by the spreader; then the uptake of the virus droplets/aerosols was measured when various types of masks were attached to the receiver. As with the lower viral load (5 × 10 ⁵ PFU) shown in Fig. 2B, the N95 mask sealed with adhesive tape showed approximately 90% protective efficacy (see Fig. 2F and G for a comparison of two N95 products). When the amount of exhaled virus was reduced to 10 ⁵ PFU or 10 ⁴ PFU, infectious viruses were not detected, even in the samples from the unmasked receiver ( Fig. 2H and I). Viral RNA was detected in all samples; however, due to the quantitative decrease, there was no difference in protective efficacy among all of the masks, including the sealed N95 masks.

Our airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks had a protective effect with respect to the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols and that the protective efficiency was higher when masks were worn by the virus spreader. Considerable viral loads have been detected in the nasal and throat swabs of asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic patients, as well as those of symptomatic patients, which suggests transmission potential ( 4). Accordingly, it is desirable for individuals to wear masks in public spaces. Importantly, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) were not able to completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when fully sealed under the conditions that we tested. In this study, infectious SARS-CoV-2 was exhaled as droplets/aerosols and mask efficacy was examined. To allow quantification, we conducted our studies by using a relatively high dose of virus, and under these conditions, it is possible that the protective capacity of the masks was exceeded. Although the efficiency of detecting infectious virus was reduced when the amount of exhaled virus was reduced, viral RNA was detected regardless of the type of mask used. These results indicate that it is difficult to completely block this virus even with a properly fitted N95 mask. However, it remains unknown whether the small amount of virus that was able to pass through the N95 masks would result in illness.

It has been reported that the stability of the virus in the air changes depending on the droplet/aerosol components, such as inorganics, proteins, and surfactants, suggesting that the permeation efficiency of masks is also affected by the components of viral droplets/aerosols ( 5, 6). In our experiments, the virus was suspended in culture supernatant without fetal calf serum or was diluted with phosphate-buffered saline. Further detailed analysis will be required to reveal the precise relationship between the protective efficiency of masks and the components of viral droplets/aerosols.

Our data will help medical workers understand the proper use and performance of masks (e.g., the importance of fitting masks and avoiding their reuse) and to determine whether they need additional protective equipment (e.g., a negative-pressure room or positive-pressure masks) to protect themselves from infected patients.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank S. Watson for editing the manuscript. We also thank M. Ito, M. Okuda, and J. Murakami (University of Tokyo) for technical assistance.

This research was supported by Japan Program for Infectious Diseases Research and Infrastructure from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) (grant JP20wm0125002), by the Japan Initiative for Global Research Network on Infectious Diseases (J-GRID) from AMED (grant JP19fm0108006), and by the NIAID-funded Center for Research on Influenza Pathogenesis (CRIP; grant HHSN272201400008C).

FOOTNOTES

Received June 25, 2020.

Accepted October 1, 2020.

View Abstract

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Guidelines from the CDC and the WHO recommend the wearing of face masks to prevent the spread of coronavirus (CoV) disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the protective efficiency of such masks against airborne transmission of infectious severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2) droplets/aerosols is unknown.

# data[].attributes.headline
Other research I have compiled for the purpose of spreading awareness of the underestimated pandemics in our world. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Other research I have compiled for the purpose of spreading awareness of the underestimated pandemics in our world. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jim Meehan, MD is an ophthalmologist and preventive medicine specialist with over 20 years of experience and advanced training in immunology, inflammation, and infectious disease. He has performed well over 10,000 surgical procedures. His research experience includes investigating associations between military vaccinations and Gulf War Syndrome. Dr. Meehan is also trained in internal medicine, addiction medicine, endocrinology, integrative medicine, functional medicine, and nutrition.

Dr. Meehan is a former editor of the medical journal, "Ocular Immunology and Inflammation." Dr. Meehan has peer-reviewed thousands of medical research studies. With this experience and expertise, Dr. Meehan has dedicated his career to protecting his patients and the public from the fraud, corruption, and pseudoscience so often used by agents and agencies whose motives and interests have resulted in American medicine and pharmaceutical drugs becoming the third leading cause of death in the United States.

Decades of the highest-level scientific evidence (meta-analyses of multiple randomized controlled trials) overwhelmingly conclude that medical masks are ineffective at preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, including SAR-CoV-2.

Those arguing for masks are relying on low-level evidence (observational retrospective trials and mechanistic theories), none of which are powered to counter the evidence, arguments, and risks of mask mandates.

The majority of the population is at very low to almost no risk of severe or lethal disease from CoVID-19. Children are at an extraordinarily low risk of dying from CoVID-19. Based on CDC published data, 99.99815% of children that contract CoVID-19 survive.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among children in schools and daycares is very rare.

Masks worn properly are well documented to cause harm to their wearers. Masks worn improperly, re-used, or contaminated are dangerous.

Any reasonable risk to benefit analysis of medical masks concludes that the risks overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits.

Children are at imminent risk of harm from mask mandates.

1. Evidence Based Medicine: How we (should) make decisions in science and medicine

2. Masks are Ineffective

a. Mixed Messages from the Experts

b. The Evidence Against Masks

c. The Evidence For Masks

3. Masks are Unnecessary

a. Fear and Politics are Subverting Science and Reason

b. Masking Children in Schools is Unnecessary - So Says The Science

4. Masks are Harmful: 17 Ways that Masks Can Cause Harm

5. Masking School Children is Ineffective, Unnecessary, and Harmful

a. Mandatory masks in school are a 'major threat' to children's' health, doctors warn

b. Forcing Children to Wear Masks in Schools is Unnecessary

c. Forcing Children to Wear Masks for Long Periods Risks Causing Them Physical Harm

d. Forcing Children to Wear Masks for Long Periods Risks Causing Them Mental and Psychological Harm

High-level versus Low-level Evidence - the Hierarchy of Medical Evidence

Advocates for mask mandates simply don't have the highest-levels of scientific evidence to support their arguments. They can only cite low-level science - retrospective observational studies.

Evidence hierarchies are often applied in evidence-based practices and are integral to decision making in medicine and the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM). The following is from the Wikipedia definition and description of this issue:

A hierarchy of evidence (or levels of evidence) is a heuristic used to rank the relative strength of results obtained from scientific research. There is broad agreement on the relative strength of large-scale, epidemiological studies. More than 80 different hierarchies have been proposed for assessing medical evidence.[1] The design of the study (such as a case report for an individual patient or a blinded randomized controlled trial) and the endpoints measured (such as survival or quality of life) affect the strength of the evidence. In clinical research, the best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[2][3] Typically, systematic reviews of completed, high-quality randomized controlled trials - such as those published by the Cochrane Collaboration - rank as the highest quality of evidence above observational studies, while expert opinion and anecdotal experience are at the bottom level of evidence quality.[2][4]

1. Siegfried T (2017-11-13). "Philosophical critique exposes flaws in medical evidence hierarchies". Science News. Retrieved 2018-05-16.

2. Shafee, Thomas; Masukume, Gwinyai; Kipersztok, Lisa; Das, Diptanshu; Häggström, Mikael; Heilman, James (28 August 2017). "Evolution of Wikipedia's medical content: past, present and future". Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 71 (11): jech-2016-208601. doi:10.1136/jech-2016-208601. ISSN 0143-005X. PMC 5847101. PMID 28847845.

3. Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB (2005). Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM (3rd ed.). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. pp. 102-05. ISBN 978-0443074448.

4. Kim Hugel (16 May 2013). "The Journey of Research - Levels of Evidence". Canadian Association of Pharmacy in Oncology. Retrieved 8 December 2019.

We are all confused by the mixed messages we have received on mask wearing in the community, businesses, and schools. The issue has become tribal, divisive, and for most, confusing. However, I am not confused. I am fully informed on the scientific research related to masks. After reading this, you will be too. Then, you can make the best decisions for you and your family.

As you will learn from the material that follows, the evidence for and against masks should not be confusing. The evidence is clear, masks are ineffective, unnecessary, and harmful.

What's happening in the world today, including the misinformation surrounding community mask wearing, is about political agendas, symbolism, and fear, not science.

Mixed Messages from the Experts:

The CoVID-19 pandemic is about viral transmission. Surgical and cloth masks have repeatedly been shown to offer no benefit in the mitigation of transmission and infection caused by viruses like influenza and SARS-CoV-2. Which is exactly why they have never been recommended for use during the seasonal flu outbreak, epidemics, or previous pandemics.

The failure of the scientific literature to support medical masks for influenza and all other viruses, is also why Fauci, the US Surgeon General, the CDC, WHO, and pretty much every infectious disease expert stated that wearing masks won't prevent transmission of SARS CoV-2. Although the public health "authorities" flipped, flopped, and later changed their recommendations, the science did not change, nor did new science appear that supported the wearing of masks in public. In fact, the most recent systemic analysis once again confirms that masks are ineffective in preventing the transmission of viruses like CoVID-19: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

If the scientific literature demonstrated that masks were effective, then why, early in the pandemic, did public health experts tell the public not to wear them?

I have heard multiple answers to this question and none of them are reasonable. Here are a couple of the explanations that fail to withstand reasonable scrutiny:

Early in the pandemic, Fauci, the CDC, the U.S. Surgeon General, and CDC Director Redfield, all said that masks were ineffective and would not protect the wearer or other members of the public from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes CoVID-19. lied to the public and congress about masks being because they were trying to protect the supply of masks for health care workers.

Early in the pandemic, Fauci, et al, actually told the truth about what years of scientific research overwhelmingly concluded: medical masks don't work to prevent the transmission or infection of viral respiratory pathogens.

About a month later, for reasons that appear to have more to do with being lobbied by unnamed interest groups, they all began back-pedaling and claiming that what they said previously was actually a lie, but they lied because they were trying to protect the PPE supply for health care workers.

Absolutely NO NEW research appeared to counter the forty years of meta-analyses and systemic reviews of many randomized controlled trials that concluded that masks don't work to prevent the transmission of upper respiratory viruses.

Several low-level evidence, retrospective observational, mechanistic studies, and ridiculous "masked hamster cage" studies appeared in the scientific literature.

The opinions and theories these studies offered were interesting and worthy of consideration, but they failed to explain or counter the large body of prior high-level evidence. In this paper, I will show that none of these observational studies or mechanistic theories countered the large body of high-level evidence built on years of meta-analyzed and systemically reviewed multiple randomized controlled trials

Redfield, Fauci, Birx, the U.S. Surgeon General, the CDC, and the WHO have been terribly inconsistent, confusing, and flip-flopping on masks throughout the pandemic

We were frequently confused by the mixed messages coming from public health agencies. Early in the pandemic Dr. Fauci, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the WHO all told the public, in no uncertain terms, not to wear masks. Then, over the course of the next several weeks and months, the CDC twice changed their recommendations, as did the WHO, and the two agencies' recommendations consistently contradicted each other!

CDC: On June 4, 2020, the CDC published guidance indicating that masks do not deter the spread of Covid-19 after as little as fifteen minutes of exposure to someone with symptoms. CDC, Public Health Guidance for Community-Related Exposure, updated July 31, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/public-health-recommendations.html

WHO: While recommending the wearing of masks for health professionals, the World Health Organization acknowledged that there is no evidence that mask wearing prevents the spread of Covid-19 and that the science simply does not support requiring otherwise healthy people to wear face masks all day.

"At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19." World Health Organization (WHO), Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19, Interim Guidance (June 5, 2020) at 6. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak

WHO also acknowledged some of the risks long-term mask use poses to health workers and others:

self-contamination due to the manipulation of the mask by contaminated hands;

potential self-contamination that can occur if medical masks are not changed when wet, soiled or damaged;

possible development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, when used frequently for long hours

masks may be uncomfortable to wear;

false sense of security, leading to potentially less adherence to well recognized preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene;

risk of droplet transmission and of splashes to the eyes, if mask wearing is not combined with eye protection;

disadvantages for or difficulty wearing them by specific vulnerable populations such as those with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, the deaf and hard of hearing community, and children;

difficulty wearing them in hot and humid environments.

Public Health Authorities changed their minds, but the science did not change. So, what changed their minds?

More than 40 years of science has consistently concluded that masks don't work. No new science emerged to counter this conclusion. So, what is the basis for the change in direction that emerged from our public health experts?

The following is the Twitter post from Deborah Cohen, UK correspondent for BBC Newsnight and 2019 British Journalism Award winner, indicates that her investigation of the WHO change from not recommending masks to recommending masks had everything to do with politics and lobbying:
Deborah Cohen @deb_cohen
Medically qualified, UK Correspondent @BBCNewsnight | 2019 British Journalism Award winner

"We had been told by various sources WHO committee reviewing the evidence had not backed masks but they recommended them due to political lobbying. This point was put to WHO who did not deny. We said some people think we should not wait for RCTs before putting policies in place"

4:25 AM · Jul 12, 2020
The ineffectiveness of face masks in stemming the spread of viral respiratory diseases, including Covid-19, is widely known and acknowledged in the scientific and medical literature and scientific communities. Therefore, it seems that the transition in public health recommendations to promote widespread mask mandates was based on a combination of low-level observational studies, speculative mechanistic studies, fear, and, most of all, POLITICS, NOT SCIENCE.

To clear up the confusion, I will argue that the scientific evidence not only does not support the community wearing of face masks, but the evidence shows that healthy people wearing face masks pose serious health risks to wearers.

A new National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper by Andrew Atkeson, Karen Kopecky, and Tao Zha focused on countries and U.S. states with more than 1,000 COVID deaths as of late July. This analysis is the largest and most comprehensive analysis of the largest datasets to date. In all, the study included 25 U.S. states and 23 countries.

The paper's conclusion is that the data trends indicate that nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) - such as lockdowns, closures, travel restrictions, stay-home orders, event bans, quarantines, curfews, and mask mandates - do not seem to affect virus transmission rates overall.

Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analysis of Multiple Randomized Controlled Trials Concludes that Face Masks Fail to Prevent Transmission of Viral Respiratory Pathogens

One of the largest and highest level of evidence studies on the effectiveness of face masks on the transmission of respiratory viruses, which was recently released by the CDC, is Jingyi Xiao, et al., Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings- Personal Protective and Environmental Measures, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 5, (May 2020). https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

This CDC meta-analysis found that face masks failed to provide a significant reduction to virus transmission.

"In our systematic review, we identified 10 [Randomly Controlled Trials] that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946-July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks."
There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza.

Mandates for children to wear face masks fails even a rational basis test, and is clearly not in a child's best interest, when assessed through a factual, evidence-based analysis, rather than a fear-based lens. It is simply not rational to believe that face masks will be properly and studiously worn by young children for up to ten hours in a school day.

In fact, the overwhelming weight of scientific literature to date establishes that face masks do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 by, to, or from, children.

Long, Y. et al., Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta‐analysis, J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1‐ 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12381

A total of six [Randomized Controlled Trials] involving 9171 participants were included.

There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory‐confirmed influenza, laboratory‐confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory‐confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks.

Meta‐analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory‐confirmed bacterial colonization.

The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory‐confirmed influenza.

See e.g., Patrick Saunders-Hastings, et, al., Effectiveness of personal protective measures in reducing pandemic influenza transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Epidemics, v. 20 (September 2017)

An April 2020 review by the Norwich School of Medicine found that "the evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of face masks", but supports the use of masks by "particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations."

Dr. Russell Blaylock, a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, and lecturer warns that not only do face masks fail to protect the healthy from getting sick, but they also create serious health risks to the wearer.

[Recent studies] found that about a third of the [healthcare] 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.

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.

See also Denis G. Rancourt, PhD, Masks Don't Work: A review of science relevant to COVID-19 social policy, Ontario Civil Liberties Association, April 11, 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340570735

There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles. Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 µm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial, American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 - 419 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002

"N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches."

"Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds."

In fact, many physicians and researchers now believe that, because the ineffectiveness of face masks in stemming the spread of Covid-19 is so widely known and acknowledged in the scientific and medical communities, the goal of widespread mask mandates is based entirely on low-level observational studies, speculative mechanistic studies, fear, and politics, not science.

Lisa M Brosseau, ScD, Margaret Sietsema, PhD, COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data, Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, University of Minnesota, April 1, 2020. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not based-sound-data

Dr. Brosseau is a national expert on respiratory protection and infectious diseases and professor (retired), University of Illinois at Chicago. Dr. Sietsema is also an expert on respiratory protection and an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. They made the following key points in their commentary:

"We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because:

There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection.

We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-risk healthcare workers."

In an August 2020 article, Denis G. Rancourt, PhD, a Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association, debunks supposed "studies" purporting to support compelled face mask use for the general population.

See Rancourt, Face masks, lies, damn lies, and public health officials: "A growing body of evidence" August 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343399832_Face_masks_lies_damn_lies_and_public_hea lth officialsA growingbody of evidence

"[T]here is no policy-grade evidence to support forced masking on the general population, . . . all the latest-decade's policy-grade evidence points to the opposite: NOT recommending forced masking of the general population.");

No [randomized controlled trial] study with verified outcome shows a benefit for [health-care workers] or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.

Masks and respirators do not work. (emphasis added);

Denis G. Rancourt, PhD, Masks Don't Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy, River Cities Reader, June 11, 2020. https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to covide-19-social-policy

see also, Todd McGreevy, Still No Conclusive Evidence Justifying Mandatory Masks, River Cities Reader, August 12, 2020. https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/still-no-conclusive-evidence-justifying-mandatory-masks

Sweeping mask recommendations-as many have proposed-will not reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as evidenced by the widespread practice of wearing such masks in Hubei province, China, before and during its mass COVID-19 transmission experience earlier this year.

Our review of relevant studies indicates that cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as PPE.

Cloth Masks are Ineffective and May Increase the Risk of Transmission

Cloth masks are absolutely ineffective. Worst yet, they may increase the incidence of disease in wearers and the population.

Despite the high-level scientific evidence against cloth masks, the CDC made the inexcusable mistake of telling us cloth masks worked. They even provided directions on their website for making homemade cloth masks.

A July 2020 review by the University of Oxford, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence that cloth masks are at all effective against virus infection or transmission.

A July 2020 study by Japanese researchers found that cloth masks "offer zero protection against coronavirus."

Naoya Kon, Cloth face masks offer zero shield against virus, a study shows, The Asahi Shimbun, study by Kazunari Onishi. http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13523664

"This experiment reconfirmed that wearing cloth and gauze masks can't prevent virus infection."

Duke Scientists reveal that cloth masks increase aerosolization of viral particles

Duke scientists tested a variety of masks and found that cloth masks, "...seemed to disperse the largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets (see fig. S5), which explains the apparent increase in droplet count relative to no mask in that case. Considering that smaller particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink faster), the use of such a mask might be counterproductive."[1]

Neck fleeces, also called gaiter masks and often used by runners, were the least effective. In fact, wearing a fleece mask resulted in a higher number of respiratory droplets because the material seemed to break down large respiratory droplets into small droplet nuclei that aerosalize, remain suspended in the air for hours, and are capable of traveling large distances with movements of the air.

Folded bandanas and knitted masks also performed poorly and did not offer much protection.

We were extremely surprised to find that the number of particles measured with the fleece actually exceeded the number of particles measured without wearing any mask,' Fischer said.[2]

The Duke findings add to what we have known since the 2015: cloth masks don't work

In 2015, the first randomized controlled trial of cloth mask usage among 1607 hospital healthcare workers, demonstrated that cloth masks not only don't work, but they were also associated with large amounts of adverse events, and "...resulted in significantly higher rates of infection than medical masks, and also performed worse than the control arm."[3]

"Adverse events associated with facemask use were reported in 40.4% (227/562) of HCWs in the medical mask arm and 42.6% (242/568) in the cloth mask arm (p value 0.450). General discomfort (35.1%, 397/1130) and breathing problems (18.3%, 207/1130) were the most frequently reported adverse events."[3]

"Laboratory tests showed the penetration of particles through the cloth masks to be very high (97%) compared with medical masks (44%) (used in trial) and 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%), 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%)."[3]

"Conclusions: This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated."[3]

"This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection."[3]

Let me put a fine point on all of the science that the CDC, et al, knew (or should have known) before they recommended the population do something that was likely to increase viral infection and transmission: THE ONLY THING CLOTH MASKS ARE GOOD FOR IS MAKING PEOPLE SICK.

How could Fauci, Birx, Redfield, the CDC, and the WHO be so egregiously inept and blatantly ignorant of the established science that they would dangerously recommend universal masking?!

References:

[1] Low-cost measurement of face mask efficacy for filtering expelled droplets during speech. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/36/eabd3083

[2] Researchers created a test to determine which masks are the least effective. https://www.cnn.com/.../duke-university-face.../index.html

[3] MacIntyre CR, Seale H, Dung TC, et al., A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers, BMJ Open 2015; 5: e006577, US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577, April 22, 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../pdf/bmjopen-2014-006577.pdf

[4] Masks Masquerading as Science. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1320032362550464516.html?fbclid=IwAR1NNRY3l1jQr5mkhoAmUQ1Z32lg5-WtDRGkzqMmDuhmzOHKwvrPbMw0nwc

Masks as means of "Source Control" - No, My Mask Does Not Protect You From Me

The public is being repeatedly misinformed by catchy (guilt and fear based) marketing messages designed to promote the social responsibility (or guilt) to wear masks as a form of source control: "I wear my mask for you and you wear your mask for me."

Where is the evidence for these claims? On the websites where these unscientific marketing messages are found, there are never references to science that supports the claims. In fact, despite almost everything that has been drilled into the public psyche regarding masks, has little to know basis in science and absolutely no robust support from the highest-level evidence based research. Masks have never been proven to protect either the wearer or the community from the transmission of respiratory pathogens. Mask mandates during a pandemic are opposed by decades of high level science.

Simply put, the public is being misled by fraudulent claims supported with weak pseudoscience.

The fallacious argument: "Well, if masks don't work, then why do surgeons wear them?"

I'm an ophthalmic surgeon. I specialize in ocular immunology, inflammation, and infectious disease. I've performed over 10,000 surgical procedures wearing a surgical mask. I have suffered the detrimental effects that masks caused to my mental and physical function during long surgeries. Because most of the surgeries I performed were microscopic procedures that required fine motor skills, I changed my mask frequently to prevent the detrimental effects of arterial deoxygenation.

However, these facts alone don't qualify me as an expert on the matter. What qualifies me is my experience as an editor of a medical journal, the fact that I've peer-reviewed thousands of pre-print research articles, that I am an expert at reading medical research, distinguishing good science from bad, and separating fact from fiction.

Believe me, the medical literature is filled with bad fiction masquerading as medical science. It is very easy to be deceived by bad science.

Since the beginning of the pandemic I've read hundreds of studies on the science of medical masks. Based on extensive review and analysis, there is no question in my mind that healthy people should not be wearing surgical or cloth masks. Nor should we be recommending universal masking of all members of the population. That recommendation is not supported by the highest level of scientific evidence.

First, the premise that surgeons wearing masks serves as evidence that "masks must work to prevent viral transmission" is a logical fallacy. I would classify this claim as an argument of false equivalence, or comparing "apples to oranges." Surgical masks offer no benefit in protecting patients from the surgeon's respiratory droplets contaminating the surgical field and the exposed tissues of surgical patients.

Surgeons well-versed in the scientific research regarding medical masks, especially the systemic reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration Wound Group, know that surgical face masks provide no benefit in the prevention of surgical wound infections.[ R][ R] Surgeons with experience wearing surgical masks during long surgeries have undoubtedly experienced and understand the detrimental effects masks have on respiration, blood oxygenation, mental, and physical performance. For these science-based reasons, there is a worldwide trend towards surgeons and operating room staff no longer wearing surgical masks during "clean surgery" cases.

Nevertheless, many surgeons continue to wear face masks during clean surgery cases and outpatient minor procedures. We do so more for symbolic purposes, habit, tradition, or, not infrequently, because of institutional ignorance. That is, we are forced to wear masks because it is the ignorant, anti-science policy of the hospital or surgery center where we perform our surgeries.

Although wearing a mask during a clean surgery is unnecessary, there are other surgical cases in which surgical masks, eye protection, and face shields are still a good idea. For example, cases in which bone saws, drills, and other surgical power tools can expose the surgical team to splashes and splatters from the patient's bodily fluids.

If a surgeon were sick, especially with a viral infection, they would not perform surgery as they know the virus would NOT be stopped by their surgical mask.

Another area of "false equivalence" has to do with the environment in which the masks are worn. The environments in which surgeons wear masks minimize the adverse effects surgical masks have on their wearers.

Unlike the public wearing masks in the community, surgeons work in sterile surgical suites equipped with heavy duty air exchange systems that maintain positive pressures, exchange and filter the room air at a very high level, and increase the oxygen content of the room air. These conditions limit the negative effects of masks on the surgeon and operating room staff. And yet despite these extreme climate control conditions, clinical studies demonstrate the negative effects (lowering arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide rebreathing) of surgical masks on surgeon physiology and performance.

Surgeons and operating room personnel are well trained, experienced, and meticulous about maintaining sterility. We only wear fresh sterile masks. We don the mask in a sterile fashion. We wear the mask for short periods of time and change it out at the first signs of the excessive moisture build up that we know degrades mask effectiveness and increases their negative effects. Surgeons NEVER reuse surgical masks, nor do we ever wear cloth masks.

The public is being told to wear masks for which they have not been trained in the proper techniques. As a result, they are mishandling, frequently touching, and constantly reusing masks in a way that increases contamination and are more likely than not to increase transmission of disease.

Just go watch people at the grocery story or Walmart and tell me what you think about the effectiveness of masks in the community.

If you can't help but believe and trust the weak retrospective observational studies and confused public health "authorities" lying to you about the benefits and completely ignoring the risks of medical masks, then you should at least reject the illogical anti-science recommendation to block only 2 of the 3 ports of entry for viral diseases. Masks only cover the mouth and nose. They do not protect the eyes.

Surgeons and Surgical Masks: Little to No Benefit of Surgical Masks During Surgery

While it may go against "conventional wisdom," and may seem counterintuitive to those who are not involved in scientific research, the actual scientific evidence does not support the proposition that wearing a mask is an effective method of source control to prevent the spread of infection.

Many surgeons are surprised to learn that when surgical masks are put to the test in randomized controlled trials, they fail to demonstrate benefit. In fact, surgical masks have repeatedly failed to provide evidence of effectiveness as a means of "source control," even in the one environment where they are so steadfastly adhered to: the operating room. Simply put, based on the actual science face masks have repeatedly been found to be ineffective as a means of source control. Face masks do not protect against the very risk for which the Defendants are forcing small children to wear face masks all day: source control.

In 2014, the Cochrane Collaboration "Wounds Group" reviewed all research related to the topic of effectiveness of face masks for preventing surgical wound infections.

"Three [randomized controlled] trials were included, involving a total of 2113 [surgical team] participants. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials."

In 2016, the Cochrane Collaboration "Wounds Group" revisited the topic of effectiveness of face masks for preventing surgical wound infections again in 2016. In this updated review they added any new studies on the topic that entered the literature since their 2014 review (above).

"Overall, we found very few studies and identified no new trials for this latest update. We analysed a total of 2106 participants from the three studies we found."

"All three [randomized controlled trials] showed that wearing a face mask during surgery neither increases nor decreases the number of wound infections occurring after surgery. We conclude that there is no clear evidence that wearing disposable face masks affects the likelihood of wound infections developing after surgery."

See, e.g., Neil W. M. Orr, M.D., Mchir, FRCS, Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre?, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, vol. 63, 1981. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2493952/pdf/annrcse01509-0009.pdf

This six month long study showed a significant decrease in the rate of patient infections when masks were NOT worn in an operating theater.

Da Zhou et al., Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of face masks in surgery, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine; 2015, Vol. 108(6) 223-228. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0141076815583167

The paper analyzed numerous studies.

The use of surgical face masks is ubiquitous in surgical practice. Face Masks have long been thought to confer protection to the patient from wound infection and contamination from the operating surgeon and other members of the surgical staff... However, overall there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that face masks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination. (emphasis added)

Zahid Mehmood Bahli, Does evidence based medicine support the effectiveness of surgical face masks in preventing postoperative wound infections in elective surgery?, J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2009; 21(2). http://www.ayubmed.edu.pk/JAMC/PAST/21-2/Zahid.pdf

"No significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks group and groups operated with no masks. There was no increase in infection rate in 1980 when masks were discarded. In fact there was a significant decrease in infection rate. " (emphasis added)

M.W. Skinner, B.A Sutton, Do Anaesthetists Need to Wear Surgical Masks in the Operating Theatre? A Literature Review with Evidence-Based Recommendations, Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Vol. 29, No. 4, August 2001. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0310057X0102900402

The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use...There is little evidence to suggest that the wearing of surgical face masks by staff in the operating theatre decreases postoperative wound infections.
Published evidence indicates that postoperative wound infection rates are not significantly different in unmasked versus masked theatre staff.

However, there is evidence indicating a significant reduction in postoperative wound infection rates when theatre staff are unmasked.

Currently there is no evidence that removing masks presents any additional hazard to the patient. (emphasis added).

I presented only a partial list of the various meta-analyses and systemic reviews of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The studies represent the highest level of evidence that masks don't work.

This WHO commissioned study is the best counter to my arguments. To any trained researcher, this study falls far short of countering decades of the science previously presented.

Advocates for mask mandates simply don't have the highest-levels of scientific evidence to support their arguments. They can only cite low-level science - retrospective observational studies. The WHO study is a cleverly disguised example of low-level garbage dressed up to appear better than what it is. You have to examine the details to detect the weak deception.

The Evidence FOR Masks

The best evidence for masks was commissioned by the WHO and published in the Lancet in June 2020. The title, "Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-to-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," sounds like high-level scientific evidence. After all, systemic reviews and meta-analyses are typically considered the epitome of evidence based medicine. However, don't be deceived by the authors' deceptive attempts to elevate the relevancy of this study. This systemic review/meta-analysis was entirely comprised of low-level observational studies. No high-level randomized controlled trials were included.

No matter how much the authors attempt to deceive or embellish the study's relevance with its "dressed up" title, the fact remains, this study still amounts to nothing more than a steaming pile of weak evidence. No matter how much the authors and the WHO want this study to represent high-level evidence for masking world populations, it simply cannot be considered to be more than the sum of its low level parts.

Furthermore, the study is seriously flawed with serious misrepresentations and misinterpretations of the data. The flaws, errors, and mistakes in this analysis of 29 observational studies should lead to its retraction from the Lancet. The flaws are buried in the data tables, therefore, it is missed by those that do little more than read titles and conclusions. Which is exactly why studies like this should be subjected to thorough and independent peer-review before publication.

Scientists all over the world are raising concerns and speaking against the study and demanding its retraction. For example, University of Toronto epidemiology professor Peter Jueni called the WHO study "methodologically flawed" and "essentially useless".

Garbage-in-garbage out: the June 2020 WHO commissioned study of masks published in The Lancet.

Source: Chu, Derek K., Elie A. Akl, Stephanie Duda, Karla Solo, Sally Yaacoub, Holger J. Schünemann, and COVID-19 Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort (SURGE) study authors. 2020. "Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-to-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." The Lancet 395 (10242): 1973-87.

Summary: the WHO-commissioned meta-study on the effectiveness of facemasks and social distancing, published in The Lancet, is seriously flawed and should be retracted.

This study is nothing more than a seriously flawed meta-analysis of 29 weak observational studies. None of the trials were randomized controlled trials. No matter how thoroughly you sift through the weak, low-level of evidence, observational studies, in the end, all you end up with is weak, easily biased, and essentially unusable evidence.

For a more comprehensive analysis of the flaws and a thorough debunking of the relevance of this study, read this: WHO Mask Study Seriously Flawed, Swiss Policy Research (Sept. 9, 2020), copied here:

Update: A US analyst has reviewed all 29 studies and found numerous additional mistakes.

A. General flaws

1. Of the 29 studies analyzed by the Lancet meta-study, seven studies are unpublished and non-peer-reviewed observational studies. Non-peer reviewed studies should not be used to guide clinical practice according to the medRxiv disclaimer. [3] [4] [31] [36] [37] [40] [70]

2. Of the 29 studies considered by the meta-study, only four are about the SARS-CoV-2 virus; the other 25 studies are about the SARS-1 virus or the MERS virus, both of which have very different transmission characteristics: they were transmitted almost exclusively by severely ill hospitalized patients and not by community transmission.

3. Of the four studies relating to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, two were misinterpreted by the Lancet meta-study authors[44] [70], one is inconclusive [37], and one is about N95 (FFP2) respirators and not about medical masks or cloth masks (see detailed analysis below).

4. Despite the weakness, misinterpretations, and inapplicability, the Lancet meta-study is used to guide global facemask policy for the general population. However, of the 29 studies considered by the meta-study, only three are classified as relating to a non-health-care (i.e. community) setting. Of these three studies, one is misclassified [50] (relating to masks in a hospital environment), one showed no benefit of facemasks [69], and one is a poorly designed retrospective study about SARS-1 in Beijing based on telephone interviews [74]. None of these studies pertained to SARS-CoV-2.

5. The authors of the Lancet meta-study acknowledge that the certainty of the evidence regarding facemasks is "low" as all of the studies are observational and none is a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

6. The WHO itself admitted that its updated facemask policy guidelines were based not on new evidence but on "political lobbying".

B. Study misinterpretations

As mentioned above, several studies have been misinterpreted by the authors of the meta-study. All of the misinterpretations resulted in falsely claiming or exaggerating a benefit of facemasks. In the following, only the four studies relating to SARS-CoV-2 are reviewed. (HCW: health care worker)

1. Heinzerling et al. [44]: The meta-study claims that 0 of 31 HCW wearing a facemask and 3 of 6 HCW not wearing a facemask got infected. This is not correct.

The study showed that 0 of 3 HCW wearing a facemask and 3 of 34 HCW not wearing a facemask got infected. This result was not statistically significant (p=0.73). Moreover, of the 3 HCW who got infected, one reported wearing a facemask "most of the time", but the meta-study classified this HCW as "not wearing a facemask".

2. Wang et al. [41]: This study, which did show a benefit of facemasks, was about N95 (FFP2) respirators in a health-care setting, not about medical masks or cloth masks.

3. Wang et al. [70]: The meta-study claims that 1 of 1286 HCW wearing a facemask and 119 of 4036 wearing "no facemask" got infected. This is not correct.

According to the study, 78.3% (94/120) of infected HCWs were in fact wearing a surgical mask, and only 20.8% (25/120) did not wear any mask when exposed to the source of infection. The "1 of 1286 HCW" mentioned in the meta-study refers to HCW wearing an N95 (FFP2) respirator, not a medical or cloth mask.

4. Burke et al. [37]: This study had no results relating to the use of facemasks.

Non-Covid studies were also misinterpreted or misrepresented by the Lancet meta-study authors. For instance, in the case of the non-Covid study with the allegedly biggest impact of masks (Kim et al. [ 49] about N95 respirators in a hospital with MERS patients), the meta-study authors incorrectly mixed serological and PCR results, again exaggerating the benefit of (N95) masks. The actual results of the Kim et al. study were not statistically significant (p=0.159).

C. Studies relating to "social distancing"

In an additional section, the WHO meta-study evaluated studies on the benefit of "social distancing" measures. However, several independent experts have shown that this section is seriously flawed. The authors again misinterpreted several studies and made several statistical errors.

As with the studies on facemasks, all of these mistakes resulted in falsely claiming or exaggerating a benefit of "social distancing" measures.

For more information on this section, see PubPeer (and links therein) and the CEBM review.

Conclusion

As shown in this analysis, the WHO-commissioned meta-study on the effectiveness of facemasks and social distancing, published in The Lancet, is seriously flawed and should be retracted. Health authorities may want to reconsider their Covid-19 policy guidelines.

Community Use Of Face Masks And COVID-19: Evidence From A Natural Experiment Of State Mandates In The US
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
Limitations of the Studies Typically Used to Support Masks

They are all low-level evidence, retrospective observational studies. At the time of my analysis and writing of this paper, none of the studies purporting to support community wearing of masks used high-level randomized clinical trial methodology.

Cannot distinguish correlation from causation.

Does not measure face cover use in the community or any measure of compliance.

Estimates represent the intent-to-treat effects of these mandates, not the individual-level effect of wearing a face mask in public on one's own COVID-19 risk.

Did not measure types of masks worn.

Did not assess adverse effects of masks.

Did not control for other community-wide and hospital-specific interventions that may have contributed to or confounded their observations, including:

Declarations of emergency (March 10),

New hospital policies to restrict visitors (March 12) and elective procedures (March 14),

School closures

Hospital restrictions on business travel and on-site working (March 16),

Local public transportation reductions (March 17),

Issuance of statewide stay-at-home orders (March 24), and

Automation of screening and testing (March 30).

Fear and Politics are Subverting Science and Reason

Public health officials and the media have been warning us that coronavirus kills not just old or immunocompromised people but young people too. While this is true, it remains extremely rare.

A Pandemic of Fraud and Fear is More Dangerous than the COVID-19 Pandemic

Table 1. Parameter Values that vary among the five COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios.

Parameters:

Scenario 5: Current Best Estimate, R0 = 2.5, 40% asymptomatic

For a definition of R0, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): R0 is "the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible." The average R0 for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19-1.37); see the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014).

According to the CDC's latest best estimate, 40% of COVID-19 infections are asymptomatic.

Parameter values are based on data received by CDC through August 8, 2020.

These estimates are based on age-specific estimates of infection fatality ratios from Hauser, A., Counotte, M.J., Margossian, C.C., Konstantinoudis, G., Low, N., Althaus, C.L. and Riou, J., 2020

Masking Children in Schools is Unnecessary - So Says The Science

School and daycare transmission studies show that transmission of Covid-19 among unmasked children is remarkably low.

German study finds low Covid-19 infection rate in schools. Tests of pupils and teachers in Saxony suggest children may act as brake on infection.

The study by the University hospital in Dresden analysed blood samples from almost 1,500 children and 500 teachers from 13 schools in Saxony, Germany suggests schools may not play as big a role in spreading the virus as some had feared.

"Of the almost 2,000 samples, only 12 had antibodies," said Reinhard Berner, a professor of paediatrics at the hospital. In other words, in Saxony's open and unmasked schools 0.6% of school children demonstrated SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

All cases were asymptomatic. There were no fatalities.

"Children may even act as a brake on infection," Berner told a news conference, saying "infections in schools had not led to an outbreak, while the spread of the virus within households was also less dynamic than previously thought."

"For other states with low infection rates, the study suggests schools could be reopened without fear of causing widespread outbreaks of the virus," Berner said.

Sweden and Finland: 0.05% of children infected by Covid-19

Sweden kept schools open and unmasked during the pandemic, yet their decision to adhere to the science and do what has always been done before, did not lead to a higher rate of infection among their children compared to neighboring Finland, where schools were closed temporarily.

Based on Covid-19 case data collected from each country during the time period, Feb. 24 to June 14, the percentage of children between the ages of 1-19 infected by Covid-19 was the same:

Sweden: 1,124 cases 0.05%

Finland: 584 cases 0.05%

Separate studies by Sweden's Karolinska Institutet (KI), an independent medical research institute, and the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children and Unicef, showed that Swedish children fared better than children in other countries during the pandemic, both in terms of education and mental health.

COVID-19 transmission rate 0.3% among children in schools and nurseries in New South Wales, Australia

The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health: Effective testing and contact tracing is essential for schools to safely open during COVID-19 pandemic, two studies show. The Lancet; August 3, 2020. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-08/tl-pss080320.php

Real world data from schools where masks were not required or worn demonstrates a remarkably low rate of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Analysis of COVID-19 case data from 3103 schools and approximately 4600 nurseries in New South Wales demonstrate that schools and nurseries do not pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Subset analysis found that only 27 children or teachers went to school while they were infectious, with an additional 18 people later becoming infected. Out of 1448 contacts in total, the rate of secondary transmission was found to be 1.2%.

A subset analysis of 7 schools and nurseries that underwent additional investigations including antibody testing, symptom surveys, and extra RT-PCR testing for the virus showed that the transmission rates among children and staff were extremely low:

child-to-child rate was 0.3%,

child-to-staff rate was 1.0%

staff-to-child rate was 1.5%

staff-to-staff rate was 4.4%.

The researchers noted that this finding suggests that children are less likely to transmit the virus than adults.

While coronavirus is obviously concerning and a very real threat to some people (namely, the elderly and immunocompromised), these data also show that the risk for the rest of the population is extraordinarily low.

As a physician and former medical journal editor, I've carefully read the scientific literature regarding the use of face masks to mitigate viral transmission. I believe the public health experts have community wearing of masks all wrong. Here are a few of the mechanisms by which medical masks can be harmful to their wearers and community wearing of face masks is a very bad idea:

Wearing masks for extended periods increased incidences of headaches and negatively affected work performance.
See Jonathan J.Y. Ong, et al., Headaches Associated With Personal Protective Equipment - A Cross‐Sectional Study Among Frontline Healthcare Workers During COVID‐19, Headache, the Journal of Head and Face Pain (May 2020). https://headachejournal.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/head.13811
1. Medical masks adversely affect respiratory physiology and function.

2. Medical masks lower oxygen levels in the blood.[R]

Wearing a mask for more than a few minutes causes a significant reduction in a person's blood oxygen level.

Beder, A., U. Büyükkoçak, H. Sabuncuoğlu, Z. A. Keskil, and S. Keskil. 2008. "Preliminary Report on Surgical Mask Induced Deoxygenation during Major Surgery." Neurocirugia 19 (2): 121-26. DOI: 10.1016/s1130-1473(08)70235-5

This study of 53 surgeons evaluated the effect of surgical masks on oxygen saturation of hemoglobin in surgeons performing surgery.

The study revealed the surgeons experienced a significant decrease in the oxygen saturation of arterial pulsations (SpO2) and a slight increase in pulse rates after one hour. The decrease was more prominent in the surgeons over the age of 35.

Given that a small decrease in SpO2 reflects a large decrease in partial pressure of oxygen in the arterial blood (PaO2)[R], the findings of this study suggests that surgical masks worn more than one hour may lower arterial oxygen enough to induce physiologically detrimental effects.

Here are two cases of the tragic consequences of forcing children to wear masks: Two Chinese boys drop dead while wearing face masks during physical exercise classes.[ R][ R]

Two boys from two Chinese cities died of sudden cardiac arrest within a week. The first boy, 15, collapsed after jogging in PE class while wearing a face mask on April 24. The other boy, 14, reportedly died during a running exam while wearing a mask.

Why would healthy boys drop dead while wearing masks and running in gym class?! To answer this question, we must consider how mask induced deoxygenation and increased oxygen demands of heart muscle during exercise could have precipitated heart attacks in otherwise healthy teenagers:

Point #1: Heart muscle needs oxygen to survive. And the harder the heart works, the more oxygen it requires. The American Heart Association says this about heart attacks:

"Your heart muscle needs oxygen to survive. A heart attack occurs when the blood flow that brings oxygen to the heart muscle is severely reduced or cut off completely."[R]

Point #2: Masks block air intake and decrease arterial oxygen.

Studies of masked individuals have shown that mask wear decreases arterial oxygen. For example, the effects of surgical masks worn by surgeons in the operating room (an environment in which the oxygen blocking effects of masks are minimized by the high air flow, increased oxygen levels, and cool temperature of the operating suite) during major surgery showed a significant decrease in arterial oxygen.[ R]

The lesson here is that medical masks should not be worn during intense exercise. As described above and shown in the study of surgeons wearing surgical masks, medical masks block oxygen intake. Depriving the heart of oxygen while exercising, especially intense exercise, could precipitate an acute heart attack.

Any questions? Wait...there's more...

Jogger's lung collapses after he ran for 2.5 miles while wearing a face mask [ R]

Mr Zhang's left lung was punctured due to high pressure caused by running. The 26-year-old became breathless whiling jogging with a mask on in China. Doctors said his punctured lung was caused by jogging with a face covering. He is now in stable condition after undergoing an operation, the hospital said.

Hypoxia increases the risk of blood clot formation.[R]

Lowering arterial oxygen suppresses the immune system, thus increasing the susceptibility of mask wearers to infectious disease.

3. Medical masks raise carbon dioxide levels in the blood.

Although the body has robust mechanisms for mitigating transient and minor elevations of CO2 in the air we breathe, these mechanisms can easily be overwhelmed by chronic exposure to significant elevations in CO2, such as occurs with prolonged wearing of a medical mask.

4. SARS CoV-2 is armed with a "furin cleavage site" that makes it more pathogenic.

The furin cleavage site makes the virus more capable of invading human cells.

The furin cleavage site makes the virus even more capable of invading cells when arterial oxygen levels decline.[R]

Therefore, wearing a medical mask may increase the severity of CoVID-19.

5. Medical masks trap exhaled viral (and other) pathogens in the mouth/mask interspace, increase viral/infectious load, and increase the severity of disease.

Face masks trap exhaled viral particles in the mouth/mask interspace. The trapped viral particles are prevented from removal from the airways. The mask wearer is then forced to re-breathe the viral particles, thus increasing infectious viral particles in the airways and lungs.

In this way, surgical masks cause self-inoculation, increase viral load, and increase the severity of disease.

Neurosurgeon, Russell Blaylock, MD, raises additional concerns:

"By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the lungs, olfactory nerves, and travel into the brain."[ R]

Face masks trap exhaled viral particles in the mouth/mask interspace.[R] The trapped viral particles are prevented from removal from the airways. The mask wearer is thus forced to re-breathe the viral particles, increasing infectious viral particles in the airways and lungs. In this way, Medical masks cause self-inoculation, increase viral load, and increase the severity of disease.

Asymptomatic or mild cases of CoVID-19 become more severe when the infected is masked, oxygen lowers, viral load increases from particle re-breathing, and the disease overwhelms the innate immune system.

The main purpose of the innate immune response is to immediately prevent the spread and movement of foreign pathogens throughout the body.[R]

The innate immune system plays a crucial role in destroying the virus, preventing infection, or decreasing the viral load to decrease the severity of infection.

The innate immunity's effectiveness is highly dependent on the viral load. If face masks increase viral particle re-breathing at the same time they create a humid habitat where SARS-CoV-2 remains actively infectious, the mask increases the viral load and can overwhelm the innate immune system.

This trapping, re-breathing, and increasing pathogen load delivered to the lungs becomes dramatically more dangerous when the medical mask becomes contaminated with the opportunistic viruses, bacteria, and fungi that can grow in the warm, moist environment of the mask.

"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." - Russell Blaylock, MD

6. SARS CoV-2 Becomes More Dangerous When Blood Oxygen Levels Decline

Arterial oxygen desaturation is a critical issue in CoVID-19. The virus' ability to infect cells is markedly enhanced by oxygen desaturation, which has been shown to occur even in the ideal operating room environment in which surgeons operate: high air flow/exchange systems, cool temperature, and higher room oxygen levels. when wearing a surgical mask.[R]

One of the features that make SARS CoV-2 uniquely infectious is the "furin" sequence in the virus that activates increased ACE2 receptor attack and cellular invasion in low oxygen environments.[R]

7. The furin cleavage site of SARS CoV-2 increases cellular invasion, especially during hypoxia (low blood oxygen levels)[R]

The furin cleavage site found in SARS CoV-2 is the likely result of the bioengineering "gain of function" (which means increasing the virulence of a pathogen) research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This unethical, dangerous, and illegal-in-most-countries research is alleged to have been funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci (with $7.4 million taxpayer dollars) and Bill Gates.

Furin cleavage sites are found in some of the most pathogenic forms of influenza, which can be acted upon by furin and other cellular proteases. The ubiquitous expression of cellular proteases across cell types increases the potential for the virus to successfully infiltrate the host.

Furin is a membrane-bound protease that is expressed in multiple tissues throughout the human body. Furin is expressed in significant concentrations in the lungs. Thus, viruses in the respiratory tract can make use of this enzyme to convert and activate their own surface glycoproteins. This makes their role in viral protein processing noteworthy.[R]

Some of the most pathogenic forms of influenza and HIV have similar furin cleavage sites. It is not present in other bat beta coronaviruses. (By the way, Fauci built his career researching and failing to create a vaccine for HIV). The furin cleavage site is NOT present in SARS CoV-1 or MERS, or any of the other known "bat coronaviruses."

Let me say it again, the SARS-CoV (aka, SARS-CoV-1), which is closely related to the newest SARS-CoV-2 strain, does not bear the furin cleavage site.

So, the question we should all be asking is how did the genetic sequence that codes for this serious gain of function that increases the potential for the virus to successfully infiltrate the host find its way into SARS-CoV-2?

That's the trillion dollar question; it demands a real and honest answer.

8. Cloth masks may increase the risk of contracting Covid-19 and other respiratory infections.

See MacIntyre CR, Seale H, Dung TC, et al., A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers, BMJ Open 2015; 5: e006577, US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577, April 22, 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/pdf/bmjopen-2014-006577.pdf

"This study is the first [Randomly Controlled Trial] of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks.

This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection."

9. Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security

People adopt a reduction in compliance with other infection control measures, including social distancing and hands washing.[R]

10. Masks compromise communications and reduce social distancing

The quality and volume of speech between two people wearing masks is considerably compromised and they may unconsciously move closer to improve communications

This increases the likelihood of becoming exposed to the infectious viral particles in the respiratory plumes of aerosolized droplet nuclei that escape the top, bottom, and sides of the masks.

11. Untrained and inappropriate management of face masks:

The public is untrained and inadequately educated in the proper selection of masks (most are wrongly wearing cloth masks), proper wear, sterility management, and importance of not reusing single use masks.

People must not touch their masks, must change their single-use masks frequently or wash them regularly, dispose of them correctly and adopt other management measures, otherwise their risks and those of others may increase.[R][R]

We can all observe the countless ways in which people in communities are mis-wearing, mishandling, and increasing their own and the communities risk of contracting infectious disease, including CoVID-19.

12. Masks Worn Imperfectly Are Dangerous

To fully appreciate the danger of improper wear and handling of face masks, all you have to do is observe how the public is managing them. Take a trip to Walmart or your local school and observe how mask wearers pull masks from their pocket or purse, drop the masks on the floor, cough and sneeze in them, move them below the nose, on their heads, or under their chin. I see it every day. I also see their soiled and stained surgical face masks and know that these people are dangerously reusing a mask that should never be reused.

You don't need a clinical trial to determine that even when mask-wearers manage to don a fresh, sterile mask properly, keep them on for more than a few minutes at a time, they very quickly contaminate the mask, their environment, and increase their risk of infection as the mask induces them to compulsively touch their faces and their masks.

The World Health Organization, which has repeatedly changed its position on universal masking, is adamant that if face masks are not worn carefully, correctly, and kept sanitary, they are worse than ineffective.

In other words, masks worn imperfectly are dangerous.

People can infect themselves if they use contaminated hands to adjust a mask or repeatedly take it on or off," explained WHO Director-General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. "I cannot say this clearly enough. Masks alone will not protect you from COVID-19."

Failing to follow strict medical standards for wearing protective equipment and specification of sterilizing and cleaning often leads to "skin and mucous membrane injury, which may cause acute and chronic dermatitis, secondary infection and aggravation of underlying skin diseases."

13. Masks collect and colonize viruses, bacteria, and mold.

In Germany, where schools are open and masks are mostly optional, the association of "Kinder f.Weltfrieden eV" commissioned a laboratory analysis to investigate the level of microbial contamination that results after a fresh mask is worn by a child for 6-8 hours in school. What they found was alarming to all those recommending we mask our children for several hours every day. The masks were found to be contaminated with 82 bacterial colonies and 4 mold colonies. Where do you think the bacteria, molds, and viruses progressively colonizing and growing on the warm moist mask-mouth interface end up?

Many of the microbes get transferred to surfaces the child (or adult) touches after they touch, fiddle, and mishandle their mask. This is one of the many reasons that masks are almost certainly INCREASING the transmission of infectious disease. More dangerously, these microbes are being inhaled and delivered deep into the lungs where respiratory disease far worse than CoVID-19 can result.

The oxygen lowering effects of masks forces the body to compensate by increasing heart rate and deepening inspirations (increasing tidal volumes). Increased tidal volumes drives the mask pathogens deep into the lungs where they can cause serious pneumonia, inflammation, and tissue damage.

Furthermore, these risks are compounded by the immune suppression (CD4+ T-cell suppression) that results from diminished arterial oxygenation. Thus, the mask-wearing child is at imminent risk for harm caused by lung infections that are far more dangerous than a CoVID-19 infection.

In fact, based on reports from my colleagues in emergency medicine, pulmonology, and infectious disease, an alarming explosion in bacterial pneumonias is being reported at ERs and urgent care centers across the country.

Evidence that supports the points above:

Zhiqing, Liu, Chang Yongyun, Chu Wenxiang, Yan Mengning, Mao Yuanqing, Zhu Zhenan, Wu Haishan, et al. 2018. "Surgical Masks as Source of Bacterial Contamination during Operative Procedures." Journal of Orthopaedic Translation 14 (July): 57-62.

This study investigated whether surgical masks (SMs) could be a potential source of bacterial shedding leading to an increased risk of surgical site infection.

Results: The longer the operating time the more bacterial colonization occurred. A significant increase [in bacterial counts] was noted in the 2-hour group.

Colleen Huber, NMD, "Masks Are Neither Effective nor Safe," PrimaryDoctor.Org, July 6, 2020. https://www.primarydoctor.org/masks-not-effect

"The foregoing data show that masks serve more as instruments of obstruction of normal breathing, rather than as effective barriers to pathogens. Therefore, masks should not be used by the general public, either by adults or children, and their limitations as prophylaxis against pathogens should also be considered in medical settings."

Dr. Huber's article cites 42 supporting scientific studies.

"Dr. Jenny Harries, England's deputy chief medical officer, has warned that it was not a good idea for the public to wear face masks as the virus can get trapped in the material and causes infection when the wearer breathes in."

See also, Melkorka Licea, "Mask Mouth" Is a Seriously Stinky Side Effect of Wearing Masks. New York Post, August 5, 2020. https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/mask-mouth-is-a-seriously-stinky-side-effect-of-wearing-masks/

Consider this: Health department investigating after high number of strep throat cases reported at Shepherd schools.

The Central Michigan District Health Department is investigating after more thana dozen cases of strep throat were reported within Shepherd Public Schools despite COVID-19 protocols.

14. Wearing a face mask makes the exhaled air (respiratory plumes) go into the eyes.

Masks may capture respiratory jets and large respiratory droplets, but they cannot prevent the respiratory plumes composed of aerosolizable respiratory droplet nuclei to escape the top, bottom, and sides of the masks.

The respiratory plume wafts into the eyes and generates an uncomfortable feeling and compulsion to touch and rub the eyes. If your hands are contaminated and you touch or rub your eyes, you are transmitting and infecting yourself through the ocular mucosa.[R]

15. Contact tracing studies show that asymptomatic carrier transmission is very rare.

Asymptomatic carriers are not a major driver of the disease.[R]

Therefore, one of the key reasons the public was told to wear masks, asymptomatic spreaders, should not be used as a reason for community wearing of masks.

16. Face masks and stay at home orders prevent the development of herd immunity.

Only herd immunity can prevent pandemics; it is the only thing that ever has.

Only herd immunity will protect the vulnerable members of society.

Sweden's example continues to prove this point.

17. Face masks are dangerous and contraindicated for a large number of people with pre-existing medical conditions and disabilities.

Face masks are not only ineffective, they are more dangerous than parents are being told. Scientific study after scientific study over the course of many years have concluded that wearing face masks for extended periods of time puts the wearer, especially children, in imminent risk of physical and psychological harms.

If the previous section ("Masks are Harmful") did not serve to make you question much of what you have heard about the risks of medical masks, let us now examine what the science and experts say about masking children.

Wednesday, 09 September 2020 The face mask requirement at school is bad for children's general well-being and should be abolished, 70 doctors wrote in an open letter to Flemish Education Minister Ben Weyts. The doctors want [Flemish Education Minister] Weyts to immediately reverse his approach: no face mask requirement at school, only protect the at-risk group and only advise people with a possible risk profile to consult their doctor."In recent months, the general well-being of children and young people has come under severe pressure," the letter's authors said. "We see in our practices an increasing number of children and young people with complaints due to the rules of conduct that have been imposed on them."The doctors mentioned anxiety and sleep problems as well as behavioural disorders and germaphobia, which is a pathological fear of germs. They are also seeing an increase in domestic violence, isolation and deprivation."Mandatory face masks in schools are a major threat to their development. It ignores the essential needs of the growing child. The well-being of children and young people is highly dependent on emotional attachment to others," they wrote. According to them, "the face mask requirement makes school a threatening and unsafe environment, where emotional closeness becomes difficult."Moreover, "there is no large-scale evidence that wearing face masks in a non-professional environment has any positive effect on the spread of viruses, let alone on general health. Nor is there any legal basis for implementing this requirement.""Meanwhile, it is clear that healthy children living through Covid-19 heal without complications as standard and that they subsequently contribute to the protection of their fellow human beings by increasing group immunity"."The only sensible measure to prevent serious illness and mortality caused by Covid-19 is to isolate individual teachers and individual children at increased risk," they said."This risk assessment is not the task of the Ministry of Education," the doctors underlined, "but the task of the treating physicians in consultation with their patients."- From The Brussels Times

The Great Barrington Declaration

A letter authored by 3 top epidemiologists and professors on October 4 th, 2020, has, as of 6:00 pm, October 9th, 2020, been signed by 4,051 Medical & Public Health Scientists and 7,247 Medical Practitioners. This is a portion of their consensus declaration:

"As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection."

Thus, "The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection."

Read the letter in full: https://gbdeclaration.org/

Forcing Children to Wear Face Masks is Unnecessary

Forcing children to wear face masks in school is ineffective, harmful, and unnecessary. The risk of CoVID-19 in children is so low (see, "Masks are Unnecessary" above) that any imagined benefits cannot possibly outweigh the risks. Based on CDC data, the risk of children between the ages of zero and 19 years of age dying from CoVID-19 is an incredibly low risk of 0.00195%. This rate is much lower than the risk of children dying from influenza.

In fact, there is a large and growing body of physicians, pediatricians, scientists, epidemiologists, and researchers around the world that are speaking out against the anti-scientific public health recommendations that have been forced upon the public and our children.[ R] Those of us that have read the science have concluded that it is senseless and dangerous to force children to wear face masks in school:

See e.g., Michelle Science MD, MSc, FRCPC, et. al., COVID-19: Guidance for School Reopening, Division of Infectious Diseases, The Hospital for Sick Children ("Sick Kids"), University of Toronto, Canada. https://www.sickkids.ca/PDFs/About-SickKids/81407-COVID19-Recommendations-for-School Reopening-SickKids.pdf

The use of [Non-Medical Masks ("NMMs")] in the school setting should be driven by local epidemiology with age-specific considerations.

When transmission in the community is low, the use of NMMs throughout the entire school day should not be mandatory for elementary, middle or high school students returning to school.

Safe masking practices (e.g. proper wearing/storage/removal) should be reinforced with educational materials provided to parents, students and teachers.

Given the current epidemiology, the use of NMMs is not recommended for elementary school students.

A Covid-19 cross-country study by the University of East Anglia in England found that a mask requirement was of no benefit and could even increase the risk of infection.

Hunter, et al., Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions against COVID- 9 in Europe: a quasi-experimental study, May 6, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088260

"We found that closure of education facilities, prohibiting mass gatherings and closure of some non-essential businesses were associated with reduced incidence whereas stay at home orders, closure of all non-businesses and requiring the wearing of face masks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact."

Forcing Children to Wear Face Masks for Long Periods Risks Causing Them Physical Injuries.

The topic of the physical harms caused by masks was covered previously, but it is worth repeating a few of the key points:

Wearing a mask for more than a few minutes causes a significant reduction in a person's blood oxygen level.

See A. Beder, et al., Preliminary report on surgical mask induced deoxygenation during major surgery, Neurocirugía (2008). http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/neuro/v19n2/3.pdf

Transcranial Ultrasound Doppler (TCUD) studies on masked and unmasked individuals demonstrate the changes in blood flow in the brain the result from the arterial CO2 elevation that occurs within seconds of donning a mask.

This video demonstrates the use of TCUD and heart rate variability to measure the adverse effects of masking a healthy nine year old child: https://bit.ly/2GGQWiZ

Wearing masks for extended periods increased incidences of headaches and negatively affected work performance.

Most children wear cloth masks.

But wearing a cloth mask may increase the risk of contracting Covid-19 and other respiratory infections.

See MacIntyre CR, Seale H, Dung TC, et al., A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers, BMJ Open 2015; 5: e006577, US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577, April 22, 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/pdf/bmjopen-2014-006577.pdf

"This study is the first [Randomly Controlled Trial] of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks.

This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection."

Forcing Children to Wear Face Masks for Long Periods Risks Causing Them Mental and Psychological Injuries

Children are at risk for psychological trauma in multiple ways by being forced to wear face masks all day long at school. Doctors from around the country warn of the dangers to children of wearing face masks all day.

Mandatory face coverings on children is very harmful to the child: learning is inhibited; critical interactions among students and between student and teacher are fractured; and the face covering is counterproductive, as kids will naturally touch their faces, thereby contaminating their covering. This new normal that many are advocating may well lead to a spike in childhood behavior problems such as learning disabilities, anxiety disorders, and depression, to name a few.

Many young children burst into tears or recoil when someone wearing a mask approaches. It's so common that some elementary schools prohibit masks at the school Halloween parade. One reason for this is that the development of facial recognition is relatively weak in young children. According to University of Toronto psychologist, Dr. Kang Lee, it is not until kids are about 14 years old that they reach adult skill levels in recognizing faces. Before then, kids tend to see individual facial features, rather than recognizing the person as a whole. By putting on masks, we take away information that makes it especially difficult for children to recognize others and read emotional signals, which is unsettling and disconcerting. These issues may be especially true for children with autism spectrum disorder, including Asperger's syndrome, who tend to have particular difficulties reading non-verbal cues.

Dr. Alice Kuo, President of the Southern California chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement criticizing Los Angeles County school reopening guidelines that require children wear masks as "not realistic or even developmentally appropriate for children." She explained that, "wearing masks throughout the day can hinder language and socio-emotional development, particularly for younger children."

Some of the serious psychological harms to children caused by extended mask wearing are tied to lack of facial and emotional recognition.

The use of salient visual speech cues is hidden by masks making learning difficult for young children.

Kaylah Lalondea and Rachael Frush Holta, Preschoolers Benefit From Visually Salient Speech Cues, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Vol. 58, 135-150, February 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4712850/pdf/JSLHR-58-135.pdf

see also Martin Wegrzyn , et al., Mapping the emotional face. How individual face parts contribute to successful emotion recognition, PLoS ONE 12(5): e0177239, May 11, 2017. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177239

Lawrence Brancazio et al., Use of visual information in speech perception: Evidence for a visual rate effect both with and without a McGurk effect, Perception & Psychophysics 2005, 67 (5), 759-769. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16334050/

Mustapha Skhiri, Visual Cues in Speech Perception, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, GSLT, LiTH 20001/3/02. http://www.speech.kth.se/~rolf/gslt_papers/MustaphaSkiri.pdf

Voices of teachers and other students muffled through face masks makes learning more difficult, especially for any child with a diagnosed or undiagnosed hearing impairment.

The Center for Disease Control ("CDC") has made clear that "Schools are an important part of the infrastructure of communities and play a critical role in supporting the whole child, not just their academic achievement."

See Preparing K-12 School Administrators for a Safe Return to School in Fall 2020. Guidance from the CDC to school Districts. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/prepare-safe return.html

Nowhere in the guidance provided to local schools by the CDC is any information about compelling students to wear face masks. In fact, the CDC acknowledges that "[m]ore research and evaluation is needed on the implementation of mitigation strategies (e.g., social distancing, masks, hand hygiene, and use of cohorting) used in schools to determine which strategies are the most effective." Id. at 5.

The lack of any such recommendation is understandable given that the great weight of scientific evidence shows unmistakably that wearing face masks for extended periods is harmful to people's health, safety and emotional well-being, especially to young children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jim Meehan, MD is an ophthalmologist and preventive medicine specialist with over 20 years of experience and advanced training in immunology, inflammation, and infectious disease. He has performed well over 10,000 surgical procedures. His research experience includes investigating associations between military vaccinations and Gulf War Syndrome.

# data[].attributes.headline
David Icke simplifying his take on the psychological effects of masks

# data[].attributes.subject
David Icke simplifying his take on the psychological effects of masks

# data[].attributes.headline
Ex-Navy Surgeon discussing her experience with mask efficacy 

# data[].attributes.subject
Ex-Navy Surgeon discussing her experience with mask efficacy 

# data[].attributes.body
December 2020

# data[].attributes.body
December 2020

# data[].attributes.body
December 2020

# data[].attributes.body
These are controlled & censored by big tech in Silicon valley who are influenced (paid for) by the elite, so for now...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Google funded research conducted by Peter Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance - a controversial group which has openly collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on "killer" bat coronavirus research - for over a decade, The National Pulse can today reveal.

The unearthed financial ties between EcoHealth Alliance and Google follow months of big tech censorship of stories and individuals in support of the COVID-19 "lab leak" theory.

The Google-backed EcoHealth Alliance played a critical role in the cover-up of COVID-19's origins through its president, Peter Daszak.

Daszak served on the wildly compromised World Health Organization's (WHO) COVID-19 investigation team. He championed the efforts to "debunk" the lab origin theory of the virus, despite mounting support for the claim first made by experts on Steve Bannon's War Room: Pandemic podcast in early January 2020.

Left-wing websites masquerading as "fact checkers" still call the lab theory "false," despite the shift in tone from the Biden regime, leading world scientists, and intelligence officials.

EcoHealth Alliance also funneled hundreds of thousands of U.S. taxpayer dollars from Dr. Anthony Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to its research partner, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, to conduct studies on "killer" bat coronaviruses.

And Google.org, the charity arm of the tech behemoth, has also been funding studies carried out by EcoHealth alliance researchers including Peter Daszak since at least 2010.

'The Generous Support of the American People'.

The decade-plus relationship is evident in a 2010 study on bat flaviviruses, which lists Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance Vice President Jonathan Epstein as authors, that thanks Google.org for funding. A 2014 study on henipavirus spillover, which was authored by Daszak, similarly declares it was partly "supported by Google.org."

And a 2015 paper focusing on herpes, which lists EcoHealth's Daszak and Epstein as authors, reveals it was "supported by funding from the US Agency for International Development's Emerging Pandemic Threats: PREDICT program, the Skoll Foundation, and Google.org."

In 2018, EcoHealth Alliance researchers authored a paper entitled "Serologic and Behavioral Risk Survey of Workers with Wildlife Contact in China" that was "made possible" by the financial contribution of Google.org.

The 14-page paper's abstract summarizes:
We report on a study conducted in Guangdong Province, China, to characterize behaviors and perceptions associated with transmission of pathogens with pandemic potential in highly exposed human populations at the animal-human interface. A risk factor/exposure survey was administered to individuals with high levels of exposure to wildlife.
The paper appears to lay the groundwork for the theory that SARS-like coronaviruses could originate in a wet market in a province close to the city of Wuhan - the likely epicenter of COVID-19.

"The majority of human infectious diseases have an animal origin, therefore understanding the human-animal interface as it relates to disease emergence and risk is of upmost importance The increasing frequency and variety of human-wildlife interactions in China provide opportunities for the transmission of zoonotic pathogens from animals to humans," the paper begins.

The paper also highlights how SARS has "emerged in humans and other mammals in wet markets":
Handling, transporting, and butchering of hunted or farmed wildlife poses a risk of pathogen spillover into humans. In southern China provinces, including Guangdong, a significant percentage of the population obtains fresh meat for consumption from wet markets, community markets that specialize in selling and butchering live animals, including animals that are rare and endangered. Research has demonstrated that human-animal interfaces, such as within these wet markets, provide an ideal environment for infectious disease emergence, transmission, and amplification.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
REVEALED: Google & USAID Funded Wuhan Collaborator Peter Daszak's Virus Experiments For Over A Decade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Google funded research conducted by Peter Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance - a controversial group which has openly collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology on "killer" bat coronavirus research - for over a decade, The National Pulse can today reveal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Secure, Fast, & Private Web Browser with Adblocker | Brave

Stay safer online

By default, Brave blocks trackers & ads on the websites you visit, keeping you more private online.

Online privacy made simple

All the good of ad-blocking, incognito windows, private search, even VPN. All in a single download.

Switch in 60 seconds

Quickly import bookmarks, extensions, even saved passwords. It's the best of your old browser, only safer. And it only takes a minute to switch.

Privacy you can see

Blocking ads & trackers means less stuff (visible or hidden) on the sites you visit. And that means faster page load, better battery life, even mobile data savings.

Online privacy by default: Brave vs. other browsers

Assert opt-out privacy rights ( GPC)

* Google safe browsing + malware & phishing protection from crowd-sourced lists. Table describes default desktop browser configurations.

Only here for the privacy? We got you. Just download and enjoy...
Want a more bespoke experience? Brave's got great customizations, too:

Almost there...

You're just 60 seconds away from the best privacy online

If your download didn't start automatically, click here .

1. Download Brave

Click "Save" in the window that pops up, and wait for the download to complete.

Wait for the download to complete (you may need to click "Save" in a window that pops up).

2. Run the installer

Click the downloaded file at the top right of your screen, and follow the instructions to install Brave.

Click the downloaded file, and follow the instructions to install Brave.

Click the downloaded file at the bottom left of your screen, and follow the instructions to install Brave.

Click the downloaded file at the top right of your screen, and follow the instructions to install Brave.

Click the downloaded file, and follow the instructions to install Brave.

3. Import settings

During setup, import bookmarks, extensions, & passwords from your old browser.

Need help?

Get better privacy. Everywhere!

Download Brave mobile for privacy on the go.

Click this file to install Brave

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Secure, Fast, & Private Web Browser with Adblocker | Brave

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Brave browser is a fast, private and secure web browser for PC, Mac and mobile. Download now to enjoy a faster ad-free browsing experience that saves data and battery life by blocking tracking software.

# data[].attributes.body
7/2021 update: rumor is apparently this browser has sold out to a high bidder, so searches are more limited than they used to be.

# data[].attributes.body
This is from a compilation of sources. If any of these can be proven as not true, please message me with evidence and I will remove. So far, I have not found anything to dispute these claims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hyperbaric chambers used to reverse aging in "Holy Grail" study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scientists from Israel carried out a study that might prove groundbreaking in the human quest to slow the biological march of time. Researchers used oxygen treatments in hyperbaric chambers to stop blood cells from aging, actually making them grow younger.The scientists devised a novel program that ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Administering pure oxygen in a pressurised chamber could reverse ageing and illness, research finds.

35 adults over 64 took part in the study and were given oxygen treatment for 90 minutes a day, five times a week for three months [File: Dan Balilty/AP]

Israeli scientists say they have managed to not only successfully stop the biological ageing process but to reverse it, using only oxygen.

The study, a collaboration between Tel Aviv University and the Shamir Medical Center, administered high-pressure oxygen in a pressurised chamber and said it reversed two processes relating to ageing and illness.

Using hyperbaric oxygen treatments (HBOT) on ageing healthy adults, the researchers found the shortening of telomeres (chromosome ends) and the accumulation of old and malfunctioning cells in the body could be reversed.

That is, the adults' blood cells actually grow younger as the treatments progress.

Some 35 adults over the age of 64 took part in the study and were given HBOT for 90 minutes a day, five times a week for three months.

The study was published in Aging magazine on November 18.

'Holy grail'

Shai Efrati, a professor at Tel Aviv University who runs the Aviv Clinics in Florida, told The Jerusalem Post the study indicates that the cellular basis for the ageing process can be reversed.

"Today telomere shortening is considered the 'Holy Grail' of the biology of ageing," he said.

"Researchers around the world are trying to develop pharmacological and environmental interventions that enable telomere elongation. Our HBOT protocol was able to achieve this, proving that the ageing process can in fact be reversed at the basic cellular-molecular level."

The study, Efrati said, "gives hope and opens the door for a lot of young scientists to target ageing as a reversible disease".

His partner at the Shamir Medical Center, Chief Medical Research Officer Amir Hadanny, said interventions such as lifestyle modifications and intense exercise have shown "some inhibiting effect on telomere shortening", but the hyperbaric oxygen treatment is more effective.

"In our study, only three months of HBOT were able to elongate telomeres at rates far beyond any currently available interventions or lifestyle modifications," Hadanny said.

According to the study, the physical changes were equivalent to how the participants' bodies were at the cellular level 25 years earlier.

"We are not [just] slowing the decline - we are going backwards in time," Efrati said.

Oxygen treatment improved attention, information processing speed, and executive functions in the subjects, the researchers said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Backward in time': Israeli scientists claim to reverse ageing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Administering pure oxygen in a pressurised chamber could reverse ageing and illness, research finds. Israeli scientists say they have managed to not only successfully stop the biological ageing process but to reverse it, using only oxygen.

# data[].attributes.headline
"Every Vaccine Produces Harm" eBook by Dr. Andrew Moulden

# data[].attributes.subject
"Every Vaccine Produces Harm" eBook by Dr. Andrew Moulden

# data[].attributes.body
A book published by another researcher who died under mysterious causes after publishing their work

# data[].attributes.headline
Various doctors & researchers on vaccines 

# data[].attributes.subject
Various doctors & researchers on vaccines 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The general public shares a common misconception - that all doctors, or all "real doctors" support vaccination. Although it is true that the majority of doctors support vaccines, not all do.

Most doctors blindly support the recommendations of the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Doctors are trained in administering vaccines, not in how they are made. There are some doctors that choose to do the research themselves in order to develop an informed opinion on the subject. These doctors who become knowledgeable about vaccines usually become anti-vaccine. A little knowledge goes a long way.

Without a doubt we live in the age of autism, but it is also the age of chronic illness. One in eighty-eight children are diagnosed with autism, while half of all children now struggle with chronic illnesses such as asthma, diabetes, ADHD, etc. This rise in illness correlates with the dramatic increase in vaccines given to our children along with a growing exposure to other toxic chemicals.

Dr. Blaylock is a man who wears many hats. He is a board certified neurosurgeon who owns a nutritional practice. Dr. Blaylock is a health practitioner, lecturer, and author. He practiced medicine for 25 years before pursuing his nutritional studies and research full time.
What Happens to the Brain With Vaccination? It seems the brain is always neglected when pharmacologists consider side effects of various drugs. The same is true for vaccinations. For a long time no one considered the effect of repeated vaccinations on the brain. This was based on a mistaken conclusion that the brain was protected from immune activation by its special protective gateway called the blood-brain barrier. More recent studies have shown that immune cells can enter the brain directly, and more importantly, the brain's own special immune system can be activated by vaccination. You see, the brain has a special immune system that operates through a unique type of cell called a microglia. These tiny cells are scattered throughout the brain, lying dormant waiting to be activated. In fact, they are activated by many stimuli and are quite easy to activate. For our discussion, activation of the body's immune system by vaccination is a most important stimuli for activation of brain microglia.
Numerous studies have shown that when the body's immune system is activated, the brain's immune cells are likewise activated. This occurs by several pathways, not important to this discussion. The more powerfully the body's immune system is stimulated the more intense is the brain's reaction. Prolonged activation of the body's immune system likewise produces prolonged activation of the brain's immune system.
Therein lies the danger of our present vaccine policy. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice have both endorsed a growing list of vaccines for children, even newborns, as well as yearly flu shots for both children and adults. Children are receiving as many as 22 inoculations before attending school. What Happens When the Brain's Immune System is Activated? The brain's immune system cells, once activated, begin to move about the nervous system, secreting numerous immune chemicals (called cytokines and chemokines) and pouring out an enormous amount of free radicals in an effort to kill invading organisms. The problem is-there are no invading organisms. It has been tricked by the vaccine into believing there are. Unlike the body's immune system, the microglia also secrete two other chemicals that are very destructive of brain cells and their connecting processes. These chemicals, glutamate and quinolinic acid, are called excitotoxins. They also dramatically increase free radical generation in the brain. Studies of patients have shown that levels of these two excitotoxins can rise to very dangerous levels in the brain following viral and bacterial infections of the brain. High quinolinic acid levels in the brain are thought to be the cause of the dementia seen with HIV infection. The problem with our present vaccine policy is that so many vaccines are being given so close together and over such a long period that the brain's immune system is constantly activated. This has been shown experimentally in numerous studies. This means that the brain will be exposed to large amounts of the excitotoxins as well as the immune cytokines over the same period. Studies on all of these disorders, even in autism, have shown high levels of immune cytokines and excitotoxins in the nervous system. These destructive chemicals, as well as the free radicals they generate, are diffused throughout the nervous system doing damage, a process called bystander injury. It's sort of like throwing a bomb in a crowd. Not only will some be killed directly by the blast, but those far out into the radius of the explosion will be killed by shrapnel. Normally, the brain's immune system, like the body's, activates quickly and then promptly shuts off to minimize the bystander damage. Vaccination won't let the microglia shut down. In the developing brain, this can lead to language problems, behavioral dysfunction, and even dementia. In the adult, it can lead to the Gulf War Syndrome or one of the more common neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's dementia, or Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS). In 1980, I abandoned the recommended vaccine schedule. I received dozens and dozens of phone calls from moms and dads reporting that their child had received shots a couple of days ago and they were acting a little different. They couldn't quite put their finger on it but their child was just not acting quite the same as before I gave the shots. They'd ask if this was okay...was it normal? Initially, as I was trained to do, I replied yes. After dozens and dozens and dozens of phone calls, I decided that I had better listen to these moms a lot more. I stopped some vaccines. I delayed others. No, I am not 'anti-vaccination.'
I am aware of the public health implications of completely abandoning our current vaccine schedule, and I certainly don't advocate that. What I really want is an honest discussion of the risks and benefits of each vaccine and combinations of vaccines for your child. Just your child. My experience is that many parents don't have the opportunity to discuss these concepts and these details with their doctors.
As you can see, Dr. Gordon really isn't all that anti-vaccine. He's been made famous because he is the doctor that is treating Jenny McCarthy's son, and she isn't all that anti-vaccine either. Dr. Gordon has earned himself a reputation for being anti-vaccine because he is against some vaccines and the current recommended vaccine schedule.

Recommended:
I am a conventionally educated medical doctor who was a participant in the conventional system from 1989 until 2011. During those years I saw how often that approach fails patients and creates new diseases. I left conventional medicine to research the many problems with mainstream medical theory. I do not consider it my place to tell anyone whether to vaccinate or not. It is my place to understand as much as I can about vaccines and give people a more complete understanding from which to make their choices. This has never been a priority to the public health services. In fact there is ample documentation that the priority was quite the opposite, and actually to quell 'any possible doubts, whether well founded or not' regarding vaccines. The following document is the American 1984 DHHS federal register, which listed final rules pertaining to the polio vaccination campaigns in USA after three decades of scandal and misinformation. That priority has placed many lives in jeopardy as major problems with vaccination were and are overlooked by vaccine policy makers. There are many problems with the science that underpins vaccine information. I've yet to meet a pediatrician who is informed enough to offer informed consent. Infant immunity has been misunderstood by immunologists, as the immunology literature admits to. Only recently have some important questions been answered about why infant immune systems don't function like adult ones. There is good reason for the tolerance that an infant has, and the answer is not to interrupt the program with aluminum and vaccines to ramp it up. That is now known to have long term consequences. There is a paucity of studies comparing never vaccinated children, with partially or fully vaccinated children. In terms of safety studies, a major issue is that most vaccine studies use another vaccine as the control placebo, or use the background substance of the vaccine. There is only one recent study (Cowling 2012) where a true saline placebo was used, rather than another vaccine or the carrier fluid containing everything except the main antigen. That study showed no difference in influenza viral infection between groups but astonishingly it revealed a 5-6 times higher rate of non-influenza viral infections in the vaccinated. It is no small wonder more true placebos are not used in vaccine research.
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is ardently anti-vaccine. She has spent countless hours researching the vaccine debate, and she is familiar with all of the arguments for and against. She is adamantly against vaccines. She, like the other doctors on this list, has been accused of cashing in on vaccine fears, but which side of the debate is really making more money?
It continually breaks my heart that people have to personally experience a severe vaccine injury - or observe a serious reaction in someone they love - before they wake up to the absolute truth: vaccines can and do cause harm. They have heard the arguments and the stories from others. They ignored the pleas about risks and poo-pooed the concerns about vaccine reactions put forth by concerned friends. Instead, they trusted their uninformed pediatrician or caved under the pressure of their badgering RN mother-in-law. And now, they are left holding the bag, so to speak: a terrible tragedy and a lifetime of medical care and medical bills, as they watch their loved one's health deteriorate before their helpless, regretful, angry eyes. Gardasil alone has had more than 38,000 adverse events reported through March, 2015. And that number is estimated to be only 10% of all actual adverse events. SaneVax.org documents case, after expensive case, of injured girls with huge medical bills after this vaccine - and Gardasil is only one of 16 vaccines given to children. How many dollars are actually spent on vaccine injuries, looking for a diagnosis, paying for medications and desperately trying to find a way to reverse the damage? The true cost of vaccination is more than the cost of buying and administering vaccines. The untold tens of millions spent on injuries are not included in the calculations.
Dr. Wakefield is a gastroenterologist and researcher who followed the evidence where it lead him. In 1998, Wakefield, Prof. John Walker Smith, Dr. Simon Burch, and 10 other co-authors published a paper in the Lancet, a British Medical Journal, which showed a possible correlation between the MMR vaccine and resultant gastrointestinal dysfunction along with developmental delays and autism. Though the paper did not state a conclusive causal effect, it did state the need for further study into the possibility that the MMR shot was to blame. Wakefield went on to publicly bring attention to the possibility, criticizing the MMR shot and calling for separation of the three vaccines.

Read any pro-vaccine article that disputes the link between vaccinations and autism and chances are Andrew Wakefield and this fraudulent study will be mentioned. His offense wasn't so much being a vaccine separatist so much as him questioning the vaccine dogma. This also made him big pharma enemies.

Dr. Wakefield was accused of fraud, and subsequently lost his medical license. Dubbed the father of the anti-vaccine movement, Wakefield has been both revered and vilified, depending on which side of the argument uses his name. The bizarre thing is, he is not anti-vaccine. He is, however, a critic of the MMR vaccine and has publicly stated that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines should be given separately.
In 1999, I proposed that the MMR-autism risk may, in part, be a function of age of exposure: the younger you get the vaccine the greater the risk. Why? Because, the younger you get measles, the greater the risk of an adverse outcome. This idea was shared with the CDC. They tested the hypothesis in children in the Atlanta Metro area and they found it to be true. They found beyond a shadow of a doubt that two subgroups of children were at risk: children who were in effect developmentally normal to age 1 and black boys. They concealed this risk for 13 years and deceived everyone, putting millions of children at risk. In the words of Dr. William Thompson, the senior scientist responsible for this study, for the data analysis, and for disclosure of the fraud: I was involved in deceiving millions of tax payers regarding the potential negative side effects of vaccines. I have filed a formal complaint with the Office of Research Integrity detailing the fraud. It is provided for you to examine. The matter is currently under investigation by the US Congress with the prospect of hearings later this year. I did not turn my back when I heard parent after parent - in the dozens, in the hundreds, and then in the thousands - start to say that their children were fine, then they got vaccinated, and then something really bad happened to them acutely or within days, weeks, or even months. Those parents were told 100 percent of the time by the conventional medical system, 'It's a coincidence. It couldn't possibly be related to the vaccine. As a person who's curious about science and questioning, it became obvious to me that there may not be a coincidence here and that something more may be going on. The literature is pretty supportive of the fact that vaccines have much greater adverse outcomes on the genotype of the body, the immune system of the body, the brain of the body, and the intracellular functions of the body than we are willing to tell the public about.
Pro-vaccine advocates argue that there are thousands of studies that prove that vaccines are safe. Dr. Palevsky explains why those studies are flawed.
...in order for us to really delve into those studies, we have to look at who supported the studies. What was the study design? What were the control groups? How big was the actual number of kids or adults that was used in those studies? I think we will see that in most of those studies, the actual safety has never really been proven. One of the reasons that I think we can fairly say that is that the vaccine manufacturers and the conventional medical organizations have not done studies that compare vaccinated to unvaccinated children. In order for us to really know if children who were vaccinated are having an adverse effect from a vaccine, we have to use a placebo group that's given an injection of maybe normal saline to evaluate whether or not they developed the same symptoms that children who were vaccinated may develop after they're injected with the vaccine. Those studies are not done. They're not done because the conventional medical system says it's unethical to leave kids unvaccinated for any length of time. But, most of the vaccine safety studies that are being done last anywhere between one and four weeks anyway. The kids are followed within those one to four weeks. Then, they're not followed in a very detailed way to recognize whether any of their health outcomes could be related to the vaccine that they got one to four weeks ago. What ends up happening is they compare the incidence rates of these vaccine reactions or these symptoms that kids get after they're vaccinated to how often those symptoms are seen in the general population, to check and see if this vaccinated group is in any way getting an increased incidence of these symptoms than the general population would get. But the fact of the matter is that the general population is vaccinated, so they're comparing a vaccinated group with a vaccinated group.
Dr. Buchwald, M.D.
The decline in infectious diseases in developed countries had nothing to do with vaccinations, but with the decline in poverty and hunger.
Dr. Glen Dettman
It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpox with vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated.
Dr. Archie Kalokerinos, M.D.
Up to 90% of the total decline in the death rate of children between 1860-1965 because of whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and measles occurred before the introduction of immunizations and antibiotics.
Dr. Mendelsohn, M.D.
My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the United States each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given children. The pertussis vaccine is the most likely villain, but it could also be one or more of the others.
Peter Baratosy, M.D. PhD, Australia
I see many children in my practice. I see the difference between the immunized and the non-immunized. The non-vaccinated are much healthier and have less infections, colds, otis media, and tonsillitis.
John B.Classen, M.D., M.B.A.
My data proves that the studies used to support immunization are so flawed that it is impossible to say if immunization provides a net benefit to anyone or to society in general. This question can only be determined by proper studies, which have never been performed. The flaw of previous studies is that there was no long-term follow-up and chronic toxicity was not looked at. The American Society of Microbiology has promoted my research...and thus acknowledges the need for proper studies.
Raymond Obomsawin, PhD
Delay of DPT immunization until 2 years of age in Japan has resulted in a dramatic decline in adverse side effects. In the period of 1970-1974, when DPT vaccination was begun at 3 to 5 months of age, the Japanese national compensation system paid out claims for 57 permanent severe damage vaccine cases, and 37 deaths. During the ensuing six-year period 1975-1980, when DPT injections were delayed to 24 months of age, severe reactions from the vaccine were reduced to a total of eight with three deaths. This represents an 85 to 90 percent reduction in severe cases of damage and death.
Dr. Howard Weiner, Immunologist, Harvard Medical School
If a person has a tendency towards a disease, at a certain age, a vaccine might make him/her more susceptible later when other challenges come along.
Philip Incao, M.D. Testimony on the Hepatitis Vaccine, Ohio 3/1/99
A critical point, which is never mentioned by those advocating mass vaccination is that children's health has declined significantly since 1960 when vaccines began to be widely used. According to the National Health Interview Survey conducted annually...a shocking 31% of US children today have chronic health problems... In my medical career, I've treated vaccinated and unvaccinated children, and the unvaccinated were far healthier and more robust. Allergies, asthma, and behavioral and attention disturbances were clearly more common in my young patients who were vaccinated.
Mary N. Megson, M.D.
Autism may be a disorder linked to the disruption of the G-alpha protein, affecting retinoid receptors in the brain. A study of sixty autistic children suggests that autism may be caused by inserting a G-alpha protein defect, the pertussis toxin found in the D.P.T. vaccine, into genetically at-risk children.
Guylaine Lanctot M.D.
The medical authorities keep lying. Vaccination has been a disaster on the immune system. It actually causes a lot of illnesses. We are changing our genetic code through vaccination.
Dr. Kalokerinos, M.D.
It was similar with the measles vaccination. They went through Africa, South America and elsewhere, and vaccinated sick and starving children...They thought they were wiping out measles, but most of those susceptible to measles died from some other disease that they developed as a result of being vaccinated. The vaccination reduced their immune levels and acted like an infection. Many got septicaemia, gastro-enteritis, etcetera, or made their nutritional status worse and they died from malnutrition. So there were very few susceptible infants left alive to get measles. It's one way to get good statistics, kill all those that are susceptible, which is what they literally did.
Conclusion

The AMA has always been corrupt. Just look back at their old recommendations for smoking tobacco. The AMA has also been sued for maintaining an illegal boycott of chiropractors. Their expert advice has always been for sale to the highest bidder. The CDC is no different. Recently they've been outed for covering up the link between the MMR vaccine and autism in African American children. Their advisory board is filled with industry insiders promoting their own self-interest. The AAP seems to be working primarily for vaccine manufacturers.

There are two kinds of pro-vaccine experts; those who regurgitate pro-vaccine rhetoric and those who are getting paid by pharmaceutical industries. Most regulators are the second kind of expert. (We all know money talks, and big money yells). You cannot do all of the research and come to the conclusion that vaccines are safe. Those that do the research invariably reject all vaccines, or refuse many of them.

Want to read what more smart physicians have to say? Check out More Doctors Against Vaccines. And be sure to check out How To Detoxify From Vaccinations.

Further Reading:

Sources:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Doctors Against Vaccines - Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The general public shares a common misconception - that all doctors, or all "real doctors" support vaccination. Although it is true that the majority of doctors support vaccines, not all do. Most doctors blindly support the recommendations of the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

# data[].attributes.headline
CDC manipulated study data to show the Covid-19 Vaccines are safe for Pregnant Women when in reality 4 in 5 suffered a miscarriage

# data[].attributes.subject
CDC manipulated study data to show the Covid-19 Vaccines are safe for Pregnant Women when in reality 4 in 5 suffered a miscarriage

# data[].attributes.body
The link to the study is in this article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Data has been manipulated by scientists carrying out a real-world study for the CDC to show that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe for use during pregnancy, however an analysis of the actual findings shows that 4 out of 5 pregnant women vaccinated suffered a miscarriage.
The study entitled ' Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons', has beenpublished on the New England Journal of Medicine. From December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, data from the "v-safe after vaccination health checker" surveillance system, the v-safe pregnancy registry, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was used to characterise the initial safety of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines in pregnant persons.

The authors conclusion of the study is as follows -
'Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. However, more longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes.'
The authors of the study, which include the 'CDC v-safe COVID-19 Pregnancy Registry Team' were able to conclude this due to way they presented their findings which were as follows -
'Among 827 participants who had a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a live birth in 712 (86.1%), in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%), in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%), and in other outcomes (induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy) in 10 (1.2%).'
The authors of the study also made the following claim based on the above numbers -
Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against Covid-19 who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies involving pregnant women that were conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic.
However, when reading the small print of table 4, in which they claim just 104 / 12.6% of 827 completed pregnancies resulted in miscarriage (spontaneous abortion), we can see that the numbers they have presented are extremely misleading.

This is because of the 827 completed pregnancies, 700 / 86% of the women had received a dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna Covid-19 vaccine during the third trimester of pregnancy. The third trimester of pregnancy is from week 27 - 40, and it is therefore impossible to suffer a miscarriage due to the fact they are considered as occurring prior to week 20 of a pregnancy.

This means just 127 women received either the Pfizer or Moderna Covid-19 vaccine during the first / second trimester, with 104 of the woman sadly losing their baby.

Therefore the rate of incidence of miscarriage is 82%, not 12.6% as presented in the findings of the study.

It is impossible for anyone vaccinated during the third trimester to suffer a miscarriage in respect of the parameters set in the study. A pregnancy loss in this case would be considered a still birth, occurring after week 20 of pregnancy.

The authors of this study have manipulated the data to show that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe for use during pregnancy. The actual findings show that they are far from it. Their actions are now having dire consequences for women throughout the United Kingdom.

As of the 23rd June 2021 a total of 289 women have reported the loss of their baby due to the Covid-19 vaccines . However, the actual number could be eye-wateringly higher due to only 1% - 10% of adverse reactions being reported to the scheme.

153 reports of miscarriage, 1 report of a premature baby sadly dying, 5 reports of foetal death, and 4 reports of stillbirth have been reported as adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine.

113 reports of miscarriage, 1 report of foetal death, and 2 reports of stillbirth have been reported as adverse reactions to the AstraZeneca vaccine.

7 reports of miscarriage have been reported as adverse reactions to the recently emergency approved Moderna vaccine.

If this isn't a blatant crime against humanity, then we don't know what is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CDC manipulated study data to show the Covid-19 Vaccines are safe for Pregnant Women when in reality 4 in 5 suffered a miscarriage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Data has been manipulated by scientists carrying out a real-world study for the CDC to show that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe for use during pregnancy, however an analysis of the actual findings shows that 4 out of 5 pregnant women vaccinated suffered a miscarriage. The study entitled 'Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Seriously people-STOP BUYING MASKS!" So tweeted then-surgeon general Jerome Adams on February 29, 2020, adding, "They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus." Two days later, Adams said, "Folks who don't know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus." Less than a week earlier, on February 25, public-health authorities in the United Kingdom had published guidance that masks were unnecessary even for those providing community or residential care: "During normal day-to-day activities facemasks do not provide protection from respiratory viruses, such as COVID-19 and do not need to be worn by staff." About a month later, on March 30, World Health Organization (WHO) Health Emergencies Program executive director Mike Ryan said that "there is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any particular benefit." He added, "In fact there's some evidence to suggest the opposite" because of the possibility of not "wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly" and of "taking it off and all the other risks that are otherwise associated with that."

Surgical masks were designed to keep medical personnel from inadvertently infecting patients' wounds, not to prevent the spread of viruses. Public-health officials' advice in the early days of Covid-19 was consistent with that understanding. Then, on April 3, 2020, Adams announced that the CDC was changing its guidance and that the general public should hereafter wear masks whenever sufficient social distancing could not be maintained.

Fast-forward 15 months. Rand Paul has been suspended from YouTube for a week for saying, "Most of the masks you get over the counter don't work." Many cities across the country, following new CDC guidance handed down amid a spike in cases nationally caused by the Delta variant, are once again mandating indoor mask-wearing for everyone, regardless of inoculation status. The CDC further recommends that all schoolchildren and teachers, even those who have had Covid-19 or have been vaccinated, should wear masks.

The CDC asserts this even though its own statistics show that Covid-19 is not much of a threat to schoolchildren. Its numbers show that more people under the age of 18 died of influenza during the 2018-19 flu season-a season of "moderate severity" that lasted eight months-than have died of Covid-19 across more than 18 months. What's more, the CDC says that out of every 1,738 Covid-19-related deaths in the U.S. in 2020 and 2021, just one has involved someone under 18 years of age; and out of every 150 deaths of someone under 18 years of age, just one has been Covid-related. Yet the CDC declares that schoolchildren, who learn in part from communication conveyed through facial expressions, should nevertheless hide their faces-and so should their teachers.

How did mask guidance change so profoundly? Did the medical research on the effectiveness of masks change-and in a remarkably short period of time-or just the guidance on wearing them?

Since we are constantly told that the CDC and other public-health entities are basing their recommendations on science, it's crucial to know what, specifically, has been found in various medical studies. Significant choices about how our republic should function cannot be made on the basis of science alone-they require judgment and the weighing of countless considerations-but they must be informed by knowledge of it.

In truth, the CDC's, U.K.'s, and WHO's earlier guidance was much more consistent with the best medical research on masks' effectiveness in preventing the spread of viruses. That research suggests that Americans' many months of mask-wearing has likely provided little to no health benefit and might even have been counterproductive in preventing the spread of the novel coronavirus.

It's striking how much the CDC, in marshalling evidence to justify its revised mask guidance, studiously avoids mentioning randomized controlled trials. RCTs are uniformly regarded as the gold standard in medical research, yet the CDC basically ignores them apart from disparaging certain ones that particularly contradict the agency's position. In a " Science Brief " highlighting studies that "demonstrate that mask wearing reduces new infections" and serving as the main public justification for its mask guidance, the CDC provides a helpful matrix of 15 studies-none RCTs. The CDC instead focuses strictly on observational studies completed after Covid-19 began. In general, observational studies are not only of lower quality than RCTs but also are more likely to be politicized, as they can inject the researcher's judgment more prominently into the inquiry and lend themselves, far more than RCTs, to finding what one wants to find.

A particular favorite of the CDC's, so much so that the agency put out a glowing press release on it and continues to give it pride of placement in its brief, is an observational (specifically, cohort) study focused on two Covid-positive hairstylists at a beauty salon in Missouri. The two stylists, who were masked, provided services for 139 people, who were mostly masked, for several days after developing Covid-19 symptoms. The 67 customers who subsequently chose to get tested for the coronavirus tested negative, and none of the 72 others reported symptoms.

This study has major limitations. For starters, any number of the 72 untested customers could have had Covid-19 but been asymptomatic, or else had symptoms that they chose not to report to the Greene County Health Department, the entity doing the asking. The apparent lack of spread of Covid-19 could have been a result of good ventilation, good hand hygiene, minimal coughing by the stylists, or the fact that stylists generally, as the researchers note, "cut hair while clients are facing away from them." The researchers also observe that "viral shedding" of the coronavirus "is at its highest during the 2 to 3 days before symptom onset." Yet no customers who saw the stylists when they were at their most contagious were tested for Covid-19 or asked about symptoms. Most importantly, this study does not have a control group. Nobody has any idea how many people, if any, would have been infected had no masks been worn in the salon. Late last year, at a gym in Virginia in which people apparently did not wear masks most of the time, a trainer tested positive for the coronavirus. As CNN reported, the gym contacted everyone whom the trainer had coached before getting sick-50 members in all-"but not one member developed symptoms." Clearly, this doesn't prove that not wearing masks prevents transmission.

Another CDC-highlighted study, by Rader et al., invited people across the country to answer a survey. The low (11 percent) response rate-including about twice as many women as men-indicated that the mix of respondents was hardly random. The study found that "a high percentage of self-reported face mask-wearing is associated with a higher probability of transmission control," and "the highest percentage of reported mask wearers" are found, unsurprisingly, "along the coasts and southern border, and in large urban areas." However, as the researchers note, "It is difficult to disentangle individuals' engagement in mask-wearing from their adoption of other preventive hygiene practices, and mask-wearing might serve as a proxy for other risk avoidance behaviors not queried." Moreover, achieving greater "transmission control" is not remotely the same thing as ensuring fewer deaths. For example, per capita, Utah is in the top ten in the nation in Covid-19 cases and the bottom ten in Covid-19 deaths, while Massachusetts is in the bottom half in cases and the top five in deaths.

An additional observational study, but one that the CDC does not reference in its brief, is a large, international Bayesian study by Leech, et al. It finds that mask-wearing by 100 percent of the population "corresponds to" a 24.6 percent reduction in transmission of the novel coronavirus. Mask mandates correspond to no decrease in transmission: "For mandates we see no reduction: 0.0 percent." Like all observational studies, however, this study is ill-equipped to show causation, to separate out the effects of just one variable from among other, frequently related, ones.

Mask supporters often claim that we have no choice but to rely on observational studies instead of RCTs, because RCTs cannot tell us whether masks work or not. But what they really mean is that they don't like what the RCTs show.

The randomized controlled trial dates, in a sense, to 1747, when Royal Navy surgeon James Lind divided seamen suffering from similar cases of scurvy into six pairs and tried different methods of treatment on each. Lind writes, "The consequence was, that the most sudden and visible good effects were perceived from the use of oranges and lemons."

The RCT eventually became firmly established as the most reliable way to test medical interventions. The following passage, from Abdelhamid Attia, an M.D. and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Cairo University in Egypt, conveys its dominance:

The importance of RCTs for clinical practice can be illustrated by its impact on the shift of practice in hormone replacement therapy (HRT). For decades HRT was considered the standard care for all postmenopausal, symptomatic and asymptomatic women. Evidence for the effectiveness of HRT relied always on observational studies[,] mostly cohort studies. But a single RCT that was published in 2002 . . . has changed clinical practice all over the world from the liberal use of HRT to the conservative use in selected symptomatic cases and for the shortest period of time. In other words, one well conducted RCT has changed the practice that relied on tens, and probably hundreds, of observational studies for decades.

A randomized controlled trial divides participants into different groups on a randomized basis. At least one group receives an "intervention," or treatment, that is generally tested against a control group not receiving the intervention. The twofold strength of an RCT is that it allows researchers to isolate one variable-to test whether a given intervention causes an intended effect-while at the same time making it very hard for researchers to produce their own preferred outcomes.

This is true at least so long as an RCT's findings are based on "intention-to-treat" analysis, whereby all participants are kept in the treatment group to which they were originally assigned and none are excluded from the analysis, regardless of whether they actually received the intended treatment. Eric McCoy, an M.D. at the University of California, Irvine, explains that intention-to-treat analysis avoids bias and "preserves the benefits of randomization, which cannot be assumed when using other methods of analysis."

Such other methods of analysis include subgroup, multivariable, and per-protocol analysis. Subgroup analysis is susceptible to "cherry-picking"-as researchers hunt for anything showing statistical significance-or to being swayed by random chance. In one famous example, aspirin was found to help prevent fatal heart attacks, but not in the subgroups where patients' astrological signs were Gemini or Libra.

"Multivariable analysis," writes Marlies Wakkee, an M.D. and Ph.D. at Erasmus University Medical Center in the Netherlands, "only adjusts for measured confounding"-that which a researcher decides is worth examining. (Confounders are extra variables that affect the analysis; for example, eating ice cream may be found to correlate with sunburns, but heat is a confounding variable influencing both.) She adds, "This is a significant difference compared to randomized controlled trials, where the randomization process results in an equal distribution of all potential confounders, known and unknown."

Per-protocol analysis departs from randomization by basically allowing participants to self-select into, or out of, an intervention group. McCoy writes, "Empirical evidence suggests that participants who adhere [to research protocols] tend to do better than those who do not adhere, regardless of assignment to active treatment or placebo." In other words, per-protocol analysis is more likely to suggest that an intervention, even a fake one, worked. Of these three departures from intention-to-treat analysis, per-protocol analysis is perhaps the most extreme.

With these different methods of analysis in mind, it becomes easier to evaluate the 14 RCTs, conducted around the world, that have tested the effectiveness of masks in reducing the transmission of respiratory viruses. Of these 14, the two that have directly tested "source control"-the oft-repeated claim that wearing a mask benefits others-are a good place to start.

A 2016 study in Beijing by MacIntyre, et al. that claimed to find a possible benefit of masks did not prove very informative, as only one person in the control group-and one in the mask group-developed a laboratory-confirmed infection. Much more illuminating was a 2010 study in France by Canini, et al., which randomly placed sick people, or "index patients," and their household contacts together into either a mask group or a no-mask control group. The authors "observed a good adherence to the intervention," meaning that the index patients generally wore the furnished three-ply masks as intended. (No one else was asked to wear them.) Within a week, 15.8 percent of household contacts in the no-mask control group and 16.2 percent in the mask group developed an "influenza-like illness" (ILI). So, the two groups were essentially dead even, with the sliver of an advantage observed in the control group not being statistically significant. The authors write that the study "should be interpreted with caution since the lack of statistical power prevents us to draw formal conclusion regarding effectiveness of facemasks in the context of a seasonal epidemic." However, they state unequivocally, "In various sensitivity analyses, we did not identify any trend in the results suggesting effectiveness of facemasks."

With the two RCTs that directly tested source control providing essentially no support for the claim that wearing a mask benefits others, what about RCTs that test the combination of source control and wearer protection? By dividing participants into a hand-hygiene group, a hand-hygiene group that also wore masks, and a control group, three RCTs allow us to see whether the addition of masks (worn both by the sick person and others) provided any benefit over hand hygiene alone.

A 2010 study by Larson, et al. in New York found that those in the hand-hygiene group were less likely to develop any symptoms of an upper respiratory infection (42 percent experienced symptoms) than those in the mask-plus-hand-hygiene group (61 percent). This statistically significant finding suggests that wearing a mask actually undermines the benefits of hand hygiene.

A multivariable analysis of this same study found a significant difference in secondary attack rates (the rate of transmission to others) between the mask-plus-hands group and the control group. On this basis, the authors maintain that mask-wearing "should be encouraged during outbreak situations." However, this multivariable analysis also found significantly lower rates in crowded homes-"i.e., more crowded households had less transmission"-which tested at a higher confidence level. Thus, to the extent that this multivariable analysis provided any support for masks, it provided at least as much support for crowding.

Two other studies found no statistically significant differences between their mask-plus-hands and hands-only groups. A 2011 study in Bangkok by Simmerman, et al. observed very similar results for both groups. A CDC-funded 2009 study in Hong Kong by Cowling, et al. observed that the hands-only group generally did better than the mask-plus-hands group, but not to a statistically significant degree. Subgroup analysis by Cowling, et al., limited to interventions started within 36 hours of the onset of symptoms, found that the mask-plus-hands group beat the control group to a statistically significant degree in one measure, while the hands-only group beat the control group to a statistically significant degree in two measures. Summarizing this study, Canini writes that "no additional benefit was observed when facemask [use] was added to hand hygiene by comparison with hand hygiene alone."

So, if masks don't improve on hand hygiene alone, what about masks versus nothing?

Various RCTs have studied this question, with evidence of masks' effectiveness proving sparse at best. Aside from a 2009 study in Japan by Jacobs, et al.-which found that those in the mask group were significantly more likely to experience headaches and that "face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit"-only two RCTs have produced statistically significant findings in intention-to-treat analysis, and one of those studies contradicted itself.

The previously mentioned 2011 study in Bangkok by Simmerman, et al. found that the secondary attack rate of ILI was twice as high in the mask-plus-hand-hygiene group (18 percent) as in the control group (9 percent), a statistically significant difference. (The ILI rate was 17 percent in the hand-hygiene-only group.) Finding essentially the same thing in multivariable analysis, the researchers wrote that, relative to the control group, the odds ratios for both the mask-plus-hands group and the hands-only group "were twofold in the opposite direction from the hypothesized protective effect."

Subsequently, a small 2014 study -with 164 participants-by Barasheed, et al. of Australian pilgrims in Saudi Arabia, staying in close quarters in tents, found that significantly fewer people in the mask group developed an ILI than in the control group (31 percent to 53 percent). Unlike the exact fever specifications utilized in other RCTs, however, this study accepted self-reporting of "subjective" fever in determining whether someone had an ILI. Lab tests revealed opposite results, with twice as many participants having developed respiratory viruses in the mask group as in the control group. These lab-test findings were not statistically significant; still, the lab tests' greater reliability makes it far from clear that the masks in this study provided any genuine benefit.

Other RCTs found no statistically significant benefit from masks in intention-to-treat analysis. A 2008 pilot study by Cowling et al. in Hong Kong observed that secondary attack rates, using the CDC's definition of ILI, were twice as high in the mask group (8 percent) as in the hand hygiene (4 percent) or control (4 percent) groups, but these observed differences were not statistically significant.

Other methods of analysis, deviating from intention-to-treat analysis, found the following.

A per-protocol analysis of a 2009 study in Sydney by MacIntyre, et al. found a significant effect when combining the surgical-mask group with a group wearing N95 hospital respirators. However, the authors write, a "causal link cannot be demonstrated because adherence was not randomized."

In subgroup analysis of 2010 and 2012 studies in Michigan by Aiello, et al., limited to the final several weeks of the respective studies, each study's mask-plus-hands group had significantly lower rates of ILI than its control group, while its mask-only group did not. In 2010, the results for the mask-only group also hinted at a slight benefit, reducing ILI by an observed (but not statistically significant) 8 percent to 10 percent. In 2012, the authors concluded, "Masks alone did not provide a benefit." They nevertheless recommended the combination of mask use and hand hygiene, despite not having tested whether that combination works better than hand hygiene alone.

A multivariable analysis of a smallish (218 participants) 2012 study in Germany by Suess, et al. found that combining the mask group and mask-plus-hands group, while limiting analysis to interventions begun within 48 hours, produced a finding of significantly lower levels of lab-confirmed influenza (but not of ILI) in that combined group (but not in either group separately). The authors, from Berlin, recommended masking and hand hygiene, while opining, "Concerns about acceptability and tolerability of the interventions should not be a reason against their recommendation."

The only RCT to test mask-wearing's specific effectiveness against Covid-19 was a 2020 study by Bundgaard, et al. in Denmark. This large (4,862 participants) RCT divided people between a mask-wearing group (providing "high-quality" three-layer surgical masks) and a control group. It took place at a time (spring 2020) when Denmark was encouraging social distancing but not mask use, and 93 percent of those in the mask group wore the masks at least "predominately as recommended." The study found that 1.8 percent of those in the mask group and 2.1 percent of those in the control group became infected with Covid-19 within a month, with this 0.3-point difference not being statistically significant.

This study-the first RCT on Covid-19 transmission-apparently had difficulty getting published. After the study's eventual publication, Vinay Prasad, an M.D. at the University of California, San Francisco, described it as "thoughtful," "useful," and "well done," but noted (with criticism), "Some have turned to social media to ask why a trial that may diminish enthusiasm for masks and may be misinterpreted was published in a top medical journal."

Meanwhile, the CDC website portrays the Danish RCT (with its 4,800 participants) as being far less relevant or important than the observational study of Missouri hairdressers with no control group, dismissing the former as "inconclusive" and "too small" while praising the latter, amazingly, as "showing that wearing a mask prevented the spread of infection"-when it showed nothing of the sort.

Each of the RCTs discussed so far, 13 in all, examined the effectiveness of surgical masks, finding little to no evidence of their effectiveness and some evidence that they might actually increase viral transmission. None of these 13 RCTs examined the effectiveness of cloth masks. "Cloth face coverings," according to former CDC director Robert Redfield, "are one of the most powerful weapons we have."

One RCT tested these masks that so many high-profile public-health officials have touted. This "first RCT of cloth masks," in the trial's own words (it is apparently still the only one), was a 2015 study by MacIntyre, et al. in Hanoi, Vietnam. A relatively large study, with over 1,100 participants, it tested cloth masks against surgical masks and did not feature a no-mask control group. The trial tested the protection of health-care workers, instructing them to wear a two-layer cloth mask at all times on every shift ("except in the toilet or during tea or lunch breaks") across four weeks.

The study found that those in the cloth-mask group were 13 times more likely (2.28 percent to 0.17 percent) to develop an influenza-like illness than those in the surgical-mask group-a statistically significant difference. The trial also lab-tested penetration rates and found that while surgical masks were "poor" at preventing the penetration of particles-letting 44 percent through-cloth masks were "extremely poor," letting 97 percent through. (N95 hospital respirators let 0.1 percent through.)

The authors write that wearing a cloth mask "may potentially increase the infection risk" for health-care workers. "The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks," they explain, while "a contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer," which could lead to hand hygiene being "compromised." As for double-masking, the authors write, "Observations during SARS suggested double-masking . . . increased the risk of infection because of moisture, liquid diffusion and pathogen retention." Absent further research, they conclude, "cloth masks should not be recommended."

MacIntyre and several other authors of this study, perhaps under pressure from the CDC or other entities with similar agendas, released what the CDC calls a "follow up study," in September 2020. This follow-up isn't really a study at all, certainly not a new RCT, yet the CDC cites it favorably while disparaging the original study, which, the CDC asserts, "had a number of limitations." This 2020 follow-up pretty much amounts to publishing the finding that when hospitals washed the cloth masks, health-care workers were only about half as likely to get infected as when they washed the cloth masks themselves. Still, the 2020 publication says, "We do not recommend cloth masks for health workers," much as the 2015 one said.

Other reviews of the evidence have been mixed but generally have come to similar conclusions. Certain masking advocates admit that the RCT evidence is "inconclusive" but cite other forms of evidence that have held up poorly. A study for Cochrane Reviews by Jefferson, et al. that examines 13 of the 14 RCTs discussed herein (all but the Denmark Covid-19 study) notes "uncertainty about the effects of face masks" and writes that "the pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza." Meantime, a study by Perski, et al., which performed a Bayesian analysis on 11 of the 14 RCTs discussed herein, concluded that when it comes to "the benefits or harms of wearing face masks . . . the scientific evidence should be considered equivocal." They write, "Available evidence from RCTs is equivocal as to whether or not wearing face masks in community settings results in a reduction in clinically- or laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections."

In sum, of the 14 RCTs that have tested the effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, three suggest, but do not provide any statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis, that masks might be useful. The other eleven suggest that masks are either useless-whether compared with no masks or because they appear not to add to good hand hygiene alone-or actually counterproductive. Of the three studies that provided statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis that was not contradicted within the same study, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than hand hygiene alone, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than nothing, and one found that cloth masks were less effective than surgical masks.

Hiram Powers, the nineteenth-century neoclassical sculptor, keenly observed, "The eye is the window to the soul, the mouth the door. The intellect, the will, are seen in the eye; the emotions, sensibilities, and affections, in the mouth." The best available scientific evidence suggests that the American people, credulously trusting their public-health officials, have been blocking the door to the soul without blocking the transmission of the novel coronavirus.
Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Seriously people-STOP BUYING MASKS!" So tweeted then-surgeon general Jerome Adams on February 29, 2020, adding, "They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus." Two days later, Adams said, "Folks who don't know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I cannot predict how this article will be censored, so please join my email list below to receive my articles and to be notified when I write a new article.
To receive future articles, please join my email list below:

Success! You're on the list.

Will a vaccine to SARS-CoV-2 actually make the problem worse? Although not a certainty, all of the current data says that this prospect is a real possibility that needs to be paid careful attention to. If you stay with me, I'll explain why.

First, let's set aside the debate surrounding the topic of whether vaccines work and the negative health consequences due to the components of the vaccine. No matter where you stand on the vaccine issue, I'm not asking anyone to capitulate on this point. I'm just asking that this issue be set aside, because in this instance this argument is completely irrelevant. Even without bringing any other issue into the vaccine debate, a coronavirus vaccine is a highly dangerous undertaking due to a peculiar trojan horse mechanism known as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). Regardless of someone's conviction about vaccines, this point needs to be acknowledged. In the remaining portion of this article, I'm going to explain how ADE works and the future perils it may bring.

For a vaccine to work, our immune system needs to be stimulated to produce a neutralizing antibody, as opposed to a non-neutralizing antibody. A neutralizing antibody is one that can recognize and bind to some region ('epitope') of the virus, and that subsequently results in the virus either not entering or replicating in your cells.

A non-neutralizing antibody is one that can bind to the virus, but for some reason, the antibody fails to neutralize the infectivity of the virus. This can occur, for example, if the antibody doesn't bind tightly enough to the virus, or the percentage of the surface area of the virus covered by the antibody is too low, or the concentration of the antibody is not high enough. Basically, there is some type of generic binding of the antibody to the virus, but it fails to neutralize the virus.

In some viruses, if a person harbors a non-neutralizing antibody to the virus, a subsequent infection by the virus can cause that person to elicit a more severe reaction to the virus due to the presence of the non-neutralizing antibody. This is not true for all viruses, only particular ones. This is called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), and is a common problem with Dengue Virus, Ebola Virus, HIV, RSV, and the family of coronaviruses. In fact, this problem of ADE is a major reason why many previous vaccine trials for other coronaviruses failed. Major safety concerns were observed in animal models. If ADE occurs in an individual, their response to the virus can be worse than their response if they had never developed an antibody in the first place.

An antibody can be rendered a non-neutralizing antibody simply because it doesn't bind to the right portion of the virus to neutralize it, or the antibody binds too weakly to the virus. This can also occur if a neutralizing antibody's concentration falls over time and is now no longer of sufficient concentration to cause neutralization of the virus. In addition, a neutralizing antibody can subsequently transition to non-neutralizing antibody when encountering a different strain of the virus.

What does ADE entail? The exact mechanism of ADE in SARS is not known, but the leading theory is described as follows: In certain viruses, the binding of a non-neutralizing antibody to the virus can direct the virus to enter and infect your immune cells. This occurs through a receptor called FcγRII. FcγRII is expressed on the outside of many tissues of our body, and in particular, in monocyte derived macrophages, which are a type of white blood cell. In other words, the presence of the non-neutralizing antibody now directs the virus to infect cells of your immune system, and these viruses are then able to replicate in these cells and wreak havoc on your immune response. One end of the antibody grabs onto the virus, and the other end of the antibody grabs onto an immune cell. Essentially, the non-neutralizing antibody enables the virus to hitch a ride to infect immune cells. You can see this in the picture above.

This can cause a hyperinflammatory response, a cytokine storm, and a generally dysregulation of the immune system that allows the virus to cause more damage to our lungs and other organs of our body. In addition, new cell types throughout our body are now susceptible to viral infection due to the additional viral entry pathway facilitated by the FcγRII receptor, which is expressed on many different cell types.

What this means is that you can be given a vaccine, which causes your immune system to produce an antibody to the vaccine, and then when your body is actually challenged with the real pathogen, the infection is much worse than if you had not been vaccinated.

Again, this is not seen in all viruses, or even in all strains of a given virus, and there is a great deal that scientists don't understand about the complete set of factors that dictate when and if ADE may occur. It's quite likely that genetic factors as well as the health status of the individual may play a role on modulating this response. That being said, there are many studies (in the reference section below) that demonstrate that ADE is a persistent problem with coronaviruses in general, and in particular, with SARS-related viruses. Less is known, of course, with respect to SARS-CoV-2, but the genetic and structural similarities between the SARS-CoV-2 and the other coronaviruses strongly suggests that this risk is real.

ADE has proven to be a serious challenge with coronavirus vaccines, and this is the primary reason many have failed in early in-vitro or animal trials. For example, rhesus macaques who were vaccinated with the Spike protein of the SARS-CoV virus demonstrated severe acute lung injury when challenged with SARS-CoV, while monkeys who were not vaccinated did not. Similarly, mice who were immunized with one of four different SARS-CoV vaccines showed histopathological changes in the lungs with eosinophil infiltration after being challenged with SARS-CoV virus. This did not occur in the controls that had not been vaccinated. A similar problem occurred in the development of a vaccine for FIPV, which is a feline coronavirus.

For a vaccine to work, vaccine developers will need to find a way to circumvent the ADE problem. This will require a very novel solution, and it may not be achievable, or at the very least, predictable. In addition, the vaccine must not induce ADE in subsequent strains of SARS-CoV-2 that emerge over time, or to other endemic coronaviruses that circulate every year and cause the common cold.

A major trigger for ADE is viral mutation. Changes to the amino acid sequence of the Spike Protein (which is the protein on the virus that facilitates entry into our cells via the ACE2 receptor) can cause antigenic drift. What this means is that an antibody that was once neutralizing can become a non-neutralizing antibody because the antigen has slightly changed. Therefore, mutations in the Spike protein that naturally occur with coronaviruses could presumably result in ADE. Since these future strains are not predictable, it is impossible to predict if ADE will become a problem at a future date.

This inherent unpredictability problem is highlighted in the following scenario: A coronavirus vaccine may not be dangerous initially. If the initial testing looks positive, mass vaccination efforts would presumably be administered to a large portion of the population. In the first year or two, it may appear that there is no real safety issue, and over time, a greater percentage of the world population will be vaccinated due to this perceived "safety". During this interim period, the virus is busy mutating. Eventually, the antibodies that vaccinated individuals have floating around in their bloodstream are now rendered non-neutralizing because they fail to bind to the virus with the same affinity due to the structural change resulting from the mutation. Declining concentrations of the antibody over time would also contribute to this shift towards non-neutralization. When these previously vaccinate people are infected with this different strain of SARS-CoV-2, they could experience a much more severe reaction to the virus.

Ironically, in this scenario, this vaccine made the virus more pathogenic rather than less pathogenic. This is not something that vaccine producers would be able predict or test for with any level of real confidence at the outset, and it would only become evident at a later time.

If and when this does occur, who will be liable?

Does this vaccine industry know about this problem? The answer is yes, they do.

Quoting a Nature Biotechnology news article published on June 5 th, 2020:

""It's important to talk about it [ADE]," says Gregory Glenn, president of R&D at Novavax, which launched its COVID-19 vaccine trial in May. But "we can't be overly cautious. People are dying. So we need to be aggressive here.""

And from the same article:

"ADE "is a genuine concern," says virologist Kevin Gilligan, a senior consultant with Biologics Consulting, who advises thorough safety studies. "Because if the gun is jumped, and a vaccine is widely distributed that is disease enhancing, that would be worse than actually not doing any vaccination at all.""

The vaccine industry is aware of this problem. The degree to which they are taking it seriously, is another question.

While many vaccine developers are aware of the problem, some of them are approaching the problem with more Laissez-faire attitude. They see this problem as "theoretical," and not guaranteed, with the idea that animal trials should rule out the potential of ADE in humans.

As a side note, it is not ethical to conduct "challenge" studies in humans. However, challenge studies are conducted in animals. In other words, a clinical trial for a vaccine does not include administering the vaccine to a person, and then exposing this person to the virus post-vaccination to monitor their reaction. In clinical trials, humans are only given the vaccine, they are not "challenged" with the virus afterward. In animal studies, they do conduct a challenge test to observe how the animals respond to being infected with the actual virus after being vaccinated.

Will conducting animal studies solve the issue and remove the risk?

Not at all.

Anne De Groot, CEO of EpiVax argues that testing for vaccine safety in primates does not guarantee safety in humans, mainly because primates express different major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules, which alters epitope presentation and the immune response. Animals and humans are similar, but they are also very different. In addition, as pointed out above, the development of different viral strains in subsequent years could present a major problem not noticeable during the initial safety trials in either humans or animals.

What about unvaccinated people who are naturally infected with the virus and develop antibodies? Could these people experience ADE to a future strain of SARS-CoV-2?

The ADE response is actually much more complicated than the picture I outlined above. There are other competing and non-competing factors in our immune system that contribute to the ADE response, many of which are not fully understood. Part of that equation is a variety of different types of T-cells that modulate this response, and these T-Cells respond to other portions (epitopes) of the virus. In a vaccine, our body is normally presented with a small part of the virus (like the Spike protein), or a modified (attenuated or dead) virus which is more benign. A vaccine does not expose the entirety of our immune system to the actual virus.

These types of vaccines will only elicit antibodies that recognize the portion of the virus which is present in the vaccine. The other portions of the virus are not represented in the antibody pool. In this scenario, it is much more likely that the vaccine-induced antibodies can be rendered as non-neutralizing antibodies, because the entire virus is not coated in antibodies, only the portion that was used to develop the vaccine.

In a real infection, our immune system is exposed to every nook and cranny of the entire virus, and as such, our immune system develops a panacea of antibodies that recognize different portions of the virus and, therefore, coat more of the virus and neutralize it. In addition, our immune system develops T-Cell responses to hundreds of different peptide epitopes across the virus; whereas in the vaccine the plethora of these T-Cell responses are absent. Researchers are already aware that the T-Cell response plays a cooperative role in either the development of, or absence of, the ADE response.

Based on these differences and the skewed immunological response which is inherent with vaccines, I believe that the risk of ADE is an order of magnitude greater in a vaccine-primed immune system rather than a virus-primed immune system. This will certainly become more apparent as COVID-19 progresses over the years, but the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the vaccine industry to demonstrate that ADE will not rear its ugly head in the near term or the far term. Once a vaccine is administered and people develop antibodies to some misrepresentation of the virus, it cannot be reversed. Again, this is a problem that could manifest itself at a later date.

Although this article focused on the problem of ADE, it is not the only pathway or mechanism that could present a problem for people being infected after vaccination. Another pathway is governed by Th2 immunopathology, in which a defective T-cell response initiates an allergic inflammation reaction. A second pathway is based on the development of faulty antibodies that form immune complexes, which then activate the complement system a consequently damage the airways. These pathways are also potential risks for SARS-CoV-2.

Right now, the fatality rate of the virus is estimated to be approximately 0.26%, and this number seems to be dropping as the virus is naturally attenuating itself through the population. It would be a great shame to vaccinate the entire population against a virus with this low of a fatality rate, especially considering the considerable risk presented by ADE. I believe this risk of developing ADE in a vaccinated individual will be much greater than 0.26%, and, therefore, the vaccine stands to make the problem worse, not better. It would be the biggest blunder of the century to see the fatality rate of this virus increase in the years to come because of our sloppy, haphazard, rushed efforts to develop a vaccine with such a low threshold of safety testing and the prospect of ADE lurking in the shadows. I would hope (and this is a big hope), that this vaccine WILL NOT BE MANDATORY.

Hopefully, you now know a little more about the topic of Antibody Dependent Enhancement, and the real, unpredictable dangers of a coronavirus vaccine. In the end, your health should be your decision, not some bureaucrat's that doesn't know the first thing about molecular biology.

(New Post: What if God left behind a message in the laws of nature that reveals his identity? -> CLICK HERE TO READ )
TO WATCH "CLEARING UP THE COVID CONFUSION" WITH DR. CORRIGAN-> CLICK HERE) I cannot predict how this article will be censored, so please join my email list below to receive my articles and to be notified when I write a new article.
To receive future articles, please join my email list below:

Success! You're on the list.
REFERENCES
Garber K. Coronavirus vaccine developers wary of errant antibodies. Nature Biotechnology. 2020 Jun 5.

Wan, Yushun, et al. "Molecular mechanism for antibody-dependent enhancement of coronavirus entry." Journal of virology 94.5 (2020)

Yang, Zhi-yong, et al. "Evasion of antibody neutralization in emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102.3 (2005): 797-801.

Ulrich, Henning, Micheli M. Pillat, and Attila Tárnok. "Dengue Fever, COVID‐19 (SARS‐CoV‐2), and Antibody‐Dependent Enhancement (ADE): A Perspective." Cytometry Part A (2020).

Wang, Sheng-Fan, et al. "Antibody-dependent SARS coronavirus infection is mediated by antibodies against spike proteins." Biochemical and biophysical research communications 451.2 (2014): 208-214.

Tseng C Te, Sbrana E, Iwata-Yoshikawa N, Newman PC, Garron T, Atmar RL, et al. Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus. PLoS ONE. (2012) 7:35421.

Tetro, Jason A. "Is COVID-19 receiving ADE from other coronaviruses?." Microbes and infection 22.2 (2020): 72-73

Hohdatsu, Tsutomu, et al. "Antibody-dependent enhancement of feline infectious peritonitis virus infection in feline alveolar macrophages and human monocyte cell line U937 by serum of cats experimentally or naturally infected with feline coronavirus." Journal of veterinary medical science 60.1 (1998): 49-55.

Leung, Hiu-lan, Nancy. Mechanism of antibody-dependent enhancement in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection (Thesis). The University of Hong Kong Libraries.

Yip, M. S., et al. "Antibody-dependent enhancement of SARS coronavirus infection and its role in the pathogenesis of SARS." Hong Kong Med J 22.3 Suppl 4 (2016): 25-31.

Yip, Ming Shum, et al. "Antibody-dependent infection of human macrophages by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus." Virology journal 11.1 (2014): 1-11.

Corapi, WAYNE V., C. W. Olsen, and FREDRIC W. Scott. "Monoclonal antibody analysis of neutralization and antibody-dependent enhancement of feline infectious peritonitis virus." Journal of virology 66.11 (1992): 6695-6705.

Takano, Tomomi, et al. "Antibody-dependent enhancement of serotype II feline enteric coronavirus infection in primary feline monocytes." Archives of virology 162.11 (2017): 3339-3345.

Yip, Ming S., et al. "Investigation of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) of SARS coronavirus infection and its role in pathogenesis of SARS." BMC Proceedings. Vol. 5. No. S1. BioMed Central, 2011.

Fierz, Walter, and Brigitte Walz. "Antibody dependent enhancement due to original antigenic sin and the development of SARS." Frontiers in immunology 11 (2020).

Ricke, Darrell, and Robert W. Malone. "Medical countermeasures analysis of 2019-nCoV and vaccine risks for antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE)." Available at SSRN 3546070 (2020).

Jaume, Martial, et al. "Anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus spike antibodies trigger infection of human immune cells via a pH-and cysteine protease-independent FcγR pathway." Journal of virology 85.20 (2011): 10582-10597.

Peron, Jean Pierre Schatzmann, and Helder Nakaya. "Susceptibility of the Elderly to SARS-CoV-2 Infection: ACE-2 Overexpression, Shedding, and Antibody-dependent Enhancement (ADE)." Clinics 75 (2020).

Yong, Chean Yeah, et al. "Recent advances in the vaccine development against Middle East respiratory syndrome-coronavirus." Frontiers in microbiology 10 (2019): 1781.

Wang, Qidi, et al. "Immunodominant SARS coronavirus epitopes in humans elicited both enhancing and neutralizing effects on infection in non-human primates." ACS infectious diseases 2.5 (2016): 361-376.

Olsen, CHRISTOPHER W., et al. "Monoclonal antibodies to the spike protein of feline infectious peritonitis virus mediate antibody-dependent enhancement of infection of feline macrophages." Journal of virology 66.2 (1992): 956-965.

Hotez, Peter J., Maria Elena Bottazzi, and David B. Corry. "The potential role of TH17 immune responses in coronavirus immunopathology and vaccine-induced immune enhancement." (2020).

Morens DM. Antibody-dependent enhancement of infection and the pathogenesis of viral disease. Clin Infect Dis. (1994) 19:500-12

Liu L, Wei Q, Lin Q, Fang J, Wang H, Kwok H, Tang H, Nishiura K, Peng J, Tan Z, et al. Anti‐spike IgG causes severe acute lung injury by skewing macrophage responses during acute SARS‐CoV infection. JCI Insight.2019;4(4):e123158.

de Alwis R, Chen S, Gan ES, Ooi EE. Impact of immune enhancement on Covid‐19 polyclonal hyperimmune globulin therapy and vaccine development. EBioMedicine2020;55:102768.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is a Coronavirus Vaccine a Ticking Time Bomb?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I cannot predict how this article will be censored, so please join my email list below to receive my articles and to be notified when I write a new article. Success! You're on the list. Will a vaccine to SARS-CoV-2 actually make the problem worse?

# data[].attributes.headline
A comprehensive list of vaccine research  

# data[].attributes.subject
A comprehensive list of vaccine research  

# data[].attributes.body
Doctors who explain clearly why vaccines aren't safe or effective. NOTE: most, if not all, of these links have been censored by Big Tech. But I will leave this here so you can look up the doctors independently.

1. Dr. Nancy Banks - http://bit.ly/1Ip0aIm
2. Dr. Russell Blaylock - http://bit.ly/1BXxQZL
3. Dr. Shiv Chopra - http://bit.ly/1gdgh1s
4. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny - http://bit.ly/1MPVbjx
5. Dr. Suzanne Humphries - http://bit.ly/17sKDbf
6. Dr. Larry Palevsky - http://bit.ly/1LLEjf6
7. Dr. Toni Bark - http://bit.ly/1CYM9RB
8. Dr. Andrew Wakefield - http://bit.ly/1MuyNzo
9. Dr. Meryl Nass - http://bit.ly/1DGzJsc
10. Dr. Raymond Obomsawin - http://bit.ly/1G9ZXYl
11. Dr. Ghislaine Lanctot - http://bit.ly/1MrVeUL
12. Dr. Robert Rowen - http://bit.ly/1SIELeF
13. Dr. David Ayoub - http://bit.ly/1SIELve
14. Dr. Boyd Haley PhD - http://bit.ly/1KsdVby
15. Dr. Rashid Buttar - http://bit.ly/1gWOkL6
16. Dr. Roby Mitchell - http://bit.ly/1gdgEZU
17. Dr. Ken Stoller - http://bit.ly/1MPVqLI
18. Dr. Mayer Eisenstein - http://bit.ly/1LLEqHH
19. Dr. Frank Engley, PhD - http://bit.ly/1OHbLDI
20. Dr. David Davis - http://bit.ly/1gdgJwo
21. Dr Tetyana Obukhanych - http://bit.ly/16Z7k6J
22. Dr. Harold E Buttram - http://bit.ly/1Kru6Df
23. Dr. Kelly Brogan - http://bit.ly/1D31pfQ
24. Dr. RC Tent - http://bit.ly/1MPVwmu
25. Dr. Rebecca Carley - http://bit.ly/K49F4d
26. Dr. Andrew Moulden - http://bit.ly/1fwzKJu
27. Dr. Jack Wolfson - http://bit.ly/1wtPHRA
28. Dr. Michael Elice - http://bit.ly/1KsdpKA
29. Dr. Terry Wahls - http://bit.ly/1gWOBhd
30. Dr. Stephanie Seneff - http://bit.ly/1OtWxAY
31. Dr. Paul Thomas - http://bit.ly/1DpeXPf
32. Many doctors talking at once - http://bit.ly/1MPVHOv
33. Dr. Richard Moskowitz - censored
34. Dr. Jane Orient - http://bit.ly/1MXX7pb
35. Dr. Richard Deth - http://bit.ly/1GQDL10
36. Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic - http://bit.ly/1eqiPr5
37. Dr Chris Shaw - http://bit.ly/1IlGiBp
38. Dr. Susan McCreadie - http://bit.ly/1CqqN83
39. Dr. Mary Ann Block - http://bit.ly/1OHcyUX
40. Dr. David Brownstein - http://bit.ly/1EaHl9A
41. Dr. Jayne Donegan - http://bit.ly/1wOk4Zz
42. Dr. Troy Ross - censored
43. Dr. Philip Incao - http://bit.ly/1ghE7sS
44. Dr. Joseph Mercola - http://bit.ly/18dE38I
45. Dr. Jeff Bradstreet - http://bit.ly/1MaX0cC
46. Dr. Robert Mendelson - http://bit.ly/1JpAEQr
47. Dr Theresa Deisher https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=6Bc6WX33SuE
48. Dr. Sam Eggertsen-https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8LB-3xkeDAE

Hundreds more doctors testifying that vaccines aren't safe or effective, in these documentaries....

1. Vaccination - The Silent Epidemic - http://bit.ly/1vvQJ2W
2. The Greater Good - http://bit.ly/1icxh8j
3. Shots In The Dark - http://bit.ly/1ObtC8h
4. Vaccination The Hidden Truth - http://bit.ly/KEYDUh
5. Vaccine Nation - http://bit.ly/1iKNvpU
6. Vaccination - The Truth About Vaccines - http://bit.ly/1vlpwvU
7. Lethal Injection - http://bit.ly/1URN7BJ
8. Bought - http://bit.ly/1M7YSlr
9. Deadly Immunity - http://bit.ly/1KUg64Z
10. Autism - Made in the USA - http://bit.ly/1J8WQN5
11. Beyond Treason - http://bit.ly/1B7kmvt
12. Trace Amounts - http://bit.ly/1vAH3Hv
13. Why We Don't Vaccinate - http://bit.ly/1KbXhuf

9 hour court case
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DFTsd042M3o

Documentaries...

1. Vaccination - The Silent Epidemic(2013)

- http://bit.ly/1vvQJ2W

2. The Greater Good - (2011)

https://youtu.be/VxR8XQHc0A0

3. Shots In The Dark -(2009)

http://bit.ly/1ObtC8h

4. Vaccination The Hidden Truth -(1998)

http://bit.ly/KEYDUh

5. Vaccine Nation - (2008)

https://youtu.be/bLk641P8CE4

6. Vaccination - The Truth About Vaccines -

http://bit.ly/1vlpwvU

7. Lethal Injection - http://bit.ly/1URN7BJ

8. Bought - (2015)

https://youtu.be/HrgkKREhQrs
https://youtu.be/_9nre8AMe5I

9. Deadly Immunity - (2005)

http://bit.ly/1KUg64Z

10. Autism - Made in the USA(2009)

- http://bit.ly/1J8WQN5

11. Beyond Treason - (2005)

http://bit.ly/1B7kmvt

12. Trace Amounts - (2014)

http://bit.ly/1vAH3Hv

13. Why We Don't Vaccinate -

https://youtu.be/WjiFrTnWiK4

14. Autism Yesterday - (2010)
http://bit.ly/1URU2A

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Nationwide Attorneys | Drug & Medical Injury Lawyers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pfizer, a drug company which appears to have won the lottery to produce the first Covid-19 vaccine, is currently battling hundreds of lawsuits over Zantac, a popular heartburn medication. Zantac lawsuits claim the popular drug can be contaminated with a cancer-causing substance called N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). The Zantac suits are open-ended and ongoing, as the drug maker is fighting them; but Pfizer has, we know, committed several crimes or transgressions for which it has been punished in recent years. The company's failings are well documented and worth reviewing at this critical time in human history as we all search for answers.

At a time when much of the world has waited with baited breath for a vaccine that many hope will help restore civilized society to at least some semblance of normality, the history of Pfizer is rife with so much subterfuge and under-the-table dealing that the company will need all the help it can get to promote confidence in its hastily assembled Covid vaccine.
Related: Denmark Protests halt Forced Vaccination Law
While legal heavyweights like the New York Bar Association and a celebrity attorney like Alan Derschowitz have called for mandatory Covid vaccinations, it would seem at least reasonable to share all the information available on a company millions of people are expected to trust with their health, perhaps their very lives.
Customer Reviews Matter
Many people who purchase non-injectable products on ebay or Amazon do so only after they have done their homework. Many routinely investigate a seller's record and customer reviews before buying anything these days. Therefore, it only stands to reason that many will prefer to do their own due diligence regarding a drug company before submitting to an experimental vaccine made by it.*
Related:*Editor's Note: We are not anti-vaccine. We are pro due diligence. The speed at which Pfizer's Covid vaccine was produced, the absence of animal studies, randomized control trials, and other usual gold standard tests and procedures for a new drug are all, at the very least, concerning. In addition, all Covid vaccine makers have been granted legal immunity for any injuries or deaths they may cause. If these vaccines are as safe as promoted, why do their makers need blanket immunity? Pfizer's Checkered History Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trials showed 'severe' side effects, 'fever and aches'
Those who don't know Pfizer's checkered history may wish to learn something about the company's recent criminal and civil crimes, especially as the company's Covid vaccine promotion is set for a warp speed rollout. The UK government has already purchased 30 million doses of Pfizer's Covid MRNA vaccine. The company has said it is on schedule to produce 100 million doses by the end of the year, and an additional 1.3 billion doses next year.

Related: Pfizer Corporate Full Rap Sheet

Here's a brief glimpse of Pfizer's track record for safety and ethics. This is a short list, by no means inclusive of the company's entire rap sheet.

Pfizer received the biggest fine in U.S. history as part of a $2.3 Billion plea deal with federal prosecutors for mis-promoting medicines (Bextra, Celebrex) and paying kickbacks to compliant doctors. Pfizer pleaded guilty to mis-branding the painkiller Bextra by promoting the drug for uses for which it was not approved.

In the 1990s, Pfizer was involved in defective heart valves that lead to the deaths of more than 100 people. Pfizer had deliberately misled regulators about the hazards. The company agreed to pay $10.75 Million to settle justice department charges for misleading regulators.

Pfizer paid more than $60 Million to settle a lawsuit over Rezulin, a diabetes medication that caused patients to die from acute liver failure.

In the UK, Pfizer has been fined nearly €90 Million for overcharging the NHS, the National Health Service. Pfizxer charged the taxpayer an additional €48 Million per year for what should have cost €2 million per year.

Pfizer agreed to pay $430 Million in 2004 to settle criminal charges that it had bribed doctors to prescribe its epilepsy drug Neurontin for indications for which it was not approved.

In 2011, a jury found Pfizer committed racketeering fraud in its marketing of the drug Neurontin. Pfizer agreed to pay $142.1 Million to settle the charges.

Pfizer disclosed that it had paid nearly nearly 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals some $20 Million for speaking on Pfizer's behalf.

In 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had reached a $45 Million settlement with Pfizer to resolve charges that its subsidiaries had bribed overseas doctors and other healthcare professionals to increase foreign sales.

Pfizer was sued in a U.S. federal court for using Nigerian children as human guinea pigs, without the childrens' parents' consent. Pfizer paid $75 Million to settle in Nigerian court for using an experimental antibiotic, Trovan, on the children. The company paid an additional undisclosed amount in the U.S. to settle charges here. Pfizer had violated international law, including the Nuremberg Convention established after WWII, due to Nazi experiments on unwilling prisoners.

Amid widespread criticism of gouging poor countries for drugs, Pfizer pledged to give $50 million for an AIDS drug to South Africa. Later, however, Pfizer failed to honor that promise.

Pfizer's Covid vaccine is being rolled out with nothing but positive press from every mainstream media outlet in the country. Meanwhile, more than half of Americans surveyed have said they will not take a Covid vaccine. The plain fact is that many questions remain unanswered regarding this, or any other, Covid vaccine's safety and efficacy.
RELATED
What we do know, from legal history, is that Pfizer's past transgressions might lead some reasonable people to question whether or not they will submit to any vaccine made by the company.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Crimes of Covid Vaccine Maker Pfizer Documented

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pfizer, a drug company which appears to have won the lottery to produce the first Covid-19 vaccine, is currently battling hundreds of lawsuits over Zantac, a popular heartburn medication. Zantac lawsuits claim the popular drug can be contaminated with a cancer-causing substance called N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The spike protein, mRNA and the different brands

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Important information on why you should stay away from the shots.

# data[].attributes.headline
Virologist discusses the factual effects of these mRNA injections 

# data[].attributes.subject
Virologist discusses the factual effects of these mRNA injections 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scientist shows vaccine effects in autopsies. Don't believe it? See for yourself.

# data[].attributes.headline
11/2021- Graphene detected in COVID-19 vaccines- full research with photos 

# data[].attributes.subject
11/2021- Graphene detected in COVID-19 vaccines- full research with photos 

# data[].attributes.headline
An independent blog continuously documenting vaccine “coincidences”

# data[].attributes.subject
An independent blog continuously documenting vaccine “coincidences”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Official blog of COVID Legal USA. Vaccines are the leading cause of coincidences. Stay Vigilant.