New peer-reviewed study: unvaccinated children have better health outcomes

New Research Study of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children in Three U.S. Medical Practices

PR Newswire

Results indicate better health outcomes of developmental delays, asthma, and ear infections in children who did not receive vaccines within their first year of life

REDDING, Calif., June 1, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — A new peer-reviewed study in the journal SAGE Open Medicine detailing the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children concludes that unvaccinated children have better health outcomes than their vaccinated peers within the conditions examined and suggests that further study is necessary to understand the full spectrum of health effects associated with vaccination.

STORY

(vid) Dr. Bartlett: The Budesonid Covid Cure – “You should not be scared of Covid”

My Notes

Dr. Richard Bartlett is using an inhaled steroid to treat Covid-19 plus zinc, and has a 100% success rate; though, has a small number of covid patients. “What I’m using is Budesonide, it’s an inhaled steroid that doesn’t have the side effects of total body steroids but it has the benefits.”

Local doctor believes he has found ‘silver bullet’ for COVID-19

He says it’s the main reason why Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Iceland have had so few deaths. [What about vitamins A, C and D there, and the minerals selenium, zinc and iodine? Not mentioned. Icelanders are probably especially good at taking enough vitamin D. The Japanese people are so healthy, eating vitamin and mineral rich foods that few died after getting hit with severe radiation from Fukushima.]

“A rapidly mutating virus: a vaccine is not going to be the solution. 243 mutations in a study in Ireland, already.”

21:20 “But they could do a study, and set it up for failure….” [Like they did with hydroxychloroquine.]

21:45 Masks didn’t work France, Spain or Italy.

“We should go with the winning strategies.”

“You should not be scared of Covid.”

Continue reading “(vid) Dr. Bartlett: The Budesonid Covid Cure – “You should not be scared of Covid””

(vid) Dr. Barke: Covid-19: My Prescription For Liberty! – Masks do lower O2 pulse oximeter readings

Dr. Jeffrey Barke: masks do lower O2 pulse oximeter readings in healthy people — when exercising, by a lot. Masks don’t work. Not much worse than a bad flu. Children less affected than flu and should be in schools with no masks. HCQ works. Writing a book, “Covid-19: My Prescription For Liberty!”

“Dr. Jeffrey Barke: Cases are rising, but the fatality rate is dropping. The average age of new cases is 31—fatality is so low for that age group that it’s hard to even calculate.

Continue reading “(vid) Dr. Barke: Covid-19: My Prescription For Liberty! – Masks do lower O2 pulse oximeter readings”

(vid) Good Morning America: Face Mask Hysteria – “By wearing a mask, you could be putting yourself at even more risk”

Host: “By wearing a mask, you could be putting yourself at even more risk.”

Doctor: “an illusion of protection.” “People don’t use their masks correctly. They play with it. They wear it too long. They rub their nose underneath it.”

February 27
Face Mask Hysteria

Face Mask Hysteria

Coming up this Thursday morn on Good Morning America the first case of #coronavirus with no link to foreign travel confirmed in the US. T.J. Holmes gives a reality check on face masks and Dr. Jennifer Ashton answers some of your questions.

Posted by Robin Roberts on Fimmtudagur, 27. febrúar 2020

 

2 Studies: Vitamin D Drastically Reduces Covid-19 Severity – Skin Color Impacts Your Vitamin D Deficiency Risk

Vitamin D Combats Viral Infections and Boosts Immune System

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
Fact Checked
June 21, 2020

Story at-a-glance

  • GrassrootsHealth recently conducted a review of an observational study involving 212 patients who had COVID-19, identifying a correlation between vitamin D levels and disease severity. Those with the mildest disease had the highest vitamin D levels, and vice versa
  • A second study [ from Indonesia] found those with a vitamin D level between 20 ng/mL and 30 ng/mL had a sevenfold higher risk of death than those with a level above 30 ng/mL. Having a level below 20 ng/mL was associated with a 12 times higher risk of death, compared to having a level above 30 ng/mL
  • The color of your skin has correlations to your vitamin D level, and we’re also seeing racial disparities in COVID-19. In Detroit, Michigan, where blacks account for 14% of the population, they account for 40% of COVID-19 deaths
  • It’s important for people with darker skin to realize that the more melanin you have, the more sun exposure you require to make sufficient amounts of vitamin D, and many may need to take a supplement
  • According to the research done by GrassrootsHealth’s panel of 48 vitamin D researchers, 40 ng/mL is the lower edge of optimal, with 60 ng/mL to 80 ng/mL being ideal for health and disease prevention

Continue reading “2 Studies: Vitamin D Drastically Reduces Covid-19 Severity – Skin Color Impacts Your Vitamin D Deficiency Risk”

CA Mayor Questions Mask Mandate – People have been mass traumatized 24/7!

People have PTSD, have been mass traumatized from the long-term isolation, force-quarantine, while being fed fear-porn disinformation 24/7: “Be afraid, be afraid.” Many are in fight-or-flight, in the fetal position, lashing out. Concerns about the economy compounds the fear.

7:15 Her lungs are permanently damage from not wearing a mask correctly as a painter.

8:00 Doctors and nurses have been trained how to wear masks correctly: change them every hour; don’t touch them at all. Dr. Cutler, their director of health said people are not wearing masks correctly, which leads to more health risks than not, and masks give people a false sense of security.

She’s been attacked by the media for telling the truth, and has lost many friends simply for telling the truth.

Continue reading “CA Mayor Questions Mask Mandate – People have been mass traumatized 24/7!”

(vid) Denis Rancourt PhD: ANTI-MASKERS: RIGHT OR SELFISH? — Biased peer-reviewed studies exposed!

Related:Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy, by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Covid’s anomalous peak earlier this year needs to be investigated criminally.

Focus on being immune prepared and away from the money making vaccine schemes.

Continue reading “(vid) Denis Rancourt PhD: ANTI-MASKERS: RIGHT OR SELFISH? — Biased peer-reviewed studies exposed!”

(vid) JP: VEGANS in 2020 — “You first deceived yourself by not studying anything that doesn’t confirm your existing bias”

“You’ve been deceiving people with your nutritional information because you first deceived yourself by not studying anything that doesn’t confirm your existing bias.” – J.P. Sears

“You reject people who eat differently than you do….” – JP

Continue reading “(vid) JP: VEGANS in 2020 — “You first deceived yourself by not studying anything that doesn’t confirm your existing bias””

Low vitamin D: high risk COVID-19 mortality? Seven preprints suggest that is case. Does low ‘D’ put BAME and elderly, at particular COVID-19 risk? Testing and Data Required.

Low vitamin D: high risk COVID-19 mortality? Seven preprints suggest that is case. Does low ‘D’ put BAME* and elderly, at particular COVID-19 risk? Testing and Data Required.

* BAME = black, Asian and minority ethnic people

Rapid response to:

Is ethnicity linked to incidence or outcomes of covid-19?

BMJ 2020369 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1548 (Published 20 April 2020)

(vid) Dr. Campbell: Vitamin D Hits the Media – Covid-19 — Darker skin produces D more slowly, causing the greater death rate among blacks and Asians

5:20 Indonesian vitamin D study

8:05 Chart

14:00 “Darker skin produces vitamin D more slowly, and that is why I believe many of these people have died.”

Continue reading “(vid) Dr. Campbell: Vitamin D Hits the Media – Covid-19 — Darker skin produces D more slowly, causing the greater death rate among blacks and Asians”

Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy, by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Overview

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. …

No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. …

Unknown Aspects of Mask Wearing
Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:

  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?

Conclusion
By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

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. …

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.

– –

Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy

Makes don't work to protect people from Covid19.

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.

Review of the Medical Literature
Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

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.

Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

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.

bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

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

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

“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.”

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

“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:

Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

“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.”

Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381

“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.”

Conclusion Regarding That Masks Do Not Work
No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW 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.

Precautionary Principle Turned on Its Head with Masks
In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic, and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks. In this case, public authorities would be turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below).

Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease and of Why Masks Do Not Work
In order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, we must review established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, the aerosol mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose.

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.

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

  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.

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.

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).

Why There Can Never Be an Empirical Test of a Nation-Wide Mask-Wearing Policy
As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results [because]:

  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.

Unknown Aspects of Mask Wearing
Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:

  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?

Conclusion
By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

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.

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.

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. 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 Researchgate.net/profile/D_RancourtAt 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.”

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 

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

SOURCE

30 Facts about Covid-19 (fully referenced)

Facts about Covid-19

UpdatedJune 2020Share onTwitter / Facebook
LanguagesCZDEENEOESFIFRGRHBSHEHUITJPKONOPLPTRORUSESISKTR

Fully referenced facts about Covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment. (Regular updates below)

“The only means to fight the plague is honesty.” (Albert Camus, 1947)

Overview

  1. According to the latest immunological and serological studies, the overall lethality of Covid-19 (IFR) is about 0.1% and thus in the range of a strong seasonal influenza (flu).
  2. In countries like the US, the UK, and also Sweden (without a lockdown), overall mortality since the beginning of the year is in the range of a strong influenza season; in countries like Germany, Austria and Switzerland, overall mortality is in the range of a mild influenza season.
  3. Even in global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work. The risk was initially overestimated because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not taken into account.
  4. Up to 80% of all test-positive persons remain symptom-free. Even among 70-79 year olds, about 60% remain symptom-free. Over 95% of all persons develop at most moderate symptoms.
  5. Up to 60% of all persons may already have a certain cellular background immunity to Covid19 due to contact with previous coronaviruses (i.e. common cold viruses).
  6. The median or average age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.
  7. In many countries, up to two thirds of all extra deaths occurred in nursing homes, which do not benefit from a general lockdown. Moreover, in many cases it is not clear whether these people really died from Covid19 or from weeks of extreme stress and isolation.
  8. Up to 30% of all additional deaths may have been caused not by Covid19, but by the effects of the lockdown, panic and fear. For example, the treatment of heart attacks and strokes decreased by up to 60% because many patients no longer dared to go to hospital.
  9. Even in so-called “Covid19 deaths” it is often not clear whether they died from or with coronavirus (i.e. from underlying diseases) or if they were counted as “presumed cases” and not tested at all. However, official figures usually do not reflect this distinction.
  10. Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 turned out to be false: many of these young people either did not die from Covid19, they had already been seriously ill (e.g. from undiagnosed leukaemia), or they were in fact 109 instead of 9 years old. The claimed increase in Kawasaki disease in children also turned out to be false.
  11. Strong increases in regional mortality can occur if there is a collapse in the care of the elderly and sick as a result of infection or panic, or if there are additional risk factors such as severe air pollution. Questionable regulations for dealing with the deceased sometimes led to additional bottlenecks in funeral or cremation services.
  12. In countries such as Italy and Spain, and to some extent the UK and the US, hospital overloads due to strong flu waves are not unusual. Moreover, this year up to 15% of health care workers were put into quarantine, even if they developed no symptoms.
  13. The often shown exponential curves of “corona cases” are misleading, as the number of tests also increased exponentially. In most countries, the ratio of positive tests to tests overall (i.e. the positive rate) remained constant at 5% to 25% or increased only slightly. In many countries, the peak of the spread was already reached well before the lockdown.
  14. Countries without curfews and contact bans, such as JapanSouth KoreaBelarus or Sweden, have not experienced a more negative course of events than other countries. Sweden was even praised by the WHO and now benefits from higher immunity compared to lockdown countries.
  15. The fear of a shortage of ventilators was unjustified. According to lung specialists, the invasive ventilation (intubation) of Covid19 patients, which is partly done out of fear of spreading the virus, is in fact often counterproductive and damaging to the lungs.
  16. Contrary to original assumptions, various studies have shown that there is no evidence of the virus spreading through aerosols (i.e. tiny particles floating in the air) or through smear infections (e.g. on door handles or smartphones). The main modes of transmission are direct contact and droplets produced when coughing or sneezing.
  17. There is also no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in healthy or asymptomatic individuals. On the contrary, experts warn that such masks interfere with normal breathing and may become “germ carriers”. Leading doctors called them a “media hype” and “ridiculous”.
  18. Many clinics in Europe and the US remained strongly underutilized or almost empty during the Covid19 peak and in some cases had to send staff home. Millions of surgeries and therapies were cancelled, including many cancer screenings and organ transplants.
  19. Several media were caught trying to dramatize the situation in hospitals, sometimes even with manipulative images and videos. In general, the unprofessional reporting of many media maximized fear and panic in the population.
  20. The virus test kits used internationally are prone to errors and can produce false positive and false negative results. Moreover, the official virus test was not clinically validated due to time pressure and may sometimes react positive to other coronaviruses.
  21. Numerous internationally renowned experts in the fields of virology, immunology and epidemiology consider the measures taken to be counterproductive and recommend rapid natural immunisation of the general population and protection of risk groups.
  22. At no time was there a medical reason for the closure of schools, as the risk of disease and transmission in children is extremely low. There is also no medical reason for small classes, masks or ‘social distancing’ rules in schools.
  23. The claim that only (severe) Covid-19 but not influenza may cause venous thrombosis and pulmonary (lung) embolism is not true, as it has been known for 50 years that severe influenza greatly increases the risk of thrombosis and embolism, too.
  24. Several medical experts described express coronavirus vaccines as unnecessary or even dangerous. Indeed, the vaccine against the so-called swine flu of 2009, for example, led to sometimes severe neurological damage and lawsuits in the millions. In the testing of new coronavirus vaccines, too, serious complications and failures have already occurred.
  25. A global influenza or corona pandemic can indeed extend over several seasons, but many studies of a “second wave” are based on very unrealistic assumptions, such as a constant risk of illness and death across all age groups.
  26. Several nurses, e.g. in New York City, described an oftentimes fatal medical mis­manage­ment of Covid patients due to questionable financial incentives or inappropriate medical protocols.
  27. The number of people suffering from unemployment, depressions and domestic violence as a result of the measures has reached historic record values. Several experts predict that the measures will claim far more lives than the virus itself. According to the UN 1.6 billion people around the world are at immediate risk of losing their livelihood.
  28. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that the “corona crisis” will be used for the permanent expansion of global surveillance. Renowned virologist Pablo Goldschmidt spoke of a “global media terror” and “totalitarian measures”. Leading British virologist Professor John Oxford spoke of a “media epidemic”. Continue reading “30 Facts about Covid-19 (fully referenced)”

25-year Nurse: Masked Threats? Studies Reveal NO Benefits to Facemasks-for-all Policy — Dirtier than the floor! • “I have yet to see one person sterilize their hands after touching their mask”

Masked Threats? Studies Reveal NO Benefits to Global COVID-19 Facemasks-for-all Policy

I’ve been wearing masks for 25 years in my role as an operating-room nurse. So I have a firm grasp on masks’ risks and benefits and how to use them correctly. I’m having a hard time watching the misuse of masks all around me after the folly of influential public-health officials promote universal-mask-wearing recommendations to control COVID-19.

[…]

But these so-called experts ignore the fact that any benefit of masking is from studies on medical-grade ‘surgical’ masks not cloth ones. Indeed, the only randomized controlled study of cloth face coverings to reduce spread of the novel coronavirus warned against their use because they posed a 13% increased risk of infection to those wearing them.

Ironically, even the CDC states that it is “unknown” whether such masks can protect healthcare workers from COVID-19 and that “currently we are not finding any data that can quantify risk reduction from the use of masks.”

A May 2020 meta-analysis published in the CDC journal Emerging Infectious Diseases that examined studies from 1946-2018 found surgical face masks don’t significantly reduce viral transmission and in fact improper use increases the risk of infection spread. Several trials on masks in community settings, including a 2015 systematic review and a large Australian study, found participants who wore masks had just as many infections as those who did not. Dr. Michael Osterholme, director of the Center of Infectious Disease and Research Policy, has spoken out about the inadequate evidence to support the public use of face masks. In relation to the CDC’s recommendation of cloth masks he stated, Continue reading “25-year Nurse: Masked Threats? Studies Reveal NO Benefits to Facemasks-for-all Policy — Dirtier than the floor! • “I have yet to see one person sterilize their hands after touching their mask””

THE HCQ SCANDAL — Doctor tells how Big Pharma hijacks HCQ studies

Doctor tells how Big Pharma hijacks HCQ studies, which they’ve also done with their vitamin studies over the years.

#Hydroxychloroquine studies conducted by Oxford and the WHO produced an astounding mortality rate 34 times that of other recent studies. As a result the FDA revoked emergency use of the drug in the U.S. Now, data shows potentially lethal doses of HCQ were used on trial participants. Dr. Jim Meehan details this developing scandal.

Continue reading “THE HCQ SCANDAL — Doctor tells how Big Pharma hijacks HCQ studies”

Science Says Healthy People Should Not Wear Masks

About Masks

Science Says Healthy People Should Not Wear Masks

Email us important links you find

Click here for the page with the medical card.

“How can a person be forced by any business or government entity to wear a mask (which affects the respiratory system) without having a physical exam by a licensed doctor who approves such an action?”
~ Peggy Hall

Science Says Healthy People Should Not Wear Masks

  • Masks reduce intake of oxygen, leading to carbon dioxide toxicity

  • Germs are trapped near your mouth and nose, increasing risk of infection

  • Wearing a mask causes you to touch your face more frequently [and then touch what others touch – ed.]

  • There is no scientific evidence that supports healthy people wearing masks

  • Masks obscure your facial features and impede normal social interaction

  • Masks make it hard for hearing-impaired people to understand you

  • Masks symbolize suppression of speech

ARTICLE

How The WHO Lies: *Actual data* shows asymptomatic people can’t spread covid. *Models* say it can, so “we don’t know”

How Big Pharma lies: the *actual data* shows asymptomatic people don’t spread covid, what she originally stated. To backpedal, Kerkhove says the *models* (not actual data) say asymptomatic people, people who have no symptoms can spread covid — to justify social distancing until the dangerous $vaccine that may not work comes out.

Is it rare for asymptomatic carriers to spread covid-19 or not? Should we wear masks or do they do nothing? This week the W.H.O. goes back and forth on recommendations AGAIN!  Del breaks down Maria Van Kerkhove’s backpedaling comments during a press conference. WHO can we trust at this point?#WHO #LOCKDOWN #FLIPFLOP #CONFUSION

Continue reading “How The WHO Lies: *Actual data* shows asymptomatic people can’t spread covid. *Models* say it can, so “we don’t know””

Skousen: WHO Doctor – Asymptomatic People Don’t Spread Covid-19 – “The statement is correct” | Mike Adams:  Vitamin C, D and zinc conquer Covid — “My mask wearing days are over”

This evidence is devastating to the entire argument driving the shutdown, and Kerkhove clearly got flack over it. She tried to “walk back” her statement, clearly under pressure over the big revelation that it was, saying “we really don’t know,” but she still couldn’t deny that their studies showed the transmission to be very rare.

The statement is correct and should stand to challenge the entire Covid 19 hyped up response—the lockdowns, social distancing, masks, contact tracing etc. None of these are necessary…

• • •

World Affairs Brief, June 12, 2020 Commentary and Insights on a Troubled World.

Copyright Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com).

WHO DOCTOR: ASYMPTOMATIC PEOPLE DON’T SPREAD COVID 19

Mike Adams, ever prone to hype, declared: “The WHO just obliterated every argument for mandatory vaccines or contact tracing by declaring asymptomatic carriers don’t spread it.”

Actually, the W.H.O. as an organization didn’t announce this, and Dr. “Sky is falling” Fauci, countered by saying it isn’t true. What really happened is that Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, the Dutch head of WHO’s emerging diseases unit at the agency’s headquarters in Geneva said,

“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual… It’s very rare.

This evidence is devastating to the entire argument driving the shutdown, and Kerkhove clearly got flack over it. She tried to “walk back” her statement, clearly under pressure over the big revelation that it was, saying “we really don’t know,” but she still couldn’t deny that their studies showed the transmission to be very rare.

The statement is correct and should stand to challenge the entire Covid 19 hyped up response—the lockdowns, social distancing, masks, contact tracing etc. None of these are necessary, especially since up to 80% of those who test positive are asymptomatic according to the Swiss Research Institute. I think they are asymptomatic because either they have such a small trace of the virus, or they don’t have the virus at all. The test picks up most types of coronaviruses, of which there are many, including the common cold. As Mike Adams correctly points out,

It was also the underlying justification for demanding mandatory vaccinations and contact tracing. After all, if the spread of coronavirus were limited to only those who obviously showed symptoms — and could therefore be easily identified and avoided — there would be no logical need for lockdowns, social distancing, masks, contact tracing or mandatory vaccines, since spreaders of the pandemic could be easily identified and avoided (or isolated with selective stay-at-home orders only for the symptomatic).

All at once, the WHO has just exploded all these narratives that were so aggressively pushed by the CDC, Democrat governors, Dr. Fauci at the White House and even the WHO itself. Now, based on the WHO’s new admission, not only should every lockdown be immediately ended; any government effort to initiate new lockdowns should be vehemently rejected as being utterly groundless and anti-science. Mandatory vaccines are no longer needed when asymptomatic carriers present near-zero risk.

But that is not going to happen. Medical authorities keep pushing social distancing because they unknowingly are basing all the contagion on a flawed test—which can continue to drive the pandemic narrative for as long as they want. Sure, there will be a spike in the fall, just like any virus, but it won’t necessarily be Covid 19—just more tests that pick up other corona viruses and colds.

“Either way, my mask wearing days are over,” says Mike Adams

But not for others who believe all the hype. A former fellow Marine pilot friend of mine went in to see his doctor on an issue, and the doctor was wearing a mask, following all the establishment restrictions. The doctor offered him a mask, but my friend reminded him that he was a certified public health and OSHA inspector and that both of them knew that these masks don’t stop viral transmissions via breathing. The doctor nodded approval and promptly removed his mask.

Mike Adams initially thought this virus was a deadly serious threat and hyped it to the moon, including thinking that China would take advantage of this and attack the US. But now he admits,

Now, it turns out none of that was necessary. This entire pandemic appears to be conquerable with nothing more than vitamin C, vitamin D and zinc. Not even hand washing is necessary, according to the new CDC results, and the very idea of waiting around under house arrest for a new experimental vaccine to be produced now seems insanely stupid. Continue reading “Skousen: WHO Doctor – Asymptomatic People Don’t Spread Covid-19 – “The statement is correct” | Mike Adams:  Vitamin C, D and zinc conquer Covid — “My mask wearing days are over””

CDC: COVID-19 Death Rate Far Lower Than Previously Thought

Monday, 25 May 2020

CDC: COVID-19 Death Rate Far Lower Than Previously Thought

The federal government is finally admitting what many observers have suspected all along: The average American’s chances of dying from COVID-19 are extremely small. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) latest best estimate of the death rate for individuals with COVID-19 symptoms is just 0.26 percent, slightly higher than that of the seasonal flu.

Continue reading “CDC: COVID-19 Death Rate Far Lower Than Previously Thought”

Lara Logan: Vitamin D Blackout – Health ‘experts’ won’t tell blacks or elderly about D deficiency & covid survivability — dark skin requires more sun & elderly in nursing homes

4:25 “There are a number of medical concerns related to covid that are completely ignored by this, that put African-Americans at greater risk, and that are not being addressed by the very health professionals that say they care about saving black people’s lives. For example, vitamin D deficiency is common in … elderly people in nursing homes and African-American communities, who are historically deficient in vitamin D. And it affects your immune system … how sick you get with this virus and your survivability.” – Lara Logan

 

Health “Experts” Still Want Lockdowns Yet Support BLM Protests, Tucker Carlson & Lara Logan React

Continue reading “Lara Logan: Vitamin D Blackout – Health ‘experts’ won’t tell blacks or elderly about D deficiency & covid survivability — dark skin requires more sun & elderly in nursing homes”

Masks are Ineffective and Risky – Let the Facts Speak — like carrying a petri dish in front of your face

So, in summary, mask-wearing can be dangerous and is shown over and over again to be ineffective. It appears masks are more effective in helping to *spread* illness, by providing a surface for viruses to collect on, like carrying a petri dish in front of your face.

– –

Masks: Are There Benefits or Just a Comfort Prop? Let the Facts Speak

May 21, 2020

[Jennifer Kozek]

Initially I respected the call by my local Governor in Connecticut to protect our fellow citizens. Deep down I thought it was a little foolish to mandate masks, but love all people and thought I would wear one to help others feel safer. Then, I started digging a little further into the scientific literature. I have discovered that masks are neither safe nor effective. So, as schools prepare to create policies for children returning to school in the fall, we must keep these things in mind.

Masks are Ineffective and Risky, So Stop Calling Us Selfish Continue reading “Masks are Ineffective and Risky – Let the Facts Speak — like carrying a petri dish in front of your face”