“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
Facemasks are not only moist germ collectors and spreaders, they make an oxygen deficient atmosphere, which would be even a higher percentage when breathing lightly on an airplane.
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?
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:
Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?
Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?
Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?
What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?
How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?
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?
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
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.
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.”
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.”
“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:
Most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibility
It is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the host
The 50-percent probability MID (“TCID50”) has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000 virions
There are typically 10 to 3rd power − 10 to 7th power virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm − 10 μm
The 50-percent probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized droplet
For further background:
A classic description of dose-response assessment is provided by Haas (1993).
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.
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.”
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]:
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.
Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.
Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviors; see Wada (2012).
The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.
Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.
Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.
Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.
Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.
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:
Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?
Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?
Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?
What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?
How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?
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?
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_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.”
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.
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
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
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
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
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Countries without curfews and contact bans, such as Japan, South Korea, Belarus 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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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,
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.
“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
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
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.
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.
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV70vd41VA0
Health “Experts” Still Want Lockdowns Yet Support BLM Protests, Tucker Carlson & Lara Logan React
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
There is ZERO conclusive evidence provided by the CDC that supports healthy or “asymptomatic” individuals wearing a mask prevents the spread of illness.
Chiropractor Eric Nepute: “I’m okay with saying ‘new normal.’ … The ‘new normal’ needs to be getting rid of the spirit of fear, the spirit of hatred, the spirit of greed, the spirit of lying, spirit of lust, spirit of confusion… rebuking them as far as the east is from the west.” – minute-59
“If we have a healthy immune system, we don’t need anything else,” ie: lockdowns, social distancing, masks and vaccines.
Companies who censor those who warned about the detrimental health practices and mandates, and were proven correct, should be held accountable for the damage they did to people and countries.
If people find out they can boost their immune system through food and nutrients, and that vaccines are dangerous, it undermines the profit of Big Pharma.
The FDA, by preventing the treatment of HCQ + zinc and YouTube preventing the information from getting out could be held libel for the unnecessary deaths.
“Did they give advice to the elderly, how they could boost their immune system? Did they give access to treatment?” People who withheld this need to be held responsible.
57:10 The reality of vaccines. The toxins: aluminum, etc.. They’re grown on monkey or dog kidneys, and the viruses from the monkeys, like Simion virus 40, SV 40 are introduced in people which ordinarily never would be, which cause cancers and chronic illnesses. Vaccines are not safe, are often ineffective, and can cause infertility.
They haven’t made a safe vaccine for a corona virus in 17 years. How can they make one now, which they won’t even safety test. So far, vaccines for corona viruses cause a firestorm in the immune system.
Hydroxychloroquine + zinc was well known in February and March that it worked as a treatment, so there was no reason for the lockdown. What we should have done was quarantined the elderly and the vulnerable, and boosted their immune system with zinc and vitamins.
A main reason for censorship is to keep them from being exposed for the damage they did from the lockdowns.
Big Pharma did two HCQ studies mostly without zinc for patients only who were already in intensive care, the Lancet and Veteran papers. HCQ has been on the essential medicine list for 55 or 60 years as being safe and effective. It’s unethical to give it without zinc, because it can’t possibly work. The studies were designed unethically.
There is no data behind the using of masks, which make people sick. She will not use a mask. It doesn’t transmit through the air. If person coughs, he/she should cover their mouth.
1:27:10 How to boost one’s immune system: Avoid stress (fear and loneliness from the lockdowns). Vitamins D, C and zinc are the most important. Also vitamin A and selenium.
One of the best videos I’ve seen on vaccines! Excellent covid-19 truth also!
POINTS MADE ABOUT VACCINES:
• Those who have illnesses aren’t tested in the trials to see how the vaccine will affect those who are not perfectly healthy, those most likely to get vaccine injured
• Vaccine testing does not use double-blind studies to compare the vaccinated with a placebo group
• Human fetal cell tissue is on vaccines, and how we know that
• Vaccines can make people overreact to the illness. People have already died in the covid-19 vaccine trials
COVID-19:
“I think we’re all in a dream state right now. It feels like some ‘snow day,’ stay-at-home’ day. When people start realizing that my job really is not there. … You’re going to see the tone and energy of this discussion shift. And as more an more people wake up to the fact that this was only a 0.26% death rate; even though, my news was telling me otherwise, they can’t censor us enough.”
“You ruin the trust of a nation by overstating it like this.”
16 facts that mostly aren’t reported. Scientific supporting data shown!
Fact #1: The Infection Fatality Rate for COVID-19 is somewhere between 0.07-0.20%, in line with seasonal flu
Fact #2: The risk of dying from COVID-19 is much higher than the average IFR for older people and those with co-morbidities, and much lower than the average IFR for younger healthy people, and nearing zero for children
Fact #3: People infected with COVID-19 who are asymptomatic (which is most people) do NOT spread COVID-19
Fact #4: Emerging science shows no spread of COVID-19 in the community (shopping, restaurants, barbers, etc.)
Fact #5: Published science shows COVID-19 is NOT spread outdoors
Fact #6: Science shows masks are ineffective to halt the spread of COVID-19, and The WHO recommends they should only be worn by healthy people if treating or living with someone with a COVID-19 infection
Fact #7: There’s no science to support the magic of a six-foot barrier
Fact #8: The idea of locking down an entire society had never been done and has no supportable science, only theoretical modeling
Fact #9: The epidemic models of COVID-19 have been disastrously wrong, and both the people and the practice of modeling has a terrible history
Fact #10: The data shows that lockdowns have NOT had an impact on the course of the disease.
Fact #11: Florida locked down late, opened early, and is doing fine, despite predictions of doom
Fact #12: New York’s above average death rate appears to be driven by a fatal policy error combined with aggressive intubations.
Fact #13: Public health officials and disease epidemiologists do NOT consider the other negative societal consequences of lockdowns
Fact #14: There is a predictive model for the viral arc of COVID-19, it’s called Farr’s Law, and it was discovered over 100 years ago
Fact #15: The lockdowns will cause more death and destruction than COVID-19 ever did
Fact #16: All these phased re-openings are utter nonsense with no science to support them, but they will all be declared a success
Top immunologist, Prof. Dolores Cahill, who has studied coronaviruses for years explains: once you’ve had the novel Coronavirus, you are immune; masks & social distancing do not affect coronavirus transmission; and how this lockdown was a mistake.
Big Pharma has only quietly admitted that people having enough vitamin D would cut the deaths in half. All they push instead are lockdowns, social distancing, masks and 88%-die respirators which they get $39,000 for using.
They don’t even give patients vitamin D3, let alone tell us to take it (or get enough sun), and those in nursing homes especially.
Important discussion with Dershowitz, who insists a covid vaccine can be forced on all Americans unless they can prove they have a health issue which would make it too dangerous. THIS IS SERIOUS!
I posted these two comments:
Israel defeated covid by using Dr. Zelenko’s HCQ + zinc treatment, which Dershowitz doesn’t mention. Minorities are more at risk from covid largely because many have very low vitamin D levels, because their skin needs six times more sunlight to get the same amount of D production as whites. Big Pharma never told them to take D3! We don’t need a vaccine, because our immune systems can be strengthened through vitamins, minerals and nutrition, which Big Pharma won’t mention. Big Pharma currently rejects all of the covid-19 treatments that work. Big Pharma, Big Media and Big Government are responsible for many covid-19 deaths and the consequences from the unconstitutional lockdowns they mandated and pushed without the people’s consent. They deceived Americans by what they said and didn’t say, and still are.
Dr. Shiva wouldn’t be surprised by Dershowitz saying that RFK, Jr. is his friend, because RFK, Jr. may not be serious about stopping mandatory vaccines — “controlled opposition.”
The cloth and surgical masks the CDC recommends do not effectively stop transmission, and can increase the chance of wearers getting sick.
N95 masks disturb O2/CO2 exchange, and pose a risk for elderly, pregnant women, and those with pre-existing conditions such as COPD, heart disease, etc.
Psychologically, mask wearing is anti-social. Social isolation leads to a decrease in antiviral compounds and an increase in inflammatory compounds.
Americans can say they have a health condition that prohibits them from wearing a mask, and the HIPPA law protects them from having to reveal why to anyone.
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny details how the pharmaceutical industry has effectively lobbied to pass legislation providing complete immunity from all lawsuits during a public health emergency. The doctor, who has been board certified for three specialties, also gives her prescriptions for strengthening immune systems and coping with fear.
