Should We Trust The Covid Tests? Dr. Ron Paul

Media and politicians are using the reported massive increase in positive Covid test results to call for another US lockdown. Meanwhile there are increasing doubts as to the accuracy of the tests. New Jersey is mandating masks and two Texas counties are threatening felony charges against those with positive tests who do not stay home. Are these fears justified? Has the continuing decline of Covid deaths become meaningless?

SHOW LESS

U.S. Government Spends Another $1.6 BILLION on COVID Vaccine with Company that “Never Brought a Product to Market” – Health Impact News

by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News

President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed is living up to its hype as the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the United States continues at “warp speed,” with BILLIONS of dollars of government funding flowing into the bank accounts of Big Pharma.

This time it is $1.6 BILLION to a new pharmaceutical company that has not even brought a product to market yet, Maryland-based Novavax (sounds like a name some geek in Big Tech Silicon Valley thought up), which joins a long list of drug companies receiving unbelievable amounts of Government cash to develop a COVID vaccine, while many States are rolling out new lock down orders that are killing the few small businesses that managed to survive the first round of lock downs and were just starting to try and open up their businesses again.

Eric Sagonowsky from FiercePharma reports:

Novavax and its COVID-19 shot are racing against well-funded global pharmaceutical players, but a new deal with the U.S. government will push the biotech’s fundraising haul past $2 billion.

The Maryland biotech on Tuesday unveiled a $1.6 billion deal with Operation Warp Speed—the project’s largest funding commitment so far—to support late-stage vaccine testing and manufacturing. For Novavax, the agreement follows others with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and the U.S. government worth more than $400 million.

Novavax’s candidate, which combines an antigen generated from the virus’ spike protein and the company’s proprietary Matrix-M adjuvant, is already in phase 1/2 testing, and the biotech expects to report early data this month. If the data are promising, the company will move to the phase 2 portion of the study, where investigators will look at immunity, safety and disease reduction. The phase 3 efficacy study would enroll up to 30,000 participants and begin in the fall.

The company has never brought a product to market, but it’s also advancing a late-stage flu vaccine candidate with plans to file for FDA approval soon.

Meanwhile, Novavax also plans to use Warp Speed funds to ramp up COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing. The company has pledged to produce 100 million vaccine doses this year, and the partners could sign an add-on deal for more doses.

The U.S. government’s Operation Warp Speed aims to deliver 300 million doses of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines by January 2021. (Source.)

Conveniently located close to Washington D.C. in nearby Maryland, one has to wonder who else in D.C. is benefiting from this newly formed instant billion-dollar company that has not even proven that it can produce a product that makes it to market yet?

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., of Children’s Health Defense, has just reported that drug maker Moderna, also a recipient of hundreds of millions of government funding to produce a COVID vaccine in conjunction with Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institute of Health (NIH), will pay out up to half of their future royalties from the sale of a new COVID vaccine to scientists who are also on the government payroll for the NIH.

New documents obtained by Axios and Public Citizen suggest that the National Institute of Health (NIH) owns half the key patent for Moderna’s controversial COVID vaccine and could collect half the royalties. In addition, four NIH scientists have filed their own provisional patent application as co-inventors. Little known NIH regulations let agency scientists collect up to $150,000.00 annually in royalties from vaccines upon which they worked. These rules are recipes for regulatory corruption.

NIH’s stake in the jab may explain why Anthony Fauci moved Moderna’s vaccine to the front of the line and to let Moderna skip animal trials despite the experimental technology and the inherent dangers of Coronavirus vaccines. Every prior coronavirus vaccine has proven problematic and can be lethal to animals due to COVID’s unique penchant for “pathogenic priming.” Death occurs only after a vaccinated animal encounters the wild virus.

Public health advocates and scientists criticized Fauci’s decision to skip animal trials as reckless. It may also explain why Anthony Fauci arranged a $483 million grant to Moderna from a sister NIH agency, BARDA, despite the fact that Moderna has never brought a product to market or gotten approval.

Fauci’s infusion made Moderna CEO Steve Bancel a billionaire and further enriched Fauci’s mentor and co-investor Bill Gates. It may also explain why Fauci publicly announced he was “encouraged” by Moderna’s catastrophic Phase 1 clinical trials despite the fact that 20% of the high dose and 6% of the low dose groups of super healthy volunteers had Grade 3 “severe or medically significant” reactions following vaccination.

Those results would have spelled DOA for any other medical product. After getting the abysmal news, Bancel and four other Moderna executives immediately dumped more than $89 million in stock and Fauci was forced to make his optimistic public assessment to save Moderna’s plummeting shares from death spiral.

Fauci painted lipstick on that lame donkey and now he’s trying to convince everyone it’s a thoroughbred. Moderna and NIH began manufacturing the first of 1 billion doses of the deadly vaccine this month. Fauci knows from experience that no matter how dangerous a vaccine, the easy part is convincing people to take it. Pharma, after all, controls the media.

Come on America! Do you honestly still believe this is all about protecting the public from a deadly new virus??

How long are you going to continue to comply by staying in your homes and continuing to wear government-commanded face masks, especially now that it has been reported that Governor Newsom of California funneled a billion dollars to China to produce face masks that now have to be distributed in the U.S.?

If you still believe this is all about health and safety, then you will probably also be first in line to get the new COVID vaccines that Bill Gates and President Trump are investing billions in to develop.

Yes, the New World Order’s plan to reduce the world’s population is proceeding full speed ahead, at “warp speed.”

Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com.

State Governor Mandates Everyone Wear Snorkels In Case They Fall In A Pool

U.S.—As governors clamor to follow the ways of SCIENCE and save lives in their state, one state governor has read some very scary statistics from SCIENCE and decided to go the extra mile to protect the safety of his citizens. “Starting today,” he said, “All citizens of my state will be required to wear a snorkel at all times, both indoors and out. This will prevent thousands of tragic deaths resulting from people falling in their backyard pools. SCIENCE says we must do this.”

Every person in the state will be required to wear a snorkel, preferably paired with goggles, 24 hours a day. When pressed as to why they were necessary indoors, the governor replied, “Hello! Sinks? Bathtubs? Showers? There are water hazards everywhere inside the house! We can’t be too careful! SCIENCE!”

According to the order, anyone caught without a snorkel will be required to pay a $15,000 fine or face 8 years of jail time. Second offenders will be shot on sight. “We must do this to save lives and obey SCIENCE!! We are in this together,” the state governor exclaimed before tripping on a microphone cord and falling headfirst into the press pool.

Source: State Governor Mandates Everyone Wear Snorkels In Case They Fall In A Pool

Questions For Dr. Fauci

Pamela A. Popper, President

Wellness Forum Health

June 9, 2020

Dr. Anthony Fauci has been the primary advisor to President Trump during the coronavirus pandemic. Many Americans still believe that Fauci is a great virologist who has worked hard to protect Americans from a deadly threat. But even some members of the mainstream media are starting to ask questions about both Fauci and the agency he heads.

Gain-of-function research involves manipulating viruses in a laboratory setting in order to investigate their potential to infect humans. This type of research is very controversial due to the risk of accidental release of a mutated virus that could cause a pandemic. While hundreds of researchers have spoken out against it, Dr. Fauci has historically defended this type of research. He wrote this in an editorial in the Washington Post on December 30 2011: “[D]etermining the molecular Achilles’ heel of these viruses can allow scientists to identify novel antiviral drug targets that could be used to prevent infection in those at risk or to better treat those who become infected. Decades of experience tells us that disseminating information gained through biomedical research to legitimate scientists and health officials provides a critical foundation for generating appropriate countermeasures and, ultimately, protecting the public health.”[1]

In spite of Fauci’s enthusiasm for it, the National Institutes of Health issued a moratorium on funding for gain-of-function research in 2014. Researchers involved in this type of work were urged to discontinue their activities until risks and benefits could be more clearly defined.[2] A recent Newsweek articlereports that reviews were conducted, but behind closed doors and away from public scrutiny. The moratorium was lifted in December 2017.

But, as reported in last week’s newsletter, a new gain-of-function research project involving bat coronaviruses began in 2015, two years before the moratorium ended. Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Chinese government authorized funding for both American researchers and the Wuhan Institute of Virology for the purpose of transforming a bat coronavirus into one that could infect and be transmitted by humans. They were successful, and the researchers reported their work in a prestigious European journal.[3] In the article, the researchers expressed some concern about whether or not their research was in violation of U.S. rules.

According to the Newsweek article, in 2019, the NIAID renewed the grant and committed an additional $3.7 million dollars for 5 more years of research, bringing the total invested in this research to $7.4 million. EcoHealth Alliance was the recipient of the grant. This organization describes itself as a “…global environmental health non-profit organization dedicated to protecting wildlife and public health from the emergence of disease.” EcoHealth has some interesting partners that include:[4]

  • Drug companies including Johnson and Johnson, which has received hundreds of millions of dollars from the U.S. government for the development of a COVID-19 vaccine[5]
  • Johns Hopkins, which staged Event 201 in October 2019, a simulation of a coronavirus pandemic that would kill 65 million people [6]
  • The Centers for Disease Control
  • The National Institutes of Health
  • The New York City Department of Health

The proposal for the more recent funding stated that “We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential (emphasis mine).”[7] “Spillover potential” means the ability of a virus to jump from animals to humans, and attach to receptors in human cells. The virus to be used in this research was a bat coronavirus.

The mainstream media has largely ignored any information that is critical of Fauci or the current response of government and health officials to COVID-19. But Newsweek chose to cover this story last week, perhaps an encouraging sign.[8] Newsweek reports that Fauci did not respond to requests for comment, but that the NIH issued this statement: “Most emerging human viruses come from wildlife, and these represent a significant threat to public health and biosecurity in the US and globally, as demonstrated by the SARS epidemic of 2002-03, and the current COVID-19 pandemic…. scientific research indicates that there is no evidence that suggests the virus was created in a laboratory.”[9]

The Trump administration ended funding for this research on April 24.[10]

It is not known at this time if Fauci had any direct involvement in arranging or overseeing these research projects. We do know that he was head of the NIAID during the entire time period in which the research was conducted. Agency heads are – or should be – held responsible for the actions of their employees and organizations. And generally ignorance is not acceptable as a means for avoiding responsibility in many court proceedings. Perhaps other members of the mainstream media will become curious and decide to look into these matters further.


[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/

[2] Akst J. “Moratorium on Gain-of-Function Research.” The Scientist October 21 2014

[3] Menachery VD, Yount Jr BI, Debbink K et al. “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.” Nature Med 2015 Dec;21(12)1508–1513

[4] https://www.ecohealthalliance.org/partners

[5] Schleunes A. “US Selects Two COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates for Huge Investment.” The Scientist April 1 2020

[6] http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/

[7] https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/R01-AI110964-06

[8] Guterl F. “Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab With U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research.” Newsweek April 28 2020

[9] Guterl F. “Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab With U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research.” Newsweek April 28 2020

[10] Owermohle S. “Trump cuts U.S. research on bat-human virus transmission over China ties.” Politico April 27 2020

Healthy People Should Not Wear Face Masks by Jim Meehan, MD

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public health experts began telling us to follow a number of disease mitigation strategies that sounded reasonably scientific, but actually had little or no support in the scientific literature. Community wearing of masks was one of the more dangerous recommendations from our confused public health experts.

The Pandemic of Bad Science and Public Health Misinformation on Community Wearing of Masks

Renowned neurosurgeon, Russell Blaylock, MD had this to say about the science of masks:

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

You can read Dr. Blaylock’s brilliant discussion of this matter at the end of this paper or at this link:

Blaylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy

Quarantining Healthy People – A Failed Experiment

We were told that everyone, even the healthy, should quarantine at home. All were told to “shelter-in-place,” isolate ourselves, hide alone, indoors, until the danger of the virus passed, despite the large body of scientific evidence that shows our immune systems thrive on diversity of exposures, sunlight, time in nature, and in loving company of others.

Furthermore, it seemed that the public health experts were ignoring the very real harms that result from shutting down the economy, putting tens of millions of workers out of work, and the shadow pandemic of suicides, drug abuse, overdoses, and other harms that follow massive economic downturns. [R][R]

Historically and by definition, quarantines had always been about sequestering the sick. Never before had anyone beat a virus by quarantining the healthy. We were not told that quarantining healthy people was a first-of-its kind experiment. And the experiment failed. More on this topic later.

Community Wearing of Masks is a Bad Recommendation

We were frequently confused by the mixed messages coming from public health agencies. Early in the pandemic Dr. Fauci, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the WHO all told the public, in no uncertain terms, not to wear masks. Then, over the course of the next several weeks and months, the CDC twice changed their recommendations, as did the WHO, and the recommendations always contradicted each other!

The CDC made the mistake of telling us cloth masks worked, and they even provided directions on their website for making homemade cloth masks.

To clear up the confusion, I will show that the scientific evidence not only does not support the community wearing of face masks, but the evidence shows that healthy people wearing face masks pose serious health risks to wearers.

Hiding our faces behind masks and isolating in our homes is not the solution, at least not for most people with healthy immune systems. Supporting the health of your immune system, confidently confronting all pathogens, and allowing herd immunity to develop and protect the vulnerable populations should be the goal.

What’s happening in the world today, including the misinformation surrounding community mask wearing, is about political agendas, symbolism, fear, and dividing and isolating the people. It has nothing to do with science.

Medical Masks are Bad for Health

As a physician and former medical journal editor, I’ve carefully read the scientific literature regarding the use of face masks to mitigate viral transmission. I believe the public health experts have community wearing of masks all wrong. What follows are the key issues that should inform the public against wearing medical face masks during the CoVID-19 pandemic, as well as all future respiratory disease pandemics.

Face masks decrease oxygen, increase carbon dioxide, and alter breathing in ways that increase susceptibility and severity of CoVID-19

Mask wearers frequently report symptoms of difficulty breathing, shortness of breath, headache, lightheadedness, dizziness, anxiety, brain fog, difficulty concentrating, and other subjective symptoms while wearing medical masks. As a surgeon, I have worn masks for prolonged periods of time in thousands of surgeries and can assure you these symptoms do occur when surgical masks are worn for extended periods of time. The longer a surgical mask is worn, the more saturated with moisture it becomes, and the more significantly it inhibits the inflow of oxygen and outflow of carbon dioxide.

In fact, clinical research shows that medical masks lower blood oxygen levels[R] and raise carbon dioxide blood levels.[R] The deviations in oxygen and carbon dioxide may not reach the clinical criteria for hypoxia (low blood oxygen), hypoxemia (low tissue oxygen), or hypercapnia (elevated blood carbon dioxide), but they can deviate enough to cause even healthy individuals to become symptomatic, as occurred with the surgeons studied and published in this report:

Preliminary Report on Surgical Mask Induced Deoxygenation During Major Surgery

At the same time masks inhibit oxygen intake, they trap the carbon dioxide rich breath in the mouth/mask inter-space. Thus, a fraction of carbon dioxide previously exhaled is inhaled at each respiratory cycle.

Masks force you to re-breathe a portion of your own breath, including all the stuff (infectious viral particles) the lungs were trying to remove from the body (more on this later).

As medical masks lower oxygen and raise carbon dioxide in the blood, the brain senses the changes and the risk they pose to the maintenance of normal physiology. Thus, the brain goes to work to bring things back in order. To obtain more oxygen and remove more carbon dioxide, the brain tells the lungs to increase the rate (frequency) and depth of breaths.[R] Unfortunately, struggle as they may, your brain and lungs can not fully compensate for the negative effects of the mask. Some may even suffer the symptoms of carbon dioxide toxicity.

For people with diseases of the lungs, especially chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), face masks are intolerable to wear as they worsen breathlessness.[R]

In the case of respiratory pathogens, the negative effects of masks and the respiratory changes they induce could increase susceptibility and transmission of CoVID-19, as well as other respiratory pathogens.

Viral particles move through face masks with relative ease. Studies show that about 44% of viral particles pass through surgical masks, 97% pass through cloth masks, and about 5% through N95 masks. Increasing tidal volume (depth of breaths) results in literally sucking more air, more forcefully through and around the mask. Any SARS CoV-2 particles on, in, or around the mask are more forcefully suctioned into the mouth and lungs as a result of the compensatory increases in tidal volume.

The changes in respiratory rate and depth may also increase the severity of CoVID-19 as the increased tidal volume delivers the viral particles deeper into the lungs.

These changes may worsen the community transmission of CoVID-19 when infected people wearing masks exhale air more heavily contaminated with viral particles from the lungs.

These effects are amplified if face masks are contaminated with the viruses, bacteria, or fungi that find their way or opportunistically grow in the warm, moist environment that medical masks quickly become.

Despite the scientific evidence to the contrary, public health experts claim that medical masks do not cause clinically significant hypoxia (low oxygen) and hypercapnia (high CO2). I would like to ask those experts to explain the growing number of cases in which medical masks worn during exercise have resulted in lung injuries and heart attacks:

Two Chinese boys drop dead during PE lessons while wearing face masks amid concerns over students’ fitness following three months of school closure [R][R]

Jogger’s lung collapses after he ran for 2.5 miles while wearing a face mask [R]

If medical masks were perfectly safe and effective, then why would healthy boys suffer heart attacks or a 26 year old man collapse his lung while wearing masks and running?! In my opinion, these are tragic examples of the risks of wearing medical masks. And we are only getting started.

SARS CoV-2 becomes more dangerous when blood oxygen levels decline

Low blood levels of oxygen is a critical issue in the pathogenicity of CoVID-19. The virus’ ability to infect cells is markedly enhanced by oxygen desaturation, which we know occurs when wearing a surgical mask.[R]

One of the features that make SARS CoV-2 uniquely infectious is the “furin cleavage” sequence in the virus that activates increased ACE2 receptor attack and cellular invasion in low oxygen environments.[R]

The furin cleavage site of SARS CoV-2 increases cellular invasion, especially during hypoxia (low blood oxygen levels)[R]

The furin cleavage site found in SARS CoV-2 is the likely result of the bio-engineering “gain of function” (increasing the virulence of a pathogen) research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This unethical, dangerous, and illegal-in-most-countries research is alleged to have been funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci (with $7.4 million taxpayer dollars) and Bill Gates.

Furin cleavage sites are found in some of the most pathogenic forms of influenza. The furin cleavage domain in SARS CoV-2 is cleaved by furin on the target cell.

Furin is an ubiquitous protease in humans. It is found in a wide variety of tissues in the human body: heart, brain, kidney, etc. It is expressed in significant concentrations in human lung cells, the common target of SARS CoV-2. When the virus encounters a lung cell expressing (both an ACE2 receptor and furin), the furin cleaves the furin cleavage site on SARS CoV-2, activates the virus’ surface S (spike) protein, and enables the virus to more effectively bind the ACE2 receptors and more efficiently invade the cell.[R]

Remember how medical face masks decrease blood oxygen levels? Well, now you need to know that SARS CoV-2’s ability to invade and infect our cells is greatly enhanced under conditions of low oxygen.[R]

Therefore, wearing a medical mask may increase the severity of CoVID-19. If that does not motivate you to ditch your mask, there are more reasons to come.

Some of the most pathogenic forms of influenza and HIV are armed with similar furin cleavage sites. However, furin cleavage sites are not present in other beta coronaviruses. The furin cleavage site is NOT present in SARS CoV-1, MERS, or the other “bat coronaviruses” postulated to be the progenitors of SARS CoV-2.

It is worth repeating: SARS-CoV, which is closely related to the newest SARS-CoV-2 strain, does not bear the furin cleavage site. So how did SARS CoV-2 gain the furin cleavage function?

Dr. Fauci built his career on HIV research, HIV vaccine failures, and unethical “gain of function” research. He undoubtedly knows a lot about furin cleavage sites and the suspicious origins of SARS CoV-2. Perhaps Congress should ask him…under oath…preferably with an indictment.

The question we should all be asking is how did the genetic sequence that codes for this serious gain of function that increases the potential for the virus to successfully infiltrate the host find its way into SARS-CoV-2? That’s the trillion dollar question; it demands a real answer.

Medical masks trap exhaled viral particles in the mouth/mask interspace, increase viral load, and increase the severity of disease.

Face masks trap exhaled viral particles in the mouth/mask inter-space.[R] The trapped viral particles are prevented from removal from the airways. The mask wearer is thus forced to re-breathe the viral particles, increasing infectious viral particles in the airways and lungs. In this way, medical masks cause self-inoculation, increase viral load, and increase the severity of disease.

Asymptomatic or mild cases of CoVID-19 become more severe when an infected individual is masked, oxygen lowers, viral load increases from particle re-breathing, and the disease overwhelms the innate immune system.

  1. The main purpose of the innate immune response is to immediately prevent the spread and movement of foreign pathogens throughout the body.[R]
  2. The innate immune system plays a crucial role in destroying the virus, preventing infection, or decreasing the viral load to decrease the severity of infection.
  3. The innate immunity’s effectiveness is highly dependent on the viral load. If face masks increase viral particle re-breathing at the same time they create a humid habitat where SARS-CoV-2 remains actively infectious, the mask increases the viral load and can overwhelm the innate immune system.

This trapping, re-breathing, and increasing pathogen load delivered to the lungs becomes dramatically more dangerous when the medical mask becomes contaminated with the opportunistic viruses, bacteria, and fungi that can grow in the warm, moist environment of the mask.

“By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.” – Russell Blaylock, MD

Masks are unnecessary when asymptomatic spreading of SARS CoV-2 is “very rare”

Much of the recommendation for community wearing of masks was based on the belief that asymptomatic carriers of SARS CoV-2 were responsible for the transmission and spread of CoVID-19. There was no real scientific evidence for this belief. However, antibody testing began demonstrating larger numbers of people with antibodies to the virus than anyone imagined. Therefore, the belief was that these people must represent asymptomatic carriers that were spreading the disease.

Contact tracing has determined that asymptomatic cases are not causing secondary transmission:

Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is “very rare,” WHO says

“We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing,” she [Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit], said. “They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare.”

More from the article:

Coronavirus patients without symptoms aren’t driving the spread of the virus, World Health Organization officials said Monday, casting doubt on concerns by some researchers that the disease could be difficult to contain due to asymptomatic infections.

Some people, particularly young and otherwise healthy individuals, who are infected by the coronavirus never develop symptoms or only develop mild symptoms. Others might not develop symptoms until days after they were actually infected.

Preliminary evidence from the earliest outbreaks indicated that the virus could spread from person-to-person contact, even if the carrier didn’t have symptoms. But WHO officials now say that while asymptomatic spread can occur, it is not the main way it’s being transmitted.

“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency’s Geneva headquarters. “It’s very rare.”

The fact that asymptomatic carriers are not a major driver of the disease tells us that masks are unnecessary.

The Evidence for Aerosol Transmission is Weak

The likelihood of airborne transmission—especially compared with other routes, such as droplets or surfaces—remains unclear. Most researchers still think the new coronavirus is primarily spread via droplets and touching infected people or surfaces. So diligent hand washing and social distancing are still the most important measures people can take to avoid infection.”[Scientific American, 5/12/2020]

Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security

  1. Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security.
  2. People adopt a reduction in compliance with other infection control measures, including social distancing and hands washing.[R]

Inappropriate use of face masks:

  1. People must not touch their masks, must change their single-use masks frequently or wash them regularly, dispose them correctly and adopt other management measures, otherwise their risks and those of others may increase.[R][R]

Wearing a face mask makes the exhaled air go into the eyes.

  1. This generates an uncomfortable feeling and an impulse to touch your eyes. If your hands are contaminated and you touch or rub your eyes, you are infecting yourself.[R]

Masks compromise communications and reduce social distancing

  1. The quality and volume of speech between two people wearing masks is considerably compromised, so they may unconsciously move closer to improve communications.
  2. This increases the likelihood of becoming exposed to respiratory droplets containing infectious viral particles.

Contact tracing studies show that asymptomatic carrier transmission is very rare.

  1. Asymptomatic carriers are not a major driver of the disease.[R]
  2. Therefore, masks are unnecessary.
  3. Furthermore, social distancing is unnecessary.

Face masks and stay at home orders prevent the development of herd immunity.

  1. Only herd immunity can prevent pandemics.
  2. Only herd immunity will protect the vulnerable members of society.

Lack of Scientific Evidence for Community Wearing of Face Masks

There is no reasonable scientific evidence to support healthy people wearing masks. Russell Blaylock, MD had this to say about the science of masks:

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

Here’s what a group of physicians wrote regarding Universal Masking in Hospitals in the CoVID-19 Era in the New England Journal of Medicine:

We know that wearing a mask outside healthcare facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to CoVID-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic CoVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching CoVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

The clinical research on this topic is clear: even when handled and worn properly, which is definitely NOT happening in the public spaces, wearing a mask in public offers little or no protection from infection. However, when masks are handled and worn improperly, they are a personal and public health disaster.

The “Hamster Study” is an example of weak science used to support bad recommendations

Here’s an example of one of the experimental studies used by some public health authorities to support wearing masks in the community:

Wearing a mask can significantly reduce coronavirus transmission, study on hamsters claims

Does this study of “masking” hamster cages sound like the kind of solid scientific evidence that supports recommendations or mandates for everyone to wear masks during the CoVID-19 pandemic? No. The hamsters were not forced to wear tiny hamster surgical masks, their cages were covered with a barrier made of mask-like material. The experiment was more about walls or barriers than it was masks.

The experiment did not create the same conditions experienced by masked humans. Placing a cloth barrier on hamster cages is nothing like masking the mouth and nose of humans. The way this experiment was set up, inhalations were unimpeded, therefore, arterial oxygen levels would not be expected to lower. Likewise, exhalations were not trapped in a way that would force the hamsters to suffer re-breathing their own carbon-dioxide or subject them to the dangers of re-inhaling the infectious viral particles released with each exhalation.

This study does not provide support for the recommendation for masking all members of the public to reduce transmission of SARS CoV-2. Those citing this study to support wearing masks in the community are inappropriately extrapolating and conflating the experiment’s findings to contrive a conclusion the experimental methodology does not allow.

Some studies even question the efficacy of surgical masks in the operating room

Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms—a costly and unnecessary ritual?

Following the commissioning of a new suite of operating rooms, air movement studies showed a flow of air away from the operating table towards the periphery of the room. Oral microbial flora dispersed by unmasked male and female volunteers standing one meter from the table failed to contaminate exposed settle plates placed on the table. The wearing of face masks by non-scrubbed staff working in an operating room with forced ventilation seems to be unnecessary.

Public Health Experts Are Confused and Contradictory on Masks

Since the first days of the pandemic, Fauci, Birx, the CDC, and the WHO have been confusing the public as they flipped, flopped, and contradicted each other on the community wearing of medical masks. We should expect more than confusing, contradictory, unevidenced advice from our public health experts.[R][R] Their lack of evidence and clarity was subverted to the belief that any level of protection was better than none. However, no one seemed to be fully considering the downsides of masks as I have presented them above.

Continue reading at Health Impact News