Armed attackers on Sunday and Wednesday invaded Sabon Birnin Local Government Area of Sokoto State and killed over 50 people as they celebrated Eid al-Fitr, residents said.
A lucid explanation for my love,
Impeccably decorate climate of love.
Lure of kiss awarded for highness sake,
Arduous negotiations with gruesome riots.
Love persuaded apocalypse,
Preachy hostages heart syndrome to avail love,
A beautiful love burst ,little love budling spreading pinkish, and reddish aromas,
Upliftment from attention love, predators attack holyfield.
A love so beautiful like eccentric eclipse in universe.
A lucid explanation for my love.
May 27th 2020 By: GMI Reporter
Originally published by Roman Bystrianyk
People in the United States shouldn’t be walking around with masks.
– Dr. Anthony Fauci
There is no scientific evidence necessitating the wearing of a face mask for prevention.
– Russel Blaylock, MD
For the average member of the public walking down a street, it [wearing a mask] is not a good idea.
– Dr. Jenny Harries
During the era of COVID-19, we see more and more people wearing face masks. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) currently recommends that everyone wear a mask even if they appear healthy with no signs of disease. Various government officials are mandating the wearing of face masks in public settings. It seems evident that this would help to stop the spread of any infection. But does it really make sense? Is it supported by science? Are there any adverse consequences of wearing a mask?
WHO COVID-19 and masks recommendations – As of April 6, 2020, the WHO (World Health Organization) interim guidance1 on the use of masks provided information that transmission of the virus is via respiratory droplets and contact.
Respiratory droplets are generated when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Any person who is in close contact (within 1 m [3 feet]) with someone who has respiratory symptoms (coughing, sneezing) is at risk of being exposed to potentially infective respiratory droplets. Droplets may also land on surfaces where the virus could remain viable; thus, the immediate environment of an infected individual can serve as a source of transmission (contact transmission).
Exposure to the virus and symptom onset is, on average, 5-6 days but can be as long as 14 days. They noted that people who haven’t yet shown symptoms can be contagious and possibly transmit the virus to others. However, the current evidence suggests that most disease is transmitted by people who are already sick and not those who are without symptoms. Only a small number of reports of transmission have been documented who are not showing signs of infection.
It is important to recognize that pre-symptomatic transmission still requires the virus to be spread via infectious droplets or through touching contaminated surfaces.
They emphasize that even in a medical setting, “the use of a mask alone is insufficient to provide an adequate level of protection.” As with influenza, hand washing is critical to prevent human-to-human transmission. They clearly state that there is no scientific evidence that wearing a mask by healthy people can prevent infection and that masks should be reserved for health care workers.
Also, they note that the use of masks by the public may create a false sense of security, which may cause people to neglect hand washing and physical distancing. It also can lead to people touching the face and eyes under the masks resulting in a greater chance of disease transmission. Depending on the type of face-covering used, they can also create potential breathing difficulties. Cloth masks have not been evaluated and can’t be recommended and are not considered appropriate for health care workers. If they are not suitable for health care workers, then it seems they should not be recommended for the general public.
“There is currently no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19”
One study that evaluated the use of cloth masks in a health care facility found that health care workers using cotton cloth masks were at increased risk of infection compared with those who wore medical masks. Therefore, cotton cloth masks are not considered appropriate for health care workers.
With the use of a mask, the appropriate use and disposal are essential to avoid the increased risk of disease transmission. The guidance recommends the following:
- Place the mask carefully, ensuring it covers the mouth and nose, and tie it securely to minimize any gaps between the face and the mask. Avoid touching the mask while wearing it. Remove the mask using the appropriate technique: do not touch the front of the mask but untie it from behind. After removal or whenever a used mask is inadvertantly touched, clean hands using an alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water if hands are visible dirty.
- Replace masks as soon as they become damp with a new clean, dry mask.
- Do not re-use single-use masks. Discard single-use masks after each use and dispose of them immeidately upon removal.
“Appropriate use and dispal of masks are essential to avoid the increased risk of disease transmission.”
Proper use of any mask is essential. Improper use of a mask can lead to an increased risk of infection.
Face masks and influenza – With the decision to mandate that people wear masks in public settings, it would seem there would be definitive science on the effectiveness of such a measure with infections such as with the flu. However, a 2011 study in the journal Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses examined 17 other studies to determine the effectiveness of masks. 2 Of the studies that were examined, three were randomized hospital-based studies, and five were conducted in community settings. The study conclusions was that
None of the studies we reviewed established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.
The authors noted that the evidence on how influenza is actually transmitted is poorly understood.
That understanding is clearly linked to any evidence-based guidance on the use of masks.
How influenza is spread and specific risk factors that can affect transmissibility (e.g., host factors, pathogen factors, environmental factors, and particle size)… this is an area equally fraught with uncertainty; there are limited and conflicting evidence regarding the relative importance and frequency of direct contact, indirect contact, droplet and aerosol modes of transmission.
The authors found that contrary to common sense, masks would be recommended without the resources to find out if it was scientific to actually use them.
“In conclusion, there is a limited evidence base to support the use of masks and/or respirators in healthcare or community settings.”
It is somewhat paradoxical that whilst continued effort and resources are needed to assess the independent effect of masks and respirators on influenza transmission, their use would always be recommended in combination with other control measures.
Face masks increased risk of infection – Current panic has led to everyone wearing masks even when walking outdoors or while driving in their cars. Such fear-based decision making is not scientifically supported.
“For the average member of the public walking down a street, it [wearing a mask] is not a good idea.” – Dr. Jenny Harries
More importantly, the use of face masks may actually increase the risk of contracting the virus. Dr. Jenny Harries, England’s deputy chief medical officer, warned that it was not a good idea for the general public to wear facemasks and should only be worn if someone is overtly sick.3 The virus can get trapped in the material and causes infection when the wearer breathes in. Also,
“What tends to happen is people will have one mask. They won’t wear it all the time, they will take it off when they get home, they will put it down on a surface they haven’t cleaned. Behavioral issues could adversely put themselves at more risk of getting the infection. For instance, people go out and don’t wash their hands, they touch parts of the mask or their face, and they get infected.”
According to Russell Blaylock, MD,
There is another danger to wearing these masks on a daily basis, especially if worn for several hours. When a person is infected with a respiratory virus, they will expel some of the virus with each breath. If they are wearing a mask, especially an N95 mask or other tightly fitting mask,they will be constantly rebreathing the viruses, raising the concentration of the virus in the lungs, and the nasal passages.4
Face masks ineffective in stopping COVID-19 – A recent study in the Annals of Internal Medicine showed found that even surgical masks are ineffective in preventing the spreading of disease from the coughs of patients with COVID-19.5
“Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients… However, the size and concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols generated during coughing are unknown. Oberg and Brousseau demonstrated that surgical masks did not exhibit adequate filter performance against aerosols measuring 0.9, 2.0, and 3.1 μm in diameter. Lee and colleagues showed that particles 0.04 to 0.2 μm can penetrate surgical masks. The size of the SARS-CoV particle from the 2002-2004 outbreak was estimated as 0.08 to 0.14 μm; assuming that SARS-CoV-2 has a similar size, surgical masks are unlikely to effectively filter this virus.
The study found that the outside of the masks had greater contamination than the inside of the masks. Because of this observation, they stress the importance of handwashing after touching the outer surfaces of masks.
In conclusion, both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination [spreading] of SARS-CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.”
“We found greater contamination on the outer than the inner mask surfaces. A turbulent jet due to air leakage around the mask edge could contaminate the outer surface. Alternatively, the small aerosols of SARS-CoV-2 generated during a high-velocity cough might penetrate the masks.”
Keep in mind that the COVID-19 virus is about 80 to 140 nanometers wide. The width of a human hair ranges from 17,000 to 181,000 nanometers6 meaning as many as 2,200 viruses could be place end to end across a single hair. The cloth that is part of a cloth facemask that is a 600 thread per inch (TPI) means there is a thread about every 80,000 nanometers. Between each thread, there is a gap through which these microscopic viruses can easily slip between.
Surgical masks and bacterial infection – A study in 2018 showed that surgical masks used in an operating room became contaminated with bacteria within a short amount of time.7 The concern was that with extended wear time that the bacteria could shed during an operation.
The source of bacterial contamination in SMs [Surgical Masks] was the body surface of the surgeons rather than the OR [Operating Room] environment. Moreover, we recommend that surgeons should change the mask after each operation, especially those beyond 2 hours. Double-layered SMs [Surgical Masks] or those with excellent filtration function may also be a better alternative.
There is a concern about the bacterial infection of surgical masks in an operating room, which has a high standard of cleanliness. The general public, which is using a wide variety of different types of masks, are not in clean environments and are almost certainly not following ideal cleanliness or face mask usage protocols. It seems probable that the general public that wears face masks will quickly contaminate those masks with bacteria, potentially causing increased bacterial infections to themselves and others.
“We recommend that surgeons should change the mask after each operation, especially those beyond 2 hours.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci on face masks – Dr. Fauci has been director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and is the figurehead in the United States in regards to COVID-19. His interview on 60 Minutes Overtime makes it clear that masks are not necessary and potentially harmful for the general public to wear masks. This is the transcript of part of the interview.8
Fauci: The masks are important for someone that is infected to prevent them from infecting someone else… Right now, people in the United States shouldn’t be walking around with masks.
Interviewer: You’re sure of it?
Fauci: Right now, people should not be walking, there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their face.
Interviewer: And you can get some shmutz sort of staying inside there?
Fauci: Of course. Of course. But when you think of mask, you should think about health care providers needing them and people who are ill.
Conclusion – It’s clear that the current directive to wear masks by the general public isn’t scientifically supported. Even in the case of the flu, here is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus transmission. Also, the use of masks can be creating more spread of diseases than it prevents. Personal observations seem to indicate that most people don’t know how to correctly put on, wear, or dispose of face masks, and this is causing more harm than good. Moreover, the fear that has been generated by everyone wearing masks because many believe that everyone else is going to cause them to get sick and possibly die and the resultant impact on their psyche and immune system cannot be underestimated.
Historically, in any type of epidemic, only the infected would wear a mask, not all those who are not sick. This type of unscientific recommendations has never been used to contain any other virus pandemic or epidemic in history. So why are face masks being mandated for this virus where most people experience no or very mild symptoms? According to Dr. Blaylock,
Back in April The New York Times Magazine ran a report on a brave 26-year-old Emergency Room doctor in New York City who contracted the coronavirus and later died. Well, it was all hogwash. The New York Times admitted this week the doctor didn’t die and didn’t have coronavirus. Via Andrew Bostom:
by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News May 28, 2020
Yesterday we reported how the Globalists working through the United Nations are no longer hiding the fact that they want to usher in a “New World Order,” and that we can now remove the word “theory” from the pejorative term “Conspiracy Theories” when discussing this agenda. See:
The UN “New World Order” Has Now Been Published: No Longer a “Conspiracy Theory” – Out of the Shadows
The 2020 Coronavirus Plandemic has been their most successful campaign to date in their agenda to establish this “New World Order.”
If you are reading alternative news from sites like Health Impact News, you are in a position to resist these efforts to radically change our way of life, and become part of the resistance movement that is gaining speed.
Today we revisit the topic of face masks, and face mask shaming. See our previous article on this topic:
More Doctors Speak Out AGAINST Face Masks – If No Health Benefit, What is the Real Reason They are Mandated?
As we discussed yesterday, the corporate propaganda media is controlled by these Globalists, and after initially stating that face masks were not necessary during the early days of the Plandemic, they are now joining forces together to try and make these masks mandatory, and shaming anyone who does not comply.
Recently, a reporter for the corporate media was in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, a tourist area in the southern part of the state that draws many summer tourists from Chicago and Illinois.
Wisconsin was the first state in the U.S. to challenge the governor’s coronavirus policies in court, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional, allowing businesses to immediately reopen, and for people to leave their homes and go about their business.
Therefore, they are a target now for the corporate propaganda media, who attempted to send a national reporter there to shame them.
The reporter from MSNBC, Cal Perry, was trying to shame people in Wisconsin for walking outdoors in the fresh air with no face masks.
But in these days of cell phone cameras where any citizen can become an instant on-the-scene reporter, a passerby who was being criticized for not wearing a face mask, turned around and filmed the MSNBC film crew who were “behind the scenes” with Cal Perry, showing that half of them were not even wearing face masks either.
Multiple copies of the encounter which clearly exposes the agenda of the corporate propaganda media are now all over Facebook and YouTube. Here is one copy: https://www.youtube.com/embed/3yEuWNLa_Hs?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1
Another citizen on-the-scene reporter with their cell phone camera captured a scene inside a New York grocery store, where a woman who entered the store without a face mask incurred the wrath of the other shoppers, that they began shouting at her and chased her out of the store, so great was their fear over the virus. https://www.youtube.com/embed/nOLhbnnf1d4?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1
When this happens, the Globalists trying to setup their New World Order are winning.
President Trump, for whatever reason, seems reluctant to wear a face mask in public, and has even said publicly that in the situations where he does wear one, he does it outside of the cameras of the media. When visiting an auto plant in Michigan recently, he stated that in the situations where it was appropriate to wear it, he:
“didn’t want to give the press the pleasure of seeing it.” (Source.)
Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has flip flopped himself on this issue, recently stated that one of his motivations for wearing one is:
“because I want to make it be a symbol for people to see that that’s the kind of thing you should be doing.” (Source.)
Dr. Alan Palmer, a practicing chiropractor for 30 years, has written a very extensive analysis of the medical data behind wearing face masks at Children’s Health Defense, and we include it here.
He joins many other doctors, many of them medical doctors, across the U.S. who are saying the same thing, such as Dr. Andrew Kaufman, a psychiatrist who lost his job because he refused to wear a face mask, and has declared publicly that he is willing to go to jail to resist the agenda of the Globalists. See:
Censored Dr. Kaufman: “They Want To Genetically Modify Us With COVID-19 Vaccine” – Loses his Job and Willing to go to Jail to Resist
The Risks vs. Benefits of Face Masks- Is There an Agenda?
There has been a shifting of positions on the use of face masks with the COVID-19 outbreak.
Initially it was not recommended, then we had different signals from the U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams and representatives of the CDC, the NIH and other agencies.
More recently, the policies recommending wearing face masks have become more prevalent and often mandated in public places.
Is there sound medical or scientific basis for the recommendations? Is much of it simply virtue signaling? Is there a legitimate rationale to do it to protect the vulnerable? And if so, at what cost to the rest of society?
There are many important considerations including the risk versus the reward. So, what are the risks vs. the benefits? And would there be a partisan reason for some policy makers to push for one over the other? Because as unfortunate as it is, all decisions and policies have to be viewed from at least two lenses, politics and who stands to benefit financially?
Let’s look at the two camps in the debate:
The benefit is greater than the risk—
Proponents of face masks use the following arguments:
We can prevent sick or asymptomatic infected people from infecting others by wearing masks – There may be some credible evidence to suggest this, but in doing so the infected person wearing the mask may be making their infection much worse as a result. The “wear them only in a medical setting” arguments below will prove this out. N-95 masks have been shown to block 95% of airborne particles with a median diameter >0.3 μm2, whereas standard face masks may block 50-70% of particles depending on the mask. (http://medcraveonline.com/JLPRR/JLPRR-01-00021.pdf)
If healthy people wear face masks, they will be protected from those that may be infected- The counterpoint in the next section will make the argument against that logic.
If you wear a mask, you are less likely to touch your nose, mouth or eyes, which is where the vast majority of infections begin- Some claim this to be true, but an argument can be made that people handle their mask frequently when adjusting them on their face and to remove them and put them on. All this touching of the mask raises the potential that viral transmission to the mask can then transfer to the nasal and oral cavities. Recent video of the Coronavirus Task Force news conferences has underscored this, as Dr Fauci and others from the task force are seen frequently fiddling with their masks in the background.
The risk is greater than the benefit (except in a medical setting)—
Detractors from the regular use of face masks cite the following:
Face masks do not protect the wearer from transmission by others-
- The American Medical Association just released a position paper on masks:
“Face masks should be used only by individuals who have symptoms of respiratory infection such as coughing, sneezing, or, in some cases, fever. Face masks should also be worn by healthcare workers, by individuals who are taking care of or are in close contact with people who have respiratory infections, or otherwise as directed by a doctor. Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill. Face masks should be reserved for those who need them because masks can be in short supply during periods of widespread respiratory infection. Because N95 respirators require special fit testing, they are not recommended for use by the general public.” (Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA); April 21, 2020 Volume 323, Number 15 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762694)
- A recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that, “None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.” (bin-Reza F et al. The use of mask and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: A systematic review of the scientific evidence. Resp Viruses 2012;6(4):257-67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5779801/)
Face masks restrict the elimination of virus, recirculating the virus into the nasal/sinus and upper respiratory passages-
- “By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.” Article by Russell Blaylock M.D., published May 14, 2020 in Technocracy News & Trends. Dr. Blaylock is a prominent retired neurosurgeon and author of health-related books. “We know that people who have the worst reactions to the coronavirus have the highest concentrations of the virus early on. And this leads to the deadly cytokine storm in a selected number.” (Blaylock: Face Masks Pose Serious Risks To The Healthy; https://www.technocracy.news/blaylock-face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy/)
- This direct rebreathing of the virus back into the nasal passages can contribute to the migration of the virus to the brain. (1, 2) “Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain. In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.”(3)
- Baig AM et al. Evidence of the COVID-19 virus targeting the CNS: Tissue distribution, host-virus interaction, and proposed neurotropic mechanisms. ACS Chem Neurosci 2020;11:7:995-998.
- Wu Y et al. Nervous system involvement after infection with COVID-19 and other coronaviruses. Brain Behavior, and Immunity.
- Perlman S et al. Spread of a neurotropic murine coronavirus into the CNS via the trigeminal and olfactory nerves. Virology 1989;170:556-560.
Wearing a face can cause headaches and reduce oxygen levels- A recent study involving 159 healthcare workers aged 21 to 35 years of age found that 81% developed headaches from wearing a face mask… That is, a reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) or an elevation in blood CO2 (hypercapnia). It is known that the N95 mask, if worn for hours, can reduce blood oxygenation as much as 20%. And proper oxygenation of the blood is essential for energy, mental clarity, focus and emotional well-being. (Ong JJY et al. Headaches associated with personal protective equipment- A cross sectional study among frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19. Headache 2020;60(5):864-877.)
Wearing a face mask causes one to re-breath the carbon dioxide (CO2), that the lungs are attempting to expel- This in turn reduces the immune response, negatively affects epithelial cell function (cells in the lungs and blood vessels) and lowers the amount of oxygen exchange across the alveolar membranes. From the article:
“Hypercapnia, the elevation of carbon dioxide (CO2) in blood and tissues, commonly occurs in severe acute and chronic respiratory diseases, and is associated with increased risk of mortality. Recent studies have shown that hypercapnia adversely affects innate immunity, host defense, lung edema clearance and cell proliferation. Airway epithelial dysfunction is a feature of advanced lung disease….These changes in gene expression indicate the potential for hypercapnia to impact bronchial epithelial cell function in ways that may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with severe acute or advanced chronic lung diseases.”
This clearly can have a negative impact with a disease like COVID-19. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-32008-x.pdf)
Wearing a face mask can increase your risk of infections- The last point discussed the drop of oxygen levels after wearing a mask. A drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia), is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the T-regs.
This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome. In addition, reduced oxygenation can accelerate cancer growth. (1. Shehade H et al. Cutting edge: Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 negatively regulates Th1 function. J Immunol 2015;195:1372-1376. 2. Westendorf AM et al. Hypoxia enhances immunosuppression by inhibiting CD4+ effector T cell function and promoting Treg activity. Cell Physiol Biochem 2017;41:1271-84. 3. Sceneay J et al. Hypoxia-driven immunosuppression contributes to the premetastatic niche. Oncoimmunology 2013;2:1 e22355.)
Wearing face masks is a constant reminder that we should fear this invisible enemy or “monster” as some politicians have called it- There is no doubt that wearing a mask reinforces the worry and fear about COVID-19. Even being in public mask-less and seeing that most people are wearing masks leaves one with a sense of angst. Fear, worry and anxiety are powerful immune suppressing emotions. This is another factor relating to the immunosuppressive effects of face masks. This is a link to a section of a 2007 book titled, Cytokines: Stress and Immunity– Second Edition 2007. You can read Chapter 2 titled Worried to Death? Worry, and Immune Dysregulation in Health and HIV. Interestingly, HIV is a viral infection as is SARS-C0V-2 (COVID-19).
What are some government agencies saying?
On April 27, 2020, the Ventura County California Public Health Department released a Pros and Cons one-sheet summary about face masks (link at end of this section). One thing they warn against is the general public buying and using N-95 masks, because of the shortage of PPE for medical personnel. This is very wise advice. (https://www.simivalley.org/home/showdocument?id=22324)
It also cites some other limited benefits of preventing transmission, pretty well characterized by this quote:
“There is a ‘very slight protective advantage’ to wearing a medical mask as opposed to wearing nothing at all in a community setting. The risk of acquiring a viral infection is reduced by 6%. When both ill and well wear a medical mask in a household, the risk is reduced by 19%. There is more “evidence to support the use of medical masks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient high-risk situations.”
But what else does it say?
And what scientific evidence do they present that describes the effectiveness of masks and that warns against the use of face masks by the general public? Here is a good sampling…
- With near universal use of cloth and medical masks worn in public in Wuhan, China during the 2019-2020 flu season leading up to the COVID-19 outbreak, the outbreak spread virtually unchecked.
- “Available evidence shows that (cloth masks)… may even increase the risk of infection due to moisture, liquid diffusion and retention of the virus. Penetration of particles through cloth is reported to be high.” “Altogether, common fabric cloth masks are not considered protective against respiratory viruses and their use should not be encouraged.”
- “Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”
- The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks.”
- “Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible.” (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577)
- Textile materials (that can be used for cloth masks) can contain harmful chemicals and dyes (i.e. formaldehyde). There is no research available regarding the safety of breathing through such materials but formaldehyde is a gas that can irritate a person’s eyes, nose, throat and lungs, or trigger an asthma attack, even at low concentrations. Prolonged exposure to formaldehyde can cause cancer. (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/formaldehyde and https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10875.pdf)
- Wearing cloth masks in public can create a false sense of security and complacency in which people may neglect other hygiene practices. (https://www.who.int/publications-detail/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak)
- Frequent washing and drying of a cloth mask can decrease the filtration capacity of the mask. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6599448/)
- “Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients… the size and concentrations of SARS–CoV-2 in aerosols generated during coughing are unknown. Oberg and Brousseau demonstrated that surgical masks did not exhibit adequate filter performance against aerosols measuring 0.9, 2.0, and 3.1 μm in diameter. Lee and colleagues showed that particles 0.04 to 0.2 μm can penetrate surgical masks. The size of the SARS–CoV particle from the 2002–2004 outbreak was estimated as 0.08 to 0.14 μm; assuming that SARS-CoV-2 has a similar size, surgical masks are unlikely to effectively filter this virus.” (https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764367)
In total, the document presented 18 arguments and studies against the effectiveness and use of masks and 10 showing some limited benefit. After careful scrutiny of the pros and cons, I am landing squarely against the use of them other than by medical personnel in a clinical setting, or if an individual that is in close proximity of an infected person with the risk of being directly coughed or sneezed on, as in when caring for or visiting a sick person. (https://vcportal.ventura.org/CEO/VCNC/2020-05-05_VCNC_Masks_Pros_and_Cons.pdf)
The conclusion of the Russell Blaylock M.D. article states the following:
“It is evident from this review that there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus. The fact that this virus is a relatively benign infection for the vast majority of the population and that most of the at-risk group also survive, from an infectious disease and epidemiological standpoint, by letting the virus spread through the healthier population we will reach a herd immunity level rather quickly that will end this pandemic quickly and prevent a return next winter.”
“During this time, we need to protect the at-risk population by avoiding close contact, boosting their immunity with compounds that boost cellular immunity and in general, care for them. One should not attack and insult those who have chosen not to wear a mask, as these studies suggest that is the wise choice to make.”
So, what’s the motivation behind the mask?
Given all of that information, it’s time to ask the obvious question. What would be the possible motivation for pushing the narrative about face masks and in some cases even mandatory face mask rules? And how does that motivation interface with the extended stay-at-home orders? We have “flattened the curve” to prevent the risk of overwhelming our health care system (but so did Sweden without lockdowns – a great topic for another post), so why the continued extreme social distancing and face mask mantra?
Here is a hypothesis, but in the form of two questions. It implies malintent which I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but just indulge me for a moment. In the end, each person must decide that for themselves. Here we go….
1. If you wanted to prevent the population from gaining herd immunity, which would further support the need and desire for a vaccine, what would be the best way to do that?
2. If you were successful at preventing people from developing natural immunity by keeping all the healthy and young low-risk people apart from one another and thus wanted to increase the chances for a second wave of the virus in a few months, how could you increase the chances of those people becoming infected and ensuring a second wave once they are released from quarantine and begin mingling?
Now match those two questions with the proper answers:
A. Suppress their immune systems with fear, loss of income, lack of exercise and sunshine and face masks whenever going away from home.
B. Keep the young and healthy people at home and sequestered from each other.
If you paired 1 with B, and 2 with A, congratulations! Welcome to the growing number of free-thinking people that are connecting the dots.
One thing for certain is that so many people have taken the wearing of face masks and social distancing to a bizarre extreme.
A few days ago, I saw one woman in the neighborhood out for a walk in the heat of the day. I commented to her that it sure was a hot time of day to be out for a walk.
She looked at me with an odd look of concern on her face and said, “yeah, but at least there are no other people out now”.
Other common examples are the people driving alone in their car with a face mask on and people walking through parking lots and down uncrowded sidewalks or at a park wearing face masks.
My purpose on mentioning these examples is not to be condescending or critical of individuals that are overly fearful or are unaware of the harm face masks may cause them.
These individuals have been duped by a complicit media that has continued to run with the absolutely, ridiculously, outrageously inaccurate models and never adjusted their level of hype and fear mongering long after those models had been exposed for what they were—ridiculous.
In the meantime, people that are living with an irrational level of fear as a result, are being harmed physically and emotionally.
CDC’s recommendations for opening schools require children to wear face masks
Picture classrooms of children wearing face masks. This image is repulsive to me on so many levels. Yet, updated CDC guidelines on May 19th, 2020 and posted on their site titled Considerations for Schools, recommends that children older than the age of 2 wear face masks. In part, it says, “Teach and reinforce use of cloth face coverings.” It then goes on to say…
Note: Cloth face coverings should not be placed on:
- Children younger than 2 years old
- Anyone who has trouble breathing or is unconscious
- Anyone who is incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the cloth face covering without assistance (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/schools.html)
And many in the government and educational system are echoing these preposterous recommendations. My opinion based on the science we just looked at is that this would be a huge mistake.
Making children wear face masks has the potential to cause long-term psychological, emotional and physical damage. It promotes an excessive fear of germs (phobia) and of social interaction.
The reduced oxygen levels will increase anxiety, fatigue and brain fog, decrease learning capacity due to decreased oxygen to the brain, weaken their immune systems and can lead to an increased rate and severity of all types of infections, not just COVID-19.
We know that children are at very low risk of complications from COVID-19. Yet, this practice of wearing face masks could potentially increase that level of risk.
Teaching children good hygiene practices and that their immune system can help prevent and fight “germs” if they eat healthy food, exercise and practice good health habits would go a long way to empower them with positive and practical knowledge that they can learn and use throughout their lives.
As we learn about the miscalculations from the hugely exaggerated models, the inaccurate coding and calculations of COVID-19 deaths bloating the numbers, the large percentages of people that are already immune because they have had the infection and recovered, many not even knowing they were sick, we realize that the mortality rate from COVID-19 is nowhere near what we had thought.
Then there are the mistakes made within nursing homes and long-term care facilities, including sending positive COVID patients into those facilities and the mistakes with the way we treated many cases with ventilators.
In a retrospective analysis of all of these factors, I believe that we will realize that mortality from COVID-19 is not even as bad as a “normal” flu and pneumonia season.
This is not to say that initially we shouldn’t have viewed COVID-19 as a serious potential health crisis, but so is 50,000 to 80,000 people dying from flu and pneumonia every winter.
My greatest concern is the destruction of the economy, loss of jobs, loss of small businesses, the effects on marriages and families, skyrocketing mental health disorders, stress related diseases and the deaths due to despair and loss of hope, people not getting the medical attention for things like heart issues, high blood pressure and cancer they would otherwise get if they had access to hospitals and routine procedures.
These are all the unintended consequences of what we have already done, and if we continue to ignore the new evidence of the data, science and doctors’ experiences on the front lines, we will certainly cause much more harm than good. Going forward with the current situation (and should a viral outbreak occur in the future), risk versus benefit of every decision must be considered.
Forgiveness is one of the hardest things to do. Many of us have been hurt, felt offended, and we keep telling ourselves we forgive our offenders but the honest truth is most of us don’t really genuinely forgive our offenders. My question is
1.) how do you know you have genuinely forgiven someone who really hurt you?
2.) how do you forgive someone you love that constantly keep hurting you
3.) when you forgive , do you have difficulties being friends with the person who has hurt you?
Let’s have a conversation.
If you’re trying to explain to a political independent or an open-minded leftist why Obamagate is so shocking, there’s finally an article that provides a road map.
One of the problems with Obamagate is that it’s incredibly complicated. It began under the Obama administration, involved the alphabet agencies (the CIA, the FBI, and the DOJ), as well as President Obama, the National Security Advisor, the Director of National Intelligence, the FISA court, and overseas intelligence agencies.
The wrongdoing included false affidavits, spying on innocent people, including the president-elect, unmasking, and set-ups, such as perjury traps and spies inveigling people into ambiguous statements that could be used against them. It then escalated to an attempt to overthrow the Trump presidency through a two-year-long investigation that destroyed several people’s lives, even though the Special Counsel’s office knew from Day One that neither Trump nor his team had done anything wrong.
View original post 605 more words
By Lolly Daskal
Every crisis, large or small, influences the way we lead because it causes us to stop, recalibrate, and innovate. A global crisis of the scale of the COVID-19 pandemic brings wide-ranging changes—changes that not only affect a single organization or industry or nation but that cause us to rebuild the way we think about leadership. Here are some of the things the pandemic is teaching us about the future of leadership:
We will need leaders who know how to show presence without being physically present. We’re experiencing a shift in how leaders interact with their people. Where before people craved an open office and open-door policies, that can no longer be the model—even for teams that aren’t separated by geography. For a leader to be effective, they need to learn creative and consistent ways to connect with those they lead.
We will need leaders who speak the truth even when it’s hard to hear. Far too many leaders insist on assuring people that all is well, even when that’s not remotely the truth. Moving forward, we will need leaders who will can push against the natural human tendency to downplay and delay bad news, who embrace a commitment to providing transparent, honest communication—no matter how bad the news is. The pandemic has reinforced an important principle: trying to delay or wish away bad news is a costly mistake.
We will need leaders who know how to engage the expertise of others. Gone are the days of top-heavy organizations where senior leadership makes all the decisions. Times of crisis show us the value of decentralized leadership, and the ability to create a network of talented experts with access to good data is fast becoming an essential leadership skill. The best leaders are no longer in front, making all the immediate decisions. They are building long-term strategies and navigating a course with a leadership team whose diverse perspectives strengthen the enterprise.
We will need leaders who embrace empathy as well as efficiency. Now that we’ve experienced a stark reminder that the future is never certain, leadership has to change. The leader of the future must lead with empathy. They will no longer be free to tolerate indifference to the effects of their decisions—whether it’s colleagues in the same city or people manufacturing products halfway around the world. Effectiveness and results will still be important, but so will understanding and relationships.
Leading is changing, and the transition isn’t likely to be an easy one. Those in charge will be tested in areas where they have not fully developed their skills, and many leaders, old and new, will need coaching to help them navigate the qualities they’ll need to be successful. But new challenges bring new opportunities, and the potential for greatness will expand along with the role of the leader.
Lead from within: Today is the day we can start becoming the future leaders who will have a chance to mend the world.