>>>/qresearch/9900853
>Just ran across a new article on mask wearing.
>Pretty new, published today July 8,2020
>Very long and in depth and shows that healthy people should not be wearing them.
>https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/physician-and-medical-journal-editor-healthy-people-should-not-wear-face-masks/
>>2339 Image hosed. Retry
from >>>/qresearch/9911453
Remdesivir toxicity: 4 of the first 5 patients treated with it in France, had to stop due to serious side effects, 2 reaching KIDNEY FAILURE, REQUIRING KIDNEY REPLACEMENT!
[Note: the study was done at the Bichat hospital in Paris, where works Yazdan Yazdanpanah works. Yazdan Yazdanpanah was one of the foremost proponents of remdesivir prioritization in WHO studies conducted in France. He also is one of the co-authors of this case reports study.
This is an important remark, because it cannot be said that this study was done by anti-remdesivir doctors. It was carried out by remdesivir advocates.]
Case reports study of the first five patients COVID-19 treated with remdesivir in France
Highlights
• Remdesivir has been found to be an in-vitro potent inhibitor of RNA viruses including SARS-CoV-2 but its in-vivo potency is still under active investigations.
• In this work, we depict the clinical features of 5 hospitalized COVID-19 patients under remdisivir compassionate use.
• Remdisivir infusion was associated with decreasing viral loads from nasopharyngeal samples despite active replication in the lower respiratory tract area evidenced for two patients.
• The treatment had to be interrupted for potential side effects for 4 out 5 patients including two alamine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation and two renal failure cases.
Abstract
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been identified as responsible for the COVID-19 outbreak worldwide. Data on treatment are scare and parallels are made between SARS-CoV-2 and other coronavirus. Remdesivir is a broad spectrum antiviral with efficient in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2 and controversial evidence of clinical improvement in severe COVID-19 patients. We aimed to describe the clinical outcome and virological monitoring of the first five COVID-19 patients admitted in ICU for severe pneumonia related to SARS-CoV-2 and treated with remdesivir in the University hospital of Bichat, Paris, France.
SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR in blood plasma, lower and upper respiratory tract were monitored. Among the five treated patients, two needed mechanical ventilation and one high flow cannula oxygen. A significant decrease in SARS-CoV-2 viral load from upper respiratory tract was observed in most cases but two died with active SARS-CoV-2 replication in the lower respiratory tract. Plasma samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 in only one patient. Remdesivir was interrupted for side effects among four patients, including 2 ALT elevations (3 to 5 N) and 2 renal failures requiring renal replacement.
This case series of five COVID-19 patients requiring ICU for a respiratory distress and treated with remdesivir, highlights the complexity of remdesivir use in such critically ill patients.
source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220305282
paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220305282/pdfft?md5=0b779d888b1cc232dee29ab8f9f713ac&pid=1-s2.0-S1201971220305282-main.pdf
3 parts from >>>/qresearch/9914684
>>>/qresearch/9914690
>>>/qresearch/9914691
Primer discussion on suing the government over mandatory masks and/or business closures (BC)
What kind of “law” is the government using to require masks and/or BC’s?
You first need to know the source of the law, either executive or legislative. A mask and/or BC “law” may be a municipal or county ordinance enacted by your elected officials, or it may be a state law passed by your state legislature. It could also be an “order” or “proclamation” of your local or county executive (a manager, mayor, commissioner, etc.), or an “executive order” by your governor. Sometimes such orders at the state level may even involve the consent of a commission.
So, your starting point is to find out where the damn requirement came from. Get a copy. Print it.
Does local/county/state law permit this?
This will get a little complicated, but bear with me. Start by understanding that there is the Federal government with authority from the Constitution, State gov’ts with their own Constitutions, and county/local governments which are referred to together as “Political Subdivisions” (Pol Subdivs). There are three kinds of ways State and Political Subdivisions may function – a State may elect to follow “Dillon’s Rule” (more common), “Home Rule” (less common) or a bastardization of the two. The difference is this: under Dillon’s Rule, Pol Subdivs can only exercise the authority that is delegated to them by the State, and under Home Rule the Pol Subdivs have inherent powers to do what they want. You can find a good discussion of it, along with what your state may be, here:
https://constitutingamerica.org/home-rule-or-dillon-rule-meaning-and-purpose-for-effective-local-government-guest-essayist-marc-clauson/
Why does that matter? Two reasons – Pol Subdivs are more likely to be active in passing ridiculous laws in a Home Rule state, and courts in Home Rule states are even more likely to grant deference to the Pol Subdivs. That will be ON TOP of their inherent liberal bias if the judge is a leftist crony.
So, with that in mind, you will need to then look at the State Constitution or Pol Subdiv Charter (or whatever your state calls it). ALSO keep in mind that what you see when you search online for that may have been amended, and those amendments can be “hiding” in other links you have to search down, instead of the document you are looking at. The large majority of Pol Subdiv ordinances can be found are here:
https://library.municode.com
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com
Keep in mind – large majority. Not all; your town or county may use another vendor or self-publish its code.
If the law comes from a Pol Subdiv, you also need to look at your State Constitution and State code so you can learn the legal background of your State’s laws. In doing so, you are trying to find language that either does not grant power to the Pol Subdiv, or creates a legal boundary that a Mask or BC law crosses…
If you find such State law, bookmark it. That can be one line of attack.
Sidebar about legal analysis
Do not use “chop logic”, which is what almost EVERY non-lawyer uses, when analyzing something. For instance, I recently had someone here tell me that the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) mandated businesses to provide everyone who enters their store a respirator mask, regardless of the business. UTTER HORSESHIT. The CFR section in question (OSHA regulations) only applied to employees, and further only applied to certain kinds of businesses which performed work where respiratory issues were a risk associated with that work.
Make sure the law you’re looking at applies to the situation. If you yank something from the Worker’s Comp laws and expect it to apply to masks, well…you’re free to wreck your shit driving the wrong way down that one-way street. Don’t bother arguing with me, either, because if you’re stupid enough to hang your hat on bullshit analysis and reject educated rebuttal, I feel no compunction to help you.
After laying the groundwork of how to look at this, the analysis of all 3 possible government actors (State, or the two Pol Subdivs) becomes relatively common.
A. Did the State law authorize it (expressly, or through inherent Home Rule powers?)
This may well involve looking at case law, good luck with that. Again, NO CHOP LOGIC. Focus your search on government power to pass orders, don’t look at a case involving a contract or a car wreck, or some other unrelated bullshit, and expect it to provide you with precedent. Also, don’t go to old platitudes in the US Constitution from 1842 and expect them to carry any weight. Look at the nitty gritty of the question involving orders or ordinances passed by local governments (parallels are exec orders and statutes at the State level).
If not authorized, great! You have a legal basis to challenge it.
B. If the Mask or BC law is authorized, does the language of the Mask and/or BC law exceed what is legally permitted?
If it does, great! You have a legal basis to challenge it.
C. If the Mask or BC law could be authorized, but the government didn’t follow the proper procedures to enact it, is that a claim?
Sorta congrats – you have a basis to challenge it (“due process”), but the government can cure the problem and kill your lawsuit.
If it is legally permitted, is it still discriminatory in some way?
Discrimination occurs when a law harms a definable, recognizable group of people (race, sex, religion, ethnicity, age). “I’m a Republican” is not a recognizable group of people. You wouldn’t know from looking at the person. So discrimination is typically a limited.
However, the “class” analysis is also applied in a different way, when a law affects other subsets of people and organizations differently. For instance, a law that should have general application may only apply to, say, pubs instead of hardware stores. This is not discrimination as you hear it on TV, it is instead a possible “equal protection” claim. That can arise under either your State Constitution or the US Constitution. Equal Protection claims are tricky. It is a long discussion and the best way to begin to learn about it is by starting here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection
Keep in mind also that EP claims may involve “as written” and “as applied” situations.
The basic thing to keep in mind about Equal Protection
Here is the thing - “Does this make any sense?” is a pretty good layman's rule of thumb to use when analyzing an “as written” EP claim. For instance, if a government passes a law or order that says liquor stores may stay open but churches cannot, your gut reaction is, “This is STUPID!” True, but you have to explain why, using facts. Does the law/order take into account that churches provide a necessary service? What is that service, and how would you describe it? (Here is where you can pull some descriptive language from other kinds of cases that can carry weight, ESPECIALLY if it’s US Supreme Court language). Does the liquor store provide a necessary service? Again, how? What are the differences in how they operate? What are the similarities? Are both capable of taking precautions under existing medical guidelines to safely operate? Did the government take this into account? Did it ask the public before doing something stupid?…
That’s the basics of building that kind of case.
“As written” vs “as applied”
If a law violates EP as written, then it should be fairly obvious. Good example – no singing in church. How in the FUCK could this possibly have anything to do with Rona protection? Do masks and “social distancing” work, or don’t they? Is it fair to let a restaurant operate with its employees in an enclosed kitchen, handling food to be given to the public while talking constantly to each other in order to do their jobs, and a church can’t meet for an hour and people sing a few times during the service? That’s an “as written” claim.
An “as applied” claim example would be a law that forbids public gatherings…unless the government refuses to enforce it as to BLM protesters.
Great, Lawfag! I think I might have a claim…so what’s next?
You need to keep in mind 2 things – first, you need a good lawyer. Someone who will be on your side. That will take digging to find out which ones are conservatives handling civil rights cases…but a great place to start is to check with groups like the ACLJ. Don’t call them, do a search to find out if the ACLJ has done any work in your state. Also look for other groups and law firms like ACLJ in your state, or affiliated with ACLJ.
Second, you need to take their advice if they handle your case and don't try to out-lawyer your lawyer, because he'll end up firing your ass as a client, and rightfully so, but DO have a discussion as to whether you should file claims in State Court or Federal Court.
If you have a state law claim, your only recourse is in state court…so you are stuck with your state’s “forum selection” laws. That can be fatal to your cause if you have corrupt lib judges. Forum shopping is 100% something you should do, because the motherfuckers on the other side don’t hesitate to fuck you over by doing it themselves. However, if you have a Fed claim, Fed court can be the way to go. While you can bring both Fed and state claims together in Fed court, keep in mind that the Feds love to punt those back to State court under “concurrent jurisdiction” laws and allow the States to decide that.
Where you file matters.
A few things are over-simplified; it's hard to put this into laymen's terms in just a short period of time. Hope this helps.
I welcome other lawfags chiming in to flesh this out.
>>>/qresearch/9934026
>let your nose poke out and breathe thru it. they won't say anything, their subconsciousness won't let them
>Written by a person with an AB inspectors license.
>“For all you mask wearers (especially those of you who think wearing it outside is NOT stupid ♀️). I know I’m about to burst your “google doctor degree” bubble, but here goes nothing.
>So Masks?
>I am OSHA 10&30 certified. I don’t really know WHY OSHA hasn’t come forward and stopped the nonsense BUT I want to cover 3 things:
>1. N95 masks and masks with exhale ports
>2. surgical masks
>3. filter or cloth masks
>SO, upon further inspection, OSHA says some masks are okay in one situation and not okay in certain other situations.
>If you’re working with fumes and aerosol chemicals and you give your employees the wrong masks and they get sick, you can be sued.
>• N95 masks: are designed for CONTAMINATED environments. That means when you exhale through N95 the design is that you are exhaling into contamination. The exhale from N95 masks are vented to breath straight out without filtration. They don’t filter the air on the way out. They don’t need to.
>Conclusion: if you’re in Target and the guy with Covid has a N95 mask, his covid breath is unfiltered being exhaled into Target (because it was designed for already contaminated environments, it’s not filtering your air on the way out).
>• Surgical Mask: these masks were designed and approved for STERILE environments. The amount of particles and contaminants in the outside and indoor environments where people are CLOGGING these masks very, VERY quickly. The moisture from your breath combined with the clogged mask will render it “useless” IF you come in contact with Covid and your mask traps it, YOU become a walking virus dispenser. Everytime you put your mask on you are breathing the germs from EVERYWHERE you went. They should be changed or thrown out every “20-30 minutes in a non sterile environment.”
>• Cloth masks: I can’t even believe I’m having to explain this, but here it goes. Today, three people pointed to their masks as they walked by me entering Lowe’s. They said “ya gotta wear your mask BRO” I said very clearly “those masks don’t work bro, in fact they MAKE you sicker” they “pshh’d” me. By now hopefully you all know CLOTH masks do not filter anything. You mean the American flag one my aunt made? Yes. The one with sunflowers that looks so cute? Yes. The bandanna, the cut up t-shirt, the scarf ALL of them offer NO FILTERING whatsoever.
>As you exhale, you are ridding your lungs of contaminants and carbon dioxide.
> Cloth masks trap this carbon dioxide the best.
>It actually RISKS your health, rather than protect it. The moisture caught in these masks can become mildew ridden over night.
>Dry coughing, enhanced allergies, sore throat are all symptoms of a micro-mold in your mask.
>-Ultimate Answer:
>*N95 blows the virus into the air from a contaminated person.
>*The surgical mask is not designed for the outside world and will not filter the virus upon inhaling through it.
>INSTEAD, It’s filtration works on the exhale, (Like a vacuum bag, it only works ONE way) but likely stops after 20 minutes, rendering it useless outside of a
>STERILE ENVIRONMENT (They DO NOT work in public…..not even a little bit).
>*Cloth masks are WORSE than wearing NO mask!!!!!
>It’s equivalent to using a chain link fence to stop mosquitos.
>The CDC wants us to keep wearing masks. The masks don’t work.
>They’re being used to provide false comfort and push forward a specific agenda.
>For the love of God, research each mask’s designed use and purpose, I bet you will find NONE are used in the way of “viral defense.”
>Just like EVERY Flu season:
>Wash your hands.
>Sanitize your hands.
>Don’t touch stuff.
>Sanitize your phone.
>Don’t touch people.
>And keep your distance.
>Why? Because masks do not work.
>*Occupational Safety & Hazard Association sited.
>The top American organization for safety.
>They regulate and educate asbestos workers, surgical rooms, you name it.
>I know, facts suck.
>They throw a wrench into the perfectly (seeming) packaged pill you are willingly swallowing.
>Facts make you have to form your OWN OPINION, instead of regurgitating someone else’s, and I know how uncomfortable that makes a lot of you.
>If your mask gives you security, by all means wear it.
>Just know it is a FALSE SENSE of security and you shouldn’t shame anyone into partaking in such “conspiracies.”
>If select politicians stopped enforcing it, no one would continue this nonsense.
>Don’t drink the kool-aid.”
from >>>/qresearch/9934192
The Science is Conclusive: Masks and Respirators do NOT Prevent Transmission of Viruses
Dr. Denis G Rancourt, PhD — researchgate.net
https://www.sott.net/article/434796-The-Science-is-Conclusive-Masks-and-Respirators-do-NOT-Prevent-Transmission-of-Viruses
Abstract
Masks and respirators do not work. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.
Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.
The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.
N95 masks come in different configurations with and without the exhaust port.
https://www.govdocs.com/osha-issues-workplace-guidance-on-wearing-masks/
>>>/qresearch/9952415
Mask Facts
June 1, 2020
https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/
curated by Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D.
Transmission of SARS-CoV-2
Note: A COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) particle is 0.125 micrometers (μm); influenza virus size is 0.08 – 0.12 μm; a human hair is about 150 μm.
*1 nm = 0.001 micron; 1000 nm = 1 micron; Micrometer (μm) is the preferred name for micron (an older term)
1 meter is = 1,000,000,000 nm or 1,000,000 microns
Droplets
Virus is transmitted through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks. Larger respiratory droplets (>5 μm) remain in the air for only a short time and travel only short distances, generally <1 meter. They fall to the ground quickly. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30245-9/fulltext
This idea guides the CDC’s advice to maintain at least a 6-foot distance.
Virus-laden small (<5 μm) aerosolized droplets can remain in the air for at least 3 hours and travel long distances. https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMc2004973?articleTools=true
Air currents
In air conditioned environment these large droplets may travel farther.
However, ventilation — even the opening of an entrance door and a small window can dilute the number of small droplets to one half after 30 seconds. (This study looked at droplets from uninfected persons). This is clinically relevant because poorly ventilated and populated spaces, like public transport and nursing homes, have high SARS-CoV-2 disease transmission despite physical distancing. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30245-9/fulltext
Objects and surfaces
Person to person touching
The CDC’s most recent statement regarding contracting COVID-19 from touching surfaces: “Based on data from lab studies on Covid-19 and what we know about similar respiratory diseases, it may be possible that a person can get Covid-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose or possibly their eyes,” the agency wrote. “But this isn’t thought to be the main way the virus spreads. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/s0522-cdc-updates-covid-transmission.html.
Chinese study with data taken from swabs on surfaces around the hospital
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0885_article?deliveryName=USCDC_333-DM25707
The surfaces where tested with the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, which greatly amplifies the viral genetic material if it is present. That material is detectable when a person is actively infected. This is thought to be the most reliable test.
Computer mouse (ICU 6/8, 75%; General ward (GW) 1/5, 20%)
Trash cans (ICU 3/5, 60%; GW 0/8)
Sickbed handrails (ICU 6/14, 42.9%; GW 0/12)
Doorknobs (GW 1/12, 8.3%)
81.3% of the miscellaneous personal items were positive:
Exercise equipment
Medical equipment (spirometer, pulse oximeter, nasal cannula)
PC and iPads
Reading glasses
Cellular phones (83.3% positive for viral RNA)
Remote controls for in-room TVs (64.7% percent positive)
Toilets (81.0% positive)
Room surfaces (80.4% of all sampled)
Bedside tables and bed rails (75.0%)
Window ledges (81.8%)
Plastic: up to 2-3 days
Stainless Steel: up to 2-3 days
Cardboard: up to 1 day
Copper: up to 4 hours
Floor – gravity causes droplets to fall to the floor. Half of ICU workers all had virus on the bottoms of their shoes
Filter Efficiency and Fit
*Data from a University of Illinois at Chicago review
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
-
HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filters – 99.97 – 100% efficient. HEPA filters are tested with particles that are 0.125 μm.
Masks and respirators work by collecting particles through several physical mechanisms, including diffusion (small particles) and interception and impaction (large particles)
N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are constructed from electret (a dielectric material that has a quasi-permanent electric charge. An electret generates internal and external electric fields so the filter material has electrostatic attraction for additional collection of all particle sizes. As flow increases, particles will be collected less efficiently.
N95 – A properly fitted N95 will block 95% of tiny air particles down to 0.3 μm from reaching the wearer’s face. https://www.honeywell.com/en-us/newsroom/news/2020/03/n95-masks-explained.
But even these have problems: many have exhalation valve for easier breathing and less moisture inside the mask.
Surgical masks are designed to protect patients from a surgeon’s respiratory droplets, aren’t effective at blocking particles smaller than 100 μm. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VLXWeZBll7YJ:https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/957730O/respirators-and-surgical-masks-contrast-technical-bulletin.pdf+&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Filter efficiency was measured across a wide range of small particle sizes (0.02 to 1 µm) at 33 and 99 L/min.
N95 respirators had efficiencies greater than 95% (as expected).
T-shirts had 10% efficiency,
Scarves 10% to 20%,
Cloth masks 10% to 30%,
Sweatshirts 20% to 40%, and
Towels 40%.
All of the cloth masks and materials had near zero efficiency at 0.3 µm, a particle size that easily penetrates into the lungs.
Another study evaluated 44 masks, respirators, and other materials with similar methods and small aerosols (0.08 and 0.22 µm).
N95 FFR filter efficiency was greater than 95%.
Medical masks – 55% efficiency
General masks – 38% and
Handkerchiefs – 2% (one layer) to 13% (four layers) efficiency.
Conclusion: Wearing masks will not reduce SARS-CoV-2.
N95 masks protect health care workers, but are not recommended for source control transmission.
Surgical masks are better than cloth but not very efficient at preventing emissions from infected patients.
Cloth masks will be ineffective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, whether worn as source control or as personal protective equipment (PPE).
“Masks may confuse that message and give people a false sense of security. If masks had been the solution in Asia, shouldn’t they have stopped the pandemic before it spread elsewhere?”
*The first randomized controlled trial of cloth masks. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577
Penetration of cloth masks by particles was 97% and medical masks 44%, 3M Vflex 9105 N95 (0.1%), 3M 9320 N95 (<0.01%).
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 face- masks
Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible. A contaminated cloth mask may transfer pathogen from the mask to the bare hands of the wearer.
Cloth masks should not be recommended for health care workers, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
*A study of 4 patients in South Korea
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-1342
-
Known patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 wore masks and coughed into a Petrie dish. “Both surgical and cotton masks seem to be ineffective in preventing the dissemination of SARS–CoV-2 from the coughs of patients with COVID-19 to the environment and external mask surface.”
*Singapore Study – Few people used mask correctly
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/publichealth/86601
Overall, data were collected from 714 men and women. About half the sample were women and all adult ages were represented. Only 90 participants (12.6%, 95% CI 10.3%-15.3%) passed the visual mask fit test. About three-quarters performed strap placement incorrectly, 61% left a “visible gap between the mask and skin,” and about 60% didn’t tighten the nose-clip.
*A 2011 randomized Australian clinical trial of standard medical/surgical masks
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo
Medical masks offered no protection at all from influenza.
Conclusions from Organizations
The World Health Organization (WHO):
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331693/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.3-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
“Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for healthy people in community settings
As described above, the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks.”
“Medical masks should be reserved for health care workers. The use of medical masks in the community may create a false sense of security, with neglect of other essential measures, such as hand hygiene practices and physical distancing, and may lead to touching the face under the masks and under the eyes, result in unnecessary costs, and take masks away from those in health care who need them most, especially when masks are in short supply.”
“Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.”
WHO acknowledges that most people do not use masks properly.
Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the Center for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0131-2019-novel-coronavirus.html
“We don’t routinely recommend the use of face masks by the public to prevent respiratory illness,” said on January 31. “And we certainly are not recommending that at this time for this new virus.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncontrol/maskguidance.htm
In March 5, 2019 regarding the flu: “Masks are not usually recommended in non-healthcare settings; however, this guidance provides other strategies for limiting the spread of influenza viruses in the community:
cover their nose and mouth when coughing or sneezing,
use tissues to contain respiratory secretions and, after use, to dispose of them in the nearest waste receptacle, and
perform hand hygiene (e.g., handwashing with non-antimicrobial soap and water, and alcohol-based hand rub if soap and water are not available) after having contact with respiratory secretions and contaminated objects/materials.
From the New England Journal of Medicine
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.”
Final Thoughts
Surgical masks – loose fitting. They are designed to protect the patient from the doctors’ respiratory droplets. The wearer is not protected from others airborne particles
People do not wear masks properly. Most people have the mask under the nose. The wearer does not have glasses on and the eyes are a portal of entry.
The designer masks and scarves offer minimal protection – they give a false sense of security to both the wearer and those around the wearer.
**Not to mention they add a perverse lightheartedness to the situation.
If you are walking alone, no mask – avoid folks – that is common sense.
Remember – children under 2 should not wear masks – accidental suffocation and difficulty breathing in some
If wearing a mask makes people go out and get Vitamin D – go for it. In the 1918 flu pandemic people who went outside did better. Early reports are showing people with COVID-19 with low Vitamin D do worse than those with normal levels. Perhaps that is why shut-ins do so poorly. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058578v4
If you are sick, stay home!
Additional Resource: Healthy People Wearing Masks, Should They or Shouldn’t They? This ER nurse with over two decades of experience took a deep dive into the science to find out: https://jennifermargulis.net/healthy-people-wearing-masks-during-covid19/
>>>/qresearch/9958527
Local doctor pushing proven treatment of COVID into national debate
BRAWLEY – A front-line local doctor treating COVID-19 patients claims to have figured out what works to keep his patients alive. He claims to have answers on better controlling, and curbing, a pandemic that knows no boundaries.
Here is the letter Fareed sent to President Trump:
Dear President Trump and Task Force,
My name is Dr. George Fareed. I am a physician in Imperial County, California, that has been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. I take care of patients on both an outpatient and inpatient basis, as well as nursing home patients, the most vulnerable among us.
In this letter, I am proposing a medical strategy that can help us not only through this current crisis, but also that will enable us to approach outbreaks of COVID-19 that may occur in the future.
In my attempts to keep people alive, I have had an opportunity to use many different types of treatments — remdesivir, dexamethasone, convalescent plasma replacement, etc.Yet, by far the best tool beyond supportive care with oxygen has been the combination of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), with either azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc. This "HCQ cocktail" (that costs less than $100) has enabled me to prevent patients from being admitted to the hospital, as well as help those patients that are hospitalized. The key is giving the HCQ cocktail early, within the first five days of the disease.
Not only have I seen outstanding results with this approach, I have not seen any patient exhibit serious side-effects. To be clear — this drug has been used as an anti-malarial and to treat systemic lupus erythematosus as well as rheumatoid arthritis, and hasover a 50-year track record for safety.It is shocking that it only now is being characterized as a dangerous drug.
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/local-doctor-pushing-proven-treatment-of-covid-into-national-debate/article_ca59497a-c539-11ea-8943-4f707d6ebc1a.html
>>>/qresearch/9958598
Florida Labs Acknowledge Major Errors After Reporting Positivity Rates Of 100%
Florida health officials left COVID-19 trackers slackjawed on Sunday when it reported more than 15k new infections in just 24 hours on Sunday (the data were gleaned from the prior day). But as hospitalizations surge, questions have grown about whether the state is still trying to 'juke' its data, something that a now infamous whistleblower alleged before she was fired (she has since started her own COVID-19 data portal relying on public info).
Journalists scouring the reams of daily data for discrepancies have apparently happened upon bombshell they had been hoping for: Orlando Health has just confirmed that some of the data it shared over the weekend were wrong, after journalists reported more than 50 labs showing 100% positivity rate, or roughly around there. One local Fox affiliate looked into the numbers and contacted a few of the labs to confirm that their internal data matched the public data released by the state.
As it turned out, some of these discrepancies were pretty extreme: Orlando Health, one of the organizations contacted by Fox, confirmed that its positivity rate wasactually 9.8%, not the 98% that had been reported to the state.
The report showed that Orlando Health had a 98 percent positivity rate. However, when FOX 35 News contacted the hospital, they confirmed errors in the report. Orlando Health's positivity rate is only 9.4 percent, not 98 percent as in the report.
The report also showed that the Orlando Veteran’s Medical Center had apositivity rate of 76%. A spokesperson for the VA told FOX 35 News on Tuesday that this does not reflect their numbers and that the positivity rate for the centeris actually 6 percent.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/several-florida-labs-report-positivity-rates-100
''Hmm…wonder if the decimal points moved as a result of data entry error or using wrong data field in a form…or human error…
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/07/to_mask_or_not_to_mask.html
To Mask or Not to Mask?
By Anthony J. Ciani
They acquit the asymptomatic who might spread "WuFlu" and comfort those who fear it. They may be nothing more than a pocket full of posies, as discussed by Drs. Brosseau and Sietsema, but aren't their psychological effects beneficial? What if masks do worse than nothing?
At the beginning of the WuFlu, the CDC recommended against masks. The CDC now claims that based on recent research, certain types of respirators are effective against SARS-CoV-2. The CDC cites decades-old research concerning asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, but it fails to cite any direct research on the effectiveness of masks at reducing viral transmission. Instead, the CDC and WHO assume that masks block the droplets emitted by coughing and sneezing, and they probably do.
Medical practitioners wear masks to reduce the chance of infecting open wounds with spittle from their mouths as they talk above their patients and to protect themselves as patients sneeze and cough within a couple feet of their health care providers. Despite the protective equipment, nurses and doctors still catch infections from and give infections to their patients, but properly worn equipment reduces close quarters spread by as much as 75%.
Great for the E.R. and ICU, but masks have been mandated to prevent spread from the asymptomatic in the general population, who rarely cough, sneeze, or spit into the faces of others except as a form of assault. If the droplets emitted from coughing and sneezing fall to the ground within six feet, does it make sense that a virus spreads even without masks? A garden hose on mist is good for plants two feet away, but not so good for plants four feet away. Moreover, are the asymptomatic coughing and sneezing at all?
Aerosols, not droplets, are the primary mechanism of spread among the public. In 2005, research found that sub-micron virus particles produced deep in the lungs were exhaled into the air by normal breathing. Place your hand in front of your mouth as you exhale. That moisture is an ultra-fine aerosol of particles too small to see under a microscope and, assuming that your mask was designed to filter outgoing air (they rarely are), too small to be effectively filtered. Less than a micron in size, these particles hang in the air indefinitely, like smoke or odors, which are composed of similarly sized particles. Consider an infected person as a smoker or stick of burning incense. Where and when you can smell smoke is where and when you can catch their virus. Can you smell smoke through your mask?
As expected, SARS-CoV-2 was experimentally found to penetrate surgical masks via normal breathing and even when rigged as powered air filters between hamster cages (a joke of Chinese slapdash science). Mask-wearing Asian countries have no less influenza that non-wearing Western countries. Studies on arms-length spread within the general population are few, but they generally show masks as ineffective. Even the best N95 respirators are unlikely to show much effect; the virus is a third of the particle size they filter.
Ironically, anti-smoking laws may have helped viruses spread. Restaurants, hotels, and bars once used strong upward ventilation and electronic air cleaners or HEPA filters to remove smoke. HEPA sets N100 (99.97%) at 0.3 microns and may have some efficacy at removing viruses. Modern eateries and clubs have no need for filtering indoor smoke, so they have efficient HVAC systems that circulate the air around and use filters suitable only for dust bunnies.
Masks and HEPA filters are depth filters, which are random meshes that impede the paths of particles. Impede does not mean stop. Push the particles long enough, and they will get through. Put enough particles into the filter, and they push through those ahead. One study showed that freshly opened surgical masks reduced the exhalation of bacteria by 75%, but after 120 minutes of use, a surgical mask no longer blocked bacteria, and after 150 minutes, a surgical mask exposed the patient to 50% more bacteria than no mask. Change your filters, be they for masks, engines, oil, or water.
If soiled masks spray patients with bacteria, what about the lungs of the wearer? Ventilator-associated pneumonia is a leading cause of death. William Shatner tells you to clean your CPAP for a reason. The lungs normally expel bacteria, but when the ventilator or mask blocks them and sends them back in, people develop pneumonia. The research on self-inflicted pneumonia due to prolonged facial covering is scarce. The CDC recommends changing masks after every patient.
There is considerable research on ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP). The use of ventilators for COVID-19 is mind-boggling. Intubation carries about a 1% risk of pneumonia per day, and pneumonia carries a 20% fatality rate in the ICU. Put a COVID-19 patient on a ventilator for ten days, and that means a total risk of death of 2% from VAP, which is about half the risk of an ICU patient dying from COVID-19. CPAP-style ventilation has a tenth of the risk of intubation, but hospitals used intubation. Medicare pays a lot better for intubation than CPAP, and Congress sweetened the pot just for COVID-19.
Assuming that masks carry a similar risk to CPAP, wearing the same mask for an eight-hour workday carries a 0.03% chance per day of pneumonia. Multiply by five for a week, and then 0.2 for the chance of dying from pneumonia, and that produces a 0.03% chance per week of death due to wearing a mask at work. There are currently about 4 million retail sales workers, which would mean 1,200 excess pneumonia deaths per week caused by retail mask mandates. According to the CDC's data, thousands more people than normal are dying every week of pneumonia with no connection to COVID-19. Point zero four percent is the estimated infection fatality rate for SARS-CoV-2 in people under 70. In this estimate, wearing a mask for a work week is about as dangerous as getting the "WuFlu."
At my workplace, 13% of the employees have complained to me about how unhealthy they feel wearing their masks. I have overheard retail workers complaining to coworkers about how they feel sick, burning in their lungs, and coughing because of their masks. Masks are the "sorry," not the "better safe." Those at greatest risk from the "WuFlu" venture out, unaware of the odorless death penetrating their masks. Those who are knowingly ill venture out, thinking their masks are protecting others. Wearing masks for hours at a time exposes the wearer's lungs to unhealthy levels of bacteria.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/07/stunning-texas-coronavirus-numbers-show-covid-19-less-lethal-last-two-flu-seasons/
Stunning! Texas Coronavirus Numbers Show COVID-19 Less Lethal than Last Two Flu Seasons
By Jim Hoft
Published July 14, 2020 at 6:29pm
This is really STUNNING information!
The Texas Department of Health released numbers recently comparing the coronavirus to the last two seasonal flu viruses.
The coronavirus was actually less lethal than the flu in the state!
The fle had a mortality rate of 0.03% and 0.04%.
The coronavirus has a mortality rate of 0.01% in Texas.
This won’t make any headlines.
Via Dr. Andrew Bostom.
An antibody (antigen) versus a virus test is a major difference.
https://twitter.com/steveeagar/status/1283575782175014916
yep
https://twitter.com/andrewbostom/status/1283404442088484864
>>>/qresearch/10005630
>Time to [UnMask]: Conclusion Masks Don't Work
>Mask facts:
>One Stop: A compilation and summary of official reports:
>Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
>https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/
>“Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for healthy people in community settings
>As described above, the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks.”
>Medical masks offered no protection at all from influenza.
>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00198.x?fbclid=IwAR3kRYVYDKb0aR-su9_me9_vY6a8KVR4HZ17J2A_80f_fXUABRQdhQlc8Wo
>https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0131-2019-novel-coronavirus.html
>https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncontrol/maskguidance.htm
>https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331693/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.3-eng.pdf
>Bottom Line"
>1- A COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) particle is 0.125 micrometers (μm); influenza virus size is 0.08 – 0.12 μm
>2- N95 – A properly fitted N95 will block 95% of tiny air particles down to 0.3 μm from reaching the wearer’s face.
>A N95 mask block most particle .30 micrometer, a covid19 particle is .125
>Thanks to Dave:
>https://twitter.com/X22Report/status/1284477612581150720
>>>/qresearch/10005633
>>>/qresearch/10005589
Under Attack: California Governor SATANIC Newsom Bans ALL In-Home Bible Fellowship, Church Services, Meetings, Singing, and Church Gatherings - Evil MF!!!
>https://brownsjournal.com/faith/california-governor-newsom-bans-all-in-home-bible-fellowship-church-services-meetings-singing-and-church-gatherings/
>>>/qresearch/10016179
A New York Times Analysis found 14 states where more than half of total deaths occurred in facilities for the elderly. It was
55 percent in Connecticut,
57 percent in Colorado, North Carolina and Kentucky,
58 percent in Virginia,
59 percent in Massachusetts,
61 percent in Delaware,
66 percent in Pennsylvania,
73 percent in Rhode Island and
80 percent in West Virginia and Minnesota.
>Connecticut Edward Miner Lamont Jr Democrat//'///
Colorado Jared Schutz Polis Democrat//'///
North Carolina Roy Asberry Cooper III Democrat//'///
Kentucky Andrew Graham Beshear Democrat//'///
Virginia Ralph Shearer Northam Democrat//'///
Massachusetts Michael Stanley Dukakis Democrat//'///
Delaware John Charles Carney Jr Democrat//'///
Pennsylvania Thomas Westerman Wolf Democrat//'///
Rhode Island Gina Marie Ramondo Democrat//'///
West Virginia James Conley Justice II Democrat//'///
Minnesota Timothy James Walz Democratic-Farmer-Labor(DNC Affiliate)
>>>/qresearch/10017225
#Scamdemic - World is Victim of Billion Dollar Vaccine Boondoggle
The pharmaceutical industry is making a killing by poisoning our children.
The vaccine industry has poisoned an entire generation of kids, and it wasn't just autism. It was a profitable menu of mental disorders, ADD, ADHD, speech delay, turrets, narcolepsy, and numerous allergies.
Now they want to take it up a notch and use COVID to poison everyone. RFK Jr. personally briefed Donald Trump, and Trump let #scamdemic happen anyway.
"But the problem was now [with no liability] they have no incentive to make it safe, and in fact every incentive to keep them dangerous. Why? Because they're now making 60 billion dollars a year selling the vaccines, but they're making 500 billion, half a trillion a year, selling the treatments for the chronic diseases that are caused by the vaccines. "
Robert F Kennedy Jr: VACCINES, BIG PHARMA, BILL GATES, AND LEGAL MONOPOLIES
The YouTube video of this interview of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by the wealthresearchgroup.com is no longer available on YouTube.
Below are excerpts from a transcription of the original interview. Thanks to James C.
Transcription of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Interview
RFKjr–I only got 3 vaccines as a kid. Today American children get 72. And it changed the year (1989) that they gave the vaccine companies immunity from liability. So you can't sue a vaccine company in our country no matter how negligent they are, no matter how sloppy their lying protocols, no matter how toxic the ingredients, no matter grievous the injury to your child. You cannot sue them.
And so when that happened, it was like a gold rush. And all these vaccine companies added all these vaccines on to the schedule and that happened in 89. And so these guys who got together in 2003 at Simpsonwood were saying when we added all these new ones how come we never did amass loading analysis of all the aluminum and mercury that we were giving these kids. Because it's way beyond EPA levels and we never did the math….
In fact, one of them … says, "This is high school algebra. Why the hell didn't we do it?" He was crying at the time. Because they realized they had poisoned an entire generation of kids, and it wasn't just autism. It was this whole menu of mental disorders, ADD, ADHD, speech delay, turrets, narcolepsy. And they were realizing that at that time.
And then they spent the second day talking about how to hide it from the public. They say, you know, if the lawyers find out about this they'll shut down the vaccine companies. And that will be the end. And we won't have a vaccine supply. So we got to protect the vaccine supply by lying to the American people about this. And there's one moment when there's …. One of the big vaccinationists, who's chief doctor at the University of Colorado, in Denver, at the medical school there, and he goes out of the meeting for a minute, his name is Johnson. He comes back in and says, "I just talked to my daughter. She just had a baby, it's the first male grandson of my lineage. And begging all of your pardon, but there's no way that I'm going to give him a vaccine. So that's what they're saying to each other. They go out of that meeting. They collect all of the studies. They say it's embargoed. Don't anybody talk about it. We're going to keep it a secret. And, you know, so I guess two years later I got that transcript. And I published excerpts from it in Rolling Stone.
I've actually gone through all of this stuff with Donald Trump. And his reaction is, "I want you to run a vaccine safety commission." He asked me to do that and I agree to do it. Once it got announced, [it was killed… For some reason the transcript censored some info as too hot to mention.]
Interviewer WRG: During this administration, this has happened?
RFKJr.: Yea, I thought he asked me to come in and talk to him about it, in January of 2017. And I went … I'm at Trump Towers with Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Kelley Ann Conway, and Jared Kushner were all in the meeting at different times. I stayed a couple of hours with him and I went through the whole thing. And he already believed… He knew enough women, including he's got three in his office, one who was in there that day. And he said they had perfectly healthy kids and they got vaccines and then they got autism. Once he started talking about it, then everybody… We actually, at one point, we asked people for stories.
WRG: It's an open secret basically at this point.
https://www.henrymakow.com/2020/07/vaccine-boondoggle.html
Conclusive Proof — Masks Do Not Inhibit Viral Spread
Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., a former full professor of physics, is a researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association in Canada. He’s held that volunteer position since 2014, which has given him the opportunity to dig into scientific issues that impact civil rights. He also did postdoctoral work in chemistry.
Unfortunately, the mainstream propaganda and government orders in many states in recent weeks have reverted back toward mask wearing just about everywhere. You’re not allowed into stores; you cannot fly or take a cab, Uber or Lyft without one; you must wear one everywhere you go, even outdoors, and if you don’t you’re vilified, sometimes aggressively attacked.
There’s No Scientific Support for Mask-Wearing
Rancourt’s investigation into mask wearing was part of his research for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. He did a thorough study of the scientific literature on masks, concentrating on evidence showing masks can reduce infection risk, especially viral respiratory diseases.
“What I found when I looked at all the randomized controlled trials with verified outcome, meaning you actually measure whether or not the person was infected … NONE of these well-designed studies that are intended to remove observational bias … found there was a statistically significant advantage of wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask.
Likewise, there was no detectable difference between respirators and surgical masks. That to me was a clear sign that the science was telling us they could not detect a positive utility of masks in this application.
We're talking many really [high-]quality trials. What this means — and this is very important — is that if there was any significant advantage to wearing a mask to reduce this [infection] risk, then you would have detected that in at least one of these trials, [yet] there's no sign of it.
That to me is a firm scientific conclusion: There is no evidence that masks are any utility either preventing the aerosol particles from coming out or from going in. You're not helping the people around you by wearing a mask, and you're not helping yourself preventing the disease by wearing a mask.
This science is unambiguous in that such a positive effect cannot be detected. So, that was the first thing I publicized. I wrote a large review of the scientific literature about that.
Rancourt goes on to qualify some of this data based on the mechanism of viral transmission, which also helps explain why government responses have been ill advised, as they actually worsen transmission rather than inhibit it. Infectious respiratory diseases primarily spread via very fine aerosol particles that are in suspension in the air.
“We're talking about the small size fraction of aerosols, so typically smaller than 2 micrometers,” Rancourt explains. “There are water droplets that bear these virions, the virus particles, and there can be dozens or hundreds of these virions per very small droplet of this size.
Those are the droplets we're talking about. When you get down to those sizes, gravitational outtake is very inefficient and they basically stay in suspension. And, as soon as you have currents or flow of air, [the particles] are carried.”
The aerosol particles stay in suspension when the absolute humidity is low. This is why influenza outbreaks occur during the winter. Once absolute humidity rises, the aerosol particles become unstable. They agglomerate, drop out of suspension and cease to be transmissible. “This is well known,” Rancourt says. “It's been known for a decade. It's been extraordinarily well-demonstrated by top scientists.”
The mid-latitude band is where you find the dry weather and the temperature ideal for transmitting viral respiratory diseases. Viral infections typically spread during the winter in the northern hemisphere, and in the summer in the southern hemisphere.
Mask Mandates Are Indicative of Rising Totalitarianism
In its letter6 to the WHO, the Ontario Civil Liberties Association also addressed the issue of mask mandates as an instrument of totalitarianism.
“In our letter, we put it this way. There's a recent scientific study that came out n 2019. The first author is the executive director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association that I do research for, and he's a physicist also. He wrote an article with another physicist.
They looked at the conditions under which a society will gradually degrade towards a more totalitarian state. What they found was that there were two major control parameters that characterize the society that will tell you if that is likely to happen or not.
One of those control parameters is authoritarianism in the society.
more: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/07/19/are-face-masks-effective.aspx
>>>/qresearch/10023978
>https://www.lcaction.org/
Let's get some sauces on this!
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/serology-overview.html
What do your results mean?
If you test positive
A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes thecommon cold.
>>>/qresearch/10024028, >>>/qresearch/10024079, >>>/qresearch/10024131
What COVID-19 therapy is the real “Game-Changer”? — Hydroxychloroquine or Zinc?
https://medium.com/@hotvpc/what-therapy-is-the-real-game-changer-cebc8838d447
There has been a tremendous amount of buzz regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine (HC) for the treatment of COVID-19. This has been touted as everything from a “game-changer” and “a gift from God” to begin mostly dismissed for lack of convincing evidence. The skeptics, me being one, have cited the majority of the literature demonstrating negative outcomes. Nonetheless, the pressure to forego formal clinical trials and urgently employ the drug in the face of many impending deaths of an epidemic has been enormous and completely understandable.
A survey reported 2 days ago of doctors around the world who have been managing COVID-19 patients place it as “the most effective coronavirus treatment” to date. The survey, conducted by Sermo, a global health care polling company, asked 6,227 physicians in 30 countries to find out what is the most effective against SARS-CoV-2.
That is to say, of 6,000+ doctors surveyed, 37% considered HC the most effective available. This begs the question what the other 63% considered more effective than HC and it also seems to highlight the sorry state of what we have available as treatment since the therapy considered most effective has mostly shown no beneficial effect in the small clinical trials conducted to date. They didn’t report all the breakdown of how the voting went and which were the other 14 drug choices these doctors were allowed to choose from, but it likely included the antivirals remdesivir, lopinavir, and ritonavir.
Aside from these clinical trials of various quality and weak or negative outcomes, there have been two recent striking clinical observations by clinicians that have played powerfully in the media because of the obviously striking outcomes. These are not clinical trials but rather anecdotal observations of larger populations of patients treated for presumed COVID-19 infections and they did not involve just hydroxychloroquine alone. But just because they are not rigorous clinical trials shouldn’t mean we should discard any clinical benefit that is so obvious that we don’t need a statistical analysis to reveal it particularly if corroborating reports are coming in from multiple observers.
The first one was reported by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko from Monroe, NY whereby he reported on March 21 that his team had seen about 900 patients with possible coronavirus symptoms, treating about 350 with his regimen of HC, azithromycin and zinc. None had died as of April 2nd, he said, though six were hospitalized and two were on ventilators. Despite the criticism that this was not a randomized controlled trial, still, if one can believe that the 350 patients did indeed mostly have coronavirus and can believe the numbers that this wasn’t such a bad outcome. Still, skepticism remained because of these lingering questions.
This morning, another such pronouncement was made. Dr. Anthony Cardillo of Los Angeles said he has seen very promising results when prescribing HC in combination with zinc for the most severely-ill COVID-19 patients. He did not report the dosages of either the hydroxychloroquine or the zinc.
Zinc as an anti-viral
Zinc is known to inhibit viral replication by a few mechanisms. The first is that zinc shuts down the very enzyme that the RNA virus needs to replicate itself inside the cell. It inhibits RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP).
Zinc as an anti-viral
Zinc is known to inhibit viral replication by a few mechanisms. The first is that zinc shuts down the very enzyme that the RNA virus needs to replicate itself inside the cell. It inhibits RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP).
In short, Zinc has been shown to block RNA-dependent RNA polymerase activity of many RNA viruses and now this includes the SARS COV-2 virus. But it must get into the cell in order to do this.
Zinc utilizes zinc transport proteins to get into cells. Zinc from the extracellular milieu and from intracellular compartments enters the cytoplasm through 14 specialized trans-membrane proteins of the ZIP/SLC39 family. These transport proteins are very good at keeping zinc out unless induced to open.
Substances that open ion channels or that shuttle ions across membranes independent of channels are called ionophores. Zinc ionophores therefore are important in getting zinc into cells to block replication.
A study done in 2014, long before coronavirus was around, found that chloroquine behaved as an ionophore to open zinc channels and could therefore allow zinc into cells in sufficient quantity to stop viral replication.
In addition to inhibiting RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, zinc also is a potent inhibitor of the signalling cascade of interferons-lamba3, which are a family of pro-inflammatory cytokines. You may recall hearing about the dreaded ‘cytokine storm’ that suddenly alters a relatively mild case of COVID-19 tending toward recovery to sudden cyanosis with Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Zinc may play a role in preventing that storm.
Zinc Homeostasis as a major player in COVID-19 Pathology
Now that it seems plausible that zinc transport into cells is a crucial part of control of the coronavirus, it might make sense that any health condition that interferes with zinc transport would worsen COVID-19 disease and anything that promotes zinc transport would improve outcome.
It turns out that diabetes and cardiovascular disease reduce zinc transport while estrogen is an inducer of the ZIP6 zinc transporter. Conversely, dysfunctions of zinc transporters are promoting factors in cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and cancer.
Image for post
Perhaps the effect of diabetes and heart disease on zinc transport explains why patients with heart disease and diabetes are at such high risk of morbidity and mortality with COVID-19 infections.
The effect of estrogen to induce zinc transport may further explain why men get infected with SARS COV-2 at a higher rate and have a relative risk of death 3 times that of women.
Are there other ionophores better than chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine?
Ionophore activity is in no way unique to chloroquine and HC. There are many other substances that either open zinc transporter channels or shuttle zinc into a cell across a cell membrane. hiokitiol, pyrrolidine dithiocarbamate, pyrithione all transport zinc and have been shown in vitro to inhibit viral replication. Hinokitiol is a natural substance isolated from Taiwamese ninoki tree and used as a topical antibacterial in Japan.
Pyrithione might be considered the gold-standard zinc ionophore in that it is used in studies looking at ability to get zinc into cells to inhibit replication. It is also a natural compound found in Persian shallot which is an Asian species of onion growing in central and southwestern Asia. It is for topical use only and often in medicated dandruff shampoos. So, even though hinokitiol and pyrithione are natural, it doesn’t look like they would be practical replacements for HC.
Perhaps reasonable choices as substitutes for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are quercetin and Epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) and even tonic water which contains small amounts of quinine (added to tonic water to make the gin and tonic a little bitter and more palatable).
Quercetin is a plant flavonol found in many fruits, vegetables, leaves, seeds, and grains; red onions and kale. It is found in highest concentration in capers, sorrel and radish leaves. Quercetin is a very popular supplement used as an anti-mast cell and antihistamine therapy. EGCG is a water-soluble flavonoid present in green tea. Quinine is the naturally occurring parent compound from which chloroquine and HC are synthesized. It is isolated from the bark of the cinchona (qui-qui) tree. Quinine was used liberally during the flu pandemic of 1918. Whether it helped or not, no one know because no one stopped to do clinical trials.
Quercetin and EGCG are among the most consumed and most studied polyphenols in the human diet .Flavonoids are considered bioactive micronutrients whose regular consumption, either as food components, or as dietary supplements and nutraceuticals, entails benefits for human health, including prevention and amelioration of cancers, diabetes, and cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases.
Many of the health benefits of flavonoids have historically been ascribed to their antioxidant activity, which they exert directly by scavenging reactive oxygen species and indirectly by inhibiting transcription factors and pro-oxidant enzymes. However, it is currently believed that the levels of polyphenols achieved through ingestion are not enough to justify their wide array of biological actions.
Diverse polyphenols have been shown able to form complexes with the redox-inactive transition metal zinc. Several studies have shown that flavonoids affect zinc metabolism including, for the purposes of this story, acting as ionophores that shuttles zinc into cells effectively.
A study done in 2014 in Barcelona looked at the ability of quercetin and EGCG to allow zinc into cells. This was compared against the drug clioquinol, a drug that has both anti-protozoal and anti-viral properties but has too much neurotoxicity to be considered an option for COVID-19. But it provides a positive control for the study. Unfortunately, the study did not include quinine or compare it against chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine.
Is there a relationship between Asia’s consumption of green tea, their low COVID-19 infection rate and their lack of embracing hydroxychloroquine?
To date, Japan and Singapore are among the countries with the lowest new case rates and lowest deaths per capita in the world. South Korea fared well in this respect and if one can believe China’s numbers, then overall it also kept its daily death count low throughout the pandemic. This phenomenon in Japan and Singapore is despite their rejection of the use of HC as other countries have done.
(Green tea and Quercetin and Zinc are all OTC. No doctors or tests needed)
additional images for
>>>/qresearch/10024028, >>>/qresearch/10024079, >>>/qresearch/10024131
What COVID-19 therapy is the real “Game-Changer”? — Hydroxychloroquine or Zinc?
from https://medium.com/@hotvpc/what-therapy-is-the-real-game-changer-cebc8838d447
>>>/qresearch/10054796
CENSORED: Ben Swann's - Why Face Masks DON't Work, According to SCIENCE
13-minute Fact-filled video removed from YouTube after caution notice placed on FaceBook.
https://youtu.be/h8upEg-bEJ8
>>>/qresearch/9969332
Why Face Masks DON'T Work, According To SCIENCE
>video description
>So much debate over whether or not we should be wearing masks in order to fight C0VlD but multiple scientific studies over the past decade have already settled this question. Not only do medical masks not prevent the spread of virus, but a 1995 study proves that wearing a cloth mask can put you at greater risk for infection. Ben Swann breaks down the science.
>>>/qresearch/10055595
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/coronavirus/software-flaw-led-to-dozens-of-false-positive-covid-19-tests-kentucky-medical-group-says
A software flaw is being blamed for showing a positive COVID-19 test result incorrectly for more than two dozen tests.
University of Kentucky laboratory scientists say they were inspecting and reviewing raw data from a testing platform when they became concerned about discrepancies in the data. They believe the testing platform, Thermo Fisher, which was authorized for emergency use by the FDA, had a software flaw that might result in false positives.
After re-testing the samples using another platform, scientists confirmed that the tests initially reported as positive for COVID-19 were negative. The flaw was only found in one of the four testing platforms that UK's clinical laboratory uses.
>>>/qresearch/10082263
On March 23, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order barring pharmacists from filling prescriptions for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, its next-generation derivative, for home treatment of COVID-19, the disease caused by the cornavirus SARS-CoV-2. But doctors are using the drugs, which are effective for treating such diseases as malaria and lupus, in huge numbers.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/thousands-of-ny-covid-patients-being-treated-with-anti-malarial-drug-hydroxychloroquine
This is really, really bad.
To summarize without going deeply into the science, the viral DNA enters the host cell's nucleus, where many times it gets incorporated into the host cells' chromosomal DNA. That constitutes a permanently altered host cell genome.
DNA vaccines are PERMANENT changes to a person's genomic DNA.And if in the process of transfection the new viral DNA gets taken up by eggs or spermatogonia, that constitutes germline transmission to future offspring: a permanent change in the gene pool.
There is NO adequate testing to evaluate the health implications of having a foreign virus protein getting produced all over your body. Control mechanisms are leaky.
No matter what kind of suppressive control is built in, some host cells will keep generating that protein all the time (called constitutive expression). How might the immune system be affected if that antigen protein is made all the time at low levels - or even high levels in some tissues? Chronic inflammatory immune reactions going all the time? What if that protein expressed in nervous tissue turns out, hypothetically, to causes toxic brain inflammation conducive to neuropathy?
An even worse problem is that there's no way to know what genes are delivered by the vaccine. Big Pharma already has demonstrated no compunctions about putting/allowing all kinds of foreign genetic material into vaccines. What if it included another gene encoding an enzyme that, when expressed, causes dramatic changes in behaviour? There are many such genes, that could be turned on by providing a control chemical to a regional population, for example, in the water supply.
Remember the Gates Foundation's WHO vaccine tests in India and Africa, a few years ago, where they "accidentally" included HCG protein in a supposed tetanus vaccine, given free to Kenya. The HCG hormone induced sterility in a half million young women. That was evidently the covert purpose of the trial, since there was really no need for a new tetanus vaccine.
A DNA vaccine is a scary development that should be rejected.