Are you getting tired of COVID-19 related scientific whiplash yet? Yes, we are too but we suggest all settle in for more proverbial twisting horizontal translations of the facts ahead.
Stanford University released a study by Baruch Vainshelboim, a clinical exercise physiologist, with a doctorate who presently works in cardiology at the U.S. Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System in California. This published work concludes:
“The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such as SARS-CoV-2 and COVID -19.”
The hypothesis was published in several places but included NCBI( The National Center for Biotechnology Information) which is ab archived publishing site of the United States National Library of Medicine, a branch of the National Institutes of Health.
Here is the study dated November 2020:
Note one must click through to review “article notes” to view the meta-analysis of participants within the contained review.
“systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings”
“Another meta-analysis of 44 non-RCT studies (n = 25,697 participants) examining the potential risk reduction of facemasks against SARS, middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) and COVID-19 transmissions. The meta-analysis included four specific studies on COVID-19 transmission (5,929 participants, primarily health-care workers used N95 masks).”
The researcher also concluded :
“The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.”
- Shortness of breath
- Increase lactate concentration
- Decline in pH levels
- Increase in stress hormones level (adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol)
- Increased muscle tension
- Activation of “fight or flight” stress response
- Chronic stress condition
- Mood disturbances
- Compromised cognitive performance
- Increased predisposition for viral and infection illnesses
- Cardiovascular disease
- Alzheimer disease
- Exacerbation of existing conditions and diseases
- Accelerated aging process
- Health deterioration
- Premature mortality ( Right Wire Report -this can also mean suicide)
Like all things in the weaponized COVID world, simply looking into the rationales and effectiveness of what the “experts” tell us is Taboo. This means all factions on the left are mobilized to censor, obfuscate, and spin any new information that does not align with the official Pravda- like narrative. We are all familiar by now with how the mainstream media and social platforms do this but do not count out the effectiveness of the “Fact Checkers ” in the sting.
Sharyl Attkisson exposes the so-called fact-checkers for who they really are, here.
As if the left has some sort of Gotham City Batman signal light that goes up into the sky…
— Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) April 17, 2021
Blocked the content of the study and redirects reader to this:
This organization was created by Poytner which self describes as an international best practices fact-checker of information. Among many, Facebook uses Politifact as a 3rd party fact-checker. It is right there in its mission statement ” certify itself as trustworthy and impartial.” See they tell you it is so. Well, they and those who fund the outfit… like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Poynter, a journalism nonprofit, and in 2019, was almost entirely funded by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar—a major Democrat donor—as well as Google and progressive billionaire George Soros.
Politifact targeted the infamous Trump supporters, Diamond and Silk’s, April 12, 2021, Facebook post citing this study. Read Politifact’s entry below:
Note the following about this dubious “fact-check”:
- Focus is only on the study being published in a ” Medical Hypotheses journal” and Diamond and Silk”s Facebook page not that it was published in NCBI.
- Declares an opinion as a fact. “This seems to be a piece of deceptive writing from what appears to be a non-expert. It isn’t science.”
- Cites USA Today and itself as debunking the theory.
- Never addresses the content (meta-analysis ) of the study.
- Cites a physician that concurs that physical effects are experiences by healthcare workers wearing the masks as the Stanford study stated.
The objective reality is there are many more studies in public that question the use of facemasks and point to detrimental factors for their use as well for an extended period. These studies are broadly spread across the academic and scientific community and geographical areas of the world. One may assert they are inconclusive if they wish yet there is no study on the effectiveness of facemasks in COVID-19 protection that is conclusive either. This is observational science based on ever-changing variables over time. So why must only one side of the facemask equation be heard and the other shut down?
A brief review of some of those studies:
- A Danish Study was a randomized-control trial. A summary can be read here.
- CDC and WHO admit masks have not been proven effective, read here.
- A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control.
- A list of 42 in the citation published scientific study section.
- 7 studies here.
- . Radonovich LJ, Cheng J, Shenal BV, et al. Respirator tolerance in health care workers. JAMA 2009; 30:36-38. A summary can be read here.
- Comparable real-time Florida non – mask mandate outcomes, read here.
- Konda A, Prakash A, Moss GA, et al. Aerosol filtration efficiency of common fabrics used in respiratory cloth masks. ACS Nano. 2020.
Shall we drill down further on the so-called “experts” who have demanded only their narrative is science and all others must be censored or claimed as ” debunked?”
Oh please, please, pretty please…
Fauci's COVID Follies: A timeline of many contradictions@realdonaldtrump typically takes the heat for coronavirus misinformation, but Dr. Anthony Fauci isn't completely innocent.
We collected some of his biggest inconsistencies. pic.twitter.com/p18eApmW18
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) October 21, 2020
On school closures :
Evidence-based scientists around the world argue to open schools. Please re-examine all the evidence Dr. Fauci!
The Case for Reopening Schools | WIRED https://t.co/iyfVU7O4TK
— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) May 14, 2020
On social distancing at least 6 feet: CDC has recently changed that to only 3 feet.
““The origin of the six-foot distancing recommendation is something of a mystery. ‘It’s almost like it was pulled out of thin air,’ said Linsey Marr, an expert on viral transmission at Virginia Tech University.”
Baruch Vainshelboim peer – reviewed study cites 67 scholars from the medical and scientific community yet still is denied a voice in the dialogue we all should be having about the when to use masks and the overall efficacy of using them against COVID -19.
I wonder how many were cited in the CDC/NIH randomized controlled -study on mask effectiveness Dr. Fauci called for? Silly me, Dr. Fauci opposed such a study being conducted :
“I would not want to do a randomized controlled study because that would mean having people not wear masks and see if they do better,” he said.
“I think that to do the study would be kind of difficult to do because then you’d have to tell people not to wear masks, and I’m not about to tell them that,” he said.”
Want to bet Politifact steered clear of fact-checking Fauci on his rationale why? How about taking a guess how many times Dr. Fauci has been censored on Twitter or Facebook for reporting inaccurate information on the pandemic – what too easy?