Health & Fitness

When asked how much radiation women are exposed to from mammograms, Dr. Ben Johnson, author of “No Ma’am-ograms,” says, “At least the amount of 100 chest X-rays.”

It’s a statement that would surprise many women who are advised to receive a mammogram as the standard of care for breast cancer prevention in the U.S. — and it’s just one of the eye-opening facts presented in the documentary “Boobs: The War on Women’s Breasts.”

The film begins with a written statement informing viewers that all of the information you’re about to hear is supported by scientific literature, even though much of it opposes the assertions made by conventional medicine. Doctors from across the United States and around the world — including California, Georgia, Switzerland, Virginia and Arizona — are interviewed, providing expert testimony on why you may want to rethink this controversial procedure.

The ‘Early Detection’ Myth and Biopsy Risks

One myth perpetuated by conventional medicine is that mammography is the most important screening test for breast cancer because it can detect breast cancer “up to two years before the tumor can be felt by you or your doctor.”¹

However, the film points out that by the time you can feel a cancerous lump in your breast, the cancer has already been growing for two to five years. “Mammograms are not early detection,” Johnson says.

The myth that mammograms don’t spread cancer is also addressed, via the story of one woman who was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer and given only 1 year to live. She made significant changes to her lifestyle and many of the tumors disappeared. The cancer was stable years later, until she received a biopsy and subsequent mammograms, which she says made the cancer spread — and a tumor appeared in the area where the biopsy was done.

During a biopsy, a piece of tissue from a tumor or organ is removed so that it can be examined under a microscope, often to determine if it is cancerous. Needle biopsies, for instance, are widely used as part of the traditional allopathic approach to diagnosing breast cancer. But they may accidentally cause malignant cells to break away from a tumor, resulting in its spreading to other areas of your body.

One of the harms of using mammography as a screening tool is that it can often lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, including false-positive tests and unnecessary biopsies.²

One study from the John Wayne Cancer Institute revealed that a needle biopsy may increase the spread of cancer compared to patients who receive excisional biopsies, also known as lumpectomies.³ They concluded, “Manipulation of an intact tumor by FNA [fine-needle aspiration] or large-gauge needle core biopsy is associated with an increase in the incidence of SN [sentinel node] metastases, perhaps due in part to the mechanical disruption of the tumor by the needle.”⁴

Johnson said he calls biopsies “the kiss of death,” describing how the needle gets driven through a billion cells, blows through the cancer and goes out the other side, dragging cells back through and spreading the cancer. Dr. Manfred Doepp, medical director of the Couros Center in Switzerland, agrees that biopsies can spread cancer, while the physical act of squeezing the breast during mammography may also trigger the cancer to spread.

The film cites a rapid response published in the BMJ, which states “robust scientific data, published in prestigious medical journals, have lent meaningful support to the concept” that the squeezing motion of mammography is in itself potentially harmful.⁵

Breast Cancer Overdiagnosed in 1.3 Million Women

The notion that mammography is an accurate screening tool is another myth busted in the film. Both false positives and false negatives occur, and even the skill of the radiologist in reading the mammogram is a factor in whether or not mammography is able to detect cancer.

Overall, when researchers examined trends in early-stage breast cancer and late-stage breast cancer from 1976 to 2008 among women 40 years and older, they found the introduction of mammography in the U.S. was linked to a doubling in the number of early-stage breast cancer cases detected each year.⁶

However, the rate at which women developed late-stage cancer decreased by 8% during that time, leading the researchers to suggest that only a small number of early-stage cancer diagnosed would progress into advanced disease:⁷

“Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer.

Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.”

They concluded that due to the introduction of mammography, breast cancer was overdiagnosed — meaning that tumors were detected that would never lead to clinical symptoms — in 1.3 million women over a 30-year period.

Up to 80% of Breast Biopsies Are Benign

The overdiagnosis of breast cancer comes with serious risks, including needless treatments and unnecessary stress and anxiety. In another study cited in the film, it’s stated that more than 1 million breast biopsies are performed annually in the U.S., 75% to 80% of which turn out to be benign.⁸ Sometimes, the benign result isn’t uncovered until an unnecessary mastectomy has already occurred.

Up to 1 in 4 breast tissue biopsies may be incorrectly diagnosed by pathologists,⁹ and unnecessary mastectomies have been performed as a result. In a case that went to trial in 2020 in Israel, a woman was diagnosed with breast cancer after a biopsy tested at two medical centers came back positive.

She underwent six months of chemotherapy as a result, as well as a partial mastectomy to remove the growth. After the growth was removed, the lawsuit alleges, it turned out to be benign.¹⁰ In 2015, researchers with Boston Children's Hospital in Massachusetts revealed that false-positive mammograms and breast cancer overdiagnoses among women ages 40 to 59 cost the U.S. $4 billion each year.¹¹

Mammograms May Not Work for Women With Dense Breasts

The story of Nancy Cappello is also covered in the film. Cappello was diagnosed with breast cancer after receiving two normal mammograms. The cancer was missed because she has dense breast tissue, and was only revealed when her doctor felt a ridge in her breast and prescribed an ultrasound test in addition to a mammogram.

Cappello was a pioneer in the movement to teach women about dense breast tissue and how using a mammogram to detect cancer in such tissue is “like finding a polar bear in a snowstorm.” She said:¹²

“So I went on a quest — for research — and I discovered for nearly a decade BEFORE my diagnosis, six major studies with over 42,000 women concluded that by supplementing a mammogram with an ultrasound increases detection from 48% to 97% for women with dense tissue.

 I also learned that women with extremely dense tissue are 5x more likely to have breast cancer when compared with women with fatty breasts and that research on dense breast tissue as an independent risk factor for breast cancer has been studied since the mid 70s.

… I endured a mastectomy, reconstruction, 8 chemotherapy treatments and 24 radiation treatments. The pathology report confirmed — stage 3c cancer because the cancer had traveled outside of the breast to my lymph nodes. Eighteen lymph nodes were removed and thirteen contained cancer — AND REMEMBER — a "normal" mammogram just weeks before. Is that early detection?”

As a result of Cappello’s movement, 38 states have passed mandatory breast density reporting laws. The film states that up to 90% of women may have some degree of dense breast tissue that may affect a mammogram’s outcome and could benefit from whole breast ultrasound — a procedure that’s not widely available. Women are also interviewed that were told they had dense breast tissue, but not what that meant for the effectiveness of mammography.

‘Precancer’: Ductal Carcinoma in Situ

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) refers to the abnormal growth of cells within the milk ducts of the breast forming a lesion commonly between 1 to 1.5 centimeters (cm) in diameter. While the cells appear malignant under a microscope, they have not invaded surrounding tissue and are considered “precancer,” noninvasive or "stage zero breast cancer.” Some experts have also argued that DCIS should be considered noncancerous.

Despite this, the film tells the story of one woman who had both breasts removed due to a DCIS diagnosis. Such diagnoses now represent 20% to 25% of all “breast cancers,”¹³ and the standard of care is to treat all DCIS with mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery with radiotherapy. According to a review in the British Journal of Cancer:¹⁴

“In effect, women with DCIS are labelled as ‘cancer patients’, with concomitant anxiety and negative impact on their lives, despite the fact that most DCIS lesions will probably never progress to invasive breast cancer.

Owing to the uncertainty regarding which lesions run the risk of progression to invasive cancer, current risk perceptions are misleading and consequently bias the dialogue between clinicians and women diagnosed with DCIS, resulting in overtreatment for some, and potentially many, women.”

Is Radiation From Mammograms Dangerous?

There’s also the issue that mammograms use ionizing radiation at a relatively high dose, which in and of itself can contribute to the development of breast cancer. In a 2016 study, it’s stated, “ionizing radiation as used in low-dose X-ray mammography may be associated with a risk of radiation-induced carcinogenesis.”¹⁵

They point out that people who carry certain genetic variations or have an inherited disposition of breast cancer, in particular, should avoid ionizing radiation as much as possible — the latter group being one that conventional medicine often recommends for routine or even extra mammography screening. Again, they refer individuals to a different, safer, form of testing: ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).¹⁶

A “new and improved” type of mammogram called 3D tomosynthesis, which is basically a CT scan for your breasts, is particularly problematic, as your radiation exposure is even greater than from standard mammograms — and by a significant margin.

According to one study,¹⁷ annual screening using digital or screen-film mammography on women aged 40 to 80 years is associated with an induced cancer incidence and fatal breast cancer rate of 20 to 25 cases per 100,000 mammograms. Meaning, annual mammograms cause 20 to 25 cases of fatal cancer for every 100,000 women getting the test.

The 3D mammogram requires multiple views in order to achieve three-dimensionality, so it stands to reason your total radiation exposure would be considerably higher than from a standard 2D mammogram.

Thermography and Ultrasound Use No Radiation

In order to make informed decisions, women should be provided with all of their screening options, along with an explanation of their strengths and weaknesses, and be allowed to utilize the option of their choice.

Mammography is only one option, with considerable drawbacks. Other potentially safer options include self and clinical breast exams, thermography, ultrasound and MRI. Thermography and ultrasound use no radiation, and may detect abnormalities that mammograms miss, especially in women with dense breast tissue.

These are explained in detail toward the end of the film, but they can be difficult to access in the U.S., as the billion-dollar mammography industry prevents the widespread use of these beneficial tests.

It’s also important to understand that mammography doesn’t prevent breast cancer in any way. Breast cancer prevention involves a healthy lifestyle, avoidance of toxins and attention to certain nutritional factors, such as vitamin D. It is absolutely vital to know and optimize your vitamin D level as it can radically reduce your risk of breast cancer.

Ignoring these factors and simply getting an annual mammogram and believing you’re protected is the end result being foisted upon many women trusting the advice of conventional medicine. By leading a healthy lifestyle, and seeking to get informed about all of your breast cancer screening options, you can avoid this potentially deadly pitfall.

About the Director I believe in bringing quality to my readers, which is why I would like to share some information about the filmmaker, Megan S. Smith, M.S., and what went in to making “bOObs: The War on Women’s Breasts.” Thank you, Megan, for sharing with us. What was your inspiration for making this film? My inspiration for making this film, as well as in making my next film on alternative cancer therapies, was the death of my husband 11 years ago from lung cancer. Specifically, for “bOObs,” my inspiration was emboldened by the death of my three dear friends in as many years after their breast cancer returned following 10-plus years in remission. What was your favorite part of making the film? My favorite part of making this film was interviewing the patients and doctors. I learned during my interviews of Drs. Ben Johnson and Galina Migalko about the detriments of mammograms and that we might instead be using thermography in conjunction with ultrasound. This nonradiation protocol made sense to me. Also, my interview with The American Cancer Society’s Dr. Otis Brawley was an eye opener, as he disclosed, “Mammography is a suboptimal test” and “We need a better test.” All these doctors were spot on. More information on the film can be found here. >>>>> Click Here <<<<<

from Articles https://ift.tt/3iNvsxY
via IFTTT

Virologists have shown that a treatment with the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine does not limit SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus replication in hamsters. A high dose of the anti-flu drug favipiravir, by contrast, has an antiviral effect in the hamsters.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3iLSmWr

Accomplishing a feat that had been a pipe dream for decades, scientists have recreated in a test tube the first steps of infection by HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), the virus that causes AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). Doing so has provided up-close access to the virus -- which is otherwise obstructed from view deep within the cell -- and enabled identification of essential components that HIV needs to replicate within its human host.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2SF8z4W

Contrary to some claims, people in the US may not be substituting cannabis for opioids, New research examined the direction and strength of association between cannabis and opioid use among adults who used non-medical opioids. The findings showed that opioid use was at least as prevalent on days when cannabis was used as on days when it was not. The study is among the first to test opioid substitution directly.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3nAda72

Should I or shouldn't I? The activity of individual nerve cells in the brain tells us how confident we are in our decisions. The result is unexpected - the researchers were actually on the trail of a completely different evaluation mechanism.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2IeFSKo

New work offers an unprecedented real-time view of the choroid plexus in a mouse model, providing a glimpse of how disturbances of the mother's immune system during pregnancy disrupt the developing brain.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/36Q2c7s

Bone marrow cancer is currently an incurable disease that affects about 400 people in Norway every year. One Norwegian researcher has now found an important reason for bone destruction in people with this disease.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/36MiYEf

Researchers have found that health inequities can be measured in children as young as 5 years old. The research contributes to a growing body of literature finding that children of color who are also poor face greater health inequities than their white counterparts.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/34E98Sq

Biological clocks have sizeable effects on the performance of elite athletes. This conclusion was drawn by chronobiologists after studying the times achieved by swimmers in four different Olympic Games. Shifting the clock to reach peak performance at the right time could make the difference between winning and losing.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/30OLxgC

Researchers have found that health inequities can be measured in children as young as 5 years old. The research contributes to a growing body of literature finding that children of color who are also poor face greater health inequities than their white counterparts.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/34E98Sq

In 2018, sales in the U.S. supplement market had reached $124.8 billion and are expected to top $210.3 billion by 2026.¹ While that sounds like a lot of money, and it is, it pales in comparison to health care spending for prescription drugs.

In 2016, the cost of health care reached $3.3 trillion, of which $329 billion was on prescription drugs.² The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimates that in the next decade, the money that’s spent on prescription drugs will outpace that of other types of health care spending.³

The projected spending on retail prescription drugs matches the consistent rise in chronic diseases, such as heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. But, as spending on medications rises, more adults are also spending money on preventive care, such as vitamin supplements.

In one study, it was reported that in 2019, younger people who bought vitamins and supplements spent an average of $62.73 per trip on the products whereas people who grew up during the Great Depression spent $129.58.⁴

Multivitamins and Minerals in Older Adults Shortened Illness

In the 20th year that the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) conducted their annual consumer survey on dietary supplements, 77% of the respondents said that they took supplements.⁵ Vice president of communications Nancy Weindruch commented on the results, saying:

“While the industry continues to innovate, there is no denying that these regulated products have become mainstream. More than three quarters of Americans are taking dietary supplements each year — a crystal clear trend that serves as an indicator of the vital role supplementation plays in their overall health and wellness regimens.”

To test the hypothesis that using a multivitamin and mineral supplement may support immune function in older adults,⁶ a research team from Oregon State University recruited 42 healthy individuals ages 55 to 75.⁷ The interventional study was designed to measure the effect that a multivitamin with minerals may have on immune system indicators.⁸

Before and after the intervention, the researchers took samples to measure the amount of minerals and vitamins in the participants’ blood as well as immune function and status. The participants were given a questionnaire in which they reported details of their health during the trial.

The data showed that the same percentage of people in each group experienced symptoms of illness or sickness, but those who took the supplement averaged three days with symptoms as compared to more than six days by members of the group taking a placebo.

Adrian Gombart from Linus Pauling Institute at the University of Oregon was a principal investigator in the study. He commented on the results that showed older adults may benefit from a multivitamin and mineral supplement, saying:⁹

"The observed illness differences were striking. While the study was limited to self-reported illness data and we did not design the study to answer this question, the observed differences suggest that additional larger studies designed for these outcomes are warranted — and, frankly, overdue."

Vitamin Deficiencies Contribute to Age-Related Decline

Vitamins and minerals are also called micronutrients because they're only required in small amounts. Your body cannot produce them and deficiencies can introduce very serious problems.

According to data from UNICEF, more than 200 million children younger than age 5 are either undernourished or overweight.¹⁰ The CDC reports that at least half of all children around the world in that age group suffer from micronutrient deficiencies.¹¹

The World Health Organization estimates that 250 million preschool children are deficient in vitamin A, which contributes to up to 500,000 children becoming blind every year.¹² Within 12 months of losing their eyesight, up to half of them will die.

The authors of one literature review write that vitamin deficiencies are a major trigger for chronic diseases worldwide. Some stages in life increase the risk for deficiency, including childhood, adolescence and old age.¹³

The Oregon State University researchers wrote that the risks of deficiency “contribute to age-related immune system deficiencies” and that among adults in North America and Europe, “more than one-third of older adults are deficient in at least one micronutrient, often more than one.”¹⁴ Gombart commented on the challenges people face with micronutrient deficiency:^15,16

“That likely contributes to a decline in the immune system, most often characterized by increased levels of inflammation, reduced innate immune function and reduced T-cell function.

Since multiple nutrients support immune function, older adults often benefit from multivitamin and mineral supplements. These are readily available, inexpensive and generally regarded as safe.

Supplementation was associated with significantly increased circulating levels of zinc and vitamin C, and with illness symptoms that were less severe and shorter lasting. This supports findings that stretch back decades, even to the days of Linus Pauling’s work with vitamin C.

Our results suggest more and better designed research studies are needed to explore the positive role multivitamin and mineral supplementation might play in bolstering the immune system of older adults.”

Multivitamins May Help Fill Nutritional Gaps

In a survey done in 2015 on behalf of CRN, it was found that the vast majority of those they interviewed understood that multivitamins and Vitamin D supplements help fill the gaps in their daily diet but should not be used as a substitute for a nutrient-rich diet.¹⁷

More than 2,000 U.S. adults were asked questions to measure their understanding of multivitamins, vitamin D and calcium supplements. An almost equal percentage understood the roles that calcium and vitamin D play in bone health and ways in which multivitamins and mineral supplements can help fill nutritional gaps that are not addressed by their diet.

That percentage was an impressive 87% and 88%. CRN consultant Annette Dickinson, Ph.D., was one of the researchers. She commented on the results of data from other surveys in a press release, saying:¹⁸

"Surveys find that dietary supplement users tend to have better diets and adopt other healthy habits — suggesting that they view supplements as just one strategy in an array of health habits to help ensure wellness."

The authors of a 2017 study examined data from 10,698 adults in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and found that people who were using a multivitamin and mineral supplement had a lower prevalence of vitamin inadequacy in 15 out of 17 of the micronutrients analyzed.¹⁹

Using the supplement for greater than or equal to 21 out of 30 days in the month nearly eliminated inadequacies in the micronutrients that were analyzed and significantly lowered the ratio of deficiency for all biomarkers except iron. Nutrients not affected by taking a multivitamin and mineral supplement included calcium, magnesium and vitamin D.

The researchers concluded that the supplements decreased nutritional inadequacies and lowered the risk of deficiencies. Carrie Ruxton, Ph.D., from the Health and Food Supplements Information Service, commented on the results of this study:²⁰

“This study is really important in setting the record straight on the value of multivitamins and minerals. We know these nutrients are key to our health and wellbeing and low levels have been shown to have negative health impacts.

Unfortunately, all too often it is said that you can get all the nutrition you need from a healthy, balanced diet. But this ignores how most people actually eat. A lot of people don’t consume the full-spectrum of micronutrients needed to support optimum health.”

In addition to the commentary that most people do not eat the necessary micronutrients, it’s important to recognize that while whole foods are the healthier option, the micronutrients in the food are dependent on the air and soil in which they are grown.^21,22

Vitamins Help Support Heart Health and More

In one study of 8,678 adults, researchers sought to determine the effect multivitamin and mineral supplements may have on cardiovascular health and mortality in women. The data were drawn from a nationally representative sample. The initial results showed no association between heart disease mortality and those taking multivitamin and mineral supplements.

However, once the data were classified by the length of time the supplements had been used, the researchers found people who had taken the supplements for three years or more had a reduction in risk of mortality from CVD. The researchers wrote that these results were consistent “with the one available RCT [random controlled trial] in men, indicating no relation with MVM use and CVD mortality.”

The results of the study do not establish a causal (cause-and-effect) relationship, however. In other words, it does not prove that taking a multivitamin with a mineral supplement will reduce the risk of heart disease mortality. Many researchers, such as Dickinson, also consider that people who consistently take multivitamins often tend to have a healthier lifestyle, which could account for the benefits of taking supplements.

In situations of vitamin insufficiency, when a person has low levels but not low enough to trigger symptoms of deficiency, several health conditions can be ameliorated with supplements, such as:

• Vitamin D to address depression²³
• Vitamin A to contribute to the prevention of blindness²⁴
• Vitamin C to power the body’s response to connective tissue defects²⁵
• Vitamin B12 to reduce the symptoms of dementia²⁶

Use Supplements With a Healthy Diet

If multivitamins and mineral supplements are used, they must be taken in combination with a healthy diet because they can never replace poor nutrition from the daily intake of highly processed foods. While it’s important to choose a quality multivitamin and mineral supplement, the process of identifying one may not be straightforward. Look for a manufacturer that has checks and balances in place to ensure the quality of the product.

Some manufacturers agree to voluntary certification and testing by ConsumerLab.com, NSF International or U.S. Pharmacopoeia. These organizations help that ensure strict standards of quality are met by examining and testing the product throughout the process of production.

As with most products, vitamins have a shelf life, so check the expiration dates before using them and store them according to the manufacturer's instructions. Choose a well-respected company and a product that is consistently evaluated and tested to be sure you’re getting exactly what’s on the label.

from Articles https://ift.tt/36LrJi3
via IFTTT

According to rotavirus vaccine developer Dr. Paul Offit,¹ people will need to continue wearing masks and social distancing for "the next couple of years" even after a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available.

"People now see vaccines as a magic dust that's about to be sprinkled over this country and make this all go away. It doesn't work that way," Offit told MarketWatch, September 21, 2020.²

Offit, who sits on the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, said he's wary of a COVID-19 vaccine that may be rushed to market under pressure from the government.

The U.S. Health and Human Services' Operation Warp Speed has pledged to deliver 300 million doses of a COVID-19 vaccine by 2021,³ if not sooner.⁴ However, developing a safe and effective vaccine normally takes years and begins with animal studies.

The COVID-19 vaccines are all being rushed straight into human clinical tests, forgoing lengthy animal trials altogether. Vaccine makers are also being shielded against liability if people are harmed by the experimental vaccines.⁵

Early Warning Signs of Vaccine Dangers

Early warning signs that something might be amiss have already started emerging. As detailed in "Gates Tries to Justify Side Effects of Fast-Tracked Vaccine," results⁶ from Moderna's Phase 1 human trial revealed 100% of volunteers in the high-dose group suffered systemic side effects. Side effects included fatigue, chills, headache and myalgia (muscle pain); 21% suffered "one or more severe events."

A May 26, 2020, article⁷ in STAT news told the harrowing story of Ian Haydon, a healthy 29-year-old participant in Moderna's vaccine trial who suffered severe side effects requiring hospitalization.

While Haydon recovered from the side effects, which included a raging fever, fainting, nausea, muscle pain and generally feeling "as sick as he'd ever felt," just imagine what such side effects might do to an elderly person, an infant, young child or someone who is metabolically compromised or has an underlying condition such as a heart problem. For them, the reactions could be far worse and possibly fatal.

Disturbingly, in July 2020, it was reported⁸ that Moderna's 100-mcg dose vaccine — despite its 100% side effect ratio after the second dose — would proceed to Phase 3 trial assessment.

Like the Moderna vaccine, the AstraZeneca/Oxford University vaccine also appears to come with a shockingly high rate of side effects. Results⁹ from one of its Phase 1/2 studies published August 15, 2020, revealed a clear majority of participants experienced side effects, including fatigue, headache, muscle ache, malaise, chills and feeling feverish.

September 6, 2020, AstraZeneca paused its Phase 3 vaccine trial due to a "suspected serious and unexpected adverse reaction" in a British participant.^10,11 The company did not divulge the nature of the adverse reaction.

However, The New York Times reported¹² that "a person familiar with the situation, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity" said the individual" had been found to have transverse myelitis, an inflammatory syndrome that affects the spinal cord and is often sparked by viral infections."

September 12, 2020, the British Medicines Health Regulatory Authority gave AstraZeneca the go-ahead to resume its Phase 3 trial in the U.K., after an independent review found it "safe to do so."^13,14

And here is yet another major surprise that hardly anyone knows. Offit warns there could be problems with Moderna's and BioNTech's messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines because they have extraordinary shipping and handling needs that include using dry ice. "We've never done that before in this country," he told MarketWatch.¹⁵ "Never."

Why Enforce Ineffective Mask Rules?

A viral video (above) posted September 23, 2020, features the violent arrest of an Ohio mom at a local football game, ostensibly for not wearing her mask in the stands.¹⁶ The video shows a police officer tasing Alecia Kitts at the two-minute mark.

Also clearly on the video is footage showing that the officer who tased Kitts had his own mask off, under his chin, from the time he tased her until he was walking her away in handcuffs. He only put the mask back on when someone in the stands yelled out, asking him where his mask was. 

According to The Ohio Star,¹⁷ Tiffany Kennedy, a friend of Kitts who shot the video, said Kitts has asthma and had taken the mask off. Kitts' mask is visible in her right back shorts pocket in the video. Ohio coronavirus rules issued by Governor Mike DeWine require people to wear masks at outdoor events when 6-foot social distancing is not possible.

Not wearing a mask in Ohio is considered a misdemeanor. Penalties for failure to comply can include up to 30 days in jail and a $750 fine. While DeWine said his intent isn't to arrest people for noncompliance, he failed to veto a bill that would have reduced fines and banned jail time for noncompliance.

The fundamental problem with assaulting¹⁸ and arresting people for not complying with mask rules is that there's no evidence to support the idea that masks prevent the spread of the virus. In fact, the science tells us masks cannot block viruses.

SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter between 0.06 and 0.14 microns.¹⁹ Medical N95 masks — which are considered the most effective — can filter particles as small as 0.3 microns.²⁰ Surgical masks, homemade masks, T-shirts and bandanas are even more porous.

At best, a mask may reduce the transmission of large respiratory droplets, but it does nothing to prevent the transmission of aerosolized particulates exhaled by asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals with COVID-19.²¹ Health agencies' own research show it's a futile measure that only provides a false sense of security.

For example, the World Health Organization's June 5, 2020, guidance memo²² on face mask use states "there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19."

Similarly, a May 2020 policy review paper²³ published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases, concluded that "Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza."

This is highly relevant, as the influenza virus is about twice the size of SARS-CoV-2. If masks cannot prevent transmission of influenza, they certainly cannot prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Valved Masks and Face Shields Are Useless

Certain masks are more useless than others, with valved masks being among the worst, followed by homemade cloth masks. This includes both commercial cloth masks and N95-rated masks with one or two exhale ports. The reason for this is because masks with breathing valves do not filter the outbreath.

To be clear, while an N95-rated mask with exhale port will not protect others, it may, however, still offer some protection for the wearer. If you’re wearing a mask, N95-rated masks are the most effective choice. The caveat is that it must be properly fitted and put on and removed as instructed. Medical staff must go through fit tests²⁴ for medical N95 masks, which makes them an impractical choice for the general public.

Face shields, recommended²⁵ by Dr. Anthony Fauci at the end of July 2020, as an added layer to protect the mucous membranes of your eyes, are even more useless for the prevention of viral spread, especially if used alone in lieu of a mask (which is generally not recommended²⁶).

Florida Atlantic University's College of Engineering and Computer Science video above provides a qualitative visualization of how masks with valves and face shields perform. As reported by Florida Atlantic University news desk:²⁷

"Widespread public use of these alternatives to regular masks could potentially have an adverse effect on mitigation efforts. For the study,²⁸ just published in the journal Physics of Fluids, researchers employed flow visualization in a laboratory setting using a laser light sheet and a mixture of distilled water and glycerin to generate the synthetic fog that made up the content of a cough-jet.

They visualized droplets expelled from a mannequin's mouth while simulating coughing and sneezing. By placing a plastic face shield and an N95-rated face mask with a valve, they were able to map out the paths of droplets and demonstrate how they performed.

Results of the study show that although face shields block the initial forward motion of the jet, the expelled droplets move around the visor with relative ease and spread out over a large area depending on light ambient disturbances.

Visualizations for the face mask equipped with an exhalation port indicate that a large number of droplets pass through the exhale valve unfiltered, which significantly reduces its effectiveness as a means of source control."

In related news, a Japanese simulation study found "nearly 100% of airborne droplets less than 5 micrometers in size escaped through the shields" and "about half of larger droplets measuring 50 micrometers found their way into the air," The Guardian reports.^29,30

Why Did CDC Delete Aerosol Transmission Notice?

Interestingly, Friday September 18, 2020, the CDC posted updated COVID-19 guidance on its "How COVID-19 Spreads" page that, for the first time, mentioned aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, saying "this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads."³¹

It also noted that aerosolized viruses can travel farther than 6 feet — which is logical seeing how aerosolized viruses can remain suspended in the air for hours — and that "indoor environments without good ventilation increase this risk."³² However, the CDC then deleted the mention of aerosols and the possibility of spread beyond 6 feet the following Monday, September 21, saying a draft version of proposed changes had been posted "in error."^33,34,35,36

As reported by Forbes:³⁷

"Before Friday's update, the CDC said large respiratory droplets (like from coughing or sneezing) at close range transmitted the virus, but now the now-deleted guidance added that 'small particles, such as those in aerosols' could infect people.

'There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet,' the now-removed guidance stated … Scientists say the new CDC guidance is important because cloth masks aren't designed to protect the wearer from aerosols."

The last sentence is a key one. Understanding that SARS-CoV-2 is aerosolized and can remain suspended in air "is important because cloth masks aren't designed to protect the wearer from aerosols." Masks also, of course, cannot protect others from aerosolized viruses exhaled by someone wearing a mask (or face shield).

SARS-CoV-2 Is Airborne, Which Makes Masks Ineffective

According to NBC News,³⁸ that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne is "already well-known, according to infectious disease experts," so it's unclear why the CDC would not want that information on its website. In fact, it's been remarkably slow in acknowledging it.

One has to wonder whether its delayed acknowledgment and rapid removal of this information has something to do with the fact that, if SARS-CoV-2 spreads primarily via aerosols, then requiring people to wear masks is illogical, seeing how they cannot filter out airborne viruses. All a mask can do is limit the spread of contaminated respiratory droplets. This has been the argument against mask wearing all along.

Dr. Jill Weatherhead, assistant professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, told NBC News that the admission that SARS-CoV-2 is aerosolized was "not surprising or jarring."³⁹ The World Health Organization updated its COVID-19 guidance back in July to include aerosolized (i.e., airborne) transmission, at the urging of more than 200 scientists.⁴⁰

Joseph Allen, an associate professor in the department of environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, also told NBC News that "The scientific community has been raising the alarm about this since February, that airborne spread can happen."⁴¹ Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the school of public health at Brown University, commented on the CDC's deletion:⁴²

"This is so destructive to this incredibly wonderful agency that we have loved and admired our entire careers. This is amateur hour."

Why Are They so Persistent With Mask Recommendations?

Considering the strong scientific evidence against it, why are governments so persistent in their recommendation of mask wearing? Clearly, for many, wearing a bandana or cloth mask provides a form of psychological defense, a way to feel less fearful because it feels like you're doing something to protect yourself and others. But it's a false sense of security.

Masks will not prevent you from exhaling or inhaling the aerosolized virus. Cloth masks are clearly also the least preferable option if you want to reduce the spread of infection, as their ability to block larger respiratory droplets is also limited.

In particular, N95 masks with airflow valves on the front should be avoided, as the valve lets out unfiltered air, thus negating the small benefit — the reduction in respiratory droplet emissions — you might get from a mask.⁴³

But with COVID-19 fatality rates^44,45,46 as low as they are, why would governments be pushing for a false sense of security? According to a September 2, 2020, study⁴⁷ in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the overall noninstitutionalized COVID-19 fatality ratio is 0.26%. For those younger than 40, the infection fatality ratio is 0.01%, while those aged 60 or older have a fatality ratio of 1.71%.

The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza listed in this paper is 0.8%. So, the only people for whom SARS-CoV-2 infection is more dangerous than influenza is those over the age of 60.

Mandatory mask wearing, social distancing, lockdowns and business shut-downs are clearly completely unnecessary at this point, unless your goal is to increase fear, tyranny and transfer of wealth to the upper 0.001% who can benefit from collapsing the economy. The virus is in the air all around us, so you cannot avoid exposure even with a mask or face shield.

Remember back in March 2020 when they said we just need to slow down the rate of infection to avoid overcrowding hospitals? How did we go from that to now having to wear masks everywhere until every trace of the virus has been eliminated, even though a vast majority remain asymptomatic and don't even know they have the virus unless they get tested?

Overall, it seems mask requirements are being used as a psychological manipulation tool to encourage compliance with vaccination once a vaccine becomes available. It can also be viewed as a badge of submission to tyranny. I predict it is likely that, at some point in the future, a tradeoff will be offered: Mask mandates will be dropped provided everyone gets vaccinated.

By then, many may be willing to take just about anything as long as they don't have to wear a mask anymore — although some, like Offit, warn that masks may remain a requirement for years to come, even with a vaccine.

I would encourage you to read up on the many open questions relating to fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccines before making your decision. Overall, it seems the best way to avoid having to make such a devious trade is to engage in civil disobedience now, and go unmasked.

If civil disobedience feels disconcerting, keep in mind that in many areas, mask rules include the following exception: "You must wear a mask unless you can maintain a 6-foot distance." In other words, if you're without a mask and maintain 6-foot social distancing, you're still in compliance with the rules as written.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3iHbDIE
via IFTTT