social distancing…revealed.

Seems like there is no science

That’s because its pseudo science and not based on any verifiable studies. Have a laugh.

Advertisements

10 times?

But it has become clear that this virus is not going to kill more than 50 million people like the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 to 1920 did.

So far, the death toll from this virus has surpassed half a million, and more will keep dying every day.  However, we need to keep in mind that millions of people die from various diseases every single year.  According to the WHO, the flu kills between 290,000 and 650,000 people each year, but we don’t shut down everything because of that.

Yes, COVID-19 is more serious than the flu.  But there is absolutely no reason that it should be paralyzing our society at this point.

Continues: http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/now-they-are-trying-to-tell-us-that-covid-19-is-10-times-more-infectious-than-it-was-at-the-beginning-of-the-pandemic

don’t work

Masks and respirators do not work.

Government advice conflicts

Source: https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy

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.

Review of the Medical Literature

Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009)“Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002

N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.

Cowling, B. et al. (2010)“Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05

None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.

bin-Reza et al. (2012)“The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x

“There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

Smith, J.D. et al. (2016)“Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567

“We identified six clinical studies … . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”

Offeddu, V. et al. (2017)“Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747

Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”; as per Fig. 2c therein:

https://technocracy.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/offeddu-chart-verified-respitory-infections.png

Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019)“N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214

“Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Long, Y. et al. (2020)“Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1– 9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381

“A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Conclusion Regarding That Masks Do Not Work

No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions.

Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.

Masks and respirators do not work.

Precautionary Principle Turned on Its Head with Masks

In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic, and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks. In this case, public authorities would be turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below).

Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease and of Why Masks Do Not Work

In order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, we must review established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, the aerosol mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose.

In addition to pandemics that can occur anytime, in the temperate latitudes there is an extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality that is seasonal, and that is caused by viruses. For example, see the review of influenza by Paules and Subbarao (2017). This has been known for a long time, and the seasonal pattern is exceedingly regular. (Publisher’s note: All links to source references to studies here forward are found at the end of this article.)

For example, see Figure 1 of Viboud (2010), which has “Weekly time series of the ratio of deaths from pneumonia and influenza to all deaths, based on the 122 cities surveillance in the US (blue line). The red line represents the expected baseline ratio in the absence of influenza activity,” here:

https://technocracy.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/viboud-chart-rancourt-mask-paper.png

The seasonality of the phenomenon was largely not understood until a decade ago. Until recently, it was debated whether the pattern arose primarily because of seasonal change in virulence of the pathogens, or because of seasonal change in susceptibility of the host (such as from dry air causing tissue irritation, or diminished daylight causing vitamin deficiency or hormonal stress). For example, see Dowell (2001).

In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.

Lowen et al. (2007) demonstrated the phenomenon of humidity-dependent airborne-virus virulence in actual disease transmission between guinea pigs, and discussed potential underlying mechanisms for the measured controlling effect of humidity.

The underlying mechanism is that the pathogen-laden aerosol particles or droplets are neutralized within a half-life that monotonically and significantly decreases with increasing ambient humidity. This is based on the seminal work of Harper (1961). Harper experimentally showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times, as ambient humidity was increased.

Harper argued that the viruses themselves were made inoperative by the humidity (“viable decay”), however, he admitted that the effect could be from humidity-enhanced physical removal or sedimentation of the droplets (“physical loss”): “Aerosol viabilities reported in this paper are based on the ratio of virus titre to radioactive count in suspension and cloud samples, and can be criticized on the ground that test and tracer materials were not physically identical.”

The latter (“physical loss”) seems more plausible to me, since humidity would have a universal physical effect of causing particle/droplet growth and sedimentation, and all tested viral pathogens have essentially the same humidity-driven “decay.” Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how a virion (of all virus types) in a droplet would be molecularly or structurally attacked or damaged by an increase in ambient humidity. A “virion” is the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid. The actual mechanism of such humidity-driven intra-droplet “viable decay” of a virion has not been explained or studied.

In any case, the explanation and model of Shaman et al. (2010) is not dependent on the particular mechanism of the humidity-driven decay of virions in aerosol/droplets. Shaman’s quantitatively demonstrated model of seasonal regional viral epidemiology is valid for either mechanism (or combination of mechanisms), whether “viable decay” or “physical loss.”

The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.

In particular, Shaman’s work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic’s basic reproduction number (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.

For a definition of R0, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): R0 is “the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible.” The average R0 for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19–1.37); see the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014).

In fact, Shaman et al. showed that R0 must be understood to seasonally vary between humid-summer values of just larger than “1” and dry-winter values typically as large as “4” (for example, see their Table 2). In other words, the seasonal infectious viral respiratory diseases that plague temperate latitudes every year go from being intrinsically mildly contagious to virulently contagious, due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration.

Therefore, all the epidemiological mathematical modeling of the benefits of mediating policies (such as social distancing), which assumes humidity-independent R0 values, has a large likelihood of being of little value, on this basis alone. For studies about modeling and regarding mediation effects on the effective reproduction number, see Coburn (2009) and Tracht (2010).

To put it simply, the “second wave” of an epidemic is not a consequence of human sin regarding mask wearing and hand shaking. Rather, the “second wave” is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity.

If my view of the mechanism is correct (i.e., “physical loss”), then Shaman’s work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to large droplets that are quickly gravitationally removed from the air.

Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Despres, 2012). It is not entirely unlikely that viruses can thereby be physically transported over inter-continental distances (e.g., Hammond, 1989).

More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centers, and on-board airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011):

“Half of the 16 samples were positive, and their total virus −3 concentrations ranged from 5800 to 37 000 genome copies m . On average, 64 per cent of the viral genome copies were associated with fine particles smaller than 2.5 μm, which can remain suspended for hours. Modeling of virus concentrations indoors suggested a source strength of 1.6 ± 1.2 × 105 genome copies m−3 air h−1 and a deposition flux onto surfaces of 13 ± 7 genome copies m−2 h−1 by Brownian motion. Over one hour, the inhalation dose was estimated to be 30 ± 18 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50), adequate to induce infection. These results provide quantitative support for the idea that the aerosol route could be an important mode of influenza transmission.”

Such small particles (< 2.5 μm) are part of air fluidity, are not subject to gravitational sedimentation, and would not be stopped by long-range inertial impact. This means that the slightest (even momentary) facial misfit of a mask or respirator renders the design filtration norm of the mask or respirator entirely irrelevant. In any case, the filtration material itself of N95 (average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm) does not block virion penetration, not to mention surgical masks. For example, see Balazy et al. (2006).

Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference.

On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case.

Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features:

1.   Most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibility

2.   It is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the host

3.   The 50-percent probability MID (“TCID50”) has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000 virions

4.   There are typically 10 to 3rd power − 10 to 7th power virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm − 10 μm

5.   The 50-percent probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized droplet

6.   For further background:

7.   A classic description of dose-response assessment is provided by Haas (1993).

8.   Zwart et al. (2009) provided the first laboratory proof, in a virus-insect system, that the action of a single virion can be sufficient to cause disease.

9.   Baccam et al. (2006) calculated from empirical data that, with influenza A in humans,“we estimate that after a delay of ~6 h, infected cells begin producing influenza virus and continue to do so for ~5 h. The average lifetime of infected cells is ~11 h, and the half-life of free infectious virus is ~3 h. We calculated the [in-body] basic reproductive number, R0, which indicated that a single infected cell could produce ~22 new productive infections.”

10. Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90 percent of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed.

All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.

Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. For example, such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008).

Why There Can Never Be an Empirical Test of a Nation-Wide Mask-Wearing Policy

As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results [because]:

1.   Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.

2.   Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.

3.   Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviors; see Wada (2012).

4.   The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.

5.   Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.

6.   Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.

7.   Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.

8.   Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.

9.   Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.

Unknown Aspects of Mask Wearing

Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:

1.   Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?

2.   Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?

3.   Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?

4.   What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?

5.   How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?

6.   What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?

7.   Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?

8.   Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioral modification?

9.   What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?

10. Do the masks shed fibers or substances that are harmful when inhaled?

Conclusion

By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.

Otherwise, what is the point of publicly funded science?

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.

Denis G. Rancourt is a researcher at the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA.ca) and is formerly a tenured professor at the University of Ottawa, Canada. This paper was originally published at Rancourt’s account on ResearchGate.net. As of June 5, 2020, this paper was removed from his profile by its administrators at Researchgate.net/profile/D_Rancourt. At Rancourt’s blog ActivistTeacher.blogspot.com, he recounts the notification and responses he received from ResearchGate.net and states, “This is censorship of my scientific work like I have never experienced before.”

The original April 2020 white paper in .pdf format is available here, complete with charts that have not been reprinted in the Reader print or web versions. 

Endnotes:

Baccam, P. et al. (2006) “Kinetics of Influenza A Virus Infection in Humans”, Journal of Virology Jul 2006, 80 (15) 7590-7599; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01623-05 https://jvi.asm.org/content/80/15/7590

Balazy et al. (2006) “Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?”, American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 34, Issue 2, March 2006, Pages 51-57. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2005.08.018 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.488.4644&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Biggerstaff, M. et al. (2014) “Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature”, BMC Infect Dis 14, 480 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-14-480

Brooke, C. B. et al. (2013) “Most Influenza A Virions Fail To Express at Least One Essential Viral Protein”, Journal of Virology Feb 2013, 87 (6) 3155-3162; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.02284-12 https://jvi.asm.org/content/87/6/3155

Coburn, B. J. et al. (2009) “Modeling influenza epidemics and pandemics: insights into the future of swine flu (H1N1)”, BMC Med 7, 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-7-30

Davies, A. et al. (2013) “Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic?”, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Available on CJO 2013 doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.43 http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1935789313000438

Despres, V. R. et al. (2012) “Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: a review”, Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 64:1, 15598, DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598 https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598

Dowell, S. F. (2001) “Seasonal variation in host susceptibility and cycles of certain infectious diseases”, Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(3):369–374. doi:10.3201/eid0703.010301 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2631809/

Hammond, G. W. et al. (1989) “Impact of Atmospheric Dispersion and Transport of Viral Aerosols on the Epidemiology of Influenza”, Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Volume 11, Issue 3, May 1989, Pages 494–497https://doi.org/10.1093/clinids/11.3.494

Haas, C.N. et al. (1993) “Risk Assessment of Virus in Drinking Water”, Risk Analysis, 13: 545-552. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.x

HealthKnowlege-UK (2020) “Charter 1a – Epidemiology: Epidemic theory (effective & basic reproduction numbers, epidemic thresholds) & techniques for analysis of infectious disease data (construction & use of epidemic curves, generation numbers, exceptional reporting & identification of significant clusters)”, HealthKnowledge.org.uk, accessed on 2020-04-10. https://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/research-methods/1a- epidemiology/epidemic-theory

Lai, A. C. K. et al. (2012) “Effectiveness of facemasks to reduce exposure hazards for airborne infections among general populations”, J. R. Soc. Interface. 9938–948 http://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2011.0537

Leung, N.H.L. et al. (2020) “Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks”, Nature Medicine (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0843-2

Lowen, A. C. et al. (2007) “Influenza Virus Transmission Is Dependent on Relative Humidity and Temperature”, PLoS Pathog 3(10): e151. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.0030151

Paules, C. and Subbarao, S. (2017) “Influenza”, Lancet, Seminar| Volume 390, ISSUE 10095, P697-708, August 12, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30129-0

Sande, van der, M. et al. (2008) “Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population”, PLoS ONE 3(7): e2618. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002618 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002618

Shaman, J. et al. (2010) “Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States”, PLoS Biol 8(2): e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000316

Tracht, S. M. et al. (2010) “Mathematical Modeling of the Effectiveness of Facemasks in Reducing the Spread of Novel Influenza A (H1N1)”, PLoS ONE 5(2): e9018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009018 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009018

Viboud C. et al. (2010) “Preliminary Estimates of Mortality and Years of Life Lost Associated with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic in the US and Comparison with Past Influenza Seasons”, PLoS Curr. 2010; 2:RRN1153. Published 2010 Mar 20. doi:10.1371/currents.rrn1153 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2843747/

Wada, K. et al. (2012) “Wearing face masks in public during the influenza season may reflect other positive hygiene practices in Japan”, BMC Public Health 12, 1065 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-1065

Yang, W. et al. (2011) “Concentrations and size distributions of airborne influenza A viruses measured indoors at a health centre, a day-care centre and on aeroplanes”, Journal of the Royal Society, Interface. 2011 Aug;8(61):1176-1184. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0686. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2010.0686

Yezli, S., Otter, J.A. (2011) “Minimum Infective Dose of the Major Human Respiratory and Enteric Viruses Transmitted Through Food and the Environment”, Food Environ Virol 3, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12560-011-9056-7

Zwart, M. P. et al. (2009) “An experimental test of the independent action hypothesis in virus– insect pathosystems”, Proc. R. Soc. B. 2762233–2242 http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0064

Download PDF here….

doom eternal

The seven partners of doom – covid-19 is the catalyst

1. The first leading partner is Gill and Mel Gates, built with the fortune from Microsoft and run by the company’s former CEO Bill Gates. The Foundation is one of the key operatives in implementing the Agenda 2030 plan, together with foundations like Rockefeller FoundationRockefeller Brothers FundFord FoundationBloomberg PhilanthropiesUN Foundation, and Open Society Foundation. They all have their roots in population control/eugenics and represents the global elite that ultimately are running the show and shapes the agenda on a global scale. Gill and Mel Gates Foundation has, together with World Economic Forum, had a prominent role in orchestrating the current COVID-19 hysteria as well as the push for a digital ID.

We all know about the 060606 patent that seems to have slipped the medias mind completely. (Fancy that?) You would think we would all be fascinated by such an amazing technology. I certainly am! If you mention this real patent people look at you like you are an idiot or simply do not care. One such person said to me that the pandemic has made them so busy they had no time. When someone is forcibly holding you down to inject something into that you do not want perhaps you will remember back to the warning hey? LOL

2. The second partner is Avanti Communications, a British world-leading provider of satellite technology to military and government projects. Their satellites are said to “provide secure, rapid and reliable connectivity for government digital inclusion programmes”. They deliver a world-spanning connectivity which may be used to finally realize the old dream of a World Brain where all human activity can be tracked and analysed in real time.

I love this idea. Imagine a global mind that knows everything about you? I could share my love of kittens with it and be in state of perfect nirvana never having to worry about anything again.

3. The third partner is 2030Vision, a technology partnership “that connects businesses, NGOs and governments with the technology and expertise they need to realize the Goals”. It is founded and chaired by the British semiconductor company ARM  and consists of corporations like Microsoft and the German software company SAP together with a number of technology advocacy groups. 2030Vision, which recently merged with World Economic Forums Frontier 2030, is a partnership that connects cross-sector organisations and the advanced technology solutions needed to support the delivery of the Global Goals.

cid:image002.png@01D64EB9.65B5FC30

This paper pretty much tells us the A.I will be used to solve all issues from agriculture to climate changes and everything else in between. With these unelected and wonderful people overseeing this what could possibly go wrong?

4. The fourth partner is the multinational tech-giant Google, provider of cloud computing, a leading search engine and web browser, Android cell phone operating system, Youtube, AI solutions, and a companion of everyday life for billions of people that already intimately track users and their behaviors.

We have seen an impetuous on censorship from Google such as stacking the search results for agendas and removing videos from anyone who has an alternative view or just wants to debate a little bit and ask why. I have never seen this blatant misuse of technology to force a particular direction in decades. Normally it is much more subtle. Channels with a millions subscribers who have been speaking about the same stuff for years are all of a sudden removed without warning for just saying things like 5G or what is in a vaccine?

This is real burning of books and is happening right now. Oh but the cat videos or other lunatics are still there so there is that to look forward to. But wait there is a bonus here. Our friends at Facebook are also cheering them on with censorship of their own. For many years our young friend from Facebook has been observing our friends, family and social connections and let me assure you this – he will only use this information with your best interests at heart because he is such a saint.

5. The fifth partner is the American global payment and technology company Mastercard. A key player in developing the digital ID that will be needed to access basic service and payment in the New International Economic Order that will rise out of the ashes of the old world system. CEO Ajaypal Singh Banga is a member of Council on Foreign Relations as well as World Economic Forums International Business Council.

cid:image003.png@01D64EBB.39493C00
http://pharos.stiftelsen-pharos.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Ska%CC%88rmavbild-2020-06-23-kl.-10.39.51.png

6. The sixth partner is American corporation Salesforce, a cloud-based software company headed by Marc Benioff (one of the board of directors of World Economic Forum). They are a global leader in customer relationship management through the use of cloud computing, social media, Internet of Things and AI.

I like these guys because they like my friend – A.I

7. The seventh partner is UNICEF (United Nations Childrens Fund). A UN agency that will ensure that no child will be left behind from being integrated in the digital panopticon.

Too many people in your country? Well can we help you! From poisonous injections to sterilization (sorry I meant family planning) we have a final solution for you.

The UN Global Goals and the leading partners are closely intertwined with World Economic Forums Fourth Industrial Revolution – a megalomaniac transhumanist plan that will “redefine what it means to be human” and where every aspect of life will be monitored and controlled from above for the “betterment of humanity”.

I am really looking forward to this. I want some diodes and wires shoved up you know where to make me a better man. I really want to have 24/7 internet in my brain too. Think of the possibilities!

Source: http://pharos.stiftelsen-pharos.org/global-goals-and-the-global-reset-for-global-technological-control/

re-writing the facts

Covid-19 is a virus but the deaths from the Spanish flu were caused by a bacteria which is completely different. Why do flu virus vaccines have antibiotics? Go investigate.

It started with the Rockefeller Institute’s Crude Bacterial Meningitis Vaccination Experiment on US Troops. The 1918-19 bacterial vaccine experiment may have killed 50-100 million people.

Spanish Flu - Symptoms, How It Began & Ended - HISTORY

It’s important to note the vast majority of deaths from Spanish influenza were from secondary bacterial infections and predated the antibiotic era.

The high case-fatality rate—especially among young adults—during the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic is incompletely understood. Although late deaths showed bacterial pneumonia, early deaths exhibited extremely “wet,” sometimes hemorrhagic lungs. The hypothesis presented herein is that aspirin contributed to the incidence and severity of viral pathology, bacterial infection, and death, because physicians of the day were unaware that the regimens (8.0–31.2 g per day) produce levels associated with hyperventilation and pulmonary edema in 33% and 3% of recipients, respectively. Recently, pulmonary edema was found at autopsy in 46% of 26 salicylate-intoxicated adults.

Experimentally, salicylates increase lung fluid and protein levels and impair mucociliary clearance. In 1918, the US Surgeon General, the US Navy, and the Journal of the American Medical Association recommended use of aspirin just before the October death spike. If these recommendations were followed, and if pulmonary edema occurred in 3% of persons, a significant proportion of the deaths may be attributable to aspirin.

Source: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/49/9/1405/301441

flu shot – 1% effective but risks

The vaccine is 1% more effective than being vaccinated. Healthy adults who receive inactivated parental influenza vaccine rather than no vaccine probably have a 1% lower risk of experiencing influenza over a single influenza season.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001269.pub6/full

Flu Shot Ingredients: What's in It and Is It Safe?

Some contain – Thiomersal (Mercury compound) but the say there is no evidence but what peer reviewed papers do they have that it is ok?

Remember Bayer just got sued for 10 Billion for Round Up causing cancer. They always say there is no evidence but they will not show proof to the contrary. (vaccine company sponsored studies should not be believed as they are not independent)

Image: Roundup

Anti-vaccination activists promoting the incorrect claim that vaccination causes autism have asserted that the mercury in thiomersal is the cause. There is no scientific evidence to support this claim

Thiomersal, which contains mercury, was previously used as a preservative in some vaccines in very small amounts. Manufacturers removed thiomersal from all vaccines on Australia’s National Immunisation Program in 2000.

Carcinogenicity: Afluria® Quad vaccine has not been evaluated for carcinogenic potential. https://www.bpmedical.com.au/files/Afluria_Quad_2020_PI.pdf

carcinogen is any substance, radionuclide, or radiation that promotes carcinogenesis, the formation of cancer. This may be due to the ability to damage the genome or to the disruption of cellular metabolic processes.

From Drug PDF: Tell your doctor, nurse or pharmacist if you or your child notice any of the following and they worry you:

  • reaction around the injection site such as tenderness, bruising, redness, warmth, pain, swelling or the formation of hard lumps
  • flu-like symptoms, such as headache, tiredness, fever, sore throat, runny nose, blocked nose, sneezing, cough, chills
  • vomiting, nausea, diarrhoea
  • aching muscles.

The following may be serious side effects and you or your child may need urgent medical attention. However, these side effects are rare.

Tell your doctor immediately if you or your child notice any of the following:

  • tingling or numbness.

The following are very serious side effects and you or your child may need urgent medical attention or hospitalisation. All of these side effects are rare.

If any of the following happen to you or your child, tell your doctor immediately or go to Accident and Emergency at your nearest hospital:

  • An allergic reaction: Typical symptoms include rash, itching or hives on the skin, swelling of the face, lips, tongue or other parts of the body
  • shortness of breath, wheezing or trouble breathing
  • a fit, convulsion or seizure, including convulsion associated with fever
  • bleeding or bruising more easily than normal
  • little or no urine
  • severe stabbing or throbbing nerve pain
  • neck stiffness, headache and high temperature associated with hallucinations, confusion, paralysis of part or all of the body, disturbances of behaviour, speech and eye movements, and sensitivity to light.

Very rarely, a serious disorder called Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) may occur. GBS is an autoimmune syndrome caused by your body’s own immune system. GBS may make you feel weak; you may have difficulty moving around or you may experience numbness and tingling in your limbs.

Afluria® Quad vaccine may also contain trace amounts of detergent (sodium taurodeoxycholate), egg protein (ovalbumin), sucrose, neomycin sulfate, polymyxin B sulfate, propiolactone and hydrocortisone.

Sodium taurodeoxycholate accelerates the release of total phosphorus, lipid phosphorus, and protein from isolated everted rat small intestinal sacs. The effect occurs at concentrations of the physiological surfactant above the CMC. The effect of sodium taurodeoxycholate on components of the biological membrane can be related to an increase in permeability of the everted intestine to phenol red in the presence of various concentrations of the surfactant. The interaction of the surfactant with the biological membrane may produce an acceleration of the loss of structural integrity of the preparation, resulting in an increased permeability to phenol red.

https://medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/a/Afluriainj.pdf

SPONSOR Seqirus (NZ) Ltd – The actual drug company would never lie!

The adverse events spontaneously reported during post-approval use of Fluvax® TIV are presented below. Blood and Lymphatic System Disorders Thrombocytopoenia. Immune System Disorders Allergic or immediate hypersensitivity reactions including anaphylactic shock. Nervous System Disorders Neuralgia, paraesthesia and convulsions (including febrile convulsions), encephalomyelitis, neuritis or neuropathy, and Guillain-Barré syndrome. Vascular Disorders Vasculitis which may be associated with transient renal involvement. Skin and Subcutaneous Tissue Disorders Pruritus, urticaria and rash. General Disorders and Administration Site Conditions Cellulitis and large injection site swelling Influenza-like illness.

Diagnosis of “COVID19” does not mean that the patient has SARSCov2 Virus

June 18, 2020 By Judy Wilyman PhD

Recently we have seen a serious outbreak of disease in some countries (not a global pandemic) in 2020 and the cause of this disease needs to be properly investigated. There are 2 facts that need to be publicised about the disease that is being called ‘COVID19’:

  1. The new mutated coronavirus 2019 that is being called “SARSCov2” has not been identified in every case or death that is being diagnosed as a COVID19. This is because clinical diagnosis (flu-like symptoms only) is being used in most cases to diagnose ‘COVID19’ and the laboratory tests that are being done cannot  identify the natural SARSCov2 virus – only the generic coronavirus sequences that we are all exposed to every year and many of us will be positive if tested. So we do not have transparent statistics on the cause of this outbreak of disease or the true number of deaths due to the new mutated coronavirus. All of these deaths have co-morbidities that are hidden in the media statistics.
  2. A serious outbreak of disease in some countries is not a basis for declaring that a new mutated coronavirus could result in a ‘global pandemic’. This idea is based on the false premise that a virus always causes disease in the person that it infects and that it will cause serious disease in all countries. The fact that environmental and lifestyle factors play a role in the expression of ‘disease’ (asymptomatic, mild, serious or death) was not factored into the generic ‘prediction contagion model that was used by the private sector to advise all countries of a ‘global pandemic’ with wildly exaggerated statistics on the deaths. Declaring a pandemic would result in countries giving their sovereignty to an outside organisation (under the WHO/GAVI International Health Regulations) whose corporate vested interests are not the same as the public’s interest in health.

Continues…