Category Archives: American Health

Hospitals In U.S. Using Mickey Mouse Corona Virus Test Kits To Keep Covid-19 Hoax Going For The United Nations And U.S. Media. Former Chief Science Officer For Pfizer Says “Second Wave” Faked On False-Positive Covid Tests, “Pandemic Is Over”.

Manufactured Pandemic: Testing People for Any Strain of a Coronavirus, Not Specifically for COVID-19.

Surprise! Science Does Not Support Wearing A Mask For Covid-19 Prevention Like The Marxist U.S. Main Stream Media Told You. If You Wear A Mask Your A Fool.

Masks Are Neither Effective Nor Safe: A Summary Of The Science

Source: technocracy.news

POSTED BY: COLLEEN HUBER, NMD VIA PRIMARYDOCTOR JULY 14, 2020

Print this article and hand it to frightened mask wearers who have believed the alarmist media, politicians and Technocrats in white coats. Masks are proven ineffective against coronavirus and potentially harmful to healthy people and those with pre-existing conditions.

My wife and I dined out last night in a very empty restaurant and the young waitress was required to wear a cloth mask. I asked her how she was doing with the mask and if there were any side effects. She related that was consistently short of breath (when away from the table, she lowered the mask below her nose) and that she had actually passed out because of it a few days earlier, taking her straight to the floor. Fortunately, she was not hurt. ⁃ TN Editor

At this writing, there is a recent surge in widespread use by the public of facemasks when in public places, including for extended periods of time, in the United States as well as in other countries. The public has been instructed by media and their governments that one’s use of masks, even if not sick, may prevent others from being infected with SARS-CoV-2, the infectious agent of COVID-19.

A review of the peer-reviewed medical literature examines impacts on human health, both immunological, as well as physiological. The purpose of this paper is to examine data regarding the effectiveness of facemasks, as well as safety data. The reason that both are examined in one paper is that for the general public as a whole, as well as for every individual, a risk-benefit analysis is necessary to guide decisions on if and when to wear a mask.

Are masks effective at preventing transmission of respiratory pathogens?

In this meta-analysis, face masks were found to have no detectable effect against transmission of viral infections. (1) It found: “Compared to no masks, there was no reduction of influenza-like illness cases or influenza for masks in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”

This 2020 meta-analysis found that evidence from randomized controlled trials of face masks did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza, either when worn by infected persons (source control) or by persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility. (2)

Another recent review found that masks had no effect specifically against Covid-19, although facemask use seemed linked to, in 3 of 31 studies, “very slightly reduced” odds of developing influenza-like illness. (3)

This 2019 study of 2862 participants showed that both N95 respirators and surgical masks “resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory confirmed influenza.” (4)

This 2016 meta-analysis found that both randomized controlled trials and observational studies of N95 respirators and surgical masks used by healthcare workers did not show benefit against transmission of acute respiratory infections. It was also found that acute respiratory infection transmission “may have occurred via contamination of provided respiratory protective equipment during storage and reuse of masks and respirators throughout the workday.” (5)

A 2011 meta-analysis of 17 studies regarding masks and effect on transmission of influenza found that “none of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.” (6) However, authors speculated that effectiveness of masks may be linked to early, consistent and correct usage.

Face mask use was likewise found to be not protective against the common cold, compared to controls without face masks among healthcare workers. (7)

Airflow around masks

Masks have been assumed to be effective in obstructing forward travel of viral particles. Considering those positioned next to or behind a mask wearer, there have been farther transmission of virus-laden fluid particles from masked individuals than from unmasked individuals, by means of “several leakage jets, including intense backward and downwards jets that may present major hazards,” and a “potentially dangerous leakage jet of up to several meters.” (8) All masks were thought to reduce forward airflow by 90% or more over wearing no mask. However, Schlieren imaging showed that both surgical masks and cloth masks had farther brow jets (unfiltered upward airflow past eyebrows) than not wearing any mask at all, 182 mm and 203 mm respectively, vs none discernible with no mask. Backward unfiltered airflow was found to be strong with all masks compared to not masking.

For both N95 and surgical masks, it was found that expelled particles from 0.03 to 1 micron were deflected around the edges of each mask, and that there was measurable penetration of particles through the filter of each mask. (9)

Penetration through masks

A study of 44 mask brands found mean 35.6% penetration (+ 34.7%). Most medical masks had over 20% penetration, while “general masks and handkerchiefs had no protective function in terms of the aerosol filtration efficiency.” The study found that “Medical masks, general masks, and handkerchiefs were found to provide little protection against respiratory aerosols.” (10)

It may be helpful to remember that an aerosol is a colloidal suspension of liquid or solid particles in a gas. In respiration, the relevant aerosol is the suspension of bacterial or viral particles in inhaled or exhaled breath.

In another study, penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. (11)

N95 respirators

Honeywell is a manufacturer of N95 respirators. These are made with a 0.3 micron filter. (12) N95 respirators are so named, because 95% of particles having a diameter of 0.3 microns are filtered by the mask forward of the wearer, by use of an electrostatic mechanism. Coronaviruses are approximately 0.125 microns in diameter.

This meta-analysis found that N95 respirators did not provide superior protection to facemasks against viral infections or influenza-like infections. (13) This study did find superior protection by N95 respirators when they were fit-tested compared to surgical masks. (14)

This study found that 624 out of 714 people wearing N95 masks left visible gaps when putting on their own masks. (15)

Surgical masks

This study found that surgical masks offered no protection at all against influenza. (16) Another study found that surgical masks had about 85% penetration ratio of aerosolized inactivated influenza particles and about 90% of Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, although S aureus particles were about 6x the diameter of influenza particles. (17)

Use of masks in surgery were found to slightly increase incidence of infection over not masking in a study of 3,088 surgeries. (18) The surgeons’ masks were found to give no protective effect to the patients.

Other studies found no difference in wound infection rates with and without surgical masks. (19) (20)

This study found that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” (21)

This study found that medical masks have a wide range of filtration efficiency, with most showing a 30% to 50% efficiency. (22)

Specifically, are surgical masks effective in stopping human transmission of coronaviruses? Both experimental and control groups, masked and unmasked respectively, were found to “not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols.” (23) In that study, they “did not confirm the infectivity of coronavirus” as found in exhaled breath.

A study of aerosol penetration showed that two of the five surgical masks studied had 51% to 89% penetration of polydisperse aerosols. (24)

In another study, that observed subjects while coughing, “neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients.” And more viral particles were found on the outside than on the inside of masks tested. (25)

Cloth masks

Cloth masks were found to have low efficiency for blocking particles of 0.3 microns and smaller. Aerosol penetration through the various cloth masks examined in this study were between 74 and 90%. Likewise, the filtration efficiency of fabric materials was 3% to 33% (26)

Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks were found to have 13 times the risk of influenza-like illness than those wearing medical masks. (27)

This 1920 analysis of cloth mask use during the 1918 pandemic examines the failure of masks to impede or stop flu transmission at that time, and concluded that the number of layers of fabric required to prevent pathogen penetration would have required a suffocating number of layers, and could not be used for that reason, as well as the problem of leakage vents around the edges of cloth masks. (28)

Masks against Covid-19

The New England Journal of Medicine editorial on the topic of mask use versus Covid-19 assesses the matter as follows:

“We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 20 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” (29)

Are masks safe?

During walking or other exercise

Surgical mask wearers had significantly increased dyspnea after a 6-minute walk than non-mask wearers. (30)

Researchers are concerned about possible burden of facemasks during physical activity on pulmonary, circulatory and immune systems, due to oxygen reduction and air trapping reducing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. As a result of hypercapnia, there may be cardiac overload, renal overload, and a shift to metabolic acidosis. (31)

Risks of N95 respirators

Pregnant healthcare workers were found to have a loss in volume of oxygen consumption by 13.8% compared to controls when wearing N95 respirators. 17.7% less carbon dioxide was exhaled. (32) Patients with end-stage renal disease were studied during use of N95 respirators. Their partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) decreased significantly compared to controls and increased respiratory adverse effects. (33) 19% of the patients developed various degrees of hypoxemia while wearing the masks.

Healthcare workers’ N95 respirators were measured by personal bioaerosol samplers to harbor influenza virus. (34) And 25% of healthcare workers’ facepiece respirators were found to contain influenza in an emergency department during the 2015 flu season. (35)​

Risks of surgical masks

Healthcare workers’ surgical masks also were measured by personal bioaerosol samplers to harbor for influenza virus. (36)

Various respiratory pathogens were found on the outer surface of used medical masks, which could result in self-contamination. The risk was found to be higher with longer duration of mask use. (37)

Surgical masks were also found to be a repository of bacterial contamination. The source of the bacteria was determined to be the body surface of the surgeons, rather than the operating room environment. (38) Given that surgeons are gowned from head to foot for surgery, this finding should be especially concerning for laypeople who wear masks. Without the protective garb of surgeons, laypeople generally have even more exposed body surface to serve as a source for bacteria to collect on their masks.

Risks of cloth masks

Healthcare workers wearing cloth masks had significantly higher rates of influenza-like illness after four weeks of continuous on-the-job use, when compared to controls. (39)

The increased rate of infection in mask-wearers may be due to a weakening of immune function during mask use. Surgeons have been found to have lower oxygen saturation after surgeries even as short as 30 minutes. (40) Low oxygen induces hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1). (41) This in turn down-regulates CD4+ T-cells. CD4+ T-cells, in turn, are necessary for viral immunity. (42)​

Weighing risks versus benefits of mask use

In the summer of 2020 the United States is experiencing a surge of popular mask use, which is frequently promoted by the media, political leaders and celebrities. Homemade and store-bought cloth masks and surgical masks or N95 masks are being used by the public especially when entering stores and other publicly accessible buildings. Sometimes bandanas or scarves are used. The use of face masks, whether cloth, surgical or N95, creates a poor obstacle to aerosolized pathogens as we can see from the meta-analyses and other studies in this paper, allowing both transmission of aerosolized pathogens to others in various directions, as well as self-contamination.

It must also be considered that masks impede the necessary volume of air intake required for adequate oxygen exchange, which results in observed physiological effects that may be undesirable. Even 6- minute walks, let alone more strenuous activity, resulted in dyspnea. The volume of unobstructed oxygen in a typical breath is about 100 ml, used for normal physiological processes. 100 ml O2 greatly exceeds the volume of a pathogen required for transmission.

The foregoing data show that masks serve more as instruments of obstruction of normal breathing, rather than as effective barriers to pathogens. Therefore, masks should not be used by the general public, either by adults or children, and their limitations as prophylaxis against pathogens should also be considered in medical settings.

Anthony Fauci: Loser, Liar, Fake, Propagandist And Medical Con Man Exposed. Must Hear Robert Kennedy Jr. Podcast Interview.

Fauci

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warns that Anthony Fauci is a fraud, and has “poisoned an entire generation of Americans”

Source: drleonardcoldwell.comApril 20, 2020

Play the Thomas Paine podcast below.

During a recent episode of the Thomas Paine Podcast, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. blew the lid on Dr. Anthony Fauci’s extensive legacy of fraud and coverups throughout his lengthy medical career in the federal government.

Kennedy explained that Fauci has been a problematic character all throughout his more than 50-year tenure in public health, during which he operated as a workplace tyrant and ruined the careers of countless physicians and researchers who, unlike himself, were upstanding and honorable individuals.

Fauci has been with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984 – can you say deep state? – and he’s known among those on the inside as the guy who “poisoned an entire generation of Americans,” according to Kennedy.

In at least one instance, Fauci targeted a whistleblower who was trying to expose the fact that America’s blood supply is tainted with deadly disease strains. Fauci ruined the career of this physician and proceeded to cover up his crucial research on the subject.

Kennedy also warned during the program that Fauci has attacked many other good guys who’ve tried to actually serve the public rather than shill for Big Pharma, Bill Gates, the mainstream media and other deep state assets and mouthpieces of deception and lies.

Anthony Fauci owns “many, many” patents on vaccines, warns Kennedy

Fauci is also guilty of abusing his post for financial gain in the form of obtaining lucrative vaccine patents. Doctors and researchers underneath him who developed breakthrough technologies have been fired so that Fauci could assume ownership of their work in order to enrich himself.

“Tony Fauci has many, many vaccine patents,” Kennedy contends, noting that Fauci now owns a patent on a special protein sheet made from HIV that helps to more efficiently deliver vaccine material throughout the body. Fauci didn’t develop this protein sheet himself, of course, but rather stole it from someone else who was relieved from duty after creating it.

“Tony Fauci fired [this person] and he somehow ended up owning that patent,” Kennedy says. “And that patent is now being used by some of these companies … to make vaccines for the coronavirus … that company has a 50/50 split with Tony Fauci’s agency … so Fauci’s agency will collect half the royalties on that vaccine and there’s no limit for how much the agency can collect.”

In other words, this is nothing but a business for people like Fauci, who are profiting off of pandemics like the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) while claiming to be “regulating” the drug and vaccine industries that respond to them on behalf of the American people.

“This isn’t a captured industry; it’s a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry,” Kennedy further warns about how the NIAID, the CDC, and other supposed federal agencies are really just corporations in disguise that work on behalf of Big Pharma to generate massive profits on the backs of sick and dying people.

Dr. Fauci and Dr.Birx Have a Record of Medical Failure

Source: Newswithviews.com
By Cliff Kincaid|
April 14th, 2020

The Washington Post has been a joke for a long time, at least since the days when it won a Pulitzer Prize in 1981 for a story about a child heroin addict who turned out not to exist. The paper is now filled, on a daily basis, with poison pen “analysis,” backed by phony “fact-checkers,” criticizing almost anything President Trump says or does. Somehow, basic facts that may impact the coronavirus story, such as the federal record of failure in the development of an HIV/AIDS vaccine, escape mention.

President Clinton in May 1997 had announced a “comprehensive AIDS vaccine research initiative” that has failed. To repeat: 23 years later, the project has failed. To emphasize this fact is not to disparage the efforts that were made. Instead, it is relevant information that might help us understand if the current push for a coronavirus vaccine, strongly backed by the United Nations, makes any medical sense at all. Perhaps money for a coronavirus vaccine can be spent more effectively somewhere else. Perhaps vitamin therapy, nutritional supplements, and other alternative treatments such as Hydroxychloroquine should be used on a massive scale immediately.

In a major breakthrough in this regard, Governor Kristi Noem announced that South Dakota will become the first state to conduct a full clinical trial on hydroxychloroquine, to understand its role in treating and potentially preventing coronavirus.

In the same way that HIV/AIDS may have been misunderstood by the “experts,” the jury is still out on the nature of the China virus. But such information is critical to understanding whether a vaccine is even possible and whether fast-tracking a risky vaccine is wise. In addition to the failure of the HIV/AIDS vaccine experiment, the swine flu vaccine scandal of the 1970s demonstrates how government vaccination programs can go horribly wrong.

The Post ran a story about Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx, who specialized in HIV/AIDS vaccine research, referring to them as having “worked together at the dawn of the AIDS crisis.” It said Birx and Fauci are still “on a continuing search for a cure and vaccine,” a backdoor way of acknowledging that the vaccine project has failed. But the paper won’t say that in a direct or factual way.

Fauci and Birx are clearly knowledgeable but they are not infallible. Their records are not beyond reproach. But because they carry the label of doctors and “scientists,” they seem to be immune from serious criticism. It’s time for that to change.

The paper is defending Fauci’s record as an “infectious disease specialist” but his comments about the nature of the China virus have varied, depending on which program he has been on. And there have been a lot of such programs. On Greg Kelly’s show on January 21, he said, “But this is not a major threat for the people of the United States. And this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.” This followed the WHO’s claim on January 14 that coronavirus could not be spread person to person. It cited China as the source of that information.

Fauci told the NBC Today show as late as February 29 that “there is no need to change anything that you are doing on a day-by-day basis.”

One thing we do know is that Fauci has been a reliable contact of the U.N.’s World Health Organization, having signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the WHO’s Dr. Tedros in 2018. The “understanding” seemed to be that Fauci would rely on the WHO, a China front,or China itself, for information on virus outbreaks and pandemics originating in China. That was a big mistake.

Ignoring his pattern of misleading statements, the Post claims that Fauci “developed a reputation as a skilled public health expert while combating the AIDS crisis in the 1980s.” He was certainly “skilled” in public relations. But in fact, the federal government’s HIV/AIDS vaccine initiative has been a failure. The American people have a right to know that these “experts” can be wrong.

As recently as 2014, Fauci was writing scientific papers about how an HIV/AIDS vaccine “remains essential” and that “recent advances in vaccinology offer new promise for an effective HIV vaccine.” But HIV/AIDS vaccines have repeatedly failed. The latest failure was funded by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The $100 million experiment was 10 years in the making.

Fauci has served as director of the NIAID at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) since 1984, the year scientists claim to have identified and isolated HIV. Controversy continues to surround this “discovery.” Recently, during a daily White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing, Fauci talked about alleged “health disparities,” in terms of the numbers and backgrounds of people getting sick and dying from the coronavirus, and asserted he saw something similar when HIV/AIDS struck LGBTQ people.

“During that time, there was extraordinary stigma, particularly against the gay community,” Fauci said. “And it was only when the world realized how the gay community responded to this outbreak with incredible courage and dignity and strength and activism — I think that really changed some of the stigma against the gay community, very much so.”

His comments ignore the fact that life-threatening and deadly diseases such as HIV/AIDS emerged in the gay community because of the manner in which they have sex. To this day, male homosexuals are still far more susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV. The book, The Health Hazards of Homosexuality, speaks about the power of the LGBTQ lobby and “unprecedented censorship” in the medical profession and scientific establishment about how the gay lifestyle spreads the disease.

This is still a taboo subject for many but the story needs to be told. Fauci won’t tell it, apparently because he thinks it somehow contributes to the “stigma.” Yet, smokers are regularly shamed into quitting because they use tobacco, rather than marijuana. Indeed, the government funds programs to discourage smoking but not gay sex.

Other so-called “disparities” consist of federal funding that has favored AIDS over other diseases. Indeed, a group called the FAIR Foundation was formed in order to point out that AIDS was getting a greater share of the federal research budget, even though it is killing a fraction of Americans each year when compared with diseases like diabetes and Alzheimer’s. Typically, the flu kills far more people than AIDS.

In 2017, for example, 5,698 people died of AIDS. But 55,000 died of the flu. It was number eight on the list of leading causes of death. The figures show that HIV disease has not been among the 15 leading causes of death since 1997.

Strangely, the biography of Dr. Birx says she “helped lead one of the most influential HIV vaccine trials in history (known as RV 144 or the Thai trial), which provided the first supporting evidence of any vaccine’s potential effectiveness in preventing HIV infection.” But that was 10 years ago and note the use of the word “potential.” At this date, there is still no HIV/AIDS vaccine.

A history of failed HIV/ADS vaccine efforts notes, “Factors that led the U.S. government to take action included vocal activism by people infected with HIV and their allies as well as persistent efforts by advocates in the scientific world.” In other words, the gay community and people like Fauci and Birx rushed into development of an HIV/AIDS vaccine.

Some might review this failed project and nevertheless conclude that at least they tried to help people. But the fact is that the gay community lobbied for a quick-fix vaccine that failed to materialize when it can be argued that the “Medical Deep State” should have been spending their time (and our money)on projects to solve other health problems affecting many more people, such as the flu.

Consider that while billions were wasted on an HIV/AIDS vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says current flu vaccines reduce the risk of getting the flu by only 40% and 60% among the overall population “during seasons when most circulating flu viruses are well-matched to the flu vaccine.” This caveat means that effectiveness also depends on the nature of the flu and which vaccine was produced for which year.

All of this proves that the scientific “authorities” need oversight and fact-checkers. The American people should not leave their health in the hands of bureaucratic “experts” who have wasted billions on failed vaccine experiments and played politics with disease.

Face Masks Don’t Work. Covid-19 Prevention Exposed As Mass Mental Illness Across World. The Covid-19 Hoax. Don’t Be A sheeple.

Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy

Source: Activistteacher.blogspot.com
The original April 2020 white paper in PDF format is available. Click Here.  

Masks and respirators do not work.

There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

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 Infection, 138(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 1934–1942, https://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:

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:

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:

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

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

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

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

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

For further background:

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

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.

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.”

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]:

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.

Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?

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

What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?

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 – Profile – D_Rancourt. At Rancourt’s blog Activist Teacher, 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.”

Best Way To Beat A Virus Is To Take Ionic Nano Silver And Stop Listening To The United Nations W.H.O. And The Media.

download (1)

CantonTruth.blogspot.com And FourHorsemen66.com indorses the silver company below. May God Bless You. Click Link -Blue Ridge Silver.


https://blueridgesilver.com

Source: silveryguy.com

Put Colloidal Silver In Atomizer, Nebulizer or Ultrasonic Humidifiers and Breathe.

Similar to a nebulizer, using colloidal silver in its atomized form may be the final defence against an unseen enemy such as the coronavirus. The virus as with any virus, is a RNA-based entity that infiltrate cells and transform healthy cells into virus replicators.

The idea behind atomizing colloidal silver solution and inhaling it, seeks to allow the silver particles and colloids to coat the internal lung tissue and form a defensive layer to the aggressive virus attack.

Well, then…

How Does Colloidal Silver Work To Kill Viruses?

Viruses invade living cells in your body, and penetrate the nucleus of the same cell and make the cell reproduce virus instead of healthy cells. It’s this very subversive way of hijacking your healthy cells to do its dirty-work that causes the deadly symptoms because it destroys your healthy cells.

In the Coronavirus, it specifically targets the cells in your lungs which are known to have ACE2 receptors (which makes them the prime invasion point) and cause debilitating symptoms. Needless to say, that results in some seriously deadly forms of pneumonia which shows up as shortness of breath and difficulty breathing.

Having pneumonia go untreated is like dying from slow suffocation as your body is gradually being starved of much needed oxygen.

The newly reproduced virus will then make its way into your circulatory system via bloodstream which then makes you even sicker as it replicates copies of itself and destroys healthy cells in the process.

When a virus first invades a cell, part of the living cell reverts into its more primal cellular state and cell structure. The oxygen metabolising enzyme in the cell wall also similarly becomes a primal form of itself which is then chemically able to react with the incoming colloidal silver.

As a result, the primal form of the oxygen metabolizing enzyme then gets killed off by starving it of its ability to receiving oxygen, which also in-turn kills off the virus’ self-replicating process within minutes.

Yes, if you can get the colloidal silver to the area of infection, you give yourself a fighting chance of getting the virus replication under control.

How Do Silver Nanoparticles Work As An Antiviral?

Silver nanoparticles interact with HIV-1 based on their size. According to a peer-reviewed article on http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, Silver particles were tested found to be able to bind with the virus and show an ordered spatial alignment. and have the capacity to be indeed virucidal depending on their size. In other words, to be effective virus-disablers, there needed to be sufficient small sized silver particles that would effectively create a “cap” that inhibited the virus from infectivity.

Although a typical solution of colloidal silver contains nano particles as well as ionic silver, it was the nanoparticles that proved 12 times more useful in the inhibition of viruses, versus ionic forms, at concentrations were at about 0.44 to 0.91 mg/mL.

Colloidal silver is so effective in being antiviral that its effects are still present 12 hours after cell infection with a HIV virus, which makes it a prime candidate for being a broad-spectrum antiviral agent not prone to pathogenic resistance.

In a nutshell, colloidal silver particles, when generated at a low constant current will yield particles at such small sizes that they are perfect to attache themselves to viruses and disable their ability to replicate themselves with any host cell.

This is truly nanotechnology working with medical science and it could save us from trying to outwit constantly evolving bacteria and viruses!

No One Likes A Worst Case Scenario – Colloidal Silver Can Fight Viruses And Bacterial Infection

In an ideal world, if you’re reading this, you’d get world-class treatment in event of catching the virus. I hope you don’t.

But in a global pandemic, there is a high possibility that hospitals will not be able to attend to all cases. Which means that some people will be left without treatment or waiting for treatment and may suffer worsening conditions as is the situation facing Wuhan.

Make no doubt about it. This virus is moving fast and the possibility of overloaded hospitals without enough beds or medical workers to attend to you is real.

Imagine if you could give yourself a fighting chance by using colloidal silver to reduce bacterial infection of your lungs and reduce the virus’ ability to replicate, I’d say that dramatically improves your odds.

note: I’m not a medical professional and using colloidal silver in an atomized form may have undocumented risks but if you have no known viable vaccine available, and if you’re in a bad spot, you will need to make your own judgment call on this. Having said that, I’ve used it as a nebulizer to great benefit and suffered no known ill-effects.

Source: BlueRidgesilver.com

What is Colloidal Silver?

Our Colloidal Silver is a pure, all natural clear liquid consisting of purified distilled water and submicroscopic nano-particles of 99.99% pure silver. It is manufactured by a non-chemical process resulting in the nano-particles of silver being held in suspension by an electric charge placed on each particle. Our colloidal silver is primarily ionic which has been tested and shown to be more effective than primarily particulate colloidal silver (see article below).

What does Colloidal Silver do?

When taken as directed, colloidal silver helps improve immune system health and functionality.
Is Colloidal Silver safe to take?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Poison Control Center reports no toxicity listing for colloidal silver. These reports seem to reflect that it is considering it harmless in any concentration. Other studies and information also show that colloidal silver is safe, and when taken as directed colloidal silver has no negative side effects.

Historically, What has Silver Been Used For?

Silver has been used for centuries to disinfect water and promote good health. Herodotus, the first historian who lived 484-425 BC, claimed that no Persian king would drink water that was not stored in silver-lined vessels. It has been well documented that silver vessels were also used in ancient Greece and Rome to disinfect water and other stored liquids.

During the bubonic plague pandemic in Europe during the 1400’s that killed as many as 75 million people, the wealthy had a much lower mortality rate reportedly due to the fact that they regularly ate using silver utensils and drank from silver goblets.

The American settlers (1800’s) routinely place a silver dollar in barrels of liquids to avoid spoilage.

What are some Modern Uses for Colloidal Silver?

Today in the United States colloidal silver is widely used as a mineral supplement.

The US CDC endorses the use of silver in ceramic water filters for developing nations. NASA has also used silver to maintain water purity on the space shuttle. Colloidal silver is also used to disinfect clothing, to disinfect water, to disinfect hot tubs, to disinfect hospital surfaces and washing machine surfaces, and new practical uses are being discovered constantly.

For circumstances where the quality of drinking water may be questionable (esp. on travels) it is very good to know that a teaspoon of 5 ppm colloidal silver is able to disinfect 1 liter of drinking water within about 20 minutes. It will kill the most common pathogens at a concentration of over 200 CFU (Coli-forming Units) per ml of water. So, one 4-ounce bottle of 5 ppm colloidal silver can disinfect safely and surely approximately 32 liters of drinking water!

What is a Colloid?

A colloid is a collection of ultra-fine particles that do not dissolve but remain suspended in a solution. Blue Ridge Silver ultra-fine silver particles are so small they do not reflect natural light. That’s why our products are clear in appearance. The silver particles generally fall within the range of 0.0005 – 0.015 microns in diameter. These particles are electrically charged and so tiny that they remain suspended in water.

How is Colloidal Silver made?

Blue Ridge Silver produces colloidal silver slowly in small batches using generators that utilize an electrolysis process that causes extremely fine silver nano-particles to be suspended in distilled water.  This method replaces the need for any chemicals, stabilizers or proteins which have been shown to reduce product effectiveness, and the resulting product contains pure ionic colloids of silver.

Which is Better: Ionic or Particulate Colloidal Silver?

According to an article written by Steve Barwick of The Silver Edge who is a health journalist entitled, “Ionic Versus Particulate Colloidal Silver: the Great Debate,” ionic colloidal silver is better. Here’s an excerpt of Mr. Barwick’s article:

“Actually, ionic colloidal silver solutions are not in the least bit inferior to particulate colloidal silver solutions. Unfortunately, the myth that the particulate form of colloidal silver is somehow superior to the ionic form has been perpetrated by some individuals on the internet who have a financial self-interest in selling an overly-expensive bottled commercial particulate-based colloidal silver product.

The reality is that the ionic form of colloidal silver is the form used in hundreds of clinical studies carried out since the early 1900’s. Even Dr. Robert O. Becker’s ground-breaking research into the effectiveness of electrically generated silver ions, conducted at Syracuse Medical University during the 1970’s and 1980’s, attributed the astonishing [benefits] of silver to the silver ion, i.e., the ionic form.

What’s more, Dr. Becker used a small electrical device that generated very low micro-amps of current in order to produce his silver ions within the human body — a device very much like the tiny colloidal silver generators used today which also exclusively make the ionic form of colloidal silver ingested by millions of people across North America…”
Does particle size matter?

Yes; particle size is a highly critical factor. Much of the effectiveness of any colloidal silver solution depends on the actual size and uniformity of silver particles. Large particles are much less effective in boosting immunity support. According to many researchers, the preferred particle size for optimum results and safety of use should be from 0.0005 – 0.015 micron or 0.5 – 1.5 nanometers in diameter. (one micron = one millionth of a meter). Blue Ridge Silver products particle sizes are well within this range.

Why is your colloidal silver clear or transparent?

An excellent indicator of the quality and particle size of Colloidal Silver is the color. As the size of each silver particle gets larger, the color of the solution changes from clear, to yellow, to amber, to brown or dark red or grey, to black. As particle size increases the silver particles reflect a broader range of light within the spectrum. Colloids of silver that are produced using the best electrolysis methods are lighter in color than the grind or chemically produced colloids, except in the case of some products that contain artificial food coloring to change the color. The ideal color of Colloidal Silver is clear to very pale yellow/amber.

How can I verify that colloidal silver really contains silver particles?

One way to verify the presence of silver is to pour some of the colloidal silver in a white cup or bowl, store it in a dry place, allow time for all the water to completely evaporate, and see the gray silver dust remaining on the bottom of the container.

Another way is to shine a laser light through the colloidal silver. The light from the laser beam will reflect off the silver particles. The higher the concentration of silver, the brighter the light appears.

In dim light using a red laser beam shining through the 5 ppm Blue Ridge Silver in a clear glass, you can barely see some of the millions of tiny silver particles because most of them are so tiny that even the laser light barely reflects off of them. Those millions of particles are as small as 0.8 nanometer (0.0008 micron) in diameter. That’s just a few times larger than the silver atoms themselves. The 5 ppm Blue Ridge Silver is perfect to take for regular daily maintenance as suggested or to take in more frequent intervals when extra immune support is needed for short periods of time

As you can see by the increase in laser light reflectivity compared to the 5 ppm Blue Ridge Silver, the 10 ppm Silver is made up of many more reflective particles of silver. The solution is still clear under normal lighting conditions. The 10 ppm Blue Ridge Silver is versatile for use in spray bottles to boost immunity when extra internal support is needed on the go.

The even more vibrant beam of laser light reflecting through the 25 ppm Blue Ridge Silver indicates the presence of even more laser-illuminated silver particles. But it’s interesting to note that although the reflected laser light is noticeably more intense with the 25 ppm silver than with the 5 and 10 ppm solutions, the particles still appear to be of a similar size, and the solution is still clear under normal lighting conditions. The 25 ppm Blue Ridge Silver is also perfect for use in spray bottles.

What about the ppm (mg per liter) – what concentration is best?

Many studies indicate that in the range of 1 – 50 ppm (parts per million or mg/l), colloidal silver is highly useful to boost the immune system. Studies also show that depending upon the method of production usually as the silver ppm increases the particle size typically increases as well. Therefore, low concentrations of colloidal silver typically contain the smallest silver particles which are typically more effective.

How does silver naturally get into the body?

We consume silver and many other minerals through the food we eat. So how does silver get into food? In plants silver along with many other minerals are absorbed and transferred into fruits and vegetables through organic soil where living organisms consume and break down the nutrients in the soil into sub-microscopic particles that are absorbed along with water in a colloidal state through the roots of the plant.

Then of course, by consuming those fruits and vegetables, the colloidal minerals are then transferred through the blood stream to the various tissues of our body. Hence, we consume silver in a tiny amounts from plants. We also obtain silver through the consumption of free range meats and wild caught fish. In fact, studies show that wild oysters and many sea weeds are very rich in silver.

Some researchers suggest that the produce from smaller farms that employ organic and sustainable practices is more rich in minerals like silver because the farms are surrounded by large trees whose roots go deep and absorb many minerals that transfer into the leaves that fall each year and decompose over the winter depositing those minerals into the topsoil for crop enrichment.

How much colloidal silver should a person take per day?
The US Environmental Protection Agency publishes a reference dose (Rfd) for silver which is an estimate of daily exposure to the entire population that is unlikely to be associated with a significant risk of adverse effects over a lifetime. The current Rfd for oral silver exposure is 5 micrograms/kg/day with a critical dose estimated at 14 micrograms/kg/day. Based on this Rfd, a 150 pound adult can safely and regularly consume approximately 350 micrograms/day or 70 ml (2.4 ounces) of 5 ppm colloidal silver per day or 950 micrograms or 196 ml (6.7 ounces) of 5 ppm colloidal silver per day for short periods of time.

Therefore, many people take up to 2.4 ounces of 5 ppm colloidal silver each day for daily immune system maintenance and larger amounts for short periods of time when their immune system is compromised. Just remember to drink plenty of water especially during the first week because usually large numbers of pathogens are rapidly exterminated within the body and the excretory systems work tirelessly to flush out the dead germs.

Are there any known side effects from using ionic colloidal silver?

Aside from the Herxheimer effect (described below), there are no recorded side effects in medical literature from the use of ionic colloidal silver unless the person is allergic to silver. Additionally there has never been a recorded case of a drug interaction. It is non-addicting, the body does not build up a tolerance to it, most is flushed out of a body within the first few days of consumption, and studies show that ionic colloidal silver is not deposited under the skin like silver salts and other silver compounds that have been shown to cause the greyish/blue skin condition called Argyria when taken in large doses over long periods of time.

Since colloidal silver kills germs, a detoxifying reaction can occur which is called the Herxheimer effect. This is a temporary flu-like condition resulting from the overloading of the body’s excretory systems caused by the massive die-off of pathogens. Therefore, if you begin to feel run down after first taking or increasing your consumption of colloidal silver, then reduce your intake for a few days and drink more water to aid in the body’s detoxification process. We cannot over stress the importance of consulting a licensed medical practitioner if you have serious concerns.
If it’s so great, why have so many never heard of colloidal silver before?

Prior to the discovery of electricity in the late 1800’s people who could afford to eat using true silverware and store or drink beverages in silver containers often unknowingly enjoyed many of the healthy benefits of silver.

With the discovery of Penicillin and other less expensive anti-biotics in the 1930’s and 40’s, the use of colloidal silver diminished. Recent breakthroughs in technology and manufacturing that have occurred within the past 40 years have brought the price down so that colloidal silver in now very affordable.

Numerous articles in medical journals of colloidal silver can be found dating before 1940. New articles and clinical trial results are appearing frequently as more people rediscover this safe and effective silver mineral solution.

Of course, many pharmaceutical companies work diligently to prevent people from learning about the many benefits of drinking colloidal silver in order to the protect their profits.
Do I still need to visit my family doctor if I use colloidal silver?

Always consult a medical doctor if your conditions look serious, begin to look serious, or if they persist or worsen. In no way do we even remotely imply that this product or any alternative methods should replace your family doctor.

How long has silver been used as a germ fighter?

For thousands of years. Silver is mentioned in the Bible. Royalty stored water in silver vessels in the belief that this water would help them maintain their health. Before refrigeration was invented, a silver dollar was placed in containers of milk to maintain freshness. Silver was used by the wealthy to help maintain good health before the advent of penicillin in 1938.
How Long will Colloidal Silver last?

Because the silver particles hold a positive charge, they, like many things, are affected by electromagnetic fields. If you store colloidal silver in sealed glass or PETE plastic containers away from extreme temperatures, electromagnetic fields, and sunlight, then you should expect ionic colloidal silver to keep for many years and perhaps decades without losing its effectiveness.

Can colloidal Silver be Given to Pets? 

Colloidal Silver can be given alongside other products recommended by your vet to help maintain health and vitality in your pets. Colloidal Silver has shown dramatic results in the case of very young animals such as foals and calves scouring. Given with a syringe by mouth twice daily it has the most beneficial effect.

Cats with absesses may be treated both internally and externally with good results. It has been observed that many animals gain weight and energy following a course of colloidal silver suggesting that their general wellbeing is enhanced.

For larger animals such as horses, symptoms such as coughs and colds, hoof absesses and eye infections respond best by administration of a high dosage for 5 days followed by the daily recommended allowance.

Remember to seek the advice of a registered veterinarian whenever you have questions about your animal’s health.

Big Tongues And Extra Vertebrae: The Unintended Consequences Of Animal Gene Editing.

Genetic Engineering And Gene Manipulation Concept

By Preetika Rana and Lucy Craymer
Wall St Journal, updates Dec 14, 2018

* Unintended consequences have included enlarged rabbit tongues and extra pig vertebrae, as bioethicists warn of hubris

The purported birth last month of the world’s first gene-edited human babies, claimed by a Chinese scientist, spurred a wave of global outrage. Scientists denounced the (as yet unconfirmed) experiment as irresponsible, and the development reinforced fears that the redesigning of DNA is moving ahead too fast and without necessary oversight.

The proliferation of similar experiments on farm animals in recent years supports those concerns. Though rapid strides have been made to map genomes—the full set of genes for humans, animals, insects and plants—scientists have only begun to understand what the tens of thousands of individual genes do. Moreover, they are far from unraveling how those genes interact with each other.

Scientists around the world are editing the genes of livestock to create meatier pigs, cashmere goats with longer hair and cold-weather cows that can thrive in the tropics. The goals are to improve agricultural productivity, produce hardier beasts and reduce practices that are costly or considered inhumane. But amid some successes, disturbing outcomes are surfacing.

When Chinese researchers deleted a gene that limits muscle growth in mammals so that rabbits would grow leaner, their creations exhibited an unusual characteristic: enlarged tongues. Similar experiments on Chinese pigs led some to develop an additional vertebrae. Gene-edited calves died prematurely in Brazil and New Zealand.

The stumbles show the risks of racing ahead with such experiments, even as many governments work to clear regulatory pathways to bring meat, eggs and dairy from gene-edited animals to store shelves. Bioethicists and many geneticists have raised doubts about applying the gene-editing technology to animals and especially humans, given the continued uncertainties in both the science and the lab and field results.

“Humans have a very long history of messing around in nature with all kinds of unintended consequences,” said Lisa Moses, an animal bioethicist at Harvard Medical School’s Center for Bioethics. “It’s really hubris of us to assume that we know what we’re doing and that we can predict what kinds of bad things can happen.”

The belief has spread that scientists know how gene editing works “all the time, under all conditions,” says Odd-Gunnar Wikmark, a researcher at the Norway-based foundation GenOk, which studies the consequences of genetic engineering. “We of course do not.”

Critics say that editing animal DNA could introduce unwanted mutations that pose a threat to human health when consumed, and they fear that mutated genes may spread unchecked as animals breed. Proponents say they are engineering mutations just as traditional crossbreeding does, only faster. Though no gene-edited animal products have reached markets yet, the potential benefits to farming have led many big agricultural nations to join the race.

Crispr-Cas9, the tool introduced in 2012 that was used to engineer the human babies, is cheaper than older techniques and enables scientists to add, delete and rearrange DNA with greater precision. But an article published in the journal Nature Biotechnology in July suggests that Crispr might cause greater damage than previously understood—including changes in genes other than those intended. When DNA is cut, “a lot of odd things can happen,” study leader Allan Bradleysaid in July.

Take the gene called MSTN. Since 2012, Kui Li, a scientist with the state-run Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, has reverse-engineered cells from adult Chinese pigs to their embryonic stage, which is a common process when cloning animals. Then, using an older editing tool, he deleted MSTN, which limits how large muscles grow in mammals, including in humans. The edited cells are infused into eggs, chemically fertilized in a lab and implanted into the womb of a surrogate. At a farm 70 miles southeast of Beijing, dozens of pigs rest in metallic cages and glass enclosures; their meat is up to 12% leaner if both copies of their MSTN gene are deleted.

But there was another effect on the pigs: One in five offspring who inherited the edited genes had an extra spinal bone known as thoracic vertebrae, Dr. Li found. He doesn’t know why, though he postulates that the MSTN gene somehow contributes to skeletal formation. Lab tests show that his pigs are safe to eat, said Dr. Li: Despite a slight fading in color after cooking, he recorded no nutritional differences. He’s begun using Crispr to make more commercial breeds like the U.K.’s Large White leaner or resistant to PRRS, a deadly viral infection.

When state-sponsored scientists at Nanjing Agricultural University used Crispr to edit MSTN out of rabbits to make them meatier, 14 of the 34 engineered offspring were inexplicably born with enlarged tongues, leading the scientists to warn of abnormalities from gene editing in a 2016 research paper on their project. “Safety issues need to be addressed in future studies before the technology can be utilized” in agriculture, the authors wrote.

“Even the genes that we think we know very well, there’s a lot to learn,” said Se-Jin Lee, one of the scientists who discovered MSTN at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in 1997.

Chinese scientists at a different research facility have had to use caesarean sections to birth lambs whose MSTN genes were deleted with Crispr, because some grew too large to be birthed naturally. They have had success modifying goats’ cashmere to grow about 20% longer by preventing the gene FGF5 from regulating the growth.

Generally, the larger the animals, the greater the complications. New Zealand’s AgResearch Ltd. applied Crispr on cattle to reduce their heat stress, deleting a single amino acid on a gene that contributes to coat color (including hair and skin color in humans), in an effort to lighten the cows’ black-and-white coats to better reflect sunlight. Both calves died (one was sick and was euthanized). In a separate experiment using an older tool to enable cold-weather Angus cattle to thrive in the Brazilian tropics, one of two calves died prematurely.

Scientists in both experiments blame cloning, which created the calves but still isn’t foolproof, they say, after two decades in use. Neither is their understanding of genes. “But if we don’t try, we will never learn,” said Goetz Laible, who led AgResearch’s experiment.

Globally, at least a dozen gene-edited livestock projects are aiming to reach consumer markets. Some may face less resistance from consumers and ethicists because they could eliminate reviled practices: Cattle could be engineered without horns, for instance, obviating the need to dehorn them.

Wool from a gene-edited animal might also be more readily accepted because it is only worn, not eaten. Researchers in China’s eastern Xinjiang region used Crispr to alter the ASIP gene, believed to influence coat color in Merino sheep, with the aim of creating new breeds with darker coats—all black, gray or brown — so that off-white wool wouldn’t need to be dyed.

The results confirmed previous research suggesting that genes involved in coat color also play a role in reproduction: Only a fourth as many ewes implanted with the disrupted genes carried to term, as compared to normal circumstances. Meanwhile, for the wool itself, the results were mixed: One sheep was white, two were mostly black, and the other three had spotted fleeces akin to a panda.

The outcome also underlined how far there is to go in understanding the forces at work among the genes of humans and animals. “I think it would be an understatement to say we should be more cautious,” said Lori Marino, a neuroscientist and the founder of Utah-based Kimmela Center for Animal Advocacy. “I think we’ve already gone over the line with animals, and now humans.”

—Zhou Wei contributed to this article

Emergence of Lab-Grown Meat A New Threat To America´s Food Supply By Environment Psycho´s.

 

 

cultured-beef-02_600-david-parry-_-pa-wire

GMO Pusher Bill Gates Teams Up With Richard Branson, Hopes to End the Meat Industry As We Know It With Lab-Grown Beef.

https://althealthworks.com

Meat grown in labs has been a hot topic of conversation for the last seven years, with some media outlets hailing it as the future of food and a “cleaner” way to do meat.

But when the real thing hits supermarket shelves, will customers be kept in the dark about how it’s really made, and perhaps more importantly, will anybody actually want to eat it?

Ready or not, lab-grown meat from stem cells is on its way, and it’s being propped up by one of the most controversial names in the world of genetically modified food (GMOs) — Microsoft founder and long-time Monsanto supporter Bill Gates, along with another wealthy investor, Sir Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group.

Just recently, the two famous figures placed a big-time bet on the self-proclaimed “clean” lab-grown meat company Memphis Meats, to the tune of $17 million.

But will customers flock to this new so-called “murder free” meat, or are Gates and Branson making a mistake in betting on a an under-tested technology with big claims and unknown effects on human health?

Startup Companies to Grow Meat in the Lab

Memphis Meats and Hampton Creek (recently accused of labeling lies with its other products aimed at reducing animal agriculture) are the most commonly-heard of, but not the only companies who are working on creating lab-grown meat.

MosaMeat of the Netherlands, founded by Professor Mark Post, first started with a product with a $325,000 price tag.

Today that number has been trimmed to a far more manageable $11.36 per package. The founder hopes to decrease the price even more if it succeeds and goes commercial.

The company also has serious financial weight behind it in Sergey Brin of Alphabet (the parent company of Google), and hopes to develop affordable mass-produced lab-grown meat or “cultured meat” within the next 10-20 years (a ways off from its competitors).

Another company is SuperMeat in Israel. Also founded by a professor, its goal is to create lab-grown chicken meat. The company raised $229,269 on Indiegogo to begin its efforts.

These companies are just the tip of the iceberg for what industry insiders hope becomes the new standard for meat eaters everywhere.

Further Examining Lab-Grown Meat Promises

All of the lab-grown meat companies have a similar mission, as evidenced by these slogans and promises:

“A method that doesn’t require raising and slaughtering animals.” – Memphis Meats

“Let’s change the way meat gets to the plate.” – Memphis Meats

“Eating meat without killing animals.” – SuperMeat

“Real meat without harming animals.” – SuperMeat

Besides their pledge to save animals, lab-grown meat companies make big claims when it comes to helping the environment.

Memphis Meats says they expect the following results from their products:

An up to 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional meat

The same reduction of land and water use

Better meat for human health

MosaMeat says they will help solve the food crisis and combat climate change, but doesn’t say much about animal welfare. Their main technique requires one sample of muscle cells to be taken from live animals for every 20,000 tons of lab-grown meat, saying the biopsy is harmless and noting that the animal survives the procedure.

SuperMeat promises to be humane, eco-friendly, to fight world hunger, and to create meat that is supposedly healthier and cheaper.

How the meat is actually grown, however, is another story entirely (and one these companies don’t exactly seem eager to reveal to future customers).

While a humane, environmentally friendly and even “healthy” burger sounds like a dream come true for meat lovers, there are plenty of misconceptions here that the public is being kept in the dark about.

The first issue with lab-grown meat is how the meat cells are being harvested.

cultured-beef-09_600-david-parry-pa-wire

How Lab Meat is Made

Slate recently reported that most lab-grown beef comes from a surprising, and highly unappetizing source — fetal bovine serum (also known as FBS).

Fetal bovine serum is a byproduct made from cow’s fetus blood.

What happens is as follows: if a cow in a slaughterhouse is pregnant, when she is slaughtered, the fetus is removed and brought into a blood collection facility. While still alive, the fetus is drained of its blood until it dies by a process of sticking a needle in its heart. It takes about five minutes, and this is what produces FBS, and ultimately, these so-called healthier burgers.

Even though cows and bulls are kept separately, the percentage of dairy cows who are pregnant is between 17 and 31 percent. As a result the number of fetuses being slaughtered is in the millions.

The FBS from these slaughtered fetuses can then be used in the lab, grown in a petri dish into a meat-like substance by feeding the cells nutrients for about a month. Fetal bovine serum is the easiest to grow, because cells when separated from the body are suicidal. The FBS contains growth factors that prevent them from killing themselves.

This process is not the only way to make lab-grown meat, but it is the fastest way. It can be used on other types of meat cells as well, and may be added to a petri dish with chicken cells to create a similar product.

At the end of the day, this reliance on FBS means some animals are still being killed for lab-created meat; cultured meat is definitely not vegetarian as some may hope.

The moral question of killing animals still remains: is slaughtering fetuses to make this highly unnatural product really any better than killing adult farm animals?

The controversial FBS is also used in creating vaccines for people, and it also comes with about a 1 in 40 billion chance of contracting mad cow disease. This low risk is much higher in cultured meat, which is why the Food and Drug Administration discouraged its use for the past 25 years (before wealthy investors like Gates and Branson decided to bring it to the forefront of the food industry, that is).

Is Lab Grown Meat Really A Better Choice?

What will the cultured meat companies do, and can Gates and Branson steer clear of the controversy that is sure to arise when people find out how these meats are actually made (much like genetically modified organisms from Monsanto)?

Each company ends up hiding its true plans because their products have to be licensed, and there are plenty of proprietary issues that come into play. It seems that they are trying to avoid FBS, but there are no conclusions to be drawn yet.

Hampton Creek says they will try to create meat using plant-based products to make the cells grow using bioreactors or giant tanks, using a process that will look similar to beer brewing.

Memphis Meats said they have developed the first product without FBS, and are now working on applying it to all of their products.

Neither company will say what they actually use because of the fear that the idea will be stolen. As a result, transparency goes out the window (sound familiar?), although we do know that there’s a chance the process may end up using GMO yeast, at least according to a representative from the company Finless Fish as quoted by Gizmodo.

The environmental claims made by lab grown meat companies may not be what they seem, either. Hampton Creek for example says its lab-meat will be up to ten times more environment efficient than conventional meat, but the evidence is lacking.

A 2011 study concluded that this type of meat product might produce less greenhouse gas, yet that it uses the same amount of energy as the pork industry. Another 2015 study estimated that it will require the same amount of energy as the conventional meat industry.

Despite the controversies, It seems that many animal rights groups are supporting lab-grown meat.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) offered a one-million dollar prize to the first company who can produce a commercially successful cultured meat. However, the deadline of the contest has passed as commercial lab-grown meat is still in the works.

It seems that company gave up on inspiring everyone to cut out animal products and is willing to compromise.

“People are surprised to learn that PETA is interested in lab-grown meat, but we have overcome our own revulsion at flesh-eating to champion a breakthrough that will mean a far kinder world for animals,” PETA statement said.

Mercy for Animals also supports “meat that is produced through cellular agriculture instead of slaughter.”

It might not be much better for the environment after all.

Meanwhile, the consumers are being fed an eerily-hypnotizing ads to hype up our expectations.

Watch a TV report about cultured meat that includes laboratory footage: