Friday, May 29, 2020

New England Journal of Medicine - Facemasks are Worthless for Covid-19

New England Journal of Medicine
Editor’s Note: This article was published on April 1, 2020, at

Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era

List of authors.
·         Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., 
·         Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., 
·         Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., 
·         Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., 
·         and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D.

As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to explode, hospital systems are scrambling to intensify their measures for protecting patients and health care workers from the virus. An increasing number of frontline providers are wondering whether this effort should include universal use of masks by all health care workers. Universal masking is already standard practice in Hong Kong, Singapore, and other parts of Asia and has recently been adopted by a handful of U.S. hospitals.
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations for most hospitals. What is less clear is whether a mask offers any further protection in health care settings in which the wearer has no direct interactions with symptomatic patients. There are two scenarios in which there may be possible benefits.
The first is during the care of a patient with unrecognized Covid-19. A mask alone in this setting will reduce risk only slightly, however, since it does not provide protection from droplets that may enter the eyes or from fomites on the patient or in the environment that providers may pick up on their hands and carry to their mucous membranes (particularly given the concern that mask wearers may have an increased tendency to touch their faces).
More compelling is the possibility that wearing a mask may reduce the likelihood of transmission from asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers with Covid-19 to other providers and patients. This concern increases as Covid-19 becomes more widespread in the community. We face a constant risk that a health care worker with early infection may bring the virus into our facilities and transmit it to others. Transmission from people with asymptomatic infection has been well documented, although it is unclear to what extent such transmission contributes to the overall spread of infection.1-3
More insidious may be the health care worker who comes to work with mild and ambiguous symptoms, such as fatigue or muscle aches, or a scratchy throat and mild nasal congestion, that they attribute to working long hours or stress or seasonal allergies, rather than recognizing that they may have early or mild Covid-19. In our hospitals, we have already seen a number of instances in which staff members either came to work well but developed symptoms of Covid-19 partway through their shifts or worked with mild and ambiguous symptoms that were subsequently diagnosed as Covid-19. These cases have led to large numbers of our patients and staff members being exposed to the virus and a handful of potentially linked infections in health care workers. Masking all providers might limit transmission from these sources by stopping asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers from spreading virus-laden oral and nasal droplets.
What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.
Such measures include vigorous screening of all patients coming to a facility for symptoms of Covid-19 and immediately getting them masked and into a room; early implementation of contact and droplet precautions, including eye protection, for all symptomatic patients and erring on the side of caution when in doubt; rescreening all admitted patients daily for signs and symptoms of Covid-19 in case an infection was incubating on admission or they were exposed to the virus in the hospital; having a low threshold for testing patients with even mild symptoms potentially attributable to a viral respiratory infection (this includes patients with pneumonia, given that a third or more of pneumonias are caused by viruses rather than bacteria); requiring employees to attest that they have no symptoms before starting work each day; being attentive to physical distancing between staff members in all settings (including potentially neglected settings such as elevators, hospital shuttle buses, clinical rounds, and work rooms); restricting and screening visitors; and increasing the frequency and reliability of hand hygiene.
The extent of marginal benefit of universal masking over and above these foundational measures is debatable. It depends on the prevalence of health care workers with asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic infections as well as the relative contribution of this population to the spread of infection. It is informative, in this regard, that the prevalence of Covid-19 among asymptomatic evacuees from Wuhan during the height of the epidemic there was only 1 to 3%.4,5 Modelers assessing the spread of infection in Wuhan have noted the importance of undiagnosed infections in fueling the spread of Covid-19 while also acknowledging that the transmission risk from this population is likely to be lower than the risk of spread from symptomatic patients.3 And then the potential benefits of universal masking need to be balanced against the future risk of running out of masks and thereby exposing clinicians to the much greater risk of caring for symptomatic patients without a mask. Providing each health care worker with one mask per day for extended use, however, may paradoxically improve inventory control by reducing one-time uses and facilitating centralized workflows for allocating masks without risk assessments at the individual-employee level.
There may be additional benefits to broad masking policies that extend beyond their technical contribution to reducing pathogen transmission. Masks are visible reminders of an otherwise invisible yet widely prevalent pathogen and may remind people of the importance of social distancing and other infection-control measures.
It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis. Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19. The potential value of universal masking in giving health care workers the confidence to absorb and implement the more foundational infection-prevention practices described above may be its greatest contribution.
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available at
This article was published on April 1, 2020, at
Author Affiliations
From the Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute (M.K.), Brigham and Women’s Hospital (M.K., C.A.M., J.S., M.P.), Harvard Medical School (M.K., C.A.M., E.S.S.), and the Infection Control Unit and Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital (E.S.S.) — all in Boston.
Supplementary Material
References (5)
1.     1.Rothe CSchunk MSothmann P, et al. Transmission of 2019-nCoV infection from an asymptomatic contact in Germany. N Engl J Med 2020;382:970-971.
2.     2.Bai YYao LWei T, et al. Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19. JAMA 2020 February 21 (Epub ahead of print).
3.     3.Li RPei SChen B, et al. Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2). Science 2020 March 16 (Epub ahead of print).
4.     4.Hoehl SRabenau HBerger A, et al. Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in returning travelers from Wuhan, China. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1278-1280.

Citing Articles (10)
1.     Mohammad Amin Akbarzadeh, Mohammad-Salar Hosseini. (2020) Implications for cancer care in Iran during COVID-19 pandemic. Radiotherapy and Oncology 148, 211-212.
2.     Nathan W. Furukawa, John T. Brooks, Jeremy Sobel. (2020) Evidence Supporting Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 While Presymptomatic or Asymptomatic. Emerging Infectious Diseases 26:7.
3.     Severin Rodler, Maria Apfelbeck, Christian Stief, Volker Heinemann, Jozefina Casuscelli. (2020) Lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Will virtual patient management reshape uro-oncology in Germany?. European Journal of Cancer 132, 136-140.
4.     Alba A Brandes, Andrea Ardizzoni, Fabrizio Artioli, Federico Cappuzzo, Luigi Cavanna, Giovanni Luca Frassineti, Antonio Frassoldati, Francesco Leonardi, Giuseppe Longo, Antonio Maestri, Davide Tassinari, Enrico Franceschi, Vincenzo Di Nunno, Carmine Pinto. (2020) Fighting cancer in coronavirus disease era: organization of work in medical oncology departments in Emilia Romagna region of Italy. Future Oncology.
5.     Marc Philip T Pimentel, John Matthew Austin, Allen Kachalia. (2020) To improve quality, keep your eyes on the road. BMJ Quality & Safety 11, bmjqs-2020-011102.
6.     Ozge Yilmaz, Laura Gochicoa‐Rangel, Hannah Blau, Ralph Epaud, Larry C. Lands, Enrico Lombardi, Paul E. Moore, Renato T. Stein, Gary W. K. Wong, Heather J. Zar. (2020) Brief report: International perspectives on the pediatric COVID‐19 experience. Pediatric Pulmonology.
7.     Vania Hungria, Marcia Garnica, Edvan de Queiroz Crusoé, Roberto Jose Pessoa de Magalhaes Filho, Gracia Martinez, Rosane Bittencourt, Danielle Leão Cordeiro de Farias, Walter Moises Braga, Jorge Vaz Pinto Neto, Glaciano Nogueira Ribeiro, Angelo Maiolino. (2020) Managing patients with multiple myeloma during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations from an expert panel – ABHH monoclonal gammopathies committe. Hematology, Transfusion and Cell Therapy.
8.     Urvakhsh Meherwan Mehta, Ganesan Venkatasubramanian, Prabha S. Chandra. (2020) The “mind” behind the “mask”: Assessing mental states and creating therapeutic alliance amidst COVID-19. Schizophrenia Research.
9.     Solomon Caren G., Gandhi Rajesh T., Lynch John B., del Rio Carlos. (2020) Mild or Moderate Covid-19. N Engl J Med DOI: 10.1056/NEJMcp2009249.
10. MajidA Almadi, AbdulrahmanM Aljebreen, Nahla Azzam, Nuha Alammar, EmadS Aljahdli, FahadI Alsohaibani, Resheed Alkhiari, AbdulazizO Almasoud, MohammadS Al Beshir, Suliman Alshankiti, AhmadW Alharbi, Mohammed Alkhathami, Faisal Batwa. (2020) COVID-19 and endoscopy services in intermediately affected countries: a position statement from the saudi gastroenterology association. Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology DOI: 10.4103/sjg.SJG_161_20, 0.

Tuesday, April 14, 2020

Face Mask False Flag!

This is exactly why I don't bow down to the deep state, nor jump off that bridge they keep telling me to jump off of. Yes, social distancing works. Yes locking down an entire nation works, but only if you have a cure to stop recurrence. Yes, stay home if you are sick. No, face masks don't work. They are the band used to mark us and make us yield to their will. I know I am going to get a rash of crap from this post, but the only reason I could find for healthy people to wear a mask it that it is our badge that we are caving to the will of the deep state, globalist control. We are told that a mask only protects the other person from your germs, so why do doctors and nurses wear them when going to an infected area? If they don’t protect the worker, they wouldn’t be wearing them, would they? The recommendation to wear masks by the deep state, globalist CDC is to protect the OTHER person, according to them. It was put in place in my opinion to shame and control us by having our neighbors scold us for not wearing one. Perhaps they are testing us to see if we will turn each other in; perhaps when they come for our guns? Maybe to mark us, as the Germans did the Jews before taking them to be murdered. I, for one, am not buying any of it. [Andrew Shecktor]

Feb 29, 2020,10:29pm EST

No, You Do Not Need Face Masks To Prevent Coronavirus—They Might Increase Your Infection Risk

Tara HaelleSenior Contributor
I offer straight talk on science, medicine, health and vaccines.
Ohio Department of Health Director Amy Acton holds up a mask as she gives an update at MetroHealth ... [+]


Note: For an update on the science of masks with respect to COVID-19 since this publication, please see this article. The CDC now recommends everyone wear masks in public to reduce asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19. Experts, including the CDC, continue to state that the evidence does not show that wearing a mask will protect the wearer, but everyone wearing masks should benefit the population overall.

Community transmission of COVID-19, the disease caused by the new , has officially begun in the U.S., with two cases in California and one in Oregon of unknown origin. The first COVID death was reported Saturday, Feb. 29, in Seattle. The natural human response to a strange, new disease making its way to a neighborhood near you is to feel anxiety and want to DO SOMETHING. That’s why many people have been buying up and stockpiling masks. But even if you could buy any in the midst of global shortages, should you? 


And if you already have masks, should you wear them when you’re out? 


Even if there are COVID cases in your community?

Even if there are cases next door, the answer is no, you do NOT need to get or wear any face masks—surgical masks, “N95 masks,” respirator masks, or anything else—to protect yourself against the coronavirus. Not only do you not need them, you shouldn’t wear them, according to infection prevention specialist Eli Perencevich, MD, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa’s College of Medicine. 

Tara HaelleSenior Contributor

I offer straight talk on science, medicine, health and vaccines.

Let’s get one thing out of the way right at the start: if you’ve come to this article wondering if you should wear a mask to protect society at large from infection, this article won’t answer that question for you. The CDC is considering the question because that’s what responsible public health agencies do as evidence and circumstances change, and I’m awaiting their guidance like everyone else. 

What this article will do is discuss why the question is so complicated—yes, it really is—what factors are at play, and what you will want to consider in deciding whether to wear a homemade mask. It remains true that severe shortages in surgical masks mean any mask wearing should be something you already possess or will make, and it remains true that most people do not properly wear N95 respirators.

I wrote my previous article on masks on Feb. 29, which, in CoronaTime, was approximately a millennium ago. It would be another week and a half before the WHO would even declare COVID-19 a pandemic. Both the science and the pandemic itself have shifted and are continuing to shift. That article’s information was true at the time, and most of it remains true now. It addressed one main question: should you wear a mask to protect yourself from infection? 

 “The question a month ago was will they protect you, the wearer, and the answer is still, they probably won’t protect you,” Eli Perencevich, the University of Iowa infection prevention specialist I spoke to for the last article, said when I spoke to him today about the topic. One of the biggest reasons they won’t protect the average wearer is that most don’t wear them correctly—even when trained—and unconsciously engage in counterproductive behaviors, such as touching the mask frequently. 

So why, then, do healthcare workers wear them? Aside from the fact that they (usually) wear them correctly (and have people telling them when they don’t), there are other reasons I’ll get to—hang tight. Further, it’s still possible future evidence could change what we know now and reveal that wearing masks does protect wearers. Currently, that evidence still doesn’t exist. 

Friday, April 10, 2020

U.S. Looking to Force Spy Tracking and Immunization ID!

Here it comes folks, communism! The Covid-19 virus "pandemic," a lab made bioweapon, is allowing the deep state to usurp our Constitutional rights, and not one "patriot" is standing up to this!


Fauci: Coronavirus immunity cards for Americans are 'being discussed'
04/10/2020 09:15 AM EDT
Updated: 04/10/2020 01:22 PM EDT

The proposal, already being implemented by German researchers, is under consideration in the United Kingdom and Italy.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, revealed Friday the federal government is considering issuing Americans certificates of immunity from the coronavirus, as the Trump administration works to better identify those who have been infected and restart the U.S. economy in the coming weeks.

"You know, that's possible," Fauci told CNN's "New Day," when asked whether he could imagine a time when people across the country carry such forms of identification.

"I mean, it's one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure that we know who the vulnerable people are and not," he said. "This is something that's being discussed. I think it might actually have some merit, under certain circumstances."

Apple, Google team up on big effort to trace coronavirus cases

The feature would be designed to work with apps by public health authorities on devices that run Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android.

04/10/2020 01:46 PM EDT

Apple and Google announced Friday that they are teaming up on a major effort to help health officials trace coronavirus exposure risks, in a rare alliance between two huge rivals whose software dominates the market for mobile devices.

The companies said they would make technology available by mid-May that would use Bluetooth on people's phones to monitor which people have come into contact with individuals diagnosed with the virus. The feature would be designed to work with apps by public health authorities on devices that run Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android.

Wednesday, March 18, 2020

Coronavirus - A Bio-engineered Weapon

Coronavirus, Covid-19 is a bioengineered virus, and has been predicted for some time.

This is a bio-engineered virus, and has been predicted for some time. Yes, it is a truly dangerous disease, not to be taken lightly, but I am pretty certain this was either created or weaponized to derail Donald Trump and the Republican Party by eliminating all rallies and campaign events, causing a severe loss of funding. The Republicans will lose the Senate, but Trump will still win. Then, as soon as he is put in office for his second term the Democrats will impeach and remove Trump (now that they have both Houses), then impeach and remove Pence. It will be tough to prevent this from happening.

The virus originated in the U.S. and was sold to a research lab in Wuhan China. Was it intentionally released in retaliation for Trump's sanctions or was it accidentally released initially? Doesn't matter, the results will be the same.

I have spent 4 years researching information provided by 4 whistle blowers, 2 now "missing" and one in seclusion.

One whistle blower lost her job as a science journalist for taking action against the deep state plot. In her lawsuit in 2009 against Baxter Pharmaceuticals whistle blower Jane Burgermeister alleges that a manufactured flu pandemic "is part of a long term plan by the [deep state shadow government] syndicate, who have built large numbers of FEMA concentration camps with incinerators and prepared mass graves in states such as Indiana and New York to quarantine people and dispose of the bodies of the people who are killed by the bio-weapons attack." I interviewed her 3 years ago for my book, just published, on the same topic, "Dark Water: Game Over."

Thursday, March 12, 2020

Opinion Outpost – This is probably the meanest response I have ever gotten to a request for help -


Opinion Outpost – This is probably the meanest response I have ever gotten to a request for help -
The survey site "Opinion Outpost" came across my desk the other day. It was recommended to me by a friend. I tried to sign up for an account, but I accidentally put in the current year instead of my birth year. Their signup website is absolutely terrible, and did not allow any corrections to be made. It just came back with "You must be at least 18 years old to participate." Then it permanently locked me out from signing up. I went to their help desk and sent a request for help. I received back (4 days later, after 3 more emails trying to explain what happened,) the absolute meanest, most evil response I have ever received from ANY company. I am posting their response here to see if anyone else has had problems with this terrible business, or a similar one. Their response to my request for help was:

"Thank you for your email.

Unfortunately, the accuracy and attentiveness of your account activity has been flagged, and upon review of your account, we have been forced to suspend your account.

As a member of our program you may only have one account, provide accurate profile information and survey responses. You must also be thoughtful and attentive in responding to our surveys. When we have concerns about any of these program rules we are obligated to take steps to investigate and unfortunately suspend accounts.

We do not take account suspension lightly and do so only when account issues have been identified. At this time your account has been indefinitely suspended and you will no longer be able to participate in surveys or claim rewards from our website.

Thank you for your understanding."