(We can’t type the headline correctly because search engines would sink the article and flag the website. Enjoy Covidiocracy)

Maskne is one of 2020’s most widespread skincare problems.

Tokyo Weekender

“Even having mild, minimal acne can have profound effects on interpersonal relationships, how we socialize, job performance, depression and anxiety.”

Board-certified Dr. Seemal Desai, spokesperson for the American Academy of Dermatologists.


‘Maskne’s existence has been reported by most mainstream media out there, so it’s “official”, but no one really talks about it, I’ve met very few people semi-aware of it and its consequences. Unsurprisingly.


Let’s break that silence. We start with none other than CNN, for fact-checkers’ delight, here’s what info they’ve gathered from US physicians on the maskne issue:

“I have patients calling in despair saying ‘What is going on? I’ve never had a breakout before and now my face looks like a teenager’s!'”

Board-certified dermatologist Dr. Whitney Bowe, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center

Breakouts that occur after wearing a mask have become so common that mask acne’s been dubbed “maskne” on social media.”We think that wearing these masks, combined with stress from the pandemic, is causing an increased moisture-rich environment for bacteria and organisms to proliferate,” Desai said, “causing a breakdown of the skin and flaring of some of these conditions.”
Nurses and other health care professionals on the front line of the battle against Covid-19 are hardest hit, Desai said, due to the seal needed from personal protective equipment in order to keep the virus at bay.
“I’m seeing lots more skin disease in health care workers because they’re wearing PPE and N95 respirator masks that are causing ulcers, breakdown and bleeding of the skin,” said Desai, who is a spokesperson for the American Academy of Dermatologists.
Compared to the bruised and bleeding faces of doctors and nurses, a few pimples may seem inconsequential. But it’s an important issue that shouldn’t be trivialized, said Bowe, also a spokesperson for the American Academy of Dermatologists.
“Acne is significantly associated with self esteem, even if it’s just one or two pimples,” she explained.


“We’re seeing lots of flares of acne, especially a type called perioral dermatitis, which tends to happen typically around the mouth and in the areas around the nose”

Board-certified Dr. Seemal Desai, an assistant professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical

Here’s what Health.com has to say about it:

It’s not just the added anxiety of coronavirus that might be making you break out a little more than usual right now, though. If you’ve been diligently wearing your face mask whenever you leave the house (only for essentials, we hope!) and you’ve noticed a few extra pimples in those specific areas (the bridge of your nose, your cheeks, and your chin) you may be experiencing what dermatologists are calling “maskne.”

What exactly is maskne and why does it happen?

As the name suggests, maskne is a type of breakout that results from wearing a face mask. “Maskne is acne formed in areas due to friction, pressure, stretching, rubbing or occlusion,” Nazanin Saedi, MD, a board-certified dermatologist at Thomas Jefferson University, explains to Health. “You can see it in the areas covered by the mask and also the areas where the mask and face shields touch the skin.”

Kathleen C. Suozzi, MD, director of Yale Medicine’s Aesthetic Dermatology Program and an assistant professor of dermatology, explains that maskne is technically referred to as acne mechanica.

Prior to the pandemic, this form of facial irritation was primarily experienced by athletes, “commonly due to the sweat, heat, and friction in their helmets and straps,” Dr. Saedi explains. “We are seeing it more now with people wearing masks for an extended period of time.” Dr Suozzi adds that you also get acne mechanica in your armpits from using crutches. 

Overall, Dr. Saedi explains that maskne—and often, acne mechanica in general—is triggered by pores being blocked by sweat, oil, and makeup. For masks in particular, “while breathing for hours with the mask on, it creates humidity to [form] a breeding ground for acne,” she explains. The friction of the mask can also block and clog pores, leading to the formation of comedones or blackheads, says Dr. Suozzi.

How can you prevent and treat maskne?

Prevention is always your best bet. If you are wearing a cloth mask, wash it daily, urges Dr. Saedi. If you are wearing a disposable mask, try to replace it as often as possible or allow it to air out in between uses. And for tight-fitting N95 respirators—which should be reserved for essential workers right now—Dr. Suozzi suggests applying silicone gel strips to sit under the pressure points of the mask. “This will help prevent against skin irritation,” she explains. 

If you start developing maskne, first and foremost, be gentle—that means going easy on at-home spa days. “People might be overdoing it at home with face masks, scrubs, washes, and toners,” says Dr. Suozzi, who adds overdoing skincare right now can compromise your skin’s protective barrier. Instead, wash your face with a gentle cleanser, says Dr. Saedi. “I would avoid products that are too drying because they will cause the skin barrier to become more compromised.” She suggests a face wash with salicylic acid, to help unclog the pores.

As far as treatment options go for acne breakouts, “over the counter products that help resolve the clogged pores are beneficial,” says Dr. Suozzi.

And while wearing your mask out in public right now is essential–especially in social settings where physical distancing is difficult to maintain—remember you can (and should!) take the mask off and give your face a necessary breather when you’re away from other people, like in your own home (provided you’re not caring for anyone ill) and while driving your car.

Harry Dao, MD, FAAD, a dermatologist for Loma Linda University Health, says acne, isn’t the only skin condition reported by mask wearers. Other common face mask skin problems include:

  • Allergic contact dermatitis – Some manufactured masks may contain a chemical that causes an allergic reaction. Formaldehyde and bronopol can be found in polypropylene surgical masks.
  • Rosacea – Classically worsened by heat and stress, mask wearing can increase flares.
  • Seborrheic dermatitis – It causes scaly plaques, inflamed skin and stubborn dandruff.
  • Folliculitis – When yeast or bacteria infect hair follicles.


“The mask can also cause skin conditions like miliaria (heat rash) and rosacea to flare up,” she said, adding the mask rubbing on your face made it was the “perfect storm of grossness”.

Emily Doig from Micro Glow, Melbourne-based natural skincare brand

How to prevent these conditions

Dao offers six skin care tips to protect your face from mask irritation.

  1. Wash your face first – Use a gentle cleanser that is free of fragrance and oil and rinse with lukewarm water. “This prevents dirt and oil from being trapped on the skin surface, which cause breakouts,” Dao says. “Your face should always be clean before you put on your mask.”
  2. Apply a moisturizer – Not only will this keep your skin hydrated, it will also act as a barrier between your face and your mask, reducing friction. Apply onto a cleansed face before and after wearing a mask. Dao says to look for moisturizers that contain ceramides, hyaluronic acid, or dimethicone, which will provide extra protection. Take care to avoid fragrances amongst other common contact allergens. This may take trial and error to find the right formulation for your skin type. 
  3. Ditch the makeup – Wearing skin makeup under a mask causes clogged pores and breakouts, according to the American Academy of Dermatology. Makeup residue will also soil your mask.
  4. Wash your mask – If wearing a cotton mask wash it after each use as its surface contains dirt and oil and can become a breeding ground for bacteria from your nose and mouth. 
  5. Choose a fragrance-free laundry soap – Fragrances can irritate your skin — skip the fabric softener, too.
  6. Stay away from harsh products – Medicated skin care products that contain benzoyl peroxide, retinols and salicylic acid will be more irritating to the skin under a mask — be careful about how much and what you use. 

How to treat common skin issues

This is what you can do at home to help treat some of the most common mask-related skin issues, Dao says.

  1. Acne or breakouts – Add a glycolic acid wash and a light “non-comedogenic” moisturizer to your pre-mask regimen. Move the application of leave-on skin care products to times not wearing mask at home. If breakouts, redness or swelling still persist, seek medical care with your physician. 
  2. Dry skin – Always apply a good moisturizer to the skin before you put on a mask. After you take it off, cleanse the skin and apply a bland emollient. Commonly, natural or botanical substances can contain allergenic products, so beware. 

“It’s definitely been something that I’ve had to get used to,” says Jordan Dwyer, Director of Inpatient Transplant Services at Presbyterian/St. Luke’s Medical Center (PSL).

“You know around my chin, up my cheek bones, even a few like underneath my eyes where the mask touches,” she explained pointing to her face.

The facial plastic surgeon at PSL said any mask can cause irritation from the friction. The material and straps may cause a rash. Best are masks that fit comfortably around the nose and mouth.

(credit: CBS)

natvral r3medies TO DEAL WITH MASKNE

Indian skin expert Nirmala Shetty says for Times of India, that “preferably masks made with cotton material should be used. Wash them daily with soap and a few drops of tea tree oil.” She also shares a few tips to treat skin issues at home…

Acne buster

pic

Few coriander and mint leaves
Cucumber: ½
Organic coconut oil: 2 tsp
Blend together and store in a glass container. Use twice daily

For irritation around the nose and mouth

pic

Carrot juice: 2tsp
Cucumber juice: 2tsp
Coconut oil: 2tsp
Mix and apply three to four times


Queensland-based beauty brand Rawkanvas is among those who have seen demand for skincare items soar, netting £18,000 ($33,000 AUD) overnight yesterday with the launch of its Clarifying Red Wine Mask.

The Clarifying Red Wine Mask was launched this weekend, and beauty fans have been stocking up
The Clarifying Red Wine Mask was launched this weekend, and beauty fans have been stocking upCredit: Instagram/@rawkanvas

“We launched last night at 6pm and sold a product every 20 seconds totalling £8,000 ($15k AUD) in just 30 minutes,” the brand’s co-founder Simona Valev told news.com.au.

“Since then in the last 12 hours, we have totalled £18,000 ($33k AUS) across NZ and AUS customer base – it was definitely unexpected.”

Simona, who created the vegan-friendly and all-natural skincare brand with Shannon Lacey in 2018, said the clay mask helps to draw out congestion, refine pores and overall gives your complexion a boost.

The mask is made with pinot noir and sauvignon blanc grapes, which “commands next-level skin detoxification and polishing”. It also gives the product a unique mulled wine scent.

The mask is thought to alleviate the symptoms of 'maskne' or the acne caused by wearing a face covering
The mask is thought to alleviate the symptoms of ‘maskne’ or the acne caused by wearing a face coveringCredit: Instagram/@rawkanvas

While the face mask wasn’t created with coronavirus side effects in mind, Simona said during trials clients had mentioned it helped with their “maskne”.

“Since COVID-19 and the increase of wearing masks we have noticed so many customers reaching out and asking us what they should be using due to their skin concerns,” she said.

Simona, who created the vegan-friendly and all-natural skincare brand with Shannon, said the clay mask helps to draw out congestion, refine pores and overall gives your complexion a boost
Simona, who created the vegan-friendly and all-natural skincare brand with Shannon, said the clay mask helps to draw out congestion, refine pores and overall gives your complexion a boostCredit: Instagram/@rawkanvas

She adds that anyone using it may experience redness for a short time after as the process causes blood vessels to dilate and boosts blood circulation.

“This opens pores for a deeper clean and allows other active ingredients to be absorbed faster,” she explained.

“Maskne” was first reported in the US where several states have made it mandatory to cover your mouth and nose in public – similar to the conditions in Melbourne where masks are now compulsory when out in public. – news.com.au.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Among other things, I have a 25years-long career in music. Electronic, mainly.
And one thing led to anoher…
If you think this is a joke, you are correct. If you think this is damn serious, you are sharp.

Hello World! We’re here to take over all screens with a message of love and acceptance for the Fauci Fashion phenomenon.
Too many people still prioritise brain oxygenation and freedom over Fauci Fashion and that is wrong. (We have established that oxygen fits all definitions for “drug”).
Youtube is stealing our views and we were helplessly watching our counter going backwards. That is very wrong! (good thing they don’t count Rona cases with the same accuracy and intentions)
Our muse and guiding lighthouse in Covidiocracy, Dr. Tony Fauci, gets diminished and that’s unacceptable!!! (almost used caps…)
So enough of that!
We’re asking your help to get Fauci Fashion (as seen below) into all music charts, and send out a message to everyone that we can’t be silenced. (it’s actually very doable)
Fauci Fashion is here to stay and give you Maskne! (it’s like acne, but from the mask, we’ll post links later if you need)
If you want to join the movement, read all our posts and follow your conscience. A developed conscience will know what to make of this, the rest won’t and they won’t matter 

The People for Fauci Fashion
Fauci IS Fashion

This is the introductory word to the work of an enthusiastic supporter, with all the help I and other supporters can provide. Can’t put it in words how grateful I am!
Yes, with your support, we want to attack official charts with this tune, as a way to get our voice where only Eminems and Cardi Bs can. The track is officially registered and every official stream and download counts, just use these sources.

As a music industry insider, I have the data and the method to mathematically calculate that it’s doable. We planned this carefully and we can mobilise a few thousand involved supporters that can move millions more, that can move billions. If we put together a few of your clicks with our products, know-how and strategy, we have a good shot at it.

Media is already starting to show interest, but it’s way too early to brag, we’ve just launched the initiative.

The music track (and many more)is available for free download from our Bandcamp page, this is not a business or about sales, this is about breaking a blockade. It’s “name your price” release, feel free to insert 0 if that’s the case, I still want you to have them all when you need them, even if you can’t contribute now.
We contribute what we can, when we can, IF we WANT.

And we devised a few simple and effortless ways you can get involved in our fake grassroots movement with a secret dark agenda to sabotage Covidiocracy. Because this can’t work without people like you, but can move things in the right direction with you aboard.

The short help course reads like this:
 It’s all about attention, we live in an attention economy now, we need a bit of yours to join ours and kickstart until this provides for itself. You can basically help us get more attention two main ways:
– By streaming, sharing and downloading the F out of Fauci Fashion from these official links: https://fanlink.to/cc1
– By using the Donate button on our shadow organisation’s webpage, which is right here, see the main menu on top 🙂
These funds are meant to buy ads, hire promoters and bribe media. Of course we will use most of it like Gates and Bono’s charities: in personal interest; but the rest will achieve our goals and everyone will be happy.
If you really need serious money talk: all money in the world are worthless when you have no future, like humanity under Covidiocracy. So I’m already putting everything in this work, with or without help, but it might not be enough without you. Either way, sponsoring change is the only way I can make money worth anything now.

The true Faucy Style

If you want to achieve maximum impact with your resources, here’s the details you need to know:
most efficient tools you have are
* official downloads from sites like Amazon or Juno, one track download equals 100 free streams. And one stream from a paid/premium account = about 5-6 free streams. They are also better reported and accounted too, there’s less accounts of fraud, while Youtube robbed us blind to our faces, turning back the counter;
Bundle purchases help less than individual track purchases, for some reasons related to how the charts are calculated.
* direct donations; because we have the data on how and where funds can make the best impact at a certain moment and its technically impossible to share all that knowledge and know-how.
For Paypal, use the button on this website, for cards hit the Bandcamp page, download what you like and pay what you like.
Unfortunately no crypto wallets available.
* website embeds and social shares. All platforms love that and google favors it a lot. However, Facebook hates external links, so if it’s not a paid post, it’s best to share the Facebook page itself.
Here’s a win-win trick you can do if you have a Facebook page, let’s say:
Instead of donating to us, make a dope post with the video or the Spotify player and use the money to buy promotion for it. This way you drive attention to both your page and our initiative, double win!

Soon we will devise more ways to grow this.

https://www.facebook.com/FauciFashion/

And if you really don’t like Fauci Fashion, we understand, feel free to purchase Covidiocracy T-shirts and hats from our shop. But most of those money won’t go to us, our percentage is tiny.
We don’t make any blood money on the masks, that’s manufacturer’s price.

updates:

This will most probably become like a running thread because we have interesting developments almost daily. Here are some of them

August 3rd 2020:
This happened. And even more interesting than the video is what happened when we uploaded it on Facebook, see below!

We uploaded this video on our Facebook page too and guess what happened to two people (me and a friend, in fact) the second we started to share it in private messages, verbatim copy incidents: We get locked out by Facebook who was claiming the accounts got hacked and they need to re-secure them. So we went through password changing and a whole f-ing test to regain access.
The hacking never actually happened, it was basically a false flag by Facebook, who have been long time shilling for China and Fauci.
Most of you users must have got the news that Fakebook’s just launched the new official private message censorship policy, which is basically an AI set to ban keywords and links. Much more complicated than that, but basically that. And the new toaster wasn’t set yet to the right temperature when we started to share inconvenient content.
Facebook’s pretense that two of our accounts were attacked, coincidentally and precisely when they were sharing the same video in PM’s – that’s dumb af, Suckerborg!

In other news, EDM Nations mag is with us more vigorously than China 🙂

The Swag is strong with this one

September 13th:
This escalated faster the we anticipated and we had to re-title our video to better reflect the developments:

Ever watched a heist live online? Hit the video and watch the counters.

Long story short:
Our target with The People for Fauci Fashion was 10,000 Youtube views and about as many streams on Spotify first half of September. Spotify went well since Day#1, no worries there.
First days we got the video some bumps in traffic, a solid few hundred views went away, we hardly documented it because we couldn’t believe our eyes we’re watching the counter going backwards.
We went over the shock, took it as an accident, got some more press, tricked the Facebook robots to approve our clips and literally paid Suckerborg to distribute out video across Facebook, mobilised some supporters and got things going, with a few ups and downs.
By Friday 11th we were at about 8,500 Youtube views and imaginary Champagne bottles went to the freezer before I went to bed.
Saturday morning I woke up to only about 8,900 views, I raised an eyebrow, but OK.
Before I finished my coffee we were down to around 7,300. Took me a while to process and react, mobilise some people etc, so first screenshot is from the afternoon at around 6,300 views.
Made noise, tons more people watched the video, Sunday afternoon we’re down 100 views and about 10 likes.
Regardless of what you think of our initiative, from Youtubers’ household budgets to entire industries, we all are hugely influenced by Youtube, Facebook and Twitter numbers and reports. And they are arbitrary. They insert there whatever figures they damn please. If you have doubts about that, read here how you yourself can prove Facebook is pick-pocketing users and advertisers, we learned it the hard way, and a lot more while promoting this project.

Meanwhile, reality has become even harder to distinguish from memes and parodies.


Is it a meme, is it “fake news”, is it “real news”?

By Sunday afternoon everything turned again…
#LMAO @ #Youtube: I Did a little roll call, pushed back, outed them everywhere and whatcha guess, the power is back. Not the views, though.
Did everyone just die this week-end?!
Youtube almost brags and rubs in our face the thick chunk of views they took from our video. Globalist scum, basically.

Monday: Same story reloaded, this time we kinda streamed it live on Facebook and other socials.

Before
Now



“Fauci Fashion” is part of a larger music release that has just been made available on most quality digital platforms that support electronic dance music.

Imagine a fist with five middle fingers up. Even 6 on Bandcamp or Youtube.
This is the official description of Alien Pimp’s newest EP.
Straight from the depths of the deepest Coronavirus mental and emotional depression, with one hand swinging the sword of comedy and with the other – the hammer of tragedy, here comes the sound of the “New Normal”. It’s angry, pissed, acid, deep, dark, ironic, silly, it’s everything punk aspired to be, but with computers and true care for the sound engineering. It doesn’t even matter if you like it, this EP is here to take a snap of history and set a stone. Alien Pimp did that before a few times, he pushed the bass music hybridization 10 years ago, and precisely 20 years ago he got featured on CNN for the pioneering internet as a medium for audio-visual collaborations. And now a new age awaits a new turn, especially in arts, you can be part of it or part of the past. And it’s pointless to even try stopping it, berating and belittling it, as it is pointless to ignore it. It is, it happened and it won’t go away, more so than the times that lead to its creation.
Every track comes ‘equipped” with visual support created by the musician himself. He practices something he calls “new media” or “Silview media” (from his own name and website), it’s a fusion of formats and aesthetics shaped by the current times and technology. It blends a bit of everything, from retro-futurism to memes and tiktok. Some tracks have vertical videos designed for phones, other resemble animated gifs and so forth.
In short: this is the sound o’ the times.
“Don’t like it? Imagine how much I love living the times that inspired it! Like it? You know what to do…”, says Alien Pimp.

Alien-Pimp.com

Enough blah now, this will be updated, it’s action time, thank you for everything!

So how do you go…

…from this (2016)

… to this…

… in less than four years? Must be some breakthrough science again, maybe viruses are getting fat like Brits, or maybe they invented invisible masks now, right?
No. Politics and media narratives changed. Nature works the same, masks are as lame as they ever were when it comes to virus protection.
See for yourself and you will understand why this article is not up anymore.

When did they embraced dogma, yesterday or today? Why?

Below is the full, unedited article, in all its beauty.
Probably the most valuable part is the references collection, as well as this little announcement hanged by the Oral Health collective at the end of the piece, just to trash it a bit later for no actual reason:

Oral Health welcomes this original article.

Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review

October 18, 2016
by John Hardie, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC

Yesterday’s Scientific Dogma is Today’s Discarded Fable

Introduction
The above quotation is ascribed to Justice Archie Campbell author of Canada’s SARS Commission Final Report. 1 It is a stark reminder that scientific knowledge is constantly changing as new discoveries contradict established beliefs. For at least three decades a face mask has been deemed an essential component of the personal protective equipment worn by dental personnel. A current article, “Face Mask Performance: Are You Protected” gives the impression that masks are capable of providing an acceptable level of protection from airborne pathogens. 2 Studies of recent diseases such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the Ebola Crisis combined with those of seasonal influenza and drug resistant tuberculosis have promoted a better understanding of how respiratory diseases are transmitted. Concurrently, with this appreciation, there have been a number of clinical investigations into the efficacy of protective devices such as face masks. This article will describe how the findings of such studies lead to a rethinking of the benefits of wearing a mask during the practice of dentistry. It will begin by describing new concepts relating to infection control especially personal protective equipment (PPE).

Trends in Infection Control
For the past three decades there has been minimal opposition to what have become seemingly established and accepted infection control recommendations. In 2009, infection control specialist Dr. D. Diekema questioned the validity of these by asking what actual, front-line hospital-based infection control experiences were available to such authoritative organization as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 3 In the same year, while commenting on guidelines for face masks, Dr. M. Rupp of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America noted that some of the practices relating to infection control that have been in place for decades, ”haven’t been subjected to the same strenuous investigation that, for instance, a new medicine might be subjected.” 4 He opined that perhaps it is the relative cheapness and apparent safety of face masks that has prevented them from undergoing the extensive studies that should be required for any quality improvement device. 4 More recently, Dr. R. MacIntyre, a prolific investigator of face masks, has forcefully stated that the historical reliance on theoretical assumptions for recommending PPEs should be replaced by rigorously acquired clinical data. 5 She noted that most studies on face masks have been based on laboratory simulated tests which quite simply have limited clinical applicability as they cannot account for such human factors as compliance, coughing and talking. 5

Covering the nose and mouth for infection control started in the early 1900s when the German physician Carl Flugge discovered that exhaled droplets could transmit tuberculosis. 4 The science regarding the aerosol transmission of infectious diseases has, for years, been based on what is now appreciated to be “very outmoded research and an overly simplistic interpretation of the data.” 6 Modern studies are employing sensitive instruments and interpretative techniques to better understand the size and distribution of potentially infectious aerosol particles. 6 Such knowledge is paramount to appreciating the limitations of face masks. Nevertheless, it is the historical understanding of droplet and airborne transmission that has driven the longstanding and continuing tradition of mask wearing among health professionals. In 2014, the nursing profession was implored to “stop using practice interventions that are based on tradition” but instead adopt protocols that are based on critical evaluations of the available evidence. 7

A December 2015 article in the National Post seems to ascribe to Dr. Gardam, Director of Infection Prevention and Control, Toronto University Health Network the quote, “I need to choose which stupid, arbitrary infection control rules I’m going to push.” 8 In a communication with the author, Dr. Gardam explained that this was not a personal belief but that it did reflect the views of some infection control practitioners. In her 2014 article, “Germs and the Pseudoscience of Quality Improvement”, Dr. K Sibert, an anaesthetist with an interest in infection control, is of the opinion that many infection control rules are indeed arbitrary, not justified by the available evidence or subjected to controlled follow-up studies, but are devised, often under pressure, to give the appearance of doing something. 9

The above illustrate the developing concerns that many infection control measures have been adopted with minimal supporting evidence. To address this fault, the authors of a 2007 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) article eloquently argue that all safety and quality improvement recommendations must be subjected to the same rigorous testing as would any new clinical intervention. 10 Dr. R. MacIntyre, a proponent of this trend in infection control, has used her research findings to boldly state that, “it would not seem justifiable to ask healthcare workers to wear surgical masks.” 4 To understand this conclusion it is necessary to appreciate the current concepts relating to airborne transmissions.

Airborne Transmissions
Early studies of airborne transmissions were hampered by the fact that the investigators were not able to detect small particles (less than 5 microns) near an infectious person. 6 Thus, they assumed that it was the exposure of the face, eyes and nose to large particles (greater than 5 microns) or “droplets” that transmitted the respiratory condition to a person in close proximity to the host. 6 This became known as “droplet infection”, and 5 microns or greater became established as the size of large particles and the traditional belief that such particles could, in theory, be trapped by a face mask. 5 The early researchers concluded that since only large particles were detected near an infectious person any small particles would be transmitted via air currents, dispersed over long distances, remain infective over time and might be inhaled by persons who never had any close contact with the host. 11 This became known as “airborne transmission” against which a face mask would be of little use. 5

Through the use of highly sensitive instruments it is now appreciated that the aerosols transmitted from the respiratory tract due to coughing, sneezing, talking, exhalation and certain medical and dental procedures produce respiratory particles that range from the very small (less than 5 microns) to the very large (greater than a 100 microns) and that all of these particles are capable of being inhaled by persons close to the source. 6, 11 This means that respiratory aerosols potentially contain bacteria averaging in size from 1-10 microns and viruses ranging in size from 0.004 to 0.1 microns. 12 It is also acknowledged that upon their emission large “droplets” will undergo evaporation producing a concentration of readily inhalable small particles surrounding the aerosol source. 6

The historical terms “droplet infection” and “airborne transmission” defined the routes of infection based on particle size. Current knowledge suggests that these are redundant descriptions since aerosols contain a wide distribution of particle sizes and that they ought to be replaced by the term, “aerosol transmissible.” 4, 5 Aerosol transmission has been defined as “person –to – person transmission of pathogens through air by means of inhalation of infectious particles.” 26 In addition, it is appreciated that the physics associated with the production of the aerosols imparts energy to microbial suspensions facilitating their inhalation. 11

Traditionally face masks have been recommended to protect the mouth and nose from the “droplet” route of infection, presumably because they will prevent the inhalation of relatively large particles. 11 Their efficacy must be re-examined in light of the fact that aerosols contain particles many times smaller than 5 microns. Prior to this examination, it is pertinent to review the defence mechanism of the respiratory tract.

Respiratory System Defences
Comprehensive details on the defence mechanisms of the respiratory tract will not be discussed. Instead readers are reminded that; coughing, sneezing, nasal hairs, respiratory tract cilia, mucous producing lining cells and the phagocytic activity of alveolar macrophages provide protection against inhaled foreign bodies including fungi, bacteria and viruses. 13 Indeed, the pathogen laden aerosols produced by everyday talking and eating would have the potential to cause significant disease if it were not for these effective respiratory tract defences.

These defences contradict the recently published belief that dentally produced aerosols, “enter unprotected bronchioles and alveoli.” 2 A pertinent demonstration of the respiratory tract’s ability to resist disease is the finding that- compared to controls- dentists had significantly elevated levels of antibodies to influenza A and B and the respiratory syncytial virus. 14 Thus, while dentists had greater than normal exposure to these aerosol transmissible pathogens, their potential to cause disease was resisted by respiratory immunologic responses. Interestingly, the wearing of masks and eye glasses did not lessen the production of antibodies, thus reducing their significance as personal protective barriers. 14 Another example of the effectiveness of respiratory defences is that although exposed to more aerosol transmissible pathogens than the general population, Tokyo dentists have a significantly lower risk of dying from pneumonia and bronchitis. 15 The ability of a face mask to prevent the infectious risk potentially inherent in sprays of blood and saliva reaching the wearers mouth and nose is questionable since, before the advent of mask use, dentists were no more likely to die of infectious diseases than the general population. 16

The respiratory tract has efficient defence mechanisms. Unless face masks have the ability to either enhance or lessen the need for such natural defences, their use as protection against airborne pathogens must be questioned.

Face Masks
History: Cloth or cotton gauze masks have been used since the late 19th century to protect sterile fields from spit and mucous generated by the wearer. 5,17,18 A secondary function was to protect the mouth and nose of the wearer from the sprays and splashes of blood and body fluids created during surgery. 17 As noted above, in the early 20th century masks were used to trap infectious “droplets” expelled by the wearer thus possibly reducing disease transmission to others. 18 Since the mid-20th century until to-day, face masks have been increasingly used for entirely the opposite function: that is to prevent the wearer from inhaling respiratory pathogens. 5,20,21 Indeed, most current dental infection control recommendations insist that a face mask be worn, “as a key component of personal protection against airborne pathogens”. 2

Literature reviews have confirmed that wearing a mask during surgery has no impact whatsoever on wound infection rates during clean surgery. 22,23,24,25,26 A recent 2014 report states categorically that no clinical trials have ever shown that wearing a mask prevents contamination of surgical sites. 26 With their original purpose being highly questionable it should be no surprise that the ability of face masks to act as respiratory protective devices is now the subject of intense scrutiny. 27 Appreciating the reasons for this, requires an understanding of the structure, fit and filtering capacity of face masks.

Structure and Fit: Disposable face masks usually consist of three to four layers of flat non-woven mats of fine fibres separated by one or two polypropylene barrier layers which act as filters capable of trapping material greater than 1 micron in diameter. 18,24,28 Masks are placed over the nose and mouth and secured by straps usually placed behind the head and neck. 21 No matter how well a mask conforms to the shape of a person’s face, it is not designed to create an air tight seal around the face. Masks will always fit fairly loosely with considerable gaps along the cheeks, around the bridge of the nose and along the bottom edge of the mask below the chin. 21 These gaps do not provide adequate protection as they permit the passage of air and aerosols when the wearer inhales. 11,17 It is important to appreciate that if masks contained filters capable of trapping viruses, the peripheral gaps around the masks would continue to permit the inhalation of unfiltered air and aerosols. 11

Filtering Capacity: The filters in masks do not act as sieves by trapping particles greater than a specific size while allowing smaller particles to pass through. 18 Instead the dynamics of aerosolized particles and their molecular attraction to filter fibres are such that at a certain range of sizes both large and small particles will penetrate through a face mask. 18 Accordingly, it should be no surprise that a study of eight brands of face masks found that they did not filter out 20-100% of particles varying in size from 0.1 to 4.0 microns. 21 Another investigation showed penetration ranges from 5-100% when masks were challenged with relatively large 1.0 micron particles. 29 A further study found that masks were incapable of filtering out 80-85% of particles varying in size from 0.3 to 2.0 microns. 30 A 2008 investigation identified the poor filtering performance of dental masks. 27 It should be concluded from these and similar studies that the filter material of face masks does not retain or filter out viruses or other submicron particles. 11,31 When this understanding is combined with the poor fit of masks, it is readily appreciated that neither the filter performance nor the facial fit characteristics of face masks qualify them as being devices which protect against respiratory infections. 27 Despite this determination the performance of masks against certain criteria has been used to justify their effectiveness.2 Accordingly, it is appropriate to review the limitations of these performance standards.

Performance Standards: Face masks are not subject to any regulations. 11 The USA Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies face masks as Class II devices. To obtain the necessary approval to sell masks all that a manufacturer need do is satisfy the FDA that any new device is substantially the same as any mask currently available for sale. 21 As ironically noted by the Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC, “There is no specific requirement to prove that the existing masks are effective and there is no standard test or set of data required supporting the assertion of equivalence. Nor does the FDA conduct or sponsor testing of surgical masks.” 21 Although the FDA recommends two filter efficiency tests; particulate filtration efficiency (PFE) and bacterial filtration efficiency (BFE) it does not stipulate a minimum level of filter performance for these tests. 27 The PFE test is a basis for comparing the efficiency of face masks when exposed to aerosol particle sizes between 0.1 and 5.0 microns. The test does not assess the effectiveness of a mask in preventing the ingress of potentially harmful particles nor can it be used to characterize the protective nature of a mask. 32 The BFE test is a measure of a mask’s ability to provide protection from large particles expelled by the wearer. It does not provide an assessment of a mask’s ability to protect the wearer. 17 Although these tests are conducted under the auspices of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) and often produce filtration efficiencies in the range of 95-98 %, they are not a measure of a masks ability to protect against respiratory pathogens. Failure to appreciate the limitations of these tests combined with a reliance on the high filtration efficiencies reported by the manufacturers has, according to Healthcare in BC, “created an environment in which health care workers think they are more protected than they actually are.” 21 For dental personnel the protection sought is mainly from treatment induced aerosols.

Dental Aerosols
For approximately 40 years it has been known that dental restorative and especially ultrasonic scaling procedures produce aerosols containing not only blood and saliva but potentially pathogenic organisms. 33 The source of these organisms could be the oral cavities of patients and/or dental unit water lines. 34 Assessing the source and pathogenicity of these organisms has proven elusive as it is extremely difficult to culture bacteria especially anaerobes and viruses from dental aerosols. 34 Although there is no substantiated proof that dental aerosols are an infection control risk, it is a reasonable assumption that if pathogenic microbes are present at the treatment site they will become aerosolized and prone to inhalation by the clinician which a face mask will not prevent. As shown by the study of UK dentists, the inhalation resulted in the formation of appropriate antibodies to respiratory pathogens without overt signs and symptoms of respiratory distress. 14 This occurred whether masks were or were not worn. In a 2008 article, Dr. S. Harrel, of the Baylor College of Dentistry, is of the opinion that because there is a lack of epidemiologically detectable disease from the use of ultrasonic scalers, dental aerosols appear to have a low potential for transmitting disease but should not be ignored as a risk for disease transmission. 34 The most effective measures for reducing disease transmission from dental aerosols are pre-procedural rinses with mouthwashes such as chlorhexidine, large diameter high volume evacuators, and rubber dam whenever possible. 33 Face masks are not useful for this purpose, and Dr. Harrel believes that dental personnel have placed too great a reliance on their efficacy. 34 Perhaps this has occurred because dental regulatory agencies have failed to appreciate the increasing evidence on face mask inadequacies.

The Inadequacies
Between 2004 and 2016 at least a dozen research or review articles have been published on the inadequacies of face masks. 5,6,11,17,19,20,21,25,26,27,28,31 All agree that the poor facial fit and limited filtration characteristics of face masks make them unable to prevent the wearer inhaling airborne particles. In their well-referenced 2011 article on respiratory protection for healthcare workers, Drs. Harriman and Brosseau conclude that, “facemasks will not protect against the inhalation of aerosols.” 11 Following their 2015 literature review, Dr. Zhou and colleagues stated, “There is a lack of substantiated evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” 25 In the same year Dr. R. MacIntyre noted that randomized controlled trials of facemasks failed to prove their efficacy. 5 In August 2016 responding to a question on the protection from facemasks the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety replied:

  • The filter material of surgical masks does not retain or filter out submicron particles;
  • Surgical masks are not designed to eliminate air leakage around the edges;
  • Surgical masks do not protect the wearer from inhaling small particles that can remain airborne for long periods of time. 31

In 2015, Dr. Leonie Walker, Principal Researcher of the New Zealand Nurses Organization succinctly described- within a historical context – the inadequacies of facemasks, “Health care workers have long relied heavily on surgical masks to provide protection against influenza and other infections. Yet there are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness of masks for respiratory protection. The masks we use are not designed for such purposes, and when tested, they have proved to vary widely in filtration capability, allowing penetration of aerosol particles ranging from four to 90%.” 35

Face masks do not satisfy the criteria for effectiveness as described by Drs. Landefeld and Shojania in their NEJM article, “The Tension between Needing to Improve Care and Knowing How to Do It. 10 The authors declare that, “…recommending or mandating the widespread adoption of interventions to improve quality or safety requires rigorous testing to determine whether, how, and where the intervention is effective…” They stress the critical nature of this concept because, “…a number of widely promulgated interventions are likely to be wholly ineffective, even if they do not harm patients.” 10 A significant inadequacy of face masks is that they were mandated as an intervention based on an assumption rather than on appropriate testing.

Conclusions
The primary reason for mandating the wearing of face masks is to protect dental personnel from airborne pathogens. This review has established that face masks are incapable of providing such a level of protection. Unless the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, national and provincial dental associations and regulatory agencies publically admit this fact, they will be guilty of perpetuating a myth which will be a disservice to the dental profession and its patients. It would be beneficial if, as a consequence of the review, all present infection control recommendations were subjected to the same rigorous testing as any new clinical intervention. Professional associations and governing bodies must ensure the clinical efficacy of quality improvement procedures prior to them being mandated. It is heartening to know that such a trend is gaining a momentum which might reveal the inadequacies of other long held dental infection control assumptions. Surely, the hallmark of a mature profession is one which permits new evidence to trump established beliefs. In 1910, Dr. C. Chapin, a public health pioneer, summarized this idea by stating, “We should not be ashamed to change our methods; rather, we should be ashamed not to do so.” 36 Until this occurs, as this review has revealed, dentists have nothing to fear by unmasking. OH


Oral Health welcomes this original article.

References
1. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. SARS Commission-Spring of Fear: Final Report. Available at: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ministry_reports/campbell06/campbell06.html
2. Molinari JA, Nelson P. Face Mask Performance: Are You Protected? Oral Health, March 2016.
3. Diekema D. Controversies in Hospital Infection Prevention, October, 2009.
4. Unmasking the Surgical Mask: Does It Really Work? Medpage Today, Infectious Disease, October, 2009.
5. MacIntyre CR, Chughtai AA. Facemasks for the prevention of infection in healthcare and community settings. BMJ 2015; 350:h694.
6. Brosseau LM, Jones R. Commentary: Health workers need optimal respiratory protection for Ebola. Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. September, 2014.
7. Clinical Habits Die Hard: Nursing Traditions Often Trump Evidence-Based Practice. Infection Control Today, April, 2014.
8. Landman K. Doctors, take off those dirty white coats. National Post, December 7, 2015.
9. Sibert K. Germs and the Pseudoscience of Quality Improvement. California Society of Anesthesiologists, December 8, 2014.
10. Auerbach AD, Landfeld CS, Shojania KG. The Tension between Needing to Improve Care and Knowing How to Do It. NEJM 2007; 357 (6):608-613.
11. Harriman KH, Brosseau LM. Controversy: Respiratory Protection for Healthcare Workers. April, 2011. Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/741245_print
12. Bacteria and Viruses Issues. Water Quality Association, 2016. Available at: https://www.wqa.org/Learn-About-Water/Common-Contaminants/Bacteria-Viruses
13. Lechtzin N. Defense Mechanisms of the Respiratory System. Merck Manuals, Kenilworth, USA, 2016
14. Davies KJ, Herbert AM, Westmoreland D. Bagg J. Seroepidemiological study of respiratory virus infections among dental surgeons. Br Dent J. 1994; 176(7):262-265.
15.  Shimpo H, Yokoyama E, Tsurumaki K. Causes of death and life expectancies among dentists. Int Dent J 1998; 48(6):563-570.
16. Bureau of Economic Research and Statistics, Mortality of Dentists 1961-1966. JADA 1968; 76(4):831-834.
17. Respirators and Surgical Masks: A Comparison. 3 M Occupational Health and Environment Safety Division. Oct. 2009.
18. Brosseau L. N95 Respirators and Surgical Masks. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Oct. 2009.
19. Johnson DF, Druce JD, Birch C, Grayson ML. A Quantitative Assessment of the Efficacy of Surgical and N95 Masks to Filter Influenza Virus in Patients with Acute Influenza Infection. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:275-277.
20. Weber A, Willeke K, Marchloni R et al. Aerosol penetration and leakage characteristics of masks used in the health care industry. Am J Inf Cont 1993; 219(4):167-173.
21. Yassi A, Bryce E. Protecting the Faces of Health Care Workers. Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC, Final Report, April 2004.
22. Bahli ZM. Does Evidence Based Medicine Support The Effectiveness Of Surgical Facemasks In Preventing Postoperative Wound Infections In Elective Surgery. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2009; 21(2)166-169.
23. Lipp A, Edwards P. Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002(1) CD002929.
24. Lipp A, Edwards P. Disposable surgical face masks: a systematic review. Can Oper Room Nurs J 2005; 23(#):20-38.
25. Zhou Cd, Sivathondan P, Handa A. Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery. JR Soc Med 2015; 108(6):223-228.
26. Brosseau L, Jones R. Commentary: Protecting health workers from airborne MERS-CoV- learning from SARS. Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy May 2014.
27. Oberg T, Brosseau L. Surgical mask filter and fit performance. Am J Infect Control 2008; 36:276-282.
28. Lipp A. The effectiveness of surgical face masks: what the literature shows. Nursing Times 2003; 99(39):22-30.
29. Chen CC, Lehtimaki M, Willeke K. Aerosol penetration through filtering facepieces and respirator cartridges. Am Indus Hyg Assoc J 1992; 53(9):566-574.
30. Chen CC, Willeke K. Characteristics of Face Seal Leakage in Filtering Facepieces. Am Indus Hyg Assoc J 1992; 53(9):533-539.
31. Do surgical masks protect workers? OSH Answers Fact Sheets. Canadian Centre for Occupational health and Safety. Updated August 2016.
32. Standard Test Method for Determining the Initial Efficiency of Materials Used in Medical Face Masks to Penetration by Particulates Using Latex Spheres. American Society of Testing and Materials, Active Standard ASTM F2299/F2299M.
33. Harrel SK. Airborne Spread of Disease-The Implications for Dentistry. CDA J 2004; 32(11); 901-906.
34. Harrel SK. Are Ultrasonic Aerosols an Infection Control Risk? Dimensions of Dental Hygiene 2008; 6(6):20-26.
35. Robinson L. Unmasking the evidence. New Zealand Nurses Organization. May 2015. Available at: https://nznoblog.org.nz/2015/05/15/unmasking-the-evidence
36. Chapin CV. The Sources and Modes of Transmission. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1910.

Ladies and gents, I’m premiering a new show and SILVIEW.media 2.0
Huge production effort, considering the modest tech I can afford, almost gave up a couple of times, but here we are, worth it if you like it!
Self-explanatory material, all I need is to remind you that it’s starving for your love, don’t forget to give it a like and a share if you do enjoy it  
Ah, well, also worth mentioning it’s made for phones, if you’re using one right now, keep it vertical and play full screen and full volume for full effect.
It’s as fun as it’s serious, hope it makes your day a tad better!

And in case they take it down, we already have a back-up on Bitchute 😉

Thanks these video sources
Every Damn Day Fitness
ReviewTechUSA
Mr. Cheswick
and the legendary dude that outed the MSNBC dirtbags! Hero!

The rest are a buncha a-holes I can’t care about more than they do about me

Original Music:
Theme song: Alien Pimp – Burning Masks – soon to be released
Alien Pimp – Fauci Fashion

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

The murder of American woman Dee Dee Blanchard in 2015, is one of the most famous cases of Factitious disorder imposed on another (aka Munchausen syndrome by proxy) ever,  a long and devastating story of horrific child abuse, that ended with a daughter orchestrating the murder of her own mother. This mental illness is also the fuel Covidiocracy runs on.

Factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA), also known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP), is a condition by which a caregiver creates the appearance of health problems in another person, typically their child. This may include injuring the child or altering test samples. They then present the person as being sick or injured. This occurs without a specific benefit to the caregiver.Permanent injury or death of the child may occur.

Wikipedia

In factitious disorder imposed on another, a caregiver makes a dependent person appear mentally or physically ill in order to gain attention. To perpetuate the medical relationship, the caregiver systematically misrepresents symptoms, fabricates signs, manipulates laboratory tests, or even purposely harms the dependent (e.g. by poisoning, suffocation, infection, physical injury).[7] Studies have shown a mortality rate of between six and ten percent, making it perhaps the most lethal form of abuse.[8][9]

Most present about three medical problems in some combination of the 103 different reported symptoms. The most-frequently reported problems are apnea (26.8% of cases), anorexia or feeding problems (24.6% of cases), diarrhea (20%), seizures (17.5%), cyanosis (blue skin) (11.7%), behavior (10.4%), asthma (9.5%), allergy (9.3%), and fevers (8.6%). Other symptoms include failure to thrive, vomiting, bleeding, rash, and infections. Many of these symptoms are easy to fake because they are subjective. A parent reporting that their child had a fever in the past 24 hours is making a claim that is impossible to prove or disprove. The number and variety of presented symptoms contribute to the difficulty in reaching a proper diagnosis.

Aside from the motive (which is to gain attention or sympathy), another feature that differentiates FDIA from “typical” physical child abuse is the degree of premeditation involved. Whereas most physical abuse entails lashing out at a child in response to some behavior (e.g., crying, bedwetting, spilling food), assaults on the FDIA victim tend to be unprovoked and planned.

Also unique to this form of abuse is the role that health care providers play by actively, albeit unintentionally, enabling the abuse. By reacting to the concerns and demands of perpetrators, medical professionals are manipulated into a partnership of child maltreatment. Challenging cases that defy simple medical explanations may prompt health care providers to pursue unusual or rare diagnoses, thus allocating even more time to the child and the abuser. Even without prompting, medical professionals may be easily seduced into prescribing diagnostic tests and therapies that are at best uncomfortable and costly, and at worst potentially injurious to the child.[1] If the health practitioner resists ordering further tests, drugs, procedures, surgeries, or specialists, the FDIA abuser makes the medical system appear negligent for refusing to help a sick child and their selfless parent. Like those with Munchausen syndrome, FDIA perpetrators are known to switch medical providers frequently until they find one that is willing to meet their level of need; this practice is known as “doctor shopping” or “hospital hopping”.

A the mother force-fed high concentrations of sodium through the boy’s stomach tube because she craved the attention his illness brought her, especially through her heavy posting on social media. New York Post 2015

The perpetrator continues the abuse because maintaining the child in the role of patient satisfies the abuser’s needs. The cure for the victim is to separate the child completely from the abuser. When parental visits are allowed, sometimes there is a disastrous outcome for the child. Even when the child is removed, the perpetrator may then abuse another child: a sibling or other child in the family.

Factitious disorder imposed on another can have many long-term emotional effects on a child. Depending on their experience of medical interventions, a percentage of children may learn that they are most likely to receive the positive maternal attention they crave when they are playing the sick role in front of health care providers. Several case reports describe Munchausen syndrome patients suspected of themselves having been FDIA victims. Seeking personal gratification through illness can thus become a lifelong and multi-generational disorder in some cases. In stark contrast, other reports suggest survivors of FDIA develop an avoidance of medical treatment with post-traumatic responses to it. This variation possibly reflects broad statistics on survivors of child abuse in general, where around 35% of abusers were a victim of abuse in the past.

The adult caregiver who has abused the child often seems comfortable and not upset over the child’s hospitalization. While the child is hospitalized, medical professionals must monitor the caregiver’s visits to prevent an attempt to worsen the child’s condition. In addition, in many jurisdictions, medical professionals have a duty to report such abuse to legal authorities.

Diagnosis

Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a controversial term. In the World Health Organization’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10), the official diagnosis is factitious disorder (301.51 in ICD-9, F68.12 in ICD-10). Within the United States, factitious disorder imposed on another (FDIA or FDIoA) was officially recognized as a disorder in 2013, while in the United Kingdom, it is known as fabricated or induced illness by carers (FII).

In DSM-5, the diagnostic manual published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, this disorder is listed under 300.19 Factitious disorder. This, in turn, encompasses two types:

  • Factitious disorder imposed on self – (formerly Munchausen syndrome).
  • Factitious disorder imposed on another – (formerly Munchausen syndrome by proxy); diagnosis assigned to the perpetrator; the person affected may be assigned an abuse diagnosis (e.g. child abuse).
Warning signs

Warning signs of the disorder include:

  • A child who has one or more medical problems that do not respond to treatment or that follow an unusual course that is persistent, puzzling, and unexplained.
  • Physical or laboratory findings that are highly unusual, discrepant with patient’s presentation or history, or physically or clinically impossible.
  • A parent who appears medically knowledgeable, fascinated with medical details and hospital gossip, appears to enjoy the hospital environment, and expresses interest in the details of other patients’ problems.
  • A highly attentive parent who is reluctant to leave their child’s side and who themselves seem to require constant attention.
  • A parent who appears unusually calm in the face of serious difficulties in their child’s medical course while being highly supportive and encouraging of the physician, or one who is angry, devalues staff, and demands further intervention, more procedures, second opinions, and transfers to more sophisticated facilities.
  • The suspected parent may work in the health-care field themselves or profess an interest in a health-related job.
  • The signs and symptoms of a child’s illness may lessen or simply vanish in the parent’s absence (hospitalization and careful monitoring may be necessary to establish this causal relationship).
  • A family history of similar or unexplained illness or death in a sibling.
  • A parent with symptoms similar to their child’s own medical problems or an illness history that itself is puzzling and unusual.
  • A suspected emotionally distant relationship between parents; the spouse often fails to visit the patient and has little contact with physicians even when the child is hospitalized with a serious illness.
  • A parent who reports dramatic, negative events, such as house fires, burglaries, or car accidents, that affect them and their family while their child is undergoing treatment.
  • A parent who seems to have an insatiable need for adulation or who makes self-serving efforts for public acknowledgment of their abilities.
  • A child who inexplicably deteriorates whenever discharge is planned.
  • A child that looks for cueing from a parent in order to feign illness when medical personnel are present.
  • A child that is overly articulate regarding medical terminology and their own disease process for their age.
  • A child that presents to the Emergency Department with a history of repeat illness, injury, or hospitalization.

Notable cases

Beverley Allitt, a British nurse who murdered four children and injured a further nine in 1991 at Grantham and Kesteven Hospital, Lincolnshire, was diagnosed with Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

Wendi Michelle Scott is a Frederick, Maryland, mother who was charged with sickening her four-year-old daughter.

The book Sickened, by Julie Gregory, details her life growing up with a mother suffering from Munchausen by proxy, who took her to various doctors, coached her to act sicker than she was and to exaggerate her symptoms, and who demanded increasingly invasive procedures to diagnose Gregory’s enforced imaginary illnesses.

Lisa Hayden-Johnson of Devon was jailed for three years and three months after subjecting her son to a total of 325 medical actions – including being forced to use a wheelchair and being fed through a tube in his stomach. She claimed her son had a long list of illnesses including diabetes, food allergies, cerebral palsy, and cystic fibrosis, describing him as “the most ill child in Britain” and receiving numerous cash donations and charity gifts, including two cruises.

In the mid-1990s, Kathy Bush gained public sympathy for the plight of her daughter, Jennifer, who by the age of 8 had undergone 40 surgeries and spent over 640 days in hospitals for gastrointestinal disorders. The acclaim led to a visit with first lady Hillary Clinton, who championed the Bushs’ plight as evidence of need for medical reform. However, in 1996, Kathy Bush was arrested and charged with child abuse and Medicaid fraud, accused of sabotaging Jennifer’s medical equipment and drugs to agitate and prolong her illness.[64] Jennifer was moved to foster care where she quickly regained her health. The prosecutors claimed Kathy was driven by Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, and she was convicted to a five-year sentence in 1999.[65] Kathy was released after serving three years in 2005, always maintaining her innocence, and having gotten back in contact with Jennifer via correspondence.

In 2014, 26-year-old Lacey Spears was charged in Westchester County, New York, with second-degree depraved murder and first-degree manslaughter. She fed her son dangerous amounts of salt after she conducted research on the Internet about its effects. Her actions were allegedly motivated by the social media attention she gained on Facebook, Twitter, and blogs. She was convicted of second-degree murder on March 2, 2015,[67] and sentenced to 20 years to life in prison.

Dee Dee Blanchard was a Missouri mother who was murdered by her daughter and a boyfriend in 2015 after having claimed for years that her daughter, Gypsy Rose, was sick and disabled; to the point of shaving her head, making her use a wheelchair in public, and subjecting her to unnecessary medication and surgery. Gypsy possessed no outstanding illnesses. Feldman said it is the first case he is aware of in a quarter-century of research where the victim killed the abuser. Their story was shown on HBO‘s documentary film Mommy Dead and Dearest and is featured in the first season of the Hulu anthology series, The Act.

Rapper Eminem has spoken about how his mother would frequently take him to hospitals to receive treatment for illnesses that he did not have. His song “Cleanin’ Out My Closet” includes a lyric regarding the illness, “…going through public housing systems victim of Münchausen syndrome. My whole life I was made to believe I was sick, when I wasn’t ‘til I grew up and blew up…” His mother’s illness resulted in Eminem receiving custody of his younger brother, Nathan.[

In 2013, Boston Children’s Hospital filed a 51A report to take custody of Justina Pelletier, who was 14 at the time. At 21 she was living with her parents. Her parents are suing Boston Children’s Hospital, alleging that their civil rights were violated when she was committed to a psychiatric ward and their access to her was limited. At the trial, Pelletier’s treating neurologist described how her parents encouraged her to be sick and were endangering her health.
Source: Wikipedia

The Devastating True Story Of Gypsy Blanchard

As presented by Marie Claire Mag in 2018

The case of Gypsy Rose Blanchard is a long and devastating story of horrific child abuse, that ended with a daughter orchestrating the murder of her own mother.

The murder of American woman Dee Dee Blanchard in 2015, is one of the most famous cases of Munchausen syndrome by proxy ever, and a new documentary Gypsy’s Revenge revisits the murder, the familial abuse and all the people involved, three years after the crime took place.

Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a mental illness where a caretaker (usually a mother) of a child either falsifies symptoms or causes real illness to make it appear as if the child is sick. It is an extremely rare form of child abuse and proving the case in court is even rarer, such is the case with Dee Dee and her alleged victim, daughter Gypsy Blanchard.

Gypsy’s young life was spent in and out of hospitals, confined to sick beds and deceiving those around her.

Dee Dee claimed that Gypsy had leukaemia, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy and that she couldn’t walk, confining the young able-bodied girl to a wheelchair whenever she had to leave the house, as well as forcing her to be fed through an unnecessary feeding tube, telling people she had the mental capacity of a seven-year-old and forcing her to take medications for illnesses Gypsy wasn’t suffering from.

Gypsy Blanchard talking with Dr. Phil while in prison

As Gypsy got older, the healthy girl began to push back against her mother and grew increasingly more independent, going on Facebook without Dee Dee’s permission and meeting people from the outside world through chatrooms. It was on the social networking site in 2012 where she met Nicholas Godejohn, the man who would stab Gypsy’s mother to death at her request.

The story of Gypsy Blanchard has been investigated in HBO documentary Mommy Dead and Dearest, and now in Gypsy’s Revenge, and by and large people’s responses have been the same: her sentence may technically fit the crime, but is it right?

Gypsy confessed to police to having Godejohn stab her mother just days after the murder, and she is currently serving 10 years in prison as a healthy young woman entirely free from any physical illnesses.

The prosecution along with the defence, both thought Gypsy was a victim of Munchausen syndrome by proxy, and followers of the case and the latest documentary might question the fairness of the punishment as a victim of child abuse.

While there is never an excuse for murder, this shocking true crime story shines a light on the complex cases of child abuse, and Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

And Now the Big Question:

Do the following fall under the description of “Munchausen syndrome by proxy”?


1. A government or other group of people exaggerating or fully faking health threats in order to get attention and a certain response from society.
2. A parent putting a Covid masks on healthy children.
3. A covidiot yelling at people who don’t wear masks.

Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We just want to signal to our readers this piece from Forbes which would seem inconceivable to print in 2020. It wasn’t often even back then to read such stuff in major mainstream media, but it wasn’t mindblowing either, hence the weak or missing backclash. Read it now, integrally, with your 2020 mind.

by Michael Fumento

Originally published by Forbes on Feb 5, 2010,04:35pm EST

The World Health Organization has suddenly gone from crying “The sky is falling!” like a cackling Chicken Little to squealing like a stuck pig. The reason: charges that the agency deliberately fomented swine flu hysteria. “The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible,” the agency claims on its Web site. A WHO spokesman declined to specify who or what gave this “description,” but the primary accuser is hard to ignore.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”

Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. “We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health,” he said.

They’re right. This wasn’t merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment. The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.

Unquestionably, swine flu has proved to be vastly milder than ordinary seasonal flu. It kills at a third to a tenth the rate, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. Data from other countries like France and Japan indicate it’s far tamer than that.

Indeed, judging by what we’ve seen in New Zealand and Australia (where the epidemics have ended), and by what we’re seeing elsewhere in the world, we’ll have considerably fewer flu deaths this season than normal. That’s because swine flu muscles aside seasonal flu, acting as a sort of inoculation against the far deadlier strain.

Did the WHO have any indicators of this mildness when it declared the pandemic in June?

Absolutely, as I wrote at the time. We were then fully 11 weeks into the outbreak and swine flu had only killed 144 people worldwide–the same number who die of seasonal flu worldwide every few hours. (An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 per year by the WHO’s own numbers.) The mildest pandemics of the 20th century killed at least a million people.

But how could the organization declare a pandemic when its own official definition required “simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” Severity–that is, the number of deaths–is crucial, because every year flu causes “a global spread of disease.”

Easy. In May, in what it admitted was a direct response to the outbreak of swine flu the month before, WHO promulgated a new definition matched to swine flu that simply eliminated severity as a factor. You could now have a pandemic with zero deaths.

Under fire, the organization is boldly lying about the change, to which anybody with an Internet connection can attest. In a mid-January virtual conference WHO swine flu chief Keiji Fukuda stated: “Did WHO change its definition of a pandemic? The answer is no: WHO did not change its definition.” Two weeks later at a PACE conference he insisted: “Having severe deaths has never been part of the WHO definition.”

They did it; but why?

In part, it was CYA for the WHO. The agency was losing credibility over the refusal of avian flu H5N1 to go pandemic and kill as many as 150 million people worldwide, as its “flu czar” had predicted in 2005.

Around the world nations heeded the warnings and spent vast sums developing vaccines and making other preparations. So when swine flu conveniently trotted in, the WHO essentially crossed out “avian,” inserted “swine,” and WHO Director-General Margaret Chan arrogantly boasted, “The world can now reap the benefits of investments over the last five years in pandemic preparedness.”

But there’s more than bureaucratic self-interest at work here. Bizarrely enough, the WHO has also exploited its phony pandemic to push a hard left political agenda.

In a September speech WHO Director-General Chan said “ministers of health” should take advantage of the “devastating impact” swine flu will have on poorer nations to get out the message that “changes in the functioning of the global economy” are needed to “distribute wealth on the basis of” values “like community, solidarity, equity and social justice.” She further declared it should be used as a weapon against “international policies and systems that govern financial markets, economies, commerce, trade and foreign affairs.”

Chan’s dream now lies in tatters. All the WHO has done, says PACE’s Wodart, is to destroy “much of the credibility that they should have, which is invaluable to us if there’s a future scare that might turn out to be a killer on a large scale.”

Michael Fumento is director of the nonprofit Independent Journalism Project, where he specializes in health and science issues. He may be reached at fumento@pobox.com.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Every day I woke up hoping to find out Covidiocracy was but a nightmare, and every day I discover Humanity is more degenerated than I previously thought.
What you are about to read… I couldn’t conceive presenting this to people even as a dark joke, but a reputed American ethics professor and a publication called “The Conversation” think this is feature-worthy.

Fifty years ago, Anthony Burgess wrote “A Clockwork Orange,” a futuristic novel about a vicious gang leader who undergoes a procedure that makes him incapable of violence. Stanley Kubrick’s 1971 movie version sparked a discussion in which many argued that we could never be justified in depriving someone of his free will, no matter how gruesome the violence that would thereby be prevented. No doubt any proposal to develop a morality pill would encounter the same objection.

New York Times, 2011

This was published one day prior to this article and I’m not going to comment much on it because you can’t handle it if I start, probably even I can’t. Just read what these people put out and the functional literates will be able to pull enough lessons from this.
The author is Parker Crutchfield, Associate Professor of Medical Ethics, Humanities and Law, Western Michigan University.
The publication, named The Conversation, cites Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as “strategic partner”.

LATER UPDATE:

Turns out this wasn’t just another bunch of expert brainfarts dumped into a few subservient rags.

They did serious official full fledged research research into this and published it in Bioethics journal, NIH’s library and all the usual places for such work! It’s been legitimized by the science establishment.

Screenshot%2B2021-03-22%2B11.34.25%2BAM.jpg

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30157295/

Screenshot+2021-03-22+6.47.28+PM.jpg

Similar articles

This means the “research” must have been okayed by Fauci’s wife:

Christine Grady, RN, Ph.D., heads the Dept. of Bioethics at NIH (National Institute of Health).

Screenshot+2021-03-22+3.45.13+PM.jpg

Bioethics is published by the International Bioethics Association, where Christine Grady is a member (through the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities)


And now the original article as of August 10th, 2020:

‘Morality pills’ may be the US’s best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist

A psychoactive substance to make you act in everyone’s best interest?

“COVID-19 is a collective risk. It threatens everyone, and we all must cooperate to lower the chance that the coronavirus harms any one individual. Among other things, that means keeping safe social distances and wearing masks. But many people choose not to do these things, making spread of infection more likely.

When someone chooses not to follow public health guidelines around the coronavirus, they’re defecting from the public good. It’s the moral equivalent of the tragedy of the commons: If everyone shares the same pasture for their individual flocks, some people are going to graze their animals longer, or let them eat more than their fair share, ruining the commons in the process. Selfish and self-defeating behavior undermines the pursuit of something from which everyone can benefit.

Democratically enacted enforceable rules – mandating things like mask wearing and social distancing – might work, if defectors could be coerced into adhering to them. But not all states have opted to pass them or to enforce the rules that are in place.

My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good. To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?

It’s a far-out proposal that’s bound to be controversial, but one I believe is worth at least considering, given the importance of social cooperation in the struggle to get COVID-19 under control.

Protesters outside California state capital building
People in California protested stay-at-home orders in May. Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images

Public goods games show scale of the problem

Evidence from experimental economics shows that defections are common to situations in which people face collective risks. Economists use public goods games to measure how people behave in various scenarios to lower collective risks such as from climate change or a pandemic and to prevent the loss of public and private goods.

The evidence from these experiments is no cause for optimism. Usually everyone loses because people won’t cooperate. This research suggests it’s not surprising people aren’t wearing masks or social distancing – lots of people defect from groups when facing a collective risk. By the same token, I’d expect that, as a group, we will fail at addressing the collective risk of COVID-19, because groups usually fail. For more than 150,000 Americans so far, this has meant losing everything there is to lose.

But don’t abandon all hope. In some of these experiments, the groups win and successfully prevent the losses associated with the collective risk. What makes winning more likely? Things like keeping a running tally of what others are contributing, observing others’ behaviorscommunication and coordination before and during play, and democratic implementation of an enforceable rule requiring contributions.

For those of us in the United States, these conditions are out of reach when it comes to COVID-19. You can’t know what others are contributing to the fight against the coronavirus, especially if you socially distance yourself. It’s impossible to keep a running tally of what the other 328 million people in the U.S. are doing. And communication and coordination are not feasible outside of your own small group.

Even if these factors were achievable, they still require the very cooperative behavior that’s in short supply. The scale of the pandemic is simply too great for any of this to be possible.


Also read: “Who are the main vaccine refusers and how to tackle them – Former CDC chair”


Promoting cooperation with moral enhancement

It seems that the U.S. is not currently equipped to cooperatively lower the risk confronting us. Many are instead pinning their hopes on the rapid development and distribution of an enhancement to the immune system – a vaccine.

But I believe society may be better off, both in the short term as well as the long, by boosting not the body’s ability to fight off disease but the brain’s ability to cooperate with others. What if researchers developed and delivered a moral enhancer rather than an immunity enhancer?

Moral enhancement is the use of substances to make you more moral. The psychoactive substances act on your ability to reason about what the right thing to do is, or your ability to be empathetic or altruistic or cooperative.

For example, oxytocin, the chemical that, among other things, can induce labor or increase the bond between mother and child, may cause a person to be more empathetic and altruisticmore giving and generousThe same goes for psilocybin, the active component of “magic mushrooms.” These substances have been shown to lower aggressive behavior in those with antisocial personality disorder and to improve the ability of sociopaths to recognize emotion in others.

These substances interact directly with the psychological underpinnings of moral behavior; others that make you more rational could also help. Then, perhaps, the people who choose to go maskless or flout social distancing guidelines would better understand that everyone, including them, is better off when they contribute, and rationalize that the best thing to do is cooperate.

Moral enhancement as an alternative to vaccines

There are of course pitfalls to moral enhancement.

One is that the science isn’t developed enough. For example, while oxytocin may cause some people to be more pro-social, it also appears to encourage ethnocentrism, and so is probably a bad candidate for a widely distributed moral enhancement. But this doesn’t mean that a morality pill is impossible. The solution to the underdeveloped science isn’t to quit on it, but to direct resources to related research in neuroscience, psychology or one of the behavioral sciences.

Another challenge is that the defectors who need moral enhancement are also the least likely to sign up for it. As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values. Does the good of covertly dosing the public with a drug that would change people’s behavior outweigh individuals’ autonomy to choose whether to participate? Does the good associated with wearing a mask outweigh an individual’s autonomy to not wear one?

The scenario in which the government forces an immunity booster upon everyone is plausible. And the military has been forcing enhancements like vaccines or “uppers” upon soldiers for a long time. The scenario in which the government forces a morality booster upon everyone is far-fetched. But a strategy like this one could be a way out of this pandemic, a future outbreak or the suffering associated with climate change. That’s why we should be thinking of it now.”


You may say to yourself this is an accident, an isolated voice, whatever… it’s not. The article was republished by a ton of mainstream media outlets, from Foreign Affairs to Yahoo!
The system is backing the concept.

You thought that was bad enough?

I found out that mr. Ethics not only reckons the state should drug people into submission, he argues that it should even be done covertly!

Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.

Parker Crutchfield, “Compulsory Moral Bioenhancement Should be Covert”

Read the full article here.


What The Hack are “Morality Pills” Anyway, You May Ask

Researchers say morality treatments could be used instead of prison and might even help humanity tackle global issues

The Guardian, April 2011

Yes, you read correctly, this is prison in a pill, prison for the mind, and the ethics professor finds it ethical to treat all mask-opposition as convicts.

<<Ruud ter Meulen, chair in ethics in medicine and director of the centre for ethics in medicine at the University of Bristol, warned that while some drugs can improve moral behaviour, other drugs – and sometimes the same ones – can have the opposite effect.

“While Oxytocin makes you more likely to trust and co-operate with others in your social group, it reduces empathy for those outside the group,” Meulen said.

The use of deep brain stimulation, used to help those with Parkinson’s disease, has had unintended consequences, leading to cases where patients begin stealing from shops and even becoming sexually aggressive, he added.

“Basic moral behaviour is to be helpful to others, feel responsible to others, have a sense of solidarity and sense of justice,” he said. “I’m not sure that drugs can ever achieve this. But there’s no question that they can make us more likeable, more social, less aggressive, more open attitude to other people,” he said.

Meulen also suggested that moral-enhancement drugs might be used in the criminal justice system. “These drugs will be more effective in prevention and cure than prison,” he said>>, according to The Guardian.

If you have my type of ethics and morals, you’re probably very sickened and angered and it takes time for judgement to cool off and ask the practical question:
If these are mainstream media reports of 2011, how long have Covidiocracy and the planetary Auschwitz been in the making though?

Long enough, answers New York Times in an 2011 issue:
“Why are some people prepared to risk their lives to help a stranger when others won’t even stop to dial an emergency number?
Scientists have been exploring questions like this for decades. In the 1960s and early ’70s, famous experiments by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo suggested that most of us would, under specific circumstances, voluntarily do great harm to innocent people. During the same period, John Darley and C. Daniel Batson showed that even some seminary students on their way to give a lecture about the parable of the Good Samaritan would, if told that they were running late, walk past a stranger lying moaning beside the path. More recent research has told us a lot about what happens in the brain when people make moral decisions. But are we getting any closer to understanding what drives our moral behavior?”

But if our brain’s chemistry does affect our moral behavior, the question of whether that balance is set in a natural way or by medical intervention will make no difference in how freely we act. If there are already biochemical differences between us that can be used to predict how ethically we will act, then either such differences are compatible with free will, or they are evidence that at least as far as some of our ethical actions are concerned, none of us have ever had free will anyway. In any case, whether or not we have free will, we may soon face new choices about the ways in which we are willing to influence behavior for the better.

New York Times, 2011

‘Writing in the New York Times, Peter Singer and Agata Sagan ask “Are We Ready for a ‘Morality Pill’?” I dunno. Why?’, writes WILL WILKINSON on Big Think, in January, 2012. He follows:

“The infamous Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments showed that given the right circumstances, most of us act monstrously. Indeed, given pretty mundane circumstances, most of us will act pretty callously, hustling past people in urgent need in simply to avoid the hassle. But not all of us do this. Some folks do the right thing anyway, even when it’s not easy. Singer and Sagan speculate that something special must be going on in those peoples’ brains. So maybe we can figure out what that is and put it in a pill!

If continuing brain research does in fact show biochemical differences between the brains of those who help others and the brains of those who do not, could this lead to a “morality pill” — a drug that makes us more likely to help?

The answer is: no. And I think the question invites confusion. Morality is not exhausted by helping. Anyway, help do what?

Singer is perhaps the world’s most famous utilitarian, so maybe he’s got “help people feel more pleasure and less pain” in mind. Since utilitarianism is monomaniacally focused on how people feel, it can be tempting for utilitarians to see sympathy and the drive to ease suffering as the principal moral sentiments. But utilitarianism does not actually prescribe that we should be motivated to minimize suffering and maximize happiness. It tells us to do whatever minimizes suffering and maximizes happiness. It’s possible that wanting to help and trying to help doesn’t much help in this sense.”

“Clearly, the science behind moral drugs has some credibility. It seems possible that one day we’ll live in a strange utopian or dystopian world that takes morality pills. But until that day comes, we’ll have to try being good on our own.”

Michael Cuthbertson,  THE UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN,  September 14, 2011

The only glimpse of reason from an ethics professional I found came as late as 2017, and THAT’s an accident, as opposed to the media onslaught that has just re-started on the topic.
“There’s nothing moral about a morality pill. We can’t even agree on what morality requires, so designing a morality pill is a conceptually impossible task”, writes Daniel Munro, who teaches ethics in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.

Professor Munro shows that two different “morality pills” induced opposite reactions in test subjects.
Then which one is the morality pill?

“We could have different pills—lorazepam for consequentialists, citalopram for Kantians, and something else for Aristotelians—but this would amplify, not resolve, moral disagreement. In short, if we can’t agree on what morality requires, then designing a morality pill is a conceptually impossible task.”

Munro’s impeccable demonstration won’t stop anything, though, because Covidiocracy has never been about the common or individual good, nor about reason, but about domination. And domination ends when submission ends.

Now imagine that mentality meets these powers:

“Pentagon” as in “DARPA”, can’t have most of its programs cancelled at the whim of the finger from Christine Grady. That never happens. What do we learn?

I close with the video above because…
Only rapists seek morality in disregarding consent.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Ghislaine Maxwell, George Soros, the Rockefellers, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos… if you’re like me, almost everyone you despise is invested in Save the Children Fund.
But the worst thing about this charity is the performance, not the funding.

Save the Children – the Fairfield, Connecticut-based non-profit in the US – is formally known as Save The Children Federation, Inc. and is part of the Save the Children Alliance (a group of 30 Save the Children groups throughout the world that also support Save the Children International).  Established in 1932, Save the Children is a 501 (c) (3) and one of the most well-known charities in the world.

In 2017, the organization raised $760 million (including $322 million in government grants and contributions) – $108 million more than the previous year – and spent $720 million primarily on grants ($528 million), staff compensation and benefits ($103 million), fees for services ($41 million), and office-related expenses ($19 million).

The remaining $40 million (the difference between the revenue reported and the revenue spent) was retained by the organization, contributing to the increase in net fixed assets to $241 million at year end.

That means about 1/3 of the money raised are used by the Fund owners and employees.

Save the Children reported having 1,639 employees in 2017. With total compensation costs of $103 million, the average compensation package was $63,000 although 231 individuals received more than $100,000 in total compensation.

The 20 most highly compensated individuals were reported to be:

  • $540,883:  Carolyn S Miles, President and CEO
  • $404,737:  Carlos Carrazana, EVP and COO
  • $349,875:  Sumeet Seam, VP and General Counsel
  • $338,463:  Stacy Brandom, VP and CFO
  • $307,673:  Michael Klosson, VP Policy and Humanitarian Relief
  • $306,082:  Nancy A Taussig, VP Resource Development
  • $301,709:  Diana K Myers, VP International Programs
  • $278,659:  Janine L Scolpino, Associate VP, Mass Market Fund
  • $256,347:  Gregory A Ramm, VP Humanitarian Response
  • $250,847:  Brian White, VP Deputy General Counsel and CCO
  • $248,423:  Robert M Clay, VP
  • $231,989:  Daniel Stoner, AVP Education and Child Development
  • $227,535:  Dana L Langham, Associate VP, Chief Corp Development
  • $213,491:  Mark Shriver, SVP, US Programs (as of 8/17) plus $182,915 from a related organization
  • $201,460:  Kenneth G Murdoch, VP  IT and Building OP (end 6/17)
  • $195,754:  William Corwin, Sr VP, US Programs (2/17-8/17)
  • $190,167:  Phillip DiSanto, VP IT and Building OP (as of 5/17)
  • $161,943:  Andrea Williamson, Corporate Secretary
  • $153,622:  Debbie Pollock-Berry, VP and Chief of HR (as of 6/17)
  • $150,466:  Susan E Ridge, VP Marketing and Communications (end 6/17)

Of the 20 most highly compensated individuals, 11 are men and 9 are women. Of the 10 most highly compensated individuals, 5 are men and 5 are women.

To read the IRS Form 990 (2017), click here.

Corporate Partners

$1 MILLION AND ABOVE
Carnival Corporation & plc / Carnival Foundation
Facebook Inc.
Ferrari North America, Inc.
Hachette Book Group
Mars Wrigley Foundation
(formerly Wrigley Company Foundation)
Media Storm
MNI Targeted Media, Inc.
P&G
Penguin Random House
Pfizer and the Pfizer Foundation
PlowShare Group
PVH Corp.
Scholastic Corporation
The Walt Disney Company

$100,000 TO $1 MILLION
Adobe
Amazon
AmeriCares
Apple
Arconic Foundation
Baby2Baby
BlackRock
BNY Mellon
Bombas
Burt’s Bees Baby
Cargill
CHARLES & KEITH
Chevron
Chobani and the Chobani Foundation
Citi Foundation
Colgate-Palmolive
Cummins Inc.
Direct Relief
Dollar General Corporation
ExxonMobil
Flex Foundation
Gabriela Hearst Inc.
Godiva Chocolatier
Good360
Google.org
Heart to Heart International
Highgate Hotels
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Lutheran World Relief
Mastercard
Mattel, Inc. and its American Girl division
Morgan Stanley
New York Life & New York Life Foundation
Nike Foundation
PayPal
PepsiCo Foundation
Sempra Energy Foundation
Target
The Baupost Group, LLC
The Father’s Day/Mother’s Day Council, Inc.
The Idol Gives Back Foundation
The Microsoft Corporation
The PwC Charitable Foundation, Inc.
Toys “R” Us
Voss Foundation
Walmart Foundation
Western Union Foundation

Corporate Council

Comprised of senior leaders from Fortune 500 companies, social impact consultancies and academia, the Corporate Council functions as a strategic sounding board for Save the Children. From cause marketing to technology for development, the council helps Save the Children deepen and evolve our work with the private sector in a mutually beneficial way. We are proud to recognize the thought leadership and advisory contributions of our 2018 Corporate Council members:

  • Pernille Spiers-Lopez,* IKEA North America (formerly), Council Chair
  • Perry Yeatman, Perry Yeatman Global Partners LLC, Council Vice Chair
  • David Barash, GE Foundation
  • Sean Burke, Accenture
  • Sarah Colamarino, Johnson & Johnson
  • Andrea E. Davis, The Walt Disney Company
  • Mark Freedman, Dalberg
  • Sebastian Fries, Columbia University
  • Jim Goldman,* Eurazeo
  • Rebecca Leonard, The TJX Companies, Inc.
  • PJ Lewis, Mattel, Inc.
  • Sean Milliken, PayPal
  • Christine Montenegro McGrath, Mondeléz International
  • Paul Musser, Mastercard
  • Sunil Sani,* Heritage Sportswear, LLC

*Also serves on our Board of Trustees

Foundation Partners

Ann Hardeman and Combs L. Fort Foundation
Bainum Family Foundation
Bezos Family Foundation
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Briar Foundation
Bruderhof Communities
The Catalyst Foundation for Universal Education
The Charles Engelhard Foundation
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
Cogan Family Foundation
Comic Relief USA – The Red Nose Day Fund & Hand in Hand Hurricane Relief
Community Foundation of Northern Colorado
Connie Hillman Family Foundation
Crown Family Philanthropies
Derfner Foundation
Dubai Cares
Educate A Child, a programme of the Education Above All Foundation
The Edward W. Brown, Jr. and Margaret G. Brown Endowment for Save the Children and Region A Partnership for Children, a fund of the North Carolina Community Foundation
FIA Foundation
GHR Foundation
The Gottesman Fund
Harrington Family Foundation
Hau’oli Mau Loa Foundation
The Hearst Foundation, Inc.
Heising-Simons Foundation
Humanity United / Freedom Fund
Kenneth S. Battye Charitable Trust
LDS Charities
MacMillan Family Foundation
Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies
Margaret A. Meyer Family Foundation
Margaret E. Dickins Foundation
Martin F. Sticht Charitable Fund
Matthew W. Jacobs & Luann Jacobs Charitable Fund
New Hampshire Charitable Foundation
Oak Foundation
Open Society Foundations (George Soros)
Owenoke Foundation
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation
Roy A. Hunt Foundation
Schultz Fund
Share Our Strength
SOMOS UNA VOZ
South Texas Outreach Foundation
STEM Next Opportunity Fund
The Stone Family Foundation
Wagon Mountain Foundation
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
World Impact Foundation
Anonymous (9)

And that’s not all, see the full list of partners and sponsors on their own website.

Save the Children, Some Activity Highlights

1985

The Mirror organised a Disney day out for the kids at Lord and Lady Bath’s Longleat House, in Wiltshire. A great fun day in which Ghislaine Maxwell presented a cheque for 2000 UK Pounds for the Save the Children Fund. Ghislaine meets Henry Thynne, Lord Bath and his wife Virginia. 13th September 1985. (Photos by George Phillips/Mirrorpix/Getty Images)

2000

‘Save The Children’ Receives $50 Million Grant From The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to push vaccines and birth control in Africa and Asia.


Also read:


2009

Political stunts with children’s money? Why not, we make anything look like charity.
“Last week, Save the Children weighed into the controversy surrounding Madonna’s attempt to adopt a child in Malawi. Recently it created a new head of UK campaigning to enhance its profile as the country’s leading organisation for defending “children’s rights”. Its current advertising pitch is aimed at persuading the Chancellor to give £3 billion more in his Budget later this month”, writes Philip Johnston, The Telegraph columnist. He follows:
“You could be forgiven for thinking that charities are forbidden from political activism by their tax-free status. Yet the Charity Commission’s own guidelines state that it “can be [a] legitimate and valuable activity”. In other words, the charity is fully entitled to campaign, and operate in the UK; but I am equally at liberty not to give it any money if it no longer does what it says on the rattling tin. Save the Children says the money for its UK venture is not coming from its regular contributors but from corporate donors. But that is beside the point.”

2015

“Another children’s charity was rocked last night after a senior executive at Save The Children resigned over allegations of ‘inappropriate behaviour’ “, Daily Mail reports.

Chief strategist Brendan Cox denied allegations against him but left in September. The charity’s £160,000-a-year chief executive Justin Forsyth has also resigned for unconnected reasons.

Both were senior advisers to former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Mr Cox’s wife, Jo, is a Labour MP and former aide to Mr Brown’s wife Sarah. Mrs Cox also runs the Labour Women’s Network where she is ‘equalities and discrimination’ adviser.

Mr Cox, Save The Children’s director of policy and advocacy, left in September after complaints against him by women members of staff. A well-placed source said Mr Cox strenuously denied any wrongdoing but agreed to leave his post, according to Daily Mail.

2018

Alexia Pepper de Caires, an ex-Save The Children employee, says that sexual abuse in the charity sector is a systemic problem and that she had to storm her former employer’s boardroom to be heard, The Telegraph reported.

Ah, and also this:

2019

After investing millions in Save the Children, Disney Chairman and CEO Bob Iger finally honored with Save the Children’s Centennial Award. He received the trophy from the hands of Oprah Winfrey, star of Epstein’s flight logs. The event was hosted by Jennifer Garner and speakers included Save the Children CEO Carolyn Miles and Disney Legend Oprah Winfrey, Disney informed on their website.

2020

Leaked details of the inquiry, published in the Times, in which the commission accused Save the Children of “serious failures and mismanagement” of the way it dealt with the allegations in 2015, led to calls for the resignation of Kevin Watkins, the charity’s chief executive. He said “no”.

Source

This is just a figment of the larger picture, just to say “watch you hashtag” to whoever made #Savethechildren trend on social media lately (Fakebook’s Suckerborg mainly, we know it was him)


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Warning: Highly infectious content! Please expose everyone

Those of you who liked the memes on social media gonna love the music video.
Everyone will, if exposed. Please help it become viral.
A joint venture with Alien Pimp Productions

Attention: it’s a vertical video designed for phones, so position your phone accordingly; and either case play it full screen and full volume.

If you don’t like Fauci Fashion, try Covidiocracy T-shirts and hats from our website.
If you do like Fauci Fashion, head to the Alien Pimp website to download this track and more for free, also find official apparel, art and what not.


To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
We hardly made it before, but this summer something’s going on, our audience stats show bizarre patterns, we’re severely under estimates and the last savings are gone. We’re not your responsibility, but if you find enough benefits in this work…
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!