According to the reputed truth-gods of Fb, Gates and WHO and the other Event 201 attendees spewed Rona conspiracies in a video they made in October last year, which implies pre-science and vindicates the people calling covid a “plandem1c”
Many revere and admire the elites for their grandiose plan to enslave the whole humanity, but in fact all their plan is dumb AF from its fundamentals down to its executives, and this is just one of the many evidences. I mean you want to control the world but you can’t even automate censorship on Internet and you end up shooting yourself in the both knees relentlessly? Imagine a fanfare of clowns with megalomaniac delusions, applauded by a congregation of geese. Covidiocracy is destined to cannibalise itself, starting with its propaganda machine, see the SJW/cancel culture.
I made this post very visual and simple so fact-checkers can understand it: They targeted us but it’s their people’s video and it’s made last year. We work mainly with their sources precisely because they’re dumb and predictable and we knew we’ll have to deflect back these BS attacks when they occur. And they fell right into it as soon as they could. They’re a buncha morons with too much money and too many toys.
Basically, Facebook and a host of its “fact-checkers” such as USA Today, Factcheck.org and more, have claimed that one of our latest video uploads “repeats information identified by independent fact-checkers [themselves] as false”.
Thing is we’re not the authors of the content, we just mirrored (reuploaded) a video from Johns Hopkins, untouched, we’re just platforming these people, Facebook told us they’re good credible people :D.
So the authors of the missinformation in the video are, among others: WHO Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation World Bank World Economic Forum Johns Hopkins Lufthansa and many more
Bonus: the video has actually NOTHING, ZERO, 0 to do with the BS fact-checkers are munching there, it’s not about the man-made origins of the virus or anything like that. Remember:
It doesn’t matter what Facebook says
Silviu “Silview” Costinescu
I don’t know it but I bet factcheck.org took money from Gates to label him as a conspiracy head.
Please watch and share our Facebook upload, if not to raise awareness, at least just to piss off these douchebags!
First hour of the simulation is already on our Bitchute, Youtube, we have a BrandNewTube channel too now. All full of “conspiracies”.
At least good thing Facebook and its “independent fact-checkers” are not mere narrative-enforcers and smear-machines 😀
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
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.
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!
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.
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 🙂
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.
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.
“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.
… 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. 1It 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. 2Studies 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). 3In 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.” 4He 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. 4More 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. 5She 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. 4The 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.” 6Modern studies are employing sensitive instruments and interpretative techniques to better understand the size and distribution of potentially infectious aerosol particles. 6Such 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.” 8In 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. 10Dr. 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.” 4To 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. 6Thus, 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. 6This 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. 5The 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. 11This 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. 12It 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.” 26In 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. 11Their 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. 13Indeed, 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.” 2A 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. 14Thus, 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. 14Another 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. 15The 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. 17As 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. 18Since 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. 26With 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. 27Appreciating 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. 21No 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. 21These 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. 18Instead 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. 18Accordingly, 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. 21Another investigation showed penetration ranges from 5-100% when masks were challenged with relatively large 1.0 micron particles. 29A further study found that masks were incapable of filtering out 80-85% of particles varying in size from 0.3 to 2.0 microns. 30A 2008 investigation identified the poor filtering performance of dental masks. 27It 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. 27Despite 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. 11The 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. 21As 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.” 21Although 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. 27The 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. 32The 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. 17Although 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.” 21For 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. 33The source of these organisms could be the oral cavities of patients and/or dental unit water lines. 34Assessing 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. 34Although 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. 14This 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. 34The 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. 33Face masks are not useful for this purpose, and Dr. Harrel believes that dental personnel have placed too great a reliance on their efficacy. 34Perhaps 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.” 11Following 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.” 25In the same year Dr. R. MacIntyre noted that randomized controlled trials of facemasks failed to prove their efficacy. 5In 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. 10The 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.” 10A 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.” 36Until 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!
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.
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). Studies have shown a mortality rate of between six and ten percent, making it perhaps the most lethal form of abuse.
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. 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”.
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.
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 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.
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. 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. 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, 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
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.
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
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
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.
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!