masks

by on

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

The latest piece of evidence to confirm many of the revelations we’ve published for the past year or so. You have to read back to get more of the picture we’re about to sketch here.


We can’t offer informed consent for these experiments conducted on us because we are not offered much information. Only rich people can access some of it at prices most of us can’t dream. Maybe you can, or maybe people start donating enough so we can afford surviving another month and buying this info for the purpose of making it freely available to everyone, as it should be.

What am I talking about is the book pictured in our cover illustration and detailed below, which costs well over 1000$!

More precisely $1185 just for a single license PDF, the hardcover print would cost you about 100 more.

Why is this thing so expensive, you may ask?

THESE INFORMATIONS ARE SO EXPENSIVE EXACTLY TO BE PROHIBITIVE TO THE PLEBS AND OFFER A LEVERAGE OVER THOSE WHO ARE KEPT OUT OF THE LOOP, IN THE DARK

Predictably so, but:

These informations also must to have the highest degree of accuracy in order to sell as expensively!

Superb quality book delivered in a timely fashion with full financial documentation received via email.

Testimonial by Dr Tom Kidd, Associate Professor, University of Nevada

Bonus for us, this book is from May 2020, so it must have been elaborated prior to April 2020. This means it might be outdated by now for investors, but witty investigators like us find an advantage in this:

THE BOOK HAS BEEN ELABORATED WITH BEHIND THE SCENES SCIENCE ON THE INDUSTRIES WHICH, IN TURN MUST HAVE HAD PRE-SCIENCE ON THE PLANDEMIC!
There was no publicly available information in March to build such a book, and the industries they talk about must have been prescient, way ahead of the writers.
Only the fact that this book existed in May 2020 is single-handedly proving there was a whole lot of awareness in some industries about the pandemic.
Corroborated with all other evidence we’ve provided on this website, pandemic pre-planning, ergo pre-science, becomes a certitude.

Until plebs learn the GameStop lesson properly and start associating their financial power to break this classism and this information gatekeeping, we have to be happy with whatever meat we can chew from the bones they throw out.
Luckily for you, I can show you how to suck a bone dry and use it to find more.
It’s not going to be a full course, but it might become more than most people can load up.

Let’s start with the description (highlights are mine):

“Nanotechnology and nanomaterials can significantly address the many clinical and public healthcare challenges that have arisen from the coronavirus pandemic. This analysis examines in detail how nanotechnology and nanomaterials can help in the fight against this pandemic disease, and ongoing mitigation strategies. Nano-based products are currently being developed and deployed for the containment, diagnosis, and treatment of Covid-19.

Nanotechnology and nanomaterials promise:

  • Improved and virus disabling air filtration.
  • Low-cost, scalable detection methods for the detection of viral particles
  • Enhanced personal protection equipment (PPE) including facemasks.
  • New antiviral vaccine and drug delivery platforms.
  • New therapeutic solutions.

Report contents include:

  • Market analysis of nano-based diagnostic tests for COVID-19 including nanosensors incorporating gold nanoparticles, iron oxide nanoparticles, graphene, quantum dots, carbon quantum dots and carbon nanotubes. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include Abbott Laboratories, Cardea, Ferrotec (USA) Corporation, E25Bio, Grolltex, Inc., Luminex Corporation etc.
  • Market analysis of antiviral and antimicrobial nanocoatings for surfaces including fabric (mask, gloves, doctor coats, curtains, bed sheet), metal (lifts, doors handle, nobs, railings, public transport), wood (furniture, floors and partition panels), concrete (hospitals, clinics and isolation wards) and plastics (switches, kitchen and home appliances).
  • Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include Advanced Materials-JTJ s.r.o., Bio-Fence, Bio-Gate AG, Covalon Technologies Ltd., EnvisionSQ, GrapheneCA, Integricote, Nano Came Co. Ltd., NanoTouch Materials, LLC, NitroPep and many more.
  • Market analysis of air-borne virus filtration including photocatalytic Nano-TiO2 filters, nanofiber filers, nanosilver, nanocellulose, graphene and carbon nanotube filtration. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include G6 Materials, Daicel FineChem Ltd., NANOVIA s.r.o., Toray Industries, Inc., Tortech Nano Fibers etc.
  • Market analysis of nano-based facemask and other PPE products. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include planarTECH LLC, RESPILON Group s. r. o., SITA, Sonovia Ltd. etc.
  • Nanotherapies and drug delivery vehicles currently being produced and clinical trials of vaccines for COVID-19. Market revenues adjusted to pandemic outcomes. In-depth company profiles. In-depth company profiles. Companies profiled include Arcturus Therapeutics, Inc., Arbutus Biopharma, BlueWillow Biologics, Elastrin Therapeutics Inc., EnGeneIC Ltd. etc.
  • Key scientific breakthroughs and developments that are underway right now.”

As you can see, the description alone offers enough evidence that embedding a whole range of nanotech in facemasks, tests, drugs and many other product.

You can bet your ass your new fridge connect to the internet and has some antimicrobial nanocoating that later will prove to be worse than DDT or asbestos, but at least it’s not gonna be Covid, right?

“You could put the computational power of the spaceship Voyager onto an object the size of a cell”.
And that was back in 2018

Can we dig more clues though?

Sir, yes, sir!

I’m going to do something unusual and seemingly unpractical copying here the whole table of contents, just in case, because almost every chapter and figure title deserves to be a separate post on this website as well, besides the multitude of leads as to what to research.

1 RESEARCH SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
1.1 Report scope
1.2 Research methodology

2 INTRODUCTION

3 DIAGNOSTIC TESTING
3.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions
3.1.1 Current Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
3.1.2 Emerging Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
3.1.3 Nanosensors/nanoparticles (silver nanoclusters, Gold nanoparticles, Iron oxide nanoparticles, Quantum dot barcoding, nanowires, silica nanoparticles)
3.1.4 Carbon nanomaterials for diagnostic testing
3.2 Market revenues
3.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025.
3.3 Companies
3.4 Academic research

4 ANTIVIRAL AND ANTIMICROBIAL COATINGS AND SURFACES
4.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions
4.1.1 Nanocoatings.
4.1.2 Applications
4.1.3 Anti-viral nanoparticles and nanocoatings
4.1.3.1 Reusable Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
4.1.3.2 Wipe on coatings
4.1.4 Graphene-based coatings
4.1.4.1 Properties
4.1.4.2 Graphene oxide.
4.1.4.3 Reduced graphene oxide (rGO)
4.1.4.4 Markets and applications
4.1.5 Silicon dioxide/silica nanoparticles (Nano-SiO2) -based coatings
4.1.5.1 Properties.
4.1.5.2 Antimicrobial and antiviral activity
4.1.5.3 Easy-clean and dirt repellent
4.1.6 Nanosilver-based coatings.
4.1.6.1 Properties
4.1.6.2 Antimicrobial and antiviral activity
4.1.6.3 Markets and applications.
4.1.6.4 Commercial activity
4.1.7 Titanium dioxide nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.7.1 Properties
4.1.7.2 Exterior and construction glass coatings
4.1.7.3 Outdoor air pollution
4.1.7.4 Interior coatings
4.1.7.5 Medical facilities
4.1.7.6 Wastewater Treatment
4.1.7.7 Antimicrobial coating indoor light activation
4.1.8 Zinc oxide nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.8.1 Properties.
4.1.8.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.9 Nanocellullose (cellulose nanofibers and cellulose nanocrystals)-based coatings.
4.1.9.1 Properties
4.1.9.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.10 Carbon nanotube-based coatings
4.1.10.1 Properties
4.1.10.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.11 Fullerene-based coatings
4.1.11.1 Properties
4.1.11.2 Antimicrobial activity
4.1.12 Chitosan nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.12.1 Properties
4.1.12.2 Wound dressings
4.1.12.3 Packaging coatings and films
4.1.12.4 Food storage
4.1.13 Copper nanoparticle-based coatings
4.1.13.1 Properties
4.1.13.2 Application in antimicrobial nanocoatings
4.2 Market revenues
4.2.1 Market revenues adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2030.
4.3 Companies
4.4 Academic research

5 AIR-BORNE VIRUS FILTRATION
5.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions (nanoparticles titanium dioxide, Polymeric nanofibers, Nanosilver, Nanocellulose, Graphene, Carbon nanotubes)
5.2 Market revenues
5.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025
5.3 Companies
5.4 Academic research

6 FACEMASKS AND OTHER PPE
6.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions (Polymer nanofibers, Nanocellulose, Nanosilver, Graphene)
6.2 Market revenues
6.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025
6.3 Companies
6.4 Academic research

7 DRUG DELIVERY AND THERAPEUTICS
7.1 Nanotechnology and nanomaterials solutions
7.1.1 Products
7.1.2 Nanocarriers
7.1.3 Nanovaccines
7.2 Market revenues
7.2.1 Market estimates adjusted to pandemic demand, forecast to 2025
7.3 Companies
7.4 Academic research

8 REFERENCES

List of Tables
Table 1. Current Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
Table 2. Development phases of diagnostic tests
Table 3. Emerging Diagnostic Tests for COVID-19
Table 4. Nanoparticles for diagnostic testing-Types of nanoparticles, properties and application
Table 5. Gold nanoparticle reagent suppliers list
Table 6. Carbon nanomaterials for diagnostic testing-types, properties and applications
Table 7. Global revenues for nanotech-based diagnostics and testing, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 8. Academic research in nano-based COVID-19 diagnostics and testing.
Table 9: Anti-microbial and antiviral nanocoatings-Nanomaterials used, principles, properties and applications.
Table 10. Nanomaterials utilized in antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings coatings-benefits and applications.
Table 11: Properties of nanocoatings.
Table 12: Antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings markets and applications
Table 13: Nanomaterials used in nanocoatings and applications.
Table 14: Graphene properties relevant to application in coatings
Table 15. Bactericidal characters of graphene-based materials
Table 16. Markets and applications for antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings graphene nanocoatings
Table 17. Markets and applications for antimicrobial and antiviral nanosilver coatings.
Table 18. Commercial activity in antimicrobial nanosilver nanocoatings
Table 19. Antibacterial effects of ZnO NPs in different bacterial species.
Table 20. Types of carbon-based nanoparticles as antimicrobial agent, their mechanisms of action and characteristics
Table 21. Mechanism of chitosan antimicrobial action
Table 22. Global revenues for antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.
Table 23. Global revenues for Anti-fouling & easy clean nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.
Table 24. Global revenues for self-cleaning (bionic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 25. Global revenues for self-cleaning (photocatalytic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 26. Antimicrobial, antiviral and antifungal nanocoatings research in academia
Table 27. Cellulose nanofibers (CNF) membranes
Table 28: Comparison of CNT membranes with other membrane technologies
Table 29. Nanomaterials in air-borne virus filtration-properties and applications
Table 30. Global revenues for nanotech-based air-borne virus filtration, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 31: Oji Holdings CNF products
Table 32. Academic research in nano-based air-borne virus filtration
Table 33. Nanomaterials in facemasks and other PPE-properties and applications
Table 34. Global revenues for nanotech-based facemasks and PPE, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 35. Academic research in nano-based facemasks and other PPE
Table 36. Applications in drug delivery and therapeutics, by nanomaterials type-properties and applications
Table 37. Nanotechnology drug products
Table 38. List of antigens delivered by using different nanocarriers
Table 39. Nanoparticle-based vaccines
Table 40. Global revenues for nano-based drug delivery and therapeutics, 2019-2030, billion US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Table 41. Academic research in nano-based drug delivery and therapeutics to address COVD-19

List of Figures
Figure 1. Anatomy of COVID-19 Virus
Figure 2. Graphene-based sensors for health monitoring
Figure 3. Schematic of COVID-19 FET sensor incorporating graphene
Figure 4. Global revenues for nanotech-based diagnostics and testing, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 5. Printed graphene biosensors
Figure 6. AGILE R100 system
Figure 7. nano-screenMAG particles
Figure 8. GFET sensors.
Figure 9. DNA endonuclease-targeted CRISPR trans reporter (DETECTR) system
Figure 10. SGTi-flex COVID-19 IgM/IgG
Figure 11. Schematic of anti-viral coating using nano-actives for inactivation of any adhered virus on the surfaces
Figure 12: Graphair membrane coating
Figure 13: Antimicrobial activity of Graphene oxide (GO)
Figure 14. Nano-coated self-cleaning touchscreen
Figure 15: Hydrophobic easy-to-clean coating
Figure 16 Anti-bacterial mechanism of silver nanoparticle coating.
Figure 17: Mechanism of photocatalysis on a surface treated with TiO2 nanoparticles
Figure 18: Schematic showing the self-cleaning phenomena on superhydrophilic surface.
Figure 19: Titanium dioxide-coated glass (left) and ordinary glass (right).
Figure 20: Self-Cleaning mechanism utilizing photooxidation.
Figure 21: Schematic of photocatalytic air purifying pavement.
Figure 22: Schematic of photocatalytic water purification
Figure 23. Schematic of antibacterial activity of ZnO NPs
Figure 24: Types of nanocellulose
Figure 25. Mechanism of antimicrobial activity of carbon nanotubes
Figure 26: Fullerene schematic
Figure 27. TEM images of Burkholderia seminalis treated with (a, c) buffer (control) and (b, d) 2.0 mg/mL chitosan; (A: additional layer; B: membrane damage)
Figure 28. Global revenues for antimicrobial and antiviral nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 29. Global revenues for anti-fouling and easy-to-clean nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 30. Global revenues for self-cleaning (bionic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 31. Global revenues for self-cleaning (photocatalytic) nanocoatings, 2019-2030, US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 32. Lab tests on DSP coatings
Figure 33. GrapheneCA anti-bacterial and anti-viral coating
Figure 34. Microlyte® Matrix bandage for surgical wounds
Figure 35. Self-cleaning nanocoating applied to face masks.
Figure 36. NanoSeptic surfaces.
Figure 37. NascNanoTechnology personnel shown applying MEDICOAT to airport luggage carts
Figure 38. Basic principle of photocatalyst TiO2
Figure 39. Schematic of photocatalytic indoor air purification filter.
Figure 40. Global revenues for nanotech-based air-borne virus filtration, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.
Figure 41. Multi-layered cross section of CNF-nw
Figure 42: Properties of Asahi Kasei cellulose nanofiber nonwoven fabric
Figure 43: CNF nonwoven fabric
Figure 44: CNF gel..
Figure 45. CNF clear sheets
Figure 46. Graphene anti-smog mask
Figure 47. Global revenues for nanotech-based facemasks and PPE, 2019-2030, millions US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates
Figure 48. FNM’s nanofiber-based respiratory face mask..
Figure 49. ReSpimask® mask
Figure 50. Schematic of different nanoparticles used for intranasal vaccination
Figure 51. Global revenues for nano-based drug delivery and therapeutics, 2019-2030, billion US$, adjusted for COVID-19 related demand, conservative and high estimates.

So are you ready for your first “printed graphene bio-sensors”? Just picked a random item from the list above.

So what I’m going to do in the upcoming updates to this article is to follow every lead I got above, and I’m going to investigate every company they report on, as per their list below. You should do it too, independently, and compare your results with mine. It’s both science and investigative journalism, the juiciest combo.

  • Abbott Laboratories
  • Advanced Materials-JTJ s.r.o.
  • Arbutus Biopharma
  • Arcturus Therapeutics
  • Bio-Fence
  • Bio-Gate AG
  • BlueWillow Biologics
  • Cardea
  • Covalon Technologies Ltd.
  • Daicel FineChem Ltd.
  • E25Bio
  • Elastrin Therapeutics Inc.
  • EnGeneIC Ltd.
  • EnvisionSQ
  • Ferrotec (USA) Corporation
  • G6 Materials
  • GrapheneCA
  • Grolltex, Inc.
  • Integricote
  • Luminex Corporation
  • Nano Came Co. Ltd.
  • NanoTouch Materials, LLC
  • NANOVIA s.r.o.
  • NitroPep
  • RESPILON Group s. r. o.
  • SITA
  • Sonovia Ltd.
  • TECH LLC
  • Toray Industries
  • Tortech Nano Fibers

A taste of the future: Luminex, on of the companies listed above, makes PCR tests and stuff like magnetic micro-beads. They’ve just been bought for almost $2B by some Italians who can afford $1000+ books.

BESIDES THE DANGERS OF NANOBOTS, THIS INDUSTRY IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER AND A TOP CO2 PRODUCER

from Straight Magazine , July 20th, 2011 :

Tiny nanoparticles could be a big problem

Ian Illuminato of Friends of the Earth says consumers deserve a say in nanotech regulation. JIM THOMAS/ETC GROUP

Nanotechnology was supposed to revolutionize the world, making us healthier and producing cleaner energy. But it’s starting to look more like a nightmare.

Nanomaterials—tiny particles as little as 1/100,000 the width of a human hair—have quietly been used since the 1990s in hundreds of everyday products, everything from food to baby bottles, pills, beer cans, computer keyboards, skin creams, shampoo, and clothes.

But after years of virtually unregulated use, scientists are now starting to say the most commonly used nanoproducts could be harming our health and the environment.

One of the most widespread nanoproducts is titanium dioxide. More than 5,000 tonnes of it are produced worldwide each year for use in food, toothpaste, cosmetics, paint, and paper (as a colouring agent), in medication and vitamin capsules (as a nonmedicinal filler), and in most sunscreens (for its anti-UV properties).

In food, titanium-dioxide nanoparticles are used as a whitener and brightener in confectionary products, cheeses, and sauces. Other nanoparticles are employed in flavourings and “nutritional” additives, and to reduce fat content in “health” foods.

In the journal Cancer Research in 2009, environmental-health professor Robert Schiestl coauthored the first comprehensive study of how titanium-dioxide nanoparticles affect the genes of live animals. Mice in his study suffered DNA and chromosomal damage after drinking water with the nanoparticles for five days.

“It should be removed from food and drugs, and there’s definitely no reason for it in cosmetic products,” said cancer specialist Schiestl, who is also a professor of pathology and radiation oncology at UCLA’s school of medicine.

“The study shows effects [from the nanoparticles] on all kinds of genetic endpoints,” Schiestl told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview from his office. “All those are precursor effects of cancer. It’s a wake-up call to do something.”

After Schiestl’s study came out, he said, he started getting calls from nervous people saying they had discovered titanium dioxide was listed as a nonmedicinal ingredient in their prescription medication. “They wanted to know how to get it out,” he said. “I said, ”˜I don’t know how to get it out.’ ”

Schiestl’s study is cited by groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth in their calls for a moratorium on nanomaterials in food and consumer products.

“They were thought to be safe. Our study shows a lot of harm,” Schiestl said.

Nanoparticles can be harmful because they are so tiny they can pass deep into the skin, lungs, and blood. They are made by burning or crushing regular substances like titanium, silver, or iron until they turn into an ultrafine dust, which is used as a coating on, or ingredient in, various products.

Schiestl is now studying two other common nanoparticles, zinc oxide and cadmium oxide, and he has found they also cause DNA and chromosomal damage in mice.

Yet two years after Schiestl’s first study, titanium dioxide and other nanoparticles remain virtually unregulated in Canada and the U.S. Products containing nanoparticles still don’t have to be labelled, and manufacturers don’t have to prove they are safe for health or the environment.

In fact, only a small fraction of the hundreds of nanomaterials on the market have been studied to see if they are safe.

“The public has had little or no say on this. It’s mostly industry guiding government to make sure this material isn’t regulated,” said Ian Illuminato, a nanotech expert with Friends of the Earth, speaking from his home office in Victoria.

“Consumers aren’t given the right to avoid this. We think it’s dangerous and shouldn’t be in contact with the public and the environment,” he said.

Meanwhile, the number of products using nanomaterials worldwide has shot up sixfold in just a couple of years, from 212 in 2006 to more than 1,300 in 2011, according to a report in March by the Washington, D.C.–based Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

Those numbers are based on self-reporting by industry, and the real numbers are thought to be much higher. A Canadian government survey in 2009 found 1,600 nanoproducts available here, according to a report in December from the ETC Group, an Ottawa-based nonprofit that studies technology.

Nanotech is worth big money. More than $250 billion of nano-enabled products were produced globally in 2009, according to Lux Research, a Boston-based technology consultancy. That figure is expected to rise 10-fold, to $2.5 trillion, by 2015.

Lux Research estimated in 2006 that one-sixth of manufactured output would be based on nanotechnology by 2014.

Nanotech already appears to be affecting people’s health. In 2009, two Chinese factory workers died and another five were seriously injured in a plant that made paint containing nanoparticles.

The seven young female workers developed lung disease and rashes on their face and arms. Nanoparticles were found deep in the workers’ lungs.

“These cases arouse concern that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles without protective measures may be related to serious damage to human lungs,” wrote Chinese medical researchers in a 2009 study on the incident in the European Respiratory Journal.

When inhaled, some types of nanoparticles have been shown to act like asbestos, inflaming lung tissue and leading to cancer. In 2009, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Cancer Research declared titanium dioxide to be “possibly carcinogenic to humans” after studies found that inhaling it in nanoparticle form caused rats to develop lung cancer and mice to suffer organ damage.

Nanoparticles can also hurt the skin. All those nanoparticles in skin creams and sunscreens may be behind a rise in eczema rates in the developed world, according to a 2009 study in the journal Experimental Biology and Medicine. The study found that titanium-dioxide nanoparticles caused mice to develop eczema. The nanoparticles “can play a significant role in the initiation and/or progression of skin diseases”, the study said.

Schiestl said nanoparticles could also be helping to fuel a rise in the rates of some cancers. He wouldn’t make a link with any specific kind of cancer, but data from the U.S. National Cancer Institute show that kidney and renal-pelvis cancer rates rose 24 percent between 2000 and 2007 in the U.S., while the rates for melanoma of the skin went up 29 percent and thyroid cancer rose 54 percent.

Schiestl said workers who deal with nanoparticles could be the most affected. That concern prompted the International Union of Food, Farm, and Hotel Workers to call in 2007 for a moratorium on commercial uses of nanotechnology in food and agriculture.

But despite all the health risks, we may already have run out of time to determine many of nanotech’s health impacts, Schiestl said.

“Nanomaterial is so ubiquitous that it would be very difficult to do an epidemiological study because there would be no control group of people who don’t use it.”

What happens when nanoparticles get out into the environment in wastewater or when products are thrown out?

Nanosilver is the most common nanomaterial on the market. Its extraordinary antimicrobial properties have earned it a place in a huge variety of products, including baby pacifiers, toothpaste, condoms, clothes, and cutting boards.

Virginia Walker, a biology professor at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, decided to study nanosilver one day after a grad student said her mother had bought a new washing machine that doused clothes with silver nanoparticles to clean them better.

It sounded intriguing, Walker recalled thinking, but what would happen if nanosilver in the laundry water wound up in the environment? “What would it do to the bacterial communities out there?” she wondered.

On a whim, Walker decided to study the question. She figured the nanosilver would probably have no impact on beneficial microbes in the environment because any toxicity would be diluted.

“I did the experiment almost as a lark, not expecting to find anything,” she said by phone. “I hoped I would not find anything.”

In fact, Walker found that nanosilver was “highly toxic” to soil bacteria. It was especially toxic to one kind of nitrogen-fixing bacterium that is important to plant growth.

“If you had anything that was sensitive to nanoparticles, the last thing you would want is to have this microbe affected,” Walker said in a phone interview from her office.

The study prompted Walker to do more studies on nanoparticles. In one study now being reviewed for publication, one of her students found that mice exposed to nanoparticles developed skeletal abnormalities.

“People should have their eyes open. There are so many different nanoparticles, and the consequences of their use could be grave. We know almost nothing about these things,” Walker said.

Other scientists have raised concerns about nanosilver too. Some clothes makers now put it in socks and shirts, promising it will help control body odour. In a 2008 study in the Washington, D.C.–based journal Environmental Science and Technology, researchers took nanosilver-laced socks and washed them in water. They found the socks released up to half of their nanosilver into the water.

“If you start releasing ionic silver, it is detrimental to all aquatic biota. Once the silver ions get into the gills of fish, it’s a pretty efficient killer,” said study coauthor Troy Benn, a graduate student at Arizona State University, in a ScienceDaily.com story in 2008.

“I’ve spoken with a lot of people who don’t necessarily know what nanotechnology is, but they are out there buying products with nanoparticles in them.”

And what about the promise that nanotech could produce cleaner energy? The idea was that nanoparticles could make solar panels more efficient, be used as fuel additives to improve gas mileage, and make lighter cars and planes.

Most of the promised efficiency gains haven’t materialized, according to a 2010 report from Friends of the Earth. And it turns out that making nanomaterial is itself a huge energy guzzler.

A kilogram of carbon nanotubes—a nanoparticle used in cancer treatment and to strengthen sports equipment—requires an estimated 167 barrels of oil to produce, the Friends of the Earth report said.

Carbon nanotubes are “one of the most energy intensive materials known to humankind”, said a 2010 report to a symposium of the U.S.–based Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

That report said many nanoproducts may remain profitable despite their high energy cost only because of enormous government subsidies to the nanotech industry—$1.6 billion from the U.S. government last year.

But despite all this, regulation of nanotech remains glacially slow. The European Parliament voted nearly unanimously to recommend that nanoproducts be banned from food in 2009. But the European Commission rejected that recommendation last year, agreeing only that it may require labels on food containing nanomaterials. It will also require labels on cosmetics containing some nanoingredients starting in 2014.

Canada and the U.S. have yet to go even that far. At Health Canada, which regulates nanotechnology, a web page dealing with nanoproducts hasn’t been amended in four years and contains outdated information.

Health Canada spokesman Stéphane Shank did not return calls.

They used to say small is beautiful. But that was before small got scary. – Straight.com

NO MEANS NO, YES MEANS NO TOO

So yeah, that’s it for now, and if you think this is not enough to prove much, you can’t be more wrong, you’re probably bathing in dangerous or lethal nanotech as you read this, but feel free to return to this link in the coming days and weeks, I will be adding more evidence as I dig it out. I have about 100 leads there, it’s going to be a long process, friends!

Until then please read this:

YES, THEY CAN VACCINATE US THROUGH NASAL TEST SWABS AND TARGET THE BRAIN (BIOHACKING P.1)

and this:

Application of Nanotechnology in the COVID-19 Pandemic

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
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

GRAB IT!

by on

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

Graphene is the new asbestos. Plus injectable and mandatory.
The rest Of the graphene oxide story is here, if you need more background, this post is a result of that investigation

NOTE: A needed clarification solicited by some readers:
Yes, we knew of GRAPHENE COATING on masks in May, as seen below, which is horrible enough, even more so since not many followed Canada’s example in banning it.
What this article brings new is a confirmation for GRAPHENE OXYDE, which is not very different in properties and health impact, but seems to be specific to these mRNA jabs, and so we complete the new revelations on graphene oxide and vaccines from La Quinta Columna.

OOPS!

The World’s First Anti-Coronavirus Surgical Mask by Wakamono

By Dr. Priyom Bose, Ph.D. Sep 30 2020

Image Credit: Dragana Gordic/Shutterstock.com

In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was first detected in Wuhan, in China’s Hubei province. On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged and characterized the condition as a pandemic owing to the rapid spread of the virus across the globe infecting millions of individuals. Scientists are fighting tirelessly to find out ways to curb the spread of the virus and eradicate it.

SARS-CoV-2 is regarded as highly contagious and spreads rapidly through person-to-person contact. When an infected person sneezes or coughs, their respiratory droplets can easily infect a healthy individual. Besides enforcing social distancing, common citizens are encouraged to wear face masks to prevent droplets from getting through the air and infecting others.

Despite the efficiency of N95, a respiratory protective device, to filter out 95% of particles (≥0.3 μm), surgical facemasks are single-use, expensive, and often ill-fitting, which significantly reduces their effectiveness. Nanoscience researchers have envisioned a new respirator facemask that would be highly efficient, recyclable, customizable, reusable, and have antimicrobial and antiviral properties.

Nanotechnology in the Production of Surgical Masks

Nanoparticles are extensively used for their novel properties in various fields of science and technology.

In the current pandemic situation, scientists have adopted this technology to produce the most efficient masks. Researchers have used a novel electrospinning technology in the production of nanofiber membranes. These nanofiber membranes are designed to have various regulating properties such as fiber diameter, porosity ratio, and many other microstructural factors that could be utilized to produce high-quality face masks. Researchers in Egypt have developed face masks using nanotechnology with the help of the following components:

Polylactic acid

This transparent polymeric material is derived from starch and carbohydrate. It has high elasticity and is biodegradable. Researchers found that electrospun polylactic acid membranes possess high prospects for the production of filters efficient in the isolation of environmental pollutants, such as atmospheric aerosol and submicron particulates dispersed in the air.

Despite its various biomedical applications (implant prostheses, catheters, tissue scaffolds, etc.), these polylactic membranes are brittle. Therefore, applying frequent pressure during their usage could produce cracks that would make them permeable to viral particles. However, this mechanical drawback can be fixed using other supportive nanoparticles that could impart mechanical strength, antimicrobial and antiviral properties, which are important in making face masks effective in the current pandemic situation.

Copper oxide nanoparticles

These nanoparticles have many biomedical applications, for example, infection control, as they can inhibit the growth of microorganisms (fungi, bacteria) and viruses. It has also been reported that SARS-CoV-2 has lower stability on the metallic copper surface than other materials, such as plastic or stainless steel. Therefore, the integration of copper oxide nanoparticles in a nanofibrous polymeric filtration system would significantly prevent microbial adherence onto the membrane.  

Graphene oxide nanoparticles

These nanoparticles possess exceptional properties, such as high toughness, superior electrical conductivity, biocompatibility, and antiviral and antibacterial activity. Such nanoparticles could be utilized in the production of masks.

Cellulose acetate

This is a semi-synthetic polymer derived from cellulose. It is used in ultrafiltration because of its biocompatibility, high selectivity, and low cost. It is also used in protective clothing, tissue engineering, and nanocomposite applications.

With the help of the aforesaid components, researchers in Egypt have designed a novel respirator filter mask against SARS-CoV-2. This mask is based on a disposable filter piece composed of the unwoven nanofibers comprising multilayers of a) copper oxide nanoparticles, graphene oxide nanoparticles, and polylactic acid, or b) copper oxide nanoparticles, graphene oxide nanoparticles, and cellulose acetate, with the help of electrospun technology and high-power ultrasonication. These facemasks are reusable, i.e., washable in water and could be sterilized using an ultraviolet lamp (λ = 250 nm).

SOURCE
WORKING TO GET CONFIRMATION FROM THESE GUYS TOO
SOURCE

Graphene-coated face masks: COVID-19 miracle or another health risk?

by C. Michael White, The Conversation

mask
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

As a COVID-19 and medical device researcher, I understand the importance of face masks to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. So I am intrigued that some mask manufacturers have begun adding graphene coatings to their face masks to inactivate the virus. Many viruses, fungi and bacteria are incapacitated by graphene in laboratory studies, including feline coronavirus.

Because SARS CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, can survive on the outer surface of a face mask for days, people who touch the mask and then rub their eyes, nose, or mouth may risk getting COVID-19. So these manufacturers seem to be reasoning that graphene coatings on their reusable and disposable face masks will add some anti-virus protection. But in March, the Quebec provincial government removed these masks from schools and daycare centers after Health Canada, Canada’s national public health agency, warned that inhaling the graphene could lead to asbestos-like lung damage.

Is this move warranted by the facts, or an over-reaction? To answer that question, it can help to know more about what graphene is, how it kills microbes, including the SARS-COV-2 virus, and what scientists know so far about the potential health impacts of breathing in graphene.

How does graphene damage viruses, bacteria and human cells?

Graphene is a thin but strong and conductive two-dimensional sheet of carbon atoms. There are three ways that it can help prevent the spread of microbes:

  • Microscopic graphene particles have sharp edges that mechanically damage viruses and cells as they pass by them.
  • Graphene is negatively charged with highly mobile electrons that electrostaticly trap and inactivate some viruses and cells.
  • Graphene causes cells to generate oxygen free radicals that can damage them and impairs their cellular metabolism.
Dr Joe Schwarcz explains why Canada banned graphene masks. Doesn’t say why other countries didn’t. When two governments have opposing views on a poison, one is criminally wrong and someone has to pay.

Why graphene may be linked to lung injury

Researchers have been studying the potential negative impacts of inhaling microscopic graphene on mammals. In one 2016 experiment, mice with graphene placed in their lungs experienced localized lung tissue damage, inflammation, formation of granulomas (where the body tries to wall off the graphene), and persistent lung injury, similar to what occurs when humans inhale asbestos. A different study from 2013 found that when human cells were bound to graphene, the cells were damaged.

In order to mimic human lungs, scientists have developed biological models designed to simulate the impact of high concentration aerosolized graphene—graphene in the form of a fine spray or suspension in air—on industrial workers. One such study published in March 2020 found that a lifetime of industrial exposure to graphene induced inflammation and weakened the simulated lungs’ protective barrier.

It’s important to note that these models are not perfect options for studying the dramatically lower levels of graphene inhaled from a face mask, but researchers have used them in the past to learn more about these sorts of exposures. A study from 2016 found that a small portion of aerosolized graphene nanoparticles could move down a simulated mouth and nose passages and penetrate into the lungs. A 2018 study found that brief exposure to a lower amount of aerosolized graphene did not notably damage lung cells in a model.

From my perspective as a researcher, this trio of findings suggest that a little bit of graphene in the lungs is likely OK, but a lot is dangerous.

Although it might seem obvious to compare inhaling graphene to the well-known harms of breathing in asbestos, the two substances behave differently in one key way. The body’s natural system for disposing of foreign particles cannot remove asbestos, which is why long-term exposure to asbestos can lead to the cancer mesothelioma. But in studies using mouse models to measure the impact of high dose lung exposure to graphene, the body’s natural disposal system does remove the graphene, although it occurs very slowly over 30 to 90 days.

The findings of these studies shed light on the possible health impacts of breathing in microscopic graphene in either small or large doses. However, these models don’t reflect the full complexity of human experiences. So the strength of the evidence about either the benefit of wearing a graphene mask, or the harm of inhaling microscopic graphene as a result of wearing it, is very weak.

No obvious benefit but theoretical risk

Graphene is an intriguing scientific advance that may speed up the demise of COVID-19 virus particles on a face mask. In exchange for this unknown level of added protection, there is a theoretical risk that breathing through a graphene-coated mask will liberate graphene particles that make it through the other filter layers on the mask and penetrate into the lung. If inhaled, the body may not remove these particles rapidly enough to prevent lung damage.

The health department in Quebec is erring on the side of caution. Children are at very low risk of COVID-19 mortality or hospitalization, although they may infect others, so the theoretical risk from graphene exposure is too great. However, adults at high immediate risk of harm from contracting COVID-19 may choose to accept a small theoretical risk of long-term lung damage from graphene in exchange for these potential benefits.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
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

GRAB IT!

by on

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

It’s a bit too late, but you can start freaking out

SHARE THIS MEME
ORDER THE BOOK
Credits for the video mentioned there go to Tim Truth.

Initially I didn’t pay much attention to these reports because first ones were pretty vague and seemed unsubstantiated. They kind of were.
But then they started to become more and more detailed, coherent and very specific. My own research on #biohacking started to intersect more often, to the point where today they almost coincide.

Video by Tim Truth

To better understand where I’m coming from, your journey needs to start here:

Yes, they CAN vaccinate us through nasal test swabs AND target the brain (Biohacking P.1)

and here:

OBAMA, DARPA, GSK AND ROCKEFELLER’S $4.5B B.R.A.I.N. INITIATIVE – BETTER SIT WHEN YOU READ

After you read these, it’s much easier to dive into these new findings:

SOURCE
SOURCE
“cross the blood-brain barrier” as in “ Yes, they CAN vaccinate us through nasal test swabs AND target the brain“

Did Yuval Harari say “a second artificial immune system”?

Profusa, Inc. Awarded $7.5M DARPA Grant to Develop Tissue-integrated Biosensors for Continuous Monitoring of Multiple Body Chemistries

NEWS PROVIDED BY Profusa, Inc. 

Jul 12, 2016, 08:30 ET

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., July 12, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Profusa, Inc., a leading developer of tissue-integrated biosensors, today announced that it was awarded a $7.5 million dollar grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the U.S. Army Research Office (ARO) to develop implantable biosensors for the simultaneous, continuous monitoring of multiple body chemistries. Aimed at providing real-time monitoring of a combat soldier’s health status to improve mission efficiency, the award supports further development of the company’s biosensor technology for real-time detection of the body’s chemical constituents. DARPA and ARO are agencies of the U.S. Department of Defense focused on the developing emerging technologies for use by the military.

SOURCE

“Profusa’s vision is to replace a point-in-time chemistry panel that measures multiple bio­markers, such as oxygen, glucose, lactate, urea, and ions with a biosensor that provides a continuous stream of wireless data,” said Ben Hwang, Ph.D., Profusa’s chairman and chief executive officer. “DARPA’s mission is to make pivotal investments in breakthrough tech­nologies for national security. We are gratified to be awarded this grant to accelerate the development of our novel tissue-integrating sensors for application to soldier health and peak performance.”

Tissue-integrating Biosensors for Multiple Biomarkers
Supported by DARPA, ARO and the National Institutes of Health, Profusa’s technology and unique bioengineering approach overcomes the largest hurdle in long-term use of biosensors in the body: the foreign body response. Placed just under the skin with a specially designed injector, each tiny biosensor is a flexible fiber, 2 mm-to-5 mm long and 200-500 microns in dia­meter. Rather than being isolated from the body, Profusa’s biosensors work fully integrated within the body’s tissue — without any metal device or electronics — overcoming the effects of the foreign body response for more than one year.

Each biosensor is comprised of a bioengineered “smart hydrogel” (similar to contact lens mater­ial) forming a porous, tissue-integrating scaffold that induces capillary and cellular in-growth from surrounding tissue. A unique property of the smart gel is its ability to luminesce upon exposure to light in proportion to the concentration of a chemical such as oxygen, glucose or other biomarker.

“Long-lasting, implantable biosensors that provide continuous measurement of multiple body chemistries will enable monitoring of a soldier’s metabolic and dehydration status, ion panels, blood gases, and other key physiological biomarkers,” said Natalie Wisniewski, Ph.D., the principal investigator leading the grant work and Profusa’s co-founder and chief technology officer. “Our ongoing program with DARPA builds on Profusa’s tissue-integrating sensor that overcomes the foreign body response and serves as a technology platform for the detection of multiple analytes.”

Lumee Oxygen Sensing System™
Profusa’s first medical product, the Lumee Oxygen Sensing System, is a single-biomarker sensor designed to measure oxygen. In contrast to blood oxygen reported by other devices, the system incorporates the only technology that can monitor local tissue oxygen. When applied to the treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD), it prompts the clinician to provide therapeutic action to ensure tissue oxygen levels persist throughout the treatment and healing process.

Pending CE Mark, the Lumee system is slated to be available in Europe in 2016 for use by vascular surgeons, wound-healing specialists and other licensed healthcare providers who may benefit in monitoring local tissue oxygen. PAD affects 202 million people worldwide, 27 million of whom live in Europe and North America, with an annual economic burden of more than $74 billion in the U.S. alone.

Profusa, Inc.
Profusa, Inc., based in South San Francisco, Calif., is leading the development of novel tissue-integrated sensors that empowers an individual with the ability to monitor their unique body chemistry in unprecedented ways to transform the management of personal health and disease. Overcoming the body’s response to foreign material for long-term use, its technology promises to be the foundational platform of real-time biochemical detection through the development of tiny bioengineered sensors that become one with the body to detect and continuously transmit actionable, medical-grade data for personal and medical use. See http://www.profusa.com for more information.

The research is based upon work supported by DARPA, the Biological Technologies Office (BTO), and ARO grant [W911NF-16-1-0341]. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of DARPA, BTO, the ARO, or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation thereon.

SOURCE Profusa, Inc.

Related Links

http://www.profusa.com

SOURCE
SOURCE
SOURCE

I SAVED THE BEST FOR LAST

SOURCE
and then you wonder why…

So I can’t say with 100% certainty that what DARPA did and what people found are one and the same thing, but this hits close enough, if this is possible, that is possible, and altogether give 200% x reasons to freak out.

I will keep adding resources and details here, but my point is made.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
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

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

by on

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

War is peace and truth is fake news in Covidiocray.
I hear there are many more “fact-checks” on this, published by other presstitutes, that all seem copied from the same press-release or something…

First off: a New Scientist short article, as old as 2008, in verbatim copy, to take the bacteria debate out of the way

Bacteria were the real killers in 1918 flu pandemic

HEALTH 4 August 2008

By Ewen Callaway

New Scientist Default Image
(Image: US National Museum of Health and Medicine)

Medical and scientific experts now agree that bacteria, not influenza viruses, were the greatest cause of death during the 1918 flu pandemic.

Government efforts to gird for the next influenza pandemic – bird flu or otherwise – ought to take notice and stock up on antibiotics, says John Brundage, a medical microbiologist at the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center in Silver Spring, Maryland.

Brundage’s team culled first-hand accounts, medical records and infection patterns from 1918 and 1919. Although a nasty strain of flu virus swept around the world, bacterial pneumonia that came on the heels of mostly mild cases of flu killed the majority of the 20 to 100 million victims of the so-called Spanish flu, they conclude.

“We agree completely that bacterial pneumonia played a major role in the mortality of the 1918 pandemic,” says Anthony Fauci, director of National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease in Bethesda, Maryland, and author of another journal article out next month that comes to a similar conclusion.

Double whammy

That pneumonia causes most deaths in an influenza outbreak is well known. Late 19th century physicians recognised pneumonia as the cause of death of most flu victims. While doctors limited fatalities in other 20th-century outbreaks with antibiotics such as penicillin, which was discovered in 1928, but did not see use in patients until 1942.

This is not to say that flu viruses do nothing, says Jonathan McCullers, an expert on influenza-bacteria co-infections at St Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

McCullers’ research suggests that influenza kills cells in the respiratory tract, providing food and a home for invading bacteria. On top of this, an overstressed immune system makes it easier for the bacteria to get a foothold.

However, the sheer carnage of 1918 caused many microbiologists to reconsider the role of bacteria, and some pointed their fingers firmly at the virus.

‘Unique event’

When US government scientists resurrected the 1918 strain in 2005, the virus demolished cells grown in a Petri dish and felled mice by the dozen.

“The 1918 pandemic is considered to be – and clearly is – something unique, and it’s widely understood to be the most lethal natural event that has occurred in recent human history,” Brundage says.

But to reassess this conclusion, he and co-author Dennis Shanks, of the Australian Army Malaria Institute in Enoggera, Queensland, scoured literature and medical records from 1918 and 1919.

The more they investigated, the more bacteria emerged as the true killers, an idea now supported by most influenza experts.

For instance, had a super virus been responsible for most deaths, one might expect people to die fairly rapidly, or at least for most cases to follow a similar progression. However, Shanks and Brundage found that few people died within three days of showing symptoms, while most people lasted more than a week, some survived two – all hallmarks of pneumonia.

Local bugs

Military health records for barracks and battleships also painted a different picture. New recruits – men unlikely to have been exposed to resident bacteria – died in droves, while soldiers whose immune systems were accustomed to the local bugs survived.

And most compelling, Brundage says, medical experts of the day identified pneumonia as the cause of most deaths.

“The bottom line is we think the influenza virus itself was necessary – but not sufficient – to cause most of the deaths,” he says.

As the world’s health experts prepare for the next influenza pandemic, many have looked to 1918 as a guide, planning for a deadly super-virus.

The H5N1 bird flu strains jetting around the world seem to kill humans without the aid of bacteria, but those viruses aren’t fully adapted to humans, McCullers says. If H5N1 does adapt to humans, bacteria may play a larger role in deaths, he adds.

“Everyone is focused exclusively on the virus, and that’s probably not the best idea,” he says.

Antibiotics and vaccines against bacterial pneumonia could limit deaths in the next pandemic. And while an effective influenza vaccine should nip an outbreak in the bud, such a vaccine could take months to prepare and distribute.

“The idea of stockpiling [bacterial] vaccines and antibiotics is under serious consideration,” says Fauci, who is on a US government taskforce to prepare for the next flu pandemic.

At a recent summit on pandemic influenza, McCullers said health authorities were increasingly interested in the role bacteria might play, but there had been little action taken.

“There’s no preparation yet. They are just starting to get to the recognition stage,” he says. “There’s this collective amnesia about 1918.”

Journal reference: Emerging Infectious Disease (DOI: 10.3201/eid1408.071313)

and this is the fun part where reuters confirms everything in a desperate and hilarious debunk attempt

Ladies and gents, Facebook’s premium smear-machine aka “fact-checkers”, aka establishment’s mouth-pieces licensed to kill competition, aka world’s #1 news agency are back in the spotlight after another comical attempt against one of our reports.
The scenario is similar: they make up straw-men and give them a naive beatdown with a lot of laughable BS show off. But this one is a legendary performance that needs to become a classic reference.

I peed my pants a little from the first paragraph:

What this means is that for a week, these useless nitwits ran the debunk without even getting the incriminated study right.
Like how do they even breathe… ah, wait, they’re maskers…

After a bunch of fillers, because they’re paid by word, they land their only point and argument:

To claim the 1918-1919 flu pandemic deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia alone is inaccurate.

Reuters

I bolded “alone” because that’s how they attempt to “virus” the discussion.

No one said “alone” before them and no one made the claim they are arguing.
So no, they debunked a claim they themselves made up. Or did they?
More so, in exactly the paragraph that precedes their argument, they 200% CONFIRMED the claim that went viral:

See anyone saying “alone”?

Fauci makes it very clear in his description of the study that bacterial pneumonia was preceded by the influenza virus: “The weight of evidence we examined from both historical and modern analyses of the 1918 influenza pandemic favors a scenario in which viral damage followed by bacterial pneumonia led to the vast majority of deaths. In essence, the virus landed the first blow while bacteria delivered the knockout punch.” (here).

Reuters

That part bolded in Fauci’s quote is our claim, it proves the official narrative was BS for over a century and now we have Reuters to vouch for it. Thank you, Reuters, we couldn’t advance The Great Awakening so fast if you NPCs weren’t polar opposites to genius! 😉

And guess what, they can’t even beat their own strawman, because the flu may have started something in 1918, but bacteria ALONE delivered the knockout punch. And there would be no knockouts is it wasn’t for knockout punches, ya kno…

So, maybe to claim the 1918-1919 flu pandemic deaths were caused by bacterial pneumonia alone is NOT that inaccurate. If someone breaks your legs and someone else takes advantage later to kill you, only the latter goes to jail for homicide. And, to be honest, I could use more evidence on the lethal contribution of that first viral blow.

Children can debunk a Reuters debunk

As for the mask connection, science has not definitively demonstrated the direct causal relationship between masks and the 1918 bacterial pneumonia pandemic, but, based on the knowledge available so far, masks are generally associated with higher bacterial risk, from candida to “maskne”. So don’t tell people to look elsewhere, if you find a better culprit, first write a paper and get the Nobel you deserve. Until then, we have all the reasons to point at masks as a very likely suspect and demand much more caution. No one has even attempted that paper in quite a while because no one’s been that dumb, but we can always hope that from Reuters.

… BUT IF YOU’RE HERE MOST LIKELY YOU’RE NOT 😉

By the way, call that “anecdotal” or whatever, but my home country, Romania, has been officially birthed through a series of very large mass gatherings with no masks and no distancing, precisely during the 1918 pandemic. And I have all the reasons to think that lack of masks is what kept them safe, the pandemic being hardly noticed locally, at the time.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
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

by on

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

Never believe what we say, always research what we say.
As for CDC, if you research what they say you end up finding out they have 85% failure rates.

This is the recent CDC report, in PDF format, sourced from the CDC website.
And below is my sufficient commentary in visual form. There’s nothing else to say, the official narrative is dead and buried, at this point we’re just burning calories if we keep flogging it.

SHARE THIS MEME

PS: #stopstealingoxygen

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
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

by on

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

(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)

natural remedies 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 supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
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

by on

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.

by on

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

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 supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

by on

by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu

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 supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!