A FEW TAKE OUTS FROM THE MANY HOURS OF LECTURES AND NEWS BELOW
Giordano admits there are nanobots that can take over insects and turn them into “biodrones”. But pretty much same thing can be achieved with people, it’s just a matter of complexity.
The brain is a battlefield and the drones for it already exist.
The brain is as hackable as any cheap tablet, if not more, due to lack of protection. They can do that non-invasively, even from the satellite, as we’ve warned you the past two years.
From MK Ultra to breaking the fabric of society, neurotechnology has now almost unlimited capabilities.
Meet Dr. James Giordano, Ph.D., Chief, Neuroethics Studies Prog, Georgetown UMC
Dr. James Giordano is Chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program in the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics, and a professor in the Department of Neurology, and Graduate Liberal Studies Program at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA. He is Clark Faculty Fellow of Neurosciences and Ethics at the Human Science Center of Ludwig Maximilians Universität, Munich, Germany, where he previously was JW Fulbright Foundation Visiting Professor. Dr. Giordano is William H. and Ruth Crane Schaefer Distinguished Visiting Professor of Neuroethics at Gallaudet University, Washington, DC; is appointed to the Neuroethics, Legal, and Social Issues Advisory Panel of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and is a Fellow of the Center for National Preparedness at the University of Pittsburgh, PA.
His ongoing research focuses upon the use of advanced neurotechnologies to explore the neurobiology of pain and other neuropsychiatric spectrum disorders; the neuroscience of moral decision-making, and the neuroethical issues arising from the use of neuroscience and neurotechnology in research, clinical medicine, public life, international relations and policy, and national security and defense (for additional information, see: http://www.neurobioethics.org)
The author of over 200 peer-reviewed papers, and 7 books in neuroscience and neuroethics, Dr. Giordano is Editor-in-Chief of the journal Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine; Associate Editor for the journal Neuroethics; and Executive Editor-in-Chief of the book series Advances in Neurotechnology: Ethical, Legal and Social Issues (published by CRC Press). –
NEUROTECHNOLOGY IN NATIONAL DEFENSE – DARPA’S DR. JAMES GIORDANO @ MAD SCIENTIST CONFERENCE 2017
His following lectures are just incremental actualizations to the one before, the backbone is largely similar, but there’s some rewarding gold nuggets to be found in each of them, if you have the patience. And I’m going to complement him with some flashbacks from our own reporting.
This presentation is part of the ‘Brain Science and Effective Leadership Series,’ hosted by the Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership. Dr. Girordano is with the Georgetown University Departments of Neurology and Biochemistry, working in the Neuroethics Study Program, which is a part of the Program in Military Medical Ethics. He also is a Fellow of the Program in Biosecurity, Technology, and Ethics at the Naval War College. In this invigorating and, at points chilling, talk he discusses various potential uses of neurocognitive science in military and intelligence operations, and sketches ethical issues, and angles of analysis that will arise as both allies and adversaries develop such tools, relating them to existing laws of war and conventions.
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
This damning op ed just came out on the most prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) and shocked a lot of people. But, as I’ll show you, there’s been even more shocking and more based research out there pointing the same direction ages ago, and it’s been largely overlooked. So maybe it’s time to stop the awe and start going after the blind sentinels we’re paying to safeguard our body of knowledge that keeps us alive.
Oh my, oh my! How do these academic fucktards (don’t excuse my accuracy) expect anything “evidence-based” to fare in a post-truth world where men are pregnant and virus isolation is done “in cultures”?! I mean, evidence was an endangered species on Planet Science even before woke science and the macarenavirus… What can the price of evidence be in an economy where “a patient cured is a customer lost”?! How do they discover hot water in 2022 and expect to maintain a prestige?!
Whatever the answers may be, we can use this and the references I’ll add after to awaken any NPC that still exhibits signs of intelligent life trapped inside:
Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia, argue these authors
The advent of evidence based medicine was a paradigm shift intended to provide a solid scientific foundation for medicine. The validity of this new paradigm, however, depends on reliable data from clinical trials, most of which are conducted by the pharmaceutical industry and reported in the names of senior academics. The release into the public domain of previously confidential pharmaceutical industry documents has given the medical community valuable insight into the degree to which industry sponsored clinical trials are misrepresented.1234 Until this problem is corrected, evidence based medicine will remain an illusion.
The philosophy of critical rationalism, advanced by the philosopher Karl Popper, famously advocated for the integrity of science and its role in an open, democratic society. A science of real integrity would be one in which practitioners are careful not to cling to cherished hypotheses and take seriously the outcome of the most stringent experiments.5 This ideal is, however, threatened by corporations, in which financial interests trump the common good. Medicine is largely dominated by a small number of very large pharmaceutical companies that compete for market share, but are effectively united in their efforts to expanding that market. The short term stimulus to biomedical research because of privatisation has been celebrated by free market champions, but the unintended, long term consequences for medicine have been severe. Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results, fails to report adverse events, and does not share raw data with the academic research community. Patients die because of the adverse impact of commercial interests on the research agenda, universities, and regulators.
The pharmaceutical industry’s responsibility to its shareholders means that priority must be given to their hierarchical power structures, product loyalty, and public relations propaganda over scientific integrity. Although universities have always been elite institutions prone to influence through endowments, they have long laid claim to being guardians of truth and the moral conscience of society. But in the face of inadequate government funding, they have adopted a neo-liberal market approach, actively seeking pharmaceutical funding on commercial terms. As a result, university departments become instruments of industry: through company control of the research agenda and ghostwriting of medical journal articles and continuing medical education, academics become agents for the promotion of commercial products.6 When scandals involving industry-academe partnership are exposed in the mainstream media, trust in academic institutions is weakened and the vision of an open society is betrayed.
The corporate university also compromises the concept of academic leadership. Deans who reached their leadership positions by virtue of distinguished contributions to their disciplines have in places been replaced with fundraisers and academic managers, who are forced to demonstrate their profitability or show how they can attract corporate sponsors. In medicine, those who succeed in academia are likely to be key opinion leaders (KOLs in marketing parlance), whose careers can be advanced through the opportunities provided by industry. Potential KOLs are selected based on a complex array of profiling activities carried out by companies, for example, physicians are selected based on their influence on prescribing habits of other physicians.7 KOLs are sought out by industry for this influence and for the prestige that their university affiliation brings to the branding of the company’s products. As well paid members of pharmaceutical advisory boards and speakers’ bureaus, KOLs present results of industry trials at medical conferences and in continuing medical education. Instead of acting as independent, disinterested scientists and critically evaluating a drug’s performance, they become what marketing executives refer to as “product champions.”
Ironically, industry sponsored KOLs appear to enjoy many of the advantages of academic freedom, supported as they are by their universities, the industry, and journal editors for expressing their views, even when those views are incongruent with the real evidence. While universities fail to correct misrepresentations of the science from such collaborations, critics of industry face rejections from journals, legal threats, and the potential destruction of their careers.8 This uneven playing field is exactly what concerned Popper when he wrote about suppression and control of the means of science communication.9 The preservation of institutions designed to further scientific objectivity and impartiality (i.e., public laboratories, independent scientific periodicals and congresses) is entirely at the mercy of political and commercial power; vested interest will always override the rationality of evidence.10
Regulators receive funding from industry and use industry funded and performed trials to approve drugs, without in most cases seeing the raw data. What confidence do we have in a system in which drug companies are permitted to “mark their own homework” rather than having their products tested by independent experts as part of a public regulatory system? Unconcerned governments and captured regulators are unlikely to initiate necessary change to remove research from industry altogether and clean up publishing models that depend on reprint revenue, advertising, and sponsorship revenue.
Our proposals for reforms include: liberation of regulators from drug company funding; taxation imposed on pharmaceutical companies to allow public funding of independent trials; and, perhaps most importantly, anonymised individual patient level trial data posted, along with study protocols, on suitably accessible websites so that third parties, self-nominated or commissioned by health technology agencies, could rigorously evaluate the methodology and trial results. With the necessary changes to trial consent forms, participants could require trialists to make the data freely available. The open and transparent publication of data are in keeping with our moral obligation to trial participants—real people who have been involved in risky treatment and have a right to expect that the results of their participation will be used in keeping with principles of scientific rigour. Industry concerns about privacy and intellectual property rights should not hold sway.
Footnotes
Competing interests: McHenry and Jureidini are joint authors of The Illusion of Evidence-Based Medicine: Exposing the Crisis of Credibility in Clinical Research (Adelaide: Wakefield Press, 2020). Both authors have been remunerated by Los Angeles law firm, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei and Goldman for a fraction of the work they have done in analysing and critiquing GlaxoSmithKline’s paroxetine Study 329 and Forest Laboratories citalopram Study CIT-MD-18. They have no other competing interests to declare.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned, externally peer reviewed
Landefeld CS. Narrative review: the promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Ann Intern Med2006;145:284-93. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-4-200608150-00008 pmid:16908919CrossRef PubMed Web of Science Google Scholar
Topol EJ. Risk of cardiovascular events associated with selective COX-2 inhibitors. JAMA2001;286:954-9. doi:10.1001/jama.286.8.954. pmid:11509060 CrossRef PubMed Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Mansfield P. Clinical trials and drug promotion: Selective reporting of Study 329. Int J Risk Saf Med2008;20:73-81doi:10.3233/JRS-2008-0426. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
↵Schafer A. Biomedical conflicts of interest: A defense of the sequestration thesis—Learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2004;30:8-24.
Howick J. Exploring the asymmetrical relationship between the power of finance bias and evidence. Perspect Biol Med2019;62:159-87. doi:10.1353/pbm.2019.0009 pmid:31031303 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
As you can see, their references range mostly from classical to old. Experienced tinfoil hats must already be yawning by now, but they’re not the primary target for this piece.
Here are some really good comments on this from Bret Weinstein:
Now let me provide some more reading recommendations along this line.
“Twisted together like the snake and the staff, doctors and drug companies have become entangled in a web of interactions as controversial as they are ubiquitous (box). As national drug bills rise at rates that vastly exceed those of inflation (fig 1), this entanglement and the subsequent flows of money and influence are attracting increasing public and academic scrutiny.
Studies from several countries show that 80-95% of doctors regularly see drug company representatives despite evidence that their information is overly positive and prescribing habits are less appropriate as a result.1 2 Many doctors receive multiple gifts from drug companies every year, and most doctors deny their influence despite considerable evidence to the contrary.3 Industry interactions correlate with doctors’ preferences for new products that hold no demonstrated advantage over existing ones, a decrease in the prescribing of generics, and a rise in both prescription expenditures and irrational and incautious prescribing, according to a recent analysis of the ethics of gift giving.4 The number of gifts that doctors receive correlates with beliefs that drug representatives have no impact on prescribing behaviour.3
Accepting meals and expenses for travel or accommodation for sponsored educational meetings is common despite evidence that this is associated with an increase in formulary requests for and prescribing of the sponsor’s drug.2 3 Most doctors attend company sponsored events providing continuing medical education, 2 yet evidence shows that these preferentially high-light the sponsor’s drug.3 Many professional societies rely heavily on industry sponsorship, …”
Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs
Over the past 35 years, patients have suffered from a largely hidden epidemic of side effects from drugs that usually have few offsetting benefits. The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created. Since 1906, heavy commercial influence has compromised Congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs. The authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug companies into the FDA’s prime clients, deepening the regulatory and cultural capture of the agency. Industry has demanded shorter average review times and, with less time to thoroughly review evidence, increased hospitalizations and deaths have resulted. Meeting the needs of the drug companies has taken priority over meeting the needs of patients. Unless this corruption of regulatory intent is reversed, the situation will continue to deteriorate. We offer practical suggestions including: separating the funding of clinical trials from their conduct, analysis, and publication: independent FDA leadership; full public funding for all FDA activities; measures to discourage R&D on drugs with few if any new clinical benefits; and the creation of a National Drug Safety Board.
Most scientists ‘can’t replicate studies by their peers’
Image caption,Scientists attempting to repeat findings reported in five landmark cancer studies confirmed only two
Science is facing a “reproducibility crisis” where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, research suggests.
This is frustrating clinicians and drug developers who want solid foundations of pre-clinical research to build upon.
From his lab at the University of Virginia’s Centre for Open Science, immunologist Dr Tim Errington runs The Reproducibility Project, which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies.
“The idea here is to take a bunch of experiments and to try and do the exact same thing to see if we can get the same results.”
You could be forgiven for thinking that should be easy. Experiments are supposed to be replicable.
The authors should have done it themselves before publication, and all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions.
Sadly nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth.
After meticulous research involving painstaking attention to detail over several years (the project was launched in 2011), the team was able to confirm only two of the original studies’ findings.
Two more proved inconclusive and in the fifth, the team completely failed to replicate the result.
“It’s worrying because replication is supposed to be a hallmark of scientific integrity,” says Dr Errington.
Concern over the reliability of the results published in scientific literature has been growing for some time.
According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments.
Marcus Munafo is one of them. Now professor of biological psychology at Bristol University, he almost gave up on a career in science when, as a PhD student, he failed to reproduce a textbook study on anxiety.
“I had a crisis of confidence. I thought maybe it’s me, maybe I didn’t run my study well, maybe I’m not cut out to be a scientist.”
The problem, it turned out, was not with Marcus Munafo’s science, but with the way the scientific literature had been “tidied up” to present a much clearer, more robust outcome.
“What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what’s actually happened,” he says.
“The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results.
“What I think of as high-risk, high-return results.”
The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.
That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: “It’s about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about.”
She says it’s about the funding bodies that want to secure the biggest bang for their bucks, the peer review journals that vie to publish the most exciting breakthroughs, the institutes and universities that measure success in grants won and papers published and the ambition of the researchers themselves.
“Everyone has to take a share of the blame,” she argues. “The way the system is set up encourages less than optimal outcomes.”
Image caption,Scientific journals can play a role in helping improve the reliability of reporting
For its part, the journal Nature is taking steps to address the problem.
It’s introduced a reproducibility checklist for submitting authors, designed to improve reliability and rigour.
“Replication is something scientists should be thinking about before they write the paper,” says Ritu Dhand, the editorial director at Nature.
“It is a big problem, but it’s something the journals can’t tackle on their own. It’s going to take a multi-pronged approach involving funders, the institutes, the journals and the researchers.”
But we need to be bolder, according to the Edinburgh neuroscientist Prof Malcolm Macleod.
“The issue of replication goes to the heart of the scientific process.”
Writing in the latest edition of Nature, he outlines a new approach to animal studies that calls for independent, statistically rigorous confirmation of a paper’s central hypothesis before publication.
“Without efforts to reproduce the findings of others, we don’t know if the facts out there actually represent what’s happening in biology or not.”
Without knowing whether the published scientific literature is built on solid foundations or sand, he argues, we’re wasting both time and money.
“It could be that we would be much further forward in terms of developing new cures and treatments. It’s a regrettable situation, but I’m afraid that’s the situation we find ourselves in.”
The number of retracted scientific publications has risen sharply, but it is unclear whether this reflects an increase in publication of flawed articles or an increase in the rate at which flawed articles are withdrawn.
Methods and Findings
We examined the interval between publication and retraction for 2,047 retracted articles indexed in PubMed. Time-to-retraction (from publication of article to publication of retraction) averaged 32.91 months. Among 714 retracted articles published in or before 2002, retraction required 49.82 months; among 1,333 retracted articles published after 2002, retraction required 23.82 months (p<0.0001). This suggests that journals are retracting papers more quickly than in the past, although recent articles requiring retraction may not have been recognized yet. To test the hypothesis that time-to-retraction is shorter for articles that receive careful scrutiny, time-to-retraction was correlated with journal impact factor (IF). Time-to-retraction was significantly shorter for high-IF journals, but only ∼1% of the variance in time-to-retraction was explained by increased scrutiny. The first article retracted for plagiarism was published in 1979 and the first for duplicate publication in 1990, showing that articles are now retracted for reasons not cited in the past. The proportional impact of authors with multiple retractions was greater in 1972–1992 than in the current era (p<0.001). From 1972–1992, 46.0% of retracted papers were written by authors with a single retraction; from 1993 to 2012, 63.1% of retracted papers were written by single-retraction authors (p<0.001).
Conclusions
The increase in retracted articles appears to reflect changes in the behavior of both authors and institutions. Lower barriers to publication of flawed articles are seen in the increase in number and proportion of retractions by authors with a single retraction. Lower barriers to retraction are apparent in an increase in retraction for “new” offenses such as plagiarism and a decrease in the time-to-retraction of flawed work.
Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications
A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
The number and frequency of retracted publications are important indicators of the health of the scientific enterprise, because retracted articles represent unequivocal evidence of project failure, irrespective of the cause. Hence, retractions are worthy of rigorous and systematic study. The retraction of flawed publications corrects the scientific literature and also provides insights into the scientific process. However, the rising frequency of retractions has recently elicited concern (1, 2). Studies of selected retracted articles have suggested that error is more common than fraud as a cause of retraction (3–5) and that rates of retraction correlate with journal-impact factor (6). We undertook a comprehensive analysis of all retracted articles indexed by PubMed to ascertain the validity of the earlier findings. Retracted articles were classified according to whether the cause of retraction was documented fraud (data falsification or fabrication), suspected fraud, plagiarism, duplicate publication, error, unknown, or other reasons (e.g., journal error, authorship dispute).
“Pharmaceutical companies often manipulate the word innovation for rhetorical purposes and seldom develop clinically superior drugs, thus corrupting the R&D process. He cited studies indicating that over the past 30 years, on average fewer than 2 major clinical advances and 7-13 superior drugs were developed each year, compared with the 85-90 drugs that are developed with few or no advantages. With 113,000 deaths a year caused by adverse drug reactions just in hospitalized patients and 2.5 million serious reactions, Professor Light believes there is an epidemic of harmful side effects from drugs that often have few offsetting advantages.”
“A staggering 94% of surveyed physicians acknowledged receiving financial compensation of some form from pharmaceutical companies, ranging from small perks such as free gifts and meals to stipendiary speaking invitations and salaried positions as industry consultants.”
Some 1500 documents revealed in litigation provide unprecedented insights into how pharmaceutical companies promote drugs, including the use of vendors to produce ghostwritten manuscripts and place them into medical journals.
Dozens of ghostwritten reviews and commentaries published in medical journals and supplements were used to promote unproven benefits and downplay harms of menopausal hormone therapy (HT), and to cast raloxifene and other competing therapies in a negative light.
Specifically, the pharmaceutical company Wyeth used ghostwritten articles to mitigate the perceived risks of breast cancer associated with HT, to defend the unsupported cardiovascular “benefits” of HT, and to promote off-label, unproven uses of HT such as the prevention of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, vision problems, and wrinkles.
Given the growing evidence that ghostwriting has been used to promote HT and other highly promoted drugs, the medical profession must take steps to ensure that prescribers renounce participation in ghostwriting, and to ensure that unscrupulous relationships between industry and academia are avoided rather than courted.
Introduction
In recent litigation against Wyeth, more than 14,000 plaintiffs brought claims related to the development of breast cancer while taking the menopausal hormone therapy Prempro (conjugated equine estrogens [CEEs] and medroxyprogesterone acetate [MPA]). Some 1500 documents revealed in the litigation provide unprecedented insights into how pharmaceutical companies promote drugs, including the use of vendors to produce ghostwritten manuscripts and place them into medical journals. These documents became public when PLoS Medicine and The New York Times intervened in the litigation. Both intervenors successfully argued that ghostwriting undermines public health and that documents proving the practice should be unsealed.
In this Policy Forum article, I use these documents, which are available through PLoS at http://www.plosmedicine.org/static/ghostwriting.action or at the Drug Information Document Archive at http://dida.library.ucsf.edu/documents.jsp to show how industry uses ghostwriters to insert marketing messages into articles published in medical journals. As a paid expert witness, I had access to these documents during the litigation but I have received no payment for researching or writing this Policy Forum.
Hormone Therapy History
In 1942, Premarin (CEE) became the first FDA-approved treatment for hot flashes. Promotional efforts implied that estrogen could preserve youth and health. By the early 1970s, physicians, under the mistaken impression that menopause was an endocrine disease similar to hypothyroidism, were prescribing estrogen to millions of asymptomatic women. In 1975, an eight-fold increase in endometrial cancer was linked to estrogen use, and estrogen sales decreased [1].
After adding a progestin pill to counteract estrogen-induced endometrial cancer, hormone “replacement” therapy (HRT; now properly termed menopausal hormone therapy, or HT) became popular in the 1980s. Through the 1990s, HT was touted to prevent cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, colon cancer, tooth loss, and macular degeneration [1]. Prempro, which combined CEE and the progestin Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate), was approved in the U.S. in 1995. In 1998, the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS), a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in women with cardiovascular disease, found no benefit of HT for preventing cardiovascular events [2]. In 2002, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), a large RCT in healthy women, demonstrated conclusively that HT failed to prevent cardiovascular disease, increased the risk of breast cancer and stroke, and reduced fracture risk [3],[4]. Later analyses revealed that HT increased the risk of dementia [5] and incontinence [6].
Today, despite definitive scientific data to the contrary, many gynecologists still believe that the benefits of HT outweigh the risks in asymptomatic women [1],[7]–[8]. This non-evidence–based perception may be the result of decades of carefully orchestrated corporate influence on medical literature.
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
I didn’t mean for this website to go as basic as this, quite the opposite, but apparently there’s still a huge need for basic stuff for basic people. And we can’t really advance much without covering the basics properly.
Not much else to add, besides our motto: “Don’t believe what we say, research what we say!”
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
“Pfizer Inc. deepened its commitment to the genetic approach to disease underpinning its Covid-19 vaccine on Monday, striking deals that will give access to three smaller companies’ technology in the area.”
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
You can get your third booster today, legally you’re still filed unvaxxed two more weeks. In this interval they can roll a new booster and downgrade you back to unvaxxed. Whatever happens to you in the months between these boosters goes in the unvaccinated statistics. And if they keep the pace, you can have an unlimited number of shots without ever officially appearing in vaccinated stats and files. It’s a perfect crime, but only as long as it’s not investigated. Now consider all the random deaths falsely labeled as covid deaths in 2020-2021, and flu and pneumonia almost disappearing. These are two years of vital health statistics rendered useless. And that impacts all the larger studies that include these years. Imagine you started a five years study in 2016-2019 in which flu stats are paramount. Buh-bye study!
Medicine has been fatally compromised and we have to start a new one almost from scratch.
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
Imagine that the brutal experiments at Auschwitz were better concealed and the prisoners were drugged and brainwashed to believe that’s the best world out there for them. Then find out that the management has never stopped winning, expanding and perfecting their business model, up to today’s Great Reset.
Founded in Binghamton, New York, in 1901, Ansco was a manufacturer of photographic products and film. Ansco was originally founded through the merger of E. Anthony & Company and Scovill Manufacturing. In 1928, Ansco merged with Agfa to form Agfa-Ansco. The new corporation was a division of General Aniline and Film (GAF) Corporation, which was controlled by the German chemical cartel IG Farben. After Germany declared war on the United States in 1941, the United States Government seized the assets of GAF, including Agfa-Ansco. In 1943, the company removed “Agfa” from its name, once again becoming Ansco. The United States Justice Department oversaw Ansco’s operation until 1965, when government-held stock in GAF was sold to the public. In 1977, GAF eliminated its line of consumer photography products, including those manufactured by Ansco at the Binghamton facility. GAF also sold the Ansco trademark to Haking Enterprises. GAF continued to manufacture film at the Binghamton plant for industrial and medical use until 1981, when it sold the plant to Anitec Image Corporation. Over the next two decades, the former Ansco facility was sold several times, and in 2000, it was demolished.
Prior to the late 1970s, dozens of asbestos-containing materials were utilized in the construction and maintenance of buildings at Ansco’s Binghamton facility, including fireproof insulation, pipe covering and insulating cement. Inhaling dust from the application and removal of asbestos-containing materials placed workers at risk for developing an asbestos-related disease, such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
Fireproof insulation was applied to structural steel during the construction of buildings at Ansco. Fireproofing materials were manufactured as a dry mixture of asbestos, linen and cement, packaged in fifty-pound paper bags. The dry mixture was mixed with water and sprayed onto the structural steel using a hose. Pouring, mixing and spraying fireproof insulation created clouds of asbestos-containing dust. After the fireproofing material was applied, it was typical for tradesmen, such as electricians or pipefitters, to scrape the fireproofing material from structural steel in order to install pipes and conduits. When the fireproof insulation was disturbed, asbestos fibers and dust became airborne.
Workers applied asbestos-containing pipe covering to pipes at the Binghamton Ansco facility. Pipe covering was applied to numerous piping systems in order to maintain stable internal temperatures and to protect pipes from damage. When pipe covering was applied, asbestos fibers were emitted. Insulating cement was also applied to pumps, valves and other equipment. It was manufactured as a powder and mixed with water to prepare it for application. Mixing insulating cement caused asbestos-containing dust to become airborne.
What’s Bayer been up to lately? We find out from their website:
The Bio Revolution is redefining innovation in the life sciences. How this might be a game changer.
The life sciences have made great advances in the past years. Biology, life sciences and the megatrend of digitization are growing closer together, enabling new inventions that impact our daily lives in a scope that we speak of a Bio Revolution. This revolution is reinforced by rapid increases in computing power and the emergence of new capabilities in AI, automation, and data analytics. These trends are further accelerating the pace of innovation and the potential for higher R&D productivity in the life sciences.
All this has led to new ways to understand and explore biology. The range of life forms on earth is incredibly complex and diverse. However, the methods to analyze them can be remarkably similar. Technologies and methods are transcending disciplinary boundaries even faster.
The implications across the life sciences can be enormous:
For human health, for example, a deeper understanding of the relationship between genetics and disease has led to the emergence of precision medicine, which can potentially be more effective than the one-size-fits-all therapies of the past. In the future, new technologies could help the healthcare industry not only treat, but cure or even prevent diseases. New gene and cell therapies, for example, aim to cure genetic diseases, potentially enabling sustainable organ replacement or reversing autoimmune diseases.
The Bio Revolution has the potential to help address some of the most critical global challenges, from climate change to pandemics, chronic diseases, and worldwide food security. Experts estimate that a significant portion of the economic impact of biological applications will be in health care, agriculture, and consumer products.3 Already today, the Bio Revolution with its convergence of science and technology has created an explosion of research projects in science and business. Each year, the amount of Intellectual Property related to the Bio Revolution is increasing.4 This can be seen, for example, by the number of patents in CrispR or plant biotech. In short: the revolution is gaining momentum and holds a great promise for health and food alike.
Total number of CRISPR patent applications worldwide per year from 1984 to 2018.
Fueled by digitalization, growing connectivity, and falling costs, important advances in biotechnology are intertwined with more systemic shift in how bio-innovation is undertaken and who is involved. Microbiome technologies, advanced genomics, gene editing and synthetic biology are among key enabling technologies that have the potential to change the face of bio-innovation. This broader redefinition of bio-innovation creates new prospects to help address important nutrition, environmental and development needs.
World Economic Forum, Bio-Innovation Dialogue Initiative
As a leading life science company, Bayer is aligned with the long-term market trends in health and nutrition and offers innovative and sustainable solutions to tackle some of the key challenges for humanity. Bayer brings to the table an extensive knowledge of human and plant science, supported by its expertise in regulatory processes and an impressive global footprint to ultimately bring innovations from labs to market. https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/EYE1gya7XiM?autoplay=1&start=0&rel=0
The Bio Revolution marks the beginning of a new era: Innovations enabled by the convergence of biology and technology have the potential to significantly improve our lives, our nutrition, and our health.
Did you know that Bayer is at the forefront of the wave of innovation coming from the Bio Revolution?
The Bio Revolution is expected to transform healthcare and agriculture over the next decades – but the revolution is already happening now. With its newly established cell and gene therapy platform in Pharmaceuticals and innovative gene-editing tools such as CRISPR, Bayer operates at the core of the Bio Revolution and has tremendous opportunities to improve health and nutrition.
In Pharma, Bayer’s new Cell & Gene Therapy (CGT) platform steers our strategy in the area and orchestrates our activities along the value chain providing an innovation ecosystem for the companies – including BlueRock Therapeutics and Asklepios BioPharmaceutical (AskBio), which are fully owned by Bayer but operate autonomously. These therapies hold the potential to significantly impact patients’ lives by moving from treating symptoms to potentially curative approaches.
Bayer’s development portfolio of cell and gene therapies already comprises eight advanced assets in different stages of clinical development. These are applicable in multiple therapeutic areas with high unmet need, such as neurodegenerative, neuromuscular and cardiovascular indications, with programs in Pompe disease, Parkinson’s disease, hemophilia A, and congestive heart failure. With over 15 preclinical assets in the cell and gene therapy field, the pipeline is expected to grow steadily year by year.
Yet Bayer is not only using biotechnology to advance health – the promise for agriculture is just as inspiring. In the Crop Science Division, for example, tools like CRISPR can make changes to plant DNA with more precision than ever before and make plants more weather- or disease-resistant, enabling farmers to grow more or better-quality products under changing conditions.
Advancing genetic solutions for a sustainable future (1)PreviousNext
Did you know that Leaps by Bayer invests into potentially disruptive technologies to tackle some of the largest, unsolved challenges in the life sciences?
With Leaps by Bayer – our impact investment approach utilizing venture capital – we are constantly scanning for additional potential breakthroughs that hold promise to either cure or treat people from diseases or help feed a growing population with less impact on the environment.
$1 Billion
Since 2015, Leaps by Bayer has invested over $1 billion in ventures that tackle fundamental breakthroughs and shift core paradigms in our industries.
Leaps by Bayer has an investment focus on potentially disruptive solutions in the fields of healthcare and agriculture. The Leaps investment approach is remarkable: It aims to invest into or build up new innovative companies. Bayer supports those companies by enabling the exchange of proprietary assets, which can include sharing own patents or providing access to the Bayer network’s technical capabilities and 150 years of expertise. The companies remain autonomous with respect to decision making, while Leaps facilitates and supports them in a so-called active incubation process. Experienced team members actively engage in the young companies’ development by providing resources and helping them to steer the initial strategic direction. Today, the investment portfolio includes more than 35 companies advancing potential breakthrough technologies.
Leaps is our way of thinking big.
Werner Baumann, CEO of Bayer AG
Many Leaps ventures have made significant progress towards unlocking the potential of new technology platforms with a promising and transformative potential. BlueRock Therapeutics, for example, started as a Leaps investment and is now an integral part of Bayer’s CGT platform and just received clearance to proceed with a phase I trial in Parkinson’s disease.
Other companies, like the biopharmaceutical player Triumvira, are specialized on next generation immuno-oncology treatments. Triumvira focuses on novel T-cell therapies that aim to be safer and more efficacious than current cell therapy cancer treatments. Treating, curing and preventing cancer is one of the focus areas of Leaps by Bayer, since this group of diseases still represents one of today’s biggest health challenges with limited curative or preventative therapies available.
We face a huge disease burden, and the way we produce food isn’t sustainable for the planet. I believe the Bio Revolution can help us overcome these issues.
Jürgen Eckhardt, Head of Leaps by Bayer
Leaps is also investing in the development of sustainable biotechnological solutions in the field of agriculture. One of the ventures in this field is Joyn Bio, a company that aims to significantly reduce the environmental impact of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers through a technology that fixes nitrogen into the soil. Nitrogen is one of the most important nutrients essential for every plant to grow, however, its use and production as a fertilizer is estimated to contribute 3-5% to all global greenhouse gas emissions. Joyn Bio is working on an engineered microbe that enables cereal crops like corn, wheat, and rice to convert nitrogen from the air into a form they can use to grow. This technology may have the potential to help farmers use nitrogen in new ways, and as a result, reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint.
The Leaps by Bayer investment portfolio includes more than 35 companies.
At least that’s what Bayer says. All I know is that they’re still running the show.
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
We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button! We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness. Get it here!
This article is as old as 2010, but no one has ever heard of any actual progress on these issues since, so it’s as good as fresh off the press. It originally appeared with a different title, as seen below. Christopher Lane, Ph.D., has won a Prescrire Prize for Medical Writing and teaches at Northwestern University. He is the author of Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness. – S.m
Ghostwriting and Medical Fraud
Can any medical research studies be trusted?
Banner at the March for Science 2017, Washington, D.C. Photo: becker1999 @ Flickr
“Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong,” writes David H. Freedman in November’s Atlantic Monthly. “So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice?”
Freedman’s hard-hitting article, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science,” concentrates on the work and findings of Dr. John Ioannidis, a medical professor in Greece who has “spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.” Far from being dismissed as a maverick or crank, Dr. Ioannidis is highly sought after. “His work has been widely accepted by the medical community,” Freedman writes. “It has been published in the field’s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences.” One of his articles for PLoS Medicine, on bias in clinical trials, is the most downloaded in the journal’s history.
The real shock of Dr. Ioannidis’ work? He charges that “as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed.”
The Greek professor’s underlying goal, the Atlantic reports, is to shed an uncompromising spotlight on just how often—and how much—drug companies have been “manipulating published research to make their drugs look good.” This issue was, you may recall, the subject of my last post, following news that the Public Library of Science (PLoS) and New York Times had successfully lobbied for the release of 1,500 documents that the drug-maker Wyeth commissioned to boost its spotty product, Prempro. Prempro, a Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), has been shown to increase women’s risk of breast cancer, stroke, and dementia. Beyond that, the journal and newspaper discovered that Wyeth not only had fabricated evidence about its treatment, but also had paid a ghostwriting agency to create and plant vast amounts of that “evidence” on the drug-maker’s behalf. (The documents are freely available here.)
To the evidence uncovered by the Atlantic, Guardian, New York Times, and PLoS, we can also add GlaxoSmithKline’s highly incriminating document CASPPER, short for “Case Study Publications for Peer Review,” which the drug-maker seems to have chosen as the name of its shell company because it brought to mind the cartoon ghost Casper, as in “CASPPER, the friendly ghost-writing agency.”
A confidential brochure published by GSK’s Philadelphia office and circulated “for consultant use only,” CASPPER makes clear that the drug maker’s “PAXIL Product Management” team had “budgeted for 50 articles in 2000″ (p. 11). That was the year, incidentally, the corporation spent more than $92 million on an ad campaign to promote social anxiety disorder, following the medical truism that one must first sell the disease before pitching the product advertised as treating it. Among other things, the CASPPER brochure indicates a strong preoccupation with devising and planting favorable articles about Paxil, the first of the SSRI antidepressants to be given an FDA license for the treatment of social anxiety disorder (March 1999). Other confidential documents that colleagues have sent me indicate that GSK internally was concerned about 1-in-5 patients reporting significant side effects from Paxil within weeks of starting treatment on it in their clinical trials.
According to the Associated Press, which covered this scandal when it broke last year, GlaxoSmithKline “used [the] sophisticated ghostwriting program to promote its antidepressant Paxil, allowing doctors to take credit for medical journal articles mainly written by company consultants.” “Manuscript preparation can be a time-consuming task,” the company recognizes in its brochure, while “CASPPER coordinates these responsibilities for contributing physicians” (p. 8).
Working with professors and researchers with names in the field, even to the point of mimicking their personal styles, CASPPER committed to crafting positive-sounding data in such a way that the professor would be willing to add his or her name to the fabricated article. After dogged effort targeting and revising for journals, the shell company would then be responsible for placing said article in prominent publications.
According to Policy and Medicine, “Articles from the company’s [ghostwriting] program [did indeed] appear in five journals between 2000 and 2002, including the American Journal of Psychiatryand the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.”
In the case of Wyeth and GlaxoSmithKline, who’ve been caught red-handed with their ghostwriting agencies, the fabrication of medical evidence amounts to widespread, certifiable fraud. A spokeswoman for Glaxo’s London office even is on record as saying, “The published articles noted any assistance to the main authors,” which is supposed to sound reassuring, I guess, though readers of the American Journal of Psychiatry expecting good data clearly wouldn’t have known the extent of the drug company’s involvement in crafting more or less the entire article. The same spokeswoman is quoted as adding that the ghostwriting program “was not heavily used and was discontinued a number of years ago.”
So we can all breathe a sigh of relief that medical fraud is over, right? Wrong. For starters, there’s Wyeth’s 1,500-document ghostwritten archive, which the drug company has been required to make available to the public. The Wyeth Ghostwriting Archive constitutes an example of medical fraud on a massive scale.
According to the Guardian, moreover, DesignWrite, the medical communications company that Wyeth hired, “boasts that over 12 years they have planned, created, and/or managed hundreds of advisory boards, a thousand abstracts and posters, 500 clinical papers, over 10,000 speakers’ bureau programmes, over 200 satellite symposia, 60 international programmes, dozens of websites, and a broad array of ancillary printed and electronic materials.”
And what about seemingly milder infractions and distortions of evidence?
“Wasn’t it possible,” Dr. Ioannidis is reported as asking his colleagues in the Atlantic article, “that drug companies were carefully selecting the topics of their studies—for example, comparing their new drugs against those already known to be inferior to others on the market—so that they were ahead of the game even before the data juggling began? Maybe sometimes it’s the questions that are biased, not the answers.”
“Though the results of drug studies often make newspaper headlines,” concludes Freedman at the Atlantic, “you have to wonder whether they prove anything at all. Indeed, given the breadth of the potential problems raised at the meeting, can any medical-research studies be trusted?”
It’s a bleak and troubling question, and in his last post for “Mad in America,” his excellent PT blog, Robert Whitaker came last week to the same conclusion:
“Research in this country is financed by pharmaceutical firms that can’t be trusted to conduct honest science.”
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!
“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
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Choose a fragrance-free laundry soap – Fragrances can irritate your skin — skip the fabric softener, too.
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.
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.
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
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
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 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 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 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
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!
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!
Fueled by digitalization, growing connectivity, and falling costs, important advances in biotechnology are intertwined with more systemic shift in how bio-innovation is undertaken and who is involved. Microbiome technologies, advanced genomics, gene editing and synthetic biology are among key enabling technologies that have the potential to change the face of bio-innovation. This broader redefinition of bio-innovation creates new prospects to help address important nutrition, environmental and development needs.
SILVIEW.media 