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?
“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.”
“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.
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.
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.
natvral r3medies TO DEAL WITH MASKNE
Indian skin expert Nirmala Shetty says for Times of India, that “preferably masks made with cotton material should be used. Wash them daily with soap and a few drops of tea tree oil.” She also shares a few tips to treat skin issues at home… Acne buster
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.
“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.
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.
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.
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
… in less than four years? Must be some breakthrough science again, maybe viruses are getting fat like Brits, or maybe they invented invisible masks now, right? No. Politics and media narratives changed. Nature works the same, masks are as lame as they ever were when it comes to virus protection. See for yourself and you will understand why this article is not up anymore.
When did they embraced dogma, yesterday or today? Why?
Below is the full, unedited article, in all its beauty. Probably the most valuable part is the references collection, as well as this little announcement hanged by the Oral Health collective at the end of the piece, just to trash it a bit later for no actual reason:
Oral Health welcomes this original article.
Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review
October 18, 2016 by John Hardie, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC
Yesterday’s Scientific Dogma is Today’s Discarded Fable
Introduction The above quotation is ascribed to Justice Archie Campbell author of Canada’s SARS Commission Final Report. 1It is a stark reminder that scientific knowledge is constantly changing as new discoveries contradict established beliefs. For at least three decades a face mask has been deemed an essential component of the personal protective equipment worn by dental personnel. A current article, “Face Mask Performance: Are You Protected” gives the impression that masks are capable of providing an acceptable level of protection from airborne pathogens. 2Studies of recent diseases such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the Ebola Crisis combined with those of seasonal influenza and drug resistant tuberculosis have promoted a better understanding of how respiratory diseases are transmitted. Concurrently, with this appreciation, there have been a number of clinical investigations into the efficacy of protective devices such as face masks. This article will describe how the findings of such studies lead to a rethinking of the benefits of wearing a mask during the practice of dentistry. It will begin by describing new concepts relating to infection control especially personal protective equipment (PPE).
Trends in Infection Control For the past three decades there has been minimal opposition to what have become seemingly established and accepted infection control recommendations. In 2009, infection control specialist Dr. D. Diekema questioned the validity of these by asking what actual, front-line hospital-based infection control experiences were available to such authoritative organization as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 3In the same year, while commenting on guidelines for face masks, Dr. M. Rupp of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America noted that some of the practices relating to infection control that have been in place for decades, ”haven’t been subjected to the same strenuous investigation that, for instance, a new medicine might be subjected.” 4He opined that perhaps it is the relative cheapness and apparent safety of face masks that has prevented them from undergoing the extensive studies that should be required for any quality improvement device. 4More recently, Dr. R. MacIntyre, a prolific investigator of face masks, has forcefully stated that the historical reliance on theoretical assumptions for recommending PPEs should be replaced by rigorously acquired clinical data. 5She noted that most studies on face masks have been based on laboratory simulated tests which quite simply have limited clinical applicability as they cannot account for such human factors as compliance, coughing and talking. 5
Covering the nose and mouth for infection control started in the early 1900s when the German physician Carl Flugge discovered that exhaled droplets could transmit tuberculosis. 4The science regarding the aerosol transmission of infectious diseases has, for years, been based on what is now appreciated to be “very outmoded research and an overly simplistic interpretation of the data.” 6Modern studies are employing sensitive instruments and interpretative techniques to better understand the size and distribution of potentially infectious aerosol particles. 6Such knowledge is paramount to appreciating the limitations of face masks. Nevertheless, it is the historical understanding of droplet and airborne transmission that has driven the longstanding and continuing tradition of mask wearing among health professionals. In 2014, the nursing profession was implored to “stop using practice interventions that are based on tradition” but instead adopt protocols that are based on critical evaluations of the available evidence. 7
A December 2015 article in the National Post seems to ascribe to Dr. Gardam, Director of Infection Prevention and Control, Toronto University Health Network the quote, “I need to choose which stupid, arbitrary infection control rules I’m going to push.” 8In a communication with the author, Dr. Gardam explained that this was not a personal belief but that it did reflect the views of some infection control practitioners. In her 2014 article, “Germs and the Pseudoscience of Quality Improvement”, Dr. K Sibert, an anaesthetist with an interest in infection control, is of the opinion that many infection control rules are indeed arbitrary, not justified by the available evidence or subjected to controlled follow-up studies, but are devised, often under pressure, to give the appearance of doing something. 9
The above illustrate the developing concerns that many infection control measures have been adopted with minimal supporting evidence. To address this fault, the authors of a 2007 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) article eloquently argue that all safety and quality improvement recommendations must be subjected to the same rigorous testing as would any new clinical intervention. 10Dr. R. MacIntyre, a proponent of this trend in infection control, has used her research findings to boldly state that, “it would not seem justifiable to ask healthcare workers to wear surgical masks.” 4To understand this conclusion it is necessary to appreciate the current concepts relating to airborne transmissions.
Airborne Transmissions Early studies of airborne transmissions were hampered by the fact that the investigators were not able to detect small particles (less than 5 microns) near an infectious person. 6Thus, they assumed that it was the exposure of the face, eyes and nose to large particles (greater than 5 microns) or “droplets” that transmitted the respiratory condition to a person in close proximity to the host. 6This became known as “droplet infection”, and 5 microns or greater became established as the size of large particles and the traditional belief that such particles could, in theory, be trapped by a face mask. 5The early researchers concluded that since only large particles were detected near an infectious person any small particles would be transmitted via air currents, dispersed over long distances, remain infective over time and might be inhaled by persons who never had any close contact with the host. 11This became known as “airborne transmission” against which a face mask would be of little use. 5
Through the use of highly sensitive instruments it is now appreciated that the aerosols transmitted from the respiratory tract due to coughing, sneezing, talking, exhalation and certain medical and dental procedures produce respiratory particles that range from the very small (less than 5 microns) to the very large (greater than a 100 microns) and that all of these particles are capable of being inhaled by persons close to the source. 6, 11 This means that respiratory aerosols potentially contain bacteria averaging in size from 1-10 microns and viruses ranging in size from 0.004 to 0.1 microns. 12It is also acknowledged that upon their emission large “droplets” will undergo evaporation producing a concentration of readily inhalable small particles surrounding the aerosol source. 6
The historical terms “droplet infection” and “airborne transmission” defined the routes of infection based on particle size. Current knowledge suggests that these are redundant descriptions since aerosols contain a wide distribution of particle sizes and that they ought to be replaced by the term, “aerosol transmissible.” 4, 5 Aerosol transmission has been defined as “person –to – person transmission of pathogens through air by means of inhalation of infectious particles.” 26In addition, it is appreciated that the physics associated with the production of the aerosols imparts energy to microbial suspensions facilitating their inhalation. 11
Traditionally face masks have been recommended to protect the mouth and nose from the “droplet” route of infection, presumably because they will prevent the inhalation of relatively large particles. 11Their efficacy must be re-examined in light of the fact that aerosols contain particles many times smaller than 5 microns. Prior to this examination, it is pertinent to review the defence mechanism of the respiratory tract.
Respiratory System Defences Comprehensive details on the defence mechanisms of the respiratory tract will not be discussed. Instead readers are reminded that; coughing, sneezing, nasal hairs, respiratory tract cilia, mucous producing lining cells and the phagocytic activity of alveolar macrophages provide protection against inhaled foreign bodies including fungi, bacteria and viruses. 13Indeed, the pathogen laden aerosols produced by everyday talking and eating would have the potential to cause significant disease if it were not for these effective respiratory tract defences.
These defences contradict the recently published belief that dentally produced aerosols, “enter unprotected bronchioles and alveoli.” 2A pertinent demonstration of the respiratory tract’s ability to resist disease is the finding that- compared to controls- dentists had significantly elevated levels of antibodies to influenza A and B and the respiratory syncytial virus. 14Thus, while dentists had greater than normal exposure to these aerosol transmissible pathogens, their potential to cause disease was resisted by respiratory immunologic responses. Interestingly, the wearing of masks and eye glasses did not lessen the production of antibodies, thus reducing their significance as personal protective barriers. 14Another example of the effectiveness of respiratory defences is that although exposed to more aerosol transmissible pathogens than the general population, Tokyo dentists have a significantly lower risk of dying from pneumonia and bronchitis. 15The ability of a face mask to prevent the infectious risk potentially inherent in sprays of blood and saliva reaching the wearers mouth and nose is questionable since, before the advent of mask use, dentists were no more likely to die of infectious diseases than the general population. 16
The respiratory tract has efficient defence mechanisms. Unless face masks have the ability to either enhance or lessen the need for such natural defences, their use as protection against airborne pathogens must be questioned.
Face Masks History: Cloth or cotton gauze masks have been used since the late 19th century to protect sterile fields from spit and mucous generated by the wearer. 5,17,18 A secondary function was to protect the mouth and nose of the wearer from the sprays and splashes of blood and body fluids created during surgery. 17As noted above, in the early 20th century masks were used to trap infectious “droplets” expelled by the wearer thus possibly reducing disease transmission to others. 18Since the mid-20th century until to-day, face masks have been increasingly used for entirely the opposite function: that is to prevent the wearer from inhaling respiratory pathogens. 5,20,21 Indeed, most current dental infection control recommendations insist that a face mask be worn, “as a key component of personal protection against airborne pathogens”. 2
Literature reviews have confirmed that wearing a mask during surgery has no impact whatsoever on wound infection rates during clean surgery. 22,23,24,25,26 A recent 2014 report states categorically that no clinical trials have ever shown that wearing a mask prevents contamination of surgical sites. 26With their original purpose being highly questionable it should be no surprise that the ability of face masks to act as respiratory protective devices is now the subject of intense scrutiny. 27Appreciating the reasons for this, requires an understanding of the structure, fit and filtering capacity of face masks.
Structure and Fit: Disposable face masks usually consist of three to four layers of flat non-woven mats of fine fibres separated by one or two polypropylene barrier layers which act as filters capable of trapping material greater than 1 micron in diameter. 18,24,28 Masks are placed over the nose and mouth and secured by straps usually placed behind the head and neck. 21No matter how well a mask conforms to the shape of a person’s face, it is not designed to create an air tight seal around the face. Masks will always fit fairly loosely with considerable gaps along the cheeks, around the bridge of the nose and along the bottom edge of the mask below the chin. 21These gaps do not provide adequate protection as they permit the passage of air and aerosols when the wearer inhales. 11,17 It is important to appreciate that if masks contained filters capable of trapping viruses, the peripheral gaps around the masks would continue to permit the inhalation of unfiltered air and aerosols. 11
Filtering Capacity: The filters in masks do not act as sieves by trapping particles greater than a specific size while allowing smaller particles to pass through. 18Instead the dynamics of aerosolized particles and their molecular attraction to filter fibres are such that at a certain range of sizes both large and small particles will penetrate through a face mask. 18Accordingly, it should be no surprise that a study of eight brands of face masks found that they did not filter out 20-100% of particles varying in size from 0.1 to 4.0 microns. 21Another investigation showed penetration ranges from 5-100% when masks were challenged with relatively large 1.0 micron particles. 29A further study found that masks were incapable of filtering out 80-85% of particles varying in size from 0.3 to 2.0 microns. 30A 2008 investigation identified the poor filtering performance of dental masks. 27It should be concluded from these and similar studies that the filter material of face masks does not retain or filter out viruses or other submicron particles. 11,31 When this understanding is combined with the poor fit of masks, it is readily appreciated that neither the filter performance nor the facial fit characteristics of face masks qualify them as being devices which protect against respiratory infections. 27Despite this determination the performance of masks against certain criteria has been used to justify their effectiveness.2 Accordingly, it is appropriate to review the limitations of these performance standards.
Performance Standards: Face masks are not subject to any regulations. 11The USA Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies face masks as Class II devices. To obtain the necessary approval to sell masks all that a manufacturer need do is satisfy the FDA that any new device is substantially the same as any mask currently available for sale. 21As ironically noted by the Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC, “There is no specific requirement to prove that the existing masks are effective and there is no standard test or set of data required supporting the assertion of equivalence. Nor does the FDA conduct or sponsor testing of surgical masks.” 21Although the FDA recommends two filter efficiency tests; particulate filtration efficiency (PFE) and bacterial filtration efficiency (BFE) it does not stipulate a minimum level of filter performance for these tests. 27The PFE test is a basis for comparing the efficiency of face masks when exposed to aerosol particle sizes between 0.1 and 5.0 microns. The test does not assess the effectiveness of a mask in preventing the ingress of potentially harmful particles nor can it be used to characterize the protective nature of a mask. 32The BFE test is a measure of a mask’s ability to provide protection from large particles expelled by the wearer. It does not provide an assessment of a mask’s ability to protect the wearer. 17Although these tests are conducted under the auspices of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) and often produce filtration efficiencies in the range of 95-98 %, they are not a measure of a masks ability to protect against respiratory pathogens. Failure to appreciate the limitations of these tests combined with a reliance on the high filtration efficiencies reported by the manufacturers has, according to Healthcare in BC, “created an environment in which health care workers think they are more protected than they actually are.” 21For dental personnel the protection sought is mainly from treatment induced aerosols.
Dental Aerosols For approximately 40 years it has been known that dental restorative and especially ultrasonic scaling procedures produce aerosols containing not only blood and saliva but potentially pathogenic organisms. 33The source of these organisms could be the oral cavities of patients and/or dental unit water lines. 34Assessing the source and pathogenicity of these organisms has proven elusive as it is extremely difficult to culture bacteria especially anaerobes and viruses from dental aerosols. 34Although there is no substantiated proof that dental aerosols are an infection control risk, it is a reasonable assumption that if pathogenic microbes are present at the treatment site they will become aerosolized and prone to inhalation by the clinician which a face mask will not prevent. As shown by the study of UK dentists, the inhalation resulted in the formation of appropriate antibodies to respiratory pathogens without overt signs and symptoms of respiratory distress. 14This occurred whether masks were or were not worn. In a 2008 article, Dr. S. Harrel, of the Baylor College of Dentistry, is of the opinion that because there is a lack of epidemiologically detectable disease from the use of ultrasonic scalers, dental aerosols appear to have a low potential for transmitting disease but should not be ignored as a risk for disease transmission. 34The most effective measures for reducing disease transmission from dental aerosols are pre-procedural rinses with mouthwashes such as chlorhexidine, large diameter high volume evacuators, and rubber dam whenever possible. 33Face masks are not useful for this purpose, and Dr. Harrel believes that dental personnel have placed too great a reliance on their efficacy. 34Perhaps this has occurred because dental regulatory agencies have failed to appreciate the increasing evidence on face mask inadequacies.
The Inadequacies Between 2004 and 2016 at least a dozen research or review articles have been published on the inadequacies of face masks. 5,6,11,17,19,20,21,25,26,27,28,31 All agree that the poor facial fit and limited filtration characteristics of face masks make them unable to prevent the wearer inhaling airborne particles. In their well-referenced 2011 article on respiratory protection for healthcare workers, Drs. Harriman and Brosseau conclude that, “facemasks will not protect against the inhalation of aerosols.” 11Following their 2015 literature review, Dr. Zhou and colleagues stated, “There is a lack of substantiated evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” 25In the same year Dr. R. MacIntyre noted that randomized controlled trials of facemasks failed to prove their efficacy. 5In August 2016 responding to a question on the protection from facemasks the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety replied:
The filter material of surgical masks does not retain or filter out submicron particles;
Surgical masks are not designed to eliminate air leakage around the edges;
Surgical masks do not protect the wearer from inhaling small particles that can remain airborne for long periods of time. 31
In 2015, Dr. Leonie Walker, Principal Researcher of the New Zealand Nurses Organization succinctly described- within a historical context – the inadequacies of facemasks, “Health care workers have long relied heavily on surgical masks to provide protection against influenza and other infections. Yet there are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness of masks for respiratory protection. The masks we use are not designed for such purposes, and when tested, they have proved to vary widely in filtration capability, allowing penetration of aerosol particles ranging from four to 90%.” 35
Face masks do not satisfy the criteria for effectiveness as described by Drs. Landefeld and Shojania in their NEJM article, “The Tension between Needing to Improve Care and Knowing How to Do It. 10The authors declare that, “…recommending or mandating the widespread adoption of interventions to improve quality or safety requires rigorous testing to determine whether, how, and where the intervention is effective…” They stress the critical nature of this concept because, “…a number of widely promulgated interventions are likely to be wholly ineffective, even if they do not harm patients.” 10A significant inadequacy of face masks is that they were mandated as an intervention based on an assumption rather than on appropriate testing.
Conclusions The primary reason for mandating the wearing of face masks is to protect dental personnel from airborne pathogens. This review has established that face masks are incapable of providing such a level of protection. Unless the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, national and provincial dental associations and regulatory agencies publically admit this fact, they will be guilty of perpetuating a myth which will be a disservice to the dental profession and its patients. It would be beneficial if, as a consequence of the review, all present infection control recommendations were subjected to the same rigorous testing as any new clinical intervention. Professional associations and governing bodies must ensure the clinical efficacy of quality improvement procedures prior to them being mandated. It is heartening to know that such a trend is gaining a momentum which might reveal the inadequacies of other long held dental infection control assumptions. Surely, the hallmark of a mature profession is one which permits new evidence to trump established beliefs. In 1910, Dr. C. Chapin, a public health pioneer, summarized this idea by stating, “We should not be ashamed to change our methods; rather, we should be ashamed not to do so.” 36Until this occurs, as this review has revealed, dentists have nothing to fear by unmasking. OH
Oral Health welcomes this original article.
References 1. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care. SARS Commission-Spring of Fear: Final Report. Available at: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ministry_reports/campbell06/campbell06.html 2. Molinari JA, Nelson P. Face Mask Performance: Are You Protected? Oral Health, March 2016. 3. Diekema D. Controversies in Hospital Infection Prevention, October, 2009. 4. Unmasking the Surgical Mask: Does It Really Work? Medpage Today, Infectious Disease, October, 2009. 5. MacIntyre CR, Chughtai AA. Facemasks for the prevention of infection in healthcare and community settings. BMJ 2015; 350:h694. 6. Brosseau LM, Jones R. Commentary: Health workers need optimal respiratory protection for Ebola. Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. September, 2014. 7. Clinical Habits Die Hard: Nursing Traditions Often Trump Evidence-Based Practice. Infection Control Today, April, 2014. 8. Landman K. Doctors, take off those dirty white coats. National Post, December 7, 2015. 9. Sibert K. Germs and the Pseudoscience of Quality Improvement. California Society of Anesthesiologists, December 8, 2014. 10. Auerbach AD, Landfeld CS, Shojania KG. The Tension between Needing to Improve Care and Knowing How to Do It. NEJM 2007; 357 (6):608-613. 11. Harriman KH, Brosseau LM. Controversy: Respiratory Protection for Healthcare Workers. April, 2011. Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/741245_print 12. Bacteria and Viruses Issues. Water Quality Association, 2016. Available at: https://www.wqa.org/Learn-About-Water/Common-Contaminants/Bacteria-Viruses 13. Lechtzin N. Defense Mechanisms of the Respiratory System. Merck Manuals, Kenilworth, USA, 2016 14. Davies KJ, Herbert AM, Westmoreland D. Bagg J. Seroepidemiological study of respiratory virus infections among dental surgeons. Br Dent J. 1994; 176(7):262-265. 15. Shimpo H, Yokoyama E, Tsurumaki K. Causes of death and life expectancies among dentists. Int Dent J 1998; 48(6):563-570. 16. Bureau of Economic Research and Statistics, Mortality of Dentists 1961-1966. JADA 1968; 76(4):831-834. 17. Respirators and Surgical Masks: A Comparison. 3 M Occupational Health and Environment Safety Division. Oct. 2009. 18. Brosseau L. N95 Respirators and Surgical Masks. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Oct. 2009. 19. Johnson DF, Druce JD, Birch C, Grayson ML. A Quantitative Assessment of the Efficacy of Surgical and N95 Masks to Filter Influenza Virus in Patients with Acute Influenza Infection. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:275-277. 20. Weber A, Willeke K, Marchloni R et al. Aerosol penetration and leakage characteristics of masks used in the health care industry. Am J Inf Cont 1993; 219(4):167-173. 21. Yassi A, Bryce E. Protecting the Faces of Health Care Workers. Occupational Health and Safety Agency for Healthcare in BC, Final Report, April 2004. 22. Bahli ZM. Does Evidence Based Medicine Support The Effectiveness Of Surgical Facemasks In Preventing Postoperative Wound Infections In Elective Surgery. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2009; 21(2)166-169. 23. Lipp A, Edwards P. Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002(1) CD002929. 24. Lipp A, Edwards P. Disposable surgical face masks: a systematic review. Can Oper Room Nurs J 2005; 23(#):20-38. 25. Zhou Cd, Sivathondan P, Handa A. Unmasking the surgeons: the evidence base behind the use of facemasks in surgery. JR Soc Med 2015; 108(6):223-228. 26. Brosseau L, Jones R. Commentary: Protecting health workers from airborne MERS-CoV- learning from SARS. Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy May 2014. 27. Oberg T, Brosseau L. Surgical mask filter and fit performance. Am J Infect Control 2008; 36:276-282. 28. Lipp A. The effectiveness of surgical face masks: what the literature shows. Nursing Times 2003; 99(39):22-30. 29. Chen CC, Lehtimaki M, Willeke K. Aerosol penetration through filtering facepieces and respirator cartridges. Am Indus Hyg Assoc J 1992; 53(9):566-574. 30. Chen CC, Willeke K. Characteristics of Face Seal Leakage in Filtering Facepieces. Am Indus Hyg Assoc J 1992; 53(9):533-539. 31. Do surgical masks protect workers? OSH Answers Fact Sheets. Canadian Centre for Occupational health and Safety. Updated August 2016. 32. Standard Test Method for Determining the Initial Efficiency of Materials Used in Medical Face Masks to Penetration by Particulates Using Latex Spheres. American Society of Testing and Materials, Active Standard ASTM F2299/F2299M. 33. Harrel SK. Airborne Spread of Disease-The Implications for Dentistry. CDA J 2004; 32(11); 901-906. 34. Harrel SK. Are Ultrasonic Aerosols an Infection Control Risk? Dimensions of Dental Hygiene 2008; 6(6):20-26. 35. Robinson L. Unmasking the evidence. New Zealand Nurses Organization. May 2015. Available at: https://nznoblog.org.nz/2015/05/15/unmasking-the-evidence 36. Chapin CV. The Sources and Modes of Transmission. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1910.
Empathy and social intelligence may have played a more important role in human evolution than any other type of intelligence or instincts. Much of what we’ve achieved in millennia has been eroded over the span of the past 2-3 decades, and especially in Covidiocracy.
Chapter One: “WE ARE HARDWIRED TO BE KIND”
“Human nature is often portrayed as selfish and power hungry, but research by Dacher Keltner finds that we are hard-wired to be kind.” – University of California
Chapter Two: “the neurons that shaped civilisation”
A neuroscientist from UC San Deigo, V.S. Ramachandran, recently spoke with the Greater Good Science Center about the relationship between empathy and mirror neurons. “the neurons that shaped civilisation”:
“For example, pretend somebody pokes my left thumb with a needle. We know that the insular cortex fires cells and we experience a painful sensation. The agony of pain is probably experienced in a region called the anterior cingulate, where there are cells that respond to pain. The next stage in pain processing, we experience the agony, the painfulness, the affective quality of pain.
It turns out these anterior cingulate neurons that respond to my thumb being poked will also fire when I watch you being poked—but only a subset of them. There are non-mirror neuron pain neurons and there are mirror neuron pain neurons.
So these [mirror] neurons are probably involved in empathy for pain. If I really and truly empathize with your pain, I need to experience it myself. That’s what the mirror neurons are doing, allowing me to empathize with your pain—saying, in effect, that person is experiencing the same agony and excruciating pain as you would if somebody were to poke you with a needle directly. That’s the basis of all empathy.”
V.S. Ramachandran, UC San Deigo neuroscientist
In an interview for a Berkeley University magazine, the scientist makes an interesting note that we must remember for further reference:
Mirror neurons enable me to see you as an intentional being, with purpose and intention. In fact, we suggested nearly a decade ago that mirror neuron dysfunction may be involved in autism. People with autism, ironically sometimes they mimic constantly what you’re doing, but it’s also true that they’re bad at imitation and they don’t have empathy, they don’t have a theory of mind, they can’t infer your intentions, they don’t engage in pretend play. In pretend play, what I do is temporarily say, “I’m going to be this superhero,” so you do role play. That requires a theory of mind. So take all the properties of mirror neurons, make a list of them, and list all the things that are going wrong in autism—there’s a very good match. Not every symptom, but many of the symptoms match beautifully. And it’s controversial: There are about seven papers claiming that it’s true, using brain imaging, and maybe one or two claiming that there’s no correlation [between mirror neurons and autism].
“The importance of the face is best understood, it is suggested, from the effects of visible facial difference in people. Their experience reflects the ways in which the face may be necessary for the interpersonal relatedness underlying such ‘sharing’ mind states as empathy. It is proposed that the face evolved as a result of several evolutionary pressures but that it is well placed to assume the role of an embodied representation of the increasingly refined inner states of mind that developed as primates became more social, and required more complex social intelligence. The consequences of various forms of facial disfigurement on interpersonal relatedness and intersubjectivity are then discussed. These narratives reveal the importance of the face in the development of the self-esteem that seems a prerequisite of being able to initiate, and enter, relationships between people. Such experiences are beyond normal experience and, as such, require an extended understanding of the other: to understand facial difference requires empathy. But, in addition, it is also suggested that empathy itself is supported by, and requires, the embodied expression and communication of emotion that the face provides.”
Another study, this time coming from Italian universities, cites:
“Prefrontal virtual perturbation may have induced a less empathic responsiveness toward the emotional faces, with significant effect on the attributional functions. The suggested interpretation of these results is supported by the fact that prefrontal area includes specific processing modules for emotional information processing, and it is able to integrate input from various sources, including motivation and representations from cognitive (such as ToM) and emotional (such as emotional expressions) networks. Thus, the role of dMPFC to empathy-related response was elucidated, with possible circular effect on both monitoring ability (cue detection) and empathy responsiveness (trait empathy).”
Now imagine being unable to recognize your own mother’s face. You may know your mother’ voice, her smell, her size, and shape, but her face means nothing to you. This is face blindness, or prosopagnosia, a disorder that may be congenital or caused by brain injury. While it can occur in many people who are not autistic, it is quite common among people with autism.
Whether you call it prosopagnosia, facial agnosia, or face blindness, the disorder may be mild (inability to remember familiar faces) or severe (inability to recognize a face as being different from an object).
According to the National Institutes for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, “Prosopagnosia is not related to memory dysfunction, memory loss, impaired vision, or learning disabilities. Prosopagnosia is thought to be the result of abnormalities, damage, or impairment in the right fusiform gyrus, a fold in the brain that appears to coordinate the neural systems that control facial perception and memory. Congenital prosopagnosia appears to run in families, which makes it likely to be the result of a genetic mutation or deletion.” (Source)
While face blindness is not a “core symptom” of autism, it is not uncommon for autistic people. In some cases, face blindness may be at the root of the apparent lack of empathy or very real difficulties with non-verbal communication. How can you read a face when you can’t distinguish a face from an object, or recognize the person speaking to you?
While face blindness may be an issue for your loved one with autism, it is easy to confuse face blindness with typical autistic symptoms. For example, many children with autism fail to respond to non-verbal cues such as smiles, frowns, or other facial “language” – even though they are able to recognize the face they are looking at. Their lack of response may relate to social communication deficits rather than to prosopagnosia.
Can they recognize the face of a favorite character on television or a photograph of a relative with no auditory clues? If so, they are recognizing a face – and most likely are not suffering from face blindness.
There is no cure for face blindness. Children with face blindness can be taught some compensatory techniques such as listening for emotional meaning or using mnemonic devices to remember names without necessarily recognizing faces. Before beginning such training, however, it’s important to distinguish face-blindness from other autistic symptoms that can have similar appearances, such as difficulties with eye contact.
Other specialists argue that autists can be empathic, and by doing so they further accentuate the strong interdependence between empathy and facial recognition:
“Autism is associated with other emotional difficulties, such as recognizing another person’s emotions. Although this trait is almost universally accepted as being part of autism, there’s little scientific evidence to back up this notion.
In 2013, we tested the ability of people with alexithymia, autism, both conditions or neither to recognize emotions from facial expressions. Again, we found that alexithymia is associated with problems in emotion recognition, but autism is not5. In a 2012 study, researchers at Goldsmiths, University of London found exactly the same results when they tested emotion recognition using voices rather than faces6.
Recognizing an emotion in a face depends in part on information from the eyes and mouth. People with autism often avoid looking into other people’s eyes, which could contribute to their difficulty detecting emotions.
But again, we wanted to know: Which is driving gaze avoidance — autism or alexithymia? We showed movies to the same four groups described above and used eye-tracking technology to determine what each person was looking at in the movie.
We found that people with autism, whether with or without alexithymia, spend less time looking at faces than do people without autism. But when individuals who have autism but not alexithymia look at faces, they scan the eyes and mouth in a pattern similar to those without autism.
By contrast, people with alexithymia, regardless of their autism status, look at faces for a typical amount of time, but show altered patterns of scanning the eyes and mouth. This altered pattern might underlie their difficulties with emotion recognition” – Scientific American
Face recognition differences may reflect processing or structural differences in the brain. For example, people with prosopagnosia may have reduced connectivity between brain regions in the face processing network.
Another idea is that face recognition ability is related to other more general cognitive abilities, like memory or visual processing. Here, though, findings are mixed. Some research supports a link between face recognition and specific abilities like visual processing. But other research has discounted this idea.
Yet another possibility is that individual differences in face recognition reflect a person’s personality or their social and emotional functioning. Interestingly, face recognition ability has been linked to measures of empathy and anxiety.
Empathy reflects a person’s ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. In 2010, researchers asked volunteers to try and remember the identity of a number of faces presented one at a time. They were later presented with the same faces mixed together with new faces and were asked to state whether each face was “old” (learnt) or “new”. The performance was measured by the number of learnt faces correctly identified as being familiar. The researchers found that those who rated themselves as high in empathy performed significantly better at a face recognition memory task than those with low empathy skills.
Research has also found that people who report significantly lower levels of general anxiety have better face recognition skills than those who are have higher anxiety.
Situational anxiety may also play a role. For example, face recognition may be impaired when an eyewitness is asked to try and identify the face of a suspect viewed in a stressful situation. Read more on hoe facial recognition impacts personality from Karen Lander, Senior Lecturer in Experimental Psychology, University of Manchester, who published a very interesting article on the topic in The Conversation.
Everything above proves how much masks are robbing from us individually, but also from the very fabric of societal cohesion. This information is not new and not fringe, actually the attack on about empathy has been going on for ages and noted by many specialists and scholars, such as Psychology Today, eg.
So the science we’ve presented here can’t be unknown to our decision-makers, it can only be wilfully ignored.
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
I still haven’t seen any evidence of a novel coronavirus being properly isolated in a lab as per Koch’s Postulate, and that’s the only official scientific homologation of a virus. But “follow the science” is what the cry, so here’s the latest in 5G science, from US’ NIH website and PubMed.
5G Technology and induction of coronavirus in skin cells
In this research, we show that 5G millimeter waves could be absorbed by dermatologic cells acting like antennas, transferred to other cells and play the main role in producing Coronaviruses in biological cells. DNA is built from charged electrons and atoms and has an inductor-like structure. This structure could be divided into linear, toroid and round inductors. Inductors interact with external electromagnetic waves, move and produce some extra waves within the cells. The shapes of these waves are similar to shapes of hexagonal and pentagonal bases of their DNA source. These waves produce some holes in liquids within the nucleus. To fill these holes, some extra hexagonal and pentagonal bases are produced. These bases could join to each other and form virus-like structures such as Coronavirus. To produce these viruses within a cell, it is necessary that the wavelength of external waves be shorter than the size of the cell. Thus 5G millimeter waves could be good candidates for applying in constructing virus-like structures such as Coronaviruses (COVID-19) within cells.
1Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. J. Nofera / Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódź, Poland (Zakład Ochrony Radiologicznej / Department of Radiological Protection).
2Politechnika Wrocławska / Wrocław University of Sciences and Technology, Wrocław, Poland (Katedra Telekomunikacji i Teleinformatyki / Department of Telecommunications and Teleinformatics).
3Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. J. Nofera / Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódź, Poland (Zakład Fizjologii Pracy i Ergonomii / Department of Work Physiology and Ergonomics).
4Centralny Instytut Ochrony Pracy – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy / Central Institute for Labor Protection – National Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland (Zakład Bioelektromagnetyzmu / Department of Bioelectromagnetism).
5Wojskowy Instytut Higieny i Epidemiologii / Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Warsaw, Poland.
6Instytut Medycyny Pracy im. prof. J. Nofera / Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódź, Poland.
There is an ongoing discussion about electromagnetic hazards in the context of the new wireless communication technology – the fifth generation (5G) standard. Concerns about safety and health hazards resulting from the influence of the electromagnetic field (EMF) emitted by the designed 5G antennas have been raised. In Poland, the level of the population’s exposure to EMF is limited to 7 V/m for frequencies above 300 MHz. This limitation results from taking into account the protective measures related not only to direct thermal hazards, but also to diversified indirect and long-term threats. Many countries have not established legal requirements in this frequency range, or they have introduced regulations based on recommendations regarding protection against direct thermal risks only (Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC). For such protection, the permissible levels of electric field intensity are 20-60 V/m (depending on the frequency). This work has been created through an interdisciplinary collaboration of engineers, biologists and doctors, who have been for many years professionally dealing with the protection of the biosphere against the negative effects of EMF. It presents the state of knowledge on the biological and health effects of the EMF emitted by mobile phone devices (including millimeter waves which are planned to be used in the 5G network). A comparison of the EU recommendations and the provisions on public protection being in force in Poland was made against this background. The results of research conducted to date on the biological effects of the EMF radiofrequency emitted by mobile telecommunication devices, operating with the frequencies up to 6 GHz, do not allow drawing any firm conclusions; however, the research evidence is strong enough for the World Health Organization to classify EMF as an environmental factor potentially carcinogenic to humans. At the moment, there is a shortage of adequate scientific data to assess the health effects of exposure to electromagnetic millimeter waves, which are planned to be used in the designed 5G devices. Nevertheless, due to the fact that there are data indicating the existence of biophysical mechanisms of the EMF influence that may lead to adverse health effects, it seems necessary to use the precautionary principle and the ALARA principle when creating environmental requirements for the construction and exploitation of the infrastructure of the planned 5G system. Med Pr. 2020;71(1):105-13.
“Higher OR*s were observed within the vaccinated versus unvaccinated group for developmental delays, asthma and ear infections. No association was found for gastrointestinal disorders in the primary analysis, but a significant relationship was detected in the third and fourth quartiles (where more vaccine doses were administered), at the 6-month cut-off in the temporal analysis, and when time permitted for a diagnosis was extended from children ⩾ 3 years of age to children ⩾ 5 years of age. Similar results have been observed in earlier studies by Mawson et al. and Delong.”. This are the results of a study published by Sage Journals only two days ago.
OR = oddis ratio = a ratio showing the strength of an association. Hiher OS = stronger association / higher prevalence / higher incidence
Using data from three medical practices in the United States with children born between November 2005 and June 2015, vaccinated children were compared to unvaccinated children during the first year of life for later incidence of developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders. The study, published May 27, 2020 by Sage Journals, is titled “Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders“ and was conducted last year by Brian S Hooker, Department of Sciences and Mathematics, Simpson University, and Neil Z Miller, Institute of Medical and Scientific Inquiry, Santa Fe, Dr Hooker is a paid scientific advisor and serves on the advisory board for Focus for Health (formerly Focus Autism). He also serves on the Board of Trustees for Children’s Health Defense (formerly World Mercury Project) and is a paid independent contractor of Children’s Health Defense as well. Dr Hooker is the father of a 22-year old male who has been diagnosed with autism and developmental delays. Mr Miller is the director of Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute and was a paid consultant to Physicians for Informed Consent.
This study employed a cohort study design with strata for medical practice, year of birth and gender. Cases were evaluated against non-cases for an association between vaccination status and the different health conditions considered. In general, with a sample size of approximately 2000 subjects, the study was designed to have a power of 80% to detect odds ratios of 1.8 (α = 0.05 and a confidence level of 0.95), but because of some more rare diagnoses, 80% power in select instances was only sufficient to detect odds ratios of 2.4 and above.
The study couldn’t analyse illnesses with low incidences because the sample was too low. That means insufficient data.
The strongest relationships observed for vaccination status were for asthma, developmental delays and ear infections (Table 4). Although the association between vaccinations and asthma in males was elevated (Table 5), it should be noted that there were only three asthma cases in the unvaccinated group. No association between vaccinations and asthma in females was found ; this may also be due to just four asthma cases in the unvaccinated group. Although some studies were unable to find correlations between vaccines and asthma, a relationship between vaccination and allergy/atopy incidence (including asthma) has been reported. In a study involving Korean children who were all vaccinated against hepatitis B, a significantly higher asthma incidence was seen among children who had actually seroconverted to produce anti-HepB.In addition, Hurwitz and Morgenstern reported an association between diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis (DTP) and tetanus toxoid vaccination and allergy symptoms and could not rule out a relationship with asthma. In an animal study, mice vaccinated according to the Chinese infant vaccine schedule showed airway hyperresponsiveness at a significantly higher rate than unvaccinated mice.
The IOM Immunization Safety Review Committee conducted an evaluation regarding thimerosal-containing vaccines and concluded that “the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines could be associated with neurodevelopment disorders” was biologically plausible. Mawson et al. found a relationship between vaccination status and learning disability and neurodevelopmental disorders. Delong also reported a significant relationship to neurodevelopmental disorders (autism and speech and language delay) when looking at the proportions of vaccine uptake in US children. Other research, focused more on the uptake of specific vaccines, has elucidated such relationships. Gallagher and Goodman saw a greater number of boys receiving special education services if they had received the entire hepatitis B vaccine series in infancy. Geier et al. also documented a link between neurodevelopmental disorders and thimerosal-containing vaccines. (Although thimerosal has been phased out of most vaccines administered in the United States, it still remains in some formulations of the influenza vaccine given to pregnant women and infants.)
Mawson et al. reported a significant relationship between vaccination status and ear infections. Wilson et al. found that for both males and females, top reasons for emergency room visits and/or hospital admissions after their 12-month vaccinations included ear infections and non-infective gastroenteritis or colitis. Prior to the RotaTeq rotavirus vaccine achieving FDA approval, 71,725 infants were evaluated in three placebo-controlled clinical trials. Otitis media (middle ear infection) occurred at a statistically higher incidence (p < 0.05) within 6 weeks of any dose among the recipients of RotaTeq as compared with the recipients of placebo.
In this study, which only allowed for the calculation of unadjusted observational associations, higher ORs were observed within the vaccinated versus unvaccinated group for developmental delays, asthma and ear infections. Further study is necessary to understand the full spectrum of health effects associated with childhood vaccination.
Also important from the conclusion note of the study: “The findings in this study must be weighed against the strengths and limitations of the available data and study design, which only allowed for the calculation of unadjusted observational associations. Additional research utilizing a larger sample from a variety of pediatric medical practices will yield greater certainty in results and allow for the investigation of health conditions with lower prevalence, such as autism. A thorough evaluation of vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations is essential to understanding the full spectrum of health effects associated with specific vaccines and the childhood vaccine schedule in totality.”
One of the main strengths of this study is that the data are based directly on patient chart records and diagnosis codes. Practitioners making these diagnoses were also directly available for consultation on how specific diagnosis codes were applied. In addition, vaccination records were based on patient chart data, although coding practices for vaccination varied among the three different pediatric practices. To account for any differences in diagnosing among the three different practices, cases and non-cases were stratified based on medical practice. Thus, no “cross comparisons” were made among two or more medical practices. To account for differences in likelihood of particular diagnoses based on the age and gender of the patient, cases and non-cases were stratified based on the year of birth and gender.
It is possible that diagnoses may have been missed or information regarding vaccines administered could have been incorrectly recorded leading to exposure misclassification, which might explain the high rates of unvaccinated children in the cohort. However, all children considered in the study were enrolled in their medical practice from birth and followed up continuously to minimum age cut-offs of 3 years and 5 years. This minimized the risk of missing vaccination doses or diagnoses associated with tracking patients with multiple practitioners. This also eliminated recall bias associated with studies focused on parental surveys. The high proportion of unvaccinated children is most likely indicative of pediatric practices which accepted unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children into their case load.
The main weakness of this study is the use of a convenience sample of three different pediatric practices. In addition, the size of the sample, although sufficient for some diagnoses, such as the five main conditions studied, was too small for analysis of conditions with lower prevalence, such as autism. Also, this sample may not accurately represent a cross-section of US children given the low incidence of autism (0.5%) and ADD/ADHD (0.7%) compared to incidences observed nationwide (at 1.7%and between 5% and 9%, respectively). In addition, vaccine uptake, which is approximately 95% nationwide, is rather low in these practices and may reflect demographic differences between the study sample and the general population. Also, due to different coding practices among the three caseloads studied, we were unable to differentiate between the types of vaccinations given. This limited the analysis to counting the number of vaccinations received by 1 year of age.
The low level of vaccine uptake overall in these practices (mean = 8.9 vaccines by 1 year of age) obviates our ability to do a comparison between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated children within this cohort. Also, the median age at first vaccine dose in the cohort was 81 days (just under 3 months) as compared to the hepatitis B vaccine that is recommended within 24 h of birth. Medical chart records did not include specific demographic factors that may be associated with health outcomes, including socioeconomic status, maternal education, gestational age at birth, Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity and Respiration (APGAR) score, type of birth and duration of breastfeeding, among others. In brief: insufficient data for laser-precision. Which doesn’t deny the main observation
Vaccination is considered to be one of the most important advances in modern public health.1 Currently, children between birth and 6 years of age receive up to 36 vaccine doses to protect against 14 different diseases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommended schedule. By ages 1 and 2 years, the CDC recommends approximately 21 and 28 such vaccination doses, respectively. The number of vaccine doses received by infants and children has increased most notably since the early 1990s, when the hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccines were introduced. Currently, children in the United States are vaccinated for hepatitis A and B, Haemophilus influenzae type B, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, rotavirus, pneumococcal pneumonia, influenza and varicella.
Although short-term clinical testing is completed on individual vaccines (with limited longer-term follow-up for specific vaccine adverse events) prior to approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the health outcomes related to these vaccines and the vaccination schedule as a whole are largely unknown. For instance, Kuter et al. detailed 23 different post-licensing trials conducted on the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR)-II vaccine and in no instance were the patients followed for more than 42 days post-vaccination. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published the report “Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality” where the relationships between specific vaccines and different adverse health effects were considered. Based on the current scientific literature, the IOM committee found inadequate evidence to accept or reject a causal relationship between 135 of 158 relationships between vaccines and adverse events. Among the remaining 23 adverse events, 18 were found to be associated with vaccination and 5 were not.
#FlattenTheLies Face Mask by Silview MASKS ARE BAD FOR YOU, USE THEM ONLY IF YOU HAVE NO BETTER ALTERNATIVE! OR AT PROTESTS. AND IF YOU DO, USE ONE THAT SENDS OUT THE RIGHT MESSAGE.
The medical community does in general acknowledge that vaccination is not without health risks, including death. However, it is widely purported that these side effects or “adverse events” are extremely rare and justified compared to the overall benefit of vaccination.7 There have been very few studies reported where health effects of the US infant and childhood vaccination schedule have been assessed. This is in part based on ethical concerns of withholding vaccination from an unvaccinated control group within such a study. Indeed, this precludes the use of double-blinded placebo studies on vaccine health effects, and even in clinical trials an earlier version of the same vaccine is often used as the placebo control for the newly tested vaccine.
One study, published by Mawson et al., was based on a convenience sample of homeschooled children where a significant portion of the sample (39%) was unvaccinated. In this small sample, vaccinated children showed higher odds of being diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and neurodevelopmental disorders. In addition, preterm birth coupled with vaccination significantly increased the odds of a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis. This study was unique in the inclusion of entirely unvaccinated populations to provide a comparison to partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated children. However, the risk of bias is high when comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. Also, health outcomes were based on parental survey, not confirmed by medical chart review, and may be subject to recall bias, and the small size of the sample (666 patients) made it difficult to analyze for rare disorders.
Between 2001 and 2004, the IOM Immunization Safety Review Committee rejected a relationship between multiple vaccinations and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) but could not rule out a relationship with other types of “sudden unexpected infant death.” This included the neonatal hepatitis B vaccine as well as the diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and whole-cell pertussis (DTwP) vaccine, which was strongly associated with anaphylaxis but is no longer given in the United States. A relationship between multiple vaccines and type 1 diabetes was ruled out, but evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a relationship with asthma. In addition, the committee rejected a relationship between multiple vaccines and increased “heterologous” infections, such as bacterial infections unrelated to vaccine-preventable diseases, although recent studies have provided evidence of both beneficial and detrimental non-specific effects associated with several vaccines. The remainder of the IOM Immunization Safety Review Committee focused on single types of vaccines and specific adverse events as recommended by the CDC who commissioned these studies.
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
According to Good Reads, author Charles Ortleb, the former Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of New York Native, is “the first publisher to devote his newspaper to the coverage of AIDS and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome details the role of Anthony Fauci in the cover-up of the truth about the relationship of the two epidemics.
While mistaken members of the media like Rachel Maddow have called Anthony Fauci “a great American,” Dr. Fauci will soon take in his place in history as the chief operator of a Ponzi scheme that has plunged the world into a dystopian medical darkness of fraud, deceit, and neglect.
This little book is an explosive chapter from The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic Cover-up Volume Two with a new afterword that explores the extensive damage Fauci’s Ponzi scheme has done to the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome community, people stigmatized with “HIV/AIDS,” and everyone suffering from the viruses that Fauci’s cover-up has been concealing from the world: the HHV-6/7/8 family of viruses. The list of the potential victims of Fauci’s Ponzi scheme includes virtually everyone. Even the health of millions of doctors and nurses has been put at risk.
These the elements of Fauci’s scientific Ponzi scheme:
1. Nosological fraud. (That’s the branch of medicine dealing with the classification of disease. It is ground zero for public health fraud.)
2. Epidemiological fraud.
3. Virological fraud.
4. Treatment fraud. (Treatments that harm more than they heal or conceal more than they reveal.)
5. Public health policy fraud.
6. Concealment of negative scientific data and paradigm-challenging anomalies.
7. Use of an elite network of “old boys” and pseudo-activist provocateurs to censor critics and whistleblowers.
8. Chronic obscurantism.
9. If necessary, vigilantism and witch-hunts against any intellectuals, scientists, or citizens who constitute any form of resistance to the Ponzi scheme.
Fauci and his puppets at NIH have created a real mess. Like Bernie Madoff, Anthony Fauci is rich, famous, and powerful as a result of his scientific Ponzi scheme. And Fauci is a clever manipulator who will continue to try and hide the nature of his scientific Ponzi scheme from the public the way Bernie Madoff hid his financial records. But luckily, this brilliant and uncompromising work of journalism will enlighten members of Congress and the media as they begin extensive investigations of the Fauci Ponzi scheme.”
Bonus: Author’s own audio podcast on the matter is still available here
I dug deep and found for you a rare and very juicy interview with Charles Ortlieb that I’m going to reproduce without any edits:
INTERVIEW WITH CHARLES ORTLEB
Is it true that you were the first publisher to take AIDS seriously in 1981? Yes. I recognized early on that it would be a huge story.
Is it true that Rolling Stone said you deserved a Pulitzer Prize for your AIDS coverage? Yes, back in the 80s.
Are these books available at Amazon in all countries? Yes.
Why do you call the AIDS epidemic Holocaust II? Because anyone who studies AIDS as I have (for 35 years) must come to the conclusion that AIDS science is very much like Nazi science and AIDS medicine is very much like Nazi medicine. The Jewish people were the primary targets of Holocaust I, but gays are the primary victims of Holocaust II. But not the only ones. The whole population is endangered by the lies of Holocaust II.
Why doesn’t the gay community realize that AIDS is Holocaust II? They have been hoodwinked into thinking the Centers for Disease Control is telling them the truth about the epidemic. The CDC’s AIDS paradigm is essential a Potemkin village. But is not just the gay community and the black community that is forced to live in that village. The whole world is. My book, The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic Cover-up details how that happened and how the fraud is being maintained. You have described AIDS/CFS science and the HHV-6 cover-up as a giant Bernie Madoff type of scientific Ponzi scheme.
What do you mean by that? A scientific Ponzi scheme begins with a central seminal or foundational scientific fraud and is sometimes built on an infrastructure of smaller scientific frauds. Like the fake dividends issued in a strictly financial Ponzi scheme, a scientific Ponzi scheme issues fake dividends in the form of ongoing fraud-based research often framed as “breakthroughs” and bogus extrapolations which make it look like everything is above board and that what, in reality, is scientific fraud, appears to the rest of the scientific community and the public as good faith progress. A classic scientific Ponzi scheme like the Fauci-Gallo-Montagnier-Agut HIV Fraud Ponzi Scheme and HHV-6 Cover-up include elements like these: 1. Nosological fraud. 2. Epidemiological fraud. 3. Virological fraud. 4. Treatment fraud. 5. Public health policy fraud. 6. Concealment of negative scientific data and paradigm-challenging anomalies. 7. Use of an elite network of “old boys” and pseudo-activist provocateurs to censor critics and whistleblowers. 8. Chronic obscurantism. 9. If necessary, vigilantism and witch-hunts against any intellectuals, scientists, or citizens who constitute any form of resistance to the Ponzi scheme. 10. A subservient scientific press that is used as a conveyor belt for the Ponzi scheme’s propaganda. Everything always looks like it is working perfectly in a scientific Ponzi scheme, until the moment comes when someone look at the books and blows the whistle. Hopefully, that game-changing moment for the HIV Fraud Ponzi scheme and HHV-6 cover-up is coming soon. When did you first start to question the CDC’s AIDS science? When I caught them lying about some test results. It is detailed in my books. But my critical thinking really took off when Peter Duesberg, a prominent scientist, found serious credibility gaps in the establishment’s HIV dogma. I write about Duesberg’s ideas in my book The Duesbergians.
What philosopher has had the biggest impact on your thinking about AIDS, or what you call Holocaust II? Hannah Arendt. I think it would have taken her about two seconds to recognize that the science of AIDS was very political and very totalitarian. It would not have surprised her that it ultimately threatens the health of the whole population. You can learn more about her influence on my thinking here.
Did Hannah Arendt inspire your new book about the politics of science called Iatrogenocide? Very much so.
How would you describe your book Iatrogenocide? The subtitle of the book is “Notes for a Political Philosophy of Epidemiology and Science.” It consists of ideas culled from notebooks I have kept over the last decade while I did a lot of reading and thinking about the political nature of science in order to try and understand how the gay and black communities were bamboozled into believing the scientific frauds that have trapped them in a biomedical gulag.
What is the moral of Iatrogenocide? That epidemiological power corrupts and absolute epidemiological power corrupts absolutely.
What other writers and thinkers have informed your thinking? Thomas Kuhn, Isaiah Berlin, Orwell, Sartre, and Camus. And many others.
Why is The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic Cover-up so controversial? A lot of powerful interests who are responsible for this mess are threatened by the real story of HHV-6, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, autism and AIDS. If enough people read my book, there will be calls for a congressional investigation into everything we’ve been told about AIDS, chronic fatigue syndrome, HHV-6, and autism. Just for starters. All kinds of class action lawsuits could be launched against the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health. Source
Youtube took down Dr. Willner’s presentation less than 2 hours after uploading it. There’s a few more mirrors on Youtube that resist. What’s their secret? They didn’t have Fauci’s name in the title. I’m struggling now to upload the material on my Bitchute channel, but these guys can take forever sometimes
UPDATE #3: Aaand the video is on my Bitchute channel to stay, on more platforms soon, suck it YouTube! Unfortunately WordPress fails to embed Bitchute videos, you have to see it there. Make an account, show some support while you’re there, that’s the alternative to the Covid World Order.
Now, do you remember the once famous Dr Robert Willner, who injected himself with HIV on live TV to prove it doesn’t cause AIDS? Well, that stunt actually distracted people from Fauci’s name more than highlighted it, despite the fact that Willner acuses him of genocide and corruption. Dr Willner (a medical doctor of 40 years experience) an outspoken whistleblower of the AIDS hoax. infront of a gathering of about 30 alternative-medicine practitioners and several journalists, Willner stuck a needle in the finger of Andres, 27, a Fort Lauderdale student who says he has tested positive for HIV. Then, wincing, the 65-year-old doctor stuck himself. In 1993, Dr. Willner stunned Spain by inoculating himself with the blood of Pedro Tocino, an HIV positive hemophiliac. This demonstration of devotion to the truth and the Hippocratic Oath he took, nearly 40 years before, was reported on the front page of every major newspaper in Spain. His appearance on Spain’s most popular television show raised a 4 to 1 response by the viewing audience in favor of his position against the “AIDS hypothesis.” When asked why he would put his life on the line to make a point, Dr. Willner replied: “I do this to put a stop to the greatest murderous fraud in medical history. By injecting myself with HIV positive blood, I am proving the point as Dr. Walter Reed did to prove the truth about yellow fever. In this way it is my hope to expose the truth about HIV in the interest of all mankind.” He tested negative multiple times. He died of a Heart attack 4 months later 15th April 1995. Many say he was murdered. I hope I’ll get to write a sequel article about this epic character and his work
We are funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way. Help SILVIEW.media deliver more, better, faster, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them
#FlattenTheLies Face Mask by Silview MASKS ARE BAD FOR YOU, USE THEM ONLY IF YOU HAVE NO BETTER ALTERNATIVE! OR AT PROTESTS. AND IF YOU DO, USE ONE THAT SENDS OUT THE RIGHT MESSAGE.