Home » Virus

Tag: Virus

Mask Wearing Has No Scientific Evidence Based Justification

Nearly three years after the start of COVID-19 in early 2020, people are still showing up in my clinic wearing single and double masks, with tremendous fear of getting an infection with COVID-19 or Influenza.  As of the end of 2022, some “so called” experts started telling people in the public to wear masks again, and patients in droves are showing up masked to their medical appointments in the last four weeks.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the existing available data about respiratory viruses including influenza and various types of coronavirus showed no evidence or justification for wearing masks to prevent the spread of infection of a respiratory virus.  The legitimate reason for use of a mask is during surgery to lend protection from blood and body fluid splatter between patient and providers or with specific types of filtration masks designed to specifically protect from certain types of bacterial infections.  

Review of the Medical Literature:

Here are key anchor points to the extensive scientific literature that establishes that wearing surgical masks and respirators (e.g., “N95”) does not reduce the risk of contracting a verified illness:

  • Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009) “Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: A randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002. N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.
  • Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review,” Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/face-masks-to-prevent-transmission-of-influenza-virus-a-systematic- review/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05. None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either health care worker or community members in households (H). See summary Tables 1 and 2 therein.
  • bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence,” Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x “There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”
  • Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” CMAJ Mar 2016 https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567 “We identified six clinical studies . . . In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”
  • Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942, https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747 “Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant.”
  • Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA. 2019; 322(9): 824–833. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749214 “Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”
  • Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1- 9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381 “A total of six RCTs involving 9,171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”

Conclusion: Masks Do Not Work

No randomized controlled (RCT) study with verified outcome shows a benefit for health care workers or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study in existence.

Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public.

If there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit.

No Evidence or Justification for Mask Wearing

Despite the news media with all their hype, all of the scientific studies done in the world up until 2020 demonstrated that there was absolutely no justification for mask wearing to prevent spread of respiratory illness including influenza and corona-viruses.  The guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also showed that there was no need for wearing masks in the general public. The practice of wearing masks did not, and to this day, have any professional justification.  

In 2020, the recommendation around the world for wearing masks suddenly changed without any new professional support to confirm their effectiveness against respiratory infection.   The vast majority of studies during the pandemic suffered from very low quality and many biases.  

Only Two High Quality Mask Studies Exist

Since the start of the pandemic only two high-quality studies have been completed, one looking at a population of over 3000 people in Denmark, and the other with over 342,000 adults completed in Bangladesh.  The study in Bangladesh found some marginal benefit for people over age 50 years old, but overall both studies show that there is no significant benefit for wearing masks to prevent infection with influenza or the corona-virus specifically.

In fact, the results of both of these studies demonstrate that the wearing of masks actually may do more harm than good.   In addition to these studies, several observational studies demonstrated that wearing a mask can cause headaches, concentration difficulty, shortness of breath, decrease in blood oxygen levels, increase in the level of carbon dioxide, bacterial contamination from the mask itself and the existence of substances suspected being carcinogenic as result of lack of regulations and the production of masks.

Wearing a mask for a prolonged period of time can become problematic because of the accumulation of carbon dioxide levels that may exceed permitted standards, might cause tiredness, blurriness, sleepiness and deficiency in judgment, as well as thinking.  

Masks Adversely Affect Social, Mental and Emotional Health

An additional issue I personally found to be a problem in my office, masks create communication difficulty with people who have impaired hearing and need to read lips is a major factor.  Additional studies demonstrated the negative effect of wearing masks on communication and especially with children’s mental and emotional development.

There are a few particular situations in which wearing masks is justified.  In the context of medical treatment when a patient with a respiratory disease is closely examined by medical staff who will be spending prolonged periods of time with that patient, and certainly in the cases of active infectious COVID-19 there is justification for wearing a mask by both the therapist and the patient. However, research still demonstrates the spread to be very low if the contact is less than three hours in length.

As a physician who has practiced medicine for over 20 years, when the patient comes to me with leg pain there is no reason for him or for me to wear a mask.  If a patient comes in with anemia, there is also no reason to wear a mask.    In the medical encounter, the relationship that exist between the doctor and the patient has great significance.  Masks interfere with that relationship and the empathy that should exist between them.  Mask wearing when none is justified creates a subconscious barrier and changes the social and emotional dynamics between the patient and doctor.  Currently, there is a directive for mask-wearing in medical, health and welfare facilities around the world in a number of countries and in a number of hospitals which actually has no scientific justification.

Untrustworthy Medical Journals and Bias

The medical profession and providers within this profession rely heavily on articles published in high-quality journals to provide evidence based guidance and direction for our decisions and actions.  However, in the last three years, bias in these publications has been very significant and misleading in these leading journals.  It has essentially made them untrustworthy.  

Because of this, doctors have passed through a kind of brainwashing by the medical establishment.  They have been receiving inaccurate, misleading and contradictory information from previously trusted sources now swayed by bias, political, governmental and monetary influence, so doctors themselves struggle to know what is right and what is not.

Perhaps most worrisome is the continued refusal to have open professional discussion, and the disdain for different positions backed by poor quality research and data not consistent with the norms of medicine and science.  This has had long-term negative consequences for the medical profession and consequences that every doctor in the world should be concerned about.

As I mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from any broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results because:

  • Any benefit from mask-wearing has only a very small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.
  • Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown and impossible to account for.
  • Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviors; see Wada (2012).
  • The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.
  • Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have fundamentally different basic responses.
  • Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.
  • Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.
  • Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.
  • Several different viruses and strains of viruses causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.

Unless you’re going in to perform surgery, please, for your health and mine, stop wearing a mask.

Urgent Open Letter from Doctors Around the World

Over the last 14 months, I’ve been face-to-face (mask-to-mask when required by the government) with over 350 positive COVID-19 patients.  Thankfully, the majority of these patients only had mild to moderate symptoms of illness. Those with severe or prolonged symptoms were aggressively treated with combinations of antibiotics, steroids, ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine.  Our office has seen the whole gambit of symptoms with this virus, but fascinatingly, control of blood sugar and insulin levels has been the key to our patient’s staying healthy and/or recovering quickly.  I’m really not worried about this virus any longer.  I’m worried about the intentional confusion of my patients, of the populous of the country and of the people around the world.

A patient showed up in my office this week with thrombocytopenia (low platelets) and profound fatigue 5 days after receiving COVID vaccination that he felt pressured to get in order to keep his job.   He is not the first to show up with these concerns.

A second patient showed up with identical low platelets and bruising over her body after a positive COVID infection lasting three weeks. Her concern was that everyone around her, including her employer, was telling her she should now be vaccinated for COVID-19.

These are two of many people presenting to medical offices like mine, after being given “medical direction” by their employers and governments without the patient or their doctors fully understanding the potential risks of these therapeutics.  And, we can’t and won’t really know what the risks are until these vaccines have been under clinical trial for at least two years.

I have some serious concerns regarding these COVID-19 vaccines.  I have been openly vocal about COVID-19, masks and vaccine use and many of these concerns in various posts on Youtube, Facebook and Instagram.  Because of this, I have been ridiculed by other physicians, “experts” and people who I thought were trustworthy friends in the field of science, now towing the vaccine line.  But, towing the line or remaining silent would to me be death by 1000 cuts.

As I have stated before, I am NOT an anti-vaxxer. I support new medical interventions which are appropriately developed and deployed, after which safety, efficacy and informed consent can be appropriately given to the patient receiving these treatment.  This support includes vaccines.

My biggest concern with the COVID-19 vaccine is that it has the largest propaganda push I’ve ever seen in the 51 years of my life, being stoked by politicians and pharmaceutical companies around the globe.  This push comes AFTER the U.S. and most countries were no longer under severe threat of being medically overwhelmed, as a majority of the population of the world had been exposed and the worse of the pandemic had abated.

Second, in light of research to the contrary, this push is now being levied upon young children, teenagers and young adults, all of whom have little to no risk of severe illness if they contract COVID-19, assuming they haven’t already been exposed to this virus in the last 14 months.  Most individuals with asymptomatic or mild symptoms generate a highly functional T-cell response.  In fact, 50% of  those who have been exposed to coronavirus formed a T cell (cellular immunity) response without activation of B cell response (humoral immunity) and had no antibody formation  (Li X, Geng M, Peng Y, Meng L, Lu S. J Pharm Anal. Apr 2020; 10(2): 102-108).  We know that those who have had or been exposed to the virus have 2-4 years of T-cell immunity.  You can learn more about effectiveness of recent vaccines, T-cell and B-cell immunity in my coronavirus posts here.

To date, other than the continuously running “ticker tape of death” on CNN and multiple other news stations around the world, no conclusive evidence was presented to any of us in the medical community that an actual emergency still existed requiring emergent authorization of three vaccines – all three vaccines have yet to complete Phase IV clinical trials.

After 14 months, COVID-19 has a 99.7% survival rate.  95% of all COVID-19 deaths have comorbid conditions associated with the severity of the infection.  And, the average age of those dying with COVID-19 is 78 years old.  This data all comes from the CDC.  Oh, by the way in case you were wondering as you read that information, the global life expectancy for the average women is 75 years old, and for men it is 70 years old.   That doesn’t leave you with any questions, does it?!

I, and many collegues in the medical community, have serious concerns that premature and reckless approval of these COVID-19 vaccines occurred AFTER the severe threat had abated.  We know that the vaccines only decrease the severity of infection, they don’t actually prevent the infection in a statistically large enough group to be curative.   The push and marketing of vaccination with three products that do not actually prevent COVID-19 infection, are not actually curative,  and to date pose greater risks of side effects than any other vaccine on the market constitute “human experimentation” on a world stage.  Additionally, pushing these products from a governmental bully pulpit is propaganda of a dispicable nature.  This push has created situations between employers and employees that violate individual liberties and are violations of the Nuremberg Code.

In February, 2021, an open letter was written to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) by many concerned physicians and scientists from around the world with these an other concerns that have yet to be answered.  Neither the EMA or the CDC has addressed any of these issues for the medical community.  You can find the letter at Doctors For COVID Ethics.

I post a copy of that letter below:

Emer Cooke, Executive Director, European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 28 February 2021

Dear Sirs/Mesdames,

FOR THE URGENT PERSONAL ATTENTION OF: EMER COOKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY

As physicians and scientists, we are supportive in principle of the use of new medical interventions which are appropriately developed and deployed, having obtained informed consent from the patient. This stance encompasses vaccines in the same way as therapeutics. We note that a wide range of side effects is being reported following vaccination of previously healthy younger individuals with the gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, there have been numerous media reports from around the world of care homes being struck by COVID-19 within days of vaccination of residents. While we recognize that these occurrences might, every one of them, have been unfortunate coincidences, we are concerned that there has been and there continues to be inadequate scrutiny of the possible causes of illness or death under these circumstances, and especially so in the absence of post-mortems examinations. In particular, we question whether cardinal issues regarding the safety of the vaccines were adequately addressed prior to their approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). As a matter of great urgency, we herewith request that the EMA provide us with responses to the following issues:

      1. Following intramuscular injection, it must be expected that the gene-based vaccines will reach the bloodstream and disseminate throughout the body [1]. We request evidence that this possibility was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
      2. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that the vaccines will remain entrapped in the circulation and be taken up by endothelial cells. There is reason to assume that this will happen particularly at sites of slow blood flow, i.e. in small vessels and capillaries [2]. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
      3. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that during expression of the vaccines’ nucleic acids, peptides derived from the spike protein will be presented via the MHC I — pathway at the luminal surface of the cells. Many healthy individuals have CD8-lymphocytes that recognize such peptides, which may be due to prior COVID infection, but also to cross-reactions with other types of Coronavirus [3; 4] [5]. We must assume that these lymphocytes will mount an attack on the respective cells. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
      4. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that endothelial damage with subsequent triggering of blood coagulation via platelet activation will ensue at countless sites throughout the body. We request evidence that this probability was excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
      5. If such evidence is not available, it must be expected that this will lead to a drop in platelet counts, appearance of D-dimers in the blood, and to myriad ischemic lesions throughout the body including in the brain, spinal cord and heart. Bleeding disorders might occur in the wake of this novel type of DIC-syndrome including, amongst other possibilities, profuse bleedings and hemorrhagic stroke. We request evidence that all these possibilities were excluded in pre-clinical animal models with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
      6. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor on platelets, which results in their activation [6]. Thrombocytopenia has been reported in severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection [7]. Thrombocytopenia has also been reported in vaccinated individuals [8]. We request evidence that the potential danger of platelet activation that would also lead to disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) was excluded with all three vaccines prior to their approval for use in humans by the EMA.
      7. The sweeping across the globe of SARS-CoV-2 created a pandemic of illness associated with many deaths. However, by the time of consideration for approval of the vaccines, the health systems of most countries were no longer under imminent threat of being overwhelmed because a growing proportion of the world had already been infected and the worst of the pandemic had already abated. Consequently, we demand conclusive evidence that an actual emergency existed at the time of the EMA granting Conditional Marketing Authorization to the manufacturers of all three vaccines, to justify their approval for use in humans by the EMA, purportedly because of such an emergency.

Should all such evidence not be available, we demand that approval for use of the gene-based vaccines be withdrawn until all the above issues have been properly addressed by the exercise of due diligence by the EMA. There are serious concerns, including but not confined to those outlined above, that the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines by the EMA was premature and reckless, and that the administration of the vaccines constituted and still does constitute “human experimentation”, which was and still is in violation of the Nuremberg Code. In view of the urgency of the situation, we request that you reply to this email within seven days and address all our concerns substantively. Should you choose not to comply with this reasonable request, we will make this letter public.

This email is copied to: Charles Michel, President of the Council of Europe Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission. Doctors and scientists can sign the open letter by emailing their name, qualifications, areas of expertise, country and any affiliations they would like to cite, to Doctors4CovidEthics@protonmail.com

      • References

[1] Hassett, K. J.; Benenato, K. E.; Jacquinet, E.; Lee, A.; Woods, A.; Yuzhakov, O.; Himansu, S.; Deterling, J.; Geilich, B. M.; Ketova, T.; Mihai, C.; Lynn, A.; McFadyen, I.; Moore, M. J.; Senn, J. J.; Stanton, M. G.; Almarsson, Ö.; Ciaramella, G. and Brito, L. A.(2019).Optimization of Lipid Nanoparticles for Intramuscular Administration of mRNA Vaccines, Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids 15 : 1–11. [2] Chen, Y. Y.; Syed, A. M.; MacMillan, P.; Rocheleau, J. V. and Chan, W. C. W.(2020). Flow Rate Affects Nanoparticle Uptake into Endothelial Cells, Advanced materials 32 : 1906274. [3] Grifoni, A.; Weiskopf, D.; Ramirez, S. I.; Mateus, J.; Dan, J. M.; Moderbacher, C. R.; Rawlings, S. A.; Sutherland, A.; Premkumar, L.; Jadi, R. S. and et al.(2020). Targets of T Cell Responses to SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus in Humans with COVID-19 Disease and Unexposed Individuals, Cell 181 : 1489–1501.e15. [4] Nelde, A.; Bilich, T.; Heitmann, J. S.; Maringer, Y.; Salih, H. R.; Roerden, M.; Lübke, M.; Bauer, J.; Rieth, J.; Wacker, M.; Peter, A.; Hörber, S.; Traenkle, B.; Kaiser, P. D.; Rothbauer, U.; Becker, M.; Junker, D.; Krause, G.; Strengert, M.; Schneiderhan-Marra, N.; Templin, M. F.; Joos, T. O.; Kowalewski, D. J.; Stos-Zweifel, V.; Fehr, M.; Rabsteyn, A.; Mirakaj, V.; Karbach, J.; Jäger, E.; Graf, M.; Gruber, L.-C.; Rachfalski, D.; Preuß, B.; Hagelstein, I.; Märklin, M.; Bakchoul, T.; Gouttefangeas, C.; Kohlbacher, O.; Klein, R.; Stevanović, S.; Rammensee, H.-G. and Walz, J. S.(2020). SARS-CoV-2-derived peptides define heterologous and COVID-19-induced T cell recognition, Nature immunology. [5] Sekine, T.; Perez-Potti, A.; Rivera-Ballesteros, O.; Strålin, K.; Gorin, J.-B.; Olsson, A.; Llewellyn-Lacey, S.; Kamal, H.; Bogdanovic, G.; Muschiol, S. and et al.(2020). Robust T Cell Immunity in Convalescent Individuals with Asymptomatic or Mild COVID-19, Cell 183 : 158–168.e14. [6] Zhang, S.; Liu, Y.; Wang, X.; Yang, L.; Li, H.; Wang, Y.; Liu, M.; Zhao, X.; Xie, Y.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Fan, Z.; Dong, J.; Yuan, Z.; Ding, Z.; Zhang, Y. and Hu, L.(2020). SARS-CoV-2 binds platelet ACE2 to enhance thrombosis in COVID-19, Journal of hematology & oncology 13 : 120. [7] Lippi, G.; Plebani, M. and Henry, B. M.(2020).Thrombocytopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections: A meta-analysis, Clin. Chim. Acta 506 : 145–148. [8] Grady, D. (2021). A Few Covid Vaccine Recipients Developed a Rare Blood Disorder, The New York Times, Feb. 8, 2021. Yours faithfully, Professsor Sucharit Bhakdi MD, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Former Chair, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Germany and Thailand) Dr Marco Chiesa MD FRCPsych, Consultant Psychiatrist and Visiting Professor, University College London (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom and Italy) Dr C Stephen Frost BSc MBChB Specialist in Diagnostic Radiology, Stockholm, Sweden (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom and Sweden) Dr Margareta Griesz-Brisson MD PhD, Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist (studied Medicine in Freiburg, Germany, speciality training for Neurology at New York University, Fellowship in Neurophysiology at Mount Sinai Medical Centre, New York City; PhD in Pharmacology with special interest in chronic low level neurotoxicology and effects of environmental factors on brain health), Medical Director, The London Neurology and Pain Clinic (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Germany and United Kingdom) Professor Martin Haditsch MD PhD, Specialist (Austria) in Hygiene and Microbiology, Specialist (Germany) in Microbiology, Virology, Epidemiology/Infectious Diseases, Specialist (Austria) in Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical Director, TravelMedCenter, Leonding, Austria, Medical Director, Labor Hannover MVZ GmbH (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Austria and Germany) Professor Stefan Hockertz, Professor of Toxicology and Pharmacologym, European registered Toxicologist, Specialist in Immunology and Immunotoxicology, CEO tpi consult GmbH. (Scientist) (Germany) Dr Lissa Johnson, BSc, BA(Media) MPsych(Clin) PhD, Clinical Psychologist and Behavioural Scientist, Expertise in the social psychology of atrocity, torture, collective violence and propaganda, former member, professional body Public Interest Advisory Group (Psychologist) (Australia) Professor Ulrike Kämmerer PhD, Associate Professor of Experimental Reproductive Immunology and Tumor Biology at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Germany, Trained molecular virologist (Diploma, PhD-Thesis) and Immunologist (Habilitation), Remains engaged in active laboratory research (Molecular Biology, Cell Biology (Scientist) (Germany) Associate Professor Michael Palmer MD, Department of Chemistry (studied Medicine and Medical Microbiology in Germany, has taught Biochemistry since 2001 in present university in Canada; focus on Pharmacology, metabolism, biological membranes, computer programming; experimental research focus on bacterial toxins and antibiotics (Daptomycin); has written a textbook on Biochemical Pharmacology, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Canada and Germany) Professor Karina Reiss PhD, Professor of Biochemistry, Christian Albrecht University of Kiel, Expertise in Cell Biology, Biochemistry (Scientist) (Germany) Professor Andreas Sönnichsen MD, Professor of General Practice and Family Medicine, Department of General Practice and Family Medicine, Center of Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna (Medical Doctor) (Austria) Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, Specialist in Pulmonary and Bronchial Internal Medicine, Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology, and Public Health; Honorary Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and former Head of the Health Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; former Member of Parliament, German Bundestag; Initiator and Spokesman for the study commission ‘Ethics and Law in Modern Medicine’; Author and University Lecturer (Medical Doctor) (Germany) Dr Michael Yeadon BSc (Joint Honours in Biochemistry and Toxicology) PhD (Pharmacology), Formerly Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer Allergy & Respiratory, Pfizer Global R&D; Co-founder & CEO, Ziarco Pharma Ltd.; Independent Consultant (Scientist) (United Kingdom)

What is Your Chance of Surviving A COVID-19 Infection?

What is the actual chance of survival if you get COVID-19 and are not treated?

< 20 years old – 99.98%
20-50 years old – 99.97%
50-70 years old – 99.5%
> 70 years old – 95%

Those numbers are even better if your are following a ketogenic or carnivorous lifestyle.

Sadly, I’ve had patients over age 70 tell me “pneumonia is an old man’s best friend.”  It is very true that pneumonia, the common cold, influenza and COVID-19 can all cause death in the older frail adult.  This is not something new, though if you listen to CNN you may think death should never occur.

But, thousands of physicians and over 200 different journal articles within the last 11 months demonstrate that if you are treated with azithromycin and either hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin plus Zinc, Vitamin D, Niacin, Vitamin C and Melatonin, you improve your risk of survival of a COVID-19 infection by an additional 10-40%.  75% of those studies demonstrated significant improvement even when hydroxychloroquine was started late.  Africa has a mortality rate (1.3 per 100,000) that is 100 percent lower than the US (120 per 100,000) because they have hydroxychloroquine available over-the-counter and many people take it “every Sunday” as preventative medication for malaria.

Mind you, these medications were never FDA approved for treatment with COVID-19.  But, we as licensed physicians have the autonomy to use medication “off-label” as long as we have discussed the risks, side-effects and expectations of these medications and you are aware that they were never FDA approved.

I have treated hundreds of patients with these combinations with great success in my clinic over the last 11 months.

Yet, in the last two weeks Fry’s Pharmacies (Kroger Pharmacies) are now refusing to dispense hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin for any COVID related virus.  Why?  Because they can make a huge profit on the Experimental COVID-19 vaccine.  Why dispense a generic medication when you can make twice the profit from a vaccine?  However, this experimental vaccine’s effectiveness is still yet to be confirmed, and probably less effective on newer strains as stated by the Surgeon General this last week (https://news.yahoo.com/us-surgeon-general-covid-19-184157789.html).

In my opinion, this is malpractice on the part of Fry’s Pharmacy and malfeasance on the part of the pharmacist.

Until they issue a public apology to you and me, I recommending you and I stop using Fry’s Pharmacy all together.  Any company that mandates the use of an Experimental Vaccine with a side effect profile experienced by up to 20% of those who receive it, and at the same time refuses to provide access to proven treatments overseen by a physician should not receive the business or the trust of the public.  If your pharmacist refused to dispense these medications with a valid prescription from your doctor, please let me know.

The pharmacists claim they won’t dispense hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin “because the FDA has not approved their use for viral infections.”  Yet, these drugs are safe enough to be over the counter in many other countries and because of the vaccine, this is all political.  Both of these drugs have been use very safely for decades with millions of people around the world for multiple disease processes.

The FDA issued it’s updated statement on the use of ivermectin.  “Ivermectin is an antiparasitic drug that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis. Ivermectin is not FDA-approved for the treatment of any viral infection. In general, the drug is well tolerated. It is currently being evaluated as a potential treatment for COVID-19.”  These drugs are considered “generally safe” for multiple disease processes used over long periods of time, and yet, the politics and finances of this issue have now become more important than your health.  Neither the FDA or the NIH has stated that these drugs are contrindicated, they just have not been approved, and because of that “they are not recommended.”

As of January 14, 2021, the NIH has stated that ” currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.”  Similar statements have been issued on hydroxychloroquine.  However, “well conducted clinical trials” will not occur for some time, as these types of studies take years to be designed, funded and put into place.  Because ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are generic drugs, there is no incentive for any pharmaceutical company to run these types of studies. The FDA will never change it’s position for this same reason.

Any physician, organization or pharmacy that places politics and finances over your health and wellbeing and tries to get between the doctor and patient should experience you and I protesting with our wallets and our feet.

Two essential things come out of this.  First, the CDC, FDA and NIH have shown us as a nation how untrustworthy they are.  Second, if you and I are not vigilant, mandates for the use of an experimental and potentially dangerous vaccine will be come the “new normal.”

I recommend you go to https://stopmedicaldiscrimination.org/ and sign the petition to prevent travel companies, airlines and other businesses from mandating this and any other experimental vaccine.  And, then tell Fry’s Pharmacy and any other pharmacist that plays politics with your health where they can put the rest of their medications.

Sources:

  1.  Kory P, et al., Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. FLCCC Alliance; Version 5; Nov 28, 2020.
  2. Rajter JC, et al. Use of Ivermectin is associated with lower mortality in hospitalized patients with corona-virus disease 2019. Chest Journal Open Access Jan 2021; 159(1): 85-92
  3. Guilherme Dias de Melo, Françoise Lazarini, Florence Larrous, Lena Feige, Lauriane Kergoat, Agnes Marchio, Pascal Pineau, Marc Lecuit, Pierre-Marie Lledo, Jean-Pierre Changeux, Herve Bourhy, Anti-COVID-19 efficacy of ivermectin in the golden hamster. bioRxiv 2020.11.21.392639
  4. Vora, Agam, et al. “White paper on Ivermectin as a potential therapy for COVID-19.” Indian Journal of Tuberculosis 67.3 (2020): 448-451.
  5. Gorial, Faiq I., et al. “Effectiveness of Ivermectin as add-on Therapy in COVID-19 Management (Pilot Trial).” medRxiv (2020).
  6. Scheim, David. “Ivermectin for COVID-19 Treatment: Clinical Response at Quasi-Threshold Doses Via Hypothesized Alleviation of CD147-Mediated Vascular Occlusion.” Available at SSRN 3636557 (2020)
  7. Rajter, Juliana Cepelowicz, et al. “ICON (Ivermectin in COvid Nineteen) study: Use of Ivermectin is Associated with Lower Mortality in Hospitalized Patients with COVID19.” medRxiv (2020). medRxiv.org
  8. Chowdhury, Abu Taiub Mohammed Mohiuddin, et al. “A comparative observational study on Ivermectin-Doxycycline and Hydroxychloroquine-Azithromycin therapy on COVID19 patients.” ResearchGate.net
  9. NIH Statement on Ivermectin:  https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/statement-on-ivermectin/
  10. FDA Statement on Ivermectin: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/faq-covid-19-and-ivermectin-intended-animals

 

Should You Be Wearing A Face Mask To Prevent Coronavirus?

Should You Wear A Mask?

Source: @jperla (Twitter)

Should you and your family members be wearing a mask to slow the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19)?   This is a hotly debated topic and one that may not soon be agreed upon by everyone.  Over the last few weeks, a number of voices are saying “Yes.”

I am, also, one of those proponents of dawning a mask.  And, that’s no April Fool’s joke.

Dr. Nally in the office

The head of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. George Gao, is also one who has been very vocal about using a mask.  “The big mistake in the US and Europe, in my opinion, is that people aren’t wearing masks. This virus is transmitted by droplets and close contact. Droplets play a very important role — you’ve got to wear a mask, because when you speak, there are always droplets coming out of your mouth.” Gao said in his interview in Science.

Because coronavirus is a droplet based infection, and not an aerosolized infection, wearing a face mask can more effectively prevent the droplets that carry the virus from escaping and infecting other people.  However, I don’t recommend using the medical grade masks. Save those for those that must have face to face contact with COVID-19 positive patients and persons with direct exposures.  For the lay person in the grocery store who must get essentials and may have brief contact, I recommend using a specially designed homemade mask.

Masks Actually Help

Recent research shows that some people infected with the COVID-19 virus who don’t have any acute symptoms can still spread the virus.  This means that the person in line with you to buy toilet paper, might just be infected and not know it.  Research also shows that even wearing a proper homemade mask can reduce silent transmissions of bacteria and viruses in these situations.

In fact, this has been the recent topic of discussion at the CDC, and the use of homemade masks were reviewed in great detail in yesterday’s Washington Post article here.

Homemade Masks Make a Dent in Viral Spread

Wearing a homemade mask has become the norm in Czechia.  The government of Czechia mandated the wearing of masks on March 18th, 2020.   Jeremy Howard of #Masks4all has collected and summarized 40 published scientific research papers that show wearing masks actually does work.  One 2011 meta-analysis shows, when coupled with strict hand washing, masks have the greatest impact on reducing virus spread.

Mr. Howard states that this action of the Czechian government has flattened the curve of the pandemic in his country.  You can read the article in Prague Morning.

What Kind of Mask Should I Wear?

So, what kind of mask should I wear?  The what, where and how of homemade masks that I am recommending to my patients can by found in my youtube video below.

YouTube player

The source for the pattern that I am wearing and recommend using can be found here:  http://tianascloset.com/index.php/2020/02/06/face-mask-against-the-coronavirus-epidemic/

How can you avoid contaminating the mask and yourself?

The main objection of the mask naysayers is that the mask itself becomes contaminated.  Carelessly using the mask and not cleaning it can become of source of viral transmission.  The benefit of a homemade mask is that it is cheap, washable and re-usable.

Here are some steps to follow to ensure that you and your family remain healthy while using a homemade mask:

  • Wash with soap and water, or sanitize your hands well, before making any mask.
  • Wash and sanitize your hands before putting the mask on.
  • When removing the mask, do not touch the front of the mask with your hands; take it off by the ties or elastics. Then wash your hands.
  • Immediately after use, do not put the mask on any surface. Put the mask into the washing machine or a sink of hot soapy water and clean well.  Some data shows that you can also bake fabric masks. However, the temperature must reach 180F° (82C°) for 20 minutes to cleans it.
  • If you have made a disposable mask out of paper towels or coffee filters, throw it out into a plastic-lined waste bin with a lid.
  • After discarding, or sanitizing the mask, sanitize your hands again.
  • Any time you are wearing a mask, do not touch the mask, your face or rub your eyes.

Wearing any mask over the next 3-4 weeks will help protect you from passing the virus on to others at greater risk.  It may also decrease your risk of someone else passing the virus on to you.

This will help reduce the number of infected people from overwhelming our healthcare system, first responders, and healthcare workers.

Check out my dedicated coronavirus page that is regularly updated for further information about this virus at https://www.docmuscles.com/coronavirus/.