Wednesday, December 2, 2020

(Updated: 08/17/22)

(Advisory: See Update to Article, The Zika Virus Scare: An Anatomy Of How Diseases Are Manufactured For Political Objectives)

The Marxist COVID-19 Operation Reveals Itself: The Next Generation's Physical and Cognitive Growth Stunted Due To Carbon Dioxide Toxicity; Children Require 137.5% - 50% More Oxygen By Body Mass Than Adults

...masks significantly reduce pulmonary parameters at rest (FVC, FEV1, PEF) and at maximum load (VE, BF, TV)... 

...

The reduction in ventilation resulted from a lower breathing frequency with corresponding changes of the inhaling and exhaling time and a reduced tidal volume. 

The above randomized cross-over study monitored the ventilation parameters of healthy adults (age 38.1 ± 6.2 years) wearing surgical masks and N95 masks, but children require greater ventilation...

Children ages 3 - 12 require between 137.5% - 50%, respectively, more oxygen by body mass than do adults, resulting in the next generation of mask wearing children experiencing (1) stunted physical growth; (2) stunted cognitive growth; and (3) multiple concurrent diseases due to the interruption of organ specialization:

[1] 

The children are going to be a lot more than immune suppressed. They’re growing children, they won’t do their bone formation properly, because breathing carbon dioxide back in and not getting enough oxygen. Oxygen runs every single metabolic reaction, so you need that when you breath out 16% you use that 4% for growing, for thinking, for doing every process in your body, digestive, respiration, that’s the whole point. We’re not plants. We don’t do photosynthesis. We need to be breathing air so not only do they not need to, but it’s going to destroy their ability to learn and think, and drive psychosis. 

…

We have millions of autistic kids and those kids with a low levels of glutathione, as I mentioned, they can die in that mask in only a few moments. You can activate dormant infections.

-- Dr. Judy A. Milkovits, biochemistry and molecular biology (10:45 minutes). 

[2]

CHILDREN ARE NOT LITTLE ADULTS

Children's Health and the Environment

WHO Training Package for the Health Sector

World Health Organization

Children have a dynamic physiology that is not only turned up to “high” because of growth demands,

but also vulnerable to damage during differentiation and maturation of organs and systems.

Their needs for energy, water and oxygen are higher, because they go through an intense anabolic

process.

…

Children breathe more air per kilogram of body weight than adults at rest, as shown here. An infant has three times the minute ventilation of an adult and a 6-year-old has double.

[3]

Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation

Breathing differences between children and adults

Breathing rates in resting adults can range from 10-15 times per minute. Some adults breathe less and some more depending on their general health and activity levels. Children’s breathing is much quicker because they have little space to exchange the oxygen and carbon dioxide in their lungs. Typical respiratory rates in babies and children are listed below. Age-specific information is not provided as the size of the child can affect respirations. This is used for general knowledge only.

Neonates: 30-60/minute

Infants: 30-40/minute

Toddlers: 20-40/minute

Young Children: 20-30/minute

Older Children: 15-20/minute

[4]

Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?

Special attention must be paid to the respiration of children, which represents a critical and vulnerable physiological variable due to higher oxygen demand, increased hypoxia susceptibility of the CNS, lower respiratory reserve, smaller airways with a stronger increase in resistance when the lumen is narrowed. The diving reflex caused by stimulating the nose and upper lip can cause respiratory arrest to bradycardia in the event of oxygen deficiency.

The masks currently used for children are exclusively adult masks manufactured in smaller geometric dimensions and had neither been specially tested nor approved for this purpose [133]."

...

Scientists from Singapore were able to demonstrate in their level Ib study published in the renowned journal “nature” that 106 children aged between 7 and 14 years who wore FFP2 masks for only 5 min showed an increase in the inspiratory and expiratory CO2 levels, indicating disturbed respiratory physiology.

However, a disturbed respiratory physiology in children can have long-term disease-relevant consequences.

All Age Groups

[5]

Keeping healthy people isolated from one other simply isn’t necessary. Multiple medical authorities, including the World Health Organization, the CDC, the New England Journal of Medicine, have now all acknowledged that there is no scientific justification for normal healthy people to be wearing masks. In fact, prolonged mask-wearing actually increases the risk of disease to the wearer. People tend to touch their faces much more often when they’re wearing a mask. In addition, we end up rebreathing particles that our lungs have exhaled – whether it’s pollen, dust, virus or bacteria particles – they’re trapped in the mask, and on the very next inhale, we breath them back in. Lastly, many people are wearing masks other than surgical or medical masks, and many of them are not porous enough to allow carbon dioxide that we exhale to fully dissipate, so in every inhalation we breath back in more carbon dioxide. Furthermore, and very importantly, habitual wearing of masks decreases the body’s natural immune response. We’re supposed to come into contact regularly with foreign things – bacteria, viruses, all kinds of things – and that’s what helps to keep our immune systems on alert, working at full capacity. If you limit your exposure to everything by constantly wearing masks, or the overuse of hand sanitizers and disinfectants, your immune system in effect says, ‘apparently I’m not needed, I’ll go on vacation, take a nap’. And it won’t be prepped and ready when you need it to mount the appropriate immune response. 

-- Dr. Kelly Victory, M.D., Trauma and Emergency Physician, with a Specialty in Disaster Preparedness and Response and the Management of Mass Casualty. 

[5] 

With regard to asymptomatic spread, doesn’t happen with influenza. News flash Ron, doesn’t happen with COVID-19 either. DOES - NOT - HAPPEN. One of the greatest fallacies of this entire pandemic response was the concept of asymptomatic spread. You don’t spread COVID asymptomatically anymore than you spread tuberculosis, meningitis, strep throat, or any other communicable evolved disease. Doesn’t happen. 

-- Dr. Kelly Victory, M.D., Trauma and Emergency Physician, with a Specialty in Disaster Preparedness and Response and the Management of Mass Casualty. 

[6]

Open letter from medical doctors and health professionals to all Belgian authorities and all Belgian media.

Masks

Oral masks belong in contexts where contacts with proven at-risk groups or people with upper respiratory complaints take place, and in a medical context/hospital-retirement home setting. They reduce the risk of droplet infection by sneezing or coughing. Oral masks in healthy individuals are ineffective against the spread of viral infections. 29 30 31

Wearing a mask is not without side effects. 32 33 Oxygen deficiency (headache, nausea, fatigue, loss of concentration) occurs fairly quickly, an effect similar to altitude sickness. Every day we now see patients complaining of headaches, sinus problems, respiratory problems and hyperventilation due to wearing masks. In addition, the accumulated CO2 leads to a toxic acidification of the organism which affects our immunity. Some experts even warn of an increased transmission of the virus in case of inappropriate use of the mask.34

Our Labour Code (Codex 6) refers to a CO2 content (ventilation in workplaces) of 900 ppm, maximum 1200 ppm in special circumstances. After wearing a mask for one minute, this toxic limit is considerably exceeded to values that are three to four times higher than these maximum values. Anyone who wears a mask is therefore in an extreme poorly ventilated room. 35

Inappropriate use of masks without a comprehensive medical cardio-pulmonary test file is therefore not recommended by recognised safety specialists for workers.
Hospitals have a sterile environment in their operating rooms where staff wear masks and there is precise regulation of humidity / temperature with appropriately monitored oxygen flow to compensate for this, thus meeting strict safety standards. 36

[7]

Why Face Masks Don’t Work: A Revealing Review

October 18, 2016

by John Hardie, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC

October 2016

Yesterday’s Scientific Dogma is Today’s Discarded Fable

......

The Inadequacies

Between 2004 and 2016 at least a dozen research or review articles have been published on the inadequacies of face masks. 5,6,11,17,19,20,21,25,26,27,28,31 All agree that the poor facial fit and limited filtration characteristics of face masks make them unable to prevent the wearer inhaling airborne particles. In their well-referenced 2011 article on respiratory protection for healthcare workers, Drs. Harriman and Brosseau conclude that, “facemasks will not protect against the inhalation of aerosols.” 11 Following their 2015 literature review, Dr. Zhou and colleagues stated, “There is a lack of substantiated evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.” 25 In the same year Dr. R. MacIntyre noted that randomized controlled trials of facemasks failed to prove their efficacy. 5 In August 2016 responding to a question on the protection from facemasks the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety replied:

The filter material of surgical masks does not retain or filter out submicron particles;

Surgical masks are not designed to eliminate air leakage around the edges;

Surgical masks do not protect the wearer from inhaling small particles that can remain airborne for long periods of time. 31

In 2015, Dr. Leonie Walker, Principal Researcher of the New Zealand Nurses Organization succinctly described- within a historical context – the inadequacies of facemasks, “Health care workers have long relied heavily on surgical masks to provide protection against influenza and other infections. Yet there are no convincing scientific data that support the effectiveness of masks for respiratory protection. The masks we use are not designed for such purposes, and when tested, they have proved to vary widely in filtration capability, allowing penetration of aerosol particles ranging from four to 90%.” 35

Face masks do not satisfy the criteria for effectiveness as described by Drs. Landefeld and Shojania in their NEJM article, “The Tension between Needing to Improve Care and Knowing How to Do It. 10 The authors declare that, “…recommending or mandating the widespread adoption of interventions to improve quality or safety requires rigorous testing to determine whether, how, and where the intervention is effective…” They stress the critical nature of this concept because, “…a number of widely promulgated interventions are likely to be wholly ineffective, even if they do not harm patients.” 10 A significant inadequacy of face masks is that they were mandated as an intervention based on an assumption rather than on appropriate testing.

Conclusions

The primary reason for mandating the wearing of face masks is to protect dental personnel from airborne pathogens. This review has established that face masks are incapable of providing such a level of protection. Unless the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, national and provincial dental associations and regulatory agencies publically admit this fact, they will be guilty of perpetuating a myth which will be a disservice to the dental profession and its patients. It would be beneficial if, as a consequence of the review, all present infection control recommendations were subjected to the same rigorous testing as any new clinical intervention. Professional associations and governing bodies must ensure the clinical efficacy of quality improvement procedures prior to them being mandated. It is heartening to know that such a trend is gaining a momentum which might reveal the inadequacies of other long held dental infection control assumptions. Surely, the hallmark of a mature profession is one which permits new evidence to trump established beliefs. In 1910, Dr. C. Chapin, a public health pioneer, summarized this idea by stating, “We should not be ashamed to change our methods; rather, we should be ashamed not to do so.” 36 Until this occurs, as this review has revealed, dentists have nothing to fear by unmasking.