*** Flubros and Flubras ! *** ( A place to see the Butchers Bill for “It’s just the Flu”)

Laboratories in US can’t find Covid-19 in 1500 positive tests A clinical scientist and immunologist-virologist at a southern California laboratory says he and colleagues from 7 universities are suing the CDC for massive fraud. The reason: not one of 1500 samples of people tested “positive” could find Covid-19. ALL people were simply found to have Influenza A, and to a lesser extent Influenza B. This is consistent with the previous findings of other scientists, which we have reported on several times. Dr. Derek Knauss: “When my lab team and I subjected the 1500 supposedly positive Covid-19 samples to Koch’s postulates and put them under an SEM (electron microscope), we found NO Covid in all 1500 samples. We found that all 1500 samples were primarily Influenza A, and some Influenza B, but no cases of Covid. We did not use the bulls*** PCR test.’ At 7 universities not once COVID detected ‘When we sent the rest of the samples to Stanford, Cornell, and a couple of the labs at the University of California, they came up with the same result: NO COVID. They found Influenza A and B. Then we all asked the CDC for viable samples of Covid. The CDC said they can’t give them, because they don’t have those samples.’ ‘So we came to the hard conclusion through all our research and lab work that Covid-19 was imaginary and fictitious. The flu was only called ‘Covid,’ and most of the 225,000 deaths were from co-morbidities such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, pulmonary emphysema, etc.. They got the flu which further weakened their immune systems, and they died.’ ‘This virus is fictitious’ ‘I still need to find one viable sample with Covid-19 to work with. We who conducted the lab test with these 1500 samples at the 7 universities are now suing the CDC for Covid-19 fraud. The CDC still has not sent us a viable, isolated and purified sample of Covid-19. If they can’t or won’t, then I say there is no Covid-19. It’s fictional.’ ‘The four research papers describing the genome extracts of the Covid-19 virus never managed to isolate and purify the samples. All four papers describe only small pieces of RNA that are only 37 to 40 base pairs long. That is NOT a VIRUS. A viral genome normally has 30,000 to 40,000 base pairs.’ ‘Now that Covid-19 is supposedly so bad everywhere, how come not one lab in the world has completely isolated and purified this virus? That’s because they never really found the virus. All they ever discovered were small pieces of RNA that were not identified as the virus anyway. So what we’re dealing with is just another flu strain, just like every year. Covid-19 does not exist and is fictitious.’ ‘I believe that China and the globalists have set up this Covid hoax (the flu disguised as a new virus) to establish a global tyranny and totalitarian control police state. This intrigue included (also) massive election fraud to overthrow Trump.’ CDC itself admits to having no identifiable virus Deeply hidden in an official document on Covid-19, the CDC ruefully admitted as early as summer 2020 that it does not have a measurable virus: ‘As no quantified (= measured) isolated virus objects of 2019-nCoV are available at this time…’ (page 39 of the ‘CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel’ (July 13) In other words, the CDC, as one of THE leading medical authorities in the world, could not, and still cannot, demonstrate a virus. About the for this purpose scientifically totally debunked, but still shamelessly abused PCR test, the CDC wrote under the heading ‘limitations’: ‘The detection of viral RNA cannot demonstrate the presence of an infectious virus, or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent of clinical symptoms.’ And in addition: ‘This test cannot exclude other diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.’ In other words, we cannot prove that the people who get sick and are hospitalized, and very occasionally die, were sickened by a new coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2, nor can we prove that it caused them to develop a new disease called ‘Covid-19.’ It could just as easily be a different virus and a different disease. (And since all the symptoms, including severe pneumonia, correspond seamlessly to what flu can cause historically in vulnerable people… ‘if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a duck’. Reward of $265,000 for demonstrating coronavirus Earlier this year, Samuel Eckert’s German Team and the Isolate Truth Fund pledged a reward of at least $265,000 for any scientist who can provide incontrovertible proof that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated and therefore exists. They too pointed out that not one lab in the world has yet been able to isolate this corona virus. Yes, systems scientists claim they have, but this ‘isolation’ consists only of a sample from the human body, which is a ‘soup’ full of different kinds of cells, remains of viruses, bacteria, et cetera. With the help of (toxic) chemicals one then searches for some (residual) particles that may indicate a virus that once existed or may still exist, after which this is designated as ‘evidence’. Canadian team also received no evidence despite 40 Public Access Law requests In late December 2020 there was a similar initiative to the one in Germany. A team around Canadian investigative journalist Christine Massey submitted no less than 40 Public Access Law requests to medical authorities worldwide with the simple request for proof that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated and its existence can therefore be objectively proven. Not one of the agencies and authorities written to was able to provide that evidence. ‘Impossible to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called Covid-19’ Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Sally Fallon Morell recently published a statement on “the continuing controversy over whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus is isolated or purified. But based on the official Oxford definition of “isolation” (“the fact or condition of being isolated or secluded, a separation from other things or persons, standing alone”), common sense, the laws of logic and the rules of science dictate that any unbiased person must come to the conclusion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been isolated or purified. As a result, no confirmation of the existence of the virus can be given.’ ‘The logical and scientific implications of this fact are that the structure and composition of something whose existence cannot be proven cannot be known, including the presence, structure and function of hypothetical spike or other proteins. The genetic sequence of something that has never been found cannot be known, nor can the “variants” (mutations) of something whose existence has not been demonstrated. It is therefore impossible to show that SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called Covid-19.’ Combined PCR test for corona and influenza ‘because there’s hardly any difference’ Not surprisingly, the world’s largest biotech company, China’s BGI, recently launched a new PCR test that can simultaneously test for influenza A, B and corona. Apart from the proven fact, acknowledged trough various lawsuits, that a PCR test cannot prove infection with any virus whatsoever, BGI’s explanation that both diseases are so difficult to distinguish from each other and that they have therefore made only one test, says more than enough. Maybe there IS no difference at all, ‘Covid’ is just another name for ‘old familiar’ flu viruses, and this is just another clever marketing trick? Most people have been fooled by fear propaganda With worldwide, government-controlled 24/7 fear propaganda by the mass media, most people have come to believe that there is indeed a life-threatening virus that makes people sick much faster and more severely than seasonal flu. However, even the latter is demonstrably not the case. Influenza A has been the leading cause of death from pneumonia in the developed world for years. But send people designated as severe Covid patients to a few ICU’s, put cameras on them constantly, instruct a few physicians that they should only discuss the worst cases, and you have your “televised pandemic. The argument ‘we are doing it because otherwise care will be overburdened’ was undermined by governments itself some time ago, by rejecting offers of additional ICU beds or staff, because ‘it is not necessary’. (Was this perhaps the first and only time the truth was told?) Official figures: nothing to worry about (yet it never gets back to normal) Now that also the official figures show that after the normal traditional flu season nothing is wrong, and according to the EU statistics (EuroMOMO) there is even a significant lower mortality, the society – if it really was about a virus and public health – should immediately go back to normal to start repairing the huge damage caused by government policies. However, as you know, that will never be done, and that is because this carefully planned pandemic hoax is carrying out an ideological agenda, the ‘Great Reset’, which aims to largely demolish the society and economy of the West, and then subject it to a global technocratic communist climate-vaccine dictatorship, in which all our freedoms, civil and self-determination rights will be done away with once and for all. Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis Baruch Vainshelboim⁎ Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making.

Facemasks are part of non-pharmaceutical interventions providing some breathing barrier to the mouth and nose that have been utilized for reducing the transmission of respiratory pathogens [1]. Facemasks can be medical and non-medical, where two types of the medical masks primarily used by healthcare workers [1], [2]. The first type is National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified N95 mask, a filtering face-piece respirator, and the second type is a surgical mask [1]. The designed and intended uses of N95 and surgical masks are different in the type of protection they potentially provide. The N95s are typically composed of electret filter media and seal tightly to the face of the wearer, whereas surgical masks are generally loose fitting and may or may not contain electret-filtering media. The N95s are designed to reduce the wearer’s inhalation exposure to infectious and harmful particles from the environment such as during extermination of insects. In contrast, surgical masks are designed to provide a barrier protection against splash, spittle and other body fluids to spray from the wearer (such as surgeon) to the sterile environment (patient during operation) for reducing the risk of contamination [1].

The third type of facemasks are the non-medical cloth or fabric masks. The non-medical facemasks are made from a variety of woven and non-woven materials such as Polypropylene, Cotton, Polyester, Cellulose, Gauze and Silk. Although non-medical cloth or fabric facemasks are neither a medical device nor personal protective equipment, some standards have been developed by the French Standardization Association (AFNOR Group) to define a minimum performance for filtration and breathability capacity [2]. The current article reviews the scientific evidences with respect to safety and efficacy of wearing facemasks, describing the physiological and psychological effects and the potential long-term consequences on health.

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a global public health emergency of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing illness of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) [3]. As of October 1, 2020, worldwide 34,166,633 cases were reported and 1,018,876 have died with virus diagnosis. Interestingly, 99% of the detected cases with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic or have mild condition, which contradicts with the virus name (severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2) [4]. Although infection fatality rate (number of death cases divided by number of reported cases) initially seems quite high 0.029 (2.9%) [4], this overestimation related to limited number of COVID-19 tests performed which biases towards higher rates. Given the fact that asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times higher than the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate is considerably less than 1% [5]. This was confirmed by the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from US stating, “the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 are similar to those of severe seasonal influenza” [5], having a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1% [5], [6], [7], [8]. In addition, data from hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and general public indicate that the majority of deaths were among older and chronically ill individuals, supporting the possibility that the virus may exacerbates existing conditions but rarely causes death by itself [9], [10]. SARS-CoV-2 primarily affects respiratory system and can cause complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), respiratory failure and death [3], [9]. It is not clear however, what the scientific and clinical basis for wearing facemasks as protective strategy, given the fact that facemasks restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia and increase the risk for respiratory complications, self-contamination and exacerbation of existing chronic conditions [2], [11], [12], [13], [14].

Of note, hyperoxia or oxygen supplementation (breathing air with high partial O2 pressures that above the sea levels) has been well established as therapeutic and curative practice for variety acute and chronic conditions including respiratory complications [11], [15]. It fact, the current standard of care practice for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is breathing 100% oxygen [16], [17], [18]. Although several countries mandated wearing facemask in health care settings and public areas, scientific evidences are lacking supporting their efficacy for reducing morbidity or mortality associated with infectious or viral diseases [2], [14], [19]. Therefore, it has been hypothesized: 1) the practice of wearing facemasks has compromised safety and efficacy profile, 2) Both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to reduce human-to-human transmission and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, 3) Wearing facemasks has adverse physiological and psychological effects, 4) Long-term consequences of wearing facemasks on health are detrimental.

: Evolution of hypothesis Breathing Physiology Breathing is one of the most important physiological functions to sustain life and health. Human body requires a continuous and adequate oxygen (O2) supply to all organs and cells for normal function and survival. Breathing is also an essential process for removing metabolic byproducts [carbon dioxide (CO2)] occurring during cell respiration [12], [13]. It is well established that acute significant deficit in O2 (hypoxemia) and increased levels of CO2 (hypercapnia) even for few minutes can be severely harmful and lethal, while chronic hypoxemia and hypercapnia cause health deterioration, exacerbation of existing conditions, morbidity and ultimately mortality [11], [20], [21], [22]. Emergency medicine demonstrates that 5–6 min of severe hypoxemia during cardiac arrest will cause brain death with extremely poor survival rates [20], [21], [22], [23]. On the other hand, chronic mild or moderate hypoxemia and hypercapnia such as from wearing facemasks resulting in shifting to higher contribution of anaerobic energy metabolism, decrease in pH levels and increase in cells and blood acidity, toxicity, oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, immunosuppression and health deterioration [24], [11], [12], [13]. Efficacy of facemasks

The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material [2]. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists [25].

Clinical scientific evidence challenges further the efficacy of facemasks to block human-to-human transmission or infectivity. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus [26]. The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose ect…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm. Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people [26]. This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days. The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase [27].

A meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28]. Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28]. A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings [29].

Another meta-analysis of 44 non-RCT studies (n = 25,697 participants) examining the potential risk reduction of facemasks against SARS, middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) and COVID-19 transmissions [30]. The meta-analysis included four specific studies on COVID-19 transmission (5,929 participants, primarily health-care workers used N95 masks). Although the overall findings showed reduced risk of virus transmission with facemasks, the analysis had severe limitations to draw conclusions. One of the four COVID-19 studies had zero infected cases in both arms, and was excluded from meta-analytic calculation. Other two COVID-19 studies had unadjusted models, and were also excluded from the overall analysis. The meta-analytic results were based on only one COVID-19, one MERS and 8 SARS studies, resulting in high selection bias of the studies and contamination of the results between different viruses. Based on four COVID-19 studies, the meta-analysis failed to demonstrate risk reduction of facemasks for COVID-19 transmission, where the authors reported that the results of meta-analysis have low certainty and are inconclusive [30].

In early publication the WHO stated that “facemasks are not required, as no evidence is available on its usefulness to protect non-sick persons” [14]. In the same publication, the WHO declared that “cloth (e.g. cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstance” [14]. Conversely, in later publication the WHO stated that the usage of fabric-made facemasks (Polypropylene, Cotton, Polyester, Cellulose, Gauze and Silk) is a general community practice for “preventing the infected wearer transmitting the virus to others and/or to offer protection to the healthy wearer against infection (prevention)” [2]. The same publication further conflicted itself by stating that due to the lower filtration, breathability and overall performance of fabric facemasks, the usage of woven fabric mask such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for infected persons and not for prevention practice in asymptomatic individuals [2]. The Central for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made similar recommendation, stating that only symptomatic persons should consider wearing facemask, while for asymptomatic individuals this practice is not recommended [31]. Consistent with the CDC, clinical scientists from Departments of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology in Australia counsel against facemasks usage for health-care workers, arguing that there is no justification for such practice while normal caring relationship between patients and medical staff could be compromised [32]. Moreover, the WHO repeatedly announced that “at present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19) on the effectiveness face masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection of respiratory viruses, including COVID-19”[2]. Despite these controversies, the potential harms and risks of wearing facemasks were clearly acknowledged. These including self-contamination due to hand practice or non-replaced when the mask is wet, soiled or damaged, development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne and psychological discomfort. Vulnerable populations such as people with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, hearing problems, those living in hot and humid environments, children and patients with respiratory conditions are at significant health risk for complications and harm [2].

Physiological effects of wearing facemasks Wearing facemask mechanically restricts breathing by increasing the resistance of air movement during both inhalation and exhalation process [12], [13]. Although, intermittent (several times a week) and repetitive (10–15 breaths for 2–4 sets) increase in respiration resistance may be adaptive for strengthening respiratory muscles [33], [34], prolonged and continues effect of wearing facemask is maladaptive and could be detrimental for health [11], [12], [13]. In normal conditions at the sea level, air contains 20.93% O2 and 0.03% CO2, providing partial pressures of 100 mmHg and 40 mmHg for these gases in the arterial blood, respectively. These gas concentrations significantly altered when breathing occurs through facemask. A trapped air remaining between the mouth, nose and the facemask is rebreathed repeatedly in and out of the body, containing low O2 and high CO2 concentrations, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia [35], [36], [11], [12], [13]. Severe hypoxemia may also provoke cardiopulmonary and neurological complications and is considered an important clinical sign in cardiopulmonary medicine [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Low oxygen content in the arterial blood can cause myocardial ischemia, serious arrhythmias, right or left ventricular dysfunction, dizziness, hypotension, syncope and pulmonary hypertension [43]. Chronic low-grade hypoxemia and hypercapnia as result of using facemask can cause exacerbation of existing cardiopulmonary, metabolic, vascular and neurological conditions [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Table 1 summarizes the physiological, psychological effects of wearing facemask and their potential long-term consequences for health.

As of April 25, 2021, 12:48 GMT we had the figure of 585,880 Covid-assigned deaths out of 32,789,653 positive Covid-19 cases, which figures (Y is what % of X) to be a CFR of 1.79% (CFR=Case Fatality Rate - see here for more on this - which rate is based on confirmed cases, and which are the minority of cases and have been those mostly likely to be tested and to die, since for most of the pandemic those who had symptoms were the most likely to be tested, while a large percentage of persons who test positive never developed any symptoms) Note: there are presently (04/25/21) 98 countries with a higher CFR than the USA.

As for the IFR (Infection Fatality Rate, meaning Covid-assigned deaths as a % of the estimated total infections, vs. confirmed infections) in the US, an official estimate of the estimated total infections in the US is very hard to find, but the CDC (Dec. 11) provided a figure of 91 Million Estimated Total Infections and at which time there were about 300,000 Covid-assigned deaths (figures are rounded), and which translates into a IFR of 0.33.

Then we have the CMR Crude Morality Rate(Covid-assigned deaths as a % of the total pop.), in which 355,000 as a % of 332,000,000 is 0.11%. And with 1,828,684 Covid-assigned deaths worldwide (12–28–20) out of a total world population of 7,800,000,000 people (as of March 2020), then the overall worldwide Covid-19 crude morality rate (CMR) is 0.02.

And as mentioned somewhat before, the vast majority of those who die because of Covid-19 are 65 years-old or more,[https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/public-global-health/488305-cdc-80-percent-of-us-coronavirus-deaths-are-people-65] with 80% of all Covid-19 deaths being among those 65 and older since February, and 92% of all Covid-19 deaths among those 55 and older. Covid-19 also was attributable to almost 10 percent of all deaths among those 65 and older, but less than one percent of all deaths among young people. [119]

And realize that, as showed you before, the CDC has and does allow for probable/presumed cases (and deaths and for which hospitals can indeed obtain more gov. funding) based upon as little as having unexplained having shortness of breath or a cough and having traveled to or lived in an area with sustained, ongoing community transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Or shortness of breath and and just being a senior citizen or having “close contact” with another probable case.

Below are the pertinent excerpts far that criteria from the CDC page (emphasis mine) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bold emphasis is sometimes added by me:

…CSTE realizes that field investigations will involve evaluations of persons with no symptoms and these individuals will need to be counted as cases.

Probable

Meets clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.
Clinical Criteria
At least two of the following symptoms: fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s)

At least one of the following symptoms: cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing [this is under Clinical Criteria]

Epidemiologic Linkage

One or more of the following exposures in the 14 days before onset of symptoms:

Close contact** with a confirmed or probable case of COVID-19 disease;

Travel to or residence in an area with sustained, ongoing community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
Member of a risk cohort as defined by public health authorities during an outbreak.[1]

The above provide minimal criteria by which a person can be classed as being having Covid-19 and dying of the same. And for which hospitals can indeed obtain more gov. funding for them.[2]

Based upon this criteria we can easily surmise that many cases and deaths are being classed as Covid-19 when in reality they are something else, including the flu (cases of which are very low).

It is true that many Covid-19 cases and deaths are not reported, however, unlike cases in which about have have no symptoms, I think it is far more likely that there are more deaths being reported as by Covid-19 then that are missed. The reason for this is because those with symptoms are much more likely to have been tested and diagnosed as having Covid-19 and those with symptoms of the ones most likely to die.

Footnotes

[1] Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

[2] Fact check: Hospitals get paid more if patients listed as COVID-19, on ventilators

Meanwhile, on March 15, 2021 the University of Colorado Boulder reported that a recent CU Boulder analysis of more than 72,000 test samples[28] collected from students and some faculty and staff on the CU Boulder campus between Aug. 17 and Nov. 25 revealed that it was a few “super carriers” with very high viral loads that were likely responsible for the bulk of COVID-19 transmissions, while about half of infected people were not contagious at all at the time of diagnosis. Among those tested (asymptomatic students in residence halls are required to test weekly), 2% of these people carried 90% of the COVID-19 virus. A related study[29] lended further credence to the idea that the amount of virus particles a person carries (viral load) is what drives contagion.[30]

More excerpts from a larger compilation of research, by the grace of God.

Moreover, while offering some protection, mask wearing has detrimental effects,[38] including reducing blood oxygen levels (pa02) significantly, relative to the (limited) effectiveness of the mask and length of time worn (the more effective the mask in blocking particles, the more it reduced blood oxygen levels.[39] N95 masks are also found to have a detrimental effect on nasal resistance after removal (though flat masks are better than a cup type due to the dead space of the latter). And dizziness, perspiration, and short-term memory loss have been reported from extended N95 use.

And although the use of face masks may not negatively effect average inhaled O2 during exercise, yet research shows an increased rate and depth of breathing and cardiac output are needed to compensate for the additional CO2 and with slight increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressures.[40] [41] Therefore the oft-repeated assertion that “face masks don't hinder breathing during exercise” is fallacious and misleading (even cheesecloth will hinder breathing).

Meanwhile, (less restrictive) homemade cotton masks actually produced particles of their own.[42] Negative mask-wearing effects also extend to dental issues such as decaying teeth, receding gum lines and seriously sour breath.[43]

Furthermore, the “stay-sheltered” mandates and shutting down parks and the beach fronts and fear of outside contact was hardly rational since that fosters obesity and other comorbidities.[44] Also, one study of 190,000 blood samples from patients of all ethnicities and ages infected with COVID in all 50 states showed that people deficient in vitamin D were 54% more likely to get COVID-19,[45][46] meaning vitamin D can reduce the risk of catching coronavirus by 54 percent. [47] Among newer studies it was found that over 80% of 200 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 had vitamin D deficiency. Patients with lower vitamin D levels also had higher blood levels of inflammatory markers. Researchers across the globe are also finding a correlation between vitamin D status and patterns of COVID-19 recovery.[48][49][50]

In addition, the quarantine of children may negatively affect their development of immune systems. Research by two professors found that keeping children masked, however necessary, could undermine their bodies’ ability to learn how to fight pathogens.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the world is unwittingly conducting what amounts to the largest immunological experiment in history on our own children...
Memory T cells begin to form during the first years of life and accumulate during childhood. However, for memory T cells to become functionally mature, multiple exposures may be necessary, particularly for cells residing in tissues such as the lung and intestines, where we encounter numerous pathogens. These exposures typically and naturally occur during the everyday experiences of childhood — such as interactions with friends, teachers, trips to the playground, sports — all of which have been curtailed or shut down entirely during efforts to mitigate viral spread. As a result, we are altering the frequency, breadth and degree of exposures that are crucial for immune memory development.[71]

Moreover as regards quarantines and children, a preprint study conducted in Germany found them harmful:

By 26.10.2020 the registry had been used by 20,353 people. In this publication we report the results from the parents, who entered data on a total of 25,930 children. The average wearing time of the mask was 270 minutes per day. Impairments caused by wearing the mask were reported by 68% of the parents. These included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%) impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%)…. A precise benefit-risk analysis is urgently required. The occurrence of reported side effects in children due to wearing the masks must be taken seriously...[72]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.