Influenza Is More Dangerous To Kids Than COVID Is, So Why Doesn’t The CDC Recommend Masks For The Flu?

The flu can be transmitted asymptomatically, it’s more dangerous to kids than COVID, and its vaccine allows for ‘breakthrough infections.’ Yet the CDC still doesn’t recommend masks for the flu.

In stark contrast to the Center for Disease Control’s recommendations that all people over the age of two wear a mask indoors to mitigate transmission of SARS-COV-2, the sections of its website dedicated to seasonal influenza do not recommend wearing masks to prevent it from spreading.

Since the battle over mask mandates is most intense with regard to schools, it’s crucial to point out the pediatric mortality rate derived from the CDC’s estimate of flu mortality is comparable to its estimate of COVID-19 mortality among children. The CDC attributes 542 deaths to COVID among those aged 0-17 total over the past 18 months, while estimating influenza deaths for the six-month 2019-2020 season at 486, as of this writing. Assuming these numbers are fairly accurate, this means the risk of flu-related death for children and teens is greater than for COVID.

While CDC Web pages dedicated to COVID-19 often include a banner photo of someone in a mask, this isn’t common in the influenza section of the website. Masks also seem nowhere to be found among CDC recommendations on flu prevention for those who aren’t health workers. Instead, “to help slow the spread of germs that cause respiratory (nose, throat, and lungs) illnesses, like flu,” they suggest getting the flu vaccine, “staying away from people who are sick, covering coughs and sneezes, and frequent handwashing.”

Compare that to its guidance, updated in August, for COVID-19 mitigation in K-12 schools at the very top of the page: “CDC recommends universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students, and visitors to K-12 schools, regardless of vaccination status.” Universal masking is also the third bullet point under “key takeaways.”

One might argue the flu vaccines are more effective than the COVID vaccines and therefore masks aren’t needed. But the CDC notes that a meta-analysis that included data from randomized controlled trials, the most robust form of medical research, found flu vaccines to be in the range of 51-67 percent effective at preventing flu infection. One RCT even found it to be as low as 16 percent in a season of low influenza infection rates. Influenza transmission cannot be prevented by vaccination because vaccination is only about 60 percent effective at preventing flu illness.

Wouldn’t “layered prevention strategies” of the kind the CDC demands for COVID be called for to address a dangerous pathogen for which vaccines aren’t highly effective?

If masks are so effective at mitigating respiratory virus transmission, as Anthony Fauci and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky have told us, why would our public officials not recommend masks for the flu? Influenza is a respiratory virus that spreads similarly to SARS-COV-2. A 2016 study comparing detection of viable influenza virus in 53 subjects with confirmed influenza A infection found 22 (42 percent) produced aerosols with viable virus during exhalation.

Another study by researchers at the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety developed a two-stage cyclone bioaerosol sampler to separate aerosol particles into different sizes. Researchers discovered that the H1N1 and H3N2 influenza viruses were “most often found in the 1–4 µm and less than 1 µm size fractions” (emphasis added), meaning they were airborne, as “particles less than 10 µm in diameter can remain airborne for hours and are easily inhaled deeply into the respiratory tract.”

In other words, this evidence indicates the flu can be spread just by breathing. Research on aerosols carrying SARS-COV-2 also suggest it also could be spread by breathing. Also, like health experts have been so often quoted as saying regarding COVID, asymptomatic spread is possible (although probably greatly overestimated—the CDC admitted as much earlier this year in a report of school transmission).

According to the authors of a study of flu infection among health-care workers and patients during 2015/16 and 2016/17 influenza seasons, “a significant proportion of individuals shed influenza virus without harboring any symptoms, thereby potentially exposing their vicinity.” Roughly 8 percent of flu-positive swabs were collected among patients on days without symptoms, and asymptomatic transmission seemed “likely” in one cluster of infections. The CDC itself admits, “You may be able to spread flu to someone else before you know you are sick.”

So if the flu can be transmitted asymptomatically, it’s more dangerous to kids than COVID, and its vaccine allows for ample “breakthrough infections,” why don’t they recommend masks for the flu?

Perhaps it’s because masks as a mitigation strategy for the flu had already been studied in controlled trials, and the results didn’t reinforce their use. In 2019 the World Health Organization listed its top ten studies on masks and hand hygiene for flu mitigation, and although all had problems such as insufficient sample size, none found strong evidence for masks’ efficacy (see page 25, Table 7).

If the CDC were to start pushing masks for flu mitigation, the public and corporate media (albeit reluctantly) would have to address the lack of evidence in influenza transmission studies for mask-wearing. People would then start to wonder why, if the evidence of masks for flu is shaky, we should believe masks work for COVID.

Those who claim “the science supports masks” for COVID prevention should also be demanding masks for flu prevention. After all, if “masks save lives,” and “if we can save even one life, then it’s worth it,” as the proponents of universal masking tell us, then indoor masks every flu season for everyone ages two and over should be not just on the table but promoted emphatically and relentlessly by our public health institutions.

The fact that it isn’t should give anyone, particularly parents with schoolchildren enduring strict mask mandates, great pause. Is the CDC the same trustworthy organization people looked to for science-driven, sensible guidance before the pandemic hit? The same one that assures them child deaths from the flu are “relatively rare”?

Or has it been corrupted by all the money and power that pandemic hysteria allows them to tap into? Is it really “following the science,” or are health officials selectively applying “The Science” based on what supports the their own financial interests or the controlling political party’s narrative and agenda? Can we really say the CDC isn’t politically biased when its director has also declared gun control a “public health crisis”?

The CDC’s differing recommendations for respiratory viruses that can be dangerous and spread similarly suggest masks today are less about public health than about public manipulation. The only question left is how long we’ll put up with it.

One of the best kept secrets around is BHT and its ability to kill LIPID covered viruses amongst them the corona and influenza viruses. And for the ones hesitant to use it there is always QUERCETIN+ZINC+NAC+D3+C+B-Complex which will help to boost your immunity and help to throw it off more quickly in case you catch this bug.

BHT short for butylatedhydroxytoluene, has been around for the better part of thirty years or more, has been approved as a food additive by the FDA as safe for human consumption in small quantities and using common sense. Without going into all the details which would fill many pages some of the benefits are difficult to ignore even so pharmaceutical as well as the medical profession does their best to do so. As a prophylactic it would serve its purpose very well until the right vaccine comes along, without any undesirable side effects, besides being inexpensive and is safer than alcohol consumption, use of tobacco or many other unhealthy eating habits, including many prescription dugs with, many of them having undesirable side effects. No doubt whenever you had a prescription filled it came along with a sheet filled with warnings.

Some of the reasons are that that there is no money to be made by pharmaceutical companies as patents related to BHT ran out long time ago and in order to have it approved for medical application it would require an immeasurable amounts of human tests with expenditures in the millions of Dollars which most likely will never be recovered.

On the other hand many doctors may know about it but will refrain from suggesting it as recommending anything which is not approved by the FDA would leave them wide open to lawsuits, as it is pretty well known that one of the American dreams is, to fall on your neighbors property and then sue them for what ever they can get.

Over the years enough information about BHT has surfaced that if used in small quantities to achieve a particular result, such as from 100 mg to about 1g (one gram or 1000mg) and in most cases 250mg to 450mg may do a nice job for some of the things suggested, it may be less harmful than an equivalent amount of Aspirins. Again do your own research and use common sense which appears to be in short supply these days. Should you decide to try don’t go overboard with it, as more is not always better.

Even so if you still apprehensive or hesitant, use it only when one of those nasty viruses appears on the scene and use it as a prophylactic in a small quantity perhaps up to 450 mg and once the danger subside stop taking it. The catch is that in order to do its job BHT works better before you get sick, as BHT will NOT REPAIR ANY DAMAGE which may already have been done by an infectious disease such as the corona virus. Even so, if taken afterwards BHT will still continue to disable lipid covered viruses, but to repair any damage already caused may require different medications.

One suggested way of taking BHT is to dissolve the quantity you intend to take first in oil as BHT is only soluble in either oil or alcohol, I is also much better absorbed by the human body, but alcohol is not recommended to consume along with BHT. One way of doing it is to dissolve 18 grams or 277 grains, if you happen to have a powder scale used for reloading, of BHT in 200 milliliters of olive oil in a small glass bottle. Then heat it up slightly in a microwave for maybe 40 seconds and then shake it a few times. A teaspoon of this substance, depending on its size will give you approx. 450 mg of BHT which in most cases should do the trick.

So why take BHT on the firs place? It has been long known that BHT will damage the lipid layer or cover of LIPID COVERED viruses and the coronavirus as well as the influenza virus happens to fall into that category of such viruses and by doing so will prevent such a virus from attaching itself and do its dirty work.

The Principal Benefits of BHT

In order of importance, supplementing with BHT can help with:

Reduce and prevent viral infections such as herpes, thus terminating their outbreaks. But BHT is also effective against many different human and animal viruses including CMV (cytomegalovirus),9 pseudorabies,10 genital herpes,11HIV,12 and many strains of influenza. These are just a few but not all of the viruses that have a lipid envelope and may be killed by BHT include herpes simplex I, herpes simplex II, herpes zoster, CMV, West Nile virus, HIV virus, influenza virus, hepatitis B and C viruses, avian flu influenza virus and the SARS virus. However, BHT has not been clinically tested to treat and address these infections individually, and there probably never will be as no money can be made. Here, it may be of interest to note that a patent had been filed with the number US4350707 for BHT because of its LIPID COVERED virus killing ability approximately 30 years ago, however in the meantime this patent has expired.

Now keep in mind that very few things in life are perfect and this holds true for vaccines as well as BHT. So when everything comes down to being cut and dried, do you prefer risking being infected with a nasty virus with all kinds of unpredictable side effects or take a chance with some substance which overall has a very good safety record.

Besides most viruses will mutate over time, and by the time someone may come up with the proper vaccine it may no longer match the virus which is currently making its round. But this doesn’t make any difference with BHT if such a virus mutates or not. As long as such a virus has a lipid coating it will damage and disable it..

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.