The Gloves Are Off...And So Are The Masks!

More than one year ago (hard to believe), I wrote an article about the masks that we were all being required to don for the protection of all. As those of you who have been keeping up with what I have been sharing during that time know, it is extremely difficult to ferret out the truth about the virus, the vaccines, and certainly the mitigation procedures that we have been using. I have tried to bring you accurate information to the best of my abilities. While the mask mandates have been lifted for those fully vaccinated, they are still recommended for the rest of us. So, here we go again.

The protection was specifically purported to be of those that you were to come in contact within the event that you were infected with Covid-19. Unfortunately, many were under the misguided impression that the mask was being worn to protect you in some way from inhaling the virus from others who were infected. No, the supposed, and actually misguided intent was to keep those infected from “spreading” the virus to those with whom they came in contact. As you see later in this article this assumption was definitely not based on “science” as many lead us to believe, but rather on the opinions of “experts.”

SCIENCE OF MICROBIOLOGY

We live with 300 million microorganisms living on and in our bodies. With my past experience as a microbiologist working under the most sterile and disinfected circumstances, I was familiar with the use of gloves under a luminaire flow hood to conduct transfer of materials in the most sanitary conditions that we could perform these procedures under. Very little of what I saw being implemented relative to the pandemic made much sense to me. 

I couldn’t believe that we could avoid a virus by wearing a mask. As I attempted to find valid data about the potential that the masks of a variety of different types could prevent the transmission of this specific coronavirus, I realized that there really was no published research that I could find. So, I attempted to do my own. 

I researched the only mask that had any data that I could find on its pore size: the N-95. I compared that to the size of this specific coronavirus. I found that there was a discrepancy between the smallest pore size of the N-95 masks and the smallest sizes of the virus. In other words, the pores of the N-95 mask – the best mask that we had available – was not able to filter out all of the viral sizes of the Covid-19 virus. Taking this into consideration, it was simple to recognize that the cloth masks that were being worn by many did virtually nothing to filter the virus. So, what was the point of the masks?

WHERE IS THE DEBATE?

Now, nearly one and a half years later, we have a study that gives us some published research data on the masks. The study was performed by Baruch Vainshelbiom. It was published in the journal Elsevier. However, since I first wrote this article, the research study, Facemasks in the Covid-19 Era: A health hypothesis, has been retracted. 

Please take a look at the last 3 words in that title: a health hypothesis. I would like to first note the definition of a "hypothesis.“ It is a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis ) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. 

When I went through my undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral education, a hypothesis was a precursor to a theory. It was an idea based on the facts at hand at the time. A hypothesis is designed to be a point of entry into further study and research to prove or disprove it. It was to be a starting point for discussion and debate.

Unfortunately, during our current period of unprecedented events we appear, and this is just my opinion, to have allowed politics to stifle both discussion and debate regarding many hypotheses regarding Covid-19. I decided to print this article in spite of the fact that the research study has been "retracted" in order to allow you to use your own "critical thinking" and perhaps some common sense, which also seems to be in short supply today, to draw your own conclusions. 

CHALLENGING THE STATISTICS

Dr. Vainshelboim made the point in his study that many active cases of Covid-19 over the last year and a half have been either asymptomatic or presented with minimal symptoms. Therefore, he postulates that the actual death rate from Covid-19 is likely significantly lower than what has been reported, since the case rate is likely significantly higher when considering these much-less-severe, unreported cases.

He writes that “the fatality rate from Covid-19 is likely around 0.1%. 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. SARS-CoV-2 primarily affects respiratory system and can cause complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), respiratory failure and death.”

FACEMASK EFFECTIVENESS

Please look at another piece that has been written about the CDC study that states that masks reduce the spread of Covid-19. It was published by the American Institute for Economic Research. Founded in 1933, the institute is one of the oldest nonpartisan economic research and advocacy organizations in the country. Read the study at this link.

Now let’s focus on the types of masks we use. Obviously, there is everything being used out there ranging from the one with the most documentation about efficacy the N-95 mask to the blue surgical masks, and everything in between. I have literally seen people wearing potholders over their nose and mouth. Of course, we have the wild west bandanas, which used to be associated with bank robberies. 

The original intent of the surgical mask was to prevent droplet contamination from a surgical worker (doctor or nurse) form contaminating a “sterile” environment. The N-95 has a pore size that is much smaller than the other masks and to some degree, providing it is fitted correctly, which can be difficult, can protect against penetration of microbe-sized particles. Facial hair or loose fitting masks can significantly reduce this potential, however.

MASKING DRAWBACKS

Arguably, masks have contributed to hypoxia (reduced oxygen levels) particularly in those wearing the masks for extended periods of time. Another reported condition is called hypercapnia (increased carbon dioxide levels). Not to mention the potential for exacerbation of existing chronic conditions, increased risk for respiratory complications, and self-contamination.

Let’s all just use some common sense as we take a look at self-contamination in particular. Many people continued to use the same mask due to their inability to find masks, which we saw especially early on during the mandates, or due to financial considerations. Occasionally I could see the dirt and grime on the outside of the mask of patients who came into my office. Now, use your common sense and imagine the health consequences of covering your face with a dirty rag and breathing through that for days or perhaps weeks on end. 

Relatively to the reduction in oxygen levels and increased carbon dioxide levels the health consequences include a decrease in pH levels, with a concurrent increase in cellular and blood acidity. Obviously, toxicity would increase along with chronic inflammation. We will also see suppression of the immune system and an overall deterioration of the health of those subjected to the stressors of reduced oxygen and increased carbon dioxide levels.

COMING UP... 

We had many other mandates that made no sense to me at the time. In the next newsletter I will reference a study on social distancing. We will see if that will also be ”retracted.“ Since it was published by MIT, I don't think that one is going anywhere soon.