A little insight into what's going on with the 'state of emergency' here in my neck of the woods. P.S. Folks - get a grip!
MASKS
Hi there—I wanted to share the following with you, if you are living in an area that is employing mandatory mask-wearing. Certainly, this letter is unique to Flagstaff, but I wanted you to have something that you could mostly cut and paste and craft your own personalized letter to the agency or governing body making such proclamations in your area, if you are inclined to have such mandates lifted.
With love!
Sarica
Dear Mayor Evans,
I would like to share with you additional information related to the proclamation you have made in regard to the wearing of masks in Flagstaff’s public places.
I am hereby requesting an immediate response by Flagstaff’s and the state of Arizona's Health Departments to the effect that mask wearing - which causes such precipitous drops in oxygenation - is healthy. Frankly, I doubt that such a statement can or will be forthcoming, given that every medical study worldwide holds that catastrophic medical situations and death occur in these low oxygen ranges.
If no statement can be propounded by the city and state Health Departments - that it is medically safe for one to have oxygenation levels below 92% - then I would expect an immediate retraction of the City’s order IN FULL regarding mask wearing. Even "recommending" such an action - now that we are all on notice that mask wearing for even a few minutes creates immediate and dangerous hypoxemia - puts Flagstaff residents at risk of catastrophic organ failure and death, with untold liability facing the the state and city agencies for same.
In addition, I found the following incredibly compelling to the points of effectiveness of combatting the spread of infection, and the health and liability concerns of asking otherwise healthy citizens to do so.
First, from GreenMedInfo.org (if reference links in cited article do not click through, please visit the original, https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/should-you-wear-mask-prevent-covid-19?)
As recently as February 29, 2020, U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams tweeted, “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching coronavirus … ”[i]
Yet, in a dramatic about-face, weeks later the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said they recommend wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain, especially in areas with significant community-based transmission, and stated, “CDC also advises the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.”[ii]
Face Masks Led to ‘No Significant Reduction’ in Virus Transmission
The idea of wearing a face mask, according to the CDC, is not so much to protect the wearer, but rather to benefit the population overall. If you’re infected with COVID-19 and don’t have symptoms, the theory is that wearing a mask could prevent you from inadvertently infecting someone else when you’re out and about.[vii]
Studies, however, don’t bear this out. In a May 2020 systematic review published in Emerging Infectious Diseases — a journal published by the CDC — researchers identified 10 trials that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing cases of influenza in the community. “In pooled analysis,” they stated, “we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”[viii]
This included a study of face mask use among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage — no major difference in the risk of influenza infection was found between the mask wearers and non-mask wearers. Two studies in university settings were also included, looking into the effectiveness of face masks among student hall residents for five months.
“The overall reduction in ILI [influenza-like illness] or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies,” the researchers found.[ix]
Surgical Masks, Cotton Masks Ineffective at Filtering SARS-Cov-2
A study of four patients with COVID-19 led to similar results — that wearing masks does little to block SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.[x] Researchers asked the patients to cough five times into a petri dish while wearing no mask, a surgical mask and then a cotton mask. They swabbed the inner and outer mask surfaces afterward, finding that while most swabs from the inner mask surfaces were negative for SARS-CoV-2, all swabs from the outer mask surfaces were positive.
This raises two important points. First, as the study noted, “Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients.” Second, the fact that the outer surface was more contaminated highlights the problems that can occur if a person touches the outside of their mask — thereby contaminating their hands. It’s possible that air leakage around the edge of the mask allowed the outer mask to become contaminated, or that the small aerosols of SARS-CoV-2 were able to penetrate the masks.
Either way, “[t]hese observations support the importance of hand hygiene after touching the outer surface of masks,” according to the researchers, but the likelihood of the general public, including children, washing their hands every time they touch their mask is small. A 2010 study added that while some evidence suggests wearing masks or respirators when you’re ill may protect others, there is less evidence on mask wearing to prevent becoming infected, especially in real-world settings:
“In conclusion there remains a substantial gap in the scientific literature on the effectiveness of face masks to reduce transmission of influenza virus infection.
While there is some experimental evidence that masks should be able to reduce infectiousness under controlled conditions, there is less evidence on whether this translates to effectiveness in natural settings. There is little evidence to support the effectiveness of face masks to reduce the risk of infection.”[xi]
If COVID-19 Is Aerosolized, Surgical and Cotton Masks Ineffective
The idea of cloth face coverings preventing transmission was based on the idea that COVID-19 is primarily spread via large respiratory droplets. Research now suggests, however, that SARS-CoV-2 may remain suspended in aerosols for up to 16 hours.[xii]
It’s also been found that COVID-19 particles may be as small as 1 to 4 microns in size,[xiii] while surgical masks only protect against particles larger than 100 microns.[xiv],[xv] Again, surgical masks are intended to protect the wearer against large droplets or splashes of bodily fluids, while protecting others from the wearer’s respiratory emissions.
Even the CDC states that surgical masks do “not provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles and is not considered respiratory protection.”[xvi] On the contrary, an N95 respirator is a type of mask with a tight-fitting face seal designed for health care workers who may be exposed to hazardous small particle aerosols.
In the case of respiratory virus and influenza, rates of infection were double among those wearing surgical masks compared to those wearing N95 respirators.[xvii] This suggests N95 respirators offer some protection, but not only are they in short supply, they’re only typically worn by health care providers performing certain high-risk procedures.
Wearing a Mask May Increase Virus Transmission, Cause Adverse Effects
The Emerging Infectious Diseases review pointed out that in lower-income settings reusable cloth masks are more likely to be used than disposable medical masks due to cost and availability. Indeed, reusable cloth masks are what’s being promoted across much of the U.S., even though research is scarce into the use of such masks, and wearing them the “wrong” way could backfire.
“Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission,” according to the study.[xviii] Speaking with Forbes, Dr. Eli Perencevich, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa’s College of Medicine, agreed:
“The average healthy person does not need to have a mask, and they shouldn’t be wearing masks … There’s no evidence that wearing masks on healthy people will protect them. They wear them incorrectly, and they can increase the risk of infection because they’re touching their face more often.”[xix]
“Wearing a mask is tricky,” he added, “because it can create a false sense of security. If you don’t wash your hands before you take off the mask and after you take off your mask, you could increase your risk.”[xx] There are some risks inherent to wearing a mask, as well, such as hypoxia.
One study found a decrease in the oxygen saturation of arterial pulsations (SpO2) and a slight increase in pulse rates among surgeons wearing a surgical mask, and the decrease was more prominent in surgeons over the age of 35.[xxi] The risks may be higher for N95 respirators, which may impede gaseous exchange and increase workload on the metabolic system, particularly in pregnant health care workers.
“The benefits of using N95 mask to prevent serious emerging infectious diseases should be weighed against potential respiratory consequences associated with extended N95 respirator usage,” researchers concluded.[xxii] Headaches,[xxiii] dizziness, shortness of breath and even reduced working efficiency and ability to make correct decisions are also common following prolonged usage of N95 respirators.[xxiv]
Even WHO Warns of Mask Risks
The World Health Organization (WHO), while recommending that people with symptoms wear a medical mask, states, “the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks.” They also warn that the following potential risks should be taken into account:[xxv]
· Self-contamination that can occur by touching and reusing contaminated masks
· Potential breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used
· False sense of security, leading to potentially less adherence to other preventive measures, such as physical distancing and hand hygiene
· Diversion of mask supplies and consequent shortage of masks for health care workers
· Diversion of resources from effective public health measures, such as hand hygiene
The potential benefits of mask wearing become even more dubious when it comes to the cloth masks now being widely used across the U.S. In a 2015 study led by Raina MacIntyre at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, 1,607 health care workers in Vietnam were given either disposable medical masks or reusable cloth masks that could be washed at home at the end of the day.[xxvi]
Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97%, compared to 44% for medical masks, and those who wore cloth masks were much more likely to be infected with a virus. The results were so poor that the study cautioned against the use of cloth masks in a health care setting, stating that moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration could increase infection risk, and researchers stated, “Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally.”[xxvii]
“There's just not a lot of evidence for cloth masks in the community,” MacIntyre told New Scientist.[xxviii] In Finland, meanwhile, COVID-19 restrictions are being eased without the recommendation for widespread mask wearing. Since research findings into the benefits of face masks vary, the government intends to conduct a detailed study before recommending that the general population wear them.[xxix]
Secondly, information shared regarding the peaceful protesting of concerned citizens in Orange County, CA:
Provided below is a brief list of new studies from recent days -- but at the outset I want to take a brief detour to summarize the results of what happened to OC residents wearing masks.
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020, OC residents turned out en masse to the Board of Supervisors meeting to protest the mandatory mask order. At the meeting the health officer provided zero medical-scientific data that mandatory mask-wearing was safe, particularly during summertime high temperatures, or in the context of young children - nor could he provide any study showing mask-wearing is effective at containing viral transmission in order to combat the myriad studies showing it is NOT effective at viral containment.
At the meeting numerous doctors, attorneys, educators, psychologists, parents, and concerned residents cited medical studies on the harms from mask-wearing. So upset were these residents by the failure of the health officer to rescind the medically-unsubstantiated mandatory mask order - which intransigent position also drew hours of heavy fire from the Supervisors - or even to provide any studies showing efficacy of mask-wearing, that the residents proceeded to go outside onto the steps of the County Hall, at noon, in the 100 degree heat, and put on the "mandated masks" while using a Pulse Oximeter to measure their oxygen levels and heart rate.
The results were nothing short of horrifying:
ALL of the individuals had their oxygen rate drop from a healthy 98 or 99% (without the mask) - a total of five, ten, and sometimes twenty full points - within a few minutes of mask-wearing. Medically, below 92% is considered "dangerous" - while below 90% oxygen merits a denomination of "hypoxemic" The AVERAGE drop of these OC residents in oxygenation was more than 12 points, into the hypoxemic range. {What might this be at the nearly 7,000 feet of elevation in Flagstaff, where we have many visitors arriving from sea level for recreation and social engagement?}
Two of the participants, one a very fit daily runner, and one a very fit nurse, had their oxygen rates drop into the 70s - where organ damage, systems failure, and death can occur. ALL participants suffered dangerous drops in oxygen: 43% fell into the "dangerous" zone, 29% in the hypoxemic zone, and 29% fell into the extremely dangerous hypoxemic zone (where cardiac arrest, organ failure and death occur.) Even those who just stood around in the masks doing absolutely nothing had frightening drops in oxygen levels. As context, most of the participants were in decently good health, and not overweight. I'm sure I don't need to extrapolate for the reader what could happen if this test were performed with an average cross section of citizens, i.e., with the nearly 40% of OC residents who suffer from at least one chronic health condition, and with the more than 20% of OC residents who are obese. It is a striking juxtaposition to note that Medicare and most insurance companies will pay for people with oxygen rates of less than 88% to get supplemental oxygen and all carriers and health experts advise you to seek immediate medical intervention below 88% - and the average oxygen rate was two points less than that at 86% after only a few minutes of mask-wearing..
Given the data, let me underscore once more in no uncertain terms, and in language that is absolutely unmistakable: the liability that an OC School District or Board {or Arizona state or Flagstaff city agencies} will be facing if it mandates mask-wearing is truly incalculable, in the event the mask-wearing causes a drop in oxygen (which we now know it likely will), which then leads to a medical complication or death. We have no idea what will happen to children who are made to wear masks in the hot weather of summer, but my guess is that their systems, being less developed and often more sensitive -- compounded by the fact that children are notoriously poor at self-regulation and are traditionally MUCH more active than adults -- will fare very badly indeed.. Recent headlines have made quite clear that death of children and losses of consciousness can and do occur: https://nypost.com/2020/05/06/two-boys-drop-dead-in-china-while-wearing-masks-during-gym-class/ and https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/two-schoolboys-collapse-and-die-just-six-days-apart-in-china-while-wearing-face-masks-c-1017871 and https://nypost.com/2020/04/24/driver-crashes-car-after-passing-out-from-wearing-n95-mask/.
Let me now turn to the original reason for writing this email, which was to provide you a Summary of Medical Data (June 2020) from Switzerland:
• "According to the latest immunological and serological studies, the overall lethality of Covid-19 (IFR) is at most 0.1% and thus in the range of a strong seasonal influenza (flu)."
• "Even in the global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work."
• "The median or average age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.” https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR1HebavrIpzi2bkq7Djm86JOyh5hTeIRw8QbjhPaSkI_eUOzpUItrWKtj8
Also, New England Journal of Medicine notes that masking is ineffective in community settings, and that even in healthcare arenas, it's highest and best use is not to reduce viral transmission but people's anxiety:
• "The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a REFLEXIVE REACTION TO ANXIETY over the pandemic.... Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19."
New England Journal of Medicine (May, 21, 2020).https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372?fbclid=IwAR2XUtZJCUW-fGrayqv481-PmqTaAlaYU2V6w0YBcB9fi5KDC-iv5xhy-cE
Finally, the World Health Organization came out recently (June 8, 2020), concluding in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that asymptomatic patients are NOT spreaders of the virus, which simply confirmed what earlier studies in May had found. Put simply: masking and social distancing are unnecessary, will create more medical and psychological damage than benefit, and are unneeded as healthy people and asymptomatic positive people DO NOT SPREAD THE VIRUS (so just keep the sneezy-coughers out of class -- which is standard -- and we will be just fine):
• "Coronavirus patients without symptoms aren’t driving the spread of the virus, World Health Organization officials said Monday, casting doubt on concerns by some researchers that the disease could be difficult to contain due to asymptomatic infections. 'We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing,' she said. 'They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare.’" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html
As always, Mayor Evans, I deeply appreciate your earnest and thoughtful consideration of the information provided.
Most sincerely,
Dr. Sarica Cernohous, L.Ac.
MASKS
Hi there—I wanted to share the following with you, if you are living in an area that is employing mandatory mask-wearing. Certainly, this letter is unique to Flagstaff, but I wanted you to have something that you could mostly cut and paste and craft your own personalized letter to the agency or governing body making such proclamations in your area, if you are inclined to have such mandates lifted.
With love!
Sarica
Dear Mayor Evans,
I would like to share with you additional information related to the proclamation you have made in regard to the wearing of masks in Flagstaff’s public places.
I am hereby requesting an immediate response by Flagstaff’s and the state of Arizona's Health Departments to the effect that mask wearing - which causes such precipitous drops in oxygenation - is healthy. Frankly, I doubt that such a statement can or will be forthcoming, given that every medical study worldwide holds that catastrophic medical situations and death occur in these low oxygen ranges.
If no statement can be propounded by the city and state Health Departments - that it is medically safe for one to have oxygenation levels below 92% - then I would expect an immediate retraction of the City’s order IN FULL regarding mask wearing. Even "recommending" such an action - now that we are all on notice that mask wearing for even a few minutes creates immediate and dangerous hypoxemia - puts Flagstaff residents at risk of catastrophic organ failure and death, with untold liability facing the the state and city agencies for same.
In addition, I found the following incredibly compelling to the points of effectiveness of combatting the spread of infection, and the health and liability concerns of asking otherwise healthy citizens to do so.
First, from GreenMedInfo.org (if reference links in cited article do not click through, please visit the original, https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/should-you-wear-mask-prevent-covid-19?)
As recently as February 29, 2020, U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams tweeted, “Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching coronavirus … ”[i]
Yet, in a dramatic about-face, weeks later the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said they recommend wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain, especially in areas with significant community-based transmission, and stated, “CDC also advises the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus and help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.”[ii]
Face Masks Led to ‘No Significant Reduction’ in Virus Transmission
The idea of wearing a face mask, according to the CDC, is not so much to protect the wearer, but rather to benefit the population overall. If you’re infected with COVID-19 and don’t have symptoms, the theory is that wearing a mask could prevent you from inadvertently infecting someone else when you’re out and about.[vii]
Studies, however, don’t bear this out. In a May 2020 systematic review published in Emerging Infectious Diseases — a journal published by the CDC — researchers identified 10 trials that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing cases of influenza in the community. “In pooled analysis,” they stated, “we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”[viii]
This included a study of face mask use among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage — no major difference in the risk of influenza infection was found between the mask wearers and non-mask wearers. Two studies in university settings were also included, looking into the effectiveness of face masks among student hall residents for five months.
“The overall reduction in ILI [influenza-like illness] or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies,” the researchers found.[ix]
Surgical Masks, Cotton Masks Ineffective at Filtering SARS-Cov-2
A study of four patients with COVID-19 led to similar results — that wearing masks does little to block SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.[x] Researchers asked the patients to cough five times into a petri dish while wearing no mask, a surgical mask and then a cotton mask. They swabbed the inner and outer mask surfaces afterward, finding that while most swabs from the inner mask surfaces were negative for SARS-CoV-2, all swabs from the outer mask surfaces were positive.
This raises two important points. First, as the study noted, “Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS-CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients.” Second, the fact that the outer surface was more contaminated highlights the problems that can occur if a person touches the outside of their mask — thereby contaminating their hands. It’s possible that air leakage around the edge of the mask allowed the outer mask to become contaminated, or that the small aerosols of SARS-CoV-2 were able to penetrate the masks.
Either way, “[t]hese observations support the importance of hand hygiene after touching the outer surface of masks,” according to the researchers, but the likelihood of the general public, including children, washing their hands every time they touch their mask is small. A 2010 study added that while some evidence suggests wearing masks or respirators when you’re ill may protect others, there is less evidence on mask wearing to prevent becoming infected, especially in real-world settings:
“In conclusion there remains a substantial gap in the scientific literature on the effectiveness of face masks to reduce transmission of influenza virus infection.
While there is some experimental evidence that masks should be able to reduce infectiousness under controlled conditions, there is less evidence on whether this translates to effectiveness in natural settings. There is little evidence to support the effectiveness of face masks to reduce the risk of infection.”[xi]
If COVID-19 Is Aerosolized, Surgical and Cotton Masks Ineffective
The idea of cloth face coverings preventing transmission was based on the idea that COVID-19 is primarily spread via large respiratory droplets. Research now suggests, however, that SARS-CoV-2 may remain suspended in aerosols for up to 16 hours.[xii]
It’s also been found that COVID-19 particles may be as small as 1 to 4 microns in size,[xiii] while surgical masks only protect against particles larger than 100 microns.[xiv],[xv] Again, surgical masks are intended to protect the wearer against large droplets or splashes of bodily fluids, while protecting others from the wearer’s respiratory emissions.
Even the CDC states that surgical masks do “not provide the wearer with a reliable level of protection from inhaling smaller airborne particles and is not considered respiratory protection.”[xvi] On the contrary, an N95 respirator is a type of mask with a tight-fitting face seal designed for health care workers who may be exposed to hazardous small particle aerosols.
In the case of respiratory virus and influenza, rates of infection were double among those wearing surgical masks compared to those wearing N95 respirators.[xvii] This suggests N95 respirators offer some protection, but not only are they in short supply, they’re only typically worn by health care providers performing certain high-risk procedures.
Wearing a Mask May Increase Virus Transmission, Cause Adverse Effects
The Emerging Infectious Diseases review pointed out that in lower-income settings reusable cloth masks are more likely to be used than disposable medical masks due to cost and availability. Indeed, reusable cloth masks are what’s being promoted across much of the U.S., even though research is scarce into the use of such masks, and wearing them the “wrong” way could backfire.
“Proper use of face masks is essential because improper use might increase the risk for transmission,” according to the study.[xviii] Speaking with Forbes, Dr. Eli Perencevich, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Iowa’s College of Medicine, agreed:
“The average healthy person does not need to have a mask, and they shouldn’t be wearing masks … There’s no evidence that wearing masks on healthy people will protect them. They wear them incorrectly, and they can increase the risk of infection because they’re touching their face more often.”[xix]
“Wearing a mask is tricky,” he added, “because it can create a false sense of security. If you don’t wash your hands before you take off the mask and after you take off your mask, you could increase your risk.”[xx] There are some risks inherent to wearing a mask, as well, such as hypoxia.
One study found a decrease in the oxygen saturation of arterial pulsations (SpO2) and a slight increase in pulse rates among surgeons wearing a surgical mask, and the decrease was more prominent in surgeons over the age of 35.[xxi] The risks may be higher for N95 respirators, which may impede gaseous exchange and increase workload on the metabolic system, particularly in pregnant health care workers.
“The benefits of using N95 mask to prevent serious emerging infectious diseases should be weighed against potential respiratory consequences associated with extended N95 respirator usage,” researchers concluded.[xxii] Headaches,[xxiii] dizziness, shortness of breath and even reduced working efficiency and ability to make correct decisions are also common following prolonged usage of N95 respirators.[xxiv]
Even WHO Warns of Mask Risks
The World Health Organization (WHO), while recommending that people with symptoms wear a medical mask, states, “the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks.” They also warn that the following potential risks should be taken into account:[xxv]
· Self-contamination that can occur by touching and reusing contaminated masks
· Potential breathing difficulties, depending on type of mask used
· False sense of security, leading to potentially less adherence to other preventive measures, such as physical distancing and hand hygiene
· Diversion of mask supplies and consequent shortage of masks for health care workers
· Diversion of resources from effective public health measures, such as hand hygiene
The potential benefits of mask wearing become even more dubious when it comes to the cloth masks now being widely used across the U.S. In a 2015 study led by Raina MacIntyre at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, 1,607 health care workers in Vietnam were given either disposable medical masks or reusable cloth masks that could be washed at home at the end of the day.[xxvi]
Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97%, compared to 44% for medical masks, and those who wore cloth masks were much more likely to be infected with a virus. The results were so poor that the study cautioned against the use of cloth masks in a health care setting, stating that moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration could increase infection risk, and researchers stated, “Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally.”[xxvii]
“There's just not a lot of evidence for cloth masks in the community,” MacIntyre told New Scientist.[xxviii] In Finland, meanwhile, COVID-19 restrictions are being eased without the recommendation for widespread mask wearing. Since research findings into the benefits of face masks vary, the government intends to conduct a detailed study before recommending that the general population wear them.[xxix]
Secondly, information shared regarding the peaceful protesting of concerned citizens in Orange County, CA:
Provided below is a brief list of new studies from recent days -- but at the outset I want to take a brief detour to summarize the results of what happened to OC residents wearing masks.
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020, OC residents turned out en masse to the Board of Supervisors meeting to protest the mandatory mask order. At the meeting the health officer provided zero medical-scientific data that mandatory mask-wearing was safe, particularly during summertime high temperatures, or in the context of young children - nor could he provide any study showing mask-wearing is effective at containing viral transmission in order to combat the myriad studies showing it is NOT effective at viral containment.
At the meeting numerous doctors, attorneys, educators, psychologists, parents, and concerned residents cited medical studies on the harms from mask-wearing. So upset were these residents by the failure of the health officer to rescind the medically-unsubstantiated mandatory mask order - which intransigent position also drew hours of heavy fire from the Supervisors - or even to provide any studies showing efficacy of mask-wearing, that the residents proceeded to go outside onto the steps of the County Hall, at noon, in the 100 degree heat, and put on the "mandated masks" while using a Pulse Oximeter to measure their oxygen levels and heart rate.
The results were nothing short of horrifying:
ALL of the individuals had their oxygen rate drop from a healthy 98 or 99% (without the mask) - a total of five, ten, and sometimes twenty full points - within a few minutes of mask-wearing. Medically, below 92% is considered "dangerous" - while below 90% oxygen merits a denomination of "hypoxemic" The AVERAGE drop of these OC residents in oxygenation was more than 12 points, into the hypoxemic range. {What might this be at the nearly 7,000 feet of elevation in Flagstaff, where we have many visitors arriving from sea level for recreation and social engagement?}
Two of the participants, one a very fit daily runner, and one a very fit nurse, had their oxygen rates drop into the 70s - where organ damage, systems failure, and death can occur. ALL participants suffered dangerous drops in oxygen: 43% fell into the "dangerous" zone, 29% in the hypoxemic zone, and 29% fell into the extremely dangerous hypoxemic zone (where cardiac arrest, organ failure and death occur.) Even those who just stood around in the masks doing absolutely nothing had frightening drops in oxygen levels. As context, most of the participants were in decently good health, and not overweight. I'm sure I don't need to extrapolate for the reader what could happen if this test were performed with an average cross section of citizens, i.e., with the nearly 40% of OC residents who suffer from at least one chronic health condition, and with the more than 20% of OC residents who are obese. It is a striking juxtaposition to note that Medicare and most insurance companies will pay for people with oxygen rates of less than 88% to get supplemental oxygen and all carriers and health experts advise you to seek immediate medical intervention below 88% - and the average oxygen rate was two points less than that at 86% after only a few minutes of mask-wearing..
Given the data, let me underscore once more in no uncertain terms, and in language that is absolutely unmistakable: the liability that an OC School District or Board {or Arizona state or Flagstaff city agencies} will be facing if it mandates mask-wearing is truly incalculable, in the event the mask-wearing causes a drop in oxygen (which we now know it likely will), which then leads to a medical complication or death. We have no idea what will happen to children who are made to wear masks in the hot weather of summer, but my guess is that their systems, being less developed and often more sensitive -- compounded by the fact that children are notoriously poor at self-regulation and are traditionally MUCH more active than adults -- will fare very badly indeed.. Recent headlines have made quite clear that death of children and losses of consciousness can and do occur: https://nypost.com/2020/05/06/two-boys-drop-dead-in-china-while-wearing-masks-during-gym-class/ and https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/two-schoolboys-collapse-and-die-just-six-days-apart-in-china-while-wearing-face-masks-c-1017871 and https://nypost.com/2020/04/24/driver-crashes-car-after-passing-out-from-wearing-n95-mask/.
Let me now turn to the original reason for writing this email, which was to provide you a Summary of Medical Data (June 2020) from Switzerland:
• "According to the latest immunological and serological studies, the overall lethality of Covid-19 (IFR) is at most 0.1% and thus in the range of a strong seasonal influenza (flu)."
• "Even in the global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work."
• "The median or average age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 4% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.” https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR1HebavrIpzi2bkq7Djm86JOyh5hTeIRw8QbjhPaSkI_eUOzpUItrWKtj8
Also, New England Journal of Medicine notes that masking is ineffective in community settings, and that even in healthcare arenas, it's highest and best use is not to reduce viral transmission but people's anxiety:
• "The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a REFLEXIVE REACTION TO ANXIETY over the pandemic.... Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19."
New England Journal of Medicine (May, 21, 2020).https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372?fbclid=IwAR2XUtZJCUW-fGrayqv481-PmqTaAlaYU2V6w0YBcB9fi5KDC-iv5xhy-cE
Finally, the World Health Organization came out recently (June 8, 2020), concluding in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that asymptomatic patients are NOT spreaders of the virus, which simply confirmed what earlier studies in May had found. Put simply: masking and social distancing are unnecessary, will create more medical and psychological damage than benefit, and are unneeded as healthy people and asymptomatic positive people DO NOT SPREAD THE VIRUS (so just keep the sneezy-coughers out of class -- which is standard -- and we will be just fine):
• "Coronavirus patients without symptoms aren’t driving the spread of the virus, World Health Organization officials said Monday, casting doubt on concerns by some researchers that the disease could be difficult to contain due to asymptomatic infections. 'We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing,' she said. 'They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare.’" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html
As always, Mayor Evans, I deeply appreciate your earnest and thoughtful consideration of the information provided.
Most sincerely,
Dr. Sarica Cernohous, L.Ac.
RSS Feed