Reviewing the Scientific Community OUTSIDE Direct W.H.O. Pressure

Part 1

Wayne C. Sedlak, Ph.D.[1]

(Disclaimer: This Position Paper is NOT designed for the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, or cure of any medical condition or advice in any particular case. Furthermore, any medical or health information presented herein is designed solely for educational purposes. All medical and health facts, data, and conclusions are those of the authorities cited, being publicly displayed elsewhere and herein. This author is exclusively dependent directly or indirectly, upon medical and health authorities cited herein, whose opinions, facts, and conclusions are simply “shared” with the reader below.)

1. WHO is W.H.O.?

W.H.O. is the World Health Organization and is nothing less than that arm of the United Nations responsible for global public health, both of which are the happy recipients of funding, research, and directives from the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter is the most heavily connected (i.e. read “influential”) Foundation in the world. Such “influence” heads a network of trillions of dollars in assets (far beyond its own Balance Sheet). Much of WHO’s funding is provided by governments and private donors including Bill and Melinda Gates, and The Rockefeller Foundation.

Understanding who “W.H.O.” really is becomes important for understanding the relevant data concerning Covid-19 and the worldwide imposition of the greatest politically enforced medical experiment in history.

The particular issue herein addressed concerns the relevant medical-health information throughout the world concerning the dangers and failure of the enforced wearing of masks. Please note: scientists around the world are appalled at the lack of scientific basis for the incited panic among Americans – its divisiveness, its fractionalizing of society, its economic destructiveness, and its future potential and current actual HARM – for the imposed wearing of masks. Many of the scientists involved are associated with W.H.O but their objections remain relatively “unheard,” being marginalized by the media.

2. Key Anchor Points: “To Wear or Not to Wear …”

Provided below are key anchor points for Parts 1 ( 2 coming soon) of this set, sharing a segment of the extensive scientific literature that presents the fact that wearing surgical masks and the use of respirators (e.g., “N95”), and social distancing, each have little or no effect in reducing the risk of contracting a verified illness:[2]

1. Airborne Viruses too small for masks to inhibit.
2. Seasonal patterns of virus growth NOT due to mask or distancing disuse
3. Institutional propagandists operating in a “science vacuum”
4. Profound health and societal fallout are predictable

1. 3. The “Fly crossing “…
      

Studies from many prestigious scientific authorities have shown wearing a mask does not significantly protect the user and, in actuality, gives a false – ironically, even “panicked” – sense of security. More to the point, it is NOT that such studies have yet to prove the issue one way or the other. The point is… 1) the mask is too porous[3] for the size of the virus involved (approx. 2.5 µm), 2) the underlying mechanism of pathogen-laden aerosol particles are neutralized with increased ambient humidity[4] and 3) social distancing falsely assumes what is called “humidity-independent RO[5] values” thereby making such acts of little value against the spread of viruses.[6]

Perhaps an analogy will give us perspective. Visualize a stretch of road about one mile in length and let a fly pass over it at some point. That’s a pretty close comparison of the porosity of the mask versus the size of the virus. Such a fact was KNOWN long before this pandemic to the folks at W.H.O.[7] Of course, that begs the question: “Why did they move ahead with the greatest politically enforced medical experiment in history?”

Even more tragic is the fact there is an unmistakably great… “potential harm from the concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks.”[8] Put bluntly, governments and health authorities (under pressure from W.H.O.) may be putting people in harm’s way since many types of pathogens do adhere to the masks and build up a presence in the mask.[9]

Many Randomly Controlled Studies (RCT) have determined that the masks worn by people, urged by media, and enforced by government…

…all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.[10]

4. Anchor Points – Sampling the body of scientific exposure concerning mask usage (conclusion and facts of record cited with their footnoted authority. Emphasis added herein):

•  Conclusion stated in study: No significant benefit vs cold symptoms. Headache frequency increased: “N95-masked health-care workers (HCW) were significantly more likely to experience headaches. Face mask use in HCW was not demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.”[11]
• Conclusion stated in study: No benefit from mask use in studied sectors of society: “None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask, in either HCW or community members in households.”[12]
• “We identified 6 clinical studies … In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of (a) laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, (b) influenza-like illness, or (c) reported work-place absenteeism.”[13]
• “There were 17 eligible studies. … None of the studies established a conclusive
  relationship between mask ⁄ respirator use and protection against influenza”[14]
• “Self-reported assessment of clinical outcomes was prone to bias. Evidence of a protective effect of masks or respirators against verified respiratory infection (VRI) was not statistically significant”[15]
• “Among 2862 randomized participants, 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCW-seasons. … Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”[16]
• “A total of six RCTs involving 9171 participants were included. There were no statistically significant differences in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection and influenza-like illness using N95 respirators and surgical masks. Meta-analysis indicated a protective effect of N95 respirators against laboratory-confirmed bacterial colonization (RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78). The use of N95 respirators compared with surgical masks is not associated with a lower risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.”[17]
• Health care workers (HCW) outside surgical suites in Asia use surgical-type face masks citing the need to prevent upper-respiratory infection. However, as stated earlier, many authorities admit evidence of the effectiveness of such masks is lacking.[18] Furthermore, this study noted there were NO STUDIES AVAILABLE THAT DEMONSTRATED PREVENTION OF AIRBORNE DISEASES (INCLUDING THE COMMON COLD!) BY USE OF FACE MASKS.[19]
• The U.S. Surgeon General recognizes that masks “are not effective in preventing the general public from catching the corona virus.” [20]

“Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!

They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!” – US Attorney General [21]

According to the authorities cited in the field above, there is NO study to show that the broad use of face masks has any preventative usefulness in the applications invoked by the spread of viruses of the COVID 19 type, as cited by Harper, Shaman, et al. (per Rancourt). There are W.H.O. based studies addressing the subject (loudly)… but no RCT to verify the claims.[22]

5. “Seasonal Variation of Excess Deaths”

It is tragic that death reigns. But the hype of massive death counts from Covid-19 was soon replaced with the obvious fact that there are SOME deaths, especially of already medically compromised people…and there are many non-fatal, even non-symptomatic, cases.  Therefore, it is alleged, we must quarantine all of society. Is that political-medical-economic and social conclusion justified?

There is no doubt the elderly and those with compromised immune systems can be at risk. That was true BEFORE Covid-19. So why the abandonment of well-established scientific principles in this hysterically dominated, media feeding frenzy surrounding Covid-19?

It is a well-known fact pandemics can occur at any time. We all grew up being reminded, “It’s flu season” because in the temperate latitudes there is the “extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality” from viruses, which is seasonal.[23] The point is simple: it is NOT the failure to use masks nor failure to implement social distancing which are responsible for the spread of Covid-19 like diseases, as stipulated by medical experts herein below:

In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.[24]

The underlying mechanism is that the pathogen-laden aerosol particles or droplets are neutralized within a half-life that monotonically and significantly decreases with increasing ambient humidity. This is based on the seminal work of Harper (1961). Harper experimentally showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times, as ambient humidity was increased.[25]

Harper argued that the viruses themselves were made inoperative by the humidity (“viable decay”), however, he admitted that the effect could be from humidity-enhanced physical removal or sedimentation of the droplets (“physical loss”): “Aerosol viabilities reported in this paper are based on the ratio of virus titre to radioactive count in suspension and cloud samples, and can be criticized on the ground that test and tracer materials were not physically identical.”[26]The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.[27] In particular, Shaman’s work necessarily implies, rather than being a fixed number… the epidemic’s basic reproduction umber (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.[28] In case you were momentarily “glazed over” by the science, ambient humidity is the key factor for the reproduction of the virus…and its decay.

To Download a Shareable PDF MasksPart1

COMING SOON Part 2: “MASK Don’t Work”: Institutional propagandists operating in a “science vacuum” COMING 

[1] Dr. Wayne Sedlak is not a medical doctor but is a professionally recognized researcher and author, as well as a Graduate school professor. He is a trained linguist, historian, economics professor, educator, author, former radio talk show host. He is a businessman, former missionary and, for almost a half century, distinguished in the Christian pastoral ministry. Over the many decades of service, he has worked in charitable and educational services/ministries in Africa and the United States and continues to work therein voluntarily up to the current day. “I call the indigenous people of Africa whom I have served over these many years, my brothers and sisters and I am fearful for their lives and well-being BECAUSE of the damage done to them by severe governmental and United Nations (W.H.O.) overreach. Crisis has wrought apocalyptic havoc upon peoples I love. I only hope and pray this continued tragedy will be stopped… now!”

[2] Dennis R. Rancourt, Ph.D., “Masks Don’t Work: A review of science relevant to COVID-19 social policy” (Working Report, Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca) , Published at Research Gate, April 2020), 2. accessed and archived online 7/7/2020: Link Here 

[3] “Porous”/” porosity”- (of a rock or other material) having minute spaces or holes through which liquid or air may pass. Lexico US Dictionary: accessed and archived online 7/10/2020:Link Here

[4] GJ Harper, “Airborne micro-organisms: survival tests with four viruses” J Hyg (London. 1961 Dec; 59):479-86: NIH: National Library of Medicine, accessed and archived July 9, 2020; Link Here

[5] R0, pronounced “R naught,” is a mathematical term that indicates how contagious an infectious disease is. It’s also referred to as the reproduction number. Vanessa Bates Ramirez, “What Is R0? Gauging Contagious Infections,” Healthline: accessed and archived 7/11/2020: https://www.healthline.com/health/r-nought-reproduction-number#meaning Link Here
[6] Coburn, B. J. et al. (2009) “Modeling influenza epidemics and pandemics: insights into the future of swine flu (H1N1)”, BMC Med 7, 30. accessed and archived 7/8/2020: Link Here ; Tracht, S. M. et al. (2010) “Mathematical Modeling of the Effectiveness of Facemasks in Reducing the Spread of Novel Influenza A (H1N1)”, PLoS ONE 5(2): e9018.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009018   Link Here

[7] W.H.O. scientists knew of the Harpers (supra, footnote 4) study; it remains the seminal study on the subject. Why do they ignore it?

[8] D. Rancourt, 4

[9] D. Rancourt, 2

[10] Ibid., 1 (This Report synthesizes and coalesces the body of scientific medical literature concerning “masks” as preventative measures against flu- like diseases). Ibid., D. Rancourt, 2

[11] Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009), American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. Link Here . Cited D Rancourt, 2

[12] Cowling, B. et al. (2010) “Face masks to prevent transmission of influenza virus: A systematic review”, Epidemiology and Infection, 138(4), 449-456.doi:10.1017/S0950268809991658:  Link Here  systematicreview/64D368496EBDE0AFCC6639CCC9D8BC05; Cited D Rancourt, 2

[13] Smith, J.D. et al. (2016) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, CMAJ Mar 2016, cmaj.150835; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150835; Link Here ; cited D Rancourt, 2

[14] bin-Reza et al. (2012) “The use of masks and respirators to prevent transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence”, Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 6(4), 257–267.
Link Here cited D. Rancourt, 2

[15] Offeddu, V. et al. (2017) “Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 65, Issue 11, 1 December 2017, Pages 1934–1942;https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix681; Link Here; cited D. Rancourt, 3

[16] Radonovich, L.J. et al. (2019) “N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel: A Randomized Clinical Trial”, Journal of the American Medical Assoc. (JAMA) 2019; 322(9): 824–833. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11645 Link Here cited D. Rancourt, 3

[17] Long, Y. et al. (2020) “Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks against influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, J Evid Based Med. 2020; 1-9. Link Here, cited D. Rancourt, 3 Link Here

[18] Jacobs, J. L. et al. (2009), American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 37, Issue 5, 417 – 419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19216002. Cited D Rancourt, 2

[19] Ibid., 2

[20] U.S Attorney General cited, accessed 7/11/2020 online: Link Here

[21] US Attorney General Cited: Link Here

[22] D. Rancourt’s article as it summarizes the known medical research literature, 4

[23] Ibid., 5 Citing Shaman, J. et al. (2010) “Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States”, PLoS Biol 8(2): e1000316.accessed and archived 7/7/2020:Link Here

[24] Ibid., 5. Citing Shaman, J. et al. (2010) “Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States”, PLoS Biol 8(2): e1000316.accessed and archived 7/7/2020: Link Here

[25] Ibid., 6, Citing HARPER GJ. “Airborne micro-organisms: survival tests with four viruses.” J Hyg (Lond). 1961 Dec; 59():479-86. accessed and archived 7/7/2020:  NIH: National Library of Medicine; National Center for Biotechnology Information at PubMed.gov:: Link Here

[26] Ibid., 6, Citing HARPER GJ. “Airborne micro-organisms: survival tests with four viruses.” J Hyg (Lond). 1961 Dec; 59():479-86. accessed and archived 7/7/2020:  NIH: National Library of Medicine; National Center for Biotechnology Information at PubMed.gov:: Link Here

[27] Ibid., 6, Citing Shaman, J. et al. (2010) “Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States”, PLoS Biol 8(2): e1000316.accessed and archived 7/7/2020: Link Here

[28] Ibid., 6, Citing Shaman, J. et al. (2010) “Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States”, PLoS Biol 8(2): e1000316.accessed and archived 7/7/2020: Link Here

Mask Image Header Credit Here
Laboratory Image Credit Here
Mask 2 Image Credit Here