principiascientificinternational--2020-09-16--COVID-19 Lockdowns ‘Over 10 Times More Deadly’ Than Pandemic Itself

COVID-19 Lockdowns ‘ Over 10 Times More Deadly ’ Than Pandemic Itself A study commissioned by Revolver News concludes that COVID-19 lockdowns are ten times more deadly than the actual COVID-19 virus in terms of years of life lost by American citizens .
Up until this point there had been no simple , rigorous analysis that accurately and definitively conveys the true costs of the COVID-19 lockdowns .
Accordingly , Revolver News set out to commission a study to do precisely that : to finally quantify the net damage of the lockdowns in terms of a metric known as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawn upon existing economic studies on the health effects of unemployment to calculate an estimate of how many years of life will have been lost due to the lockdowns in the United States , and have weighed this against an estimate of how many years of life will have been saved by the lockdowns .
The results are nothing short of staggering , and suggest that the lockdowns will end up costing Americans over 10 times as many years of life as they will save from the virus itself .
The COVID-19 lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the greater part of 2020 represent one of the most dramatic , consequential , and damaging policy measures undertaken in this nation ’ s history .
For the first time in its history , America has experienced a situation so crippling and perilous that long term financial and social stability have been legitimately threatened .
As with everything in 2020 America , these lockdown measures have become deeply politicized .
President Trump opposes further devastating lockdowns .
In his recent Republican National Convention speech , President Trump raised the point that lockdowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effects on the lives of many Americans .
Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden , by contrast , has suggested that he is willing to impose further lockdowns if “ scientists ” tell him to do so .
It is unclear which scientists Joe Biden would be listening to , as there is no consensus among scientists and experts as to whether or not lockdowns are worth the staggering costs they impose on the common man .
If you feel that you are in need of mental health support during this unprecedented time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is very proud to present a rigorous study on such an important topic and we hope that this will be spread far and wide both within government and without to assist policymakers .
This exclusive study is a collaborative guest contribution to Revolver News .
Due to the unfortunately politicized nature of the COVID-19 lockdowns , and the associated plausibility of professional repercussions , the authors have chosen for the time being to represent themselves pseudonymously .
Abel Sumner is a Ph.D. candidate in a social sciences field with both private and public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is extensively trained in statistics , econometrics , and quantitatively informed public policy .
Jeremiah Jackson holds a Ph.D. in economics and has experience both in the public sector as a policy maker and in the private sector as an analyst .
Jacob Cage holds a Ph.D. in a social sciences field and has extensive experience both in the public and private sectors in policy analysis and strategic communications .
• Standard approaches to evaluating epidemic policy responses , involving the Value of a Statistical Life , have conceptual problems and are biased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Using a life-years criterion as an alternative shows that the lockdowns cost an order of magnitude more life-years than they saved .
• Most of the publicized cost-benefit analyses of COVID-19 lockdowns have used coarse measures like lives as units rather than life-years , which misleads politicians and the general public .
COVID-19 deaths disproportionately impact the oldest members of the population , whereas the economic impacts of lockdowns disproportionately harm the youngest of the working population , who have far greater life expectancies at the time of impact .
• Using prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entering into a market marred by an economic recession , empirical estimates of life-years lost can be determined .
Extensive research on job displacement can be used to estimate the economic impact in life-years of starkly increased unemployment for mid-to-late career workers .
• Combining these analyses , we found that an estimated 18.7 million life-years will be lost in the United States due to the COVID-19 lockdowns .
Comparative data analysis between nations shows that the lockdowns in the United States likely had a minimal effect in saving life-years .
Using two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the COVID-19 lockdowns in the U.S. saved between a quarter to three quarters of a million life-years .
• Every broad age category lost life-years from the lockdowns including those 55 and older .
• The media and state and local governments contributed to the panic by selectively presenting evidence on COVID-19 and shutdowns of dubious benefit .
• Public health researchers and health economists gave poor policy advice and made selective use of the prior research literature .
They will likely be rewarded , not punished , by academia for their failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Public health in general is so biased and vulnerable to motivated cognition that it is not “ not yet ready for policy analysis.
” On March 11 , 2020 , the World Health Organization officially classified COVID-19 as a global pandemic .
In the following weeks , the countries of the world began implementing previously unthinkable measures to prevent the spread of the virus .
In the United States , some states quickly locked down nearly all physical businesses , venues , and public areas .
As a short quarantine rapidly grew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and economists began asking if the lockdowns would cause more damage than the virus itself .
Using empirical research , first-pass estimates can be made about the impact of the unprecedented lockdown in life-years lost .
This can then be compared to the number to the estimated life-years lost to COVID-19 in the United States .
Why life-years ?
It is well-known that socioeconomic status ( SES ) appears to be linked to life expectancy and some of that association is causal , with higher SESes causing longer life expectancies through a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make decisions using the Value of a Statistical Life ( VSLs ) — which is about $ 10 million .
If a regulation can save 1 life and costs $ 9 million , for instance , then it ’ s worth imposing to save a life .
If it costs $ 11 million , then it ’ s not worth imposing to save a life .
A problem with this approach is how coarse it is .
Because SES is linked to life expectancies , actions by the government that do not result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to being simply unaccounted for in this approach .
For example , why not set the VSL at $ 100 million ?
Or $ 1 ?
If you set the VSL too low , you will fail to impose many very cheap lifesaving regulations .
Something perhaps more subtle is that if you set the VSL too high , then regulations you impose will reduce income so much by retarding economic activity that you will wind up reducing life expectancies through the SES-life expectancy channel .
There are actually more fundamental issues with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all citizens ( see Sunstein ’ s Valuing Life for a good overview ) , but many find the general equilibrium problems with it very intuitive .
Surprisingly , the COVID-19 conversation among public health analysts , bio-statisticians , economists , and policymakers who are otherwise sensitive to the problems with VSL has been dominated by the standard “ coarse ” VSL calculation above .
We have seen no full policy analyses utilizing life-year approaches , although various studies have tried to estimate the average life-year losses per COVID-19 death .
Controversy over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life , problems with actually applying it in analysis as described above , and perhaps a certain odiousness associated with the rendering of human lives in dollar terms have pushed some health economists and public health analysts toward use of a life-years approach .
This approach is simple , and in principle , involves no explicit conversion of human lives into money terms — although such a trade-off is implicit in any policy analysis .
From the life-years ’ perspective , a policymaker can compute the life-years lost and gained if they take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new airline safety regulation may make users of airlines so safe that they save an average of 0.1 life-years per traveler , but the higher cost of air travel may induce potential passengers to switch to less safe car travel , costing the switchers an average of 0.3 life-years .
If enough people switch to car travel , then the airline safety regulation will actually reduce the total life-years lived from the perspective of the transportation system as a whole .
A life-year maximizer would say that the regulation should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach is that it values all people ’ s life-years equally in principle .
The life-year of an 80 year old is of equal value to that of a 20 year old .
The life-year of a poor person is worth the same as the life-year of a rich person .
The VSL method , by incorrectly estimating the amount that heterogenous consumers and workers are willing to pay for safety , may privilege the wealthy ( who place a higher premium on safety ) and the elderly ( who will not have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs of more safety regulations ) over the poor and the young , who might prefer less safe but much cheaper goods and services or higher paying , but unsafe jobs over lower paying , but safe jobs .
With life-years now established as our operational metric , we shall proceed with our analysis of the life-year impacts of Covid lockdown policies .
The COVID-19 lockdowns have resulted in a massive global recession , which has spared almost no country , firm , or economic sector .
Job displacement in America has occurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Great Depression in the 1930s , with unemployment as high as 14.7 % in April of 2020 .
Using a back-of-the envelope calculation , we can lower-bound the medium-term increase in unemployment , which can reasonably be estimated at around 8.5 % .
It is important to note that even medium-term unemployment will result in permanent job separations , as employees who are unemployed for over a year are unlikely to return to their previous position .
Previous research on job displacement and mortality has found that displaced workers face a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost years of life can be estimated .
[ 1 ] Job losses and permanent job separations have been shown to correlate directly with increases in heart disease , drug overdoses , lung cancer , and liver disease , among other factors of increased mortality risk .
Sullivan and Von Watcher ’ s paper on job displacement and mortality estimated that job separation results in about 1.5 lost life-years per individual .
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ( OECD ) estimates that U.S. unemployment in 2021 will range between 8.5 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a double-wave scenario .
[ 2 ] Assuming that a single-wave scenario occurs , U.S. unemployment next year will increase by about 5 percentage points over pre-COVID-19 2020 levels .
Based on pre-COVID-19 payrolls , total job displacements in 2021 will likely be around 8.2 million .
Increases in 2020 unemployment by age group between February and July can be used to estimate the distribution of additional unemployment for each age group .
Taking the 8.2 million job displacements and multiplying them by Sullivan and Von Watcher ’ s lost life-year coefficients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimate of over 8,000,000 life-years lost due to job displacement .
Beyond direct job displacements , additional research has shown that labor market recessions have significant but lagged effects on the future mortality rates of those entering the labor market .
[ 3 ] Based on Hannes Schwandt and Till von Wachter ’ s linear model of increased mortality due to entering the job market during a recession , a figure of 0.629 life-years are lost per individual in this classification .
[ 4 ] This number can be multiplied by 13 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 and then multiplied separately by the 3.9 million college graduates of 2020 .
[ 5 ] This methodology is also used by Till von Wachter in his working paper on the long-term effects of the Covid-19 crisis on workers .
[ 6 ] By these estimates , long-term life-years lost due to the COVID-19 recession in the U.S. total around 18.7 million .
Table 1 contains a breakdown of total life-years lost as a result of economic conditions created by the lockdowns by all estimation methods .
Having established the amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it remains to consider how many lives these may have saved .
With over 170,000 confirmed COVID-19 deaths at the time of writing , the virus has proven to be a clear public health threat in America .
Table 2 ( below ) contains CDC data for COVID-19 deaths by age group in the United States , and life expectancies of those age groups .
Multiplying the expected years of life remaining by the number of deaths in each age group provides a number for life-years lost by age group .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States adds up to 1.88 million .
It is important to note that this is a high-end estimate .
This calculation assumes that those dying from coronavirus have an average life expectancy and would have otherwise likely lived out the remaining years , had they not contracted the virus .
Recent medical research has shown that coronavirus deaths are more likely to occur in patients with underlying health conditions .
This implies that an estimate of life-years lost due to COVID-19 may be slightly inflated .
To better contextualize the effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to estimate COVID-19 deaths in the United States in a scenario where a lockdown was not enacted .
While much is still unknown about the virus , data from other countries illustrates the effect of varying degrees of lockdowns .
Sweden faced controversy for not enacting lockdown measures , unlike most other nations .
Data from Johns Hopkins University shows that Sweden had a COVID-19 fatality rate of 56.62 per 100,000 people .
[ 7 ] The United States , with full lockdown measures , had a COVID-19 fatality rate of 50 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to the time of writing ] .
The United Kingdom provides yet another perspective , as it initially took an approach closer to Sweden and then changed course during the pandemic , resulting in a COVID-19 death rate of 70 per 100,000 people .
An estimate of U.S. COVID-19 deaths had the lockdowns not been enacted can be estimated by using either Sweden ’ s per-capita death rate or the United Kingdom ’ s rate as counterfactual estimates of the “ least economically costly-possible policy.
” For simplicity , we hold the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Figure 2 and Table 3 show these estimates by age group .
Table 4 shows differences between counterfactual and actual COVID-19 deaths .
For simplicity , we assume that the “ age structure of death ” in the United States for COVID-19 would have continued to apply and apply a simple multiplier ( based on the ratio of per capita deaths in the U.S. and UK/Sweden ) to construct our counterfactual estimates .
Based on the estimations in Table 4 ( directly above ) , the U.S. lockdowns may have saved anywhere between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarters of a million life-years .
This estimate range is staggeringly low compared to the life-years that will be lost as a result of the lockdown .
Figure 3 ( below ) shows the breakdown with the Swedish and U.K. models .
In the Figure , the blue bars represent life-years saved from the lockdown , which are estimated by comparing the U.S. ’ s performance with Sweden and the U.K .
The red bars represent life-years lost from the lockdown , which are estimated using the estimated reductions in life expectancy from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above .
An intuition policymakers should develop is that that the death of someone aged 20 to 25 will “ cost ” a little over 50 life-years .
Similarly , a permanent employment separation today will “ cost ” between 0.5 and 1.5 lost life-years , as a small fraction of permanent separations will yield permanently unemployed workers , who have shorter life expectancies in general ( think stress-induced increases in cancer , heart attacks , homicide , and deaths of despair [ alcohol , suicide , pills ] ) .
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will cost between 7 and 17 years — simply because of the age and comorbidity structure of those typically dying already tilts them towards an early death .
A second key assumption , more debatable , is that absent the lockdowns unemployment would not have dramatically increased .
Krugman and other economists make the case that the consumption cuts driving unemployment would have happened without the stay-at-home orders based on the experience of contiguous countries e.g .
Sweden and Denmark both suffered similar GDP losses .
This logic ignores the fact that huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are linked through trade and so a straightforward difference-in-difference exercise ignores the negative externalities Finnish , Danish , and Norwegian lockdowns imposed on their neighbors .
Even if it was not lockdowns causing the consumption cutbacks , mainstream media did little to push back on catastrophe narratives and , through selective coverage , actively misled citizens ’ about the actual ( small ) risks of COVID-19 .
The fact of the matter is that once COVID-19 hit , there were going to be economic and life-year losses compared to the world where COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimate size of those income and life-year losses , and the geographic and age-allocation of those life-year losses , amount to a policy choice .
Some pedants may quibble that we have constructed our unemployment counterfactual using a time series analysis of U.S. data while we constructed our “ no lockdown ” COVID-19 life-year losses counterfactual using foreign country experience , effectively mixing two different designs .
We encourage the fair reader to consult the title of this piece .
The correct counterfactual is impossible to know .
Real results from a country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than results from an epidemiological model with extremely limited out of sample validity and fundamentally unidentifiable parameters .
The point of this quantitative thought experiment is mostly qualitative and aimed at making the single point to citizens and policymakers : small permanent or cohort-level increases in unemployment induced by the lockdowns easily wipe out the small documented benefits of lockdowns .
[ 8 ] The actual increases in unemployment in the United States are massive — exceeding the scale of the Great Recession .
The long-run increase in unemployment can not easily be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple reason that those countries long-run employment evolutions haven ’ t happened yet , but it is reasonable to assume that COVID-19 has run its course in say , New York or Sweden — which now has around 1-2 COVID-19 deaths per day .
Revolver.news would be honored if someone stole these insights for Lancet , which has a quick turnaround ( recall their Hydroxychloroquine debacle ) , the CDC ’ s in-house journals , or the NBER working paper series on epidemics/COVID-19 .
The economic devastation of the lockdowns will last for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control , and it may lead to far worse ripple effects down the road .
For the first time in its history , America has experienced what could be almost likened to a sudden stop in an emerging nation — a situation so crippling and perilous that long term financial and social stability have been legitimately threatened .
How did this happen ?
It is worth reflecting for a moment on the institutional incentives in academia that led to the pandemic pandemonium and the U.S. ’ s almost assured future fiscal collapse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost life-years ’ perspective — the COVID-19 lockdowns in the U.S. objectively caused far more harm than good to every age category .
The life year losses are so large that it is difficult to see any kind of refinement justifying the current American policy combination .
Indeed , one would need to argue that — without elite panic — a disease only about two to four times as virulent as the flu would have induced a depression , which itself would indict the macrofinancial policymaking community .
Why have the policy trade-offs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the media , or the public in terms of life-years ?
Why did economists and the public health field as a whole , which popularized linkages between socioeconomic status and life expectancy , suddenly fail to consider these linkages when it came to COVID-19 ?
Why did trade economists ignore the trade spillover impacts of lockdowns when considering COVID-19 policy ?
American politicians who enacted these lockdowns were driven by a combination of fear and political incentives .
What drove tenured professionals to exaggerate the potential harms of the virus and minimize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge amounts of both money and time to academics with the promise that knowledge can help lead to more rational policymaking .
Indeed , a few economists were vocal in warning of the damage of potential lockdowns , but most were either silent or fomented panic .
Some economists at the FED and MIT Sloan rushed research to print that actively misled policymakers making life or death decisions Ridiculously , public health experts encouraged “ Black Lives Matter ” protests and riots and claimed that they actually reduced COVID-19 infections .
Indeed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is difficult to imagine any “ academic ” retaining their position who condemned the protests and riots on common-sense public health grounds .
On the basis of this asymmetry ( and similar asymmetries in the treatment of race and mortality , pollution , sexual minorities , and the role of economic analysis in public health ) , public health must be condemned as “ not yet useful for policy analysis ” .
COVID-19 shows that the promise of rational social research is a lie .
Politicians and citizens would have been better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plagues : shutting down borders within the United States and between the United States and other countries , isolating the elderly , and simply wearing a mask .
[ 8 ] Because the employment losses primarily affect downscale workers , making less than $ 50,000/year , remote-working social and policy elites ’ do not intuit or feel these downscale workers ’ pain , unless enterprising journalists can derive some racial oppression narrative from the employment losses .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

COVID-19 Lockdowns ‘Over 10 Times More Deadly’ Than Pandemic Itself
Written by www.revolver.news
A study commissioned by Revolver News concludes that COVID-19 lockdowns are ten times more deadly than the actual COVID-19 virus in terms of years of life lost by American citizens.
Up until this point there had been no simple, rigorous analysis that accurately and definitively conveys the true costs of the COVID-19 lockdowns. Accordingly, Revolver News set out to commission a study to do precisely that: to finally quantify the net damage of the lockdowns in terms of a metric known as “life-years.”
Simply put, we have drawn upon existing economic studies on the health effects of unemployment to calculate an estimate of how many years of life will have been lost due to the lockdowns in the United States, and have weighed this against an estimate of how many years of life will have been saved by the lockdowns. The results are nothing short of staggering, and suggest that the lockdowns will end up costing Americans over 10 times as many years of life as they will save from the virus itself.
The COVID-19 lockdown measures that Americans have had to endure for the greater part of 2020 represent one of the most dramatic, consequential, and damaging policy measures undertaken in this nation’s history. For the first time in its history, America has experienced a situation so crippling and perilous that long term financial and social stability have been legitimately threatened.
As with everything in 2020 America, these lockdown measures have become deeply politicized. President Trump opposes further devastating lockdowns. In his recent Republican National Convention speech, President Trump raised the point that lockdowns have had very real and very devastating effects on the lives of many Americans.
President Trump: “The cost of the Biden shutdown would be measured in increased drug overdoses, depression, alcohol addiction, suicides, heart attacks, economic devastation, job loss and much more. Joe Biden’s plan is not a solution to the virus, but, rather, it’s a surrender to the virus.” [Politico]
Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden, by contrast, has suggested that he is willing to impose further lockdowns if “scientists” tell him to do so. It is unclear which scientists Joe Biden would be listening to, as there is no consensus among scientists and experts as to whether or not lockdowns are worth the staggering costs they impose on the common man.
If you feel that you are in need of mental health support during this unprecedented time, try online therapy today.
Revolver News is very proud to present a rigorous study on such an important topic and we hope that this will be spread far and wide both within government and without to assist policymakers. This exclusive study is a collaborative guest contribution to Revolver News. Due to the unfortunately politicized nature of the COVID-19 lockdowns, and the associated plausibility of professional repercussions, the authors have chosen for the time being to represent themselves pseudonymously.
Abel Sumner is a Ph.D. candidate in a social sciences field with both private and public sector experience as a policymaker. He is extensively trained in statistics, econometrics, and quantitatively informed public policy.
Jeremiah Jackson holds a Ph.D. in economics and has experience both in the public sector as a policy maker and in the private sector as an analyst.
Jacob Cage holds a Ph.D. in a social sciences field and has extensive experience both in the public and private sectors in policy analysis and strategic communications.
—————————–
CHEAT SHEET: Back-of-the-Envelope Calculations Show COVID-19 “Cure” Is Worse Than Disease
Standard approaches to evaluating epidemic policy responses, involving the Value of a Statistical Life, have conceptual problems and are biased towards the elderly and rich.
Using a life-years criterion as an alternative shows that the lockdowns cost an order of magnitude more life-years than they saved.
life-years than they saved. Most of the publicized cost-benefit analyses of COVID-19 lockdowns have used coarse measures like lives as units rather than life-years, which misleads politicians and the general public. COVID-19 deaths disproportionately impact the oldest members of the population, whereas the economic impacts of lockdowns disproportionately harm the youngest of the working population, who have far greater life expectancies at the time of impact.
Using prior research on workforce entrants and recent graduates entering into a market marred by an economic recession, empirical estimates of life-years lost can be determined. Extensive research on job displacement can be used to estimate the economic impact in life-years of starkly increased unemployment for mid-to-late career workers.
Combining these analyses, we found that an estimated 18.7 million life-years will be lost in the United States due to the COVID-19 lockdowns. Comparative data analysis between nations shows that the lockdowns in the United States likely had a minimal effect in saving life-years. Using two different comparison groups, we estimate that the COVID-19 lockdowns in the U.S. saved between a quarter to three quarters of a million life-years.
Every broad age category lost life-years from the lockdowns including those 55 and older.
The media and state and local governments contributed to the panic by selectively presenting evidence on COVID-19 and shutdowns of dubious benefit.
Public health researchers and health economists gave poor policy advice and made selective use of the prior research literature. They will likely be rewarded, not punished, by academia for their failure because of academia’s biases.
Public health in general is so biased and vulnerable to motivated cognition that it is not “not yet ready for policy analysis.”
———————————
Back-of-the-Envelope Calculations Show COVID-19 “Cure” Is Worse Than Disease
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization officially classified COVID-19 as a global pandemic. In the following weeks, the countries of the world began implementing previously unthinkable measures to prevent the spread of the virus. In the United States, some states quickly locked down nearly all physical businesses, venues, and public areas. As a short quarantine rapidly grew into an indefinite lockdown, some lawmakers and economists began asking if the lockdowns would cause more damage than the virus itself. Using empirical research, first-pass estimates can be made about the impact of the unprecedented lockdown in life-years lost. This can then be compared to the number to the estimated life-years lost to COVID-19 in the United States.
Why life-years? It is well-known that socioeconomic status (SES) appears to be linked to life expectancy and some of that association is causal, with higher SESes causing longer life expectancies through a number of channels. Most government policy analysts make decisions using the Value of a Statistical Life (VSLs) — which is about $10 million. If a regulation can save 1 life and costs $9 million, for instance, then it’s worth imposing to save a life. If it costs $11 million, then it’s not worth imposing to save a life. A problem with this approach is how coarse it is. Because SES is linked to life expectancies, actions by the government that do not result in direct loss of life are liable to being simply unaccounted for in this approach. For example, why not set the VSL at $100 million? Or $1? If you set the VSL too low, you will fail to impose many very cheap lifesaving regulations. Something perhaps more subtle is that if you set the VSL too high, then regulations you impose will reduce income so much by retarding economic activity that you will wind up reducing life expectancies through the SES-life expectancy channel. There are actually more fundamental issues with the use of a single VSL for all citizens (see Sunstein’s Valuing Life for a good overview), but many find the general equilibrium problems with it very intuitive.
Surprisingly, the COVID-19 conversation among public health analysts, bio-statisticians, economists, and policymakers who are otherwise sensitive to the problems with VSL has been dominated by the standard “coarse” VSL calculation above. We have seen no full policy analyses utilizing life-year approaches, although various studies have tried to estimate the average life-year losses per COVID-19 death. Controversy over estimating the correct value of a statistical life, problems with actually applying it in analysis as described above, and perhaps a certain odiousness associated with the rendering of human lives in dollar terms have pushed some health economists and public health analysts toward use of a life-years approach. This approach is simple, and in principle, involves no explicit conversion of human lives into money terms — although such a trade-off is implicit in any policy analysis. From the life-years’ perspective, a policymaker can compute the life-years lost and gained if they take a specific action. For instance, a new airline safety regulation may make users of airlines so safe that they save an average of 0.1 life-years per traveler, but the higher cost of air travel may induce potential passengers to switch to less safe car travel, costing the switchers an average of 0.3 life-years. If enough people switch to car travel, then the airline safety regulation will actually reduce the total life-years lived from the perspective of the transportation system as a whole.
A life-year maximizer would say that the regulation should not be adopted. An advantage of the life-year approach is that it values all people’s life-years equally in principle. The life-year of an 80 year old is of equal value to that of a 20 year old. The life-year of a poor person is worth the same as the life-year of a rich person. The VSL method, by incorrectly estimating the amount that heterogenous consumers and workers are willing to pay for safety, may privilege the wealthy (who place a higher premium on safety) and the elderly (who will not have to face the “general equilibrium” costs of more safety regulations) over the poor and the young, who might prefer less safe but much cheaper goods and services or higher paying, but unsafe jobs over lower paying, but safe jobs. With life-years now established as our operational metric, we shall proceed with our analysis of the life-year impacts of Covid lockdown policies.
The COVID-19 lockdowns have resulted in a massive global recession, which has spared almost no country, firm, or economic sector. Job displacement in America has occurred at a scale nearly rivaling that of the Great Depression in the 1930s, with unemployment as high as 14.7% in April of 2020. Using a back-of-the envelope calculation, we can lower-bound the medium-term increase in unemployment, which can reasonably be estimated at around 8.5%. It is important to note that even medium-term unemployment will result in permanent job separations, as employees who are unemployed for over a year are unlikely to return to their previous position.
Figure 1
Previous research on job displacement and mortality has found that displaced workers face a significant increase in mortality rates, from which lost years of life can be estimated.[1] Job losses and permanent job separations have been shown to correlate directly with increases in heart disease, drug overdoses, lung cancer, and liver disease, among other factors of increased mortality risk. Sullivan and Von Watcher’s paper on job displacement and mortality estimated that job separation results in about 1.5 lost life-years per individual.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that U.S. unemployment in 2021 will range between 8.5% in a single-wave scenario and 11.5% in a double-wave scenario.[2] Assuming that a single-wave scenario occurs, U.S. unemployment next year will increase by about 5 percentage points over pre-COVID-19 2020 levels. Based on pre-COVID-19 payrolls, total job displacements in 2021 will likely be around 8.2 million. Increases in 2020 unemployment by age group between February and July can be used to estimate the distribution of additional unemployment for each age group. Taking the 8.2 million job displacements and multiplying them by Sullivan and Von Watcher’s lost life-year coefficients for each age group provides a total estimate of over 8,000,000 life-years lost due to job displacement.
Beyond direct job displacements, additional research has shown that labor market recessions have significant but lagged effects on the future mortality rates of those entering the labor market.[3] Based on Hannes Schwandt and Till von Wachter’s linear model of increased mortality due to entering the job market during a recession, a figure of 0.629 life-years are lost per individual in this classification.[4] This number can be multiplied by 13 million workers in the 16-24 age group in 2020 and then multiplied separately by the 3.9 million college graduates of 2020.[5] This methodology is also used by Till von Wachter in his working paper on the long-term effects of the Covid-19 crisis on workers.[6] By these estimates, long-term life-years lost due to the COVID-19 recession in the U.S. total around 18.7 million.
Table 1 contains a breakdown of total life-years lost as a result of economic conditions created by the lockdowns by all estimation methods.
Table 1
Group Estimated life-years lost 2020 Displaced Workers 8,071,000 New Workforce Entrants 8,180,000 Recent Graduates 2,453,000 Total 18,704,000
Having established the amount of life-years lost due to COVID-19 lockdown policies, it remains to consider how many lives these may have saved.
With over 170,000 confirmed COVID-19 deaths at the time of writing, the virus has proven to be a clear public health threat in America. Table 2 (below) contains CDC data for COVID-19 deaths by age group in the United States, and life expectancies of those age groups.
Multiplying the expected years of life remaining by the number of deaths in each age group provides a number for life-years lost by age group. The total calculated life-years lost from COVID-19 in the United States adds up to 1.88 million. It is important to note that this is a high-end estimate. This calculation assumes that those dying from coronavirus have an average life expectancy and would have otherwise likely lived out the remaining years, had they not contracted the virus. Recent medical research has shown that coronavirus deaths are more likely to occur in patients with underlying health conditions. This implies that an estimate of life-years lost due to COVID-19 may be slightly inflated.
Table 2
Age Group US COVID-19 Deaths Expectation of Life Estimated Life-Years Lost Under 1 year 15 78.61 1,179 1-4 years 10 78.61 786 5-14 years 20 74.14 1,483 15-24 years 225 64.23 14,452 25-34 years 1,074 54.66 58,705 35-44 years 2,728 45.32 123,639 45-54 years 7,298 36.11 263,558 55-64 years 17,583 27.36 480,997 65-74 years 29,869 19.40 579,539 75-84 years 37,494 12.26 459,549 85 years and over 45,842 6.58 301,848 Total 142,158 2,285,735
To better contextualize the effect of the lockdown, it is important to estimate COVID-19 deaths in the United States in a scenario where a lockdown was not enacted. While much is still unknown about the virus, data from other countries illustrates the effect of varying degrees of lockdowns.
Sweden faced controversy for not enacting lockdown measures, unlike most other nations. Data from Johns Hopkins University shows that Sweden had a COVID-19 fatality rate of 56.62 per 100,000 people.[7] The United States, with full lockdown measures, had a COVID-19 fatality rate of 50 per 100,000 people [note all data valid up to the time of writing]. The United Kingdom provides yet another perspective, as it initially took an approach closer to Sweden and then changed course during the pandemic, resulting in a COVID-19 death rate of 70 per 100,000 people. An estimate of U.S. COVID-19 deaths had the lockdowns not been enacted can be estimated by using either Sweden’s per-capita death rate or the United Kingdom’s rate as counterfactual estimates of the “least economically costly-possible policy.” For simplicity, we hold the distribution of age at death constant. Figure 2 and Table 3 show these estimates by age group. Table 4 shows differences between counterfactual and actual COVID-19 deaths. For simplicity, we assume that the “age structure of death” in the United States for COVID-19 would have continued to apply and apply a simple multiplier (based on the ratio of per capita deaths in the U.S. and UK/Sweden) to construct our counterfactual estimates.
Figure 2
Table 3
Age Group COVID-19 Deaths Estimated Life-years lost 56/100k 70/100k 56/100k 70/100k Under 1 year 17 21 1,336 1,653 1-4 years 11 14 865 1,102 5-14 years 23 28 1,614 1,968 15-24 years 255 315 15,393 19,042 25-34 years 1,216 1,506 61,912 76,664 35-44 years 3,089 3,825 128,574 159,194 45-54 years 8,264 10,232 265,366 328,554 55-64 years 19,910 24,651 480,005 594,314 65-74 years 33,500 41,876 551,204 689,027 75-84 years 42,458 52,567 417,063 516,360 85 years and over 51,911 64,270 207,233 256,573 Total 160,654 199,306 2,130,565 2,644,450
Table 4
Age Group Excess COVID-19 Deaths Excess Life-Years Lost 56/100k 70/100k 56/100k 70/100k Under 1 year 2 6 157 474 1-4 years 1 4 865 311 5-14 years 3 8 211 564 15-24 years 30 90 1,811 5,460 25-34 years 142 432 7,230 21,982 35-44 years 361 1,097 15,026 45,646 45-54 years 966 2,934 31,019 94,207 55-64 years 2,327 7,068 56,101 170,410 65-74 years 3,631 12,007 59,744 197,567 75-84 years 4,964 15,073 48,761 148,057 85 years and over 6,069 18,428 24,228 73,568 Total 18,496 57,148 245,153 758,247
Based on the estimations in Table 4 (directly above), the U.S. lockdowns may have saved anywhere between a quarter of a million to three quarters of a million life-years. This estimate range is staggeringly low compared to the life-years that will be lost as a result of the lockdown.
Figure 3 (below) shows the breakdown with the Swedish and U.K. models. In the Figure, the blue bars represent life-years saved from the lockdown, which are estimated by comparing the U.S.’s performance with Sweden and the U.K. The red bars represent life-years lost from the lockdown, which are estimated using the estimated reductions in life expectancy from unemployment and separations using U.S. data described above.
An intuition policymakers should develop is that that the death of someone aged 20 to 25 will “cost” a little over 50 life-years. Similarly, a permanent employment separation today will “cost” between 0.5 and 1.5 lost life-years, as a small fraction of permanent separations will yield permanently unemployed workers, who have shorter life expectancies in general (think stress-induced increases in cancer, heart attacks, homicide, and deaths of despair [alcohol, suicide, pills]). On the other hand, a typical COVID-19 death will cost between 7 and 17 years — simply because of the age and comorbidity structure of those typically dying already tilts them towards an early death.
A second key assumption, more debatable, is that absent the lockdowns unemployment would not have dramatically increased. Krugman and other economists make the case that the consumption cuts driving unemployment would have happened without the stay-at-home orders based on the experience of contiguous countries e.g. Sweden and Denmark both suffered similar GDP losses. This logic ignores the fact that huge fractions of the Nordics’ collective GDP are linked through trade and so a straightforward difference-in-difference exercise ignores the negative externalities Finnish, Danish, and Norwegian lockdowns imposed on their neighbors. Even if it was not lockdowns causing the consumption cutbacks, mainstream media did little to push back on catastrophe narratives and, through selective coverage, actively misled citizens’ about the actual (small) risks of COVID-19.
The fact of the matter is that once COVID-19 hit, there were going to be economic and life-year losses compared to the world where COVID-19 did not hit. However, the ultimate size of those income and life-year losses, and the geographic and age-allocation of those life-year losses, amount to a policy choice.
Some pedants may quibble that we have constructed our unemployment counterfactual using a time series analysis of U.S. data while we constructed our “no lockdown” COVID-19 life-year losses counterfactual using foreign country experience, effectively mixing two different designs.
We encourage the fair reader to consult the title of this piece. The correct counterfactual is impossible to know. Real results from a country like Sweden or the UK are better than results from an epidemiological model with extremely limited out of sample validity and fundamentally unidentifiable parameters. The point of this quantitative thought experiment is mostly qualitative and aimed at making the single point to citizens and policymakers: small permanent or cohort-level increases in unemployment induced by the lockdowns easily wipe out the small documented benefits of lockdowns.[8] The actual increases in unemployment in the United States are massive — exceeding the scale of the Great Recession. The long-run increase in unemployment cannot easily be constructed from contemporaneous cross-country data for the simple reason that those countries long-run employment evolutions haven’t happened yet, but it is reasonable to assume that COVID-19 has run its course in say, New York or Sweden — which now has around 1-2 COVID-19 deaths per day. Revolver.news would be honored if someone stole these insights for Lancet, which has a quick turnaround (recall their Hydroxychloroquine debacle), the CDC’s in-house journals, or the NBER working paper series on epidemics/COVID-19.
The economic devastation of the lockdowns will last for decades after the virus is brought under control, and it may lead to far worse ripple effects down the road. For the first time in its history, America has experienced what could be almost likened to a sudden stop in an emerging nation — a situation so crippling and perilous that long term financial and social stability have been legitimately threatened.
How did this happen? It is worth reflecting for a moment on the institutional incentives in academia that led to the pandemic pandemonium and the U.S.’s almost assured future fiscal collapse. Our calculations imply that — from a lost life-years’ perspective — the COVID-19 lockdowns in the U.S. objectively caused far more harm than good to every age category. The life year losses are so large that it is difficult to see any kind of refinement justifying the current American policy combination. Indeed, one would need to argue that — without elite panic — a disease only about two to four times as virulent as the flu would have induced a depression, which itself would indict the macrofinancial policymaking community.
Why have the policy trade-offs of COVID-19 never been presented to politicians, the media, or the public in terms of life-years? Why did economists and the public health field as a whole, which popularized linkages between socioeconomic status and life expectancy, suddenly fail to consider these linkages when it came to COVID-19? Why did trade economists ignore the trade spillover impacts of lockdowns when considering COVID-19 policy?
American politicians who enacted these lockdowns were driven by a combination of fear and political incentives. What drove tenured professionals to exaggerate the potential harms of the virus and minimize the costs of lockdowns? Citizens give huge amounts of both money and time to academics with the promise that knowledge can help lead to more rational policymaking. Indeed, a few economists were vocal in warning of the damage of potential lockdowns, but most were either silent or fomented panic. Some economists at the FED and MIT Sloan rushed research to print that actively misled policymakers making life or death decisions
Ridiculously, public health experts encouraged “Black Lives Matter” protests and riots and claimed that they actually reduced COVID-19 infections. Indeed, in the hyper-politicized atmosphere of academia, it is difficult to imagine any “academic” retaining their position who condemned the protests and riots on common-sense public health grounds. On the basis of this asymmetry (and similar asymmetries in the treatment of race and mortality, pollution, sexual minorities, and the role of economic analysis in public health), public health must be condemned as “not yet useful for policy analysis”.
COVID-19 shows that the promise of rational social research is a lie. Politicians and citizens would have been better off following common-sense approaches pursued in past plagues: shutting down borders within the United States and between the United States and other countries, isolating the elderly, and simply wearing a mask.
[1] http://www.econ.ucla.edu/tvwachter/papers/sullivan_vonwachter_qje.pdf
[2] https://data.oecd.org/unemp/unemployment-rate-forecast.htm
[3] http://www.econ.ucla.edu/tvwachter/papers/Unlucky_Midlife_Schwandt_vonWachter.pdf
[4] Ibid.
[5] https://educationdata.org/number-of-college-graduates/#:~:text=To%20illustrate%2C%20the%20estimates%20for,the%202015%2D2016%20academic%20year.
[6] http://www.econ.ucla.edu/tvwachter/covid19/LT_effects_STC_memo_vonWachter.pdf
[7] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
[8] Because the employment losses primarily affect downscale workers, making less than $50,000/year, remote-working social and policy elites’ do not intuit or feel these downscale workers’ pain, unless enterprising journalists can derive some racial oppression narrative from the employment losses.
Read more at www.revolver.news
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-16--PubMed Study: Glutathione Deficiency Likely Cause of COVID-19 Deaths

PubMed Study : Glutathione Deficiency Likely Cause of COVID-19 Deaths What is Glutathione ?
Glutathione is your body ’ s most potent antioxidant .
It is naturally created in your body from high sulphur foods ( garlic , onions , broccoli , cabbage , etc ) .
People with compromised immune systems ( Cancer , other illnesses ) and overweight folks with bad diets are notorious for having severe Glutathione deficiency .
In addition , the elderly have low levels of Glutathione , which diminishes as you age and leads to cell death .
This video explains the role of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NIH Study Shows Glutathione Deficiency Likely the Reason for COVID-19 Deaths Higher rates of serious illness and death from coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 ( COVID-19 ) infection among older people and those who have comorbidities suggest that age- and disease-related biological processes make such individuals more sensitive to environmental stress factors including infectious agents like coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 .
Specifically , impaired redox homeostasis and associated oxidative stress appear to be important biological processes that may account for increased individual susceptibility to diverse environmental insults .
The aim of this Viewpoint is to justify ( 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determining individual responsiveness to COVID-19 infection and disease pathogenesis and ( 2 ) the feasibility of using glutathione as a means for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 illness .
The hypothesis that glutathione deficiency is the most plausible explanation for serious manifestation and death in COVID-19 patients was proposed on the basis of an exhaustive literature analysis and observations .
The hypothesis unravels the mysteries of epidemiological data on the risk factors determining serious manifestations of COVID-19 infection and the high risk of death and opens real opportunities for effective treatment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boost Glutathione Using NAC Supplement One way to boost your Glutathione is by taking N-Acetyl-L-Cysteine ( NAC ) , which is the precursor to Glutathione .
You will also need to take Vitamin D3 to aid in the conversion of NAC to Glutathione ( and as a boost , add Liposomal Vitamin C and Zinc ) .
NAC is found at vitamin stores and can be ordered online .
You can also find Glutathione supplements online as well ( I recommend Liposomal Glutathione ) — however , it ’ s important to note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is via intravenious dosing ( IVs ) .
This NIH study shows that intravenous NAC has been successfully used to cure advanced stage COVID-19 patients ( those on ventilators , diabetics ) , where Hydroxy-Chloroquine doesn ’ t work .
NYPost Article : Glutathione Saves Life of Woman with COVID-19 , When HCQ Didn ’ t Work EXAMPLE of the POWER of Glutathione in Late Stage Parkinsons Patient PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

PubMed Study: Glutathione Deficiency Likely Cause of COVID-19 Deaths
Written by Qdini
What is Glutathione? Glutathione is your body’s most potent antioxidant. It is naturally created in your body from high sulphur foods (garlic, onions, broccoli, cabbage, etc). People with compromised immune systems (Cancer, other illnesses) and overweight folks with bad diets are notorious for having severe Glutathione deficiency.
In addition, the elderly have low levels of Glutathione, which diminishes as you age and leads to cell death. This video explains the role of Glutathione in your body:
READ: NIH Study Shows Glutathione Deficiency Likely the Reason for COVID-19 Deaths
Abstract Higher rates of serious illness and death from coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection among older people and those who have comorbidities suggest that age- and disease-related biological processes make such individuals more sensitive to environmental stress factors including infectious agents like coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Specifically, impaired redox homeostasis and associated oxidative stress appear to be important biological processes that may account for increased individual susceptibility to diverse environmental insults. The aim of this Viewpoint is to justify (1) the crucial roles of glutathione in determining individual responsiveness to COVID-19 infection and disease pathogenesis and (2) the feasibility of using glutathione as a means for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 illness. The hypothesis that glutathione deficiency is the most plausible explanation for serious manifestation and death in COVID-19 patients was proposed on the basis of an exhaustive literature analysis and observations. The hypothesis unravels the mysteries of epidemiological data on the risk factors determining serious manifestations of COVID-19 infection and the high risk of death and opens real opportunities for effective treatment and prevention of the disease. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32463221/
How to Boost Glutathione Using NAC Supplement
One way to boost your Glutathione is by taking N-Acetyl-L-Cysteine (NAC), which is the precursor to Glutathione. You will also need to take Vitamin D3 to aid in the conversion of NAC to Glutathione (and as a boost, add Liposomal Vitamin C and Zinc). NAC is found at vitamin stores and can be ordered online. You can also find Glutathione supplements online as well (I recommend Liposomal Glutathione) — however, it’s important to note that the most effective form of Glutathione is via intravenious dosing (IVs).
NIH Study Shows NAC Cures COVID-19 In Cases Where HCQ Doesn’t Work
This NIH study shows that intravenous NAC has been successfully used to cure advanced stage COVID-19 patients (those on ventilators, diabetics), where Hydroxy-Chloroquine doesn’t work.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32707089/
and here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521661620306513
NYPost Article: Glutathione Saves Life of Woman with COVID-19, When HCQ Didn’t Work
https://nypost.com/2020/05/09/new-york-mom-with-coronavirus-saved-by-medical-student-son/
EXAMPLE of the POWER of Glutathione in Late Stage Parkinsons Patient
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-aDGxzy3RoYouTubeYouTubeYouTube
Read more at voat.co/v/theawakening
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-18--Court Hearing Delayed on Lawsuit Against UK Govt Lockdown

Our legal challenge against the Government delayed by a further month – due to a Government lawyer being on holiday .
We had been scheduled to go ahead on September 23 , with the court having moved the hearing forward from the original date of September 28 .
But one of the Government ’ s 11-strong team is holiday on that date , meaning it has now been moved back to October 29 .
The availability of suitably senior judges to hear the case on alternative dates was also a factor .
As you know , the appeal was ordered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who said that the legal challenge… We are all naturally incredibly frustrated that the hearing will be delayed , especially given Lord Justice Hickinbottom ’ s direction that the case needed to be heard quickly .
The case is of the utmost importance to the entire nation and we believe that further delays only highlights the Government ’ s inability to face up to its decisions .
The better news is that the delay will mean that the appeal will be held in person , rather than virtually as all previous stages have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks that the Government , by its own admission , is willing to break the law .
It can not be allowed that these actions go unchecked and I urge everyone to consider the ramifications which the lockdown has had on our freedoms and liberties .
In the meantime , we will continue to fight to expose the dangerous and damaging impacts the Government ’ s lockdown strategy has had on the entire nation and I would urge you to join our fight by signing up to https : //www.keepbritainfree .
com PRINCIPIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Court Hearing Delayed on Lawsuit Against UK Govt Lockdown
Written by Simon Dolan, CrowdJustice
Our legal challenge against the Government delayed by a further month – due to a Government lawyer being on holiday. We had been scheduled to go ahead on September 23, with the court having moved the hearing forward from the original date of September 28.
But one of the Government’s 11-strong team is holiday on that date, meaning it has now been moved back to October 29. The availability of suitably senior judges to hear the case on alternative dates was also a factor.
As you know, the appeal was ordered to be heard by Lord Justice Hickinbottom who said that the legal challenge…
“potentially raises fundamental issues concerning the proper spheres for democratically-accountable Ministers of the Government and judges.”
We are all naturally incredibly frustrated that the hearing will be delayed, especially given Lord Justice Hickinbottom’s direction that the case needed to be heard quickly. The case is of the utmost importance to the entire nation and we believe that further delays only highlights the Government’s inability to face up to its decisions.
The better news is that the delay will mean that the appeal will be held in person, rather than virtually as all previous stages have been.
We have seen in recent weeks that the Government, by its own admission, is willing to break the law. It cannot be allowed that these actions go unchecked and I urge everyone to consider the ramifications which the lockdown has had on our freedoms and liberties.
In the meantime, we will continue to fight to expose the dangerous and damaging impacts the Government’s lockdown strategy has had on the entire nation and I would urge you to join our fight by signing up to https://www.keepbritainfree. com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-18--Video: Millions Against Medical Mandates

Please watch and share this Unity Video , A Collaboration Between Millions Against Medical Mandates and Children ’ s Health @ @ @ @ @ concerns about the imposition of a mandatory COVID19 vaccine .
The Unity Video features Robert @ @ @ @ @ nurses , researchers , lawyers , parents , and activists from all over the world @ @ @ @ @ and solidarity against a mandatory COVID vaccine .
The individuals you ’ ll see in @ @ @ @ @ of the leaders from health freedom organizations who collectively represent MILLIONS who – ( due @ @ @ @ @ our health and freedom ) will not tolerate the injustice and medical tyranny of mandating @ @ @ @ @ watch and share this video and stand with us !
# NotMe PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL @ @ @ @ @ UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester @ @ @ @ @ .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Video: Millions Against Medical Mandates
Written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Please watch and share this Unity Video, A Collaboration Between Millions Against Medical Mandates and Children’s Health Defense if you have grave concerns about the imposition of a mandatory COVID19 vaccine.
The Unity Video features Robert Kennedy Jr, doctors, nurses, researchers, lawyers, parents, and activists from all over the world who are standing in strength and solidarity against a mandatory COVID vaccine. The individuals you’ll see in this 5-minute video are some of the leaders from health freedom organizations who collectively represent MILLIONS who – (due to the inherent risks to our health and freedom) will not tolerate the injustice and medical tyranny of mandating a COVID vaccine.
Please watch and share this video and stand with us! #NotMe
Read more at mamm.org
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-18--FDA Wants to Ban NAC Because It Combats COVID-19

FDA Wants to Ban NAC Because It Combats COVID-19 N-acetylcysteine ( NAC ) has a long history of use as a first-aid remedy for acetaminophen poisoning .
Emergency room physicians will administer it in cases when you ’ ve taken an overdose of Tylenol or other acetaminophen products .
The way it neutralizes the toxic effects of the drug is by recharging glutathione , thereby preventing liver damage .
Interestingly , NAC may also be useful against COVID-19 , as explained by pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult in the MedCram lecture above .
By raising glutathione , it helps combat oxidative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the cytokine storm associated with COVID-19 .
A recent literature analysis1 linked glutathione deficiency to COVID-19 disease severity , leading the author to conclude that NAC may be useful both for prevention and treatment .
NAC may also combat the abnormal blood clotting seen in many cases , and helps loosen thick mucus in the lungs .
Interestingly , with COVID-19 treatment as a new indication , the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is now suddenly cracking down on NAC , claiming it is excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new drug in 1985.2 As such , NAC can not be marketed as a supplement .
You certainly would not suspect this looking at the supplement market .
As reported by Natural Products Insider,3 there are no fewer than 1,170 NAC-containing products in the National Institutes of Health ’ s Dietary Supplement Label Database .
Be that as it may , July 29 , 2020 , FDA announced4 it has issued warning letters to seven companies that market NAC as a remedy for hangovers .
According to the FDA : Members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the warning letters may indicate the FDA is considering targeting NAC more widely .
While the FDA makes no mention of COVID-19 in its warning letter , the timing of its crackdown on NAC marketed for hangovers is interesting , seeing how news of its potential benefits against the viral infection have come into circulation , and research is now underway to assess whether it might be used in the treatment of COVID-19 .
At present , seven studies involving NAC for COVID-19 are listed on Clinicaltrials.gov.5 Time will tell whether the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to NAC supplements , similarly to the way hydroxychloroquine access has been stifled .
The idea that NAC can be helpful against viral infections is not new .
Previous studies have found it reduces viral replication of certain viruses , including the influenza virus .
As reported by board-certified nutritionist Joseph Debé:6 It ’ s worth noting that the number needed to treat ( NNT ) in the study8 cited by Debé is 0.5 , which means for every two people treated with NAC , one will be protected against symptomatic influenza .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines , which have an NNV ( number needed to vaccinate ) of 71,9 meaning 71 people must be vaccinated to prevent a single case of confirmed influenza .
It ’ s even better than vitamin D , which has an NNT of 33.10 Even among those with severe vitamin D deficiency at baseline , taking vitamin D still had an NNT of 4 .
NAC has also been shown to inhibit the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines in cells infected with highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus .
According to the authors of such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in COVID-19 severity .
Researchers have confirmed that in severe cases , cytokines such as interleukin-6 ( IL6 ) , interleukin-10 ( IL10 ) and TNF-ɑ are all elevated.12 Once they reach excessive levels , a so-called cytokine storm develops , causing significant tissue damage .
NAC may be able to inhibit this damaging cascade .
A paper13 published in the October 2020 issue of Medical Hypotheses reviews the potential therapeutic benefits of NAC in the battle against COVID-19 specifically .
According to the authors : A second report14 reviewing the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 was published April 14 , 2020 , by The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford .
How NAC May Protect Against COVID-19 To fully understand how NAC might protect against COVID-19 , a short lesson in biochemistry is useful .
Following is a summary of Seheult ’ s presentation , featured in the video above .
When you add an electron to an oxygen ( O ) molecule , you get superoxide ( O ) , a reactive oxygen species ( ROS ) .
When you add another electron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , you get hydrogen peroxide ( H O ) .
An oxygen molecule with three electrons added becomes hydroxyl ( O ) , and oxygen with four electrons added becomes harmless water ( H O ) .
Not only does superoxide play a crucial role in the oxidative stress associated with the comorbidities for COVID-19 , such as obesity , heart disease and diabetes , but superoxide-driven oxidative stress is also at the heart of serious COVID-19 infection .
Now , your body has built-in defenses against oxidative stress .
These defenses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious COVID-19 infection triggers a perfect storm of superoxide-driven oxidative stress , as SARS-CoV-2 attaches to the ACE2 receptor , triggering angiotensin 2 ( AT-2 ) , which stimulates superoxide .
Simultaneously , there ’ s a deficiency of AT-1,7 , which inhibits superoxide .
This deficiency allows superoxide to accumulate further .
SARS-CoV-2 also attracts polymorphonuclear leukocytes ( PMNs ) , a type of white blood cell , which also produces superoxide in its efforts to destroy pathogens .
All of that superoxide is then converted into other ROS that destroy endothelial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by NAC , as it boosts GSSG .
As illustrated in Seheult ’ s graphic below , when you add two GSH molecules and hydrogen peroxide together , you end up with oxidized glutathione and harmless water , thereby alleviating the oxidative stress .
Previous studies have also shown NAC helps improve a variety of lung-related problems , including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome ( ARDS ) ,16 both of which are common characteristics of COVID-19 .
It ’ s also been shown to speed recovery , reduce intensive care unit ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for mechanical ventilation among those with respiratory problems .
Such studies include : • A 2017 meta-analysis , which found a significant reduction in ICU stays among ARDS patients treated with NAC , even though there was no significant difference in short-term mortality risk .
• A 2007 study , which concluded that NAC improves ARDS by “ increasing intracellular glutathione and extracellular thiol molecules ” along with general antioxidant effects .
• Research published in 2018 found NAC reduces oxidative and inflammatory damage in patients with community-acquired pneumonia .
• A 1994 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lung injury , significantly regressing patients ’ lung injury score during the first 10 days of treatment , and significantly reducing the need for ventilation .
After three days of treatment , only 17 % of those receiving NAC needed ventilation , compared to 48 % in the placebo group .
In the above MedCram video , Seheult reviews the abnormal blood clotting aspects of COVID-19 .
Interestingly , NAC addresses this problem too , as several studies22,23,24,25 have confirmed it counteracts hypercoagulation and reduces the risk of blood clots and stroke .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ NAC has anticoagulant and platelet-inhibiting properties.
” It also has potent thrombolytic effects , meaning it breaks down blood clots that have already formed.27 According to another study,28 NAC protects against stroke in part by enhancing GSH and correcting antioxidant levels .
Seheult ’ s hypothesis for why NAC may be useful against COVID-19 can be summarized as follows : SARS-CoV-2 attaches to and reduces the ACE2 receptor , which causes AT-2 to increase and AT-1,7 to decrease .
This in turn increases damaging superoxide that causes oxidative stress and endothelial cell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that COVID-19 is not just a respiratory disorder , but also a vascular disorder that causes blood clots , which impair the ability to exchange oxygen in the lungs .
Fortunately , the sulfur in NAC ( from cysteine ) also reduces the intrachain disulfide bonds by von Willebrand factors that have polymerized by dissociating the sulfur bonds holding them together thus contributing to the clot .
Once von Willebrand factor sulfur bonds are broken , the clots starts to dissolve and the blood vessels open up again allowing for exchange of oxygen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s mechanism of action does not appear to increase bleeding disorders like heparin or coumadin would , and appears to provide a safer alternative to these agents .
This suggests that the “ H ” of heparin in the MATH+ protocol could simply be replaced with NAC .
Overall , the more we learn about COVID-19 , the more we come to find there may be simple and inexpensive ways to treat this perplexing illness .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

FDA Wants to Ban NAC Because It Combats COVID-19
Written by Dr. Joseph Mercola
N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has a long history of use as a first-aid remedy for acetaminophen poisoning. Emergency room physicians will administer it in cases when you’ve taken an overdose of Tylenol or other acetaminophen products.
The way it neutralizes the toxic effects of the drug is by recharging glutathione, thereby preventing liver damage.
Interestingly, NAC may also be useful against COVID-19, as explained by pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult in the MedCram lecture above. By raising glutathione, it helps combat oxidative stress, which is a main factor in the cytokine storm associated with COVID-19.
A recent literature analysis1 linked glutathione deficiency to COVID-19 disease severity, leading the author to conclude that NAC may be useful both for prevention and treatment. NAC may also combat the abnormal blood clotting seen in many cases, and helps loosen thick mucus in the lungs.
FDA Cracks Down on NAC
Interestingly, with COVID-19 treatment as a new indication, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is now suddenly cracking down on NAC, claiming it is excluded from the definition of a dietary supplement, as it was approved as a new drug in 1985.2 As such, NAC cannot be marketed as a supplement.
You certainly would not suspect this looking at the supplement market. As reported by Natural Products Insider,3 there are no fewer than 1,170 NAC-containing products in the National Institutes of Health’s Dietary Supplement Label Database.
Be that as it may, July 29, 2020, FDA announced4 it has issued warning letters to seven companies that market NAC as a remedy for hangovers. According to the FDA:
“A hangover can occur after alcohol intoxication. Alcohol intoxication, like all poisonings, causes dose-related dysfunction and damage, ranging from mild impairments to death … The products outlined in these letters, which are labeled as dietary supplements, are unapproved new drugs and have not been evaluated by the FDA to be safe and effective for their intended use.”
Members of the Council for Responsible Nutrition have expressed concern that the warning letters may indicate the FDA is considering targeting NAC more widely.
While the FDA makes no mention of COVID-19 in its warning letter, the timing of its crackdown on NAC marketed for hangovers is interesting, seeing how news of its potential benefits against the viral infection have come into circulation, and research is now underway to assess whether it might be used in the treatment of COVID-19.
At present, seven studies involving NAC for COVID-19 are listed on Clinicaltrials.gov.5 Time will tell whether the FDA ends up trying to block access to NAC supplements, similarly to the way hydroxychloroquine access has been stifled.
NAC Inhibits Viral Replication
The idea that NAC can be helpful against viral infections is not new. Previous studies have found it reduces viral replication of certain viruses, including the influenza virus. As reported by board-certified nutritionist Joseph Debé:6
“NAC was tested in a 6-month human study7 of influenza. It was a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial involving 262 people. Half of the subjects received 600 mg of NAC, the other half received placebo, twice daily for 6 months.
NAC was found to improve immune function and reduce the severity of influenza infections. Both groups had similar infection rates with A/H1N1 virus influenza. However, whereas 79% of placebo-treated people had symptomatic infections, only 25% of subjects treated with NAC were symptomatic!
There were a total of 99 flu-like episodes (symptomatic periods) that occurred in 62 people in the placebo group over the 6 month study. 48% of these were classified as mild, 47% were moderate, and 6% were severe.
In the NAC group, 46 flu-like episodes occurred in 37 subjects. 72% of these were mild, 26% were moderate and only 2% severe. There were many fewer days of being bedridden in the NAC group.”
It’s worth noting that the number needed to treat (NNT) in the study8 cited by Debé is 0.5, which means for every two people treated with NAC, one will be protected against symptomatic influenza.
That’s significantly better than influenza vaccines, which have an NNV (number needed to vaccinate) of 71,9 meaning 71 people must be vaccinated to prevent a single case of confirmed influenza. It’s even better than vitamin D, which has an NNT of 33.10 Even among those with severe vitamin D deficiency at baseline, taking vitamin D still had an NNT of 4.
NAC Inhibits Proinflammatory Cytokines
NAC has also been shown to inhibit the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines in cells infected with highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus. According to the authors of such a study:11
“The antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms of NAC included inhibition of activation of oxidant sensitive pathways including transcription factor NF-kappaB and mitogen activated protein kinase p38 …
NAC inhibits H5N1 replication and H5N1-induced production of pro-inflammatory molecules. Therefore, antioxidants like NAC represent a potential additional treatment option that could be considered in the case of an influenza A virus pandemic.”
Proinflammatory cytokines play a crucial role in COVID-19 severity. Researchers have confirmed that in severe cases, cytokines such as interleukin-6 (IL6), interleukin-10 (IL10) and TNF-ɑ are all elevated.12 Once they reach excessive levels, a so-called cytokine storm develops, causing significant tissue damage. NAC may be able to inhibit this damaging cascade.
NAC — Potential Therapeutic Agent for SARS-CoV-2
A paper13 published in the October 2020 issue of Medical Hypotheses reviews the potential therapeutic benefits of NAC in the battle against COVID-19 specifically. According to the authors:
“COVID-19 … continues to spread across the globe. Predisposing factors such as age, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and lowered immune function increase the risk of disease severity.
T cell exhaustion, high viral load, and high levels of TNF-ɑ, IL1β, IL6, IL10 have been associated with severe SARS-CoV-2. Cytokine and antigen overstimulation are potentially responsible for poor humoral response to the virus.
Lower cellular redox status, which leads to pro-inflammatory states mediated by TNF-ɑ is also potentially implicated. In vivo, in vitro, and human clinical trials have demonstrated N-acetylcysteine (NAC) as an effective method of improving redox status, especially when under oxidative stress.
In human clinical trials, NAC has been used to replenish glutathione stores and increase the proliferative response of T cells. NAC has also been shown to inhibit the NLRP3 inflammasome pathway (IL1β and IL18) in vitro, and decrease plasma TNF-ɑ in human clinical trials.
Mediation of the viral load could occur through NAC’s ability to increase cellular redox status via maximizing the rate limiting step of glutathione synthesis, and thereby potentially decreasing the effects of virally induced oxidative stress and cell death.
We hypothesize that NAC could act as a potential therapeutic agent in the treatment of COVID-19 through a variety of potential mechanisms, including increasing glutathione, improving T cell response, and modulating inflammation.”
A second report14 reviewing the evidence for using NAC in the treatment of COVID-19 was published April 14, 2020, by The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford.
How NAC May Protect Against COVID-19
To fully understand how NAC might protect against COVID-19, a short lesson in biochemistry is useful. Following is a summary of Seheult’s presentation, featured in the video above.
When you add an electron to an oxygen (O 2 ) molecule, you get superoxide (O 2 ), a reactive oxygen species (ROS). When you add another electron (for a total of two electrons), you get hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2 ). An oxygen molecule with three electrons added becomes hydroxyl (O 3 ), and oxygen with four electrons added becomes harmless water (H 2 O).
Not only does superoxide play a crucial role in the oxidative stress associated with the comorbidities for COVID-19, such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes, but superoxide-driven oxidative stress is also at the heart of serious COVID-19 infection. Now, your body has built-in defenses against oxidative stress. These defenses include:
•Superoxide dismutase (SOD), which converts damaging superoxide into hydrogen peroxide15 •Catalase, which converts hydrogen peroxide into oxygen and water •Glutathione peroxidase (GSHPX), which does two things simultaneously: While reducing hydrogen peroxide into water, it also converts the reduced form of glutathione (GSH) into glutathione disulfide (GSSG), the oxidized form of glutathione. In other words, as GSHPX turns hydrogen peroxide into harmless water, glutathione becomes oxidized. The oxidized GSSG is then “recharged” or regenerated by NADPH (the reduced form of NADP+), turning it back into GSH (the reduced form of glutathione). NADPH is also converted into NADP+ through an enzyme called GSH reductase
As noted by Seheult, serious COVID-19 infection triggers a perfect storm of superoxide-driven oxidative stress, as SARS-CoV-2 attaches to the ACE2 receptor, triggering angiotensin 2 (AT-2), which stimulates superoxide. Simultaneously, there’s a deficiency of AT-1,7, which inhibits superoxide. This deficiency allows superoxide to accumulate further.
SARS-CoV-2 also attracts polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNs), a type of white blood cell, which also produces superoxide in its efforts to destroy pathogens. All of that superoxide is then converted into other ROS that destroy endothelial cells.
This down-spiral can be inhibited by NAC, as it boosts GSSG. As illustrated in Seheult’s graphic below, when you add two GSH molecules and hydrogen peroxide together, you end up with oxidized glutathione and harmless water, thereby alleviating the oxidative stress.
NAC Reduces Lung Injury
Previous studies have also shown NAC helps improve a variety of lung-related problems, including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS),16 both of which are common characteristics of COVID-19. It’s also been shown to speed recovery, reduce intensive care unit (ICU) stays and reduce the need for mechanical ventilation among those with respiratory problems. Such studies include:
A 2017 meta-analysis, 17 which found a significant reduction in ICU stays among ARDS patients treated with NAC, even though there was no significant difference in short-term mortality risk.
which found a significant reduction in ICU stays among ARDS patients treated with NAC, even though there was no significant difference in short-term mortality risk. A 2007 study, 18 which concluded that NAC improves ARDS by “increasing intracellular glutathione and extracellular thiol molecules” along with general antioxidant effects.
which concluded that NAC improves ARDS by “increasing intracellular glutathione and extracellular thiol molecules” along with general antioxidant effects. Research 19 published in 2018 found NAC reduces oxidative and inflammatory damage in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.
published in 2018 found NAC reduces oxidative and inflammatory damage in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Another 2018 study 20 found NAC improves post-operative lung function in patients undergoing liver transplantation.
found NAC improves post-operative lung function in patients undergoing liver transplantation. A 1994 study 21 found NAC enhances recovery from acute lung injury, significantly regressing patients’ lung injury score during the first 10 days of treatment, and significantly reducing the need for ventilation. After three days of treatment, only 17% of those receiving NAC needed ventilation, compared to 48% in the placebo group.
In the above MedCram video, Seheult reviews the abnormal blood clotting aspects of COVID-19. Interestingly, NAC addresses this problem too, as several studies22,23,24,25 have confirmed it counteracts hypercoagulation and reduces the risk of blood clots and stroke.
As noted in one of these studies,26 “NAC has anticoagulant and platelet-inhibiting properties.” It also has potent thrombolytic effects, meaning it breaks down blood clots that have already formed.27 According to another study,28 NAC protects against stroke in part by enhancing GSH and correcting antioxidant levels.
Seheult’s hypothesis for why NAC may be useful against COVID-19 can be summarized as follows: SARS-CoV-2 attaches to and reduces the ACE2 receptor, which causes AT-2 to increase and AT-1,7 to decrease. This in turn increases damaging superoxide that causes oxidative stress and endothelial cell dysfunction.
It is important to note that COVID-19 is not just a respiratory disorder, but also a vascular disorder that causes blood clots, which impair the ability to exchange oxygen in the lungs.
Fortunately, the sulfur in NAC (from cysteine) also reduces the intrachain disulfide bonds by von Willebrand factors that have polymerized by dissociating the sulfur bonds holding them together thus contributing to the clot. Once von Willebrand factor sulfur bonds are broken, the clots starts to dissolve and the blood vessels open up again allowing for exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide.
Interestingly, NAC’s mechanism of action does not appear to increase bleeding disorders like heparin or coumadin would, and appears to provide a safer alternative to these agents. This suggests that the “H” of heparin in the MATH+ protocol could simply be replaced with NAC.
Overall, the more we learn about COVID-19, the more we come to find there may be simple and inexpensive ways to treat this perplexing illness.
Read more at articles.mercola.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-09-18--Unmasked: Revealing a Shocking Medical Truth

“ As a person who went to medical school , I was shocked when I read Neil Orr ’ s study , published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England .
Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester .
And for six months , from March through August 1980 , the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries .
They wore no masks for six months and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wound infections from March through August of the previous four years .
And they discovered , to their amazement , that when nobody wore masks during surgeries , the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks .
‘ It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all ’ and that wearing a mask during surgery ‘ is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.
’ I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature , sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease .
But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent : masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and , if anything , are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses .
Check the following citations and see for yourself : • Ritter et al.
, in 1975 , found that ‘ the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in 1980 , applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations .
At the end of each operation , wound washings were examined under the microscope .
‘ Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.
’ • Laslett and Sabin , in 1989 , found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization .
‘ No infections were found in any patient , regardless of whether a cap or mask was used , ’ they wrote .
Sjøl and Kelbaek came to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Tunevall ’ s 1991 study , a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years .
After 1,537 operations performed with masks , the wound infection rate was 4.7 % , while after 1,551 operations performed without masks , the wound infection rate was only 3.5 % .
• A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that ‘ The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.
’ • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote that ‘ surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia , did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study .
Thus they are dispensable.
’ • Figueiredo et al.
, in 2001 , reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks , rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn .
• Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that ‘ no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and groups operated with no masks.
’ • Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden , recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks , ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room .
‘ Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice .
But the evidence to support this practice does not exist , ’ wrote Dr. Eva Sellden .
• Webster et al.
, in 2010 , reported on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients .
All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries , and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries .
• Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found ‘ no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.
’ Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same .
• Carøe , in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.
’ • Salassa and Swiontkowski , in 2014 , investigated the necessity of scrubs , masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that ‘ there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.
’ • Da Zhou et al.
, reviewing the literature in 2015 , concluded that ‘ there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that face masks protect either patient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising .
Why ?
Because it was killing them .
It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them .
At least three children died during Physical Education classes — two of them while running on their school ’ s track while wearing a mask .
And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask .
Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere .
The 20 U.S. states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks .
Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population , and none have a death rate higher than 55 .
All 13 states that have death rates higher than 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places .
It has not protected them .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Unmasked: Revealing a Shocking Medical Truth
Written by Robert Redfern
ARTHUR FIRSTENBERG ON FACIAL MASKS:
“As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.
Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries.
They wore no masks for six months and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years.
And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks.
Their conclusion:
‘It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all’ and that wearing a mask during surgery ‘is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.’
I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke, and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease.
But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.
Check the following citations and see for yourself:
Ritter et al., in 1975, found that ‘the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.’
Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. ‘Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.’
Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. ‘No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,’ they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that ‘The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.’
Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that ‘surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.’
Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that ‘no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.’
Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. ‘Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,’ wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries.
Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found ‘no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.’ Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that ‘none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.’
Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that ‘there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.’
Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that ‘there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that face masks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.
‘Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them.
It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes — two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask.
Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have
mandated masks.
Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55.
All 13 states that have death rates higher than 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them.
‘We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,’ writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature.”
Read more at naturallyhealthynews.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related