offguardian--2020-09-29--The Mask and the Bump

The Mask and the Bump

I was on the bus the other night with my wife .
There were only 3 of us not wearing masks on our public transport , which mandates mask wearing but with medical exemptions .
Across the aisle was an attractive , healthy looking young woman , perhaps mid 20s wearing a mask .
She was pregnant , I ’ d guess in the 2nd trimester .
According to the US NIOSH ( National Institute for Safety and Health ) there are now millions of pregnant women wearing masks — primarily because they ’ re mandated to do so .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be any data for how long they ’ re worn and under what circumstances , i.e .
indoors , outdoors , working , exercising or whatever .
Given what I ’ ve learned about masks I had a strong urge to warn her that there were serious risks to her and I assumed the unborn baby .
I assumed because I really didn ’ t know .
The problem is there are virtually no reliable studies which link mask wearing to postnatal outcomes .
But as I ’ ve come to understand the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inhibit an accurate risk/benefit analysis .
So let ’ s do that .
The wearing of masks to attempt to prevent the spread of a virus has never been widespread in the general population in the Western world .
( An exception to that was during the 1918 flu pandemic , masks were mandated in some cities , USA , but not others .
Subsequent studies showed no difference in infection rates or deaths between the mask wearing cities and those that chose not to . )
In Asia where mask wearing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multitude of reasons including , significantly , for protection against car exhaust and industrial air pollution .
Most studies everywhere have concentrated on “ fit for purpose ” or effectiveness analyses .
Fewer studies have looked at the effects of masks on the wearer , fewer papers still have addressed the concern that masks might be harmful to the wearers .
Here ’ s how we can examine the risks of mask wearing on pregnant women ( or others for that matter ) : If we look at the science regarding the effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wearing them and then compare and connect those results to effects that have been shown to affect pregnancy outcomes then we should be able to draw reasonable conclusions .
In a risk/benefit analysis it may not prove a potential harm but might suggest considerable caution be applied .
Never in our history has mask wearing been so ubiquitous , across so many countries and in general mostly healthy populations of all ages , past that of toddlers .
Neither has mask wearing been mandated for such long periods .
Servers in restaurants , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers , health employees don them for far longer than previously .
Pre-Covid-19 they were mostly confined to operating rooms and infectious wards .
What reasons aside from mandates might a pregnant woman have for deciding to wear a mask during what is called the Covid 19 pandemic ?
Foremost would be concern for her own health and the unborn baby–protection from becoming infected , sick and possible negative effects on the fetus .
Secondly she might be concerned for others , i.e .
source control , that she might not pass on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoped for benefits .
She might also want to be seen to be a good person “ helping to fight the virus.
” Before assessing her benefits we need some context both of Covid-19 and of mask wearing .
On March 11 , 2020 the World Health Organization ( WHO ) , declared the disease Covid-19 , as a result of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus , to be a “ pandemic.
” 6 months in it has failed to live up to that billing .
In fact the US CDC now calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Swiss Policy Research which has published a great deal of scientific information , often at odds with the hysteria the virus has generated in the media , has studied the lethality of the virus and concluded it is generally low .
Doctors , scientists , politicians , judges and hundreds of thousands of citizens have called it a fake or a hoax .
Like these 640 German medical doctors and this group of 590 Belgian doctors whose website also lists other international groups of doctors speaking out .
The majority here are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are saying the threat posed is massively exaggerated .
All of the dissenters present evidence that Covid-19 at worst is as dangerous as a strong flu season .
Regardless , even some government spokespersons are now admitting it is not and was not as lethal as first announced .
Officials such as Chris Whitty , the UK ’ s Chief Medical Health Officer have downplayed the seriousness of Covid-19 as it affects the general population .
He told a press conference on May 11th , when Covid-19 was already past its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern for most people .
Now consider the lethality of Covid-19 as it would apply to a pregnant woman .
The mean age of all births appears to be between 30 and 33 .
The ages of the birth mother will be with minor exceptions between 15 and 45 years .
According to Worldometer the percentage of deaths at the peak of the outbreak under the age of 45 was less than 5 % .
The hardest hit age group accounting for almost 50 % of all mortality to date were 75+ years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , over 90 % , had several comorbidities , a status not impossible but unlikely in pregnant women .
In fact Stanford Professor John Ioannidis , one of the most acclaimed scientists in medicine , says that for those under 45 the infection/fatality rate is essentially zero .
Understanding the above we can safely say a pregnant woman ’ s risk of death absent serious comorbidity , such as terminal cancer , is essentially zero .
But what about a non-fatal Covid-19 infection resulting in harm to the fetus ?
The odds are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of Covid infections are either asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms .
And over 95 % have only moderate symptoms .
The biggest risk to the fetus would apparently be if she got a fever from Covid-19 , as it ’ s been reported that fever can result in congenital birth defects in the child .
However , even here that is not a fear that is borne out by science .
First only 30 % of Covid-19 infections result in fever .
Second and most important , fever in pregnancy has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth defects according to a recent , 2017 , study with a very large cohort of pregnant women .
And what about her risk of hospitalization should she be infected ?
In her age category it would be in the 1 % to 3 % range , not of the whole population , just of those hospitalized .
This is very low as a risk but it may still be a concern for the very risk averse .
But as with everything Covid the elderly take the heaviest hit and men are more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guess for pregnant women ( who are after all a small subset of all women at any given time ) would be in the range of considerably less than 1 % .
And importantly , the benefits of wearing masks would only pertain if they do what is claimed they do by authorities mandating their wear–i.e .
are effective at stopping the coronavirus .
Does the wearing of masks prevent or reduce the chances of a Covid-19 infection ?
Two of the most often cited studies in favour of wearing masks in healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ British medical journal The Lancet .
Despite their stature , they ’ ve had major missteps during the pandemic .
The Lancet was forced to withdraw a paper critical of hydroxychloroquine , HCL , as a Covid-19 treatment because it was based on fraudulent data .
Both their reports on face masks were based on meta-analysis of other studies all of which were observational studies as opposed to randomized control trials , RCTs which are far more reliable .
RCTs are considered the gold standard in medical studies .
Here is a story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being prescribed hormone treatments to protect their hearts .
An RCT raised a red flag , finding that not only were there no benefits derived from the treatment but that it actually causes heart problems .
The conclusions of both Lancet papers 1 & 2 were that the benefits were slight and that the “ certainty of evidence was low ” Sometimes , it was suggested , the benefits were more psychological than physical .
And this quote from the Lancet ’ s most recent study : Note the use of language here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection you ’ re looking for : “ might protect ” “ may also provide additional benefit.
” But then they go on to say the “ certainty of the evidence is low ” for both forms of protection .
In medical studies saying the certainty of evidence is low is tantamount to saying it ’ s untrustworthy .
If masks work to reduce even some of the risk of infection for a pregnant woman there could be an argument for wearing them to move even further into a safe zone of infection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the evidence for effectiveness of masks in this area , including our gold standard , the randomized control trials , RCTs .
As it turns out there are abundant studies of mask efficacy including respirators like the N95 , medical or surgical masks and cloth masks .
One of the most recent was this May 2020 , Hong Kong study published by the US CDC ( Italics mine ) .
What of the argument about being a good person and wearing a mask to protect others , so-called source control ?
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she can do as people have always done and stay home until she ’ s better .
Otherwise , as a healthy person she will infect no one .
Even if she ’ s “ asymptomatic ” there is no real risk of infecting others .
Dr. Maria Van Kerhove , Technical Lead Covid-19 at the World Health Organization , WHO , clearly states that asymptomatic transmission is “ rare.
” Her statement first went viral and then was overwhelmed by the pushback led by Dr. Anthony Fauci and others who appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The evidence since then seems to validate what she said .
One of the most vocal critics of mask wearing is Dr. Denis Rancourt , a retired professor of physics at the University of Ottawa and currently a researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association , OCLA .
Significantly Rancourt also has considerable expertise in biology and published in that arena .
He published a paper entitled Masks Don ’ t Work .
After surveying all of the RCT literature he found literally no evidence that masks of any type succeed in blocking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and biology to demolish the “ droplet ” argument .
Rancourt as a physicist , has been criticized for “ stepping out of his field ” however he has done an immense amount of cross-disciplinary work which actually makes him highly qualified to weigh in on this debate .
Here is a link in which he details his extensive and recognized scientific background .
Finally , most people would be surprised to learn that even in the operating room there are significant studies showing that masks are ineffective for preventing infection .
Masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science .
My own view of the “ controversy ” around mask efficacy is that governments are now widely demanding compliance with mandatory mask wearing , even in the home , saying that it ’ s based on “ the science.
” Many scientists , who most often depend on government licensing , funding and cooperation will do a study that does not actually support mask wearing but then weakly conclude that “ masks should work , even minimally , so yes , go ahead and wear them.
” Not a very powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But why not ?
Supposing it helps even a little and after all one is showing support for fighting the pandemic ?
It won ’ t hurt .
But how sure are we of that last statement ?
I ’ ve seen healthcare workers on social media say they ’ ve worn masks for years and they ’ re fine , so what ’ s the problem ?
The problem might well be long term .
For instance the health consequences of smoking were debated for literally decades because the harm wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even advertisements for cigarette brands endorsed by doctors and most doctors at the time smoked .
As it turns out there is considerable direct and some indirect evidence of the harm that mask wearing may , and probably does , do to anyone wearing them .
As one would expect healthy young people are least at risk while others , with immune deficiencies already , are more likely in harm ’ s way .
Pregnant women are a special case because what they do can affect their unborn child .
Children , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a higher risk category .
Masks pose a direct threat to the health of the mother and an indirect threat to the unborn child .
The most serious threat to both is probably the oxygen depletion caused by having your mouth and nose covered .
In addition you will breathe in more carbon dioxide as when you exhale some is trapped in the mask and you rebreath it .
These effects have many variables such as general health , age , how long masks are worn and what if any activity is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bus was at rest but supposing she was going to the gym later where they require masks to work out ?
Or perhaps she ’ s going to work where she ’ s physically active .
This is where calculating harm and finding evidence comes in .
This article by prominent retired neurosurgeon Dr. Russel Blaylock , a highly regarded MD and author , lays out a whole minefield of risk from wearing face masks .
Regarding oxygen he says this : If blood oxygen saturation is lowered by wearing a mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that do to a pregnant woman ?
For most healthy young people the harm is probably mild such as a headache that goes away after full breathing is restored .
But if the mother ’ s oxygen saturation is lowered then so is that of the fetus and here things get frankly frightening .
A 2012 Arizona State University shows how oxygen deprivation at birth has been shown to result in long term adverse effects such as birth defects and a higher risk for other diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular problems .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ oxygen deprivation even if mild and of short duration tends towards the same high risk health outcomes .
The 2019 study at the University of Cork says : Note they are talking here about oxygen deprivation during birth .
However , the results strongly suggest that reduced oxygen at any point before or during birth would produce the same effects .
Some of the evidence is indirect but nonetheless pertinent .
Example , studies have shown that babies born at high altitudes to mother ’ s for whom it is not their natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth weight , birth defects and higher risk of congenital disease .
This is presumed to be as a result of less oxygen at higher levels .
People native to high altitudes appear to have evolutionarily adjusted to the effects .
Thus clearly we have evidence that masks deplete oxygen and there are several studies linking even mild hypoxia to adverse postnatal outcomes .
That is one very real risk for pregnant women wearing masks .
An additional risk of masks depleting oxygen and increasing carbon dioxide in the blood is that both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s function .
A pregnant woman ’ s immune system works to protect her and her unborn child up until the 14th week of pregnancy when the fetus develops its own .
After week 14 the prenatal child ’ s immune system will still be affected by the mother ’ s .
Pregnant women make all of their choices from the onset of pregnancy for 2 , themselves and their unborn child .
For instance , most women give up or restrict drinking alcohol during pregnancy because of the well-studied effects of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems of oxygen concentration in the blood is not the only danger mask wearers face .
Bacterial and viral infections from microbial buildup on the inner surfaces of masks and even brain infection from viruses travelling from the mask up the olfactory ( nasal ) nerves to the brain are also risks .
After a short period wearing a face mask the inside of the mask gets moist and warm , the perfect medium for growing microbes .
Like a petri dish tied to your face .
Viruses and bacteria that you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landed on the outside of the mask or were transported there when you touched it , are now being breathed back into your nasal passages , throat and lungs .
Now , with widespread mask usage there are additional safety concerns with people using non-medical , non-respirator type , cloth masks .
Cloth masks are widely urged on the public as workable alternatives to medical masks or respirators .
According to Robert Kennedy Jr. ’ s Children ’ s Health Defense : There have been numerous anecdotal reports of staph and streptococcus infections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused by mask wearing ) is belittled by some masking advocates on social media , “ You do get that acne is not a real problem don ’ t you ?
” is one quote I saw .
But as FDA medical officer Dr.Jane Leidtka says from her 15 years of treating acne , But as is reported here , the maskne reveals a more serious problem : verification of microbial buildup on the inside of the mask .
And as noted above one of those infections might be in the brain – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you consider that a real problem ?
Dr. Blaylock referenced the olfactory nerve as a route into the brain in a recent article in Technology News & Trends .
Citing a 1989 study in the journal Virology titled Spread of a neurotropic murine coronavirus into the [ central nervous system ] via the trigeminal and olfactory nerves ” Dr. Blaylock wrote : Dr. Blaylock was ridiculed for that last suggestion but look at this Jun 4 , 2020 quote from John Hopkins Medicine ’ s website regarding the reported number of brain infections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study in the journal Brain said this : And if the above seems unlikely to you consider that a number of studies have reported brain infections as a complication of Cv19 .
John Hopkins doesn ’ t suggest the infection could have come from a mask .
But the etiology suggested by Blaylock is clearly plausible .
As serious as the potential physiological health effects are there is another dimension that is important to consider and that is the emotional well-being and mental health of the expectant mother .
Most prospective mothers probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mind and body .
A cheerful relaxed disposition helps bathe the baby with natural hormonal health promoting chemicals .
Masks create the opposite .
They are arguably the chief symbol of the pandemic with connotations of infection and dying .
In short they are a symbol of fear .
Wearing one says I fear infection more than I dislike the discomfort and inconvenience of wearing this appliance on my face .
You may not even consciously be aware of this fear or general sense of anxiety .
In a 2007 study the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as follows : Fear is a mechanism for lowering your body ’ s natural immunity .
Fear and stress tell the body to spend its resources elsewhere than the immune system until the danger is gone .
But as the masks mandates appear to be in place for an indefinite time , that might be a long while .
“ The surgical mask communicates risk ” imagine just how much more risk and thus fear is communication by mass , worldwide mandatory mask wearing .
Before leaving the subject of masks it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mainstream is telling pregnant women about their effect .
Google “ is mask wearing safe ” and you ’ ll get hundreds of answers saying they are .
BabyGaGa.com , a site directed at expectant parents , gives their advice on masks : How Safe are Masks During Pregnancy : Here ’ s What Experts Say .
One would expect from the title that there would be a comprehensive list of citations and evidence from diverse experts .
But no , all of their advice is based on one study and this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not pregnant women , all healthy , young non-smokers .
Then , it consisted of 1 hour of sitting , standing and mild exercise on a stationary bicycle while the participants were monitored .
They concluded that there was no significant difference in the “ health effects ” in the 2 groups .
It doesn ’ t take a scientist to see what ’ s wrong here .
It was not randomized in any way , it was a very small sample , studied over a very short time frame with no control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the N95 respirator and not the differently problematic surgical or cloth masks .
Literally none of the risks enumerated above would show up in such a study .
It would be like concluding that tobacco is safe based on 32 young women each smoking one cigarette over one hour .
Despite this they did report finding : It is clear from the evidence that there is no real medical benefit for wearing the mask .
There are serious risks that might not befall every pregnant woman wearing a mask .
But would she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometime in the future her child might suffer greatly from a choice she made ?
If mask wearing is unhealthy for unborn children and the mother , it is , for most of the same reasons , unhealthy for all of us especially children .
It is distressing to see jurisdictions all over the world mandating wearing masks in schools .
Active development as guided by our DNA from birth through adolescence is mostly complete by age 19 .
But during this period humans continue the process of gene expression that began in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light and oxygen have been proven to have an impact on this process and that includes oxygen depletion .
In conclusion , in deciding to wear a mask or not , especially if you ’ re pregnant , I would say go with the weight of evidence .
First will the mask work to protect you from viral infection ?
The weight of evidence says it will not because there are no ( gold standard ) randomized control trials that conclude they do .
The science that says they do more often , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should.
” And that is based on mechanistic arguments that suggest “ you ’ re blocking droplets , so you should be preventing infection.
” However that has not been demonstrated in studies .
So you would have to rate the protection of masks as “ low certainty.
” ( Which is how most of the science itself has framed it . )
Second , is there a risk to an expectant mother or an unborn child from wearing a mask .
Here we have a high certainty that there is .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wearing .
Studies that say they are safe by and large rate their certainty as low .
Simply put there is a risk and that risk because it entails a long term developmental danger to the child of birth defects or congenital disease , is not worth taking .
Let ’ s finally ask a question that needs to be addressed because it is a likely reason many people wear the mask ; fear of social isolation or condemnation for not wearing one .
That is not an insignificant concern .
I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wearing a mask , I was kicked out of a lineup for breakfast at a hotel because I was maskless .
I have a medical exemption but are you going to stand in front of a group of people hating on you and explain it ?
Not likely .
It ’ s hard but for a pregnant woman – it ’ s perhaps just the first time in her life she ’ ll have to advocate for herself and her child , and take a stand .
That is truly worth it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep breath and share it with your unborn child .

Patrick Corbett
I was on the bus the other night with my wife. There were only 3 of us not wearing masks on our public transport, which mandates mask wearing but with medical exemptions. Across the aisle was an attractive, healthy looking young woman, perhaps mid 20s wearing a mask.
She was pregnant, I’d guess in the 2nd trimester. According to the US NIOSH (National Institute for Safety and Health) there are now millions of pregnant women wearing masks — primarily because they’re mandated to do so. But there doesn’t appear to be any data for how long they’re worn and under what circumstances, i.e. indoors, outdoors, working, exercising or whatever.
Given what I’ve learned about masks I had a strong urge to warn her that there were serious risks to her and I assumed the unborn baby. I assumed because I really didn’t know. The problem is there are virtually no reliable studies which link mask wearing to postnatal outcomes. But as I’ve come to understand the lack of a specific study need not inhibit an accurate risk/benefit analysis. So let’s do that.
The wearing of masks to attempt to prevent the spread of a virus has never been widespread in the general population in the Western world. (An exception to that was during the 1918 flu pandemic, masks were mandated in some cities, USA, but not others.
Subsequent studies showed no difference in infection rates or deaths between the mask wearing cities and those that chose not to.) In Asia where mask wearing is more common they are worn for a multitude of reasons including, significantly, for protection against car exhaust and industrial air pollution. Most studies everywhere have concentrated on “fit for purpose” or effectiveness analyses.
Fewer studies have looked at the effects of masks on the wearer, fewer papers still have addressed the concern that masks might be harmful to the wearers.
Here’s how we can examine the risks of mask wearing on pregnant women (or others for that matter):
If we look at the science regarding the effects of wearing a mask on the people wearing them and then compare and connect those results to effects that have been shown to affect pregnancy outcomes then we should be able to draw reasonable conclusions. In a risk/benefit analysis it may not prove a potential harm but might suggest considerable caution be applied.
Never in our history has mask wearing been so ubiquitous, across so many countries and in general mostly healthy populations of all ages, past that of toddlers. Neither has mask wearing been mandated for such long periods. Servers in restaurants, school children, plant workers, transit workers, health employees don them for far longer than previously. Pre-Covid-19 they were mostly confined to operating rooms and infectious wards.
What reasons aside from mandates might a pregnant woman have for deciding to wear a mask during what is called the Covid 19 pandemic?
Foremost would be concern for her own health and the unborn baby–protection from becoming infected, sick and possible negative effects on the fetus.
Secondly she might be concerned for others, i.e. source control, that she might not pass on an infection. Those would be her hoped for benefits. She might also want to be seen to be a good person “helping to fight the virus.”
Before assessing her benefits we need some context both of Covid-19 and of mask wearing.
On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization (WHO),declared the disease Covid-19, as a result of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, to be a “pandemic.” 6 months in it has failed to live up to that billing. In fact the US CDC now calls it the “Covid-19 Outbreak.” And Swiss Policy Research which has published a great deal of scientific information, often at odds with the hysteria the virus has generated in the media, has studied the lethality of the virus and concluded it is generally low.
[for] most people the new coronavirus is already neutralized by antibodies on the mucous membrane (IgA) or by cellular immunity (T-cells). In most of these cases, no symptoms or only mild symptoms develop… the new coronavirus is probably much more common than previously thought and the lethality per infection is up to five times lower than previously assumed. The real lethality could thus be well below 0.1% and hence in the range of strong seasonal influenza.”
Doctors, scientists, politicians, judges and hundreds of thousands of citizens have called it a fake or a hoax. Like these 640 German medical doctors and this group of 590 Belgian doctors whose website also lists other international groups of doctors speaking out. The majority here are not saying there is no infectious disease present, they are saying the threat posed is massively exaggerated. All of the dissenters present evidence that Covid-19 at worst is as dangerous as a strong flu season.
Regardless, even some government spokespersons are now admitting it is not and was not as lethal as first announced. Officials such as Chris Whitty, the UK’s Chief Medical Health Officer have downplayed the seriousness of Covid-19 as it affects the general population. He told a press conference on May 11th, when Covid-19 was already past its peak, that it was not a concern for most people.
[T]he great majority of people will not die from this…Most people, a significant proportion of people, will not get this virus at all […] Of those who do, some of them will get the virus without even knowing it, they will have the virus with no symptoms at all, asymptomatic carriage […] Of those who get symptoms, the great majority, probably 80%, will have a mild or moderate disease…not bad enough for them to have to go to the doctor. An unfortunate minority will have to go as far as hospital, but the majority of those will just need oxygen and will then leave hospital. – Chris Whitty, quoted in Off-Guardian, May 15, 2020
Now consider the lethality of Covid-19 as it would apply to a pregnant woman.
The mean age of all births appears to be between 30 and 33. The ages of the birth mother will be with minor exceptions between 15 and 45 years.
According to Worldometer the percentage of deaths at the peak of the outbreak under the age of 45 was less than 5%. The hardest hit age group accounting for almost 50% of all mortality to date were 75+ years old. And most of the deaths, over 90%, had several comorbidities, a status not impossible but unlikely in pregnant women.
In fact Stanford Professor John Ioannidis, one of the most acclaimed scientists in medicine, says that for those under 45 the infection/fatality rate is essentially zero.
Understanding the above we can safely say a pregnant woman’s risk of death absent serious comorbidity, such as terminal cancer, is essentially zero.
But what about a non-fatal Covid-19 infection resulting in harm to the fetus?
The odds are against it. Most importantly because 80% of Covid infections are either asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms. And over 95% have only moderate symptoms. The biggest risk to the fetus would apparently be if she got a fever from Covid-19, as it’s been reported that fever can result in congenital birth defects in the child. However, even here that is not a fear that is borne out by science.
First only 30% of Covid-19 infections result in fever. Second and most important, fever in pregnancy has not been found to result in congenital birth defects according to a recent, 2017, study with a very large cohort of pregnant women.
And what about her risk of hospitalization should she be infected? In her age category it would be in the 1% to 3% range, not of the whole population, just of those hospitalized. This is very low as a risk but it may still be a concern for the very risk averse.
But as with everything Covid the elderly take the heaviest hit and men are more susceptible than women. So a conservative guess for pregnant women (who are after all a small subset of all women at any given time) would be in the range of considerably less than 1%.
And importantly, the benefits of wearing masks would only pertain if they do what is claimed they do by authorities mandating their wear–i.e. are effective at stopping the coronavirus.
Does the wearing of masks prevent or reduce the chances of a Covid-19 infection?
Two of the most often cited studies in favour of wearing masks in healthcare and the community are from the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet. Despite their stature, they’ve had major missteps during the pandemic. The Lancet was forced to withdraw a paper critical of hydroxychloroquine, HCL, as a Covid-19 treatment because it was based on fraudulent data.
Both their reports on face masks were based on meta-analysis of other studies all of which were observational studies as opposed to randomized control trials, RCTs which are far more reliable. RCTs are considered the gold standard in medical studies. Here is a story of how observational studies led to women being prescribed hormone treatments to protect their hearts. An RCT raised a red flag, finding that not only were there no benefits derived from the treatment but that it actually causes heart problems.
The conclusions of both Lancet papers 1 & 2 were that the benefits were slight and that the “certainty of evidence was low” Sometimes, it was suggested, the benefits were more psychological than physical.
One advantage of universal use of face masks is that it prevents discrimination of individuals who wear masks when unwell because everybody is wearing a mask.”
And this quote from the Lancet’s most recent study:
Face coverings and masks might protect both healthcare workers and the general public against infection with COVID-19, and protective eye covering may also provide additional benefit–although the certainty of the evidence is low for both forms of protection.”
Note the use of language here, hardly reassuring if it’s protection you’re looking for: “might protect” “may also provide additional benefit.” But then they go on to say the “certainty of the evidence is low” for both forms of protection. In medical studies saying the certainty of evidence is low is tantamount to saying it’s untrustworthy.
If masks work to reduce even some of the risk of infection for a pregnant woman there could be an argument for wearing them to move even further into a safe zone of infection avoidance. Much of the decision hinges on the evidence for effectiveness of masks in this area, including our gold standard, the randomized control trials, RCTs. As it turns out there are abundant studies of mask efficacy including respirators like the N95, medical or surgical masks and cloth masks.
One of the most recent was this May 2020, Hong Kong study published by the US CDC (Italics mine).
In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks. In this review, we did not find evidence to support a protective effect of personal protective measures or environmental measures in reducing influenza transmission. Although these measures have mechanistic support based on our knowledge of how influenza is transmitted from person to person, randomized trials of hand hygiene and face masks have not demonstrated protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza, with 1 exception (18). We identified only 2 RCTs on environmental cleaning and no RCTs on cough etiquette.
What of the argument about being a good person and wearing a mask to protect others, so-called source control? If a pregnant woman becomes infected with Covid-19, she can do as people have always done and stay home until she’s better. Otherwise, as a healthy person she will infect no one. Even if she’s “asymptomatic” there is no real risk of infecting others. Dr. Maria Van Kerhove, Technical Lead Covid-19 at the World Health Organization, WHO, clearly states that asymptomatic transmission is “rare.”
Her statement first went viral and then was overwhelmed by the pushback led by Dr. Anthony Fauci and others who appeared to be threatened by her statement. The evidence since then seems to validate what she said.
One of the most vocal critics of mask wearing is Dr. Denis Rancourt, a retired professor of physics at the University of Ottawa and currently a researcher with the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, OCLA. Significantly Rancourt also has considerable expertise in biology and published in that arena. He published a paper entitled Masks Don’t Work.
After surveying all of the RCT literature he found literally no evidence that masks of any type succeed in blocking viruses. And he uses both physics and biology to demolish the “droplet” argument. Rancourt as a physicist, has been criticized for “stepping out of his field” however he has done an immense amount of cross-disciplinary work which actually makes him highly qualified to weigh in on this debate.
Here is a link in which he details his extensive and recognized scientific background. Finally, most people would be surprised to learn that even in the operating room there are significant studies showing that masks are ineffective for preventing infection. Masks may be more medical lore than actual science.
My own view of the “controversy” around mask efficacy is that governments are now widely demanding compliance with mandatory mask wearing, even in the home, saying that it’s based on “the science.” Many scientists, who most often depend on government licensing, funding and cooperation will do a study that does not actually support mask wearing but then weakly conclude that “masks should work, even minimally, so yes, go ahead and wear them.” Not a very powerful argument but one that is made nonetheless.
But why not? Supposing it helps even a little and after all one is showing support for fighting the pandemic? It won’t hurt. But how sure are we of that last statement? I’ve seen healthcare workers on social media say they’ve worn masks for years and they’re fine, so what’s the problem? The problem might well be long term. For instance the health consequences of smoking were debated for literally decades because the harm wasn’t immediately apparent. There were even advertisements for cigarette brands endorsed by doctors and most doctors at the time smoked.
As it turns out there is considerable direct and some indirect evidence of the harm that mask wearing may, and probably does, do to anyone wearing them. As one would expect healthy young people are least at risk while others, with immune deficiencies already, are more likely in harm’s way. Pregnant women are a special case because what they do can affect their unborn child. Children, because their development is still ongoing are also in a higher risk category.
Masks pose a direct threat to the health of the mother and an indirect threat to the unborn child. The most serious threat to both is probably the oxygen depletion caused by having your mouth and nose covered. In addition you will breathe in more carbon dioxide as when you exhale some is trapped in the mask and you rebreath it. These effects have many variables such as general health, age, how long masks are worn and what if any activity is being undertaken.
The pregnant lady on the bus was at rest but supposing she was going to the gym later where they require masks to work out? Or perhaps she’s going to work where she’s physically active.
This is where calculating harm and finding evidence comes in. This article by prominent retired neurosurgeon Dr. Russel Blaylock, a highly regarded MD and author, lays out a whole minefield of risk from wearing face masks. Regarding oxygen he says this:
While most agree that the N95 mask can cause significant hypoxia and hypercapnia, another study of surgical masks found significant reductions in blood oxygen as well. In this study, researchers examined the blood oxygen levels in 53 surgeons using an oximeter. They measured blood oxygenation before surgery as well as at the end of surgeries.4 The researchers found that the mask reduced the blood oxygen levels (pa02) significantly. The longer the duration of wearing the mask, the greater the fall in blood oxygen levels.”
If blood oxygen saturation is lowered by wearing a mask, then we ask what harm could that do to a pregnant woman? For most healthy young people the harm is probably mild such as a headache that goes away after full breathing is restored. But if the mother’s oxygen saturation is lowered then so is that of the fetus and here things get frankly frightening. A 2012 Arizona State University shows how oxygen deprivation at birth has been shown to result in long term adverse effects such as birth defects and a higher risk for other diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular problems.
They show how hypoxia, or a period of low oxygen during pregnancy, combined with a genetic risk factor of having only one functioning copy of a gene, dramatically increases the chances of a baby being born with congenital scoliosis, a malformation of the spine that affects around 1 in 1,000.’
[…]
‘We’ve long suspected that it is genes or our environment that cause birth defects, but up until now, the majority of these have been largely unknown,” says Dunwoodie. “This is the first time anyone in the world has shown that both ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’, in combination, are molecularly responsible for causing many birth defects.”
But in recent prenatal and postnatal studies oxygen deprivation even if mild and of short duration tends towards the same high risk health outcomes. The 2019 study at the University of Cork says:
Hypoxia or lack of oxygen to the brain at birth affects almost 200 babies in Ireland each year and results in death or disability in over two million infants each year globally. Even a very mild lack of oxygen at birth can have serious long-term effects with significant costs for the affected children, and their families.”
Note they are talking here about oxygen deprivation during birth. However, the results strongly suggest that reduced oxygen at any point before or during birth would produce the same effects.
Some of the evidence is indirect but nonetheless pertinent. Example, studies have shown that babies born at high altitudes to mother’s for whom it is not their natural environment have a higher incidence of low birth weight, birth defects and higher risk of congenital disease. This is presumed to be as a result of less oxygen at higher levels. People native to high altitudes appear to have evolutionarily adjusted to the effects.
Thus clearly we have evidence that masks deplete oxygen and there are several studies linking even mild hypoxia to adverse postnatal outcomes. That is one very real risk for pregnant women wearing masks.
An additional risk of masks depleting oxygen and increasing carbon dioxide in the blood is that both of these effects compromise the immune system’s function. A pregnant woman’s immune system works to protect her and her unborn child up until the 14th week of pregnancy when the fetus develops its own. After week 14 the prenatal child’s immune system will still be affected by the mother’s.
Pregnant women make all of their choices from the onset of pregnancy for 2, themselves and their unborn child. For instance, most women give up or restrict drinking alcohol during pregnancy because of the well-studied effects of drinking on postnatal health outcomes.
The problems of oxygen concentration in the blood is not the only danger mask wearers face. Bacterial and viral infections from microbial buildup on the inner surfaces of masks and even brain infection from viruses travelling from the mask up the olfactory (nasal) nerves to the brain are also risks.
After a short period wearing a face mask the inside of the mask gets moist and warm, the perfect medium for growing microbes. Like a petri dish tied to your face. Viruses and bacteria that you’re breathing out and microbes that have landed on the outside of the mask or were transported there when you touched it, are now being breathed back into your nasal passages, throat and lungs. Now, with widespread mask usage there are additional safety concerns with people using non-medical, non-respirator type, cloth masks.
Cloth masks are widely urged on the public as workable alternatives to medical masks or respirators. According to Robert Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense:
“Available evidence shows that (cloth masks)… may even increase the risk of infection due to moisture, liquid diffusion and retention of the virus. Penetration of particles through cloth is reported to be high.” “Altogether, common fabric cloth masks are not considered protective against respiratory viruses and their use should not be encouraged.” Textile materials (that can be used for cloth masks) can contain harmful chemicals and dyes (i.e. formaldehyde). There is no research available regarding the safety of breathing through such materials but formaldehyde is a gas that can irritate a person’s eyes, nose, throat and lungs, or trigger an asthma attack, even at low concentrations. Prolonged exposure to formaldehyde can cause cancer.
There have been numerous anecdotal reports of staph and streptococcus infections from mask wearing. Maskne (acne caused by mask wearing) is belittled by some masking advocates on social media, “You do get that acne is not a real problem don’t you?” is one quote I saw.
But as FDA medical officer Dr.Jane Leidtka says from her 15 years of treating acne,
Acne is not usually a serious health condition. But it can cause significant emotional distress, as well as permanent scarring of skin tissue,”
But as is reported here, the maskne reveals a more serious problem: verification of microbial buildup on the inside of the mask.
Upper East Side dermatologist Dr. Whitney Bowe. [says]
If left untreated, the mask, ‘which is a breeding ground for yeast and bacteria…could lead to infections that then require a prescription medication to clear it up.”
(Note: while acne or maskne may not present a serious medical condition (although that’s arguable) it demonstrates something very important: and that is that wearing a mask can lead to infections. That is sobering information because those infections may not all be as relatively benign as acne.)
And as noted above one of those infections might be in the brain – resulting from wearing a mask. Would you consider that a real problem?
Dr. Blaylock referenced the olfactory nerve as a route into the brain in a recent article in Technology News & Trends. Citing a 1989 study in the journal Virology titled Spread of a neurotropic murine coronavirus into the [central nervous system] via the trigeminal and olfactory nerves” Dr. Blaylock wrote:
In most instances it enters the brain by way of the olfactory nerves (smell nerves), which connect directly with the area of the brain dealing with recent memory and memory consolidation. By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain.” [10]
Dr. Blaylock was ridiculed for that last suggestion but look at this Jun 4, 2020 quote from John Hopkins Medicine’s website regarding the reported number of brain infections in Covid-19 patients:
The first possible way is that the virus may have the capacity to enter the brain and cause a severe and sudden infection. …The loss of smell that occurs in some patients with COVID-19 could indicate that the virus entered through the olfactory bulb, which is located right above the nose and communicates information about smell to the brain.
And a 2015 study in the journal Brain said this:
The study listed viruses that can use the olfactory nerve as a “shortcut” into the brain. Viruses that enter the body through the nose include influenza A virus, herpesviruses [and many others].
And if the above seems unlikely to you consider that a number of studies have reported brain infections as a complication of Cv19. John Hopkins doesn’t suggest the infection could have come from a mask. But the etiology suggested by Blaylock is clearly plausible.
As serious as the potential physiological health effects are there is another dimension that is important to consider and that is the emotional well-being and mental health of the expectant mother.
Most prospective mothers probably aim for a holistic, healthy state of mind and body. A cheerful relaxed disposition helps bathe the baby with natural hormonal health promoting chemicals. Masks create the opposite. They are arguably the chief symbol of the pandemic with connotations of infection and dying. In short they are a symbol of fear. Wearing one says I fear infection more than I dislike the discomfort and inconvenience of wearing this appliance on my face. You may not even consciously be aware of this fear or general sense of anxiety.
In a 2007 study the Journal of Maternal and Neonatal Medicine concluded as follows:
Enhanced levels of depression and anxiety symptoms during pregnancy contribute independently of other biomedical risk factors to adverse obstetric, fetal and neonatal outcome[s].”
Fear is a mechanism for lowering your body’s natural immunity. Fear and stress tell the body to spend its resources elsewhere than the immune system until the danger is gone. But as the masks mandates appear to be in place for an indefinite time, that might be a long while.
“…when people live in constant fear, whether from physical dangers in their environment or threats they perceive, they can become incapacitated.”
“The surgical mask communicates risk” imagine just how much more risk and thus fear is communication by mass, worldwide mandatory mask wearing.
Before leaving the subject of masks it is illuminating to consider an example of what the mainstream is telling pregnant women about their effect. Google “is mask wearing safe” and you’ll get hundreds of answers saying they are. BabyGaGa.com, a site directed at expectant parents, gives their advice on masks: How Safe are Masks During Pregnancy: Here’s What Experts Say. One would expect from the title that there would be a comprehensive list of citations and evidence from diverse experts.
But no, all of their advice is based on one study and this study compared 16 pregnant women with 16 not pregnant women, all healthy, young non-smokers. Then, it consisted of 1 hour of sitting, standing and mild exercise on a stationary bicycle while the participants were monitored. They concluded that there was no significant difference in the “health effects” in the 2 groups.
It doesn’t take a scientist to see what’s wrong here.
It was not randomized in any way, it was a very small sample, studied over a very short time frame with no control group. The masks used were only the N95 respirator and not the differently problematic surgical or cloth masks. Literally none of the risks enumerated above would show up in such a study. It would be like concluding that tobacco is safe based on 32 young women each smoking one cigarette over one hour.
Despite this they did report finding:
[that] both pregnant and non-pregnant women wearing the respirator mask had a mild—but significant—increase in the heart’s resting, or diastolic, blood pressure.
It is clear from the evidence that there is no real medical benefit for wearing the mask. There are serious risks that might not befall every pregnant woman wearing a mask. But would she want to live with the uncertainty that sometime in the future her child might suffer greatly from a choice she made?
If mask wearing is unhealthy for unborn children and the mother, it is, for most of the same reasons, unhealthy for all of us especially children. It is distressing to see jurisdictions all over the world mandating wearing masks in schools. Active development as guided by our DNA from birth through adolescence is mostly complete by age 19. But during this period humans continue the process of gene expression that began in the womb.
Environmental factors such as light and oxygen have been proven to have an impact on this process and that includes oxygen depletion.
In conclusion, in deciding to wear a mask or not, especially if you’re pregnant, I would say go with the weight of evidence.
First will the mask work to protect you from viral infection? The weight of evidence says it will not because there are no (gold standard) randomized control trials that conclude they do. The science that says they do more often, on closer examination, says, “they should.” And that is based on mechanistic arguments that suggest “you’re blocking droplets, so you should be preventing infection.” However that has not been demonstrated in studies. So you would have to rate the protection of masks as “low certainty.” (Which is how most of the science itself has framed it.)
Second, is there a risk to an expectant mother or an unborn child from wearing a mask. Here we have a high certainty that there is. Many studies have demonstrated risks in mask wearing. Studies that say they are safe by and large rate their certainty as low. Simply put there is a risk and that risk because it entails a long term developmental danger to the child of birth defects or congenital disease, is not worth taking.
Let’s finally ask a question that needs to be addressed because it is a likely reason many people wear the mask; fear of social isolation or condemnation for not wearing one. That is not an insignificant concern.
I was yelled at in a store for not wearing a mask, I was kicked out of a lineup for breakfast at a hotel because I was maskless. I have a medical exemption but are you going to stand in front of a group of people hating on you and explain it? Not likely.
It’s hard but for a pregnant woman – it’s perhaps just the first time in her life she’ll have to advocate for herself and her child, and take a stand. That is truly worth it. Take off the mask. Take a deep breath and share it with your unborn child.
Patrick Corbett is a retired writer, producer, director and editor who’s worked for every major network in Canada and the US except for Fox. His journalistic credits include Dateline NBC, CTV’s W-5 and the CTV documentary unit where he wrote and directed ‘Children’s Hospital’, the first Canadian production to be nominated for an International Emmy. You can follow Patrick on Twitter.


offguardian--2020-09-30--Nicaragua – The Country That Didn’t Swallow the Covid Blue Pill

No curfews , no lockdowns , no “ stay at home ” , no psychosis , no covid-calamities .
There has been much talk about the Swedish corona strategy but the strategy of Nicaragua has been by far more successful , with many fewer deaths , no “ economic rescue ” for big banks and only limited damage to small and medium sized businesses .
In the midst of the worldwide economic debacle caused by covid hysteria , food self-sufficient , small business based , impoverished Nicaragua , has seen its exports grow over 10 % the past 8 months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy .
Precisely because it sustained its economy , it has not had to take on huge loans in order to face the emergency .
Thus , its foreign debt levels remain within a readily manageable range , below 50 % of GDP .
( On the other hand , the economies of neighboring countries such as Costa Rica , El Salvador , Honduras and Guatemala , are hurting badly with debt levels soaring ) .
I went out on Sunday afternoon in the barrio where I live in Managua .
Bars full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full of guests .
No masks .
The local convenience store which still has the “ only-masked-customers-allowed ” sign hanging from the door no longer refuses to let maskless people in .
There is no mask-wearing official policy in Nicaragua except for a recomendation that only patients with respiratory conditions or personnel taking care of them should wear masks .
The wearing of surgical gloves by patients , on the other hand , is strongly discouraged as it poses a serious risk of contagion both of coronavirus and other respiratory diseases .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wear masks , be it out of precaution or out of plain courtesy .
Otherwise , in offices and shops handwashing and alcohol hand sanitizers are readily available practically everywhere .
No restrictions have been put in place for public meetings and sports championships such as the popular local baseball league have taken place without problems , as well as scores of local fairs and other traditional activities that take place weekly .
Few massive activities have been cancelled due to covid , especially Catholic Church processions , most notably the traditional 10-day-long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for which thousands of people gather every year .
For the most part , people have moved around , going out or heading to the beach as normal .
Over the last 3 weeks , an all-time record number of over 83 thousand people visited the Salvador Allende Port and its lakeside promenade – a big and popular public leisure complex in Managua– , according to the authorities .
Schools haven ’ t closed down , which is very good for the country ’ s school children , since they provide a nutritious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a food security measure contributing greatly to improved public health for families across Nicaragua .
Yet , with just 2-3 covid-19 deaths per week the last couple of weeks ( 147 in total as of September 22nd ) , Nicaragua is by far the least affected country in Central America .
Belice has only 19 deaths so far , but on the other hand , its population is a fraction of Nicaragua ’ s .
As in Germany and other countries , Nicaragua ’ s Health Ministery does differentiate between deaths of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from covid ” .
That is , a person can be with covid-19 but in the last instance die from an acute heart attack , while someone else who also has covid-19 can die “ from covid-19 ” because of an upper lung condition typical of viruses that cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ( SARS ) , such as SARS-CoV-2 .
That is the official explanation given by the authorities in a white paper on Nicaragua ’ s public health response to the pandemic issued last May .
Although increased mortality due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 26 % fewer pneumonia cases were reported , but with an increase of 8 % in deaths – related but not directly caused by covid ) , the situation in the hospitals , health care centers , funeral parlours and graveyards is totally normal .
No collapse anywhere .
By the end of April and the beginning of May , when the majority of covid deaths were reported , many people lost acquaintances , relatives or friends with comorbidities , but not even back then did the situation reach the kinds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The health system never came even close to saturation point at any time .
In the Western press Nicaragua has been portrayed as a country that “ did nothing ” to divert the pandemic , which is totally false .
Very early on , on January 21st , while the wealthy countries of North America and Europe dallied , Nicaragua declared a national epidemiological alert .
That was the day after the Chinese authorities reported that country ’ s third death from covid-19 .
Some weeks later , Nicaragua ’ s national covid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on strenghtening the public health system and informing the population on a mass scale .
The strategy followed by the Nicaraguan Government was based on informing the population , taking care of the elderly and frail and strengthening the public health system , specially via enhanced control of the many diseases already threatening the population such as zika , dengue , malaria and chikungunya .
The ordinary public health campaigns never stopped , with fumigation of areas with high prevalence of mosquitoes as well as routine annual vaccination programmes for children and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intensify hygiene routines and those in the high-risk groups were recommended to avoid crowds .
Every institution devised plans and protocols to meet the covid emergency and in industrial complexes such as the free trade zones plans were agreed between employers and the workers ’ unions in order to ensure that any eventual interruptions to production would not leave working families without an income ( luckily , as it turned out , for the most part production was not very seriously affected by the pandemic ) .
The Ministry of Health from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people affected by epidemic diseases typical for the time of year : dengue , malaria ( both vivax and falciparum ) , chikungunya , zika , pneumonia , tuberculosis , H1-N1 , leptospirosis , chagas disease , as well ensuring care for chronic diseases , for example cancer treatment , renal dialysis or cardiology conditions .
People with respiratory problems , cough and flu , are being given special attention and follow-up , to determine if they need further monitoring depending on their corresponding chronic condition : diabetes mellitus , chronic kidney disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obstructive pulmonary disease , pneumonia , among others .
A very successful initiative now being implemented is the program “ My Hospital My Community ” by which all public hospitals mobilize their specialized health care units out into their respective communities in order to actively reach out to people with various chronic conditions who for various reasons may have difficulties going to their local hospital –among them persons who are afraid of getting covid-19 if they go to a hospital .
As mentioned earlier , schools and universities have remained open because on-line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people on low incomes .
However , because some parents were reluctant to send their children to school a specially designed series of television classes on all subjects have been produced and broadcast both on public television channels and on radio so that children could make good any classes they may have missed .
Facing the recurring risk of volcano eruptions , earthquakes , hurricanes as well as all the various kinds of tropical diseases , countries such as Nicaragua very much need to develop a routine system for early warning and management @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are part of our everyday reality .
Nicaragua is among the countries most threatened by global warming and has been able to deal simply and readily with covid because since 2007 it has developed an integral civil defence and public health philosophy based on broad popular participation , a highly operational public sector and a system trained and ready to articulate cohesively all the available resources .
Whether addressing natural disasters or national public health challenges , Nicaragua over the years has built up an unrivalled organizational infrastructure that quickly mobilizes thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So covid didn ’ t take the country unawares .
During the past 13 years Nicaragua has experienced dramatic advances .
Back in 2006 , before the Sandinistas returned to power , overall poverty was 48 % .
Today it is 24.6 % .
54 % of people had no electricity .
Today , 98.5 % have it .
70 % didn ’ t have running water .
Today 93 % have it .
Infant mortality was 29 per 1000 infants born .
Today it is down to 12 per 1000 – a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9 out of 10 births now take place in health centers while before most children were delivered at home .
In 2006 the country had 2044km of roads ( only 30 % in good condition ) .
In 2019 the paved road network was 4590km ( all in good repair ) .
The economy grew from USD 6.7bn to 12.5bn in this period .
Amidst this development in a region cursed by neoliberalism , public health has played a central role in Sandinista policies .
From the outset , privatization of health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new , community and family-based preventive health model was developed using sector based territorial health areas grouping together communities of between 600 to 1,000 families , equivalent to 3,000 to 5,000 inhabitants , depending on whether the sector is rural or urban .
In each of these territories , so-called “ cabinets for the family , community and life ” have been organized incorporating socially-engaged members of society who effectively monitor the local health situation and are able to address not only sanitary and medical issues , but also the social aspects of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For example , the program “ Todos con Voz ” ( “ Everyone with a Voice ” ) assesses the overall situation of each person with disability in a household and assists , not only with wheelchairs or therapies , but also with economic support and training in order to improve the economic activity available to the whole household .
The program “ Amor para los más chiquitos ” ( “ Love for the littlest ones ” ) promotes better care in the family for very young children .
Other programs are aimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school age so that they don ’ t have to send their children to work and so on .
Public health investment has also seen a dramatic increase from USD 32 to USD 70 per capita ( 2018 ) .
Total health care expenditure went from USD 111.9 million to USD468.6 million in 2020 .
In 2006 there were 22,083 health workers ; in 2020 , there are 36,649 , including doctors , nurses and technicians , many of them educated in Cuba and other countries .
The Sandinista government has built 18 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build 15 more , 6 of which are already under construction .
The total health infrastructure of the country comprises 143 health centers ; 1,333 medical posts ; 178 maternity homes and 66 mobile clinics – way ahead per population of its Central American neighbors .
All this investment has a strong technological component as it shortens hospitalization periods , in many cases is much safer and makes more rational use of available health personnel .
Among recent hi-tech investments are two linear accelerators to treat cancer ( one of them has already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about to be installed ) and the widespread use of laparoscopic surgeries and other modern techniques .
Recently , a molecular biology lab was inaugurated capable of analyzing evidence of several diseases , including COVID-19 .
This lab is the second most advanced in the region and has been recognized by the WHO as having Level 3 Biosafety .
Also , the Russian Mechnikov medicine factory was inaugurated , which can produce 12 million influenza vaccines per year .
The Cuban drug Interferon Alpha-2B ( successfully used to treat patients with COVID-19 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lab as well as the Russian Covid vaccine .
All this high-tech investment does not exclude the widespread use of traditional or natural medicine .
A public health sector “ Pain clinic ” has been built to give treatment in acupuncture and many other traditional therapies , and specialists in those treatments are available in many health care facilities all over the country .
Nicaragua is a country where 80 % of farmland holdings are under 875 acres , worked by small and medium sized producers .
It is a country where small-scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 60 % of disposable income , providing around 80 % of the country ’ s employment and producing 90 % of all the food it consumes .
So while it simply can not afford to “ lock down ” or “ stay home ” , conversely it didn ’ t need to take “ extraordinary measures ” to face the covid emergency because it already had an immensely resilient system designed and in permanent readiness to face any and every kind of emergency .
For Nicaragua , the “ blue pill ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” would have been pure cyanide , and since its leadership long ago took the red pill , it was able to discern the true interests behind the phony rich-country pandemic discourse and its hidden “ great re-set ” agenda .

Jorge Capelán
No curfews, no lockdowns, no “stay at home”, no psychosis, no covid-calamities. There has been much talk about the Swedish corona strategy but the strategy of Nicaragua has been by far more successful, with many fewer deaths, no “economic rescue” for big banks and only limited damage to small and medium sized businesses.
In the midst of the worldwide economic debacle caused by covid hysteria, food self-sufficient, small business based, impoverished Nicaragua, has seen its exports grow over 10% the past 8 months because it did not shut down its economy.
Precisely because it sustained its economy, it has not had to take on huge loans in order to face the emergency.
Thus, its foreign debt levels remain within a readily manageable range, below 50% of GDP. (On the other hand, the economies of neighboring countries such as Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, are hurting badly with debt levels soaring).
I went out on Sunday afternoon in the barrio where I live in Managua. Bars full of people, even small family-run restaurants full of guests. No masks. The local convenience store which still has the “only-masked-customers-allowed” sign hanging from the door no longer refuses to let maskless people in.
There is no mask-wearing official policy in Nicaragua except for a recomendation that only patients with respiratory conditions or personnel taking care of them should wear masks. The wearing of surgical gloves by patients, on the other hand, is strongly discouraged as it poses a serious risk of contagion both of coronavirus and other respiratory diseases.
In hospitals and health care units most people wear masks, be it out of precaution or out of plain courtesy. Otherwise, in offices and shops handwashing and alcohol hand sanitizers are readily available practically everywhere.
No restrictions have been put in place for public meetings and sports championships such as the popular local baseball league have taken place without problems, as well as scores of local fairs and other traditional activities that take place weekly.
Few massive activities have been cancelled due to covid, especially Catholic Church processions, most notably the traditional 10-day-long celebrations of Saint Dominic in Managua, for which thousands of people gather every year. For the most part, people have moved around, going out or heading to the beach as normal. Over the last 3 weeks, an all-time record number of over 83 thousand people visited the Salvador Allende Port and its lakeside promenade – a big and popular public leisure complex in Managua–, according to the authorities.
Schools haven’t closed down, which is very good for the country’s school children, since they provide a nutritious meal a day to 1.2 million children, a food security measure contributing greatly to improved public health for families across Nicaragua.
Yet, with just 2-3 covid-19 deaths per week the last couple of weeks (147 in total as of September 22nd), Nicaragua is by far the least affected country in Central America. Belice has only 19 deaths so far, but on the other hand, its population is a fraction of Nicaragua’s.
As in Germany and other countries, Nicaragua’s Health Ministery does differentiate between deaths of patients “with covid” and “from covid”. That is, a person can be with covid-19 but in the last instance die from an acute heart attack, while someone else who also has covid-19 can die “from covid-19” because of an upper lung condition typical of viruses that cause Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), such as SARS-CoV-2. That is the official explanation given by the authorities in a white paper on Nicaragua’s public health response to the pandemic issued last May.
Although increased mortality due to pneumonia has been noticed (last week, 26% fewer pneumonia cases were reported, but with an increase of 8% in deaths – related but not directly caused by covid), the situation in the hospitals, health care centers, funeral parlours and graveyards is totally normal. No collapse anywhere.
By the end of April and the beginning of May, when the majority of covid deaths were reported, many people lost acquaintances, relatives or friends with comorbidities, but not even back then did the situation reach the kinds of scenes taking place in other countries. The health system never came even close to saturation point at any time.
In the Western press Nicaragua has been portrayed as a country that “did nothing” to divert the pandemic, which is totally false. Very early on, on January 21st, while the wealthy countries of North America and Europe dallied, Nicaragua declared a national epidemiological alert. That was the day after the Chinese authorities reported that country’s third death from covid-19. Some weeks later, Nicaragua’s national covid response committee elaborated a detailed protocol based on strenghtening the public health system and informing the population on a mass scale.
The strategy followed by the Nicaraguan Government was based on informing the population, taking care of the elderly and frail and strengthening the public health system, specially via enhanced control of the many diseases already threatening the population such as zika, dengue, malaria and chikungunya. The ordinary public health campaigns never stopped, with fumigation of areas with high prevalence of mosquitoes as well as routine annual vaccination programmes for children and the elderly.
The population was recommended to intensify hygiene routines and those in the high-risk groups were recommended to avoid crowds. Every institution devised plans and protocols to meet the covid emergency and in industrial complexes such as the free trade zones plans were agreed between employers and the workers’ unions in order to ensure that any eventual interruptions to production would not leave working families without an income (luckily, as it turned out, for the most part production was not very seriously affected by the pandemic).
The Ministry of Health from the very beginning has provided epidemiological surveillance for people affected by epidemic diseases typical for the time of year: dengue, malaria (both vivax and falciparum), chikungunya, zika, pneumonia, tuberculosis, H1-N1, leptospirosis, chagas disease, as well ensuring care for chronic diseases, for example cancer treatment, renal dialysis or cardiology conditions.
People with respiratory problems, cough and flu, are being given special attention and follow-up, to determine if they need further monitoring depending on their corresponding chronic condition: diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, stroke, hypertensive disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, among others.
A very successful initiative now being implemented is the program “My Hospital My Community” by which all public hospitals mobilize their specialized health care units out into their respective communities in order to actively reach out to people with various chronic conditions who for various reasons may have difficulties going to their local hospital –among them persons who are afraid of getting covid-19 if they go to a hospital.
As mentioned earlier, schools and universities have remained open because on-line distance learning is not an option for people on low incomes. However, because some parents were reluctant to send their children to school a specially designed series of television classes on all subjects have been produced and broadcast both on public television channels and on radio so that children could make good any classes they may have missed.
Facing the recurring risk of volcano eruptions, earthquakes, hurricanes as well as all the various kinds of tropical diseases, countries such as Nicaragua very much need to develop a routine system for early warning and management of emergencies, simply because those events are part of our everyday reality.
Nicaragua is among the countries most threatened by global warming and has been able to deal simply and readily with covid because since 2007 it has developed an integral civil defence and public health philosophy based on broad popular participation, a highly operational public sector and a system trained and ready to articulate cohesively all the available resources.
Whether addressing natural disasters or national public health challenges, Nicaragua over the years has built up an unrivalled organizational infrastructure that quickly mobilizes thousands of volunteer activists and public sector employees. So covid didn’t take the country unawares.
During the past 13 years Nicaragua has experienced dramatic advances. Back in 2006, before the Sandinistas returned to power, overall poverty was 48%. Today it is 24.6%. 54% of people had no electricity. Today, 98.5% have it. 70% didn’t have running water. Today 93% have it. Infant mortality was 29 per 1000 infants born. Today it is down to 12 per 1000 – a reduction of over 60%.
Almost 9 out of 10 births now take place in health centers while before most children were delivered at home. In 2006 the country had 2044km of roads (only 30% in good condition). In 2019 the paved road network was 4590km (all in good repair). The economy grew from USD 6.7bn to 12.5bn in this period.
Amidst this development in a region cursed by neoliberalism, public health has played a central role in Sandinista policies. From the outset, privatization of health care was stopped and rolled back. A new, community and family-based preventive health model was developed using sector based territorial health areas grouping together communities of between 600 to 1,000 families, equivalent to 3,000 to 5,000 inhabitants, depending on whether the sector is rural or urban.
In each of these territories, so-called “cabinets for the family, community and life” have been organized incorporating socially-engaged members of society who effectively monitor the local health situation and are able to address not only sanitary and medical issues, but also the social aspects of public health, of particular importance.
For example, the program “Todos con Voz” (“Everyone with a Voice”) assesses the overall situation of each person with disability in a household and assists, not only with wheelchairs or therapies, but also with economic support and training in order to improve the economic activity available to the whole household.
The program “Amor para los más chiquitos” (“Love for the littlest ones”) promotes better care in the family for very young children. Other programs are aimed at helping poor families with children in school age so that they don’t have to send their children to work and so on.
Public health investment has also seen a dramatic increase from USD 32 to USD 70 per capita (2018). Total health care expenditure went from USD 111.9 million to USD468.6 million in 2020. In 2006 there were 22,083 health workers; in 2020, there are 36,649, including doctors, nurses and technicians, many of them educated in Cuba and other countries.
The Sandinista government has built 18 new hospitals and there are plans to build 15 more, 6 of which are already under construction. The total health infrastructure of the country comprises 143 health centers; 1,333 medical posts; 178 maternity homes and 66 mobile clinics – way ahead per population of its Central American neighbors.
All this investment has a strong technological component as it shortens hospitalization periods, in many cases is much safer and makes more rational use of available health personnel. Among recent hi-tech investments are two linear accelerators to treat cancer (one of them has already been set in place, one is about to be installed) and the widespread use of laparoscopic surgeries and other modern techniques.
Recently, a molecular biology lab was inaugurated capable of analyzing evidence of several diseases, including COVID-19. This lab is the second most advanced in the region and has been recognized by the WHO as having Level 3 Biosafety.
Also, the Russian Mechnikov medicine factory was inaugurated, which can produce 12 million influenza vaccines per year. The Cuban drug Interferon Alpha-2B (successfully used to treat patients with COVID-19) is expected to be produced in this lab as well as the Russian Covid vaccine.
All this high-tech investment does not exclude the widespread use of traditional or natural medicine. A public health sector “Pain clinic” has been built to give treatment in acupuncture and many other traditional therapies, and specialists in those treatments are available in many health care facilities all over the country.
Nicaragua is a country where 80% of farmland holdings are under 875 acres, worked by small and medium sized producers. It is a country where small-scale family businesses drive the economy, controlling over 60% of disposable income, providing around 80% of the country’s employment and producing 90% of all the food it consumes.
So while it simply cannot afford to “lock down” or “stay home”, conversely it didn’t need to take “extraordinary measures” to face the covid emergency because it already had an immensely resilient system designed and in permanent readiness to face any and every kind of emergency.
For Nicaragua, the “blue pill” of lockdown or “stay at home” would have been pure cyanide, and since its leadership long ago took the red pill, it was able to discern the true interests behind the phony rich-country pandemic discourse and its hidden “great re-set” agenda.


offguardian--2020-10-01--To all long term Covid sceptics…

To all long term Covid sceptics…

Let ’ s take a moment to embrace the strength of our position .
From the outset when the official response was a brief lockdown to ‘ flatten the curve ’ we were telling people this was just the beginning .
We predicted there would be more lockdowns , increased policing , suspension of democracy , mandatory vaccines , a permanent ‘ new normal ’ .
And we were correct .
We pointed to the data – not the media fear porn – and said the virus was not unusual or dangerous and no measures – beyond normal flu season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And we were correct .
The Covid hysterics have lost the argument – and you have won it .
You don ’ t need to concede anything to their destroyed and absurd argument in a mistaken attempt at reconciliation .
All you do by that is undermine the most important truths .
The pandemic is a scam aimed at initiating a new and terrifying degree of global control over the human body , mind and society .
You can ’ t meet an agenda like that half way – or find common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can do is use the weapons of truth to defeat it .

Catte Black
First published on Catte’s Facebook page.
To all long term Covid sceptics.
Let’s take a moment to embrace the strength of our position.
From the outset when the official response was a brief lockdown to ‘flatten the curve’ we were telling people this was just the beginning.
We predicted there would be more lockdowns, increased policing, suspension of democracy, mandatory vaccines, a permanent ‘new normal’.
And we were correct.
We pointed to the data – not the media fear porn – and said the virus was not unusual or dangerous and no measures – beyond normal flu season precautions for the vulnerable – were necessary.
And we were correct.
Embrace this.
The Covid hysterics have lost the argument – and you have won it.
You don’t need to concede anything to their destroyed and absurd argument in a mistaken attempt at reconciliation. All you do by that is undermine the most important truths.
The pandemic is a scam aimed at initiating a new and terrifying degree of global control over the human body, mind and society.
You can’t meet an agenda like that half way – or find common cause with those promoting it.
All you can do is use the weapons of truth to defeat it.


offguardian--2020-10-02--WATCH: Is the UK heading toward medical martial law?

On the 28th September Tobias Ellwood , Tory MP for Bournemouth East , stood up in Parliament and suggested that the British Army and the Ministry of Defense be in charge of distributing and administering “ millions of doses ” of the Sars-Cov-2 vaccines , as well as issuing “ vaccination certificates ” which will “ allow travel ” .
And that ’ s just the highlights , there ’ s a lot more vaguely sinister language , camouflaged in his rather drab monotone voice .
( You can watch the whole speech here , go to 20:24 ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ very much worth keeping an eye on .
The BBC don ’ t think so , of course , because the call for what would easily amount to medical martial law didn ’ t even make it into their “ Today in Parliament ” programme .
This is not new behaviour for Ellwood .
He has always been a consistent voice for use of the military in response to the “ pandemic ” .
On the 18th of September he requested the Prime Minister make “ greater use of our fine armed forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the narrative ” , which is no surprise considering his role as a former Army officer , a current reserves officer , and his known affiliation with the 77th Brigade .
For those who don ’ t know : The 77th is the British army ’ s team of “ facebook warriors ” .
An information warfare unit whose job is to “ counter misinformation ” , “ manage the narrative ” and generally corral and control the internet conversation .
That ’ s not a “ conspiracy theory ” , their existence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the mainstream media .
Considering they ’ re currently employed “ countering covid misinformation “ , they will likely be in the comments of this post ( Hi guys ! )
.
Other countries around the world have already moved on to this “ war footing ” , and the UK is likely not far behind .

On the 28th September Tobias Ellwood, Tory MP for Bournemouth East, stood up in Parliament and suggested that the British Army and the Ministry of Defense be in charge of distributing and administering “millions of doses” of the Sars-Cov-2 vaccines, as well as issuing “vaccination certificates” which will “allow travel”.
And that’s just the highlights, there’s a lot more vaguely sinister language, camouflaged in his rather drab monotone voice. (You can watch the whole speech here, go to 20:24).
This is a concerning development, one very much worth keeping an eye on. The BBC don’t think so, of course, because the call for what would easily amount to medical martial law didn’t even make it into their “Today in Parliament” programme.
This is not new behaviour for Ellwood. He has always been a consistent voice for use of the military in response to the “pandemic”. On the 18th of September he requested the Prime Minister make “greater use of our fine armed forces”.
He specifically mentions “managing the narrative”, which is no surprise considering his role as a former Army officer, a current reserves officer, and his known affiliation with the 77th Brigade. For those who don’t know: The 77th is the British army’s team of “facebook warriors”. An information warfare unit whose job is to “counter misinformation”, “manage the narrative” and generally corral and control the internet conversation.
That’s not a “conspiracy theory”, their existence is readily acknowledged by both the government and the mainstream media. Considering they’re currently employed “countering covid misinformation“, they will likely be in the comments of this post (Hi guys!).
Other countries around the world have already moved on to this “war footing”, and the UK is likely not far behind.


offguardian--2020-10-02--Turkey adds fuel to fire in Nagorno-Karabakh

In the past few years , Turkey ’ s unprecedentedly aggressive foreign policy has affected all States within Ankara ’ s area of interest .
The renewed conflict in Karabakh region was viewed by Turkish President Recep Erdogan as a new goal for his imperialist ambitions .
And that ’ s why the sovereign State of Armenia came under Turkish attack .
On 27th September Turkish-backed Azerbaijan launched a military operation to regain control of the disputed territories of Nagorno-Karabakh .
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on his Twitter account confirmed Ankara ’ s readiness to support Baku and fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two countries , one nation ” principle .
He also called on Armenia to immediately withdraw its troops from the “ occupied ” Karabakh territories .
At the same time , media and social networks started spreading information about the deploying of Turkish military equipment and mercenaries from Syria and Libya in Azerbaijan .
Even before the outbreak of clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan , on 19th September local Syrian sources informed that Turkey began recruiting volunteers in Afrin in northern Syria for their further dispatch to the conflict zone .
Mercenaries were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Turkish town of Gaziantep , from where they were transported to the Azeri capital Baku under the guise of Turkish soldiers .
According to Flightradar24 , Turkish aircraft took off from Mitiga Airport in Libya ’ s Tripoli and landed in Baku .
Military experts suppose that the aircraft moved a batch of pro-Turkish mercenaries to participate in fighting against Armenian armed forces .
The further activity of Syrian mercenaries can be tracked through regional networks and social media .
Reports said that more than dozens of fighters , mostly from pro-Turkish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , were killed during clashes in Karabakh .
According to the British newspaper Guardian , Syrian mercenaries weren ’ t meant to participate in the conflict as a combat force but were “ signed up to work as border guards in Azerbaijan ” .
Despite the excuses of the Turkish authorities and the statements made by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev on non-interference of the Turkish party in the Karabakh conflict , there is a lot of evidence proving Ankara ’ s direct interference .
The latest example of Turkey ’ s aggressive policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aircraft belonging to the Armenian Air Force by Turkish F-16 fighter jet .
Additionally , Ankara intensified its support for Baku with sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles “ Bayraktar ” .
Erdogan ’ s real goals in the Karabakh conflict remain unclear , especially given the fact that Turkish intervention could trigger Russian involvement and further escalation .
Probably if the opposing sides won ’ t take practical steps towards a peaceful solution and won ’ t prevent foreign interference , the world can witness a new long-lasting conflict and more civilian casualties .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a primary focus on the involvement of foreign actors in the Syrian conflict and its consequences on both regional and global levels .

Ahmad al-Khaled
In the past few years, Turkey’s unprecedentedly aggressive foreign policy has affected all States within Ankara’s area of interest. The renewed conflict in Karabakh region was viewed by Turkish President Recep Erdogan as a new goal for his imperialist ambitions. And that’s why the sovereign State of Armenia came under Turkish attack.
On 27th September Turkish-backed Azerbaijan launched a military operation to regain control of the disputed territories of Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu on his Twitter account confirmed Ankara’s readiness to support Baku and fight for its interests, thus protecting “two countries, one nation” principle. He also called on Armenia to immediately withdraw its troops from the “occupied” Karabakh territories.
At the same time, media and social networks started spreading information about the deploying of Turkish military equipment and mercenaries from Syria and Libya in Azerbaijan.
Even before the outbreak of clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan, on 19th September local Syrian sources informed that Turkey began recruiting volunteers in Afrin in northern Syria for their further dispatch to the conflict zone. Mercenaries were reportedly taken to a training camp in the Turkish town of Gaziantep, from where they were transported to the Azeri capital Baku under the guise of Turkish soldiers.
According to Flightradar24, Turkish aircraft took off from Mitiga Airport in Libya’s Tripoli and landed in Baku. Military experts suppose that the aircraft moved a batch of pro-Turkish mercenaries to participate in fighting against Armenian armed forces.
The further activity of Syrian mercenaries can be tracked through regional networks and social media. Reports said that more than dozens of fighters, mostly from pro-Turkish Syrian factions Ahrar al-Sharqiyah and Hamza Division, were killed during clashes in Karabakh.
According to the British newspaper Guardian, Syrian mercenaries weren’t meant to participate in the conflict as a combat force but were “signed up to work as border guards in Azerbaijan”.
Despite the excuses of the Turkish authorities and the statements made by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev on non-interference of the Turkish party in the Karabakh conflict, there is a lot of evidence proving Ankara’s direct interference. The latest example of Turkey’s aggressive policy was the shooting down of Sukhoi SU-25 aircraft belonging to the Armenian Air Force by Turkish F-16 fighter jet. Additionally, Ankara intensified its support for Baku with sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles “Bayraktar”.
Erdogan’s real goals in the Karabakh conflict remain unclear, especially given the fact that Turkish intervention could trigger Russian involvement and further escalation. Probably if the opposing sides won’t take practical steps towards a peaceful solution and won’t prevent foreign interference, the world can witness a new long-lasting conflict and more civilian casualties.
Ahmad al-Khaled is a freelance journalist with a primary focus on the involvement of foreign actors in the Syrian conflict and its consequences on both regional and global levels.