9 COVID-19 Myths That Just Won’t Go Away

 9 COVID-19 Myths That Just Won’t Go Away

1 WAS COVID19 ENGINEERED OR CREATED IN A LAB?

Although Covid19 may have not been created, it was surelly engineered in a Wuhan BSL-4 lab, and without a doubt leaked from that Lab and not from the wet market.

Not only 2008 Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier said that Covid19 coronavirus disease was artificially created in a lab by biologists working on an AIDS vaccine (I don't think that that was the case) but one Chinese virologist named Dr Li-Men Yan has proof that the virus has been ENGINEERED (changed, tempered with) NOT CREATED and then leaked from a Virology Institute´s BSL-4 Lab and this is the Best Evidence Yet That Coronavirus Came From Wuhan BSL-4 Lab.

2 Wealthy elites intentionally spread the virus to win power and profit

Everyone knows that Bill Gates through his foundation and connections with U.N. and W.H.O wants to force vaccination to everyone, and that´s a few billion dollars emterprise

Bill Gates is a deeply corrupt person.

Not only him but George Soros as well.

3 COVID-19 is no worse than the flu

That´s true that Covid19 is a bit worst than the flu, but only in the aspect of it´s facility to spread and infect others, whilst the heavier targeted age group as always been people above 70, specially if this ones carry some underlying health conditions that can be trigged by the presence of the virus.

4 You don’t need to wear a mask

That´s true that masks harms you more than protects you, not to mention that they don´t stop the spread of the virus.

There´s more than enough evidence that face masks can harm your health.

• The American Medical Association just released a position paper on masks:

“Face masks should be used only by individuals who have symptoms of respiratory infection such as coughing, sneezing, or, in some cases, fever. Face masks should also be worn by healthcare workers, by individuals who are taking care of or are in close contact with people who have respiratory infections, or otherwise as directed by a doctor. Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill. Face masks should be reserved for those who need them because masks can be in short supply during periods of widespread respiratory infection. Because N95 respirators require special fit testing, they are not recommended for use by the general public.”

 This direct rebreathing of the virus back into the nasal passages can contribute to the migration of the virus to the brain. (1, 2) “Newer evidence suggests that in some cases the virus can enter the brain. 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.”

5 Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment

That´s true that Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment specially preventive.

It as been shown in inumerous studies in vitro and in vivo that Hydroxychloroquine being a strong ACE2 (protein that Covid19 binds to) inhibitor can help to prevent and/or help to reduce the risk.In case of already infected do a 5 to 10 day treatment with HCQ (prevent ACE2 expression and from binding to the virus , Vit D to inhibit HS (Heparan Sulphate which promotes the entry of infected ACE2 into the cells)

The effects of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on ACE2-related viral infection. The initial entry of SARS-CoV-2 (an enveloped virus)24 into host cells depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2. The S protein of SARS-CoV-2 binds to the functional receptor ACE2 and employs TMPRSS2 for its priming. S protein is cleaved by TMPRSS2 at S2′ site which results in virus/membrane fusion.25 Both ACE2 and TMPRSS2 facilitate the virus transport into the target cell through the early and late endosomes where eventually the viral genome will be released into the cell cytoplasm. SARS-CoV-2 infection could influence the balance of RAS, which leads to Ang II accumulation through the ACE/AngII/AT1R axis and eventually causes acute lung injury. CQ/HCQ may block SARS-CoV-2 fusion with the host cell and entry into the target cell through elevating the pH in the endolysosomal system and/or by interfering with the glycosylation of the ACE2 receptor and the S protein.

HS proteoglycans (HSPGs) and viral infections

As well as facilitating FGFR activation, the HS complexed into proteoglycan complexes to form HSPGs represent a separate entry point for viruses into human cells. This was first shown for the herpes simplex virus, whose initial interaction with cells is via binding to cell surface HSPGs.31, 32 There is now abundant evidence that coronaviruses use HSPGs to attach to the plasma membrane before internalization, with the first demonstrations provided for a murine coronavirus33 and an avian bronchitis coronavirus.34 Similarly, the human coronavirus NL63 also utilizes such HSPGs for attachment to target nasopharyngeal cells.35, 36 Interestingly, a SARS virus variant has also been shown to utilize HSPG for cell entry, which can be competitively inhibited by lactoferrin.37 Together, these data on coronaviruses suggest that SARS‐Cov2 is also likely to bind to HSPG; preliminary data have recently been released that reinforce this hypothesis.38 In this study, the authors used surface plasmon resonance and circular dichroism to measure the interaction between the SARS‐CoV‐2 Spike S1 protein receptor binding domain (SARS‐CoV‐2 S1 RBD) and heparin.38 The data strongly suggested an interaction between the recombinant surface receptor binding domain of the virus and HS. The therapeutic targeting of HSPGs thus appears a relatively straightforward way to inhibit the infectivity of SARS‐Cov2.

https://www.healio.com/news/hematology-oncology/20200827/heparin-may-neutralize-virus-that-causes-covid19

Not all heparin derivatives have anti‐coagulant activity. Importantly, heparin has been shown to have a broad spectrum of activity against many viruses, including Zika58 and HIV‐1,59 presumably through a competitively inhibitive process between it and cellular HS, whereby an excess of heparin prevents a virus from binding to cell surface HS. Because coronaviruses have been shown to bind to HS to enter target cells,35, 36 it can be hypothesized that heparin should act to prevent cell attachment of SARS‐CoV‐2. Preliminary data have indicated that indeed heparin does bind to the surface protein (spike) S1 of this virus38 and may therefore be therapeutic for COVID‐19.

And what scientific evidence do they present that describes the effectiveness of masks and that warns against the use of face masks by the general public? Here is a good sampling… 

• With near universal use of cloth and medical masks worn in public in Wuhan, China during the 2019-2020 flu season leading up to the COVID-19 outbreak, the outbreak spread virtually unchecked. 

• “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.”

(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/face-masks.html)

• “Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”
• The virus may survive on the surface of the facemasks.”
• “Self-contamination through repeated use and improper doffing is possible.” (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577)
• 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. (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/formaldehyde and https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10875.pdf)
• Wearing cloth masks in public can create a false sense of security and complacency in which people may neglect other hygiene practices. (https://www.who.int/publications-detail/advice-on-the-use-of-masks-in-the-community-during-home-care-and-in-healthcare-settings-in-the-context-of-the-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)-outbreak)
• Frequent washing and drying of a cloth mask can decrease the filtration capacity of the mask. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6599448/)
• “Neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients… the size and concentrations of SARS–CoV-2 in aerosols generated during coughing are unknown. Oberg and Brousseau demonstrated that surgical masks did not exhibit adequate filter performance against aerosols measuring 0.9, 2.0, and 3.1 μm in diameter. Lee and colleagues showed that particles 0.04 to 0.2 μm can penetrate surgical masks. The size of the SARS–CoV particle from the 2002–2004 outbreak was estimated as 0.08 to 0.14 μm; assuming that SARS-CoV-2 has a similar size, surgical masks are unlikely to effectively filter this virus.” (https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2764367)

In total, the document presented 18 arguments and studies against the effectiveness and use of masks and 10 showing some limited benefit. After careful scrutiny of the pros and cons, I am landing squarely against the use of them other than by medical personnel in a clinical setting, or if an individual that is in close proximity of an infected person with the risk of being directly coughed or sneezed on, as in when caring for or visiting a sick person. (https://vcportal.ventura.org/CEO/VCNC/2020-05-05_VCNC_Masks_Pros_and_Cons.pdf)

The conclusion of the Russell Blaylock M.D. article states the following:

“It is evident from this review that there is insufficient evidence that wearing a mask of any kind can have a significant impact in preventing the spread of this virus. The fact that this virus is a relatively benign infection for the vast majority of the population and that most of the at-risk group also survive, from an infectious disease and epidemiological standpoint, by letting the virus spread through the healthier population we will reach a herd immunity level rather quickly that will end this pandemic quickly and prevent a return next winter.”

“During this time, we need to protect the at-risk population by avoiding close contact, boosting their immunity with compounds that boost cellular immunity and in general, care for them. One should not attack and insult those who have chosen not to wear a mask, as these studies suggest that is the wise choice to make.”

So, what’s the motivation behind the mask?

Given all of that information, it’s time to ask the obvious question. What would be the possible motivation for pushing the narrative about face masks and in some cases even mandatory face mask rules? And how does that motivation interface with the extended stay-at-home orders? We have “flattened the curve” to prevent the risk of overwhelming our health care system (but so did Sweden without lockdowns – a great topic for another post), so why the continued extreme social distancing and face mask mantra?

Here is a hypothesis, but in the form of two questions. It implies malintent which I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but just indulge me for a moment. In the end, each person must decide that for themselves. Here we go….

1. If you wanted to prevent the population from gaining herd immunity, which would further support the need and desire for a vaccine, what would be the best way to do that?
2. If you were successful at preventing people from developing natural immunity by keeping all the healthy and young low-risk people apart from one another and thus wanted to increase the chances for a second wave of the virus in a few months, how could you increase the chances of those people becoming infected and ensuring a second wave once they are released from quarantine and begin mingling?

Now match those two questions with the proper answers:

A. Suppress their immune systems with fear, loss of income, lack of exercise and sunshine and face masks whenever going away from home.
B. Keep the young and healthy people at home and sequestered from each other.

If you paired 1 with B, and 2 with A, congratulations!  Welcome to the growing number of free-thinking people that are connecting the dots.

One thing for certain is that so many people have taken the wearing of face masks and social distancing to a bizarre extreme. A few days ago, I saw one woman in the neighborhood out for a walk in the heat of the day. I commented to her that it sure was a hot time of day to be out for a walk. She looked at me with an odd look of concern on her face and said, “yeah, but at least there are no other people out now”. Other common examples are the people driving alone in their car with a face mask on and people walking through parking lots and down uncrowded sidewalks or at a park wearing face masks. My purpose on mentioning these examples is not to be condescending or critical of individuals that are overly fearful or are unaware of the harm face masks may cause them. These individuals have been duped by a complicit media that has continued to run with the absolutely, ridiculously, outrageously inaccurate models and never adjusted their level of hype and fear mongering long after those models had been exposed for what they were—ridiculous. In the meantime, people that are living with an irrational level of fear as a result, are being harmed physically and emotionally.

The reduced oxygen levels will increase anxiety, fatigue and brain fog, decrease learning capacity due to decreased oxygen to the brain, weaken their immune systems and can lead to an increased rate and severity of all types of infections, not just COVID-19.

CDC’s recommendations for opening schools require children to wear face masks

Picture classrooms of children wearing face masks. This image is repulsive to me on so many levels. Yet, updated CDC guidelines on May 19th, 2020 and posted on their site titled Considerations for Schools, recommends that children older than the age of 2 wear face masks. In part, it says, “Teach and reinforce use of cloth face coverings.” It then goes on to say…

Note: Cloth face coverings should not be placed on:

• Children younger than 2 years old
• Anyone who has trouble breathing or is unconscious
• Anyone who is incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the cloth face covering without assistance (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/schools.html)

And many in the government and educational system are echoing these preposterous recommendations. My opinion based on the science we just looked at is that this would be a huge mistake. Making children wear face masks has the potential to cause long-term psychological, emotional and physical damage. It promotes an excessive fear of germs (phobia) and of social interaction. The reduced oxygen levels will increase anxiety, fatigue and brain fog, decrease learning capacity due to decreased oxygen to the brain, weaken their immune systems and can lead to an increased rate and severity of all types of infections, not just COVID-19. We know that children are at very low risk of complications from COVID-19. Yet, this practice of wearing face masks could potentially increase that level of risk.

Teaching children good hygiene practices and that their immune system can help prevent and fight “germs” if they eat healthy food, exercise and practice good health habits would go a long way to empower them with positive and practical knowledge that they can learn and use throughout their lives.

Going forward

As we learn about the miscalculations from the hugely exaggerated models, the inaccurate coding and calculations of COVID-19 deaths bloating the numbers, the large percentages of people that are already immune because they have had the infection and recovered, many not even knowing they were sick, we realize that the mortality rate from COVID-19 is nowhere near what we had thought. Then there are the mistakes made within nursing homes and long-term care facilities, including sending positive COVID patients into those facilities and the mistakes with the way we treated many cases with ventilators. In a retrospective analysis of all of these factors, I believe that we will realize that mortality from COVID-19 is not even as bad as a “normal” flu and pneumonia season.

This is not to say that initially we shouldn’t have viewed COVID-19 as a serious potential health crisis, but so is 50,000 to 80,000 people dying from flu and pneumonia every winter. My greatest concern is the destruction of the economy, loss of jobs, loss of small businesses, the effects on marriages and families, skyrocketing mental health disorders, stress related diseases and the deaths due to despair and loss of hope, people not getting the medical attention for things like heart issues, high blood pressure and cancer they would otherwise get if they had access to hospitals and routine procedures. These are all the unintended consequences of what we have already done, and if we continue to ignore the new evidence of the data, science and doctors’ experiences on the front lines, we will certainly cause much more harm than good. Going forward with the current situation (and should a viral outbreak occur in the future), risk versus benefit of every decision must be considered.