JAMA: "We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection."

A new article published in The New England Journal of Medicine points out the truth about mass mask wearing, and that the main if not only benefit of masks is that it eases anxiety of some people, which JAMA points out "may not be strictly logical."Please share this article widely and visit NoMask.info which includes a collection of many peer-reviewed medical studies and testimony by many doctors who tell the truth about masks and all the harm that can occur when healthy people wear masks unnecessarily.
You can visit the LibertyFight.com COVID-19 index page here.
Here are some key excerpts from the New JAMA article:

---

"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.
fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis.
The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

---

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372 Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era
May 21, 2020
List of authors.
Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., et al
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
What is clear, however, is that universal masking alone is not a panacea. A mask will not protect providers caring for a patient with active Covid-19 if it’s not accompanied by meticulous hand hygiene, eye protection, gloves, and a gown. A mask alone will not prevent health care workers with early Covid-19 from contaminating their hands and spreading the virus to patients and colleagues. Focusing on universal masking alone may, paradoxically, lead to more transmission of Covid-19 if it diverts attention from implementing more fundamental infection-control measures.
The calculus may be different, however, in health care settings. First and foremost, a mask is a core component of the personal protective equipment (PPE) clinicians need when caring for symptomatic patients with respiratory viral infections, in conjunction with gown, gloves, and eye protection. Masking in this context is already part of routine operations for most hospitals. What is less clear is whether a mask offers any further protection in health care settings in which the wearer has no direct interactions with symptomatic patients. There are two scenarios in which there may be possible benefits.
The first is during the care of a patient with unrecognized Covid-19. A mask alone in this setting will reduce risk only slightly, however, since it does not provide protection from droplets that may enter the eyes or from fomites on the patient or in the environment that providers may pick up on their hands and carry to their mucous membranes (particularly given the concern that mask wearers may have an increased tendency to touch their faces).
More compelling is the possibility that wearing a mask may reduce the likelihood of transmission from asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic health care workers with Covid-19 to other providers and patients. This concern increases as Covid-19 becomes more widespread in the community. We face a constant risk that a health care worker with early infection may bring the virus into our facilities and transmit it to others. Transmission from people with asymptomatic infection has been well documented, although it is unclear to what extent such transmission contributes to the overall spread of infection.1-3
The extent of marginal benefit of universal masking over and above these foundational measures is debatable. It depends on the prevalence of health care workers with asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic infections as well as the relative contribution of this population to the spread of infection...
And then the potential benefits of universal masking need to be balanced against the future risk of running out of masks and thereby exposing clinicians to the much greater risk of caring for symptomatic patients without a mask. Providing each health care worker with one mask per day for extended use, however, may paradoxically improve inventory control by reducing one-time uses and facilitating centralized workflows for allocating masks without risk assessments at the individual-employee level.
There may be additional benefits to broad masking policies that extend beyond their technical contribution to reducing pathogen transmission. Masks are visible reminders of an otherwise invisible yet widely prevalent pathogen and may remind people of the importance of social distancing and other infection-control measures.
It is also clear that masks serve symbolic roles. Masks are not only tools, they are also talismans that may help increase health care workers’ perceived sense of safety, well-being, and trust in their hospitals. Although such reactions may not be strictly logical, we are all subject to fear and anxiety, especially during times of crisis. One might argue that fear and anxiety are better countered with data and education than with a marginally beneficial mask, particularly in light of the worldwide mask shortage, but it is difficult to get clinicians to hear this message in the heat of the current crisis. Expanded masking protocols’ greatest contribution may be to reduce the transmission of anxiety, over and above whatever role they may play in reducing transmission of Covid-19. The potential value of universal masking in giving health care workers the confidence to absorb and implement the more foundational infection-prevention practices described above may be its greatest contribution.

Blogger's note:  subterrnews.blogspot.com does not send cookies, or collect any information on those using the blog.  However, the blogspot is on google, and google may collect information, and send cookies.  Many of the links that  we connect to do not send out cookies or collect information, but some do.  You are keying in to this blog, and you have agreed to this.

The views expressed in the articles do not necessarily represent the opinions of this blog.  They are the views, and opinions of the author(s) of the article.

Astounding Number of Medical Procedures Have No Benefit, Even Harm – JAMA Study

Posted on November 11, 2015

 

By Sayer Ji, GreenMed Info
What if millions of medical diagnoses, procedures, and treatments were based on, at best, questionable scientific evidence, but still performed daily, the world over, in the name of saving patients lives or reducing their suffering? A new JAMA review indicates this may be exactly what is happening. 
A concerning new review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association online ahead of print on the topic of overuse of medical care, i.e., health care for which “risk of harm exceeds its potential for benefit,” finds that many commonly employed medical procedures, to which millions are subjected to each year, are based on questionable if not also, in some cases, non-existent evidence.


According to the review, which was co-authored by researchers from some of the country’s most esteemed medical institutions, medical overuse can also be defined as a health care practice, about which when patients are fully informed, they would choose to forego care. They elaborate further on the definition of medical overuse:

[Medical] Overuse encompasses overdiagnosis, which occurs when “individuals are diagnosed with conditions that will never cause symptoms,” and overtreatment, which is treatment targeting overdiagnosed disease or from which there is minimal or no benefit.”

Clearly, when information is lacking or withheld concerning the true risks and benefits of a medical procedure, the principle of informed consent is violated. And this is, no doubt, a far too common occurrence in today’s medical landscape where market forces and not scientific evidence drive the medical consensus that determines the standard of care. In fact, there is reason to believe that the published biomedical literature is so corrupted by industry influence, and publication bias, that the entire ivory tower of ‘Evidence-Based Medicine” is actually based on nothing more than a coin’s flip worth of certainty.
But there is also the far more insidious problem of the misclassification and/or misunderstanding of disease which can mislead researchers, health care professionals, and their patients into performing and undergoing harmful procedures without anyone realizing the harmful and sometimes deadly consequences they have wrought.
For example, over the past eight years, we have identified what is essentially a vast, submerged iceberg of overdiagnosed and overtreated medical conditions, with the worst examples being common forms of breast, prostate, thyroid, and ovarian cancer. It was not until 2013 that the issue broke wide open, when a National Cancer Institute commissioned expert panel acknowledged that early-stage or ‘stage zero’ breast (DCIS) and prostate (HGPIN) “cancers” are actually benign or indolent lesions of epithelial origin and should never have been, and should never be, termed “carcinomas.” Essentially, the NCI report revealed that millions have been wrongly diagnosed and treated for breast and prostate cancers over the past few decades that they never had. In the case of DCIS, about 1.3 million U.S. women were subjected to some combination of either mastectomy, lumpectomy, radiation, and chemotherapy over the past 30 years, even though their screen-detected condition had no symptoms, and left untreated would likely never have caused them any harm. And this does not even account for the radiobiological harms caused by x-ray mammography, which may have planted the seeds of malignancy into the healthy breasts of millions of women in the name of “prevention through early detection.”

The new study, titled “Update on Medical Practices That Should Be Questioned in 2015,” reviewed 910 articles published in 2014, of which 440 directly addressed medical overuse. 104 of these were selected as “most relevant,” with the 10 most influential articles selected by author consensus, and forming the basis for their 10-topic critique, which is divided into three sections: overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and methods to avoid medical overuse.

Overdiagnosis:

• Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: Colloquially known as “blocked or restricted arteries in the neck,” carotid artery stenosis often presents with no symptoms (asymptomatic), and yet is routinely treated with carotid angioplasty and stenting (placing a balloon or stent within the artery to open it) or surgical endarterectomy (removal of the inner lining of the artery and obstructive deposits found there) as “precautionary measures.” The review referenced a systematic review and meta-analysis by the US Preventive Services Task Force that found no studies providing data on whether screening for carotid stenosis reduced stroke. What was found is that carotid ultrasonography screening leads to many false-positives; a finding that I believe, contributes to increased morbidity and mortality in screened populations. This is especially apparent when you consider that safe and effective non-surgical alternatives exist: pomegranate juice has been found to reverse carotid artery stenosis within only months!

• Screening Pelvic Examinations Are Inaccurate in Asymptomatic Women and Are Associated With Harms That Exceed Clinical Benefits. Pelvic examination is often included in annual preventive visits for women and usually consists of both visual examination and the insertion of the hand and instruments like a speculum in the vagina. This soft-tissue evaluation includes the upper genital tracts, as well as urethra, bladder, and rectum. Amazingly, a cited review found no studies assessing the effect of pelvic examinations on morbidity or mortality from cancers (including ovarian cancers) or benign gynecological conditions. Moreover, it was found that the harms of screening include “discomfort, anxiety, psychological effects, embarrassment, and unnecessary procedures, including surgery (1.4% [29 of 2000] of women in one study).”  The review opined strongly about the study implications: “Do not perform screening pelvic examinations. Clinicians should educate female patients about the low value of the examination. This review informed a new guideline from the American College of Physicians recommending against routine pelvic examinations for screening asymptomatic women.” [emphasis added] Given the lack of evidence supporting pelvic examinations, could the practice be considered just another form of the violation of women by medical care providers, not unlike unnecessary C-sections?

• Head Computed Tomography Is Often Ordered but Is Rarely Helpful: Computer tomography uses ionizing radiation and sometimes a contrasting agent in diagnosis, both of which have significant potential to cause adverse health effects. Often CT scans produce incidental, and clinically unimportant findings, and will lead to additional CT scans being ordered. The review concluded, “A second head CT scan rarely affects patient management. Clinicians should be judicious in ordering multiple CT scans in the same patient.” Consider also, that a study published in the NEJM in 2007 estimated that .4% of all cancers in the US may be attributable to CT scans!

• Thyroid Cancer Is Massively Overdiagnosed, Leading to Concrete Harms: In the past 30 years, there has been a global increase in the implementation of thyroid cancer screening programs which have lead to dramatically increased rates of diagnosis of “thyroid cancer,”mostly due to papillary carcinomas, which are non-fatal.  Thyroid cancer mortality rates remained the same throughout this period, a clear indication of overdiagnosis, i.e. the thyroid lesions were non-cancerous insofar as they would have never caused harm if left untreated. The review cited a new study that reviewed the 15-fold increase in thyroid cancer in South Korean, from 1993 to 2011, concluding that, “Overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer is extremely common. The harms associated with this overtreatment include lifelong thyroid replacement, hypoparathyroidism, and vocal cord paralysis.” Learn more by reading my article, “Thyroid Cancer Epidemic Caused by Misinformation, Not Cancer.”

Read the rest at Green Med Info…

Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, where this article first appeared. He is on the Board of Governors for the National Health Federation, and Fearless Parent, Steering Committee Member of the Global GMO Free Coalition (GGFC), a reviewer at the  International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine. Like on Facebook – Follow on Twitter 
Like this article? Join the free newsletter at GreenMedInfo.com for cutting edge health news, research and events
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfom NaturalBlaze or their staff.

 

New JAMA Study Confirms Nurse Whistleblower: Routine Hospital Vaccine Damage Happening to Infants

Journal of the American Medical Association study confirms whistleblower's testimony that hospitals are covering up infant vaccine injury

Image Credits: stevendepolo, flickr.

by Jefferey Jaxen | Jefferey Jaxen.com | June 22, 2015

315960

---

Update: Nurse Michelle Rowton will be a guest on the Infowars Nightly News tonight. The interview will be uploaded to Youtube tomorrow.

It was not long ago that headlines were made by Michelle Rowton of Nurses Against Mandatory Vaccines during a live interview with David Knight of infowars.com. The nurse turned whistleblower spoke of the callous, daily operating procedure she witnessed happening in the hospital she worked at. Her admissions were yet another log on a fire lit long ago burning for people’s right to have medical freedom and choice. In that viral interview, Rowton went on record to state:

“I think what a lot of people don’t realize in a closed space like NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit) is that they’ve decided that we need to vaccinate these babies on-time. Two months after they’re born…bam, there it goes. This baby could be four months early and still supposed to be inside their mother, weighting three or four pounds and getting the same amount of vaccines as a 200 pound man.”

Rowton then went further to break bombshell news at the time by saying:
“I’ve sat in a room with our on-call staff of physicians and practitioners (when they say) “Oh wow, this is so embarrassing this 25 weeker never actually required a breathing tube and going on the vent after he was born, he was so strong. But we gave him his two month vaccinations and he got intubated last night ha ha, oops how embarrassing. The step-down units are calling the NICU’s and saying “hey we’re going to go ahead and give these four babies their two month shots today, make sure you have beds ready because we all know they’re going to have increased breathing difficulties, feeding and digestion difficulties, apnea, and bradycardia. This is what goes on.”

It appears the dominos are continuing to fall in favor of common sense, informed consent and medical ethics. New research from the JAMA Pediatrics journal titled Adverse Events After Routine Immunization of Extremely Low-Birth-Weight Infants now confirms essential 100 percent of Rowton’s whistleblowing statements which, just a month ago, seemed almost surreal. Drug companies, politicians and a misguided medical community are now faced with the uncomfortable position of withdrawing their PR campaigns and daily operating procedures in favor of hard data and daily evidence. Humanity has reached the point where denying reality in the face of such evidence borders on insanity and high ignorance. It appears to be clear that when a medical community, its regulations and the health of a people are driven by profits, what is revealed equates to nothing more than a slippery slope towards systemic damage and destruction. When highly profitable agendas are in play, listening to public demand typically isn’t the strong suit of politicians. As people take back their medical freedom in state houses across the United States, an integrity-strained governmental body is testing the extreme realms of political misrepresentation. It makes no difference now if the original roots attempting to remove medical freedom and choice were laid by ignorance, corruption, financial reward or a combination of all three. Authors of forced vaccination bills and doctors quoting outdated information are laughably seen for what they are. The only control left for them are social media censorship and paid astroturfing firms. Opposition is now trying desperately to keep up with the daily mass awakening towards free medical and health choice in opposition to pharmaceutical influenced control. Senate and Congress members are now being made personally liable for their bills and votes after being served the Official Complaint of Research Fraud papers/report prepared by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Dr. Brian Hooker Ph. D. and James Moody. Lawsuits are lined up ready to commence at the first sign of vaccine-induced damage from their bills. Doctors and nurses are also still on the chopping block as their perceived insulation and useful ignorance is being removed by whistleblowers admissions and mounting scientific evidence. The Nuremberg codes wait patiently to be weirded once again on a medical community that has strayed from their ideals, code of ethics and common sense. References:
Official Complaint of Research Fraud
New JAMA Pediatrics Study