Economy Just my own thoughts Life Links from other news sources. Science

Why Progressives way of doing Green Energy makes no sense.

Hits: 13

Why Progressives way of doing Green Energy makes no sense. China uses coal to puts more toxic gasses in the atmosphere than the US and all the European nations combined. So what does the US and European nations do? Buys Solar Panels from China.

China doesn’t only benefit from not having to pay so-called climate reparations. But they benefit from the entire UN Green New Deal [and] net-zero agenda because the world is going to be looking to China. The U.S. buys over 80 percent of our solar panels currently from China. We rely on China for all the rare earth mining for lithium and cobalt. China is expanding mining operations in Africa — places like the Congo with allegations of underage labor of children of 8, 9 years old by international human rights groups.

COVID Links from other news sources. Medicine Reprints from others. Science Uncategorized

Tony the Fauch Video Deposition Released Publicly

Hits: 53

Does my heart good to see the Fauch lies exposed so all can see. Thanks Newsmax for this great article.


Fauci Emails and Covid Lab Leak Theory

By Nick Koutsobinas    


The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) has released six video depositions taken in a federal lawsuit that sheds light on what role government actors, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, played in censoring or, as revealed in the Twitter Files, the offshoring of government requests to private social media companies or foreign actors to censor speech around COVID-19.

In his deposition for State of Missouri v. Joseph R. Biden Jr., as NCLA outlines, Fauci “testified ‘I do not recall’ 174 times, and ‘I don’t remember,’ at least 212 times.” According to NCLA, evidence from “his own emails and past statements” indicate the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) “cast substantial doubt” on his claim to a “failing memory.”

According to U.S. Right to Know, Fauci requested Wellcome Trust Director Jeremy Farrar organize a secret teleconference on Feb. 1, 2020, onstensibly to shift concerns from a lab leak to one of natural origin.

Furthermore, NCLA says, “his deposition testimony — that he genuinely believed COVID had natural origins — conflicts with emails he exchanged with scientists in early 2020, indicating that he believed the lab leak hypothesis could be accurate.”

The recent ruling by Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denying the government defendants’ motion to dismiss has paved the way for the case to continue. The judge was unpersuaded by the defendants’ arguments.

Elvis Chan, who has been named in the Twitter Files, said in his deposition that the FBI played a prominent role in working with Big Tech to sway public opinion. In regard to the wider scope of what’s been termed the “censorship industrial complex,” Chan, on the eve of the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story, sent Twitter’s then-head of site integrity, Yoel Roth, 10 documents. “Within hours,” journalist Michael Shellenberger writes, “Twitter and other social media companies” began censoring the story.

Nonetheless, the recently filed Supplemental Preliminary Injunction Brief as well as the Proposed Findings of Fact reveal a damning effort by the Biden administration and federal officials’ in employing “illicit tactics” to silence voices on social media that presented views on COVID-19 that were otherwise deemed inconvenient or disfavored.

Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for NCLA, said, “These depositions further confirm what other discovery in the case has already demonstrated: Dozens of members of the federal government, including unelected bureaucrats like Dr. Fauci, orchestrated a campaign to shut down debate about COVID-19 related subjects; and they deceived the American public on issues ranging from the lab leak theory to efficacy of masks to the protection offered by naturally acquired immunity to whether the vaccines could prevent disease transmission.”

The six video depositions from NCLA are included here: “Chan, FBI supervisory special agentCarol Crawford, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention chief of the digital media branch; Fauci, NIAID director and White House chief medical adviserDaniel Kimmage, acting coordinator of the State Department’s Global Engagement CenterBrian Scully, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; and Eric Waldo, senior adviser to the surgeon general of the United States.”

Newsmax reached out for comment to the defendants named in the case, including the Department of Justice and the National Institutes of Health.

Links from other news sources. Medicine Reprints from others. Science

An actual scientist. Biologist Defends JK Rowling: ‘Only Two Sexes’

Hits: 25

An actual scientist. Biologist Defends JK Rowling: ‘Only Two Sexes’

The Left Celebrates Biological Men for Women’s History Month

Richard Dawkins, a prominent British evolutionary biologist, defended author J.K. Rowling on Monday amid backlash for her feminist critique of the transgender movement.

Joining “Piers Morgan Uncensored” on TalkTV, Dawkins accused leftists of bullying Rowling, who created Harry Potter, and lesbian philosopher Kathleen Stock for speaking out about gender.

“It’s bullying,” Dawkins said. “We’ve seen the way J.K. Rowling has been bullied, Kathleen Stock has been bullied. They’ve stood up to it, but it’s very upsetting the way this tiny minority of people has managed to capture the discourse to talk errant nonsense.”

Dawkins, a notable atheist activist, also said he was uninterested in talks about an undetermined number of genders.

“As a biologist, there are two sexes, and that’s all there is to it,” he said, while acknowledging that a debate can still be had about sex and gender being different concepts.

Dawkins later commented on the state of Western universities and colleges, saying that “they have bought into the idea that if you don’t like what you think you’re going to hear from someone, you should shut them up.”

“They want to feel safe, and university is the one place you should not feel safe,” Dawkins said. “You want to be physically safe, but intellectually, you should be challenged.”

Dawkins’ comments came amid ongoing public backlash to Rowling, Stock, and other similar feminists who have been skeptical of the LGBTQ movement’s intrusion into women’s spaces.

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives,” Rowling tweeted in 2020. “It isn’t hate to speak the truth.”

Crime Reprints from others. Science

Humans are still better at creating phishing emails than AI — for now

Hits: 8

AI-generated phishing emails, including ones created by ChatGPT, present a potential new threat for security professionals, says Hoxhunt.
Biden Pandemic Corruption COVID Medicine Science

“Those in the placebo arm must have been severely asymptomatic.”

Hits: 34


                                                The FLCCC Alliance Community

“They are trying to disappear the positive outcome for ivermectin. There is no justification for doing this.” — Dr. Pierre Kory

Yep, they’ve done it again. Who, you ask? You know…THEY…high impact medical journals, compromised researchers, Big Pharma, Big Tech, the alphabet health agencies. They are the THEY of why so many people throughout the world died needlessly from COVID-19.

THEY wanted money. THEY wanted power. THEY wanted control. So THEY put in the fix—on YOUR health and YOUR medical freedom.

The latest installment in this feculent, unseemly true crime series comes from JAMA—the once venerated Journal of the American Medical Association. Take a look at the ivermectin study they just dropped. In it, the “authors” conclude that, “These findings do not support the use of ivermectin among outpatients with COVID-19.”

While we have grown sufficient scar tissue to fortify us against repeated shock from these all-to-frequent assaults on science, we are not so acclimatized as to ignore that which threatens the lives of every person on the planet. The molestation and the resultant annihilation of scientific integrity dooms the health of one and all.

Here’s the bottom line on JAMA’s latest “research blitzkrieg” from our Dr. Kory:

“Suddenly in the middle of the trial they changed the protocol. They moved the outcome from the difference [in symptoms] on Day 14 to Day 28. Why? Well, it begins with the Posterior “P”, a statistical term that means results are significant if they are above .95. During the course of this study, ivermectin was showing statistical significance at Day 7 (.97), and at Day 14 (.98). You had to go out to Day 28 for there to be NO statistical significance. And that’s what the investigators did. They moved the endpoint to Day 28. Four weeks after symptoms first showed up.

“The trial was also purportedly studying mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients. Literally 60% of patients had no symptoms or mild symptoms. By ‘pure randomized chance’, more of the severe patients landed in the ivermectin arm. So, as Dr. Paul Marik observed, those in the placebo arm must have been “severely asymptomatic.”

So now, we have pages and pages of Google search results trumpeting to the world that ivermectin is not effective for COVID-19—when in fact, the exact opposite is true. Rigorous science, conducted with the utmost integrity proves such…in nearly 100 randomized controlled trials. THOSE trials do NOT show up in Google searches. That’s because Google is in a big comfy bed with the rest of the THEY.


By the way, you can watch Dr. Kory’s breakdown of JAMA’s latest entry into the “research blitzkrieg sweepstakes” in the opening segment of our FLCCC Weekly Webinar HERE.

EDITOR’S NOTE: I wonder how on earth THEY can sleep at night. You see, I know (and you probably do too) that the physicians of the FLCCC—led by Drs. Marik and Kory—are arguably among the world’s most brilliant and accomplished medical scholars. There is robust evidence of the hundreds of thousands (likely millions) of lives they have saved since March, 2020—all while they were made to walk through a relentless, punishing storm so merciless that it has no name fit to describe its madness.

Long ago, many of us — myself included — had to stop trying to tell family and friends what we know about how they can save themselves when armed with pristine science. They don’t want to hear it—yet. They remain deeply hypnotized in a way—frozen in the trance of the official narrative. But we sense a change in wind direction—it is now breezing at our back as more and more evidence is revealed about the unspeakable crimes the “THEY” committed against science and humanity.

I look forward to writing the following headline in a future edition of the FLCCC Weekly News Capsule: “FLCCC Physicians Awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for Developing the Most Efficacious Protocols Against COVID-19 Using Repurposed Drugs, Saving Untold Lives.” May it come to pass. — JK

On Wednesday’s FLCCC Weekly Webinar, host Betsy Ashton was joined by our Drs. Paul Marik and Pierre Kory for a review of their recent travels. Dr. Kory traveled to Sweden and Australia for a whirlwind speaking tour while Dr. Marik was in Florida and Connecticut. The doctors also highlighted the brilliant work of other warriors they encountered in the fight for scientific integrity and medical freedom. A not-to-be-missed episode!

Our Substack columnist Jenna McCarthy has taken to her computer keyboard once again. This time, she’s created a list of questions for us to consider should…uh…the unthinkable happen again. (Like another pandemic! Yeesh!)

Some of us — you might know us as anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, science deniers, or granny killers — found the whole setup sketchy from the get-go. But as injuries and unanswered questions mount, our ranks are growing by the day, thanks in part to folks like surf legend Kelly Slater and Congresswoman Nancy Mace speaking out about their personal experiences with vaccine injuries and loss.

Since COVID won’t be our last pandemic (Bill Gates said so!), here are a few questions we all might want to ponder before the next wave hits…”

We love every question she’s proposed. But our favorite has to be this one:

“Are people being threatened, coerced, or bribed with everything from pizza to pot (You missed the Joints for Jabs campaign?) to sign up for a supposedly safe, life-saving treatment?”

You go, girl!

“Berberine and Pancreatic Beta Cells” is the third in the series of lectures on this magical herb from our own Dr. Been. “Berberine has many important mechanisms, explains Dr. Been. “In the current series of talks we are presenting the mechanisms related to the management of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. In the current talk we look at the high level mechanism of how berberine helps increase the insulin secretion.”

This entire series provides you with a deep dive on one of the most effective natural remedies that we’ve added to our protocols!

NOTE: After listening to a talk at the Brownstone Institute over the weekend by our own Dr. Paul Marik who was discussing repurposed drugs — including berberine — Dr. Robert Malone wrote an in-depth Substack about this incredible Chinese herb!

When COVID hit in Oct 2021, this gentleman was so thankful the FLCCC advice was out there for thinking minds who want to discern information and form practical conclusions. Watch his story now.

💊 This week, the Federalist published an article on the lawsuit brought by three physicians (including our Dr. Paul Marik) against the FDA for prohibiting the use of ivermectin for COVID-19. Our Dr. Pierre Kory was interviewed for the piece:

“Repurposed drugs are the Achilles heel of the entire business model of the pharmaceutical industry,” Kory said. “And when you see our health agencies literally working in the service of the pharmaceutical industry by destroying the credibility of repurposed drugs, it’s terrifying. They’re not working according to the interests of patients or physicians but the pharmaceutical companies.”

You can read the entire article HERE.

💊 Our own Dr. Paul Marik recently gave an exclusive interview to The Ohio Press Network. Read “Are Turbo-Charged Cancers Being Driven by COVID-19 Shots and Boosters?” HERE.

From the article:

Cancer as a side effect of COVID-19 shots “has not been well studied,” says Marik because “the powers that be” don’t recognize the cancer-COVID-19 shot connection, and major medical institutions therefore refuse to study it. The increased incidence of cancer could be related to increased levels of IgG4 induced by multiple shots, he says, but adds that it may also involve a change in gene expression; certain tumor-suppressor genes, when expressed properly, keep cancer in check. One example is the tumor-suppressor gene known as P53, which some scientists speculate might be turned off by injected mRNA.

💊 A Parent’s Guide to Prevention and Early COVID Treatment for Children

Most children with COVID-19 handle the virus well and recover fully. Despite a lot of fear-mongering, COVID is not a deadly disease for most children. In fact, data show that the death rate is extremely low in patients under 17 years old. The FLCCC has developed a guide which aims to help you understand the real risks and know how to respond. The best thing you can do is focus on making sure your child is healthy overall and that their immune system is strong and robust.

💊 Ohio House Bill 248 has been introduced in the Ohio State Legislature. The initiative is known as The Dave and Angie Patient and Health Provider Protection Act. HB248 would guarantee Ohioans vaccine choice, healthcare privacy, and protection from discrimination based on vaccine status.

According to Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom (OAMF), the bill received 1,500 proponent testimonies supporting the bill and a fairly insignificant number of letters opposing the legislation. No similar legislation anywhere else in the United States has ever been as successful in the legislative process as HB248.

Always check with your healthcare provider before taking medications and supplements! Enjoy!

Corruption COVID Links from other news sources. Medicine Reprints from others. Science

US Department of Energy believes lab leak is most likely theory for Corvid’s origins.

Hits: 42

US Department of Energy believes lab leak is most likely theory for Covid’s origins

We want to thank the Morning Brew.

New report reignites lab leak debate

P4 laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan in China's central Hubei province on April 17, 2020Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images

Nearly three years after the Covid-19 pandemic shut down much of the world, we still don’t know how it started.

But the Department of Energy is ready to submit its best guess. In a new report based on fresh intelligence, the agency has concluded that Covid-19 most likely spread to humans as a result of a mistake at a Chinese laboratory (aka the “lab leak” theory), the WSJ reports.

Important note: In making this determination, the Energy Dept. is about as self-assured as any Michael Cera character—it reportedly has “low confidence” that this theory is correct.

Also, why would the Energy Dept. have information about a pandemic’s origins? Little-known fact: The Energy Dept. oversees a network of 17 national laboratories, and some of those labs do advanced bioresearch. The agency frequently leverages this lab network to gather information, rather than relying on typical intelligence operations, according to the NYT.

But there’s still no consensus

In endorsing the lab leak theory, the Energy Dept. joins the FBI, which has concluded with “moderate confidence” that Covid originated accidentally from a Chinese lab: the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The two agencies reportedly arrived at this conclusion via different methods.

However, four other US agencies and the National Intelligence Council have concluded that Covid originated through natural transmission from an infected animal. But they, too, have low confidence their conclusions are correct.

One piece of evidence that’s missing from the natural transmission theory? The animal that hypothetically did the infecting hasn’t been identified. Given all this uncertainty, two other US agencies haven’t reached a conclusion on Covid’s beginnings yet.

So, if you’re doing the math at home: Four US agencies believe it was natural transmission, two say lab leak, and two are undecided.

Zoom out: Scientists say it’s important to make every effort to learn how Covid-19, a pandemic that’s caused nearly 7 million deaths globally, began, so we can better prevent the next one.

But with the Chinese government (Joe and Hunter’s best buds) thwarting investigations by global authorities, there may only be so much information the US can gather. And it might never be able to confidently answer the question: How did Covid begin? Edited.

Corruption COVID Medicine Reprints from others. Science

Can you guess which did better when COVID broke out- the Most or the Least Vaccinated State?

Hits: 20

When a COVID infection wave hit the most and least vaccinated states in 2022, the most vaccinated state had the higher COVID case rates and the higher relative death peaks.


By Stephen Kirsch on Substack

According to US News & World Report, Wyoming is the least vaccinated state (52.8%) and Rhode Island is the most vaccinated state.

So just for fun, I thought I’d see how these states fared when there was a huge COVID infection outbreak at the start of 2022 that affected both these states.

It turned out that the least vaccinated state had the lower rise in all-cause mortality (1.25 vs. 1.42) vs. avg mortality for the year.

In other words, vaccination appeared to increase all-cause mortality when COVID hit.

However, it might be the case that Rhode Island simply was “hit harder” by the COVID wave with twice as many COVID infections per capita. Or was Rhode Island hit harder because more people were vaccinated and thus more susceptible to infection which is what the Cleveland Clinic study showed very clearly?

By looking at a younger age group, we see a 3X disparity between the two states. The least vaccinated state came out on top.

We have further, and more conclusive, confirmation from an extensive study done by Josh Stirling. There is simply no way for anyone to explain those results which looked at every county in the US.

34% increase in Covid deaths in most vaxxed states vs least vaxxed. In yet ANOTHER study.  How many reports have to be published before the truth can no longer be shouted down?

The bottom line: higher vaccination —> higher deaths for all age groups. That’s why 15-year-olds with heart attacks are now the new normal when they were non-existent before the vaccines rolled out.


COVID waves are when the CDC would expect the most vaccinated states to do the best compared to the average death rate for the year. So we’d expect a smaller rise in deaths during a COVID infection wave compared to the deaths over the year.

The biggest COVID death peak is at the start of 2022.

So the method is pretty simple: compare the worst four weeks at the start of 2022 with the average death rate for the year in that state. The winner should have the lowest ratio.

CDC database used for calculations

I used the CDC database of weekly deaths by age and state and the visualization tool on the CDC website.

Rhode Island ages 65-74 (Most vaccinated 87.1%)

Worst consecutive 4 weeks are weeks 1-4: (52+66+40+73)/4=57.75 average per week.
Worst 4-week avg/annual avg = 57/40.23=1.42

Rhode Island 2022 avg 40.23

Wyoming 65-74 (least vaccinated 52.8%)

Worst consecutive 4 weeks are weeks 1-4: (30+26+27+29)/4=28
Worst 4-week avg/annual avg = 28/22.48=1.25

Wyoming 2022 Avg 22.48

45-64 comparison

Maybe we just picked the “wrong” age group.

Let’s try the next age group down which is 45-64 over the same “deadly” period.

Weeks 1-4 avg for Wyoming=(24+23+22+16)/4=21.25
Average for 2022=19.25
Ratio: 21.25/19.25= 1.1

Weeks 1-4 avg for Rhode Island: (50+46+44+31)/4=42.75
Avg for 2022=32.6
Ratio: 42.75/32.6=1.31

Again, Wyoming had the smaller spike among that age group.

A possible explanation for the discrepancy

The only way for a pro-vaxxer to attack this result is to claim that Rhode Island had a COVID infection wave in January 2022, but Wyoming missed the wave.

Let’s check that out…

These are the COVID cases for Rhode Island:

Here are the COVID cases for Wyoming:

Isn’t this interesting? The pre-vax peak is relatively close to the post-vax peak.

So it was a fair test. Both states had their largest COVID peaks in January. So that was fair.

However, you could also argue that Rhode Island was “harder hit” by the COVID wave than Wyoming and that accounts for the greater all-cause mortality.

Let’s see if that is true.

The population is 1.1M in Rhode Island vs 578K in Wyoming, so Rhode Island is 1.9X larger, but they had 4X as many cases!

So for the 65-74-year-old age group, the most vaccinated state did slightly better since it was hit harder than the ratios could account for! But see the next section…

However, when we look at the 45-64 year age group, we have a spike that is 3X higher in Rhode Island. That’s hard to explain since there is only a 2X per capita increase in cases.

Did Rhode Island have more cases because it is more vaccinated?

Is the reason Rhode Island was hit harder on a per capita basis because they were more vaccinated? The Cleveland Clinic study showed that people who vaccinate more are more likely to get COVID. If that is true, then the winner is Wyoming. [This study is also referenced in a previous article. Link at bottom of the page.]

For some insights into this, look at the ratio between the pre-vax peak in Wyoming vs. the peak around Jan 2022… it’s only about 50% higher. But the pre-vax vs. post-vax peak in Rhode Island is more than 4X higher!!! Did Rhode Island simply get unlucky and have an 8-fold increase (=4/.5) in the relative sizes of the COVID infection peaks?

I looked at the next two states on the list: Alabama (least vaccinated) and Vermont (most vaccinated). I compared the pre-vax and post-vax peaks and found the same ratio! The higher vaxxed state had a greater infection ratio pre- vs. post-vax (2564/248=10.3X) than the less vaxxed state (17106/4221=4.05).

Isn’t that interesting? In short, it appears the more vaccinated the state, the greater the COVID infection rate on a per capita basis.

What’s the right answer here?

Josh Stirling looked at how cities in the US did in 2022 vs. 2021. He did a longitudinal study where you compare the city with itself one year ago. This is the best way to see what is going on… did your mortality increase or decrease?

Check this out: cities with higher vaccination had larger all-cause mortality increases than cities with lower vaccination rates. In other words, the line goes the “wrong way.”

The line goes the “wrong way.”

This is devastating for the narrative, but of course consistent with what the death reports are saying.

The R2 doesn’t need to be .9 for this to be convincing. They are correlated and it’s the slope of the line that is significant. The slope goes the wrong way. That’s the point.

Could someone argue that this could be caused by other factors? Sure.

But this result is consistent with other analyses, such as the Devil’s Advocate global analysis by Martin Neil and Norman Fenton showing a similar effect (though not longitudinal).

And how is anyone going to explain why we can’t seem to find any nursing home where the death rates went DOWN after the vaccine program was rolled out?

For example, I know one nursing home in Melbourne, Australia with around 90 people who had close to 30 deaths within 12 months after the vaccines rolled out. So we know it wasn’t COVID that killed people in such huge numbers since they were all vaccinated. So I wonder how they died? I have a video of their death announcements.

Check out my survey results for nursing homes and my Medical Practice stats, especially the comments. If the vaccine is safe and effective, these results and comments are hard to explain, aren’t they?

Finally, a large geriatric practice (around 1,000 patients, 75% over 65, had just 4 COVID deaths (vaccinated) and 1 COVID death (unvaxxed). Population was 85% vaxxed. More important was that in 2022, instead of the normal 11 deaths, they had 39 deaths. They attributed the excess to the vaccine. So it would be difficult for anyone to explain that data. But I’m open to hearing it!

[Several charts shown in a previous article have been omitted for space reasons. The original article is HERE:]


If the vaccine really worked, the state with the lowest vaccination rate should have the highest spike in all-cause mortality during a COVID wave. That wasn’t the case for the 45-64 age group and it’s arguably not true for the 65-74 age group if you believe that the higher cases are due to higher vaccination rates.

Josh Stirling’s analysis of all cities in the US makes it clear that it’s more likely than not that the vaccines have resulted in a net increase in deaths and thus were a very dumb intervention.

Crime Politics Reprints from others. Science

Most Gun Laws Aren’t Backed Up By Evidence — But Who Cares?

Hits: 25

Original Article By for FiveThirtyEight (part of ABC‘s online presence)

California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

In the first month of 2023, 25 people lost their lives in four mass shootings in California over just eight days. It’s a grim statistic, made all the more distressing when you consider the fact that California has one of the lowest gun death rates in the entire country. This is what a safe state looks like.

California also has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. And in the aftermath of those four mass shootings, new House Speaker Kevin McCarthy — who represents a district in southern California — took the opportunity to poke at the state’s firearms restrictions, saying in a press conference that federal gun control legislation would not be an automatic response to these tragedies because such laws “apparently … did not work in this situation.”


So, did California’s gun laws succeed at making it one of the safest states … or did they fail to stop a string of mass shootings? Questions about the efficacy of gun laws have gotten easier to answer in recent years as changes to federal policy have helped to bring money and people back to the field of gun violence research. But decades of neglect mean there are still lots of blank spaces — policies that don’t yet have good quality data backing them up. A recent report from the Rand Corporation that reviewed the evidence behind a variety of gun policies found just three that were supported by evidence that met the report’s quality standards.1

That fact, however, doesn’t mean other gun laws don’t work — just that the research proving it doesn’t yet exist. Scientists I spoke to saw it as an “absence of evidence” problem, stemming from long-standing, intentional roadblocks in the path of gun violence research. Even the authors of the Rand report say lawmakers should still be putting policies aimed at preventing gun violence into practice now — regardless of what the science does or doesn’t say.

“I think that the goal of the lawmaker is to pick laws that they have a reasonable hope will be better than the status quo,” said Andrew Morral, a senior behavioral scientist at the Rand Corporation. “And there’s lots of ways of persuading oneself that that may be true, that don’t have to do with appealing to strict scientific evidence.”

California doesn’t just have some of the nation’s strictest gun laws and lowest gun death rates, it’s also maybe the best state to study gun laws in, said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at University of California, Davis Medical Center. That’s because of both the way the state makes data available to researchers and its willingness to work with researchers to further the science. Wintemute is currently part of a team that is working on a randomized controlled trial of one particular California gun law — an initiative that tracks legal gun owners over time and dispatches authorities to remove their weapons if those people later break a law or develop a condition that would make them ineligible to own guns in the state. 

It’s hard to oversell what a big deal this is. Frequently referred to as the “gold standard” of evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials split participants randomly (natch) into groups of people who get the treatment and groups that don’t. Because of that, it’s easier for researchers to figure out if a medication is actually working — or if it just appears to be working because of some other factor the people in the study happen to share. These kinds of studies are crucial, but almost impossible to do with public policy because, after all, how often can you randomly apply a law?

But California has been willing to try. It took cooperation from many different levels of state leadership, Wintemute said. The government was always going to slowly expand this particular program statewide, but in this case legislators were willing to work with scientists and randomize that expansion across more than 1,000 communities, so that some randomly became part of the program earlier and some later. When the study finally concludes, researchers will be able to compare these two groups and see how joining the program affected gun violence in those places with a high level of confidence.

Most of the time, however, the scientists who study gun laws aren’t working with the kind of research methodology like this that produces strong results. Morral, along with his Rand colleague, economist Rosanna Smart, have reviewed the vast majority of the research on gun control policies done between 1995 and 2020. Their research synthesis found that a lot of what is out there are cross-sectional studies — observational research that basically just compares gun violence statistics at one point in time in a state that has a specific law to those in a state that doesn’t. That type of study is prone to mixing up correlation and causation, Smart said. There could be lots of reasons why California has lower rates of gun violence than Alabama, but studies like this don’t try to tease apart what’s going on. They end up being interpreted by the public as proof a law works when all they’ve really done is identified differences between states.

The Rand analysis threw out these kinds of studies and only looks at research that is, at least, quasi-experimental — studies that tracked changes in outcomes over time between comparison groups. Even then, the analysis ranked some studies as lower quality than others, based on factors such as how broadly the results could be applied. For instance, a study that only looked at the effects of minimum age requirements for gun ownership in one state would be ranked lower than a study that looked at those effects in every state where a law like that existed.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura)

Stand-your-ground laws “appear” to increase firearm homicides.

Following these rules, the Rand team found just three policies that have strong evidence supporting outcomes — and two of these are about the negative outcomes of policies that increase gun access. Stand-your-ground laws, which allow gun owners to use deadly force without trying to leave or deescalate a situation, appear to increase firearm homicides. Meanwhile, conceal-carry laws, which allow gun owners to carry a gun in public places, appear to increase the number of all homicides and increase the number of firearm homicides, specifically. The only laws restricting gun ownership that have this level of evidence behind them are child-access prevention laws, which have been shown to reduce firearm suicide, unintentional self-injuries and death, and homicides among young people.

That makes gun control laws seem flimsy, but it shouldn’t, Morral said. Instead, the lack of evidence ought to be understood as a product of political decisions that have taken the already challenging job of social science and made it even harder. The Dickey Amendment, first attached to the 1996 omnibus spending bill, for example, famously prevented the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from funding gun violence studies for decades. A new interpretation of that amendment in 2018 changed that, but Dickey wasn’t the only thing making it hard to study gun violence.

Instead, the researchers told me, the biggest impediment to demonstrating whether gun control policies work is the way politicians have intentionally blocked access to the data that would be necessary to do that research.

“So for instance, the federal government has this massive, great survey of behavioral risk indicators that they do every year in every state,” Morral said. “And you can get fantastic information on Americans’ fruit juice consumption as a risk factor for diabetes. But you can’t get whether or not they own guns.” Not knowing gun ownership rates at the state level makes it hard to evaluate causality of some gun control policies, he explained. “And it’s not because anyone thinks [gun ownership] is not a risk factor for various outcomes. It’s because it’s guns.”

The missing data problem also includes the 2003 Tiahrt Amendment that prevents the sharing of data tracing the origins of guns used in crimes with researchers, said Cassandra Crifasi, co-director of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins University. “So now all we can see are these sort of aggregate-level state statistics,” she said. “We can no longer look at things like, when a gun is recovered in a crime, was the purchaser the same person who was in possession of the gun at the time of the crime?”

Recently, researchers have even been missing basic crime data that used to be reported by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program. Law enforcement agencies and states were supposed to be shifting to the relatively new, much more detailed National Incident-Based Reporting System, but the transition has been a catastrophe, with some of the biggest law enforcement agencies in the country not yet making the switch because of financial and logistical complications, Smart said. “The FBI has not been able to report for the last eight quarters whether homicide rates are up or down,” Morral added.

But much of the data that’s not available at a national level is available in California, Wintemute said. “Unlike researchers in any other state, we have access to individual firearm purchaser records,” he told me — the very data the Tiahrt Amendment blocks at the national level. “We do studies involving 100,000 gun purchasers, individually known to us, and we follow them forward in time to look for evidence of criminal activity or death or whatever the outcome might be that we’re studying,” Wintemute said.

Unfortunately, because the data is only available in California, the results of those studies would only be applicable to California — making it data that wouldn’t be considered high-quality in the Rand report. Wintemute can demonstrate if a policy is working in his home state, but not whether it works in a big, broad, existential sense. It wouldn’t count towards expanding the number of policies Rand has found evidence to support. This is something researchers like Crifasi see as a flaw in the Rand analysis, but it’s also a reason why Morral and Smart don’t think the evidence-based policy is a good standard to apply to gun control to begin with.

It’s useful to know what there is evidence to support, Morral said. “But we don’t at all believe that legislation should rest on strong scientific evidence,” he said. Instead, the researchers from Rand described scientific evidence as a luxury that legislators don’t yet have.

“There’s always gonna be somebody who’s the first person to implement the law,” said Smart. “And they’re going to have to derive their decision based on theory and other considerations that are not empirical scientific evidence.”

Maggie Koerth is a senior science writer for FiveThirtyEight. Part of ABC.

COVID Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. Science

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

Hits: 13

This is the Cochrane report. World renowned Scientists did this study. The complete results can be found here.


Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses
Collapse all Expand all


Available in


Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID‐19 pandemic.


To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

Search methods

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster‐RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.

Data collection and analysis

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

Main results

We included 11 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high‐income countries; crowded inner city settings in low‐income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high‐income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies.

The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear.

Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks

We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).

N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks

We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low‐certainty evidence).

One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non‐inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID‐19 patients.

Hand hygiene compared to control

Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta‐analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and laboratory‐confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low‐certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low‐certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low‐certainty evidence).

We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.

Authors’ conclusions

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

 The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.





Plain language summary

Do physical measures such as hand‐washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?

Key messages
We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.

Hand hygiene programmes may help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.

How do respiratory viruses spread?
Respiratory viruses are viruses that infect the cells in your airways: nose, throat, and lungs. These infections can cause serious problems and affect normal breathing. They can cause flu (influenza), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and COVID‐19.

People infected with a respiratory virus spread virus particles into the air when they cough or sneeze. Other people become infected if they come into contact with these virus particles in the air or on surfaces on which they land. Respiratory viruses can spread quickly through a community, through populations and countries (causing epidemics), and around the world (causing pandemics).

Physical measures to try to prevent respiratory viruses spreading between people include:

· washing hands often;

· not touching your eyes, nose, or mouth;

· sneezing or coughing into your elbow;

· wiping surfaces with disinfectant;

· wearing masks, eye protection, gloves, and protective gowns;

· avoiding contact with other people (isolation or quarantine);

· keeping a certain distance away from other people (distancing); and

· examining people entering a country for signs of infection (screening).

What did we want to find out?
We wanted to find out whether physical measures stop or slow the spread of respiratory viruses from well‐controlled studies in which one intervention is compared to another, known as randomised controlled trials.

What did we do?
We searched for randomised controlled studies that looked at physical measures to stop people acquiring a respiratory virus infection.

We were interested in how many people in the studies caught a respiratory virus infection, and whether the physical measures had any unwanted effects.

What did we find?
We identified 78 relevant studies. They took place in low‐, middle‐, and high‐income countries worldwide: in hospitals, schools, homes, offices, childcare centres, and communities during non‐epidemic influenza periods, the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016, and during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We identified five ongoing, unpublished studies; two of them evaluate masks in COVID‐19. Five trials were funded by government and pharmaceutical companies, and nine trials were funded by pharmaceutical companies.

No studies looked at face shields, gowns and gloves, or screening people when they entered a country.

We assessed the effects of:

· medical or surgical masks;

· N95/P2 respirators (close‐fitting masks that filter the air breathed in, more commonly used by healthcare workers than the general public); and

· hand hygiene (hand‐washing and using hand sanitiser).

We obtained the following results:

Medical or surgical masks

Ten studies took place in the community, and two studies in healthcare workers. Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu‐like illness/COVID‐like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people). Unwanted effects were rarely reported; discomfort was mentioned.

N95/P2 respirators

Four studies were in healthcare workers, and one small study was in the community. Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu‐like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people). Unwanted effects were not well‐reported; discomfort was mentioned.

Hand hygiene

Following a hand hygiene programme may reduce the number of people who catch a respiratory or flu‐like illness, or have confirmed flu, compared with people not following such a programme (19 studies; 71,210 people), although this effect was not confirmed as statistically significant reduction when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed ILI were analysed separately. Few studies measured unwanted effects; skin irritation in people using hand sanitiser was mentioned.

What are the limitations of the evidence?
Our confidence in these results is generally low to moderate for the subjective outcomes related to respiratory illness, but moderate for the more precisely defined laboratory‐confirmed respiratory virus infection, related to masks and N95/P2 respirators. The results might change when further evidence becomes available. Relatively low numbers of people followed the guidance about wearing masks or about hand hygiene, which may have affected the results of the studies.

How up to date is this evidence?
We included evidence published up to October 2022.

Authors’ conclusions

Implications for practice

The evidence summarised in this review on the use of masks is largely based on studies conducted during traditional peak respiratory virus infection seasons up until 2016. Two relevant randomised trials conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic have been published, but their addition had minimal impact on the overall pooled estimate of effect. The observed lack of effect of mask wearing in interrupting the spread of influenza‐like illness (ILI) or influenza/COVID‐19 in our review has many potential reasons, including: poor study design; insufficiently powered studies arising from low viral circulation in some studies; lower adherence with mask wearing, especially amongst children; quality of the masks used; self‐contamination of the mask by hands; lack of protection from eye exposure from respiratory droplets (allowing a route of entry of respiratory viruses into the nose via the lacrimal duct); saturation of masks with saliva from extended use (promoting virus survival in proteinaceous material); and possible risk compensation behaviour leading to an exaggerated sense of security (Ammann 2022Brosseau 2020Byambasuren 2021Canini 2010Cassell 2006Coroiu 2021MacIntyre 2015Rengasamy 2010Zamora 2006).Our findings show that hand hygiene has a modest effect as a physical intervention to interrupt the spread of respiratory viruses, but several questions remain. First, the high heterogeneity between studies may suggest that there are differences in the effect of different interventions. The poor reporting limited our ability to extract the information needed to assess any ‘dose response’ relationship, and there are few head‐to‐head trials comparing hand hygiene materials (such as alcohol‐based sanitiser or soap and water). Second, the sustainability of hand hygiene is unclear where participants in some studies achieved 5 to 10 hand‐washings per day, but adherence may have diminished with time as motivation decreased, or due to adverse effects from frequent hand‐washing. Third, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of combinations of hand hygiene with other interventions, and how those are best introduced and sustained. Finally, some interventions were intensively implemented within small organisations, and involved education or training as a component, and the ability to scale these up to broader interventions is unclear.

Our findings with respect to hand hygiene should be considered generally relevant to all viral respiratory infections, given the diverse populations where transmission of viral respiratory infections occurs. The participants were adults, children and families, and multiple congregation settings including schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. Most respiratory viruses, including the pandemic SARS‐CoV‐2, are considered to be predominantly spread via respiratory particles of varying size or contact routes, or both (WHO 2020c). Data from studies of SARS‐CoV‐2 contamination of the environment based on the presence of viral ribonucleic acid and infectious virus suggest significant fomite contamination (Lin 2022Onakpoya 2022bOng 2020Wu 2020). Hand hygiene would be expected to be beneficial in reducing the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 similar to other beta coronaviruses (SARS‐CoV‐1, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and human coronaviruses), which are very susceptible to the concentrations of alcohol commonly found in most hand‐sanitiser preparations (Rabenau 2005WHO 2020c). Support for this effect is the finding that poor hand hygiene, despite the use of full personal protective equipment (PPE), was independently associated with an increased risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission to healthcare workers in a retrospective cohort study in Wuhan, China in both a high‐risk and low‐risk clinical unit for patients infected with COVID‐19 (Ran 2020). The practice of hand hygiene appears to have a consistent effect in all settings, and should be an essential component of other interventions.

The highest‐quality cluster‐RCTs indicate that the most effect on preventing respiratory virus spread from hygienic measures occurs in younger children. This may be because younger children are least capable of hygienic behaviour themselves (Roberts 2000), and have longer‐lived infections and greater social contact, thereby acting as portals of infection into the household (Monto 1969). Additional benefit from reduced transmission from them to other members of the household is broadly supported by the results of other study designs where the potential for confounding is greater.

Routine long‐term implementation of some of the interventions covered in this review may be problematic, particularly maintaining strict hygiene and barrier routines for long periods of time. This would probably only be feasible in highly motivated environments, such as hospitals. Many of the trial authors commented on the major logistical burdens that barrier routines imposed at the community level. However, the threat of a looming epidemic may provide stimulus for their inception.

Implications for research

Public health measures and physical interventions can be highly effective to interrupt the spread of respiratory viral infections, especially when they are part of a structured and co‐ordinated programme that includes instruction and education, and when they are delivered together and with high adherence. Our review has provided important insights into research gaps that need to be addressed with respect to these physical interventions and their implementation and have been brought into a sharper focus as a result of the COVID‐19 pandemic. The 2014 WHO document ‘Infection prevention and control of epidemic ‐ and pandemic‐prone acute respiratory infections in health care’ identified several research gaps as part of their GRADE assessment of their infection prevention and control recommendations, which remain very relevant (WHO 2014). Research gaps identified during the course of our review and the WHO 2014 document may be considered from the perspective of both general and specific themes.A general theme identified was the need to provide outcomes with explicitly defined clinical criteria for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and discrete laboratory‐confirmed outcomes of viral ARIs using molecular diagnostic tools which are now widely available. Our review found large disparities between studies with respect to the clinical outcome events, which were imprecisely defined in several studies, and there were differences in the extent to which laboratory‐confirmed viruses were included in the studies that assessed them. Another general theme identified was the lack of consideration of sociocultural factors that might affect adherence with the interventions, especially those employed in the community setting. A prime example of this latter point was illustrated by the observations of the use of masks versus mask mandates during the COVID‐19 pandemic. In addition, the cost and resource implications of the physical interventions employed in different settings would have important relevance for low‐ to middle‐income countries. Resources have been a major issue with the COVID‐19 pandemic, with global shortages of several components of PPE. Several specific research gaps related to physical interventions were identified within the WHO 2014 document and are congruent with many of the findings of this 2022 update, including the following: transmission dynamics of respiratory viruses from patients to healthcare workers during aerosol‐generating procedures; a continued lack of precision with regards to defining aerosol‐generating procedures; the safety of cohorting of patients with the same suspected but unconfirmed diagnosis in a common unit or ward with patients infected with the same known pathogen in healthcare settings; the optimal duration of the use of physical interruptions to prevent spread of ARI viruses; use of spatial separation or physical distancing (in healthcare and community settings, respectively) alone versus spatial separation or physical distancing with the use of other added physical interventions coupled with examining discrete distance parameters (e.g. one metre, two metres, or > two metres); the effectiveness of respiratory etiquette (i.e. coughing/sneezing into tissues or a sleeved bent elbow); the effectiveness of triage and early identification of infected individuals with an ARI in both hospital and community settings; the utility of entrance screening to healthcare facilities; use of frequent disinfection techniques appropriate to the setting (high‐touch surfaces in the environment, gargling with oral disinfectants, and virucidal tissues or clothing) alone or in combination with facial masks and hand hygiene; the use of visors, goggles or other eyewear; the use of ultraviolet light germicidal irradiation for disinfection of air in healthcare and selected community settings; the use of air scrubbers and /or high‐efficiency particulate absorbing filters and the use of widespread adherence with effective vaccination strategies.

There is a clear requirement to conduct large, pragmatic trials to evaluate the best combinations in the community and in healthcare settings with multiple respiratory viruses and in different sociocultural settings. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a pragmatic design, similar to the Luby 2005 trial or the Bundgaard 2020 trial, should be conducted whenever possible. Similar to what has been observed in pharmaceutical interventions where multiple RCTs were rapidly and successfully completed during the COVID‐19 pandemic, proving they can be accomplished, there should be a deliberate emphasis and directed funding opportunities provided to conduct well‐designed RCTs to address the effectiveness of many of the physical interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk, and in very specific well‐defined populations with monitoring of the adherence to the interventions.

Several specific research gaps deserve expedited attention and may be highlighted within the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic. The use of face masks in the community setting represents one of the most pressing needs to address, given the polarised opinions around the world, and the increasing concerns over widespread microplastic pollution from the discarding of masks (Shen 2021). Both broad‐based ecological studies, adjusting for confounding and high quality RCTs, may be necessary to determine if there is an independent contribution to their use as a physical intervention, and how they may best be deployed to optimise their contribution. The type of fabric and weave used in the face mask is an equally pressing concern, given that surgical masks with their cotton‐polypropylene fabric appear to be effective in the healthcare setting, but there are questions about the effectiveness of simple cotton masks. In addition, any masking intervention studies should focus on measuring not only benefits but also adherence, harms, and risk compensation if the latter may lead to a lower protective effect. In addition, although the use of medical/surgical masks versus N95 respirators demonstrates no differences in clinical effectiveness to date, their use needs to be further studied within the context of a well‐designed RCT in the setting of COVID‐19, and with concomitant measurement of harms, which to date have been poorly studied. The recently published Loeb RCT conducted over a prolonged course in the current pandemic has provided the only evidence to date in this area (Loeb 2022).

Physical distancing represents another major research gap which needs to be addressed expediently, especially within the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic setting as well as in future epidemic settings. The use of quarantine and screening at entry ports needs to be investigated in well‐designed, high‐quality RCTs given the controversies related to airports and travel restrictions which emerged during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We found only one RCT investigating quarantine, and no trials of screening at entry ports or physical distancing. Given that these and other physical interventions are some of the primary strategies applied globally in the face of the COVID‐19 pandemic, future trials of high quality should be a major global priority to be  conducted within the context of this pandemic, as well as in future epidemics with other respiratory viruses of less virulence.

The variable quality and small scale of some studies is known from descriptive studies (Aiello 2002Fung 2006WHO 2006b), and systematic reviews of selected interventions (Meadows 2004). In summary, more high‐quality RCTs are needed to evaluate the most effective strategies to implement successful physical interventions in practice, both on a small scale and at a population level. It is very unfortunate that more rigorous planning, effort and funding was not provided during the current COVID‐19 pandemic towards high‐quality RCTs of the basic public health measures. Finally, we emphasise that more attention should be paid to describing and quantifying the harms of the interventions assessed in this review, and their relationship with adherence.

Child Abuse COVID Drugs How sick is this? Medicine Project Veritas Science

#Pfertility: Study Funded By The NIH Finds That 40.2% Of Vaccinated Women Experienced Menstrual Changes

Hits: 31

That means that over 40 million women in the United States have had their menstrual cycles affected by the C19 jab.

Project Veritas released another breaking story last night (Feb. 2) featuring Pfizer executive Jordan Trishton Walker. This time, he was caught on camera openly admitting concern about women’s cycles and their fertility. As a result, #Pfertility is trending on Twitter.


In light of Project Veritas’ latest bombshell, we have compiled an array of respected voices speaking out about menstrual and fertility concerns. Doctors, scientists, thought leaders, and women across the globe have been screaming from the rooftops on this subject for years now.

(In the interest of brevity, I’ll just post the videos from Vigalent Fox [there are quite a few]. The full article, with Twitter comments, can be found HERE , Some may be out of order —TPR)

Basically, Pfizer knew that there would be problems, they knew that lipid nanoparticles such as in the clot shot accumulated in the ovaries, and Bill Gates (bless his heart) was studying ways to interfere with reproduction.


%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights