Technical ReportPDF Available

Follow-up Letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci : K - 12 Suicide Deaths

Technical Report

Follow-up Letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci : K - 12 Suicide Deaths

Abstract

Alleged "COVID-19 Pandemic" mandated government enforced lockdowns of citizens, leading to massive but ignored K -12 suicide deaths of our children is connectable to Dr. Anthony Fauci.
A preview of the PDF is not available
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: To determine the effect of mask use on viral respiratory infection risk. Data sources: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. Study selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in at least 1 published systematic review comparing the use of masks with a control group, either in community or health care settings, on the risk of viral respiratory infections. Synthesis: In total, 11 systematic reviews were included and 18 RCTs of 26 444 participants were found, 12 in the community and 6 in health care workers. Included studies had limitations and were deemed at high risk of bias. Overall, the use of masks in the community did not reduce the risk of influenza, confirmed viral respiratory infection, influenzalike illness, or any clinical respiratory infection. However, in the 2 trials that most closely aligned with mask use in real-life community settings, there was a significant risk reduction in influenzalike illness (risk ratio [RR] = 0.83; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99). The use of masks in households with a sick contact was not associated with a significant infection risk reduction in any analysis, no matter if masks were used by the sick individual, the healthy family members, or both. In health care workers, surgical masks were superior to cloth masks for preventing influenzalike illness (RR = 0.12; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98), and N95 masks were likely superior to surgical masks for preventing influenzalike illness (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00) and any clinical respiratory infections (RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00). Conclusion: This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections. In the community setting, a possible reduced risk of influenzalike illness was found among mask users. In health care workers, the results show no difference between N95 masks and surgical masks on the risk of confirmed influenza or other confirmed viral respiratory infections, although possible benefits from N95 masks were found for preventing influenzalike illness or other clinical respiratory infections. Surgical masks might be superior to cloth masks but data are limited to 1 trial.
Article
Full-text available
The use of face masks in public settings has been widely recommended by public health officials during the current COVID-19 pandemic. The masks help mitigate the risk of cross-infection via respiratory droplets, however, there are no specific guidelines on mask materials and designs that are most effective in minimizing droplet dispersal. While there have been prior studies on the performance of medical-grade masks, there is insufficient data on cloth-based coverings which are being used by a vast majority of the general public. We use qualitative visualizations of emulated coughs and sneezes to examine how material- and design-choices impact the extent to which droplet-laden respiratory jets are blocked. Loosely folded face masks and bandana-style coverings provide minimal stopping-capability for the smallest aerosolized respiratory droplets. Well-fitted homemade masks with multiple layers of quilting fabric, and off-the-shelf cone style masks, proved to be the most effective in reducing droplet dispersal. These masks were able to curtail the speed and range of the respiratory jets significantly, albeit with some leakage through the mask material and from small gaps along the edges. Importantly, uncovered emulated coughs were able to travel noticeably farther than the currently recommended 6-foot distancing guideline. We outline the procedure for setting up simple visualization experiments using easily available materials, which may help healthcare professionals, medical researchers, and manufacturers in assessing the effectiveness of face masks and other personal protective equipment qualitatively.
Article
Full-text available
Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Funding World Health Organization.
Article
Amid the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, substantial effort is being directed toward mining databases and publishing case series and reports that may provide insights into the epidemiology and clinical management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is growing concern about whether attempts to infer causation about the benefits and risks of potential therapeutics from nonrandomized studies are providing insights that improve clinical knowledge and accelerate the search for needed answers, or whether these reports just add noise, confusion, and false confidence. Most of these studies include a caveat indicating that “randomized clinical trials are needed.” But disclaimers aside, does this approach help make the case for well-designed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and accelerate their delivery?¹ Or do observational studies reduce the likelihood of a properly designed trial being performed, thereby delaying the discovery of reliable truth?
Article
We address the question of: 'how many deaths in England and Wales are due to COVID-19?' There are two approaches to measuring COVID deaths - 'COVID associated deaths' and 'excess deaths'. An excess deaths type framework is preferable, as there is substantial measurement error in COVID associated deaths, due to issues relating to the identification of deaths that are directly attributable to COVID-19. A limitation of the current excess deaths metric (a comparison of deaths to a 5 year average for the same week), is that it attributes the entirety of the variation in mortality to COVID-19. This likely means that the metric is overstated because there are a range of other drivers of mortality. We address this by estimating novel empirical Poisson models for all-cause deaths (in totality; by age category; for males; and females) that account for other drivers including the lockdown Government policy response. The models are novel because they include COVID identifier variables (which are a variation on a dummy variable). We use these identifiers to estimate weekly deviations in COVID deaths (about the mean weekly estimate pertaining to the COVID dummy variable in our baseline model). Results from two sets of identifiers indicate that, over the periods when our weekly estimates of total COVID deaths and the current excess deaths measure differ (week ending 17th or 24th April 2020 - week ending 8th May 2020), the former is considerably below the latter - on average per week 4670 deaths (54%) lower, or 4727 deaths (63%) lower, respectively.
Technical Report
The latest data of all-cause mortality by week does not show a winter-burden mortality that is statistically larger than for past winters. There was no plague. However, a sharp "COVID peak" is present in the data, for several jurisdictions in Europe and the USA. This all-cause-mortality "COVID peak" has unique characteristics: • Its sharpness, with a full-width at half-maximum of only approximately 4 weeks; • Its lateness in the infectious-season cycle, surging after week-11 of 2020, which is unprecedented for any large sharp-peak feature; • The synchronicity of the onset of its surge, across continents, and immediately following the WHO declaration of the pandemic; and • Its USA state-to-state absence or presence for the same viral ecology on the same territory, being correlated with nursing home events and government actions rather than any known viral strain discernment. These "COVID peak" characteristics, and a review of the epidemiological history, and of relevant knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, lead me to postulate that the "COVID peak" results from an accelerated mass homicide of immune-vulnerable individuals, and individuals made more immune-vulnerable, by government and institutional actions, rather than being an epidemiological signature of a novel virus, irrespective of the degree to which the virus is novel from the perspective of viral speciation.
Article
Background Conflicting recommendations exist related to whether masks have a protective effect on the spread of respiratory viruses. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was consulted to report this systematic review. Relevant articles were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP (Chinese) database. Results A total of 21 studies met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses suggest that mask use provided a significant protective effect (OR = 0.35 and 95% CI = 0.24–0.51). Use of masks by healthcare workers (HCWs) and non-healthcare workers (Non-HCWs) can reduce the risk of respiratory virus infection by 80% (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.11–0.37) and 47% (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.36–0.79). The protective effect of wearing masks in Asia (OR = 0.31) appeared to be higher than that of Western countries (OR = 0.45). Masks had a protective effect against influenza viruses (OR = 0.55), SARS (OR = 0.26), and SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 0.04). In the subgroups based on different study designs, protective effects of wearing mask were significant in cluster randomized trials and observational studies. Conclusions This study adds additional evidence of the enhanced protective value of masks, we stress that the use masks serve as an adjunctive method regarding the COVID-19 outbreak.