COVID-19
“I want to apologize for advocating for the use of masks” – Spread of respiratory illnesses not slowed down by mask use
The study examines the effectiveness of masks and of following a hand hygiene program in reducing the likelihood of acquiring respiratory virus infections such as COVID-19.
British Health Researcher Dr. John Campbell shares the disappointing results in this presentation:
From Dr. John Campbell
From the Cochrane Library
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 We identified five ongoing, unpublished studies; two of them evaluate masks in COVID‐19.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.
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.
Dr. John Campbells presentation notes with links:
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.
Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses?
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/…
Evidence published up to October 2022.
Background Influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020.
We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Main results 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs n = 610,872
Bringing the total number of RCTs to 78
Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks
Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness
wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness
Risk ratio (RR) 0.95, (0.84 to 1.09) 9 trials, n = 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 RR 1.01, (CI 0.72 to 1.42)
6 trials, n = 13,919 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
We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness
Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness, or respiratory illness.
Confirmed influenza RR 0.70, (0.45 to 1.10) N = 7,779 Very low-certainty evidence
Influenza like illness N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI RR 0.82 N= 8,407 Low-certainty evidence
The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks
Probably makes little or no difference for laboratory-confirmed influenza infection RR 1.10 N = 8,407 Moderate-certainty evidence
Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings.
Harms were poorly measured and reported
Discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies
Very low-certainty evidence
One new RCT Medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators N = 1,009 healthcare workers in four countries, providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.
Alberta
Red Deer Doctor critical of Alberta’s COVID response to submit report to Danielle Smith this May
From LifeSiteNews
Leading the task force is Dr. Gary Davidson, who was skeptical of mandates at the time.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith will soon be receiving a little-known report she commissioned which tasked an Alberta doctor who was critical of the previous administration’s handling of COVID to look into how accurate the province’s COVID data collection was, as well as the previous administration’s decision-making process and effectiveness.
As noted in a recent Globe and Mail report, records it obtained show that just less than one month after becoming Premier of Alberta in November of 2022, Smith tasked then-health minister Jason Copping to create the COVID data task force.
Documents show that the Alberta government under Smith gave the new task force, led by Dr. Gary Davidson – who used to work as an emergency doctor in Red Deer, Alberta – a sweeping mandate to look at whether the “right data” was obtained during COVID as well as to assess the “integrity, validity, reliability and quality of the data/information used to inform pandemic decisions” by members of Alberta Health Services (AHS).
As reported by LifeSiteNews in 2021, Davidson said during the height of COVID that the hospital capacity crisis in his province was “created,” was not a new phenomenon, and had nothing to do with COVID.
“We have a crisis, and we have a crisis because we have no staff, because our staff quit, because they’re burned out, they’re not burnt out from COVID,” Davidson said at the time.
Davidson also claimed that the previous United Conservative Party government under former Premier Jason Kenney had been manipulating COVID statistics.
In comments sent to the media, Smith said that in her view it was a good idea to have a “contrarian perspective” with Davidson looking at “everything that happened with some fresh eyes.”
“I needed somebody who was going to look at everything that happened with some fresh eyes and maybe with a little bit of a contrarian perspective because we’ve only ever been given one perspective,” she told reporters Tuesday.
“I left it to [Davidson] to assemble the panel with the guidance that I would like to have a broad range of perspectives.”
Smith took over from Kenney as leader of the UCP on October 11, 2022, after winning the leadership of the party. The UCP then won a general election in May 2023. Kenney was ousted due to low approval ratings and for reneging on promises not to lock Alberta down during COVID.
After assuming her role as premier, Smith promptly fired the province’s top doctor, Deena Hinshaw, and the entire AHS board of directors, all of whom oversaw the implementation of COVID mandates.
Under Kenney, thousands of nurses, doctors, and other healthcare and government workers lost their jobs for choosing to not get the jabs, leading Smith to say – only minutes after being sworn in – that over the past year the “unvaccinated” were the “most discriminated against” group of people in her lifetime.
As for AHS, it still is promoting the COVID shots, for babies as young as six months old, as recently reported by LifeSiteNews.
Task force made up of doctors both for and against COVID mandates
In addition to COVID skeptic Dr. Gary Davidson, the rather secretive COVID task force includes other health professionals who were critical of COVID mandates and health restrictions, including vaccine mandates.
The task force was given about $2 million to conduct its review, according to The Globe and Mail, and is completely separate from another task force headed by former Canadian MP Preston Manning, who led the Reform Party for years before it merged with another party to form the modern-day Conservative Party of Canada.
Manning’s task force, known as the Public Health Emergencies Governance Review Panel (PHEGRP), released its findings last year. It recommend that many pro-freedom policies be implemented, such as strengthening personal medical freedoms via legislation so that one does not lose their job for refusing a vaccine, as well as concluding that Albertans’ rights were indeed infringed upon.
The Smith government task force is run through the Health Quality Council of Alberta (HQCA) which is a provincial agency involved in healthcare research.
Last March, Davidson was given a project description and terms of reference and was told to have a final report delivered to Alberta’s Health Minister by December of 2023.
As of now, the task force’s final report won’t be available until May, as per Andrea Smith, press secretary to Health Minister Adriana LaGrange, who noted that the goal of the task force is to look at Alberta’s COVID response compared to other provinces.
According to the Globe and Mail report, another person working on the task force is anesthetist Blaine Achen, who was part of a group of doctors that legally challenged AHS’s now-rescinded mandatory COVID jab policy for workers.
Some doctors on the task force, whom the Globe and Mail noted held “more conventional views regarding the pandemic,” left it only after a few meetings.
In a seeming attempt to prevent another draconian crackdown on civil liberties, the UCP government under Smith has already taken concrete action.
The Smith government late last year passed a new law, Bill 6, or the Public Health Amendment Act, that holds politicians accountable in times of a health crisis by putting sole decision-making on them for health matters instead of unelected medical officers.
COVID-19
Inquiry shows Canadian gov’t agencies have spent $10 million on social media ads for COVID jabs
From LifeSiteNews
One campaign cost $1.5 million alone to encourage children to receive the COVID-19 shots.
A recent Inquiry of Ministry request revealed that Canada’s Public Health Agency (PHAC) along with Health Canada have combined to spend approximately $9.9 million on social media advertising to promote the experimental COVID injections since 2020.
The Inquiry of Ministry information showing the large advertising spending on the COVID shots became known as the result of a request from Conservative Party of Canada MP Ted Falk, who demanded answers about what was being spent by officials to promote the shots.
The information published on April 8 shows that PHAC and Health Canada spent approximately $4.6 million on production costs of ads, with $5.3 million on actual advertising of the COVID shots on social media platforms Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, LinkedIn, Snapchat, and Pinterest from 2020 to 2024.
One mass COVID vaccination advertising campaign titled the “Ripple Effect” cost about $1.8 million alone. PHAC claimed the campaign served to “remind Canadians about the collective vaccination effort required to see a reduction in restrictions and public health measures.”
Other campaigns ranged in spending from $75,000 to $564,000 to promote the shots to young adults.
PHAC also spent $1.5 million on a campaign to promote the COVID shots to parents with kids to try and encourage them to get their kids injected.
It should be noted that PHAC, as per a 2021-22 Departmental Results Report, had tried “diligently to counter false statements and misinformation” to prop up the COVID shots. In 2023, PHAC was looking to hire social media influencers to promote the jab to Canadians who were opposed to taking the shots.
Health Canada previously was found to have spent some $132,000 on social media influencers to promote the COVID shots.
As reported by LifeSiteNews recently, the Trudeau government is still under contract to purchase multiple shipments of COVID shots while at the same time throwing away $1.5 billion worth of expired shots.
The continued purchase of COVID jabs comes despite the fact the government’s own data shows that most Canadians are flat-out refusing a COVID booster injection. It also comes as the government has had to increase spending on Canada’s Vaccine Injury Program (VISP), as reported by LifeSiteNews last week.
Canadians’ decision to refuse the shots also comes as a Statistic Canada report revealed that deaths from COVID-19 and “unspecified causes” rose after the release of the so-called “safe and effective” jabs.
LifeSiteNews has published an extensive amount of research on the dangers of receiving the experimental COVID mRNA jabs, which include heart damage and blood clots.
-
conflict1 day ago
Col. Douglas Macgregor: US is ‘facing disaster’ as it funds overseas wars while bankrupt
-
Alberta2 days ago
Province to stop municipalities overcharging on utility bills
-
COVID-1919 hours ago
Inquiry shows Canadian gov’t agencies have spent $10 million on social media ads for COVID jabs
-
International2 days ago
UN attacks stay-at-home motherhood as ‘gender inequality’
-
Business19 hours ago
Federal government’s ‘fudget budget’ relies on fanciful assumptions of productivity growth
-
Energy2 days ago
Reflections on Earth Day
-
Housing1 day ago
Trudeau’s 2024 budget could drive out investment as housing bubble continues
-
National1 day ago
Low and middle income Canadians hit hardest by high marginal effective tax rates