Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

That "Stanford" Paper on Masks


TheBlueCat
 Share

Recommended Posts

TheBlueCat
Posted (edited)

I see that “Stanford” paper on facemasks is still doing the rounds on here so I decided to DMOR on it. 

A lot of people have probably found it through PubMed:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33303303/

PubMed is a search engine, not a journal itself so being on there does not mean that any checking has been done on the papers that it finds. This particular paper was published in a journal called Medical Hypotheses:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/medical-hypotheses

It’s not a junk journal, but it is home to some highly speculative stuff that would not, I assume, appear in the Lancet or New England Journal of Medicine. E.g.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987704003536

Quote

Is there an association between the use of heeled footwear and schizophrenia?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987713005872

Quote

Anorexia nervosa: A rogue hibernation?

Anyway, back to the “Stanford” face mask paper. The author is Baruch Vainshelboim (I’m surprised some people here would take advice from someone with a name like that to start with). This is the affiliation he claims:

Quote

Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States. Electronic address: [email protected]

The first thing that looks odd is that he uses a gmail address. I would have assumed he’d have a stanford.edu address if he was really associated with them. Looking here there’s no sign of anyone with that name:

https://profiles.stanford.edu/

And searching the Veterans Affairs site also draws a blank:

https://www.paloalto.va.gov/

And, in fact, Stanford have explicitly said this study is nothing to do with them or the VA Palo Alto Health System:

https://stanfordhealthcare.org/about-us/media-statement.html

Quote

A study on the efficacy of face masks against COVID-19 published in the November 2020 issue of the journal Medical Hypotheses is not a “Stanford study.” The author’s affiliation is inaccurately attributed to Stanford, and we have requested a correction. The author, Baruch Vainshelboim, had no affiliation with the VA Palo Alto Health System or Stanford at the time of publication and has not had any affiliation since 2016, when his one-year term as a visiting scholar on matters unrelated to this paper ended.

Anyway, back to the paper itself:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987720333028?via%3Dihub

I now see:

Quote

 

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal).

This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief.

Medical Hypotheses serves as a forum for innovative and often disruptive ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences. However, our strict editorial policy is that we do not publish misleading or inaccurate citations to advance any hypotheses.

 

Of course, that’s only because THEY don’t want you to believe it, so let’s look at some of the details.

This was the first statement that stood out:

Quote

This was confirmed by the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from US stating, “the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 are similar to those of severe seasonal influenza” [5]

This is the citation:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejme2002387

This is an editorial article - i.e. an opinion piece, not a peer reviewed paper - by Fauci (yes, that Fauci) from March 2020 before there was much data to go on (things didn’t fully kick off in Italy towards the end of March). Note that the “Stanford” paper was published in November 2020, by which time much more non-Chinese supplied data was available. Here’s a BMJ published paper from November 2020:

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/11/e043560

Quote

Results The average of country/territory-specific COVID-19 CFR is about 2%–3%worldwide and higher than previously reported at 0.7%–1.3%. 

That’s a lot worse than severe seasonal influenza.

The next stand-out section, and the meat of the paper really, is this:

Quote

The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material [2]. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists [25].

Citation 16 is:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768391

This is the only thing that paper has to say about the effectiveness of masks:

Quote

 

Are masks effective at preventing spread?

Yes. Face masks reduce the spread of viral respiratory infection. N95 respirators and surgical masks both provide substantial protection (compared with no mask), and surgical masks provide greater protection than cloth masks. However, physical distancing is also associated with substantial reduction of viral transmission, with greater distances providing greater protection. Additional measures such as hand and environmental disinfection are also important.

 

So, he’s referenced a paper that says that masks work claiming that it says the exact opposite.

Citation 17 is:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2001017

This paper doesn’t discuss masks at all so I assume he’s referencing it because it gives the size of coronaviruses. He uses the same reference in the next sentence about particle size so who knows:

Quote

Diameter varied from about 60 to 140 nm. 

Citation 25 is:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32329337/

Quote

Aerosol Filtration Efficiency of Common Fabrics Used in Respiratory Cloth Masks

This is a paper about cloth (i.e. non-medical) masks, not surgical or N95 masks. Even allowing for that, it says very clearly:

Quote

Although the filtration efficiencies for various fabrics when a single layer was used ranged from 5 to 80% and 5 to 95% for particle sizes of <300 nm and >300 nm, respectively, the efficiencies improved when multiple layers were used and when using a specific combination of different fabrics. Filtration efficiencies of the hybrids (such as cotton-silk, cotton-chiffon, cotton-flannel) was >80% (for particles <300 nm) and >90% (for particles >300 nm).

So, far from being able to use this reference to infer that, due to COVID viruses being 60-140nm cloth masks - never mind medical and n95 masks - have no effect, it actually says that multiple layer cloth masks are more than 80% effective at blocking them in general and even some single layer masks are similarly effective

I could go on, but this paper is just garbage. What kind of peer review it passed is unclear but what is obvious is that whoever did it didn't take the time to even skim-read the citations.

Edited by TheBlueCat
  • Agree 3
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow I'm impressed with the amount of work you did there, on a Saturday afternoon too. A lot of stuff on Pub med is over my head to be frank.

  • Agree 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One percent
2 minutes ago, 201p said:

Wow I'm impressed with the amount of work you did there, on a Saturday afternoon too. A lot of stuff on Pub med is over my head to be frank.

Whilst a lot of stuff in the pub isn’t above my head. :)  just wish they would open them fully 

  • Agree 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, unregistered_guest said:

Perhaps the Stanford link is an oblique reference to some other research they did there almost 50 years ago...

https://web.archive.org/web/20000621142006/http://www.prisonexp.org/slide-31.htm

 

Quote

As with real prisoners, our prisoners expected some harassment, to have their privacy and some of their other civil rights violated while they were in prison, and to get a minimally adequate diet -- all part of their informed consent agreement when they volunteered.

 

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheBlueCat
3 hours ago, 201p said:

Wow I'm impressed with the amount of work you did there, on a Saturday afternoon too. A lot of stuff on Pub med is over my head to be frank.

It took about 30 minutes, it's a trivially easy paper to debunk. I used to do pre-submission paper reviews back in my post-doc days and it was rare to find a citation that didn't check out and, when it happened, it was usually an obvious mistake rather than a complete misrepresentation. Literally the first three I checked on this one were bogus.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheBlueCat
3 hours ago, One percent said:

Whilst a lot of stuff in the pub isn’t above my head. :)  just wish they would open them fully 

Many papers have "full text" links for free at the top right hand corner. Failing that, if you search for the paper name and authors, you'll often find it publicly available somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi it's 3am.

 

I have woken up with heart palpitations. Brain fully alert. Had to have the WiFi router on again because the exchange re-profiled my account to throttle my data usage. 2nd night like this.When the router is off I can sleep 100% not problem for the last 2-3 weeks.

I thought of this thread and come up with two important links. Save these before they go they way of Dr Kelly. In fact I think they will take Pubmed off line one day - don't you think?

THANK YOU BLUECAT.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24192494/

Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system

Magda Havas

PMID: 24192494

DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2013-0004

Abstract

Exposure to electrosmog generated by electric, electronic, and wireless technology is accelerating to the point that a portion of the population is experiencing adverse reactions when they are exposed. The symptoms of electrohypersensitivity (EHS), best described as rapid aging syndrome, experienced by adults and children resemble symptoms experienced by radar operators in the 1940s to the 1960s and are well described in the literature. An increasingly common response includes clumping (rouleau formation) of the red blood cells, heart palpitations, pain or pressure in the chest accompanied by anxiety, and an upregulation of the sympathetic nervous system coincident with a downregulation of the parasympathetic nervous system typical of the "fight-or-flight" response. Provocation studies presented in this article demonstrate that the response to electrosmog is physiologic and not psychosomatic. Those who experience prolonged and severe EHS may develop psychologic problems as a consequence of their inability to work, their limited ability to travel in our highly technologic environment, and the social stigma that their symptoms are imagined rather than real.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29573716/

Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health

Martin L Pall 1

Abstract

Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload. Each of these effects are also caused by exposures to other microwave frequency EMFs, with each such effect being documented in from 10 to 16 reviews. Therefore, each of these seven EMF effects are established effects of Wi-Fi and of other microwave frequency EMFs. Each of these seven is also produced by downstream effects of the main action of such EMFs, voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. While VGCC activation via EMF interaction with the VGCC voltage sensor seems to be the predominant mechanism of action of EMFs, other mechanisms appear to have minor roles. Minor roles include activation of other voltage-gated ion channels, calcium cyclotron resonance and the geomagnetic magnetoreception mechanism. Five properties of non-thermal EMF effects are discussed. These are that pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, more active than are non-pulsed EMFs; artificial EMFs are polarized and such polarized EMFs are much more active than non-polarized EMFs; dose-response curves are non-linear and non-monotone; EMF effects are often cumulative; and EMFs may impact young people more than adults. These general findings and data presented earlier on Wi-Fi effects were used to assess the Foster and Moulder (F&M) review of Wi-Fi. The F&M study claimed that there were seven important studies of Wi-Fi that each showed no effect. However, none of these were Wi-Fi studies, with each differing from genuine Wi-Fi in three distinct ways. F&M could, at most conclude that there was no statistically significant evidence of an effect. The tiny numbers studied in each of these seven F&M-linked studies show that each of them lack power to make any substantive conclusions. In conclusion, there are seven repeatedly found Wi-Fi effects which have also been shown to be caused by other similar EMF exposures. Each of the seven should be considered, therefore, as established effects of Wi-Fi.

 

----------

 

I know some people think WiFi affecting health is a load of bollocks - but it does affect me, that is all I need to convince!

https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-block-WiFi-signals-using-an-aluminium-foil-to-minimize-the-signals-in-my-room

If you are trying to cut down on the signals in your room due to concerns about your health, get that silly urban myth right out of your mind!

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am reasonable person. But it is got to the stage that is It is offensive to ask the questions now.

When they take away articles that conflict with the narrative (even though it might be garbage are we not allowed to ask the question for further research?), I can't help remembering this phrase

If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists.

Edited by 201p
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone find Baruch Vainshelboim to get him to explain himself?

We have his email - it shouldn't be too hard to find him. I guess he's also born in 1981.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheBlueCat
1 hour ago, 201p said:

Hi it's 3am.

 

I have woken up with heart palpitations. Brain fully alert. Had to have the WiFi router on again because the exchange re-profiled my account to throttle my data usage. 2nd night like this.When the router is off I can sleep 100% not problem for the last 2-3 weeks.

I thought of this thread and come up with two important links. Save these before they go they way of Dr Kelly. In fact I think they will take Pubmed off line one day - don't you think?

THANK YOU BLUECAT.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24192494/

Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system

Magda Havas

PMID: 24192494

DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2013-0004

Abstract

Exposure to electrosmog generated by electric, electronic, and wireless technology is accelerating to the point that a portion of the population is experiencing adverse reactions when they are exposed. The symptoms of electrohypersensitivity (EHS), best described as rapid aging syndrome, experienced by adults and children resemble symptoms experienced by radar operators in the 1940s to the 1960s and are well described in the literature. An increasingly common response includes clumping (rouleau formation) of the red blood cells, heart palpitations, pain or pressure in the chest accompanied by anxiety, and an upregulation of the sympathetic nervous system coincident with a downregulation of the parasympathetic nervous system typical of the "fight-or-flight" response. Provocation studies presented in this article demonstrate that the response to electrosmog is physiologic and not psychosomatic. Those who experience prolonged and severe EHS may develop psychologic problems as a consequence of their inability to work, their limited ability to travel in our highly technologic environment, and the social stigma that their symptoms are imagined rather than real.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29573716/

Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health

Martin L Pall 1

Abstract

Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload. Each of these effects are also caused by exposures to other microwave frequency EMFs, with each such effect being documented in from 10 to 16 reviews. Therefore, each of these seven EMF effects are established effects of Wi-Fi and of other microwave frequency EMFs. Each of these seven is also produced by downstream effects of the main action of such EMFs, voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. While VGCC activation via EMF interaction with the VGCC voltage sensor seems to be the predominant mechanism of action of EMFs, other mechanisms appear to have minor roles. Minor roles include activation of other voltage-gated ion channels, calcium cyclotron resonance and the geomagnetic magnetoreception mechanism. Five properties of non-thermal EMF effects are discussed. These are that pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, more active than are non-pulsed EMFs; artificial EMFs are polarized and such polarized EMFs are much more active than non-polarized EMFs; dose-response curves are non-linear and non-monotone; EMF effects are often cumulative; and EMFs may impact young people more than adults. These general findings and data presented earlier on Wi-Fi effects were used to assess the Foster and Moulder (F&M) review of Wi-Fi. The F&M study claimed that there were seven important studies of Wi-Fi that each showed no effect. However, none of these were Wi-Fi studies, with each differing from genuine Wi-Fi in three distinct ways. F&M could, at most conclude that there was no statistically significant evidence of an effect. The tiny numbers studied in each of these seven F&M-linked studies show that each of them lack power to make any substantive conclusions. In conclusion, there are seven repeatedly found Wi-Fi effects which have also been shown to be caused by other similar EMF exposures. Each of the seven should be considered, therefore, as established effects of Wi-Fi.

 

----------

 

I know some people think WiFi affecting health is a load of bollocks - but it does affect me, that is all I need to convince!

https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-block-WiFi-signals-using-an-aluminium-foil-to-minimize-the-signals-in-my-room

If you are trying to cut down on the signals in your room due to concerns about your health, get that silly urban myth right out of your mind!

If you have palpitations you should see a doctor - see my post about Spunko’s heart in stealth about that one. Note that, even though the paper was retracted for being utter bullshit, it’s still there and readable and will likely continue to be in perpetuity, that’s how scientific journals, even slightly out there ones, work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unregistered_guest
7 minutes ago, TheBlueCat said:

it's a trivially easy paper to debunk

If it's that bad, is it possible that it was deliberately designed to make anyone who advocated a similar viewpoint look equally foolish by association?

Or is that the sort of strategy that only works in low-budget movies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TheBlueCat said:

If you have palpitations you should see a doctor - see my post about Spunko’s heart in stealth about that one. Note that, even though the paper was retracted for being utter bullshit, it’s still there and readable and will likely continue to be in perpetuity, that’s how scientific journals, even slightly out there ones, work.

Thanks I know you have to cover yourself, and I will do that to rule it out. It is difficult to see a doctor right now.

I have some stuff to post further on the matter, I will do this later if anyone is interested.

Why did Boris spend £200K on gold wall paper one has to ask. No one has made the connection!

Edited by 201p
  • Lol 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unregistered_guest
1 hour ago, 201p said:

Why did Boris spend £200K on gold wall paper one has to ask. No one has made the connection!

image.png.3298507c68c43f1d7476dd3bbeb04f38.png

  • Agree 1
  • Lol 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mirror Mirror
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, TheBlueCat said:

I see that “Stanford” paper on facemasks is still doing the rounds on here so I decided to DMOR on it. 

A lot of people have probably found it through PubMed:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33303303/

PubMed is a search engine, not a journal itself so being on there does not mean that any checking has been done on the papers that it finds. This particular paper was published in a journal called Medical Hypotheses:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/medical-hypotheses

It’s not a junk journal, but it is home to some highly speculative stuff that would not, I assume, appear in the Lancet or New England Journal of Medicine. E.g.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987704003536

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987713005872

Anyway, back to the “Stanford” face mask paper. The author is Baruch Vainshelboim (I’m surprised some people here would take advice from someone with a name like that to start with). This is the affiliation he claims:

The first thing that looks odd is that he uses a gmail address. I would have assumed he’d have a stanford.edu address if he was really associated with them. Looking here there’s no sign of anyone with that name:

https://profiles.stanford.edu/

And searching the Veterans Affairs site also draws a blank:

https://www.paloalto.va.gov/

And, in fact, Stanford have explicitly said this study is nothing to do with them or the VA Palo Alto Health System:

https://stanfordhealthcare.org/about-us/media-statement.html

Anyway, back to the paper itself:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987720333028?via%3Dihub

I now see:

Of course, that’s only because THEY don’t want you to believe it, so let’s look at some of the details.

This was the first statement that stood out:

This is the citation:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejme2002387

This is an editorial article - i.e. an opinion piece, not a peer reviewed paper - by Fauci (yes, that Fauci) from March 2020 before there was much data to go on (things didn’t fully kick off in Italy towards the end of March). Note that the “Stanford” paper was published in November 2020, by which time much more non-Chinese supplied data was available. Here’s a BMJ published paper from November 2020:

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/11/e043560

That’s a lot worse than severe seasonal influenza.

The next stand-out section, and the meat of the paper really, is this:

Citation 16 is:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768391

This is the only thing that paper has to say about the effectiveness of masks:

So, he’s referenced a paper that says that masks work claiming that it says the exact opposite.

Citation 17 is:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2001017

This paper doesn’t discuss masks at all so I assume he’s referencing it because it gives the size of coronaviruses. He uses the same reference in the next sentence about particle size so who knows:

Citation 25 is:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32329337/

This is a paper about cloth (i.e. non-medical) masks, not surgical or N95 masks. Even allowing for that, it says very clearly:

So, far from being able to use this reference to infer that, due to COVID viruses being 60-140nm cloth masks - never mind medical and n95 masks - have no effect, it actually says that multiple layer cloth masks are more than 80% effective at blocking them in general and even some single layer masks are similarly effective

I could go on, but this paper is just garbage. What kind of peer review it passed is unclear but what is obvious is that whoever did it didn't take the time to even skim-read the citations.

Well researched. And also an interesting lesson in how to actually go about researching the validity of articles.

But you know what?

I don’t care.

Ive had lies, propaganda, exaggerated figures and fear tactics forced down my throat by the government and their media cheerleaders for over a year now, with the result that my human rights and civil liberties are still severely curtailed, and I’m heartily sick of it.

Our old world which worked quite nicely has been upended by the overreaction to covid, whatever the reasons, and it’s not coming back any time soon.

If the odd paper gets published which bends the truth somewhat in putting the other side of the argument, and possibly is believed by a few people, maybe spurring them in to keep fighting against this evil tyranny, then that’s absolutely fine in my book.

Tl;dr All’s fair in love and war.

Edited by Mirror Mirror
  • Agree 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

eight

Yes, the idea that the state can compel the populous to do something extraordinary on the basis that there's no proof of harm and might be a small collective health benefit is a very dangerous slope indeed. It's how you end up with small children across Europe and the World spending likely their entire school lives masked.

There is a case being brought by a girl in Sheffield about this; the school have attempted to head it off by allowing her a pass, but she says it is the policy itself she (or more likely her lawyers; she is just a front) is protesting, due to the learning environment it creates. One of the school's "defences" is that they fear counter litigation from students who would demand their right to a mask! What a world.

  • Agree 3
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ashestoashes
15 hours ago, TheBlueCat said:

The author is Baruch Vainshelboim (I’m surprised some people here would take advice from someone with a name like that to start with).

stopped reading there, what has his name got to do with anything ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Generation Game
1 hour ago, eight said:

Yes, the idea that the state can compel the populous to do something extraordinary on the basis that there's no proof of harm and might be a small collective health benefit is a very dangerous slope indeed. It's how you end up with small children across Europe and the World spending likely their entire school lives masked.

There is a case being brought by a girl in Sheffield about this; the school have attempted to head it off by allowing her a pass, but she says it is the policy itself she (or more likely her lawyers; she is just a front) is protesting, due to the learning environment it creates. One of the school's "defences" is that they fear counter litigation from students who would demand their right to a mask! What a world.

It's interesting that the top terrorism threat level, critical, is one where all forces are mobilised and by its very nature cannot last more than a few days because of the resources required and fatigue setting in. 

Yet we have been under a state of emergency for over a year due to Covid. Something that lasts that long is not an emergency. It is a new normal. 

  • Agree 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheBlueCat
6 hours ago, unregistered_guest said:

If it's that bad, is it possible that it was deliberately designed to make anyone who advocated a similar viewpoint look equally foolish by association?

Or is that the sort of strategy that only works in low-budget movies?

Nah, it was just written by a nutter. There are plenty of them out there and plenty of low quality scientific journals happy to take their money. E.g. take a look at this beauty:

https://juniperpublishers.com/gjorm/pdf/GJORM.MS.ID.555652.pdf

2 hours ago, ashestoashes said:

stopped reading there, what has his name got to do with anything ?

For me, absolutely nothing. For more than a few on here absolutely everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheBlueCat
6 hours ago, 201p said:

Thanks I know you have to cover yourself, and I will do that to rule it out. It is difficult to see a doctor right now.

I have some stuff to post further on the matter, I will do this later if anyone is interested.

Why did Boris spend £200K on gold wall paper one has to ask. No one has made the connection!

I’m still working on the assumption you’re having a laugh but, on the off chance you’ve gone full Nash, you might almost want to see a psychiatrist. For your heart, there is no reason you need to see your GP in person as it’s highly unlikely they’ll be able to diagnose much with the kit they have to hand. You’ll likely get a referral to hospital or one of those big health clinics for some tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

apples
9 hours ago, 201p said:

I have woken up with heart palpitations. Brain fully alert. Had to have the WiFi router on again because the exchange re-profiled my account to throttle my data usage. 2nd night like this.When the router is off I can sleep 100% not problem for the last 2-3 weeks.

Have suggested this before elsewhere, but can you turn just the wireless bit of the router off, not the bit that talks to the exchange? Probably need to login to the router using a browser (and a wired connection!) to do this.

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BoSon
11 minutes ago, apples said:

Have suggested this before elsewhere, but can you turn just the wireless bit of the router off, not the bit that talks to the exchange? Probably need to login to the router using a browser (and a wired connection!) to do this.

 

Some have a button to turn off/on the wifi.

Can get around needing wifi if using a device (e.g. laptop or computer or tablet) with either an ethernet or usb port so can use ethernet over power (commonly called homeplugs) and optionaly an ethernet to usb convertor or dock. More secure, reliable, and potentially faster than using wifi regardless of any health issues.

Does this mean there may be something to that 5g causes worse covid conspiracy theory after all? xD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long-game
1 hour ago, TheBlueCat said:

I’m still working on the assumption you’re having a laugh but, on the off chance you’ve gone full Nash, you might almost want to see a psychiatrist. For your heart, there is no reason you need to see your GP in person as it’s highly unlikely they’ll be able to diagnose much with the kit they have to hand. You’ll likely get a referral to hospital or one of those big health clinics for some tests.

Nonsense are you medically trained? Bloods are first step and an ECG potentially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...