Thread by @Mark_Ungrin

In preparation for WHO's latest attempt to obfuscate the fact that #COVIDIsAirborne please take a moment to look through this.

Be ready to contrast it with what WHO releases on April 18th.

That's all you need to know about the pandemic, right there. 🫠
iris.who.int/handle/10665/3…

I'm serious BTW. This is an example of what a good-faith process can produce.

It's from the ARIA group co-chaired by Dr Morawaska - the one WHO ignored in 2020.

The one coming out on the 18th is from a process controlled by the people who ignored her.

Put them side by side.

Once you've done that, and contrasted what you get from science with what you get from the medical bureaucracy, ask yourself this:

Which group would you trust to manage a pandemic?

Where would we be today if they had been in charge from the start?

When is enough, enough?

Over the next few days you're going to see the usual suspects, and some new ones, "spontaneously" using the same weirdly stilted language to say aerosols and droplets aren't that different.

Just like all those people "spontaneously" tried to deny #LongCOVID earlier this year.

Take note of what they say, and how, and compare the language when the new WHO document comes out.

It's not coincidence.

It's marketing. Medical influencers, WHO, public health, IPAC. Tame journalists, sycophants. A disguised ad campaign - paid for with your taxes.

Also: other than some ID & IPAC types being confused (5-micron error etc), what *exactly* is the ambiguity in use of "airborne" across scientific disciplines?

Being wrong isn't "ambiguity". You can't say 2+2=5 and then insist math is ambigous now, and we have to change it!

Strategy time!

We know how the WHO terminology announcement will go tomorrow. WHO slush fund PR budgets, comms teams and access-journalism.

But we have numbers.

*Everyone* please reach out to reporters, and ask them to look into the full story, and not just parrot WHO lines.

In particular, ask journalists to consider the WHO document and its attempt to rewrite terminology in light of the admission that WHO's failure to accept that #COVIDIsAirborne killed an enormous number of people.

Cui bono?

Then give them this quote:

So the terminology document is about what you'd expect. You can tell the aerosol people worked hard to limit the manipulation from the people who dropped the ball on airborne transmission in 2020, but the charitable interpretation of this effort is that it was a waste of time.

This is I think the real objective of the word games - breaking the link between airborne transmission and airborne precautions. The battle all along has been over which takes priority - science and evidence, or the opinions of connected ID docs? This is them declaring it's #2.

More of the same. "Airborne doesn't mean airborne, but droplet means droplet" - it's an effort to rewrite history and retroactively erase the failure to bring in airborne precautions in 2020.

If airborne means airborne, they committed the worst medical error in history.

You can tell the bad guys started with the outcome they wanted and worked backwards to create language that would lead there. It's not even internally consistent. All this fuss about avoiding dichotomies, and then "also, there's a category that falls to the ground within 2 m".

Kudos to the scientists who fought the good fight, and kept this from being a lot worse. In particular, forcing the inclusion of the word aerosol in the document, and explicitly pointing out that there is nothing conceptually new here, it's all word games and changing the labels.

The new battle is the same as the old battle. Should decisions be based on authority, or on science and evidence?

The bad guys will continue to insist that their opinions override science, and we will continue to fight them until we win.

Airborne is airborne.

#covi

This is an example of the kind of copy-paste journalism that WHO slush funds can buy, just by handing out press releases and making it easy to report what they want reported.

When you see it, please reach out to the news organization. We need numbers.

cbc.ca/news/health/ai…

Here's the exact same story @CBCNews put out (see previous post) at CTV. Why do we pay for a public news agency if it's just going to parrot the for-profit media? If @CBC isn't providing added value and context on critical stories like this, what's it for?
ctvnews.ca/health/after-c…