Great read for all those wondering how anyone could argue against the fact that #COVIDisAirborne.
[IMO airborne transmission = dominant in nearly every setting...although I could be wrong!]
For a masterclass in medical disinformation tactics, try this [from 28 mins]:
I especially like this part. After discussing how important it is to ‘be careful and use your critical appraisal skills and common sense’...
Prof John Conly then engages in an advertising ploy - anchoring. He goes on and on and on and on incredibly negatively about how peer review at PNAS is rigged and how these methods are terrible....[it just happens to be an airborne transmission manuscript, obv]
Before saying but hey, maybe it’s not so bad after all because he and ALL his colleagues can use this as a great teaching case about how not to do terrible science so it’s great...[it just happens to be an airborne transmission manuscript, obv]
TL/DR in evidence to @covidinquiryuk, CH stated SARS2 transmission is via large droplet & fomites
But:
Following peer review triggered changes 6 Jul 2022, CH's own work stated that SARS2 transmission is via 'fine aerosols & respiratory droplets, & to a lesser extent...fomites'
Why omit the empirical truth that SARS2 transmission occurs importantly via the airborne [aerosol inhalation] route?
Why do this, particularly as David Heymann's 13th Oct 2023 evidence to the PI clarified the @WHO position:
WHO knew SARS2 transmission was via aerosols, Jan 2020
'Arguably the most fundamental misstep in the UK response was the presumption that covid would be an unstoppable flu-like wave'
This
underpinned the early (Chris Whitty) position on T&T, & the Vallance view on 'herd immunity' (later air-brushed)'
Aside
Early SAGE minutes clarify the UK rationale for stopping community SARS2 testing: it was deemed unnecessary because with rapidly increasing case numbers there was no point in testing, as there were insufficient personnel to contact trace
Good to know whose plan this was
'But there was an alternative'
'This led us to question...though we found ourselves quietly dismissed as not understanding the science'
'Ironically, the pride in our science & our capabilities, slowed our ability to learn lessons from other countries'
In his capacity as co-chair of the 2016 pandemic respirator stockpile committee, where does JVT stand legally with this description of healthcare workplace protection 'logic' like this?
🚨Respirators only specifically recommended for ICU/HDU staff - i.e. AGP 'hotspots'
/1
DESPITE
🚨Stronger evidence of aerosol transmission since 2009
🚨His own 2013 review now already used by David Heymann at @covidinquiryuk M1 to describe optimal protection against aerosols - FFP3 mandated as per COSHH
/2
In his witness statement, JVT's logic rests on this concept:
🚨FFP3 is fine for MERS/SARS1 because of 'high case fatality rate & transmission to HCWs was well documented'
But what is unstated is the completion of this 'logic circle': I hope you don't mind me speculating?
By now 2 of you will have an email alert about my @PubPeerBot response to your Letter
UK Research Integrity Office (@UKRIO) teams suggested this route, on reading my detailed evidence submission pubpeer.com/publications/B…
To overcome an unexpected formatting issue on upload to the PubPeer site, below please find my correctly formatted letter expressing concerns & questions over your 'research behaviour'
[your letter, plus summary comments from 2 down this thread]
Prof Jimmy Whitworth & Dr Charlotte Hammer [p36] make an 'interesting' (i.e., exposing their bias &/or COI) statement concerning future recommendations covid19.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/upl…
/1
'Engagement...with academic research groups is needed so that key unanswered Qs arising during the early stages of an epidemic can be rapidly addressed. An example from the COVID-19 epidemic would have been to determine the role of airborne and droplet spread of infection'
/2
This, as we know, is a 'controversy' manufactured by WHO et al
van Doremalen (you know, whose research group's experimental aerosol viability work affirmed the airborne nature of MERS in 2013) proved beyond doubt that SARS2 was airborne in their 17 Mar 2020 @NEJM paper
/3