Thread by @jmcrookston

Okay, apparently acne is trivial. I agree. It seemed a trivial thing to say.

So, let's focus on the impartial, unbiased science, right?

Because everybody's interested in truth, right?

Okay, let's go!

Uh oh, we know what that means.

A slide mentioned _no cultured SARS-CoV-2_.

It contained citations.

1. It quoted Santarpia, as a pre-print.

Unfortunately, Santarpia was later published in Nature. (nature.com/articles/s4159…)

And by the time it was published, Santarpia had cultured live SARS-CoV-2. See pic.

So.

Are we done?

Let's continue.

2. Chia - Detection of ... is cited as a preprint.

This was also later published in Nature, and should have been cited to there. (nature.com/articles/s4146…)

They did not culture, but their comments are about reasons why they might have gotten none but it might exist.

Oh, and their comments about "Nebraska" are to Santarpia's preprint, and we saw they cultured live virus.

So, live SARS-CoV-2 virus has in fact been cultured, contrary to the claim made in the slides.

There. Not about acne. That took me 10 minutes. If I go further, it will not get better.

I have a previous thread where I merely _started_ to collect air sampling articles.

Feel free to compare/contrast to those on the slides and see what are missing. Collect em all, if you will.

I'll get around to it, but not now.

https://twitter.com/jmcrookston/status/1375828587639627779

In that thread is live SARS, live MERS, live flu, live virus from pigs, and live virus from cows (if my recollection is correct)

It is safe to say that the research on culturing live virus from the air is not being fairly presented, TO THE BENEFIT of the person presenting.

And that is WITHOUT getting into what the air experts say, which is that culturing live virus from the air is specialized and difficult and you break the virus if you do it wrong.

Lots of people are doing it wrong.

Others are not interested in doing it right.

When I get around to going further, I'll perhaps point out that the 5500 hours of "no infection" except in surgical masks comes from VERY EARLY in the outbreak and since then there HAVE IN FACT been many workers infected.

I'll perhaps also point out that relying on what is said in an unpublshed email is not data that scientists can possibly rely on. Publish it so people can see it.

I'll perhaps also point out that personal anecdotes of taking samples while wearing surgical mask are not data and nobody can rely on that either. Publish it if you want to write a narrative report. (Altho absence of infection dsnt prove anything except not catching COVID)

So, the comment about acne is really just the most obviously silly of a series of things that require one to dig into the reports to appreciate. Hence, it's getting attention. As it should.

It's still a ridiculous assertion of harm in the face of precautionary principle ANYWAY

For those who say "oh this focus on acne is ridiculous".

Totally right. It is. Acne as a harm is in fact, completely ridiculous. Never should have been said.

This quote from a legal case is on point re precautionary. We learned this with SARS, err, didn't learn it.

To note, a recent presentation has only a comment that nothing has been cultivated (below).

All the earlier refs listed in the slide above from an earlier presentation seem removed (someone double check and date of publication).