Well that's it for the WHO's reputation.

It shot itself here.
CBC reporting on WHO advisor not providing masks because of acne

That was today.

BUT ALSO this also just came out, where WHO funded four reports which surprisingly (really, not) said no air spread. Those reports connected to virus downplayers/deniers.

The WHO does a lot of good work but this airborne thing ... wow.

They've ignored the science, written articles against it, denigrate aerosol experts, and now funded a source of disinformation (biased against).

This has got to stop. We do not have time for this.
Everybody said it nicely

Everybody said it again and again

Everybody quoted study after study about air & got told: that's not QUITE good enough evidence

Everybody highlighted serious outcomes, got called cranks,& got accused of drumming up the issue for profit (!)

THEN THIS?
do in animals? hey, you need to do in humans
do in humans? hey you need to do outside lab
do in hospitals? hey you need to do outside hospital
do outside hospital? hey you need to culture live virus

culture virus? see pic "methodological issues" Image
Also Santarpia published with cultured virus in Sci Reports (Nature pub)
nature.com/articles/s4159…
Limitations of studying virus in air: very few studies find it outside a hospital.

STOP BEING OBTUSE.

That's where the sick people are.

This is not unbiased science, as I have said again and again. Everybody is being gaslit. Image
Link to post some days ago about this:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jonathan Mesiano-Crookston @/#COVIDisAirborne

Jonathan Mesiano-Crookston @/#COVIDisAirborne Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jmcrookston

23 Apr
Math modelling suggests may take as few as ten virions for someone to become infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Order of magnitude more infective than SARS.

Also blows up the 6 foot rule. Those babies from that stupid 1981 study gonna be upset.

pnas.org/content/118/17… Image
That would be BANG on this dose response for SARS-CoV-1

pic here Image
Read 15 tweets
23 Apr
Magic measles spreads just like COVID-19.

Imagine that.

Childcare, home, etc major settings.

Of course contact, because you need to at some point be near a sick person, but 40% unidentified locations.

nejm.org/doi/full/10.10… Image
Not all that useful, but this is the data we get in Toronto:

Ppl can do their own research since it ain't me saying droplet for one BREATHOUTABLE virus and airborne for magic measles. Image
And this is how stupid this debate is.

Lancet in 2017 says measles "predominantly" droplets.

thelancet.com/journals/lance…

#COVIDisAirborne
#MeaslesisAlreadyAdmittedToBeAirborneButSeemsToBeMostlyDropletHuh Image
Read 6 tweets
22 Apr
On the airborne argument, fundamentally the reason they won't agree to ever change. Image
From UK IPS Image
Note the concern with breaking ranks from national guidance, which of course would apply similarly at national up to international level.
Read 15 tweets
22 Apr
I rarely bother with her tweets but this one is correct.

It is vaccines AND adjusting their view of the science to aerosol (the truth) that will help get to minimal cases.

Unfortunately the WHO committee system appears to be broken, and its advice negligent.

#COVIDisAirborne
Never in my wildest imagination would I have thought during a global pandemic the people holding the world up would be the infectious disease doctors and the WHO,

And by dismissing the actual laboratory scientists who do this work.

Crazy.
Well we've shown how this has been going on for 120 years and founded on nonsense

Absolutely everything points to air

Scientists say air

Math modellers say can only be air

Epi data properly interpreted (or if you don't lie about it) says air

Other viruses in air

It's in air
Read 4 tweets
21 Apr
And what committee wrote that?

And who wrote the August article from the committee?

And who presented recently?

And now we have four more garbage review articles coming out, funded by WHO, that say "more evidence needed"?

This is like climate denial.
... No amount of evidence seems to suffice.

Move past the naysayers and carry on.
Oh no.

Would you look at that. Conflicts and funding from the WHO to downplay aerosol spread.

Well, every litigation file just got a whole lot easier.

bylinetimes.com/2021/04/21/sci…
Read 6 tweets
16 Apr
The fourth review is out (1).

All @WHO sponsored with your tax dollars (2).

Unsurprisingly after throwing airborne transmission out the window (ha), they conclude everything is close contact.

Not to belabour the obvious, but close contact's not a mode.
I'm not reviewing this, but just a note:

The primary thrust of the paper is CLOSE CONTACT. That's defined as within 6 feet for 15 minutes.

BUT

nobody has EVER come up with
1. a coherent reason for 6 feet, or
2. for any reason at all for 15 minutes.

Enjoy the paper.
The entire field of study is chasing its tail, or worse.

Totally ridiculous.

It would be amusing to laugh at if people weren't getting hurt.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!