The @Telegraph released an article claiming "we're still not completely sure how coronavirus spreads or how to stop it", muddying the waters re. Airborne Transmission.
If I were a hostile foreign state, with a goal of prolonging the Pandemic in the West, I would write this.
🧵1/
I'm not surprised that the usual WHO IPC Consultant suspects, continued to preach the biased tenets of #DropletDogma via their interviews in this article.
What shocked me is the lack of scientific fact-checking from the so-called "Science Editor" @sarahknapton.
2/
Two egregious things stick out, which amount to journalistic malpractice.
1) Citing the interviewees biased, failed review as evidence that Airborne Transmission isn't occurring
2) Referencing year-old, obsolete comments from Dr. Klompas, without mentioning his recent work
3/
1) The article references this WHO-funded, biased, "systematic review" preprint, which FAILED Peer Review and has been universally panned by respected peers in the field. Read the Peer Review AND the Comments. This Review has yet to be published. f1000research.com/articles/10-23… 4/
Heneghan's claim (made in the article and the review) that "no study has found viable viral particles in the air that could have gone on to infect someone", is a lie.
Lednicky has successfully cultured virus from air twice. Dr. Tellier/Dr. Tang pick a part the criticisms here: 5/
Also recall that @trishgreenhalgh et al's widely lauded Lancet paper, was a direct response to this biased "Systematic Review".
It seems Heneghan and co. couldn't get their paper published and past a peer-review, so they went to the @Telegraph.
The second point, which I found to be most egregious, was the way @sarahknapton selectively used a year-old quote from Dr. Michael Klompas (ID MD from Harvard), without disclosing that Klompas has spent the past year publishing papers in support of Aerosol Transmission.
7/
Here's one recent paper, where Klompas explicitly acknowledges aerosol and airborne transmission, and argues for universal N95 use (Airborne Precautions) when community transmission is high, instead of Surgical masks (Droplet Precautions).
Here's another recent study that Klompas was an author on, looking at nosocomial transmission in hospitals, despite social distancing and closed curtains, and in absence of Aerosol Generating Procedures.
And we can't forget this critical Klompas study, which proved nosocomial transmission despite Droplet Precautions, and makes a strong argument for more wide-spread N95 use (ie. Airborne Precautions).
So to frame Dr. Klompas, as an ID expert that is opposed to Aerosol Transmission in August 2021, is frankly egregious. If the @Telegraph and @sarahknapton want to have even a shred of credibility going forward, they should probably update this article.
11/
To close, I'll link to a summary of studies providing evidence for Airborne Transmission. Decide for yourself if they're "low quality".
The vast majority PASSED peer-review and were published in prestigious journals.
Something that cannot be said about the Heneghan Review.
12/
Final tweet with the last 2 pages of studies. And this list doesn't even scratch the surface of available evidence.
Like, literally, the same people that obstructed HCW's from accessing N95s during peak COVID, who signed an expert witness statement in a legal affidavit AGAINST THE NURSES/N95s, have now released a study claiming they were right... pheeeww! 😅
For 2.5 years, Bonnie Henry (BC PHO) obstructed proper mitigations in schools (respirators, ventilation, HEPA filters) and downplayed transmission risk to children and transmission in schools.
This forced an #InfectionMandate on the non-consenting children of BC.
While this #InfectionMandate ripped through schools, Bonnie Henry carefully studied her unwitting subjects.
From the safety of her home office, she tallied the number of children her policies successfully infected. She watched the sero-prevalence tick higher, with a grin.
2/6
She documented the findings of her grand, population-wide experiment in a preprint and submitted to all the top journals to boost her h-index.
After all, maybe The Lancet will accept the manuscript 🤩.
3/6
Well well well... look who's suddenly trying to get on the right side of history. 👀
I guess we're officially allowed to consider SARS2 as a plausible hypothesis.... Rather than "exclude" it or dismiss it as "unlikely" before serology data was available.
The vast majority of the PH/ID MD COVID minimizers, were/are fervent Airborne-deniers.
They over-emphasized hand hygiene and sowed doubt in masks, HEPA filters and respirators.
I'm sure they were doling out this bad advice to close family and friends too.
1/5
I'm sure they were following this advice in their own lives. Shunning HEPA filters and respirators for gaping surgical masks.
Given this, how many of them likely got infected? How many times? How many onward transmissions did they fail to stop to and amongst family/friends?
2/5
How does one grapple with this? What do you tell yourself, your family, your friends who are anxious about their infection?
You contrive 2 truths: 1) Infection is inevitable 2) Infection is harmless
You then repeatedly state those truths, to reassure yourself and them.
3/5