Thread by @DRTomlinsonEP

In science, as in life, the most interesting details & surprises often come from secrets; what's never seen the light of day

I think now's the right time for one such 'secret' to be revealed

It concerns @WHO teams, & the word 'airborne'

#COVIDisAirborne
/🧵

CONTEXT

Cast your mind back to 2021

We're in ongoing #COVIDisAirborne denial

☣️WHO 'It's NOT airborne' tweet Mar 2020
✅Pushback from aerosol scientists July 2020
☣️WHO reactionary COVID19 IPC work of bias fiction, July 2020, denying airborne transmission beyond AGPs

/2

Mar 2021: WHO 'Living Systematic Review' is lauded as THE ANSWER

Heneghan, Conly, Jefferson et al conclude:

'The lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS2 prevents firm conclusions from being drawn about airborne transmission'

🙃

/3

f1000research.com/articles/10-232

But reviewers disagreed

😇

So what's an embattled WHO IPC team gonna do when their own research has been 'outed' as importantly biased? In plain sight & irrefutably demonstrated to be flawed?

What would a cornered, dangerous creature do: give up, or fight?

/4

THEY CHOSE TO FIGHT

Better sit down; it's unbelievable

It involves VIPs at WHO; some are on twitter

Nathan Ford, Chair, Guidelines Review Committee
@mvankerkhove
@allegranzib
April Baller
Lisa Askie

On behalf of WHO Rapid Review Group for COVID19

/5

THEIR WEAPON?

This manuscript, describing the use of the word 'airborne'

I'll let you read the abstract, discussion & conclusions first & then make a few observations

Remember, this has NOT been published

/6

THEIR CONCLUSIONS

'There is no common or agreed definition of airborne transmission of SARS-Cov-2, & no definitive foundational references for how it is described in the literature. Our collation of definitions/descriptions provides the basis for future discussions.'

😲

/7

PUT ANOTHER WAY

Headmistress WHO has looked at how sloppy you scientists are, daring to use slightly different words to describe this 'airborne thing'

We think this is clear evidence that the word 'airborne' is so untrustworthy as to render its use invalid

/8

The flaws in their suggestions are obvious:

1. Transmission study authors weren't aware that their 'work was going to be marked' by stern headmistress WHO, requiring each & every study daring to investigate the airborne transmission route to use exactly the same words...

/9

..as everyone else before & after - a recipe for variable terminology, but no less valid for this

2. What is being described here is - in part - a succession of continuous variables - ie expelled respiratory particle size, distance travelled, time aloft. Try describing..

/10

..that using exactly the same words each & every time. Even the same research group would struggle to do this when unaware that their work was going to be 'marked down' on this point at a later date by headmistress WHO

/11

3. It's such a pity that different research teams try to go it alone & free themselves up from nasty reviewer suggestions of plagiarism when describing their study methods isn't it? Again, this is an instinct of researchers, to tinker with the words...

/12

...& it clearly does not indicate that the study findings are any less valid. Rather, study validity is determined by the measurement methods. Words can be used in an interchangeable manner & still represent a valid, meaningful & scientifically suitable description...

/13

... of the objective natire of reality. In contrast, pipettes can be used incorrectly. So words themselves are not a scientific method & should not be judged in this manner!

/14

4. The world now understands that respiratory viruses are transmitted via the airborne route. The world doesn't need to be told that they have no right to think this for the simple fact that different study teams have used slightly different words & references...

/15

...to describe what's going on: the movement of a pathogen from one human's respiratory tract to another, through the air

I'm sure on this short sentence I epically fail to describe this physical phenomenon with sufficient validity for headmistress WHO...

/16

... so everything I might now have to say on the matter should be ignored

Literally, this is carte blanche for WHO to decide what they like & dislike & to completely re-write history

/17

So as for the conclusion, I hope we can agree that this is a very dark & dangerous road WHO teams are trying to lead us down

'You can't use the word airborne 'cos we say so'

Thought control 101

/18

I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP

I have the entire manuscript: it has never seen the light of day because it was blocked at peer review

Sadly, #PeerReview that was not of the #OpenScience kind seen in F1000

Plus there's this illuminating twitter exchange with @doctorsoumya ...

/19

This also involved @gabbystern banging the 'we need better terminology' drum, too

/20

https://twitter.com/gabbystern/status/1461367048408207372?s=20&t=TlAwxDKrVwF56v1-z8PYXg

I believe we killed off any suggestion that there was any confusion in terminology, in response here? cc @MackayIM

/21

https://twitter.com/DRTomlinsonEP/status/1461394605073702916?s=20&t=TlAwxDKrVwF56v1-z8PYXg

TO CONCLUDE

WHO IPC teams are behaving like a wounded animal

☣️ Misinformation tweet not redacted
☣️ Multiple attempts to misrepresent the observable nature of reality are refuted
☣️ & NOW THEY JUST TRIED TO LAY CLAIM TO THE WORD 'AIRBORNE' & THROW IT OUT OF THE DICTIONARY

/22

There's much more to say but I'll leave it at this:

Is the world's health safe in these people's hands?

Can we trust them to tell the truth?

Can we trust them to lead with honesty & integrity?

#COVIDisAirborne

End

Surprise PS

I received a DM in response to this thread

@WHO authors are shopping round & submitted the manuscript to another journal; rejected at peer review last week

Manuscript I saw was submitted Sept 2021: clearly v keen to push the ‘airborne is a dirty word’ narrative