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
☣️CHALLENGE☣️
On behalf of the entire #COVIDisAirborne community I once more challenge all proponents of the droplet [i.e. ballistic / splash] mode of transmission to provide ANY proof of this MOT, for our online consideration please
When you Q ANY 'expert' witness please ask the following to assess for bias &/or COI
'When did you first recognise that SARS2 was importantly transmitted via the airborne (via infectious aerosol inhalation) route & what data informed this view'
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. 'Failure to prepare adequately for a range of pandemic threats'
'One consequence of the predominant focus on an influenza-style pandemic was that the UK's response to Covid-19 failed to properly consider the potential for aerosol transmission of the virus'
The fact that key opinion leaders at WHO, CDC etc energetically devoted themselves to advertising a never proven & obviously flawed hypothesis of predominant large droplet & fomite transmission, yet as early as Apr 2020 my then 9yo kids knew SARS2 was airborne, is mind boggling
The fact that many scientists far greater than me have, since Apr 2020, energetically devoted themselves - free of charge - to trying to counter this false narrative AND YET WERE PERSISTENTLY IGNORED &/OR SHOUTED DOWN, is mind boggling
Aerosol transmission - fine droplets of liquid containing virus are breathed out, form an aerosol & are carried through the air. You may become infected if you breathe these in'
/1
Anyone interested in accountability for countless harms following still ongoing anti-reality IPC measures?
This June 2020 document has a nice authorship evidence trail of who in 🇬🇧 leadership could & should have done better at communicating the risks of airborne SARS2
/2
From an expert on wordplay, Tom Jefferson, this is good
Use of the word ‘exactly’ allows the suggestion that our knowledge of respiratory viral biology is so lacking in detail that we can’t define & deliver transmission preventative measures
No cardiac electrophysiologist knows *exactly* why any individual patient gets AF (a rhythm disturbance typically causing lifestyle limiting symptoms & conferring a >> risk of stroke - risk varies)
Therefore, I should get another job, where there are no such unknowns
But if I do take the bold step to recommend & perform AF ablation (a fabulous Rx when it works, which is most of the time, but never subject to placebo-controlled RCT), I don’t know *exactly* what each radiofrequency energy delivery is doing…
In the face of negligent leadership leading to hundreds of preventable deaths EVERY WEEK, I would like to share a story of how, against the odds, a dedicated team of NHS professionals once tried to save a single life 🧵
It was ~15y ago & I was a registrar on call for cardiology
A consultant at a neighbouring hospital called me to explain that he had a lady whose heart was being compressed by a blood clot in the pericardial space (the sac around the heart)
Her BP was very low, & dropping
He said he couldn’t drain the clot & had put her in an ambulance for emergency transfer, with an anaesthetist: he thought she needed urgent surgery
(When the heart is compressed like this it doesn’t properly fill with blood; it’s incompatible with life)
🚨Two new FOIA rejections: public interest disclosure
@beisgovuk 'Working safely during COVID19' guidance
10 Jul 2020
Increased risk of AEROSOL TRANSMISSION likely from 'people needing to unduly raise their voices to each other'
Q: Source data please?
A: 'No'
@beisgovuk 'Working safely during COVID19' guidance
22 Jun 2021
'Section 6.1 PPE
COVID-19 is a different type of risk to the risks you normally face in a workplace. You do not need to manage this risk by using PPE.’
Is the juxtaposition of these requests (#31966 & 31967) - one seeking data underlying @beisgovuk affirmation of aerosol transmission risk & the other requesting the data which 12 months later effectively (& erroneously) refuted this workplace risk - the reason for rejection?