Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Lazarus Long Profile picture
@LazarusLong13
Dec 20, 2024 • 13 tweets • 5 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
Not sure what is going on with @HealthcareGlob1 - they sure seem to have it out for @NukitToBeSure.

They blocked me after I pointed out that they were incorrect. I could care less about being blocked.

I do care they did not address the issues I raised. 🧵
They retweeted this tweet from DisabledDoctor, which has numerous issues.

1. FARUVC has been safely
& extensively tested on the eyes. There are a rather large number of studies on the topic.

2. FARUVC will not cause AQ issues, besides a Yup. Not even considering the fact that she recommends using her far-UV devices in ways that are possibly unsafe (pointed at face as they are untested on eyes and in poorly ventilated indoor spaces where it is likely it will cause air quality issues leading to or exacerbating respiratory problems). She's harming vulnerable people while profiting off of them and she seems to give no fucks while somehow managing to get people to aggressively support her when she is (fairly) criticized. She's a master manipulator 8:08 AM 11 Sep 29, 2024 7,975 Views
negligible amount of ozone.

But that's not me saying that, but the studies. Two studies in well sealed rooms - about 5 parts per billion, 5 ppb.

If you are in a well sealed room, you would want that window cracked, anyway, right?

If not, and you are In summary, the two published measurements of far-UVC associated ozone in real-world settings, both around 5 ppb, are likely to be upper limits in terms of real-life far-UVC usage; this is both because of the far-UVC doses used in the studies, but also because both rooms were comparatively well sealed (respectively 0.4 and 1.4 ACH, see Table 1), whereas far-UVC will predominantly be used in public indoor spaces, which typically feature higher air-exchange rates.18 Overall it is reasonable to assume that far-UVC-associated ozone levels in real-life settings are extremely unlikely to exceed 1...
gobbling a quick bite in an airport, not a problem, anyway, (I will only be doing a sipmask and shakes, myself) - the ozone will dissipate.

Guess what gobbles ozone? VOC carbon filters. Hit my account plus MEGA VOC to find the build.

But 5 ppb? I am not worried about it.
But, IS 5 ppb a risk?

No risk as low as 10 ppb per this study...and we are 5 ppb below that, with ways to mitigate even that. In summary, based on multiple very large epidemiological studies focusing on the relationship between outdoor ozone concentration and long-term human health, there is no significant evidence for increased ozone risks at ozone concentrations as low as 10 ppb, and there is persuasive evidence for a threshold in risk at ozone exposures below about 35–50 ppb; this pattern does not change whether or not other associated pollutants are included in the risk estimate. Although far-UVC lamps are not classified as medical devices, the epidemiological results are consistent with current FDA guidelines...
VOCs and ozone? You are right to be concerned - and now not be concerned 👇.

But...cleaning with limonene based cleaners (Citrus King , citrus smelling cleaners probably) ?

Turning off the FARUVC would be a reasonable thing to do.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…Indoors, at the low induced ozone concentrations of relevance here, ozone does not react rapidly enough with preexisting airborne VOCs to compete with even extremely low levels (e.g., 0.1 ACH) of room ventilation, so significant ultrafine particle production via far-UVC-induced ozone is unlikely. Experimental measurements in a real-life hotel room support this conclusion. One specific exception is the cleaning material limonene, which has an unusually high interaction cross-section with ozone; in the far-UVC context, turning off far-UVC lights during cleaning with limonene products would be...
Is Nukit just trying to just make a buck, taking advantage of the vulnerable?

No - lol. They are a huge influencer.

The vulnerable? They are the reason Nukit started w/UVC, to provide Covid free air to the poor jammed into tiny apartments with no room for CR boxes. Indoors, at the low induced ozone concentrations of relevance here, ozone does not react rapidly enough with preexisting airborne VOCs to compete with even extremely low levels (e.g., 0.1 ACH) of room ventilation, so significant ultrafine particle production via far-UVC-induced ozone is unlikely. Experimental measurements in a real-life hotel room support this conclusion. One specific exception is the cleaning material limonene, which has an unusually high interaction cross-section with ozone; in the far-UVC context, turning off far-UVC lights during cleaning with limonene products would be...
Finally, there has been a fair amount of discussion of the picture on the Cybermarket website.

Does it depict closer than 50 cm, which is the safe distance as amply discussed by Nukit?

cybernightmarket.com/products/mini-…Cybermarket 75 cm from faces.
Suggested use: Assuming no more than four hours of use in a single day, and an approximate room size of 9-12m², each lamp should be positioned no closer than 50cm away from a room occupant. The more widely the lamps are spread, the more air volume will be exposed. If there are children or pets present, the lamps should be placed well out of reach. For more information, see: How to use your Nukit Torch Far-UVC Lights
No. It is 75 cm. I DM'd that party.

I am in blue, they are in gray. Unless you are IN your dinner plate with your head, these are about an arm length away from your eyes 10:17 PM 3 feet then? At least 91 cm ? I have some long arms....but I went to be accurate. 10:18 PM Between 2 and 3 feet, so roughly 75cm 10:18 PM Ok, thank you.
Here is more by Nukit.

"... 200nm to 230nm is often described as “eye and skin safe” but is perhaps more accurately described as “safer”. There is still an exposure limit- just much, much higher than with other portions of the UV spectrum." Description: The germicidal properties of ultraviolet light are well established and have been in use for almost 100 years, but that effectiveness has always come at a price- the potential for eye and skin damage. Far-UVC, the portion of the ultraviolet spectrum that ranges from 200nm to 230nm is often described as “eye and skin safe” but is perhaps more accurately described as “safer”. There is still an exposure limit- just much, much higher than with other portions of the UV spectrum.
What are my biases?

I have disagreed with Nukit in the past on a couple of non-technical issues, but these are times fraught with tension.

On the technical issues, I have found them
incredibly knowledgeable, and I very much appreciate their engineering.

Anyone accusing Nukit of endangering others are simply not knowledgeable on the topic.

Do I have a Cybermarket light? No. Do I anticipate getting one? Maybe in the future, if they are still available.
I have other projects I am currently interested in.

Am I an expert in FARUVC? No, but I can sure read a study.

And so can you.

Where can you buy the lights?

Right here:

cybernightmarket.com/products/mini-…

• • •

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

Keep Current with Lazarus Long

Lazarus Long 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 @LazarusLong13

Lazarus Long Profile picture
Mar 16
Now, this is a very interesting PREPRINT.

We've all heard that shingles vaccination reduces risk of Alzheimer's.

And we all know that Covid increases the risk of Alzheimer's by 50-80%.

What happens when you mix them? Will the vaccination offset a different disease?

/1 Opposing effects of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 infection and recombinant zoster vaccination on the risk of late-onset Alzheimer disease View ORCID ProfileCarly M. Rose, Shiying Liu, View ORCID ProfileWilliam S. Bush, Jonathan L. Haines, Scott M. Williams, View ORCID ProfileDana C. Crawford N3C Consortium doi: https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.01.21.26344555 This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
Yes.

But by how much? Conclusions and Relevance SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 infection and recombinant zoster vaccination are modifiable risk factors for LOAD among older individuals, with a modestly significant interaction between the two. Recombinant zoster vaccination reduced LOAD risk regardless of sex and race, though the protection is greater in those without documented COVID-19 infection. Recombinant zoster vaccination and reduced exposure to COVID-19 infection in the later decades of life reduce the risk of developing Alzheimer disease over at least a five-year period.
Useful for below - "Late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD; onset age ≥65)"

"odds of LOAD are 16% higher among those with at least one reported COVID-19 infection" Image
Read 7 tweets
Lazarus Long Profile picture
Mar 3
A doctor complaining about wearing N95s? Thread foreshadow in the gif 👇.

Dr. Sax, you should read this.

The arrogance of medical doctors thinking they know better than the CDC NIOSH and OSHA?

This comes as no surprise.
Imagine if an asbestos worker, or a tech working in BioSafety Lab was complaining about this.

But somehow, doctors making over $200,000 get carte blanche and and a piece in the @NEJM Voices.

And he does have a loud voice.
This is Dr. Sax, Clinical Director, Division of Infectious Diseases (ID), at THE Harvard hospital. In 2014, he wrote about how ID docs only make $174,000.

He probably makes northwards of $269,000.

This is very, very relevant.

You see, he is put out by the inconvenience Image
Read 23 tweets
Lazarus Long Profile picture
Feb 27
From the ZeroCovid sub on Reddit.

How DO we do it?

Hyper vigilance, constant exposure calculations, discussing and taking precautions?

How do I do it?

Quick thread. I would like to hear covid conscious folks opinions on this: I have long covid (mecfs + pots + mcas). I’ve been sick to varying degrees since 2022. My life has been severely affected by this. At this point, I can’t work. I am mostly housebound, recovering slowly but I still have to spend some days in bed. Recovery from this is awful, especially because it’s not widely understood. With all that said. I still feel like, for me, a life full of hyper vigilance, constant exposure calculations, discussing and taking precautions…I can’t do it. I don’t want to live that way. How can I approach t...
I don't do it.

I don't do exposure calculations.

I don't have hyper vigilance.

I am Vax, Mask, and Relax.

For me, it's just a series of habits now. Drive to the wherever, hit parking lot, put on N95. Get out of car. Stays on until I get back into the car.
A new vaccine comes out? I get it.

I go stay in a hotel?

2nd floor Motel 6 with no shared HVAC (has the PTAC) . Open door/windows for one hour until complete air exchange.

Go through a drive through? N95 on before window is rolled down. Drive away? I roll down both to
Read 6 tweets
Lazarus Long Profile picture
Feb 26
After reading a study, and reaching for my phone, if the first thing I do is check to see if I have @'d someone in the past?

That's not a good sign.

I have never @'d them, and this is not directed @ them.

But this IS a debunk thread.

And it starts with who.

/1
Study here. Before you read it?

This thread is about providing context. Read the thread, @SalvMattera's comments, AND THEN, read the study.

0/10 from me.

thelancet.com/journals/lanep…
Who paid for it? The Dutch government - who has been spectacularly almost Tegnell-like in their downplaying of LongCovid and masks.

Lead authors are from RIVM, their CDC.

RIVM was antimask even when they FINALLY recommended masks in OCTOBER 2020.

nltimes.nl/2020/10/03/dut…Image
Image
Read 13 tweets
Lazarus Long Profile picture
Dec 21, 2025
Oh, we are cooked. Just cooked.

"Brain Mitochondrial dysfunction, known for ~20 years is finally recognized as a central upstream driver of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), not just a downstream effect."

And SARS2's targeting of mitochondria is well-known.

Even in the brain.
/1 We identified dysregulation of mitochondrial and synaptic pathways in deep-layer excitatory neurons and upregulation of neuroinflammation in glia, consistent across both mRNA and protein. Remarkably, these alterations overlapped substantially with changes in age-related neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Our work, combining multiple experimental and analytical methods, demonstrates the brain-wide impact of severe acute/subacute COVID-19, involving both cortical and subcortical regions, shedding light on potential therapeutic targets within pat...
@LauraMiers, in case you don't have it.

nature.com/articles/s4358…
@LauraMiers This is yet another reason why I N95.

Read 6 tweets
Lazarus Long Profile picture
Dec 17, 2025
@neiljshaw - — a few tips on your excellent article from a clean air advocate

"Consider Wearing a Mask" ?

No, "It is incredibly important to wear a well-fitting mask such as a N95, KN95, or KF94, for the best protection."

You two are doing Image
public health with this article.

Public health is best done with simple clear instructions.

No:
"These masks act as a barrier, reducing the spread of respiratory droplets when people talk, sneeze or cough."

Yes:
"These masks act as a HEPA air cleaner for the face,
cleaning the air of respiratory aerosols when people breathe, talk, sneeze or cough."

The barrier carries the idea of an immovable wall. Unable to be penetrated by things like oxygen and CO2 - which feeds antimaskers.

As an who debunks antimaskers, it is
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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(