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
Mark Ungrin Profile picture
Mark Ungrin
@Mark_Ungrin
Parent. Interdisciplinary biomedical researcher. Hardline scientist. Faculty. New platforms and real-world impact. https://t.co/KLmUBFsXDW
Nov 14, 2024 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
@dsoq @PeoplesCDC "Narrative A" in the Isolation draft depends almost entirely (looks like >97%?) on the Radonovich 2019 and Loeb 2009 studies, which were intermittent-use trials (e.g. participants put the N95 on 👉after being exposed👈) - and they wonder why scientists don't take them seriously. Image @dsoq @PeoplesCDC This is the problem with the mindless embrace of "Evidence Based Medicine" by public health. 👉EBM is not rigorous👈. The entire foundation for "Narrative A" is "we don't know how to use PPE and we don't want to learn, therefore it won't work".

Sloppy thinking, sloppy product.
Sep 24, 2024 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
@moss_sphagnum @PeteUK7 The study showed noninferiority of wooly hats under an intermittent-use protocol, with workers donning their hardhats when within three feet of a falling object. Experts attempting to educate IPC leads in use of PPE were drowned out by shouts of "pragmatic!" and "gold standard!" @moss_sphagnum @PeteUK7 Initial results showed inferiority of wooly hats when exposed to falling objects on the jobsite.

The study was then relocated to an earthquake zone where participants were struck by falling debris in the community.

Injuries were not affected by the type of hat not being worn.
Sep 18, 2024 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
I want to highlight a story from May 2020 that really hammers home the mismanagement of the pandemic by public health and infection control leaders.

Nursing home in Montreal, COVID everywhere, staff sick, people dying. It killed a significant proportion of the people there. Image Why did this happen? The employer was denying N95s, denying testing. Not even properly isolating infected residents, and no one paying attention to ventilation either.

This sounds like:
1) homicidal stupidity
2) what IPAC is currently doing in most hospitals Image
Sep 11, 2024 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
@EvonneTCurran Evidence Based Medicine. It isn't just that EBM has subjective methodological preferences that override research rigour. It's that belief in EBM as "how science works" is *inherently incompatible with rigour*.

It's like believing 2+2 can be 5 if the right people say it is. If... @EvonneTCurran ...you train someone to believe that, you haven't just misled them about the outcome of that specific calculation. To get them there, you'd have had to destroy their connection to the logic of mathematics. You couldn't trust any calculation they did after that.

When used...
Sep 5, 2024 • 27 tweets • 12 min read
This is just the tip of the iceberg of Russian manipulation in Canadian politics.

Pay attention to which politicians *don't* want it looked into, and ask yourself why that might be...and whether their wealth is consistent with their income.

mapleridgenews.com/news/former-la…

Image Canada doesn't have just a peripheral role here either. Support for Ukraine - and the influence to spread that support - likely made replacing Canada's government with a friendlier one a priority for Russia. It actually looks like TENET got its start here:
tennessean.com/story/news/cri…
Aug 25, 2024 • 12 tweets • 4 min read
@globeandmail Because our public health leaders are completely out of their depth, and care more about covering up their own incompetence than doing their jobs.

Because an MD is not a PhD, and letting cosplay scientists exclude real ones is not an effective way to handle a science problem. @globeandmail Because medical politics is a toxic, authoritarian tar pit that selects for the worst members of the profession, and gives them control over their betters.

Because a "Thin White Line" mentality means outside criticism of pseudoscientific medical guidance is ignored.
Jul 9, 2024 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
Just updated our preprint assessing the 2022 study that claimed medical masks to be noninferior to N95s for COVID. In addition to issues identified previously, a closer examination of the data revealed unexpected patterns unlikely to occur in nature: osf.io/preprints/meta…
Image A big thanks to my co-authors, @sameo416 @JuliaMWrightDal @jmcrookston @GosiaGasperoPhD @DFisman and Corinna Nielson. The study we examined has been described as "gold standard" and "best available evidence", calling into question the rigour of EBM guidance development processes.
Apr 21, 2024 • 9 tweets • 5 min read
Additional observations on the WHO terminology document (🧵)

1) The Technical Consulting Group provided input, but the document was actually written by "the WHO Secretariat" - Dr. van Kerkhove (long-time airborne spread denier, see link - huge COI) & co.


Image
Image 2) When the consultation was started under Dr. Swaminathan, there was a process for selecting TCG members. I and others would argue the whole thing was unnecessary, WHO (including Dr. Kerkhove) just needed to admit their mistakes, but at least it wasn't all just backroom deals. Image
Apr 16, 2024 • 16 tweets • 5 min read
In preparation for WHO's latest attempt to obfuscate the fact that #COVIDIsAirborne please take a moment to look through this.

Be ready to contrast it with what WHO releases on April 18th.

That's all you need to know about the pandemic, right there. 🫠
iris.who.int/handle/10665/3… I'm serious BTW. This is an example of what a good-faith process can produce.

It's from the ARIA group co-chaired by Dr Morawaska - the one WHO ignored in 2020.

The one coming out on the 18th is from a process controlled by the people who ignored her.

Put them side by side.
Mar 13, 2024 • 6 tweets • 3 min read
If you're in Canada and you're not clear on just how early our cowboy IPAC muppets screwed us by removing airborne COVID precautions...there are some clues here.

HCW unions had it right from day 1. IPAC & PH ignored them. If you have #LongCovid - blame them.

February 7th, 2020: Image It looks like just over two weeks later, the Cowboy IPAC Muppets (good name for a band, less so for the people who made us all sick) started campaigning to do the opposite.

HCW unions were right, IPAC decided to show them who's boss.

Started in Scarborough HN, looks like. Image
Feb 27, 2024 • 6 tweets • 5 min read
This appears to be the *current* (since 2017) PHAC guidance on "Routine practices and additional precautions for preventing the transmission of infection in healthcare settings". Maybe save a copy before the usual suspects try to delete it...

canada.ca/en/public-heal…



Image
Image
Image
Image It explicitly requires respirators for airborne pathogens (and the same page explicitly defines airborne transmission as inhalation of aerosols).

Again, this is the *current* (since 2017) PHAC guidance - and Public Health and IPAC are violating it!
Image
Image
Feb 8, 2024 • 14 tweets • 5 min read
@RFantinatto There are two distinct components of the anti-science. There's a boring, garden variety that has numbers, but there's a more interesting one that reflects the growing split between science and the "leadership" tiers of medicine.

Basically, a lot of what passes for science in... @RFantinatto ..medicine, isn't. Influence within the medical bureaucracy is gained by playing the role of scientific authorities to fellow MDs. A lack of advanced research training can be overcome by taking advantage of EBM chauvinism to erase real experts.

Jan 28, 2024 • 18 tweets • 6 min read
I do not understand ID docs celebrating yet another demonstration that they and their colleagues lack the ability to institute proper respiratory protection programs. It's like people who don't use soap flexing about how they stopped handwashing and infections didn't get worse.🤷 It's also pretty disturbing how easily the professional bodies go along with these constant attempts to manipulate pubic perception, in line with significant COIs. What's the closest we've got to a good-faith attempt at using standards-compliant PPE (N95+) in a Canadian hospital?
Dec 31, 2023 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
@mvankerkhove @WHO 🧵 A lot of good thoughts in there. But…

…all those words, and not one of them was "airborne" or "aerosol". That's not a mistake anymore, that's a choice. Your words about learning from errors ring hollow when you choose obfuscation over clarity, harm over prevention, and… @mvankerkhove @WHO …protecting the medical bureaucracy over protecting people.

With your reach, what are the odds that the public education and legitimacy just from you saying "airborne" here would have saved at least one life? Ten? Hundreds?

I'd say pretty high. Can you honestly disagree? Yet…
Dec 4, 2023 • 14 tweets • 5 min read
Happy to announce that our long-awaited preprint is up!

We assessed shortcomings in the Loeb (2022) clinical trial paper that reported medical masks to be noninferior to N95s for COVID prevention.

It's a long read, but we hope you'll find it educational. The failure to immediately recognize the urgent need to control airborne spread of COVID-19, including use of adequate personal protective equipment for an airborne pathogen, represents a major medical error that cost “an enormous number of lives”. Made in the face of significant scientific evidence and a clear requirement to adhere to a precautionary approach, it has still not been fully remedied. To understand the substantial, ongoing gap between science and policy, we carried out an in-depth investigation of an illustrative publication authored by prominent authorities in the fields of P... As usual for a preprint, it's extra important to look at the evidence and not just accept the conclusions. Our analysis is easy to repeat. Please do the same for any criticisms - look for the substance, call out handwaving and appeals to authority.

Link: osf.io/preprints/meta…
Nov 2, 2023 • 6 tweets • 3 min read
This is the dam breaking. Even if they somehow shove this particular bit of toothpaste back in the tube, COVID's denial era is over. Any hospital, school board etc HR or legal department not freaking out over who's holding the bag is asleep at the wheel.

Linked thread so it shows up in preview - medical officers of health, this one's for you:
Oct 17, 2023 • 9 tweets • 4 min read
OK, here's an absolutely damning indictment of the failure to act on the knowledge that COVID is airborne as of July 2020. Start here, look at the list of recipients, and then start reading.

originsearch.io/pdf_viewer.htm…
Image Image
Oct 16, 2023 • 9 tweets • 4 min read
@IPACCanada There are several good reasons why the scientific community doesn't take you seriously anymore, but the intersection of Dunning-Kruger with "professional collusion" (see: Gosport inquiry) is definitely right up near the top. Image @IPACCanada In case anyone needs the reference, it's here. Excellent paper. The world would be a better place if more people read it - especially those in the medical profession starting to realize something 's not quite right.

The culture of medicine is broken.

doi.org/10.1080/136698…
Image
Oct 6, 2023 • 11 tweets • 4 min read
More goodness from the SARS Commission 20 years ago that could have been written yesterday, showing that public health and infection control are inherently dysfunctional.

Also local MOH may want to check if the last bit applies to them (because you can bet the rest of us will). Image From here archives.gov.on.ca/en/e_records/s…
Oct 4, 2023 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
The British Medical Association's opening statement in the UK COVID inquiry. Well worth reading, and contrasting with the spineless Canadian medical associations, who seem more interested in promoting the power of their leaders than protecting members.

bma.org.uk/advice-and-sup… Image
Sep 19, 2023 • 18 tweets • 8 min read
We need to start estimating the approximate death toll attributable to specific failures (for example WHO refusal to take airborne spread seriously) and rolling out criminal charges against individuals.

26 million dead is well into crimes-against-humanity territory. For example, it's great that WHO's Chief Scientist has recognized what happened and that it killed people. But now we need to see some accountability.

How many is "an enormous number of lives", roughly speaking?

Who, specifically, is responsible?