It’s airborne
LightNews LightNews
banner
its-airborne.bsky.social
It’s airborne
@its-airborne.bsky.social
1.4K followers 110 following 35 posts
Keeping track of the airborne/aerosol Covid19 etc transmission facts so that the judicial inquiries can't ignore the fomites/droplets lies https://its-airborne.org/
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by It’s airborne
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Separate from the need to retract the study, please also look into why the poor quality of review #1 wasn't caught. It seems to have been written by an LLM, and if it's not then it's someone totally unqualified to review.

Either way, not something you want the Springer-Nature brand associated with.
mark-ungrin.bsky.social Mark Ungrin @mark-ungrin.bsky.social · Apr 3
The reviews themselves were the most ludicrous feedback I have ever received on anything in my career. Reviewer #1 appears likely to be an LLM, based on the fragmented logic and general incoherence (see full text below). The rebuttal letter and detailed response to reviews are as follows:
Rebuttal Dear Dr. Tschudin Sutter We rebut the individual points raised by the reviewers on the following pages (text in red). Having initially raising this issue with Springer-Nature in a submission largely identical to the final manuscript reviewed here February 7th, 2024, we are disappointed that your response does not reflect commitments made by Springer Nature to publicly address this issue. After several months’ consideration, on May 22nd, 2024 we received correspondence from your colleague Mr. Scott-Oliver indicating (underline inserted for emphasis): “The Editors-in-Chiefs recognise the validity of the concerns that were raised and believe that there is a need for them to be aired publicly. However, they also feel that it is important to grant the original authors the right to respond publicly; they may wish to subsequently publish a correction, updating their article in light of the discussion. If you wish to submit your original letter, then it will undergo the normal peerreview process. The editors will endeavour to invite relevant experts who are best placed to assess the issue.” Your subsequent outright rejection of even publishing these well-substantiated criticisms (confirmed as valid by reviewer #2) is not consistent with these commitments. The inadequate and in many cases unprofessional comments by Reviewer #1 raise the question of whether a decision had been taken to shield the original publication from criticism from the start. This concern is amplified by the delays involved, with the single round of review that produced this superficial examination taking over six months, and the reviewers clearly lacked essential expertise on the central question of air-flow resistance that is at the heart of the fatal flaws in the original study. We are further disturbed by the fact that no attempt appears to have been made to reconcile the incompatible positions of the two reviewers. Detailed response to reviewer comments: Reviewer 1 General comments This study by Tong et al had an appropriate rationale and study objective and ethical review. The study population was well defined, with appropriate eligibility criteria specified. The measurements were well conducted as was the analysis. The authors were careful about inferences. The authors justify use of the Hans Rudolf mask and acknowledge the limitations. Importantly, the authors are cautious about the interpretation of their results. Mark Ungrin and Conor Ruzycki request a retraction of this paper. In doing so, they should be able to truly demonstrate a fatal flaw in the internal validity of the study. However, they have not. The central question of the study related to the impacts of breathing resistance on participants. The study was carried out under conditions which increase breathing resistance by a factor of more than 10-fold over conditions of real-world relevance, without the authors even realizing this basic error. This introduces an irremediably large and obvious bias into the study. The fatal flaw is self-evident. Specific comments 1. Ungrin and Ruzycki say they are “writing regarding a fatally flawed study published in Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control that has resulted in significant and dangerous misinformation circulating during the pandemic”. This is an inaccurate statement that is not supported by evidence. Recitation of an unsupported opinion is neither constructive, nor reflective of the minimal level of rigour expected in scientific discourse. While a coherent counterargument to the rationale and evidence we provided might possibly exist, no such position is presented. The overall level of this review is sufficiently poor and lacking in scientific merit that we suggest the editor consider whether it may be a product of generative AI (Large Language Model – LLM). 5. They say “The relationship between airflow (in, e.g., units of L/min) and this resistance depends on the flow velocity (in, e.g., units of m/s) of the inhaled and exhaled gases as they travel through the respirator material. Second, conservation of mass necessitates that for a given volumetric flow rate, the velocity is inversely proportional to the surface area – halving the surface area, for example, doubles the velocity. At relevant airflow rates for real-world respirator use, resistance is approximately linearly proportional to flow velocity, and therefore inversely proportional to surface area. Limiting breathing to a sufficiently small area of any material will “impede gaseous exchange” and increase breathing effort by greatly increasing the resistance at a given flowrate, while use of a sufficiently large area of any permeable material will not.” This elaboration of “fundamental concepts” does not render the study or its inferences invalid. Ungrin and Ruzycki have not demonstrated any methodologic flaws in the study. The reviewer appears to be dismissing the relevance of basic physics in a clinical setting. The aforementioned fundamental concepts provide the demonstration of the methodologic flaws in the study. It is not clear how this comment can be interpreted as having been written in good faith by anyone with the minimal level of scientific understanding and subject matter expertise necessary to accept a role in reviewing our submission. The claim is irrational, consistent with the review being potentially AI-generated, and calls into question the Editor’s commitment to an appropriate level of rigour in this process. 11.9). The order-of-magnitude error by the original authors renders the comparatively trivial uncertainty around the measurements here irrelevant. This simply is not a legitimate criticism – further it is unclear how anyone could possibly mistake it for one. The reviewer’s claim that Tong et al should be congratulated on “conducting this study in participants and not in artificial constructs” and subsequent claims that the methods were appropriate and did not impact the results or implications are also irrational. The conditions tested were undeniably in error by over an order of magnitude. The claim that carrying out a study in participants is somehow able to erase such an error reveals a lack of familiarity with scientific rigour. The Editor’s decision to accept a review inconsistent with such basic scientific precepts once again draws the integrity of the process into question. 7. They say that the stated findings and conclusions have no relevance to real-world use. This statement is false. It is evident that manipulation of the device was required to obtain the needed measurements. The study was done in real-life participants using measurements done in real time. The findings have implications for use. This study purported to examine the impacts of N95 breathing resistance on participants. Data was collected in a system providing breathing resistance over an order of magnitude greater than the real-world conditions the authors erroneously believed they were simulating. We understand the relevant Singapore standards accept the NIOSH 42 CFR part 84 standard to which the 3M 1860 & 1860s are tested, which specifies a maximum inhalation resistance of 35 mm H2O at 85+/-2 LPM flow across “a complete particulate respirator”. The 3M 1860 exhibits inhalation resistance of ~10 mm H2O under those test conditions. The reduction in surface area of over an order of magnitude in the trial by Tong et al means pregnant participants were subjected to breathing resistances on the o…
April 4, 2025 at 11:38 AM
Reposted by It’s airborne
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Looking forward to seeing some action on it. The one good thing about this example is that there really is no way to justify how unserious it is.

Particularly as the misinformation is a direct danger to human health, there's significant public interest in a thorough review and urgent retraction.
April 4, 2025 at 10:05 AM
Reposted by It’s airborne
blakemurdoch.bsky.social
Hi, I have an important article out tomorrow, please stay tuned. Just getting my profile going on blue sky. Can you help amplify?
@mark-ungrin.bsky.social @amandalhu.bsky.social @realnosferatu.bsky.social @dfisman.bsky.social @davidjoffe64.bsky.social @jvipondmd.bsky.social @barryhunt008.bsky.social
March 10, 2025 at 8:04 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
its-airborne.org/2020/March was updated to refer to the Petri dish visualizaion of droplet transmission of bacterial infections (@1goodtern.bsky.social insight)
February 25, 2025 at 4:05 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Yep, it is annoying that the A or B narrative today EXCLUDES keep schools open but urgently do improvised fresh air and air cleaning/filtration tricks until more permanent installations can make them safe long term.
walkerbragman.bsky.social Walker Bragman @walkerbragman.bsky.social · Feb 13
Hey, @davidfrum.bsky.social, here’s an idea:

COVID deniers won because folks with cushy jobs at publications like The Atlantic were extremely quick to join right-wing dark money groups and their fringe scientists in demanding we abandon nonpharmaceutical interventions and layered protection.
David Frum editorial in The Atlantic titled “Why the COVID Deniers Won.” Tweet from David Frum from December 12, 2021: Seems the best option is 1) Keep encouraging vaccines and boosters; 2) Impose vaccine mandates where it can be done; 3) Otherwise return to normal as fully as we can, especially the schools; and 4) Let hospitals quietly triage emergency care to serve the unvaccinated last
February 21, 2025 at 7:17 AM
its-airborne.bsky.social
I asked claude.ai to come up with an reality tree for Tern's insightful understanding as to how pandemic handling went wrong and got this mermaid.live/edit#pako:eN...
February 17, 2025 at 9:35 PM
Reposted by It’s airborne
toshiakima.bsky.social
The Central Error of the Pandemic…

Is that of running pandemic management by laissez-faire socioeconomic principles.

If you grasp this, all the other errors fall into place as the inevitable consequence of following that line of thought. 🧵 1/x
November 4, 2023 at 11:33 AM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Grok2 on why the WHO lied
why did the WHO lie about the airborne nature of covid19? 15 posts 15 web pages The World Health Organization (WHO) faced significant criticism and scrutiny regarding its initial stance on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly with respect to the airborne nature of the virus. Here are several key points that explain why the WHO's response might have been perceived as misleading or slow: Historical Precedents and Paradigms: The reluctance to acknowledge airborne transmission can be traced back to historical paradigms in medicine. For much of the 20th century, there was resistance to the idea of airborne transmission due to the dominance of the droplet model, which was influenced by early 20th-century public health official Charles Chapin's views against miasma theory. This historical skepticism towards airborne pathogens as a primary transmission route led to a bias in how diseases were studied and understood. Scientific Rigor and Evidence Gathering: The WHO initially required what they considered robust scientific evidence before officially recognizing a transmission mode like airborne transmission. This was partly because labeling a disease as "airborne" has specific implications for infection control, including the need for high-grade personal protective equipment (PPE) and specialized ventilation systems in healthcare settings. The lack of definitive evidence at the early stages of the pandemic, particularly in terms of viable virus detection in aerosols, contributed to the delay in acknowledgment.
December 12, 2024 at 7:20 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
I asked grok2 about billionaire motivations for not doing ventilation and air-filter work
What is the billionaire rationale for not doing airborne mitigations to greatly slow covid transmission? Why is mass disability and illness preferable to ventilation work and the additional air-filters/cleaners in businesses? 1 post 15 web pages The rationale behind not implementing extensive airborne mitigations in commercial spaces by billionaires and corporations involves multiple economic, operational, and ideological considerations: Economic Impact: Cost-Benefit Analysis: The primary rationale often cited involves the cost of upgrading ventilation systems or installing advanced air filtration systems. These upgrades can be expensive, and some businesses might see the return on investment as low, especially if they perceive the direct threat of illness to their operations as diminished or under control. The financial burden of retrofitting existing buildings with better ventilation systems might not seem justified when weighed against perceived benefits, especially post-acute phases of pandemics.
December 12, 2024 at 7:16 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Any formula for average per infection QALY losses yet?

Say, 1.5% loss at age 20 per infection rising to 8% at age 70?

Is it QALYs or DALYS of something that conveys the message to ordinatly people? - including earlier death for some.
December 9, 2024 at 10:06 AM
its-airborne.bsky.social
ChatGPT doesn't think there are polarized positions around C19's mechanism of transmission, only severity/risk, public health measures, vaccination, trust in sci & authorities, and origin.
November 24, 2024 at 6:46 AM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Anyone interested in helping build NotMild.org.

I was told the idea was to be able to:

1. verbally say "Not mild dot org has the details"
2. or print a card, telling a person to go to it
3. or link to it from social media.

Cos social media should be all that we do.
NotMild.org
November 9, 2024 at 4:42 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
How far away is a treatment for active covid that's ubiquitous and wholly preventative of a) serious cardiovascular and cerebrovascular damage, b) hindering CD4/CD8 function for months, c) the 300 or so long covid symptoms?

1-5 years

5-10

10 +
November 8, 2024 at 2:30 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
OK, v7. Groups #3 and #4 need snappy names. I need MD and medical science collaborators here.

The reason this is important is that 'the unaware' think their risk of #1 and #2 is minimal. They've been persuaded their fitness will make their C19 infection mild and firmly in their past.
October 10, 2023 at 11:51 AM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Version 6. Groups #3 and #4 need names
September 25, 2023 at 9:25 PM
Reposted by It’s airborne
thev.bsky.social
UK Health Lead: The Next Time We Have A Pandemic, We’re
Just Going To Let Everyone Die.
A middle aged woman squints at the sky in front of some big buildings. Headline: UK Health Lead: The Next Time We Have A Pandemic, We’re Just Going To Let Everyone Die. Story by Si Coe and Harry Jennis
September 25, 2023 at 10:01 AM
its-airborne.bsky.social
So good…
thev.bsky.social The Vertlartnic @thev.bsky.social · Sep 24
BREAKING: Confusion Among The Coalition To Spread Covid As Members Can’t Remember If They’re Supposed To Pretend Covid Infection Is Safe Or Genuinely Think Covid Infection Is Safe.
A dog looks confused Headline: BREAKING: Confusion Among The Coalition To Spread Covid As Members Can’t Remember If They’re Supposed To Pretend Covid Infection Is Safe Or Genuinely Think Covid Infection Is Safe. Story by Tinky Weasel and Vic Thunderbug Photo: https://unsplash.com/photos/MjKUUaYQQ6U
September 24, 2023 at 12:22 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Version 5 with new column "As it appears to others"
September 21, 2023 at 12:01 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
An attempt to group Covid19 outcomes. Version 4, as it happens.
September 20, 2023 at 8:55 PM