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
its-airborne.bsky.social
We can look back and say this is obvious now, but what would a multi-discipline team have come up with if dedicated to it from Feb 2020. e.g. diverse-skilled people pulled off day jobs, Zoom collaborating (or co-located in N95s) and told to aim for cheap mass producible without a dependence on China
February 25, 2025 at 4:05 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Also C-R box innovations that would kick off later - ADDED to diagram
February 25, 2025 at 4:05 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
We also didn't chart Corsi-Rosenthal boxes. That garage industry kicked off in 2022. It is reasonable to expect that engineer-involved think-tanks would have invented them in 2020 if asked to by government

We also didn't chart commercial or retain free-standing air cleaning devices, which did exist
February 17, 2025 at 9:43 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
We got the MDs not taught airborne transmission (they focus on fomites and droplets (we're labeling these as THEIR primary and secondary routes).

We didn't know of the petri-dish easy visualization of droplets.
February 17, 2025 at 9:43 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Tern had insights that were new to me - on modern MD education.

Back in 2021, multiple people contributed to its-airborne.org/2020/March. This reality tree tried to back-create a March 2020 rationale, but missed "WHO is stacked with MDs with other sciences and engineering missing"
March 2020 Reality Tree | It's Airborne!
Evidence for the aerosol nature of COVID-19 transmission
its-airborne.org
February 17, 2025 at 9:43 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Using Tern's chain of logic again, Claude ai can come up with a reality tree that would have been if IPC/WHO and others had not messed up and stopped it like SARS-1 mermaid.live/edit#pako:eN...
February 17, 2025 at 9:43 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
I asked Claude to simplify a little, which leads to: mermaid.live/edit#pako:eN...
February 17, 2025 at 9:43 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Reducing the number of nodes, is one activity toward a diagram that better represents the problematic situation. As would be adding nodes, or changing descriptions.
February 17, 2025 at 9:43 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
The science explained: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current.... Teams would use this process to surface something that indicated a root cause they maybe don't realize yet, and possibly something to address.
Current reality tree (theory of constraints) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
February 17, 2025 at 9:43 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Tern's thread: threadreaderapp.com/thread/18907...
Thread by @1goodtern on Thread Reader App
@1goodtern: I had been baffled for a while by this weird and inaccurate obsession with droplet transmission in healthcare. How could some people in healthcare be so obstinately obsessed with *droplet*...
threadreaderapp.com
February 17, 2025 at 9:43 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
... Consultant Neck ties 2.0
December 13, 2024 at 3:40 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Resource and Policy Implications: Acknowledging that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne would have necessitated significant changes in policy, especially in resource-poor settings where implementing advanced air filtration systems or providing adequate PPE could be challenging. The WHO's hesitance might have been influenced by an awareness of these global disparities in healthcare infrastructure. In summary, the WHO's initial stance on the airborne nature of COVID-19 was likely influenced by a combination of historical scientific paradigms, the need for conclusive evidence, bureaucratic processes, public health communication strategies, external pressures, and the global implications of changing infection control standards. While not necessarily intentional "lying," these factors contributed to a perception of misinformation or delay in acknowledging the airborne transmission of the virus.
December 12, 2024 at 7:20 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Bureaucracy and Decision-Making Process: The WHO's decision-making process involves reviewing vast amounts of research, which can be slow. There were criticisms that the organization might have been overly cautious or bureaucratic in its approach, potentially influenced by the need to coordinate advice with member states and manage public perception. This reluctance to quickly update guidance might have been perceived as misleading. Public Health Communication and Impact: Early on, the WHO's communication emphasized droplet and contact transmission, focusing on hand hygiene and surface cleaning. This was partly because these measures were seen as practical and actionable for the general public. The shift to acknowledging airborne transmission required a change in public health messaging, which could have been disruptive to existing guidelines and might have led to confusion or panic. Pressure from Scientists and Public: The WHO faced pressure from a coalition of scientists who argued for the recognition of airborne transmission early in the pandemic. Despite these efforts, it took time for the organization to adjust its stance officially, leading to accusations of denial or misinformation. The narrative on social media and in public discourse highlighted this perceived delay, contributing to the notion that the WHO "lied."
December 12, 2024 at 7:20 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Denial or Minimization of Long-Term Health Impacts: Long-Term Health vs. Short-Term Gains: There's an argument that the economic model prioritizes short-term gains over long-term health. The preference for not investing in mitigations might reflect a broader societal or corporate acceptance of certain levels of illness and disability as an economic externality rather than a direct cost to be mitigated through infrastructure changes. This can be linked to broader issues of profit maximization where the health costs are externalized, not borne by the businesses directly. Political and Cultural Factors: Ideological Resistance: There's also an ideological component where some might resist government or health authority interventions in business operations, viewing such measures as overreach or economically harmful regulations. This resistance can be influenced by political views that prioritize deregulation and business autonomy over public health mandates. In summary, the preference for not implementing these measures could be seen as an interplay of economic rationale, operational considerations, public health communication failures, and ideological resistance. However, this decision-making process also reflects broader societal values where economic considerations sometimes overshadow public health concerns.
December 12, 2024 at 7:16 PM
its-airborne.bsky.social
Operational Disruption: Business Continuity Concerns: Implementing such changes might disrupt business operations. For instance, closing down parts of a building for renovation could affect business activities, leading to temporary loss of revenue or productivity. There's also a reluctance to alter established building infrastructure which might be seen as functioning adequately without such changes. Perceived Necessity and Public Perception: Public Health Messaging: Early in the COVID-19 crisis, there was significant confusion and debate about the primary modes of transmission, with less emphasis initially placed on airborne spread. This confusion might have led to a slower adoption of airborne mitigation strategies. Even after the recognition of airborne transmission, some might argue that the public's focus on masks and surface cleaning overshadowed the importance of ventilation and filtration. Resistance to Acknowledgment: There might be resistance or skepticism towards acknowledging the severity of airborne transmission due to the implications it has on business practices and public health policies. Acknowledging this would mean not only financial costs but also admitting that past measures might have been insufficient, which could be damaging to reputations or lead to legal liabilities
December 12, 2024 at 7:16 PM