It has been all over the headlines recently—SARS-CoV-2 is airborne! Hello, 2020 called and it wants its headlines back. In fact, the reality is that we’ve known that the SARS-CoV-2 virus can be airborne. This isn’t new news, at all. Period. It was the big marketing push for masks back in April 2020. It was the reason we were all told to stay inside and not go out if we didn’t have to in 2020. It was the reason why we had the debates about how the SARS-CoV-2 droplets are so small that they can pass right through the masks.
But here’s the biggest issue—even if the virus is airborne (according to a “study” the CDC is going off of), the evidence just isn’t there.
In this blog post, we’re going to break down the inconsistencies of a “study” that the World Health Organization (WHO) and CDC are basing their “evidence” off of when it comes to proving that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is airborne.
At the end, I believe you’ll see that the pseudo-scientists aren’t the herbalists and natural living enthusiasts…they are modern scientists that are sponsored by health organizations with agendas.
10 Discrepancies in the “Official” Study
So for reference, you can click here to see the “study” that the CDC and WHO will reference when it comes to scaring people into the recent “the virus is airborne” belief. But you and I are going to walk through and debunk almost all of these. I’ll show you how to look for inconsistencies in studies and statements, so that you can begin looking for your own loopholes in studies.
Before we begin, let me first state that I absolutely love science. I believe in evidence based herbalism. In fact, my entire platform is based on science and evidence based health. I am not here for politics, I’m here to share solid information. And as a health professional, that means calling out ALL of the inconsistencies in science. Not just one side or the other. Science is fallible. It is not absolute. Never forget that.
Secondly, let’s talk about the difference between regular droplets and aerosol droplets. Regular droplets are when you sneeze, etc., and those droplets are large and generally fall quickly. Aerosol droplets are super small, which means they can stay in the air longer. For example, if you sneeze and you feel the large droplets falling on your arms, but you still see a mist in the air from smaller particles. This is a visual of the difference between the two.
The report is titled Ten scientific reasons in support of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. It was a systematic review (not a study) done by Trish Greenhalgh, et al. It was published in March 2021.
It’s important to first note that this is NOT a study. This is a review of other studies (not specifically about airborne transmission), that then makes the conclusion that the virus is airborne. They are reaches, and you’ll see why in a moment.
For the record, reviews are not bad. systematic reviews are what I do all the time. This is where we take information from other studies and compile them into our own reference article. However, if the quality of your studies is awful, the review article is very irresponsible.
This review begins by saying, “Heneghan and colleagues’ systematic review, funded by WHO, published in March, 2021, as a preprint, states: ‘The lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission’. This conclusion, and the wide circulation of the review’s findings, is concerning because of the public health implications.”
It’s important to note that this is a preprint, meaning, this is not a peer-reviewed systematic study.
AIRBORNE CLAIM 1
…superspreading events account for substantial SARS-CoV-2 transmission; indeed, such events may be the pandemic’s primary drivers.
This claim uses a back up of an article written in February 2021 by nature.com, which cites information from a Wuhan, China study back in February 2020. If you’ll remember, no one knew anything about SARS-CoV-2 in early 2020. Even the experts said that any studies and information we had in early 2020 was irrelevant, because we did not have enough information, or enough time, to study the novel virus.
The issue with the studies cited is that they use examples such as “someone invited 13 people over for dinner and 4 of them got SARS-CoV-2.” The issue is that there is no control. They did not ask these people where else they had been, if they lived in the same house together, if they were in contact with these same people in previous days before dinner. This is a major flaw in this study.
The other issue is that the study used to support this claim is riddled with computed theories, not actual scientific evidence.
AIRBORNE CLAIM 2
…long-range transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between people in adjacent rooms but never in each other’s presence has been documented in quarantine hotels.
So, this actually isn’t true at all. It was not documented, it was theorized. Here’s what the study says….
…footage showed that during routine testing on day 12, which took place within the doorway of the hotel rooms, there was a 50-second window between closing the door to the room of case-patient C and opening the door to the room of case-patients D and E. Therefore, we hypothesized that suspended aerosol particles were the probable mode of transmission in this instance, and that the enclosed and unventilated space in the hotel corridor probably facilitated this eventTransmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 during Border Quarantine and Air Travel, New Zealand (Aotearoa)
They hypothesized (which means, they came to the conclusion without evidence) that it was aerosol transmission between two patients in two different hotel rooms that were being used as quarantine. The issue is that they never took into consideration that the medical professional testing and tending to both patients could have been the one who infected the other patient. They also don’t take into consideration that the patient could’ve been a carrier of the virus and not tested positive until the virus replicated enough (viral load) in order to give a positive test. They also don’t take into consideration that their test just didn’t work the first time, which has been proven time and time again with these tests.
Here’s a quote from a recent study about false negative rates of PCR testing…
In this study, most FN results were due to low amounts of SARS-CoV-2 virus concentrations in patients with multiple specimens collected during different stages of infection. Post-test clinical evaluation of each patient is advised to ensure that rtRT-PCR results are not the only factor in excluding COVID-19.https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0
AIRBORNE CLAIM 3
…asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from people who are not coughing or sneezing is likely to account for at least a third, and perhaps up to 59%, of all transmission globally and is a key way SARS-CoV-2 has spread around the world…
I won’t even break this one down, because I want you to understand just how fallible science is. I’ll just leave this quote from this “study” that supposedly supports this claim, below.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determined that this decision analytical study, which involved no enrollment of human subjects, did not require institutional review board approval. We used a simple model to assess the proportion of transmission from presymptomatic (ie, infectious before symptom onset), never symptomatic, and symptomatic individuals across a range of scenarios in which we varied the timing of the infectious period to assess different contributions of presymptomatic transmission and the proportion of transmission from individuals who never develop symptoms (ie, remain asymptomatic).
Once again, this “study” that they are using to support this claim is not a study at all. It is, and I quote, an “analytical study, which involves no enrollment of human subjects.” If we are so certain that this virus is airborne and transmitting everywhere, why has it not yet actually been studied?
AIRBORNE CLAIM 4
…transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is higher indoors than outdoors and is substantially reduced by indoor ventilation.
Of course the transmission of a virus is higher indoors. To begin with, there are more fomites (physical objects) that people can touch, sit on, and smear their mucus all over. This isn’t rocket science. But this doesn’t prove, at all, that the virus is airborne. It just proves what we’ve known for centuries—wash your hands and don’t touch stuff when you’re sick.
AIRBORNE CLAIM 5
…nosocomial infections have been documented in health-care organisations, where there have been strict contact-and-droplet precautions and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) designed to protect against droplet but not aerosol exposure.
So the study they used to support this claim is all over the place. In fact, they should be embarrassed they even used it. For starters, the study only included 14 patients and 38 staff members within an acute care facility. The claim is that the people infected became infected despite using PPE designed to protect against aerosol exposure. But here’s the issue, the study doesn’t say that at all. Here’s what it actually says…
Risk factors for transmission to staff included presence during nebulization, caring for patients with dyspnea or cough, lack of eye protection, at least 15 minutes of exposure to case patients, and interactions with SARS-CoV-2-positive staff in clinical areas. Whole-genome sequencing confirmed that 2 staff members were infected despite wearing surgical masks and eye protection.
Please note that the staff members wore surgical masks (which are good for absolutely nothing) and eye protection. Did they wash their hands after touching the patients? Did the staff members stay at the acute care facility or did they go to the grocery store after work, then the gym, then to pick up their kids from the baby sitter, then home?
Once again, this study is ludicrous and full of loopholes.
In 2006, I came down with an aggressive virus the landed me a nice hospital stay. They had no idea what was wrong with me. So much so, that the nurses literally came in with hazmat suits on. This was in 2006, friends. They took it very seriously. It was more than likely the H1N1 virus, which became a pandemic in 2009. But that’s beside the fact. So tell me, if this SARS-CoV-2 is such an issue, why are we suggesting surgical masks (especially in care facilities) and then looking surprised and screaming “aerosol transmission” when people are wearing surgical and cloth masks that are good for nothing except creating more transmission?
AIRBORNE CLAIM 6
…viable SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the air. In laboratory experiments, SARS-CoV-2 stayed infectious in the air for up to 3 h with a half-life of 1·1 h.
For starters, I had to track down the study they used to support this claim. It has been updated several times. It should also be noted that this study has never, ever, been peer reviewed. Big red flag.
Ok, so what else is the issue with the study they are using to support their claim? First, how did they get those aerosol droplets?
In short, aerosols (<5 μm) containing HCoV-19 (105.25 TCID50/mL) or 24 SARS-CoV-1 (106.75-7 TCID50/mL) were generated using a 3-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg 25 drum to create an aerosolized environment.
There’s no doubt they found SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols. I don’t even doubt that it lasted on surfaces, in the air, etc. But that only proves transmission through fomites. The issue is that we don’t live in a nebulized chamber. The environment we live in is not controlled. Aerosols are fragile, hence, why they more than likely stay stabilized longer in a controlled environment.
AIRBORNE CLAIM 7
…SARS-CoV-2 has been identified in air filters and building ducts in hospitals with COVID-19 patients; such locations could be reached only by aerosols.
I didn’t even look at the study for this one because this claim is how air filters and HVAC systems work, especially in a hospital. Hospitals have air systems that more forcefully suck air into their systems. If I sneeze next to an air filter (or in a room with one of these systems), those droplets get sucked up into the air via the system. No one is denying that any virus can be within a nano droplet. We’re not denying that. But to make it sound like these air particles have a mind of their own and are attacking people, it’s just irresponsible and fear mongering.
AIRBORNE CLAIM 8
…studies involving infected caged animals that were connected to separately caged uninfected animals via an air duct have shown transmission of SARS-CoV-2 that can be adequately explained only by aerosols.
I think you’re starting to see a trend here. We are seeing the consistent trend of “its aerosols, but we technically can’t rule out fomite transmission.”
From the study they used to support this claim—
Although the current transmission set-up was designed to prevent spill-over of large pieces like food and feces from donor to recipient cages, smaller particles such as aerosolized fur or dust from the carpet tiles in the cages, could potentially still be transmitted to the recipient cage.
It’s a shame, this was a really interesting study to me. I thought I had finally found the one study that would be difficult for me to debunk. But there it was, in all it’s glory—fomite transmission. Not even aerosol fomite transmission. We can see from the previous claims that the virus can stay on surfaces for days. So could it be that the virus from the other ferret was simply on the surface of the cage already? Absolutely.
AIRBORNE CLAIM 9
…no study to our knowledge has provided strong or consistent evidence to refute the hypothesis of airborne SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
Ummm….ok, but, so far you also haven’t given us any solid evidence proving that it exists, either.
AIRBORNE CLAIM 10
…there is limited evidence to support other dominant routes of transmission—ie, respiratory droplet or fomite.
Actually, we kind of just proved that fomite transmission was more likely than the aerosol theory in this blog post. Isn’t that amazing?
Friends, when we begin to see the science world inundated with “analytic data”, “systemic reviews”, and anything other than an actual scientific peer reviewed study with more than 30 people….we’re in a world of trouble. Science, as we know it, has officially been contaminated by agendas. You know it, I know it. Now, it’s our job to hold each other accountable.
I hope that your eyes have been opened. I hope that you have learned how easy it is to truly spot pseudoscience and agendas. And I hope that you’ll go out and live your life very well, however that may look for you.