\u201cWe found that the majority of participants with influenza virus and coronavirus infection did not shed detectable virus in respiratory droplets or aerosols.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nThis statement implies that the authors looked for and found detectable virus in some\u00a0respiratory droplets and aerosols (but only in a minority of their subjects, who were actively sick \u2014 itself a surprising finding).\u00a0 It is widely known that the only way to prove the presence of a virus in a sample is to actually see\u00a0the virus under electron microscopy.\u00a0 There is no mention of having done any electron microscopy on any sample. When they claim they did not detect virus, what they mean is that the surrogate PCR test, which detects fragments of genetic material, was positive.\u00a0 However, nowhere in the medical literature is there conclusive proof that this genetic material originates from any novel virus.<\/p>\n
\u201cAnother limitation is that we did not confirm the infectivity of coronavirus or rhinovirus detected in exhaled breath.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nThe premise of mandating the wearing of masks is that it prevents transmission of disease. Neither this study, nor\u00a0any other study we\u2019ve seen, proves transmission of any disease through exhaled breath. <\/strong>Amazingly, these authors acknowledge they didn\u2019t even attempt to prove transmission. What\u2019s more amazing is that this study is being used as evidence that wearing masks is an effective method of preventing or lowering the incidence of disease transmission. If transmission through breath can\u2019t be proven, then all other findings in this study are rendered irrelevant.<\/strong><\/p>\n“After one or more of the candidate respiratory viruses was detected by the viral panel from the nasal swab, all the samples from the same participant (nasal swab, throat swab, respiratory droplets and aerosols) were then tested with RT\u2013PCR specific for the candidate virus(es) for determination of virus concentration in the samples. Infectious influenza virus was identified by viral culture using MDCK cells as described previously, whereas viral culture was not performed for coronavirus and rhinovirus.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nThese statements need careful examination and explanation, as they get to the core of the misleading conclusions of the study.\u00a0 First, they state that the method they used to detect the presence of the virus was the RT-PCR test, which, as I said, does not detect virus at all.\u00a0 Rather, it detects genetic material, which they only assume<\/em> must have come from the virus in question.<\/p>\nThen, they say that with influenza virus, they did attempt to confirm the accuracy of the RT-PCR testing with viral \u201ccultures.\u201d\u00a0 Viral culturing is itself a deceptive process, which I won\u2019t expand on here, but let\u2019s assume that it is a \u201cgold standard\u201d for finding the presence of \u201clive viruses.\u201d \u00a0In other words, it would be akin to doing a strep culture for someone with a sore throat.\u00a0 If the culture was positive, you have proof that the strep bacteria was present.\u00a0 (Still, the presence of the bacteria\u00a0doesn\u2019t prove causation.) This positive culture allows you to check the accuracy of the rapid strep test, which detects only pieces of strep or antibodies to strep, so it confirms the validity of your surrogate test.<\/p>\n
First, the study authors\u00a0admit they didn\u2019t do any culturing with the coronavirus, but they did with four of the six participants who tested PCR-positive to influenza virus with droplets collected through the mask.\u00a0 Again, with these four participants, a very small number to be sure, they decided to do an internal check on the accuracy of their PCR testing.\u00a0 What they found is only two people showed a positive culture.\u00a0 Even using their own flawed assumptions about viral culture, this finding demonstrates that the PCR test was falsely positive a whopping 50 percent of the time.\u00a0 To put this in common language, what they \u201cproved\u201d is that the very test they used to determine whether a mask stopped the spread of a coronavirus was no more accurate than a coin flip.\u00a0<\/strong> Fifty percent of the time, by their own account, a positive test (for influenza virus) is incorrect, and there is no virus present.<\/p>\nIn a sane world, this study\u2019s conclusion should have been, \u201cOur data demonstrate that doing PCR or RT-PCR testing is an inaccurate way of detecting virus or the utility of masks to stop the spread of a virus.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0 They then should have called for larger, carefully controlled studies to determine whether the PCR testing has any utility at all (It doesn\u2019t).<\/p>\nMost lay people and, incredibly, most physicians will have no idea how to read this study and determine its validity.\u00a0 So, people read the abstract or conclusion (or, worse yet, an article’s headline0, and believe what the authors assert.\u00a0 That is the problem.\u00a0 Unless someone actually helps people understand exactly what these studies are showing, and calls out the deceptive nature of much of this whole peer-reviewed science enterprise, most people will continue to be led down a path that could be disastrous personally and societally.<\/p>\n
With gratitude for your support, and humility,\u00a0please let me know whether you have questions.<\/p>\n
Tom Cowan, M.D.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
If Transmission Through Exhaled Breath Hasn’t Been Proven, All Other Findings Are Irrelevant<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23172","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=23172"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23172\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=23172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=23172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=23172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}