If you study the field you will see viral nebulization is a technique used to get higher infectivity of viruses. This is used with ventilator patients suffering from pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Nebulize bacteriaphage to get deep into the lungs and kill bacteria. pic.twitter.com/82lNRMrXl4
— Kevin McKernan \U0001f642 (@Kevin_McKernan) October 24, 2020
Let's talk about MASKS!
https://t.co/vjcinmtiHT
https://t.co/oIf7N6f9Yz
In fact products exist on the marketplace to nebulize medicines because aerosols get deeper into the lungs than large droplets. https://t.co/pB2PPl2DIa
— Kevin McKernan \U0001f642 (@Kevin_McKernan) October 24, 2020
Do our masks stop large droplets or do they nebulize them into Aerosols? From my emulsion days, best way to get a monodispersed emulsion is to force H20 through a pore sized membrane that has a different phase (oil or air) on the other side of it. https://t.co/Y9UCmWZ7uT pic.twitter.com/bGZBxI6lUT
— Kevin McKernan \U0001f642 (@Kevin_McKernan) October 24, 2020
https://t.co/vjcinmtiHT
How does CoronaVirus kills?
— Dr Umar Haider (@ShayarHaider) March 22, 2020
Its "Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome "(ARDS or wet lungs),
The condition in which fluid collects in the Alveoli(air sacs) of the lungs , depriving organs of oxygen.
ARDS patients have shortness of breath and they need support from a ventilator. pic.twitter.com/tkCm3T6bvS
1/\U0001f4ccNIH Study: COVID-19 severity could depend on route of infection: Infection through inhaling #Airborne virus could lead to more severe disease than infection from fomites (contact w/ contaminated objects.) To test it, hamsters were infected via the different routes. 1/7\U0001f9f5 pic.twitter.com/9lX7sMrKUG
— Dr. Ali Nouri (@AliNouriPhD) December 29, 2020
5/In contrast to other mode of transmission where virus hits nasal cavity and finds its way into lungs, aerosols can directly reach alveolar region and attack alveolar cells that produce Pulmonary Surfactant. PS is needed to lower surface tension & prevent alveoli collapse. 5/7 pic.twitter.com/PrYSZJNJgh
— Dr. Ali Nouri (@AliNouriPhD) December 29, 2020
More from Category c19
1/12
RT-PCR corona (test) scam
Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
2/12
It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
3/12
The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu
4/12
Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID
5/12
Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
RT-PCR corona (test) scam
Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
4/10
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) October 22, 2020
...indication, first of all that testing for a (single) respiratory virus is done outside of surveillance systems or need for specific therapy, but even so the lack of consideration of Ct, symptoms and clinical findings when interpreting its result. https://t.co/gHH6kwRdZG
2/12
It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as
6/10
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) October 22, 2020
The neither validated nor standardised hypersensitive RT-PCR test / Ct 35-45 for SARS-CoV-2 is abused to mislabel (also) other diseases, especially influenza, as COVID-19.https://t.co/AkFIfTCTkS
3/12
The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu
External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.https://t.co/mbNY8bdw1p pic.twitter.com/OQBD4grMth
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) November 29, 2020
4/12
Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID
Thread web\u2b06\ufe0f\u2b07\ufe0f
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) December 16, 2020
The fabrication of the "asymptomatic (super) spreader" is the coronation of the total nons(ci)ense in the belief system of #CoronasWitnesses.
Asymptomatic transmission 0.7%; 95% CI 0%-4.9% - could well be 0%!https://t.co/VeZTzxXfvT
5/12
Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as
8/8
— Dr. Thomas Binder, MD (@Thomas_Binder) March 24, 2020
By the way, who the f*** created this obviously (almost) worldwide definition of #CoronaDeath?
This is not only medical malpractice, this is utterly insane!https://t.co/FFsTx4L2mw
1/: The inventor of the corona PCR-Test @c_drosten is one of the #protagonists of the current crisis. He is known for involving himself in contradictions. In 2014, he gave a legendary #interview to @wiwo (https://t.co/jzTRh5Suhc) that I will address in this ⬇️short thread⬇️.
2/: The interview is significant because @c_drosten made totally sane statements back then that follow the principle of common sense. Considering his involvement in the "genesis of the current pandemic", his assertions appear in an entirely different
3/: In 2014, for instance, washing the hands was sufficient against being infected by coronaviruses. Several years he demands measures that destroy national economies and social life worldwide.
4/: Young @c_drosten also severely criticized the fact that Saudi Arabia used the PCR method to detect potential infections. From his point of view, that specific method could lead to many irrelevant cases. Nowadays, his view shifted his opinion towards 'collective punishment'.
5/: Whereas he demands "testing, testing, testing" nowadays and spreads panic and fear via (social) media, he heavily condemned that behaviour of Saudi media in 2014. On top of that, he expressed his concern that medial panic could increase the number of lab tests significantly.
2/: The interview is significant because @c_drosten made totally sane statements back then that follow the principle of common sense. Considering his involvement in the "genesis of the current pandemic", his assertions appear in an entirely different
The genesis of a pandemic.
— Pace \U0001f642 (@theotherphilipp) February 25, 2021
The #Corona crisis began with a panopticon of absurd events, improbable coincidences and outright lies.
Time for a review of the impossibilities.
A thread \U0001f9f5 pic.twitter.com/PLbETVv2p8
3/: In 2014, for instance, washing the hands was sufficient against being infected by coronaviruses. Several years he demands measures that destroy national economies and social life worldwide.
4/: Young @c_drosten also severely criticized the fact that Saudi Arabia used the PCR method to detect potential infections. From his point of view, that specific method could lead to many irrelevant cases. Nowadays, his view shifted his opinion towards 'collective punishment'.
5/: Whereas he demands "testing, testing, testing" nowadays and spreads panic and fear via (social) media, he heavily condemned that behaviour of Saudi media in 2014. On top of that, he expressed his concern that medial panic could increase the number of lab tests significantly.
1/: Avicenna was a Persian scientist, who lived 1000 years ago. He put two lambs in separate cages, which had the same health conditions. But only one lamb could see a wolf that was put in a third cage. The observations were astounding. (h/t @farmer_student) ⬇️a thread⬇️
2/: Both lambs were provided with the same feed. Also, the weight was exactly the same when the experiment started. Several months later, the lamb with sight on the wolf became cranky, restless, weak, and showed a significant weight loss and signs of poor development.
3/: The lamb that was under chronic stress as it was placed in a situation of constant apparent danger died eventually. 🐑🪦 In fact, the wolf did not pose a danger at all, but this was beyond the lamb's perception.
4/: This experiment showed that increased levels of the stress hormone cortisol have a bad impact on the metabolism of mammals. And 1000 years after this experiment, we are facing a similar situation again but with the difference that we are aware of the impact of stress.
5/: Currently, we are overwhelmed with medial and governmental propaganda with respect to a common cold virus (that might hypothetically be more lethal though) that doesn't do harm to the majority of the people. Extreme global measures are taken.
2/: Both lambs were provided with the same feed. Also, the weight was exactly the same when the experiment started. Several months later, the lamb with sight on the wolf became cranky, restless, weak, and showed a significant weight loss and signs of poor development.
3/: The lamb that was under chronic stress as it was placed in a situation of constant apparent danger died eventually. 🐑🪦 In fact, the wolf did not pose a danger at all, but this was beyond the lamb's perception.
4/: This experiment showed that increased levels of the stress hormone cortisol have a bad impact on the metabolism of mammals. And 1000 years after this experiment, we are facing a similar situation again but with the difference that we are aware of the impact of stress.
5/: Currently, we are overwhelmed with medial and governmental propaganda with respect to a common cold virus (that might hypothetically be more lethal though) that doesn't do harm to the majority of the people. Extreme global measures are taken.
Cortisol is known as the 'stress hormone' and is a silent killer. Cortisol levels are increased by:
— Dr. Simon \u30c4 (@goddeketal) February 17, 2021
\U0001f449\U0001f3fc Fear & anxiety
\U0001f449\U0001f3fc Constant stress
\U0001f449\U0001f3fc Social isolation
The media propagated fear and political measures are counterproductive. They shorten our lives. https://t.co/6BZ34pVBjw
You May Also Like
Trending news of The Rock's daughter Simone Johnson's announcing her new Stage Name is breaking our Versus tool because "Wrestling Name" isn't in our database!
Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵
What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”
Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff
People also found this comparison helpful:
Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?
Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words
Another common #question:
What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”
As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie
Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"
As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an
Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵
What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”
Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff
People also found this comparison helpful:
Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?
Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”
https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words
Another common #question:
What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”
As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie
Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"
As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an
1/OK, data mystery time.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
This New York Times feature shows China with a Gini Index of less than 30, which would make it more equal than Canada, France, or the Netherlands. https://t.co/g3Sv6DZTDE
That's weird. Income inequality in China is legendary.
Let's check this number.
2/The New York Times cites the World Bank's recent report, "Fair Progress? Economic Mobility across Generations Around the World".
The report is available here:
3/The World Bank report has a graph in which it appears to show the same value for China's Gini - under 0.3.
The graph cites the World Development Indicators as its source for the income inequality data.
4/The World Development Indicators are available at the World Bank's website.
Here's the Gini index: https://t.co/MvylQzpX6A
It looks as if the latest estimate for China's Gini is 42.2.
That estimate is from 2012.
5/A Gini of 42.2 would put China in the same neighborhood as the U.S., whose Gini was estimated at 41 in 2013.
I can't find the <30 number anywhere. The only other estimate in the tables for China is from 2008, when it was estimated at 42.8.
