[From a chat. Someone asked what the origin for most infection comes from close contact]
From the epi reports where you ask the person what they did for a week, etc, and then find that they were close to a positive at some point, so the conclusion is "aha, close contact"
Every question, etc, asked, is from the point of view that nothing except certain specific viruses (measles, etc.) are airborne.
Because remember, to them, if air, R0 would = a billion.
Right now when people tell you there is no airborne spread remember THEY ARE NOT LOOKING FOR AIRBORNE SPREAD BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN IT.
— Jonathan Mesiano-Crookston @/#COVIDisAirborne (@jmcrookston) December 2, 2020
This is why elevator buttons get blamed instead of aerial transmission - they don't believe in aerial transmission.
SK study:
https://t.co/QblvVRvIda
This is a very important paper.
— Jonathan Mesiano-Crookston @/#COVIDisAirborne (@jmcrookston) December 2, 2020
Transmission over more than 2m with only 5 min exposure - captured by CCTV.
Contact tracers don't even look for these connections.
Actual articlehttps://t.co/GyTJo5Y1Jb
cc @jljcolorado @kprather88 @DrPieterPeach @DrKatrin_Rabiei @NjbBari3 https://t.co/onPWqvNzhJ
I've posted about articles saying 2 row not good enough
https://t.co/u6mo07FEVy
4
— Jonathan Mesiano-Crookston @/#COVIDisAirborne (@jmcrookston) January 27, 2021
We will focus on the last para about contact tracing in planes and the two row rule. pic.twitter.com/TKiPdu8KlJ
https://t.co/bcdFAObflu
10
— Jonathan Mesiano-Crookston @/#COVIDisAirborne (@jmcrookston) January 27, 2021
Its main thrus is not that studies are biased by exposure risks before getting on the plane.
It looked at a number of contact tracing studies. It concluded evidence not strong enough to justify 2 row rule.
** A majority of secondary cases was identified > 2 rows from index pic.twitter.com/ZFhzbGrGbt
Hertzberg 2016. Says two 2 rows misses cases. See conclusion at bottom.

This is just whatever snippet I quickly found.

Just whatever snippet I quickly found.
I haven't even researched this issue. These are just the studies I had lying around.
I can't turn around without bumping into info that refutes droplets. It's insane.

They suggested that rule (on the basis of ONE person, by the way), BEFORE considering air spread.
That's also insane.
https://t.co/qRt8bJLV0f
But guess what?
— Jonathan Mesiano-Crookston @/#COVIDisAirborne (@jmcrookston) December 12, 2020
When we use the 2 row forward/back rule (droplet) in airplanes, it doesn't work.
When we use droplet 2m rule (which comes from 14 babies in 1981), it doesn't work.
SARS-CoV-2 infects whole rooms, which we are told means airborne, not droplet
Yet still droplet
More from Society
3:45 - “So what if you don’t have gametes?”
It’s called a birth defect. You’re still male or female.
*one horrible doctor does a horrible thing* "oh I guess gender is horrible" miss me with that transphobic nonsense
— Goob \u26a1 (@Goob999) February 17, 2021
Here's a video to even disprove your take on sex (not gender) and the binary:https://t.co/bpmqqJWoJX
~5:00 *nonsense trying to say the sexes of seahorses could be swapped coz male carry the eggs*
male doesn’t produce eggs, he produces the sperm. He’s still the male. If I impregnated a chick then carried the amniotic sac in a backpack ‘til the baby was done I’ll still be male🤦♂️
5:10 - we could say there’s 4 sexes of fruit fly cause there’s 3 producers of different sized sperm
No. They’re still producing sperm. They’re males. This is idiotic. Is this whole video like this? (Probably. 99% likely. Abandon hope.)
~6:10 - hermaphroditism and sequential hermaphroditism exists therefore....
No. Some animals being hermaphrodites, which is meaningless w/o the existence of binary sex to contrast it to, still doesn’t make gender ideology or transgenderism valid.
Intersex ≠ transgenderism 🙄
6:20 - bilateral gynandromorphism is a disorder in some species (not in humans). Has nothing to do w/ “gender” or transgenderism.
Ova-testes in humans are also a disorder, usually found in those w/ the karyotype disorders that you ppl also try to appropriate (extra X’s/Y’s).
You May Also Like
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