Virology misunderstood
If the flu virus is as contagious as we have been told, transmission should have been rampant. It was not. Only one recipient out of 75 became infected. That is a 1.3% secondary attack rate. The researchers expected at least 16%. They missed their target by more than tenfold.
To shed further doubt on virus transmission and the common measures used to protect against viral shedding, the study divided recipients into two groups. The intervention group wore face shields and sanitized their hands every 15 minutes. The control group did neither. The result? Zero infections in the intervention group and one infection in the control group. Statistically, there was no difference between the groups. This finding renders the entire mask debate moot. If face shields and constant hand sanitizer cannot stop transmission when both groups fail to get infected anyway, what exactly are we protecting ourselves from?
Virus transmission appears to be an imaginary concept, driven by fear and hysteria.
The uncomfortable truth about viral shedding
Now, forty-two of the 52 donors who were deliberately infected actually became infected after inoculation. That is an 81% infection rate through direct inoculation. And they shed virus from their noses in substantial quantities. Their viral loads were high enough to register on PCR tests with cycle threshold values in the mid-20s. Yet, remarkably, they did not pass the virus to the people sitting next to them. The researchers also measured the exhaled breath of donors using a device called the Gesundheit-II. They found that only 11 out of 42 infected donors had detectable virus in their breath aerosols. Even then, the quantities were two to four logs lower than what has been observed in naturally infected people who were selected for having fever and high viral loads.
This raises an obvious question. If the virus is so hard to transmit in a controlled setting where infected people are breathing directly onto susceptible people for days, how does it ever spread in the real world? The researchers tried to explain their failure by pointing to the building ventilation system. The proof-of-concept study was conducted in a hotel room with recirculating air, and it did have a higher transmission rate. The follow-on study used mechanical ventilation that diluted the air. They concluded that aerosols might be important after all. But this explanation is circular. If transmission depends on airtight rooms with no fresh air, then the virus is not a robust airborne pathogen. It is a fragile entity that requires extreme conditions to move from one person to another.
The fallacy of the contagious patient
The study also revealed something that should make every public health official reconsider their assumptions. Many of the directly infected donors did not get sick. Ten out of 42 infected donors were classified as asymptomatic. They had the virus in their bodies; it was confirmed through PCR; they shed it from their noses, but they felt fine. No fever, no cough, no runny nose. Yet they were placed in rooms with susceptible people and still did not transmit. The researchers admitted that their model produced donors who were “minimally contagious.” But if a person with a laboratory-confirmed infection who is breathing on you for 15 hours a day cannot make you sick, what does that say about the millions of asymptomatic cases that were used to justify lockdowns, school closures, and mask mandates?
The collective pandemic protection measures were not based on science; they were only used to control people, weaponizing their virtue and their fear.
Hellbound and Down 