What causes symptoms of respiratory illness? Why do some people get
sick when they are around others who are sick, but someone else may not
get sick at all? In the study, “Minimal transmission in an influenza A
(H3N2) human challenge-transmission model within a controlled exposure
environment,” researchers found serious challenges in the human
transmission model of disease.
In the study, a group of researchers directly inoculated 52 healthy
volunteers with influenza A H3N2 virus. They locked them in rooms with
75 susceptible people for 15 hours a day over four days.
They designed the rooms to have low humidity and minimal ventilation,
the conditions most favorable for viral spread. The researchers let the
volunteers play games, eat meals, and breathe on each other. What
happened next should have made headlines around the world. Nothing
happened. Only one person out of 75 became infected. To make matters
more peculiar, the group that did not use face shields and hand
sanitizer statistically fared the same as those who did.
This is not a minor footnote in the history of infectious disease
research. It is a bombshell finding that shatters the foundation of
everything you have been told about how viruses spread between people,
and why containment measures are just theater.
Key points:
Intentionally infected donors failed to transmit the flu to recipients in 97% of cases.
Only one confirmed transmission occurred out of 75 exposed recipients.
The secondary attack rate was a mere 1.3%, far below the expected 16%.
Infected donors who shed virus into the air still did not make others sick.
Masks and hand sanitizer made no statistical difference in transmission rates.
The study undermines the core assumptions behind pandemic lockdown policies.
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.
The one infected person didn’t even test positive on PCR
And ironically, the one recipient who did become infected through
alleged transmission never tested positive on PCR. The infection was
detected only through serology, meaning their immune system responded to
the virus but the virus itself was never found in their nose. This
single case was symptomatic. But the researchers could not prove it came
from the donors at all. They assumed it did because of the timing. That
is not science. That is faith. This means people who test positive for a
virus on the PCR test are most likely not spreading the disease, and
people who test negative have the potential to spread it anyway. So why
use PCR testing in the first place?
After spending years and millions of dollars on the most controlled
transmission experiment ever attempted, the researchers concluded that
they cannot prove how the flu spreads. And if we cannot prove how
influenza spreads, how confident can we be about any respiratory virus
or any PCR test?
The implications are staggering. The entire framework of pandemic
response rests on the assumption that respiratory viruses spread easily
from person-to-person through the air. This study suggests otherwise. It
suggests that transmission is rare, difficult to achieve, and dependent
on variables we do not understand. It also suggests that the masks, the
lockdowns, the social distancing, and the fear were built on a
foundation of sand, and that virology is completely misunderstood from
the start. It’s easy to blame someone else for our sickness. It’s crazy
to think as a human species, we still do not understand the reasons why
are bodies get sick.
Sources include: