CoVID-19 / SARS-CoV-2 Information and Questions

[Jim_in_Delaware]

I will say that I never heard of Peter McCullough . When I googled the name, this healthfeedback.org article is near the top of the page, "Joe Rogan interview with Peter McCullough contains multiple false and unsubstantiated claims about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines" I don't know much about healthfeedback.org, but the logic in the article makes sense to me.

Jim

 

[Mesa50]

Curious your thoughts on Peter McCullough.

He’s always in the top 5 most published medical researchers in the country.

 

[adrianp89]

He’s always in the top 5 most published medical researchers in the country.

This is where it gets real dicey for me. This guy has all the credentials. Why would he purposefully promote misinformation?

 

[AZMark]

This is where it gets real dicey for me. This guy has all the credentials. Why would he purposefully promote misinformation?

I don’t know, it is very odd, but his employer and other associates certainly think he is and have distanced themselves or removed him from roles in various organizations.

 

[AZMark]

It’s the cancel culture. Obey the main stream narrative or you’re done. It’s kind of like Scientology.

He seems to have gone off the rails and that does harm to healthcare and other organizations that have his name associated with them. Same thing would have happened pre-cancel culture.

 

[Farny]

Curious your thoughts on Peter McCullough.

McCullough is the real deal. Very much respect his research

 

[AZMark]

McCullough is the real deal. Very much respect his research

Did you follow and respect his cardiology prior to the pandemic? Or do you mean specifically his covid theories?

 

[tabbibus]

So I'm not sure where this top 5 published researcher thing comes from. Looked him up in pubmed. A good amount of opinion articles, various reviews (when someone looks a available literature and summarizes it), many mid authorship papers (mis authors traditionally are minor contributors, first and last authors are the import ones), and a few first and last authorships. His work is hardly groundbreaking. Not gonna dis his volume, but his quality and impact is definitely up for argument. I know many researchers who I would put way higher than him. And that's just the ones I personally know. There are way bigger people than him out there in the various fields he published about.

And no. It's not cancel culture. You can't expect to say things so wrong such as "masks don't work because the virus is too small" and expect not to be called out for it.

 

[Farny]

Did you follow and respect his cardiology prior to the pandemic? Or do you mean specifically his covid theories?

His approach to the pandemic, didn’t follow him prior. He was methodical and slow to conclude his positions.

 

[Farny]

So I'm not sure where this top 5 published researcher thing comes from. Looked him up in pubmed. A good amount of opinion articles, various reviews (when someone looks a available literature and summarizes it), many mid authorship papers (mis authors traditionally are minor contributors, first and last authors are the import ones), and a few first and last authorships. His work is hardly groundbreaking. Not gonna dis his volume, but his quality and impact is definitely up for argument. I know many researchers who I would put way higher than him. And that's just the ones I personally know. There are way bigger people than him out there in the various fields he published about.

And no. It's not cancel culture. You can't expect to say things so wrong such as "masks don't work because the virus is too small" and expect not to be called out for it.

Like the CDC just announced- masks don’t work (except properly fit N95)

 

[tabbibus]

And seatbelts don't work unless you buckle them. His argument was that the virus is too small and hence masks won't work. It wasn't that an ill fitted mask won't work. Those are two completely different things man.

 

[tabbibus]

Like the CDC just announced- masks don’t work (except properly fit N95)

Which by the way. Many of us have been saying this forever. It's kinda silly to expect a cloth mask to protect the same an n95. Especially now with a variant that has way higher transmission potential.

 

[Farny]

Other CDC announcement - prior infection and natural immunity more potent than the shot.

 

[tabbibus]

Other CDC announcement - prior infection and natural immunity more potent than the shot.

So I'm not sure anymore if you are trolling or actually having a discussion. I invite you to read the report or the study that supposedly shows this. Can you really make that blanket statement with that data? Man I wish things were so simple.

 

[the MfM]

(From march 2020)

Do you need a mask? The science hasn't changed, but public guidance might

Attitudes about masks are beginning to change in the U.S., both among the general public and at the highest levels of public health.

www.nbcnews.com

"Given the fact that there is a degree of transmission from asymptomatic individuals who may not know that they’re infected, we need to at least examine the possibility, as long as we’re absolutely certain we don’t take the masks away from who are health care providers who need them," Fauci said in an interview with NBC News' Savannah Guthrie on Tuesday night.

"It doesn’t need to be a classical mask. But something that would have someone prevent them from infecting others," Fauci added. "This is actively being looked at."

The potential change, which remains under discussion internally at the CDC according to an official, would involve do-it-yourself types of fabric coverings for the face, not the kinds of masks used by health care providers. The theory is that the homemade masks would help reduce the risk of unknowingly spreading the virus through coughs, sneezes, even yawns or simple conversation.

 

[Evil Sports]

So I get to walk around in a mask for the rest of my life since I might have it and not know. Sad part here is 2 years in and and pretty much zero emphasis on any home therapeutics

 

[tabbibus]

Do you need a mask? The science hasn't changed, but public guidance might

Attitudes about masks are beginning to change in the U.S., both among the general public and at the highest levels of public health.

www.nbcnews.com

"Given the fact that there is a degree of transmission from asymptomatic individuals who may not know that they’re infected, we need to at least examine the possibility, as long as we’re absolutely certain we don’t take the masks away from who are health care providers who need them," Fauci said in an interview with NBC News' Savannah Guthrie on Tuesday night.

"It doesn’t need to be a classical mask. But something that would have someone prevent them from infecting others," Fauci added. "This is actively being looked at."

The potential change, which remains under discussion internally at the CDC according to an official, would involve do-it-yourself types of fabric coverings for the face, not the kinds of masks used by health care providers. The theory is that the homemade masks would help reduce the risk of unknowingly spreading the virus through coughs, sneezes, even yawns or simple conversation.

Yeah that's similar messaging to early on. I don't appreciate it. Messaging has been one of the biggest failures in this pandemic. Always complicating things, always giving people more reason to come up with conspiracy theories. It's super frustrating.

The answer is not to withhold masks for all so that I as a physician don't run out. The answer is to freaking make sure we all have masks. It's not like the pandemic just started! Kinda sad.

Personally I'm not wearing anything less than a kn95 and neither is any member of my family when we go out.

 

[adrianp89]

 

[the MfM]

That is from almost two years ago before team science changed the recommendations. I thought it was funny to go back and read what was said…they were advocating people wear bandanas as face masks.

I’ll edit my post to make the timeframe clearer.

 

[Jim_in_Delaware]

A lot of folks, including Dr. Peter McCullough noted above, don't seem to understand ("masks don't work because the virus is too small") how masks actually work. I don't blame people for being ignorant on this topic as I have seen very few articles that show how masks filter particles.

A mask is not like a single slice of swiss cheese that would block all particles larger than the holes (pores) and admit particles smaller than the holes. Rather, a mask is like a filter, with each layer composed of fibers laid on top of one another. Here is a great article on the mechanics of how masks work.

Here is a slide from the article on how masks trap the smaller particles (the large sphere represents a mask fiber):



Here is an explanation of the concept, from the article, focusing on the smaller particles. (Interestingly, at least to me, is that this is same as how High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters used in manufacturing environments work):

• "Inertial impact occurs when the inertia of the particles becomes too large that induces changes in the direction of particle movement in the airflow. Particles with bigger sizes, larger face velocities, and densities pose higher inertia, and this process makes them more easily captured. These particles have inertia that they are not able to flow around the respirator fibers. Moreover, instead of flowing through the filter of material, the particles with larger size stray from the air streamlines, collide with the fibers, and can adhere to them."
• "Interception happens as a particle follows the primary streamline to allow interaction between particle and filter media within one particle width of the surface of fiber."
• "Based on the random Brownian motion of particles bouncing into the filter media, it is the most effective mechanism for capturing particles with sizes less than 0.2 μm. Indeed, the abnormal motion of particles raises the probability of collision between particles and fiber in a streamline that does not intercept. This makes diffusion of enormously tiny objects, such as ultrafine particles and nanoparticles, more important than interception. As particle size or facial velocity reduces, the rate of diffusion becomes more noticeable."

Jim