Correspondence with scientist UMC Utrecht regarding contamination research

In de WOB-documenten lazen we de suggestie van het rivm om metingen te laten doen, wellicht zou daar onderbouwing voor de maatregelen uit kunnen komen. Die was er immers niet. Er waren studies nodig want er was niet meer dan "expert's opinions" en die moesten onderbouwd worden. Let op: niet "gecontroleerd" of "kritisch bekeken" of "onderzocht op doeltreffendheid", nee: "onderbouwd". Van alle kanten is daar toen aan meegewerkt: de media praatten met één mond en produceerden campagnes (waarvoor zij uiteraard een vergoeding kregen, voor niets gaat de zon op) en de academische wereld aanvaardde gretig onderzoeksbudgetten om onderbouwing te fabriceren.

In my Facebook memories, these newspaper articles passed by:

The first newspaper report was already reason for an article. Following that second newspaper report (it really got too crazy for me) I sent a letter to UMC Utrecht. I had already quoted parts of it. Below the entire polemics, two years later.

Lees het en vorm je eigen oordeel. Ik betwijfer af of er inmiddels veel is veranderd...

---

On 23 Jul. 2020, at 4:44 PManton@antcommunications.nlwritten the following:

Dear Sir XXXXXXX,

I hope I don't bother you too much. Perhaps this is not the first e -mail you will receive as a result of your piece in the AD.

In the AD I read that you have knowledge of a valid literature list in which it is demonstrated that virustansmission is not or hardly taking place via Aerosols. You could help me and the RIVM enormously.

Omt member Andreas Voss says about the scientific evidence you mentioned: "There are very few, because since the 1980s, there are very few: all respiratory viruses have been transferred via drops and contact. That is the main feast." Aerosols may be an "add-on", but he continues: "The rest is the basis. There is no one who is researching it because we are going out: that's just the basis."

It is not necessary that such a statement is unworthy of a scientist. He defends a tunnel vision with the argument that it has been the tunnel vision for many years.

However, I feared that he was right because I could indeed not find studies that argue for the dominance of transfer via drops/contact.

Fortunately I saw your quote in the AD this morning: "There is more scientific evidence for that way of virus distribution than for aerosolent theory". So anyway!

May I therefore ask you for, for example, three (or maybe five) thorough studies that I can read myself via the internet? I mean: studies that show that the dominant virus distribution is not going through aerosols.

You are the last to whom I can turn because I catch everywhere as soon as I ask for source references. All my hope is located on you.

Sincerely,

Anton theunists.

---

2

From:XXXXXXX, XXX <XXXXXXXXXX@umcutrecht.nl>
Sent:Thursday, July 23, 2020 5:34 PM
At:anton@antcommunications.nl
Subject:Re: Source mention

Dear Anton,

There is no study that provides hard evidence specifically for Corona for the contribution to transmission of large drops/aerosols (not that aerosols are the most important route, but not that large drops are the most important route). The opinion of the virological experts (I am not, I am mathematician), is primarily based on the spread of the spread of the spread of the spread of the spread of the spread of the spread of the spread of the spreads of the spreads of the spreads of the spreads of the spreads of the spreads of the spreads, and on a number of proofs and on a number of proofs and on on a number of proofs and on on a number of studies, and on a number of studies, and on a number of studies, and on a number of studies, and on a number of studies, and on a number of studies of the spread of the spread of the spread of the spread of the spread of the spread of the spread of the spreading of the spread of the spreading of the spreads of the spreads of the spreads of the spreads. Influenza.

The number of infections decreased in different countries after a one and a half meter (or 6-feet) measure was announced, because small particles are less likely to expect such a big effect as observed, this suggests that large drops play a substantial role, this does not exclude the fact that aerosolen is also important that Aerosolen is not probably that Aerosolen is not probably that Aerosolen is not probably that Aerosolen is not that aerosolen is not important. Airosols that spreading infectious diseases also typically have a larger reproduction number.

The problem is that it is very difficult to do a study that is well demonstrating the importance of the routes, you should deliberately expose healthy people to SARS-COV-2 infected patients and the distance to the patient must vary. This will not allow a medical-ethical committee because there is a substantial risk. In principle, you can measure the number of large drops and aerosols and the amount of RNA in it, but that cannot be translated directly into transmission opportunities. If an aerosol contains only 1% of the number of virus particles then a drop, with what percentage then the risk of transmission (or rises, the risk increases because an aerosol may enter the lungs). These doses-response relationships are unknown.

You would be the opinion of

Klompas M, Baker MA, Rhee C. Airborne Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: Theoretical Considerations and Available Evidence.JAMA.Published online July 13, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.12458

Being able to read once, that does not give a definitive answer, but I think the opinion of most experts is reasonably together.

yours sincerely,

XXXX XXXXXXX

---

3

On 24 Jul. 2020, at 6:58 PManton@antcommunications.nlwritten the following:

Beste XXXX,

First of all, thank you for taking the trouble to answer me. Although I cannot agree with it in terms of content, it is valuable for me that you have made time for a response. It therefore feels ungrateful to respond to your helpfulness in this way because your answer raises more critical questions than it answers.

In any case, the content of your answer was quite shocked. After all, your quote in the AD was

"There is more scientific evidence for virus spread via the one-and-a-half-meter droplets than for the aerosol theory."

That is why UMC has excluded the aerosolent theory from the research. And that while a day before said an OMT member:

"There are very few, because since the 1980s, all respiratory viruses have been transmitted through drops and contact. That is the Head Foot. Aerosols may be an" add-on "but the rest is the basis. There is no one to investigate it because we are just going out: that's just the basis."

Are there any evidence or not? So you claimed, even more than for aerosolent theory. But you can't deliver anything! What has been the reason for excluding aerosols from your research remains very dark. In any case, I was curious about the sources of that "more scientific evidence".

You let us know that although you are not a virologist, it does not matter to me: a scientific view must suffice to follow logic and methodology in research reports. On the contrary, I have great faith in people who can at least count, and I trust that par excellence. (Conducting virological research is of course a different story.)

The article by Michael Klompas

You refer to an article by Michael Klompas because that would represent the opinion of virologists. The opinion of a select club virologists is of course known because we hear it every day on all the media, as a brainwashing propaganda machine. Unfortunately, there is no substantiation, so I asked about that, hoping that a mathematician has his affairs in order. And because you did not seem to be part of a virologist club, because they certainly do not manage to present sources. The conscious article to which you are helpful, however, is also a kind of opinion piece, and of a quality that my shoes fall out.

Scientific gibberish

For example, look at the core conclusion: "The Balance of Evidence, However, Seems inconsistent with aerosol-based transmission of SARS-COV-2, particularly in well-ventilated spaces", freely translated:

"The current medical knowledge does not seem compatible with aerosolent theory, especially in well -ventilated spaces."

This is truly gorgeous. Ventilation is a central theme in aerosolent theory, you can't just end it because otherwise your own argument is not good. Then you can also claim that the drip theory is incorrect, especially if everyone wears mouth caps.

The piece itself is a wide -raging repetition of the same mantra. I will soon let specialists speak about that who confirm my suspicions. To my relief, there are 10 source references under the piece. That is valuable, now I might find out what drives the RIVM people.

I went through everything, at least if the abstract or the conclusion applied. That was not the case with most pieces. The majority does not apply to the posted viewpoint. And no reference supports the core position in the article by Michael Klompas. (Kijjk again next time yourself if you recommend something)

The source references:

1. The first source reference even contradicts the conclusion of Klompas: “... Coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) Virus Partles Could Be Found in the Ventilation Systems in Hospital Rooms of Patients with Covid-13.5 Finding Virus Partles in These Systems Cloud's Turbulentent Dichotomous Model it explains howbble virus Partles Can Travel Long Distances from Patients. [Other studies also provide a clear affirmative answer to this last point of doubt.]
   “…recommendations for separations of 3 to 6 feet (1-2 m) may underestimate the distance, timescale, and persistence over which the cloud and its pathogenic payload travel, thus generating an underappreciated potential exposure range”
2. N.V.T.: Definition of "Contact Time" includes aerosol transmission. It is even stated that a mouth cap offers no sufficient protection against aerosols, which confirms its existence.
3. N.V.T.: The only connection with the transmission issue is a reference to the non-substructed conception of CDC, and we know that
4. N.V.T.: Is about transmission through "close contact", so including aerosol
5. A case (sideways) about short intense exposure to aerosols during intubation
6. N.V.T.: Case Description, shows that mouth caps protect against aerosol
7. N.V.T.: Article from 2016. Research shows that (hand) hygiene is a good idea. Wow!
8. N.V.T.: The closer a patient, the greater the chance of infection. Any protection helps
9. N.V.T.: Also about types of mouth caps in care for infectious patients
10. No idea what Klompas wants to achieve with this: "Tuberculosis is Almost Exclusively Transmitted Through Inhalation of Aerosolized Droplet Nuclei Into Alveolar Air Spaces Rather Than Through Direct Proximal Membrane Contact via larger droplets." Points to Aerosols rather than the posed position in the viewpoint.

Scientists leave no stone unturned

The comments from other scientists can be found under the article. They speak volumes. They virtually unanimously torestate the article. Have you seen that?

The 5 μm aerodynamic diameter cut-point for “droplets” is far too low. As the authors correctly note, “whether droplets or aerosols predominate in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has critical implications.”
John Murphy, PhD ROH CIH MACE | University of Toronto

We should disinfect indoor air with enhanced ventilation, low-dose upper-room germicidal UVC with ceiling fans, and HEPA filtration, depending upon the circumstance.
Bruce Davidson, MD, MPH | Pulmonary Medicine

Convincing the WHO of the importance of publicizing the importance of airborne transmissions is essential
Michael McAleer, PhD (Econometrics), Queen´s | Asia University, Taiwan

Very small particles may remain suspended in the air for hours, […] That such particles may spread SARS-CoV-2 is supported by calculations of saliva concentrations
Andrew Smith

The airborne transmission of SARS – CoV – 2 is a critical topic, however we disagree with the authors’ conclusion that small persistent aerosols are not involved. Particularly in large spaces where many share the same recycled air, it is dangerous to suggest that these particles are never important and can be ignored.
Joseph Brain, ScD., MA,S.M.inHyg. | Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health

The arguments against aerosol transmission by Klompas et al. are seriously flawed.
Jose-Luis Jimenez, PhD | University of Colorado-Boulder

There are some myths perpetuated in this Viewpoint, which emanate from firmly entrenched views held by the medical profession among others.
Julian Tang, PhD, MRCP, FRCPath | Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

Interventions Should Be Based on Research on Bioaerosols
Mary Wilson, MD | University of California San Francisco

So far the reference that you think reflects the widely supported position of virologists.

That was the position, now the substantiation

Of course I was looking for "a number of studies into the distribution of other respiratory viruses such as Influenza" that you refer to and to which the Dutch virologists themselves always refer. In your mail you called those studies, together with indirect evidence, "the substantiation". But what sources are that then? That was my only question.

So you can't give those links either. Now I find many relevant articles myself, but they indicate a critical and often dominant role to aerosols (a selection from those sources at the bottom of the mail). So they do not help me to understand your statements and those of virologists.

We constantly point out the existence of sources that would disprove aerosolent theory. Delivering concrete references is always too much to ask. While you do screen with their own scientific expertise. Isn't that strange?

Ducking the question

Now your-yet: received an answer to the implicit assumption that COVID-19 behaves differently than other coronaviruses and other respiratory viruses. After all, you narrow my question to "specific COVID-19" research. I didn't ask about that. So that is somewhat evasive; You could even call it a fallacy.

Q: “May I ask you to mention three (or maybe five) thorough studies, which I can read myself via the internet and which demonstrate that the dominant virus distribution is not going through aerosols?

A: "There is no study that provides hard evidence for Corona ..."

The assumption that COVID-19 behaves differently compared to other Corona's or respiratory viruses and that we can therefore pretend that we know nothing about it, I see that nowhere is argued. Note: I am not saying that it behaves 100% identically, but you still have to start somewhere and there is enough known to assume agreements.

The one and a half meter rule highlighted

You then write: "The number of infections decreased in different countries after a one and a half meter rule was announced"

That is a particularly selective perception with which you pre -sort on the drip theory.

On Sunday, March 15, 2020, schools, restaurants and cafés were also closed in the Netherlands and all super spread events were canceled. Aerosol bees could therefore no longer take place en masse.

The latter can very well be the actual reason for the success that the "one and a half meters" is attributed. It is also theoretical/experimentally confirmed and it corresponds to observations. I have not yet encountered falsifications, only mantras. Writing to the one and a half meter rule emphasizes the blind spot of virologists.

As a falsification argument, Voss contributes that a Chinese scientist was unable to catch a living virus, 10 cm in front of the mouth of an infected patient. The same scientist will therefore take a few big breaths in the same place. Or maybe it is suddenly different.

More research on deadly viruses with a high R-number

"Also, infectious diseases spreading via airosols typically have a larger reproduction number."

That is a statement that says something about the reason to do research. In the case of diseases that was clear that they had a very high reproduction number, it was a matter (and also less difficult) to do research: where all those infections? Viral aerosols gave the answer.

As a result, diseases with a high R value were attributed the unique feature that they are spreading through aerosols. But I have not been able to find that things are different with related (and less related) respiratory viruses. You do? If so, I really appreciate a source.

The follow -up question should have been at the time: does it work with influenza and ordinary cold perhaps so? In the meantime it appears to be the case. There are studies that show that Sars, influenza and cold viruses are also distributed via aerosols. But those investigations and experiments are also ignored. Perhaps because it is only about a cold, there is little honor to be gained.

It would not surprise me if we also "flat" with better ventilation. That is particularly painful for the RIVM and I suspect that the resistance to aerosols will also come from there.

Returning to the reproduction number: that is variable and depends on the circumstances. The virus-intrinsic R0 is based on a stable "normally functioning" society. Then you should not get around carnival in the south; Then each virus suddenly gets a completely different reproduction number, and everyone is very shocked.

With hot infection fireplaces, an R value is not so useful anyway. The R is then clearly bound to certain locally limited circumstances and not intrinsic virus trait. Only with a more even spread over the country does it become a different story and gets an R-value sentence.

Doing studies is ethically very difficult ...?

"The problem is that it is very difficult to do a study that is well demonstrating the importance of the routes, to do so you should deliberately expose healthy people to SARS-COV-2 infected patients and the distance to the patient must vary."

See below, various studies in which this has already been done. In laboratory animals with Sars, in people with colds viruses and influenza. Not that all studies are equally solid and perfect, but the image is very clear and always points in the same direction.

Both from Influenza and SARS-COV-1 and SARS-COV-2 have been demonstrated that it can spread through the air. There is no reason to suspect that COVID-19 behaves differently. Staying on "we know nothing about this new virus," that is the viro glory of the century. It is also inconsistent because if that were true, how did people get the idea that COVID-19 transmission takes place via drops and contact?

Also with the cold virus, interesting experiments have been done that show that transmission through the air is the most determining distribution method. Because that disease is more innocent, experiments on people could be done with it. It also appeared: Aerosols are the dominant transporters. Furthermore, we have connected the well-known ferrets research, guinea pigs in cages via crooked pipes so that they could not immediately adhere to each other, observations of infections etc. etc.

Dose response to inhalation

"These dose-response relationships are not known."

That was about the difference between inhalation or mucous membrane infection. A lot is known about viral load. Look at medicines that are sprayed and/or inhaled. People know the dose and people know the response, they also know what happens systemically if you make a drink or a pill. That has really been tested and measured. If you did that with Influenza, you might find out why patients could have such a different course of the disease.

Another orientation point for imaging: the intranasal administration in medical experiments, especially when it comes to respiratory infections. That is not for nothing. Although the exact dose response may not be known, it is known that it is uncontrollably large-probably a factor that runs in the hundreds-if the virus is directly applied to vulnerable tissues such as the lungs.

Sources

As far as RIVM people or their supporters have sometimes referred to sources in a reckless mood, I have looked at them. Nowhere do I find substantiation for an anti-aerosol position. Often even the opposite.

Many older studies are of course only about dripping contents. That makes it especially clear where the current generation of virologists comes from. There are probably also many medical reflections that are only about letting. That was also released at some point, probably also despite urgent warnings from established doctors.

So: again no substantiation for the "one and a half meters theory".

While on the other hand there are so many sources that are waving with red flags, see for example the source references on theJonathan Flux website, Covid Clinical Assessment Service.

Or just check the referenceshttps://maurice.nl(Then you don't even have to read the blogs yourself).

Als ik zelf op zoek ga kom ik alleen conclusies tegen als

• SARS (2005)(!): “These data provide the first experimental confirmation of viral aerosol generation by a patient with SARS, indicating the possibility of airborne droplet transmission, which emphasizes the need for adequate respiratory protection.”
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7202477/
• SARS (2017) “The virus might have spread via the long-range airborne route alone”,
  https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181558
• H5N1 (2012): “Avian A/H5N1 influenza viruses can acquire the capacity for airborne transmission between mammals without recombination in an intermediate host and therefore constitute a risk for human pandemic influenza.”
  https://science.sciencemag.org/content/336/6088/1534.abstract
• SARS (2018) “Increasing ventilation rate can effectively reduce the risk of long-range airborne transmission”
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6072925/

etcetera etcetera. Dozens, hundreds if you search well and also a little further back. The findings tumble over each other, the more recent also with careful hints and recommendations towards WHO. However, they seem to think more as civil servants than as scientists.

I don't know what is going on with journalism, I also let everything be leaning. Have they asked you for a source?

What the SO-Called "scientists" are doing that let their ears hang to the RIVM either.

I can't figure out how this is all possible, why journalism does not ask. It is not that difficult to ask for sources and verify them.

I certainly do not expect that you will give an extensive answer and I am really not waiting for that. The only thing I need is to understand what is going on. That is only possible if I can view the scientific foundation of the mess made from society and the economy.

With kind regards and again an excuse for all my criticism.

Anton theunists.

---

From:XXXXXXX, XXX <XXXXXXXXXX@umcutrecht.nl>
Sent:Friday, July 24, 2020 20:12
At:anton@antcommunications.nl
Subject:Re: Source mention

Dear Anton,

Especially read the original publication, where we formulate our findings in our own words, journalists tend to simplify things (that is also their task), and try to indicate the relevance of the piece by applying it to the current situation, but if you want to know our precise results, you will have to read the piece. In it we are not talking about aerosol or large drops at all, nor about the meter and a half, what we show is that if 1) or she reduces the contagious roofs if 2) washing hands the chance of getting the virus and 3) there is a reduction in the number of contacts (where contact is defined as a possibility of transfer) then can, then can, then, which is possible, then. become, and we show how efficient the measures should be.

Regarding the Klompas article, that there is criticism of an article is very common, I also read it and I also scanned them the references. This found no reason to reject the piece right away.

What I wonder, you seem to want science to provide tough evidence that the role of aerosols is limited. What type of evidence would you find enough?

There is no one who claims that aerosols do not play a role in the infection route, that you can find 10 or 100 articles that suggest aerosol spread in a certain situation does not mean that it is the dominant route.

(If I find 100 chain smokers of 100 years, that does not mean that smoking is healthy).

The opinion of most scientists is that aerosols are probably less important for the spread than aerosols [meant: drops, at], but that does not exclude them that they are the dominant route in certain situation. Precisely because the circumstances are different everywhere, there will not be a simple answer. If there were good scientific evidence that aerosols are by far the most important, there would be enough scientists who go along with this. Scientists are also just people who hate the Corona measures and if they were convinced that they are not necessary, they would certainly pronounce that, it would only be good for your career to disprove the existing scientific theory.

yours sincerely,

XXXX XXXXXXX

P.S. I think it is good if people follow the science critically, but on the basis of what I have seen so far, I am not convinced that aerosols are the dominant distribution route.

I don't want to put too much time in this discussion, so I don't go on all your points. If you have specific questions (especially in the field of mathematical modeling), I would like to help you with pleasure.

---

From: anton@antcommunications.nl
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 10:27 AM
At: 'XXXXXX, XXX' <XXXXXXXXXXXX@umcutrecht.nl>
Subject: Re: Source mention

Beste XXXXXXX,

By chance I read our extensive mail exchange from two years ago, maybe you can still remember it. My sincere thanks for the time you then spent on that.

You then wrote in a last PS: “I think it's good If people follow science critically, but based on what I have seen so far, I am not convinced that aerosols are the dominant distribution route.“

I respected that then, you already had between the lines by indicating that you were a bit ready with it. Maybe that is still true, but I don't have the silent hope.

Now, two years later, from my interest in the progress of science, I wonder if you are now behind why you continued to support the drip theory without solid substantiation?

Despite my references to transmission studies, it just didn't want to. You continued to appeal to "experts" who found something - while they themselves had no substantiation. I have shown that several of your own objections were not sufficient, but you continued to consider yourself "knowing" and me as "someone who follows science critically." The messenger seemed more important than the source. That is not easy to justify by scientific standards.

I have considered the possibility that it could have to do with research subsidies, but it won't be that ordinary?

In the aftermath I am now trying to find out where those collective blinkers came from the drop protagonists of one and a half, two years ago. It can just be silliness but does that also apply to researchers of your caliber?

The UMC study then focused on effects on corona transmission of 1) Mouth caps 2) Wash hands and 3) Contact. A deliberately raised smokescreen, intended to keep the aerosol transmission out of sight, had looked exactly like that. (The "Field Labs" showed the same pattern.)

That research objective was incomprehensible for those following studies on virestransmission. Do you not have the idea that you have let yourself be tensioned for a cart?

So it is certainly not about Naming and Shaming, I just want to understand and explain it. It would be best if regret optimizes would be heard so that we can correct what can still be corrected. The damage already caused in the thousands of human lives and dozens of billions of euros, apart from the other social, human law and structural-economic misery, for the most part being reduced directly to tunnel vision and violating scientific integrity by the public advisers.

CBS now contributes the measures as an explanation for overdolution. I suspect that this is inspired because otherwise the vaccinations come into the picture as a death cause, because they can no longer ignore the overdirts. The government has maneuvered itself in a difficult position.

To Kuipers listening to it, it looks like the RIVM approach, based on outdated misconceptions including mass vaccination, will be used again coming autumn/winter, unless the (now de facto on non-active put) and the RIVM still sitting in the saddle will be pointed out of the right knowledge.

Perhaps the last UMC investigations are only about aerosol transmission, but that does not matter so much. It is about understanding how that situation could arise from two years ago. I hope that your input will be helpful.

Sincerely,

Anton theunists.

---

I no longer received an answer to this last mail.

Zouden de academici inmiddels begrijpen hoe ze zich voor het karretje hebben laten spannen van een rampzalig beleid? Dat ze hun integriteit te grabbel hebben gegooid? Of wisten ze het toen eigenlijk ook al? Hebben ze inmiddels kennis genomen van de duiding van Mattias Desmet? Ik ken een paar academici. De meesten hebben van dit alles geen benul, die zijn overtuigd van de juistheid van 'het narratief'. Je zult ook maar het vertrouwen in je eigen functioneren kwijt moeten raken...