We need to talk about David J. Brenner (the far-UVC researcher)
Notes on studies from the far-UVC researcher most cited on social media, plus thoughts on influencers posting misinformation online

https://mathissweet.substack.com/p/we-need-to-talk-about-david-j-brenner

"Most posts promoting far-UVC cite DJB studies, sometimes exclusively
Whenever I’ve see someone talking about how far-UVC is safe, they have cited studies by David J. Brenner. Often exclusively.
Using the two first examples that came to mind, every far-UVC study or document referenced by both posts had DJB as an author. I have decided to anonymize these examples and not include screenshots, because the particulars of who posted these are not relevant to the overall point I’m trying to make.
The first example cited four far-UVC studies, all by DJB. The second example cited 3 far-UVC DJB studies, a far-UVC document DJB was an author on, and a review of germicidal UV that didn’t include anything about far-UVC. All three DJB studies cited by the second example post were also cited by the first example post (shared reference A, shared reference B, shared reference C, DJB reference unique to the first example post).
It’s important to note that if references are formatted in a certain (totally standard and correct) way, you cannot see whether or not it’s a DJB study. As an example, here are two ways to properly cite shared reference A, where only the second example includes his name:
• Buonanno, M. et al. Far-UVC light (222 nm) efficiently and safely inactivates airborne human coronaviruses. Sci Rep 10, 10285 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67211-2
• Buonanno, M., Welch, D., Shuryak, I., Brenner, DJ.. Far-UVC light (222 nm) efficiently and safely inactivates airborne human coronaviruses. Sci Rep 10, 10285 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67211-2
One slide from the second example post referred to a result from shared reference B, where DJB and co-authors stated, “At a room ventilation rate of 3 air-changes-per-hour (ACH), with 5 filtered-sources the steady-state pathogen load was reduced by 98.4% providing an additional 184 equivalent air changes (eACH).“ The poster added on that this was over ten times more effective than air purifiers. There are a number of problems with these statements, including:
• Lack of details regarding the findings and experimental details, the most glaring of which is described in the next point.
• The results around reducing the concentration of live aerosolized pathogens by 98.4 % are under experimental conditions where the far-UVC dose exceeded the maximum daily limit for safe exposure outlined by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). I would suspect that most viewers of this post would not assume they were reporting results for UV doses that exceeded maximum daily exposure safety limits.
• The statement about this (unsafely high dose) of far-UVC being over ten times more effective than air purifiers lacks so much information that it cannot be assessed for truth.
• These results are also based on the bacterium being suspended in water (the most simple protein-free liquid possible) prior to being aerosolized–more realistic aerosol compositions would shield the bacteria from far-UVC exposure and result in lower inactivation rates than 98.4 % (see near the end of my previous post entitled “Safety concerns around far-UVC radiation: Poking holes in the premises of the claim “far-UVC is safe for more details about this point).

DJB and co-authors rarely call far-UVC radiation safe, usually instead calling it potentially safe. As well, these three studies do not work with humans, animals, human cells nor animal cells, and therefore are not even studies attempting to evaluate safety (despite the title of shared reference A, present in the reference examples earlier). Thus, when people on social media cite these studies to provide evidence that far-UVC radiation is safe, I believe they are both misrepresenting the studies and citing studies which don’t provide evidence for their claims.
Methodological issues and misleading results
There is what appears to be an inherent contradiction in some of the DJB studies, that again, I touched on in my previous far-UVC post. That being: DJB and co-authors explain that far-UVC radiation is potentially safe due to proteins in the dead skin layer (the stratum corneum or SC) and proteins in the tears absorbing the UV radiation, and yet, they don’t include real-world levels of proteins, glycoproteins, etc. in the aerosols they generate to test how effective far-UVC is at inactivating airborne pathogens. To quote shared reference A:
“In short (see below) the reason is that far-UVC light has a range in biological materials of less than a few micrometers, and thus it cannot reach living human cells in the skin or eyes, being absorbed in the skin stratum corneum or the ocular tear layer. But because viruses (and bacteria) are extremely small, far-UVC light can still penetrate and kill them.“
A few things come to mind from reading this (see references for these points and more info in my previous far-UVC post):
• When airborne pathogens are exhaled by someone, they are present in aerosols and larger respiratory droplets, which contain proteins and glycoproteins from where they originated, like from sputum, mucus or saliva. Importantly, some of these larger respiratory droplets are much larger in diameter than a few micrometers.
• What about people with thinner stratum corneums (SCs), skin on the body that lacks an SC, regions on the body with thinner SCs, people with insufficient tear production, etc.?
• What about other parts of the body that can be exposed to far-UVC that lack an SC, like many parts of the inside of the mouth?
As well, DJB studies usually look for DNA damage in the form of pyrimidine dimers, and less often look for a marker associated with double-stranded DNA breaks. To quote a DJB study from 2015, speaking about a different kind of radiation that can also cause double-stranded DNA breaks, “Ionizing radiation exposure is a risk factor for cancer in humans [6]. Ionizing radiation exposure can induce DNA double-strand breaks (the most deleterious genetic lesions), which, in turn, can trigger several detrimental cellular responses including carcinogenesis [7].“ Importantly, a study by another group reports that far-UVC produced more double-stranded DNA breaks in living human cells (without an SC layer or tears) and less pyrimidine dimers than other non-far-UVC lamps (again, this is touched on in my previous far-UVC post). Based on that study, it appears that looking for DNA damage in the form of double-stranded breaks instead of pyrimidine dimers may be more applicable when it comes to far-UVC radiation, especially when we consider the higher cancer risk from these double-stranded breaks compared to pyrimidine dimers.
What I think is the most important takeaway/application of this information, and general thoughts about influencers posting misinformation around precautions online
I feel strongly that these points should be addressed publicly by influencers/organizations that promote far-UVC by citing DJB studies. I think this information must be acknowledged if they want to promote anything remotely resembling being in favour of informed consent when it comes to exposure to ultraviolet radiation. And I think it would be dishonest and deceptive to ignore the information in this post if you promote far-UVC tech. I acknowledge that they might not be aware of this information, and that is a huge part of the problem that I personally find inexcusable.
The two example posts discussed at the beginning of this post were published in 2023 or later. Both posts cited the two studies, published in 2018 and 2020, whose competing interest sections were updated in September 2021. As I showed earlier, these updates are clearly explained and present in the updated versions of the studies themselves. If these studies were read and reviewed after September 2021 during the making of these posts, the creators of these posts failed to notice and/or comment on the fact that the competing interest sections were incomplete when the papers were submitted and initially published.
I would like to stress that I strongly believe that thorough, in-depth, critical review of studies should be performed to ensure the safety and effectiveness of any airborne infectious disease precautions you are recommending, renting out and/or selling. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, it is my opinion that you should not post about precautions that don’t have strong evidence like ventilation, air purification and well-fitting high-quality respirators without a lot of wear time and without a lot of dons/doffs. I think to not do so is irresponsible to the point of being dangerous, depending on the questionable precaution.
I have heard from people I know personally as well as internet strangers who claim they lowered their effective precautions like respirators and swapped them for nasal sprays, due to nasal spray misinformation they saw online. I wonder how many people have developed Long COVID from swapping respirators for nasal sprays. When it comes to folks recommending you wear the same respirator for 40 hours (see my post entitled “Debunking the myth that N95s are super protective for 40 hours of wear (let’s stop recommending it!)” for more info), someone who was told that misinformation over and over told me that they got COVID-19 while wearing their respirators for about 30 hours each. They think that extended wear of each respirator could have been part of how they caught COVID-19, and after their acute infection they developed Long COVID."

#MaskUp #WearAMask #CovidRealist #CovidIsAirbone #LongCovid #YallMasking #DisabledLiberation #DisabilityJustice

.

Safety concerns around far-UVC radiation
Poking holes in the premises of the claim "far-UVC is safe"
https://mathissweet.substack.com/p/safety-concerns-around-far-uvc-radiation

“I have decided to do something different and make a shorter debunking post that’s basically in point form. One day I might make a longer, more detailed, more science-heavy one, because I could definitely say a lot more than I’ve said here! But ultimately, we can easily identify issues with the premises of the claim that far-UVC radiation is safe.
These (false) premises are:
• Far-UVC is safe because it’s safe for the eyes and skin.
• Far-UVC radiation is safe for the eyes due to the presence of tears and the fact that the cells on the surface of the eye are refreshed regularly and don’t live for long.
• Far-UVC radiation is safe for the skin because of the dead skin layer (called the stratum corneum or SC) on the surface of our skin, and also the short-lived cells below the SC that are destined to become the SC.
• Basically, this boils down to the idea that proteins in the tears and SC absorb the majority of the UV radiation, and even if some penetrates further, it would only cause DNA damage to cells that are destined to die soon anyway, meaning there’s no risk of the cells entering precancerous or cancerous states.
• Far-UVC does not cause DNA damage because it produces low or no pyrimidine dimers (one specific kind of DNA damage).
• Far-UVC does not cause redness or swelling of the skin so it is safe and non-damaging.
So what’s wrong with those statements?
• Our skin and eyes are not the only parts of our bodies at risk when it comes to UV radiation.
• Not everyone makes a normal amount of tears and/or tears with the same composition1. Various medications, medical conditions, environmental factors, etc. can contribute to dry eyes1. For those who make less tears or tears with less protein, the cells on the surface of the eye will experience a higher dose of radiation.
• The SC varies in thickness over the body2,3,4,5 and even does not exist on certain surfaces of the body, including parts of the genitals5,6,7 and parts of the inner surfaces of the eyes6, mouth6, throat6, nose8, genitals6,7 rectum6 and anus9.
• The SC varies in thickness from person to person2,3,4,5; tends to be thinner in female study participants than male participants2,10; is influenced by age11, humidity12,13, lotions14, etc.; can be at least partially removed through exfoliation15,16 and may be removed more easily in Asian people17. In one skin exposure study, older people and people with darker skin had longer-lasting DNA damage from far-UVC radiation than younger people and people with lighter skin [note: this study appears to have generative AI related errors in sections summarizing previous studies]18.
• Skin cells below the SC can enter a precancerous state, causing actinic keratosis, which if left untreated leads to a specific form of skin cancer in 20 % of cases19.
• Estimates of how much far-UVC radiation reaches skin cells below the SC rely on SC thicknesses that are generally higher than in many regions of the body3,4,20, particularly the face skin, and especially for female study participants. In some far-UVC skin exposure and skin model exposure studies, increased DNA damage is detected in cells below the SC, indicating it does penetrate cells below the SC18,21,22,23.
• While far-UVC generates less pyrimidine dimers compared to higher wavelength UV radiation, it appears to cause more double-stranded breaks than those wavelengths24. Importantly, double-stranded breaks are a more dangerous form of DNA damage than pyrimidine dimers due to being more difficult to repair25. Cancer develops through changes in a cell’s DNA, which can occur when DNA damage is not repaired properly.
• Filtered far-UVC radiation does not cause sunburn-like effects like redness or swelling. This was already known, does not mean it is safe, and should not count as evidence that it is safe.
What is missing from those statements?
• Far-UVC lamps are used under many different circumstances, including where unmasked people are opening their mouths to speak or to get dental work, where people may be naked, etc., and these scenarios expose tissues that are particularly vulnerable to damage that can lead to precancerous or cancerous states. Ultimately, no amount of UV radiation is safe, and even far-UVC radiation has the potential to cause cancer, especially in specific areas of the body.
• Without filters to reduce the longer wavelengths of UV radiation that are also produced by far-UVC lamps (ex: UVC radiation that is not far-UVC, ~235-280 nm), these lamps are especially dangerous, emitting significant amounts of non far-UVC radiation that is universally considered to cause cancer in humans and animals26 [I say universally to be a bit flippant, referring to the fact that some people believe/argue that far-UVC is safe, particularly the researchers funded by far-UVC lamp companies, who license their far-UVC technology to these companies, etc. lol].
• There is a lack of regulation around these lamps, meaning companies could even claim their products are filtered when they’re not, they could not go through vigorous testing, they could emit different doses of radiation than they claim, etc..
• There can be a lack of adequate safety information supplied with the lamps, including maximum daily exposure limits that take into account how far away the lamp is from the person.
• These lamps produce the toxic gas ozone, other harmful gasses and increase particulate matter in the air27,28–all of which are bad for human health, especially in people with certain medical conditions including asthma29,30.
• Many medical conditions, medications, injuries, fresh tattoos, eating certain foods, etc. increase the risks of UV exposure31,32.
• The risks of far-UVC exposure are increased for people with various marginalized identities, including ones that cannot be assessed visually. I strongly believe people should have to provide informed consent to enter a space with far-UVC lamps installed. I think it’s extremely irresponsible, anti-consent, inequitable and dangerous to not require this and to expose people to ultraviolet radiation without their consent and knowledge.
Alternative suggestions:
• I recommend air purifiers that rely on filters that effectively remove even very small particles from the air. While these can be loud at the highest and most effective settings, they do not pose the risk of causing cancer; do not create ozone, particulate matter, etc.; and tend to be cheaper than far-UVC technology.
• Of course, I also recommend ventilation and wearing high-quality well-fitting respirators that don’t have a lot of wear time nor a lot of don/doffs.
Some quick notes on one particular kind of misleading far-UVC study:
• On top of claiming far-UVC is safe, some far-UVC researchers also release misleading information around how effective the lamps are at inactivating airborne pathogens.
• For example, claims such as “inactivates 99 % of airborne coronavirus (not SARS-CoV-2) in 16 minutes”33 rely on data using aerosolized virus suspended in a simple buffer not containing protein, but aerosols exhaled by people have more complex compositions including proteins and glycoproteins from sputum, mucus, saliva, etc..
• As mentioned earlier, the claims around the safety of far-UVC radiation cite the fact that proteins in the tears and SC absorb a lot of the radiation, so this should be taken into consideration when it comes to designing experiments to assess the efficacy of inactivating pathogens in aerosols. In other words, proteins and other matter in aerosols that humans exhale can shield the pathogenic microbes in the aerosols from UV radiation to some extent.
• Thus, in real-world scenarios where people are exhaling pathogen-containing aerosols, far-UVC lamps will inactivate the microbes less effectively than in experiments using unrealistically simple aerosols that lack protein.
TLDR (repeating what I feel like are the most important points):
• No amount of UV radiation is safe, and even far-UVC radiation has the potential to cause cancer, especially in specific areas of the body.
• These lamps produce the toxic gas ozone, other harmful gasses and increase particulate matter in the air27,28–all of which are bad for human health, especially in people with certain medical conditions including asthma29,30.
• Many medical conditions, medications, injuries, fresh tattoos, eating certain foods, etc. increase the risks of UV exposure31,32.
• The risks of far-UVC exposure are increased for people with various marginalized identities, including ones that cannot be assessed visually. I strongly believe people should have to provide informed consent to enter a space with far-UVC lamps installed. I think it’s extremely irresponsible, anti-consent, inequitable and dangerous to not require this and to expose people to ultraviolet radiation without their consent and knowledge.”

#MaskUp #WearAMask #CovidRealist #CovidIsAirbone #LongCovid #YallMasking #DisabledLiberation #DisabilityJustice

.

Does azelastine nasal spray prevent COVID-19? Unfortunately, probably not.

https://mathissweet.substack.com/p/does-azelastine-nasal-spray-prevent

This latest study on COVID-19 and azelastine nasal sprays is extremely flawed and extremely funded by the company that makes the spray.

COVID-19 influencers uncritically and unjustifiably hyping up this study is irresponsible and spreads misinformation. Those of us who still care about COVID-19 are supposed to be the science-backed side and should be spreading accurate information. Without taking the time to critically analyze these studies, we shouldn’t be posting about them.

Ultimately and unfortunately, pretending there’s convincing evidence that nasal sprays prevent or treat COVID-19 is not going to fight COVID-19.

#MaskUp #WearAMask #CovidRealist #CovidIsAirbone #LongCovid #YallMasking #DisabledLiberation #DisabilityJustice

.

Debunking the myth that N95s are super protective for 40 hours of wear (let's stop recommending it!)

https://mathissweet.substack.com/p/debunking-the-myth-that-n95s-are

Some considerations:
• The healthcare workers in these studies donned and doffed the N95s a median of 4 times during each shift
• It is unknown how much the participants checked the fit and adjusted their respirators for a good fit
• Respirators were reworn the very next day if they weren’t retired, for a total of 5 consecutive days in some cases
• Those of us still masking may do things differently
• In the fit test study, they state that their fit testing method might be overly sensitive, where an N95 is deemed to have failed a fit test when it shouldn't have. However, after reviewing the study they cite about that, I disagree. Basically, in the study they cite, the threshold for considering a fit test passed was too low.
My takeaways:
• Based on these studies, I would not suggest rewearing the same respirator for anywhere near 40 hours of wear time
• If you do wear respirators for over 8 hours of wear time, it is super important to check the seal and fit and get the respirator to fit as well as possible
• If you do wear respirators for over 8 hours of wear time, it would probably be safer to wear newer masks in higher risk environments and masks with more wear time in lower risk environments (both for fit and filtration efficiency reasons)
• Before we worry about drops in filtration efficiency, we should worry about leaks in the mask or fit test failure
• If we do manage to get a good seal and avoid leaks, a filtration efficiency of 94.2 % (or generally a drop in filtration efficiency over time) is concerning
• If you need respirators, check out covidactionmap.org, maskbloc.org and if you’re in so-called canada, go to donatemask.ca

#MaskUp #WearAMask #CovidRealist #CovidIsAirbone #LongCovid #YallMasking #DisabledLiberation #DisabilityJustice

.

There is no convincing evidence that nasal sprays prevent COVID-19

https://mathissweet.substack.com/p/there-is-no-convincing-evidence-that

“There is a lot of misinformation out there about nasal sprays preventing COVID-19. Unfortunately, there are no convincing studies showing that nasal sprays prevent COVID-19. The published studies investigating whether or not nasal sprays prevent COVID-19 each have major issues, which I will detail here.
I have a PhD in biochemistry and one of my PhD projects was on COVID-19. The main takeaway of this post is that there is no sound evidence that nasal sprays prevent COVID-19. Thus, nasal sprays should not be used for COVID-19 prevention in place of effective measures such as high-quality well-fitting respirators, ventilation and air purification.
This post has become long, so here are the sections in order as they appear:
1. Brief overview of issues with the studies
2. Human clinical trials with placebos
3. Studies in humans without placebos (which are not clinical trials)
4. Studies in test tubes/cell culture and why that isn’t transferable to the human respiratory tract
5. Summary/TLDR and final thoughts
I will name the COVID-19 prevention nasal spray studies I’m going over study 1, study 2, etc. and for other papers cited I’m naming them study A, study B, etc. Basically, I want to make sections of this post easy to refer to and discuss. And if there are other human clinical trials looking at nasal sprays for preventing COVID-19 let me know and I will review them and edit the post to add them in.
1. As a brief overview, some major issues with these studies include:
• The fact that the test spray and not the placebo spray contain ingredients that can cause false-negative COVID-19 tests (combined with no information on the timing between applying nasal sprays and taking nasal/nasopharyngeal swabs for COVID-19 tests)
o Ex: a heparin nasal spray can cause false-negative COVID-19 RT-PCR tests (study A) and carrageenan from vaginal swabs after using carrageenan-containing lube can cause false-negative PCR tests for HPV (study B). If we take the estimate from another paper (study C) that nasal sprays get immediately diluted approximately 1:1 by nasal fluid (when the spray volume in each nostril is 0.100 mL), then the amount of carrageenan in a nasal swab taken immediately after spraying the nasal spray is comparable to that in the carrageenan undiluted samples in experiment 4 in study B. Those samples from study B all produced false-negative PCR tests for HPV. (EDIT APRIL 13, 2025: study R shows carrageenan nasal sprays causing false-negative COVID-19 RT-PCR test results and reductions in measured viral loads.)
• Lack of placebo spray, participants having to seek out the test spray themselves (suggesting they may take more precautions than those in the study taking no spray, not even a placebo)
• Lack of sufficient information for reproducibility (especially regarding what is considered a positive and a negative COVID-19 RT-PCR test result)
• Lack of testing for asymptomatic/presymptomatic infections (how can we say something prevents COVID-19 if we aren’t testing for asymptomatic and presymptomatic COVID-19 infections?)
• Inappropriate COVID-19 testing methods
• Wide 95 % confidence intervals for relative risk reductions
• The group promised a follow-up study with more participants and the trial was completed but the results were never posted (suggesting that the results did not show the test spray preventing COVID-19)
o Ex: in study D a protocol was published for an upcoming carrageenan nasal spray clinical trial, and that trial finished in 2022 but the results haven’t been posted. Generally, if you do a search on clinicaltrials.gov with the condition “COVID” and the intervention/treatment “nasal spray”, you find 41 studies where only 4 have the status “completed with results”, 14 are “completed without results”, 9 have “unknown status” and 6 are “withdrawn” or “terminated”
• Many nasal spray companies having to majorly walk back false claims of their sprays preventing COVID-19 after warning letters from the FDA (link here, ignore the Profi nasal spray praise, we’ll get to the study on it lol). As well as a lawsuit about falsely claiming to prevent COVID-19 when it comes to Xlear
• False claims that we mainly contract COVID-19 through nose cells (and not lung cells) with either no citation or citation of papers that don’t prove that (such as study E)
• Lack of acknowledgement that the location in the respiratory tract that aerosols end up is determined by their size (aka a nasal spray will not prevent the sizes of aerosols that end up in your lungs from going into your lungs), see Figure 3 and all the studies referenced in that figure in study F)
• Not everyone breathes through their nose
• Nasal sprays are flushed out of the nasal cavity in a matter of hours
• Nasal sprays don’t appear to coat even 50 % of the nasal cavity (see study G, study H, study I)
• Many of these sprays contain the preservative benzalkonium chloride, which have harmful effects at the concentrations used in nasal sprays in some studies (see study J and study K and references therein)
Note: the sizes of aerosols that would end up deposited in your nose are very efficiently filtered by high-quality respirators such as N95s, provided that the N95 is sealed to your face and the seal doesn’t break. This is even true for a respirator with a lot of wear time (see my previous post on some studies looking at the effects of wear time on N95 fit and filtration efficiency here, again, provided that it stays sealed). This is because the filtration mechanisms that act on the sizes of aerosols that get deposited in your nose do not degrade with wear time (whereas the filtration mechanisms that act on smaller aerosols do degrade with wear time). Thus, while wearing a sealed N95, aerosols containing SARS-C0V-2 in the environment should not be deposited in your nose anyway.
(…)

Summary/TLDR and final thoughts
Unfortunately, many people including covid influencers have fallen for the falsehood that nasal sprays prevent COVID-19. Some such influencers have promoted these nasal sprays for free and helped spread the misinformation that they prevent COVID-19. Unlike with nasal sprays, there is ample, sound evidence that high-quality well-fitting respirators, ventilation and air purification prevent COVID-19.
The human clinical trials testing whether or not nasal sprays prevent COVID-19 have major methodological issues, and to my knowledge there are only two (EDIT MARCH 15, 2025: and one of the two has now been retracted)! Please don't lower your covid precautions based on two (EDIT MARCH 15, 2025: one) low-quality, flawed human clinical trials, two low-quality, flawed human studies with no placebos and other misleading studies performed in test tubes! As time goes on, more concerns about these studies appear on PubPeer which sometimes triggers investigations of the studies and warnings to not treat the studies as reliable in the meantime. Most clinical trials looking at preventing COVID-19 with nasal sprays mysteriously never published the results (most likely, the results were not good so they didn’t publish them). In my (PhD biochemist who studied COVID-19) opinion, we have enough studies to reasonably conclude whether or not nasal sprays prevent COVID-19, and we may not get many new ones, because the evidence suggests that nasal sprays do not prevent COVID-19. However, as a scientist, I will continue to review any new studies and keep an open mind.
While this post may be upsetting to read, false hope is dangerous. Well-fitting high-quality respirators, ventilation and air purification give me true hope. Many of these companies are no longer allowed to claim that their sprays prevent COVID-19 after warnings from the FDA. Let’s stop spreading dangerous misinformation and stop providing free advertising for these companies who have never proven their sprays prevent COVID-19! <3”

#MaskUp #WearAMask #CovidRealist #CovidIsAirbone #LongCovid #YallMasking #DisabledLiberation #DisabilityJustice

.

It's probably not the "flu" or "allergies," it's COVID.

Also: COVID makes your allergies worse and it can create new ones.

Based on the post by @guiapandemica adding information

https://healthselfdefense.substack.com/p/its-probably-not-the-flu-or-allergies

Periodically, on social media after parties, vacations, and in general, events where there are crowds without masks, many people report having a “bad flu” without even thinking it could be COVID.

BUT

Did you know it might NOT be the flu?

First of all, the flu is an illness caused by the influenza virus.

Second, the only way to know if it’s influenza or COVID is through a PCR test, because having flu-like symptoms doesn’t mean it’s the same. Watery eyes, cough, fever, etc., are present in many illnesses, from COVID to HIV or measles. Antigen tests give false negatives; it’s important to know how to perform them and to take two tests 48 hours apart. We know that antigens have enormous limitations for their precision, but we also know that the health system has removed PCR tests, leaving us with no accurate way of knowing what we have.

Why does everyone have a “bad flu”?

Since preventive measures against COVID were abandoned and the virus was allowed to run rampant, these “flu bugs” have become quite frequent.

Before COVID, an adult got the flu on average about twice in 10 years. Because when you get this illness, unlike COVID, you create antibodies that protect you against future infections for a certain period of time. Furthermore, this virus doesn’t mutate as quickly as COVID, it’s less contagious, and vaccines are more effective.

Since 2020, with the arrival of COVID, we’re getting sicker because this new virus mutates quickly, doesn’t generate enough antibodies to protect us, and, above all, weakens the immune system.

That’s why we’re getting sicker more and more often.

Can infections be avoided?

Masks protect us from airborne pathogens: if they’re worn properly and properly at home, they protect you and others (just like we said in 2020, masks save lives!). They filter the air before it’s breathed, preventing the inhalation of viruses and talcum powder.

When you drink, you don’t drive, and in the car, you wear your seatbelt.

When you have sex, you use condoms and other methods to prevent sexually transmitted infections. Free condoms are distributed at some events.

In some countries, it’s also common to distribute earplugs at concerts and fairs to protect your hearing.

Adapting and protecting ourselves so we can have fun safely allows us to enjoy ourselves even more.

In this time of Covid, we need to normalize preventive measures, such as the use of N95 masks, ventilation, and air purification.

New Allergies or Food Intolerance After COVID-19? Mast Cell and Histamine Issues from LONG COVID ESSENTIALS

“People with Long COVID often experience new or worse reactions to foods or other things they could previously eat or encounter without issues. These symptoms can be related to cells called “mast cells.” When activated, mast cells release chemicals that cause inflammation, such as histamine.

People experiencing these reactions may have Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS). MCAS can include sensitivities to foods, fragrances, medications, and other chemicals. Reactions to these can cause a wide variety of debilitating symptoms.”

Long COVID is really common.

At least 50% of all transmissions are asymptomatic you have it and you don’t even feel ill)

At least 10% of infections result in long COVID.

Every infection you have, you are closer to it. There is no good COVID infection. Capitalism is normalizing COVID because it cannot afford to stop its economy. Capitalism is sacrificing our lives in the name of money.

Improve your knowledge + COVID protocols
Covid moves like invisible smoke

COVID spreads and moves like cigarette smoke. Think of the people around you and yourself as people who are smoking all day; it makes it easier to understand how COVID moves.

COVID aerosols can quickly fill any crowded, poorly ventilated space, moving invisibly to infect anyone in the room. These aerosols travel with air currents and remain airborne for hours after the infected person has left. COVID also spreads outdoors. You can become infected within seconds or minutes of exposure.

You don’t need to have symptoms to spread COVID

At least 50% of all transmissions are asymptomatic (you have it and you don’t even feel ill). In those symptomatic infections, it takes a couple of days for symptoms to appear, which means that you are infecting others for at least a couple of days without knowing it. Since we cannot know for sure if we have COVID at any given time, universal masking is essential.

There is no mild COVID infection.

At least 10% of infections result in long COVID.

Reinfections are devastating. There’s no way to “train” the immune system because it’s not a muscle; the damage from infections is cumulative. Any propaganda that talks about “training” the immune system is just lying to make you feel safer when exposed to harmful infections.

To say that infections are good because they help our immune system is like saying that having car accidents are good because they strengthen our bones; it makes absolutely no sense. That’s not how our bodies work.

Masks matter, find one that fits your face!

Masks are incredibly effective. They work best when everyone wears them. FFP2, KN95, KF94, and N95 masks offer aerosol filtration and should be used whenever possible. Surgical and cloth masks are less effective and do not filter aerosols. Get free masks and testing at your local mask block (maskbloc.org for searching maskbloc worldwide and you can also email us at [email protected]; we ship masks worldwide).

Make sure the mask fits snugly against your face so that the air you breathe is filtered through it. Aerosols can leak through gaps. If you can’t get a good seal, try a different brand or size.

Test frequently + understand the limitations

Rapid antigen tests produce many false negatives. A rapid antigen test only successfully detects 60% of early symptomatic infections and 22% of asymptomatic infections (OntarioHealth has a guide on how to get the most out of them, as they are the most affordable tests for the general population).

Rapid tests are much more reliable when performed repeatedly over several 48-hour periods. It can take between one week and 14 days to get a positive result, so a single negative result should not be relied upon. Molecular tests such as PCR or NAAT are much more reliable and are best performed between 3 and 5 days after exposure, although they are expensive and less accessible than rapid tests. As COVID-19 spreads, the virus mutates, and our tests become less reliable.

Vaccines cannot be an excuse for not preventing the virus.

Vaccines do not prevent infections, reinfections, or long COVID. SARS-CoV-2 infection weakens immune-cell response to vaccination, meaning that the more we are infected, the less effective the vaccines we receive will be.

They have been crucial in significantly reducing mortality and hospitalization rates from severe infections. However, antibody levels decrease significantly in the months following vaccination. Each infection leads to new mutations that make the virus more complex.

To honor the effectiveness of vaccines, we must prevent the creation of more variants. Vaccines are not an excuse not to wear a mask.

HIV and COVID: united by ignored pandemics

“The statement that SARS-CoV-2 is “airborne AIDS” may be an oversimplification, but it draws attention to emerging evidence showing that the virus induces a distinct form of acquired immunodeficiency (AID).

SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1, though distinct, share parallels in their biochemical traits and mechanisms, long-term impacts and societal responses. Both can establish persistent infections in tissue reservoirs, immune dysfunction, vulnerability to other infections including opportunistic, systemic damage including hallmarks of accelerated biological aging, and premature neurocognitive disorders. HIV integrates into DNA, whereas SARS-CoV-2 and its parts persist in organs like the blood vessels, brain, heart, tonsils, and lungs.

As governments rolled back public health protections, leaving the public to navigate the uncontrolled spread on their own, stigma shifted to Long COVID patients and those advocating for continued precautions. These individuals are frequently dismissed as “fearmongers”, “anxious” or “overly cautious” despite the objective ongoing and significant harms caused by the pandemic. Meanwhile, Long COVID patients experience persistent gaslighting and ignorance from healthcare professionals, exacerbating their struggles to access appropriate care.

addressing SARS-CoV-2 as a systemic vascular infection with significant cumulative health impacts necessitates sustained public health measures and innovative strategies to mitigate its ongoing threat to individual and population health. It is essential to prioritize airborne infection prevention, especially while no causal therapies are available for the sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Right now, the disabled community is being targeted. Like HIV, COVID can affect anyone, but this time the state has chosen to use the word “vulnerable” to seek complicity in ignoring the ongoing pandemic. Just as HIV is linked to queer activism, COVID is linked to disability activism, because the state uses our identity to justify the social murder we experience due to ITS mismanagement.

Only the rich can afford to be sick: viruses are weapons of the oppressors.

Do you know any working-class person who can afford to be sick? Neither can we.

#MaskUp #WearAMask #CovidRealist #CovidIsAirbone #LongCovid #YallMasking #DisabledLiberation #DisabilityJustice

.

Por cada infección de COVID acercas más a la muerte y discapacidad a tu comunidad (incluido tu mismo)

Por cada infección de COVID acercas más a la muerte y discapacidad a tu comunidad (incluido tu mismo)

Mejora tus conocimientos + protocolos con el covid

Covid se mueve como el humo invisible
El COVID se propaga y mueve como el humo de un cigarro, piensa en las personas de tu alrededor y en ti como personas que están todo el día fumando, se hace más visual entender cómo se mueve el COVID.
Los aerosoles del COVID pueden llenar rápidamente cualquier espacio abarrotado y mal ventilado, moviéndose de forma invisible para infectar a cualquiera que se encuentre en la habitación. Los aerosoles viajan con las corrientes de aire y permanecen en el aire durante horas después de que la persona infectada se haya marchado.

No se necesitan síntomas para propagar el covid
El 50% de todas las transmisiones se producen de forma asintomática, en las infecciones con síntomas se tarda un par de días en dar los síntomas lo que quiere decir que estás por lo menos un par de días infectando sin saberlo. Dado que no podemos saber con certeza si tenemos Covid en cualquier momento, uso universal de máscaras y las pruebas frecuentes son fundamentales.

No existe infección de covid que sea buena
Mínimo 10% de las infecciones acaban en COVID persistente.
Las reinfecciones nos destrozan. No hay forma de ‘entrenar’ el sistema inmunitario porque no es un músculo, el daño de las infecciones es acumulativo. Toda propaganda que te hable de ‘entrenar’ el sistema inmune lo que hace es mentirte para hacerte sentir más tranquilo al estar expuesto a infecciones que hacen daño.
Decir que las infecciones de COVID fortalecen el sistema inmune es como decir que los accidentes de coches fortalecen nuestros huesos. Así no es como funciona el cuerpo.

Las mascarillas importan, encuentra una que se ajuste a tu cara!
Las mascarillas son increíblemente eficaces. Funcionan mejor cuando todo el mundo las lleva. Las mascarillas FFP2, KN95, KF94 y N95 ofrecen filtración de aerosoles y deben utilizarse siempre que sea posible. Las mascarillas quirúrgicas y de tela son menos eficaces y no filtran los aerosoles. Consigue mascarillas y pruebas gratuitas en tu bloque de mascarillas local (escríbenos un correo a [email protected], enviamos mascarillas de forma mundial)

Asegúrate de que la mascarilla te quede bien ajustada a la cara para que el aire que respiras se filtre a través de ella. Los aerosoles pueden colarse por las rendijas. Si no consigues un buen sellado, prueba con otra marca o talla.

Test con frecuencia + entiende las limitaciones
Los tests de antígenos rápidos dan muchos falsos negativos. Un test de antígeno rápido solo logra detectar con éxito 60% de las infecciones tempranas sintomáticas y el 22% de las infecciones asintomáticas (ontariohealth tiene una guía de cómo poder sacarles el mejor partido ya que son los test más asequibles para la población general).

Las pruebas rápidas son mucho más fiables cuando se realizan sucesivamente durante varios periodos de 48 horas. Se puede tardar entre una semana y 14 días en obtener un positivo, por lo que no hay que fiarse de un único resultado negativo. Las pruebas moleculares como la PCR o la NAAT son mucho más fiables y es mejor realizarlas entre 3 y 5 días después de la exposición, aunque son caras y de más difícil acceso que las rápidas. A medida que Covid se extiende, el virus muta y nuestras pruebas pierden fiabilidad.

Las vacunas no pueden ser una excusa para no usar mascarilla
Las vacunas no previenen infecciones, reinfecciones ni la COVID persistente. La infección por SARS-CoV-2 debilita la respuesta de las células inmunitarias a la vacunación, lo que quiere decir que cuanto más nos infectemos, menos funcionarán las vacunas que nos pongamos.

Han sido cruciales para reducir significativamente las tasas de mortalidad y hospitalización por infecciones graves. Sin embargo, los niveles de anticuerpos producidos disminuyen significativamente en los meses posteriores a la vacunación. Cada infección conlleva nuevas mutaciones que hacen que el virus sea más complejo.

Para honrar la labor de las vacunas, debemos evitar la creación de más variantes. Las vacunas no son excusa para no usar mascarilla.

VIH y COVID: unidos por pandemias ignoradas
“La afirmación de que el SARS-CoV-2 es un “SIDA transmitido por el aire” puede ser una simplificación excesiva, pero llama la atención sobre la evidencia emergente que demuestra que el virus induce una forma distinta de inmunodeficiencia adquirida (IAD).

El SARS-CoV-2 y el VIH-1, aunque distintos, comparten paralelismos en sus características y mecanismos bioquímicos, sus impactos a largo plazo y sus respuestas sociales. Ambos pueden generar infecciones persistentes en reservorios tisulares, disfunción inmunitaria, vulnerabilidad a otras infecciones, incluyendo infecciones oportunistas, daño sistémico con características distintivas de envejecimiento biológico acelerado y trastornos neurocognitivos prematuros. El VIH se integra en el ADN, mientras que el SARS-CoV-2 y sus componentes persisten en órganos como los vasos sanguíneos, el cerebro, el corazón, las amígdalas y los pulmones.

A medida que los gobiernos redujeron las protecciones de salud pública, dejando a la población a su suerte ante la propagación descontrolada, el estigma se trasladó a los pacientes con COVID persistente y a quienes abogaban por precauciones continuas. A estas personas se las suele tachar de “infundidoras de miedo”, “ansiosas” o “excesivamente cautelosas”, a pesar de los daños objetivos, continuos y significativos, causados por la pandemia. Mientras tanto, los pacientes con COVID persistente sufren una constante manipulación psicológica y la ignorancia de los profesionales de la salud, lo que agrava sus dificultades para acceder a la atención médica adecuada.

abordar el SARS-CoV-2 como una infección vascular sistémica con importantes impactos acumulativos en la salud requiere medidas sostenidas de salud pública y estrategias innovadoras para mitigar su amenaza continua para la salud individual y de la población. Es fundamental priorizar la prevención de infecciones transmitidas por el aire, especialmente mientras no se disponga de terapias causales para las secuelas de la infección por SARS-CoV-2.”

Ahora mismo es el colectivo disca el que se usado como diana, como el VIH, el COVID puede afectar a cualquiera, pero esta vez el estado ha decidido usar la palabra ‘vulnerable’ para buscar la complicidad en ignorar la pandemia que aún continúa. Igual que el VIH tiene que ver con lucha queer, el COVID tiene que ver con lucha disca, porque el estado utiliza nuestra identidad para justificar el asesinato social que vivimos por SU mala gestión.

Solo los ricos se pueden permitir estar enfermos: los virus son armas de los opresores
¿Conoces a alguna persona de clase obrera que puede permitirse estar enfermo? Nosotres tampoco.

¿Quién puede permitirse faltar al trabajo?

El COVID persistente es una enfermedad nueva que el sistema quiere poner como un desastre cuando es responsabilidad de la falta de prevención, en el capitalismo la ciencia se usa para que volvamos a trabajar mañana pero en cuestiones más complejas los médicos tienden a negarte atención y decirte que todo es ansiedad.

Las personas con COVID persistente reciben enorme violencia y negligencia médica, además el COVID puede literalmente crear ictus, ataques al corazón y enfermedades autoinmunes. Y todo esto es prevenible con mascarillas.

Los trabajadores somos quienes creamos los medicamentos, mascarillas, casas y todas las necesidades básicas que necesita una persona, sin embargo no tenemos el derecho a acceder a ellas, tenemos que pasar nuestra vida explotados por algo que no podría crearse sin nuestro esfuerzo.

Poder obrero significa cuidado obrero. Queremos fuerza sindical, queremos fuerza obrera, queremos prevención laboral, queremos prevención de muerte y discapacidad.

Infectarte de COVID en el trabajo es otra forma de terrorismo patronal. A cada lugar que vas, hay un trabajador que no tiene otra opción que estar ahí. Usemos mascarillas para nuestra salud colectiva.

https://autodefesasanitaria.substack.com/p/por-que-deberia-preocuparme-por-el

#CovidPersistente #LlevaMascarilla #RealistaCovid #CovidSonAerosoles #birdflu #gripeaviar

#MaskUp #WearAMask #CovidRealist #CovidIsAirbone #LongCovid

training:

COVID 101: Care, Political Analysis of Normalization, and the need of a popular response

April 7

access our discord to see the details!

Would you like to receive this training but you cannot do it this day? Email [email protected] and we'll work out the details!

https://linktr.ee/HealthSelfDefense_

Improve your knowledge + COVID protocols

Covid moves like invisible smoke
COVID spreads and moves like cigarette smoke. Think of the people around you and yourself as people who are smoking all day; it makes it easier to understand how COVID moves.
COVID aerosols can quickly fill any crowded, poorly ventilated space, moving invisibly to infect anyone in the room. These aerosols travel with air currents and remain airborne for hours after the infected person has left. COVID also spreads outdoors. You can become infected within seconds or minutes of exposure.

You don't need to have symptoms to spread COVID
At least 50% of all transmissions are asymptomatic (you have it and you don’t even feel ill). In those symptomatic infections, it takes a couple of days for symptoms to appear, which means that you are infecting others for at least a couple of days without knowing it. Since we cannot know for sure if we have COVID at any given time, universal masking is essential.

There is no mild COVID infection.
At least 10% of infections result in long COVID.
Reinfections are devastating. There's no way to "train" the immune system because it's not a muscle; the damage from infections is cumulative. Any propaganda that talks about "training" the immune system is just lying to make you feel safer when exposed to harmful infections.

To say that infections are good because they help our immune system is like saying that having car accidents are good because they strengthen our bones; it makes absolutely no sense. That’s not how our bodies work.

Masks matter, find one that fits your face!
Masks are incredibly effective. They work best when everyone wears them. FFP2, KN95, KF94, and N95 masks offer aerosol filtration and should be used whenever possible. Surgical and cloth masks are less effective and do not filter aerosols. Get free masks and testing at your local mask block (maskbloc.org for searching maskbloc worldwide and you can also email us at [email protected]; we ship masks worldwide).

Make sure the mask fits snugly against your face so that the air you breathe is filtered through it. Aerosols can leak through gaps. If you can't get a good seal, try a different brand or size.

Test frequently + understand the limitations
Rapid antigen tests produce many false negatives. A rapid antigen test only successfully detects 60% of early symptomatic infections and 22% of asymptomatic infections (OntarioHealth has a guide on how to get the most out of them, as they are the most affordable tests for the general population).

Rapid tests are much more reliable when performed repeatedly over several 48-hour periods. It can take between one week and 14 days to get a positive result, so a single negative result should not be relied upon. Molecular tests such as PCR or NAAT are much more reliable and are best performed between 3 and 5 days after exposure, although they are expensive and less accessible than rapid tests. As COVID-19 spreads, the virus mutates, and our tests become less reliable.

Vaccines cannot be an excuse for not preventing the virus.

Vaccines do not prevent infections, reinfections, or long COVID. SARS-CoV-2 infection weakens immune-cell response to vaccination, meaning that the more we are infected, the less effective the vaccines we receive will be.

They have been crucial in significantly reducing mortality and hospitalization rates from severe infections. However, antibody levels decrease significantly in the months following vaccination. Each infection leads to new mutations that make the virus more complex.

To honor the effectiveness of vaccines, we must prevent the creation of more variants. Vaccines are not an excuse not to wear a mask.

HIV and COVID: united by ignored pandemics
“The statement that SARS-CoV-2 is “airborne AIDS” may be an oversimplification, but it draws attention to emerging evidence showing that the virus induces a distinct form of acquired immunodeficiency (AID).

SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1, though distinct, share parallels in their biochemical traits and mechanisms, long-term impacts and societal responses. Both can establish persistent infections in tissue reservoirs, immune dysfunction, vulnerability to other infections including opportunistic, systemic damage including hallmarks of accelerated biological aging, and premature neurocognitive disorders. HIV integrates into DNA, whereas SARS-CoV-2 and its parts persist in organs like the blood vessels, brain, heart, tonsils, and lungs.

As governments rolled back public health protections, leaving the public to navigate the uncontrolled spread on their own, stigma shifted to Long COVID patients and those advocating for continued precautions. These individuals are frequently dismissed as “fearmongers”, “anxious” or “overly cautious” despite the objective ongoing and significant harms caused by the pandemic. Meanwhile, Long COVID patients experience persistent gaslighting and ignorance from healthcare professionals, exacerbating their struggles to access appropriate care.

addressing SARS-CoV-2 as a systemic vascular infection with significant cumulative health impacts necessitates sustained public health measures and innovative strategies to mitigate its ongoing threat to individual and population health. It is essential to prioritize airborne infection prevention, especially while no causal therapies are available for the sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

Right now, the disabled community is being targeted. Like HIV, COVID can affect anyone, but this time the state has chosen to use the word "vulnerable" to seek complicity in ignoring the ongoing pandemic. Just as HIV is linked to queer activism, COVID is linked to disability activism, because the state uses our identity to justify the social murder we experience due to ITS mismanagement.

Only the rich can afford to be sick: viruses are weapons of the oppressors.
Do you know any working-class person who can afford to be sick? Neither can we.

Who can afford to miss work?

Long COVID is a new disease that the system wants to portray as a disaster when it's actually the result of a lack of prevention. In capitalism, science is used to get us back to work tomorrow, but for more complex issues, doctors tend to deny you care and tell you it's all anxiety.

People with long COVID face enormous violence and medical neglect. Furthermore, COVID can literally cause strokes, heart attacks, and autoimmune diseases. And all of this is preventable with masks.

We, the workers, are the ones who create medicines, masks, houses, and all the basic necessities a person needs. Yet we don't have the right to access them. We have to spend our lives being exploited for something that couldn't be created without our labor.

Workers' power means workers' care. We want union strength, we want workers' power, we want workplace safety, we want prevention of death and disability.

Getting infected with COVID at work is another form of employer terrorism. Everywhere you go, there's a worker who has no choice but to be there. Let's wear masks for our collective health.

#MaskUp #WearAMask #CovidRealist #CovidIsAirbone #LongCovid #YallMasking #DisabledLiberation #DisabilityJustice

.

the NEXT fan-club skillshare will be on Friday April 17, from 3-5ish PM. this will be a slightly different format than previous skillshares; more of a casual space to drop in, ask questions, and chat about covid mitigations for events and gatherings.

there will be 2 focus-topics for the drop-in that I'll be prepared to sort of present, but feel free to come with any questions or ideas as there will be time to chat freely! (this is a REMOTE event)

sign up for this or to find out about future skillshares at http://fan-club.neocities.org/skillshares

#CovidSafer #CRboxes #CleanTheAir #WearAMask #CovidIsntOver