I have written and published that ASYMPTOMATIC spread is rare; not a driver of this and likely not at all; I cant find any definitive evidence; seems the NFL agrees with me; the body of evidence below
I have written and published that ASYMPTOMATIC spread is rare; not a driver of this and likely not at all; I cant find any definitive evidence; seems the NFL agrees with me; the body of evidence below
see the NFL below and I include the piece I have published on asymptomatic spread, indicating with the evidence that it is non-existent here and used to force masking and lockdowns...to scare people
Thanks very much for the article (and your work in general!) - the overall point is well-taken, but I was also going to ask the question about differentiating between "pre-symptomatic" and "asymptomatic" transmission. Interestingly, Geert vanden Bossche still appears convinced that the latter is a reality, judging by the "supportive references" section of his blog: https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/blog/supportive-references-from-literature
Is there some way to reconcile such studies with the present data that you cite?
Hello, Dr. Alexander, and thank you for the paper. Could you please comment on pre-symptomatic infections? Is it safe to say that the lack of symptoms is a signal of such low viral load that infection is rare, regardless of the individual being asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic?
The NFL is completely gene therapied and has as such looked at gene therapied players only.
If anything, this shall prove that gene therapied people CAN'T be asymptomatic but infectious.
Personally, I agree that this is (also) the case for the not gene therapied.
But it throws cold water on the story I believed sofar and which you try to peddle here erroneously, that the gene therapied are the asymptomatic superspreaders due to their by the GT only artificially suppressed symptoms.
What we can say is that staying home when sick, or taking ones temperature before entry at most, would have been the only necessary interventions all the time, whether gene therapied or not, with the GTs not having been or being necessary at all in the first place of course, at least not for the vast majority of people.
Thanks very much for the article (and your work in general!) - the overall point is well-taken, but I was also going to ask the question about differentiating between "pre-symptomatic" and "asymptomatic" transmission. Interestingly, Geert vanden Bossche still appears convinced that the latter is a reality, judging by the "supportive references" section of his blog: https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/blog/supportive-references-from-literature
Is there some way to reconcile such studies with the present data that you cite?
Hello, Dr. Alexander, and thank you for the paper. Could you please comment on pre-symptomatic infections? Is it safe to say that the lack of symptoms is a signal of such low viral load that infection is rare, regardless of the individual being asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic?
Thank you very much in advance.
Have you read the article?
The NFL is completely gene therapied and has as such looked at gene therapied players only.
If anything, this shall prove that gene therapied people CAN'T be asymptomatic but infectious.
Personally, I agree that this is (also) the case for the not gene therapied.
But it throws cold water on the story I believed sofar and which you try to peddle here erroneously, that the gene therapied are the asymptomatic superspreaders due to their by the GT only artificially suppressed symptoms.
What we can say is that staying home when sick, or taking ones temperature before entry at most, would have been the only necessary interventions all the time, whether gene therapied or not, with the GTs not having been or being necessary at all in the first place of course, at least not for the vast majority of people.
I am worried too about the devil in the details... Please, could you take a look at these claims?
https://swprs.org/pre-symptomatic-transmission-is-very-real/
Thank you very much