re: Why do you think that TD is such a magnet for those with alternative beliefs?

Now show me the part that proves human to human aerosol contagion.

Another one where they looked at strains and said they were bad.

You can't show human to human contagion. You can't. I keep waiting. Your worldview has no scientific basis. You've been wrecked by the flat earther.

quote:

---

a dynamic model using verbal autopsy data

---

You should read the title of your study, Mr Doctor

quote:

---

You should read the entire thing. It is immensely funny that you can't contextualize this through any reasoning process at all.

---

I can, in better ways than you.

This study says 17 people were sick, went to a camp and then 5 more people got sick. That's it. That's your scientific study to prove transmission as a rigorous doctor. Wow.

You can't prove human-to-human contagion, you're frantically searching for what I'm actually looking for. And you know these don't meet it whatsoever. It's hilarious. I'm an educated doctor, he's a flat earther, of course this is fact!

You can't even prove people get sick from other people. And you're a doctor. So I don't trust your understanding of cystic fibrosis. That is what the study says.

You apparently don't believe in or understand mucosal immunity and because of that, you cannot even make educated inferences. It's crazy that someone who supposedly 'thinks for themselves' can't make any connections to broader contexts at all. You should think for yourself and try to understand the argument I'm making, but that might require more knowledge than you possess. Let me know if you can piece it together.

quote:

---

So far it looks like everyone has it all the time when coming from other people.

---

Right, which means that there are two important distinction we should be making when we are discussing specifically airborne, of which there are only few major pathogens, to my recall, versus droplet transmission. That's why I also chose the CF examples.

quote:

---

You believe in airborn susceptibility with absolutely no proof

---

How does TB enter the lower respiratory tract?

I left for a while, but I come back and now we have a high thinker in here doubting Germ Theory lol

Being educated is absolutely nothing. There are Harvard Ph'Ds cleaning the fish tanks and refilling coffee. If you're highly educated and didn't smell the bullshite all the way up, you're braindead.

quote:

---

Tell me. Is it from someone sneezing near you and breathing in the droplets? If I had that theory and practiced medicine, I'd have something to back it up.

---

TB is a very specialized infection in that if it was slightly more infectious, it would cause havoc on humanity. As it stands, TB nuclei are extremely small. That is the first distinction we have to make between airborne and droplet transmission, which is pathogen diameter. TB nuclei can remain in a room for several hours and generally in order to get a TB infection, you either need to spend several hours in a space with one TB nuclei per around 10,000 sq ft or so. The size of the nuclei allows for avoiding muscosal epithelium and thus allows for lower respiratory tract infections. The other major pathogen that moves by airborne methods is measles, which attacks the mucosa itself. It's the most infectious disease that we know of, and uses a membrane protein complex to form a syncytia with non-infected cells as well as inhibiting complement formation through adhesion to CD46 (which is a molecule that is also used by viruses that transmit by droplet means).

Given the fact that these two diseases are very difficult to treat, it isn't a surprise that we haven't experimented with direct human contact in a laboratory setting. Generally, airborne transmission is arrived at through a process of elimination, just because of how few pathogens use strictly airborne routes. Droplet transmission requires closer contact with heavier nuclei, but the human upper respiratory tract generally has good defenses against those. The fact that many of those pathogens can spread for repeated contact through contact with hands onto mucosal surfaces complicates studying their droplet transmission method alone. This is why I kept touching on the airborne vs droplet distinction, because generally droplet transmission operates through sheer numbers (i.e. viral load), but most droplet respiratory diseases are also self-limited upper respiratory infections.

That isn't to say that such an experimental method couldn't be developed, but the air itself is not sterile, which makes it difficult to control for the specificity of the pathogen. Also in that regard, human immunity is tied directly through HLA genes, which are the most polymorphic in the human genome. These genes provide the human body to make antibodies to a wide variety of illnesses. The other thing to consider is that not all tissues are made up of the same types of cells. The paucity of tissue macrophages and suppressed lower respiratory tract response in lower lung tissue is due to the relative seriousness of those infections. The varieties of mucosal immune responses limits the ability of pathogens to reach sensitive tissues. The ones that can use a variety of methods of transmission are particularly deadly on a population level, but can produce mild illnesses in most healthy age people. Then you can have pathogens like the H1N1 virus of 1918, which generally provoked an overactive immune response in the young, who died in larger numbers versus other pathogens.

The CF examples are meaningful because cystic fibrosis impairs mucocilliary excretions, which makes CF patients prone to very specific opportunistic infections like P. aeruginosa, which is more often then not multi-drug resistant because of some intrinsic antibiotic resistance mechanisms, and is the one bug we always try to prevent during in-patient stays, depending on the hospital antibiogram and pathogens endemic to that specific populations. I don't agree with this policy and think we should be a bit more circumspect with the use of antibiotics, but the opportunistic nature of P. aeroginousa necessitates a lot of preventative antibiotic use.