Health – artdiamondblog.com

Pasteur Saw That “Germs Were Everywhere in the Air”

The passages quoted below show how Pasteur respected his audience by finding a clear and compelling way to communicate that “germs” float in the air. The essay quoted below is adapted from Zimmer’s recently released Air-Borne book.

In other parts of Air-Borne, Zimmer discusses how the W.H.O. and the C.D.C. ignored the implications of the findings of Pasteur and others, relevant to the air-borne (aerosol) spread of diseases such as Covid-19.

(p. D8) On the evening of April 7, 1864, in an amphitheater filled with Parisian elites, Pasteur stood surrounded by lab equipment and a lamp to project images on a screen. He told the audience it would not leave the soiree without recognizing that the air was rife with invisible germs. “We can’t see them now, for the same reason that, in broad daylight, we can’t see the stars,” he said.

At Pasteur’s command, the lights went out, save for a cone of light that revealed floating motes of dust. Pasteur asked the audience to picture a rain of dust falling on every surface in the amphitheater. That dust, he said, was alive.

Pasteur then used a pump to drive air through a sterile piece of cotton. After soaking the cotton in water, he put a drop under a microscope. He projected its image on a screen for the audience to see. Alongside soot and bits of plaster, they could make out squirming corpuscles. “These, gentlemen, are the germs of microscopic beings,” Pasteur said.

Germs were everywhere in the air, he said — kicked up in dust, taking flights of unknown distances and then settling back to the ground, where they worked their magic of fermentation. Germs broke down “everything on the surface of this globe which once had life, in the general economy of creation,” Pasteur said.

“This role is immense, marvelous, positively moving,” he added.

The lecture ended with a standing ovation. Pasteur’s hunt for floating germs elevated him to the highest ranks of French science.

For the full essay see:

Zimmer, Carl. “He Showed That Germs Floated in Air.” The New York Times (Tuesday, February 18, 2025): D8.

(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the essay was updated Feb. 18, 2025, and has the title “Louis Pasteur’s Relentless Hunt for Germs Floating in the Air.”)

Zimmer’s essay, quoted above, is adapted from his book:

Zimmer, Carl. Air-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe. New York: Dutton, 2025.

Alternatives to Government F.D.A.: Private “High-Quality Third-Party Seals of Approval”

The many label inaccuracies found in the “2022 study” (Crawford et al. 2022) mentioned below would seem to bode ill for the supplement consumer. But if you look at the “new study” you will find that NONE of the 30 supplements they examined had “a third-party certification seal.” This leaves open the plausible possibility that prudent consumers could do well for themselves by limiting their supplement purchases to those with a private third-party certification seal. It would be very useful if someone does another study–this one to confirm or refute my hypothesis that supplements with third-party certification seals had many fewer label inaccuracies. Confirmation would be evidence that the consumer could do well without the F.D.A.’s governmental regulatory mandates.

The relevant quotation from the “2022 study” (Crawford et al. 2022) is:

“No product had a third-party certification seal (ie, naming the third-party company), such as BSCG (Banned Substances Control Group), NSF (National Sanitation Foundation)International, Informed Sport, or USP (US Pharmacopeia), presented on the label” (Crawford et al. 2022, pp. 3 & 5 [all of p. 4 was a table]).”

(p. D7) Supplements claiming to support immunity often contain vitamins and minerals necessary for the immune system. So it isn’t unreasonable to believe that these products could help you sidestep common viral infections or lessen symptoms once you’ve become sick.

In fact, some nutrients such as vitamins A, C, D and zinc are needed to protect against germs, and deficiencies in them raise your risk of becoming sick, said Dr. Mahtab Jafari, a professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of California, Irvine.

. . .

It’s hard to firmly state the benefits of immune system supplements because there are few high-quality randomized clinical trials, the gold standard of medical research, assessing their effectiveness, said Dr. Pieter Cohen, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School who studies dietary supplement safety.

And dietary supplements aren’t approved by the Food and Drug Administration before hitting the market.

This means companies can sell products containing ingredients that haven’t been rigorously tested to offer benefits, Dr. Cohen said, and they generally don’t have to prove to the F.D.A. that their products contain what they claim.

A 2022 study analyzing 30 supplements marketed to support the immune system found that more than half had inaccurate labels, 13 were misbranded and nine contained ingredients not listed on the label.

. . .

“You need to have a really healthy dose of skepticism when you’re pulling something off the shelf,” Dr. Ben-Aderet said.

But if you want to give supplements a try, check for high-quality third-party seals of approval from organizations such as U.S. Pharmacopeia or NSF, which test the quality of dietary supplements, Dr. Jafari said.

For the full story see:

Katie Mogg. “Supplements and Claims of Improved Immunity.” The New York Times (Tuesday, February 25, 2025): D7.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated March 3, 2025, and has the title “Can Vitamin C and Zinc Actually Boost Your Immune System?”)

The “2022 study” mentioned above is:

Crawford, Cindy, Bharathi Avula, Andrea T. Lindsey, Abraham Walter, Kumar Katragunta, Ikhlas A. Khan, and Patricia A. Deuster. “Analysis of Select Dietary Supplement Products Marketed to Support or Boost the Immune System.” JAMA Network Open 5, no. 8 (2022): e2226040-e40.

Animals Consume Effective Medicines Without Spending Billions on Phase 3 Clinical Trials

Animals are free to self-medicate and apparently often do so effectively. Isn’t it ironic that our government F.D.A. restricts the freedom of humans to self-medicate?

(p. A13) . . . as Jaap de Roode reveals in “Doctors by Nature: How Ants, Apes, and Other Animals Heal Themselves,” many animals seek out substances to relieve illnesses or battle parasites that drag their health down: . . .

Mr. de Roode, a biology professor at Emory University, chronicles animal self-medication in everything from caterpillars and bees to pigs and dolphins. The drugs take the form of minerals, fungi and especially plants. Often, the drug is ingested for therapeutic reasons, as when chimps eat Velcro-like leaves to scour parasitic worms from their intestines. Many creatures also take drugs prophylactically, to prevent disease. The feline love of catnip, Mr. de Roode suggests, is probably an evolutionary adaptation: The plant deters disease-carrying mosquitoes, so cats with a taste for it ended up more equipped for survival.

. . .

Many plants produce chemicals called alkaloids that taste foul and cause other unpleasant sensations, but can also fight off parasites. After noticing that woolly bear caterpillars infested with fly maggots tend to seek out alkaloid-rich plants, scientists documented—by threading tiny wires into the caterpillars’ mouths—that the infected critters’ taste buds fired far more often when eating these plants than did the taste buds of the uninfected. The bugs’ sensory perception changed to make drugs more attractive. If the consumption of some irregular substance leads to a drop in infection load and alleviates negative symptoms, then, Mr. de Roode convincingly argues, animals are indeed using medicine. Caterpillar, heal thyself.

. . .

Humans can benefit from studying animal medicine, too. Most of our drugs are either plant compounds or derived from plant compounds. But researchers have systematically studied only a few hundred of the earth’s estimated tens of thousands of plant species. To guide researchers’ studies, scientists could note which ones animals consume and concentrate on those. Let Mother Nature do the research and development for us.

For the full review see:

Sam Kean. “Bookshelf; Medicinal Kingdom.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, March 28, 2025): A13.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date March 27, 2025, and has the title “Bookshelf; ‘Doctors by Nature’: Medicinal Kingdom.”)

The book under review is:

Roode, Jaap de. Doctors by Nature: How Ants, Apes, and Other Animals Heal Themselves. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2025.

Breakthrough Innovations Often Reach Success Through Incremental Improvements

After 130 days, the patient with the longest (so far) transplant of a pig kidney decided to have the transplant “explanted” and return to dialysis. Her surgeon explained that this should not be viewed as a failure of the basic innovation. The patient had the option to continue improvisations to keep the pig kidney alive, but decided that for her the risks had become too high.

The surgeon, Dr. Robert Montgomery said:

“All this takes time,” he said. “This game is going to be won by incremental improvements, singles and doubles, not trying to swing for the fences and get a home run.” (p. A24)

The pig kidney transplants follow the pattern of many other medical innovations, where on-the-fly adjustments, when the protocol allows them, lead to longer duration successes with fewer side effects. Emil Freireich found this with his chemo cocktails for childhood leukemia. Early human heart transplants also followed this pattern.

We should not allow early setbacks to push us to overregulate the incremental progress that can eventually leads to success.

My source is:

Roni Caryn Rabin. “Pig Kidney Is Removed From an Alabama Woman After Organ Is Rejected.” The New York Times (Sat., April 12, 2025): A24.

(Note: the online version of the article has the date April 11, 2025, and has the title “Pig Kidney Removed From Alabama Woman After Organ Rejection.”)

90% of Biomedical Articles Are “Either Misleading, Wrong or Completely Fabricated”

The right to health freedom is primarily an ethical issue. But the uncertainty and unreliability of much medical “knowledge” (as argued in the book reviewed in the passages quoted below) seems to strengthen the case for patient self-determination.

(p. A15) The largest repositories of biomedical research in the U.S. and Europe, PubMed and Europe PMC, contain 84 million articles between them, and add a million more each year. According to recent estimates, up to 90% of those papers—75 million total—contain information that’s either misleading, wrong or completely fabricated.

Over the past 20 years, certain branches of science have endured a so-called reproducibility crisis, in which countless papers have been exposed as shoddy if not bogus. Sometimes these revelations are merely embarrassing, but in biomedical research, incorrect publications can cost lives as doctors and drugmakers rely on them to treat patients.

In “Unreliable: Bias, Fraud, and the Reproducibility Crisis in Biomedical Research,” Csaba Szabo—a physician with doctorates in physiology and pharmacology—dissects the ways he’s seen research go wrong in his 30 years in academia and industry: data manipulation, poor experimental design, statistical errors and more.

. . .

The biggest problem, however, lies with scientists who strive to do good work but feel pressured to cut corners. Scientists cannot work without grant money, but of the 70,000 applications the National Institutes of Health receive each year, only 20% get funded. Leading journals reject up to 99% of papers submitted, and only one in 200 doctoral graduates ever becomes a full professor. Even with tenure, professors can suffer salary cuts or have their labs handed to higher-performing colleagues if they don’t keep pulling in cash. Some sadistic research professors even pit their graduate students against each other in “dogfights”—they run the same experiment, but only the first to get results publishes. No wonder researchers massage data or fudge images: Forget “publish or perish.” It’s “fib or forgo your career.”

. . .

Given this tsunami of mistakes, the author points out that cynical types have suggested we treat all biomedical research as fraudulent unless proved otherwise. The cost is staggering: The U.S. wastes tens of billions of dollars annually on useless research, shortening or even costing patient lives. Most scientists can’t even reproduce their own data half the time, and the number of papers retracted rose to 10,000 in 2023 from 500 in 2010.

. . .

Most importantly, Dr. Szabo calls for systematic changes in how science gets done.

. . .

Above all, he despises the broken status quo, where “everybody acts politely . . . keeps their mouths shut, and acts like the whole process is functioning perfectly well.”

For the full review see:

Sam Kean. “Bookshelf; Reaching For Results.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, March 24, 2025): A15.

(Note: ellipses between paragraphs added; ellipsis internal to paragraph, in original.)

(Note: the online version of the review was updated March 24, 2025, and has the title “Bookshelf; ‘Unreliable’: Reaching for Results.”)

The book under review is:

Szabo, Csaba. Unreliable: Bias, Fraud, and the Reproducibility Crisis in Biomedical Research. New York: Columbia University Press, 2025.

Both Homocysteine and Cholesterol Are Actionable Causes of Atherosclerosis

Alan Donagan taught a thought-provoking graduate course on Action Theory when I was a philosophy student at the University of Chicago in the mid to late 1970s. Some of the course related to how we think about causes in the social sciences and in policy debates.

Often we seek THE cause of what we want (or what we want to avoid). But most results have multiple causes. Which cause is most important, and so to some appears to be THE cause, depends largely on which cause is most easily actionable, which can change based on our knowledge or our constraints.

The obituary passages quoted below tell the sad story of how Kilmer McCully found that an amino acid called homocysteine was one cause of atherosclerosis, a cause that was actionable (could be countered) by eating foods containing various of the B vitamins. Kilmer’s career was canceled by powerful academics committed to the dominant view that cholesterol was THE cause of atherosclerosis.

McCully’s Harvard lab was moved to the basement, and eventually he was pressured out of Harvard.

Later studies, including the large, influential, and continuing Framingham study, eventually vindicated McCully’s claim.

We know the wrongly-cancelled pay a price for deviating from the dominant view. But how often do the cancellers pay a price for wrongly cancelling?

(p. B6) Kilmer S. McCully, a pathologist at Harvard Medical School in the 1960s and ’70s whose colleagues banished him to the basement for insisting — correctly, it turned out — that homocysteine, an amino acid, was being overlooked as a possible risk factor for heart disease, died on Feb. 21 [2025] at his home in Winchester, Mass. He was 91.

. . .

Dr. McCully didn’t think cholesterol should be ignored, but he thought it was malpractice to disregard the significance of homocysteine. His bosses at Harvard disagreed. First, they moved his lab below ground; then they told him to leave. He struggled to find work for years.

. . .

Presenting the case of homocystinuria in a 9-year-old girl, doctors mentioned that her uncle had died from a stroke in the 1930s, when he was 8 and had the same disease. “How could an eight-year-old have died the way old people do?” Dr. McCully wrote, with his daughter, in “The Heart Revolution” (1999).

When Dr. McCully tracked down the autopsy report and tissue samples, he was astounded: The boy had hardened arteries, but there was no cholesterol or fat in the plaque buildup. A few months later, he learned about a baby boy with homocystinuria who had recently died. He also had hardened arteries.

“I barely slept for two weeks,” he wrote.

In 1969, Dr. McCully published a paper about the cases in The American Journal of Pathology. The next year, in the same journal, he described what happened after he injected rabbits with high doses of homocysteine. “The aortas of all 13 of the animals injected with homocysteine were moderately thickened,” he wrote, “compared to the controls.”

. . .

The medical profession responded with “stony silence,” Dr. McCully told The Times. . . .

. . .

“I felt for him, and I admired him,” J. David Spence, a professor emeritus at the University of Western Ontario who studies homocysteine, said in an interview. “He was neglected more than he ought to have been. It was sad.”

That began to change in the early 1990s, when large-scale, long-term studies of the risks for heart disease revealed that Dr. McCully had, in fact, been heading down the right path when Harvard relegated him to the basement.

. . .

As a teenager, Kilmer was enthralled by “Microbe Hunters,” Paul de Kruif’s 1926 book about Pasteur, Walter Reed, Robert Koch and others who investigated infectious diseases. He knew almost immediately that he wanted to become a scientist.

. . .

At a medical school reunion in 1999, his classmates presented him with a silver platter.

It was inscribed, “To Kim McCully, who saw the truth before the rest of us, indeed before the rest of medicine, and who would not be turned aside.”

For the full obituary see:

Michael S. Rosenwald. “Kilmer S. McCully Is Dead at 91; Fueled Debate on Heart Disease.” The New York Times (Monday, March 24, 2025): B6.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the obituary has the date March 21, 2025, and has the title “Kilmer McCully, 91, Dies; Pathologist Vindicated on Heart Disease Theory.”)

The book by McCully and his daughter, mentioned above, is:

McCully, Kilmer, and Martha McCully. Heart Revolution: The Vitamin B Breakthrough That Lowers Homocysteine Levels, Cuts Your Risk of Heart Disease, and Protects Your Health. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999.

The book that inspired a teenage McCully to become a scientist is:

Kruif, Paul de. Microbe Hunters. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1926.

Healthcare Under ObamaCare’s “Affordable” Care Act Is Neither Popular Nor Affordable

In my Openness book, I argue that government regulations bind entrepreneurs and reduce innovation. As part of an antidote, I suggest that “sunset laws,” where regulations automatically expire, if not renewed. Later, at a small conference on Adam Thierer’s latest book, I was discouraged to hear a couple of participants grant the plausibility of the “antidote,” but report that in actual practice it does not work because almost all old regulations get renewed. Some hope returned when I read a report from James Broughel of a successful sunset review process:

(p. A17) Well, well. Progressives are at last acknowledging that ObamaCare is a failure. They aren’t doing so explicitly, of course, but their social-media screeds against insurers, triggered by last week’s murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, suggest as much. “We’ve gotten to a point where healthcare is so inaccessible and unaffordable, people are justified in their frustrations,” CBS News medical contributor Céline Gounder said during a Friday segment on the roasting of health insurers.

A Gallup survey released Friday [Dec. 6, 2024] affirms the sentiment, finding that only 44% of Americans rate U.S. healthcare good or excellent, down from 62% when Democrats passed ObamaCare in 2010. A mere 28% rate the country’s insurance coverage highly, an 11-point decline. ObamaCare may rank as the biggest political bait-and-switch in history.

Remember Barack Obama’s promise that if you like your health plan and doctor, you could keep them? Sorry. How about his claim that people with pre-existing conditions would be protected? Also not true. The biggest howler, however, was that healthcare would become more affordable.

Grant Democrats this: The law has advanced their political goal of expanding government control over insurers, in return for lavishing Americans with subsidies to buy overpriced, lousy products.

. . .

At the same time, ObamaCare’s perverse effects are fueling public rage against insurers and support for a single-payer system that would eliminate them. Mr. Obama and Peter Orszag, the law’s chief architect, must be smiling. Mr. Orszag, now CEO of the financial-services firm Lazard, has dined out on advising health insurers on mergers he says were spurred by the law’s regulations. How convenient.

. . .

If the goal were to help Americans with costly health conditions, it would have been far simpler and less expensive to boost subsidies for state high-risk pools. But that wouldn’t have accomplished Democrats’ actual goal, which is to turn insurers into de facto public utilities and jerry-rig a halfway house to single-payer healthcare. What a con.

For the full commentary see:

Allysia Finley. “Life Science; UnitedHealthcare and the ObamaCare Con.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., Dec. 9, 2024): A17.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date December 8, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

The Gallup poll results mentioned above can be viewed at:

Brenan, Megan. “View of U.S. Healthcare Quality Declines to 24-Year Low.” Gallup, Inc., Dec. 6, 2024 [cited March 27, 2025]. Available from https://news.gallup.com/poll/654044/view-healthcare-quality-declines-year-low.aspx.

Doctors Burnout from Spending Less Time with Patients and More Time Arguing with Insurance Firms

Government policies have increased the paperwork that physicians must process and the time they must spend arguing with insurance companies on behalf of their patients. The policies have increased the need for back-office staff to handle the regulations, and so increased the overhead of private practice. So more and more physicians have given up private practice and become employees. They find their work less fulfilling and face burnout. Patients suffer when more of their physicians are bitter and burned-out.

(p. A1) There’s a question dividing the medical practice right now: Is being a doctor a job, or a calling?

. . .

(p. A2) Physicians work an average of 59 hours a week, according to the American Medical Association, and while the profession is well-compensated—the average physician makes $350,000, a recent National Bureau of Economic Research analysis found—it comes with high pressure and emotional strain.

. . .

Among physicians under age 45, only 32% own practices, down from 44% in 2012. By comparison, 51% of those ages 45 to 55 are owners.

Owners have more autonomy, but also increasing overhead costs. Vaughan, who sold his private practice in 2011, saw his malpractice insurance premiums increase to $65,000 a year.

Dr. Joseph Comfort, 80, sold his anesthesiology practice in 2003, frustrated by rising billing tussles with insurance companies. He now works part time as an internal medicine doctor at a small concierge clinic in Sanford, Fla.

“We’ve been ripped down off our pedestals,” he says.

For generations, Comfort says, doctors accepted being at the mercy of their pager and working long hours as the cost of doing business. “We took it because we considered ourselves to be masters of our own fate,” he says. “Now, everything’s changed. Doctors are like any other employee, and that’s how the new generation is behaving.”

They also spend far more time doing administrative tasks. One 2022 study found residents spent just 13% of their time in patient rooms, a factor many correlate with burnout.

. . .

In San Francisco, Dr. Christopher Domanski—a first-year resident who had his first child earlier this year—says he’s interested in pursuing a four-day workweek once he’s completed his training.

“I’m very happy to provide exceptional care for my patients and be there for them, but medicine has become more corporatized,” says Domanski, 29. Though he’s early in his medical career, he’s heard plenty of physicians complain about needing to argue with insurance companies to get their patients the treatments they need.

“It’s disheartening,” he says.

For the full story see:

Te-Ping Chen. “Younger Doctors Balk at Medicine’s Workaholic Culture.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Nov 04, 2024 [sic]): A1-A2.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date November 3, 2024 [sic], and has the title “Young Doctors Want Work-Life Balance. Older Doctors Say That’s Not the Job.”)

Vindication is Sweet, Even 60 Years Too Late

When I was a child my mother would stick an oral thermometer in my mouth. When she returned she would always be annoyed with me, saying that I didn’t have it in right, because my temperature was too low. She would say with irritation: ‘Now this time do it right!’ So I would feel discouraged and would give the thermometer a hard jab into my mouth until it hurt. But my temperature would still be too low.

The story below suggests, decades too late for me, that maybe it wasn’t my fault. Maybe the official mandated “normal” temperature of 98.6 was wrong!

(p. D6) We seem to be getting cooler. Since 1851, when the standard was set at 37 degrees centigrade, or 98.6 Fahrenheit, the average human body temperature has steadily declined.

. . . . The analysis is in eLife.

. . .

. . . improvements in sanitation and improved dental and medical care have reduced chronic inflammation, and the constant temperatures maintained by modern heating and air conditioning have helped lower resting metabolic rates. Today, a temperature of 97.5 may be closer to “normal” than the traditional 98.6.

For the full story see:

Nicholas Bakalar. “Is 98.6 No Longer ‘Normal’?” The New York Times (Tuesday, January 21, 2020): D6.

(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated Jan. 21, 2020 [sic], and has the title “Body Temperature 2.0: Do We Need to Rethink What’s Normal?”)

The academic paper in eLife, mentioned above, is:

Protsiv, Myroslava, Catherine Ley, Joanna Lankester, Trevor Hastie, and Julie Parsonnet. “Decreasing Human Body Temperature in the United States since the Industrial Revolution.” eLife 9 (2020): e49555.

“Practice-Changing” Cancer Advance Adds Only 10 Months of Life

The subheadline of this article gushed that this drug “tripled life expectancy,” the article quoted one expert gushing that it was “a light after a long time,” and another expert gushing that it “will be practice-changing.”

Then you read more carefully and see that the average recipient of the drug has a gain in life expectancy from about four and a half months without the drug to 14 months with the drug–in other words a gain of only roughly 10 months, and with the major side effect of cytokine syndrome.

This illustrates the discouraging side of many ballyhooed cancer advances, they amount to only months of added life, and the added life comes at the cost of major side effects.

(p. D4) The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday [May 16, 2024] approved an innovative new treatment for patients with a form of lung cancer. It is to be used only by patients who have exhausted all other options to treat small cell lung cancer, and have a life expectancy of four to five months.

The drug tarlatamab, or Imdelltra, made by the company Amgen, tripled patients’ life expectancy, giving them a median survival of 14 months after they took the drug. Forty percent of those who got the drug responded.

After decades with no real advances in treatments for small cell lung cancer, tarlatamab offers the first real hope, said Dr. Anish Thomas, a lung cancer specialist at the federal National Cancer Institute who was not involved in the trial.

“I feel it’s a light after a long time,” he added.

Dr. Timothy Burns, a lung cancer specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, said that the drug “will be practice-changing.”

(Dr. Burns was not an investigator in the study but has served on an Amgen advisory committee for a different drug.)

The drug, though, has a side effect that can be serious — cytokine release syndrome. It’s an overreaction of the immune system that can result in symptoms like a rash, a rapid heartbeat and low blood pressure.

For the full story see:

Kolata, Gina. “Drug Approved for a Stubbornly Deadly Cancer.” The New York Times (Tuesday, May 21, 2024 [sic]): D4.

(Note: bracketed date added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date May 16, 2024 [sic], and has the title “F.D.A. Approves Drug for Persistently Deadly Form of Lung Cancer.”)

Public Health “Experts” Rebuffed Renegades Who Saw Covid Spread in Aerosols

Steven Johnson’s The Ghost Map shows how rigid adherence to the miasma theory of disease shut out alternatives. And an alternative was indeed needed to explain the spread of cholera. But the defeat of the miasma theory for cholera may have been too complete, prejudicing scientists to oppose theories of disease-spread through the air, which turn out to be important for some diseases, such as Covid-19.

(p. C9) In early 2020, as word spread of a frightening new respiratory outbreak in China, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were pressed for advice. Both initially counseled social distancing, guided by the assumption that the disease was spread by large, boggy droplets that fell rapidly to the ground after being expelled by coughing or sneezing.

By avoiding such projectiles and keeping surfaces clean, the reasoning went, infection could be avoided. Yet this advice ignored—with tragic consequences—nearly a century of science suggesting that many respiratory diseases can spread via microdrops that are exhaled during normal breathing and can remain suspended in the air for hours.

In “Air-Borne,” the New York Times science writer Carl Zimmer seeks to explain how public-health officials could have overlooked such an important mechanism of the Covid-19 contagion. He begins his meticulous history with the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, who taught that illness could be caused by “an invisible corruption of the air,” which he termed a “miasma.”

. . .

While the field of aerobiology may have entered the new millennium stuck on a “stagnant plateau,” as one journal article lamented, hope was starting to emerge. Advances in technology led to a more complete characterization of the aerobiome. A range of scientists from around the world, meanwhile, re-examined the possibility of airborne transmission and discovered the evidence against it wanting.

Following the emergence of Covid-19, many of these researchers were appalled by the seemingly reflexive—“mind-boggling,” in the words of one scientist—rejection of airborne transmission by public-health agencies. At first, these renegades individually struggled to have their work published but were largely rebuffed.

After an early Covid-19 outbreak among a choir in Washington state was initially attributed to large-droplet spread, a more detailed analysis by a unified group of skeptical researchers suggested that airborne transmission was far more likely. On Dec. 23, 2021—nearly 21 months after tweeting “FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne”—the WHO “finally issued a clear public statement that the virus was airborne,” Mr. Zimmer writes. A triumph for persistent scientists, perhaps, but also a pointed reminder of the complexity, fragility and deeply human dependencies of evolving science.

For the full review see:

David A. Shaywitz. “Microbes in the Mist.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, March 15, 2025): C9.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date March 14, 2025, and has the title “‘Air-Borne’: The Microbes in the Mist.”)

The book under review is:

Zimmer, Carl. Air-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe. New York: Dutton, 2025.