The Infectious Myth Busted Part 2: How are “Viruses” Transmitted? They don’t know.

“Our review found no human experimental studies published in the English-language literature delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza.“

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/37/8/1094/2013282

When you look at the evidence (or lack thereof) throughout the last century, you find that not only has it been regularly shown that “viruses” can not be transmitted from human-to-human, virologists clearly have no idea how “viruses” are transmitted at all. They have theories and hypotheses for how their invisible boogeymen invade humans and they have plenty of indirect evidence that is used to attempt to make the argument that correlation equals causation, however they have no direct proof. Studies continuously lack a valid independent variable (i.e. purified/isolated “virus” particles), regularly contain small sample sizes, and do not provide proper valid controls.

What is interesting is that, before Big Pharma became so influential that it was able to censor any study showing negative results, many studies were published with results that dispelled the myths of contagiousness/infectiousness as well as the theories that “viruses” and bacteria were the cause of disease. These studies completely contradicted the Germ Theory narrative and some were published by researchers who were influential in the early virology field. Below are just a few examples from early 20th century as well as some modern sources showing that, even today, the transmission of “viruses” remains unknown.

The highlights from this first source from 1923 shows that contagiousness was still something of a myth and that many believed that internal body temperature was a bigger factor in disease. It also shows that none of the many presumed bacterial causes were consistently found in the sick and these bacteria were also found regularly in the healthy:

THE COMMON COLD*

INFLUENZA STUDIES, XIV

“Contagion” is the second general factor thought to be concerned with the development of colds (table 8). The possibility of prejudice exists here to almost the same extent as with other factors. If we regard as “susceptibles” those who have frequent colds, and as
“resistants” those who are infrequently attacked, our statistics show the probability of home contact in about the same proportion in each group. The number of instances of reported home contact is small, however, in comparison with the number who were not aware of any direct contact. The intermingling of students is so general that it is rarely possible to trace a definite contact with other cases. At the present time, however, the only data pointing to the contagiousness of colds are epidemiologic.“

“Many studies have been made on the bacteriology of colds. Our studies taken in conjunction with those already reported from this and other laboratories show either that colds may be caused by a number of different micro-organisms, or that the cold virus has so far eluded laboratory workers.“

“1st Series – Daily examinations were made in 10 subjects from the middle of Nov., 1920, to Dec. 10, and on 13 subjects from Jan. 5 to Jan. 26, 1921, according to the following method: Nasopharyngeal swabs were streaked on blood-agar plates. After 24 and 48 hours’ incubation the plates were examined, and the approximate percentage of each colony type determined. Four groups were recognized: (1) organisms presenting a green zone whether streptococci or pneumococci; (2) staphylococci; (3) organisms producing colonies resembling the gram-negative cocci, diptheroids, etc.; (4) other conspicuous organisms, such as the Pfeiffer bacilli or the hemolytic streptococci. The classification by plate inspection was controlled by frequent complete bacteriologic studies.”

“Of the 13 subjects, 5 developed colds while under our observation. Two had 2 colds each, making a total of 7 colds. Table 13 records the findings in a typical subject. No one group of organisms continually predominates in the nasal pharynx of a healthy person; one group prevails one day, another the next, or one group may persist for several days in the largest proportion and then the relative numbers suddenly change. The same is true during colds. While recognizing the crudeness of methods from a quantitative standpoint, these studies furnish evidence of the variety of bacteria existing in the nasal pharynx during a cold. If any one of these groups was alone concerned in causing colds, we should expect such a group to be continually predominant.

2nd Series – The same methods were employed in studying the flora of 251 students at the California Institute of Technology, of whom 69 had colds at the time of examination. Only one swab was made from each subject. The results are shown in table 13. Again, no one group of organisms was found to be characteristic of a cold.

Our more complete bacterial analyses confirmed the results obtained by inspection of plates. For example, a type IV pneumococcus was the predominating organism in 3 of the 7 colds studied in series 1 – but
we failed to find it in 2 of these subjects during other attacks. Furthermore, it was frequently the most prevalent bacterium in the nasal pharynx of healthy persons. In the California series, the only organism to appear much more frequently in colds than in health was Friedlander’s bacillus, which was found in I/10th of the colds but only in l/25th of the normal subjects.”

“Specific organisms have been suspected of being the exciting agent by a number of investigators. The epidemiologic studies by Overton 8 at Camp Upton suggest the pneumococcus. Floyd 9 found this organism frequently in colds. Gordon,10 working with our Chicago students, found pneumococci in 35% of cold cases, but in only 21% of the healthy subjects. Williams, Nevin and Gurley report 39% and 26% respectively. Gordon also studied the presence of pneumococci in the subjects on whom we have reported (table 13). Pneumococci were found continuously in only 3 cases of severe cold, and in only 2 of these had the pneumococcus been uniformly absent prior to the development of the cold. Gordon concluded that the pneumococcus complicated, rather than caused, colds. Cooper, Mishulow and Blanc 11 found no serologic relationship between type IV pneumococci isolated from colds. This is further evidence that this organism is not the etiologic agent.

There is no evidence that the streptococci, staphylcocci or the gram-negative cocci 12 are the inciting agents. That the Pfeiffer bacilli are directly concerned, is likewise improbable. Jordan and Sharp 13 found no serologic identity among strains from colds, and reported unsuccessful attempts to prevent colds by the use of a vaccine which contained these organisms, together with pneumococci and streptococci.“

SUMMARY

“The statistical and laboratory data here presented indicate that the
common cold is not a simple type of infection, perhaps in some instances not even an infectious process at all. Numerous factors are undoubtedly concerned in the production of a cold. Our evidence does not support the view that a cold is always due primarily to the entrance of some virus from without the body. On the contrary, it appears that internal body changes may be the more important factor.”

“The results of our laboratory investigations (tables 13 and 14)
correspond in the main with those obtained by other investigators.
No one organism or group of organisms has been shown to predominate during colds. The question of a specific infectious virus is therefore still an open one.“

Click to access 30083102.pdf

In 1937, Frank MacFarlane Burnet (of the Clonal Selection Antibody Theory fame) and Dora Lush tried to infect 200 volunteers with the “Melbourne strain” of influenza. Not a single person came down with symptoms.

Influenza Virus on the Developing Egg: VII. The Antibodies of Experimental and Human Sera

“During the autumn of 1937 about 200 individuals were inoculated in this way with a view to determining whether any protection against clinical influenza could be so afforded. No reports of symptoms which could be ascribed to the inoculations were received, so that it can be taken that the egg-adapted virus has lost its pathogenicity for human beings in the same way as it has for ferrets (Burnet, 1937a). As no influenza appeared in Melbourne during the winter, no evidence of protection could be obtained.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2065253/

In 2008, a review on the epidemiology of influenza was published which contained some interesting highlights/conclusions about the flu and the inability throughout the decades to show evidence of human-to-human transmission of the so-called “influenza virus:”

On the epidemiology of influenza

“An eighth conundrum – one not addressed by Hope-Simpson – is the surprising percentage of seronegative volunteers who either escape infection or develop only minor illness after being experimentally inoculated with a novel influenza virus. The percentage of subjects sickened by iatrogenic aerosol inoculation of influenza virus is less than 50% [3], although such experiments depend on the dose of virus used. Only three of eight subjects without pre-existing antibodies developed illness after aerosol inhalation of A₂/Bethesda/10/63 [4]. Intranasal administration of various wild viruses to sero-negative volunteers only resulted in constitutional symptoms 60% of the time; inoculation with Fort Dix Swine virus (H₁N₁) – a virus thought to be similar to the 1918 virus – in six sero-negative volunteers failed to produce any serious illness, with one volunteer suffering moderate illness, three mild, one very mild, and one no illness at all [5]. Similar studies by Beare et al on other H₁N₁ viruses found 46 of 55 directly inoculated volunteers failed to develop constitutional symptoms [6]. If influenza is highly infectious, why doesn’t direct inoculation of a novel virus cause universal illness in seronegative volunteers?“

“After confronting influenza’s conundrums, Hope-Simpson concluded that the epidemiology of influenza was not consistent with a highly infectious disease sustained by an endless chain of sick-to-well transmissions [2]. Two of the three most recent reviews about the epidemiology of influenza state it is “generally accepted” that influenza is highly infectious and repeatedly transmitted from the sick to the well, but none give references documenting such transmission [11–13]. Gregg, in an earlier review, also reiterated this “generally accepted” theory but warned:

“Some fundamental aspects of the epidemiology of influenza remain obscure and controversial. Such broad questions as what specific forces direct the appearance and disappearance of epidemics still challenge virologists and epidemiologists alike. Moreover, at the most basic community, school, or family levels of observation, even the simple dynamics of virus introduction, appearance, dissemination, and particularly transmission vary from epidemic to epidemic, locale to locale, seemingly unmindful of traditional infectious disease behavioral patterns.” [14] (p. 46)

Questioning a generally accepted assumption means asking anew, “What does the evidence actually show? Thus, we asked, are there any controlled human studies that attempted sick-to-well influenza transmission?“

“In 2003, Bridges et al reviewed influenza transmission and found “no human experimental studies published in the English-language literature delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza. This stands in contrast to several elegant human studies of rhinovirus and RSV transmission …” [50]. (p. 1097)

However, according to Jordan’s frightening monograph on the 1918 pandemic, there were five attempts to demonstrate sick-to-well influenza transmission in the desperate days following the pandemic and all were “singularly fruitless” [19]. (p. 441) Jordan reports that all five studies failed to support sick-to-well transmission, in spite of having numerous acutely ill influenza patients, in various stages of their illness, carefully cough, spit, and breathe on a combined total of >150 well patients [51–55].”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2279112/

In 2018, a review on the various transmission routes of respiratory “viruses” was published. The researchers go through many different “viruses” and try to pinpoint the different modes of transmission for each but it becomes very clear that the evidence is either extremely weak or entirely non-existent.

Transmission routes of respiratory viruses among humans

“Most studies on inter-human transmission routes are inconclusive.

The relative importance of respiratory virus transmission routes is not known.“

“Many outbreaks have been investigated retrospectively to study the possible routes of inter-human virus transmission. The results of these studies are often inconclusive and at the same time data from controlled experiments is sparse. Therefore, fundamental knowledge on transmission routes that could be used to improve intervention strategies is still missing.“

Measles virus (MV)

“Measles is one of the most contagious viral diseases in humans that has been associated with aerosol transmission for a long time [12, 13, 14••, 15, 16, 17, 18••]. However, it should be noted that MV also replicates systemically, and that there is a role for dead cell debris-associated virus spread via fomites. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, data from retrospective observational studies obtained during outbreaks in pediatric practices, a school, and a sporting event suggested transmission through aerosols [14••, 15, 16, 17, 18••]. Indeed, those studies showed that most secondary cases never came in direct contact with the index patient and some were never even simultaneously present in the same area as the index case [14••, 18••].”

Parainfluenza (PIV) and human metapneumovirus (HMPV)

“There is a substantial lack of (experimental) evidence on the transmission routes of PIV (types 1–4) and HMPV.”

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)

“Transmission of RSV among humans is thought to occur via droplets and fomites [1, 7].”

“In spite of that, since virus infectivity could not be demonstrated, potential airborne transmission of RSV has been considered negligible and transmission of RSV was thought to occur mainly through contact and droplet transmission. However, in a recent study authors were able to collect aerosols that contained viable virus from the air around RSV infected children [34^••]. Although the detection of viable virus in the air is by itself not enough to confirm aerosol transmission, the general presumption that RSV exclusively transmits via droplets should be reconsidered and explored further.”

Rhinovirus

“Extensive human rhinovirus transmission experiments have not led to a widely-accepted view on the transmission route [35, 36, 37, 38••, 39••, 40].”

“In general, transmission rates and exposure time varied between studies, which may contribute to the different routes of transmission that were observed. Therefore, the donor-hours of exposure was determined using donors with severe rhinovirus infections. At 200 hours of exposure to donors, transmission had occurred to 50% of the susceptible recipients, though the transmission route itself was not investigated [38^••].”

Influenza A virus

“However, until today, results on the relative importance of droplet and aerosol transmission of influenza viruses stay inconclusive and hence, there are many reviews intensively discussing this issue [10, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50].

Already in the mid-1900s human challenge models were used to assess the transmission route of influenza virus [51•, 52, 53, 54]. It was shown that illness outcome is dependent on the inoculation route and tends to be milder in intranasally infected volunteers in comparison to inoculation through inhalation [52, 53]. Furthermore, illness seemed to be milder in experimentally infected volunteers than in naturally infected individuals [51^•]. Increasing numbers of studies focused on the detection and quantification of influenza viruses contained in droplets and aerosols expelled into the air through breathing, sneezing and coughing of infected individuals [9, 55, 56, 57•, 58, 59, 60, 61]. Influenza virus RNA was detected in the air up to 3.7 m away from patients with the majority of viral RNA contained in aerosols (<5 μm) [59]. The presence of virus in aerosols could indicate potential airborne transmission, although many studies only quantified the amount of viral RNA [55, 57•, 61]. A few studies quantified viable virus, although this was only recovered from a minority of samples [9, 58, 59].”

Coronavirus

“Unfortunately, there is very little data to corroborate on the HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-OC43 transmission routes.“

SARS

“Moreover, a link with transmission to healthcare workers was observed when they were in close proximity (<1 m) to an index patient, suggesting direct contact or droplet transmission [73, 78•, 79•]. Air samples and swabs from frequently touched surfaces in a room occupied by a SARS patient tested positive by PCR, although no virus could be cultured from these samples [80].”

MERS

“To date, there is little data on the human-to-human MERS-CoV transmission route [83].”

Adenovirus

“This is illustrated by, for example, outbreaks among military recruits for which airborne spread was suggested [92, 94, 99].”

“In a study published in 1966, experimental infections with adenovirus administered as aerosols (0.3–2.5 μm) or droplets (15 μm) to healthy, male inmates, resulted in infection of all volunteers, although the resulting illness resembled a natural infection only in the aerosol group [102]. During a military training period, increased numbers of adenovirus infections occurred over time, which correlated with an increased detection of PCR-positive air filters. Additionally, a correlation between disease and the extent of ventilation was observed, with more ventilation resulting in fewer disease cases [103^•]. In a more recent study in military recruits, positive viral DNA samples were mainly obtained from pillows, lockers and rifles, although adenovirus DNA was also detected in air samples. No consistent correlation between increased positive environmental samples and disease was observed [104].”

Discussion

“Studies on the transmission routes of respiratory viruses have been performed since the beginning of the 20th century [105]. Despite this, the relative importance of transmission routes of respiratory viruses is still unclear, depending on the heterogeneity of many factors like the environment (e.g. temperature and humidity), pathogen and host [5, 19].”

“Inter-human transmission has been studied under many different (experimental) conditions. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the different study designs (Table 3) highlights the difficulty of human transmission experiments. As a consequence, contrasting results have been obtained for many viruses. This is also reflected in Table 2, summarizing the experimental data on inter-human transmission. Besides the difficulty of performing studies under well-controlled conditions, another key issue is that often (attenuated) laboratory strains are studied in healthy adults, which does not reflect the natural circumstances and target group and hence influence the outcome of the studies.

Respiratory viruses are an important cause of nosocomial infections, especially in children. Therefore, we consulted the guidelines on infection prevention from National [108], European [109], American [3, 110] and International [111]) organizations for their information on transmission routes (Table 2) and associated isolation guidelines (Figure 1). Unfortunately, terms and definitions of respiratory transmission routes and isolation guidelines are not always used in a uniform way, leaving room for personal interpretation. But more importantly, information on the transmission route does not always reflect the isolation guidelines (e.g. for PIV and rhinovirus, Figure 1). As a proxy for transmission route, virus stability is often referred to in the guidelines, however, this can only imply a role for indirect contact transmission but is by no means conclusive on the transmission route. In hospital settings, prevention of contact transmission is generally implemented in standard infection prevention precautions such as strict hand hygiene and cough etiquette. It is important to note differences in isolation guidelines between different organizations and the lack of correlation to scientific data. The variation in described transmission routes and associated isolation guidelines among the different organizations underscores the lack of convincing data.

Well-designed human infection studies could be employed to investigate the role of transmission routes of respiratory viruses among humans [112^••]. However, since human transmission experiments are very challenging, animal transmission models can provide an attractive alternative and should be explored and developed for all respiratory viruses. In such experiments, the influence of environmental factors on transmission routes can also be investigated [113]. However, before extrapolating experimentally generated data to humans, it is important to understand the limitations of these models, and appreciate the heterogeneity of experimental setups employed in laboratories [114].”

“Ultimately, the knowledge gap on inter-human transmission should be filled by developing and performing state-of-the art experiments in a natural setting. Combined with animal transmission models and air sampling in different (health care and experimental) settings, these data should result in a thorough scientific understanding of the inter-human transmission routes of respiratory viruses. Eventually, this knowledge will help with an evidence-based risk assessment of the different transmission routes to improve existing infection prevention strategies.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879625717301773

In Summary:

• From the 1923 study, it was stated “contagion” (their quote marks, not mine) was the second general factor thought to be concerned with the development of colds
• However, they claim that the possibility of prejudice exists here to almost the same extent as with other factors
• The number of instances of reported home contact was small in comparison with the number who were not aware of any direct contact
• The intermingling of students was considered so general that it is rarely possible to trace a definite contact with other cases
• At the time, the only data pointing to the contagiousness of colds were epidemiologic (the study and analysis of the distribution, patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in defined populations…in other words, indirect evidence)
• The researchers state that their studies, taken in conjunction with those already reported from their own and other laboratories, show either that colds may be caused by a number of different micro-organisms, or that the cold “virus” has so far eluded laboratory workers
• No one group of organisms continually predominates in the nasal pharynx of a healthy person and the evidence shows that this is the same for those who are sick
• In their second experiment, it was again found that no one group of organisms was found to be characteristic of a cold
• They expected that if any one of the groups of micro-organisms was alone concerned in causing colds, they should expect such a group to be continually predominant
• Type 4 pneumococci was frequently the most prevalent bacterium in the nasal pharynx of healthy persons
• The work of various researchers showed further evidence that pneumococci is not the etiologic agent
• There is no evidence that the streptococci, staphylcocci or the gram-negative cocci are the inciting agents
• Jordan and Sharp found no serologic identity among strains from colds, and reported unsuccessful attempts to prevent colds by the use of a vaccine which contained these organisms, together with pneumococci and streptococci
• They conclude that the statistical and laboratory data presented indicate that the common cold is not a simple type of infection, perhaps in some instances not even an infectious process at all
• Numerous factors are undoubtedly concerned in the production of a cold
• Their evidence does not support the view that a cold is always due primarily to the entrance of some “virus” from outside the body
• No one organism or group of organisms has been shown to predominate during colds and the question of a specific infectious “virus” is therefore still an open one
• In 1937, F. Burnet and D. Lush inoculated 200 individuals with the “Melbourne influenza strain” to determine whether any protection against clinical influenza could be afforded yet no reports of symptoms which could be ascribed to the inoculations were received
• In a 2008 influenza review, the researchers state that there is a surprising percentage of seronegative volunteers who either escape infection or develop only minor illness after being experimentally inoculated with a novel influenza “virus”
• Inoculation with Fort Dix Swine “virus” (H1N1) – a “virus” thought to be similar to the 1918 “virus” – in six sero-negative volunteers failed to produce any serious illness
• Similar studies by Beare et al on other H1N1 “viruses” found 46 of 55 directly inoculated volunteers failed to develop constitutional symptoms
• The researchers ask “If influenza is highly infectious, why doesn’t direct inoculation of a novel virus cause universal illness in seronegative volunteers?“
• Hope-Simpson concluded that the epidemiology of influenza was not consistent with a highly infectious disease sustained by an endless chain of sick-to-well transmissions
• Two of the three most recent reviews about the epidemiology of influenza state it is “generally accepted” that influenza is highly infectious and repeatedly transmitted from the sick to the well, but none give references documenting such transmission
• Some fundamental aspects of the epidemiology of influenza remain obscure and controversial
• In 2003, Bridges et al reviewed influenza transmission and found “no human experimental studies published in the English-language literature delineating person-to-person transmission of influenza”
• There were five attempts to demonstrate sick-to-well influenza transmission in the desperate days following the 1918 pandemic and all were “singularly fruitless”
• Jordan reports that all five studies failed to support sick-to-well transmission, in spite of having numerous acutely ill influenza patients, in various stages of their illness, carefully cough, spit, and breathe on a combined total of >150 well patients
• According to a 2018 review on the transmission of respiratory “viruses,” most studies on inter-human transmission routes are inconclusive
• The relative importance of respiratory “virus” transmission routes is not known
• The results of inter-human transmission studies are often inconclusive and at the same time data from controlled experiments is sparse
• Therefore, fundamental knowledge on transmission routes that could be used to improve intervention strategies is still missing
• Measles:
  1. Studies showed that most secondary cases never came in direct contact with the index patient and some were never even simultaneously present in the same area as the index case
• Parainfluenza (PIV) and human metapneumovirus (HMPV)
  1. There is a substantial lack of (experimental) evidence on the transmission routes of PIV (types 1–4) and HMPV
• Respiratory syncytial “virus” (RSV)
  1. Transmission of RSV among humans is thought to occur via droplets and fomites
  2. Since “virus” infectivity could not be demonstrated, potential airborne transmission of RSV has been considered negligible and transmission of RSV was thought to occur mainly through contact and droplet transmission
  3. The detection of “viable virus” in the air is by itself not enough to confirm aerosol transmission
• Rhinovirus:
  1. Extensive human rhinovirus transmission experiments have not led to a widely-accepted view on the transmission route
  2. Transmission rates and exposure time varied between studies
  3. The transmission route itself was not investigated
• Influenza A:
  1. To date, results on the relative importance of droplet and aerosol transmission of influenza “viruses” stay inconclusive
  2. In the mid-1900’s, it was shown that illness outcome is dependent on the inoculation route and tends to be milder in intranasally infected volunteers in comparison to inoculation through inhalation
  3. Furthermore, illness seemed to be milder in experimentally infected volunteers than in naturally infected individuals
  4. A few studies quantified “viable virus,” although this was only recovered from a minority of samples
• “Coronaviruses:”
  1. There is very little data to corroborate on the HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-OC43 transmission routes
  2. For “SARS-COV-1,” a link with transmission to healthcare workers was observed when they were in close proximity (<1 m) to an index patient, suggesting direct contact or droplet transmission and air samples and swabs from frequently touched surfaces in a room occupied by a SARS patient tested positive by PCR, although no “virus” could be cultured from these samples
  3. To date, there is little data on the human-to-human “MERS-CoV” transmission route
• Adenovirus:
  1. In outbreaks among military recruits, airborne spread was suggested
  2. In a more recent study in military recruits, positive “viral” DNA samples were mainly obtained from pillows, lockers and rifles, although adenovirus DNA was also detected in air samples
  3. However, no consistent correlation between increased positive environmental samples and disease was observed
• Studies on the transmission routes of respiratory “viruses” have been performed since the beginning of the 20th century yet despite this, the relative importance of transmission routes of respiratory “viruses” is still unclear
• Inter-human transmission has been studied under many different (experimental) conditions, however due to the difficulty of human transmission experiments, contrasting results have been obtained for many “viruses”
• Besides the difficulty of performing studies under well-controlled conditions, another key issue is that often (attenuated) laboratory strains are studied in healthy adults, which does not reflect the natural circumstances and target group and hence influence the outcome of the studies
• Unfortunately, terms and definitions of respiratory transmission routes and isolation guidelines are not always used in a uniform way, leaving room for personal interpretation
• As a proxy for transmission route, “virus” stability is often referred to in the guidelines, however, this can only imply a role for indirect contact transmission but is by no means conclusive on the transmission route
• It is important to note differences in isolation guidelines between different organizations and the lack of correlation to scientific data
• The variation in described transmission routes and associated isolation guidelines among the different organizations underscores the lack of convincing data
• Well-designed human infection studies could be employed to investigate the role of transmission routes of respiratory “viruses” among humans but since human transmission experiments are very challenging, animal studies are used
• However, before extrapolating experimentally generated animal data to humans, it is important to understand the limitations of these models, and appreciate the heterogeneity (consisting of dissimilar or diverse elements) of experimental setups employed in laboratories
• The researchers conclude that ultimately, the knowledge gap on inter-human transmission should be filled by developing and performing state-of-the art experiments in a natural setting and that these data should result in a thorough scientific understanding of the inter-human transmission routes of respiratory “viruses”

It is obvious just from these few examples over the last century that not only do virologists not have direct evidence of human-to-human transmission of disease, they also do not have any direct evidence on how these “viruses” are supposedly transmitted. They have a collection of poorly-executed indirect and often contradictory experiments from which they assume transmission and functions to particles they can not see nor observe in a natural state. Virologists create incredible hypotheses and theories in order to weave a tale around their unrelated and non-reproducible studies and data. Whichever theory gets the most collective applause and scientific consensus receives the financial backing from Big Pharma and is allowed to rule the day until the next theory that fits their agenda better comes along to alter and/or replace it.