Does SARS-CoV-2 Spread Through Poop? Fact Checking the NY Times

Introduction

According to a New York Times article published on June 16, there is “growing evidence” that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) “can be passed not only through respiratory droplets, but through virus-laden feces, too.”

However, a critical examination of the Times’ own primary sources reveals that just the opposite is true: the accumulating evidence is rather that fecal transmission is unlikely.

Lying to the public like this is standard fare in the mainstream media and is transparently intended to manufacture consent for extreme political responses to the pandemic by sustaining the sense of mass fear and panic. This is certainly the effect of such bold deceptions, if not the intent.

Relying on Fraudulent Claims

Under the headline “Flushing the Toilet May Fling Coronavirus Aerosols All Over”, the Times discusses a new study whose authors used computer simulations to show that “flushing a toilet can generate a cloud of aerosol droplets that rises nearly three feet. Those droplets may linger in the air long enough to be inhaled by a shared toilet’s next user, or land on surfaces in the bathroom.”[1]

The study, authored by Yun-yun Li, Ji-Xiang Wang, and Xi Chen, was published in the journal Physics of Fluids on June 16. On its face, it does appear to support the Times’ central claim. In fact, Li et al. go even further, stating that fecal-oral transmission is “a common transmission route” for SARS-CoV-2, and that this “occurs commonly in toilet usage”.

However, the author of the Times article, Knvul Sheikh, evidently failed to verify the assertion that fecal transmission of the virus is “common” by checking the sources Li et al. cite to support it.

They cite three prior studies. First, they state that, “in March 2020, a research team from Sun Yat-Sen University found that fecal samples from some confirmed patients tested positive by nucleic acid detection, which provides evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has the possibility of fecal–oral transmission.”[2]

However, while the finding of viral RNA in feces did indicate the possibility of such transmission, it was not proof of its occurrence. As noted in a review of the evidence published in April in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases, “While current studies imply that SARS-CoV-2 may be shedding through stool in at least a subset of patients, the detection of viral genetic material in stool does not necessarily indicate that viable infectious virions are present in fecal material or that the virus can or has spread through fecal transmission (e.g., fecal-oral, fecal-fomite, or fecal-aerosol/droplet).”[3]

In fact, that study by researchers from Sun Yat-Sen University in China, which was published in Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, did not show that recovered virus was viable but rather observed that “No cases of transmission via the faecal-oral route have yet been reported for SARS-CoV-2”—thus contradicting the central claim for which it was being cited.[4]

Li et al. further attempt to support their claim by asserting that both prior novel coronaviruses, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) “are characterized by fecal-oral transmission.”[5]

The implied logic is that since SARS was and MERS is spread through feces, therefore so is SARS-CoV-2. (The last reported cases of SARS were in 2004, while cases of MERS continue to be sparsely reported.) But this is a non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Furthermore, the premise is false, as we can learn once again by turning to the other two sources they cite, both intended to support this aspect of their argument.

The second source they cite is a commentary published in Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, which similarly noted the finding of viral RNA in stool samples from SARS and MERS patients. Additionally, “SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in the stool of a patient in the USA.”

The commentary authors also noted that there was evidence to support the notion that SARS and MERS “are viable in environmental conditions that could facilitate faecal-oral transmission.” They cited several studies related to the survival of SARS and MERS in the environment. However, only one dealt with actual shedding of virus in feces. In the one relevant study, viral RNA was “found in the sewage water of two hospitals in Beijing treating patients with SARS.”

But, again, the finding of viral RNA in fecal matter doesn’t necessarily mean that fecal transmission can occur. The commentary authors tacitly acknowledged this by noting that the finding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a patient’s stool sample indicated that fecal-oral transmission might be “possible”—yet remained unproven.[6]

The third and final study cited by Li et al. to support their claim that fecal transmission of SARs-CoV-2 is “common” also does not do so.[7] That study, published in Antiviral Research in 2013, only mentioned shedding of bat coronaviruses in bat feces and remarked that “shedding in feces” of common human coronaviruses, which are a common cause of the common cold, is “not uncommon”. It says nothing about this meaning that fecal transmission occurs with common human coronaviruses, and it says nothing about this being a mode of transmission for SARS, MERS, or SARS-CoV-2.[8]

In sum, the claim made by Li et al. that fecal-oral transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to be “common” is fraudulent.

Consequently, their study does not support the New York Times’ claim that there is “growing evidence” that fecal transmission occurs with SARS-CoV-2.

The patently fraudulent nature of their claim raises the question: Why would Li et al. lie? Perhaps they just did not understand that the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays used to detect SARS-CoV-2 only indicate presence of viral RNA and not necessarily infectious virus. Or perhaps they started from a conclusion that would make their own research appear more significant and hastily sought studies to support it, succumbing to confirmation bias and ignoring the underlying logical fallacy of their argument. Or perhaps they were cognizant of the fallacy and just thought they could get away with misrepresenting their own sources in order to exaggerate the importance of their work and secure continued funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.[9]

It also raises the question of how Sheikh and her editors fell for the deception. Given the controversial nature of the claim that fecal transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is “common”, due journalistic diligence would demand checking the cited sources to verify that this is truly what scientific studies have shown. It’s tempting to assume that those responsible at the Times just did not do their due diligence. However, the assumption that they were themselves innocent victims of a hoax is difficult to sustain in light of how the Times article goes on to cite additional studies that completely contradict its own claims.