Table of Contents
Introduction
“A growing number of studies show face masks reduce the spread of the coronavirus,” CNN reported on June 17, “especially because many people are contagious before they have symptoms and because this virus can spread by just talking or breathing.”[1]
This is an enlightening example of how the media are misinforming the public about what science tells us about the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The message being communicated to the public is that a major driver of community spread is people who have no symptoms but infect others through airborne transmission. This narrative has been used to justify and manufacture consent for extreme lockdown measures, including executive orders for universal mask use in community settings.
The truth is that it remains uncertain whether asymptomatic carriers are a significant source of community spread, and it remains uncertain whether virus-laden aerosols are a significant mode of transmission. Instructively, this truth is revealed simply by examining the primary sources cited by CNN to support the narrative.
Is the WHO Wrong about Asymptomatic Transmission?
In this case, CNN cites two prior CNN articles. The first was an article on June 10 titled “Fauci says the WHO’s comment on asymptomatic spread is wrong. Here’s the difference between asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic spread”.[2]
The second was a CNN article from April 4 titled “Experts tell White House coronavirus can spread through talking or even just breathing”.[3]
We’ll come back to that second article, but let’s start with the first. It discusses a statement by an official from the World Health Organization (WHO) who said that, from the data available, asymptomatic transmission “appears to be rare”.[4]
CNN does not clarify, but the transcript of the WHO press briefing shows that the official, Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, was referring to people who are “truly asymptomatic”, meaning that they never developed any symptoms, as opposed to people who had mild symptoms or “presymptomatic” individuals who later did develop symptoms. Cases with documented transmission from truly asymptomatic individuals, she stated, are “very rare”.[5]

This is a curious omission since the article begins with an explanation of the difference between “asymptomatic” and “presymptomatic” and then goes on to cast doubt on Van Kerkhove’s statement by discussing viral transmission by both asymptomatic and presymptomatic individuals—as though she had not distinguished between the two.
First, CNN asserts that Van Kerkhove’s statement prompted “widespread confusion” because “doctors and scientists have been saying the opposite for months.”
Next, CNN tries to cast doubt on her statement by citing Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

CNN paraphrases Fauci as saying that 25 percent to 45 percent of people may not have symptoms. “And we know from epidemiological studies they can transmit to someone who is uninfected even when they’re without symptoms,” he is then quoted as saying. “So to make a statement that’s a rare event was not correct.”
But what CNN fails to point out for readers is that Fauci’s reasoning here is a non sequitur fallacy. His conclusion that asymptomatic transmission is common does not follow from the premise that it can occur. The question remains as to what extent asymptomatic individuals contribute to community transmission.
Ironically, CNN then goes on to reinforce the WHO official’s statement by citing Babak Javid, a researcher from Tsinghua University School of Medicine in Beijing, China. “Detailed contact tracing from Taiwan as well as the first European transmission chain in Germany suggested that true asymptomatics rarely transmit,” CNN quotes Javid as saying.
Javid goes on to say that studies have found that people with “extremely mild symptoms” can transmit the virus, and that “transmission often appeared to occur before or on the day symptoms first appeared.” He says this was shown “in particular” by a study documenting “the first European transmission chain in Germany”.
CNN does not link to or provide any other information about the studies Javid was referencing. Presumably, though, he was referring to an early paper by German researchers that has been widely cited to support claims of asymptomatic transmission, which we’ll come to.
Under the subheading, “How many people get infected by someone without symptoms?”, CNN goes on to say, “The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 40% of coronavirus transmission happens before people feel sick.
“In one study, about 4 in 5 people with confirmed coronavirus in China were likely infected by people who didn't know they had it, according to research published in the journal ‘Science.’”
Further, CNN cites experts from Harvard Medical School who wrote that, “We know that a person with COVID-19 may be contagious 48 to 72 hours before starting to experience symptoms. Emerging research suggests that people may actually be most likely to spread the virus to others during the 48 hours before they start to experience symptoms.”
Finally, the article quotes CNN’s own Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta saying, “People tend to be the most contagious before they develop symptoms, if they’re going to develop symptoms”.[6]
Whatever source Gupta may have been relying on for his statement is not specified. He may have been referring to the Harvard article, but that article, too, provides no references.[7]
🔓Continue reading with a FREE or premium membership.
Log in below or choose your membership.


Excellente, as always! Thanks for placing yourself on the front line and hammering away towards knocking some sense into this twilight zone of CoVid. I do have the concern that 91.7% of Americans are not capable of following you’re writing – while impeccably written, it requires way too much brain power for dulled minds.
But aren’t people really dying of CoVid? Yes, but mostly no. See this: Perspectives on the Pandemic | The (Undercover) Epicenter Nurse | Episode Nine 1,082,074 views•Jun 9, 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4234&v=UIDsKdeFOmQ&feature=emb_title
Thanks. Dr. Ioannidis touches on one point about what the nurse is saying in his paper where he lists overaggressive ventilation as possibly contributing to NYC’s high fatality rate.
Great article as usual. I watched Fauci yesterday 6/26/2020 at the news conference. He was wearing a mask. When it was his turn to speak he crinkled up his mask and stuffed it into his pocket. Then I watched him. He started touching his face at least 2-3 times. Wiping his lips. And then he spoke. He certainly wasn’t following proper usage of the mask. What a phony Fauci is.
Great work Jeremy. It is sad to see what has become of the mainstream news media across the globe, from misinformation, censorship by omission, and outright lies. I happen to catch part of a CNN broadcast in May of Outfront with Erin Burnett who was advocating people wearing masks and the source provided to justify this action was the World Economic Forum. My immediate response was “rubbish”.
Thanks, Frank.
Hi! I am interested in linking people to the data where you found your IFR-S and hyperlink 25 seems to take you to CDC planning scenarios. Can you help? Thanks for your work!!!
Where I have already cited a source, I use a shortened reference. See reference 22 for the initial reference:
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2020/06/26/how-cnn-deceives-about-asymptomatic-transmission-of-sars-cov-2/#_edn22
The blog at Peakprosperity often has insightful analysis and commentary. The author there, Chris Martenson, has a degree in Pathology, does not care for Dr. Ionnidis. See this video blog at the 36:33 mark.
https://www.peakprosperity.com/d614g-a-new-more-serious-covid-19-mutation-to-worry-about/
He also mentions somewhere about a new study looking at many countries and when they instituted mask wearing and the results show that masks seem to be what contributed to reduced transmission. But I don’t see where he listed the study anywhere. He’s been favorable on masks for some time. But I’ve only watched a few of his videos and haven’t tried to catch where he saw the studies he refers to.
Martenson’s criticism of Ioannidis’s paper is based on a strawman fallacy, and it gets worse from there. Ioannidis did not find an inferred infection fatality rate of 0.04%. That was specifically for people under 70, as stated clearly in the abstract Martenson is reading from. Obviously, including people 70 and up will increase the infection fatality rate. Ioannidis found an inferred overall median IFR of 0.25%, which is nearly identical to the CDC’s own “best estimate” of 0.26%. The 0.25% is also stated right in the abstract, so why does Martenson gloss over it and falsely say Ioannidis is claiming an overall IFR of 0.04%? It seems like he hardly even read the abstract, much less the whole paper.
Then, he calculates what he calls a “case fatality rate” by taking total deaths and dividing it by total recovered plus total deaths to get 10.5%. But that’s not how you calculate the case fatality rate, which is deaths per reported cases, which is 4.9%. But that’s inherently overestimated, too, because reported cases are a fraction of total infections. Hence the need to estimate the infection fatality rate from serological studies, as Ioannidis and others have done.
He calls Ioannidis’s paper “junk” but that’s a perfect description of his argument against it. It’s nonsense.
Jeremy, First I would like to thank you. This was extremely well written. I have a friend that is giving me a hard time about this. I don’t get why she offended and feels you are wrongfully calling out CNN. Can you enlighten me on a return comment for her?
Hi Shanna. If you’d like to share your friend’s comment with me, I could suggest a reply. Or you might just challenge her to identify any factual or logical errors in my article rather than dismissing it offhand without any substantive criticism.