I believe that things are a little more complicated than you outline. I am not going to assert anything about silent carriage of COVID. However Salmonella Typhi the bacteria responsible for Typhoid fever can be harbored on gall stones that people can carry symptomatically for years. If such a person gets infected with S. Typhoid and gets Typhoid fever with or without antibiotics they usually recover. The person who has gallstones will often (I don’t have figures @ my fingertips & not sure how representative published figures would be) become a sanctuary for the bacteria, as the bacteria will excrete a biofilm that will prevent both antibiotics and host defenses from eradicating the infection. However, the individual can & will at least from time to time excrete Salmonella in their stool, and if not rigorous and consistent with handwashing can spread it to household contacts and that is why waste water is treated.
This is not relevant to COVID, but:
There are viral illnesses that have a significant incubation period in which a person is contagious (Hepatitis A) & others that a a large portion of infected people are asymptomatic for long periods of time (hepatitis B & C) where they can spread disease/infection by blood or sexual contact (& I think that the viral causes of those are pretty well established, as an aside).
You raise an interesting historical example with Salmonella Typhi, but I believe the case of Mary Mallon is far more complicated than the narrative suggests—and, importantly, it does not validate the modern asymptomatic carrier theory used to justify mass quarantines and lockdowns.
First, let’s consider the state of sanitation in 1906, the year Upton Sinclair published The Jungle. Food safety and hygiene were abysmal, with widespread contamination in meatpacking, poor sewage disposal, and little regulation in food handling. Typhoid fever was already rampant in New York, and attributing its spread to a single person ignores the broader public health failures of the time. The fact that Mallon happened to work in households where typhoid cases were reported does not prove she was the cause—especially when unsanitary water and food could have been the real culprits.
Second, unlike today’s theoretical viral asymptomatic carriers, Mallon’s case at least involved a specific bacterial reservoir—her gallbladder, where S. Typhi can persist in some individuals. However, even this remains an assumption, as she was never tested via gallbladder removal, and no direct evidence confirmed that she was the exclusive cause of the outbreaks she was blamed for. If she was a true carrier, why were other known typhoid carriers not subjected to the same lifelong imprisonment? This selective enforcement suggests she was a scapegoat rather than a unique threat.
Finally, her case differs fundamentally from modern claims of asymptomatic respiratory virus transmission, which relies on indirect PCR testing rather than proving active infection or transmission. The idea that people with no symptoms, no measurable illness, and no live virus cultures can spread disease is a dramatic departure from what was seen with Mallon.
So, while I appreciate the historical comparison, I would argue that Mary Mallon’s case was more about public health authorities ignoring systemic sanitation failures and choosing an easy scapegoat, rather than proving the validity of asymptomatic carrier theory as it is used today.
I was not trying to blame Typhoid Mary & I certainly don’t condone her treatment by the public health professionals of the time, & don’t know the details of the epidemiological investigation, I don’t even know how well her carrier state was established, or that there was any evidence that she had gallbladder disease/stones. I just know that at some level, that was a hypothetical or documented reason for people to become carriers (& it has biological plausibility).
(‘She must have been a scapegoat’—were her progeny destined to be Trump voters? & how did they know?)
I absolutely agree that I am aware of no viral respiratory illness that has a chronic infectious carrier state. Just want to obsessively delineate the qualifying aspects, as there will be people who will say you can never say never… or bring up the viral hepatitises.
I appreciate your clarification, and I recognize that you were not trying to blame Mary Mallon but rather discussing the biological plausibility of bacterial carriers in general. The key issue, as you acknowledge, is that the evidence for Mallon’s carrier state was never definitively established, which makes the historical certainty surrounding her case more about assumption than direct proof.
You’re right to emphasize careful qualification in scientific discussions, and I respect the distinction you’re drawing. However, I think this reinforces the core point: Mallon’s story was used as a justification for harsh public health actions without meeting the burden of proof, much like how modern public health policy has used the idea of asymptomatic respiratory spread to justify extreme interventions.
Your final point is particularly important: no viral respiratory illness has ever been shown to have a chronic infectious carrier state, and yet, in the last few years, asymptomatic spread was treated as unquestionable dogma. While some may argue that “you can never say never,” the fact remains that the burden of proof should be on those making the claim—not on the healthy people forced into restrictions based on unproven theories. That’s where virology today has dangerously diverged from scientific rigor.
I appreciate the discussion—these distinctions matter, and I think we both agree that scientific claims should be qualified, evidence-based, and not used as an excuse for public health overreach.
Thank you for addressing this issue. I used to vaguely believe in carriers of disease and whilst people can have fungal spores, bacteria and parasites, even these need the right conditions to thrive.
But anything labelled a viral disease is just utter nonsense, a money making scare story.
Early on during this charade I tried to explain the lunacy of asymptomatic spread in this manner: in January of 2015 you go to the doctor and ask for a flu test. The doctor asks you what kind of symptoms you are having. You proceed to tell the doctor you feel great but want to make sure you don't spread asymptomatic flu around the office and if the test is positive will take 2 weeks off and “rest up.” The doctor writes on his script pad not an order for a flu test but a referral to the psychiatrist. In 2020, same scenario but replace flu with c19 and instead of labeled as crazy you are praised for being such a caring individual.
I believe that things are a little more complicated than you outline. I am not going to assert anything about silent carriage of COVID. However Salmonella Typhi the bacteria responsible for Typhoid fever can be harbored on gall stones that people can carry symptomatically for years. If such a person gets infected with S. Typhoid and gets Typhoid fever with or without antibiotics they usually recover. The person who has gallstones will often (I don’t have figures @ my fingertips & not sure how representative published figures would be) become a sanctuary for the bacteria, as the bacteria will excrete a biofilm that will prevent both antibiotics and host defenses from eradicating the infection. However, the individual can & will at least from time to time excrete Salmonella in their stool, and if not rigorous and consistent with handwashing can spread it to household contacts and that is why waste water is treated.
This is not relevant to COVID, but:
There are viral illnesses that have a significant incubation period in which a person is contagious (Hepatitis A) & others that a a large portion of infected people are asymptomatic for long periods of time (hepatitis B & C) where they can spread disease/infection by blood or sexual contact (& I think that the viral causes of those are pretty well established, as an aside).
Dr. Kimber,
You raise an interesting historical example with Salmonella Typhi, but I believe the case of Mary Mallon is far more complicated than the narrative suggests—and, importantly, it does not validate the modern asymptomatic carrier theory used to justify mass quarantines and lockdowns.
First, let’s consider the state of sanitation in 1906, the year Upton Sinclair published The Jungle. Food safety and hygiene were abysmal, with widespread contamination in meatpacking, poor sewage disposal, and little regulation in food handling. Typhoid fever was already rampant in New York, and attributing its spread to a single person ignores the broader public health failures of the time. The fact that Mallon happened to work in households where typhoid cases were reported does not prove she was the cause—especially when unsanitary water and food could have been the real culprits.
Second, unlike today’s theoretical viral asymptomatic carriers, Mallon’s case at least involved a specific bacterial reservoir—her gallbladder, where S. Typhi can persist in some individuals. However, even this remains an assumption, as she was never tested via gallbladder removal, and no direct evidence confirmed that she was the exclusive cause of the outbreaks she was blamed for. If she was a true carrier, why were other known typhoid carriers not subjected to the same lifelong imprisonment? This selective enforcement suggests she was a scapegoat rather than a unique threat.
Finally, her case differs fundamentally from modern claims of asymptomatic respiratory virus transmission, which relies on indirect PCR testing rather than proving active infection or transmission. The idea that people with no symptoms, no measurable illness, and no live virus cultures can spread disease is a dramatic departure from what was seen with Mallon.
So, while I appreciate the historical comparison, I would argue that Mary Mallon’s case was more about public health authorities ignoring systemic sanitation failures and choosing an easy scapegoat, rather than proving the validity of asymptomatic carrier theory as it is used today.
I was not trying to blame Typhoid Mary & I certainly don’t condone her treatment by the public health professionals of the time, & don’t know the details of the epidemiological investigation, I don’t even know how well her carrier state was established, or that there was any evidence that she had gallbladder disease/stones. I just know that at some level, that was a hypothetical or documented reason for people to become carriers (& it has biological plausibility).
(‘She must have been a scapegoat’—were her progeny destined to be Trump voters? & how did they know?)
I absolutely agree that I am aware of no viral respiratory illness that has a chronic infectious carrier state. Just want to obsessively delineate the qualifying aspects, as there will be people who will say you can never say never… or bring up the viral hepatitises.
Dr. Kimber,
I appreciate your clarification, and I recognize that you were not trying to blame Mary Mallon but rather discussing the biological plausibility of bacterial carriers in general. The key issue, as you acknowledge, is that the evidence for Mallon’s carrier state was never definitively established, which makes the historical certainty surrounding her case more about assumption than direct proof.
You’re right to emphasize careful qualification in scientific discussions, and I respect the distinction you’re drawing. However, I think this reinforces the core point: Mallon’s story was used as a justification for harsh public health actions without meeting the burden of proof, much like how modern public health policy has used the idea of asymptomatic respiratory spread to justify extreme interventions.
Your final point is particularly important: no viral respiratory illness has ever been shown to have a chronic infectious carrier state, and yet, in the last few years, asymptomatic spread was treated as unquestionable dogma. While some may argue that “you can never say never,” the fact remains that the burden of proof should be on those making the claim—not on the healthy people forced into restrictions based on unproven theories. That’s where virology today has dangerously diverged from scientific rigor.
I appreciate the discussion—these distinctions matter, and I think we both agree that scientific claims should be qualified, evidence-based, and not used as an excuse for public health overreach.
Thanks for the erudite discussion.
Thank you for addressing this issue. I used to vaguely believe in carriers of disease and whilst people can have fungal spores, bacteria and parasites, even these need the right conditions to thrive.
But anything labelled a viral disease is just utter nonsense, a money making scare story.
Early on during this charade I tried to explain the lunacy of asymptomatic spread in this manner: in January of 2015 you go to the doctor and ask for a flu test. The doctor asks you what kind of symptoms you are having. You proceed to tell the doctor you feel great but want to make sure you don't spread asymptomatic flu around the office and if the test is positive will take 2 weeks off and “rest up.” The doctor writes on his script pad not an order for a flu test but a referral to the psychiatrist. In 2020, same scenario but replace flu with c19 and instead of labeled as crazy you are praised for being such a caring individual.