Health & Fitness

08/19/20

A radiologist and an evolutionary anatomist have teamed up to show the same techniques used for research on reptile and bird lungs can be used to help confirm the diagnosis of COVID-19 in patients. Their paper demonstrates that 3D models are a strikingly clearer method for visually evaluating the distribution of COVID-19-related infection in the respiratory system.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3hiTOQk

Toward a coronavirus breathalyzer test

Speeding up nerve regrowth for trauma patients

First immune-evading cells created to treat type 1 diabetes

Scientists have made a major advance in the pursuit of a safe and effective treatment for type 1 diabetes, an illness that impacts an estimated 1.6 million Americans with a cost of $14.4 billion annually. Using stem cell technology, researchers generated the first human insulin-producing pancreatic cell clusters able to evade the immune system. These 'immune shielded' cell clusters controlled blood glucose without immunosuppressive drugs once transplanted in the body.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2Ef7mh4

Toddlers who use touchscreens show attention differences

Study of one million Danish children: Childhood adversity increases the risk of early death

Social adversity in early childhood appears to be a significant risk factor for death in early adulthood. Children who have experienced repeated serious adversity such as losing a parent, mental illness in the family, poverty or being placed in foster care have a 4.5 times higher risk of dying in early adulthood than children who have not experienced adversity during childhood.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3gg4MEC

Digital contact tracing alone may not be miracle answer for COVID-19

Biomedical scientists piece together how medication paralyzes parasitic worms

A new study upends the widely held belief that a medication used to treat lymphatic filariasis doesn't directly target the parasites that cause the disease. The research shows the medication, diethylcarbamazine, temporarily paralyzes the parasites.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/31dZzsV

Study sheds new light on certainty of opinions

Researchers for years have understood how attitudes held with certainty might predict behavior, but psychologists now suggest there may be a more general disposition at work that predicts the certainty of newly formed evaluations, just as they do for pre-existing opinions.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3aFjAvn

Further details revealed about a highly-efficient anticancer drug delivery system

The majority of drug delivery systems use nano carriers to transport drugs due to their small size and ability to distribute drugs to otherwise inaccessible sites of the body. The downside to this small size, however, is that large quantities are needed to match the required dosage.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2CFw6yn

RNA as a future cure for hereditary diseases

Scientists have developed an RNA molecule that can be used in bone marrow cells to correct genetic errors that affect protein production. Patients suffering from a rare hereditary disease that causes a painful hypersensitivity to sunlight could benefit in future.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/34es5MP

Understanding the inner workings of the human heart

Researchers used artificial intelligence and genetic analyses to examine the structure of the inner surface of the heart using 25,000 MRI scans. They found that the complex network of muscle fibers lining the inside of the heart, called trabeculae, allows blood to flow more efficiently and can influence the risk of heart failure. The study answers very old questions in basic human physiology and leads to new directions for understanding heart diseases.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2YdTKJU

Portrait of a virus

Does diet really matter when it comes to adult acne?

When I was a teenager, the advice I got about acne was clear and consistent:

Avoid oily foods and chocolate because they trigger breakouts and make existing acne worse
Wash your face often
Try a topical, over-the-counter remedy such as those containing benzoyl peroxide (Clearasil) or salicylic acid (Stridex).

By the time I got to medical school, the message had changed. I learned that the diet-acne connection was considered a myth, and that what we eat has little to do with making acne better or worse.

But a new study has once again turned the tables. It suggests that diet might contribute to acne — at least in adults.

Why does acne develop?

For many — including me — thinking about teenage acne is a painful exercise. But it’s worth understanding why acne develops in the first place.

Acne is thought to develop because of a combination of factors: the production of too much oil in the skin, clogged skin pores, bacteria in the skin, and inflammation. Hormonal changes — which occur during puberty, or with a condition called polycystic ovary syndrome — and the menstrual cycle can have a big impact on acne, because they affect oil production in the skin. Some medications can cause acne (especially steroids and lithium), and hair products, makeup, and other products we put on our skin can contribute to clogged pores. Genetic factors, pollution, smoking, and stress have also been suggested as causes or contributors to acne.

And then there remains the possibility that diet matters. Certain foods can promote inflammation throughout the body, and it’s possible this triggers acne outbreaks. In addition, diet can affect hormones that, in turn, could make acne worse. For example, milk and foods with a high sugar content can cause a rise in insulin levels, altering other hormones that can affect the skin. Some research has linked milk and whey protein with acne.

Despite these possible connections between diet and acne, there is no consensus that changing your diet is an effective way to deal with acne.

Adult acne: This just in

A new study, published in the medical journal JAMA Dermatology, compared the results of 24-hour dietary surveys of more than 24,000 adults (average age 57) who reported having acne currently, having it in the past but not currently, or never having had it. The researchers found a correlation between the chances of having current acne and consumption of

high-fat foods (including milk and meat)
sugary foods and beverages
a diet high in the combination of high-fat and high-sugar foods. Compared with those who never had acne, respondents with current acne were 54% more likely to consume this type of diet.

Higher intake of high-fat, high-sugar foods was associated with a higher incidence of current acne. For example, compared with those with no history of acne, those with acne at the time of the survey were 76% more likely to report drinking at least five glasses of milk in the previous day, more than twice as likely to report consuming at least five servings of high-sugar drinks in the previous day, and eight times more likely to report consuming “a complete meal of fatty and sugary products” in the previous day.

Fast foods and snack foods were linked with past (rather than current) acne. And chocolate? Neither dark nor milk chocolate were associated with past or current acne.

There are reasons to interpret these results cautiously. Dietary records can be faulty. For example, a person with acne who strongly believes that diet affects their skin health may be more likely than others to recall and report certain elements of their diet (such as fatty or sugary foods) than those who are more skeptical about a connection. Such recall bias can affect the results of a study like this. And many of those who reported having adult acne were self-diagnosed; it’s possible that some of these diagnoses were not accurate. Other factors — so-called confounders — might be at play and lead to misleading conclusions. For example, maybe people who drink more milk also happen (just by chance) to live in more polluted areas, and it’s the pollution, not the milk, that explains the findings.

Finally, studies like this can only detect an association, not causation. That means that while those with adult acne tended to consume more fatty and sugary foods, the study cannot prove that their diet actually caused adult acne. It also could not determine whether a change in diet would reduce the incidence or severity of acne.

The bottom line

As our understanding of acne continues to evolve, we may eventually have clearer guidelines about the best diets to prevent or treat it. For now, whether you’re a teenager or an adult, it’s likely that there is no single diet that will guarantee clear skin. So enjoy your favorite foods in moderation. And if you find that some of them make your skin worse, you’ll have to decide if they’re worth it.

Follow me on Twitter @RobShmerling

The post Does diet really matter when it comes to adult acne? appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.

from Harvard Health Blog https://ift.tt/3aGJDSM

'Gain-of-Function' Experiments Lie at Root of the Pandemic

“Gain-of-function” studies are, according to the U.S. Department Health and Human Services,¹ research that involves increasing the capacity of a pathogen to cause illness. The method is controversial because it can also risk new viruses leaking out of laboratories and into the population.

In the period 2014 to 2018, this type of research was prohibited in the U.S., but in December 2017, American authorities announced that these kinds of studies would again be allowed.^2,³

Despite an ongoing cover-up by government authorities, the biotech industry, the military industrial complex and the mass media, there is growing scientific consensus⁴ that the COVID-19 virus was created and (most likely accidentally) leaked from a dual-use military/civilian lab⁵ in Wuhan, China.

The ensuing pandemic (currently with 14 million infected and 585,000 dead,⁶ which has precipitated a global economic meltdown) is the predictable, yet preventable, collateral damage of a reckless, decades-long and accident-prone biodefense/biowarfare program carried out by the U.S., China, Russia and other highly industrialized and militarized nations.

Scientists Are Weaponizing Viruses

Unbeknownst to the public, a shadowy international network of thousands of virologists, gene engineers, military scientists and biotech entrepreneurs are weaponizing viruses and microorganisms in civilian and military labs under the euphemism of gain-of-function research. They hide behind the guise of “biodefense” and “biomedicine.”

But as investigative reporter and bioweapons expert Sam Husseini writes,⁷ gain-of-function/biowarfare scientists in labs such as Wuhan, China or Fort Detrick, Maryland, are deliberately and recklessly evading international law:

“Governments that participate in such biological weapon research generally distinguish between ‘biowarfare’ and ‘biodefense,’ as if to paint such ‘defense’ programs as necessary. But this is rhetorical sleight-of-hand; the two concepts are largely indistinguishable.

‘Biodefense’ implies tacit biowarfare, breeding more dangerous pathogens for the alleged purpose of finding a way to fight them. While this work appears to have succeeded in creating deadly and infectious agents, including deadlier flu strains, such ‘defense’ research is impotent in its ability to defend us from this pandemic.”

A growing arsenal of Frankenstein viruses and microorganisms have been created, despite U.S. and international laws supposedly banning biowarfare weapons and experimentation.⁸ A disturbing number of these so-called “dual-use” biowarfare/biodefense labs have experienced leaks,⁹ accidents, thefts and even deliberate releases like the 2001 anthrax attacks over the past three decades.

The creation of COVID-19, engineered by repeatedly “passaging” a bat virus through animal and human cells and/or genetic engineering or splicing specific genetic sequences into the virus, violated a ban on gain-of-function experiments¹⁰ called for by many of the world’s top scientists.¹¹

These experiments also violated the precautionary principle of a Global Biowarfare Convention,¹² designed to prevent the accidental or deliberate release of biological weapons of mass destruction.

Was COVID-19 Caused by a Lab Leak?

Despite the 24/7 story — that the virus jumped accidentally from bats into humans — relentlessly peddled by the Chinese government, the World Health Organization (which was supposedly monitoring the Wuhan Lab), the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), which provided funding for the Wuhan gain-of-function experiments, global military and intelligence agencies, government- and corporate-funded entities such as the EcoHealth Alliance and the mass media, there is mounting evidence that COVID-19 was caused not by an accident in nature but by a lab escape or leak.

Fortunately, some media outlets aren’t afraid to question this carefully orchestrated narrative. Here are a few examples:

GM Watch, “Lab Escape Theory of SARS-CoV-2 Origin Gaining Scientific Support,” May 28, 2020¹³

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, “Did the SARS-CoV-2 Virus Arise from a Bat Coronavirus Research Program in a Chinese Laboratory? Very Possibly,” June 4, 2020¹⁴

The Times (UK), “Revealed: Seven-Year Coronavirus Trail from Mine Deaths to a Wuhan Lab,” July 4, 2020¹⁵

Newsweek, “Scientists Shouldn't Rule Out Lab As Source of Coronavirus, New Study Says,” May 17, 2020¹⁶

Independent Science News, “The Case Is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin,” June 2, 2020¹⁷

Taiwan News, “Norwegian virologist claims coronavirus is 'chimera' Made in Chinese Lab,” June 10, 2020¹⁸

Scientists Manipulate Bat Coronavirus to Infect Human Cells

Gain-of-function experiments on bat viruses aren’t new. Going back decades, these types of experiments have been publicly documented in a series of peer-reviewed scientific papers co-authored by the director of the Wuhan lab, Dr. Zhengli Shi, popularly known as the “Bat Woman.”

Published papers reveal that researchers have been collecting samples and carrying out experiments to manipulate the bat coronavirus so that it can readily infect human cells.

For example, in a 2008 article in the Journal of Virology,¹⁹ Zi Sheng Li and other scientists report on how Chinese and U.S. scientists have genetically engineered SARS-like viruses from horseshoe bats, to enable the viruses to gain entry into human cells.

These highly controversial gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan lab were funded in large part by the NIH, the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID, under the direction²⁰ of Dr. Anthony Fauci) and the U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance, led by Peter Daszak, who’s become a ubiquitous spokesperson for the “it evolved in nature and jumped to humans” story.²¹

Fauci, who since 1984 has held government positions under six presidents, both Republican and Democrat, has been a strong advocate for U.S. government funding of gain-of-function experimentation.

Fauci claims, with little or no justification, that risky gain-of-function research can help develop new vaccines for pandemics, despite the fact that 30 years of these dangerous experiments have not delivered any tangible benefits, such as cures or safe vaccines.

In 2014, following a series of lab accidents, and responding to a petition²² signed by more than 300 global scientists, a temporary, albeit partial “pause” on funding gain-of-function experiments was declared in the U.S.²³ Exemptions to this “pause,” eventually reviewed by a secret government panel, were nonetheless allowed to go forward.

The ban was lifted in 2017. Yet between 2014 and 2016, the NIH and Fauci-led NIAID continued funding gain-of-function research overseas at the Wuhan lab, via Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance.

Not surprisingly both Fauchi and Daszak have been staunch defenders of the official Chinese government story that the virus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) “naturally” evolved from bats and/or other host species to infect humans.

Gain-of-Function Research Could Seed a Pandemic

In 2017, the “funding pause” on risky gain-of-function projects was officially reversed.²⁴ A government panel was instituted to review each research project. Only those lab experiments that were supposedly 1) scientifically sound; 2) conducted in a high-security lab; 3) intended to produce knowledge that benefits humans; and 4) without a safer alternative, would be funded.

As the New York Times reported,²⁵ many scientists protested the decision, correctly pointing out that gain-of-function researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic.

Richard H. Ebright, a molecular biologist and bioweapons expert at Rutgers University, told the Times that he applauded the requirement for review panels.²⁶ However, he said the NIH should have created clearer minimum safety standards and a mandate that the benefits “outweigh” the risks instead of merely “justifying” them.

Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist who directs the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard School of Public Health, told the Times that recent disease-enhancing experiments “have given us some modest scientific knowledge and done almost nothing to improve our preparedness for pandemics, and yet risked creating an accidental pandemic.”²⁷ Lipsitch said hoped the panels would turn down such work.

Though the ban was overturned in December 2017, it wasn’t until February 2019 — when news of the first approved studies was leaked to Science Magazine²⁸ — that the public learned that the reviews of grant proposals involving gain-of-function research — funded with U.S. taxpayer dollars — were to be conducted in secret.

Names of the expert-panel members have been kept secret, along with the panel’s reviews of gain-of-function and other virus and pathogen experiment proposals.

US Government Funds Risky, Secret Experiments

The idea of the U.S. government, under any administration, funding dangerous experiments²⁹ it doesn’t want you to know about became a literal public relations time bomb in January 2020, when the emergence of a new, highly contagious virus in China hit the news.

For damage control, the White House and the NIH convened a meeting of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB),³⁰ the panel that had previously written the rules for reviewing gain-of-function research, with the intent of getting the NSABB on board with keeping everything secret.

At that meeting, the man who chairs the committee that decides which gain-of-function research can be funded by the government revealed himself.

Christian Hassell, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense, Senior Science Adviser to the Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response — and chair of the secret NSABB gain-of-function risk review committee — acted as a government spokesperson.

Hassell cautioned that disclosing the names of the government (likely including military) scientists who sat on his committee could “chill” people from serving. He claimed that the administration was “committed to enhancing transparency,” but warned that this would probably require new action by Congress.

Time for a Permanent Ban on Lab Creation of Deadly Viruses

It’s time for a permanent ban on the lab creation of deadly viruses. Newsweek recently reported some of the details³¹ relating to the funding for scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses:

“In 2019, with the backing of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.”

In April 2020, NIH aid to Wuhan for gain-of-function research was cut off³² as COVID-19 ravaged the globe. EcoHealth Alliance President Daszak said that he and his team were merely studying how coronaviruses spread from bats to humans and claimed not to understand the rationale behind the decision to yank his grant.

But Daszak and his collaborators at the Wuhan Institute of Virology³³ weren’t just studying how coronavirus spread from bats to humans, they were actually making coronavirus capable of spreading from bats to humans. They were the first to create³⁴ a bat coronavirus capable of directly infecting humans (rather than first needing to evolve in an intermediate animal host).

EcoHealth Alliance has since funded additional gain-of-function research that Daszak has championed — without acknowledging his connection. Gain-of-function research funded by EcoHealth Alliance included the 2015 coronavirus-SARS chimaera, created by a team that included the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This research has been widely criticized³⁵ by fellow scientists.

In 2015, a team of researchers, including scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus³⁶ from a virus called SHC014, which is found in horseshoe bats in China, and a virus that causes SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome).

Their chimaera infected human airway cells, proving that the surface protein of SHC014 had the necessary structure to bind to a key receptor on the cells and to infect them.

Concerned Scientists Sounded the Alarms

In 2015, Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, told Nature magazine³⁷ that researchers had created a novel virus that “grows remarkably well” in human cells. “If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory.” Wain-Hobson disapproved of the study because it provided little benefit and revealed little about the risk that the wild SHC014 virus in bats posed to humans.

Richard Ebright, a biodefense expert from Rutgers University, spoke out about the same research, saying, “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk.” But Daszak spoke out in favor of the research, saying the study’s findings “move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger.”

Daszak’s statement is odd, as it seems obvious that it was the research itself that made the virus a clear and present danger, and that couldn’t be what he meant. Nature failed to mention that EcoHealth Alliance had funded the research with a U.S. grant.³⁸

Even the creators of the coronavirus-SARS chimaera questioned the wisdom of tinkering with viruses to make them more dangerous to humans. As Nature reported, in their paper the study authors conceded that funders may think twice about allowing such experiments in the future.

"Scientific review panels may deem similar studies building chimeric viruses based on circulating strains too risky to pursue," they write, adding that discussion is needed as to "whether these types of chimeric virus studies warrant further investigation versus the inherent risks involved.”

It’s time for the U.S. government, and all the governments of the world, to demonstrate their compliance with a global ban on chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, dropping the dangerous pretense that lab-created viruses and microorganisms constitute valid biomedical and biodefense research.

We need a total U.S. and global ban on dangerous gain-of-function experimentation, and we need it now, before the next pandemic escapes or is deliberately released. Please join thousands of other concerned citizens and sign our petition here.

Ronnie Cummins is co-founder of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and Regeneration International, and the author of “Grassroots Rising: A Call to Action on Food, Farming, Climate and a Green New Deal.” Alexis Baden-Mayer is OCA’s political director. To keep up with OCA’s news and alerts, sign up here.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3aDKnbq
via IFTTT

Overemphasis on Deep Cleaning Can Backfire

U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to reopen primary schools in June was met with "alarm" back in mid-May. According to the British National Education Union (NEU), 85% of its 49,000 members "disagreed with plans to restart lessons from June 1" and 92% said they "would not feel safe with the proposed wider opening of schools."

As reported by The U.S. Sun,¹ one suggestion brought forth by the teachers' union at that time was to spray pupils down with disinfectant mist before entering school buildings to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Mary Bousted, joint general-secretary of the NEU, told The Sun:²

"'In China, children stand outside the school gates and are sprayed front and back with disinfectant, their shoes are sprayed, they wash their hands with sanitizer, they must take off their mask and replace it with a new one, and their temperature is taken remotely.'

Asked if a similar regime should be introduced here, she said: 'Yes. They're doing that in China and South Korea and they have a minuscule number of new cases.'"

In the end, such disinfection protocols do not appear to have been passed. Either way, reopening of schools in the U.K. didn't quite go as planned. Opposition was so great, the government conceded, limiting the reopening to specific primary schools on a part-time basis only, starting June 15.³

Now, reopening of all schools is planned for September, and parents who refuse to send their children back to school face a £60 fine. If not paid within 21 days, the fine is doubled.

Many parents in the U.K. are still resisting the reopening of all schools in September, as Public Health England COVID-19 surveillance reports suggest the limited school openings in June may have contributed to an increase in positive cases.⁴

By the end of June, 10 schools in Lincolnshire reportedly had to re-close due to outbreaks of positive cases.⁵ Curiously, data from dozens of other countries show school openings have not resulted in any significant increases among students, parents or staff.⁶

US School District Uses Fans to Disinfect Students

In related news, some U.S. school districts are implementing comprehensive disinfection protocols, but not of students directly. For example, Santa Cruz Valley Unified School District in southern Arizona will use a Power Breezer fan to disperse disinfectant in classrooms and on buses. Bryan Hoadley, chief revenue officer with Power Breezer explained the process to Fox 13 News:⁷

"We mixed EPA approved disinfectants following the CDC guidelines, we dilute it to about a point one solution in water… and then we disperse it over 5 to 6 minutes…You get a microfilm of that disinfectant on all the surfaces, you let it sit for the dwell time anywhere from 5 to 8 minutes depending on the product you're using …

You're not going to have anybody in the room while you're doing the disinfecting. We recommend that you start the machine, you vacate the room, let the machine do its work and then come and turn it off with a mask on or something like that. So then once it's ventilated, it's very safe."

New Normal: Toxic Disinfectants and Social Distancing Pods

Environmental health experts are expressing concern, however. Some worry that anxious staff may resort to disinfecting rooms and areas when children are present, thereby raising the potential for harmful health effects. As reported by E&E News:⁸

"Stephanie Holm, who co-directs the Western States Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, which is funded by both EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention … is especially concerned about the use of hospital-grade disinfectants like bleaches or quaternary ammonium compounds, often called quats.

Studies have found exposure to such chemicals can create chronic respiratory conditions, like asthma, in cleaning workers and farmers who commonly use them. Using such chemicals in schools, which are often poorly ventilated, and around kids with vulnerable, developing respiratory systems could create a toxic result …

Alexandra Gorman Scranton, director of science and research at Women's Voices for the Earth … is worried that underfunded schools with overtaxed custodial staff will be tempted to get students involved in the cleaning by, for example, giving kids disinfectant wipes to use on their own desks. 'Kids and teachers aren't trained in how to use these products — kids aren't supposed to be near those wipes,' she said.

Many school systems — including New York City schools — have invested in electrostatic disinfectant sprayers to make cleaning more efficient. But Holm said she is concerned about plans to 'mist' cleaning products, especially if it is done while children are present or shortly before their arrival — an idea that was floated by her own California district.

'They had a plan at one point where half the kids would come in the mornings and half in the afternoons and the custodial staff would just mist it all in between, and I was like, 'Oh, my God' … I ended up at a school board meeting saying, 'I'm a national expert on this, please let me offer my services.''

Misting chemicals lets them linger in the air longer, making it more likely they will be inhaled by students and staff. It's also not effective, Holm said."

In related news, images in Mirror⁹ show just how far some schools are going to insulate the children against the virus. Kindergarteners in the Wat Khlong Toey School in Bangkok, Thailand, are literally penned into small individual plastic "pods," inside of which they also have to wear a face mask.

WHO Advises Against Disinfectants

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization has actually advised against trying to kill SARS-CoV-2 with disinfectants, both outdoors or across large indoor spaces, stating it may do more harm than good. They also strongly advise against spraying disinfectants on people.

This is one time where it actually appears that the WHO got it right, which is beyond shocking as they have been dead wrong on virtually every other issue. Just like it is unwise to use antibacterial soap, it is even worse to inhale toxic disinfectants that are targeting the virus. As noted by the WHO:¹⁰

"Spraying disinfectants can result in risks to the eyes, respiratory or skin irritation and the resulting health effects. Spraying or fogging of certain chemicals, such as formaldehyde, chlorine-based agents or quaternary ammonium compounds, is not recommended due to adverse health effects on workers in facilities where these methods have been utilized.

Spraying or fumigation of outdoor spaces, such as streets or marketplaces, is also not recommended to kill the COVID-19 virus or other pathogens because disinfectant is inactivated by dirt and debris and it is not feasible to manually clean and remove all organic matter from such spaces."

Disinfection Efforts Won't Quell Spread of Infection

Similarly, scientists warn that making deep-cleaning a priority is not going to have a significant impact on the spread of the virus, as surface transmission appears to be minimal in the first place. As reported by Becker's Hospital Review:¹¹

"Businesses … are making a big to-do about cleaning … New York City even closed down its subway system to deep clean the seats, walls and poles with antiseptics. But this might not be helping curb the spread of the new coronavirus at all.

The CDC updated its guidelines in May to say that surface transmission 'isn't thought to be the main way the virus spreads.' Another scientist, Emanuel Goldman, Ph.D., a microbiology professor at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School in Newark told The Atlantic:¹² 'Surface transmission of COVID-19 is not justified at all by the science' …

By and large scientists agree that the virus primary spread through the air through droplets expelled when a person sneezes or coughs or via aerosolized droplets expelled during conversations."

As noted in Derek Thompson's article¹³ in The Atlantic, "Hygiene Theater Is a Huge Waste of Time," the emphasis on sanitation really only results in a false sense of security, and doesn't actually lower the risk of the disease overall:

"There is a historical echo here. After 9/11, physical security became a national obsession, especially in airports, where the Transportation Security Administration patted down the crotches of innumerable grandmothers for possible explosives. My colleague Jim Fallows repeatedly referred to this wasteful bonanza as 'security theater.'

COVID-19 has reawakened America's spirit of misdirected anxiety, inspiring businesses and families to obsess over risk-reduction rituals that make us feel safer but don't actually do much to reduce risk — even as more dangerous activities are still allowed. This is hygiene theater."

Surface Transmission Risk Has Been Exaggerated

According to microbiology professor Goldman, cited above, early research suggesting SARS-CoV-2 could remain viable on various surfaces for hours or even days were based on unrealistically potent concentrations of the virus.

To mimic the experimental conditions used, upward of 100 infected people would need to sneeze on the surface in question, which is highly unlikely to happen in the real world. Goldman reviews this and other discrepancies in a July 3, 2020, article in The Lancet:¹⁴

"In a study in which the authors tried to mimic actual conditions in which a surface might be contaminated by a patient, no viable SARS-CoV was detected on surfaces," he notes, adding: "I do not disagree with erring on the side of caution, but this can go to extremes not justified by the data.

Although periodically disinfecting surfaces and use of gloves are reasonable precautions especially in hospitals, I believe that fomites that have not been in contact with an infected carrier for many hours do not pose a measurable risk of transmission in non-hospital settings. A more balanced perspective is needed to curb excesses that become counterproductive."

Real-World Example of How Low Fomite Transmission Risk Is

In his Atlantic article,¹⁵ Thompson highlights a study^16,¹⁷ that looked at the spread of infection in a 19-story skyscraper in Seoul, South Korea, that housed a mix of apartments and offices, including a busy call center on the 11th floor. Tenants and staff shared a lobby and several elevators. March 8, 2020, it was discovered a call center worker had contracted COVID-19.

Surprisingly, only 97 of the more than 1,000 people in the building ended up testing positive for the disease, and 94 of them worked in the call center. Moreover, the majority of those infected in the call center also sat on the same side of the office as patient zero.

This strongly suggests COVID-19 primarily spreads via airborne transmission. Despite the many opportunities for fomite transmission (i.e., via contact with contaminated surfaces), such contacts simply didn't result in widespread illness.

"The scientists I spoke with emphasized that people should still wash their hands, avoid touching their face when they've recently been in public areas, and even use gloves in certain high-contact jobs.

They also said deep cleans were perfectly justified in hospitals. But they pointed out that the excesses of hygiene theater have negative consequences," Thompson writes.¹⁸

Negative consequences include forgoing more effective prevention strategies such as hand-washing, and building a false sense of security — both of which can lead to higher infection rates.

Safe and Effective Disinfectants for Your Home

As noted by the WHO, some disinfectants can also trigger health problems, especially if inhaled, which is why fogging students, as proposed in England, is both unwarranted and unwise. Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, poisonings related to cleaning solutions have also risen by as much as 20%, which speaks to the hazards of these products.

Excessive use of disinfectants may ultimately worsen bacterial drug resistance as well. For years, scientists and health professionals have talked about how excessive cleanliness and widespread use of antibacterial products are harming public health, especially that of children. It remains to be seen just how long it'll take to ease the unreasonable fear of germs instilled during the COVID-19 pandemic once it's officially over.

That said, if someone in your household is sick, wiping off commonly used surfaces may certainly be advisable. As reviewed in "What Is the Best Disinfectant for Surfaces?" your best bets include:

Alcohol-based disinfectant containing between 60% and 80% alcohol.^19,²⁰
3% hydrogen peroxide. Please note that this is the concentration for topical disinfectant, not for nebulization. The recommended concentration for nebulization is 30 times lower at 0.1%.
Accelerated hydrogen peroxide (AHP), sold under the brand name Rescue and some others. Compared to pharmaceutical grade 3% hydrogen peroxide, AHP works much faster, so you don't need to wet the surface for as long. AHP can kill viruses in as little as 30 seconds.²¹

If your aim is to disinfect and sterilize, remember to clean the surface first. Soap and water is likely one of the best alternative strategies here, as the soap will effectively inactivate viruses.

Once the surface is clean of dirt and sticky grime, spray your chosen disinfectant on the surface and let sit for up to several minutes before wiping. The time required will depend on the disinfectant you use. For hand sanitation, soap and warm water are the most effective. Only use alcohol-based hand sanitizers if soap and water are unavailable.

from Articles https://ift.tt/3kZSiED
via IFTTT