Health, Fitness,Dite plan, health tips,athletic club,crunch fitness,fitness studio,lose weight,fitness world,mens health,aerobic,personal trainer,lifetime fitness,nutrition,workout,fitness first,weight loss,how to lose weight,exercise,24 hour fitness,

01/14/21
Twitter Facebook

16:48 ,
The intestines and their bacteria are sometimes called our 'second brain', but studying these bacteria in their natural environment is difficult. Now researchers have developed a method that uses artificial intelligence to map intestinal bacteria using feces. The researchers thus hope to gain more knowledge of the role played by these bacteria in various diseases.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2LSbZkI
Twitter Facebook

07:48 ,
The degree of heart muscle damage from a heart attack is associated with how long it takes from when heart attack symptoms start to when patients receive an artery-clearing procedure called percutaneous coronary intervention, or PCI. The longer the time period before PCI, called symptom-to-balloon time, the more significant and damaging the heart attack.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2KdIg5o
Twitter Facebook

07:48 ,
Cities are responsible for 60-70% of energy-related CO2 emissions. As the world is increasingly urbanized, it is crucial to identify cost-effective pathways to decarbonize. Here, we propose a ''SolarEV City'' concept, in which integrated systems of cities' roof-top PVs with EVs as batteries can supply affordable and dispatchable CO2-free electricity for citie's dwerllers, which can reduce CO2 emission by 54-95% with 26-41% of potential cost savings by 2030.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2LwDEIg
Twitter Facebook

00:22 , ,

In an in-depth article1 published in New York magazine January 4, 2021, Nicholson Baker reviews the history of viral gain-of-function research, and why the idea that SARS-CoV-2 might be an escaped lab creation isn't so far-fetched after all.

He points out that while there's "no direct evidence for an experimental mishap" (the key word here being "direct"), there's no direct evidence that the virus arose zoonotically either.

In other words, while some scientists have pushed the idea that SARS-CoV-2 arose and evolved naturally, skipping from one animal species to another before ultimately developing the capability of infecting humans, there's no solid scientific evidence to back this theory, and there should be, were it actually true.

Unique Features Raise Questions About SARS-CoV-2's Origin

As noted in an August 20, 2020, article2 by Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D., a former researcher with the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute, SARS-CoV-2 has several unique features that make it exceptionally well-adapted for human infection.

This is quite odd, considering it "came out of nowhere" and hasn't been found in any other living creature. If the virus arose naturally, we should be able to trace its evolution back to its source. Unique features of SARS-CoV-2 include:3

  • A very high infection rate, thanks to it being more selective for the human ACE2 receptor than SARS-Cov-1 (the virus responsible for the 2003 SARS pandemic)4
  • A unique furin cleavage site not found in any closely related bat coronaviruses, which allows the virus to fuse to human cells, thereby enhancing its pathogenicity and transmissibility5,6,7,8
  • Certain spike protein structures that are similar to those found in the MERS-CoV virus, which allow the virus to attach using not only the ACE2 receptor but also the DPP4 receptor, like MERS-CoV. This dual receptor strategy might be responsible for its ability to infect a wide range of human tissues9

In the preprint paper "Wuhan nCoV-2019 SARS Coronaviruses Genomics Fractal Metastructures Evolution and Origins,"10 Jean-Claude Perez, Ph.D., a retired interdisciplinary researcher with the IBM European Research Center on Artificial Intelligence, claims to provide "formal proof that 2019-nCoV coronavirus is partially a synthetic genome."

According to Perez, the presence of HIV1 retrovirus fragments is evidence of SARS-CoV-2's artificial nature. I've also written many other articles detailing evidence suggesting SARS-CoV-2 might be a laboratory creation.

Gain-of-Function Research Is a Pandemic Waiting to Happen

One of the reasons scientists would want to promote the zoonotic theory is because their livelihoods and careers are at stake. If it turns out that SARS-CoV-2 is an escaped lab creation, the logical conclusion would be that we need to severely restrict or stop gain-of-function research on pathogens altogether.

"It has been a full year … and, surprisingly, no public investigation has taken place," Baker writes.11 "I think it's worth offering some historical context for our yearlong medical nightmare.

We need to hear from the people who for years have contended that certain types of virus experimentation might lead to a disastrous pandemic like this one.

And we need to stop hunting for new exotic diseases in the wild, shipping them back to laboratories, and hot-wiring their genomes to prove how dangerous to human life they might become."

As the name implies, gain-of-function research is aimed at creating more virulent strains of pathogens by giving them new functionalities. The justification for this hazardous work is that viruses mutate naturally, and we need to be prepared for the kinds of mutations that might arise.

The problem with this is that we've not been prepared for any of the lethal pandemics that have arisen, despite investing hundreds of millions of dollars into this kind of research. Apparently, it hasn't given us the head start it's supposed to give us, so why continue?

Even more disturbingly, there's evidence that this research has caused a number of lethal outbreaks through the years. Many believe it's only a matter of time before scientists cook up something truly horrific — something that would never have arisen in nature — that might threaten humanity's survival were it to get out. As noted in Baker's article:12

"The intentional creation of new microbes that combine virulence with heightened transmissibility 'poses extraordinary risks to the public,' wrote infectious-disease experts Marc Lipsitch and Thomas Inglesby in 2014. 'A rigorous and transparent risk-assessment process for this work has not yet been established.' That's still true today.

In 2012, in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,13 Lynn Klotz warned that there was an 80 percent chance, given how many laboratories were then handling virulent viro-varietals, that a leak of a potential pandemic pathogen would occur sometime in the next 12 years."

Operation Baseless

In his article,14 Baker highlights a 1950s Pentagon program called Project Baseless, the goal of which was to achieve "an Air Force-wide combat capability in biological and chemical warfare at the earliest possible date."

According to Baker, who has published an entire book on this topic, the U.S. government has spent "a vast treasure" on the "amplification and aerial delivery of diseases" over the past 70 years.

Serial Passaging Mimics Natural Evolution

One technique that allows scientists to make a pathogen more virulent is called "serial passaging." By passing the virus through a series of cells from different animals, the virus progressively adapts to the new host cell, just as it would in nature (although there's no guarantee that such transmission and adaptation would actually occur in nature). As described by Baker:15

"Take, for instance, this paper from 1995: 'High Recombination and Mutation Rates in Mouse Hepatitis Viruses Suggest That Coronaviruses May Be Potentially Important Emerging Viruses' … written by Dr. Ralph Baric and his bench scientist, Boyd Yount, at the University of North Carolina.

Baric … described in this early paper how his lab was able to train a coronavirus, MHV, which causes hepatitis in mice, to jump species, so that it could reliably infect BHK (baby-hamster kidney) cell cultures.

They did it using serial passaging: repeatedly dosing a mixed solution of mouse cells and hamster cells with mouse-hepatitis virus, while each time decreasing the number of mouse cells and upping the concentration of hamster cells.

At first, predictably, the mouse-hepatitis virus couldn't do much with the hamster cells, which were left almost free of infection, floating in their world of fetal-calf serum.

But by the end of the experiment, after dozens of passages through cell cultures, the virus had mutated: It had mastered the trick of parasitizing an unfamiliar rodent. A scourge of mice was transformed into a scourge of hamsters …

A few years later, in a further round of 'interspecies transfer' experimentation, Baric's scientists introduced their mouse coronavirus into flasks that held a suspension of African-green-monkey cells, human cells, and pig-testicle cells.

Then, in 2002, they announced something even more impressive: They'd found a way to create a full-length infectious clone of the entire mouse-hepatitis genome. Their 'infectious construct' replicated itself just like the real thing, they wrote.16

Not only that, but they'd figured out how to perform their assembly seamlessly, without any signs of human handiwork. Nobody would know if the virus had been fabricated in a laboratory or grown in nature. Baric called this the 'no-see'm method,' and he asserted that it had 'broad and largely unappreciated molecular biology applications.'"

In 2006, Baric and Yount were granted a patent for this "no-see'm method" of cloning the deadly human SARS virus, which had been responsible for the SARS outbreak four years earlier. Interestingly, Baric started collaborating with another coronavirus expert in 2015 — a female scientist named Shi Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.17

In his book "China COVID-19: The Chimera That Changed the World,"18 professor Giuseppe Tritto — president of the World Academy of Biomedical Sciences and Technology, founded under UNESCO, and an internationally recognized expert in bio and nanotechnology — accuses Shi of producing a SARS-like virus with increased pathogenicity by inserting a segment of the HIV virus into a horseshoe bat coronavirus.19

Thousands of Safety Breaches Have Occurred

As noted by Baker,20 "By 1960, hundreds of American scientists and technicians had been hospitalized, victims of the diseases they were trying to weaponize." Since then, many more safety breaches have occurred.

Between 2008 and 2012 alone, more than 1,100 lab incidents involving highly infectious germs were reported to federal regulators,21 but the details are shrouded in secrecy.

According to a 2014 article in USA Today,22 "More than half these incidents were serious enough that lab workers received medical evaluations or treatment." In his article, Baker lists several lethal incidents, including the following:23

  • In 1951, a Camp Detrick, Maryland, microbiologist developed a fever and died after trying to perfect the "foaming process of high-volume production" of anthrax
  • In 1964, veterinary worker Albert Nickel died after being bitten by a lab animal infected with the Machupo virus, which causes hemorrhagic fever
  • A 1977 global pandemic of influenza was traced back to a sample collected in 1950, which had been "preserved in a laboratory freezer" since then
  • In 1978, a medical photographer died after contracting a hybrid strain of smallpox at a lab in Birmingham, England
  • In 2007, live specimens of foot-and-mouth disease ended up leaking out of a faulty drainpipe at the Institute for Animal Health in Surrey, England

Only a Matter of Time Before Something Truly Nasty Gets Out

Other incidents are even more serious. For example, in 2015, the U.S. Department of Defense discovered that a germ-warfare testing center in Utah had sent out nearly 200 shipments of live anthrax to labs around the world, including the U.S., Australia, Germany, Japan and South Korea. Remarkably, this had been going on for the past 12 years!

As recently as 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shut down labs at Fort Detrick after "breaches of containment" were discovered.

"High-containment laboratories have a whispered history of near misses," Baker writes.24 "Scientists are people, and people have clumsy moments and poke themselves and get bitten by the enraged animals they are trying to nasally inoculate.

Machines can create invisible aerosols, and cell solutions can become contaminated. Waste systems don't always work properly. Things can go wrong in a hundred different ways …

I asked Jonathan A. King, a molecular biologist and biosafety advocate from MIT, whether he'd thought lab accident when he first heard about the epidemic. 'Absolutely, absolutely,' King answered. Other scientists he knew were concerned as well.

But scientists, he said, in general were cautious about speaking out. There were 'very intense, very subtle pressures' on them not to push on issues of laboratory biohazards.

Collecting lots of bat viruses, and passaging those viruses repeatedly through cell cultures, and making bat-human viral hybrids, King believes, 'generates new threats and desperately needs to be reined in.'"

Baker quotes concerns from several other scientists as well, including Philip Murphy, chief of the Laboratory of Molecular Immunology at the NIH; Nikolai Petrovsky, a professor of endocrinology at Flinders University College of Medicine in Adelaide, Australia; and Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University.

Ebright, in particular, said he'd "been concerned for some years" about the Wuhan Institute of Virology's efforts to create hybrid SARS-related bat coronaviruses "with enhanced human infectivity." Ebright told Baker that "In this context, the news of a novel coronavirus in Wuhan *screamed* lab release."

US Government Suspects Lab Leak

A number of government officials have also given credence to the lab-origin theory, including U.S. deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger, who in January 2021 stated that the lab-escape theory is the most credible, based on a growing body of evidence.

According to a January 2, 2021, report by the Daily Mail,25 "during a Zoom conference with [British] MPs on China." The article further states that:

"Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory Party leader who attended the meeting, said Mr. Pottinger's comments represented a 'stiffening' of the U.S. position on the theory that the virus came from a leak at the laboratory, amid reports that the Americans are talking to a whistleblower from the Wuhan institute.

'I was told the U.S. have an ex-scientist from the laboratory in America at the moment,' he said. 'That was what I heard a few weeks ago. I was led to believe this is how they have been able to stiffen up their position on how this outbreak originated.' He added that Beijing's refusal to allow journalists to visit the laboratory only served to increase suspicion that it was 'ground zero' for the pandemic."

Independent Investigation Required

As noted by journalist Ian Birrell in another January 3, 2021 article26 in the Daily Mail, "The world must investigate all the mounting evidence COVID leaked from a Wuhan lab."

At present, there are two such investigations underway — one by the World Health Organization27 and another by The Lancet's COVID-19 commission28 — but both are grossly tainted by conflicts of interest. EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak is part of both of these investigations, despite being at the epicenter of the whole affair.

As noted in a December 16, 2020, Independent Science News article written by journalist Sam Husseini:29

  1. When SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in Wuhan, China, the EcoHealth Alliance was providing funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to collect and study novel bat coronaviruses.
  2. Daszak has been the primary expert chosen by the mainstream media to explain the origin of the pandemic.
  3. Daszak has openly and repeatedly dismissed the possibility of the pandemic being the result of a lab leak.30

What's more, in November 2020, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), an investigative public health nonprofit group, reported31,32 that emails obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests prove Daszak played a central role in the plot to obscure the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 by issuing a scientific statement in The Lancet condemning such inquiries as "conspiracy theory."

Five other members of The Lancet Commission also signed the February 18, 2020, Lancet statement,33 which puts their credibility in question as well.

Daszak has every reason to make sure SARS-CoV-2 origin ends up being declared natural. It would be naïve to believe that safeguarding the continuation of dangerous gain-of-function research wouldn't be a powerful motivator to preserve the zoonotic origin narrative.

Inconsistencies in the Data Raise Concerns

Professor Roger Pielke Jr., who studies and writes "about the messy and complicated places where science meets politics,"34 has also highlighted the need for independent investigations by the scientific community. In a November 19, 2020, blog post, Pielke wrote:35

"We should not let the hot politics of COVID-19 distract from the need for a cool assessment of where it came from, and corresponding lessons for the future.

A first priority for the research community, and in particular leading academic journals, is to ensure that relevant data is made available for independent analysis and that the narratives told and claims made by researchers are consistent across the scientific literature.

In the case of COVID-19, there is ample reason to suggest that some narratives and claims have been misleading or incomplete, and that data have been selectively shared, or not at all, or even gone missing."

He goes on to review examples of inconsistencies discovered in both the timeline and characterization of data presented by Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists, who were among the first to publish data on the virus back in February 2020. One of those papers, published in the journal Nature, suggested SARS-CoV-2 was related to previously unsequenced bat coronaviruses.

However, shortly after, Indian researchers hypothesized that the bat virus described in that Nature paper had actually been collected in 2013, after several miners fell ill from a disease suspiciously similar to COVID-19.

"Earlier this week Nature published a clarifying addendum36 to the original WIV article. That addendum admitted that, yes indeed, the bat coronavirus was collected in 2013 from a cave after a group of miners had fallen ill due to a SARS-like disease.

Further, that 2013 bat coronavirus had been discussed in a 2016 paper37 (which, oddly, was uncited in their Nature paper). The name of the virus sample had been changed since 2016, and interestingly, was one of nine similar coronaviruses that had been collected at the time, but never disclosed, apparently until the Nature Addendum …

All of this is unusual and is troubling. The failure to disclose what are obviously key details is sloppy, under the most charitable interpretation, and less generously, lends itself to interpretations of being misleading or evasive …

The issues associated with the WIV Nature paper provide just a few from a larger set of examples of research integrity issues38 that appear to surround the WIV COVID-19 research. For instance, some researchers have alleged that relevant virus databases once online at WIV are no longer available39,40 …

While understanding the origins of COVID-19 is important to public health and international diplomacy, setting the research record straight is a matter of scientific integrity."

Complicating matters, though, is the fact that China's political system is an authoritarian one. There have been plenty of rumors of Chinese scientists being threatened by the government for speaking out about matters that might damage the nation or cause it to lose face, so while China's Foreign Ministry spokesman has pledged China will help the WHO's investigation into the origin of SARS-CoV-2 with an "open, transparent and responsible spirit,"41 there's reason to doubt the genuineness of that statement.

Be that as it may, we must not give up the quest to determine its origin, because, as mentioned, if it turns out that the virus was created, and did escape — whether intentionally or not — we need to ensure that such an event never happens again. And that may mean shutting down and banning gain-of-function research altogether. 



from Articles https://ift.tt/3slZ7nL
via IFTTT
Twitter Facebook

00:22 , ,

At a virtual press conference held by the World Health Organization December 28, 2020, WHO officials warned there is no guarantee that COVID-19 vaccines will prevent people from being infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and transmitting it to other people.1

In a New Year's Day interview with Newsweek, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), reinforced the WHO's admission that health officials do not know if COVID-19 vaccines prevent infection or if people can spread the virus to others after getting vaccinated.2

According to U.S. and WHO health officials, vaccinated persons still need to mask and social distance because they could be able to spread the new coronavirus to others without knowing it.3,4

Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in December 2020 for Pfizer/BioNTech5 and Moderna6 to release their experimental mRNA vaccines for use in the U.S., the companies only provided evidence from clinical trials to demonstrate that, compared to unvaccinated trial participants, their vaccines prevented more mild to severe COVID-19 disease symptoms in vaccinated participants.

The companies did not investigate whether the vaccines prevent people from becoming asymptomatically infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and/or transmitting it to other people.7,8

COVID-19 Vaccines Designed to Prevent Severe Disease

According to WHO officials, while it appears the vaccines can prevent clinically symptomatic COVID-19 clinical disease, there is no clear evidence COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing asymptomatic infection and transmission. During the press conference, WHO chief scientist and pediatrician Dr. Soumya Swaminathan said:9

"We continue to wait for more results from the vaccine trials to really understand whether the vaccines, apart from preventing symptomatic disease and severe disease and deaths, whether they're also going to reduce infection or prevent people from getting infected with the virus, then from passing it on or transmitting it to other people.

I don't believe we have the evidence on any of the vaccines to be confident that it's going to prevent people from actually getting the infection and therefore being able to pass it on."

Swaminathan said the COVID-19 vaccine was designed to first prevent symptomatic disease, severe disease and deaths. Dr. Mark Ryan, MPH, who is executive director of the WHO Health Emergencies Program, agreed with Swaminathan and added:10

"So the first primary objective is to decrease the impact the disease is having on people's lives and, therefore, that will be a major step forward in bringing the world back to some kind of normal.

The second phase is then looking at how will this vaccine affect transmission. We just don't know enough yet about length of protection and other things to be absolutely able to predict that, but we should be able to get good control of the virus."

SARS-CoV-2 Eradication Via Mass Vaccination Is a 'Moonshot'

Ryan also pointed out that the decision by WHO to try to eradicate the SARS-CoV-2 virus "requires a much higher degree of efficiency and effectiveness in the vaccination program and the other control measures" and that it is likely the new coronavirus will "become another endemic virus, a virus that will remain somewhat of a threat but a very low level threat in the context of an effective vaccination program."

Ryan cautioned that, like with measles and polio, there is no guarantee of eliminating the SARS-CoV-2 virus through mass vaccination programs. He said:11

"The existence of a vaccine even at high efficacy is no guarantee of eliminating or eradicating an infectious disease. That's a very high bar for us to be able to get over. First, we have to focus on saving lives, getting good control of this epidemic, and then we will deal with the moonshot of potentially being able to eliminate or eradicate this virus."

Azar Says Get Vaccinated but Still Mask Up

In a December 22, 2020, interview, HHS Secretary Alex Azar told Fox News that the current "consensus" among health officials is that people who get two doses of COVID-19 vaccine should still mask up and practice social distancing. He said:12

"We're still studying some fundamental scientific questions though, such as, once you've been vaccinated, do you still need to wear a mask to protect others, could you still be carrying the virus even though you're protected from it …

If you're getting vaccinated right now, still social distance, still wear a mask, but all these [recommendations] have to be data and science-driven, so we're working to generate the data there so that as we go forward, we'll be able to advise people on a foundation of data."

COVID-19 Vaccine Passports and Mandates May Be Coming

In an interview on CNN in early April 2020 when most states were in some form of a coronavirus lockdown, Fauci told Alyson Camerota, "It's very likely that there are a large number of people out there that have been infected, have been asymptomatic, and did not know they were infected."13

Eight months later, on New Year's Day 2021, Fauci told Newsweek that in his role as the new administration's chief medical adviser, there is a possibility the federal government will eventually introduce "COVID-19 vaccine passports" and that some city, county or state governments and businesses will make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory, including in schools.14

"Everything will be on the table," Fauci declared. A week earlier, Fauci told The New York Times that between 70% and 90% of the U.S. population would need to get COVID-19 vaccinations in order for the country to reach vaccine-acquired herd immunity. He explained why he has continued to shift the "herd immunity" goal post over the past year:15

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85 … We really don't know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I'm not going to say 90 percent."

Even as Fauci discussed vaccine passports and mandates in Newsweek, he admitted that proving that COVID-19 vaccines do more than prevent clinical disease but also block infection and transmission has been elusive. He emphasized that persons who get vaccinated still must wear masks:16

"We do not know if the vaccines that prevent clinical disease also prevent infection. They very well might, but we have not proven that yet … That's the reason I keep saying that even though you get vaccinated, we should not eliminate, at all, public health measures like wearing masks because we don't know yet what the effect [of the vaccine] is on transmissibility."

Fauci added, "We don't know what we don't know."

Immunity Passports: Suggested Soon After the Pandemic Began

Government health officials in Israel are getting ready to issue a COVID-19 "green passport" to citizens who have received two COVID-19 shots, which will exempt them from travel restrictions and testing for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus or being required to quarantine after exposure to an infected person.17

Technology companies have been working on creating a digital certificate, which contains personal medical information giving evidence that an individual has been vaccinated and can be used as a screening tool by employers, businesses and owners or operators of services and public venues, such as airlines, theme parks, concert halls, hotels and other places where people gather in groups with other people.18,19,20,21

Immediately after the coronavirus pandemic was declared by the WHO last winter, Silicon Valley businessman Bill Gates began talking about the need for issuing digital certificates proving immunity to the virus and, once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, proof of vaccination.

In a comment posted on Reddit in March 2020, Gates said, "Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it."22

That same month in a TED Talk, Gates explained how lockdowns and resulting "economic pain" will prevent people from getting naturally acquired immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and that immunity "certificates" will eventually be required. Gates said:23

"Now we don't want to have a lot of recovered people, you know. To be clear, we're trying through the shutdown in the United States, to not get to one percent of the population infected. We're well below that today, but with exponentiation you could get past that three million. I believe we will be able to avoid that with having this economic pain.

Eventually, what we'll have to have is certificates of who is a recovered person, who's a vaccinated person, because you don't want people moving around the world where you'll have some countries that won't have it under control, sadly. You don't want to completely block off the ability for people to go there and come back and move around."

In an April 9, 2020, interview on National Public Radio, Gates returned to the message that some "social distancing" measures have to stay in place "until we get a vaccine that almost everybody's had." He said:24

"What I'm saying, what Dr. Anthony Fauci is saying, what some other experts are saying, there's a great deal of consistency. We're not sure yet which activities should be resumed, because until we get a vaccine that almost everybody's had, the risk of a rebound will be there."

As of January 3, 2021, the CDC had recorded over 20 million COVID-19 cases and nearly 350,000 related deaths.25

Lasting Immunity After Mild, Asymptomatic COVID-19 Infection

A study was published December 24, 2020, in Science Immunology by scientists from Queen Mary, University of London, in which they analyzed antibody and T cell responses in 136 London health care workers and reported that there was evidence of protective immunity up to four months after mild or asymptomatic COVID-19.26

A press release issued by the university stated that mild or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections represent the largest infected group and noted that researchers found T cell responses tended to be higher in those with the classic, defining symptoms of COVID-19, while asymptomatic infection resulted in a weaker T cell immunity than symptomatic infection, but equivalent neutralizing antibody responses.27 One of the researchers commented:28

"Our study of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers from London hospitals reveals that four months after infection, around 90 percent of individuals have antibodies to block the virus. Even more encouragingly, in 66 percent of healthcare workers we see levels of these protective antibodies are high and that this robust antibody response is complemented by T cells which we see reacting to various parts of the virus.

This is good news. It means that if you have been infected there is a good chance that you will have developed antibodies and T cells that may provide some protection if you encounter the virus again."



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

MKRdezign

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget