Salam for ALL!, I was reading a nice paper in which nearly all the work done using Pulse-Chase experiments, so here is a well done animation illustrating the principle behind this experiment, Enjoy! and don’t forget to answer the Quizzes! ūüėČ

After a series of mysterious infections with a previously unknown Virus, people started to show a very strange symptom!, the virus seemed to attack memory cells responsible for WIFE MEMORY ONLY!, that all previous – memories whether good or bad – related to patients’ wives are all erased!

Taking the opportunity, Big Pharma managed to formulate safe doses from the new virus ready for the public!

One Shot! and after 24 hours all is DONE!, (Shift + Delete) your wife is Gone!

ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THE SHOT OR NOT!, and if the answer is YES (SURE!!!) do you think you are going to choose the same lady after you wake up or not!

Waiting for your answers and comments (please don’t search the internet for any details! I FAKED THE WHOLE STORY in case you didn’t already realize :)!!!)

Dear readers, Peace be upon you all!

This post comes in reply for what was published recently by, Rogier Bodewes and colleagues (Yearly influenza vaccinations: a double-edged sword?)¬†urging¬†re-evaluation of vaccine recommendations because the inactivated vaccine available at present does not induce heterosubtypic immunity and might make infants more susceptible to pandemic inÔ¨āuenza.”1,

and before reading the reply, it would worth mentioning that heterosubtypic immunity is an immunity that is cross-protective between different influenza A virus subtypes

a reply came recently in the Lancet,

“…¬†Bodewes and colleagues‚Äô concern is primarily on the basis of their recent animal experiment.1,¬†In animal studies, the investigators have full control over any environmental or other factors that might have an eÔ¨Äect on the outcome of interest.

This is in [obvious] contrast with the situation among people leading their daily lives. In the context of inÔ¨āuenza, it is highly probable that almost everyone, vaccinated or not, who lives in a community during an outbreak of inÔ¨āuenza is exposed to the circulating inÔ¨āuenza viruses. ¬†The consequences of such exposures in vaccinated persons are not known, but it would be diÔ¨Écult to believe that these would not induce any immunological responses. The eÔ¨Écacy of ¬†inÔ¨āuenza vaccine is far from optimum and, especially among young children, symptomatic

breakthrough illnesses happen frequently despite vaccination. Because influenza vaccination cannot prevent all symptomatic infections, it could be postulated that its ability to prevent asymptomatic infections is even worse [!].

A logical implication of this is that most vaccinated children are repeatedly attacked by wild-type inÔ¨āuenza viruses during local outbreaks and might develop asymptomatic infections that, in turn, can induce the development of partial heterosubtypic immunity

On the basis of the accumulating data from the present A H1N1 pandemic, the authors‚Äô concern does not seem warranted. By contrast with regular inÔ¨āuenza seasons in which the highest attack rates are seen in young children, 2,3

the 2009 A H1N1 pandemic has so far primarily aÔ¨Äected adolescents and young adults. 4 Available data from the USA also suggest that paediatric inÔ¨āuenza-associated case mortality during the present pandemic‚ÄĒthe Ô¨Ārst one in the era of a general recommendation to vaccinate all children in the country‚ÄĒseems not to be higher than that seen during the three preceding regular inÔ¨āuenza seasons.5

In a case‚Äďcontrol study from Mexico, seasonal inÔ¨āuenza vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of severe pandemic H1N1 infection.6 Moreover, the well-known W-shaped mortality curve from the infamous 1918 A H1N1 pandemic‚ÄĒduring which time no vaccine was available‚ÄĒdoes not support the authors‚Äô hypothesis. 7¬†If heterosubtypic immunity induced by repeated inÔ¨āuenza infections during childhood provided any substantial protection against severe forms of illness, no such increased mortality among young adults should have been seen.[this is a nice observation I think]

We fully agree that there is a need for more eÔ¨Äective¬†inÔ¨āuenza vaccines that would induce broader¬†immune responses.

In children, the live-attenuated¬†inÔ¨āuenza vaccine seems to be more eÔ¨Äective than the¬†conventional inactivated vaccine,8¬†but the live vaccine is¬†not available in Europe at present, and even in the USA¬†it is only indicated for children 2 years of age or older.9¬†Public health decisions should be based on the best¬†clinical evidence available. There is ample evidence for¬†the great burden of inÔ¨āuenza in young children,2,3,10¬†and this burden appears during every inÔ¨āuenza

season. By contrast, there is no clinical evidence that¬†vaccinating children against inÔ¨āuenza ¬†would ¬†prevent¬†the induction of heterosubtypic immunity and thereby¬†be disadvantageous to children in the long run.

While¬†waiting for improved inÔ¨āuenza vaccines, the simple¬†question isshould we let young children suÔ¨Äer ¬†from¬†a severe and potentially lethal but easily preventable¬†illness, just because there is a theoretical possibility that¬†withholding vaccination might result in a slightly less severe illness sometime in the future?¬†We believe that¬†the answer to this question is a simple one.”

Did the post assure you, or not!, (you can tell me)


1 ¬†Bodewes R, Kreijtz JHCM, Baas C, et al. Vaccination against human¬†inÔ¨āuenza A/H3N2 virus prevents the induction of heterosubtypic immunity¬†against lethal infection with avian inÔ¨āuenza A/H5N1 virus. PLoS One 2009;4: e5538.

2 ¬†Heikkinen T, Silvennoinen H, Peltola V, et al. Burden of inÔ¨ā uenza in children¬†in the community. J Infect Dis 2004; 190: 1369‚Äď73.
3 ¬†Poehling KA, Edwards KM, Weinberg GA, et al. The underrecognized burden¬†of inÔ¨āuenza in young children. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 31‚Äď40.

4 ¬†Gilsdorf A, Poggensee G, on behalf of the working group pandemic¬†inÔ¨āuenza A(H1N1)v. InÔ¨ā ¬†uenza A(H1N1)v in Germany: the Ô¨Ārst¬†10,000 cases. Euro Surveill 2009; 14: pii=19318.

5 CDC. Seasonal inÔ¨ā ¬†uenza‚ÄĒweekly report: inÔ¨ā ¬†uenza summary update.¬†Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009.¬†http://www.cdc.gov/Ô¨ā ¬†u/weekly/ (accessed Oct 12, 2009).

6 ¬†Garcia-Garcia L, Valdespino-G√≥mez JL, Lazcano-Ponce E, et al. Partial¬†protection of seasonal trivalent inactivated vaccine against novel pandemic¬†inÔ¨āuenza A/H1N1 2009: case-control study in Mexico City. BMJ 2009;¬†published online Oct 6. DOI:10.1136/bmj.b3928.

7 ¬†Glezen WP. Emerging infections: pandemic inÔ¨āuenza. Epidemiol Rev 1996;18: 64‚Äď76.

8 ¬†Belshe RB, Edwards KM, Vesikari T, et al. Live attenuated versus inactivated¬†inÔ¨ā uenza vaccine in infants and young children. N Engl J Med 2007;356: 685‚Äď96.

9 CDC. Seasonal inÔ¨āuenza‚ÄĒrecommendations for using TIV and LAIV during¬†the 2009‚Äď10 inÔ¨āuenza season. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and¬†Prevention, 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/Ô¨āu/professionals/acip/
recommendations.htm (accessed Oct 12, 2009).

10 ¬†Heikkinen T, Booy R, Campins M, et al. Should healthy children be¬†vaccinated against inÔ¨ā ¬†uenza? Eur J Pediatr 2006; 165: 223‚Äď28



Dear ViroMag Readers, Peace!

I’m back, and thanks for not going away!

Here is a WHO page on “Safety of Pandemic Vaccines”, where “WHO has received vaccination information from 16 of around 40 countries conducting national H1N1 pandemic vaccine campaigns.” and here are the¬†results

Finally, WHO report concludes “Although intense monitoring of vaccine safety continues, all data compiled to date indicate that pandemic vaccines match the excellent safety profile of seasonal influenza vaccines, which have been used for more than 60 years.

Note: For those who hold the conspiracy theory approach and do not believe such publications, sorry, I can’t help

I am visiting Alexandria for a few days, I have limited access to internet connection, so I shall stop posting till I come back home,¬†I think you shall spend sometime to read my older¬†posts, and I’d be happy to respond to your questions and comments

My Dear Readers, Peace!

The pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus remains alive on the eighth day in 8%‚Äď13% of people after they develop flu symptoms, a team of Quebec researchers has determined.

Dr. Guy Boivin of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Quebec and Dr. Gaston De Serres of Quebec’s Public Health Institute tested members of 65 families in Quebec who contracted the virus from May through July. Their findings, part of a larger study looking at whether asymptomatic people have pandemic (H1N1) 2009, are intended to guide public health officials who are trying to reduce the spread of the virus.

De Serres and Boivin tested 173 people enrolled in the study 8 days and 10 days after they first presented with symptoms. On day 10, they were not detecting live virus in any of the 43 laboratory-confirmed cases of people with the virus.

The results of the study indicate that a large number of people with pandemic (H1N1) 2009 are still contagious after their fever breaks, and at least a proportion of people with the virus may be able to transmit it to others for a day or two longer than those who have seasonal influenza, De Serres says.

‚ÄúFor seasonal influenza, in general, we consider that within seven days, the shedding of the virus should be over,‚ÄĚ he says. ‚ÄúWith this virus, we see that yes, the shedding of the virus is over for the majority of the people, but there are still people who are potentially contagious on day 8.‚ÄĚ

In general, public health authorities advise people with seasonal influenza to wait for 24 hours after their fever has broken before returning to work or school. Currently, that is the advice the US Centers for Disease Control offers on its website to people with pandemic (H1N1) 2009.

But that period of voluntary isolation is not likely to be effective in reducing transmission among at least a segment of those with the virus, says De Serres. ‚ÄúIf on day 8, we still have 8%‚Äď13% of people having live virus, to go back after two, three or four days (of presenting symptoms) is really too soon.‚ÄĚ

Public health officials should advise people how long to stay home, but will have to balance their advice given the societal effects of having large proportions of the population off work and off school if there is an extensive outbreak, De Serres says.

Currently, the Public Health Agency of Canada is advising people who have pandemic H1N1 (2009) to stay home until they are better.

De Serres says people working with vulnerable populations, such as health care workers caring for newborns, need to stay home until the risk of transmission is past. He adds that other members of the general public need to consider whether they are still coughing and sneezing and could spread the virus easily.”

Dear readers, Peace!

Few days ago I was asked about obesity, whether it is a risk factor for increased morbidity/mortality form the current swine flu (H1N1) pandemic strain, and here is what I found (in the news)

“A study in California shows that about a quarter of the people hospitalized for H1N1 complications were morbidly obese, even though less than 5% of the population falls into that category.

Obesity appears to be a risk factor [nearly similar] with pregnancy for developing complications from an infection with pandemic H1N1 influenza, according to the most comprehensive look yet at swine flu hospitalizations

The CDC considers adults to be obese if their body mass index is 30 or above and morbidly obese if their BMI tops 40


About a quarter of those hospitalizations have been for people who were morbidly obese, even though such people make up less than 5% of the population. That fivefold increase in risk is close to the sixfold increase observed in pregnant women, according to the report published today in the Journal of the American Medical Assn.

The researchers found that two-thirds of the obese patients had a health problem that was previously recognized as an underlying risk factor for swine flu. The most common were chronic lung disease, heart disease and diabetes.

But that still left one-third of obese patients without other risk factors [other than obesity]“, said Dr. Janice K. Louie, lead author of the study and chief of the state health department’s influenza and respiratory syndromes section.

There are many possible explanations;

Some of them are physiological. The lungs of obese patients are compressed because the abdomen presses up on the diaphragm. In addition, the chest wall is heavier, so it’s more difficult for the lungs to stay inflated.

Both of those factors make it difficult for blood and oxygen to travel throughout the lungs and fight off infection, said Dr. Lena Napolitano, chief of acute-care surgery at the University of Michigan Health System. She recently published a report in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on 10 swine flu patients admitted to the intensive care unit there; of the 10, nine were obese, including seven who were morbidly obese.

The compromised immune system of obese people probably also plays a role, said Dr. David Heber, director of the Risk Factor Obesity Program at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. Scientists believe that people who are obese have a baseline level of inflammation that diminishes the body’s ability to fight diseases.

Researchers at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill found that 42% of obese mice died when infected with a human strain of flu, while the same virus killed only 5% of lean mice. The lungs of the obese mice failed to produce two crucial kinds of immune cells called cytokines that fight off viruses. There was also a decrease in natural killer cells and T-cells, two other components of the immune system, said Patricia Sheridan, a nutritional immunologist at UNC who worked on the study.”

I think that Obesity is bad anyway!