Jump to content

Тема о КОРОНАВИРУСУ... све на једном месту


JESSY

Препоручена порука

Кад смо код поузданости тестова... После овога не може човек да се не запита колико су PCR тестови поуздани и ако јесу довољно поуздани, шта уопште значи присуство вирусних фрагмената у брису? То дефинитивно није никакав показатељ да је неко болестан, а можда није показатељ ни да је заразан. 

 

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

Отворене телефонске линије у циљу очувања менталног здравља у условима епидемије

 

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

Išao na korona-party u SAD-u da dokaže da je korona prevara. Zarazio se i umro

https://tinyurl.com/yc7sv9cd

TINYURL.COM

MLADI pobornik teorija zavjere umro je od koronavirusa nakon što se pokušao zaraziti na korona-partiju kako bi dokazao da je...

 

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

Одличан чланак, препорука

NOVA.RS

Srđan Lukić je beogradski pulmolog koji je otišao da radi u Sloveniji. U trenutku nove eksplozije koronavirusa u Srbiji, zanimalo nas je kako se komšijska Slovenija bori i šta bi Srbija...

 

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

Из 2015:

Цитат

A Positive Test May Not Mean Positively Sick

Perhaps the most surprising finding was how often participants carried virus, and showed no signs of being sick.

PCR-based diagnostics, like those used to test participants’ samples in this study, are becoming increasingly common in clinical settings because they are much more sensitive and accurate than older tests, and provide results within hours, not days. Yet these findings suggest that some test results should be interpreted with caution.

While study participants infected with influenza and parainfluenza viruses were sick most of the time, those who carried rhinovirus – the cause of the common cold – were only sick half of the time.

What’s more, results suggest that even after a patient recovers from an illness, some viruses persist for weeks afterward. Bocavirus persisted in the nose for as long as 12 weeks, but more commonly viruses persisted for two weeks or less. In an accompanying commentary also published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Gregory A. Storch, M.D., of Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, noted that despite limitations, the research “provides highly useful information,” especially concerning how long PCR-based tests remained positive during each viral episode.

If presence of virus doesn’t always translate into illness, then it stands to reason that even if someone is sick and tests positive for a specific virus, there could be another cause. For example bacteria, or a rare virus not detected by the test. Health care providers should be aware of these limitations.

“If a child comes into the emergency room with severe respiratory illness and tests positive for rhinovirus, it might be a smart idea for doctors to make sure they’re not missing something else that could be the cause,” says co-first author and professor of pediatrics Krow Ampofo, M.B., Ch.B.

HEALTHCARE.UTAH.EDU

A study led by the University of Utah School of Medicine finds that every child puts a household at increased risk for viral infections. Childless households had infections during 3-4 weeks of the...

 

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

Из 2016:

Цитат

We also confirmed the longer duration of shedding detected by PCR. Importantly, PCR results remained positive far beyond the window of transmission. Therefore, we conclude that the infectious period is grossly overestimated when PCR is used to assess infectivity. Thus, culture and antigen-detection testing are far more informative than PCR for identifying the cessation of contagion.

***

Importantly, many of the studies investigating transmission use PCR as the virus detection method. Because important observations may be overlooked by using PCR only, we suggest performing culture and/or antigen-detection testing along with PCR when investigating transmission.

These data suggest that antigen-detection testing and virus culture accurately identify the end of infectious period and that, when culture results for upper respiratory tract specimens are negative, a positive PCR result does not indicate contagion. Although PCR is crucial for rapid diagnosis during the acute phase of infection, our data suggest that it is not an appropriate method for indicating infectivity. 

WWW.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV

Background. The relationship between influenza virus infectivity and virus shedding, based on different diagnostic methods, has not been defined.Methods. Three donor ferrets infected with...

 

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

Из 2013, о MERS вирусу, конкретно:

Цитат

May I post a comment and a maybe provocative question?


As to my knowledge "infection" is defined as the proof of an infectious agent AND the proof of multiplication of this agent inside the body (OR associated inflammatory response that can be linked to this agent). Therefore my question is: where was the specimen taken from the "asymptomatic" nurses? PCR, as we all know, just detects nucleic acids. So if multiplication cannot be proven and no local or systemic inflammatory response is given, how was "contamination" (no matter whether due to inactivated parts of MERS-CoV or even complete virus particles) ruled out? This is not a semantic question only but should impact the reported number of "cases".

--
Prof Martin Haditsch, MD, PhD
Microbiology, Virology, Epidemiology/ID (specialist)
Infectology and Tropical Medicine (specialist / diploma by the Austrian Medical Chamber)

 

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

CDC, о коришћењу молекуларних тестова (нпр. PCR), година 2019:

Цитат

A positive result indicates detection of influenza viral RNA or nucleic acids in the respiratory specimen tested, confirming influenza virus infection, but does not necessarily mean infectious virus is present or that the patient is contagious.

WWW.CDC.GOV

Guidance for Clinicians on the Use of RT-PCR and Other Molecular Assays for Diagnosis of Influenza Virus Infection - CDC

 

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

Inace hocu da ostavim jedan JAKO VAZAN komentar na ove vakcine. Ljudi su pricali i pretpostavljali da ce vakcina da stigne za 2 godine. Uzrok i razlog takvog razmisljanaj je to sto inace treba dosta vremena da se vakcina razvije. Ali to nije u samom naucnom delo vec u birokratskom. Rezultati koje vidimo ovde, jeste vakcine za 1\4 tog vremena kada se skloni sa puta dosadna birokratije.

Sada razmislite koliko lekova, tretman i generalno (van medicine) tehnologija imaju sporiji razvoj zbog birokratije i drzava. I koliko to ljudi kosta zivota. Zamislite da birorate za covid19 insistiraju na svim idiotskim zakonima i pravilima koje imaju pa da  cekamo 2 godine na vakcinu.

Link to comment
Подели на овим сајтовима

×
×
  • Креирај ново...