This next article I find to be extremely interresting.
Though it is a study on pigs, it also provides parallel information that can be attributed to humans.
Looking at the results in the study and the timeframes involved, I am reminded of all the questions that I have been asking in relation to Patient Zero who contracted the first case of H3N2v while in hospital.
Readers will remember that it was reported that patient zero was tested for influenza when originally admitted to hospital for other medical problems, and those tests returned negative.
This clearly established that Patient Zero was not infected with an influenza virus on admission.
However Patient Zero did contract a virus that caused illness after two or three days into internment.
Now we have this study that would imply further evidence that Patient Zero DID contract influenza while in hospital, based on relevant timeframes.
So Again, I say to the CDC to come forward and offer an explaination as to how Patient Zero contracted an influenza strain previously unknown and while in hospital.
After all, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention by their very name must have sufficient expertise to execute their role and function professionally and since Patient Zero has been identified, the next task is to identify the reservour that infected Patient Zero, and that reservour being inside a hospital would or at least should be of intense interest to such an organization such as the CDC.
So I ask the question again, especially in light of this very enlightening study.
What was the reservour for Patient Zero?
Innoculation into an IV drip?
There was a cause, what was it, and why the secrecy?
Is it because there was indeed deliberate human intervention?Relationship between airborne detection of influenza A virus and the number of infected pigs.
Corzo CA, Romagosa A, Dee SA, Gramer MR, Morrison RB, Torremorell M.
SourceDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.
Influenza A virus infects a wide range of species including both birds and mammals (including humans). One of the key routes by which the virus can infect populations of animals is by aerosol transmission. This study explored the relationship between number of infected pigs and the probability of detecting influenza virus RNA in bioaerosols through the course of an acute infection. Bioaerosols were collected using a cyclonic collector in two groups of 7week-old pigs that were experimentally infected by exposure with a contact infected pig (seeder pig). After contact exposure, individual pig nasal swab samples were collected daily and air samples were collected three times per day for 8days. All samples were tested for influenza by real-time reverse transcriptase (RRT)-PCR targeting the influenza virus matrix gene. All pigs' nasal swabs became influenza virus RRT-PCR positive upon exposure to the infected seeder pig. Airborne influenza was detected in 28/43 (65%) air samples. The temporal dynamics of influenza virus detection in air samples was in close agreement with the nasal shedding pattern in the infected pigs. First detection of positive bioaerosols happened at 1day post contact (DPC). Positive bioaerosols were consistently detected between 3 and 6 DPC, a time when most pigs were also shedding virus in nasal secretions. Overall, the odds of detecting a positive air sample increased 2.2 times for every additional nasal swab positive pig in the group. In summary, there was a strong relationship between the number of pigs shedding influenza virus in nasal secretions and the generation of bioaerosols during the course of an acute infection.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov