https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-11/cp-csd110420.php As a former medical researcher, in college, I read studies with, perhaps, a different feel for what's going on in them, than the public at large. On various occasions, I have contacted the principals involved in various studies, and asked probing questions that have shown me what a farce some of the work that's reported on actually is. In the above study, it is worth looking into the length of time this patient shed CV19. Yes, that's true, no doubt. However, a BIG question that's been ignored, apparently, is: "Why hasn't this woman been sickened, in the least bit, by the virus that has lived in her for a comparatively long time?" This is a very, very important thing to look into. By doing so, researchers may begin to understand how to help infected folks fight off the effects of their infections. I may contact the lead researchers, eventually. Normally, when I do contact those involved in a given study, I'm treated pretty well, on the phone, but it soon becomes apparent that many of these researchers are more concerned with "racking up points" for getting published than actually pursuing their research in greater depth. Very sad, in truth......
Very interesting. She was a carrier but never actually became ill herself. That reminds me of Typhoid Mary. I'd be very interested to see the final results of her case.
Yes. Not only was she a carrier, but she was a carrier with a badly compromised immune system. Taken at face value, that would normally mean that the virus would have easily destroyed her, yet it didn't. A very interesting study. If it goes forward, and into greater depth, it may well open up new ways to keep infected patients from actually becoming ill.
Maybe some medication she was taking for leukemia kept the virus under control. Funny they don't mention that in the report. Or maybe she wasn't taking anything for it. Or maybe I missed it.
No, as I mentioned, earlier, these studies are pushed out there, often times, to get publishing credits for their researchers. Once they see the light, many are left to be, even when further research may bring to light more important answers to very important questions, like the ones you posed. I researched a prostate cancer study that got a good deal of publicity on many TV news shows. It fell so flat on getting into any depth, answering any big questions. When I called the lead researcher, he was a nice guy, but admitted that his group had not pursued getting answers to the very important questions I posed, and had gone on to other things! To this day, when that study shows up in articles about prostate cancer, I simply shake my head.
".....researchers may begin to understand how to help infected folks fight off the effects of their infections." I thought that's what the vaccine is developed for, and it will be available in a few weeks.
In some countries and to some extent even in the U.S., a post grad can honestly compile, organize various articles in their field of endeavor and publish them in journal form in order to acquire their PhD without any realistic lab time. Note that I am not defending the act but the competitive jockeying for good positions, particular in the medical field, is almost cut-throat. It has gotten so debased that a well compiled document published on the backs of actual researchers is somehow considered a feather in the cap of the student. On another level, dealing with some papers I have read, it is apparent that the peer review was extremely biased because their own articles were referenced a few times. Ergo, to be published is one thing but to have an observation referenced within the making of another published document is yet another method of receiving some recognition and believe me, any good position is nearly impossible without recognition. Now, in agreement with @Trevalius Guyus, much of the research on virus’s or just about any medical malady is pure redundancy. In some cases, stacks and stacks of published research could be compiled into a single study. I have a personal case that when I first saw a physician about it she told me after the exam that I had actually given her more information about the problem than she had seen in 20 years. On my second visit, my initial doctor’s cohort examined me and again, after the exam he told me that the information I gave the other doctor was found to have more facts than the papers he had previously read. To piggy back on Trevalius’ statement, it’s a shake your head and wonder type of thing.