VIRUSES & SICKNESS
Maybe Basic Info
VIRUS CONTENTS OF AIR
Many respiratory viruses like influenza and coronaviruses tend to circulate more in winter months when indoor relative humidity is lower (10-40%) compared to summer (40-60%)2.
At lower relative humidity levels (around 25%), airborne coronavirus particles remained infectious for about twice as long compared to higher humidity levels3.
Viruses with lipid shells, like influenza and coronaviruses, are generally more susceptible to heat and survive better in cooler winter conditions4.
A study conducted in the Sierra Nevada mountains of Spain found that more than 800 million viruses per square meter are deposited into the atmosphere every day3.
Indoor air typically contains approximately 100,000 (10^5) virus-like particles per cubic meter4,1. To convert this to cubic feet: 1 cubic meter = 35.31467 cubic feet. So, in indoor environments, we can estimate roughly 2,800 virus-like particles per cubic foot. For outdoor environments: The same study found outdoor concentrations to be about 2.6 times higher than indoor levels, with approximately 1.2 million virus-like particles per cubic meter1. This translates to approximately 7,400 virus-like particles per cubic foot.
HUMIDITY EFFECT ON VIRUSES
Mid-range humidity (40-60%) is generally optimal for removing viral particles from the air1. Higher relative humidity causes viral particles to drop out of the air and onto surfaces more quickly1.
Increased humidity leads to higher concentrations of naturally occurring disinfectants like hydrogen peroxide in the air, which can help inactivate viruses3.
However, the effect of humidity varies depending on the specific virus.
BACTERIA CONTENTS OF AIR
Bacterial concentrations in the atmosphere typically range from 10^4 to 10^6 cells per cubic meter1.
A study found that indoor concentrations of bacteria-like particles (BLPs) were about 1.1 ± 0.8 × 10^5 particles per cubic meter3. To convert these figures to cubic feet: 1 cubic meter ≈ 35.3147 cubic feet, Therefore, we can estimate: The general range of bacteria per cubic foot: 283 to 28,317 cells.
FILTRATION
With standard filtration, indoor PM2.5 concentrations typically range from 3.2 to 6.4 μg/m3, depending on outdoor air quality1. (PM2.5 refers to particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller.)
HEPA air cleaners can reduce indoor PM2.5 levels from 33.5 ± 10.3 μg/m3 to 17.2 ± 10.7 μg/m3, a mean reduction of 16.3 μg/m3 2.
In airtight buildings with good filtration, indoor air may have less than 30% of the particle concentration compared to outdoor air3.
High-efficiency MERV 13 filters can capture more than 70% of particles across all size ranges, including bacteria and tobacco smoke3.
HEPA filters are extremely effective, removing 99.97% of particles as small as 0.3 microns4,5,6.
TOTAL POLLUTANTS IN AIR
A significant portion of airborne debris in indoor environments consists of bacteria, but it's not accurate to say that most of the debris is bacteria. Here's a breakdown of the information:
Bacterial concentrations:
Other components:
Variability:
Composition:
While bacteria form a substantial portion of the airborne particles in indoor environments, the overall debris also includes other microorganisms, dust particles, and various organic and inorganic materials.
RESULT OF INHALATION
Not all inhaled pollutants are exhaled. Many particles, especially fine particulate matter (PM2.5), can penetrate deep into the lungs and even enter the bloodstream.
The respiratory system has some natural defense mechanisms, but these are not fully effective, especially against smaller particles.
Particulate matter, especially PM2.5 and PM10, can cause significant health issues, indicating that a substantial portion is retained in the body rather than exhaled.
The fact that air pollution exposure is associated with increased levels of certain biomarkers in exhaled breath (such as nitric oxide and malondialdehyde) suggests that some pollutants or their byproducts are exhaled.
SIZES OF VIRUSES & BACTERIA
Viruses and bacteria have varying sizes in relation to PM10 and PM2.5:
Viruses: Most viruses are smaller than both PM10 and PM2.5. Coronavirus particles, for example, range from 0.06 to 0.14 microns in diameter, averaging about 0.125 microns1. This makes them smaller than PM2.5 (2.5 microns) and PM10 (10 microns).
Bacteria: Bacteria are generally smaller than PM10 but can be both smaller and larger than PM2.5. Many bacteria have similar sizes to PM2.5 particles3.
Size comparison:
PM10: Particles 10 microns and below
PM2.5: Particles 2.5 microns and below
Bacteria: Typically range from 0.2 to 2 microns
Viruses: Usually between 0.02 to 0.3 microns {so the largest viruses are a bit larger than the smallest bacteria.}
Composition of particulate matter: In air samples, viruses and bacteria are often found as part of PM10 and PM2.5. One study found that bacteria made up 95.5% of PM2.5 and 93.0% of PM10, while viruses accounted for 2.8% of PM2.5 and 4.5% of PM10 3.
MUCUS MEMBRANES CAPTURE MOST
the mucous membranes in the lungs play a crucial role in capturing viruses and bacteria present in the air we breathe. Here’s how this process works:
Mucus Membranes: The respiratory tract is lined with mucous membranes that produce mucus. This mucus acts as a sticky trap for airborne particles, including pathogens such as viruses and bacteria, as well as dust and allergens1,4.
Ciliary Action: Tiny hair-like structures called cilia line the airways. These cilia beat in a coordinated manner to move the mucus upwards towards the pharynx. This process is known as mucociliary clearance (MCC) and helps transport trapped particles out of the lungs3,4.
Defense Mechanism: The combination of mucus and cilia serves as a primary defense mechanism against inhaled pathogens. When pathogens are trapped in the mucus, they can be either swallowed or coughed out, thus preventing them from reaching deeper parts of the lungs1,4.
Humidity Impact: The effectiveness of this mucociliary clearance can be impaired in low humidity conditions (below 40% relative humidity), which can dry out the mucous membranes and hinder their ability to trap and clear particles, making individuals more susceptible to infections1,2.
Alveolar Macrophages: In addition to mucous membranes and cilia, alveolar macrophages—specialized immune cells located in the alveoli—help engulf and digest any pathogens that manage to bypass the upper respiratory defenses4.
ENTERING CIRCULATION
Pollutants can bypass the mucus membranes and enter circulation through several mechanisms:
Adhesion and Colonization: Some pathogens, particularly bacteria, have evolved mechanisms to adhere to the mucus layer and epithelial cells in the respiratory tract. For example, bacteria like Pseudomonas aeruginosa use surface structures such as pili to attach to epithelial cells, allowing them to colonize and potentially invade deeper tissues1,2.
Disruption of Mucosal Barriers: Pathogens can disrupt signaling pathways in epithelial cells, exposing vulnerable areas of the cell membranes that are not protected by mucins. This disruption can facilitate the entry of pathogens into the underlying tissues4.
Antigen Sampling: Specialized antigen-sampling cells in the mucosal tissues can uptake pathogens. Once inside these cells, pathogens can be processed and presented to immune cells, allowing them to evade initial immune responses and potentially enter circulation3.
Immune Evasion: Some viruses, such as influenza and measles, have developed strategies to interfere with innate immune activation, enhancing their ability to spread beyond the initial site of infection. This allows them to replicate and disseminate throughout the body, including into the bloodstream3,4.
Biofilm Formation: In conditions like cystic fibrosis, bacteria can form biofilms within thick mucus, which protects them from both immune responses and antibiotic treatment. This biofilm formation can lead to chronic infections and increased pathogen persistence in the lungs1,2.
Direct Infection of Immune Cells: Certain viruses target immune cells directly within the respiratory tract, facilitating their entry into circulation. For instance, some viruses can infect macrophages or other immune cells, using these cells as vehicles for systemic spread3.
In summary, while mucus membranes serve as a critical barrier against pathogens, various strategies employed by pathogens allow them to bypass these defenses and enter circulation, leading to potential systemic infections.
UPHOLDING MACROPHAGE THEORY
The question of whether macrophages might exploit viruses intentionally is not supported by current scientific understanding. Here are key points derived from the search results:
Macrophage Function: Macrophages are primarily immune cells that play a defensive role in the body. They are designed to recognize, engulf, and destroy pathogens, including viruses and bacteria. Their main functions include phagocytosis (the ingestion of harmful particles), antigen presentation, and the secretion of cytokines to modulate immune responses.
Virus Interaction: While some viruses can replicate within macrophages, this is typically a result of the virus's ability to manipulate the host cell for its own benefit rather than an intentional action by macrophages. For example, certain strains of influenza can replicate in alveolar macrophages, but this replication is not productive for the macrophage; instead, it often leads to cell damage and impaired immune function1,2.
Immune Evasion: Viruses have evolved various strategies to evade the immune response and exploit macrophages for their replication. They can disrupt normal macrophage functions, polarize macrophages towards an anti-inflammatory phenotype (M2), or inhibit the antiviral responses typically activated in M1 macrophages2,4. This suggests that while viruses may use macrophages to their advantage, it is not a mutualistic relationship.
Pathological Consequences: When viruses infect macrophages, it often results in pathological consequences for the host rather than any beneficial outcome. The infection can lead to tissue damage and contribute to disease progression3,5.
Research Perspective: Current research focuses on understanding how viruses manipulate macrophage polarization and function to enhance their own survival and replication rather than suggesting that macrophages intentionally carry viruses into circulation for hygiene or other purposes.
HOW MUCH MASS ENTERS CIRCULATION?
Daily Exposure Estimates:
A healthy adult breathes approximately 10,000 to 20,000 liters of air per day. Assuming an average PM2.5 concentration of 10 µg/m³ (for illustrative purposes), this … suggests that a person could inhale around 200 µg of PM2.5 daily under average conditions. {That’s 0.2 milligrams.}
Not all inhaled particles enter circulation; some are cleared by mucociliary action or remain in the lungs.
FATE OF POLLUTANTS IN THE BLOOD
Once pollutants enter circulation, they can have wide-ranging effects throughout the body:
Systemic inflammation: Pollutants trigger the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines, leading to inflammation in various organs and tissues1,2.
Oxidative stress: Particles generate reactive oxygen species, damaging cells and tissues throughout the cardiovascular system1,2.
Vascular effects: Pollutants can impair vascular function, increase arterial stiffness, and raise blood pressure2,3.
Blood clotting: Exposure to pollutants promotes blood clotting and impairs fibrinolysis, increasing the risk of thrombosis2.
Cardiac effects: Pollutants can decrease coronary blood flow, impair heart pumping function, and increase the risk of arrhythmias1,3.
Atherosclerosis: Chronic exposure to pollutants promotes the development and progression of atherosclerosis3.
Organ damage: Pollutants can circulate to and potentially damage various organs, including the brain, liver, and kidneys5.
Carcinogenicity: Some pollutants may have systemic carcinogenic effects as they circulate throughout the body5.
These effects can lead to increased risk of cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks, strokes, and exacerbation of heart failure3,4. While the individual risk may be small, the population-level impact of these circulating pollutants on cardiovascular health is significant4.
NEIL Z MILLER ON VACCINES
Evidence Referenced by Neil Z. Miller Regarding Vaccine-Induced Immune Suppression
Summary of Miller’s Claims
Neil Z. Miller, in his book Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies, references several lines of evidence and scientific studies to argue that vaccines may suppress or disrupt the immune system. His main points are:
Vaccines may artificially initiate immune reactions, potentially disrupting the natural development of the immune system.
This disruption, he argues, could increase the risk of autoimmune diseases (such as type 1 diabetes), allergies, asthma, and other inflammatory disorders, especially in genetically predisposed individuals.
He highlights correlations between the introduction of certain vaccines (e.g., Hib vaccine) and increases in type 1 diabetes, referencing studies by Classen’s group.
Miller suggests vaccinated children may be more susceptible to allergies and asthma than unvaccinated children.
He also speculates that vaccines might contribute to the rise in metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and obesity among youth, proposing that inflammation from vaccination disrupts metabolic and immune functions.
Miller discusses the concept that vaccines providing only partial or temporary protection could alter pathogen evolution, potentially leading to more virulent strains and increased disease severity in the population4.
Types of Evidence Cited
Epidemiological studies showing correlations between vaccine schedules and increased rates of certain autoimmune or allergic conditions.
Specific studies (e.g., those by Classen) that report higher rates of type 1 diabetes in children receiving multiple Hib vaccines.
Observational data and statistical analyses suggesting higher rates of asthma and allergies in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children.
Theoretical arguments and some animal model findings that vaccine-induced immune responses might not mimic natural immunity, possibly resulting in immune dysregulation4.
Nature of the Evidence
Miller’s references are primarily correlational and often do not demonstrate direct causation.
He relies on studies that are sometimes controversial or not widely accepted in the mainstream scientific community.
His arguments include both peer-reviewed studies and broader critiques of vaccine safety research, including concerns about conflicts of interest and incomplete long-term safety data4.
Direct Quotes and Key Points from Miller’s Review (as summarized in secondary sources):
“He suggests that by artificially initiating an immune reaction, vaccines could disrupt the natural development of the immune system, which may increase the risk of ongoing allergic diseases… Miller argues that vaccines can play a substantial role in triggering autoimmune diseases, particularly in individuals who are genetically predisposed.”4
“He emphasizes the significant increase in type 1 diabetes incidents that occurred alongside the introduction of the Hib vaccine, referencing studies that indicate a marked escalation in its incidence. Neil Z. Miller emphasizes findings from Classen's group which show that children who receive a series of four Hib vaccines have a significantly higher chance of being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes by age seven than those who have not been vaccinated.”4
“Miller additionally shows data that suggests a correlation between vaccinations and an increased occurrence of allergies and asthma, suggesting that vaccinated children are more susceptible to these conditions compared to their non-vaccinated counterparts.”4
Context and Limitations
Miller’s claims are based on correlations and hypotheses that are debated within the scientific community. Most major health organizations and vaccine researchers assert that vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and effective, and that the benefits outweigh the risks for the vast majority of the population.
The studies Miller references often have methodological limitations, such as potential confounding factors, lack of randomization, or reliance on self-reported data.
His work is primarily a synthesis and critique of existing literature rather than original experimental research.
Conclusion
Neil Z. Miller references epidemiological correlations, selected studies (notably by Classen), and theoretical arguments to suggest that vaccines may suppress or dysregulate the immune system, potentially leading to increased rates of autoimmune diseases, allergies, and metabolic disorders. However, his conclusions are controversial and not widely accepted by the mainstream scientific community, which generally finds vaccines to be safe for the vast majority of individuals4.
Could someone help me understand this ? Is this peer reviewed?
Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies | Hennepin County Library
Reaffirming a Positive Correlation Between Number of Vaccine ...
+4 sources
The phrase "You always have to hold up for the tyrants" does not appear in any of the provided search results and is not directly related to Neil Z. Miller, his work, or the vaccine debate discussed in the context above. If you are referencing a quote, slogan, or criticism related to vaccine policy, public health mandates, or Miller’s critics, there is no evidence in the search results that this phrase is used by Miller or his reviewers345.
If you are expressing frustration or making a rhetorical point about perceived bias or authority in the vaccine debate, the search results do show that Miller’s work is heavily criticized for omitting pro-vaccine evidence and for relying on sources that are widely considered discredited or unreliable by mainstream science45. Critics argue that Miller and similar authors selectively present information to support their views, sometimes at the expense of scientific consensus and public health recommendations45.
If you have a more specific context or question related to this phrase, please clarify so I can provide a more targeted answer.