Function

Are you speaking of a "common cold"?

If so, it's not as easy as you'd want it to be.

Let me try to explain it: the common cold is evoked in most cases by a virus of which its genome consists of RNA. Some may be evoked by an adenovirus, which has DNA.

(I could get further into detail about single stranded (positively vs. negatively oriented) vs. double stranded but I won't because that just isn't so important right now.)

Most DNA viruses replicate in host cell nuclei and use host polymerase to do so. Fine, no problem. You could theoretically think of a vaccine. One big exception: variola (smallpox) which carries its own polymerase in its way too large genome.

But a vaccine against DNA viruses (I can only think of a vaccine against hepatitis B virus) won't eradicate the common cold, since there are just too many subtypes of the adenoviruses (and the HBV vaccine works by binding antibodies to the surface of HBV, we call them HbS-Ab: Hepatitis b surface antibodies). Other vaccines may work by evoking immune response against a specific toxine produced by the virus ...

So if you already consider variation in DNA viruses ...

RNA viruses are much worse. RNA viruses are obligated to carry their own RNA polymerase (reason for that is quite obvious, given that we all have DNA, and not just RNA in our chromosomes, so we use a polymerase fit for that) and perform transcription and replication in the cytoplasm with their own RNA polymerase (again one big exception: influenza replicates in the nucleus).

Now, the problem with their own RNA polymerase, is that it makes lots of mistakes. And a mistake in replication, transcription, ... results in a mutation.

And you guessed it, mutation results in subtypes.

So RNA viruses have tons of more subtypes than DNA viruses, and since the common cold is most commonly provoked by RNA viruses, finding a cure against all viruses that cause common cold is not going to happen.

Have you considered giving medicine a try?

My memory of its vectors is pretty poor - but Function can correct me if I am wrong - Herpes Zoster when it presents as Shingles is always (?) a reactiviation of the varicella zoster virus from within your own body. So to contradict the OP - you do not catch Shingles. The VZV initial presents as Chickenpox and stays (in nerve cells of some sort) quiescent till the immune system is down at a low point at which time (many many years later) you can come out with Shingles.

As far as I'm aware of, that's correct.

The "belt" is also present in Dutch "gordelroos" (which means the same as Gurtelrose), and imo refers to the dermatome "belts". In the image below (nibbed off of Wikimedia) we see an attack of the sensory nerves in the right-sided dermatome T2, or even T3, if I'm not mistaken.

Fun fact: the blisters in case of a Herpes simplex exacerbation are caused not by the virus itself, but by cellular destruction by cytotoxic (CD8-positive) T-lymphocytes. Probably also the case in Varicella zoster (zona).

If you start feeling that your are on the edge doing normal activities and that small inconsistencies in life set you off, you may have been infected with a form of herpes/shingles. This may have been spread to you unintentionally or intentionally through food or being around people who do not cough into something. Shingles can mimic the symptoms of psychosis which could make it very difficult to treat.

Define "a form of". I'm infected with EBV (went through acute phase of infectious mononucleosis during final exams last academic year) (as is the majority of the population), a herpes virus, but I'm not convinced of having a psychosis.

"Being around people who do not cough into something"? What?

Please provide evidence of your statement. Any scientific article will do for me, I'll evaluate it.

Are you a neuroscientist.

I wish.

Med student, at your service. But I happen to have some extensive interests in neuroscience.

Got any evidence for that?

I ask because the Right wing politicians introduced competition; healthcare outcomes became worse because, instead of focusing on treating patients, they focused on gaming better numbers than the "competitors".

It's not like selling groceries; if I'm ill I can't meaningfully "shop around" for a "better" hospital so competition doesn't really help.

I'll look this up more detailed tomorrow when I come back from my exam.

Something that pops up into my mind: hospitals and their doctors may have (in)famous reputations, achieved by (unconscious) competition, which might direct patients towards or away from them.

Unfortunately, it comes down to:

If parents say no, it's a no.

(Unless their decision is actively threatening the health of their child; e.g. (this applies to Belgium), when parents of, let's say, a 12-year-old, refuse blood transfusion for their child because they are Jehova's witnesses, you could try all you want, in the end it's gonna be a no. When you find it necessary for the child to survive a surgery that it receives blood transfusion, you, as a physician, can contact a judge or (Crown) prosecutor, to at least inform them on the situation and safeguard yourself from judicial misery afterwards; the judge will put the parents out of their parental authority)

Anyone reading this thread is likely to know show many elements there are.

I didn't, I came to read the reactions to the OP

NHS system (...) works well.

Well yes it's good for equity in healthcare and has fewer administrative costs than the US, but is prone to perverse incentives: competition between doctors and hospitals is decremented, which is not beneficial at all for quality of healthcare.

As per response, private clinics rise. These compete very lively, in favour of quality of healthcare. The problem: not via NHS so declined accessibility and equity in healthcare (expensive), not to mention waiting lists.

The UK system is far from perfect.

I was more just curious to know if it were possible to catch said infection from a parrot (or other animal). She seemed absolutely positive that you could. I wasn't so sure, and to date she has been extremely evasive when I've asked for where her information came from.

Imho, you could indeed adopt the bacterium from the parrot. That's something totally different from allowing it to colonize, let alone infect, actually. S. pneumoniae is part of the commensal flora in your nasopharynx and causes no harm in most cases, though is a professional invader and one of the three most important causes of airway infections (this one and H. influenzae are also quite infamous for meningitis), along with Moraxella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influenzae (infernal trio)... But as long as there's no opportunity for them to really infect you, there's no opportunity to get sick from them so ... infection from a parrot? No, unles you give it good conditions to.

Oh and btw, the pneumococcus is transmissioned by droplets, so unless you actively collect parrot saliva or snot (do parrots sneeze?), don't worry.

I know something fun too: hippocampectomy.

The problem is that memory isn't as static as "here is it located"; rather formed by a network of neurons all over your brain: visual memories will, for instance, include connections between hippocampus and the primary visual cortex (and other visual cortices dependent on the character of the vision: was it moving, was it static, what colour, ...), let alone the potential emotions evoked by the image or scene you saw, including lots of other parts of your brain ...

And I wouldn't be too keen on having a gamma knife cutting those parts.

That aside ... Who's gonna pay for it? Its therapeutic added value is rather restricted, imo, and the price per added QALY (if it even adds a QALY to your life) will be tremendous, restricting reimbursement, leaving the question: who'd pay for it?

It was identified in Wistar and Sprague-Dawley laboratory rats in '69:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4388727

However, multiple sources to identify the S. pneumoniae as a human-specific Streptococcus.

E.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26095827

Yet ...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24517022

And then there's the primates

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23505710

So I think it might be zoonotic, but that it's not as close as interesting for it to act zoonotic as if it were solely humane.

Since studiot drops a forum name:

StackExchange is a platform I have some good experience with, too (though users tend to be more abrupt and direct, not seldomly at the expense of good communication ....)

Now, you don't just go and throw around all your questions on StackExchange: it's pretty well organized: you can create your general account there, but if you'd want to ask something about chemistry, you'd have to go to the specific chemistry page of stackexchange (chemistry.stackexchange.com), and "re-make" your account there. It'll just syncrhonize with your StackExchange account, I think ...

Ah well, every domain has its own site so beware of posting your questions to the right section.

Major advantage: usually incredibly quick response

Major disadvantage: you're a number and nothing but a number there.

Here, I'm Function. A Belgian medicine student known well by quite some users I know myself quite well.

In StackExchange, I'm the I-don't-know-how-many-thousanth-user with just another lame question.

Edit: ooh, that's #600.

I would possibly find it harder to study for the subjects you mentioned than for neuroanatomy right now...

("Environment and health", "Health economics", "Occupational medicine", "Public health" and "Health and human rights",)

That's exactly how exactly every single student thinks about the upcoming exam. Tbh, it doesn't interest any of us, memorizing this useless crap we'll forget in about a few days.

We actually came to the conclusion that open access journals are generally spoken just better. Some societies will indeed just publish anything in their journals for money, which thus doesn't only cost money, but also quality.

That's what StringJunky was talking about isn't it? Having a context and a reason for knowing, is the branch upon which the detailed leaves can hang. But memorising lists of words with no context - just leaves blowing in the wind.

 

In my opinion this is a common trap in medical training: confusing knowing the names of things for understanding them.

Indeed. My professor in genetics was talking about "dentatorubropallidoluysian atrophy". He said "if you can pronounce this, well ... You don't have it."

To someone who's already been through neuroanatomy and neurophysiology, remembering the term would be easy and explaining what it means would require some effort: just remember what the dentate & red nucleus do, the globus pallidus and the subthalamic nucleus of Luys.

To someone who hasn't ever had neuroanatomy or neurophysiology, it would be a lot more difficult.

During my nurse training i once memorised every bone and muscle in the hand and foot. Such a waste of time.

That reminds me of another phenomenon I'd like to discuss:

When every name of every muscle, artery, bone isn't the main thing to memorize, but rather more detailed work (e.g. all ridges, bumps etc. on every bone, every origin, insertion, working mechanism and innervation of every muscle, topographic anatomy of arteries, ...), then memorizing the names of the structures requires no effort at all. At least, not with me: studying osteology, I had no problem whatsoever naming every bone wherever in the human body, but the most intensive part about osteology was naming every inegality on the bones.

Is that because you repeat the name of the structure incredibly much in order to get to know and go throug the details?

nobody gives me the suggestions about how to protect ourselves in heavily polluted areas...

Is this an incognito bump?

in medicine another helpful way it is to follow the latin or greek meaning of the word , it makes a huge difference to understand the actual meaning of the word, it makes it easier to remember what it is . Repetition is a good method and you seem to be doing this already...

 

what topic are you currently studying for?

In Belgium, we are obligated to learn the Latin terminology and it helps. Learning anatomy and physiology was never a problem; rather than just memorizing, it had something logical.

But now, with an exam impending about "Environment and health", "Health economics", "Occupational medicine", "Public health" and "Health and human rights", there's quite the lists to memorize. But yeah for about every list, I figured a mnemonic.

Then you've lost me because I thought you were being sarcastic. They either filter and/or use charged ions to take the crap out of the air.

Well it was intended to be ironic, but be my guest if it arrived sarcastically - I found it rather obvious that air purifiers would purify air. But I know, I might've been a bit quick in my conclusions. What's in a name after all, dear String ...

Charged ions; learned something new. Thanks

Things are obvious when you know.

Small sidenote: I know nothing about air purifiers

how about air purifiers ?

Do air purifiers purify air? Gee ...

This just made my day.

As far as I'm aware of, photosynthesis can't purify your air.

Do you happen to know the difference between HLA-A, HLA-DQ, HLA-DR? Do they all present to CD8/CD4 cells? Or does each subtype have a different function?

The difference between HLA-A/B/C is not clear to me, but I also don't feel the need to understand it; it's probably quite irrelevant. Same probably goes for HLA-DQ/DR

HLA coded by MHC type I (that is, HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, HLA-E being the most important ones) are HLA-proteins presenting intracellular (that is, non-vesicular) particles (only proteins) to CD8+ T-lymphocytes (cytotoxic T "killer cells")

HLA coded by MHC type II (that is, HLA-DR, HLA-DQ being the most important ones) are HLA proteins presenting vesicular particles (again, only proteins) to CD4+ T-lymphocytes (T "helper cells": Th1, Th2, Th17, THF, Treg)

---

Reason why I put some emphasis on "only proteins" is because B-cell receptors (immunoglobulins, Ig; and antibodies, Ab, which basically are excreted Igs) can, proteins aside, also bind saccharides

genome locations (x-axis) appear to overlap

Ah so that was the problem of the OP. Seems like I totally didn't get the problem.

Forget about the HLA thing then