Nuances are hard to capture in a tweet. #ClearAsMud ADE phenom. is point well taken and legitimate. But comparing the two exemplar papers adds to the confusion. “Prior Dengue” is “good” or “bad” for “ZIKA” needs precise definitions for every “word/phrase” used. /1https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1094252329161748482 …
-
Deze collectie tonen
-
Effects of “Prior dengue” may depend on IsoT-sp. Ab titers for particular DENV proteins: Lo’s
@sciencemagazine paper looked at total *DENV NS1* IgG&IgG3 titers as markers of “prior dengue” and found marker-dependent Pos&Neg Corr. (“good | bad”) w/risk of acq. ZIKA (“for ZIKA”, /21 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuksDeze collectie tonen -
whereas
@jeanklim@ImmunityCP paper used purified total IgG from *DENV E*(+) HUman sera (“prior dengue”) for probing role (“good” or “bad”) of ADE in#ZIKV induced damage during pregnancy (“for ZIKA”); maybe#ApplesAndOranges leads to#ClearAsMud (?) /31 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuksDeze collectie tonen -
Agree that many
#ADE studies may be “in vitro and/or mouse artifact”, but not all can be easily dismissed. Eva Harris’s evidence for the role of ADE effects in humans in the severity of DENV disease is one, and /42 antwoorden 0 retweets 1 vind-ik-leukDeze collectie tonen
Yup, not arguing against ADE in dengue - that definitely exist (see my reply mentioning Eva’s paper). I’m arguing against prior dengue causing ADE with Zika. I have seen no convincing evidence and whenever people have looked in relevant models (humans and NHPs) they find nothing.
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.