OY1Q3L3DwA

More from Health

$\u2744\ufe0f Mac n\u2019 Chise \u2744\ufe0f$

The importance of T-cell immunity!
A recent study has found that after one dose of Pfizer’s vaccine, patients had a strong T-cell response, and a boosted antibody response after their second dose. This is good news for many reasons so let’s read up.

This study found that people’s antibodies were moderately effective against the original strain after their first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine, less effective against the B.1.1.7 variant, and were unable to neutralize the B.1.351 variant. Read what I said, that’s only after ONE dose.

However, they had strong T-cell responses against ALL known variants after the first dose. So why is this important? To recap, T-cells stimulate B-cells to make antibodies. Antibodies are just your first line of defense which is what is initiated when you get a vaccine.

It’s our T-cells that are responsible for long-term immunity. When antibodies diminish after your initial inoculation, your T-cells-will tell your B-cells it’s time to produce more antibodies. As long as your T-cells still recognize this virus and inform your B-cells they need

to produce antibodies, the vaccine is still doing its job. Your antibodies will get built up over and over again. Just FYI your TCRs and your BCRs target different parts of the Coronavirus’ spike protein. Antibodies can prevent infection, your T cell-responses ensure that those

$\u2744\ufe0fI'm A Fuckin' Princess\u2744\ufe0f$

❄️I'm A Fuckin' Prince...
@Just_ReneaR

I'm not pro-murdering babies.
I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

oatc
@_oatc_

@73inlancs @janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 1/ The 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 government decided pediatric gender care in England would be a monopoly contract (a Labour minister, in 2008), despite all other NHS patients officially being entitled to a choice of providers, & second opinions on diagnoses & treatment, & gave it to GIDS, which has…

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 2/…always advocated that trans minors & their families must have no alternative source of care, & subsequent Tory ministers have personally put their signature on renewals of it, and even personally rejected proposals for improvement that have been put forward by NHS England…

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 3/…as a result of wider & public consultation. They & their civil servants listen only to GIDS on trans minors - it was GIDS advised against <18s being allowed #GenderRecognition in 2004, & since, on the basis that no one under 18 can be certain of their gender identity, just…

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 4/…as many other staff at their trust wrote⬇️ to the press in 2002 (when the first instigator of this case, psychoanalyst Susan Evans was on staff too) that no trans people should be allowed that recognition but needed

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 5/…to "cure" us instead. Yet GIDS proved incapable of defending its super-conservative protocol in court - no doubt because GIDS has always expected challenges to be from patients seeking care more like that elsewhere, arrogantly ignoring that services in countries where the…

Dr. Adam H. Domby
@AdamHDomby

Now you know I love to sh-t in Harvard. But I also like accuracy. So I decided to go look at Harvard’s catalog to see its lack of military history that this article describes (they only teach history of pets it claims) and what I found shocked me! Shocked me! A thread: 1/

\u201cMilitary history\u201d is only in decline if you\u2014like the author & experts in this obnoxious piece\u2014see the subject as a narrowly defined, white dude-oriented, guns & bayonets approach. The field is 1000% better off w/today\u2019s diversity of topics & historians. https://t.co/dUf3OWyVpQ
— Jonathan S. Jones (@_jonathansjones) February 1, 2021

First off, Harvard students literally have multiple sections of military history that they can take listed. (It appears these ones are taught at MIT, so they might have to walk down the street for these) but... 2/

Say they want to stay on campus...they can only take numerous classes on war and diplomacy...3/

They have an entire class on Yalta. That’s right. An entire class on Yalta. 4/

But wait! There is more! They can take the British Empire, The Fall of the Roman Empire for those wanting traditional topics... 5/

writer sam
@writersamr

Some thoughts on this: Firstly, it might be personal preference, but I am not keen on this kind of campaign as I feel like it trivialises cancer. Sometimes the serious message gets lost because people are sharing pics of cats or whatever and the important context is gone.

It\u2019s #CervicalCancerPreventionWeek \U0001f499

Here\u2019s how you can help to raise awareness:
\U0001f431 Share an image of the cat that best reflects your undercarriage/flower/bits (technical term vulva!) current look.
#\u20e3Use the Hashtag #myCat.
\U0001f46dTell and tag your friends to let them know. pic.twitter.com/8aHf96ynjT
— myGP (@myGPapp) January 18, 2021

More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.

The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."

So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?

I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.