✅ From the atmospheric environment - PM 2.5.
✅Dust particles with silicon.
✅ Carbon black particles like what you breathe in every day on your drive home.
All 4 of them "...were found to reinforce virus uptake, replication, and release, and to drive viral transport to extrapulmonary organs including the liver, spleen, and kidney."
But PM 2.5,from the atmosphere was the worst.
Interestingly, the TYPE of air pollution drove where the viruses accumulated the most.
The turbinate of the nasal cavity from exposure to virus-laden carbon black.
Lung alveoli for the PM 2.5, dust, and Biochar from the forest fires.
Crazy, right?
@dbdugger will be interested in the SIGNIFICANT reduction of lymphocyte count with AFP borne viruses.
So, these AFPs made us sicker - and in places deeper in our body
"Brain Mitochondrial dysfunction, known for ~20 years is finally recognized as a central upstream driver of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), not just a downstream effect."
And SARS2's targeting of mitochondria is well-known.
As an anonymous clean air advocate, I've put a bit of thought into how to present, well, my expertise.
If someone were to say, "How do I know you know what you are talking about? Are you a doctor, or a virologist?"
To which, I would say...."No, but that's a good thing.
/1
I have focused on aerosol and masking science. Because it is those fields that give us the most information on how airborne particles, aerosols, get from Person A to Person B.
My expertise is derived from the great studies of Dr. Lindsay Marr, MacArthur recipient. Dr. Prather,
double National Academy member, Dr Milton, inventor of the Gesundheit, aerosol scientist and medical doctor; Dr Coleman whose group found that duckbill N95s captured 98% of emitted respiratory aerosols, and more excellent individual aerosol scientists.
A study demonstrated 100% PERFECT protection against SARS2 w/ readily available KF94s
✅ 181 HCWs
✅ 1 got SARS2 antibodies, but an epi investigation -> the infection happened elsewhere.
😡 The final checkpoint was March 2021. N95s only became freely available 1 month later
/1
This is in comparison to a Swiss study during the same rough time-frame. A study which did NOT show the same excellent results, but dismal results. Why?