Common cold / typical flu dose-response study (human or animals)

[me2_2]

A while back on another forum I posted:

 

Please help find an earlier discussion on the Title topic as I'd rather post in that thread!

Can't recall my exact words ... but something along the lines of:

====

Cold/flu lab study for students (as in a Univ. campus). You sign up to get enrolled into a study where researchers DELIBERATELY swab you (in nose) with a common cold / flu virus.

You spend a few days in a lab where your symptoms -- if any -- are monitored.

Something like this -- https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/40/9/1263/370417 

You are paid to participate but -- unlike above -- students were DELIBERATELY infected.

I recall a few local or national TV spots of studies like this -- many years ago -- that ran the story. Can't find any info on such studies anywhere on the Interwebs! 

 

=============

Yeah .. I've went thru most to the Google and DuckDuckGo search hits like the NIH link you noted.

Is it me who alone who is going crazy in assuming:

(1) researchers have isolated pathogens KNOWN to cause pathology (viruses, bacteria, fungi, etc)

(2) pathogens are further incubated and saved (cold storage, growth media) for later use (perhaps like vaccines made from weakened pathogens)

(3) that these pathogens are purchasable and orderable to universities and academia like, e.g. Charles River rodents

(4) that animal or human experiments are not routinely done for ailments like the common cold

Maybe a bit like:

https://www.cmu.edu/common-cold-project/british-cold-study/index.html

https://franklin.library.upenn.edu/catalog/FRANKLIN_9977339643303681

Keywords: BCS, British Common Cold Study, The Common Cold Project

Alan, do you have the full PDF of any of these papers?

EDIT:

Whoa, Nelly! It seems like that place down the street from some of you: Pittsburgh Cold Study 1/2:

https://www.cmu.edu/common-cold-project/pittsburgh-cold-study-1/index.html

 

 

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, me2_2 said:

A while back on another forum I posted:

 

Please help find an earlier discussion on the Title topic as I'd rather post in that thread!

Can't recall my exact words ... but something along the lines of:

====

Cold/flu lab study for students (as in a Univ. campus). You sign up to get enrolled into a study where researchers DELIBERATELY swab you (in nose) with a common cold / flu virus.

You spend a few days in a lab where your symptoms -- if any -- are monitored.

Something like this -- https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/40/9/1263/370417 

You are paid to participate but -- unlike above -- students were DELIBERATELY infected.

I recall a few local or national TV spots of studies like this -- many years ago -- that ran the story. Can't find any info on such studies anywhere on the Interwebs! 

 

=============

Yeah .. I've went thru most to the Google and DuckDuckGo search hits like the NIH link you noted.

Is it me who alone who is going crazy in assuming:

(1) researchers have isolated pathogens KNOWN to cause pathology (viruses, bacteria, fungi, etc)

(2) pathogens are further incubated and saved (cold storage, growth media) for later use (perhaps like vaccines made from weakened pathogens)

(3) that these pathogens are purchasable and orderable to universities and academia like, e.g. Charles River rodents

(4) that animal or human experiments are not routinely done for ailments like the common cold

Maybe a bit like:

https://www.cmu.edu/common-cold-project/british-cold-study/index.html

https://franklin.library.upenn.edu/catalog/FRANKLIN_9977339643303681

Keywords: BCS, British Common Cold Study, The Common Cold Project

Alan, do you have the full PDF of any of these papers?

EDIT:

Whoa, Nelly! It seems like that place down the street from some of you: Pittsburgh Cold Study 1/2:

https://www.cmu.edu/common-cold-project/pittsburgh-cold-study-1/index.html

 

 

I don't understand your post. You have found the British Common Cold Study, evidently, and another in the USA. Why do you highlight deliberate infection in capital letters? Who is Alan? 

What is it you are after here? Or have you now answered your own question?

Edited September 6, 2022 by exchemist

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

 Who is Alan? 

 

LoL.  He is reposting his OP from another website forum.  

[swansont]

9 hours ago, me2_2 said:

A while back on another forum I posted:

!

Moderator Note

What is the point of posting something you posted to another site, where apparently you go your question answered?

 

[me2_2]

The OP was posted pretty much verbatim on another site a while back. I posted  it  here on SF w/o much editing  due to lack of time. The other site -- a health and wellness site -- was NON-SCIENCE site and the orig. query was not answered by the membership. I added to (edited in) more topical information as  i later discovered it.

The original query remains mostly unanswered. That is, given the prevalence of common colds and low-grade viral ailments, why aren't more dose-response studies (and similar experimental-designed studies  ) done?

Similar to, say, these classic accounts:

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/jenner-tests-smallpox-vaccine#:~:text=On May 14%2C 1796%2C Jenner,The vaccine was a success.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200928-how-the-first-vaccine-was-born

[CharonY]

6 minutes ago, me2_2 said:

The OP was posted pretty much verbatim on another site a while back. I posted  it  here on SF w/o much editing  due to lack of time. The other site -- a health and wellness site -- was NON-SCIENCE site and the orig. query was not answered by the membership. I added to (edited in) more topical information as  i later discovered it.

The original query remains mostly unanswered. That is, given the prevalence of common colds and low-grade viral ailments, why aren't more dose-response studies (and similar experimental-designed studies  ) done?

Similar to, say, these classic accounts:

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/jenner-tests-smallpox-vaccine#:~:text=On May 14%2C 1796%2C Jenner,The vaccine was a success.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200928-how-the-first-vaccine-was-born

A few things to that. Those studies usually aim to establish the minimal infectious dose and only establish limited, dose-response relationships. I.e. you can have dose escalation, but you would want to keep levels overall low and mostly monitor binary outcomes. I.e. you do not want the patients to get very sick for very obvious reasons. Another study goal can be to evaluate protective properties drugs to prevent disease and here different treatment groups would be exposed to an infectious dose of the pathogen.

However, these studies are not very common a) due to the need to mitigate risk, b) are often fairly expensive,  but also b) because for certain diseases somewhat decent animal models have been established that mimic human exposure and are used instead.

That being said there are quite a few studies around. For influenza you can go back to at least the 60s and there are occasional updates when new variants come around, for example. For more harmless diseases these study might also exist, but are less likely to get funded, if they there is not some kind of public health interest behind them (e.g. for the development of antivirals or other drugs).

 

[exchemist]

57 minutes ago, me2_2 said:

The OP was posted pretty much verbatim on another site a while back. I posted  it  here on SF w/o much editing  due to lack of time. The other site -- a health and wellness site -- was NON-SCIENCE site and the orig. query was not answered by the membership. I added to (edited in) more topical information as  i later discovered it.

The original query remains mostly unanswered. That is, given the prevalence of common colds and low-grade viral ailments, why aren't more dose-response studies (and similar experimental-designed studies  ) done?

Similar to, say, these classic accounts:

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/jenner-tests-smallpox-vaccine#:~:text=On May 14%2C 1796%2C Jenner,The vaccine was a success.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200928-how-the-first-vaccine-was-born

OK, thanks for the clarification. Regarding the common cold, it looks as if the British studies were discontinued due to the disappointing lack of efficacy of every remedy they tried. 

[CharonY]

29 minutes ago, exchemist said:

OK, thanks for the clarification. Regarding the common cold, it looks as if the British studies were discontinued due to the disappointing lack of efficacy of every remedy they tried. 

There were also older studies trying to figure out whether temperature had an effect on rhinovirus infections (it did not). But I think much of the research has moved precisely due to the unfavourable effort/cost to insight ratio.

 

[me2_2]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

A few things to that. Those studies usually aim to establish the minimal infectious dose and only establish limited, dose-response relationships. I.e. you can have dose escalation, but you would want to keep levels overall low and mostly monitor binary outcomes. I.e. you do not want the patients to get very sick for very obvious reasons. Another study goal can be to evaluate protective properties drugs to prevent disease and here different treatment groups would be exposed to an infectious dose of the pathogen.

However, these studies are not very common a) due to the need to mitigate risk, b) are often fairly expensive,  but also b) because for certain diseases somewhat decent animal models have been established that mimic human exposure and are used instead.

That being said there are quite a few studies around. For influenza you can go back to at least the 60s and there are occasional updates when new variants come around, for example. For more harmless diseases these study might also exist, but are less likely to get funded, if they there is not some kind of public health interest behind them (e.g. for the development of antivirals or other drugs).

 

Right ... and that's what I need for my research!

(a) URLs for those ("quite a few studies around. ")  studies.

(b) URLs for studies on animal (or plant or other domain) of deliberately administered infections -- particularly viral -- under controlled lab / research conditions.

BOTTOM LINE: can you get animals or plants virally sick in a lab, under controlled, measured and measurable circumstances and conditions?

Surely govt labs (Wuhan, UN/WHO, NIAD, CDC) have done such work ... and published the results ... yes? Or maybe there we clandestine like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States#Pathogens,_disease_and_biological_warfare_agents

[exchemist]

10 minutes ago, me2_2 said:

Right ... and that's what I need for my research!

(a) URLs for those ("quite a few studies around. ")  studies.

(b) URLs for studies on animal (or plant or other domain) of deliberately administered infections -- particularly viral -- under controlled lab / research conditions.

BOTTOM LINE: can you get animals or plants virally sick in a lab, under controlled, measured and measurable circumstances and conditions?

Surely govt labs (Wuhan, UN/WHO, NIAD, CDC) have done such work ... and published the results ... yes? Or maybe there we clandestine like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States#Pathogens,_disease_and_biological_warfare_agents

What is the nature of your research? 

[me2_2]

12 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What is the nature of your research? 

Terrian theory.

[exchemist]

4 minutes ago, me2_2 said:

Terrian theory.

I've never heard of that. Do you mean terrain theory, the ideas of that crank (and jailbird) Robert O Young, and all that? 

[CharonY]

26 minutes ago, me2_2 said:

BOTTOM LINE: can you get animals or plants virally sick in a lab, under controlled, measured and measurable circumstances and conditions?

Of course you can. And if you are just looking for the existence of such studies I suggest you hop on Pubmed and look for them, as there too many to list, especially if you want to include animal models. I suggest that you start with a review looking at animal models for a specific pathogen (say influenza) and then go through the references to find the work. An example is Margine et al. Pathogens 2014, 3, 845–874

For influenza in humans the oldest one I am aware of is Alford et al.  Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 1966, Volume: 122 issue: 3, page(s): 800-804. 

Here, you can also check reference citing it (rather than those cited) in order to see who might have done similar work.

 

 

 

[me2_2]

19 hours ago, exchemist said:

I've never heard of that. Do you mean terrain theory, the ideas of that crank (and jailbird) Robert O Young, and all that? 

Sorry I misspelled it!

Wikipedia USED to have a dedicated page on TERRAIN THEORY and then (post COVID) changed the article name to: Germ theory denialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_denialism

Also see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Béchamp

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

 Here, you can also check reference citing it (rather than those cited) in order to see who might have done similar work.

 

This is not a satisfactory reply.

That is why I posted this query on this science forum. I keep running into dead ends at other places like PubMed.

BOTTOM LINE: Human and animal LAB-BASED microbiological studies using common-illness-causing pathogens should be comprised rich, robust and heavily populated database.

BOTTOM LINE 2: I wanna see Mus musculus sneezing (or not) .

Edited September 7, 2022 by me2_2

[CharonY]

23 minutes ago, me2_2 said:

This is not a satisfactory reply.

This is not a satisfactory effort on your end. As mentioned, there is an abundance of studies out there. If you are not even willing to read the two I provided, what makes you think that folks would be willing to sacrifice their time to do work for you?

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, me2_2 said:

Sorry I misspelled it!

Wikipedia USED to have a dedicated page on TERRAIN THEORY and then (post COVID) changed the article name to: Germ theory denialism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_denialism

Also see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Béchamp

This is not a satisfactory reply.

That is why I posted this query on this science forum. I keep running into dead ends at other places like PubMed.

BOTTOM LINE: Human and animal LAB-BASED microbiological studies using common-illness-causing pathogens should be comprised rich, robust and heavily populated database.

BOTTOM LINE 2: I wanna see Mus musculus sneezing (or not) .

OK, I'm now intrigued. How will these studies help you research "Terrain Theory", a.k.a. germ theory denialism? What is there to research, apart from the psychology of the people who affect to believe in it? 

[me2_2]

 

47 minutes ago, CharonY said:

This is not a satisfactory effort on your end. As mentioned, there is an abundance of studies out there. If you are not even willing to read the two I provided, what makes you think that folks would be willing to sacrifice their time to do work for you?

Respectfully, I'm a newbie here. And your title claims you are "Biology Expert" and (concomitantly) a Moderator. I don't even know where to data-mine the " abundance of studies out there" you claim exist.

As far as " what makes you think that folks would be willing to sacrifice their time to do work for you" ... isn't that what an Internet forum - eBBS -- is meant for?

This is not Reddit!

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, me2_2 said:

 

Respectfully, I'm a newbie here. And your title claims you are "Biology Expert" and (concomitantly) a Moderator. I don't even know where to data-mine the " abundance of studies out there" you claim exist.

As far as " what makes you think that folks would be willing to sacrifice their time to do work for you" ... isn't that what an Internet forum - eBBS -- is meant for?

This is not Reddit!

Nobody is here to spoonfeed you. The way CharonY has responded to you is perfectly in line with how scientists format their replies.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, me2_2 said:

I don't even know where to data-mine the " abundance of studies out there" you claim exist.

I told you. First read the two papers for which I have provided references. This teaches you how to find known literature.

Then, for the review, you go to the back and look at the references. These are papers that are described in the review. Take those references and search for them on pubmed. This is how you find additional literature.

Then look at the older paper I referenced. Then go to pubmed (or google scholar if you prefer) and check out which newer papers have referenced that paper. 

This teaches you how to look for new papers which are based on previous work. 

Learning requires work and effort. It is not a passive process.

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, me2_2 said:

This is not a satisfactory reply.

 

Unless CharonY is on your payroll, I think you are totally out of line.

 

1 hour ago, me2_2 said:

"...folks would be willing to sacrifice their time to do work for you" ... isn't that what an Internet forum... is meant for?

Methinks you have lived a privileged life. Perhaps your short time here will provide you will some valuable real-life experience.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, me2_2 said:

 

Respectfully, I'm a newbie here. And your title claims you are "Biology Expert" and (concomitantly) a Moderator. I don't even know where to data-mine the " abundance of studies out there" you claim exist.

As far as " what makes you think that folks would be willing to sacrifice their time to do work for you" ... isn't that what an Internet forum - eBBS -- is meant for?

This is not Reddit!

Telling you how to find what you’re looking for is a perfectly reasonable response.

If someone had the knowledge, they could share it, but expecting them to do the legwork for you is…well, I think zapatos got it right: Privileged.

[me2_2]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

If someone had the knowledge, they could share it, but expecting them to do the legwork for you is….

Well I'm a complete noob to the field. And it is CaronY that carries the title "Biology Expert" above his/her name.

Respectfully, y'all are DEFLECTING big time from the main query. It's OBVIOUS to anyone reading this thread that on such a fundamental issue such as animals in the lab being tested/studied for common colds/flu's ... no-one has clear answers.

And now THAT very fact has become part of the permanent microbiological academic record. Or has it?  Do y'all know of another science forum that has ... how shall we put this delicately ... a more informed microbiology section?

[zapatos]

Try this, it might be more your speed.

http://www.biology4kids.com

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, me2_2 said:

Well I'm a complete noob to the field. And it is CaronY that carries the title "Biology Expert" above his/her name.

Respectfully, y'all are DEFLECTING big time from the main query. It's OBVIOUS to anyone reading this thread that on such a fundamental issue such as animals in the lab being tested/studied for common colds/flu's ... no-one has clear answers.

And now THAT very fact has become part of the permanent microbiological academic record. Or has it?  Do y'all know of another science forum that has ... how shall we put this delicately ... a more informed microbiology section?

It’s not “a fundamental issue”. Other people don’t share your  preoccupation with this obscure topic. You’ve been given specific references to look up but for some reason you won’t follow them up, as you would if you were genuinely interested.

I also notice you have not answered my question about what research you are doing on terrain theory. I’m beginning to wonder if you are posting in good faith, or if you have some undisclosed crank agenda.

Edited September 8, 2022 by exchemist

[swansont]

10 hours ago, me2_2 said:

Well I'm a complete noob to the field. And it is CaronY that carries the title "Biology Expert" above his/her name.

 There are two  possibilities that your inquiry raises: someone has the information you seek, about specific studies in a very narrow sector of medical (not biological) study, or they know where to look for it. What you have been given is the latter: a path so you can delve into this. 

We are not your research minions, to be sent off to the library to seek out citations for you.