Who invented man flu

The influenza pandemic hit the U. Forty million doses were given over the next three months. Today, the U. Food and Drug Administration and public health regulations require safety and efficacy tests for new vaccines, which take more time, though the FDA can authorize drugs under an Emergency Investigative New Drug category.

Massive potential loss of life, as Hilleman realized, calls for high-level action. The urgency is there. The virologist died from cancer in , volunteering his own lung cells for experimental cancer treatments near the end of his life.

Obituaries at the time lauded his accomplishments, yet why is Hilleman not more widely known, like Edward Jenner, Jonas Salk, or Louis Pasteur? Outspoken within the field of virology, Hilleman did not seek recognition by naming any vaccines after himself though the mumps vaccine still given today, the Jeryl Lynn live antigen, is named for his daughter. In another unique approach, when Jeryl Lynn was five years old and contracted mumps, Hilleman swabbed her throat to later develop a vaccine.

Hilleman worked mostly for industry, not academia, so his work was less widely touted, though he won the Albert Lasker Medical Research Award and the National Medal of Science, among other awards.

Longtime friend Anthony Fauci, director of the U. What can one dedicated scientist make happen now? In we began to develop a series of well-characterized virus stocks. With the Human Viral Challenge Model gaining acceptance in an increasing number of peer-reviewed publications, we designed and built our own dedicated, bespoke quarantine unit in London, which opened in early Before this we used university halls of residence and hotels.

In challenge trials, healthy volunteers are administered an investigational antiviral drug either before prophylaxis trials or after treatment trials inoculation with the established challenge strain of influenza virus.

Challenge strains are influenza viruses that produce a milder set of symptoms compared to naturally occurring influenza. Pharmacodynamic PD endpoints in challenge trials include clinical respiratory symptoms, nasal discharge weight, and quantitative measurements of viral shedding in nasal washes. Sponsors are encouraged to include assessments of resistance in their challenge trials. Challenge trials can provide useful exposure-response and safety information, as well as an opportunity to demonstrate pharmacological antiviral activity in humans under controlled conditions outside the influenza season.

Data from challenge trials can contribute to dose selection for phase 2B and phase 3 trials, and provide the opportunity to explore the effects of different times of drug initiation relative to virus exposure. The HVC model using healthy volunteers provides a unique opportunity to describe the viral lifecycle as: the time point of infection is known with certainty, nasal virus shedding can be measured, symptoms are recorded prospectively and participants are selected with low antibody titres to ensure a statistically significant infection rate with a relatively small number of volunteers [16,17].

The outcome of any study will depend on three factors: the pathogenicity of the virus used to challenge volunteers, the host status as regards pre-existing homo- and hetero-subtypic immunity, and how the experimental challenge model accurately reflects transmission of influenza in the real world. It has been suggested, as per the FDA statement above, that the viruses used in experimental studies were of moderate pathogenicity by comparison with wild-type seasonal influenza viruses 15, 24, 47, However, no arguments supporting the idea that the challenge viruses were only moderately pathogenic could be supported.

In particular, viral shedding and illness proportions did not differ according to the virus subtype. Two recent studies used the pandemic H1N1 strain to challenge seronegative volunteers 46, Our first study in influenza was conducted in and involved eight volunteers who were infected with a B virus in a hall of residence at the University of London Figure 1.

We chose a B virus, which had been manufactured under GMP conditions with limited cell passage, as we felt this was the safest first step in the re-invention of the Human Viral Challenge Model. In groups of two volunteers, we inoculated four different virus titres to determine the optimal titre to use in a subsequent study. We chose a titre of TCID50 and then conducted a study on a vaccine; although the vaccine was not effective, we did observe a good infection rate and viral pathogenicity.

Importantly, we have extensive historic data on these viruses which allows thorough powering calculations and end point determination for future studies. Normally study sampling is defined based around an endpoint of infection rate, virus shedding or symptoms. In addition where needed, we have data where the sample size can be calculated based on a novel biomarker, such as IL-8, we have done this successfully previously. I ended up taking part twice because I loved it so much.

I was part of the very first trial and the name 'flu camp' was born because it was like being in a holiday camp with much fun which came out of bonding with fellow 'inmates'. Really well organized and we were all made to feel very valued and well looked after. Never a dull moment. Influenza and its associated diseases are a major cause of morbidity and mortality [20].

It is important to note that Influenza A H3N2 causes the greatest morbidity and mortality on an annual basis [21] even when compared to the recent pandemic H1N1 strain [22]; hence it is an important focus for model development and antivirals, vaccines and novel diagnostics. As a slightly flippant aside, using the data from over a decade, we recently compared the difference between the sexes, do men really get sicker than women, do they just complain more, or are they being given a rough ride by their other halves?

We compared the frequency and severity of disease, how much virus the person produced and their immunity. Interestingly, there was no difference between men and women in either how sick they were or how much virus replicated. Simply, man flu is a myth! However, what is not flippant, is how serious respiratory viral infections can be in children, the elderly and at-risk groups such as asthmatics or those with other chronic underlying conditions.

How well the flu vaccine works can range from season to season and is dependent on the similarity or "match" between the circulating flu viruses and the influenza strains in the flu vaccine itself, as recommended by the World Health Organisation WHO each year using surveillance-based forecasts as to which viruses are most likely to cause illness in the coming season. Vaccination helps protect women during pregnancy and their babies for up to 6 months after they are born. Estimates of the annual number of deaths attributable to flu in the UK vary with an average of around 8, per year.

Flu vaccination is strongly recommended for those in at risk groups such as asthmatics, those with chronic health conditions and those over Although the current flu vaccine is not perfect, the overall evidence supports the public health benefit of vaccination. However, the virus selected for the vaccine against the most serious strain H3 did not match the virus circulating that winter- there was a mismatch.

UK based studies confirmed this. What this tells us is that when the flu vaccine is properly matched, it is effective in saving lives and therefore those in at risk groups and children should be encouraged to get the vaccine. However when the vaccine is mismatched more people die. The need for a better influenza vaccine is clear, in the meantime the current vaccine does save lives. The utility of the Human Viral Challenge model in evaluating these new vaccines, and how such data can influence the subsequent field based studies, is vital.

The HVC model allows us to investigate the effectiveness of new vaccines without relying on the old paradigm of anti HA antibodies as the correlate of protection []. A host of newspapers got terribly excited about the phenomenon a few years back, having stumbled across a scientific paper that appeared to indicate that, yes, Man Flu was an actual thing.

With a presumed subsequent rocketing of absenteeism, the NHS leapt into action and patiently put together a step-by-step debunking of the newspapers, gently pointing out that the study concerned was perfectly valid in its way, but that it was looking at bacteria, not viruses.

So, not even the common cold, let alone flu. It involved mice. The study was obviously not representative because it was completed online with a subsection of Nuts readers. We should challenge these dubious promotional surveys.

You can complain about the Nuts survey via the Market Research Society. The survey conducted by Nuts was indeed mistaken for a genuine health study, to the extent that, in the following, the Evening Herald Dublin, County Dublin, Ireland of Friday 17 th November presented its conclusions as truths, without even specifying their origin:.

They take more time off work with colds they think are flu. They also moan more and fork out more on remedies than their tougher female counterparts. New research in the UK has shown men take more sick days due to colds and flu than their female counterparts. A study by Benenden Healthcare found colds and flu were the most common causes for sick leave, with However, men seem to be the worst affected — with more than 31pc of men taking time off to get over a cold or flu.