The Mere Sight of a Sick Person Can Trigger Our Immune System
A series of experiments using virtual reality headsets has now revealed just how "exquisitely sensitive" our brains are to symptoms of sickness.
When participants saw a virtual avatar at varying distances showing clear signs of illness (like a feverish rash), their brains suddenly kicked into gear and their immune systems were put on high alert.
When they saw a healthy, neutral-looking avatar, on the other hand, their brains did not show the same activation patterns, and their bloodwork lacked an immediate elevation in immune markers.
Related:
Some of these markers are known as innate lymphoid cells (ILCs). ILCs can spike in the blood when the body is directly exposed to a pathogen, but all it took in this case was the sight of a virtual infection and the mere prospect of exposure.
"Together, these data show that ILCs react to infections not only when they are detected in the body but also when they are processed as a potential threat approaching the body," write the international team of authors, led by immunologist Sara Trabanelli from the University of Lausanne in Switzerland.
When researchers used machine learning to statistically analyze the results of their experiments, they found that the brain's threat-detection activity could largely explain the immune response.
After seeing a virtual sick person at a distance, the brains of participants lit up in a unique pattern, which was not seen when the avatar had a fearful expression or a neutral expression.
The sick avatars that were furthest away elicited the strongest response from the brain's network. Interestingly, some of these activated areas are the same as those that can be triggered after a flu vaccine is given.
The findings suggest that when the brain senses a looming threat, it responds rapidly, triggering activity in brain parts like the hypothalamus, which then communicate with the immune system.
This gives the body time to put up a fight.
The recent experiments took place among 248 healthy adults in total, and in one of the trials, participants wearing VR were asked to press a button when they felt a touch on their face.
When their VR sets featured a virtual sick person, participants pressed the button faster upon feeling the touch than when they saw a neutral or fearful avatar.
This suggests that their brains are primed because of the sight of sickness. The anticipation probably evolved as a fight-or-flight response, the researchers suspect, though they caution there's still a lot to resolve, including how perceived infectiousness and disgust interact.
"These findings suggest an integrated neuro–immune reaction in humans toward infection threats, not solely following physical contact," conclude the authors.
Thanks to our brains for staying vigilant on our behalf.
The study was published in Nature Neuroscience.
Related News
Up to 1 in 5 Americans Think They're Allergic to Penicillin. Most Aren't.
The Viral 'Kettlebell Challenge' Could Be Harmful. Do This Instead.
The 'Fibermaxxing' Wellness Trend May Pose Health Risks. Here's Why.
Solve the daily Crossword
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
Burning eyes, scratchy throats: Canadian wildfire smoke is making Americans miserable
Peggy Goodwin typically likes to spend as much time outside as possible in the too-short Michigan summers, riding her bike or taking a walk. But Goodwin, and the residents of the assisted living facility where she works, have been spending more time indoors lately as smoke from hundreds of wildfires burning in Canada drifts across the border. Goodwin said the skies have turned hazy, the smell of barbecue lingers in the air, and her eyes burn and water if she's outside too long. "It's just not pleasant," she said. Canadian wildfire smoke has worsened air quality in many parts of the United States, putting a damper on Americans' summer plans and raising health concerns, particularly for vulnerable groups like children, older adults and those with respiratory conditions. The smoke can irritate the eyes, nose and throat and contain particulate matter small enough to be inhaled. The National Weather Service has issued air quality alerts in states including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. See map: Smoke from Canada wildfires prompt air quality alerts in US "Once inhaled, these particles can affect the lungs and heart and cause serious health effects,' the Environmental Protection Agency has said. 'It almost makes me gasp' Carol Schuchart has been eagerly checking the weather reports to see when she and her two dogs might be able to venture outside again in Hanover, Pennsylvania, where she runs a wedding planning and coordination business. Schuchart, who has fibromyalgia, said she's been having trouble breathing since the haze has settled in. "It's hard to go outside and enjoy when that air quality is bad and you have trouble breathing, you know," she said. "So I tend to stay in when it's like this." Meanwhile, Dorothy Curran said she was shocked to see the Minneapolis skyline obscured by wildfire smoke during a recent commute to work. When she stepped outside, Curran said she felt a tightness in her chest. "I was just feeling very scratchy, having a lot of coughs," she said. "And I think a lot of people were feeling that, even without respiratory conditions." For those who do have health issues, the smoke can cause even more concern. As of Aug. 6, the EPA labeled air quality throughout the Plains, Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions "unhealthy for sensitive groups." Wildfire smoke safety tips: How to keep you, your family and beloved pets safe Curran, a pediatric pulmonologist and a professor at the University of Minnesota, said she's been getting more and more calls from parents seeking refills on medication for their children with asthma or other underlying health conditions. "Things that I've been hearing about are shortness of breath with activity, cough, especially a dry cough," she said. "Very rarely, we've been seeing that trigger more airway reactivity or narrow airways leading to wheezing and presenting to the emergency department." Breathing in wildfire smoke can be dangerous because it can contain hazardous chemicals and particulate matter, which is comprised of small particles of solids or liquids suspended in the air, USA TODAY has reported. While larger particles can irritate the eyes, nose, and throat, particles as small as 2.5 micrometers, PM 2.5, can "penetrate deep into the lungs, where they can impair lung function, cause illnesses, such as bronchitis, and increase asthma attacks," according to Yale Medicine. For Joel Williams, the smoke prompted an asthma flare up that landed him in the hospital for more than three weeks. Williams, a retired police officer who lives in Bloomington, Minnesota, said he started wheezing earlier this summer as the sky turned orange and the air began to smell like a fireplace. He said he tried the usual remedies ‒ breathing treatments, extra prednisone and even antibiotics ‒ but the wheezing persisted. Williams said he was eventually admitted to the hospital where he stayed for 23 days. "I am a very active person," he said. "To miss a whole month just sitting in a hospital bed was uncool." Since his release, Williams said he's been staying indoors more, wearing masks and using an air purifier as he waits for conditions to improve. He urged others affected by the smoke to take similar precautions. "I can almost tell as soon as I step out the house, it almost makes me gasp, even with a mask on," he said. "So that tells you how bad this stuff is." Contributing: Michael Loria, Christopher Cann
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Millions of Californians may lose health coverage because of new Medicaid work requirements
The nation's first mandated work requirement for Medicaid recepients, approved by the Republican-led Congress and signed by President Trump, is expected to have a seismic effect in California. One estimate from state health officials suggests that as many as 3.4 million people could lose their insurance through what Gov. Gavin Newsom calls the 'labyrinth of manual verification,' which involves Medi-Cal recipients proving every six months that they are working, going to school or volunteering at least 80 hours per month. 'It's going to be much harder to stay insured,' said Martha Santana-Chin, the head of L.A. Care Health Plan, a publicly operated health plan that serves about 2.3 million Medi-Cal patients in Los Angeles County. She said that as many as 1 million people, or about 20% to 40% of its members, could lose their coverage. The work requirement will be the first imposed nationwide in the six-decade history of Medicaid, the program that provides free and subsidized health insurance to disabled and low-income Americans. It's relatively uncharted territory, and it's not yet clear how the rules will shake out for the 5.1 million people in California who will be required to prove that they are working in order to qualify for Medi-Cal, the state's version of Medicaid. After the 2026 midterm elections, millions of healthy adults will be required to prove every six months that they meet the work requirement in order to qualify for Medicaid. The new mandate spells out some exceptions, including for people who are pregnant, in addiction treatment or caring for children under age 14. Democrats have long argued that work requirements generally lead to eligible people l osing their health insurance due to bureaucratic hurdles. Republicans say that a work requirement will encourage healthy people to get jobs and preserve Medicaid for those who truly need it. 'If you clean that up and shore it up, you save a lot of money,' said House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana. 'And you return the dignity of work to young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.' Only three U.S. states have tried to implement work requirements for Medicaid recipients: New Hampshire, Arkansas and Georgia. One study found that in the first three months of the Arkansas program, more than 18,000 people lost health coverage. People can lose coverage a variety of ways, said Joan Alker, a Georgetown University professor who studies Medicaid. Some people hear that the rules have changed and assume they are no longer eligible. Others struggle to prove their eligibility because their income fluctuates, they are paid in cash or their jobs don't keep good payroll records. Some have problems with the technology or forms, she said, and others don't appeal their rejections. Of the 15 million people on Medi-Cal in California, about one-third will be required to prove they are working, the state said. Those people earn very little: less than $21,000 for a single person and less than $43,000 for a household of four. The state's estimate of 3.4 million people losing coverage is a projection based on what happened in Arkansas and New Hampshire. But those programs were brief, overturned by the courts and weren't 'a coordinated effort among the states to figure out what the best practices are,' said Ryan Long, the director of congressional relations at the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank that has become influential among congressional Republicans. Long said advancements in technology and a national emphasis on work requirements should make work verification less of a barrier. The budget bill includes $200 million in grants for states to update their systems to prepare, he said. Arguments from liberal groups that people will lose healthcare are a 'straw man argument,' Long said: 'They know that the public supports work requirements for these benefits, so they can't come out and say, 'We don't support them.'' A poll by the health research group KFF found this year that 62% of American adults support tying Medicaid eligibility to work requirements. The poll also found that support for the policy drops to less than 1 in 3 people when respondents hear 'that most people on Medicaid are already working and many would risk losing coverage because of the burden of proving eligibility through paperwork.' In June, Newsom warned that some Californians could be forced to fill out 36 pages of paperwork to keep their insurance, showing reporters an image of a stack of forms with teal and gold accents that he described as 'an actual PDF example of the paperwork that people will have to submit to for their eligibility checks.' Many Californians already are required to fill out that 36-page form or its online equivalent to enroll in Medi-Cal and Covered California, the state's health insurance marketplace. Experts say it's too soon to say what system will be used for people to prove their work eligibility, because federal guidance won't be finalized for months. Newsom's office directed questions to the Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal. A spokesperson there said officials are 'still reviewing the full operational impacts' of the work requirements. 'The idea that you are going to get a paper submission every six months, I'm not sure people have to do that,' Long said. Georgia is the only state that has implemented a lasting work requirement for Medicaid. Two years ago, the state made healthcare available to people who were working at least 80 hours per month and earned less than the federal poverty limit (about $15,000 for one person or $31,200 for a household of four). More than 100,000 people have applied for coverage since the program's launch in July of 2023. As of June of this year, more than 8,000 people were enrolled, according to the state's most recent data. The Medicaid program has cost more than $100 million so far, and of that, $26 million was spent on health benefits and more than $20 million was allocated to marketing contracts, KFF Health News reported. Democrats in Georgia have sought an investigation into the program. The Inland Empire agency that provides Medi-Cal coverage for about 1.5 million people in San Bernardino and Riverside counties estimated that 150,000 members could lose their insurance as a result of work requirements. Jarrod McNaughton, the chief executive of the Inland Empire Health Plan, said that California's 58 counties, which administer Medi-Cal, 'will be the ones at the precipice of piecing this together' but haven't yet received guidance on how the eligibility process will be set up or what information people will have to provide. Will it be done online? Will recipients be required to fill out a piece of paper that needs to be mailed in or dropped off? 'We don't really know the process yet, because all of this is so new,' Naughton said. In the meantime, he said, the health plan's foundation is working to make this 'as least burdensome as possible,' working to improve community outreach and connect people who receive Medi-Cal insurance to volunteer opportunities.
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
A proposed California bill aims to protect coverage for HIV prevention despite federal threats
State lawmakers are considering a bill meant to protect access to HIV prevention drugs for insured Californians as threats from the federal government continue. Assembly Bill 554 would require health plans and insurers to cover all antiretroviral drugs used for PrEP and PEP regimens. The drugs just have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and would not require prior authorization. The bill would also prevent health plans from forcing patients to first try a less expensive drug before choosing a more expensive, specialty option. The bill requires insurance providers to cover these drugs without cost-sharing with patients, and it limits the ability of insurers and employers to review treatments to determine medical necessity. To streamline reimbursements and expand the range of PrEP medications doctors can pick for their patients, the legislation allows providers to directly bill insured patients' pharmaceutical benefit plans. LGBTQ+ public health advocates worry that the Trump administration's recent attempt to slash $1.5 billion in HIV prevention funding from the federal budget — along with its decisions to stop offering suicide-prevention counseling for LGBTQ+ individuals through the national 988 lifeline and to restrict gender-affirming care for transgender Americans — amounts to an assault on the queer community. The state bill would act 'as a shield against this administration's cruelty,' said California Assemblymember Mark González (D-Los Angeles) who co-sponsored AB 554 with Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco). A recent cause for alarm among LGBTQ+ health advocates, first reported in the Wall Street Journal, is news that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to replace the entire U.S. Preventive Services Task Force because its 16 appointed members are too 'woke,' according to unnamed individuals cited by the Journal. At a news conference Monday, Kennedy confirmed that he is reviewing the makeup of the panel, adding that he hasn't made a final decision. The bill was introduced earlier in the year out of fear that Kennedy's skepticism about vaccines might spill over into HIV/PrEP drug coverage and because of worries that President Trump would dismantle the task force, González said. The task force wields immense influence, making recommendations about which cancer screenings, tests for chronic diseases and preventive medications are beneficial for Americans and therefore should be covered by insurers — including drugs for HIV/AIDS prevention. Drugs prescribed in a PrEP regimen — short for pre-exposure prophylaxis — block the virus that causes AIDS from multiplying in a person's body. They can be taken in either pill or injection form on an ongoing basis. PEP refers to post-exposure prophylaxis and involves taking medication within 72 hours of potential exposure and for a short period of time, in order to prevent infection and transmission of the virus. Both regimens are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as effective ways to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS when used correctly. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was created in 1984 by congressional authorization to issue evidence-based advice to physicians on which screenings and preventive medicines are worth considering for their healthy patients. The panel's recommendations are closely watched by professional societies when adopting guidelines for their clinician members. In many cases, when insurers are on the fence about whether to cover a given screening or diagnostic test, they'll turn to the panel's recommendations. The panel, made up of doctors, nurses, health psychologists, epidemiologists and statisticians who are experts in primary care and preventive medicine and who serve four-year terms on a voluntary basis, is meant to be free from conflicts of interest and outside influences. Some of its past recommendations, however, such as its advice on prostate cancer screenings, have been met with criticism. When it comes to HIV prevention, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to back up the task force with its July 11 ruling in Kennedy vs. Braidwood Management, which upheld a key mandate in the Affordable Care Act requiring insurers to cover preventive care, including for HIV. However, in the same ruling, the court also declared that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the power to review decisions made by the task force, and to remove members at his or her discretion. Kennedy abruptly postponed the task force's July meeting, sparking concern among public health advocates and Democratic leaders. 'The task force has done very little over the past five years,' Kennedy said at Monday's news conference. 'We want to make sure that it is performing, that it is approving interventions that are actually going to prevent the health decline of the American public.' González said he worries that the Supreme Court gave the administration a new way to meddle in the healthcare decisions of LGBTQ+ people. 'The Braidwood decision was both a relief and a wake-up call,' González said. 'While it upheld the Preventive Services Task Force's existing recommendations — keeping protections for PrEP, cancer screenings, and vaccines intact — it handed unprecedented authority to RFK Jr. to reshape that very task force and place existing protections under direct threat once again.' González described AB 554 as 'a measure to protect LGBTQ+ Californians and ensure we never return to the neglect and devastation of the HIV/AIDS crisis.' The state Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to vote on whether to advance the bill on Aug. 29. 'These attacks aren't isolated,' the lawmaker said. 'They are coordinated, deliberate, and aimed squarely at our most vulnerable communities.'
