From Hegemony

In the studio, i was pleased to read an article titled “progressive external retinal necrosis (porn): catchy abbreviation, but is the [porn brazzers hd] anatomy correct? An important observation of lorenz e. Zimmerman, md.”1 in 1996, my colleagues and i notified about the first series of patients, as far as we know, with a diagnosis of pornography, who live successfully treated, which was determined by at least 1 eye that retained useful visual acuity.2 one of us had a retinal biopsy with electron and photomicroscopic examination, including immunohistochemistry. A particular patient had a very low number of cd4 t-lymphocytes and a chronic multidermatoma rash of shingles on the back and buttocks. Despite the fact that such a bike had the typical appearance of a pornographer, a retinal biopsy showed full-thickness retinal necrosis. Cytoplasmic inclusions did not exist, because the patient had eosinophilic nuclear inclusions. Electron microscopy showed intracellular inclusions of nucleocapsids typical of the herpes virus. Immunohistochemical staining was negative for cytomegalovirus and herpes simplex virus, however, a diffuse response product to chickenpox virus was developed in almost all layers of the retina. The predominant infiltrates in the retina were cd8 lymphocytes, and they were mainly found in the systemic retina, but not in the external retina. A biopsy of one of the numerous skin lesions of the patient showed the presence of a chronic infection caused by the chickenpox virus. Animal models of herpetic retinitis mentioned in a similar publication,2 suggested that cd4 cells are important for the effective removal of the herpes virus from the retina. The detected predominant lymphocytes, cd8 cells, may have been less effective, which made it possible for the infection to progress in a particular patient at risk. Margot and friedman did not refer to this article.