Experts Matter. Find Yours.

The Zoom Boom? More and more Americans are getting plastic surgery – let our expert explain why

After almost a year where most American offices went unused, experts are noticing an unexpected side effect from all those online meetings. It appears that prolonged exposure to seeing yourself in that tiny box during video calls is inspiring a sudden uptick in plastic surgery. The plastic surgery industry is booming during the coronavirus pandemic, largely due to the increase in the number of virtual meetings offered through Zoom and other video web services. Call it the “Zoom boom.” The interest in cosmetic surgery is boosting appointments for Botox, lip fillers and other plastic surgery procedures that help people feel more attractive on computer screens, according to Dr. Maria Helena Lima, an assistant professor of Surgery for the Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. “In the last few months, there has been a jump in the number of patients wanting plastic surgery procedures,” said Lima. “We have discovered that when people are in Zoom meetings, they should be listening to the content and paying attention to what’s going on, but they’re not.” Lima says participants are oftentimes looking at themselves on the screen and wondering what could be done to alter their image. It is a trend that offers up some interesting questions: • Along with the Zoom boom, are there other reasons people are opting to go under the knife for an elective procedure? • Are there long-term consequences to these decisions? • What do patients need to know first to avoid any safety or health issues? There’s a lot to know about this topic, and if you are a journalist looking to learn more, then let us help with your coverage. Dr. Maria Helena Lima is one of the nation’s leading plastic surgeons with 12 years of experience specializing in aesthetic plastic surgery, facial reconstruction and craniofacial pediatric plastic surgery. She is available to speak with media about this emerging trend. Simply click on her name now to arrange an interview today.

Are big changes coming to financial accountability in Ontario as Laurentian loses its elite status?

As the higher education community anxiously awaits more news on just exactly how Laurentian University in Sudbury has essentially gone bankrupt, those who oversee universities and colleges in Ontario are also watching with interest. The chain of events that led to Laurentian having to file for creditor protection reveal a failure in governance. And it points to a wider set of reforms that are being contemplated within the public sector. A special investigator’s report on the Laurentian University insolvency is coming out soon, according to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Ross Romano. The province has warned it may introduce legislation granting it greater oversight of every university’s finances. Recently, Umar Saeed, a public sector accounting expert and a partner at Welch LLP, sat down with Newspoint360 to discuss in an in-depth interview how Ontario’s ability to control and govern the university sector is unlike other provinces, such as British Columbia. If new legislation is introduced that enhances the government’s ability to appoint Board members or control the financial and operating policies of Ontario universities, it will have broad implications for the entire university sector in Ontario: • New legislation may lead to consolidating all the universities (debts and deficits) into the Ontario government’s public accounts • Legislation would acknowledge an implicit promise by the Ontario government to backstop public sector debt (including the university sector) • Public universities may lose their perceived independence if they are “controlled” for accounting purposes The story of Laurentian University is fundamentally about poor governance. However, missing from this story is the backdrop and conditions that led to poor governance. There’s a lot at stake for Laurentian, it’s faculty and staff and the provincial university sector as a whole, and if you are a journalist looking to cover this topic, then let us help. Umar Saeed is a partner at Welch LLP in Ottawa and an expert in Public-Sector Accounting Standards. Umar is available to speak with media about this subject – simply click on his icon now to arrange an email today.

UConn Researcher Develops Successful Zika Virus Vaccine in Preclinical Studies

UConn researcher Paulo Verardi, associate professor of pathobiology and veterinary science in the College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources, has demonstrated the success of a vaccine against Zika virus and recently published his findings in Scientific Reports, a Nature Research publication. He has also filed provisional patents with UConn’s Technology Commercialization Services for the novel vaccine platform technology used to generate the vaccine, as well as genetic modifications made to the vaccine that significantly enhance expression of the vaccine antigen. Verardi, a Brazilian native, was in Brazil visiting family in the summer of 2015 when the Zika outbreak first began to make waves and soon reached epidemic status. Back in the United States, Verardi kept tabs on the Zika epidemic and its emerging connection to microcephaly, a serious birth defect that causes babies to be born with small heads and underdeveloped brains. In October of that year, Verardi called then-Ph.D.-student Brittany Jasperse (CAHNR ‘19) into his office and told her he wanted to apply their newly developed vaccine platform and start developing a vaccine for Zika virus. It’s an impressive achievement and there’s a full article attached for those looking to know more. Verardi emphasizes that developing vaccines for viruses, in this case Zika, help the world be better prepared for outbreaks of novel and emerging viruses by having vaccine development frameworks in place. “Emerging viruses are not going to stop popping up any time soon, so we need to be prepared,” Verardi says. “Part of being prepared is to continue the development of these platforms.” If you’re a journalist looking to know more about Zika virus and this emerging news about a vaccine – then let us help. Dr. Paulo Verardi is a virologist who specializes in vaccine research and development. He is an Associate Professor at UConn and a member of the Center of Excellence for Vaccine Research. Dr. Verardi is available to speak with media regarding this emerging development – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

The great global warming debate – our experts are being asked about the ethics behind controlling earth’s climate

Solar geoengineering - it’s a topic that has caused an ethical lightening storm in the science community. The concept is complex. Should the world take on the crisis of climate change by attempting to artificially attempting to cool the earth? It’s an idea that has the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine seeking a billion dollars in the next five years to investigate the theory. It’s a topic that is somewhat controversial, and journalists are looking to leading experts from across America for expert insight, opinion and perspective. Prakash Kashwan, a political scientist at the University of Connecticut, said he felt the report could have better emphasized the seriousness of some concerns over others. Uncertainties about the impacts of solar geoengineering on global weather patterns have the potential to affect some regions of the world more severely than others, he pointed out. Some experts have raised concerns about potential effects of geoengineering on monsoon rainfall in parts of Asia and Africa, he said. More than 2 billion people around the world rely on these rainfall patterns to support their water and agricultural needs. These kinds of issues should be given special weight, Kashwan suggested. "Some uncertainties are much more highly consequential for the global society, and especially for the poor and vulnerable," he told E&E News. Kashwan also reiterated concerns about potential political effects. While the report makes clear that geoengineering is not a substitute for climate mitigation, he suggests that this doesn't necessarily prevent policymakers from using it in that way. "The problem is the extent to which researchers are really helpless in deciding how research is used in the political system," he said. "That part has yet to be fully appreciated." Kashwan suggests that more dialogue might be warranted before funding a national research program, with greater input from both the international community and political experts who can weigh in on the ways that geoengineering research might affect political decisions. March 26, Scientific American It's a captivating idea – but it could have political, social and ethical consequences. Dr. Kashwan has also been interviewed by The New York Times. If you are a journalist looking to learn more about solar geoengineering, its possibilities and the reasons some scientists are worried – then let us help with your coverage. Prakash Kashwan is an Associate Professor of Political Science at UConn and an expert in the areas of environmental and climate justice, planetary justice, global commons, climate governance, and climate geoengineering governance. Dr. Kashwan is available to speak with media regarding this topic – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Election integrity and the Peach State - What does the new voting law in Georgia mean for voters?

It’s a law that passed in record time. Georgia politics is once again capturing the national spotlight and headlines with The Election Integrity Act of 2021. Here’s what it means in a nutshell: “The new law imposes new voter identification requirements for absentee ballots, empowers state officials to take over local elections boards, limits the use of ballot drop boxes and makes it a crime to approach voters in line to give them food and water. "It's like the Christmas tree of goodies for voter suppression," Democratic state Sen. Jen Jordan said on the Senate floor as lawmakers prepared to vote on the nearly 100-page bill Thursday. Republicans cast the measure, dubbed The Election Integrity Act of 2021, as necessary to boost confidence in elections after the 2020 election saw Trump make repeated, unsubstantiated claims of fraud. By Thursday evening, a lawsuit challenging the new law had already been filed by a trio of voting rights groups: the New Georgia Project, the Black Voters Matter Fund and Rise Inc. "In large part because of the racial disparities in areas outside of voting -- such as socioeconomic status, housing, and employment opportunities -- the Voter Suppression Bill disproportionately impacts Black voters, and interacts with these vestiges of discrimination in Georgia to deny Black voters (an) equal opportunity to participate in the political process and/or elect a candidate of their choice," the lawsuit states. March 26 – CNN The new law is under a lot of scrutiny and is getting a lot of coverage. If you are a journalist looking for expert perspective on the legality and legitimacy of new law, what it may mean for future elections in Georgia voters and potentially voters across America, then let us help. Dr. Stephen Farnsworth is a sought-after political commentator on presidential politics. He has been widely featured in national media, including The Washington Post, Reuters, The Chicago Tribune and MSNBC. Dr. Farnsworth is available to speak with media any time regarding the election and its aftermath – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.

The aftermath of a mass shooting in America

Last week America was shocked by two major mass shooting events in a week. Almost 20 people were killed and so many more will suffer the short- and long-term effects of these tragic and violent events. According to recent media reports, though the election and a full year of COVID-19 dominated news coverage, 2020 was one of the deadliest years for gun violence in decades. Until two lethal rampages this month, mass shootings had largely been absent from headlines during the coronavirus pandemic. But people were still dying — at a record rate. In 2020, gun violence killed nearly 20,000 Americans, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive, more than any other year in at least two decades. An additional 24,000 people died by suicide with a gun. The vast majority of these tragedies happen far from the glare of the national spotlight, unfolding instead in homes or on city streets and — like the Covid-19 crisis — disproportionately affecting communities of color. March 23, Washington Post And as America carries on and moves forward, the survivors, witnesses and families of those killed will be adapting to a new life and a multitude of physical and psychological challenges. If you’re a reporter looking to cover the issues survivors of mass-shooting events will experience, then let us help. Dr. Laura C. Wilson is a clinical psychologist whose expertise focuses on post-trauma functioning, particularly in survivors of sexual violence or mass trauma (e.g., terrorism, mass shootings, combat). Her research interests extend to predictors of violence and aggression, including psychophysiological and personality factors, as well as indicators of PTSD following mass trauma, long-term functioning among first responders, outcomes among survivors of sexual violence, and the influence of media on mental illness stigma. Dr. Wilson is available to speak with media – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview today.

MEDIA RELEASE: After a one-year hiatus, the annual CAA Worst Roads campaign returns

With a renewed focus on education and safety, CAA South Central Ontario (CAA SCO) is proud to announce that following a one-year hiatus due to COVID-19, the annual CAA Worst Roads Campaign is back, and voting is now open. “The campaign is a platform for all road users to highlight which roadway improvements should be prioritized by our different levels of government,” says Raymond Chan, government relations manager CAA SCO. “The campaign gives decision-makers a snapshot of what roads the public perceives are not meeting their expectations.” Over the course of the last year people have changed their transportation habits. More people are cycling or driving their vehicles instead of carpooling and using public transit. CAA believes funding for roadway improvements needs to be consistent to ensure that quality and safety is maintained. “Our roads are essential, they are the arteries used every day to keep workers, goods and services flowing and should be maintained more than ever,” adds Chan. “As people are encouraged to stay home and telework during the pandemic, governments should continue to take advantage of lighter traffic patterns as an opportunity for road repair. These efforts can also be refocused on increasingly popular modes of transportation, such as cycling and walking.” Investing in infrastructure improvements, including the proper maintenance of roads and bridges, is important to the vitality and economic recovery of local communities. CAA continues to advocate for longer-term dedicated infrastructure funding to help municipalities prepare, plan, budget and execute on repair backlogs and capital projects. The success stories over the last 17 years are a result of governments prioritizing infrastructure through multi-year capital investments. Some examples include: 1. Riverdale Drive, Washago Despite appearing on the CAA Worst Roads list for the first time in 2019, the poor road conditions of Riverdale Drive was not new to residents of Severn. After 20 years since the street’s last resurfacing, Council approved $50,000 of prep work for Riverdale Drive led by Ward 5 Councillor Sarah Valiquette. 2. Dufferin Street, Toronto Appearing on the provincial top 10 list annually since 2015, Dufferin Street between Bloor Street and Dundas Street underwent resurfacing from September to November 2018. An estimated 35,000 vehicles travel Dufferin Street daily and the number of commuters is increasing. In response to community concerns, Toronto City Council adopted a motion to expedite studies relating to pedestrian and cyclist safety along Dufferin Street, among other improvements in December 2020. 3. College Road, Windsor The intersection of Campbell and College Avenue underwent sewer, road and water main rehabilitation in May 2019. College Avenue between South Street and Brock Street was repaired in November 2019. CAA is calling on all Ontarians to vote for their Worst Roads today and join the community of drivers, cyclists, transit riders and pedestrians committed to improving Ontario’s roads. Nominations for CAA’s Worst Roads can be cast at caaworstroads.com until April 18. To encourage participants to act on their concerns, they will be entered into a grand prize draw to win free gas for a year, or one of 5 secondary prizes. Once voting closes, CAA will compile a list of the 10 Worst Roads in Ontario, along with the Worst Roads in regions across the province. The regional top five lists will help shine further light on the state of local roads in municipalities across Ontario. CAA will present the list of 2021 Worst Roads to local and provincial officials to help inform future funding and planning decisions. Here is a roundup of Ontario's Top 10 Worst Roads in 2019: 1. Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto 2. Riverdale Drive, Washago 3. Dufferin Street, Toronto 4. County Road 49, Prince Edward 5. Barton Street East, Hamilton 6. Burlington Street East, Hamilton 7. Avondale Road, Belleville 8. Sheppard Avenue East, Toronto 9. Carnegie Beach Road, Scugog 10. Bathurst Street, Toronto

Product Returns Represent Billion-Dollar Strategic Blind Spot for Major Retailers

“Product returns have never, to our knowledge, been explicitly included as a stage in a major customer journey model,” the authors note in their paper. “This exclusion represents a strategic blind-spot for marketers.” In December 2020, Linne Fulcher, vice president, customer strategy, science and journeys at Walmart U.S., published a blog post that outlined Walmart’s new return policy. Dubbed “Carrier Pickup by FedEx,” the service was just in time for the holidays, free, and “here to stay,” Fulcher wrote. She described the policy as “an incredibly convenient way to make that unwanted gift ‘magically’ disappear,” whether customers bought items in a store, online, or from a third party vendor. “We want the returns experience to be easy, safe and seamless,” she added. Returns are big business. According to the National Retail Federation (NRF), U.S. consumers returned an estimated $428 billion worth of merchandise last year—approximately 10.6 percent of total U.S. retail sales. The numbers for ecommerce are even more startling: online shopping accounted for roughly $565 billion of 2020 retail sales, of which $102 billion in merchandise—about 18 percent—was returned. However, retail advisory firm Optoro noted in 2019 that of 117 top retailers, not even a third of them quantify the full cost of returns. Even before the pandemic hit, Sandy Jap, Sarah Beth Brown professor in marketing, Ryan Hamilton, associate professor of marketing, and former Goizueta Business School dean, Tom Robertson, were perplexed at how little academic research existed regarding returns. “Instead of viewing returns as a nuisance and an added cost, they are an opportunity to engage with customers and build brand loyalty,” explains Robertson. “Returns are part and parcel of the new retail landscape. This has been exacerbated by the strong uptick in online.” To help retailers identify opportunities, Jap, Hamilton, and Robertson wrote “Many (Un)happy Returns? The Changing Nature of Retail Product Returns and Future Research Directions,” published in Journal of Retailing last year. The article is essentially a researcher’s road map for exploring this “strategically important area,” says Jap. Some retailers, such as Warby Parker and Stitch Fix, have built returns into their business models. Others, like Zappos and Nordstrom, have made consumer-generated returns easy, assuming that doing so engenders brand loyalty and repeat business. Yet most retailers seem “to lack a coherent philosophy” on returns and “appear not to have built return rates into their business models at all,” the trio state in their paper. “There are so many interesting and important questions to be answered around product returns,” says Hamilton. “Important as returns are, the academic marketing research has barely scratched the surface.” “Many (Un)happy Returns” highlights five specific areas where advancements in theory and practice would provide opportunity for greater understanding: 1. How product returns transform the customer journey 2. The “dark side” of returns—exploring the gray area between justified returns and outright fraud 3. The effects of returns on traditional retailer supply chains 4. Customer response to easy product returns and practices 5. The effect of retailers’ product return practices on their reputation “These questions represent a range of important directions for assembling a body of work on retailer-initiated and customer-initiated return behaviors and processes,” they write. “Ultimately, these might serve to improve the performance of return forecasting models, illuminate optimal go-to-market strategies and distribution processes in the evolving, technology-oriented marketplace that characterizes retailing today.” Each of the five points above are detailed in a piece recently published by Emory University. That article is attached here: If you are a journalist looking to cover this topic or if you are simply interested in learning more, then let us help. Ryan Hamilton, associate professor of marketing at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. Sandy Jap holds the Sarah Beth Brown Endowed Professorship of Marketing Chair at Emory’s Goizueta Business School. Both are available to speak with media, simply click on eithr expert's icon now – to book an interview today.

Learning online honestly. Is cheating becoming part of the ‘new normal’ in education?

The emergence of COVID-19 has seen almost every segment of society and traditional institution in America have to pivot drastically to sustain and carry on, especially the educational system. And as students across America had to log on and learn remotely in the last year, occurrences of cheating are trending upwards. It’s a phenomenon that is getting a lot of attention and University of Mary Washington Psychology Professor David Rettinger, an expert on academic integrity, is getting a lot of calls from media about it. Roughly a year after college campuses were evacuated due to the COVID-19 pandemic, academic integrity remains an issue for students and professors alike. With professors struggling to curb rampant cheating during online exams and students wrestling with the often confusing and stressful realities of online learning, the college classroom has never been more tense… Teen Vogue has spoken with academics and students to learn more about what kind of cheating is happening during remote learning, and what they think should be done about it. University battles with help sites have peaked during the COVID-19 crisis, but the root of the problem has been years in the making. “I call it a game of whack-a-mole,” says David Rettinger, president emeritus of the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) and director of academic integrity at the University of Mary Washington. New sites are constantly rising in popularity, he explains, making it harder for professors to prevent students from seeking answers online, especially now. March 04 – Teen Vogue And how even the most respected of institutions like West Point are handling these cases have also seen Rettinger’s expert perspective sought out to explain. “Expulsion flies in the face of everything we understand about the psychology of ethical and moral behavior,” Rettinger said. That’s partly because the section of the brain that makes you feel “icky” when you do something wrong isn’t fully developed until around age 23 to 26 — after college is over. Rettinger said rehabilitation seems in line with West Point’s mission — to instill the values of duty, honor and country. “That doesn't necessarily mean weeding people out who are imperfect, because we're all imperfect,” Rettinger said. “That means taking the best cadets we can and turning them into the best officers they can be, which means teaching them. And if there's no opportunity for redemption, what are we really teaching?” March 08 – NPR The concept of cheating and how schools are handling it is an emerging issue in America. And if you are a journalist looking to cover this subject, then let us help with your stories. Dr. David Rettinger is available to speak with media regarding this issue of cheating and academic integrity. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Ask the Expert: Vaccine myths and scientific facts

Now that there are authorized and recommended COVID-19 vaccines, it is critical people receive accurate information. Peter Gulick, professor of medicine at the Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine and infectious disease expert, reviews some myths about the vaccine and counters these with scientific facts. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccines were developed in a rush, so their effectiveness and safety can’t be trusted. Fact: Studies found that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are both about 95% effective compared to the influenza vaccine, which ranges from being 50% to 60% effective each year. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is 85% effective at curbing serious or moderate illness. The most important statistic is that all three were 100% effective in stopping hospitalizations and death. As of March 9, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 93.7 million people have been vaccinated and all safety data collected from these doses show no red flags. There have been about 5 cases of anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction, per 1 million but this is no different than allergic reactions from other vaccines. There are many reasons why the COVID-19 vaccines could be developed so quickly and here are a few: The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were created with a messenger RNA technology that has been in development for years, so the companies could start the vaccine development process early in the pandemic. China isolated and shared genetic information about COVID-19 promptly so scientists could start working on vaccines. The vaccine developers didn’t skip any testing steps but conducted some of the steps on an overlapping schedule to gather data faster. The Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were created using messenger RNA, or mRNA, which allows a faster approach than the traditional way that vaccines are made. Because COVID-19 is so contagious and widespread, it did not take long to see if the vaccine worked for the vaccinated study volunteers. Companies began making vaccines early in the process — even before FDA authorization — so some supplies were ready when authorization occurred. They develop COVID-19 vaccines so quickly also due to years of previous research on the SARS COV-1, a related virus. Myth: The messenger RNA technology used to make the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is brand new. Fact: The messenger RNA technology behind these two vaccines has been studied and in development for almost two decades. Interest has grown in these vaccines because they can be developed in a laboratory using readily available materials, making vaccine development faster. mRNA vaccines have been studied before for flu, Zika and rabies. Myth: You only need one dose of J&J vaccine so it’s more effective. Fact: Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine uses a different strategy — a weakened cold virus that is reprogrammed to include the code for the spike protein. Once inside the body, the viral genes trigger a similar response against the virus. All three vaccines are considered overall effective and 100% effective in preventing hospitalizations and death. Myth: Vaccine efficacy and effectiveness mean the same thing. Fact: Efficacy and effectiveness do not mean the same thing. “Efficacy” refers to the results for how well a drug or vaccine works based on testing while “effectiveness” refers to how well these products work in the real world, in a much larger group of people. Most people, however, use them interchangeably even though they have different scientific meanings. Myth: The vaccines aren’t effective against new strains of the virus. Fact: Currently, we know both the U.K. strain as well as the South African variant have increased transmissibility of 30% to 50% over the natural strain. As far as an increase in causing more serious disease, it is not known yet. We have over 600 U.K. variants in Michigan and one case of the South African variant, and I just heard of 47 cases of the U.K. variant in Grand Ledge. We (Michigan) are second in the nation in variants, but that's likely because we test for them more. The most important information is that the vaccines, in general, are 100% effective in prevention of hospitalization and death. So, it is felt they all offer some protection against variants to prevent serious disease. As far as the Johnson & Johnson, it was used with variants and has efficacy overall of 72% in U.S., 66% in Latin America and 57% in South Africa (where the main strain is the South African variant). All companies are looking at modifying (their products) (the mRNA) to cover variants and either give a booster or a multivalent vaccine to cover all variants. Myth: There are severe side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. Fact: The COVID-19 vaccine can have side effects, but the vast majority go away quickly and aren’t serious. The vaccine developers report that some people experience pain where they were injected; body aches; headaches or fever, lasting for a day or two. This is good and are signs that the vaccine is working to stimulate your immune system. If symptoms persist beyond two days, you should call your doctor. Myth: Getting the COVID-19 vaccine gives you COVID-19. Fact: The vaccine for COVID-19 cannot and will not give you COVID-19. The two authorized mRNA vaccines instruct your cells to reproduce a protein that is part of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which helps your body recognize and fight the virus, if it comes along. The COVID-19 vaccine does not contain the SARS-Co-2 virus, so you cannot get COVID-19 from the vaccine. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was developed using adenovirus vector technology and also will not give you COVID-19. It shows your immune system a weakened, common cold virus “disguised” as the coronavirus instead. Adenovirus vaccines have been around for about two decades, the same as mRNA vaccines. Johnson & Johnson developed a vaccine for Ebola using this technology. Myth: The vaccines are ineffective against the virus variants. Fact: More time is needed to study the vaccines’ effectiveness against the variants. Studies are now being conducted to determine if a booster dose is needed to protect against the variants or if modifications to the vaccines are needed. Myth: I already had COVID-19 and I have recovered, so I don't need to get the vaccine. Fact: There is not enough information currently available to say if or for how long after getting COVID-19 someone is protected from getting it again. This is called natural immunity. Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this. The CDC recommends getting the COVID-19 vaccine, even if you’ve had COVID-19 previously. However, those that had COVID-19 should delay getting the vaccination until about 90 days from diagnosis. People should not get vaccinated if in quarantine after exposure or if they have COVID-19 symptoms. Myth: I won't need to wear a mask after I get the vaccine. Fact: It may take time for everyone who wants a COVID-19 vaccination to get one. Also, while the vaccine may prevent you from getting sick, more research is needed, but early indications show that while the vaccine is effective in reducing transmission, it is possible for a vaccinated person to spread the virus. Until more is understood about how well the vaccine works, continuing with precautions such as mask-wearing and physical distancing will be important. Myth: COVID-19 vaccines will alter my DNA. Fact: The COVID-19 vaccines will not alter any human genome and cannot make any changes to your DNA. The vaccines contain all the instructions necessary to teach your cells to make SARS-CoV-2's signature spike protein, release it out into the body, and your immune system gets a practice round at fighting off COVID-19. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccine can affect women’s fertility Fact: There is currently no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problems with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta. In addition, there is no evidence suggesting that fertility problems are a side effect of any vaccine. People who are trying to become pregnant now or who plan to try in the future may receive the COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available to them but it’s always prudent to consult with your doctor. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccine was developed to control the general population either through microchip tracking or "nanotransducers" in our brains. Fact: There is no vaccine microchip, and the vaccine cannot track people or gather personal information into a database. Myth: The vaccines were developed and produced using fetal tissue. Fact: The vaccines do not contain fetal cells nor were fetal cells used in the production the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Johnson & Johnson used human cell lines or also known as cell cultures to grow the harmless adenovirus but did not use fetal tissue. These same cell lines have been used for other vaccines including hepatitis, chickenpox and rabies and have been around for years. Peter Gulick is an associate professor of medicine at Michigan State University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, and serves as adjunct faculty in the College of Human Medicine and the College of Nursing. Dr. Gulick is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today. Peter Gulick is an associate professor of medicine at Michigan State University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, and serves as adjunct faculty in the College of Human Medicine and the College of Nursing. Dr. Gulick is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.