It's a key nuance at the basis of the hypothesis that suggests there is a risk of re-emergence without deliberate intervention.

If melting permafrost uncovered intact virus, enabling a susceptible host to be exposed, then infection could theoretically happen.

That is the basis of the epidemiology triad of agent-host-environment.

One of the examples that's always pondered is smallpox. If infected bodies buried in permafrost become exposed, could smallpox create an outbreak now that vaccination is no longer routine? A Russian group investigated this in the 1990s but the virus particles were too broken up to cause an infection. Still makes you wonder about the possibility if there was a specimen preserved just right or happened to still have intact and virulent virus.

Viruses themselves are not "alive". They exploit a living organism's machinery to cause the infection and have a way to replicate/spread. They simply have to come into contact with another organism with the right door they can get through. So if permafrost melts, it exposes the virus to either wind or water as a mode of transportation to get to living organisms... another way is the melting of its shield allows nearby organisms to come into contact with it.

Sounds like human intervention was needed to isolate samples and prove the hypothesis.

Patient-funded stem cell research is a SERIOUS red flag for snakeoil salesmen preying on people's desperation. This is just not the way legitimate things are done. Harvesting and using a patient's own stem cells allows them to circumvent regulations that are in place to protect you.

As you said, ENS is not that rare. If a university is on the cusp of achieving a legitimate cure, they're going to finance it themselves... not make you front the cost. Universities love advancing fields of medicine, but it doesn't involve the patient's dime (e.g. face transplants). Regenerative medicine is going to be the future, but we're not there yet, and you paying $4mil is not going to push what they're doing into the realm of legitimacy. They would be more than happy to finance your procedure if its success would enable them to claim that advancement.

Very sorry you've been enduring this, OP.

Thank you for the verification. However, this is not technically for the retina to remain 'dry'. This technique effectively 'holds pressure' to keep tissues in place against each other to facilitate them attaching and healing together. It can initially involve head positioning to strategically move the gas bubble against the desired tissue of interest. Gas bubbles can also be used in partial (descemet membrane) corneal transplants.

Mixtures of air +/- SF6 or C3F8 can be used. Air does reabsorb more quickly and is less expansile than the others. The emphasis of my comment was that one cannot fly while gas is in the eye. This is called "gas precautions", and patients may receive a medical alert bracelet during this period.

The eye can also be filled with liquid in lieu of gas, such as silicone oil, which is flying-friendly but requires another surgery to remove it if it's not left in place permanently.

In certain eye surgeries, gas is used to fill the eye and one can't fly for 6 weeks afterwards depending on the gas used. The gas can expand, causing increased intraocular pressure, which can be painful and result in blindness.

Yeah, this situation is more of a function of your aunt's ex than a reflection on you. Honestly, if I was your aunt, I'd be thankful that he fully declared himself to be a creep and a bullet dodged before legally binding herself to him. He made many bad decisions... aside from sleeping with someone who's barely legal, he failed to recognize that action was going to poison the well so-to-speak with your aunt. He should've never re-entered a relationship with her after that. Surely this is a big lesson for you, but he's the one who should've known better. He should've turned you away.