 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Biology / August 2006CDC following my advice on trying to invent a H5N1 pandemic virus before Nature invents it
--- quoting AP in parts --- AP Flu viruses don't transmit easily in test By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Mon Jul 31, 8:36 PM ET WASHINGTON - Scientists combined genes from the notorious Asian bird flu with human flu but weren't able to create a strain that could be easily spread. (snipped) The importance of the research is in determining that the process is complex, said Dr. Jacqueline M. Katz of CDC, a co-author of the paper appearing in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In addition, Gerberding said, it provides a new tool to test viruses for ease of transmission. --- end quoting --- It is good to see that a laboratory is following my advice to try to invent a pandemic virus before Nature invents it and catches us off-guard. By inventing a pandemic virus first, we can study how to contain it and perhaps destroy it. But there is a big hole in the above test. It was with a human flu virus. I believe the 1918 pandemic was a Reassortment not with human flu + bird flu but a Reassortment of rhinovirus (common cold species) + bird flu. So can the CDC lab re-do the test using rhinoviruses with H5N1. I think they maybe surprized to find a pandemic result---a strain easily spread. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >--- quoting AP in parts --- >AP [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >flu + bird flu but a Reassortment of rhinovirus (common cold species) + >bird flu. Flu virus reassorts with flu virus, not rhinovirus. Unrelated. Just like people genes reassort with people genes, not mustard genes. Same reason. I have not read the paper yet (but will get it), so don't know exactly what they did. (BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if it is freely available.) But sounds like they did about the right expt, at least for the first pass. bob > Flu virus reassorts with flu virus, not rhinovirus. Unrelated. Just > like people genes reassort with people genes, not mustard genes. Same > reason. Maybe definitional-wise. I am not going to be constrained and confined to a definition. So maybe Reassortment is narrowly defined. Then I need a broader concept than Reassortment. Call it Mutation-facilitation. Where when putting Rhinovirus along with H5N1 into a culture dish that the Rhinovirus, (somehow), eases the mutation of H5N1 to have the traits of airborne transmission that the Rhinovirus possess. A facility or aid in mutation of the H5N1 to become airborne transmissive. In cold climates of severe winters apparently the prefered mode of transmission is airborne. In hot climates, airborne is not prefered, for which I do not know why. But in hot climates the prefered mode of transmission is blood or sex, and not airborne. I do not know why viruses are so sensitive to heat. Question: did the CDC have the culture in a warm temperature or did they have a cold temperature. It maybe that a cold temperature Reassorts the H5N1 into a pandemic strain and that the laboratory simply did not have a cold enough temperature. Keep in mind that 1918 virus pandemic was created in the cold winter of 1916 in France (most likely). So maybe H5N1 combined with human flu may not yield a pandemic virus, but was it a Rhinovirus in 1916 that aided or facilitated a bird flu virus to become airborne. > I have not read the paper yet (but will get it), so don't know exactly > what they did. (BTW, I wouldn't be surprised if it is freely > available.) But sounds like they did about the right expt, at least > for the first pass. > > bob Did they use a cold temperature? And do they plan to broaden the experiment? It sounded like they were going to broaden it. I think they should not stick to simply human flu virus but expand their combinations with common cold viruses such as Rhinovirus. Also, my above implies something intriguing. We are all so worried about H5N1 going airborne transmissive. It may so happen that it fools us all, and goes sexually transmissive or blood swapping transmissive such as the hepatitis group of viruses. So that H5N1 is concentrated in Asia at the moment, and it may find a mutation to where the virus transmits in the same manner as HIV transmission. So that in 10 or 20 years down the road, we have two pandemics worldwide of HIV and H5N1 even though not airborne transmissive. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > > Flu virus reassorts with flu virus, not rhinovirus. Unrelated. Just > > like people genes reassort with people genes, not mustard genes. Same [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > whole entire Universe is just one big atom > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Archie, I do like your idea of putting sci-med topics in social history. But I do not have to be a microbiologist to know that if H5N1 were going to mate with a rhinovirus, it would have happened already in birds or mammals. You said that the 1918 epidemic broke out in France in 1916. I thought it started in an Army reservation in the US. David H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Archie, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > David H Rhinoviruses do not infect birds or mammals. How the 1918 pandemic went airborne has to include a survey of all airborne transmissive viruses, not just human flu virus but the common-cold virus. So there may be a mechanism of mutation-facility that when a person has the common-cold and simultaneously the bird-flu creates a airborne transmissive H5N1. The CDC is too narrow in its experiment. It should include common cold virus and other airborne viruses. The news was good for human-flu, but the CDC experiment was too narrow. The best pinpointing of the 1918 pandemic is that of a army barracks in France in the winter of 1916. Now there may have been a outbreak in the USA in Kansas between 1916-1918. And it may be interesting to research that case to find out if the soldier had both a Rhinovirus and a birdflu. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >> Flu virus reassorts with flu virus, not rhinovirus. Unrelated. Just >> like people genes reassort with people genes, not mustard genes. Same >> reason. The paper is at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0605134103v1 I have not fully digested it, and won't try to summarize it. The intro reviews what they believe about the previous pandemic viruses. They believe that the 1918 virus was "entirely" avian, acquiring virulence in humans solely by mutation. I think that is not entirely resolved. (Others have noted that it is hard to be sure, because we do not know what other viruses were circulating at that time. So one has to make best guesses.) >Maybe definitional-wise. I am not going to be constrained and confined >to a definition. But being constrained by known biology is good. There is no basis for any high frequency effect (neutral term) of rhinovirus on flu virus, or any reason for any relevance to the issues at hand. bob > >> Flu virus reassorts with flu virus, not rhinovirus. Unrelated. Just > >> like people genes reassort with people genes, not mustard genes. Same [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > bob --- quoting the above website --- Avian influenza A H5N1 viruses continue to spread globally among birds, resulting in occasional transmission of virus from infected poultry to humans. Probable human-to-human transmission has been documented rarely, but H5N1 viruses have not yet acquired the ability to transmit efficiently among humans, an essential property of a pandemic virus. The pandemics of 1957 and 1968 were caused by avian-human reassortant influenza viruses that had acquired human virus-like receptor binding properties. However, the relative contribution of human internal protein genes or other molecular changes to the efficient transmission of influenza viruses among humans remains poorly understood. Here, we report on a comparative ferret model that parallels the efficient transmission of H3N2 human viruses and the poor transmission of H5N1 avian viruses in humans. In this model, an H3N2 reassortant virus with avian virus internal protein genes exhibited efficient replication but inefficient transmission, whereas H5N1 reassortant viruses with four or six human virus internal protein genes exhibited reduced replication and no transmission. These findings indicate that the human virus H3N2 surface protein genes alone did not confer efficient transmissibility and that acquisition of human virus internal protein genes alone was insufficient for this 1997 H5N1 virus to develop pandemic capabilities, even after serial passages in a mammalian host. These results highlight the complexity of the genetic basis of influenza virus transmissibility and suggest that H5N1 viruses may require further adaptation to acquire this essential pandemic trait. --- end quoting --- I am not sure what "human internal protein genes" are and how it relates to viral mutation. In my previous post I talked about how Rhinoviruses may act as a facilitator to mutation. I think a better term maybe that of catalyst. It is possible to think of the simultaneous presence of 2 or more viruses where one catalyzes the mutation of another virus. Here I am using the term catalyst much like in chemistry but different than chemistry in that both viruses maybe altered. Correct me if wrong but the 1918 pandemic flu was first noticed in a France army barracks in winter of 1916. And the first appearance of this flu in the USA was not from returning soldiers but from a army camp in Kansas in 1916 also. So the 1918 pandemic flu, as best we know, could have originated simultaneously and independently in two spots of the world. This would not be unreasonable, for the 2006 flu of H5N1 could conceivably become pandemic simultaneously in two different spots on the globe, perhaps Indonesia and somewhere in Europe. There is a part of this story I would like to have a firmer grasp. I am beginning to suspect that pandemics, whether flu or some other form (bubonic), are pandemics because the organism that causes the pandemic extended the boundary of the host for which it prefers. H5N1, it seems to me, loves being in the bird populations and does not want to be in any other animal. But when it mutates and gets into humans, it kills rapidly. So the virus never wanted to get into humans, but when it did so, its affect was deadly. This would explain the sudden disappearance of the 1918 flu pandemic, in that the virus really only wanted to stay confined to birds. And that the bird flu has been on Earth for millions of years not just the past 100 years. So if the above has any truth to it would offer some implications. One implication is that for centuries or milleniums, bird flu going to humans and causing death has been going on for millions of years, only we just began noticing bird flu in the past 100 years because we have the science capability of knowing. Bird flu was probably killing ancient Greeks and Romans but they did not have the science to know this. And the other implication is that something in the environment makes certain years worse than other years as to the mutation of the avian flu into a human killer flu. So why 1918, 1957 and 1968 and now perhaps 2007? If the virus has the penchant to stick to its natural host of birds, then why are there outbreaks in 1918, 1957, 1968 , and perhaps 2007? I have a hunch. Perhaps there is a connection to pig (swine) flu. And this concept of Mutation Catalyst. Notice that the 1918 pandemic had the close proximity of birds and pigs and humans. So maybe what is missing in Indonesia or Vietnam or China that H5N1 has not gone pandemic transmissive is that the pig flu virus is missing from the equation. If you had a farm situation where pigs are raised and where birds are raised and with alot of human contact (such as army troops) would be the brewing of a human transmissive pandemic flu. Can the CDC obtain pig flu virus and run the above experiment. Perhaps it is pig flu virus when in simultaneous contact with H5N1 gives a Mutation Catalyst Effect and the H5N1 mutates so rapidly because of the contact with pig flu virus. My sense is that 1957 and 1968 were outbreaks of bird flu just like 2006, but none of these years was anything like 1918. And my sense is that what is special about 1918 is the concentrated contact of pigs, birds and humans in confined quarters. So that the swine flu virus catalyzed the mutation rate of bird flu virus. And the rest is history. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > My sense is that 1957 and 1968 were outbreaks of bird flu just like > 2006, but none of these years was anything like 1918. And my sense is > that what is special about 1918 is the concentrated contact of pigs, > birds and humans in confined quarters. So that the swine flu virus > catalyzed the mutation rate of bird flu virus. And the rest is history. I wanted to do some checking of swine flu and the first website I reached under Google search was so good that it suffices to highlight the details: --- quoting from http://www.haverford.edu/biology/edwards/disease/viral_essays/warnervirus.htm --- The biological similarity between the influenza at Fort Dix and the swine flu of 1918 was one of the biggest factors in determining the course of action to be taken at that point. The influenza virus is globular in shape, and is approximately 100 nanometers in diameter. The sheath of the virus is made up of a lipid bilayer, taken from the plasma membrane of the original host. Within the central core of this bilayer are located about 3000 matrix proteins (which differ depending on the type of the influenza), and 8 RNA genes. The surface membrane is spiked with protein molecules of two kinds: about 500 hemagglutinin ("H") and 100 neuraminidase ("N") molecules. Hemagglutinin molecules appear as pointed spikes, which are used to bind the virus to a cell and inject contents into it. Neuraminidase appear as blunt spikes, and possesses specialized enzymes which cause the infected cell to release the new viruses. (Silverstein: 50-52 ) The influenza virus is relatively unique in its ability to change its H and N molecules, called antigenic shift. For example, the swine flu of 1918 was named H1N1, while a later strain of influenza which was found to have changed its hemagglutinin molecules was named H2N1, and an even later influenza was found to have changed both its surface molecules (double antigenic shift), and was named H2N2. Scientists believe that these changes are due to the recombination of influenza viruses from different sources, such as if an influenza from a swine was mixed with an influenza from a person, which could create an new strain that has swine-type hemagglutinin and human-type neuraminidase. (Silverstein: 55-56) Spot mutations on the viral RNA, or missence mutations, also occur and are thought to cause slight changes in the make-up of the influenza virus, or antigenic drift. It has been observed that an antigenic shift usually occurs after a number of years, after the population has built up immunities to the old strain. It is common for a major outbreak to occur after a shift, and even more likely after a double shift, because the antibodies in the population are useless against these new forms of disease. Missence mutations usually cause smaller epidemics, since the change in the virus is not so great. It has also been found that older strains of influenza are likely to return to a population once the antibodies against them have mostly died out. (Silverstein: 55, 62 and Flu) What was particularly alarming about the influenza at Fort Dix was that not only was it a double antigenic shift, but it was a shift back to H1N1, the cause of the 1918 pandemic. (Silverstein: 55) The biological make-up of the swine flu was evidence enough to take precautions against a major outbreak. (snipped) Silverstein, Arthur M. Pure Politics and Impure Science: The Swine Flu Affair. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1981 --- end quoting http://www.haverford.edu/biology/edwards/disease/viral_essays/warnervirus.htm --- I do not know why the CDC and other biologists seem to ignore swine flu in the debate of bird flu. Yes, we know that the 1918 pandemic was bird flu, but we should not rule out swine flu as a contributor to the emergence of a mutated bird flu virus. Apparently a "shift backwards" is a major factor in transmission mode. And apparently swine flu virus is the virus with that special ability of shifting backwards. So, now, if one accepts the idea of Mutation Catalyst, where the simultaneous prescence of 2 viruses like bird flu and swine flu where the bird flu normally cannot "shift backwards" but because the swine flu is present in the host, that the bird flu virus is catalyzed by snippets of the swine flu that it does shift backwards with ease. And the end result is that a pandemic bird flu is borne within this host. I get the sense or feeling that the disease community is divided on the role of swine flu because when the virus is genome sequenced that no swine flu is found and that the 1918 virus appears to be 100% bird flu. So you have two camps where one is saying swine flu is irrelevant and the other camp saying that swine flu had a role in the 1918 pandemic. That maybe the case. But with a concept of Mutation Catalyst, no swine flu sequence need be found in the 1918 viral genome. The Swine flu catalyzed the bird flu into a different transmission mode. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > > My sense is that 1957 and 1968 were outbreaks of bird flu just like > > 2006, but none of these years was anything like 1918. And my sense is [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > whole entire Universe is just one big atom > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Archie, Your ideas about influenza must be full of holes because I never see any replies to your allegations by researchers and scientists. I mostly see you stalking your own posts in regard to avian and swine flu virulence and life cycle. David H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Archie, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > David H You do not see Bob's replies above, well, get a better Internet connection. And how do you explain the fact that I beat the CDC in experimental testing of trying to make a pandemic flu virus. So anyone following my thread would have beaten the CDC in this experiment by weeks and months. Your trouble David is that you have a poor mind of science and should not be replying to any of my threads for the end result will be just an embarrassement to you. In fact, I should reinstall my killfile to save me some time. I momentarily dislodged my killfile and I see that was a mistake because you are in that killefile. = dcholi...@ev1.net (David Holiman) 29 Aug 2005 23:12:10 -0700 So I need to reinstall my killfile immediately. My killfile saves me alot of time because the Internet has too many knuckleheads that are time wasters. These are people with little to no logical and science mind and are incurable hatemongers. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > > Archie, > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > whole entire Universe is just one big atom > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Arch, I am in no position to judge your theses. I am merely pointing out the obvious: the medical wizards and other licensed witch doctors are not responding to your posts. Why killfile me, the messenger ? But if you have to do this to me, I will understand that you cannot take any sort of negativity by readers. Cheers, David H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >And how do you explain the fact that I beat the CDC in experimental >testing of trying to make a pandemic flu virus. It is ludicrous for you to suggest that you beat the CDC at anything. bob > >And how do you explain the fact that I beat the CDC in experimental > >testing of trying to make a pandemic flu virus. > > It is ludicrous for you to suggest that you beat the CDC at anything. > > bob Ludicrous or not ludricrous the facts and data remain. A few days ago the CDC came out with a report about trying and attempting to create a bird flu virus that was pandemic. A few weeks or months earlier than the CDC, in these sci newsgroups, I posted threads saying that scientists should experiment into making a bird flu virus that was airborne transmissive and pandemic. To create a pandemic virus before Nature creates such a killer. To act as a vanguard and be creating the virus before Nature creates it, gives us added time to combat the virus should Nature create it later. So it gives us added time to fight the virus and a wealth of information and knowledge. The rest is history, Bob. I anticipated what the CDC should be doing. Now I am trying to figure out how and why the 1918 virus went pandemic. And I have some good avenues of exploration. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >> >And how do you explain the fact that I beat the CDC in experimental >> >testing of trying to make a pandemic flu virus. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Ludicrous or not ludricrous the facts and data remain. The fact is, they _did_ it. And they did it before you ever understood what a flu virus was. (It was done a while ago. Publication just came out. Date of publication is not the day they started the work!) bob > The fact is, they _did_ it. And they did it before you ever understood > what a flu virus was. (It was done a while ago. Publication just came > out. Date of publication is not the day they started the work!) > > bob Bob, where in the science literature is it first stated the method to fight this birdflu H5N1 is to create a pandemic H5N1 in the lab before it is created by Nature? The answer is that I was the first to give this methodology. I was the first to have in public print-- Internet sci newsgroups, that the way to fight birdflu is to create a airborne transmissive birdflu H5N1 in the lab so as to get a head start lead as to tame it or cure it or stop it when Nature invents it. Bob, you seem to discuss and debate issues, but you seem to lack the ability to give credit due. Granted the CDC research was done a long time ago, but the CDC could have published or printed the METHODOLOGY of creating a pandemic killer before Nature creates it. They did not do that. Maybe they were not aware of the method. Maybe they were are the fringes of the method but not fully cognizant of the method. And so, I am the first to point out this method-- Create a pandemic killer in the lab before Nature creates it in the wild. In that way, we get a lead and headstart in fighting the pandemic if it does emerge. And without my Methodology made clearly, the CDC may have stopped their research, whereas now they fully realize they must go full steam ahead in creating a lab pandemic. So give me credit and stop making excuses. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >> The fact is, they _did_ it. And they did it before you ever understood >> what a flu virus was. (It was done a while ago. Publication just came [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >fight this birdflu H5N1 is to create a pandemic H5N1 in the lab before >it is created by Nature? Well, it was actively discussed in Science 305:594, 7/30/04 -- which I know only cuz they mentioned this old item in their news story on the current work. That article says the CDC started such work in 2000. (The 2004 item is freely available online -- Science releases everything 12 months after publication, I think.) Since the idea is quite obvious to anyone working with flu, I'm sure it was around well before that. I'm surprised both that you would claim any credit or that you would know. How could you know that this was not in earlier CDC papers, etc ??? Your claim implies that you have carefully read everything that was published (and remembered it all!). Hey, let's have fun here discussing science. Others will do the work, and deserve the credit. But often you seem more interested in running down people than discussing the ideas. Biology is too much fun for that. Let's cut the ego trip and enjoy the science. bob > Well, it was actively discussed in Science 305:594, 7/30/04 -- which I > know only cuz they mentioned this old item in their news story on the > current work. That article says the CDC started such work in 2000. > (The 2004 item is freely available online -- Science releases > everything 12 months after publication, I think.) I did not see any lines stating that the CDC or any other organization has a "Directive" of inventing or creating a pandemic flu virus in a secure laboratory before Nature invents it in the wild. Maybe you are reading into that article, but it does not state such a directive. And this is the Directive that is most needed to minimize the risk of bird flu going pandemic. That we spearhead in advance of Nature in the wild. With the lead time we can best fight a pandemic virus. > Since the idea is quite obvious to anyone working with flu, I'm sure > it was around well before that. It was not obvious to you Bob and not obvious to the CDC in their recent report. You seem to have a lapse in logic. Because the tenor of the CDC report was trying to increase transmissiveness. This is a minor subset of inventing a pandemic virus. So the entire logic of the CDC report tells me that they are not under the broad Directive of inventing and creating a pandemic flu virus in a secure laboratory. The entire report indicates their narrow approach of boosting transmissiveness, not of inventing the entire pandemic virus. And that is why this claim is so important. A Directive of inventing the virus before Nature in the wild is the number one objective and all else is secondary pieces of information. Instead of thousands of labs researching minutia angles of birdflu, the overarching directive is to invent the pandemic killer before Nature does. That is a new idea, and a new way of tackling diseases of pandemic potential. And a new Directive to CDC. Their report is piecemeal work compared to inventing the pandemic killer in a secure lab. Some may say that such a directive is dangerous due to terrorism. My retort to them is that it is more dangerous to not invent a pandemic killer, leaving it wide open for unknown terrorists to invent it. Since we would likely invent it first and able to foil the terrorists. > I'm surprised both that you would claim any credit or that you would > know. How could you know that this was not in earlier CDC papers, etc [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > bob Seems as though our discussions are diverging and perhaps it is better that you stop replying to my threads. For many years we kept the discussion to objective science, but in the past 2 years, when some of my ideas are turning out to be true, you have found it almost impossible to grant me credit for those ideas. Such as the idea that the Prusiner model of prion disease is false, which it appears that the latest discoveries are showing the model to be false. And now this discussion of H5N1 birdflu where I seem to have made a contribution and may make even more. My sense of our conversation for the past 7 or 8 years or longer is that it was very much a active debate and learning of science but the last 2 years, seems as though you are unable to give credit, and your time seems to be spent on suppression of what I post rather than science. Another fault of your above, is that you have the hidden assumption that all posts to the sci. newsgroups are some sort of recreation or entertainment or just learning, but you miss the big prize, that some posts are actually new discoveries and new science never before known until posted to the sci newsgroups. I claim over 100 new discoveries in science, not just biology, but physics and mathematics and many other areas. And I do not post just for recreation and entertainment. Because I know that is a bad assumption on your part to think that Internet sci. newsgroups do not have original new ideas. In fact, the Internet probably surpassed all other forms of "new ideas reported" then all other media outlets combined. Because of the speed of Internet versus book or magazine. And I expect to be paid, by giving me credit whenever I post some new idea never before seen. When I have people over and they start working in my field or on my buildings, Bob, I am not going to try to find excuses for why I should not pay them; I am going to pay them for their time and accomplishments. So if it bothers you, Bob, that you just cannot muster up the giving me credit for new ideas, well, just stop replying to my threads and stop reading my threads. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >I wanted to do some checking of swine flu and the first website I >reached under Google search was so good that it suffices to highlight [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >Silverstein, Arthur M. Pure Politics and Impure Science: The Swine Flu >Affair. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1981 >--- end quoting Looks good, for general ideas (realizing that such things are always summaries, and simplified). I'm not sure from this excerpt, but this seems to refer to the possibility of a swine flu in 1975 (?) -- during Gerald Ford's administration. The book title at the end is a clue. Surely, you remember this. There was this new flu virus, and much concern about it. A vaccine was prepared. Turned out that no virus that was particularly virulent emerged, and there were problems with the vaccine. Politically, it turned out badly. Oh, I see, So it is. Note that the reference there to the 1918 virus being a swine flu is now "known" to be incorrect. The 1918 virus is now considered all/mostly bird; no swine involved. >I do not know why the CDC and other biologists seem to ignore swine flu >in the debate of bird flu. Not sure what the issues are in this case, but rest assured that those involved fully understand the potential importance of the pig here. I suspect it is simply that no pig involvement has seemed relevant. (Looks like the bird virus grows in pigs, though poorly.) bob (snipped) > died out. (Silverstein: 55, 62 and Flu) What was particularly alarming > about the influenza at Fort Dix was that not only was it a double [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > snippets of the swine flu that it does shift backwards with ease. And > the end result is that a pandemic bird flu is borne within this host. And interesting news report today from Holland --- quoting AFP --- THE HAGUE (AFP) - Bird flu found on a central Dutch poultry farm this month is a mild form of the H7N7 strain of the virus, the Dutch agriculture ministry said. "It is a low pathogenic variety that is not as dangerous as the strain that we saw in 2003," ministry spokesman Murco Mijnlieff told AFP. In 2003 the Netherlands was hit hard by an epidemic of the H7N7 strain which led to the cull of 25 million birds, about one quarter of the country's poultry population at the time. One veterinarian died. Bird flu viruses are divided into subtypes and named on the basis of two proteins on the surface of the virus: hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N). The H5N1 bird flu virus is potentially lethal to humans. H7 infection in humans is rare, but can occur among people who have direct contact with infected birds. Symptoms may include conjunctivitis and upper respiratory symptoms, according to the US Centres for Disease Control. --- end quoting AFP --- Ah, the world is moving ever closer to a pandemic killer outbreak. In the news todays are more victims of H5N1 in Indonesia somewhere totalling more than 44. And Indonesia does not cull birds. All the more reason, that the CDC laboratory and other biological labs spearhead a drive to create or invent the pandemic killer before Nature invents and where Nature has full control. When we invent it in the laboratory before Nature invents it in the wild, we have the lead time of mastering and possibly curing and halting the pandemic killer. If we invent it and create first in the laboratory, would provide us with additional information as to the likely source conditions in the wild that would invent the virus in the wild. Could tell us whether culling is the difference between having a pandemic and not having a pandemic. I cited the H7N7 report because this virus is preliminary to a shift backwards to H5N1. So maybe the 1918 pandemic started in a similar fashion where H7N7 was present and spreading in Europe from 1901 to 1915, and then in 1916 the H7N7 shifted backwards to the Spanish flu killer pandemic virus and the rest is history. The actions of scientists should be modeled on the idea of inventing or creating the pandemic killer in a secure laboratory before Nature invents it in the wild. Because the knowledge and control and information provided, increases our chances of stopping and halting the pandemic killer if it emerges. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >> The paper is at >> http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0605134103v1 >--- quoting the above website --- >Avian influenza A H5N1 viruses continue to spread globally among birds, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >I am not sure what "human internal protein genes" are and how it >relates to viral mutation. Note that it says "human virus internal protein genes". That is, this refers not to any gene of the human (the host), but to viral genes. By internal proteins... Simple view is that virus has an outside and an inside. The viral outside proteins include such famous ones such as the H and N; these are involved in making contact with the host cell being infected. Internal proteins are proteins found inside the virus particle. >In my previous post I talked about how Rhinoviruses may act as a >facilitator to mutation. I think a better term maybe that of catalyst. >It is possible to think of the simultaneous presence of 2 or more >viruses where one catalyzes the mutation of another virus. Here I am >using the term catalyst much like in chemistry but different than >chemistry in that both viruses maybe altered. There is no reasonable basis for such an effect. And no need for it. Certainly any such wild speculation should not be confused with the important process of reassortment, which occurs when a virus has a segmented genome, as does flu. >There is a part of this story I would like to have a firmer grasp. I am >beginning to suspect that pandemics, whether flu or some other form [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >of the 1918 flu pandemic, in that the virus really only wanted to stay >confined to birds. The idea that pathogens are less virulent in their natural host, and may lose virulence in a new host, is batted around regularly. It is probably not a useful generality, but needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Note that per se, it does not really explain anything. It clouds the discussion to attribute human properties to the virus. In particular, the virus has no sense of any planning. >And that the bird flu has been on Earth for millions of years not just >the past 100 years. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >ancient Greeks and Romans but they did not have the science to know >this. Perhaps. So? >And the other implication is that something in the environment makes >certain years worse than other years as to the mutation of the avian >flu into a human killer flu. So why 1918, 1957 and 1968 and now perhaps >2007? There is no reason to invoke anything other than chance. That doesn't preclude contributing factors. For example, one factor is simply density of birds and humans in one spot. Another is immunity of the host, which precludes the same strain from coming back "soon". bob (some snipping to save space) > Note that it says "human virus internal protein genes". That is, this > refers not to any gene of the human (the host), but to viral genes. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > being infected. Internal proteins are proteins found inside the virus > particle. Very interesting indeed. A few nights ago, I was watching TV about the tour de France bicycle race in which the winner was denied due to testosterone doping. Then came a report on "Gene Doping" a technique already in existence where a Rhino-virus inside contents are removed and a gene placed inside. This virus then finds cells in the body to inject the gene and result in the body producing performance enhancing drugs. So now I turn that techique around and ask, has Nature already done something like Gene-Doping. And that humanity is not the first to do something like Gene Doping. Suppose we have a army barracks in winter of year 1916 France where many soldiers have the common cold virus (Rhinovirus). And suppose one of them contracts the bird flu virus and thus has 2 viruses in his body. Suppose the Rhinoviruses leave some outside package wherein some genes of the bird flu virus find shelter. Or suppose some of the outer package of the Rhinovirus recombines with a bird-flu virus to make some sort of hybrid virus. What I am getting at, is that perhaps the mutation that started the 1918 pandemic was some commingling of the Rhinovirus with birdflu virus. > >In my previous post I talked about how Rhinoviruses may act as a > >facilitator to mutation. I think a better term maybe that of catalyst. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > important process of reassortment, which occurs when a virus has a > segmented genome, as does flu. I have two candidates as the cause of the 1918 pandemic. Some recombination of birdflu with Rhinovirus in what is known as the technique of Gene Doping. Or, some combination of swineflu with birdflu with humanflu viruses using mutation-catalyst. > The idea that pathogens are less virulent in their natural host, and > may lose virulence in a new host, is batted around regularly. It is > probably not a useful generality, but needs to be considered on a > case-by-case basis. Note that per se, it does not really explain > anything. It would explain why a viral pandemic does not mind killing an entire species. Because its host species is all it really cares about where it lives in a balance. When a virus goes outside its host species, it does not mind killing the entire species. So it also answers the question as to why a virus kills its victim since the virus itself would then perish along with the victim. And the answer is that the virus does not want to kill its host species, just any other species it comes in contact with. > It clouds the discussion to attribute human properties to the virus. > In particular, the virus has no sense of any planning. The process of evolution is not a "planning process" but it must provide an answer as to what benefit accrues a virus if it kills its victim. It is reasonable to think that a virus would spread and be a bigger benefit if it kept its victim alive. And so the answer is that viruses keep their host-species alive, but if found in another species the virus finds more benefit by killing all members of a different species to return the virus to the ground and release. > >And the other implication is that something in the environment makes > >certain years worse than other years as to the mutation of the avian > >flu into a human killer flu. So why 1918, 1957 and 1968 and now perhaps > >2007? > > There is no reason to invoke anything other than chance. Well now cicadas have a rthymic cycle of 17 ?? years. So also, viruses may have some cycle. One possible cycle would be every 90 years determined by the lifespan of the host species. Looking at viruses that have humanity as host. And the lifespan of a human is about 90 years encoded in our DNA. So a virus that parasitizes humans has alot of the human A,C,G,T coding. Somewhere in the coding is the 90 year lifespan. And ditto for the virus that parasitizes humans would likely have that A,C,G,T coding of 90 years. So the virus ends up needing a 90 year rest time or pause when the sequencing comes to the age. In this manner, we can begin to see cycles in viruses just like cycles in cicadas. And 1918 to 2008 is 90 years. So if this is partially true as I described, then we can expect pandemic bird flu virus about every 90 years apart. > That doesn't preclude contributing factors. For example, one factor is > simply density of birds and humans in one spot. Another is immunity of > the host, which precludes the same strain from coming back "soon". > > bob I agree density is an important factor. If this planet Earth were to be immediately filled with another 7 billion humans and that tomorrow we had 14 billion human beings on Earth, then Nature as a whole would bring on the scene a virus of some sort that killed off half of the 14 billion. In the past history wars kept human population in check along with disease pandemics. And if we do not voluntarily keep human population in check in the future, viral pandemics will arise to do it for us. There is a principle involved here, and I am not sure of what physics principle it comes from. It says in effect that in a balanced system of diverse entities, whenever one entity becomes too numerous, becomes the biggest pie, then other entities eat it as their easiest food, and they eat it up so fast that the system returns to balance. HIV virus is an example where Earth's population of apes and monkeys are declining and going extinct, while human is rising and dominating Earth, so the simian virus so to speak jumped ship from a declining population to that of a rising population. Yes, I believe in Superdeterminism which sounds strange to others. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies > The process of evolution is not a "planning process" but it must > provide an answer as to what benefit accrues a virus if it kills its [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the virus finds more benefit by killing all members of a different > species to return the virus to the ground and release. I forgot to mention the biggest benefit of all to the birdflu virus is the benefit accrued to the bird species by killing alot of humans. Bird numbers have decreased decade by decade as more of their habitats are taken over by humanity. So the benefit of a birdflu pandemic to birds is the sizable decrease in human population. So the birdflu viruses are like little warriors sent into battle by bird species to decrease human population. In the case of HIV where it jumped from apes and monkeys to humanity is a more dire situation, since the apes and monkeys are going extinct. So the reservoir of viruses that use apes and monkeys as host species, there is a tendency for these viruses to jump to a new species that is numerous and make them their new host species. Evolution process wants to know "benefits", not that I assign anthropomorphic features onto viruses. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >> The process of evolution is not a "planning process" but it must >> provide an answer as to what benefit accrues a virus if it kills its [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > whole entire Universe is just one big atom > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies Here is a usefull primer and good overview of the Influenza A viton for anyone who has an interest in the topic. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/avianflu/biofacts/avflu_human.html Best N10 > Here is a usefull primer and good overview of the Influenza A viton for > anyone who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Best N10 The CDC is weak in state of preparedness should birdflu go pandemic a la 1918 style. The weakness in preparation involves respirators. In 1918 many people donned handkerchefs and cloth over their face. Should we have a pandemic repeat of 1918, the people should be schooled and prepared to what to wear as a respirator and gloves for the hands and to protect the eyes. The CDC should come forth with what is the appropriate clothing and respirator protection should birdflu go pandemic. It is not adequate to have Tamiflu and other drugs available whilst people are wearing the same clothes as before the pandemic or wearing rags over their noses. A key component of a calm and stable society in the midst of a birdflu pandemic is forethought of respirator and garment wear in the midst of a pandemic. And the CDC should spend a great deal of time in educating the public on respirators and clothing to wear. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies Well Im ok thank you very much because I inherited my highly decorated Grandfathers world one respirator..god rest his soul :) In fact Im wearing it now !! just in case lol :) I lijke to say I actually quite enjoy your posts Mr Plutonium..they brighten up my day and amuse me. Ill be honest at first I had you down as a complete "nut job" which of course you might well be. Others else where have tagged you as a troll etc etc. I have read a few of your posts in other areas ( Atmospheric remediation ( good one) etc etc) and atleast some of them definitely possited interesting views or novel thinking on the topic at hand. You do however have an amazing ability to rub others up with your dry peristent method and single minded "off the hook" presentation of your various hypotheses and thinking. Why would you do that ? You aslo seem to have a penchant for conducting experiments in your mind rather than in the lab or life and I feel you flaw by then over appreciating your own virtual/cerebral "experimental" outcome. Despite what you think for example there is absolutely no evidence in any published journal of recombinant/reassortment events between Rhino virus and influzenza A , nor evidence of imteraction of related viral proteins in a manner which you have postulated. This doesnt meany our wrong it simply means yuo have uncorroborated hypotheses. Thats a plus :) In relation to this topic Ill add to this array of feedback an apparent stunningly transparent lack of biological knowledge and yet you engage thoughfully in biological debate..which is fine if you are prepared to fill the gaps in your understanding. Having said all this your willing to think and willing to communicate which in context is actually quite a brave thing to do. Braver than those who never post..who knows what wisdom has been missed ? You remind me of a close friend, an artist and universally acknowledged social outcast ( nut job) who never shows his paintings..... he is a genius on a par with Van Gogh in my humble opinion. Im not saying you are genius or a nut job of course, I'm merely illustrating that a non conformist personality or thinker is not per se of no worth in some area of life. So atleast on mybehalf I welcome you to field of biological debate and encourage you in your learning. and please continue to think and communicate..its free after all :) Best N10 >> Here is a usefull primer and good overview of the Influenza A viton for >> anyone who [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > whole entire Universe is just one big atom > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.