Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Swine Flu May Not Be Any Deadlier This Fall: Experts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Swine Flu May Not Be Any Deadlier This Fall: Experts

    Originally posted by niman View Post
    H1N1, like H5N1, is ALL about politics - no science required.
    You say this all the time. Can you explain exactly "what" politics? Funding? Job security?
    The salvage of human life ought to be placed above barter and exchange ~ Louis Harris, 1918

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Swine Flu May Not Be Any Deadlier This Fall: Experts

      Originally posted by Shiloh View Post
      Source: http://health.usnews.com/articles/he...l-experts.html

      Swine Flu May Not Be Any Deadlier This Fall: Experts
      Review of prior epidemics refutes theory that virus gets more severe
      Posted August 11, 2009

      ...

      Overall, "examination of past pandemics reveals a great diversity of severity," Morens and Taubenberger said...

      "It's hard to conceive that if the H1N1 should reappear in the fall in the Northern Hemisphere that we would have a more severe epidemic," he said.


      "I think I saw a pussycat..."

      But seriously, taking a position is one thing - but when the script writers are unable to maintain even a modicum of consistency...well, frankly, it's embarrassing for everyone.

      I continue to be surprised by the 'one virus, one story brigade'. These people need to read more widely - starting with the key search-term 'co-evolution'.
      'Red Queens' can come later...

      The politics of influenza, really just another selection pressure for those clever little viruses to ponder!
      Last edited by ARR_309; August 12, 2009, 03:30 AM. Reason: typo

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Swine Flu May Not Be Any Deadlier This Fall: Experts

        Originally posted by mixin View Post
        You say this all the time. Can you explain exactly "what" politics? Funding? Job security?
        All of the above. Since this thread is swine H1N1, it can be used as an example. All eight gene segment of 1918 have been published. They were completed in 2005 with the four internal genes (PB2, PB1, PA, NP) and published in Nature. The sequences had a number of mammalian markers (present in human and swine sequneces but absent in avian). It was pretty obvious that these were mammalian (or at least human/swine markers). However, these were described as pandemic markers, even though they were in non-pandemic human H1N1 and swine H1N1. To make that argument they called 1918 H1N1 avian, but there was no data to call it avian in 1918 (the only sequence prior to 1918 was a 1917 avian sequence and it looked like avian sequences collected after 1918 and was easily distinguished from 1918, or swine and human H1N1 collected after 1918) .

        There was an argument that influenza A was an avian disease in general. There are 16 H serotypes and 9 N serotypes which can produce 144 combinations, and almost all combinations have been found in avian. However, the H1N1 in 1918 was mammalian, but called avaian.

        In 2005 there was a great deal of concern about H5N1 becoming a pandemic and of course H5N1 is avian, so there was a rationale to pointing out these 10 markers that were avian, but were different in 1918 (which included mammalian E627K) but no scientific reason to call 1918 avian. However, the media followed the lead of the Nature paper, and 1918 was called avian for political purposes. Now in 2009 when swine H1N1 has caused a pandemic, the same 1918 sequences published in 2005 are now called swine (or swine / human).

        The same is true for reassortment. Obviously reassortment happens in influenza. That's how the 144 serotypes are formed. In humans in 2003 there was an H1N2 in circulation. It was a reassortant. The H1 was from H1N1, while the N2 was from H3N2. The current pandemic strain is more complex. It is called a triple reassortant because it has flu genes from three species. PB1 is human, PB2 and PA are avain, and the other 5 are swine. However, even among the swine gene segements there is reassortment. The H1 is North American swine, while the N1 is Eurasian swine.

        When the sequences came out, those who built their carreers on reassortment said the H/N combo was unique, and that was why the swine H1N1 jumped to humans. However, by the time the first paper on the sequences came out, it was already clear that the H/N combo had been in Thailand for several years. Then Hong Kong sequences came out with more data showing that the reassortment wasn't recent. Thus, you could argue that reassortment of years ago set the stage for key changes that allowed the virus to jump from swine to human, but there was no data that a recent reassortment immediately created the pandemic strain.

        In fact by definition, reassortment doesn't change a gene sequence. Reassortment just reshuffles existing genes (like the H1 from H1N1 combining with the N2 from H3N2). The changing of the actual gene sequence is called drift, and everyone agrees that drift happens quite frequently. There are already multiple sub-clades or strains of the pandemic virus, but all still have the same combination of human, swine, and avian genes.

        Those who built their carreers on reassortmant insist that all of this drifting is due to random errors, which are selected, while homologous recombination, the exchange of pieces of genes, just doesn't happen in influenza (or is extremely rare). They focus on obvious recombination, where half the gene comes from one source and half from another, which is rare, because recombination is so common that long stretches are quickly chopped down to smaller stretches, and the most common exchanges are between closely related sequences.

        Thus, the virus takes what is working well and slightly modifies it with existing changes (polymorphisms), which have already gone through the selection process. However, the recombination is denied, even in obvious cases like H274Y, which jumps from one background to another, even in patients with no Tamiflu treatment (selection pressure).

        Short regions of exchange are acknowldeged but are waved off as "lab error" even when the explanation of how such error could be generated (during PCR amilification), has already been refuted by existing data.

        Thus, for H1N1 and H5N1 the science is "interpreted" to fit political ends, which are related to prestige, publications, carreer advancement, and funding.

        However, neither H1N1 nor H5N1 play politics.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Swine Flu May Not Be Any Deadlier This Fall: Experts

          Originally posted by niman View Post
          All of the above.... Thus, for H1N1 and H5N1 the science is "interpreted" to fit political ends, which are related to prestige, publications, carreer advancement, and funding..

          and possibly even maitaining the $$ from the cupboard of ineffective potions [Tamiflu/ H274Y] or is that just too much of a of 'tin-hat-wearing' conspiracy...?


          However, neither H1N1 nor H5N1 play politics.
          Not entirely convinced about this statement though...with a little imagination (and relaxation of terms)!

          .
          Last edited by AlaskaDenise; August 12, 2009, 04:20 AM. Reason: (ARR) Quote separations, grammar, typos + (AD) fix html

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Swine Flu May Not Be Any Deadlier This Fall: Experts

            Does Donald Rumsfeld still have a seat on the board of Gilead - anyone know?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Swine Flu May Not Be Any Deadlier This Fall: Experts

              Originally posted by Mamabird View Post
              As a criminologist, does factual evidence have any import in your decision making?

              Just curious based on the above post, that seems to have reached a conclusion about a lot of folks that have worked really hard to track the progress of this virus and its affect on the world population.
              Mama, I believe you misread my post as disputing the study when I was actually focusing on how such information can be misused to minimize the risks, which I OFTEN see in my field. It can be very dangerous, as I am sure you are aware. Hope you are now clear.
              But Prince Prospero was happy and dauntless and sagacious. -Poe

              Also known as CRH-land

              Comment

              Working...
              X