Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discrepancies in Various Bird Flu Statements

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

  • Discrepancies in Various Bird Flu Statements

    Here's another good one! (At least they got the Webster quote right!)

    COMMENTARY:
    The World Organization for Animal Health based in Paris said on January 10 that earlier predictions of a bird flu pandemic originating from the H5N1 bird flu virus, or avian flu, were a bit overblown.

    Bernard Vallat, director general of that organization said, "the risk was overestimated." The virus in question has proved extremely stable, despite earlier claims that it would mutate quickly and spread easily among humans.

    In fact, said Vallat, "We have never seen such a stable strain." He admitted that concerns that a bird flu pandemic was imminent lacked scientific proof. "It was just nonscientific supposition," he told reporters.

    Nevertheless, a good part of the medical community and mainstream media picked up the bird flu pandemic story and ran with it. Even governments were quick to act on the hysteria. At the UN, chief avian flu coordinator Dave Nabarro said in 2005 that he was "almost certain' a bird flu pandemic would strike, and predicted up to 150 million deaths. The U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mike Leavitt, advised Americans to stockpile cans of tuna fish and powdered milk under their beds in case of an outbreak. Renowned flu expert Robert Webster said society needed to face the possibility that half of the population could die in the bird flu pandemic. [Emphasis added] Based, in part, on such fears, the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States set up the Security and Prosperity Partnership as another step toward the integration of the three nations.

    Nevertheless, fears of an avian flu were "ridiculous," scoffed Wendy Orent, an anthropologist and author of Plague: The Mysterious Past and Terrifying Future of the World's Most Dangerous Disease. Orent said public health officials had vastly exaggerated the potential danger of bird flu.
    Several factors made it unlikely that it would become a dangerous pandemic. According to Orent, "the virus, H5N1, is still several mutations away from being able to spread easily between people; and the virus generally attaches to the deepest part of the lungs, making it harder to transmit by coughing or breathing."
    Most who have been infected and died ? worldwide, 212 dead with 340 sickened since 2003, mostly in Asia ? were infected through close contact with sick poultry. Examined objectively, the numbers are low. Since 2003, 42.4 per year have died from avian flu. Compare this to the death toll from malaria which, according to the Centers for Disease Control, infects 350-500 million people and causes one million deaths each year.
    Maybe, instead of spreading fear about an unlikely bird flu pandemic in order to justify expansions of government power and integration of nations, our government and media could start promoting the use of DDT to stop the existing malaria pandemic.







  • #2
    Re: Vallat - OIE Remarks Clarified

    Well, it looks like we're into a barnyard of problems: what to do - peck at the ground or crow to the world?

    Orent's book was published in 2004, presumeably written in 2003 and likely when those statements were first made.

    So in 2003, what were the "several mutations away from being able to spread easily between people;" that were thought to be required for easy transmission?

    And in 4-5 years, what mutations have taken place in comparison to what was expected?

    Orent also states:

    "...and the virus generally attaches to the deepest part of the lungs, making it harder to transmit by coughing or breathing."

    which remains the same today; although, we now know, through the recent MIT paper, that a simple change of shape would change the binding characteristics.

    How easily could that shape change happen? Do such shape changes commonly happen in other flu strains?

    J.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Vallat - OIE Remarks Clarified

      see the Stevens et.al paper from spring 2006


      I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
      my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Vallat - OIE Remarks Clarified

        Originally posted by gsgs View Post
        see the Stevens et.al paper from spring 2006


        http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5772/404
        This paper concludes:

        "Our conclusion is that the mutations that cause a shift from the avian-type to human-type specificity on the H1 and H3 frameworks do not cause an equivalent shift in specificity on the H5 framework of the Viet04 isolate. However, the mutations that give rise to 2-6 specificity in H3 HAs do in fact reduce avidity to 2-3 sialosides and increase specificity for 2-6?linked biantennary N-linked glycans that could serve as receptors for the virus on lung epithelial cells. These combined effects could allow the Viet04 virus to escape entrapment by mucins and increase the likelihood of binding to and infection of susceptible epithelial cells (52). Thus, such mutations provide one possible route by which H5 viruses could gain a foot-hold in the human population, although it is possible that other, as yet unidentified, mutations may allow the H5N1 virus to effect a switch in receptor specificity. "

        But it's a 2006 paper.

        So the level of knowledge of what mutations are required to get to an easily transmitted virus has substantially developed since 2003.

        And Orent's statement that we're "several mutations away from being able to spread easily between people;" is no longer supported by current research.

        Is that a fair conclusion?

        J.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Discrepancies in Various Bird Flu Statements

          I don't know.
          The "several mutations"-thing was presumably from a Taubenberger
          paper comparing 1918-H1N1 with H5N1 and finding 10 essential
          mutations.
          There was another paper last year comparing avian and human
          viruses, which found 32 differences, 13 of which were
          somehow considered essential.

          I can search for a link, if required...
          I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
          my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Discrepancies in Various Bird Flu Statements

            There are clearly other factors besides RBD shape/PB2(627)/NS1(92)/polybasic cleavage site.

            I am haunted by the one strain on 1918 H1N1 that had only ONE RBD change - at 190.

            See: http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:14764886/pmid/cit

            <TABLE class=css_pmid id=pmid_16103207 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 name="pmid_16103207"><TBODY><TR class=css_cit><TD class=css_cit>J Virol. 2005 Sep ;79:11533-6 16103207 [Cited: 1] </TD><TD class=css_right></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>A single amino acid substitution in 1918 influenza virus hemagglutinin changes receptor binding specificity. </TD></TR><TR class=css_cit><TD colSpan=2>[My paper] Laurel Glaser , James Stevens , Dmitriy Zamarin , Ian A Wilson , Adolfo Garc&#237;a-Sastre , Terrence M Tumpey , Christopher F Basler , Jeffery K Taubenberger , Peter Palese </TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>The receptor binding specificity of influenza viruses may be important for host restriction of human and avian viruses. Here, we show that the hemagglutinin (HA) of the virus that caused the 1918 influenza pandemic has strain-specific differences in its receptor binding specificity. The A/South Carolina/1/18 HA preferentially binds the alpha2,6 sialic acid (human) cellular receptor, whereas the A/New York/1/18 HA, which differs by only one amino acid, binds both the alpha2,6 and the alpha2,3 sialic acid (avian) cellular receptors. Compared to the conserved consensus sequence in the receptor binding site of avian HAs, only a single amino acid at position 190 was changed in the A/New York/1/18 HA. Mutation of this single amino acid back to the avian consensus resulted in a preference for the avian receptor. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
            "The next major advancement in the health of American people will be determined by what the individual is willing to do for himself"-- John Knowles, Former President of the Rockefeller Foundation

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Vallat - OIE Remarks Clarified

              In prior years, the WHO spokesperson before the one before the current one said, in essence, "We don't know what's happening. We hear the squeak in the car, but we don't know what's causing it."

              And the reason for this reaction was that there was then no approved, certified, tested way, as tested by the WHO-accepted advisors, to examine the "car".

              It did not mean, then, that there would not be later understandings. But it does mean that leaders who take such positions are stuck with them. Their reputations hang on their being correct. If they are not correct, they lose status, and they experience job transfers and retirements and in the case of researchers, loss of funding...as in termination of active influencing of their area of life devotion and academic interest. There are more crude terms to describe this phenomenon; but it's as real as the fingers typing this reply.

              This is an ongoing, serious roadblock to the advancement of new ideas; simply, the new ideas get in the way of stable funding, and stable employment.

              One can say that great minds think alike, and one can also say that herd behavior protects the herd, but does nothing to in fact protect the evolution of the herd when it is attacked by biological situations for which the herd is unprepared.

              What Fl1 has just posted is imo raises the current political line of the herd,

              "Nature is a very complicated set of innumerable interactions. Also impossible to predict is the exact set of circumstances that will lead to a H5N1 (or variant) pandemic.

              Recombination is not the answer to all things pandemic. It is a piece of the puzzle - along with random mutation, reassortment, dual infection, vectors, resistance, viral load, etc., etc., etc. "

              This response could have been stated 5 years ago, 4, 3, 2, 1, yesterday and in 1 year, 2, 3, 4, etc. It asserts claims that do not include facts in evidence. It's opinions based on vested interests. Remember 5 years ago when it was "reassortment"? Now that's gone away, and is included as just another of the inexplicable supporting pillars to yet more inexplicable mumbo jumbo combinations of ideas none of which explain the evolution of flu....because, don't you know it, it can't be done!! Get it? The squeak in the car continues, and still nearly every bureaucrat, but for a small handful, continues to assert, "we don't know, and we will not look "there!!!"

              It's ridiculous.

              I posit a question. If you were a teacher and they were in your classroom, what would you do?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Vallat - OIE Remarks Clarified

                >Vallat said, "Dr Vallat also said that while no one can predict
                >when and how a human influenza pandemic will occur..."
                >
                >Dr Vallat, are you a defeatist? [Miesmacher]
                >On what basis do you say that no one can
                >predict how a human influenza pandemic will occur?
                >Are you saying that no one can predict the day and hour
                >or the minute and second?

                for every given time range, we can predict how likely a pandemic
                will start within it. It's a subjective prediction, several
                people may give different estimates.

                >Are you saying there is no way to predict until the event occurs,
                > and then there will be a fact trail to follow, looking backwards,
                > so one can say that some then identifiable moment was the start
                >of the pandemic?
                >Is this not analogous to weather predicting?
                >For example, is it foolish for the weather bureau to look at tropical
                >depressions and then guess in advance if they will become hurricaines,
                > or to look at hurricaines and predict which direction they will
                >move or how severe they may become?

                just that we have more experience, more historical data with
                weather predictions. No principal difference.
                There are other events whose subjective probability predictions
                differ even more from each other.
                "when will P=NP be solved ?"
                "when will the next world war start ?"
                "is there a God"
                etc.
                "when will the next pandemic start" is between those (IMO)
                and weather predictions, where we have more historical data.

                >Dr Vallart, I find your
                >comments to be a poor example of a scientifically enquiring mind.
                > Failure to exhaust every avenue, to examine every idea, especially
                >one that has proven predictions associated with it, such as homologous
                >recombination,

                no example from history where this was important for pandemic development.
                OTOH, reassortment led to the last 2 pandemics.

                >to be less than responsible on your part, on the
                >part of the organization you lead, and on the part of the many
                >colleagues who firmly believe there is no other answer than reassortment.

                reassortment is the answer to what question ?
                Vallat didn't even mention reassortment.

                >I believe your thought pattern and theirs is reckless, and
                >for me, that's a kind description of the completely unsupportable
                >position you and they espouse.

                He is in "good" company. Others say similar things concerning
                panflu-prediction.
                They should all give their subjective panflu probability
                estimates ! It's needed. It's their task.
                I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
                my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Vallat - OIE Remarks Clarified

                  >Dr. Vallat is correct. It is impossible to calculate with any
                  >precision when a pandemic may occur.

                  with "any" precision ? What about the "not when but if" - statements then ?
                  (suggesting 100% if only the time-window is large enough)
                  Is it possible to calculate with any precision when
                  average world temperature will increase by 1' ? When you will die ?
                  Just to illustrate, what you mean by this statement, give an example
                  of something that _can_ be calculated with any precision.

                  >Nature is a very complicated set of innumerable interactions.
                  >Also impossible to predict is the exact set of circumstances
                  >that will lead to a H5N1 (or variant) pandemic.

                  there are different possible sets of circumstances.
                  We (should) try to estimate their probabilities.

                  >Recombination is not the answer to all things pandemic.
                  > It is a piece of the puzzle - along with random mutation, reassortment,
                  > dual infection, vectors, resistance, viral load, etc., etc.,
                  >etc.

                  it's generally considered less important than reassortment

                  >The OIE has been very proactive in the fight against zoonotic
                  >disease. Are they perfect. No. Is anyone?
                  >
                  >Stop the personal
                  >attacks. It reflects badly on your intellect. Win your point on
                  >the merits of your argument, not the ferocity of your attack.
                  I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
                  my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Discrepancies in Various Bird Flu Statements

                    since there are 500 copies of HA in each virus you have to wonder
                    whether they _all_ have or have not a certain mutation.
                    I'm interested in expert panflu damage estimates
                    my current links: http://bit.ly/hFI7H ILI-charts: http://bit.ly/CcRgT

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Vallat - OIE Remarks Clarified

                      Originally posted by GaudiaRay View Post
                      In prior years, the WHO spokesperson before the one before the current one said, in essence, "We don't know what's happening. We hear the squeak in the car, but we don't know what's causing it."

                      And the reason for this reaction was that there was then no approved, certified, tested way, as tested by the WHO-accepted advisors, to examine the "car".

                      It did not mean, then, that there would not be later understandings. But it does mean that leaders who take such positions are stuck with them. Their reputations hang on their being correct. If they are not correct, they lose status, and they experience job transfers and retirements and in the case of researchers, loss of funding...as in termination of active influencing of their area of life devotion and academic interest. There are more crude terms to describe this phenomenon; but it's as real as the fingers typing this reply.

                      This is an ongoing, serious roadblock to the advancement of new ideas; simply, the new ideas get in the way of stable funding, and stable employment.

                      One can say that great minds think alike, and one can also say that herd behavior protects the herd, but does nothing to in fact protect the evolution of the herd when it is attacked by biological situations for which the herd is unprepared.

                      What Fl1 has just posted is imo raises the current political line of the herd,

                      "Nature is a very complicated set of innumerable interactions. Also impossible to predict is the exact set of circumstances that will lead to a H5N1 (or variant) pandemic.

                      Recombination is not the answer to all things pandemic. It is a piece of the puzzle - along with random mutation, reassortment, dual infection, vectors, resistance, viral load, etc., etc., etc. "

                      This response could have been stated 5 years ago, 4, 3, 2, 1, yesterday and in 1 year, 2, 3, 4, etc. It asserts claims that do not include facts in evidence. It's opinions based on vested interests. Remember 5 years ago when it was "reassortment"? Now that's gone away, and is included as just another of the inexplicable supporting pillars to yet more inexplicable mumbo jumbo combinations of ideas none of which explain the evolution of flu....because, don't you know it, it can't be done!! Get it? The squeak in the car continues, and still nearly every bureaucrat, but for a small handful, continues to assert, "we don't know, and we will not look "there!!!"

                      It's ridiculous.

                      I posit a question. If you were a teacher and they were in your classroom, what would you do?

                      If I was your teacher I would say to you, prove your point.

                      Instead of espousing the same complaining jargon over and over, offer concrete evidence to support your point. Where are the links to support what you say?

                      It is easy to point the finger at a distant entity from a computer in your home or office.

                      It is not easy to offer positive solutions to a difficult situation. Many of the organizations and persons that you distain offer, on a daily basis, a working template to deal with many of the world's most pressing problems.

                      What template do you propose? Why? How would it be implemented? How would it be funded?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Whew - we can all go home now.....

                        Originally posted by gsgs View Post
                        yes, you can measure the number of mutated nucleotides per year.
                        I don't think this has changed a lot with H5N1, if we discard
                        reassortment,recombination.
                        It may have reduced a bit, because reassortments are dramatical
                        changes, and the new virus then mutates more subsequently
                        to adapt.
                        However reassortments can change hundredths of nucleotides at a time
                        and thus account for larger instability.
                        And these have decreased since 2005, few H5N1 reassortments
                        outside China. Fewer than expected.
                        Please. Reassortment does NOT change a sequence of a gene. Genetics are related to changes in gene sequence.

                        Ascribing genetic change to reassortment is akin to saying a baby's genes have "evolved" because only half match the father and half match the mother.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Discrepancies in Various Bird Flu Statements

                          Originally posted by gsgs View Post
                          I don't know.
                          The "several mutations"-thing was presumably from a Taubenberger
                          paper comparing 1918-H1N1 with H5N1 and finding 10 essential
                          mutations.
                          There was another paper last year comparing avian and human
                          viruses, which found 32 differences, 13 of which were
                          somehow considered essential.

                          I can search for a link, if required...
                          Thanks. I'm sure your memory of the paper is more than adequate for this discussion. I vaguely remember a paper like that, showing that my memory like swiss cheese.

                          So we have a couple of papers saying that a low number of changes must be made to get to a H2H level virus, and a couple that are saying 10 or more mutations are necessary.

                          Of course this is overly simplistic. Yet it does show the breadth of meaning that can be encompassed by "several".

                          We can only hope that at some time Dr. Vallat will make public the evidence on which he bases his opinions.


                          J.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X