Originally posted by Murky
reply to post by soficrow
"H1N1 swine flu probably will meet up with H5N1 bird flu or some other bug like SARS or AIDS, and maybe use pigs as a mixing vessel for
re-assortment, or maybe not."
To go from discussing genetic transfer in vivo between Type A influenza viruses to predicting transfer of genes in vivo between Type A viruses and
coronaviruses like SARS and retroviruses like AIDS is a huge leap unsupported by scientific fact. In fact, it's not even good conjecture.
Thanks for your contributions to this thread murky. Much appreciated.
Re: in vivo genetic transfer between species.
FYI - it's already happening. In fact, genetic transfer between
super=kingdoms is documented, and now described as "more common than
previously thought."
See:
How Could an Event in 1997 Cause a Pandemic in 2009? What Happened?
Also note: The potential for H1N1 co-infecting AIDS patients in Africa and resulting in a new disease was one of the earliest concerns expressed by
the WHO - and similar to the current TB/HIV crisis.
Public info is fudged to "prevent panic" but the potential is real.
People with HIV more vulnerable to
H1N1 flu
What's more worrying is if the two viruses -- HIV and H1N1 -- mix in the environment, much like what's happened with HIV and tuberculosis.
QUESTION: Are you one of those people who think that laboratory procedures cannot occur naturally in the environment? ...or are you more concerned
with managing the information flow and implementing an ethically responsible communications strategy?
That one sentence mars what in general is a good, though somewhat hysterical, analysis of how animal husbandry amplifies the hazard of new
microbiological threats to humans.
Thank you.
The bit about the Bilderbergers didn't help your cause - we don't KNOW that they do anything but smoke Cuban cigars and drink fine whisky in posh
resorts once a year.
True. We don't KNOW anything. ...and was just a
bit.
The substitution of global law passed in dark corridors for national law argued in legislatures by our representatives has to be better documented
before it can be used to buttress arguments that "they" are writing international law which guarantees the emergence of new lethal human viruses.
Your article founders on that rock.
International law is now about supporting trade - out front, no dark corridors - and yes, it DOES supersede national law, and IS written to put
profits before people. No doubt. No secret.
Current international (trade) law DOES virtually guarantee the emergence of new lethal human viruses - and moreover, allows them to spread to become
pandemic. ...Watch the news.
If you want people to take you seriously, stick to the irrefutable facts, and there are plenty - as your article shows - that SOMEHOW, animal
husbandry has been centralized and channeled into a for-profit game that places the population at risk of dying from lethal zoonotic infections that
cross the species barrier into humans.
There are plenty of people and organizations in the world addressing this issue, and focusing on the "irrefutable facts." I am not here to tow their
party line. I am here to play with idea. ...My work in other areas is much less controversial and speculative, and more 'businesslike.'
You could have pruned the classical conspiracy theory from your analysis and made your article both more readable and more credible.
Actually, this is a conspiracy site - I have to highlight conspiracy. It's one of the rules here. ...In fact, many members here are put-off because
the 'conspiracy' angle is no where near substantial enough for their tastes.
But all things considered, including time constraints - the piece is quite reasonably readable and credible.
Too much of a good thing is sometimes less good than just enough.
Agreed. But then again, one does write for the market.
...And I have noticed that the information contained in my article above was indeed re-worked and re-presented appropriately for a variety of markets
over the past several weeks.
But thanks again for your very thoughtful commentary. Good stuff.
