posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:38 PM
Ok, I've read Adrian Gibbs' paper, and he's made a few false assumptions. His whole thesis depends on the assumption that North American, European,
and Asian swine herds and chicken flocks are hermetically isolated from each other and couldn't have infected each other.
So, here's the false assumptions as I see them:
First, he assumes a far higher level of quality control and quarantine for the international swine trade than actually exists. Swine herds are not
monitored for much, there is no regular testing for them (that cost money, you know). So infected animals can easily pass through. He neglects to take
into account that the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and many deals were struck to import and export a variety of animals. For several years the
quarantines and observation of imported animals was pretty much non-existent. This time frame corresponds to the emergence of the North American
versions in European herds. So the possibility of reassortment within swine herds is high to the point of being close to a certainty.
Second, he misidentifies the origin as Mexico. The first cases have been id'd as coming out of California, not Mexico.
Third, he postulates a chain of sloppy handling in a multitude of labs.
Fourth, he fails to account for how it got from lab to population.
Fifth, he fails to account for the possibility that live virus vaccines may have contributed to the development within swine herds.
So while it is possible it is a result of multiple accidental cross-contamination due to multiple labs doing sloppy work, I find it far more
likely that it is a natural virus that evolved out of the unregulated international movement of swine.
I find sloppy handling of quarantines and inspections due to cost-cutting is a far simpler and more logical explanation than a multitude of bad labs.