People are ignorant sometimes, and fear can make them more so. I've already talked to one friend who thinks that no food products imported from Mexico can be considered safe now. She's not even limiting her fears to pork! Calling this virus "Mexican flu" is at least as incendiary as calling it "swine flu." Both imply a level of understanding--indeed, certainty--about origins that simply does not exist. And given that people are what they are, origin will be equated with blame. So don't let's tarnish Mexicans with the incendiary term "Mexican flu," either. I'm with you, How about just plain H1N1.

Judy April 30th, 2009 09:38:55 AM

I don't like the idea of calling this "Mexican flu" due to the implications of racism.  "2009 flu" works for me to distinguish this from other forms of H1N1. 

Have there been any cases of transfering this flu from humans back to pigs, or from either pigs or humans to birds?  If we haven't seen these take place in the lab or the wild, then why do we think it is still compatable with all 3 species?

zandperl April 30th, 2009 10:48:55 AM

While I understand the human to human risk involved, if a human was to contract this, is it possible that they could give it to pet birds or pigs?

spazzy April 30th, 2009 10:49:43 AM

zandperl: The fact that the virus contains the genetic material specific to all three species is the clue. But we don't know whether it's possible for cross-species transmission to take place at this point. The risk is there, however. I hope that answers your question, too, Spazzy. We just don't know yet. 

Someone else asked me about whether prospective studies challenging birds and pigs with this virus would be undertaken. I have absolutely no idea as to the advisability, doability or value of this approach.

I also don't know whether these patients are being advised to stay away from birds, though I do know that anyone that's traveled to Mexico or may have been exposed to this H1N1 virus is not allowed anywhere near a pig farming facility--according to the pork industry. 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 30th, 2009 11:02:03 AM

I have a problem with the way this has been handled from the start, in that when there were 2 confirmed deaths in Mexico, the word 'epidemic' was being screamed out, and when it was 10 in Mexico and 1 in the US, it had become a 'pandemic' that the whole world was being told they needed to be scared of.  Last time I checked, more people were dying from lots of other communicable diseases, and I don't hear of them as epidemics or pandemics.  Epidemic: spreading rapidly and extensively in a given area (Am.Heritage Dictionary) - yes, they use influenza as an example, but how many people died of influenza(s) in any given place in the world last year, and if it was more than 5 in one city, why wasn't that an epidemic?  Pandemic: (of a disease)prevalent throughout an entire country, continent, or the whole world, epidemic over a large area (Am.Heritage Dictionary)

Yeah, we need to be careful about communicable diseases, but let's not be screaming from the rooftops that we're all going to die.  Dr. K., I realize that, as a vet, you are privy to info about agricultural medicine that I am not, but I haven't heard or read anything about swine anywhere dropping dead from this flu (unless helped along by humans freaking out).  I also haven't heard anything about large numbers of birds, any species, anywhere, dropping dead from this (and this isn't the same strain of the dreaded 'bird flu' that was going to kill us all a few years ago - which was identified in 1954 and no one screamed about it until a few years ago and then stopped).  So, again, I'm not saying I don't think better hygiene and animal care shouldn't be stepped up in farms, but really, my chances of dying are so much higher when I get in the car to drive to work, and darn it, I'm just not gonna get bent out of shape about this flu.  (And I also remember that in 1976, when we were being told that the swine flu was a serious threat, that more people got sick, and maybe more people even died - not 100% sure on that point - from the vaccine that was supposed to save us all.  I do remeber being sick for 2 weeks after getting the vaccine.)

KateH April 30th, 2009 11:10:48 AM

Gotta agree with KateH.  I am not sure what the big deal is with the "swine flu."  It was my understanding that the CDC tracks three different strains of flu every year.  H1N1, H3N2, and B.  We see it in the US every single year.  And they don't track track the number of people who die from it (maybe because they don't find it to be an important enough issue?).  They do track numbers of children who die from it though.  On the CDC website it states that 83 children died during the 2007-08 flu season.  

I guess what i don't understand is why is the "new" H1N1 more dangerous than the current H1N1, H3N2, and B flu viruses?  

JP April 30th, 2009 11:47:53 AM

KateH: WHO lays out 3 criteria necessary for a global epidemic (pandemic): The virus is able to infect people, can readily spread person-to-person, and the global population has no immunity to it.

The HIV virus, for example, could never qualify as a pandemic because it cannot be readily spread person-to-person. Same goes for malaria and for a whole host of diseases that kill with impunity. Even this virus is questionable for its ability to currently (as it stands in the US) spread "readily." 

But to be clear: What we're worried about here is not our current risk--it's our future exposure. An influenza virus does have the ability to kill millions of people. That's why I, for one, am glad the international community is taking every precaution. After all, if Mexico has taken it more seriously at its inception we might not have been talking pandemics today--or about this virus at all. 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 30th, 2009 11:54:38 AM

We cant call it Mexican Flu as that flies in the face of our attempts to embrqce diversity, and welcome our immigrant neighbors from the south of our borders.  :-)

Dr. Kim Houlding April 30th, 2009 11:58:02 AM

JP: Yes, the current strain IS scarier for a lot of reasons. Not only does it carry this triple-threat risk for three different species, it has also proven to be effectively communicable from one person to another. This is a different H1N1 strain than the one endemic in the porcine population. The common H1N1 strains have not been shown to jump species. 

btw, I feel a tad uncomfortable explaining all of this as this is NOT my area of expertise. I have been doing a lot of reading lately but I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm setting myself up as a sort of expert on this. The CDC's site is an invaluable resource (and they've set up more servers to handle the overload so the wait time isn't as long as it's been). 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 30th, 2009 12:01:00 PM

"WHO lays out 3 criteria necessary for a global epidemic (pandemic): The virus is able to infect people, can readily spread person-to-person, and the global population has no immunity to it."

Okay, fine, but that, to me, seems pretty odd, as a reason to declare that we have a pandemic now.  The bird flu that was "sweeping the nation" in 2003-5, did end up being the reported cause for a number of human deaths, mainly of the elderly, and birds, but it required the mosquito as a vector, and it was called an epidemic - by the CDC.  Why did they call it an epidemic, and where, in the case of this most recent whatever-we're-supposed-to-call-it flu, do we have evidence that the two children in San Diego, and the people (not sure of ages) in Canada ever were in contact?  Are we missing a vector like a mosquito, and how did it get from CA to Toronto.

KateH April 30th, 2009 12:18:36 PM

KateH, many of the deaths in Mexico have been of previously healthy young adults, whereas flu typically kills the elderly, the very young, and those with compromised immune systems. That's a big contributing factor to this flu being treated differently. So far, that has not been the pattern elsewhere in North America, with most of the outside-Mexico cases behaving like more typical seasonal flus, but since they don't know why that is yet, the CDC and WHO and other public health officials don't want to count on that.

Also, we have no vaccine for this strain, and it takes months to gear up large-scale production of a new flu vaccine. So we can't lower incidence of illness and mortality for this one by vaccination.

So far, all the cases outside of Mexico have been in people who recently visited Mexico, or people who had direct, close contact with people recently returned from Mexico. That's the vector.

Lis April 30th, 2009 12:53:24 PM

"...how did it get from CA to Toronto."

I hate to be 'that guy' (or gal) but, to my knowledge, there have been no cases of H1N1 in Toronto as of this date.

What with the repeated, erroneous claims the 911 hijackers entered the U.S. via Canada, or that Canada was responsible for the 2003 blackout, I can sometimes be a bit 'vigilant'...

Marjorie April 30th, 2009 02:39:06 PM

A very interesting Op Ed piece in The New York Times today title, "How to Prevent a Pandemic." What Mexico should have done. How we can move from treating and containing pandemics to preventing them. What a novel idea. Great graphic, too. 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 30th, 2009 02:58:50 PM

*The genetic material contained within this current H1N1 influenza virus is composed of human, pig and bird-specific DNA. And that's what scares the bejeezus out of the World Health Organization.

That should scare a lot more than the WHO....and just how did those three DNA's just happen to get combined?....HUM???

the government's solution to the Reston, Va ebola lab accident was to fill it full of cement...that's not working real well for Chernobal either.

LorriM April 30th, 2009 03:13:14 PM

Sounds great, but considering how skeptical many people are that this current flu is going to be any kind of real threat (witness some of the posts right here), do you really think that the public would go for funding these monitoring programs during the vast majority of the time, when there isn't even a hint of an immanent threat? Especially in the U.S., where public-health funding has been eroding for decades. It's important to remember that even if THIS flu isn't the Big One, nevertheless, the Big One WILL come eventually. We aren't much better prepared to recognize and/or contain a dangerous outbreak than Mexico or any other country.

Judy April 30th, 2009 03:14:33 PM

More breaking news: It seems that the science community is no longer so sure of the three-species specificity of this virus. ProMed is now reporting that the avian component has been part of some H1N1s since 1998. Though I'm not exactly sure how that's supposed to make me feel any better. Then there's the issue of the public health people suggesting that many of the flu deaths in Mexico may not have been the result of this virus. 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 30th, 2009 04:07:49 PM

Thanks for a great overview and explanation, Dr. Khuly (not to mention the utterly adorable pig photo).  I wish the media would put a lid on their fear-based coverage and stick to the facts.  Yes, the facts are scary, but showing photos of people walking down city streets with masks on is not helping and doesn't add anything factual to the story.  This feels very much like the bird flu scare a few years back, and that didn't amount to much of anything, either.  It seems that the media always overreacts with these types of situations.  I suppose fear sells advertising.

I think at this stage, common sense needs to prevail.  Take the same precautions you would during any normal flu season.  Nobody thinks about wearing masks, never leaving the house again, and stocking up on provisions as if Armageddon was coming during a normal flu season. 

Ingrid King April 30th, 2009 04:40:26 PM

"I hate to be 'that guy' (or gal) but, to my knowledge, there have been no cases of H1N1 in Toronto as of this date." - Marjorie April 30th, 2009 02:39:06 PM

Scratch that...

"Thu Apr. 30 2009 5:15:23 PM Toronto has confirmed first case of H1N1."

I figured that with the sheer numbers of Torontonians who travel to Mexico, it was just a matter of time before there was at least one case.  I didn't think it would happen 2 1/2 hours later.  :-)

Marjorie April 30th, 2009 06:15:43 PM

Okay so how long can this bug survive outside a biological host? Say on a door handle, box of macaroni at the store,  or other surface.

Evet April 30th, 2009 07:00:22 PM

How bout me? Can I catch this thing?

Evet April 30th, 2009 07:04:54 PM

Found it

Answer from James M. Steckelberg, M.D. Mayo Clinic. The length of time that cold or flu germs can survive outside the body on an environmental surface, such as a doorknob, varies greatly. But the suspected range is from a few seconds to 48 hours — depending on the specific virus and the type of surface.

Flu viruses tend to live longer on surfaces than cold viruses do. Also, it's generally believed that cold and flu viruses live longer on nonporous surfaces — such as plastic, metal or wood — than they do on porous surfaces — such as fabrics, skin or paper.

Although cold and flu viruses primarily spread from person-to-person contact, you can also become infected from contact with contaminated surfaces. The best way to avoid becoming infected with a cold or flu is to wash your hands frequently with soap and water or with an alcohol-based sanitizer.

Evet April 30th, 2009 07:20:00 PM

I ate sausage and bacon for breakfast.  The meat didn't scare me at all.  HOWEVER, I had breakfast at a plated breakfast seminar.  Went to a lunch seminar yesterday.  I'm in Houston, TX, and we have LOTS of travel, legal and otherwise, to and from Mexico.  The first death was here.  At first, they were showing CA and NY with higher numbers than us but I knew that simply meant our local medical providers and public health folks were falling down on the job, as per usual.  I also have a compromised immune system.  Call it anything thing you like but this virus scares the bejeezus out of me.  Don't think I'm alone either.  The wait staff at both affairs were oddly quiet, very little broken English being heard anywhere and no table hovering.  At the breakfasts, there's usually a round of $100 handshake.  Not this morning.  Nobody shaking hands otherwise either.  Around here, we know how many of our Anglo friends travel to and from Mexico and they're not going to fess up to a recent trip right now!

Evet, NOT comforting.  No place I went today had a place where I could wash my hands without touching all kinds of fixtures (mostly plastic) both before and after.  (I'm seriously close to promoting mandating those sink handles like medical facilities have for ALL public places and pull out Lysol wipe dispensers mounted on every public door.)  And don't anybody tell me to use paper towels to open doors, etc. because many places down here have gone to those stupid blow machines or even back to wrap around pully towels.

"Nobody thinks about wearing masks, never leaving the house again, and stocking up on provisions as if Armageddon was coming during a normal flu season."  Yes, some of us do think about it.  We all have our little irrational fears :)  I don't normally indulge that one to that extent but I do have masks in the house; I will be doing a bit of stocking up while I'm out tomorrow; and, hey, would it hurt if we didn't socialize quite so much this week (maybe next)?

"sausage and bacon" yes, I did and don't even start :)

PJBoosinger April 30th, 2009 09:06:36 PM

LorrieM said:

*The genetic material contained within this current H1N1 influenza virus is composed of human, pig and bird-specific DNA. And that's what scares the bejeezus out of the World Health Organization.

That should scare a lot more than the WHO....and just how did those three DNA's just happen to get combined?....HUM???

Viruses generally, but influenze viruses in particular, are extremely promiscuous and exchange genetic material all the time. In many parts of the world, including parts of Mexico, humans and their livestock (including swine and chickens) live in extremely close proximity. And Mexico is currently in its flu season, even though our flu season is over.

This virus--a flu virus including material from humans, birds, and swine--was not really a suprise to virologists and public healt officials. They've been expecting it for a long time. Only the timing and the details couldn't be predicted.

Doing this in a lab, intentionally, though, would be fairly hard. It would require resources, organization, a high level of education--and complete nihilism, because influenza is not suitable for weaponization. It moves too fast and too far, and mutates rapidly, and  cannot be controlled once it's released into the wild.

This is not manmade. It's totally natural.

Lis April 30th, 2009 11:22:26 PM

Masks can help, but are no replacement for basic preventative hygiene, which can go a long way in protecting you from the flu. Wash your hands vigorously for 20 seconds under warm running water before eating or preparing meals, after the using the bathroom, after blowing your nose, and after other potential exposures to the flu virus. Alcohol based hand sanitizer, like Purell, with an alcohol content of at least 60 percent, can be effective, when soap and hot water aren't an option...  Have you read the news about the shelter that wins $1 million makeover? http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-12-zootoo-shelter-clash_N.htm

Samantha April 30th, 2009 11:56:01 PM

I thought the mixing of viral DNAs happened in places where people had close contact with the other species, which is why previous flu strains were called "Asian flu", and that was also where bird flu crossed the "species barrier".  Can cats and dogs catch something like this?  I'm thinking NOT.

The shoe dipping, showering and disinfecting around hogs was standard operating procedure on many hog farms before this threat ever happened.  There are a bunch of highly contagious hog diseases that these procedures are meant to prevent.  The disinfecting works on more than one kind of virus and on bacteria.  Some hog farmers don't want to allow anyone else who has hogs on their place.  If they show hogs, they send them to "terminal shows" (after which they are sold) to make sure that they don't bring back anything contagious.

The political correctness issues around naming this thing seem so silly.  At the same time, in at least two California cities, giant May Day immigration street marches are scheduled.  Most of the time predicted attendance numbers are much larger than the actual, which was what happened last year in LA.

Miss Kitty's Mom May 1st, 2009 01:47:10 AM

You could say I lost my faith in science and progress

Evet May 1st, 2009 10:34:34 AM

"This is not manmade."  I wouldn't take odds on that.  "A virulent bacterium is able to produce anthrax toxin proteins and cover itself with a protective layer called a capsule. The mutated strains that the laboratory had previously worked with did only one or the other. But in September, after a number of failed attempts, Dr. Agathe Bourgogne, a postdoctoral fellow, and Melissa Drysdale, a graduate student, created a virulent strain. "The postdoc who did it said, `Get the champagne!' ""  While Dr. Koehler, in whose lab and under whose direction this happened, has hindsight qualms, Dr. Bourgogne is quite proud of the accomplishment to this day.  She is now a legal permanent resident in the US and is now working with creating variations of E. faecalis.  There are some scientists who believe that the best way to beat the virus or bacteria is to create the more virulent strains before they occur naturally so as to find a treatment and they're able to get funding to do this.  They then share their research which makes it possible for others to duplicate their creations.  And, whether they duplicate or come up with something entirely new, half the equation is jumping the "it can't be done" hurdle.  It appears that is exactly how the virulent anthrax ended up in post offices, killing how many?

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/nyt.html

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2530867; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterococcus_faecalis

PJBoosinger May 1st, 2009 12:13:14 PM

Eating pork and bacon is not dangerous to human health, influenza or no influenza. However, the point is that these huge industrial operations break every single environmental, ecological and sustainable animal health and agriculture rule. And to my great frustration, veterinarians keep the silence of the lambs on this subject. (But then, how many swine vets are there out there, really?)

There is no conclusive evidence as to where or how the 1918 Spanish flu originated, so it is not useful as a comparison. Might as well compare this with the Black Plague or typhus, for all the usefulness medical historical comparison can afford.

The virus does not look all that virulent at this point - thousands of people around the world die from influenza every year, and that's not news. The deaths in Mexico are a concern, but that might be related to other factors - including poverty, poor air quality and pre-existing conditions in the individuals affected.

The real point about swine is - do we want to perpetuate an industrial system that tortures living creatures and ruins environments and economies, just to satisfy a misplaced appetite for pork and bacon? I sure don't. The odours from surrounding farms and water pollution are a big turn-off to me, and I'm not even in a big pork-producing county. I'd hate to be in one - they are smelly and depressing places. I stopped eating pork long ago because of what the industry was doing to the Quebec countryside, and to farming itself.

brebis noire May 1st, 2009 12:13:47 PM

I understand the objections to many of the commercial pig farms.  However, since I'm familiar with livestock raising generally, if I stop eating something on those grounds, I won't be eating any meat or birds at all.  Fish?  Ditto.  Vegetables?  Ditto.  Organic farms?  Uh, yeah, they bought it last year and claim this year's crop is organic despite the fact it has been farmed traditionally for the 200 years prior to that with chemicals and even GMOs.  Free range beet?  Yeah, eating from those same contaminated fields...

It's particularly disturbing to me that we don't require proper tracking of all food products through the chain so the consumer can "vote" with their purchases.

PJBoosinger May 1st, 2009 04:11:20 PM

To Evet:

You could say I lost my faith in science and progress

Why?

To Brebis Noire:

The odours from surrounding farms and water pollution are a big turn-off to me,

I'm not making a comment on the humanity or greeness of hog farming, but you might be disappointed to hear that when I was growing up in the Midwest, the biggests stink came from soybean farms. So repacing meat with soy products probably won't improve the smell.

Linda H May 1st, 2009 04:23:38 PM

Linda - I don't think that vegetable monocultures are any kind of a solution, so you haven't disappointed me. Soy is generally not meant to be consumed in anything other than small quantities, and it should be fermented (i.e. miso, soy sauce). But in North America, we treat it like an industrial crop.

The biggest stinks from where I grew up (the equivalent of the Midwest, except much farther north) were the slaughterhouses and meat packing plants. That was some stink. But the vastness of the hog farm despoilation tops them all.

And it is very likely that this outbreak/potential pandemic originated very near an industrial hog operation. I don't think it's a question of liking or hating pigs so much as seriously questioning the way we do agriculture. I like pigs as animals, but raising any more than a very small number of hogs in one place is and never has been ecologically sustainable. (There's a reason Moses and Mohammed forbid their people to eat pigs, and no, it's not because of trichinella....)

brebis noire May 1st, 2009 05:14:16 PM

Come on down and take a tour of the Texas cattle yards :)  I can show you a couple of really lovely chicken raising operations too.  As bad as hog farms are, these are no better IMO.

PJBoosinger May 1st, 2009 05:20:28 PM

Check out this cartoon about Winnie the Pooh's Piglet and swine flu!http://pastexpiry.blogspot.com/2009/05/cartoon-swine-flu-and-piglets-demise.html<a href="http://pastexpiry.blogspot.com/2009/05/cartoon-swine-flu-and-piglets-demise.html">*CARTOON*</a>--Feel free to post on your blog or "tweet"

Johnny Ancich May 1st, 2009 05:38:40 PM

PJBoosinger: I've seen em all, as a vet student or practitioner - pig and chicken opeations, giant dairies, and 20,000-head feedlots. They are all awful places, but in a competition for the awfullest, based on objective criteria, mega-pork "farms" win hands down. :-(

This article is a hard read, but worth it.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters

brebis noire May 1st, 2009 06:41:42 PM

"This is not manmade." I wouldn't take odds on that.

There's an old saying, that when you hear hoofbeats, you should usually look for horses, not zebras. This 2009 H1N1 virus is something that has been predicted and expected for at least a decade, based on the normal behavior of influenza viruses. Speculating about a manmade origin is truly a case of looking for zebras when all the evidence points towards horses.

(And if it's genetically engineered to be especially dangerous, they did a lousy job. The only death outside Mexico so far was a Mexican child visiting family in Brownsville, who had an underlying medical condition. And even in Mexio--where we don't know how many have been ill with this, only how many died of it or are believed to have died of it, so that we have no idea what the mortality rate is--once they caught up to what was happening, and started deploying the anti-virals, patients have been responding very well. They expect the confirmed deaths to rise above 100, but not much above that.)

Lis May 1st, 2009 08:25:57 PM

Lis, You have a great deal more faith in the government than I.

PJBoosinger May 1st, 2009 09:21:49 PM

PJ, it's not about "faith in the government." It's about how viruses in general, and influenza viruses in particular, actually behave.

It is also about  the difference between bacteria and viruses, and what is a scientifically  credible source and what is not.

My browser is behaving oddly. It is not letting me use contractions or a few other things. That may complicate writing this comment. E. faecalis is a bacterium, not a virus. So is anthrax. Bacteria and viruses do not behave in the same way, and do not have the same characteristics and behavior for genetic manipulation. There is a reason we had anthrax attacks after 9-11, and not flu attacks.

Leaving aside questions of whether Judith Miller knows her ankle from her elbow, the NYT articles you link to talk about a variety of different things, all of which constitute potential biological threats--but only some of which are, or are claimed to be, threats of biological warfare.

Anything which mutates or changes too quickly--such as influenza--is a really poor choice for weaponization. And there is nothing about the characteristics or behavior of 2009 H1N1 that suggest it is not natural. This is how influenza behaves. That does not prove that it is completely natural--but it does mean that the burden of proof (not strained analogy from unrelated cases involving bacteria) is on those who would claim it is not

Lis May 1st, 2009 10:29:29 PM

PJBoosinger:You completely misinterpreted the article about Dr. Koehler's lab. They were not trying to create a new, super virulent strain of anthrax. Instead they took a strain of anthrax that they have previously genetically manipulated so that it was no longer infectious and made it infectious again. As the article states:

<br><br>

"Until this year, [Dr. Koehler] had used only strains that, through mutation, she and her researchers had made non-virulent, posing no health risk. Then, in January, one of her eight researchers wanted to study how white blood cells respond to early infection, an experiment that would require a virulent strain....Rather than getting one from another laboratory, Dr. Koehler decided to make one from her lab's mutated, non-virulent strains."

<br><br>

Furthermore, at no point does Dr. Koehler express any misgivings for what was done in her lab, since her lab studies anthrax to better understand how to help people. However, several times she expresses horror that people in no way associated with her lab created a virulent strain of anthrax for the sole purpose of infecting and killing humans. I'm not sure what part of the article you were referring to when you said she had qualms, but I suspect it may be the following passage:

<br><br>

[Dr. Koehler] felt guilt, she says, because for years her work had involved studying genes and proteins rather than research directly applicable to human exposure. "I thought, `God, what have I done for 20 years to put us in a better situation to deal with this?' " she said. "It was like somebody used this organism that we think is fascinating and interesting and fun for such a horrible purpose."

<br><br>

She says she felt guilty because she wished that her research had focused more on understanding how anthrax infects humans instead of understanding how anthrax works. She isn't saying she felt guilty because her lab group created a virulent strain of anthrax. Yes, she says she thinks anthrax is "fascinating, interesting and fun." What can I say, scientists are weird. We get excited about strange things, kind of like how veterinarians get excited about pus-filled abscesses, or the vet techs where I work get excited when they're reading a fecal float and find a really neat strain of giardia.

<br><br>

I'm sorry to go off topic like this, but you're insinuating that Dr. Koehler, Dr. Bourgogne and Melissa Drysdale were involved in some kind of unusual and dangerous experiment, when they were in fact doing what every other scientist studying pathogenesis is doing. Do you think HIV treatments appear by magic? Scientists learn about viruses and develop treatments by manipulating them. They understand the dangers of working with pathogens better than anyone and take tons of safety precautions because they don't want to die of HIV, influenza or anthrax more than anyone else does. 

<br><br>

The anthrax attacks occurred because of one very disturbed individual.  They're certainly not a reason to ban all research involving pathogens, anymore than we should ban cars because one disturbed individual drove their car through a crowd at a Dutch parade. 

<br><br>

So yes, scientists manipulate viruses all the time, but there's absolutely no reason to suspect that this strain of H1N1 was created by some mad scientist, unless you also believe that the 1918 H1N1 pandemic was caused by someone from the future who traveled back in time. Viruses have been mutating into virulent strains long before humans knew DNA existed. They really don't need our help. ;) When scientists mutate a virus, it's to test a hypothesis. They might mutate a portion of a non-virulent virus strain to make it similar to a virulent virus strain to see if that non-virulent virus strain becomes virulent. If the non-virulent virus becomes virulent, they know what mutation causes virulence in that particular virux, and they can start designing treatments that target the virulence-causing region.

<br><br>

I've never in my life heard of scientists thinking "that the best way to beat the virus or bacteria is to create the more virulent strains before they occur naturally so as to find a treatment and they're able to get funding to do this. They then share their research which makes it possible for others to duplicate their creations." It would be extremely impractical to try to discover and treat every possible pathogenic strain of a bacteria when we can't even treat all the existing strains. Could you explain where you're getting this idea?

<br><br>

Finally, why did you link to the journal article you did? Did you even read it? It just so happens this journal article describes an experiment in which the DNA sequences of two existing strains of E. faecalis were compared. The scientists involved in the study did not mutate either of the strains for this experiment.

Beth M. May 1st, 2009 11:11:48 PM

Beth, I didn't interpret the article at all.  I know Dr. Bourgogne and several of her colleagues.

PJBoosinger May 2nd, 2009 12:08:04 AM

"you're insinuating that Dr. Koehler, Dr. Bourgogne and Melissa Drysdale were involved in some kind of unusual and dangerous experiment"  I'm not insinuating it.  I'm saying it outright although I wouldn't say it was "unusual" at all.  As for the second citation, it simply shows the area she's now mucking around in.  I'm also not saying Dr. Bourgogne is at all unusual but I am saying these scientists are playing GOD often at the potential expense of multitudes.

PS: No that study wasn't about mutating the virus.  First they analyze, then they mutate!

And I'm not saying anything here I haven't said to her and about her in public and private; nor have I given my opinion of her outside her field of expertise which is substantially lower than my opinion of her professionally.

PJBoosinger May 2nd, 2009 12:19:20 AM

Lis, If you think there isn't funded reasearch attempting to resolve those difficulties and weaponize viruses, you're just plain wrong.

PJBoosinger May 2nd, 2009 12:21:11 AM

Beth, I didn't interpret the article at all. I know Dr. Bourgogne and several of her colleagues.

You quoted from the article and then misinterpreted those quotes, unless Dr. Koehler confessed to you later that she had misgivings about her experiment (something I find extremely unlikely since it sounded like after the anthrax attacks she became more interested in studying virulent anthrax)? 

"you're insinuating that Dr. Koehler, Dr. Bourgogne and Melissa Drysdale were involved in some kind of unusual and dangerous experiment" I'm not insinuating it. I'm saying it outright although I wouldn't say it was "unusual" at all. As for the second citation, it simply shows the area she's now mucking around in. I'm also not saying Dr. Bourgogne is at all unusual but I am saying these scientists are playing GOD often at the potential expense of multitudes.

Science in general involves a lot of "playing God."  When we treat cancer, HIV or any other disease, we are "playing God."  When we insert an insulin gene into a bacterium to create insulin for human (and animal) diabetics we are "playing God" and when we give that insulin to people so they don't die of diabetes we are also "playing God."  There's certainly a point where "playing God" is unacceptable, but I don't think that Dr. Bourgogne is at that point. 

There are two different types of scientific research on pathogens.  There's research by scientists who are trying to create superbugs that can be used as weapons in bioterrorism (yes, I know they're out there, and I think that type of research is just as reprehensible as research involved in creating new nuclear weapons).  There are also scientists studying pathogens so they can develop treatments against them.  Dr. Bourgogne falls into the latter category, and her research has the potential to save multiple lives.  If the scientists from the former category were to go berserk (as you clearly think they are likely to do) and release some kind of super-pathogen onto the world, the latter category of scientists are the ones that would be able to save us.  If you truly believe that manipulating pathogens to better understand them is unethical, there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise, but I don't particularly want to die in a bio terrorist attack and I think it's completely worthwhile to research how to treat potential bio terrorism agents.  (Nor do I want to die from a pathogen that naturally mutated, for that matter, but you seem convinced they don't do that anymore.) 

PS: No that study wasn't about mutating the virus. First they analyze, then they mutate!

Exactly.  As I said multiple times in my first comment, scientists study pathogens by mutating them.  If you can suggest a better way, please feel free to speak up.  Since you know Dr. Bourgogne personally and apparently have objected to her work for a long time, you surely could have linked to an article that was relevant.

If you still believe that the new strain of H1N1 was created by mad scientists I can't really prove you wrong, but so far you haven't come up with one shred of evidence.  Wouldn't it be better if tried to figure out how H1N1 actually evolved instead of spouting out bizarre conspiracy theories?

Beth M. May 2nd, 2009 08:46:27 AM

I am happy to see others took note of how racist it is to call this "mexican flu," but sad to see Dr. Khuly ignored the comments in her replies, and further, blamed Mexico for this virus' spread. Come on, now. This could have happened ANYWHERE that has humans, poultry, and pigs living in close quarters. It could happen in your own backyard, Dr. Khuly, what with your tiny farm (should you decide to add a potbellied pig to the mix). And with an incubation period of 2-3 weeks, this virus was across the globe before even the first person showed symptoms. Stop buying into the crap people are using to scare the government into closing the border and forbidding immigration. So far, this hasn't proved itself to be any worse than the regular flu, just publicized more.

Lanna May 3rd, 2009 12:37:43 AM

Unfortunately it now looks like a human infected a pig in Alberta.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/02/swineflu-ns-cases789.html?ref=rss

Elizabeth - from Nova Scotia May 3rd, 2009 07:29:53 AM

"That should scare a lot more than the WHO....and just how did those three DNA's just happen to get combined?....HUM???

the government's solution to the Reston, Va ebola lab accident was to fill it full of cement...that's not working real well for Chernobal either.

LorriM"

Nature can do scary things on it's own, no need to assume that someone, as opposed to something was to blame.

I have no idea how you can even compare this to Reston or Chernobyl, even more so since your facts are COMPLETELY wrong. The Reston incident was not in an "ebola lab" it was in a monkey house, and they did NOT "fill it full of cement", the army went in, culled the monkeys, and then sterilized the building. They then determined that Ebola Reston cycles asymptomatically in humans. The monkey house then recieved more Ebola infested monkeys, and the virus was just allowed to run it's course. The building was vacated, and has since been demolished. As for Chernobyl, they built a cement sarcophagus to contain the radioactive material. Your statement is extremely rude considering the people that build that container were exposed to devastating amounts of radiation, killing many. The few survivors have extreme medical issues. Besides, they're currently working on a new, more perminant solution to the Chernobyl sarcophagus' decline.

In short, before you start getting all uppity about how the government is handling things, get your facts straight, because otherwise you'll just end up embarassing yourself.

Jessi Pre-Vet May 3rd, 2009 10:54:20 AM

Lanna: Thanks for taking me to task on this issue. Sometimes I sit back on certain issues to see how they pan out. Then I forget to jump back in. 

As to the racist issue, I'm not sure I can agree that calling a flu by its place of origin is racist. That's the way many flus have been historically named. The "Spanish flu," for example. I do, however, believe that in today's society, the opportunity for sensitivity on this issue is high. Therefore, I'd agree it's not a great name. 

As to the Mexican officials being slow to react, I'll confess: I'm parroting the scientists. 

And sure, the closing the border diatribe is obnoxious. Let's face it, those who are calling for closing the borders were doing so long before H1N1. I don't buy into that kind of hype nor do I believe it does anyone any good, epidemiologically speaking.

Dr. Patty Khuly May 4th, 2009 05:46:48 PM

Tamiflu Developer: Swine Flu Could Have Come From Bio-Experiment Lab World Health Organization Investigates Claims by Australian Scientist Adrian Gibbs  http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/SwineFlu/story?id=7584420&page=1

PJBoosinger May 16th, 2009 07:08:39 AM

شات

amal_ May 22nd, 2009 09:37:13 AM

The only ones ghd hair iron among you who will be really happy ghd mk4 iron are those who will have sought and foundhow to serve. When the fight begins ghd iv dark styler within ghd iv kiss styler himself, a man's worth something ghd hair iron .

GHD Hair Iron September 12th, 2009 04:41:48 AM

Thanks for your sharing.This is a good access to Amercrombie and Fitch

Abercrombie and Fitch September 16th, 2009 04:47:07 AM

ghd ed hardy shirt

ghd October 18th, 2009 08:31:44 PM

<p><a href="http://www.eyewear-solution.com">Cartier Eyeglasses</a></p>

sdf October 18th, 2009 08:33:41 PM

<a href="http://www.longineswatches.org/Rolex/Day%20Date/">Rolex Day Date watches</a><a href="http://www.longineswatches.org/Rolex/Masterpiece/">Rolex Masterpiece watches</a><a href="http://www.longineswatches.org/Rolex/Milgauss/">Rolex Milgauss watches</a>

<a href="http://www.longineswatches.org/">replica watches</a><a href="http://www.longineswatches.org/A.Lange-&-Sohne/">A.Lange & Sohne watch for sale</a><a href="http://www.longineswatches.org/Alain-Silberstein/">Alain Silberstein watch for sale</a><a href="http://www.longineswatches.org/Audemars-Piguet/">Audemars Piguet watch for sale</a><a href="http://www.longineswatches.org/Bell-&-Ross/">Bell & Ross watch for sale</a><a href="http://www.longineswatches.org/Breguet/">Breguet watch for sale</a><a href="http://www.longineswatches.org/Breitling/">Breitling watch for sale</a><a href="http://www.longineswatches.org/Burberry/">Burberry watch for sale</a><a href="http://www.longineswatches.org/Bvlgari/">Bvlgari watch for sale</a>

Bvlgari watch for sale November 17th, 2009 08:52:18 AM

“Marriage bridal gown world pictures pictures of wanted to plan a happy surprise, a number of wedding photography studio is the purpose of holding more money ‘Kengren’, they set a ‘trap’ let you keep track of.” Wedding photos has just finished a small selection mother told the journalists, was originally a good original price 7999 yuan Zhao Shuren said that the wedding package, less than 2,000 yuan only to 5999 yuan.

bridal November 24th, 2009 11:41:27 PM

Louis Vuitton watches

Omega watches

Omega watche November 25th, 2009 12:13:45 PM

UK online ugg boots store with Free Delivery.Ugg Classic Tall at Great Prices.Authentic ugg boots,100% natural UGG Australia sheepskin leather.

ugg classic tall November 26th, 2009 03:51:50 AM

M65 Field Jacket

m65 field jacket January 21st, 2010 01:30:42 AM

Our site: www abercrombie21 com abercrombie21 com is a world-wide wholesale company,We are a manufacturing and warehouse facility located in Xiamen China exporting clothing to the world. Our pricing is unsurpassed and the lowest as we are a factory.

www abercrombie21 com abercrombie wholesale,cheap abercrombie,disount abercrombie,wholesale polo shirts, wholesale polo,wholesale ralph lauren polo shirt,Wholesale polo ralph lauren and abercrombie21 com China wholesaler,Buy wholesale products from China wholesaler,Wholesale Abercrombie, wholesale ralph lauren,wholesale edhardy,wholesale Burberry polo,Honest supplier from China

abercrombie21 January 27th, 2010 03:06:21 AM